--- type: court_doc id: "court_ctb_404_22" court: "CTB" case_no: "22-50073" doc_number: 404 doc_type: "EXHIBIT" filed_date: "2022-05-20" lang: "en" machine_translated: false url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_ctb_404_22" json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_ctb_404_22" --- # Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · EXHIBIT · ECF #404-22 EXHIBIT PAX 22 January 14, 2022 Hearing Transcript, PAX v. Kwok, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1120 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART 61 ----------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. Plaintiff, -against-KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, A/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC Defendants. ----------------------------------------------X Index # 652077/2017 REMOTE TEAMS PROCEEDINGS January 14, 2022 B E F O R E: HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Supreme Court Justice. A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 32 Old Slip New York, New York 10005 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. DAVID JANUSZEWSKI, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff (Continued next page.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued) PHILLIPS NIZER, LLP 485 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 BY: MATTHEW L. LEVINE, ESQ. JEREMY BACHRACH SIEGFRIED, ESQ. Attorneys for Non-Party Lamb Capital BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. ERICA BARROW, ESQ. NICHOLAS ROSE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, PC 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 BY: NICOLE HYLAND, ESQ. RONALD C. MINKOFF, ESQ. JESSE KLINGER, ESQ. Attorneys for Intervenor-Movant GTV DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK, RPR Official Court Reporter -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER THE COURT: With respect to the last hearing, I directed the parties to order a copy of the transcript in my written order. All right. I have four motions. The first motion I want to hear is the motion to confirm the contempt order against Mr. Kwok. MR. MOSS: Thank you, your Honor, that is our motion. Edward Moss from Cahill for Pacific Alliance. Your Honor, there's lot of briefing on this motion and there's a lot of briefs here and it goes back a long time. I would like to start briefly with the background of how we got here. THE COURT: I think I know how we got here. I have one question. MR. MOSS: Sure, your Honor. THE COURT: Why is O'Melveny involved in this case any more? MR. SARNOFF: Yes, your Honor. This is Stuart Sarnoff on behalf of O'Melveny. I represent Pacific Alliance, as we always have, I'm here. THE COURT: All right. There's a motion to disqualify Cahill. I was hoping and expecting that O'Melveny would present the argument -- MR. SARNOFF: I'm happy to do so, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's do that then. -Proceedings- 1　MR. SARNOFF: Yes, your Honor. This is Stuart 2　Sarnoff on behalf of Pacific Alliance. 3　Mr. Kwok violated this Court's order by moving the 4　yacht out of the jurisdiction, we did not know that at that yacht out of the jurisdiction, we did not know that at that time. After he moved it out of the jurisdiction, Mr. Siegal asked you if the yacht could be moved. And Mr. Siegal said it was routine, the yacht goes to warm weather every year as it had over the last several and then comes back. Your Honor said, no, make a motion. No motion was made. Instead, we did some research and we found out the yacht had already been moved and your Honor ordered the yacht back. Mr. Kwok had not done so and your Honor found him in conditional contempt; noting that he disregarded your orders and you noted that we had made more than a prima facie showing that all of these entities that allegedly control the yacht are controlled by Mr. Kwok, those are your words. 19 20 21 22 23 In early November, the First Department affirmed the bulk of your Honor's order, finding that PAX has established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok had disregarded your lawful order and that PAX's rights that thus been prejudiced. 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER The First Department remanded only to conduct a hearing to dissolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht and to assess appropriate penalties. I note that they didn't say whether to assess penalties. After remained, your Honor asked for short supplemental briefings. In our January 4th brief, we established conclusively that Mr. Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May. Very briefly, your Honor, here is an overview of our evidence: -Proceedings- In 2006, Mr. Kwok forms a company called Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited, which we have been referring to as Hong Kong International, or HKI Hong Kong. At the time he's the sole shareholder and sole director at all times between 2006 and 2014, October, when he transfers ownership to one of his employees for zero consideration when the authorities are closing in on him and he flees Asia; In 2015, when Mr. Kwok is setting up shop in New York City, he buys The Sherry-Netherland apartment through Geneva and yacht through Hong Kong International. 20 21 22 23 24 And what we now know through discovery here, and filings in the BVI proceedings, your Honor, is that Hong Kong International is the source of the money for both the apartment and the yacht and after that there are a number of machinations. > DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Ownership of Hong Kong International Hong Kong is -Proceedings- 1　transferred from Kwok's lackey to Mr. Kwok's 20-something 2　year old daughter for a single dollar. 3　And then Hong Kong International Delaware is formed 4　with its address as Mr. Kwok's office. 5　Mr. Kwok's daughter then gets 100 percent of that 6　equity and it acquires the yacht, gets the yacht transferred 7　from Hong Kong International Hong Kong for zero 8　consideration; all the while, well after all of these 9　purported transfers, Mr. Kwok is tweeting and making YouTube 10　videos about how it is his boat; 11　Even when his employee, supposedly, owns it, even 12　when his quarter, supposedly, owns it. We have him on video 13　saying it. Let's just take, for example, it is in evidence, 14　your Honor, it is Docket Number 710, two minutes two hours 15　50 seconds to 4:15. We have him on October 17, 2017 saying 16　on YouTube, that he bought the boat back in 2014, and then 17　he decided to list it for sale, he got an offer close to his 18　asking price but he decided not to take it. 19　I mean, common sense tells you that if you buy 20　something, then you have the sole authority to decide when 21　and whether to sell it, you beneficially own and control the 22　asset, it is yours; but wait, there's more. Mr. Kwok filed 23　a complaint in New York State Court repeatedly saying it is 24　his boat. And he choose to attach an article to that 25　complaint that says -- that that refers to the yacht as his DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　own yacht. That was in late 2020, your Honor, well after 2　all of these transfers. 3　And your Honor, who is paying for the boat? Our 4　old friends at Golden Spring. 5　Who pays Hong Kong International Delaware, the 6　entity that technically holds the boat, who is paying their 7　legal fees in this litigation? Well, that is Kwok's new 8　shell company Lamp Capital that you'll hear about in a 9　little while. 10　And what is Hong Kong Delaware? The technical 11　legal owner of the yacht? What is it by the way? It is 12　nothing. 13　We have a letter from their lawyer that we 14　submitted to the Court representing it has no employees, it 15　has no directors, it has no e-mail, it has no bank accounts, 16　it has no tax returns, it is a piece of paper. And when you 17　combine this and other circumstantial evidence from this 18　very proceeding, your Honor, what do you have? 19　You have Mr. Kwok's counsel and the ship captain 20　who both say the boat goes away every year, since 2017, to 21　warm water for a few months and then it returns. Not 22　anymore it doesn't. Not since the orders that your Honor 23　issued restraining it. 24　Now it is in Genova Italy. It was in the 40's 25　degrees in Genova Italy this morning. That is not warm DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　weather. It is not hard to figure out who is controlling 2　the ship and why it is not back here. 3　In the face of this un rebutted evidence, Mr. Kwok 4　really only has two arguments. 5　First, he claims he can't control the boat because 6　he's not its technical owner, that is Hong Kong Delaware -- 7　and that his daughter is the person who owns Hong Kong 8　Delaware. Well, your Honor, the facts we just went through 9　make it clear, that he controls the yacht, a point I noted 10　at the outset that you had already found by clear and 11　convincing evidence. 12　As for ownership. Well, technical legal title is 13　not required. CPLR 5225, the turnover statute discusses the 14　judgment debtor's interest in the property. Which is the 15　applicable standard for a judgment creditor to levy on a 16　asset. New York Law is clear that the beneficial interest 17　meets the standard. You don't need technical legal 18　ownership. 19　Weinstein Korn & Miller, as we cited in our brief 20　make it clear that quote "it is not necessary that a 21　judgment debtor have legal title to the property. A 22　beneficial interest is sufficient." 23　The Glid Clade (phonetic) case, from the First 24　Dept., 2015, which we cite says the same thing. There, the 25　judgment debtor said his daughter owned the asset. And the DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　court said, no, it is really yours for turnover levying 2　purposes, a beneficial interest is sufficient. 3　Now, Mr. Kwok's second and really only argument, 4　you need to hold an evidentiary hearing, and some of our 5　evidence maybe inadmissible. Well, we submit, if your Honor 6　wants to hold an evidentiary hearing, that is obviously 7　within your Honor's prerogative, but we submit it is wrong 8　for two reasons. 9　First, our evidence is admissible. It is pages of 10　Hong Kong International's -- it is literally pages from Hong 11　Kong International Delaware from their stamped document 12　production. It is based on official public records from 13　Hong Kong. 14　We have affidavits of those documents. If your 15　Honor is interested, we can send them to you, the Court can 16　take judicial notice of those Hong Kong documents, which are 17　public records that we submitted to your Honor. 18　We also have the September, 2020, New York State 19　complaint that Mr. Kwok filed, referring to it as his yacht. 20　That is judicial admission. 21　Mr. Kwok's own tweets and video recordings are 22　party admissions. In those videos we see Mr. Kwok speaking. 23　He know what he looks like, we know what he sounds like. 24　The response will be, your Honor, well, they are 25　not authenticate. Well, how do we authenticate, your Honor? DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- Mr. Kwok invoking the Fifth. They have confirmed that as recently as an e-mail from counsel for Mr. Kwok to us on November 10th. He will not show up, he will not testify about his assets, and he will not bring any documents. We're entitled to an adverse inference there. That brings me to the second problem with Mr. Kwok's argument with respect to wanting an evidentiary hearing. Again, if your Honor wants one, again, we will have one. There's really nothing else to hear. We're using already whatever very little documents were provided to us from the other side, as well as judicially noticeable public filings. Hong Kong International, the technical owner-- Hong Kong International Delaware -- excuse me -- the technical owner of the yacht, has represented to us. And we submitted that they have nothing else. They have no other documents, they have no employees and they have no officers. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Hong Kong International also represented to us--and this is very important --that Mr. Kwok's daughter May Kwok, the only shareholder, and only person in any way we can find in anyway associated with Hong Kong International Delaware check, and they have represented to us that she also has nothing, absolutely nothing. Never sent an e-mail or a text message about the multi-million dollar yacht, apparently. 1　And Hong Kong International actually told us to go 2　to Golden Spring, believe it or not, to get yacht-related to 3　documents. Well, guess what, we did. 4　We talked to Golden Spring and they represented to 5　us that they have nothing. I mean, this is a yacht that, 6　literally, must moved around the globe by telepathy. Not a 7　single person has a single written communication about who 8　uses it, who instructs the captain and where and when it 9　moves. And as I mentioned a moment ago, your Honor, of 10　course Mr. Kwok is taking the Fifth. 11　He's refused to submit documents about his assets, 12　including the yacht, or to allow us to depose him. His 13　lawyer confirmed this to us, as I mentioned, this is the 14　middle of November. 15　So, we're happy to have an evidentiary hearing if 16　the Court wants one. But, respectfully, there's nothing to 17　hear, your Honor. 18　The only thing you might hear is Mr. Kwok's 19　daughter come in and testify it is her boat. Well, they are 20　already saying that. 21　We can assume, for purposes of today and proffer 22　that is what she will say, it is her boat, without having 23　produced a single document, text, e-mail we can cross her 24　with. If you assume that, your Honor, then we have met our 25　burden on the written submissions in evidence that we have DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　provided. 2　And I just want to take one more moment, your 3　Honor. I know there's some confusion about whether an 4　evidentiary hearing is needed. I know there was language in 5　the Appellate Division's remand to you about an evidentiary 6　hearing. 7　Again, that is entirely up to your Honor, we 8　understand that; 9　But the First Department decision in Glid Clade, 10　from 2015, is really as close to being on all fours as you 11　could get. 12　In Glid Clade, the judgment debtor was a gentleman 13　named Mr. Chirnoid (phonetic), he had \$500 million judgment 14　entered against him. Ironically, he was represented in that 15　case by Ms. Hyland's firm Frankfurt Kurnit. 16　Plaintiff in Glid Clade brought a turnover 17　proceeding under Section 5225 of the CPLR, with respect to 18　Mr. Chirnoid's interest in a LLC. Chirnoid had referred to 19　that interest throughout the litigation, that LLC as his. 20　He said he funded it with his money. He was the investor. 21　When it came time for turnover, however, your 22　Honor, he said, no, actually, I gave it previously to my 23　daughters. And he belatedly produced an agreement to that 24　effect and of course his daughter put in an affidavit saying 25　that the LLC was herself. The trial court said, no, they DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- found for the Plaintiff and it didn't have evidentiary hearing because it had been dealing with the parties for years and it knew of their practices and it deemed a hearing unnecessary. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And, critically, your Honor, here is what the First Department said in affirming the State Courts trial court's decision, quote "the motion court, which was quite familiar with this drawn out dispute, granted the petition. Stating --internal quotes, this is lower court now, "this turnover proceeding is the latest proceeding in a litigation fraught with questionable behavior by Mr. Chirnoid." After reviewing past depositions and affidavits, as well as submissions in opposition to the turnover motion, the Court concluded that the 2007 Agreement, and the surrounding tales raises nothing but famed issues of fact. We concur with the Court's assessment that no hearing was necessary on the issue. This all sounds very similar, your Honor. These are famed issues of fact. And here, there's even less of a need of a hearing because Mr. Kwok is going to take the Fifth and wouldn't and can't testify. And, finally, if I might, your Honor, before I close, I would like to make one last point. 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Mr. Kwok's counsel, no doubt, is going to tell you, as they have in the past, that Mr. Kwok would have followed -Proceedings- 1　the Court's order if it could, but it couldn't follow the 2　Court's order, your Honor, because, respectfully, it didn't 3　control the yacht. You just can't do it in this case. That 4　is flat out not so. 5　Before closing, I would like to make one last 6　point. I anticipate, as they have in the past, Mr. Kwok's 7　counsel will say, of course Mr. Kwok will abide by the 8　Court's order if he could, but since he doesn't control the 9　yacht, he just can't in this case. That is not going to be 10　true, your Honor. 11　All you have to do is look to Mr. Kwok's recent 12　failure to comply your Genova, BVI share turnover order. 13　That is an asset that he readily admits he fully controls. 14　In fact, it is the only asset he says he owns. 15　As your Honor knows, Mr. Kwok's outright refusal to 16　follow your turnover order, just forced PAX last Friday 17　night to file another civil contempt motion. 18　So it doesn't matter if he technically owns 19　something or not, he just chooses not to follow your orders, 20　your Honor. This has to stop. 21　For these reasons, we submit it is finally time to 22　hold Mr. Kwok in contempt with respect to his yacht and for 23　your Honor to order whatever sanction the Court believes is 24　appropriate to actually get him to comply with the order. 25　Thank you, sir. I'm available to answer any questions of DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 15 course. THE COURT: I'll hear from whoever is opposing this motion after we take a three-minute break. (Pausing.) (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.) THE COURT: On the record. Could I hear from the opposition on the motion for contempt. MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon. John Siegal with the Baker & Hostetler law firm. THE COURT: Mr. Siegel, what I would like you to start with is making an offer of proof that you would make at any evidentiary hearing. MR. SIEGAL: Certainly, your Honor, and I intend to do that. I do, however, want to address a legal standard here. Because the Appellate Division remanded for the specific expressed purpose of an evidentiary hearing on quote, "the dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, as well as any appropriate penalties." THE COURT: I understand that. That is why I asked for an offer of proof as to what you would adduce at a hearing. MR. SIEGAL: To be frank, your Honor, it depends on what the Plaintiff submits and we would be the Respondent at such is hearing. And for reasons -- THE COURT: Respectfully, Mr. Siegel, you just NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 16 of 85 -Proceedings 1　heard Mr. Sarnoff explain for 20 plus minutes his offer of 2　proof at the hearing -- 3　MR. SIEGAL: Yes. 4　THE COURT: --if we were to have a hearing. 5　MR. SIEGAL: Right. 6　THE COURT: Now I want to know how you would rebut 7　that and with what witnesses and what documents you would 8　introduce at the hearing. I'm happy to have a hearing next 9　week and I'm happy to give Mr. Kwok all due process to which 10　he is due. But I don't want to have a hearing where Mr. 11　Sarnoff presents everything that he's just outlined and 12　everything that contained in his moving papers and you can't 13　tell me what it is that you have that might rebut what he is 14　claiming. 