{"id":"court_ctb_2200_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2200,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2023-09-14","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiffs, \\* September 12, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, 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, CT 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 2 of 34\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of U.S. Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: KRISTEN B. MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For The Sherry-Netherland, SHERRY J. MILLMAN, ESQ. Creditor: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 TARUNA GARG, ESQ. Murtha Cullina, LLP 107 Elm Street, Suite 1101 Stamford, CT 06902 For the Pacific Alliance ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Asia Opportunity Fund, LP: Robinson & Cole, LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103\n\n2\n\n| #2051 | INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR PAUL |\n|-------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| | HASTINGS LLP, TRUSTEE'S ATTORNEY, |\n| | FEE: \\$8,251.634.83, EXPENSES: \\$213,914.83 |\n| #2053 | INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION (SECOND |\n| | INTERIM) FOR NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C., |\n| | TRUSTEE'S ATTORNEY, FEE: \\$357,587.50, |\n| | EXPENSES: \\$10,402.59 |\n| #2110 | JOINT MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE AN DEBTORS |\n| | GENEVER US AND GENEVER BVI FOR ENTRY OF FINAL |\n| | ORDER (I) AUTHORIZING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND |\n| | FINANCING PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 363, |\n| | (II) AUTHORIZING GENEVER US AND GENEVER BVI TO |\n| | OBTAIN POST-PETITION FINANCING PURSUANT TO |\n| | BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 364, (III) GRANTING NON |\n| | PRIMING LIENS AND PROVIDING SUPERPRIORITY |\n| | ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIM, (IV) MODIFYING |\n| | AUTOMATIC STAY AND (V) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF |\n| | |\n\n3\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 4 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 4 (Proceedings commenced at 2:04 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. Do you think no one can hear us? I think no one can hear us. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Well, that's strange because we're recording. I don't see anything wrong. THE COURT: I'm not on mute. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm not on mute either. THE COURT: Can anyone hear us? MR. DESPINS: Yes, now. THE COURT: Oh, now he can. Okay. So we're going to have the courtroom deputy call the case again, please. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BONGARTZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Alex\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 5 Bongartz of Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, counsel for the Trustee and other debtors, and also for the fee application of (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. Hold on just a minute because your audio is coming through the computers and not through the speakers. Do you both hear that that issue? Do you? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I hear that they're lower. THE COURT: Yeah. They're not coming through the speakers. They're coming through the computer. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I don't see anything that's wrong though. I don't see what could be wrong. Wait a minute. Let me just ask Will. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. Hold on, everybody, just a moment, please, which is one of the reasons we hold hearings in person. But it didn't work that way today, so hold on, please. (Pause) THE COURT: It's going to take just a couple of minutes to fix this problem. So if everyone can just hold on, please. Thank you. (Pause) Case 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 5 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 6 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023
6 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So can everyone hear me now? |\n| 2 | All right.
Somebody speak and let's see if we make sure it |\n| 3 | goes through the right speakers, please. |\n| 4 | Mr. Despins, would you say something, please. |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
Testing 123, testing. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Is that right?
That's right.
Okay. |\n| 7 | Good.
Now we can pick up the record appropriately.
Sorry. |\n| 8 | All right.
So we had taken Mr. Despins' |\n| 9 | appearance and Mr. Linsey's appearance, so please continue. |\n| 10 | Mr. Bongartz, you want to go next? |\n| 11 | MR. BONGARTZ:
Sure.
This is Alex Bongartz again |\n| 12 | from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 13 | Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| 16 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 18 | MS. MAYHEW:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Kristen |\n| 19 | Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Official |\n| 20 | Committee of Unsecured Creditors. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 22 | MS. MILLMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Sherry |\n| 23 | Millman with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan on behalf of the |\n| 24 | Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Attorney Millman, when you speak |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 7 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023
7 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | again, if you do, if you can just get closer to your mike |\n| 2 | because it was just very muffled.
Okay?
And as you know, |\n| 3 | just because we have audio, if it's muffled, the reporter |\n| 4 | can't pick it up.
So you don't have to say it again, but if |\n| 5 | you do say anything else, if you just get closer to your |\n| 6 | microphone I'd appreciate that. |\n| 7 | Go ahead, Attorney Garg.
Sorry. |\n| 8 | MS. GARG:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
It's okay, |\n| 9 | Your Honor.
Good afternoon.
Taruna Garg on behalf of the |\n| 10 | Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 12 | MS. SMITH:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Annecca |\n| 13 | Smith, Connecticut counsel for PAX. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 15 | Okay.
Thank you all for being here. |\n| 16 | When we were looking at the calendar yesterday, we |\n| 17 | did notice that the matters on the calendar had objection |\n| 18 | deadlines and no objections were filed. |\n| 19 | And as Trustee Despins has pointed out in the |\n| 20 | past, there are certain times when a remote hearing might be |\n| 21 | possible in order, for many reasons, but one of which is in |\n| 22 | order to save time and money for the estate. |\n| 23 | And since none of the matters on the calendar |\n| 24 | today were objected to, under that specific circumstance, I |\n| 25 | decided that we would hold these hearings remotely today. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 8 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Now, I think the first two, the applications for |\n| 2 | compensation, are fairly straightforward.
I think the DIP |\n| 3 | motion is fairly straightforward, although it may need more |\n| 4 | of an explanation for the record. |\n| 5 | So Trustee Despins, do you want to commence with |\n| 6 | the compensation applications first? |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
It's up to you, Your Honor.
I was |\n| 8 | going to start with the DIP, but I -- but wherever you want |\n| 9 | to do. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
You go ahead then.
Start with the DIP |\n| 11 | first then -- |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
-- which is -- |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
Your Honor, this is the DIP |\n| 15 | motion filed by the Kwok's estate and the two Genever |\n| 16 | debtors, and it's really a rescue loan from the Kwok estate |\n| 17 | to the Genever estates, and it is to provide, you know, case |\n| 18 | financing to the Genever debtors, mostly frankly Genever US, |\n| 19 | in the amount of up to \\$2 million.
And I'd like to provide |\n| 20 | some background on that. |\n| 21 | As Your Honor knows from prior hearings, Genever |\n| 22 | US has at this point probably around 20, \\$25,000 left in the |\n| 23 | bank.
