{"id":"court_ctb_2201_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2201,"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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 5 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 18 of 34\n\n maintenance, there are other less-significant costs, but they're monthly costs, other than that, we've paused\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 25 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 29 of 34\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 12, 2023
29 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | overturning the sale of the Lady May. |\n| 2 | The only change we'd need to make is just to add |\n| 3 | the hearing date in the first paragraph of the proposed |\n| 4 | order that appears on pages 5 and 6 of ECF 2186. |\n| 5 | So for all those reasons, the second interim |\n| 6 | application for compensation of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith |\n| 7 | is granted, and the proposed order will enter with the |\n| 8 | minor, with the very minor changes noted on the record. |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | All right.
That concludes all the matters on |\n| 12 | today's calendar, unless someone has something they have a |\n| 13 | question about. |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
If I may? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Go ahead. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
I'm really duty bound to inquire |\n| 17 | about the status of the criminal stay in our motion to stop |\n| 18 | that the -- Kwok and Yvette Wang from pursuing that criminal |\n| 19 | stay matter because we have a deadline coming up of |\n| 20 | September 21st in that case.
And obviously we would want to |\n| 21 | avoid that.
So I'm sorry.
I wanted to bring that up. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Well, there was an objection filed to |\n| 23 | your motion in this, in this court. |\n| 24 | At the same time, my understanding is that, and |\n| 25 | you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the district court in |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 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关于\n案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼维尔控股公司），\n债务人。\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯）等，\n对抗程序编号 23-05017\n原告，\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nSeptember 12, 2023\n诉\nTAURUS FUND, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等，\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进行的程序记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nG. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ（G·亚历山大·邦加茨）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n程序由电子录音记录，记录文本由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, CT 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 2 of 34\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林西）律师\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street,13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍利·L·克莱伯恩）律师\nOffice of U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nKRISTEN