{"id":"court_ctb_1420_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1420,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-31","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会记录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1420（2023-01-31立案）。2023年1月24日法官 Julie A. Manning 主持的听证会官方记录，审理延长雪梨荷兰酒店公寓出售程序及聘用普衡律师事务所等动议。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB No. 22-50073, ECF No. 1420 (filed Jan. 31, 2023). Official transcript of the January 24, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning concerning motions to extend the Sherry-Netherland apartment sale process and retain Paul Hastings LLP.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, GENEVER HOLDINGS \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut CORPORATION and GENEVER \\* January 24, 2023 HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER FURTHER EXTENDING SALE PROCESS OF SHERRY-NETHERLAND APT AND RETENTION OF SOTHEBY'S INT'L. REALTY AS BROKER; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY PAUL HASTINGS LLP AS COUNSEL TO DEBTOR GENEVER HOLDINGS CORP AND GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC; MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA LLC BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Sherry Netherland, PATRICK N. PETROCELLI, ESQ. Creditor: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 ROBERT E. KAELIN, ESQ. Murtha Cullina 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For Bravo Luck, Interested FRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ. Party: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 DAVID SHAIKEN, ESQ. Shipman, Shaiken & Schwefel 433 South Main Street Suite 319 West Hartford, CT 06110\n\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:01 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Genever Holdings Corporation, and Genever Holdings, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Neubert Pepe & Monteith, for the Trustee. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Creditor PAX. And with me is local counsel Annecca Smith. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the creditors committee. MR. PETROCELLI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Petrocelli, from Strook & Strook & Levan, on behalf of Sherry-Netherland. MR. KAELIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Attorney Robert Kaelin, of Murtha Cullina, also on behalf of the Sherry-Netherland. MR. LAWALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Fran Lawall, Trout man Pepper, on behalf of Bravo Luck. Also,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 4 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 4 local is here, David Shaiken. MR. SHAIKEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And there's nobody here for the debtor? Didn't they object to this? MR. DESPINS: I don't believe they objected, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, I thought they had filed an objection to this motion. I'm sorry. All right. Go right ahead, Trustee Despins. This is your motion. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. May I remove the mask? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. For the record, Luc Despins with Paul Hastings, Chapter 11 Trustee. So the motion, Your Honor, is -- was filed, and it's at docket 1257, and it's a motion to continue the sale process regarding the Sherry-Netherland, but without some of the I guess bells and whistles of the -- of the prior sale process. So I think given this is your -- I believe it's your first exposure to the Genever case, I think it's worth,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 5 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 5 you know, going through the history there. So Genever is the title owner to the lease or, you know, to make -- to make this simple, to the apartment. Of course the way it's structured, because it's a co-op, there's a lease agreement, et cetera, but conceptually the title owner is Genever. And that entity filed for Chapter 11 in 2020, October, I believe, 2020. At that time, Mr. Kwok was controlling that entity and controlling the Chapter 11 case of Genever. And the other parties to the case at that time included PAX, because they had been in litigation with Mr. Kwok in front of Judge Ostrager in the New York Supreme Court and had either obtained or were on the verge of obtaining a summary judgment decision against Mr. Kwok and they were alleging or asserting alter-ego claims. PAX does not have a direct contractual claim against Genever, but they're asserting an alter-ego claim and that's what they asserted in that case. So that's one party. In addition to that, in that case, the Sherry- Netherland, you know, the owner of the building, is a party. They're a creditor and they were involved in that case. And the U.S. Trustee obviously, but there was no creditors committee appointed in that case.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 6 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 6 And also the other party that was involved was Bravo Luck, an entity that is now apparently controlled by the son of Mr. Kwok. So right at the outset of the case, of that case, there were a lot of what I would call hostilities between PAX, Genever, and Bravo Luck, and basically in the nature of PAX saying let's lift the automatic stay so I can continue my action to prosecute alter-ego claims against Genever. Obviously Bravo Luck opposing that. And then eventually in 2021 PAX also filed a motion to convert the Genever case to Chapter 7 or to appoint a trustee. So all this was happening in late 2020 and also during 2021. There was no fiduciary in the case at that time. No creditors committee. Obviously no trustee. Eventually the parties were able to reach agreement on something, namely that the apartment should be put up for sale, and that's memorialized into an agreement that we -- that we cited in our papers. And that agreement gave various rights to Bravo Luck and PAX. It also -- and I'll come back to that obviously. And also it called for the appointment of a sales agent, which is an unusual structure, because neither side trusted each other obviously. The idea was why don't we have a third party, a former bankruptcy judge, Judge Cyganowski, have this role of sales agent so that she can\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 7 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 7 retain a broker and make the ultimate decision of whether, you know, when and whether to sell and at what price. And that was all memorialized in that agreement. And in that agreement, I said generally that Bravo Luck and PAX had some rights sort of in the sale process as they -- they have consulting rights, meaning that the sales agent is supposed to consult with them regarding the sale process. And also there is a provision in paragraph 5 that says, of the settlement agreement, that says draft of motion to sell, eventual motion to sell, needs to be provided to Bravo Luck and PAX for review and approval prior to filing. You know, we were not around. Obviously we didn't exist at that time. But there's a real issue here, which is what does that mean approval? Approval as to form? Approval as to substance? Unclear. It doesn't say. So that agreement, also in paragraph 4.E, provided that the sale process will be limited initially to a 180-day period from the retention of the broker, the broker being -- I forgot, sorry, I have it -- the broker being Sotheby's, I'm sorry. And so 180 days from the retention of the broker subject to extension upon written agreement of the debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX, so all of these have to consent, or by further order of the Court for cause shown. And, in fact, that apartment has been on the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 8 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | market for I'm not sure if it's a year.
Or if it's not a |\n| 2 | year, it's close to a year.
Maybe it's a little bit more |\n| 3 | than a year.
But that apartment has been on the market and, |\n| 4 | therefore, the 180 days has come and has gone. |\n| 5 | And, in fact, the parties have agreed to extend |\n| 6 | the process with the last extension, not entered by Your |\n| 7 | Honor, but entered by Judge Garrity in that case, in the |\n| 8 | Genever Holding case, at docket no. 222, which said that |\n| 9 | that period, that extended period, would expire on October |\n| 10 | 31st without prejudice to further extension upon the consent |\n| 11 | of the parties I just mentioned. |\n| 12 | So October 31st of this year, you know, has |\n| 13 | occurred.
There was no agreement to extend.
Our belief, |\n| 14 | because we control Genever through the trustee position we |\n| 15 | have, is that the sale should continue. |\n| 16 | I don't believe anyone disputes that the sale |\n| 17 | should continue, at least I've not heard any objection to |\n| 18 | that.
And so we wanted to continue the sale process. |\n| 19 | We also thought, and I reflected on for not a long |\n| 20 | time, maybe for five minutes, about, well, now that there's |\n| 21 | a trustee, does it make sense to continue the role of Judge |\n| 22 | Cyganowski, and I decided that it made sense.
The reason |\n| 23 | being the current atmospherics in the case it can't hurt to |\n| 24 | have a third party, such as a former bankruptcy judge, |\n| 25 | making these decisions and I decided to keep her in that |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 9 role. And also I'm saying this a little bit in a cynical way, but she hasn't been accused of being a member of the CCP yet so, therefore, it looks like for now she's still proceed as independent. And that's why -- and that's what we're doing. Basically, we're seeking to continue the continued role of Judge Cyganowski, the continued role of Sotheby's as the broker. The apartment is on the market. It's right now on the market for 32,500,000. Remember, that that apartment was acquired for, you know, there are various references by the debtor of how much he paid, but around 60 or 70 million. It doesn't matter. It's still at 32. It's still half of what was paid. And it's on the market. But it's important to understand that although the debtor is using the apartment from time to time, the debtor's is not paying rent, and nobody is paying rent on that apartment. And the maintenance is shocking. But the maintenance on the apartment is something like 80, I want to say 82, maybe I'm off by a few thousand dollars, but 80,000 or 82,000 a month. That's just on maintenance. And what's happening is that there was an account funded pre-petition to cover the Sherry-Netherland for that maintenance. That account had a million and change on the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 10 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
10 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | petition date.
And of course it's been depleted since then. |\n| 2 | To be honest with you, I've not done the math as to when |\n| 3 | that will be exhausted, but it will be exhausted eventually. |\n| 4 | And, therefore, one of the reasons we are moving |\n| 5 | in this direction is that if the apartment doesn't sell we |\n| 6 | may have to pivot into a different direction.
For example, |\n| 7 | renting.
And I don't want to get into an issue of you're |\n| 8 | proposing to stop the sale process?
No, we want to sell. |\n| 9 | That's the goal, et cetera, et cetera.
But at one point, |\n| 10 | unless somebody's willing to write a check for \\$82,000 a |\n| 11 | month, the Sherry-Netherland is going to say who's paying |\n| 12 | that? |\n| 13 | So obviously we need to start thinking about that. |\n| 14 | That's not part of the relief we're seeking, but I want to |\n| 15 | make sure Your Honor knows part of the thinking here is that |\n| 16 | we may have to go in that direction. |\n| 17 | And of course I want to be clear, the Sherry |\n| 18 | Netherland has whatever rights they have.
We're not trying |\n| 19 | to say that we have the right to rent it to anyone or to |\n| 20 | rent it at all.
Whatever the documents provide, they |\n| 21 | provide.
We're not trying to go in that direction at all. |\n| 22 | We just want to mention that we need -- we may |\n| 23 | need flexibility here, but we're not seeking that |\n| 24 | flexibility in this order right now.
We want to continue |\n| 25 | the sale process, but I want to flag for Your Honor that |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 11 these consulting rights and all that may cause conflict issues. So if we talk about Bravo Luck for a second, Bravo Luck is the company that apparently is controlled by the debtor's son. Of course, they're doing Mr. Kwok's bidding. Mr. Kwok uses the apartment for free. And if we told them that he needs to leave so we can rent it, I guarantee you that they would not support that. Although I'm happy to hear a contrary view on that. But, again, that's not before the Court. But it goes to the issue continuing the sale process and with -- in a different posture. So the argument here is that let's talk about PAX. It pains me to be adverse to them because they've been very supportive of the trustee's work. And I hate this. But on the other hand, we have to be clear, PAX is an unsecured creditor of Genever, at least as alleged, an unsecured claim. It's an alter-ego claim. Don't want to go there, but it's unclear as to whether the trustee owns that claim or they do. We don't need to go there. But the point is that they're an unsecured creditor. They're not a fiduciary. And by the way, they were carrying the banner of unsecured creditors before the appointment of a trustee. They did that in the Genever case. And, you know, all unsecured creditors should thank Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 11 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 12 them for that. But at the end of the day, they're not a fiduciary. I'm not saying anything negative about them, but they have a business to run. They're going to do -- make decisions to the extent it's in their own economic best interest to do that and, therefore, we don't believe that they should have a veto or consulting rights. And as I said, it pains me to say that because they've been very supportive of the process. And we intend to continue to cooperate with them to the extent we can, but just given the circumstances it's a different landscape and they should not have consulting rights or veto rights regarding the sale motion. And as far as Bravo Luck is concerned, you know, we'll talk about this at 2 o'clock, but, you know, they're a defendant in that adversary proceeding because their argument is that they own this apartment through a trust agreement which was, quote/unquote, \"A secret trust agreement,\" never disclosed in litigation for years. And we think it's a fraudulent transfer in any event and we don't believe they should have any consulting rights. One of the reasons being is that they're doing their debtor's bidding here. And, for example, if we need to pivot to something Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 12 of 50\n\ndifferent than a sale, we don't want them to have any say\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 13 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
13 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | other than -- that they can have a say in court, but they |\n| 2 | shouldn't have any contractual say in that decision. |\n| 3 | Again, we're not asking the Court to approve |\n| 4 | anything other than the continued role of Judge Cyganowski |\n| 5 | as the sales agent and the continued role of Sotheby's as |\n| 6 | the sale broker. |\n| 7 | And so for these reasons, Your Honor, we believe |\n| 8 | that this should be approved.
We believe -- |\n| 9 | You know, Bravo Luck is arguing that this is a |\n| 10 | 60(b), that if there's a settlement, you're trying to undo |\n| 11 | the settlement, you need to seek court relief on that. |\n| 12 | That's not the case. |\n| 13 | The document itself had an expiration provision, |\n| 14 | the 180 days.
It was extended several times.