And Genever BVI has no cash. |\n| 24 | And because the insurance company has not agreed |\n| 25 | to pay for the repairs caused by the fire, of course there's |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 9 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 9 litigation on that and that's pending and it's going to go forward, but that's going to take time and, you know, there are things that need to happen immediately to bring this apartment back to a level that is sufficient to sell it or to rent it, although the primary goal is to sell it, and that needs to happen now. And in a sense this motion should really have been heard, and it's on me for not having sequenced it at the same time as the renovation project motion, but they're related in a sense that most of the funding would go to the renovation project at the apartment. And the cost there of doing what they call a white boxing of the apartment, that means to clean up all the damage caused by the fire in that 20 percent area or so of the apartment, and white box that, not bring it back to the way it was, but really put, you know, put white sheetrock and reestablish all the connections of the piping, the plumbing, the electricity, et cetera. It sounds like it's pretty simple, but it's not in the sense that do you need an architect to do that? Do you need an architect to supervise the various processes that needs to occur? There's asbestos that was discovered that needs to be remediated. And of course that motion is not before the Court, but I wanted you to understand the magnitude of the project\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 10 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 10 and why we're contemplating a loan of \\$2 million just essentially to finance that aspect of that case. And there's more to that in the sense that, yes, there will be professional fees for the counsel hired by Genever to pursue the AIG litigation and things like that, but most of the \\$2 million loan will be going towards the renovation project. And the reason why it can't wait is because this is like the Russian dolls. You know, basically you need to start with the smallest one and then put more and more and more. So we need to start immediately with the basic work that needs to be done obtaining the permits, et cetera, et cetera, otherwise a year will go by and we'll have done nothing. And of course we can't do that. So that's why we need the money now to finance this renovation project. And to be clear, as we said in the motion, the Kwok estate has no obligation to do this. The Kwok estate is doing this because it wants to preserve the ability to see proceeds from this apartment coming to it. And of course if it didn't lend the money, then this would end up being a total liquidation where no money may be going up to the Kwok estate level. And, therefore, the Kwok estate, you know, from that point of view, it makes sense to make that loan to preserve that ability.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 11 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 11 But this is not a risk-free loan. There are circumstances under which, Your Honor, this loan may not be repaid. I think that those circumstances will not happen, but that's certainly a possibility. And I've explained why, Your Honor. This loan, and I'll be very candid, Your Honor, is one-sided. You know, there are provisions there that you would never have with a commercial lender. For example, it says that the -- the lender is funding at its discretion, well, that means at my discretion as the Trustee, so that's not an arm's length, you know, loan, but that's because it's done in the spirit of -- for which it is intended. This is not to shore the recoveries of the Genever US creditors. This is to preserve the equity value potentially and, therefore, it is a one sided document. So the first part is that loans are made at my discretion. The payments may be made directly to the vendors. So for example, I don't have to send money to the Genever US account to pay for the architect. It can pay the architect directly and that will become a loan even though Genever US will not have actually touched the money. There are provisions like that, Your Honor. But as I said, this is not a risk-free loan and that's why we need to have these provisions. In addition to that, Your Honor, we've had\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 12 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 12 extensive negotiations with the Sherry-Netherland regarding this loan and their rights, because the Sherry-Netherland -- obviously we are -- the apartment is in the Sherry- Netherland, but the Sherry-Netherland is a secured creditor. They have a pledge of the shares and the rights under the lease, and we've agreed that they're senior to our loan. And we've agreed to other accommodations to them. But I would say that generally the Sherry- Netherland, their relationship to date has been extremely constructive, which is counter-intuitive a little bit in the sense that I'm sure a lot of people there are very upset about what happened, but they have been very, very helpful. As you can imagine, if we did not have their cooperation, this would be extremely difficult to do the renovation project and all that because there are so many hoops you have to jump through in New York. This is a union building, et cetera, et cetera. So the point is the Sherry-Netherland has been extremely supportive to date and I hope that this will continue. But as part of the DIP loan, we have reached some accomodation agreements with them that are reflected in the DIP order and I wanted to mention that to Your Honor. And Your Honor, we filed a proposed amended, revised amended order for the final DIP, which is at docket no. 2185. We filed that I believe yesterday. And the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 13 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 13 changes, let me just go to the mark to show changes version, the changes are fairly minimal and they were mostly at the request of the U.S. Trustee. And there was a provision. I mentioned before that there were some accommodations or agreements reached with the Sherry-Netherland, and this would be on page 39 of 45 of docket 2185, so that's the marked changes version, but you'll see that paragraph 12 provides that we have the authority to pay the post-petition fees of the Sherry- Netherland, that means counsel for the Sherry-Netherland. And the U.S. Trustee requested, and we agreed, and the Sherry-Netherland also agreed, that prior to making these payments, Genever US will file a notice with the Court attaching the relevant invoices. There will be a time period for people to object. And if objections are filed, there will be a hearing. But that way there's a process for people to be heard if they disagree with the payments that would be made. By the way, this only gives us the authority. It does not direct us or obligate us to make these payments. But nevertheless there's a built-in provision now to allow people to object to that proposed payment, which is really the change that was reflected from the prior version of the order, which is now -- and then the order that revises this is document 2185, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 14 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 14 THE COURT: And at paragraph 12 of the ordered paragraphs, that's what you're talking about right now? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: And on the marked version, it's page 39 of 45, paragraph 12, authority to pay certain postage and fees. THE COURT: Yes, I see it. MR. DESPINS: So that, Your Honor, unless you have questions, I think that would complete the initial presentation. THE COURT: I have a few I think minor questions. So I think I heard you say, and I believe this is how I read it, but you can please correct me if I'm wrong, the money is being loaned to Genever USA -- US, but essentially you're going to pay it out of the Kwok estate all these expenses? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And Genever USA only has \\$20,000 in its operating account at this time, or somewhere -- I shouldn't say that -- an amount close to \\$20,000, it might be a little bit more than that? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: But it doesn't have funds available in order to obtain this kind of financing out in the market?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 15 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023
15 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
It would be impossible for Genever |\n| 2 | US to pay this financing.
Because, one, you would have to |\n| 3 | be junior to the Sherry-Netherland, which we are, but risk |\n| 4 | of non-repayment would be very high under certain scenarios. |\n| 5 | So that the 9 percent interest rate charge here is really a |\n| 6 | bargain in a sense that there is no way that anyone would |\n| 7 | lend money on that basis given the risks involved.
And the |\n| 8 | risks are, to be perfectly blunt, how much of the apartment, |\n| 9 | you know, white boxed, would sell for?
And two, is there |\n| 10 | insurance coverage? |\n| 11 | And we believe there should be insurance coverage, |\n| 12 | but, you know, insurance litigation, there's always the |\n| 13 | risk. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Are you talking about the AIG |\n| 15 | insurance issue or? |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct.
Correct. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
That's what I'm talking about. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
So anybody coming from the outside |\n| 21 | would have to take that -- those risks that I just |\n| 22 | described, and I'm not sure anyone would do that. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
So you anticipate that the funds will |\n| 24 | be used to essentially clean up the fire damage, remediate |\n| 25 | asbestos, but nothing really more, so that the property |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 16 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 16 could be sold, excuse me, shown for sale and hopefully sold? That's the point of this loan? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. I mean, I know it's hard to believe, and we'll get to that next week I guess when we go through the renovation project, but the costs in New York City to do work on the apartment is crazy, but that's just the nature of the beast. Like architect work, which to my mind should be very simple, but of course I'm not an architect, you know, costs could cost \\$250,000. And why? Because you need to obtain all these permits from the various city departments. You need to -- you need to coordinate because this is a co- op. So for example, the walls are owned by the Sherry- Netherland, so the Sherry-Netherland is going to do some work jointly with us on this, but the coordination of that is huge, which is what the architect is going to do, and et cetera. So that's why the loan is \\$2 million. It's not only -- it's really not mostly to pay professional fees, but it's mostly to pay for this renovation project. THE COURT: Okay. I'm just looking to see if I have any more questions. If you just please give me one moment. Oh, I guess I did have one other question, which isn't, you know, I just didn't understand. The Sherry-\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 17 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 17 Netherland's first lien, and the security interest, and first lien on the cash deposit, those already exist, don't they? Those liens? MR. DESPINS: You mean the Sherry-Netherland liens? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Yes, they do exist. As part of any purchase of a co-op, apparently the co-op has a security interest in the shares. Those already exist. They've existed since the apartment was purchased. THE COURT: Right. So they're not getting any new liens under this DIP order? They're just acknowledging the existence of the liens and acknowledging that they're senior to this borrowing? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: And one point. You just pointed out one of the concessions we made, or one of the agreements we made, to get the Sherry-Netherland on board with this. As Your Honor may know, under the lease with the Sherry-Netherland, there's a prohibition on giving security interest to anyone on the shares. And of course we are getting security interest on the shares. And of course we needed to have the Sherry-Netherland's non-objection to that as part of this agreement, so this was part of the give and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 18 take that we entered (indiscernible). THE COURT: Understood. The Sherry-Netherland still has, Attorney Millman, you still, your client still has essentially, and I forget what the terminology is, I apologize, but what essentially is still a security deposit that you -- that was in place, at least we talked about some time ago, is that still -- there was about \\$3 million in an account. What is the status of that account? MS. MILLMAN: Your Honor, I just want to make sure first that you can hear me clearly now? THE COURT: Yes, I can. Thank you. I can. Thank you very much. MS. MILLMAN: Okay. Good. So there's approximately one million in the account at this point. As Your Honor knows, pursuant to an order of Judge Garrity, the Sherry-Netherland is allowed to apply the security deposit toward post-petition maintenance and regular assessments. Right now that usage was paused for that for now positionally on the basis that the apartment is arguably uninhabitable now. And so for the last few months, really since March, but for a few costs that are not a part of the maintenance, there are other less-significant costs, but they're monthly costs, other than that, we've paused Case 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 18 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 19 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023
19 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | applying the deposit or charging for post-petition |\n| 2 | maintenance, you know, until we hear from our insurance |\n| 3 | company. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I see. |\n| 5 | MS. MILLMAN:
It's about a million dollars. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
That's helpful to |\n| 7 | know. |\n| 8 | All right.
