{"id":"court_ctb_2232_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2232,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-09-26","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"庭审听证笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2232（2023年9月26日立案）。此为破产法官 Julie A. Manning 于2023年9月19日就 Genever Holdings LLC 申请获取雪莉-荷兰酒店公寓火灾受损区域修复服务动议举行的听证会正式笔录。第11章破产受托人 Luc Despins 到庭阐述了包括石棉检测与清除、公寓结构清理在内的修复计划。","summary_en":"Hearing transcript in In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2232 (filed September 26, 2023). Official transcript of the September 19, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding Genever Holdings LLC's motion to obtain services necessary to remediate fire-damaged areas of the Sherry-Netherland apartment. Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins presented the remediation scope, including asbestos abatement and stabilization procedures.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* September 19, 2023 \\* Debtors. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC TO OBTAIN SERVICES NECESSARY TO REMEDIATE AREAS OF SHERRY NETHERLAND APARTMENT AFFECTED BY MARCH 15, 2023 FIRE 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: 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 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\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: KRISTEN B. MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 3 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 2:16 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: The Courtroom Deputy has already called the case, so if we could please 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. LINSEY: Good afternoon. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew on behalf of the creditors' committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. On the calendar today in the -- this Chapter 11 case is the motion for an order by -- for the debtor, Genever Holdings, LLC, to obtain an order regarding necessary services to remediate areas of The Sherry Netherland apartment. So I have not seen any written\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 4 opposition to your motion, Trustee Despins. Am I correct on that? MR. DESPINS: You're correct. We're not aware of any. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So how would you like to proceed this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: With a short presentation. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: May I approach? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. So this is the remediation motion that I forecasted last week at the DIP hearing, because a lot of the funds for the DIP financing will be used for this process. And we filed this at Docket Number 2113, Your Honor. And, you know, as I described it last week, this is really a complex process to bring back the apartment to a condition that is not the same condition that it was in on March 14th but it is in -- that it would be in a condition that it could be sold. They call that white boxing. And with white box, the 28 percent of the apartment that was affected by the fire -- but it sounds very simple to say white boxing, but it's more than that. There are a lot of structural items that were Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 4 of 24\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 5 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>5                        |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | destroyed, electrical, plumbing, et cetera.<br>And so I will |\n| 2  | describe that as briefly as possible as the motion really    |\n| 3  | goes through that.<br>And the supplement we filed on the 8th |\n| 4  | of September at Docket 2183 also discusses this.             |\n| 5  | But, essentially, there are a few work streams               |\n| 6  | that need to happen.<br>The first one is asbestos related.   |\n| 7  | Apparently, there is a -- the fire exposed the fact that     |\n| 8  | there's asbestos in -- with -- in three different places     |\n| 9  | involving the pipes, the plumbing, near the heaters and also |\n| 10 | where the asbestos sprayed on the wall as a fire retardant   |\n| 11 | of some kind.                                                |\n| 12 | So all of this needs to be, one, investigated.               |\n| 13 | And a permit needs to be obtained from the city building     |\n| 14 | department.<br>Highly regulated.                             |\n| 15 | So we had to hire a company that's a asbestos                |\n| 16 | surveyor, to be distinguished from the asbestos removal      |\n| 17 | company.<br>A lot of that process has already taken place.   |\n| 18 | The surveyor went to take some samples.<br>They prepared a   |\n| 19 | report.<br>And they're on the verge of being able to file a  |\n| 20 | application for a permit with the New York City Department   |\n| 21 | of Buildings, that -- the division that deals with asbestos. |\n| 22 | But because we're seeking a variance -- I'll                 |\n| 23 | explain why in a second -- it's going to take four to five   |\n| 24 | weeks before the permit can be obtained.<br>In the meantime, |\n| 25 | no other work can be done.                                   |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 6 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 6 So why are we seeking a variance? Because this will not be done in a completely sealed environment, because the -- some asbestos must be removed from the walls. There has to be like the equivalent of shower curtain all around, but there has to be access to the wall to remove that area. And that requires a variance. It requires air monitoring during that process by the surveyor, et cetera, et cetera. So that process is going to take several weeks to get the permit and to actually do the work. The total price approximately of this surveying, removal process which involves plumbing and electrical, because some items need to be disconnected and reconnected after the asbestos removal has been done, total cost is about \\$75,000. It's a lot of money. And after that but also during that time, the architect, which is Acheson, they have been working on a report, a conditions report. And, basically, the conditions report is really a status report saying you have the following 23 items that need to be fixed. We just received it on Friday. It's more than a hundred pages. And, basically, that's the blueprint for the contractors to submit a bid, because now they'll know exactly what needs to be fixed. And, also, it's a blueprint for the architect himself to prepare the plans to deal with these various issues. That report and the plans are\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 7 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 7 necessary to obtain bids. As we describe in here, we commit to obtain or to seek at least three bids from different companies so that it's a competitive bidding process. And I'll be candid, Your Honor. In the motion, we're asking the Court for some leeway, because, you know, there's a -- there could be a hyper technical view of this, which is we should come back for the plumber, for the electrician, for the surveyor, for the asbestos removal, and for the bids. The problem with that is that we -- it would delay us tremendously to do that. So we're asking for the Court to bless a process that will involve, by the way, the U.S. Trustee and PAX and the creditors' committee. They'll be consulting parties. So we're not going to go on our own doing any of this without reviewing the bids and the process with these parties. But we're asking the court to approve this without having to come back for the various pieces of this, because otherwise it would take months. It's already going to take months. This will not be completed, Your Honor, until at least March. And I want to say that the relationship with The Sherry Netherland has been excellent. They've been very supportive. There are issues between us that we need to resolve. They're allocation issues. Because, as you know, in a co-op, they own the walls, the outside structure. Some\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 8 of that is damaged. That's their responsibility. We own the inside pieces. But it's really more intricate than that in the sense that -- I'll give you an example. If windows in the apartment were the original windows, that's the responsibility of The Sherry Netherland. If they were replaced, that's the responsibility of the owner. It so happens that they were replaced, so it's our responsibility to deal with things like that. So there are a lot of moving pieces, but we're working -- I'd say knock on wood -- very well with The Sherry Netherland thus far in terms of making sure that the allocation is appropriate, that this is not a ride on Genever, if you will, or on the trustee, because the trustee's funding this. And so that process is going very well. But, you know, I've always learned in this business to -- you know, to under promise and over deliver. Here, I would be shocked if this were completed by March, meaning it would be -- everything would have to fit into place very, very nicely. This is a union building, so also some rules that apply. And so this is not a -- like building a house in a -- on a lot in Greenwich, Connecticut. It's very, very different. Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 8 of 24\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 9 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 9 So we've explained in the motion and in the supplement -- I should take about the supplement, because we've added a lot more details regarding additional items. And there's a marked show change order which is at pages -- starting at page 32 of 36 of Docket Number 2183 which shows the various changes. What we've done, really, is to be more specific. Because before in the motion we said the Court is approving all the work that needs to be done. Now we're saying you're approving the third-party services, including GBTS. That's the surveyor. GEM. That's the electrician. Breslaw is the plumber. And ABF is the asbestos removal company. So there's more precision, but the concept is the same. And I -- as I said, in terms of selecting the contractors and all that, we intend to work closely with PAX, the U.S. Trustee, and the committee to make sure that they're satisfied everything is going, you know, okay and that everything is appropriate. As I said before, we received no objection to this. The only point, though, Your Honor, is that I am not sure that Your Honor entered an order limiting notice. I know we filed the motion, but I was checking before coming to the hearing, but I am not sure that Your Honor entered the proposed order limiting notice. THE COURT: With regard to the hearing on this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 10 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 10 motion? MR. DESPINS: Correct. We could be wrong and happy to be wrong on that. But I -- so we did serve it according to what the limiting -- limitation on notice we were seeking from Your Honor. But my colleagues were under the impression that that order had not been entered. So if Your Honor were inclined to grant the relief we're seeking, that order, unless you've already entered it, should be entered as well. THE COURT: I see the notice of hearing on August 30. Let me go back and see if there's -- I understand. I don't see one either, so we'll take a look back at that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: Because the -- it would have been an order granting -- well, let me see. I see -- no, that's the different order. So you're right. I'm not sure if I do see anything there. Well, we'll take a look at it. I understand your point. MR. DESPINS: Okay. And on the order that's modified -- THE COURT: Because the motion was -- the motion to limit notice was 2114. MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: And I'm not sure I see an order that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 11 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 11 relates to that, but we'll take a look at that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. And in the order, again, that's attached to the supplement filed at Docket 2183, the marked-to-show-changes version, we've added a provision at the request of the U.S. Trustee saying nothing in this order shall approve the retention and/or compensation of any attorneys. That's understood. And we -- then the other changes we made is just to mention the name of these entities so we can show that to them to say you see the Court approved the -- your retention -- THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. DESPINS: -- so they feel comfortable with that. And also we need to put the date of the order today, again if Your Honor were inclined to grant the relief sought. THE COURT: Yeah. And I think what happened with 2114 is that we had a status conference on 2113 and 2114, because it originally was -- the motion that is on today's calendar, 2113, was filed under the contested matter -- MR. DESPINS: Right. THE COURT: -- procedure. But it appeared that it needed attention in a much more expedited manner. And so we set for status conference 2113 and 2114, which is the motion to limit notice. MR. DESPINS: I should have raised 2114 at that -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 12 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 12 THE COURT: Yeah. And -- MR. DESPINS: -- at that status conference (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: Right. Well, I think we talked about it a little bit, but I don't know -- I don't remember what we said. So I can't tell you anything about that until -- unless I listen to what we said or have a -- I don't have to listen. I think someone's already ordered a transcript. But in any event, I understand your point. It does appear from a review of the docket sitting here that there is not an order limiting notice, granting that motion to limit. But I was inclined to do that, so I would be surprised if there would not be an order entered granting that. I think it was just that we talked about it during the status conference and then didn't have an order enter afterwards, unfortunately. But, I mean, it's not a problem, actually, because we can just do that. And I do see -- you know, the status conference was held, so -- and a transcript was requested. So I'll be able to figure that out. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. So that -- in terms of our presentation, that would complete that, Your Honor, unless you have -- THE COURT: No. So -- MR. DESPINS: -- additional questions.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 13 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 13 THE COURT: So my questions are -- they're not substantial. But I understand and I agree that you should be able to -- you as the trustee of the estate -- or you as the debtor in possession of Genever should be able to go forward and try to remediate the problems in the apartment and the get the apartment in a condition to sell. I mean, that's what you're trying to do, obviously. And I agree that you shouldn't have to come back for every entity that you need to use to accomplish that goal. You have to use your professional judgment. You're bound by that. And you're doing that. And in this situation, you've asked for specific people to be -- and I looked -- I, you know, pulled up your supplement -- to be noted in the order, and I think that's fine. I don't think that's a problem. But I also agree that it doesn't limit you to those parties, that you have to do what you have to do in order to have the apartment be in a better condition than it's in now. And I understand the timing that you've said that you think it will take to accomplish the goal of getting the apartment into a position that will never be the -- necessarily the same that it was but in a position for you to be able to address it as an asset of the estate in some way, shape, or form. So I think that's fine. I don't have any questions.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 14 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>14                        |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Except for this.<br>You said the PAX, Sherry                  |\n| 2  | Netherland, the U.S. Trustee, and the committee are all       |\n| 3  | going to be --                                                |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Consulting parties.                           |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>-- consulting parties, right?<br>Right.         |\n| 6  | Those are all the parties.<br>I didn't miss anyone, did I?    |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>The only one is -- I'm not sure that          |\n| 8  | The Sherry Netherland is.<br>But they -- if they're not, they |\n| 9  | practically are, meaning I need to look at the --             |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>They may not be defined as a           |\n| 11 | consent party, but you're still --                            |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>But -- yeah.                                  |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>-- you still have to work with them.            |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>They're consulting parties --                 |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                          |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- not consent parties.