B. MAYHEW（克里斯滕·B·梅休）律师\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼及康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）：\nSHERRY J. MILLMAN（雪莉·J·米尔曼）律师\nStroock & Stroock & Lavan（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克及拉文律师事务所）\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nTARUNA GARG（塔鲁娜·加格）律师\nMurtha Cullina, LLP（默萨·卡利纳律师事务所）\n107 Elm Street, Suite 1101\nStamford, CT 06902\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙）：\nANNECCA H. SMITH（安妮卡·H·史密斯）律师\nRobinson & Cole, LLP（罗宾逊及科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n#2051 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）作为受托人律师的临时报酬申请，\n费用：$8,251.634.83，开支：$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）作为受托人律师的临时（第二次临时）报酬申请，\n费用：$357,587.50，\n开支：$10,402.59\n\n#2110 第11章受托人与债务人 GENEVER US 和 GENEVER BVI 联合提出的动议，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 和 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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 4 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 4\n（程序于下午2:04开始）\n\n法庭书记员：案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：下午好。请先由第11章受托人开始，为记录说明出庭情况。你们认为没有人能听见我们说话吗？我认为没有人能听见我们说话。\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：有人能听见我们吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，现在能听见了。\n\n法官：哦，现在他能听见了。好的。那么，请法庭书记员再次宣读案件。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：下午好。请先由第11章受托人开始，为记录说明出庭情况。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），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（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 5\n\nBongartz，代表第11章受托人的 Paul Hastings。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 律师事务所，受托人及其他债务人的律师，也代表（听不清）的费用申请。\n\n法官：好的。请稍等片刻，因为你们的音频是通过电脑传出的，而不是通过扬声器。你们两位都听到这个问题了吗？你听到了吗？\n\n法庭书记员：我听到他们的声音较低。\n\n法官：是的。他们的声音没有通过扬声器传出，而是通过电脑传出。\n\n法庭书记员：不过，我没有看到任何问题。我不知道可能出了什么问题。等一下。我去问问 Will（威尔）。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：好的，请大家稍等片刻，这也是我们举行现场听证的原因之一。但今天没有这样进行，所以请稍等。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：解决这个问题只需要几分钟。因此，请大家稍候。谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 5 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 6 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023\n\n1 法官：\n好的。\n现在大家都能听见我吗？\n\n2 好的。请有人说句话，让我们确认声音是否通过正确的扬声器传出。\n\n4 Despins先生，请您说句话。\n\n5 DESPINS先生：\n测试123，测试。\n\n6 法官：\n这样对吗？对，没错。好的。\n\n7 很好。现在我们可以适当地继续记录了。抱歉。\n\n8 好的。我们已经记录了 Despins先生和 Linsey先生的出庭情况，请继续。\n\n10 Bongartz先生，您要接着说吗？\n\n11 BONGARTZ先生：\n当然。这是 Alex Bongartz，再次代表第11章受托人，来自 Paul Hastings。\n\n13 谢谢。\n\n14 法官：\n下午好。\n\n15 CLAIBORN女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n17 法官：\n下午好。\n\n18 MAYHEW女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew，Pullman & Comley 律师事务所，代表无担保债权人官方委员会。\n\n21 法官：\n下午好。\n\n22 MILLMAN女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Sherry Millman，来自 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan，代表 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n25 法官：\nMillman律师，当您再次发言时，如果您会再次发言，请您靠近一些麦克风，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 7 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023\n\n1 因为刚才声音非常含混。好吗？如您所知，仅有音频并不够，如果声音含混，记录员无法听清。因此，您不必再重复一遍，但如果您还要说任何其他内容，请靠近一些麦克风，我将不胜感激。\n\n7 请继续，加格律师。抱歉。\n\n8 GARG女士：\n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\n11 法官：\n下午好。