But it was |\n| 15 | not extended on October 31st and, therefore, the agreement |\n| 16 | regarding a sale process is no longer in effect.
And, |\n| 17 | therefore, we believe that there's no need to move under |\n| 18 | 60(b) or other forms of relief. |\n| 19 | We're not undoing the settlement agreement or the |\n| 20 | sale process that is governed by that agreement, expired by |\n| 21 | its own terms, but we are continuing some features of it, |\n| 22 | namely, Judge Cyganowski and Sotheby's. |\n| 23 | And for these reasons, Your Honor, we would ask |\n| 24 | Your Honor to approve the motion, but happy to answer any |\n| 25 | questions you may have. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 14 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
14 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions at the |\n| 2 | moment.
I might as the hearing progresses. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MR. SARNOFF:
May I be briefly heard? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Sure.
Certainly. |\n| 7 | MR. SARNOFF:
May I remove my mask? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | MR. SARNOFF:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
I'm |\n| 10 | Stuart Sarnoff from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of Creditor |\n| 11 | PAX.
Mr. Friedman was not able to be here today, so I will |\n| 12 | do as good a job as I can to replicate his skills. |\n| 13 | As Mr. Despins said, this may be an unusual |\n| 14 | situation we're we've sort of had a disagreement with the |\n| 15 | trustee on the prosecution of the case. |\n| 16 | And it's also an unusual situation in this dispute |\n| 17 | where PAX's view is it wasn't broken, it doesn't need to be |\n| 18 | fixed. |\n| 19 | As we said in our papers, PAX, which is by far the |\n| 20 | largest creditor, objects to Trustee Despins' motion only to |\n| 21 | the extent that it seeks to eliminate PAX's consultation |\n| 22 | rights with respect to the marketing and sale of the Sherry |\n| 23 | Netherland apartment. |\n| 24 | We're not objecting to the continuation of the |\n| 25 | approved sale process, whether it's the continuation of the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 15 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 15 agreement or the entry into a new agreement, we are fully supportive of the sale process with Judge Cyganowski and with Mr. Despins' role.\n\n But PAX, like the trustee, and like Bravo Luck, and like the debtor, are aligned in that our primary motivation here is to maximize the sale proceeds from the apartment. That benefits all of the creditors as well as the debtor in a sense. We're aligned on this.\n\n But recognizing that the sale of the Sherry- Netherland is one of the means to achieve the estate maximizing the objective of maximizing value PAX bargained for these consent rights. It gave up its -- and resolved its lift-stay motion in consideration for having the right to weigh in effectively, not to have a veto right. It doesn't have a veto right. In fact, the agreement provides -- the existing agreement expressly provides that the sales officer has final authority in the event of any dispute.\n\n PAX's rights was to be -- were to be consulted and to have a view and to weigh in, and we don't see any reason having bargained for that right and resolved the lift-stay to be cut out of that process where we don't have veto rights.\n\n We have consultation rights and consent rights, the rights to review the sale motion prior to filing, the right to be kept informed regarding the sales process,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 16 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 16 offers received, materials relating to the negotiation of the sale of the apartment, the right to be consulted regarding the bank that's going to hold the proceeds. These are not draconian rights. These are rights to be kept in the loop, and we don't -- and, again, we'd like that status quo preserved. The sales process creates a status quo and is really in this case one of the few examples of the parties working together and reaching a consensus. It's creating defining -- it's creating defined rights and allowing the parties to participate in the process which is a positive. It reduces the potential for conflict by giving the parties an opportunity to voice their concerns. It additionally creates a process by which there's no dispute that the apartment is going to be sold and liquidated so that there's assets for the creditors of the estate. There's no need for the equilibrium here to be disrupted. It's a little strange that in the Sherry- Netherland's reply in support of the trustee's motion, they point out at page -- at paragraph 8 of their reply brief -- or their brief in support -- that PAX and Bravo Luck somehow hindered the sales process. But you'll note, Your Honor, there's absolutely no evidence or argument supported other than that blanket statement, and it's just not true.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 17 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 17 In fact, you heard Mr. Despins a few minutes ago and he didn't make the argument that we've been obstructive or we've hindered the sales process. And god knows, Trustee Despins is a talented guy and he's not shy. If he thought we had been hindering the process, he would have told you. So I don't think that allegation that somehow we or Bravo Luck for that matter has been hindering the sales process is valid and it's certainly not supported by anything. And, you know, obviously the Sherry-Netherland is a secured creditor, but they are the one party who probably doesn't care what price the apartment gets sold as long as it's enough to cover their security. And so they may be the one party least aligned in terms of maximizing value, but that's not an issue before Your Honor today. I'm just making the point that we haven't been hindering the sales process. There's no argument. And Trustee Despins, you know, with whom we have a pretty good working relationship, wouldn't even make that suggestion to you. So, in summary, you know, as I said at the outset, we were the largest creditor. We negotiated for the consent right. And it's not a (indiscernible) right. We're not being obstructive. And we want to preserve the status quo. And we support the ongoing sales process, but we shouldn't be stripped of the rights that we bargained for.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 18 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
18 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And just to wrap it up, we don't think it's |\n| 2 | broken.
We don't think it needs to be fixed. |\n| 3 | If you don't have any questions, I'll sit down. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions at this |\n| 5 | time.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. SARNOFF:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, may I be heard on behalf |\n| 8 | of -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Did you file a response? |\n| 10 | MR. GOLDMAN:
We did not. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm going to take the people |\n| 12 | that filed responses first.
Okay? |\n| 13 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Sure. |\n| 14 | MR. PETROCELLI:
May I be heard next, Your Honor? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Go right ahead. |\n| 16 | MR. PETROCELLI:
Good afternoon.
Again, for the |\n| 17 | record, Patrick Petrocelli on behalf of the Sherry |\n| 18 | Netherland.
I'll be very brief. |\n| 19 | The settlement agreement was signed over a year |\n| 20 | ago.
The apartment, as far as we're aware, is no closer to |\n| 21 | being sold than when the settlement was agreed -- was |\n| 22 | originally entered into.
The Sherry-Netherland is the only |\n| 23 | direct creditor of Genever, the titled owner of the |\n| 24 | apartment at issue, who has filed papers in support or in |\n| 25 | opposition to this application. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 19 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 19 Certainly the trustee believes that something in the process needs to be fixed or changed, whether you want to call it hindered, whether you want to say it's broken, something needs to be changed or else the trustee would not have filed the application. I heard reference before to we don't have a veto right, we have a consent right. If someone has the right to consent to something and they withhold their consent, that is by definition a veto. And the Sherry-Netherland does believe that when you have a sales officer, you have a real estate broker, you have a trustee, you have Bravo Luck and PAX, that's five people who are making decisions, who are being listened to in terms of any decision that is going to be made, we, therefore, really have nobody who's making decisions and we do believe that that is a hindrance. The Sherry-Netherland, as a secured creditor, as the trustee noted, the security deposit, which is a finite source of funds, is being used to cover certain post- petition claims of the Sherry-Netherland on a month-by-month basis. You know, if the sales process continues to drag out and that fund is exhausted, there is going to be an open question as to what then needs to happen in terms of being able to cover the maintenance costs. And so we support the trustee in his application\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 20 today. You know, whatever bargained-for rights were contained in the settlement agreement, those bargained-for rights had an expiration date and that expiration date has since passed. And so we think that given where we are today and the circumstances that are here, again, the Sherry- Netherland as the only direct creditor of Genever, the titled owner of the apartment, we support the application that the sales process should continue and that the best way to achieve a value maximizing sale of the apartment under current marketing conditions is for that sale process to continue without whatever consent or consultation rights were previously in place. Unless the Court has any questions, we'll -- THE COURT: I don't have at the moment. Thank you. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you very much. THE COURT: Counsel for Bravo Luck? MR. LAWALL: Thank you, Your Honor. And good afternoon. First of all, I am Fran Lawall on behalf of Troutman Pepper and on behalf of Bravo Luck. And thank yo for executing our pro hac vice motion, Your Honor. This is the first time I've been able to be before Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 21 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 21 MR. LAWALL: Your Honor, I have a copy of the settlement agreement which might be informative. I don't know if Your Honor has a copy in front of you or whether you'd like to have a copy. THE COURT: I do. I mean, if I'm looking at the right thing, I do have a copy of the settlement agreement, which I believe is the right thing. MR. LAWALL: Great. THE COURT: Let me just -- let me just make sure though. And we could always pull it up so everyone can see it at the same time, but I think it's attached to the trustee's motion as Exhibit C or B. Here it is. The settlement -- second, amended and restated settlement agreement, is that what you're looking at, Counsel? MR. LAWALL: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then I'm on the same page with you. MR. LAWALL: Thank you, Your Honor. And, Your Honor, just a couple of things up front. And I'm not going to make a big deal of this, but suggestions by the trustee that Bravo Luck is doing Mr. Kwok's bidding is simply not the case. There is litigation that's pending. There are three complaints against my client. A couple of things just from the top. It's undisputed that a Bravo Luck account funded\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 22 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 22 the purchase of the Sherry, so the suggestion that the Sherry is the only creditor of Genever New York, which is how I refer to it, which is the direct owner of the Sherry, that's not correct, in effect, because PAX is not a direct creditor at this point of Genever. Bravo Luck is actually the largest creditor if it turns out that it's not the owner of the property under the trust agreement. And we've recognized from the beginning that there was an issue with respect to this trust agreement. In fact, Your Honor, the entire settlement agreement was negotiated in New York as a pathway to provide a sensible way of resolving those issues while at the same time allowing the sale of the Sherry. And, by the way, something that I think the Sherry has not taken into account was that there was a major concession with respect to that deposit that was not funded by the debtor, which was allowed through lift-stay to pay the maintenance fee throughout the course of this settlement agreement. So, in effect, it's not simply that this settlement agreement resolved either a trustee motion or lift-stay motion, it resolved a myriad of issues including it provided a pathway for the sale of this property and the funding of an escrow once those monies -- once it was\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 23 liquidated so that the dispute with respect to ownership could be resolved. This negotiation went on for several months, several hearings in front of Judge Garrity, substantial participation by the United States Trustee, so this was not simply a document that was thrown together. And I agree with Mr. Sarnoff and I'm hoping this action creates a bridge at some point for some kind of a resolution in this case that this has worked all the way through. In fact, participation has been by all the parties, giving suggestions to the sales officer with respect to how to proceed. And, in fact, there hasn't been any major disputes. There have been sharing of information to try and get to the endpoint, which we all agree on is the highest and best price. Now, a couple of important things with respect to the settlement agreement. There's been a suggestion that there is a veto right. There's anything but that. It is a consultation right. And, in fact, in several places within the settlement agreement it makes clear that the sales officer has the final say. And if there is a dispute at all, it comes before Your Honor. Neither PAX nor us, Bravo, has a veto right here. It is simply a consultation right to weigh Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 23 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 24 in. And, in fact, that's the way Chapter 11 is supposed to work. You're supposed to bring the major parties in, try and reach an agreement, and then file your papers. And that's all this was intended to do. Had the Genever case proceeded and the Connecticut cases not been filed, what would have happened is this property would have been sold and there would have been litigation, which the settlement agreement provides, for an ultimate determination with respect to the trust agreement. We recognize there's an issue. We're not trying to hide it. We're prepared to litigate it. We have three complaints against us right now which we're prepared -- to which we'll respond. And I pledge to Your Honor we are going to do this in an orderly fashion with as little fanfare as possible. We're going to do it by the numbers. We'll develop the facts. We'll try the case if it becomes necessary. We've been fine with that from the very beginning. And we knew that this was an issue, allegations that the settlement agreement -- the trust agreement was hidden or what have you, we'll deal with that. I don't believe that's the case, but we'll deal with that. And, again, we're looking at the four corners of a settlement agreement which was done by final order of Judge\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 25 Garrity more than a year ago that provides for a comprehensive resolution with respect to the disposition of this property in an orderly fashion. And there are no veto rights. One of the things that we raised with respect to the trustee's motion is there seems to be an awful lot of inconsistency. And if I may, Your Honor, I'm going to start with the relief requested in the original motion. In paragraph 24 -- THE COURT: Let me catch up with you though. MR. LAWALL: Sure, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'd like to follow you. So let me pull the motion up. (Pause.) THE COURT: So paragraph 24, did you say? I'm not quite there yet. MR. LAWALL: Sure, Your Honor. Whenever -- THE COURT: Paragraph 24, but I'm in the document. Is that the document? Is that the paragraph you just noted? MR. LAWALL: That is correct, Your Honor. And specifically I'm looking at the third line in the middle of the sentence where it says in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement except that -- well, let me go back. It says movant's requests for authorizations to Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 25 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 26 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
26 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | continue the now-expired sale process of the Sherry |\n| 2 | Netherland under the auspices of the sale officer -- I'm |\n| 3 | skipping some words -- through February 1, 2023 in |\n| 4 | accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. |\n| 5 | So the initial motion was we want to -- we want to |\n| 6 | continue the settlement agreement in place, but we want to |\n| 7 | make this change. |\n| 8 | And then when you go to paragraph 27 of the same |\n| 9 | motion it further says while the sale and marketing process |\n| 10 | will continue to be conducted by the sales officer and |\n| 11 | Sotheby's in accordance with the terms of the settlement |\n| 12 | agreement, movants propose that the order extending the sale |\n| 13 | marketing process not continue any of PAX's and Bravo Luck's |\n| 14 | consultation and consent rights. |\n| 15 | So my point on this right now, Your Honor, is that |\n| 16 | what the trustee was trying to do was to amend the |\n| 17 | settlement agreement, but yet stay within the four corners |\n| 18 | of all the other terms and conditions and benefits of it, |\n| 19 | which is why in our response we said this is, in effect, a |\n| 20 | Rule 60 motion. |\n| 21 | Then, Your Honor, when you go to their omnibus |\n| 22 | opposition -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Let me get there too please so |\n| 24 | I can follow you.
