{"id":"court_ctb_2509_10","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2509,"sub_number":10,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2024-01-18","title":"Exhibit 11 | Case 07-11757-KCF
Case 22-50073
Doc 2509-10
Doc 3916 | Filed 01/18/24
Filed 02/12/09
Entered","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit 11**\n\n| Case 07-11757-KCF
Case 22-50073
Doc 2509-10
Doc 3916 | Filed 01/18/24
Filed 02/12/09
Entered 01/18/24 11:15:08
Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10
Page 2 of
Desc Main
Document
87
Page 1 of 85 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 1 |\n| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY |\n| IN RE: | : Case No. 07-11757(KCF) |\n| SOLOMON DWEK, | :
: Trenton, New Jersey
: February 2, 2009 |\n| Debtor. | : 10:18 a.m. |\n| | TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KATHRYN C. FERGUSON
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE |\n| APPEARANCES: | |\n| For the Debtor: | Broege, Neumann, Fischer &
Shaver, LLC
BY:
TIMOTHY P. NEUMANN, ESQ.
25 Abe Voorhees Drive
Manasquan, New Jersey
08736 |\n| For the Chapter 11
Trustee: | McCarter & English
BY:
JEFFREY T. TESTA, ESQ.
BRIAN L. BAKER, ESQ.
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, New Jersey
07102 |\n| For the Creditors
Committee: | Duane Morris, LLP
BY:
WALTER J. GREENHALGH, ESQ.
744 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey
07102-3889 |\n| Audio Operator: | Geraldine Holley-Mack |\n| Transcriber: | Kathleen Connolly
COLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE
Certified Court Transcribers
P.O. BOX 1216
OCEAN GATE, NEW JERSEY 08740-1216
1-877-245-4876 |\n| by transcription. | Proceedings were electronically recorded, transcript produced |\n\nAPPEARANCES:\n\nFor HSBC Bank: Wolff & Samson, P.C. BY: KAREN L. GILMAN, ESQ. The Offices at Crystal Lake One Boland Drive West Orange, New Jersey 07052\n\n Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, LLP BY: ROBERT USADI, ESQ. 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005-1702\n\nFor Joseph Dwek, Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Mark Adjmi, Yeshuah, Leonard, P.A. LLC, Joseph Dwek Family BY: WARREN A. USATINE, ESQ. Limited Partnership: 25 Main Street\n\nFor Sun National Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. Bank: BY: DEIRDRE WOULFE PACHECO, ESQ.\n\nFor Jack Hakim and Stark & Stark AJH Investments: BY: JEFFREY S. POSTA, ESQ.\n\nFor Bob Nelson Shebell & Shebell, LLC\n\nWoodbridge, New Jersey 07095\n\nHackensack, New Jersey 07601\n\n90 Woodbridge Center Drive\n\nP.O. Box 5315 Princeton, New Jersey 08534\n\nPlumbing & Heating: BY: DANIELLE S. CHANDONNET, ESQ. 1398 Highway 35 South Ocean, New Jersey 07712-3543\n\nFor Isaac Franco: King & Spalding, LLP BY: ARTHUR J. STEINBERG, ESQ. 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10076-4003\n\n> Wachtal & Masyr, LLP BY: DAVID YEGER, ESQ. 110 East 58th Street New York, New York 10022\n\n**2**\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 2509-10 Filed 01/18/24 Entered 01/18/24 11:15:08 Page 4 of\n\n#### **Colloquy 3**\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
Come up on Dwek, please. |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | All right.
May I have your appearances, please, |\n| 3 | Counsel? |\n| 4 | MR. TESTA:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | Jeffrey Testa, McCarter & English, on behalf of the |\n| 6 | Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 7 | MR. BAKER:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | Brian Baker, McCarter & English, on behalf of the |\n| 9 | Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 10 | MR. GREENHALGH:
Your Honor, Walter Greenhalgh, |\n| 11 | Duane Morris, counsel for the Creditors Committee. |\n| 12 | MR. NEUMANN:
Timothy Neumann, Broege, Neumann, |\n| 13 | Fischer & Shaver, for the Debtors. |\n| 14 | MS. GILMAN:
Karen Gilman, Wolff & Samson, on behalf |\n| 15 | of HSBC Bank. |\n| 16 | MR. USADI:
Robert Usadi, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, |\n| 17 | on behalf of HSBC Bank. |\n| 18 | MR. USATINE:
Warren Usatine, Cole, Schotz, Meisel, |\n| 19 | Forman & Leonard on behalf of Joseph Dwek, Mark Adjmi, |\n| 20 | Yeshuah, LLC, and Joseph Dwek Family, Limited Partnership. |\n| 21 | MS. PACHECO:
Deirdre Pacheco, Wilentz, Goldman & |\n| 22 | Spitzer, for Sun National Bank. |\n| 23 | MR. POSTA:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | Jeffrey Posta, Stark & Stark, for Jack Hakim and AJH |\n| 25 | Investments on the Motion to toll time only. |\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 2509-10 Filed 01/18/24 Entered 01/18/24 11:15:08 Page 5 of\n\n#### **Colloquy 4**\n\n| 1 | MS. CHANDONNET:
Good morning. |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Danielle Chandonnet from the firm Shebell & Shebell |\n| 3 | on behalf of Bob Nelson Plumbing & Heating.
We did not file |\n| 4 | papers in this matter. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. STEINBERG:
Arthur Steinberg from King & |\n| 7 | Spalding on behalf of Isaac Franco.
And with me is David |\n| 8 | Yeger from Wachtal & Masyr. |\n| 9 | MR. YEGER:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | There are three matters on the calendar this |\n| 12 | morning.
Let's go in -- and I also have a court call. |\n| 13 | The Trustee wanted to participate by court call, as |\n| 14 | well? |\n| 15 | MR. TESTA:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
We're obviously having a |\n| 17 | problem with that.
We're working on it. |\n| 18 | All right.
Let's begin with the Motion for relief |\n| 19 | from the stay, Bullet No. 3704. |\n| 20 | MR. BAKER:
Your Honor, with the consent of the |\n| 21 | Movant, we can adjourn that for 30 days. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
We can do March 2nd. |\n| 23 | Next, I want to do the Order equitably tolling -- |\n| 24 | we're doing Dwek -- equitably tolling the time prescribed by |\n| 25 | 546. |\n\n#### **Motion/Baker/Response/Steinberg 5**\n\n| 1 | What I have is the Trustee's paper, an objection by |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Isaac Franco, a limited objection by Jack Hakim, and support |\n| 3 | by the Debtor. |\n| 4 | You want to take it from there, Mr. Testa?
Is |\n| 5 | that -- |\n| 6 | MR. BAKER:
I'll do it. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Mr. Baker.
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. BAKER:
Your Honor, we don't have much to add to |\n| 9 | the papers.
With respect to the objections, we think that |\n| 10 | they should be overruled, but if the Court is not so inclined, |\n| 11 | as long as the Trustee can preserve his argument later on to |\n| 12 | assert that the statute, if applicable if additional Causes of |\n| 13 | Action are brought, to raise the argument that the statute |\n| 14 | should be equitably tolled.
But I don't know that we have to |\n| 15 | decide that today. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 17 | Anyone else in support of the Trustee's Motion? |\n| 18 | All right.
Opposition? |\n| 19 | MR. STEINBERG:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | Isaac Franco filed an objection saying that if the |\n| 21 | Trustee wants to equitably toll with regard to everybody else |\n| 22 | in the world, that's fine.
But with regard to Mr. Franco, he |\n| 23 | sued Mr. Franco over a year ago in this case and that there's |\n| 24 | a pending adversary proceeding to whatever extent he's allowed |\n| 25 | to amend based on the complaint that was filed, that is fine. |\n\n#### **Response/Steinberg/Posta 6**\n\n| 1 | But he's had two years.
He decided that he had enough to |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | bring a lawsuit against Mr. Franco a year ago.
And we don't |\n| 3 | believe it's appropriate to extend with regard to Mr. Franco. |\n| 4 | When you read the cases that the Trustee cites in |\n| 5 | connection with equitable tolling, it's generally with regard |\n| 6 | to whether the Defendant did something that would prevent the |\n| 7 | Trustee from moving forward in this matter because the |\n| 8 | Defendant engaged in dilatory tactics or was withholding |\n| 9 | information. |\n| 10 | In this case, Isaac Franco has met with the Trustee |\n| 11 | on a number of occasions, has responded to whatever requests |\n| 12 | were made, was the subject of a deposition already in this |\n| 13 | case, and we don't believe that there's any grounds to |\n| 14 | equitably toll with respect to him. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 16 | Mr. Posta? |\n| 17 | MR. POSTA:
Your Honor, on behalf of Jack Hakim and |\n| 18 | AJH Investments, we filed a limited objection, which I'm sure |\n| 19 | you reviewed.
Trying to be concise.
We filed an adversary |\n| 20 | proceeding in June of 2007, now over a year-and-a-half ago. |\n| 21 | That adversary dealt with discharge, as well as claims to a |\n| 22 | particular piece of property as a result of money that was put |\n| 23 | up by Mr. Hakim and AJH Investments.
The discharge action |\n| 24 | involves all of our transactions, which are very limited. |\n| 25 | Dollar amounts are big, but the transactions were limited with |\n\n#### **Response/Posta 7**\n\nthe Debtor.\n\n In that adversary, shortly after we filed it, the Trustee filed the Motion to Preserve all Claims and Causes of Action relating to the underlying transactions, which are all of our transactions. That Motion has been carried since then, which is fine because we consented to it, and it's returnable in April, and there's a trial date at the end of April. I think the Motion is returnable perhaps the day before.\n\n My understanding was our issues with respect to preservation of actions and all of our, all Causes of Action going back and forth, are dealt with by the adversary and by that Motion. And now we have another Motion that's filed. Our simple position is that those issues are already before the Court, and we shouldn't be subject to this Motion which is yet another Motion dealing with the same subject matter. It's already covered.\n\n The transactions are limited, as we said. The Debtor has been available and certainly has participated in this case often to provide information to the Trustee. There's nothing specific as far as our client is concerned that I've seen where they can't get information. If there's more between the parties or they need additional time, you know, there's nothing before the Court to say that they need that.\n\nBut, essentially, this issue should be covered by\n\n what's already before the Court, and we shouldn't be subject to this Motion.\n\nThank you.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nAnybody else? All right.\n\n The Court has received two objections to the Trustee's Motion. The objections essentially say that the clients, their clients should not be singled out, and the Motion should not apply to them.\n\n No legal support is provided for that proposition. The Court is of the opinion that if it finds that cause exists to equitably toll the Statute of Limitation, then it applies across the board.\n\n Jack Hakim makes a sort of tangential point that his matter is scheduled for trial on April 29th and, therefore, the Federal Rules should govern the determination as to him, rather than this Motion.\n\n I can't agree with that proposition as a matter of law, but I'm not adjourning the scheduled trial based on this Motion. And the Trustee, it seems to me, would have a difficult time convincing the Court that an amendment of the complaint this close to the trial would be justified when a Trustee brings a Motion seeking an extension until February of 2010 to bring avoidance actions.\n\nThe relief sought by the Trustee has been granted by\n\n| 1 | other Courts under 105 and on an equitable tolling theory. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | And you can see International Administrative |\n| 3 | Services at 408 Fed. 3rd 689, or GI Holdings at |\n| 4 | 313 Bankruptcy Reporter 612.
Those Courts reason that 546 is |\n| 5 | a Statute of Limitation, rather than a Statute of Repose and, |\n| 6 | therefore, it is subject to equitable tolling. |\n| 7 | Although this is not the typical situation in which |\n| 8 | equitable tolling is granted, that is, it's not a situation |\n| 9 | where the Defendant has fraudulently prevented the Plaintiff |\n| 10 | from timely bringing his Cause of Action, the Court, |\n| 11 | nonetheless, finds that equitable tolling of the Statute of |\n| 12 | Limitations is appropriate here given the recent activities by |\n| 13 | the U.S. Attorney and the FBI in conducting their |\n| 14 | investigations.
That has involved a lengthy delay of |\n| 15 | continued 2004 deposition of the Debtor, and that's beyond the |\n| 16 | control of the Trustee.
Therefore, the Court is going to |\n| 17 | grant the Motion. |\n| 18 | All right.
Let's move on to the Motion to approve |\n\n the settlement. This is the meatiest one today. I have the Trustee's moving papers. I have Sun National Bank's limited objection. I have Isaac Franco's objection. I have the Trustee's response. I have the Creditors Committee support; Mr. Franco's supplemental objection; support by Joseph Dwek and the Adjmi Group. I have a response by HSBC and a further response by the Debtor.\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 10 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 2509-10 Filed 01/18/24 Entered 01/18/24 11:15:08 Page 11 of 87\n\n#### **Motion/Testa 10**\n\n| 1 | That takes us up and through about 5:00 o'clock on |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Friday. |\n| 3 | Why doesn't Trustee's Counsel begin. |\n| 4 | MR. TESTA:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | The Chapter 11 Trustee is very pleased to be before |\n| 6 | Your Honor today in what he views as the most significant |\n| 7 | achievement to date during the course of these cases. |\n| 8 | The Trustee has, as Your Honor has noted, filed a |\n| 9 | Motion on proper notice to all Creditors.
He was compelled to |\n| 10 | file a response to certain statements that were made by Mr. |\n| 11 | Franco, a Defendant in an adversary action, whose claim has |\n| 12 | been challenged.
We strongly believe that the settlement that |\n| 13 | we set before Your Honor falls below the lowest point in the |\n| 14 | range of reasonableness.
We are prepared procedurally to |\n| 15 | present a proffer, if Your Honor would so like, or we can be |\n| 16 | much briefer and just highlight the main points of the |\n| 17 | settlement. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Go ahead and do the proffer. |\n| 19 | MR. TESTA:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | If Mr. Stanziale were to testify today, he would |\n| 21 | testify as follows: |\n| 22 | Mr. Stanziale would testify that he is the duly |\n| 23 | appointed, Chapter 11 Trustee of the Bankruptcy case of In Re: |\n| 24 | Solomon Dwek and all of its 74 jointly-administered cases. |\n| 25 | That prior to the bankruptcy proceeding, a State |\n\n# **Motion/Testa 11**\n\n court proceeding govern these Debtors where and among other disputes that were not resolved was the transfer of title to Joseph Dwek and Yeshuah of 129 real properties which Joseph Dwek asserted were properly transferred to him as a settlement of claims.\n\n That on May 7, 2007, the Trustee, Joseph Dwek and Yeshuah entered into an interim Settlement Agreement which was properly noticed and approved by this Court in which allowed the Trustee to sell the 129 disputed properties, but which expressly held that the issue of ownership of the disputed properties would be resolved at a later date, that Joseph and Yeshuah expressly retain their right to assert an equitable lien on the net proceeds of the disputed properties, and preserve Joseph and Yeshuah's right to file a Proof of Claim.\n\n That on March 4 of 2008, the Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Joseph Dwek, Dwek, L.P., and Mark Adjmi asserting claims of fraudulent transfer, common law fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and related claims.\n\n That the Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim which they sought, among other relief, the establishment of a constructive trust.\n\n That the matter was withdrawn to the District Court by the Defendants where a trial on the merits would determine the outcome.\n\nThat as Trustee, Mr. Stanziale met and conferred\n\n# **Motion/Testa 12**\n\n| with Joseph Dwek and his professionals and caused his own |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| professionals to review documents, bank statements, deposition |\n| transcripts, the HSBC loan documents, and other relevant |\n| materials relating to the adversary proceeding. |\n| That Mr. Stanziale met and conferred with his |\n| retained professionals, including his accountants, with regard |\n| to this matter, and determined that Joseph Dwek's allegation |\n| that he was owed at least \\$60 million as a result of the Dwek |\n| Ponzi Scheme, coupled with his other affirmative defenses, had |\n| significant merit and hampered the Trustee's fraudulent |\n| conveyance claims set forth in the adversary proceeding. |\n| That, to date, the Trustee has sold 67 of the 129 |\n| disputed properties representing approximately \\$17.6 million |\n| in net proceeds, all of which has been sold pursuant to |\n| publically-filed documents which will be available for the |\n| bankruptcy estates upon approval of this Settlement Agreement. |\n| That the reduction of \\$43 in asserted claims, as |\n| well as a potential claim of Joseph Dwek in the amount of at |\n| |\n\n least \\$60 million; two, an allowed unsecured claim of \\$20 million to HSBC, represents significant, real value to these bankruptcy estates.\n\n That prior to filing this Settlement Motion, the Trustee sought and obtained the support of the Creditors Committee for the settlement and included the Committee in the drafting of the settlement documents.\n\n#### **Motion/Testa 13**\n\n| That the Settlement Motion included, as an exhibit, |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| the entire Settlement Agreement and was filed and served on |\n| all Creditors on January 5, 2009. |\n| Mr. Stanziale would testify that the settlement is |\n| supported by both the Committee and the Debtor and various |\n| other parties in interest. |\n| That the lone objector to the settlement is a |\n| defendant in an adversary proceeding, which in addition to the |\n| return of \\$87 million, seeks the expungement of the objector's |\n| alleged claims against the estates. |\n| And Mr. Stanziale would testify that after careful |\n| review and due diligence that the Trustee has determined, in |\n| his business judgment, that the settlement is in the best |\n| interests of all Creditors of the estates and is well above |\n| the lowest point in the range of reasonableness necessary for |\n| this Court to approve this settlement. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| Mr. Stanziale, I gather you're on the line now. |\n| (Whereupon, Mr. Stanziale appeared by phone.) |\n| MR. STANZIALE:
Yes, Judge. |\n| THE COURT:
And have you heard the proffer made by |\n| your counsel? |\n| MR. STANZIALE:
Yes, I have, Judge. |\n| THE COURT:
And would you attest to all of the |\n| statements that he just made? |\n| |\n\n# **Response/Greenhalgh 14** MR. STANZIALE: I do attest, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else? MR. TESTA: That's it, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in support of the settlement? MR. GREENHALGH: Good morning, Your Honor. Walter Greenhalgh, Duane Morris, counsel for the Creditors Committee. Your Honor, I will be brief. We did submit a response to the objection filed by Mr. Franco. And I want to stress to the Court, the Creditor Committee involvement, once this business deal and the elements of the settlement were agreed to by the Trustee and his attorneys with the attorneys for Joe Franco, Your Honor, once the Committee passed upon the business deal -- and the Committee did -- we went into and analyzed the proposal that was being made. We then were involved, quite extensively, in negotiating the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Creditors Committee wanted to insure that certain interests that the Trustee could possibly pursue at a later date would not be included in the settlement. And the Committee did take an active role in these negotiations.\n\n Once that was completed, the Settlement Agreement was then submitted and finalized by all the parties, and the\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 15 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 2509-10 Filed 01/18/24 Entered 01/18/24 11:15:08 Page 16 of 87\n\n#### **Response/Greenhalgh/Usatine 15**\n\n| 1 | Motion was then filed with this Court for the approval. |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Your Honor, we stress the fact that this Settlement |\n| 3 | Agreement, first of all, brings in over 129 properties into |\n| 4 | this estate.
It also will resolve any cloud or dispute that |\n| 5 | revolve around those properties, and it also resolves |\n| 6 | significant litigation which would result in extensive further |\n| 7 | costs to this estate for counsel fees and professional fees. |\n| 8 | Your Honor, it's clear that what the Trustee has |\n| 9 | submitted goes far beyond the minimum standards of the range |\n| 10 | of reasonableness which this Court would use as the standard, |\n| 11 | which we noted the Franco objection completely fails to |\n| 12 | address.
The Franco objection is fraught with unsubstantiated |\n| 13 | allegations by counsel.
The statement is not certified. |\n| 14 | There was no affidavit.
There is nothing from a factual |\n| 15 | standpoint that Mr. Franco and his attorneys have submitted to |\n| 16 | this Court that would substantiate their allegations. |\n| 17 | Therefore, Your Honor, the burden, which has been |\n| 18 | met by this Trustee, has not been rebutted by Mr. Franco.
And |\n| 19 | we would request, for the benefit of this estate, that you |\n| 20 | approve the settlement. |\n| 21 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | Anyone else in support? |\n| 24 | MR. USATINE:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Very, very |\n| 25 | briefly and just to add some color to our letter and the |\n\nTrustee and the Committee's position.\n\n The settlement that's before Your Honor was probably, I would say, every bit of a year in the making. There were some starts and stops. It will avoid -- but it was always conducted in good faith. The Committee was brought under the tent and made substantive requests for change that were accommodated through additional negotiation. The settlement obviously will avoid what would otherwise be a very, very hotly-contested litigation before the District Court, likely resulting in a jury trial, because some of the claims are clearly not easily disposed of on Summary Judgment, and it would avoid all of that expense, all of that delay, and end litigation with probably the estate's largest Creditor, in my view, Mr. Dwek, who was a net loser on his investments of more than \\$60 million.\n\n The negotiations that I made reference to, Your Honor, resulted in a deal that I think is abundantly fair from my client's perspective and results in benefits to the estate, both in terms of the clearing of title on the properties and the ending of litigation that are abundantly clear.\n\n And for that reason, we join in the Trustee's and the Committee's responses to Mr. Franco's objection and request that they be overruled.\n\nThank you.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n#### **Response/Usadi/Neumann 17**\n\n| 1 | MR. USADI:
Your Honor, Robert Usadi for HSBC. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | HSBC, which has made a substantial contribution to |\n| 3 | the settlement, strongly supports the settlement for the |\n| 4 | reasons stated by the Trustee and the Committee. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. NEUMANN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Timothy |\n| 7 | Neumann for the Debtors. |\n| 8 | It occurred to me driving over here one thing that I |\n| 9 | didn't put into my 5:00 o'clock submission last week.
The |\n| 10 | objector indicates that one of the reasons for not approving |\n| 11 | the settlement is because there are certain claims that the |\n| 12 | Trustee is preserving which could create conflicts in the |\n| 13 | future. |\n| 14 | This case, by virtue of its complexity and the |\n| 15 | number of entities, is certainly replete with potential |\n| 16 | conflicts, but the remedy for that is not to kill this |\n| 17 | settlement.
That would certainly have the tail wagging the |\n| 18 | dog.
If those potential conflicts become actual, then the |\n| 19 | appropriate remedy is that the Trustee can hire Special |\n| 20 | Counsel if and when the need arises. |\n| 21 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | Anyone else in support? |\n| 24 | Miss Pacheco, I was led to believe by some of the |\n| 25 | submissions that Sun National's limited objection was |\n| | |\n\nresolved?\n\n| 2 | MR. PACHECO:
They are, Your Honor. |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Let's hear from the |\n| 4 | loyal opposition. |\n| 5 | MR. STEINBERG:
Good morning, again, Your Honor.
I |\n| 6 | probably can't promise to be brief, but I think there's a lot |\n| 7 | that needs to be said, things that were not said in the Motion |\n| 8 | papers and, to the extent that people believe that the |\n| 9 | citations were made up, or the statements made were made out |\n| 10 | of whole cloth, then I will be citing to the pleadings filed |\n| 11 | in these cases in support of those assertions. |\n| 12 | I represent Isaac Franco, who is one of the largest |\n| 13 | individual Creditors of the Solomon Dwek bankruptcy estates. |\n| 14 | When we filed the pleading in this case in response to the |\n| 15 | Trustee's Motion for approval of the Joey Dwek settlement |\n| 16 | which essentially requested two things:
One, we request an |\n| 17 | adjournment of the Court's consideration of the Joey Dwek |\n| 18 | settlement on multiple grounds.
And two, we expressed |\n| 19 | concerns with regard to certain elements of the settlement, |\n| 20 | including the elimination of specific language which we |\n| 21 | believe highlighted a conflict of interest for the Trustee, |\n| 22 | and that Franco is criticized because, that the pleadings that |\n| 23 | were filed in this case, that he filed, didn't have specific |\n| 24 | citations to the record.
And, again, I will fill that in. |\n| 25 | And, in reality, as will be elaborated today, most |\n\n| 1 | of the statements that we made did come from the pleadings, |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | and the reality is that Franco was asking for the opportunity |\n| 3 | to develop the factual record in this case to properly assess |\n| 4 | whether this settlement should be approved.
The Trustee has |\n| 5 | the burden of approval on the settlement, and it wasn't until |\n| 6 | the Creditors Committee filed this pleading on Friday that we |\n| 7 | were aware that the Committee had a position on this matter. |\n| 8 | The Trustee's Motion to approve this settlement does not say |\n| 9 | anything about what the Creditors Committee's position was. |\n| 10 | Now, the grounds for adjournment, I've said, are |\n| 11 | multiple, and I'd like to go through them with Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. STEINBERG:
The first is the Motion to approve |\n| 14 | did not contain what we believe to be critical information |\n| 15 | which Creditors are entitled to know in order to assess |\n| 16 | whether the settlement was reasonable and should be approved. |\n| 17 | And because of these omissions, Franco suggested that the |\n| 18 | settlement needed to be re-noticed to include the missing |\n| 19 | information so that all Creditors would know what was going |\n| 20 | on. |\n| 21 | In addition, Franco was concerned about the |\n| 22 | information contained in the settlement and, therefore, |\n| 23 | indicated in his pleading that he would serve discovery in |\n| 24 | order to try to flesh out those concerns.
And, indeed, he did |\n| 25 | serve that discovery, which is attached to our supplemental |\n\n| 1 | pleading which we filed on Friday.
And we believe that he |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | should be entitled to take that discovery to further develop |\n| 3 | the record in this case and to address the concerns which I'll |\n| 4 | speak about later on. |\n| 5 | As an aside, before filing this pleading regarding |\n| 6 | the settlement, Franco's counsel did meet with the Trustee and |\n| 7 | discussed some of the terms which he thought needed further |\n| 8 | elaboration.
The Trustee did provide certain general |\n| 9 | information, promised to give other information, and did not, |\n| 10 | even today through his pleadings, file additional information, |\n| 11 | which we believe is required in order to assess the |\n| 12 | reasonableness of a settlement. |\n| 13 | We asked the Trustee for an adjournment of this |\n| 14 | hearing in order to be able to try to better assess the |\n| 15 | factual record, and the Trustee turned down that request. |\n| 16 | The resolution of this dispute between the Debtor's |\n| 17 | estate and the Joey Dwek estate is an important issue in this |\n| 18 | case.
And there is no reason why, and there is no prejudice |\n| 19 | to anyone, giving Franco additional time to fully assess the |\n| 20 | grounds and whether the settlement should be approved or not. |\n| 21 | Franco is looking for a 60-day adjournment.