\n\n12 SMITH女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith，PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n14 法官：\n下午好。\n\n15 好的。感谢各位到场。\n\n16 我们昨天查看日程表时注意到，日程表上的事项均设有异议截止日期，但没有提出任何异议。\n\n19 如 Despins受托人过去所指出，在某些时候，基于多种原因，可以适当地进行远程听证，其中一个原因是为破产财产节省时间和资金。\n\n23 由于今天日程表上的事项均未受到异议，在该特定情况下，我决定今天以远程方式举行这些听证。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 8 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023\n\n1 现在，我认为前两项，即报酬申请，相当直接。我认为债务人占有融资（DIP）动议也相当直接，尽管可能需要为记录作出更多说明。\n\n5 因此，Despins受托人，您想先从报酬申请开始吗？\n\n7 DESPINS先生：\n由您决定，法官阁下。我原本打算从 DIP 开始，但我——但按您希望的顺序进行。\n\n10 法官：\n那您继续吧。先从 DIP 开始——\n\n12 DESPINS先生：\n好的。\n\n13 法官：\n——也就是——\n\n14 DESPINS先生：\n好的。法官阁下，这是由 Kwok 的破产财产和两名 Genever 债务人提出的 DIP 动议，实际上是从 Kwok 破产财产向 Genever 破产财产提供的一笔救助贷款，旨在为 Genever 债务人提供案件融资，坦率地说，主要是 Genever US，金额最高为 $2 million。我想对此提供一些背景说明。\n\n21 如法官阁下从先前的听证中所知，Genever US 目前银行账户中可能只剩大约 20、$25,000。Genever BVI 没有现金。\n\n24 由于保险公司尚未同意支付火灾造成的维修费用，当然，关于此事存在诉讼，该诉讼正在审理并将继续进行，但这将需要时间。而且，您知道，必须立即采取一些措施，将这套公寓恢复至足以出售或出租的水平，尽管主要目标是出售，这必须现在进行。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 9 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 9\n\n在某种意义上，这项动议本应得到审理，是我没有将其与装修工程动议安排在同一时间审理，这是我的责任；但它们在某种意义上相互关联，因为大部分资金将用于该公寓的装修工程。\n\n对公寓进行所谓“白盒化”的费用，意味着清理公寓约20 percent区域内火灾造成的所有损坏，并将该区域白盒化，不是将其恢复原状，而是真正铺设白色石膏板，并恢复所有管道、给排水、电力等连接。\n\n听起来似乎相当简单，但并非如此，因为是否需要建筑师来做这项工作？是否需要建筑师监督必须进行的各项程序？发现了需要进行修复处理的石棉。\n\n当然，该动议并不在本院面前，但我希望您了解该工程的规模，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 10 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 10\n\n以及我们为何考虑提供 $2 million 的贷款，实质上只是为该案件的这一方面提供融资。\n\n还有更多内容，即，是的，Genever 聘请的律师为推进 AIG 诉讼将产生专业费用，诸如此类，但这笔 $2 million 贷款的大部分将用于装修工程。\n\n之所以不能等待，是因为这就像俄罗斯套娃。您知道，基本上您需要先从最小的一个开始，然后再放入越来越多的东西。因此，我们需要立即开始进行必须完成的基础工作，取得许可证等等、等等，否则一年将会过去，而我们将一事无成。\n\n当然，我们不能这样做。因此，这就是我们现在需要资金为这项装修工程融资的原因。\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，是因为其希望保留看到该公寓收益流入其中的可能性。\n\n当然，如果它不出借这笔款项，最终将会成为一次完全清算，届时可能没有任何款项会上流至 Kwok 破产财产层面。因此，从这个角度看，Kwok 破产财产提供该贷款以保留这种可能性，是有道理的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 11 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023 11 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。我认为这些情形不会发生，但这当然是一种可能性。我已经说明了原因，法官阁下。这笔贷款，而且我会非常坦率地说，法官阁下，是单方面的。您知道，其中有些条款在商业贷款人那里绝不会出现。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贷款，但这是因为其是本着其既定目的而作出的。这并非为了支撑 Genever US 债权人的回收额。这是为了可能保全股权价值，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，我不必将款项汇入 Genever US 账户以支付建筑师费用。它可以直接向建筑师付款，即使 Genever US 实际上并未接触过该笔款项，该款项也将构成一笔贷款。法官阁下，其中有类似条款。但如我所言，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 就该贷款及其权利进行了广泛谈判，因为 Sherry-Netherland——显然，我们——该公寓位于 Sherry-Netherland，但 Sherry-Netherland 是有担保债权人。他们对股份及租赁项下的权利享有质押权，我们已同意其优先于我们的贷款。我们也已向其作出其他便利安排。但我想说，总体而言，Sherry-Netherland 迄今为止与我们的关系极具建设性，这在某种程度上有些违反直觉，因为我确信那里很多人对所发生的事情感到非常不满，但他们一直非常、非常乐于协助。您可以想见，如果没有他们的合作，实施翻修项目及诸如此类的工作将极其困难，因为在纽约有许多必须跨越的障碍。这是一栋工会大楼，等等。因此，重点是 Sherry-Netherland 迄今一直给予极大支持，我希望这种情况能够持续下去。但作为 DIP 贷款的一部分，我们已与其达成若干便利安排，该等安排已反映在 DIP 命令中，我想向法官阁下提及这一点。法官阁下，我们已就最终 DIP 提交了一份拟议修订、经修订的命令，载于案卷编号 2185。我相信我们昨天已提交该文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 12 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023 12 这些变更，让我看一下显示变更的版本，这些变更相当有限，且主要是应 U.S. Trustee 的要求作出的。