<br>But I -- in        |\n| 17 | any event, they are practically consulting parties, because   |\n| 18 | we don't -- we can't do anything in there without their       |\n| 19 | involvement.<br>And they're involved at every stage, so it's  |\n| 20 | whatever the -- and I'm trying to find the --                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>The consultation parties are --                 |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>PAX, the committee, the U.S. --               |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>-- PAX, the committee, the U.S.                 |\n| 24 | Trustee, and The Sherry Netherland.                           |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Then -- good.                                 |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 15 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 15 THE COURT: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: Exactly. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. So I don't have any problem with proceeding in the way that you're proceeding. In some respects, you know, people could say that -- people -- you could make an argument, but I -- I'm not sure I would, but I think you could make an argument that you could do this without court order. But you now have put everybody on notice, and they have been served, although we -- the limiting of the service is -- under the circumstances of this case, we have been limiting service -- notice and service on certain parties that either electronically file, have consented to electronic notice and service, have filed appearances, are parties involved, or parties listed on a list. So I have no problem with that. Everyone is on notice of what's happening, including the individual debtor. And I've seen no objection, no written objections, and there's no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting as far as I know. I will ask if anyone else wishes to be heard. But I think that it's correct that Genever U.S. should be authorized and empowered to take the actions necessary to effectuate the relief that you seek in the motion and in the supplement.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 16 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 16 So does anyone else wish to be heard in connection with the motion to obtain services necessary to remediate areas of The Sherry Netherland Apartment? MS. MAYHEW: Yes, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew for the creditors' committee. Just for the record, we wanted to note that we do support the motion. The Chapter 11 trustee was gracious enough to share with us a draft of the motion in advance, and we had an opportunity to review that. We did have some concerns regarding payments to subcontractors and the sharing of costs between the estate and The Sherry Netherland. But they have been satisfactorily addressed and in the supplement. So we do support the motion and just wanted to note that for the record. THE COURT: Thank you very much. MS. MAYHEW: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: The U.S. Trustee has no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'm just looking at this order that was a little bit -- was revised a little bit from the original order. Nothing -- there's no -- there is -- there are no provisions in the order that concern me. The only thing we'd have to do, turning to the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 17 courtroom deputy, is add the hearing date on page 2 of the proposed order. There's just a blank for today's hearing date. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: So for all those reasons, Trustee Despins, your motion is granted, and the proposed order that has been revised that's in Docket Number 2183 can enter. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Good luck with that, obviously. Are there any other matters we need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, I should have started -- just I was looking at my notes -- should have started with this. In this case, you know, it shouldn't be a surprise, but I did receive a call from The Sherry Netherland on Tuesday of last week saying that there was a big storm in New York on Monday, not this Monday, the Monday a week ago, and there was water that was on the terrace at the 18th floor. The drains were clogged somehow. Water, because it overflowed, went down below. So the first apartment is the one that was destroyed because of the fire, of the -- so apparently the damages there are -- I don't want to qualify them, but Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 17 of 24\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 18 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>18                        |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | they're not huge.<br>But it went down below further.<br>And   |\n| 2  | there, apparently some artwork was affected by this.<br>So    |\n| 3  | there is another claim at The Sherry Netherland, so I --      |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 5  | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- should have mentioned that at the          |\n| 6  | outset.<br>I forgot.                                          |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>So how do you anticipate that's going           |\n| 8  | to be handled?                                                |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, I made a claim with AIG,                |\n| 10 | and --                                                        |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- we'll see how that plays out.              |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That's fine.<br>That's what       |\n| 14 | I thought you were saying, but I just wanted to be clear      |\n| 15 | with that.                                                    |\n| 16 | I'm trying to think.