Does anyone else wish to be heard with |\n| 9 | regard to the DIP financing motion? |\n| 10 | (No response) |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Trustee Despins, I'm looking at |\n| 12 | this order that was submitted yesterday, and I, you know, we |\n| 13 | found just one or two minor typos that we can correct. |\n| 14 | On the notice paragraph on what is, I don't know |\n| 15 | what page, I'm looking at the clean version, which is page 7 |\n| 16 | of 45 of the document that was filed yesterday, I'm looking |\n| 17 | specifically at page 3, oh, I actually should look at page |\n| 18 | 2, we have to add the hearing date on page 2 so that's ECF |\n| 19 | No. 2185, page 6 of 45.
At the second paragraph, there's an |\n| 20 | asterisk and a bracket, that's where we'll need to add the |\n| 21 | hearing date. |\n| 22 | And I can see the courtroom deputy nodding her |\n| 23 | head so she sees where I am. |\n| 24 | Okay.
On the next page, conclusions of law, |\n| 25 | paragraph A, third line, it says the individual debtor filed |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 20 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 20 with a voluntary petition, I think it was just filed a voluntary petition. I think with is an added word. MR. DESPINS: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: On page 8 of 45, lettered paragraph D, where it says notice, I would change that title to notice and service. And then on the second line of that paragraph D, proper, timely, adequate and sufficient notice and service of the motion and the DIP hearing. I'm looking to the courtroom deputy, if she's following what I'm saying. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I think I missed that last -- THE COURT: Paragraph D. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Second line where it's -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Oh. THE COURT: -- the sentence starts proper, timely, adequate and sufficient notice and service. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. Okay. THE COURT: And then in the next line toward the end of the third line, and no other -- no other or further notice or service. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 21 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 21 THE COURT: Then if we go to page 10 of 45, which -- in paragraph 1, where it says disposition, the relief requested in the motion is granted on a final basis as set forth herein. I know the language in the next sentence is standard, but I want it to be clear that no objections were filed, Trustee Despins, so I just would rather it read no objections to the motion have been filed, period. MR. DESPINS: Of course. THE COURT: Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: And then I don't -- I do not have any further changes to the order. Attorney Claiborn, did you review the order? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And you, the U.S. Trustee's -- MS. CLAIBORN: I have no other changes. THE COURT: The U.S. Trustee's Office has no further changes or objections to anything in the order? MS. CLAIBORN: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard with regard to the proposed order? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Then for the reasons stated on the record, and due to the specific circumstances, facts and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 22 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 22 circumstances of these Chapter 11 cases, the motion for a final debtor-in-possession order is granted, and the proposed order that appears at pages 5 through 21, but then we have to attach the DIP credit agreement as Exhibit 1, can enter with the minor changes noted on the record. Okay? Thank you. Now we can move on to the applications for compensation. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: So the first one I guess we can deal with is the Paul Hastings application, and that's for the period from March 1st, 2023 to June 30th, 2023. We filed an extensive application with details, Your Honor. And yesterday we filed a revised -- there were no objections that were filed -- we filed a revised proposed order to reflect the reduction that was agreed to with the U.S. Trustee. And actually, that's just, you know, just to reflect that reduction. And on that point, Your Honor, I will note that I heard you loud and clear, because you probably said four times in the case, that we do -- that you do not expect, you know, these reductions to be ordinary course or something like that, but nevertheless we had extensive discussions with the U.S. Trustee and decided that it would be better\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 23 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 23 for the case generally, and to save Your Honor time, and to minimize fees, because we're talking about fees, to agree to that fee reduction. And I wanted you to understand that we are -- we had heard you loud and clear about this, but nevertheless it's that we decided that it was in the best interest of the case to agree to those fee reductions. So I believe that that is reflected in the order. Also, we were asked by counsel for Mr. -- actually, in this case, it's counsel for the debtor's daughter to provide that the carve out that's contained in the Lady May order, which is at ECF No. 1953, be incorporated in the order the way it was incorporated the last time around, and we did that, Your Honor. Obviously, I'm happy to entertain any questions you may have, but given the lack of objections, unless Your Honor has questions, I don't think I should, you know, go on. THE COURT: The only question I had is about the Lady May, is what you just described. I'm not sure I'm -- I don't recall what it is in that prior order that -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- that they're focusing on. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. This is paragraph 9 of the Lady May order that provides that if it turns out that they\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 24 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 24 actually own the Lady May, and of course there's an issue about, meaning that if Your Honor does a reversal on appeal not only of the Lady May ownership, but of the alter ego, then they would be entitled to seek disgorgement from the professionals, which is consistent with the practice in this district, which is to provide that there's a sentence that says subject to final adjustment and disgorgement in the event all admin claims are not paid in full. So that's the -- that's the paragraph. And you may remember, Your Honor, you spent a lot of time on that paragraph when we were going through it. And basically this allows them to seek disgorgement from the professionals to the extent it's finally determined that they own the Lady May. But, you know, that's -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- really the provision of the Lady May order. THE COURT: So you're saying that the added language as provided in the order approving the sale of the Lady May preserves their right to seek disgorgement if somehow -- if, it could obviously happen, if on appeal the order approving the sale is overturned is what you're saying? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: Okay.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 25 MR. DESPINS: Final order. It has to be by final order. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. All right. Attorney Claiborn, do you wish to be heard on the second interim fee application of Paul Hastings? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. I just want to confirm the understanding and the agreement to the reduction that's been memorialized in the U.S. Trustee's statement that's filed on the document at 2170. And that number matches the number in the revised order submitted by Trustee Despins. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'm just looking at the revised order again. So Trustee Despins, am I correct that this will be the last, at least unless something changes, this is going to be the last fee application filed because we're going to be proceeding under the process of the procedures that were set up in the last month or so? MR. DESPINS: Well, there will be quarterly fee applications filed, but -- THE COURT: Right. I'm sorry. That didn't -- MR. DESPINS: -- under that -- THE COURT: I didn't ask the question well. I apologize. You're right. There will be quarterly fee -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 25 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 26 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 26 MR. DESPINS: No. But you're absolutely correct. This is the last of these types of applications unless something changes. THE COURT: Right. Okay. Good. I just want to make sure I'm understanding, and I believe I am. So you've just confirmed that, so that's fine. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the second interim fee application of Paul Hastings? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing no further comments, and I will state again for the record, no objections have been filed to the second interim fee application of Paul Hastings, which seeks an order approving compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the period of March 1st, 2023 through June 30, 2023, I've looked at the revised proposed order, which appears on pages 5 through 7 of ECF 2184, and Attorney Claiborn has confirmed that the dollar amounts in -- on page -- on the first page of the order, which is on page 5 of 2184, is the dollar amount that the United States Trustee's Office and Paul Hastings has agreed to as far as the fees to be awarded to the applicant, the only thing I'm going to do, ask the courtroom deputy to do, Trustee Despins, is in the first paragraph of the order it just says after notice and a hearing, just have the courtroom deputy, she already knows, notice and a hearing held on September\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 27 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023
27 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 12, 2023, just because you never know, sometimes that's very |\n| 2 | helpful believe it or not to people in the future to know |\n| 3 | that there was actually a hearing held, and with the many |\n| 4 | docket entries in this case, I think it is helpful, so |\n| 5 | otherwise, I have no other changes to the proposed order, |\n| 6 | and the interim application, the second interim application |\n| 7 | is granted and the proposed with the minor changes noted on |\n| 8 | the record will enter. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | And now we have the final fee application? |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Mr. Linsey. |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor.