That's |\n| 22 | not a long time in the context of this case which is |\n| 23 | approaching its two-year anniversary.
The Trustee indicated |\n| 24 | in his pleadings that Joey Dwek, that the settlement with Joey |\n\nDwek has been negotiated for a long period of time. That's\n\n Paragraph 19 of the Trustee response to the Franco objection to the settlement.\n\n Counsel for Joey Dwek said today that these negotiations have been going on for a year. He also indicated that there were a number of discussions with the Creditors Committee over months regarding the settlement. That's contained in the same paragraph, on Paragraph 19 of the Trustee's objections.\n\n Counsel for the Committee stood up today and said that he's been involved in these discussions for a period of time. Franco has known about the settlement for less than four weeks, and he's looking to play catchup. And he's entitled to have a reasonable period of time in order to do so.\n\n During this 60-day interval, there will be a number of additional pieces of information that Creditors will have and that the Court will have. And each of those circumstances will give a better and complete record as to whether this settlement is reasonable and should be approved. And the additional information will be coming from a number of sources. And I'd like to elaborate what I think is going to happen over the next 60 days.\n\n First, Franco will be taking the discovery that he's requesting, which is the document production by the Trustee, and the deposition of the Trustee. And Franco should have the\n\n opportunity to be able to prepare, if necessary, for a trial, as the Trustee puts in his evidentiary record, as compared to doing it in this manner.\n\n Second, for months there's been an outstanding deposition request for Solomon Dwek, the Debtor. And that has been adjourned at the request of the government to accommodate a criminal investigation. We believe that during the 60-day period that we may very well have Solomon Dwek testify in this case, or at least saying something in this case. There's been a schedule that's been circulated among the parties to have that deposition heard towards the end of February.\n\n There's clearly something that will be relevant, that will be developed during the examination. Frankly, the Trustee said that the failure of Solomon Dwek to testify was one of the reasons why he wanted to have an equitable tolling of the two-year Statute of Limitations. We believe that whatever Solomon Dwek says may have a bearing on the Court's assessment of the settlement of the case. Certainly, people will have the opportunity to ask questions of Solomon Dwek. To date, the only one who seems to have had that opportunity has been the Trustee, and Solomon Dwek has been paid for almost two years for that opportunity.\n\n In addition, if and when Solomon Dwek testifies, it would also signify that there is a further development in the criminal proceeding and that that information that will come\n\n| 1 | out from the U.S. Attorney may very well have relevance to the |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Court's assessment of the settlement.
As the Trustee's |\n| 3 | counsel say, the Joey Dwek settlement is a big settlement in |\n| 4 | this case.
He's an important actor for what happened in this |\n| 5 | case. |\n| 6 | In response to the proposed plan -- next, in |\n| 7 | response to the proposed plan filed by the Debtor, the Trustee |\n| 8 | committed to filing a plan in this case sometime during the |\n| 9 | month in February.
That's Paragraph 14 of the Trustee's |\n\n objection to Solomon's Plan of Reorganization. That plan, whatever it will be, should contain information as to the following issues, which each of which has relevance to aspects of the settlement.\n\n First, whether the Debtor cases will be substantively consolidated and why. That issue affects many of the Trustee's claims against Joey Dwek. It also affects the claims against HSBC. It also affects the claims of other investors.\n\n Two, whether investor claims will be treated pari passu with other unsecured Creditor claims. In Solomon Dwek's plan, he suggests that there is a basis to subordinate the claims in full, and he was offering to pay them 25 percent of their claims after they had been reduced by any distribution that has been had in this case. Franco has submitted a pleading in connection with that plan which said that\n\n settlement, which is entirely unreasonable and wrong, is a skewing of this estate for the benefit of the non-investor Creditors.\n\n It's important to know what the Trustee and the Creditors Committee will be doing on that issue. And when the Trustee files its Plan of Reorganization, we will know. And that issue underlies an important element of the settlement. It relates to the claims that Joey Dwek is giving up, and it also relates to the claim which is being recognized in favor of HSBC. Is that \\$20 million claim going to be treated as an investor claim, a non-investor claim; will it make a difference or not make a difference? We'll know within the three-week period when the Trustee files his plan.\n\n Next, are investors' claims being reduced by any amounts returned to them prior to the bankruptcy? Also, are investors still going to be requested to return, on a dollar- for-dollar basis, any amounts paid to them by Solomon Dwek prior to the bankruptcy? This issue underlies the release being given for Joey Dwek of the \\$91 million paid to him prior to the bankruptcy. That \\$91 million figure is in Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Trustee's complaint against Joey Dwek.\n\n Significantly, the fact that the Trustee had sued Joey Dwek for \\$91 million in a return of cash is not contained in this Motion for approval of the settlement. It also affects the assessment as to what claim, if any, Joey Dwek\n\n| 1 | ever had against the bankruptcy estate.
It also has the same |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | impact as to what claim HSBC ever had with regard to the \\$25 |\n| 3 | million claim and the \\$18 million loan which are the subject |\n| 4 | of the settlement.
Of the \\$91 million paid for Joey Dwek, in |\n| 5 | excess of \\$30 million was paid to Dwek to his account at HSBC |\n| 6 | after the \\$25 million loan was paid.
That information about |\n| 7 | the \\$31 (sic) million is contained in Paragraph 41 of the |\n| 8 | Trustee's complaint. |\n| 9 | I will say that I made a mistake in the objection |\n| 10 | that was filed.
I used the number \\$23 million.
It was |\n| 11 | actually a larger amount. |\n| 12 | How those payments were accounted for is not |\n| 13 | described in the Motion.
The Trustee, in his proffer, says he |\n| 14 | believes that Joey Dwek is a potential Creditor for \\$60 |\n| 15 | million in this case.
We want to challenge that assertion. |\n| 16 | We're wondering if \\$91 million was received by Joey |\n| 17 | Dwek, what actually did he advance, and what did he advance |\n| 18 | versus other entities advance, and whether that \\$60 million |\n| 19 | includes the HSBC claim for \\$43 million.
And I will elaborate |\n| 20 | later on in my presentation with citations to affidavits that |\n| 21 | Joey Dwek filed in the State Court proceeding to illustrate |\n| 22 | why this is of concern -- this has not been spelled out in the |\n| 23 | Motion -- and why we think this needs to be developed and a |\n| 24 | better record through discovery. |\n| 25 | Next, whether Joey Dwek had any claims against the |\n\n| 1 | Trustee, which the Trustee is seeking to enforce against |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Debtor's estates other than the Solomon Dwek estate.
That's |\n| 3 | an element of this settlement.
That will have an impact on |\n| 4 | some Creditors in some Debtor's estates.
So which Debtor's |\n| 5 | estates are being advantaged, and at whose expense, and why? |\n| 6 | That is not explained in this Motion.
We raised it twice. |\n| 7 | They've had an opportunity to respond, and they say we'll |\n| 8 | figure it out later on.
I don't think they have the |\n| 9 | opportunity to say I'll let you know later on.
This is the |\n| 10 | time that they're supposed to tell us what that's about. |\n| 11 | And what is a Joey Dwek claim -- why is a Joey Dwek |\n| | |\n\n claim being asserted in any estate if they're trumpeting the fact that Joey Dwek is entitled for release, is releasing these estates? So why is the Trustee asserting a claim of Joey Dwek -- and the same thing with regard to HSBC with respect to the \\$43 million claim -- why is he asserting it against certain other estates? Someone's ox is being gored for a particular purpose. We don't know.\n\n Frankly, the plan that will be filed in the next three weeks should explain it. We're entitled to know it. The Court should be entitled to know it. And I understand that this is a settlement that everybody else wants. But you might as well have it on a good record. You might as well explain the things that you should have explained the first time. And all Creditors will have an opportunity to see how\n\n| 1 | they're being impacted by the settlement, because we believe |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | that the Motion that was filed did not properly describe it. |\n| 3 | Franco said that this provision highlights a |\n| 4 | conflict of interest.
A Trustee who is a Creditor of all |\n| 5 | estates can't take a claim that he acquires in connection with |\n| 6 | one settlement, assert it against the estate.
And for what |\n| 7 | purpose, who's going to get the derivative benefit for it? |\n| 8 | The next point is whether any investor will be given |\n| 9 | an additional recovery based on the constructive trust theory |\n| 10 | as against any property of the Debtor's estates.
The Trustee |\n| 11 | indicates that this argument may have some vitality as a basis |\n| 12 | for his reasons in settling with Joey Dwek.
That's in |\n| 13 | Paragraph 8 of the Trustee response to the Franco objection |\n| 14 | which was filed on Friday. |\n| 15 | This argument is very similar to that held by many |\n| 16 | of the community investors.
Indeed, it appears Joey Dwek |\n| 17 | advanced his largest amounts in connection with the Meridian |\n| 18 | Hospital buy/sell flip deals, which is the basis upon which |\n| 19 | Solomon Dwek essentially swindled most of the Deal community. |\n| 20 | And the recitation of why I make that statement that it |\n| 21 | usually relates to the Meridian deals is contained in |\n| 22 | Paragraphs 20 through 24 in the Joey Dwek Answer filed in the |\n| 23 | State Court action. |\n| | |\n\n And after this hearing today, if Your Honor wants to see all the pleadings that I filed for -- because they're not\n\n readily available -- and for me to assemble a compendium of these exhibits, I'm happy to do so.\n\n The next point is that the Trustee filed a pleading in this case -- the next point for an adjournment is that the Trustee filed a pleading in this case to extend the two-year period for him to bring avoiding power claims, and he gave two, essentially two reasons why this information is what he needed. One, he says his information is not complete and that he needs more time to evaluate what happened, A, because Solomon has not formally testified in this case, and B, because he's not finished with the docketing review which is slowly coming back to him in connection with the seizure of documents by the government.\n\n Well, during this 60-day period of time, I think Solomon is going to testify. A lot of these documents will be coming back. And there's a reasonable likelihood that this additional information will be revealed. And if all these things were relevant for the Trustee as a basis to decide who to sue and not to sue, and to ask this Court for an equitable tolling, then they're probably relevant for decisions to be made as to who to settle with. And even if he's firmly deciding that that's relevant, it is relevant for the other Creditors of this estate who are impacted by the settlement to assess any settlement proposal made by the Trustee.\n\nNow, those are the bases upon which I think we're\n\n| 1 | entitled to a 60-day adjournment.
But I'd like to now go |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | through the concerns and elaborate on the concerns made with |\n| 3 | regard to the settlement.
The settlement describes what the |\n| 4 | Trustee is getting.
And I'll go through a little why it's |\n| 5 | incomplete to understand what the Trustee is getting.
And, |\n| 6 | believe me, I tried very hard to go through this. |\n| 7 | But what is the Trustee giving up in the settlement? |\n| 8 | The Trustee is giving up -- is getting a release -- is giving |\n| 9 | a release to Joey Dwek, and he's recognizing an HSBC claim in |\n| 10 | the reduced amount of \\$20 million.
The Motion never really |\n| 11 | describes the claims with any specificity of what he's giving |\n| 12 | up against Joey Dwek.
He brought an adversary proceeding.
He |\n| 13 | references the proceeding.
But he never really describes in |\n| 14 | the Motion that he sued Joey Dwek for \\$90 million to bring |\n| 15 | back. |\n| 16 | It's the same legal theory that he sued every |\n| 17 | community investor in this case.
You got a dime back from |\n| 18 | Solomon Dwek, you got sued.
The \\$90 million request is Counts |\n| 19 | 1 through 5 of the complaint filed against Joey Dwek. |\n| 20 | Now, how much of the \\$90 million that he got reduced |\n| 21 | the claims of Joey Dwek?
You don't know the answer.
You do |\n| 22 | have the Trustee saying I think it may be \\$60 million.
But |\n| | |\n\n based on the snippets of what I've been able to glean from these documents, it's hard to tell why he believes that to be the case. And whatever he thinks, I'm entitled to test it.\n\n| 1 | And I'm really entitled to test it first with documents and a |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | deposition before having to try to do it based on a proffer |\n| 3 | that he just makes that one statement. |\n| 4 | And did any of that \\$90 million reduce the HSBC |\n| 5 | claims in any way?
The Trustee says the Joey Dwek claim is |\n| 6 | \\$60 million.
Franco wants to test it.
Joey's State Court |\n| 7 | papers that he filed, because he never filed a Proof of Claim |\n| 8 | in this case other than the \\$1.5 million forgery claim, and he |\n| 9 | never really filed a claim in the State Court proceeding |\n| 10 | because the involuntary came before the bar date happened. |\n| 11 | So you have to glean this from reading the State |\n| 12 | Court papers that Joey Dwek filed his certifications.
He |\n| 13 | talked about that he started his business dealings with |\n| 14 | Solomon in around 2000, which is earlier than almost everybody |\n| 15 | else involved in this case; that he had somewhere between \\$10 |\n| 16 | million to \\$14 million that he advanced between 2003 and |\n| 17 | August of 2005.
Then the HSBC loan started where he borrowed |\n| 18 | the money, and that was the \\$43 million.
And, plus, he gave |\n| 19 | \\$7 million in March of 2006. |\n| 20 | So that's all I can count up.
That information is |\n| 21 | contained in the Third-Party Complaint filed in November 2006 |\n| 22 | in the State Court action by Joey Dwek.
So you have an HSBC |\n| 23 | claim, which is a double count, if Joey Dwek and HSBC are |\n| 24 | asserting the same claims against the estate, you have |\n| 25 | somewhere around \\$10 million to \\$14 million.
In some |\n\n| 1 | pleadings, he says it's 10; in another pleading says it's 14. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Plus, you got the \\$7 million in March of 2006.
And you have |\n| 3 | the Trustee alleging in his complaint that he got back \\$91 |\n| 4 | million and \\$30 million of which came after August of 2005. |\n| 5 | So was Joey Dwek a net Creditor?
Was he a |\n| 6 | profiteer?
Did he get back more than he was entitled to?
I |\n| 7 | think what I'd like to know, the State Court pleadings said |\n| 8 | that he gave -- his deal with Solomon was that Solomon would |\n| 9 | find properties and that he would give money to Solomon's |\n| 10 | Yeshiva or the Yeshiva that Solomon worked for as a sort of a |\n| 11 | commission.
Solomon would then be the Property Manager for |\n| 12 | the properties that he acquired. |\n| 13 | And in the State Court pleadings, he said that, at a |\n| 14 | minimum, he gave \\$2 million to a Yeshiva based on his deal |\n| 15 | with Solomon.
That information is contained in the May 2006 |\n| 16 | certification of Joey Dwek, Footnote 1 on Page 2.
Trustee |\n| 17 | alleged that Solomon was entitled, that Solomon said that he |\n| 18 | was entitled to 20 percent of the profits of the Joey Dwek |\n| 19 | deal. |\n| 20 | So you pay \\$2 million to Yeshiva, and he was |\n| 21 | entitled to 20 percent of the profits, that would suggest that |\n| 22 | there was a \\$10 million profit that was made.
Maybe not.
I'm |\n| 23 | just trying to do math, trying to deal with this information. |\n| 24 | Joey said that he paid taxes on alleged profits. |\n\nThat's Paragraph 9 of a supplemental certification of Joey\n\nDwek dated June 5, 2006.\n\n| 2 | Well, that's all I know, Judge.
I'm entitled to |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | test it.
And I'm entitled to get the documents as a |\n| 4 | fundamental assumption before I go through with it. |\n| 5 | Now, the adversary proceeding complaint says, in |\n| 6 | Paragraph 43, that prior to the bankruptcy, several entities |\n| 7 | presumably associated with Joey Dwek advanced monies to SEM. |\n| 8 | So in the complaint that the Trustee filed against Joey Dwek |\n| 9 | where he sued them because he said SEM is a separate entity |\n| 10 | from other Dwek entities, and it just so happens that Joey |\n| 11 | Dwek got his money from SEM, but SEM didn't owe anything to |\n| 12 | him and, therefore, Joey Dwek was liable for \\$91 million. |\n| 13 | And that's why I said the substantive consolidation |\n| 14 | issue was relevant, because if SEM is consolidated with some |\n| 15 | of the other Dwek entities, then he won't be able to play the |\n| 16 | game of you advanced with this debtor, but you got paid from |\n| 17 | that debtor, so you're a creditor of one debtor and you have a |\n| 18 | fraudulent conveyance issue with another debtor.
So that's |\n| 19 | why the substantive consolidation issue is entirely relevant. |\n| 20 | But he said, you know, I recognize that Joey got \\$91 |\n| 21 | million, but there's some money that came back during this |\n| 22 | course of this six-year history that they had.
And he said |\n| 23 | they came back from the following entities -- and this, again, |\n| 24 | is in Paragraph 43 of the Trustee's complaint -- Consolidated |\n\nChildren's Apparel, Inc., Sports Product of America, LLC, IFG\n\n| 1 | Corporation, and Sister-Sister, Inc., now when you actually |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | read the settlement that the Trustee filed in this case, he's |\n| 3 | preserving these claims against these entities because he |\n| 4 | feels like he has claims against these entities, and that's a |\n| 5 | carve-out of the release in Paragraph 5A of the release. |\n| 6 | But when you look to see what releases the Trustee |\n| 7 | is getting, he's not getting a release from these entities. |\n| 8 | The entities that actually put money into the estates, he's |\n| 9 | not getting a release from as part of the Joey Dwek |\n| 10 | settlement.
I don't know why that's the case.
It would seem |\n| 11 | to me that that an omission.
He's setting himself up.
But |\n| 12 | Joey Dwek releases his claim, but Joey Dwek wasn't the entity |\n| 13 | who put the money into the estate.
It's these entities that |\n| 14 | put these monies into the estate.
And whether these entities |\n| 15 | did it because they're related to Joey Dwek and they did it on |\n| 16 | his behalf or not, I don't know. |\n| 17 | But I will tell you that when you look to see how |\n| | |\n\n the Trustee presents this as part of the release, it looks like these entities are entities not related to Joey Dwek, but they're related to Jack Adjmi. So when you look at Paragraph 5A, these entities seem to be defined as Adjmi affiliates, not really Dwek affiliates.\n\n Now, there could be an explanation for this, but I don't know what it is right now. It's one of the reasons why we asked for discovery. It's one of the reasons why we asked\n\n to take the deposition. And we tried to get it informally. We got some pieces of information; we didn't get other pieces of information.\n\n Now, what is Joey Dwek's claims against the other estates? I referred to this before. And why are they being assigned to the Trustee? How does that not represent a conflict for the Trustee? If the settlement is approved and Joey Dwek did not file claims against these entities prior to the bar date, how are these claims being preserved? Because Joey Dwek reserved the right to file claims if he had to give back the properties, but he now has a deal. The bar date is gone in this case. So now we're preserving these claims that are past the bar date because we're giving them to the Trustee to assert against certain estates when he's supposed to be the representative of all the estates? And who's going to get the recovery on those claims? And why am I the only one who thinks that's not a conflict of interest, and why does anybody think that's something that could be waived with a Special Counsel? Who's making the decisions?\n\n I can get ten counsel in this world. I need a special Trustee to handle that, because every lawyer who works works for the benefit of a client. And the client is the one who makes the business decision. And the client is the one who directs the attorney what to do. He has this inherent conflict that he's creating himself by virtue of how he's\n\nconstructed the settlement.\n\n Now, the HSBC claim is being reduced from \\$43 million to \\$20 million. Trustee did not say in his Motion when he filed this what the aggregate claims were against the consolidated estate. We raised that as an issue. And on Friday, he indicated that he thought it was going to be around \\$120 million. That's in Paragraph 29 of his response. So I'd like to verify that information. I'd like to know what the impact of it is. And I bet you when he files his plan within the next three weeks, I'll get a hell of a lot more information that I'll be able to assess how he came up with that number.\n\n And what's not said is that the \\$43 million claimage of HSBC is probably being counted twice with the Joey Dwek claim. I don't really know for sure. I'm only trying to add what the -- how Joey Dwek has presented his claim in the State Court, and it looks like it must be being counted twice.\n\n The \\$25 million claim -- because the 43 is composed of a \\$25 million claim and an \\$18 million claim -- the \\$25 million claim appears to have been made based on the fact that a loan was made by HSBC to Joey Dwek which was guaranteed by Solomon Dwek. So it's not a direct obligation; it's a Solomon guarantee.\n\n And although it's not set forth in the Motion, when you go back to the State Court, you realize that originally,\n\n| 1 | this was a \\$15 million loan made in June, and in August of |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | '05, it became a \\$25 million loan.
And for the life of me, in |\n| 3 | reviewing the State Court papers, I can't tell whether the |\n| 4 | original \\$15 million was just a Joey Dwek obligation, and then |\n| 5 | it was in August of '05 where it became a Joey Dwek obligation |\n| 6 | guaranteed by Solomon. |\n| 7 | So the Trustee raised in his complaint that the \\$25 |\n| 8 | million guarantee by Solomon of the Joey Dwek obligation was a |\n| 9 | fraudulent conveyance, that there was no consideration |\n| 10 | received by Solomon for guaranteeing the obligations of his |\n| 11 | uncle and the loans made to his uncle.
So why wasn't that a |\n\n claim, when there's a \\$25 million aspect of it, may not seem like a good deal. So what are the incidental benefits that would support this type of guarantee? I don't know. That's what I want to ask for discovery for, to get a sense of why the\n\ngood claim? Because if that was a good claim or a reasonably\n\ngood claim, then a \\$20 million give-up off a \\$43 million\n\n Trustee, in analyzing these issues, decided that he wanted to give up on this thing.\n\n Now, the \\$18 million claim, which is the other aspect of the 43, was made to Solomon and Joey, but that claim is secured by other collateral. So what's that collateral worth? Has it been sold? I, truthfully, can't do what the Committee does in this case on behalf of an individual client,\n\n| 1 | which is to track every element.
I can't ask for it in |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | discovery.
I can see it when I see a Plan of Reorganization. |\n| 3 | There's collateral that supports that \\$18 million |\n| 4 | loan.
Both sides in the settlement have reserved the right as |\n| 5 | to whether HSBC should be entitled to get that collateral |\n| 6 | which will reduce that \\$18 million exposure or not.
If HSBC |\n| 7 | is right -- and I think HSBC usually is right on the claims |\n| 8 | that they assert in these cases -- then there's not really an |\n| 9 | \\$18 million claim in this case.
It's a lesser amount. |\n| 10 | There's a deficiency -- \\$18 million, the full amount, with the |\n| 11 | secured claim -- so what's the deficiency in this case?
I |\n| 12 | don't know.
It's not in the Motion.
It's not in the |\n| 13 | information that's relevant for purposes of determining what |\n| 14 | is the give-up in this claim. |\n| 15 | Now, were there payments made against the \\$43 |\n| 16 | million claim?
As I've said now, I know, a couple of times, |\n| | |\n\n million claim? As I've said now, I know, a couple of times, that Joey got \\$30 million since August, and I didn't track what he got since June when the original \\$15 million were advanced and they went into an HSBC bank account -- that's set forth by the Trustee in his complaint in Paragraph 43 -- so where did the money go? The money went into a Joey Dwek bank account. It was actually a Dwek, L.P. bank account. So where was it applied? It has to be applied somewhere. Was it applied against these loans? Was it applied against other Joey Dwek obligations? \\$30 million after August of 2005 went\n\n| 1 | to Joey Dwek.
Is the \\$20 million considered an investor claim |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | or a financial institution claim?
It emanates from loans made |\n| 3 | essentially to do these Meridian flip deals.
Is that going to |\n| 4 | be an issue in this case?
I don't think it should be an |\n| 5 | issue, but Solomon did.
And I don't know what the Trustee's |\n| 6 | position is. |\n| 7 | But if it is an issue in this case, and if someone |\n\n is going to discount that claim, is this HSBC claim going to be considered an investor claim? I know they're not an institution, but it derives from a loan made to an investor. If that's going be the rule in this case and Your Honor is going to go against what I will be urging you, but that's what you're going to determine, then that will affect what the consideration that's going to be exchanged in connection with the settlement.\n\n Again, I'm not looking to delay this thing forever. I've been a critic of this Trustee and this Committee about moving this case forward, moving this case forward in a global way that impacts all investors. When we originally filed our objection and did not have the Trustee's statement as to when he filed a plan, so I had the objection phased in general terms of, we all would like to know, we need to see the macro- picture in order to assess an important settlement in this case. Well, he gave me somewhat of a gift, because in response to Solomon's plan, he said I'm going to do something\n\n in 30 days. And after two years in this case, he should do something in 30, within the next 30 days.\n\n But when we know what he's going to do, we'll be able to assess how really the settlement is either valuable or not valuable and how Joey Dwek is standing apart from how the Trustee wants to treat the remaining community investors in this case. I know that in the context of the response to my papers, they said that Ike Franco sued for \\$87 million. Yeah, Ike Franco gave back more than 87. He gave back closer to 98, or whatever the number is. Ike Franco gave back somewhere between \\$9 million and \\$10 million more. And then if you count the Jubilee transactions, it's between \\$5.5 million and \\$6 million more than he ever got back over a two-year period with no return on his money. And we documented that three times to the Trustee already.\n\n Solomon -- Joey Dwek has been characterized up and through this settlement as a \\$91 million Creditor to this estate. And we just heard today in the proffer made for the Trustee that Joey Dwek is really a \\$60 million Creditor. So things move rather quickly depending on where you are in the stage of your negotiation.\n\n Why is HSBC being considered a good-faith claim holder for these claims, the \\$20 million, when at the same time they're being sued for their bad-faith conduct in connection with the PNC transaction? How does a holder in a\n\n| 1 | case get to be a good-faith holder in connection with one |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | transaction and a bad-faith holder in connection with a |\n| 3 | different transaction when the transactions happened around |\n| 4 | the same time?
What line is the Trustee trying to draw in |\n| 5 | this case?
I think there should be a global resolution of |\n| 6 | those HSBC issues.
It's kind of strange to have the notation |\n| 7 | that they're an allowed Creditor, incapable of being |\n| 8 | challenged by any other Creditor in this case for all times. |\n| 9 | And now he's still going to continue to sue HSBC for what he |\n| 10 | alleges, and I do not believe, is their bad-faith conduct. |\n| 11 | Let me be clear, I think HSBC conducted themselves |\n| 12 | properly in this case.
But the back and forth shifting of how |\n| 13 | the Trustee wants to conduct this case is strange.
And that |\n| 14 | is a concern that we want to flesh out in a deposition. |\n| 15 | HSBC claims that it has \\$43 million against other |\n| 16 | entities and that's going to be assigned to the Trustee.
