{"id":"court_ctb_2993_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2993,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2024-03-12","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) . . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building Debtors. . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Tuesday, March 5, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:03 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 1 of 34\n\n INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 1: Motion to Compel Banco Popular de Puerto Rico to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. Court's Ruling: 7 Transcriptionist's Certificate 34 Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 2 of 34\n\n 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:08 p.m.) THE DEPUTY: The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is now in session after recess. The Honorable Julie Manning is presiding. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Please be seated. All right. We have one matter on the calendar at 1:00 p.m., so I ask the courtroom deputy to please call the calendar. THE DEPUTY: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. On the calendar today is a motion to compel, Attorney Linsey, and you're the only one in the courtroom, so how are we proceeding on this motion that afternoon? MR. LINSEY: I told several people it expected it would be uninteresting, so I hope I'm correct. But this is a -- I would propose to proceed with the motion. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. This is a motion to compel concerning a Rule 2004 Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 3 of 34\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 subpoena that was served on Banco Popular in Puerto Rico on December 4th, pursuant to the eighth Rule 2004 motion. Following service of the subpoena, we had email and telephone communications with a representative of Banco Popular, the same person who signed the objection that is an exhibit to the motion to compel. And what we were told is that Banco Popular was unwilling to produce documents without either a court order or account holder consent. In light of the fact that most of the parties that are individuals and entities that are identified as of interest in these subpoenas are associated with the debtor, that consent is not something that has been available throughout discovery proceedings and Banco Popular said that they understood that, that that was their policy, and that they required a court order. We filed the motion, pursuant to the hearing notice. Notice has been given to Banco Popular both, by mail and by email to the individual that I had spoken with there. She acknowledged receipt of the motion, but there's not been any other response. There are sort of finer-point objections in the substance of her objection dealing with scope and things of that nature regarding the subpoena. I'm confident that, as\n\n24 25 we have been able to with the vast majority of financial institutions, once there's an order requiring the document\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 production be made, we will be able to resolve those issues with the financial institution, here, as well. So, with that having been said, unless the Court has any questions, I would ask that the proposed order filed with the motion entered. THE COURT: And Banco Popular has not filed any appearance in the case at this time, have they? MR. LINSEY: They've not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I have reviewed the motion and it does appear that service of the motion and the notice of hearing was properly made. Attorney Linsey has stated for the record that he's actually spoken to someone at Banco Popular who acknowledged receipt of the motion and you've had other discussions about it in which they've said they need a court order which, you know, over time, is not unusual to hear a banking institution request an order compelling the production of documents in connection with a subpoena; although, sometimes they just produce when the subpoena is issued. I'm not sure quite why that didn't happen in this case, but I -- with the unusual circumstances of this case, I understand why the trustee seeks an order compelling Banco Popular to comply with the subpoena. Now, it says, \"in awarding sanctions,\" but you're\n\n 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not seeking any sanctions at this time, are you? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. I apologize. That can be stricken. THE COURT: Okay. I mean, you might seek sanctions if they don't do something after this order, but in any event -- MR. LINSEY: We're not seeking sanctions at this time and I would not describe it as an unfriendly posture. THE COURT: Okay. So, then I would turn to the courtroom deputy. There's a proposed order? THE DEPUTY: Uh-huh, yes. THE COURT: If you could change the title of the order to just say -- to just delete the words \"and awarding sanctions.\" THE DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: And in the first paragraph of the order before the \"It is hereby ordered\" language -- THE DEPUTY: I'm sorry, one second, Judge. THE COURT: Yeah, take your time. THE DEPUTY: I opened the wrong order. THE COURT: Take your time. THE DEPUTY: Let me go back somewhere else. (Pause) THE DEPUTY: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 6 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 7 of 34\n\n7\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So right before the semicolon, you know, where it says, \"as conditioned hereafter,\" the very last line -- words before \"it is hereby.\" Are we looking at the same order? THE DEPUTY: I think we're not. Let me see. THE COURT: Mine's titled \"Order compelling Banco Popular to --\" THE DEPUTY: Yes. Okay. That's it. THE COURT: All right. Do you see where I am now? THE DEPUTY: Yes, I do. THE COURT: So after the words \"as conditioned hereafter,\" and then I would say, \"and after a hearing held on May 5th, 2024 [sic].\" THE DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: And then I'm fine with the proposed order the way it is from that point forward, okay. So, Attorney Linsey, for the reasons stated on the record and upon review of the motion, the proposed order, the motion is granted and the proposed order will enter with the minor changes noted on the record. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Now, I have a few questions, to which I don't know if you would know the answer. You may very well, but given how things evolve in this case, I had a few questions.\n\n 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: Oh, I said on the record today's date was May 5th -- THE DEPUTY: Oh, I'm sorry. THE COURT: -- but I meant March, so thank you for the correction. I don't know why I said that, but I'm sure I did. So it is \"after a hearing held on March 5th.\" THE DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: So that was my mistake, I'm sorry. Thank you. Then, a couple of things. So, we saw today - we've been in court, but we saw there were motions to stay filed in the main case, in two of the adversary proceedings, and, what, the non-avoidance adversary proceedings. And it doesn't -- I'm not certain if you're moving on an expedited basis or just a regular basis or an ex parte basis, with regard to those motions. Because either they're going to get set for hearing or not, and I would gather that they would be set for a hearing in case someone opposes the relief, but I'm not sure how -- what was the intention. What were your intentions, you or the trustee and others that you're working with, with regard to the motions to stay? I know there was one filed in the main case, as I said, and one in each of the applicable adversary Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 8 of 34\n\n 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proceedings. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. It's a fair question. Given that we're not in touch with all the parties in the various proceedings, I think that the expectation was that Your Honor would set a hearing. On a sort of related note, the trustee had -- you had asked the last time we were here on a status conference, whether there -- the trustee would be available for a follow up status conference, and the trustee, who is coincidentally on trial in Puerto Rico, but not involving Banco Popular, had asked me to convey that if the Court would entertain a Zoom status conference, that he could be available on Wednesday, March 13th. I don't know if that would work for the Court. Does that not work for the Court? THE COURT: It does not. MR. LINSEY: Okay. Does the Court have other availability next week that I could convey? THE COURT: The 14th. MR. LINSEY: The 14th, okay. THE COURT: But the 13th does not. MR. LINSEY: Understood. Let me speak with the trustee about that. And I think the primary issue that was anticipated to discuss there was anything that the trustee could do to move forward a Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 9 of 34\n\n 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 process to move some of these avoidance proceedings where it may be appropriate, to mediation to the extent the defendants are interested -- THE COURT: Well, we don't even have a motion for mediation yet or a process by which -- and we're going to talk about that in a minute, okay. MR. LINSEY: Sure, yeah. THE COURT: So, let's go back to the stay motions. MR. LINSEY: But what I was going to say is we could also -- I think we could discuss in further detail how that -- THE COURT: All right. So I'm not going to schedule any hearings on the stay motions until we have another status conference. Is that what you're -- MR. LINSEY: That was what I would suggest, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. And because one of the adversaries to which the stay motions apply, at least my quick review, is that it was all BVI entities in which there's been service issues anyway in the past. I don't know if there are. So, in any event, that was number one. But also, there was -- in the proposed order, again, I looked at it for less than two minutes, okay, between hearings today -- it looked like there was a carve-Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 10 of 34\n\n1 2 3 out of the stay with regard to some entity named K Legacy and I don't really -- you don't have to tell me now, but I need to understand that at some point, okay.\n\n4 5 Because I don't know why -- I think it says it wouldn't apply to K Legacy.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 MR. LINSEY: K Legacy is involved with an apartment that's located in the United Kingdom that we understand there may be efforts to transfer, and so there's particular exigency with respect to that entity, but the trustee can speak to that in greater detail.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: Okay. Now, turning to the mediation, when we were here and we talked about the mediation in your presentation, the trustee's presentation, which, you know, obviously no one knew that that's what the trustee was going to ask specifically until the conference, and that's fine, but there was a -- there were a couple of comments made during that status conference, including that Mr. Bassett had a list of adversaries and it sounds as if, though -- but I don't know if this is accurate -- that there might be, on the part of the trustee, some already -- some efforts already to group certain adversary proceedings together. I don't know if that's true, but I want to tell you what my thoughts are about mediation at the moment.\n\nMR. LINSEY: Sure.\n\n24\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: So, you have to have a motion with\n\n 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 proposed procedures, okay. We don't have that. So unless and until there's a motion with proposed procedures that's served on everybody, we -- you know, I can't really do much, right. And we're not just going to -- there has to be - if -- every single case needs a process, but this case really needs a process, right, because I'm not going to start down a mediation road and have people say, Well, she just turned all these things over. There's no process procedure. We didn't know. Are we being forced into mediation? Is this an opt-in or opt-out mediation? I mean, you know, people -- there are all kinds of decisions across the country that say -- and we don't have a Local Rule that mandates mediation -- MR. LINSEY: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- in adversary proceedings. So a defendant in an adversary proceeding could say, possibly, I don't want this to be mediated, okay. So, you need to think about that, as far as -- in my opinion -- as far as the procedures are concerned. We do not have a mandatory, automatic mediation procedure. And I\n\n22 23 24 think the way things were discussed would have been that people were -- defendants were going to be required to mediate.\n\n25\n\nI think if you can get their consent, you've got\n\n| 1 | no problem, obviously.