此前有一项规定。我先前提到，我们与 Sherry-Netherland 达成了一些便利安排或协议，这可见于案卷 2185 的第 39 页（共 45 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 的律师费用。U.S. Trustee 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。将设有一段期间供他人提出异议。若提出异议，将举行听证会。如此一来，如有人不同意拟作出的付款，便有程序可供其陈述意见。顺便说一句，这仅授予我们作出付款的权限，并不指示或要求我们作出这些付款。但无论如何，现在设有一项内置规定，允许他人对该拟议付款提出异议，这实际上是相对于先前版本的命令所反映的变更，而现在——修订该命令的文件为 2185，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 13 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023 14 法院：在命令性段落的第 12 段，这就是您现在所谈论的内容吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：在显示变更的版本中，这是第 39 页（共 45 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：那么，法官阁下，除非法官阁下有问题，我认为这将完成初步陈述。\n\n法院：我有几个我认为是小问题。因此，我想我听到您说，而且我相信我也是如此理解的，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。而且 Genever USA 目前在其运营账户中只有 $20,000，或者大约——我不应当这么说——接近 $20,000 的金额，可能略高于此数额？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。\n\n法院：但它没有可用资金，无法在市场上获得此类融资？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 14 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023\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，从某种意义上说实属优惠，因为鉴于所涉风险，任何人都不可能在该基础上出借资金。风险是，坦率地说，经过白盒化处理的公寓能卖多少钱？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：您是在谈 AIG 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——承担我刚才描述的那些风险，而我不确定是否有人会这样做。\n\n法院：因此，您预计该等资金将用于实质上清理火灾损害、治理石棉，但并无更多用途，以便该物业能够出售，抱歉，展示待售并希望出售？这就是该贷款的目的？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 15 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023 16 DESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。我的意思是，我知道这很难令人相信，而且我想下周我们讨论翻修项目时会谈到这一点，但在纽约市对公寓进行工程的成本高得惊人，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程，但其中的协调工作非常庞大，这正是建筑师要做的工作，等等。因此，贷款金额为 $2 million。这并非只是——实际上并非主要用于支付专业费用，而是主要用于支付该翻修项目。\n\n法院：好的。我只是在看我是否还有其他问题。请稍候。哦，我想我确实还有一个问题，这不是，您知道，我只是没有理解。Sherry-Netherland 的第一留置权、担保权益以及对现金保证金的第一留置权，这些不是已经存在了吗？这些留置权？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 16 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023 17 DESPINS 先生：您是指 Sherry-Netherland 的留置权？\n\n法院：是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是，它们确实存在。作为购买任何合作公寓的一部分，显然合作公寓对股份享有担保权益。这些权益已经存在。自购买该公寓时起便已存在。\n\n法院：对。因此，他们不会根据该 DIP 命令获得任何新的留置权？他们只是确认这些留置权的存在，并确认其优先于该借款？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：还有一点。您刚才指出了我们作出的一项让步，或者我们达成的一项协议，以使 Sherry-Netherland 同意此事。如法官阁下可能知悉，根据与 Sherry-Netherland 的租约，禁止向任何人就股份设定担保权益。当然，我们正在取得股份上的担保权益。当然，作为本协议的一部分，我们需要 Sherry-Netherland 对此不提出异议，因此这属于我们达成的互让的一部分（听不清）。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023 18 法院：明白。Sherry-Netherland 仍然拥有，Millman 律师，您仍然，您的当事人实质上仍然拥有——我忘记该术语是什么了，抱歉——但实质上仍是一笔保证金，您——当时已经到位的，至少我们曾在一段时间前谈过此事，它是否仍然——一个账户中约有 $3 million。该账户目前情况如何？\n\nMILLMAN 女士：法官阁下，我首先想确认您现在能清楚听到我说话吗？\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，该账户目前约有一百万。如法官阁下所知，根据 Garrity 法官的一项命令，Sherry-Netherland 获准将保证金用于申请后维护费和常规摊派。目前，该用途暂时暂停，暂定的理由是该公寓现可被认为不适宜居住。因此，过去几个月，实际上自 March 起，除少数不属于维护费的费用外，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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 18 of 34\n\n将保证金用于或收取申请后维护费，您知道，直至收到保险公司的消息。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2201 Filed 09/14/23 Entered 09/14/23 10:37:15 Page 19 of 34\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 12, 2023\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。