And |\n| 17 | my question is, why aren't those claims being released?
It's |\n| 18 | the same issue that I've articulated with regard to Joey Dwek. |\n| 19 | Now, the settlement, which hasn't been discussed, |\n| 20 | has another element of it, which is that Joey Dwek is being |\n| 21 | reimbursed \\$1.484 million as an administrative claim in this |\n| 22 | case.
And that's relating to advances that Joey Dwek made |\n| 23 | with regard to the 129 properties before they were turned back |\n| 24 | to the Trustee in accordance with the interim settlement that |\n| 25 | he was referring to before. |\n\n| 1 | First, you can't tell unless you do some math and |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | you try to compare numbers -- and I'm not sure if Your Honor |\n| 3 | did that -- the interim settlement said that Joey Dwek had |\n| 4 | advanced \\$1.473 million.
The administrative claim is \\$1.484 |\n| 5 | million, greater than what Joey Dwek said he got back. |\n| 6 | The Trustee also filed a pleading in Paragraph 30 of |\n| 7 | the Motion that he filed in support of the Joey Dwek |\n| 8 | settlement which said that Joey Dwek got paid back under the |\n| 9 | interim settlement 26,800-and-some-odd dollars.
So if you |\n| 10 | take the \\$1.473, subtract almost \\$27,000, you're at \\$1.446, |\n| 11 | and the administrative claim that's being recognized is about |\n| 12 | \\$38,000 more.
Maybe that's because they're paying legal fees |\n| 13 | for Joey Dwek's lawyers and maybe that's the \\$38,000 |\n| 14 | difference.
I don't know.
They never say what the legal |\n| 15 | counsel is getting as part of the settlement, why. |\n| 16 | The interim settlement said we're going to reimburse |\n| 17 | Joey Dwek to the extent that there was a net equity in the |\n| 18 | properties.
So to the extent Joey Dwek advanced monies on |\n| 19 | properties and the properties had a value that would have |\n| 20 | otherwise flowed to the estate, and he supported the |\n| 21 | properties, they're going to reimburse him.
And that's |\n| 22 | presumably why he got \\$26,800 during the period of time that |\n| 23 | the Trustee has been selling these properties, which meant |\n| 24 | that most of the properties that were sold that came back |\n| 25 | didn't have this opportunity to reimburse Joey Dwek. |\n\n| 1 | Most of his advances must be for the properties that |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | were under water that needed him to support it, which is |\n| 3 | consistent with the logic, which is that you have a property |\n| 4 | that needs additional cash support which is not self |\n| 5 | sustaining, then that would be a reason to advance money. |\n| 6 | But you can't tell any of this.
The Trustee says in |\n| 7 | his response, yeah, that's what we agreed to in the interim |\n| 8 | settlement, but as part of the overall deal, I'm giving Joey |\n| 9 | Dwek some more money because he had the argument that if |\n| 10 | there's any equity from any of these properties, he should get |\n| 11 | reimbursed even if it's for a property where there was no |\n| 12 | equity value. |\n| 13 | Well, I think if that's his argument that he's now |\n| 14 | conceding that Joey Dwek was correct, then he's revising a |\n| 15 | position that he had otherwise staked out on the interim |\n| 16 | settlement, and I think I'd like to ask him about that in the |\n| 17 | context of a deposition. |\n| 18 | The settlement describes what the Trustee is |\n| 19 | getting.
And the settlement fundamentally mis-describes what |\n| 20 | the Trustee is getting.
He's saying he's getting the |\n| 21 | properties back.
And that's true.
And he says that he sold |\n| 22 | 60-some-odd properties, and he has close to 60-some-odd |\n| 23 | properties that he still hasn't sold in the last 18 months. |\n| 24 | But in his Motion -- and, Your Honor, I apologize because I'm |\n| 25 | a little out of order in my script, but this is an important |\n\n| 1 | point.
In his Motion, he says that the benefits of this deal |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | is that he's getting back properties that will have hundreds |\n| 3 | of millions of potential, hundreds of millions -- what |\n| 4 | paragraph -- |\n| 5 | MALE VOICE:
51. |\n| 6 | MR. STEINBERG: -- Paragraph 51, hundreds of millions |\n| 7 | of dollars of value for the estate, not even for the -- I |\n| 8 | don't think that means the secured Creditors; I think it means |\n| 9 | the estates -- hundreds of millions of dollars, that's what |\n| 10 | every Creditor saw when they saw this Motion being filed. |\n| 11 | Okay.
So he never said how much he got on the properties he |\n| 12 | sold.
That information didn't come out until Friday. |\n| 13 | So he got 62 properties that he sold.
He got \\$17.6 |\n| 14 | million.
So the other properties that he hasn't sold, either |\n| 15 | they're loaded with a hell of a lot of value, or that hundreds |\n| 16 | of millions of dollars of value statement is incorrect that's |\n| 17 | in his Motion.
And if it's incorrect, it's a fundamental |\n| 18 | mistake and needs to be corrected on notice to all of the |\n| 19 | Creditors. |\n| 20 | One of the things I want to challenge in the |\n| 21 | deposition is to find out which properties haven't been sold, |\n| 22 | what's the valuations on those properties, try to figure out |\n| 23 | why they haven't been sold in 18 months, because I've made a |\n| 24 | lot of bad personal business decisions in my own regard, and |\n| 25 | every personal decision stems from the same fact that I held |\n\n onto something in a deteriorating market, whether it's the stock market or the real estate climate. And that's what's happened in this case.\n\n The Trustee says he, under the settlement, he's getting title to 13 properties. Well, in Paragraph 15 of the Dwek, May 2006 certification, Dwek says he got 15 properties. So what happened to the two that are covered here? I don't know. We can't tell from reading these papers.\n\n The Trustee's response, but not in the Motion, gives the information of \\$17.6 million, 62 properties not sold, and that there are other -- and he doesn't really say what those other properties are worth. And, again, it's Paragraph 51, the exact quote, \"A potential value in the hundreds of millions of dollars to the estate.\"\n\n The Trustee raises the defense that Joey would assert for giving back these properties -- and on the surface, it would seem that Joey Dwek was the subject of a classic insider preference claim. I don't know why they keep on talking about it in terms of a fraudulent transfer. It could be a fraudulent transfer. But if Joey Dwek claimed that he was owed money because his nephew swindled him, and he got back these properties in satisfaction of having been swindled, and he did it within the one year prior to the bankruptcy filing in this case, that seems to me, as I've said before, not a difficult insider preference claim that wouldn't require\n\na lot of activity to be taken.\n\n And when you look at the April 26, 2006 first agreement -- I think Joey and his nephew did three agreements within a week as they were struggling to figure out how to make the uncle whole at the expense of every other Creditor in this case -- the April 26th agreement spells out that there was a covenant that Solomon would not file for bankruptcy within one year of the transfer of the properties. It's Paragraph 8 of that April 26th and April 27th sidelights.\n\n Significantly also, those letters in Paragraph 3 said Solomon, you shouldn't tell anybody that I'm giving back all these properties to you; I'm contractually prohibiting you from discussing it with everyone. What was the fundamental premise of that entire agreement if you try to read these papers is that Solomon only swindled one person in this world, other than maybe PNC Bank -- because they eventually knew about that -- they swindled, he swindled his uncle. Every other dollar that Solomon got in his hands was fundamentally good money. So Joey was saying to his nephew you had your good money, and you put the properties in your name; you should have put them in my name.\n\n But it assumes that what Solomon had gotten was his money. Solomon had swindled the rest of the community on essentially the same deals as Joey Dwek was being theoretically swindled, which was the Meridian Hospital\n\nbuy/sell locked-in flip deals.\n\n So Joey does these deals where he's telling his nephew don't tell anybody and don't file for bankruptcy within a year. Trustee says that the best element of the settlement, the reason why I'm doing this is because I'm getting back these properties. But when you take a step back, what that means is that the uncle, the insider, the person with the greatest influence in this case used that influence to grab the properties as a preference ahead of everyone else. And now the entire community is still being sued in this case, but Joey gets the advantage of getting out because he did the grab beforehand.\n\n And what did he do in his grab? Solomon was so anxious -- and this comes from the Trustee's complaint -- Solomon was so anxious to give Joey these properties that he signed deeds in blank. And Joey, lawyer, filled in the blanks over a course, a period of time, to be able to memorialize it. And when you read the Joey Dwek certifications in the State Court, Joey Dwek says it was hard to tell what Solomon was doing; he should have put the properties in my name; he didn't; I had a hard time trying to track what he was doing, therefore, I'm getting back these properties in order to make me whole.\n\n Every community investor who gave Solomon money has the same argument. Joey Dwek couldn't have a constructive\n\n| 1 | trust claim any better than any of these other investors in |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | this case.
Joey Dwek took the properties and now this |\n| 3 | settlement is being reached because he took those properties |\n| 4 | ahead of everybody else and trying to swear his nephew to |\n| 5 | secrecy in the process of doing that.
And that stinks. |\n| | |\n\n And what Franco is screaming about in this case is that the other investors in this community, all of whom think they were victims in this case, are all being sued under the same theory that Joey Dwek is being sued. Joey Dwek is escaping from having received \\$90 million in this case because he jumped ahead of the line of everybody else, and quickly got caught for doing it, but he jumped the line.\n\n And somehow, he's using this process at a time when all the other investors in this case don't know whether they're going to be hurt or not hurt. Most of the investors don't have, especially in this climate, the legal fees to continuously do this battle. And they're hoping that justice ultimately will be preserved. So many of them are religious, and I spoke to them and they said, God will be -- if Judge Ferguson doesn't watch out for me, God will watch out for me; God will make sure that justice is going to be done in this case. And I say to them I'm glad you have this faith, and I hope to have that same faith in Judge Ferguson, but Judge Ferguson needs to know what's going on; someone needs to shout out and say what's going on.\n\n| 1 | You can see me saying in the objection to the |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Solomon Dwek pleading and the plan all of the things that |\n| 3 | concern me about the case and all the fees that are going on |\n| 4 | in this case.
This settlement concerns me greatly.
And I |\n| 5 | think that Isaac Franco should have the opportunity to give |\n| 6 | you a fully-developed record in this case, and then you could |\n| 7 | decide whether this thing is reasonable or not reasonable. |\n| 8 | It's hard to value what the reduction of the HSBC |\n| 9 | claim of \\$20 million is worth.
The settlement with HSBC is |\n| 10 | subject to a separate deal between Joey Dwek and HSBC.
I |\n| 11 | looked for it -- but I sometimes miss it -- I didn't see it in |\n| 12 | the settlement.
But in Paragraph 46D of the Motion, they say |\n| 13 | that whatever HSBC is given in this deal, the reduction of its |\n| 14 | claim, it's subject to a Joey Dwek HSBC deal.
It doesn't |\n| 15 | describe what that deal is.
I guess they assume it's two |\n| 16 | third parties working out their own arrangement.
But it does |\n| 17 | say that the consideration is conditioned on that deal |\n| 18 | actually happening.
And I guess I probably would want to know |\n| 19 | what the deal is and whether that deal is ever going to happen |\n| 20 | because that will be an element of whether this settlement |\n| 21 | will ever close. |\n| | |\n\n Your Honor, to conclude, and I thank you for giving me the time to make my presentation, we believe that there are multiple grounds -- and I'm not going to list them again -- multiple grounds for an adjournment, which ensures that this\n\n| 1 | procedural due process in this case and that will allow the |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Court -- forget about even me -- will allow the Court to have |\n| 3 | a more fully-developed record on the reasonableness of the |\n| 4 | settlement. |\n\n There are numerous questions that I've raised about this settlement which raise an issue as to whether it's reasonable and whether the Trustee has included a provision which gives him a conflict of interest. We haven't asked for a deferral for a long period of time. No one is prejudiced by the deferral. The additional time may actually be helpful in resolving disputes. It may actually be that I either am convinced by something that happens in this case, or that I finally have the breakthrough where I've convinced other people about how I think this case should go.\n\n I will note that the transaction is subject to a final and non-appealable Order. And it would behoove everybody to see whether they can get a fully-consensual deal.\n\n I will say, Your Honor, that the Trustee has been good in giving time to Mr. Franco and his counsel in discussing the case. I'm not sure always whether I get all the information that I ask, and I'm not sure sometimes whether the Trustee has fully developed his thinking. I have asked though, Your Honor, what I believe to be a large Creditor in this case to have a greater involvement with the Creditors Committee, because I am an active investor who's willing to\n\n put in the time and the effort to see that justice is done in this case.\n\n And in that context, I have been politely told that now is not the right time. Well, with a plan being filed, I'm sure the time will be coming pretty soon. I'm pretty good at trying to work through issues and not having to do it in this way. I was criticized in the response papers for not citing law to Your Honor with regard to what happens in the settlement. I said to my co-counsel that I was pretty sure that Judge Ferguson was familiar with the standards of how settlements are supposed to be approved, that everybody cites the same canned parts of their brief, that these are all factual issues, and that the problem in this case is that my factual information is coming in dribs and drabs. I file an objection, and then I get responses 20 -- you know, a business, one business day ago, giving me more information which answers some questions and raises new questions, all of which are central and fundamental to the settlement that happened in this case.\n\n There is no doubt that part of the reason why Isaac Franco was concerned about the Joey Dwek settlement is because Isaac Franco is being sued. Let me be clear. I'm not trying to hide that. Joey Dwek has been sued under the same theories that Isaac Franco has been sued. All the community investors have been sued under those same grounds. We're asking for an\n\n even playing field and an understanding as to the Trustee's year of analysis as to how he came to these conclusions, how he's decided that HSBC was a good-faith lender when they deal with Joey Dwek and not a good-faith lender when they deal with Isaac Franco; why Joey Dwek doesn't have to give back \\$91 million, but today, every other community investor has to deal with the expense and the trauma of being sued by the Trustee in this case on a sort of a shotgun approach across the board.\n\n I'm not surprised that Isaac Franco is the only person that's objecting, because after two years in the case where people see the return being continually dwindled down and never sure whether they're ever going to get anything in this case, and being sued at the same time, it's hard to figure out whether you want to spend more money and have someone make court appearances except in the context of trying to defend themselves.\n\n I have recommended to Isaac Franco that you cannot run a case that way; you need to participate; you need to participate, not at the end, but at the beginning; and you need to be able to tell the judge that something is going wrong. There's something that's wrong when a Creditors Committee supervises a Chapter 11 Trustee and they both do an investigation of the Debtor. There's something wrong with a Debtor's counsel getting paid with the Debtor when you have a Chapter 11 Trustee for the amounts of monies that are going on\n\n#### **Response/Steinberg/Stanziale 52**\n\n in this case, for the amounts of accruals of administrative expenses in this case.\n\n I don't know why no one is shouting about it. I've tried to be able to raise those issues. And I will raise those issues in the context of a plan, Disclosure Statement, and how this case is being run. In this particular case, I've convinced my client it's worth the investiture of time to review documents, to take a deposition and, if necessary, come back as the Trustee will testify with an evidentiary record to be subject to cross-examination after I have my documents, after I have whatever information I think is relevant to bring before Your Honor with a handful book of exhibits, and then let Your Honor rule as to whether the settlement is reasonable. Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to the settlement? Any reply? MR. STANZIALE: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes? MR. STANZIALE: Charles Stanziale. I couldn't possibly reply on an assertion-by- assertion basis, but I must say a couple of things. First of all, it's obvious to me that Mr. Franco is attempting, through his counsel, of course, is attempting to, first of all,\n\n# **Response/Stanziale 53**\n\n| 1 | bolster his defenses to the litigation that I brought against |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | his client.
Moreover -- and to get the point in now that at a |\n| 3 | trial he may or may not get in (sic). |\n| 4 | Moreover, it should be known that there are at least |\n| 5 | 40 other lawsuits in this case, and there are some other |\n| 6 | additional lawsuits to come prior to the tolling period, and |\n| 7 | let's say that none of those other litigants stepped up to say |\n| 8 | that, to question what was questioned by Mr. Franco's counsel. |\n| 9 | But the thing is that the litigation against Mr. |\n| 10 | Franco is based on the fact, more so than the other Defendant, |\n| 11 | that he was, in effect, a co-conspirator here, that he knew |\n| 12 | what was going on, and that he received \\$90 million back from |\n| 13 | Dwek, Solomon Dwek, by virtue of threats and bodily harm, and |\n| 14 | much of the money that went out HSBC Bank to Joseph Dwek |\n| 15 | immediately, on the same day, went to pay down Mr. Franco as a |\n| 16 | result of, and because of his threats to Solomon Dwek who, |\n| 17 | indeed, feared for his life in this situation. |\n| 18 | So to take Franco as the good-faith victim is not |\n| 19 | the direction that we're going into in the lawsuit against Mr. |\n| 20 | Franco.
There were others that do have a case as to whether |\n| 21 | they were, in fact, good-faith victims or not.
And we're |\n| 22 | certainly willing to talk to them and to hear their defenses |\n| 23 | either before or at trial. |\n| 24 | With regard to Mr. Franco, however, we consider him |\n\ncomplicit in this entire matter. And to step up here and to\n\n# **Response/Stanziale 54**\n\n talk about we want discovery as to Joseph Dwek and to what caused this -- and the Court has insufficient information -- is absolutely something that is asserted for the purpose of, to frame the defenses of the allegations in the Trustee's complaint against Franco.\n\n That's basically what I'm saying, that to lay out all of these requests and these allegations to delay a settlement that will bring in substantial funds in this case where, indeed, there was, there probably would be a trial, a jury trial, there are factual issues with regard to Joseph Dwek that are not factual with regard to Isaac Franco. And in my judgment, both in my capacity as the Trustee in using a reasonable standard, lowest reasonable range, I've come to the conclusion that this, indeed, is a case that should be settled.\n\n The monies that -- we're preserving our rights against HSBC with regard to other loans from this case, the \\$15 million loan, the \\$20 million that, indeed, probably initiated this action, the kited check at PNC Bank which went for the benefit of, again, of Isaac Franco based upon the record he had made just three or four days prior to the issuance of this check. I think that, in itself, says that we're not giving Causes of Action away in the case.\n\n So based upon what I've seen, what I've done, I think that this Motion should not be delayed; that it's\n\n#### **Response/Stanziale/Usatine 55**\n\n| 1 | important to the case; that it's going to save the estate an |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | enormous amount of litigation cost, which both the Committee |\n| 3 | and the Court have been concerned with for quite some time. |\n| 4 | Many of the items and the issues raised by Mr. |\n| 5 | Steinberg are properly raised in a Disclosure Statement.
He |\n| 6 | spent a good deal of time discussing what a plan should be and |\n| 7 | how it affected other litigants and other investors.
Indeed, |\n| 8 | we question whether, what the status of Mr. Franco really is |\n| 9 | in this case, certainly in regard to his claim or the quality |\n| 10 | of his claim. |\n| 11 | In any event, I just wanted to say that I didn't |\n| 12 | want some of these allegations that are just simply across the |\n| 13 | board with no substantiation to just go by with an effort to |\n| 14 | influence the Court's decision at this time or in future |\n| 15 | litigation which this Court will, indeed, see. |\n| 16 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MR. USATINE:
Your Honor, I was hopeful, as I |\n| 19 | listened to Mr. Franco's counsel present his case to Your |\n| 20 | Honor that I wouldn't have to respond.
But I don't know, |\n| 21 | somewhere around 20 minutes in, I think I lost all hope in |\n| 22 | that regard. |\n| 23 | Mr. Steinberg and his client claim that they were |\n| 24 | not surprised that they were the only objector in light of |\n\nwhat he sees as the landscape of the case. No one else was\n\n| 1 | surprised either.
What I am surprised about is the assertion |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | that somehow there was surprise as to whether the Committee |\n| 3 | had a position in the case.
In fact, I think Mr. Steinberg |\n| 4 | said that Mr. Franco had no idea the Committee had an opinion |\n| 5 | in the case on this settlement until Friday.
Well, that's |\n| 6 | startling.
That is surprising. |\n\n First of all, the objection deadline came and went Monday without the Committee objecting. That should have been some hint to the extent there wasn't some indication of the Committee's prior to that. But the community investors that Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Franco purport to speak on behalf of at various points in time, certainly, some of them serve on the Committee. Certainly, others of them have a free sharing of information with the Committee and probably knew -- and I won't seek to impute any knowledge further than saying some of them probably knew, Judge, that the Committee had, in fact, been part of the negotiation with Joseph Dwek, carved out some language and releases to preserve claims that had yet been investigated by the Committee -- which I'll refer to later because there was reference to it in Mr. Steinberg's presentation -- and knew that the Committee supported the settlement.\n\n That being said, Judge, I have to touch -- and I won't attempt to touch on some of the issues that Mr. Steinberg raises in his presentation as requiring discovery.\n\n| 1 | I will say a few things, though.
Joseph Dwek never filed a |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Proof of Claim, true statement.
The reason Joseph Dwek never |\n| 3 | filed a Proof of Claim -- and we're on record both before Your |\n| 4 | Honor and in the State Court prior to the cases being filed |\n| 5 | before Your Honor -- the reason why was, just what Mr. |\n| 6 | Steinberg said, Joseph Dwek, the position was, was satisfied |\n| 7 | in his transaction that occurred immediately on the eve of the |\n| 8 | State Court proceeding being commenced through the transfer of |\n| 9 | properties that he thought should have been titled in his name |\n| 10 | because they were bought with his dollars and were not. |\n| 11 | There's no Proof of Claim to file, Judge, when that's your |\n| 12 | position. |\n\n That being said, when we did our interim settlement with Mr. Stanziale, Joseph Dwek expressly reserved the right to file a Proof of Claim in the event there was ever an adversary proceeding brought before Your Honor which resulted in a give-back of those properties. Until then, there was no reason to file a Proof of Claim.\n\n However, Joseph Dwek is on record ad nauseam in grotesque detail in affidavits filed before the State Court where he lays out, chapter and verse, the derivation of every dollar he claimed he was owed by Solomon Dwek and the reasons for it. The Trustee had those. Mr. Steinberg obviously has them. The Committee has them. The Trustee did additional due diligence. The Trustee had forensic accountants do additional\n\n| 1 | due diligence.
The Committee did the same. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | They're satisfied, Your Honor, that the dollars are |\n| 3 | what they were, and that the settlement, that the compromise |\n| 4 | on those dollars is reasonable.
I'm not familiar with any |\n| 5 | case law authority -- there certainly is none in Mr. Franco's |\n| 6 | papers -- that said every Creditor in the case also needs to |\n| 7 | have done that same extent of complete investigation on every |\n| 8 | settlement presented to this Court by way of R. 9019 before |\n| 9 | Your Honor can rule.
I'm not aware of that case. |\n| 10 | Mr. Steinberg hasn't cited that case.
It cannot be |\n| 11 | the way that the Court does business on R. 9019 settlements. |\n| 12 | We would be here in the Solomon Dwek proceeding well into the |\n| 13 | next century if that's the way we had to proceed on every |\n| 14 | settlement that presumably Mr. Stanziale will bring before you |\n| 15 | as he continues to conduct his business on these adversary |\n| 16 | proceedings. |\n| 17 | Judge, on the issue of -- there's a claim in Mr. |\n| 18 | Franco's position that Mr. -- and I'm assuming this is the |\n| 19 | argument -- Joey Dwek is essentially getting too much credit |\n| 20 | for giving back the properties, is the phrase he uses, re |\n| 21 | titling them in Solomon's name, call it what you want, because |\n| 22 | the claim to recover those was so clean.
It was so easy that |\n| 23 | how could you really give a discount or bargain anything |\n| 24 | against what is a lay-up Summary-Judgment-type preference |\n\nclaim.\n\n And I submit, Your Honor, that is certainly not true from my perspective. The Trustee understands the realities of trying to bring that claim. The theory of the case from Joseph Dwek's perspective was there was a constructive trust over those properties. They were purchased with his money. Dollars could be traced. Maybe they couldn't be traced. It was a litigation issue. Forensic accountants could sit in the box all day long and spew different theories on whether you can trace the dollars or not, but it was not Summary Judgment, probably. It was a contested piece of litigation on that issue. It was not -- first of all, the preference claim, we would think, would fail on the basis of a lack of an antecedent debt because the theory was they were dollars that were Joseph Dwek dollars that were supposed to purchase Joseph Dwek properties. There was no antecedent debt. It was a constructive trust theory that was no way a lay-up in the way Mr. Steinberg frames it.\n\n On the issue of the extent of the administrative expense claim that's being given to Yeshuah and Joseph Dwek under the Settlement Agreement, Your Honor, first of all, Mr. Steinberg is absolutely correct, it wasn't -- he's a smart man, but it didn't take a whole lot of analysis to understand that the differential is, in fact, the legal fee that was referenced in the interim Settlement Agreement.\n\nThere were transactions teed-up for closing by Mr.\n\n LoMurro before the cases were filed that were approved transactions of what we called the Joey properties for which Mr. LoMurro had my firm doing the legal work. The cases were filed. Those projects were never closed. Those sales were never closed. But the legal fees were incurred, we thought, in good faith at Mr. LoMurro's direction. We made that argument to Mr. Stanziale. We reserved the right in the interim Settlement Agreement to come back either by consent or on application before you to seek reimbursement for those. They were dollars really spent by Joseph Dwek. The other issue, though, Your Honor, is Mr.\n\n Steinberg has argued to Your Honor that Mr. Stanziale somehow won the issue in the interim Settlement Agreement that Joseph Dwek would limit his reimbursement of these advanced dollars, \\$1.5 million that Joseph Dwek actually put into the properties before the cases were filed before Your Honor to keep them afloat. And the argument that's been put before you, Your Honor, is that in the interim Settlement Agreement, Joseph Dwek agreed to limit himself to reimbursement on those dollars only where there's net equity in the properties.\n\n That is flat wrong. He did not agree to that. That was the mechanism that was agreed to in the interim Settlement Agreement to attempt to get dollars flowing back for which Joseph Dwek had already waited more than a year to get repaid. But there was an express reservation for Joseph Dwek to, like\n\n the agreement was where Mr. LoMurro and the agreement that was signed off on by the State Court, essentially treat the Joseph Dwek properties as a portfolio because he was advancing on them on the portfolio, and they were being segregated as a portfolio, that if the portfolio had net equity, Joseph Dwek can be reimbursed.\n\n And that express reservation, Judge -- and there was an error in the Trustee's response that was filed Friday under Footnote 2 where he cited to the interim Settlement Agreement for that reservation. It wasn't where the Trustee said it was. It was, in fact, in Paragraph 5F, which said to the extent Joseph or Yeshuah advance funds for the disputed properties with no net equity or for which the mortgagee agreed to a short sale, Joseph and Yeshuah, nonetheless, still reserve the right to seek reimbursement of such advanced funds on an administrative priority basis payable from the net equity of other disputed properties.\n\n In other words, we reserve the right to treat them as a portfolio. That was not a re-trade. That was not something Mr. Stanziale won forever more when we did the interim Settlement Agreement. It was a live issue. It was put back on the table when we negotiated this deal, and it was one that went into the Joseph Dwek column at the end of the day when you negotiate a complex and global settlement, sometimes you get some things not correct, the way it was\n\n| 1 | portrayed in the papers and in Mr. Steinberg's presentation. |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Mr. Steinberg also made reference to this carve-out |\n| 3 | from the release of certain claims against Adjmi-related |\n| 4 | entities.
