{"id":"court_ctb_3150_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3150,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-04-30","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 . TRUSTEE, . . Plaintiff, . . Adversary Proceeding v. . No. 23-05013 . HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; , HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, . INC.; LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND. STAFFING, INC.; HOLY CITY . HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.; . ANTHONY DIBATTISTA; YVETTE . WANG; AND BRIAN HOFMEISTER, . Courtroom 123 AS ASSIGNEE OF THE HCHK . Brien McMahon Federal Building ENTITIES, . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendants. . . Tuesday, April 23, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:00 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 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 1 of 186\n\n| | | 2 |\n|----------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES: | |\n| 2 | For the Chapter 11 | |\n| 3 | Trustee: | Luc A. Despins, Esquire
PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
200 Park Avenue |\n| 4 | | New York, New York 10166 |\n| 5
6 | | Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire
2050 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036 |\n| 7 | | Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire
NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. |\n| 8
9 | | 195 Church Street
13th Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06510 |\n| 10 | For the U.S. Trustee: | Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |\n| 11 | | OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
The Giaimo Federal Building |\n| 12 | | 150 Court Street, Room 302
New Haven, Connecticut 06510 |\n| 13 | For the Official | |\n| 14 | Committee of
Unsecured Creditors: | Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire |\n| 15 | | PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
850 Main Street |\n| 16 | | 8th Floor
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 |\n| 17 | For Pacific Alliance | |\n| 18 | Asia Opportunity Fund: | Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP |\n| 19
20 | | Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036 |\n| | | |\n| 21
22 | | Annecca H. Smith, Esquire
ROBINSON & COLE, LLP
280 Trumbull Street |\n| | | Hartford, Connecticut 06103 |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24
25 | | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 2 of 186\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3150
Filed 04/30/24 | Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 | Page 3 of 186 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| | | | 3 |\n| 1 | ALSO APPEARING: | | |\n| 2 | For G Club Operations: | Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire | |\n| 3 | | GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC
One Audubon Street | |\n| 4 | | 3rd Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06511 | |\n| 5 | For Fox News Network | | |\n| 6 | and Marcum LLP: | Henry P. Baer, Esquire
FINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP
177 Broad Street | |\n| 7 | | 15th Floor
Stamford, Connecticut 06901 | |\n| 8 | | -and- | |\n| 9 | | Andrew R. Gottesman, Esquire | |\n| 10 | | MINTZ & GOLD
600 3rd Avenue | |\n| 11 | | New York, New York 10016 | |\n| 12 | For HCHK Property
Management, Inc.: | John T. Shaban, Esquire | |\n| 13 | | LEVINE & LEVINE, PLLC
2 Jefferson Plaza I | |\n| 14 | | New York, Suite 100
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 | |\n| 15 | For Taurus Fund LLC: | Michael T. Conway, Esquire | |\n| 16 | | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP
747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor | |\n| 17 | | Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10017 | |\n| 18 | For Weddle Law PLLC: | Richard J. Corbi, Esquire | |\n| 19 | | THE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J.
CORBI PLLC | |\n| 20 | | 1501 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10036 | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | For Blueberry
Builders, LLC: | Heather Spaide, Esquire
MARINO, ZABEL & SCHELLENBERG, PLLC | |\n| 23 | | 657 Orange Center Road | |\n| 24 | | Orange, Connecticut 06477 | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3150 | Filed 04/30/24 | Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 | Page 4 of 186 |\n|---------------|----------------|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| | | | | | 4 |\n| 1 | | ALSO APPEARING: | | | |\n| 2 | For 3 Columbus | | | | |\n| 3 | Circle LLC: | | | Matthew Pesce, Esquire
MURTHA CULLINA | |\n| 4 | | | | 107 Elm Street, 11th Floor
Stamford, Connecticut 06902 | |\n| 5 | | For Anthem Health | | | |\n| 6 | Plans, Inc.: | | | Jessica Signor, Esquire
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP | |\n| 7 | | | | 300 Atlantic Street, Third Floor
Stamford, Connecticut 06901 | |\n| 8 | For Mei Guo: | | | Stephen M. Kindseth, Esquire
ZEISLER & ZEISLER | |\n| 9 | | | | 10 Middle Street | |\n| 10 | | | | 15th Floor
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 | |\n| 11 | | For Marie Petrantoni: | | Holly G. Rogers, Esquire | |\n| 12 | | | | MELICK & PORTER, LLP
900 Main Street South | |\n| 13 | | | | Suite 102
Southbury, Connecticut 06488 | |\n| 14 | | For Defendant: | Ivan J. Ladd-Smith, Esquire
SPEARS MANNING & MARTINI LLC
2425 Post Road | | |\n| 15 | | | | Suite 203 | |\n| 16 | | | | Southport, Connecticut 06824 | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n| | | | 5 |\n|----|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|\n| 1 | | INDEX | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter | | |\n| 4 | #3003: | Motion for Order Modifying Avoidance Action
Procedures to Include Procedures for | 6 |\n| 5 | | Mediation of Avoidance Actions Filed by
Patrick R. Linsey on Behalf of Luc A. | |\n| 6 | | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | |\n| 7 | Matter
#268: | Motion for Default Judgment by Court
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) and | |\n| 8 | | Fed. R. Bank. P. 7055 against HCHK
Technologies, Inc.; HCHK Property | |\n| 9 | | Management, Inc.; Lexington Property and
Staffing, Inc.; Holy City Hong Kong | |\n| 10 | | Ventures, Ltd.; Anthony DiBattista; Yvette
Wang; and Brian Hofmeister, as Assignee of | |\n| 11 | | the HCHK Entities. Filed by Patrick R.
Linsey on Behalf of Luc A. Despins, | |\n| 12 | | Plaintiff | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n 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 1:04 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. And Adversary No. 23-5013, Despins versus HCHK Technologies, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. I'm going to take appearances for the record first for all parties appearing in the main Chapter 11 jointly administered cases and then for the parties appearing in Adversary 23-05013. Trustee Despins, would you like to start? MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: You have to come forward. I'm sorry. You know, because everything is on audio, we have to make sure that the microphone can pick up your voice. MR. SHABAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 6 of 186\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 Shaban for the HCHK entities. THE COURT: Good afternoon, Attorney Shaban. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz, Green & Sklarz, for G Club and also for Weddle Law Firm, who is also represented by Richard Corbi, who's over to my left, and he will file pro hac vice papers for Attorney Corbi, ask that he handle the matters related to (indiscernible). THE COURT: All right. Give me just a moment. Okay? So when you are appearing -- and it's absolutely fine. I just want to know there are specific adversary proceedings you're involved in in connection with the mediation procedures. Correct? MR. SKLARZ: Correct. THE COURT: So I think I may have a list, but I'd rather you tell me what you think you're involved in first, and then I can see if I'm right. MR. SKLARZ: I will admit Your Honor that I am not sure of what the adversary proceedings are. THE COURT: But I have them, I think. I have -- MR. SKLARZ: I have a list too. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: But I -- if I may have a moment. THE COURT: I have -- I believe you have an\n\n25 appearance, and you're asking for a visiting attorney to be\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 appearing in 24-05275 and in 24-05188. MR. SKLARZ: Yes. 5188, I do know is the Weddle adversary. I think the other adversary that you're referring to is Pillsbury Winthrop. THE COURT: I believe so. Yes. MR. SKLARZ: Yes. But the Pillsbury Winthrop is not filed or actually, they have filed in this one. So, yes, we would be here for Pillsbury -- THE COURT: Well, you filed an objection to the mediation procedures and that relates to both of those adversary proceedings. Okay? MR. SKLARZ: Yep. Yep. THE COURT: I just want to make the record as clear as we possibly can so that it -- this recording will be recorded as it has been in all of the hearings since this case, the main Chapter 11 case of Mr. Kwok was filed in February of 2022. The recording will be available for transcript purposes in the main case. And it will cite to various adversary proceedings. And obviously, we're going to have a hearing in an adversary proceeding that's in the main case - related to these main cases as part of today's calendar. The reason I'm trying to be specific is, at some point, some counsel may only want a portion of the transcript. I don't know. That's up to them. But it's all Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 8 of 186\n\n| 1 | -- with any kind of transcript request would have to be made |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | through the main case.
And I just wanted to be clear about |\n| 3 | that and then clear what you're here on. |\n| 4 | You're here -- the procedures related to the |\n| 5 | mediation was filed in the main case, but you represent |\n| 6 | parties in those two specific adversary proceedings. |\n| 7 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
As well.
Okay. |\n| 9 | MR. SKLARZ:
G Club, Pillsbury, and Weddle. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 13 | MR. CONWAY:
Michael Conway, Lazare Potter |\n| 14 | Giacovas & Moyle, represent First Funding, (indiscernible). |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 16 | MR. GOTTESMAN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
I'm |\n| 17 | sorry, good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
That's okay. |\n| 19 | MR. GOTTESMAN:
Andrew Gottesman of Mintz & Gold. |\n| 20 | I represent Fox News in adversary proceeding 24-0515 and |\n| 21 | Markham LLP in adversary proceeding 24-05229. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
I see |\n| 23 | Attorney Baer is with you on both of those matters.
Is that |\n| 24 | right, Attorney Baer? |\n| 25 | MR. BAER:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's correct. THE COURT: And then you have any other matters as well? MR. BAER: Yes, Your Honor. I'm also appearing on behalf of Nardello (phonetic) & Company, which is adversarial proceeding 24-05162. Teris-Phoenix LLC, which is 24-05044. Post Oak Motors, 24-05017, and then Hanon Hong Kong Opportunities Offshore and Onshore Funds, which is 24-05272. THE COURT: Did you file an objection on behalf of the last defendant? MR. BAER: We did not, Your Honor. (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. I just wanted -- I didn't have a record of that, so I wanted to make sure that what I had was accurate. MR. BAER: That's correct. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MS. SPAIDE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Heather Spaide from Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg, here representing Blueberry Builders, LLC. And I have -- THE CLERK: I'm sorry. I did not get your name. THE COURT: You just have to speak more into the microphone. I'm sorry. MS. SPAIDE: Heather Spaide from Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 10 of 186\n\n 11 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 CLERK: I'm sorry, could you say it again? MS. SPAIDE: Heather Spaide. THE COURT: It's S-P-A-I-D-E, is that right? Yes, I saw your notice of appearance. MS. SPAIDE: Yes, thank you. And we -- Blueberry Builders LLC is an adversary proceeding 24-05007, and it also filed a limited objection to the motion on the calendar today. We also moved the pro hac vice admission of Attorney Amy Oden, who is here with me today. THE COURT: Good afternoon. It may have been moved along for entry. I believe it is going to be entered if it hasn't already. So that's fine. You can absolutely appear. The only thing I would note, Attorney Spaide, is for your office to note. The clerk's office, noted that Attorney Marino filed notices of appearance on behalf of Attorney Zabel with his CM/ECF, but we can't do that. So I'm just telling you that the clerk's office has to maintain that record from the person that actually files it. So it's fine. You don't have -- just if you would talk to them about that and make sure that works out in the future, I'd appreciate that. MS. SPAIDE: I'll talk to our paralegal, yes. Thank you. THE COURT: I appreciate that. Thank you. MS. ROGERS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holly Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 11 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 12 of 186\n\n12\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 Rogers, Melick & Porter, on behalf of Marini Pietrantoni, and Muniz (phonetic), which is a defendant in adversary proceeding 24-05205. And we have not filed any response to the Trustee's motion regarding the avoidance procedure. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PESCE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Matthew Pesce, Murtha Cullina, on behalf of avoidance action defendant 3 Columbus Circle. We filed a limited objection in the main case on behalf of 3 Columbus Circle, but we also represent two other of avoidance action defendants, but we did not file objections in those matters for those clients. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. MS. SIGNOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jessica, Signor, Shipman Goodwin. I'm here on behalf of three separate avoidance defendants. The first is Art Wolf Inc. That avoidance defendant can be found at adversary proceeding 24-05033. I'm also here on behalf of Anthem Healthcare Choice Assurance Inc, which was formerly known as Empire Health Choice Assurance Inc, and does business as Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, and that is at adversary proceeding 24- 05112. And finally, I'm here on behalf of Anthem Health Plans Inc. That's at adversary 24-05058. We have filed limited objections. We filed those in the main docket of the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3150
Filed 04/30/24
Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20
Page 13 of
186 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 13 |\n| 1 | case, and we also filed them in the adversary. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MS. SIGNOR:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Trustee Despins, Attorney Signor, just |\n| 5 | wait for one second, please.
