{"id":"court_ctb_1434_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1434,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2023-02-02","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK AND GENEVER . HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND . GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Debtor. . . Tuesday, January 31, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:38 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and- Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (APPEARANCES CONTINUED) Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 1 of 32\n\n| | | 2 | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n| 2 | For Pacific Alliance | | |\n| 3 | Asia Opportunity
Fund L.P.: | Annecca H. Smith, Esquire | |\n| 4 | | ROBINSON & COLE, LLP
280 Trumbull Street | |\n| 5 | | Hartford, Connecticut 06103 | |\n| 6 | For The Sherry
Netherland, Inc.: | | |\n| 7 | | Julie A. Lavoie, Esquire
MURTHA CULLINA, LLP | |\n| 8 | | 280 Trumbull Street
12th Floor | |\n| 9 | | Hartford, Connecticut 06103 | |\n| 10 | | -and- | |\n| 11 | | Patrick N. Petrocelli, Esquire
Sherry J. Millman, Esquire
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP | |\n| 12 | | 180 Maiden Lane
New York, New York 10038 | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | For the U.S. Trustee: | Holley, L. Claiborn, Esquire
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE | |\n| 15 | | Robert N. Giaimo Federal Building
150 Court Street | |\n| 16 | | Room 302
New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | For the Official
Committee of Unsecured | | |\n| 19 | Creditors: | Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire
PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC | |\n| 20 | | 850 Main Street
8th Floor | |\n| 21 | | Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 | |\n| 22 | For Bravo Luck | | |\n| 23 | Limited: | Francis J. Lawall, Esquire
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP | |\n| 24 | | 3000 Two Logan Square
Eighteenth and Arch Streets | |\n| 25 | | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 | |\n| | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 1434 | Filed 02/02/23 | | Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 | | Page 3 of 32 |\n|---------------|--|-----------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--|--------------|\n| | | | | | | | 3 |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | | | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | | | |\n| 2 | | For the Debtor: | | | Stephen M. Kindseth, Esquire
ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. | | |\n| 3 | | | | 10 Middle Street
15th Floor | | | |\n| 4 | | | | | Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 | | |\n| 5 | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 1257: Motion for Order Further Extending the Sale 8 Process of Sherry-Netherland Apartment and Retention of Sotheby's International Realty as Broker Filed by Douglas S. Skalka on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever Holding Court's Ruling: 22 Matter No. 1297: Order Establishing Deadlines for Filing 26 Proof of Claim and Approving Form and Manner of Notice Thereof (Re: 1191) Court's Ruling: 31 Matter No. 1298: Order (I) Approving Retention and 23 Appointment of Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC as Claims and Noticing Agent, effective as of December 1, 2022, and (II) Granting Related Relief (Re: 1198) Court's Ruling: -- Matter No. 1303: Motion to Compel JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 31 to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena Filed by Douglas S. Skalka on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: -- Matter No. 1362: Motion to Compel Compliance with Bk. Rule 31 2004 Subpoena by USB AG Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 4 of 32\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 1434 | Filed 02/02/23 | Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 | Page 5 of 32 | |\n|---------------|---------------------|----------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------------|------|\n| | | | | | | 5 |\n| 1 | | | | INDEX | | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | | | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter
No. 1328: | | | Motion to Seal Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on | | 31 |\n| 4 | | | | behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | | |\n| 5 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | -- |\n| 6 | | | Transcriptionist's Certificate | | | 32 |\n| 7 | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 2:38 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and also Adversary Number 22-5027 [sic], Despins v Bravo Luck Limited. THE COURT: If we could have appearances for the record -- hold on one second, though. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: So, Bravo Luck is not on until 3:00. We have a number of matters in the Kwok case at 2:30. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor. I called it out of turn. THE COURT: That's okay. That's okay. So right now, we're just calling the matters that are scheduled for 2:30 -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: -- okay? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: And then we can schedule -- we can call the adversary at 3:00. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: All right. Could we have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee. I'm here with Mr. Linsey, our Connecticut counsel, but he's in the hallway trying to cut Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 6 of 32\n\n 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deals to avoid a protracted hearing, so he will be back soon. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. PETROCELLI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Petrocelli from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, on behalf of The Sherry-Netherland. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. LAVOIE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Julie Lavoie of Murtha Cullina, on behalf of The Sherry-Netherland. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors' Committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LAWALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Fran Lawall, Troutman Pepper, on behalf of Bravo Luck. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 7 of 32\n\n 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. Let's just take a moment and let me catch up where I was there, and I lost my place so just bear with me for a moment, please. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. The -- we're going to - maybe you're going to tell me this is why Mr. Linsey is out in the hallway, Trustee Despins, but I was going to start with The Sherry-Netherland. Is that Mister -- no? MR. DESPINS: No, he's -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- dealing with UBS matters. THE COURT: Okay. I think, counsel from Murtha, I don't see your appearance on -- in the case yet. Have you filed a notice of appearance? MS. LAVOIE: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You need to do that when you get back to your office, okay? MS. LAVOIE: Absolutely. Yep. THE COURT: That's required under our Local Rules. All right. So, what is -- I'm sorry, Trustee Despins, I saw, but I'm not saying I studied, the issues. The only issue with The Sherry-Netherland sale process is the issue about renting the apartment? Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 8 of 32\n\n 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Having the ability to market -- THE COURT: To rent it, yes. MR. DESPINS: -- to -- but subject to coming back to court to rent it. It's not authority to rent, but authority to market for rent. THE COURT: Okay. But there's still a dispute on that, correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And, counsel, you've disputed that, correct? MR. LAWALL: We have, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. So your dispute is that, I think -- and, please, I mean, I think things were just filed today. We had hearings this morning, so I could be wrong, but I think your argument is that that was not part of the original motion filed in the Holdings case and that if that's what the trustee wants, he needs to file a new motion? MR. LAWALL: Yes. Again, Your Honor, good afternoon. Fran Lawall for Bravo. Your Honor, yes, that's exactly the issue. When we left court last week, the only issue was with respect to eliminating the consent right with respect to the sale agreement and having everything else to be a consultation right. That evening, both PAX, as well as Bravo, notified the trustee that we were good with that and so we had thought Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 9 of 32\n\n1 the matter was done.\n\n| 2 | The following day, we got a proposed sale order |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | which inserted the requested rental language in it, which was |\n| 4 | not within the original request that was before Your Honor |\n| 5 | and the issue which we thought had been resolved at the |\n| 6 | hearing, where I thought everyone had pretty much confirmed |\n| 7 | on the record that's where we were.
The proposed order that |\n| 8 | the trustee has submitted, Your Honor, with the rental |\n| 9 | language, we, this morning -- and I apologize, I don't have |\n| 10 | the docket number because I was in transit on the way up -- |\n| 11 | we adopted the -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I think I do, so hold on a second. |\n| 13 | Because I was in court this morning, so -- but I had tried to |\n| 14 | look at it really quickly, so I think I have it, where you |\n| 15 | have your marked-up order, as well. |\n| 16 | Is that what you were going to refer to, counsel? |\n| 17 | MR. LAWALL:
That is correct, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | And if it makes it easier, Your Honor, we have |\n| 19 | adopted the trustee's proposed order in every way, but for |\n| 20 | the rental language.