I, frankly, didn't understand the reference.
There |\n| 5 | was a carve-out.
The Committee asked for the carve-out.
When |\n| 6 | we had reached an agreement in principle with Mr. Stanziale, |\n| 7 | Mr. Stanziale went to the Committee and said here's the |\n| 8 | settlement we have with Joseph Dwek, what do you think.
And |\n| 9 | when the document was created, it was given to the Committee |\n| 10 | for comment. |\n| 11 | And one of the comments from the Committee was, this |\n| 12 | release language for the -- we want to make sure the release |\n| 13 | doesn't cover Adjmi-related entities against which we have |\n| 14 | done no investigation yet, against whom the estates may have |\n| 15 | claims.
And there was an agreement among everyone who |\n| 16 | negotiated this deal, that's fine; if you think you have |\n| 17 | claims, they're certainly not parties to this agreement; we |\n| 18 | were never purporting to have them be parties to this |\n| 19 | agreement; if you want to carve out from your release claims |\n| 20 | against those entities to the extent you think you have claims |\n| 21 | against them, we're okay with that. |\n| 22 | So they're not released.
Of course, they don't give |\n| | |\n\n a release, which I think is the criticism from Mr. Steinberg. Why would they? They've never been sued. They weren't getting a release in this. Why would they ever give a\n\n| 1 | release?
Those claims, to the extent this side of the table |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | has them, are preserved.
It certainly does no harm to Mr. |\n| 3 | Franco's position.
If anything, it can only help Mr. Franco, |\n| 4 | presumably, if more dollars are brought into the estate. |\n| 5 | The other issue, Judge, is this \\$25 million |\n| 6 | guarantee.
Again, Mr. Franco takes the position that Solomon |\n| 7 | Dwek's \\$25 million guarantee of the \\$25 million loan from HSBC |\n| 8 | is so clearly avoidable that how could anybody possibly have |\n| 9 | been given any settlement credit for it in a negotiation. |\n| 10 | Judge, no consideration?
Solomon got the money.
In fact, I |\n| 11 | don't think, contrary to what Mr. Steinberg said, I don't |\n| 12 | think the Trustee even brought that claim to set aside that |\n| 13 | guarantee.
And the reason -- and there's no citation to it in |\n| 14 | the papers.
The reason I don't think the estate ever brought |\n| 15 | the claim is because it lacks any merit.
The money, |\n| 16 | indisputably, went from HSBC to Solomon Dwek.
Consideration |\n| 17 | for a guarantee, I think so. |\n| 18 | Your Honor, you know, I hate to say this, but Mr. |\n| 19 | Franco's position really seems like a dressed-up, whole lot of |\n| 20 | sour grapes.
I don't know why, by the way.
Why would he have |\n| 21 | sour grapes?
Does he really -- I mean, is there anything |\n| 22 | precluding Mr. Franco from settling his case tomorrow?
I |\n| 23 | don't understand it.
There's nothing in the settlement that |\n| 24 | precludes a deal from happening tomorrow with the Trustee. |\n| | |\n\nEvery case, Judge, stands on its own facts. Our\n\n| 1 | case, the facts have been delved into ad nauseam, in thorough |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | detail.
We've negotiated a deal that took a year to |\n| 3 | negotiate.
I don't know how many sessions they've had.
The |\n| 4 | courtroom doesn't know.
The record doesn't know, |\n| 5 | appropriately so.
We don't bring those communications into |\n| 6 | the record.
All we know is that it hasn't happened yet.
I |\n| 7 | assume it's the Trustee's intention to settle all the cases. |\n| 8 | That certainly was our experience.
Maybe if positions are |\n| 9 | taken that are reasonable, maybe they'll be back here next |\n| 10 | year, or next month, or next week on a settlement. |\n| 11 | I have no knowledge of the existence of settlement |\n| 12 | discussions, nor do I think it's terribly relevant, Your |\n| 13 | Honor.
The fact is, there's no deal, that's fine.
Our deal |\n| 14 | is before the Court.
The issue is whether it falls below the |\n| 15 | lowest point on the range of reasonableness.
Mr. Steinberg is |\n| 16 | absolutely correct, he didn't cite that case law authority |\n| 17 | from the Third Circuit.
We did.
We don't think that there's |\n| 18 | any way a deal that provides this much benefit to the estate |\n| 19 | could ever be thought of as falling below that point. |\n| 20 | Discovery, Your Honor, for what?
I don't |\n| 21 | understand.
Does Mr. Franco want to take discovery so that he |\n| 22 | can then argue to Your Honor that Joseph Dwek got too good a |\n| 23 | deal?
That wouldn't seem to be in his interest.
Does he want |\n| 24 | to argue that Joseph Dwek didn't get a good enough deal?
Who |\n| 25 | cares?
Why does he care about that? |\n\n| 1 | Much of Mr. Steinberg's presentation, Your Honor, |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | really seemed like a foreshadowing of a hearing to consider |\n| 3 | the adequacy of a Disclosure Statement that hasn't been filed |\n| 4 | yet.
I don't know how we do that here.
I don't know how we |\n| 5 | do it in the context of a settlement.
There's nothing in the |\n| 6 | settlement, in my reading of it, other than the fact that it |\n| 7 | brings in 17-million-plus dollars and freeze up title to those |\n| 8 | dollars, which is clearly to Mr. Franco's benefit if, in fact, |\n| 9 | he is a Creditor, and reduces claims against the estate, |\n| 10 | clearly to Mr. Franco's benefit if he is a Creditor. |\n| 11 | Other than that, Judge, there's nothing that I see |\n| 12 | in the settlement that affects Mr. Franco's rights at all, or |\n| 13 | at least nothing that can't be fleshed out in the context of a |\n| 14 | Disclosure Statement hearing, that I think they tried to have |\n| 15 | before Your Honor today.
For example, is it an investor |\n| 16 | claim; is it a financial institution claim?
We don't even |\n| 17 | know what the plan is going to say.
We don't know if the plan |\n| 18 | is even going to make a distinction between the two the way |\n| 19 | the Debtor's plan did. |\n| 20 | How could we possibly rule on a settlement today -- |\n| | |\n\n which I think Your Honor should do -- when we don't even know the plan that Mr. Franco is arguing could prejudice rights if the settlement was ruled on, but we don't know what the plan is going to say. I don't get it, Judge. I don't get what discovery on the issue of settlement, if it truly was to be\n\n#### **Response/Usatine/Greenhalgh 66**\n\n narrowly confined to 9019 issues, I don't understand what discovery does in advancing that ball.\n\n Your Honor, this is so clearly -- and I have no stake in the litigation -- but it is so clearly a litigation tactic by Mr. Franco that I really think that Your Honor should not allow the settlement with Joseph Dwek that's been negotiated over a year-long period to be a prop in the dispute that Ike Franco is having with the Trustee. It should not go down that way. I think you should overrule the objection. I don't think there should be any discovery, certainly not withstanding that the Motion was filed on January 5th, Mr. Franco waited until January 30th to serve the discovery on the Friday morning before a Monday hearing. If there was truly an interest in discovery, it would have come the day after the Motion was filed on notice to Mr. Franco.\n\n I think Your Honor should overrule the objection and grant the Motion.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\n MR. GREENHALGH: Your Honor, Walter Greenhalgh, Duane Morris, counsel for Creditors Committee.\n\n Your Honor, in essence, the objection filed on behalf of Mr. Franco by Mr. Steinberg is a request for an adjournment. But then he goes through an entire list of issues that he wants to raise before this Court and starts to reference the, to pleadings filed both in the State Court by\n\n# **Response/Greenhalgh 67**\n\n| 1 | Joe (sic) Franco and also pleadings filed in this proceeding. |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | And in listening to Mr. Steinberg recite all of |\n| 3 | these questions that he's raised, I can't ignore the fact that |\n| 4 | he has a huge amount of information on the record which has |\n| 5 | been made public for all parties in this case to review.
He's |\n| 6 | gone through, in detail, the Joe Dwek complaint or the |\n| 7 | complaint by Mr. Stanziale against Joseph Dwek and also the |\n| 8 | counterclaim and other pleadings in that litigation. |\n| 9 | Now, what I found interesting is that there's a |\n| 10 | claim by this Trustee against Isaac Franco for approximately |\n| 11 | \\$87 million.
And as the Trustee pointed out in his comments |\n| 12 | this morning, that Mr. Franco is a co-conspirator.
He's |\n| 13 | complicit in the Ponzi Scheme and the fraud that was |\n| 14 | perpetrated upon the Creditors of this estate, which the |\n| 15 | Trustee is pursuing. |\n| 16 | I wrote down two words while I was listening to Mr. |\n| 17 | Steinberg's presentation, and I found it humorous when I heard |\n| 18 | counsel for Joe Dwek state that it sounds like sour grapes. |\n| 19 | And that's exactly what I wrote down.
Because when I go |\n| 20 | through and listen to all these arguments, I believe that what |\n| 21 | we're hearing is that Isaac Franco wants to be treated like |\n| 22 | Joe Dwek in terms of this settlement. |\n| 23 | Now, the Trustee conducted his investigation over a |\n| 24 | year to determine how to proceed in this litigation.
What Mr. |\n\nFranco would have this Court do is try, for purposes of\n\n# **Response/Greenhalgh 68**\n\n| 1 | determining this settlement, to try the case against Joe |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 2 | Franco, to go through a trial which this Settlement Agreement |\n| 3 | will basically solve and obviate. |\n| 4 | I also found it interesting Mr. Steinberg comments |\n| 5 | that he is the lone voice in the wilderness pleading to the |\n| 6 | Court on behalf of all of the investors.
Mr. Franco allegedly |\n| 7 | was complacent in taking \\$87 million out of the pockets of all |\n| 8 | of these poor investors. |\n| 9 | Well, Your Honor, the investors, many are |\n| 10 | represented by very competent counsel.
And, in fact, on this |\n| 11 | Creditors Committee, there are three individuals who are, or |\n| 12 | who would fit into the category of investor, and they are well |\n| 13 | represented by counsel who have participated in the activities |\n| 14 | of this Creditors Committee.
And there's a fourth individual |\n| 15 | who is not part of the, what has been referenced as the |\n| 16 | \"community,\" but is also an individual who faces the same |\n| 17 | allegations and claims that the Trustee has brought against |\n| 18 | over 38 complaints alleging the Ponzi -- which we've referred |\n| 19 | to as the Ponzi Scheme complaints.
And those individuals are |\n| 20 | all represented by counsel. |\n| 21 | It is unbelievably telling that, at a minimum, not |\n| 22 | one other person who's being sued by this Trustee, except Mr. |\n| 23 | Franco, has filed opposition and an objection to this |\n\n settlement. Why -- and they are represented by counsel. Mr. Franco is trying to get a leg up on his litigation which is\n\n# **Response/Greenhalgh 69**\n\n| 1 | proceeding, and whatever settlement discussions he's had with |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the Trustee -- that I'm not privy to -- is not happy with the |\n| 3 | way those settlement discussions are going forward. |\n| 4 | I want just to go right through what this tactic is. |\n| 5 | It is a litigation tactic.
It's a tactic to delay this |\n| 6 | settlement so that Mr. Franco can try to get a leg up on his |\n| 7 | discussions with the Trustee.
He's made allegations that a |\n| 8 | plan is going to be filed by this Trustee and that the plan |\n| 9 | should basically deal with this settlement. |\n| 10 | So what Mr. Franco is requesting is that this |\n| 11 | settlement should not be delayed for purposes merely for |\n| 12 | discovery, but should also be delayed when the Trustee files |\n| 13 | his plan, which he's committed to this Court he intends to do |\n| 14 | by the end of this month, and he's going to turn his |\n| 15 | objections to the plan and to a Disclosure Statement into his |\n| 16 | objections to this settlement. |\n| 17 | It's a litigation tactic.
It's a tactic to delay |\n| 18 | things.
If he really wanted to conduct discovery when he was |\n| 19 | served with this Motion, there are two very competent, very |\n| 20 | experienced bankruptcy attorneys sitting here -- to the |\n| 21 | Court's left and my right -- representing Mr. Franco.
I can't |\n| 22 | conceive that when they were served with this Motion for this |\n| 23 | settlement, and they looked at it in their monitoring of this |\n| 24 | case, they did not decide we ought to conduct discovery; we |\n| 25 | ought to find out how the Trustee made this determination. |\n\n#### **Response/Testa 70**\n\n| 1 | And they should have served that discovery weeks ago. |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | No, what did they do?
They served it on Friday, |\n| 3 | this past Friday.
Your Honor, look at it for what it is. |\n| 4 | It's a tactic to derail this settlement so that Mr. Franco can |\n| 5 | get a leg up.
That's exactly what it is. |\n| 6 | I urge the Court to approve this settlement. |\n| 7 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Anybody else? |\n| 10 | MR. TESTA:
Your Honor, the Trustee, as he has |\n| 11 | spoken, certainly agrees with the statements of Mr. Usatine |\n| 12 | and Mr. Greenhalgh. |\n| 13 | Just to reiterate, there isn't one member of the |\n| 14 | community who the Trustee has litigation pending against in |\n| 15 | this courtroom today.
We were served with the discovery |\n| 16 | request on Friday at 10:30.
We certainly believe the proffer. |\n| 17 | The Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Motion provided a |\n| 18 | full disclosure.
And our Notice of Auction and Sale hearing |\n| 19 | and our certification of auction results are probably, give |\n| 20 | full disclosure to everyone, including Mr. Franco.
He |\n| 21 | certainly has had a list of the disputed properties which were |\n| 22 | attached to the interim Settlement Agreement for some time. |\n| 23 | And as Your Honor is aware, our notices provide |\n| 24 | enormous disclosures as to value of the properties and the |\n| 25 | equity that we're receiving from the sales as we move forward. |\n\nThank you.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\n MR. STEINBERG: Your Honor, I don't know why when people file an objection to a pleading, they're always being attacked for it being a litigation tactic. When people file a pleading, it's part of a litigation. It's part of -- they try to address the merits of what's in front of the Judge, and lawyers act for the benefit of their clients.\n\n In this particular case, I have not really addressed anything with regard to the differences between Franco and the Trustee. I confined substantially all of my remarks as to the settlement that's being presented by the Trustee. I thought that in the context of a case where the Trustee has been negotiating for a year and where the Creditors Committee has had some months in analyzing what it is, to ask for a 60-day adjournment so that we can catch up to speed and to be able to understand what is going on was a reasonable request.\n\n I don't understand why someone thinks that if I filed a document request within ten days and then asked to have it shortened and then somehow then take a deposition with the Trustee, I did try to get this information from the Trustee on an informal basis. I didn't get all of the information. I did get further information. I think it's unusual for someone to sit there and scream that I'm sort of sandbagging someone when I get papers in reply the day before\n\nthe hearing on a late Friday afternoon.\n\n The Creditors Committee, the Trustee's Motion in support of the settlement did not reflect what the Creditors Committee's position was. So I don't know why anybody thinks I would know what the Creditors Committee's position was. If I was supposed to intuit that the failure to object meant that they supported the deal, I could just as very well intuit that the Committee couldn't take a position in this case because they have investors, they have financial institutions, and they don't always necessarily agree and that they're deadlocked, or they felt that they didn't feel strongly enough to take a position.\n\n Certainly, if they had a position -- because I've been a Trustee, I usually say that my Creditors Committee supports it, and I get a moving paper in the context of making my application so that the Judge knows when I'm filing my application that this has the support of a Creditors Committee.\n\n I think that Mr. Greenhalgh was right that my request was for an adjournment. My request was for a limited adjournment so that I could take discovery. Please don't try to take what I say, other counsel, and misconstrue it. I'm not looking to replicate how to do an investigation of Joey Dwek. I'm looking to see what the Trustee did in connection with analyzing the issues to see how he came to his\n\n determination of the reasonableness. The notion that a Creditor is not entitled to take discovery about that really has to accept the fact that he did the investigation and should just accept that he did it right, and I should just rely on his judgment is, I think, a falsity. It happens, well, I don't have to cite one case, I can cite lots of cases. Any time that there's a settlement, if there's an objection, you're entitled to take discovery as to what the Trustee did in order to canvas the issues to see whether it found it came within the lowest range of reasonableness. What I did in my presentation today was to say that when I looked at the issues as presented, I saw a failure to present all of the issues, I saw a mis-description of the benefits of the settlement, and I said I wanted the\n\n opportunity to be able to go to the Trustee and determine what went on in this case because I didn't have the information. I didn't say Joey Dwek had to file a claim in the case. I said that he was prevented, they didn't have to file a claim. I didn't say that on the administrative claim point that Joey Dwek didn't reserve his right to argue that he's entitled for every dollar that he advanced. All I said was that the Trustee conceded the issue in the context of the negotiation and that they hadn't really specified what were the legal fees and what the basis was.\n\nCounsel now wanted to fill that information as if it\n\n should have been self-evident and that every other Creditor in this case went through the time that I did in trying to analyze those issues. I did look at the State Court pleadings. And I know from looking at the State Court pleadings that there's, in my view, a double count between the HSBC claim and the Joey Dwek claim. So how does Joey Dwek get to be a full Creditor in this case? I don't know. I wasn't pretending. I don't know. But, presumably, Mr. Stanziale knows, because presumably Mr. Stanziale will be able to say that at a deposition.\n\n I will say that -- and I meant to say it in my opening presentation -- I had made the mistake in my pleading by saying that HSBC had agreed to give Joey Dwek \\$20 million if Joey Dwek got the properties back. And the Trustee called me to task for that, and he was right. It wasn't HSBC who committed to give Solomon Dwek back \\$20 million if there was a transfer of properties. According to the Trustee's complaint, it was Joey Dwek. In Paragraph 120 of his complaint, he said that one of the reasons why Joey Dwek got these properties back was because he committed to Solomon to give him \\$20 million to get out of the PNC issue. And then after he gave him the properties, Joey Dwek reneged on that promise.\n\n By the way, I have no idea whether that promise is true or not true. All I'm doing now is citing the Trustee's own allegations against Joey Dwek in the complaint that he\n\n filed against Joey Dwek to highlight his bad-faith claim. The Trustee said that I was trying to use, as a litigation tactic, the introduction of trying to get before Your Honor claims and issues relating between Franco and the Trustee. And I'm not going to do that here other than to say two things. One, I can unquestionably demonstrate that Isaac Franco put in more money than he got out of this case so that he's a net Creditor in this case. Two, I can unquestionably demonstrate that some of the Isaac Franco money that went in went to Joey Dwek and other Creditors. I mean, if he gave \\$100 million back to the Solomon Dwek estate, it went somewhere. And we can demonstrate by looking at account balances that a lot of this went actually to Joey Dwek. On the same token, a lot of what Joey Dwek came in through the HSBC loans went for the benefit of Isaac Franco.\n\n That doesn't mean that Joey Dwek is necessarily a bad guy. It just means that his claims and what he's asserting is essentially the same thing.\n\n I won't try to debate what Joey Dwek's counsel said about what the definition of antecedent debt is in a preference. But if you've been swindled, you have a fraud claim, and in satisfaction of your fraud claim of what you otherwise should have gotten, you get consideration, whether it be dollars or property, then that is satisfaction, in my view, of an antecedent debt. And if they want me to try to\n\n| 1 | find cases on that to be able to demonstrate that point, I'm | |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | pretty sure that I can find cases on it. | |\n\n The bottom line is that in my presentation, I did give a number of reasons why that the factual record in this case will be better-developed over the next 60 days. And one of those reasons was that the Trustee was going to file a plan, and that plan would shed light on how the Trustee is dealing with issues generally which are embedded in the settlement, and when that plan is viewed, you'd be able to better assess the benefits, or the lack of benefits, of the settlement. And all I've asked for is some restraint.\n\n At the end of the day, Franco will have to defend the merits of the Trustee's allegations against him in his complaint. And at the end of the day, the Trustee will have to carry his burden of the reasonableness of the settlement.\n\n But I do think that you cannot send out a Motion to people, fail to tell them that you sued Joey Dwek for \\$90 million of cash; you cannot send out a Motion saying that the benefits of this deal is that you'll get hundreds of millions, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of value from the estate for the return of the properties when I believe that that's not true.\n\n You cannot say that you get a benefit because Joey Dwek has a \\$60 million claim when I believe it's the questionable (sic) double-count of the HSBC claim. I'm\n\n| 1 | entitled to test that.
I'm entitled to put the Trustee to his |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | burden and to be able to backstop in the same way as I will do |\n| 3 | on his comment that somehow Ike Franco put in no money and was |\n| 4 | the drain to keep on, for getting all this money from Solomon |\n| 5 | Dwek.
That's clearly not true.
And I will be able to test |\n| 6 | this co-conspirator rant that he just made and be able to |\n| 7 | demonstrate to Your Honor that within 30 days before this |\n| 8 | whole thing blew up that somehow Ike Franco put in over \\$10 |\n| 9 | million back to Solomon Dwek.
Clearly, not the actor (sic) of |\n| 10 | someone who's a co-conspirator. |\n\n But in either event, Your Honor, what I've asked for here, and I had backed up today with citations to the State Court record. I've been simultaneously complimented by my review and criticized for not having created citations. There are things here that need to be fleshed out. It's a big enough settlement. Everybody agrees to it. It's an important enough settlement. And I do think, unless they think they're going to spend \\$16 million or \\$17 million in the next 60 days, they can achieve this settlement in 60 days after they've been put to the test.\n\n And the idea that somehow on an important settlement in this case that Your Honor should be able to take the evidentiary record within 30 days and not give a party, even if it's one party, the opportunity to test the record, is, I think, unfair.\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 78 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 2509-10 Filed 01/18/24 Entered 01/18/24 11:15:08 Page 79 of 87\n\n#### **Decision 78**\n\n| 1 | Thank you. | |\n|---|------------|--|\n|---|------------|--|\n\nTHE COURT: All right. Thank you.\n\n The Trustee seeks approval of a settlement among the Trustee, Joseph Dwek, Yeshuah, LLC, Joseph Dwek Family, Limited Partnership, Mark Adjmi, and HSBC Bank. The proposed settlement is supported by the Official Creditors Committee. Opposition to the settlement was filed by Sun National Bank and Isaac Franco. The Trustee reports that the limited objection of Sun National has been resolved.\n\n The standards for approval of a settlement in this jurisdiction are well established. R. 9019 provides that after notice and a hearing, the Court may approve a compromise or settlement. Although compromises are a normal part of the bankruptcy process, the Court must determine whether the settlement is fair and equitable and in the best interest of the estate.\n\n And that's from Protective Commission for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry vs. Anderson at 390 U.S. 414.\n\n Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly emphasized that settlement is favored in bankruptcy because the interest of Creditors are advanced through minimizing litigation and expediting the administration of the bankruptcy estate.\n\n And you can see, for example, In Re: Nutraquest at 434 Fed. 3rd 639. You can also see In Re: Martin at\n\n91 Fed. 3rd 389, and its progeny.\n\n The Third Circuit has also identified four criteria that should be used in evaluating a settlement: One, the probability of success in the litigation. Two, any difficulties to be encountered in collection. Three, the complexity of the litigation, and the expense, inconvenience, and delay necessarily attending it. And, four, the paramount interest of Creditors.\n\n And that's from RFE Industries at 283 Fed. 3rd 159, citing the Martin decision.\n\n In examining a settlement, the Court's role is limited. The responsibility of the bankruptcy judge is not to decide the numerous questions of law and fact, but rather to canvas the issues and see whether the settlement falls below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness.\n\n And that's from the W.T. Grant Company case at 699 Fed. 2nd 599. You can also see the matter of Jasmine Limited at 258 Bankruptcy Reporter 119 in this jurisdiction.\n\n In examining this proposed settlement, the Court is mindful that a Trustee bears the burden to show that a proposed settlement is in the best interest of the estate and of the debtor.\n\n And that's from In Re: McDermott at 2008 Westlaw 877964. Mr. Franco's objection to the settlement is not\n\n| 1 | explicitly tied to the standards under R. 9019.
Rather, it is | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | a generalized objection based on two themes, lack of | | | | | |\n| 3 | | | | | | |\n| | information, an unequal treatment of similarly situated | | | | | |\n| 4 | Creditors.
First, Mr. Franco claims that the settlement | | | | | |\n| 5 | should be re-noticed because Creditors did not have adequate | | | | | |\n| 6 | information.
Specifically, in Paragraph 14 of his initial | | | | | |\n| 7 | objection, Mr. Franco states that the Trustee failed to | | | | | |\n| 8 | mention the adversary proceeding against Joseph Dwek which | | | | | |\n| 9 | sought the return of \\$90 million from Joseph. | | | | | |\n| 10 | While that claim was not highlighted in the | | | | | |\n| 11 | Trustee's Motion, and perhaps should have been, it was not | | | | | |\n| 12 | concealed from a Creditor that wanted to further investigate | | | | | |\n| 13 | the legitimacy of this settlement.
That claim against Joseph | | | | | |\n| 14 | Dwek is contained in Adversary No. 08-1209, and that adversary | | | | | |\n| 15 | case is mentioned throughout the Motion. | | | | | |\n| 16 | The Trustee has also responded that Mr. Dwek has | | | | | |\n| 17 | countervailing claims for \\$60 million against the estate. | | | | | |\n| 18 | While the release of a potential \\$90 million claim in return | | | | | |\n| 19 | for release of a potential \\$60 million claim does not line up | | | | | |\n| 20 | exactly.
