{"id":"court_ctb_2479_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2479,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-12-28","title":"| | UNITED STATES B","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In Re | *
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | *
*
* |\n| Debtors. | *
* |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE, | *
Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008
*
* |\n| Plaintiff, | * |\n| v.
MEI GUO, | *
*
Bridgeport, Connecticut
*
December 19, 2023
* |\n| Defendant.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | *
* |\n| #2429 CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE
#
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING
APPEARANCES: | 67 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE |\n| For the Chapter 11 Trustee: | NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.
AVI LUFT, ESQ.
Paul Hastings LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY
10166
PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. |\n| | Neubert Pepe and Monteith
195 Church Street,13th Floor
New Haven, CT
06510 |\n| Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,
transcript produced by transcription service. | |\n| | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
Shelton, CT 06484 (203)732-6461 |\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: KRISTIN B. MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditor, Pacific STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Plaintiff, MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ. HK International Funds and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 For the debtor and JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. the defendant, Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th FL Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 3 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 2:12 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and adversary no. 23-05008, Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee vs. Guo. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. I'm joined by my colleague Avi Luft, also from Paul Hastings. And Your Honor I wanted to note that the Chapter 11 trustee sends his apologies. He knows that the court tried to accommodate his schedule today by scheduling a status conference at 2 o'clock. He ended up getting stuck with a flight delay, so he's unable to join us but did send his apologies to the court. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, of Neubert Pepe and Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I don't expect to be speaking, but it's Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of creditor PAX in the main case.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 4 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 4 THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Like Mr. Sarnoff I represent PAX and do not anticipate to be speaking today, but this is Annecca Smith, at Robinson and Cole, Connecticut counsel for PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman and Comley, on behalf of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. WERNICK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Melissa Wernick, from CSG Law, on behalf of Mei Guo in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: And James Moriarty, from Zeisler and Zeisler, also on behalf of Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Aren't you appearing on behalf of the debtor in the main case, Mr. Moriarty, as well. MR. MORIARTY: My understanding, Your Honor, is that really all that we're talking about is a TRO that's pending in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Well, that's not the only thing we're talking about. We were talking about the TRO and the -- we're also talking about -- I thought we were talking about the issue about the evidence we were supposed to be talking\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 5 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 5 about today, and the issue -- I don't know where Mr. -- well, he's not here so maybe there's some agreement with Mr. Conway, who was here yesterday, with regard to the Mahwah mansion and the issues related to the storage units. MR. MORIARTY: I'll note my appearance for the debtor also, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Bassett, I don't know if you are proceeding first but I'd like to know if you can report to the court where things stand on the issues that we discussed yesterday, to which there was no resolution because they have just come up. But it was the issue about the temporary restraining order that was filed and the issue -- well, anyway, I'll just let you talk. Why don't you go ahead and talk, Attorney Bassett. MR. BASSETT: Of course, Your Honor. Happy to address those issues. So first, the TRO related to the Mei Guo adversary proceedings, I'll actually let Attorney Linsey address that in a moment, but to sort of steal his thunder I do think we are in the process of reaching an agreement on language that would resolve that order on consent. But again, I'll let Attorney Linsey give the court a bit more detail in a moment.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 6 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 6 The other motion before the court today for the status conference, of course, is the motion we filed for the preservation of evidence located at certain storage facilities in New Jersey. As the court noted, I was not there in person yesterday, but I understand, based on my conversations with Attorney Linsey and the trustee that Mr. Conway, as the court pointed out, was in attendance. I had expected him to be here again today. What I can say is that based on our conversations with him our understanding is that his clients, the defendants, do not have an issue with the relief that the trustee is seeking in the preservation order, so long as Mr. Conway is able to attend the inspection of these storage units at the same time that the trustee undertakes his inspection, which we intend on being this Friday. The trustee has no objection to that request and, therefore, our understanding is that that would resolve any potential objection by the defendants to the relief that the trustee is seeking. That leaves Your Honor two other parties. So we have served -- there's the subpoenaed parties. So we have served subpoenas for the inspection of these storage units on both the storage unit itself. And the storage unit itself, the storage company, is a company by the name of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 7 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 7 Arredondo and Company, LLC, which is doing business as Westy Storage. There's that company on whom we served a subpoena and then we've also served a subpoena on the entity that we understand to be the tenant who is leasing these storage units. And that's an entity named HGA Property Operations. So we've endeavored to reach out to them and have discussions prior to today's status conference. I'll detail the efforts we undertook. The bottom line is we have not made contact with them, but I do think we have completed service on both the storage company and on HGA Property Operations. Specifically, just to go briefly through the details, and we will be prepared to filed the certificate of service on the docket, but we have served the motion papers on Arredondo and Company. Again, that's the company doing business as Westy Storage. We served them through their registered agent, which is Attorney by the name of John Scagnelli, of a law firm located in New York and New Jersey. We