But I don't know if we can force them | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | to mediate; although, we might be able to, but they still may | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | have -- they still have to have the ability to understand | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | that, I think, before there's some kind of order that enters. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | And I think, you know, when you file this motion, | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | the mediation parties, like, who are going to be the | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | mediation parties; is it just the trustee on the plaintiff's | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | side and then the defendants?
And I think that's probably | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | the answer, but I don't know that because there isn't a | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | motion yet. | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Again, I told you about Mr. Bassett mentioned | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | something or someone mentioned -- maybe Mr. Bassett didn't; | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | maybe the trustee mentioned, I can't recall -- but somebody | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | mentioned something about Mr. Bassett having a list and | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | indicated, I think, that something was going to be filed with | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | that list. | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MR. LINSEY:
We do have a list of all of the | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | avoidance proceedings. | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | And then one thing that we've been working on | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | doing is sort of slicing and dicing in various ways.
There | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | are various ways to group them.
One way is by the amount of | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | the claim.
Another way is by the -- obvious, the vast | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | majority of these claims are cases where the money went | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | through the what the trustee believes is an alter-ego entity, | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | so we've also done some analysis grouping by which alter-ego | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entities are relevant; although, it's not just one alter-ego to each of the claims. They kind of overlap, so that's a little bit tricky. What we're in the process of doing is coming up with a database that allows for sort of slicing and dicing with a minimum of kind of a fee generation in order to do that analysis. So that's what's been happening in the background. But right now, we have a list of just alphabetically and by adversary proceeding numbers, all of the avoidance proceedings that we would be happy to file if it would be helpful to the Court. THE COURT: Well, I don't know if we need a list of all the names -- and I can do that -- MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: -- I mean, I don't think that's necessary. I think it would be much more helpful to the Court and to the mediator to understand any groupings that the trustee may have come up with and understanding that you're not going to turn over 270 matters to mediation all in one fell swoop. It doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, I think there has to be some kind of rollout or groupings that get handled at one time; maybe the most controversial issue adversaries -- I have no idea. I don't know who's going to challenge what. But I think you need to think about that and Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 14 of 34\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think there needs to be a way to put parties on notice about how the trustee thinks the process should work. MR. LINSEY: Another thought, Your Honor, had been certain -- obviously, these are premised on determinations by the Court that the alter-egos at issue are, in fact, alteregos. So there are certain alter-egos where the Court has already entered judgment -- THE COURT: Right. MR. LINSEY: -- and there are others where the Court has not. So that's been something that the trustee has been considering as well, in terms of how things should move. THE COURT: Okay. And, again, I think you need to think about, you know, can a defendant opt out -- defendant or defendants opt out? Also, can you beginning this process after the answer deadline or before the answer deadline? Because right now, the answer deadline is at least 60 days from the service of the summons. So the trustee is saying he wants things to be turned over to mediation before people even have to answer? I'm not sure if -- I mean, if you have a consent of the defendants on that, I think that makes it a lot easier; if you don't, I don't know if that works, okay. One of the things that I think -- I don't know if the trustee used the term. Someone, I thought, used the term\n\n15\n\n| 1 | somewhere, that there were buckets of adversary proceedings, |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | so that fall in -- that's what I mean talking about, |\n| 3 | groupings or buckets, right.
I think that that's an |\n| 4 | important issue to focus on.
I think that it's going to help |\n| 5 | with the mediation. |\n| 6 | I also think you need to think about, what are the |\n| 7 | mediator's powers?
I mean, you know, you say or Trustee |\n| 8 | Despins said, The mediator can make up all the rules. |\n| 9 | Well, I don't know that the mediator can make up |\n| 10 | all the rules without notice to everybody.
And what does |\n| 11 | that mean?
The mediator is going to file things?
That |\n| 12 | doesn't make sense.
The mediator isn't going to file |\n| 13 | anything. |\n| 14 | So there -- it has to be a process that's already |\n| 15 | in place that the mediator already follows.
So, for example, |\n| 16 | what happens if a mediator mediate mediates a case to a point |\n| 17 | where the parties get close, but they have some issue that |\n| 18 | needs to have a determination that they won't agree to in |\n| 19 | mediation; can the mediator tell the judge that so that the |\n| 20 | judge can try that issue? |\n| 21 | That should be in these procedures.