15　MR. SIEGAL: Surely, your Honor, I appreciate the 16　question and I intend to answer. But surely the Court is 17　not prejudging either the admissibility, reliability, or 18　accuracy of anything that counsel just said. 19　And I submit, your Honor, that the legal issue that 20　counsel just addressed is the wrong legal issue under a 21　statute that doesn't apply, that is contrary to the remand 22　direction of the Appellate Division. 23　The factual argument that he just made, combined 24　with the documents submitted in the Sarnoff affidavit 25　actually support Mr. Kwok's position on the motion. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　This is not a motion for turnover against the 2　judgment debtor; 3　The Appellate Division remanded a contempt motion 4　to determine ownership and control of the asset and, 5　therefore, whether the Defendant could have complied with 6　the Court's conditional order. 7　This motion is governed by Judicial Law 753(a)(3), 8　it is a contempt motion. It requires a showing by clear and 9　convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok had ownership and control 10　of the asset. 11　Plaintiffs' briefed the issue and argued it under 12　CPLR 5225 which governs turnover and asset by a judgment 13　debtor. That is not the remand issue here. 14　The beneficial interest issue under 5225 that they 15　have argued does not apply on this motion. And they have 16　not cited to the Court a single legal authority on a 17　contempt motion, the issue that was remanded. We have 18　searched and we have found no case law reported in New York 19　applying the issue of beneficial interests under the 20　turnover statute to a determination of ownership and control 21　of an asset and ability to comply with a Court Order on 22　contempt motion. They are literally urging the wrong 23　statute and wrong legal issues on this Court. 24　Against that backdrop, let me address the proffered 25　factual arguments and the question the Court has asked of DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- what a hearing would adduce. The Sarnoff affirmation exhibits support Mr. Kwok's position that Plaintiff has not offered any proof, let alone the required clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok owned or controlled the yacht at the time of the conditional order. The Sarnoff exhibits established: One, Mr. Kwok has never owned the Lady May. I want to repeat that -- I want to repeat that. The exhibits to the Sarnoff affirmation if credited and admitted establish that Mr. Kwok never owned the boat, period, full stop; It was purchased by a Hong Kong entity, Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited in 2015, that is their Exhibit 12. At that time, in 2015, that entity was owned by a person --and I don't know how to pronounce this Qu Guo Aiao, QU GUO AIAO. Exhibit 10 shows that that person assumed ownership of that entity in the year before the yacht was purchased, 2014. Kwok never owned the boat, period full stop. 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Two, there is no admissible evidence in the record of who Qu Guo Aiao is, none. I'm advised that she is not a relative of Mr. Kwok. Plaintiff's contend in their brief, at Page 2, that she was quote "reportedly his employer." But that reportedly contention is sourced only to a Chinese 1　newspaper report, that is Exhibit 11, on an allegation, not 2　a finding or a ruling, reportedly filed in a Hong Kong court 3　proceeding. That newspaper report of an allegation does not 4　specify whose employee the person reportedly is. There's 5　nothing in the record establishing a basis to tie that owner 6　of the yacht, in any meaningful way, to ownership or control 7　of the vessel by Mr. Kwok. 8　THE COURT: Just out of curiosity, Mr. Siegel, what 9　about Mr. Kwok's 2020 filing in the Supreme Court in which 10　he claimed ownership of the yacht? 11　MR. SIEGAL: I think that that is obviously a 12　factor that the Court would have to consider. 13　There are numerous statements, most inadmissible 14　hearsay, in which he loosely refers to his ownership of the 15　boat. And -- 16　THE COURT: That is not a hearsay statement. That 17　is a judicial admission. 18　MR. SIEGAL: Well, if to the extent it was a 19　statement regarding ownership, your Honor, it was wrong. He 20　never owned the boat. 21　THE COURT: In other words, you're telling me that 22　Mr. Kwok filed a document with the New York Supreme Court in 23　which he erroneously declared that he owned the boat? 24　MR. SIEGAL: First of all, your Honor, that 25　statement is not in the record on this current motion. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings 1　And, secondly, it is their burden of proof. That 2　statement that it is his boat, was not a statement of legal 3　ownership in any capacity. And -- 4　THE COURT: What was it a statement of? 5　MR. SIEGAL: I don't have it. 6　THE COURT: What is it? What is the definition of 7　"his?" 8　MR. SIEGAL: It is not in the record on the current 9　application. I don't have it in front of me. 10　They have referred to the purchaser of the boat -- 11　Mr. Sarnoff just did, as Mr. Kwok's quote/unquote "lackey." 12　Your Honor, rhetoric is not a record. That is not 13　evidence. And it is not evidence of how this unrelated 14　person's purchase of the yacht constitutes ownership or 15　control of the asset. 16　Then Plaintiff offers documents supporting to show 17　that two years after that person purchased the vessel, this 18　unrelated person transferred ownership of the Lady May to 19　May Guo, Mr. Kwok's adult daughter; that transfer was made 20　three months after Plaintiffs filed the litigation. 21　It was hardly an effort to secrete the asset or 22　avoid any potential judgment. If Mr. Kwok were pulling the 23　strings here, it is not logical or conceivable that, in the 24　midst of this litigation, he would have transferred it from 25　an unrelated third-party, a nonrelative third-party to his DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings 1　daughter. 2　There's nothing in the record on this motion tying 3　any of these transactions, even having to do with the 4　Plaintiff in this case, Pacific Alliance. 5　Next, they offer a BVI Court finding that does not 6　even mention the Lady May, or any entity that has ever owned 7　it, that is Exhibit 13. That filing, regarding an entity 8　called Ronald Luck Limited (phonetic) pleads in Paragraph 14 9　that quote "the funds generally raised by Ronald Luck were 10　from Mr. Zhang Wei, Z-H-A-N-G W-E-I, the husband of Miles 11　Sun's cousin. Miles Sun is the son of the Defendant. And 12　from Mr. Zhang's wife, Ms. Guo Lijie, Miles' cousin and a 13　lawyer based in China. 14　Again, that has no apparent factual connection 15　whatsoever to the Lady May or the entities that have owned 16　it and it identifies a source of funds that is not Miles 17　Kwok. 18　The last document that it offered by Plaintiffs 19　does nothing except show the undisputed fact that May Guo, 20　the Defendant's daughter, put ownership of her yacht in the 21　U.S. entity called HK International Funds Investments USA 22　Limited, LLC in 2020. 23　HK's lawyer Lee Vartan (phonetic) informed the 24　Court of that completely unremarkable fact last year. 25　A person's use of a single purpose entity for DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- 1 2 valuable asset is hardly proof of anything other than common employees typical business planning. The argument that there's no documents regarding the whereabouts of this yacht may reflect the fact that we're dealing with a Defendant who is an assignee from People's Public of China facing very substantial security concerns; and members of his family, including his daughter, who owns the yacht, lived in a similar environment. None of us has ever lived in a totalitarian society or been the target of one, and I hope we never will be; but let's not conflate security concerns that people living in that society environment face as proof of anything other than their care and caution. THE COURT: Mr. Siegel -- MR. SIEGEL: These documents, your Honor, don't make out a prima facie case that Mr. Kwok owned the vessel at the time of the Court order. They show that he has never -- > THE COURT: Mr. Siegel, can you hear me? MR. SIEGEL: Yes. THE COURT: You want me to conduct a hearing and Mr. Kwok's daughter is going to appear at the hearing. 23 24 25 MR. SIEGEL: I do not know if Mr. Kwok's daughter is going to appear at the hearing. That is Mr. Sarnoff's assertion. He has asked you to assume: DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER witness; would say; -Proceedings- Number one, that we will be producing a certain Number two, that he preferred what he believed she And, three, extraordinarily, he asked you in advance to discredit that testimony. THE COURT: I'm not prejudging anything. MR. SIEGEL: I know you're not. THE COURT: We're going to have a hearing. And the hearing will be in three weeks. And this will be resolved on a full evidentiary record --forgive me for being skeptical about the presentation you're going to make; because in response to three of my inquires about the offer of proof that you would make -- MR. SIEGEL: Your Honor -- I did not get to the issue of control. Your Honor, there is testimony in the record with control. As of now it is un rebutted. That is the affidavit of the boat's captain. That in which he attests that HK International, that is owned by May Guo owns the vessel and that that is who he reported to and that he did not take direction from Mr. Kwok. 22 23 24 25 There is no evidence at this point rebutting that prima facie showing of lack of control. And it is their burden. It is a hybrid. Beneficial address is not the test here. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- But based on this record, whether these transactions that they attempted to document by and between, essentially, unidentified third-party nonfamily member, and Mr. Kwok's adult daughter, do not establish that he had a beneficial interest. That is both an irrelevant question and a triable issue. Much of the rest of the showing is inadmissible hearsay. Establishing the undisputed facts that Mr. Kwok has from time to time enjoyed from being on his daughter's boat and reported to loosely have referred to it as his boat. But it is not clear and convincing evidence of ownership and control. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ownership or control by a family member, or perhaps or by a third-party is not ownership and control by Mr. Kwok; close enough doesn't apply in a legal proceeding. That is why the Appellate Division remanded that the Plaintiff be put to its proof. And we're prepared to respond to that, given to the extent that the Court holds at the hearing that they have established their prima facie case, we'll attempt to rebut it. 21 22 23 24 MR. SARNOFF: If I may be briefly heard so that the record is complete. I totally appreciate it is within your complete prerogative to hold evidentiary hearing and I'm not quarreling with that. > DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER THE COURT: It is your benefit that I hold an 1　evidentiary hearing because the Appellate Division remanded 2　and indicated that there should be an evidentiary hearing. 3　MR. SARNOFF: I understand, your Honor. 4　THE COURT: It is on the papers. There will be 5　further appeals asserting that I failed to comply with the 6　direction of the Appellate Division. 7　MR. SARNOFF: Yes, your Honor. I appreciate that. 8　There are just two or three things that I would like to put 9　on the record, if I might, I will be very very brief. 10　THE COURT: I have all afternoon. 11　MR. SARNOFF: First, the reason that we have 12　discussed the standard under 5225, the standard under which 13　a judgment creditor gets to levy on an asset is very clear 14　and understandable, your Honor. It is because that is the 15　standard that, if we can show the beneficial interest 16　sufficient to levy, then that is the standard under the 17　Judicial Law 753 that establishes prejudice. 18　If we can levy on the boat, then Mr. Kwok's moving 19　the boat has prejudiced our right and it is a component 20　piece of 753. That is why we referred to the Beneficial 21　Interest Standard as the relevant standard under 5225, 22　first -- 23　By the way, I just note, that if your Honor looks 24　at the Appellate order. The Appellate order says that we 25　have shown -- that we have already shown --that you were DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- 1　correct in finding that we have shown that by clear and 2　convincing evidence Mr. Kwok violated a lawful order about 3　which he had knowledge, interestingly, and that Plaintiff's 4　rights were prejudiced. They already found that. 5　On the issue of control, your Honor has already 6　found that we have made more than a prima facie showing of 7　control. 8　So I just did want to point out, that is why that 9　5225 Beneficial Interest Standard in the turnover context, 10　which is the levying context is directly the relevant 11　standard. 12　THE COURT: Look, I understand. 13　Mr. Sarnoff, Mr. Kwok is being find \$500,000 a day 14　every day this boat is not where it is to be. 15　MR. SARNOFF: I understand. 16　THE COURT: So Mr. Sarnoff wants to protract these 17　proceedings another three weeks, that is another million 18　dollars in contempt sanctions; if he fails to overcome all 19　of the issues that you've outlined in your papers. 20　MR. SARNOFF: For completeness, I would be very 21　brief. 22　I believe Mr. Kwok testified that the woman that we 23　referred to as his employee, I believe he testified at his 24　deposition, way, way earlier, before he clammed up and 25　invoked the Fifth Amendment was his employee. I believe DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　that is in the record. We'll be ready to have that citation 2　at the appropriate time. 3　Two, if she was some unknown unrelated person to 4　Mr. Kwok, please explain as a logical matter that he gives 5　her his company for no consideration and then mordaciously, 6　three years later, she ends up giving it to Kwok's daughter. 7　That is a fantastic coincidence. 8　Let me make one more note. Mr. Siegel said 9　something about the September 20th complaint -- 2020 10　complaint that with referenced not being in our papers. We 11　cited at Page 4 of our brief and it was Featured Far and 12　Wide in our earlier contemporary. That whole issue has 13　always been before the Court. 14　And one other point. There was a mention made 15　about un rebutted testimony by Mr. Hasland. Mr. Hasland 16　says, I take direction from Hong Kong International. That 17　is what his affidavit says. It doesn't mention a human 18　being. 19　We know from Hong Kong International's Delaware's 20　lawyer that Hong Kong International is a piece of paper. 21　Its got no -- he has made no showing of who he's taking -- 22　he's taking direction from a piece of paper. He has not 23　said me, he has not said it to anyone. 24　I will just ask, your Honor, if May Guo is going to 25　testify, I'm not sure she is. We would have the opportunity DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to take her deposition before any such hearing, as well as perhaps Mr. Hasland's deposition if he's going to testify as well. THE COURT: You preserved Mr. Hasland's testimony for trial by deposition. And if I need to sign a subpoena, and you have to jump thru hoops to have him sit for a deposition, I'll do that. And since Mr. Hasland is clearly in the control of the owner of the boat, if he fails to submit to deposition or fails to show up at the hearing, I'll take that into consideration. MR. SARNOFF: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Anything else on the motion? MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor, I have a couple of questions. First of all, on the issue of the legal standard, Mr. Sarnoff did correctly report that the Appellate Division held that the issue of prejudice has been affirmed. So, that is part of the reason why we argued the 5225 does not apply here. And so the question is, your Honor, do you want additional briefing before the hearing on the legal standard that does apply? THE COURT: The parties can submit in this case whatever they want. I've been dealing with Mr. Sarnoff for DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER a very long time and I've been dealing with Mr. Kwok and his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER residence of the share for a very long time and I'll be very surprised if substantial evidence is produced that Mr. Kwok has no involvement with this boat. MR SIEGEL: Understood, your Honor. Couple other questions. We had indicated in our supplemental brief of five page, if there's going to be a hearing, we would like to opportunity to submit mini motions, would that be something beneficial with the Court or just deal with the hearing. THE COURT: You can submit anything you want to submit. I'm going to give you a hearing date in three weeks, plus or minus two or three days. MR. SIEGEL: That is the other issue I want to address. I'm scheduled for trial at the end of February, as is Ms. Carvallo. THE COURT: Why don't you tell me the date that you would like to have this hearing, which I would be very surprised would last more than a day. MR. SIEGEL: Well, given my schedule, I would ask for a date in March when that trial ends. The pre-trial conference is the 10th of February and scheduled to go to the end of the first week of March. THE COURT: Pick a day in the next three weeks that you can interrupt certain other scheduled issues you have to deal with this long pressing matter with everything about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 30 this issue. MR. SIEGEL: May I confer with my colleague and with opposing counsel and get back to the Court quickly with a date that works in the next three weeks. THE COURT: Let's just do it here and now on the record. I'll adjust my schedule to accommodate everyone's schedule. I'm told that I'm completely free on February 2nd and February 7th. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I'm actually defending depositions in a class-action those two days -- THE COURT: We're not going to have colloquy about the date; depositions can be adjourned, firm trial dates can't be adjourned, let's pick a date that you both can live with and let's move on. There's three other motions I have to hear. MR. SIEGEL: I would propose, your Honor, February 3rd, Thursday, February 3rd if that works. THE COURT: Mr. Sarnoff. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I will make it work. I will have to get out of my deposition and I will make it work. THE COURT: Well, if you could get out of your deposition to make it work, would February 2nd be because that wouldn't require my staff to -- -Proceedings- MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, if you would like to do it on February 2nd. There's a certain harmony in that, in that we've been here a long-time and February 2nd is Groundhog Day. This might be a good day to hear a motion hearing of this nature. > THE COURT: Is that good for you Mr. Siegel? MR. SIEGEL: Yes, your Honor. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: February 2nd will be the date that we will have this hearing and it will be on Microsoft Teams and trial testimony from out of jurisdiction witnesses will be admitted by deposition. All direct testimony, other than deposition testimony, will be by affidavit. And I wouldn't consider the affidavits of anyone who doesn't submit himself or herself for cross-examination. So we will have sworn testimony from deponents who are prepared to be cross-examined at the hearing and we'll have trial testimony of deponent outside the jurisdiction with adverse inferences drawn against individuals who might have relevant testimony who refuse to be deposed. MR. SARNOFF: We get a deposition, your Honor, of anyone who will testify --we'll get advanced notice? THE COURT: You'll get a deposition of anybody who 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER is out of the jurisdiction whose testimony is relevant to the issue in the case. And if witnesses outside the jurisdiction, who are under the control of any party, -Proceedings- 1　decline to sit for a deposition, I'll draw whatever 2　inferences from that I choose. I'm not going to go through 3　a circus-like exercise of people who have relevant testimony 4　refusing to provide it. 5　MR. SARNOFF: By way of clarification. We have been told that Mr. Kwok is going to invoke his Fifth Amendment Privilege and not testify. Can we -- we will be able, I assume, to get adverse inferences when he doesn't show up. If he does shows up, we would have asked already for his deposition as to assets and we have been foreclosed from getting any documents or any deposition from him in that regard. I'm assuming he's precluded from -- THE COURT: Mr. Kwok wants to show up and testify he doesn't own the boat, he's free to do so and you're free to cross-examine him. You don't get a deposition of him he's within the jurisdiction. 17 18 19 20 MR. SARNOFF: We did try to get deposition testimony from him in the discovery when we served postjudgment discovery and we were foreclosed because of his Fifth Amendment and location. 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: He previously took the Fifth Amendment. I understand that. I'm not depending on Mr. Kwok to show up at the February 2nd hearing; but if he choses to, submit direct testimony affidavit and be subject cross-examination, so be it. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　MR. SIEGAL: Of course, for the sake of 2　completeness. The deposition requirement applies the other 3　way too right, that we get to depose any out-of-state 4　witnesses they're going to proffer -- they're going to offer 5　in direct testimony by affidavit. 6　THE COURT: Not if their witnesses are going to 7　submit direct testimony and appear for cross-examination. 8　Look, this is very simple. 9　MR. SIEGAL: It is clear. I understand. 10　THE COURT: The witnesses will submit direct 11　testimony affidavits. And those witnesses who submit direct 12　testimony affidavits must be made available for 13　cross-examination or testify to their affidavits. 14　People who are outside the jurisdiction, who want 15　to give testimony and are in the control of any party, can 16　do so by deposition in which each side gets to question the 17　witness. And the deposition transcript will be part of the 18　evidentiary hearing. 19　MR. SARNOFF: I was going to ask whether the 20　directs will be put in at the hearing or in advance? 21　THE COURT: At advance. I will issue a short form 22　order that will give you dates by which the direct testimony 23　affidavits have to be submitted and I'll give you the dates 24　in a short form order the dates by which any exhibits that 25　the parties want to be considered at the evidentiary hearing DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedingsafter being submitted in the joint exhibit book. This will be just like a bench trial, except it is an evidentiary hearing instead of a bench trial. So there will be an exhibit book, there will be direct testimony affidavits that refer to the exhibits in the exhibit book, and there'll be cross-examination of the affiants who submit direct testimony affidavits. With respect to individuals under the control of the parties whose testimony is deemed relevant, those individuals have to submit to depositions. If they don't submit to depositions and they're in control of the parties, then their testimony is of no value to the hearing that we're conducting. Are we completely clear? MR. SIEGEL: Yes, I think so, your Honor. MR. SARNOFF: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's do the two motions to quash subpoenas. MR. SARNOFF: Excuse me, it is Mr. Levine's motions. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 85 21 22 23 MR. LEVINE: Thank you, your Honor. This is Matthew Levine, Phillips Nizer and we're counsel to nonparty Lamp Capital. Can you hear me. THE COURT: Yes, I can. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　MR. LEVINE: Thank you, your Honor. 2　I understand you have another motion behind this so 3　I'll try to be as brief as possible. 4　THE COURT: I have all afternoon. 5　MR. LEVINE: Thank you, your Honor. 6　As we have sought to quash two subpoenas and also, 7　to the extent that there are other bank subpoenas out there 8　for our information to have those withdrawn. 9　Briefly, what we have established, your Honor, that 10　Lamp Capital a nonparty duly formed Delaware LLC licensed to 11　do business in New York. It is wholly-owned by another 12　Delaware company called Infinity Treasury Management, which 13　is a single member; 14　In turn, Infinity Management is wholly-owned by 15　Qiang Guo. As you have heard, Mr. Guo, the son of the 16　judgment debtor, Miles Kwok. 17　Lamp Capital is not owned, controlled, or managed 18　by the judgment debtor; 19　The judgment debtor is not an officer or director 20　of Lamp. 21　Infinity Management is not owned, controlled or 22　managed by the judgment debtor, nor is the judgment debtor 23　an officer or director of Infinity Management. We have 24　established this through the affidavits of Mr. Enriquez, who 25　is an employee of Lamp Capital. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　We have not sought to conceal any of this. 2　We proactively discussed Mr. Guo's indirect 3　ownership state in Lamp Capital in our pre-motion conference 4　letter submitted to the Court in early October, Document 5　number 908. 6　Lamp essentially provides funding of payment 7　services to several companies, pursuant to a written 8　management agreement with each one; one of those companies 9　is Golden Spring New York. 10　As indicated in our papers, and further shown in 11　the bank records provided to Plaintiff, in its opposition, 12　Lamp Capital has loaned funds to Golden Spring in the amount 13　of millions of dollars; 14　Based on this, the Plaintiff believes that it is 15　game over and that Lamp has to turnover every single 16　business and financial document that Lamp has to Plaintiff. 17　That is essentially what Plaintiff's counsel told us during 18　our first meet and confer that we held within in late 19　September. 20　They told us right from the beginning that Lamp is 21　quote "the new Golden Spring" close quote. 22　That Lamp Capital is effectively the alterego of 23　the judgment debtor Miles Kwok. And thus, Lamb's assets are 24　really the assets of Miles Kwok. And, therefore, that is 25　the basis for them to properly demand every single business DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedingsand financial document of Lamp. And we had agreed in the meat and confer process to produce documents that we're tailored to locating the assets of, or the information about the judgment debtor Miles Kwok. And we also proposed important modifications to other Plaintiff requests, in a good faith effort, to reach middle ground. Plaintiff declined to respond to our proposals and, essentially, taken the my way or highway approach to the meet and confer process; And because it was all or nothing with the Plaintiff, because we couldn't reach accommodations, we were compelled to file motions. And so Plaintiff now, in response to our motion to quash both these subpoenas. And, again, one subpoena is that Lamp Capital directly, your Honor and one subpoena is to the accounting firm for Lamp Capital, a firm Janover. We sought to quash four at a minimum, have modified those subpoenas. 20 21 22 23 And what the Plaintiff says is that you've already ruled on the instant motion today. And in their response they say quote "the Court has already decided this issue in Plaintiff's favor." 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER And what the Plaintiff is referring to when they say that is your ruling last May, May 27th, on the motion to -Proceedings- 1 2 compel Golden Spring to provide a large amount of their documents. In other words, your Honor, Plaintiff has argued that at this point the Court need only rubber stamp Plaintiff's effort to enforce these two subpoenas that seek every conceivable financial and business document from Lamp. And we, respectfully, disagree, your Honor. And I would like to focus on an important distinction between the situation with Golden Spring last may and the situation instantly before your Honor, and, particularly, a focus for me because I thought you found it meaningful when you made your decision last May in connection with the Golden Spring matter. In arguing now that Lamp is the new Golden Spring and that Lamp and Kwok's efforts are, effectively, one of the same, by doing so they are arguing, essentially, Lamp is the new Golden Spring but there's an important difference as I mentioned. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Last May, the Plaintiffs argued to you that the reason that you should find that their motion for discovery was appropriate was because Miles Kwok had sworn in a 2016 Affidavit, that he was the one who quote "set up Golden Spring by transferring funds from one of his accounts at UBS to Golden Springs' JP Morgan Chase account in New York. That is at Docket Number 750, Page 6 and also Docket 764, -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Paragraph 36. Similarly, Plaintiff's counsel argued to you, during the oral argument on that motion, that Miles Kwok quote "already said it is his money at Golden Spring and he's using it to pay all of his expenses" close quote. That is at Page 7 on May 27th, your Honor. Unlike those arguments to you in the Golden Spring litigation, Plaintiff here has not shown that Miles Kwok, the judgment debtor, has funded Lamp Capital, there's no proof of that whatsoever. THE COURT: Plaintiff determined that without getting these records. MR. LEVINE: Well, I think, your Honor, the Plaintiff has a burden to have some kind of showing that it is, in fact, the judgment debtor's funds. THE COURT: Those demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Kwok has six, eight, ten or twelve different shell companies that he utilizes to evade his creditors. MR. LEVINE: Your Honor, I think that the analysis has to be applied to our particular case and the particular facts here. And if it is simply the case that the Plaintiff's counsel can point to an entity or person, declare that person somehow affiliated with the judgment debtor and, therefore, succeed on a motion to compel on NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 41 of 85 -Proceedings- court and that the CPLR requires nothing more than that, I don't think that is a correct view of the law and what the CPLR requires. And I would just point to one more thing about your comment Last May. I understand you're concerned this. I do understand your Honor's frustration and how long this has gone on; But your Honor stated in the hearing last May, the best evidence that has been made available to the Court compellingly suggests that any asset that Golden Spring has provided to Golden Spring by Mr. Kwok close quote. That is what your Honor said. Your Honor used that in order to grant the motion. So, you thought that having seen that evidence, that affidavit, which was already existing, which was submitted to you by the Plaintiffs, that was the basis there was actual evidence. 18 19 So I would say, your Honor, that is the answer to your question. 20 21 There has to be some evidence that justifies the invasive discovery of a nonparty. 22 23 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from the Plaintiff's counsel. MR. SARNOFF: I will try to keep this brief. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Mr. Levine suggests that we're arguing that it is argument, your Honor. collateral estoppel here or res judicata. -Proceedings- I mean, given the interconnection between Lamp and Golden Spring, that is not far off but that is not our You found in the context of the Golden Spring hearing that quote "Plaintiff is a judgment creditor. Plaintiff knows that Golden Spring is funding expenses of Mr. Kwok, not minor in consequential expense. And the judgment creditor is entitled to have discovery of the entity that is funding Mr. Kwok's expenses." That is the hearing transcript on the Golden Spring motion at Page 10. That is the exact same analysis, your Honor, that applies here. Not because it is collateral estoppel or res judicata. We did not argue that. But because it is correct. The Lamp motion is even less compelling than Golden Springs, your Honor. Because in this instance, we're not seeking a restraining order as we did against Golden Spring. 19 20 21 We are only seeking relevant asset related documents under the broad standard for postjudgment discovery of CPLR 5223. 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Now, Mr. Levine mentioned that we pointed out that between October of 2020 and January of 2021, through nine separate transfers, Lamp transfers over \$6 million to Golden Spring. He points out that some of those documents, some of -Proceedings- 1　the documents we've produced and submitted to the Court 2　indicate that they may have been loans. I would note that 3　some of them have no indication that they're loans, some of 4　those transfers; they maybe loans, they may not be loans. 5　That is discovery is for. We're piecing this together 6　without the opportunity to see what Lamp has. 7　Now, it was very interesting to me that Mr. Levine, 8　in listing what our evidence is, he left out a very very 9　fundamental fact: 10　Your Honor will remember in the Golden Spring 11　context, that we showed that Golden Spring was funding Mr. 12　Kwok's lifestyle and funding, specifically, his very 13　sizeable legal bills, as well as the Sherry-Netherland 14　maintenance and a lot of other expenses. 15　Well, your Honor, I think if you will recall from 16　our papers -- and Mr. Levine left this out -- we had 17　demonstrated for you and Mr. Kwok's myriad legal counsel 18　have confirmed, that it is now Lamp that is paying Mr. 19　Kwok's mounting legal fees. 20　THE COURT: I've heard enough. I've read the 21　papers. The motion to quash is denied. 22　Let's go onto the next motion. 23　MR. LEVINE: Thank you. One point of 24　clarification. 25　We also asked separate relief that any subpoenas to DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedingsbank be withdrawn. Is that also denied? THE COURT: Yes, that is also denied. MR. LEVINE: Thank you, your Honor. I did not leave anything out, I just wanted to give Mr. Sarnoff his opportunity. If there's any other questions you have, I would appreciate you submitting them to me. Thank you. THE COURT: I don't have any questions on this motion, it is denied. MR. LEVINE: Thank you. THE COURT: Let's go to the next motion. MR. SIEGEL: Thank you. Again, John Siegel for Mr. Kwok from Baker & Hostetler. And with me in this case is Nicholas Rose, as well as ethics expert Roy Simon. We appreciate your Honor patience and diligence through this series of motions this afternoon. I will be addressing Mr. Kwok's motion to disqualify the Cahill firm. Nicole Hyland from Frankfurt Kurnit firm will address GTV motion which raises different issues and is a different motion. THE COURT: All right. MR. SIEGEL: I want to say at the outset to express our and our firm's respect for the Cahill firm. This is an important legal issue of attorney duties and DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 45 of -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 44 responsibilities, it raises novel issues. THE COURT: Let me ask you one question. MR. SIEGEL: Yes. THE COURT: Was Mr. Kwok ever a client of the Cahill Gordon firm; yes or no? MR. SIEGEL: He was an implied client with a fiduciary duty. He was not a directly engaged client. THE COURT: He never engaged Cahill? MR. SIEGEL: Correct. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SIEGEL: Just to say, you know, we wish Mr. Moss well and Cahill, we respect the firm's desire to support their new partner. It is a rare thinking that someone joins that firm laterally and we wish them the best. We think they have taken an incorrect position on the facts here. So I want to start, your Honor, with the undisputed facts. And the undisputed facts established Cahill's fiduciary duty. It is indeed, as your Honor has asked, undisputed that Kwok personally did not directly engage Cahill Gordon; But the fiduciary duty that firm owed Mr. Kwok, and the substantial relationship between Cahill's confidential relationship with Mr. Kwok, in the government 1　investigations, and the Plaintiffs asset tracing and 2　judgment enforcement efforts in this case, are established 3　by the following, all of which are undisputed in the record. 4　First, a common interest agreement existed between 5　Mr. Kwok and Cahill. 6　MR. MOSS: I apologize, Mr. Siegel, I want to make 7　sure you're okay with me staying here. I wanted to make 8　sure that my presence was known and that you're not going to 9　be covering any that is confidential and you don't think I 10　should be here as you start to get into the facts. 11　MR. SIEGEL: I think we're in an open court 12　proceeding that we are going to be --that there are aspects 13　of the record here that everybody sealed. 14　My intention is not to directly address sealed 15　material in open court. I can't say I can control what I 16　say and I think I know where that line is. 17　If I think it is being approached, I'll so indicate 18　and I'll give others to do so, I guess I will object. I 19　think the safer thing is if you're not in court, but I can't 20　-- that is for you and your firm to decide. 21　MR. SARNOFF: I would also like to say that I am 22　counsel for PAG and I'm on the video. I have no intention 23　of either being prejudiced by anything discussed here. So I 24　put myself at the mercy of the Court and ask for guidance. 25　THE COURT: I don't have any problem with everyone DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER MR. SARNOFF: Okay. -Proceedings- who is on this Teams call continue to be on the Teams call. MR. SIEGEL: The common interest agreement between Kwok and Cahill, it is undisputed, including in Paragraph 5 of the affidavits submitted by the Cahill firm. It is undisputed that there was no provision in that Agreement, which was an oral agreement. There was no warning or caution or condition imposed by Cahill as firms customarily do disclaiming a fiduciary relationship with Mr. Kwok, as a result of that common interest agreement in sharing the confidential information that was shared. And Cahill never reserved the right to be adversed to Mr. Kwok in this or any other proceedings substantially related subsequently. So the existence of the common interest agreement and the fiduciary confidential relationship is undisputed. It is undisputed that in Cahill's communications with Mr. Kwok and his counsel, and his team, that all but one of those communications was very prominently labeled attorney-client communication, privileged and confidential attorney client, attorney work-product, common interest communication. Those are not mer words, your Honor. 