{"id":"court_ctb_1429_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1429,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-02-01","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 #1429（2023-02-01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、聘请苏富比为经纪人及聘请普衡律师事务所为债务人代理律师等动议。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB No. 22-50073, ECF No. 1429 (filed Feb. 1, 2023). Official transcript of the January 24, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding the extension of the Sherry-Netherland apartment sale process, retention of Sotheby's as broker, and employment of Paul Hastings LLP as debtors' counsel.","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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 4 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 6 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 7 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 8 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 10 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 11 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 12 of 50\n\ndifferent than a sale, we don't want them to have any say\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 13 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 14 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 15 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 16 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 17 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 18 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 19 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 21 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 22 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 23 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 25 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 26 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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, 2023 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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 27 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 28 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 29 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 30 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 31 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 32 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 33 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 34 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 35 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 36 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 37 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 38 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 39 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 40 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 41 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 42 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
42 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. SARNOFF:
Your Honor -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
We have other matters on at 2 o'clock |\n| 3 | though. |\n| 4 | MR. SARNOFF:
Your Honor, my only time |\n| 5 | consideration with respect to this is the 13-hour time |\n| 6 | difference that I have in trying to reach my client who is |\n| 7 | 13 hours ahead. |\n| 8 | Would it be something that we could consult and |\n| 9 | get back to you tomorrow and -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes. |\n| 11 | MR. SARNOFF:
-- and give you an answer on?
At |\n| 12 | least on behalf of PAX.
I can't speak obviously for Bravo |\n| 13 | Luck. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I think that's fine. |\n| 15 | Is that fine with you, Counsel? |\n| 16 | MR. LAWALL:
It is, Your Honor.
I can't imagine |\n| 17 | this is going to be an issue. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I think that makes a lot of |\n| 19 | sense.
Let's see what happens. |\n| 20 | You may not know, Counsel, but the way we |\n| 21 | communicate -- Attorney Shaiken would know -- is when and if |\n| 22 | you all agree, or don't agree, a communication comes through |\n| 23 | the courtroom deputy email box in Bridgeport.
It's a |\n| 24 | generic email box. |\n| 25 | But everybody's got to be on the same email.