<br>I feel like there were some           |\n| 17 | other things that -- yeah, that I wanted to address.<br>And   |\n| 18 | there's -- yeah, there's some outstanding -- there was an     |\n| 19 | outstanding motion in the -- one of the adversaries to        |\n| 20 | compel compliance with the preliminary injunction.<br>You had |\n| 21 | filed that some time ago.<br>And it's just -- there's a few   |\n| 22 | outstanding things that I think that are really either moot   |\n| 23 | or have been withdrawn.                                       |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Which adversary proceeding was that,          |\n| 25 | Your Honor?                                                   |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 19 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>19                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>32, 5032.                                      |\n| 2  | MR. LINSEY:<br>The demonstration one.                        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                          |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Oh.                                          |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>The demonstration --                           |\n| 6  | MR. LINSEY:<br>The PAX demonstration one.                    |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Frankly --                                   |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Well, just -- I think that --                  |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- that's off my radar screen --             |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>I think it's almost moot, quite                |\n| 11 | frankly, but --                                              |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Because it's on appeal now.                  |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Well, not only that.<br>I just         |\n| 14 | don't think it -- I think it's moot.                         |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                        |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay?<br>And then but we need to -- if         |\n| 17 | there's some issue, you'll have to raise that.               |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yeah.<br>We'll go back to the office         |\n| 19 | and look at that, Your Honor.                                |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>And then on 23-5013, give me a moment.         |\n| 21 | I want to look at that one, because there was something in   |\n| 22 | particular about that.<br>I just need to look at the docket. |\n| 23 | So that's involving G Club?                                  |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>This discovery?<br>Yes.                      |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Yes.                                          |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 20 of 24\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>20                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                               |\n| 2  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Is this regarding the G Club                    |\n| 3  | confidentiality?<br>Yeah.<br>We are looking into that as well, |\n| 4  | Your Honor.<br>We have had questions.<br>My understanding was  |\n| 5  | that it was G Club's responsibility to file a response.<br>So  |\n| 6  | I think -- so there are inquiries that are being --            |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>But I don't think they did.                      |\n| 8  | MR. LINSEY:<br>That's correct.<br>So my -- the last            |\n| 9  | that I heard --                                                |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Well, let me put it the other way.               |\n| 11 | Let me put it in the affirmative.<br>They did not file a       |\n| 12 | response on the deadline that they were supposed to file a     |\n| 13 | response.<br>And we had counsel here on several occasions      |\n| 14 | talking about those confidentiality issues.<br>And they were   |\n| 15 | required -- my recollection is, in that adversary they were    |\n| 16 | required to file a response.<br>And the date went by, and they |\n| 17 | didn't file anything.                                          |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:<br>That's my understanding, Your -- as             |\n| 19 | well, Your Honor.<br>And I believe that someone was going to   |\n| 20 | reach out to them was the last that I had heard a couple       |\n| 21 | days ago on this.<br>But there were people on our team who     |\n| 22 | were asking questions about that as well, and we had the       |\n| 23 | same understanding.                                            |\n| 24 | The only thing I will say, Your Honor, is -- and I             |\n| 25 | just -- this is in the interest of full disclosure.<br>I don't |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 21 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 21 believe they're a party to the adversary proceeding. So that was the only reason that we were going to reach out to them and give -- you know, that was the -- rather than filing something in the form of a default -- THE COURT: Well, there was an issue about -- remember, you were arguing that they had waived their right -- MR. DESPINS: That's correct. THE COURT: -- to any privilege and that no right or -- to object or responsiveness as to the G Club documents turned over could be asserted by them. MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So I don't know where that stands. I don't know if you need an order that says that. I don't know. But all I know is that there was a deadline. Counsel asked for a deadline. She was here. I recall it. She asked for a deadline. And it was set. And nothing was filed. MR. LINSEY: I think it should have been -- THE COURT: I think we -- MR. LINSEY: Yeah. THE COURT: I think we, you know, issued rulings with regard to everybody but G Club in that context. So all I'm saying is if there's something that needs to be done,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 22 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 22 you have to let us know. MR. DESPINS: We'll verify and file some kind of report of trustee with respect to, you know, this matter. MR. LINSEY: And I'm not excusing the missed deadline. I just wanted to make sure the Court had all information -- THE COURT: No. I'm not excusing the missed deadline either. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. THE COURT: I am just stating that there were already orders entered, and they were carved out of that order, essentially, because they asked to be and because we were going to provide them -- and we did provide a timeline. And they didn't file anything by that timeline. It wasn't a timeline. It was a deadline. It was a so-ordered deadline. They didn't do anything. So whether you need anything or not, I have no idea. But if you do, you'll have to file something in that adversary proceeding. Okay? MR. LINSEY: We'll do that, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, I'm not studying it to the extent to know whether or not you actually need anything at this moment. I just know it's an outstanding issue as far as prior rulings and essentially carving out that entity in connection with those issues in that adversary proceeding.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 23 of 24\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 23 Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Is there anything further this afternoon? MR. LINSEY: There was just one other item which is -- I've gotten some internal nudges about and I believe is under the Court's consideration, which is the sixth 2004 exam motion -- THE COURT: Yes, it is -- MR. LINSEY: -- number 279 -- THE COURT: -- under the Court's consideration. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And it -- I would bet that there will be some -- something issued in the next day or so. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Appreciate that. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything further this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then that concludes today's -- all the matters on today's calendar, so Court is adjourned. Thank you, all. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>24                     |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | adjourned.                                                 |\n| 2  | (Proceedings concluded at 2:44 p.m.)                       |\n| 3  |                                                            |\n| 4  |                                                            |\n| 5  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court             |\n| 6  | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a  |\n| 7  | correct transcript from the official electronic sound      |\n| 8  | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 9  |                                                            |\n| 10 |                                                            |\n| 11 |                                                            |\n| 12 | September 26, 2023                                         |\n| 13 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |\n| 14 |                                                            |\n| 15 |                                                            |\n| 16 |                                                            |\n| 17 |                                                            |\n| 18 |                                                            |\n| 19 |                                                            |\n| 20 |                                                            |\n| 21 |                                                            |\n| 22 |                                                            |\n| 23 |                                                            |\n| 24 |                                                            |\n| 25 |                                                            |\n|    |                                                            |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）和 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），\n*\n债务人。\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\n布里奇波特，康涅狄格州\n2023年9月19日\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n\n庭审记录\n\n关于准许 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）取得修复 THE SHERRY NETHERLAND（谢里·荷兰人公寓）中受 2023年3月15日火灾影响区域所必需服务的命令之动议\n\n尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官阁下\n美国联邦破产法院法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\nChapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·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 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西，律师）\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师）\nOffice of U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, CT 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nKRISTEN B. MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·B·梅休，律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 3 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日 3\n\n（庭审于下午2时16分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：法庭书记员已经宣读本案，因此请各方为记录在案而报明身份，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），代表受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew（克里斯汀·梅休），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。好的。今日排期审理的这宗第11章案件中，有一项动议，请求就债务人 Genever Holdings, LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）取得有关修复 The Sherry Netherland（谢里·荷兰人公寓）区域所必需服务的命令。