{"id":"court_ctb_1644_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1644,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-04-10","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"紧急动议及简易判决听证会笔录—— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1644（2023-04-10立案）。记录了 2023 年 3 月 27 日由 Julie A. Manning 法官主持的庭审笔录，涉及第 11 章受托人关于修改维修储备金命令的紧急动议，以及第 22-05003 号附随诉讼中关于第一反诉请求的简易判决动议辩论。","summary_en":"Transcript of hearing on emergency motion and summary judgment — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1644 (filed April 10, 2023). Official transcript of the March 27, 2023 hearing held before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding the Chapter 11 Trustee's emergency motion to modify the repair reserve order and the motion for summary judgment on the first counterclaim in adversary proceeding No. 22-05003.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003 INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiff, \\* March 27, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* DESPINS, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF EMERGENCY MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING REPAIR RESERVE ORDER and MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FIRST COUNTERCLAIM BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff, MELISSA WERNICK, ESQ. HK International and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052 JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For the Defendant, NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Paul Hastings, LLP Trustee: 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the RCI Bridgeport, LLC, SABATO P. FIANO, ESQ. Interested Party: Zeldes, Needle & Cooper PC 1000 Lafayette Blvd. Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 3 of 103\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 11:09 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Adversary no. 22-5003, HK International Funds Investment vs. Luc Despins. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record, starting first with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BASSETT: Good morning, Your Honor. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. Attorney Sarnoff, do you want to continue? MR. SARNOFF: Good morning, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, on behalf of creditor PAX. I didn't know that we were a party to this action. THE COURT: Well, you're here so you might as well note your appearance. Go right ahead, counsel. MS. SMITH: Good morning, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Robinson and Cole, Connecticut counsel to PAX. THE COURT: Good morning.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 4 of 103\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
4 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 2 | Goldman, Pullman and Comley, for the creditors committee. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Good morning.
Counsel? |\n| 4 | MS. WERNICK:
Good morning, Your Honor. Melissa |\n| 5 | Wernick, of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, on behalf of HK |\n| 6 | USA and Ms. Guo. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 8 | MR. MORIARTY:
Good morning, Your Honor.
James |\n| 9 | Moriarty, from Zeisler and Zeisler, for the same parties. |\n| 10 | Attorney Wernick will be taking the lead on the |\n| 11 | summary judgment argument today and I just want to state for |\n| 12 | the record, because Attorney Barton's name is mentioned |\n| 13 | quite often, that he is traveling today on a pre-planned |\n| 14 | trip that was planned before the hearing was scheduled. |\n| 15 | That's why he's not present. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Good morning. |\n| 17 | MR. FIANO:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Sabato |\n| 18 | Fiano, Zeldes, Needle and Cooper.
We just filed our |\n| 19 | appearance on behalf of an interested party, RCI Bridgeport, |\n| 20 | LLC, which actually operates the marina at which the subject |\n| 21 | vessel is housed.
So we obviously have some interest in |\n| 22 | terms of insurability and other things with respect to |\n| 23 | today's proceedings. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good morning. |\n| 25 | All right.
Trustee Despins, this is your motion |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 5 of 103\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 5 for summary judgment so please proceed. MR. BASSETT: Again, good morning, Your Honor. For the record, it's Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, we had prepared some slides to help with our argument today, just a few of them. We've already shared them with opposing counsel and the other parties in the courtroom. May I approach? THE COURT: Certainly. Are those slides that are going to be shown, projected? MR. BASSETT: No, we can just -- I have enough copies. I think we can just use the hard copies. THE COURT: That's fine. Okay. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: The other thing I would note, Your Honor, before beginning is that this morning, I think some time within the last hour, or maybe slightly more than that, we filed a supplemental rebuttal declaration on the docket that just has a few additional exhibits attached to it by way of rebuttal to the papers that were filed last night by the counter-defendants. I may refer to some of those during the course of my argument today. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, if I may, the counter-defendants do have an objection to the reference to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 6 of 103\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
6 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | exhibits that were filed this morning to which we have not |\n| 2 | had an opportunity to fully review and which it appears |\n| 3 | counsel intends to rely upon in his slide deck this morning. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Understood.
You can raise those |\n| 5 | during the course of the hearing.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
And, Your Honor, the only thing I |\n| 7 | would note is that they're all documents filed on the public |\n| 8 | docket in the PAX litigation.
So they're documents with |\n| 9 | which counsel, in particular Attorney Vartan, are very |\n| 10 | familiar.
And they just respond to points that were made in |\n| 11 | their papers. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
We'll address those when and if they |\n| 13 | come up. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
So, Your Honor, the issue before the |\n| 17 | court today on summary judgment is whether there is any |\n| 18 | genuine issue of material fact as to whether collateral |\n| 19 | estoppel applies to the issue of the debtor's ownership of |\n| 20 | the Lady May, as set out in the trustee's first |\n| 21 | counterclaim. |\n| 22 | And as I will explain during the course of my |\n| 23 | argument today we believe it is clear that there is no such |\n| 24 | genuine dispute and to hold otherwise would only result in |\n| 25 | the waste of time and resources by allowing the counter- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 7 defendants to relitigate the exact same issue of the yacht's ownership that was already decided against them and against the debtor by Justice Ostrager in New York Supreme Court in 2022. Now, Your Honor, going to the first page of the slide deck, or I guess the second page, it sets out the standard for collateral estoppel. The parties agree that New York law applies to the question of collateral estoppel in this instance because the decision was rendered by a New York court. Now under New York law -- again, I believe this is undisputed, the trustee needs to satisfy two elements. One, that there is an identical issue necessarily decided in a prior action and that issue is decisive of the current action. And then second that the party to be precluded from relitigating here, the counter-defendants, had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in that prior action. We submit that both elements are readily satisfied here and there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to their satisfaction. On the next page, Your Honor, we get into the first issue, which is whether there -- in the litigation before Ostrager and in this adversary proceeding, is an identical issue that was necessarily decided in that prior Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 7 of 103\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 8 action. I'll get to some of the quotes on the side deck in a moment, but before doing that I'll maybe take a step back or two just to provide a recap of some of the context and history that led to Justice Ostrager's February, 2022 decision. So as the court is aware by this point, in 2017 PAX commenced litigation against the debtor before Justice Ostrager in the New York Supreme Court on account of a guarantee of a loan that PAX made to one of the debtor's business entities. In September, 2020, PAX prevailed on its summary judgment motion against the debtor on that claim. Thereafter, later in 2020, PAX sought and obtained restraining orders prohibiting the debtor from dissipating his assets, including specifically the Lady May. Now in March of 2021 PAX filed a motion, which Justice Ostrager granted, which was an interim decision holding the debtor in contempt of court for violating the restraining orders that had been issued that prevented the Lady May from being moved outside the jurisdiction of U.S. waters, which had happened. After that March, 2021 order the debtor appealed. He appealed that contempt decision and he argued in the appeal, among other things, that that decision was improper Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 8 of 103\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 9 of 103\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 9 because Justice Ostrager, before rendering that initial March, 2021 contempt decision, should have held an evidentiary hearing and determined the issue of whether the debtor owned the Lady May. And while the appeal was pending -- so while that appeal was pending to the appellate division, on July 8th of 2021 PAX filed another motion before Justice Ostrager asking for him to hold the counter -- or to hold the debtor in final contempt of court for ongoing violations of the prior, March, 2021 restraining order. In response to that the debtor filed an opposition and at the same time Attorney Vartan, on behalf of HK USA, filed an affirmation supporting the debtor's opposition. And I'll get to the text and the context of that affirmation in a minute. Also, after the filing of that final contempt motion, Justice Ostrager noted, in response to some of the arguments that had been made on appeal by the debtor, that he would need to have -- he said he heard them say that there should be an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ownership and he promised that he would hold such a hearing. So the appeal was pending while all of these events were happening before Justice Ostrager. And on November 9th of 2021 the New York Appellate Division issued its order on the pending appeal of that March, 2021\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 10 decision. And what the appellate division found was that Justice Ostrager had properly acted within his discretion in holding the debtor in contempt. And then critically, for purposes of the motion before the court and the issue of collateral estoppel, and this is listed in the -- and highlighted in the slide before the court, the appellate division specifically instructed Justice Ostrager -- it said the motion court, i.e., the New York Court, Justice Ostrager, is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht and to assess appropriate penalties. There's no ambiguity in that language as to what it instructed Justice Ostrager to do. Justice Ostrager in response to that decision -- that instruction from the appellate division, in fact, held an evidentiary hearing on February 2nd to decide this exact issue. And the decision that he ultimately rendered after that hearing on February 9th, 2022 is crystal clear in that regard and eliminates any doubt as to what the issue was that he was deciding. And this is Exhibit 18 of my initial declaration at ECF 150, where in his February 9th decision Justice Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 11 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 11 Ostrager said pursuant to the appellate division's order, this court scheduled the February 2nd, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Period.\n\n Again, unequivocally clear as to what the issue was that Justice Ostrager was deciding in issuing his final contempt order.\n\n Not only did Justice Ostrager state the issue that he was deciding that way he, in fact, decided it consistent with the way he framed the issue.\n\n On the next slide you'll see at page 4 of the Ostrager decision, among his many findings and conclusions was that \"the testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of the defendant's witnesses, which included Mei Guo and other witnesses that her counsel presented, clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this court and the judicial process.\"\n\n Not only did he make the unequivocal finding about the beneficial ownership and control, in the process of doing so he went out of his way to very specifically and very firmly reject all of the testimony that Mei Guo, on behalf of HK, USA, counter-defendants in this litigation, offered in support of an opposite conclusion.\n\nSpecifically, on page 6 and 7 of his decision he\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23
103 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 12 of | |\n|---------------|----------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------|----|\n| | | | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 | | 12 |\n| | | | | | |\n\n said, characterizing the testimony that he had heard from Ms. Guo, in short Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and controls the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her 20's, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May other than as a rouse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\n In addition to that statement, Your Honor, although that -- not displayed on the slide here, I think this was also at page 4 of the Ostrager decision, he indicated that the evidence supported a finding that the debtor had provided the funds used to purchase the Lady May.\n\n So, again, Your Honor, from all of this it is crystal clear based on the appellate division order, Justice Ostrager's decision and response to that order and his findings that the issue he decided was whether the debtor beneficially owns and controls the yacht.\n\n And he decided resoundingly, after hearing evidence from the debtor and from the counter-defendants from HK, USA, that he did.\n\n And, Your Honor, I'll get to these specific documents more in a minute, but even if it weren't crystal clear based on the two orders that I just discussed what the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 13 issue was that decided, which by the way is, of course, identical to the issue before this court, which is does the debtor own the Lady May, in addition, the statements of the counter-defendants and their counsel, and their actions before Justice Ostrager make it clear that they understood exactly what the issue was that they were litigating.\n\n And I'll get to this document in more detail later when I talk about their active participation in the litigation, which is a second prong of the analysis, but if you look at -- as I mentioned earlier, in July of 2021 Attorney Vartan filed an affirmation in support of the debtor's opposition to the final contempt motion, which is several pages of him laying out in detail all the reasons why the court should find that HK, USA and not the debtor, owned the Lady May.\n\n So he clearly knew exactly what the issue was and he submitted an affirmation several pages long specifically to argue that issue.\n\n Similarly, before the hearing on February 9th, Mei Guo submitted a declaration, or her own affidavit, which served as her direct testimony, where she spends pages addressing that exact issue, and I'll get to the specific quotes from the document as well.\n\n So the court knew the issue it was deciding. It actually decided that issue and the counter defendants knew\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 14 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
14 |\n| 1 | what the issue was.
There's no dispute that that issue is |\n| 2 | the exact same as the issue before this court. |\n| 3 | In terms of some of the counter arguments that |\n| 4 | have been made, one of the counter arguments that we see in |\n| 5 | the papers filed last night was that the issues are somehow |\n| 6 | different because the issue before Justice Ostrager was |\n| 7 | whether the debtor should be held in contempt of court, |\n| 8 | whereas the issue before this court is who owns the yacht. |\n| 9 | The problem with that argument is that the issue |\n| 10 | that Justice Ostrager clearly said he needed to decide in |\n| 11 | order to issue the final contempt ruling, was who owns the |\n| 12 | yacht. |\n| 13 | The fact that that wasn't the ultimate exclusive |\n| 14 | question before him does not change the fact that he finally |\n| 15 | and necessarily decided that issue. |\n| 16 | And they cite a couple of cases that appear to be |\n| 17 | in support of this notion that if you have contempt |\n| 18 | proceedings previously and then other litigation |\n| 19 | subsequently, collateral estoppel doesn't apply, but the |\n| 20 | cases are completely in apposite.
They're not even remotely |\n| 21 | on point.
They're both divorce cases. |\n| 22 | One is McNeal vs. Frankie from the 8th Circuit in |\n| 23 | 1996.
That case involved a divorce decree pursuant to which |\n| 24 | one of the spouses, the defendant's wife, was said to be the |\n| 25 | 20 percent owner of a promissory note and was entitled to |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 15 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
15 |\n| 1 | principal and interest distributions on the note. |\n| 2 | When the husband failed to send the payments to |\n| 3 | his spouse, his ex-spouse, in accordance with that decree, |\n| 4 | she filed a motion for contempt of court. |\n| 5 | Now while that was happening, in the interim the |\n| 6 | defendant -- the husband had engaged in a refinancing |\n| 7 | transaction and certain of the new entities that became |\n| 8 | liable filed for bankruptcy. |\n| 9 | After all of that, the wife filed another action, |\n| 10 | this time a litigation, making the argument that her claim |\n| 11 | on the old now refinanced promissary note was superior to |\n| 12 | and had priority over the claims of all these new interest |\n| 13 | holders. |\n| 14 | And the court naturally in that situation said |\n| 15 | that collateral estoppel didn't apply because the issues |\n| 16 | were entirely different. |\n| 17 | As the court said, the issue in a contempt lawsuit |\n| 18 | was whether the husband's refinancing transactions wilfully |\n| 19 | violated the language of the consent decree -- from the |\n| 20 | divorce decree. |\n| 21 | The issue in this lawsuit is the legal effect of |\n| 22 | the refinancing transactions on the wife's property rights, |\n| 23 | which depends on tenant in common principles. |\n| 24 | The court reiterated she does not merely seek to |\n| 25 | relitigate the issue that was litigated previously but |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 16 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
16 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | instead asked the court to decide the legal status of her |\n| 2 | security interests in the underlying collateral underlying |\n| 3 | the promissory note.
Completely different issues.
Not our |\n| 4 | case at all, because the same issue is necessary decided |\n| 5 | before Ostrager that is presently before this court. |\n| 6 | The other case is even less relevant.
This is |\n| 7 | Bouchard v. Sunburg.
It's -- I don't know if I have the |\n| 8 | right reference, but it's in the papers to the Reporter |\n| 9 | citation. |\n| 10 | But like the McNeal case, this also involved a |\n| 11 | divorce situation.
This time it was a child custody |\n| 12 | arrangement, and when one spouse didn't comply with that |\n| 13 | child custody arrangement, which included certain counseling |\n| 14 | sessions, a trial court decided that ultimately it was not |\n| 15 | going to force the children to continue going to these |\n| 16 | sessions because it wasn't in their best interests. |\n| 17 | Later, the same spouse sued for breach of contract |\n| 18 | separately and the issue of collateral estoppel was raised. |\n| 19 | Again, naturally, the court said these issues are |\n| 20 | completely different.
The court said first of all, the |\n| 21 | prior actions involved enforcement of court orders while the |\n| 22 | current is breach of contract -- the current action is |\n| 23 | breach of contract. |\n| 24 | And then the court said the orders focused on the |\n| 25 | custody of children based on the parties' agreement, more |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 17 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
17 |\n| 1 | specifically the failure to comply with the orders requiring |\n| 2 | attendance at counseling sessions.
Such orders in that |\n| 3 | action are based on equitable considerations that arise |\n| 4 | under Connecticut child custody statutes. |\n| 5 | So the issue is whether or not the court should |\n| 6 | determine that it was in the best interests of the children |\n| 7 | to continue to engage in counseling sessions. |\n| 8 | By contrast, the breach of contract case, as the |\n| 9 | court recognized, dealt with the elements of breach of |\n| 10 | contract.
Was there a promise?
Was there a consideration? |\n| 11 | Was that promise breached and what were their damages? |\n| 12 | And the court said none of those issues were |\n| 13 | addressed by a court focusing on the interests of the |\n| 14 | children in determining whether or not counseling sessions |\n| 15 | should continue.
So collateral estoppel did not apply. |\n| 16 | Again, totally different circumstances. |\n| 17 | Other arguments that the counter-defendants raise, |\n| 18 | Your Honor, is -- they suggest that the final contempt |\n| 19 | decision from February of 2022 was somehow a temporary or |\n| 20 | interim decision. |\n| 21 | It was not. It was by its very terms, and the way |\n| 22 | it was teed up, was a final decision on the heels of the |\n| 23 | prior earlier March, 2021 order. |\n| 24 | And what they do -- what the counter-defendants do |\n| 25 | is they liken this to -- and they cite case law involving |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 18 of\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | preliminary injunction decisions, and they say that those |\n| 2 | decisions should not be entitled to preclusive effect. |\n| 3 | But those decisions are completely inapplicable |\n| 4 | because in a -- the whole point is that when the court is |\n| 5 | deciding a preliminary injunction the issue is whether the |\n| 6 | party seeking the injunction has a likelihood of success on |\n| 7 | the merits. |\n| 8 | So by definition in a preliminary injunction |\n| 9 | setting the court is not finally determining success on the |\n| 10 | merits.
Here Justice Ostrager was finally determining the |\n| 11 | ownership question.
That's what he set out in his order. |\n| 12 | That's what the appellate division instructed him to do and |\n| 13 | that's what he, in fact, did. |\n| 14 | It's completely different.
It's not a preliminary |\n| 15 | injunction, likelihood of success standard that applied. It |\n| 16 | was a success on the merit standard that applied. |\n| 17 | And he found against the counter-defendants and against the |\n| 18 | debtor. |\n| 19 | The counter-defendants also argue that the |\n| 20 | decision was somehow temporary because Justice Ostrager was |\n| 21 | planning to have a subsequent hearing to determine the issue |\n| 22 | of -- they suggest whether HK USA was the debtor's alter |\n| 23 | ego. |\n| 24 | That is completely wrong.
There was never a claim |\n| 25 | filed by PAX in the New York litigation in which they sought |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 19 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
19 |\n| 1 | an ultimate determination as to alter-ego status with |\n| 2 | respect to HK USA. |\n| 3 | The only alter-ego claim brought was with respect |\n| 4 | to Genever and the Sherry-Netherland apartment.
There was |\n| 5 | never contemplated a final additional after the February 9th |\n| 6 | decision hearing to determine whether or not the Lady May |\n| 7 | was property of the estate.
It was decided in that hearing. |\n| 8 | And in support of that, Your Honor, you can see |\n| 9 | one of the exhibits that we filed in rebuttal is Exhibit 7, |\n| 10 | which is nothing more than the amended complaint that PAX |\n| 11 | filed in the New York litigation.
And that shows that there |\n| 12 | was a count in there for veil piercing with respect to |\n| 13 | Genever and the Sherry-Netherland.
There's no similar count |\n| 14 | anywhere in the record because there wasn't one with respect |\n| 15 | to the Lady May. |\n| 16 | Now -- one second, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | (Pause.) |\n| 18 | So, Your Honor, I think that takes us through the |\n| 19 | first issue in the collateral estoppel analysis but, |\n| 20 | obviously, I'll respond to any arguments that counsel may |\n| 21 | raise on reply. |\n| 22 | The second element of the test, as I said, is |\n| 23 | whether or not the party to be estopped -- here, the |\n| 24 | counter-defendants and HK USA in particular, had a full and |\n| 25 | fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 20 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
20 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Now this is on slide 5.
This requirement under |\n| 2 | New York law -- and again, I don't think this is disputed, |\n| 3 | if you look at the papers, is satisfied if the party to be |\n| 4 | estopped one, is in privity with the party against which the |\n| 5 | prior judgment was rendered or two, alternatively, actively |\n| 6 | participated in the prior litigation. |\n| 7 | And notably on this second prong of the collateral |\n| 8 | estoppel test, Your Honor, the law is clear that the party |\n| 9 | opposing the estoppel, here the counter-defendants, actually |\n| 10 | bear the burden of proof to show that they actively |\n| 11 | participated.
And I think it's abundantly clear they have |\n| 12 | not met that burden. |\n| 13 | And, in fact, we've satisfied both of the two |\n| 14 | alternative bases; privity and active participation. |\n| 15 | On the next slide, which is slide 6, this talks |\n| 16 | about privity.
And the standard that courts generally apply |\n| 17 | in determining whether there was privity, if you look at the |\n| 18 | case law, which we've cited in our brief, is that it's a |\n| 19 | very flexible standard that looks at all the facts and |\n| 20 | circumstances of the case.
There's no hard and fast rule, |\n| 21 | or hard and fast set of requirements. It's a flexible |\n| 22 | standard that looks at the relationship between the parties |\n| 23 | and whether or not they had an alignment of interest. |\n| 24 | Here it is not disputed at all, for obvious |\n| 25 | reasons, I think, that the debtor and his daughter have a |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 21 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
21 |\n| 1 | very close relationship. |\n| 2 | It's also not disputed, based on evidence in the |\n| 3 | record and based on the counter-defendants own statements |\n| 4 | that the daughter and HK USA are essentially one and the |\n| 5 | same. It's not disputed that's it's her company.
There's |\n| 6 | evidence in the record and attached to my declaration that |\n| 7 | it has no employees. It has no other assets, according to |\n| 8 | them, other than the Lady May.
They're basically the same. |\n| 9 | So, therefore, it's -- I don't think subject to |\n| 10 | any genuine dispute that the debtor has a very close |\n| 11 | relationship both with his daughter and through her with HK |\n| 12 | USA. So that's sort of part one. |\n| 13 | Part two is they have -- they had in front of |\n| 14 | Justice Ostrager a very clear alignment of interest. If you |\n| 15 | look at the record, if you look at all the documents that |\n| 16 | were submitted, the pleadings that are attached to my |\n| 17 | initial declaration and my rebuttal declaration it is |\n| 18 | crystal clear that they both -- both the debtor and HK USA |\n| 19 | and Mei Guo on its behalf wanted Justice Ostrager to find |\n| 20 | more than anything that HK USA and not the debtor own the |\n| 21 | yacht. |\n| 22 | And the best in response to this that the counter |\n| 23 | defendants have been able to come up with is that somehow |\n| 24 | there was not an alignment of interest because the debtor, |\n| 25 | like he apparently always does, decided before Justice |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 22 Ostrager to assert his Fifth Amendment rights when he testified, as opposed to providing substantive answers. And that, Your Honor, is -- it's entirely beside the point, because it does not change the fact that the debtor's interest in that litigation, which he argued -- regardless of his testimony -- which he argued through\n\n counsel vociferously for was that HK USA owned the yacht. and through HK USA his daughter.\n\n And this is -- if you look at Rebuttal Exhibit 2 to my declaration -- and again, this should not be subject to any controversy because it's a very clear pleading that they filed, or that the debtor filed on their side in the litigation, where in his post-trial briefing after the contempt hearing, the debtor argued that -- and he argued strenuously throughout the entire ten to 20 pages of his post-trial briefing that HK USA and Mei Guo owned the Lady May.\n\n If you look at -- again, this is Exhibit 2 to my rebuttal declaration, if you look the preliminary statement of what the debtor filed in post-hearing briefing, it's like a two-page preliminary statement that does nothing other than argue he shouldn't be held in contempt of court because his daughter owns the yacht and there's no evidence to the contrary.\n\nIt's basically a recap of the exact same arguments\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 23 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
23 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | these counter-defendants have made before this court.
And |\n| 2 | the point, Your Honor, is that the idea that the debtor did |\n| 3 | not have the same interest and did not advocate for the same |\n| 4 | interest as the counter-defendants because he took the Fifth |\n| 5 | is just totally wrong. |\n\n In addition to submitting this briefing in which he clearly argued the issue, he had the counter-defendant call witnesses, including Mei Guo, and other individuals who had roles with respect to management and operation of the yacht come to testify. So he made his case and he advanced his interest every way he could. The fact that he took the Fifth does not change that. It does not change that there's privity.\n\n So I think it's clear that the first prong of privity is established but alternatively, the record is also clear in this case that the counter-defendant actively participated in the litigation before Justice Ostrager.\n\n And I'll start with -- and this now goes to page 7 of the slides and I had promised the court that I would get to this -- I had mentioned this affirmation earlier and I promised the court that I would get back to it, but this is the July, 2021 affirmation that Attorney Vartan, on behalf of HK USA, filed in response to PAX's filing a contempt motion.\n\nIn this affirmation Attorney Vartan is essentially\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 24 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| 103 | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 24 submitting a brief arguing the issue of ownership. If this isn't clear evidence of participation actively in that litigation, I don't know what would be.\n\n As the quotes show, and these are just some snippets from the multi-page affirmation, but as it starts out, \"While HK International,\" in this case HK International refers to HK USA, \"is not a party to this action, it is the owner of the yacht, the Lady May, whose movement is asserted to be the basis of the final order of the contempt motion.\"\n\n And he goes on and he says \"I will address the ownership as shown by documentary evidence of the motor vessel, the Lady May, the movement of which is the subject of the final order of contempt -- the final order of contempt motion. Then I will review documents concerning the formation, existence, separate corporate identity and independent ownership of HK International.\"\n\n He goes on through the course of the next 16 paragraphs to layout all these documents and to make his argument.\n\n Then in paragraph 21 he says, \"Based on the registration certificate, the certificate of formation and the LLC agreement, it is clear that HK International is the sole\" -- again, it's HK USA -- \"is the sole owner of the Lady May since April, 2020 and Ms. Guo is the sole member of HK USA.\"\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 25 of\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
25 |\n| 1 | He again concludes a couple of paragraphs later, |\n| 2 | \"Accordingly, based on everything I've said in my |\n| 3 | affirmation, HK USA respectfully submits that the foregoing |\n| 4 | documents demonstrate A, that the yacht, the Lady May, is |\n| 5 | owned by HK USA and B, that HK USA is in turn one hundred |\n| 6 | percent owned by Ms. Guo.\" |\n| 7 | That, Your Honor, is one example of clear, active |\n| 8 | participation by the counter-defendants through their |\n| 9 | counsel in the very issue that Ostrager ended up deciding. |\n| 10 | Their participation continued.
At the February |\n| 11 | 2nd hearing HK USA and its counsel, and this is the next |\n| 12 | slide on the deck, participated extensively in the trial on |\n| 13 | the merits. |\n| 14 | In advance of the trial, pursuant to an order of |\n| 15 | Justice Ostrager, Mei Guo submitted an affidavit which |\n| 16 | served as her direct testimony.
They also submitted |\n| 17 | affidavits from three other witnesses, including a captain |\n\n and other individuals who had roles in managing and operating the Lady May.\n\n On the slide deck I've included some excerpts from Mei Guo's declaration. Again, she had every opportunity, every motivation to litigate the ownership issue, which is clear based on her statements. She said in paragraph 2 I am the owner of the yacht, the Lady May. I have been the owner of the Lady May since and/or around June, 2017.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 26 of\n\n| 103 | | | | | |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
26 | | | | |\n| 1 | A few paragraphs later, at the time I escaped from | | | | |\n| 2 | the CCP's brutality -- and, by the way, these arguments are | | | | |\n| 3 | going to sound very familiar to the court because they're | | | | |\n| 4 | the exact same arguments we've heard in this adversary | | | | |\n| 5 | proceeding, the Lady May was owned by HK USA -- was owned by | | | | |\n| 6 | HK International, and the sole member of HK International | | | | |\n| 7 | Natashia Qu.
And she said I understand that Ms. Qu was a | | | | |\n| 8 | trusted business partner of my brother's, as well as my | | | | |\n| 9 | uncles and cousins.
The same argument she's made here. | | | | |\n| 10 | Paragraph 9, however, from the time of its | | | | |\n| 11 | purchase the Lady May was always intended to be my boat, | | | | |\n| 12 | given my love of the ocean.
Indeed it bears my name. | | | | |\n| 13 | In June, 2017, when I was safely in the United | | | | |\n| 14 | States, ownership of the Lady May was transferred to me. | | | | |\n| 15 | These are just some snippets from her declaration but, Your | | | | |\n| 16 | Honor, this is exactly active participation. | | | | |\n| 17 | In addition to that, as the transcript that's part | | | | |\n| 18 | of my declaration shows, Attorney Vartan, not only did he | | | | |\n| 19 | put Mei Guo on the stand for cross examination on that | | | | |\n| 20 | declaration at the hearing, he put the three other witnesses | | | | |\n| 21 | that were called in support of the debtor's position on the | | | | |\n| 22 | stand as well. He actively participated in the hearing. | | | | |\n\n Now some of the counter-arguments in the papers filed last night, I want to address a couple of those. The counter-defendants pick out certain things\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 27 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| 103 | | | | | | |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
27 | | | | | |\n| 1 | that they say the counter-defendants, or that HK USA and Mei | | | | | |\n| 2 | Guo didn't have the opportunity to do and, therefore, they | | | | | |\n| 3 | didn't actively participate or have the full and fair | | | | | |\n| 4 | opportunity to litigate before Justice Ostrager.