So |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 43 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 44 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 45 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 46 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 47 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 48 of 50\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023
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, 2023 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 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 49 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 50 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok-January 24, 2023 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":"美利坚合众国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n关于\n*\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\n2023年1月24日\n债务人。\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n关于进一步延长 Sherry-Netherland 公寓出售程序及继续聘用 Sotheby's Int'l. Realty（苏富比国际地产）担任经纪人的动议；聘用 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）担任债务人 Genever Holdings Corp 和 Genever Holdings LLC 律师的申请；撤销向 Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC 发出的第三方传票的动议的庭审记录\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美利坚合众国破产法官面前\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企业）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPATRICK LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·林西律师）\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰）：\nPATRICK N. PETROCELLI, ESQ.（帕特里克·N·彼得罗切利律师）\nStroock & Stroock & Lavan（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克与拉文律师事务所）\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nROBERT E. KAELIN, ESQ.（罗伯特·E·凯林律师）\nMurtha Cullina（默萨·库利纳律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表利害关系方 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）：\nFRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ.（弗朗西斯·J·劳沃尔律师）\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所）\n3000 Two Logan Square\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\n\nDAVID SHAIKEN, ESQ.（大卫·沙伊肯律师）\nShipman, Shaiken & Schwefel（希普曼、沙伊肯与施韦费尔律师事务所）\n433 South Main Street\nSuite 319\nWest Hartford, CT 06110\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年1月24日 3\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控股公司）及 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）。\n\n法庭：下午好。请第11章受托人先为记录目的陈述出庭身份。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。吕克·德斯平，第11章受托人。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。帕特里克·林西，Neubert Pepe & Monteith，代表受托人。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。斯图尔特·萨诺夫，O'Melveny & Myers，代表债权人 PAX。与我一同出庭的是本地律师安妮卡·史密斯。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。欧文·戈德曼，Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\nPETROCELLI 先生：下午好，法官阁下。帕特里克·彼得罗切利，来自 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan，代表 Sherry-Netherland。\n\nKAELIN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Murtha Cullina 的罗伯特·凯林律师，同样代表 Sherry-Netherland。\n\nLAWALL 先生：下午好，法官阁下。弗兰·劳沃尔，Troutman Pepper，代表 Bravo Luck。此外，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1429，提交于 02/01/23，录入于 02/01/23 15:40:59，第 4 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年1月24日 4\n本地律师大卫·沙伊肯也在场。\n\nSHAIKEN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。没有人为债务人出庭吗？他们没有反对这个吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：我认为他们没有提出反对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：哦，我以为他们已就此动议提交了异议。抱歉。好吧。请继续，德斯平受托人。这是你的动议。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我可以摘下口罩吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：可以。请继续。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢。为记录目的，吕克·德斯平，Paul Hastings，第11章受托人。因此，法官阁下，该动议已经提交，载于案卷 1257；该动议是关于继续 Sherry-Netherland 的出售程序，但不包括此前出售程序中的某些，我想说，附加安排。因此，我认为，鉴于这是您——我相信这是您首次接触 Genever 案，我认为值得，\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年1月24日 5\n您知道，说明一下其历史。因此，Genever 是该租约的产权所有人，或者，您知道，为简化起见，是该公寓的产权所有人。当然，由于其结构是合作公寓，存在租赁协议等等，但从概念上说，产权所有人是 Genever。该实体于 2020 年，我相信是 2020 年10月，申请了第11章破产保护。当时，Kwok 先生控制该实体，并控制 Genever 的第11章案件。当时该案的其他当事方包括 PAX，因为他们此前曾在纽约州最高法院 Ostrager 法官面前与 Kwok 先生进行诉讼，并且已取得或即将取得针对 Kwok 先生的简易判决裁定；他们主张或提出了另我人格请求。PAX 对 Genever 没有直接的合同请求权，但他们主张另我人格请求，这正是他们在该案中所主张的。因此，这是其中一方。除此之外，在该案中，Sherry-Netherland，即该大楼的所有人，是一方当事人。他们是债权人，并参与了该案。显然还有美国受托人，但该案中并未任命债权人委员会。