{"id":"court_ctb_144_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":144,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-03-30","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 1 of 97\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* March 22, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE/STATUS CONFERENCE MOTION OF PACIFIC ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO SECTION 362(d)(2) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. BENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P., Creditor: DIANA PEREZ, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For Golden Spring, NY Ltd., SCOTT ROSEN, ESQ. Creditor: Cohen Birnbaum & Shea 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103 For Rui Ma, Creditor: CAROLLYNN CALLARI, ESQ. Callari Partners LLC 1 Rockafeller Plz Floor 10 New York, NY 10020-2073 PETER ZARELLA, ESQ. McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 2:11 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073. Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the debtor's Case 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 3 of 97\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick for the debtor, with my partner, Ben Silverberg.\n\nTHE COURT: Good afternoon.\n\ncounsel, please?\n\nMR. SILVERBERG: Good afternoon.\n\n MR. ROSEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Scott Rosen, for Golden Spring New York Limited, the proposed DIP lender.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Let me stop you right there. Did you -- is there a motion for DIP financing that's been filed?\n\n MR. ROSEN: Not on for today, Your Honor. It was just filed this morning.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's why I don't know what's going on. MR. BALDIGA: No relief today.\n\n THE COURT: Attorney Rosen, did you -- I'm sure you did, but I'm asking. Did you file a notice of appearance?\n\n MR. ROSEN: I was just retained and I will be filing a notice of appearance. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROSEN: By tomorrow morning. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, counsel. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of PACS, and I'm joined by Diana Perez and Stuart Sarnoff, of O'Melveny & Myers, and my friend, Mr. Birney. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. FRIEDMAN: My friend, Mr. Birney of Robinson and Cole. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. PEREZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Couple of -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Sorry. We ran out of seats, so -- THE COURT: That's okay. Sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: -- Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Do you want another chair from over here? MS. CLAIBORN: That's okay. I'm good with the bench. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, counsel. If you can\n\n just come forward, because you need to -- our record is only audio, so you have to speak into a microphone. MS. CLAIBORN: Do you want me to come that close? THE COURT: Sure, you can come wherever you're comfortable. MS. CALLARI: As long as you -- wherever you can hear me best. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Carollynn Callari with Callari Partners on behalf of Rui Ma and certain other creditors. You have, thankfully, approved my pro hac vice at Entry 89. I am here with sponsoring counsel. Kristen Mayhew was unable to be here, but her colleague, Peter Zarella from -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. CALLARI: -- McElroy and Deutsch is here with me. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. And, you know, you don't have to sit all the way back there. I mean, you can sit closer. Whatever you might desire. Okay? I know we're trying to maintain social distancing as well, but whatever you're comfortable with. Sorry if there aren't enough chairs. MS. CALLARI: It's okay. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. A couple of housekeeping matters before we start on anything today. And these are just things that are just how the\n\n District of Connecticut works, which maybe is different from some of your experiences in other districts, but we don't take phone calls about questions for things on the calendar. If you have a question about something on the calendar, you take that question, you put it in an email to the appropriate courtroom deputy box and then that courtroom deputy will either respond or not respond depending upon your question. If your question is how is the judge going to rule, I would think that you're not going to get a response. If your question is, what time do I have to be there, you'll probably get a response, but you should know that regardless. We don't take phone calls. In the past, there have been counsel who have taken advantage of that situation and to a point where other people felt that those counsel and those parties were being treated with -- disparately or with more of an in, for lack of a better term. And so we don't do that here in Connecticut. So I just want to give everybody notice of that. Also, I think, you know, there's a lot going on in this case, which I understand and that's fine. We've got a lot of different motions that have been filed. Obviously, I didn't know -- I've been court all day, so I wouldn't know that there was a DIP financing\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n motion filed, but we don't need people to submit any binders or any information of exhibits or anything unless you're asked to do so, okay? Because we do everything -- we essentially do everything paperless,and when we have hearings and exhibits, I require the parties to file those exhibits on the docket, and we use the docket to put together the exhibits, essentially, unless I say but you know what, I know you did that but I still need you to do X, Y, and Z, and then that's what you'll do. Okay? But we do not need any paper unless we ask for it. Everything on the computer. Okay? So those are just minor housekeeping issues. I do believe, although I could be completely wrong, that most of the motions for admission of visiting counsel have been granted in this case, so I don't think there's any outstanding motions from any of the parties here, but if there is an outstanding motion, would someone bring it to my attention right now? MR. FRIEDMAN: There are none outstanding for PACS, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Any for the debtor? MR. BALDIGA: We're good, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. All right. That's helpful. Then, I don't -- oh, yes, there was one other\n\n housekeeping matter for the debtor. We had asked during the last hearing, which I don't have my note in front of me but it was a few weeks ago, obviously, to supply a list of names of people that were referred to in what -- a presentation that counsel made -- debtor's counsel made during that hearing, and I don't think we've received that list. And I know that the person in the back is interpreting, but that's a little -- you've got to try to be a little softer because all I can hear is you, unfortunately, and I won't be able to hear the lawyers. Okay? We need that information, because our record is only audio. We don't have stenographers. There are not enough funds in a budget given to the judiciary for bankruptcy courts to have a stenographer. If you all want to bring in a stenographer, you're more than welcome to. I mean, you have to pay for it and you need to tell the Court in advance if you're interested in doing that, but otherwise, our official record -- and that wouldn't be an official record, even if you had a stenographer. Our official record is the audio, and therefore, when there's any kinds of issues with regard to not just people's names, but a name of a building or whatever, and\n\n it's not clear, we're going to need the parties to submit that information to the courtroom deputy otherwise our record won't be clear, and that is obviously of utmost importance to the Court that the record be clear. Okay? So those are the housekeeping matters I have. Does anyone have any housekeeping matters before we start talking about the case today? Okay. Hearing none, then we have two matters on today's calendar. The first is the Chapter 11 case management conference that these -- that our court in the District of Connecticut has in every Chapter 11 case, and then there also is the motion of PACS that was filed and an expedited hearing was granted on that, a preliminary expedited hearing, on the motion of PACS for the entry of an order confirming the inapplicability of the automatic stay, or in the alternative for relief from the stay. I have looked at a number of the briefs and the replies and then the responses in the replies on that issue, and we'll talk about that when we get to it. I would make an assumption that I probably shouldn't make, but I will make an assumption that given that there has been, apparently, and I'm not suggesting I understand every of it -- every bit of it because there's no way I could at this point, but given that there appears to be protracted litigation between the creditors and the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 10 of 97\n\n debtor, I would assume that there has been no discussions and certainly no resolution of the motion that's been filed by PACS. Am I correct on that assumption? Yes. I've got heads nodding? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. So, Your Honor, Peter Friedman. As it relates to the debtor, that's correct. We have reached an agreement with the creditors who filed conditional statements on language for -- with respect to a proposed order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Which we just were able to do moments before the hearing which, if the motion is granted, we will circulate to everybody before an order is settled. But we have not had discussions or -- with respect to the specific motion that was filed. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. I'm just asking the question, because what I think I saw -- and we're not going to -- we're going to address a few things first before we really address your motion, counsel. But the -- what I believe I saw -- and I just would like you to tell me if I'm wrong or right, okay, which is all I'm asking you to do at this point, was that there was a statement, I think -- or, you know, not a -- it was a sentence in a paragraph or two, or maybe it was more than\n\n one place, where I believe PACS said that you would agree to relief from the automatic stay for the limited purpose of getting the ship, for lack of a better term, I'm not sure if that's the proper term, into the jurisdiction of the United States, and specifically into the New York Court's jurisdiction. Am I correct that that's what your papers say? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure I was reading that properly. Okay? Because as I'm sure you know, I've had a lot of things to read and that's fine. I have no problem with that but, you know, in this case there is -- obviously there is a lot of different interests at stake on -- in many different -- and many different stakeholders, so -- go ahead, counsel, I'm sorry. MR. FRIEDMAN: To be clear, Your Honor, or if the debtor refuses to do that, for an appropriate court to, you know, impose other nonmonetary sanctions. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Friedman. All right. So just see if you give me -- so, Attorney Baldiga or Attorney Silverberg, which of the two of you are going to make a presentation in connection with the Chapter 11 case management conference? MR. BALDIGA: I will, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Fine. Thank you.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n So as I'm sure you've reviewed, we have an order that -- in the District of Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, that we issue in all Chapter 11 cases, where we expect the debtor and -- and the debtor is here. I see him, correct? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: If I could introduce -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. BALDIGA: -- Ho Wan Kwok, the debtor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. BALDIGA: And you were right, Your Honor, that he has his interpreter with him. I think she's been quieter since your -- THE COURT: Yes, she has, and I appreciate that. MR. BALDIGA: -- comment. THE COURT: This room is odd. Sometimes the people in the back I can hear better than the people in the front. I don't know why, but I didn't -- you know, I don't really have any control over that, but I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Well, let us know if it's distracting and we'll -- THE COURT: And I agree that the interpreter is already speaking a little more softly and I'm not -- MR. BALDIGA: Thank you.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: -- hearing her, so I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So in our order scheduling an initial Chapter 11 case management conference, we ask a series of question -- you know, we have a numbered paragraph with 18 things in it, I think -- yeah, 18 things, that the judge expects the debtor and the debtor's counsel to explain to the Court, just so that the Court can understand what's happening in this Chapter 11 case. So the first -- and I assume you were going to tell me this anyway. The first item on the list is the nature of the debtor's business and the reasons for the Chapter 11 filing. So I understand this is an individual case, and it may not be a business per se, but my understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, is that the individual debtor has been in business, I don't know if he is in business at the time, and operates and is a member of many -- well, I don't know about that. That's not fair. What I've heard is that he's a member of different corporate entities, and I want to understand that a little better, and then the reason for this Chapter 11 filing. I would like you to start there, please.\n\nMR. BALDIGA: Certainly, Your Honor. And again,\n\n for the record, William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for the debtor. All right. Your Honor, I do reference as well, because we took seriously the order, and we filed at Docket 107, Mr. Kwok's declaration, which went into in some detail under oath, all -- we think all of the 18 questions that are listed, at least those that relate to this case. For example, there is no cash collateral, so -- but all the ones that are referenced, and the declaration goes into great length to explain why we're here. I would like to make a presentation to that -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. BALDIGA: -- and to be fully responsive to you, but I think I would be remiss without referencing that. THE COURT: No, and I know it was filed, counsel. I do know it was filed, and I will tell you that I looked at it, but I didn't read it. I didn't have the opportunity to read it fully, okay? MR. BALDIGA: There's a lot there, and I think it will take some time to -- there's been a lot of paper filed in the case already from several parties, but I will step back then. And first, the debtor has no business. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: The debtor is one of a very large family that grew up in China. This debtor in his early 20s\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n was supportive of the protest in Tiananmen Square, watched his brother be shot to death in connection with those protests, and from that time on has been a -- was arrested and tortured and for a while was able to maintain himself as part of a wide ranging family business in real estate development and other businesses in China.\n\n After he was released from prison in 1991, the family had some significant success, which we lay out in the declaration as to the real estate development. In fact, the family's business was very successful.\n\n Mr. Kwok, however, has been extremely committed to criticism, political speech, which in this country is recognized, in China, very much not so. He fled to Hong Kong in 2000 and continued to be very critical of the CCP, of the Chinese Communist Party. And in fact, on many websites and so forth is listed as the most vocal critic of the CCP in terms of the CCP's watch list and desires to be silenced.\n\n He expanded his criticism in 2015. His family, his brothers, his wife, his daughter, were all arrested. Bruno Wu, who I'll come to later, closely affiliated with several top CCP officials and a foreign agent, entered into a very significant business transaction with PACS, or the parent of PACS. And Mr. Wu called -- in 2015, called my client, the debtor, to say that his family would be released\n\n from prison if he would cease his political speech. He has not done that. In 2017, in fact -- and this is all in the declaration -- and all of the -- during this time, because he was on all of these political watch lists, he cannot maintain business activities. He cannot even have a bank account, and when he tried to have a bank account, most recently a few years ago, the bank terminated the account. In 2017, he was arranged -- there was arranged a Voice of America interview to be aired on April 19, 2017 in which he was going to be extremely critical of the CCP. During that week, PACS filed it's lawsuit. That is the significant driving effect -- event precipitating this Chapter 11 case. The CCP had Interpol Red Notice alerts based on fabricated charges seeking his arrest and extradition to China, and Mr. Wu and others sponsored many of the litigations that you see are in this -- that are part of the creditor body here. Almost all of that litigation, or much of that litigation is sponsored by the same foreign agents who are funding the litigation, admittedly. Since that time there have been several well publicized events in this country to target Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok, at paragraph 16, believes that if he were extradited to China, he would be killed. He believes that if he were\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n imprisoned here, he would be killed. For that reason he has 24/7 physical security. Notwithstanding that, we have as exhibits to the declaration, Your Honor, three separate criminal proceedings in this country, federal criminal proceedings of convictions, one of a top DOJ lawyer, another one of Elliott Brody who has been a significant political operative for trying to -- he pled guilty and was convicted for lobbying efforts to have Mr. Kwok extradited to China, which Mr. Kwok believes would be for the purposes of his death. And then another separate criminal proceeding with Nickie Lum Davis, also for lobbying efforts to the Trump administration to have Mr. Kwok extradited and he believes, killed. This is not Mr. Kwok's nightmares, but these are criminal informations, guilty pleas and so forth attached to the declaration of public information. This is, Your Honor -- and I'll get to the business and financial aspects of these. I will be the first to acknowledge every individual Chapter 11 case, and I've been involved in a few, is unusual by its very nature. Not many Chapter 11 cases are individuals. This case is extraordinarily unusual. I'll be the first to admit. I won't come in and here and stand here and pretend anything that this case is -- I've been doing this 38 years. I've never had a case like this, and I was --\n\n represented the creditor's committed in the Mike Tyson case, and this case is extraordinary even compared to the Mike Tyson case.\n\n But extraordinary does not mean improper and we conditioned taking on this case for Mr. Kwok on the absolute agreement that he would do everything by the book as this Court and -- should and does expect. And as we should and do expect. The debtor will toe the line in this courtroom.\n\n As an example in prior proceedings, the debtor did take Fifth Amendment protection from time to time. The debtor understands that while Chapter 11 debtors have from time to time exercised their rights, constitutional rights not to testify, a Chapter 11 case requires extraordinary transparency.\n\n The debtor was examined for four hours yesterday by creditors and by the U.S. Trustee. There was no exercise of any Fifth Amendment privilege or any other privilege. Every single question was answered and there will be many more hours of testimony and every question will continue to be answered.