这一点很有帮助。\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，我正在看昨天提交的这项命令，而且，我想，我们发现只有一两处小的笔误可以更正。\n\n在通知段落中，我不知道是第几页，我正在看清洁版本，即昨天提交的文件第 7 页（共 45 页），我具体看的是第 3 页，哦，我实际上应当看第 2 页，我们必须在第 2 页添加听证日期，因此这是 ECF No. 2185，第 6 页（共 45 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我看到法庭书记员正在点头，因此她知道我所指的位置。\n\n好的。在下一页，即法律结论部分，A 段第三行，其中写道个人债务人提交了\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 20 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 20 法院：关于自愿申请书，我认为只是提交了一份自愿申请书。我认为 with 是添加的词。德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：是。是。法院：在第 8 页（共 45 页）、以字母标示的 D 段中，在写有 notice 的地方，我会将该标题改为 notice and service。然后，在该 D 段第二行，改为 proper, timely, adequate and sufficient notice and service of the motion and the DIP hearing。我正在看书记员，不知道她是否在跟着我说的内容。书记员：我想我漏掉了最后一项——法院：D 段。书记员：是。法院：第二行，那里是——书记员：哦。法院：——该句以 proper, timely, adequate and sufficient notice and service 开始。书记员：是。好的。法院：然后在下一行、第三行末尾附近，改为 and no other — no other or further notice or service。书记员：好的。法院：好吗？书记员：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 21 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 21 法院：然后，如果我们看第 10 页（共 45 页），即——在第 1 段中，写有 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，但我希望明确没有提交任何异议，德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），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。法院：好吗？德斯平斯先生：是。法院：然后我没有——我对该裁定没有进一步修改。克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn），您审阅过该裁定了吗？克莱伯恩女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：是，法官阁下。法院：您呢，美国受托人——克莱伯恩女士：我没有其他修改意见。法院：美国受托人办公室对该裁定中的任何内容均无进一步修改意见或异议？克莱伯恩女士：正确，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就拟议裁定发言吗？（无人回应）法院：好的。那么，基于记录中陈述的理由，并鉴于这些 Chapter 11 案件的具体情形、事实和\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 22 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 22 情况，关于最终占有中债务人裁定的动议获准，并且载于第 5 页至第 21 页的拟议裁定，但我们必须将 DIP 信贷协议作为附件 1 附上，可在记录中指出的轻微修改后登记。好吗？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。法院：谢谢。德斯平斯先生：那么，我想我们首先可以处理 Paul Hastings（宝德律师事务所）的申请，该申请涵盖 2023年3月1日至2023年6月30日期间。我们提交了一份包含详细内容的广泛申请，法官阁下。昨天，我们提交了一份修订版——没有提出任何异议——我们提交了一份修订后的拟议裁定，以反映与美国受托人达成一致的减额。实际上，这只是，您知道，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了四次，我们确实——您并不期望，您知道，这些减额成为日常惯例或诸如此类的事，但尽管如此，我们与美国受托人进行了广泛讨论，并决定为了本案的整体利益，为了节省法官阁下的时间，并为了尽量减少费用，因为我们讨论的是费用，同意该费用减额会更好。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 23 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 23 为了本案的整体利益，为节省法官阁下的时间，并尽量减少费用，因为我们讨论的是费用，同意该费用减额会更好。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，我们仍决定，同意这些费用减额符合本案的最佳利益。因此，我相信这已反映在该裁定中。此外，我们被先生的律师——实际上，在本案中，是债务人女儿的律师——要求规定，将载于 Lady May（“Lady May”号）裁定（ECF No. 1953）中的 carve out，以其上次被纳入的方式纳入该裁定，我们已经这样做了，法官阁下。显然，我很乐意回答您可能有的任何问题，但鉴于没有异议，除非法官阁下有问题，我认为我不应当，您知道，继续说下去。法院：我唯一的问题是关于 Lady May，即您刚才所述的内容。我不确定我——我不记得先前裁定中他们所关注的是哪一项——德斯平斯先生：是。法院：——内容。德斯平斯先生：是。这是 Lady May 裁定的第 9 段，该段规定，如果结果证明他们实际上拥有 Lady May，当然存在一个问题，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，还撤销关于另我主体的裁定，那么他们将有权向专业人士寻求返还，该内容符合本地区的惯例，即规定一句话，称 subject to final adjustment and disgorgement in the event all admin claims are not paid in full。因此，这就是——这就是该段。法官阁下，您可能记得，我们审阅该段时，您花了很多时间处理该段。