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER That is not just some form rhetoric that lawyers put on e-mails. I'll tell you I, myself, virtually never put that on, unless I know I'm dealing with a situation -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 5 where it may become an issue. My practice does not matter, Cahill did that. They promised Mr. Kwok, in all of their communications the essence of an attorneys's promise of confidentiality, that is pinnacle of the attorney's duty and like attorney-client privilege, and that people bring attorneys within the confidence of their circle that they entrust them with confidential information, reasonably understanding that those attorneys are not going to turn around and use it against them. why in law of society we invest attorneys with privileges, It is undisputed that Cahill confirmed with Mr. Kwok's counsel concerning his decision to invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment. Cahill doesn't even address the fact that they had a common interest arrangement on sensitive government subpoenas and investigations with a person that consulted with them and that they were intermittently involved in the decision, his decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. This is not an ordinary situation; 21 22 23 24 This is at the height of the constitutional protection of a party's confidence and protection of those confidences and Cahill was on the confidential side of that circle. > DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER It is undisputed --and I will show that the SEC 1　subpoena to Mr. Kwok, not to GTV, the SEC subpoena to Mr. 2　Kwok that Cahill participated in the response to, that 3　Cahill vetted documents in response to, that Cahill advised 4　on. 5　The SEC subpoena and the subpoena served by the 6　Plaintiff in this case called for a nearly universal-- a 7　nearly coterminous identical universal of documents 8　concerning assets held by or on behalf of Mr. Kwok. 9　The SEC was seeking the exact same discovery that 10　PAX is seeking here. 11　Cahill advised confidentially on Mr. Kwok's 12　response to that subpoena. And Cahill is still in 13　possession of those documents. And they are the same 14　documents that PAX is seeking and still seeking in this 15　litigation. 16　Cahill knew that that issue was common to both the 17　SEC matter in this case. Guy Petrillo, who represents Mr. 18　Kwok in the government investigations, and who is the former 19　Chief, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 20　New York, tested in his affirmation that Brad Bondon 21　(phonetic) stated to the Kwok Team quote "our lawyers have 22　been keeping the government from doing anything aggressive," 23　close quote with regard to any SEC effort to seize Mr. Guo's 24　purported assets. That is Petrillo reply affidavit in 25　Paragraph 2. Not me saying it, that is Guy Petrillo, a DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- reliable lawyer who was intermittently involved working with Cahill on a day-to-day basis saying that Cahill told him they were aware that the SEC issues were the same issues in terms of asset tracing and asset enforcement that PAX is undertaking here, and that Cahill lawyers have been working on them. And it is undisputed, your Honor, that Cahill had and apparently still has unfettered access to Mr. Kwok's confidential information. The same information that the Plaintiff is seeking in this case. It is in a document portal to which Cahill had complete access. Cahill devoted substantial time to reviewing and analyzing the encrypted confidential communications of Mr. Kwok. That is Mr. Petrillo's testimony at Paragraph 8. Cahill analyzed Mr. Kwok's documents, not GTV's, Mr. Kwok's confidential documents and materials relating to other business entities that the Plaintiff in this case would likely deem relevant to its litigation efforts. And that fall within the scope of Mr. Kwok's Fifth Amendment invitation, that is Guy Petrillo's testimony, Paragraph 8. 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER We just argued a motion touching on a range of entities and an allegation by the Plaintiff that Mr. Kwok owns or controls, or has a beneficial interest in a variety of entities. Some, numerous of those, are entities about which the SEC served a subpoena and Mr. Kwok provided -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 confidential information to Cahill regarding, and that he ultimately, with Cahill's participation, decided to invoke his Fifth Amendment privileges against any other disclosure regarding those entities. Your Honor, it is just not a situation in which the firm can then turn around and be adverse to Mr. Kwok, on the very same issues, involving the very same entities, in which the Plaintiff here that they would now be representing, seeking discovery on the very same documents and issues and information. THE COURT: All right. I have heard enough. I'm going to give the Court Reporter ten minutes. You've been going for an hour and-a-half and then we will resume. MR. LEVINE: Thank you. When we resume, I would to like to, within the parameters to sealing, among other things, take the Court specifically through the overlap of the subpoenas, if I may when we return. 18 19 THE COURT: I think I take your point there is an overlap. (Pausing.) (Recess taken.) THE COURT: Okay. 23 24 MR. SIEGAL: I would like to clarify one thing I said before the break. > DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER If I argued that, when I suggested that there were NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 52 of -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 entities discussed in the prior motion, that were entity subpoenaed by the SEC and by the Plaintiff here, I did not mean to state that all of the entities discussed in the prior motion are within that. I don't want to specify because it is sealed, but I don't want to overstate the case either. There are entities that have to be raised in this litigation that were subpoenaed by the SEC that PAX sought discovery on. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What happened was that the SEC subpoena sought documents sufficient to identify all assets held by or on behalf of Mr. Kwok. They sought documents sufficient to identify all current accounts held by or on behalf of Mr. Kwok and requested all documents concerning a list of specific entities; that is sealed. So I don't want to get into the specifics, but the Pacific Alliance document request pending in this case also seek documents relating to any assets of Mr. Kwok, or for any debtor related person; documents relating to any accounts of Mr. Kwok or any debtor related person; and they seek the documents regarding nearly all of the entities sought by the SEC. THE COURT: Mr. Siegel, I understand your position. Let me hear from GTV's counsel. MR. SIEGEL: May I discuss the case law or you want to defer that. THE COURT: I want to hear from GTV's counsel. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　MR. SIEGEL: Certainly. I don't want to take time. 2　Let me just say this: 3　Cahill makes a big deal about the fact there's no 4　New York case directly on point regarding disqualification 5　of a firm due to a fiduciary duty arising under a common 6　interest agreement. It is a unique set of facts. 7　Let me suggest one reason there's no such case law 8　is because this is not something that firms do. 9　You don't sit, confidentially, with a common 10　interest party and all their documents advising them on 11　sensitive matters and turn around and six months later and 12　appear against them. 13　There's no New York rule. But the majority rule 14　across the country favors disqualification. 15　THE COURT: Mr. Siegel, I've practiced law for 16　45 years. I want to hear from GTV's counsel. 17　MR. SIEGEL: Okay. I hear you. It is your turn. 18　MS. HYLAND: Can you hear me okay? 19　THE COURT: Yes. 20　MS. HYLAND: My name is Nicole Hyland and I am with 21　the firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz and we represent GTV 22　Media in connection with its motion to intervene in this 23　action for the purpose of disqualifying its former lawyer 24　Cahill Gordon & Randall. 25　We are, obviously, in a slightly different position DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER from Mr. Kwok. We are the former clients of the Cahill firm. GTV was represented by Cahill. And, in fact, paid them approximately a million dollars in legal fees for that representation. And, so, we very easily meet that first element of establishing there's a attorney-client relationship here. So I'm going to move very quickly onto the second and third element of disqualification. The second element being that we would show and we are able to show that either the two follow things exists: Either Cahill possesses confidential information, it could be used either to the advantage of PAX or the disadvantage of GTV, or --not and --you don't have to have both --or that the two matters substantially related. Only one of those prongs has to be fulfilled to warrant disqualification. Here, in fact, both prongs are satisfied. And then the third element that I am going to get to at the end is the adversity element, that the two matters, the two representations are adverse. So, first, moving to the confidentiality issue, the substantial relationship issue. In the course of representing GTV, Cahill came into the possession of reams of confidential information relating to GTV's financials, assets, corporate structure and more. We layout in our motion papers descriptions --general 1　descriptions without going into detail and disclosing the 2　very confidential information GTV is trying to protect. In 3　broad terms we layout categories of information that really 4　demonstrate the relevance of those documents to the judgment 5　enforcement efforts of PAX that they have been conducting 6　all along in this case. 7　I know that PAX has -- can you still hear me? 8　THE COURT: Yes -- 9　MS. HYLAND: I know that PAX has indicated --I 10　understand two PAX's argument in response of this are that 11　A, there's a screen and B, there's stipulation. I'm going 12　to get to those and address those. 13　So, no question though that this confidential 14　information is information that PAX has sought in discovery 15　in this matter. It is identified GTV as debtor related 16　entity. We have referenced two examples of just two 17　subpoenas. They have served multiple subpoenas which attach 18　the schedule of so called debtor related entities, or I 19　would say 80 to 100 people entities on that list that they 20　have served subpoenas on various entities seeking 21　information and GTV is one of those debtor related entities, 22　according to PAX; 23　Not only is this confidential information at risk, 24　but, in addition, Cahill actually did represent GTV in 25　connection with the very issue that came up in connection DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　with this action. 2　The one that I first got involved in, which was 3　that disclosure, which we still don't know how it got out of 4　the very sensitive banking and financial information that 5　ended up that one of PAX's document subpoenas. 6　I have --if your Honor reviews my affirmation. I 7　had a lengthy conversation with partners of Cahill, Mr. 8　Bondi and Mr. Bossin, about that incident while they were 9　still representing GTV and the commencement of my 10　representation, to handle that specific discrete issues; 11　We had a long conversation. We talked about all 12　aspects of this case, about document requests, of how that 13　information got out. They informed me that they believe 14　there were only one possible source for that information and 15　that was a schedule that they had in their possession that 16　was submitted to the SEC. 17　They gave us advice on what they thought we should 18　do. I shared with them extensive information about our 19　strategy. 20　There's no question that we were jointing advising 21　GTV with respect to that issue at that time. 22　So, the substantial relationship test is also met 23　here. 24　Now, disqualification is warranted when either of 25　those prongs are met, either there's confidential DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- 1　information that the lawyers have, could be used against 2　former client or to the advantage of the current client, or 3　there is a substantial relationship between the two matters, 4　as there is here. 5　Now Cahill implicitly concedes there's a conflict 6　here. They establish this so called ethical wall. 7　Extensively to screen this extensive amount of confidential 8　information from Mr. Moss and his team. 9　Now, the problem with that is that New York rules 10　do not permit what we call nonconsensual screening. 11　What Cahill should have done is come to GTV, reach 12　out to us, or reach out directly to GTV and take on newly 13　represented GTV, and explain that there was conflict and ask 14　us, or GTV, if GTV would waive it, or if they would waive it 15　at least with some type of a screen. They never did that. 16　They never notified GTV of this conflict, they 17　never notified GTV of any intent to put up any screen and 18　they just went ahead and did it without any input from GTV 19　and without even the courtesy of reaching out to their 20　former client. 21　That is not the rule permits. The rule only 22　permits a screen to be used to cure this type of conflict 23　when the client consents to it. And GTV has never consented 24　to it, does not consent to it, not was asked to consent to 25　it. That is not an effective way to cure this conflict. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　Beyond the fact that it simply-- a screen simply 2　does not apply and appropriate here to cure the conflict, it 3　is also a deficient screen. It wasn't erected until two 4　weeks after Mr. Moss joined Cahill. It is a very late 5　screen. 6　Screens are, if they're appropriate at all, they 7　have to be established at the inception of the 8　representation. When Cahill first started representing PAX 9　in this case, that is when you set up a screen. Even 10　assuming a screen would have been appropriate. 11　THE COURT: I understand your argument. 12　I'm granting your motion to intervene to a limited 13　purpose of seeking the disqualification of Cahill Gordon. 14　I'll hear counsel for Cahill Gordon. 15　MR. MOSS: Thank you, your Honor. Edward Moss. 16　I'll be handling this. 17　Your Honor, as you know Mr. Kwok and GTV have what 18　the First Department called heavy burden to overcome PAX's 19　right to be represented by Counsel of his choice. 20　It is a three prong test they have to meet to 21　establish a rebuttable pry assumes rebuttable for 22　disqualification. 23　First requirement we talked about is a prior 24　attorney-client relationship. Mr. Kwok can't meet it. We 25　all agree he was never Cahill's client. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- 1　So Kwok argues that he had a de facto 2　attorney-client relationship with Cahill because there was 3　joint defense group. Cahill represented GTV. And Kwok 4　shared certain information with Cahill. 5　The problem which was alluded to before, is that 6　there's no basis in New York Law for disqualification under 7　this type of joint defense argument. 8　Professor Simon, who your Honor has recognized, is 9　perhaps the leading expert in this field. His 2000 Ph 10　treatise doesn't have anything to support this in New York 11　Law under this type of a setting. 12　The best Professor Simon can say, that is in 13　Paragraph 45 of his opening report, is that Courts rule on 14　disqualification motions, in this context, on a case by case 15　basis. That is the best he can do here. 16　But what Professor Simon doesn't say, is that no 17　New York case ever disqualified a lawyer in this context. 18　Mr. Kwok cites cases it can be done, but they don't 19　do it. Their key case they focused on is the William versus 20　Abraham Construction Corporation case, cited at Page 11 of 21　Mr. Kwok's opening brief. It is a Fifth Circuit case from 22　1977. It is obviously not binding on your Honor. 23　Mr. Kwok and Professor Simon talk about the case 24　being seminal. What they don't mention is the key fact that 25　makes it entirely different from the case here, your Honor. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　They are the same lawyer switch sides. It is would be like 2　Mr. Bondi the Cahill lawyer who represented GTV coming into 3　this case to represent PAX. I don't know what Mr. Bondi 4　learned. Whatever he learned, I agree, he could not unlearn 5　it. There would be no possibility in the screen. 6　Here, as we discussed, there's a screen. Everyone 7　has put in affidavits saying that I, and my only one team 8　member, this is not a far reaching out-- my one team member, 9　we don't have any confidential information and never 10　discussed this case. 11　So the lack of an attorney-client relationship with 12　Mr. Kwok is dispositive. That is why they have GTV in here. 13　We do agree GTV was a Cahill client. 14　GTV, however, can't meet the other prongs. Let's 15　go through those. 16　Substantial relationship. It is that Cahill's 17　prior representation of GTV and its current representation 18　of PAX must be substantially related and the First 19　Department has said that means the issues might be identical 20　to or, essentially, the same as those in the prior case. 21　On their face these matters have nothing to do with 22　each other. The government investigation was about GTV and 23　Mr. Kwok allegedly committing some sort of investor fraud. 24　This is a breach of contract case against only Mr. 25　Kwok. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- GTV also makes the argument that that special proceeding somehow is substantially related. Well, that was a proceeding about the information league. You remember, that didn't turn out to be information league. It was information that was available on the Internet. And when GTV argued before you, your Honor, on that very proceeding, because they were trying to keep the case away from you. They said the cases weren't related. They said the cases have nothing to do with each other because they involved different facts, different claims, and different parts. In any event, your Honor, Cahill did not represent GTV in the special proceeding. You know, I was arguing against Ms. Hyland in the special proceeding. So, because they can't meet substantial relationship, they move to sort of another way that we agree, another way to meet this prong, is by arguing that the material is --the information is material and necessary to the collection efforts in this case. And it is not, your Honor. 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER In order for information about GTV --and that is the only specific information that I've heard about in any of these papers --it is GTV related information. Mr. Siegel said well, there may be information about some other entities that may be relevant at some point. We're talking -Proceedings 1　about GTV. That, to my understanding, is what they have 2　identified -- 3　MR. SIEGEL: --I need to make clear -- 4　THE COURT: Don't interrupt Mr. Siegel -- 5　MR. SIEGEL: --that I did not mention other items 6　because they're sealed. 7　THE COURT: Don't interrupt. 8　MR. MOSS: In order for the information to be 9　material and necessary PAX must be trying to enforce against 10　GTV. Mr. Kwok and GTV double down on that argument. They 11　say that is happening here, Judge, right. 