{"id":"court_ctb_3054_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3054,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-03-28","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., . . Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC. A DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05023 . Plaintiff, . . v. . . LAMP CAPITAL LLC, INFINITY . TREASURY MANAGEMENT, INC., . HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, . HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC, . LEADING SHINE NY LTD., MEI . Courtroom 123 GUO, and YANPING, A/K/A . Brien McMahon Federal Building \"YVETTE,\" WANG, . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendants . . Tuesday, March 19, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:39 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 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 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 1 of 112\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24 | Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31
Page 2 of 112 | | | |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | | 2 | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 1 | APPEARANCES: | | | | |\n| 2 | For the Chapter 11 | | | | |\n| 3 | Trustee: | Douglas S. Skalka, Esquire
NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. | | | |\n| 4 | | 195 Church Street
13th Floor | | | |\n| 5 | | New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | | | |\n| 6 | | -and- | | | |\n| 7 | | Luc A. Despins, Esquire
PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
200 Park Avenue | | | |\n| 8 | | New York, New York 10166 | | | |\n| 9 | | Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire
2050 M Street, NW | | | |\n| 10 | | Washington, DC 20036 | | | |\n| 11 | For the U.S. Trustee: | Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | | | |\n| 12 | | OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
The Giaimo Federal Building | | | |\n| 13 | | 150 Court Street, Room 302
New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | | | |\n| 14 | For the Official | | | | |\n| 15 | Committee of
Unsecured Creditors: | Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire | | | |\n| 16
17 | | PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
850 Main Street
8th Floor | | | |\n| | | Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 | | | |\n| 18 | For Pacific Alliance | | | | |\n| 19
20 | Asia Opportunity Fund: | Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
Times Square Tower | | | |\n| 21 | | 7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036 | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 22
23 | For Mei Guo: | Stephen M. Kindseth, Esquire
ZEISLER & ZEISLER
10 Middle Street | | | |\n| 24 | | 15th Floor
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\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 ALSO APPEARING: For Mei Guo: Sam Della Fera Jr., Esquire CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI, P.C. 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, New Jersey 07068 For G Club Operations: Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For Mercantile Bank International Corp. and Yieldesta, LP: Frederick Hyman, Esquire CROWELL & MORING, LLP Two Manhattan West 375 9th Avenue New York, New York 10001 For Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder, LLP: Frank A. Oswald, Esquire Minta J. Nester, Esquire TOGUT, SEGAL & SEGAL, LLP One Penn Plaza Suite 3335 New York, New York 10119 For Fox News Network and Marcum LLP: Henry P. Baer, Esquire FINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP 177 Broad Street 15th Floor Stamford, Connecticut 06901 -and- Andrew R. Gottesman, Esquire MINTZ & GOLD 600 3rd Avenue New York, New York 10016 Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 3 of 112\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3054 | Filed 03/28/24 | Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 | Page 4 of 112 | |\n|---------------|------------------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|------|\n| | | | | | | 4 |\n| 1 | | | | INDEX | | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | | | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter | | | | | |\n| 4 | No. 1: | | | Status Conference Held (RE:[2981] Order
Scheduling Status Conference) | | 9 |\n| 5 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | -- |\n| 6
7 | Matter
No. 2: | Despins) | | (RE:2931 Application to Employ Praeger
Dreifuss AG filed by Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. | | 80 |\n| 8 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 86 |\n| 9 | Matter | | | | | |\n| 10
11 | No. 3: | Bliss PC) | | (RE:2928 First Interim Application for
Compensation of O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & | | 86 |\n| 12 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 87 |\n| 13 | Matter
No. 4: | | | (RE:2929 First Interim Application for | | 88 |\n| 14 | | | Compensation of Kroll, LLC) | | | |\n| 15 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 89 |\n| 16
17 | Matter
No. 5: | | | (RE:2933 Second Interim Application for
Compensation for Harney Westwood & Riegels LP) | | 90 |\n| 18 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 91 |\n| 19 | Matter
No. 6: | | | | | 91 |\n| 20 | | | (RE:2930 Third Interim Application for
Compensation of Epiq Corporate Restructuring,
LLC filed by Claims/Noticing Agent Epiq | | | |\n| 21 | | | | Corporate Restructuring, LLC) | | |\n| 22 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 93 |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3054 | | Filed 03/28/24 | Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 | Page 5 of 112 | |\n|---------------|--------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|------|\n| | | | | | | | 5 |\n| 1 | | | | | INDEX | | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | | | | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter
No. 7: | | | | | | |\n| 4 | | | | | (RE:2935 Fourth Interim Application for
Compensation for Paul Hastings LLP filed by
Debtor's Attorney Paul Hastings LLP) | | 94 |\n| 5 | | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 95 |\n| 6 | Matter | | | | | | |\n| 7
8 | No. 8: | | | | (RE: 2872 Third Interim Application for
Compensation of Pullman & Comley, LLC filed by
Creditor Pullman & Comley, LLC) | | 96 |\n| 9 | | | Court's | Ruling: | | | 97 |\n| 10 | Matter | | | | | | |\n| 11 | No. 9: | | | | (RE:2936 Fourth Interim Application for
Compensation for Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, | | 98 |\n| 12 | | | P.C. filed by Trustee's Attorney Neubert, Pepe
& Monteith, P.C.) | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 99 |\n| 14 | Matter | | | | | | |\n| 15 | No. 10: | | | | Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding to
Dismiss the Fifth and Sixth Claims contained
in the Complaint Against Leading Shine NY | Ltd. | 100 |\n| 16 | | | | Court's Ruling: | | | 110 |\n| 17 | Matter
No. 11: | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | Motion to dismiss Counts 3 and 4 against
Hudson Diamond New York, Hudson Diamond | | 100 | | |\n| 19 | | | | Holding, Mei Guo | | | |\n| 20 | | | Court's | Ruling: | | | 110 |\n| 21 | Transcriptionist's | | | Certificate | | | 112 |\n| 22 | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\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 (Proceedings commenced at 1:39 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Adversary 23-05023, Despins v Lamp Capital, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. SKALKA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka on behalf -- or excuse me -- from Neubert Pepe & Monteith, on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of creditor PAX. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler, for Mei Guo. MR. DELLA FERA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sam Della Fera, Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi, is also for Mei Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 6 of 112\n\n 7 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 Guo. THE COURT: May I stop both of you for a second? Sorry. Mr. Kindseth, I think someone said to me that you filed an appearance in the last hour, I think, in addition to Mei Guo? MR. KINDSETH: Correct. I believe that's at the 2 o'clock matter. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KINDSETH: Will we be doing appearances at the 2 o'clock matter as well? THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. I'm just asking the question, because -- MR. KINDSETH: Yes, I will be appearing on behalf of the Defendants at the 2 o'clock matter. THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. MR. DELLA FERA: As will I, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, both. MR. SKLARZ: Jeffrey Sklarz, G Club. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. MR. HYMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Frederick Hyman on behalf of Mercantile Bank International and Yieldesta LP. I filed a motion for pro hac and Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 7 of 112\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 (indiscernible) yesterday. I don't think the order has been entered yet. THE COURT: We probably -- it's in the process, I think. There were certain -- there were a number of motions pro hac. I think they are being processed, but I believe orders have not entered yet. MR. HYMAN: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the courtroom wish to note their appearance? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Anyone on the phone wish to note their appearance? MR. OSWALD: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Frank Oswald, Togut, Segal & Segal, along with my colleague Minta Nester. Your Honor, we were recently engaged by defendant Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder, LLP. We appreciate the Court's accommodation in allowing us to appear remotely, as I'm away this week with the family and Ms. Nester is recovering from some surgery, so thank you for that accommodation. THE COURT: You're welcome. And I think, Attorney Oswald, I think you may be involved in the status conference, right. There are other Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 8 of 112\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 matters that you see at 1:30, applications, fee applications. You're not appearing on behalf of any of those matters are you? MR. OSWALD: No, I'm not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Then, Trustee Despins, there are several fee applications and an application to employ counsel that I think are on at 1:30, in addition to the status conference, so how do you propose to proceed? MR. DESPINS: If this is acceptable to Your Honor, it probably would make sense, given the number of people involved with respect to the status conference, to cover that first. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. DESPINS: So let me -- this is the status conference (indiscernible) the proposed mediation. THE COURT: And I think you also asked for a status conference about the motion to stay? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So for the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. And with Your Honor's permission, I will ask that some of this be covered by Mr. Bassett, but I wanted to just open up with general concepts and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Bassett to handle more precise issues. Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 9 of 112\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 10 of 112\n\n10\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I know there was a hearing at which I could not attend, where Mr. Linsey attended and he gave us a full report and I actually looked at the transcript, so we understand what's on your Court's -- on the Court's mind in terms of issues, and we did file the motion, as requested by the Court and we view that, Your Honor, as an opening for a discussion, really. Informal, when we file a motion, we want the motion to be granted as set forth in the motion, but here, we understand that, especially, we could not get all the Court's views. We certainly don't have Judge Tancredi's views, so we understand that this is an iterative process, but I wanted to address some of the big points. The first one is we're not going to dump 170 adversary proceedings on Judge Tancredi's lap. That would be a recipe for disaster, and we have a game plan. Of course,\n\n16 17 18 19 20 we have not talked to Judge Tancredi, so I don't know how he wants to handle this, or how Your Honor wants to handle this, but the idea here would be that conceptually, we would come up with a list of five or six maximum buckets of different types of claims.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 So I'll give -- I always give easy examples. So you have, for example, Federal Express or UPS. They receive a post-petition transfer. There are issues that apply to these types of Defendants that, frankly, I'll stipulate just for now that they probably did not know anything about what\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 11 of 112\n\n11\n\n1 2 was going on with the debtor. So there are a set of issues there that are common to these types of Defendants.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 There are other Defendants that are at the other end of the spectrum where, you know, it's very clear that people knew or should have known what was going on and sometimes that issue is irrelevant and sometimes it's not. In a post-petition context, it may not be relevant. What's relevant is, was there a court order? There was none. The second is, is this ordinary course of business, especially, Your Honor forks transfers that were made after the appointment of the trustee. I don't know how people are going to argue that it was ordinary course of business to get paid by a debtor or by an entity controlled by the debtor after the trustee's appointment.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But I'm not here to argue the merits. I'm just trying to tell Your Honor that there will be five or six buckets that will cover 90 percent of these Defendants. And our concept is that this will only work if we agree to do this on a global basis, meaning that, again, this is subject to Your Honor's views and subject to Judge Tancredi's views, but they would be sessions involving multiple Defendants. So maybe Federal Express got a transfer of -- I'm sorry to always mention them, but I've been talking to them -- you know, a transfer for \\$100,000, \\$120,000. Maybe UPS got a transfer for \\$110,000. It doesn't matter what the amounts\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 12 of 112\n\n12\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 are. These are similar -- almost identically situated entities and there should be a bucket where there's -- there could be a meeting with Judge Tancredi where the debtor will make a presentation. This is our case against these types of Defendants and they would make or the people who are there or represented by counsel could make their own presentation and then we would withdraw from that meeting and Judge Tancredi might give them some general advice on his views of whether these claims should be settled or not and at what level. But we don't -- and we think that's the best use\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 of the mediation process, because otherwise, if we are going to attempt to have a case-by-case mediation, it would overwhelm Judge Tancredi, the fees would be through the roof, and in addition to that, I don't think it would be productive and, therefore, we are -- our proposal, our structure is to have this global approach and to, for now, defer the issue of whether there would be other mediators appointed. Of course these mediators would be appointed by a court order entered by Your Honor, but after a discussion between the trustee and Judge Tancredi.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 But we want to resist the temptation to do that right out of the box because we believe that the most efficient way is not to have one-on-one mediation, but to have group mediations. And people are free to say, I don't belong in this group; I have a special situation. And we can\n\n13\n\n1 2 3 4 5 deal with that, but there are so many people that clearly, you know, fall within some of these buckets that remain to be precisely defined that that's our approach and we believe strongly that the mediation will be productive if we adopt this approach.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 If it fails because the Defendants don't want to participate like that, we understand that. Even from their point of view, they would benefit. The lawyer from Federal Express may benefit from hearing what the lawyer for UPS has to say, et cetera, et cetera. So the point is that this could be beneficial to all involved.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 But if it fails, then we may very well have to revert back to the appointment of individual mediators and that's built into the order. That possibility is there, subject to Your Honor actually approving the specific appointment of mediator one, two, three, four, and five.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I wanted to give this broad outline, because this is counterintuitive in the sense that, generally, mediation is one-on-one. There are issues that are specific to some Defendants here. Sure, there will be some of that, but, generally, there are a lot of people that are Defendants that fall within very defined buckets, prepetition, postpetition, post-petition after the appointment of the trustee, et cetera, et cetera. So, I wanted to say this at the outset and then I would ask Mr. Bassett to come and address other\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 14 of 112\n\n1 2 more precise issues, for example, where we're proposing to change our approach.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 You had raised the question very accurately when Mr. Linsey was here, which is, what do you have to do to be in mediation; meaning, do you have to file an answer or a motion to dismiss? We had, in the proposal -- the motion we filed, we had required that people file, you know, either an answer or a dispositive motion. After a lot of internal discussions about that, I think we're going to change tack on that because the thinking is, on balance, although, personally, I would rather see answers than motions to dismiss because it focuses the discussion. It may defeat mediation for a lot of people because they'll say, If I have to file a lawyer to file a motion to dismiss or an answer and incur all these costs, this may not be very interesting for me to participate in. So I think we're proposing to change our position on that in the motion that said, you have for file an answer or a motion\n\n19 20 21 22 to dismiss and I think Mr. Bassett will address this, but I think we're proposing to change that approach. But there are other technical aspects that I would ask Mr. Bassett to addresses with the Court's permission.\n\n23 24 And I'm happy to answer the global questions you may have, as well.\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: I just have one or two, I think, given\n\n 15 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 what you've said. I've reviewed the mediation motion and you have a list of 90 pairs. It's exhibit -- I don't remember the -- MR. DESPINS: The excluded. THE COURT: -- Exhibit 3 or something to the motion. There's 90 that you are proposing to exclude. Are you thinking that at any point in time that if one of those parties wanted to be part of the mediation that you would entertain that? What I'm trying to determine is, obviously, the mediation motion hasn't been served on anyone, right? MR. DESPINS: Well, Mr. Bassett will address that. I think there's been some service, but let me let him address that. THE COURT: Well, what I'm saying is what I saw was this list of 90 -- MR. DESPINS: Oh. THE COURT: -- that, apparently, at least at this point, from your perspective, would not be subject to these mediation procedures; is that correct? MR. DESPINS: Correct. That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what -- there's two ways I suppose this could work, I think, and maybe you could come up with a third. But either the motion gets served on the Defendants Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 15 of 112\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 16 of 112\n\n16\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 in the other adversary -- in all but those 90 adversary proceedings and there's an objection deadline, or are you asking for the Court -- and I'm not suggesting you have to answer this right now, but this is my question: Are you asking the Court to enter this without service on the Defendants, but give the Defendants an opportunity to say they don't want to go to mediation? I think it has to be one or the other. MR. DESPINS: Yes. Well, Mr. Bassett was going to address that, but -- THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's fine. MR. DESPINS: -- so we have this concept of initially mandatory mediation -- THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- for everyone, other than the 90. But if you don't want to be in, you file a motion with the Court to be excluded. So there's a safety valve. So, it is, at the outset, mandatory, but they have the ability to come to court to say, No, I don't want to be in mediation. Because at the end of the day if people don't want to mediate, it's not going to be very productive to include them, but there's a default mechanism at the outset that everyone is in, unless they file a motion to be excluded. As to the 90, I think I'm indifferent as to\n\n 17 Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 17 of 112\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 whether we serve them or not. We're not trying to exclude them for life in the sense that if they want to file a motion with the Court saying there's a compelling case why they should be included, fine. Our view is -- and I don't know if -- (An alarm plays in the courtroom) THE COURT: That might mean the air is not good in the courtroom right now. There might be too many of us, but we'll see. Is that a little monitor with numbers? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Too much hot air. (Laughter) THE COURT: Most likely. MS. CLAIBORN: It says, \"poor.\" THE COURT: Okay. It says, \"poor.\" I don't know how to turn that off, though. That would -- is there an ability to unplug it? MS. CLAIBORN: Let's see if that works. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Go for it. (Laughter) MR. DESPINS: So my point, Your Honor, is as to the 90, the judgment call there was, we don't think it would\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 18 of 112\n\n18\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 be productive to have them in mediation because -- and that's going to sound like a broad, overt generalization, but it's intended -- those are Kwok-related entities. We've already been in mediation with Mr. Kwok and his family. We think it's a waste of time to do mediation with them because it's just going to incur costs for no reason. I don't think they have any intention of settling anything. So that's my assessment.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So, therefore, to put them in the mediation would be -- that's, again, I may exaggerate that in the accepts of, are they all Kwok-controlled entities? Not sure, but I would say the intent was to cover those and maybe others that are related to those entities. So, but they're free to file a motion to say, Oh, the trustee should be compelled to mediate with us and we did oppose that.\n\n16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Well, I'm not suggesting that needs to happen at the moment. What I was talking about Attorney Linsey about, and you've addressed it, is I would think there have to be these buckets --\n\nMR. DESPINS: Yes.\n\n21 22 23 24 THE COURT: -- right. With 170 or 80 adversary proceedings, I agree that we can't just dump them all on Judge Tancredi, although, I'm sure he would try to figure it out.\n\n25\n\n20\n\nBut we also have to worry about -- and at this\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 19 of 112\n\n| 1 | point, he doesn't see any problem with acting as the |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | mediator, but, you know, a defendant might, so you'd have to |\n| 3 | deal with that if and when that happens.
I do think that |\n| 4 | Judge Tancredi would be supportive of having more |\n| 5 | identification of what these buckets are and, like you said, |\n| 6 | either have a group mediation and/or, you know, a test case |\n| 7 | of the groups that you determine are the buckets that you |\n| 8 | think they fit into, I think that would be fine. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
And we've added that.
We've added |\n| 10 | the point that the judge has the ability, Judge Tancredi has |\n| 11 | the ability to issue a report saying in his opinion, it would |\n| 12 | be beneficial to the advancement of mediation for the Court |\n| 13 | to rule on issue X, a general issue. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
And so we've added that and we |\n| 16 | welcome that.
I think that would be beneficial. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I also think that there -- and this |\n| 18 | can possibly work with discussions with Judge Tancredi, but I |\n| 19 | think it would be helpful for him to have some kind of idea |\n| 20 | of a timeline of what you're thinking of, right.
I mean, I |\n| 21 | heard what you said about abandoning the issue of a Defendant |\n| 22 | having to file a responsive pleading or an answer.
I think |\n| 23 | that probably makes sense in the sense that there's still the |\n| 24 | period of time running in all of these complaints, correct, |\n| 25 | the 60-day period which you can unilaterally extend without a |\n\n 20 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 court order. MR. DESPINS: Yeah, but for people who are on mediation, they would pick up an extension if there -- THE COURT: No, that's what I'm -- I'm agreeing with you. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I think what my point is, is I think, though, what would be helpful to Judge Tancredi is to identify those buckets and try to have at least some form of a proposed timeline or even just a range of when you think some bucket is going to be given to him -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- right, so he can focus on those issues and go from there. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, we didn't put that precisely in the order, but the intent would be, the minute the order is entered is to try to have a meeting with the judge to go over the proposed buckets because you might say, No, interested party don't buy that or maybe you should have another bucket, and to have him participate in the sequencing of these buckets. Because I don't feel comfortable telegraphing to him right now what the sequencing should be -- THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. MR. DESPINS: -- because he might say, You're Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 20 of 112\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 wrong. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. I think that what I read in the papers, I would not have the procedures say that Judge Tancredi will create a mediation panel, because he will or he won't; that's up to him to make that determination. He may feel that that's not necessary and/or efficient, you know. I think he needs to figure that out himself. MR. DESPINS: I think we put that as an -- not an automatic, but an alternative mechanism. THE COURT: I just don't -- I don't think it should be automatic -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- and I don't think he would like it to be automatic. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I'm not saying he might not do that, ultimately, Trustee Despins, but I don't think he wants that to be -- he's got to get his arms around all of this, right? MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. So then, I think you've answered the question that I've had with regard to what you've said and I guess I will hear from Attorney Bassett then. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 21 of 112\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24
Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31
Page 22 of
112 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 22 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I might just address the |\n| 3 | Court from here if that's okay? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Again, for the record, Nick Bassett from Paul |\n| 7 | Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee.
Your Honor, |\n| 8 | as is sometimes the case, Trustee Despins said I was address |\n| 9 | certain things but then he went ahead and addressed them, so |\n| 10 | I'm not sure how much more I do have to add.
I will respond |\n| 11 | to a couple of questions the Court asked and maybe provide a |\n| 12 | little bit more detail as to how some of the procedures will |\n| 13 | work. |\n| 14 | But first, the Court had asked about service.
So |\n| 15 | as I understand it, all of the approximately 270 avoidance |\n| 16 | actions for those -- and I don't have a list breaking this |\n| 17 | down -- but for those involving Defendants who are located in |\n| 18 | the United States, I understand we have completed service on |\n| 19 | those Defendants. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Of the what?
Of the mediation motion |\n| 21 | or the summons and complaint? |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Of the summons and complaint, Your |\n| 23 | Honor.
The mediation motion, I think we just filed toward |\n| 24 | the end of last week, so we have not yet done that, but I'm |\n| 25 | just speaking in terms of the summons and complaint.