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1429，提交于 02/01/23，录入于 02/01/23 15:40:59，第 6 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年1月24日 6\n此外，另一参与方是 Bravo Luck，该实体现显然由 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情况，基本上表现为 PAX 表示，让我们解除自动中止，以便我可以继续进行我的诉讼，追究针对 Genever 的另我人格请求。显然，Bravo Luck 反对此举。随后在 2021 年，PAX 还提出动议，要求将 Genever 案转换为第7章案件，或者任命一名受托人。因此，所有这些都发生在 2020 年末以及 2021 年期间。当时该案中没有受托人义务人。没有债权人委员会。显然也没有受托人。最终，各方就某些事项达成协议，即该公寓应当挂牌出售；该事项已载入我们在文件中援引的一份协议。该协议赋予 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 各种权利。该协议还——我显然会回到这一点——要求任命一名出售代理人，这是一种不寻常的结构，因为显然双方都不信任对方。其构想是，为什么不让第三方，即前破产法官 Cyganowski 法官，担任出售代理人的角色，以便她能够\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1429，提交于 02/01/23，录入于 02/01/23 15:40:59，第 7 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年1月24日 7\n聘用一名经纪人，并就何时及是否出售以及以何种价格出售作出最终决定。这些内容均载入该协议。在该协议中，我笼统地说，Bravo Luck 和 PAX 在出售程序中拥有某些权利，例如，他们拥有咨询权，这意味着出售代理人应当就出售程序与他们协商。此外，和解协议第5段中有一项规定，其称，出售动议草案、最终出售动议，必须在提交前提供给 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 审阅和批准。您知道，我们当时不在场。显然，当时我们尚不存在。但这里存在一个真正的问题，即该“批准”是什么意思？是对形式的批准？还是对实质的批准？不明确。协议中没有说明。因此，该协议还在第4.E段规定，出售程序最初应限于自聘用经纪人之日起 180 天期间；经纪人是——我忘了，抱歉，我有——经纪人是 Sotheby's，抱歉。因此，自聘用经纪人之日起 180 天，但经债务人、Bravo Luck 和 PAX 书面同意可予延长，因此所有这些人都必须同意，或者经法院在有理由证明的情况下作出进一步命令。事实上，该公寓已在市场上挂牌\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1429，提交于 02/01/23，录入于 02/01/23 15:40:59，第 8 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年1月24日\n1 出售，我不确定是否已满一年。\n或者如果未满\n2 一年，也接近一年。\n或许已超过一年一点。\n3 但该公寓已在市场上挂牌出售，因此，\n4 180 天已经过去。\n5 事实上，各方已同意延长\n6 该程序；最近一次延长并非由法官阁下录入，\n7 而是由该案中的 Garrity 法官在\n8 Genever Holding 案中录入，案卷编号 222；该命令称，\n9 该期间，即经延长的期间，将于 10 月\n10 31 日届满，但不影响在我刚才提及的各方同意下进一步延长。\n11 \n12 因此，今年 10 月 31 日，您知道，\n13 已经过去。并未达成延长协议。我们的看法是，\n14 因为我们通过所担任的受托人职务控制 Genever，\n15 出售应当继续。\n16 我不认为有人对出售\n17 应当继续提出异议，至少我没有听到任何\n18 对此的反对。因此，我们希望继续出售程序。\n19 我们还认为，而且我思考的时间并不长，\n20 或许五分钟，关于现在既然有了受托人，\n21 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\n22 在于，目前该案的氛围下，有一名第三方，\n23 例如一名前破产法官，作出这些决定不会有害，\n24 因此，我决定让她继续担任该\n25 角色。我这样说也有一点讽刺意味，但她尚未被指称为中国共产党成员，因此，目前看来她仍可作为独立人士继续履职。这就是——这就是我们正在做的事情。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，债务人对其支付金额有各种说法，但约为 60 或 70 million。这无关紧要。现在仍是 32。仍是支付价格的一半。它正在市场上出售。但重要的是要理解，尽管债务人不时使用该公寓，债务人没有支付租金，而且没有人支付该公寓的租金。其维护费高得惊人。但该公寓的维护费大约为每月 80，我想说是 82，可能相差几千 dollars，但每月 80,000 或 82,000。那仅仅是维护费。实际情况是，有一个在申请破产前注入资金的账户，用于向 Sherry-Netherland 支付该维护费。该账户有一百万零一些资金。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日\n\n1 申请日期。\n\n当然，自那以后这笔资金已经被耗尽。\n\n2 坦率地说，我还没有计算过\n\n3 它何时会耗尽，但最终会被耗尽。\n\n4 因此，我们朝着\n\n5 这个方向推进的原因之一是，如果该公寓未能售出，我们\n\n6 可能不得不转向不同的方向。例如，\n\n7 出租。并且我不想引出一个问题，即你们是否\n\n8 提议停止出售程序？不，我们想出售。\n\n9 这就是目标，等等，等等。但在某个时候，\n\n10 除非有人愿意开出每月 \\$82,000 的支票，\n\n11 否则 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰公寓）将会问，谁来支付\n\n12 这笔钱？\n\n13 因此，显然我们需要开始考虑这个问题。\n\n14 这不是我们所请求救济的一部分，但我想\n\n15 确保法官阁下知道，我们在此的部分考虑是，\n\n16 我们可能不得不朝那个方向推进。\n\n17 当然，我想澄清的是，Sherry-\n\n18 Netherland 享有其所享有的任何权利。我们并非试图\n\n19 表示我们有权将其出租给任何人，或者\n\n20 有权出租它。文件中如何规定，\n\n21 就如何规定。我们根本无意朝那个方向推进。\n\n22 我们只是想提及，我们需要——我们可能\n\n23 需要在此具有灵活性，但我们目前并未在本\n\n24 命令中寻求该等灵活性。我们希望继续\n\n25 出售程序，但我想提醒法官阁下，\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日 11 这些协商权以及所有这些事项可能会引发利益冲突问题。因此，如果我们暂且谈谈 Bravo Luck（“好运来”），Bravo Luck 是一家显然由债务人之子控制的公司。当然，他们是在按照郭先生的意愿行事。郭先生免费使用该公寓。如果我们告诉他们，他需要搬离，以便我们可以将其出租，我向您保证，他们不会支持这一点。尽管我很乐意听取相反的观点。但再次强调，这并非提交法院审理的事项。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。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。我不愿如此。但另一方面，我们必须明确，PAX 是 Genever（吉内弗）的无担保债权人，至少据称其债权为无担保债权。这是一项揭开公司面纱请求。我不想谈及这一点，但尚不清楚受托人是否拥有该请求权，还是他们拥有。我们无需谈及这一点。但关键在于，他们是无担保债权人。他们不是受信义务人。顺便说一句，在任命受托人之前，他们一直代表无担保债权人。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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 11 of 50\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日 12 为此表示感谢。但归根结底，他们不是受信义务人。我并不是在说他们任何负面的话，但他们有业务需要经营。他们将会作出决定，只要这样做符合其自身经济利益；因此，我们认为他们不应享有否决权或协商权。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，但鉴于目前的情形，这是一个不同的局面，他们不应就出售动议享有协商权或否决权。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，因为他们的论点是，他们通过一项信托协议拥有这套公寓，该协议被称为“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，并且我们不认为他们应享有任何协商权。其中一个原因是，他们在此是按照其债务人的意愿行事。例如，如果我们需要转向\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 12 of 50\n\n不同于出售的方案，我们不希望他们对此拥有任何发言权，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 13 of 50\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日\n\n1 但他们可以在法庭上发言；他们不应在该决定中\n\n2 享有任何合同上的发言权。\n\n3 再次强调，我们并未请求法院批准\n\n4 法官 Cyganowski（西加诺夫斯基法官）继续担任\n\n5 出售代理人，以及 Sotheby's（苏富比）继续担任\n\n6 出售经纪人以外的任何事项。