12　Page 15 of his opening brief, Mr. Kwok says quite 13　incredibly the government investigations and the PAX action 14　both center on Kwok's purported relationship with GTV. 15　They say our case centers on the relationship with 16　GTV. 17　GTV says quote "PAX is laying the groundwork to 18　enforce the judgment or take other affirmative actions 19　against GTV and is targeting --targeting GTV's assets for 20　judgment collection under an alterego theory." 21　The problem with the argument, your Honor, is that 22　it doesn't have a basis in reality. Because if PAX were 23　pursuing GTV, PAX would be pursuing GTV. We know what that 24　looks like. We're pursuing the yacht and we just spent an 25　hour on the yacht and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER the yacht. We're pursuing the apartment and we have a vail piercing trial coming up at some point on the apartment. And your Honor said I've been talking about the yacht and the apartment for years. Mr. Siegel did not say Cahill has information about those assets, about those assets. That is what this case is about and has been about for the last year. And, importantly, your Honor, PAX has not pursued GTV. Even though it had a really good opportunity to do so. The special proceeding Ms. Hyland is talking about - remember, we had information about bank accounts. We thought they were Mr. Kwok's. We asked Mr. Kwok about them. Then GTV came on and said actually, no they are my bank accounts, they belong to GTV not Mr. Kwok. We had one special proceeding, still had the information, and never ever ever did anything with it, your Honor, ever. PAX has never pursued GTV. And it is stipulating in an agreed order that we put in front of the Court that it will not pursue GTV. We take orders of the Court seriously on our side, your Honor. And we are willing to put this into a Court Order. I'm going to add that GTV made statements that we 1　are targeting it, and that we are pursuing its assets and 2　laying the ground work after we put in our stipulation that 3　said we're not doing that precise thing. They read our 4　brief and said it anyway. 5　The third prong is material adversity. There has 6　to be adversity between GTV and PAX. For the reasons I just 7　covered, Judge, there isn't. 8　In terms of the rebuttable presumption, even if Mr. 9　Kwok could satisfied these elements or GTV could satisfy 10　these elements, we can rebut the presumption with a screen. 11　We have five affidavits from officers of the Court 12　saying that me, Ms. Rydell, the only two members of the team 13　never received GTV confidential information, we don't plan 14　to. 15　Everyone agrees Professor Simon does not rebut 16　this. And he actually wrote an article on this. Everyone agrees a screen can suffice under certain circumstances. 18　He wrote an article in 2002 asking if screens can 19　cure ethical conflicts in New York. He admitted that the 20　Court of Appeals implied the presumption can be rebutted. 21　We have a large firm and ethical wall. They don't touch 22　that issue on reply after we cite the article. 23　You have the affidavits here. And here you have 24　the added safeguard that in December of 2020 there was 25　actually an information wall put in place, where everyone at -Proceedings- 1　Cahill who was working on GTV, they were the only people who 2　had access to the GTV information. Nobody did. That screen 3　was in place a year before I got there. If I joined Cahill 4　a year earlier I wouldn't even have been able to access 5　GTV's information, if I wanted to. Finally, your Honor, on the balance of the equities. PAX has a strong right to counsel of its choice. It is a five year old case. I've been doing this for a long-time, I have a lot of institutional knowledge. Things come up like an evidentiary hearing in two weeks time --in two weeks time that PAX needs to prepare for. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On the other side of the coin, your Honor, there's no legitimate interest. It is gamesmanship. I've said it before I'll say it again the Mayors (phonetic) case, First Department, cited on Page 20 of our opposition says gamesmanship is not legit interest. We know it is gamesmanship based on the history of the actors in this case. We know it is gamesmanship because we are still here talking about this, even though we have sworn that we have no confidential information and that even if anything had, PAX will agree in a Court Order to not go after GTV. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'll hear the movement five minutes each to respond. I want to address a few points raised by Mr. Moss. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　First of all, this idea that PAX wasn't targeting 2　GTV for judgment enforcement is belied by PAX's own 3　documents. All of the subpoena attached as debtor-related 4　entity lists and GTV is right on the list. 5　I would also add when I -- when we became involved 6　in that special proceeding, I had multiple conversations 7　with Mr. Moss about the leak of that confidential 8　information and how it got into PAX's hands and never once 9　did Mr. Moss ever assure me that PAX was not going after 10　GTV. He said the opposite. He said -- 11　THE COURT: Counsel, he's stipulating that PAX will 12　take no action against GTV. 13　MS. HYLAND: Thank you. 14　THE COURT: There's a stipulation on the Court 15　record that PAX will not pursue GTV in any way, shape, or 16　form either with respect to discovery or with respect to 17　enforcement. That is correct, Mr. Moss? 18　MS. HYLAND: I don't agree with characterization. 19　MR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor, that's correct. 20　MS. HYLAND: Can I address that? 21　THE COURT: Yes. 22　MS. HYLAND: What I disagree with in that 23　characterization in any way, shape, or form. Because they 24　have --PAX has left itself a huge out from that stipulation 25　by saying, if they ever determine that indirectly or DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER -Proceedings directly Kwok has, in their view, transferred assets directly or indirect to GTV, they can then drag GTV into court. THE COURT: Let's clarify something. Okay. I want to be clear. I have the highest regard for Mr. Moss, I have the highest regard for his advocacy and his integrity. I'm understanding Mr. Moss to be stipulating on behalf of PAX that there are no circumstances under which PAX will take any action whatsoever with respect to GTV I have the highest regard for Mr. Moss, I have the highest regard for his advocacy and his integrity. I'm understanding Mr. Moss to be stipulating on behalf of PAX that there are no circumstances under which PAX will take any action whatsoever with respect to GTV irrespective of whether PAX believes that Mr. Kwok is misusing GTV, or has assets with GTV, or is acting in concert with GTV. I want to be clear about this, Mr. Moss. MR. MOSS: Yes, let me be clear. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER The stipulation is that we will not take any action against GTV. There is a carveout that we put in. The carveout is after today, if Mr. Kwok, to take advantage of our stipulation transfers assets to GTV to try to hide them, and we have information based on that, we have to come to the Court and ask for permission to go after him. If the Court doesn't want to decides that issue we'll go to an arbitrator and we will live with that decision, it will not be in our discretion. I cannot agree to something where tomorrow Mr. Kwok says, let me pledge every asset that I have to GTV now that PAX has made this stipulation. -Proceedings- MR. SARNOFF: One more clarification. Cahill would not be involved in any aspect of that proceeding. If Mr. Kwok, to take advantage of this situation, were to transfer, thereafter, and, you know, it would have to be extraordinary circumstances and the Court would find that, Cahill would be walled off entirely and O'Melveny alone would pursue that. I think that is the way the stipulate is intended to be prepared. If I am mistaken, please correct me. MR. MOSS: That is correct. THE COURT: I want to be very clear Mr. Moss. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I'm mildly concerned that my high regard and respect for you is -- my judgment about this -- you are about as close to the line as you could possibly be with respect to this issue. So, insofar as this stipulation is concerned, from my perspective, the disposition of the motion depends on you having nothing whatsoever to do with GTV in any way, shape, or form; including collaborating with O'Melveny, including discussions with third parties, including any court filings, including sharing any information; zip, zero, nada. 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER MR. MOSS: I understand that, your Honor. I don't even anticipate that O'Melveny will need to be involved with GTV. I personally will not be. I'm saying that right here 1　absolutely 100 percent, your Honor, nothing to do with them. 2　THE COURT: All right. I interrupted counsel. 3　MS. HYLAND: The concern that we have is not fully 4　resolved by the stipulation even with that Mr. Moss' 5　statement because there's two concerns here. 6　One is that there are 25, 26 lawyers at Cahill in 7　the New York office that have access to all of this 8　extensive information. In this very proceeding where Cahill 9　was defending itself from a disqualification motion, it 10　filed publicly on the Court System incorrectly confidential 11　information without even checking the correct box for 12　sealing. Information could be disclosed inadvertently by 13　mistakes. And that is very possible and very likely to 14　happen in an office where 25 attorneys or 26 lawyers have 15　access to that information. And that is exactly why the 16　rule doesn't permit screening to cure this conflict. 17　GTV is the client who is -- who needs to be 18　protected here and they shouldn't have to rely on, you know, 19　Cahill being perfectly able to execute this process because 20　they have not done so so far. 21　It is not fair to require GTV to rely on all of 22　these assurances. They have no way of testing them or 23　making sure that these are being handled correctly. And 24　everything that we have seen so far points to the opposite. 25　That is why the stipulation is inappropriate. Because it is DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　not a contract waiver from a client. It is stipulation 2　between PAX's two lawyers that they're agreeing to 3　something. It is not a conflict waiver that would be 4　necessary to waive this. 5　In our view, on behalf of GTV, we don't believe the 6　stipulation or screen cures this conflict and 7　disqualification is required. 8　MR. MOSS: If I may in people can make mistakes. 9　There's a difference between making mistakes 10　internally, when you have screens set up in place and when 11　you're required to actually file information pubically on a 12　Docket System and have sealing. We -- the mistake happened, 13　nobody saw the information and the mistake happened because 14　we were in the position of having to make this filing in 15　response to the motion. Mistakes are not happening 16　internally. 17　THE COURT: Look, Mr. Moss, I really do have utmost 18　respect for you as an advocate and the utmost respect for 19　you in terms of your integrity; and I recognize and accept 20　that it is prejudicial to PAX for PAX to be deprived of your 21　extensive experience and knowledge about the issues in this 22　case. But I just think that, in the long run, it is in the 23　interest of judicial economy, certainty, and appearance of 24　propriety, for Cahill to be not involved in the further 25　prosecution of this case; I say that with regret. But this DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1　may in fact be tactical, but there are just a couple of red 2　flags here. And the worse thing that can happen in this 3　case would be for the case to be prosecuted for another year 4　and then for GTV and/or Mr. Kwok to successfully argue that 5　Cahill should have been disqualified. And, so, I 6　reluctantly come to that conclusion and I'm going to grant 7　GTV TV's motion. 8　THE COURT: Anything else before the Court today? 9　MS. HYLAND: No, your Honor. 10　MR. SIEGEL: No, your Honor I think that is more 11　than enough. 12　THE COURT: All right. We'll issue an order 13　MEMORALIZING everything that took place during the preceding 14　two hours. There's a lot of gamesmanship in this case, 15　which I don't appreciate. But one way or the another we're 16　going to search for the truth and resolve this case. 17　MR. MOSS: I do have one thing. I just wanted to 18　thank the Court for its kind words. And to say that it has 19　been a privileged to be before the Court so many times. 20　Thank you. 21　THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Moss. You're an 22　exceptional advocate, among the very best I've ever seen 23　both in private practice and on the bench. And it is with 24　deep frustration that I'm issuing the order that I've just 25　described. DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 72 of 85 > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 71 Be well, stay safe. I'll see some of you on February 7th. You could order the transcript. THE COURT: (Whereupon, the proceedings concluded.) \* \* \* It is hereby certified that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK, RPR Official Court Reporter REMOTE SO ORDERED January 25, 2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 73 of accommodations [1]　55:20　49:19, 50:3 \$　4　- 37:12　advocacy [1] - 66:7　amount [3] - 36:12, \$500 [1] - 12:13　4 [1] - 27:11　according [1] - 54:22　advocate [2] - 69:18,　38:1, 56:7 \$500,000 [1] - 26:13　40's [1] - 7:24　account [1] - 38:24　70:22　analysis [2] - 39:20, 45 [3] - 2:6, 52:16,　accounting [1] - 37:17　affiants [1] - 34:7　41:12 1　58:13　accounts [6] - 7:15,　Affidavit [1] - 38:22　analyzed [1] - 49:15 485 [1] - 2:2　38:23, 51:12, 51:18,　affidavit [9] - 12:24,　analyzing [1] - 49:13 10 [2] - 18:17, 41:11　4:15 [1] - 6:15　62:12, 62:15　16:24, 23:18, 27:17,　and-a-half [1] - 50:13 100 [3] - 6:5, 54:19,　4th [1] - 5:5　accuracy [1] - 16:18　31:12, 32:24, 33:5,　answer [3] - 14:25, 68:1　accurate [1] - 71:8　40:15, 48:24　16:16, 40:18 10005 [2] - 1:21, 2:11　5　acquires [1] - 6:6　affidavits [14] - 9:14,　anticipate [2] - 14:6, 10017 [1] - 2:3　acting [1] - 66:12　13:12, 31:13, 33:11,　67:24 10036 [1] - 1:18　5 [1] - 46:4　action [7] - 30:11,　33:12, 33:13, 33:23,　anyway [2] - 10:22, 10111 [1] - 2:6　50 [1] - 6:15　52:23, 55:1, 61:13,　34:5, 34:7, 35:24,　63:4 10th [2] - 10:3, 29:21　5223 [1] - 41:21　65:12, 66:10, 66:15　46:5, 59:7, 63:11,　apartment [5] - 5:18, 11 [2] - 19:1, 58:20　5225 [8] - 8:13, 12:17,　actions [1] - 61:18　63:23　5:23, 62:2, 62:3, 12 [1] - 18:14　17:12, 17:14, 25:12,　actors [1] - 64:17　affiliated [1] - 39:24　62:5 13 [1] - 21:7　25:21, 26:9, 28:18　actual [1] - 40:17　affirmation [4] - 18:2,　apologize [1] - 45:6 14 [2] - 1:11, 21:8　add [2] - 62:25, 65:5　18:10, 48:20, 55:6　apparent [1] - 21:14 15 [1] - 61:12　6　added [1] - 63:24　affirmed [2] - 4:19,　Appeals [1] - 63:20 17 [1] - 6:15　6 [2] - 38:25, 41:24　addition [1] - 54:24　28:17　appeals [1] - 25:5 1977 [1] - 58:22　61 [1] - 1:1　additional [1] - 28:21　affirming [1] - 13:6 afternoon [4] - 15:8,　appear [4] - 22:22, 652077/2017 [1] - 1:10　address [11] - 6:4,　25:10, 35:4, 43:16　22:24, 33:7, 52:12 2　15:14, 17:24, 23:24,　aggressive [1] - 48:22　appearance [1] - 2 [2] - 18:24, 48:25　7　29:14, 43:20, 45:14,　ago [1] - 11:9　69:23 Appellate [10] - 12:5, 20 [2] - 16:1, 64:15　47:15, 54:12, 64:25, 65:20　agree [7] - 57:25,　15:15, 16:22, 17:3, 20-something [1] - 6:1　7 [2] - 1:17, 39:6　addressed [1] - 16:20　59:4, 59:13, 60:17,　24:16, 25:1, 25:6, 2000 [1] - 58:9　710 [1] - 6:14　addressing [1] - 43:17　64:21, 65:18, 66:23　25:24, 28:16 2002 [1] - 63:18　750 [1] - 38:25　adduce [2] - 15:20,　agreed [2] - 37:2,　applicable [1] - 8:15 2006 [2] - 5:9, 5:13　753 [2] - 25:17, 25:20　18:1　62:20　application [1] - 20:9 2007 [1] - 13:14　753(a)(3 [1] - 17:7　adjourned [2] - 30:13,　agreeing [1] - 69:2　applied [1] - 39:21 2014 [3] - 5:13, 6:16,　764 [1] - 38:25　30:14　agreement [8] - 12:23,　applies [2] - 33:2, 18:19　7th [2] - 30:9, 71:2　adjust [1] - 30:6　36:8, 45:4, 46:3,　41:13 2015 [5] - 5:17, 8:24,　admissibility [1] -　46:7, 46:10, 46:15,　apply [6] - 16:21, 12:10, 18:13, 18:15　8　16:17　52:6　17:15, 24:15, 28:19, 2016 [1] - 38:21　8 [2] - 49:14, 49:20　admissible [2] - 9:9,　Agreement [2] -　28:22, 57:2 2017 [2] - 6:15, 7:20　80 [1] - 54:19　18:21　13:14, 46:7　applying [1] - 17:19 2020 [7] - 7:1, 9:18,　admission [2] - 9:20,　agrees [2] - 63:15,　appreciate [6] - 16:15, 19:9, 21:22, 27:9,　9　19:17　63:17　24:22, 25:7, 43:7, 41:23, 63:24　admissions [1] - 9:22　ahead [2] - 44:10,　43:15, 70:15 2021 [1] - 41:23 2022 [1] - 1:11　908 [1] - 36:5　admits [1] - 14:13　56:18　approach [1] - 37:9 20th [1] - 27:9　admitted [3] - 18:10,　Aiao [2] - 18:16, 18:22 AIAO [1] - 18:17　approached [1] - 25 [2] - 68:6, 68:14　A　31:11, 63:19　allegation [3] - 19:1,　45:17 26 [2] - 68:6, 68:14　a/k/a [7] - 1:6, 1:6, 1:7,　adult [2] - 20:19, 24:4　19:3, 49:22　appropriate [8] - 5:1, 14:24, 15:18, 27:2, 27th [2] - 37:25, 39:6　1:7　advance [3] - 23:6, 33:20, 33:21　allegedly [2] - 4:16,　38:21, 57:2, 57:6, 28 [1] - 2:10　abide [1] - 14:7　advanced [1] - 31:21　59:23　57:10 2nd [6] - 30:8, 30:24,　ability [1] - 17:21　advantage [4] - 53:12,　ALLIANCE [1] - 1:2　arbitrator [1] - 66:22 31:2, 31:3, 31:8,　able [4] - 32:8, 53:10,　56:2, 66:17, 67:4　Alliance [5] - 3:8,　argue [2] - 41:14, 70:4 32:23　64:4, 68:19　adverse [5] - 10:5,　3:20, 4:2, 21:4,　argued [9] - 17:11, Abraham [1] - 58:20　31:17, 32:8, 50:6,　51:15　17:15, 28:18, 38:3, 3　absolutely [2] - 10:24,　53:19　allow [1] - 11:12　38:19, 39:2, 49:21, 68:1　adversed [1] - 46:12　alluded [1] - 58:5　50:25, 60:6 32 [1] - 1:20　accept [1] - 69:19　adversity [3] - 53:18,　alone [2] - 18:3, 67:8　argues [1] - 58:1 36 [1] - 39:1　access [6] - 49:8,　63:5, 63:6　alterego [2] - 36:22,　arguing [5] - 38:14, 3rd [2] - 30:18　49:11, 64:2, 64:4,　advice [1] - 55:17　61:20　38:16, 40:25, 60:13, 68:7, 68:15　advised [3] - 18:22,　Amendment [8] -　60:17 accommodate [1] -　48:3, 48:11　26:25, 32:7, 32:20,　argument [13] - 3:23, 30:6　advising [2] - 52:10,　32:21, 47:14, 47:19,　9:3, 10:7, 16:23, dar NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 74 of INDEX NO. 652077/2017 22:3, 39:3, 41:4,　Attorneys [5] - 1:19,　58:12, 58:15, 70:22　C　46:8 54:10, 57:11, 58:7,　1:22, 2:4, 2:8, 2:13　between [12] - 5:13,　center [1] - 61:14 60:1, 61:10, 61:21　attorneys [4] - 47:6,　24:2, 38:9, 41:2,　Cahill [61] - 3:8, 3:22,　centers [1] - 61:15 arguments [3] - 8:4,　47:8, 47:10, 68:14　41:23, 44:24, 45:4,　43:18, 43:24, 44:5,　certain [5] - 23:1, 17:25, 39:7　attorneys's [1] - 47:4　46:3, 56:3, 63:6,　44:8, 44:12, 44:22,　29:24, 31:2, 58:4, arising [1] - 52:5　authenticate [2] - 9:25　69:2, 69:9　45:5, 46:4, 46:5,　63:17 arrangement [1] -　authorities [1] - 5:15　beyond [2] - 39:16,　46:8, 46:12, 47:2,　certainly [2] - 15:13, 47:16　authority [2] - 6:20,　57:1　47:12, 47:15, 47:23,　52:1 article [4] - 6:24,　17:16　big [1] - 52:3　48:2, 48:3, 48:11,　certainty [1] - 69:23 63:16, 63:18, 63:22　available [4] - 14:25,　bills [1] - 42:13　48:12, 48:16, 49:2,　certified [1] - 71:7 Asia [1] - 5:16　33:12, 40:9, 60:5　binding [1] - 58:22　49:5, 49:7, 49:11,　characterization [2] - ASIA [1] - 1:2　Avenue [1] - 2:2　boat [24] - 6:10, 6:16,　49:12, 49:15, 50:1,　65:18, 65:23 aspect [1] - 67:2　avoid [1] - 20:22　6:24, 7:3, 7:6, 7:20,　52:3, 52:24, 53:1,　Chase [1] - 38:24 aspects [2] - 45:12,　aware [1] - 49:3　8:5, 11:19, 11:22,　53:2, 53:11, 53:22,　check [1] - 10:23 55:12　18:11, 18:19, 19:15,　54:24, 55:7, 56:5, 56:11, 57:4, 57:8,　checking [1] - 68:11 asserting [1] - 25:5　B　19:20, 19:23, 20:2,　57:13, 57:14, 58:2,　