I |\n| | |\n\n23\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 understand we've served that on the domestic Defendants. Obviously, those located abroad is a longer, more involved process that we are working through, but I think the way that works with the mediation procedures is that we will go ahead and serve the mediation procedures motion on those Defendants located in the United States. We will ultimately make sure that those located abroad have it as well.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But, regardless, the way the procedures work is that the referral to mediation would occur on the date of the answer deadline automatically, subject to an opt-out right within 14 days thereafter, as the trustee described, where a Defendant could say that they would like to not participate in the mediation and ask to be accepted. So each -- before that clock starts ticking, each Defendant will have been properly served with the summons and complaint. They will then have that answer. They will have an answer deadline, but the way we are going to modify that, based on what Trustee Despins said, is rather than have it be a deadline to file either an answer or a motion to dismiss, instead, by that date, an appearing Defendant can simply file a notice of appearance. The Defendant has to do something to enter an appearance in the case to avoid default, but in order to, you know, help facilitate fruitful mediation discussions to save Defendants money that could potentially be used as part of the settlement, et cetera, we think it makes stones have that\n\n# 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 24 of 112\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 be a notice of appearance, instead of, necessarily, a motion to dismiss or an answer. But again, everybody is going to get served with the complaint according to applicable law and then their time to opt in to the mediation procedures or opt out, rather, would start ticking thereafter. So in terms of due process -- THE COURT: But how are they going to know that if they don't get served -- you're saying you're going to serve them with an order that modifies the avoidance action procedures that addresses mediation and not the motion? MR. BASSETT: Well, we would serve them with both. I mean, we'll serve the domestic Defendants with the motion. To the extent the Court enters -- THE COURT: Well, I just want to understand. Are you giving them an opportunity to object or are you saying, This is the order that says this is -- you're in mediation and if you want to opt out, you have to file something. MR. BASSETT: It's the latter -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: -- and I think, practically, that's the only way it can really work, especially given all of the Defendants who are located abroad. You know, it could take a significant amount of time to serve them with a summons and\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 25 of 112\n\n25\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 complaint and all of that, so I think that that has to happen. Then the mediation procedures order, which is, in effect, will take over at that point according to its terms. THE COURT: All right. Well, then, it sounds as though you're going to be modifying the mediation procedures, according to what Trustee Despins just said, so there isn't going to be an order for the Court to sign until that's done, correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. And we had treated today -- we had always understood that today's hearing was, of course, just a status conference -- THE COURT: Understood. MR. BASSETT: -- anyway, so -- and we had anticipated that, based on discussions that we might have be parties that there would be some modifications to the mediation procedures. So we'll work that out and, obviously, get the Court a revised proposed order as soon as we can. THE COURT: It seems at least, and I could be wrong, that the mediation motion was filed in the main case and in all of the adversary proceedings, I think, yesterday, right. So, then, you're going to then file an amended mediation motion or what are you going to do? MR. BASSETT: I would can contemplate, simply, a notice of revised proposed order that would filed --\n\n 26 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: Okay. MR. BASSETT: -- as opposed to an entirely amended motion. THE COURT: Okay. And then -- but that revised proposed order has to provide how much of time to opt out? MR. BASSETT: The procedures state that it's 14 days from the date of the answer deadline. So, in other words, if they -- I think the current procedures say 60 days, right, which is already -- THE COURT: So 60 days from service? MR. BASSETT: Right. Which is already giving parties an extension. So they'll have 60 days from the date of service to simply file a notice of appearance and then they have 14 days thereafter to decide whether they want to opt out and, obviously, that 14 days is really 74 days because, you know, or from whenever they find out about the mediation procedures, they'll have a significant amount of time to -- THE COURT: Well, what if they file a notice of appearance before the answer date is due? I think some people have. MR. BASSETT: That's the way -- well, then, according to the way we have the procedures, it would be 14 days from then. I would see no reason to change that, but, obviously, if the Court has a different view, we could -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 26 of 112\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 27 of 112\n\n27\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: Well, I don't know. We'll see if anybody wants to be heard on that issue. But I'm just trying to understand the process so that it's clear that parties have a right to say I don't want to be a part of mediation. I think we need to make sure we understand how that's going to work. So, what you're saying, so that I'm clear, is that all Defendants in the U.S. have been served with a summons and complaint so that the 60 days that are part of the avoidance actions procedures order has already started to - will have started to run upon service of the summons and complaint? MR. BASSETT: That's what I'm told by my team, Your Honor. If there's one or two or something where there's a lingering issue, that could be -- THE COURT: Right. But that's the process, that's how it works? MR. BASSETT: Yeah. THE COURT: And then you're saying on the sixtieth day after service, all the Defendants in those adversary proceedings have to do is file a notice of appearance and if they do, then they will be included in the mediation process, unless 14 days thereafter, they move to opt out of the mediation process? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 28 of 112\n\n28\n\n1 2 3 And I believe we've modeled this off of -- I don't know if the dates and deadlines are precise, but this concept is one that we've seen elsewhere.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE COURT: Right. I agree, but in a little bit different context. But I think it's fine, but I think you do need to address -- and there are people here who have filed appearances in some of these adversary proceedings, so I don't know if they feel they should be bound by a 14-day period from the date they filed their notice of -- because we don't even have the mediation procedures order in place.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. BASSETT: That's fair, Your Honor. I don't see how it could possibly be before the order has been entered. So, to the extent that parties have filed a notice of appearance and need more time, I'm happy to, you know, consider some -- maybe for people who have filed a notice of appearance, it's going to be X days from the date that the order is entered, whether it's two weeks or something else, but I think that would make sense.\n\n19 THE COURT: I heard what you said.\n\n20 21 22 23 MR. BASSETT: I think -- otherwise, I think, you know, most of what I was going to mention has been covered. Obviously, if you have any other questions I'm happy to try to answer those.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: I don't have any at the moment, but that doesn't mean I might not as the afternoon progresses,\n\n 29 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 okay. But thank you. MR. BASSETT: Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard in connection with the trustee's motion to modify the avoidance action procedures in connection with mediation? I should say anyone, because no one else has spoken yet, so does anyone wish to be heard? MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz for G Club. I suppose this doesn't necessarily apply, as I've heard today, to G Club, but I'll be filing appearances on - in the future on behalf of parties that it will apply to. THE COURT: Is G Club on the list of 90, right? MR. SKLARZ: G Club is on the list of 90, but I'll say my peace for the record -- THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. SKLARZ: -- as I will have clients that are not on the list of 90. This is a very complicated motion and what I want to mostly make clear is that all Defendants should be given sufficient time to analyze the motion and respond to it, attempt to collaborate with the trustee to provide whatever constructive criticism and proposed changes to the mediation procedures should be -- that would be appropriate. So it would seem that if there is -- there should be an objection Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 29 of 112\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 30 of 112\n\n30\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 bar date set, but it should be set well out ahead, six or eight weeks, something like that, before a hearing to allow everybody to communicate with the trustee, understand the narrow issues, and provide sufficient time for a response and allow the Court to assimilate all the information that it'll likely get back and craft an order.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Certainly, clients that I currently represent, but haven't filed an appearance on behalf of and will represent, will want to test the viability of claims, whether they're in a mediation setting or not. And, particularly, if they're in a mediation setting, the trustee should be filing a response to motions to dismiss, as the alter-ego concept that the trustee has put forth is novel. So it'll be important as parties go to mediation that we understand the basis for the trustee's claims to make any mediation productive and to understand why we're wrong in our posture for dismissal.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 Similarly, the mediators will have to understand the trustee's concepts. Unless we understand why we should lose, it's hard for the mediation to work. So just letting the trustee not respond to motions to dismiss in a mediation context, I think is not necessarily productive in terms of moving a mediation forward.\n\n23 24 25 We have a number of basic questions. There's a good faith requirement in paragraph V where -- THE COURT: Tell me where you are, Attorney\n\n 31 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 Sklarz. MR. SKLARZ: On page 7 -- I'm sorry, ECF 3003, page 19 of 31, paragraph V. THE COURT: All right. Give me a second, please, just so I can make sure I'm following you. Paragraph B? MR. SKLARZ: V, as in Victor. THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead. MR. SKLARZ: And starting one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight lines down, where a mediator's report indicates noncompliance. If somebody is required to go for mediation and says we think we have a good case, we have no interest in settling, is that noncompliance? Am I going to be sanctioned and my client defaulted because we want our day in court? I think this, in particular, is difficult to understand and it is not consistent with mass mediation procedures I've seen. Similarly, in paragraph M -- THE COURT: So let me just ask you, again, so you're saying you're concerned because if your client says, I don't want to go to mediation; is that what you're saying? MR. SKLARZ: No, we say we will go to mediation -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: -- we hear the pitch of the trustee and the mediator and we say, We think we have a good case and Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 31 of 112\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 we want our day in court. Constitutional -- THE COURT: Well, that's not going to mediation, right? MR. SKLARZ: Well, no. THE COURT: I mean, that you're saying that you don't want to mediate. MR. SKLARZ: Well, we say we've gotten to mediation. We don't think we should pay anything and we would like to terminate the mediation. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: There's no requirement to settle if you go for mediation. THE COURT: I understand there's no requirement to settle if you go to mediation, but mediation is meaningless if you go there and think that there's no reason to try to resolve the matter, right? MR. SKLARZ: I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is everybody goes there and at the end of the mediation, there's a business decision made by a client, we do not want to accept whatever is on the table and we would prefer to go to trial. I'm fearful that not agreeing to settle will have sanctions leveled on me and my client for (indiscernible) noncompliance. THE COURT: Well, I don't see how that can happen Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 32 of 112\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 33 of 112\n\n33\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 necessarily, but I guess we'd have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But remember, if your client doesn't want to go to mediation, they can opt out, number one. I understand what you said, but let me just follow my thought through, okay. MR. SKLARZ: Sure. THE COURT: Number two, if your client goes to mediation, your client has to act in good faith, too, right? MR. SKLARZ: For sure. THE COURT: So your client -- and if you have any concern that your client has -- doesn't want to do this and can't act in good faith, then you don't -- then opt out. MR. SKLARZ: And that brings me to my second point. In paragraph M on page 16 of 31 -- THE COURT: Okay. Give me one second, okay. I just want to make sure I'm following you exactly. MR. SKLARZ: -- this is the opt-out. THE COURT: Page 16, you said? MR. SKLARZ: 16 of 31 -- THE COURT: Paragraph M, as in Mary? MR. SKLARZ: -- ECF -- M, as in Mary -- or I suppose we should M, as in Manning -- ECF 3003, third line, or that whole sentence. You can't just opt out; it's you have to show good cause to opt out. So I think what Your Honor indicated about\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 34 of 112\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 paragraph V, it gives even greater concern because what is good cause to opt out of the mediation? THE COURT: I'm looking at M and I haven't found what you're reading yet, but just -- oh, there it is. I see it. I got it. It took me a minute. MR. SKLARZ: So, again, I think these are just discussion points. I have no doubt that lawyers can work together to craft language. You know, Delaware and the Southern District of New York and other jurisdictions have language that they use in mass mediations. THE COURT: Well, they have mandatory mediation procedures -- MR. SKLARZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- we do not. MR. SKLARZ: Yes, but we can borrow from some of those to, perhaps, provide language that would work for everybody. And, again, I'm just pointing out, these are things I think that need discussion, and so if the Court were to set an objection bar date of two weeks from today, it would make it very difficult to have these discussions. I think there needs to be a lengthy period for everybody to, number one, get served. None of my clients -- I haven't filed appearances in a number of adversaries yet because my clients haven't been served, for the most part, so we need to get everybody\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 35 of 112\n\n1 2 3 served. Get everybody served with this motion and give everybody an opportunity to be heard. I think that's only fair.\n\n35\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So, essentially, at this point, we think a lot of these ideas are good ideas and these procedures are good procedures, but there's ones that we have difficulty with. I pointed out a couple here. There's others. I don't want to belabor this, because I think there needs to be a discussion among counsel, but I would just urge Your Honor to ensure that the nearly 300 Defendants in these cases are given sufficient time to not only protect their rights and understand their rights, but respond meaningfully to the trustee's motion and then assuming we get past all that or we will get past all of that when it's dispositive motion time, that when we're going to mediation, we understand what the trustee's arguments are in favor of their claims. THE COURT: In favor of what? MR. SKLARZ: In favor of their claims. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: So, you know, my client files a motion to dismiss, we would want to see a response to that motion to dismiss so that we understand the basis of the claims. Again, I understand what the trustee is saying.\n\n25 The 549 claims run from the petition date based on this\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 36 of 112\n\n36\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 alter-ego concept, but we have to understand the alter-ego concept is being used in a way that's substantively different than I've ever seen alter-ego used before -- THE COURT: But you're not talking about just the alter-ego, number one. Number two, there's a pending motion to stay the alter-ego case and the RICO case. So let's presume, let's just for the sake of your points, let's presume that those cases are stayed. We're talking about avoidance actions. MR. SKLARZ: But the avoidance actions are, for the most part, premised on an alter-ego finding. So let's take the -- THE COURT: I don't know that that's exactly true. MR. SKLARZ: Let's take -- well, I've looked -- THE COURT: Not all of them. MR. SKLARZ: Not all of them, but a lot of them. THE COURT: I mean 90 of them are carved out, right -- MR. SKLARZ: Well, but -- THE COURT: -- and those 90, I think you might be right about. MR. SKLARZ: Well, but -- THE COURT: But I don't know about others that -- MR. SKLARZ: All the 549 claims -- virtually, all the 549 claims are. They say so and so company was an alter-\n\n 37 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 ego of Kwok and, therefore they're bringing 549 claims. THE COURT: Well, are any of those companies already been found to be the alter-ego of Kwok, because that might be a reason why it says that? MR. SKLARZ: Well, I mean, I can tell you, not all of the companies have. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? I think I could clarify this, if I may? THE COURT: Sure. MR. DESPINS: So, as I mentioned to the Court when we had the status conference over the filing of these 280 actions, I mentioned that we had filed omnibus alter-ego when you're just mentioned that and that's a complaint where we're saying we own or -- we -- Kwok owned or controlled these entities. That includes G Club. So that's in the alter-ego complaint. That's not a fraudulent transfer action. That's an omnibus alter-ego action where we say -- the same way we said that Lamp Capital or Golden Spring was owned and we obtained judgments on that, we are seeking the same relief in that omnibus alter-ego complaint against G Club and others, many others. Now, because the statute of limitation was expiring, we also filed, as a safety valve, a fraudulent transfer claim against G Club for transfers made by entities Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 37 of 112\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 38 of 112\n\n38\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 that we believe are alter-egos in the event that we lose the main alter-ego action. So we go to trial or summary judgment on the issue of we own or we control G Club, the Court rules against us. At that point, the estate and everything that's in the estate's jurisdiction, if you will, the other alteregos, made millions of transfers to G Club. That is when the fraudulent transfer action that counsel was talking about would become ripe.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 But there's no point in litigating that action because if we win on the alter-ego or against G Club, it would be us suing ourselves because G Club would be part of Kwok. So Kwok cannot sue himself. And we made that very clear in the action where there's a fraudulent transfer claims against G Club that that is going to be prosecuted only in the event that we lose the principal alter-ego, omnibus alter-ego complaint that was filed on February 15th. And as you mentioned, that action needs to be stayed because of the criminal trial. THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question about that, then. If those actions, those two actions that are not avoidance actions are stayed, are you saying, then, the\n\n22 23 fraudulent transfer action against those entities would also be stayed?\n\n24 25 MR. DESPINS: Against those entities that are - you mean like G Club?\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, they are.
They should be |\n| 3 | stayed, as well, because we said that we would not prosecute |\n| 4 | those.
I am pretty sure we said that, that's what I |\n| 5 | remember, that we would not prosecute those unless and until |\n| 6 | we lost the omnibus alter-ego. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Right.
So, then, there really needs |\n| 8 | to be more matters stayed, essentially, than just the omnibus |\n| 9 | alter-ego and the RICO action? |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
That's a fair -- we -- because we |\n| 11 | didn't intend to prosecute it, we didn't seek a stay, but, |\n| 12 | yeah, I guess, technically, they should be stayed, as well. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Maybe.
I mean, I'm just -- |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
No, no, no.
That's a very fair |\n| 15 | point. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- talking because, then, if that |\n| 17 | happens, doesn't that -- |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
It moots the issue. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- put aside -- yes, Attorney Sklarz's |\n| 20 | issue? |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | So I wanted to clarify that, because I know it's |\n| 23 | not clear.
I tried to make that clear in the PowerPoint |\n| 24 | presentation that we filed I guess two weeks or so after |\n| 25 | February 15th and we had the status conference.
But that |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 40 of 112\n\n40\n\n1 2 3 type of action, the fraudulent transfer against G Club is only going to be prosecuted if we lose the alter-ego that G Club is part of the estate.\n\n4 5 THE COURT: Right. I mean that's my recollection. That doesn't mean I'm correct. That's my recollection.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So, Attorney Sklarz, I think what -- there are two things that I think when you said file a response to your motion to dismiss, for example, what I heard today, which is different than what's in the motion, is that you won't have to file anything; you just have to file a notice of appearance, number one. I don't know what your position is on that, but I have an idea, but in any event, it doesn't - that's just number one. But number two, if you're -- when you're speaking specifically about G Club, anyway, at least you are at this point, I don't know why those matters would go to mediation when the alter-ego claims are being stayed. MR. SKLARZ: All I'm doing is reading what I had. THE COURT: No, no, I understand that. MR. SKLARZ: Yeah. THE COURT: I'm just -- like you said, we're just having a discussion, right? MR. SKLARZ: Yeah, totally. I totally agree. And that's the most important thing I'm trying to convey here is that this is complicated and I appreciate what\n\nthe trustee is trying to do here, but I think we just need to\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 41 of 112\n\n| 1 | not rush through it and be thoughtful and reflective and |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | whatever procedure is determined and the trustee should |\n| 3 | collect input from everybody in the courtroom and everybody |\n| 4 | who's not in the courtroom who wants to be heard so that the |\n| 5 | procedures that are proposed to Your Honor comport with |\n| 6 | everything from the constitutional right to trial in a civil |\n| 7 | matter to (indiscernible) some of the nitty-gritty |\n| 8 | particulars that we've gone through today.
That is what I'm |\n| 9 | trying to say.
We just need to slow down a bit and make sure |\n| 10 | we do this right. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, there isn't, as Attorney Bassett |\n| 12 | correctly noted, there's no motion on the calendar.
This is |\n| 13 | a status conference, right? |\n| 14 | MR. SKLARZ:
And that's why I'm saying what I |\n| 15 | said. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
And we need to -- no, and I agree, |\n| 17 | that's one of the reasons I raised the issue at the last |\n| 18 | status conference of how this was going to work and that |\n| 19 | there needed to be a motion, right?
That's what I said. |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Because we need to understand how the |\n| 22 | process is going to work.
And I asked questions of Attorney |\n| 23 | Bassett and Trustee Despins already and now I'm asking -- I |\n| 24 | asked you and you've told me what your thoughts are.
And I'm |\n| 25 | going to ask you -- I think I understand your position -- is |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24
Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31
Page 42 of
112 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 42 |\n| 1 | there anything else you want the Court or Trustee Despins to |\n| 2 | consider in connection with these mediation proposal and |\n| 3 | procedures? |\n| 4 | MR. SKLARZ:
Well, there's many things that we |\n| 5 | will want him to consider, but we got this on Friday -- it's |\n| 6 | Tuesday -- and I think we should have time to reflect and |\n| 7 | send him our thoughts so that -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
That's not -- I understand that. |\n| 9 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yeah. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I'm saying as you stand here right |\n| 11 | now? |\n| 12 | MR. SKLARZ:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 15 | MR. HYMAN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Frederick |\n| 16 | Hyman on behalf of NBI and Yieldesta. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 18 | MR. HYMAN:
I won't take much of the Court's time, |\n| 19 | but I did want to put a little bit of color on the comments |\n| 20 | that were made by counsel that just spoke. |\n| 21 | I represent two Defendants in adversary |\n| 22 | proceedings that are the recipients of transfers from alleged |\n| 23 | alter-egos.
There were no other transferors, so I wanted to |\n| 24 | understand how the procedures would affect my client because, |\n| 25 | as has been acknowledged, the trustee has sought a motion to |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 43 of 112\n\n43\n\n1 2 3 4 stay the alter-ego action. So it would seem a little bit inconsistent to go to mediation before the trustee has gotten, ultimately, a judgment that the transferors were alter-egos.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. DESPINS: And I can address that, Your Honor. I think in his case, the transferor is HCHK and I think we already -- HCHK is not being stayed, meaning we cannot -- it's not covered by the omnibus alter-ego because we've already sought a ruling from the Court. We already obtained various default judgments. And I know the ultimate ruling is pending before Your Honor, but that is not being stayed. So, to be clear, and maybe I'm presumptuous, but we assume there'll be a ruling from the Court on HCHK eventually on our summary judgment or, sorry, on the default judgment. And that case, that action is -- it would be going forward, because the transferor or the entity that transferred is HCHK, which will be, we hope, determined by the Court to be an alter-ego. So that's --\n\n19 20 MR. HYMAN: I don't think that's correct on the transferors, but I --\n\n21 22 23 24 THE COURT: I can't hear you, Attorney Hyman. MR. HYMAN: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's all right. MR. HYMAN: I think we need better clarification\n\n25 on the ultimate transferor for the payments to my clients. I\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 44 of 112\n\n 44 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 do not believe that it was solely HCHK, but we're happy to have those conversations. MR. DESPINS: I'm happy to do that, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So I understand your point, Attorney Hyman, and just so you know, Attorney Hyman, and you probably do, there have been some determinations made by this Court about alter-egos and so, but it may be in your case that it hasn't. MR. HYMAN: I'm well aware of that. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. OSWALD: Your Honor, Frank Oswald with Togut Segal, if nobody else is (indiscernible), I'll just very briefly. I echo many of the comments of prior counsel for the defendant, recognizing and empathizing with the trustee and also Judge Tancredi to the extent that he does mediation. I'm a big fan of mediation and we have been in the trustee's shoes prosecuting literally thousands in certain cases, like Enron and whatnot. So it's a good thing to do. I had the ability to catch up quickly yesterday with one of the attorneys for the trustee on the matter. Again, we would like an opportunity to look more closely at the procedures, work with the other counsel. I think we're going to have a lot of commonality of the issues. I certainly think that everybody should have the same amount\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 45 of 112\n\n45\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 of time to respond, whether they want to opt in or opt out. I mean, quite frankly, my discussions with counsel, only because it seems to work very well in our prior cases, is sort of a precursor for the mediation, than a mediation statement, is (indiscernible) provide counsel with a position statement once the requisite factual and legal diligence is done. Get some feedback on that, have a dialogue, and more often than not, you know, you're able to avoid mediation if folks are reasonable.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 That being said, if not, again, I'm a big fan of mediation, but I do think we need a little bit more time. I think my client, a law firm in Connecticut, would be subject, at least to whatever ruling was made. I haven't had a chance to digest it, but in terms of the Lamp Capital, I heard that reference, but on the other hand, our client represented the debtor, as well as another entity.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, I, likewise, notwithstanding the thousands of actions that I've been a party to on avoidance actions, haven't seen the alter-ego theory applied in this way, but as it relates specifically to mediation, I think it's a good idea. I think we'd all like to see the revised procedures and have an opportunity to confer with clients and other Defendants, get back to the trustee's counsel, and perhaps submit something that's, you know, completely consensual. THE COURT: So, Attorney Oswald, I asked Attorney\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 46 of 112\n\n46\n\n1 2 3 4 Sklarz and he told me that he would like the motion to be served on his Defendants and he'd like an opportunity to respond six to eight weeks out and see what can be done in the meantime.\n\n5 6 What's your proposal, as far as timing and response? I'd like to understand that.\n\n7 8 9 10 MR. OSWALD: Yeah, well I only have one client, we think, today, I think, because we filed a notice of appearance, gotten the backup to the complaint. Those were filed under seal.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I certainly don't think it's going to require eight weeks to come to terms on a mediation procedure and, certainly, if there are issues in dispute, we presumably would ask for another conference so Your Honor could make a ruling on it. But, on the other hand, as I said, we are sort of getting up to speed. We didn't have the benefit of prior status conferences and we're just getting the diligence off and running on our front with our one defendant.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, why I asked the question is, I think the -- well, I know the reason the trustee would like to proceed this way is so that he doesn't have 170 different ways to proceed in 170 different adversary proceedings, right. And I think there is utility to procedures that involve avoidance actions and I think there's utility in mediation; however, I heard some concerns. Well, just you\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 47 of 112\n\n47\n\n1 2 3 4 and Attorney Sklarz at this point, saying -- and I'm sorry, and Attorney Hyman, also, saying that they'd like some time to review the process and figure out what, if anything, they would like to see be part of that process.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And my next question is, you know, the Defendants can make those suggestions, but what if they're not agreed to, then what are we doing? Am I deciding? I would think I am. I don't think you can just Judge Tancredi, if he's the mediator, making decisions about what the procedures are piecemeal. That doesn't seem to make sense to me, otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose of mediation.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. OSWALD: Yes, in my experience -- and we've done it many times -- is that to the extent there was a dispute, you as the sitting judge, would resolve that and we'd send it to mediation. And, also, as the trustee indicated, I've had to stagger -- again, you can imagine 1200 actions filed at one time -- and we worked and staggered those with the mediator. You know, some of them are not as complicated as others, Your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Right.\n\n20\n\n21 22 23 24 25 MR. OSWALD: And some have, you know, not a lot of diligence to be done and the trustee takes measure of that and -- listen, it's in everybody's best interests, starting with the Defendants, who have to come out-of-pocket, like our client, to do this as expeditiously and as efficiently as\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 48 of 112\n\n48\n\n1 2 possible. And I certainly pledge to the Court and the trustee to do that and help as I can.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So, again, I don't think coming to agreement on mediation terms, you know, the one point, if I read it correctly, there was going to be a mediation statement -- I'll call it a mediation statement -- from the defense side, but then it was -- it didn't seem clear as to whether or not we were going to get the benefit of the trustee's side. And, at least in my experience, these things work best. There shouldn't be any hide-the-ball and we should put forth our statements and facts and where we stand on the law, have a good faith discussion, and I think a lot of this will get narrowed down.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 Now, listen, I think the alter-ego issue may well be a novel one. As I said, I've been involved in literally thousands of these actions -- not thousands of alter-ego ones -- but I just can't bring my own specific expertise to it because I've not had the alter-ego issue raised in this fashion.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 But you may well, Your Honor, see somewhere, you know, the defense is going to be able to show value and the value seems to me, if what the trustee is saying, that the debtor and the third-party nondebtor entities should be treated one in the same, well, if you can establish value to the debtor, then you're not going to have a fraudulent\n\n1 2 3 conveyance action. But I'm not -- I don't want to get into the substance and I don't think that's the point of this conference.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Your Honor wants to have these things move along efficiently. The trustee wants that. The defense should want that. And if there's going to be a motion -- am I right, did I understand it correctly -- I apologize if I didn't -- that there's going to be a formal motion to approve the procedures and then you'll set a deadline for responses and then we'll get into it?\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Well, the motion was filed yesterday in all of the adversary proceedings. It is not -- it does not, at this point in time, have a process for objection - an objection deadline. In our Local Rules, motions can be set for hearing -- in adversary proceedings, can be set for a hearing at the direction of the judge. There's not necessarily an objection deadline; however, you know, parties can insist that there should be an objection deadline and then you can proceed accordingly.\n\nMR. OSWALD: Yeah.\n\n20\n\n25\n\n21 22 23 24 THE COURT: We don't have, as do other jurisdictions, mandatory mediation in adversary proceedings, so when these things occur, they usually occur on a smaller scale and we're able to address them that way.\n\nNow, this is a bigger scale and the issue is how\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 50 of 112\n\n50\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 do we address them appropriately? And one of the reasons for having a status conference was to discuss these issues. The motion for the -- to modify the avoidance procedures to include the mediation procedures was just filed yesterday, as I said. MR. OSWALD: Okay. Thank you and I was in transit, so I didn't see it. But I get it and I think that -- again, I guess the suggested procedures were Friday night. Listen, my suggestion is set an objection deadline and the parties will have an opportunity now that the motion is filed and, you know, we'll discuss, as I said, among ourselves. I've already taken the liberty to reach out to some counsel that I know. I'm a little bit handicapped traveling, but I tend to do that, and I think folks should cull their formal suggestions, formal edits to the procedures, share them with the trustee, set an objection deadline, and then we'll come back. I mean, I think that's the way you get it down on a timeline. Everybody work off the same clock and calendar. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Oswald. Is there anything else you'd like to note for the record? MR. OSWALD: No, Your Honor. Thanks, again, for allowing me to appear remotely. THE COURT: You're welcome. And your specific\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 51 of 112\n\n| | 51 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | circumstances were taken into consideration, so I appreciate |\n| 2 | that. |\n| 3 | Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 4 | MR. BAER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Hank Baer, on |\n| 5 | behalf of several Defendants in the adversary proceeding.
I |\n| 6 | apologize for not appearing earlier; we didn't intend to |\n| 7 | speak up.
With me in court is Mr. Gottesman from New York |\n| 8 | City.
We're working co-counsel on behalf of the Defendants. |\n| 9 | We filed a pro hac for Mr. Gottesman recently.
I |\n| 10 | don't believe it's been granted yet. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
It probably hasn't been acted upon |\n| 12 | yet, because we've been in other hearings. |\n| 13 | In any event, counsel, would you just state your |\n| 14 | name and spell your name for the record, for the courtroom |\n| 15 | deputy, please. |\n| 16 | MR. GOTTESMAN:
Oh, certainly, Your Honor.
Thank |\n| 17 | you and good afternoon.
My name is Andrew Gottesman, G-o-t |\n| 18 | t-e-s-m-a-n.
I'm with Mintz & Gold.
We represent Fox News |\n| 19 | and Markham LLP, two adversary defendants. |\n| 20 | As Mr. Baer said, we weren't planning on |\n| 21 | addressing the Court this afternoon, but what we'd like to do |\n| 22 | is lend our voice to the chorus on behalf of all of the |\n| 23 | Defendants to suggest that an objection deadline and a |\n| 24 | hearing date be set for everybody to have an opportunity to |\n| 25 | have input.
We have some concerns with the procedures, but |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 52 of 112\n\n52\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 we understand that, generally, mediation is a good idea. We think it'll be functional here, so we're onboard with the idea, but we'd like to have the opportunity before an order gets entered, to bring those up with the trustee, have discussions, and then have the Court have a date set in case we're not able to, or Mr. Oswald or anybody else is not able to agree with the trustee, to have the Court rule on the mediation procedures before an order is entered. And so we're just basically lending our voice to the other parties that have arisen to ask for that same, basically that same type of procedure, which is an objection deadline and then a hearing date. My sense is that hearing enough people at the same time, and I'm sure the trustee would be reasonable, and everybody can reach a reasonable accommodation on a good timeline so these things don't drag, and that's not in anybody's best interests, but we would like the opportunity\n\n18 19 20 21 to both, discuss our comments to the procedures with the trustee and then if we're not able to reach an accommodation with the trustee or agreement, to have Your Honor rule on the Court believes the proper procedures should be.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n22\n\n23 24 25 When you say -- and I didn't ask prior counsel this, so it's a little unfair but -- it's not really unfair -- discuss your -- discuss the issues that you see\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 53 of 112\n\n53\n\n1 2 3 4 with the trustee. I mean, you know, wouldn't a way to do that would just have you mark up what the trustee's already proposed and say what your problems are with it, if any, or what you agree to?\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I mean, if we all start having discussions -- and I think -- I'm not suggesting that you're not going to. I'm listening to what everyone's saying -- you know, we're not going to have discussions for three months. You know, it's going to be -- there's -- the card is on the table, right. You now need to figure out whether you want to pick it up and how you want to pick it up, right. So you need to -- I think when we talk about these discussions, if they are going to happen, you know, the Court is not -- if the Court agrees that there should be some form of period for an objection deadline and discussions, it's not going to be a substantial amount of time, and so it's going to be incumbent on the Defendants to do what they need to do in that time frame or maybe they lose any rights to complain or argue about what the process is.\n\n20 21 MR. GOTTESMAN: I couldn't agree more, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n22 23 MR. GOTTESMAN: I absolutely agree 100 percent. I don't think this should drag on infinitely.\n\n24 25 And, frankly, I think if there isn't a hard deadline, that's exactly what's going to happen and then\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 54 of 112\n\n54\n\n1 2 Mr. Despins and his counsel are going to have to kind of do this piecemeal.\n\n| 3 | I think if there's an objection deadline, then |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 4 | parties will have the opportunity to both, reach out to the |\n| 5 | trustee with a markup of the procedures saying, These are our |\n| 6 | issues.
Maybe there will be a discussion.
I would imagine |\n| 7 | that there would be.
But at the end of the day if those |\n| 8 | discussions aren't fruitful, an objection has to be filed, |\n| 9 | there's a set date, and then there's a hearing date.
And |\n| 10 | that way, these things don't drag on infinitum and, also, it |\n| 11 | doesn't burden the Trustee's Office any more than they are |\n| 12 | with this number of adversary proceedings and, frankly, the |\n| 13 | number of comments I anticipate them having to shuffle |\n| 14 | through and be able to have some kind of dialogue with |\n| 15 | everybody who gives those comments. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
And when I said the word \"complain,\" I |\n| 17 | don't mean complain in a negative way.