\n\n7 因此，基于这些理由，法官阁下，我们认为\n\n8 这应当获得批准。我们认为——\n\n9 您知道，Bravo Luck 主张这是一个\n\n10 60(b) 问题，即如果存在和解，且你们试图撤销\n\n11 该和解，就需要就此寻求法院救济。\n\n12 情况并非如此。\n\n13 该文件本身包含一项到期条款，\n\n14 即 180 天。它曾被数次延长。但它\n\n15 并未在 October 31st 获得延长，因此，该\n\n16 关于出售程序的协议已不再有效。因此，\n\n17 我们认为无需依据\n\n18 60(b) 或其他形式的救济提出动议。\n\n19 我们并非撤销和解协议，亦非撤销受该协议\n\n20 管辖的出售程序；该协议已依其自身条款到期，但我们正在\n\n21 继续保留其中的一些特征，\n\n22 即西加诺夫斯基法官和苏富比。\n\n23 因此，基于这些理由，法官阁下，我们请求\n\n24 法官阁下批准该动议，但很乐意回答您可能提出的任何\n\n25 问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 14 of 50\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日\n\n1 法庭：目前我没有任何问题。\n\n2 随着听证会进行，我可能会有。\n\n3 DESPINS 先生：谢谢。\n\n4 法庭：谢谢。\n\n5 SARNOFF 先生：我可以简要陈述吗？\n\n6 法庭：可以。当然可以。\n\n7 SARNOFF 先生：我可以摘下口罩吗？\n\n8 法庭：可以。可以。谢谢。\n\n9 SARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表债权人\n\n10 PAX 的 O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所）律师 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。\n\n11 Friedman 先生今天无法到场，因此我将\n\n12 尽我所能复制他的本领。\n\n13 正如 Despins 先生所说，这可能是一个不同寻常的\n\n14 情形，我们在案件的推进方面与\n\n15 受托人之间存在某种分歧。\n\n16 在这场争议中，这也是一个不同寻常的情形，\n\n17 因为 PAX 的观点是，它没有坏，不需要\n\n18 修复。\n\n19 正如我们在书面文件中所述，PAX 是迄今为止\n\n20 最大的债权人，仅在 Despins 受托人的动议寻求取消 PAX\n\n21 就 Sherry-\n\n22 Netherland 公寓的营销和出售所享有的协商\n\n23 权时，才对该动议提出异议。\n\n24 我们并不反对继续进行已经批准的出售程序，无论是继续履行该\n\n25 协议还是订立新协议；我们完全支持由西加诺夫斯基法官和\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 15 of 50\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日 15 Despins 先生参与的出售程序。\n\n但是，PAX 与受托人、Bravo Luck 以及债务人一样，一致认为，我们在此的首要动机是最大限度提高该公寓的出售收益。从某种意义上说，这将使所有债权人以及债务人受益。我们在这一点上是一致的。\n\n但是，鉴于出售 Sherry-Netherland 是使遗产实现价值最大化这一目标的手段之一，PAX 为这些同意权进行了谈判。它放弃了其——并解决了其解除自动中止动议，以换取实际上发表意见、参与权衡的权利，而非享有否决权。它没有否决权。事实上，该现有协议明确规定，在发生任何争议时，出售主管拥有最终决定权。\n\nPAX 的权利是获得协商、表达观点并参与权衡；我们不认为，在为该权利进行了谈判并解决了解除自动中止事项之后，我们在并无否决权的情况下应被排除在该程序之外。\n\n我们拥有协商权和同意权，包括在提交出售动议之前审阅该动议的权利、获知出售程序的权利、\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 16 of 50\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日 16 获知收到的要约、与公寓出售谈判有关材料的权利，以及就将持有出售收益的银行获得协商的权利。这些并非苛刻的权利。这些是使我们持续了解情况的权利；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，并且确实是本案中少数几个当事方共同协作并达成共识的例子之一。它正在形成明确界定的权利，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，它还建立了一项程序，各方均不争议该公寓将被出售和变现，以便为遗产债权人提供资产。没有必要打破这里的均衡。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——或其支持书状——第 8 段指出，PAX 和 Bravo Luck 以某种方式妨碍了出售程序。但请注意，法官阁下，除该笼统陈述外，绝对没有证据或论证予以支持，而且这根本不是真的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 17 of 50\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年1月24日 17 事实上，您几分钟前听取了 Despins 先生的陈述，他并未主张我们具有阻挠性，或者我们妨碍了出售程序。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。因此，我不认为该项关于我们，或者就此而言 Bravo Luck，以某种方式妨碍出售程序的指控是成立的，而且肯定没有任何材料支持。并且，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在乎该公寓以何种价格出售的当事方，只要售价足以覆盖其担保即可。因此，他们可能是在价值最大化方面最不一致的一方，但这不是今天提交法官阁下审理的问题。我只是要指出，我们并未妨碍出售程序。不存在这样的论点。并且 Despins 受托人，您知道，我们与他有相当良好的工作关系，他甚至不会向您作出这样的暗示。因此，总而言之，您知道，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谈判。这不是一项（听不清）权利。我们并未阻挠。我们希望维持现状。我们支持持续进行出售程序，但不应被剥夺我们经谈判取得的权利。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 18 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2023\n\n还有，为作总结，我们认为这并没有问题。我们认为不需要修正。如果您没有任何问题，我就坐下了。\n\n法院：我目前没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nSARNOFF先生（萨诺夫）：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nGOLDMAN先生（戈德曼）：法官阁下，我能否代表——发言？\n\n法院：你们提交答复了吗？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：没有提交。\n\n法院：好的。我将先听取已提交答复者的意见。好吗？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：当然。\n\nPETROCELLI先生（彼得罗切利）：法官阁下，我能否接下来发言？\n\n法院：可以。请讲。\n\nPETROCELLI先生：下午好。再次谨作记录，本人帕特里克·彼得罗切利，代表 Sherry Netherland（谢里-内德兰）。我会非常简短。\n\n和解协议于一年多前签署。据我们所知，该公寓距离出售完成并未比最初达成——最初订立和解协议时更近。Sherry-Netherland 是 Genever（杰内弗）的唯一直接债权人；Genever 是涉案公寓的登记产权人，并已提交文件支持或反对本申请。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1429，提交于 02/01/23，于 02/01/23 15:40:59 登记，第 19 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2023 19\n\n当然，受托人认为程序中的某些事项需要修正或改变；无论您称之为受阻，还是称其存在问题，某些事项都需要改变，否则受托人不会提出该申请。我此前听到有人提到，我们没有否决权，我们有同意权。如果某人有权同意某事项，而其拒绝给予同意，那么依定义这就是否决权。Sherry-Netherland 认为，当存在一名出售官、一名房地产经纪人、一名受托人、Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）和 PAX（PAX）时，共有五人就将作出的任何决定作出决定并被征询意见，因此，我们实际上没有任何人作出决定；我们确实认为这构成阻碍。正如受托人指出，Sherry-Netherland 作为有担保债权人，保证金这一有限资金来源正按月用于支付 Sherry-Netherland 的某些破产申请提交后债权。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，我们支持受托人今天提出的申请。\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2023 20\n\n您知道，和解协议中包含的任何经谈判取得的权利均有到期日，而该到期日现已届满。