And, Your Honor, our -- we have |\n| 21 | concerns at this point:
number one, it hasn't been noticed |\n| 22 | up; and number two, we think that there has to be some |\n| 23 | additional consideration before the rental issue is finally |\n| 24 | resolved; and then, ultimately, we will have an issue with |\n| 25 | respect to the disposition of the rent itself because if |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we're able to reach agreement, with respect to rental, we strongly believe that all of the rental monies have to go toward the maintenance and upkeep of the property and those were issues, Your Honor, we weren't able to get past. What I had -- what I would propose, Your Honor, is the order that we have uploaded, which I thought had satisfied the issues last week with respect to the rental issues, that they can be revisited in another filing. I believe it's been indicated on the record that currently there's over a million dollars of money on reserve with respect to the maintenance, so I think we're good for another 13 months there. If the trustee continues, or decides to continue to move forward with the rental issue, I would like the opportunity to have a conversation with both, the rental agent, as well as the sales officer, to make sure, first of all, so that I can inform my client what impact having a parallel rental program on top of a sale program might have in connection with a possible buyer. And, of course, Your Honor, we believe, although, I don't think it has to be an issue for today, rental really is outside the form of the settlement agreement. But I think from a notice standpoint, from a motion standpoint, the rental issue today is really not properly teed up. Bravo is not trying to stand in, in any way, with respect to progress,\n\n1 2 3 4 but this is an important issue. It has been from the beginning. Rental is a new issue and we think it has to be a little bit more thoughtfully continued -- thought about and explored.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 And then with respect to the disposition of the rental proceeds themselves, we think that's a critical issue. If you recall, Your Honor, there are three different adversaries against my client at the moment, all of them having to do with who really owns this property. And so, as you can imagine, the disposition of those rental proceeds, outside of the use of a property, would give us some heartburn.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 So that's really the essence, Your Honor. We'd respectfully ask that the order that we have uploaded, which accepts all of the trustee's comments and all the trustee's language, but for the rental issue, that be approved today and that we will work with the trustee on the rental issue to explore if there's a pathway here, where we can reach agreement on it, but it's not necessarily a today issue, Your Honor.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. I have a couple of questions, given what you've just stated. When the Holdings case was in New York, the -- my understanding, and I believe it's accurate, is that the debtor, Holdings, filed the motion and a plan to sell the property, to sell the apartment and there\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was a sales agent hired and all that, and that's been going on for more than a year and a half. And from what I understand, but you obviously, The Sherry-Netherland's lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong, too -- anybody can -- I haven't seen any offers for the purchase of that apartment. Is that correct? MR. LAWALL: Your Honor, there's been activity. I don't think -- I'm not aware of a firm offer having been -- THE COURT: Right. MR. LAWALL: -- made on the property. I'm not sure that the sales process has been going on for a year and a half. It could have been, Your Honor. I don't have those dates in front of me. THE COURT: Well, I can tell you that the orders that I have reviewed of Judge Garrity approved a second restated settlement agreement and other things back in early September of 2021, so I do think it's been going on for just about a year and a half, if not longer, but at least that long, number one. Number two, the debtor, Holdings, sought the approval with regard to the disposition of this property under Section 363 of the Code, which you know, is \"use, sale, or lease of property.\" So, I understand your point, and I'm not ruling on it at the moment, but I don't think -- I think if there is any issue with regard to the lease and teeing it up in a\n\n1 2 different motion, we can do that in a week or two. I mean, it really doesn't take a lot of time.\n\n| 3 | This is the only asset of the debtor.
The debtor, |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 4 | when represented by counsel in that New York case, confirmed |\n| 5 | that time and time again in all of the pleadings they filed |\n| 6 | in that case, they even commenced an action against your |\n| 7 | client saying that they were \"directed,\" I believe the word |\n| 8 | is -- but I'm not sure that's accurate, so I shouldn't say |\n| 9 | that -- but they were told that they had to place the name -- |\n| 10 | title to the apartment under the name of \"Bravo Luck\" for the |\n| 11 | benefit of the debtor's son; that's what the allegation is. |\n| 12 | It's a declaratory judgment action, right, and that's what -- |\n| 13 | and they're saying that Bravo Luck doesn't own the -- that's |\n| 14 | what they want the declaration to be from this Court, or it |\n| 15 | was Judge Garrity before, but once it got transferred here, |\n| 16 | then this Court, that Bravo Luck doesn't own the apartment, |\n| 17 | right? |\n| 18 | MR. LAWALL:
The -- Your Honor, I'm not sure I |\n| 19 | would characterize it exactly like that, but I think the |\n| 20 | essence is correct.
The dispute here is who actually has |\n| 21 | ownership of the apartment -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 23 | MR. LAWALL:
-- and that's been central to the |\n| 24 | dispute -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 15 of 32\n\n15\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LAWALL: -- and it will continue to be. The -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know how long it will continue to be, so just -- I just want you to understand that. I mean, this is -- this has been going on for a long time. The trustee has come in. We had the whole issue with Genever BVI and the fact that the BVI Court was not going to hear the continued challenges to the ownership of the -- of BVI and then, therefore, the apartment. I mean, I understand everything you're saying. All I'm saying to you is I don't know how much longer this is going to go on, okay. So, with regard to the rent issue, the issue that you raise about notice and it not being part of the original motion, I think is persuasive, but I think we can rectify that issue very quickly. The Code and the Rules say that the Court can shorten any time frame for notice of a motion brought under Section 363 for cause shown; I think it's Rule 2002(a), possibly. And the cause shown here is that this property has not sold for more than a year and a half, and not even has one offer been brought forward, okay, and - not that I'm aware of anyway. If anybody's -- if I'm wrong, correct me, okay, but I don't see anything in the record of these cases to establish that there's been a sale of this property, even contemplated, you know. Even if it was just an offer that was still subject to Court approval hasn't even\n\n 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been brought forward. Now -- MR. LAWALL: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- Gen -- the Holdings -- Holdings filed a plan in that Chapter 11 case more than a year and a half ago that said, We're liquidating this apartment -- MR. LAWALL: Right. THE COURT: -- all right. But it hasn't happened, okay. MR. LAWALL: Well, that, in part, you were, was because of the filing of the Kwok bankruptcy and that plan was -- THE COURT: It may or may not be, but it doesn't matter, because it still was that -- Gen -- Holdings' estate was comprised of the ownership interest in the apartment and everybody agreed that the property was going to be sold through the sales agent. And there was a whole, apparently, many, many hearings about what the sales agent could or could not do, which resulted in different agreements and then the agreements not necessarily being met. And the issues that were raised last week here, whether that settlement agreement has expired by its own terms, because it was expired in November of 2022, you've all come to an agreement on the consent, and I'm happy that that's the case. I -- as I said, I'm persuaded by your argument Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 16 of 32\n\n| 1 | about the trustee now seeking to rent, not necessarily being |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | on notice to everybody, but I think that can be accomplished |\n| 3 | in a very short amount of time.
And if that's what the |\n| 4 | trustee wants to do, then that can happen in this court, |\n| 5 | okay, because he came into this situation when there were |\n| 6 | facts that were already in existence for a long time in the |\n| 7 | New York case, and now he's trying to turn that asset into |\n| 8 | cash, which was what was always contemplated by the |\n| 9 | Chapter 11 case in New York. |\n| 10 | Now, you may say the rental income, you're going |\n| 11 | to fight, you know, about who -- not fight, but raise issues |\n| 12 | about who's entitled to be paid that.