What's the document number on the top of |\n| 25 | that document you're looking at right now? |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 27 MR. LAWALL: Yes, Your Honor. It's document 1359. THE COURT: Okay. If you give me one second, please. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. And where in this document would you like me to focus on? MR. LAWALL: Yes, Your Honor. Page 3. Paragraph 3, page 3, it's the last sentence at the end of paragraph 3. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LAWALL: It says instead movant seeks authorization to continue to attempt to sell the Sherry- Netherland apartment outside the ambit of the settlement agreement. So on the one hand the initial motion is we want to stay within the terms of the settlement agreement. Then the omnibus motion says, no, actually we want (indiscernible) outside the terms of the settlement agreement. I assume that was somehow to try and escape the Rule 60 issue. Put that aside, Your Honor, from our perspective, what we want is clarification. If the trustee's going to blow up the settlement agreement, well, then so be it, but that will have consequences which may not be good for the estate. And we are prepared to honor the settlement agreement, move forward\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 27 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 28 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
28 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | with the sale, put forth our consultation rights, and be |\n| 2 | cooperative and constructive in connection with the sale, |\n| 3 | and then we'll litigate with respect to the issue of the |\n| 4 | ultimate ownership. |\n| 5 | And if, in fact, it is determined that we somehow |\n| 6 | don't own this property under the trust agreement, there is |\n| 7 | still a 65 to \\$70 million of cash that was put into this |\n| 8 | property for the acquisition.
One way or the other, both of |\n| 9 | those issues are going to have to be resolved and we |\n| 10 | recognize that. |\n| 11 | But, from the top, Your Honor, again, it's still |\n| 12 | unclear whether the trustee's trying to keep the settlement |\n| 13 | agreement in place or whether he's trying to go outside the |\n| 14 | settlement agreement and says it doesn't exist. |\n| 15 | I will point out under the terms of the settlement |\n| 16 | agreement itself the provision that deals with the sale of |\n| 17 | the property, the extension, if I can just find this, it's |\n| 18 | paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement, Your Honor.
And I |\n| 19 | apologize for jumping back and forth -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
That's all right.
I've got it.
I |\n| 21 | just have to get to paragraph 4.
Okay.
The marketing |\n| 22 | terms, is that what you're saying, that paragraph? |\n| 23 | MR. LAWALL:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 25 | MR. LAWALL:
It says, and let me have the exact |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 29 words, I have it written down in my own left-handed chicken scratch -- Your Honor, I'm sorry. I have the wrong paragraph. I'm looking for the paragraph that deals with duration. And I may have -- THE COURT: Hold on. I might be able to find it. Actually 4.E says, at the top of page 5, notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary of the duration of the sales process shall be limited to 180 days from the retention of the broker. Is that what you were looking for? MR. LAWALL: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that. Your Honor, the one thing I'll just point out there is the extension of the sales process. You'll notice it's not a defined term. It's a capital -- it's a small S, small O. This process, the sales process, this entire settlement agreement, dealt with the sale of this property. Everybody had hoped that it would sell within 180 days, but people understood that it could be extended. But it was extended within the four corners of this settlement agreement, not some third-party sale process. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Despins is the trustee of the Kwok Estate, but the Genever New York is Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 29 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 30 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
30 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | still a debtor in possession under the auspices of the |\n| 2 | trustee indirectly through Genever BVI.
This was an |\n| 3 | agreement that was reached with Genever New York after a |\n| 4 | long period of time which was beneficial to the estate. |\n| 5 | And, respectfully, we see no reason why it should be changed |\n| 6 | at this point. |\n| 7 | We're simply asking the trustee to allow the major |\n| 8 | parties to continue to consult, to be part of the process, |\n| 9 | to be productive, and move towards the sale of this |\n| 10 | property. |\n| 11 | If the trustee is going to move outside of this |\n| 12 | sales and start a different sales process with respect to |\n| 13 | Genever New York, then what we're suggesting is then that |\n| 14 | may call into question whether this settlement agreement is |\n| 15 | still valid or not or whether it has now been terminated as |\n| 16 | a result of their actions. |\n| 17 | I don't want to go there, Your Honor.
We'd rather |\n| 18 | just continue the settlement agreement as is, as a prior |\n| 19 | entered court order, and to move forward with this estate. |\n| 20 | I'm sure we're going to have enough fights.
This is not one |\n| 21 | we necessarily need to have. |\n| 22 | That's all I have, Your Honor, unless you have any |\n| 23 | questions. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I don't at the moment.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MR. LAWALL:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 31 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 31 THE COURT: Mr. Goldman, you wanted to be heard? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. I'll be brief. I just wanted to express the committee's support for the trustee's position in this case. I'll take him up on his invitation to thank PAX which I think is deserving of thanks. They certainly served as a protectorate so to speak of the interests of all unsecured creditors, although it may have been unwittingly and for their own interests. But the bottom line is they really have no special or priority interest in this asset, vis-a-vis other unsecured creditors of the Kwok Estate. They assert an alter-ego claim which is a claim that is common to all creditors of Kwok's Estate and, therefore, it's our position that that type of claim is held by the trustee in accordance with controlling Second Circuit authority, most recent of which was the *In re: Tronics* case from the Second Circuit. The case now is obviously in a completely different posture than when this settlement agreement was entered into and approved. At that time, you had ostensibly Mr. Kwok who was the indirect equity owner of Genever Holdings through his 100 percent interest in Genever BVI.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 32 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 32 Since that agreement was entered into, Mr. Kwok has filed a voluntary Chapter 11 case, a trustee has been appointed. The trustee now controls the corporate authority that exists in both Genever Holdings and Genever BVI, which in turn controls Genever Holdings, so the whole reason for the procedures that were established in that case no longer exist now that the trustee is serving as the protectorate for the unsecured creditors. And the agreement itself, although it may be a technical reading, it does state that it's establishing procedures for the sale of the property in the Chapter 11 case. And the Chapter 11 case is defined as the case that was pending in New York. The case is now pending in Connecticut under a completely different set of circumstances. So, with that, I'll just conclude, and again express our support for the trustee's position. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Despins, do you have any response? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Very briefly. The first thing that needs to be corrected is this concept that somehow the son paid for the apartment or some of it. The money all came from Hong Kong from Mr. Kwok. It did go through a Bravo Luck account, but Mr. Kwok had\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 33 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
33 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | control with the son over the account.
He's the one who |\n| 2 | authorized the transfer for the funds. |\n| 3 | So this concept that somehow the son, who as far |\n| 4 | as we know -- they don't like it when we say that -- but has |\n| 5 | never had a let's put it this way a job that would support |\n| 6 | paying \\$60 million for an apartment.
You know, that |\n| 7 | concept, is just -- it's heresy.
But that's for another |\n| 8 | day. |\n| 9 | Now, as far as -- there's a fundamental issue |\n| 10 | here.
The document says that they have approval rights over |\n| 11 | a motion.
They're saying we just have consulting rights. |\n| 12 | Frankly, I'm not that concerned about them having |\n| 13 | consulting rights as long as they don't have approval |\n| 14 | rights.
But the document says approval right and they skirt |\n| 15 | that.
They don't even mention that. |\n| 16 | But as the counsel for Sherry-Netherland said if |\n| 17 | you have consent rights, you have a veto right. |\n| 18 | So the estate cannot be in a position where anyone |\n| 19 | can veto the sale and that's really the crux of the issue |\n| 20 | here and we can't hide that through the reference to |\n| 21 | consulting rights. |\n| 22 | And both sides, you know -- and, again, I'm saying |\n| 23 | this with all due respect to Mr. Sarnoff, but also Bravo |\n| 24 | Luck -- you know, completely ignore that language, |\n| 25 | notwithstanding anything contained herein.
Notwithstanding |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 34 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 34 anything contained herein that the duration of the sale process shall be limited to 180 days unless everyone agrees or the Court orders for cause shown. And these conditions are not present. They were not present on November 1st when the prior extensions expired and that's the state of play, that that agreement ended. And it's important to look at the extensions that were agreed to, Your Honor. For example, you've never extended it and that's why we wanted to raise the issue before you actually put an order in this case. But there were extensions in the case when it was before Judge Garrity before. And I'm looking, for example, at the one where there's an expiration date of October 31st, which is document 222 in case 22-50592. And in there it says whereas the parties, that includes Bravo Luck and PAX, would like to further continue the sales process of the residence, number one. Two, the debtor's -- I say two, there's no two there, but, you know, comma, the debtor's employment of Ms. Cyganowski as sales officer, and the retention of Sotheby's as the debtor's broker to market and sell the residence. So these are the three aspects that the parties\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 35 realized that needed to be continued otherwise they would end by their terms. And it clearly says order that pursuant to the settlement agreement the sale process of the residence is extended from September 12 through October 31st, 2022, without prejudice to further extension upon the consent of the parties. That never happened. So we can ignore that provision. But that provision said notwithstanding anything contained herein the sale process shall end at that time. So, therefore, there's no breach or termination of that agreement. It's by it's own terms it terminated. And the question is should we continue the same consent rights that they have? We believe that's imprudent because we don't want to be in a position where somebody can veto that. So that's why we moved for that relief and we're asking the Court to enter the order. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. SARNOFF: May I just be very, very briefly heard, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. SARNOFF: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX. I do find myself slightly in the unusual position Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 35 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 36 of arguing a contrary position to the trustee and that will happen sometimes. I would just point Your Honor to paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement, approval powers. The sales officer shall have the final approval power after consultation with the debtor Bravo Luck and PAX and subject to the Court, bankruptcy court approval with right to object by Bravo Luck and PAX regarding -- and then it goes on -- the marketing and sale of the residence including. I don't know why we're tripped up over consultation versus veto. I think Mr. Lawall and I have represented that we don't believe we have veto power or rights. I think paragraph 6 of the agreement, and I understand there's a question about whether it continues or this is a new agreement, but I think we could agree that we don't have veto power and I think that's what paragraph 6 says. We have the right to be consulted and informed, express our views, and then the sales officer shall have the final authority with bankruptcy approval to reach its decision. So, I mean, if the Court wants to make it clear in an order that we're to be consulted, but we don't have veto Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 36 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 37 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 37 power, I think we would -- I can't speak for Mr. Lawall -- I think PAX would consent to that. But I think it's consistent with what PAX and Mr. Lawall on behalf of Bravo Luck always thought we did have and didn't have. So I just -- I don't want us -- and I know that the Sherry-Netherland lawyer stood up and said there must have been something wrong with it, or Mr. Despins, I don't think that's true. I don't think Mr. Despins has said one sentence in support of a notion that we've been obstructive or we've hindered this. And I just don't see any reason to deprive us of a right which we bargained for when it is not veto power. It is consult. It is consultation power. That's all I had. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. PETROCELLI: Very briefly, Your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. MR. PETROCELLI: Just two things quickly. I want to -- I could have misheard, but I thought I heard counsel for Bravo Luck suggest that the Sherry- Netherland's ability to use the security deposit for post- petition maintenance was somehow tethered to the settlement agreement or the terms in the sale process or anything of that nature. That's incorrect. 25 The consent order allowing the Sherry-Netherland\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 38 to use the security deposit speaks for itself. It's at case 22-50592, docket no. 107. And, you know, to the extent any compromise or anything is hammered out here today, the Sherry-Netherland would just ask that it be crystal clear that you're talking about consent, I'm sorry, consultation only, because I think there is hangup there about certain instances in the agreement refers to consent. And, again, consent and veto, I don't what the difference is between those two (indiscernible). THE COURT: When you say the agreement, do you mean ECF 107 that you just spoke about? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry. I switched back to the settlement agreement for that point. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: There has been some suggestion here that, you know, and I take counsel for PAX at his word, that they don't believe that they have a veto right. You know, I would like to hear him say they don't believe they have a consent right either. Because, again, I don't see a distinction between those two. And, otherwise, again, the Sherry-Netherland as a secured creditor of the titled owner of the apartment is interested in an expeditious, volume maximizing sale of this apartment, you know, given the market conditions, and we Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 38 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 39 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
39 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | support that application.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | Counsel? |\n| 4 | MR. LAWALL:
Your Honor, may I be heard briefly? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 6 | MR. LAWALL:
The settlement agreement itself does |\n| 7 | specifically address in paragraph 7.E the deposit.