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，这——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 24 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 24 实际上就是 Lady May 裁定的规定。法院：因此，您是说，裁定中所增加的措辞，即如同批准出售 Lady May 的裁定所规定，保留了他们在某种情况下——如果，显然可能发生，如果上诉中批准出售的裁定被推翻——寻求返还的权利，是这个意思吗？德斯平斯先生：正确。法院：好的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 25 德斯平斯先生：最终裁定。必须是最终裁定。法院：好的。好的。好的。克莱伯恩律师，您希望就 Paul Hastings 的第二次中期费用申请发言吗？克莱伯恩女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我只是想确认，对美国受托人在文件 2170 中提交的声明所载减额的理解和同意。该数额与德斯平斯受托人提交的修订裁定中的数额一致。法院：好的。谢谢。我正在再次查看修订裁定。因此，德斯平斯受托人，我理解得对吗，这将是最后一份费用申请，至少除非发生某些变化，这将是最后一份费用申请，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——法院：对。对不起。那没有——德斯平斯先生：——根据该——法院：我没有把问题问好。我道歉。您是对的。将会有季度费用——案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 25 页，共 34 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，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。但您完全正确。这是此类申请中的最后一份，除非发生某些变化。法院：对。好的。很好。我只是想确保我理解了，而且我相信我理解了。因此，您刚刚确认了这一点，所以没有问题。还有其他人希望就 Paul Hastings 的第二次中期费用申请发言吗？（无人回应）法院：好的。未听到进一步意见，我再次为记录说明，未对 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裁定，该裁定载于 ECF 2184 的第 5 页至第 7 页，克莱伯恩律师已确认，该裁定第一页——即 2184 的第 5 页——中的金额，是美国受托人办公室与 Paul Hastings 就授予申请人的费用所达成一致的金额。我将要做的唯一一件事，是请书记员做的，德斯平斯受托人，是在该裁定第一段中，其仅写有 after notice and a hearing，请让书记员——她已经知道——加上 notice and a hearing held on September\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 27 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日\n1 12, 2023，仅仅因为您永远无法预知，相信与否，有时对将来的人们而言，知道确实举行过一次听证会是非常有帮助的，并且鉴于本案有众多案卷记录，我认为这很有帮助。因此，除此以外，我对拟议裁定没有其他修改意见，并且中期申请、第二次中期申请获准，拟议裁定将在记录中指出的轻微修改后登记。\n9 德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n10 法院：\n谢谢。\n11 现在我们有最终费用申请？\n12 德斯平斯先生：\n林赛先生（MR. LINSEY）。\n13 林赛先生：\n是，法官阁下。这是我所在律师事务所 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂斯）的申请，该所担任受托人的康涅狄格州律师及利益冲突律师，并担任 Genever 债务人的康涅狄格州律师。\n17 该申请请求准许 \\$357,587.50 的费用及 \\$10,402.59 的开支。送达证明已作为案卷记录中的 2077 提交。没有异议。美国受托人已提交无异议证明，编号为 2169。\n22 申请本身相当详细地说明了我所参与本程序的方式。我很乐意回答法官阁下的任何问题。\n25 法官阁下有。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2201 于 09/14/23 提交，于 09/14/23 10:37:15 登记，第 28 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年9月12日 28 除此之外，我仅指出，我们在与 Paul Hastings 相同的裁定中提交了一份修订裁定，编号为 2186。法院：2186。是。林赛先生：是，2186。该裁定加入了——加入了德斯平斯受托人提及的、援引 Lady May 出售裁定的相同措辞。就此，我们请求准许该申请。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的第二次中期报酬准许及费用偿还申请发言吗？（无人回应）法院：克莱伯恩律师，如林赛律师所指出，您提交了无——美国受托人办公室提交了无异议声明，对吗？克莱伯恩女士：正确，法官阁下。是文件编号 2169。除此以外，我没有任何补充。法院：谢谢。而且我看到，林赛律师，您所指的是——关于批准出售 Lady May 的裁定，向您的——向本裁定加入该措辞，以保留在存在最终裁定的情况下、就 Paul Hastings 裁定所请求的权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023\n\n撤销对 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的出售。\n\n我们唯一需要作出的修改，只是在 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。\n\n因此，基于所有这些理由，准许 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（Neubert、Pepe和Monteith）的第二份临时报酬申请；拟议命令将经作出记录中所述的轻微、极为轻微的修改后签发。\n\n林西律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n好的。除非有人对今天日程上的事项存有疑问，否则今天日程上的所有事项至此结束。\n\nDESPINS 律师：是，法官阁下。请问可以吗？\n\n法庭：可以。请讲。\n\nDESPINS 律师：我确实有责任询问，我们提出的、请求阻止——郭文贵和 Yvette Wang（王雁）推进该刑事中止事项的动议中，有关刑事中止的现状，因为该案的截止日期即将于 September 21st 到来。显然，我们希望避免这种情况。抱歉，我想提出这一点。\n\n法庭：嗯，对于你们在本法院提出的该动议，已经提交了异议。