Well, as you just |\n| 13 | said, and counsel for The Sherry-Netherland said last week, |\n| 14 | if there's a million dollars in a security deposit and |\n| 15 | there's 13 months left, then I wouldn't know why the rental |\n| 16 | income wouldn't come into this estate. |\n| 17 | MR. LAWALL:
Well -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I -- and we'll -- we can talk about |\n| 19 | that when we get there, but I'm just giving you a heads-up. |\n| 20 | I think that the rental income, why wouldn't it be property |\n| 21 | of this estate, of these jointly administered estates -- |\n| 22 | MR. LAWALL:
Sure.
Your Honor -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- you know?
So -- and you'll make |\n| 24 | your argument and you'll tell me why I'm wrong -- |\n| 25 | MR. LAWALL:
Sure. |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: -- and I'll listen to you, but the issue now is Mr. Despins was appointed to determine the assets of this -- these debtor's estates and turn them into cash to distribute them to creditors. That's what we're going to do, okay. So -- but as far as today is concerned, I saw your order and I appreciate it. I understand you took -- you deleted the paragraph about the rental, renting it, and I can -- I think that's fine. I actually think that's fine, but I also think that I can add to this order that the trustee is entitled to, and I'll give him a period of time, to bring a motion to -- with regard to renting the property. Mr. Despins, did you have an issue with what I just said? MR. DESPINS: Very slight, Your Honor. I wanted you to know that in our noticed proposed order we said that to the extent necessary, this shall be deemed an amended motion to seek this relief. That was filed on the 25th, so I would ask the Court to consider when you set new deadlines, the fact that there's already been notice given of this amended motion on January 25th and, therefore, I would want you to take that into account, Your Honor. That's -- THE COURT: Okay. I'll take that into account. MR. DESPINS: -- that's my point.\n\n 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So, I'm prepared to enter your order with some, most likely an addition that says that the trustee can do something in a period of time and you'll have a right to object to it, okay. MR. LAWALL: Yes, Your Honor. I think just to round out the discussion, if I may? THE COURT: Sure. MR. LAWALL: The -- one of the issues is really going to come and Your Honor had specifically identified the issue in terms of monetizing this asset for sale. What I understand to be is they're talking about a 12-month lease. So, if it gets leased for 12 months, it's not going to be sold for that period of time. So, my point has been this issue of leasing is a little more complicated than simply going out and finding a tenant for 30 days or 60 days, particularly given a property of this import. And given the market, Your Honor, at this point, with respect to those rental income, those monies, in terms of it being property of the estate, there is certainly an issue, Your Honor, given the disputed ownership, which the trustee has identified in three separate adversary proceedings against my client. There's a dispute there. THE COURT: Well, Holdings -- MR. LAWALL: I'm sorry, Your Honor? Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 19 of 32\n\n 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Holdings identified it, as well. It signed the complaint in New York. MR. LAWALL: That was at the direct -- that was at the time, Your Honor, and I appreciate the separation, but that was at a time when Mr. Despins was already the trustee -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. LAWALL: -- in the Kwok bankruptcy. THE COURT: I understand. MR. LAWALL: Right. THE COURT: But a lawyer that wasn't Mr. Despins' lawyer signed that complaint. MR. LAWALL: Understood, Your Honor. And there's -- we have never shied away from the fact that there is a dispute with respect to the ownership and with respect to trying these issues. We are fully prepared to try them, Your Honor, and to set a schedule and all of that. We're not trying to hide from that. We know -- THE COURT: I didn't say -- I never suggested that you were. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting we're going to move on with the property: it's either going to be sold, rented, or both -- MR. LAWALL: But the problem with renting -- THE COURT: -- then we'll see what happens. You know, maybe -- you'll be able to talk once the specifics are Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 20 of 32\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ironed out and, you know, who knows, you know, people could be renting with an option to purchase. I don't know, you know. I mean, we'll see. We'll see how the issue is raised. But I am going to give the trustee the opportunity to have an order authorizing him to rent the apartment and he's going to have to provide all the terms and conditions and you're going to have an opportunity to object to that, okay, and anybody else that wants to object to it. And so, with regard to the motion for the order further extending the sale process, what I'm going to do is I'm going to, you know, grant it in part with your proposed order, counsel, with changes -- with additions that I'm going to make that says what I've just stated, without specifically using all the language that will be in the order, and acknowledging -- Mr. Despins wants me to say that the motion filed on the 25th was, in fact, that. And I'll say that that's his assertion, but I'm going to give times for somebody to do whatever it is they're going to do, okay. That's how we're going to proceed. MR. LAWALL: Very good, thank you. Your Honor, we have the -- well, I'll leave to the 3 o'clock list for the adversary. Thank you. THE COURT: Yes, thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, to be candid with Your Honor, I did not review his form of order. I'm relying on\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1434
Filed 02/02/23
Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14
Page 22 of 32 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 22 |\n| 1 | his representation that it's identical to ours -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I think it is. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
-- except for the rental issue.
If |\n| 4 | that's the case, then we have no issues with using his order. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I can tell you that I believe it is. |\n| 6 | I -- but did I look at this somewhat quickly?
Yes, but I |\n| 7 | believe it is exactly the same order with that one paragraph |\n| 8 | deleted. |\n| 9 | MR. LAWALL:
Your Honor, if there were any |\n| 10 | changes, and I'm not aware of any, because I, myself, was the |\n| 11 | one who deleted the one paragraph, but if there are any |\n| 12 | changes, we will certainly conform it to his original. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | All right.
So with regard to that motion, then |\n| 15 | the motion for -- to extend the sale process, then that is |\n| 16 | granted, in part, for the reasons stated on the record. |\n| 17 | I will take Bravo Luck's counsel's marked-up |\n| 18 | order, which I do believe, but I will confirm is the |\n| 19 | trustee's proposed order, with the deletion of the paragraph |\n| 20 | about the rent, and then I will add provisions regarding the |\n| 21 | filing of a motion or seeking approval to rent the property |\n| 22 | and providing an opportunity to object and setting a hearing |\n| 23 | on that, as well, okay. |\n| 24 | MR. LAWALL:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n\n| | 23 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MR. PETROCELLI:
Your Honor, if I could, just to |\n| 3 | clarify one point?
I just want to make sure that I'm not |\n| 4 | misunderstanding what Your Honor is saying, is that the order |\n| 5 | will give the trustee the opportunity to do what he proposed |\n| 6 | to do in this current order, which is get authorization to |\n| 7 | try to rent the apartment? |\n| 8 | Certainly, there were -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That is correct. |\n| 10 | MR. PETROCELLI:
-- representations in there about |\n| 11 | preserving the rights of The Sherry-Netherland, including |\n| 12 | approval rights, and we just want to make sure that it's |\n| 13 | clear that we're -- our understanding is that this is not |\n| 14 | actually to rent the apartment, but to attempt to rent the |\n| 15 | apartment? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
That is correct.
And you will have |\n| 17 | notice and you will be able to file whatever response that |\n| 18 | you feel is necessary to protect your client's rights. |\n| 19 | MR. PETROCELLI:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | (Pause) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
With regarding -- with regard |\n| 23 | to the order establishing deadlines for the filing of proofs |\n| 24 | of claim and the retention order on, with regard to Epiq, I |\n| 25 | saw, Trustee Despins, a revised, proposed order on Epiq, but |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | it still doesn't do what it needs to do as far as from the |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Clerk's Office perspective and the statutory cites. |\n| 3 | The -- there -- so, I am going to have to submit |\n| 4 | to you all, or we'll have to somehow -- I mean, I think |\n| 5 | there's a lot of findings in here that are unnecessary and |\n| 6 | not accurate.