It says |\n| 8 | stay relief is confirmed to allow the Sherry-Netherland to |\n| 9 | apply all accrued and owing post-petition maintenance fees |\n| 10 | and assessments. |\n| 11 | So I think what was said earlier is incorrect to a |\n| 12 | point, that the use of that deposit was part and parcel of |\n| 13 | this overall agreement.
In fact, to the point where the |\n| 14 | parties felt it necessary to put that in there. |\n| 15 | Your Honor, there are also other provisions in |\n| 16 | this settlement agreement which further confirm the veto |\n| 17 | rights that Mr. Sarnoff had pointed out. |\n| 18 | One, for example, Your Honor, discusses the fact |\n| 19 | that the trustee -- the sales officer under the operating |\n| 20 | agreement -- and that's a document that's not before Your |\n| 21 | Honor -- as part of what happened here, there was an |\n| 22 | operating agreement that was put in place and it confirmed |\n| 23 | that the sales officer has all of the authority under the |\n| 24 | operating agreement -- and the operating agreement |\n| 25 | (indiscernible) the sales officer the ability to run this |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 40 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 40 whole process. And, again, I think, Your Honor, you can get the flavor of this. We all agreed that there was going to be an independent sales officer, a well-recognized, reputable lawyer, who was going to run this. And in the event there was a dispute, she ultimately had the final say subject to now Your Honor's final approval. And that's how the process was going to work. It was nothing fancier than that. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? I apologize, Your Honor. Just one minute. (Pause.) MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I'm happy for them to have consulting rights as long as they agree they don't have a veto right. It's not like this issue just came up today. I raised it and I said I cannot live with the consent provision that allows you to consent. I didn't raise it with Mr. Lawall, but I raised it with PAX. I cannot live with the provision that says you have consent right over the motion. If that -- if they're saying we don't have that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 41 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 41 consent right, and if Bravo Luck agrees they don't have the consent right, that's the end of it. They can have -- they can continue to have the same consulting rights. So I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but we can't -- the point here is we cannot give -- continue to give people consent rights which in our mind means veto right. If they're willing to confirm on the record that they don't have that right, then I think that's the end of the process. THE COURT: Well, do you want to take a recess and go chat? MR. DESPINS: Sure. Sure, Your Honor. THE COURT: Because it sounds -- I thought I heard Mr. Sarnoff say he thinks PAX would consent to that, although I may have misheard. Attorney Sarnoff? MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, that is my understanding and belief. But if Your Honor would allow me the opportunity just to confirm -- THE COURT: Yes. That's why I think we need to -- either we can take a recess right now or we can continue with the matters at 2 o'clock and we can discuss it later. You know. Whatever, however, the parties want to proceed.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 42 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 42 MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor -- THE COURT: We have other matters on at 2 o'clock though. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, my only time consideration with respect to this is the 13-hour time difference that I have in trying to reach my client who is 13 hours ahead. Would it be something that we could consult and get back to you tomorrow and -- THE COURT: Yes. Yes. MR. SARNOFF: -- and give you an answer on? At least on behalf of PAX. I can't speak obviously for Bravo Luck. THE COURT: I think that's fine. Is that fine with you, Counsel? MR. LAWALL: It is, Your Honor. I can't imagine this is going to be an issue. THE COURT: Okay. So I think that makes a lot of sense. Let's see what happens. You may not know, Counsel, but the way we communicate -- Attorney Shaiken would know -- is when and if you all agree, or don't agree, a communication comes through the courtroom deputy email box in Bridgeport. It's a generic email box. But everybody's got to be on the same email. So\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 43 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
43 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | whoever sends it, doesn't matter, but they have to make sure |\n| 2 | they CC everybody else.
Otherwise the Court won't take it |\n| 3 | into account.
Because I need to know that everybody is on |\n| 4 | the same communication. |\n| 5 | MR. LAWALL:
Thank you, Your Honor.
And I |\n| 6 | appreciate you letting me know that. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, does that mean that this |\n| 9 | motion is adjourned until Thursday? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, maybe not Thursday.
Maybe |\n| 11 | tomorrow if you're all in agreement.
I mean, maybe it |\n| 12 | doesn't have to be -- |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, short of an agreement. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
What I can do is I can say that the |\n| 15 | hearing -- you know, I can continue the hearing until |\n| 16 | tomorrow or Thursday.
But if you're all in agreement on |\n| 17 | what an order would say, then we don't have a controversy. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
I meant short of an agreement that |\n| 19 | it would be adjourned until Thursday? |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
We can do that.
Because |\n| 21 | we have other matters scheduled for Thursday. |\n| 22 | Counsel for the Sherry-Netherland, I would ask you |\n| 23 | one thing. |\n| 24 | At some point, even if this is an agreed issue, |\n| 25 | ultimately if you all have an agreement, the Court is going |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 44 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
44 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to need to be aware at some point what the amount of the |\n| 2 | security deposit is that you still have, if any, and what's |\n| 3 | being paid on a monthly basis just so the Court is aware. |\n| 4 | Right? |\n| 5 | At some point, hopefully, there will be a sale of |\n| 6 | this property and I would want to know in advance of that |\n| 7 | sale is this a situation where the security deposit was |\n| 8 | exhausted four months ago or is it going to be exhausted in |\n| 9 | four months?
You know, that kind of -- I would want to know |\n| 10 | that. |\n| 11 | MR. PETROCELLI:
Understood, Your Honor.
And we |\n| 12 | can certainly provide that specific information. |\n| 13 | My rough understanding is that the security |\n| 14 | deposit was initially in the neighborhood of \\$3 million. |\n| 15 | And it's something lower than that, but it has not been |\n| 16 | exhausted. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. PETROCELLI:
It has not been exhausted yet. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, that's hopeful to |\n| 20 | know.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. PETROCELLI:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then what we'll -- |\n| 23 | Oh, Attorney Shaiken? |\n| 24 | MR. SHAIKEN:
What time Thursday? |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, I was just about to get there. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 45 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
45 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Because we have some other things on Thursday.
But I'm |\n| 2 | hoping that we actually won't see any of you on Thursday on |\n| 3 | this issue because you're all going to resolve it it sounds |\n| 4 | like.
So give me one moment, please. |\n| 5 | (Pause.) |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
We're scheduled at noon on Thursday. |\n| 7 | So we can continue this matter to noon on Thursday with the |\n| 8 | understanding that it's highly likely there will be no |\n| 9 | continued hearing because there will be an agreed-upon |\n| 10 | order.
Okay? |\n| 11 | Does that -- does anyone have any questions? |\n| 12 | (No response.) |\n| 13 | MR. SHAIKEN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Great.
Thank you all then. |\n| 15 | This matter is continued until the 26th at noon. |\n| 16 | And there are other matters on at noon, so it |\n| 17 | doesn't mean that we'll get heard right away.
But actually |\n| 18 | I'm convinced that there won't be anything to hear because |\n| 19 | there will be a consensual order before that date.
All |\n| 20 | right? |\n| 21 | So that concludes the matter at 1 p.m. |\n| 22 | Now we have matters at 2 p.m.
And it happens to |\n| 23 | be 1:58 p.m.
So we can proceed with the 2 o'clock matters |\n| 24 | as far as the Court is concerned. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Actually, Your Honor, there was a |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 46 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
46 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | housekeeping matter I've been asked to raise with Your Honor |\n| 2 | by friends of the Zeisler firm, which is that we -- they |\n| 3 | submitted last week, that's docket no. 1340, a consent order |\n| 4 | regarding the Lady May expense reserve.
They're using -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
We didn't get to it yet, but I |\n| 6 | know it's there. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
They've asked me to remind you and |\n| 8 | that's all I'm doing.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | All right.
So the first matter on the calendar |\n| 11 | today at 2 o'clock is an application to employ Paul Hastings |\n| 12 | as counsel to the debtor. |\n| 13 | Trustee Despins, do you want to proceed or is |\n| 14 | someone else proceeding on your behalf? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
I was going to handle that because |\n| 16 | there's no objection.
That's what I do best. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, we filed this at |\n| 19 | docket 1293.
Our understanding is that no objections have |\n| 20 | been filed, so we would ask that the order be entered. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I'm looking.
I just want to look at |\n| 22 | the proposed order again. |\n| 23 | Attorney Claiborn, did you wish to be heard on |\n| 24 | this matter? |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 47 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 47 Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I just wanted to report that the U.S. Trustee has no objection. THE COURT: And have you reviewed the proposed order, Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You know, I -- it's not really at all important, but in the proposed orders that have been submitted in this case they often include the standing order of reference from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and then have in parentheses as amended, but it's not amended. It's never been amended. So I just -- I'm probably going to delete that so it doesn't confuse someone. There's only -- as of September of 1984, there's only one order of reference from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Now, that doesn't mean they couldn't amend it sometime in the future, but they haven't amended it. So on the proposed order, the proposed order doesn't have page numbers at the bottom of it, which is fine, but -- oh, maybe it does on page 2. I'm sorry, it does on page 2. So on page 2 at the -- I'm talking to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 48 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022
48 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | courtroom deputy -- at the top of page 2, third line, in the |\n| 2 | top of page 2, third line, there's a standing order of |\n| 3 | reference from the United States District Court for the |\n| 4 | District of Connecticut, onto line 4, do you see that? |\n| 5 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
I do not.
Maybe I'm |\n| 6 | looking at the incorrect order.
Sorry. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
It's the order, proposed order for |\n| 8 | 1293. |\n| 9 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Oh, I am.
That's what it |\n| 10 | is.
I apologize. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
That's okay.
Well, we don't have to |\n| 12 | discuss it now.
We can do it later. |\n| 13 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
We're just going to delete that word. |\n| 15 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
It's not really that important as I |\n| 17 | said when I started talking. |\n| 18 | I think most other jurisdictions, or a lot of |\n| 19 | other jurisdictions, have revised that reference order, but |\n| 20 | Connecticut has not. |\n| 21 | I have no problem with any other -- or no concerns |\n| 22 | or questions with regard to any other terms and conditions |\n| 23 | of the order. |\n| 24 | So no one has filed a written objection to the |\n| 25 | motion.