因此，我们认为，鉴于我们目前所处的情况及现有情形，再次强调，Sherry-Netherland 作为该公寓登记产权人 Genever 的唯一直接债权人，我们支持该申请：出售程序应继续进行，而在当前营销条件下，实现该公寓价值最大化出售的最佳方式，是在不受此前存在的任何同意权或协商权限制的情况下继续该出售程序。除非法院有任何问题，我们将——\n\n法院：我目前没有。谢谢。\n\nPETROCELLI先生：非常感谢。\n\n法院：Bravo Luck 的律师？\n\nLAWALL先生（拉沃尔）：谢谢，法官阁下。下午好。首先，我是弗兰·拉沃尔，代表 Troutman Pepper（特劳特曼·佩珀律师事务所）并代表 Bravo Luck。法官阁下，感谢您签署我们的 pro hac vice 动议。这是我首次能够在法官阁下面前出庭。\n\n法院：不客气。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1429，提交于 02/01/23，于 02/01/23 15:40:59 登记，第 21 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2023 21\n\nLAWALL先生：法官阁下，我有一份和解协议副本，或许会有所帮助。我不知道法官阁下手边是否有副本，或者您是否希望有一份副本。\n\n法院：我有。我的意思是，如果我看的文件是正确的，我确实有一份和解协议副本，我相信这就是正确的文件。\n\nLAWALL先生：很好。\n\n法院：不过，让我确认一下。我们也可以把它调出来，让每个人同时看到，但我认为它作为附件 C 或 B 附于受托人的动议之后。就在这里。这份和解协议——第二次修订及重述和解协议——律师，这是您所看的文件吗？\n\nLAWALL先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么我和你看的是同一页。\n\nLAWALL先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法官阁下，首先有几件事。我不会对此大做文章，但受托人暗示 Bravo Luck 是在按 Kwok 先生的意图行事，这根本不是事实。目前有未决诉讼。针对我的客户有三项起诉。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1429，提交于 02/01/23，于 02/01/23 15:40:59 登记，第 22 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2023 22\n\n首先有几件事是无争议的：一个由 Bravo Luck 出资的账户为 Sherry 的购买提供了资金，因此，说 Sherry 是 Genever New York——这是我对其的称呼，其为 Sherry 的直接所有人——的唯一债权人，这一说法实际上并不正确，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 最终并非该财产的所有人，那么 Bravo Luck 实际上是最大的债权人。我们从一开始就认识到，该信托协议存在一个问题。事实上，法官阁下，整个和解协议是在纽约谈判达成的，其目的在于提供一条合理解决这些问题的途径，同时允许出售 Sherry。顺便说一句，我认为 Sherry 没有考虑到的一点是，就并非由债务人提供资金的该笔保证金而言，作出了重大让步；通过解除自动中止，该保证金获准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的动议或解除自动中止动议，还解决了诸多问题，包括为出售该财产以及在该财产变现后为托管账户注入资金提供了一条途径，以便解决有关所有权的争议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2023 23\n\n该项谈判持续了数月，在 Garrity 法官（加里蒂法官）面前举行了数次听证，美国受托人（United States Trustee）也进行了实质性参与，因此这并非一份仓促拼凑的文件。我同意 Sarnoff 先生的意见，并且我希望此项行动能在某个时候为本案某种解决方案搭建桥梁，因为这一程序已经全面运作。事实上，所有当事方都参与其中，并就如何推进向出售官提出建议。事实上，也没有发生任何重大争议。各方一直共享信息，力求达到我们都同意的最终目标，即最高且最佳价格。\n\n现在，关于和解协议，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，和解协议中的数处均明确规定，出售官拥有最终决定权。如果存在任何争议，则提交法官阁下审理。PAX 和我们 Bravo 均不拥有否决权。这仅是一项提出意见以供权衡的协商权。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1429，提交于 02/01/23，于 02/01/23 15:40:59 登记，第 23 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2023 24\n\n事实上，这正是 Chapter 11（破产法第11章）应有的运作方式。应当让主要当事方参与进来，努力达成协议，然后提交文件。这正是其全部意图所在。假如 Genever 案件继续进行且康涅狄格州案件没有被提起，那么该财产本会被出售，随后将进行和解协议所规定的诉讼，以对该信托协议作出最终裁定。我们承认存在一个问题。我们并非试图隐瞒它。我们准备就此进行诉讼。目前我们面临三项起诉，我们已准备——将对其作出答复。我向法官阁下保证，我们将以有序方式、尽可能不引起关注地处理此事。我们将依照程序进行。我们将查明事实。如有必要，我们将审理案件。从一开始，我们对此就没有异议。我们知道这是一项问题。有关和解协议——信托协议被隐瞒或诸如此类的指控，我们将予以处理。我不认为情况如此，但我们将予以处理。再次强调，我们审视的是一份一年多前经 Garrity 法官终局命令达成的和解协议文本本身；该协议规定以有序方式全面解决有关处置该财产的问题。不存在否决权。\n\n我们就受托人动议提出的问题之一是，其中似乎存在大量不一致之处。如果可以，法官阁下，我将从原动议中请求的救济开始。在第 24 段——\n\n法院：不过，让我跟上你的进度。\n\nLAWALL先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我想跟上你的思路。所以让我调出该动议。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：所以，你说的是第 24 段？我还没有看到那里。\n\nLAWALL先生：当然，法官阁下。无论何时——\n\n法院：第 24 段，不过我正在看该文件。是该文件吗？那就是你刚才提到的段落吗？\n\nLAWALL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“依照和解协议的条款，但——”好吧，让我回到前面。它写道，申请人请求授权——\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1429，提交于 02/01/23，于 02/01/23 15:40:59 登记，第 25 页，共 50 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 1429，提交于 02/01/23，于 02/01/23 15:40:59 登记，第 26 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—January 24, 2023\n\n继续在出售官的主持下进行现已届满的 Sherry Netherland 出售程序——我略去几个词——直至 February 1, 2023，并依照和解协议的条款。\n\n因此，最初的动议是，我们希望——我们希望维持和解协议，但希望作出这一变更。\n\n然后，当您查看同一动议的第 27 段时，其中进一步写道，尽管出售和营销程序将由出售官和 Sotheby’s（苏富比）依照和解协议的条款继续进行，申请人建议，延长出售营销程序的命令不应延续 PAX 和 Bravo Luck 的任何协商权和同意权。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我目前的观点是，受托人试图做的是修改和解协议，但仍保留该协议其他所有条款、条件和利益的文本范围之内，这就是为什么我们在答复中称，这实际上是一项 Rule 60 动议。\n\n然后，法官阁下，当您查看他们的综合反对意见时——\n\n法院：好的。请让我也找到那里，以便我能跟上你的思路。你现在看的那份文件顶部的文件编号是多少？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日 27 劳沃尔先生：是的，法官大人。是文件1359。法庭：好的。请给我一秒钟。（暂停。）法庭：好的。您希望我重点关注该文件的哪一处？劳沃尔先生：是的，法官大人。第3页。第3页第3段，是第3段末尾的最后一句。法庭：好的。劳沃尔先生：其中写道，反而，动议申请人寻求授权继续尝试在和解协议范围之外出售Sherry-Netherland（雪莉—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，综合动议却说，不，实际上我们希望（听不清）在和解协议条款之外进行。我推定这是为了设法规避《规则》第60条的问题。姑且不论这一点，法官大人，从我们的角度而言，我们所希望的是澄清。