They say | | | | | |\n| 5 | they didn't take discovery. | | | | | |\n\n First of all, I want to say before addressing this argument and the other particular things they say they weren't able to do, there is no hard and fast test. There's no case law saying that you have to be able to take discovery in order for collateral estoppel to apply.\n\n As I said before, it is a flexible standard that looks at all the facts and circumstances and determines whether it would be fair to allow collateral estoppel to apply.\n\n I would submit that the only thing that would be unfair would be to not allow it to apply and to give these counter-defendants, who already litigated this issue, a second bite at the apple and waste more time and more resources of the trustee and of this court and of the creditors of the debtor's estate.\n\n But on these particular issues they say that the debtor did not get the chance to -- or the counter-defendants did not get the chance to take discovery.\n\n Your Honor, what discovery could they possibly have needed? And I also don't know that it's not true that\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 28 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 103 | |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 | 28 |\n| 1 | they didn't take informal discovery.
They were trying to | |\n| 2 | prove -- the counter-defendants were trying to prove that | |\n| 3 | they owned the Lady May.
To the extend that they needed | |\n| 4 | evidence to present in support of that position it is | |\n| 5 | inherently and necessarily evidence that they own and | |\n| 6 | control.
It's the argument that they own it. | |\n\n And they, in fact, obviously had access to that information because they put Ms. Guo on the stand to testify as to all the reasons why she thinks she owns the Lady May. They put these other witnesses who they had access to, people who had management and operational responsibilities with the yacht on the stand. They had access to them. They had everything they needed necessarily to litigate their case.\n\n They also suggest that they were not able to submit their own briefing. But as I just showed, they effectively did that in multiple ways. Attorney Vartan's information serves a declaration, or serves as a brief.\n\n Also, here, the debtor, who they're a hundred percent aligned in interest with, as I said before, submitted his own briefing multiple times, including post- trial briefing where he argued the ownership issue strenuously and made the exact same arguments that the counter-defendants wanted him to make and that they're making here. So, again, that's another red herring.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 29 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 29 They also say, and this one's sort of more remarkable than the others, that somehow they didn't have a full and fair opportunity to litigate because there was no redirect examination of witnesses. We have no authority that suggests that the lack of redirect would somehow mean that they didn't have an opportunity to litigate. That's just not true, number one. Number two, in support of that they cite to Exhibit F to the Vartan declaration. This is an order prior to the February 2nd hearing from Justice Ostrager setting out how the hearing would work procedurally. And it says absolutely nothing of the sort that redirect was prohibited. And they said it was by agreement of the parties and the court that they were not involved in that redirect -- THE COURT: What exhibit are you referring to right now? I'm not sure which one you are referring to? MR. BASSETT: This is Exhibit F to the Vartan declaration in support of their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. THE COURT: Okay. So in the New York case, it's Exhibit -- MR. BASSETT: No, no. In this case. Exhibit -- THE COURT: In this case -- MR. BASSETT: His --\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 30 of
103 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
30 | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
Oh, in their summary judgment -- okay. | | | | |\n| MR. BASSETT:
Yes. Sorry. | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
Sorry.
That's why I'm asking. I want | | | | |\n| to make sure I'm following you. | | | | |\n| MR. BASSETT:
Understood. | | | | |\n| So in Exhibit F -- so what they say in their | | | | |\n| papers is that the parties agreed, along with Justice | | | | |\n| Ostrager, there would be no direct.
Again, this is -- I'm | | | | |\n| spending too much time on this because I don't think that | | | | |\n| really matters anyway. | | | | |\n| But I just want to point out that's factually | | | | |\n| incorrect.
They cite to this Exhibit F, which is the | | | | |\n| pretrial order. It says nothing about there being no | | | | |\n| redirect. | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
So it's Exhibit F to ECF 160. | | | | |\n| MR. BASSETT:
I think that's the right ECF | | | | |\n| reference. | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
It is. | | | | |\n| MR. BASSETT:
It says nothing of the sort. | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
161.
I'm sorry. I apologize.
At | | | | |\n| least from what I'm looking at it's 161. | | | | |\n| MR. BASSETT:
No problem, Your Honor.
Thank you. | | | | |\n| All that order says is that direct testimony will | | | | |\n| be by affidavit and then witnesses will be presented for | | | | |\n| cross. | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 31 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
31 |\n| 1 | If you look at the transcript, which is at Exhibit |\n| 2 | 16 to my declaration, in fact, what happened at the February |\n| 3 | 2nd hearing is that PAX tried to redirect -- tried to |\n| 4 | conduct redirect examination of one of its own witnesses. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let me look at yours so |\n| 6 | I'm following you.
Okay? |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So we're talking -- you're now saying |\n| 9 | but -- not look at my declaration and look at what Exhibit? |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Exhibit 16, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hold on a second. |\n| 12 | So your declaration is 150 in this adversary. So |\n| 13 | just give me a moment. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
No problem at all. |\n| 15 | (Pause.) |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right. So where in Exhibit 16 do |\n| 17 | you want me to look? |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
It's at page 32 and, again, I fear |\n| 19 | that I may be taking too long to make a point that I don't |\n| 20 | think is absolutely critical, but I'll still finish the -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Page 32. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
I'll still close the loop.
Yes, |\n| 23 | it's Exhibit 16 at 32. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Give me a moment, please. |\n| 25 | (Pause.) |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 32 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. I am on page 32. |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
So the point, Your Honor, is that |\n| 3 | contrary to what the counter-defendants had said, there was |\n| 4 | no agreement among counsel.
And when I say agreement among |\n| 5 | counsel, their point is that they say that the debtor and |\n| 6 | PAX agreed without their involvement that there would be no |\n| 7 | redirect and, therefore, they were prejudiced. |\n| 8 | But that was not the case at all.
What happened |\n| 9 | is on page 32 PAX tried to do direct of its own witness and |\n| 10 | Justice Ostrager said he's not going to allow redirect. |\n| 11 | So it was just Justice Ostrager deciding how to |\n| 12 | conduct trials before his court.
He obviously is free to |\n| 13 | determine what all parties may and may not do.
It was not |\n| 14 | some agreement of the parties that was designed to prejudice |\n| 15 | the counter-defendants and their rights. And their assertion |\n| 16 | to the contrary is just wrong. |\n| 17 | The next issue I want to address -- well, |\n| 18 | actually, before moving on, and I think I'm close to |\n| 19 | concluding my opening remarks, Your Honor, is I just want to |\n| 20 | emphasize again that this is a particularly strong case for |\n| 21 | satisfaction of the full and fair opportunity requirement of |\n| 22 | the collateral estoppel analysis because we're not just |\n| 23 | relying on one or the other of the privity and active |\n| 24 | participation prongs.
We have both of them. |\n| 25 | And in looking at all the facts and circumstances, |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 33 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 103 |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
33 |\n| 1 | even if the court were to think well, maybe they could have |\n| 2 | had more participation rights, or maybe there could have |\n| 3 | been greater privity, here the argument on both sides is |\n| 4 | bolstered by the fact that there's both.
So it wasn't just |\n| 5 | that they were in privity.
They also actively participated |\n\nin the litigation.\n\n And I'll give the court a case cite that I think is helpful on this. It's the *Allegra Credit vs. Tin Chu* case, 29 A.D. 3d 718. This is a New York Second Department Decision from 2006.\n\n THE COURT: Just give me the cite one more time, please.\n\n MR. BASSETT: Sure. 29 A.D. 3d 718. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Thank you.\n\n MR. BASSETT: And in this case there was a criminal prosecution brought against a son who had forged a deed of transfer of his father's house to himself and then he procured a fraudulent mortgage after he had forged the transfer of the deed. And he was convicted.\n\n The father in a subsequent litigation tried to prevent foreclosure on the property on the grounds that it had been transferred to his son.\n\n And the court held that because of their close relationship and the fact that they both had the exact same interest in arguing that the forgery did not occur, that the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 34 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | transfer deed was that he was bound even though in that case |\n| 2 | the father did not participate at all, did not appear, did |\n| 3 | not say anything in the prior criminal proceeding, but yet |\n| 4 | collateral estoppel applied. |\n| 5 | A couple of more issues that I think can be |\n| 6 | dispensed with relatively quickly and then I'll reserve the |\n| 7 | balance of my time to respond to arguments of counsel. |\n| 8 | The first issue is -- this has come up already. |\n| 9 | The court actually alluded to it in a past hearing and this |\n| 10 | is the issue of whether an appeal or appellate rights |\n| 11 | somehow factor into the collateral estoppel analysis in New |\n| 12 | York and whether the pendency of an appeal would prevent |\n| 13 | this court from finding that the counter-defendants are |\n| 14 | estopped by Justice Ostrager's ruling. |\n| 15 | In their brief -- I don't know how they say this |\n| 16 | but they say that we rely on one old case from the late |\n| 17 | 1970's in support of this proposition that in New York law |\n| 18 | the pendency of an appeal does not prevent collateral |\n| 19 | estoppel and that they think the law has somehow changed. |\n| 20 | That's just not the case. |\n| 21 | We also cite to a 2004 decision, the Bridgeview |\n| 22 | Garden Apartments case cited in our paper in which the court |\n| 23 | -- the New York Court said the rule in New York is clear |\n| 24 | that \"the mere pendency of an appeal does not prevent the |\n| 25 | use of the challenged judgment as the basis of collaterally |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 35 estopping a party to that judgment in a second proceeding.\" Another case is a Second Circuit case from 2003. This is the *Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States* case. The citation is 347 F.3d 394.\n\n The Second Circuit in that case said even though the appeal was still pending when the suit was brought, the district to treat the New York State judgment as final for res judicata purposes.\n\n In New York the rule is clear. The dependency of an appeal does not effect the application of collateral estoppel.\n\n To the extent that the counter-defendants cite other cases purporting to go in a different direction, those cases are inconsistent with the prevailing law and they also, as far as I can tell, all involve criminal cases that dealt uniquely with the situation that occurs in a criminal trial where somebody is trying to use estoppel for criminal liability.\n\n Also, Your Honor, the cases that they cite and rely on dealt with situations where no party had the opportunity for appellate review.\n\n But as we've already been over extensively, the debtor and HK USA and Mei Guo were a hundred percent aligned in interest before Justice Ostrager. The debtor, in fact has appealed and exercised his appellate rights to appeal\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 36 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
36 |\n| 1 | Justice Ostrager's decision. |\n| 2 | So this isn't a situation where there was no |\n| 3 | opportunity for pursuit of appellate rights. |\n| 4 | The last issue, Your Honor, that I'll conclude |\n| 5 | with and I think this will be very brief is the last |\n| 6 | argument that they make in their papers where they say that |\n| 7 | the court can't grant summary judgment because there are |\n| 8 | issues with I guess the competency of the evidence that the |\n| 9 | trustee is relying upon.
They say it's hearsay. |\n| 10 | Your Honor, I think it's obvious that that's not |\n| 11 | the case based on the nature of our argument.
We're arguing |\n| 12 | collateral estoppel.
So we're putting Justice Ostrager's |\n| 13 | decision before the court.
We're putting the appellate |\n| 14 | division's decision before the court.
We're putting other |\n| 15 | documents before the court, not for the purpose of proving |\n| 16 | the truth of the matter asserted in factual findings. |\n| 17 | We're putting them before the court to show the |\n| 18 | procedural history of what happened before the New York |\n| 19 | Court and the language of the decisions where the court |\n| 20 | described what it was finding. |\n| 21 | The fact that the counter-defendants through their |\n| 22 | counsel participated in the proceedings before Justice |\n| 23 | Ostrager, that's all clear based on the face of the |\n| 24 | documents.
It's not -- there's not a hearsay issue. |\n| 25 | There's no issue of the competency of the evidence before |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 37 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
37 |\n| 1 | the court.
I think that argument was put last in their |\n| 2 | brief for a reason. |\n| 3 | So, Your Honor, I think those are my opening |\n| 4 | remarks in support of why we believe the court should grant |\n| 5 | the motion for partial summary judgment.
Obviously, I'll |\n| 6 | reserve time to respond to any arguments that counsel may |\n| 7 | have.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Counsel? |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | And before I begin I would be remiss not to |\n| 12 | reflect on how we came to be here today, which is in large |\n| 13 | part as a result of the motion to expedite this hearing |\n| 14 | filed just last week in connection with the motion for |\n| 15 | summary judgment which HK USA objected to and continues to |\n| 16 | remain of concern in the course of responding to such an |\n| 17 | important motion relating to a \\$37 million asset all in the |\n| 18 | course of a week. |\n| 19 | And so while we understand the concerns the |\n| 20 | trustee has raised with respect to insuring, and we have |\n| 21 | concerns as well, there's an ongoing objection to having a |\n| 22 | hearing on such short notice on what is a dispositive issue |\n| 23 | in this case. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
But that -- your objection's |\n| 25 | been overruled. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 38 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
38 |\n| 1 | MS. WERNICK:
I understand. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
There's a hearing today right now. |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
Right.
And I understand. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So now is your time to make your |\n| 5 | arguments, okay.
And you brought the issue before the court |\n| 6 | by telling the court that you weren't going to -- that there |\n| 7 | was no -- that there was not going to be any insurance on |\n| 8 | the boat, on the yacht, after tomorrow. |\n| 9 | So while I understand your comments, I think that |\n| 10 | to make the record clear -- you can obviously make any |\n| 11 | argument that you think is appropriate, but if there isn't |\n| 12 | any insurance on the yacht, then I would think you would be |\n| 13 | opening up your own client to causes of action against it. |\n| 14 | So go ahead.
Proceed. |\n| 15 | MS. WERNICK:
I understand, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | And so from an initial place I guess I'd like to |\n| 17 | begin in response to the notion raised by the trustee that |\n| 18 | somehow HK USA should not be permitted to relitigate issues |\n| 19 | that were previously decided by the New York court. |\n| 20 | And I would take issue with that contention on two |\n| 21 | fronts, both with the idea that these issues were fully |\n| 22 | litigated and second, with the idea that HK USA was not a |\n| 23 | party to the underlying New York action, had an opportunity |\n| 24 | to litigate these issues at all. |\n| 25 | The New York proceeding involved the contempt |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 39 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
39 |\n| 1 | hearing that last just a few hours on Zoom. It's not a |\n| 2 | sufficient record to strip HK USA from its ownership of a |\n| 3 | \\$37 million asset. |\n| 4 | I agree with counsel on the standard for |\n| 5 | collateral estoppel that there must be an identity of issues |\n| 6 | that have been necessarily decided in the prior action and |\n| 7 | that's decisive of the present action, and that there must |\n| 8 | be a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision |\n| 9 | that's now said to be controlling. |\n| 10 | On both of these issues we respect that the |\n| 11 | trustee has not made its showing.
And because estoppel |\n| 12 | places the termination of litigation ahead of insuring the |\n| 13 | correct result, it's for that very reason why courts are |\n| 14 | asked to narrowly consider the issue. |\n| 15 | So to rewind, as counsel did, as a starting place, |\n| 16 | the New York action involved the breach of contract between |\n| 17 | the debtor and PAX. It's undisputed that HK USA and Ms. Guo |\n| 18 | were not parties to that litigation. |\n| 19 | After summary judgment was entered in favor of PAX |\n| 20 | and in the context of prejudgment enforcement proceedings, |\n| 21 | under CPLR 5229 the New York court entered a contempt |\n| 22 | decision against the debtor. |\n| 23 | That decision, which considers the issue of |\n| 24 | contempt, cannot now collaterally estop HK USA from arguing |\n| 25 | or from establishing that it owns the Lady May. |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 40 of\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
40 |\n| 1 | And so that's where I would like to begin because |\n| 2 | it is clear that the New York proceedings involved an issue |\n| 3 | of contempt.
And on contempt what the court was asked to |\n| 4 | consider was whether there was a lawful order of the court, |\n| 5 | whether it appeared with reasonable certainty that the order |\n| 6 | had been disobeyed and that the parties to be held in |\n| 7 | contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order and |\n| 8 | finally, prejudiced to the right of a party to the |\n| 9 | litigation that must be demonstrated. |\n| 10 | None of those factors that were before the court |\n| 11 | in contempt context raised questions regarding full and |\n| 12 | final rights with respect to the Lady May. |\n| 13 | And it's important to have a full understanding in |\n| 14 | the contest of the CPLR in this motion because it's without |\n| 15 | question that the CPLR does address and has a procedure in |\n| 16 | place for the turnover of assets that are in the hands of |\n| 17 | another, which is CPLR 5225. |\n| 18 | And in such a proceeding the judgment creditor can |\n| 19 | initiate an action against a garnishee, in which case the |\n| 20 | garnishee, or the party in possession of the asset would be |\n| 21 | a party to that proceeding on notice and being given an |\n\nopportunity to litigate the issue.\n\n That's not what happened here. The contempt proceeding addressed solely the issue of whether the debtor could be found to be in contempt of the court's order and\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 41 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
41 |\n| 1 | did not -- certainly did not make a final determination, as |\n| 2 | counsel now suggests, with respect to the Lady May. |\n| 3 | And, again, it's clear that the New York court |\n| 4 | recognized this.
The New York court explains that it was |\n| 5 | called on to determine whether PAX had carried its burden to |\n| 6 | hold the debtor in civil contempt. |\n| 7 | The question of ownership, and certainly a full |\n| 8 | and final determination of ownership of the Lady May, was |\n| 9 | not the issue that was before the court. |\n| 10 | The court inquired as to whether PAX could |\n| 11 | potentially ultimately levy on the Lady May, but that would |\n| 12 | have required that step two proceeding under the CPLR, which |\n| 13 | unequivocally did not happen. |\n| 14 | And so when counsel suggests that reference to |\n| 15 | case law surrounding interim or preliminary relief is |\n| 16 | improper, I would have to push back and really take issue |\n| 17 | with that because that is all that the finding was in the |\n| 18 | court's February 9th order. |\n| 19 | In order for there to have been a full disposition |\n| 20 | and turnover the Lady May, there would necessarily have had |\n| 21 | to have been a further proceeding in the New York court, |\n| 22 | which did not happen. |\n| 23 | And because a final finding as to the ownership of |\n| 24 | the Lady Mae was not necessary for the court to issue the |\n| 25 | final contempt order, any findings around ownership cannot |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 42 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
42 |\n| 1 | be given a preclusive effect. |\n| 2 | And I would refer to the court to cases cite in |\n| 3 | our brief, including Little Robinson Shoemaker vs. |\n| 4 | Shoemaker, 309 A.D. 2d 688, which explains a collateral |\n| 5 | estoppel did not apply or the relevant issue was not the |\n| 6 | focus of the prior hearing and was not necessarily decided. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Just hold on one second again. Let me |\n| 8 | just have that cite, please. |\n| 9 | MS. WERNICK:
Sure.
309 A.D. 2d 688, a First |\n| 10 | Department decision out of New York. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
And what year is that? |\n| 12 | MS. WERNICK:
2003. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure I |\n| 15 | get the cite properly.
I want to hear you.
Because, as you |\n| 16 | know, we only have audio so it's not as if I can go back and |\n| 17 | read what you've said, okay? |\n| 18 | MS. WERNICK:
And so to be clear, the court in |\n| 19 | issuing the contempt decision in New York did not find that |\n| 20 | the Lady May was beneficially owned and controlled by the |\n| 21 | debtor and not by HK USA or Ms. Guo. |\n| 22 | All that the court found was that the debtor holds |\n| 23 | a beneficial interest in and could control the Lady May. |\n| 24 | The court did find that the debtor holds the only beneficial |\n| 25 | interest in the yacht or that HK USA or Ms. Guo held no |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 43 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
43 |\n| 1 | interest in the yacht. |\n| 2 | Again, those are all questions would be |\n| 3 | potentially considered by the court in a turnover proceeding |\n| 4 | that did not happen. |\n| 5 | That being the case, there's certainly no final |\n| 6 | determination over the ownership of the yacht arising out of |\n| 7 | the contempt decision that could be given a preclusive |\n| 8 | effect. |\n| 9 | With respect to the much hyped participation in |\n| 10 | connection with the New York action I think, again, |\n| 11 | revisiting the procedural history is important. |\n| 12 | On January 14th, 2022 in the exhibit that was |\n| 13 | referenced in the Vartan declaration as Exhibit 6 or -- I |\n| 14 | think we used letters.
The appropriate corresponding |\n| 15 | designation.
The court issued an order on January 14 |\n| 16 | setting up a schedule for a hearing on the issue of |\n| 17 | contempt. |\n| 18 | Notably in connection with the schedule it |\n| 19 | directed the parties to the litigation to submit affidavits |\n| 20 | in connection with the proceedings by January 28 and |\n| 21 | provided the parties to the litigation with an opportunity |\n| 22 | to submit briefing. |\n| 23 | Now if you look at the New York court docket that |\n| 24 | was appended to the declaration filed yesterday, it's |\n| 25 | important to note that the declarations that were submitted |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 44 in connection with this hearing were not filed by HK USA, were not filed by my office, but were filed by debtor's counsel, because the witnesses were witnesses, Ms. Guo included, that were being put on by debtor's counsel in connection with the hearing. And that's all that they were. And so it's really a misnomer to characterize Mr. Vartan as having called four witnesses in connection with the hearing. What happened in practice and in reality, he participated in the hearing to defend his clients that were called as witnesses by other parties. Counsel for HK USA did not have an opportunity to present opening statements, as did counsel to the parties, counsel for HK USA did not have an opportunity to cross examine plaintiff's witnesses that were presented during the course of the hearing. When the court called into conference counsel for the parties during the course of the hearings it was to the exclusion of Mr. Vartan, who was not included in those conversations. And the reason for this all is clear. It's because HK USA and Ms. Guo were not parties to the underlying action. They were merely being called as witnesses in connection with this hearing. And that's significantly important as well, going Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 44 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 45 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 45 back to the notion that HK USA and Ms. Guo did not move to intervene in the underlying New York action, nor would they have had any reason to.\n\n They appeared in connection with the contempt hearing, and that was the sole issue that was before court. If there was an issue with respect to actual -- and a final determination of ownership, they knew that the CLPR provided for another proceeding where that issue would be determined. This wasn't their forum for raising issues with respect to a final determination of ownership. They would have another day to do that. The issue that was before the New York court had to do with contempt.\n\n And so that being said, HK USA, Ms. Guo, did not have an opportunity to call their own witnesses. The debtor called witnesses in connection with the hearing. They didn't have an opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the hearing and they didn't have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses that were brought by plaintiffs.\n\n And with respect to the notion of appellate rights raised by counsel, again, we would refer the court to *Bland vs. New York*, which is 263 F.Supp. 2d 526, which is an Eastern District of New York case from 2003, which really highlights the importance and the necessary requirement of appellate review in the context of preclusion. And it's -- THE COURT: Wasn't that case though -- that case\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 46 of\n\n| | 103 | | | | |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------|----|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 | 46 | | | |\n| 1 | that you cited, Bland vs. New York, wasn't that because | | | | |\n| 2 | there was -- the prior proceeding was an administrative | | | | |\n| 3 | proceeding and not a proceeding at law and, therefore, | | | | |\n| 4 | collateral estoppel didn't apply because the court found | | | | |\n| 5 | that the prior proceeding, in which there were findings | | | | |\n| 6 | made, was an administrative proceeding and not a legal | | | | |\n| 7 | proceeding?
Isn't that correct? | | | | |\n| 8 | MS. WERNICK:
Well, the importance is that there | | | | |\n\n needs to be an opportunity for a review of the underlying proceeding in order to make sure --\n\n THE COURT: That's not what that case says. That case says that there wasn't collateral estoppel because the issues were -- regarding discipline by the office of the court's administration because the judge had sexually harassed his secretary.\n\n So that case -- I looked at that case. And so when you say with respect to appellate review, you rely heavily on that case. I'm not persuaded by that case. So do you have another case?\n\n MS. WERNICK: Sure. I'd also point Your Honor to *Avail vs. Ryder Systems*, which is out of the Second Circuit, which, again, as we noted in our brief, stands for the proposition that a party can't be considered to have full and fair review of an opportunity to litigate an issue of there is an inability to obtain appellate review.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 47 And so here -- THE COURT: That, again, involved an arbitration, not a legal proceeding in which a court made findings and issued a ruling which was subject to appeal. MS. WERNICK: But there the argument is twofold. One, Ms. Guo, as a non-party to the New York action, did not have an opportunity in her own right to appeal. And here in this case, the notion of appellate review, or the availability of appellate review, again, it appears to be a misnomer as the trustee in its papers sort of flouts the idea that they can do what they will with the appeal. But with respect to claims preclusion, there needs to be some assuredness that the underlying decision was rightly and fairly decided, which is not the case without the availability of -- an opportunity to review the matter. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: And then to also touch upon the notion of a privity relationship between HK USA and the debtor in the New York action is again one that we would submit the trustee cannot show. So first with respect to the notion that their interests were aligned, we would, again, refer the court back to the notion that the proceeding in New York was a Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 47 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 48 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
48 |\n| 1 | contempt proceeding. |\n| 2 | The debtor's interest in that proceeding was to |\n| 3 | ensure he didn't go to jail.
On the other hand, HK USA and |\n| 4 | Ms. Guo have a strong interest in securing their property |\n| 5 | which, again, they had every expectation to believe that |\n| 6 | they would have an opportunity to do that in the event there |\n| 7 | was a turnover proceeding in which they would actually be |\n| 8 | entitled, upon their request, to a jury trial on that issue. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
But that doesn't address the alignment |\n| 10 | of interest.
You're talking about different issues and I |\n| 11 | understand that argument.
But what about the alignment of |\n| 12 | interests.
Ms. Guo's interests weren't aligned with her |\n| 13 | father's? |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:
They were not the same interests |\n| 15 | certainly, right? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, they have to be aligned.
That's |\n| 17 | the status, right?
That's the test.
So how were they not |\n| 18 | aligned? |\n| 19 | MS. WERNICK:
Because the interest that the |\n| 20 | debtor is presenting in the New York action is solely for |\n| 21 | the purpose of avoiding either civil contempt or really |\n| 22 | criminal contempt to the extent the judge was going to send |\n| 23 | him to jail for not complying with the court's orders. |\n| 24 | That's his focus, right?
His focus is pleading |\n| 25 | the Fifth, so he doesn't have to testify, and ensuring he |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 49 doesn't go jail. What -- THE COURT: But didn't he say in that case the -- didn't he say that the boat was owned by HK? MS. WERNICK: Yeah, certainly. THE COURT: And didn't HK argue the same thing? MS. WERNICK: Yes. However -- THE COURT: So how are their interests not aligned then? MS. WERNICK: Because to the extent that if HK were a party to that litigation or had an opportunity to present its case as a party to the litigation, they could have certainly gone much further and presented additional -- THE COURT: Well, that's a choice HK made. MS. WERNICK: No, but they didn't make it because they were -- THE COURT: Sure, they did. They could have intervened. They could have done 17 different things. MS. WERNICK: No, because they had an understanding and a right -- a correct understanding that there would be no final determination with respect to ownership arising out of that proceeding. There couldn't be. The CPLR provides otherwise. And so why would they intervene in an action that was relating to contempt when there's a whole other procedure to address what they really care about -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 49 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 50 THE COURT: Well, they did intervene in that they argued that the asset was attempting to seize upon, right, as part of the judgment, was theirs. So they did intervene. MS. WERNICK: Well, they were presented as witnesses, respectfully -- THE COURT: But they didn't have to appear as witnesses. Did anybody subpoena them? MS. WERNICK: But as witnesses -- THE COURT: Wait a minute. Answer my question. MS. WERNICK: Yeah. THE COURT: Did anybody subpoena them? MS. WERNICK: I don't have factual knowledge as to that issue. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's relevant, don't you think? And did Mr. Vartan -- nobody forced Mr. Vartan to file an affirmation in the New York case? MS. WERNICK: No, but it's not being filed -- nothing was filed on behalf of HK USA in its capacity as a litigant, right? So they're able to provide information in the capacity as witnesses -- THE COURT: Well, you're in -- HK's interest was the same and Mr. Kwok's at that time. You didn't want PAX to get the yacht, right? That was the whole thing. You didn't want PAX to get the yacht. So when you say their interests aren't aligned, Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 50 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 51 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
51 |\n| 1 | I'm having trouble being persuaded by your argument. I |\n| 2 | understand your argument about two different issues, but I'm |\n| 3 | not sure I understand your argument about aligning the |\n| 4 | interest. |\n| 5 | There's nothing in the record before the court |\n| 6 | here that Mr. Vartan was obligated to do anything in the New |\n| 7 | York State Court.
And that choices were made by HK.
Your |\n| 8 | client is HK and Mei Guo.
You made a choice to file Mr. |\n| 9 | Vartan's affirmation.
For Ms. Guo to file her affidavit and |\n| 10 | to testify at that hearing. |\n| 11 | So I'm just telling you with regard to your issue |\n| 12 | about alignment of interest, I'm not -- you're not |\n| 13 | persuading me at the moment, number one.