There's no one participating in this hearing today |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 49 that is objecting to the motion. The United States Trustee's Office supports the motion. And for all those reasons, the motion -- oh, I'm looking at the wrong document right at the moment. Sorry. Give me one second. The application to employ Paul Hastings is granted and the proposed order can enter. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: There was another matter on the calendar today, a motion to quash a third-party subpoena. That has been withdrawn by Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara. UNIDENTIFIED: Correct, Your Honor. The issue has been resolved. THE COURT: So we don't need to address that. That's moot. (Pause.) THE COURT: Then the final motion is really, it's in three separate proceedings, but it's a motion to consolidate all three of the adversary proceedings into one adversary proceeding. MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Who's going to proceed with that motion? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Judge, could I just call the case? Case 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 49 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1420 Filed 01/31/23 Entered 01/31/23 18:43:28 Page 50 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2022 50 THE COURT: Oh, yes. Go right ahead. I'm sorry. Let her -- my apologies. She just needs to call the adversary proceeding numbers. Although this recording's going to be -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Right. But we still need it. THE COURT: Yeah. (Proceedings concluded at 2:03 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 15 January 31, 2023 16 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）及 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）， 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n\n债务人。 January 24, 2023\n\n关于进一步延长 Sherry-Netherland 公寓出售程序并继续聘用 Sotheby's Int'l. Realty（苏富比国际地产）作为经纪人的动议；申请聘用 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）担任债务人 Genever Holdings Corp 和 Genever Holdings LLC 的法律顾问；撤销向 Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC（艾维、巴纳姆和奥马拉有限责任公司）发出的第三方传票的动议之庭审记录\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING 美国破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表 Chapter 11 受托人：\nPATRICK LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\nChapter 11 受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n庭审程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Sherry-Netherland：\nPATRICK N. PETROCELLI, ESQ.\nStroock & Stroock & Lavan\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nROBERT E. KAELIN, ESQ.\nMurtha Cullina\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表利害关系方 Bravo Luck：\nFRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ.\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP\n3000 Two Logan Square\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\n\nDAVID SHAIKEN, ESQ.\nShipman, Shaiken & Schwefel\n433 South Main Street\nSuite 319\nWest Hartford, CT 06110\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2022 3\n\n（程序于下午 1:01 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）及 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）。\n\n法官：下午好。请 Chapter 11 受托人先为记录说明出庭身份。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，Chapter 11 受托人。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，Neubert Pepe & Monteith，代表受托人。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff，O'Melveny & Myers，代表债权人 PAX。与我一同出庭的是本地律师 Annecca Smith。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman，Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\nPETROCELLI 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Petrocelli，来自 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan，代表 Sherry-Netherland。\n\nKAELIN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Murtha Cullina 的律师 Robert Kaelin，也代表 Sherry-Netherland。\n\nLAWALL 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Fran Lawall，Troutman Pepper，代表 Bravo Luck。此外，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1420，于 01/31/23 提交，于 01/31/23 18:43:28 登记，第 4 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2022 4\n\n本地律师 David Shaiken 也在场。\n\nSHAIKEN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法官：下午好。没有人代表债务人出庭吗？他们没有反对这项动议吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：我认为他们没有提出反对，法官阁下。\n\n法官：哦，我以为他们已对这项动议提交了异议。抱歉。好。请继续，Despins 受托人。这是你的动议。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我可以摘下口罩吗？\n\n法官：可以。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法官：可以。请继续。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢。为记录起见，我是 Paul Hastings 的 Luc Despins，Chapter 11 受托人。因此，法官阁下，这项动议已经提交，案卷号为 1257；这是一项继续 Sherry-Netherland 出售程序的动议，但不包含先前出售程序中的某些——我想可以说是附加安排。因此，鉴于这是您的——我相信这是您首次接触 Genever 案件，我认为值得，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1420，于 01/31/23 提交，于 01/31/23 18:43:28 登记，第 5 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2022 5\n\n您知道，回顾一下其历史。因此，Genever 是该租约的产权所有人，或者，您知道，为了——为了简化起见，是该公寓的产权所有人。当然，由于其结构为合作公寓，因此存在租赁协议等，但从概念上讲，产权所有人是 Genever。该实体于 2020 年申请 Chapter 11 破产，我相信是在 2020 年 10 月。当时，Kwok 先生控制该实体，并控制 Genever 的 Chapter 11 案件。当时案件中的其他当事方包括 PAX，因为他们曾在纽约州最高法院 Ostrager 法官面前与 Kwok 先生进行诉讼，并且已经取得或即将取得对 Kwok 先生的即决判决裁定；他们主张或提出了另一自我责任请求。PAX 对 Genever 没有直接合同请求权，但他们提出另一自我责任请求，并且这正是他们在该案中提出的请求。因此，这是一方当事人。除此之外，在该案中，Sherry-Netherland，即该建筑物的所有人，也是一方当事人。他们是债权人，并参与了该案。当然还有美国受托人，但该案中没有任命债权人委员会。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1420，于 01/31/23 提交，于 01/31/23 18:43:28 登记，第 6 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2022 6\n\n此外，参与其中的另一方是 Bravo Luck，该实体目前显然由 Kwok 先生的儿子控制。因此，在该案一开始，PAX、Genever 和 Bravo Luck 之间就存在许多我称之为敌对的关系，基本上体现为 PAX 表示：让我们解除自动中止，以便我能够继续提起诉讼，对 Genever 主张另一自我责任请求。显然，Bravo Luck 反对该做法。随后，在 2021 年，PAX 还提出动议，要求将 Genever 案件转换为 Chapter 7，或任命一名受托人。因此，所有这些都发生在 2020 年末以及 2021 年期间。当时案件中没有受托责任人。没有债权人委员会。显然也没有受托人。最终，当事方能够就某些事项达成协议，即应将该公寓挂牌出售；该事项已载入我们——我们在书面材料中引用的协议。该协议赋予 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 各项权利。它还——我显然会回到这一点。此外，该协议还要求任命一名出售代理人，这是一种不同寻常的结构，因为显然双方均不信任对方。其构想是，为何不让一名第三方、前破产法官 Cyganowski 法官担任出售代理人，以便她能够\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1420，于 01/31/23 提交，于 01/31/23 18:43:28 登记，第 7 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2022 7\n\n聘用一名经纪人，并就何时以及是否出售、以何种价格出售作出最终决定。这些内容均载入该协议。我概括地说，在该协议中，Bravo Luck 和 PAX 在出售程序中拥有某些权利，因为他们——他们享有咨询权，这意味着出售代理人应就出售程序与他们协商。此外，和解协议第 5 段还有一项规定称，出售动议草案、最终出售动议，在提交前须提供给 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 审阅和批准。您知道，我们当时并不在场。显然，我们当时尚不存在。但这里存在一个真正的问题，即批准意味着什么？是对形式的批准？还是对实质内容的批准？不明确。协议没有说明。因此，该协议还在第 4.E 段规定，出售程序最初限于自聘用经纪人起 180 天的期间；该经纪人是——我忘了，抱歉，我有——经纪人是 Sotheby's，抱歉。因此，自聘用该经纪人起 180 天，但可经债务人、Bravo Luck 和 PAX 的书面协议延长，所以所有这些人均须同意，或者可由法院在有正当理由时进一步下令延长。事实上，该公寓已经在\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1420，于 01/31/23 提交，于 01/31/23 18:43:28 登记，第 8 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2022 8\n\n市场上出售，我不确定是否已有一年。\n\n如果未满一年，也接近一年。\n\n可能略多于一年。\n\n但该公寓一直在市场上出售，因此，180 天已经届满。\n\n事实上，当事方已同意延长该程序；最近一次延长并非由您下达命令，而是由 Garrity 法官在该案、即 Genever Holding 案中以案卷号 222 下达命令，该命令规定，该延长期间将于 October 31st 届满，但不妨碍经我刚才提到的当事方同意后进一步延长。\n\n因此，今年的 October 31st，您知道，已经过去。\n\n未达成延长协议。我们的观点是，由于我们通过所担任的受托人职务控制 Genever，出售应当继续。\n\n我认为没有人对此提出异议，即出售应当继续，至少我没有听到任何反对意见。因此，我们希望继续出售程序。\n\n我们还认为，而且我思考的时间不长，也许五分钟，就是，现在既然有受托人，是否有必要继续由 Cyganowski 法官担任该角色；我决定这样做是有意义的。原因是，鉴于本案当前的氛围，由一名第三方，例如前破产法官，作出这些决定并无坏处，因此我决定让她继续担任该角色。\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2022 9\n\n我这样说有一点讽刺意味，但她尚未被指控为中共成员，因此，目前看来她仍将作为独立人士继续履职。这就是——这就是我们正在做的事。基本上，我们请求继续由 Cyganowski 法官担任该角色，继续由 Sotheby's 担任经纪人。该公寓正在市场上出售。目前挂牌价为 32,500,000。请记住，该公寓的购入价格，您知道，债务人曾有各种说法称其支付了多少，但大约为 60 或 70 million。无关紧要。现在仍为 32。仍仅为购入价的一半。并且正在市场上出售。但重要的是要理解，尽管债务人不时使用该公寓，债务人并未支付租金，也没有任何人为该公寓支付租金。而维护费令人震惊。该公寓的维护费大约是 80，我想说是 82，也许我相差几千美元，但每月为 80,000 或 82,000。这仅仅是维护费。正在发生的是，申请破产前曾拨付一个账户，用于向 Sherry-Netherland 支付该维护费。该账户有一百多万\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1420，于 01/31/23 提交，于 01/31/23 18:43:28 登记，第 10 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年1月24日\n\n申请日。