如果受托人要破坏该和解协议，那么就这样吧，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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore速记及转录服务公司）\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第27页，共50页\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第28页，共50页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日\n1 该出售，行使我们的协商权，并就该出售\n2 予以合作并作出建设性配合，\n3 随后我们将就\n4 最终所有权问题进行诉讼。\n5 并且，如果事实上确定我们以某种方式\n6 并不依据信托协议拥有该财产，\n7 用于购置该财产的现金仍有65至$70 million。\n8 \n无论以何种方式，\n9 这两个问题都必须得到解决，而我们\n10 认识到这一点。\n11 但是，从一开始，法官大人，再次强调，\n12 目前仍不清楚受托人是试图维持该和解\n13 协议，还是试图置身于该和解协议之外，\n14 并称其不存在。\n15 我想指出，根据和解协议本身的条款，\n16 涉及该财产出售的条款，\n17 延长期限，如果我能找到这一处，\n18 即和解协议第4段，法官大人。\n我\n19 为来回跳转致歉——\n20 法庭：\n没关系。\n我找到了。\n我\n21 只需翻到第4段。\n好的。\n营销\n22 条款，您是指那一段吗？\n23 劳沃尔先生：\n是的，法官大人。\n24 法庭：\n好的。\n25 劳沃尔先生：\n其中写道，让我准确地\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日 29 说出原文，我把它记在我自己左手写的潦草笔记里了——法官大人，抱歉。我找错段落了。我在找涉及期限的段落。而我可能已经——法庭：等等。我或许能找到。实际上，第4.E项在第5页顶部写道，尽管本协议中有任何相反规定，出售程序的期限应限于自聘用经纪人之日起180天。您找的是这个吗？劳沃尔先生：是。谢谢您，法官大人。我很感谢。法官大人，我想指出的一点是出售程序的延长。您会注意到，这不是一个定义术语。它是大写——是小写s、小写o。该程序，即出售程序，整个和解协议，处理的都是该财产的出售。每个人都希望它能在180天内售出，但人们理解该期限可以延长。但该期限是在该和解协议的完整范围内延长，而不是在某个第三方出售程序内延长。我理解Despins先生是Kwok Estate（郭文贵破产财产）的受托人，但Genever New York（纽约Genever）是\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第29页，共50页\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第30页，共50页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日\n1 仍然是由受托人通过Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛Genever）\n2 间接监管下的占有中债务人。\n这是\n3 在经历一段很长时间后与Genever New York达成的\n4 一项协议，对破产财产有利。\n5 并且，恭敬地说，我们认为没有理由\n6 在此时改变它。\n7 我们只是要求受托人允许主要\n8 当事人继续协商，参与该程序，\n9 作出富有成效的贡献，并推进出售该\n10 财产。\n11 如果受托人要脱离该出售程序，并就\n12 Genever New York启动不同的出售程序，\n13 那么我们所主张的是，这可能\n14 会使该和解协议是否\n15 仍然有效，或是否已因其行为\n16 而终止，受到质疑。\n17 我不想走到那一步，法官大人。\n我们宁愿\n18 按原样继续执行该和解协议，作为先前作出的\n19 法院命令，并推进该破产财产的处理。\n20 我相信我们将有足够多的争议。\n这不是我们\n21 必然需要进行的一场争议。\n22 我就这些，法官大人，除非您有任何\n23 问题。\n24 法庭：\n目前没有。\n谢谢。\n25 劳沃尔先生：\n谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第31页，共50页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日 31 法庭：Goldman先生，您想发表意见吗？Goldman先生：是的。谢谢您，法官大人。我会简要说明。我只是想表示委员会支持受托人在本案中的立场。我愿接受他的邀请，感谢PAX（PAX），我认为PAX值得感谢。可以说，他们当然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，且是为了他们自身的利益。但归根结底，相较于郭文贵破产财产的其他无担保债权人，他们对该资产并无任何特殊或优先权益。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同享有的请求权，因此，我们的立场是，根据第二巡回法院具有控制力的判例法，此类请求权由受托人持有，其中最近的一项是第二巡回法院的In re: Tronics（Tronics案）案件。该案现在显然处于与该和解协议订立并获批准时完全不同的程序状态。当时，表面上是Kwok先生通过其对Genever BVI的100 percent权益，间接持有Genever Holdings（Genever控股公司）的股权。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第32页，共50页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日 32 自该协议订立以来，Kwok先生已自愿申请第11章案件，并已指定一名受托人。该受托人现控制Genever Holdings和Genever BVI中存在的公司控制权，而后者继而控制Genever Holdings，因此，既然受托人现在担任无担保债权人的保护者，为该案件制定程序的全部理由现已不复存在。而该协议本身，尽管这或许是一种技术性解读，确实载明其是在第11章案件中为出售该财产制定程序。而第11章案件被定义为当时在纽约待决的案件。该案件现以完全不同的情形在康涅狄格州待决。因此，我就此结束，并再次表示我们支持受托人的立场。法庭：好的。谢谢。Despins先生，您有任何回应吗？Despins先生：有，法官大人。非常简要。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中一部分款项的这种说法。所有资金都来自香港，来自Kwok先生。资金确实经过一个Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）账户，但Kwok先生与其儿子共同\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第33页，共50页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日\n1 控制该账户。\n他是\n2 授权划转该等资金的人。\n3 因此，这种认为儿子以某种方式——据我们\n4 所知，他们不喜欢我们这样说——但从未有过，\n5 这么说吧，能够支持其支付\n6 $60 million购买一套公寓的工作的\n7 儿子付款的说法，简直是——异端邪说。\n但那是\n8 另一天要处理的事。\n9 现在，至于——这里有一个根本性问题。\n10 该文件写明他们对一项动议享有批准权。\n11 他们说我们只是享有协商权。\n12 坦率地说，只要他们不享有批准权，\n13 我并不那么担心他们享有\n14 协商权。\n但该文件写的是批准权，而他们回避了\n15 这一点。\n他们甚至没有提到这一点。\n16 但是，正如Sherry-Netherland的律师所说，\n17 如果你拥有同意权，你就拥有否决权。\n18 因此，破产财产不能处于任何人\n19 都可以否决出售的境地，这确实是\n20 本案问题的核心，而我们不能通过提及\n21 协商权来掩盖这一点。\n22 而双方，您知道——再次强调，我在对Sarnoff先生\n23 表示充分尊重的前提下这样说，但Bravo\n24 Luck也是——您知道，完全忽视了那项措辞，\n25 即尽管本协议中有任何规定。\n尽管\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第34页，共50页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日 34 本协议中有任何规定，除非所有人同意或法院基于正当理由作出命令，否则出售程序的期限应限于180天。而这些条件并不存在。在先前延长期限于11月1日届满时，这些条件并不存在，而这就是当前的情况，即该协议已经结束。法官大人，审视已经同意的延长期限很重要。例如，您从未延长它，这就是为什么我们希望在您实际于本案中作出命令之前向您提出该问题。但该案此前在Garrity法官审理期间确实有过延长期限。比如说，我正在看其中一项，其届满日期为10月31日，即案件22-50592中的文件222。其中写道，鉴于当事人，其中包括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，那里其实没有第二点，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，这些是当事人\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日 35 认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，命令：根据和解协议，该住所的出售程序自2022年9月12日起延长至10月31日，在不影响经当事人同意进一步延长的前提下。这从未发生。因此，我们可以忽略该条款。但该条款写道，尽管本协议中有任何规定，出售程序应于该时终止。因此，并不存在对该协议的违约或终止。该协议是依其自身条款终止的。问题是，我们是否应当继续维持他们享有的同意权？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出售的境地。