Number two, the -- |\n| 14 | you know, your office and Zeisler all represent all three |\n| 15 | parties in this action.
In this case, in the bankruptcy |\n| 16 | case, Zeisler and Zeisler represents Mr. Kwok, Ms. Guo and |\n| 17 | HK. |\n| 18 | You've just joined recently.
I don't know -- I |\n| 19 | never -- wasn't quite sure why, but maybe the interest is -- |\n| 20 | the reason is to try to show that there isn't some alignment |\n| 21 | of interest, even though HK voluntarily submitted itself to |\n| 22 | the jurisdiction of this court and essentially -- not |\n| 23 | essentially.
And did file a complaint seeking to |\n| 24 | collaterally attack Justice Ostrager's determination that -- |\n| 25 | you want a declaratory judgment that your clients are the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 52 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
52 |\n| 1 | owners of the yacht. |\n| 2 | Justice Ostrager found that Mr. Kwok has a |\n| 3 | beneficial interest in and controls the yacht.
Do you agree |\n| 4 | with that? |\n| 5 | MS. WERNICK:
That is his words in the order. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then go ahead.
Keep going. |\n| 7 | MS. WERNICK:
So respectfully, Your Honor, and to |\n| 8 | address that point, the reason that we're here before this |\n| 9 | court and not in that separate CPLR proceeding that I |\n| 10 | referred to, is because the debtor filed for bankruptcy and |\n| 11 | the actions in New York were all stayed. |\n| 12 | So now this became the forum for addressing -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily at |\n| 14 | all.
It could have been addressed in a different forum. |\n| 15 | In fact, there was a motion pending from PAX to |\n| 16 | bring it back to the New York forum and you -- your clients |\n| 17 | came in and said, no, no.
Let's not do that.
We'll get the |\n| 18 | boat here.
We'll get the yacht here.
And we'll solve the |\n| 19 | relief from stay.
That's what your clients argued, not the |\n| 20 | debtor.
Not the debtor, but your clients argued that in |\n| 21 | this court. |\n| 22 | And you commenced this adversary proceeding.
Your |\n| 23 | clients.
And you -- your firm didn't become part of this |\n| 24 | until well after -- the adversary proceeding was filed in |\n| 25 | April of 2022.
And your firm got involved in January, I |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 53 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
53 |\n| 1 | believe, of this year. |\n| 2 | So you have to think about what's been said in |\n| 3 | pleadings filed by your client in this court -- clients, as |\n| 4 | well as in the court in New York. |\n| 5 | So you can -- I'm not being persuaded by your |\n| 6 | argument that there isn't an alignment of interest between |\n| 7 | Mr. Kwok, and Mei Guo, and HK International. |\n| 8 | MS. WERNICK:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
So go ahead. |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
Yes, and I appreciate -- and then I |\n| 11 | would just repeat and reinforce our position, for the |\n| 12 | record, that because the debtor, Mr. Kwok, invoked his Fifth |\n| 13 | Amendment right and did not present a full defense in the |\n| 14 | New York action, his interests certainly were not in lock |\n| 15 | step with HK USA's -- again, the debtor was concerned with |\n| 16 | protecting his criminal interests and interests in avoiding |\n| 17 | contempt.
HK USA is interested in ensuring the preservation |\n| 18 | of its property in the yacht. |\n| 19 | And then, again, just to comment on the trustee's |\n| 20 | notion of the close relationship between the debtor and Ms. |\n| 21 | Guo. |\n| 22 | Again, I refer the court to the cases cited in our |\n| 23 | submission that make clear that the familial relationship |\n| 24 | between two parties is insufficient to establish privity for |\n| 25 | purposes of preclusion, and that's really all that the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 54 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
54 |\n| 1 | trustee offers on that point is the notion that because the |\n| 2 | debtor and Ms. Guo have a father/daughter relationship, that |\n| 3 | that additionally bolsters their notion for privity. |\n| 4 | And, again, I would refer the court to the cases |\n| 5 | cited, in particularly the Willsey case vs. Strawway, which |\n| 6 | is -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
You can tell me that one again? |\n| 8 | MS. WERNICK:
Yes.
It's -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Say the first name of it. I'm sorry -- |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
Willsey. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
W-O-O -- |\n| 12 | MS. WERNICK:
W-I-L-L-S-E-Y. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:
Versus Strawway, S-T-R-A-W-W-A-Y, |\n| 15 | which is a Supreme Court case available at 255 NYS 2d 224. |\n| 16 | And so that case the court refused to apply |\n| 17 | collateral estoppel against a daughter who was the driver of |\n| 18 | a father's automobile that was involved in the accident, |\n| 19 | even though the daughter had been a material witness in a |\n| 20 | prior lawsuit between the father and owner of the other |\n| 21 | automobile where the daughter's attorney had appeared and |\n| 22 | examined witnesses in the prior trial. |\n| 23 | And the court found that the daughter was not |\n| 24 | precluded from maintaining an action against the other |\n| 25 | driver because she was not a party to the prior lawsuit. |\n| | |\n\n# Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 55 And so different context but very similar set of facts, as we have here. Ms. Guo was a witness in the prior case in New York. She wasn't a party to the case. That's undisputed. She had minimal participation by virtue of appearing as a witness in a few hour proceeding in the context of a five years long litigation, in which case her counsel merely appeared to interpose objections on the record during the course of her cross examination and nothing more. THE COURT: Well, didn't he file an affirmation before that? He filed documents. It wasn't just that he showed up the day of the hearing and asked her questions. Isn't that accurate? MS. WERNICK: Yes, so in July of 2021 -- THE COURT: Right. MS. WERNICK: Right, there was an affirmation filed. But, again, it's in connection with the debtor's opposition to a contempt finding, not as part as any affirmative -- THE COURT: Well, why should she need to file anything on behalf of the debtor's opposition to a contempt filing in July of 2021 when the hearing on the ownership wasn't until February of 2022? MS. WERNICK: Well, because there was an initial Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 55 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 56 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | hearing in July. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
But she wasn't called at that hearing. |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
Well, there's nothing inconsistent |\n| 4 | in providing evidence to the debtor with respect to the |\n| 5 | ownership issue, but then continuing to argue that there was |\n| 6 | not an opportunity for our client, HK USA, to be heard as a |\n| 7 | witness to represent their own interest in the context of a |\n| 8 | litigation where they were just a bit part in a year's long |\n| 9 | proceeding. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:
And so with that I would just end |\n| 12 | by repeating where I began. HK USA, Ms. Guo, were not |\n| 13 | parties to the New York action.
As Your Honor noted, they |\n| 14 | had two interactions with the underlying dispute over the |\n| 15 | course of a five-year history of that litigation. |\n| 16 | Ms. Guo appeared at the February 2nd, 2022 hearing |\n| 17 | as a witness for the debtor, did not have the opportunity to |\n| 18 | cross examine any witnesses, present additional witnesses, |\n| 19 | provide briefing, appeal any determination of the court. |\n| 20 | But more importantly I think going back to the |\n| 21 | first prong is that the issues before this court are simply |\n| 22 | not the same as the issues that were before the court in New |\n| 23 | York, in that the court in New York was being asked to |\n| 24 | consider the issue of contempt, always having an |\n| 25 | understanding that there would have to be another proceeding |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 57 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
57 |\n| 1 | on turnover. |\n| 2 | And the trustee here is simply looking to skip |\n| 3 | that other proceeding and essentially take dicta in the |\n| 4 | context of the court's contempt order and make a dispositive |\n| 5 | finding here, which he cannot do under the law. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, may I just have one |\n| 8 | moment with my co-counsel before she wraps? |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
You may have one moment. |\n| 10 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | (Pause.) |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Again, Your Honor, for the record, |\n| 13 | Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter |\n| 14 | 11 Trustee. |\n| 15 | Your Honor, I'll try to be hopefully brief in my |\n| 16 | arguments in response.
I did want to address a couple of |\n| 17 | the points that came up. |\n| 18 | The first is I want to address this issue that |\n| 19 | counsel sort of started and ended with which is the argument |\n| 20 | that the issues were different. |\n| 21 | I don't think there is any, again, genuine dispute |\n| 22 | of material fact as to the position of the trustee that the |\n| 23 | issues were identical. |\n| 24 | And I would submit at the outset that the analysis |\n| 25 | starts and ends with the language that the New York courts |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 58 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
58 |\n| 1 | specifically put in the orders they issued. |\n| 2 | Back, again, to the slide, page 3.
And I thought |\n| 3 | it was rather revealing that counsel did not talk at all |\n| 4 | about the clear construction of the appellate division in |\n| 5 | his November, 2021 order, which it said Ostrager is |\n| 6 | instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve |\n| 7 | a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht. |\n| 8 | And the Justice Ostrager did exactly that in his |\n| 9 | February 9th decision.
Again, he says pursuant to that |\n| 10 | appellate court the court scheduled the February 2nd hearing |\n| 11 | to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and |\n| 12 | controls the yacht. |\n| 13 | What counsel would like the court to do is to read |\n| 14 | some additional language that doesn't exist into the court's |\n| 15 | framing of the issue to suggest that Ostrager had told the |\n| 16 | parties in his ruling and that the appellate court had |\n| 17 | instructed him to find of the debtor held any interest, |\n| 18 | however small, in the ownership of the yacht. |\n| 19 | But that is not what the plain language of his |\n| 20 | decision says.
The issue of whether Kwok -- Kwok, not the |\n| 21 | daughter, but of Kwok, beneficially owns and controls the |\n| 22 | yacht. |\n| 23 | Again, I won't belabor the point but his findings, |\n| 24 | based on the decision, were completely consistent with that. |\n| 25 | The issue he was deciding was whether the debtor had some |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 59 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
59 |\n| 1 | interest, however small, then he would not have found as he |\n| 2 | did that the daughter's testimony that she owned the yacht |\n| 3 | cannot be credited whatsoever. |\n| 4 | He says cannot be credited in any respect.
That |\n| 5 | means he categorically rejected her argument that she had |\n| 6 | some ownership interest in the yacht. |\n| 7 | And, Your Honor, the fact that the issue was |\n| 8 | presented and decided in this manner is, in fact, consistent |\n| 9 | with the final contempt issue before the court. |\n| 10 | I believe counsel framed the issue on contempt as |\n| 11 | involving several elements, including whether there was a |\n| 12 | lawful order, whether that order was disobeyed, whether the |\n| 13 | party disobeying that order had knowledge of it and whether |\n| 14 | there would be prejudice as a result. |\n| 15 | And if you look at the submissions of the parties, |\n| 16 | including the briefing to the appellate division, when they |\n| 17 | talk about the ownership issue, the reason that was relevant |\n| 18 | and central to the finding was that it went to the question |\n| 19 | of prejudice, because the argument was if the debtor does |\n| 20 | not won the yacht, then how is PAX, a judgment creditor, |\n| 21 | going to be prejudiced by the yacht moving from the |\n| 22 | jurisdiction. |\n| 23 | So the court needed to decide the ownership issue |\n| 24 | to decide prejudice.
And he wasn't just deciding that the |\n| 25 | debtor held some interest greater than zero in the yacht for |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 60 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
60 |\n| 1 | purposes of reaching that decision, because you have to look |\n| 2 | at what the order was that he was entering, that he was |\n| 3 | being asked to enter. |\n| 4 | It was an order not just giving the debtor a slap |\n| 5 | on the wrist for keeping the yacht outside of the |\n| 6 | jurisdiction.
He was imposing a \\$500,000 per day penalty if |\n| 7 | he did so. |\n| 8 | What the appellate court recognized, and Justice |\n| 9 | Ostrager recognized, is that to support that finding it was |\n| 10 | necessary for him to determine that the debtor, and the |\n| 11 | debtor alone, owned the yacht, because that is a |\n| 12 | significant, to say the least, fine. |\n| 13 | It would have made on sense for Justice Ostrager |\n| 14 | to support his contempt decision if he had merely decided |\n| 15 | that the debtor owned, for example, a .01 ownership interest |\n| 16 | in the yacht, which is what counsel claims was the issue |\n| 17 | before the court. |\n| 18 | So the other point they raise about how there |\n| 19 | would eventually have been a further turnover proceeding in |\n| 20 | order to determine the yacht's ownership, I agree that had |\n| 21 | the litigation not been stayed, PAX probably would have |\n| 22 | moved for turnover. |\n| 23 | But guess what?
In response to that, they would |\n| 24 | have said collateral estoppel.
They would have said law of |\n| 25 | the case.
They would have said Justice Ostrager, you |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 61 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | already decided this issue. It's the debtor's property. |\n| 2 | So there wasn't -- the fact there may have been a |\n| 3 | later turn over motion doesn't mean that the final prior |\n| 4 | decision, as made clear by Justice Ostrager in his order, |\n| 5 | itself has preclusive effect. |\n| 6 | Just to address
-- I won't spend a whole lot of |\n| 7 | time on the participation issues because I think the record |\n| 8 | is undisputed, certainly beyond any genuine dispute as |\n| 9 | required by Rule 56 for summary judgment, that the counter |\n| 10 | defendants, HK USA participated extensively. |\n| 11 | This was already covered during your colloquy with |\n| 12 | counsel.
Attorney Vartan decided to submit his lengthy |\n| 13 | affirmation.
They called witnesses. |\n| 14 | And, again, in addition to that it wasn't just the |\n| 15 | counter-defendants and HK USA who protected their interest |\n| 16 | by personally participating in the proceedings.
They had an |\n| 17 | alignment of interest with the debtor who himself did all |\n| 18 | the things they claim they couldn't do. |\n| 19 | He filed a post-trial brief.
He did everything. |\n| 20 | He argued his case based on their evidence, based on their |\n| 21 | testimony. |\n| 22 | So under all the facts and circumstances, which is |\n| 23 | what a court has to look at in determining whether the |\n| 24 | litigant to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity in a |\n| 25 | prior action, I don't think they were could be any question. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 62 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
62 |\n| 1 | And this is a perfect case to demonstrate that that element |\n| 2 | is satisfied. |\n| 3 | They mention the fact that this is a five-year |\n| 4 | litigation and they weren't involved until close to the end |\n| 5 | of -- the issue that we're talking about was the issue that |\n| 6 | was presented to Justice Ostrager as a result of the March |\n| 7 | and July, 2021 contempt orders.
And that is the issue in |\n| 8 | which HK USA and Mei Guo were heavily involved. |\n| 9 | I'll spend just a couple of moments addressing the |\n| 10 | issue of whether the pendency of an appeal in New York can |\n| 11 | defeat collateral estoppel. |\n| 12 | I think the court was absolutely correct in its |\n| 13 | assessment of the Bland
case and other authorities relied |\n| 14 | upon by counsel for the counter-defendants. |\n| 15 | Those cases involved administrative proceedings. |\n| 16 | They involved completely different circumstances where based |\n| 17 | on, again, all the facts and circumstances they did not |\n| 18 | apply collateral estoppel. |\n| 19 | It was not because there was not an opportunity |\n| 20 | for appellate review.
That's not the way the test works. |\n| 21 | That's not what those courts decided. |\n| 22 | And, again, the case law on this is crystal clear |\n| 23 | in New York.
And I just want to give the court another more |\n| 24 | recent decision that drives home the point. |\n| 25 | This is the -- it's a bankruptcy case of a debtor, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 63 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | Adamo, in an adversary proceeding Marini vs. Adamo.
The |\n| 2 | case citation is 560 B.R. 642.
This is in the United States |\n| 3 | Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York decision from |\n| 4 | 2016. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
560 B.R. what? |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
560 B.R. 642. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
2016 decision.
If you go to the |\n| 9 | last page of the decision, it deals with collateral |\n| 10 | estoppel. |\n| 11 | Defendant -- and this is a quote, \"Defendant's |\n| 12 | second argument in opposition to the motion is equally |\n| 13 | unavailing.
Defendant contends that collateral estoppel |\n| 14 | does not apply because he filed an appeal.
The pendency of |\n| 15 | an appeal does not preclude application of the doctrine of |\n| 16 | estoppel.
And it cites cases in support of that conclusion. |\n| 17 | So I don't think that issue is subject to any real |\n| 18 | dispute. |\n| 19 | Your Honor, let me just, with the court's |\n| 20 | indulgence, check my notes to make sure I had no other |\n| 21 | points that I wanted to make. |\n| 22 | One last note that I made is that I think counsel |\n| 23 | again mentioned the fact that during the hearings before |\n| 24 | Justice Ostrager they didn't have the opportunity to cross |\n| 25 | witnesses. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 64 I think it's worth the only witness who was presented by PAX was a witness who was authenticating social media posts. So this is not a situation where PAX paraded an assortment of fact witnesses and they had no ability to cross examine. I don't think that would change anything one iota if that were the case. But I just wanted to point out that that was, in fact, what happened before Justice Ostrager on February 2nd. That's all I have, but I'm, of course, happy to answer any questions the court may have. THE COURT: Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Counsel, would you like to respond? MS. WERNICK: Just briefly, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. MS. WERNICK: So, again, just to begin, I want to draw the court's attention back to the appellate division decision that counsel just mentioned. And I think it's worth noting to the court that the appellate division in affirming Justice Ostrager's decision noted that the court was in its discretion to hold the defendant in contempt, citing the various prongs of a contempt ruling, including the idea that such a violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 64 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 65 of\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
65 |\n| 1 | And so the idea that that was a necessary finding |\n| 2 | of there being ownership in connection with central |\n| 3 | prejudice to PAX's rights in the court below, I think |\n| 4 | doesn't jive with the court -- the appellate division's |\n| 5 | decision. |\n| 6 | And, again, I recognize that the appellate |\n| 7 | division instructed the lower court to proceed with an |\n| 8 | evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership, |\n| 9 | but I don't know if what -- the proceeding that filed is |\n| 10 | necessarily what the appellate division was contemplating as |\n| 11 | opposed to a separate proceeding, as I noted that the CLPR |\n| 12 | would call for with respect to a full determination on |\n| 13 | ownership involving the party in possession of the asset |\n| 14 | here, the yacht and HK. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, let me ask you a question about |\n| 16 | that. |\n| 17 | So you're saying you don't know what the appellate |\n| 18 | court was -- what it meant when it said conduct an |\n| 19 | evidentiary hearing.
It could have meant that they wanted a |\n| 20 | CPLR 5225 hearing to proceed? |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
I think it's just plausible -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So tell me what the difference |\n| 23 | is then. |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:
Well, a CPLR 5225 proceeding would |\n| 25 | be a proceeding commenced against HK USA. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 66 of
103 | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
66 | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, why wouldn't the | | |\n| 2 | appellate court have said that, as opposed to saying I want | | |\n| 3 | you to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of who | | |\n| 4 | owns the yacht?
Why wouldn't they have said that. | | |\n| 5 | I mean, the appellate court knows the CPLR.
They | | |\n| 6 | know it, right?
I mean, I would assume they obviously know | | |\n| 7 | it.
And they would understand the distinction between that | | |\n| 8 | proceeding and HK USA at that time, why couldn't you have | | |\n| 9 | started a proceeding under CPLR rules? | | |\n| 10 | I'm not saying a 5225 proceeding, but you could | | |\n| | | | |\n\n have started some proceeding as well if you were concerned about there actually being an evidentiary hearing in which you weren't a party.\n\n MS. WERNICK: Yes, I mean, I think with respect to that, I mean some of that is a bit of speculation and a matter of retrospect in the manner in which things have since played out.\n\n But I think the notion is that that as I said in the initial presentation there wouldn't have been a reason for HK USA to intervene in the PAX litigation, since it had a full and fair expectation of there being some other proceeding involving them if there was going to be a question of turnover, which the trustee is now asking for here.\n\nAnd I think just from a plain reading of the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 67 of\n\n| | 103 | |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 | 67 |\n| 1 | appellate division's decision, I think there is certain | |\n| 2 | ambiguity in the decision, but leads to a fair conclusion | |\n| 3 | that if there was going to be a determination as against HK | |\n| 4 | USA, that they would have to have been involved in that | |\n| 5 | proceeding as something other than a mere witness. | |\n\n And so, again, just to comment on counsel's remarks regarding the full participation of HK USA and the New York proceeding, again, I think the entirety of the contempt hearing occurred over the matter of a few hours.\n\n There was, you know, maybe two hours of testimony on this issue and certainly -- I mean, I remember I was here I guess just ten days ago in connection with the PJR application, where counsel came in with boat loads of documents and information ready to present on the underlying issues, which surely would be much more than the record that was before the court in New York in order to make a substantive decision on this very significant asset.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Anything further? MS. WERNICK: And then just on the issue of appellate review, not to just go back and forth with case citations, but I would also refer the court to *Gelb vs. Royal Globe Insurance Company*, which is 798 F.2d 38. THE COURT: I think I did see that case. It was a criminal case, right? MS. WERNICK: It involved an underlying criminal\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 68 conviction, correct. THE COURT: All right. Anything further, counsel? No? Okay. MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. With regard to the emergency motion for an order that the trustee has filed with regard to the repair reserve for the insurance and other payments, Mr. Bassett, are you prepared to discuss that at the moment, or who's going to -- MR. BASSETT: The Trustee's going to address that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Trustee Despins. And Mr. Moriarty, you're going to address that issue? MR. MORIARTY: I will, Your Honor, although my understanding of that motion is that it's contingent upon the court's ruling on the summary judgment motion and it may be that depending on how the court rules on the summary judgment motion, we may be able to reach agreement on that motion. THE COURT: You may be able to reach an agreement? MR. MORIARTY: Yes. THE COURT: What does that mean? What kind of an agreement? MR. MORIARTY: I would have to speak with the trustee about a proposed order, depending on -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 69 THE COURT: Why couldn't you reach the agreement regardless? You can't have a boat -- a yacht without insurance. Your own motion that you withdrew, the motion to modify, I looked at it again, okay. And in that motion you have an extensive attachment, breakdown line by line, about how all the monies were going to be spent, which included over \\$100,000 for payment of insurance. So HK, until you withdraw the motion after consenting to the entry of the PJR and the preliminary injunction, your own client's position was that the insurance needed to be paid. MR. MORIARTY: I agree with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: And Mr. Despins is in control of the funds. And that was on consent. Mr. Despins holds the funds. How could it be prejudicial to your client to have the funds spent in the manner in which you wanted -- your client wants those funds spent until it decided to withdraw the motion, which was supposed to be heard last week. We were going to have an evidentiary hearing on that motion, as you recall. So how would that prejudicial to your client, regardless of what the ruling is on summary judgment? MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, if the court grants the Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 69 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 70 of\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
70 |\n| 1 | trustee's summary judgment motion, the trustee takes title |\n| 2 | to the Lady May, the repair reserve is part of that broader |\n| 3 | escrow.
The escrow was \\$37 million that was loaned to HK. I |\n| 4 | understand that the Department of Justice, the SEC and the |\n| 5 | trustee may have different views on that, but as of right |\n| 6 | now there is a \\$37 million loan made to HK -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
But you've agreed and consented to \\$4 |\n| 8 | million of it going -- being held by the trustee in this |\n| 9 | repair reserve. |\n| 10 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
So I understand your argument about |\n| 12 | the loan. I'm not getting involved in the loan right now, |\n| 13 | right? |\n| 14 | What I'm asking you is regardless of how I rule on |\n| 15 | summary judgment, how would it be prejudicial to your client |\n| 16 | to have -- your clients, to have the trustee spend the money |\n| 17 | in the same way you propose to spend -- you propose that it |\n| 18 | be spent a few weeks ago. |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
So, Your Honor, it probably |\n| 20 | wouldn't be prejudicial. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good. |\n| 22 | MR. MORIARTY:
My point is -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
It doesn't matter.
Then why aren't we |\n| 24 | agreeing to it. |\n| 25 | Even if the insurance is obtained in the name of |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 71 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
71 |\n| 1 | HK for the benefit of the trustee, why are we arguing about |\n| 2 | it? |\n| 3 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, if the trustee takes |\n| 4 | title to the boat this money, which as of right now is HK's |\n| 5 | money because it took the loan -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Well, it's subject to a prejudgment |\n| 7 | remedy right now and a preliminary injunction, right? |\n| 8 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. MORIARTY:
But it's still HK's property, |\n| 11 | regardless of whether it's attached. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
It may be. |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:
The attachment doesn't affect HK's |\n| 14 | property rights. It just affects HK's ability to deal with |\n| 15 | the property and to dissipate the property. |\n| 16 | So as of right now that's HK's property.
If title |\n| 17 | passes to the trustee, then the trustee is using HK's |\n| 18 | property to maintain an asset of the estate. |\n| 19 | So all that we would be asking for is that the |\n| 20 | order protects HK's rights so that if in the future this |\n| 21 | court or another court of competent jurisdiction finds that |\n| 22 | those funds are HK's, then HK would have a right to recoup |\n| 23 | the money that the trustee has spent to maintain an estate |\n| 24 | asset. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, how would that right go away, |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 72 of
103 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
72 | |\n| 1 | even if he did spend it?
Even if he did spend it, how would | |\n| 2 | -- there's nothing that would say your right of recoupment. | |\n| 3 | Where under the law would your right of recoupment go away, | |\n| 4 | if you're right, if you prevail? | |\n| 5 | MR. MORIARTY:
It may not, Your Honor, but all | |\n| 6 | that I'm saying is that we would want some specific language | |\n| 7 | in an order, which I think we could work out, that | |\n| 8 | specifically provides for that so that we're not -- | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, my point is this, counsel. I | |\n| 10 | hear you, but even if I don't rule on summary judgment | |\n| 11 | today, why wouldn't you be able to do what you're talking | |\n| 12 | about?
I don't understand why that can't be accomplished. | |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:
It probably could be, Your Honor -- | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good.
Well, then we're going | |\n| 15 | to take a recess and you're going to accomplish it. | |\n| 16 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay.
But -- | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Because it doesn't make any sense. | |\n| 18 | What are going to fight about?
Your clients in pleadings | |\n| 19 | before this court said we need to spend this money.
And | |\n| 20 | we've been talking about spending the money for the reserve | |\n| 21 | for months now, back to November or December or something. I | |\n| 22 | don't recall at the moment, but for several months now. | |\n| 23 | And the parties have seemed to work to -- not | |\n| 24 | necessarily on all fours, but that things have to get paid | |\n| 25 | and we were taking it in certain steps, right?
We were | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 73 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | taking it incrementally. |\n| 2 | But the problem now isn't an incremental problem. |\n| 3 | If your client -- you talk about your property, right?
Your |\n| 4 | client's property.
Why would you want to have your client's |\n| 5 | boat -- yacht, exposed to the world without insurance? I |\n| 6 | just can't understand that. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
We don't, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Then work out a deal.
The money's |\n| 9 | there.
You asked for the same amount of money the trustee's |\n| 10 | asking for. |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct, Your Honor.
We did at a |\n| 12 | time when my client owned and had title to the boat. |\n| 13 | My only point is if title passes, we just want to |\n| 14 | make sure that we have rights in the event that this money |\n| 15 | is determined to be HK's at some future point. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm going to give you the |\n| 17 | opportunity to have that discussion with the trustee right |\n| 18 | now. |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Because I don't see any reason |\n| 21 | why we're going to sit here and have an argument about |\n| 22 | release of the funds when it's clear that the boat -- the |\n| 23 | yacht has to be insured. It has to be insured.
I don't know |\n| 24 | why you would open up your clients to a cause of action that |\n| 25 | they failed to insure it. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 74 of\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
74 |\n| 1 | I mean, I can't understand that.
So I can't |\n| 2 | believe that you're actually doing that so I think that you |\n| 3 | just need to work out a deal with regard to the money so |\n| 4 | that the insurance can be obtained and that there's |\n| 5 | insurance that covers the yacht.
I think that clearly needs |\n| 6 | to happen. |\n| 7 | And it would have happened -- I mean, we were |\n| 8 | supposed to have that evidentiary hearing last week, but you |\n| 9 | chose -- and that's your choice.
But you made a choice to |\n| 10 | withdraw that motion.
Okay.
So that motion was withdrawn. |\n| 11 | But it still doesn't change the fact that the yacht needs to |\n| 12 | be insured, whether you own it or the trustee owns it. |\n| 13 | I agree, Your Honor.
And I frankly don't know |\n| 14 | what the relief would have been on that motion because the |\n| 15 | trustee did oppose that motion and now he's asking for the |\n| 16 | same relief, but I agree with the court and I hear the |\n| 17 | direction, and we will work it out. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
So then -- |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
So -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Yes, Trustee Despins. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, I hate to say it like |\n| 22 | that, but we have an expert that's working with us on |\n| 23 | getting insurance and the feedback we got is we cannot get |\n| 24 | insurance unless we have title. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I understand all that. I'm not |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 75 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
75 |\n| 1 | disputing what you're saying to me, okay.
But I'm also |\n| 2 | saying I'm not going to have an argument of an hour and a |\n| 3 | half about whether money should be spent and by whom. |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Agreed, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Because it clearly needs to be |\n| 6 | spent.
There's -- no one can dispute that. |\n| 7 | So what I'm going to do is I'm going to take a |\n| 8 | recess until 2:00 p.m.