I mean, I don't think it is necessarily |\n| 7 | burdensome for the Clerk's Office to do this.
You want |\n| 8 | the -- Epiq to do it because of the confidential nature of |\n| 9 | the claims and that's fine.
I don't think the -- I think the |\n| 10 | Clerk's Office could do this, but I don't -- I have no |\n| 11 | problem with Epiq doing it, okay.
So I'm going to make some |\n| 12 | of those changes. |\n| 13 | I'm going to add some language in the order that |\n| 14 | says, you know, \"subject to the conditions of this order,\" |\n| 15 | because the services agreement doesn't include noticing and |\n| 16 | then it includes a bunch of other things like helping the |\n| 17 | debtor prepare schedules.
Obviously, that's not going to |\n| 18 | happen in this case, so I'll take care of that. |\n| 19 | When it says Epiq shall service the custodian of |\n| 20 | the court of records -- of the court records, I think it |\n| 21 | needs to say, \"Epiq shall serve to assist the Clerk of Court |\n| 22 | as the custodian of the court records.\"
I understand Epiq is |\n| 23 | going to keep everything, okay -- I've got no problem with |\n| 24 | that -- but Epiq has to, then, be responsible for serving |\n| 25 | everything that needs to be served by, either this Court's |\n| | |\n\n 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 direction, the Clerk of the Court's direction, or your direction, and it has to be clear who they're serving. I don't think that's going to be a problem. I just think the order has to be clear to say that. Also, I'm going to change the certificate of service that they're going to file to one business day after they serve, because they can do a certificate of service within one business day. They also have a paragraph that I don't think that they -- I think it just doesn't make sense. Because it says -- paragraph 4 that was added to the redlined version, they say: \"Epiq shall eliminate all duplicate notices in its service list and for services upon those parties who have filed a notice of appearance, limit service to the persons identified in such notice.\"\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 They don't have to serve anybody that's filed a notice of appearance; that's the whole point. There's -- a notice of electronic filing is the certificate of service under our District Court Local Rules and our Bankruptcy Court Local Rules. So, what I'm saying is don't -- all you have to serve is the people who don't get it electronically, that's all you have to serve, and show that you did that. That's all they have to do, okay.\n\n25\n\nIt's not -- none of this, in my opinion, is earth-\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shattering. What I'd like your office to do when you have the opportunity, is to get the version -- and maybe you already have -- to the clerk -- to the courtroom deputy in Word and then we can show you the changes we're going to make, and then if anybody has a problem with it, they can let the Court know, okay. MR. DESPINS: Will do, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Now, with regard to the proof of claim deadline, as I stated last week during the hearing when we had evidence with regard to many exhibits introduced with regard to the claims process in this case and I issued orders overruling the debtor's objections to, I believe it was three proofs of claim, and stating that the debtor could not object to any further claims, any future -- any other claims, without obtaining Court approval, I said to everyone, and I asked everyone to be prepared to respond to it today, that I'm considering extending the proof of claim bar date because of what has gone on in this case. So, Trustee Despins, have you had an opportunity to think about that? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And what's your thoughts, please? MR. DESPINS: May I approach the --\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1434
Filed 02/02/23
Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14
Page 27 of 32 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 27 |\n| THE COURT:
Yes, thank you. |\n| MR. DESPINS:
First, I want to -- I know you were |\n| in court this morning so you may not have seen it, we filed a |\n| statement. |\n| THE COURT:
I haven't seen it. |\n| MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
But, basically, showing to |\n| the Court that there's more of the same going on.
This time, |\n| basically telling the supporters of Mr. Kwok, him telling |\n| them to file claims and basically -- it's a quote, \"Let the |\n| attorney's fees of trustees accumulate to one trillion, if |\n| possible.\"
Essentially, we can't control the case, but we'll |\n| make sure that it's a complete mess. |\n| So we filed this, and we're obviously very upset |\n| about this, but -- and it's going to surprise you -- at the |\n| end of the day, we believe the Court has, and you know that |\n| you do have under the excusable neglect standard, the |\n| ability, after the fact, to look at claimants who filed a |\n| late claim and say, You know what, I can find that these |\n| people were confused or felt threatened and I have the |\n| ability through that mechanism to remedy the potential harm |\n| here. |\n| And I know it's counterintuitive, because you |\n| might say, Well, the trustee is going to ask for more time. |\n| The problem with that, you know, there are a couple of |\n| points, Your Honor.
One is, if it's, like, a few days, okay, |\n| |\n| |\n\n| 1 | but if it's more than that, I need to give notice of that to |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | people.
And, Your Honor, we are so tapped out from a funds |\n| 3 | point of view, we -- we're in the negative zone now where |\n| 4 | we're financing all of these expenditures.
So, for example, |\n| 5 | publication notice:
\\$20,000.
Things like that.
So, |\n| 6 | therefore, we're asking the Court to maintain the bar date |\n| 7 | with the understanding that the Court would have the ability |\n| 8 | through the excusable neglect tool, to remedy the situation |\n| 9 | after the fact if there's a need for that. |\n| 10 | And so, we thought a lot about it, Your Honor, and |\n| 11 | that's where we came out.
We believe that your decision to |\n| 12 | quash the claims objections and other things that have |\n| 13 | happened, are sending a signal through the internet, you |\n| 14 | know, communication that these people have, that have partly |\n| 15 | remedied what's going on in the case, but time will tell |\n| 16 | whether it's fully remedied or not.
And I believe that |\n| 17 | through excusable neglect, you have the ability to deal with |\n| 18 | that and that would be, ultimately, our recommendation, to |\n| 19 | not change the bar date, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 23 | MS. SMITH:
May I? |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. |\n| 25 | MS. SMITH:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Annecca Smith, |\n\n1 on behalf of PAX.\n\n22\n\n(Pause)\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 It is also PAX's view that it would be appropriate to maintain February 17th as the bar date, in part, for the reasons that Trustee Despins stated, including the Pioneer factors and the excusable neglect standard, and the view of PAX that this Court's action last week to also cut off further objection rights, claim objection rights of Kwok, absent permission, are sufficient for these purposes. In addition, PAX wanted to emphasize the importance of the mediation to these cases. Mr. Friedman and Mr. Sarnoff asked me to pass along their regrets that they are unable to attend today; they are going to be meeting with the mediator on behalf of PAX as an initial jumping-off point for that process. The February 17th date is appropriate for use in the mediation because it will enable the parties to fully understand the universe of claims and maximize the chances of a successful settlement. To further delay that, given the bounds of the current mediation order, would jeopardize the success of the mediation. Excuse me, Your Honor.\n\n23 24 25 MS. SMITH: In addition, this case has been pending for almost exactly one year as of the bar date, in particular, and it is the view of PAX that the interests of\n\n| 1 | the creditors are also better served to reach a settlement |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | and reach a resolution of these cases.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 5 | MS. MAYHEW:
Your Honor, the Committee agrees with |\n| 6 | the approach proposed by Trustee Despins.
I think it makes |\n| 7 | sense to keep the bar date as is, and to the extent that |\n| 8 | there are any late-filed claims, they can certainly be |\n| 9 | considered.