因此，这就是我们申请该救济并请求法院作出该命令的原因。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。Sarnoff先生：法官大人，我能否非常、非常简要地发表意见？法庭：可以。Sarnoff先生：Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），代表PAX的O'Melveny & Myers（奥麦利文律师事务所）。我发现自己略微处于一种不同寻常的境地\n\n案件22-50073 文件1429 提交于02/01/23 录入于02/01/23 15:40:59 第35页，共50页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月24日 36 有时会主张与受托人相反的立场。谨请法官阁下参阅和解协议第6段，即批准权限。出售负责人在与债务人 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）和 PAX（PAX）协商后，并经本院即破产法院批准，拥有最终批准权；Bravo Luck 和 PAX 对于——其后还写到——包括该住宅的营销和出售在内的事项，有权提出异议。我不知道为何我们会在协商与否决之间纠缠不清。我认为劳沃尔先生和我已表示，我们认为自己并无否决权或此类权利。我认为协议第6段——我理解存在一个问题，即该段是否仍然有效，还是这是一份新协议——但我认为我们可以同意，我们没有否决权，而我认为这正是第6段所述。我们有权被征询并获知情况、表达我们的意见，随后出售负责人在获得破产法院批准后，有最终权力作出决定。因此，我的意思是，如果本院希望在命令中明确我们应被征询，但我们没有否决权，Case 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 36 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 37 of 50\n\n郭文贵—2023年1月24日 37 我认为我们会——我不能代表劳沃尔先生发言——我认为 PAX 会同意这一点。但我认为，这与 PAX 以及劳沃尔先生代表 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（谢里-内瑟兰）的律师起身说，一定是哪里出了问题，或者德斯平斯先生，我认为那不是真的。我不认为德斯平斯先生说过一句话支持这样一种说法，即我们一直在阻挠或妨碍此事。我实在看不出有任何理由剥夺我们经谈判取得的一项权利，因为这不是否决权。这是征询权。这只是协商权。我的陈述完毕。谢谢。\n\n本院：谢谢。\n\n彼得罗切利先生：法官阁下，我非常简短地说几句，可以吗？\n\n本院：当然可以。\n\n彼得罗切利先生：迅速说两点。我想——我可能听错了，但我以为我听到 Bravo Luck 的律师暗示，Sherry-Netherland 使用保证金支付破产申请提交后的维护费用的能力，在某种程度上与和解协议、出售程序中的条款或任何此类事项相关联。这不正确。允许 Sherry-Netherland 使用保证金的同意命令本身已说明一切。该命令载于案件 22-50592，案卷编号 107。并且，您知道，就今天在此达成的任何和解或任何事项而言，Sherry-Netherland 只要求明确无误地说明，所说的是仅有协商权，抱歉，是协商，因为我认为存在一个障碍，即协议中的某些条款提及同意。而且，再次说明，同意和否决，我不知道这两者之间有什么区别。（听不清）\n\n本院：你所说的协议，是指你刚才提到的 ECF 107 吗？\n\n彼得罗切利先生：抱歉。就这一点而言，我又转回到和解协议了。\n\n本院：好的。好的。\n\n彼得罗切利先生：这里曾有人暗示，您知道，而且我相信 PAX 律师所言，他们不认为自己拥有否决权。您知道，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，我看不出这两者之间有什么区别。除此之外，再次说明，Sherry-Netherland 作为该公寓登记所有人的有担保债权人，鉴于市场状况，有意对该公寓进行迅速且使价值最大化的出售，我们 Case 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 38 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 39 of 50\n\n郭文贵—2023年1月24日\n\n支持该项申请。谢谢。\n\n本院：谢谢。律师？\n\n劳沃尔先生：法官阁下，我可以简短陈述吗？\n\n本院：可以。\n\n劳沃尔先生：和解协议本身确实在第7.E段具体处理了保证金。其规定，确认解除自动中止，以允许 Sherry-Netherland 将所有已累积并应付的破产申请提交后维护费和摊派费用用于抵扣。\n\n因此，我认为先前所说的在某种程度上不正确，即使用该保证金是这一整体协议不可分割的一部分。事实上，正因为如此，各方认为有必要将该内容写入其中。\n\n法官阁下，这份和解协议中还有其他条款，进一步确认了萨诺夫先生指出的否决权。\n\n例如，其中一项，法官阁下，讨论了受托人——运营协议项下的出售负责人——而该文件未提交给法官阁下面前——作为本案发生事项的一部分，订立了一份运营协议，该协议确认出售负责人拥有运营协议项下的全部权限——而运营协议（听不清）赋予出售负责人管理整个程序的能力。\n\n郭文贵—2023年1月24日 40 再次说明，法官阁下，我认为您可以了解此事的要旨。我们所有人都同意，将有一名独立出售负责人，一名广受认可、声誉良好的律师，负责管理此事。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。这就是程序的运作方式。并无任何更复杂之处。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n本院：谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？抱歉，法官阁下。只需一分钟。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，只要他们同意自己没有否决权，我不反对他们享有协商权。并非今天才提出这个问题。我提出过，并且我说过，我不能接受允许你们同意的同意条款。我没有向劳沃尔先生提出，但我向 PAX 提出了。我不能接受规定你们对该动议享有同意权的条款。如果他们——如果他们说我们没有该项\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 40 of 50\n\n郭文贵—2023年1月24日 41 同意权，并且如果 Bravo Luck 同意他们没有同意权，那么事情就到此为止。他们可以——他们可以继续享有同样的协商权。因此，我并非想在此挑起争端，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，同意权意味着否决权。如果他们愿意在记录中确认他们没有该项权利，那么我认为程序就到此为止。\n\n本院：那么，你们想要休庭并去谈谈吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：当然。当然，法官阁下。\n\n本院：因为听起来——我以为我听到萨诺夫先生说，他认为 PAX 会同意这一点，尽管我可能听错了。萨诺夫律师？\n\n萨诺夫先生：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予以确认——\n\n本院：是的。这就是为何我认为我们需要——我们现在可以休庭，或者可以继续处理下午2点的事项，之后再讨论。您知道。无论如何，依各方希望的方式推进。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 41 of 50\n\n郭文贵—2023年1月24日\n\n萨诺夫先生：法官阁下——\n\n本院：不过，我们在下午2点还有其他事项。\n\n萨诺夫先生：法官阁下，我对此唯一的时间考量是，我试图联系的客户比我快13小时，存在13小时的时差。\n\n我们能否进行协商，并在明天回复您——\n\n本院：可以。可以。\n\n萨诺夫先生：——并向您作出答复？至少就 PAX 而言。我显然不能代表 Bravo Luck 发言。\n\n本院：我认为这样可以。律师，这对你可以吗？\n\n劳沃尔先生：可以，法官阁下。我无法想象这会成为一个问题。\n\n本院：好的。因此，我认为这很有道理。让我们看看会发生什么。\n\n律师们，你们可能不知道，但我们的沟通方式——谢肯律师会知道——是，当且如果你们全体达成一致，或者未能达成一致时，须通过布里奇波特的法庭书记员电子邮箱发送通信。这是一个通用电子邮箱。\n\n但是每个人都必须在同一封电子邮件中。因此，谁发送并不重要，但他们必须确保抄送其他所有人。否则，本院不会予以考虑。因为我需要知道每个人都在同一通信中。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 42 of 50\n\n郭文贵—2023年1月24日\n\n劳沃尔先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我感谢您告知我这一点。\n\n本院：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，这是否意味着该动议延期至星期四？\n\n本院：嗯，也许不是星期四。如果你们全都达成一致，也许明天。我是说，也许不必——\n\n德斯平斯先生：如果无法达成一致。\n\n本院：我可以做的是，我可以说听证会——您知道，我可以将听证会延期至明天或星期四。但如果你们全都就命令应如何表述达成一致，那么我们就没有争议。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我的意思是，如果无法达成一致，是否将其延期至星期四？\n\n本院：可以。我们可以这么做。