That's not how Courts are supposed to review | | | | | |\n| 21 | settlements. | | | | | |\n| 22 | Commentators on R. 9019 have astute point-by-point | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| 23 | analysis of any particular settlement provision, reasoning | | | | | |\n| 24 | that to do so would defeat the purpose of a settlement and | | | | | |\n\nthat the parties might as well go ahead and try the case.\n\n And that's from Collier on Bankruptcy at 9019.02 in the Fifteenth Edition.\n\n Mr. Franco also complains about the unequal treatment of what he refers to as the community investors. Even taking that allegation at face value, the Court fails to see how that's a valid objection to this proposed settlement. That may or may not be a valid objection to the plan to be proposed by the Trustee, but has little or no bearing in this context. Each settlement must be evaluated on its individual merits.\n\n That ties in to the request for an adjournment of this Motion so Mr. Franco may obtain discovery from the Trustee. The Court would ordinarily not be opposed to a limited adjournment to seek limited information about the bona fides of a settlement. Keeping in mind that the standard for approval of a settlement, however, is the threshold of the lowest range of reasonableness, the high point or the lowest range of reasonableness, the scope of discovery that Mr. Franco is seeking is patently unreasonable. He seems to want to engage in litigation almost as broad in scope as the litigation that the Trustee proposes to settle.\n\n The discovery sought, as indicated by the document request attached to Mr. Franco's papers filed on Friday, indicates that Mr. Franco fundamentally mis-perceives the limited nature of the questions that can arise in connection\n\n with the settlement. For example, I suppose discovery would be appropriate if there were some allegation that the Trustee entered into this particular settlement in bad faith. While Mr. Franco is obviously unhappy with the manner in which the Trustee has administered the estate to date, he has not alleged any bad faith or collusion in connection with the settlement.\n\n I suppose discovery might be appropriate if the Trustee did not describe the efforts that he undertook to reach the settlement as relevant to reasonableness. That is not necessary where the Trustee has laid out both the nature of his efforts to settle and the structure of his reasoning, especially as supplemented by the proffer.\n\n The discovery that Mr. Franco seeks at this time is relevant to the underlying causes being compromised, but on a settlement where the Trustee's burden is merely to show that the settlement falls above the lowest point in the range of reasonableness, and the Court has been directed not to conduct a mini-trial, the discovery requests are extremely over-broad. General information is enough, given the lowest range of reasonableness standard.\n\n The Trustee's papers give the Court and the Creditors a fair sense of the effort that went into this settlement and of the analysis of the issues that the Trustee employed. Every other Creditor that has taken a position,\n\n including the Unsecured Creditors Committee, supports the settlement.\n\n I have, in the past and on rare occasions, rejected settlements supported by some, but not all, interested parties, but usually on the basis that the Trustee has overlooked some aspect of the matter being settled. That is simply not the case here. The Trustee has conducted extensive review, and while Mr. Franco doesn't agree with the Trustee's conclusions, he doesn't say that the Trustee has overlooked issues or overlooked facts.\n\n The Court, like the Trustee, has canvassed the issues and find that the settlement proposed meets the appropriate standard without the need for further inquiry.\n\n I want to add that it remains my primary hope that we can get to justice for investor Creditors like Mr. Franco and others. I recognize that justice in the context of a settlement in bankruptcy may not look like justice from their perspective, but it's the settlement, settlement is in the context in which I've been asked to rule.\n\n The standards for approval of settlements will apply equally to any and all settling investor Creditors, and that is the justice to which they're entitled. This settlement will be approved.\n\nThank you.\n\nMR. TESTA: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n| 1 | MALE VOICE:
Thank you. | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | MR. BAKER:
Your Honor, we will submit a revised | | | | | |\n| 3 | form of Order that correctly shows Miss Pacheco's ordered | | | | | |\n| 4 | paragraphs. | | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | |\n| 6 | MR. BAKER:
Thank you. | | | | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | |\n| 8 | MS. PACHECO:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
And, Counsel, I don't mean to rush you, | | | | | |\n| 10 | but I do have another matter that will probably take two | | | | | |\n| 11 | minutes when they've been waiting for two hours. | | | | | |\n| 12 | MR. BAKER:
Okay. | | | | | |\n| 13 | MALE VOICE:
Sorry. | | | | | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. STANZIALE:
Thank you, Judge. | | | | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Sure. | | | | | |\n| 17 | * * * * * | | | | | |\n| | I N D E X | | | | | |\n| | MOTION | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | By Mr. B. Baker
5
Granted:
8 | | | | | |\n| | RESPONSE | | | | | |\n| | By Mr. A. Steinberg
5 | | | | | |\n| | Mr. J. Posta
6 | | | | | |\n\n**85**\n\n| MOTION |\n|--------|\n|--------|\n\n| | By Mr. J. Testa | 10 | Granted: | 78 |\n|----------|----------------------|-------|----------|----|\n| RESPONSE | | | | |\n| | By Mr. W. Greenhalgh | 14/66 | | |\n| | Mr. W. Usatine | 15/55 | | |\n| | Mr. R. Usadi | 17 | | |\n| | Mr. T. Neumann | 17 | | |\n| | Mr. A. Steinberg | 18/71 | | |\n| | Mr. C. Stanziale | 52 | | |\n| | Mr. J. Testa | 70 | | |\n| | Mr. B. Baker | 70 | | |\n\n#### CERTIFICATE:\n\n I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.\n\n\\s\\Kathleen Connolly Kathleen Connolly AOC #441 **COLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE**\n\nDated: February 11, 2009\n\nForm tsntc\n\n#### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT**\n\nDistrict of New Jersey 402 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08608\n\n> Case No.: 07−11757−KCF Chapter: 11 Judge: Kathryn C. Ferguson\n\nIn Re: Debtor(s) (name(s) used by the debtor(s) in the last 8 years, including married, maiden, trade, and address): Solomon Dwek 311 Crosby Avenue Deal, NJ 07723\n\nSocial Security No.: xxx−xx−5021 Employer's Tax I.D. No.:\n\n# **Notice That a Transcript Has Been Filed**\n\n You are Noticed that a Transcript has been filed on February 17, 2009. Pursuant to the Judicial Conference Policy on Privacy, access to this transcript is restricted for a period of ninety days from the date of filing. The transcript may be viewed at the Bankruptcy Court Clerk's Office. [For information about how to contact the transcriber, please call the Clerk's Office] All parties have seven business days to file a Request for Redaction of any social security numbers, financial account data, names of minor−age children, dates of birth, and home addresses. If redaction is requested, the filing party has twenty−one calendar days from the date the transcript was filed to file a list of items to be redacted indicating the location of the identifiers within the transcript with the court and to provide the list to the transcriber. The transcriber has thirty−one days from the date the list of items to be redacted was filed to file the redacted version of the transcript with the court . If no request is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the general public after the ninety days.\n\nDated: February 17, 2009 JJW:\n\n> James J. Waldron Clerk","body_zh":"证物 11\n\n案件 07-11757-KCF\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2509-10\n文件 3916 提交于 01/18/24\n提交于 02/12/09\n录入于 01/18/24 11:15:08\n录入于 02/12/09 17:28:10\n第 2 页，共\n主要\n文书\n\n美国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT）\n新泽西联邦地区（DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY）\n关于： : 案号 07-11757(KCF)\nSOLOMON DWEK（所罗门·德维克）， :\n: 新泽西州特伦顿\n: 2009年2月2日\n债务人。 : 上午10:18\n动议听证会记录\n凯瑟琳·C·弗格森阁下（KATHRYN C. FERGUSON）\n美国破产法官（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE）主持\n出庭人员：\n债务人代理人： Broege, Neumann, Fischer &\nShaver, LLC（布罗伊格、诺伊曼、费舍尔与沙弗有限责任公司）\n代理律师：\nTIMOTHY P. NEUMANN, ESQ.（蒂莫西·P·诺伊曼，律师）\n25 Abe Voorhees Drive\nManasquan, New Jersey\n\n第11章受托人\n代理人： McCarter & English（麦卡特与英格利希律师事务所）\n代理律师：\nJEFFREY T. TESTA, ESQ.（杰弗里·T·泰斯塔，律师）\nBRIAN L. BAKER, ESQ.（布赖恩·L·贝克，律师）\nFour Gateway Center\n100 Mulberry Street\nNewark, New Jersey\n\n债权人委员会\n代理人： Duane Morris, LLP（杜安·莫里斯有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n代理律师：\nWALTER J. GREENHALGH, ESQ.（沃尔特·J·格林哈尔，律师）\n744 Broad Street\nNewark, New Jersey\n07102-3889\n音频操作员： Geraldine Holley-Mack（杰拉尔丁·霍利-麦克）\n记录誊写员： Kathleen Connolly（凯瑟琳·康诺利）\nCOLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE（科尔誊写与录音服务公司）\n认证法庭誊写员\nP.O. BOX 1216\nOCEAN GATE, NEW JERSEY 08740-1216\n1-877-245-4876\n程序已进行电子录音，并据此制作记录誊本。\n\n出庭人员：\n\nHSBC Bank（汇丰银行）代理人：Wolff & Samson, P.C.（沃尔夫与萨姆森专业公司） 代理律师：KAREN L. GILMAN, ESQ.（凯伦·L·吉尔曼，律师） The Offices at Crystal Lake One Boland Drive West Orange, New Jersey 07052\n\nCahill, Gordon & Reindel, LLP（卡希尔、戈登与林德尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）代理律师：ROBERT USADI, ESQ.（罗伯特·乌萨迪，律师）80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005-1702\n\nJoseph Dwek（约瑟夫·德维克）、Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A.（科尔、肖茨、迈塞尔、福尔曼与伦纳德专业协会）、Mark Adjmi（马克·阿吉米）、Yeshuah, LLC（耶书亚有限责任公司）、Joseph Dwek Family Limited Partnership（约瑟夫·德维克家族有限合伙企业）代理人：WARREN A. USATINE, ESQ.（沃伦·A·乌萨廷，律师）25 Main Street\n\nSun National Bank（太阳国民银行）代理人：Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A.（威伦茨、高盛与斯皮策专业协会）代理律师：DEIRDRE WOULFE PACHECO, ESQ.（迪尔德丽·沃尔夫·帕切科，律师）\n\nJack Hakim（杰克·哈基姆）及 AJH Investments（AJH投资公司）代理人：Stark & Stark（斯塔克与斯塔克律师事务所）代理律师：JEFFREY S. POSTA, ESQ.（杰弗里·S·波斯塔，律师）\n\nBob Nelson Plumbing & Heating（鲍勃·尼尔森管道与供暖公司）代理人：Shebell & Shebell, LLC（谢贝尔与谢贝尔有限责任公司）\n\nWoodbridge, New Jersey 07095\n\nHackensack, New Jersey 07601\n\n90 Woodbridge Center Drive\n\nP.O. Box 5315 Princeton, New Jersey 08534\n\n代理律师：DANIELLE S. CHANDONNET, ESQ.（丹妮尔·S·尚多内，律师）1398 Highway 35 South Ocean, New Jersey 07712-3543\n\nIsaac Franco（艾萨克·弗朗科）代理人：King & Spalding, LLP（金与斯伯丁有限责任合伙律师事务所）代理律师：ARTHUR J. STEINBERG, ESQ.（阿瑟·J·斯坦伯格，律师）1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10076-4003\n\nWachtal & Masyr, LLP（瓦赫塔尔与马西尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）代理律师：DAVID YEGER, ESQ.（大卫·耶格，律师）110 East 58th Street New York, New York 10022\n\n案件 07-11757-KCF，文件 3916，提交于 02/12/09，录入于 02/12/09 17:28:10，主要文书，第 3 页，共 85 页；案件 22-50073，文件 2509-10，提交于 01/18/24，录入于 01/18/24 11:15:08，第 4 页，共\n庭审对话 3\n\n1 法庭：\n好的。\n请就德维克案上前。\n\n2 好的。\n请各位律师报明出庭身份，\n3 好吗？\n4 泰斯塔先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n5 我是 Jeffrey Testa（杰弗里·泰斯塔），McCarter & English，\n6 代表第11章受托人。\n7 贝克先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n8 我是 Brian Baker（布赖恩·贝克），McCarter & English，\n9 代表第11章受托人。\n10 格林哈尔先生：\n法官阁下，我是 Walter Greenhalgh（沃尔特·格林哈尔），\n11 Duane Morris律师事务所，债权人委员会的律师。\n12 诺伊曼先生：\n我是 Timothy Neumann（蒂莫西·诺伊曼），Broege, Neumann，\n13 Fischer & Shaver，代理债务人。\n14 吉尔曼女士：\n我是 Karen Gilman（凯伦·吉尔曼），Wolff & Samson，代表\n15 汇丰银行。\n16 乌萨迪先生：\n我是 Robert Usadi（罗伯特·乌萨迪），Cahill, Gordon & Reindel，\n17 代表汇丰银行。\n18 乌萨廷先生：\n我是 Warren Usatine（沃伦·乌萨廷），Cole, Schotz, Meisel，\n19 Forman & Leonard，代表 Joseph Dwek、Mark Adjmi、\n20 Yeshuah, LLC 及 Joseph Dwek Family Limited Partnership。\n21 帕切科女士：\n我是 Deirdre Pacheco（迪尔德丽·帕切科），Wilentz, Goldman &\n22 Spitzer，代理太阳国民银行。\n23 波斯塔先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n24 我是 Jeffrey Posta（杰弗里·波斯塔），Stark & Stark，代表 Jack Hakim 和 AJH\n25 Investments，仅就中止期限的动议出庭。\n案件 07-11757-KCF，文件 3916，提交于 02/12/09，录入于 02/12/09 17:28:10，主要文书，第 4 页，共 85 页；案件 22-50073，文件 2509-10，提交于 01/18/24，录入于 01/18/24 11:15:08，第 5 页，共\n庭审对话 4\n\n1 尚多内女士：\n早上好。\n\n2 我是 Danielle Chandonnet（丹妮尔·尚多内），来自 Shebell & Shebell\n3 律师事务所，代表 Bob Nelson Plumbing & Heating。我们未就本事项提交\n4 书面材料。\n5 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n6 斯坦伯格先生：\n我是 Arthur Steinberg（阿瑟·斯坦伯格），来自 King &\n7 Spalding，代表 Isaac Franco。与我一同出庭的是 David\n8 Yeger，来自 Wachtal & Masyr。\n9 耶格先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n10 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n11 今天上午日程表上有三项事项。\n12 我们按顺序进行——我还有一位通过电话出庭的人员。\n13 受托人也希望通过电话出庭，\n14 是吗？\n15 泰斯塔先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n16 法庭：\n好的。显然我们在这方面\n17 遇到了问题。我们正在处理。\n18 好的。我们先审理解除自动中止效力的\n19 动议，编号 3704。\n20 贝克先生：\n法官阁下，经动议人同意，\n21 我们可以将该事项延期30天。\n22 法庭：\n好的。好。可以定在3月2日。\n23 接下来，我要处理公平中止——\n24 我们正在处理德维克案——依第546条规定公平中止\n25 期限的命令。\n动议／贝克／答复／斯坦伯格 5\n\n1 我收到的材料包括受托人的书面文件、一份由\n\n2 Isaac Franco 提出的异议、Jack Hakim 提出的有限异议，以及\n3 债务人的支持意见。\n4 泰斯塔先生，您想从这里开始吗？是\n5 这样吗？\n6 贝克先生：\n我来陈述。\n7 法庭：\n贝克先生。好的。\n8 贝克先生：\n法官阁下，我们没有太多内容需要补充\n9 书面材料。关于异议，我们认为\n10 应予驳回，但如果法庭不倾向于如此处理，\n11 只要受托人能够保留其日后提出主张的论点，即\n12 在提出额外诉讼请求时，如该法条适用，\n13 可以提出该法条应当\n14 公平中止的论点即可。但我不知道我们今天是否必须\n15 对此作出决定。