But at this point, it doesn't seem to make sense |\n| 10 | to extend it, either a month or even a few weeks through the |\n| 11 | end of the month, given the costs that would be incurred. |\n| 12 | Thank you. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | Mr. Kindseth? |\n| 15 | MR. KINDSETH:
The debtor is not taking any |\n| 16 | position with respect to this issue, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
But you -- the debtor has taken a |\n| 18 | position, with respect to the issue before. |\n| 19 | MR. KINDSETH:
The debtor's position is -- has not |\n| 20 | changed, so -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Then you are taking a position, |\n| 22 | because your position was made clear in previous hearings |\n| 23 | that you wanted the bar date to be as soon as possible, |\n| 24 | correct? |\n| 25 | MR. KINDSETH:
Correct. |\n| | |\n\n 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Any -- we -- anyone else have anything they want to add on the bar date issue? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. Then we'll come back to that later. All right. Now, we have the motion to compel compliance with subpoenas for JPMorgan and UBS. Who will be handling that, Attorney -- Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: That will be Mr. Linsey, but he's busy doing God's work out there, so if we could skip that for now, that would be great, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Well, then we have left the adversary proceeding pretrial conference or the motion to seal. So the adversary proceeding pretrial conference, shall we address that now? MR. LAWALL: That would be fine, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Sure. THE COURT: All right. Just let -- if you would, let the courtroom deputy just call the adversary proceeding number so she can make sure that the record that we just discussed, we're going to discuss will be part of the adversary proceeding. So, go right ahead. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. (Proceedings concluded at 3:13 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 31 of 32\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 1434 | Filed 02/02/23 | Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 | Page 32 of 32 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------|------------------|\n| | | | | | 32 |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | |\n| 2 | I certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | |\n| 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | |\n| 7 | | /s/ William J. Garling | | | February 2, 2023 |\n| 8 | | | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | |\n| 10 | | For Reliable | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | |\n| 23
24 | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于： 第11章\n 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司）和\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n债务人。\n\nTuesday, January 31, 2023\n\n2:38 p.m.\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esquire\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins, Esquire\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（博钦律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n记录公司：Reliable\nThe Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮件：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n庭审程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由记录服务机构制作。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1434 提交日期 02/02/23 登记日期 02/02/23 13:08:14 第 1 页，共 32 页\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.：\nAnnecca H. Smith, Esquire\nROBINSON & COLE, LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\n代表 The Sherry Netherland, Inc.：\nJulie A. Lavoie, Esquire\nMURTHA CULLINA, LLP（默萨·库利纳律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\n12th Floor\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\n以及\n\nPatrick N. Petrocelli, Esquire\nSherry J. Millman, Esquire\nSTROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克与拉万律师事务所）\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, New York 10038\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHolley, L. Claiborn, Esquire\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国受托人办公室）\nRobert N. Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street\nRoom 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表无担保债权人正式委员会：\nKristin B. Mayhew, Esquire\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\n8th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06601\n\n代表 Bravo Luck Limited：\nFrancis J. Lawall, Esquire\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\nEighteenth and Arch Streets\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19103\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1434 提交日期 02/02/23 登记日期 02/02/23 13:08:14 第 3 页，共 32 页\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表债务人：\nStephen M. Kindseth, Esquire\nZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street\n15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n目录\n\n动议： 页码\n\n事项编号 1257：Douglas S. Skalka 代表 Luc A. Despins、Genever Holdings Corporation、Genever Holdings 提交的进一步延长 Sherry-Netherland 公寓出售程序并继续聘用 Sotheby's International Realty 作为经纪人的命令动议 8\n\n法院裁定： 22\n\n事项编号 1297：规定提交债权证明期限并批准其通知形式及方式的命令（关于：1191） 26\n\n法院裁定： 31\n\n事项编号 1298：命令：（I）批准自 December 1, 2022 起聘用并委任 Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC 为债权及通知代理人；以及（II）准予相关救济（关于：1198） 23\n\n法院裁定： --\n\n事项编号 1303：Douglas S. Skalka 代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的强制 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 遵守规则 2004 传票的动议 31\n\n法院裁定： --\n\n事项编号 1362：Patrick R. Linsey 代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的强制 USB AG 遵守破产规则 2004 传票的动议 31\n\n法院裁定： --\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1434 提交日期 02/02/23 登记日期 02/02/23 13:08:14 第 4 页，共 32 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1434 提交日期 02/02/23 登记日期 02/02/23 13:08:14 第 5 页，共 32 页\n\n目录\n\n动议： 页码\n\n事项编号 1328：Patrick R. Linsey 代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的密封动议 31\n\n法院裁定： --\n\n记录员证明书 32\n\n（庭审程序于下午 2:38 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），以及对抗程序案号 22-5027 [原文如此]，Despins 诉 Bravo Luck Limited。\n\n法官：请各方为记录出庭——不过，请稍等一下。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法官：Bravo Luck 的事项要到 3:00 才开庭。我们在 2:30 有郭文贵案的若干事项。\n\n法庭书记员：哦，抱歉，法官阁下。我叫错顺序了。\n\n法官：没关系。没关系。那么现在，我们只处理安排在 2:30 的事项——\n\n法庭书记员：是。\n\n法官：——好吗？\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法官：然后我们可以安排——我们可以在 3:00 处理对抗程序。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法官：好。请各方为记录出庭，先由第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是第11章受托人 Luc Despins。我和我们的康涅狄格州律师 Linsey 先生一同出庭，但他正在走廊里试图达成协议，以避免举行冗长听证会，因此他很快会回来。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole 的 Annecca Smith，代表 PAX。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nPETROCELLI 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 的 Patrick Petrocelli，代表 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLAVOIE 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Murtha Cullina 的 Julie Lavoie，代表 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley 的 Kristin Mayhew，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLAWALL 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Troutman Pepper 的 Fran Lawall，代表 Bravo Luck。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nKINDSETH 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Stephen Kindseth，代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：下午好。好的。请稍等片刻，让我看看刚才进行到哪里；我找不到位置了，所以请稍候。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：好的。这个——我们要——或许你会告诉我这就是 Linsey 先生在走廊里的原因，Despins 受托人，但我本来要先处理 The Sherry-Netherland 的事项。那是——先生——不是吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：不是，他——\n\n法官：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——在处理 UBS 的事项。\n\n法官：好的。我认为，Murtha 的律师，我还没有看到你在本案中的出庭登记。你提交出庭通知了吗？\n\nLAVOIE 女士：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。你回到办公室后需要提交，可以吗？\n\nLAVOIE 女士：当然。好的。\n\n法官：这是我们地方法规所要求的。好的。那么，抱歉，Despins 受托人，我看到了，但我并不是说我研究过这些问题。The Sherry-Netherland 出售程序中唯一的问题，是关于出租该公寓的问题吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：具有推介——\n\n法官：出租它的能力，是的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——的能力，但须回到法院才能出租。这不是出租的授权，而是为出租进行推介的授权。\n\n法官：好的。但对此仍有争议，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。律师，你们对此提出了异议，对吗？\n\nLAWALL 先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法官：好的。因此，你们的争议是，我认为——而且，请理解，我认为今天刚刚提交了一些文件。我们今天上午有听证会，所以我可能有误，但我认为你们的论点是，这不是在 Holdings 案中提交的原始动议的一部分，如果受托人希望这样做，他需要提交一份新的动议？\n\nLAWALL 先生：是的。再次问候，法官阁下，下午好。我是代表 Bravo 的 Fran Lawall。法官阁下，是的，这正是问题所在。上周我们离开法庭时，唯一的问题是关于取消与出售协议有关的同意权，并使其他一切均成为协商权。那天晚上，PAX 和 Bravo 均通知受托人，我们对此没有异议，因此我们认为该事项已经处理完毕。\n\n第二天，我们收到了一份拟议出售命令，其中加入了所要求的出租措辞，而该措辞并不在提交给法官阁下的原始请求之内，也不属于我们认为已在听证会上解决的问题；我认为当时所有人都基本上在记录中确认了我们的立场。受托人提交的拟议命令含有出租措辞，法官阁下，今天上午我们——我很抱歉，我没有案卷编号，因为我正在赶来这里的路上——我们采纳了——\n\n法官：我想我有，所以请稍等一下。因为我今天上午在开庭，所以——但我试图非常迅速地查看，我想我找到了，其中也有你们的修订命令。\n\n你要提到的是这个吗，律师？\n\nLAWALL 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n而且，如果这样更方便，法官阁下，除出租措辞外，我们在各方面都采纳了受托人的拟议命令。法官阁下，我们目前有以下担忧：第一，尚未就此发出通知；第二，我们认为，在最终解决出租问题之前，还必须进行某些额外考量；最终，我们将就租金本身的处置提出问题，因为如果我们能够就出租达成协议，我们强烈认为，所有租金款项均必须用于该物业的维护和保养，而这些问题，法官阁下，我们未能解决。\n\n法官阁下，我建议采用我们已上传的命令，我认为该命令已满足上周有关出租问题的要求；出租问题可以在另一份提交文件中重新审议。据我理解，记录中已表明，目前有超过一百万美元的款项为维护事项预留，因此我认为在接下来的 13 个月内我们没有问题。如果受托人继续，或者决定继续推进出租问题，我希望有机会与出租代理人和销售负责人交谈，以首先确保我能够告知我的客户，在出售计划之外同时开展出租计划，可能会对潜在买方产生何种影响。当然，法官阁下，我们认为，尽管我认为这不必成为今天的问题，出租确实超出了和解协议的形式范围。但我认为，从通知的角度和动议的角度而言，今天的出租问题并未被适当地提出。Bravo 并非试图以任何方式阻碍进展，但这是一个重要问题。它从一开始就是如此。出租是一个新问题，我们认为必须对其进行更为审慎的考虑和探讨。\n\n然后，就租金收益本身的处置而言，我们认为这是一个关键问题。法官阁下，如果您还记得，目前有三起不同的对抗性诉讼针对我的当事人，均涉及谁真正拥有该房产。因此，正如您可以想见的，对该等租金收益的处置，除对房产的使用之外，会令我们感到担忧。\n\n因此，这实质上就是我们的请求，法官阁下。我们谨请求今日批准我们已上传的命令，该命令接受受托人的所有意见和全部措辞，但租金问题除外；我们将就租金问题与受托人协作，探讨是否存在达成协议的途径，但这未必是今天需要解决的问题，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。鉴于您刚才所述，我有几个问题。当 Holdings（霍尔丁斯）案件在纽约进行时，我的理解是——并且我相信这一理解是准确的——债务人 Holdings 提交了出售该房产、出售该公寓的动议和计划，并聘请了销售代理人，诸如此类；该事项已经持续了一年半以上。