I mean, you have the |\n| 18 | right to raise an issue, right? |\n| 19 | MR. GOTTESMAN:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n20 21 22 23 THE COURT: So I didn't mean that in what could be thought to be that you don't have a basis. You have a basis. If you have a basis, you have a basis. It's not a complaint in a negative way, just to be clear on that.\n\n24 25 So, you're suggesting that there be a discussion period at which point that discussion period cuts off 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 then you have a few days to file an objection and then there's a hearing; is that what you're suggesting? MR. GOTTESMAN: I'm suggesting you just set an objection deadline. THE COURT: All right. MR. GOTTESMAN: I think the natural course of things is for people to discuss. THE COURT: Well, you can't start talking to the trustee on the objection deadline. That's not going to work either, though. I want to make that very clear if I go down that path, any defendant that comes to me and says they start talk -- if I do that, if I do what people are considering and suggesting, if I hear that they talked to the trustee on the objection deadline, that's not going to be very persuasive to me. I just want to be clear about that, if that is where the Court ends up. You know, there's -- I think that's clear. I think what I've said is clear. MR. GOTTESMAN: I agree, Your Honor. And I think setting an objection deadline is the natural way to have what would be considered a discussion period. In my experience, that is what happens. THE COURT: Well, I would hope so. MR. GOTTESMAN: Yeah, exactly. And then parties have an opportunity to object if that doesn't get resolved, then Your Honor has an opportunity\n\n 56 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 to rule. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. OSWALD: Your Honor, Frank Oswald. May I swing back for a second? THE COURT: Sure, go ahead. Attorney Oswald, go ahead. MR. OSWALD: Thank you, Your Honor. Frank Oswald, again, for the record, for the Clayman Defendant. I agree with the Court's comment. I took it as a given, but perhaps if you were leaning towards going this way, there's a date by which folks will submit their comments, redline or otherwise, to trustee's counsel, and then a subsequent date for the formal objection. I don't see why anybody would have a problem with that approach. MR. GOTTESMAN: We have no problem with that approach, Your Honor; in fact, I think it would help clarify things for the trustee and the Trustee's Office. And that, I imagine, many of those comments are going to be similar. MR. DESPINS: Neither do we, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, you know, that's one of the points of having the conference today, right, is to discuss these issues. And one of the reasons why I stated that we needed to have a motion to work off of. And Trustee Despins started off, I think I'm correct, Trustee Despins, in saying that when you Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 56 of 112\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 57 of 112\n\n57\n\n1 2 started talking today, you said that this is a dialogue, right? So this is a dialogue.\n\nMR. DESPINS: Yes.\n\n3\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: And so, Attorney Bassett and Trustee Despins, are you saying that you would be in agreement to some form of process that's been discussed, meaning, that there would be a date by which -- well, everybody now -- the problem -- the only different -- the only difficulty that I see right now, and maybe I'm wrong, on the U.S. Defendants, the Defendants that can be served in the U.S., is they've got to be served with the motion. I mean these people have them, but not everybody has it, right. People that are here today, obviously, they couldn't be here if they didn't know that there was a motion. They know there's something. They're here. They have filed appearances.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But you have many other adversaries which no one has filed an appearance yet, and there's no need to file an appearance yet because of the avoidance procedures. So I think if we're going to do this, you've got to serve them with the motion for -- or this amended motion for the mediation procedures. And I know that's burdensome in some respects. I'm not suggesting it's not. But if you want to go through this process and not have people challenge it, ultimately, that might be the better way to proceed. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, that's a fair\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 58 of 112\n\n58\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 comment. And I think -- a couple of thoughts in response. First, as I understand it, again, from talking to my team, who's been primarily dealing with the service issues, we have been able to serve the summons and complaint on all of the Defendants who are located in the United States, and I don't expect that it would be a huge problem. It may obviously be some cost to the estate, but I think we could feasibly go ahead and serve the motion, which under the Rules, can primarily be done by mail -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BASSETT: -- on all the Defendants, as well. The one other thought I have in response, which relates to another issue, is that I -- while we're happy to do this as an accommodation, I think it could be a very useful exercise both, to eliminate objections, and some of the Defendants, frankly, may have good suggestions that make the mediation procedures better, so I think that's great, but I don't think it is necessarily a requirement before the Court enters an order like this, that all parties have notice and an opportunity -- I mean, the Court already -- and we've cited precedent to this when we did it previously -- but the Court entered the avoidance actions procedures order prior to the complaints even being filed. And those -- THE COURT: That was a little different, though, and what it did was it gave 60 days, an additional 60 days,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 59 of 112\n\n59\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 which I envisioned as a time for you and all the trustee's - and the people on the trustee's team to have discussions with the Defendants' counsel, even before there might be mediation, right, because if these buckets are created and there's a bucket of what -- I'm going to use the trustee's example, a business, like a FedEx, then you might be able to have a discussion and a resolution with FedEx before anybody files a notice of appearance or an answer, right. That's the way I envisioned the avoidance procedures were to benefit that, to be beneficial to, gee, we might be able to actually -- instead of starting to incur a lot of fees and costs, and you're going to have to -- I'm not suggesting that fees and costs are not going to be incurred -- but that you would be able to say, Okay, here's 40 of them -- and maybe that's not the right number -- that we can settle right now, so let's just do that.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, I understand that and I think there is a distinction, certainly, between that motion and the current mediation procedures motion. I do think that the current mediation procedures motion is also beneficial to the Defendants in that they no longer have an answer deadline, right. They have an appearance deadline, not a substantive response deadline.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: Well, the current motion doesn't say that. The amended motion --\n\n 60 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. BASSETT: The amended motion will. THE COURT: -- that you're going to file is going to say that. MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. That's the intent. But the real reason I raise this, too, is that it does create a bigger issue for the Defendants, who are located abroad, because there's just no practical way any of those Defendants, let alone all of them -- and by the way, Your Honor, I don't have -- THE COURT: Well, that may be why you have to put things in certain buckets, right. I mean, there's got to be some adversary -- well, maybe I'm wrong. I mean, I didn't look at them. I'm not going to look at them unless and until it's necessary for the Court to look at them, right. But I would think, but maybe I'm wrong, that there are adversary proceedings in which all of the Defendants are in the United States. MR. BASSETT: That's true, Your Honor. I don't think it'll make -- there would necessarily be a substantive distinction in those claims, subject to maybe some personal jurisdiction arguments, I suppose. But the point I was trying to make was just that it would be the trustee's preference that whatever mediation procedures are entered are uniform and apply to all the Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 60 of 112\n\n 61 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 Defendants. THE COURT: I understand. MR. BASSETT: And part of the issue, obviously, is if you get to have a second set for foreign Defendants or (indiscernible), even those aren't going to be answered on the same timeline. THE COURT: Well, then you need to think about how you want to deal with that. MR. BASSETT: And my suggestion was that this order would apply across the board, even as to those foreign Defendants. THE COURT: But I don't know that you -- you know, how are you going to do that? How are you going to bind foreign Defendants who haven't been served, but you can bind U.S. Defendants who have been served who didn't give you any comments? MR. BASSETT: And, again, Your Honor, it's the same logic that underlied the avoidance action procedures. I understand the distinction the Court is drawing. THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's the same. MR. BASSETT: I understand that. THE COURT: Because it was really with regard to, we were very specific in the avoidance procedures about what the time frame was to serve U.S. Defendants and Defendants outside of the United States. And the time frames that then Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 61 of 112\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 62 of 112\n\n| 1 | were triggered from that service were in that order.
And |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | what the rules require, with regard to Defendants outside of |\n| 3 | the United States, is to give additional time for service |\n| 4 | and/or that out-of-United States Defendant to figure out what |\n| 5 | they're going to do, whether they're going to retain counsel |\n| 6 | or not, right.
That's what the Rules say. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Right.
Understood. |\n| 8 | But, Your Honor, that's not changing, though, |\n| 9 | right, because -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
No, that's not changing at all. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Right. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
And so, I'm not suggesting that should |\n| 13 | change, but I'm saying I don't know if you can bind the |\n| 14 | Defendants outside of the United States in the same if you |\n| 15 | just served the Defendants in the United States with the |\n| 16 | motion for -- the amended motion for an order providing for |\n| 17 | mediation procedures as part of the avoidance actions. |\n| 18 | You know, maybe you can, but I'm sitting here and |\n| 19 | the issue I have -- it's not an issue -- a concern is you |\n| 20 | want this to work.
That's the whole point.
You want this to |\n| 21 | work.
You want this to be a process that goes forward and |\n| 22 | hopefully -- but, you know, we all know it may not happen -- |\n| 23 | but hopefully resolves a great portion of these adversary |\n| 24 | proceedings without the need for trial, because in most of |\n| 25 | these adversary proceedings, and you can all tell me that -- |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 63 of 112\n\n63\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I'm using most as more than 50 percent -- I don't know what the percentage is -- but in most of these adversary proceedings, we're not dealing with novel issues of law; we're dealing with preferences and fraudulent transfers and fraudulent conveyances. That's what we're dealing with, right. And the whole (indiscernible) reason to do this is to try to see if these can be resolved for both sides of the equation, not just the trustee's side, but the Defendants' side, without having to incur a lot of time and costs and energy. But I think you need to think about the foreign Defendants. And I don't think -- you know, I will say one thing to the Defendants, if you're not a foreign Defendant,\n\n14 15 16 17 18 I'm not going to listen to whatever argument you make about a foreign Defendant. It doesn't matter. You can make whatever argument you want to make about your Defendant in the United States. I don't want to hear that I want to make this argument for all the Defendants.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All the Defendants, they want to make their argument, they can make their argument. You're here for your arguments; that's who you're here for. But that requires that there be service on the Defendants so they can determine whether they want to make an argument or raise issues. It isn't -- the motion is not on the calendar yet. It hasn't been addressed yet, other than in the context of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 64 of 112\n\n64\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 this status conference. So, there's a couple of things we can do. We can do nothing today. You can think about it and we can come back for a further status conference. You can say, I want you to figure out, Judge, whether or not you're going to set an objection deadline or set a deadline by which all the comments have to be given to the trustee, then have an objection deadline, then have a hearing deadline, a hearing date. I can do that, too, or I can just set the matter for hearing because I think it should be set for hearing and then we can go from there. I think those are the three options. I'm not sure what other option, but you can all take -- if you want me to take a recess and y'all want to talk about it, that's fine, too. This is a status conference, so it's not as if anyone has been completely - has their roadmap completely in line, in my opinion, at this point. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I think I may be helpful to take a five-minute recess. THE COURT: Yeah, I think we should take a recess and then you can all talk about it, okay. Why don't we take a little bit more than a fiveminute recess. It's a few minutes before 3:00. Why don't I come back at 3:15, okay. The Court is in recess. (Recess taken at 2:58 p.m.)\n\n 65 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 resumed at 3:16 p.m.) THE CLERK: All rise. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is now (indiscernible) after recess. The Honorable Julie Manning presiding. THE COURT: Please be seated. So we're going to keep the windows -- the doors open so the alarm won't go off again. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: I think she's unplugged -- MS. CLAIBORN: I unplugged it. THE COURT: Oh, you did? Okay. MR. BASSETT: You never know how bad the air quality is. THE COURT: It didn't say dead; it just said poor, so I think there was -- (Laughter) THE COURT: I think that the air quality isn't that great. Did you -- there was -- that door was open for a reason. Would somebody mind -- MR. DESPINS: There was a stopper. THE COURT: There was a stopper there so we can all breathe. (Laughter) Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 65 of 112\n\n 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: Thank you, Attorney Baer. I appreciate that. So we are back on the record after the recess. And I don't know, Trustee Despins, is there anything you want to report or trustee -- or Attorney Bassett, excuse me? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. Again, for the record, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. So we used the time, I think, fairly efficiently. We had a conversation with defense counsel. Obviously, anyone who feels necessary can correct me if I get it wrong or if they object to the procedures that I outline, but what we talked about was that we would -- that the trustee would make the revisions to the order that we've already discussed and any others that we are prepared to make right now, so we are then presenting a revised, proposed order with our motion. We will then file a certificate of service indicating that we have served the motion and that revised proposed order on the Defendants by this Friday. Thereafter, the parties, the Defendants would have 21 days to object. We initially had wanted something closer to 10 or 14. Some of Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 66 of 112\n\n23 24 25 the Defendants said that it would be helpful to have additional time to submit comments, work through those, and then do an objection, if necessary, so we ultimately -- we're\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24
Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31
Page 67 of
112 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 67 |\n| 1 | willing to say 21 days and we would -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Twenty-one days from March 22nd? |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
Twenty-one days from this Friday, |\n| 4 | which would be -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Which is March 22nd. |\n| 6 | Okay.
Go ahead.
I just want to make sure I |\n| 7 | understand the dates. |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
And then the idea, sort of |\n| 9 | consistent with the discussions that occurred earlier, would |\n| 10 | be that parties would have an opportunity to, obviously, |\n| 11 | discuss any changes they have or want to suggest.
You know, |\n| 12 | we'll try to accommodate as many of those as we can.
To the |\n| 13 | extent that objections are filed, those will be filed, and, |\n| 14 | thereafter, you know, we'll file a reply on a week after that |\n| 15 | or whatever the Court thinks would work and then have a |\n| 16 | hearing. |\n| 17 | And then whatever order the Court might enter |\n| 18 | following that hearing would be an order that is binding on |\n| 19 | the parties who were served and had an opportunity to object |\n| 20 | to the motion.
As to anyone who has not been served, whether |\n| 21 | that's a foreign Defendant or others, we will have to deal |\n| 22 | with those in due course.
But, generally, the trustee is |\n| 23 | comfortable with the process that I've outlined and we think |\n| 24 | it should work. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So let's step back so I make |\n| | |\n\n 68 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 sure I understand. I understand, but I want to get dates. So by this Friday, the 22nd of March, the trustee is going to file and serve an amended order or motion? I'm sorry. Are you doing both? MR. BASSETT: I would anticipate that it would just be the motion that we filed with a revised proposed order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: But as we evaluate that, if we need to file an additional cover motion with it, we may do that. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. And then you're going to file and you're going to serve by the 22nd; is that right? MR. BASSETT: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So then everybody will have until April 12th to file a written objection? That's the objection deadline? That's 21 days. MR. BASSETT: Don't have any calendar open, Your Honor, but if it's 21 days, then that's correct. THE COURT: That's 21 days. And then what happens after that? We have a hearing when? MR. BASSETT: Subject to the Court's availability, obviously, the trustee would like the opportunity to submit a reply, if necessary, in response to any objections that might Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 68 of 112\n\n 69 Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 69 of 112\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 that would be sufficient and then we could have a hearing. THE COURT: All right. Let me take a look at the calendar, please.\n\nbe filed. Like, if we had, you know, 5 to 7 days to do that,\n\n5 6 7 Now, April 12th is a Friday and that's the objection deadline and you want an opportunity to file a response, which I understand.\n\n8 9 10 MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, we don't need that much time. By the middle of that next week should be fine. MR. DESPINS: The 17th.\n\n11 12 MR. BASSETT: The 17th, is that Wednesday? MR. DESPINS: Yeah.\n\n13 14 15 MR. BASSETT: The 17th would be okay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, we can either do the hearing on Monday the 22nd or Tuesday the 23rd in the afternoon.\n\n16 17 MR. BASSETT: Either of those works for the trustee, Your Honor.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Then why don't we say Tuesday the 23rd at 1:00 p.m.? I think you need an order saying - having these dates in or you'll have to create a notice with these dates, Attorney Bassett. Whichever way you prefer, I don't really -- I mean, I guess you would -- I would like you to create a notice, right, that you -- I don't know. If you'd rather have an order, that's fine. It could just say order -- you know, scheduling order in connection with\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 70 of 112\n\n 70 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 amended motion to modify avoidance procedures with mediation procedures or something. MR. BASSETT: We're happy to submit a proposed order later today or tomorrow. THE COURT: That would be fine, thank you. All right. So, then, as far as the status conference is concerned on the mediation issues, that seems to resolve the mediation issues; is that correct? MR. BASSETT: I believe so, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then, with regard to the pending motions to stay, the two adversary proceedings, the omnibus alter-ego and the -- MR. BASSETT: Civil RICO, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- civil RICO, summonses haven't even been issued in those cases, have they? MR. BASSETT: I believe they have finally been issued, Your Honor, and I think we have actually served those complaints on the Defendants located in the United States, as well. THE COURT: But you'd like an order staying those right now? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: And in my recollection, even if the order doesn't say it, what it will say -- what it can say in it is that if someone believes the stay should be lifted,\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24
Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31
Page 71 of
112 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 71 |\n| 1 | they can file a motion seeking to lift the stay. |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
I believe that is in the order, Your |\n| 3 | Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Even if it isn't, we'll put it in. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
It's a necessary right that anyone |\n| 6 | would have, in my view. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
But I think it needs to be stated in |\n| 8 | the order, okay.
So those are -- under our Local Rules in |\n| 9 | the District of Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, when a motion |\n| 10 | is filed in an adversary proceeding, and I know it was filed |\n| 11 | in the main case, too, but it's seeking relief in the |\n| 12 | adversary proceeding, those two adversary proceedings, the |\n| 13 | Court may or may not schedule a hearing.
It's within the |\n| 14 | Court's discretion and I see no reason to schedule a hearing |\n| 15 | on those two motions to stay, those two specific adversary |\n| 16 | proceedings and, therefore, the order will enter, subject to |\n| 17 | if it doesn't say what I just said it said, I'm going to -- |\n| 18 | will add that, you know, the parties can seek relief from |\n| 19 | that order. |\n| 20 | Attorney Kindseth? |\n| 21 | MR. KINDSETH:
May I be heard, Your Honor? |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | Stephen Kindseth for the Defendant Mei Guo. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
In what adversary proceeding? |\n\n 72 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. KINDSETH: And this is in the RICO action, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KINDSETH: We did have some comments, which we shared with Attorney Bassett yesterday and I believe -- THE COURT: As to the proposed order? MR. KINDSETH: Concerning the proposed order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KINDSETH: We are in agreement with the substance of the stay. We did ask for some clarifications and I believe the trustee is receptive to those; in particular, we just wanted to make clear, and we understand the policy behind the motion, which is in summary, that discovery should not be pursued while there's a separate criminal proceeding in which the government would perceive a possible prejudice or the parties to the criminal proceeding perceive some prejudice in discovery being obtained or witnesses that are anticipated to be testifying in the criminal proceeding may be deposed. And so in terms of the purpose of the stay, we're supportive of that stay entering; however, we wanted to make clear, as we have filed a motion to withdraw the reference, we wanted to make sure that there's some clarity in the order that the stay is not staying the District Court or the District Court's consideration to the motion -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 72 of 112\n\n73\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: Well, why would you want the District Court to consider a motion to withdraw the reference when the adversary proceeding is stayed? Isn't that a waste of judicial resources? MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, the purpose behind the stay, as I understand it, is to ensure that the parties to the criminal proceeding are not prejudiced through discovery, including documents or witness depositions. Having the legal merits of the withdrawal of the reference heard, which, in part, raises the legal issues of the validity of claims in no way prejudices the parties to the criminal proceeding. And as the allegation -- THE COURT: Well, it may not prejudice the parties, but it may prejudice the District Court. Why would we put the District Court in that position -- MR. KINDSETH: Because we -- THE COURT: -- where they don't need to determine a withdrawal of the reference if the adversary proceeding is stayed? MR. KINDSETH: We believe that the allegations against our client are completely without merit -- THE COURT: I understand that. That has nothing to do with what I just said. MR. KINDSETH: There's no reason -- THE COURT: So, why would you put the District\n\n 74 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 Court in that position? MR. KINDSETH: Because we would like the case in that regard to proceed. THE COURT: What if they deny your motion? MR. KINDSETH: Then the stay would be in effect in all other regards. We believe the District Court should hear it. We have an interest in having the adjudication of legal issues. There are some very serious allegations that are being made against my client, which we believe are completely unfounded -- THE COURT: Do you really think the District Court is rule on the motion to withdraw the reference when the adversary proceeding is stayed? MR. KINDSETH: I think -- THE COURT: Do you really think that? MR. KINDSETH: I think it should be clear that the Bankruptcy Court should not stay the District Court. THE COURT: But the Bankruptcy Court isn't staying the District Court, Attorney Kindseth. That wasn't my question. MR. KINDSETH: And so we would like to have it clearly provide that this Court is not staying -- and you're right, Your Honor, the District Court will take up in its due course, the withdrawal of the reference and we're simply Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 74 of 112\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 75 of 112\n\n75\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 seeking clarity in the order, which I believe the trustee did not oppose in the order, that the proceeding concerning the motion to withdraw the reference is not being stayed. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: Just understand that, you know, the District Court has many other matters to deal with, besides motions to withdraw the reference. So, you can do whatever you want, but I don't think that you should have an expectation that they're going to act on it when the underlying adversary proceeding is stayed. MR. KINDSETH: I appreciate that, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, just briefly in response to Attorney Kindseth's comments. So, he's correct, we did briefly discussions this issue. The trustee does not have a problem with making the obviously clear, to the extent that that's necessary, which is that Your Honor is not going to be telling the District Court what to do. That said, we agree entirely that I can't imagine any world there would be in which the District Court would want to spend the time and effort considering this motion in an adversary proceeding that's stayed. So I imagine we will file a notice of some kind with the District Court to make the District Court aware of the stay once it enters, but that's not the same thing as this Court instructing the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 76 of 112\n\n| District Court what to do.
And if that's what Attorney |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Kindseth is concerned about, we have no issue. |\n| THE COURT:
This Court has no authority to |\n| instruct the District Court what to do. |\n| MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
That's very clear. |\n| Okay.
So you don't have an agreed-upon order; is |\n| that what you're telling me? |\n| MR. BASSETT:
We'll work it out. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
So, will you -- when -- when do |\n| you think that order will be submitted, those orders, because |\n| it's too -- well, yours is only in one, so I don't know.
You |\n| only represent Mei Guo in the RICO action, not in the alter |\n| ego action, correct? |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
I -- we haven't filed an |\n| appearance, yet, but we will be representing her in that. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Well get -- |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
But I'm speaking on her behalf in |\n| that regard, as well. |\n| THE COURT:
Get that appearance on file, please. |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you. |\n| THE COURT:
So how much time do you both need? |\n| Are you think you're going to do it by the end of this?
I |\n| don't have a problem with whatever time frame you want, I |\n| just need to know. |\n| |\n\n 77 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. BASSETT: I would say by tomorrow. MR. KINDSETH: We'll do it in -- if you would set a seven-day deadline, just to make sure, but we'll do it in days. THE COURT: I'm going to do it by this Friday, the 22nd. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So that addresses the stay motion -- stay motions, I should say. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I just want to -- this is Luc Despins for the record -- I want to be clear, the stay of the alter-ego, omnibus complaint for alter-ego does not stay any actions that are already pending; that means Greenwich Land, whatever remains of HCHK -- THE COURT: That were pending before the avoidance actions began -- MR. DESPINS: Sure. Correct. THE COURT: -- that's correct. MR. DESPINS: Pending before the motion -- the complaint for alter-ego was -- exactly, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: And, also, there's a carve-out for an entity called K Legacy. THE COURT: I saw that. I did see that. And I see that they're named Defendants. Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 77 of 112\n\n78\n\n1 2 All right. So the stay orders will be submitted on or before March 22nd.\n\n3 4 So, what else do we need to discuss at the status conference?\n\n5\n\nMR. BASSETT: Think that's all, Your Honor.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. The only thing I would note for the parties is that -- or for the trustee, not for the parties -- certain people have sent emails to the Clerk's Office about, I suppose they're Defendants in adversary proceedings, I'm not really sure. I'm not looking at them. We don't look at letters in that vein. We're not going to docket them. I think what will happen is the Clerk of the Court will send a letter to those parties who sent emails to the courtroom deputy email box and say, you either need to file a pleading or you need to get in touch with Trustee Despins. That's what we're going to do. I just want you - there's two, only two, is what my understanding is. But I don't even know if they are a Defendant. I'm not going to put it on the docket because I don't think it's appropriate under the circumstances of this case in the adversary proceedings, with regard to confidentiality and protective orders. I have no idea whether these people should be part of the action. I am not going to worry about that. The Clerk of the Court will send correspondence to say, you can't file anything in email to the courtroom\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 79 of 112\n\n| 1 | deputy.
If you would like to file something, you must file |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | them in the adversary proceeding to which you have an |\n| 3 | interest and/or you should contact Trustee Despins, okay. |\n| 4 | That's what we're going to do with regard to these two emails |\n| 5 | that the Courtroom Deputy email box received, and I suppose |\n| 6 | if any other kind of correspondence like that is received, |\n| 7 | because it just -- with the confidentiality issues, I'm not |\n| 8 | going to have to worry about whether or not something should |\n| 9 | be docketed if it's received that way, okay? |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
Anything else? |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't think so. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, I think that |\n| 14 | concludes the status conference.
And then anybody that was |\n| 15 | only here to the status conference is obviously, as you |\n| 16 | could, regardless -- I don't have to tell you -- but you're |\n| 17 | obviously allowed to leave if you'd like to. |\n| 18 | COUNSEL:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 20 | COUNSEL:
Thanks again. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | All right.
Then, let's turn to, I think we're now |\n| 23 | on the fee applications and/or the application to employ |\n| 24 | counsel; is that right? |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 80 of 112\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
Go right ahead, please. |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
So, perhaps, I'll start with the |\n| 3 | application to retain counsel, and this is Swiss counsel. |\n| 4 | The name of the law firm is Praeger.
As we mentioned in the |\n| 5 | motion that was filed with the Court and there was a revised |\n| 6 | order at Docket 3004, we need to retain Swiss counsel because |\n| 7 | we've discovered through our investigation that there is |\n| 8 | activity in Switzerland, transfers made, you know, large |\n| 9 | transfers made.
There may be assets there. |\n| 10 | And Swiss law does not recognize the trustee, even |\n| 11 | though our system asserts that the Court has jurisdiction |\n| 12 | over all assets of the debtor, wherever located.
The in |\n| 13 | Switzerland, the trustee in this case does not exist, unless |\n| 14 | there is a recognition sought and obtained, and that's what |\n| 15 | we need to do. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
So we filed a motion to retain the |\n| 18 | Praeger firm.
Their fees, Your Honor, are stated in the |\n| 19 | application.
They're in the five hundred to \\$900 range. |\n| 20 | And we've had discussions with the U.S. Trustee |\n| 21 | regarding their retention.