Chief [1] - 48:19 assertion [1] - 22:25　BACHRACH [1] - 2:4　20:10, 24:10, 24:11,　58:3, 58:4, 59:2,　China [2] - 21:13, 22:6 assess [2] - 5:1, 5:2　backdrop [1] - 17:24　25:18, 25:19, 26:14, 28:8, 29:3, 32:14　59:13, 60:12, 62:5,　Chinese [1] - 18:25 assessment [1] -　background [1] - 3:11　boat's [1] - 23:18　64:1, 64:3, 67:2,　Chirnoid [3] - 12:13, 13:16　Baker [2] - 15:9, 43:13　Bondi [3] - 55:8, 59:2,　67:7, 68:6, 68:8,　12:18, 13:11 asset [19] - 6:22, 8:16, 8:25, 14:13, 14:14,　BAKER [1] - 2:5　59:3　68:19, 69:24, 70:5　Chirnoid's [1] - 12:18 17:4, 17:10, 17:12,　balance [1] - 64:6　Bondon [1] - 48:20　CAHILL [1] - 1:20　choice [2] - 57:19, 64:7 17:21, 20:15, 20:21,　bank [6] - 7:15, 35:7,　book [3] - 34:1, 34:4,　Cahill's [6] - 44:19,　choose [2] - 6:24, 22:1, 25:13, 40:10,　36:11, 43:1, 62:12,　34:6　44:24, 46:17, 50:2,　32:2 41:19, 45:1, 49:4,　62:14　Bossin [1] - 55:8　57:25, 59:16　chooses [1] - 14:19 66:24　banking [1] - 55:4　bought [1] - 6:16　cannot [1] - 66:23　choses [1] - 32:23 assets [18] - 10:4,　BARROW [1] - 2:7　box [1] - 68:11　capacity [1] - 20:3　circle [2] - 47:8, 47:24 11:11, 32:10, 36:23,　BARRY [1] - 1:14　Brad [1] - 48:20　Capital [12] - 2:4, 7:8,　Circuit [1] - 58:21 36:24, 37:3, 48:8,　based [6] - 9:12,　breach [1] - 59:24　34:23, 35:10, 35:17,　circumstances [3] - 48:24, 51:10, 51:17,　21:13, 24:1, 36:14,　break [2] - 15:3, 50:24　35:25, 36:3, 36:12,　63:17, 66:9, 67:6 53:24, 61:19, 62:6,　64:17, 66:19　brief [12] - 5:5, 8:19,　36:22, 37:16, 37:17,　circumstantial [1] - 63:1, 66:1, 66:12,　basis [7] - 19:5, 36:25,　18:23, 25:9, 26:21,　39:9　7:17 66:18　40:16, 49:2, 58:6,　27:11, 29:6, 35:3,　captain [3] - 7:19,　circus [1] - 32:3 assignee [1] - 22:5　58:15, 61:22　40:24, 58:21, 61:12,　11:8, 23:18 care [1] - 22:13　circus-like [1] - 32:3 associated [1] - 10:22　became [1] - 65:5　63:4　Carvallo [1] - 29:15　citation [1] - 27:1 assume [4] - 11:21,　become [1] - 47:1　briefed [1] - 17:11　carveout [2] - 66:16,　cite [2] - 8:24, 63:22 11:24, 22:25, 32:8　beginning [1] - 36:20　briefing [2] - 3:9,　66:17　cited [5] - 8:19, 17:16, assumed [1] - 18:17　behalf [7] - 3:19, 4:2,　28:21　case [52] - 3:16, 8:23,　27:11, 58:20, 64:15 assumes [1] - 57:21 assuming [2] - 32:12,　48:8, 51:11, 51:12,　briefings [1] - 5:4　12:15, 14:3, 14:9,　cites [1] - 58:18 57:10　66:9, 69:5 behavior [1] - 13:11　briefly [4] - 3:11, 5:7, 24:21, 35:9　17:18, 21:4, 22:16,　City [1] - 5:18 assurances [1] -　behind [1] - 35:2　briefs [1] - 3:10　24:20, 28:23, 31:24,　civil [1] - 14:17 68:22　belatedly [1] - 12:23　bring [2] - 10:4, 47:7　39:21, 39:22, 43:13,　CIVIL [1] - 1:1 assure [1] - 65:9　belied [1] - 65:2　brings [1] - 10:6　45:2, 48:6, 48:17,　Clade [4] - 8:23, 12:9, attach [2] - 6:24,　believes [3] - 14:23,　broad [2] - 41:20, 54:3　49:10, 49:17, 51:5,　12:12, 12:16 54:17　36:14, 66:11　brought [1] - 12:16　51:16, 51:23, 52:4,　claimed [1] - 19:10 claiming [1] - 16:14 attached [1] - 65:3　belong [1] - 62:15　bulk [1] - 4:20　52:7, 54:6, 55:12,　claims [2] - 8:5, 60:10 attempt [1] - 24:20　bench [3] - 34:2, 34:3,　burden [5] - 11:25,　57:9, 58:14, 58:17,　clammed [1] - 26:24 attempted [1] - 24:2　70:23　20:1, 23:24, 39:14,　58:19, 58:20, 58:21,　clarification [3] - 32:5, attests [1] - 23:19　beneficial [10] - 8:16,　57:18　58:23, 58:25, 59:3,　42:24, 67:1 attorney [9] - 43:25,　8:22, 9:2, 17:14,　business [6] - 22:2,　59:10, 59:20, 59:24,　clarify [2] - 50:23, 66:4 46:20, 46:21, 47:7,　17:19, 23:24, 24:5,　35:11, 36:16, 36:25,　60:7, 60:19, 61:15, 62:7, 64:8, 64:14,　class [1] - 30:11 53:5, 57:24, 58:2,　25:15, 29:9, 49:23　38:6, 49:17　64:18, 69:22, 69:25,　class-action [1] - 59:11　Beneficial [2] - 25:20,　buy [1] - 6:19　70:3, 70:14, 70:16　30:11 attorney's [1] - 47:5　26:9　buys [1] - 5:18　cases [3] - 58:18,　clear [17] - 4:21, 8:9, Attorney's [1] - 48:19　beneficially [2] - 5:6,　BVI [3] - 5:21, 14:12,　60:8, 60:9　8:10, 8:16, 8:20, attorney-client [6] -　6:21　21:5　categories [1] - 54:3　17:8, 18:4, 24:11, 46:20, 47:7, 53:5,　benefit [1] - 24:25　BY [5] - 1:18, 1:21,　caution [2] - 22:13,　25:13, 26:1, 33:9, 57:24, 58:2, 59:11　best [5] - 40:9, 44:14,　2:3, 2:7, 2:11 dar Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 75 of INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 34:14, 61:3, 66:5,　21:24, 30:8, 34:14　conflicts [1] - 63:19　24:11, 26:2　70:21, 71:4 66:13, 66:14, 67:12　completeness [2] -　confusion [1] - 12:3　copy [1] - 3:2　court [11] - 9:1, 12:25, clearly [1] - 28:7　26:20, 33:2　connection [5] -　corporate [1] - 53:24　13:7, 13:9, 19:2, client [18] - 44:4, 44:6,　complied [1] - 17:5　21:14, 38:13, 52:22,　CORPORATION [1] -　40:1, 45:11, 45:15, 44:7, 46:20, 46:21,　comply [4] - 14:12,　54:25　1:8　45:19, 66:3, 67:21 47:7, 53:5, 56:2,　14:24, 17:21, 25:5　consent [2] - 56:24　Corporation [1] -　Court [46] - 1:14, 2:22, 56:20, 56:23, 57:24,　component [1] - 25:19　consented [1] - 56:23　58:20　6:23, 7:14, 9:15, 57:25, 58:2, 59:11,　conceal [1] - 36:1　consents [1] - 56:23　correct [9] - 26:1,　11:16, 13:13, 14:23, 59:13, 68:17, 69:1　concedes [1] - 56:5　consequential [1] -　40:2, 41:15, 44:9,　16:16, 17:16, 17:21, clients [1] - 53:1　conceivable [2] -　41:8　65:17, 65:19, 67:10,　17:23, 17:25, 19:9, close [9] - 6:17, 12:10,　20:23, 38:6　consider [2] - 19:12,　67:11, 68:11　19:12, 19:22, 21:5, 13:23, 24:15, 36:21,　concern [1] - 68:3　31:13　correctly [2] - 28:16,　21:24, 22:17, 24:18, 39:5, 40:11, 48:23,　concerned [3] - 40:5,　consideration [4] -　68:23　27:13, 29:9, 30:3, 67:15　67:13, 67:17　5:15, 6:8, 27:5,　coterminous [1] -　36:4, 37:22, 38:4, closing [2] - 5:15,　concerning [3] -　28:10　48:7　40:9, 42:1, 45:24, 14:5　47:13, 48:8, 51:13　considered [1] - 33:25　counsel [23] - 7:19,　50:12, 50:16, 62:20, coin [1] - 64:12　concerns [3] - 22:7,　constitutes [1] - 20:14　10:2, 13:24, 14:7,　62:22, 62:23, 63:11, coincidence [1] - 27:7　16:18, 16:20, 30:3,　63:20, 64:21, 65:14, collaborating [1] -　22:11, 68:5　constitutional [1] -　34:22, 36:17, 39:2,　66:20, 66:21, 67:6, 67:19　concert [1] - 66:13　47:21　39:23, 40:23, 42:17,　68:10, 70:8, 70:18, collateral [2] - 41:1,　concluded [2] - 13:14,　Construction [1] -　45:22, 46:18, 47:13,　70:19, 71:13 41:13　71:5　58:20　51:22, 51:25, 52:16,　court's [1] - 13:6 colleague [1] - 30:2　conclusion [1] - 70:6　consulted [1] - 47:17　57:14, 64:7, 65:11,　Court's [6] - 4:3, collection [2] - 60:19,　conclusively [1] - 5:6　contained [1] - 16:12　68:2　13:16, 14:1, 14:2, concur [1] - 13:15　contemporary [1] -　Counsel [1] - 57:19　14:8, 17:6 61:20　condition [1] - 46:8　27:12　country [1] - 52:14　courtesy [1] - 56:19 colloquy [1] - 30:12　conditional [3] - 4:14,　contempt [10] - 3:5,　Courts [2] - 13:6, combine [1] - 7:17　17:6, 18:5　4:14, 14:17, 14:22,　COUNTY [1] - 1:1　58:13 combined [1] - 16:23　conduct [2] - 4:24,　15:7, 17:3, 17:8,　couple [3] - 28:13,　cousin [2] - 21:11, coming [2] - 59:2,　22:21　17:17, 17:22, 26:18　29:4, 70:1　21:12 62:3　conducting [2] -　contend [1] - 18:23　course [6] - 11:10,　covered [1] - 63:7 commencement [1] -　34:13, 54:5　contention [1] - 18:25　12:24, 14:7, 15:1,　covering [1] - 45:9 55:9　confer [4] - 30:2,　context [6] - 26:9,　33:1, 53:22　CPLR [6] - 8:13, comment [1] - 40:5　36:18, 37:2, 37:10　26:10, 41:5, 42:11,　COURT [85] - 1:1, 3:1,　12:17, 17:12, 40:1, committing [1] - 59:23　conference [2] -　58:14, 58:17　3:13, 3:16, 3:21,　40:3, 41:21 common [11] - 6:19,　29:21, 36:3　continue [1] - 46:1　3:25, 15:2, 15:6,　credited [1] - 18:10 22:1, 45:4, 46:3,　confidence [2] - 47:8,　Continued [2] - 1:23,　15:10, 15:19, 15:25, 46:10, 46:15, 46:21,　47:22　2:1　16:4, 16:6, 19:8,　creditor [4] - 8:15, 47:16, 48:16, 52:5,　confidences [1] -　contract [2] - 59:24,　19:16, 19:21, 20:4,　25:13, 41:6, 41:9 52:9　47:23　69:1　20:6, 22:14, 22:19,　creditors [1] - 39:19 communication [3] -　confidential [23] -　contrary [1] - 16:21　22:21, 23:7, 23:9,　critically [1] - 13:5 11:7, 46:20, 46:22　44:24, 45:9, 46:11,　control [26] - 4:17,　24:25, 25:4, 25:10,　cross [8] - 11:23, communications [4] -　46:16, 46:20, 47:9,　4:25, 6:21, 8:5, 14:3,　26:12, 26:16, 28:4,　31:14, 31:16, 32:15, 46:17, 46:19, 47:4,　47:23, 49:9, 49:13,　14:8, 15:17, 17:4,　28:12, 28:23, 29:10,　32:24, 33:7, 33:13, 49:13　49:16, 50:1, 53:11,　17:9, 17:20, 19:6,　29:16, 29:23, 30:5,　34:6 companies [3] - 36:7,　53:23, 54:2, 54:13,　20:15, 23:16, 23:17,　30:12, 30:19, 30:23,　cross-examination [5] 36:8, 39:18　54:23, 55:25, 56:7,　23:23, 24:12, 24:13,　31:6, 31:8, 31:22,　- 31:14, 32:24, 33:7, company [4] - 5:9,　59:9, 63:13, 64:20,　24:14, 26:5, 26:7,　32:13, 32:21, 33:6,　33:13, 34:6 7:8, 27:5, 35:12　65:7, 68:10　28:8, 31:25, 33:15,　33:10, 33:21, 34:17,　cross-examine [1] - compel [2] - 38:1,　confidentiality [2] -　34:8, 34:11, 45:15　34:25, 35:4, 39:11,　32:15 39:25　47:5, 53:20　controlled [4] - 4:17,　39:16, 40:22, 42:20,　cross-examined [1] - compelled [1] - 37:13　confidentially [2] -　18:5, 35:17, 35:21　43:2, 43:8, 43:11,　31:16 compelling [1] - 41:16　48:11, 52:9　controlling [1] - 8:1　43:22, 44:2, 44:4,　cure [5] - 56:22, compellingly [1] -　confirm [1] - 3:5　controls [4] - 5:6, 8:9,　44:8, 44:10, 45:25,　56:25, 57:2, 63:19, 40:10　confirmed [4] - 10:1,　14:13, 49:23　50:11, 50:18, 50:22,　68:16 complaint [5] - 6:23,　11:13, 42:18, 47:12　conversation [2] -　51:21, 51:25, 52:15,　cures [1] - 69:6 6:25, 9:19, 27:9,　conflate [1] - 22:11　55:7, 55:11　52:19, 54:8, 57:11,　curiosity [1] - 19:8 27:10　conflict [9] - 56:5,　conversations [1] -　61:4, 61:7, 64:23,　current [5] - 19:25, complete [3] - 24:22,　56:13, 56:16, 56:22,　65:6　65:11, 65:14, 65:21,　20:8, 51:12, 56:2, 24:23, 49:11　56:25, 57:2, 68:16,　convincing [6] - 4:21,　66:4, 67:12, 68:2,　59:17 completely [3] -　69:3, 69:6　8:11, 17:9, 18:4,　69:17, 70:8, 70:12,　customarily [1] - 46:9 dar Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 76 of NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 efforts [5] - 38:15, D　68:9 defense [2] - 58:3,　directed [1] - 3:2 direction [5] - 16:22,　Docket [4] - 6:14, 38:25, 69:12 date [7] - 29:11, 29:16,　58:7　23:21, 25:6, 27:16,　document [12] - 9:11, 29:20, 30:4, 30:13,　defer [1] - 51:24　27:22　11:23, 19:22, 21:18, 30:14, 31:8　deficient [1] - 57:3　directly [9] - 26:10,　24:2, 36:16, 37:1, dates [4] - 30:13,　definition [1] - 20:6　37:16, 44:7, 44:21,　38:6, 49:10, 51:15, 33:22, 33:23, 33:24　degrees [1] - 7:25　45:14, 52:4, 56:12,　55:5, 55:12 daughter [15] - 6:2,　Delaware [10] - 6:3,　66:1, 66:2　Document [1] - 36:4 6:5, 8:7, 8:25, 10:20,　7:5, 7:10, 8:6, 8:8,　director [3] - 5:13,　documents [34] - 11:19, 12:24, 20:19,　9:11, 10:15, 10:22,　35:19, 35:23　9:14, 9:16, 10:5, 21:1, 21:20, 22:7,　35:10, 35:12　directors [1] - 7:15　10:11, 10:17, 11:3, 22:22, 22:23, 24:4,　Delaware's [1] - 27:19　directs [1] - 33:20　11:11, 16:7, 16:24, 27:6　demand [1] - 36:25　disadvantage [1] -　20:16, 22:3, 22:15, daughter's [1] - 24:9　demonstrate [1] - 54:4　53:13　32:11, 37:3, 38:2, daughters [1] - 12:23　demonstrated [2] -　disagree [2] - 38:7,　41:20, 41:25, 42:1, DAVID [1] - 1:22　39:16, 42:17　65:22　48:3, 48:7, 48:13, day-to-day [1] - 49:2　denied [4] - 42:21,　disclaiming [1] - 46:9　48:14, 49:15, 49:16, days [2] - 29:12, 30:11　43:1, 43:2, 43:9　disclosed [1] - 68:12　50:9, 51:10, 51:11, de [1] - 58:1　Department [7] - 4:19,　disclosing [1] - 54:1　51:13, 51:16, 51:18, deal [3] - 29:9, 29:25,　4:24, 12:9, 13:6,　disclosure [2] - 50:3,　51:19, 52:10, 54:4, 52:3　57:18, 59:19, 64:15　55:3　65:3 dealing [5] - 13:2,　deponent [1] - 31:17　discovery [13] - 5:20,　dollar [2] - 6:2, 10:25 22:5, 28:24, 28:25,　deponents [1] - 31:15　32:18, 32:19, 38:20,　dollars [3] - 26:18, 46:25　depose [2] - 11:12,　40:21, 41:9, 41:21,　36:13, 53:3 DEBORAH [2] - 2:22,　33:3　42:5, 48:9, 50:9,　done [4] - 4:13, 56:11, 71:13　deposed [1] - 31:19　51:8, 54:14, 65:16　58:18, 68:20 debtor [20] - 8:21,　deposition [20] -　discredit [1] - 23:6　double [1] - 61:10 8:25, 12:12, 17:2,　26:24, 28:1, 28:2,　discrete [1] - 55:10　doubt [2] - 13:24, 17:13, 35:16, 35:18,　28:5, 28:7, 28:9,　discretion [1] - 66:23　39:17 35:19, 35:22, 36:23,　30:21, 30:24, 31:11,　discuss [1] - 51:23　down [1] - 61:10 37:4, 39:9, 39:25,　31:12, 31:20, 31:22,　discussed [7] - 25:12,　drag [1] - 66:2 51:17, 51:18, 54:15,　32:1, 32:10, 32:11,　36:2, 45:23, 51:1,　draw [1] - 32:1 54:18, 54:21, 65:3　32:15, 32:17, 33:2,　51:3, 59:6, 59:10　drawn [2] - 13:8, debtor's [2] - 8:14, 39:15　33:16, 33:17　discusses [1] - 8:13　31:18 due [3] - 16:9, 16:10, debtor-related [1] -　depositions [5] -　discussions [1] -　52:5 65:3　13:12, 30:11, 30:13, 34:10, 34:11　67:20　duly [1] - 35:10 December [1] - 63:24　deprived [1] - 69:20　disposition [1] - 67:17　during [3] - 36:17, decide [2] - 6:20,　Dept [1] - 8:24　dispositive [1] - 59:12　39:3, 70:13 45:20　described [1] - 70:25　dispute [3] - 4:25, 13:8, 15:17　duties [1] - 43:25 decided [4] - 6:17,　descriptions [2] -　disqualification [11] -　duty [5] - 44:7, 44:20, 6:18, 37:22, 50:2　53:25, 54:1　52:4, 52:14, 53:8,　44:23, 47:5, 52:5 decides [1] - 66:21　desire [1] - 44:12　53:16, 55:24, 57:13, decision [7] - 12:9,　detail [1] - 54:1　57:22, 58:6, 58:14,　E 13:7, 38:12, 47:13,　determination [1] -　68:9, 69:7 47:19, 66:22　17:20　disqualified [2] -　e-mail [4] - 7:15, 10:2, declare [1] - 39:24　determine [2] - 17:4,　58:17, 70:5　10:24, 11:23 declared [1] - 19:23　65:25　disqualify [2] - 3:22,　e-mails [1] - 46:24 decline [1] - 32:1　determined [1] - 39:11　43:18　early [2] - 4:19, 36:4 declined [1] - 37:8　devoted [1] - 49:12　disqualifying [1] -　easily [1] - 53:4 deem [1] - 49:18　difference [2] - 38:17,　52:23　economy [1] - 69:23 deemed [2] - 13:3,　69:9　disregarded [2] -　EDWARD [1] - 1:21 34:9　different [8] - 39:18,　4:14, 4:22　Edward [2] - 3:8, deep [1] - 70:24　43:20, 43:21, 52:25,　dissolve [1] - 4:25　57:15 Defendant [4] - 2:8,　58:25, 60:10, 60:11　distinction [1] - 38:9　effect [1] - 12:24 17:5, 21:11, 22:5　diligence [1] - 43:15　District [1] - 48:19　effective [1] - 56:25 Defendant's [1] -　direct [9] - 31:11,　Division [7] - 15:15,　effectively [2] - 36:22, 21:20　32:24, 33:5, 33:7,　16:22, 17:3, 24:16,　38:15 Defendants [1] - 1:9　33:10, 33:11, 33:22,　25:1, 25:6, 28:16　effort [4] - 20:21, 37:6, defending [2] - 30:10,　34:5, 34:7　Division's [1] - 12:5　38:5, 48:23 dar 45:2, 49:18, 54:5, 60:19 eight [1] - 39:17 either [9] - 16:17, 45:23, 51:6, 53:10, 53:11, 53:12, 55:24, 55:25, 65:16 element [5] - 53:5, 53:8, 53:9, 53:17, 53:18 elements [2] - 63:9, 63:10 employee [5] - 6:11, 19:4, 26:23, 26:25, 35:25 employees [4] - 5:14, 7:14, 10:18, 22:2 employer [1] - 18:24 encrypted [1] - 49:13 end [3] - 29:14, 29:22, 53:18 ended [1] - 55:5 ends [2] - 27:6, 29:20 enforce [3] - 38:5, 61:9, 61:18 enforcement [5] - 45:2, 49:4, 54:5, 65:2, 65:17 engage [1] - 44:21 engaged [2] - 44:7, 44:8 enjoyed [1] - 24:9 Enriquez [1] - 35:24 entered [1] - 12:14 entirely [3] - 12:7, 58:25, 67:7 entities [18] - 4:16, 21:15, 49:17, 49:22, 49:24, 50:4, 50:7, 51:1, 51:3, 51:6, 51:14, 51:20, 54:18, 54:19, 54:20, 54:21, 60:25 entitled [2] - 10:5, 41:9 entity [13] - 7:6, 18:12, 18:15, 18:18, 21:6, 21:7, 21:21, 21:25, 39:23, 41:10, 51:1, 54:16, 65:4 entrust [1] - 47:9 environment [2] - 22:8, 22:12 equities [1] - 64:7 equity [1] - 6:6 erected [1] - 57:3 ERICA [1] - 2:7 erroneously [1] - 19:23 INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 77 of ESQ [11] - 1:18, 1:21,　34:4, 34:6　family [2] - 22:7, 24:13　flags [1] - 70:2　general [1] - 53:25 1:22, 2:3, 2:4, 2:7,　exhibits [5] - 18:2,　fantastic [1] - 27:7　flat [1] - 14:4　generally [1] - 21:9 2:7, 2:8, 2:11, 2:12,　18:7, 18:9, 33:24, 2:12　34:5　far [4] - 41:3, 59:8,　flees [1] - 5:16　Geneva [1] - 5:19 68:20, 68:24　focus [2] - 38:8, 38:11　GENEVER [2] - 1:7, essence [1] - 47:4　existed [1] - 45:4　Far [1] - 27:11　focused [1] - 58:19　1:8 essentially [6] - 24:3,　existence [1] - 46:15　favor [1] - 37:23　follow [4] - 14:1,　Genova [3] - 7:24, 36:6, 36:17, 37:9,　existing [1] - 40:15　favors [1] - 52:14　14:16, 14:19, 53:10　7:25, 14:12 38:16, 59:20　exists [1] - 53:10　Featured [1] - 27:11　followed [1] - 13:25　gentleman [1] - 12:12 establish [4] - 18:10,　expecting [1] - 3:22　February [12] - 29:14,　following [1] - 45:3　given [3] - 24:18, 24:4, 56:6, 57:21　expense [1] - 41:8　29:21, 30:8, 30:9,　forced [1] - 14:16　29:19, 41:2 established [9] - 4:21,　expenses [4] - 39:5,　30:18, 30:24, 31:2,　foreclosed [2] - 32:10,　Glid [4] - 8:23, 12:9, 5:5, 18:7, 24:19,　41:7, 41:10, 42:14　31:3, 31:8, 32:23,　32:19　12:12, 12:16 35:9, 35:24, 44:19, 45:2, 57:7　experience [1] - 69:21　71:2　foregoing [1] - 71:7　globe [1] - 11:6 establishes [1] -　expert [2] - 43:14,　fees [3] - 7:7, 42:19,　forgive [1] - 23:11　Golden [26] - 7:4, 25:17　58:9　53:3　form [6] - 33:21,　11:2, 11:4, 36:9, establishing [3] -　explain [3] - 16:1,　few [2] - 7:21, 64:25　33:24, 46:23, 65:16,　36:12, 36:21, 38:1, 19:5, 24:8, 53:5　27:4, 56:13　fiduciary [6] - 44:7,　65:23, 67:19　38:9, 38:13, 38:14, estoppel [2] - 41:1,　express [1] - 43:23　44:20, 44:23, 46:9,　formed [2] - 6:3, 35:10　38:17, 38:22, 38:24, 41:13　expressed [1] - 15:16　46:16, 52:5　former [5] - 48:18,　39:4, 39:7, 40:10, 40:11, 41:3, 41:5, ethical [3] - 56:6,　extensive [4] - 55:18,　field [1] - 58:9　52:23, 53:1, 56:2,　41:7, 41:11, 41:16, 63:19, 63:21　56:7, 68:8, 69:21　Fifth [12] - 10:1, 11:10,　56:20　41:18, 41:24, 42:10, ethics [1] - 43:14　extensively [1] - 56:7　13:21, 26:25, 32:6, 32:20, 32:21, 47:14,　forms [1] - 5:9　42:11 evade [1] - 39:18　extent [3] - 19:18,　47:19, 49:19, 50:3,　four [2] - 3:4, 37:18　Gordon [5] - 44:5, event [1] - 60:12　24:18, 35:7 extraordinarily [1] -　58:21　fours [1] - 12:10　44:22, 52:24, 57:13, evidence [23] - 4:21,　23:5　figure [1] - 8:1　frank [1] - 15:22　57:14 5:8, 6:13, 7:17, 8:3,　extraordinary [1] -　file [3] - 14:17, 37:13,　FRANKFURT [1] -　GORDON [1] - 1:20 8:11, 9:5, 9:9, 11:25,　67:6　69:11　2:10　governed [1] - 17:7 17:9, 18:4, 18:21,　filed [6] - 6:22, 9:19,　Frankfurt [3] - 12:15,　government [6] - 20:13, 23:22, 24:11,　F　19:2, 19:22, 20:20,　43:19, 52:21 fraud [1] - 59:23　44:25, 47:16, 48:18, 26:2, 29:2, 40:9,　68:10　fraught [1] - 13:10　48:22, 59:22, 61:13 40:14, 40:17, 40:20,　face [3] - 8:3, 22:12,　filing [3] - 19:9, 21:7,　free [3] - 30:8, 32:14　governs [1] - 17:12 42:8　59:21　69:14　Friday [1] - 14:16　grant [2] - 40:13, 70:6 evidentiary [18] - 9:4,　facie [5] - 4:16, 22:16,　filings [3] - 5:21,　friends [1] - 7:4　granted [1] - 13:8 9:6, 10:7, 11:15,　23:23, 24:19, 26:6　10:13, 67:21　front [2] - 20:9, 62:20　granting [1] - 57:12 12:4, 12:5, 13:1,　facing [1] - 22:6　finally [3] - 13:22,　frustration [2] - 40:6,　ground [2] - 37:7, 63:2 15:12, 15:16, 23:11,　fact [15] - 13:15,　14:21, 64:6　70:24　Groundhog [1] - 31:4 24:23, 25:1, 25:2,　13:19, 14:14, 21:19,　financial [4] - 36:16,　fulfilled [1] - 53:15　groundwork [1] - 33:18, 33:25, 34:2,　21:24, 22:4, 39:15,　37:1, 38:6, 55:4　full [3] - 18:11, 18:19,　61:17 61:25, 64:10　42:9, 47:15, 52:3,　financials [1] - 53:24　23:11　group [1] - 58:3 exact [2] - 41:12, 48:9　53:2, 53:16, 57:1,　firm [18] - 12:15, 15:9,　fully [2] - 14:13, 68:3　GTV [77] - 2:13, 43:20, exactly [1] - 68:15　58:24, 70:1　30:13, 37:17, 43:18,　FUND [1] - 1:2　48:1, 52:21, 53:2, examination [5] -　facto [1] - 58:1　43:19, 43:24, 44:5,　fundamental [1] - 42:9　53:13, 53:22, 54:2, 31:14, 32:24, 33:7,　factor [1] - 19:12　44:14, 44:23, 45:20,　funded [2] - 12:20,　54:15, 54:21, 54:24, 33:13, 34:6　facts [9] - 8:8, 24:8,　46:5, 50:6, 52:5,　39:9　55:9, 55:21, 56:11, examine [1] - 32:15　39:22, 44:15, 44:18,　52:21, 53:2, 63:21　funding [5] - 36:6,　56:12, 56:13, 56:14, examined [1] - 31:16　44:19, 45:10, 52:6,　firm's [2] - 43:24,　41:7, 41:10, 42:11,　56:16, 56:17, 56:18, example [1] - 6:13　60:10　44:12　42:12　56:23, 57:17, 58:3, examples [1] - 54:16　factual [3] - 16:23,　firms [2] - 46:8, 52:8　funds [5] - 21:9,　59:2, 59:12, 59:13, except [2] - 21:19,　17:25, 21:14　First [8] - 4:19, 4:24,　21:16, 36:12, 38:23,　59:14, 59:17, 59:22, 34:2　failed [1] - 25:5　8:23, 12:9, 13:5,　39:15　60:1, 60:6, 60:13, exceptional [1] -　fails [3] - 26:18, 28:8,　57:18, 59:18, 64:14　Funds [3] - 5:10,　60:21, 60:23, 61:1, 70:22　28:9　first [16] - 3:4, 8:5, 9:9,　18:13, 21:21　61:10, 61:14, 61:16, excuse [2] - 10:15,　failure [1] - 14:12　19:24, 25:11, 25:22,　61:17, 61:19, 61:23, 34:19　fair [1] - 68:21　28:15, 29:22, 36:18,　G　62:10, 62:14, 62:15, execute [1] - 68:19　faith [1] - 