I'd ask the parties to have a |\n| 9 | discussion about the expenditure of the funds to obtain the |\n| 10 | insurance and possibly the other items, such as pay the |\n| 11 | crew, and the other things that are in the motion. |\n| 12 | And then I'm going to go back. I have to look at - |\n| 13 | - you've both cited some new case law.
I haven't looked at |\n| 14 | it. I need to look at that and then we'll come back at 2 |\n| 15 | o'clock and we'll see where things stand. |\n| 16 | But I do think that the issue of -- I just -- the |\n| 17 | trustee is in control of the reserve -- repair reserve. I |\n| 18 | understand your argument, Mr. Moriarty. I do.
About at one |\n| 19 | point they're objecting. Now they're asking for the same |\n| 20 | thing. |\n| 21 | But you're objecting to what they're -- we keep |\n| 22 | going back and forth.
The long story short is your client |\n| 23 | wanted that money spent to protect what it believes is its |\n| 24 | asset. It says it's his asset.
So then let's spend it. |\n| 25 | There is no way that this court is going to go |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 76 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | forward without the insurance being obtained however it |\n| 2 | needs to be obtained. |\n| 3 | Now you say you want to make sure that if the |\n| 4 | title passes you have recoupment rights. I don't know how -- |\n| 5 | I don't know where in the law you don't have whatever rights |\n| 6 | you claim you have. |\n| 7 | But that's something you can all talk about, okay? |\n| 8 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then court is in recess |\n| 10 | until 2:00 p.m. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n| 12 | (Recess from 12:51 p.m. until 2:19 p.m.) |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Before we took a recess we were |\n| 14 | discussing the issues about the monies in the repair reserve |\n| 15 | and if the parties would discuss any possible agreement or |\n| 16 | resolution with regard to the repair reserve, specifically |\n| 17 | with regard to the obtaining of insurance to insure the Lady |\n| 18 | May and then also with regard to other costs associated with |\n| 19 | the maintenance of the yacht. |\n| 20 | So Trustee Despins, Attorney Moriarty, did you |\n| 21 | have any discussions during the break. |\n| 22 | MR. MORIARTY:
We did, Your Honor. I actually had |\n| 23 | brought with me to court today a markup of the order that |\n| 24 | was -- proposed order that was filed with Trustee Despins's |\n| 25 | motion.
I gave them my redline.
They gave me back some |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 77 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
77 |\n| 1 | comments and I would say 98 percent of this is done. |\n| 2 | There's one thing that I just need to confirm with |\n| 3 | my office that I haven't been able to do yet, so what I will |\n| 4 | represent to the court and say to the court is the -- HK has |\n| 5 | no objection to the entry of or -- let me back up. |\n| 6 | HK has no objection to the trustee's motion and |\n| 7 | does not oppose entry of an order permitting the trustee to |\n| 8 | use up the \\$500,000 from the repair reserves with an agreed |\n| 9 | upon order to follow. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Trustee Despins? |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. I think |\n| 12 | we're fairly comfortable that we'll have a consensual order |\n| 13 | in a few hours. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So is the consensual order |\n| 15 | going to say that title to the Lady May is in the name of |\n| 16 | the estate of Ho Wan Kwok? |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:
It is not, Your Honor, which is the |\n| 18 | reason why I initially said -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 20 | MR. MORIARTY:
-- the second order is based on the |\n| 21 | summary judgment rule. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. I understand. All right. |\n| 23 | Anything further on summary judgment? |\n| 24 | MR. MORIARTY:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
During the recess the |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 78 court went and reviewed certain documents, including -- and cases that were cited by the parties during oral argument and reviewed the pleadings submitted by the parties and the pleadings in -- that include pleadings in the main Chapter 11 case of Mr. Kwok and in the action that PAX commenced against Mr. Kwok in the New York State Court that was one of the reasons the debtors -- debtor, Mr. Kwok, indicated he had voluntarily commenced this Chapter 11 case and had come to this court to seek relief under the bankruptcy code. With regard to the motion for summary judgment\n\n that's before the court today, ECF No. 146, the court's reviewed the positions of the parties and listened to the oral arguments made today during the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.\n\n Upon review of the first counterclaim of the Chapter 11 trustee, which is contained in ECF No. 36, the first counterclaim in that pleading filed by the trustee is entitled Lady May is Property of the Debtor.\n\n And in the -- I'm -- I think it's only less than ten paragraphs of that pleading, but I will look right now. (Pause.)\n\n The first counterclaim appears on page 58 -- begins on page 58 of ECF 36. Actually, it's only seven paragraphs, the counterclaim.\n\nAnd obviously it does incorporate and realleges\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 79 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
79 |\n| 1 | facts in prior complaint -- in prior paragraphs of the |\n| 2 | document but paragraph 106 says that in the final contempt |\n| 3 | decision Justice Ostrager found that the debtor beneficially |\n| 4 | owns and controls the Lady May. |\n| 5 | And then paragraph 107 states that Justice |\n| 6 | Ostrager's finding with respect to the debtor's ownership of |\n| 7 | the Lady May was preclusive in effect and HK USA is |\n| 8 | collaterally estopped from contesting that issue. |\n| 9 | Paragraph 108 states that New York issue |\n| 10 | preclusion law is applicable, given that the findings in the |\n| 11 | final contempt decision were made by a New York court. |\n| 12 | The next paragraph, 109, says under New York law |\n| 13 | collateral estopped bars relitigation of an issue when the |\n| 14 | identical issues necessarily was decided in the prior action |\n| 15 | and is decisive of the present action and the party to be |\n| 16 | precluded from relitigating the issue had a full and fair |\n| 17 | opportunity litigate the issue in the prior action. |\n| 18 | And there's a cite to Plymouth Venture Partners |\n| 19 | II, LP vs. GTR Source, LLC, 988 F.3d 634, 642 Second Circuit |\n| 20 | 2021, applying New York law. |\n| 21 | So when the court -- and he parties have agreed, |\n| 22 | both counsel for the trustee and counsel for HK USA, that |\n| 23 | the test that the court has to apply in determining whether |\n| 24 | collateral estoppel applies in this adversary proceeding is |\n| 25 | the test that I just read into the record and that is stated |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 80 of |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
80 |\n| 1 | in Plymouth Ventures, which is the identical issue |\n| 2 | necessarily was decided in the prior action and is decisive |\n| 3 | of the present action and the party to be preluded from |\n| 4 | relitigating the issue had a full and fair opportunity to |\n| 5 | litigate the issue in the prior action. |\n| 6 | So the court has gone back and reviewed these -- |\n| 7 | the two factors and as I said, the parties agree that they |\n| 8 | apply, but how those factors apply, the parties are not in |\n| 9 | agreement with regard to their application. |\n| 10 | So with regard to the first factor, the identical |\n| 11 | issue was necessarily -- was decided in the prior action and |\n| 12 | is decisive of the present action, there really are the two |\n| 13 | components to that.
It has to be the identical issue was in |\n| 14 | both cases and that it was necessarily decided in the prior |\n| 15 | case. |\n| 16 | The identical issue in this case, there's a |\n| 17 | disagreement about what it is, although not a complete |\n| 18 | disagreement.
The argument made by the trustee is that the |\n| 19 | identical issue in this case that is decisive of the summary |\n| 20 | judgment motion on the first counterclaim is that the Lady |\n| 21 | May is property of the debtor's, Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 |\n| 22 | estate. |\n| 23 | HK argues that while that issue was addressed in |\n| 24 | the prior litigation, the issue was in the prior litigation |\n| 25 | an issue of contempt and not the ownership of the Lady May. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 81 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 81 The court agrees with the trustee that the issue that is decisive of the summary judgment motion in the present action is the identical issue that was necessarily decided in the prior action.\n\n The arguments made by HK USA that the appellate court direction to Justice Ostrager was possibly not clear are not persuasive.\n\n If we look at the appellate court's direction to Justice Ostrager, which is at Exhibit 15 attached to ECF 150, which is the Bassett declaration, the appellate court says, and I quote, \"The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to the ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\"\n\n Therefore, this court finds that the issue -- the identical issue that was necessarily decided on direction from the appellate court, which Justice Ostrager did decide in his opinion of February 9, 2022 -- I believe, I'm correct on that date, was the ownership of the Lady May.\n\n And so the identical issue that was necessarily decided in the prior action by the New York State Court is decisive of the present action and that part of the first factor is met, as is the second part of the first factor, which is it was necessarily decided in the prior case. I'm just looking for the reference to -- and I\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 82 of
103 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
82 |\n| will find it.
The Justice Ostrager opinion is Exhibit 18 to |\n| ECF 150, the Bassett declaration? |\n| (Pause.) |\n| MR. MORIARTY:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
And the language -- there's several |\n| portions in the decision that the court will refer to at |\n| different points and that have been referred to by both |\n| parties during the oral argument. |\n| But Justice Ostrager found after conducting the |\n| hearing that he was required to conduct by the appellate |\n| court in entering a final order of civil contempt, which is |\n| what Justice Ostrager's opinion says.
And so it wasn't a |\n| situation where this wasn't a proceeding that was some |\n| preliminary step in the litigation. |\n| Justice Ostrager found that the proceedings |\n| established, among other things, that Kwok exercised |\n| dominion and control over the Lady May and that resulted in |\n| a series of orders restraining Kwok, and or the registered |\n| owners of the yacht called Lady May, from removing the Lady |\n| May from the court's jurisdiction. |\n| The first such order was issued in September 30, |\n| 2022 -- I'm sorry. I read that wrong.
Issued on September |\n| 30, 2020, which the court finds was well in excess of |\n| February 9, 2022, and described -- as described in greater |\n| detail in Justice Ostrager's opinion, which was followed by |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 83 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
83 |\n| 1 | an October 15, 2020 order that restrained Mr. Kwok, and/or |\n| 2 | the registered owners of the yacht, the Lady May, from |\n| 3 | leaving the jurisdiction. |\n| 4 | So as early as September 30, 2020 and then |\n| 5 | subsequent orders issuing as well, the registered owner of |\n| 6 | the Lady May was served with orders restraining Mr. Kwok |\n| 7 | and/or the registered owners from leaving the jurisdiction. |\n| 8 | No actions were taken that the court is aware of |\n| 9 | by the registered owners in the action in front of Justice |\n| 10 | Ostrager to either vacate or set aside a temporary |\n| 11 | restraining order that clearly restrained them, the |\n| 12 | registered owners, meaning HK USA and Ms. Guo, from removing |\n| 13 | the yacht from the jurisdiction of the New York court. |\n| 14 | In addition, Justice Ostrager states in his |\n| 15 | opinion the testimony adduced at the hearing, out of the |\n| 16 | mouths of the defendant's witnesses, clearly and |\n| 17 | convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and |\n| 18 | controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this court |\n| 19 | and the judicial process. |\n| 20 | Justice Ostrager goes on to say the testimony |\n| 21 | adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok |\n| 22 | transferred a 100 percent interest in HK International to |\n| 23 | one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted |\n| 24 | business associate of the Kwok family. |\n| 25 | Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23rd, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 84 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
84 |\n| 1 | 2015 HK International purchased the Lady May for 28 million |\n| 2 | pounds. |\n| 3 | No testimony adduced at the hearing established |\n| 4 | the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the |\n| 5 | uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, |\n| 6 | established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to |\n| 7 | purchase the yacht. |\n| 8 | Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok |\n| 9 | provided the funds to HK which were used to purchase the |\n| 10 | yacht. |\n| 11 | It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the |\n| 12 | ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or |\n| 13 | about June 17, 2017 for \\$1 or no consideration. |\n| 14 | Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the |\n| 15 | Lady May to the current title holder, HK USA.
Ms. Guo |\n| 16 | further avers that she's the sole owner of HK USA, although |\n| 17 | all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the Lady |\n| 18 | May, including, fuel, maintenance and the captain and crew |\n| 19 | are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. |\n| 20 | Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both |\n| 21 | this court's September 30, 2020 restraining order and this |\n| 22 | court's subsequent March 16, 2021 order directing that the |\n| 23 | Lady May be returned to the court's jurisdiction. |\n| 24 | Justice Ostrager furthers stated on page 8 of his |\n| 25 | decision that Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 85 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | in the Lady May.
Not only does he control the yacht, it |\n| 2 | appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the |\n| 3 | person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht. |\n| 4 | Justice Ostrager then says on page 9, the evidence |\n| 5 | clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a |\n| 6 | beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. |\n| 7 | The court finds Ms. Guo's testimony was not only |\n| 8 | internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also |\n| 9 | significantly undermined by the Captains Heaslop and Ivanov |\n| 10 | and Mr. Stockil, who stated they have never taken yacht |\n| 11 | related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and a half years |\n| 12 | that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht. |\n| 13 | So the court finds for the reasons that have been |\n| 14 | stated already on the record and with regard to the |\n| 15 | statements in Justice -- and findings in Justice Ostrager's |\n| 16 | opinion that the first factor of collateral estopped that |\n| 17 | the identical issue necessarily was decided in the prior |\n| 18 | action and is decisive of the present action has been met. |\n| 19 | The court also finds that it's clear from New York |\n| 20 | law when there is an appeal pending, the ruling that is on |\n| 21 | appeal can have collateral estoppel effect and that the |\n| 22 | cases cited by HK to attempt to argue that there is no |\n| 23 | collateral estoppel effect are not applicable and are not |\n| 24 | persuasive in this case. |\n| 25 | With regard to the second factor, the party to be |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 86 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
86 |\n| 1 | preluded from relitigating the issue had a full and fair |\n| 2 | opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. |\n| 3 | All -- both parties agree -- the Chapter 11 |\n| 4 | trustee and HK International and Mei Guo, that HK and Mei |\n| 5 | Guo were not parties to the PAX litigation before Justice |\n| 6 | Ostrager.
And the court finds that to be true, that they |\n| 7 | were not parties. |\n| 8 | With regard to the factors, the full and fair |\n| 9 | opportunity to litigate factors, there are, again, two parts |\n| 10 | to the factor.
The privity with the party against whom the |\n| 11 | judgment has been rendered, the interests aligned test, that |\n| 12 | we've address already this morning during oral argument and |\n| 13 | the realities of the litigation and the opportunity to fully |\n| 14 | and fairly litigate that litigation. |\n| 15 | With regard to this prong of the test, the court |\n| 16 | notes the case of Schwartz vs. Public Administrator of the |\n| 17 | Bronx, which established the modern rule of collateral |\n| 18 | estoppel and it states unequivocally that it is a non |\n| 19 | movant's burden to prove lack of full faith and opportunity |\n| 20 | should the movant prove identity of the issues. |\n| 21 | And in this -- I've already found that the trustee |\n| 22 | has proved the identity of the issue and under |\n| 23 | (indiscernible)
this burden remains on the non-movant, |\n| 24 | although the trustee must make an initial showing, which the |\n| 25 | court has found that the trustee has done. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 1644 | Filed 04/10/23 | Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 | Page 87 of |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 87 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
87 |\n| 1 | So, therefore, HK USA and Mei Guo have the burden |\n| 2 | in this case, under this factor, to prove a lack of full and |\n| 3 | fair opportunity to litigate the issue that was the -- the |\n| 4 | identical issues that was necessarily decided in the prior |\n| 5 | action and is decisive in this action. |\n| 6 | The court finds that HK USA and Mei Guo have not |\n| 7 | met their burden with regard to the second factor.
HK |\n| 8 | argues that Mr. Kwok took the Fifth Amendment, or invoked |\n| 9 | his right against self incrimination, and that does not make |\n| 10 | him in privity with HK USA and Mei Guo. |\n| 11 | However, Mr. Kwok argued, as noted by the court |\n| 12 | this morning during questioning of HK's counsel, that Mr. |\n| 13 | Kwok filed documents and pleadings in the New York |\n| 14 | litigation, asserting that HK owned the boat -- the yacht. |\n| 15 | And that in so doing he was aligning his interests with the |\n| 16 | interests of HK USA and Mei Guo. |\n| 17 | As noted, both parties argued strenuously in front |\n| 18 | of Justice Ostrager that HK USA was the owner of the boat |\n| 19 | and both parties wanted that finding to be made by the New |\n| 20 | York court so that the yacht would be outside of the reach |\n| 21 | of PAX as part of its post-judgment proceedings. |\n| 22 | In addition, HK USA made arguments in their papers |\n| 23 | and in oral argument this morning that talks about -- that |\n\n says that just because the -- Ms. Guo and Mr. Kwok are father and daughter, that there can't be any privity because\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 88 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
88 |\n| 1 | of that relationship. |\n| 2 | But that's not what the trustee argued in |\n| 3 | connection with this element.
The trustee was not arguing |\n| 4 | just because Ms. Guo and Mr. Kwok are father and daughter. |\n| 5 | That equals privity. |\n| 6 | The argument was much broader than that by the |\n| 7 | trustee and supports a finding that there is an alignment of |\n| 8 | interest and there was an alignment of interest between Ms. |\n| 9 | Guo, HK USA and Mr. Kwok at the time that the Justice |\n| 10 | Ostrager decision was issued on February 9, 2022 and prior |\n| 11 | to that time, that is what Justice Ostrager found, because |\n| 12 | they both -- both sides, both the father and the daughter |\n| 13 | though -- individually and through the corporate entities |\n| 14 | wanted to keep the Lady May out of the reach of PAX. |\n| 15 | With regard to the second part of the full and |\n| 16 | fair opportunity to litigate prong, the cases in New York |\n| 17 | and that are recognized applying this law -- the law under |\n| 18 | New York law with regard to collateral estoppel say that the |\n| 19 | court needs to look at the realities of the litigation. |\n| 20 | And the reality of the litigation in New York |\n| 21 | State Court is that as early as September 2020, Justice |\n| 22 | Ostrager was issuing temporary restraining orders against |\n| 23 | both Mr. Kwok and the record owners of the Lady May. |\n| 24 | There is nothing in the record before this court |\n| 25 | that demonstrates that HK USA or Mei Guo sought to vacate, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 89 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
89 |\n| 1 | modify or set aside any of those temporary restraining |\n| 2 | orders. |\n| 3 | The record in this court through Justice |\n| 4 | Ostrager's opinion demonstrates that Mei Guo was aware of |\n| 5 | the temporary restraining orders that were issued in |\n| 6 | September, 2020 and October, 2020 and that, again, there's |\n| 7 | nothing in the record to indicate that there was any attempt |\n| 8 | to set aside those restraining orders. |\n| 9 | In addition, the record in this court establishes |\n| 10 | that in July of 2021 Attorney Vartan filed an affidavit in |\n| 11 | opposition to PAX's motion for a final order of contempt and |\n| 12 | in that declaration -- affidavit, Attorney Vartan stated |\n| 13 | that he was filing this document on behalf of HK |\n| 14 | International because the property interests of HK |\n| 15 | International were being affected by the final contempt |\n| 16 | motion. |\n| 17 | Now the parties have argued and HK and Mei Guo's |\n| 18 | counsel have admitted several times on the record that HK |\n| 19 | USA and Mei Guo are one and the same. |\n| 20 | And so with regard to the issue of civil contempt |\n| 21 | as to Kwok and HK USA asserting in July of 2021 that their |\n| 22 | property rights were being affected by the final contempt |\n| 23 | motion, also established that they had a full and fair |\n| 24 | opportunity to litigate and chose not to in the New York |\n| 25 | action. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 90 of\n\n| 103 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
90 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Finally, as I may have already said, but I will |\n| 2 | say this again, Justice Ostrager's ruling was not a |\n| 3 | preliminary ruling, although HK USA argued that it was and |\n| 4 | that the appellate court's ruling might be ambiguous and I |\n| 5 | find that that argument is not persuasive. |\n| 6 | The appellate court's ruling was very clear.
The |\n| 7 | appellate court said -- I have to find it.
I think it's |\n| 8 | Exhibit 15, but maybe I'm wrong. It might be Exhibit 7.
No. |\n| 9 | Give one moment, if you'll bear with me. |\n| 10 | Yes, the appellate court said in Exhibit 15, |\n| 11 | that's attached to the Bassett declaration, ECF 150, that |\n| 12 | the motion court is instructed to proceed with an |\n| 13 | evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and |\n| 14 | control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties. |\n| 15 | So this court finds that there was no ambiguity in |\n| 16 | what the appellate court was directing Justice Ostrager to |\n| 17 | do and that Justice Ostrager did so when he conducted a |\n| 18 | hearing, an evidentiary hearing on the ownership of the Lady |\n| 19 | May and ruled on the ownership on February 9th, 2022. |\n| 20 | With regard to any further arguments about not |\n| 21 | being able to appeal or participate in the litigation in the |\n| 22 | Connecticut -- I'm sorry, in the New York State Court, I |\n| 23 | find that the arguments that HK advanced are not persuasive. |\n| 24 | New York law provides that if a party is in |\n| 25 | privity with another party it does not matter who controls |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 91 the appeal and that different things could have occurred for HK to exercise its rights in that New York State litigation and it chose not to do so. However, it came before this court voluntarily when it was not a debtor and it had sought to stop PAX from obtaining relief from the stay to go back to the New York State court to continue with the action in front of Justice Ostrager. And HK affirmatively decided in this case, in this bankruptcy court, to bring a cause of action to determine the ownership of the Lady May even though that determination had already been made by Justice Ostrager in the New York court action. The arguments that Attorney Vartan was only involved for a little bit and was only there at a three-hour hearing are also unpersuasive. As noted on the record, Attorney Vartan filed a declaration affirmation in July of 2021. His clients knew of the temporary restraining orders back to September of 2020. And as noted, Attorney Vartan's filing says that the action in the New York State court with regard to PAX's attempts to execute on a judgment and seize assets were affecting his clients right and property rights with regard to the yacht. So for all of those reasons the court grants the Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 91 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 92 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
92 |\n| 1 | motion for summary on the first counterclaim that is set |\n| 2 | forth in ECF 36. |\n| 3 | It is likely that this ruling will be supplemented |\n| 4 | by a written ruling and that may take a day or so, or |\n| 5 | probably more than that because we have other matters to |\n| 6 | address in other cases this week. |\n| 7 | But this ruling is so ordered as of 2:55 p.m. on |\n| 8 | March 27th, 2023, even if a written ruling does not issue |\n| 9 | for a few days. |\n| 10 | Mr. Despins, your proposed order that was |\n| 11 | submitted -- I have to find it. I have here it here |\n| 12 | somewhere. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
I have extra copies, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I have it.
Thank you. I just need to |\n| 15 | find it.
Here it is. |\n| 16 | (Pause.) |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
We probably should add something |\n| 18 | that says and for the reasons stated on the record by the |\n| 19 | court, or something like that.
We don't have that. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Again, I still may supplement this |\n| 21 | with a written decision, but this order is going to enter |\n| 22 | effective, as I said, 2:55 p.m. on March 27th, or whatever |\n| 23 | time I said. I think that's the time I said. |\n| 24 | And the -- opposing counsel has a copy of the |\n| 25 | order.
Mr. Despins -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 93 of
103 | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
93 | | |\n| 1 | MS. WERNICK:
It was electronically filed. | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Do you have the -- did you give | | |\n| 3 | them the version that also has the -- you know, the redline | | |\n| 4 | or whatever. | | |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
It should be the last few pages. | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
The last few pages. | | |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
12 out of 13. | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Page 12.
I mean, page 11 is the | | |\n| 9 | caption, but then you turn to page 12. | | |\n| 10 | Do you both see where I am on page 12? | | |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Despins, so this is -- I'm | | |\n| 13 | going to make a few changes to this order but it's because | | |\n| 14 | what I think the order should say.
And they're not | | |\n| 15 | substantial but they're -- they -- my changes are using the | | |\n| 16 | language from the statute, okay?
From 541 and 542, all | | |\n| 17 | right? | | |\n| 18 | So in addition to the fact that probably above | | |\n| 19 | paragraph one, before it says it is hereby ordered, it will | | |\n| 20 | probably say for the reasons stated on the record, okay? | | |\n| 21 | And then there'll be some -- I'll say effective as of | | |\n| 22 | whatever time I said on the record, which I think was 2:55 | | |\n| 23 | but the courtroom deputy will help me with that. | | |\n| 24 | Paragraph 3, the second sentence.
In particular | | |\n| 25 | the order should read -- it should say in particular the | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 94 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
94 |\n| 1 | Lady May is property of the Chapter 11 estate of Ho Wan Kwok |\n| 2 | pursuant to Section 541 -- 11 USC Section 541. |\n| 3 | Furthermore, pursuant to 11 USC Section 542, I |\n| 4 | think you defined -- I think -- well, maybe you didn't yet. |\n| 5 | Let me see. |\n| 6 | So then pursuant to Section 542, HK USA and Mei |\n| 7 | Guo shall deliver to the trustee the Lady May and it will |\n| 8 | say, who is the trustee of the estate for Ho Wan Kwok, all |\n| 9 | right? |\n| 10 | And on paragraph 4 -- I don't have to make any |\n| 11 | changes. Paragraph 5, the second line, instead of surrender, |\n| 12 | shall deliver.
The statute requires delivery, not |\n| 13 | surrender.
And delivery, in my opinion is more of an |\n| 14 | affirmative -- an act than surrendering, okay. |\n| 15 | And then I will add some -- and all the rest of it |\n| 16 | I have no changes to, except that I'll add something about |\n| 17 | the time. |\n| 18 | Does anyone have any questions? |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
This is plumbing |\n| 20 | and I'm not anxious to have my name on any order but for |\n| 21 | insurance purposes and for registration purposes, if we just |\n| 22 | say the estate of Ho Wan Kwok, that's going to make it |\n| 23 | harder mechanically, as opposed to saying in my name as |\n| 24 | trustee for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So tell me what you want it to |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 95 say then. MR. DESPINS: Well, I think we -- in particular the sole owner of the Lady May is Luc Despins, as the Chapter 11 Trustee for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok. So we already have that language there. I think it's important to have an individual name so that he can -- also we can keep property of the estate of Ho Wan Kwok, but the sole owner for purpose -- I think it would be better to have my name there, as trustee, of course. THE COURT: That's going to make it easier for you to obtain insurance? Is that -- MR. DESPINS: Also to register the boat wherever we need to register it. THE COURT: Counsel, do you have any response to Trustee Despin's request with regard to the language, in particular the sole owner of the Lady May is? MR. MORIARTY: No, Your Honor. The only thing that I would point out is in paragraph 5 it says and all assistance reasonably necessary. We have no intention of doing anything to prevent the trustee from -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you, Attorney Moriarty. Can you say that again? MR. MORIARTY: Sure. So paragraph 5 says that it require HK and Ms. Guo to deliver the Lady May and provide Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 95 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 96 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
96 |\n| 1 | any and all assistance reasonably necessary.
We will |\n| 2 | provide the trustee with the assistance that we can provide. |\n| 3 | If there's something that we can't do, obviously, |\n| 4 | we can't do it and I don't want to be in a situation where |\n| 5 | we're being asked to do something we can't do. |\n| 6 | I've been working with the trustee over the last |\n| 7 | few days to provide him information in case did grant the |\n| 8 | summary judgment motion. I have some more information I'll |\n| 9 | provide him today.
So we will work with him. I just don't |\n| 10 | know what all assistance reasonably necessary means. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, I think when -- if there's a |\n| 12 | dispute, you'll have to bring it to the court -- |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
-- unfortunately. |\n| 15 | MR. MORIARTY:
I wanted to avoid that but we will |\n| 16 | do our best. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I don't -- I'm not certain either, but |\n| 18 | I have an idea. But that doesn't mean my idea is correct. |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
I appreciate it.
Thank you. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 21 | MR. FIANO:
Your Honor, if I may, on behalf of the |\n| 22 | non-party -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Would you just come forward, Attorney |\n| 24 | Fiano -- |\n| 25 | MR. FIANO:
Yes. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 97 THE COURT: -- because we won't be able to hear you. MR. FIANO: Yes. On behalf of the non -- THE COURT: Come right up here to the microphone, please. MR. FIANO: On behalf of the non-party marina, it would also facilitate in dealing with my client if, in fact, the order was in the name of the trustee rather than just simply the debtor. THE COURT: That's fine. I appreciate that. And that's what we're going to do now. We'll keep that -- but I do want to make the other citations to the other sections of the code, because it should have a citation to the code, okay? All right. Is there anything further we need to accomplish this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Apologies, but while we were in court we filed a complaint with respect to an entity called Greenwich Land, and also the debtor's wife. This is relating to the Greenwich house. It's a complaint for a declaration of alter ego, but we are seeking immediate ancillary relief in the form of a PJR and also injunction. Of course, Your Honor hasn't seen those because you were on the bench. I think it was Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 97 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 98 of
103 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
98 |\n| 1 | filed at 2:15 or something like that. |\n| 2 | And so that you know, we've put in a feature where |\n| 3 | the court would enter a PJR -- of course, you'll do that if |\n| 4 | you think it's appropriate, on an ex-parte basis, but with a |\n| 5 | feature that the defendant's counsel could come to court any |\n| 6 | time they feel it's appropriate and they have sufficient |\n| 7 | time to basically force us to obtain a continued PJR and in |\n| 8 | that context the burden would remain on us. |\n| 9 | So, therefore, we would not gain any advantage |\n| 10 | with ex parte entry of the PJR but for the protection of the |\n| 11 | house. |\n| 12 | And basically we're in a mode now where because of |\n| 13 | the criminal indictment and other things, things can move |\n| 14 | really fast. Mortgages can be granted, transfers can occur. |\n| 15 | Yes, the house cannot move itself. I understand that. |\n| 16 | But this entity has already disregarded a notice - |\n| 17 | - it's not a lis pendens notice, but a notice that was given |\n| 18 | by PAX pre-bankruptcy but was effective for one year after |\n| 19 | the notice that would preclude them from selling assets. |\n| 20 | And, in fact, an entity did sell the other |\n| 21 | property, the other real estate on Ferncliff Drive.