We resolved a number of issues, |\n| 22 | but we're unable to resolve two issues which deal with, |\n| 23 | first, they, the Praeger firm have a -- it's a very small |\n| 24 | firm -- they don't have an administrative, you know, system |\n| 25 | that allows them to track expenses, other than large expenses |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 81 of 112\n\n81\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 like travel, et cetera -- and, by the way, there's not going to be those expenses here -- but expenses such as copying, phone charges, et cetera. They're not equipped to deal -- to capture that, and so what they have, as a standard provision, is that they charge typically 3 percent of their fees -- the equivalent of 3 percent of their fees as spare expense charge.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 And, obviously, the U.S. Trustee is concerned, and I understand it, is that that's not the way our system works, where you're supposed to have fees and expenses separately and the expenses are supposed to be documented. And we fully understand that. We've explained that to Praeger and basically, they said that they're just not equipped to do that because they're a small firm. And we have agreed to reduce that deemed expense to 2 percent of their fees, so now we're talking about, frankly, not a lot of dollars.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I understand the principal objection by the U.S. Trustee on this, but in this case, Your Honor, under these very special circumstances, we would ask the Court to allow them to -- essentially, we could do it the other way, which is to increase their rates by 2 percent and they would have no expenses, but they want it to be clear that the way to do it is the charge of 3 percent of fees for expenses and in this case, they've agreed to reduce it to 2 percent and we would ask the Court to allow this.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 82 of 112\n\n82\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Even though we fully understand the principle of the fact that they're supposed to be documented expenses, here, we believe the amount involved couldn't be more than about 3 percent or 2 percent, because they've agreed to it, could not be material at all. It would be like a few thousand dollars at most. I can't believe it will be more than that, practically.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 So the other issue is the limitation on liability and I know that's a hot button for Your Honor, and we've had discussions with them about this. Their typical engagement letter contains an exclusion for liability for negligence, simple negligence, which is very different than the way we have, subject to a cap that they negotiated. And in this case, they've agreed to increase the cap to \\$5 million, so that if there is a malpractice, we would have a claim limited to \\$5 million.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Again, given their role, I just can't believe that -- well, first of all, I assume that there will be no malpractice -- but even if there were, that the damages could be more than \\$5 million. There is a carve-out for gross negligence or intentional, you know, an intentional act, so, therefore, there's no liability, no cap on that. But for simple negligence or malpractice, there's a cap of \\$5 million.\n\n25\n\nI had several discussions with the partner there\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 83 of 112\n\n83\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 about the fact that in the U.S. we don't do that. It's hard to conceive that there's any cap for simple negligence. But -- and I said, look, I'm going to make representations to the Court. You better be sure they're true and he said that their engagements also contain such a cap. He said that normally it's \\$2 million for simple negligence and he agreed to increase it after talking to their insurance carrier. So, Your Honor, these are really the issues and we circulated a revised order at Docket 3004, which -- and if you look at pages 13 of 14 of Document 3004 and also 14 of 14, you see these changes reflected, and other changes that the U.S. Trustee, in that case, had agreed to. So, essentially, these are the issues: the 2 percent of deemed expenses and the issue of cap on liabilities. So I'll pass the podium to the U.S. Trustee on that. THE COURT: And I have the order in front of me, so I know what you're talking about, and I have reviewed it. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. The U.S. Trustee, as Trustee Despins noted, filed a limited objection, and that's at ECF 2997 on the docket and the two issues are as discussed by Trustee Despins.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 84 of 112\n\n84\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I'd like to talk about the limitation of liability first. So, the U.S. Trustee is opposed to any limitation of liability for any professionals engaged to represent and act as a fiduciary on behalf of the estates and that's exactly what this application seeks to approve. There isn't a basis for such a waiver. It's not in the best interests of the estate and it exposes the estate to unnecessary risk should there be an event that no one would like to talk about, but might actually happen. So the U.S. Trustee remains firm on the idea that there should be no limitation on liability for any professional, such as an attorney, who's representing the estate. With respect to the issue of the expense reimbursement, that also is a nonstarter. I searched and\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 wasn't able to find any case anywhere that's been reported where there's been an employment agreement based on the reimbursement expenses based on a percentage approach. I don't discredit the position that Praeger Dreifuss is articulating that they don't have a system in place. I think that that is, by whatever reason it is, it's by choice, but that doesn't make it appropriate for the estate.\n\n22 23 24 25 There isn't any methodology for anyone to be able to determine whether or not that makes any sense and the Code is very clear, as are the Rules and the U.S. Trustee Fee Guidelines that there's a methodology for getting your\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 85 of 112\n\n| 1 | expenses reimbursed and it requires itemization.
It requires |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | documentation.
It also requires them to be actual and |\n| 3 | necessary.
None of that is met by the proposed percentage |\n| 4 | approach that's being requested here. |\n| 5 | And so the U.S. Trustee would ask the Court to |\n| 6 | enforce the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules and the U.S. |\n| 7 | Trustee Fee Guidelines, as currently structured. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Any response, Trustee Despins? |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
No, I knew the issues, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | I understand them.
This is the second or third firm that |\n| 13 | I've tried to retain in Switzerland and I would say that |\n| 14 | there's a prejudice to us if we cannot retain them. |\n| 15 | I do understand the issues, Your Honor.
I've |\n| 16 | explained to them that that's not the way we operate and they |\n| 17 | said that, you know, that is what they were prepared to agree |\n| 18 | to.
So, I apologize for putting you in this position, but |\n| 19 | that's the best I was able to accomplish and under the |\n| 20 | exceptional circumstances of this case, because we believe |\n| 21 | that there are -- again, I don't want to say there are, but |\n| 22 | there could be material assets in Switzerland that this |\n| 23 | minor, very minor deviation from the Rules should be |\n| 24 | authorized.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24
Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31
Page 86 of
112 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 86 |\n| 1 | Anything further, Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 2 | MS. CLAIBORN:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
All right.
I'm going to take a look |\n| 4 | at that after we're done today, so I'll take it under |\n| 5 | advisement, but I will rule in the next day or two.
It's not |\n| 6 | going to be something that I'm going to sit on.
I just want |\n| 7 | to go back and look at a few things. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
So, then, we can move to the fee |\n| 11 | applications, and I believe that the first one was the |\n| 12 | O'Sullivan McCormack firm.
And you're familiar with them, |\n| 13 | they are counsel to Genever in the action against AIG and the |\n| 14 | application can be found at Docket 2928. |\n| 15 | And the relief sought in the application was |\n| 16 | compensation in the amount of \\$191,730 for professional |\n| 17 | services from July 27th, '23, through December 31st, 2023, |\n| 18 | and a reimbursement of \\$5,240. |\n| 19 | No objections were filed, Your Honor, and the U.S. |\n| 20 | Trustee filed a statement of no objection at Docket 2989. |\n| 21 | And a copy of the proposed order granting the O'Sullivan |\n| 22 | McCormack fee application was filed with the application at |\n| 23 | Docket 2928. |\n| 24 | I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, |\n| 25 | Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n 87 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: I do not have any questions. Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: And I have nothing to add, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone wish to be heard on the first interim fee application of O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, I will say, Trustee Despins, that I have reviewed the application, the fees and expenses sought here to be reasonable and necessary under the specific circumstances of this case. I agree that there are no filed objections to the application and the Office of the United States Trustee has filed a statement of no objection. I've looked at the proposed order, which is on pages 10 -- I'm sorry -- 19 and 20, I'm sorry, of ECF Number 2928 and it is fine, other than -- I'm turning to the courtroom deputy -- we just need to add today's hearing date to, it looks like the fifth line on the first page of the order, please. And other than that, everything looks fine and the application is granted and the order will enter. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: The next application is the Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 87 of 112\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 88 of 112\n\n| 1 | application for Kroll, LLC.
It is their first interim fee |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | application.
As you know, they are the forensic experts that |\n| 3 | the trustee retained.
That was filed, Your Honor, on |\n| 4 | February 16, 2024, at Docket 2929.
The relief sought was |\n| 5 | compensation in the amount of \\$1,019,095.55 for professional |\n| 6 | services from August 2nd, 2023, through December 31st, 2023, |\n| 7 | and a reimbursement of \\$93,702.91 in expenses. |\n| 8 | No objections were filed, Your Honor, and the U.S. |\n| 9 | Trustee filed a statement of no objection at Docket 2991. |\n| 10 | I would mention, Your Honor, that, you know, |\n| 11 | Kroll's role was critical during this period because we had |\n| 12 | the February 15 deadline that was coming up during that |\n| 13 | period.
They did all the accounting and the tracing of funds |\n| 14 | that was the basis for the filing of these avoidance actions |\n| 15 | that's sought in the aggregate in excess of \\$600 million, |\n| 16 | and, therefore, we believe that these fees should be |\n| 17 | approved, Your Honor.
But I'm happy to answer any questions |\n| 18 | you may have. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions, thank |\n| 20 | you. |\n| 21 | Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I would just like to |\n| 23 | make one comment, which is that there was a prior reduction |\n| 24 | agreed to by Kroll that's already incorporated into this fee |\n| 25 | application and I just wanted to make the Court aware of |\n| | |\n\n 89 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 that. THE COURT: Okay. That's good to know. Thank you. I'm not sure if I did know that, or if I did, I may have forgotten, so I appreciate that. So the then, the proposed order, is what you're saying, Attorney Claiborn, that's part of the application already includes those reduced fees? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. I have reviewed the first interim application of Kroll LLC for compensation and reimbursement of expenses from August 2nd, 2023, through December 31st, 2023. I have been reminded that there was a reduction in the fees sought in the application already and then was actually incurred, I should say -- incurred, excuse me, by Kroll. The review of the fees and expenses indicate to me that the fees and expenses were necessary and appropriate under the very specific circumstances of this case. No one has filed any written objection to the application. There is no one objecting to the application that is in court today and the United States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection. And I would just say to the courtroom deputy, again, on page 1 of the proposed order, which appears at 19 and 20 of ECF 2929, we just need to add today's hearing date, Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 89 of 112\n\n 90 Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 90 of 112\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 again, as well, and then the order will be fine and can enter. And for all those reasons, the first interim at the application of Kroll is granted. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Moving on to the application of Harney Westwood & Reigels. These are our BVI counsel, British Virgin Islands counsel, Your Honor. This is their second fee application filed on February 29th, Docket 2933. The relief sought was compensation sought in the amount of \\$101,597 for professional services from the period of August 1st through December 31st and the reimbursement of \\$1,825 in expenses during that same period. I know there was conversation between Harney and the U.S. Trustee, but I'm not familiar with the details. But I know that no objections were filed and that the U.S. Trustee filed a statement of no objection at Docket 2990, Your Honor. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. MS. CLAIBORN: I have nothing to add, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. I have no questions, thank you. MR. DESPINS: And so the proposed order is attached to the application at 2933.\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes, the proposed order is at pages 16 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | and 17 of 2933.
And I have reviewed the second interim fee |\n| 3 | application of counsel.
The fees and expenses sought are |\n| 4 | reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of this case |\n| 5 | and all of the related proceedings. |\n| 6 | No one has filed any written objection to the |\n| 7 | second interim fee application and there is no one |\n| 8 | participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the |\n| 9 | second interim fee application. |\n| 10 | The United States Trustee's Office has filed a |\n| 11 | statement of no objection.
I'm looking at the proposed |\n| 12 | order, submitted with the second interim fee application, |\n| 13 | which is on page 16 and 17 of 2933, and it appears to be in |\n| 14 | order, other than adding today's hearing date on page 1. |\n| 15 | So for all those reasons, the second interim fee |\n| 16 | application is granted and the proposed order will enter. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
The next application is the |\n| 20 | application of Epiq Corporate Restructuring.
This is the |\n| 21 | third interim fee application filed on February 16, 2024, at |\n| 22 | Docket 2930 for the period between September 1st and |\n| 23 | December 31st of last year.
They're seeking -- they were |\n| 24 | seeking compensation of \\$10,417 and a reimbursement of |\n| 25 | expenses of \\$1,606.43. |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 92 of 112\n\n| 1 | There was extensive discussions between the U.S. |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Trustee and Epiq and there was a reduction of fees that was |\n| 3 | agreed to.
So the fees reduced from \\$10,417 to \\$7,000 -- |\n| 4 | from \\$10,417 to \\$7,862, so a reduction of \\$2500 or so.
And a |\n| 5 | reimbursement of expenses -- no, I think there was no change |\n| 6 | to the expenses, only to the fees, and the U.S. Trustee filed |\n| 7 | a statement at Docket 2992, a statement of no objection. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So, what proposed order am I looking |\n| 9 | at, then? |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I don't think I've seen a revised |\n| 11 | proposed order. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I don't think I have either.
That's |\n| 13 | the point. |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
We need to submit that to Your |\n| 15 | Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's fine. |\n| 17 | Go ahead, Attorney Claiborn.
I'm sorry. |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I was just going to say |\n| 19 | that the statement that I filed at ECF 2992 contains the |\n| 20 | amount of the correct figure that should be the approved fees |\n| 21 | and the approved expenses. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
Which is \\$7,862. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 93 of 112\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 MS. CLAIBORN: And there's no change to the expenses. MR. DESPINS: So, we would -- THE COURT: Well, I did look at the fees and expenses and I understood prior to the hearing that there was a reduction, I just didn't see the revised proposed order and that's fine. With those reduced fees and the expenses remaining the same, I do think that the fees are necessary and appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Again, the only issue was with regard to the fees and that was resolved after the U.S. Trustee filed their statement of reduced fees for all those -- and no one has filed any other written objection. There's no one participating in this hearing today that's objecting to the reduced fees and the expenses of Epiq. So for all those reasons, the interim application, which is their third interim application of Epiq is granted. And I'll need the trustee to submit a proposed order. MR. DESPINS: Will do, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: I'm going to say by Friday, if that's okay? MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. THE COURT: Okay. So that's granted. The Epiq\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 94 of 112\n\n| 1 | third interim fee application is granted.
Proposed order to |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | be submitted on or before and after March 22nd. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | And the next application is the application of |\n| 5 | Paul Hastings, the fourth interim fee application, also filed |\n| 6 | on February 19th, 2024, Docket 2935.
And the relief sought |\n| 7 | in the application was compensation in the amount of |\n| 8 | \\$6,911,034.50 for professional services between September 1st |\n| 9 | and December 31st and a reimbursement of expenses |\n| 10 | of \\$718,236.31. |\n| 11 | We've had extensive discussions with the U.S. |\n| 12 | Trustee which led to a fee reduction of \\$192,930, so almost |\n| 13 | \\$200,000, which would bring the fees allowed down to |\n| 14 | \\$6,718,104.50.
In addition, we had agreed to reduce our |\n| 15 | expenses by \\$3,518.70.
That's an error that we had caught on |\n| 16 | our own, so we had agreed to reduce our expenses by that |\n| 17 | amount. |\n| 18 | The U.S. Trustee filed its statement at |\n| 19 | Docket 2998, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I think, again, this may be a |\n| 21 | situation where we need a revised proposed order. |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
But, Attorney Claiborn, the statement |\n| 24 | that you filed, the amounts set forth in that statement are |\n| 25 | the amounts that the Office of the United States Trustee |\n| | |\n\n 95 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 asserts and has no objection to being awarded? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And to be clear, Your Honor, they would be awarded, but not paid in full because there's a 20 percent holdback. The actual amount after reduction for the 20 percent holdback that would be paid would be \\$5,374,483.60. THE COURT: And I saw in the other orders there were provisions about what was actually going to be paid versus what was awarded, so I understood that to part of the process of the applications, as submitted, and then this is the approval of those that have been submitted and some have been paid. So thank you, I understand that. So I've looked at the fees and expenses and I appreciate that the firm corrected a mistake with regard to the expenses. That's always helpful. I think the fees -- I find the fees are reasonable and necessary under the circumstances, the very specific circumstances of this case and the related proceedings, the numerous related proceedings. No one has filed any written objection to the fee application, the fourth interim fee application -- am I right, it's the fourth, right? MR. DESPINS: Yep. Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 95 of 112\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And that the U.S. Trustee's Office and |\n| 4 | Paul Hastings had several discussions regarding the amounts |\n| 5 | sought and there is an agreement on reduction, which the |\n| 6 | Court appreciates.
And under those circumstances, with the |\n| 7 | fourth interim application for compensation for Paul Hastings |\n| 8 | is granted and I would ask that a revised proposed order be |\n| 9 | submitted by Friday, March 22nd. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Will do, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
And I believe there are two fee |\n| 13 | applications remaining:
Pullman & Comley, counsel to the |\n| 14 | CEO, and also Mr. Skalka's firm, so I'll let them address |\n| 15 | those. |\n| 16 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MS. MAYHEW:
I appreciate it. |\n| 19 | Good afternoon, Your Honor, Kristin Mayhew, |\n| 20 | Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. |\n| 21 | Before the Court is Pullman & Comley's third |\n| 22 | interim application for allowance of compensation and |\n| 23 | reimbursement of expenses.
Pursuant to the application, |\n| 24 | Pullman & Comley is seeking fees in the amount of \\$89,835.50 |\n| 25 | and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of \\$392.14. |\n\n 97 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 Proper service of the fee application has been made and a cert of service was filed on February 20th the ECF 2937. Your Honor, no objections have been received and the United States Trustee has filed a statement of no objection at ECF 2988. And we would ask that Your Honor enter the proposed form of order that's attached to the application at ECF 2872-3. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: I have nothing to add, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I have reviewed the third interim fee application of Pullman & Comley, as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and I find that the fees and expenses are reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of the case. I do note that the Committee has been very conscientious about its fees and expenses since the -- I think I've noted this before -- but since the appointment of the trustee, but I would also agree that there are things and tasks that the Committee does still need to perform and I think the fees and expenses are reasonable under those circumstances. No one has filed a written objection to the third interim fee application. Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 97 of 112\n\n 98 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 United States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection. There's no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the third interim fee application. I would ask the Courtroom Deputy, just at the very bottom of the first page, if we could just add today's date. It just says that after the hearing on the application, if we could just say \"Held on May 19th [sic]\" so then when someone needs to know when it was held, they'll know. But other than that, I have no changes to the proposed order. So for all those reasons, the third interim fee application of Pullman & Comley is granted and the proposed order will enter. MS. MAYHEW: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. SKALKA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka on behalf of Neubert Pepe & Monteith or from Neubert Pepe & Monteith, on behalf of Neubert Pepe & Monteith's fourth interim application for compensation, which was filed on February 19th at Docket 2936. The fees sought by Neubert Pepe & Monteith cover the period of September 21st, 2023, through December 31st, 2023. The fees sought total \\$1,038,670 and also expenses of \\$34,929.96. The fees include a voluntary reduction of \\$5,945. A certificate of service reflecting the service of\n\n 99 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 application was filed on February 27th, 2024. We have received no objections to the application and the Office of the United States Trustee has filed a statement of no objection. Subject to the 20 percent holdback, which Neubert Pepe & Monteith has agreed to, we have filed a revised proposed order that does reflect that the 20 percent holdback will be in place. Attorney Claiborn asked that I revise that order, again, to make the specific reference to the amount of that holdback, which I will do, and file a revised order within - by Friday, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So I'm looking at a revised order, but you're saying it needs to be further revised? MR. SKALKA: Yes, Your Honor. The revised order makes reference to a defined term as the application period holdback. And I'm Attorney Claiborn has asked that I specify the amount of the holdback, which is in the next paragraph, but I will revise this slightly and put in that \\$203,734 figure. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I have looked at the fees and expenses of Neubert Pepe & Monteith in connection with the fourth interim allowance of compensation and reimbursement of expenses and I find that the fees and expenses are reasonable and necessary Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 99 of 112\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 100 of 112\n\n100\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 under the circumstances of this case and the many related proceedings. No one has filed any written objection to the fourth interim application. There is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the further interim application. I understand that you have worked with the United States Trustee on a revised proposed order granting the application and that it will be further revised. So for all those reasons, the fourth interim application of Neubert Pepe & Monteith is granted and the revised proposed order will be submitted on or before March 22nd. MR. SKALKA: Absolutely, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SKALKA: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. So if I'm correct, Trustee Despins, then I think we've taken care of everything at the 1:30 mark, even though we're at 4:00 p.m.; is that right? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So, then we have the two motions to dismiss that are on the calendar at 2:00 p.m. So I see counsel is approaching on their motions. I see counsel, Attorney Kindseth and Attorney Dell Fera that both of these motions -- I don't know. Obviously, you're both allowed to make an argument. I did see a\n\n 101 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 joinder, I think in part, so how do you plan to proceed this afternoon? I know that the two -- I understand that Counts 3 and 4 apply to one defendant and Counts 5 and 6 apply to the other, but I also see that the arguments are very similar. So however you want to proceed is fine. MR. DELLA FERA: So, Your Honor, is correct. The arguments are similar. Frankly, we thought it would be more efficient to have the arguments by -- appeared you'll have to forgive me, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Take your time. MR. DELLA FERA: -- the more recently joined Defendant Leading Shine New York. THE COURT: Leading Shine. MR. DELLA FERA: Sorry, Your Honor. Rather than file a separate motion with a separate hearing date for Leading Shine, we requested and Your Honor was considerate enough to allow us to argue the motion to dismiss on behalf of Leading Shine today. And as Your Honor points out, the counts that apply to each of those Defendants are separate and distinct. There's the third and fourth, with respect to Hudson Diamond New York and fifth and sixth, with respect to Leading Shine. The arguments are similar as we point out in our papers, Your Honor, given the jurisdictions of incorporation or formation Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 101 of 112\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 102 of 112\n\n102\n\n1 2 of these Defendants, different state law, specifically, New York and Delaware, would apply.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 In addition to Hudson Diamond New York and Leading Shine, the motion is filed on behalf of Defendants Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC and Ms. Mei Guo. The arguments are somewhat different, with respect to those Defendants, Your Honor; namely, that there are no claims or causes of action asserted against those particular Defendants. There are allegations included in the complaint with respect to the ownership interests or membership interests of Ms. Guo and/or Hudson Diamond Holding in Defendants that the trustee seeks relief from, but if Your Honor were to examine Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and even Claims 1 and 2, Your Honor, no prayer for relief is made against Ms. Guo or Hudson Diamond Holding.\n\n15 16 17 18 We would submit that as a result, the trustee has failed to state a cause of action against those two Defendants under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and Federal Bankruptcy Rule 7012.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With respect to the other Defendants, against whom there are claims for relief, we would submit -- again, not to belabor the point -- it's in the papers, Your Honor, that the Court lacks jurisdiction under the Wagoner rule and the in pari delicto doctrine, with respect to claims that the trustee seeks to bring against those Defendants, given the debtors' alleged and/or established at this point, Your Honor\n\n103\n\n1 2 3 made reference earlier today to certain findings that this Court has made with respect to beneficial ownership and alter-ego.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 But nonetheless, with respect to Hudson Diamond New York and Leading Shine, those Defendants would submit that pursuant to the in pari delicto doctrine and the Wagoner rule, that the trustee's claims do not appropriately sound against them given that the trustee stands in the shoes of Mr. Kwok, the debtor.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Similarly, the Leading Shine makes the same arguments and, again, based upon the arguments set forth in the briefing, Your Honor, those Defendants all six of those -- I'm sorry, all four of those Defendants submit that the complaint fails to state a claim. And, again, in particular, with respect to Ms. Guo and Hudson Diamond Holding, the absence of any prayer for relief, any claim or cause of action, we submit, should result in this Court dismissing the complaint, with respect to those two Defendants and for other reasons, with respect to all of them. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. Actually, may I approach the podium?\n\n104\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: Sure. MR. BASSETT: Again, for the record, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, I think the Court is likely aware at this point from our papers and the history of this case that, you know, all of the arguments that have been raised in the motions to dismiss that we are discussing today have already been made and ruled upon by this Court. The Court has already decided that allegations exactly like those contained in the complaint against these Defendants are sufficient to state a claim for alter-ego and/or beneficial ownership and the Court has already considered and rejected the applicability of the Wagoner rule and the in pari delicto defense on claims nearly identical to these. In fact, certain of the Defendants are collaterally estopped and/or barred by res judicata because they, themselves, were the subject to prior rulings from the Court on these issues; in particular, in this very adversary proceeding, the Court already decided Defendant Leading Shine's motion under Rule 55(c) to vacate the default. And while the Court did end up granting that motion, in the course of its analysis, as the Court is very much aware, I'm sure, ruled that Leading Shine had failed to set forth a meritorious defense. And the grounds for its meritorious\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 105 of 112\n\n105\n\n1 2 3 4 defense are the same grounds that it now raises in its motion to dismiss. So those arguments have already been presented to the Court in this very adversary proceeding and have been rejected.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 As to the remaining Defendants, I will take the Wagoner and in pari delicto defense argument first. The Court has decided that issue not only against Lamp Capital, but -- or sorry -- against Leading Shine, but I think in doing that, the Court referred back to the decision also in this adversary proceeding against Lamp Capital when the Court denied Lamp Capital's Rule 55(c) motion to vacate the default, and also the Court's prior ruling in the HK USA adversary proceeding, where the Court denied the Defendants, including Mei Guo, who's a Defendant here, their motion to dismiss and then ultimately granted summary judgment in the trustee's favor in that adversary proceeding.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In both of those rulings, in the case of Lamp Capital and in the case of HK USA, the Court appropriately recognized that the trustee was, in those cases, and is doing the same here, is bringing his claims under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code on the behalf of creditors. And there's very clear precedent, including the PepsiCo case from the Second Circuit, which indicates that the in pari delicto and with the Wagoner rule issue does not apply when the trustee is bringing claims on behalf of creditors, as opposed to\n\n1 2 3 claims that may be brought standing in the shoes of the debtor, under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. That is not the case here.\n\n106\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 That is also what distinguishes the Flanagan case, which Defendants are relied upon repeatedly from the District of Connecticut. The District Court in that case expressly noted that the successor to the trustee there had failed to bring his claims and, in fact, was time-barred from bringing his claims under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, therefore, the analysis of the Wagoner rule and in pari delicto in that case is irrelevant here. It was a 541 case, not a 544 case.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The Court also recognized, as it relates to Mei Guo, specifically, in the HK USA order, that Mei Guo falls within the insider exception to the in pari delicto doctrine. The Court clearly held that in the context of the HK USA case on the grounds that she is the debtor's daughter and she has been placed as the nominee owner of the alleged alter-ego and held that, therefore, the insider exception would apply even if the Section 544 issue were not dispositive.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 The same goes for Defendant Hudson Diamond New York, which is alleged to be the true, or is alleged to be the nominal owner of the entity and, therefore, under the control of the debtor. Also, the Court held in the HK USA adversary proceeding that for those same reasons, HK USA was\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 107 of 112\n\n107\n\n1 an insider that fell within the insider exception.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 So I think for all those -- the analysis that I went through and briefed, which the Court went through in much more detail in its prior rulings, are dispositive of the Wagoner and in pari delicto arguments that have been raised here.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 As it relates to the other two Defendants that counsel bucketed separately, that would be Hudson Diamond Holding and Mei Guo, this argument has also been decided by the Court and rejected previously. Essentially, the argument that counsel was making is that the complaint contains no or very few substantive allegations as to Hudson Diamond Holding and Mei Guo, therefore, it fails to state a claim.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But what that argument fails to appreciate is that the entire reason both of those Defendants are named Defendants here is that they are the ones who claimed to hold ownership interests in the alleged alter-ego entities, specifically, Hudson Diamond Holding is the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond New York and Mei Guo has asserted that she is the owner of Defendant Leading Shine. So the whole reason they are named Defendants is because if we prevail on our alter-ego and/or beneficial ownership claims, such that all assets and/or ownership interests in these entities are turned over to the estate, they are the ones who must be compelled to effectuate that turnover.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 108 of\n\n112\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The fact that we don't have many or few allegations against them should not be surprising at all, because that's the whole point: the debtor, not these Defendants, were the ones who controlled these entities, made decisions on their behalf, et cetera. They were mere nominee stand-ins. That's why they're not mentioned much in the complaint, but we need relief against them.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 And as I mentioned at the outset of this portion of the argument, the Court already decided this, too. In the Lamp Capital, in the decision denying Lamp Capital's Rule 55(c) order, the Court at page 23 of that order, reached the exact same conclusion. I won't read the entire quote, but the punchline from the Court's order was that the complaint was necessarily filed against Infinity Treasury. The Lamp entity's objection, to the contrary, lacks any merit.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 The argument there had been that Infinity Treasury should be dismissed because there weren't really many allegations against it. It was merely the nominee owner of Lamp Capital. The Court rejected that argument appropriately. I should reject it again here.\n\n22 23 24 25 Your Honor, I think that is all I had. I won't belabor the point, given that these issues have been discussed a number of times, but, obviously, if the Court has questions, I'm happy to address those.\n\n 109 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: I do not have any questions at this time. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Della Fera, is there anything else you would like to add? MR. DELLA FERA: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. With regard to the -- I'm sorry, I just lost my place. Just give me a second. I'm sorry. (Pause) THE COURT: With regard to the motion to dismiss Counts 3 and 4 against Hudson Diamond New York, Hudson Diamond Holding, Mei Guo, and Leading Shine -- well, Leading Shine is in the other motion. I'm sorry. I'm going to take that under advisement, although, I think there'll be a ruling very soon. I am familiar with the arguments of the parties and the arguments made in this adversary proceeding, so I think that will enable there to be a ruling in short order, okay. Thank you. With regard to the other motion, Attorney Kindseth, are you going to be arguing that motion? MR. DELLA FERA: I -- THE COURT: Or whomever. It's fine. MR. DELLA FERA: No, I think the motion has been Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 109 of 112\n\n 110 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 effectively argued. THE COURT: All right. As long as you're fine with that -- MR. DELLA FERA: Yes. THE COURT: -- that you're -- that it applies to both motions? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think that's right. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. MR. BASSETT: But I intended to address both in my response. THE COURT: Okay. I just wanted to be clear for the record, that's why I asked the question at first. I wasn't actually sure if you were addressing both motions. MR. DELLA FERA: Sure. And I appreciate it, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I apologize if I didn't understand that. So, then, with regard to both motions, my statements are applicable, which are that I understand the arguments. I don't have any questions about the arguments. I'm going to take the matters under advisement and rule accordingly. But as I said, I have familiarity with the arguments, so I will have to go back and look and then rule accordingly, but I believe it will be in short order, okay. Thank you. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon in any of the matters? Case 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 110 of 112\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24
Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31
Page 111 of
112 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 111 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
I don't believe so, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Anything from your perspective, |\n| 3 | Attorney? |\n| 4 | MR. DELLA FERA:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right. |\n| 6 | Well, those matters, if I am correct, and we all |\n| 7 | made it through the ability to breathe, which is helpful, in |\n| 8 | the courtroom, then the only thing I would say is in the next |\n| 9 | month or two, we may be having court upstairs because of |\n| 10 | construction down here, but you'll know if that happens.