also sent by mail a copy of the motion to -- the actual storage -- the Westy Storage Center itself. Sort of -- that's belt and suspenders. I also followed up via email and a phone call to try to get a hold of Mr. Scagnelli to see if his client would consent to this relief. I have not been able to do\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 8 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 8 that but the motion has been served. As to HGA Property Operations we also sent a copy of the motion by mail in accordance with Rule 8000 -- or Rule 7004(b)(3) to HGA Property Operations, registered agent and to its registered office. So we believe that service is complete. We have a separate issue of trying to serve the subpoenas, which we were trying to do personally, which is separate from the motion. There we are still in the process of trying to reach a person, a human who can be served with the subpoena. But we have not yet completed that effort. However, I think -- and I'm happy to answer any questions, but I do think for present purposes, you know, we have completed service of the motion on all parties. We confirmed that the defendants have no objection to the relief that the trustee is seeking and, therefore, I think the trustee is prepared to move forward on the schedule we proposed to have a hearing at which parties who want to be heard and object, if they want, can attend on Thursday, subject to the court's availability, and then we would move forward, hopefully, with executing on the subpoenas on Friday. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the issues related to the preservation of evidence and the request for a hearing being held on Thursday?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 9 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 9 (No response.) Okay. Attorney Bassett, are you then going to be submitting a revised proposed order that states what you just stated on the record? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. We're happy to submit a revised proposed order that details the efforts that the trustee has undertaken to effect service. Also happy to simply file on the docket, which we intend to do, certificates of service, or whatever the court would like. THE COURT: Well, let's think about this. You need an order setting a hearing on Thursday. And then you have to serve that order on the parties that are the subject of the subpoenas. So you need that order sooner as opposed to later, correct? MR. BASSETT: I suppose that is correct. In the motion that we filed we had indicated that we were requesting a hearing on Thursday, but I guess Your Honor's correct. The motion to expedite has not been granted and, therefore, we would need an order memorializing that, which we would serve on the parties. So yes, Your Honor, we will get that to you as soon as we can today. THE COURT: Well, let me look at the -- maybe we can -- let's just stop for one second.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 10 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 10 Maybe the way to handle it is to look at the order granting the motion to expedite the hearing first and then you file your certificates of service indicating everything you just said on the record, because you've got to give these parties some meaningful time to figure out whether they want to oppose or attend the hearing, although I actually think that -- well, I don't know. I have to look. So let's look at the motion to expedite the -- everything was filed yesterday. So we're still in the process of looking at it. And we had hearings today too, so give me a moment, please. (Pause.) All right. So I'm looking at the proposed order that scheduled and expedited hearing regarding emergency motion of Chapter 11 trustee to order preservation of evidence. (Pause.) Mr. Bassett, how -- let me ask you a question. We're having -- if we have this hearing on Thursday, are you able to tell the court with any kind of estimation as to what amount of time you think you need for this hearing? I'm asking because I need -- there are other things scheduled that day not on the calendar, but other things scheduled that day I have to attend to. So I need to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 11 of 26\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 | 11 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | know how much time you need. | |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor. | |\n| 3 | Naturally, it would depend on whether anyone | |\n| 4 | appears in the hearing to contest the motion, but I think | |\n| 5 | the relief that we're seeking is relatively straight | |\n| 6 | forward. | |\n| 7 | So even in the scenario where we had two parties | |\n| 8 | appear in opposition to the motion, I wouldn't expect we | |\n| 9 | would need more than a half hour at most to deal with it. | |\n| 10 | But, again, obviously it depends on what actually happens. | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Then what I'll do is I'll enter the | |\n| 12 | order granting the motion to expedite.
I'll set the hearing | |\n| 13 | for Thursday, the 21st, at 1:00 p.m.
And then I will set | |\n| 14 | the objection deadline to tomorrow. I'm not going to set a | |\n| 15 | specific date because you've still got to try to serve these | |\n| 16 | two other people and anybody else that you're going to | |\n| 17 | serve. | |\n| 18 | I know that the defendants don't oppose it and | |\n| 19 | that's good to know, but I think you have to give the other | |\n| 20 | people some ability to file something, if they want to. | |\n| 21 | So anyway that's what I propose to do.
Okay? | |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor.
And we'll | |\n| 23 | detail all of this in the certificates of service that we | |\n| 24 | file as well, to repeat what I said on the record today and | |\n| 25 | also even beyond what I said, we've taken even further steps | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 12 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 12 to try to give these parties notice. In particular, for the HGA property operations entity, we have the name of the registered agent for that company and for a woman by the name of Kim Lee. We sent an email to an email address we have for that person. We also even called her. And my colleague, Ms. Song, got a hold of her and had a conversation and eventually the individual hung up the phone. But she was able to talk to her and relay what we were trying to convey about the hearing. So we'll put all of that out in the affidavit that we will in support of service and we'll get that filed as soon as we can. THE COURT: I can enter the order that you're already submitted. You don't need to submit another order. So I'm turning to courtroom deputy. The proposed order for ECF 85 in adversary 23- 5017. (Pause.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: Do you have it in front of you? I just want to tell you what -- it's minor changes that we might be able to make now and have the issue -- the order issued as soon as we can when we're done so that it can be served by the plaintiff.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 13 of 26\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023
13 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
So on the second page, the third |\n| 3 | paragraph, but the second ordered paragraph on that page, it |\n| 4 | says \"Shall be held on December 21st.\"
Say 1:00 p.m., |\n| 5 | please.
Do you see where I am? |\n| 6 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Great.
And then in the |\n| 8 | paragraph below it -- tell me when you're ready.