\n\n同时，据我了解——如果我理解有误，你可以纠正我——Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的刑事程序中的地区法院正在允许你作为破产财产受托人，就该项动议提交某种答复，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2201 提交于 09/14/23 录入于 09/14/23 10:37:15 第 30 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 30\n\nDESPINS 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——就郭先生的刑事辩护律师在刑事程序中提出的中止动议提交答复，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 律师：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。所以——因此，我将等待地区法院的处理结果。这——这并不是——我不知道破产法院是否拥有任何权限，而且我未能找到任何依据，允许破产法院告知刑事程序中的一方当事人，其不得向该刑事程序中的法院寻求某种形式的救济。我没有见到任何会赋予本法院该等权限的依据。\n\nDESPINS 律师：嗯，我——我不知道您是否有机会审阅由——\n\n法庭：我审阅了。我审阅了。\n\nDESPINS 律师：——PAX（PAX）的委员会提交的共同加入文件，因为我认为他们援引了若干案件，其中——\n\n法庭：他们援引了——他们援引了一个有帮助的案件。我认为委员会援引了一个案件，该案认定刑事程序中的地区法院对该动议作出了裁决，而非破产法院。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2201 提交于 09/14/23 录入于 09/14/23 10:37:15 第 31 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 31\n\n如果我说得不正确，Mayhew 律师，请纠正我，但我对共同加入文件审阅的记忆是——我理解委员会共同加入，并且他们援引了一个有帮助的案件，因为我认为在那之前没有援引任何案件；但我认为该案所说的是，嗯，我对该案所说内容的记忆是，地区法院在刑事诉讼中作出了该项决定，而非破产法院。我认为这是一个具有差别的重要区别。我不确定破产法院是否有权限，或任何权限，禁止任何人在并非破产程序一部分的刑事程序中实施任何行为——我不知道刑事程序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，你可能认为宁愿由本法院处理该问题，而且也许在地区法院作出裁决后，我仍将不得不处理该问题；但我看不出——我并不确信或信服存在任何依据，授权破产法院中止一名已不再作为占有中的债务人的债务人寻求救济；该债务人不仅是刑事程序的对象，而且事实上已被监禁。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2201 提交于 09/14/23 录入于 09/14/23 10:37:15 第 32 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 32\n\n在该刑事程序中寻求救济。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。\n\nDESPINS 律师：法官阁下，这是因为此举试图控制破产财产。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。我简直无法设想。例如，我们有一个截止日期，两年诉讼时效将于 February 到期。如果本案被中止，所有这些重要问题将会如何处理？\n\n法庭：嗯，第一，你将不得不提出动议延长该诉讼时效。第二，Mahwah（马瓦）宅邸目前并非破产财产。该项认定尚未作出。\n\nDESPINS 律师：我知道。不是。但我想明确的是，他们寻求中止整个 Chapter 11（第11章）案件。\n\n法庭：不，我理解。\n\nDESPINS 律师：不仅仅是——\n\n法庭：我读过了。我理解。\n\nDESPINS 律师：好的。\n\n法庭：我理解他们所寻求的内容。\n\nDESPINS 律师：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2201 提交于 09/14/23 录入于 09/14/23 10:37:15 第 33 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 33\n\n法庭：但委员会援引的案件中，地区法院并未准许该救济。\n\nDESPINS 律师：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。\n\n法庭：正确。\n\nDESPINS 律师：我明白。但我认为，除 Boston District Court（波士顿地区法院）的案件外，不存在任何寻求过该救济的案件；该案是在地区法院寻求该救济的，通常是在案件待决的法院寻求该救济。但我理解您的——理解您的观点，并感谢您的反馈，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：可能会——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在某个时候不会以某种方式得到处理，但我看不出有任何依据允许破产法院禁止一名刑事被告人在刑事案件中寻求救济。\n\nDESPINS 律师：明白。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：今天下午还有任何人希望补充记入记录的内容吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2201 提交于 09/14/23 录入于 09/14/23 10:37:15 第 34 页，共 34 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 12, 2023 34\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。今天下午，郭文贵及 Genever（Genever）相关 Chapter 11（第11章）案件的听证至此结束。这些是日程上的最后事项，因此现在休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n全体律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（程序于下午 2:54 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的转写员及经认证电子法庭记录员和转写员，兹证明，前述内容系根据上述案由事项程序的官方电子录音制作的准确笔录。\n\nSeptember 14, 2023\n\nChristine 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":8070,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:11:27"}