Attorney Signor worked with me |\n| 6 | as a law clerk years ago.
So I just want you to know that. |\n| 7 | And if there's any conflict and anyone has any issues, I'd |\n| 8 | like them to raise it, sooner as opposed to later.
I don't - |\n| 9 | - I haven't seen Attorney Signor.
I do know her personally. |\n| 10 | I know her family, but I haven't had any discussions with her |\n| 11 | in quite some time, quite frankly. |\n| 12 | But in any event, we do get together with the law |\n| 13 | clerks every once in a while.
So I just want you to know |\n| 14 | that and make sure that there's no conflict from your |\n| 15 | standpoint. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
No issues, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MS. SIGNOR:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | MR. SARNOFF:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Stewart |\n| 21 | Sarnoff O'Melveny and Myers on behalf of Creditor PAX in the |\n| 22 | main case. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 24 | MS. SMITH:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Annecca |\n| 25 | Smith, Robinson & Cole, lead counsel for creditor PAX in the |\n| | |\n\n 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 main case. THE COURT: Good afternoon. I feel like we need to have the microphone up or something so we don't have to all bend down, but sorry. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, Pullman & Comley on behalf of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth (indiscernible). I apologize that we don't have the adversary proceedings in which I sued on her behalf. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KINDSETH: And we did not file any objection immediately adversary proceedings of the main case that I don't anticipate participating in. Just here observing, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LADD-SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Ivan Ladd-Smith with Spears, Manning & Martini for adversary defendant Beile Li. We did not object and do not intend to object to the proposed mediation procedures. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And just to be clear for the record, the Manning in that name is a relative of mine, my brother, but he is not involved in the case. I Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 14 of 186\n\n 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 don't know anything about it other than I saw an appearance they filed. So, Trustee Despins, I don't know if you have any concerns about that, but I -- MR. DESPINS: No issues. THE COURT: -- note that for the record. Okay. Thank you. MR. LADD-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 15 of 186\n\n8 9 10 THE CLERK: May I just have that name again? MR. LADD-SMITH: Yes. Ivan, I-V-A-N, last name is hyphenated. It's Ladd-Smith. L-A-D-D hyphen S-M-I-T-H.\n\nTHE CLERK: Okay. Thank you.\n\n12 MR. LADD-SMITH: Thank you.\n\n11\n\n13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Before we talk about the mediation procedures, I thought it might make sense to address the motion for default judgment since there are more people on the Courtroom on the mediation procedures than on the motion for default judgment.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 So as we turn to adversary in 23-05013, Despins versus HCHK Technologies, I think it makes more sense to proceed that way. Attorney Bassett, are you going to be proceeding with the motion? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Please proceed.\n\n24 25 MR. BASSETT: Thank you. May I approach? THE COURT: Certainly. Thank you.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 16 of 186\n\n16\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MR. BASSETT: Thank you. Again, for the record, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, I'll try to keep my remarks brief this afternoon because we are once again revisiting an issue that the Court has had occasion to consider multiple times in this case. In fact, essentially in this very same adversary proceeding with this very same defendant or set of defendants.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As the Court is by now well aware, the defendant at issue, the main defendants at issue who are here objecting are the entities known as the HCHK parties. That includes HCHK Technologies, HCHK Property Management, Lexington Property and Staffing, and then their parent company, Holy City Hong Kong Ventures. I'll describe that relationship in a bit more detail, although the Court is familiar with it.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 These parties, Your Honor, have already had numerous opportunities before this Court to state their case as to why they deserve to be heard and as to why they believe that they hold meritorious defenses to the Trustee's claims. They failed at every turn.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 They were served with complaints in June 2023. They had answered deadlines in July of 2023 for three of the defendants, and then in August of 2023 for the last defendant, Holy City, which is a foreign defendant, the answer deadline was set by order of the Court.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 17 of 186\n\n17\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 All four entities missed those answer deadlines without excuse. On August 28th, after the last of the answer deadlines, they collectively moved for an extension of their deadline to respond to the complaint. The Court approximately one month later, after briefing and a hearing, rightfully denied that motion and granted the Trustee's cross motion for entry of default against the defendants. In November, the HCHK parties took a second bite of the apple, moving to set aside the default after already having failed to demonstrate that they were entitled to an extension of time to answer, after extensive briefing and again another hearing. On February 28th of this year, the Court denied the motion to set aside, finding, among other things in the process, that defendants have been properly served with the complaint, that they willfully defaulted thereafter, and that they had failed to present a meritorious defense to the Trustee's claims. The Trustee now is here moving for default judgment against the HCHK parties. That judgment, Your Honor, should be granted because the Trustee readily satisfies the requirements for default judgment under Second Circuit law. These requirements are twofold. One, that the defendants have been validly served with the complaint and two, that the allegations of the\n\n18\n\n1 2 3 complaint, taken as true with all inferences drawn in the plaintiff's favor set forth a claim thoroughly under applicable law.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 And I will not spend too much time addressing the -- in fact, I won't spend any time addressing the service process issue because I think the record before the Court is clear. I don't think the defendants are even contesting that they were served with process. So unless counsel would raise that, I will not spend any of the Court's time addressing service.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 I will instead focus on why the Trustee has demonstrated through the allegations in the complaint that he is entitled to a default judgment as a matter of law on his claims that the HCHK entities, namely the three subsidiary entities, are the debtor's alter ego and/or are beneficially owned by him.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And as I said, Your Honor, in undertaking this analysis, it is very important to remember that Second Circuit law is crystal clear, that upon a default, the defendant has waived its ability to contest the truthfulness or the accuracy of any allegations in the complaint. The only question before the Court is whether the allegations taken as true, and importantly, all interferences drawn in plaintiff's favor set forth a plausible claim for relief. The Trustee's complaint easily clears that bar,\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 19 of 186\n\n 19 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 Your Honor, and therefore judgment is appropriate. So the main thrust of the HCHK parties' objection and why they think the complaint is insufficient is they characterize these entities that issue as operating entities that are far different from HKUSA, which is another entity that this Court has already held with the debtor's alter ego. HKUSA, of course, was the shell company that the debtor used to hold title to his yacht to Lady May, and he had placed HKUSA under the nominal ownership of his daughter. Your Honor, I will be the first to admit that the HCHK entities are in fact different for HKUSA. The HCHK entities are not shell companies that the debtor used for the specific purpose of holding title to a single asset. They are instead entities that the debtor used to fund his personal expenses to shield his other assets from creditors. But the fact that they are different from HKUSA in no way means they're any less alter ego. In fact, as I will describe, I think these facts at issue that are relevant to the alter ego analysis as to these entities are in some ways far more egregious than the facts that were at issue for HKUSA. When conducting the alter ego analysis under Delaware law, Your Honor, the Court first looks to see whether there had been -- there's factors that Court supply, of course, but the sum and substance of those factors as\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 20 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 5 whether or not the complaint was alleged that the debtor or the person at issue has exercised dominion and control over the entities in question, such that there's a showing that they are all collectively under the debtor's control in a single economic unit.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 Here, there are numerous facts in the complaint that support that conclusion and any suggestion -- and there are many of these suggestions -- in the objection to the motion are highly disingenuous. And I'll get to that in a minute.\n\n11 12 13 14 Your Honor, he allegations start at the top with individuals with whom this Court is very similar. Yvette Wang, the debtor's criminal coconspirator, with whom he is presently in jail, is the sole owner of Defendant Holy City.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 The Court has already found that Yvette Wang is a person who was employed by the debtor and under his control. Holy City owns 99.9999 percent of each of the HCHK entities. So the HCHK property, HCHK Technologies, and Lexington, above that the 99.999 percent owner is Holy City, and the sole owner above that is Yvette Wang.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 The other individual who owns 0.0001 percent of the ownership of each of the operating level entities is Mr. Anthony Di Bautista, another individual whose name has come up constantly in these cases, someone who is also employed by the debtor and has been subject to his control.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 21 of 186\n\n21\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Yet another individual who has been employed as alleged in the complaints by all of the HCHK entities is Mr. Max Krasner. Mr. Max Krasner's name also has appeared nearly everywhere in this Chapter 11 case as an individual who has been employed by the debtor, who has carried out its business dealings in the debtor's direction, et cetera.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 In addition to the ownership and persons in control of these entities who are clearly people who are controlled by the debtor as alleged in the complaint, the HCHK entities were all located at 3 Columbus Circle in New York City.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 That address is significant because that is the same address at which the debtor and people acting at his direction filmed videos that were the subject of the protests and the harassment campaign this Court already enjoined after finding that those protests and harassment campaign were being directed by the debtor and his associates and were designed to interfere with this Chapter 11 case.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 In addition to both allegations, Your Honor, the complaint alleges that the HCHK entities served as the debtor's -- essentially his piggy bank, both receiving funding from other entities controlled by the debtor and then by paying expenses for the debtor and his associates. For example, the complaint alleges that HCHK\n\n25 Technologies made payments for the debtor's -- the Cirrus jet\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 22 of 186\n\n22\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that the debtor allegedly owns. HCHK Technologies also helps fund the maintenance and operation of the Lady May, which the Court has already found is property of the estate. HCHK Technologies also helped fund the same types of maintenance and operation expenses for the debtor's Bombardier jet, which is the subject of another adversary proceeding before this report.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 The complaint alleges that Lexington Property and Staffing made payments to the debtor's personal legal counsel and the counsel for other debtor controlled entities such as Lamp Capital, which this Court has already found is an alter ego of the debtor.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The complaint further alleges that Lexington made payments to known debtor associates and employees including Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, Brock Barnett, another individual within the Court is familiar which the Trustee has alleged to be the debtor's driver and bodyguard, and Aaron Mitchell, who is an attorney representing the debtor who this Court is familiar with and has appeared before this Court.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 The objectors go to great lengths to point out that there are less allegations concerning funding with respect to HCHK property. But Your Honor, the complaint plainly alleges in paragraph 27 and elsewhere that HCHK property was part of the same single enterprise along with HCHK Technologies, Lexington Property and Staffing, and many\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 23 of 186\n\n23\n\n1 of the debtor's other shell companies.