I don't |\n| 9 | mean to rush you. |\n| 10 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
In the ordered paragraph below it it |\n| 12 | says that \"The deadline to object to the emergency motion |\n| 13 | shall be December 20 at 12:00 p.m.,\" but please delete at |\n| 14 | 12:00 p.m. |\n| 15 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 17 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
And then that order can enter. |\n| 19 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right? |\n| 21 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 23 | So Mr. Bassett, that takes care of the first issue |\n| 24 | that we were to address during this continued status |\n| 25 | conference, unless there's something else I'm missing with |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 14 regard to that matter. MR. BASSETT: I don't think so, Your Honor. Thank you very much. And for the second matter, as I indicated previously, I'll let Attorney Linsey give the court more of an update. THE COURT: Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Since the status conference yesterday counsel for the trustee has conferenced several times with counsel for the defendant. I understand, and I'll let Mr. Moriarty and Ms. Wernick confirm, that there is generally agreement by the defendant that an order may enter granting injunctive relief sought by the motion. We are currently conferencing regarding the form of that order. The Trustee's counsel received a revised form of order this afternoon from defendant's counsel. The trustee has some further revisions that we're in the process of preparing. One of the issues that we want to be -- that we want to be sure we've solved for here is that -- making sure that the remaining funds are removed from this JNFX account where they're diminishing. Our understanding right now is that there are\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 14 of 26\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 15 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 15 approximately \\$10 million in the account in some form of currency. The purchase price for the Bombardier was 13 and a half million. JNFX received a bid over 12 million in February of his year. The best information the trustee has right now is that in about ten months more than \\$1.9 million of value has diminished, whether from the assessment of fees, costs or other transactions, or market fluctuations, or whatever that have occurred, that that is the value -- you know, that's what happened to the value of whatever JNFX is holding and it's very important to the trustee to ensure that that stops and that the actual value here is preserved. So as I said, we're discussing a proposed form of order. What the trustee proposes is that the court schedule a further hearing. Trustee's counsel is available tomorrow. We're also obviously available Thursday. That in advance of -- in advance of that continued to hearing date either the parties, and by that I mean the trustee and the defendant, will submit a one form -- a consent order that the court may enter, in which case there wouldn't need to be a hearing, or there are disagreements about the form of order, then each side will file some form of order and the court can look at those and discuss with the parties at the hearing which is more appropriate, or whatever order should be entered.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 16 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 16 THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Wernick or Attorney Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, James Moriarty for the defendant, Ms. Guo. I think Attorney Linsey accurately summed up where we are. The defendant is not opposing the motion for the temporary restraining order at this point in time. It's really just trying to work out a consensual order. And if it can't do that, then move to submit competing orders to the court. I don't know that it's necessary for the court to hold a hearing to determine which order the court will enter, but if the court orders a hearing, then somebody on behalf of Ms. Guo will attend. THE COURT: Well, Ms. Guo isn't the only defendant, is she, in this adversary -- oh, in this one she is. Okay. All right. Sorry. MR. MORIARTY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So we're talking about 23- 5008. MR. MORIARTY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So say -- Attorney Moriarty, I apologize. I was confused for a moment. But you said at the end if there's a hearing Ms. Guo will attend. Is that what you said?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 17 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 17 MR. MORIARTY: No. THE COURT: Okay. What did you say? MS. MORALES: What I said was the parties will either submit a consent order or the parties will each submit a proposed order. Attorney Linsey had suggested that the court would hold a hearing, to the extent the court has questions on those competing orders, before entering an order. I said I don't know that such a hearing is necessary for the court to determine which order to enter. But if the court schedules a hearing, somebody on behalf of Ms. Guo, meaning her counsel, will appear. THE COURT: I see. Okay. Thank you. So have you exchanged language at this point or not? MR. MORIARTY: On behalf of Ms. Guo, her counsel took the proposed order that the trustee had filed yesterday, provided some comments on that proposed order to the trustee and Attorney Linsey has told me that the trustee will be providing comments to Ms. Guo's counsel's comments. THE COURT: When you say Ms. Guo's counsel, who are you talking about? It doesn't sound like you're talking about you. MR. MORIARTY: I'm talking about myself and Attorney Wernick and Attorney Vartan and Attorney Romney.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 18 So it's not just me, Your Honor but, yes, I am talking about myself. THE COURT: I just wanted to make sure that we're talking -- okay. That's fine. (Pause.) I'm thinking about what you've all just said, okay. So Attorney Linsey, what's your time frame on getting back to the lawyers; Attorney Moriarty, Attorney Wernick, Attorney Vartan and who else did you say? Oh, Attorney Romney. MR. MORIARTY: Yes. MR. LINSEY: We received their comments and their form of order this afternoon. We will send a further version back to them later this afternoon and then if we had a continued to hearing tomorrow, I'm confident that we could either -- you know, either establish that we have a consented to form of order or have two competing forms of order. I understand that counsel for the defendant will be speaking with JNFX tomorrow as well. They may have more information at that point about whatever is logistically required in order to get the funds somewhere that they're not subject to transactions that are diminishing them. (Pause.)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 18 of 26\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 19 of 26\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023
19 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I'm thinking about what you're saying. |\n| 2 | So you still need to give comments back is what you're |\n| 3 | telling me, Attorney Linsey? |\n| 4 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So Attorney Moriarty, Attorney |\n| 6 | Wernick, when are you going to be speaking with counsel for |\n| 7 | JFNX.
At what time tomorrow? |\n| 8 | MS. WERNICK:
My understanding is that the call's |\n| 9 | been scheduled for 9:30 a.m. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | So I'm just envisioning the potential |\n| 12 | possibilities, right?
If you don't agree completely to an |\n| 13 | order, then I don't know what you're going to agree to |\n| 14 | except that you're agreeing to some form of restraint.
A |\n| 15 | temporary restraining order. |\n| 16 | But I don't know.
That might not necessarily be |\n| 17 | helpful. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Your Honor, the conversations that we |\n| 19 | had today were productive.
There's still issues that need |\n| 20 | to be addressed. |\n| 21 | I'm hopeful that we'll be able to resolve those, |\n| 22 | but I think that it would be helpful to have a continued to |\n| 23 | hearing date, one to the extent that whatever happens |\n| 24 | tomorrow identifies any issues as to which the parties have |\n| 25 | disagreement and two, to ensure that this issue is resolved |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 20 of 26\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023
20 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | sooner rather than later because the trustee, given |\n| 2 | transactions that have apparently occurred with respect to |\n| 3 | these funds, including just in the last several weeks, this |\n| 4 | is a very urgent issue and wants to make sure that this |\n| 5 | relief enters (indiscernible)
these funds. |\n| 6 | So that's why we're imposing on the court and |\n| 7 | asking for the further date, but the parties are seeking -- |\n| 8 | certainly the trustee is seeking to get this done by consent |\n| 9 | and doesn't want to take the court's time unless it's |\n| 10 | necessary. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, if I may. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | To be a little bit more precise, you know, I, |\n| 15 | along with Attorney Linsey, have reviewed the draft of the |\n| 16 | proposed order that we received from Attorney Moriarty and I |\n| 17 | think, as Attorney Linsey said, generally speaking, it does |\n| 18 | give the trustee the relief that he's seeking insofar as -- |\n| 19 | with the one, you know, open issue, insofar as the order |\n| 20 | would subject Ms. Guo to an injunction that requires her to |\n| 21 | freeze and maintain \\$25 million in assets which could be |\n| 22 | used to satisfy a judgment in the adversary proceeding. |\n| 23 | It further would restrain any transfer of the |\n| 24 | funds in the JNFX account that we all are aware of.