And we |\n| 22 | don't know what happened to the proceeds. |\n| 23 | So the point is that we know that the debtor has |\n| 24 | disregarded court orders.
We know that in spades.
We know |\n| 25 | that he's been held in contempt in many places. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 99 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 | 99 |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | This entity itself disregarded that notice from | |\n| 2 | PAX and actually that happened during the Chapter 11 case | |\n| 3 | last summer without any notice to anyone. | |\n| | | |\n\n And on top of that we know of other things. For example, Your Honor knows this from reviewing the deposition of the debtor's daughter where she claims to have sold a \\$10 million aircraft and she just doesn't know who's holding the \\$10 million right now.\n\n So the point is we're in a dangerous phase right now from the point of your protecting estate assets and we need to act with all due diligence and that's why we're moving so quickly on this.\n\n We don't want to prejudice the rights of counsel for Greenwich Land and the debtor's wife and that's why we put in a provision that says you can come back at any time that you choose -- well, on reasonable notice to us, to undue this and at that hearing the burden will remain on the trustee to prove to the court that the continued PJR or the continued preliminary injunction should remain in place.\n\n We believe that that kind of removes the -- I wouldn't use the sting, but the point is the inconvenience caused by an ex-parte filing.\n\n But we need to move on an ex-parte basis because there's a real risk that bad things could happen to these assets. And also they have a bank account and that needs to\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 100 of
103 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
100 |\n| 1 | be protected as well. |\n| 2 | We believe that there's plenty of evidence and, |\n| 3 | again, because I'm proceeding without counsel for that |\n| 4 | company being there. I want to be judicious about that, but |\n| 5 | we -- you know, the owner of that entity is the debtor's |\n| 6 | wife.
We deposed her.
She knew nothing about this company. |\n| 7 | She didn't even know -- we asked her -- we showed her five |\n| 8 | pictures of different houses around Ferncliff Road, |\n| 9 | including the one she owned and asked her to pick which one |\n| 10 | was Ferncliff.
Could not do that. |\n| 11 | So it's clear, and we have evidence from the |\n| 12 | brokers and from the lawyers regarding these transactions |\n| 13 | that Mr. Kwok was directing all these purchases and that |\n| 14 | they were paid by Mr. Kwok or by companies related to Mr. |\n| 15 | Kwok. |\n| 16 | So I hate to hit you with this. You have not read |\n| 17 | anything. I just wanted to alert you to it, alert you to the |\n| 18 | fact that we're seeking ex parte immediate entry of PJR so |\n| 19 | we can go and file that on house, again with that feature |\n| 20 | that it can be removed by the court upon motion of the |\n| 21 | defendants at any time, and that in that context the burden |\n| 22 | will remain on us as if a PJR had never been issued. |\n| 23 | So we're not trying to gain any advantage there |\n| 24 | but we need to protect the estate's assets, Your Honor. So I |\n| 25 | don't know how you want to proceed from here.
Obviously, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 101 you haven't seen anything so, therefore, I don't know how you want to proceed. THE COURT: Does Greenwich Land have an appearing counsel? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Mr. Goldstein. I forget his first name. THE COURT: Evan Goldstein. He was here last week. MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: And he represents Mr. Kwok's wife as well, correct? MR. DESPINS: Correct. And he has notice now through the ECF of the filing of the complaint. We instructed our team to send him immediately by email unredacted copies of these documents, so he is on notice at this point. THE COURT: Is the complaint redacted? Is that what you're telling me? MR. DESPINS: There are portions of the complaint that are redacted, but he is seeing -- THE COURT: No, I'm just trying to understand -- MR. DESPINS: Yes, it is -- because, again, it's the protective order where the deposition of some parties Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023 102 were designated as highly confidential, or confidential where we don't think they are, but we have to respect that until that veil has been lifted. THE COURT: All right. Well, as you correctly noted, I have not seen anything yet, so I don't know what I'm going to do until I see that. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon? MR. LINSEY: Just a minor procedural issue, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. Last night we filed a motion for entry of an order further extending the deadline for removal actions. We did not file a motion to expedite. The existing deadline expires on April 5th and under the local rules governing motions for extension of time I thought that would be sufficient for the court to consider the order. However, if you'd like us to file a motion to expedite or a motion to seek a hearing, we're happy to do that. But otherwise I just wanted to put that deadline on the court's radar. That is at ECF No. 1601 in the main case. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 102 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1644
Filed 04/10/23
Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36
Page 103 of
103 | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins - March 27, 2023
103 | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
All right.
Anything | |\n| 2 | further this afternoon? | |\n| 3 | All right.
Court is adjourned. | |\n| 4 | (Proceedings concluded at 3:10 p.m.) | |\n| 5 | | |\n| 6 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court | |\n| 7 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a | |\n| 8 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound | |\n| 9 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | April 6, 2023 | |\n| 13 | Christine Fiore, CERT | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| | | |\n| | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 ＊ 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n ＊\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER ＊\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION， ＊\n ＊\n债务人。 ＊\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS 对抗性诉讼案号：22-05003\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED， ＊\n ＊ 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n原告， ＊ 2023年3月27日\n ＊\n诉 ＊\n ＊\nDESPINS， ＊\n ＊\n被告。 ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n\n第11章受托人就作出修改维修准备金命令的紧急动议及就第一项反诉作出简易判决的动议之庭审记录\n\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表原告：\nMELISSA WERNICK, ESQ.\nHK International and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC\nOne Boland Drive\nWest Orange, NJ 07052\n\nJAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings, LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n程序由电子录音记录，记录文本由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表被告：\nNICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.\nLuc A. Despins，第11章\nPaul Hastings, LLP\n受托人：\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人 Pacific\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nRobinson & Cole\nFund L.P.：\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表利害关系方 RCI Bridgeport, LLC：\nSABATO P. FIANO, ESQ.\nZeldes, Needle & Cooper PC\n1000 Lafayette Blvd.\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1644，提交日期 04/10/23，录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36，第 3 页，共 103 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins - 2023年3月27日 3\n\n（庭审于上午11时09分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：对抗性诉讼案号 22-5003，HK International Funds Investment 诉 Luc Despins。\n\n法庭：早上好。请先由第11章受托人作记录在案的出庭陈述。\n\nDESPINS 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nBASSETT 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，担任第11章受托人的律师。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，代表受托人。\n\n法庭：早上好。Sarnoff 律师，您要继续吗？\n\nSARNOFF 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff，代表债权人 PAX。我不知道我们是本案当事人。\n\n法庭：既然您在这里，不妨记录您的出庭。请继续，律师。\n\nSMITH 女士：早上好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith，Robinson and Cole，担任 PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1644，提交日期 04/10/23，录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36，第 4 页，共 103 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins - 2023年3月27日\n\n1 GOLDMAN 先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。Irve\n\n2 Goldman，Pullman and Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n3 法庭：\n早上好。\n律师？\n\n4 WERNICK 女士：\n早上好，法官阁下。Melissa\n\n5 Wernick，Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi 的律师，代表 HK\n\n6 USA 和 Guo 女士。\n\n7 法庭：\n早上好。\n\n8 MORIARTY 先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。James\n\n9 Moriarty，来自 Zeisler and Zeisler，代表相同当事人。\n\n10 Wernick 律师今日将主导有关\n\n11 简易判决的辩论，我只想为记录在案说明，由于 Barton 律师的姓名被\n\n12 多次提及，\n\n13 他今天正在进行一次预先安排的\n\n14 旅行，该旅行在庭审排期之前即已安排。\n\n15 这就是他未出席的原因。\n\n16 法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n早上好。\n\n17 FIANO 先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。Sabato\n\n18 Fiano，Zeldes, Needle and Cooper。我们刚刚\n\n19 代表利害关系方 RCI Bridgeport,\n\n20 LLC 提交了出庭陈述，该公司实际经营存放涉案\n\n21 船舶的码头。因此，就\n\n22 今日程序中的可保险性及其他事项而言，我们显然具有某些利益。\n\n23 \n\n24 法庭：\n好的。\n早上好。\n\n25 好的。\nDespins 受托人，这是您的简易判决动议，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1644，提交日期 04/10/23，录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36，第 5 页，共 103 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins - 2023年3月27日 5\n\n请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：再次早上好，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是 Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，担任第11章受托人的律师。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我们准备了一些幻灯片协助今天的辩论，数量不多。我们已经与对方律师及法庭内其他当事人分享。可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：当然可以。那些幻灯片将要展示、投影吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：不，我们可以直接——我有足够的副本。我认为我们可以直接使用纸质副本。\n\n法庭：可以。好的。谢谢。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，在开始之前，我还想说明的是，今天上午，我想是在过去一小时内，或者可能略早一些，我们在案卷中提交了一份补充反驳声明，其中附有几份额外证据，用以反驳反诉被告昨晚提交的文件。在今日辩论过程中，我可能会提及其中一些文件。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nWERNICK 女士：法官阁下，如果可以的话，反诉被告反对提及\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1644，提交日期 04/10/23，录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36，第 6 页，共 103 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins - 2023年3月27日\n\n1 今天上午提交的证据，而我们尚未有机会\n\n2 对其进行全面审阅，并且看来律师打算\n\n3 在其今日上午的幻灯片材料中依赖该等证据。\n\n4 法庭：\n明白。\n您可以在\n\n5 庭审过程中提出这些问题。\n谢谢。\n\n6 BASSETT 先生：\n法官阁下，我唯一想说明的是，\n\n7 它们均为在 PAX 诉讼中公共\n\n8 案卷上提交的文件。因此，它们是律师，特别是 Vartan 律师，\n\n9 非常熟悉的文件。\n\n10 它们仅是对其文件中提出的观点作出回应。\n\n11 \n\n12 法庭：\n如有必要且在其出现时，我们将处理这些问题。\n\n13 \n\n14 BASSETT 先生：\n谢谢。\n\n15 法庭：\n好的。\n请继续。\n\n16 BASSETT 先生：\n因此，法官阁下，今日法院\n\n17 就简易判决所面临的问题是，对于既判争点排除是否适用于\n\n18 债务人对 Lady May 所有权这一问题，是否存在任何\n\n19 真实的重大事实争议，\n\n20 该问题载于受托人的第一项\n\n21 反诉中。\n\n22 正如我将在今日辩论过程中说明的，\n\n23 我们认为，显然不存在此类\n\n24 真实争议；作出相反认定只会因允许反诉被告\n\n25 重新诉讼而浪费时间和资源——\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins - 2023年3月27日 7\n\n关于游艇所有权的完全相同问题，该问题已于2022年由纽约州最高法院的 Ostrager 法官对其及债务人作出不利裁决。\n\n现在，法官阁下，转到幻灯片材料的第一页，或者我想是第二页，其中列明既判争点排除的标准。当事人一致同意，在本案中，既判争点排除问题适用纽约州法律，因为该裁决由纽约州法院作出。\n\n现在，根据纽约州法律——再次说明，我认为这并无争议——受托人需要满足两个要件。第一，先前诉讼中必然裁决了相同争点，且该争点对当前诉讼具有决定性。第二，被禁止在此重新诉讼的当事人，即反诉被告，在先前诉讼中曾有充分且公平的机会进行诉讼。\n\n我们主张，两个要件在本案中均易于满足，并且对于其是否满足不存在真实的重大事实争议。\n\n法官阁下，在下一页中，我们进入第一个问题，即在 Ostrager 法官面前的诉讼和本对抗性程序中，是否存在一个在先前诉讼中必然裁决的相同争点。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1644，提交日期 04/10/23，录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36，第 7 页，共 103 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins - 2023年3月27日 8\n\n我稍后会谈到幻灯片材料中的一些引文，但在此之前，我或许先退一步或两步，简要回顾导致 Ostrager 法官于2022年2月作出裁决的一些背景和经过。\n\n如法院至此已知，2017年，PAX 因其向债务人的一个商业实体提供贷款所获保证，在纽约州最高法院 Ostrager 法官面前对债务人提起诉讼。\n\n2020年9月，PAX 就该项请求针对债务人的简易判决动议获得胜诉。\n\n此后，在2020年稍晚时期，PAX 请求并获得限制令，禁止债务人处分其资产，其中明确包括 Lady May。\n\n现在，2021年3月，PAX 提交了一项动议，Ostrager 法官予以准许，该临时裁决认定债务人藐视法庭，原因是其违反已作出的限制令；该限制令禁止将 Lady May 移出美国水域的管辖范围，而这已经发生。\n\n在2021年3月该命令之后，债务人提起上诉。他对该藐视法庭裁决提起上诉，并且在上诉中主张，除其他事项外，该裁决不当，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1644，提交日期 04/10/23，录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36，第 8 页，共 103 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1644，提交日期 04/10/23，录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36，第 9 页，共 103 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins - 2023年3月27日 9\n\n因为 Ostrager 法官在作出最初的2021年3月藐视法庭裁决之前，本应举行证据听证并裁定债务人是否拥有 Lady May 的问题。\n\n在上诉待决期间——即在该上诉向上诉分庭待决期间——2021年7月8日，PAX 向 Ostrager 法官提交另一项动议，请求其因债务人持续违反先前的2021年3月限制令，而最终认定债务人藐视法庭。\n\n对此，债务人提交了反对意见；与此同时，Vartan 律师代表 HK USA 提交了一份宣誓陈述，以支持债务人的反对意见。我稍后将谈到该宣誓陈述的文本和背景。\n\n此外，在提交该最终藐视法庭动议后，Ostrager 法官注意到，为回应债务人在上诉中提出的一些论点，他将需要——他说，他听到他们表示应就所有权问题举行证据听证，并承诺将举行该听证。\n\n因此，在 Ostrager 法官面前发生所有这些事件的同时，上诉仍在待决。\n\n2021年11月9日，纽约州上诉分庭就该2021年3月裁决的待决上诉作出命令。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日 10 裁定。上诉庭认定，Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）在裁定债务人藐视法庭时，已在其自由裁量权范围内适当行事。关键的是，就本院目前审理的动议以及争点排除问题而言——这一点已列于并在本院面前的幻灯片中突出显示——上诉庭明确指示Ostrager法官：其称，动议法院，即纽约法院、Ostrager法官，受指示进行证据听证，以解决关于该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。该措辞对于其指示Ostrager法官应做何事毫无歧义。Ostrager法官回应该裁定——即上诉庭的该项指示——实际上于2月2日举行了证据听证，以裁定这一确切问题。而他在该听证会后于2022年2月9日最终作出的裁定在这方面极为明确，并消除了对其所裁定问题的任何疑问。这是我最初声明中的证物18，见ECF 150，其中，在其2月9日的裁定中，Case 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 11 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日 11 Ostrager法官称，根据上诉庭的命令，本院安排于2022年2月2日举行证据听证，以解决Kwok（郭文贵）是否实益拥有并控制该游艇的问题。句号。\n\n再次强调，Ostrager法官在作出其最终藐视法庭命令时所裁定的问题为何，已明确无误。\n\nOstrager法官不仅以该种方式陈述了其所裁定的问题，他实际上也以与其界定该问题相一致的方式作出了裁定。\n\n在下一张幻灯片中，您将看到Ostrager裁定第4页；其诸多认定和结论包括：“听证会上由被告方证人作出的证言，其中包括Mei Guo（郭美）及其律师提出的其他证人，清楚且令人信服地证明，Kwok实益拥有并控制Lady May（Lady May号游艇），并且对本院及司法程序抱有彻底蔑视。”\n\n他不仅作出了关于实益所有权和控制权的明确认定，而且在作出该认定的过程中，他还特意以极为具体且坚决的方式驳回了Mei Guo代表本诉讼中的反诉被告HK, USA，为支持相反结论而提供的全部证言。\n\n具体而言，在其裁定第6页和第7页，他\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23\n103 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日 12\n\n称，概括其从Guo女士处听取的证言，简言之，Guo女士关于其拥有并控制Lady May的证言，在任何方面均不可信。Guo女士似为一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对Lady May行使支配和控制，也未提供任何确认其如何取得Lady May的证明，除非该取得仅是为保护Lady May免遭其父亲债权人扣押而采取的幌子。\n\n此外，法官阁下，尽管该内容未在此处幻灯片中显示，我认为这也载于Ostrager裁定第4页；他指出，证据支持作出如下认定：债务人提供了用于购买Lady May的资金。\n\n因此，法官阁下，根据上述全部内容，基于上诉庭命令、Ostrager法官对该命令的裁定及回应，以及其认定，极为明确的是，他所裁定的问题是债务人是否实益拥有并控制该游艇。\n\n而且，在听取债务人以及HK, USA反诉被告的证据后，他以明确无疑的方式裁定债务人确实拥有并控制该游艇。\n\n并且，法官阁下，我稍后将更详细地谈及这些具体文件，但即使根据我刚刚讨论的两项命令，所裁定的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日 13 问题并不极为明确——顺便说一句，该问题当然与本院面前的问题完全相同，即债务人是否拥有Lady May——此外，反诉被告及其律师的陈述，以及其在Ostrager法官面前的行为，也清楚表明，他们完全理解其正在诉讼争执的问题为何。\n\n我将在稍后谈及其积极参与诉讼时，更详细地讨论该文件；该问题是分析的第二个要件。但如我先前所述，如果您看一下，2021年7月，Vartan律师（瓦尔坦律师）提交了一份宣誓陈述，以支持债务人反对最终藐视法庭动议；该陈述有数页篇幅，详细列明本院为何应认定由HK, USA而非债务人拥有Lady May的全部理由。\n\n因此，他显然确切知道争议问题为何，并提交了一份数页之长的宣誓陈述，专门就该问题进行辩论。\n\n同样，在2月9日听证会之前，Mei Guo提交了一份声明，或其本人宣誓书，该文件作为其直接证言；其中她用了数页篇幅论述该确切问题，我也将谈及该文件中的具体引述。\n\n因此，本院知道其所裁定的问题。它实际上裁定了该问题，而且反诉被告知道\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1644\nFiled 04/10/23\nEntered 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日\n\n1 该问题为何。毫无争议的是，该问题与本院面前的问题\n2 完全相同。\n3 关于已经提出的一些反驳论点，\n4 我们在昨晚提交的文件中看到的一项反驳论点是，\n5 这些问题之所以有所不同，是因为Ostrager法官面前的问题\n6 是债务人是否应被裁定藐视法庭，\n7 而本院面前的问题则是谁拥有该游艇。\n8 \n9 该论点的问题在于，\n10 Ostrager法官明确表示，为作出最终藐视法庭裁定，\n11 其必须裁定的问题是，谁拥有该\n12 游艇。\n13 该问题并非其面前最终且唯一的问题，\n14 这一事实并不改变其最终且必然\n15 裁定了该问题这一事实。\n16 他们援引了数个看似支持如下观点的案件：\n17 如果此前存在藐视法庭程序，\n18 随后又存在其他诉讼，\n19 则争点排除不适用，但这些\n20 案件完全不适用。它们甚至毫不\n21 切题。两案均为离婚案件。\n22 其中一案是1996年第八巡回区的McNeal（麦克尼尔）诉 Frankie（弗兰基）案。\n23 该案涉及一项离婚判决；根据该判决，\n24 一方配偶，即被告的妻子，被认定为一张本票的\n25 20%所有人，并有权获得\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1644\nFiled 04/10/23\nEntered 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日\n\n1 该本票的本金及利息分配。\n2 当丈夫未按该判决向其配偶、\n3 即其前配偶支付款项时，\n4 她提出了一项藐视法庭动议。\n5 当时，在此期间，\n6 被告——丈夫进行了一项再融资\n7 交易，而成为债务人的某些新实体\n8 申请了破产。\n9 在所有这些事情之后，妻子提起另一项诉讼，\n10 此次为诉讼程序，主张其对旧的、现已再融资的本票\n11 所享有的权利优先于，\n12 且享有优先权于所有这些新的权利\n13 持有人的权利。\n14 在该情形下，法院自然裁定\n15 争点排除不适用，因为这些问题\n16 完全不同。\n17 正如法院所称，藐视法庭诉讼中的问题\n18 是丈夫的再融资交易是否故意\n19 违反了同意判决——\n20 离婚判决——的措辞。\n21 本案中的问题是，再融资交易对妻子财产权利的\n22 法律效力，\n23 这取决于按份共有人原则。\n24 法院重申，她并非仅仅寻求\n25 重新争执此前已经诉讼过的问题，而是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 16 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日\n1 请求法院裁定其对作为该本票基础担保物的\n2 相关抵押品所享有担保权益的\n3 法律地位。问题完全不同。这根本\n4 不是本案，因为Ostrager法官此前必然裁定的问题\n5 正是本院目前面前的问题。\n6 另一案件的相关性更低。