\n\n THE COURT: Was that at the 341 meeting? Is that what you're --\n\nMR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just want to make sure --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: No, that -- that's okay. THE COURT: Yep. Okay. MR. BALDIGA: I am try -- and again -- but just to give an example, and this won't be the time and place for a full exposition of these issues, but on the theory that there are some things that you just couldn't make up, but just -- I want the Court to appreciate that we appreciate, and this debtor appreciates just how unusual this case is, and to know that we come before you appreciating the extraordinary burden we have to make this Court feel reasonably comfortable that this case will be conducted, again, to your full expectations. But just to give an example, a three-person creditor's committee was just formed yesterday. One member of that committee, Rui Ma, her lawyers, Arkin-Solbakken, confirmed by letter dated September 30, 2020, that her fees to sue Mr. Kwok are being paid by a Mr. Zheng Wu, also known as Bruno Wu. THE COURT: Known as who? Was -- you say, also known as who? I didn't hear you. MR. BALDIGA: Bruno Wu. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: W-U. And I apologize for not providing to the Court the names from the last hearing. We will do that this week, as to the last hearing and this\n\n week. THE COURT: Yeah. That would be -- that would be very helpful to the clerk's office. MR. BALDIGA: Well, I apologize we didn't do that. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BALDIGA: The second member of the Committee, Sam Nunberg, it had been a person friend of Bruno Wu, he helped arranged Rui Ma's lawyers for her, Arkin-Solbakken. Mr. Nunberg, a member of the committee, is the subject of a publically filed, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Case No. 18- 20983, in Mr. Kwok's case against Roger Stone. That Roger Stone. Roger Stone's statement, as later published in the - - by him, in the *Wall Street Journal* and *New York Times*. I, Roger Stone, retract and apologizes for statements he has made regarding Guo Wen Gui, also known as Miles Kwok. Mr. Stone has publically stated that Mr. Guo has been found guilty and convicted of financial crimes in -- and the United States -- in the United States, and that Mr. Guo has violated U.S. election laws by making political donations to Hillary Clinton and financing a presidential run by Steven Bannon. All of these statements are not true. I failed to do proper research before making those statements and improperly relied on information conveyed to me by Sam Nunberg, this committee member, between early\n\n September 2017 and the Fall of 2017. I believe the source of that information was Bruno Wu. So that's -- those are -- and Bruno Wu, Your Honor, just to complete the picture, in his registration as a foreign agent, he serves as Vice Chairman and Secretary General of the National Committee on China/US Relations, as an affiliate of the Charhar Institute, a Chinese governmental think tank, non-governmental think tank, most of the other members of which are senior CCP officials. That's our committee. I'm not disarranging the committee, I'm just saying that in and of itself makes this an extraordinary case. I will come to, later today -- while we've already reached out to the U.S. Trustee to say that even if the U.S. Trustee had not moved for the appointment of an examiner, we think an examiner is in order. We don't see how anyone, including the Court, could be comfortable with the amount of transparency demanded for a successful Chapter 11 case without a truly independent examination of this debtor. Not only do we consent to the appointment of an examiner, we will pay for it. Mr. Kwok has gone to his family and said if I'm going to have a transparent Chapter 11 case, we need to have an examiner and we need to pay for\n\n it. And his family has agreed to do that. The reason I referenced the DIP motion earlier on -- and again, this -- I will put this on the list of things that I have never seen before in any other case, Mr. Kwok's son's family office, represented by Mr. Rosen, is committed to make a \\$8 million DIP loan fully subordinated to all valid creditor claims. No security. No administrative priority. Not even on par with creditor claims, so that it doesn't come out of any creditor pocket. Millions of dollars of that are earmarked for an examiner, so that things can be done right, and so you don't need to just rely on me or Mr. Kwok telling you that we know this and we know that. So that's one other example of us intending to move this case in the right direction. We filed. We needed a couple extra days. The burdens of interpretation from back and forth to China when you absolutely insist that everything be done perfectly, the interpretation does present a timing challenge, but we filed our schedules of statement of affairs. Mr. Kwok has engaged, very experienced and truly independent counsel and financial advisor, that is -- none of us have had anything to do with Mr. Kwok or any of his creditors or family members or whatever until shortly before the case. A few days before the case. Truly independent. As I said, Mr. Kwok was examined yesterday for\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n more than four hours, answered every single question, and has fully said you tell me when to come back, I'll do it again, and will, I'm sure, be examined for several more hours. Again, the interpretations make it a challenge, but that's -- he's committed to do that. We filed this comprehensive declaration. It's in a individual Chapter 11 case, we think it's extraordinary that the debtor goes under oath as to everything that has led up to the case and has done that in a fully transparent way, but we thought that was important. We consent to the appointment of an examiner. We will provide for the DIP financing to do that. Your Honor, we commit to file a plan in the next 20 days. A Chapter 11 case is all about treatment of creditors, and we will do that. This case will be too expensive to dwindle for months and months and months. We want -- in some ways, this case is extraordinary in many ways, but at the end of the day every Chapter 11 case is about money, or it should be. Mr. Kwok wants to pay his creditors and treat them fairly, and is committed to do that. And the way you do that, we've explained, and he accepts, is to file a plan and confirm a plan. All of this, including today, is to give us a chance to pay our creditors and treat them fairly. We will\n\n find out, Your Honor, and you will find out whether our -- what our creditors want. If our creditors want to be paid fairly on their claims and have their claims allowed in fair amounts, then this is going to be a very successful Chapter 11 case. If on the other hand, PACS and the other creditors who filed their claims, most of them within a few week period around the Voice of America broadcast, all in an effort to silence -- and at the same time, Mr. Kwok's family was arrested in China. If their goal is to have him killed, which Mr. Kwok believes, or to otherwise exercise retribution or to silence his political speech, then this is going to be very difficult. But we will have that fairly presented in this Court, because a bankruptcy court is the time to reduce all of this to claims, to allowable claims, and to satisfy those claims. And you will have an opportunity to evaluate yourself what our creditors, such as PACS, really want. We hope they are going to be commercial. We have some doubts but we intend to find out. By this Chapter 11 case Mr. Kwok also admittedly wants to stay out of jail. If he goes to jail, he believes he will be killed. It is that simple. He intends to exercise his life and liberty to be able to administer this\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n Chapter 11 case. He would not be able to do so in jail, and when we get to the PACS exact relief that they frame in a motion for relief, it will be ironic, I feel, to address exactly what they've asked for, but we'll come to that in due course.\n\n To go to the issue of Mr. Kwok's business, he can't even have a bank account because of the campaign by the CCP. No bank will even allow him to have a bank account. On a full-time basis, he is a critic in memory of his brother, but also more broadly, of the CCP. That is his life's work.\n\n All of his expenses, and we go into great detail in the declaration, are funded by -- his son is independently very wealthy and his son, through his son's family office, Golden Springs, which happens to be out DIP lender, funds everything. What he eats, what he wears, what he rides in. Mr. Kwok has nothing. He would be in the gutter or worse if he didn't have the generosity of his family.\n\n But this is not -- and again, this is what it will take an examiner to show and to come to this Court and to report to you and to everyone else, this is not one of these cases where it's a self-settled trust or other creditor manipulation.\n\nThis is a product of 30 or more years of political\n\n speech that has rendered him unable to work and unable to have his own assets. But he is fortunate. Indeed, extremely fortunate to have a wealthy family that satisfies his needs, without him being able to earn income. He has no income. And the reasons for the Chapter 11 filing, most succinctly put, is to stay alive so he can put these creditor claims behind him through the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan. THE COURT: Okay. A couple of things. I mean, again, I haven't studied this because -- MR. BALDIGA: Understood. THE COURT: -- it was filed Sunday, I think. Right? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Filed on Sunday and it has several attachments to it, which is fine. I just want to be clear, I haven't gone through it all. MR. BALDIGA: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: I haven't had the opportunity to do that, number one. Number two, you know, there's a few things that you said there, and I'm not -- I'm just asking questions of you and -- like I did -- MR. BALDIGA: Of course. THE COURT: -- I'm asking questions and getting\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n answers. So you have no opposition. In fact, I think you said you consent to the United States Trustee's motion to appoint an examiner. MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. We haven't talked about the order, and there was a revised order that I haven't even had to -- been able to read, submitted this morning. But to the concept of an examination, one of an examiner, we agree. We would have asked for it if the U.S. Trustee didn't. And third, we'll pay for it. And I say we, our DIP lender will pay for it. THE COURT: Well, okay. I'm just asking questions right now. We'll get -- I'll have to speak with the U.S. Trustee's office in a little bit. Obviously, the motion is not on today's calender, but if was filed on, I think Saturday. There is a motion to expedite associated with it. If what you're telling me is, you consent, I guess I need to hear from the creditors, and I will -- not at the moment, but I will ask you, because I don't -- I mean, if there is an ability -- if there is an ability to agree on something without the need for a hearing and protracted findings and things of that nature, then that would obviously be an avenue that I would like to explore. MR. BALDIGA: Of course. THE COURT: If there is an opposition, we'll have\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n to address that. With regard to the DIP financing, I think you said already today that you filed the motion today, but you're looking -- are you -- you're looking for expedited relief is what I'm looking at? I'm seeing some things here. You're looking that -- for that order to enter quickly. MR. BALDIGA: But not today, Your Honor, of course. THE COURT: Oh, I'm not suggesting it's going to enter today. I'm asking you, what are you looking for as far as timing and -- MR. BALDIGA: As more traditional, a preliminary hearing and then a final hearing. The -- THE COURT: Well, we do things a little differently on the preliminary and final hearing too, and I'll -- but it might work in your case, if what you've suggested as a road map works because we don't normally in a Chapter 11 case enter a final DIP financing order on -- as quickly as other courts might, because we want to see what's happening with a plan. Now, if you file a plan, I think you said -- I think I wrote down 20 days or something. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Then maybe. Maybe there would be a final DIP order in the sooner -- sooner than a later. But just to be clear, we don't always enter those final orders\n\n as quickly as some other jurisdictions do in the Chapter 11 context, because we want to see how the Chapter 11 case is developing. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, I'm just giving you a heads up.\n\n The same is true with cash collateral. You know, if we have a cash -- which I know you're not seeking. I'm just giving you an example so you understand what the Court's perspective is.\n\n We often enter many interim orders of cash collateral before we ever get to a final, because of all the provisions that parties want parties to be bound by, other than themselves in many cases. So we don't always do that, number one.\n\n Number two, I know that there's been a committee formed, because I saw the document and you just confirmed that.\n\n I would assume, but I could be wrong, that the committee will want to retain counsel and I'll have to deal with that, and we'll have to deal with the committee's position too, on DIP financing, as -- in addition to some other issues.\n\n So it's not a problem from the Court's perspective. Anything you've said, I'm just giving you -- I'm trying to set your expectations, I suppose in some respects.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: And that's very appreciated, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Which is that we will proceed with whatever we need to proceed with. But we don't always go to a final hearing on cash collateral or DIP financing in the same way some other courts do. Does that mean that -- as I said, but that -- it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Okay? And so with regard to the DIP financing, I just want to understand what -- you're looking for a hearing in a week, less than a week, ten days, two weeks? What are you looking for? MR. BALDIGA: Well, I don't have the case calendar in front of me. There is a hearing, I think, coming up. I don't have it. THE COURT: I'll look. I can look for you. Hold on. MR. BALDIGA: April 12th? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, they asked for next Monday. They asked for four and a half days' notice. THE COURT: Well, that's not going to happen, so don't -- that's not going to happen. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. MR. BALDIGA: No, that's why we --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: I already said -- THE COURT: I'm not going to do an \\$8 million DIP financing hearing from an insider, essentially I think is what I heard, in four days. That's not going to happen, so you don't have to worry about that. And as I just said, we have to wait for the committee. I've got to see what the committee's position -- none of this is going to happen with that urgency. That doesn't mean we can't start talking about it, but I'm not going to -- I'm not going to put anybody in that position, including the Court, because there isn't any -- I haven't been told -- MR. BALDIGA: April 12th, I believe. THE COURT: April 12th. MR. BALDIGA: Is your court hearing. THE COURT: Well, here's what I will tell you. April 12th, we have a -- we do. We have applications, a bunch of retention professional applications on April 12th in the afternoon. What I'm thinking we're going to end up doing in this case, at least initially, and it might be throughout the whole case, is that we don't schedule the matters on Tuesdays, which is the regular calendar hearings in this court.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: But we're going to schedule them on another day. And so we -- what we may end up doing is taking the matters that are on April 12th and moving them to April 13th, for example, and it will just be hearings in this Chapter 11 case that the Court will hear that day, nothing else, because there's many, many things going on, and I think the Court needs to devote the time to that as opposed to having it appear on a regular Tuesday hearings calendar in Bridgeport. So I think that's likely to happen, is that -- even the one -- even the matters that are -- that appear to be somewhat ministerial, but I'm not sure they are, but that's another -- I mean, you know, you can -- we can all talk about that. I think even the matters that are on April 12th are probably going to be moved -- MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: -- to a date like April 13th. MR. BALDIGA: I'm sure we'll find a good day. THE COURT: We just -- I just don't think it makes sense to think that we're going to be able to address issues in a -- on a Tuesday calendar when, you know, we have to hear other matters. It just doesn't make sense in this case. MR. BALDIGA: That's my initial sense of this case\n\n as well, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So April 12th or 13th might work for you on a preliminary hearing on DIP financing. Is that correct? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I just want to make a note so I get everybody -- I get everyone's thoughts down and then I can try to figure out where we're going from here. All right. So with regard to the presentation you've made on the -- and the debtor's affidavit or declaration, I should say -- but I -- as I said, I have read it, but I haven't studied it. I mean, I know you've submitted a lot of information. You've told me a lot of things. The one thing that there -- there is -- obviously, there's the litigation with PACS. I know a little bit about it just given what's been filed, but I think the debtor is involved in other litigation, correct? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: And they are -- the litigation adversaries are the creditor body here. THE COURT: Okay. And so I guess I'll need to hear about those at some point and figure out what's going to happen with those cases that are pending outside of this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 34 of 97\n\n bankruptcy court, right? I mean, we're going to have to address that at some -- in some way. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. And there are two plaintiff litigations for which the debtor is plaintiff. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: And which constitutes assets of the estate -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: -- and we've disclosed what they are, and they hopefully will be one of the sources of -- one of the means to satisfy creditors. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. BALDIGA: The adverse litigations, I've described some of them, many of them are defamation -- so- called defamation cases. Others -- but they're sponsored -- ultimately, they all come out of China, almost all at about the same time, all from a similar funding, including with PACS through Bruno Wu, who's -- THE COURT: But they're pending here in the United States. All the matters are pending -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: -- in the United States. MR. BALDIGA: I believe all in the United States, yes. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n| 35                                                            |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| MR. BALDIGA:<br>Because Mr. Kwok has been in the              |\n| United States since --                                        |\n| THE COURT:<br>Right.                                          |\n| MR. BALDIGA:<br>-- I believe, 2015 --                         |\n| THE COURT:<br>Right.                                          |\n| MR. BALDIGA:<br>-- or so.                                     |\n| THE COURT:<br>At this moment --                               |\n| MR. BALDIGA:<br>One in the BVI.<br>I'm sorry.<br>I'm          |\n| corrected.                                                    |\n| THE COURT:<br>I'm sorry.<br>Say that again.                   |\n| MR. BALDIGA:<br>There's one action in the British             |\n| Virgin Islands.                                               |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Okay.<br>But how many total are        |\n| there.<br>Did I -- am I -- is it like 30 or something did I   |\n| see, is --                                                    |\n| MR. BALDIGA:<br>About that, yes.                              |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>I just want to make      |\n| sure I'm reading things properly, I'm not missing things.     |\n| Okay.<br>Which I don't think I picked up the British Virgin   |\n| Islands, but that doesn't mean anything.<br>I've been looking |\n| and I might not have seen that.                               |\n| All right.