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 It also operated out of the same location, had the same employees and owners that had Yvette Wang, Anthony Di Bautista, Max Krasner, and control. Your Honor, there are more than enough allegations as to each of the entities to at least demonstrate that there is a plausible claim set forth in the complaint with all inferences drawn in the Trustee's favor that each of the entities is the debtor's alter ego.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 To kind of drive this point home, Your Honor, I think the accounting firm that was retained for all of the HCHK entities (indiscernible). Again, this is alleged in the complaint. An email correspondence, the accountants at Markham LLP, hired to perform accounting work for the HCHK entities, stated in an email, quote, that they were representing entities indirectly owned by Miles Kwok, owner of GTV Media. Couldn't have said it better myself, Your Honor, because that's exactly the economic reality of who the HCHK entities were.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Before I move on to talk about why the facts in the complaint demonstrate that the HCHK entities were very clearly used by the debtor to commit a fraud and injustice, which I think is maybe the most compelling -- one of the more compelling facts we have here, I do want to just take a moment to respond to a couple of the allegations in the objection.\n\n24\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 I think it's paragraph 26 of the objection and elsewhere where the HCHK parties go so far as to say that the complaint affirmatively supports the opposite conclusion, that somehow the complaint paints a picture of these entities being independently operating businesses with their own bank accounts, assets, business objectives, et cetera.\n\n7 8 9 10 Your Honor, I don't know how anyone could possibly read our complaint and come across with that impression with a straight face. There is nothing whatsoever in our complaint that includes such allegations.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In fact, the only way the objection attempts to paint that picture is by citing to submissions in the New York assignment proceedings, which I'll talk more about in a second, in which the assignment papers, which as I will talk about in a second, we allege were part of the attempt to effectively defraud this Court and the estate, where they characterized the HCHK parties' businesses as being independent and having certain business objectives, et cetera. In our complaint, we expressly -- if you look at paragraph 27 of our complaint -- we expressly say that those statements are inaccurate.\n\n22 23 24 25 And that is not what these HCHK parties, in fact, were, that they were, in fact, shell companies for the debtor. So for them to say that we have alleged that the HCHK entities are separate and distinct operating entities\n\n1 2 that are not the debtor's alter egos is -- it's completely disingenuous and inaccurate.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 Your Honor, the second component of the alter ego test under Delaware law is for the plaintiffs to show that the -- here the debtor used the alter ego relationship with the entities in question here, the HCHK entities, to commit a fraud or injustice.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 Now, here as with HKUSA, we have alleged that the debtor used these entities to help hide his assets from creditors and to pay his personal expenses through entities purportedly not controlled by him. In that way, the allegation is similar to HKUSA, where the debtor used a shell company to hide his assets.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 But here it goes so much further beyond that because well after the commencement of this Chapter 11 case, the debtor not only had in the past, you know, used these entities to hide his assets and help funnel his funds to other shell companies, he used them, as alleged in the complaint, as part of a scheme to keep assets from the administration of this Chapter 11 case outside the oversight of this Court. They did that through the commencement of the assignment proceedings in New York State Court in April of 2023.\n\n24 25 Now, as the Court -- the Court is well familiar with the assignment proceedings, so I won't discuss them in\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 26 of 186\n\n26\n\n1 2 3 4 5 too much detail, and I won't belabor the point. But obviously, the commencement of an assignment proceeding may seem somewhat innocuous until you understand who the creditors in that assignment proceeding, who was the benefit (indiscernible) were.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 And as the Court knows, and as it's been established in the separate litigation in its adversary proceeding related to the intervention motion, those creditors were people associated with the debtor and under the control of and acting at the direction of the oftsanctioned personal counsel of the debtor, Mr. Yongbing Zhang, whom this Court found was both, A, representing their interests as members of a \"creditors representative and a creditors committee\" in that intervention litigation and also the same individual who, as the Court is aware from prior litigation in connection with the motion to vacate entry of the default judgment, the same individual who was directing counsel for the HCHK entities here.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And had the Court not granted the release to prevent those assignment proceedings from going forward, they may have well succeeded, in which case all of the assets, which are rightfully property of the estate, would have been distributed to all of these creditors who, in fact, are people acting at the debtor's direction. All of that, Your Honor, is alleged in the complaint.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 27 of 186\n\n27\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The -- I guess the other point I would make as to bad faith in the equities, Your Honor, is we also can't forget the history of how we got here through the motion to vacate and the motion for extension of time, as the Court will recall, for misrepresentations of these defendants as to when they were retained, the engagement letter, which showed that they became aware of and were actually contacted by their client well before the answer deadline was initially not disclosed to the Court. When it was finally disclosed, Mr. Yongbing Zhang's name was redacted for no justifiable reason. Your Honor, from the very beginning, these defendants have been\n\n13 14 15 playing games. And I think that also weighs strongly on the overall equities of the situation and therefore the second prong for the alter ego analysis.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 So the last thing I will do, Your Honor, is just very quickly address some of the other arguments that the HCHK parties make. I actually won't spend any time on them at all unless the Court would like me to, but just to note them for the record.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 The HCHK parties assert that the Trustee's claim for reverse veil piercing is not a cognizable claim under Delaware law. The Court has already rejected that argument on multiple occasions, I think most recently in the Lamp Capital default judgment decision.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 28 of 186\n\n28\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They also argue that the Trustee's claims are barred by the in pari delicto and Wagner rule. The Court has addressed that on multiple occasions including HKUSA and in Lamp Capital. Obviously, that document does not apply here as the Court has held because the Trustee's bringing some claims under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code on behalf of creditors. So Your Honor, in summary, the Trustee has properly served the defendant, has more than plausibly demonstrated that his claims for alter ego and their beneficial ownership are valid under Delaware law. And none of the other arguments that have been raised in opposition to the complaint have merit. So for those reasons, we think default judgment is appropriate, and we respectfully request that our motion be granted. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. SHABAN: May I approach? THE COURT: Certainly. Thank you. MR. SHABAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SHABAN: I'll try and be as brief as I can. I think the issue has been fairly well briefed. And some general comments and then some specific comments. I think it's ironic that we actually -- I actually\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 29 of 186\n\n29\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 find myself here arguing essentially a 12(b)(6) motion because from the beginning of this case, all we've tried to do is plead. All we've tried to do is answer the complaint. We actually did file a proposed answer, opted not to challenge the settlement agreement. We did -- we're not going to challenge the complaint. Let's get to the meat of the issue. That, unfortunately, has not been permitted for the reasons the Court's aware of. So here we are. Here now we actually have to face this complaint. It's not a third bite at the apple. This is a new issue. The first -- the first couple of times we were here and say, sorry we were late. We've reconstituted. We've gotten organized. Please let us plead because we think what they're saying is not right. We don't think they have viable -- you know, we don't think their alter ego claims are correct. What's happened with this bite, so to speak, or the only bite, is we're challenging the complaint because that's where we're at. In order to get a default judgment under Second Circuit law, they have to plead viable claims under Delaware law that these four entities are the alter ego or equitability owned by this debt. And they haven't done that. And, you know, I mean, I think the reasoning is pretty obvious because, understandably, they were sort of rushed. The Trustee was rushed because, look, oh my\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 30 of 186\n\n30\n\n1 2 3 4 5 goodness, there's this agency action going on. We got to stop this. So they put together a complaint with allegations and associations and affiliates and vague, you know, guilt by vague association in order to throw enough facts up on the wall to seek a preliminary injunction motion.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 That's how you do that. So this -- if all this stuff is true, it could be a claim here so let's pause. That's fine to get a preliminary injunction motion. But we're here with them now, they're at the default judgment stage, and it backends with a 12(b)(6) motion. This complaint is insufficient to plead all three of their claims or veil piercing against these entities.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 And I mean, the best place, I think, to start is sort of to -- and we'll do this in a second -- to juxtapose the other cases where the Court has (indiscernible). If you look at this complaint, there are no allegations, no allegations that this debtor had day to day control of these entities. None. There are no allegations that this debtor had direct control of finances of any of these entities. None.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 There are no allegations. None. And Trustee had to -- had to admit this -- that somehow this debtor sourced his funds, and to these entities had high access. Drastically different from the other cases, HKUSA and Lamp Capital. So he had to admit that.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 31 of 186\n\n31\n\n1 2 3 4 5 And that's -- so you examine this complaint and you examine these parties, they're drastically different than the other shell companies that the debtor may or may not have used. We're looking at this complaint, they don't state a viable cause of action.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I mean, let's look at the huge differences between this complaint and the HKUSA complaint, where we attach an exhibit to our opposition. And I think it's relevant to that pretty quickly or pretty clearly. All kinds of allegations regarding control, you know, with HKUSA, none regarding the HTHK direct control. That's the bootstrap argument that we'll talk about in a moment. Direct control. You know, and the HKUSA, didn't file -- they alleged -- they alleged they didn't a file corporate formalities. None of that's alleged here.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In fact, they actually plead that they're Delaware corporations and this is how their owned, and the exhibits they attach to their complaint, which for this court to be considered talk about their business purpose and list all of the creditors, all of the books, all of the finance of these viably operating entities. That wasn't the case in HKUSA or even Lamp Capital. You know, in the HKUSA case, they allege, specifically, that this is a shell corporation of the debtor used to hide assets.\n\n25\n\nI think that was the one where the -- where the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3150
Filed 04/30/24
Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20
Page 32 of |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 186
32 |\n| 1 | yacht got pocketed.
That's not here.
That's not what we |\n| 2 | have here.
The, you know, the same -- I mean, the same with |\n| 3 | Lamp Capital. |\n| 4 | You know, they argue that the Lamp Capital was |\n| 5 | formed by the debtor.
That's not alleged in this case.
They |\n| 6 | allege that the Lamp Capital was created to hide the -- |\n| 7 | excuse me, the yacht and apartment.
That's not alleged in |\n| 8 | this case.
They allege that there was shared ownership with |\n| 9 | the debtor. |\n| 10 | That's not alleged in this case.
They allege |\n| 11 | there was no independent purpose of the Lamp Capital |\n| 12 | entities. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well, what's your -- I'm sorry.
When |\n| 14 | you said they alleged that there was shared what? |\n| 15 | MR. SHABAN:
I believe it'd be Lamp Capital |\n| 16 | complaint.
It was alleged that we -- they shared space with |\n| 17 | the debtor (indiscernible).
And I'm -- if I'm wrong on that, |\n| 18 | so that's -- I haven't read that complaint a long time ago. |\n| 19 | My understanding is that complaint says, they share office |\n| 20 | space with (indiscernible). |\n| 21 | Here, what they say, they share office space with |\n| 22 | each other and certain associates are affiliates of debtor, |\n| 23 | but not the debtor itself.
So, again, it's this entire |\n| 24 | bootstrap argument that just keeps coming back.
It's to form |\n| 25 | the basis of this very complaint.
Lamp Capital.