If you want |\n| 22 | to give the mediator some flexibility to narrow the issues, |\n| 23 | then I think you need to -- it needs to be part of the |\n| 24 | process. |\n| 25 | Also, what about if the mediator says -- and |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 you've got these buckets. Let's say you've got these buckets or groupings and the mediator -- and you give the mediator 50 adversary proceedings that are all preference actions that have some issue that 40 of the defendants, 40 of the adversaries, but 10 don't. What is the mediator supposed to do? Well, the mediator -- if there's flexibility in the process and it's set forth in the procedures, maybe can mediator can tell the judge, These 10 adversaries need to be tried for these issues, or there are common issues, like, or\n\n11 do you take one of those adversary proceedings --\n\nMR. LINSEY: Uh-huh.\n\n12\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: -- one of those 10 and try that and then that ruling is applicable or binding on the other nine that haven't resolved. I don't know. I'm just coming up with -- Attorney Linsey, I'm coming up with thoughts and issues, because I think the more the process is transparent and understood from the start, the less issues will arise either in this court or in some appellate court, right.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 Judge Tancredi is generally available, okay. But we're not going to get anything to Judge Tancredi until and unless we figure out this whole process. I want the mediation order to be very specific about what he can and cannot do, including those things that I just mentioned - you know, you could come up with other things, by the way --\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but the things I just mentioned about, what if he gets to an impasse; can he report to the Court that there's an impasse and this issue needs to be tried or resolved. Or he's in a bucket of 10 -- of 50 and 40 settle and 10 don't, well, how does that get handled? What can he do? What powers does he have? Now, he's going to have to run conflicts checks, Attorney Linsey, so if we get to the point of mediation, there's still a possibility, you know, he could have a conflict in an adversary proceeding, so just understand that. I mean, none of us can take on a mediation if we have a conflict, obviously -- MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- but he is generally available: And we didn't talk, you know, extensively, but he does support the idea that there has to be an idea in place that he follows. Of course he can do things as a mediator, but I think if you want him to -- I don't think it's going to be helpful for you all to have a mediation where he either reports: It's settled or not, because that doesn't really help, I don't think. It doesn't make sense to me, right. You want to advance the ball and limit the issues as much as you can. MR. LINSEY: Uh-huh. THE COURT: And giving the mediator the\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 flexibility to do as much as the mediator can, but then in some way, shape, or form, report that to the Court as to what needs to be done to finish or resolve that adversary proceeding without any, you know, prejudice to the parties to come back here and then say, Oh, wait a minute, we think we can finalize it and go back. I'm not -- but, you know, he's got to have some road -- he's got to have some guideposts and he's got to have some lanes he can go in, right, and not go out of. I mean, he needs to -- but I think he should have some flexibility that, you know, that's what you need to think about in my opinion. And he would agree with that, by the way. MR. LINSEY: Understood. THE COURT: So what about beginning -- I need to know. You're going to tell me, I guess. This is what I presume will happen before the status conference, if we have it on the 14th, right, that there'll be some kind of motion or something filed, and I'd like it to be filed before the 13th, if possible -- MR. LINSEY: Uh-huh.\n\n21 22 23 THE COURT: -- so we actually have time to read it. What are you proposing? And, you know, if you're\n\n24 25 seeking this approval of mediation, who do you have to serve and how much time do they have to oppose it or whatever? I\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 don't know, but that's -- while I completely understand and appreciate, you know, saying, We want these mediated, it is -- I will not go down that path without and order and a motion that's been served on people that have some ability to say something, okay. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: And if Judge Tancredi has a conflict with one of these matters, what do you propose to do with regard to another mediator? Do you want me to ask Judge Nevins or what do you want me to do? MR. LINSEY: One of the things that have been discussed on the trustee's end was the notion of Tancredi - of Judge Tancredi, excuse me, mediating, you know, being involved and directing a mediation process and certainly being more involved with some of the more significant disputes, but perhaps there'd be other mediators who report to Judge Tancredi. THE COURT: Who, and who's going to pay them? MR. LINSEY: That would be an issue that would need to be addressed -- THE COURT: Well, that's my point, right. MR. LINSEY: -- in the motion, first. And, certainly, there had been a motion anticipated, but one of the reasons -- and I apologize if we\n\ndid it in a way that was not what Your Honor would like,\n\n25\n\n 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but -- THE COURT: No, I'm not -- you don't need to apologize. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. THE COURT: All I'm saying is, It's going to be fine, but we've got to follow the process. That's all. There has to be a process. Look, you know -- everyone knows that's involved in this case, how many appeals there are out of anything that happens in this case. And I don't want to then to have a new process come in that isn't -- hasn't -- that someone could argue they didn't have due process. You know, the due process rights weren't met. That they didn't understand what was happening. That they were forced to do something that - you know, I don't know want to have any of that, right. I want to do our best to have a process that has been transparent -- MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: -- out there. Have parties to have an ability to oppose it if they want to, and to have the process of the mediation be clear. Do you think that that includes flexibility on Judge -- if it is Judge Tancredi -- directing some process? Of course it does, but you still have to have some process in place. You can't just say, Okay, Judge Tancredi -- and I'm Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 21 of 34\n\n 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not saying you're saying this -- MR. LINSEY: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- I am explaining the concerning I have is, you can't just say, Okay. Judge Tancredi, here's 270 adversary proceedings. Go at it. That's not going to happen because it's not fair to him either. MR. LINSEY: Of course not. THE COURT: Even though he would absolutely do it, it's still not fair because he doesn't want to get in that position, either, right. He's got a whole bunch of things he's going to have to worry about. So all I'm saying to you is, I think it's going to be fine -- MR. LINSEY: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- I just think we need to go through a process and make sure the process meets the requirements of notice and a hearing and not just an opportunity for a hearing, but notice and a hearing that will produce some form of an order that, not only, assuming Judge Tancredi will become the mediator, but what happens if there's a conflict and if there's another mediator? What do we go -- what if you say, Yes, would you ask Judge Nevins, then? And what if she has a conflict, then what do you do? Then you've got to pay somebody, right, Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 22 of 34\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because right now you can do this without -- and that's - and we're fully supportive of that; no one has a problem with that. But at some point, there's only the three of us, right. So you have to figure out how is that going to work? MR. LINSEY: So the preliminary thinking on the trustee's side had been that there might be a small panel of mediators who would report to Judge Tancredi where -- THE COURT: Chosen by whom? MR. LINSEY: Chosen in -- the thinking was in consultation with Judge Tancredi to make sure that he -- THE COURT: Well, who's consulting? MR. LINSEY: The trustee, which is why the trustee -- THE COURT: Yeah, see, I don't think that's going to work. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, I don't know, maybe it will, but -- and how are those people going to get paid; they're going to do it for free? MR. LINSEY: I don't anticipate that, and that would be treated by the motion. And there are names that have been discussed on the trustee's end and we can propose them. But the -- and I doubt that there are names that Judge Tancredi would have any issue with and they're likely to --\n\n 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: It's not an issue whether Judge Tancredi would have an issue with them. That's not going to happen. MR. LINSEY: -- or Your Honor would. Obviously, yeah. Of course. THE COURT: It's not an issue. That's not an issue. The issue is, is the process transparent and understood and people have an opportunity to agree to it or not agree to it or whatever you're proposing? To me it sounds like -- and this is fine if that's what you're proposing -- we'll see what happens, ultimately, but it sounds like the trustee is saying, This is mandatory mediation and that's what's going to happen. Well, we -- our district does not have that, so there isn't any expectation or requirement that a defendant submit itself to mediation. Now, I think a lot of these people will agree; I don't think that's going to be a problem. But you're going to have to work on that. You're going to have to -- you know, in a perfect world in this next -- I don't know how many days -- 50 days or less it is at this point -- more like 40 days -- maybe you'll come in with a whole bunch of \"I've got a consent to mediation.