<br>Then with regard to this case                   |\n| management conference, what we often do, and I will do in     |\n| this case bed of there's -- at least at this point, there's   |\n| still a lot of moving parts.                                  |\n|                                                               |\n\n I will continue this just in case I have more questions. I may not. I may not have any more questions once I really review the declaration of the debtor and all the other questions I may have may come out through other pleadings from other parties, including you. I mean, it may -- it may all -- So what we normally do is, I'm going to continue this conference to whatever the date is that we all choose and, you know, and I'm going to -- we'll address that toward the end of the hearing, but even if it appears on the calendar, I might come out and say, at whatever that next hearing is, I really feel that the conference is concluded and we don't need to schedule anymore. I'm going to address all the issues in the pleadings that are pending on things filed by the debtor, things filed by the creditors, the creditor's committee, U.S. Trustee, whatever. So even though I'm continuing this, I am not -- I don't know if that really means I'll ask you anymore at the -- and obviously, if I do and you're not prepared, I'll give you -- I mean, we'll figure it out. It's not a problem. MR. BALDIGA: We'll try to be prepared, you know, because we're going to push this case quickly, as I said, and Chapter 11 cases get old quickly and we're going to push this one to a conclusion.\n\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Well, we'll see how things       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | go, but that's helpful, all right?<br>I don't normally allow |\n| 3  | anyone to ask any questions about the case management        |\n| 4  | conference because you're allowed to question the debtor at  |\n| 5  | the 341 meeting, which obviously happened yesterday, and it  |\n| 6  | appears the 341 meeting is going to -- it's not closed, it's |\n| 7  | going to be -- the debtor is going to be subject to further  |\n| 8  | questioning.                                                 |\n| 9  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>In two weeks, there will be --               |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                         |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then I feel I                 |\n| 13 | understand -- I have a good understanding, I should say.     |\n| 14 | I'm not saying I have a thorough understanding, but I have a |\n| 15 | good understanding of where things be.                       |\n| 16 | The only thing that I would say that you didn't              |\n| 17 | talk about that -- and that we have to talk about because of |\n| 18 | PACS's motion is, when you talked about filing, the reason   |\n| 19 | for the filing, you said that the debtor filed to save his   |\n| 20 | life, and I'm not quarreling with that in any way, shape, or |\n| 21 | form, but obviously it -- the PACS litigation has had an     |\n| 22 | impact on that as well, because the timing of the filing and |\n| 23 | the issue of the decisions out of the New York court, had to |\n| 24 | have impacted what's going on.                               |\n| 25 | And so I think that in order to be fully accurate            |\n\n|    | 38                                                               |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | -- I guess, I don't remember seeing -- and let me just take      |\n| 2  | a look, because I could have missed it, so just give me a        |\n| 3  | second and I'll see if I can find it.<br>Of the 55 paragraphs    |\n| 4  | -- I think it was 55.<br>We talk about PACS -- in the PACS       |\n| 5  | litigation you talk about starting at paragraph 20.              |\n| 6  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>And you talk about the loan.<br>And you            |\n| 8  | talk about the person guarantee.<br>And then you talk about      |\n| 9  | the restraining order.<br>And it says, you have -- it says       |\n| 10 | that the debtor says he has no ability to pay this fine.         |\n| 11 | So the problem that I see with that, or that                     |\n| 12 | you're going to have to address at some point, whether it's      |\n| 13 | in connection with this motion to -- for the Court to            |\n| 14 | determine that the stay does not apply, or that relief from      |\n| 15 | the stay should be granted is for some -- right now, you're      |\n| 16 | getting \\$8 million.<br>Your client is getting \\$8 million from  |\n| 17 | a source.<br>Other loans have been made.<br>Your being -- again, |\n| 18 | I'm not quarreling with any of it.<br>Your firm is getting a     |\n| 19 | retainer of a good amount of money.                              |\n| 20 | You say you want to come up with a plan that will                |\n| 21 | be -- that you hope the creditors will accept and as I           |\n| 22 | unfortunately started off this hearing saying, it's clear --     |\n| 23 | and you know, this happens all the time.<br>I'm not saying       |\n| 24 | there's anything extraordinary, to use your terms, about         |\n| 25 | disputes between a debtor and creditors.                         |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\n But I think that for your client to say he has no ability to pay the fine might be problematic at some point. I mean, this is -- this case was filed and stayed the actions that were occurring in the New York Court, right? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, that's clear. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: That the actions that occurred in the New York Court, from what I can see, so again, I'm qualifying this on what I have reviewed, were very extensive and very detailed and the judge's findings were very detailed. And as you know -- I think you know -- I'm not going to litigate that issue that's been litigated in New York. I mean, that's not going to put be part of this Chapter 11 case. But I have to listen to creditors who come in and say, hey, I've got a motion here and I want you to tell -- I want you to find either that the automatic stay does not apply, or in the alternative, that we're entitled to relief from the stay. And so, that was one of the reasons I asked the question at the beginning of the hearing, and one of the reasons why I asked counsel for PACS the question, which was -- and I'm not sure they would be wholly satisfied, but\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n we're going to start talking about the motion for relief from stay. Well, it's not a -- I call it that, but it's -- really, that's the alternative relief. The main relief at being sought is the inapplicable ability of the stay, saying that it does in this playa because if it's under (b)(1). 362(b)(1). So let's just assume I agree with them, just for the sake of argument here. I am not ruling right now. What are you going to do if I do that, number one? Or what are you going to do if I grant relief from the stay? Do you -- you know, what I -- how I read their papers, and I'm going to give everybody a moment to talk, but what I want you to think about, counsel, because I'm going to turn to PACS and let them present their motion, is what are you going to do. As you know, the bankruptcy court is somewhat constrained and required to address an issue regarding the automatic stay, whether it's the inapplicability or the request for relief from the stay on an expedited basis. Right? I mean, you know that. You know that's what the rules provide. MR. BALDIGA: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm not saying it's going to happen today. I'm not saying that yet. I haven't said that yet. But what I am saying is, you're suggesting some\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n pretty aggressive things. And I don't mean aggressive in a bad way. I'm talking about, you know, you said you're going to file a pan in 20 days. You've got DIP financing of \\$8 million. You know, you want to a lot of things to happen quickly and I understand that. But then I've got the competing claims of the creditors who want a lot of thing -- well, at least one thing to happen quickly. They want to go get that boat. Right? Isn't that pretty obvious? So have you had any questions about -- I'm not talking about with opposing counsel. I'm talking about you with your client, about trying to -- if you really want to make this work, right, and I'm not suggesting you don't, but if you really want to make this work, don't you think if you're going to get the creditors to be in any way supportive of what happens in this case, don't you think you need to seriously consider what -- and I'm not saying you -- that's not fair. I'm not saying you haven't seriously considered. So let me just step back. Don't you think you need to address the issue of the boat? Now here, you say -- and Mr. Kwok says, I did have access to the boat, but I did not have the authority to order it back to New York. I don't understand that sentence. So can you explain that to me? MR. BALDIGA: Yes.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Mr. Kwok does not own the boat. Never did. THE COURT: I don't think anybody -- well, I don't know if even anybody disputes that. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: But the New York judge says, it doesn't matter whether he owns it. He controls it. MR. BALDIGA: He does -- THE COURT: That's what he -- that's what he said, right? I mean, I don't think I read that wrong. I think the New York -- the judge in New York said, he controls it. He didn't -- it -- so if he controls it, then why would he say, I do not have the authority to order it back to New York? So, go ahead. Explain that to me. I'm sorry. MR. BALDIGA: No, certainly, Your Honor. And Mr. Kwok does not control the boat. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: The judge made the finding that he did. It doesn't mean that's right. It's on appeal. But it's wrong. And that's okay. I mean, sometimes judges are wrong. THE COURT: Yes. MR. BALDIGA: But I'm not disputing that that's what he found.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: He found that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: The specific relief that PACS has asked for here, and again this ties into the earlier presentation and it's -- I don't think it's by coincidence, is the enforcement of the state court's February 9 contempt order. That's the specific relief here at Paragraph 9. THE COURT: But I asked counsel at the beginning of the hearing, didn't I? I asked him, aren't you -- aren't you really just wanting to get the boat back into the jurisdiction of the New York Court? MR. BALDIGA: But that's not what the papers say. THE COURT: I understand that's not what the papers said, but that's what I asked him. I'm trying to figure out a way -- not figure out a way. I'm trying to suggest to you that -- we can be here for years fighting about everything. You know, it's happened before, it will happen again. Or we can try to see if there's a way -- and you know, I take you at your word that the debtor wants to move forward in a meaningful way to have -- and I'll tell -- I can tell you what you can said. I mean, I think you said it well. You want to commit to file a plan in the next 20\n\n days, and Mr. Kwok wants to pay his creditors fairly, and he wants to have a chance to propose that fair treatment and treat them fairly. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: So the problem -- the problem that exists -- that existed when this case was filed, right, that has nothing to do with the bankruptcy itself, was all the findings and all the litigation that went on before this. And I understand you're appealing it. I'm not -- you know, you have every right to do all that. But if you're going to be in this court and try to get the cooperation of the creditors to get a plan confirmed so Mr. Kwok can -- you know, he wants to move on and he wants to save his life, is what you said, and I have no real knowledge about all the in-depth facts that you stated, you know, about unfortunate events and things that apparently occurred. But this is a situation where I'm going to have to rule on that motion if there isn't an agreement on that motion. Right? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: I'm going to have to rule on that. And you and you might not -- well, somebody's not going to like the way I rule. Whoever it is. And then there's going to be an appeal of that too, right? I mean, there will be, I would assume. And so then we're going to be continuing\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 45 of 97\n\n litigation that's already been continuing in New York for several years. I think the case was filed in 2017. I think. I could be wrong about that. MR. BALDIGA: Okay, the week of the Voice of America broadcast. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So again, I'm suggesting to you, to everyone that, sure, we can do that. We can continue to litigate everything in this court, but I will have parameters under which that's going to happen, and I have under the bankruptcy code and the bankruptcy rules, I have to decide this motion and it's going to be fast. I mean, it's going to be sometime soon. And so, you know, I don't know if that's going to work for you or for the creditors, but I'm going to do that. And I, you know -- what I'm going to do now is -- I have let -- and I'm happy to let you talk as long as you want. You're the debtor's counsel. You should be talking. This is what we need to talk about. But I'm going to let Attorney Friedman tell me why I should grant his motion in a minute. He hasn't talked yet. I'm going to let him talk. MR. BALDIGA: I'm going to, of course, listen as well. THE COURT: And you'll listen and you'll be able\n\n to reply. This is a preliminary hearing on the motion that PACS has filed. I can do many things with that. I could order a final hearing tomorrow. I'm not going to do that, but I'm just saying I could do that.\n\n I think you really need -- it is the obvious issue in the room that we have to address. And, you know, I have no problem in any situation ruling, because that's what I'm supposed to do, and then I have no problem if people appeal, because that's why we have Courts of Appeals. The judges get it wrong, as you said. Sometimes the judges get it wrong and they need assistance from a higher court to tell them what they did wrong.\n\n But I'm going to have to rule. I have no choice. I have no choice on a couple of levels, including how the bankruptcy code was amended in 2005 that says basically, you know, in 362(e)(2) I think it is, you know, you've got 60 days essentially and then there's no more stay. It's an individual case unless I make some other kind of findings. So I'm going to have to do that at some point, unless I rule within 60 days, which is also extremely possible.\n\n So I just ask you to listen to -- and I know you will -- Attorney Friedman, and I ask you both to consider, you know, where things are going to go after today. I understand -- I've been involved in it when I was a practicing lawyer. I understand when parties don't agree.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n I understand it, you know. But at some point -- at some point at the end of the day, I don't know where that's going to get us. But I'm here. I'll do whatever I can to help you, but there are certain things I have no control over as you know. And the relief from stay issue, and this motion, and the timing that's already started to run, I just think people need to seriously -- and I'm not saying you're not. It comes -- I want to be very careful. I am not saying that you're not taking any of this -- of course you are. MR. BALDIGA: I'm taking it exactly as you mean it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Of course. Of course you are. MR. BALDIGA: I appreciate the opportunity at the outset of this hearing to have given you as much background as I have. I will accept your invitation to sit for a moment and to listen, and I'm sure I'm beat back up in a few moments to talk further as to the boat. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Attorney Friedman, now I am going to proceed with your motion. Okay? We essentially concluded the case management portion of the hearing, even though I'm continuing it to a date that we haven't determined yet, but it will probably be, as I discussed, April 13th. But your motion, I granted your motion to expedite\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 48 of 97\n\n the hearing on your motion for the Court to determine the -- whether the state even applies, and if it does, then for relief from the stay. So go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny and Myers. I just -- I wanted to just make a couple of preliminary comments, which is I actually don't believe that Mr. Kwok wants to avoid going to jail, because if he wanted to avoid going to jail, he would not have violated the U.S. Code by submitting a declaration so filled with falsehoods and lies that it's embarrassing. And what you will uncover in the course of this case -- and they unfortunately were repeated from the lectern. You will find out from this case that Mr. Kwok has had bank accounts. He's had, you know, people submit letters on his behalf when he purchased an apartment, talking about his long banking relationships. And that was in 2015. You will hear, if it ever becomes necessary, enormous testimony about how he held himself out as the owner of the Sherry Netherlands apartment, despite his denying that in his declaration. He lists -- he says in his declaration that the PACS agreement was a forgery. We've put in a footnote all the reasons we know that to be obviously false. The pattern\n\n of lying hasn't stopped and it's distressing to see it repeated from the lectern. It's distressing -- you know, Mr. Kwok talks about all the litigation he's been involved with, much of it for people accusing him -- I don't know if it's true or not -- of being a Chinese spy. I know he's frequently accused of being a Chinese spy himself and a collaborator with the Communist Chinese Party. I have no idea. I don't know if that's true, but he's effectively had his counsel accuse my client of the exact same thing here today with zero basis. It's sanctionable, in our view, for opposing counsel to stand at a lectern and accuse another party with no basis of conspiring with the Chinese Communist Party.\n\nIt's outrageous.\n\n Your Honor, I want to make a few other points. Now the declaration, which is Docket No. 107, which is his declaration, was submitted on a Saturday.\n\n Your Honor, Mr. Kwok's opposition to our motion was filed Wednesday and referred to it, the declaration. He didn't file it for four more days. He filed it then, just for the heck of it, in support of a motion that he didn't file until today.\n\n It's sort of litigation by incompetent ambush, and that gives you a sense when Mr. Baldiga says, we're going to -- we are going to run this case in an appropriate manner\n\n and follow every rule, it's just not true. And the proof, you saw in the petition, you saw in the schedules, you see it in the way they conduct this case. So notwithstanding what you heard I think the actions speak much louder about how this case might go. I do also want to let Court know we don't consent to an appointment of an examiner. We think an examiner is a tremendous waste of time and money. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: A trustee should be appointed. We'll be seeking that relief. Obviously, we'll be filing an objection to the examiner motion whenever the Court requires that that be objected to. If the debtor really is going to file a plan within 20 days, we obviously have to get the examine -- the trustee motion moved very quickly because of the interplay between timing for a trustee and timing of confirmation hearings and a plan. You know, what plan other than I will pay all my creditors in full could make sense here? I don't know. You heard yet again, this is somebody who doesn't have any money. I mean, it's unclear whose benefit this case is being even run for, but I don't want to get too far out ahead of where things are going to go, so I'm going to come\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n back to this particular motion. Your Honor, you had a colloquy with Mr. Baldiga and sort of asked some questions about what Justice Ostrager actually determined in his hearing, in his sanctions order. And I think it's worth looking at the sanctions order, because it says -- THE COURT: Where -- can you just point me -- is that -- is it -- is it Exhibit A? MR. BALDIGA: It is Exhibit A to the Friedman declaration. THE COURT: Okay, if you'd give me a second I'll be able to look at it with you at the same time. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Okay. (Pause.) THE COURT: Okay, I'm almost there. (Pause.) 17 All right. I think I'm there. Let me just check with you, okay, to make sure I'm looking at the right document. So it says, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County and then at the top it has an index number and a motion sequence number of 19. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Go right ahead then, I'm with you.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MR. FRIEDMAN: So on Page 2, the first full paragraph, \"On February 2nd, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination.\"\n\n I'm going to stop quoting. Some of those witnesses were -- virtually all of those witnesses were Mr. Kwok's witnesses. His family members, people whose testimony he submitted. Right? So when he tells you the judge got it wrong, remember what was in front of Justice Ostrager and all the opportunities they had to litigate this matter.\n\n Going back to quoting. \"Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May.\"\n\n As we go to Page 4, the testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendant's witnesses, clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this court and the judicial process. Pause there.\n\n Your Honor, if we have to get into it at some point later, we will also show you tweets where Mr. Kwok accused of Justice Ostrager or of being a CCC -- a CCP agent, just to show you how promiscuous he is with that allegation.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n Then, Your Honor, the last page -- I'm sorry, Page 8. \"Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\" These are all facts that a court of competent jurisdiction has found. They cannot be, whether it's under *Rooker-Feldman* or collateral estoppel or res judicata, as this Court said, they can't be reevaluated here. Mr. Kwak's claims that he doesn't have the ability to bring the yacht back should fall on deaf ears, because defendants claim all the time, I didn't do it after they've been convicted. Does that make it so? Right? He doesn't get to just say, I can't do it when a Court has found he can and he has refused to as an act of utter and complete contempt. Mr. Kwok was in contempt of Justice Ostrager'a opinion for 268 days. And Justice Ostrager concluded that if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating court orders, there is no rule of law. That's what -- by the way, that's what the stakes were in front of Justice Ostrager and how obviously disturbed he was by this pattern of conduct that Mr. Kwok\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n showed. But I read you all of those in order to show, Your Honor, that whatever is in the declaration, whatever factual predicates Mr. Kwok wants to make, whatever loopholes he's looking to escape simply are not available to him in this court given the breadth -- frankly, even if the findings of fact were cursory, they would still be collateral estoppel, but they aren't. They were deep and based on extensive testimony. Mr. Kwok's protestations to the contrary that he can't do it, if they're addressed, they should be addressed in New York State on appeal. And Mr. Kwok tried to get an interim stay of Justice Ostrager order and interim stay. He couldn't even get that much less a false stay pending appeal. That's how little the New York Court of Appeal -- Appellate Division thought of his likelihood of success on the merits. I note, and we submitted this in connection with our schedules, that Mr. Kwok also put on GETTR that if he -- you know, he might consider fleeing the jurisdiction, fleeing the United States if the sanctions order was -- the contempt order was pursued. Perhaps Mr. Baldiga should be asked whether, if the stay is lifted, Mr. Kwok intends on fleeing the United State's jurisdiction to avoid the consequences of his\n\n contemptuous behavior. Your Honor, a couple of other points that I want to to address. Obviously, Kwok -- Mr. Kwok has sought to remove the action to federal court. I think that moots the relief. First of all, it's an obviously deficient form of removal. *Rooker-Feldman* provides that, mandatory abstention, a permissive abstention are all at play. But even if remand was appropriate, there's still an action pending now in the Southern District of New York, and the Southern District of New York then can have the stay lifted if it's the appropriate forum to order return of the yacht. So the removal, while a quasi-clever tactic to try to cause delay, does nothing to moot our motion or the relief that could be granted if necessary. And we would amend our order to say that whether it's the state court in New York or the federal court, if the action has properly been removed the stay is lifted. Your Honor, I want to make another point that -- just address another point that's in Mr. Kwok's papers. Mr. Kwok says, don't lift the stay because if the stay is lifted or the stay is modified, I guess to use more -- less colloquial language, the stay -- the code doesn't talk about lifting a stay, it talks about modification or termination\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 56 of 97\n\n of the stay. Don't do it because then I won't get a DIP from Golden Spring, because my family won't lend me the money under those circumstances.\n\n There's an old parable about Lincoln, right? That Lincoln would describe somebody as being like the highway man who comes up to you and says, give me your wallet or else I'll shoot you, and then it will be your fault that I'm a murderer. Right?\n\n If Kwok's family won't lend him the money and the case goes off the rails, this case can't be pursued because Kwok won't bring a boat back or the Court lifts the stay, that's on them. That's not on the creditor body. That's not on this Court. That's a form of hostage taking that I don't think is appropriate to suggest. If they don't want to lend the money, so be it under that circumstance.\n\n What I would say about that is we should stop and think about it, right? These are the people who Kwok says, you know, fund his lavish lifestyle and have done so for years.\n\n These are the people who are going to help resolve claims against the estate, are going to provide a lot of funding to get their dear old dad out of Chapter 11, not have to face sanctions.\n\n But if the relief that's granted -- that we ask for is granted, they won't lend money, which doesn't make\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n sense, because of the relief that's granted -- one of two things is going to happen. He's going to stop his contemptuous behavior. I don't know why -- and bring the boat back. I don't know why that would prevent them from wanting to lend money, other than they feel like their favorite toy has been taken away. Or he'll remain in contempt. And if he remains in contempt, there's a natural consequence to that behavior.\n\n Again, in that circumstance I guess they're willing, if you take him at his word, to let their dad go to jail and have all the terrible things he claims are going to happen, happen. Also doesn't really make any sense.\n\n So I want to now turn to the legal basis for a motion. We've said the stay doesn't apply because of the exception that has been recognized by virtually every court.\n\n Doctrinally, we know that a civil contempt order can be exempt from the automatic stay. They spend a lot of time in their paper saying, this isn't a criminal contempt order. We agree. It's not. It's a civil contempt order.\n\n But civil contempt orders are exempt from the automatic stay where they are designed to vindicate the interests of a Court and are focused on not compensation.\n\n And to be clear here the \\$134 million fine is completely separate from the underlying judgment that was rendered in our client's favor, but because there has been\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n an assault on the dignity of the Court. And I just -- I want to go back to what I read to you. Justice Ostrager said, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use the Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating court orders, there is no rule of law. I think there couldn't be a clearer statement about what Justice Ostrager thought the purpose of the sanction was, and it was to, you know, to hold Mr. Kwok in contempt for refusing to abide by court orders and insulting the integrity of the judicial -- and the dignity of the judicial process. So I don't -- from that perspective I think it, you know, then becomes clear that this is the kind of motion -- contempt -- a sanctions order that can be held to be -- fall within the exception to the automatic stay. Well, their arguments -- for example they rely on the *White* case. I think as we explained in our reply brief, first of all, the *White* case recognizes, as it has to, that an exception exists to the automatic stay for civil actions versus -- for certain civil kinds of contempt motions. That case is about collection of damages, which we're not trying to seek. We've been very clear, we're not trying to seek damages. We're not even seeking it necessarily -- we're not\n\n even seeking the imposition of additional fines. What we are seeking is to ensure that the Lady May is returned to New York. Now, the February 9th contempt order specifically does require the return of the Lady May and it says, to the extent the Lady May is not back, fines continue to accrue. We're not actually asking for fines to continue to accrue. We're not seeking damages. We're seeking return of the boat. We're seeking return of the boat for the benefit of all creditors. We've been quite clear, and we've clarified it even further in our draft order, that the boat will remain subject to further order of this Court. So the kinds of concerns that animated cases like *White*, where one creditor was seeking to obtain a financial advantage for itself in connection with the contempt motion are not present here in any way. Your Honor, I think the -- you know, the debtor also tries to draw a distinction from some of our cases saying that those cases related to post-bankruptcy post- petition sanctions orders. And our response to that is the timing may have been different in those cases but the analytical framework that the Court evaluated, what's the nature of the sanction, what is the person seeking to lift the stay hoping to achieve by doing it? Are they trying to detract from the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n estate, are they trying to agglomerate or accumulate more for themselves? Are they trying to just harass the debtor? None of those factors are present here. We're simply trying to get the debtor to bring back one of its most valuable asset. And they say you shouldn't worry about -- you know that -- why do you need to do that? The boat is subject to worldwide jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. First of all, I think it's very clear that Mr. Kwok doesn't respect bankruptcy -- any court's orders. Second of all, the asset, even if it's subject to worldwide jurisdiction, could potentially continue to dissipate. It's being used by I don't know whom, but it's always at risk. And has Mr. Kwok done the basic things that a debtor ought to do to assert control over his assets? Has he filed a turnover motion? Has he sought to hold his family in contempt for -- with respect to the automatic stay for continuing to exercise control over one of his assets? Of course he hasn't. What he's continued to try to do is squirrel out of Justice Ostrager's ruling that it's his boat and that he controls it. So the fact that the boat is also subject to worldwide jurisdiction of this Court, and frankly, who knows\n\n if the court in -- somewhere else, wherever the boat is, would acknowledge the validity of that is of zero comfort to us. Your Honor, the last point I want to make is with respect to the automatic stay, if the automatic stay is held to be applicable. I think the most important *Sonnax* factors here is that every creditor who's spoken up, our client and the two other creditors, favor this relief. They want the asset back. They don't want it floating out there. It benefits all creditors. The only people it doesn't benefit are Mr. Kwok and his family members, who are not legitimate creditors. I know Mr. Kwok didn't talk about Rui Ma and her creditor claim, other than to cast dispersions on her. I know her counsel is here. I don't know if she intends on explaining the basis for that claim, but it's a horrifying claim and I'm not surprised counsel didn't go into details about what Mr. Kwok is accused to have done in that case. I'm not surprised at all. The other *Sonnax* factor is obviously sort of -- they cut in our favor no matter what, right? Either, if there's more protracted litigation to go ahead, nobody better to do it than Justice Ostrager. There may be nothing left to do because the order is already been entered.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 61 of 97\n\n So it's not like we are dealing with a case that really should be litigated in this forum because it hasn't been addressed extensively somewhere else. We know it has. Enforcement of the contempt order won't interfere with this case. It's going to help this case. The only way it's going to interfere with this case is if Kwok lets it. If Mr. Kwok won't assert his rights, then it will interfere with this case to an extent. But if he does what he supposed to do, what he's been ordered to do, it will enhance this case, not undermine it. Your Honor, this isn't a real case in the context of the other factors, for example that are cited in *Sonnax*. There's no operating business. He has no innocent employees who would be harmed by an injunction. He has no business to do except litigate cases. That's all he does. And if he won't abide by the court's ruling in New York and is incarcerated, he can be deposed wherever he is in the future, unless he flees the jurisdiction, but again, I don't think fleeing the jurisdiction is a basis -- or the threat that he may flee the jurisdiction is a basis for granting -- for denying stay relief. The two other things I would say, Your Honor, is the comparison to *Res Cap* is not well taken. I'm sure this Court is well familiar with the *Res Cap* case and the \\$375\n\n billion residential mortgage book that had to be dealt with that case over two and a half million different homeowners. It's not even apples and oranges. It's pineapples and concrete how different those are. There's just nothing in common between this case and *Res Cap*. And the same with *Sonnax*. The *Sonnax* -- *Sonnax* was an operating business. This isn't. I don't know if the Court has any questions or -- I don't know if anybody thinks something else escaped my attention or I should raise, but I don't have anything further, Your Honor, other than I'd like to rebut any opposition. THE COURT: I don't have any questions at the moment. Now I -- well, that's not true. I do. I set this up, as you I'm sure noticed, as a preliminary hearing under the Bankruptcy Code and the rules. What other information, if any, do I need from you from your perspective to decide -- and I mean your client's perspective -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure. THE COURT: -- obviously -- to decide this motion? MR. FRIEDMAN: Not a bit. And I'd go further, Your Honor, to say that Kwok should be barred from trying to introduce any other evidence and should not be allowed to rely on his declaration to the extent it seeks to reconsider\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n factual matters determined by Justice Ostrager. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: I understand your position and I'm just looking to make sure I don't have any further questions, but I don't think I do -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: -- at the moment. No, I don't at the moment, but thank you, Attorney Friedman. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. Your Honor, I don't know if any of the other creditors -- THE COURT: Yeah, I'm going to ask -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: -- if anybody else wishes to be heard on PACS's motion. I'm going to let the debtor respond too. No, no, come first, counsel. I'm going to hear from creditors first and then I'll let the debtor respond, and I'll let PACS respond to the debtor, and that will be that. MS. CALLARI: Hi. Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CALLARI: Carollynn Callari, with Callari Partners, again, here on behalf of Rui Ma. First, I just want to say that I find it -- and I don't know that I -- any of the counsel in this room. So\n\n it's not meant to be professionally, but when Your Honor sees the complaint that Rui Ma filed, and reads it, you will understand the disgust I feel in any allegation that the merits of her claim are anything but real and that they're part of some sort of conspiracy. When we get to it, Your Honor will see the chronology of the facts of life make their argument impossible that her claims are just made up by this other person and part of his scheme to bring down the debtor. So with that, we support PACS's motion as modified. We agree to additional language. In our limited statement we've provided a couple of paragraphs that we thought would be appropriate. PACS's counsel has altered them, but it's a similar concept, which basically means that we support PACS's efforts to basically marshal assets of this estate and to bring them back to this estate, and then have Your Honor determine what happens with them and what is the appropriate priority. And we also noted that this would not bring any advantage to PACS in that any monies received would be subject to this estate and not be superior to any of the other creditors. That was our main concern that this would end up -- you know, if the monetary damages continued and they only\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 66 of 97\n\n went to PACS, that would not be beneficial, and we have clarified that in the order. So with that clarification and with the rebuttal to the disparaging remarks on behalf of Ms. Ma, we support PACS's motion. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard before I let the debtor respond? Okay. Seeing no one, go ahead, counsel. You can respond to Attorney Friedman's -- and attorney for the other creditor, Ms. Callari's assertions with regard to the motion. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, William Baldiga for the debtor. Your Honor, I want to first make sure that we're focused on exactly the relief that PACS has asked for, because they're arguing -- they filed one motion, they seem to be arguing a different one, and I want to address the motion they filed. At Paragraph 9 on Page 7 of their motion -- THE COURT: All right. Hold on. Let me catch up with you, okay? MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: Just give me a second to get where you're talking so that I'm -- Paragraph 9, page what? MR. BALDIGA: Page 7, Paragraph 9 of their motion\n\n at docket, 57. THE COURT: Okay. Give me a second. I'm not quite there yet. (Pause) THE COURT: The relief requested. Yes, go ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. So, I mean that's I think fairly clear. I think it's consistent with the rest of the motion, but I thought that was the place it was most succinctly and clearly stated that they wish relief as to the enforcement of Justice Ostrager's February 9 contempt order. So let's turn to that order, which is appended to that motion. Actually, to the -- THE COURT: Attorney declaration. MR. BALDIGA: -- attorney declaration. THE COURT: Yep. I've got it. MR. BALDIGA: Which is that -- THE COURT: Go ahead. I've got it. Tell me where you want me to look. MR. BALDIGA: I'm a page 134. I'm sorry. THE COURT: You're on -- no. That's the number of pages. You're -- go to -- MR. BALDIGA: No. Page 16 of -- THE COURT: 16 of 134? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, I believe so.\n\n THE COURT: All right. Just let me catch up with you. I'm almost there. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. I'm on page 16 of 134. MR. BALDIGA: And is that the last page of the order? THE COURT: Yes, it is. MR. BALDIGA: It is -- THE COURT: Yes, it is. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: On the version I'm looking at, which is the version that's on the docket, yes. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. And so let's read what they - -the ruling is, the last sentence obviously. Kwok must remit \\$134 million to PACS within five business days. That seems pretty clear cut, although PACS has clarified today and several places in the motion, they are not seeking monetary relief. So that's -- that's not what they seek. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law 753 in the event that the fine is not timely paid. Okay. So PACS is saying, we're not seeking relief as to the fine, we're seeking -- obviously the one thing that's left is Judiciary Law 753, which is the state -- New York\n\n State law that entitles the Court to imprison for contempt. So when you boil down the motion that was filed -- and it's clear, I'm looking at the order that they seek to enforce. In the order that they seek to enforce by the motion they chose to file, it's not for returning the boat. It's to pay \\$134 million or go to jail. Period. That's -- THE COURT: Well, isn't that -- doesn't their reply say something different, number one? And number two, if they're seeking to enforce it, doesn't your client have the ability to relieve himself of that contempt by doing exactly what the judge ordered him to do and not go to jail? MR. BALDIGA: Not by this order. THE COURT: What -- not by what order? MR. BALDIGA: Not by the order they're seeking to enforce. They're asking you to allow them to -- THE COURT: Well, I don't agree with that. MR. BALDIGA: -- enforce this order. THE COURT: I'm not sure I agree with you, counsel. Because if I'm a judge and I order contempt sanction against a client -- against a party, and they come in and they -- and the contempt is because -- at least my reading is that because the boat is outside the jurisdiction and they correct that problem, the judge isn't going to enforce the fine in the contempt order, because he would have purged himself of the contempt by getting the boat back\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 70 of 97\n\n into the jurisdiction to which this whole -- this whole decision was rendered on. I mean that -- if you go -- I'll hear you, but I'm not sure I agree with you on that. MR. BALDIGA: I - I'm not -- THE COURT: Plus, they've just already just said they don't -- they are not trying to put him in jail. They're not trying to -- MR. BALDIGA: That's why they're not arguing their motion. I -- THE COURT: Well, but you are -- you're saying -- your opposition is you don't want the motion to be granted because they are trying to put him in jail and make him pay the fine. They've just stated, we're not seeking monetary -- we're not seeking payment of the fine. We're not seeking to put him in jail. We want -- and that's -- I think I asked this question at the very beginning of today's hearing two hours ago. I said, isn't what -- I said, Attorney Friedman, and my reading your papers right? Isn't that what I said? I said, I'm reading your papers right. Aren't you asking for the return of the boat to this jurisdiction, to the United States jurisdiction so that the boat is here and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts?\n\n And Attorney Friedman said yes. MR. BALDIGA: In lieu of the fine? THE COURT: He just said he's not seeking the fine. He's not seeking a -- at this time, they're not seeking that. And if we go back and we look at what -- at least again, let me step back and say, I am nowhere near as familiar with this is all of you are, but the reason there was a contempt order issue is because the boat was supposed to be seized for the judgment and the boat then disappeared from New York to wherever it went. The Bahamas. And then it went somewhere else. And then it went to Italy or wherever. Well, obviously Justice Ostrager doesn't have the ability to get the boat back from Italy. I mean, he has an order that somebody may or may not acknowledge in Italy or wherever it is.\n\n I don't think he has the -- he doesn't -- his order doesn't allow the boat to be arrested and then under maritime law, brought back to -- because it's not a maritime case -- and brought back to the United States under which the jurisdiction of the United States Court would be -- would apply.\n\n So this -- unless I'm reading something wrong, which is very possible, but I don't think so, the whole\n\n reason the contempt proceeding was brought was because the boat was gone. It's just like anything else. You've got an asset you can execute on. If the asset is gone, you don't - - you can't execute on it.\n\n And Judge -- Justice Ostrager, who I apologize at the beginning of the case today I didn't state his name because I didn't have it in front of me and I didn't want to say it improperly -- he said whether -- that PACS has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final order of civil contempt against Kwok for the reasons that follow. The Court is simultaneously issuing the order.\n\n And then he goes through this whole thing. PACS encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control. Then the court had a hearing, apparently, an evidentiary hearing at which a number of people supporting your client appeared.\n\n And then that judge made determinations, whether you appeal them are not or -- you know, is a different story, that Mr. Kwok had dominion and control over that boat and that boat's gone. So that's what the contempt is all about.\n\n Attorney Friedman, am I missing the point here? I just want to know, am I saying something that is inaccurate with regard to why you were seeking this contempt?\n\nMR. FRIEDMAN: You're not, Your Honor. Also, if\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n you look at page -- if you look at Exhibit 5 of my declaration, is the actual order from Justice Ostrager, and in Paragraph 3 he talks about how fines will continue to accrue until Kwok returns the Lady May to the jurisdiction. THE COURT: Right, and he says -- MR. FRIEDMAN: So Mr. Baldiga's argument completely -- THE COURT: -- he says that -- MR. FRIEDMAN: -- falls apart when you look at that. THE COURT: -- the appellate -- the appellate division's first department affirmed this court old order on November 4th, 2021, holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt. You know, I've had cases where people have been in jail and they could purge themselves of the contempt and they don't do it. And I say, well, I don't know what you want me to do. I mean, you can either purge yourself of the contempt or you can't, or you choose not to. Excuse me. That is the more appropriate -- those are the more appropriate words. MR. BALDIGA: But, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Justice Ostrager found, whether you\n\n agree or not, that -- and it wasn't just Justice Ostrager, apparently -- that Mr. Kwok is is in control -- has dominion and control over this boat. And I think -- I started this whole hearing asking this question.\n\n So if he has dominion and control over this boat, and he doesn't want to go to jail, that's what you told me, he doesn't want to go to jail because he's afraid he'll unfortunate -- he'll -- that will be a very unfortunate experience for him and he wants to work with all these creditors, and he wants to have a plan that fair to all of them, then bring back the boat.\n\n I don't think that -- and that is why I asked Attorney Friedman that question at the very beginning of the hearing, because I understand your point about the motion said. Then I read your objection. Then I read their reply. And my reply -- and my reading of their reply -- and I shouldn't say they. I'm talking about PACS and the debtor. I should be more careful. But in PACS's reply. And I asked -- that's why I asked the question.\n\n It seemed to me, yeah, I think you're right in the extent that they're not seeking to impose the monetary fine right now, and they're not seeking to have -- I don't know what that section of New York law is, but you just said to me, I guess that is the section of the New York law that you could put somebody in jail for contempt if they don't purge\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n themself of contempt. I assume that's what that means. But what I'm saying is it said in the reply, we just want the boat back in our jurisdiction, and not just for us, for all the creditors of the estate. And I actually heard from another creditor who said just that. She's asked that, and apparently the PACS's -- PACS and their counsel have agreed that the order, if I were to grant the relief requested, would say that, that the boat is not just for -- it's not coming back so PACS can arrest it, or put a lien on it, or do whatever you can on a maritime law, which there's a lot of that -- and the New York judges know how to do that -- then that's not what they're asking. They're asking -- they're asking essentially, in my opinion, to go back to the status quo where -- it's not exactly the status quo, but at least have the boat within the jurisdiction of the United States Court. That's -- court. That's what they're asking, and that's what he said. So your argument about the fine and the jail, again, the problem with contempt is always the same problem. If the person who is being held in contempt does not choose to purge himself of that contempt, then that person faces the consequences of that choice. The Court can't do anything about it. I can't make him do anything about it. If he doesn't do it then, yeah, maybe he will go to jail.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| 1  | That's up to the New York Court to decide.                     |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | But they're not asking that right now.<br>They're              |\n| 3  | asking him, in my opinion from what I've read, and I'm not     |\n| 4  | ruling today but they're asking for an incremental step.       |\n| 5  | That incremental step you may not like, and you may still      |\n| 6  | oppose it by getting the boat back into New York or the        |\n| 7  | jurisdiction of the United States courts.<br>But that's what   |\n| 8  | they're asking.<br>And I think that's pretty clear as of       |\n| 9  | today.                                                         |\n| 10 | Now, you know, relief from stay, or any                        |\n| 11 | determination that the stay doesn't apply, can be              |\n| 12 | incremental.<br>It doesn't have to be a complete resolution.   |\n| 13 | And essentially, that's what PACS is asking.<br>We're not      |\n| 14 | asking to put him in jail.                                     |\n| 15 | By the way, he can avoid being in jail if he does              |\n| 16 | with the Court told him he had to do.<br>But he can't -- we're |\n| 17 | not asking them to be in jail.<br>We're asking him to get the  |\n| 18 | boat back in the jurisdiction of the United States.            |\n| 19 | If he chooses not to do that, then he chooses not              |\n| 20 | to do that at his own peril and that's what a contempt order   |\n| 21 | does.<br>So your argument about what they say in their         |\n| 22 | original motion versus the reply, okay, I understand it, but   |\n| 23 | --                                                             |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>That was my whole point, Your Honor.           |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>But the reply says that they're not              |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n asking for what they said in their original motion. MR. BALDIGA: And that -- THE COURT: And what they're asking for in their original motion and what they're asking for now should actually benefit your client, not harm your client. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. Of course I'm not arguing that the contempt didn't arise from a failure to have the boat in the New York jurisdiction. Of course. And I'm not arguing, actually, with anything that you said. I was making the point which you've actually amplified, that the motion as filed is very different from the subsequent papers, and especially today's argument, and I wanted to make that very clear. THE COURT: I understand. If you're concerned that I didn't understand that, I'm happy -- I understand that. Are you -- is that what -- MR. BALDIGA: I'm no longer concerned. THE COURT: Okay. Fine. MR. BALDIGA: You've made that absolutely clear. THE COURT: I understand. I understand. MR. BALDIGA: And so that's -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: I appreciate that. Secondly -- and there would be time for further argument on this I expect. The *Rooker-Feldman* document --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n I'm sorry, doctrine, is a bit of a red herring here, and we'll be able to, with your permission because we don't have leave to file a surreply, but I think given the reply, we'd like to brief this. The *Rooker-Feldman* Doctrine applies to -- under the better of the decided case law, final state court judgment, which we don't have. But even more importantly, it applies to final judgments on the merits. It does not apply to supplemental proceedings. For example, in the -- THE COURT: Well, what about the fact that he held an evidentiary hearing and there were witnesses that -- and testimony and exhibits introduced? That wasn't a supplemental proceeding. It was a trial. MR. BALDIGA: Well, enforcement proceed -- THE COURT: It was a trial. MR. BALDIGA: -- it's an enforcement proceeding. THE COURT: It was a trial, wasn't it? MR. BALDIGA: I meant by supplemental as to not going to the merits of the underlying dispute, but as to ways to enforce a judgment. For example, in the *VanderKodde* case at 951 F.3d 397, which is a Sixth Circuit decision in 2020, the Sixth Circuit held that the *Rooker Feldman* Doctrine simply does not apply to post-judgment garnishment. That is, means to\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n collect the debt. It just didn't apply. And that's an example of the very limited scope of *Rooker-Feldman.* And that makes sense, especially in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding where the court is dealing with the interest of -- balancing the interest of the debtor and all creditors, and how to deploy what may or may not be assets of the estate and to determine what are assets of the estate and to the disposition of those assets. That is much different than a final judgment in a state court as to the amount of a claim. And given that they just briefed that in the reply and we haven't had an opportunity to address that, I wanted the Court to know, because we all deal with *Rooker-Feldman*, frankly not that often, that there -- they misapplied *Rooker-Feldman*. And that's okay. We'll have, again, an opportunity, I would hope, to address that more fully, including with briefing. So those are the two points, Your Honor, that I'm disappointed to hear that perhaps because the debtor supports it -- you would have thought with the earliest part of their argument they would have been all for an examination, because they would have thought that a truly independent examiner, as opposed to, for example, a trustee that they hope to elect, would be the way to -- it's an unfortunate case, I want to say, Your Honor, where all sides\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n cast dispersions on the veracity of others, and that's all we've heard so far, and that's unfortunate. We thought an examiner would be exactly the mechanism, because the one thing about an examiner, as opposed to every other role in a Chapter 11 case, is that only an examiner has no other allegiances and must be fiercely independent and is not elected or appointed, you know, by creditors -- THE COURT: Well, it would still have to be -- MR. BALDIGA: -- or chosen by a debtor. THE COURT: The examiner would have to be appointed, just like a Chapter 11 trustee would have to be appointed. So I'm not sure I -- MR. BALDIGA: Well, or elected. THE COURT: -- agree with that argument. MR. BALDIGA: Or elected. THE COURT: Well, but there -- where is the ability to elect a Chapter 11 trustee? There's an ability to elect a trustee and Chapter 7 after the interim trustee is appointed and -- by the 341 meeting, but I don't know that there's an ability to elect a Chapter 11 trustee. MR. BALDIGA: Well, actually, I'm not sure. THE COURT: I don't think there is. MR. BALDIGA: But in any event, an examiner seems to be -- and maybe I regret having signaled our support for\n\n exactly the relief that the U.S. Trustee thought was most appropriate, just to bring that back to have PACS oppose it, but so be it. And that might be the nature of the case. In any event, Your Honor, those are the primary points in our position. THE COURT: Okay. I'm just looking. I don't think there's an ability to elect -- MR. BALDIGA: No, I may have spoken too -- THE COURT: -- a Chapter 11 trustee. MR. BALDIGA: -- too quickly. MS. CALLARI: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MS. CALLARI: May I be helpful. There is not -- MR. BALDIGA: Oh, there is. There is. THE COURT: Where? There is or is not? MS. CALLARI: Is not. THE COURT: No, there is not. There's nothing -- there's no ability to elect a Chapter 11 trustee. MR. BALDIGA: Excuse me. Just -- may I have one second, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yep. MR. BALDIGA: -- to confer with my partner? (Pause.) Okay. I'm just reading quickly, Your Honor, Section 1104(b)(1). \"The election of a trustee shall be\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n conducted in the same way as under Section 702.\" THE COURT: It says, \"Except as provided in 11 on request of a party in interest made not later than 30 days after the court orders the appointment of a trustee. The United States Trustee shall convene a meeting of creditors for the purpose of electing one\" -- yeah. Which is the same thing as what happens and Chapter 7. MR. BALDIGA: Yeah, that's what -- that's what I said. THE COURT: So -- yeah, but what -- but the election shall be -- so you're saying if they want to come in with somebody else, they can elect them. That's what you're saying. MR. BALDIGA: That was my point. And an examiner, as I understand it, Your Honor, is assiduously independent and without any right of election or other interference. That's why we have examiners with whatever powers the Court -- THE COURT: Well, not many people have examiners. I'm not saying that it doesn't -- it's not going to happen. I'm saying they don't happen as frequently as you're indicating. MR. BALDIGA: I'm not -- this -- I'm not pretending that anything about this case is frequent.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n I'm just saying that it would be unfortunate if the debtor were to consent to what would otherwise, in many matters, be a highly contested matter only to have our consent then be used against us to have the mostly litigious creditor say, yeah, but we're going to oppose it because that seems to independent. In any event, that's -- but again, they'll litigate this case as they so choose. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I may make one more comment? THE COURT: Sure. MS. CLAIBORN: Holly Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Can you just speak a little bit more into the microphone? Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Sorry. Should the order enter from this Court directing the U.S. trustee to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, the U.S. Trustee with do so, and part of that process is to ask for the input of the parties. And subsequent to that, the U.S. Trustee makes a determined decision about who to appoint, and it's after that point, should there be a dispute over the appointment of that particular party as the trustee that there is a process for an election. THE COURT: Well, yeah. 702(c) says -- and (b),\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n \"Creditors may elect one person to serve as a trustee in a case if election of a trustee is requested by creditors that may vote under subsection A of this section.\" So you have to have a creditor who holds an allowable, undisputed, fixed, liquidated, unsecured claim of a kind entitled to distribution under -- and it just talks about Chapter 7 by the way. It doesn't cite to any Chapter 11 provisions, which is kind of interesting. \"Does not have an interest -- an interest materially adverse, other than an equity interest, that is not substantial in relation to such creditor's interest as a creditor to the interest of creditors entitled to such distribution and is not an insider.