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，即便这是一个经各方同意的事项，最终如果你们达成协议，本院在某个时候仍需知悉你们仍持有的保证金金额，如有，以及每月支付的金额，以便本院了解情况。对吗？\n\n在某个时候，希望该财产会被出售，而我希望在该出售之前知悉，这是否属于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，诸如此类——我希望知悉这一点。\n\n彼得罗切利先生：明白，法官阁下。我们当然可以提供该具体信息。\n\n据我粗略了解，保证金最初约为 $3 million。现在低于该数额，但尚未耗尽。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n彼得罗切利先生：尚未耗尽。\n\n本院：好的。那么，得知这一点令人欣慰。谢谢。\n\n彼得罗切利先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。那么我们将——哦，谢肯律师？\n\n谢肯先生：星期四几点？\n\n本院：嗯，我正要说到这个问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1429 Filed 02/01/23 Entered 02/01/23 15:40:59 Page 45 of 50\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2023\n\n1 因为我们星期四还有其他事项。但我希望，实际上星期四你们各位都不必就此事项出席，因为听起来你们都会解决此事。请给我一点时间。\n\n5 （暂停。）\n\n6 法庭：我们安排在星期四中午开庭。因此，我们可以将此事项延期至星期四中午，前提是极有可能不会继续举行听证，因为将会有一项经各方同意的命令。好吗？有人有任何问题吗？\n\n12 （无人回应。）\n\n13 SHAIKEN先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n14 法庭：好的。很好。那么谢谢各位。\n\n15 本事项延期至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，我相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经同意的命令。好吗？\n\n21 因此，本事项于下午1时结束。现在我们有下午2时的事项。现在恰好是下午1时58分。因此，就法庭而言，我们可以继续处理下午2时的事项。\n\n25 DESPINS先生：实际上，法官阁下，有一项行政性事项，Zeisler律师事务所（泽斯勒律师事务所）的同事请我向您提出，即我们——他们上周提交了案卷编号1340，即关于Lady May（玛丽女士号）费用准备金的一项同意命令。他们正在使用——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1429 已提交 02/01/23 已录入 02/01/23 15:40:59 第 46 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2023\n\n5 法庭：是的。我们尚未处理它，但我知道它在那里。\n\n7 DESPINS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\n9 法庭：谢谢。\n\n10 好的。那么，今天下午2时日程中的第一项事项，是申请聘用Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）担任债务人的律师。\n\n13 Despins受托人，您想继续进行，还是由其他人代表您进行？\n\n15 DESPINS先生：我本打算处理此事，因为无人提出异议。这正是我最擅长的事。\n\n17 法庭：请继续。\n\n18 DESPINS先生：因此，法官阁下，我们在案卷编号1293提交了该申请。据我们了解，尚未提交任何异议，因此我们请求录入该命令。\n\n21 法庭：我正在查看。我只想再看一下拟议命令。\n\n23 Claiborn律师，您是否希望就此事项发言？\n\n25 CLAIBORN女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）代表U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。我只是想说明，美国受托人不持异议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1429 已提交 02/01/23 已录入 02/01/23 15:40:59 第 47 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2023 47\n\n法庭：您是否已审阅拟议命令，Claiborn律师？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。您知道，我——这确实完全不重要，但在本案提交的拟议命令中，它们经常包括United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格地区联邦地区法院）的常设移交命令，并在括号中注明“经修订”，但它并未被修订。它从未被修订过。因此，我只是——我可能会删除该表述，以免使人困惑。截至September of 1984，United States District Court for the District of Connecticut只有一项移交命令。当然，这并不意味着他们将来某个时候不能修订它，但他们尚未修订它。因此，关于拟议命令，该拟议命令底部没有页码，这没有问题，不过——哦，也许第2页有。抱歉，第2页确实有。因此，在第2页——我在对法庭书记员说——第2页顶部第三行，在第2页顶部第三行，有一项来自United States District Court for the District of Connecticut的常设移交命令，延续至第4行，您看到了吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1429 已提交 02/01/23 已录入 02/01/23 15:40:59 第 48 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2023\n\n1 法庭书记员：我没有看到。也许我正在看错误的命令。抱歉。\n\n7 法庭：这是关于1293的命令，即拟议命令。\n\n9 法庭书记员：哦，我是。我明白了。谨致歉意。\n\n11 法庭：没关系。我们现在不必讨论。我们稍后可以处理。\n\n13 法庭书记员：好的。\n\n14 法庭：我们只会删除那个词。\n\n15 法庭书记员：好的。\n\n16 法庭：正如我开始说话时所说，这确实并不那么重要。\n\n18 我认为大多数其他司法辖区，或者许多其他司法辖区，已修订该移交命令，但康涅狄格州没有。\n\n21 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。\n\n24 因此，没有任何人就该动议提交书面异议。今天参加本次听证的任何人均未反对该动议。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，我此刻正在看错误的文件。抱歉。请给我一秒钟。聘用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：今天日程中还有另一事项，即撤销第三方传票的动议。该动议已由Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara（艾维、巴纳姆和奥马拉律师事务所）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涉及三项不同程序，但它是一项将全部三项对抗程序合并为一项对抗程序的动议。\n\nDESPINS先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谁将就该动议进行陈述？\n\n法庭书记员：法官，我可以先宣读案件吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1429 已提交 02/01/23 已录入 02/01/23 15:40:59 第 49 页，共 50 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1429 已提交 02/01/23 已录入 02/01/23 15:40:59 第 50 页，共 50 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—January 24, 2023 50\n\n法庭：哦，可以。请继续。抱歉。让她——我表示歉意。她只需要宣读对抗程序编号。尽管本录音将会——\n\n法庭书记员：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（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员及誊写员，证明上述内容为上述标题事项程序官方电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n15 January 31, 2023\n\n16 Christine 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":12536,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-02-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-02-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:34:39"}