And |\n| 25 | that's sort of on a basic level the relief that we're |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 21 seeking in the motion and we understand there is no opposition to that. So I think we are sort of 90 percent of the way there. The sole remaining issue, which I think the court may end up needing to address at a subsequent hearing is the issue of what actually physically is going to happen to the funds that are in the JNFX account. The issue that we have is that based on the account statements that we've seen over time that balance has been -- being depleted by transaction fees, or other charges which we're not fully aware of but we need to understand better. But the bottom line from the trustee's perspective is this injunction that we have is not going to be sufficient. The agreed order that I'm presented with is not going to be sufficient if it does not ensure that as we move forward there will be no such further transaction costs, fees or other deductions from the balance in that account because obviously every time that happens, it's reducing the value of potential property of the estate. So one solution that we had proposed, it's a very simple one, which is if Ms. Guo has control over that account, which we understand she does, all the funds that are there could be transferred to an escrow account. Maybe Case 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 21 of 26\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 22 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 22 that's an escrow account with Mr. Moriarty's firm. Maybe it's an escrow account with the trustee. But there has to be a way to resolve that from our perspective. We're still working out the details of that with Attorney Moriarty and the rest of his team but, again, that really is the only -- from my perspective, the only sort of sticking point that we may need the court to weigh in on. We just hadn't had the chance to continue resolving that issue prior to day's status conference. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, on behalf of Ms. Guo, a couple of things in response to Attorney Bassett. I think there will be an ability to make a more intelligent decision and have a more intelligent discussion vis-a-vis fees and things of that nature. After the discussion with JNFX tomorrow, as far as moving the funds, it's certainly a conversation that we can have with our client, but I'm not going to represent to the court at this point in time what the outcome of that conversation will be. It may wind up that that is a sticking point. The comments that we sent back I don't expect -- and I think Attorney Bassett, he just kind of said that, but they're probably not controversial. So it may just be the one sticking point is are the funds going to stay at JNFX or are\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 23 they going to move somewhere else. And we should be able to give the trustee more information on that tomorrow, as far as fees and those types of things, tomorrow morning. THE COURT: Okay. So the only issue is whether I'm continuing the hearing right now. That's the only issue for me to address at the moment. Is that correct? MR. BASSETT: And obviously we wanted to give Your Honor this update as to where we were. THE COURT: Well, no. I needed that, obviously. But I'm saying what is it, if anything, I can accomplish this afternoon, other than what we've already done, which is in the Taurus Fund adversary proceeding, enter that order scheduling the expedited hearing, which the courtroom deputy's already taken care of while we've been here in court, which is much appreciated. And then whether or not we're going to continue this hearing in 5008 with regard to the temporary restraining order. And I'm going to do that. I'm going to continue the hearing till noon on Thursday. If you have an order all buttoned up before then, then you can submit it and there may not be a hearing. But if you don't, then we'll have the hearing at noon on Thursday. And we're not issuing any kind of notice or anything. Everyone that's involved is on this call, is Case 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 23 of 26\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 24 of 26\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023
24 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | participating in this hearing and you have notice. |\n| 2 | So there's need to issue anything with regard to |\n| 3 | the continuation of the pretrial conference in this |\n| 4 | adversary proceeding to address whether or not there's a |\n| 5 | fully consensual temporary restraining order. So noon on |\n| 6 | Thursday. |\n| 7 | Does anyone have any questions or is there |\n| 8 | anything else that needs to be addressed this afternoon? |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
I have one more thing with the |\n| 10 | court's indulgence.
It's in the form of a housekeeping |\n| 11 | matter relating to an order that the court entered |\n| 12 | yesterday. |\n| 13 | I was contacted by counsel for UBS.
The court |\n| 14 | granted a motion adjourning a hearing on the Chapter 11 |\n| 15 | trustee's motion to compel UBS to comply with the trustee's |\n| 16 | subpoena. |\n| 17 | The court granted the motion and adjourned the |\n| 18 | hearing to January 30, 2024.
Counsel for UBS, Ms. Freed, |\n| 19 | advised that she is traveling out of the country for |\n| 20 | business that week and -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well, then you both file a motion |\n| 22 | about a date that works for both of you so we don't have to |\n| 23 | keep doing this.
Okay?
So file a motion. |\n| 24 | MR. LINSEY:
All right.