I |\n| 11 | mean, it's going to happen, I just don't know when, okay. |\n| 12 | So if you come into the building someday and the |\n| 13 | marshals tell you, you have to go upstairs, that's why, okay. |\n| 14 | All right.
So that concludes all of our hearings |\n| 15 | today, therefore, Court is adjourned.
Thank you, all. |\n| 16 | COUNSEL:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE CLERK:
All rise. |\n| 18 | The Court is adjourned. |\n| 19 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:23 p.m.) |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3054
Filed 03/28/24
Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 | Page 112 of |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|\n| | 112 | 112 |\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 22, 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 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n第11章\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n债务人。\n\nLUC. A DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n对抗程序案号：23-05023\n原告，\n诉\nLAMP CAPITAL LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）、INFINITY TREASURY MANAGEMENT, INC.（无限财资管理公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、LEADING SHINE NY LTD.（领耀纽约有限公司）、MEI GUO（郭美）及 YANPING, A/K/A “YVETTE,” WANG（王艳萍，又名“伊薇特”），\n被告。\n\n第123法庭\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布里恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n2024年3月19日，星期二\n下午1时39分\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前举行的听证会记录\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n书记公司：Reliable（可靠公司）\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程序以电子录音方式记录，记录文本由书记服务机构制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 1 of 112\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）律师\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思专业公司）\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）律师\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）律师\n2050 M Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）律师\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE（美国司法部）\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表无担保债权人官方委员会：\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休）律师\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC（普尔曼与科姆利有限责任公司）\n850 Main Street\n8th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06601\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）：\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）律师\nO’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP（奥麦文律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n\n代表 Mei Guo（郭美）：\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞斯）律师\nZEISLER & ZEISLER（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street\n15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n另行出庭：\n\n代表 Mei Guo（郭美）：\nSam Della Fera Jr.（小萨姆·德拉费拉）律师\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI, P.C.（基耶萨、沙希尼安及贾恩托马西专业公司）\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, New Jersey 07068\n\n代表 G Club Operations（G俱乐部运营公司）：\nJeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）律师\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street\n3rd Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n代表 Mercantile Bank International Corp.（国际商业银行公司）及 Yieldesta, LP（耶尔德斯塔有限合伙企业）：\nFrederick Hyman（弗雷德里克·海曼）律师\nCROWELL & MORING, LLP（克罗威尔与莫林律师事务所）\nTwo Manhattan West\n375 9th Avenue\nNew York, New York 10001\n\n代表 Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder, LLP（克莱曼、罗森伯格、柯什纳与林德律师事务所）：\nFrank A. Oswald（弗兰克·A·奥斯瓦尔德）律师\nMinta J. Nester（明塔·J·内斯特）律师\nTOGUT, SEGAL & SEGAL, LLP（托古特、西格尔与西格尔律师事务所）\nOne Penn Plaza\nSuite 3335\nNew York, New York 10119\n\n代表 Fox News Network（福克斯新闻网络）及 Marcum LLP（马库姆律师事务所）：\nHenry P. Baer（亨利·P·贝尔）律师\nFINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP（芬恩、迪克森与赫林律师事务所）\n177 Broad Street\n15th Floor\nStamford, Connecticut 06901\n\n以及\n\nAndrew R. Gottesman（安德鲁·R·戈特斯曼）律师\nMINTZ & GOLD（明茨与戈尔德律师事务所）\n600 3rd Avenue\nNew York, New York 10016\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 3 of 112\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项\n第1项：举行状态会议（关于：[2981]安排状态会议的命令） 9\n\n法院裁定：--\n\n事项\n第2项：（关于：第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的聘用 Praeger Dreifuss AG 的申请） 80\n\n法院裁定：86\n\n事项\n第3项：（关于：O’Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC 的第一份临时报酬申请） 86\n\n法院裁定：87\n\n事项\n第4项：（关于：Kroll, LLC 的第一份临时报酬申请） 88\n\n法院裁定：89\n\n事项\n第5项：（关于：Harney Westwood & Riegels LP 的第二份临时报酬申请） 90\n\n法院裁定：91\n\n事项\n第6项：（关于：债权申报／通知代理人 Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC 提交的 Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC 第三份临时报酬申请） 91\n\n法院裁定：93\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 5 of 112\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项\n第7项：（关于：债务人律师 Paul Hastings LLP 提交的 Paul Hastings LLP 第四份临时报酬申请） 94\n\n法院裁定：95\n\n事项\n第8项：（关于：债权人 Pullman & Comley, LLC 提交的 Pullman & Comley, LLC 第三份临时报酬申请） 96\n\n法院裁定：97\n\n事项\n第9项：（关于：受托人律师 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 提交的 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 第四份临时报酬申请） 98\n\n法院裁定：99\n\n事项\n第10项：驳回对抗程序动议，请求驳回针对 Leading Shine NY Ltd. 的起诉状中所载第五项及第六项请求 100\n\n法院裁定：110\n\n事项\n第11项：驳回针对 Hudson Diamond New York、Hudson Diamond Holding、Mei Guo 的第3项及第4项罪名项的动议 100\n\n法院裁定：110\n\n书记员证明书 112\n\n（程序于下午1时39分开始。）\n\n书记员：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok，以及对抗程序23-05023，Despins 诉 Lamp Capital 等。\n\n法院：好的。下午好。请为记录进行出庭陈述，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。\n\nSKALKA先生：下午好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka，代表——或者请原谅——来自 Neubert Pepe & Monteith，代表第11章受托人。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\nMAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew，Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\nSARNOFF先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff，O’Melveny & Myers，代表债权人 PAX。\n\nKINDSETH先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stephen Kindseth，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表 Mei Guo。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：下午好，法官阁下。Sam Della Fera，Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi，也代表 Mei Guo。\n\n法院：我可以打断你们二位一下吗？抱歉。Kindseth先生，我想有人告诉我，您在过去一小时内提交了一份出庭通知，我想，除代表 Mei Guo 外还有其他代理事项？\n\nKINDSETH先生：是的。我相信那是在下午2点的事项中。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nKINDSETH先生：我们也会在下午2点的事项中进行出庭陈述吗？\n\n法院：好的。可以。我只是提出这个问题，因为——\n\nKINDSETH先生：是的，我将在下午2点的事项中代表被告出庭。\n\n法院：好的。抱歉。\n\nDELLA FERA先生：我也会如此，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢二位。\n\nSKLARZ先生：Jeffrey Sklarz，G Club。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nSKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nHYMAN先生：早上好，法官阁下。Frederick Hyman，代表 Mercantile Bank International 和 Yieldesta LP。我昨天提交了一项 pro hac 及（听不清）动议。我认为该命令尚未录入。\n\n法院：我们可能——我想，目前正在办理中。有若干——有多项 pro hac 动议。我认为它们正在处理中，但我相信命令尚未录入。\n\nHYMAN先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。法庭内还有其他人希望记录其出庭吗？\n\n（无人以口头回应）\n\n法院：电话线上还有人希望记录其出庭吗？\n\nOSWALD先生：下午好，法官阁下。Frank Oswald，Togut, Segal & Segal，与我的同事 Minta Nester 一同出庭。法官阁下，我们最近受被告 Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder, LLP 聘请。我们感谢法院准许我们远程出庭的照顾，因为我本周与家人外出，而 Nester女士正在从手术中恢复，因此感谢该项照顾。\n\n法院：不客气。我想，Oswald律师，我想您可能会参与状态会议，对吗。您看到下午1时30分还有其他事项，申请事项、费用申请。您并非代表任何那些事项出庭，对吗？\n\nOSWALD先生：不是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好，Despins受托人，除状态会议外，我想下午1时30分还有若干费用申请以及一项聘用律师的申请，那么您提议如何进行？\n\nDESPINS先生：如果法官阁下同意，鉴于参与状态会议的人数，先处理该事项或许更为合理。\n\n法院：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：那么让我——这次状态会议是关于（听不清）拟议调解。\n\n法院：我想您还请求就中止动议举行状态会议？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：为记录起见，Luc Despins，第11章受托人。经法官阁下许可，我将请 Bassett先生处理其中部分事项，但我想先就总体概念开场，然后我会交给 Bassett先生处理更为具体的问题。\n\n我知道曾举行过一次我无法出席的听证会，Linsey先生出席了，他向我们作了完整报告，而且我实际上也看了记录文本，因此我们了解贵法院——法院所关注的问题，我们也按法院要求提交了该动议。法官阁下，我们将其视为实际上展开讨论的开端。非正式地说，当我们提交动议时，我们希望动议按动议中所述获得批准，但在此，我们理解，特别是，我们未能获得法院的全部意见。我们当然也没有 Tancredi法官的意见，因此我们理解这是一个迭代过程，但我想讨论若干重要要点。第一点是，我们不会把170个对抗程序一股脑交给 Tancredi法官。这将是导致灾难的做法，而且我们已有计划。当然，\n\n我们尚未与 Tancredi法官交谈，因此我不知道他希望如何处理，或者法官阁下希望如何处理，但这里的构想是，在概念上，我们将就不同类型的请求提出最多五至六个类别的清单。\n\n那么我举——我总是举简单的例子。因此，例如，您有 Federal Express 或 UPS。它们收到一笔破产申请提出后的转让。坦率地说，有些问题适用于这些类型的被告，我暂且承认它们可能对债务人所发生的任何事情毫不知情。因此，有一组问题对这些类型的被告是共同的。\n\n另有一些被告则处于另一端，您知道，显然这些人知道或本应知道当时发生的情况，而有时该问题无关紧要，有时则并非如此。在破产申请后情形下，该问题可能无关紧要。相关的问题是：是否存在法院命令？并不存在。第二个问题是，这是否属于正常业务过程，尤其是，法官阁下，在受托人获任命后所作出的转让。我不知道人们将如何主张，在受托人获任命后，从债务人或由债务人控制的实体获得付款属于正常业务过程。\n\n但我并非来就实体问题进行辩论。我只是想告诉法官阁下，将有五个或六个类别涵盖这些被告中的90%。而我们的构想是，只有在我们同意以整体方式进行处理时，这才会奏效；也就是说，再次说明，这须以法官阁下的意见以及Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）的意见为准，但将会举行涉及多名被告的会议。因此，或许Federal Express（联邦快递）收到了一笔——很抱歉我总是提到他们，但我一直在与他们沟通——您知道，$100,000、$120,000 的转让。或许UPS（联合包裹服务公司）收到了一笔 $110,000 的转让。金额是多少并不重要。\n\n这些是相似的——几乎处于完全相同情况的实体，应当有一个类别，可以与Tancredi法官举行会议，债务人将在会上作出陈述。这是我们针对这类被告的案件，而他们，或者出席会议的人，或者由律师代理的人，可以作出各自的陈述；然后我们将退出该会议，Tancredi法官可以就其认为这些请求是否应当和解以及应以何种数额和解，向他们提供一些一般性意见。但我们不——我们认为这是对调解程序的最佳运用。\n\n因为否则，如果我们尝试逐案进行调解，将会使Tancredi法官不堪重负，费用将极其高昂，而且除此之外，我认为这也不会富有成效。因此，我们——我们的提议、我们的架构，是采用这种整体方式，并且目前暂缓处理是否任命其他调解员的问题。当然，这些调解员将由法官阁下签发的法院命令任命，但须在受托人与Tancredi法官讨论之后。\n\n但我们希望抵制一开始就这样做的诱惑，因为我们相信，最有效的方式不是一对一调解，而是进行集体调解。人们可以自由地说，我不属于这个组别；我有特殊情况。\n\n我们可以处理这一问题，但有如此多的人显然，您知道，属于其中一些尚待精确定义的类别，因此这就是我们的方式，而且我们坚信，如果采取这种方式，调解将会富有成效。\n\n如果由于被告不愿以这种方式参与而失败，我们理解这一点。即便从他们的角度看，他们也会受益。Federal Express 的律师可能会从听取 UPS 律师所说内容中受益，诸如此类。因此，关键在于，这可能对所有参与者都有益。\n\n但如果失败，那么我们很可能不得不恢复任命个别调解员的做法，而该可能性已载入命令之中。该可能性存在，但须经法官阁下实际批准对第一、第二、第三、第四及第五名调解员的具体任命。\n\n因此，我想作出这一概述，因为这在某种意义上有违直觉，因为通常调解是一对一的。此处存在一些针对某些被告的具体问题。当然，会有一些这种情况，但总体而言，有许多作为被告的人属于界定非常明确的类别，即申请前、申请后、受托人获任命后的申请后，诸如此类。因此，我想在一开始说明这一点，然后我会请Bassett先生（巴塞特先生）出面讨论其他问题。\n\n更为具体的问题，例如我们拟议改变处理方式的事项。\n\n在Linsey先生（林赛先生）在场时，您非常准确地提出了这个问题，即，参加调解必须做什么；也就是说，是否必须提交答辩状或驳回动议？在我们提交的提议——动议中，我们曾要求人们提交，您知道，答辩状或终结性动议。经过许多内部讨论后，我认为我们将改变对此的做法，因为总体上的考虑是，尽管就我个人而言，我宁愿看到答辩状而不是驳回动议，因为这能使讨论聚焦，但这可能会使许多人无法进行调解，因为他们会说，如果我必须聘请律师来提交驳回动议或答辩状，并承担所有这些费用，那么参与其中对我而言可能并不十分有吸引力。因此，我认为，我们拟议改变我们在该动议中的立场，即你必须提交答辩状或驳回动议。\n\n我认为Bassett先生将会讨论这一点，但我认为我们拟议改变这种做法。但还有其他技术性方面的问题，我请求在获得法院许可的情况下由Bassett先生向法院说明。\n\n我也很乐意回答您可能提出的总体问题。\n\n法院：鉴于你所说的，我想我只有一个或两个问题。我已审阅调解动议，而你有一份列有90对当事人的清单。那是附件——我不记得了——\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：被排除者。\n\n法院：——该动议的附件3或类似附件。有90个你们拟议排除的人。你是否认为，在任何时候，如果其中一方希望成为调解的一部分，你会考虑这一点？我试图确定的是，显然，调解动议尚未向任何人送达，对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：嗯，Bassett先生会谈到这一点。我认为已经进行了一些送达，但让我请他说明。\n\n法院：嗯，我的意思是，我所看到的是这份列有90个——\n\nDESPINS先生：哦。\n\n法院：——的清单，显然，至少在目前，按照你们的看法，这些人将不受这些调解程序约束；对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么——我认为，这可以有两种运作方式，也许你可以提出第三种。但要么将该动议送达其他对抗性程序中的被告——除这90宗对抗性程序外的所有对抗性程序——并设定异议截止日期；要么你是在请求法院——我并不是说你现在必须回答这个问题，但这就是我的问题：你是否请求法院在不向被告送达的情况下作出该命令，但给予被告表示其不想参加调解的机会？我认为必须二者择一。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。嗯，Bassett先生本来要谈到这一点，但是——\n\n法院：好。好的。没问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：——因此，我们有一个初始阶段强制调解的构想——\n\n法院：对。\n\nDESPINS先生：——适用于所有人，除了那90人。但如果你不想参加，你就向法院提交动议，要求被排除。因此，存在一个安全阀。因此，在一开始，这是强制性的，但他们有能力向法院提出，不，我不想参加调解。因为归根结底，如果人们不想调解，将他们纳入其中也不会很有成效，但在一开始存在一个默认机制，即所有人均被纳入，除非他们提交动议要求被排除。至于那90人，我认为我对是否\n\n向他们送达并不在意。我们并非试图永久排除他们，意思是，如果他们想向法院提交动议，说明为何应将他们纳入其中具有令人信服的理由，那也可以。我们的看法是——而且我不知道是否——\n\n（法庭内响起警报声）\n\n法院：这可能意味着法庭内现在的空气质量不好。我们的人可能太多了，但我们看看。那是一个带有数字的小型监测器吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩女士）：是的。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：热气太多了。\n\n（笑声）\n\n法院：很有可能。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：它显示“差”。\n\n法院：好的。它显示“差”。不过，我不知道如何把它关掉。那会——能拔掉它吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：看看这样是否有效。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢你，Claiborn律师。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：开始吧。\n\n（笑声）\n\nDESPINS先生：所以，我的观点是，法官阁下，至于那90人，作出该判断是因为，我们认为让他们参加调解不会富有成效，因为——而且这听起来会是一个宽泛、明显的概括，但这是有意为之——那些是Kwok（郭文贵）相关实体。我们已经与Kwok先生及其家人进行过调解。我们认为与他们进行调解是在浪费时间，因为这只会无故产生费用。我认为他们无意就任何事情达成和解。这是我的评估。\n\n因此，将他们纳入调解将会是——再次说明，我在这方面可能有所夸大，即，他们是否全都是由Kwok控制的实体？不确定，但我会说，意图是涵盖那些实体，也可能涵盖与那些实体有关的其他实体。不过，他们可以自由提交动议称，哦，应当强制受托人与我们进行调解，而我们会反对该动议。\n\n法院：嗯，我并不是说目前必须这样做。我刚才与Linsey律师谈到的，以及你已作出说明的，是我认为必须有这些类别——\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法院：——对。在有170或180宗对抗性程序的情况下，我同意我们不能把它们全都交给Tancredi法官，尽管我相信他会努力设法处理。\n\n但我们还必须担心——而且在这一点上，他并未发现担任该项工作的任何问题。\n\n2 调解员，但您知道，被告可能会如此，因此一旦发生这种情况，您就必须处理。\n\n我确实认为 Tancredi 法官（Judge Tancredi）会支持进一步明确这些类别具体为何；并且，正如您所说，要么进行集体调解，要么针对您确定属于您认为其适用类别的各组设立一个测试案件，我认为这都可以。\n\nDESPINS 先生（MR. DESPINS）：\n我们已加入该项内容。我们已加入法官有权——Tancredi 法官有权——出具报告，说明依其意见，为推进调解，法院就 X 问题这一一般性问题作出裁决将是有益的。\n\n法院：\n对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n因此，我们已加入该项内容，并且欢迎这样做。我认为这将是有益的。\n\n法院：\n我还认为，关于这一点——这可能可以通过与 Tancredi 法官讨论来处理——我认为，对他而言，如果能大致了解你们所设想的时间表，将会有所帮助，对吗？我的意思是，我听到了您所说的，即不再要求被告提交回应性诉状或答辩书。我认为这大概是合理的，因为所有这些起诉状中的期限仍在进行，对吗，即无需法院命令即可单方延长的 60 日期限。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是的，但对于参加调解的人，如果存在——他们将获得延期。\n\n法院：\n不，这正是我——我同意您的看法。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n不过，我认为我的意思是，我认为，对 Tancredi 法官而言，有帮助的是明确这些类别，并且至少尝试提出某种拟议时间表，或者至少一个范围，说明您认为何时会将某一类别提交给他——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是。\n\n法院：\n——对，这样他就可以专注于那些问题，并从那里着手。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n法官阁下，我们没有在命令中准确写入这一点，但我们的意图是，一旦命令录入，就尝试与该法官会面，审阅拟议的类别，因为您可能会说，不，有利益关系方不认可该类别，或者也许您应当另设一个类别，并让他参与这些类别的排序。因为我目前不便向他预先表示排序应当为何——\n\n法院：\n好的。这是公平的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n——因为他可能会说，您错了。\n\n法院：\n好的。这是公平的。我认为，从我在书面材料中所读到的内容来看，我不会让程序规定 Tancredi 法官将设立一个调解小组，因为他可能会，也可能不会；这由他自行决定。他可能会认为这并非必要和／或有效率。您知道，我认为他需要自行弄清楚这一点。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n我认为我们将其列为一种——并非自动适用的——替代机制。\n\n法院：\n我只是——我认为这不应当是自动的——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n——而且我认为他也不会希望它是自动的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\nDespins 受托人（Trustee Despins），我并不是说他最终不会那样做，但我认为他不希望这成为——他必须先全面掌握这一切，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n明白。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，我认为您已回答了我就您所说内容提出的问题，我想接下来我将听取 Bassett 律师（Attorney Bassett）的陈述。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3054\nFiled 03/28/24\nEntered 03/28/24 09:21:31\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nBASSETT 先生（MR. BASSETT）：\n法官阁下，如果可以，我能否就在这里向法院陈述？\n\n法院：\n当然。\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n谢谢。\n\n再次为记录说明，我是来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），代表 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）。法官阁下，如同有时发生的情况一样，Despins 受托人说我会谈及某些事项，但随后他已经谈及了这些事项，所以我不确定我还能补充多少。我将回应法院提出的几个问题，并可能进一步说明部分程序将如何运作。\n\n但首先，法院曾询问送达事宜。因此，据我了解，在大约 270 项撤销诉讼中，对于那些——我没有按此分类的清单——但对于涉及位于美国的被告的案件，我了解我们已经完成了对这些被告的送达。\n\n法院：\n哪一项的送达？调解动议，还是传票和起诉状？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n传票和起诉状，法官阁下。我认为调解动议是我们在上周末才提交的，因此我们尚未就此进行送达；但我只是在谈传票和起诉状。据我了解，我们已向境内被告送达了该等文件。显然，对于位于境外的人，程序更为漫长且更为复杂，我们正在办理；但我认为，调解程序的运作方式是，我们将继续向位于美国的被告送达调解程序动议。我们最终也将确保位于境外的人收到该动议。\n\n但是，无论如何，程序的运作方式是，如受托人所述，调解转介将在答辩截止日期自动发生，但其后 14 日内可选择退出；届时，被告可以表示其不愿参加调解，并请求获准不参加。因此，在该期限开始计算前，每一被告均将被妥善送达传票和起诉状。随后，他们将获得答辩文件，并有答辩截止日期；但根据 Despins 受托人所述，我们将修改该安排：不再要求在该日期前提交答辩书或驳回动议，而是到该日期前，出庭的被告只需提交出庭通知。被告必须采取某种行动，以便在案件中出庭并避免缺席判决；但为了帮助促进富有成效的调解讨论，节省被告本可作为和解一部分使用的费用等等，我们认为，要求其提交出庭通知，而非必然提交驳回动议或答辩书，是合理的。不过，再次说明，每个人都将依适用法律被送达起诉状，随后其选择参加调解程序——或者更准确地说，选择退出调解程序——的期限将开始计算。因此，就正当程序而言——\n\n法院：\n但如果他们未被送达，他们将如何知悉？您是说，您将向他们送达一项修改撤销诉讼程序、涉及调解的命令，而不是送达该动议？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n嗯，我们会向他们送达两者。我的意思是，我们会向境内被告送达该动议。在法院作出——\n\n法院：\n嗯，我只是想了解。您是给他们提出异议的机会，还是说，这是命令，其规定你们将进入调解，如要选择退出，就必须提交某些文件？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n是后者——\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n——而且我认为，从实践角度而言，这确实是唯一可行的方式，特别是鉴于许多被告位于境外。您知道，向他们送达传票和起诉状等文件可能需要相当长的时间，因此我认为那必须发生。随后，生效中的调解程序命令将依其条款在该时点接管适用。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，听起来你们将根据 Despins 受托人刚才所说修改调解程序，因此，在完成修改之前，不会有供法院签署的命令，对吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。并且，我们今天的理解一直是——当然——今天的听证会只是一次状态会议——\n\n法院：\n明白。\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n——无论如何，所以——我们预期，根据我们可能与当事人进行的讨论，调解程序会作出一些修改。因此，我们将处理该事项，并且显然会尽快向法院提交经修订的拟议命令。\n\n法院：\n至少看起来——而且我可能有误——调解动议是在主案以及所有对抗程序中，我认为是昨天提交的，对吗？那么，您接下来将提交经修订的调解动议，还是您打算怎么做？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n我设想，可能仅提交一份经修订拟议命令通知，该通知将被提交——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：——而不是一份完全修订的动议。