\" So it's really kind of interesting, because although you're right that you just pointed out 1104(b) says you can elect in the manner set forth in -- provided in subsections (a)(b) and (c) of Section 702 of this title, 702 says a creditor may vote for a candidate for trustee only if such creditor holds an allowable, undisputed, fixed, liquidated, unsecured claim of a kind entitled to distribution under, and that it only refers to Chapter 7 sections. So I don't know if it really does work. If it only applies to Chapter 7 sections, this isn't going to be a distribution under any of those sections. It's a Chapter 11\n\n case. So if that's the case, then there isn't an election of a trustee. I don't know the answer. I'm just saying, it seems inconsistent right now if you read the actual language of the statute. It seems a very inconsistent, because you have to do -- you have to have all three prongs of (a) in order to elect under (b). And under 702(a), and 702(a) says entitled to a distribution under section 726(a)(2), 726(a)(3), 726(a)(4), 752, 766 or 766(h) or 766(i). MR. BALDIGA: Your Honor -- I think, Your Honor, the case law would say that the standards are the same in Chapter 7. THE COURT: Well, it may or may not. MR. BALDIGA: I'm just -- THE COURT: That's not what the statute says. MR. BALDIGA: I agree, but -- THE COURT: It's not what the statute says. MR. BALDIGA: In any event, the biggest point was, we would like the case to proceed on something other than sort of a war of attrition basis, and I thought we had the makings of some good progress in that regard, and we would like the Court to see it that way and move the case in that direction. THE COURT: It's interesting they didn't change the statute, because they really should have changed the\n\n statute. You know, because it only refers to 7 -- the sections under Chapter 7. They should have -- here's a perfect example where you, you know -- where the code -- that may be exactly your intent that it be the same. That's not -- if you look at 1104(b), then -- and it refers you to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 702. 702(a) only addresses Chapter 7 sections. So it doesn't make any sense. But anyway, we don't have to decide that today. I just thought that was interesting. I mean, I completely understand the election of a trustee under Chapter 7. I just don't think I've ever seen anyone elect a trustee at a 341 meeting after -- in a Chapter 11 after they've been appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee. Have you, Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. It really doesn't matter for today's purpose. I'm sorry I'm -- MR. BALDIGA: I agree. THE COURT: -- diverting attention, but I'm just trying to -- I really have never seen that. But anyway, okay. Attorney Friedman, I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Peter Friedman from O'Melveny and Myers on behalf of PACS.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n I just -- I want to make a couple of points. It's disturbing that Mr. Kwok's counsel thinks that the only neutral person in a bankruptcy should be an examiner. The debtor is supposed to be a neutral fiduciary for all its creditors. Obviously, that's not going to happen. Your Honor, with respect to the examiner trustee issue, as we'll get into our objection, examiners are great, except they're not, because ultimately an examiner is just going to issue a report and that report is likely to be hearsay, and an examiner can't pursue causes of action. It doesn't help. It doesn't move this case where it needs to be -- to go, and Mr. Kwok just remains in possession with control of the case. As to the actual argument on the motion we're here on, as I mentioned, the order from Justice Ostrager is a two page order. It's at page 5 -- it's Exhibit 5 to my declaration. In Paragraph 3, he makes it clear that Kwok is under a continuing obligation to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction. That's what we're trying to enforce. We are not trying to ask for payment today. We're not asking for imposition of additional sanctions or contempt fines a \\$500,000 a day, to be clear. We also are reserving our right to be paid on that \\$134 million fine, but we're not asking for it to grow.\n\n We're not asking for us to be paid. Your Honor, *Rooker-Feldman* is concededly a thorny doctrine. I think we're right. If we are not right -- you didn't hear anything about collateral estoppel or res judicata after Mr. Kwok had, you know, took the Fifth, had an adverse inference drawn against him, had his family members -- you can read what Justice Ostrager said about his daughter. I don't want to embarrass her. And so those apply, and you know, those were the decisions that they were collaterally estopped, res judicat applies, that he owns and controls, found by clear and convincing evidence. I don't have anything further. Oh, I did have a question if I can ask the Court? THE COURT: Sure. Go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: When should we be -- do you have a sense of when we should be prepared to file our papers in connection with the U.S. Trustee's exam - the U.S. Trustee's motion? THE COURT: Yeah. I have -- you know, I -- that's a good question. As I said, I understand that the motion was filed on Saturday and there was a motion to expedite that hearing. So I am going to address that now. I think we need to address it now for a number of reasons. So if you'd give me a second.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n First thing first, the matters in this case -- I'm looking at the courtroom deputy now -- that are scheduled for April 12th at 2:30, we're going -- those are -- and those are all applications to employ professionals at this point. That's the only thing that's scheduled. I'm going to reschedule those to April 13th at 10:00 a.m. in this court. Okay? Now with regard to the examiner motion, I just need to hear from the United States Trustee on -- I want to ask her -- but I am going to address it now, which will end up answering your question as to when you need to file papers in response to it. Okay? MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. May I sit, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, please. Go right ahead. So, Attorney Claiborn, I know it's not on the calendar yet because -- and I didn't get a chance to look at it until this morning, but I'm going to -- I am going to grant the -- I'm doing this in court, the United States Trustee's motion for an expedited hearing on the appointment of an examiner. And that hearing will be held on April 13th at 10:00 a.m., along with the other matters. The parties that -- anyone that wishes to oppose that motion for the appointment of an examiner, or anyone that wants to file anything, you're all filing it on the same day. We're not going to get into replies and -- we all\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 90 of 97\n\n know what the issue is. Okay? You're all -- anyone that wants to file anything in support of or in opposition to the motion for the appointment of an examiner must do so by 5:00 p.m. on April 6th. The motion -- I'm sorry, Attorney Claiborn, did you want to be heard on that? MS. CLAIBORN: I was just going to inquire about a deadline for making service. THE COURT: Oh, you haven't served the motion yet? MS. CLAIBORN: No, because we were waiting for Your Honor to issue an order. THE COURT: Oh, okay. Sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: So the order with the motion. THE COURT: I understand. All right. So then -- yes. So then, what we're going to do -- what I'm going to do is -- this order probably isn't going to enter until tomorrow. MS. CLAIBORN: That's okay. THE COURT: So your service is going to be required -- well, let's talk for a minute. Who are you serving? Who are you serving that -- you know, we'd have to go with the debtor's schedules and statements. Right? Like, what's the creditor list look like? MS. CLAIBORN: We have made copies to serve the\n\n entire creditor matrix, which is approximately, I think, 60- something parties. THE COURT: 60? MS. CLAIBORN: So -- 60-something. THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: It's between 60 and 70. I just don't have the exact number. So those copies are ready, and ready to go. THE COURT: How -- I'm asking you a question, a serious question. Is it possible for you to make service by the close of business on Thursday, or would you rather have Friday? And if you say Friday, that's fine with me. MS. CLAIBORN: No, Thursday should be fine. THE COURT: All right. So then, I'm going to have you make service of the -- what will be an order granting the expedited hearing and scheduling that hearing for April 13th at 10:00 a.m., setting a deadline to file any responses in support of or as opposed to -- or opposed to the motion by 5:00 p.m. on April 6th, having you make service of the motion to appoint an examiner by 5:00 p.m. on March 24th, and then file a certificate of service on the docket of this case demonstrating how service was made by 5:00 p.m. on March 29th. Is that acceptable to the U.S. Trustee's office? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. And I'm assuming\n\n that all the dates you've just accounted for are going to be put forth in an order to be entered -- THE COURT: In that order. MS. CLAIBORN: -- by the Court? THE COURT: The order granting the motion to expedite will have all those dates in them for you, and those times. MS. CLAIBORN: Very good. THE COURT: Okay? MS. CLAIBORN: We will serve the order in our underlying motion. THE COURT: Okay, great. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: In that regard, Your Honor, one of the motions that we have filed is to retain service agent, Stretto, and they'd be prepared to -- THE COURT: Yeah. I don't understand why you need a service agent. Can you -- MR. BALDIGA: Just for this reason, to take the burden off other parties. If that were -- THE COURT: Well, but it's going to be an administrative expense to the estate. Why are you -- why are we doing that? Why do we need a service agent? I'm not saying I'm ruling on it, I'm asking you a question. You brought it up, so I'm asking you a question. Why do you need a service agent?\n\n MR. BALDIGA: We thought that at the end of the day, that would serve to be most efficient, but if the Court doesn't -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know. Maybe it will, but I want to hear from other people about it, right? MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, that is -- that's on for hearing on the -- that was originally scheduled for hearing on the 12th, isn't it? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: So there's an objection deadline with regard to that motion already in place. There should be. I haven't looked at -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: -- the notice of hearing, but there should be. So -- MR. BALDIGA: Then I won't volunteer them. THE COURT: Yeah, I just -- MR. BALDIGA: I'm just trying to accommodate. THE COURT: You know, all I'm -- look, one thing that -- in every chapter -- in every case regardless of chapter, but certainly in a Chapter 11 case, that the Court is concerned about administrative expenses. Right? So we need to figure out whether or not -- if everybody thinks Case 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 93 of 97\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nit's good, then fine -- then I'll probably agree. But I\n\n want to make sure everybody thinks it's good. MR. BALDIGA: Sure. THE COURT: And I -- and maybe I will agree. I don't know. I haven't really reviewed it enough to make it an educated ruling, but I just throw out there, you know, like all these applications to employ professionals. As you said, this is not a normal Chapter 11 case. It's extraordinary. So I have to watch it and make sure that administrative expenses and things are not handled in a rote manner. It's going to be decided whether or not it's appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: And my -- and just for some of the reasoning, my experience is, especially when it comes to tabulating the voting on a plan, having a professional independent firm that does that has often proved to be beneficial. But again, everyone will have a chance to speak to that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, from PACS's perspective, we will meet and confer with Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: We couldn't hear you, Attorney\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n Friedman. MR. FRIEDMAN: I'm sorry. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Say that again. MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure. From PACS's perspective, we share concerns, but this is something I will call Mr. Baldiga this week and discuss, Stretto's retention application. So if we can actually take an issue off of your plate from having to be litigated, we will meet and confer in good faith and come back with that. THE COURT: Yeah. I thank you. I anticipate that the parties will have discussions before the objection deadline and will see where we are. Okay? Attorney Claiborn, I think you wanted to say something else. MS. CLAIBORN: No, I just was standing to see if the Court had any other questions for me. THE COURT: No, I -- but I -- that order most likely will not get out obviously right now. The clerk's office is going to be closing in a little while until tomorrow, but it will get out. It will be issued and you can -- do you want me to recite those dates for you again, or do you have them? MS. CLAIBORN: I wrote them down. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: I'm good. THE COURT: And then we will go from there. Now with regard to today's matters, the Chapter 11 case management conference, I already indicated that it's going to be continued. So that's going to be continued until April 13th at 10:00 a.m. as well. With regard to the motion -- I'm sorry, I just lost my place. Just, if you would give me -- bear with me for a second. (Pause) THE COURT: With regard to the motion, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund for entry of order confirming the inapplicabilty of the automatic stay, or in the alternative, relief from the automatic stay, pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the hearing -- the preliminary hearing is continued until April 13th at 10:00 a.m. Now, I'm going to do one thing with regard to that. Hold on one second, please. (Pause). THE COURT: In PACS's reply to the objection filed by the debtor to this motion, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9, Paragraph 10, Paragraph 11 talk about the *Rooker-Feldman* Doctrine and res judicata. I'm going to give the debtor until a week from --\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 97 of 97\n\n not a week. Until March 28th at 5:00 p.m. to file a brief no longer than five pages to respond to those specific paragraphs in the reply and that's it. No more briefing will be allowed in connection with this motion. Does anyone have any questions? MR. BALDIGA: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything further we need to address? I don't think that there is because there's nothing further on the calendar today. MR. BALDIGA: No, Your Honor. Thank you very much. THE COURT: All right. So then the hearing in the Kwok matter today are concluded. This is the last matter on today's calendar, so court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 4:22 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. 23 March 28, 2022 24 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文件 144 提交日期 03/30/22 录入日期 03/30/22 15:41:05 第 1 页，共 97 页\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n关于                                            案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）                            康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n                                                2022年3月22日\n债务人。\n\n案件管理会议/状态会议记录\n\nPACIFIC ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）提出的动议：请求作出裁定，确认自动中止不适用；或备选地，请求依据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止\n\n主审法官：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n美国联邦破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·巴尔迪加，律师）\nBENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ.（本内特·西尔弗伯格，律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表债权人 Pacific\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），债权人：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼，律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫，律师）\nDIANA PEREZ, ESQ.（戴安娜·佩雷斯，律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼，律师）\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103-3597\n\n程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表债权人 Golden Spring, NY Ltd.（金泉纽约有限公司）：\nSCOTT ROSEN, ESQ.（斯科特·罗森，律师）\nCohen Birnbaum & Shea（科恩、伯恩鲍姆与谢伊律师事务所）\n100 Pearl Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）：\nCAROLLYNN CALLARI, ESQ.（卡罗琳·卡拉里，律师）\nCallari Partners LLC（卡拉里合伙人有限责任公司）\n1 Rockafeller Plz Floor 10\nNew York, NY 10020-2073\n\nPETER ZARELLA, ESQ.（彼得·扎雷拉，律师）\nMcElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）\n225 Liberty Street\n36th Floor\nNew York, NY 10281\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n（程序于下午 2:11 开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 22-50073。Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。请先由债务人的律师为记录目的说明出庭情况，可以吗？\n\n巴尔迪加律师：下午好，法官阁下。威廉·巴尔迪加，Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所），代表债务人；与我一同出庭的是我的合伙人本·西尔弗伯格。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：下午好。\n\n罗森律师：下午好，法官阁下。斯科特·罗森，代表 Golden Spring New York Limited（金泉纽约有限公司），拟议中的债务人占有融资贷款人。\n\n法庭：好的。让我先在这里打断一下。是否已提交债务人占有融资动议？\n\n罗森律师：该事项今天未排期审理，法官阁下。该动议今天上午刚刚提交。\n\n法庭：好的。这就是为什么我不知道发生了什么事。\n\n巴尔迪加律师：今天不请求任何救济。\n\n法庭：罗森律师，您是否——我相信您已这样做了，但我仍要询问。您是否提交了出庭通知？\n\n罗森律师：我刚刚受聘，我将提交出庭通知。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n罗森律师：明天上午之前。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。请继续，律师。\n\n弗里德曼律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是彼得·弗里德曼，来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所），代表 PACS；与我一同出庭的是 O'Melveny & Myers 的戴安娜·佩雷斯和斯图尔特·萨诺夫，以及我的同事伯尼先生。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n弗里德曼律师：我的同事伯尼先生，来自 Robinson and Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n佩雷斯律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：有几件——哦，抱歉。请继续，克莱伯恩律师。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：抱歉。座位不够了，所以——\n\n法庭：没关系。抱歉。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：——霍莉·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：您想从这边再拿一把椅子吗？\n\n克莱伯恩律师：没关系。我坐长凳就可以。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续，律师。如果您能走到前面来，因为您需要——我们的记录只有音频，所以您必须对着麦克风讲话。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：您希望我靠得那么近吗？\n\n法庭：当然，您可以站在任何您觉得舒适的位置。\n\n卡拉里律师：只要您——在您最能听清我说话的地方即可。下午好，法官阁下。卡罗琳·卡拉里，来自 Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人有限责任公司），代表马蕊及其他若干债权人。感谢您已在第 89 号录入文件中批准我的临时获准出庭申请。我与赞助律师一同在场。克里斯滕·梅休无法到场，但她的同事彼得·扎雷拉来自——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n卡拉里律师：——McElroy and Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊与多伊奇律师事务所），与我一同出庭。\n\n法庭：好的。非常感谢。而且，您知道，您不必坐在那么靠后的位置。我的意思是，您可以坐近一些。按您希望的方式即可。好吗？我知道我们也在尽量保持社交距离，但以您觉得舒适为准。如果椅子不够，抱歉。\n\n卡拉里律师：没关系。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。在我们今天开始审理任何事项之前，先处理几项例行事务。这些只是康涅狄格州地区的工作方式，可能与您在其他地区的一些经历不同，但我们不接听关于日程表事项的问题来电。如果您对日程表上的某项事项有疑问，您应将该问题写入电子邮件，发送至相应法庭书记员的邮箱；然后，该法庭书记员将根据您的问题决定回复或不回复。如果您的问题是法官将如何裁定，我认为您不会得到回复。如果您的问题是我必须何时到场，您可能会得到回复，但无论如何您本应知道这一点。我们不接听电话。过去，曾有律师利用这种情况，到了令其他人认为那些律师和当事人受到区别对待，或者用一个不那么准确的词说，获得更多内部便利的程度。因此，我们在康涅狄格州不这样做。因此，我只是想向各位通知这一点。此外，我认为，您知道，本案正在发生很多事情，我理解这一点，也没有问题。我们已经提交了许多不同的动议。显然，我不知道——我今天整天都在开庭，所以我不会知道已提交了债务人占有融资动议——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n——但除非被要求这样做，我们不需要任何人提交任何案卷夹、证据材料或任何资料，好吗？因为我们——实质上所有工作均无纸化进行；在举行听证和提交证据材料时，我要求各方将那些证据材料提交至案卷记录，我们基本上使用案卷记录来汇编证据材料，除非我说，您知道，我知道您已经这样做了，但我仍需要您做 X、Y 和 Z，那么您就照做。好吗？但除非我们要求，否则我们不需要任何纸质材料。一切都在电脑上。好吗？因此，那些只是一些小的例行事项。我认为，尽管我可能完全错了，本案中大部分有关准许外地律师出庭的动议都已获准，所以我认为在场任何一方都没有尚未处理的动议；但如果仍有未处理的动议，现在有人可以提请我注意吗？\n\n弗里德曼律师：PACS 没有任何未处理事项，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。债务人方面有吗？\n\n巴尔迪加律师：我们没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。很好。这很有帮助。那么，我不——哦，是的，债务人还有一项例行事项。在上一次听证期间，我们曾要求——我面前没有我的笔记，但显然那是在几周前——提供一份人员姓名清单；这些人员是在该次听证中律师所作的——债务人律师所作的——陈述中被提及的，我认为我们尚未收到该清单。我知道后面的人正在口译，但声音有点——不幸的是，您必须尽量轻声一些，因为我只能听见您的声音，而无法听见律师的声音。好吗？我们需要该信息，因为我们的记录只有音频。我们没有法庭速记员。司法系统为破产法院提供的预算资金不足以配备速记员。如果各位想带一名速记员来，完全可以。我的意思是，费用必须由各位承担；如果有意这样做，也需要事先告知法庭，但除此之外，我们的正式记录——即使您带来了速记员，那也不会成为正式记录。我们的正式记录是音频，因此，当涉及的不仅是人员姓名，而且是建筑物名称或其他名称，且表述不清时，我们将需要各方向法庭书记员提交该信息；否则，我们的记录将不清楚，而记录清楚显然对法庭至关重要。好吗？这就是我需要处理的例行事项。在我们今天开始讨论本案之前，是否有人有任何例行事项需要处理？\n\n好的。既然无人提出，那么今天的日程表上有两项事项。第一项是本院在康涅狄格州地区的每一宗第 11 章案件中都会举行的第 11 章案件管理会议；此外，还有 PACS 提交的动议，该动议已获准进行加急听证，即就 PACS 请求作出裁定以确认自动中止不适用，或备选地请求解除自动中止的动议，举行初步加急听证。我已审阅了就该问题提交的若干书面陈述、答复以及对答复的回应；届时审理该事项时我们会讨论。我本不应作出某项假设，但我会作出这一假设：鉴于显然已经发生了——我并非表示我理解其中的每一件事、每一个细节，因为在此时我不可能理解——但鉴于债权人与债务人之间似乎存在旷日持久的诉讼，我假定对 PACS 所提交的动议尚未进行讨论，当然也尚未达成解决方案。我的这一假设正确吗？是的。我看到有人点头？\n\n弗里德曼律师：是的。因此，法官阁下，我是彼得·弗里德曼。就债务人而言，这一说法正确。我们已就拟议裁定的措辞，与提交附条件陈述的债权人达成协议。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n弗里德曼律师：我们是在听证开始前不久才得以完成此事；如果该动议获准，我们将在裁定最终定稿之前将其传阅给各方。但是，关于所提交的具体动议，我们尚未进行讨论或——\n\n法庭：好的。这很公平。我只是提出这个问题，因为我认为我看到的内容——而且我们不会——在真正审理您的动议之前，我们会先处理几件事情，律师。但是——我相信我看到的内容——我只是希望您告诉我是对还是错，好吗？此刻我只要求您做这一点，是有一项陈述，我认为——或者，您知道，不是一项——那是一两段中的一句话，或者可能不止这些。\n\n我有一点记得，PACS表示，您会同意解除自动中止，目的仅限于使该船舶——恕我找不到更恰当的说法，我不确定这是否为正确术语——进入美国的司法管辖范围，具体而言，进入纽约法院（New York Court）的管辖范围。