\n16 法庭：\n好的。好。谢谢。\n17 还有其他人支持受托人的动议吗？\n18 好的。反对意见？\n19 斯坦伯格先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n20 Isaac Franco 提出异议称，如果\n21 受托人希望就世界上其他所有人进行公平中止，\n22 那没有问题。但就 Franco 先生而言，他在一年多前已在本案中\n23 起诉 Franco 先生，而且有一项未决的对抗程序；在其依据已提交的\n24 起诉状获准范围内对其进行修改，\n25 也没有问题。\n答复／斯坦伯格／波斯塔 6\n\n1 但他已有两年时间。他决定自己已有足够依据，\n\n2 在一年前对 Franco 先生提起诉讼。我们不认为\n3 就 Franco 先生而言延长期限是适当的。\n4 当您阅读受托人就\n5 公平中止所援引的判例时，通常涉及\n6 被告是否实施了阻碍受托人在本事项中继续推进的行为，\n7 因为\n8 被告采取拖延策略或隐瞒\n9 信息。\n10 在本案中，Isaac Franco 已多次与受托人会面，\n11 已对提出的任何请求作出回应，已在\n12 本案中接受过证言录取，我们不认为有任何理由\n13 就其进行\n14 公平中止。\n15 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n16 波斯塔先生？\n17 波斯塔先生：\n法官阁下，代表 Jack Hakim 和\n18 AJH Investments，我们提交了一份有限异议，我相信\n19 您已审阅。尽量简要地说。我们于\n20 2007年6月提起了一项对抗程序，现已超过一年半。\n21 该对抗程序涉及免除债务，以及因 Hakim 先生和 AJH Investments\n22 投入资金而对某一特定财产提出的请求。\n23 该免除债务诉讼\n24 涉及我们所有交易，而我们的交易非常有限。\n25 金额很大，但交易有限，与\n答复／波斯塔 7\n\n债务人之间的交易有限。\n\n在该对抗程序中，我们提交后不久，受托人便提出动议，要求保全与基础交易相关的所有请求权和诉讼原因，而这些都是我们的交易。该动议自那时起一直延期审理，这没有问题，因为我们已同意；该动议定于4月审理，4月底还有一个审判日期。我认为该动议或许在审判前一天审理。\n\n我的理解是，我们就保全诉讼及所有来回往复的诉讼原因所涉问题，均已由该对抗程序和该动议处理。现在又提交了另一项动议。我们的简单立场是，这些问题已在法庭审理之中，我们不应受这一又一项处理相同标的的动议约束。该问题已经涵盖。\n\n如我们所述，交易是有限的。债务人一直可供联系，并且当然经常参与本案，以向受托人提供信息。就我们的当事人而言，我未见任何具体情况表明他们无法获得信息。如果当事人之间还有其他情况，或者他们需要额外时间，您知道，法庭面前没有任何材料表明他们需要该等时间。\n\n但是，实质上，该问题应由已经在法庭审理中的事项涵盖，我们不应受本动议约束。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n还有其他人吗？好的。\n\n法庭收到了对受托人动议的两份异议。异议实质上称，当事人，即其当事人，不应被单独挑出，该动议不应适用于他们。\n\n没有为该主张提供任何法律支持。法庭认为，如果其认定存在正当理由对诉讼时效进行公平中止，那么该中止应全面适用。\n\nJack Hakim 提出了一个某种程度上附带的观点，即其事项定于4月29日审判，因此应由《联邦规则》而非本动议决定对其的处理。\n\n作为法律问题，我不能同意该主张，但我不会基于本动议延期既定的审判日期。而且，在我看来，受托人将难以说服法庭，在距离审判如此接近之时修改起诉状是正当的，因为受托人提出动议，请求将提起撤销诉讼的期限延长至2010年2月。\n\n受托人所请求的救济，已由\n\n1 其他法院依据第105条及公平中止理论予以准许。\n\n2 例如，您可以参见 International Administrative\n3 Services，408 Fed. 3rd 689，或 GI Holdings，\n4 313 Bankruptcy Reporter 612。这些法院认为，第546条是\n5 诉讼时效，而非除斥期间，因而\n6 可适用公平中止。\n7 虽然这并非通常准许\n8 公平中止的情形，即并非被告以欺诈方式阻止原告\n9 及时提起其诉讼原因的情形，\n10 法庭仍认为，鉴于\n11 美国检察官办公室和联邦调查局近期开展调查的活动，对诉讼\n12 时效进行公平中止在本案中是适当的。\n13 该等活动\n14 导致债务人持续进行的2004规则证言录取长期延迟，\n15 这超出\n16 受托人的控制范围。因此，法庭将\n17 准许该动议。\n18 好的。接下来审理批准\n和解协议的动议。这是今天最重要的一项。我有受托人的动议文件。我有太阳国民银行的有限异议。我有 Isaac Franco 的异议。我有受托人的答复。我有债权人委员会的支持意见；Franco 先生的补充异议；Joseph Dwek 和 Adjmi Group（阿吉米集团）的支持意见。我有汇丰银行的答复以及债务人的进一步答复。\n案件 07-11757-KCF，文件 3916，提交于 02/12/09，录入于 02/12/09 17:28:10，主要文书，第 10 页，共 85 页；案件 22-50073，文件 2509-10，提交于 01/18/24，录入于 01/18/24 11:15:08，第 11 页，共 87 页\n动议／泰斯塔 10\n\n1 以上材料涵盖至大约下午5时。\n\n星期五。\n\n为何不由受托人的律师先开始。\n\nTESTA（泰斯塔）先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n\n第11章受托人非常高兴今日能出庭于法官阁下面前，并认为这是在这些案件进行过程中迄今为止最重大的成就。\n\n如法官阁下所指出，受托人已在向全体债权人发出适当通知后提交了一项动议。他不得不就对抗性诉讼中的被告 FRANCO（弗兰科）先生所作的某些陈述提交答复，其债权已受到质疑。我们强烈认为，提交给法官阁下的和解方案低于合理性范围的最低点。如法官阁下愿意，我们准备在程序上提出拟证陈述，或者我们也可以更为简要，仅重点说明和解的主要内容。\n\n法庭：\n请进行拟证陈述。\n\nTESTA先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n如果 STANZIALE（斯坦齐亚莱）先生今日作证，他将作如下证言：\n\nStanziale先生将证明，他是 Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德韦克）破产案及其全部74个合并管理案件的正式指定第11章受托人。\n\n在破产程序之前，州法院诉讼程序涉及这些债务人；在尚未解决的其他争议中，包括将129处不动产的所有权转让给 Joseph Dwek（约瑟夫·德韦克）和 Yeshuah（耶书亚），Joseph Dwek 主张该等不动产是为解决其债权而适当地转让给他的。\n\n2007年5月7日，受托人、Joseph Dwek 和 Yeshuah 签订了一份临时和解协议，该协议已被适当通知并获本庭批准，允许受托人出售该129处有争议的不动产，但明确规定，有争议不动产的所有权问题将在日后解决；Joseph 和 Yeshuah 明确保留其对有争议不动产净收益主张衡平法留置权的权利，并保留 Joseph 和 Yeshuah 提交债权申报的权利。\n\n2008年3月4日，受托人对 Joseph Dwek、Dwek, L.P.（德韦克有限合伙企业）及 Mark Adjmi（马克·阿德米）提起对抗性诉讼，主张欺诈性转让、普通法欺诈、共谋实施欺诈及相关请求权。\n\n被告提交了答辩状及反诉，除其他救济外，寻求设立推定信托。\n\n被告将该事项移送至地区法院，由实体审判决定结果。\n\n作为受托人，Stanziale先生与 Joseph Dwek 及其专业顾问会面并协商，并促使其自身的专业顾问审阅与该对抗性诉讼有关的文件、银行对账单、证言记录、HSBC（汇丰银行）贷款文件及其他相关材料。\n\nStanziale先生与其聘请的专业顾问，包括其会计师，就该事项会面并协商，并认定 Joseph Dwek 关于其因 Dwek 庞氏骗局而至少应获 $60 million 的主张，连同其其他积极抗辩，具有重大依据，并妨碍了受托人在该对抗性诉讼中提出的欺诈性转让请求。\n\n迄今为止，受托人已出售129处有争议不动产中的67处，产生约 $17.6 million 的净收益；其中全部均已根据公开提交的文件出售，并将在本和解协议获批准后可供破产财产使用。\n\n所主张债权减少 $43，以及 Joseph Dwek 至少 $60 million 的潜在债权；二，HSBC 获准的 $20 million 无担保债权，均为这些破产财产带来重大、实际价值。\n\n在提交本和解动议之前，受托人已寻求并获得 Creditors Committee（债权人委员会）对该和解的支持，并让委员会参与起草和解文件。\n\n动议/泰斯塔 11\n\n该和解动议将完整的和解协议作为附件，并于 January 5, 2009 向全体债权人提交并送达。\n\nStanziale先生将证明，该和解获得委员会、债务人及其他各方利害关系人的支持。\n\n该和解的唯一异议人是对抗性诉讼中的一名被告；除返还 $87 million 外，该异议人还寻求注销其据称对破产财产享有的债权。\n\nStanziale先生还将证明，经审慎审查和尽职调查后，受托人基于其商业判断认定，该和解符合破产财产全体债权人的最佳利益，且远高于本庭批准该和解所必需的合理性范围最低点。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n我理解 Stanziale先生现在线上。\n\n（随后，Stanziale先生通过电话出庭。）\n\nSTANZIALE先生：\n是，法官。\n\n法庭：\n您是否听到了您的律师所作的拟证陈述？\n\nSTANZIALE先生：\n是的，法官，我听到了。\n\n法庭：\n您是否证明他刚才所作的全部陈述属实？\n\n答复/格林哈尔 14\n\nSTANZIALE先生：\n我证明属实，法官。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。好。还有其他事项吗？\n\nTESTA先生：\n仅此而已，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。还有其他人支持该和解吗？\n\nGREENHALGH（格林哈尔）先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。Walter Greenhalgh（沃尔特·格林哈尔），Duane Morris（德杰律师事务所），债权人委员会的律师。法官阁下，我会简要陈述。我们确实就 Franco先生提出的异议提交了答复。\n\n我想向法庭强调债权人委员会的参与。在受托人及其律师与 Joe Franco（乔·弗兰科）的律师就这项商业交易及和解要素达成一致后，法官阁下，委员会审议了这项商业交易——而且委员会确实进行了审议——我们随即分析了所提出的方案。之后，我们广泛参与了和解协议条款的谈判。债权人委员会希望确保受托人日后可能追索的某些权益不会被纳入和解。委员会确实在这些谈判中发挥了积极作用。\n\n在此完成后，和解协议随即由全体当事人提交并最终确定，并向本庭提交动议以求批准。\n\n案件 07-11757-KCF 文件 3916 提交于 02/12/09 录入于 02/12/09 17:28:10 说明：主文件，第 15 页，共 85 页；案件 22-50073 文件 2509-10 提交于 01/18/24 录入于 01/18/24 11:15:08，第 16 页，共 87 页\n\n答复/格林哈尔/尤萨廷 15\n\n法官阁下，我们强调，首先，该和解协议将超过129处不动产纳入本破产财产。它还将消除围绕这些不动产的任何权利瑕疵或争议，并且还解决了将导致本破产财产进一步承担大量律师费及专业费用的重大诉讼。\n\n法官阁下，显然，受托人所提交的内容远远超出本庭将采用的合理性范围最低标准，而我们注意到 Franco 异议完全未对此作出回应。Franco 异议充斥着律师未经证实的主张。该陈述未经核证。没有宣誓书。从事实角度看，Franco先生及其律师未向本庭提交任何可证实其主张的材料。\n\n因此，法官阁下，受托人已满足的举证责任并未被 Franco先生推翻。我们请求，为本破产财产之利益，批准该和解。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。还有其他人支持吗？\n\nUSATINE（尤萨廷）先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。我将非常、非常简要地发言，仅就我们的函件以及受托人和委员会的立场补充一些说明。\n\n提交给法官阁下面前的和解，我想说，可能历经整整一年才达成。过程中一度有所起伏。它将避免——但始终是在善意基础上进行。委员会被纳入其中，并提出了实质性的修改请求，该等请求通过进一步谈判得到满足。显然，该和解将避免原本会在地区法院进行的激烈争议诉讼，该诉讼很可能导致陪审团审判，因为其中一些请求显然无法通过简易判决轻易处理；它还将避免所有该等费用和延误，并结束与破产财产最大债权人之一——依我之见，即在其投资中净亏损超过 $60 million 的 Dwek先生——之间的诉讼。\n\n我刚才提及的谈判，法官阁下，促成了一项交易；从我当事人的角度看，我认为该交易极为公平，并为破产财产带来明显利益，无论是在消除不动产所有权瑕疵方面，还是在终结诉讼方面。\n\n因此，我们加入受托人和委员会对 Franco先生异议所作的答复，并请求驳回该等异议。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n答复/乌萨迪/诺伊曼 17\n\nUSADI（乌萨迪）先生：\n法官阁下，Robert Usadi（罗伯特·乌萨迪）代表 HSBC。\n\nHSBC 已对该和解作出重大贡献，并基于受托人和委员会所述理由，强烈支持该和解。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nNEUMANN（诺伊曼）先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。Timothy Neumann（蒂莫西·诺伊曼）代表债务人。\n\n我开车来这里时想到一件上周在我于5:00提交的材料中没有写入的事情。异议人表示，不应批准该和解的理由之一，是受托人保留了某些可能在将来产生冲突的请求。\n\n鉴于其复杂性及实体数量，本案当然充满潜在冲突，但补救办法并非扼杀这项和解。那当然是本末倒置。如果这些潜在冲突成为实际冲突，那么适当的补救办法是，受托人可以在需要产生时聘请特别律师。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。还有其他人支持吗？\n\nPacheco（帕切科）女士，根据部分提交材料，我理解 Sun National（太阳国家银行）的有限异议已经解决？\n\nPACHECO先生：\n已解决，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好。让我们听听忠诚反对派的意见。\n\nSTEINBERG（斯坦伯格）先生：\n再次早上好，法官阁下。我大概无法保证简短，但我认为有许多事情需要说明，有些事情在动议文件中并未说明；如果有人认为所作引用是捏造的，或者所作陈述是凭空编造的，那么我将援引这些案件中已提交的诉状，以支持这些主张。\n\n我代表 Isaac Franco（艾萨克·弗兰科），他是 Solomon Dwek 破产财产中最大的个人债权人之一。\n\n我们就受托人请求批准 Joey Dwek（乔伊·德韦克）和解的动议在本案中提交诉状时，实质上提出了两项请求：第一，我们基于多项理由请求延期审理本庭对 Joey Dwek 和解的审议。第二，我们对和解的某些要素表示关切，包括删除我们认为凸显受托人利益冲突的特定措辞；并且 Franco 受到批评，理由是其在本案中提交的诉状没有具体援引案卷记录。我再次说明，我将对此加以补充。实际上，如今日将进一步阐述，我们所作的大多数陈述确实来自诉状，\n\n而实际情况是，Franco（弗兰科）是在请求有机会发展本案的事实记录，以便适当地评估是否应批准该和解。受托人对该和解获批负有举证责任，直至债权人委员会于周五提交本书状后，我们才知悉委员会对该事项持有立场。受托人为批准该和解而提出的动议，未说明债权人委员会的立场为何。现在，我已经说过，延期审理的理由有多项，我希望向法官阁下逐一说明。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n斯坦伯格先生：第一，批准动议未载明我们认为债权人有权知悉、以评估该和解是否合理及是否应获批准的关键信息。由于这些遗漏，弗兰科建议应就该和解重新发出通知，以纳入缺失的信息，使所有债权人都能知悉正在发生的情况。此外，弗兰科对和解中所载信息表示关切，因此在其书状中表示，他将送达取证请求，以设法进一步查明这些关切。实际上，他确已送达该等取证请求，附于我们于周五提交的补充书状。我们认为，他应有权进行该等取证，以进一步发展本案记录，并处理我稍后将说明的关切。\n\n顺带一提，在提交有关该和解的本书状之前，弗兰科的律师确曾与受托人会面，并讨论了其认为需要进一步阐明的若干条款。受托人提供了某些一般性信息，承诺提供其他信息，但并未提供；即使截至今日，其书状中也未提交补充信息。我们认为，为评估和解的合理性，需要该等信息。\n\n我们请求受托人延期举行本次听证，以便能够更好地评估事实记录，但受托人拒绝了该请求。\n\n债务人财产与Joey Dwek（乔伊·德韦克）财产之间争议的解决，是本案中的一项重要问题。没有理由不让弗兰科获得额外时间，以充分评估相关依据以及该和解是否应获批准；给予该时间也不会对任何人造成不利影响。弗兰科请求延期60天。就本案而言，这并非很长时间，本案即将届满两年。受托人在其书状中表示，与乔伊·德韦克的和解已历经很长一段时间的谈判。这载于受托人对弗兰科就该和解提出的异议所作答复第19段。\n\n乔伊·德韦克的律师今日表示，这些谈判已进行一年。他还表示，就该和解事项，数月来已与债权人委员会进行了多次讨论。这也载于同一段，即受托人异议第19段。\n\n委员会的律师今日起立表示，他已参与这些讨论一段时间。弗兰科知悉该和解尚不足四周，他正在努力赶上进度。他有权获得合理期间来这样做。\n\n在该60日期间内，债权人和法庭将获得若干额外信息。每一种情形都将就该和解是否合理及是否应获批准，形成更好且完整的记录。额外信息将来自多个来源。我希望详述我认为未来60天内将会发生的情况。\n\n第一，弗兰科将进行其所请求的取证，即受托人提供文件以及对受托人进行讯问。正如受托人在其证据记录中所述，弗兰科应有机会在必要时为审判作准备，而不是以这种方式进行。\n\n第二，数月来一直存在要求对债务人Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德韦克）进行讯问的请求。为配合刑事调查，该讯问应政府请求而延期。我们认为，在该60日期间内，我们很可能会让所罗门·德韦克在本案中作证，或者至少在本案中有所陈述。各方之间已传阅一份日程安排，拟于二月底进行该讯问。\n\n显然，在讯问期间将会形成一些相关内容。坦率地说，受托人表示，所罗门·德韦克未能作证，是其希望对两年诉讼时效适用衡平延长的理由之一。我们认为，所罗门·德韦克所作的任何陈述都可能影响法庭对本案和解的评估。当然，人们将有机会向所罗门·德韦克提问。截至目前，看来唯一拥有该机会的是受托人，而所罗门·德韦克因该机会已获得近两年的报酬。\n\n此外，如果及当所罗门·德韦克作证时，这也将表明刑事程序有进一步进展，而美国检察官办公室披露的信息很可能与法庭对该和解的评估有关。正如受托人的律师所说，乔伊·德韦克和解是本案中的一项重大和解。他是与本案所发生事项有关的重要人物。\n\n就债务人提交的拟议计划而言，接下来，针对债务人提交的拟议计划，受托人承诺将在2月期间的某个时候提交本案计划。这载于受托人对所罗门重整计划所提异议第14段。无论该计划内容为何，其均应包含以下问题的信息，而每一问题均与该和解的若干方面相关。\n\n第一，债务人案件是否将进行实质合并，以及原因为何。该问题影响受托人针对乔伊·德韦克提出的多项债权主张。该问题也影响针对HSBC（汇丰银行）的债权主张，并影响其他投资者的债权主张。\n\n第二，投资者债权是否将与其他无担保债权人债权按同等顺位处理。在所罗门·德韦克的计划中，他提出存在将该等债权全额劣后处理的依据，并提出在该等债权扣减本案中已经获得的任何分配后，支付其债权额的25%。弗兰科已就该计划提交书状，其中称该和解完全不合理且错误，是为了非投资者债权人的利益而歪曲该财产。\n\n了解受托人和债权人委员会将如何处理该问题十分重要。当受托人提交其重整计划时，我们将会知晓。而该问题构成该和解一项重要要素的基础。它涉及乔伊·德韦克放弃的债权，也涉及获承认有利于汇丰银行的债权。该$20 million债权将被作为投资者债权还是非投资者债权处理；这是否会产生影响？当受托人在三周内提交其计划时，我们将会知晓。\n\n接下来，投资者的债权是否会因其在破产前获得返还的任何款项而减少？此外，是否仍将要求投资者按一美元对一美元的基础返还所罗门·德韦克在破产前向其支付的任何款项？该问题构成就乔伊·德韦克在破产前向其支付的$91 million给予免责的基础。该$91 million数字载于受托人针对乔伊·德韦克的起诉状第41和42段。\n\n重要的是，受托人曾起诉乔伊·德韦克，要求其返还$91 million现金这一事实，并未载于本项请求批准和解的动议中。它也影响对乔伊·德韦克曾否对破产财产享有任何债权的评估。它同样影响对汇丰银行就作为和解标的的$25 million债权和$18 million贷款曾否享有任何债权的评估。在向乔伊·德韦克支付的$91 million中，在偿还$25 million贷款之后，超过$30 million被支付至德韦克在汇丰银行的账户。关于该$31 (sic) million的信息载于受托人起诉状第41段。\n\n我想说，我在所提交的异议中犯了一个错误。我使用了$23 million这个数字。实际金额更大。\n\n该等付款如何入账，动议中并未说明。受托人在其陈述中称，他认为乔伊·德韦克在本案中可能是$60 million的债权人。我们希望对该主张提出质疑。我们想知道，如果乔伊·德韦克收到了$91 million，他实际垫付了什么，以及他垫付的金额与其他实体垫付的金额分别为何，并且该$60 million是否包括汇丰银行的$43 million债权。我将在稍后的陈述中援引乔伊·德韦克在州法院程序中提交的宣誓书，进一步说明为何这令人关切——动议中未予说明——以及为何我们认为需要通过取证发展更好的记录。\n\n接下来，乔伊·德韦克是否对受托人享有任何债权，而受托人正寻求将该等债权针对除所罗门·德韦克财产以外的债务人财产加以执行。这是该和解的一项要素。这将影响某些债务人财产中的一些债权人。那么，哪些债务人财产正获得利益，代价由谁承担，以及为何如此？本动议并未解释。我们已两次提出该问题。他们有机会作出答复，而他们说我们以后会弄清楚。我认为他们无权说以后再告诉你们。这正是他们现在应当告诉我们这究竟为何的问题。\n\n乔伊·德韦克债权是什么——如果他们大力宣称乔伊·德韦克有权获得免责，并且正在免除这些财产的责任，为何在任何财产中主张乔伊·德韦克债权？那么，为何受托人要主张乔伊·德韦克债权——就汇丰银行的$43 million债权而言亦然——并针对某些其他财产提出该主张？有人正为特定目的而蒙受损失。我们并不知晓。\n\n坦率地说，将在未来三周内提交的计划应当作出解释。我们有权知悉。法庭也有权知悉。我理解这是其他所有人都希望达成的和解。但不妨在良好的记录基础上达成。也不妨解释你们本应在第一次就作出的解释。所有债权人都将有机会看到该和解如何影响他们，因为我们认为\n\n已提交的动议没有恰当地描述该事项。Franco（弗兰科）表示，该条款突显了利益冲突。作为所有破产财产债权人的受托人，不能取得一项其因某项和解而获得的债权，再将其向破产财产主张。那么，其目的何在，谁将从中获得衍生利益？下一点是，是否有任何投资者将基于推定信托理论，就债务人破产财产的任何财产获得额外受偿。受托人表示，该论点可能作为其与Joey Dwek（乔伊·德韦克）达成和解理由的依据而具有一定效力。这载于受托人对Franco异议的答复第8段，该答复于周五提交。该论点与众多社群投资者所持的论点非常相似。事实上，Joey Dwek似乎在Meridian Hospital（Meridian医院）的买卖转手交易中投入了最大金额，而这正是Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德韦克）实质上诈骗Deal community（迪尔社群）中大多数人的基础。我作出该陈述、即该问题通常涉及Meridian交易的原因陈述，载于Joey Dwek在州法院诉讼中提交的答辩书第20至24段。\n\n今天庭审结束后，如法官阁下希望查阅我所提交的全部诉状——因为这些材料并不容易取得——并希望我汇编这些证物的汇编册，我很乐意这样做。\n\n下一点是，受托人在本案中提交了一份诉状——支持延期的下一点是，受托人在本案中提交了一份诉状，以延长其提出撤销权请求的两年期间；他给出了两项、实质上两项理由，说明为何这些信息是他所需的。第一，他称其掌握的信息并不完整，需要更多时间评估发生了什么，A，因为Solomon尚未在本案中正式作证；B，因为他尚未完成对案卷登记的审查，而因政府扣押文件而产生的材料正缓慢地返还给他。\n\n在这60日期间内，我认为Solomon将会作证。许多此类文件将会返还。该等额外信息很有可能会披露出来。如果所有这些事项对于受托人决定起诉谁、不起诉谁，并向本院请求衡平法中止构成相关依据，那么它们很可能也与决定同谁和解有关。即使他已坚定认定该等事项具有相关性，对于受该和解影响的本破产财产其他债权人而言，它们也与评估受托人提出的任何和解方案有关。\n\n因此，我认为这些是我们有权获得60天延期的依据。但我现在想说明有关和解的疑虑，并进一步阐述这些疑虑。和解协议描述了受托人将获得什么。我将稍作说明，为何受托人所获内容并不完整，因而难以理解。相信我，我已非常努力地审阅了这些材料。\n\n但受托人在和解中放弃了什么？受托人放弃——获得一项免责——给予Joey Dwek免责，并认可一项金额减至$20 million的HSBC（汇丰银行）债权。该动议从未真正具体描述他放弃了针对Joey Dwek的哪些请求权。他提起了一项对抗诉讼。他提到了该诉讼。但他从未在动议中真正说明，他起诉Joey Dwek是为了追回$90 million。\n\n这与他在本案中起诉每一名社群投资者所依据的法律理论相同。你从Solomon Dwek那里收回一角钱，你就会被起诉。$90 million的请求载于针对Joey Dwek提交的起诉状第1至5项罪名项。现在，他所收回的$90 million中有多少减少了Joey Dwek的债权？你不知道答案。你确实有受托人表示，我认为可能是$60 million。但是，根据我能从这些文件中收集到的片段，很难判断他为何认为情况如此。而且，无论他怎么想，我都有权对其进行检验。\n\n而且，在我不得不基于他仅作出的那项陈述来尝试检验之前，我确实有权首先通过文件和证言记录来检验。该$90 million中是否有任何部分以任何方式减少了HSBC的债权？受托人称Joey Dwek的债权为$60 million。Franco希望检验这一点。Joey在州法院提交的文件——因为除$1.5 million的伪造债权外，他从未在本案中提交债权申报书，而且他从未真正于州法院程序中提出债权，因为非自愿破产申请在申报截止日到来之前提出——就是如此。\n\n因此，你必须通过阅读Joey Dwek在州法院提交的文件及其宣誓陈述来收集这些信息。他谈到，他大约于2000年开始与Solomon进行商业往来，这早于本案中几乎所有其他涉案人员；他在2003年至2005年8月之间垫付了约$10 million至$14 million。随后开始了HSBC贷款，他借入了该笔资金，即$43 million。此外，他于2006年3月提供了$7 million。\n\n所以，这就是我所能计算出的全部金额。该信息载于Joey Dwek于2006年11月在州法院诉讼中提交的第三方起诉状。因此，如果Joey Dwek和HSBC就同一债权向破产财产主张债权，你就有一项HSBC债权，这属于重复计算；你还有约$10 million至$14 million。\n\n在一些诉状中，他称金额为10；在另一份诉状中，他称金额为14。此外，还有2006年3月的$7 million。受托人在其起诉状中主张，他收回了$91 million，其中$30 million是在2005年8月之后收回的。因此，Joey Dwek是否为净债权人？他是否为牟利者？他收回的是否超过其应得金额？我认为我希望知道的是，州法院诉状称，他与Solomon的交易是，Solomon将寻找房产，而他将向Solomon的Yeshiva（犹太经学院）或Solomon任职的Yeshiva提供资金，作为某种佣金。随后，Solomon将担任其所取得房产的财产管理人。\n\n在州法院诉状中，他称，根据其与Solomon的交易，他至少向一所Yeshiva提供了$2 million。该信息载于Joey Dwek于2006年5月作出的宣誓陈述第2页脚注1。受托人主张，Solomon有权获得——Solomon称其有权获得——Joey Dwek交易利润的20%。\n\n因此，你向Yeshiva支付$2 million，而他有权获得利润的20%，这表明赚取了$10 million利润。也许并非如此。我只是试图进行计算，试图处理这些信息。Joey称，他就所称利润缴纳了税款。\n\n这载于Joey Dwek日期为June 5, 2006的补充宣誓陈述第9段。\n\n法官阁下，这就是我所知道的全部。我有权对其进行检验。在我继续处理之前，作为基本前提，我有权取得文件。\n\n现在，对抗诉讼起诉状在第43段称，在破产之前，数个推定与Joey Dwek有关联的实体向SEM提供了资金。因此，在受托人针对Joey Dwek提起的起诉状中，他起诉他们，是因为他称SEM是与其他Dwek实体分离的实体，而恰好Joey Dwek从SEM取得了资金，但SEM并不欠他任何款项，因此Joey Dwek应对$91 million承担责任。