当然，自那以后，该款项已被耗尽。\n\n坦率地说，我尚未计算它何时会被耗尽，但最终会被耗尽。因此，我们朝这个方向推进的原因之一是，如果该公寓未能售出，我们可能不得不转向不同的方向。例如，出租。我不想陷入这样一个问题：你们是否在提议停止出售程序？不，我们希望出售。这是目标，等等，等等。但在某个时候，除非有人愿意每月开出 \\$82,000 的支票，否则 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）会问：谁来支付这笔钱？\n\n因此，显然我们需要开始考虑这一点。这并非我们所请求救济的一部分，但我想确保法官阁下知道，我们在此考虑的部分原因是，我们可能不得不朝这个方向发展。\n\n当然，我想明确的是，Sherry-Netherland 享有其所享有的任何权利。我们并非试图主张我们有权将其出租给任何人，或者有权出租。文件如何规定，便如何规定。我们根本无意朝那个方向发展。\n\n我们只是想提及，我们需要——我们可能需要在此保有灵活性，但目前我们并未在本命令中请求该等灵活性。我们希望继续出售程序，但我想向法官阁下提示，这些咨询权等可能造成冲突问题。因此，如果我们暂时谈谈 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克），Bravo Luck 是一家显然由债务人之子控制的公司。当然，他们是在按 Kwok 先生的意图行事。Kwok 先生免费使用该公寓。如果我们告诉他们，他需要搬离，以便我们可以出租该公寓，我向您保证，他们不会支持这一点。当然，我乐于听取相反的观点。但再次强调，这并非目前提交法院审理的问题。不过，这涉及在不同态势下继续出售程序的问题。因此，这里的论点是，让我们谈谈 PAX（PAX）。与他们处于对立立场令我感到痛苦，因为他们一直非常支持受托人的工作。我对此很不情愿。但另一方面，我们必须明确，至少如所主张，PAX 是 Genever（杰尼弗）的一名无担保债权人，持有一项无担保债权。这是一项另我责任请求。我不想谈及这一点，但尚不清楚该请求权归受托人所有，还是归他们所有。我们无需谈及这一点。但关键在于，他们是一名无担保债权人。他们不是受托人。顺便说一句，在指定受托人之前，他们一直在为无担保债权人奔走。他们在 Genever 案中这样做过，而且，您知道，所有无担保债权人都应当感谢他们。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 已提交 01/31/23 已登记 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 11 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年1月24日\n\n但归根结底，他们不是受托人。我并非对他们作出任何负面评价，但他们有业务要经营。他们会在符合其自身经济利益的范围内作出决定，因此，我们认为他们不应当拥有否决权或咨询权。正如我所说，这样说令我感到痛苦，因为他们一直非常支持这一程序。我们打算在能够做到的范围内继续与他们合作，但鉴于具体情况，格局已经不同，他们不应当就出售动议拥有咨询权或否决权。至于 Bravo Luck，您知道，我们将在两点钟讨论此事，但，您知道，他们是该对抗程序中的被告，因为他们主张，他们依据一份信托协议拥有该公寓，该协议被称为“一份秘密信托协议”，多年来从未在诉讼中披露。无论如何，我们认为这是一项欺诈性转让，我们不认为他们应当拥有任何咨询权。原因之一是，他们在此按其债务人的意图行事。例如，如果我们需要转向不同于出售的做法，我们不希望他们对此拥有任何发言权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 已提交 01/31/23 已登记 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 12 页，共 50 页\n\n不同于出售的做法，我们不希望他们对此拥有任何发言权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 已提交 01/31/23 已登记 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 13 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年1月24日\n\n除非——他们可以在法庭上发表意见，但不应当对该决定享有任何合同上的发言权。\n\n再次强调，我们请求法院批准的仅是 Cyganowski 法官（西加诺夫斯基法官）继续担任出售代理人，以及 Sotheby's（苏富比）继续担任出售经纪人。\n\n因此，法官阁下，基于这些理由，我们认为应当批准该动议。我们认为——您知道，Bravo Luck 主张，这属于一项 60(b) 动议，即如果存在和解，而你们试图撤销该和解，就需要就此请求法院救济。情况并非如此。\n\n该文件本身设有到期条款，即 180 天。其后曾数次延期，但未在 10 月 31 日延期，因此，关于出售程序的协议已不再有效。因此，我们认为无需依据 60(b) 或其他形式的救济提出动议。\n\n我们并非撤销和解协议，也并非撤销受该协议管辖、依其自身条款届满的出售程序；但我们正在延续其某些内容，即 Cyganowski 法官和 Sotheby's。\n\n因此，法官阁下，基于这些理由，我们请求法官阁下批准该动议，但乐于回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 已提交 01/31/23 已登记 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 14 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年1月24日\n\n法庭：目前我没有任何问题。随着听证的进行，我可能会有问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯平斯先生）：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nSARNOFF 先生（萨诺夫先生）：我可以简要发言吗？\n\n法庭：可以。当然可以。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：我可以摘下口罩吗？\n\n法庭：可以。可以。谢谢。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），代表债权人 PAX。Friedman 先生（弗里德曼先生）今天无法到场，因此我会尽我所能复现他的能力。\n\n正如 Despins 先生所说，这可能是一个不同寻常的情况，我们在案件的推进方面与受托人存在某种分歧。\n\n在这场争议中，这也是一个不同寻常的情况：PAX 的观点是，它没有坏，因此无需修复。\n\n正如我们在书面文件中所述，PAX 是迄今为止最大的债权人，其仅在 Despins 受托人的动议寻求取消 PAX 就 Sherry-Netherland 公寓营销和出售所享有的协商权时，对该动议提出异议。\n\n我们并不反对继续已获批准的出售程序；无论是继续执行该协议，还是订立一份新协议，我们都完全支持由 Cyganowski 法官及 Despins 先生参与的出售程序。\n\n但 PAX 与受托人、Bravo Luck 以及债务人一样，立场一致，即我们在此的主要动机是最大化该公寓的出售所得。这在某种意义上既有利于所有债权人，也有利于债务人。我们在此立场一致。\n\n但考虑到出售 Sherry-Netherland 是实现破产财产价值最大化目标的手段之一，PAX 为这些同意权进行了协商。为换取有权有效地提出意见——而非享有否决权——它放弃并解决了其解除自动中止动议。它没有否决权。事实上，该协议规定——现有协议明确规定，如发生任何争议，出售负责人拥有最终决定权。\n\nPAX 的权利是获得协商、有权表达意见并提出意见；我们看不出有任何理由，在我们已协商取得该权利并解决解除自动中止动议后，在我们不享有否决权的情况下，将我们排除在该程序之外。\n\n我们享有协商权和同意权，包括在出售动议提交前审阅该动议的权利、就出售程序、收到的要约以及与公寓出售谈判有关的材料获知情况的权利、就将持有出售所得的银行获得协商的权利。这些并非苛刻的权利。这些权利旨在使我们持续了解情况，而我们——再次强调，我们希望维持该现状。出售程序形成了一种现状，而且在本案中确实是各方协力合作并达成共识的少数例子之一。它确立了明确的权利，并允许各方参与该程序，这是积极的。它通过给予各方表达其关切的机会，减少了发生冲突的可能性。此外，它还形成了一个程序，各方均无争议的是，该公寓将被出售并变现，以便为破产财产的债权人提供资产。这里没有必要破坏这种平衡。略显奇怪的是，在 Sherry-Netherland 支持受托人动议的答复中，他们在其答复状——或者其支持意见书——第 8 段指出，PAX 和 Bravo Luck 不知何故阻碍了出售程序。但请注意，法官阁下，除该笼统陈述外，绝对没有任何证据或论据支持该说法，而且这根本不是真的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 已提交 01/31/23 已登记 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 16 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年1月24日\n\n事实上，您几分钟前听取了 Despins 先生的陈述，他并未主张我们一直在阻挠或妨碍出售程序。天知道，Despins 受托人是个有才能的人，而且他并不羞于直言。如果他认为我们一直在妨碍该程序，他会告诉您的。因此，我不认为有关我们或 Bravo Luck 就此而言一直在妨碍出售程序的指控成立，当然也没有任何材料支持。\n\n而且，您知道，显然 Sherry-Netherland 是有担保债权人，但他们可能是唯一一个不关心该公寓以何种价格出售的当事人，只要该价格足以覆盖其担保权益即可。因此，就最大化价值而言，他们可能是最不一致的一方，但这不是今天提交法官阁下审理的问题。我只是想说明，我们并未妨碍出售程序。不存在这种论据。而且，与我们保持相当良好工作关系的 Despins 受托人，甚至不会向您作出这种暗示。\n\n因此，概括而言，正如我一开始所说，我们是最大的债权人。我们为同意权进行了协商。这并非一项（听不清）权利。我们并非在阻挠。我们希望维持现状。我们支持持续进行的出售程序，但不应被剥夺我们协商取得的权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 已提交 01/31/23 已登记 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 18 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022\n\n1 而且，就作个结束说明，我们认为它并未失灵。2 我们认为无需修复。3 如果您没有任何问题，我就坐下了。\n\n4 法庭：我目前没有任何问题。5 谢谢。\n\n6 萨诺夫先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n7 戈德曼先生：法官阁下，我可否代表——8 ——发表意见？\n\n9 法庭：你们提交答复了吗？\n\n10 戈德曼先生：我们没有。\n\n11 法庭：好的。我将先听取12 已提交答复的人的意见。好吗？\n\n13 戈德曼先生：当然。\n\n14 彼得罗切利先生：法官阁下，我可以接着发言吗？\n\n15 法庭：可以。请讲。\n\n16 彼得罗切利先生：下午好。再次说明，17 记录在案，我是代表 Sherry Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）的帕特里克·彼得罗切利（Patrick Petrocelli）。18 我会非常简短。\n\n19 和解协议于一年多前签署。20 据我们所知，该公寓距离出售成功21 并不比和解协议达成——即最初22 订立时更近。Sherry-Netherland 是 Genever（赫内弗）的唯一直接债权人；Genever 是涉案公寓的登记所有人，并且是唯一就该项申请提交支持或反对文件的直接债权人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 19 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 19 当然，受托人认为程序中某些事项需要修复或改变；无论您愿意称其为受阻，还是愿意说它已失灵，某些事项都需要改变，否则受托人不会提出该申请。我此前听到有人提及，我们没有否决权，我们有同意权。如果某人有权同意某事，而其拒绝同意，这在定义上就是否决。并且，Sherry-Netherland 认为，当有一名出售官、一名房地产经纪人、一名受托人、Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）和 PAX 时，即有五个人在作出决定、在将作出的任何决定中被听取意见；因此，实际上没有任何人作出决定，我们确实认为这构成阻碍。正如受托人所指出，Sherry-Netherland 作为有担保债权人，保证金这一有限的资金来源，正按月用于支付 Sherry-Netherland 的某些破产申请后债权。您知道，如果出售程序继续拖延，而该资金耗尽，那么届时如何支付维护费用将成为一个悬而未决的问题。因此，我们支持受托人的申请。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 20 今天。您知道，和解协议中载明的任何经协商取得的权利，均有到期日，而该到期日此后已经届满。因此，我们认为，鉴于我们目前所处的状况及现有情形，仍然是该公寓登记所有人 Genever 的唯一直接债权人的 Sherry-Netherland，支持该申请，即出售程序应继续进行，并且在当前市场推广条件下，实现该公寓价值最大化出售的最佳方式，是该出售程序不受此前存在的任何同意权或协商权约束而继续进行。除非法庭有任何问题，否则我们将——\n\n法庭：我目前没有。谢谢。\n\n彼得罗切利先生：非常感谢。\n\n法庭：Bravo Luck 的律师？\n\n拉沃尔先生：谢谢，法官阁下。下午好。首先，我是代表 Troutman Pepper（特劳特曼·佩珀）并代表 Bravo Luck 的弗兰·拉沃尔（Fran Lawall）。也感谢您批准我们的 pro hac vice 动议，法官阁下。这是我第一次能够在法官阁下面前出庭。\n\n法庭：不客气。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 21 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 21 拉沃尔先生：法官阁下，我有一份和解协议副本，可能会有帮助。我不知道法官阁下面前是否有一份副本，或者您是否希望有一份副本。\n\n法庭：我有。我的意思是，如果我看的是正确文件，我确实有一份和解协议副本，我相信这就是正确的文件。\n\n拉沃尔先生：很好。\n\n法庭：不过，让我确认一下。我们随时可以把它调出来，让每个人同时看到，但我认为它作为附件 C 或 B 附在受托人的动议后面。就在这里。和解协议——第二次修订并重述的和解协议，是您所指的那份吗，律师？\n\n拉沃尔先生：正是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我和你看的是同一份文件。\n\n拉沃尔先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法官阁下，先说几件事。我不会把这件事说得很严重，但受托人暗示 Bravo Luck 是在听从 Kwok 先生的指使，这根本不是事实。目前有诉讼在审。有三份针对我的当事人的诉状。先从一开始说几件事。Bravo Luck 的一个账户为购买 Sherry 提供了资金，这一点没有争议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 22 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 22 因此，称 Sherry 是 Genever New York（纽约赫内弗）的唯一债权人——我就是这样称呼它的，它是 Sherry 的直接所有人——实际上并不正确，因为 PAX 目前并非 Genever 的直接债权人。如果根据该信托协议，Bravo Luck 不是该财产的所有人，那么 Bravo Luck 实际上是最大的债权人。我们从一开始就承认，该信托协议存在问题。事实上，法官阁下，整份和解协议是在纽约经协商达成的，目的在于提供一条合理解决这些问题的路径，同时允许出售 Sherry。顺便说一句，我认为 Sherry 没有考虑到的是，就该笔并非由债务人提供资金的保证金而言，作出了重大让步：通过解除自动停止令，在整个和解协议期间支付维护费。因此，实际上，该和解协议不仅解决了受托人动议或解除自动停止动议，还解决了无数问题，包括为出售该财产以及在该款项——即在其变现后——提供托管资金，从而解决有关所有权的争议，提供了一条路径。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 23 这项谈判历时数月，在加里蒂法官（Judge Garrity）面前进行了数次听证，美国受托人也实质性参与其中，因此这并非一份仓促拼凑的文件。我同意萨诺夫先生，并且我希望该行动在某个时候能为本案达成某种解决方案搭建桥梁；这一程序已经贯彻始终。事实上，所有当事人都参与其中，就如何推进向出售官提出建议。而且，实际上并没有重大争议。各方一直在共享信息，力图达到我们都同意的终点，即最高且最佳价格。现在，就和解协议而言，有几项重要事项。有人暗示存在否决权。事实绝非如此。这是一项协商权。事实上，和解协议中的数处明确规定，出售官拥有最终决定权。如果存在任何争议，则提交法官阁下裁决。PAX 和我们 Bravo 都没有否决权。