\" You know, a consent to mediation can be one Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 24 of 34\n\n 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 paragraph filed on the docket of the adversary proceeding. It makes it a lose easier, doesn't it? Then you've got no - then you have a consent to mediation, right? But I think that there are some -- I know there are issues that just need to be put forth in a motion and clear process and procedures submitted. I don't think you can say, Well, we thought maybe Judge Tancredi could pick another panel of mediators, blah, blah, blah. If that's the case, then put it in a motion, right, because -- that's why I asked the question of Trustee Despins last week when that said he'd be the lead mediator, I think was the term, and I was like, Well, what does that mean? I don't know what that means. I mean, I think I know what it means, but I think it needs to be in a motion. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. And I appreciate that the procedure needs to be spelled out and there needs to be transparency. THE COURT: All right. So you'll think about that. As far as this status conference, I think you - are you going to file -- well, I guess that's not -- you don't have to file anything. We have said in the past when the trustee has requested a status conference, that they can be -- new dates can be requested. And you're now requesting a date of next week and\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm telling you that the 14th is the first date you've got and it's probably the only date you've got next week, okay. MR. LINSEY: I'll speak with the trustee. And he is on trial, so I don't know the specifics of his schedule, but I know that we have a date on the 19th; there are matters schedules in this case. THE COURT: Yep. MR. LINSEY: So if it doesn't work for the 14th, perhaps the 19th would work. THE COURT: Okay. Let's look at the 19th for a minute. Yes, there's the afternoon of the 19th; there's several fee applications on that afternoon and a motion to dismiss, so there's one -- starting at 1:30 and then at 2 o'clock. So, I mean, that could work if you can't do the 14th, but you'll have to let us know about that, about the 14th. MR. LINSEY: We will, Your Honor. THE COURT: Because I'd still have to issue some kind of order or notice scheduling the status conference for the 14th or the 19th, whatever day it is. MR. LINSEY: And if the status conference is on the 14th, Your Honor would like the motion to be filed no later than the 12th; is that my understanding? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: And so if the status conference is on\n\n 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the 19th, then Your Honor would like the motions scheduled, or filed by the 15th? THE COURT: By the 15th, yes -- MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: -- please. And then there's one other issue besides -- and believe me, you and I could sit here for probably another hour thinking about mediation issues, right -- but I think this common trial, common issue consideration has to be woven in there somehow, right, to give -- because normally a mediator doesn't necessarily get to report back to the judge on where things are, right? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: This is a little bit different, so you'd have to think about how you'd want that to work. And then, obviously, you're going to have -- you know, there's going to have to be confidentiality agreements and whatever. You can deal with that. One other thing. The Clerk's Office -- oh, I shouldn't say the Clerk's Office -- well, it is the Clerk's Office, but the courtroom deputy email box, the Bridgeport courtroom deputy email box, last week I believe it was, received two emails, two separate emails from two separate defendants in two separate adversary proceedings that say a lot of things in them like they don't understand -- not that Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 27 of 34\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they don't necessarily understand why they're a defendant, but they're -- they are concerned about what has occurred. And we haven't docketed those because I have no idea whether or not there's any confidential issues regarding those defendants. So with regard -- and you don't have to answer this now -- but with regard to all of the defendants in the adversary proceedings -- in the avoidance adversary proceedings, not the RICO and alter-ego adversary proceeding, but the -- things have been sealed, but are any of the defendants' names sealed? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. The only things that are sealed in avoidance proceedings are the schedules that are attached to the complaints which list specific dates and transactions reflecting transfers. And the only reason that those are sealed is because they were based on documents that were produced by financial institutions and designated \"confidential\" or -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: -- or \"highly confidential.\" THE COURT: Okay. Well, what we will do in the meantime between now and the status conference, I didn't look, other than to see that these emails had been sent, right. I didn't really look at the adversaries to see whether or not there'd be any information that is sealed,\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which there probably is, because every adversary has at least the sealed document of the schedule of the transfers. Is that what you're saying? I think that's probably true, right? MR. LINSEY: Some are -- we tried to not overseal. So where there were -- there were some where the underlying records from financial institutions had not been designated \"confidential\" or \"highly confidential,\" and in those cases, we did not file anything under seal. THE COURT: Okay. So what we're -- what we will do in the meantime is go back and analyze those and then figure out how to handle those, because normally, our -- the normal process of the Clerk's Office would be to docket those communications on the applicable adversary proceedings, because you could say there are somewhat akin to a pleading, although, I'm not really sure they are. But we haven't done that yet because I don't know whether or not that's appropriate. So we will have to take a look at that, okay? MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: And we've heard from some defendants, as well, what I call \"self-represented defendants\" -- THE COURT: Oh. MR. LINSEY: -- or people who say that they're\n\n 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 self-represented defendants. THE COURT: Yeah, these people do, too. MR. LINSEY: And sometimes the email addresses that we receive communications from are unconventional or overseas, such that they wind up in spam folders. So, like, it would be in the trustee's interests, as well, to see these communications. THE COURT: Understood. MR. LINSEY: We can be in touch with these people if that's appropriate. THE COURT: Understood. The issue's, I think, going to be, do they get docketed? And if they get docketed, do they get docketed under seal? MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think that's the issue that we have to figure out, because, again, they came to the courtroom deputy email -- the Bridgeport courtroom deputy email box, which is, you know, that's what we use when people submit proposed orders and things like that, but they must've looked at our website and thought that was a way to communicate with the Court, okay. MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: So, I think those are the only questions I have this afternoon, but I really encourage you Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 30 of 34\n\n| 1 | to think about the mediation issues and how we can make it a | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | process that is transparent, yet has some flexibility, and | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | that flexibility is clear.
Because I think if you want to | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | get to a point in adversaries where -- I gave two examples. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | One is the parties can't resolve one part of it but the | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | mediator's resolved the majority of it, but the mediator | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | wants to tell the Court instead of, I couldn't resolve | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | this -- well, I resolved these things, but I didn't resolve | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | that.
You try it. | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Or the other example is the 50 and 40 resolve | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | and 10 don't, how do you handle that?
And is there a common | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | issue or a bellwether adversary that gets tried that, then, | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | becomes applicable to the other adversaries? | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | I have no idea how you want to handle that, but I | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | think you need to tell everybody what your thought -- when I | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | say, \"your,\" you know I mean the Chapter 11 Trustee's | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | thoughts are on this issue? | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Do you have any questions? | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
I do not. | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | If it's acceptable to Your Honor, we'll report by | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | tomorrow morning regarding -- | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Oh, yeah, that's fine. | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | I mean, if you could tomorrow, that would be fine, | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | just sometime tomorrow.