这是\n7 Bouchard（布沙尔）诉 Sunburg（桑伯格）案。我——我不确定我是否有\n8 正确的引注，但它在提交给Reporter的文件中\n9 有引证。\n10 但与McNeal案一样，该案也涉及\n11 离婚情形。这次是子女监护\n12 安排，而当一方配偶未遵守该\n13 子女监护安排——其中包括某些咨询\n14 课程——时，一审法院最终裁定其\n15 不会强迫子女继续参加这些\n16 课程，因为这不符合他们的最佳利益。\n17 后来，同一配偶另行提起违约之诉，\n18 并提出了争点排除问题。\n19 同样，法院自然裁定这些问题\n20 完全不同。法院首先称，\n21 先前诉讼涉及法院命令的执行，而本案\n22 是违约——本案诉讼\n23 是违约。\n24 然后，法院称，这些命令侧重于基于当事人协议的\n25 子女监护，更具体地说，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1644\nFiled 04/10/23\nEntered 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日\n\n1 侧重于未遵守要求参加咨询课程的命令。\n2 该诉讼中的此类命令基于\n3 康涅狄格州子女监护法规下产生的\n4 衡平考量。\n5 因此，问题在于法院是否应当\n6 认定继续参加咨询课程\n7 符合子女的最佳利益。\n8 相比之下，正如法院所承认，\n9 违约案件涉及违约的\n10 构成要件。是否存在承诺？是否存在对价？\n11 该承诺是否被违反，以及其损害为何？\n12 法院称，这些问题均未由一个在裁定是否应继续进行咨询课程时\n13 侧重于子女\n14 利益的法院予以处理。\n15 因此，争点排除不适用。\n16 再次强调，情形完全不同。\n17 法官阁下，反诉被告提出的其他论点\n18 是——他们暗示，2022年2月作出的最终藐视法庭\n19 裁定，不知何故是一项临时或\n20 中间裁定。\n21 事实并非如此。依其本身措辞及其提出的方式，\n22 该裁定是在此前2021年3月命令之后作出的\n23 最终裁定。\n24 而他们所做的——反诉被告所做的——\n25 是将此比作——并援引涉及如下事项的判例\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA（郭文贵/HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日\n\n1 初步禁令裁定，并称这些裁定不应具有既判效力。\n2 但是，这些裁定完全不适用，\n3 因为，在——关键在于，当法院\n4 正在裁定初步禁令时，所涉争点是\n5 寻求禁令的一方是否具有在\n6 案件实体上胜诉的可能性。\n7 因此，依定义，在初步禁令\n8 情形下，法院并未最终裁定当事人在\n9 案件实体上是否胜诉。\n在此，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）正在最终裁定\n10 所有权问题。\n这正是他在其命令中所确定的事项。\n11 这正是上诉分庭指示他作出的事项，\n12 而且这也正是他事实上所作出的事项。\n13 两者完全不同。\n这并非适用初步\n14 禁令的实体胜诉可能性标准。适用的是\n15 实体胜诉标准。\n16 而他作出了不利于反诉被告及\n17 债务人的认定。\n18 反诉被告还主张，该\n19 裁定在某种意义上是暂时性的，因为奥斯特拉格法官\n20 计划举行后续听证，以裁定\n21 ——他们称——HK USA 是否为债务人的\n22 另一个自我。\n23 这完全错误。\nPAX（帕克斯）从未在\n24 纽约诉讼中提出任何诉请，要求就\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA v. Despins（德斯潘）— 2023年3月27日\n\n1 HK USA 的另一个自我地位作出最终认定。\n2 唯一提出的另一个自我主张\n3 涉及 Genever（杰纳维尔）和 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）公寓。\n从未\n4 设想在 2月9日裁定之后再举行最终的额外\n5 听证，以确定 Lady May（“梅夫人”号游艇）\n6 是否属于破产财产。\n该问题已在该次听证中作出裁定。\n7 而且，为支持这一点，法官阁下，您可以看到，\n8 我们作为反驳证据提交的附件之一是证据7，\n9 该证据仅仅是 PAX\n10 在纽约诉讼中提交的修正起诉状。\n该起诉状显示，\n11 其中有一项关于揭开公司面纱的罪名项，\n12 涉及 Genever 和 Sherry-Netherland。\n记录中任何地方都没有\n13 类似的罪名项，因为就 Lady May 而言，\n14 并不存在该等罪名项。\n15 现在——请稍候，法官阁下。\n16 （暂停。）\n17 因此，法官阁下，我认为这已涵盖\n18 争点排除分析中的第一个问题，但是，\n19 当然，我将回应律师在答辩中\n20 可能提出的任何论点。\n21 如我所述，审查标准的第二项要件是，\n22 被排除的一方——在此即\n23 反诉被告，尤其是 HK USA——是否在先前诉讼中\n24 享有充分且公平的机会就该争点进行诉讼。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第20页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n1 现在请看幻灯片5。\n根据\n2 纽约州法律的这一要求——再次说明，我认为如您查看\n3 书面材料，这一点并无争议——若被\n4 排除的一方，第一，与先前判决所针对的一方具有\n5 密切法律关系；或者第二，作为替代性条件，积极\n6 参与了先前诉讼，则该要求即获满足。\n7 而且值得注意的是，法官阁下，在争点\n8 排除审查的这一第二项要件上，法律明确规定，\n9 反对排除的一方，即本案反诉被告，实际上\n10 负有举证责任，证明其积极\n11 参与了诉讼。\n我认为非常明确的是，他们\n12 并未履行该举证责任。\n13 事实上，我们已满足这两项\n14 替代性依据：密切法律关系和积极参与。\n15 下一张幻灯片，即幻灯片6，讨论\n16 密切法律关系。\n法院在确定是否存在密切法律关系时通常适用的标准，\n17 如您查看我们在书面意见中援引的判例法，\n18 是一个极具弹性的标准，审查案件的一切事实和\n19 情形。\n不存在一成不变的规则，\n20 或一成不变的要求组合。\n这是一个审查当事人之间\n21 关系以及其利益是否一致的弹性\n22 标准。\n23 在此，出于显而易见的原因，我认为毫无争议的是，\n24 债务人与其女儿之间存在\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n1 非常密切的关系。\n2 根据案卷中的证据以及\n3 反诉被告自身的陈述，也毫无争议的是，\n4 该女儿与 HK USA 实质上是一体的。\n这并不争议，该公司是她的公司。\n5 案卷中有证据，且附于我的声明，\n6 表明该公司没有雇员。据其所称，其除\n7 Lady May 外没有其他资产。\n它们基本上是同一体。\n8 因此，我认为，债务人与其女儿，以及经由其女儿\n9 与 HK USA 之间存在非常密切的关系，\n10 不存在任何真正的争议。\n这大致是第一部分。\n11 第二部分是，他们在奥斯特拉格法官面前具有\n12 非常明确的利益一致性。\n如果您查看案卷，查看所有已提交的\n13 文件，以及附于我最初声明和反驳声明的\n14 诉状，便会非常清楚地看到，他们两者——债务人和 HK USA，\n15 以及代表 HK USA 的 Mei Guo（郭美）——最希望奥斯特拉格法官\n16 认定的是，游艇归 HK USA 而非债务人\n17 所有。\n18 而反诉被告针对这一点能够提出的最佳回应是，\n19 债务人与反诉被告之间在某种意义上不存在利益一致性，因为债务人\n20 如同他显然一贯所做的那样，在奥斯特拉格法官面前\n21 作证时主张其第五修正案权利，\n22 而非提供实体性答复。\n而且，法官阁下，这——\n23 完全偏离要点，因为这并未改变债务人在该诉讼中的利益；\n24 无论其证言如何，他均通过律师\n25 极力主张，该利益就是 HK USA 拥有游艇。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第22页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins — 2023年3月27日 22 并且通过 HK USA 及其女儿主张该利益。\n\n而且，这一点——如果您查看我声明的反驳证据2——再次说明，这不应存在任何争议，因为这是他们提交的、或者说债务人在该诉讼中代表其一方提交的一份非常明确的诉状；债务人在藐视法庭听证后提交的书面意见中主张——而且他在其长达十至二十页的听证后书面意见中始终强烈主张——HK USA 和郭美拥有 Lady May。\n\n再次说明，如果您查看我反驳声明的证据2，查看债务人在听证后书面意见中提交的初步陈述，那是一份约两页的初步陈述，除主张不应以藐视法庭罪追究他外没有任何其他内容，理由是其女儿拥有游艇，而且没有相反证据。\n\n这基本上是对这些反诉被告在本院提出的完全相同论点的概述。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第23页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n1 而关键在于，认为债务人因主张第五修正案权利，\n2 便未与反诉被告具有相同利益、也未为相同\n3 利益进行主张的说法，\n4 完全错误。\n5 除提交这份明确就该争点进行论证的书面意见外，他还让反诉被告传唤证人，包括郭美，以及其他在游艇管理和运营方面承担职责的人员出庭作证。因此，他以一切可能方式陈述了其案件并推进了其利益。他主张第五修正案权利这一事实并未改变上述情况。它并未改变存在密切法律关系这一事实。\n\n因此，我认为，密切法律关系的第一项要件显然已经确立；但作为替代性依据，本案案卷同样明确表明，反诉被告积极参与了奥斯特拉格法官面前的诉讼。\n\n我将从——现在请看幻灯片第7页，我曾向法院承诺将谈到这一点——我此前提到过这份声明，并承诺法院会回到它；这是一份 2021年7月由 Attorney Vartan（瓦尔坦律师）代表 HK USA 就 PAX 提出藐视法庭动议而提交的声明。\n\n在该声明中，瓦尔坦律师实质上\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第24页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins — 2023年3月27日 24 提交了一份就所有权争点进行论证的书面意见。如果这不是积极参与该诉讼的明确证据，我不知道什么才是。\n\n如引文所示，这些只是该份多页声明的若干摘录，但其开篇即称：“虽然 HK International（HK国际），”本案中 HK International 指 HK USA，“并非本案当事人，但其是游艇 Lady May 的所有人，而该游艇的移动被主张为藐视法庭动议最终命令的依据。”\n\n他接着称：“我将讨论通过关于机动船 Lady May 的书面证据所显示的所有权，该船的移动是藐视法庭最终命令——藐视法庭动议最终命令——的标的。随后，我将审查有关 HK International 的设立、存续、独立公司身份及独立所有权的文件。”\n\n在接下来的16段中，他逐一列出所有这些文件并提出其论点。\n\n随后在第21段中，他称：“根据登记证书、设立证书及 LLC 协议，显然自 2020年4月起，HK International 是唯一的”——再次说明，这是指 HK USA——“Lady May 的唯一所有人，而郭女士是 HK USA 的唯一成员。”\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第25页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n1 数段之后，他再次得出结论称：\n2 “因此，根据我在声明中所述的一切，\n3 HK USA 谨此主张，上述\n4 文件证明：A，游艇 Lady May\n5 归 HK USA 所有；以及 B，HK USA 又由\n6 郭女士百分之百所有。”\n7 法官阁下，这就是反诉被告通过其\n8 律师就奥斯特拉格法官最终裁定的同一争点进行明确、积极\n9 参与的一个例子。\n其参与仍在继续。\n在2月\n10 2日的听证中，HK USA 及其律师——这是幻灯片中的下一张——\n11 广泛参与了实体审理。\n12 在审理前，根据\n13 奥斯特拉格法官的命令，郭美提交了一份宣誓书，\n14 作为其直接证词。\n他们还提交了\n15 另外三名证人的宣誓书，其中包括一名船长\n16 及其他在 Lady May 管理和运营方面承担职责的人员。\n\n在幻灯片中，我列入了郭美声明的若干摘录。再次说明，她拥有充分的机会和充分的动机就所有权争点进行诉讼，这从她的陈述中显而易见。她在第2段称：“我是游艇 Lady May 的所有人。我自及/或大约自 2017年6月起一直是 Lady May 的所有人。”\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第26页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA v. Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n几段之后，在我逃离中国共产党的暴行之时——顺便说一句，这些论点对法庭而言会非常熟悉，因为它们与我们在本对抗性程序中听到的论点完全相同——Lady May号由HK USA所有——由HK International所有，而HK International的唯一成员是Natashia Qu（屈娜塔莎）。\n\n她说，我了解到，Qu女士是我兄长以及我的叔伯和堂表亲的受信赖商业伙伴。她在此处提出的是同一论点。\n\n然而，第9段称，自购买之时起，Lady May号一直意图作为我的船只，鉴于我对海洋的热爱。事实上，它以我的名字命名。\n\n2017年6月，当我安全抵达美国时，Lady May号的所有权被转移给我。这只是她声明中的一些摘录，但是，法官阁下，这恰恰构成积极参与。\n\n此外，正如构成我声明一部分的庭审记录所显示，Vartan律师不仅在听证会上让Mei Guo（郭美）出庭，就该声明接受交叉询问；他还让另外三名为债务人立场作证而被传唤的证人出庭。他积极参与了该听证会。\n\n现在，我想回应昨晚提交的书面文件中的一些反驳论点。反诉被告挑出某些事项。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第27页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平）— 2023年3月27日\n\n他们称反诉被告，或者HK USA和郭美，没有机会做这些事情，因此，他们没有积极参与，或者没有获得在Ostrager法官面前进行诉讼的充分且公平的机会。他们称，他们没有进行证据开示。\n\n首先，在回应这一论点以及他们称无法进行的其他具体事项之前，我想说，并不存在一项固定不变的检验标准。没有判例法称，为使争议排除适用，当事人必须能够进行证据开示。\n\n如我之前所说，这是一个灵活的标准，它考察所有事实和情形，并确定允许适用争议排除是否公平。\n\n我谨提出，唯一不公平之处将是不允许其适用，并让这些已经就该争议进行过诉讼的反诉被告获得第二次机会，从而浪费受托人、本法庭以及债务人财产债权人的更多时间和资源。\n\n但就这些具体争议而言，他们称债务人没有机会——或者反诉被告没有机会——进行证据开示。\n\n法官阁下，他们究竟可能需要什么证据开示？而且，我也不知道他们没有进行非正式证据开示这一说法并非不实。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第28页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平）— 2023年3月27日 28\n\n他们试图证明——反诉被告试图证明——他们拥有Lady May号。在他们需要提交证据支持该立场的范围内，这些证据本质上且必然是他们拥有并控制的证据。这正是他们主张自己拥有它的论点。\n\n而且，他们事实上显然能够获取该等信息，因为他们让郭女士出庭，就她认为自己拥有Lady May号的全部理由作证。他们还让这些他们能够接触到的其他证人，即对该游艇负有管理和运营职责的人员，出庭作证。他们能够接触到这些人。他们拥有为诉讼其案件所必需的一切材料。\n\n他们还称，他们无法提交自己的书面陈述。但正如我刚才所展示的，他们实际上以多种方式这样做了。Vartan律师提供的信息构成一份声明，或者构成一份书面陈述。\n\n此外，在此，债务人与他们在利益上百分之百一致；正如我之前所说，他曾多次提交自己的书面陈述，包括审后书面陈述，其中他强烈主张所有权问题，并提出反诉被告希望他提出、且他们在此提出的完全相同的论点。因此，再次强调，这又是一个转移焦点的论点。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第29页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平）— 2023年3月27日 29\n\n他们还称——这一点比其他说法更令人惊讶——由于没有对证人进行复询，他们不知何故没有获得充分且公平的诉讼机会。我们没有任何权威依据表明，缺少复询会意味着他们没有获得诉讼机会。这首先并不属实。其次，为支持该说法，他们援引Vartan声明的附件F。这是Ostrager法官在2月2日听证会之前作出的一项命令，规定该听证会在程序上将如何进行。该命令绝对没有任何内容称复询被禁止。他们称，根据各方当事人与法庭的协议，他们未参与该复询——法庭：您现在所指的是哪一份附件？我不确定您指的是哪一份？巴西特先生：这是他们为反对简易判决动议而提交的Vartan声明的附件F。法庭：好的。所以在纽约案件中，它是附件——巴西特先生：不，不。在本案中。附件——法庭：在本案中——巴西特先生：他的——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平）— 2023年3月27日\n\n法庭：\n哦，在他们的简易判决材料中——好的。\n巴西特先生：\n是的。抱歉。\n法庭：\n抱歉。\n这就是我问的原因。我想\n确保我跟得上您的意思。\n巴西特先生：\n明白。\n因此，在附件F中——他们在其\n书面材料中所说的是，各方当事人与Ostrager\n法官同意，不进行复询。\n再次说明——我在此花费的时间\n太多了，因为我认为这无论如何都不\n真正重要。\n但我只是想指出，这在事实\n上不正确。\n他们援引该附件F，即审前\n命令。该命令没有提及不进行\n复询。\n法庭：\n所以这是ECF 160的附件F。\n巴西特先生：\n我认为那是正确的ECF\n编号。\n法庭：\n是的。\n巴西特先生：\n它没有任何此类表述。\n法庭：\n161。\n抱歉。我道歉。\n至少\n就我所看到的而言，是161。\n巴西特先生：\n没问题，法官阁下。\n谢谢。\n该命令所说的只是，直接证言将\n通过宣誓书提交，随后将安排证人接受\n交叉询问。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平）— 2023年3月27日\n\n如果您查看庭审记录，它是我声明的附件16，事实上，2月2日听证会上发生的是，PAX试图进行复询——试图对其自身的一名证人进行复询。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n让我看看您的材料，以便\n我跟得上您的意思。\n好吗？\n巴西特先生：\n当然。\n法庭：\n所以我们谈的是——您现在说\n的是——不是看我的声明，而是看哪一份附件？\n巴西特先生：\n附件16，法官阁下。\n法庭：\n好的。\n请稍等。\n所以您的声明在本对抗性程序中是150号。因此\n请给我一点时间。\n巴西特先生：\n完全没问题。\n（暂停。）\n法庭：\n好的。那么您希望我看附件16的\n哪个位置？\n巴西特先生：\n在第32页，而且，再次说明，我担心\n我可能花太多时间来说明一个我认为并非\n绝对关键的观点，但我仍将完成这个——\n法庭：\n第32页。\n巴西特先生：\n我仍将把这一点说明完整。是的，\n是附件16的第32页。\n法庭：\n好的。\n请稍等。\n（暂停。）\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平）— 2023年3月27日\n\n法庭：\n好的。我现在看到第32页。\n巴西特先生：\n因此，法官阁下，关键在于，\n与反诉被告所称相反，律师之间\n并无任何协议。当我说律师之间的协议时，\n他们的观点是，他们称债务人与PAX在没有他们\n参与的情况下同意不进行复询，因此他们受到\n不利影响。\n但情况根本不是这样。第32页所发生\n的是，PAX试图对其自身证人进行直接询问，而\nOstrager法官说他不会允许复询。\n因此，那只是Ostrager法官决定如何\n在其法庭前进行审判。他显然有权\n决定所有当事人可以和不可以做什么。这并非\n某种旨在损害反诉被告及其权利的当事人协议。\n他们相反的主张就是错误的。\n我想回应的下一个问题——嗯，\n实际上，在继续之前，而且我认为我已接近\n结束我的开场陈述，法官阁下，我只是想再次\n强调，这是满足争议排除分析中充分且公平\n机会要求的一个特别有力的案件，因为我们并非\n只依赖于利益共同关系和积极参与这两个要件中的\n一个或另一个。我们两者兼具。\n而且，在审视所有事实和情形时，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第33页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平）— 2023年3月27日\n\n即使法庭认为，嗯，也许他们本可享有更多参与权利，或者也许本可存在更强的利益共同关系，在此，对双方的论点均有利的是两者皆具。因此，这不仅是他们之间存在利益共同关系。他们还积极参与了诉讼。\n\n我将向法庭提供一个我认为对此有帮助的案件引注，即Allegra Credit诉Tin Chu案，29 A.D. 3d 718。这是纽约州第二司法部门于2006年作出的裁决。\n\n法庭：请再说一遍引注。\n\n巴西特先生：当然。29 A.D. 3d 718。法庭：好的。请继续。谢谢。\n\n巴西特先生：在该案中，对一名儿子提起刑事诉讼；该儿子伪造了将其父亲房屋转让给自己的产权转让契据，随后在伪造该产权转让后取得了一笔欺诈性抵押贷款。其后，他被定罪。\n\n该父亲在后续诉讼中，试图以该房产已被转让给其儿子为由阻止对该房产的止赎。\n\n法庭裁定，由于他们之间的密切关系，以及他们二人均具有主张伪造并未发生这一完全相同的利益，因此，\n\n1 关于转让契据的是，他受其约束，尽管在该案中，\n2 父亲根本没有参与、没有出庭，\n3 也没有在先前的刑事程序中发表任何意见，但\n4 仍适用了争议排除。\n5 我认为还有几个问题可以\n6 相对迅速地处理，然后我将保留\n7 其余时间回应律师的论点。\n8 第一个问题是——这已经被提出过。\n9 法院实际上在先前的一次听证中提到了这一点，而这\n10 涉及上诉或上诉权\n11 是否会以某种方式影响纽约州的\n12 争议排除分析，以及上诉尚未审结\n13 是否会阻止本院认定反诉被告\n14 受Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）裁决的排除。\n15 在其书面意见中——我不知道他们如何表述这一点，\n16 但他们称，我们援引了一宗20世纪70年代末的旧案，\n17 以支持如下主张：根据纽约州法律，\n18 上诉尚未审结并不妨碍适用争议\n19 排除，而他们认为法律已以某种方式发生变化。\n20 事实并非如此。\n21 我们还援引了一项2004年的裁决，即我们书面意见中所引的\n22 Bridgeview Garden Apartments案，其中法院——\n23 纽约州法院表示，纽约州的规则很明确，\n24 即“仅因上诉尚未审结，并不妨碍\n25 将受到质疑的判决作为在第二程序中对该判决当事人适用争议排除的依据。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第 35 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（美国汉基）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023 35\n\n另一宗案件是2003年的第二巡回上诉法院案件，即Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States案。引证为347 F.3d 394。\n\n第二巡回上诉法院在该案中表示，尽管提起诉讼时上诉仍在审理中，地区法院仍可为既判力之目的将纽约州判决视为终局判决。\n\n在纽约州，规则很明确。上诉尚未审结并不影响争议排除的适用。\n\n就反诉被告援引其他据称得出不同结论的案件而言，这些案件与现行法律不一致，而且据我所知，它们均涉及刑事案件，独特地处理了刑事审判中有人试图利用排除原则确定刑事责任的情形。\n\n此外，法官阁下，他们援引并依赖的案件涉及任何一方均无机会获得上诉审查的情形。\n\n但是，正如我们已经详细说明的，债务人、HK USA和Mei Guo（郭美）在Ostrager法官面前的利益完全一致。债务人实际上已经上诉并行使了其对Ostrager法官裁决提出上诉的上诉权。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（美国汉基）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 因此，这并非没有\n2 寻求上诉权机会的情形。\n3 \n4 最后一个问题，法官阁下，我将以此结束，\n5 我认为这将非常简短，即他们在书面意见中提出的\n6 最后一项论点：他们称\n7 法院不能作出简易判决，因为\n8 受托人所依赖的证据的\n9 可采性似乎存在问题。他们称其为传闻证据。\n10 法官阁下，我认为，根据我们论点的性质，\n11 显然事实并非如此。我们主张的是\n12 争议排除。因此，我们向法院提交Ostrager法官的\n13 裁决。我们向法院提交上诉分庭的\n14 裁决。我们向法院提交其他\n15 文件，并非为了证明\n16 事实认定中所述事项的真实性。\n17 我们向法院提交这些文件，是为了说明\n18 纽约州法院先前程序的经过，以及法院\n19 在裁决中说明其认定内容时所使用的\n20 措辞。\n21 反诉被告通过其律师参与了\n22 Ostrager法官面前的程序这一事实，\n23 从文件表面即可清楚看出。\n24 这不是——不存在传闻证据问题。\n25 法院面前证据的可采性不存在问题。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（美国汉基）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 我认为他们将该论点置于其书面意见最后，\n2 是有原因的。\n3 因此，法官阁下，我认为以上就是我支持\n4 我们认为法院应当准许\n5 部分简易判决动议的开场陈述。当然，我将\n6 保留时间回应律师可能提出的\n7 任何论点。谢谢。\n8 法官：\n谢谢。\n9 律师？\n10 WERNICK女士（韦尔尼克女士）：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n11 在我开始之前，如不回顾我们今日何以至此，\n12 我将有所疏漏；这在很大程度上是因为\n13 与简易判决动议有关、于上周刚刚提交的加快本次听证的动议，\n14 而HK USA对此提出了异议，并且在\n15 回应一项涉及价值$37 million资产的重要动议的过程中，\n16 其仍对此感到担忧，而整个过程均在\n17 一周之内完成。\n18 \n19 因此，尽管我们理解受托人就确保保险所提出的\n20 担忧，而且我们也有担忧，\n21 但对于如此短时间通知即就本案中一项决定性问题举行听证，\n22 我们仍持续提出异议。\n23 \n24 法官：\n好的。但你的异议\n25 已被驳回。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（美国汉基）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 WERNICK女士：\n我明白。\n2 法官：\n现在就在举行听证。\n3 WERNICK女士：\n是的。我明白。\n4 法官：\n所以现在是你提出\n5 论点的时间，好吗。并且你通过告知法院你不会——即\n6 不存在——即\n7 明天之后该船、该游艇将不再有任何保险，\n8 从而将该问题提交至法院。\n9 因此，尽管我理解你的意见，我认为，\n10 为使记录清楚——你当然可以提出任何\n11 你认为适当的论点，但如果游艇没有\n12 任何保险，那么我认为你将使你自己的委托人面临\n13 针对其提出诉因。\n14 所以请继续。开始吧。\n15 WERNICK女士：\n我明白，法官阁下。\n16 因此，首先，我想回应受托人提出的\n17 如下观点：HK USA不应被允许\n18 重新审理先前由纽约州法院裁定的\n19 问题。\n20 我将在两方面质疑该主张：其一，这些问题已得到充分\n21 诉讼；其二，HK USA并非\n22 基础纽约州诉讼的当事人，根本没有\n23 机会对这些问题进行诉讼。\n24 纽约州程序涉及藐视法庭\n25 听证，该听证仅通过Zoom进行了数小时。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（美国汉基）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 这不足以剥夺HK USA对一项\n2 价值$37 million资产的所有权。\n3 \n4 我同意律师关于\n5 争议排除标准的意见，即必须存在在先诉讼中已被必要裁定的\n6 问题同一性，\n7 且该问题对本案具有决定性，并且必须存在\n8 充分且公平的机会对现被称为具有控制力的裁定\n9 提出争议。\n10 关于这两个问题，我们认为\n11 受托人未能完成其举证责任。由于排除原则\n12 将终结诉讼置于确保正确结果之前，\n13 正因如此，法院被要求\n14 严格审查该问题。\n15 因此，如同律师所做的回溯，作为起点，\n16 纽约州诉讼涉及债务人与PAX（PAX）之间的违约。\n17 无争议的是，HK USA和Guo女士并非该诉讼的当事人。\n18 \n19 在作出有利于PAX的简易判决之后，\n20 在判决前执行程序中，\n21 依据CPLR 5229，纽约州法院对债务人作出了\n22 藐视法庭裁决。\n23 该裁决审议的是\n24 藐视法庭问题，现不能以争议排除的方式阻止HK USA主张\n25 或证明其拥有Lady May（“梅夫人号”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1644 提交日期 04/10/23 登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36 第 40 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（美国汉基）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 因此，我想从这里开始，因为很清楚，\n2 纽约州程序涉及藐视法庭问题。\n3 就藐视法庭而言，法院被要求审议的是\n4 是否存在一项合法的法院命令，\n5 是否能够以合理确定性认定该命令\n6 已被违反，以及拟被认定藐视法庭的当事人是否知悉\n7 法院命令，最后，\n8 还必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成的损害。\n9 \n10 在藐视法庭的语境下提交给法院的这些因素，\n11 均未提出有关Lady May完整且终局权利的问题。\n12 \n13 在本项动议中，充分理解CPLR的背景十分重要，\n14 因为毫无疑问，CPLR确实就\n15 由他人持有的资产移交作出规定并设有程序，\n16 即CPLR 5225。\n17 在该程序中，判决债权人可以\n18 对第三债务人提起诉讼，在该情形下，\n19 第三债务人或占有该资产的一方将作为\n20 该程序的当事人，在获得通知并被给予\n21 就该问题进行诉讼的机会后参与程序。\n\n这并非本案所发生的情况。藐视法庭程序仅处理债务人是否可被认定藐视法院命令的问题，并且\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（美国汉基）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 并未——当然并未如律师现在所称，\n2 就Lady May作出终局认定。\n3 而且，再次强调，很清楚纽约州法院\n4 认识到了这一点。纽约州法院说明，其被要求裁定的是\n5 PAX是否已完成其举证责任，\n6 以使债务人被认定构成民事藐视法庭。\n7 所有权问题，当然包括对Lady May所有权作出完整\n8 且终局的认定，\n9 并非提交法院审理的问题。\n10 法院询问PAX是否可能最终\n11 对Lady May实施扣押，但这将需要依据CPLR进行\n12 第二步程序，\n13 而该程序明确未曾发生。\n14 因此，当律师称援引有关\n15 临时或初步救济的判例法不当时，\n16 我必须予以反驳，并确实对该主张提出异议，\n17 因为这正是法院2月9日命令中认定的全部内容。\n18 \n19 若要对Lady May作出完整处置并予以移交，\n20 必然还须在纽约州法院进行进一步程序，\n21 但该程序并未发生。\n22 \n23 由于就Lady May所有权作出终局认定并非\n24 法院作出终局藐视法庭命令所必需，\n25 任何有关所有权的认定均不能\n\n1 应被赋予排除效力。\n\n2 我还请法院参阅我们书面意见中引用的判例，包括 Little Robinson Shoemaker v. Shoemaker（小罗宾逊·舒梅克诉舒梅克案），309 A.D. 2d 688，该案说明，如相关争点并非先前听证的重点，且并非必然已被裁决，则不得适用争点排除。\n\n7 法院：\n请再稍等一下。请把该引注告诉我。\n\n9 韦尔尼克女士：\n当然。309 A.D. 2d 688，纽约第一司法部门于作出的裁决。\n\n11 法院：\n是哪一年？\n\n12 韦尔尼克女士：\n2003。\n\n13 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n14 请继续。抱歉。我只是想确保正确记下该引注。我想听清您所说的话。因为，如您所知，我们只有音频，因此我无法回头阅读您所说的内容，好吗？\n\n18 韦尔尼克女士：\n因此，需要明确的是，纽约法院在作出藐视法庭裁定时，并未认定 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）由债务人实益拥有并控制，而非由 HK USA（HK USA）或郭女士拥有并控制。\n\n22 法院所认定的仅是，债务人持有 Lady May 的实益权益并能够控制该游艇。\n\n24 法院并未认定债务人持有该游艇的唯一实益权益，或 HK USA 或郭女士对该游艇不持有任何权益。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n登记 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA）诉 Despins（德斯潘）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 对该游艇享有权益。\n\n2 同样，这些都是本可由法院在并未发生的交付程序中审理的问题。\n\n5 既然如此，藐视法庭裁定并未对该游艇的所有权作出任何可被赋予排除效力的最终认定。\n\n9 关于被大肆渲染的与纽约诉讼有关的参与，我认为，再次回顾程序经过十分重要。\n\n12 2022年1月14日，在 Vartan（瓦尔坦）声明中被援引为证据6，或者——我认为我们使用的是字母——相应适当编号的证据中，法院于1月14日作出命令，制定就藐视法庭问题举行听证的时间安排。\n\n18 值得注意的是，在该时间安排中，法院命令诉讼各方于1月28日前就该程序提交宣誓书，并向诉讼各方提供了提交书面意见的机会。\n\n23 现在，如果查看附于昨日提交声明的纽约法院案卷，重要的是要注意，就本次听证提交的声明并非由 HK USA 提交，也并非由本律师事务所提交，而是由债务人的律师提交，因为包括郭女士在内的证人，均是债务人的律师就本次听证所传唤的证人。而这就是他们的全部身份。因此，将瓦尔坦先生描述为在本次听证中传唤了四名证人，实属误称。实际上，他参与听证是为了为其作为由其他当事人传唤的证人的客户进行辩护。HK USA 的律师没有机会如各方律师那样作开场陈述；HK USA 的律师没有机会交叉询问在听证过程中由原告提出的证人。在听证过程中，当法院召集各方律师举行庭内会议时，瓦尔坦先生被排除在外，未被纳入这些谈话。原因很清楚。这是因为 HK USA 和郭女士并非基础诉讼的当事人。他们仅是在本次听证中被传唤作为证人。这一点也极为重要，回到这样的观点，即 HK USA 和郭女士并未申请介入基础纽约诉讼，而且她们也没有理由这样做。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n登记 04/10/23 10:57:36\n第 45 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/ HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n她们是就藐视法庭听证出庭，而这是法院审理的唯一争点。如果存在关于实际所有权及其最终认定的问题，她们知道 CPLR 规定了另行程序来裁定该问题。