\n\n这就是我所说实质合并问题具有相关性的原因，因为如果SEM与其他一些Dwek实体实质合并，那么他就不能玩这样的游戏：你向这个债务人提供资金，但你从那个债务人获得付款，因此你是一个债务人的债权人，同时对另一个债务人存在欺诈性转让问题。因此，这就是实质合并问题完全具有相关性的原因。\n\n但他说，你知道，我承认Joey获得了$91 million，但在他们六年历史的过程中，有一些资金回流。他称这些资金来自下列实体——这同样载于受托人起诉状第43段——Consolidated Children's Apparel, Inc.（联合儿童服装公司）、Sports Product of America, LLC（美国体育产品有限责任公司）、IFG Corporation（IFG公司）以及Sister-Sister, Inc.（Sister-Sister公司）。\n\n现在，当你实际阅读受托人在本案中提交的和解协议时，他保留了对这些实体的请求权，因为他认为其对这些实体享有请求权，而这是免责第5A段中免责的例外保留。\n\n但当你查看受托人获得了哪些免责时，他并未从这些实体获得免责。实际向破产财产投入资金的实体，他并未作为Joey Dwek和解的一部分从其获得免责。我不知道为何会是这种情况。在我看来，这似乎是一个遗漏。他是在给自己制造风险。但Joey Dwek放弃其债权，然而Joey Dwek并非向破产财产投入资金的实体。是这些实体向破产财产投入了这些资金。这些实体是否因为与Joey Dwek有关联、并代表他这样做，我不知道。\n\n但我要告诉你，当你查看受托人如何将此作为免责的一部分提出时，看起来这些实体并非与Joey Dwek有关联，而是与Jack Adjmi（杰克·阿杰米）有关联。因此，当你查看第5A段时，这些实体似乎被界定为Adjmi关联方，而并非真正的Dwek关联方。\n\n现在，这或许有一种解释，但我目前不知道是什么。这是我们请求证据开示的原因之一。这是我们请求录取证言的原因之一。我们曾试图以非正式方式取得这些信息。我们得到了一些信息；没有得到另一些信息。\n\n现在，Joey Dwek对其他破产财产享有什么债权？我此前提到过这一点。为什么这些债权被转让给受托人？这如何不构成受托人的利益冲突？如果和解获得批准，而Joey Dwek未在申报截止日之前对这些实体提出债权，这些债权如何得以保留？因为Joey Dwek保留了在其必须返还房产时提出债权的权利，但他现在已有一项交易。本案的申报截止日已过。因此，我们现在保留这些已超过申报截止日的债权，因为我们将它们交给受托人，以便其向某些破产财产主张，而他本应是所有破产财产的代表？谁将取得这些债权的受偿？为什么只有我认为这不是利益冲突，又为什么任何人会认为这是可以由一名特别法律顾问予以豁免的事情？谁在作出决定？\n\n我可以在这个世界上找十名律师。我需要一名特别受托人来处理该事项，因为每一名律师都为客户的利益工作。客户作出商业决定。客户指示律师应如何行动。由于他构建和解的方式，他正在自行制造这种固有的利益冲突。\n\n目前，HSBC（汇丰银行）的债权正从 $43 million 减至 $20 million。受托人在提交本动议时，并未说明针对合并财产的债权总额是多少。我们提出了这一问题。并且在周五，他表示他认为该数额约为 $120 million。这载于其答复第 29 段。因此，我希望核实该信息。我希望了解其影响。而且我敢打赌，当他在未来三周内提交其计划时，我将获得更多得多的信息，从而能够评估他是如何得出该数字的。\n\n而未提及的是，HSBC 的 $43 million 债权额很可能与 Joey Dwek（乔伊·德维克）的债权被重复计算。我确实不能确定。我只是试图补充 Joey Dwek 在州法院陈述其债权的方式，而看起来它必定被重复计算了。\n\n该 $25 million 债权——因为 43 是由一项 $25 million 债权和一项 $18 million 债权构成——该 $25 million 债权似乎是基于 HSBC 向 Joey Dwek 发放了一笔由 Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德维克）担保的贷款这一事实提出的。因此，这并非直接债务；而是所罗门提供的担保。\n\n尽管本动议中未予载明，但当你回顾州法院时，你会发现，最初，这是一笔于六月发放的 $15 million 贷款，而在 '05 年八月，它变成了一笔 $25 million 贷款。就我而言，在审阅州法院文件时，我无法判断最初的 $15 million 是否仅是 Joey Dwek 的债务，随后在 '05 年八月变成了由所罗门担保的 Joey Dwek 债务。因此，受托人在其起诉书中提出，所罗门对 Joey Dwek 债务所作的 $25 million 担保属于欺诈性转让，所罗门并未因担保其叔父的债务以及向其叔父发放的贷款而获得任何对价。因此，为什么那不是一项有力的债权？因为如果那是一项有力的债权或一项相当有力的债权，那么从 $43 million 中让步 $20 million 可能看起来并不是一笔好交易。那么，支持此类担保的附带利益是什么？我不知道。这正是我希望通过证据开示询问的问题，以了解受托人在分析这些问题后为何决定放弃此事。\n\n现在，$18 million 债权，即 43 的另一部分，是向所罗门和 Joey 提出的，但该债权有其他担保物作担保。那么该担保物价值多少？它是否已经出售？坦率地说，我无法像本案委员会代表个人客户所做的那样，追踪每一个要素。我不能在证据开示中要求这些资料。当我看到重整计划时，我可以看到。有担保物支持该 $18 million 贷款。和解双方均保留就 HSBC 是否应有权取得该担保物、从而减少该 $18 million 风险敞口的权利。如果 HSBC 是正确的——而我认为 HSBC 通常在其于此类案件中主张的债权方面是正确的——那么本案实际上并不存在 $18 million 的债权。金额会更低。有一项不足额——全额 $18 million，加上有担保债权——那么本案的不足额是多少？我不知道。本动议中没有。对于确定该债权中的让步金额而言相关的信息中也没有。现在，是否曾就该 $43 million 债权支付款项？正如我现在已经说过几次的那样，我知道 Joey 自八月以来获得了 $30 million，而自最初的 $15 million 于六月垫付并存入 HSBC 银行账户以来他获得了什么，我没有追踪——受托人在其起诉书第 43 段中载明了这一点——那么这笔钱去了哪里？这笔钱进入了 Joey Dwek 的银行账户。实际上，这是一个 Dwek, L.P. 银行账户。那么它被用于何处？它必定被用于某处。它是否被用于偿还这些贷款？它是否被用于偿还 Joey Dwek 的其他债务？2005 年八月之后的 $30 million 流向了 Joey Dwek。\n\n这 $20 million 被视为投资者债权还是金融机构债权？它源于为实质上进行这些 Meridian（梅里迪恩）翻转交易而发放的贷款。这会成为本案中的一个问题吗？我认为不应成为问题，但所罗门认为是。我不知道受托人的立场。但如果这在本案中是一个问题，并且如果有人要对该债权予以折减，那么这项 HSBC 债权是否会被视为投资者债权？我知道他们不是一家机构，但它源自向一名投资者发放的贷款。如果这将是本案中的规则，并且法官阁下将作出与我将敦促您作出的决定相反的裁定，但这就是您将作出的决定，那么这将影响与该和解有关将被交换的对价。\n\n再次说明，我并非希望永远拖延此事。我一直批评该受托人和该委员会应推进本案，以影响所有投资者的整体方式推进本案。当我们最初提交异议，而当时并未获得受托人关于其何时提交计划的说明时，因此我以概括性措辞分阶段提出异议，即我们都希望知道，我们需要看到宏观图景，才能评估本案中的一项重要和解。好吧，他给了我某种礼物，因为在答复所罗门的计划时，他说我将在 30 天内采取行动。在本案历经两年之后，他应当在 30 天内、在未来 30 天内采取行动。\n\n但是，当我们知道他将采取什么行动时，我们将能够评估该和解实际上是否有价值，以及 Joey Dwek 与受托人希望如何对待本案其余共同投资者相比处于何种不同地位。我知道，在对我文件的答复中，他们说 Ike Franco（艾克·弗朗科）起诉索赔 $87 million。是的，Ike Franco 返还了超过 87。他返还了接近 98，或者无论该数字是多少。Ike Franco 多返还了介于 $9 million 和 $10 million 之间的金额。然后，如果计算 Jubilee（朱比利）交易，在两年期间内、其资金没有任何回报的情况下，该金额比他曾经获得返还的金额多出介于 $5.5 million 和 $6 million 之间。我们已经三次向受托人证明了这一点。\n\n所罗门——Joey Dwek 一直至该和解为止均被描述为对该财产拥有 $91 million 债权的债权人。而我们今天刚刚在代表受托人作出的陈述中听到，Joey Dwek 实际上是一名拥有 $60 million 债权的债权人。因此，事情会随着你所处谈判阶段的不同而相当迅速地变化。\n\n为什么 HSBC 就这些 $20 million 债权被视为善意债权持有人，而与此同时，他们正因与 PNC（PNC 银行）交易有关的恶意行为而被起诉？一名持有人在一个案件中如何能够就一项交易成为善意持有人，而就另一项交易成为恶意持有人，而这些交易发生在大致同一时期？受托人在本案中试图划定什么界线？我认为，对这些 HSBC 问题应有一个整体解决方案。标注其为获准债权人、任何其他债权人于任何时候均无权在本案中对其提出质疑，这有些奇怪。而现在，他仍将继续起诉 HSBC，针对其所主张、而我并不相信存在的恶意行为。请允许我明确说明，我认为 HSBC 在本案中的行为是适当的。但受托人希望如何处理本案的这种来回变动是奇怪的。这正是我们希望在证言录取中进一步厘清的一个关切事项。\n\nHSBC 主张其对其他实体拥有 $43 million 债权，而该债权将转让给受托人。我的问题是，为什么这些债权没有被解除？这与我就 Joey Dwek 所阐述的问题相同。\n\n现在，尚未讨论的该和解还有另一项内容，即 Joey Dwek 将作为本案中的一项行政债权获得 $1.484 million 的偿付。这涉及 Joey Dwek 在该 129 处房产依照他先前提到的临时和解返还给受托人之前，就这些房产所作出的垫付款项。\n\n首先，除非你进行一些计算并尝试比较数字——我不确定法官阁下是否这样做了——否则你无法看出来；临时和解称 Joey Dwek 已垫付 $1.473 million。行政债权为 $1.484 million，高于 Joey Dwek 所称其获得返还的金额。受托人还在其为支持 Joey Dwek 和解而提交的动议第 30 段中提交了一份书状，称 Joey Dwek 根据临时和解获得偿还 26,800-and-some-odd dollars。因此，如果你从 $1.473 中减去近 $27,000，得到的是 $1.446，而被认可的行政债权约多出 $38,000。也许这是因为他们正在支付 Joey Dwek 律师的律师费，也许这就是 $38,000 的差额。我不知道。他们从未说明法律顾问作为和解的一部分将获得什么，以及为什么。\n\n临时和解称，我们将在这些房产中存在净权益的范围内偿付 Joey Dwek。因此，在 Joey Dwek 就房产垫付款项、而该房产具有本应流入该财产的价值，并且他支持了该等房产的范围内，他们将向他偿付。这大概就是为什么在受托人一直出售这些房产的期间，他获得了 $26,800，因为这意味着，大多数被出售并返还的房产并不具备偿付 Joey Dwek 的这种可能性。\n\n他的大多数垫付款必定是用于那些资不抵债、需要他提供支持的房产，这与该逻辑一致，即如果你有一处房产需要额外现金支持而无法自给自足，那么这将是垫付资金的理由。但你无法知晓其中任何情况。受托人在其答复中说，是的，那是我们在临时和解中同意的内容，但作为整体交易的一部分，我正在向 Joey Dwek 支付更多款项，因为他提出了这样的论点：如果任何一处房产存在任何权益，他都应获得偿付，即使该房产不存在权益价值。\n\n好吧，我认为，如果这是他的论点，即他现在承认 Joey Dwek 是正确的，那么他正在修改其先前在临时和解中所采取的立场，我认为我希望在证言录取的背景下向他询问此事。\n\n该和解描述了受托人正在获得什么。而该和解从根本上错误描述了受托人正在获得什么。他称他正在收回这些房产。这是正确的。他称他已经出售了 60 余处房产，并且在过去 18 个月中，他仍有接近 60 余处房产尚未出售。但在其动议中——法官阁下，我很抱歉，因为我的陈述稿顺序有些混乱，但这是一个重要观点——在其动议中，他称该交易的利益是\n\n是，他正在取回价值可能达数亿美元的财产，数亿美元——哪一段——\n\n男声：\n51。\n\n斯坦伯格先生（Steinberg）：——第51段，价值数亿美元，为破产财产带来数亿美元的价值，甚至不是为——我认为这并不是指有担保债权人；我认为是指破产财产——数亿美元，这正是每一位债权人在看到这份动议提交时所看到的。好。\n\n所以，他从未说明他出售这些财产获得了多少金额。该信息直到周五才披露。\n\n所以，他出售了62处财产。他获得了$17.6 million。因此，他尚未出售的其他财产，要么包含极其巨大的价值，要么其动议中关于价值数亿美元的陈述就是不正确的。如果不正确，那就是一项根本性错误，且需要在通知所有债权人的情况下予以更正。\n\n我想在证言录取中质疑的事项之一，是查明哪些财产尚未出售、这些财产的估值是多少，并试图弄清楚为什么在18个月内仍未出售，因为就我个人而言，我作出过许多糟糕的商业决定，而每一项个人决定都源于同一个事实：我在一个正在恶化的市场中持有某项资产，无论是股票市场还是房地产市场。而这正是本案所发生的情况。\n\n受托人称，根据和解协议，他将取得13处财产的所有权。然而，在德韦克（Dwek）于2006年5月提交的证明书第15段中，德韦克称他取得了15处财产。那么此处所涵盖的另外两处发生了什么？我不知道。仅阅读这些文件，我们无法判断。\n\n受托人的答复中——但并非在动议中——提供了$17.6 million、62处未出售财产的信息，以及还有其他——而他实际上并未说明那些其他财产的价值。再次说明，这是第51段，原文准确表述为：“破产财产可能获得数亿美元的价值。”\n\n受托人提出了乔伊·德韦克（Joey Dwek）在返还这些财产时会主张的抗辩——从表面上看，乔伊·德韦克似乎是一起典型内部人优先受偿请求的对象。我不知道他们为什么不断以欺诈性转让的术语谈论此事。这可能构成欺诈性转让。但如果乔伊·德韦克主张，他的侄子欺诈了他，因而欠他钱；并且他因遭受欺诈而取得返还的这些财产；且该行为发生在本案破产申请前一年内，那么在我看来，正如我此前所说，这是一项并不复杂的内部人优先受偿请求，不需要采取大量行动。\n\n当你查看2006年4月26日的第一份协议时——我认为乔伊及其侄子在一周内签订了三份协议，当时他们正努力研究如何以本案其他每一位债权人为代价，使这位叔叔获得完全补偿——4月26日的协议明确规定，所转让财产后一年内，所罗门（Solomon）不会申请破产。这是4月26日和4月27日附函的第8段。\n\n同样重要的是，第3段中的那些信函称，所罗门，你不应告诉任何人我正在将所有这些财产返还给你；我在合同上禁止你与任何人讨论此事。如果你试图阅读这些文件，整个协议的根本前提是什么？就是所罗门在这个世界上只欺诈了一人，或许PNC Bank（PNC银行）除外——因为他们最终知道了此事——他们欺诈了，他欺诈了他的叔叔。所罗门手中取得的每一美元，根本上都是正当资金。因此，乔伊对其侄子说，你有你的正当资金，而你把这些财产登记在你的名下；你本应把它们登记在我的名下。\n\n但这假定所罗门取得的是他自己的钱。所罗门以实质上与乔伊·德韦克据称遭受欺诈时相同的交易，欺诈了社区中的其余人，即Meridian Hospital（子午线医院）的买入／卖出锁定转售交易。\n\n所以，乔伊进行这些交易时，告诉其侄子不要告诉任何人，也不要在一年内申请破产。受托人称，和解协议中最好的部分、我这样做的原因，是因为我正在取回这些财产。但当你退一步来看，这意味着这位叔叔、这名内部人、本案中最具影响力的人，利用该影响力优先于其他所有人攫取这些财产，构成优先受偿。而现在，整个社区仍在本案中被起诉，但乔伊因事先攫取了这些财产而获得脱身的好处。\n\n而他在攫取时做了什么？所罗门如此急于将这些财产交给乔伊——这一点来自受托人的起诉书——所罗门如此急于将这些财产交给乔伊，以至于他签署了空白契据。乔伊的律师在一段时间内填写空白处，以便将其正式记载下来。而当你阅读乔伊·德韦克在州法院（State Court）提交的证明书时，乔伊·德韦克称，很难判断所罗门在做什么；他本应将这些财产登记在我的名下；他没有；我很难追踪他在做什么；因此，我正在取回这些财产以使我获得完全补偿。\n\n每一位向所罗门提供资金的社区投资者都有同样的主张。乔伊·德韦克的推定信托请求不可能比本案任何其他投资者的请求更有优势。乔伊·德韦克取得了这些财产，而现在达成这项和解，是因为他抢在所有人之前取得了这些财产，并且在这一过程中试图让其侄子保守秘密。这令人反感。\n\n而弗兰科（Franco）在本案中所强烈指出的是，社区中的其他投资者——他们全都认为自己是本案受害人——均正根据起诉乔伊·德韦克的同一理论被起诉。乔伊·德韦克因其在本案中收取了$90 million而得以逃脱责任，因为他抢在其他所有人之前排到了队伍前面，并且很快因这样做而被抓住，但他确实插队了。\n\n而且，不知何故，他正在利用这一程序，而此时本案所有其他投资者并不知道自己是否会受到损害。大多数投资者，尤其是在当前这种环境下，没有足够的律师费持续进行这场斗争。他们希望最终能够维护正义。他们中有许多人信教，我与他们交谈过，他们说，上帝会——如果弗格森法官（Judge Ferguson）不照看我，上帝会照看我；上帝会确保本案实现正义。我对他们说，我很高兴你们拥有这种信仰，我也希望对弗格森法官拥有同样的信仰，但弗格森法官需要知道正在发生什么；有人需要大声说出正在发生什么。\n\n你们可以看到，我在对所罗门·德韦克的诉状和计划提出的异议中，陈述了我对本案的一切担忧，以及本案中发生的所有费用。这项和解令我深感担忧。我认为艾萨克·弗兰科（Isaac Franco）应当有机会向您提交本案充分展开的记录，然后您可以决定此事是否合理。\n\n很难评估汇丰（HSBC）债权减少$20 million的价值。与汇丰的和解受制于乔伊·德韦克与汇丰之间的一项单独协议。我寻找过——但我有时会遗漏——我没有在和解协议中看到它。但在动议第46D段中，他们称，无论汇丰在这项交易中获得什么，其债权减少都受制于乔伊·德韦克与汇丰之间的一项协议。它没有说明该协议是什么。我想，他们假定这是两个第三方自行达成的安排。但它确实称，对价以该协议实际发生为条件。我想我可能会想知道该协议是什么，以及该协议是否会发生，因为这将是决定该和解是否最终完成的一个因素。\n\n法官阁下，最后，我感谢您给我时间作陈述，我们认为存在多项理由——我不会再次逐一列出——支持延期，这将确保本案的程序正当程序，并将使法院——甚至不必说使我——使法院能够就和解的合理性拥有更充分展开的记录。\n\n我对该和解提出了许多问题，这些问题引发了其是否合理以及受托人是否纳入了一项使其产生利益冲突的条款的问题。我们并未请求长期延期。没有人会因延期而受到损害。额外时间实际上可能有助于解决争议。实际情况也可能是，我要么被本案中发生的某些事情说服，要么我最终取得突破，使其他人相信我认为本案应如何推进。\n\n我要指出，该交易以一项最终且不可上诉的命令为条件。每个人都应当努力看看能否达成一项完全一致同意的协议。\n\n法官阁下，我要说，受托人在与弗兰科先生及其律师讨论本案时，给予了充分时间。我并不总是确定自己是否获得了所要求的全部信息，我有时也不确定受托人是否已充分形成其思考。不过，法官阁下，我已经要求我认为是本案一名大型债权人的人更多参与债权人委员会（Creditors Committee），因为我是一名积极的投资者，愿意投入时间和努力，以确保本案实现正义。\n\n而在这一背景下，我被礼貌地告知，现在不是合适的时机。好吧，随着一项计划已经提交，我确信时机很快就会到来。我很擅长设法解决问题，而不必以这种方式处理。答复文件批评我没有就和解中会发生什么向法官阁下援引法律。我对我的共同代理律师说，我相当确信弗格森法官熟悉和解应如何获批准的标准，每个人都援引其书面陈述中相同的套话部分，这些都是事实问题，而本案的问题在于，我的事实信息是零星逐步获得的。我提交一份异议，然后我在20——你知道，一个营业日之前——收到答复，提供更多信息，回答了一些问题并提出新的问题，而这些问题均是本案所达成和解的核心和根本问题。\n\n毫无疑问，艾萨克·弗兰科担忧乔伊·德韦克和解的部分原因，是艾萨克·弗兰科正在被起诉。让我说清楚。我并未试图隐瞒这一点。乔伊·德韦克正根据起诉艾萨克·弗兰科的同一理论被起诉。所有社区投资者都正根据同样理由被起诉。我们要求公平的竞争环境，并要求了解受托人历时一年的分析，即他如何得出这些结论；他如何决定在与乔伊·德韦克交易时汇丰是善意贷款人，而在与艾萨克·弗兰科交易时却不是善意贷款人；为何乔伊·德韦克无需返还$91 million，而如今每一位其他社区投资者都必须承受费用和创伤，在本案中面对受托人以某种全面撒网的方式提起的诉讼。\n\n我并不惊讶艾萨克·弗朗科（Isaac Franco）是唯一提出异议的人，因为在本案进行了两年之后，人们看到可收回的款项不断减少，且从不确定他们是否最终能从本案中获得任何东西，同时还在遭受起诉，很难判断除为自己辩护之外，是否还要花更多钱并让他人出庭。\n\n我已向弗朗科建议，你不能以这种方式进行诉讼；你需要参与；你需要在一开始而不是最后才参与；你需要能够向法官说明某些事情出了问题。当债权人委员会监督第11章受托人，而二者均对债务人进行调查时，显然存在问题。当本案涉及如此数额的资金，以及本案行政费用如此数额的累积，而又已有第11章受托人时，债务人的律师仍由债务人支付报酬，这也存在问题。\n\n我不知道为何无人对此大声疾呼。我曾试图提出这些问题。我将在计划、披露声明以及本案的处理方式中提出这些问题。在本案中，我已说服我的客户，值得投入时间审阅文件、进行证言录取，并在必要时于受托人作证后再次出庭；届时将有证据记录，并可在我取得文件、取得我认为与提交给法庭相关的任何信息、并备齐一小册证物后，对其进行交叉询问，然后由法庭裁定该和解是否合理。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人反对该和解吗？有答复吗？斯坦齐亚莱先生：法官阁下？法院：是？斯坦齐亚莱先生：查尔斯·斯坦齐亚莱（Charles Stanziale）。我不可能逐项答复各项主张，但我必须说几件事。首先，很明显，弗朗科先生正试图通过其律师，当然，是试图首先强化其针对我对其客户提起的诉讼的抗辩。\n\n此外，现在就提出一个观点，而该观点在审判中他可能会、也可能不会获准提出（原文如此）。此外，应当知悉，本案中至少还有40起其他诉讼，在时效期间届满前还将有其他追加诉讼；并且，可以说，没有其他诉讼当事人站出来质疑弗朗科先生的律师所质疑的事项。但问题在于，针对弗朗科先生的诉讼，与针对其他被告相比，更是基于这样一个事实：实际上，他是本案的共同共谋者，他知道发生了什么，并且他通过威胁和人身伤害的方式，从所罗门·德韦克（Solomon Dwek）处收回了$90 million，而从汇丰银行（HSBC Bank）汇给约瑟夫·德韦克（Joseph Dwek）的许多款项，在同一天立即被用于偿还弗朗科先生的欠款，原因是他曾威胁所罗门·德韦克，后者在该情形下确实担心自己的生命安全。\n\n因此，将弗朗科视为善意受害人，并非我们在针对弗朗科先生的诉讼中所采取的方向。\n\n其他人确实可能就其是否实际上为善意受害人提出主张。我们当然愿意与他们交谈，并在审判前或审判中听取其抗辩。\n\n然而，就弗朗科先生而言，我们认为他参与了整个事件。在此站出来谈论希望就约瑟夫·德韦克以及导致这一结果的原因进行证据开示，并称法院掌握的信息不足，完全是为了构建针对受托人在针对弗朗科的起诉状中所提出指控的抗辩而作出的主张。\n\n这基本上就是我要说的：提出所有这些请求和指控，是为了拖延一项将为本案带来大量资金的和解；而事实上，本案很可能会有审判，会有陪审团审判，就约瑟夫·德韦克而言存在事实争议，而就艾萨克·弗朗科而言则不存在此类事实争议。依我作为受托人的判断，并采用合理标准，即合理区间的下限，我得出结论，本案确实应当和解。\n\n对于本案中的其他贷款，我们保留针对汇丰银行的权利，包括$15 million贷款、确实可能引发本案的$20 million，以及PNC银行（PNC Bank）的空头支票；该支票使艾萨克·弗朗科再次受益，依据的是他在该支票签发前三四天所作的记录。我认为，这本身就说明我们并未放弃本案中的诉因。\n\n因此，根据我所见和所做的工作，我认为不应拖延该动议；该动议对本案很重要；它将为财产节省巨额诉讼成本，而委员会和法院对此已关注相当长一段时间。\n\n斯坦伯格先生（Steinberg）提出的许多事项和问题，应当在披露声明中适当提出。他花了大量时间讨论计划应当是什么，以及该计划如何影响其他诉讼当事人和其他投资者。事实上，我们质疑弗朗科先生在本案中的真实地位，尤其是其债权或其债权的质量。\n\n无论如何，我只是想说，我不希望这些毫无依据、泛泛而谈的指控，仅仅为了影响法院目前的裁决或未来本法院确实将审理的诉讼，就这样被放过。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。乌萨廷先生（Usatine）：法官阁下，我原本希望，在我听取弗朗科先生的律师向法庭陈述其案件时，我无需作出回应。但我不知道，大约20分钟后，我认为我已完全不再抱有这方面的希望。斯坦伯格先生及其客户声称，鉴于他所认为的本案局面，他们并不惊讶自己是唯一的异议人。其他人也并不惊讶。我感到惊讶的是，有人主张不知为何会对委员会在本案中持有立场感到意外。实际上，我认为斯坦伯格先生说过，直到星期五，弗朗科先生才知道委员会对该和解持有意见。嗯，这令人震惊。这令人意外。\n\n首先，异议截止日期于星期一届满，而委员会并未提出异议。倘若此前并无委员会立场的任何表示，这至少应当构成某种提示。但是，斯坦伯格先生和弗朗科先生在不同时间声称代表的那些社区投资者中，当然有些人在委员会任职。当然，其他人与委员会自由共享信息，而且他们可能知道——我不会试图进一步推定任何人的知情情况，只能说，其中一些人可能知道，法官阁下，委员会事实上参与了与约瑟夫·德韦克的谈判，拟定了若干措辞和免责安排，以保留委员会尚未调查的权利请求——我稍后会谈及此事，因为斯坦伯格先生的陈述中提到了它——并且知道委员会支持该和解。\n\n话虽如此，法官阁下，我必须提及——我不会试图逐一提及斯坦伯格先生在其陈述中提出并称需要证据开示的一些问题。\n\n不过，我要说几件事。约瑟夫·德韦克从未提交债权申报表，此说属实。约瑟夫·德韦克从未提交债权申报表的原因——无论是在法庭面前，还是在向法庭提起案件之前的州法院，我们都已有记录——正如斯坦伯格先生所说，约瑟夫·德韦克的立场是，其在州法院程序启动前夕发生的交易中已获得清偿，即通过转让他认为本应登记在其名下的财产，因为这些财产是用他的资金购买的，但却未登记在其名下。当这就是你的立场时，法官阁下，就没有可提交的债权申报表。\n\n话虽如此，当我们与斯坦齐亚莱先生达成临时和解时，约瑟夫·德韦克明确保留了提交债权申报表的权利，以防日后在法庭面前提起对抗程序，导致这些财产被返还。在此之前，没有理由提交债权申报表。\n\n然而，约瑟夫·德韦克在向州法院提交的宣誓书中，已以不厌其烦且细节繁复到令人不适的方式载明记录，其中逐项说明他所主张所罗门·德韦克欠付其每一美元的来源及理由。受托人拥有这些材料。斯坦伯格先生显然也拥有这些材料。委员会拥有这些材料。受托人进行了进一步尽职调查。受托人让法务会计师进行了进一步尽职调查。委员会也做了同样的事。\n\n他们确信，法官阁下，所涉金额确实如此，而对这些金额作出的和解与妥协是合理的。我不熟悉任何判例法依据——弗朗科先生提交的书面材料中当然没有此类依据——认为在本案中，每一位债权人也都必须就通过R. 9019提交给本法院的每一项和解，进行同等程度的全面调查，法庭才能作出裁定。我不知道有这样的判例。斯坦伯格先生也未援引这样的判例。法院不可能以这种方式处理R. 9019项下的和解。如果对于斯坦齐亚莱先生在继续处理这些对抗程序时推定将提交给法庭的每一项和解，我们都必须如此办理，那么我们将在所罗门·德韦克程序中一直待到下个世纪。\n\n法官阁下，就弗朗科先生立场中的一项主张而言——我假定这就是其论点——乔伊·德韦克（Joey Dwek）因返还这些财产而获得了过多抵减，这是他所使用的说法，即将这些财产重新登记在所罗门名下，随你如何称呼，因为追索这些财产的请求是如此明确。它如此容易，以至于你怎么能真正对一项适合简易判决的偏颇清偿请求给予折扣或进行任何讨价还价。\n\n我向法庭陈述，从我的角度看，这当然并不真实。受托人理解提起该项请求的现实情况。从约瑟夫·德韦克的角度，本案理论是这些财产上存在推定信托。它们是用他的资金购买的。资金或许可以追踪，或许无法追踪。这是一个诉讼争议。法务会计师可以整天坐在证人席上，就能否追踪资金提出各种不同理论，但这很可能并非简易判决问题。这是在该问题上存在争议的一部分诉讼。首先，偏颇清偿请求，我们认为会因缺乏在先债务而失败，因为其理论是，这些资金是约瑟夫·德韦克的资金，本应当用于购买约瑟夫·德韦克的财产。不存在在先债务。这是推定信托理论，绝非斯坦伯格先生所描述的那种轻而易举的胜诉。\n\n关于根据《和解协议》给予Yeshuah（耶书亚）和Joseph Dwek（约瑟夫·德维克）的行政费用债权金额问题，法官阁下，首先，Steinberg先生绝对正确，这并非——他是个聪明人，但并不需要进行太多分析就能理解，差额实际上就是临时《和解协议》中提到的律师费。\n\n在案件提交之前，LoMurro先生安排了一些待完成交割的交易，这些交易是我们所谓Joey不动产的已获批准交易，LoMurro先生委托我的律师事务所办理相关法律工作。案件提交后，这些项目从未完成交割。这些出售从未完成交割。但我们认为，律师费是根据LoMurro先生的指示善意发生的。我们向Stanziale先生提出了该论点。我们在临时《和解协议》中保留了通过同意或向您提出申请而回来请求偿还该等费用的权利。这些费用实际上是由Joseph Dwek支出的款项。不过，法官阁下，另一个问题是，Steinberg先生向您主张，Stanziale先生不知何故在临时《和解协议》中胜诉，致使Joseph Dwek会将其对这些预付款项的偿还限制在其于案件提交至您面前之前实际投入不动产以维持其运转的$1.5 million。