\n\n法庭：好的。然后——不过，该修订后的拟议命令必须规定有多少时间可以选择退出？\n\n巴塞特先生：程序规定，自答辩期限届满之日起14天。换言之，如果他们——我认为现行程序规定的是60天，对吗，这已经——\n\n法庭：因此是自送达之日起60天？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的。这已经给予当事人延期。因此，他们将自送达之日起60天内仅提交一份出庭通知，此后有14天时间决定是否选择退出；显然，这14天实际上是74天，因为，您知道，或者自他们获知调解程序之时起，他们将有相当充足的时间来——\n\n法庭：那么，如果他们在答辩到期日前提交出庭通知呢？我认为有些人已经这样做了。\n\n巴塞特先生：这就是——嗯，那么，按照我们制定的程序，应自那时起14天。我看不出有理由改变这一点，但显然，如果法庭有不同看法，我们可以——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第26页，共112页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第27页，共112页\n\n法庭：嗯，我不知道。我们看看是否有人希望就该问题发表意见。但我只是试图了解该程序，以明确当事人有权表示“我不想参与调解”。我认为我们需要确保了解这将如何运作。因此，为使我明确，你所说的是，所有美国境内被告均已被送达传票和起诉状，因此，回避诉讼程序命令中规定的60天期限，已在传票和起诉状送达时开始——将开始计算？\n\n巴塞特先生：据我的团队告知，法官阁下，情况如此。如果有一两个或其他存在遗留问题的案件，可能会——\n\n法庭：对。但这就是程序，运作方式就是这样吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的。\n\n法庭：然后你所说的是，在送达后第六十日，这些对抗程序中的所有被告只需提交出庭通知；若其提交，则将被纳入调解程序，除非其在此后14天内申请选择退出调解程序？\n\n巴塞特先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第28页，共112页\n\n而且，我相信我们是参照——我不知道日期和期限是否完全一致，但这一概念是我们在其他地方见过的。\n\n法庭：对。我同意，但背景略有不同。不过我认为这没有问题，但我认为你确实需要处理这一点——而且此处有人已在其中一些对抗程序中提交出庭通知，所以我不知道他们是否认为自己应受自其提交通知之日起14天期限的约束——因为我们甚至尚未制定调解程序命令。\n\n巴塞特先生：这很公平，法官阁下。我看不出在命令作出之前怎么可能开始计算。因此，对于已经提交出庭通知且需要更多时间的当事人，我很愿意，您知道，考虑某种——也许对于已提交出庭通知的人，应自命令作出之日起X天，无论是两周还是其他期限，但我认为这很合理。\n\n法庭：我听到了你所说的。\n\n巴塞特先生：我认为——除此之外，我原本要提到的大部分内容已被涵盖。显然，如果您还有其他问题，我愿意尽力回答。\n\n法庭：我目前没有，但这并不意味着随着下午的进行，我不会有，好吗。不过谢谢你。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望就受托人为调解而修改回避诉讼程序的动议发表意见吗？我应该说“任何人”，因为尚无人发言，所以有人希望发表意见吗？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表G Club（G俱乐部）的杰弗里·斯克拉兹（Jeffrey Sklarz）。据我今天所听到的，这不一定适用于G俱乐部，但我今后将代表其适用的当事人提交出庭通知。\n\n法庭：G Club在那90个当事人的名单上，对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：G Club在那90个当事人的名单上，但我想为记录陈述一下意见——\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：——因为我将有不在那90个当事人名单上的客户。这是一项非常复杂的动议，而我主要想明确的是，应给予所有被告充分时间来分析该动议并作出回应，尝试与受托人合作，就应当——将属适当的调解程序提出任何建设性批评和拟议修改。因此，如果要设定——应当设定异议截止日期，但应当在听证会之前提前很长时间设定，例如六周或八周，以便让每个人与受托人沟通，了解狭窄争点，并留出充分时间作出回应，也让法庭能够吸收其可能收到的所有信息并拟定一项命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第29页，共112页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第30页，共112页\n\n我目前代理但尚未代表其提交出庭通知、并且将要代理的客户，当然会希望检验这些请求权是否成立，无论是否处于调解环境中。尤其是，如果处于调解环境中，受托人应当就驳回动议提交答复，因为受托人提出的替身实体概念是新颖的。因此，在当事人进入调解时，我们了解受托人请求权的依据将十分重要，以使任何调解富有成效，并了解为何我们关于驳回的立场是错误的。\n\n同样，调解员也必须了解受托人的理论。除非我们了解为何我们应当败诉，否则调解难以奏效。因此，我认为，在调解背景下仅让受托人不对驳回动议作出答复，就推动调解而言未必富有成效。\n\n我们有若干基本问题。在第V段中有一项诚信要求，其中——\n\n法庭：请告诉我你说到哪里了，斯克拉兹律师。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：第7页——抱歉，ECF 3003，第31页中的第19页，第V段。\n\n法庭：好的。请给我一点时间，以便我确保自己在跟上你的意思。第B段？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：V，即Victor中的V。\n\n法庭：是的，请继续。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：从往下数第八行开始，其中调解员报告表明存在不遵守情形。如果某人被要求参加调解，并表示我们认为自己有一个胜诉把握很大的案件，我们无意和解，这是否构成不遵守？因为我们希望获得出庭受审的机会，我是否会受到制裁，而我的客户是否会被缺席判决？我认为，尤其是这一点难以理解，并且与我见过的大规模调解程序不一致。同样，在第M段中——\n\n法庭：那么，让我再问你一次，所以你的意思是你担心，如果你的客户说“我不想参加调解”；你是这个意思吗？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：不是，我们说我们会参加调解——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：——我们听取受托人和调解员的陈述，然后我们说，我们认为自己有一个胜诉把握很大的案件，并且\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第31页，共112页\n\n我们希望获得出庭受审的机会。宪法——\n\n法庭：嗯，那不是参加调解，对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：嗯，不是。\n\n法庭：我是说，你是在说你不想调解。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：嗯，我们是说我们已经进行了调解。我们认为不应支付任何款项，并且希望终止调解。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：参加调解并不要求和解。\n\n法庭：我明白参加调解并不要求和解，但如果你去那里并认为没有理由尝试解决该事项，调解就毫无意义，对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：我不是这么说的。我完全不是这个意思。我所说的是，每个人都去那里，而在调解结束时，客户作出一项商业决定，即我们不想接受摆在桌面上的任何条件，而宁愿进入审判。我担心，不同意和解会因（听不清）不遵守而使我和我的客户受到制裁。\n\n法庭：嗯，我看不出这怎么一定会发生，但我想届时只能见招拆招。不过请记住，第一，如果你的客户不想参加调解，他们可以选择退出。我理解你所说的，但请让我把我的思路说完，好吗。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：当然。\n\n法庭：第二，如果你的客户参加调解，你的客户也必须诚信行事，对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：当然。\n\n法庭：所以你的客户——如果你担心你的客户——不想这样做且无法诚信行事，那么你就不要——那么就选择退出。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：这就引出我的第二点。在第31页中的第16页第M段——\n\n法庭：好的。请给我一点时间，好吗。我只是想确保我完全跟上你的意思。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：——这就是选择退出。\n\n法庭：你说第16页？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：第31页中的第16页——\n\n法庭：第M段，即Mary中的M？\n\n斯克拉兹先生：——ECF——M，即Mary中的M——或者我想我们应当说M，即Manning中的M——ECF 3003，第三行，或者整句话。你不能仅仅选择退出；你必须证明有正当理由才能选择退出。因此，我认为法官阁下关于\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第34页，共112页\n\n第V段所说的内容更令人担忧，因为选择退出调解的正当理由是什么？\n\n法庭：我正在看第M段，还没有找到你正在读的内容，不过——哦，找到了。我看到了。我明白了。我花了一点时间。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：所以，再次强调，我认为这些只是讨论要点。我毫不怀疑律师们可以共同拟定措辞。您知道，Delaware（特拉华州）以及Southern District of New York（纽约南区）和其他司法辖区都有其在大规模调解中使用的措辞。\n\n法庭：嗯，他们有强制性调解程序——\n\n斯克拉兹先生：是。\n\n法庭：——而我们没有。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：是，但我们可以借鉴其中一些，以便或许提供适用于所有人的措辞。而且，再次强调，我只是指出，我认为这些事项需要讨论，因此，如果法庭将异议截止日期设为自今天起两周，将很难进行这些讨论。我认为需要有一段较长的期限，让每个人首先获得送达。我的客户中没有人——我尚未在若干对抗程序中提交出庭通知，因为我的客户大多尚未被送达，所以我们需要让每个人\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 于 03/28/24 提交 于 03/28/24 09:21:31 登记 第35页，共112页\n\n已送达。将该动议送达给所有相关方，并给予所有相关方陈述意见的机会。我认为这才公平。\n\n因此，实质上，在这个阶段，我们认为其中许多想法都是好想法，这些程序也是好程序，但有些方面我们存在困难。我在这里指出了几个，还有其他方面。我不想对此过多赘述，因为我认为律师之间需要进行讨论，但我只是敦请法庭确保，这些案件中近300名被告不仅获得充足时间来保护和了解其权利，而且能够对受托人的动议作出有实质意义的回应；并且，假定我们越过了所有这些问题，或者说，当进入终局性动议阶段时我们将越过所有这些问题，在进入调解时，我们能够了解受托人为支持其请求所提出的论点。法庭：支持什么？SKLARZ先生（斯克拉兹）：支持其请求。法庭：好的。SKLARZ先生：因此，比如说，我的当事人提出驳回动议，我们希望看到对该驳回动议的回应，以便我们了解这些请求的依据。再次说明，我理解受托人所说的内容。\n\n第549条请求自申请日起基于这一另我概念提出，但我们必须了解，这一另我概念的使用方式在实质上不同于我此前所见过的任何另我概念的使用方式——法庭：但您谈论的不只是另我，第一。第二，目前有一项待决动议，要求中止另我案件和RICO案件。因此，让我们假定——仅就您所提出的观点而言，让我们假定这些案件被中止。我们谈论的是撤销权诉讼。SKLARZ先生：但这些撤销权诉讼大多以前提为作出另我认定。因此，让我们——法庭：我不知道这是否完全正确。SKLARZ先生：让我们——嗯，我已经看过——法庭：并非全部。SKLARZ先生：并非全部，但很多是。法庭：我的意思是，其中90项被排除在外，对吗——SKLARZ先生：嗯，但是——法庭：——而对于那90项，我认为您可能是对的。SKLARZ先生：嗯，但是——法庭：但我不知道其他那些——SKLARZ先生：所有第549条请求——实际上，几乎所有第549条请求都是如此。他们说某某公司是Kwok（郭文贵）的另我，因此他们提出第549条请求。法庭：那么，这些公司中是否已有任何一家公司被认定为Kwok的另我？因为那可能是其如此表述的原因。SKLARZ先生：嗯，我可以告诉您，并非所有公司都是。法庭：好的。DESPINS先生（德斯潘斯）：法官阁下，如果可以？我想我可以澄清这一点，可以吗？法庭：当然。DESPINS先生：正如我在就这280起诉讼召开情况会议时向法庭提到的，我提到我们已提起综合性另我诉讼——您刚才提到的就是该诉讼——该诉状中我们主张我们拥有，或者——我们——Kwok拥有或控制这些实体。其中包括G Club（G Club）。因此，该项主张载于另我诉状中。这不是一项欺诈性转让诉讼。这是一项综合性另我诉讼，其中我们主张——正如我们曾主张Lamp Capital（兰普资本）或Golden Spring（金泉）由其拥有，并且我们已就此获得判决一样，我们在该综合性另我诉状中寻求针对G Club及其他许多实体的相同救济。现在，由于诉讼时效即将届满，我们还作为一项防范措施，针对G Club提出了欺诈性转让请求，涉及我们认为属于另我的实体所作出的转让，以防我们在主要的另我诉讼中败诉。因此，如果我们就我们拥有或控制G Club这一问题进入审判或简易判决程序，而法庭作出对我们不利的裁定，则在那个时候，遗产以及遗产管理范围内的所有一切——如果您愿意这么说——即其他另我，曾向G Club作出数百万美元的转让。届时，律师刚才谈到的欺诈性转让诉讼才会具备审理条件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 录入于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第36页，共112页\n\n37\n\n但没有必要对该诉讼进行诉讼，因为如果我们在另我问题上胜诉，或在针对G Club的诉讼中胜诉，那将是我们起诉自己，因为G Club将成为Kwok的一部分。因此，Kwok不能起诉自己。我们在针对G Club提出欺诈性转让请求的诉讼中已非常明确地说明，只有在我们就2月15日提交的主要综合性另我诉状败诉时，才会推进该案。正如您所提到的，该诉讼因刑事审判而需要被中止。法庭：那么，让我就此问您一个问题。如果那两项并非撤销权诉讼的诉讼被中止，那么，您是否表示，针对这些实体的欺诈性转让诉讼也将被中止？\n\nDESPINS先生：针对那些实体——您的意思是像G Club那样的实体？\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，它们也是如此。它们也应当被中止，因为我们说过不会推进那些诉讼。我相当确定我们说过这一点；我记得，我们说过，除非且直到我们在综合性另我诉讼中败诉，否则我们不会推进那些诉讼。\n\n法庭：对。因此，实质上，需要中止的事项确实应当多于仅仅综合性另我诉讼和RICO诉讼？\n\nDESPINS先生：这是公平的说法——我们——因为我们本来无意推进该案，所以没有寻求中止，但，是的，我想从技术上说，它们也应当被中止。\n\n法庭：也许。我的意思是，我只是——\n\nDESPINS先生：不，不，不。这是一个非常公平的观点。\n\n法庭：——这样说，因为如果发生这种情况，难道不会——\n\nDESPINS先生：这会使该问题失去实际意义。\n\n法庭：——搁置——是的，斯克拉兹律师的问题？\n\nDESPINS先生：正确，法官阁下。因此，我想澄清这一点，因为我知道这并不明确。我想我在我们于2月15日之后大约两周提交的PowerPoint演示文稿以及召开情况会议时，已试图说明这一点。但该类诉讼，即针对G Club的欺诈性转让诉讼，只有在我们就G Club属于遗产一部分的另我问题败诉时才会推进。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 录入于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第37页，共112页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 录入于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第38页，共112页\n\n法庭：对。我的意思是，这是我的记忆。这并不意味着我是正确的。这是我的记忆。\n\n因此，斯克拉兹律师，我认为——有两点，我认为，例如，当您说要对您的驳回动议提交回应时，我今天听到的内容与动议中所载内容不同，即您无需提交任何文件；您只需要提交出庭通知书，这是第一点。我不知道您对此的立场是什么，不过我有个想法；但无论如何，这一点并不——这只是第一点。但第二点，如果您——无论如何，当您具体谈到G Club时，至少目前是这样，我不知道为何在另我请求被中止时，这些事项还要进入调解。SKLARZ先生：我只是照着我手头的内容念。法庭：不，不，我理解。SKLARZ先生：是的。法庭：我只是——如您所说，我们只是在讨论，对吗？SKLARZ先生：是的，完全如此。我完全同意。我在这里试图传达的最重要一点是，这很复杂，我理解受托人试图在这里做什么，但我认为我们只需要\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 录入于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第41页，共112页\n\n不要仓促处理，而应当审慎并加以深思；无论最终确定何种程序，受托人都应当征求法庭内所有人以及法庭外希望发表意见的所有人的意见，从而使向法官阁下提出的程序符合从民事事项中接受审判的宪法权利，到我们今天讨论过的某些细节性具体问题在内的一切要求。这就是我想说的。我们只需放慢一点，确保我们正确地完成这件事。\n\n法庭：正如巴塞特律师（Bassett）正确指出的那样，目前没有任何动议排期审理。这是一次情况会议，对吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：这就是我说刚才那些话的原因。\n\n法庭：而我们需要——不，我同意，这也是我在上一次情况会议上提出这个问题的原因之一，即这将如何运作，以及需要有一项动议，对吗？这就是我所说的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的。\n\n法庭：因为我们需要了解该程序将如何运作。我已经向巴塞特律师和受托人德斯潘斯提出问题，现在我正在问——我已经问过您，您已告诉我您的想法。我现在要问您——我认为我理解您的立场——是否还有其他事项，您希望法庭或受托人德斯潘斯就这些调解提议和程序加以考虑？\n\nSKLARZ先生：嗯，有很多事情我们希望他考虑，但我们在周五才收到这个——现在是周二——我认为我们应当有时间思考并向他发送我们的意见，以便——\n\n法庭：那不是——我理解。\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的。\n\n法庭：我是说，您现在站在这里时呢？\n\nSKLARZ先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好。谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\nHYMAN先生（海曼）：早上好，法官阁下。我是代表NBI（NBI）和Yieldesta（Yieldesta）的Frederick Hyman（弗雷德里克·海曼）。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nHYMAN先生：我不会占用法庭太多时间，但我确实想对刚才发言的律师所作评论略作补充说明。\n\n我代理对抗程序中的两名被告，他们是来自被指称为另我的实体所作转让的受让人。不存在其他转让人，因此我想了解这些程序将如何影响我的当事人，因为如已承认的，受托人已提出一项中止另我诉讼的动议。因此，在受托人最终获得认定转让人为另我的判决之前就进入调解，似乎有些不一致。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 录入于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第43页，共112页\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，我可以回应这一点。我认为，在他的案件中，转让人是HCHK（HCHK），而且我认为我们已经——HCHK不在中止范围内，这意味着我们不能——它不受综合性另我诉讼涵盖，因为我们已经请求法庭作出裁定。我们已经获得多项缺席判决。我知道最终裁定仍待法官阁下作出，但该案并未被中止。因此，为清楚起见，也许我说得太武断了，但我们假定法庭最终将就HCHK及我们的简易判决——抱歉，就缺席判决作出裁定。该案件、该诉讼将继续推进，因为转让人或作出转让的实体是HCHK，而我们希望法庭将认定其为另我。因此，那就是——\n\nHYMAN先生：我认为关于转让人的说法并不正确，但我——\n\n法庭：我听不见您，海曼律师。\n\nHYMAN先生：抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nHYMAN先生：我认为我们需要更明确地了解向我的当事人付款的最终转让人。我\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 录入于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第44页，共112页\n\n我们不认为仅仅是 HCHK，但我们乐于就此进行沟通。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我很乐意这样做，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我理解您的观点，Hyman（海曼）律师；并且，Hyman 律师，如您所知——您可能确实知道——本庭已就另我作出过一些认定，不过在贵方案件中可能尚未作出。\n\n海曼先生：我对此非常了解。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n奥斯瓦尔德先生：法官阁下，我是 Togut Segal（托古特·西格尔律师事务所）的 Frank Oswald（弗兰克·奥斯瓦尔德）。如果没有其他人要发言（听不清），我只简要说几句。我赞同此前被告方律师的许多意见，理解并同情受托人，也理解并同情 Tancredi（坦克雷迪）法官在其进行调解的范围内的处境。我非常支持调解；我们曾在某些案件中以受托人的身份提起过数千起诉讼，例如 Enron（安然公司）案等。因此，这是一件值得做的事。昨天，我有机会迅速与受托人就此事项的一名律师沟通。再次说明，我们希望有机会更仔细地审阅程序，并与其他律师合作。我认为我们的争议事项将有许多共同之处。我当然认为，每个人都应拥有同样的时间来作出回应。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 45 页，共 112 页\n\n无论其希望加入还是退出。坦率地说，我与律师进行此类讨论，是因为其在我们先前的案件中似乎非常有效，作为调解之前、调解陈述之前的一个步骤，即在完成必要的事实和法律尽职调查后，向律师提供一份立场陈述。就此获得一些反馈，进行对话；而且多数情况下，如果各方理性行事，便能够避免调解。\n\n话虽如此，如若不能避免，再次说明，我非常支持调解，但我确实认为我们需要更多一点时间。我认为我的当事人是一家位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的律师事务所，至少将受制于所作出的任何裁定。我尚未有机会消化该裁定，但就 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）而言，我听到了该项提及；但另一方面，我们的当事人曾代理债务人以及另一实体。\n\n因此，同样地，尽管我曾参与数千起撤销诉讼，但我尚未见过以这种方式适用另我理论。不过，就调解本身而言，我认为这是一个好主意。我认为我们都希望看到修订后的程序，并有机会与当事人及其他被告协商，向受托人的律师作出回复，并且或许提交一份完全经各方同意的文件。\n\n法庭：那么，Oswald（奥斯瓦尔德）律师，我询问了 Sklarz（斯克拉兹）律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 46 页，共 112 页\n\n他告诉我，他希望将该动议送达其所代理的被告，并希望有六至八周的时间作出回应，同时看看在此期间能够完成什么。\n\n就时间安排和回应而言，您的建议是什么？我希望了解这一点。\n\n奥斯瓦尔德先生：是的，嗯，我们目前认为只有一名当事人，因为我们提交了出庭通知，并取得了起诉状的相关材料。那些材料是密封提交的。\n\n我当然不认为就调解程序达成一致需要八周；当然，如果存在争议事项，我们推定会请求再次召开会议，以便法官阁下就此作出裁定。不过，另一方面，如我所说，我们正在熟悉情况。我们未能受益于先前的状态会议，而我们刚刚开始就我们的一名被告开展尽职调查。\n\n法庭：嗯，我之所以提出这个问题，是因为我认为——嗯，我知道受托人希望以这种方式推进的原因，是为了使其不必在 170 个不同的对抗程序中采用 170 种不同的推进方式，对吗？我认为，涉及撤销诉讼的程序是有用的，我也认为调解是有用的；不过，我听到了一些担忧。嗯，目前只有您。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 47 页，共 112 页\n\n和 Sklarz 律师——抱歉，还有 Hyman 律师——表示，他们希望有一些时间审阅该程序，并弄清他们希望在该程序中纳入哪些内容，如有的话。\n\n而我的下一个问题是，被告可以提出这些建议，但如果这些建议未获同意，那么我们怎么办？由我作出决定吗？我认为是这样。我认为不能仅由 Tancredi 法官——如果他是调解员——零散地决定程序应当如何安排。在我看来，这没有意义，否则便违背了调解的全部目的。\n\n奥斯瓦尔德先生：是的，根据我的经验——而且我们已多次这样做——如存在争议，则由作为承办法官的您予以解决，然后我们将案件送交调解。此外，如受托人所指出，我曾不得不分批推进——您可以想象，一次提交 1200 起诉讼——我们与调解员共同分批处理这些案件。您知道，其中一些案件并不像其他案件那样复杂，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n奥斯瓦尔德先生：而且有些案件，您知道，并不需要进行大量尽职调查，受托人会对此予以衡量——请听我说，尽可能迅速且高效地完成此事，符合所有人的最佳利益，首先是像我们的当事人一样必须自掏腰包的被告。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 48 页，共 112 页\n\n尽可能完成此事。我当然向法庭和受托人承诺这样做，并在我能够提供帮助的范围内提供帮助。\n\n所以，再次说明，我不认为就调解条款达成一致——您知道，其中一点，如果我理解正确——将由辩方提交一份调解陈述，我姑且称之为调解陈述；但随后，似乎并不清楚我们是否也将获得受托人一方材料的益处。至少根据我的经验，这些事情在如下情况下运作得最好：不应有任何隐瞒，我们应当提出我们的陈述和事实，以及我们在法律上的立场，进行善意讨论；我认为其中许多事项将会缩小。\n\n现在，请听我说，我认为另我问题很可能是一个新颖问题。如我所说，我曾参与数千起此类诉讼——不是数千起另我诉讼——但我无法就此带来自己的具体专长，因为我未曾见过以这种方式提出另我问题。\n\n但法官阁下，您很可能会在某些情形下看到，辩方将能够证明价值；而在我看来，若受托人所称，即债务人与第三方非债务人实体应被视为同一主体，那么，如果能够证明债务人获得了价值，便不会存在欺诈性转让。\n\n诉讼。但我不想——我不想进入实体问题，我也不认为那是本次会议的重点。\n\n法官阁下希望这些事项能够高效推进。受托人希望如此。辩方也应当希望如此。如果将要提出一项动议——我说得对吗，我理解正确吗——如果我理解有误，我表示歉意——即将提出一项正式动议以批准这些程序，然后您将设定回应期限，接着我们便开始处理，对吗？\n\n法庭：嗯，该动议昨天已在所有对抗程序中提交。该动议目前并未——目前尚未设定异议程序，即异议截止期限。根据本庭地方法则，对抗程序中的动议可以依照法官的指示安排听证。并非一定设有异议截止期限；不过，各方可以坚持应设定异议截止期限，然后便可据此推进。\n\n奥斯瓦尔德先生：是的。\n\n法庭：与其他辖区不同，我们在对抗程序中并不实行强制调解；因此，当此类事项发生时，通常规模较小，我们能够以这种方式处理。\n\n现在，这是一个更大的规模，问题是如何。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 50 页，共 112 页\n\n恰当地处理它们？召开状态会议的原因之一，就是讨论这些问题。如我所述，将撤销程序修改为纳入调解程序的动议，昨天才刚刚提交。\n\n奥斯瓦尔德先生：好的，谢谢。我当时正在途中，因此没有看到。但我明白了，而且我认为——再次说明，我想建议的程序是在周五晚上提出的。请听我说，我的建议是设定异议截止期限；既然动议已经提交，各方现在将有机会——如我所说，我们将彼此讨论。我已主动联系了一些我认识的律师。我因出行而稍有不便，但我通常会这样做；我认为各方应当筛选其对程序的正式建议和正式修订，将其与受托人分享，设定异议截止期限，然后我们再回来处理。我的意思是，我认为这就是使其依照时间表推进的方式。所有人均依照同一时钟和日历行事。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢，Oswald 律师。您还有任何事项希望记入记录吗？\n\n奥斯瓦尔德先生：没有，法官阁下。再次感谢您允许我远程出庭。\n\n法庭：不客气。并且，您的具体。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 51 页，共 112 页\n\n情形已被纳入考虑，因此我对此表示感谢。\n\n还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nBaer（贝尔）先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是 Hank Baer（汉克·贝尔），代表该对抗程序中的数名被告。对于未能较早出庭，我表示歉意；我们原本无意发言。与我一同在法庭出庭的是来自 New York City（纽约市）的 Gottesman（戈特斯曼）先生。我们共同代理被告。我们最近为 Gottesman 先生提交了临时出庭许可申请。我认为尚未获准。\n\n法庭：该申请可能尚未得到处理，因为我们一直在进行其他听证。\n\n无论如何，律师，请您为了记录并供法庭书记员记录，陈述您的姓名并拼读您的姓名，可以吗？\n\nGottesman先生：当然可以，法官阁下。谢谢，下午好。我的姓名是 Andrew Gottesman（安德鲁·戈特斯曼），拼写为 G-o-t-t-e-s-m-a-n。我来自 Mintz & Gold（明茨与戈德律师事务所）。我们代理 Fox News（福克斯新闻）和 Markham LLP（马克姆有限责任合伙企业），两名对抗程序被告。\n\n如 Baer 先生所言，我们原本并不打算在今天下午向法庭发言，但我们希望与所有被告一道表达意见，建议设定异议截止期限和听证日期，以便每个人都有机会提出意见。我们对这些程序存在一些担忧，但\n\n案号 22-50073，文书 3054，提交日期 03/28/24，录入日期 03/28/24 09:21:31，第 52 页，共 112 页\n\n我们理解，通常而言，调解是一个好主意。我们认为它在这里会发挥作用，因此我们赞同这一想法，但我们希望在裁定作出之前，有机会与受托人提出这些问题并进行讨论；然后，如果我们、Oswald先生（奥斯瓦尔德）或其他任何人无法与受托人达成一致，则由法院确定一个日期，以便在裁定作出之前，就调解程序作出裁决。因此，我们基本上是在支持其他已经提出这一请求的当事人，请求采取同样的、基本上相同类型的程序，即设定异议期限，然后确定听证日期。我的感觉是，同时听取足够多人的意见，而且我相信受托人会是合理的，每个人都能够就一个合理的时间表达成合理安排，以免这些事情拖延下去，因为这不符合任何人的最佳利益；但我们希望有机会\n\n一方面，与受托人讨论我们对程序的意见；另一方面，如果我们无法与受托人达成安排或协议，则由法官阁下裁定法院认为适当的程序应为何种程序。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n当您说——而且我之前没有问先前的律师这个问题，所以这有点不公平，不过——其实并不是真的不公平——与受托人讨论您——讨论您所看到的问题时，我是说，您知道，一种做法不就是让您对受托人已经提出的方案作出修改标记，并说明您对其存在哪些问题（如有），或者您同意哪些内容吗？\n\n我的意思是，如果我们都开始进行讨论——而且我认为——我并不是说您不会这样做。我正在听每个人所说的话——您知道，我们不会讨论三个月。您知道，这将会是——牌已经摆在桌面上了，对吧。您现在需要弄清楚您是否想拿起它，以及您想如何拿起它，对吧。因此，您需要——我认为，当我们谈论这些讨论时，如果这些讨论将要进行，您知道，法院不会——如果法院同意应当设置某种异议期限和讨论期限，那么期限不会很长，因此，被告方有责任在该期限内完成其需要完成的事项，否则他们可能会失去对程序提出异议或争辩的任何权利。\n\nGottesman先生（戈特斯曼）：我完全同意，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nGottesman先生：我百分之百同意。我不认为这件事应当无限期拖延下去。\n\n而且，坦率地说，我认为如果没有一个严格的期限，情况就恰恰会如此，然后Despins先生（德斯平斯）及其律师将不得不以零散方式处理此事。\n\n我认为，如果设定异议期限，那么各方将有机会向受托人提交对程序的修改稿，说明：这些是我们的问题。可能会有讨论。我想象会有。但归根结底，如果这些讨论没有成果，就必须提交异议，确定一个日期，然后确定听证日期。这样，这些事情就不会无限期拖延，而且也不会给受托人办公室增加超过其当前负担的额外负担——鉴于如此数量的对立程序，以及坦率地说，我预计他们将不得不审阅的大量意见，并且需要与提交这些意见的每个人进行某种形式的对话。\n\n法院：而且，当我使用“抱怨”一词时，我并非以负面含义使用“抱怨”。我的意思是，您有权提出一个问题，对吧？\n\nGottesman先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：所以，我的意思并不是可能被理解为您没有依据。您有依据。如果您有依据，您就有依据。这并不是负面意义上的抱怨，只是为澄清这一点。\n\n所以，您建议设置一个讨论期限，在该讨论期限结束后，\n\n然后您有几天时间提交异议，随后举行听证；这是您的建议吗？\n\nGottesman先生：我建议您只设定一个异议期限。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nGottesman先生：我认为事情的自然进程是人们进行讨论。\n\n法院：不过，您不能等到异议期限当天才开始与受托人交谈。那样也行不通。