We'll file a motion. |\n| 25 | Thank you, you |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 25 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything further from anyone this afternoon? MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That concludes today's continued hearing. However, we are continuing the conference in the adversary to discuss the TRO to the 21st at noon. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: One question, Your Honor. The continued to hearing, is that in person or is that on Zoom. THE COURT: That is in person. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. THE COURT: Unless you all resolve it before then and then there won't be a need for a hearing. So there's your incentive. Make sure you finish it first and then you won't have to come. But if you don't, then you do. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Understood. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 2:47 p.m.)\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023
26 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 3 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 4 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 5 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above |\n| 6 | entitled matter. |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | December 28, 2023 |\n| 10 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 *\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）， *\n*\n*\n债务人。 *\n*\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯潘斯），第 11 章\n受托人， *\n对抗程序案号 23-05008\n*\n*\n原告， *\n诉\nMEI GUO（郭美）， *\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\nDecember 19, 2023\n*\n被告。\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n*\n#2429 续行状态会议\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官前举行\n出庭人员： 67 设定状态会议的命令\n美国破产法院法官\n代表第 11 章受托人： NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特，律师）\nAVI LUFT, ESQ.（阿维·卢夫特，律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西，律师）\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（诺伊伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street,13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT\n\n程序由电子录音记录，\n庭审记录由庭审记录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及庭审记录服务公司）\nShelton, CT 06484 (203)732-6461\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表债权人委员会：KRISTIN B. MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·B·梅休，律师）Pullman & Comley（普尔曼及康利律师事务所）850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫，律师）O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥梅尔文尼及迈尔斯律师事务所）Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·H·史密斯，律师）Robinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊及科尔律师事务所）280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 代表原告、HK International Funds（HK 国际基金）及 Mei Guo：MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ.（梅丽莎·F·韦尼克，律师）Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安及贾恩托马西律师事务所）105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 代表债务人及被告 Mei Guo：JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂，律师）Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒律师事务所）10 Middle Street, 15th FL Bridgeport, CT 06604\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 3 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 3 （程序于下午 2:12 开始。）法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok，以及对抗程序案号 23-05008，Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人诉 Guo。法庭：下午好。请各方为记录目的说明出庭身份，先请第 11 章受托人的律师。巴塞特律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 Paul Hastings 的尼克·巴塞特，代表第 11 章受托人出庭。我的同事阿维·卢夫特也来自 Paul Hastings，与我共同出庭。法官阁下，我想说明，第 11 章受托人向法庭致歉。他知道法庭今天通过将状态会议安排在 2 点，试图迁就他的日程安排。他最终因航班延误而受困，故无法出席，但已向法庭表示歉意。法庭：好的。谢谢。林西律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Neubert Pepe and Monteith 的帕特里克·林西，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。法庭：下午好。萨诺夫律师：下午好，法官阁下。我预计不会发言，但我是 O'Melveny & Myers 的斯图尔特·萨诺夫，在主案中代表债权人 PAX。