There were |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 33 of 186\n\n33\n\n1 2 no corporate formalities. That was alleged. They don't allege that here because they can't.\n\n3 4 5 The only thread -- the only thread between those cases and this case was the involvement of Ms. Wang, who this Court has held was an employee. Okay. Fine.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yes. She was an employee. There were -- there were some common employees. But the huge difference between their alleged theory and the -- and the cases that we talked about and these cases or this complaint is that there, the debtor used his -- these shell entities to hide assets, hide his assets, hide his property, hide his money, and used his son or daughter to do it. Here, we don't have that, but that's not what's happening.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 This complaint appropriately alleges that some of the assets and a lot -- a lot of the assets here are from either affiliates, alleged affiliates, whatever that means, of this debtor and Chinese dissidents, which -- who are part of the movement. And this has been a common theme of what's going on in this case. Is, yeah, there's going to be crossover between parties. There's going to be crossover between employees. There's going to be crossover between some creditors because, undeniably, all of these parties are part of a broad, global, political movement. It's not some big confidence scheme. It's part of\n\n25 a broad, political, global movement. And just because some\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 34 of 186\n\n34\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 of these HCHK entities operate a business to support that movement doesn't ipso facto bootstrap from those entities, which are viable Delaware entities, through Ms. Wang, who there is no allegation that somehow she was controlled by debtor or that she was hurt with his employee. I don't think that's enough under Delaware law.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 And then back to a debtor who there's been no allegations that he hid money, controlled them, you know, collapsed them, and used them -- used them as part of a shell game. These entities were viable running entities. They have \\$29,800,000 to \\$30,000,000 worth of assets. They had creditors. Yep.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Some of them correspond to others. Well, it's astonishing to me that this Trustee seems to think that just because there's a commonality, business purpose, political purpose, and some financial purpose, then that makes everybody -- everybody's connected to the debtor. The Court's heard me use the metaphor before in my brief. Just because the band leader gets arrested, doesn't put the rest of the band in jail. It doesn't make the rest of the band liable for the band leader's actions. And that's what this complaint is trying to do. It doesn't allege the specificity that has to be alleged under Delaware law.\n\n24 25 Now in terms of, you know, the actual specificity, I'll try and be quicker, Your Honor. Again, no allegations\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 35 of 186\n\n35\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 or single unit. No allegations with joint funding. No allegations of inadequate capitalized. But zero allegations regarding HKUSA was all over. No allegations that the funds came from the debtor. None. Zero. There's no allegations that this debtor would fund these entities to hide them from creditors. The only allegations are this debtor was associated with these affiliates, and that these affiliates were Ms. Wang, and there were some donors that were part of the movement, put some money in these entities. That's a far cry from what happened on HKUSA and what happened in Lamp Capital.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 They admit they had a corporate purpose through their attachments. That's our assertion. They understand, the Trustee says, well, we try to carve out. They're kind of cherry picking, it's fun, right? They essentially, the ABC action petitions, and they use what they want as evidence, but then they cherry pick out what they don't want as evidence. I'm not quite sure that's appropriate, but the Court to make that that determination.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 They allege separate tax returns. Like, they -- Markham LLP. I think someone's here from there. Yeah. They filed tax returns. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I had to call Trustee's office in order to get tax information for some of the employees of these HK entities (indiscernible) so they could file their taxes.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 36 of 186\n\n36\n\n1 2 3 4 5 These are operating businesses with employees, with contracts, with leases, with property under management, with assets, cameras, videos, all this stuff. And yes, it was part of the movement, but that is not an illegal purpose. That was part of the movement.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 They alleged creditors/donors from these Chinese business. That's huge. My humble opinion. That shows exactly what we've been saying. (indiscernible) debtor hiding assets. A lot of these funds came in from Chinese business. And, again, there's no allegations regarding sources.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 And so for the four entities, HKA (phonetic) (indiscernible) BVI. No -- actually, it's no allegations at all. In the reply, they try -- they try and say, well, we just want to turn over -- turnover of assets, but they don't file a legal authority. Why would this BVI entity be required to turn over assets when they haven't -- when there's been no claims made against them? They're thrown in the mix. I mean, they make this big dirty snowball. G Series, Holy City, Lamp Capital. And then they try to pull out snowflakes and say, aha, they can't do that. This Holy - - with the BVI entity, there's no allegations. Their corporate existence is valid. Their\n\n24 25 corporate existence has actually been provided to the Court in affidavits. Their corporate existence can't be pierced\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 37 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 because they've made no allegations for piercing the parent company. They are the owners of the equity of the subsidiaries. So I don't know -- I don't know how they jump over that hurdle.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 But assuming that you even could jump over the fact that this parent has not been -- it's essentially not been sued, and it's been named in here. But the parent company has not been sued. There's been no allegations to pierce that corporate veil.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 With respect to HCHK properties, again, no allegations controlled by debtor, no allegations (indiscernible) -- no allegations about the formalities (indiscernible), no allegations regarding sourcing. No allegations regarding that the debtor had some of his expenses paid.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In fact, they cite -- they say they cite that and give you in a brief, but what they actually cite to, Lexington, Lexington Properties. So this is part of this more part of this dirty snowball bundle complaint. They pick a bunch of random facts and some names and associations, stick it all in a big pile, and say, aha, everybody's painted with the same brush. That's not Delaware law.\n\n23 24 25 All four entities have viable corporate existence, and there's a presumption of validity under Delaware law. And this complaint does not vitiate or penetrate that\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 38 of 186\n\n1 2 3 corporate existence. And we can't do it by picking a fact from this entity and a fact from this G Shares guy, and somebody said something in another case.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Jam it in and say, well, you know, pox on all your (indiscernible). That's just not Delaware law. It's not Connecticut law. Again, no sourcing property. No sourcing from the debtor. HCHK Tech. Same thing. No allegations about debtor control. No allegations about it being undercapitalized. No allegations about lack of formality. No allegations regarding it being a facade. No allegations regarding debtor's money being placed there. What they do allege is debtor's associates place money there.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 What does that do? Associates. I mean, it's -- I think I used an example a couple of months ago when Jim and Tammy Faye Baker fell from grace 15 years ago, not everyone in the church was on the hook for their transgressions. Not everyone in the church was held liable for debts they incurred. Not everyone in the church was dragged before a court and said, aha you got to get painted with the same brush as these two.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 That's what this Trustee is trying to do here. Again, again, no allegations regarding sourcing. HCHK Tech, same thing. No allegations regarding control, undercapitalization, no allegations regarding bad formalities, none. Absolutely, practically the opposite.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 39 of 186\n\n39\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Delaware corporation, just another owner. The only allegations regarding money being placed there is for debtor's associates. Well, one is -- one is the affiliates, but one could use associates. But, again, that's not the standard. That's not what happened at Lamp Capital. That's not what happened at HKUSA.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 In those cases, the debtor took money, took a boat, took an airplane, created a paper entity and tried to hide it. What you have here are viable entities that were performing and performing operations in the name of the movement, undeniable, and that they have employees, contracts, real estate, equipment, and purpose. And this complaint does nothing to vitiate that. It's the same bootstrapping.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Well, the debtor employed Wang. And Wang was part of these entities, so ergo, you can jump over Wang and pierce the corporate veil, you know, from the entities, you get back to the debtor, without any allegations regarding Wang, other than the fact that she was his employee. There's no - there's no alter ego allegations regarding Ms. Wang. There's no -- yes. You say this was debtor's employee. That's the control argument. But in terms of corporate formalities and an actual business contract, there's nothing in there because (indiscernible) it's not true.\n\n25\n\nIt's interesting to see if and when all these\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 40 of 186\n\n 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 documents actually come to light that the Trustee mostly has control. You know, the Court's seen some of them. We have a lot of them hidden for or concealed for now. They were contracts and entities and viable businesses. Common names. Absolutely. Common movement. Absolutely. And does that make everybody on the hook for the debtor's stuff? No. It doesn't. Lastly, HCHK, Lexington. They're saying no allegations regarding control, capitalization, formalities, (indiscernible), nothing there. No allegations that the debtor sourced his money there to hide it. Plead that -- we do plead that there were, you know, there were some assets there. They had multiple bank accounts, and then perhaps there was some bills paid. And it's interesting. And this -- and I'll try and sum up here. I mean, this is probably the most disingenuous argument that they're making is, on the one hand, HKUSA and/or Lamp Capital, debtor was using it to hide his assets. Debtor was using it to hide money and to hide it from creditors. Here, they're alleging bootstrapping that either through Ms. Wang or through affiliates, these entities got funds, not from the debtor, but from somewhere, creditors,\n\n23 24 25 other businesses, contracts, and that it -- that somehow, at least in the case of one of these entities -- I think it was Lexington -- perhaps the debtor did have some of his expenses\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 41 of 186\n\n| 1 | paid.
I think it was paragraph 38 or 39 at the point lists a |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | whole bunch of expenses that were paid. |\n| 3 | It was a driver, like, five law firm bills, all |\n| 4 | this other stuff.
So the difference between hiding assets |\n| 5 | and poaching money is drastic, drastic.
And here you have |\n| 6 | HCHK entities that are operating viable businesses for the |\n| 7 | purposes of the movement, among other things.
There was a |\n| 8 | property management, everything else, but there was some |\n| 9 | (indiscernible) for the purpose of the movement. |\n| 10 | And here, you have the debtor hiding assets, |\n| 11 | hiding planes, hiding boats.
This is an easy case.
This is |\n| 12 | a hard case, and they haven't pled it sufficiently.
So, you |\n| 13 | know, again, it's the complaint that controls here.
Not |\n| 14 | innuendo, not -- I mean, they keep bringing up the engagement |\n| 15 | letter.
Just -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
What about the allegations in the |\n| 17 | complaint that the HCHK Tech made payments for the Lady May |\n| 18 | and the jet?
How is that not an allegation that's |\n| 19 | sufficient.
When you just talked about -- you just said that |\n| 20 | the HKUSA and Lamp Capital and all they made claims.
They |\n| 21 | used that.
Your words were they had -- they -- those |\n| 22 | entities were created or controlled assets of the debtor to |\n| 23 | hide them.
Isn't that what you just said? |\n| 24 | MR. SHABAN:
Correct.
(indiscernible). |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
So then -- so then the HCHK Technology |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 42 of 186\n\n| 1 | allegations in the complaint that say that payments were made |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | from the funds of HCHK Technology to pay the expenses of the |\n| 3 | Lady May and the jet, how is that not related?
I don't |\n| 4 | understand how you, with regard to that issue, how you can |\n| 5 | say that that's not a plausible cause of action. |\n| 6 | MR. SHABAN:
Well, I think -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Considering that all the allegations |\n| 8 | are deemed through at this point because the default |\n| 9 | presented. |\n| 10 | MR. SHABAN:
But the -- all pled -- pleaded |\n| 11 | allegations are deemed true.
There are some allegations, but |\n| 12 | I can't remember -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well, I didn't find that any of them |\n| 14 | weren't well pled in the default.
Right?
I mean, no one's |\n| 15 | asked me to make any findings that there was an allegation |\n| 16 | that wasn't well pled. |\n| 17 | MR. SHABAN:
That's right.
And that's -- and |\n| 18 | that's (indiscernible).
That's the purpose of this.
That's |\n| 19 | what -- why we are where we are. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Well, it's not exactly the purpose. |\n| 21 | The difference is you're saying it fails to save claim upon |\n| 22 | which one can be granted. |\n| 23 | MR. SHABAN:
Right. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
That's not saying it's not well pled. |\n| 25 | There's a difference.