我想非常明确地说，如果我采取那条路径，任何被告如果来找我并说他们开始谈——如果我这样做，如果我采取人们正在考虑和建议的做法，如果我听说他们在异议期限当天才与受托人交谈，那对我不会有很强的说服力。我只是想明确这一点，如果这最终成为法院的决定。您知道，——我认为这很清楚。我认为我所说的很清楚。\n\nGottesman先生：我同意，法官阁下。我认为设定异议期限是形成可被视为讨论期限的自然方式。根据我的经验，事情就是这样发生的。\n\n法院：嗯，我希望如此。\n\nGottesman先生：是的，正是如此。然后，如果问题没有得到解决，各方有机会提出异议，随后法官阁下有机会\n\n作出裁决。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nOswald先生：法官阁下，Frank Oswald（弗兰克·奥斯瓦尔德）。我可以回到刚才的话题一下吗？\n\n法院：当然，请讲。Oswald律师，请讲。\n\nOswald先生：谢谢，法官阁下。再次为记录在案，我是代表Clayman被告方（克莱曼被告方）的Frank Oswald。我同意法院的意见。我将其视为理所当然，但或许如果您倾向于采取这一做法，可以设定一个日期，供各方在该日期前向受托人的律师提交其意见，无论是红线修改稿还是其他形式，然后再设定一个提交正式异议的后续日期。我不明白为什么有人会对这种做法有异议。\n\nGottesman先生：我们对这种做法没有异议，法官阁下；事实上，我认为这将有助于为受托人和受托人办公室澄清事项。而且，我想其中许多意见将会是类似的。\n\nDespins先生：我们也没有异议，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。好的。嗯，您知道，这正是今天举行会议的目的之一，对吧，就是讨论这些问题。这也是为什么我说我们需要有一项动议作为讨论基础的原因之一。Despins受托人，我想我说得对，Despins受托人，您在今天开始发言时说过，这是一次对话，对吧？所以这是一次对话。\n\nDespins先生：是的。\n\n法院：因此，Bassett律师（巴西特）和Despins受托人，您们是否表示同意某种已经讨论过的程序，即，在某个日期前——嗯，现在每个人——问题是——我目前看到的唯一不同——唯一困难，也许我错了，关于美国境内被告方，即可以在美国境内送达的被告方，他们必须被送达该动议。我的意思是，这些人持有该动议，但并非每个人都持有，对吧。今天在场的人显然不可能在不知道存在一项动议的情况下到场。他们知道有些事情正在进行。他们在这里。他们已经提交了出庭通知。\n\n但是，您还有许多其他对立方，尚无人提交出庭通知，而且由于规避程序，目前也无须提交出庭通知。因此，我认为如果我们要这样做，您必须向他们送达有关调解程序的该动议——或者这份修正动议。我知道在某些方面这是一项负担。我并不是说它不是。但是，如果您想走完这个程序，并且不让人们对其提出质疑，最终而言，那可能是更好的推进方式。\n\nBassett先生：因此，法官阁下，这是一个合理的意见。我想——对此有几点回应。首先，据我了解，同样是根据与我的团队的沟通——他们一直主要处理送达问题——我们已经能够向所有位于美国境内的被告方送达传票和起诉书，我预计这不会是一个很大的问题。显然，这可能会给财产带来一些费用，但我认为我们可以实际着手向所有被告方送达该动议；根据规则，主要可以通过邮寄方式进行送达——\n\n法院：对。\n\nBassett先生：——也向所有被告方送达。我的另一点回应意见涉及另一个问题，即我——虽然我们乐于将此作为一种便利措施来做，我认为这可能是一项非常有益的工作，既可以消除异议，而且坦率地说，一些被告方可能有很好的建议，使调解程序更完善，因此我认为这很好；但我并不认为，在法院作出此类命令之前，必须让所有当事人获得通知和机会——我的意思是，法院此前已经——我们在先前这样做时已经援引了相关先例——但法院在起诉书甚至尚未提交之前，就作出了规避诉讼程序命令。而且那些——\n\n法院：不过那略有不同，其所做的是给予60天，额外60天，\n\n我设想这段时间是让您和所有受托人的——以及受托人团队中的人员在可能进行调解之前，就与被告方的律师进行讨论的时间，对吧，因为如果这些类别已经建立，并且有一个类别是——我将使用受托人的例子——一家企业，例如FedEx，那么您可能能够在任何人提交出庭通知或答辩状之前，就与FedEx进行讨论并达成解决，对吧。这是我所设想的规避程序的益处，即有益于这样一种情况：哎，我们实际上或许能够——而不是开始产生大量律师费和成本，当然您将不得不——我并不是说不会产生律师费和成本——但您可以说，好吧，这里有40个——也许这不是正确的数目——我们现在就可以解决，所以我们就这样做吧。\n\nBassett先生：法官阁下，我理解这一点，而且我认为该动议与当前调解程序动议之间当然存在区别。我确实认为，当前调解程序动议对被告方也有益处，因为他们不再有答辩期限，对吧。他们有出庭期限，而不是实质性回应期限。\n\n法院：嗯，当前动议没有这样说。修正动议——\n\n巴塞特先生：修订后的动议会——\n\n法官：——你们将提交的动议会写明这一点。\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官大人。这正是我们的意图。但我提出这一点的真正原因也是，这确实会给位于境外的被告带来一个更大的问题，因为这些被告中的任何一名都没有实际可行的方式——更不用说所有被告了——顺便说一句，法官大人，我没有——\n\n法官：那么，这也许就是为什么你们必须把事项归入特定类别，对吗？我的意思是，必须存在一些对抗性——嗯，也许我错了。我的意思是，我没有看过它们。除非且直到法院有必要审阅它们，否则我不会审阅它们，对吗？但我会认为——不过也许我错了——存在所有被告均在美国境内的对抗性程序。\n\n巴塞特先生：确实如此，法官大人。我不认为这会——这些主张之间必然会存在实质性区别，或许要受某些属人管辖权论点的影响，我想。但我想表达的重点只是，受托人的偏好是，无论制定何种调解程序，均应统一并适用于所有被告。\n\n法官：我明白。\n\n巴塞特先生：显然，问题的一部分是，如果针对外国被告或（听不清）设置第二套程序，即使是那些程序，也不会按照相同的时间表得到答复。\n\n法官：那么，你们就需要考虑如何处理该问题。\n\n巴塞特先生：我的建议是，这项命令应全面适用，包括适用于那些外国被告。\n\n法官：但我不知道你们是否——你知道，你们打算如何做到这一点？你们如何约束尚未被送达的外国被告，却可以约束已被送达、但没有向你们提出任何意见的美国被告？\n\n巴塞特先生：而且，法官大人，这同样是撤销权诉讼程序所依据的逻辑。我理解法院所作的区分。\n\n法官：嗯，我不认为这相同。\n\n巴塞特先生：我理解。\n\n法官：因为就此而言，我们在撤销权程序中对向美国被告及美国境外被告送达的期限作出了非常具体的规定。而由该送达所触发的期限也载于该命令中。\n\n法官：关于美国境外被告，规则要求给予额外的送达时间，及／或给予该美国境外被告额外时间来决定其将如何处理、是否聘请律师，对吗？这就是《规则》的规定。\n\n巴塞特先生：是。明白。但是，法官大人，这并没有改变，对吗，因为——\n\n法官：不，这完全没有改变。\n\n巴塞特先生：是。\n\n法官：因此，我并不是建议应当改变这一点，但我要说的是，如果你们只是向美国境内的被告送达关于——作为撤销权诉讼一部分的、规定调解程序的命令修订动议——的动议，我不知道你们是否能够以同样方式约束美国境外的被告。\n\n法官：你知道，也许你们可以，但我坐在这里，我所面临的问题——这不是一个问题——而是一个担忧：你们希望这能够运作。这就是全部目的。你们希望这能够运作。你们希望这成为一个推进的程序，并且希望——但你知道，我们都知道这未必会发生——但希望能在无需审判的情况下解决很大一部分这些对抗性程序，因为在这些对抗性程序中的大多数案件中，而你们都可以告诉我——我所说的“大多数”是指超过百分之五十——我不知道具体百分比是多少——但在这些对抗性程序中的大多数案件中，我们处理的并非新颖的法律问题；我们处理的是优先受偿、欺诈性转让和欺诈性让与。这就是我们正在处理的事项，对吗？而这样做的整个（听不清）理由，是试图看看能否在不产生大量时间、费用和精力的情况下，为等式双方解决这些案件，不仅是受托人一方，也包括被告一方。但我认为你们需要考虑外国被告。我还要对被告说一点，如果你不是外国被告，我不会听取你就某一外国被告所提出的任何论点。这无关紧要。你可以就你的美国境内被告提出任何你想提出的论点。我不想听到有人说，我想代表所有被告提出这一论点。\n\n法官：所有被告，如果他们想提出自己的论点，他们可以提出。你们在此是为了你们自己的论点；这就是你们在此的原因。但这要求向被告送达，以便他们能够决定是否想提出论点或提出问题。这不是——该动议尚未列入日程。除在本次状态会议的背景下外，尚未对其进行处理。因此，我们可以做几件事。我们今天可以什么也不做。你们可以考虑一下，然后我们可以再举行一次状态会议。你们可以说，我希望法官决定是否设定异议截止日期，或设定所有意见必须提交给受托人的截止日期，然后设定异议截止日期，再设定听证截止日期和听证日期。我也可以这样做，或者我可以仅仅将该事项安排听证，因为我认为应当安排听证，然后我们可以从那里继续。我认为这就是三个选项。我不确定还有什么其他选项，但你们都可以——如果你们想让我休庭，而你们想讨论一下，这也可以。这是一次状态会议，因此，就我目前的看法而言，并不是任何人的路线图已经完全——已经完全就位。\n\n巴塞特先生：法官大人，我认为休庭五分钟可能会有帮助。\n\n法官：是，我认为我们应当休庭，然后你们都可以讨论一下，好吗？我们休庭的时间稍微超过五分钟吧。现在距离3:00还有几分钟。我在3:15回来，好吗？法院休庭。\n\n（于下午2:58休庭。）\n\n（于下午3:16恢复程序。）\n\n书记员：全体起立。Connecticut District（康涅狄格州联邦地区）美国破产法院现于休庭后（听不清）开庭。由尊敬的 Julie Manning（朱莉·曼宁）法官主持审理。\n\n法官：请坐。因此，我们将让窗户——门保持敞开，这样警报就不会再次响起。\n\n身份不明的女性发言人：我想她把它拔掉了——\n\nClaiborn 女士：是我把它拔掉了。\n\n法官：哦，是你吗？好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：你永远不知道空气质量有多差。\n\n法官：它没有显示“死亡”；它只是显示“差”，所以我想曾经有——\n\n（笑声）\n\n法官：我认为空气质量不太好。你——曾经有——那扇门打开是有原因的。有人介意——\n\nDespíns 先生：那里有一个门挡。\n\n法官：那里有一个门挡，这样我们大家才能呼吸。\n\n（笑声）\n\n法官：谢谢你，Baer（贝尔）律师。我对此表示感谢。因此，我们在休庭后恢复记录。我不知道，Despíns（德斯平斯）受托人，您是否有什么要报告的，或者受托人——或者 Bassett 律师，请原谅？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官大人。再次为记录起见，我是代表受托人的、来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。因此，我认为我们相当有效地利用了这段时间。我们与被告代理律师进行了交谈。显然，如果我说错了，或者他们反对我所概述的程序，任何认为有必要的人都可以纠正我，但我们讨论的是，我们将——受托人将对我们已经讨论过的命令作出修订，以及作出我们目前准备作出的任何其他修订，因此，我们随后将随同动议提交一份经修订的拟议命令。随后，我们将提交送达证明，表明我们已在本周五之前向被告送达该动议和该经修订的拟议命令。此后，各方、被告将有21天提出异议。我们最初希望是接近10天或14天的期限。一些被告表示，如能有额外时间提交意见、处理这些意见，然后在必要时提出异议，将会有所帮助，因此我们最终——我们愿意同意21天，并且我们将——\n\n法官：自3月22日起21天？\n\n巴塞特先生：自本周五起21天，即——\n\n法官：即3月22日。好的。继续。我只是想确认我理解这些日期。\n\n巴塞特先生：然后，按照早先进行的讨论，大意是各方显然将有机会讨论他们所作的或希望提出的任何修改。你知道，我们会尽力接纳尽可能多的修改。如提出异议，将提交该等异议，此后，你知道，我们将在一周后提交答复，或者按法院认为可行的期限提交，然后举行听证。\n\n巴塞特先生：随后，无论法院在该听证后可能作出何种命令，该命令都将对已被送达并有机会对动议提出异议的当事人具有约束力。至于任何尚未被送达的人，无论是外国被告还是其他人，我们将于适当时候处理这些问题。但总体而言，受托人对我概述的程序感到满意，并且我们认为其应当可行。\n\n法官：好的。那么让我们退一步，以便我确认我理解。我理解，但我想确认日期。因此，截至本周五，即3月22日，受托人将提交并送达一项修订命令或动议？抱歉。你们两者都会做吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：我预计，我们只会提交该动议，并附上一份经修订的拟议命令。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：但在我们评估此事时，如果我们需要随同其提交一项额外的封面动议，我们可能会这样做。\n\n法官：好的。这没问题。然后你们将在22日之前提交并送达；对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：正确。\n\n法官：好的。那么所有人都将在4月12日之前提交书面异议？那是异议截止日期？那是21天。\n\n巴塞特先生：法官大人，我没有打开日历，但如果是21天，那么是正确的。\n\n法官：那是21天。之后会怎样？我们何时举行听证？\n\n巴塞特先生：当然，要视法院的日程安排而定，受托人希望有机会在必要时针对可能提出的任何异议提交答复。\n\n69 案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 69 页，共 112 页\n\n只要有 5 至 7 天来完成该项工作，就足够了，然后我们可以举行听证会。法院：好的。请让我看一下日程表。\n\n现在，4 月 12 日是星期五，也是提出异议的截止日期，而你们希望有机会提交答复，我理解这一点。\n\n巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：法官阁下，我们不需要那么多时间。到下一周的周中应该就可以。德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：17 日。\n\n巴塞特先生：17 日是星期三吗？德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n巴塞特先生：17 日可以，法官阁下。法院：那么，我们可以在 22 日星期一或 23 日星期二下午举行听证会。\n\n巴塞特先生：这两个日期中的任何一个对受托人而言都可以，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么就定在 23 日星期二下午 1:00 吧。我认为你们需要一项命令来载明这些日期，或者你们需要就这些日期制作一份通知，巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）。你们倾向于哪种方式，我并不真的——我的意思是，我想你们会——我希望你们制作一份通知，对吧，你们——我不知道。如果你们宁愿要一项命令，也可以。它可以仅写明命令——你知道，与修正后的附带调解程序的修改撤销程序动议有关的排期命令，或类似表述。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 70 页，共 112 页\n\n巴塞特先生：我们很愿意在今天晚些时候或明天提交一份拟议命令。法院：这样可以，谢谢。好的。那么，关于调解事项的状态会议，这似乎解决了调解事项；对吗？巴塞特先生：我相信是这样，法官阁下。法院：好的。那么，关于尚待裁决的中止动议，即两项对抗程序、综合另我责任以及——巴塞特先生：民事 RICO，法官阁下。法院：——民事 RICO，在这些案件中甚至还没有签发传票，是吗？巴塞特先生：我相信传票终于已经签发，法官阁下，而且我认为我们实际上也已向位于美国的被告送达了那些起诉状。法院：但你们现在希望有一项命令中止这些程序？巴塞特先生：正是如此，法官阁下。法院：依我记忆，即使命令中没有写明，它将会写明——它可以写明，如果有人认为应解除中止，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31\n\n他们可以提交一项请求解除中止的动议。\n\n巴塞特先生：我相信命令中已有该项内容，法官阁下。\n\n法院：即使没有，我们也会加进去。\n\n巴塞特先生：依我看来，这是任何人都会享有的一项必要权利。\n\n法院：但我认为需要在命令中明确写出，好吗。因此，根据我们康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院（District of Connecticut Bankruptcy Court）的地方法规，当在一项对抗程序中提交动议时——而我知道它也在主案件中提交了——但其寻求的是在该对抗程序、即那两项对抗程序中获得救济，法院可以安排听证会，也可以不安排。这属于法院的自由裁量权，我认为没有理由就中止那两项动议、那两项特定对抗程序安排听证会。因此，该命令将予以作出；但如果其中没有写明我刚才所说的内容，我将会——将加入该内容，即当事人可以请求解除该命令。\n\n金德塞思律师（Attorney Kindseth）？\n\n金德塞思先生（Mr. Kindseth）：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n金德塞思先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表被告 Mei Guo（郭美）的 Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）。\n\n法院：在哪一项对抗程序中？\n\n金德塞思先生：法官阁下，这是在 RICO 诉讼中。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n金德塞思先生：我们确实有一些意见，昨天已与巴塞特律师分享，而且我相信——\n\n法院：是关于拟议命令？\n\n金德塞思先生：关于拟议命令。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n金德塞思先生：我们同意中止的实质内容。我们确实要求作出一些澄清，我相信受托人愿意接受这些澄清；特别是，我们只是希望明确，并且我们理解该动议背后的政策，其概括而言是，在存在另一项刑事程序期间，不应进行证据开示，因为政府会认为可能受到不利影响，或者刑事程序当事人会认为通过取得证据开示，或者对预计将在刑事程序中作证的证人进行证言录取，可能产生某种不利影响。因此，就中止的目的而言，我们支持作出该中止；但是，我们希望明确，由于我们已提交撤回移送动议，我们希望确保命令中明确，该中止并未中止联邦地区法院（District Court）或联邦地区法院对该动议的审理——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 72 页，共 112 页\n\n法院：那么，在对抗程序已被中止的情况下，你为什么希望联邦地区法院审理撤回移送动议？这不是浪费司法资源吗？\n\n金德塞思先生：法官阁下，据我理解，该中止的目的在于确保刑事程序的当事人不会因证据开示而受到不利影响，包括文件或证人证言录取。审理撤回移送的法律实质，其中部分提出了关于请求权有效性的法律问题，绝不会使刑事程序的当事人受到不利影响。而且，正如该项指控——\n\n法院：它或许不会使当事人受到不利影响，但可能会使联邦地区法院受到不利影响。我们为什么要让联邦地区法院处于那种境地——\n\n金德塞思先生：因为我们——\n\n法院：——即在对抗程序已被中止的情况下，他们无需决定是否撤回移送？\n\n金德塞思先生：我们认为针对我们当事人的指控完全毫无依据——\n\n法院：我明白。这与我刚才所说的毫无关系。\n\n金德塞思先生：没有理由——\n\n法院：那么，你为什么要让联邦地区法院处于那种境地？\n\n金德塞思先生：因为我们希望案件在该方面继续推进。\n\n法院：如果他们驳回你们的动议呢？\n\n金德塞思先生：那么，该中止将在所有其他方面生效。我们认为联邦地区法院应当审理该动议。我们有利益要求对法律问题作出裁决。针对我们当事人提出了一些非常严重的指控，我们认为这些指控完全没有依据——\n\n法院：你真的认为，在对抗程序已被中止时，联邦地区法院会就撤回移送动议作出裁决吗？\n\n金德塞思先生：我认为——\n\n法院：你真的这么认为吗？\n\n金德塞思先生：我认为应当明确，破产法院不应中止联邦地区法院。\n\n法院：但破产法院并未中止联邦地区法院，金德塞思律师。那不是我的问题。\n\n金德塞思先生：因此，我们希望明确规定，本院并未中止——而且您说得对，法官阁下，联邦地区法院将按其适当程序处理撤回移送事项，而我们只是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 74 页，共 112 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 75 页，共 112 页\n\n寻求命令中的明确性；我相信受托人并不反对在命令中明确，关于撤回移送动议的程序并未被中止。\n\n法院：好的。可以。\n\n金德塞思先生：非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：只要明白，联邦地区法院除了撤回移送动议之外，还有许多其他事项需要处理。因此，你们可以做任何你们想做的事，但我认为你们不应期待在基础对抗程序已被中止的情况下，他们会就此采取行动。\n\n金德塞思先生：我明白这一点，法官阁下。\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，仅就金德塞思律师的意见作简短回应。因此，他说得对，我们确实简短讨论过这个问题。只要有此必要，受托人并不反对使这一点显然明确，即法官阁下不会告诉联邦地区法院该做什么。话虽如此，我们完全同意，我无法想象会存在任何一种情形，使联邦地区法院愿意花费时间和精力审议一项已被中止的对抗程序中的该动议。因此，我想一旦中止生效，我们将向联邦地区法院提交某种通知，使联邦地区法院知悉该中止，但这不同于本院指示联邦地区法院该做什么。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 76 页，共 112 页\n\n法院：本院无权指示联邦地区法院该做什么。\n\n巴塞特先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：这一点非常明确。好的。所以你们没有一项经一致同意的命令；这就是你们告诉我的情况吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：我们会解决这个问题。\n\n法院：好的。那么，你们——何时——你们认为何时会提交该命令、那些命令，因为这太——嗯，你的只涉及一项，所以我不清楚。你只在 RICO 诉讼中代表郭美，而不在另我责任诉讼中代表她，对吗？\n\n金德塞思先生：我——我们尚未提交出庭通知，但我们将会在该案中代表她。\n\n法院：好的。那么提交——\n\n金德塞思先生：但我也就该事项代表她发言。\n\n法院：请提交该出庭通知。\n\n金德塞思先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：那么，你们二位需要多长时间？你们认为会在本次会议结束前完成吗？无论你们希望采用何种时限，我都没有问题，我只是需要知道。\n\n巴塞特先生：我会说在明天之前。\n\n金德塞思先生：如果您设定一个七天期限，我们会这样做，只是为了确保，但我们会在数日内完成。\n\n法院：我将把期限定为本周五，即 22 日。\n\n金德塞思先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么，这就处理了中止动议——我应该说，中止动议复数。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我只是想——为记录起见，我是 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）——我想明确，对另我责任的综合起诉状的中止，并不停止任何已经在进行中的诉讼；这意味着 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地），以及 HCHK 的任何剩余事项——\n\n法院：即在撤销诉讼开始之前已经在进行的那些——\n\n德斯平斯先生：当然。正确。\n\n法院：——这是正确的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：在该动议之前正在进行的——另我责任起诉状——正是如此，法官阁下。\n\n法院：是。\n\n德斯平斯先生：此外，对于一个名为 K Legacy（K 传承）的实体，存在一项除外规定。\n\n法院：我看到了。我确实看到了。而且我看到它们被列为被告。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3054 提交于 03/28/24 登记于 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 77 页，共 112 页\n\n好的。那么，中止命令将在 3 月 22 日当日或之前提交。\n\n那么，我们还需要在状态会议上讨论什么？\n\n巴塞特先生：我想就这些了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我唯一想向各方说明的是——或者说是向受托人说明，不是向各方——某些人已向书记官办公室（Clerk's Office）发送电子邮件，我猜他们是对抗程序中的被告，但我并不十分确定。我没有查看这些邮件。我们不审阅这类信件。我们不会将其登记入案卷。我认为接下来会发生的是，法院书记官（Clerk of the Court）将向那些向法庭助理（courtroom deputy）电子邮箱发送电子邮件的当事人发函，并告知他们：你们要么需要提交诉状，要么需要与Despins受托人（Trustee Despins）联系。这就是我们将要采取的做法。我只是想让你们知道——据我了解，只有两封，只有两封。但我甚至不知道他们是否是被告。我不会将其登记入案卷，因为鉴于本案对抗程序中有关保密性和保护令的问题，我认为在这种情况下这样做并不适当。我不知道这些人是否应当成为诉讼的一方。我不会为此操心。法院书记官将发函说明，你们不能通过电子邮件向法庭助理提交任何文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 79 of 112\n\n法庭助理。\n\n如果你们希望提交任何文件，必须在你们具有利害关系的对抗程序中提交，和/或应当联系Despins受托人，好吗。\n\n这就是我们将对法庭助理电子邮箱收到的这两封电子邮件所采取的做法；我想，如果收到任何其他类似通信，由于其中涉及保密性问题，我不会再去操心以这种方式收到的文件是否应当登记入案卷，好吗？\n\nBASSETT先生（巴西特）：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？\n\nBASSETT先生（巴西特）：我认为没有了。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我认为状态会议至此结束。至于仅为状态会议而到场的任何人，显然——无论如何，你们可以——我不必告诉你们——但显然，如你们愿意，可以离开。\n\n律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。谢谢。\n\n律师：再次感谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n好的。那么，我想我们现在转到费用申请和/或聘任律师的申请；对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：是的，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 80 of 112\n\n法庭：好的。请开始。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：那么，或许我先谈聘任律师的申请，这是瑞士律师。该律师事务所名为Praeger（普雷格）。如我们在向法庭提交的动议中所述，并且案卷编号3004处有一份修订命令，我们需要聘任瑞士律师，因为我们通过调查发现瑞士存在活动，有转移行为，你知道的，大额转移。那里可能有资产。\n\n瑞士法律不承认受托人，尽管我们的制度主张法庭对债务人的所有资产，无论位于何处，均有管辖权。在瑞士，本案受托人并不存在，除非寻求并获得承认，而这正是我们需要做的。\n\n法庭：对。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：因此，我们提交了一项动议，请求聘任Praeger律师事务所。他们的费用，法官阁下，已在申请中载明，范围是five hundred to \\$900。\n\n我们曾与美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）就聘任他们进行讨论。我们解决了若干问题，但未能解决两个问题。第一，Praeger律师事务所——这是一家非常小的律师事务所——没有行政系统来追踪费用，除差旅等大额费用外——顺便说一句，这里不会有这些费用——但对于复印费、电话费等费用，他们没有能力处理或记录这些费用，因此他们有一项标准条款，即通常按其费用的3 percent——即相当于其费用3 percent的金额——收取备用费用。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 81 of 112\n\n而且，显然，美国受托人对此感到关切，我理解这一点，因为这并非我们制度的运作方式；在我们的制度中，费用和支出应当分别列示，且支出应当有文件证明。我们完全理解这一点。我们已向Praeger作出说明，而他们基本上表示，由于他们是一家小型律师事务所，他们确实没有能力做到这一点。我们已同意将该视为支出降低至其费用的2 percent，因此，现在坦率地说，所涉及的金额并不多。\n\n我理解美国受托人对此的原则性异议，但在本案中，法官阁下，鉴于这些非常特殊的情形，我们请求法庭允许他们——实质上，我们也可以换一种做法，即将他们的费率提高2 percent，而他们将没有任何支出，但他们希望明确，做法是按费用的3 percent收取支出，在本案中，他们已同意降至2 percent，我们请求法庭允许这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 82 of 112\n\n尽管我们完全理解该项原则，即这些支出本应有文件证明，但在这里，我们认为所涉金额不可能超过约3 percent或2 percent，因为他们已同意，根本不会构成重大金额。至多也就是几千美元。实际上，我不相信会超过这个数额。\n\n那么，另一个问题是责任限制，我知道这是法官阁下特别关注的问题，我们曾就此与他们讨论。他们通常的委托函包含对过失、一般过失责任的排除，这与我们的做法非常不同，但须受他们协商确定的上限限制。在本案中，他们已同意将上限提高至\\$5 million，因此，如发生执业过失，我们的请求权将限于\\$5 million。\n\n同样，鉴于他们的角色，我实在难以相信——首先，我假定不会有任何执业过失——但即使有，损害赔偿也不可能超过\\$5 million。对于重大过失或故意行为，存在一项例外规定，因此，对此不存在责任上限。但对于一般过失或执业过失，责任上限为\\$5 million。\n\n我曾与该所的一位合伙人进行数次讨论，谈及在美国我们不这样做。很难想象对一般过失会有任何责任上限。但是——我说，听着，我将向法庭作出陈述。你最好确保这些陈述属实；他说，他们的委托函中也包含此类上限。他说，一般过失的上限通常为\\$2 million，在与其保险承保人沟通后，他同意提高该上限。因此，法官阁下，这些确实就是争议问题。我们在案卷编号3004处提交了一份修订命令，如果你查看文件3004的第13页（共14页）以及第14页（共14页），你会看到这些变更以及美国受托人在该案中已同意的其他变更均有反映。因此，实质上，争议问题就是：2 percent的视为支出，以及责任上限问题。就此，我将把讲台交给美国受托人。\n\n法庭：而且我面前就有该命令，所以我知道你在谈什么，我也已审阅过它。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Claiborn律师（Attorney Claiborn）？\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。正如Despins受托人所指出，美国受托人提交了一项有限异议，该异议载于案卷中的ECF 2997，两个问题正如Despins受托人所讨论。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 84 of 112\n\n我想先谈责任限制。因此，美国受托人反对对任何受聘代表破产财产并作为该财产受托人行事的专业人士作出任何责任限制，而这正是本申请所请求批准的事项。此类豁免没有依据。它不符合破产财产的最佳利益，并且如发生无人愿意谈及、但实际上可能发生的事件，会使破产财产面临不必要的风险。因此，美国受托人坚定认为，对任何代表破产财产的专业人士，例如律师，不应有责任限制。关于费用偿还问题，这同样不可接受。我进行了检索，未能找到任何已报道的案件，其中曾有基于按百分比方法偿还支出的聘用协议。我并不否定Praeger Dreifuss（普雷格·德赖富斯）所表述的立场，即他们没有建立相关系统。我认为，无论出于何种原因，这是他们的选择，但这并不使其对破产财产而言变得适当。\n\n没有任何方法可以使任何人确定这是否合理。《破产法典》（Code）、《规则》（Rules）以及《美国受托人费用指引》（U.S. Trustee Fee Guidelines）均非常明确规定，获取支出偿还须遵循一套方法。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 85 of 112\n\n该方法要求逐项列明。要求提供文件证明。还要求这些支出实际发生且属必要。此处所请求的按百分比方法并未满足其中任何要求。\n\n因此，美国受托人请求法庭执行现行构架下的《破产法典》、《规则》及《美国受托人费用指引》。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Despins受托人，有任何回应吗？\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：没有，我知道这些问题，法官阁下。我理解它们。这是我试图在瑞士聘任的第二家或第三家律师事务所，我想说，如果我们不能聘任他们，将对我们造成不利影响。\n\n我确实理解这些问题，法官阁下。我已向他们说明，这不是我们的运作方式，而他们表示，这就是他们准备同意的条件。因此，抱歉让您处于这个位置，但这是我所能取得的最佳结果。鉴于本案的特殊情形，因为我们认为——再次说明，我不想说确有——但瑞士可能存在重大资产，这一轻微、非常轻微的偏离《规则》应当获得授权。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31\n\n还有其他事项吗，克莱伯恩律师？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n今天结束后我会看一下，所以我将留待审议，但我会在一两天内作出裁定。这不会是我会搁置不办的事情。我只是想回去再看几件事情。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n那么，我们可以转至费用申请。我相信第一项是 O'Sullivan McCormack（奥沙利文·麦考马克律师事务所）的申请。您熟悉他们，他们是 Genever（杰内弗）在针对 AIG（美国国际集团）的诉讼中的律师，该申请可见于案卷编号 2928。\n\n该申请请求的救济是，就 2023 年 7 月 27 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日期间提供的专业服务支付 $191,730 的报酬，并偿还 $5,240。\n\n没有提出异议，法官阁下，美国受托人已在案卷编号 2989 提交无异议声明。