据我了解——当然，The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的律师如果我有误也可以纠正我，其他任何人也可以——我没有见到过购买该公寓的任何要约。这是否正确？\n\nLAWALL 先生：法官阁下，已有一些活动。我认为——我不知道是否曾有确定的要约被——\n\n法院：对。\n\nLAWALL 先生：——就该房产提出。我不确定销售程序是否已经进行了一年半。可能确实如此，法官阁下。我面前没有那些日期。\n\n法院：那么，我可以告诉您，我审阅过 Garrity 法官（加里蒂法官）的命令，其在 2021 年9月初批准了第二份重述和解协议及其他事项，因此我确实认为该事项已经进行了大约一年半，即使不是更久，至少也有这么久。第一点。第二点，债务人 Holdings 根据《法典》第363条请求批准处置该房产，您知道，该条规定的是“财产的使用、出售或租赁”。因此，我理解您的观点，目前我对此不作裁定，但我不认为——我认为，如果就租赁存在任何问题，并通过另一项动议提出，我们可以在一两周内处理。我是说，这确实不需要很多时间。\n\n这是债务人的唯一资产。债务人在该纽约案件中由律师代理时，在其于该案中提交的所有诉状里一再确认这一点；其甚至对您的当事人提起诉讼，称其被“指示”——我相信用词是这个，但我不确定是否准确，所以我不应这样说——但其被告知必须将该公寓的名称——所有权——置于“Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）”名下，以使债务人的儿子受益；这就是其主张。这是一项确认判决之诉，对吗？而这就是——其称 Bravo Luck 并不拥有该——这就是其希望本法院作出的确认，或者此前是 Garrity 法官作出确认，但案件移送至此后，则由本法院作出确认，即 Bravo Luck 并不拥有该公寓，对吗？\n\nLAWALL 先生：法官阁下，我不确定我会完全如此描述，但我认为实质上是正确的。这里的争议是谁实际拥有该公寓——\n\n法院：对。\n\nLAWALL 先生：——而且这一直是争议的核心——\n\n法院：对。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1434 提交日期 02/02/23 录入日期 02/02/23 13:08:14 第 15 页，共 32 页\n\nLAWALL 先生：——并且将继续如此。\n\n法院：嗯，我不知道还会继续多久，所以——我只是希望您明白这一点。我的意思是，这件事已经持续很长时间了。受托人已经介入。我们曾处理 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛吉尼弗公司）问题，以及英属维尔京群岛法院不会审理针对英属维尔京群岛公司、继而针对该公寓所有权的持续异议这一事实。我的意思是，我理解您所说的一切。我只是想告诉您，我不知道这还会持续多久，好吗？因此，就租金问题而言，您提出的关于通知以及其并非原动议组成部分的问题，我认为是有说服力的，但我认为我们可以非常迅速地纠正该问题。《法典》和规则规定，法院可因正当理由缩短依据第363条提出动议的任何通知期限；我认为可能是规则2002(a)。此处所示的正当理由是，该房产一年半以上未能出售，甚至没有提出过一份要约，好吗——至少据我所知是如此。如果任何人——如果我错了，请纠正我，好吗？但我在这些案件的记录中没有看到任何材料证明该房产已经出售，甚至没有看到已经考虑进行出售。即使仅是一份仍须经法院批准的要约，也尚未提出。\n\nLAWALL 先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——Genever——Holdings——Holdings 在该第11章案件中于一年半以前提交了一份计划，其中称，我们将清算该公寓——\n\nLAWALL 先生：对。\n\n法院：——好吧。但这没有发生，好吗？\n\nLAWALL 先生：嗯，这部分是因为提交了 Kwok（郭文贵）破产案，而该计划——\n\n法院：可能是，也可能不是，但这无关紧要，因为当时——Genever——Holdings 的破产财产由该公寓的所有权权益构成，而且所有人均同意将通过销售代理人出售该房产。显然，还举行了许多许多听证会，讨论销售代理人可以或不可以做什么，导致达成不同协议，继而这些协议未必得到履行。上周在此提出的问题是，该和解协议是否因其自身条款而届期失效，因为它于 2022 年11月到期；各位已就同意达成协议，我很高兴确实如此。正如我所说，我认为您关于受托人现寻求出租、未必已向所有人发出通知的论点具有说服力，但我认为可以在很短时间内完成这一点。如果这是受托人希望做的，那么就可以在本法院进行，好吗，因为他进入这一情形时，纽约案件中已长期存在相关事实，而他现在正试图将该资产变现，这也是纽约第11章案件一贯所设想的。\n\n现在，您可能会说，关于租金收入，您将就谁——不是争斗，而是提出关于谁有权获得该款项的问题。嗯，正如您刚才所说，The Sherry-Netherland 的律师上周所说，如果有一百万美元的保证金，且还剩13个月，那么我不知道为何租金收入不会进入该破产财产。\n\nLAWALL 先生：嗯——\n\n法院：我——我们会——到时候可以讨论该问题，但我只是预先提醒您。我认为，该租金收入为何不会成为该破产财产、这些合并管理的破产财产的财产——\n\nLAWALL 先生：当然。法官阁下——\n\n法院：——您知道吗？所以——您将提出您的论点，并告诉我为什么我是错的——\n\nLAWALL 先生：当然。\n\n法院：——我会听取您的意见，但现在的问题是，Despins 先生（德斯平斯先生）被任命确定本——这些债务人破产财产的资产，并将其变现以分配给债权人。这就是我们要做的，好吗？所以——但就今天而言，我看到了您的命令，我对此表示感谢。我理解您——您删除了有关租金、出租该房产的段落，我可以——我认为这没有问题。我实际上认为这没有问题，但我也认为，我可以在该命令中加入，受托人有权，并且我将给予他一段期限，提出一项关于——关于出租该房产的动议。Despins 先生，您对我刚才所说的有异议吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：非常轻微，法官阁下。我希望您知道，在我们经通知提出的拟议命令中，我们表示，在必要范围内，本文件应被视为经修订的、寻求该项救济的动议。该文件于25日提交，因此我请求法院在您设定新期限时，考虑到该经修订动议已于 January 25th 发出通知这一事实，并因此希望您将其纳入考虑，法官阁下。那就是——\n\n法院：好的。我会将此纳入考虑。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——这就是我的意见。\n\n法院：因此，我准备录入您的命令，并很可能作出一项补充，说明受托人可以在一段期限内采取某项行动，而您将有权对此提出异议，好吗？\n\nLAWALL 先生：是，法官阁下。我想，为完整起见，如果可以的话？\n\n法院：当然。\n\nLAWALL 先生：该——其中一个问题确实将会出现，而且法官阁下已特别指出，就为出售而将该资产变现而言的问题。据我所知，他们谈的是一份12个月的租约。因此，如果出租12个月，在该期间内就不会出售。故我的观点是，租赁问题比仅仅出去寻找一名租住30天或60天的租户稍微复杂一些，特别是考虑到如此重要的房产。并且鉴于目前市场，法官阁下，就该等租金收入、该等款项而言，就其是否属于破产财产，鉴于存在争议的所有权，显然存在一个问题；受托人已在针对我的当事人的三起独立对抗性诉讼中确认该问题。对此存在争议。\n\n法院：嗯，Holdings——\n\nLAWALL 先生：对不起，法官阁下？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1434 提交日期 02/02/23 录入日期 02/02/23 13:08:14 第 19 页，共 32 页\n\n法院：Holdings 也确认了这一点。它在纽约签署了起诉状。\n\nLAWALL 先生：那是在直接——那是在当时，法官阁下，我理解这种区分，但当时 Despins 先生已是——\n\n法院：我理解。\n\nLAWALL 先生：——Kwok 破产案中的受托人。\n\n法院：我理解。\n\nLAWALL 先生：对。\n\n法院：但并非 Despins 先生律师的一名律师签署了该起诉状。\n\nLAWALL 先生：明白，法官阁下。而且——我们从未回避存在关于所有权以及审理这些问题的争议这一事实。我们完全准备好审理这些问题，法官阁下，并制定时间表等等。我们并非试图回避这一点。我们知道——\n\n法院：我没有说——我从未暗示您是这样。我完全没有作此暗示。我是在说，我们将继续处理该房产：它将被出售、出租，或两者兼有——\n\nLAWALL 先生：但出租的问题在于——\n\n法院：——然后我们将看看会发生什么。您知道，或许——一旦具体细节已经——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1434 提交日期 02/02/23 录入日期 02/02/23 13:08:14 第 20 页，共 32 页\n\n已解决，而且，您知道，谁知道呢，您知道，人们可能会以附购买选择权的方式租赁。我不知道，您知道。我的意思是，我们将拭目以待。我们将看看该问题如何被提出。但我将给予受托人机会，取得一项授权其出租该公寓的命令；他将必须提供所有条款和条件，而您将有机会对此提出异议，可以吗，其他任何希望提出异议的人也一样。因此，就进一步延长出售程序的裁定动议而言，我将要做的是，我将，您知道，部分准许该动议，并采用您所提议的命令，律师，但会作出修改——增加我将要作出的补充，即载明我刚才所述内容，而不具体使用将载入命令的全部措辞，并确认——Despins先生希望我说明25日提交的动议确实是该动议。我会说明那是他的主张，但我将给予相关人员时间去做他们将要做的任何事情，可以吗。这就是我们将采取的程序。LAWALL先生：很好，谢谢您。法官阁下，我们有——嗯，我会把对抗程序留到3点钟的事项清单。谢谢。法庭：是，谢谢。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，坦率地说，我没有审阅他的命令格式。我依赖于他所称该命令与我们的命令完全一致——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1434\n提交 02/02/23\n录入 02/02/23 13:08:14\n\n法庭：我认为是的。DESPINS先生：——除了租赁问题之外。如果是这样，那么我们对使用他的命令没有异议。法庭：我可以告诉您，我相信是这样。我——但我是否审阅得有些仓促？是的，但我相信该命令完全相同，只是删除了那一段。LAWALL先生：法官阁下，如果有任何修改，而我并不知道有任何修改，因为我本人就是删除那一段的人，但如果有任何修改，我们当然会使其与他的原始命令一致。法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，就该动议而言，即延长出售程序的动议，基于记录中陈述的理由，予以部分准许。我将采用Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）的律师所作标记的命令，我确实相信、但将予以确认，该命令是受托人拟议的命令，删除有关租金的段落；然后我将增加有关提交动议或寻求批准出租该财产、提供提出异议的机会以及就此安排听证会的条款，可以吗。