这只是一项发表意见的协商权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 23 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 24 而且，事实上，这正是 Chapter 11 应有的运作方式。应当让主要当事人参与进来，力图达成协议，然后提交文件。这就是其全部目的。如果 Genever 案件继续进行，而康涅狄格州案件没有被提起，那么将会发生的是，该财产会被出售，并会进行和解协议所规定的诉讼，以就信托协议作出最终裁定。我们承认存在问题。我们并未试图隐瞒。我们准备就此诉讼。目前有三份针对我们的诉状，我们已准备——将对此作出答复。我向法官阁下保证，我们将以有序方式并尽可能不引起关注地处理此事。我们将按部就班地进行。我们将查明事实。如有必要，我们将审理该案。我们从一开始就对此没有异议。我们知道这是一个问题；关于和解协议——信托协议被隐瞒或诸如此类的指控，我们会处理。我不认为事实如此，但我们会处理。再次强调，我们所看的是加里蒂法官一年多前以最终命令批准的一份和解协议的完整文本，该协议规定以有序方式全面解决有关处置该财产的问题。并不存在否决权。我们就受托人动议提出的一项问题是，其中似乎存在大量不一致之处。如果可以，法官阁下，我将从原动议中所请求的救济开始。在第 24 段——\n\n法庭：不过，让我先跟上你的进度。\n\n拉沃尔先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我想跟着看。所以让我把动议调出来。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：所以，你说的是第 24 段？我还没找到那里。\n\n拉沃尔先生：当然，法官阁下。无论何时——\n\n法庭：第 24 段，但我正在看该文件。是这个文件吗？这是你刚才提到的那一段吗？\n\n拉沃尔先生：是的，法官阁下。具体而言，我看的是该句中间的第三行，其中写道“根据和解协议的条款，除非——”嗯，让我回到前面。它写道，动议人请求授权——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 25 页，共 50 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 26 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022\n\n1 继续在出售官主持下进行现已届满的 Sherry Netherland 出售程序——我略去几个词——3 至 2023 年 2 月 1 日，并4 根据和解协议的条款进行。\n\n5 因此，原动议是，我们希望——我们希望继续维持和解协议，但希望作出这一变更。\n\n8 然后，当您查看同一动议的第 27 段时，其中进一步写道，虽然出售和市场推广程序10 将由出售官和 Sotheby's（苏富比）根据和解协议的条款继续进行，动议人提议，延长出售市场推广程序的命令不应继续保留 PAX 和 Bravo Luck 的任何协商权和同意权。\n\n15 所以，法官阁下，我目前的观点是，受托人试图做的是修订和解协议，但仍保留该协议其余所有条款、条件及利益的完整内容，这就是为什么我们在答复中说，这实际上是一项 Rule 60 动议。\n\n21 然后，法官阁下，当您查看他们的综合反对意见时——\n\n23 法庭：好的。请让我也找到那里，24 这样我才能跟着看。你现在所看的那份文件顶部的文件编号是多少？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022 27 劳沃尔先生：是的，法官阁下。是文件1359。\n\n法院：好的。请给我一秒钟。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：好的。您希望我重点查看本文件的哪个部分？\n\n劳沃尔先生：是的，法官阁下。第3页。第3页第3段，即第3段末尾的最后一句。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n劳沃尔先生：其内容是，动议方寻求授权，继续尝试在和解协议范围之外出售Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓。因此，一方面，最初的动议是我们希望遵守和解协议的条款。随后，综合动议则称，不，实际上我们希望在和解协议条款之外进行（听不清）。我假定那在某种程度上是为了规避Rule 60问题。法官阁下，暂且不论这一点，从我们的角度而言，我们所希望的是澄清。如果受托人要破坏和解协议，那么也只能如此，但这将产生可能不利于破产财产的后果。我们准备遵守和解协议，继续推进\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 27 页，共 50 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 28 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022\n1 出售，行使我们的协商权，并就出售事宜保持合作和建设性态度，\n2 \n3 然后我们将就最终所有权问题进行诉讼。\n4 \n5 而且，如果事实上确定我们根据该信托协议以某种方式并不拥有该财产，\n6 仍有为购置该财产而投入的\n7 $65 million至$70 million现金。\n8 无论如何，\n9 这两个问题都必须得到解决，我们\n10 对此予以认可。\n\n但是，法官阁下，从一开始，受托人究竟是试图维持和解协议，还是试图绕开和解协议并称其不存在，仍不明确。\n\n我要指出，根据和解协议本身的条款，涉及出售该财产的条款，即延期条款，如果我能找到的话，是和解协议第4段，法官阁下。我为这样来回翻找表示歉意——\n\n法院：没关系。我找到了。我只需要找到第4段。好的。您是指营销条款，即那一段吗？\n\n劳沃尔先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n劳沃尔先生：其中写道，请让我确认确切的\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022 29 措辞，我用自己潦草的左手字迹记下来了——法官阁下，抱歉。我找错段落了。我在找涉及期限的那一段。而且我可能已经——\n\n法院：等等。我也许能找到。实际上，第4.E条在第5页顶部写道，尽管本协议中有任何相反规定，出售程序的期限应自聘用经纪人之日起限制为180 days。您找的是这一条吗？\n\n劳沃尔先生：是的。谢谢您，法官阁下。我对此表示感谢。法官阁下，我只想指出一点，就是出售程序的延期。您会注意到，这不是一个定义术语。它是大写的——是小写s、小写o。这个程序，即出售程序，整个和解协议都涉及出售该财产。每个人都希望它能在180 days内售出，但大家都明白它可能会延期。不过，该延期是在本和解协议的四角范围之内，而不是某种第三方出售程序之内。我理解Despins先生是Kwok Estate（郭文贵破产财产）的受托人，但Genever New York（Genever纽约公司）是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 29 页，共 50 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 30 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022\n1 仍是在受托人通过Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司）间接管理下的占有中债务人。\n2 这是一项在经历了很长一段时间后与Genever New York达成的协议，\n3 \n4 其有利于破产财产。\n5 恭敬地说，我们认为没有理由在此时对其作出改变。\n6 \n7 我们只是请求受托人允许主要当事人继续协商、参与该程序、\n8 \n9 发挥建设性作用，并推动出售该\n10 财产。\n\n如果受托人要脱离这一出售程序，并就Genever New York启动不同的出售程序，那么我们所主张的是，这可能会引发对该和解协议是否仍然有效、或者是否已因其行为而终止的疑问。\n\n法官阁下，我不想走到那一步。我们宁愿按现状继续执行和解协议，将其作为一项先前作出的法院命令，并继续推进该破产财产的事务。我相信我们将有足够多的争议。这并不是我们必然需要进行的一项争议。\n\n除非您有任何问题，法官阁下，我要说的就是这些。\n\n法院：目前没有。谢谢。\n\n劳沃尔先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 31 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022 31 法院：Goldman先生，您希望发言吗？\n\n戈德曼先生：是的。谢谢您，法官阁下。我会简短说明。我只是想表达委员会对本案中受托人立场的支持。我接受他提出的感谢PAX（PAX）的建议，我认为PAX确实值得感谢。可以说，他们确实充当了所有无担保债权人利益的保护者，尽管这可能是无意的，且是出于其自身利益。但是，归根结底，相对于郭文贵破产财产的其他无担保债权人，他们对该资产确实没有任何特殊或优先利益。他们主张一项另我人格请求权，该请求权是郭文贵破产财产所有债权人共有的请求权，因此，我们的立场是，根据美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院具有约束力的判例法，该类请求权由受托人持有，其中最新的判例是美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院的In re: Tronics（Tronics案）。本案目前显然与达成并批准该和解协议时处于完全不同的态势。当时，表面上郭文贵通过其对Genever BVI的100 percent权益，间接拥有Genever Holdings（Genever控股公司）的股权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 32 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022 32 自该协议达成以来，郭文贵已自愿提出Chapter 11案件申请，并已指定受托人。受托人现控制Genever Holdings和Genever BVI中存在的公司权限，而后者又控制Genever Holdings，因此，既然受托人正充当无担保债权人的保护者，为该案件设立这些程序的全部理由现已不复存在。而且，该协议本身，尽管这可能是一种技术性解读，确实表明其是在为Chapter 11案件中出售该财产设立程序。而Chapter 11案件被定义为当时在纽约待决的案件。该案件现已在康涅狄格州待决，情况完全不同。因此，我就此结束，并再次表达我们对受托人立场的支持。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Despins先生，您有什么回应吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：有，法官阁下。非常简短。首先需要纠正的是，认为儿子以某种方式支付了该公寓或其部分价款这一说法。所有款项都来自香港，来自郭文贵先生。这些款项确实经过了Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）账户，但郭文贵先生与儿子共同控制该账户。是他授权转移该等资金。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 33 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022\n1 因此，认为儿子以某种方式支付了该款项的这种说法，据我们所知——他们不喜欢我们这样说——但他从未有过，\n2 \n3 这么说吧，能够支持其支付$60 million购买一套公寓的工作。\n4 您知道，\n5 这种说法简直是异端邪说。\n但那是另一天要处理的事。\n6 \n7 \n8 \n9 现在，至于——这里存在一个根本问题。\n10 文件载明，他们对一项动议拥有批准权。\n11 他们称我们仅有协商权。\n12 坦率地说，只要他们没有批准权，\n13 我并不太在意他们拥有协商权。\n14 但文件写的是批准权，而他们回避\n15 这一点。他们甚至没有提到这一点。\n\n但是，正如Sherry-Netherland的律师所说，如果您拥有同意权，您就拥有否决权。\n\n因此，破产财产不能处于任何人都能够否决出售的境地，这确实是本案问题的核心，我们不能通过提及协商权来掩盖这一点。\n\n而且，双方，您知道——我再次说明，我是在完全尊重Sarnoff先生的前提下这样说，但Bravo Luck也是如此——您知道，完全忽略了那段措辞，即尽管本协议中有任何相反规定。尽管\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 34 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022 34 本协议中有任何相反规定，出售程序的期限应限制为180 days，除非所有人同意，或者法院基于所示正当理由作出命令。而这些条件并不存在。在先前延期于November 1st届满时，这些条件并不存在，这就是当前的情况，即该协议已经结束。法官阁下，审视已获同意的延期是很重要的。例如，您从未延长它，这也是为什么我们希望在您实际在本案中作出命令之前向您提出这一问题。但是，在该案此前由Garrity法官审理时，案件中确实有延期。我现在看的是，例如，其中一项的届满日期为October 31st，即案件22-50592中的文件222。其中写道，鉴于各方，包括Bravo Luck和PAX，希望进一步继续该住所的出售程序，这是第一点。第二点，债务人——我说第二点，那里没有第二点，但是，您知道，逗号，债务人聘用Cyganowski女士担任销售主管，以及聘用Sotheby's（苏富比）作为债务人的经纪人，以营销和出售该住所。因此，这是各方\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-January 24, 2022 35 意识到需要继续的三个方面，否则它们将依其条款终止。其明确写道，据此命令，根据和解协议，该住所的出售程序自September 12起至October 31st止予以延期，且不妨碍经各方同意进一步延期。这从未发生。因此，我们可以忽略该条款。但该条款称，尽管本协议中有任何相反规定，出售程序应在该时终止。因此，该协议不存在违约或终止的问题。其依其自身条款而终止。问题是，我们是否应继续给予他们现有的同意权？我们认为这并不审慎，因为我们不希望处于有人能够否决该事项的境地。因此，这就是我们提出该项救济请求的原因，我们请求法院作出该命令。谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n萨尔诺夫先生：法官阁下，我可以非常、非常简短地发言吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n萨尔诺夫先生：Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨尔诺夫），代表PAX的O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）。我确实发现自己略微处于一种不寻常的境地\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1420 提交于 01/31/23 录入于 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 35 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 36 有时会提出与受托人相反的立场，而这种情况确实会发生。我只想请法官阁下注意和解协议第6段，即批准权。销售负责人在与债务人 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）和 PAX（PAX）协商后，并须经法院、破产法院批准，且 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 对于——下文接着说——包括该住宅的营销和出售事项享有提出异议的权利，销售负责人应拥有最终批准权。我不知道为何我们会在协商与否决权之间纠缠不清。我认为 Lawall（洛沃尔）先生和我已经表示，我们认为自己不拥有否决权或相关权利。我认为协议第6段——我理解存在一个问题，即该段是否继续有效，还是这是一项新协议——但我认为我们可以同意，我们没有否决权，而且我认为第6段正是如此规定的。我们有权被协商、被告知并表达我们的意见，随后销售负责人在获得破产法院批准的情况下，有最终权限作出决定。因此，我的意思是，如果法院希望在一项命令中明确我们应被协商，但我们不拥有否决权，我认为我们会——我不能代表 Lawall 先生发言——我认为 PAX 会同意这一点。但我认为，这与 PAX 以及 Lawall 先生代表 Bravo Luck 一直认为我们拥有和不拥有的权利一致。因此，我只是——我不希望我们——我知道 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）的律师起身表示，肯定其中出了什么问题，或者 Despins（德斯平斯）先生如何如何，我认为那不是真的。我不认为 Despins 先生曾说过一句支持如下观点的话：我们一直在阻挠或妨碍此事。而且，我看不出有任何理由剥夺我们经协商取得的一项权利，因为那不是否决权，而是协商权。它是协商权。我要说的就这些。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 36 页，共 50 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 37 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 37 权，我认为我们会——我不能代表 Lawall 先生发言——我认为 PAX 会同意这一点。