Right?
You're saying legally it |\n| | |\n\n 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 doesn't plead a cause of action. There's a difference in those two standards. MR. SHABAN: I understand. THE COURT: And so what I'm saying to you is when I'm looking at your argument, I'm looking at the allegations in the complaint. Right? MR. SHABAN: Correct. THE COURT: That's what I need to look at, and I need to look at your response to those allegations. And some of your responses, you talk about exhibits versus the actual language in the paragraphs of the complaint. And while I completely understand that I can look at the exhibits, I'm looking at the allegations in the complaint. Do they state a claim, a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted? And so I'm not going to ask you very many other questions, but with regard to your statements about the Lady May and the jet, and those two entities being created to hide assets of the debtor, your words, then how is it not a plausible claim that HCHK Tech is either an alter ego or beneficial owner of assets of the debtor when the funds of that entity were used to pay expenses of the Lady May and the bombardier jet? Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 43 of 186\n\n24 25 MR. SHABAN: Well, with specifics -- I understand the Court's question and comment regarding well pled versus\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 viable cause of action. And yes, there is a distinction, but -- and I understand that. With respect to HCHK Technologies, the Trustee pleads that the funds came from Chinese dissidents. So it's paragraph 34. The Trustee pleads it that the funds for this entity and their creditors were from Chinese dissidents as part of the movement. That's in the -- that's in the allegation. So whether I -- and I think some of the some of those might have been -- THE COURT: It says in paragraph 33 through 38 that the HCHK entities were financed by the debtor. That's the allegation in those paragraphs. MR. SHABAN: Well, that's the argument. THE COURT: No. That's all the allegations in the complaint. I mean, I can read them. We can pull it up and look at them. MR. SHABAN: Right. But on the face of this complaint, I don't think it's sufficient, and that's our argument. THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. I'm just asking the question based upon -- with your statements. I understand that you don't agree, and that's absolutely fine. I -- the question is based upon the statement you made about HKUSA, and Lamp Capital. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 44 of 186\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\nMR. SHABAN: Well, and it's sort of an indirect way of answering the Court's question in a different way. If you look at the reply, the reply goes -- jump those somersaults trying to repair the failed allegations of the complaint. You look at page 4 and page 6. It makes all\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 All the stuff they were supposed to allege in the complaint and didn't, they alleged it in the reply, cite motion papers, and never cite the complaint. And the reason is, they didn't plead it in the complaint. They did it in this vague, blunderbuss way, mostly because they're trying to get a preliminary injunction. I get it. Now it's the (indiscernible).\n\nthese allegations regarding facade and a lack of corporate\n\npurpose and the daily control.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If we have to do a complaint, if we got to -- this complaint doesn't plead viable causes of action. Delaware law is very strict and very protective of their companies. And the other -- the other cases, Lamp Capital, HKUSA, it was it was simple. Way more simple. Here, you got employees, contracts, property, leases, donors from over from China. It's part of the movement. All the stuff that we've been saying, and not a single allegation, not a single allegation that this debtor put his money in these entities. Not one. THE COURT: I disagree with that statement. What you just -- that last statement that you just made. At least\n\n 46 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 my reading of the paragraph in the complaint that says that the HCHK -- it alleges that the HCHK entities are financed by the debtor. MR. SHABAN: Through affiliates and associates. THE COURT: Says they're financed by the debtor. MR. SHABAN: Respectfully, I think the allegations all the -- THE COURT: The word \"the debtor's\" in there. And it -- MR. SHABAN: Oh, it's in there. THE COURT: -- and it -- financed by the debtor. MR. SHABAN: Truthfully, I'm not sure there's a single straight allegation. I'll look. But the body of the complaint is if the debtor's affiliates, the debtor's associates, the debtor's -- bootstrapped. THE COURT: The debtor's -- the debtor's -- acting under the direction of the debtor. MR. SHABAN: Arguably, if -- that's their argument. But that's not their allegation. THE COURT: That's their allegation. That's their allegation. MR. SHABAN: Well, I -- respectfully, we think that this is too far -- it's bootstrapped. They can replead this complaint and probably -- and probably meet the Delaware standard. I'm sure they could, given enough time, and I Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 46 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 47 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 5 think they should be required to because these allegations don't jump a hurdle that appears in the corporate balance. And lastly, I know we talked, the counsel, quick trip to the in pari delicto Wagner issue. And the Court has ruled on it.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 This case is different, we think, because of bootstrapping. I don't think that debtor's creditors, based on these facts, working through either Wang or Chinese dissidents or non-named affiliates, could go after HCHK, much the same way as I don't think this debtor -- the debtor only has -- I mean, the Trustee only has what the debtor had, or the Trustee only has what the -- what the unnamed or the general creditors have. And based on these allegations, the bootstrapping, it has -- it all goes through Wang. It all goes through unnamed affiliates. It all goes through unnamed associates. Those are our legal terms. Those are his words in order to get to HCHK.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think -- I think in pari delicto here is applicable because if everything this Trustee is saying, if we say -- if this -- if this debtor and everybody in HCHK is trying to perpetrate a fraud, well, then it -- then we're out. That's what the document says. That's exactly what the document says. Right? So it does apply here for the reason that we've said. So, I've gone a lot longer than I expected to. I apologize. If there's anything else, I'm here for the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3150
Filed 04/30/24
Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20
Page 48 of
186
48 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Court. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
No, I'm sure I'm going to give Mr. |\n| 3 | Bassett an opportunity to respond and then I'll give you a |\n| 4 | final opportunity to respond. |\n| 5 | MR. SHABAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Again, good afternoon.
Nick Bassett |\n| 8 | from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee.
Your |\n| 9 | Honor, counsel for the HCHK parties can say as loudly and as |\n| 10 | many times as he wants that there are no allegations in the |\n| 11 | complaint regarding control, funding by the debtor, et |\n| 12 | cetera, but that does not make it true.
The complaint is |\n| 13 | what controls.
The allegations of the complaint, |\n| 14 | specifically, are what control.
The only issue before the |\n| 15 | Court today is whether the allegations, taken as true, with |\n| 16 | every inference drawn in the Trustee's favor, state a |\n| 17 | plausible claim for relief under Delaware law.
And they |\n| 18 | absolutely do.
It's not even a close call as to whether that |\n| 19 | hurdle has been cleared. |\n| 20 | Your Honor, counsel is very passionately asserting |\n\n21 22 23 24 25 his argument that this complaint is sufficient. I get that. But I think to understand how strongly his clients really feel about that argument, you can look back at their motion to vacate the entry of default under Rule 55(c). A critical component of that standard, which they bore the burden to\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 49 of 186\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 prove, was that they had meritorious defenses to the complaint. Other parties have been in that same situation. Lamp Capital. Lamp Capital tried to make that showing by raising all of the 12(b)(6) arguments they could think of. In pari delicto, Wagner, allegations of the complaint were insufficient. What did the HCHK parties do? They didn't even pretend to want to file a motion to dismiss. The only thing they said was, Your Honor, and counsel's repeated that again here today. Your Honor, these are viable entities. And just because they're part of the movement doesn't make them an alter ego of the debtor. Your Honor, that was what -- that was what they elected to go with, a blanket denial of the alter ego allegations supported by no evidence. It can't be considered here today. But what it is telling about is that this 12(b)(6) argument was nowhere to be found when they had to raise the meritorious defense. They raise it now as a last ditch effort to try to avoid the entry of default judgment against them after having time and time again, opportunity after opportunity, to come to the Court, demonstrate why they should be allowed to be heard notwithstanding their extraordinarily and inexcusably dilatory behavior. And they\n\n25\n\nhaven't done it.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 50 of 186\n\n50\n\n1 2 3 4 5 Your Honor, they've had the opportunity and they failed. Now all of the things that counsel has said that are not in the complaint are in the complaint. He says there are no allegations of control. That is categorically untrue on the face of the complaint.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The complaint alleges all over the place that Yvette Wang, the nominal owner of these entities, is the debtor's lieutenant, his employee, the person who carries out his bidding. This is the same person who has been criminally indicted alongside the debtor in the Southern District of New York, alleged to be his lieutenant, his partner in crime, the person who carried out his every wish, defrauding people of over \\$1,000,000,000. That's the Yvette Wang that we're talking about. The idea that that's not allegations of the debtor's control is nonsensical. Of course, it is.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 That is concrete, strong evidence of the debtor's control over these entities. And it doesn't stop with Yvette Wang. We have Max Krasner, another individual whom the debtor controls as alleged in the complaint and as discussed and found by the Court in prior rulings in this case. He was also an employee of these entities. Anthony Di Bautista, same thing. Your Honor, the complaint alleges that the debtor himself exercised control through the people that he directs.\n\n25\n\nOf course, he's not directing every alter ego\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 51 of 186\n\n51\n\n1 2 3 4 entity in his enterprise personally. That wouldn't make any sense. He's doing it through people under his direction. That's exactly what is alleged in the complaint. Counsel also said that there is no allegations of hiding assets.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 Wrong. And I didn't admit that there wasn't. Of course, there is. That's exactly what he's using these entities for. All the cash that they hold, all the assets that they have, those are entities that rightfully belong to the debtor and rightfully belong to this estate.\n\n10 11 12 13 He is using these entities to hide them. That is alleged in the complaint. Counsel also said that there is no allegation that these entities' sources of cash come from the debtor. Again, false. Court walked through this.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The complaint directly alleges that the debtor funded these entities through other sources of cash that he controls. The fact that he -- there's not allegations that he himself wrote a check from his checkbook is irrelevant. Of course, he didn't operate that way. He operated through layers of shell companies, and that's exactly what's alleged in the complaint.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 More specifically, as to Lexington, there are some names of companies that this Court is very familiar with, specifically alleged in the complaint, some of the entities that funded Lexington, Golden Spring. Court has already found that Golden Spring is debtor's alter ego.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 52 of 186\n\n52\n\n1 2 3 4 5 Saraca (phonetic), already found in the protest litigation that Saraca is controlled by the debtor. Leidenschein, there's an alter ego complaint pending against Leidenschein. ACA Capital, same thing, alter ego complaint pending against ACA Capital.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As to the other two entities, there are also clear and specific allegations in the complaint which are buttressed by the other findings that this Court has already made in the intervention litigation that they are funded by the debtor. Those allegations, that's all of the individuals listed as the creditors of these entities, i.e., the people that funded it, they are not, as counsel said, and this is not alleged in the complaint, that they are funded by unrelated dissidents. That is absolutely not what is alleged.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 What is alleged is that the two HCHK entities were funded by persons acting at the debtor's direction and under his control. These are the individuals who were represented by, who are members of the \"creditors committee\", represented by the creditors' representatives. Court already found this in the intervention litigation.\n\n22 23 24 25 Those individuals are taking their direction from the debtor's personal counsel, Mr. Yongbing Zhang, who has filed multiple frivolous lawsuits for which he has been sanctioned against both the Trustee, my law firm, against Mr.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 53 of 186\n\n53\n\n| Sarnoff and his firm and his clients.