LAWALL先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。DESPINS先生：谢谢。法庭：谢谢。\n\nPETROCELLI先生：法官阁下，如可允许，我想澄清一点？我只是想确保我没有误解法官阁下所说的话，即该命令将给予受托人机会去做他在当前命令中提议做的事情，也就是获得授权尝试出租该公寓？当然，其中有——法庭：这是正确的。PETROCELLI先生：——关于保留The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）权利的陈述，包括批准权；我们只是想确保明确，我们的理解是，这并非实际出租该公寓，而是尝试出租该公寓？法庭：这是正确的。您将收到通知，并能够提交您认为保护您客户权利所必需的任何答复。PETROCELLI先生：非常感谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。关于——关于确定提交债权证明截止日期的命令，以及关于Epiq（易派克）的聘用命令，我看到，Despins受托人，关于Epiq的一份经修订的拟议命令，但从书记官办公室的角度以及法定条文引用方面看，它仍然没有做到应当做到的事情。因此，我将不得不向各位提交，或者我们将不得不以某种方式——我的意思是，我认为其中有很多认定是不必要且不准确的。我的意思是，我不认为让书记官办公室做这件事必然会造成负担。您希望Epiq来做，因为债权具有保密性质，这没有问题。我不认为——我认为书记官办公室可以做这件事，但我——我不反对Epiq来做，可以吗。因此，我将作出其中一些修改。我将在命令中增加一些措辞，即，您知道，“受本命令条件约束”，因为服务协议不包括送达通知，之后又包括许多其他事项，例如协助债务人编制清单。显然，这在本案中不会发生，因此我会处理这一点。当其中写道Epiq应服务于法院记录保管人——法院记录的保管人时，我认为应当写为，“Epiq应协助作为法院记录保管人的法院书记官。”我理解Epiq将保存一切，可以吗——我对此没有问题——但Epiq随后必须负责送达根据本法庭的指示、法院书记官的指示或者您的指示所需送达的一切文件，并且必须明确他们向谁送达。我认为这不会成为问题。我只是认为命令必须明确说明这一点。此外，我将把他们将提交的送达证明改为在送达后一个营业日内提交，因为他们可以在一个营业日内完成送达证明。他们还有一段我认为他们——我认为毫无意义的内容。因为其中说——在红线版本中加入的第4段写道：“Epiq应消除其送达清单中的所有重复通知，并且，对于向已提交出庭通知的当事人进行的送达，应将送达限于该通知中确定的人员。”\n\n他们无需向任何已提交出庭通知的人送达；这正是要点。根据我们地区法院的地方法规和破产法院的地方法规，电子提交通知就是送达证明。因此，我所说的是，不要——您们只需向那些未以电子方式收到文件的人送达，仅需向他们送达，并证明您们已如此办理。这就是他们必须做的一切，可以吗。这并非——依我看来，其中没有任何事情是石破天惊的。我希望贵办公室在有机会时，将该版本——或许您们已经这样做了——以Word格式交给书记官——交给法庭助理，然后我们可以向您们展示我们将作出的修改；如果任何人对此有问题，他们可以通知法庭，可以吗。DESPINS先生：会照办，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。现在，关于债权证明截止日期，如我上周在听证会上所述，当时我们就本案中的债权程序听取了证据，并提交了许多证物；我作出命令，驳回债务人对我相信是三份债权证明提出的异议，并规定债务人未经法庭批准不得对任何进一步的债权、任何未来的——任何其他债权提出异议，我向所有人表示，并要求所有人为今日作出答复准备，我正在考虑因本案中发生的情况而延长债权证明截止日期。因此，Despins受托人，您是否有机会考虑此事？DESPINS先生：有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。请问您的想法是什么？DESPINS先生：我可以走近——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1434\n提交 02/02/23\n录入 02/02/23 13:08:14\n\n法庭：可以，谢谢。DESPINS先生：首先，我想要——我知道您今天上午在开庭，因此您可能没有看到，我们提交了一份声明。法庭：我还没有看到。DESPINS先生：好的。但基本上，是向法庭表明，同样的事情还在继续发生。这一次，基本上是Kwok先生（郭文贵先生）告诉其支持者提交债权，并且基本上——引文是，“让受托人的律师费尽可能累积至一万亿。”实质上，我们无法控制案件，但我们将确保它变得一团糟。因此我们提交了这份文件，我们显然对此非常不满，但——这会让您感到意外——归根结底，我们认为法庭拥有，并且您知道，根据可原谅的疏忽标准，您确实有能力在事后审查迟延提交债权的债权人，并说，您知道吗，我可以认定这些人感到困惑或受到威胁，并且我有能力通过该机制补救此处可能造成的损害。我知道这有悖直觉，因为您可能会说，好吧，受托人将请求更多时间。问题是，您知道，有几点，法官阁下。其一，如果只是，比如说，几天，可以，\n\n但如果超过这个时间，我就需要向人们发出通知。而且，法官阁下，从资金角度而言，我们已经极度枯竭——我们现在处于负数状态，正为所有这些支出提供融资。例如，公告通知：$20,000。诸如此类。因此，我们请求法庭维持截止日期，同时理解法庭将有能力通过可原谅的疏忽这一工具，在事后如有必要补救该情形。因此，我们对此进行了充分考虑，法官阁下，这就是我们的结论。我们相信，您驳回债权异议的决定以及发生的其他事情，正通过这些人所进行的互联网通信发出信号，已部分补救本案中正在发生的事情，但是否得到完全补救尚有待观察。我相信，通过可原谅的疏忽，您有能力处理该问题，而这最终将是我们的建议，即不改变截止日期，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。DESPINS先生：谢谢。法庭：还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？SMITH女士：我可以吗？法庭：可以，请。SMITH女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），代表PAX（帕克斯）。\n\n（暂停）\n\nSMITH女士：PAX同样认为，将2月17日维持为截止日期是适当的，部分理由是Despins受托人所陈述的理由，包括Pioneer因素和可原谅的疏忽标准；PAX认为，本法庭上周采取的行动，即同样在未经许可的情况下终止Kwok的进一步异议权、债权异议权，已足以实现这些目的。此外，PAX希望强调调解对这些案件的重要性。Friedman先生（弗里德曼先生）和Sarnoff先生（萨诺夫先生）请我转达他们的歉意，他们今日无法出席；他们将代表PAX与调解员会面，作为该程序的初始起点。2月17日这一日期适合用于调解，因为它将使各方能够充分了解全部债权范围，并最大限度提高达成成功和解的可能性。鉴于现行调解命令的限制，进一步延迟该日期将危及调解的成功。请原谅，法官阁下。\n\nSMITH女士：此外，截至特别是截止日期，本案已历时几乎整整一年；PAX认为，债权人的利益也能因达成和解而得到更好服务\n\n并达成这些案件的解决。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n梅休女士：\n\n法官阁下，委员会同意受托人德斯平斯先生提出的做法。我认为维持目前的申报截止日期是合理的，如有任何逾期提交的债权申报，当然可以予以审议。但鉴于将产生的费用，目前似乎没有必要将其延长一个月，甚至延长几周至本月底。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n金德塞思先生？\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n债务人对于该问题不持任何立场，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n但是，您——债务人此前已就该问题表明了立场。\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n债务人的立场——没有改变，所以——\n\n法庭：\n\n那么您就是持有立场，因为您在先前的听证会上已明确表示，您希望申报截止日期尽快到来，对吗？\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。还有——我们——还有其他人想就申报截止日期问题补充什么吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么我们稍后再回到这个问题。好的。现在，我们有一项请求强制JPMorgan（摩根大通）和UBS（瑞银集团）遵守传票的动议。谁将处理该事项，律师——受托人德斯平斯先生？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n\n将由林赛先生处理，但他正在外面忙着做上帝的工作，所以如果我们现在可以略过该事项，将不胜感激，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么，剩下的是对抗程序审前会议或密封动议。因此，对抗程序审前会议，我们现在处理吗？\n\n洛沃尔先生：\n\n可以，法官阁下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。请——如果可以，请让法庭书记官宣读对抗程序编号，以便她确保我们刚刚讨论、将要讨论的记录将成为该对抗程序的一部分。那么，请继续。\n\n法庭书记官：\n\n好的。\n\n（程序于下午3:13结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 31 of 32\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1434 Filed 02/02/23 Entered 02/02/23 13:08:14 Page 32 of 32\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知和所能，本证明前述内容是根据上述案件程序的电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling（威廉·J·加林） February 2, 2023\n\nWilliam J. Garling（威廉·J·加林）, CET-543\n\n认证法庭速记员\n\n代表 Reliable（可靠）","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8715,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-02-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-02-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:58:41"}