我理解贵方文件的意思正确吗？FRIEDMAN（弗里德曼）先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。我想确认我对该文件的理解无误，好吗？因为如您所知，我有很多材料要阅读，这没有问题。但是，您知道，在本案中，显然涉及许多不同的利益，以及许多不同的利益相关方，所以——请继续，律师，抱歉。FRIEDMAN先生：为明确起见，法官阁下，或者如债务人拒绝这样做，则由适当的法院施加其他非金钱制裁。法庭：好的。谢谢您，Friedman律师。好。那么，请告诉我——Baldiga律师（Attorney Baldiga）或Silverberg律师（Attorney Silverberg），你们二位中哪一位将就第11章案件管理会议作陈述？BALDIGA（巴尔迪加）先生：我来，法官阁下。法庭：好的。很好。谢谢。\n\nFiore记录与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n那么，如我确信你们已审阅的，本院在康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院（District of Connecticut Bankruptcy Court）的所有第11章案件中都会发布一项命令，要求债务人——债务人在场。我看到他了，对吗？BALDIGA先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。BALDIGA先生：如果我可以介绍——法庭：当然。BALDIGA先生：——债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。法庭：是。BALDIGA先生：法官阁下，您说得对，他带着口译员。我认为自您——法庭：是的，她确实安静了一些，我对此表示感谢。BALDIGA先生：——提出意见后。法庭：这个法庭很奇怪。有时我能比坐在前面的人更清楚地听到坐在后面的人。我不知道为什么，不过我对此确实没有任何控制办法，但我对此表示感谢。谢谢。BALDIGA先生：如果这造成干扰，请告诉我们，我们会——法庭：而且我同意，口译员现在说话已经轻柔一些，我没有——BALDIGA先生：谢谢。\n\nFiore记录与转录服务公司\n\n法庭：——听到她的声音，所以我对此表示感谢。谢谢。BALDIGA先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。因此，在我们安排首次第11章案件管理会议的命令中，我们提出了一系列问题——您知道，我认为其中有一个列出18项内容的编号段落——是的，18项内容，法官期望债务人及其律师向法庭说明，以便法庭了解本第11章案件的情况。因此，第一项——我假定无论如何您本来都会告诉我——清单上的第一项是债务人业务的性质以及申请第11章破产的原因。我了解这是一个个人案件，可能严格说来不是一项业务，但据我了解，也许我错了，该个人债务人曾经从事经营活动，我不知道他目前是否仍在经营，并且经营及作为许多——嗯，我对此不清楚。这么说并不公平。我听说的是，他是不同公司实体的成员，我希望对此有更好的了解，然后再了解申请本第11章破产的原因。请从这里开始。\n\nBALDIGA先生：当然，法官阁下。再次说明记录在案，本人William Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加），Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）律师，代表债务人。好的。法官阁下，我还要提及，因为我们认真对待该命令，我们在案卷第107号提交了Kwok先生的声明，该声明在宣誓后相当详细地说明了——我们认为是所列全部18项问题，至少是与本案有关的问题。例如，并不存在现金担保品，因此——但声明详细说明了其中所有被提及的问题，并且相当详尽地解释了我们为何在此。我想就此作陈述——法庭：当然。BALDIGA先生：——并全面回应您的问题，但如果不提及该声明，我认为便是失职。法庭：不，我知道它已提交，律师。我确实知道它已提交，我要告诉您，我看过它，但没有通读它。我没有机会完整阅读它，好吗？BALDIGA先生：其中内容很多，我认为需要一些时间来——本案中已有数方提交了大量文件，但我先退一步。那么，首先，债务人没有任何业务。法庭：好的。BALDIGA先生：债务人来自一个在中国长大的大家族。该债务人在二十岁出头时\n\nFiore记录与转录服务公司\n\n支持天安门广场的抗议活动，亲眼目睹其兄弟因该等抗议活动遭枪杀，从那时起，他便——曾被逮捕和酷刑折磨，并一度得以在中国从事涵盖房地产开发及其他业务的广泛家族企业。\n\n1991年获释出狱后，该家族取得了一些重大成功，我们在声明中就房地产开发情况作了说明。实际上，该家族的业务非常成功。\n\n然而，Kwok先生一直极其坚定地进行批评和政治言论；在本国，这些受到承认，而在中国则完全不是如此。他于2000年逃往香港，并继续强烈批评CCP（中国共产党）。事实上，在许多网站等处，他被列为CCP最直言不讳的批评者，也是CCP监视名单上希望使其噤声的对象。\n\n他于2015年扩大了其批评言论。他的家人、兄弟、妻子和女儿均被逮捕。Bruno Wu（吴征）与数名CCP高级官员关系密切，并且是一名外国代理人；他与PACS或PACS的母公司进行了极为重大的商业交易。Wu先生于2015年致电我的当事人，即债务人，称如其停止政治言论，其家人将获释\n\n出狱。他没有这样做。事实上，2017年——这些内容均载于该声明——而且，在此期间，由于他被列入所有这些政治监视名单，他无法维持经营活动。他甚至无法拥有银行账户；几年前他最近一次尝试开立银行账户时，银行终止了该账户。2017年，曾安排播出一期美国之音（Voice of America）访谈，拟于2017年4月19日播出，他将在该访谈中强烈批评CCP。就在该周，PACS提起了诉讼。这是促成本第11章案件的重大驱动事件。CCP基于捏造的指控发布了国际刑警组织红色通缉令，寻求逮捕他并将其引渡至中国；Wu先生及其他人资助了你们所见的许多诉讼，这些诉讼属于本案债权人群体的一部分。几乎所有该等诉讼，或者其中大部分诉讼，均由同一批外国代理人资助，而这些代理人也承认正在为诉讼提供资金。自那时起，本国发生了数起广为报道、以Kwok先生为目标的事件。Kwok先生在第16段中表示，他相信如被引渡至中国，他将被杀害。他相信如在此被\n\nFiore记录与转录服务公司\n\n监禁，他将被杀害。因此，他有全天候人身安保。尽管如此，法官阁下，我们在声明附件中附有本国三起独立刑事程序，即联邦刑事程序中的有罪判决：其中一起涉及司法部（DOJ）的一名高级律师，另一起涉及Elliott Brody（埃利奥特·布罗迪）；他曾是为——他就游说将Kwok先生引渡至中国一事认罪并被定罪，而Kwok先生相信此举目的在于令其死亡。还有另一起独立刑事程序涉及Nickie Lum Davis（尼基·林·戴维斯），同样因游说特朗普政府将Kwok先生引渡，而他相信这会导致其被杀害。这不是Kwok先生的噩梦；而是附于声明的刑事起诉信息书、认罪答辩等公开资料。法官阁下，这就是——我将谈到其中的业务和财务方面。我首先承认，每一个个人第11章案件，就其性质而言，都是不同寻常的。我参与过几个此类案件。个人第11章案件并不多。本案极为不同寻常。我首先承认这一点。我不会来到这里站在这里，假装本案是——我从业38年，从未办过这样的案件，而我曾——\n\n在Mike Tyson（迈克·泰森）案件中代表债权人委员会；即使与Mike Tyson案件相比，本案也极不寻常。\n\n但不同寻常并不意味着不当。我们接受代理Kwok先生本案的条件，是他绝对同意将严格依照本法庭应当且确实期望的方式行事。也是依照我们应当且确实期望的方式行事。债务人将在本法庭严格遵守规范。\n\n举例而言，在先前程序中，债务人曾不时援引第五修正案的保护。债务人明白，尽管第11章债务人有时行使其不作证的宪法权利，但第11章案件要求非同寻常的透明度。\n\n债务人昨天接受了债权人和美国受托人长达四小时的询问。没有援引任何第五修正案特权或任何其他特权。每一个问题均得到了回答，今后还会有更多小时的证言，每一个问题也将继续得到回答。\n\n法庭：那是在第341条会议上吗？您是指——\n\nBALDIGA先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。抱歉。我只是想确认——\n\nFiore记录与转录服务公司\n\nBALDIGA先生：不，没——没关系。法庭：是。好的。BALDIGA先生：我正试——再次——但仅举一个例子，这里并非全面阐述这些问题的时间和场合，但本着有些事情并非凭空捏造得出的道理，我只是希望法庭理解，我们理解，并且该债务人理解，本案有多么不同寻常；并知道我们出现在您面前，是理解我们负有非同寻常的负担，要使法庭能够合理确信，本案将再次依照您的全部期望进行。但是，仅举一个例子，一个由三人组成的债权人委员会昨天刚刚成立。该委员会的一名成员Rui Ma（马蕊），其律师Arkin-Solbakken（阿金-索尔巴肯律师事务所）在日期为September 30, 2020的信函中确认，她起诉Kwok先生的律师费由Zheng Wu（吴征）支付，后者亦称Bruno Wu。法庭：又称谁？您说又称谁？我没有听见。BALDIGA先生：Bruno Wu。法庭：好的。谢谢。BALDIGA先生：W-U。我为未向法庭提供上次听证会中的姓名表示歉意。我们将于本周就上次听证会及本案此事提供。\n\n周。法庭：是的。那将会——那将会对书记官办公室非常有帮助。BALDIGA 律师：好的，我为我们没有这么做表示歉意。法庭：是的。BALDIGA 律师：委员会的第二名成员 Sam Nunberg（萨姆·努恩伯格）曾是 Bruno Wu（吴征）的个人朋友；他曾帮助 Rui Ma（马睿）为其安排律师，即 Arkin-Solbakken（阿金-索尔巴肯律师事务所）。委员会成员 Nunberg 先生是在 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida（美国佛罗里达南区联邦地区法院）公开提交的案件中所涉之人，该案案号为 18-20983，系 Kwok 先生针对 Roger Stone（罗杰·斯通）提起的案件。就是那个 Roger Stone。Roger Stone 后来在《Wall Street Journal》（《华尔街日报》）和《New York Times》（《纽约时报》）发表的声明中称：我，Roger Stone，撤回并就其此前有关 Guo Wen Gui（郭文贵），亦称 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的言论道歉。Stone 先生曾公开表示，Guo 先生已被判有罪并在——以及美国——在美国被判定犯有金融犯罪，并称 Guo 先生曾通过向 Hillary Clinton（希拉里·克林顿）作政治捐款及资助 Steven Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）竞选总统而违反美国选举法。上述所有陈述均不属实。我在作出上述陈述之前未进行适当调查，并不当地依赖了委员会该成员 Sam Nunberg 在 2017 年9月初至2017年秋季期间向我传达的信息。我相信该信息的来源是 Bruno Wu。\n\n因此，这些就是——这些就是——而且，吴征阁下，为完整说明情况，他在其外国代理人登记中称，其担任 National Committee on China/US Relations（中美关系全国委员会）副主席兼秘书长，并为 Charhar Institute（察哈尔学会）的关联人士；该学会是一个中国政府智库，非政府智库，其多数其他成员均为中共高级官员。这就是我们的委员会。我并非在贬低该委员会；我只是说，这一点本身就使本案成为一个非同寻常的案件。今天晚些时候我将谈到——尽管我们已经联系 United States Trustee（美国受托人），表示即使美国受托人未提出任命审查员的动议，我们也认为任命审查员是适当的。若不对该债务人进行真正独立的审查，我们看不出任何人——包括法庭——如何能够对成功的 Chapter 11（第11章）案件所要求的透明程度感到放心。我们不仅同意任命审查员，我们还将支付其费用。Kwok 先生已向其家人表示，如果我要有一个透明的 Chapter 11 案件，我们就需要有一名审查员，并且需要为其支付费用。\n\n而其家人已同意这样做。我先前提及 DIP 动议的原因——再者，这一点——我会将其列入我在任何其他案件中从未见过的事项清单中：Kwok 先生儿子的家族办公室，由 Rosen 律师代理，承诺提供一笔 $8 million DIP 贷款，并完全从属于所有有效债权人的债权。无担保。无管理费用优先权。甚至不与债权人的债权同等受偿，因此不会从任何债权人的口袋中支出。该款项中数百万美元已专门预留给审查员，以便能够妥善处理事务，使您不必仅仅依赖我或 Kwok 先生向您说我们知道这个、知道那个。因此，这是我们意图推动本案朝正确方向发展的又一个例子。我们已提交文件。我们需要额外几天时间。当您绝对坚持一切都必须做到尽善尽美时，与中国之间往返口译的负担确实带来时间安排上的挑战，但我们已提交财务状况说明表。Kwok 先生已聘请非常有经验且真正独立的律师和财务顾问；在本案提交前不久之前，我们中无人曾与 Kwok 先生或其任何债权人、家属或其他任何人有过任何关系。就在本案提交前数日。真正独立。正如我所说，Kwok 先生昨日已接受讯问逾\n\n四小时，回答了每一个问题，并且已完全表示：你们告诉我何时回来，我会再做一次；而且我相信，他还将再接受数小时的讯问。再者，口译使此事具有挑战性，但他承诺如此做。我们提交了这份全面的声明。这是一起个人 Chapter 11 案件；我们认为，债务人就导致本案的一切在宣誓后作出陈述，并以完全透明的方式如此做，是非同寻常的，但我们认为这很重要。我们同意任命审查员。我们将提供 DIP 融资以实现此事。阁下，我们承诺在未来 20 天内提交一项计划。Chapter 11 案件的核心在于对债权人的处理，我们将会这样做。本案过于昂贵，不能拖延数月又数月又数月。我们希望——在某些方面，本案在许多方面确属非同寻常，但归根结底，每一个 Chapter 11 案件都关乎金钱，或者应当如此。Kwok 先生希望向其债权人付款并公平地对待他们，并承诺这样做。我们已向他说明，而他也接受，实现这一点的方式是提交一项计划并确认该计划。所有这些，包括今天，都是为了给我们一个机会向债权人付款并公平对待他们。我们将会\n\n查明，阁下，您也将会查明，我们的——我们的债权人希望什么。如果我们的债权人希望就其债权得到公平偿付，并使其债权以公平数额获准，那么这将是一个非常成功的 Chapter 11 案件。另一方面，如果 PACS 和其他已提交债权申报的债权人——其中大多数是在 Voice of America（美国之音）广播前后数周期间提交的，均意在使其噤声——而与此同时，Kwok 先生的家人在中国被逮捕——如果他们的目标是使他被杀害，如 Kwok 先生所相信的那样，或者以其他方式实施报复或压制其政治言论，那么这将会非常困难。但我们将在本法庭公正地呈现这一切，因为破产法院正是将所有这些归结为债权、可获准债权，并清偿这些债权的场所。您将有机会自行评估，像 PACS 这样的债权人究竟想要什么。我们希望他们会以商业方式行事。我们对此有所怀疑，但我们打算查明。通过本 Chapter 11 案件，Kwok 先生也坦承希望避免入狱。如果他入狱，他相信自己将会被杀害。事情就是如此简单。他打算行使其生命和自由，以能够管理本\n\nChapter 11 案件。他在监狱中将无法这样做；当我们谈到 PACS 在其救济动议中所列明的确切救济时，我认为，处理他们所确切请求的事项将颇具讽刺意味，但我们将在适当时候谈及此事。\n\n至于 Kwok 先生的业务问题，他甚至无法拥有银行账户，因为中共的行动。没有任何银行甚至会允许他拥有银行账户。全职而言，他是为了纪念其兄长、但也更广泛地批评中共的人士。这是他毕生的工作。\n\n他的所有开支——我们在声明中对此作了详尽说明——均由其儿子提供资金；其儿子独立地非常富有，并且其儿子通过其儿子的家族办公室 Golden Springs（金泉），恰好也是我们的 DIP 贷款人，为一切提供资金。他吃什么、穿什么、乘坐什么。Kwok 先生一无所有。若非其家人的慷慨，他将流落街头，或境况更糟。\n\n但这并不是——再者，这正是需要由审查员加以显示、向本法庭并向您和其他所有人报告的内容；这并非那类涉及自益信托或其他债权人操纵的案件。\n\n这是其 30 年或更长时间政治\n\n言论的结果，使其无法工作，也无法拥有自己的资产。但他很幸运。的确，极其幸运，拥有一个富裕的家庭，在他无法赚取收入的情况下满足其需要。他没有收入。提交 Chapter 11 申请的理由，最简洁地说，是为了活下去，以便通过确认一项 Chapter 11 计划将这些债权人债权抛在身后。法庭：好的。有几件事。我的意思是，再说一次，我尚未研究这个，因为——BALDIGA 律师：明白。法庭：——我想，这是星期日提交的。对吗？BALDIGA 律师：是。法庭：星期日提交，且附有若干附件，这没有问题。我只是想明确，我尚未全部审阅。BALDIGA 律师：明白，阁下。法庭：第一，我尚未有机会这样做。第二，您刚才说了几件事，而我并非——我只是在向您提问，并且——正如我所做的——BALDIGA 律师：当然。法庭：——我在提问并得到\n\n答复。因此，您没有异议。事实上，我认为您说过，您同意 United States Trustee（美国受托人）任命审查员的动议。BALDIGA 律师：是的。我们尚未讨论该命令，而且有一份修订命令，我甚至尚未来得及——能够阅读，今晨已提交。但就进行审查、由一名审查员进行审查这一概念而言，我们同意。如果美国受托人未提出，我们本会请求这样做。第三，我们将为此支付费用。我所说的我们，是我们的 DIP 贷款人将为此支付费用。法庭：好的。我现在只是在提问。我们将会——我稍后需要与美国受托人办公室交谈。显然，该动议不在今日的日程表上，但我想它是在星期六提交的。其附有一项加速处理动议。如果您告诉我的是，您同意，那么我想我需要听取债权人的意见；我将会——不是此刻，但我将询问您，因为我并不——我的意思是，如果存在一种可能——如果存在一种无需举行听证会以及作出冗长认定和诸如此类事项即可达成协议的可能性，那么显然这将是我希望探讨的一条途径。BALDIGA 律师：当然。法庭：如果存在异议，我们将必须\n\n处理该问题。关于 DIP 融资，我想您今天已经说过，您今天提交了该动议，但您寻求——您是否——您正在寻求加速救济，这是我所看到的？我在这里看到一些事项。您寻求该命令迅速作出。BALDIGA 律师：但当然不是今天，阁下。法庭：哦，我并非表示它会在今天作出。我是在问您，就时间而言，您寻求什么，以及——BALDIGA 律师：较为传统的做法是，先举行临时听证会，然后举行最终听证会。该——法庭：嗯，我们在临时和最终听证会方面的做法也略有不同，我将会——但如果您所建议的路线图可行，则在您的案件中或许可行，因为在 Chapter 11 案件中，我们通常不会像其他法院可能做的那样迅速作出最终 DIP 融资命令，因为我们希望看到计划的进展情况。现在，如果您提交一项计划，我想您说过——我想我记下的是 20 天左右。BALDIGA 律师：是。法庭：那么也许。也许最终 DIP 命令会在较早——较早而不是较晚的时间作出。但为明确起见，在 Chapter 11 的情形下，我们并不总是像其他司法辖区那样迅速作出那些最终命令，因为我们希望看到 Chapter 11 案件如何发展。这并不意味着不可能发生；我只是提前告知您。\n\n现金担保物也是如此。您知道，如果我们有现金——我知道您并未寻求该项救济。我只是举例，使您了解法庭的观点。\n\n我们经常在最终命令作出之前作出多项现金担保物临时命令，因为当事人希望其他当事人受到约束的所有条款——在许多案件中——并非其自身。因此，我们并不总是这样做，这是第一点。\n\n第二，我知道已经成立了一个委员会，因为我看到了文件，而且您刚才也确认了这一点。\n\n我会假定，但也可能是我错了，该委员会将会希望聘请法律顾问，我将不得不处理这一问题，而且我们还必须处理委员会关于DIP融资的立场，以及其他一些问题。\n\n因此，从本院的角度来看，这不是问题。您所说的任何事情，我只是想让您——我想，在某些方面，我是在设定您的预期。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：对此我们非常感谢，法官阁下。本院：好的。也就是说，我们将就我们需要推进的任何事项继续推进。但我们并不总是像其他一些法院那样，就现金抵押物或DIP融资举行最终听证会。这是否意味着——正如我所说，但这取决于每个案件的事实和情况。好吗？因此，关于DIP融资，我只是想了解——您希望在一周内、不到一周、十天、两周内举行听证会？您希望怎样安排？巴尔迪加先生：嗯，我手头没有案件日程表。我想有一次听证会即将举行。我没有带着。本院：我来看看。我可以帮您看一下。请稍等。巴尔迪加先生：4月12日？身份不明发言人：法官阁下，他们要求下周一。他们要求提前四天半通知。本院：嗯，那不会发生，所以不要——那不会发生。身份不明发言人：是。巴尔迪加先生：不，这就是为什么我们——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与转录服务公司）\n\n本院：好的。巴尔迪加先生：我已经说过——本院：我不会在四天内就一笔来自内部人士、据我所听基本上是这样的$8 million DIP融资举行听证会。那不会发生，所以您不必担心。而且，如我刚才所说，我们必须等待委员会。我必须了解委员会的立场——这些事情都不会以那种紧迫程度发生。这并不意味着我们不能开始讨论，但我不会——我不会让任何人处于那种境地，包括本院，因为没有任何——没有人告诉我——巴尔迪加先生：我相信是4月12日。本院：4月12日。巴尔迪加先生：是贵院的听证日。本院：好，我要告诉您的是。4月12日，我们有——确实有。4月12日下午，我们有若干申请，包括一批聘任专业人士的申请。我认为，我们最终将在本案中采取的做法，至少最初如此，也可能贯穿整个案件，就是不在星期二安排这些事项，因为星期二是本院的常规日程听证日。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。本院：但我们会在另一天安排。因此，我们——我们最终可能会将4月12日的事项，例如移至4月13日，那天将只审理本院将在本Chapter 11案件中审理的听证事项，没有其他事项，因为有非常、非常多的事情正在进行，我认为本院需要将时间投入于此，而不是让它出现在布里奇波特的常规星期二听证日程中。因此，我认为很可能会发生的情况是——即使是那些——即使是那些看似有些程序性的事项，但我不确定它们确实如此，不过那是另一个——我的意思是，您知道，您可以——我们大家都可以讨论这一点。我认为，甚至4月12日的事项也很可能会被移至——巴尔迪加先生：好的。本院：——诸如4月13日的日期。巴尔迪加先生：我相信我们会找到一个合适的日子。本院：我们只是——我只是不认为，在星期二日程上能够处理这些问题是合理的，因为，您知道，我们还必须审理其他事项。在本案中这样做没有意义。巴尔迪加先生：这也是我对本案的初步看法，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。好。那么，4月12日或13日可能适合您就DIP融资举行初步听证会，对吗？巴尔迪加先生：是的，法官阁下。本院：好的。我只是想做个记录，以便记下每个人——记下每个人的想法，然后我可以尝试弄清楚接下来该怎么走。好的。因此，关于您就——以及债务人的宣誓书或声明，我应该说——所作的陈述——但我——如我所说，我已经阅读过，但尚未仔细研究。我的意思是，我知道您提交了许多信息。您告诉了我许多事情。有一件事——显然，存在与PACS的诉讼。我仅根据已经提交的文件对此略知一二，但我认为债务人还涉及其他诉讼，对吗？巴尔迪加先生：是的，法官阁下。本院：好的。巴尔迪加先生：而且——诉讼对手方就是本案的债权人群体。本院：好的。那么，我想我届时需要听取有关那些诉讼的情况，并弄清楚那些在本破产法院之外待决的案件将会如何处理，对吗？我的意思是，我们将不得不以某种方式处理这一问题。巴尔迪加先生：是的。而且有两起原告方诉讼，债务人是原告。本院：好的。巴尔迪加先生：而且这构成破产财产——本院：对。巴尔迪加先生：——我们已经披露了它们是什么，并且它们希望将成为——满足债权人的资金来源之一、手段之一。本院：好的。好。巴尔迪加先生：不利诉讼方面，我已描述了其中一些，其中许多是诽谤——所谓诽谤案件。其他案件——但它们是由资助的——最终，它们都来自中国，几乎全都在大致同一时间，均来自类似的资金来源，包括通过Bruno Wu（吴征）的PACS，而他——本院：但它们在美国待决。所有事项都在——巴尔迪加先生：是的。本院：——美国待决。巴尔迪加先生：我相信全部都在美国，是的。本院：好的。\n巴尔迪加先生：\n因为Kwok先生（郭文贵）自——\n本院：\n对。\n巴尔迪加先生：\n——我相信，自2015年——\n本院：\n对。\n巴尔迪加先生：\n——左右起就在美国。\n本院：\n目前——\n巴尔迪加先生：\n有一起在BVI。我很抱歉。我纠正一下。\n本院：\n抱歉。请再说一遍。\n巴尔迪加先生：\n在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）有一起诉讼。\n本院：\n好的。好的。但总共有多少起？我——我是否——大约是30起左右，是吗，我看到的是——\n巴尔迪加先生：\n大约如此，是的。\n本院：\n好的。好。我只是想确保我正确理解了文件，没有遗漏事项。好的。我认为我没有注意到英属维尔京群岛，但那并不意味着什么。我一直在看，可能没有看到。好的。那么，关于本案管理会议，我们通常所做的，而且我将在本案中这样做，因为——至少目前，仍有许多变动因素。\n\n我将继续举行本次会议，以防我还有更多问题。我可能没有。一旦我真正审阅债务人的声明，我可能就不会再有问题，而且我可能有的所有其他问题都可能通过其他当事人提交的其他诉状而出现，包括您。我的意思是，可能——可能一切都会——因此，我们通常的做法是，我将把本次会议延期至我们共同选择的日期，而且，您知道，我将——我们将在听证会接近结束时处理这一点，但是，即使它出现在日程上，我也可能在下一次听证会时出来说，我确实认为会议已经结束，我们不需要再安排任何会议。我将处理待决诉状中的所有问题，包括债务人提交的文件、债权人提交的文件、债权人委员会、U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）提交的文件，等等。因此，尽管我延期举行本次会议，我并不——我不知道这是否真正意味着我将在——显然，如果我会，而您没有准备好，我会给您——我的意思是，我们会解决的。这不是问题。巴尔迪加先生：我们会尽力做好准备，您知道，因为正如我所说，我们将迅速推进本案，Chapter 11案件很快就会拖久，我们将推动本案得出结论。\n\n1　本院：\n好的。我们将看看事情如何发展，但这很有帮助，好吗？我通常不允许任何人就案件管理会议提出任何问题，因为您可以在341会议上询问债务人，该会议显然昨天已经举行，而且看来341会议将会——尚未结束，它将会——债务人将接受进一步询问。\n9　巴尔迪加先生：\n两周后，将会有——\n10　本院：\n好的。\n11　巴尔迪加先生：\n是。\n12　本院：\n好的。那么我觉得我理解了——我应该说，我已有了很好的理解。我不是说我已有彻底的理解，但我对目前情况已有很好的理解。\n16　我唯一要说的是，您没有谈到的一件事——而我们因PACS的动议必须谈到——是，当您谈到提交申请、提交申请的理由时，您说债务人提交申请是为了挽救他的生命，我并不以任何方式、任何形式对此提出异议，但显然——PACS诉讼也对此产生了影响，因为提交申请的时间以及纽约法院作出的裁决问题，必然已经影响了目前正在发生的事情。\n25　因此，我认为，为了做到完全准确\n1　——我想，我不记得是否看到过——让我看一下，因为我可能遗漏了，所以请给我一点时间，我看看能否找到。在55个段落中——我想是55个。我们谈到PACS——在PACS诉讼中，您从第20段开始谈到。\n6　巴尔迪加先生：\n是。\n7　本院：\n而且您谈到贷款。您谈到个人担保。然后您谈到限制令。并且其中说，您——其中说债务人称其无能力支付该罚金。\n11　因此，我看到的问题，或者您将在某个时候必须处理的问题，无论是在与本院裁定自动中止不适用的动议有关时，还是在应当准许解除自动中止的救济有关时，是出于某种原因，目前您正在获得$8 million。您的当事人正在从某一来源获得$8 million。此前已经作出其他贷款。您正在——再次说明，我并不对此提出任何异议。贵所正获得一笔数额可观的预付费用。\n20　您说您想提出一个计划——您希望债权人会接受该计划，而且正如我不幸地在本次听证会开始时所说，很明显——而且，您知道，这种事经常发生。我并不是说，按照您的用词，债务人与债权人之间的争议有什么特别反常之处。\n\n但我认为，您的当事人称其无力缴纳罚金，在某个时候可能会成为问题。我的意思是，这个案件提起后，使纽约法院正在进行的诉讼程序中止了，对吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我的意思是，这一点很明确。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的。\n\n法庭：根据我所看到的情况，纽约法院进行的诉讼程序——再次说明，我的判断仅限于我已审阅的材料——范围非常广泛、细节非常详尽，而且法官的认定也极为详细。如您所知——我认为您知道——我不会在这里重新审理已在纽约审理过的争议事项。我的意思是，那不会成为本第11章案件的一部分。但我必须听取前来提出请求的债权人的意见，他们说，嘿，我这里有一项动议，我希望您认定自动中止不适用，或者作为替代，请求您裁定我们有权获得解除中止的救济。因此，这也是我在听证会开始时提出该问题的原因之一，也是我向PACS律师提出该问题的原因之一，即——我不确定他们是否会完全满意，但是\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n我们将开始讨论解除中止动议。嗯，这不是——我这样称呼它，但实际上，那是替代性救济。所请求的主要救济是认定中止不适用，即称其在本案中不适用，因为其属于(b)(1)。362(b)(1)。那么，为便于论证，假设我同意他们的意见。我现在尚未作出裁定。第一，如果我这样裁定，您将怎么办？或者，如果我批准解除中止的救济，您将怎么办？您知道，我——我对其书面材料的理解是，我会给各方一点时间发言，但我希望您思考的是，律师，因为我将转向PACS并允许他们陈述其动议，您将怎么办。如您所知，破产法院在一定程度上受到约束，并被要求以加快的方式处理有关自动中止的问题，无论是中止不适用，还是请求解除中止。对吗？我的意思是，您知道这一点。您知道规则就是这样规定的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我并不是说今天就会发生。我还没有这样说。我尚未这样说。但我要说的是，您提出了一些\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n相当积极的事项。我并非以贬义使用“积极”一词。我的意思是，您说将在20天内提交一项计划。您有$8 million的DIP融资。您希望许多事情迅速发生，我理解这一点。但与此同时，我还面临债权人的相竞争请求，他们也希望许多事情——至少有一件事——迅速发生。他们想去取得那艘船。对吗？这不是相当明显吗？那么，您是否曾就此问题——我不是指与对方律师，而是指您与您的当事人之间——讨论过尝试解决该问题；如果您确实想让这一切行得通，对吗，我并不是说您不想，但如果您确实想让这一切行得通，若要让债权人在任何程度上支持本案中发生的事情，您是否认为您需要认真考虑——我并不是说您——那样说不公平。我并不是说您没有认真考虑。因此，请让我退一步说。您是否认为您需要处理那艘船的问题？在这里，您说——郭先生说，我确实可以接触该船，但我无权命令将其送回纽约。我不理解这句话。那么，您能向我解释吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：可以。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：郭先生并不拥有该船。从未拥有过。\n\n法庭：我不认为任何人——嗯，我不知道是否甚至有人对此提出争议。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n法庭：但纽约法官说，是否拥有该船并不重要。他控制该船。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：他——\n\n法庭：那是他——那是他所说的，对吗？我的意思是，我不认为我理解错了。我认为纽约——纽约的法官说，他控制该船。他没有——它——那么，如果他控制该船，为何他会说，我无权命令将其送回纽约？那么，请继续。请向我解释。我很抱歉。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：不，当然可以，法官阁下。而且郭先生并不控制该船。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：法官作出了其确实控制该船的认定。这并不意味着该认定正确。该案正在上诉中。但该认定是错误的。这没有问题。我的意思是，有时法官会犯错。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：但我并不否认那是他的认定。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：他作出了该认定。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：PACS在此请求的具体救济，而且再次说明，这与先前的陈述相关，我认为这并非巧合，是执行州法院2月9日的藐视法庭命令。这是第9段所请求的具体救济。\n\n法庭：但我在听证会开始时问过律师，不是吗？我问他，你们——你们实际上不就是想让那艘船回到纽约法院的管辖范围内吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：但书面材料并未如此表述。\n\n法庭：我理解书面材料没有那样表述，但那是我问他的问题。我正在试图找出一种方式——并非找出一种方式。我是在试图向您建议——我们可以在这里花数年时间，就每一件事情争执不休。您知道，这以前发生过，今后还会发生。或者，我们可以尝试看看是否有一种方式——而且，您知道，我相信您所说的，即债务人希望以有意义的方式继续推进——而且我会告诉您——我可以告诉您您说了什么。我的意思是，我认为您说得很好。您希望承诺在未来20\n\n天内提交一项计划，而郭先生希望公平地向其债权人付款，并希望有机会提出这种公平待遇，并公平对待他们。好的？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的。\n\n法庭：因此，存在的问题——本案提起时已经存在的问题，对吗，与破产本身无关——是此前发生的所有认定和所有诉讼。我理解您正在就此上诉。我并不是——您知道，您完全有权这样做。但如果您要在本法庭进行诉讼，并试图获得债权人的合作，以使一项计划获得确认，从而使郭先生能够——您知道，他希望继续生活，他希望挽救自己的人生，这是您所说的；而对于您陈述的所有深入事实——您知道，关于不幸事件和显然发生的事情——我并无真正了解。但如果该动议未能达成协议，我将不得不对该动议作出裁定。对吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的。\n\n法庭：我将不得不就此作出裁定。而您和您可能不会——嗯，有人不会喜欢我作出裁定的方式。无论是谁。然后，对该裁定也会提起上诉，对吗？我的意思是，我想会的。因此，我们将继续\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n案件22-50073 文件144 提交日期03/30/22 录入日期03/30/22 15:41:05 第45页，共97页\n\n进行已经在纽约持续数年的诉讼。我认为该案件是在2017年提起的。我想是这样。我对此可能有误。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：美国之音播出的那一周。\n\n法庭：是。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我再次向您、向所有人建议，当然，我们可以这样做。我们可以继续在本法庭审理每一项争议，但我将设定其进行的框架，并且根据破产法和破产规则，我必须裁定这项动议，而且速度会很快。我的意思是，会在不久后的某个时间。因此，您知道，我不知道这是否适合您或债权人，但我会这样做。而且，我——您知道——我现在要做的是——我已经让——而且我很乐意让您想说多久就说多久。您是债务人的律师。您应当发言。这正是我们需要讨论的内容。但我将很快允许弗里德曼律师告诉我，为什么我应当批准他的动议。他还没有发言。我要让他发言。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我当然也会聆听。\n\n法庭：而且您会聆听，并且您将有机会答复。这是对PACS所提动议的初步听证会。我可以就此作出许多安排。我可以命令明天举行最终听证会。我不会这样做，但我只是说，我可以这样做。\n\n我认为您确实需要——这是我们必须处理的、显而易见的问题。而且，您知道，在任何情况下我都不介意作出裁定，因为那是我应当做的事；而且如果人们提起上诉，我也不介意，因为这正是我们设立上诉法院的原因。正如您所说，法官会作出错误裁定。有时法官会作出错误裁定，并需要更高一级法院协助他们指出其做错了什么。\n\n但我将不得不作出裁定。我别无选择。在几个层面上我都别无选择，包括2005年对破产法所作修订，其基本上规定，您知道，我认为是在362(e)(2)，您实质上有60天时间，之后便不再有中止。这是一起个人案件，除非我作出其他某种认定。因此，我将在某个时候不得不这样做，除非我在60天内作出裁定，这也是极有可能的。\n\n因此，我只是请您聆听——我知道您会——弗里德曼律师，并请你们双方考虑，您知道，在今天之后事情将会如何发展。我理解——我在担任执业律师时曾参与过这种情况。我理解当事人无法达成一致的情形。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n我理解，您知道。但在某个时候——在某个时候，归根结底，我不知道那会使我们走向何方。但我在这里。我会尽我所能帮助你们，但正如您所知，有些事情我无能为力。而解除中止的问题、这项动议以及已经开始起算的期限，我只是认为人们需要认真——我并不是说您没有这样做。这听起来——我想非常谨慎。我不是说您没有认真对待其中任何一项——您当然在认真对待。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我完全按照您所表达的意思来理解，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：当然。您当然如此。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我感谢您在本次听证会开始时给予我机会，向您提供了我所提供的如此多的背景情况。我接受您的邀请，暂时坐下来聆听，而且我相信我很快会再次起身，进一步讨论该船的问题。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。谢谢。好的，弗里德曼律师，现在我将继续处理您的动议。好的？我们实质上已经结束了听证会的案件管理部分，尽管我将其延期至尚未确定的日期，但正如我所讨论的，可能是4月13日。但对于您的动议，我批准了您的加速审理动议。\n\n案件22-50073 文件144 提交日期03/30/22 录入日期03/30/22 15:41:05 第48页，共97页\n\n就你所提动议举行听证，即由本院裁定该中止是否适用；若适用，则裁定解除该中止的救济。因此，请继续。弗里德曼先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny and Myers（欧麦律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我只是——我想先作几点初步说明；我实际上并不认为 Kwok 先生（郭文贵先生）想避免入狱，因为如果他想避免入狱，他就不会提交一份充满虚假陈述和谎言、令人尴尬的声明，从而违反《美国法典》。而且您将在本案过程中发现——遗憾的是，这些说法还在法庭讲席上被重复。您将从本案中得知，Kwok 先生曾拥有银行账户。他曾——您知道——在购买一套公寓时让他人代其提交信函，谈及他长期的银行业务关系。那是在 2015 年。如果日后确有必要，您将听到大量证词，说明尽管他在声明中予以否认，他如何自称为 Sherry Netherlands（谢里荷兰人）公寓的所有人。他列举——他在声明中称 PACS 协议是伪造的。我们在脚注中列出了我们所知、足以表明该说法显然虚假的全部理由。这种说谎的模式并未停止，看到它在法庭讲席上被重复，令人不安。\n\n令人不安的是——您知道，Kwok 先生谈及他参与的所有诉讼，其中许多涉及他人指控他——我不知道是否属实——是中国间谍。我知道他本人经常被指控为中国间谍以及中国共产党的合作者。我毫无所知。我不知道那是否属实，但他的律师今天在此毫无依据地指控我的当事人与之完全相同。对方律师站在法庭讲席上，毫无依据地指控另一方与中国共产党共谋，在我们看来，这一行为应受制裁。\n\n这令人愤慨。\n\n法官阁下，我还想提出几点。现该声明，即案卷编号 107，也就是他的声明，是在一个星期六提交的。\n\n法官阁下，Kwok 先生对我方动议的反对意见于星期三提交，并提及该声明。他又过了四天才提交该声明。随后他提交该声明，只是随意地支持一项他直到今天才提交的动议。\n\n这有点像无能的突袭式诉讼；当 Baldiga 先生（巴尔迪加先生）说我们将会——我们将以适当方式处理本案并遵守每一项规则时，这让您看清了实际情况，那根本不是真的。证据就在您看到的申请书中、您看到的清单中，也体现在他们处理本案的方式中。因此，尽管您听到了那些说法，我认为他们的行动更有力地说明了本案可能将如何进行。我还想让本院知悉，我们不同意指定一名审查员。我们认为审查员是对时间和金钱的巨大浪费。本院：好的。弗里德曼先生：应指定一名受托人。我们将寻求该项救济。显然，无论本院何时要求对审查员动议提出异议，我们都将提交异议。如果债务人确实将在 20 天内提交一项计划，鉴于受托人的时间安排、确认听证以及计划的时间安排之间的相互关系，我们显然必须极快推进审查——受托人动议。您知道，除了“我将全额偿付所有债权人”之外，还有什么计划在这里会合理？我不知道。您又一次听到，这是一个没有任何钱的人。我的意思是，甚至不清楚本案究竟是为了谁的利益而进行；但我不想过早超前于事态发展，所以我要回到这一特定动议上来。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 速记与转录服务公司）\n\n法官阁下，您与 Baldiga 先生进行了一番对话，并且就 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）在其听证和制裁命令中实际作出了什么认定，提出了一些问题。我认为值得看看该制裁命令，因为其中写道——本院：在哪里——您能否给我指出——那是——是 Exhibit A（证物 A）吗？巴尔迪加先生：它是 Friedman 声明的 Exhibit A。 本院：好的，如果您给我一点时间，我就能同时与您一起查看它。好吗？巴尔迪加先生：好的。（暂停。）本院：好的，我快找到了。（暂停。）17 好的。我想我找到了。让我向您确认一下，好吗，以确保我看的是正确文件。文件上写着，Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院），然后顶部有一个索引编号和一个动议序列号 19。弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。本院：好的。好的。那请继续，我在看。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 速记与转录服务公司）\n\n弗里德曼先生：因此，在第 2 页第一个完整段落中：“2022 年 2 月 2 日，本院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证词，并可供交叉询问。”\n\n我不再继续引用。其中一些证人——几乎全部都是 Kwok 先生的证人。他的家庭成员、由他提交证词的人。对吧？所以，当他告诉您法官判错了时，请记住 Ostrager 法官面前有什么，以及他们曾获得的一切就此事项进行诉讼的机会。\n\n继续引用：“这些程序认定，除其他事项外，Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的游艇行使支配权和控制权。”\n\n当我们看到第 4 页时，听证会上从被告证人口中得出的证词，清楚且令人信服地证明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，并且对本院和司法程序抱有彻底蔑视。在此暂停。\n\n法官阁下，如果我们日后在某一时点必须深入讨论此事，我们也将向您出示一些推文，其中 Kwok 先生指控 Ostrager 法官是 CCC——中国共产党代理人，只是为了向您表明，他是如何随意提出该项指控的。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 速记与转录服务公司）\n\n然后，法官阁下，最后一页——抱歉，第 8 页。“Kwok 对 Lady May 所拥有的远不止实益权益。Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，看来他还提供了购买它的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”这些都是有管辖权法院已经认定的事实。正如本院所述，无论是根据 Rooker-Feldman 原则、禁止反言还是既判力原则，这些事实都不能在此重新评价。Kwak 先生声称他没有能力将游艇带回的说法，应当置若罔闻，因为被告在被定罪后总是声称“不是我干的”。那样就能使其成为事实吗？对吧？当法院已认定他能够做到，而他出于彻底且完全蔑视的行为拒绝这样做时，他不能只说“我做不到”。Kwok 先生因藐视 Ostrager 法官的命令达 268 天。Ostrager 法官得出结论，如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以一边在纽约及美国其他地区寻求利用法院程序，一边明知且故意违反法院命令，那么就不存在法治。顺便说一下，这就是 Ostrager 法官面前的利害关系，也是他显然对 Kwok 先生所表现出的这种行为模式感到极度不安的原因。但我向您宣读所有这些内容，是为了说明，法官阁下，无论声明中写了什么，无论 Kwok 先生想提出什么事实前提，无论他想寻找什么漏洞来逃避，在本院都不可能获得这些，因为这些认定的广度——坦率地说，即使事实认定只是草率作出，它们仍将构成禁止反言，但它们并非如此。这些认定深入且基于广泛证词。Kwok 先生相反地抗辩称他做不到；如果要处理这些说法，应在纽约州的上诉程序中处理。Kwok 先生曾试图获得对 Ostrager 法官命令的临时中止以及临时中止。他甚至无法获得该项救济，更不用说在上诉期间获得虚假的中止。这表明纽约上诉法院——上诉分庭对其在实体问题上胜诉可能性的评价何其低。我注意到，并且我们已结合我方清单提交了这一点，Kwok 先生还在 GETTR 上表示，如果——您知道——若制裁命令——藐视法庭命令被执行，他可能会考虑逃离管辖区、逃离美国。也许应询问 Baldiga 先生，如果中止被解除，Kwok 先生是否打算逃离美国的管辖，以避免其藐视行为的后果。法官阁下，我还想处理另外几点。显然，Kwok——Kwok 先生已寻求将该诉讼移送至联邦法院。