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 4 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 4 法庭：下午好。史密斯律师：下午好，法官阁下。和萨诺夫律师一样，我代表 PAX，预计今天不会发言，但我是 Robinson and Cole 的安妮卡·史密斯，PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。法庭：下午好。梅休律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman and Comley 的克里斯汀·梅休，代表无担保债权人正式委员会。法庭：下午好。韦尼克律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 CSG Law 的梅丽莎·韦尼克，在对抗程序中代表 Mei Guo。法庭：下午好。莫里亚蒂律师：我是 Zeisler and Zeisler 的詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂，也代表 Guo 女士。法庭：莫里亚蒂律师，您是否也代表主案中的债务人出庭。莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，据我理解，我们实际讨论的仅是对抗程序中尚待处理的临时限制令。法庭：嗯，那不是我们讨论的唯一事项。我们正在讨论临时限制令，以及——我们也在讨论——我以为我们正在讨论本应在今天讨论的证据问题，以及该问题——我不知道康威先生在哪里——嗯，他不在这里，所以或许与昨天在场的 Conway 先生，就 Mahwah 豪宅以及与储物单元有关的问题，已经达成某种协议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 5 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 5 莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，我也代表债务人出庭。法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，巴塞特律师，我不知道是否由您先进行陈述，但我想知道，您能否向法庭报告我们昨天讨论的问题目前进展如何；由于这些问题刚刚出现，当时未能解决。其中包括已提交的临时限制令问题，以及该问题——嗯，无论如何，我就让您来讲。巴塞特律师，您请讲。巴塞特律师：当然，法官阁下。很乐意说明这些问题。首先，关于 Mei Guo 对抗程序的临时限制令，我稍后会请林西律师说明，但先透露一下他的意见，我确实认为我们正在就措辞达成协议，以通过双方同意解决该命令。不过，我稍后仍会让林西律师向法庭提供更多详情。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 6 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 6 今天就状态会议提交法庭审理的另一项动议，当然是我们为保全位于新泽西州某些储存设施内的证据而提交的动议。如法庭所指出，我昨天未亲自到场，但根据我与林西律师及受托人的交谈，我了解到，如法庭所指出，Conway 先生当时在场。我原预计他今天也会再次到场。我可以说的是，根据我们与他的交谈，我们的理解是，只要 Conway 先生能够在受托人进行检查的同时出席对这些储物单元的检查——我们拟于本周五进行该检查——其客户即被告方并不反对受托人在保全命令中寻求的救济。受托人不反对该请求，因此，我们的理解是，这将解决被告方对受托人所寻求救济可能提出的任何异议。法官阁下，这就剩下另外两方当事人。因此，我们已经送达——即被传唤方。我们已向储物单元本身送达了对这些储物单元进行检查的传票。而该储物单元本身，即该储存公司，是一家名为 Arredondo and Company, LLC（阿雷东多公司有限责任公司）、以 Westy Storage（韦斯蒂储存）名义经营的公司。我们已向该公司送达传票，此外，我们还向我们了解到租赁这些储物单元的承租实体送达了传票。该实体名为 HGA Property Operations（HGA 物业运营公司）。因此，我们已努力在今天的状态会议前与其联系并进行讨论。我将详述我们所作的努力。结果是，我们尚未与其取得联系，但我认为我们已完成向该储存公司和 HGA Property Operations 送达文书的工作。具体而言，我仅简要说明细节；我们将准备在案卷中提交送达证明，但我们已向 Arredondo and Company 送达动议文件。再次说明，该公司以 Westy Storage 名义经营。我们通过其注册代理人送达，该代理人是一名名为 John Scagnelli（约翰·斯卡涅利）的律师，所在律师事务所位于纽约州和新泽西州。我们还通过邮寄向实际的储存设施——Westy Storage Center 本身——发送了一份动议副本。这算是双重保险。我还通过电子邮件和电话进行了后续联系，试图联系斯卡涅利先生，以了解其客户是否同意该救济。我未能做到这一点，但动议已经送达。至于 HGA Property Operations，我们也依照 Rule 8000——或 Rule 7004(b)(3)，通过邮寄向 HGA Property Operations、其注册代理人及其注册办事处发送了一份动议副本。因此，我们认为送达已经完成。我们另有一个问题，即设法送达传票；我们正试图亲自送达，这与动议分开。就此，我们仍在设法联系一名可以被送达传票的自然人。但我们尚未完成该项工作。不过，我认为——我很乐意回答任何问题——但我确实认为，就目前而言，我们已完成向所有当事人送达该动议。我们确认被告方不反对受托人所寻求的救济，因此，我认为受托人已准备好按照我们提出的日程推进，即在法庭有空的前提下，于周四举行听证会，届时希望陈述意见并提出异议的当事人可以出席；随后，我们希望于周五推进执行传票。法庭：好的。还有任何人希望就证据保全问题及于周四举行听证会的请求陈述意见吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 9 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 9 （无人回应。）好的。巴塞特律师，那么您是否将提交一份经修订的拟议命令，载明您刚才在记录中所述内容？巴塞特律师：是的，法官阁下。我们很乐意提交一份经修订的拟议命令，详述受托人为完成送达所作的努力。我们也很乐意仅在案卷中提交——我们正拟如此做——送达证明，或法庭希望的任何文件。法庭：那么，我们想想这个问题。您需要一份定于周四举行听证会的命令。然后，您必须向作为传票对象的当事人送达该命令。因此，您需要尽早而非延后取得该命令，对吗？巴塞特律师：我想确实如此。在我们已提交的动议中，我们已表明请求于周四举行听证会，但我想法官阁下说得对。加速审理动议尚未获准，因此，我们需要一份载明该事项的命令，并将向各方送达该命令。因此，是的，法官阁下，我们今天会尽快将其提交给您。法庭：那么，让我看看——也许我们可以——我们先暂停一下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2479 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 20:57:06 Page 10 of 26\n\nHo Wan Kwok - December 19, 2023 10 或许处理方式是，先审查准许加速举行听证会之动议的命令，然后您提交送达证明，表明您刚才在记录中所述的一切，因为您必须给予这些当事人一定的实质性时间，以确定他们是否想要反对或出席听证会，尽管我实际上认为——嗯，我不清楚。我得看看。因此，让我们审查加速——所有文件均于昨天提交的动议。因此，我们仍在审查中。我们今天也举行了听证会，所以请给我一点时间。（暂停。）好的。因此，我正在审查关于安排并加速审理第 11 章受托人请求命令保全证据的紧急动议之拟议命令。（暂停。）巴塞特先生，我——让我问您一个问题。如果我们于周四举行本次听证会，您能否向法庭大致估计，您认为本次听证会需要多长时间？我这样问是因为我需要——当天另有未列入日程表的事项，但也有其他预定事项需要我处理。因此，我需要\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 11 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023 11\n\n1 我知道你们需要多少时间。\n2 巴塞特先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n3 当然，这将取决于是否有人出席听证会对该动议提出异议，但我认为我们所寻求的救济相对直接明了。