\n\n准予 O'Sullivan McCormack 费用申请的拟议命令副本已随该申请一并提交，载于案卷编号 2928。\n\n我愿意回答您可能提出的任何问题，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我也没有任何补充，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。是否有人希望就 O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss（奥沙利文·麦考马克·延森及布利斯律师事务所）的第一份临时费用申请发表意见？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法庭：\n好的。既然没有人发言，德斯平斯受托人，我要说明的是，我已审阅该申请，并认为在本案的具体情形下，所请求的费用和开支是合理且必要的。我同意，没有针对该申请提交任何异议，美国受托人办公室已提交无异议声明。我看过拟议命令，其位于 ECF 编号 2928 的第 10 页——抱歉——第 19 和第 20 页，抱歉，该命令没有问题，唯一需要的是——我转向法庭书记员——请在命令第一页看起来是第五行的位置补上今天的听证日期。除此之外，一切均无问题，申请获准，命令将予以登记。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n下一份申请是 Kroll, LLC（克罗尔有限责任公司）的申请。这是他们的第一份临时费用申请。如您所知，他们是受托人聘请的法证专家。该申请于 2024 年 2 月 16 日提交，法官阁下，案卷编号为 2929。请求的救济是，就 2023 年 8 月 2 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日期间提供的专业服务支付 $1,019,095.55 的报酬，并偿还 $93,702.91 的开支。\n\n没有提出异议，法官阁下，美国受托人已在案卷编号 2991 提交无异议声明。\n\n我想提及，法官阁下，您知道，Kroll 在此期间的作用至关重要，因为该期间临近 2 月 15 日的期限。他们完成了所有会计工作和资金追踪工作，这是提起这些撤销诉讼的基础，该等诉讼合计请求的金额超过 $600 million，因此，我们认为这些费用应予批准，法官阁下。但我愿意回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：\n我没有任何问题，谢谢。克莱伯恩律师？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n法官阁下，我只想发表一点意见，即 Kroll 先前同意的费用削减已纳入该费用申请，我只是想让法庭知悉此事。\n\n法庭：\n好的。知道这一点很好。谢谢。我不确定我是否知道这一点；或者如果我知道，我可能已经忘记了，所以我感谢您说明这一点。那么，克莱伯恩律师，您的意思是，拟议命令作为申请的一部分，已经包括那些经削减的费用？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。好的。我已审阅 Kroll LLC 就 2023 年 8 月 2 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日期间的报酬和开支偿还所提出的第一份临时申请。我被提醒，该申请中请求的费用已经有所削减，而且实际上是由 Kroll 承担的——我应当说是承担，抱歉。对费用和开支的审查表明，在本案非常具体的情形下，该等费用和开支是必要且适当的。没有人就该申请提出任何书面异议。今天出席法庭的人中没有人反对该申请，美国受托人办公室已提交无异议声明。我还要对法庭书记员说，在拟议命令的第 1 页——该命令见 ECF 2929 的第 19 和第 20 页——同样只需补上今天的听证日期，之后该命令即无问题并可予登记。基于所有这些理由，Kroll 的第一份临时申请获准。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n接下来是 Harney Westwood & Riegels（哈尼·韦斯特伍德及里格尔斯律师事务所）的申请。他们是我们的 BVI 律师，即 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）律师，法官阁下。这是他们的第二份费用申请，于 2 月 29 日提交，案卷编号 2933。请求的救济是，就 8 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间提供的专业服务支付 $101,597 的报酬，并偿还同一期间的 $1,825 开支。我知道 Harney 与美国受托人之间曾有沟通，但我不熟悉细节。但我知道没有提出异议，而且美国受托人已在案卷编号 2990 提交无异议声明，法官阁下。我愿意回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我没有任何补充，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。我没有问题，谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n因此，拟议命令附于案卷编号 2933 的申请中。\n\n法庭：\n是的，拟议命令位于 2933 的第 16 和第 17 页。我已审阅律师的第二份临时费用申请。在本案及所有相关程序的情形下，所请求的费用和开支是合理且必要的。\n\n没有人就第二份临时费用申请提出任何书面异议，今天参与本次听证的人员中也没有人反对第二份临时费用申请。\n\n美国受托人办公室已提交无异议声明。我正在查看随第二份临时费用申请提交的拟议命令，该命令位于 2933 的第 16 和第 17 页，除需在第一页加上今天的听证日期外，该命令似乎并无问题。\n\n因此，基于所有这些理由，第二份临时费用申请获准，拟议命令将予以登记。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n下一份申请是 Epiq Corporate Restructuring（Epiq 企业重组公司）的申请。这是第三份临时费用申请，于 2024 年 2 月 16 日提交，案卷编号 2930，涉及去年 9 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间。他们请求——他们曾请求支付 $10,417 的报酬并偿还 $1,606.43 的开支。\n\n美国受托人与 Epiq 之间进行了广泛讨论，并同意削减费用。因此，费用从 $10,417 降至 $7,000——从 $10,417 降至 $7,862，因此削减约 $2500。至于开支偿还——不，我认为开支没有变化，只有费用发生变化，并且美国受托人已在案卷编号 2992 提交声明，即无异议声明。\n\n法庭：\n那么，我正在看的是哪一份拟议命令？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我认为我没有见过经修订的拟议命令。\n\n法庭：\n我认为我也没有见过。这正是问题所在。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n我们需要向您提交该命令，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。没有问题。请继续，克莱伯恩律师。抱歉。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n法官阁下，我只是想说，我在 ECF 2992 提交的声明载有应当获准的费用和开支的正确金额。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n即 $7,862。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n正确。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n开支也没有变化。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n那么，我们将会——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我确实审阅了费用和开支，并且我在听证会前理解费用有所削减；我只是没有看到经修订的拟议命令，但这没有问题。在费用经如此削减且开支维持不变的情况下，我确实认为该等费用在本案情形下是必要且适当的。再次说明，唯一的问题是关于费用的问题，该问题在美国受托人提交其关于削减费用的声明后得到解决，基于所有这些——并且没有任何人提出其他书面异议。今天参与本次听证的人员中没有人反对 Epiq 经削减的费用及开支。因此，基于所有这些理由，该临时申请，即 Epiq 的第三份临时申请，获准。我需要受托人提交一份拟议命令。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n会的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n我说在周五之前提交，可以吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n当然可以。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，该申请获准。Epiq 的第三份临时费用申请获准。拟议命令应于 3 月 22 日当日或之前及之后提交。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n下一份申请是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的申请，即第四份临时费用申请，同样于 2024 年 2 月 19 日提交，案卷编号 2935。该申请请求的救济是，就 9 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间提供的专业服务支付 $6,911,034.50 的报酬，并偿还 $718,236.31 的开支。\n\n我们与美国受托人进行了广泛讨论，导致费用削减 $192,930，即近 $200,000，这将使获准费用降至 $6,718,104.50。此外，我们同意削减 $3,518.70 的开支。那是我们自行发现的一项错误，因此我们同意按该金额削减开支。\n\n美国受托人已在案卷编号 2998 提交其声明，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n我认为，这可能再次属于我们需要经修订的拟议命令的情形。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n但是，克莱伯恩律师，您提交的声明中所列金额，是美国受托人办公室的金额。\n\n95 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 主张且不反对获裁定支付？克莱伯恩女士：正确。法院：好的。谢谢。德斯平斯先生：为明确起见，法官阁下，他们将获裁定支付，但不会获得全额支付，因为有20 percent的暂扣。扣除20 percent暂扣后实际将支付的金额为$5,374,483.60。法院：我在其他命令中看到有关实际将支付金额与获裁定支付金额的规定，因此我理解这是所提交申请程序的一部分，然后这是对已提交申请的批准，并且其中一些已经支付。因此，谢谢，我明白了。我已审阅费用和开支，并赞赏该律所就开支纠正了一项错误。这总是有帮助的。我认为费用——我认定，鉴于本案及相关程序的情形，尤其是本案及众多相关程序的非常具体情形，该等费用是合理且必要的。无人就该费用申请，即第四次中期费用申请，提交任何书面异议——我说得对吗，这是第四次，对吗？德斯平斯先生：是。案号 22-50073 文件 3054 提交日期 03/28/24 录入日期 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 95 页，共 112 页\n\n1 法院：\n好的。\n\n2 德斯平斯先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n3 法院：\n并且，美国受托人办公室和\n4 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）就所\n5 请求的金额进行了数次讨论，并就削减金额达成一致，法院\n6 对此表示赞赏。在此情形下，\n7 Paul Hastings的第四次中期报酬申请\n8 予以准许，我要求于3月22日星期五前\n9 提交一份修订后的拟议命令。\n\n10 德斯平斯先生：\n照办，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n11 法院：\n谢谢。\n\n12 德斯平斯先生：\n我相信还剩两项费用\n13 申请：Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利），首席执行官的律师，以及\n14 Skalka先生所在的律所，因此我将让他们\n15 就该等申请陈述。\n\n16 谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n17 法院：\n谢谢。\n\n18 梅休女士：\n感谢。\n\n19 下午好，法官阁下，我是Kristin Mayhew（克里斯廷·梅休），\n20 Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n21 现由法院审理的是Pullman & Comley的第三次\n22 中期报酬核准及\n23 开支偿还申请。根据该申请，\n24 Pullman & Comley请求支付金额为$89,835.50的费用，\n25 并偿还金额为$392.14的开支。\n\n97 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 已对该费用申请进行适当送达，并于2月20日在ECF 2937提交了送达证明。法官阁下，未收到任何异议，美国受托人已在ECF 2988提交无异议声明。我们请求法官阁下签发附于ECF 2872-3申请文件中的拟议格式命令。法院：谢谢。克莱伯恩律师？克莱伯恩女士：我没有补充，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。我已审阅Pullman & Comley作为无担保债权人正式委员会律师所提交的第三次中期费用申请，并认定该等费用和开支在本案情形下是合理且必要的。我注意到，自——我想我此前提过这一点——但自受托人获任命以来，该委员会一直对其费用和开支极为审慎，但我也同意，委员会仍有需要履行的事项和任务，并且我认为该等费用和开支在此情形下是合理的。无人就第三次中期费用申请提交书面异议。案号 22-50073 文件 3054 提交日期 03/28/24 录入日期 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 97 页，共 112 页\n\n98 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 美国受托人办公室已提交无异议声明。今日参加本次听证的任何人均未反对第三次中期费用申请。我想请法庭书记员在第一页最底部添加今天的日期。该处仅写明在就申请举行听证后，如能写明“于 May 19th [原文如此] 举行”，则当有人需要知道何时举行时，他们就会知道。但除此之外，我对拟议命令没有修改。因此，基于所有这些理由，Pullman & Comley的第三次中期费用申请予以准许，拟议命令将予签发。梅休女士：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。斯卡尔卡先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），代表Neubert Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂斯），或来自Neubert Pepe & Monteith，代表Neubert Pepe & Monteith就报酬提出的第四次中期申请，该申请于2月19日在案卷号2936提交。Neubert Pepe & Monteith请求的费用涵盖2023年9月21日至2023年12月31日期间。所请求的费用总额为$1,038,670，开支为$34,929.96。费用中包括$5,945的自愿削减。反映该申请已送达的送达证明已于\n\n99 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 2024年2月27日提交。我们未收到对该申请的任何异议，美国受托人办公室已提交无异议声明。以Neubert Pepe & Monteith已同意的20 percent暂扣为条件，我们已提交一份修订后的拟议命令，该命令确实反映将实施该20 percent暂扣。克莱伯恩律师要求我再次修订该命令，明确提及该暂扣的金额；我将照办，并于——在星期五前提交修订后的命令，法官阁下。法院：好的。所以我正在看一份修订后的命令，但你是说还需要进一步修订？斯卡尔卡先生：是，法官阁下。修订后的命令将该术语界定为申请期间暂扣。克莱伯恩律师已要求我具体说明暂扣金额，该金额载于下一段，但我将略微修订并填入$203,734这一数字。法院：好的。好吧。我已审阅Neubert Pepe & Monteith与第四次中期报酬核准及开支偿还有关的费用和开支，并认定该等费用和开支是合理且必要的。案号 22-50073 文件 3054 提交日期 03/28/24 录入日期 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 99 页，共 112 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3054 提交日期 03/28/24 录入日期 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 100 页，共 112 页\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 鉴于本案及众多相关程序的情形。无人就第四次中期申请提交任何书面异议。今日参加本次听证的任何人均未反对该进一步中期申请。我理解你已就准许该申请的修订后拟议命令与美国受托人合作，且该命令将进一步修订。因此，基于所有这些理由，Neubert Pepe & Monteith的第四次中期申请予以准许，修订后的拟议命令将于3月22日或之前提交。斯卡尔卡先生：当然，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。斯卡尔卡先生：谢谢。法院：好的。那么，如果我理解正确，受托人德斯平斯，我想我们已经处理完下午1:30时段的所有事项，尽管现在已是下午4:00；对吗？德斯平斯先生：是，法官阁下。法院：好的。那么，我们有两项排定于下午2:00审理的驳回动议。我看到律师正就其动议走近。我看到金塞斯律师和Dell Fera律师，这两项动议——我不知道。显然，你们二位都可以进行辩论。我看到一项加入，我想是部分加入，那么你们今天下午打算如何进行？我知道这两项——我理解罪名项3和4适用于一名被告，罪名项5和6适用于另一名被告，但我也看到论点非常相似。因此，无论你们想如何进行都可以。德拉费拉先生：所以，法官阁下，您说得对。论点相似。坦率地说，我们认为由——看来您得原谅我，法官阁下——\n\n101 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 法院：慢慢来。德拉费拉先生：——较晚加入的被告Leading Shine New York（领秀纽约）进行辩论会更有效率。法院：Leading Shine。德拉费拉先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我们没有为Leading Shine另行提交一项动议并另行安排听证日期，而是请求，并且法官阁下慷慨地允许我们今日代表Leading Shine就驳回动议进行辩论。正如法官阁下所指出，适用于各被告的罪名项是分别且不同的。就Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）而言，为第三项和第四项；就Leading Shine而言，为第五项和第六项。如我们在书面文件中所指出，鉴于这些被告的注册成立或设立管辖地，论点相似，法官阁下，案号 22-50073 文件 3054 提交日期 03/28/24 录入日期 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 101 页，共 112 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3054 提交日期 03/28/24 录入日期 03/28/24 09:21:31 第 102 页，共 112 页\n\n1 2 对这些被告而言，不同州的法律，具体为纽约州和特拉华州法律，将适用。\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 除Hudson Diamond New York和Leading Shine外，该动议还代表被告Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）和Mei Guo（郭梅）提出。就这些被告而言，论点略有不同，法官阁下；即，未对这些特定被告提出任何请求或诉因。起诉状载有关于郭女士和/或Hudson Diamond Holding在受托人寻求获得救济的被告中的所有权权益或成员权益的指控，但如果法官阁下审阅罪名项3、4、5、6，乃至请求1和2，法官阁下，均未针对郭女士或Hudson Diamond Holding提出救济请求。\n\n15 16 17 18 我们主张，因此，受托人未能根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》12(b)(6)和《联邦破产程序规则》7012对该两名被告提出诉因。\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 对于其他被告，即针对其提出救济请求的被告，我们主张——再次强调，并非赘述——法官阁下，这已载于书面文件中，鉴于债务人被指称和/或目前已确定的情况，法院根据Wagoner规则和不法相等原则，对受托人试图针对该等被告提出的请求不具有管辖权，法官阁下\n\n1 2 3 今日早些时候提及了本法院就受益所有权及另我关系所作的某些认定。\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 但无论如何，就Hudson Diamond New York和Leading Shine而言，该等被告主张，根据不法相等原则和Wagoner规则，鉴于受托人代替债务人郭先生行事，受托人的请求不能适当地针对他们提出。\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 同样，Leading Shine提出相同论点，而且，再次根据书面陈述中列明的论点，法官阁下，该等被告，即所有六名被告——抱歉，所有四名被告主张，起诉状未能提出请求。而且，尤其就郭女士和Hudson Diamond Holding而言，我们主张，任何救济请求、任何请求或诉因的缺失，应导致本法院驳回针对该两名被告的起诉状，并基于其他理由驳回针对所有被告的起诉状。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。Bassett律师？巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。实际上，我可以走近讲台吗？\n\n法庭：当然。\n\n巴塞特先生：再次说明记录在案，我是代表第11章受托人的 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。法官阁下，我认为，根据我们提交的书面材料及本案的历史情况，法院此时很可能已经知悉，今天我们正在讨论的各项驳回动议中提出的所有论点，均已向本院提出，并已由本院作出裁决。法院已经裁定，与针对这些被告的起诉状所载完全相同的指控，足以构成关于替身实体和／或受益所有权的请求；法院也已经审议并驳回了 Wagoner 规则及不法行为相等抗辩对与本案几乎相同的请求之适用性。事实上，某些被告受到禁止反言和／或既判力的约束，因为他们本人此前已就这些问题受到本院的裁定；尤其是在本对抗程序中，法院已经裁定被告 Leading Shine（领耀）依据 Rule 55(c) 提出的撤销缺席裁定动议。尽管法院最终准许了该动议，但正如法院当然非常清楚的，在其分析过程中，法院裁定 Leading Shine 未能提出一项有实质依据的抗辩。而其有实质依据的抗辩理由，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 105 of 112\n\n抗辩理由与其现今在驳回动议中提出的理由相同。因此，这些论点已在本对抗程序中向法院提出，并已被驳回。\n\n至于其余被告，我先谈 Wagoner 规则和不法行为相等抗辩。法院不仅已就 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）作出裁定——或者抱歉，是就 Leading Shine 作出裁定——但我认为，法院在作出该裁定时，回溯援引了本对抗程序中针对 Lamp Capital 的裁定；当时法院驳回了 Lamp Capital 依据 Rule 55(c) 提出的撤销缺席裁定动议。法院还援引了其在 HK USA（香港美国）对抗程序中的先前裁定；在该程序中，法院驳回了包括本案被告 Mei Guo（郭美）在内的被告所提出的驳回动议，随后最终作出有利于受托人的简易判决。\n\n在上述两项裁定中，即 Lamp Capital 一案及 HK USA 一案中，法院恰当地确认，受托人在这些案件中，以及在本案中同样，是代表债权人依据《破产法典》第544条提出其请求。包括第二巡回法院的 PepsiCo 案在内，存在非常明确的先例表明，在受托人代表债权人提出请求时，不法行为相等抗辩及 Wagoner 规则问题并不适用；这不同于受托人依据《破产法典》第541条以债务人地位提出的请求。本案并非后一种情形。\n\n这也是本案区别于被告一再援引的康涅狄格联邦地区法院 Flanagan 案的原因。该案地区法院明确指出，该案受托人的继任者未能提出其请求，且事实上已因时效届满而无法依据《破产法典》第544条提出其请求；因此，该案对 Wagoner 规则和不法行为相等抗辩的分析与本案无关。那是一起第541条案件，而非第544条案件。\n\n法院还在 HK USA 命令中具体确认，就 Mei Guo 而言，其属于不法行为相等原则中的内部人例外。法院在 HK USA 案中明确作出该项裁定，理由是她是债务人的女儿，并被安排为被指称的替身实体的名义所有人；因此，法院认定，即使第544条问题并非决定性的，内部人例外仍将适用。\n\n被告 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）也是如此；其被指称为该实体的真实所有人，或者被指称为该实体的名义所有人，因而受债务人控制。法院还在 HK USA 对抗程序中裁定，基于同样理由，HK USA 是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 107 of 112\n\n属于内部人例外的内部人。\n\n因此，我认为，就所有这些问题而言，我已说明并在书面材料中论述的分析——法院在其先前裁定中进行了更为详尽的分析——对本案提出的 Wagoner 规则和不法行为相等抗辩论点具有决定性作用。\n\n至于律师另行归类的另外两名被告，即 Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）和 Mei Guo，该论点也已由法院作出裁定并先前予以驳回。实质上，律师提出的论点是，起诉状对 Hudson Diamond Holding 和 Mei Guo 没有或仅有极少实质性指控，因此未能提出请求。\n\n但该论点未能认识到，将这两名被告列为本案被告的全部原因，在于他们声称持有被指称的替身实体的所有权权益；具体而言，Hudson Diamond Holding 是 Hudson Diamond New York 的所谓唯一成员，而 Mei Guo 主张其为被告 Leading Shine 的所有人。因此，将他们列为被告的全部原因在于，如果我们就替身实体和／或受益所有权请求获胜，以致这些实体中的全部资产和／或所有权权益均须移交破产财产，他们就是必须被强制促成该项移交的人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 108 of\n\n我们针对他们没有许多或者仅有极少指控，这一点完全不应令人意外，因为这正是关键所在：控制这些实体、代表其作出决定等等的，是债务人，而非这些被告。他们仅仅是名义代持人。这就是为什么起诉状中很少提及他们，但我们需要获得针对他们的救济。\n\n正如我在本部分论证开始时所提到的，法院也已经对此作出裁定。在 Lamp Capital 一案中，在驳回 Lamp Capital 的 Rule 55(c) 动议的裁定中，法院在该裁定第23页得出了完全相同的结论。我不会通读整段引文，但法院命令的要点是，起诉状必然将 Infinity Treasury（无限财政）列为被告。Lamp 实体提出的相反异议毫无依据。\n\n当时的论点是，应当驳回针对 Infinity Treasury 的请求，因为针对它实际上没有很多指控。它仅仅是 Lamp Capital 的名义所有人。法院恰当地驳回了该论点。我也应当在此再次驳回该论点。\n\n法官阁下，我认为这就是我要说的全部内容。鉴于这些问题已多次讨论，我不会赘述；但是，显然，如果法院有任何问题，我很乐意予以答复。\n\n法庭：目前我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Della Fera 先生，您还有任何想补充的吗？\n\nDella Fera 先生：没有进一步内容，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。关于——抱歉，我刚才找不到位置了。请给我一点时间。抱歉。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：关于针对 Hudson Diamond New York、Hudson Diamond Holding、Mei Guo 和 Leading Shine 的第3项和第4项罪名项的驳回动议——嗯，Leading Shine 属于另一项动议。抱歉。我将保留裁定，尽管我认为很快就会作出裁定。我熟悉双方的论点及本对抗程序中提出的论点，因此我认为这将使得能够迅速作出裁定，好吗。谢谢。关于另一项动议，Kindseth 律师，您将就该动议进行辩论吗？\n\nDella Fera 先生：我——\n\n法庭：或者无论由谁。都可以。\n\nDella Fera 先生：不，我认为该动议已经\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 109 of 112\n\n得到有效辩论。\n\n法庭：好的。只要您对此没有异议——\n\nDella Fera 先生：是。\n\n法庭：——即，它适用于两项动议？\n\n未具名发言人：我认为是这样。\n\n法庭：好的。可以。\n\n巴塞特先生：但我原本打算在我的答复中处理两项动议。\n\n法庭：好的。我只是想为记录明确这一点，这就是我最初提出该问题的原因。我实际上不确定您是否在处理两项动议。\n\nDella Fera 先生：当然。我对此表示感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：如果我没有理解这一点，我表示歉意。因此，关于两项动议，我的陈述均适用，即我理解相关论点。我对这些论点没有任何问题。我将保留裁定并据此作出裁定。但正如我所说，我熟悉这些论点，因此我需要回去审阅，然后据此作出裁定，但我相信将会迅速作出裁定，好吗。谢谢。今天下午，在任何事项中，我们还有其他需要处理的吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3054 Filed 03/28/24 Entered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 110 of 112\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3054\nFiled 03/28/24\nEntered 03/28/24 09:21:31\n\nDESPINS 先生：我认为没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：从您的角度看，还有什么吗，律师？\n\nDella Fera 先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么，如果我没弄错，而且我们大家都成功保持了呼吸——这很有帮助——在法庭内，那么我唯一要说的是，在接下来的一两个月，我们可能会因这里施工而在楼上开庭，但如果发生这种情况，您们会知道的。我的意思是，这肯定会发生，我只是不知道何时发生，好吗。\n\n因此，如果有一天您进入大楼，法警告诉您们必须上楼，那就是原因，好吗。\n\n好的。至此，今天的所有听证均已结束，因此，现在休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n书记员：全体起立。\n\n法庭休庭。\n\n（程序于下午4:23结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3054\nFiled 03/28/24\nEntered 03/28/24 09:21:31 Page 112 of 112\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力范围，上述内容是对上述案件程序电子录音的正确文字记录。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling March 22, 2024\n\nWilliam J. Garling（威廉·J.·加林），CET-543\n\n认证法庭记录员\n\nFor Reliable（可靠公司）","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Guo","CIPA","Kwok","Paul Hastings","HCHK","RICO","Luc Despins","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2872,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2929,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2937,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2988,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2992,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2997,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3003,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3004,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":30001,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-03-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-03-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:25:33"}