向您提出的论点，法官阁下，是在临时《和解协议》中，Joseph Dwek同意仅在不动产存在净权益的情况下获得该等款项的偿还。\n\n这完全错误。他并未同意该项限制。这是临时《和解协议》中约定的机制，旨在尝试使Joseph Dwek已等待一年多才获偿还的款项得以回流。但是，Joseph Dwek明确保留了权利，即如同LoMurro先生与经State Court（州法院）批准的协议所规定的那样，实质上将Joseph Dwek的不动产作为一个资产组合对待，因为他是按该资产组合为其垫款，而这些不动产也被作为一个资产组合予以分离；如果该资产组合具有净权益，Joseph Dwek即可获得偿还。\n\n法官阁下，该项明确保留——而受托人于周五提交的答复中脚注2存在错误，其援引临时《和解协议》作为该项保留的依据。该项保留并不在受托人所称的位置。实际上，它位于第5F段，其中规定，在Joseph或Yeshuah为不存在净权益的争议不动产，或者抵押权人同意短售的争议不动产垫付资金的范围内，Joseph和Yeshuah仍保留权利，要求以行政优先权基础偿还该等垫付资金，并从其他争议不动产的净权益中支付。\n\n换言之，我们保留将其作为一个资产组合对待的权利。这并非重新议价。这并非我们签订临时《和解协议》时Stanziale先生永久胜诉的事项。这是一个尚未解决的问题。在我们协商本项交易时，该问题被重新摆上谈判桌，最终在Joseph Dwek一方得以解决；当您协商一项复杂的全球性和解时，有时您会得到一些与文件和Steinberg先生陈述所描述的方式并不完全相符的结果。\n\nSteinberg先生还提到了针对Adjmi（阿杰米）关联实体的某些债权不适用免责条款这一例外。\n\n坦率地说，我不理解该项提及。确有一项例外。委员会要求设立该例外。当我们已与Stanziale先生达成原则性协议时，Stanziale先生前往委员会并表示，这是我们与Joseph Dwek达成的和解，你们怎么看。当文件起草完成时，文件被交给委员会征求意见。委员会的一项意见是，关于免责的这项措辞——我们要确保免责不涵盖我们尚未对其进行任何调查、而破产财产可能对其享有债权的Adjmi关联实体。参与协商本项交易的所有人均同意，这没有问题；如果你们认为拥有债权，他们当然不是本协议的当事方；我们从未意图使其成为本协议的当事方；如果你们希望从你们的免责中排除针对这些实体的债权，只要你们认为对其拥有债权，我们对此没有异议。因此，他们未被免责。当然，他们不会提供免责，我认为这正是Steinberg先生的批评。他们为什么要提供？他们从未被起诉。他们并未在此获得免责。他们为什么会提供免责？本方在何种范围内拥有该等债权，该等债权均予保留。这当然不会损害Franco先生的立场。若有任何影响，倘若更多款项被带入破产财产，这推定只能有利于Franco先生。\n\n法官阁下，另一个问题是这项$25 million保证。再次，Franco先生的立场是，Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德维克）对HSBC（汇丰银行）$25 million贷款所作的$25 million保证显然可以撤销，以至于任何人在谈判中怎么可能因其获得任何和解抵免。法官阁下，没有对价吗？Solomon拿到了钱。事实上，与Steinberg先生所言相反，我不认为受托人甚至提出过撤销该保证的债权。原因是——文件中没有对此的引用。我不认为破产财产曾提出该项债权的原因，是因为其毫无依据。无可争议的是，款项从HSBC流向Solomon Dwek。保证的对价？我认为有。\n\n法官阁下，您知道，我不愿意这么说，但Franco先生的立场看起来确实像是经过包装的大量酸葡萄心理。顺便说一句，我不知道为什么。他为什么会有酸葡萄心理？他真的——我的意思是，有什么阻止Franco先生明天和解吗？我不理解。和解中没有任何内容阻止明天与受托人达成交易。\n\n法官阁下，每个案件都取决于其自身事实。我们案件的事实已经被极其详尽地审查。我们协商了一项耗时一年达成的交易。我不知道他们举行过多少次会议。法庭不知道。案卷不知道，这本就恰当。我们不会将这些沟通纳入案卷。我们所知道的只是尚未发生和解。我假定受托人的意图是解决所有案件。这当然是我们的经验。或许如果采取合理立场，他们明年、下个月或下周就会带着和解回到这里。我不知道是否存在和解讨论，我也不认为这非常相关，法官阁下。事实是，没有交易，这没有问题。我们的交易已经提交法院。问题在于，它是否低于合理性范围的最低点。Steinberg先生绝对正确，他没有援引第三巡回区的该项判例法依据。我们援引了。我们认为，给予破产财产如此多利益的交易，不可能被认为低于该点。法官阁下，为了什么进行证据开示？我不理解。Franco先生是否想进行证据开示，以便随后向您主张Joseph Dwek获得的交易过于有利？这似乎不符合他的利益。他是否想主张Joseph Dwek获得的交易不够有利？谁在乎？他为什么在乎？\n\n法官阁下，Steinberg先生的陈述大部分实际上似乎是在预示一次审理尚未提交的Disclosure Statement（披露声明）是否充分的听证会。我不知道我们如何能在这里这样做。我不知道我们如何能在和解的背景下这样做。依我对和解的理解，和解中除引入17-million-plus dollars并使该等款项的所有权得以明确外，没有其他内容；如果Franco先生确实是债权人，这显然有利于他，并且减少对破产财产的债权；如果他是债权人，这也显然有利于他。除此之外，法官阁下，我看不出和解中有任何内容会影响Franco先生的权利，或者至少没有任何不能在披露声明听证会的背景下充分阐明的内容，而我认为他们今天试图在您面前举行的正是这种听证会。例如，这是投资者债权，还是金融机构债权？我们甚至不知道计划将如何规定。我们不知道计划是否甚至会像债务人计划那样区分二者。当我们甚至不知道Franco先生所主张的、若就和解作出裁定便可能损害权利的计划将如何规定时，我们怎么可能今天就对和解作出裁定——而我认为法官阁下应当这样做——呢？法官阁下，我不明白。如果关于和解的证据开示确实被严格限于9019项下的问题，我不理解证据开示如何推动该事项。\n\n法官阁下，这显然——而且我在该诉讼中没有任何利害关系——但这显然是Franco先生的一种诉讼策略；我确实认为，您不应允许经一年时间协商达成的与Joseph Dwek的和解，成为Ike Franco（艾克·弗兰科）与受托人之间争议的道具。不应如此。我认为您应驳回异议。我认为不应进行任何证据开示，尤其是考虑到动议于January 5th提交，Franco先生直到January 30th才在周一听证会前的周五上午送达证据开示请求。如果确实有进行证据开示的利益，该请求本应在动议提交后的次日、向Franco先生发出通知时提出。\n\n我认为法官阁下应驳回异议并准许动议。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nGREENHALGH先生：法官阁下，Walter Greenhalgh（沃尔特·格林哈尔），Duane Morris（杜安·莫里斯律师事务所），债权人委员会的律师。\n\n法官阁下，实质上，Steinberg先生代表Franco先生提出的异议是请求延期。但是，他随后列举了一整套希望在本院提出的问题，并开始提及Joe（原文如此）Franco以及在本程序中提交的州法院诉状。\n\n2 而且，在听取 Steinberg先生（斯坦伯格先生）陈述他提出的所有这些问题时，我不能忽视这样一个事实：案卷中已有大量信息，且已公开供本案所有当事人审阅。他详细审阅了 Joe Dwek（乔·德韦克）提出的诉状、Stanziale先生（斯坦齐亚莱先生）代表 Joseph Dwek（约瑟夫·德韦克）提出的诉状，以及该诉讼中的反诉和其他诉状。\n\n9 现在，我认为有意思的是，受托人对 Isaac Franco（艾萨克·弗朗科）提出了一项约 \\$87 million 的请求权。正如受托人今早在其陈述中指出的那样，Franco先生是一名共同密谋者。他参与了庞氏骗局以及对本破产财产债权人实施的欺诈，而受托人正在就此追诉。\n\n16 在听取 Steinberg先生的陈述时，我记下了两个词；当我听到 Joe Dwek 的律师称这听起来像是酸葡萄心理时，我觉得颇为可笑。这正是我记下的内容。因为当我审阅并听取所有这些论点时，我认为我们所听到的是，Isaac Franco 希望在这项和解方面获得与 Joe Dwek 相同的待遇。\n\n23 现在，受托人用了一年时间进行调查，以确定如何推进本案诉讼。Franco先生希望本院所做的，是为了确定该和解而审理针对 Joe Franco 的案件，进行一场本《和解协议》实际上将解决并免除的审判。\n\n答辩/Greenhalgh 68\n\n4 我还认为有意思的是，Steinberg先生评论说，他是唯一一个为全体投资者向本院恳求的荒野之声。据称，Franco先生默许从所有这些可怜投资者的口袋中拿走 \\$87 million。\n\n9 那么，法官阁下，许多投资者由非常称职的律师代理。事实上，在本债权人委员会中，有三名个人属于或者将属于投资者类别，他们由参与本债权人委员会活动的律师充分代理。还有第四名个人不属于所谓的“community”，但也是一名面临受托人针对其提起的同样指控和请求权的个人；受托人已提起超过 38 份诉状，指称庞氏——我们将其称为庞氏骗局诉状。这些个人均由律师代理。\n\n21 极具说明意义的是，至少除 Franco先生外，没有任何其他被该受托人起诉的人对这项和解提出反对和异议。为什么——而且他们由律师代理。Franco先生正试图在其正在进行的诉讼中取得优势，而他与受托人进行过何种和解讨论——我并不知情——他对那些和解讨论的推进方式并不满意。\n\n答辩/Greenhalgh 69\n\n4 我想直接说明这种策略是什么。这是一种诉讼策略。这是一种拖延该和解的策略，以便 Franco先生可以试图在其与受托人的讨论中取得优势。他声称该受托人将提交一项计划，并且该计划应当基本上处理这项和解。\n\n10 因此，Franco先生所请求的是，该和解不应仅为取证目的而被拖延，而且还应在受托人提交其计划时被拖延；受托人已向本院承诺，他打算在本月底前提交该计划，而他将把其对该计划和一份披露声明的异议转化为其对该和解的异议。\n\n17 这是一种诉讼策略。这是一种拖延事情的策略。如果他确实想在收到这项动议时进行取证，这里坐着两位非常称职、经验非常丰富的破产律师——在本院左侧、我右侧——代理 Franco先生。我无法想象，当他们收到这项和解动议，并在监督本案过程中审阅该动议时，没有决定我们应当进行取证；我们应当弄清受托人是如何作出这一决定的。\n\n答辩/Testa 70\n\n1 而他们本应数周前就送达该等取证请求。\n\n2 不，他们做了什么？他们在上周五，即刚刚过去的周五送达了请求。法官阁下，请看清其本质。这是一种破坏该和解的策略，以便 Franco先生可以取得优势。这正是其本质。\n\n6 我请求本院批准这项和解。\n\n7 谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n8 法庭：谢谢。\n\n9 还有其他人吗？\n\n10 Testa先生（泰斯塔先生）：法官阁下，受托人如其已陈述的那样，当然同意 Usatine先生（尤萨廷先生）和 Greenhalgh先生（格林哈尔先生）的陈述。\n\n13 再次重申，今天在本法庭内，受托人尚有未决诉讼针对的“community”成员，没有一人到场。我们于周五 10:30 收到该取证请求。我们当然相信该陈述。《和解协议》和《和解动议》作出了充分披露。我们的拍卖和出售听证通知以及我们的拍卖结果证明，或许已向包括 Franco先生在内的所有人作出充分披露。他当然已持有一份有争议财产清单一段时间，该清单附于临时《和解协议》。\n\n23 并且，如法官阁下所知，我们的通知对财产价值以及随着出售推进我们将从出售中获得的权益作出了大量披露。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nSteinberg先生：法官阁下，我不知道为什么当人们对一份诉状提出异议时，他们总是因其属于一种诉讼策略而受到攻击。当人们提交一份诉状时，那是诉讼的一部分。那是——他们试图处理法官面前事项的是非曲直的一部分，而律师是为了其客户的利益行事。\n\n在本案中，我实际上并未处理 Franco 与受托人之间差异的任何事项。我几乎将全部陈述限于受托人提出的这项和解。我认为，在受托人已谈判一年、债权人委员会已用数月分析该事项的案件背景下，请求延后 60 天，以便我们能够跟上进度并理解正在发生的事情，是一项合理请求。\n\n我不明白为什么有人认为，如果我在十天内提交了一份文件请求，然后请求缩短期限，继而以某种方式对受托人进行证言录取——我确实曾试图以非正式方式从受托人处获得这一信息。我没有得到全部信息。我得到了进一步信息。我认为，在周五下午较晚时候、听证会前一天收到答复文件时，有人坐在那里大喊说我是在某种程度上突袭他人，是不寻常的。\n\n债权人委员会、受托人为支持该和解提出的动议，并未反映债权人委员会的立场。因此，我不知道为什么有人认为我会知道债权人委员会的立场。如果我应当凭直觉认为未提出异议意味着他们支持该交易，那么我同样完全可以凭直觉认为，委员会无法在本案中采取立场，因为他们有投资者，也有金融机构，他们并不总是必然达成一致，且他们陷入僵局，或者他们认为自己没有强烈到足以采取立场的意愿。\n\n当然，如果他们有立场——因为我曾担任受托人，我通常会说我的债权人委员会支持该事项，并且我会在提出申请时提交一份申请文件，以便法官在我提交申请时知道该申请获得债权人委员会的支持。\n\n我认为 Greenhalgh先生是对的，即我的请求是延期。我的请求是有限延期，以便我可以进行取证。其他律师，请不要试图曲解我所说的话。我并非试图复制如何对 Joey Dwek 进行调查。我希望了解受托人在分析这些问题时做了什么，以了解他如何得出其关于合理性的结论。认为债权人无权就此进行取证、而必须接受他进行了调查并应当仅仅接受他做得正确、我应当仅依赖其判断的观点，我认为是一种谬误。这种情况发生过；嗯，我不必援引一个案件，我可以援引许多案件。任何时候存在和解，如果有人提出异议，你都有权就受托人为审查问题以确定其是否处于合理性最低范围内所做的事项进行取证。我今天在陈述中所说的是，当我审阅所提出的问题时，我看到未能提出所有问题，我看到对和解利益的错误描述，我说我希望有机会向受托人了解本案中发生了什么，因为我没有这些信息。我没有说 Joey Dwek 必须在本案中提交请求权申报。我说的是，他被阻止了，他们不必提交请求权申报。我没有说，就行政费用请求权问题而言，Joey Dwek 没有保留主张其有权获得其垫付的每一美元的权利。我所说的只是，受托人在谈判过程中承认了该问题，而且他们并未真正说明律师费是什么以及其依据是什么。\n\n律师现在想补充该信息，仿佛该信息本应不言自明，仿佛本案中的每一位其他债权人都像我一样花费时间试图分析那些问题。我确实审阅了州法院诉状。而且我从审阅州法院诉状中得知，在我看来，HSBC 请求权与 Joey Dwek 请求权之间存在重复计算。那么 Joey Dwek 如何能成为本案中的完全债权人？我不知道。我并未假装知道。我不知道。但是，可以推定，Stanziale先生知道，因为可以推定 Stanziale先生将能够在证言录取中说明这一点。\n\n我要说的是——而且我本想在开场陈述中说——我在诉状中犯了一个错误，称 HSBC 已同意，如果 Joey Dwek 取回这些财产，就向 Joey Dwek 支付 \\$20 million。受托人就此批评了我，他是对的。如果发生财产转让，承诺向 Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德韦克）返还 \\$20 million 的并不是 HSBC。根据受托人的诉状，是 Joey Dwek。在其诉状第 120 段中，他称 Joey Dwek 取回这些财产的原因之一，是因为他承诺向 Solomon 支付 \\$20 million，以摆脱 PNC 问题。之后，在他将财产交给他后，Joey Dwek 背弃了该承诺。\n\n顺便说一句，我完全不知道该承诺是真实还是不真实。我现在所做的只是援引受托人在诉状中针对 Joey Dwek 提出的其自身指控，即他\n\n为突出其恶意主张而对乔伊·德韦克（Joey Dwek）提起的诉讼。受托人称，我试图将试图向法官阁下提出有关弗兰科（Franco）与受托人之间的主张和争议作为一种诉讼策略。我不会在此这样做，除非仅说明两点。第一，我可以毫无疑问地证明，艾萨克·弗兰科（Isaac Franco）投入本案的资金多于其从本案中取出的资金，因此他是本案中的净债权人。第二，我可以毫无疑问地证明，艾萨克·弗兰科投入的部分资金流向了乔伊·德韦克及其他债权人。我的意思是，如果他向所罗门·德韦克遗产（Solomon Dwek estate）返还了$100 million，这笔钱必然流向了某处。我们可以通过查看账户余额证明，其中很大一部分实际上流向了乔伊·德韦克。同样地，乔伊·德韦克通过汇丰银行（HSBC）贷款获得的很大一部分资金，也用于艾萨克·弗兰科的利益。\n\n这并不意味着乔伊·德韦克必然是坏人。这只是意味着，他的债权以及他所主张的内容，本质上是同一回事。\n\n我不会试图争辩乔伊·德韦克的律师就偏颇清偿中既存债务定义所说的内容。但如果你被诈骗了，你就有一项欺诈请求权；而为清偿你本应获得的、基于该欺诈请求权的款项，你取得了对价，无论是金钱还是财产，那么在我看来，这就是对既存债务的清偿。如果他们希望我尝试查找判例以证明这一点，我相当确信我可以找到相关判例。\n\n归根结底，在我的陈述中，我确实提出了若干理由，说明本案的事实记录将在未来60天内得到更充分的发展。其中一个理由是，受托人将提交一项计划，该计划将阐明受托人通常如何处理和解中所包含的争议；在审阅该计划后，您将能够更好地评估该和解的利益，或缺乏利益之处。而我所请求的只是一些克制。\n\n最终，弗兰科必须就受托人在其起诉状中对他提出的指控的实体问题进行抗辩。最终，受托人必须承担证明和解合理性的举证责任。\n\n但我确实认为，你不能向他人发出一项动议，却不告知他们你已起诉乔伊·德韦克，要求其返还$90 million现金；你不能发出一项动议，称这项交易的利益在于，你将因返还这些财产而从遗产中获得数亿、可能数亿美元的价值，而我认为这不属实。\n\n当我认为这只是对汇丰银行债权的可疑（原文如此）重复计算时，你不能说你获得了一项利益，因为乔伊·德韦克有一项$60 million债权。我有权对此进行检验。我有权要求受托人承担其举证责任，并以同样的方式进行反驳，正如我将针对他所称艾克·弗兰科（Ike Franco）未投入任何资金、且是不断从所罗门·德韦克处获取所有这些资金的负担这一说法所做的那样。这显然不属实。我将能够检验他刚才所作的这番共谋者谩骂，并向法官阁下证明，在整件事情爆发前30天内，艾克·弗兰科曾向所罗门·德韦克返还超过$10 million。显然，这不是一名共谋者的行径（原文如此）。\n\n但无论如何，法官阁下，我在此所请求的内容，今天已通过对州法院记录的引证予以支持。对于我的审查，我一方面受到赞扬，另一方面又因未制作引证而受到批评。此处有些事项需要进一步查明。这是一项足够重大的和解。所有人都同意这一点。这是一项足够重要的和解。而且我确实认为，除非他们认为自己将在未来60天内花费$16 million或$17 million，否则在他们经受检验后，他们可以在60天内达成这项和解。\n\n而认为对于本案中一项重要和解，法官阁下应当能够在30天内接受证据记录，却不给予一方当事人——即使只有一方——检验证据记录的机会，我认为是不公平的。\n案件 07-11757-KCF 文书3916 于02/12/09提交 于02/12/09 17:28:10录入 主文件 第78页，共85页 案件22-50073 文书2509-10 于01/18/24提交 于01/18/24 11:15:08录入 第79页，共87页\n裁定 78\n\n谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n受托人寻求批准受托人、约瑟夫·德韦克（Joseph Dwek）、耶舒亚有限责任公司（Yeshuah, LLC）、约瑟夫·德韦克家族有限合伙企业（Joseph Dwek Family, Limited Partnership）、马克·阿吉米（Mark Adjmi）及汇丰银行（HSBC Bank）之间的一项和解。拟议和解得到官方债权人委员会（Official Creditors Committee）的支持。太阳国民银行（Sun National Bank）和艾萨克·弗兰科对该和解提出异议。受托人报告称，太阳国民银行的有限异议已经解决。\n\n本辖区内批准和解的标准已得到充分确立。规则9019规定，经通知和听证后，法院可以批准妥协或和解。虽然妥协是破产程序的正常组成部分，法院必须确定该和解是否公平、公正，并且符合遗产的最佳利益。\n\n这引自Protective Commission for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry v. Anderson，390 U.S. 414。\n\n本巡回区的法院一再强调，破产程序中鼓励和解，因为通过尽量减少诉讼并加快破产遗产的管理，可以促进债权人的利益。\n\n例如，参见In Re: Nutraquest，434 Fed. 3rd 639。还可参见In Re: Martin，91 Fed. 3rd 389，及其后续判例。\n\n第三巡回上诉法院（Third Circuit）还确定了评估和解时应使用的四项标准：第一，诉讼成功的可能性。第二，执行收款时可能遇到的任何困难。第三，诉讼的复杂性，以及必然随之产生的费用、不便和延误。第四，债权人的首要利益。\n\n这引自RFE Industries，283 Fed. 3rd 159，并援引Martin判决。\n\n在审查和解时，法院的作用有限。破产法官的职责并非裁决众多法律和事实问题，而是概览争议，并确定该和解是否低于合理性范围的最低点。\n\n这引自W.T. Grant Company案，699 Fed. 2nd 599。在本辖区，亦可参见Jasmine Limited案，258 Bankruptcy Reporter 119。\n\n在审查本项拟议和解时，法院注意到，受托人负有举证责任，证明拟议和解符合遗产及债务人的最佳利益。\n\n这引自In Re: McDermott，2008 Westlaw 877964。弗兰科先生对该和解的异议并未明确关联至规则9019项下的标准。相反，这是一项基于两个主题的一般性异议：信息不足，以及对处境相似债权人的不平等对待。第一，弗兰科先生主张应当重新通知该和解，因为债权人未获得充分信息。具体而言，弗兰科先生在其初始异议第14段中称，受托人未提及针对约瑟夫·德韦克的对抗程序，该程序要求约瑟夫返还$90 million。尽管该请求权未在受托人的动议中突出说明，且或许本应予以说明，但对于希望进一步调查该和解合法性的债权人而言，该请求权并未被隐瞒。针对约瑟夫·德韦克的该项请求权载于对抗程序案号08-1209，而该对抗案件在动议中多次被提及。受托人还答复称，德韦克先生对遗产享有$60 million的反向请求权。以放弃一项潜在的$90 million请求权换取放弃一项潜在的$60 million请求权，虽然并非完全对应。但法院不应以这种方式审查和解。规则9019的评论者对任何特定和解条款均作出了精明的逐点分析，认为如此做会挫败和解的目的，且当事人不如继续审理案件。\n\n这引自第十五版Collier on Bankruptcy，第9019.02节。\n\n弗兰科先生还抱怨对其所称“社区投资者”的不平等对待。即使表面上接受该指控，法院也看不出其如何构成对本项拟议和解的有效异议。这可能构成，也可能不构成对受托人拟议计划的有效异议，但在本语境中几乎或根本没有关联。每项和解均须根据其自身的实体情况进行评估。\n\n这与要求延期审理本动议有关，以便弗兰科先生可从受托人处获得证据开示。通常情况下，法院不会反对为寻求有关和解善意的有限信息而作有限延期。然而，鉴于批准和解的标准是合理性最低区间的门槛，即该最低区间的上限，弗兰科先生所寻求的证据开示范围显然不合理。他似乎希望进行范围几乎与受托人拟和解的诉讼同样广泛的诉讼活动。\n\n如弗兰科先生周五提交的文件所附文件请求所示，其所寻求的证据开示表明，弗兰科先生从根本上误解了可能因该和解而产生问题的有限性质。例如，若存在指控称受托人系出于恶意达成本项特定和解，我想证据开示将是适当的。尽管弗兰科先生显然对受托人迄今管理遗产的方式不满，但他并未就该和解提出任何恶意或串通的指控。\n\n如果受托人没有将其为达成和解所作的努力描述为与合理性有关，我想证据开示或许是适当的。但在受托人已阐明其达成和解努力的性质及其推理结构，特别是经陈述补充后，这并无必要。\n\n弗兰科先生目前所寻求的证据开示与被妥协解决的基础诉因有关，但在受托人仅负有证明该和解高于合理性范围最低点之举证责任的和解中，并且法院已被告知不得进行小型审判的情况下，这些证据开示请求极其宽泛。鉴于合理性最低区间标准，一般性信息已经足够。\n\n受托人的文件使法院和债权人能够公平了解促成该和解所付出的努力，以及受托人所采用的争议分析。包括无担保债权人委员会（Unsecured Creditors Committee）在内的每一名已表明立场的其他债权人，均支持该和解。\n\n我过去曾在少数情况下拒绝由部分但非全部利害关系方支持的和解，但通常是因为受托人忽略了被和解事项的某些方面。这里显然并非如此。受托人进行了广泛审查，尽管弗兰科先生不同意受托人的结论，但他并未称受托人忽略了争议或忽略了事实。\n\n法院与受托人一样，已概览争议，并认定拟议和解符合适当标准，无需进一步调查。\n\n我想补充的是，我首要的希望仍然是，我们能够为像 Franco先生（弗朗科先生）及其他人这样的投资者债权人实现公正。我认识到，在破产和解的情境下，公正从他们的角度来看可能并不像公正，但这项和解，和解是在我被要求作出裁决的情境下达成的。\n\n和解批准标准将同等适用于任何及所有达成和解的投资者债权人，这就是他们有权获得的公正。这项和解将获批准。\n\n谢谢。\n\nTESTA先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n1 男声：\n谢谢。\n\n2 BAKER先生：\n法官阁下，我们将提交一份修订后的\n3 裁定书格式文本，以正确显示Pacheco女士（帕切科女士）所裁定的\n4 段落。\n5 法庭：\n好的。\n6 BAKER先生：\n谢谢。\n7 法庭：\n谢谢。\n8 PACHECO女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n9 法庭：\n还有，律师，我并非有意催促你们，\n10 但我还有另一件事项，可能需要两\n11 分钟，而他们已经等了两个小时。\n12 BAKER先生：\n好的。\n13 男声：\n抱歉。\n14 法庭：\n好的。\n15 STANZIALE先生（斯坦齐亚莱先生）：\n谢谢，法官。\n16 法庭：\n当然。\n17 * * * * *\n索引\n动议\n\n由B. Baker先生提出\n\n批准：\n\n答复\n由A. Steinberg先生提出\n\nJ. Posta先生\n动议\n\n由J. Testa先生提出 10 批准： 78\n\n答复\n由W. Greenhalgh先生提出 14/66\nW. Usatine先生 15/55\nR. Usadi先生 17\nT. Neumann先生 17\nA. Steinberg先生 18/71\nC. Stanziale先生 52\nJ. Testa先生 70\nB. Baker先生 70\n证明：\n\n本人证明，上述内容系对上述案件程序电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n签字：Kathleen Connolly（凯瑟琳·康诺利） AOC #441 COLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE\n\n日期：February 11, 2009\n\n表格 tsntc\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\n\nDistrict of New Jersey（新泽西地区） 402 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08608\n\n案件编号：07−11757−KCF 章节：11 法官：Kathryn C. Ferguson（凯瑟琳·C·弗格森）\n\n关于：债务人（债务人在过去8年内使用的姓名，包括婚后姓氏、娘家姓、商号及地址）：Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德韦克） 311 Crosby Avenue Deal, NJ 07723\n\n社会保障号码：xxx−xx−5021 雇主税务识别号码：\n转录本已提交通知\n\n特此通知，转录本已于February 17, 2009提交。根据司法会议关于隐私的政策，自提交之日起九十日期间内，对该转录本的查阅受到限制。该转录本可在破产法院书记官办公室查阅。[如需了解如何联系转录员，请致电书记官办公室] 各方均有七个工作日提交申请，要求删节任何社会保障号码、金融账户数据、未成年子女姓名、出生日期和住址。如申请删节，提交方须自转录本提交之日起二十一日历日内，向法院提交一份待删节项目清单，注明该等标识信息在转录本中的位置，并向转录员提供该清单。转录员须自待删节项目清单提交之日起三十一日内，向法院提交该转录本的删节版本。如未提交申请，九十日期满后，该转录本将以电子方式向公众开放。\n\n日期：February 17, 2009 JJW：\n\nJames J. Waldron（詹姆斯·J·沃尔德伦） 书记官","key_entities":["Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3916,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":24197,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-01-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-01-18","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:07:59"}