这里并非她们提出有关所有权最终认定问题的适当场所。她们日后会有机会这样做。纽约法院审理的问题与藐视法庭有关。\n\n既然如此，HK USA、郭女士没有机会传唤自己的证人。债务人就本次听证传唤了证人。她们没有机会在听证前进行证据开示，也没有机会交叉询问原告提出的证人。\n\n关于律师提出的上诉权观点，我们再次请法院参阅 Bland v. New York（布兰德诉纽约州案），263 F.Supp. 2d 526，该案是纽约东区于2003年作出的判例，确实突出了在排除的语境下上诉审查的重要性及其必要要求。而且——\n\n法院：\n不过，您引用的那个案件，即 Bland v. New York，是否是因为先前程序属于行政程序而非法律程序，因此不适用争点排除，因为法院认定作出认定的先前程序是行政程序而非法律程序？这是否正确？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n嗯，重要的是，为确保基础程序得到审查，需要有机会对基础程序进行审查——\n\n法院：\n那不是该案所说的。该案所说的是，不存在争点排除，因为争点涉及法院行政办公室对该法官性骚扰其秘书所作出的纪律处分。\n\n因此，我看过那个案件。当您就上诉审查问题称您严重依赖该案时，我并未被该案说服。那么，您还有其他案件吗？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n当然。我还请法官阁下注意 Avail v. Ryder Systems（埃维尔诉莱德系统公司案），这是第二巡回区的判例，正如我们在书面意见中指出，该案确立的命题是，如果一方无法获得上诉审查，则不能认为该方拥有充分、公平的审查或就某一争点进行诉讼的机会。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n因此，在本案中——\n\n法院：\n该案同样涉及仲裁，而不是法院作出认定并发布可上诉裁决的法律程序。\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n但该论点有两方面。第一，郭女士作为纽约诉讼的非当事人，没有以其自身名义提出上诉的机会。在本案中，上诉审查的概念，或者说上诉审查的可获得性，再次看来是一个误称，因为受托人在其文件中有些炫耀地表示，他们可以随意处理上诉。但就诉讼请求排除而言，需要有某种保证，即基础裁定是正确且公正作出的；在没有获得审查该事项的机会的情况下，事实并非如此。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n此外，就 HK USA 与债务人在纽约诉讼中存在同一利益关系的观点而言，我们再次提出，受托人无法证明这一点。首先，关于她们利益一致的观点，我们再次请法院回到以下事实：纽约程序是一项\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n登记 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 藐视法庭程序。\n\n2 债务人在该程序中的利益是确保其不会入狱。另一方面，HK USA 和郭女士在保障其财产方面具有强烈利益；同样，她们完全有理由预期，在发生交付程序时，她们将有机会这样做，并且就该问题，她们提出请求后实际上有权获得陪审团审判。\n\n9 法院：\n但这并未回应利益一致的问题。您谈的是不同争点，我理解这一论点。但利益一致呢？郭女士的利益与其父亲的利益并不一致吗？\n\n14 韦尔尼克女士：\n当然不是相同的利益，对吗？\n\n16 法院：\n嗯，它们必须一致。这就是标准，对吗？这就是检验标准。那么，它们为何不一致？\n\n19 韦尔尼克女士：\n因为债务人在纽约诉讼中所主张的利益，完全是为了避免民事藐视法庭，或者实际上避免刑事藐视法庭，以防法官因其未遵守法院命令而将其送入监狱。\n\n24 这才是他的重点，对吗？他的重点是援引第五修正案权利，从而无需作证，并确保他不\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n会入狱。什么——\n\n法院：\n但他在该案中不是说过——他不是说过该船由 HK 所有吗？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n是的，当然。\n\n法院：\nHK 不是也提出了同样的主张吗？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n是的。但是——\n\n法院：\n那么，她们的利益为何不一致？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n因为，如果 HK 是该诉讼的当事人，或者有机会作为诉讼当事人陈述其案件，她们当然可以走得更远，并提出更多——\n\n法院：\n嗯，那是 HK 作出的选择。\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n不，但她们没有作出该选择，因为她们——\n\n法院：\n当然作出了。她们可以介入。她们可以做17种不同的事情。\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n不，因为她们理解并有权——正确地理解，该程序不可能就所有权作出任何最终认定。不可能如此。CPLR 另有规定。因此，当存在另一整套程序来处理她们真正关心的问题时，她们为什么要介入一项与藐视法庭有关的诉讼——\n\n法院：\n嗯，她们确实介入了，因为她们主张，被试图作为判决一部分予以扣押的资产属于她们，对吗？所以她们确实介入了。\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n恕我直言，她们是作为证人被提出的——\n\n法院：\n但她们不必作为证人出庭。有人向她们发出传票了吗？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n但作为证人——\n\n法院：\n等一下。回答我的问题。\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n是。\n\n法院：\n有人向她们发出传票了吗？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n我不了解该问题的事实情况。\n\n法院：\n好的。嗯，您不认为这很相关吗？而且瓦尔坦先生——没有人强迫瓦尔坦先生在纽约案件中提交宣誓陈述，对吗？\n\n韦尔尼克女士：\n没有，但这并不是以 HK USA 作为诉讼当事人的身份提交的——没有任何文件是以此身份代表 HK USA 提交的，对吗？因此，她们能够以证人的身份提供信息——\n\n法院：\n嗯，HK 的利益当时与郭先生的利益相同。你们不希望 PAX（PAX）取得该游艇，对吗？这就是全部。你们不希望 PAX 取得该游艇。因此，当您说她们的利益并不一致时，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK美国）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 我难以被你的论点说服。我\n2 理解你关于两个不同争点的论点，但我\n3 不确定我是否理解你关于使利益\n4 一致的论点。\n5 法庭目前掌握的记录中\n6 没有任何内容表明 Vartan 先生有义务在纽约州法院\n7 采取任何行动。并且，选择是由 HK 作出的。你的\n8 当事人是 HK 和 Mei Guo（郭媚）。你选择提交 Vartan 先生的\n9 宣誓陈述书，让 Guo 女士提交其宣誓书并\n10 在该听证会上作证。\n11 因此，我只是告诉你，关于你提出的\n12 利益一致问题，我目前并未——你并未\n13 说服我，这是第一点。第二点，——\n14 你知道，你们律所和 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）均代理本案中的三方\n15 当事人。在本案中，在破产\n16 案件中，Zeisler and Zeisler（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒）代理 Kwok 先生、Guo 女士以及\n17 HK。\n18 你最近才加入。我不知道——我\n19 从未——不太确定原因是什么，但也许利益——\n20 其原因是试图表明不存在某种利益\n21 一致，尽管 HK 自愿服从本院\n22 管辖，并且实质上——并非实质上，\n23 而是确实提起了一项诉讼，请求\n24 附带攻击 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）的认定，即——\n25 你们请求作出确认判决，确认你们的当事人是\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 该游艇的所有人。\n2 Ostrager 法官认定 Kwok 先生对该游艇\n3 享有受益权益并控制该游艇。你是否同意\n4 这一点？\n5 WERNICK 女士（韦尼克女士）：\n那是他在裁定中所用的措辞。\n6 法庭：\n好的。那么请继续。继续说。\n7 WERNICK 女士：\n因此，恭敬地说，法官阁下，为了\n8 回应这一点，我们之所以在本院而非在我\n9 提到的另行 CPLR 程序中提出此事，\n10 是因为债务人申请破产，而纽约的诉讼均被中止。\n11 \n12 所以，现在这里成了处理此事的审理地——\n13 法庭：\n不一定。完全不一定。\n14 它本可以在不同的审理地处理。\n15 实际上，PAX 有一项待决动议，\n16 请求将其带回纽约审理地，而你——你们的当事人\n17 介入并说，不，不。我们不要那样做。我们会把\n18 船带到这里。我们会把游艇带到这里。\n19 我们会解决解除中止事宜。那是你们当事人提出的论点，不是\n20 债务人。不是债务人，而是你们的当事人在\n21 本院提出了该论点。\n22 并且你们提起了这一起对抗程序。你们的\n23 当事人。而且你们——你们律所在此之前很久——\n24 即对抗程序于 2022 年 4 月提起之后很久，才参与本案。\n25 我相信，你们律所在今年 1 月才介入，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 的。\n2 因此，你必须考虑你们当事人在本院提交的\n3 诉状中——当事人们，以及在纽约法院提交的\n4 诉状中所说的内容。\n5 所以，你可以——我并未被你提出的\n6 Kwok 先生、Mei Guo 和 HK International（HK国际）之间不存在利益\n7 一致这一论点说服。\n8 WERNICK 女士：\n好的。\n9 法庭：\n那么请继续。\n10 WERNICK 女士：\n是的，我对此表示感谢——我\n11 仅为记录在案，重申并强化我们的立场，\n12 即，由于债务人 Kwok 先生援引其第五\n13 修正案权利，且未在纽约诉讼中提出完整抗辩，\n14 其利益当然并未与 HK USA 的利益完全\n15 一致——再次说明，债务人关心的是\n16 保护其刑事利益以及避免因藐视法庭\n17 而产生的利益。HK USA 关心的是确保其在该游艇中的\n18 财产得以保全。\n19 并且，再次，就受托人关于债务人与 Guo 女士之间\n20 密切关系的观点作一评论。\n21 \n22 再次，我请法庭参阅我们提交材料中引用的\n23 判例；这些判例明确表明，两方之间的家庭关系\n24 不足以为排除效力之目的确立法律上的密切关系，\n25 而这确实是受托人就该\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 问题所提出的全部内容，即认为由于\n2 债务人与 Guo 女士具有父女关系，\n3 这进一步支持其关于法律上密切关系的主张。\n4 并且，再次，我请法庭参阅所引用的判例，\n5 尤其是 Willsey 诉 Strawway 一案，该案——\n6 \n7 法庭：\n你可以再告诉我一次那个案名吗？\n8 WERNICK 女士：\n可以。它是——\n9 法庭：\n请说它的第一个名称。抱歉——\n10 WERNICK 女士：\nWillsey。\n11 法庭：\nW-O-O——\n12 WERNICK 女士：\nW-I-L-L-S-E-Y。\n13 法庭：\n好的。\n14 WERNICK 女士：\n诉 Strawway，S-T-R-A-W-W-A-Y，\n15 这是一项最高法院判例，可见于 255 NYS 2d 224。\n16 因此，在该案中，法院拒绝对一名女儿适用\n17 争点排除；该女儿是其父亲涉案\n18 汽车的驾驶人，\n19 尽管该女儿曾在先前父亲与另一辆\n20 汽车所有人之间的诉讼中作为重要证人，\n21 且该女儿的律师曾出庭，并在先前审判中询问\n22 证人。\n23 法院认定，该女儿未被禁止\n24 对另一名驾驶人提起诉讼，因为她不是先前诉讼的\n25 当事人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n55 因此，虽然背景不同，但事实情形与本案非常相似。Guo 女士是纽约先前案件中的证人。她不是该案的当事人。这一点没有争议。在一项历时五年的诉讼中，她仅因作为证人出席了一个持续数小时的程序而有极少参与；在该程序中，她的律师仅在其交叉询问过程中出庭并在记录中提出异议，仅此而已。法庭：那么，在此之前他不是提交了一份宣誓陈述书吗？他提交了文件。并非只是他在听证会当天出现并向她提问。这准确吗？WERNICK 女士：是的，因此在 2021 年 7 月——法庭：对。WERNICK 女士：对，确实提交了一份宣誓陈述书。但是，再次说明，这是与债务人反对作出藐视法庭认定有关，而非任何积极——法庭：那么，既然有关所有权的听证会直到 2022 年 2 月才举行，她为什么需要在 2021 年 7 月代表债务人反对藐视法庭申请提交任何文件？WERNICK 女士：嗯，因为当时有一次初步\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n第 55 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 听证会在 7 月举行。\n2 法庭：\n但她没有被传唤在该听证会上作证。\n3 WERNICK 女士：\n嗯，为债务人就\n4 所有权问题提供证据并不矛盾，但同时继续主张，\n5 我们的当事人 HK USA 没有机会作为证人出庭，\n6 以代表其自身利益；在该诉讼中，他们仅是在一项历时数年的\n7 程序中扮演一个小角色。\n8 \n9 \n10 法庭：\n好的。\n11 WERNICK 女士：\n因此，最后我只想\n12 重申我开始时所说的话。HK USA、Guo 女士并非\n13 纽约诉讼的当事人。正如法官阁下所指出，他们\n14 在该诉讼五年的历程中，仅与有关的争议有过两次\n15 互动。\n16 Guo 女士在 2022 年 2 月 2 日的听证会上\n17 作为债务人的证人出庭，没有机会\n18 交叉询问任何证人、提出额外证人、\n19 提交书面意见，或对法院的任何裁定提出上诉。\n20 但更重要的是，我认为回到第一项要件，\n21 本院面前的争点根本不同于\n22 纽约法院面前的争点，因为纽约法院被请求\n23 审议的是藐视法庭问题，并且始终\n24 理解到还必须另行进行一项程序，\n25 \n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 以办理交付。\n2 而本案受托人只是试图跳过\n3 该另一程序，并实质上将法院藐视法庭命令\n4 中的附带意见作为本案的终局性\n5 认定，而其依法不能这样做。\n6 法庭：\n谢谢。\n7 MORIARTY 先生（莫里亚蒂先生）：\n法官阁下，在她结束之前，我能否\n8 与我的共同代理律师商量片刻？\n9 法庭：\n你可以有片刻时间。\n10 MORIARTY 先生：\n谢谢。\n11 （暂停。）\n12 BASSETT 先生（巴塞特先生）：\n再次说明，法官阁下，为记录在案，\n13 我是来自 Paul Hastings（博钦律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），代表\n14 第 11 章受托人。\n15 法官阁下，我会尽量简要地\n16 陈述我的回应论点。我确实想回应刚才提出的\n17 几个问题。\n18 第一，我想回应\n19 代理律师开始和结束时所提出的这个问题，即\n20 争点不同这一论点。\n21 我认为，对于受托人所持争点相同的立场，\n22 不存在任何真正的重大事实争议。\n23 \n24 我一开始便要指出，分析的起点和终点\n25 是纽约法院在其作出的命令中明确载明的措辞。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n录入日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 \n2 再次回到幻灯片第 3 页。我认为\n3 颇具启示性的是，代理律师完全没有谈及上诉分庭在其\n4 2021 年 11 月命令中所作的明确解释；该命令称，Ostrager 法官\n5 被指示进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的\n6 争议。\n7 \n8 而 Ostrager 法官在其 2 月 9 日裁定中恰恰做了这一点。\n9 再次，他称，根据该上诉法院的指示，法院安排了 2 月 2 日听证会，\n10 以解决 Kwok 是否实益拥有并控制该游艇的问题。\n11 \n12 \n13 代理律师希望法庭所做的是，在法院对争点的界定中\n14 读入一些并不存在的额外措辞，以表明 Ostrager 法官已在其裁定中告知\n15 各方，并且上诉法院已指示他认定债务人是否持有\n16 该游艇所有权中的任何权益，\n17 无论该权益多么微小。\n18 \n19 但那并不是其裁定的明确措辞所表达的内容。\n20 问题是 Kwok 是否——是 Kwok，而不是其女儿——\n21 实益拥有并控制该游艇。\n22 \n23 再次，我不再赘述，但根据该裁定，他的认定\n24 与此完全一致。\n25 他正在裁决的问题是，债务人是否拥有某种\n\n1 即使是极小的权益，那么他就不会作出如下认定：\n2 即，女儿关于其拥有该游艇的证言\n3 完全不可信。\n4 他说在任何方面均不可信。\n这\n5 意味着他明确驳回了她关于其在该游艇中\n6 拥有某种所有权权益的主张。\n7 而且，法官阁下，该问题\n8 以这种方式被提出并裁决，事实上\n9 与法院面前最终的藐视法庭问题相一致。\n10 我相信律师将藐视法庭问题界定为\n11 涉及若干要件，包括是否存在一项\n12 合法命令、该命令是否被违反、违反该\n13 命令的一方是否知悉该命令，以及\n14 是否会因此产生损害。\n15 如果您查看各方提交的文件，\n16 包括向上诉部门提交的书面材料，当他们\n17 讨论所有权问题时，该问题之所以具有相关性\n18 并且对该认定至关重要，是因为它涉及\n19 损害问题，因为其论点是，如果债务人\n20 并不拥有该游艇，那么作为判决债权人的 PAX\n21 又如何会因该游艇离开\n22 管辖区域而受到损害。\n23 因此，法院需要裁决所有权问题\n24 以裁决损害问题。而且，他并非仅为作出该\n25 裁决而认定债务人在该游艇中持有某种大于零的权益。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 因为您必须查看他正在作出、并被请求\n2 作出的命令究竟是什么。\n3 \n4 那并非仅仅因债务人将游艇置于\n5 管辖区域之外而对其略施惩戒的命令。\n6 如果他这样做，法官将对其处以每天 \\$500,000 的罚款。\n7 \n8 上诉法院所认识到的，以及 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官\n9 所认识到的，是为了支持该认定，\n10 有必要确定债务人且仅债务人\n11 拥有该游艇，因为那是一项\n12 意义重大、至少可以这么说的罚款。\n13 如果 Ostrager 法官\n14 仅仅认定债务人例如拥有该游艇\n15 0.01 的所有权权益，那么该认定就无法支持其\n16 藐视法庭裁决，而这正是律师声称\n17 法院面前的问题。\n18 因此，他们提出的另一点是，最终将会有进一步的\n19 交付程序，\n20 以确定游艇的所有权；我同意，如果\n21 诉讼未被中止，PAX 很可能\n22 会申请交付。\n23 但您知道吗？对此，他们会\n24 主张争点排除。他们会主张案件法则。\n25 他们会说，Ostrager 法官，您已经\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 裁决了这个问题。这是债务人的财产。\n2 因此，可能存在之后的\n3 交付动议这一事实，并不意味着先前已经作出的最终\n4 裁决——正如 Ostrager 法官在其命令中明确说明的——\n5 本身不具有排除效力。\n6 仅就……作出回应——我不会在\n7 参与问题上花费太多时间，因为我认为记录\n8 毫无争议，当然已达到 Rule 56 关于简易判决所要求的\n9 不存在任何真正争议的程度，即\n10 反被告 HK USA 广泛参与了诉讼程序。\n11 这在您与律师的法庭问答中\n12 已经讨论过。Vartan（瓦尔坦）律师决定提交其冗长的\n13 宣誓陈述。他们传唤了证人。\n14 而且，除此之外，并非只有\n15 反被告及 HK USA 通过亲自参与程序来维护\n16 他们的权益。他们与债务人具有\n17 利益一致性，而债务人本人做了他们声称自己\n18 无法做的一切。\n19 他提交了审后书面陈述。他做了一切。\n20 他基于他们的证据、基于他们的\n21 证言进行了辩论。\n22 因此，根据全部事实和情形——这是法院在确定\n23 应受排除效力约束的诉讼当事人是否在\n24 先前诉讼中获得充分且公平机会时\n25 必须考察的内容——我认为对此不可能存在任何疑问。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 而且，这是一个完美的案例，表明该要件\n2 已经满足。\n3 他们提到这是历时五年的\n4 诉讼，而他们直到接近结束时才参与——\n5 我们所谈论的问题，是因 2021 年 3 月\n6 和 7 月的藐视法庭命令而提交给 Ostrager 法官\n7 的问题。这正是\n8 HK USA 和 Mei Guo（郭美）深度参与的问题。\n9 我将用一点时间讨论\n10 纽约上诉尚在审理中是否能够\n11 阻却争点排除的问题。\n12 我认为法院对 Bland\n13 案及反被告律师援引的其他\n14 权威的评估完全正确。\n15 那些案件涉及行政程序。\n16 它们涉及完全不同的情形，在那些情形中，基于\n17 同样的全部事实和情形，法院\n18 并未适用争点排除。\n19 这并非因为不存在\n20 上诉审查的机会。这并非该项检验的运作方式。\n21 那些法院并非如此裁决。\n22 而且，纽约关于此问题的判例法\n23 十分明确。我只想向法院提供另一项更近期的\n24 裁决，以进一步说明这一点。\n25 这是一起涉及债务人 Adamo（阿达莫）的破产案件，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 在对抗程序 Marini（马里尼）诉 Adamo 中。\n2 案例引注为 560 B.R. 642。这是\n3 United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York（美国纽约东区联邦破产法院）\n4 于 2016 年作出的裁决。\n5 法庭：560 B.R. 几？\n6 巴塞特先生：560 B.R. 642。\n7 法庭：好的。请继续。谢谢。\n8 巴塞特先生：2016 年的裁决。如果您查看\n9 该裁决的最后一页，其中论及争点\n10 排除。\n11 被告——这是引文：“被告\n12 反对该动议的第二项论点同样\n13 不能成立。被告主张，由于其已提起上诉，\n14 争点排除不适用。上诉尚在审理中\n15 并不排除适用禁反言原则。”\n16 该裁决援引了支持该结论的案例。\n17 因此，我认为这一问题不存在任何实质性\n18 争议。\n19 法官阁下，请允许我\n20 在法庭宽容下查阅一下笔记，以确认我没有其他\n21 想要提出的要点。\n22 我记下的最后一点是，我认为律师\n23 再次提到，在 Ostrager 法官面前举行听证期间，\n24 他们没有机会交叉询问\n25 证人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023 64 我认为值得注意的是，PAX 提出的唯一证人是一名对社交媒体帖子进行认证的证人。因此，这并不是 PAX 提出一系列事实证人、而他们没有能力进行交叉询问的情形。我认为即使情况如此，也不会丝毫改变任何事情。但我只是想指出，这实际上就是 2 月 2 日在 Ostrager 法官面前发生的情况。我的陈述完毕，但我当然乐意回答法院可能提出的任何问题。法庭：谢谢。我目前没有任何问题。巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：律师，您想作出回应吗？韦尼克女士：仅简要回应，法官阁下。法庭：当然。韦尼克女士：因此，再次，首先，我想请法院注意律师刚刚提到的上诉部门裁决。我认为值得法院注意的是，上诉部门在维持 Ostrager 法官裁决时指出，法院有权酌情认定被告藐视法庭，并援引了藐视法庭裁决的各项要件，包括该违反行为损害原告权利的概念。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n第 64 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n第 65 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 因此，认为下级法院中存在所有权这一认定是\n2 与对 PAX 权利的核心\n3 损害相关联的必要认定，我认为\n4 与法院——上诉部门的\n5 裁决并不相符。\n6 而且，我承认上诉\n7 部门指示下级法院进行\n8 证据听证，以解决有关所有权的争议，\n9 但我不知道所提起的程序\n10 是否必然是上诉部门所设想的程序，\n11 而非如我所指出的 CPLR 所要求的\n12 一项独立程序，以就所有权作出完整裁定，\n13 其中涉及该资产——即此处的游艇——的占有人\n14 以及 HK。\n15 法庭：那么，让我问您一个关于\n16 此事的问题。\n17 所以您是说，您不知道上诉\n18 法院所说的进行\n19 证据听证是什么意思。它可能是指希望进行\n20 一项 CPLR 5225 听证？\n21 韦尼克女士：我认为这只是合理的——\n22 法庭：好的。那么请告诉我两者之间的区别\n23 是什么。\n24 韦尼克女士：嗯，CPLR 5225 程序将会是\n25 一项针对 HK USA 提起的程序。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023\n\n1 法庭：好的。那么，为什么\n2 上诉法院不那样说，而是说我希望\n3 你们就谁拥有该游艇这一问题举行证据\n4 听证？为什么他们不那样说？\n5 我的意思是，上诉法院了解 CPLR。他们\n6 了解它，对吗？我的意思是，我假定他们显然了解\n7 它。他们会理解该程序与当时 HK USA 之间的区别；如果您担心自己并非当事人的证据听证，\n8 为什么不能依据 CPLR 规则启动一项程序？\n9 \n10 我并不是说 5225 程序，但如果您担心实际上会有一场您并非当事人的证据听证，您同样可以启动某项程序。\n\n韦尼克女士：是的，我的意思是，就此而言，我认为其中一些属于推测，并且是基于事后事情如何发展的考虑。\n\n但我认为，如我在最初陈述中所说，HK USA 没有理由介入 PAX 诉讼，因为其完全且公平地预期，如果将会出现交付问题——受托人现在正在此处请求的正是该问题——将会有涉及他们的其他程序。\n\n而且，我认为仅从\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n第 67 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — March 27, 2023 67\n\n1 上诉部门裁决的字面解读来看，我认为该裁决存在一定\n2 模糊性，但可以得出合理结论：\n3 如果要作出针对 HK\n4 USA 的裁定，他们就必须以不仅仅是\n5 一名普通证人的身份参与该程序。\n\n因此，再次就律师关于 HK USA 在纽约程序中充分参与的陈述发表评论，我认为，整个藐视法庭听证仅持续了数小时。\n\n就该问题而言，大约只有两小时的证言，当然——我的意思是，我记得大概十天前，我在此就 PJR 申请出庭时，律师带来了大量文件和信息，准备就基础问题提出，这肯定远多于纽约法院面前为就这一重大资产作出实质性裁决而形成的记录。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？韦尔尼克女士：另外，仅就上诉审查的问题而言，并非只是来回援引案例，但我还想请法庭参阅 Gelb v. Royal Globe Insurance Company，载于 798 F.2d 38。法庭：我想我确实看过该案。那是一起刑事案件，对吗？韦尔尼克女士：该案涉及一项基础刑事定罪。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯平斯）— 2023年3月27日，第68页定罪，正确。法庭：好的。律师，还有其他事项吗？没有？好的。巴塞特先生：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。关于受托人就保险维修准备金及其他付款提出的紧急命令动议，巴塞特先生，您现在准备讨论此事了吗，还是由谁来——巴塞特先生：受托人将就此发言，法官阁下。法庭：好的。Despins 受托人。莫里亚蒂先生，您将就该问题发言吗？莫里亚蒂先生：是的，法官阁下，不过我对该动议的理解是，它取决于法庭对简易判决动议的裁决；而且可能视法庭如何裁决该简易判决动议，我们能够就该动议达成协议。法庭：你们可能能够达成协议？莫里亚蒂先生：是。法庭：那是什么意思？什么样的协议？莫里亚蒂先生：我需要就拟议命令与受托人商议，视情况而定——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — 2023年3月27日，第69页。法庭：无论如何，你们为什么不能达成协议？你们不能让一艘船——一艘游艇没有保险。你们自己后来撤回的动议，即修改动议，我又看了一遍，好吗。在该动议中，你们附有一份详尽的附件，逐项列明所有款项的支出方式，其中包括超过 $100,000 的保险付款。因此，HK 在你们同意登记 PJR 和初步禁令后撤回该动议之前，你们自己当事人的立场是必须支付保险费。莫里亚蒂先生：我同意这一点，法官阁下。法庭：而且 Despins 先生控制着这些资金。这是经同意的。Despins 先生持有这些资金。按照你们希望的方式支出这些资金，怎么会对你们的当事人造成不利影响——你们的当事人在决定撤回本应于上周审理的动议之前，原本希望将这些资金用于该等支出。你们记得，我们本来要就该动议举行证据听证会。因此，无论我就简易判决作出何种裁决，这怎么会对你们的当事人造成不利影响？莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，如果法庭准许——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 69 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 70 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n受托人的简易判决动议，受托人即取得 Lady May 的所有权，维修准备金是该更广泛托管安排的一部分。该托管款项是借给 HK 的 $37 million。我理解司法部、SEC 和受托人可能对此持有不同看法，但截至目前，有一笔向 HK 提供的 $37 million 贷款——法庭：但是你们已经同意并同意其中的 $4 million 由受托人持有，作为该维修准备金。莫里亚蒂先生：正确。法庭：因此，我理解你关于贷款的论点。我现在不介入贷款问题，对吗？我问你的是，无论我如何裁决简易判决，让受托人以几周前你们提议的同一方式支出这笔钱——你们提议这样支出——怎么会对你们的当事人造成不利影响？莫里亚蒂先生：因此，法官阁下，这大概不会造成不利影响。法庭：好的。很好。莫里亚蒂先生：我的观点是——法庭：这无关紧要。那我们为何不对此达成协议？即使保险以 HK 的名义为受托人的利益投保，我们为什么还要争论此事？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1644\nFiled 04/10/23\nEntered 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，如果受托人取得该船的所有权，这笔钱——截至目前是 HK 的钱，因为它取得了该贷款——法庭：嗯，它目前受制于诉前救济和初步禁令，对吗？莫里亚蒂先生：正确。法庭：好的。莫里亚蒂先生：但它仍然是 HK 的财产，无论其是否被扣押。法庭：可能是。莫里亚蒂先生：扣押不影响 HK 的财产权。它仅影响 HK 处分该财产及耗散该财产的能力。因此，截至目前，那是 HK 的财产。如果所有权转移给受托人，那么受托人便是在使用 HK 的财产维护破产财产的一项资产。因此，我们所请求的只是，该命令保护 HK 的权利，以便若将来本法庭或另一有管辖权的法庭认定该等资金属于 HK，则 HK 有权追回受托人为维护破产财产资产而支出的款项。法庭：那么，即使他确实支出了该款项，该权利又怎会消失——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1644\nFiled 04/10/23\nEntered 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n即使他确实支出了该款项，又怎会——没有任何事情会使你们的追回权消失。如果你们是对的，如果你们胜诉，根据法律，你们的追回权会在哪里消失？莫里亚蒂先生：可能不会，法官阁下，但我所说的只是，我们希望在命令中加入一些具体措辞，我认为我们可以就此拟定，以明确规定这一点，从而使我们不会——法庭：嗯，律师，我的观点是这样。我听到了你的意见，但即使我今天不就简易判决作出裁决，你们为什么不能做你所说的事？我不明白为什么不能做到。莫里亚蒂先生：大概可以，法官阁下——法庭：好的。很好。那么我们现在休庭，你们去把这件事办妥。莫里亚蒂先生：好的。但是——法庭：因为这毫无道理。你们要争什么？你们的当事人在向本法庭提交的诉状中说，我们需要支出这笔钱。而且我们数月来一直在谈论为该准备金支出这笔钱，可以追溯至11月或12月左右。我此刻记不清了，但已有数月之久。双方似乎一直在努力——未必完全一致，但有些款项必须支付，而且我们一直分步骤处理，对吗？我们一直——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1644\nFiled 04/10/23\nEntered 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n逐步处理。但现在的问题不是逐步处理的问题。如果你们的当事人——你谈论的是你们的财产，对吗？你们当事人的财产。你们为什么会希望让你们当事人的船——游艇，在没有保险的情况下暴露于风险之中？我实在无法理解。莫里亚蒂先生：我们不希望这样，法官阁下。法庭：那就拟定协议。钱在那里。你们要求的金额与受托人要求的金额相同。莫里亚蒂先生：正确，法官阁下。那是在我的当事人拥有该船并持有其所有权时提出的。我唯一的观点是，如果所有权转移，我们只是想确保，如果将来某个时候认定这笔钱属于 HK，我们享有相应权利。法庭：那么，我现在就给你们机会与受托人讨论此事。莫里亚蒂先生：谢谢。法庭：好的？因为在游艇显然必须投保的情况下，我看不出有什么理由要坐在这里争论资金的拨付。它必须投保。我不知道你们为什么要让你们的当事人面临因未给它投保而产生的诉因。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1644 Filed 04/10/23 Entered 04/10/23 10:57:36 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/HK USA 诉 Despins — 2023年3月27日\n\n我的意思是，我无法理解。因此，我不相信你们实际上正在这样做，所以我认为你们只需就这笔钱拟定协议，以便能够取得保险，并且有保险覆盖该游艇。我认为这显然必须发生。本来就会发生——我的意思是，我们本应于上周举行该证据听证会，但你们选择了——那是你们的选择。但你们作出了撤回该动议的选择。好的。因此，该动议已被撤回。但这仍未改变游艇必须投保这一事实，无论是你们拥有它，还是受托人拥有它。莫里亚蒂先生：我同意，法官阁下。坦率地说，我不知道该动议会获得何种救济，因为受托人确实反对该动议，而现在他却请求同样的救济；但我同意法庭的意见，也明白法庭的指示，我们将予以解决。法庭：好的。谢谢。那么——Despins 先生：那么——法庭：是，Despins 受托人。Despins 先生：法官阁下，我不愿这样说，但我们有一位专家正与我们合作办理保险事宜，我们收到的反馈是，除非我们拥有所有权，否则无法取得保险。法庭：我理解所有这些。我并不质疑你对我所说的内容，好吗。但我也在说，我不会就是否应当支出资金以及由谁支出，进行一个半小时的争论。Despins 先生：同意，法官阁下。法庭：好的。因为显然需要支出。对此无人能够争议。因此，我将休庭至 2:00 p.m.。我要求各方就为取得保险而支出资金，并可能就其他事项，例如支付船员费用及动议中列明的其他事项，进行讨论。然后我要回去看一看——你们双方都援引了一些新的判例法。我还没有看过。我需要审阅，然后我们将在2点回来，看看情况如何。但是我确实认为，关于——我只是——受托人控制着准备金——维修准备金。我理解你的论点，莫里亚蒂先生，我确实理解。即，他们一度提出异议，现在却要求同样的事情。