That is the |\n| 14 | application of my firm, Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, as |\n| 15 | Connecticut counsel and conflict counsel for the Trustee, |\n| 16 | and as counsel, Connecticut counsel for the Genever debtors. |\n| 17 | The application seeks allowance of \\$357,587.50 in |\n| 18 | fees, \\$10,402.59 in expenses.
There's a certificate of |\n| 19 | service, which was filed at 2077 on the docket.
There are |\n| 20 | no objections.
The United States Trustee has filed a |\n| 21 | certificate of no objection, which is at 2169. |\n| 22 | The application itself speaks in considerable |\n| 23 | detail about the manners in which my firm has been involved |\n| 24 | in these proceedings.
And I'm happy to answer any questions |\n| 25 | Your Honor has. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 28 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 28 Absent that, I would just note that we filed a revised order in the same order that Paul Hastings did which is at 2186. THE COURT: 2186. Yeah. MR. LINSEY: Yes, 2186. And that adds the -- that adds the same language that Trustee Despins referred to referring to the Lady May sale order. And with that, we would ask that the application be granted. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the second interim allowance of compensation and reimbursement of expenses of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith? (No response) THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn, as Attorney Linsey noted, you filed a statement of no -- the U. S. Trustee's Office filed a statement of no objection, correct? MS. CLAIBORN: That's correct, Your Honor. It's document no. 2169. And I don't have anything to add beyond that. THE COURT: Thank you. And I see, Attorney Linsey, the language you're referring to in the -- regarding the order approving the sale of the Lady May, adding that to your -- to this order to preserve the rights that were requested in connection with the Paul Hastings order in case there is a final order\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 29 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 29 overturning the sale of the Lady May. The only change we'd need to make is just to add the hearing date in the first paragraph of the proposed order that appears on pages 5 and 6 of ECF 2186. So for all those reasons, the second interim application for compensation of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith is granted, and the proposed order will enter with the minor, with the very minor changes noted on the record. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. That concludes all the matters on today's calendar, unless someone has something they have a question about. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. If I may? THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MR. DESPINS: I'm really duty bound to inquire about the status of the criminal stay in our motion to stop that the -- Kwok and Yvette Wang from pursuing that criminal stay matter because we have a deadline coming up of September 21st in that case. And obviously we would want to avoid that. So I'm sorry. I wanted to bring that up. THE COURT: Well, there was an objection filed to your motion in this, in this court. At the same time, my understanding is that, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the district court in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 30 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 30 the Southern District of New York criminal proceeding is allowing you, as the Trustee of the estates, to file some sort of repsonse, is that correct, to the motion -- MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- to the motion to stay filed by Mr. Kwok's criminal counsel in the criminal proceedings, correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So to -- so I'm going to wait to see what the district court does. This is -- this is not -- I don't know that the bankruptcy court has any authority, and I haven't been able to find any, that would allow a bankruptcy court to tell a party in a criminal proceeding that they can't seek some form of relief from the court in that criminal proceeding. I haven't seen any authority that would provide this court with the authority to do that. MR. DESPINS: Well, I -- I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the joinder filed by -- THE COURT: I did. I did. MR. DESPINS: -- the committee in PAX because I thought they cited a number of cases where -- THE COURT: They cited -- they cited one case which was helpful. I think the committee cited one case which held that the district court in the criminal\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 31 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 31 proceedings ruled on that motion, not the bankruptcy court. If I'm, Attorney Mayhew, if I'm saying something incorrect, please correct me, but my recollection of the review of the joinder was -- I understand the committee joins and they cited a case which was helpful, because I don't think there were any cases cited before that, but I think what that case said, well, my recollection of what that case said, is that the district court made that, in the criminal action made that determination, not the bankruptcy court, and I think that is an important distinction with a difference. I'm not sure that the bankruptcy court has authority, any authority, to enjoin anyone from doing anything in a criminal proceeding that is not part of the bankruptcy -- I don't know how a criminal proceeding could be part of the bankruptcy case. So I understand you may be frustrated. And I understand that, you know, you may feel that you would rather this court address the issue, and maybe I'll still have to address the issue after the district court rules, but I don't see -- I am not convinced or persuaded that there's any authority that exists that would authorize a bankruptcy court to stay a debtor who is no longer in possession, who is not only the subject of a criminal proceeding, but, in fact, incarcerated, from seeking relief\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 32 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 32 in that criminal proceeding. It doesn't mean he's going to obtain that relief, but I don't -- I don't see how the bankruptcy court has the authority to do that, any bankruptcy court. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's because this is an attempt to control property of the estate. I mean, if this Chapter 11 case is stayed, the effect on property of the estate would be huge. You know. It's just I can't even conceive of it. We had a deadline, for example, the two-year statute of limitations is coming up in February. If this case is stayed, what's going to happen to all these important questions? THE COURT: Well, you're going to have to move to extend that statute of limitations, number one. Number two, the Mahwah mansion is not property of the estate at this time. That determination hasn't been made. MR. DESPINS: I know. No. But I want to be clear, they're seeking a stay of the entire Chapter 11 case. THE COURT: No. I understand. MR. DESPINS: Not only -- THE COURT: I read it. I understand. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I understand what they're seeking. MR. DESPINS: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 33 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 33 THE COURT: But the case that the committee cited, the district court did not grant that relief. MR. DESPINS: Understood. But I don't think there's any precedent. Your point is that there's no precedent where a bankruptcy court has enjoined such a proceeding. THE COURT: Correct. MR. DESPINS: I hear that. But I don't think there's any case where the relief was sought, except for that Boston District Court case, which sought in the district court, usually sought in the court where the case is pending. But I understand your -- understand your views and I appreciate the feedback, Your Honor. THE COURT: It may -- I have no idea what's going to occur, but I understand your request. And it doesn't mean that your request might not be addressed in some way, shape or form at some point, but I don't see any authority to have a bankruptcy court enjoin a criminal defendant from seeking relief in a criminal case. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is there anything further anyone would like to add to the record this afternoon?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2200 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:34:44 Page 34 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023 34 (No response) THE COURT: Okay. That conclude the hearings in the Kwok and Genever-related Chapter 11 cases this afternoon. Those are the last matters on the calendar, so court is adjourned. Thank you, all. ALL COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 2:54 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 15 September 14, 2023 16 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（基尼维尔控股公司），\n\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等， 对抗程序案号 23-05017\n\n原告， 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n 2023年9月12日\n诉\n\nTAURUS FUND, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前的程序记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第11章受托人：\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nG. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n程序由电子录音记录，文字记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, CT 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交于 09/14/23 登记于 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 2 页，共 34 页\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street,13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\nOffice of U.S. Trustee\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\n\nKRISTEN B. MAYHEW, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 The Sherry-Netherland：\n\nSHERRY J. MILLMAN, ESQ.\nStroock & Stroock & Lavan\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nTARUNA GARG, ESQ.\nMurtha Cullina, LLP\n107 Elm Street, Suite 1101\nStamford, CT 06902\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP：\n\nANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ.\nRobinson & Cole, LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n#2051 PAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）作为受托人律师的中期报酬申请，律师费：$8,251.634.83，费用：$213,914.83\n\n#2053 NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯专业公司）作为受托人律师的中期报酬申请（第二次中期申请），律师费：$357,587.50，费用：$10,402.59\n\n#2110 第11章受托人与债务人 GENEVER US（基尼维尔美国）及 GENEVER BVI（基尼维尔英属维尔京群岛）共同提出的动议，请求作出最终命令：（I）授权第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第363条提供融资；（II）授权 GENEVER US 及 GENEVER BVI 根据《破产法典》第364条取得破产申请后融资；（III）授予非优先顺位留置权并提供超级优先行政费用债权；（IV）修改自动中止；及（V）给予相关救济\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交于 09/14/23 登记于 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 4 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年9月12日 4\n\n（程序于下午2时04分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法官：下午好。请先由第11章受托人开始，为记录说明出庭人员。你们认为没有人能听到我们说话吗？我想没有人能听到我们说话。\n\n法庭书记员：嗯，这很奇怪，因为我们正在录音。我没有看到任何问题。\n\n法官：我没有静音。\n\n法庭书记员：我也没有静音。\n\n法官：有人能听到我们吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，现在能听到了。\n\n法官：哦，现在他能听到了。好的。那么，请法庭书记员再次宣读案号。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法官：下午好。请先由第11章受托人开始，为记录说明出庭人员。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Alex\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年9月12日 5\n\nBongartz，Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，Neubert, Pepe and Monteith，受托人及其他债务人的律师，并且也代表（听不清）的费用申请。