That same counsel is |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| the one that counsel for the HCHK parties elected to redact |\n| from the engagement letter that he filed with the Court so |\n| the Court would not see that connection. |\n| |\n\n5 6 7 Your Honor, the allegations in the complaint of the control of these entities by the debtor and their funding is all over the place. It's not even a close call.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lastly, Your Honor, I just wanted -- counsel made an argument regarding Holy City saying there's really nothing in there about Holy City. Your Honor, you've seen this argument before. Holy City is named in the complaint because it is the entity that allegedly nominally owns the companies in question, who are alleged to be the debtor's alter ego. The Court has already dismissed that argument and should dismiss it here.\n\n16 17 Your Honor, unless you have any other questions, I think that's all I have at the moment.\n\n18 19 20 THE COURT: I have nothing at the moment. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Thank you.\n\n21 22 23 24 MR. SHABAN: May I be brief? THE COURT: Yes. MR. SHABAN: Thank you, Your Honor. May I approach?\n\nTHE COURT: Please.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 54 of 186\n\n54\n\n| 1 | MR. SHABAN:
Keeps raising meritorious defenses. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | That's not where we're at.
We're here under the controlling |\n| 3 | authority of the Second Circuit, that in a motion for a |\n| 4 | default judgment, you got to look at the complaint and see if |\n| 5 | it's pled viable causes of action under applicable law. |\n| 6 | It hasn't done it.
That's the argument.
And so |\n| 7 | but bringing up old, essentially, irrelevant arguments about |\n| 8 | Mr. Zhang or, you know, what happened on previous motions. |\n| 9 | That's not what's before the Court.
It's this complaint, |\n| 10 | these allegations. |\n| 11 | And the reason this complaint or my supposition |\n| 12 | that this complaint fails is, again, they were trying to -- |\n| 13 | they were trying to -- they were trying to just run the same |\n| 14 | game plan that they did with HKUSA and Lamp Capital and some |\n| 15 | of the other entities because that's what they had at their |\n| 16 | disposal.
They had very little time to do it because they |\n| 17 | had to stop the assignment.
They want to stop the assignment |\n| 18 | actions.
Okay. |\n| 19 | So they tried to -- they tried to jam the square |\n| 20 | peg to a round hole, didn't have the allegations to fill the |\n| 21 | hole, but they had an -- they had enough allegations to get a |\n| 22 | preliminary injunction.
Now that we're looking at the |\n| 23 | complaint, the gaps in their complaint are everywhere.
Just |\n| 24 | because you say someone's affiliated, doesn't mean anything. |\n\n25 Just because you say someone's under the direction of someone\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 55 of 186\n\n| 1 | doesn't meet the standard under Delaware law.
Again, it's |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | bootstrapping. |\n| 3 | It's the HCHK entities, which no one is denied |\n| 4 | were viable entities operating for purposes mostly for |\n| 5 | (indiscernible) and then supporting each other.
Then there's |\n| 6 | Wang, and then there's allegedly debtor.
Well, she's on the |\n| 7 | -- the bootstrapping through Wang and trying to get these |\n| 8 | entities, which no other creditor or debtor himself could |\n| 9 | have done.
And now they're trying to do it.
They're trying |\n| 10 | to do it in the name of the Trustee. |\n| 11 | It's different with -- with the other |\n| 12 | (indiscernible).
One, two, three. Corporate, corporate, |\n| 13 | corporate here.
There's -- there are people in between, |\n| 14 | whether it be affiliates, whether it be investors, whether it |\n| 15 | be Wang. |\n| 16 | Look through the complaint, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | Obviously, I regret the Court's going to have to reread this, |\n| 18 | but there's a -- there's a lot of -- there's a lot of smoke. |\n| 19 | But when it comes to the elements in the Delaware law, |\n| 20 | there's not a lot of fire.
There's vague references, they're |\n| 21 | not specific to meet the burden between viable causes of |\n| 22 | action. |\n| 23 | So, respectfully, we think they should replead.
I |\n| 24 | mean, the Court has two options, strike the complaint, which |\n| 25 | the Court is not going to do, or make them replead.
And |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 56 of 186\n\n| 1 | respectively, we think that's what we're at. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Counsel.
All right. |\n| 3 | I will take the matter, the motion for default judgment under |\n| 4 | advisement, review your arguments made today.
And again, the |\n| 5 | pleadings submitted and the complaint and will rule |\n| 6 | accordingly.
So thank you.
That concludes the hearing on |\n| 7 | the motion for default judgment. |\n| 8 | I'm not sure, counsel, if you have to stay here |\n| 9 | for any of the mediation, but if you don't, you certainly are |\n| 10 | not required to. |\n| 11 | MR. SHABAN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I may hang |\n| 12 | out for a little bit, but sneak out at the perfect time. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Thank you.
Then the |\n| 14 | other matter on today's calendar is the motion for the order |\n| 15 | modifying the avoidance action procedures.
And I will say I |\n| 16 | have seen objections filed.
There were 11 objections.
One |\n| 17 | was withdrawn today.
As a matter of fact, it's my |\n| 18 | understanding earlier today. |\n| 19 | And I would assume, Trustee Despins, you were |\n| 20 | turning back with (indiscernible) you want to address where |\n| 21 | things stand with regards to the mediation procedures and the |\n| 22 | objections?
And then I will hear from any parties who have |\n| 23 | filed an objection that wish to be heard. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Bassett will |\n| 25 | handle this one.
I think we filed an amended proposed order |\n| | |\n\n 57 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 Friday or Saturday? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor -- THE COURT: A second amended proposed order, is that what you're referring to? MR. BASSETT: That's right, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: And if I may, I may address the Court from counsel table? THE COURT: Certainly. MR. BASSETT: Thank you. And I may very likely have Attorney Linsey jump in when appropriate because he had a lot of discussions with other parties leading up to the submission of the proposed order, et cetera. But just to walk the Court through kind of the history very briefly. So following the filing of the motion, we had a status conference. Following that status conference on, I believe it was March 22nd, the Trustee filed an initial revised proposed order of the mediation procedures. The Trustee then served that order in accordance with the direction of the Court on all of the parties to the avoidance action. I can represent that that included every domestic relocated defendant in I believe over 100 actions, does not include the foreign located defendants who are still in the process of being served. But all told, when it comes to the Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 57 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 58 of 186\n\n58\n\n1 2 3 domestic defendants, I think we ended up serving the mediation procedures on -- I think it's approximately 200, if not more, defendants.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 Of those parties who were served with the mediation procedures, there were 12 objections, I believe, filed by the deadline. And in addition to those 12, there were a few other parties who reached out informally to myself or to Attorney Linsey to discuss some issues that they have with the procedures.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 We, thereafter, talked to both the objecting parties and the other parties who reached out, both on the phone and via email to see if some of their issues could be resolved. We did, in fact, end up addressing, I believe, at least some of every objecting party or every other party who came to their issues, not all of them. As a result of those efforts, we were able to, I believe, resolve at least one objection in its entirety. I believe that Lester Hill is the party who I believe the objection was resolved.\n\n19 20 21 And then, some of the other parties who have told us that they may object ended up not objecting as a result of us being able to accommodate some of their changes.\n\n22 23 24 25 And so, Your Honor, at this time I won't walk you through all of the issues that we changed in the revised proposed order. And by the way, this, for the record, was submitted last Friday, the most recent revised proposed order\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 59 of 186\n\n59\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 on April 19th. And it's available on the main docket at ECF 3105. We have the revised proposed order at Exhibit A and then Exhibit B, I believe, is a red line showing changes to the initial proposed order. And I think Exhibit C is changes to the revised proposed order, the prior revised proposed order.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 Some of the changes, just by way of example, that we made Your Honor, and this came up in the last hearing, but one of the issues that has been raised was that mediation should only be mandatory for those parties that have actually been served.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 And for example, to the extent that defendants located abroad have not been served, they would not be subject to mandatory mediation in the first instance, although procedures could be adopted for those adversary proceedings after the parties have been served. That is now addressed specifically in the order.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 There were some comments raised around what happens in the event of conflict that the mediator -- that mediators and the panel might have. We would address those comments by revising and sort of strengthening, if you will, that language and they had said if a mediator identified a potential conflict of interest that mediator may recuse him or herself. That language is now shall.\n\n25\n\nWe have extended certain deadlines, including\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 60 of 186\n\n60\n\n1 2 3 deadlines to reply to any motion -- to reply in support of any motion to dismiss that is filed. Parties asked for a little more time, we granted that.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 Some parties have raised an issue that came up with last hearing concerning the consequences of failing to participate in the mediation process in good faith. There's paragraph in the mediation procedures that talks about what remedies and sanctions may be available to the Court.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Some parties were concerned about running afoul of that provision if they simply, despite their best efforts, were not able to reach a settlement. We tried to give them comfort that, of course, we're not seeking to do that. So we added some language to the order that basically says, failure to reach a settlement in and of itself will, of course, not be grounds for any sanctions.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Another comment that some parties raised were with regard to the provision of the mediation procedures that addresses the ability of Judge Tancredi to provide recommendations to this Court as to how certain adversary hearings might be stayed while some of them should go forward etcetera to try to help facilitate the orderly litigation of these matters that they have to be litigated.\n\n23 24 25 Some parties wanted to be heard on that. So we built in a period in which after Judge Tancredi makes such a recommendation, they could respond.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 61 of 186\n\n| 1 | So those are the -- those are the main types of in |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the summary of some of the main types of issues that we |\n| 3 | resolved.
I'm not sure exactly how many issues are |\n| 4 | outstanding.
I think it's maybe close to 10, maybe a dozen. |\n| 5 | But rather than try to anticipate all of those, I |\n| 6 | think it may make sense for the Court to hear from the |\n| 7 | objecting parties, and then I can respond accordingly. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes.
I have a few questions first, |\n| 9 | but I think that's fine.
I'm looking at the document that |\n| 10 | you talked about that you just mentioned on the record.
TCF |\n| 11 | 3105.
And I had a few questions about it. |\n| 12 | When we get to Page 3, I'm looking at a red line |\n| 13 | version that starts on Page 37 of the document.
I thought |\n| 14 | that was the one that I should look at when I looked at the |\n| 15 | entire document, but I don't know if that's correct.
It |\n| 16 | seemed to me to be the one that had the changes that you just |\n| 17 | referred to on the record. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
That is correct.
I believe this |\n| 19 | would be the red line that shows -- this would be the red |\n| 20 | line that shows all changes to the original version of the |\n| 21 | order that we filed with our motion. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then I -- so the second red |\n| 23 | line it captures everything that you've talked about with the |\n| 24 | objecting party? |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct.