\n7 因此，即使出现两方当事人出席并反对该动议的情况，我预计我们最多也不会需要超过半小时来处理此事。\n10 但是，再次强调，显然这取决于实际发生的情况。\n11 法庭：\n那么我将签发准予加快处理该动议的命令。我将把听证会定于 21 日星期四下午 1:00。然后我将把提出异议的截止期限定为明天。我不会设定具体日期，因为你们仍须尝试向另外这两人以及你们将要送达的任何其他人送达。\n18 我知道被告不反对，这一点很好，但我认为你们必须给予其他人一定机会，让他们在愿意的情况下提交材料。\n21 总之，这就是我拟采取的做法。好吗？\n22 巴塞特先生：\n明白，法官阁下。我们也将在所提交的送达证明中详细说明所有这些情况，以重申我今天在庭审记录中所说的话；而且，除我所说的以外，我们还采取了进一步措施。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 12 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023 12 为尝试向这些当事人发出通知。具体而言，就 HGA 财产运营实体而言，我们掌握该公司的注册代理人以及一名名为 Kim Lee（李金）的女士的姓名。我们向我们所掌握的该人士的电子邮件地址发送了一封电子邮件。我们甚至还给她打了电话。我的同事 Song 女士（宋女士）联系到了她，并与她进行了交谈，最终该人士挂断了电话。但宋女士能够与其交谈并转达我们试图就该听证会传达的内容。因此，我们将在为支持送达而提交的宣誓书中陈述所有这些情况，并将尽快提交。法庭：我可以签发你们已经提交的命令。你们不需要再提交另一份命令。因此，我转向法庭书记员。对抗程序 23-5017 中 ECF 85 的拟议命令。（停顿。）法庭书记员：好的。法庭：你面前有那份文件吗？我只是想告诉你——有一些小修改，我们现在或许可以作出，并在我们结束后尽快签发该命令，以便原告可以送达。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 13 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023\n1 法庭书记员：\n是。\n2 法庭：\n因此，在第二页第三段，即该页第二个命令性段落，其中写着“应于 December 21st 举行”。请加上下午 1:00。你明白我指的是哪里吗？\n6 法庭书记员：\n是。\n7 法庭：\n好的。很好。然后在其下方的段落中——你准备好时告诉我。我不是要催你。\n10 法庭书记员：\n好的。\n11 法庭：\n在其下方的命令性段落中写着，“对紧急动议提出异议的截止期限应为 December 20 at 12:00 p.m.，”但请删除“at 12:00 p.m.”。\n15 法庭书记员：\n好的。好的。\n16 法庭：\n好吗？\n17 法庭书记员：\n好的。\n18 法庭：\n然后该命令即可签发。\n19 法庭书记员：\n好的。\n20 法庭：\n好了吗？\n21 法庭书记员：\n是。\n22 法庭：\n好的。因此，巴塞特先生，这就处理了我们原计划在本次续行状态会议期间处理的第一个问题，除非就该事项而言还有我遗漏的其他事情。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023 14 就该事项而言。巴塞特先生：我想没有了，法官阁下。非常感谢。至于第二个事项，如我先前所述，我将请 Linsey 律师（林赛律师）向法庭进一步更新情况。法庭：好的。很好。谢谢。Linsey 律师：下午好，法官阁下。自昨天的状态会议以来，受托人的律师已与被告的律师举行了数次会谈。我了解到，并将由 Moriarty 先生（莫里亚蒂先生）和 Wernick 女士（韦尼克女士）予以确认，被告原则上同意可以签发命令，准予该动议所请求的禁令救济。我们目前正在就该命令的形式进行协商。受托人的律师今天下午从被告律师处收到了一份经修订的命令文本。受托人还有一些进一步修订正在准备中。我们希望确保在此解决的问题之一是——确保将剩余资金从该 JNFX 账户中转出，该账户中的资金正在减少。我们目前的理解是，该账户中有\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 14 页，共 26 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 15 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023 15 约 \\$10 million 的某种形式货币。该 Bombardier 的购买价格为 13 and a half million。JNFX 于 February of this year 收到了一份超过 12 million 的出价。受托人目前掌握的最佳信息是，在约十个月内，已有超过 \\$1.9 million 的价值减少，无论是由于收取费用、成本或其他交易，还是市场波动，或发生的任何其他情况；这就是——你知道——JNFX 所持有的任何资产价值所发生的情况，而确保这种情况停止并保全此处的实际价值，对受托人而言至关重要。因此，如我所述，我们正在讨论拟议命令的形式。受托人提议由法庭安排进一步听证。受托人的律师明天有空。我们显然星期四也有空。在该续行听证日期之前，双方当事人——这里指受托人与被告——将提交一份一致同意的命令，供法庭签发，在此情况下便无需举行听证；或者，如对命令形式存在分歧，则双方将各自提交一份命令文本，法庭可以审阅这些文本，并在听证会上与当事人讨论何者更为适当，或者应签发何种命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 16 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023 16 法庭：好的。Wernick 律师或 Moriarty 律师？Moriarty 先生：法官阁下，我是代表被告 Guo 女士（郭女士）的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。我认为 Linsey 律师准确概括了我们目前的情况。被告目前不反对临时限制令动议。实际上只是试图协商出一份一致同意的命令。如果做不到，就向法庭提交相互竞争的命令文本。我不知道是否有必要由法庭举行听证，以决定法庭将签发哪一份命令，但如果法庭命令举行听证，则将有人代表 Guo 女士出席。法庭：嗯，Guo 女士不是本对抗程序中唯一的被告，是吗——哦，在这个程序中她是。好的。好吧。抱歉。Moriarty 先生：是。法庭：好的。所以我们讨论的是 23-5008。Moriarty 先生：是。法庭：好的。那么——Moriarty 律师，我道歉。我刚才一度弄糊涂了。但你最后说，如果举行听证，Guo 女士将出席。你是这么说的吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 17 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023 17 Moriarty 先生：不是。法庭：好的。你说了什么？Morales 女士（莫拉莱斯女士）：我所说的是，当事人将提交一份一致同意的命令，或者双方当事人将各自提交一份拟议命令。Linsey 律师曾建议，若法庭对那些相互竞争的命令文本存在疑问，法庭将在签发命令前举行听证。我说，我不知道法庭是否有必要举行此种听证以决定签发哪一份命令。但如果法庭安排听证，将有人代表 Guo 女士，即她的律师，出席。法庭：我明白了。好的。谢谢。那么，截至目前你们是否已交换措辞？Moriarty 先生：代表 Guo 女士，其律师对受托人昨天提交的拟议命令提出了一些意见并提供给受托人，Linsey 律师已告诉我，受托人将就 Guo 女士律师的意见向其提供意见。法庭：当你说 Guo 女士的律师时，你指的是谁？听起来你指的不是你。Moriarty 先生：我指的是我本人、Wernick 律师（韦尼克律师）、Vartan 律师（瓦尔坦律师）和 Romney 律师（罗姆尼律师）。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023 18 所以不只是我，法官阁下，不过，是的，我指的也包括我本人。法庭：我只是想确认我们所谈论的是——好的。那没问题。（停顿。）我正在考虑你们刚才所说的，好的。那么，Linsey 律师，你向这些律师回复的时间安排是什么；Moriarty 律师、Wernick 律师、Vartan 律师，以及你还说了谁？哦，Romney 律师。Moriarty 先生：是。Linsey 先生：我们今天下午收到了他们的意见和命令文本。今天下午晚些时候我们将向他们发回进一步版本；如果我们明天举行续行听证，我确信我们要么——你知道——确认我们已有一份经同意的命令文本，要么有两份相互竞争的命令文本。我了解到，被告的律师明天还将与 JNFX 沟通。届时他们可能会有更多信息，了解为将资金转移至不会受到使其减少的交易影响的地点，在后勤上需要采取何种措施。（停顿。