\n\n法官：好的。请稍等一下，因为你们的音频是从电脑传出的，而不是从扬声器传出。你们两位都听到那个问题了吗？你听到了吗？\n\n法庭书记员：我听到他们的声音较小。\n\n法官：是的。他们的声音没有从扬声器传出。是从电脑传出的。\n\n法庭书记员：不过我没有看到任何问题。我看不出会有什么问题。等一下。我问一下 Will。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法官：好的。各位请稍等片刻，这也是我们举行现场听证会的原因之一。但今天并没有按那种方式进行，所以请稍候。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法官：解决这个问题只需要几分钟。因此请各位稍候。谢谢。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交于 09/14/23 登记于 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 5 页，共 34 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交于 09/14/23 登记于 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 6 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年9月12日\n\n法官：好的。现在各位都能听到我吗？\n\n好的。请有人说句话，让我们确认声音是否从正确的扬声器传出。\n\nDespins 先生，请说句话。\n\nDESPINS 先生：测试123，测试。\n\n法官：这样对吗？对。好的。\n\n很好。现在我们可以妥善地继续记录。抱歉。\n\n好的。我们已经记录了 Despins 先生和 Linsey 先生的出庭情况，所以请继续。\n\nBongartz 先生，您要接下来发言吗？\n\nBONGARTZ 先生：当然。这是 Alex Bongartz，再次代表第11章受托人，来自 Paul Hastings。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew，Pullman & Comley，代表无担保债权人正式委员会。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nMILLMAN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Sherry Millman，Stroock & Stroock & Lavan，代表 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n法官：Millman 律师，如果您再次发言，若您会发言，请尽量靠近您的麦克风，因为刚才声音非常含混。好吗？如您所知，即使我们有音频，如果声音含混，记录员也无法听清。因此您不必再说一遍，但若您还要说其他内容，请靠近麦克风一些，我将不胜感激。\n\n请继续，Garg 律师。抱歉。\n\nGARG 女士：下午好，法官阁下。没关系，法官阁下。下午好。Taruna Garg，代表 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith，PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\n好的。感谢各位到场。\n\n我们昨天审阅日程表时，注意到日程表上的事项设有异议截止日期，且未提交任何异议。\n\n正如 Despins 受托人过去所指出的，出于多种原因，在某些时候举行远程听证会可能是适当的，其中一个原因是为了节省破产财产的时间和资金。\n\n由于今日日程表上的任何事项均无人提出异议，在该特定情形下，我决定今日以远程方式举行这些听证会。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交于 09/14/23 登记于 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 8 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年9月12日\n\n现在，我认为前两项，即报酬申请，相当直接。我认为 DIP 动议也相当直接，尽管可能需要为记录作出更多说明。\n\n那么，Despins 受托人，您想先从报酬申请开始吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：由您决定，法官阁下。我原本打算从 DIP 开始，但是——不过您想怎样进行都可以。\n\n法官：那您继续。那就先从 DIP 开始——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法官：——也就是——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。法官阁下，这是由 Kwok 破产财产和两名 Genever 债务人提交的 DIP 动议，它实际上是 Kwok 破产财产向 Genever 破产财产提供的救助贷款，旨在向 Genever 债务人提供案件融资，坦率地说，主要是向 Genever US 提供最高达 $2 million 的融资。我想就此提供一些背景情况。\n\n如法官阁下从先前听证会所知，Genever US 目前银行账户中大约只剩下20、$25,000。Genever BVI 没有现金。\n\n由于保险公司尚未同意支付火灾造成的修复费用，当然，相关诉讼正在进行中，且将继续推进，但这需要时间。而且，有些事情必须立即进行，以使该公寓恢复至足以出售或出租的状态，尽管主要目标是出售，而且这必须现在就进行。\n\n从某种意义上说，本动议实际上应当在同一时间与翻修工程动议一并审理；没有将它们安排在同一时间是我的责任。但二者在某种意义上有关联，因为大部分资金将用于该公寓的翻修工程。\n\n所谓将该公寓进行“白盒化”的成本，是指清理该公寓约20 percent 区域内由火灾造成的全部损害，并将其白盒化，不是恢复原状，而是实际铺设白色石膏板，并重新建立所有管道、给排水、电力等连接。\n\n听起来似乎相当简单，但并不简单，例如，是否需要建筑师来做这件事？是否需要建筑师监督必须进行的各项工序？发现了需要修复的石棉。当然，该动议目前不在法院面前，但我希望您了解该工程的规模。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交于 09/14/23 登记于 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 10 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年9月12日 10\n\n以及我们为何考虑提供 $2 million 的贷款，实质上只是为了为该案件的这一部分提供资金。\n\n还有更多内容，意思是，是的，将会有为 Genever 聘请的律师追诉 AIG 诉讼等事项所产生的专业费用，但 $2 million 贷款的大部分将用于翻修工程。\n\n其不能等待的原因在于，这就像俄罗斯套娃。您知道，基本上您需要从最小的一个开始，然后逐渐套入更多、更多、更多。因此，我们必须立即开始必须完成的基础工作，取得许可等，否则一年就会过去，而我们将一事无成。当然，我们不能这样做。因此，这就是我们现在需要资金为这一翻修工程提供融资的原因。\n\n为明确起见，正如我们在动议中所述，Kwok 破产财产没有义务这样做。Kwok 破产财产这样做，是因为它希望保留从该公寓取得收益的可能性。\n\n当然，如果其不出借该笔款项，那么最终将成为一次完全清算，可能不会有任何款项上流至 Kwok 破产财产层面。因此，从那个角度来看，Kwok 破产财产提供该笔贷款以保留这种可能性是合理的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交于 09/14/23 登记于 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 11 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 11\n\n但这并非无风险贷款。在某些情形下，法官阁下，该贷款可能无法偿还。我认为那些情形不会发生，但这当然是一种可能性。我已经解释了原因，法官阁下。坦率地说，法官阁下，这笔贷款是单方面的。您知道，其中有些条款，您绝不会在商业贷款人那里见到。例如，其中规定，贷款人可自行决定提供资金，这意味着由我作为受托人自行决定，因此这不是一笔独立交易的贷款，但这是因为它是本着其预定宗旨而作出的。这并非为了巩固 Genever US（Genever 美国）债权人的回收额。这是为了潜在地保全股权价值，因此，这是一份单方面文件。因此，第一部分是贷款由我自行决定发放。款项可以直接支付给供应商。例如，我不必将款项汇至 Genever US 账户以支付建筑师费用。可以直接支付给建筑师，即使 Genever US 实际上并未接触该款项，这也将构成一笔贷款。法官阁下，其中有诸如此类的条款。但如我所说，这并非无风险贷款，因此我们需要有这些条款。此外，法官阁下，我们已经与 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉—内瑟兰）就这笔贷款及其权利进行了广泛谈判。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 12 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 12\n\n就该贷款及其权利而言，我们与 Sherry-Netherland 进行了广泛谈判，因为 Sherry-Netherland——显然，我们——该公寓位于 Sherry-Netherland 内，但 Sherry-Netherland 是有担保债权人。他们对股份及租约项下权利享有质押权，我们同意他们优先于我们的贷款。我们也同意向他们作出其他安排。但我要说，总体而言，Sherry-Netherland 至今与我们的关系极具建设性；从某种意义上说，这有点违反直觉，因为我相信那里很多人对所发生的事情非常不满，但他们一直非常、非常有帮助。正如您可以想见，如果没有他们的合作，实施翻修项目及相关事项将极其困难，因为在纽约必须跨越许多障碍。这是一栋工会大楼，诸如此类。因此，关键在于 Sherry-Netherland 至今一直极为支持，我希望这种情况能够持续。但作为 DIP 贷款的一部分，我们已经与他们达成若干安排协议，这些协议反映在 DIP 命令中，我想向法官阁下提及这一点。法官阁下，我们已提交最终 DIP 的拟议修订后经再次修订命令，案卷编号为 2185。我相信我们昨天提交了该文件。并且——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 13 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 13\n\n变更方面，让我查看显示变更的版本，这些变更相当有限，主要是应美国受托人要求作出的。此前有一项条款。我之前提到，我们与 Sherry-Netherland 达成了一些安排或协议，这见于案卷 2185 第 45 页中的第 39 页，即显示变更的版本；但您会看到，第 12 段规定我们有权支付 Sherry-Netherland 的申请后费用，即 Sherry-Netherland 律师的费用。美国受托人要求，而且我们同意，Sherry-Netherland 也同意，在作出这些付款之前，Genever US 将向法院提交一份通知，并附上相关发票。将设定一段供他人提出异议的期间。如果提出异议，将举行听证会。这样一来，如有人不同意将作出的付款，就有程序使其陈述意见。顺便说一句，这仅赋予我们权限，并不指示或要求我们作出这些付款。但无论如何，现在设有一项内置条款，允许他人对该拟议付款提出异议；这确实是与先前版本的命令相比所反映的变更，而现在——随后修订该命令的文件为 2185，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 14 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 14\n\n法院：在命令性段落的第 12 段，这就是您现在所说的内容吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯平斯）：正确。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：在显示变更的版本中，是第 45 页中的第 39 页，第 12 段，即支付某些邮资和费用的权限。\n\n法院：是的，我看到了。\n\nDESPINS 先生：因此，法官阁下，除非您有问题，我认为这将完成初步陈述。