Both versions |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 62 of 186\n\n62\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 capture all of the changes, but the second red line being at page 67 of 96 would show and track changes only the changes that have been made to the order that we served on the parties after talking to them. THE COURT: So which of those two orders are you thinking that the Court would enter? Am I looking at -- MR. BASSETT: Oh, no. There's a -- I apologize, Your Honor. Just to be very clear, they're the same order, what we did for the benefit of the parties and the Court is provide two different versions of the red line. So if you want to look at just the clean version of the order that we're asking the Court to enter, that would actually be the one that's at Exhibit A, because that's just the clean version showing no changes of the revised proposed order. The next two showed different comparisons of the current order to past orders. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: And that's at page 7 of 96. I'm happy to look at anything. THE COURT: Page 7? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: But the content (indiscernible). THE COURT: All right. Give me a moment then, if you would please.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 63 of 186\n\n63\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 So I'm looking at what I believe you just indicated, Attorney Bassett, is a clean version of the second revised proposed amended order approving procedures applicable to avoidance claim adversary proceedings, which starts on page 6 of 96. MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. I misspoke. 6 of 96. THE COURT: That's okay. I want to make sure I'm at the right place in this order. So give me a moment, please. Okay. So when we start with paragraph E on Page 8 of 96, talking about any avoidance defendants time to respond to a complaint shall be 60 days from the date of service provided, however, without further order of the Court, the Trustee and any avoidance defendant may stipulate to further extend the defendant's response up to 90 additional days. So I think I've seen in the last week some of those stipulations be filed. When I say some of those to be better accurate for the record, meaning the Trustee's already agreed to further extend response dates in certain adversary proceedings. Correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct. THE COURT: For at least 90 days. Okay. So what I'm trying to figure out, and maybe you've already done this, I see a date of May 14th or 15th in this order, which would - - could be a trigger for matters to go into mediation. But\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 64 of 186\n\n64\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 it wouldn't be with regard to those matters that you've already agreed -- or would it be with regard to the matters you've already agreed to extend the time out to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint? MR. BASSETT: So Attorney Linsey can maybe help me if I get something wrong, the correct paragraph reference,\n\n7 8 9 10 but I believe the way that it works that's put on the procedures, Your Honor, is that the submission mediation, that that process is triggered by whatever date it is that the particular defendant's answer or response is to.\n\n11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Right. So what I'm saying to you is, I believe that in the last week or two, I've seen several adversaries proceed -- I don't know how many. I can't tell you. I didn't count.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 But I would say 20, let's just pick a number, where the Trustee has stipulated to extend the defendant's response date for an additional 90 days. They don't need a Court order and that's fine. That's completely fine. What I'm asking is, let's presume those 20 are -- I'm speaking of 20 adversary proceedings out of 275 or whatever -- that the 90-day period won't -- will not have run by May 14th or 15th, whichever the date is. And I apologize. I'll find it in a second.\n\n24 25 For those being put aside for now, the attorney's asked -- why I'm asking the question and I'm probably not\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 65 of 186\n\n65\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 asking it very well. The last hearing we talked about timing and how many adversary proceedings were going to go to Judge Tancredi at what point in time and were they're going to be what essentially is a rolling amount of adversary proceedings over a period of time. And so I viewed that 90 days in stipulations that have been filed in certain adversary proceedings as basically those wouldn't be in the first bucket of adversary\n\n9 10 proceedings turned over to Judge Tancredi. I could be wrong about that. That's why I'm asking the question.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 MR. BASSETT: Well, I believe this is paragraph 2 J, of the procedures that the way it would work in that situation is that they would not go to Judge Tancredi until after the answer deadline. So it would be sequenced in that way.\n\n16 17 THE COURT: And that's what I'm trying to come -- (Background conversation)\n\n18 19 THE COURT: You're triggering them off the appearance date or the response date?\n\n(Background conversation)\n\n20\n\n21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, let us confer on that. THE COURT: I think you might be triggering it off from the appearance date versus the response date. And I think that may have occurred because of discussions during the last hearing where someone said, well, what about if I\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 66 of 186\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 already filed a response? Something along those lines. MR. BASSETT: Understood. I guess what I was envisioning, Your Honor, is a scenario where the Trustee has informed the Court of an extension of an answer deadline, but the defendant to that adversary proceeding has not yet appeared. And then would not THE COURT: Okay. That's different. That's a different category. Right? MR. BASSETT: In that case, it's triggered by the appearance. That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: And in response to your question, I was envisioning a scenario where the appearance would not be until the 90-day deadline. THE COURT: Right. So I'm saying there's several categories. That's my point. Right? And so I'm trying again to figure out if to the extent possible -- and I mean, of course, it's possible. I just don't know how specific we can be -- you can be with this procedure, how many of these cases are going to Judge Tancredi initially? I'm just trying to figure that out. I don't think that -- it doesn't have to be etched in stone, but I think Judge Tancredi needs to have some kind of idea. Right? Are we talking that on May 15th or 14th -- I think it's the 15th. I keep saying 14th. I don't know\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 67 of 186\n\n1 2 3 what they are. I'll find it in the order. Are we -- are we saying to Judge Tancredi here, here's 200 adversary proceedings?\n\n67\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 Or are we saying it's May 15th according to the order? Or are we saying, here, Judge Tancredi, here's 40? I don't know. I don't know what we're saying. And that's what I want to understand. I don't -- I'm not anticipating that either will necessarily present a problem, but I think we need to know. That's all I'm saying.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. And the one point I would make or a thought that occurs to me is that, as we have discussed in the past, what we envision happening with these mediation procedures, given the sheer number of defendants and the commonality of issues across all these adversary proceedings and some are like legal issues the parties will be raising will be virtually identical. Right?\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 So as we've discussed in the past, subject to discussing with Judge Tancredi, we think it would make a lot of sense to try to, you know, bucket and mediate groups of issues or groups of adversary proceedings together, which also will save costs for the estate and for all the defendants involved.\n\n23 24 25 And to that end, you know, I think the process and division was something would all go to mediation at roughly the same time to enable that kind of grouping or bucketing to\n\n| 1 | occur. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | However, we are open to in our -- as the Court is |\n| 3 | aware from the stipulations being filed, you know, giving |\n| 4 | people additional time to answer, and it may not be that |\n| 5 | everything is on the same track. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So are you expecting Judge Tancredi to |\n| 7 | determine that with -- and is that what you're asking? |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
That's exactly correct, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
That's number one. |\n| 10 | Number two, in page -- on page 8, that paragraph E again, |\n| 11 | then you have sub paragraphs 1, 2.
You're talking about |\n| 12 | stayed avoidance claims and partially stayed avoidance claims |\n| 13 | and stayed designation notices. |\n| 14 | That -- the notice issue is fine.
I mean, that's |\n| 15 | just filing something in an adversary that's going to stay |\n| 16 | whether or not it's fully stayed or partially stayed.
And as |\n| 17 | to whom, if it's partially stayed.
Okay? |\n| 18 | But what my question was is -- the way I read it, |\n| 19 | and again, I could be wrong, is that the fully stayed claims |\n| 20 | and the partially stayed claims are somewhat impacted by an |\n| 21 | order that already stays certain adversary proceedings |\n| 22 | because it relates to the debtor, and it's the debtor's |\n| 23 | entities or employees and what you will assert are related to |\n| 24 | the debtor. |\n| 25 | And so my point of that question is, does that -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 69 of 186\n\n69\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 and you're not going to be able to answer this, I don't think, at the moment, but I'm going to ask you to think about it. Does that order, the order that already stayed some of these adversary proceedings, pending the disposition of the criminal proceeding. MR. BASSETT: Right. THE COURT: They -- you know, made part of this order. MR. BASSETT: So I don't think it does, Your Honor, because that order -- and I apologize I don't have the ETF reference handy. THE COURT: 3038. MR. BASSETT: Okay. That order, Your Honor, relates to and stays the two adversary proceedings. The omnibus alter ego adversary proceeding as we referred to, which is the adversary proceeding in which is the debtor is seeking of declaration that a number of different entities are the debtor's alter ego. And then it also stays the civil RICO litigation in which the -- THE COURT: But it has the carve out too. Remember that carve out. MR. BASSETT: (indiscernible) legacy. That's correct, Your Honor. The avoidance action adversary proceedings, which are the center for this procedures order,\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 70 of 186\n\n| 1 | are not themselves directly part of that stay order. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | What 3-A -- and I'll describe the categories here. |\n| 3 | Exhibit 3-A and 3-B and there's also an Exhibit 4, but |\n| 4 | Exhibit 3-A, which consists of the stayed avoidance claims |\n| 5 | under this procedures order, is comprised of all of those |\n| 6 | avoidance actions in which the Trustee is alleging a transfer |\n| 7 | by one of the defendants in the omnibus alter ego complaint. |\n| 8 | In other words, the allegation in that avoidance action would |\n| 9 | be that one of the alleged alter egos of the debtor was the |\n| 10 | party that nominally made the transfer to the defendant. |\n| 11 | And an issue that was raised before and which we |\n| 12 | have addressed through Exhibit 3-A is that those adversary |\n| 13 | proceedings should not really proceed from litigation until |\n| 14 | just out of good order and efficiency until the omnibus alter |\n| 15 | ego adversary proceeding as against the alter ego entity at |\n| 16 | issue in that complaint has been completed. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So it is related. |\n| 18 | (Overlapping voices) |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Exactly, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
It is related to the prior stay order. |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Exactly.
It is -- it is -- it is |\n| 22 | very much related, Your Honor, because it, again, it involved |\n| 23 | -- those avoidance actions involved entities that are |\n| 24 | defendants in the omnibus author ego action which are stayed |\n| 25 | by the other order.
But without this language and this |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 71 of 186\n\n| 1 | order, these avoidance actions would not themselves be |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | stayed. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Right.
So all I'm saying is maybe you |\n| 4 | need to make a reference in that paragraph about the prior |\n| 5 | order, right, and the connection between the two.
Because I |\n| 6 | didn't add them up.
I did not do the math, but it looks to |\n| 7 | me like you could be talking about 70 adversary proceedings |\n| 8 | out of the 270.
Right?
I mean, there's three or four pages |\n| 9 | on Exhibit 3-A. |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Right?
I don't know how many there |\n| 12 | are.
I didn't add them up, but there's a lot. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
You can certainly reference the |\n| 14 | other -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I also understand actually, though, |\n| 16 | because I had to look at it.
I didn't pick up on it at |\n| 17 | first.
I think that there are some instances, at least I |\n| 18 | thought there were, yes, where the adversary proceeding is |\n| 19 | listed, the number is listed more than once because you make |\n| 20 | sure it applies to each defendant.
Was that the purpose of |\n| 21 | that?
For example, there's an adversary proceeding 24-05248, |\n| 22 | and that appears seven times, but each line item has a |\n| 23 | different defendant's name. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor.
And |\n| 25 | another reason for that is that the stay that we are |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 72 of 186\n\n| 1 | proposing is claim-specific rather than adversary proceeding |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | specific. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
And that's where -- that's where |\n| 5 | Exhibit 3-B comes in because some of these employment |\n| 6 | complaints involve claims by -- sorry, involve allegations by |\n| 7 | the Trustee that entities the debtor has already been |\n| 8 | established as owning and controlling are the ones that |\n| 9 | nominally made the transfer to the defendant.
So for |\n| 10 | example, Golden Spring is an entity that's already been |\n| 11 | adjudged to be the debtor's alter ego. |\n| 12 | To the extent that the debtor is alleging that -- |\n| 13 | or sorry the Trustee is alleging that Golden Spring made a |\n| 14 | transfer to a particular avoidance action defendant, the same |\n| 15 | logic of staying that claim does not apply as it does to the |\n| 16 | other ones that involve entities at issue in the omnibus |\n| 17 | alter ego complaint, because there already has been the |\n| 18 | predicate alter ego finding as to the transferee entity or |\n| 19 | the transferor entity rather.