我尚未看到任何针对贵方动议的书面异议，Despins受托人。我说得对吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日 4\n\nDESPINS先生：您说得对。我们不知道有任何异议。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么，您今天下午希望如何进行？\n\nDESPINS先生：作简短陈述。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。请开始。\n\nDESPINS先生：我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。因此，这是我上周在 DIP 融资听证会上预告的修复动议，因为 DIP 融资中的大量资金将用于该程序。法官阁下，我们已将其作为案卷编号 2113 提交。如同我上周所述，这实际上是一个复杂程序，目的是使该公寓恢复至一种状态，虽然不是其在3月14日时的原有状态，但将使其处于可以出售的状态。他们称之为“白盒化”。而白盒化涉及受火灾影响的公寓28%部分——说“白盒化”听起来很简单，但实际不止如此。有许多结构性项目被\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 4 页，共 24 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 5 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日\n\n毁坏，包括电气、管道等。因此，我将尽可能简要地说明，因为动议确实对此作了说明。我们于9月8日作为案卷编号 2183 提交的补充材料也讨论了这一点。\n\n但是，实质上，有几项工作流程需要进行。第一项与石棉有关。显然，火灾暴露出在三个不同位置存在石棉，涉及管道、给排水设施、加热器附近，以及墙体上喷涂作为某种阻燃剂的石棉。\n\n因此，所有这些首先都需要进行调查。并且需要从市建筑部门取得许可证。这受到严格监管。\n\n因此，我们必须聘用一家石棉勘测公司，这与石棉清除公司不同。该程序的大部分已经完成。勘测员去采集了一些样本。他们编制了一份报告。他们即将能够向纽约市建筑局中处理石棉事务的部门提交许可证申请。\n\n但是，由于我们正在寻求一项豁免——我稍后会解释原因——在取得许可证之前将需要四至五周时间。在此期间，不能进行任何其他工作。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 6 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日 6\n\n那么，我们为什么寻求豁免？因为这项工作不会在完全密封的环境中完成，因为必须从墙体上清除部分石棉。必须在四周设置类似浴帘的围挡，但必须能够接近墙体以清除该区域。这需要一项豁免。在该过程中，还需要由勘测员进行空气监测，等等，等等。因此，该程序将需要数周时间来取得许可证并实际开展工作。该勘测和清除程序的总价约为 $75,000，其中涉及给排水和电气工作，因为在石棉清除完成后，部分项目需要断开并重新连接。这是一大笔钱。\n\n在此之后，但也在此期间，建筑师 Acheson（艾奇森）一直在编制一份报告，即状况报告。基本上，该状况报告是一份现状报告，说明有以下23个项目需要修复。我们刚在周五收到该报告。该报告超过一百页。基本上，这是承包商提交投标报价的蓝图，因为他们现在会准确知道需要修复什么。它也是建筑师本人编制处理这些不同问题的方案的蓝图。该报告和方案是\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 7 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日 7\n\n取得投标报价所必需的。如我们在此所述，我们承诺取得或寻求至少三家不同公司的报价，以便形成竞争性招标程序。\n\n我坦率地说，法官阁下。在该动议中，我们请求法院给予一些灵活性，因为，您知道，对此可能存在一种过于技术性的看法，即我们应当就水管工、电工、勘测员、石棉清除以及投标报价分别返回法院申请。问题在于，如果这样做，会极大延误我们。因此，我们请求法院认可一项程序，顺便说，该程序将涉及美国受托人、PAX（帕克斯）和债权人委员会。他们将是协商方。因此，我们不会在不与这些各方审查报价和程序的情况下自行进行任何此类工作。\n\n但是，我们请求法院批准此事，而无须我们就其各个部分分别返回法院，因为否则将耗费数月时间。它本来就将耗费数月时间。法官阁下，这项工作至少要到3月才能完成。\n\n我还想说，我们与 The Sherry Netherland（谢里·荷兰人公寓）的关系一直非常好。他们一直非常支持。我们之间存在一些需要解决的问题。这些是分担责任问题。因为，如您所知，在合作公寓中，他们拥有墙体和外部结构。其中一些已经受损。这是他们的责任。我们拥有内部部分。但实际情况更为复杂，意思是——我举一个例子。如果该公寓的窗户是原有窗户，则由 The Sherry Netherland（谢里·荷兰人公寓）负责。如果窗户被更换过，则由业主负责。恰好这些窗户被更换过，因此处理此类事项是我们的责任。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日 8\n\n因此，有许多变动因素，但到目前为止，我们与 The Sherry Netherland（谢里·荷兰人公寓）的合作——我想说，祈愿如此——一直非常顺利，以确保责任分担适当，确保这不会成为对 Genever（吉尼弗）或受托人的搭便车，因为受托人正在为此提供资金。因此，该程序进展得非常顺利。\n\n但是，您知道，我在这一行业中一贯学到的是，少作承诺，多交成果。在此，如果这项工作能在3月前完成，我会感到震惊，也就是说，一切都必须非常、非常顺利地就位。这是一栋工会大楼，因此也适用一些规则。这不像在康涅狄格州格林尼治的一块地上建造房屋。情况非常、非常不同。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 8 页，共 24 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 9 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日 9\n\n因此，我们已在动议和补充材料中作出说明——我应当谈谈补充材料，因为我们已增加许多有关额外项目的细节。在案卷编号 2183 的36页中自第32页开始，有一份标记显示的变更令，显示了各项变更。\n\n我们所做的，实际上，是更为具体。因为此前在动议中，我们说法院批准需要完成的所有工作。现在我们说，您批准第三方服务，包括 GBTS（吉布茨）。那是勘测员。GEM（杰姆）。那是电工。Breslaw（布雷斯劳）是水管工。ABF（艾比埃夫）是石棉清除公司。因此更加精确，但概念是相同的。\n\n而且，我——如我所说，就选择承包商及诸如此类的事项而言，我们打算与 PAX（帕克斯）、美国受托人和委员会密切合作，以确保他们满意一切都在——您知道——正常进行，并且一切均属适当。\n\n如我之前所说，我们没有收到对此的异议。不过，法官阁下，唯一的问题是，我不确定法官阁下是否已作出限制通知的命令。我知道我们提交了该动议，但我在来参加听证会之前进行了查看，但我不确定法官阁下是否已作出拟议的限制通知命令。\n\n法庭：关于本动议的听证会？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 10 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年9月19日 10\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。我们可能错了，也很乐意是我们错了。但是，我——所以，我们确实按照我们向法官阁下请求的通知限制进行了送达。但我的同事认为该命令尚未作出。因此，如果法官阁下倾向于准许我们请求的救济，那么，除非您已经作出该命令，否则也应作出该命令。\n\n法庭：我看到8月30日的听证通知。让我回去看看是否有——我明白。我也没有看到一份，因此我们会回头查看。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。\n\n法庭：因为——那本应是一项准许——嗯，让我看看。我看到——不，那是另一项命令。因此，您是对的。我不确定我是否看到那里有任何内容。好，我们会查看。我理解您的意思。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。关于已修改的命令——\n\n法庭：因为动议是——限制通知的动议是 2114。\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\n法庭：我不确定我看到有一项命令\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2232 提交于 09/26/23 登记于 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 11 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 11 与此有关，但我们会对此进行审阅。DESPINS 律师：好的。而且在该命令中，再次说明，该命令附于案卷编号 2183 所提交的补充文件，即标示修订内容的版本，我们应美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的要求增加了一项规定，即本命令中的任何内容均不应批准聘任和／或支付任何律师的报酬。这一点可以理解。然后，我们所作的其他修改只是提及这些实体的名称，以便我们可以向他们出示该命令，并说，你们看，法院批准了——对你们的聘任——法院：嗯。DESPINS 律师：——这样他们对此会感到安心。另外，如果阁下倾向于准予所请求的救济，我们还需要在该命令上填写今天的日期。法院：是的。我认为，关于 2114 所发生的情况是，我们就 2113 和 2114 举行了一次状态会议，因为最初——今天日程中列出的动议，即 2113，是依照争议事项程序提交的——DESPINS 律师：对。法院：——程序。但是，该事项似乎需要以更为紧急的方式得到处理。因此，我们安排就 2113 和 2114 举行状态会议，2114 是限制通知的动议。DESPINS 律师：我本应在那时提出 2114——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 12 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 12 法院：是的。并且——DESPINS 律师：——在那次状态会议上（听不清）——法院：对。嗯，我认为我们确实稍微谈过此事，但我不知道——我不记得我们说了什么。因此，在我听取我们所说的内容之前——或者除非我听取——我无法就此告诉你任何情况。我不必听取。我认为已经有人订购了庭审记录。不过无论如何，我理解你的观点。根据我目前对案卷的审阅，似乎确实不存在一项限制通知、准予该限制动议的命令。但我当时倾向于作出该决定，因此如果没有一项准予该动议的命令录入，我会感到意外。我认为只是我们在状态会议期间谈到了此事，但不幸的是，之后没有录入命令。不过，实际上这不是问题，因为我们现在可以这样做。而且我看到——你知道，状态会议已经举行，因此——并且已申请庭审记录。因此，我将能够弄清楚这一点。DESPINS 律师：谢谢阁下。因此，除非阁下还有——法院：没有。因此——DESPINS 律师：——其他问题，就我们陈述而言，这就完成了，阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 13 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 13 法院：因此，我的问题是——并不重大。但我理解并同意，你们应当能够——你作为遗产受托人——或者你作为 Genever（吉尼弗）的占有中的债务人，应当能够继续处理公寓中的问题，并使该公寓达到可以出售的状态。我的意思是，这显然就是你们想要做的事。我也同意，你们不应当为了实现该目标所需要使用的每一个实体都回来申请。你们必须运用专业判断。你们受此约束。你们正在这样做。而且在本案中，你们请求将具体人员——我看过——我调出了你们的补充文件——列入命令中，我认为这没有问题。我不认为这是个问题。但我也同意，这并不将你们限制于这些当事方；为了使该公寓的状况好于目前，你们必须做需要做的事情。我理解你们所说的、认为实现使该公寓达到一种状态这一目标所需的时间；该状态未必会与其原先的状态相同，但将使你们能够以某种方式将其作为遗产资产来处理。因此，我认为这没有问题。我没有任何问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 14 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023\n\n法院：除了这一点。你说 PAX、The Sherry Netherland（雪莉荷兰人酒店）、美国受托人和委员会都将是——DESPINS 律师：协商方。法院：——协商方，对吗？DESPINS 律师：对。法院：这些就是所有当事方。我没有遗漏任何人，对吗？DESPINS 律师：唯一的问题是——我不确定 The Sherry Netherland 是否属于。但即使不是，实际上也属于，意思是我需要查看——法院：是。