Is tomorrow -- tomorrow's Wednesday, | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, okay. That would be helpful, yeah. But the first day and probably the only day of really solid availability next week is the 14th. MR. LINSEY: And did Your Honor say what time on the 14th? THE COURT: I didn't, but I would probably want to do it noon or 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock. And if it's the 19th, we can just add it to the calendar -- MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- to the afternoon calendar, okay. MR. LINSEY: I mean, some of the issues that I know that the trustee had wanted to discuss with Your Honor are issues that Your Honor just discussed with me and I can provide some of that information to the trustee. So that will be very helpful. But we'll -- but he'll want to speak with you directly, so we'll reach out about dates. THE COURT: That's great. All right. Thank you, very much. All right. That is our last matter on today's calendar, so court is adjourned. Case 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 32 of 34\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2993 | Filed 03/12/24 | | Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 | Page 33 of 34 | |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------|------------|---------------------------|---------------|----|\n| | | | | | | 33 |\n| 1 | | MR. LINSEY: | Thank you. | | | |\n| 2 | | THE COURT: | Thank you. | | | |\n| 3 | | THE DEPUTY: | All rise. | | | |\n| 4 | | The Court is adjourned. | | | | |\n| 5 | (Proceedings concluded at 1:50 p.m.) | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 2993 | Filed 03/12/24 | Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 | | Page 34 of 34 | | | | |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|--|---------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | 34 | | | | |\n| 1 | | | | CERTIFICATION | | | | | | |\n| 2 | I certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | /s/ William J. Garling | | | | March 7, 2024 | | | | |\n| 8 | | | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | For Reliable | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21
22 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n（合并管理）\n\n法庭 123\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n债务人。\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n2024年3月5日，星期二\n\n下午2时03分\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esquire（帕特里克·R·林赛，律师）\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n音频操作员：\n电子录音\n\n转录公司：\nReliable\nThe Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮件：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n庭审程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 1 of 34\n\n目录\n\n动议： 页码\n\n事项第1项：代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯潘斯）的 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）提出的动议，请求强制 Banco Popular de Puerto Rico（波多黎各人民银行）遵守第2004条规则传票。法院裁定：7\n\n转录员证明书 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 2 of 34\n\n（庭审于下午1时08分开始。）\n\n法警：康涅狄格州联邦破产法院现于休庭后开庭。尊敬的 Julie Manning（朱莉·曼宁）法官主持审理。\n\n法院：下午好。请坐。好的。下午1时的日程上有一项事项，因此请法庭法警宣读日程。\n\n法警：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法院：下午好。请各方为记录而出庭说明。\n\nLINSEY律师：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）代表第11章受托人出庭。\n\n法院：下午好。好的。今日日程上的事项是一项强制动议，Linsey律师，而且您是法庭内唯一在场的人，那么我们今天下午将如何处理这项动议？\n\nLINSEY律师：我曾告诉几个人，预计这会没有什么趣味，因此我希望我是对的。但是，这是一项——我建议继续审理该动议。\n\n法院：请继续。\n\nLINSEY律师：谢谢。这是一项关于第2004条规则传票的强制动议。该传票根据第八项第2004条规则动议，于12月4日向波多黎各的 Banco Popular（波多黎各人民银行）送达。\n\n在送达传票后，我们与 Banco Popular 的一名代表进行了电子邮件和电话沟通；该人也是签署作为强制动议附件的异议书的人。对方告知我们，除非法院命令或账户持有人同意，否则 Banco Popular 不愿提供文件。鉴于这些传票中被认定具有利害关系的大多数个人和实体均与债务人有关，该等同意在整个证据开示程序中一直未能取得，而 Banco Popular 表示其理解这一点，即这是其政策，并且其要求法院命令。\n\n我们根据听证通知提交了该动议。已通过邮件和电子邮件向 Banco Popular 送达通知，电子邮件发送给我曾在该处交谈过的个人。她确认收到该动议，但此后未收到任何其他回应。其异议内容中还提出了一些较为细节性的异议，涉及传票的范围及类似性质的事项。我确信，如同我们能够与绝大多数金融机构所做的一样，一旦作出要求提供文件的命令，我们也将能够在此与该金融机构解决这些问题。因此，如法院没有任何问题，我请求登记随动议提交的拟议命令。\n\n法院：Banco Popular 目前尚未在本案中提交任何出庭声明，对吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：尚未，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。好的。我已审阅该动议，看来该动议及听证通知均已得到适当送达。Linsey律师已在记录中说明，他实际上曾与 Banco Popular 的某人交谈，该人确认收到该动议；你们还曾就此进行其他讨论，对方表示他们需要法院命令。随着时间推移，听到银行机构要求作出命令以强制其就传票提供文件，并不罕见；尽管有时它们会在传票发出时即行提供。