但我认为，这与 PAX 以及 Lawall 先生代表 Bravo Luck 一直认为我们拥有和不拥有的权利一致。因此，我只是——我不希望我们——我知道 Sherry-Netherland 的律师起身表示，肯定其中出了什么问题，或者 Despins 先生如何如何，我认为那不是真的。我不认为 Despins 先生曾说过一句支持如下观点的话：我们一直在阻挠或妨碍此事。而且，我看不出有任何理由剥夺我们经协商取得的一项权利，因为那不是否决权，而是协商权。它是协商权。我要说的就这些。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nPetrocelli（佩特罗切利）先生：法官阁下，我非常简短地说几句，可以吗？\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\nPetrocelli 先生：很快说两点。我想——可能是我听错了，但我认为我听到 Bravo Luck 的律师表示，Sherry-Netherland 使用保证金支付提交破产申请后维护费的能力，在某种程度上与和解协议、出售程序中的条款或诸如此类事项相关联。那是不正确的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 38 允许 Sherry-Netherland 使用保证金的同意命令本身已说明一切。该命令载于案号 22-50592，案卷编号 107。而且，您知道，就今日在此达成的任何和解或其他安排而言，Sherry-Netherland 只要求明确无误地说明，您所说的是同意——抱歉，仅是协商，因为我认为这里存在一个症结，即协议中的某些条款提到了同意。再次说明，同意和否决，我不知道二者之间有什么区别。（听不清）\n\n法庭：你说的协议，是指你刚才提到的 ECF 107 吗？\n\nPetrocelli 先生：抱歉。就这一点而言，我又转回到和解协议了。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。\n\nPetrocelli 先生：这里有人曾表示，您知道，我相信 PAX 律师所言，即他们不认为自己拥有否决权。我希望听到他说，他们也不认为自己拥有同意权。因为，再次说明，我看不出二者之间有何区别。此外，Sherry-Netherland 作为该公寓登记所有权人的有担保债权人，鉴于市场状况，有意促成该公寓迅速且实现最大成交量的出售，而我们支持该项申请。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 38 页，共 50 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 39 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n律师？\n\nLawall 先生：法官阁下，我可以简短陈述吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLawall 先生：和解协议本身确实在第7.E段中具体处理了保证金问题。该段称，解除自动中止已获确认，以允许 Sherry-Netherland 将所有已累积且应付的提交破产申请后维护费和摊派费用予以抵扣。\n\n因此，我认为先前所说的内容在某一点上不正确，即该保证金的使用是这项整体协议不可分割的一部分。事实上，正因如此，各方认为有必要将此写入协议。\n\n法官阁下，该和解协议中还有其他条款，进一步确认了 Sarnoff（萨尔诺夫）先生所指出的否决权。\n\n例如，其中一项，法官阁下，讨论了受托人——根据运营协议的销售负责人——而该文件目前不在法官阁下审理材料之前——作为此处发生事项的一部分，订立了一项运营协议，其中确认销售负责人拥有运营协议项下的全部权限——而运营协议赋予销售负责人运营整个程序的能力。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 40 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 40 整个程序。再次，法官阁下，我认为您可以领会其中的要旨。我们都同意，将由一名独立销售负责人，一位广受认可、声誉良好的律师，来负责此事。如果发生争议，她最终拥有决定权，但现须经法官阁下最终批准。这就是该程序的运作方式。没有比这更复杂的内容。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDespins 先生：法官阁下，如果可以？\n\n我很抱歉，法官阁下。只需一分钟。\n\n（暂停。）\n\nDespins 先生：法官阁下，只要他们同意自己没有否决权，我乐于让他们拥有协商权。这个问题并非今天才提出。我提出过，而且我说过，我不能接受允许你们同意的同意条款。我没有向 Lawall 先生提出，但我向 PAX 提出了。我不能接受一项规定你们对该动议拥有同意权的条款。如果那——如果他们说我们没有那项同意权，而且 Bravo Luck 同意他们没有同意权，那就到此为止。他们可以拥有——他们可以继续拥有同样的协商权。因此，我并非试图在这里挑起争端，但我们不能——关键在于，我们不能继续赋予他人同意权，而在我们看来，那意味着否决权。如果他们愿意在记录中确认自己没有该项权利，那么我认为程序就到此结束。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 41 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 41 同意权，而且如果 Bravo Luck 同意他们没有同意权，那就到此为止。他们可以拥有——他们可以继续拥有同样的协商权。因此，我并非试图在这里挑起争端，但我们不能——关键在于，我们不能继续赋予他人同意权，而在我们看来，那意味着否决权。如果他们愿意在记录中确认自己没有该项权利，那么我认为程序就到此结束。\n\n法庭：那么，你们想休庭讨论一下吗？\n\nDespins 先生：当然。当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因为听起来——我想我听到 Sarnoff 先生说，他认为 PAX 会同意这一点，不过我可能听错了。Sarnoff 律师？\n\nSarnoff 先生：法官阁下，这是我的理解和相信的情况。但如果法官阁下允许我有机会确认——\n\n法庭：可以。这就是为什么我认为我们需要——我们可以现在休庭，或者我们可以继续处理下午 2 点的事项，之后再讨论。您知道。无论如何，以各方希望采取的方式进行。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 42 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022 42\n\nSarnoff 先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：不过我们下午 2 点还有其他事项。\n\nSarnoff 先生：法官阁下，我对此唯一的时间方面考量，是我在设法联系我的当事人时存在 13 小时的时差，而我的当事人比我快 13 小时。我们是否可以先行协商，明天再回复您，并且——\n\n法庭：可以。可以。\n\nSarnoff 先生：——就此向您作出答复？至少代表 PAX 而言如此。我显然不能代表 Bravo Luck 发言。\n\n法庭：我认为可以。律师，你认为可以吗？\n\nLawall 先生：可以，法官阁下。我无法想象这会成为一个问题。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我认为这非常合理。让我们看看情况如何。律师，你们可能不知道，但我们的沟通方式——Shaiken（谢肯）律师会知道——是当且仅当你们全体达成协议，或者未能达成协议时，通过布里奇波特法庭书记官助理的电子邮件收件箱发送沟通信息。这是一个通用电子邮件收件箱。但每个人都必须在同一封电子邮件中。因此，无论由谁发送都没有关系，但他们必须确保抄送其他所有人。否则，法院不会予以考虑。因为我需要知道每个人都在同一沟通中。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 43 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022\n\nLawall 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我感谢您告知我这一点。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nDespins 先生：法官阁下，这是否意味着该动议延期至星期四？\n\n法庭：嗯，未必是星期四。如果你们全体达成一致，也许是明天。我的意思是，也许不必——\n\nDespins 先生：嗯，在未达成协议的情况下。\n\n法庭：我可以做的是，我可以说听证会——您知道，我可以将听证会延续至明天或星期四。但如果你们全体就一项命令的内容达成一致，那么就没有争议。\n\nDespins 先生：我的意思是，如果未达成协议，是否将延期至星期四？\n\n法庭：可以。我们可以这样做。因为我们星期四还安排了其他事项。\n\nSherry-Netherland 的律师，我想请你做一件事。\n\n在某个时候，即使这是一个已达成协议的问题，最终如果你们全体达成协议，法院仍需要在某个时候知悉你们尚持有的保证金金额，如有，以及每月正在支付的金额，以便法院了解情况。对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 44 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022\n\n在某个时候，希望该财产将被出售，而我希望在该出售之前知道：这是保证金在四个月前已耗尽的情形，还是将在四个月后耗尽？您知道，就是这类情况——我希望知道这一点。\n\nPetrocelli 先生：明白，法官阁下。我们当然可以提供该等具体信息。\n\n我的大致理解是，保证金最初约为 \\$3 million。现在低于该数额，但尚未耗尽。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nPetrocelli 先生：尚未耗尽。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，得知这一点令人欣慰。谢谢。\n\nPetrocelli 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们将——哦，Shaiken 律师？\n\nShaiken 先生：星期四几点？\n\n法庭：嗯，我正要说到这个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1420 提交日期 01/31/23 录入日期 01/31/23 18:43:28 第 45 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2022\n\n因为我们星期四还有一些其他事务。但我希望，听起来你们所有人都会解决此事，因此我们星期四实际上不必再见到你们任何人。请给我一点时间。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：我们安排在星期四中午开庭。因此，我们可以将本事项续至星期四中午，且据了解，极有可能不会继续举行听证，因为届时将会有一项经同意的命令。好吗？有人有任何问题吗？\n\n（无回应。）\n\nSHAIKEN 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。那么谢谢各位。本事项续至26日中午。中午还有其他事项，因此这并不意味着我们会立即审理。但实际上，我确信届时不会有任何事项需要审理，因为在该日期之前将会有一项协商一致的命令。好吗？那么本事项于下午1时结束。现在我们有下午2时的事项。现在正好是下午1时58分。因此，就法庭而言，我们可以开始处理下午2时的事项。\n\nDESPINS 先生：实际上，法官阁下，Zeisler 律师事务所（Zeisler firm）的同事请我向您提出一项事务性事项，即我们——他们上周提交了案卷编号1340，即一项关于 Lady May 费用准备金的同意命令。他们正在使用——\n\n法庭：是的。我们尚未处理，但我知道它在那里。\n\nDESPINS 先生：他们请我提醒您，我所做的仅此而已。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。那么，今天下午2时日程表上的第一项事项，是一项申请，即聘请 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）担任债务人律师。Despins 受托人，您想继续进行，还是由其他人代表您继续进行？\n\nDESPINS 先生：我本打算处理该事项，因为没有异议。这是我最擅长的事。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nDESPINS 先生：那么，法官阁下，我们在案卷编号1293提交了该申请。据我们了解，尚未提出任何异议，因此我们请求录入该命令。\n\n法庭：我正在查看。我只是想再次看看拟议命令。Claiborn 律师，您是否希望就本事项发表意见？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我只是想报告，U.S. Trustee 对此没有异议。\n\n法庭：您审阅过拟议命令了吗，Claiborn 律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。您知道，这实际上完全不重要，但在本案提交的拟议命令中，它们经常列入 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）的常设移交命令，然后在括号中写“经修订”，但它并未修订。它从未被修订过。因此，我只是——我可能会删除该表述，以免造成他人混淆。截至1984年9月，康涅狄格州联邦地区法院只有一项移交命令。当然，这并不意味着他们将来不能在某个时候修订它，但他们尚未修订。因此，就拟议命令而言，该拟议命令底部没有页码，这没有问题，但——哦，也许第2页有。抱歉，第2页有。因此，在第2页的——我是在对书记员说——第2页顶部第三行，在第2页顶部第三行，有一项来自康涅狄格州联邦地区法院的常设移交命令，延续到第4行，您看到了吗？\n\n书记员：我没有看到。也许我看的是不正确的命令。抱歉。\n\n法庭：是关于1293的命令，即拟议命令。\n\n书记员：哦，我在看。就是它。我道歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。我们现在不必讨论。我们可以稍后处理。\n\n书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：我们只是要删除那个词。\n\n书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：正如我开始说话时所说，这确实并不重要。我认为大多数其他辖区，或者很多其他辖区，已经修订了那项移交命令，但康涅狄格州没有。对于该命令的任何其他条款和条件，我没有任何问题、疑虑或疑问。因此，没有人对该动议提出书面异议。今天参加本听证的任何人均未反对该动议。United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）支持该动议。基于所有这些理由，该动议——哦，我此刻看错文件了。抱歉。请给我一秒钟。聘请 Paul Hastings 的申请获准，拟议命令可以录入。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：今天日程表上还有另一项事项，即一项撤销第三方传票的动议。该动议已由 Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara（艾维、巴纳姆与奥马拉律师事务所）撤回。\n\n身份不明者：正确，法官阁下。该问题已解决。\n\n法庭：因此我们无需处理该事项。该事项已无实际意义。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：那么最后一项动议实际上是——它涉及三个独立程序——但它是一项将全部三个对抗程序合并为一个对抗程序的动议。\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谁将就该动议继续进行？\n\n书记员：法官，我可以先叫案吗？\n\n法庭：哦，可以。请继续。抱歉。让她——我道歉。她只是需要叫出对抗程序编号。虽然这份记录将会——\n\n书记员：对。但我们仍然需要它。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n（程序于下午2时03分结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯蒂娜·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员兼誊写员，证明上述内容系从上述标题事项程序的正式电子录音中制作的正确誊本。\n\nJanuary 31, 2023\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Luc Despins","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":222,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1359,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":12453,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-31 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-31","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:27:02"}