37:6　45:4, 53:4, 53:20,　62:19, 62:21, 62:25, exercise [1] - 32:3　fall [1] - 49:19　55:2, 57:8, 57:23,　game [1] - 36:15　63:6, 63:9, 63:13, Exhibit [4] - 18:14,　famed [2] - 13:15,　65:1　gamesmanship [5] -　64:1, 64:2, 64:21, 18:17, 19:1, 21:7　13:19　five [4] - 29:6, 63:11,　64:13, 64:16, 64:17,　65:2, 65:4, 65:10, exhibit [3] - 34:1,　familiar [1] - 13:7　64:8, 64:23　64:18, 70:14　65:12, 65:15, 66:2, dar 66:10, 66:12, 66:13,　25:2, 28:1, 28:9,　30:20, 31:1, 31:7,　inadmissible [3] - 9:5,　integrity [2] - 66:7, 66:16, 66:18, 66:25,　28:21, 29:7, 29:9,　31:20, 34:15, 34:16,　19:13, 24:7　69:19 67:19, 67:25, 68:17,　29:11, 29:17, 31:5,　34:21, 35:1, 35:5,　inadvertently [1] -　intend [2] - 15:13, 68:21, 69:5, 70:4,　31:9, 31:16, 32:23,　35:9, 37:16, 38:3,　68:12　16:16 70:7　33:18, 33:20, 33:25,　38:7, 38:10, 39:6,　inappropriate [1] -　intended [1] - 67:9 GTV's [7] - 49:15,　34:3, 34:12, 40:8,　39:13, 39:20, 40:8,　68:25　intent [1] - 56:17 51:22, 51:25, 52:16,　41:6, 41:11, 61:25,　40:12, 40:18, 41:4,　inception [1] - 57:7　intention [2] - 45:14, 53:24, 61:19, 64:5　64:10　41:12, 41:17, 42:10,　incident [1] - 55:8　45:22 GUE [1] - 1:7　hearsay [3] - 19:14,　42:15, 43:3, 43:15,　including [7] - 11:12,　interconnection [1] - guess [2] - 11:3, 45:18　19:16, 24:8　44:17, 44:20, 46:22,　22:7, 46:4, 67:19,　41:2 GUI [1] - 1:6　heavy [1] - 57:18　49:7, 50:5, 55:6,　67:20, 67:21　interest [21] - 8:14, guidance [1] - 45:24　height [1] - 47:21　57:15, 57:17, 58:8,　incorrect [1] - 44:15　8:16, 8:22, 9:2, Guo [9] - 18:16, 18:22,　held [5] - 28:17, 36:18,　58:22, 58:25, 60:6,　incorrectly [1] - 68:10　12:18, 12:19, 17:14, 20:19, 21:12, 21:19,　48:8, 51:10, 51:12　60:12, 60:20, 61:21,　incredibly [1] - 61:13　24:5, 25:15, 45:4, 23:19, 27:24, 35:15　hereby [1] - 71:7　62:4, 62:9, 62:18,　indeed [1] - 44:20　46:3, 46:10, 46:15, GUO [4] - 1:6, 1:7,　herself [2] - 12:25,　62:23, 64:6, 64:12,　46:21, 47:16, 49:23, 31:14　64:22, 65:19, 67:23,　Index [1] - 1:10 18:17　68:1, 70:9, 70:10　indicate [2] - 42:2,　52:6, 52:10, 64:13, Guo's [2] - 36:2, 48:23　hide [1] - 66:18　Honor's [3] - 4:20, 9:7,　45:17　64:16, 69:23 guy [1] - 48:17　high [1] - 67:13　indicated [4] - 25:2,　Interest [2] - 25:21, Guy [2] - 48:25, 49:20　highest [2] - 66:6,　40:6　29:6, 36:10, 54:9　26:9 GWO [1] - 1:6　66:7　HONORABLE [1] -　indication [1] - 42:3　interested [1] - 9:15 highway [1] - 37:9　1:14　indirect [2] - 36:2,　interesting [1] - 42:7 H　himself [1] - 31:13　hoops [1] - 28:6　66:2　interestingly [1] - 26:3 history [1] - 64:17　hope [1] - 22:10　indirectly [1] - 65:25　interests [1] - 17:19 half [1] - 50:13　HK [2] - 21:21, 23:19　hoping [1] - 3:22　individuals [3] -　intermittently [2] - handle [1] - 55:10　HK's [1] - 21:23　HOSTETLER [1] - 2:5　31:18, 34:8, 34:10　47:18, 49:1 handled [1] - 68:23　HKI [1] - 5:11　Hostetler [2] - 15:9,　internal [1] - 13:9 handling [1] - 57:16　43:13　inference [1] - 10:5　internally [2] - 69:10, hands [1] - 65:8　HO [2] - 1:6　hour [2] - 50:13, 61:25　inferences [3] - 31:17, HAOYUN [2] - 1:7, 1:7　Ho [1] - 2:8　hours [2] - 6:14, 70:14　32:2, 32:8　69:16 hold [5] - 9:4, 9:6,　huge [1] - 65:24　Infinity [4] - 35:12,　International [19] - happy [4] - 3:24,　14:22, 24:23, 24:25　35:14, 35:21, 35:23　5:10, 5:11, 5:19, 11:15, 16:8, 16:9　HOLDINGS [2] - 1:8,　human [1] - 27:17　information [50] -　5:22, 5:25, 6:3, 6:7, hard [1] - 8:1　1:8　husband [1] - 21:10　35:8, 37:4, 46:11,　7:5, 9:11, 10:14, hardly [2] - 20:21,　holds [2] - 7:6, 24:18　hybrid [1] - 23:24　47:9, 49:9, 50:1,　10:15, 10:19, 10:22, 22:1　Hong [29] - 5:9, 5:11,　Hyland [4] - 43:19,　50:10, 53:11, 53:23,　11:1, 18:13, 21:21, harmony [1] - 31:2　5:19, 5:21, 5:25, 6:3,　52:20, 60:14, 62:11　54:2, 54:3, 54:14,　23:19, 27:16, 27:20 Hasland [3] - 27:15,　6:7, 7:5, 7:10, 8:6,　HYLAND [10] - 2:11,　54:21, 54:23, 55:4,　International's [2] - 28:7　8:7, 9:10, 9:13, 9:16,　52:18, 52:20, 54:9,　55:13, 55:14, 55:18,　9:10, 27:19 Hasland's [2] - 28:2,　10:14, 10:19, 10:22,　65:13, 65:18, 65:20,　56:1, 56:8, 58:4,　Internet [1] - 60:5 28:4　11:1, 18:12, 19:2,　65:22, 68:3, 70:9　59:9, 60:3, 60:4,　interrupt [3] - 29:24, hear [20] - 3:5, 7:8,　27:16, 27:19, 27:20　Hyland's [1] - 12:15　60:5, 60:18, 60:21,　61:4, 61:7 10:10, 11:17, 11:18,　Honor [116] - 3:7, 3:9,　60:22, 60:23, 60:24,　interrupted [1] - 68:2 15:2, 15:6, 22:19,　3:15, 3:18, 3:24, 4:1,　I　61:8, 62:6, 62:12,　intervene [2] - 52:22, 30:16, 31:4, 34:24,　4:9, 4:11, 4:13, 5:3,　62:17, 63:13, 63:25,　57:12 40:22, 51:22, 51:25,　5:7, 5:21, 6:14, 7:1,　idea [1] - 65:1　64:2, 64:5, 64:20,　Intervenor [1] - 2:13 52:16, 52:17, 52:18,　identical [2] - 48:7, 54:7, 57:14, 64:23　7:3, 7:18, 7:22, 8:8,　59:19　65:8, 66:19, 67:22,　Intervenor-Movant [1] 9:5, 9:15, 9:17, 9:24,　identified [2] - 54:15,　68:8, 68:11, 68:12,　- 2:13 heard [6] - 16:1,　9:25, 10:8, 11:9,　61:2　68:15, 69:11, 69:13　introduce [1] - 16:8 24:21, 35:15, 42:20,　11:17, 11:24, 12:3,　identifies [1] - 21:16　informed [2] - 21:23,　invasive [1] - 40:21 50:11, 60:22　12:7, 12:22, 13:5,　55:13　invest [1] - 47:6 hearing [52] - 3:1,　13:18, 13:22, 14:2,　identify [2] - 51:10,　input [1] - 56:18　investigation [1] - 4:25, 9:4, 9:6, 10:8,　14:10, 14:15, 14:20,　51:12　inquires [1] - 23:13　59:22 11:15, 12:4, 12:6,　14:23, 15:8, 15:13,　implicitly [1] - 56:5　insofar [1] - 67:16　investigations [4] - 13:2, 13:3, 13:16,　15:22, 16:15, 16:19,　implied [2] - 44:6,　instance [1] - 41:17　45:1, 47:17, 48:18, 13:20, 15:12, 15:16,　19:19, 19:24, 20:12,　63:20　instant [1] - 37:21　61:13 15:21, 15:24, 16:2,　22:15, 23:15, 23:16,　important [5] - 10:20,　instantly [1] - 38:10　Investments [3] - 16:4, 16:8, 16:10,　25:3, 25:7, 25:14,　37:5, 38:8, 38:17,　instead [2] - 4:10,　5:10, 18:13, 21:21 18:1, 22:21, 22:22,　25:23, 26:5, 27:24,　43:25　34:3　investor [2] - 12:20, 22:24, 23:9, 23:10,　28:11, 28:13, 28:20,　importantly [1] - 62:9　institutional [1] - 64:9　59:23 24:19, 24:23, 25:1,　29:4, 30:10, 30:17,　imposed [1] - 46:8　instructs [1] - 11:8　invitation [1] - 49:20 dar 35:16, 35:18, 35:19, 26:13, 26:22, 27:4, INDEX NO. 652077/2017 invoke [4] - 32:6,　35:22, 36:23, 37:4,　28:25, 29:2, 32:6,　Last [2] - 38:19, 40:5　18:13, 21:8, 21:22 47:13, 47:19, 50:2　39:9, 39:15, 39:24,　32:13, 32:22, 35:16,　late [3] - 7:1, 36:18,　limited [1] - 57:12 invoked [1] - 26:25　41:6, 41:9, 45:2,　36:23, 36:24, 37:4,　57:4　line [2] - 45:16, 67:15 invoking [1] - 10:1　54:4, 61:18, 61:20,　38:21, 39:3, 39:8,　laterally [1] - 44:14　list [4] - 6:17, 51:13, involved [9] - 3:16,　65:2, 67:14　39:17, 40:11, 41:8,　latest [1] - 13:10　54:19, 65:4 47:18, 49:1, 55:2,　judicata [2] - 41:1,　43:13, 44:4, 44:21,　law [7] - 15:9, 17:18,　listing [1] - 42:8 60:10, 65:5, 67:2,　41:14　44:23, 44:25, 45:5,　40:2, 47:6, 51:23,　lists [1] - 65:4 67:24, 69:24　judicial [4] - 9:16,　46:4, 46:10, 46:12,　52:7, 52:15　literally [3] - 9:10, involvement [1] - 29:3　9:20, 19:17, 69:23　46:18, 47:3, 48:1,　Law [5] - 8:16, 17:7, involving [1] - 50:7　Judicial [2] - 17:7,　48:2, 48:8, 48:18,　25:17, 58:6, 58:11　11:6, 17:22 25:17　48:21, 49:14, 49:22,　litigation [9] - 7:7, ironically [1] - 12:14　judicially [1] - 10:12　49:25, 50:6, 51:11,　lawful [2] - 4:22, 26:2　12:19, 13:10, 20:20, irrelevant [1] - 24:5　jump [1] - 28:6　51:13, 51:17, 51:18,　lawyer [10] - 7:13,　20:24, 39:8, 48:15, irrespective [1] -　jurisdiction [8] - 4:4,　53:1, 57:17, 57:24,　11:13, 21:13, 21:23,　49:18, 51:7 66:11　4:5, 31:10, 31:17,　58:1, 58:3, 58:18,　27:20, 49:1, 52:23,　live [2] - 30:14, 66:22 issue [30] - 13:17,　31:23, 31:25, 32:16,　58:23, 59:12, 59:23,　58:17, 59:1, 59:2　lived [2] - 22:8, 22:9 16:19, 16:20, 17:11,　33:14　59:25, 61:10, 61:12,　lawyers [7] - 46:23,　living [1] - 22:11 17:13, 17:14, 17:17,　Justice [1] - 1:14　62:13, 62:15, 63:9,　48:21, 49:5, 56:1,　LLC [6] - 1:8, 12:18, 17:19, 23:16, 24:6,　justifies [1] - 40:20　66:1, 66:11, 66:17,　68:6, 68:14, 69:2　12:19, 12:25, 21:22, 26:5, 27:12, 28:15,　66:24, 67:4, 70:4　laying [2] - 61:17, 63:2　35:10 28:17, 29:13, 30:1,　Kwok's [40] - 6:1, 6:4,　layout [2] - 53:25, 54:3　LLP [4] - 1:17, 1:20, 31:24, 33:21, 37:22, 43:25, 47:1, 48:16,　K　6:5, 7:7, 7:19, 9:3,　leading [1] - 58:9　2:2, 2:5 53:20, 53:21, 54:25,　keep [2] - 40:24, 60:7　9:21, 10:7, 10:20,　league [2] - 60:3, 60:4　loaned [1] - 36:12 55:21, 63:22, 66:21,　keeping [1] - 48:22　11:18, 13:24, 14:6,　leak [1] - 65:7　loans [4] - 42:2, 42:3, 67:16, 70:12　key [2] - 58:19, 58:24　14:11, 14:15, 16:25,　learned [2] - 59:4　42:4 issued [1] - 7:23　kind [2] - 39:14, 70:18　18:2, 19:9, 20:11,　least [1] - 56:15　locating [1] - 37:3 issues [14] - 13:15,　KLEIN [1] - 2:10　20:19, 22:22, 22:23,　leave [1] - 43:4　location [1] - 32:20 13:19, 17:23, 26:19,　Klein [1] - 52:21　24:4, 25:18, 27:6,　Lee [1] - 21:23　logical [2] - 20:23, 29:24, 43:20, 44:1,　KLINGER [1] - 2:12　38:15, 41:10, 42:12,　left [3] - 42:8, 42:16,　27:4 49:3, 50:7, 50:9,　knowledge [3] - 26:3,　42:17, 42:19, 43:17,　65:24　long-time [2] - 31:3, 55:10, 59:19, 69:21　64:9, 69:21　47:13, 48:11, 49:8,　legal [19] - 7:7, 7:11,　64:9 issuing [1] - 70:24　known [1] - 45:8　49:15, 49:16, 49:19,　8:12, 8:17, 8:21,　look [4] - 14:11, 26:12, Italy [2] - 7:24, 7:25　knows [2] - 14:15,　58:21, 61:14, 62:13　15:14, 16:19, 16:20,　33:8, 69:17 items [1] - 61:5　41:7　17:16, 17:23, 20:2,　looks [3] - 9:23, 25:23, itself [2] - 65:24, 68:9　Kong [29] - 5:9, 5:11,　L　24:15, 28:15, 28:21,　61:24 5:19, 5:22, 5:25, 6:3,　42:13, 42:17, 42:19,　loosely [2] - 19:14, J　6:7, 7:5, 7:10, 8:6,　L.P [1] - 1:2　43:25, 53:3　24:10 8:7, 9:10, 9:11, 9:13,　labeled [1] - 46:19　legit [1] - 64:16　lower [1] - 13:9 Janover [1] - 37:17　9:16, 10:14, 10:15,　lack [2] - 23:23, 59:11　legitimate [1] - 64:13　Luck [2] - 21:8, 21:9 January [3] - 1:11,　10:19, 10:22, 11:1,　lackey [2] - 6:1, 20:11　lengthy [1] - 55:7 5:5, 41:23　18:12, 19:2, 27:16,　Lady [5] - 5:7, 18:8,　less [2] - 13:19, 41:16　M JANUSZEWSKI [1] -　27:19, 27:20　20:18, 21:6, 21:15　letter [2] - 7:13, 36:4　machinations [1] - 1:22　Korn [1] - 8:19　Lamb [1] - 2:4　Levine [5] - 34:22,　5:24 JEREMY [1] - 2:4　Kurnit [3] - 12:15,　Lamb's [1] - 36:23　40:25, 41:22, 42:7,　mail [4] - 7:15, 10:2, JESSE [1] - 2:12　43:19, 52:21　Lamp [26] - 7:8, 34:23,　42:16　10:24, 11:23 John [2] - 15:9, 43:12　KURNIT [1] - 2:10　35:10, 35:17, 35:20,　LEVINE [10] - 2:3,　mails [1] - 46:24 JOHN [1] - 2:7　KWOK [3] - 1:6, 1:7　35:25, 36:3, 36:6,　34:21, 35:1, 35:5,　maintenance [1] - joined [2] - 57:4, 64:3　Kwok [101] - 2:8, 3:6,　36:12, 36:15, 36:16,　39:13, 39:20, 42:23,　42:14 4:3, 4:13, 4:17, 4:21,　36:20, 36:22, 37:1,　43:3, 43:10, 50:14　majority [1] - 52:13 37:16, 37:17, 38:6,　Levine's [1] - 34:19 joins [1] - 44:14　levy [4] - 8:15, 25:13,　managed [2] - 35:17, joint [3] - 34:1, 58:3,　5:6, 5:9, 5:17, 6:9,　38:14, 38:15, 38:16, 58:7　6:22, 8:3, 9:19, 9:22,　39:9, 41:2, 41:16,　25:16, 25:18　35:22 jointing [1] - 55:20　10:1, 10:2, 10:20,　41:24, 42:6, 42:18　levying [2] - 9:1, 26:10　Management [4] - JP [1] - 38:24　11:10, 13:20, 13:25,　language [1] - 12:4　Lexington [1] - 2:2　35:12, 35:14, 35:21, Judge [2] - 61:11,　14:7, 14:22, 16:9,　large [2] - 38:1, 63:21　Liberty [1] - 2:10　35:23 63:7　17:9, 18:4, 18:7,　last [13] - 3:1, 4:8,　licensed [1] - 35:10　management [1] - judgment [28] - 8:14,　18:10, 18:19, 18:23,　13:23, 14:5, 14:16,　lifestyle [1] - 42:12　36:8 8:15, 8:21, 8:25,　19:7, 19:22, 20:22,　21:18, 21:24, 29:18,　Lijie [1] - 21:12　March [2] - 29:20, 12:12, 12:13, 17:2, 17:12, 20:22, 25:13,　21:17, 22:16, 23:21, 24:8, 24:15, 26:2,　37:25, 38:9, 38:12,　likely [2] - 49:18, 68:13　29:22 material [5] - 45:15, dar Limited [4] - 5:10, 60:18, 61:9, 63:5 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 materials [1] - 49:16　MINKOFF [1] - 2:12　Movant [1] - 2:13　69:4　19:5, 21:2, 21:19, matter [7] - 14:18,　minor [1] - 41:8　move [3] - 30:15, 53:7,　need [7] - 8:17, 9:4,　37:11, 40:1, 59:21, 27:4, 29:25, 38:13,　minus [1] - 29:12　60:16　13:20, 28:5, 38:4,　60:9, 67:18, 68:1 47:1, 48:17, 54:15　minute [1] - 15:3　moved [4] - 4:5, 4:6,　61:3, 67:24　notice [2] - 9:16, matters [5] - 52:11,　minutes [4] - 6:14,　4:11, 11:6　needed [1] - 12:4　31:21 53:14, 53:19, 56:3,　16:1, 50:12, 64:24　movement [1] - 64:23　needs [2] - 64:11,　noticeable [1] - 10:12 59:21　mistake [2] - 69:12,　moves [1] - 11:9　68:17　notified [2] - 56:16, Matthew [1] - 34:22　69:13　moving [4] - 4:3,　Netherland [2] - 5:18,　56:17 MATTHEW [1] - 2:3　mistaken [1] - 67:9　16:12, 25:18, 53:20　42:13　noting [1] - 4:14 Mayors [1] - 64:14　mistakes [4] - 68:13,　MR [84] - 3:7, 3:15,　never [20] - 10:24,　novel [1] - 44:1 mean [4] - 6:19, 11:5,　69:8, 69:9, 69:15　3:18, 3:24, 4:1, 15:8,　18:8, 18:11, 18:19,　November [3] - 4:19, 41:2, 51:3　misusing [1] - 66:12　15:13, 15:22, 16:3,　19:20, 22:10, 22:18,　10:3, 11:14 meaningful [2] - 19:6,　modifications [1] -　16:5, 16:15, 19:11,　44:8, 46:12, 46:24,　number [3] - 5:23, 38:12　37:5　19:18, 19:24, 20:5,　56:15, 56:16, 56:17,　23:1, 36:5 means [1] - 59:19　modified [1] - 37:18　20:8, 22:15, 22:20,　56:23, 57:25, 59:9,　Number [3] - 6:14, meat [1] - 37:2　moment [2] - 11:9,　22:23, 23:8, 23:15,　62:17, 62:19, 63:13,　23:3, 38:25 Media [1] - 52:22　12:2　24:21, 25:3, 25:7,　65:8　numerous [2] - 19:13, meet [8] - 36:18,　money [3] - 5:22,　25:11, 26:15, 26:20,　NEW [2] - 1:1, 1:1　49:24 37:10, 53:4, 57:20,　12:20, 39:4　28:11, 28:13, 29:4,　new [5] - 7:7, 36:21, 57:24, 59:14, 60:15,　months [3] - 7:21,　29:13, 29:19, 30:2,　38:14, 38:17, 44:13　O 60:17　20:20, 52:11　30:10, 30:17, 30:20,　New [28] - 1:18, 1:21, meets [1] - 8:17　mordaciously [1] -　31:1, 31:7, 31:20,　2:3, 2:6, 2:11, 5:17,　O'Melveny [6] - 3:16, member [5] - 24:3,　27:5　32:5, 32:17, 33:1,　6:23, 8:16, 9:18,　3:19, 3:23, 67:7, 24:13, 35:13, 59:8　Morgan [1] - 38:24　33:9, 33:19, 34:15,　17:18, 19:22, 35:11,　67:20, 67:24 members [2] - 22:7,　morning [1] - 7:25　34:16, 34:19, 34:21,　36:9, 38:24, 48:20,　object [1] - 45:18 63:12　MOSS [12] - 1:21, 3:7,　35:1, 35:5, 39:13,　52:4, 52:13, 56:9,　obviously [4] - 9:6, MEMORALIZING [1] -　3:15, 45:6, 57:15,　39:20, 40:24, 42:23,　58:6, 58:10, 58:17,　19:11, 52:25, 58:22 70:13　61:8, 65:19, 66:14,　43:3, 43:10, 43:12,　63:19, 68:7　October [4] - 5:13, mention [5] - 21:6,　67:11, 67:23, 69:8,　43:23, 44:3, 44:6,　newly [1] - 56:12　6:15, 36:4, 41:23 27:14, 27:17, 58:24,　70:17　44:9, 44:11, 45:6,　newspaper [2] - 19:1,　OF [3] - 1:1, 1:1 61:5　Moss [15] - 3:8, 44:12,　45:11, 45:21, 46:2,　19:3　offer [7] - 6:17, 15:11, mentioned [4] - 11:9,　56:8, 57:4, 57:15,　46:3, 50:14, 50:23,　next [7] - 1:23, 16:8,　15:20, 16:1, 21:5, 11:13, 38:18, 41:22　64:25, 65:7, 65:9,　51:23, 52:1, 52:17,　21:5, 29:23, 30:4,　23:13, 33:4 mer [1] - 46:22　65:17, 66:6, 66:8,　57:15, 61:3, 61:5,　42:22, 43:11　offered [2] - 18:3, mercy [1] - 45:24　66:13, 67:12, 69:17,　61:8, 65:19, 66:14,　Nicholas [1] - 43:14　21:18 message [1] - 10:25　70:21　67:1, 67:11, 67:23,　NICHOLAS [1] - 2:8　offers [1] - 20:16 met [3] - 11:24, 55:22,　moss' [1] - 68:4　69:8, 70:10, 70:17　Nicole [2] - 43:19,　office [3] - 6:4, 68:7, 55:25　most [1] - 19:13　MS [8] - 52:18, 52:20,　52:20　68:14 Microsoft [1] - 31:9　motion [52] - 3:4, 3:5,　54:9, 65:13, 65:18,　NICOLE [1] - 2:11　Office [1] - 48:19 middle [2] - 11:14,　3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9,　65:20, 68:3, 70:9　night [1] - 14:17　officer [2] - 35:19, 37:7　13:7, 13:13, 14:17,　multi [1] - 10:25　nine [1] - 41:23　35:23 midst [1] - 20:24　15:3, 15:7, 16:25,　multi-million [1] -　Nizer [1] - 34:22　officers [2] - 10:18, might [7] - 11:18,　17:1, 17:3, 17:7,　10:25　NIZER [1] - 2:2　63:11 13:22, 16:13, 25:9,　17:8, 17:15, 17:17,　multiple [2] - 54:17,　nobody [2] - 64:2,　Official [2] - 2:22, 31:4, 31:18, 59:19　17:22, 19:25, 21:2,　65:6　69:13　71:13 mildly [1] - 67:13　28:12, 31:4, 35:2,　must [4] - 11:6, 33:12,　Non [1] - 2:4　official [1] - 9:12 Miles [9] - 21:10,　36:3, 37:14, 37:21,　59:18, 61:9　Non-Party [1] - 2:4　Old [1] - 1:20 21:16, 35:16, 36:23,　37:25, 38:20, 39:3,　MYERS [1] - 1:17　nonconsensual [1] -　old [3] - 6:2, 7:4, 64:8 36:24, 37:4, 38:21,　39:25, 40:13, 41:11,　myriad [1] - 42:17　56:10　once [1] - 65:8 39:3, 39:8　41:16, 42:21, 42:22,　none [2] - 18:22, 22:8　one [38] - 3:14, 5:14, MILES [1] - 1:7　43:9, 43:11, 43:17,　N　nonfamily [1] - 24:3　10:8, 10:9, 11:16, miles [1] - 21:11　43:20, 43:21, 49:21,　nada [1] - 67:22　nonparty [3] - 34:22,　12:2, 13:23, 14:5, Miles' [1] - 21:12　51:1, 51:4, 52:22,　name [1] - 52:20　35:10, 40:21　18:7, 22:10, 23:1, Miller [1] - 8:19　53:25, 57:12, 67:18,　nonrelative [1] - 20:25　27:8, 27:14, 36:8, million [5] - 10:25,　68:9, 69:15, 70:7　named [1] - 12:13　note [4] - 5:1, 25:23,　37:15, 37:16, 38:15, 12:13, 26:17, 41:24,　motions [8] - 3:4,　nature [1] - 31:5　27:8, 42:2　38:22, 38:23, 40:4, 53:3　29:8, 30:15, 34:18,　nearly [3] - 48:6, 48:7,　noted [2] - 4:15, 8:9　42:23, 44:2, 46:19, millions [1] - 36:13　34:20, 37:13, 43:16,　51:19　nothing [17] - 7:12,　50:23, 52:7, 53:15, mini [1] - 29:8　58:14　necessary [5] - 8:20,　10:10, 10:17, 10:24,　54:21, 55:2, 55:5, minimum [1] - 37:18　mounting [1] - 42:19　13:16, 60:18, 61:9,　11:5, 11:16, 13:15,　55:14, 59:7, 59:8, dar INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 81 of 62:16, 67:1, 68:6,　28:8　50:20　PHILLIPS [1] - 2:2　practice [2] - 47:1, 70:15, 70:17　ownership [22] - 4:25,　PAX [37] - 4:20, 14:16,　phonetic [6] - 8:23,　70:23 open [2] - 45:11,　5:14, 5:25, 8:12,　48:10, 48:14, 49:4,　practiced [1] - 52:15 12:13, 21:8, 21:23, 45:15　8:18, 15:17, 17:4,　51:7, 53:12, 54:5,　48:21, 64:14　practices [1] - 13:3 opening [3] - 58:13,　17:9, 17:20, 18:18,　54:7, 54:9, 54:14,　pick [2] - 29:23, 30:14　pre [2] - 29:20, 36:3 58:21, 61:12　19:6, 19:10, 19:14,　54:22, 57:8, 59:3,　piece [4] - 7:16, 25:20,　pre-motion [1] - 36:3 opportunity [5] -　19:19, 20:3, 20:14,　59:18, 61:9, 61:13,　27:20, 27:22　pre-trial [1] - 29:20 27:25, 29:8, 42:6,　20:18, 21:20, 24:12,　61:17, 61:22, 61:23,　piecing [1] - 42:5　preceding [1] - 70:13 43:5, 62:10　24:13, 24:14, 36:3　62:9, 62:19, 63:6,　piercing [1] - 62:3　precise [1] - 63:3 OPPORTUNITY [1] -　owns [9] - 5:6, 6:11,　64:7, 64:11, 64:21,　pinnacle [1] - 47:5　precluded [1] - 32:12 1:2　6:12, 8:7, 14:14,　65:1, 65:9, 65:11,　place [4] - 63:25, 64:3,　preferred [1] - 23:3 opposing [2] - 15:2,　14:18, 22:8, 23:19,　65:15, 65:24, 66:9,　69:10, 70:13　prejudging [2] - 30:3　49:23　66:10, 66:11, 66:25,　plaintiff [4] - 12:16,　16:17, 23:7 opposite [2] - 65:10,　O'MELVENY [1] - 1:17　69:20　37:8, 39:11, 41:7　prejudice [2] - 25:17, 68:24　PAX's [7] - 4:22,　Plaintiff [27] - 1:4,　28:17 opposition [4] - 13:13,　P　54:10, 55:5, 57:18,　1:19, 1:22, 13:1,　prejudiced [4] - 4:23, 15:7, 36:11, 64:15　65:2, 65:8, 69:2　15:23, 18:3, 20:16,　25:19, 26:4, 45:23 oral [2] - 39:3, 46:7　Pacific [5] - 3:8, 3:19,　pay [1] - 39:5　21:4, 24:17, 36:11,　prejudicial [1] - 69:20 Order [3] - 17:21,　4:2, 21:4, 51:15　paying [3] - 7:3, 7:6,　36:14, 36:16, 37:6,　prepare [1] - 64:11 62:24, 64:21　PACIFIC [1] - 1:2　42:18　37:12, 37:14, 37:20,　prepared [3] - 24:17, order [29] - 3:2, 3:3,　PAG [1] - 45:22　payment [1] - 36:6　37:24, 38:3, 39:8,　31:15, 67:9 3:5, 4:3, 4:20, 4:22,　page [2] - 1:23, 29:7　pays [1] - 7:5　39:14, 41:6, 48:6,　prerogative [2] - 9:7, 14:1, 14:2, 14:8,　Page [8] - 18:24,　PC [1] - 2:10　49:10, 49:17, 49:22,　24:23 14:12, 14:16, 14:23,　27:11, 38:25, 39:6,　penalties [3] - 5:1,　50:8, 51:2　presence [1] - 45:8 14:24, 17:6, 18:6,　41:11, 58:20, 61:12,　5:2, 15:18　Plaintiff's [7] - 26:3,　present [1] - 3:23 22:17, 25:24, 26:2,　64:15　pending [1] - 51:16　36:17, 37:23, 38:5,　presentation [1] - 33:22, 33:24, 40:12,　pages [2] - 9:9, 9:10　people [7] - 22:11,　39:2, 39:23, 40:23　23:12 41:18, 60:21, 61:8,　paid [1] - 53:2　32:3, 33:14, 47:7,　plaintiff's [1] - 18:23　presents [1] - 16:11 62:20, 70:12, 70:24,　paper [3] - 7:16,　54:19, 64:1, 69:8　Plaintiffs [5] - 20:20,　preserved [1] - 28:4 71:3　27:20, 27:22　People's [1] - 22:6　21:18, 38:19, 40:16,　pressing [1] - 29:25 ordered [1] - 4:11　papers [9] - 16:12,　percent [2] - 6:5, 68:1　45:1　presumption [3] - orders [4] - 4:15, 7:22,　25:4, 26:19, 27:10,　perfectly [1] - 68:19　plaintiffs' [1] - 17:11　63:8, 63:10, 63:20 14:19, 62:22　36:10, 42:16, 42:21,　perhaps [3] - 24:13,　plan [1] - 63:13　previously [2] - 12:22, ordinary [1] - 47:20　53:25, 60:23　28:2, 58:9　planning [1] - 22:2　32:21 OSTRAGER [1] - 1:14　Paragraph [7] - 21:8,　period [2] - 18:11,　Plaza [1] - 2:6　price [1] - 6:18 out-of-state [1] - 33:3　39:1, 46:4, 