我不十分确定为何本案中没有发生这种情况，但鉴于本案的特殊情形，我理解受托人为强制 Banco Popular 遵守传票而寻求命令的原因。现在，其中写着“在裁定制裁时”，但您目前并未寻求任何制裁，对吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：没有，法官阁下。我道歉。该内容可以删除。\n\n法院：好的。我的意思是，如果他们在本命令之后不采取行动，您或许会寻求制裁，但无论如何——\n\nLINSEY律师：我们目前未寻求制裁，我也不会将其描述为一种不友好的立场。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我转向法庭法警。已有拟议命令吗？\n\n法警：嗯，有。\n\n法院：请您将命令标题修改为仅——仅删除“以及裁定制裁”这几个字。\n\n法警：好的。\n\n法院：并且在命令第一段、“兹命令”措辞之前——\n\n法警：抱歉，法官，请稍等。\n\n法院：好的，不着急。\n\n法警：我打开了错误的命令。\n\n法院：不着急。\n\n法警：让我回到别处去。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法警：好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 6 of 34\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2993 Filed 03/12/24 Entered 03/12/24 10:37:33 Page 7 of 34\n\n法院：所以，就在分号之前，您知道，就是写着“如下文所附条件”的地方，最后一行——在“兹命令”之前的文字。我们看的是同一份命令吗？\n\n法警：我想不是。让我看看。\n\n法院：我的标题是“强制 Banco Popular ——的命令”。\n\n法警：是的。好的，就是它。\n\n法院：好的。现在您看到我所说的位置了吗？\n\n法警：是的，看到了。\n\n法院：所以，在“如下文所附条件”之后，我会写：“并在2024年5月5日举行听证后[原文如此]。”\n\n法警：是的。\n\n法院：然后，从那一点起，我认为拟议命令维持原样即可，好吗？那么，Linsey律师，基于记录中所述理由并经审阅该动议和拟议命令，该动议获准，拟议命令将按记录中指出的轻微修改予以登记。\n\nLINSEY律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。现在，我有几个问题，不知道您是否知道答案。您很可能知道，但鉴于本案事态的发展，我有几个问题。\n\nLINSEY律师：当然。\n\n法院：哦，我在记录中说今天的日期是5月5日——\n\n法警：哦，抱歉。\n\n法院：——但我的意思是3月，所以感谢您的更正。我不知道为什么我这么说，但我肯定说了。因此应为“在3月5日举行听证后”。\n\n法警：好的。\n\n法院：所以那是我的错误，很抱歉。谢谢。接着，有几件事。今天我们看到——我们一直在开庭，但我们看到在主案、两宗对抗程序以及，怎么说，非撤销权对抗程序中提交了暂停动议。而且——我不确定您是就这些动议以加急方式、常规方式还是单方方式提出请求。因为这些动议要么会被安排听证，要么不会；而我认为如果有人反对所请求的救济，它们会被安排听证，但我不确定——意图是什么。对于暂停动议，您，或受托人以及与您合作的其他人，有何意图？如我所说，我知道主案中提交了一项，并且每一宗适用的对抗程序中各提交了一项。\n\nLINSEY律师：是的，法官阁下。这是一个合理的问题。鉴于我们并未与各项程序中的所有当事人保持联系，我认为预期是法官阁下会安排听证。顺带一提，受托人曾——您上次在状态会议上我们到庭时曾询问，受托人是否可参加后续状态会议；受托人恰巧正在波多黎各审理案件，但不涉及 Banco Popular。他请我转达，如果法院愿意举行 Zoom 状态会议，他可以在3月13日星期三出席。我不知道那是否适合法院。那对法院不适合吗？\n\n法院：不适合。\n\nLINSEY律师：好的。法院下周是否有其他可安排时间，我可以转达？\n\n法院：14日。\n\nLINSEY律师：14日，好的。\n\n法院：但13日不行。\n\nLINSEY律师：明白。我会就此与受托人沟通。我认为预期在该会议中讨论的主要问题，是受托人能否采取任何行动，以推动某些适当的撤销权程序进入调解，只要被告有兴趣——\n\n法院：我们甚至还没有收到调解动议，也没有关于——的程序，而且我们马上会谈到这个，好吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：当然，是的。\n\n法院：那么，让我们回到暂停动议。\n\nLINSEY律师：但我想说的是，我们也可以——我认为我们可以更详细地讨论如何——\n\n法院：好的。那么，在我们举行另一次状态会议之前，我不会就暂停动议安排任何听证。这就是您——\n\nLINSEY律师：这正是我建议的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：是的。并且因为至少根据我的快速审阅，适用暂停动议的其中一宗对抗程序，似乎全部涉及英属维尔京群岛实体，而无论如何此前一直存在送达问题。我不知道是否仍有。所以，无论如何，那是第一点。但还有——在拟议命令中，再次说明，我今天在听证之间审阅它不到两分钟，好吗——看起来其中有一项关于名为 K Legacy（K Legacy）的某实体不受暂停约束的例外，我并不真正——您现在不必告诉我，但我需要在某个时候了解这一点，好吗。\n\n因为我不知道为什么——我认为其中说暂停不会适用于 K Legacy。\n\nLINSEY律师：K Legacy 涉及一套位于英国的公寓，我们了解到可能有人正试图转让该公寓，因此就该实体而言具有特别紧急性，但受托人可以对此作出更详细说明。\n\n法庭：好的。现在转到调解问题。我们之前在这里讨论了调解，也讨论了你方的陈述、受托人的陈述；显然，在会议召开前，没有人知道受托人具体会提出什么要求，这没有问题。但在那次情况会议期间有几项评论，其中包括 Bassett先生（巴西特）有一份对抗程序被告名单；听起来似乎——但我不知道这是否准确——受托人可能已经在努力将某些对抗程序归类在一起。我不知道这是否属实，但我想告诉你们我目前对调解的想法。\n\nLinsey律师（林赛）：当然。\n\n法庭：因此，你们必须提交一项附有拟议程序的动议，明白吗。我们目前没有这样的动议。因此，除非且直到向所有人送达附有拟议程序的动议，否则我们——你知道，我实际上无法做太多事情，对吧。而且我们不会就这样——必须有——如果——每一个案件都需要程序，但本案尤其需要程序，对吧，因为我不会开始走调解这条路，然后有人说：嗯，她刚刚把所有这些事项都交给了调解。没有程序。我们并不知道。我们是否被强制参加调解？这是选择加入还是选择退出的调解？我的意思是，你知道，人们——全国各地都有各种判决指出——而且我们没有要求对抗程序必须调解的地方法规——\n\nLinsey律师：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：——适用于对抗程序。因此，对抗程序中的被告可能会说，我不希望此事进行调解，明白吗。因此，就程序而言，你们需要考虑这一点——这是我的意见。我们没有强制性、自动的调解程序。而且我认为，此前讨论的方式似乎是，人们——被告将被要求进行调解。\n\n我认为，如果你们能够取得他们的同意，显然就没有问题。\n\n但我不知道我们是否能够强制他们进行调解；尽管我们或许能够这样做，但我认为，在作出某种命令之前，他们仍必须有机会理解这一点。\n\n而且我认为，当你们提交这项动议时，调解当事人，例如，哪些人将成为调解当事人；原告方是否只有受托人，而另一方则是被告？\n\n我认为答案大概是这样，但我不知道，因为尚未提交动议。\n\n再次说明，我曾告诉过你们，Bassett先生提到过某件事，或者有人提到过——也许不是Bassett先生；也许是受托人提到的，我记不清了——但有人提到过Bassett先生有一份名单，并且我认为暗示将会就该名单提交某些文件。\n\nLinsey律师：我们确实有一份所有撤销程序的名单。\n\n此外，我们一直在开展的一项工作，是以各种方式进行分类和拆分。这些程序有多种分组方式。一种方式是按请求金额分组。另一种方式是按——显然，这些请求中的绝大多数是资金经由受托人认为属于替身实体的实体流转的案件，因此，我们也进行了分析，按照哪些替身实体与之相关进行分组；不过，每项请求并非只对应一个替身实体。它们相互重叠，因此这有些棘手。我们目前正在建立一个数据库，使我们能够以尽可能少地产生费用的方式进行此类分类和拆分分析。这就是一直在后台进行的工作。但目前，我们有一份按字母顺序及对抗程序编号排列的所有撤销程序名单；如果对法庭有帮助，我们很乐意提交。\n\n法庭：嗯，我不知道我们是否需要一份所有姓名的名单——我可以这样做——\n\nLinsey律师：当然。\n\n法庭：——我的意思是，我认为这并非必要。我认为，对法庭和调解员而言，更有帮助的是了解受托人可能提出的任何分组，同时也要理解，你们不会一次性将270项事项全部交付调解。这对我来说没有意义。我的意思是，我认为必须有某种分批推进方式，或者每次处理若干分组；也许是争议最大问题的对抗程序——我毫无概念。我不知道谁会对什么提出异议。但我认为你们需要考虑这一点，而且我认为需要有一种方式，让各方知悉受托人认为该程序应如何运作。\n\nLinsey律师：法官阁下，另一个考虑是，显然，这些事项是以法庭认定相关替身实体实际上确为替身实体为前提的。因此，对于某些替身实体，法庭已经作出了判决书——\n\n法庭：对。\n\nLinsey律师：——而对于另一些，法庭尚未作出判决书。因此，受托人也一直在考虑这一点，即事项应如何推进。