\n\n法院：我有几个我认为是次要的问题。因此，我想我听到您说，而且我相信我也是这样理解的，但如果我错了，请您纠正我，款项是贷款给 Genever USA——US，但实质上您将从 Kwok 遗产中支付所有这些费用？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。目前 Genever USA 的运营账户中只有 $20,000，或者——我不该这么说——接近 $20,000 的金额，可能略高于该数额？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。\n\n法院：但它没有可用资金，无法从市场上获得此类融资？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 15 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日\n\nDESPINS 先生：Genever US 不可能支付这笔融资。因为，第一，您必须劣后于 Sherry-Netherland，我们确实如此，但在某些情形下无法偿还的风险会非常高。因此，此处收取的 9 percent 利率，从某种意义上说实在很划算，因为鉴于所涉风险，没有人会在这种基础上出借资金。风险在于，坦白说，该公寓处于白盒状态时能卖多少钱？第二，是否有保险保障？我们相信应当有保险保障，但您知道，保险诉讼总是存在风险。\n\n法院：您说的是 AIG（美国国际集团）保险问题，还是？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。正确。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我说的就是这个。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：因此，任何外部人士都必须承担我刚才描述的那些风险，而我不确定是否有人会这么做。\n\n法院：因此，您预计这些资金将主要用于清理火灾损害、修复石棉，但实际上不会用于更多事项，从而使该房产能够出售，抱歉，能够展示出售并希望售出？这就是该贷款的目的？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 16 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 16\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。我的意思是，我知道这很难相信，我想下周我们审议翻修项目时会谈到这一点，但在纽约市对公寓进行施工的成本高得离谱，不过这就是现实。例如，建筑师工作，在我看来本应非常简单，当然我不是建筑师，您知道，费用可能高达 $250,000。为什么？因为您需要从各个市政府部门取得所有这些许可。您需要——您需要协调，因为这是合作公寓。例如，墙体归 Sherry-Netherland 所有，因此 Sherry-Netherland 将与我们共同进行一些工作，但协调工作极其繁重，这正是建筑师将要做的，等等。因此，贷款额为 $2 million。它不仅仅是——实际上主要不是用来支付专业费用，而是主要用来支付该翻修项目。\n\n法院：好的。我只是看看我是否还有其他问题。请给我一点时间。哦，我想我确实还有一个问题，这并不是，您知道，我只是没明白。Sherry-\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 17 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 17\n\nNetherland 的第一留置权、担保权益以及对现金保证金的第一留置权，它们已经存在，不是吗？那些留置权？\n\nDESPINS 先生：您的意思是 Sherry-Netherland 的留置权？\n\n法院：是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是，它们确实存在。显然，作为购买任何合作公寓的一部分，合作公寓对股份享有担保权益。它们已经存在。自购买该公寓时起就已存在。\n\n法院：对。因此，他们并未根据这项 DIP 命令取得任何新的留置权？只是确认这些留置权的存在，并确认它们优先于这笔借款？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：还有一点。您刚才指出了我们为使 Sherry-Netherland 同意此事而作出的一项让步，或者我们达成的一项协议。法官阁下可能知道，根据与 Sherry-Netherland 的租约，禁止将股份上的担保权益授予任何人。当然，我们正在取得股份上的担保权益。当然，作为该协议的一部分，我们需要 Sherry-Netherland 对此不提出异议，因此这是我们达成的互相让步的一部分（听不清）。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 18\n\n法院：明白。Sherry-Netherland 仍然拥有，Millman 律师（米尔曼），您仍然，您的委托人实质上仍然拥有——我忘了术语是什么，抱歉——但实质上仍是一笔保证金，您——该保证金一直存在，至少我们一段时间前谈过这件事，是这样吗？一个账户中约有 $3 million。该账户目前是什么状态？\n\nMILLMAN 女士（米尔曼）：法官阁下，我首先想确认您现在能否清楚地听到我说话？\n\n法院：是的，我能。谢谢。我能。非常感谢。\n\nMILLMAN 女士：好的。很好。因此，目前该账户中约有一百万。法官阁下知道，根据 Garrity 法官（加里蒂）的命令，Sherry-Netherland 可以将保证金用于支付申请后的维护费和常规摊派费用。现在，基于该公寓目前可被视为不适宜居住，出于立场上的原因，该项使用目前已暂停。因此，在过去数月，实际上自三月以来，除了并非维护费组成部分的少数费用外，还有其他较不重要但按月发生的费用，除此之外，我们已暂停——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 18 页，共 34 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已录入 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 19 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日\n\n将保证金用于支付或计收申请后维护费，您知道，直至我们收到保险公司的消息。\n\n法院：我明白。\n\nMILLMAN 女士：约为一百万美元。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。这很有帮助。\n\n好的。还有其他人希望就 DIP 融资动议发表意见吗？\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法院：好的。Despins 受托人，我正在查看昨天提交的这项命令，而且，您知道，我们发现了一两处可以更正的小错字。\n\n关于通知段落，在——我不知道是哪一页，我正在看清洁版本，即昨天提交文件的第 45 页中的第 7 页，我具体看的是第 3 页，哦，实际上我应当看第 2 页，我们必须在第 2 页添加听证日期，因此是 ECF No. 2185，第 45 页中的第 6 页。在第二段中，有一个星号和一个方括号，我们需要在该处添加听证日期。\n\n我可以看到法庭书记员点头，因此她知道我所指的位置。\n\n好的。在下一页，法律结论部分，第 A 段第三行，其中写着个人债务人提交了\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 20 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 20 连同一份自愿申请书，我认为它刚刚提交了一份自愿申请书。我认为“with”是增加的一个词。德斯平斯先生：是。是。法庭：在第45页中的第8页，字母编号D段，其中写着“notice”的地方，我会将该标题改为“notice and service”。然后，在该D段的第二行，“proper, timely, adequate and sufficient notice and service of the motion and the DIP hearing”。我正在看法庭书记员，看她是否在跟上我所说的内容。法庭书记员：我想我漏掉了最后那部分——法庭：D段。法庭书记员：是。法庭：第二行，那里是——法庭书记员：哦。法庭：——该句以“proper, timely, adequate and sufficient notice and service”开头。法庭书记员：是。好的。法庭：然后在下一行、第三行末尾附近，“and no other — no other or further notice or service”。法庭书记员：好的。法庭：好的？法庭书记员：是。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 21 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 21 法庭：然后，如果我们看第45页中的第10页，即——在第1段中，写着“disposition”的地方，“the relief requested in the motion is granted on a final basis as set forth herein”。我知道下一句中的措辞是标准措辞，但我希望明确没有人提出异议，德斯平斯受托人，所以我宁愿其表述为“no objections to the motion have been filed”，句号。德斯平斯先生：当然。法庭：好的？德斯平斯先生：是。法庭：然后我没有——我对该命令没有进一步修改。克莱伯恩律师，你审阅过该命令了吗？克莱伯恩女士：是，法官阁下。法庭：还有你，美国受托人——克莱伯恩女士：我没有其他修改。法庭：美国受托人办公室对该命令中的任何内容均没有进一步修改或异议？克莱伯恩女士：正确，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就拟议命令发表意见吗？（无人回应）法庭：好的。那么，基于记录中陈述的理由，并鉴于这些第11章案件的具体情形、事实和\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 22 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 22 情况，关于最终债务人占有期间融资命令的动议获准，并且载于第5页至第21页的拟议命令，但我们必须将DIP信贷协议作为附件1附上，可按记录中指出的轻微修改予以录入。好的？谢谢。现在我们可以继续处理报酬申请。德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。德斯平斯先生：那么，我想我们可以处理的第一项是Paul Hastings（宝尔·汉廷斯）的申请，该申请涉及2023年3月1日至2023年6月30日期间。我们提交了一份内容详尽的申请，其中载有详细资料，法官阁下。昨天我们提交了一份修订版——没有提出异议——我们提交了一份经修订的拟议命令，以反映与美国受托人达成一致的减额。实际上，那只是为了反映该减额。关于这一点，法官阁下，我要指出，我已清楚听到您的意见，因为您可能在本案中说过四次，我们确实——您并不希望这些减额成为常规做法或类似情形，但尽管如此，我们与美国受托人进行了广泛讨论，并决定这对本案整体而言会更好，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 23 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 23 并且为节省法官阁下的时间及尽量减少费用，因为我们谈论的是费用，同意该项费用减额。我希望您理解，我们——我们已清楚听到您对此的意见，但尽管如此，我们决定同意这些费用减额符合本案的最佳利益。因此，我相信该内容已反映在命令中。此外，——实际上，在本案中，是债务人女儿的律师——要求我们规定，将载于Lady May（拉迪·梅）命令、即ECF No. 1953中的留置款项安排，按照上次纳入的方式纳入命令，我们已这样做了，法官阁下。显然，我乐于回答您可能提出的任何问题，但鉴于无人提出异议，除非法官阁下有问题，我认为我不应当，您知道，继续说下去。法庭：我唯一的问题是关于Lady May，也就是你刚才描述的内容。我不确定我——我不记得在先前命令中他们所关注的是哪一项——德斯平斯先生：是。法庭：——内容。德斯平斯先生：是。这是Lady May命令的第9段，该段规定，如果结果证明他们确实\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 24 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 24 拥有Lady May，当然，这里存在一个问题，即如果法官阁下在上诉中不仅撤销关于Lady May所有权的裁定，还撤销关于另我人格的裁定，那么他们将有权向专业人士寻求返还，这符合本区的惯例，即规定有一句话写道，如所有行政债权未获全额支付，则须作最终调整并返还。