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 18 页，共 26 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 19 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023\n1 法庭：\n我正在考虑你所说的话。因此，Linsey 律师，你告诉我的是，你们仍需回复意见？\n4 Linsey 先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n5 法庭：\n那么，Moriarty 律师、Wernick 律师，你们何时将与 JNFX 的律师通话？明天什么时间？\n8 Wernick 女士：\n据我了解，电话已安排在上午 9:30。\n10 法庭：\n谢谢。\n11 因此，我只是在设想可能出现的各种情况，对吗？如果你们不能就一份命令完全达成一致，那么我不知道你们将会就什么达成一致，除非是同意某种形式的限制。一项临时限制令。\n16 但我不知道。这未必一定有帮助。\n18 Linsey 先生：\n法官阁下，我们今天进行的谈话富有成效。仍有一些问题需要处理。\n21 我希望我们能够解决这些问题，但我认为安排一个续行听证日期会有帮助，第一，明天无论发生什么，都可以确定双方当事人在哪些问题上存在分歧；第二，确保该问题得到解决。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2479 于 12/28/23 提交 于 12/28/23 20:57:06 录入 第 20 页，共 26 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023\n\n尽快，因为鉴于显然已经就这些资金发生的交易，包括就在过去几周内发生的交易，受托人认为这是一个非常紧急的问题，并希望确保该救济措施得以作出（听不清）这些资金。\n\n因此，这就是我们给法院增加负担并请求另定日期的原因，但各方正在寻求——当然，受托人正在寻求通过同意方式完成此事，除非必要，否则不希望占用法院时间。\n\n巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：\n法官阁下，若准许。\n\n法庭：\n请讲。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n更准确地说，我与林赛律师（Attorney Linsey）一道审阅了我们从莫里亚蒂律师（Attorney Moriarty）收到的拟议命令草案。我认为，正如林赛律师所说，总体而言，该草案确实给予受托人其所寻求的救济，唯一尚未解决的问题是，该命令将使郭女士（Ms. Guo）受到禁令约束，要求她冻结并维持 $25 million 的资产，该等资产可用于履行对抗程序中的判决书。\n\n该命令还将限制转移我们都知悉的 JNFX 账户中的任何资金。这在基本层面上就是我们在动议中寻求的救济，我们了解到对此没有异议。因此，我认为我们大致已经完成了 90 percent。唯一剩余的问题，我认为法院最终可能需要在后续听证中处理，即 JNFX 账户中的资金实际上将如何处置。我们的问题是，根据我们历来所见的账户对账单，该余额一直被交易费用或其他我们尚未完全了解、但需要进一步了解的收费所消耗。但是，从受托人的角度来看，如果不能确保在今后不会再从该账户余额中扣除任何此类交易成本、费用或其他款项，我们目前拥有的这项禁令、我面前的同意命令将不足以解决问题，因为显然，每次发生这种情况，都会减少潜在破产财产的价值。因此，我们提出的一种解决办法非常简单，即如果郭女士控制该账户——我们了解她确实控制该账户——则该账户中的所有资金都可以转入一个托管账户。也许是莫里亚蒂先生律师事务所的托管账户，也许是受托人的托管账户。但从我们的角度来看，必须有办法解决这个问题。我们仍在与莫里亚蒂律师及其团队其他成员商定相关细节，但再次说明，从我的角度来看，这确实是唯一可能需要法院作出裁断的症结所在。我们在今天的状态会议之前尚未来得及继续解决该问题。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n法官阁下，代表郭女士，就巴塞特律师所述作出几点回应。我认为，在明天与 JNFX 讨论后，我们将能够就费用及此类事项作出更明智的决定，并进行更明智的讨论。至于转移资金，这当然是我们可以与当事人讨论的问题，但目前我不会向法院表示该讨论的结果将会如何。这可能最终成为一个症结。我们反馈的意见，我预计——而且我认为巴塞特律师刚才也这么说了——不会有争议。因此，唯一的症结可能就是，资金将留在 JNFX，还是将转移至其他地方。至于费用及该类事项，我们明天上午应能向受托人提供更多信息。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，目前唯一的问题是我是否要继续延期听证。这是我目前唯一需要处理的问题。对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n显然，我们希望就我们的进展向法官阁下作此更新。\n\n法庭：\n不，显然，我需要这些信息。但我是说，除我们已经完成的事项之外，我今天下午还能完成什么事项？我们已经在 Taurus Fund（陶鲁斯基金）对抗程序中作出了安排加急听证的命令，法庭书记员已在我们出庭期间处理完毕，对此深表感谢。然后，就是我们是否将继续在 5008 中就临时限制令举行本次听证。我将这样做。我将把听证延期至星期四中午。如果你们在此之前拟定好了命令，则可以提交，届时可能无需举行听证。但如果没有，我们将在星期四中午举行听证。我们不会发出任何通知或其他文件。所有相关人员都在此次通话中，正在参加本次听证，并且你们已收到通知。\n\n因此，无需就该对抗程序中预审会议的延期发出任何文件，该会议将处理是否存在一项完全经双方同意的临时限制令。星期四中午。\n\n任何人有任何问题，或者今天下午还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\n林赛先生：\n承蒙法院宽容，我还有一件事。这是与法院昨天作出的一项命令有关的例行事务。\n\n瑞银集团（UBS）的律师联系了我。法院准许了一项动议，将就 Chapter 11 受托人要求 UBS 遵守受托人传票的动议所举行的听证延期。\n\n法院准许该动议，并将听证延期至 January 30, 2024。UBS 的律师弗里德女士（Ms. Freed）告知，她该周因公务在国外旅行，而且——\n\n法庭：\n那么，你们双方就一个适合你们二人的日期提交动议，这样我们就不必一直处理这个问题。好吗？所以，提交一项动议。\n\n林赛先生：\n好的。我们将提交一项动议。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。今天下午还有任何人有其他事项吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。今天的延期听证至此结束。但是，我们将继续就对抗程序中的临时限制令举行会议，至 21 日中午。谢谢。\n\n林赛先生：\n法官阁下，有一个问题。续期听证是现场举行，还是通过 Zoom 举行？\n\n法庭：\n现场举行。\n\n林赛先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n除非你们在此之前解决问题，届时便无需举行听证。所以，这就是你们的动力。务必先完成此事，这样你们就不必前来。但如果未能完成，那就必须前来。好吗？\n\n林赛先生：\n明白。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n（程序于下午 2:47 结束。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- December 19, 2023\n\n本人，克里斯汀·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），经法院批准的记录转写员及认证电子记录员和转写员，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笔录。\n\nDecember 28, 2023\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷）, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Je","Paul Hastings","Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":85,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6129,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:20:48"}