但你们反对他们所——我们不断来回争论。长话短说，你们的当事人希望支出那笔钱，以保护其认为属于自己的资产。它说那是它的资产。那么就支出它。本法庭绝不会——\n\n在未取得保险的情况下继续推进；但是，保险确实需要取得。\n\n现在，您说您想确保，如果所有权发生转移，您拥有追偿权。我不知道如何——我不知道法律中有什么规定使您不享有您声称拥有的任何权利。\n\n但这是你们都可以讨论的事情，好吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么法庭现在休庭，至下午 2:00。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。\n\n（自下午 12:51 休庭至下午 2:19。）\n\n法庭：\n好的。在我们休庭之前，我们正在讨论维修准备金中的款项问题，以及双方是否会讨论就维修准备金达成任何可能的协议或解决方案，特别是关于取得为 Lady May（“五月女士”号）投保的保险，以及与该游艇维护相关的其他费用。\n\n因此，受托人德斯平斯（Despins），莫里亚蒂律师（Moriarty），你们在休庭期间是否进行了任何讨论？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我们进行了讨论，法官阁下。事实上，我今天带到法庭的是一份对随受托人德斯平斯动议提交的拟议命令所作的修订稿。我把我的红线稿交给了他们。他们向我反馈了一些意见，我会说其中 98% 已经完成。\n\n有一件事我只需要向我的办公室确认，但我尚未能够确认。因此，我将向法庭陈述并告知法庭的是——HK 不反对录入——或者，让我重新说。\n\nHK 不反对受托人的动议，也不反对录入一项允许受托人使用维修准备金中 \\$500,000 的命令，随后将提交双方同意的命令。\n\n法庭：\n好的。受托人德斯平斯？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n这是正确的，法官阁下。我认为我们相当有把握能在几小时内形成一项合意命令。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，该合意命令是否会写明 Lady May 的所有权登记在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的破产财产名下？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n不会，法官阁下，这就是我最初所说——\n\n法庭：\n我明白。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n——第二项命令是基于简易判决规则。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我明白。好的。关于简易判决，还有其他事项吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。休庭期间，法庭审阅了某些文件，包括——双方在口头辩论中援引的案件，并审阅了双方提交的诉状，以及其中包括郭先生主要 Chapter 11 案件中的诉状和 PAX（PAX）在纽约州法院对郭先生提起的诉讼中的诉状；该诉讼是债务人——债务人郭先生表示其自愿启动本 Chapter 11 案件并来到本庭寻求《破产法》救济的原因之一。关于目前在法庭审理的简易判决动议，ECF No. 146，法庭已审阅双方的立场，并听取了今天在简易判决动议听证会上提出的口头辩论。\n\n在审阅 Chapter 11 受托人的第一项反诉后，该反诉载于 ECF No. 36，受托人提交的该诉状中的第一项反诉题为“Lady May 是债务人的财产”。\n\n而且，在——我——我想该诉状只有不到十个段落，但我现在看一下。（停顿。）\n\n第一项反诉见于 ECF 36 第 58 页——始于第 58 页。实际上，该反诉只有七个段落。\n\n显然，它确实纳入并重新主张了先前诉状——该文件先前段落中的事实，但第 106 段称，在最终藐视法庭裁决中，奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）认定债务人实际享有并控制 Lady May。\n\n随后，第 107 段称，奥斯特拉格法官关于债务人对 Lady May 所有权的认定具有排除效力，HK USA（HK USA）因争议该问题而受争点排除原则约束。\n\n第 108 段称，鉴于最终藐视法庭裁决中的认定由纽约法院作出，纽约争点排除法适用。\n\n下一段，即第 109 段称，根据纽约法，当相同争点已在先前诉讼中被必要地裁决，且对当前诉讼具有决定性，并且将被禁止重新争议该争点的一方在先前诉讼中曾有充分且公平的机会就该争点进行诉讼时，争点排除禁止对该争点再次诉讼。\n\n其中援引了 Plymouth Venture Partners II, LP v. GTR Source, LLC, 988 F.3d 634, 642 Second Circuit 2021，该案适用了纽约法。\n\n因此，当法庭——双方当事人已同意，受托人的律师和 HK USA 的律师均同意，法庭为确定争点排除是否适用于本对抗诉讼而必须适用的检验标准，就是我刚才记录在案宣读的、并载于 Plymouth Ventures 的标准，即：相同争点已在先前诉讼中被必要地裁决，且对当前诉讼具有决定性，并且将被禁止重新争议该争点的一方在先前诉讼中曾有充分且公平的机会就该争点进行诉讼。\n\n因此，法庭已回头审查了这——两个要素，如我所说，双方同意其适用，但双方对于这些要素如何适用并无一致意见。\n\n因此，关于第一个要素，即相同争点已在先前诉讼中被必要地——被裁决，并且对当前诉讼具有决定性，实际上包括两个组成部分。两个案件中的争点必须相同，且该争点必须在先前案件中被必要地裁决。\n\n本案中的相同争点，双方对其为何存在分歧，尽管并非完全分歧。受托人提出的论点是，本案中对第一项反诉的简易判决动议具有决定性的相同争点，是 Lady May 属于债务人郭先生的 Chapter 11 破产财产。\n\nHK 主张，尽管该争点在先前诉讼中曾被处理，但先前诉讼中的争点是藐视法庭问题，而不是 Lady May 的所有权问题。\n\n法庭同意受托人的意见，即本案中对简易判决动议具有决定性的争点，就是在先前诉讼中被必要地裁决的相同争点。\n\nHK USA 关于上诉法院向奥斯特拉格法官作出的指示可能并不明确的论点，没有说服力。\n\n如果我们查看上诉法院向奥斯特拉格法官作出的指示，该指示载于作为 Bassett（巴塞特）声明附件的 ECF 150 附件 15，上诉法院称，现引述如下：“动议法院被指示进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。”\n\n因此，本庭认定，根据上诉法院指示而被必要裁决的争点——奥斯特拉格法官确实在其 2022 年 2 月 9 日的意见中作出了裁决——我相信该日期是正确的——是 Lady May 的所有权。\n\n因此，纽约州法院在先前诉讼中必要裁决的相同争点，对当前诉讼具有决定性，故第一个要素的该部分得到满足；第一个要素的第二部分也得到满足，即该争点在先前案件中被必要地裁决。我正在寻找相关引述——我会找到它。\n\n奥斯特拉格法官的意见是 ECF 150，即 Bassett 声明的附件 18？\n\n（停顿。）\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n至于相关措辞——该裁决中有若干部分，法庭将在不同节点予以提及，双方也都曾在口头辩论中援引这些部分。\n\n但是，奥斯特拉格法官在进行上诉法院要求其举行的听证后作出认定，并据此作出最终民事藐视法庭命令，这正是奥斯特拉格法官意见所述。\n\n因此，这并非该程序只是诉讼中的某个初步步骤的情形。\n\n奥斯特拉格法官认定，该程序证实，除其他事项外，郭对 Lady May 行使支配和控制；这导致一系列命令，限制郭和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出法院管辖范围。\n\n首项此类命令于 2022 年 9 月 30 日作出——抱歉，我读错了。该命令于 2020 年 9 月 30 日作出，法庭认定其明显早于 2022 年 2 月 9 日；如奥斯特拉格法官意见中更详细地描述，随后作出了一项命令。\n\n2020 年 10 月 15 日的命令限制郭先生和/或游艇 Lady May 的登记所有人离开该管辖区。\n\n因此，早在 2020 年 9 月 30 日，以及随后作出的命令中，Lady May 的登记所有人已被送达限制郭先生和/或登记所有人离开该管辖区的命令。\n\n据法庭所知，登记所有人在奥斯特拉格法官审理的诉讼中未采取任何行动，撤销或废止一项临时限制令；该临时限制令明确限制了他们，即登记所有人，也就是 HK USA 和郭女士（Ms. Guo），将游艇移出纽约法院的管辖范围。\n\n此外，奥斯特拉格法官在其意见中指出，听证中提出的证词，出自被告方证人之口，清楚且令人信服地证明，郭实际享有并控制 Lady May，并且对本法院及司法程序抱有彻底蔑视。\n\n奥斯特拉格法官接着称，听证中提出的证词表明，2014 年，郭无偿将 HK International（HK International）100% 的权益转让给一名 Qu Guo Jiao（曲郭娇）。曲女士是郭氏家族值得信赖的商业伙伴。\n\n此后，郭逃离中国，并于 2 月 23 日，\n\n2015年，HK International（HK国际）以28 million pounds购得Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）。\n\n听证会上没有任何证言证明购买Lady May的资金来源，但Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）之女Mei Guo（郭美）未受反驳的证言证明，Ms. Qu（曲女士）并未提供购买该游艇的资金。\n\n因此，可以作出的合理推断是，郭文贵向HK提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。\n\n无争议的是，Ms. Qu于约June 17, 2017以$1或无对价将Lady May的所有权转让给郭美。\n\n郭美最终将Lady May的所有权转让给现任登记所有人HK USA（HK美国）。郭美进一步声明，她是HK USA的唯一所有人，尽管Lady May每年数百万美元的全部费用，包括燃油、维护以及船长和船员的费用，均由Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）支付。\n\n郭美承认，她知悉本院September 30, 2020作出的限制令，以及本院随后于March 16, 2021作出的命令，该命令要求将Lady May交还至本院管辖范围内。\n\nJustice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）在其判决第8页进一步指出，郭文贵对Lady May所享有的远不止受益权益。他不仅控制该游艇，看来还提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且是主要享用该游艇的人。\n\n奥斯特拉格法官随后在第9页表示，证据以清楚且令人信服的标准证明，郭文贵持有并控制Lady May的受益权益。\n\n本院认定，郭美的证言不仅在内部存在矛盾且具有掩饰性，而且受到Captains Heaslop and Ivanov（赫斯洛普船长和伊万诺夫船长）及Mr. Stockil（斯托基尔先生）的证言严重削弱；他们表示，在郭美直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未接受过郭美关于游艇的任何指示。\n\n因此，基于已在记录中阐明的理由，以及奥斯特拉格法官意见书中的陈述和认定，本院认定争点排除的第一项要件已经满足，即相同争点已在先前诉讼中被必要地裁决，且对本案具有决定性。\n\n本院还认定，根据纽约州法律，在上诉尚待审理时，被上诉的裁决仍可具有争点排除效力；HK援引以主张不存在争点排除效力的判例，在本案中不适用且不具说服力。\n\n关于第二项要件，被禁止就该争点再次诉讼的一方，须已在先前诉讼中获得充分且公平的机会就该争点进行诉讼。\n\n各方均同意——Chapter 11受托人、HK International和郭美均同意——HK和郭美不是在奥斯特拉格法官审理的PAX（PAX）诉讼中的当事人。本院认定此点属实，即他们并非当事人。\n\n关于充分且公平的诉讼机会这一要件，再次强调，该要件包含两个部分：与被作出判决的一方存在利益共同关系；本院今日上午在口头辩论中已经讨论过的利益一致性检验；以及诉讼的实际情况和充分且公平地参与该诉讼的机会。\n\n关于该检验标准，本院注意到Schwartz vs. Public Administrator of the Bronx（施瓦茨诉布朗克斯公共遗产管理人案），该案确立了现代争点排除规则，并明确指出，如动议方证明争点相同，则非动议方负有证明其未获充分且公平机会的举证责任。\n\n并且，在本案中——本院已经认定受托人已证明争点相同；在（无法辨认）项下，该举证责任仍由非动议方承担，尽管受托人必须作出初步证明，而本院已认定受托人已完成该证明。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK美国）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）- March 27, 2023\n\n因此，在本案中，就该项要件而言，HK USA和郭美负有证明其未获充分且公平机会，就先前诉讼中被必要裁决且对本案具有决定性的相同争点进行诉讼的责任。\n\n本院认定，HK USA和郭美未能就第二项要件完成其举证责任。HK主张，郭文贵援引第五修正案，或援引其不自证其罪权利，而这并不使其与HK USA及郭美具有利益共同关系。\n\n然而，正如本院今日上午在询问HK的律师时所指出的，郭文贵主张，他在纽约诉讼中提交了文件和诉状，主张HK拥有该船——该游艇。\n\n而他如此行事，是在使其利益与HK USA和郭美的利益保持一致。\n\n如前所述，双方均在奥斯特拉格法官面前强烈主张，HK USA是该船的所有人，双方均希望纽约州法院作出该项认定，以便使该游艇在PAX判决后程序中不受PAX追索。\n\n此外，HK USA在其书面文件以及今日上午的口头辩论中提出论点，称仅因郭美与郭文贵为父女关系，就不可能存在任何利益共同关系。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1644\n提交 04/10/23\n录入 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK美国）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）- March 27, 2023\n\n但这并非受托人就该要件所提出的论点。\n\n受托人并非主张，仅因郭美与郭文贵是父女，就等同于存在利益共同关系。\n\n受托人的论点远比这更为广泛，并支持认定存在利益一致性；在奥斯特拉格法官于February 9, 2022作出裁决时以及在此之前，郭美、HK USA和郭文贵之间存在利益一致性。这正是奥斯特拉格法官所作出的认定，因为父女双方——无论以个人身份还是通过公司实体——均希望使Lady May不受PAX追索。\n\n关于充分且公平的诉讼机会要件的第二部分，纽约州的判例以及适用纽约州争点排除法的获认可判例均表明，法院需要考察诉讼的实际情况。\n\n纽约州法院诉讼的实际情况是，早在September 2020，奥斯特拉格法官即已对郭文贵和Lady May的登记所有人作出临时限制令。\n\n本院面前的记录中没有任何内容表明HK USA或郭美曾寻求撤销、修改或废止任何该等临时限制令。\n\n奥斯特拉格法官的意见书所构成本院记录表明，郭美知悉于September, 2020和October, 2020作出的临时限制令；同样，记录中没有任何内容表明曾有人试图废止该等限制令。\n\n此外，本院记录证明，Attorney Vartan（瓦尔坦律师）于July of 2021提交宣誓书，反对PAX提出的作出最终藐视法庭命令的动议；在该声明——宣誓书中，瓦尔坦律师表示，他代表HK International提交该文件，因为HK International的财产权益正受到最终藐视法庭动议的影响。\n\n目前，各方已经进行辩论，且HK和郭美的律师已多次在记录中承认，HK USA与郭美是同一主体。\n\n因此，关于针对郭文贵和HK USA的民事藐视法庭问题，HK USA在July of 2021主张其财产权正受到最终藐视法庭动议影响，也证明他们曾有充分且公平的机会在纽约州诉讼中进行诉讼，但选择不这样做。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1644 提交 04/10/23 录入 04/10/23 10:57:36 第90页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK美国）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）- March 27, 2023\n\n最后，正如我可能已经说过，但我将再次说明，奥斯特拉格法官的裁决并非临时裁决，尽管HK USA主张其为临时裁决，并主张上诉法院的裁决可能含糊不清；本院认定该论点不具说服力。\n\n上诉法院的裁决非常明确。上诉法院说——我得找到它。我想是证据15，但也许我错了。可能是证据7。不。请稍候，请各位包涵。\n\n是的，上诉法院在作为ECF 150的Bassett声明附件的证据15中表示，作出动议裁定的法院被指示继续进行证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n因此，本院认定，上诉法院就其指示奥斯特拉格法官所为之事并无任何含糊之处；奥斯特拉格法官在举行有关Lady May所有权的证据听证后，于February 9th, 2022就所有权作出裁决时，已经遵从该指示。\n\n关于任何不能就康涅狄格州——抱歉，纽约州法院诉讼提出上诉或参与诉讼的进一步论点，本院认定HK提出的论点不具说服力。\n\n纽约州法律规定，如一方与另一方具有利益共同关系，则由谁控制上诉并不重要；HK本可采取不同措施以行使其在该纽约州诉讼中的权利，但其选择不这样做。然而，在其并非债务人的情况下，其自愿来到本院，并曾寻求阻止PAX获得解除自动中止的救济，以返回纽约州法院继续在奥斯特拉格法官面前进行诉讼。并且，HK在本案中、在本破产法院中，主动决定提起诉因以确定Lady May的所有权，尽管奥斯特拉格法官已在纽约州法院诉讼中作出该项认定。关于瓦尔坦律师仅短暂参与且仅出席了一场三小时听证的论点，同样不具说服力。如记录所述，瓦尔坦律师于July of 2021提交了一份声明性确认书。他的客户自September of 2020起即知悉临时限制令。而且，如前所述，瓦尔坦律师的提交文件称，纽约州法院中关于PAX试图执行判决和扣押资产的诉讼，正影响其客户就该游艇享有的权利和财产权。因此，基于上述所有理由，本院准许该……\n\n就 ECF 36 中提出的第一项反诉所作出的简易判决动议。\n\n本裁定很可能会由书面裁定予以补充，而这可能需要一天左右，或者可能比那更久，因为本周我们在其他案件中还有其他事项需要处理。\n\n但无论书面裁定是否在数日内发出，本裁定自 2023 年 3 月 27 日下午 2:55 起生效，特此命令。\n\nDespins 先生（吕克·德斯平斯），您提交的拟议命令——我得找到它。我这里有，应该就在这里某处。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n法官大人，我有额外副本。\n\n法庭：\n我有。谢谢。我只需要找到它。就在这里。\n\n（暂停。）\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n我们可能应当加上一些内容，说明“以及基于法庭在庭审记录中陈述的理由”，或者类似表述。我们没有那部分内容。\n\n法庭：\n再次说明，我仍可能以书面裁定补充本裁定，但如我所言，本命令将自 3 月 27 日下午 2:55，或我所说的任何时间起生效。我认为我说的是那个时间。\n\n并且——对方律师持有该命令的副本。Despins 先生——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日\n\nWERNICK 女士（韦尔尼克）：\n该文件已电子提交。\n\n法庭：\n是。你们是否有——你是否给了他们也包含——你知道的，修订痕迹或诸如此类内容的版本？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n应该是最后几页。\n\n法庭：\n最后几页。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n13 页中的第 12 页。\n\n法庭：\n第 12 页。我的意思是，第 11 页是标题栏，但随后翻到第 12 页。\n\n你们二位都看到我在第 12 页所指的位置了吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。Despins 先生，所以这份——我将对该命令作几处修改，但这是因为我认为该命令应当如此表述。修改并不重大，但——它们——我的修改采用了法规中的措辞，明白吗？采用第 541 条和第 542 条的措辞，明白吗？\n\n因此，除在第 1 段上方、在“特此命令”之前，可能会写明“基于庭审记录中陈述的理由”这一事实之外，明白吗？\n\n然后还会有一些内容——我会说，自我在庭审记录中所说的任何时间起生效，我认为是 2:55，但法庭书记员会协助我确认。\n\n第 3 段，第二句。尤其是，该命令应当写作——应当写明，尤其是——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日\n\nLady May（“Lady May”号游艇）是 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第 11 章破产财团的财产，依据第 541 条——11 USC 第 541 条。\n\n此外，依据 11 USC 第 542 条，我认为你们已经界定了——我认为——嗯，也许你们尚未界定。让我看看。\n\n因此，依据第 542 条，HK USA（HK USA公司）和 Mei Guo（郭美）应将 Lady May 交付给受托人，并将写明，该受托人是 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财团的受托人，明白吗？\n\n对于第 4 段——我不需要作任何修改。第 5 段，第二行，将“交出”改为“交付”。法规要求交付，而非交出。而且，在我看来，交付比交出更具有积极——行为的性质，明白吗？\n\n然后我会添加一些内容——其余部分我均不作修改，但我会添加有关时间的内容。\n\n有人有任何问题吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n有，法官大人。这是程序性问题，而且我并不急于让我的名字出现在任何命令上，但出于保险和登记目的，如果我们仅写 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财团，这在操作上会更加困难；相比之下，如写明由我作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财团受托人，则会更方便。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么告诉我你希望它如何表述。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日 95\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n嗯，我认为我们——尤其是，Lady May 的唯一所有人是 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财团的第 11 章受托人。因此，我们已经有了那种措辞。我认为载明个人姓名很重要，以便他能够——我们也可以保留“Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财团的财产”，但为所有权人之目的——我认为最好在那里写上我的名字，当然，是作为受托人。\n\n法庭：\n这将使你更容易获得保险吗？是这样吗——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n也为了在我们需要登记该船的任何地方登记该船。\n\n法庭：\n律师，就受托人 Despins 对“尤其是，Lady May 的唯一所有人是”这一措辞的请求而言，你有任何回应吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生（莫里亚蒂）：\n没有，法官大人。我唯一想指出的是，第 5 段写道“以及一切合理必要的协助”。我们无意采取任何措施阻止受托人——\n\n法庭：\n抱歉，我没有听清，Moriarty 律师。你能再说一遍吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：\n当然。因此，第 5 段规定，要求 HK 和 Guo 女士交付 Lady May，并提供——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日\n\n一切合理必要的协助。我们将向受托人提供我们能够提供的协助。\n\n如果有我们无法做到的事情，显然我们无法做到，我不希望处于被要求做我们无法做到之事的境地。\n\n过去几天，我一直与受托人合作，向他提供信息，以防法庭批准简易判决动议。我今天还会向他提供更多信息。因此，我们将与他合作。我只是不了解“一切合理必要的协助”究竟意味着什么。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我认为当——如果存在争议时，你们将不得不将其提交法庭——\n\nMORIARTY 先生：\n谢谢，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n——遗憾的是。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：\n我本想避免这种情况，但我们会尽力而为。\n\n法庭：\n我也不——我也不能确定，但我有一个想法。但这并不意味着我的想法是正确的。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：\n我明白了。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFIANO 先生（菲亚诺）：\n法官大人，如果可以，我代表非当事人——\n\n法庭：\nFiano 律师，请你上前来——\n\nFIANO 先生：\n好的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日 97\n\n法庭：\n——因为我们将无法听清你说话。\n\nFIANO 先生：\n好的。代表非——\n\n法庭：\n请直接到这里的麦克风前。\n\nFIANO 先生：\n代表非当事人码头，如果该命令确实以受托人的名义，而非仅以债务人的名义作出，也将有助于与我的委托人处理相关事宜。\n\n法庭：\n很好。我对此表示感谢。这正是我们现在要做的。我们将保留这一点——但我确实希望添加对法典其他条款的引用，因为它应当引用法典，明白吗？好的。今天下午还有其他需要完成的事项吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n有，法官大人。抱歉，但在我们出庭期间，我们就一家名为 Greenwich Land（格林威治土地公司）的实体以及债务人的妻子提交了一份诉状。这与格林威治房产有关。这是一项请求宣告另我人格的诉状，但我们正在寻求以判决前救济（PJR）以及禁令形式获得即时附带救济。当然，法官大人尚未看到这些文件，因为您当时正在审案席上。我认为是——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n第 97 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日\n\n在 2:15 左右提交的。\n\n并且，为便于您了解，我们加入了一项安排，即法庭将作出判决前救济——当然，若您认为适当，您会作出该救济——以单方方式作出，但附带一项安排，即被告律师可在其认为适当且有足够时间时随时到庭，实质上迫使我们取得持续有效的判决前救济，在该情形下举证责任仍由我们承担。\n\n因此，除为保护该房产外，我们不会因单方作出判决前救济而获得任何优势。\n\n基本上，我们现在处于这样一个阶段，由于刑事起诉书及其他情况，事情可能进展得非常快。可以设定抵押，也可能发生转让。是的，房子本身不能移动。我明白这一点。\n\n但该实体已经无视一项通知——这不是诉讼待决通知，而是 PAX（PAX公司）在破产前发出的通知，该通知在发出后一年内有效，会禁止他们出售资产。\n\n事实上，一个实体确实出售了 Ferncliff Drive（芬克利夫大道）上的另一处房产，即另一处不动产。我们不知道出售所得发生了什么。\n\n因此，关键在于我们知道债务人无视法院命令。我们对此确知无疑。我们知道他已在许多地方被认定藐视法庭。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n第 99 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日 99\n\n该实体本身无视了 PAX（PAX公司）的该通知，而且这实际上发生在去年夏天的第 11 章破产案件期间，未向任何人发出通知。\n\n除此之外，我们还知道其他事情。例如，法官大人通过审阅债务人女儿的证言记录已经知悉此事，她声称出售了一架价值 $10 million 的飞机，而她根本不知道目前是谁持有这 $10 million。\n\n因此，关键在于，就您保护财团资产而言，我们目前处于一个危险阶段，我们必须以一切应有的勤勉采取行动，这就是我们如此迅速提出本申请的原因。\n\n我们不希望损害 Greenwich Land（格林威治土地公司）及债务人妻子的律师的权利，这就是我们加入一项规定的原因，即你们可以在你们选择的任何时间——嗯，在向我们发出合理通知后——回来撤销该措施，并且在该听证中，举证责任仍将由受托人承担，以向法庭证明持续的判决前救济或持续的初步禁令应继续有效。\n\n我们认为，这种安排在某种程度上消除了——我不会用“刺痛”这个词，但关键在于，单方提交所造成的不便。\n\n但我们需要以单方方式采取行动，因为这些资产确实存在发生不利情况的风险。此外，他们还有一个银行账户，也需要——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交日期 04/10/23\n登记日期 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA（HK USA公司）诉 Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）— 2023 年 3 月 27 日\n\n受到保护。\n\n我们认为有大量证据，而且再次说明，因为我是在没有该公司律师到场的情况下进行陈述。我希望对此保持审慎，但我们——你知道，该实体的所有人是债务人的妻子。我们对她进行了证言录取。她对这家公司一无所知。她甚至不知道——我们问她——我们向她展示了 Ferncliff Road（芬克利夫路）附近五栋不同房屋的照片，其中包括她拥有的那栋，并要求她选出哪一栋是 Ferncliff。她做不到。\n\n因此，很明显，我们从经纪人和律师处获得了关于这些交易的证据，表明 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）指挥了所有这些购买，且款项由 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）或与 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）有关联的公司支付。\n\n我不愿以此给您增加负担。您尚未阅读任何文件。我只是想提醒您此事，提醒您我们正在寻求单方即时作出判决前救济，以便我们可以前去将其登记在该房产上，同样附带这样的安排：被告可随时提出动议，由法庭将其撤销；在该情形下，举证责任仍由我们承担，如同从未签发过判决前救济一样。\n\n因此，我们并非试图从中获得任何优势，但我们需要保护财团资产，法官大人。因此，我不知道您希望从这里如何进行。显然，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯宾斯）— March 27, 2023 101 您尚未看过任何材料，因此，我不知道您希望如何进行。\n\n法院：Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地公司）是否有出庭律师？\n\nDESPINS 先生：有。Goldstein（戈德斯坦）先生。我忘了他的名字。\n\n法院：Evan Goldstein（埃文·戈德斯坦）。他上周在这里。\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。\n\n法院：而且他也代理郭先生的妻子，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。而且他现在已通过 ECF 收到起诉书已提交的通知。我们指示团队立即通过电子邮件向他发送这些文件的未删节副本，因此他目前已获知此事。\n\n法院：起诉书是否经过删节？这是您告诉我的情况吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：起诉书的部分内容经过删节，但他正在看到——\n\n法院：不，我只是想了解——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，经过删节——因为，再次说明，这是由于保护令，其中部分当事人的证言记录\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1644 提交于 04/10/23 登记于 04/10/23 10:57:36 第 101 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯宾斯）— March 27, 2023 102 被指定为高度保密，或保密；我们认为它们并非如此，但在该保密限制解除之前，我们必须予以尊重。\n\n法院：好的。正如您正确指出的，我尚未看过任何材料，因此，在我看到之前，我不知道我将如何处理。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。今天下午还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\nLINSEY 先生：仅有一个小的程序性问题，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），代表受托人。昨晚我们提交了一项动议，请求作出裁定，进一步延长提起移送诉讼的期限。我们没有提交加急动议。现有期限于 April 5th 届满，根据关于延长期限动议的地方法院规则，我认为这足以供法院考虑该裁定。但是，如果您希望我们提交加急动议或申请举行听证会的动议，我们很乐意这样做。除此之外，我只是想使法院注意到该期限。该动议载于主案 ECF No. 1601。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1644 提交于 04/10/23 登记于 04/10/23 10:57:36 第 102 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1644\n提交于 04/10/23\n登记于 04/10/23 10:57:36\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/HK USA 诉 Despins（德斯宾斯）— March 27, 2023\n\n1 法院：\n谢谢。\n好的。\n还有\n2 其他事项需要在今天下午处理吗？\n3 好的。\n现在休庭。\n4 （程序于下午 3:10 结束。）\n\n6 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯蒂娜·菲奥雷），认证电子法院\n7 记录员及听录员，兹证明上述内容为\n8 本案程序官方电子录音的\n9 正确文字记录。\n\n12 April 6, 2023\n13 Christine Fiore（克里斯蒂娜·菲奥雷），CERT\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与听录服务公司）","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","CIPA","Je","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":36,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":146,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":150,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":160,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1601,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":31120,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:39:38"}