因此，那就是——那就是该段。法官阁下，您可能记得，我们审议该段时，您在该段上花了很多时间。基本上，这允许他们在最终确定他们拥有Lady May的范围内向专业人士寻求返还。但是，您知道，那就是——法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：——Lady May命令的相关规定。法庭：所以，你的意思是，如Lady May出售批准命令中所规定，所增加的措辞保留了他们在某种情况下寻求返还的权利——如果，显然可能发生，如果在上诉中批准出售的命令被推翻，这就是你的意思？德斯平斯先生：正确。法庭：好的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 25 德斯平斯先生：最终命令。必须是最终命令。法庭：好的。好的。好。克莱伯恩律师，你希望就Paul Hastings的第二次中期费用申请发表意见吗？克莱伯恩女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我只是想确认已在美国受托人提交于文件2170中的声明中载明的、关于减额的理解和协议。该数额与德斯平斯受托人提交的修订命令中的数额相符。法庭：好的。谢谢。我正在再次查看修订命令。那么，德斯平斯受托人，我的理解是否正确：除非情况发生变化，这将是最后一份提交的费用申请，因为我们将按照过去一个月左右制定的程序进行？德斯平斯先生：嗯，将会提交季度费用申请，但是——法庭：对。抱歉。那没有——德斯平斯先生：——根据那个——法庭：我没有把问题问好。我道歉。你说得对。将会有季度费用——案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 25 页，共 34 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 26 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 26 德斯平斯先生：不会。但您完全正确。除非情况发生变化，这是此类申请中的最后一份。法庭：对。好的。很好。我只是想确保我理解正确，我相信我是正确的。你刚刚确认了这一点，所以没问题。还有其他人希望就Paul Hastings的第二次中期费用申请发表意见吗？（无人回应）法庭：好的。鉴于未听到进一步意见，并且我再次在记录中说明，未有人对Paul Hastings的第二次中期费用申请提出异议，该申请请求批准2023年3月1日至2023年6月30日期间的报酬及费用偿还，我已审阅修订后的拟议命令，该命令载于ECF 2184第5页至第7页，克莱伯恩律师已确认，命令第一页中的金额，即2184第5页中的金额，是美国受托人办公室和Paul Hastings就授予申请人的费用所达成一致的金额。我唯一要做的，是请法庭书记员去做，德斯平斯受托人，即在命令第一段中，其仅写道“after notice and a hearing”，只要让法庭书记员——她已经知道——写明“notice and a hearing held on September\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 27 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 2023年9月12日”，仅仅因为你永远不知道，信不信由你，有时让未来的人知道确实举行过听证会非常有帮助，而且鉴于本案有大量案卷条目，我认为这很有帮助。因此，除此以外，我对拟议命令没有其他修改，并且该中期申请，即第二次中期申请获准，附有记录中指出的轻微修改的拟议命令将予以录入。德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。现在我们有最终费用申请？德斯平斯先生：林赛先生。林赛先生：是，法官阁下。这是我的律师事务所Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思）作为受托人的康涅狄格州律师及利益冲突律师，并作为Genever（杰内弗）债务人的律师、康涅狄格州律师所提出的申请。该申请请求核准$357,587.50的费用及$10,402.59的支出。送达证明已在案卷中以2077提交。没有异议。美国受托人已提交无异议证明，编号为2169。该申请本身相当详细地说明了我的律师事务所参与这些程序的方式。我乐于回答法官阁下提出的任何问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 28 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 28 除此之外，我只想指出，我们已提交一份修订命令，与Paul Hastings提交的命令相同，编号为2186。法庭：2186。是。林赛先生：是，2186。该命令增加了——增加了德斯平斯受托人提及的、援引Lady May出售命令的相同措辞。据此，我们请求批准该申请。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就Neubert, Pepe and Monteith第二次中期报酬及费用偿还核准发表意见吗？（无人回应）法庭：克莱伯恩律师，正如林赛律师所指出的，你提交了一份无——美国受托人办公室提交了一份无异议声明，正确吗？克莱伯恩女士：正确，法官阁下。是文件编号2169。除此之外，我没有任何补充。法庭：谢谢。而且我看到，林赛律师，你所指的是——关于批准出售Lady May的命令的措辞，将其加入你的——加入本命令，以保留就Paul Hastings命令所请求的权利，以防存在最终命令\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2200 提交日期 09/14/23 录入日期 09/14/23 10:34:44 第 29 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年9月12日 第29页 推翻对Lady May（“梅夫人号”）的出售。我们唯一需要作出的改动，就是在ECF 2186第5页和第6页所载拟议命令的第一段中加入听证日期。因此，基于上述所有理由，准予Neubert（诺伊贝特）、Pepe（佩佩）和Monteith（蒙蒂斯）提出的第二次临时报酬申请，拟议命令将按庭审记录中指出的轻微、极其轻微的改动作出。林赛先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。好的。除非有人有事项需要询问，今天日程表上的所有事项至此结束。德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。如果可以的话？法院：可以。请讲。德斯平斯先生：我确实有责任询问我们所提动议中刑事中止的状态；该动议旨在阻止郭文贵和Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）推进该刑事中止事项，因为该案的截止日期即将于9月21日到来。显然，我们希望避免这种情况。所以抱歉，我想提出这一点。法院：嗯，在本院，已有人对你们的动议提出异议。同时，据我了解——如果我有误，你可以纠正我——纽约南区（Southern District of New York）的地区法院在刑事诉讼中允许你作为破产财产受托人提交某种答复，这是否正确，针对该动议——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已登记 09/14/23 10:34:44 第30页，共34页\n\n郭文贵—2023年9月12日 第30页 德斯平斯先生：正确，法官阁下。法院：——针对郭先生的刑事辩护律师在刑事诉讼中提交的中止动议，对吗？德斯平斯先生：正确。法院：好的。所以——所以我将等待看看地区法院会怎么做。这——这并非——我不知道破产法院是否有任何权限，而且我未能找到任何允许破产法院告知刑事诉讼中的一方当事人不得向该刑事诉讼中的法院寻求某种形式救济的权限。我没有见到任何会赋予本院作出该等决定权限的依据。德斯平斯先生：嗯，我——我不知道您是否有机会审阅由——法院：我审阅了。我审阅了。德斯平斯先生：——PAX案中委员会提交的加入书，因为我认为他们援引了若干案件，其中——法院：他们援引——他们援引了一宗有帮助的案件。我认为委员会援引了一宗案件，其中裁定刑事诉讼中的地区法院对该动议作出裁决，而非破产法院。如果我说得不正确，Mayhew律师（梅休），请纠正我，但我对该加入书审阅的记忆是——我理解委员会加入其中，他们援引了一宗有帮助的案件，因为在此之前我认为没有援引任何案件，但我认为该案件所说的是，嗯，我记得该案件所说的是，地区法院在刑事诉讼中作出了该项决定，而不是破产法院，我认为这是一个具有实质差异的重要区别。我不确定破产法院是否有任何权限，能够禁止任何人在并非破产案件一部分的刑事诉讼中做任何事情——我不知道刑事诉讼如何能够成为破产案件的一部分。因此，我理解你可能感到沮丧。我也理解，你知道，你可能认为更希望由本院处理该问题，而且也许在地区法院作出裁决后，我仍须处理该问题，但我看不出——我并不确信或认为存在任何权限，授权破产法院中止一名不再作为占有中债务人的债务人；该债务人不仅是刑事诉讼的对象，而且事实上已被监禁，不得寻求救济\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已登记 09/14/23 10:34:44 第31页，共34页\n\n郭文贵—2023年9月12日 第31页 在该刑事诉讼中寻求救济。这并不意味着他将获得该救济，但我——我看不出破产法院如何有权限这样做，任何破产法院都没有。德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，这是因为这是一项试图控制破产财产的行为。我的意思是，如果本Chapter 11（第11章）案件被中止，对破产财产的影响将极其巨大。您知道。只是我甚至无法设想。我们有一个截止日期，例如，两年时效期间将于2月届满。如果本案被中止，所有这些重要问题将如何处理？法院：嗯，第一，你将不得不申请延长该时效期间。第二，Mahwah（马瓦）豪宅目前并非破产财产。该项认定尚未作出。德斯平斯先生：我知道。不，但我想澄清，他们寻求中止整个Chapter 11案件。法院：不，我理解。德斯平斯先生：不仅仅——法院：我读过了。我理解。德斯平斯先生：好的。法院：我理解他们寻求的是什么。德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已登记 09/14/23 10:34:44 第32页，共34页\n\n郭文贵—2023年9月12日 第32页 法院：但委员会援引的案件中，地区法院并未准予该救济。德斯平斯先生：明白。但我认为不存在任何先例。您的观点是，不存在破产法院禁止此类程序的先例。法院：正确。德斯平斯先生：我明白。但我认为，除波士顿地区法院的那宗案件外，不存在任何寻求该救济的案件；该案是在地区法院寻求该救济，通常是在案件待决的法院提出。但我理解您的——理解您的观点，并感谢您的反馈，法官阁下。法院：可能——我完全不知道将会发生什么，但我理解你的请求。这并不意味着你的请求不会在某个时候以某种方式、形式得到处理，但我看不出有任何权限允许破产法院禁止刑事被告在刑事案件中寻求救济。德斯平斯先生：明白。法院：谢谢。德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：今天下午，还有任何人希望补充记入记录吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2200 已提交 09/14/23 已登记 09/14/23 10:34:44 第33页，共34页\n\n郭文贵—2023年9月12日 第34页 （无人回应）法院：好的。今天下午，郭文贵及与Genever（杰尼弗）有关的Chapter 11案件的听证至此结束。这些是日程表上的最后事项，因此现在休庭。谢谢各位。全体律师：谢谢，法官阁下。（程序于下午2:54结束。）本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的笔录员及经认证电子记录员兼笔录员，证明上述内容系上述案名事项程序官方电子录音的正确笔录。15 2023年9月14日 16 Christine Fiore，CERT","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1953,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2184,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2185,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2186,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":7976,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:06:39"}