48:25,　18:19　pleads [1] - 21:8　prima [5] - 4:15, outlined [2] - 16:11,　49:14, 49:20, 58:13　permission [1] - 66:20　pledge [1] - 66:24　22:16, 23:23, 24:19, 26:19　parameters [1] - 50:15　permit [2] - 56:10,　plus [2] - 16:1, 29:12　26:6 outright [1] - 14:15　PART [1] - 1:1　68:16　point [14] - 8:9, 13:23,　private [1] - 70:23 outset [2] - 8:10,　part [2] - 28:18, 33:17　permits [2] - 56:21,　14:6, 23:22, 26:8,　privilege [2] - 47:7, 43:23　participated [1] - 48:2　56:22　27:14, 38:4, 39:23,　47:20 outside [3] - 31:17,　participation [1] -　person [14] - 8:7,　40:4, 42:23, 50:18,　Privilege [1] - 32:7 31:24, 33:14　50:2　10:21, 11:7, 18:16,　52:4, 60:25, 62:3　privileged [2] - 46:20, overcome [2] - 26:18,　particular [2] - 39:21　18:17, 19:4, 20:17,　pointed [1] - 41:22　70:19 57:18　particularly [1] - 38:11　20:18, 27:3, 39:23,　points [3] - 41:25,　privileges [2] - 47:6, overlap [2] - 50:16,　parties [7] - 3:2, 13:2,　39:24, 47:17, 51:17,　64:25, 68:24　50:3 50:19　28:23, 33:25, 34:9,　51:19　portal [1] - 49:11　proactively [1] - 36:2 overstate [1] - 51:5　34:11, 67:20　person's [2] - 20:14,　position [6] - 16:25,　problem [5] - 10:6, overview [1] - 5:7　partner [1] - 44:13　21:25　18:3, 44:15, 51:21, owed [1] - 44:23　partners [1] - 55:7　personally [2] - 44:21,　52:25, 69:14　45:25, 56:9, 58:5, own [5] - 6:21, 7:1,　parts [1] - 60:11　67:25　possesses [1] - 53:11　61:21 proceeding [17] - 9:21, 32:14, 65:2　Party [1] - 2:4　perspective [1] -　possession [3] - owned [16] - 8:25,　party [8] - 9:22, 20:25,　67:17　48:13, 53:23, 55:15　7:18, 12:17, 13:10, 18:5, 18:8, 18:11,　24:3, 24:14, 31:25,　petition [1] - 13:8　possibility [1] - 59:5　19:3, 24:15, 45:12, 18:15, 18:19, 19:20,　33:15, 52:10　Petrillo [3] - 48:17,　possible [3] - 35:3,　60:2, 60:3, 60:7, 19:23, 21:6, 21:15,　party's [1] - 47:22　48:24, 48:25　55:14, 68:13　60:13, 60:14, 62:11, 22:16, 23:19, 35:11,　past [3] - 13:12, 13:25,　Petrillo's [2] - 49:14,　possibly [1] - 67:15　62:16, 65:6, 67:3, 35:14, 35:17, 35:21　14:6　49:20　postjudgment [2] -　68:8 owner [6] - 7:11, 8:6,　patience [1] - 43:15　Ph [1] - 58:9　32:19, 41:20　proceedings [5] - 10:14, 10:16, 19:5,　Pausing [2] - 15:4,　Phillips [1] - 34:22　potential [1] - 20:22　5:21, 26:17, 46:13, 71:5, 71:8 dar NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 82 of PROCEEDINGS [1] -　purchased [3] - 18:12,　37:12, 56:11, 56:12　regarding [7] - 19:19,　10:16, 10:19, 10:23, 1:10　18:19, 20:17　reaching [2] - 56:19,　21:7, 22:3, 50:1,　11:4, 12:14, 53:2, process [4] - 16:9,　purchaser [1] - 20:10　59:8　50:4, 51:19, 52:4　56:13, 57:19, 58:3, 37:2, 37:10, 68:19　purported [3] - 6:9,　read [2] - 42:20, 63:3　regret [1] - 69:25　59:2 produce [1] - 37:3　48:24, 61:14　readily [1] - 14:13　REINDEL [1] - 1:20　representing [5] - produced [4] - 11:23,　purpose [4] - 15:16,　ready [1] - 27:1　related [14] - 11:2,　7:14, 50:8, 53:22, 12:23, 29:2, 42:1　21:25, 52:23, 57:13　reality [1] - 61:22　41:19, 46:13, 51:17,　55:9, 57:8 producing [1] - 23:1　purposes [2] - 9:2,　really [9] - 8:4, 9:1,　51:19, 53:14, 54:15,　represents [1] - 48:17 product [1] - 46:21　11:21　9:3, 10:10, 12:10,　54:18, 54:21, 59:18,　request [1] - 51:16 production [1] - 9:12　pursuant [1] - 36:7　36:24, 54:3, 62:10,　60:2, 60:8, 60:23,　requested [1] - 51:13 professor [1] - 58:8　pursue [3] - 62:21,　69:17　65:3　requests [2] - 37:6, Professor [4] - 58:12,　65:15, 67:8　reams [1] - 53:23　relating [4] - 49:16,　55:12 58:16, 58:23, 63:15　pursued [2] - 62:9,　reason [4] - 25:11,　51:16, 51:18, 53:23　require [2] - 30:25, proffer [2] - 11:21,　62:19　28:18, 38:20, 52:7　relationship [15] -　68:21 33:4　pursuing [5] - 61:23,　reasonable [1] - 39:17　44:24, 44:25, 46:9,　required [4] - 8:13, proffered [1] - 17:24　61:24, 62:2, 63:1　reasonably [1] - 47:9　46:16, 53:6, 53:21,　18:4, 69:7, 69:11 prominently [1] -　put [15] - 12:24, 21:20,　reasons [4] - 9:8,　55:22, 56:3, 57:24,　requirement [2] - 46:19　24:17, 25:8, 33:20,　14:21, 15:24, 63:6　58:2, 59:11, 59:16,　33:2, 57:23 promise [1] - 47:4　45:24, 46:24, 46:25,　rebut [5] - 16:6, 16:13,　60:16, 61:14, 61:15　requires [3] - 17:8, promised [1] - 47:3　56:17, 59:7, 62:20,　24:20, 63:10, 63:15　relative [1] - 18:23　40:1, 40:3 prong [3] - 57:20,　62:23, 63:2, 63:25,　rebuttable [3] - 57:21,　relevance [1] - 54:4　res [2] - 41:1, 41:13 60:17, 63:5　66:16　63:8　relevant [9] - 25:21,　research [1] - 4:10 prongs [4] - 53:15,　rebutted [4] - 8:3,　26:10, 31:18, 31:23,　reserved [1] - 46:12 53:16, 55:25, 59:14　Q　23:17, 27:15, 63:20　32:3, 34:9, 41:19, 49:18, 60:25　residence [1] - 29:1 pronounce [1] - 18:16　Qiang [1] - 35:15　rebutting [1] - 23:22　reliability [1] - 16:17　resolve [1] - 70:16 proof [10] - 15:11,　Qu [2] - 18:16, 18:22　received [1] - 63:13　reliable [1] - 49:1　resolved [2] - 23:10, 15:20, 16:2, 18:3,　QU [1] - 18:17　recent [1] - 14:11　relief [1] - 42:25　68:4 20:1, 22:1, 22:12,　quarreling [1] - 24:24　recently [1] - 10:2　reluctantly [1] - 70:6　respect [15] - 3:1, 10:7, 12:17, 14:22, 23:14, 24:17, 39:10 properly [1] - 36:25　quarter [1] - 6:12　recess [2] - 15:5,　rely [2] - 68:18, 68:21　34:8, 43:24, 44:12, property [2] - 8:14,　quash [5] - 34:18,　50:21 recognize [1] - 69:19　remained [1] - 5:3　55:21, 65:16, 66:10, 8:21　35:6, 37:15, 37:18,　recognized [1] - 58:8　remand [3] - 12:5,　67:14, 67:16, 69:18 proposals [1] - 37:8　42:21　record [17] - 15:6,　16:21, 17:13　respectfully [4] - propose [1] - 30:17　questionable [1] -　18:21, 19:5, 19:25,　remanded [6] - 4:24,　11:16, 14:2, 15:25, proposed [1] - 37:5　13:11　20:8, 20:12, 21:2,　15:15, 17:3, 17:17,　38:7 propriety [1] - 69:24　questions [5] - 14:25,　23:11, 23:17, 24:1,　24:16, 25:1　respond [3] - 24:18, prosecuted [1] - 70:3　28:14, 29:5, 43:6,　24:22, 25:9, 27:1,　remember [3] - 42:10,　37:8, 64:24 prosecution [1] -　43:8　30:6, 45:3, 45:13,　60:3, 62:12　Respondent [1] - 69:25　quickly [2] - 30:3, 53:7　65:15　REMOTE [2] - 1:10,　15:23 protect [1] - 54:2　quite [2] - 13:7, 61:12　recordings [1] - 9:21　71:14　response [9] - 9:24, protected [1] - 68:18　quote [16] - 8:20, 13:7,　records [4] - 9:12,　repeat [2] - 18:8, 18:9　23:13, 37:14, 37:21, protection [3] - 47:14,　15:17, 18:24, 21:9,　9:17, 36:11, 39:12　repeatedly [1] - 6:23　48:2, 48:3, 48:12, 47:22　36:21, 37:22, 38:22,　red [1] - 70:1　reply [2] - 48:24, 63:22　54:10, 69:15 protract [1] - 26:16　39:4, 39:5, 40:11,　refer [1] - 34:5　report [4] - 19:1, 19:3,　responsibilities [1] - provide [2] - 32:4,　41:6, 48:21, 48:23,　referenced [2] - 27:10,　28:16, 58:13　44:1 38:1　61:17　54:16　reported [3] - 17:18,　rest [1] - 24:7 provided [5] - 10:11,　quote/unquote [1] - 20:11　referred [5] - 12:18,　23:20, 24:10　restraining [2] - 7:23, 12:1, 36:11, 40:11,　quotes [1] - 13:9　20:10, 24:10, 25:20,　reportedly [4] - 18:24,　41:18 49:25　26:23　18:25, 19:2, 19:4　result [1] - 46:10 provides [1] - 36:6　R　referring [3] - 5:11,　Reporter [3] - 2:22,　resume [2] - 50:13, 50:14 provision [1] - 46:6　9:19, 37:24　50:12, 71:13 represent [5] - 3:19,　return [1] - 50:17 pry [1] - 57:21　raised [3] - 21:9, 51:6,　refers [2] - 6:25, 19:14　52:21, 54:24, 59:3,　returns [2] - 7:16, 7:21 pubically [1] - 69:11　64:25　reflect [1] - 22:4　60:12　reviewing [2] - 13:12, Public [1] - 22:6　raises [3] - 13:15,　refusal [1] - 14:15 refuse [1] - 31:19　representation [5] -　49:12 public [3] - 9:12, 9:17,　43:20, 44:1　refused [1] - 11:11　53:4, 55:10, 57:8,　reviews [1] - 55:6 10:12　Randall [1] - 52:24　refusing [1] - 32:4　59:17　rhetoric [2] - 20:12, publicly [1] - 68:10　range [1] - 49:21　regard [5] - 32:12,　representations [1] -　46:23 pulling [1] - 20:22　rare [1] - 44:13　48:23, 66:6, 66:7,　53:19　rights [2] - 4:22, 26:4 purchase [1] - 20:14　reach [4] - 37:6,　67:13　represented [10] -　risk [1] - 54:23 dar Rockefeller [1] - 2:6　screening [2] - 56:10,　shared [3] - 46:11,　Simon [6] - 43:14,　stamped [1] - 9:11 Ronald [2] - 21:8, 21:9　68:16　55:18, 58:4　58:8, 58:12, 58:16,　standard [12] - 8:15, RONALD [1] - 2:12　screens [3] - 57:6,　shareholder [2] -　58:23, 63:15　8:17, 15:14, 25:12, Rose [1] - 43:14　63:18, 69:10　5:12, 10:21　simple [1] - 33:8　25:15, 25:16, 25:21, ROSE [1] - 2:8　sealed [5] - 45:13,　sharing [2] - 46:11,　simply [3] - 39:22,　26:11, 28:15, 28:21, ROTHROCK [2] -　45:14, 51:5, 51:14,　67:21　57:1　41:20 2:22, 71:13　61:6　shell [2] - 7:8, 39:18　single [9] - 6:2, 11:7,　Standard [2] - 25:21, routine [1] - 4:7　sealing [3] - 50:15,　Sherry [2] - 5:18,　11:23, 17:16, 21:25,　26:9 Roy [1] - 43:14　68:12, 69:12　42:13　35:13, 36:15, 36:25　start [4] - 3:11, 15:11, RPR [2] - 2:22, 71:13　search [1] - 70:16　Sherry-Netherland [2]　sit [3] - 28:6, 32:1,　44:17, 45:10 searched [1] - 17:18　- 5:18, 42:13　52:9　started [1] - 57:8 rubber [1] - 38:4　SEC [13] - 47:25, 48:1,　ship [2] - 7:19, 8:2　situation [6] - 38:9,　State [3] - 6:23, 9:18, rule [6] - 52:13, 56:21,　48:5, 48:9, 48:17,　38:10, 46:25, 47:20,　13:6 58:13, 68:16　shop [1] - 5:17　50:5, 67:4 ruled [1] - 37:21　48:23, 49:3, 49:25,　short [4] - 5:3, 15:5,　STATE [1] - 1:1 rules [1] - 56:9　51:2, 51:7, 51:9,　33:21, 33:24　six [2] - 39:17, 52:11　state [3] - 33:3, 36:3, ruling [2] - 19:2, 37:25　51:20, 55:16　show [12] - 10:3,　sizeable [1] - 42:13　51:3 run [1] - 69:22　second [4] - 9:3, 10:6,　20:16, 21:19, 22:17,　skeptical [1] - 23:12　statement [7] - 19:16, Rydell [1] - 63:12　53:7, 53:9　25:15, 28:9, 32:9,　slightly [1] - 52:25　19:19, 19:25, 20:2, secondly [1] - 20:1　32:13, 32:22, 47:25,　Slip [1] - 1:20　20:4, 68:5 S　seconds [1] - 6:15　53:9, 53:10　society [3] - 22:9,　statements [2] - secrete [1] - 20:21　showed [1] - 42:11　22:12, 47:6　19:13, 62:25 safe [1] - 71:1　Section [1] - 12:17　showing [7] - 4:16,　sole [3] - 5:12, 6:20　stating [1] - 13:8 safeguard [1] - 63:24　security [2] - 22:6,　17:8, 23:23, 24:7,　someone [1] - 44:14　statute [4] - 8:13, safer [1] - 45:19　22:11　26:6, 27:21, 39:14　son [2] - 21:11, 35:15　16:21, 17:20, 17:23 sake [1] - 33:1　see [3] - 9:22, 42:6,　shown [5] - 25:25,　sort [2] - 59:23, 60:16　stay [1] - 71:1 sale [1] - 6:17　71:1　26:1, 36:10, 39:8　sought [8] - 35:6,　staying [1] - 45:7 sanction [1] - 14:23　seek [3] - 38:5, 51:16,　shows [2] - 18:17,　36:1, 37:18, 51:7,　still [8] - 48:12, 48:14, sanctions [1] - 26:18　51:19　32:9　51:9, 51:11, 51:20,　49:8, 54:7, 55:3, SARNOFF [24] - 1:18,　seeking [10] - 41:18,　side [5] - 10:12, 33:16,　54:14　55:9, 62:16, 64:18 3:18, 3:24, 4:1,　41:19, 48:9, 48:10,　47:23, 62:22, 64:12　sounds [2] - 9:23,　stipulate [1] - 67:9 24:21, 25:3, 25:7,　48:14, 49:10, 50:9,　sides [1] - 59:1　13:18　stipulating [3] - 62:19, 25:11, 26:15, 26:20,　54:20, 57:13　Siegal [3] - 4:5, 4:6,　source [3] - 5:22,　65:11, 66:8 28:11, 30:10, 30:20,　seize [1] - 48:23　15:9　21:16, 55:14　stipulation [12] - 31:1, 31:20, 32:5,　sell [1] - 6:21　SIEGAL [16] - 2:7,　sourced [1] - 18:25　54:11, 63:2, 65:14, 32:17, 33:19, 34:16,　SELZ [1] - 2:10　15:8, 15:13, 15:22,　65:24, 66:15, 66:18, 34:19, 40:24, 45:21,　16:3, 16:5, 16:15,　Southern [1] - 48:19　66:25, 67:16, 68:4, 46:2, 67:1　Selz [1] - 52:21　19:11, 19:18, 19:24,　speaking [1] - 9:22　68:25, 69:1, 69:6 seminal [1] - 58:24　20:5, 20:8, 28:13,　special [6] - 60:1,　stop [3] - 14:20, Sarnoff [15] - 3:19,　send [1] - 9:15　60:13, 60:14, 62:11, 4:2, 16:1, 16:11,　sense [1] - 6:19　33:1, 33:9, 50:23　62:16, 65:6　18:11, 18:20 16:24, 18:2, 18:7,　sensitive [3] - 47:16,　SIEGEL [26] - 22:15,　specific [4] - 15:16,　strategy [1] - 55:19 18:9, 20:11, 26:13,　52:11, 55:4　22:20, 22:23, 23:8,　51:14, 55:10, 60:22　Street [1] - 2:10 26:16, 28:16, 28:24,　sent [1] - 10:24　23:15, 29:4, 29:13,　specifically [2] -　strings [1] - 20:23 30:19, 43:4　separate [2] - 41:24,　29:19, 30:2, 30:17,　42:12, 50:16　strong [1] - 64:7 Sarnoff's [1] - 22:24　42:25　31:7, 34:15, 43:12,　specifics [1] - 51:15　structure [1] - 53:24 satisfied [2] - 53:16,　September [3] - 9:18,　43:23, 44:3, 44:6,　specify [2] - 19:4, 51:4　Stuart [2] - 3:18, 4:1 63:9　27:9, 36:19　44:9, 44:11, 45:11,　spent [1] - 61:24　STUART [1] - 1:18 satisfy [1] - 63:9　series [1] - 43:16　46:3, 51:23, 52:1,　Spring [24] - 7:4, 11:2,　subject [1] - 32:24 saw [1] - 69:13　seriously [1] - 62:22　52:17, 61:3, 61:5,　11:4, 36:9, 36:12,　submissions [2] - schedule [5] - 29:19,　served [5] - 32:18,　70:10　36:21, 38:1, 38:9,　11:25, 13:13 30:6, 30:7, 54:18,　48:5, 49:25, 54:17,　Siegel [14] - 15:10,　38:13, 38:14, 38:17,　submit [18] - 9:5, 9:7, 55:15　54:20　15:25, 19:8, 22:14,　38:23, 39:4, 39:7,　11:11, 14:21, 16:19, scheduled [4] - 29:14,　services [1] - 36:7　22:19, 27:8, 31:6,　40:10, 40:11, 41:3,　28:9, 28:23, 29:8, 29:21, 29:24, 61:25　set [4] - 38:22, 52:6,　43:12, 45:6, 51:21,　41:5, 41:7, 41:11,　29:10, 29:11, 31:13, scope [1] - 49:19　57:9, 69:10　52:15, 60:23, 61:4,　41:18, 41:25, 42:10,　32:23, 33:7, 33:10, screen [16] - 54:11,　setting [2] - 5:17,　62:5　42:11　33:11, 34:7, 34:10, 56:7, 56:15, 56:17,　58:11　SIEGFRIED [1] - 2:4　Springs [1] - 41:17　34:11 56:22, 57:1, 57:3,　several [2] - 4:8, 36:7　sign [1] - 28:5　Springs' [1] - 38:24　submits [1] - 15:23 57:5, 57:9, 57:10,　shape [3] - 65:15,　similar [2] - 13:18,　Square [1] - 1:17　submitted [11] - 7:14, 59:5, 59:6, 63:10,　65:23, 67:19　22:8　staff [1] - 30:25　9:17, 10:16, 16:24, 63:17, 64:2, 69:6　share [2] - 14:12, 29:1　similarly [1] - 39:2　stamp [1] - 38:4　33:23, 34:1, 36:4, dar NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-22 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 84 of INDEX NO. 652077/2017 40:16, 42:1, 46:5, tailored [1] - 37:3 43:2, 43:8, 43:11, treatise [1] - 58:10 49:7 55:16 43:22, 44:2, 44:4, unfettered [1] - 49:8 tales [1] - 13:14 triable [1] - 24:6 submitting [1] - 43:7 44:8, 44:10, 45:25, unidentified [1] - 24:3 target [1] - 22:10 trial [12] - 12:25, 13:6, 50:11, 50:18, 50:22, subpoena [11] - 28:5, targeting [4] - 61:19, 28:5, 29:14, 29:20, unique [1] - 52:6 51:21, 51:25, 52:15, 37:15, 37:16, 48:1, 30:13, 31:10, 31:16, 63:1, 65:1 universal [2] - 48:6, 52:19, 54:8, 57:11, 48:5, 48:12, 49:25, 34:2, 34:3, 62:3 tax [1] - 7:16 48:7 61:4, 61:7, 64:23, 51:9, 65:3 true [2] - 14:10, 71:7 Team [1] - 48:21 unknown [1] - 27:3 65:11, 65:14, 65:21, subpoenaed [2] - truth [1] - 70:16 team [5] - 46:18, 56:8, unlearn [1] - 59:4 66:4, 67:12, 68:2, 51:2, 51:7 try [4] - 32:17, 35:3, 59:7, 59:8, 63:12 unless [1] - 46:25 69:17, 70:8, 70:12, subpoenas [13] - 40:24, 66:18 TEAMS [1] - 1:10 unlike [1] - 39:7 70:21, 71:4 34:18, 35:6, 35:7, trying [3] - 54:2, 60:7, Teams [3] - 31:9, 46:1 unnecessary [1] - theory [1] - 61:20 37:15, 37:19, 38:5, 61:9 13:4 technical [6] - 7:10, there'll [1] - 34:6 42:25, 47:17, 50:17, turn [6] - 35:14, 47:10, unrelated [4] - 20:13, 8:6, 8:12, 8:17, 54:17, 54:20, 55:5 thereafter [1] - 67:5 50:6, 52:11, 52:17, 10:14, 10:15 20:18, 20:25, 27:3 subsequently [1] - therefore [3] - 17:5, 60:4 technically [2] - 7:6, unremarkable [1] - 46:14 36:24, 39:25 turnover [13] - 8:13, 14:18 21:24 substantial [9] - 22:6, thinking [1] - 44:13 9:1, 12:16, 12:21, telepathy [1] - 11:6 up [18] - 5:17, 10:3, 29:2, 44:24, 49:12, third [8] - 20:25, 24:3, 13:9, 13:13, 14:12, ten [2] - 39:17, 50:12 12:7, 26:24, 27:6, 53:21, 55:22, 56:3, 24:14, 53:8, 53:17, 14:16, 17:1, 17:12, 28:9, 32:9, 32:13, TERM [1] - 1:1 59:16, 60:15 63:5, 67:20 17:20, 26:9, 36:15 32:22, 38:22, 54:25, terms [4] - 49:4, 54:3, substantially [4] - third-party [4] - 20:25, TV's [1] - 70:7 55:5, 56:17, 57:9, 63:8, 69:19 46:13, 53:14, 59:18, 24:3, 24:14 tweeting [1] - 6:9 62:3, 64:10, 69:10 test [3] - 23:24, 55:22, 60:2 three [14] - 15:3, tweets [1] - 9:21 urging [1] - 17:22 57:20 succeed [1] - 39:25 20:20, 23:5, 23:10, twelve [1] - 39:17 USA [1] - 21:21 tested [1] - 48:20 successfully [1] - 70:4 23:13, 25:8, 26:17, two [29] - 6:14, 8:4, uses [1] - 11:8 testified [2] - 26:22, 27:6, 29:11, 29:12, suffice [1] - 63:17 9:8, 18:21, 20:17, utilizes [1] - 39:18 26:23 29:23, 30:4, 30:15, sufficient [5] - 8:22, 23:3, 25:8, 27:3, utmost [2] - 69:17, testify [9] - 10:4, 57:20 9:2, 25:16, 51:10, 29:12, 30:11, 34:18, 69:18 11:19, 13:21, 27:25, three-minute [1] - 51:11 35:6, 38:5, 53:10, 28:2, 31:21, 32:7, 15:3 suggest [1] - 52:7 V 53:14, 53:18, 53:19, 32:13, 33:13 throughout [1] - 12:19 suggested [1] - 50:25 54:10, 54:16, 56:3, testimony [26] - 23:6, Thursday [1] - 30:18 vail [1] - 62:2 suggests [2] - 40:10, 57:3, 63:12, 64:10, 23:16, 27:15, 28:4, tie [1] - 19:5 valuable [1] - 22:1 40:25 64:11, 68:5, 69:2, 31:10, 31:11, 31:12, title [2] - 8:12, 8:21 70:14 value [1] - 34:12 Sun [1] - 21:11 31:15, 31:16, 31:18, today [4] - 11:21, tying [1] - 21:2 Sun's [1] - 21:11 variety [1] - 49:23 31:23, 32:3, 32:18, 37:21, 66:17, 70:8 type [4] - 56:15, 56:22, supplemental [2] - various [1] - 54:20 32:24, 33:5, 33:7, together [1] - 42:5 58:7, 58:11 5:4, 29:6 Vartan [1] - 21:23 33:11, 33:12, 33:15, tomorrow [1] - 66:24 typical [1] - 22:2 support [4] - 16:25, versus [1] - 58:19 33:22, 34:5, 34:7, took [2] - 32:21, 70:13 18:2, 44:13, 58:10 34:9, 34:12, 49:14, vessel [4] - 19:7, U totalitarian [1] - 22:9 supporting [1] - 20:16 20:17, 22:16, 23:20 49:20 totally [1] - 24:22 supposedly [2] - 6:11, vetted [1] - 48:3 testing [1] - 68:22 U.S [2] - 21:21, 48:19 6:12 touch [1] - 63:21 text [2] - 10:24, 11:23 video [3] - 6:12, 9:21, UBS [1] - 38:23 SUPREME [1] - 1:1 touching [1] - 49:21 45:22 THE [85] - 1:1, 3:1, ultimately [1] - 50:2 Supreme [3] - 1:14, tracing [2] - 45:1, 49:4 videos [2] - 6:10, 9:22 3:13, 3:16, 3:21, under [18] - 12:17, 19:9, 19:22 transactions [2] - 3:25, 15:2, 15:6, view [3] - 40:2, 66:1, 16:20, 17:11, 17:14, surely [2] - 16:15, 15:10, 15:19, 15:25, 21:3, 24:2 69:5 17:19, 25:12, 25:16, 16:16 16:4, 16:6, 19:8, transcript [5] - 3:2, violated [2] - 4:3, 26:2 25:21, 31:25, 34:8, 19:16, 19:21, 20:4, surprised [2] - 29:2, 33:17, 41:11, 71:3, virtually [1] - 46:24 41:20, 52:5, 58:6, 20:6, 22:14, 22:19, 29:18 71:8 58:11, 61:20, 63:17, W 22:21, 23:7, 23:9, surrounding [1] - transfer [2] - 20:19, 66:9 24:25, 25:4, 25:10, 13:14 67:5 understandable [1] - wait [1] - 6:22 26:12, 26:16, 28:4, switch [1] - 59:1 transferred [5] - 6:1, 25:14 waive [3] - 56:14, 69:4 28:12, 28:23, 29:10, 6:6, 20:18, 20:24, sworn [3] - 31:14, understood [1] - 29:4 29:16, 29:23, 30:5, waiver [2] - 69:1, 69:3 66:1 38:21, 64:19 undertaking [1] - 49:5 30:12, 30:19, 30:23, wall [3] - 56:6, 63:21, transferring [1] - System [2] - 68:10, undisputed [13] - 31:6, 31:8, 31:22, 63:25 69:12 38:23 21:19, 24:8, 44:17, 32:13, 32:21, 33:6, walled [1] - 67:7 transfers [7] - 5:14, 44:19, 44:21, 45:3, 33:10, 33:21, 34:17, T Wan [1] - 2:8 6:9, 7:2, 41:24, 42:4, 46:4, 46:6, 46:16, 34:25, 35:4, 39:11, 66:18 WAN [2] - 1:6, 1:7 46:17, 47:12, 47:25, tactical [1] - 70:1 39:16, 40:22, 42:20, Treasury [1] - 35:12 wants [5] - 9:6, 10:8, dar 11:16, 26:16, 32:13 warm [3] - 4:7, 7:21, 7:25 warning [1] - 46:8 warrant [1] - 53:15 warranted [1] - 55:24 water [1] - 7:21 weather [2] - 4:7, 8:1 week [2] - 16:9, 29:22 weeks [8] - 23:10, 26:17, 29:12, 29:23, 30:4, 57:4, 64:10, 64:11 WEI [1] - 21:10 Wei [1] - 21:10 Weinstein [1] - 8:19 WEN [1] - 1:6 WENGUI [2] - 1:6 whatsoever [4] - 21:15, 39:10, 66:10, 67:18 whereabouts [1] - 22:4 whole [1] - 27:12 wholly [2] - 35:11, 35:14 wholly-owned [2] - 35:11, 35:14 Wide [1] - 27:12 wife [1] - 21:12 William [1] - 58:19 willing [1] - 62:23 wish [2] - 44:11, 44:14 withdrawn [2] - 35:8, 43:1 witness [2] - 23:2, 33:17 witnesses [7] - 16:7, 31:10, 31:24, 33:4, 33:6, 33:10, 33:11 woman [1] - 26:22 words [5] - 4:18, 19:21, 38:3, 46:22, 70:18 work-product [1] - 46:21 works [2] - 30:4, 30:18 worse [1] - 70:2 written [4] - 3:3, 11:7, 11:25, 36:7 wrote [2] - 63:16, 63:18　11:2, 11:5, 11:12, 14:3, 14:9, 14:22, 15:18, 18:5, 18:18, 19:6, 19:10, 20:14, 21:20, 22:4, 22:8, 61:24, 61:25, 62:1, 62:4 yacht-related [1] - 11:2 year [10] - 4:7, 6:2, 7:20, 18:18, 21:24, 62:8, 64:3, 64:4, 64:8, 70:3 years [5] - 13:3, 20:17, 27:6, 52:16, 62:5 YORK [2] - 1:1, 1:1 York [28] - 1:18, 1:21, 2:3, 2:6, 2:11, 5:18, 6:23, 8:16, 9:18, 17:18, 19:22, 35:11, 36:9, 38:24, 48:20, 52:4, 52:13, 56:9, 58:6, 58:10, 58:17, 63:19, 68:7 YouTube [2] - 6:9, 6:16 Z zero [3] - 5:14, 6:7, 67:22 Zhang [1] - 21:10 ZHANG [1] - 21:10 Zhang's [1] - 21:12 zip [1] - 67:22 Y yacht [37] - 4:4, 4:6, 4:7, 4:11, 4:12, 4:17, 5:1, 5:19, 5:23, 6:6, 6:25, 7:1, 7:11, 8:9, 9:19, 10:16, 10:25, dar