\n\n法庭：好的。再次说明，我认为你们需要考虑，例如，被告能否选择退出——一名被告或多名被告能否选择退出？此外，你们能否在答辩期限届满后或答辩期限届满前启动这一程序？因为目前，答辩期限至少为传票送达后60日。因此，受托人是说，他希望在人们甚至尚无需答辩之前，就将事项交付调解？我不确定是否——我的意思是，如果你们就此取得被告的同意，我认为会容易得多；如果没有，我不知道是否可行，明白吗。还有一件事，我认为——我不知道受托人是否使用了这个术语。我以为有人在某处使用过这个术语，即存在若干对抗程序类别，\n\n所以归入——这就是我所说的分组或类别，对吧。我认为这是需要重点关注的重要问题。我认为这将有助于调解。\n\n我还认为你们需要考虑，调解员拥有什么权力？我的意思是，你知道，你方或 Despins受托人（德斯平斯）说，调解员可以制定所有规则。\n\n嗯，我不知道调解员能否在未通知所有人的情况下制定所有规则。这是什么意思？调解员要提交文件？这没有意义。调解员不会提交任何文件。\n\n因此，必须有一套已经确定的程序，供调解员遵循。例如，如果调解员将某案调解到当事人已接近解决的程度，但他们有某一问题需要作出裁定，而他们不会在调解中就此达成一致；调解员能否向法官说明这一点，以便法官审理该问题？\n\n这应当列入这些程序之中。如果你们希望赋予调解员一定灵活性以缩小争点，那么我认为你们需要——这必须成为程序的一部分。\n\n此外，如果调解员说——而你们有这些类别。假设你们有这些类别或分组，调解员——而你们交给调解员50项均为偏颇清偿之诉的对抗程序，这些程序都涉及某个问题，而40名被告、40个对抗程序涉及该问题，但10个不涉及。调解员应当怎么做？嗯，如果程序具有灵活性并在程序中作出规定，也许调解员可以告诉法官：这10个对抗程序需要就这些问题进行审理，或者存在共同问题，例如，或者\n\n你们是否选取其中一个对抗程序——\n\nLinsey律师：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：——从那10个中选取一个进行审理，然后该裁定适用于或对其余9个尚未解决的程序具有约束力。我不知道。我只是在提出——Linsey律师，我是在提出一些想法和问题，因为我认为，程序从一开始越透明、越容易理解，无论是在本院还是在某个上诉法院，日后出现的问题就越少，对吧。\n\nTancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）通常可以参与，明白吗。但除非且直到我们弄清楚整个程序，否则我们不会向Tancredi法官提交任何事项。我希望调解命令能够非常具体地说明他可以做什么和不能做什么，包括我刚才提到的那些事项——你知道，顺便说一句，你们还可以想出其他事项——\n\n但就我刚才提到的事项而言，如果他陷入僵局怎么办；他能否向法庭报告存在僵局，该问题需要审理或解决。或者，他处于10个——50个的一组中，40个达成和解，而10个没有，那么该如何处理？他能做什么？他拥有什么权力？现在，他必须进行利益冲突核查，Linsey律师，因此，如果我们进入调解阶段，仍有可能——你知道——他在某个对抗程序中存在利益冲突，因此请理解这一点。我的意思是，显然，如果我们存在利益冲突，我们任何人都不能承担调解工作——\n\nLinsey律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——但他通常可以参与：而且我们没有进行广泛讨论，但他确实支持这样一种观点，即必须先有一套他所遵循的既定方案。当然，他可以作为调解员开展工作，但我认为，如果你们希望他——我不认为让你们进行一种调解会有帮助，而在这种调解中，他只报告：已和解或未和解，因为我认为那实际上没有帮助。这对我来说没有意义，对吧。你们希望推动进展，并尽可能缩小争点。\n\nLinsey律师：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：并且赋予调解员尽可能多的灵活性，但随后以某种方式向法庭报告，为完成或解决该对抗程序需要采取什么措施，同时不损害各方返回本院后说：哦，等一下，我们认为可以最终解决并再回去的任何权利。我不是——但是，你知道，他必须有一些路径——他必须有一些指引，并且必须有他可以进入而不得超出的若干范围，对吧。我的意思是，他需要——但我认为他应当具有一定的灵活性；你知道，这就是我认为你们需要考虑的事项。顺便说一下，他也会同意这一点。\n\nLinsey律师：明白。\n\n法庭：那么，关于启动问题——我需要知道。我想你们会告诉我。如果我们在14日举行情况会议，我推定在此之前会发生这样的事，对吧，即将提交某种动议或其他文件；如果可能，我希望在13日之前提交——\n\nLinsey律师：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：——这样我们实际上才有时间阅读。你们提出什么方案？而且，你知道，如果你们寻求批准调解，你们必须向谁送达，以及他们有多少时间提出异议或其他意见？我\n\n我不知道，但那是——尽管我完全理解并赞赏，比如说，“我们希望对这些事项进行调解”，但——在没有一项命令以及一项已向有权发表意见的人送达的动议的情况下，我不会走这条路，好吗。Linsey先生（MR. LINSEY）：明白，法官阁下。法庭（THE COURT）：如果Tancredi法官（Judge Tancredi）在其中一项事务中存在利益冲突，关于另一位调解员，您建议怎么做？您希望我询问Nevins法官（Judge Nevins），还是希望我怎么做？Linsey先生：受托人方面曾讨论过的一项设想是由Tancredi法官——抱歉，Tancredi法官——进行调解，即参与并指导调解程序，当然会更多参与一些较为重大的争议，但或许还会有其他向Tancredi法官汇报的调解员。法庭：谁，以及谁来支付他们的费用？Linsey先生：那将是一个需要首先在——法庭：嗯，这正是我的观点，对吗。Linsey先生：——动议中处理的问题。当然，原本预计会提出一项动议，但原因之一是——如果我们采取的方式不是法官阁下希望的方式，我表示歉意。\n\n法庭：不，我不是——您不需要道歉。Linsey先生：好的。法庭：我只是说，这会没问题，但我们必须遵循程序。仅此而已。必须有程序。您看，您知道——参与本案的每个人都知道，本案中发生的任何事情会引发多少上诉。我不希望随后引入一种新的程序，而该程序并未——尚未——以致有人可以主张其未获正当程序。您知道，正当程序权利未获满足。他们不理解正在发生什么。他们被迫做某事——您知道，我不希望出现任何这些情形，对吗。我希望我们尽最大努力建立一个透明的程序——Linsey先生：当然。法庭：——公开进行。让当事人能够在其愿意时提出反对，并使调解程序明确。您认为这是否包括给予法官——如果是Tancredi法官——在指导某一程序方面的灵活性？当然包括，但仍然必须有某种既定程序。您不能只是说，好吧，Tancredi法官——我并不是说您在这么说——案件 22-50073，文件 2993，于 03/12/24 提交，于 03/12/24 10:37:33 登记，第 21 页，共 34 页。\n\nLinsey先生：嗯。法庭：——我是在说明我的担忧，即您不能只是说，好吧，Tancredi法官，这里有270项对抗程序，开始处理吧。这不会发生，因为这对他也不公平。Linsey先生：当然不会。法庭：即使他绝对会去做，这仍然不公平，因为他也不希望陷入那种境地，对吗。他有一大堆事情需要操心。所以我只是对您说，我认为这会没问题——Linsey先生：嗯。法庭：——我只是认为我们需要走完一个程序，并确保该程序符合通知及听证的要求，而不仅仅是获得听证机会，而是通知及听证，从而形成某种命令，不仅要处理——假定Tancredi法官将成为调解员——还要处理如果存在利益冲突，以及如果有另一位调解员时该怎么办。我们怎么办——如果您说，是的，您会询问Nevins法官吗？如果她也有利益冲突，那该怎么办？那您就得支付某人的费用，对吗，案件 22-50073，文件 2993，于 03/12/24 提交，于 03/12/24 10:37:33 登记，第 22 页，共 34 页。\n\n因为目前你们可以在无需——的情况下这样做，而这——我们完全支持；没有人对此有意见。但到某个时候，就只有我们三个人，对吗。所以你们必须弄清楚这将如何运作？Linsey先生：受托人方面的初步想法是，可能会有一个小型调解员小组，向Tancredi法官汇报，其中——法庭：由谁选择？Linsey先生：选择方面——原先的想法是与Tancredi法官协商，以确保他——法庭：嗯，谁来协商？Linsey先生：受托人，这就是为什么受托人——法庭：是的，您看，我认为那行不通。Linsey先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：我的意思是，我不知道，也许行得通，但是——那些人将如何获得报酬；他们会免费做吗？Linsey先生：我不认为会是那样，这将在动议中处理。受托人方面已经讨论过一些人选，我们可以提出这些人选。但是——我怀疑Tancredi法官会对这些人选有任何异议，而且他们很可能会——\n\n法庭：问题不在于Tancredi法官是否会对他们有异议。那不会发生。Linsey先生：——或者法官阁下会有异议。显然，是的。当然。法庭：这不是问题。那不是问题。问题是，程序是否透明并为人理解，以及人们是否有机会同意或不同意，或者不论您提出什么方案？在我看来，这听起来像是——如果这就是您提出的方案，那也没问题——我们最终看看会发生什么，但听起来像是受托人在说，这是强制调解，而这就是将要发生的事。嗯，我们——本区并没有这种制度，因此不存在要求或期待被告接受调解。现在，我认为其中许多人会同意；我认为那不会成为问题。但您必须就此开展工作。您必须——您知道，在一个理想世界里，在接下来的——我不知道有多少天——此时是50天或更少——更像是40天——也许您会带着一大批“同意调解”的文件来。