我认为这使该项救济失去意义。首先，这显然是一份存在瑕疵的移送文件。Rooker-Feldman 原则、强制弃权和许可弃权均在适用范围内。但即使发回重审适当，目前仍有一项诉讼在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）待决，而纽约南区若为适宜审理地，便可以解除中止以命令返还该游艇。因此，该移送虽然是一种试图造成拖延、近乎聪明的策略，但并未使我方动议或必要时可准予的救济失去意义。我们将修改我方命令，以说明无论是在纽约州法院，还是在该诉讼已被适当移送的情况下在联邦法院，中止均予解除。法官阁下，我还想提出另一点——仅处理 Kwok 先生文件中的另一点。Kwok 先生说，不要解除中止，因为如果中止被解除或中止被修改，我想，为了使用更——不那么口语化的表述，《法典》不称之为解除中止，而是称之为修改或终止中止。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 56 of 97\n\n中止。不要这样做，因为那样我就无法从 Golden Spring（Golden Spring）获得 DIP 融资，因为在此情形下我的家人不会借钱给我。\n\n有一个关于 Lincoln（林肯）的老寓言，对吧？Lincoln 会将某人描述为像一个拦路强盗，走到你面前说，把你的钱包交出来，否则我就开枪打死你；然后你就要为我是一个杀人犯负责。对吧？\n\n如果 Kwok 的家人不借钱给他，而本案脱轨，本案无法推进，因为 Kwok 不将游艇带回来，或者本院解除中止，那是他们的责任。不是债权人整体的责任。不是本院的责任。这是一种挟持人质的做法，我认为不宜提出。如果他们不想借钱，那么在该情形下就随他们。\n\n我想说的是，我们应当停下来想一想，对吧？这些人正是 Kwok 所说——您知道——多年来资助其奢华生活的人。\n\n这些人将帮助解决针对破产财产的债权，将提供大量资金，让他们亲爱的老父亲摆脱 Chapter 11（第 11 章破产程序），无需面对制裁。\n\n但是，如果准予——我们所请求的救济，他们就不会借钱，这没有\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 速记与转录服务公司）\n\n道理，因为鉴于所准予的救济——两件事中将发生一件。他将停止其藐视法庭的行为。我不知道为什么——并将游艇带回来。我不知道为什么这会阻止他们想要借钱，除非他们觉得自己最喜欢的玩具被拿走了。或者他将继续处于藐视法庭状态。若他继续藐视法庭，这种行为自然会产生后果。\n\n再次，在那种情形下，我想如果按他的话相信，他们愿意让他们的父亲入狱，并让他声称将发生的所有可怕事情发生。这同样毫无道理。\n\n因此，我现在想转而谈谈该项动议的法律依据。我们已经说过，由于几乎每一家法院均已认可的一项例外，自动中止并不适用。\n\n从法理上说，我们知道，民事藐视法庭命令可以不受自动中止约束。他们在其书面文件中花了很多篇幅说，这不是刑事藐视法庭命令。我们同意。它不是。这是一项民事藐视法庭命令。\n\n但是，民事藐视法庭命令在旨在维护法院利益且不以赔偿为重点时，不受自动中止约束。\n\n并且，为明确起见，$134 million 罚款与作出有利于我方当事人的基础判决完全分离，但由于已经发生了\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore庭审记录及誊写服务公司）\n\n对法院尊严的侵犯。我只是——我想回到我向您读过的内容。Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）说，如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够同时在纽约及美国其他地区寻求利用法院程序，同时明知且故意违反法院命令，那么就无法治可言。我认为，对于Ostrager法官认为制裁的目的是什么，不可能有比这更清楚的表述；其目的在于，您知道，因Kwok先生（郭文贵）拒绝遵守法院命令以及侮辱司法程序的完整性——和司法程序的尊严，而认定其藐视法庭。因此，我不——从这一角度看，我认为，那么就很清楚，这属于可被认定为——属于自动中止例外的那类动议——藐视法庭——制裁命令。至于他们的论点——例如，他们援引White案。我认为，正如我们在答复状中所解释的，首先，White案如其必须承认的那样，承认对于某些民事类型的藐视法庭动议，自动中止存在例外。该案涉及损害赔偿的追收，而这并非我们试图寻求的。我们已非常明确，我们并不试图寻求损害赔偿。我们甚至不一定寻求——我们甚至不寻求施加额外罚款。我们所寻求的是确保Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）被送回纽约。现在，2月9日的藐视法庭命令明确要求返还Lady May，并称，在Lady May尚未返还的范围内，罚款将继续累积。我们实际上并未要求罚款继续累积。我们并未寻求损害赔偿。我们寻求返还该船。我们为全体债权人的利益寻求返还该船。我们已相当明确，并且在我们的命令草案中进一步澄清，该船将继续受本法院进一步命令的约束。因此，White等案件所关注的那类问题——即一名债权人试图就藐视法庭动议为其自身取得经济优势——在此完全不存在。法官阁下，我认为——您知道，债务人还试图将本案与我们的一些案件区分开来，称那些案件涉及破产申请后、申请提交后的制裁命令。对此，我们的回应是，那些案件的时间点可能不同，但法院所审查的分析框架——制裁的性质是什么，寻求解除自动中止的人希望通过此举实现什么？他们是否试图从\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore庭审记录及誊写服务公司）\n\n破产财产中抽离资产，是否试图为自身聚拢或累积更多财产？他们是否只是试图骚扰债务人？这些因素在本案中均不存在。我们只是试图让债务人带回其最有价值的资产之一。他们说，您不应担心——您知道——为什么需要这样做？该船受破产法院的全球管辖权管辖。首先，我认为非常清楚的是，Kwok先生不尊重破产——不尊重任何法院的命令。其次，即使该资产受全球管辖权管辖，也可能继续被耗散。我不知道它正在被何人使用，但它始终面临风险。而Kwok先生是否已采取债务人应当采取的基本措施来主张对其资产的控制？他是否提出过移交动议？他是否就其家人继续对其一项资产行使控制权，而寻求依据自动中止认定其家人藐视法庭？当然没有。他一直试图做的是逃避Ostrager法官关于该船是他的、且由他控制的裁定。因此，该船也受本法院全球管辖权管辖这一事实，以及坦率地说，谁知道船只所在的其他某地的法院是否会承认其效力，对我们而言毫无安慰可言。法官阁下，我最后一点想说的是，关于自动中止，如果自动中止被认定适用，我认为这里最重要的Sonnax因素是，每一位发言的债权人，即我方当事人和另外两位债权人，都支持这一救济。他们希望该资产回来。他们不希望它漂浮在外面。这对所有债权人都有利。唯一未从中受益的人是Kwok先生及其家人，他们并非正当债权人。我知道Kwok先生没有谈及Rui Ma（马蕊）及其债权请求，除了对她进行诋毁之外。我知道她的律师在场。我不知道她是否打算说明该项请求的依据，但这是一项骇人听闻的请求，我并不意外该律师没有详细说明Kwok先生在该案中被指控实施的行为。我一点也不意外。另一个Sonnax因素显然是——无论如何，它们都对我方有利，对吗？要么，如果还要进行更长期的诉讼，没有人比Ostrager法官更适合处理。也可能根本没有剩下的事项需要处理，因为该命令已经作出。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore庭审记录及誊写服务公司）\n案号 22-50073 文件 144 提交日期 03/30/22 录入日期 03/30/22 15:41:05 第 61 页，共 97 页\n\n因此，这并不是我们正在处理一个确实应在本法庭诉讼、因为尚未在其他地方得到广泛处理的案件。我们知道它已经得到广泛处理。执行藐视法庭命令不会干扰本案。它会促进本案。它唯一会干扰本案的方式，是Kwok让它干扰。如果Kwok先生不主张其权利，那么它将在一定程度上干扰本案。但如果他做他应当做的事，做已命令他做的事，它将促进本案，而不是损害本案。法官阁下，在Sonnax所列举的其他因素的背景下，例如，这并不是一个真正的案件。不存在正在经营的企业。他没有会因禁令而受到损害的无辜雇员。他除了诉讼案件之外没有任何业务可做。这就是他所做的一切。而且，如果他不遵守纽约法院的裁定并被监禁，将来可以在他所在的任何地方对他进行证言录取，除非他逃离管辖范围；但再次强调，我不认为逃离管辖范围——或他可能逃离管辖范围的威胁——是准予——拒绝解除自动中止救济的依据。法官阁下，我还要说的另外两件事是，与Res Cap案的比较并不恰当。我相信本法院非常熟悉Res Cap案，以及在该案中必须处理的$375 billion住宅抵押贷款账簿，涉及二百五十多万不同的房主。这甚至不是苹果和橙子的比较。它们之间的差异如同菠萝和混凝土。本案与Res Cap案毫无共同之处。Sonnax案也是如此。Sonnax——Sonnax是一家正在经营的企业。本案不是。我不知道本法院是否有任何问题，或者——我不知道是否有人认为有任何事情逃过了我的注意，或者我应当提出，但我没有其他要说的，法官阁下，除非我希望反驳任何异议。\n\n法庭：我目前没有任何问题。现在我——嗯，那不对。我有。我如您肯定已经注意到的那样，根据《破产法典》和规则将本次程序设为初步听证。从您的角度——我的意思是您当事人的角度——我还需要您提供什么信息，如有任何，才能决定——显然——决定这项动议？\n\nFriedman先生（弗里德曼先生）：当然。\n\n法庭：——决定这项动议？\n\nFriedman先生：一点也不需要。而且我会进一步说，法官阁下，应禁止Kwok试图提出任何其他证据，并且不应允许他在其声明试图重新审议由Ostrager法官决定的事实事项的范围内依赖该声明。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nFriedman先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：我理解您的立场，我只是想确保我没有进一步的问题，但我认为我没有——\n\nFriedman先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——目前没有。不，我目前没有，但谢谢您，Friedman律师。\n\nFriedman先生：好的。法官阁下，我不知道其他债权人中是否有任何人——\n\n法庭：是的，我将询问——\n\nFriedman先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——是否还有其他人希望就PACS（PACS公司）的动议陈述意见。我也会让债务人作出回应。不，不，请您先来，律师。我将先听取债权人的意见，然后让债务人回应，再让PACS回应债务人，事情就到此为止。\n\nCallari女士：您好。下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nCallari女士：Carollynn Callari（卡罗琳·卡拉里），来自Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人律师事务所），再次代表Rui Ma出庭。首先，我只想说，我觉得这令人——而且我并不认识本庭中的任何一位律师。所以这并非出于职业方面的原因，但是，当法官阁下看到并阅读Rui Ma提交的起诉状时，您会理解我对于任何认为她的请求权并非真实、而是某种阴谋一部分的指控所感到的厌恶。当我们谈到这一点时，法官阁下将会看到，事实发生的时间顺序使得他们关于她的请求只是由另一个人编造、并且是其扳倒债务人计划一部分的论点无法成立。因此，基于此，我们支持经修改的PACS动议。我们同意增加的措辞。在我们提交的简短陈述中，我们提出了几段我们认为适当的内容。PACS的律师对其作了修改，但概念相似，基本上意味着我们支持PACS为归集本破产财产的资产并将其带回本破产财产所作的努力，然后由法官阁下决定如何处置它们以及何种优先顺序适当。我们还指出，这不会给PACS带来任何优势，因为收到的任何款项都将受本破产财产约束，且不会优先于任何其他债权人。我们主要担心的是，这最终会——您知道，如果金钱损害赔偿继续累积，而它们仅仅\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 144 提交日期 03/30/22 录入日期 03/30/22 15:41:05 第 66 页，共 97 页\n\n归PACS所有，那将没有益处；我们已在命令中澄清了这一点。因此，基于该澄清以及对代表Ma女士所作贬损性言论的反驳，我们支持PACS的动议。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。在我让债务人回应之前，还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？好的。既然无人发言，请继续，律师。您可以回应Friedman律师的——以及另一名债权人的律师Callari女士关于该动议的主张。\n\nBaldiga先生（威廉·巴尔迪加）：谢谢您，法官阁下。再次说明，我是代表债务人的William Baldiga。法官阁下，我首先想确保我们聚焦于PACS所请求的确切救济，因为他们正在主张——他们提出了一项动议，却似乎正在主张另一项动议，我想就他们提出的动议作出回应。在其动议第7页第9段——\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等。让我跟上您的进度，好吗？\n\nBaldiga先生：好的。\n\n法庭：给我一点时间，让我找到您所说的位置，以便我——第9段，第几页？\n\nBaldiga先生：其动议第7页第9段。\n\n见案卷记录，第57项。法庭：好的。请给我一点时间。我还没看到那里。（暂停）法庭：所请求的救济。是的，请继续。BALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加）：好的。所以，我认为这相当清楚。我认为这与动议的其余部分一致，但我认为在那里最简明、最清楚地陈述了他们希望就执行Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）2月9日的藐视法庭命令获得救济。因此，让我们看一下附于该动议之后的那项命令。实际上，是附于——法庭：律师声明。BALDIGA先生：——律师声明。法庭：是的，我找到了。BALDIGA先生：其中是——法庭：请继续。我找到了。告诉我您希望我看哪里。BALDIGA先生：我在第134页。抱歉。法庭：您在——不。那是总页数。您——请到——BALDIGA先生：不，是第16页——法庭：134页中的第16页？BALDIGA先生：是的，我相信是这样。\n\n法庭：好的。请让我跟上您的进度。我快找到了。（暂停）法庭：好的。我在134页中的第16页。BALDIGA先生：那是该命令的最后一页吗？法庭：是的。BALDIGA先生：它是——法庭：是的。BALDIGA先生：好的。法庭：在我正在查看的版本中，即案卷记录中的版本，是的。BALDIGA先生：好的。那么，让我们读一下他们——该裁定的内容，显然是最后一句。Kwok（郭文贵）必须在五个营业日内向PACS（PACS）汇付$134 million。这似乎相当明确，尽管PACS今天已澄清，并在动议中数处说明，他们并不寻求金钱救济。因此，那——那不是他们所寻求的。如果罚款未被及时支付，法院准备根据《司法法》第753条行使其全部权力。好的。因此，PACS在说，我们并不就罚款寻求救济，我们寻求——显然，剩下的一项就是《司法法》第753条，即赋予法院因藐视法庭而实施监禁权力的州——纽约州法律。\n\n当您归结该已提交的动议时——而且这很清楚，我正在看他们寻求执行的命令。在他们通过所选择提交的动议寻求执行的命令中，并非要求返还游艇。它要求支付$134 million，否则入狱。仅此而已。这——法庭：那么，那难道不是——第一，他们的答复难道没有说些不同的内容吗？第二，如果他们寻求执行该命令，您的当事人难道不能通过完全按法官命令所做的去做，从而解除其藐视法庭状态并避免入狱吗？BALDIGA先生：不能根据这项命令。法庭：什么——不能根据哪项命令？BALDIGA先生：不能根据他们寻求执行的命令。他们要求您允许他们——法庭：那么，我不同意。BALDIGA先生：——执行这项命令。法庭：律师，我不确定我同意您的观点。因为如果我是法官，并且我对某当事人——对一方当事人作出藐视法庭制裁命令，而他们前来并且——而且藐视法庭是因为——至少根据我的理解，是因为游艇在管辖范围之外，而他们纠正了该问题，那么法官就不会执行藐视法庭命令中的罚款，因为他通过将游艇带回——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与记录服务公司）\n\n案件22-50073　文件144　提交日期03/30/22　登记日期03/30/22 15:41:05　第70页，共97页\n\n使其回到作出这整个——这整个裁决所依据的管辖范围内，便已消除了自身的藐视法庭状态。我的意思是——如果您——我会听您陈述，但我不确定我在这一点上同意您。BALDIGA先生：我——我并不是——法庭：此外，他们刚刚已经说了，他们不——他们并不试图让他入狱。他们并不试图——BALDIGA先生：这就是为什么他们不论证其动议。我——法庭：但是，您——您是在说——您的异议是，您不希望该动议获准，因为他们试图让他入狱并让他支付罚款。他们刚刚表明，我们不寻求金钱——我们不寻求支付罚款。我们不寻求让他入狱。我们希望——而且那——我认为我在今天两小时前听证会一开始时就问过这个问题。我说，难道不是——我说，Friedman律师（弗里德曼律师），我对你们文件的理解正确吗？难道我不是这样说的吗？我说，我对你们文件的理解正确。你们不是在请求将游艇返还至本管辖区，返还至美国管辖范围，以便游艇位于此处并受法院管辖吗？\n\nFriedman律师回答是。BALDIGA先生：以替代罚款？法庭：他刚刚说了，他不寻求罚款。他不寻求——在此时，他们不寻求那个。而且，如果我们回过头来看——至少，再次让我退一步说，我对这一切的熟悉程度远不及你们各位，但作出藐视法庭命令的原因是，这艘游艇本应为判决而被扣押，但该游艇随后从纽约消失，去了某处。巴哈马。随后又去了别处。之后又去了意大利或其他地方。显然，Ostrager法官没有能力从意大利把游艇弄回来。我的意思是，他有一项命令，而在意大利或游艇所在的任何地方，有人可能承认也可能不承认该命令。\n\n我认为他没有——他的命令并不允许扣押该游艇，然后依据海事法将其带回——因为这不是海事案件——并将其带回美国，以使美国法院的管辖权——得以适用。\n\n因此，除非我对某些内容的理解有误——这完全可能，但我不这么认为——整个——\n\n提起藐视法庭程序的原因，就是游艇不见了。这与任何其他事情一样。您有一项可以执行的资产。如果资产不见了，您就——您无法对其执行。\n\n而且，法官——Ostrager法官，我在今天案件开始时没有说出他的名字，为此我表示歉意，因为当时我面前没有他的名字，而且我不想错误地说出——他说，PACS已满足举证责任，证明法院应基于以下理由对Kwok作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。法院同时发布该命令。\n\n然后他逐一说明这一切。PACS在识别Kwok行使控制权的资产时遇到困难。随后该法院举行了一次听证会，显然是一次证据听证会，数名支持您当事人的人士出席了该听证会。\n\n然后，该法官作出了认定，无论您是否对其上诉，或者——您知道，那是另一回事，即Kwok先生对该游艇享有支配权和控制权，而该游艇不见了。这就是藐视法庭的全部缘由。\n\nFriedman律师，我是否遗漏了这里的要点？我只是想知道，就你们为何寻求这项藐视法庭命令而言，我所说的是否有任何不准确之处？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：没有，法官阁下。此外，如果——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与记录服务公司）\n\n您查看第——如果您查看我声明中的证物5，其中载有Ostrager法官的实际命令，在第3段中，他谈到罚款将持续累积，直至Kwok将Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）返还至该管辖区。法庭：对，而且他说——FRIEDMAN先生：因此，Baldiga先生的论点完全——法庭：——他说——FRIEDMAN先生：——在您查看该内容时便不攻自破。法庭：——上诉部门第一庭于2021年11月4日维持了本法院的命令，认定Kwok构成附条件的民事藐视法庭，并认定每日$500,000的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态。您知道，我处理过一些案件，其中有人已入狱，他们本可以消除其藐视法庭状态，但他们不这么做。我会说，好吧，我不知道您希望我怎么做。我的意思是，您要么可以消除自己的藐视法庭状态，要么不能，要么选择不这么做。抱歉。那是更恰当——那才是更恰当的说法。BALDIGA先生：但是，法官阁下——法庭：Ostrager法官认定，无论您是否同意，他——而且显然不只是Ostrager法官——认定Kwok先生正在控制——对这艘游艇享有支配权和控制权。而且我认为——我一开始就提出了这个问题。\n\n因此，如果他对这艘游艇享有支配权和控制权，而且他不想入狱——您告诉过我，他不想入狱，因为他担心这会不幸地——这对他将是非常不幸的经历，而且他希望与所有这些债权人合作，并希望有一个对所有人都公平的计划，那么就把游艇带回来。\n\n我不认为——这正是我在听证会一开始向Friedman律师提出该问题的原因，因为我理解您关于动议所述内容的观点。然后我读了您的异议。随后我读了他们的答复。而我的答复——我对其答复的理解——而且我不应说“他们”。我指的是PACS和债务人。我应当更谨慎些。但在PACS的答复中。而且我问——这就是我提出该问题的原因。\n\n在我看来，是的，我认为您正确地指出，他们目前并不寻求施加金钱罚款，也不寻求让——我不知道纽约州法律的那一条是什么，但您刚刚对我说，我猜那是纽约州法律中，如果某人不消除其藐视法庭状态，您可以因藐视法庭而将其入狱的条款。我假定它是这个意思。但我所说的是，答复中称，我们只是希望游艇回到我们的管辖范围内，而且不只是为我们，而是为了破产财产的所有债权人。我实际上还听取了一名其他债权人的意见，她也正是这样说的。她提出了该请求，而且显然，PACS——PACS及其律师已同意，如果我准许所请求的救济，该命令将如此表述，即该游艇并非仅仅——它被带回来并非为了让PACS扣押它，或者对其设定留置权，或者依海事法采取任何您可以采取的行动——其中有很多这种行动——而且纽约法官知道如何这样做——那么那不是他们所请求的。他们请求的是——在我看来，本质上是恢复到原状，即——这并不完全是恢复原状，但至少使游艇位于美国法院的管辖范围内。这——法院。这就是他们所请求的，也是他所说的。因此，您关于罚款和监禁的论点，再次说明，藐视法庭的问题始终是同一个问题。如果被认定藐视法庭的人不选择消除该藐视法庭状态，那么该人就要承担该选择的后果。法院对此无能为力。我无法强迫他对此采取任何行动。如果他不这样做，那么，是的，也许他会入狱。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与记录服务公司）\n\n1　这由纽约法院决定。\n\n2　但他们现在并未提出那项请求。他们\n3　根据我所读到的内容，在我看来，是在要求他采取某项措施；我\n4　今天并不作出裁定，但他们要求的是逐步推进的一步。\n5　你可能不喜欢这一步，而且你仍然可以\n6　通过将该船带回纽约或\n7　美国法院的管辖范围内来反对它。但这正是\n8　他们所请求的。而且我认为，截至\n9　今天，这一点相当明确。\n10　现在，你知道，解除中止，或者任何\n11　关于中止不适用的认定，可以是\n12　逐步进行的。它不必是完整的解决方案。\n13　本质上，这正是 PACS 所请求的。我们并未\n14　请求将他关进监狱。\n15　顺便说一句，如果他按照\n16　法院告诉他必须做的去做，他可以避免被关进监狱。但他不能——我们\n17　并未请求将他关进监狱。我们请求他将该\n18　船带回美国的管辖范围内。\n19　如果他选择不这样做，那么他就是选择\n20　自行承担风险不这样做，而这正是藐视法庭命令\n21　所产生的作用。因此，你关于他们在其\n22　最初动议与答复中所说内容的论点，好的，我理解，但\n23　——\n24　BALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加）：这正是我的全部要点，法官阁下。\n25　法庭：但答复称，他们并未请求其最初动议中所称请求的事项。BALDIGA先生：而且那——法庭：他们在最初动议中所请求的，以及他们现在所请求的，实际上应当有利于你的当事人，而不是损害你的当事人。BALDIGA先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。当然，我并非主张藐视法庭并非源于未将该船置于纽约管辖范围内的行为。当然。而且，实际上，我并不反对您所说的任何内容。我提出的要点是，已提交的动议与后续文件，特别是今天的辩论，有很大不同，我希望将这一点说得非常清楚。法庭：我理解。如果你担心我没有理解，我很乐意——我理解。你是否——这是否就是——BALDIGA先生：我不再担心了。法庭：好的。很好。BALDIGA先生：您已经将此绝对说清楚了。法庭：我理解。我理解。BALDIGA先生：因此，那就是——法庭：好的。BALDIGA先生：我对此表示感谢。第二点——我预计对此将有时间作进一步辩论。Rooker-Feldman 文\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与速记服务公司）\n\n抱歉，是原则，在这里有点是转移注意力的问题；经您许可，我们将能够就此提交书面陈述，因为我们没有获准提交再答复，但我认为鉴于该答复，我们希望就此进行书面论证。根据较为妥当的既判案例法，Rooker-Feldman 原则适用于终局州法院判决，而我们并不存在这种判决。但更重要的是，它适用于就实体问题作出的终局判决。它不适用于补充程序。例如，在——法庭：那么，他举行了证据听证会，且有证人——并引入了证言和证物，这一事实又如何？那不是补充程序。那是一场审判。BALDIGA先生：嗯，执行程序——法庭：那是一场审判。BALDIGA先生：——这是一项执行程序。法庭：那是一场审判，不是吗？BALDIGA先生：我所说的补充，是指并非针对基础争议的实体问题，而是针对执行判决的方式。例如，在 VanderKodde 案，载于 951 F.3d 397，该案是第六巡回法院于 2020 年作出的判决，第六巡回法院裁定，Rooker-Feldman 原则根本不适用于判决后的扣押。这就是说，这是\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与速记服务公司）\n\n收取债务的一种方式。它根本不适用。这是 Rooker-Feldman 原则适用范围极其有限的一个例子。这是合理的，尤其是在破产程序的背景下，法院处理的是——平衡债务人和全体债权人的利益，以及如何处置可能属于或不属于破产财产的资产，并确定哪些资产属于破产财产以及如何处分这些资产。这与州法院就某项债权数额作出的终局判决截然不同。鉴于他们刚刚在答复中就此进行了书面论证，而我们尚未有机会回应，我希望法院知悉，因为坦率地说，我们所有人都不经常处理 Rooker-Feldman 问题，他们——他们错误适用了 Rooker-Feldman 原则。这没有问题。我们将再次有机会，我希望如此，更充分地回应此问题，包括通过书面陈述。因此，这就是我的两点意见，法官阁下。我感到失望的是，听说或许因为债务人支持此事——你原本会认为，根据他们论点的最初部分，他们会完全支持任命审查人，因为他们会认为，一名真正独立的审查人，而非例如他们希望选任的受托人，将会是——我想说，法官阁下，这是一个令人遗憾的案件，在这个案件中，各方\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与速记服务公司）\n\n都诋毁他人的真实性，而这正是我们迄今所听到的一切，这很令人遗憾。我们认为，审查人恰恰会是适当的机制，因为与第 11 章案件中的其他所有角色不同，审查人的一点在于，只有审查人不具有任何其他忠诚义务，必须严格独立，且并非由债权人选举或任命，您知道——法庭：嗯，他仍然必须被——BALDIGA先生：——或由债务人选定。法庭：审查人必须被任命，如同第 11 章受托人必须被任命一样。因此，我不确定我——BALDIGA先生：嗯，或者被选举。法庭：——同意这一论点。BALDIGA先生：或者被选举。法庭：但是，选举第 11 章受托人的权力在哪里？在临时受托人被任命后，在第 341 次会议上，可以选举第 7 章案件中的受托人，但是我不知道是否可以选举第 11 章受托人。BALDIGA先生：嗯，实际上，我不确定。法庭：我认为不可以。BALDIGA先生：但无论如何，审查人似乎是——而且也许我后悔表示我们支持\n\n正是美国受托人认为最适当的救济，只是把这一点提出来，结果 PACS 却反对它，但也就如此。这可能就是本案的性质。无论如何，法官阁下，这些是我方立场的主要要点。法庭：好的。我只是正在查看。我认为不存在选举——BALDIGA先生：不，我可能说得太——法庭：——第 11 章受托人的权力。BALDIGA先生：——太快了。CALLARI女士（卡拉里）：法官阁下。法庭：是。CALLARI女士：我能否提供帮助。不存在——BALDIGA先生：哦，存在。存在。法庭：在哪里？是存在还是不存在？CALLARI女士：不存在。法庭：不，不存在。没有任何——没有选举第 11 章受托人的权力。BALDIGA先生：请原谅。只是——法官阁下，我能否用一秒钟——法庭：可以。BALDIGA先生：——与我的合伙人商议？（暂停。）好的，法官阁下，我正在快速阅读第 1104(b)(1) 条。“受托人的选举应当以与第 702 条相同的方式\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与速记服务公司）\n\n进行。”法庭：其写道：“除第 11 条另有规定外，应利害关系方提出的请求，该请求须不晚于法院命令任命受托人后 30 日提出。美国受托人应召集债权人会议，以选举一名”——是的。这与第 7 章案件中发生的情况相同。BALDIGA先生：是的，这就是——这就是我所说的。法庭：所以——是的，但什么——但是，选举应当——所以你的意思是，如果他们希望引入其他人，他们可以选举该人。这就是你的意思。BALDIGA先生：这就是我的要点。而且，据我理解，法官阁下，审查人是严谨独立的，不存在任何选举权或其他干预。这就是为什么我们设立审查人，其具有法院——法庭：嗯，没有多少人会任命审查人。我并不是说这不会——不会发生。我是说，它们并不像你所说的那样经常出现。BALDIGA先生：我不是——这——我并不假装本案的任何事情是常见的。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与速记服务公司）\n\n我只是说，如果债务人同意本来在许多事项中会是高度争议性事项的事情，结果我方的同意却被用来对付我方，以致最具诉讼性的债权人说，是的，但我们要反对，因为那似乎过于独立，这将是令人遗憾的。无论如何，这就是——但再次，他们将按其选择的方式诉讼本案。CLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：法官阁下，我能否再提出一项意见？法庭：当然。CLAIBORN女士：霍莉·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。法庭：你能否再靠近麦克风一些说话？谢谢。CLAIBORN女士：抱歉。如果本院作出命令，指示美国受托人任命一名第 11 章受托人，美国受托人将会这样做，而该程序的一部分是征询各方意见。在此之后，美国受托人将就任命何人作出审慎决定；此后，如就任命该特定人士担任受托人发生争议，则存在选举程序。法庭：嗯，是的。第 702(c) 条规定——以及 (b) 条，\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与速记服务公司）\n\n“如可依本条 (a) 款投票的债权人请求选举受托人，债权人可选举一人担任案件受托人。”因此，你必须有一名债权人，其持有可被允许、无争议、确定、已清算、无担保的债权，该等债权属于有权获得分配的种类——顺便说一句，这里只谈到第 7 章。它没有援引任何第 11 章规定，这一点颇有意思。“其不存在——与该债权人作为债权人的利益，以及有权获得该分配的债权人之利益相比，并无实质性不利的利益，除非该利益是与该债权人之债权人利益相比不属重大的股权利益，且其不是内部人。”所以这确实颇有意思，因为尽管你是对的，你刚才指出第 1104(b) 条规定，可以按照本标题第 702 条 (a)、(b) 和 (c) 款规定的方式选举，但第 702 条规定，债权人只有在其持有可被允许、无争议、确定、已清算、无担保，并有权依下列规定获得分配的债权时，方可投票支持受托人候选人，而它只援引第 7 章条款。因此，我不知道它是否确实可行。如果它只适用于第 7 章条款，本案将不会根据任何该等条款进行分配。这是一个第 11 章\n\n案件。因此，如果情况如此，就不能选举受托人。我不知道答案。我只是说，如果你阅读法条的实际文字，它现在看来不一致。这似乎非常不一致，因为你必须满足 (a) 款的全部三个要件，才能依据 (b) 款进行选举。而根据第 702(a) 条，第 702(a) 条规定，有权依第 726(a)(2)、726(a)(3)、726(a)(4)、752、766 或 766(h) 或 766(i) 条获得分配。BALDIGA先生：法官阁下——我认为，法官阁下，判例法会说，第 7 章中的标准是相同的。法庭：嗯，可能是，也可能不是。BALDIGA先生：我只是——法庭：这不是法条所说的。BALDIGA先生：我同意，但是——法庭：这不是法条所说的。BALDIGA先生：无论如何，最重要的一点是，我们希望本案以不同于某种消耗战的方式进行，而我认为我们已经具备在这方面取得一些良好进展的条件；我们希望法院以这种方式看待此事，并推动本案朝该方向发展。法庭：有意思的是，他们没有修改该法条，因为他们确实应当修改该\n\n法律。您知道，因为它只提到第 7 章——第 7 章下的条款。他们本应当——这里正好是一个例子，您知道——法典中——那可能正是您希望其相同的意图。这并非——如果您看 1104(b)，那么——它将您引向 702 的 (a)、(b) 和 (c) 款。702(a) 仅涉及第 7 章的条款。因此这毫无意义。不过，无论如何，我们今天不必对此作出决定。我只是觉得这很有意思。我的意思是，我完全理解根据第 7 章选任受托人。我只是认为，我从未见过有人在根据第 11 章、经 United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室任命之后，于 341 会议上选任受托人。您见过吗，Attorney Claiborn（克莱伯恩律师）？克莱伯恩女士：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。就今天的目的而言，这其实无关紧要。抱歉，我——巴尔迪加先生：我同意。法庭：——转移了注意力，但我只是想——我确实从未见过这种情况。不过，无论如何，好的。Attorney Friedman（弗里德曼律师），我将给您机会作出回应。弗里德曼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是代表 PACS 的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），来自 O'Melveny and Myers（奥美律师事务所）。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n我只是——我想提出几点。Kwok 先生的律师认为破产程序中唯一的中立人士应当是审查员，这令人不安。债务人本应是其所有债权人的中立受托人。显然，这不会发生。法官阁下，关于审查员受托人问题，如我们将在异议中阐述的，审查员很好，只是其实并非如此，因为最终审查员只会出具一份报告，而该报告很可能属于传闻证据，并且审查员不能追究诉因。这没有帮助。它不会推动本案向其应当发展的方向推进，而 Kwok 先生仍占有并控制本案。至于我们正在审理的动议所涉实际论点，如我所述，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）的命令是一份两页命令。它位于第 5 页——是我声明的附件 5。在第 3 段中，他明确指出，Kwok 负有持续义务将 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）返还至该管辖范围内。这正是我们试图执行的内容。我们今天并非试图请求付款。为明确起见，我们并未请求施加额外制裁或每日 $500,000 的藐视法庭罚款。我们也保留就该 $134 million 罚款获得支付的权利，但我们并未请求其增加。\n\n我们并未请求向我们付款。法官阁下，Rooker-Feldman 原则公认是一项棘手的原则。我认为我们是正确的。如果我们不正确——在 Kwok 先生，您知道，援引第五修正案权利、被作出不利推定、其家庭成员——您可以阅读 Ostrager 法官就其女儿所说的话之后，您没有听到有关争议排除或既判力的任何内容。我不想令她难堪。因此，这些原则适用，并且，您知道，所作出的裁决是他们受到争议排除，既判力适用，即经明确且令人信服的证据认定，他拥有并控制该财产。我没有其他补充。哦，我有一个问题，如果我可以向法庭提问？法庭：当然。请讲。弗里德曼先生：我们何时应当——您是否知道我们何时应当准备提交与 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的审查员——美国受托人动议有关的文件？法庭：是的。我——您知道，我——这是个好问题。如我所说，我了解到该动议于周六提交，并且有一项请求加快该听证会的动议。因此，我现在将处理该事项。我认为我们因若干原因需要现在处理它。因此，请给我一点时间。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n首先，本案中——我现在正看着法庭书记员——原定于 April 12th at 2:30 审理的事项，我们将——那些事项——目前全都是聘用专业人士的申请。这是唯一已排期的事项。我将把这些事项改期至 April 13th at 10:00 a.m. 在本法庭审理。好吗？现在，关于审查员动议，我只需要听取 United States Trustee（美国受托人）的意见——我想问她——但我现在将处理它，这最终将回答您关于何时需要提交回应文件的问题。好吗？弗里德曼先生：好的。我可以坐下吗，法官阁下？法庭：可以，请坐。请继续。那么，Attorney Claiborn（克莱伯恩律师），我知道它尚未列入日程，因为——而且我直到今天早上才有机会查看它，但我将——我将在法庭上批准 United States Trustee（美国受托人）关于就任命审查员举行加快听证会的动议。该听证会将于 April 13th at 10:00 a.m. 与其他事项一并举行。各方——任何希望反对任命审查员动议的人，或任何希望提交任何文件的人，你们都在同一天提交。我们不会进入答复程序，并且——我们都知道争点是什么。好吗？你们所有人——任何希望提交支持或反对任命审查员动议的任何文件的人，均必须于 April 6th 5:00 p.m. 前提交。该动议——抱歉，Attorney Claiborn（克莱伯恩律师），您想就此陈述意见吗？克莱伯恩女士：我只是想询问送达的截止期限。法庭：哦，您尚未送达该动议？克莱伯恩女士：没有，因为我们在等待法官阁下发布命令。法庭：哦，好的。抱歉。克莱伯恩女士：所以，是连同动议一并送达该命令。法庭：我明白。好的。那么——是的。那么，我们要做的——我要做的是——该命令可能要到明天才会登记。克莱伯恩女士：没关系。法庭：因此，您需要进行送达——那么，我们谈一下。您要向谁送达？您要向谁送达——您知道，我们必须依据债务人的财产清单和声明。对吧？比如，债权人名单是什么样的？克莱伯恩女士：我们已制作副本，准备向\n\n全体债权人名册送达，我认为约有 60 多方。法庭：60？克莱伯恩女士：所以——60 多方。法庭：好的。克莱伯恩女士：介于 60 至 70 方之间。我只是没有确切数字。因此，那些副本已准备妥当，可以送出。法庭：如何——我是在问您一个问题，一个严肃的问题。您是否可能在周四营业结束前完成送达，还是您希望在周五？如果您说周五，对我而言也没问题。克莱伯恩女士：不，周四应当可以。法庭：好的。那么，我将要求您送达——即将作出的批准加快听证会并将该听证会排定于 April 13th at 10:00 a.m. 举行的命令；该命令设定于 April 6th 5:00 p.m. 前提交任何支持或反对——或反对该动议的回应文件的截止期限；要求您于 March 24th 5:00 p.m. 前送达任命审查员的动议；并于 March 29th 5:00 p.m. 前在本案案卷中提交送达证明，说明送达如何完成。这对 U.S. Trustee's office（美国受托人办公室）可以接受吗？克莱伯恩女士：可以，法官阁下。并且我假定\n\n您刚才列明的所有日期都将载入一项将由——法庭：载入该命令中。克莱伯恩女士：——法庭作出的命令？法庭：批准加快审理动议的命令将为您列明所有这些日期和时间。克莱伯恩女士：很好。法庭：好吗？克莱伯恩女士：我们将送达该命令及我们的基础动议。法庭：好的，很好。谢谢。巴尔迪加先生：就此而言，法官阁下，我们已提交的其中一项动议是聘请送达代理人 Stretto（斯特雷托），而他们将准备——法庭：是的。我不明白您为什么需要送达代理人。您能否——巴尔迪加先生：正是为此原因，为减轻其他各方的负担。如果那样——法庭：但是，这将构成破产财产的行政费用。您为什么——我们为什么要这样做？我们为何需要送达代理人？我并不是说我正在就此作出裁定，我是在问您一个问题。是您提出的，所以我在问您一个问题。您为什么需要送达代理人？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我们认为，到头来，这将是最有效率的做法，但如果法庭不——法庭：嗯，我不知道。也许会如此，但我想听取其他人的意见，对吧？巴尔迪加先生：好的。法庭：我的意思是，那项——那项原定在——该事项原本排定于 12 日审理，不是吗？巴尔迪加先生：是的。法庭：因此，关于该动议已有异议截止期限。应当有。我还没有看——巴尔迪加先生：是的。法庭：——听证通知，但应当有。因此——巴尔迪加先生：那么我不会主动提出让他们参与。法庭：是的，我只是——巴尔迪加先生：我只是试图提供便利。法庭：您知道，我所——看，有一点是——在每一章——无论属于哪一章的每个案件中，但当然尤其是在第 11 章案件中，法庭关注行政费用。对吧？因此，我们需要弄清楚是否——如果所有人都认为\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 144 Filed 03/30/22 Entered 03/30/22 15:41:05 Page 93 of 97\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n这很好，那么可以——那么我可能会同意。但我希望确保每个人都认为这很好。巴尔迪加先生：当然。法庭：而且我——而且或许我会同意。我不知道。我尚未真正充分审查它，以便作出有充分依据的裁定，但我只是提出，您知道，就像所有这些聘用专业人士的申请一样。正如您所说，这不是一个正常的第 11 章案件。这是非同寻常的。因此，我必须关注并确保行政费用及相关事项不会以例行方式处理。将根据本案情形决定其是否适当。好吗？巴尔迪加先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：好的。巴尔迪加先生：并且我的——仅就部分理由而言，我的经验是，尤其在统计一项计划的表决结果时，由一家专业独立公司来做通常被证明是有益的。不过，同样地，每个人都会有机会就此发表意见。法庭：好的。谢谢。巴尔迪加先生：谢谢。法庭：Attorney Friedman（弗里德曼律师）？弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，从 PACS 的角度而言，我们将与 Kwok 先生会面并协商。法庭：我们听不见您，Attorney\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\nFriedman（弗里德曼律师）。弗里德曼先生：抱歉。法庭：抱歉。请再说一遍。弗里德曼先生：当然。从 PACS 的角度而言，我们有共同的担忧，但本周我将致电 Baldiga 先生并讨论 Stretto（斯特雷托）的聘用申请。因此，如果我们实际上能够使一个事项无需由您审理，我们将善意地会面并协商，并就此回来向您报告。法庭：是的。谢谢。我预期各方将在异议截止期限之前进行讨论，并将看看情况如何。好吗？Attorney Claiborn（克莱伯恩律师），我认为您还想说些什么。克莱伯恩女士：没有，我只是站起来看看法庭是否还有其他问题要问我。法庭：没有，我——但是我——该命令显然最可能不会现在就发出。书记官办公室很快就要关闭，直至明天，但它将会发出。它将被签发，而且您可以——您希望我再向您复述一遍那些日期，还是您已经记下了？克莱伯恩女士：我记下来了。法庭：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：我没有问题。法院：然后我们将据此继续进行。现在，就今天的事项而言，第11章案件管理会议，我已经表示将予以延期。因此，该会议也将延期至 April 13th at 10:00 a.m.。关于该动议——抱歉，我刚才找不到位置了。请给我——请稍等片刻。（暂停）\n\n法院：关于太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund）提出的动议，请求作出裁定确认自动停止不适用，或备选地，根据《破产法典》第362(d)(2)条给予自动停止救济，该听证会——初步听证会延期至 April 13th at 10:00 a.m.。现在，关于该事项，我将作出一项安排。请稍等。（暂停）\n\n法院：在PACS就债务人针对该动议提出的异议所提交的答复中，第8段、第9段、第10段和第11段涉及Rooker-Feldman原则和既判力。我将给予债务人至一周后——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 144 提交于 03/30/22 登记于 03/30/22 15:41:05 第 97 页，共 97 页\n\n不是一周后。至 March 28th at 5:00 p.m.提交一份不超过五页的书面意见，以回应答复中的那些具体段落，仅此而已。不得再就该动议提交更多书面意见。有人有任何问题吗？巴尔迪加先生（MR. BALDIGA）：没有，法官阁下。法院：好的。还有其他需要处理的事项吗？我认为没有，因为今天的日程表上没有其他事项。巴尔迪加先生：没有，法官阁下。非常感谢。法院：好的。那么，今天郭文贵（Kwok）事项的听证会现已结束。这是今天日程表上的最后一项事项，现宣布休庭。（程序于 4:22 p.m.结束。）本人，克里斯汀·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），认证电子法庭记录员兼誊录员，证明上述内容系以上述案件程序的正式电子录音制作的准确誊本。March 28, 2022 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","CCP","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":21745,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:55:50"}