他们可能未被界定为同意方，但你们仍然——DESPINS 律师：但是——是。法院：——你们仍必须与他们合作。DESPINS 律师：他们是协商方——法院：对。DESPINS 律师：——不是同意方。但无论如何，他们实际上是协商方，因为没有他们的参与，我们在那里什么也做不了。他们参与每一个阶段，所以无论——而我正在寻找——法院：协商方是——DESPINS 律师：PAX、委员会、美国——法院：——PAX、委员会、美国受托人和 The Sherry Netherland。DESPINS 律师：那么——好。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 15 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 15 法院：是。DESPINS 律师：正是如此。好的。法院：好的。因此，我对你们目前进行的方式没有任何异议。在某些方面，你知道，人们可以说——人们——你们可以提出一种论点，但我——我不确定我会这样做，但我认为你们可以提出一种论点，即你们无需法院命令即可这样做。但现在你们已经向所有人发出通知，并且已向他们送达，尽管我们——限制送达——在本案情形下，我们一直在限制向某些当事方进行的送达——通知及送达；这些当事方要么以电子方式提交文件，要么已同意电子通知及送达，要么已提交出庭通知，要么是参与其中的当事方，或者是列于名单中的当事方。因此，我对此没有任何问题。包括个人债务人在内的所有人均已知悉正在发生的情况。而且我没有看到任何异议、任何书面异议，据我所知，今天没有参与本次听证的任何人提出异议。我将询问是否还有其他人希望发言。但我认为，Genever U.S.（吉尼弗美国）应获授权并被赋权采取必要行动，以实现你们在动议及补充文件中所请求的救济，这是正确的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 16 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 16 因此，还有其他人希望就为整修 The Sherry Netherland 公寓相关区域而取得必要服务的动议发言吗？MAYHEW 律师：是的，阁下。Kristin Mayhew（克里斯汀·梅休）代表债权人委员会。为记录起见，我们想指出，我们支持该动议。第 11 章受托人慷慨地预先与我们分享了该动议的草案，我们有机会对此进行审阅。我们确实对向分包商付款以及遗产与 The Sherry Netherland 之间分摊费用存在一些关切。但这些问题已在补充文件中得到令人满意的解决。因此，我们支持该动议，只是希望为记录起见说明这一点。法院：非常感谢。MAYHEW 律师：谢谢。法院：Claiborn 律师？CLAIBORN 律师：美国受托人没有异议，阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。我正在看这项命令，它与原始命令相比略作了修订。没有——没有——该命令中没有任何令我关切的规定。我们唯一必须做的事，是请书记员在拟议命令第 2 页上添加听证日期。今天的听证日期处仍为空白。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 17 法庭书记员：好的。法院：因此，基于上述所有理由，Despins 受托人，你的动议获准，案卷编号 2183 中经修订的拟议命令可以录入。好吗？DESPINS 律师：谢谢阁下。法院：好的。显然，祝你们处理此事顺利。今天下午还有其他我们需要处理的事项吗？DESPINS 律师：实际上，阁下，我本应一开始——我刚才在看我的笔记——就从这个开始。在本案中，你知道，这不应令人意外，但我于上周星期二接到 The Sherry Netherland 的电话，说纽约上周一发生了一场大暴雨，不是本周一，而是一周前的周一，18 层露台上有积水。排水管不知何故堵塞了。水因溢出而流到下面。因此，第一套公寓是因火灾而被毁的那套公寓——因此，显然那里的损失——我不想对其作出定性，但是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 17 页，共 24 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 18 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 他们并不巨大。但水进一步流到了下面。并且，显然有些艺术品受到此事影响。因此，The Sherry Netherland 方面又有一项索赔，所以我——法院：好的。DESPINS 律师：——本应在一开始提到这一点。我忘记了。法院：那么你预计将如何处理？DESPINS 律师：嗯，我已向 AIG（美国国际集团）提出索赔，并且——法院：好的。DESPINS 律师：——我们将看看事态如何发展。法院：好的。没问题。这就是我以为你所说的意思，但我只是想明确这一点。我在想。我觉得还有一些其他事情——是的，我想处理。并且，有——是的，有一些尚未处理的事项——在其中一个对抗程序中，有一项要求遵守初步禁令的未决动议。你们此前已提交该动议。有一些尚未处理的事项，我认为实际上要么已无实际意义，要么已被撤回。DESPINS 律师：那是哪个对抗程序，阁下？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 19 页，共 24 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 19, 2023 法院：32，5032。LINSEY 律师：示威活动的那个。法院：是。DESPINS 律师：哦。法院：示威活动——LINSEY 律师：PAX 示威活动的那个。DESPINS 律师：坦率地说——法院：嗯，只是——我认为——DESPINS 律师：——那不在我目前关注范围内——法院：坦率地说，我认为它几乎已无实际意义，但是——DESPINS 律师：因为它现在正在上诉。法院：是。嗯，不仅如此。我只是认为它——我认为它已无实际意义。DESPINS 律师：好的。法院：好吗？然后，但我们需要——如果存在某些问题，你们将必须提出。DESPINS 律师：是。我们会回办公室查看一下，阁下。法院：然后，关于 23-5013，请给我一点时间。我想查看那个，因为其中有某个特别事项。我只需要查看案卷。因此，那涉及 G Club（G 俱乐部）吗？DESPINS 律师：这项证据开示？是。LINSEY 律师：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2232 提交 09/26/23 录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 20 页，共 24 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- September 19, 2023\n\n德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n林赛先生（MR. LINSEY）：\n这是关于 G Club（G俱乐部）保密性的问题吗？是的。我们也在调查此事，法官阁下。我们一直有一些疑问。我的理解是，应由 G Club 负责提交答复。因此，我认为——也就是说，目前正在进行相关查询——\n\n法庭：\n但我认为他们没有提交。\n\n林赛先生：\n这是正确的。因此，我——我最后听说的是——\n\n法庭：\n那么，让我换一种说法。让我作肯定表述。他们未在应当提交答复的截止日期提交答复。我们曾多次有律师到庭讨论这些保密性问题。并且他们被要求——我的记忆是，在该对抗程序中，他们被要求提交答复。日期已经过去，而他们什么也没有提交。\n\n林赛先生：\n据我了解也是如此，法官阁下。我相信，我几天前最后听说的是，有人将联系他们处理此事。但我们团队中也有人在询问此事，我们的理解也是相同的。\n\n我唯一要说的是，法官阁下——而且我只是——这是为了充分披露。我不相信他们是该对抗程序的当事方。因此，这就是我们本打算联系他们并给予——您知道，这就是——而不是以缺席的形式提交某种文件的唯一原因——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2232 已提交 09/26/23 已录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 21 页，共 24 页\n\n法庭：\n嗯，曾有一个问题——记得吗，你们曾主张他们已经放弃了其权利——\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n这是正确的。\n\n法庭：\n——放弃任何特权，以及他们不能就已移交的 G Club 文件主张提出异议或回应性的任何权利。\n\n林赛先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n因此，我不知道此事目前处于何种状态。我不知道你们是否需要一项如此说明的命令。我不知道。但我所知道的是，曾有一个截止日期。律师要求一个截止日期。她到庭了。我记得。她要求一个截止日期。并且该日期已经确定。但没有提交任何文件。\n\n林赛先生：\n我认为本应当——\n\n法庭：\n我认为我们——\n\n林赛先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n我认为我们，您知道，在该情形下就除 G Club 以外的所有人作出了裁定。因此，我只想说，如果有任何需要采取的行动——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2232 已提交 09/26/23 已录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 22 页，共 24 页\n\n——你们必须告知我们。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n我们将核实，并就此事提交某种受托人报告。\n\n林赛先生：\n我并不是在为错过截止日期辩解。我只是想确保法庭掌握所有信息——\n\n法庭：\n不。我也不是在为错过截止日期辩解。\n\n林赛先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n我只是说明，先前已有命令录入，而他们实质上被排除在该命令之外，因为他们提出了请求，并且因为我们将为他们提供——而我们确实提供了一个时间安排。可是他们没有在该时间安排内提交任何文件。那不是时间安排。那是截止日期。那是经法庭命令确认的截止日期。他们什么也没有做。因此，你们是否需要任何文件，我毫无头绪。但如果需要，你们将必须在该对抗程序中提交某种文件。明白吗？\n\n林赛先生：\n我们会这样做，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n我的意思是，我并未研究到足以了解你们此刻实际上是否需要任何文件的程度。我只知道，就先前裁定以及在该对抗程序中与那些问题相关而实质上排除该实体而言，这是一个尚未解决的问题。明白吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2232 已提交 09/26/23 已录入 09/26/23 15:28:59 第 23 页，共 24 页\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。今天下午还有其他事项吗？\n\n林赛先生：\n还有一项事项，即我收到了一些内部提醒，而且我相信法庭正在审议，即第六项 2004 审查动议——\n\n法庭：\n是，正在——\n\n林赛先生：\n——编号 279——\n\n法庭：\n——由法庭审议中。\n\n林赛先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n而且——我估计在未来一两天内将会发布某种文件。\n\n林赛先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。感谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好的。谢谢。今天下午还有其他事项吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，今日议程上的所有事项至此结束，现休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。\n\n身份不明者：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：\n全体起立。法庭现——\n\n郭文贵 - September 19, 2023\n\n休庭。\n\n（程序于 2:44 p.m. 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员兼誊录员，特此证明，上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确誊本。\n\nSeptember 26, 2023\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Luc Despins","CIPA","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5626,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:52:37"}