您知道，一份同意调解的文件可以只是提交到该对抗程序案卷上的一段文字。这会容易得多，不是吗？这样您就没有——这样您就有一份同意调解的文件，对吗？但我认为存在一些——我知道存在一些问题，只是需要在一项动议中提出，并提交明确的程序和规则。我不认为您可以说，嗯，我们认为也许Tancredi法官可以挑选另一个调解员小组，诸如此类。如果是这样，那么就把它写入一项动议，对吗，因为——这就是我上周向Despins受托人（Trustee Despins）提问的原因，当时他说他将担任首席调解员，我认为这是所用的术语，而我当时想，好吧，那是什么意思？我不知道那是什么意思。我的意思是，我认为我知道其含义，但我认为需要写入一项动议。Linsey先生：明白，法官阁下。我理解并赞同需要明确规定程序，并且需要透明度。法庭：好。那么您会考虑这一点。至于这次状态会议，我认为您——您要提交——嗯，我想不是——您不必提交任何东西。我们过去曾说过，当受托人请求举行状态会议时，可以请求新的日期。现在您请求下周的一个日期，而我告诉您，14日是您能得到的第一个日期，而且它很可能是您下周唯一能得到的日期，好吗。\n\nLinsey先生：我会与受托人商谈。他正在审理案件，所以我不知道他日程安排的具体情况，但我知道我们在19日有一个日期；本案已有安排在该日审理的事项。法庭：是。Linsey先生：因此，如果14日不合适，或许19日可以。法庭：好的。让我们看一下19日。是的，19日下午有数项费用申请和一项驳回动议，因此有一项——从1:30开始，然后在2点钟。因此，我的意思是，如果您无法安排14日，那可以行得通，但您必须就14日一事告知我们。Linsey先生：我们会的，法官阁下。法庭：因为我仍然必须发布某种命令或通知，将状态会议安排在14日或19日，无论是哪一天。Linsey先生：如果状态会议在14日举行，法官阁下希望该动议最迟于12日提交；我的理解是否正确？法庭：是。Linsey先生：那么，如果状态会议在——\n\n19日举行，法官阁下希望动议安排在15日提交，还是于15日提交？法庭：于15日提交，是的——Linsey先生：好的。法庭：——请这样做。除此之外，还有一个问题——相信我，您和我可能会坐在这里再花一个小时思考调解问题，对吗——但我认为，这种共同审判、共同争点的考量必须以某种方式纳入其中，对吗，以便——因为通常调解员并不一定能向法官汇报进展情况，对吗？Linsey先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：这有些不同，因此您必须考虑希望如何运作这一点。然后，显然，您将会——您知道，必须有保密协议之类的安排。您可以处理这一点。还有一件事。书记官办公室（Clerk's Office）——哦，我不该说书记官办公室——嗯，确实是书记官办公室，但法庭书记员电子邮箱，即Bridgeport法庭书记员电子邮箱（Bridgeport courtroom deputy email box），我相信是在上周，收到两封电子邮件，两封分别来自两项不同对抗程序中的两名不同被告的单独电子邮件，其中说了很多事情，比如他们不理解——并非说他们必然不理解自己为什么是被告，但他们——他们对已经发生的事情感到担忧。而我们没有将那些电子邮件登记入案卷，因为我完全不知道那些被告是否涉及任何保密问题。因此，关于——您现在不必回答——所有对抗程序中的被告——在撤销权对抗程序中，不是RICO和另我对抗程序中，但——已有材料被封存，不过是否有任何被告的姓名被封存？\n\nLinsey先生：没有，法官阁下。撤销权程序中唯一被封存的材料，是随起诉状附上的清单，其中列明反映转让的具体日期和交易。之所以封存这些材料，仅仅是因为它们基于金融机构出具并标记为“保密”或——法庭：好的。Linsey先生：——或“高度保密”的文件。法庭：好的。那么，从现在到状态会议期间，我们将做的是——我除了看到这些电子邮件已经发送外，并未查看，对吗。我并未真正查看这些对抗程序，以确定是否存在任何被封存的信息，\n\n这很可能是有的，因为每一名对抗诉讼当事人至少都有转移明细表的密封文件。您的意思是这样吗？我认为大概确实如此，对吗？\n\nLINSEY先生（林赛）：有些是——我们尽量不过度密封。因此，在某些案件中，金融机构的基础记录并未被指定为“保密”或“高度保密”，在这些案件中，我们没有提交任何密封文件。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我们目前将做的是回头分析这些文件，然后确定如何处理，因为通常书记官办公室的正常程序是将这些通信登记在相应的对抗诉讼案卷中，因为可以说它们在某种程度上类似于诉状，尽管我并不完全确定它们是否如此。但我们尚未这样做，因为我不知道这样做是否适当。因此，我们必须审视这一问题，好吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：明白，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLINSEY先生：而且，我们也收到了一些被告的来信，即我所称的“自行代理的被告”——\n\n法庭：哦。\n\nLINSEY先生：——或者自称是自行代理被告的人。\n\n法庭：是的，这些人也是如此。\n\nLINSEY先生：有时，我们收到通信的电子邮箱地址并不常规，或者位于海外，以致这些通信最终进入垃圾邮件文件夹。因此，查看这些通信也将符合受托人的利益。\n\n法庭：明白。\n\nLINSEY先生：如属适当，我们可以与这些人联系。\n\n法庭：明白。我认为问题将是，它们是否应登记入案？如果登记入案，是否应以密封方式登记入案？\n\nLINSEY先生：明白，法官大人。\n\n法庭：我认为这就是我们必须弄清的问题，因为再次说明，它们发到了法庭书记员的电子邮箱——Bridgeport（布里奇波特）法庭书记员邮箱；您知道，这是我们在人们提交拟议命令及类似文件时使用的邮箱，但他们肯定是看了我们的网站，并认为那是与法庭沟通的一种方式，好吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：当然。\n\n法庭：因此，我认为这是我今天下午仅有的几个问题，但我确实鼓励你们思考调解问题，以及我们如何使其成为一个透明、但又具有一定灵活性的程序，而且该等灵活性应当明确。因为我认为，如果你们希望在对抗诉讼中达到这样一种程度——我举了两个例子。其一是，当事人无法解决其中的一部分，但调解员已解决了大部分问题，而调解员希望告知法庭，而不是说“我无法解决这个问题”——那么，调解员可以说：“我解决了这些问题，但没有解决那个问题。你们去审理它。”或者另一个例子是，50宗和40宗得到解决，而10宗没有得到解决，你们如何处理？是否存在一个共同问题，或者一个经审理的示范性对抗诉讼，随后适用于其他对抗诉讼？我不知道你们希望如何处理这一问题，但我认为你们需要告诉每个人你们的想法——当我说“你们的”时，您知道我的意思是第11章受托人对此问题的想法。\n\nLINSEY先生：是，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。您有任何问题吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：没有。\n\n如果法官大人允许，我们将在明天上午前就——作出报告。\n\n法庭：哦，可以。我的意思是，如果你们能在明天提交，那就可以，只要在明天的某个时候。明天——明天是星期三，对吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：正确，法官大人。\n\n法庭：是的，好的。那会有帮助，是的。但下周第一天、也可能是唯一一天真正有充足空闲时间的是14日。\n\nLINSEY先生：法官大人是否说了14日的什么时间？\n\n法庭：我没有说，但我可能希望安排在中午、1点或2点。如果是19日，我们可以直接把它加到日程表上——\n\nLINSEY先生：是，法官大人。\n\n法庭：——加到下午的日程表上，好吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：我的意思是，据我所知，受托人原本希望与法官大人讨论的一些问题，正是法官大人刚才与我讨论的问题，我可以向受托人提供其中一些信息。因此，这将非常有帮助。但是，他会希望直接与您交谈，所以我们将就日期与您联系。\n\n法庭：很好。好的。非常感谢。好的，这已是今天日程表上的最后一项事项，因此现在休庭。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n书记员：全体起立。\n\n法庭现已休庭。\n\n（程序于下午1:50结束。）\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力所及，上述内容系根据上述案件程序的电子录音制作的正确庭审记录文本。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling March 7, 2024\n\nWilliam J. Garling, CET-543\n\n认证法庭记录员\n\n代表 Reliable","key_entities":["RICO","Despins","Je","CIPA","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8959,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-03-12 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-03-12","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:35:49"}