So those would not be stayed. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Although, they may be partially |\n| 21 | stayed. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Those claims would not be stayed. |\n| 23 | Meaning that an adversary proceeding that contains |\n| 24 | allegations of transfers from other omnibus alter ego |\n| 25 | entities, those adversary proceedings can only be partially |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3150
Filed 04/30/24
Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20
Page 73 of
186 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 73 |\n| 1 | stated. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
And those partially stayed claims in |\n| 3 | those adversary proceedings, the other claims will proceed to |\n| 4 | mediation? |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Unless they are listed on Exhibit 4, |\n| 6 | Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Again, I didn't make an |\n| 8 | analysis of a cross reference or anything.
That's what I |\n| 9 | think you need to do.
Right?
I mean, so Exhibit 4 is -- |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Exhibit 4 is a list of those |\n| 11 | entities or those defendants, rather, which will not be |\n| 12 | subject to automatic mediation unless there is an order, |\n| 13 | agreement, or order in the Court. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
They're just defendants. |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
They're just defendants. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
They're not -- it doesn't mean the |\n| 17 | whole adversary proceeding is stayed.
And the whole |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding isn't subject to maybe -- excuse me. |\n| 19 | That's not accurate. |\n| 20 | It can mean that there could be an adversary |\n| 21 | proceeding in which one of these parties on Exhibit 4 is a |\n| 22 | defendant, but that that other defendants, that adversary |\n| 23 | proceeding could proceed forward and could be subject to |\n| 24 | mediation? |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor.
And |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 74 of 186\n\n| 1 | some of the individuals listed on Exhibit 4 may be involved |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | in adversary proceedings that are entirely stayed. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
Because of their involvement on the |\n| 5 | alter ego.
But then some of the entities on Exhibit 4 may be |\n| 6 | in an adversary proceeding that's not stayed at all because |\n| 7 | none of it involves the omnibus alter ego or another party |\n| 8 | that's subject to mediation. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Right.
But we see why I'm asking the |\n| 10 | questions.
I just want to make sure I understand.
So if |\n| 11 | Judge Tancredi says to me, which he's not going to say |\n| 12 | anything to me about substance.
But if he said something, |\n| 13 | asked me a question about a procedure, I want to be able to |\n| 14 | say, well, this is what I believe was said. |\n| 15 | You're going to order a transcript anyway and give |\n| 16 | it to him hopefully, right?
Because I just wanted him to |\n| 17 | understand what your process is.
Okay?
And I think I |\n| 18 | understand it.
I've gone through it, but there is the |\n| 19 | different -- there's an overlap in certain places and then |\n| 20 | there isn't an overlap in certain places. |\n| 21 | So it needs to be clear.
And I mean, I think it |\n| 22 | is, but that's why I asked you the question.
Okay?
And I do |\n| 23 | think that the Exhibit 3-A list is conditioned upon or is |\n| 24 | related to the prior stay order of the RICO and the omnibus |\n| 25 | alter ego adversary proceeding.
Those are already fixed. |\n| | |\n\n#### 75 Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 75 of 186\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 MR. BASSETT: That's right. And we're happy to add an appropriate reference to that provision. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: (indiscernible). THE COURT: All right. Well, let me see. I had a few other questions. That was the biggest question was I wanted to understand that process. Okay? Then, there are a few other things that I think the objecting parties, certain objecting parties have raised, and I'll hear from the parties about them, but I want to point them out to you first. So my understanding of the mediation panel, Attorney Bassett, and I could be wrong again, is there may not be one. But there may be one if that's what Judge Tancredi thinks is appropriate. Okay? That's what -- is that what you're asserting or that's what your procedures provide. Correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. There will not necessarily be a mediation panel. THE COURT: Okay. Now, with regard to the issue of the mediation panel, I think there is -- I will hear from the objecting party. I mean, I think -- I'm not sure if either Judge Tancredi determines that panel or the parties determine that panel. I don't think the Trustee can determine that panel in consultation with Judge Tancredi. At least --\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 76 of 186\n\n76\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 MR. BASSETT: So I think the way we meant to draft it in paragraph 2-K of the order -- THE COURT: That's what I'm looking at. MR. BASSETT: -- is to say that the Trustee would consult with Judge Tancredi concerning the potential use of the mediation panel. But ultimately, the appointment of any other mediators to that mediation panel would be subject to the approval of the Court. That would not happen until Your Honor -- THE COURT: Right. But what happens if the defendant objects? Because that's what I'm trying to determine, what's the process? MR. BASSETT: So any defendant would have the opportunity to respond to any proposed mediation panel. And to the extent that they have objections, they would be heard by the Court (indiscernible). THE COURT: It doesn't quite say that, but that's what I think is required. MR. BASSETT: Okay. Sure. We will make that clear, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. The next paragraph, I would like you to say within 14 days of any mediation referral or other date that is subject to the availability of Judge Tancredi. Right? Because I don't know what his schedule is. I don't know if he's going to be ready within 14 days of a\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 mediation referral. I mean, it very well maybe, but I don't want an order boxing him in to that. Okay? You see where I am in L? MR. BASSETT: I do, I do, Your Honor. I think what we intended with that provision was just to say that within 14 days of the referral. THE COURT: I understand. MR. BASSETT: A letter -- THE COURT: Submit a letter. I understand. But other days start clicking after that letter gets submitted. All I'm suggesting is -- MR. BASSETT: Oh understood, Your Honor. Understood. THE COURT: Okay. I just want there to be an acknowledgment that 14 days shouldn't necessarily start the clock if Judge Tancredi is not ready. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. The letter that you want to send to the courtroom deputy, we have you know how, Attorney Bassett, we have the generic courtroom deputy email box? That's the same thing you're going to use in Hartford. You're going to use that that email box. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: And then, obviously, it doesn't need to say this. I'm not asking you to change the order. But Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 77 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 78 of 186\n\n78\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 when that letter is submitted by you or anyone on behalf of the Trustee, then it has to be cc'd to the defendant in that adversary proceeding. So there's no allegations of any ex parte communications or anything, even though Judge Tancredi will be acting as a mediator. I want to make sure that everybody understands that ground rule as well, Okay? MR. BASSETT: Understood. And we're talking about the -- THE COURT: The letter. MR. BASSETT: -- the submission of the letter. THE COURT: Right. Just the -- I just -- I just want to, you know, we just want to make sure that the record is clear and that everyone is on notice upon submission of that letter. MR. BASSETT: Understood. THE COURT: Okay? So let's turn, if you would, to M, please. This is when an avoidance defendant believes that the claims against it should not be subject to mediation. So the only question I have on that is not with regard to the defendants that haven't been served yet, Attorney Bassett, because I understand what you're saying about that. You know, we'll deal with that when they're served, but within 14 days of the mediation referral. So, again, the mediation referral is that letter. Correct? MR. BASSETT: Correct, Your Honor.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 79 of 186\n\n79\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: Okay. And that letter is -- you're going to be -- well, let me ask you this question, actually. It's not necessarily clear. So what happens if the defendant doesn't have a lawyer, but they've been communicating with you, which I assume some have, right? So how are they going to be served with that mediation referral? I just want -- I don't want to have somebody come in and say, we didn't have 14 days. We didn't get served. You know? So if I file my motion on the 21st day after you referred to mediation, I don't want to -- I don't want to have an argument about whether or not it was timely or not. Okay? That's the point that I'm raising. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: Meaning, if you have a lawyer, then they -- and you -- and they're agreeing, obviously, to the submission of the letter and they can be served, that's one thing. But you've got to think about parties who don't have a lawyer. If they consent and agree to accept whatever you're giving them as service through an email address, that's fine. But I think you need to get that. I'm not saying it needs to be in this order, Attorney Bassett. I'm just telling you, I don't want to -- I hope to not have any hearings on whether or not that motion is timely filed if somebody believes that they shouldn't be subject to\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 80 of 186\n\n| 1 | mediation.
Okay? |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And as the next paragraph, the only |\n| 4 | thing -- you said before and I -- the word that they would -- |\n| 5 | the mediator, if there was a conflict, would -- maybe you |\n| 6 | already changed the language.
No.
The third line of them, I |\n| 7 | wouldn't say shall abstain, I would just say shall refuse or |\n| 8 | not act.
I -- just abstain has a meaning that I don't really |\n| 9 | want to get into either.
Okay.
Just change that word, |\n| 10 | please.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Got it.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
We're going to have to address the |\n| 13 | fees and costs of the mediator when we talk about objecting |\n| 14 | parties, but U, paragraph U, talked about the fees and costs |\n| 15 | of the mediator.
So you'll have to -- it appears that issue |\n| 16 | has not been resolved.
So that's something we'll have to |\n| 17 | address. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
X, again, the only issue with X in my |\n| 20 | opinion is if the defendant doesn't have a lawyer, how does |\n| 21 | that 30 days begin to run for them?
You know, how do you -- |\n| 22 | how do you serve them?
Right?
If there's a report that's |\n| 23 | filed that says it wasn't a full settlement and then they |\n| 24 | only have 30 days to respond to the complaint, just figure |\n| 25 | out a mechanism so that we don't have to address that as |\n\n 81 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 well, please? MR. BASSETT: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. I think that was -- those were my major concerns other than I'm going to hear from the objecting parties, and we'll address those issues. But do you have any questions about my questions? MR. BASSETT: I don't think so, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: Thank you very much. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. So we have objections filed by several parties. And if we just take them in order of when they were filed, but I think the first two are the objections of Art Wolf, Inc. And Anthem Health Choice Assurance, Inc. By Attorney Signor, please proceed. MS. SIGNOR: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Jessica Signor from Shipman & Goodwin, for Art Wolf, Inc. And then the Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is the DBA of one of the defendants. I will spare Your Honor all of the formerly known as and currently known as names, and then Anthem Health Plans Inc. Thank you, Your Honor, for hearing us. Our objections were largely the same for the three defendants. So I'll address them en masse, if that's okay with the Court. THE COURT: That's fine. Go right ahead. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 81 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 82 of 186\n\n 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MS. SIGNOR: Your Honor, similar to other avoidance defendants, our clients have been subjected to litigation, receiving transfers, in the ordinary course from entities that the Trustee says are alter egos. Putting aside those issues for the moment and the fact that our clients do not object to mediation and proceeding with a mediation, our limited objections for each of the avoidance defendants are largely the same and focus on three points. The first is that the mediator fee is to be split equally between the Trustee and each of the avoidance defendants. The second point is that there is required inperson attendance by an avoidance defendant representative and counsel. And the third is the note regarding resolutions of mediation in and of itself (indiscernible), Your Honor. The third point, the Trustee's counsel indicated they have included language that I believe resolved that, less of an objection and more of a point that we wanted made. But we think that that's been resolved in the second amended order.\n\n21 22 23 24 THE COURT: Are you -- I think you're referring to, and I'll ask Attorney Bassett. I should have asked you when you said that Attorney Bassett, previously, but I think the one that you're referring to is in V?\n\nMR. BASSETT: That's correct.\n\n 83 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: Failure to achieve settlement alone cannot constitute grounds for finding of bad faith or the imposition of sanctions? MR. BASSETT: That's correct. Last sentence of V, as in Victor. THE COURT: Okay. So then that takes care of one of the grounds for objecting, Attorney Signor, on behalf of your clients. Is that correct? MS. SIGNOR: Yes. That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Great. Go right ahead then, please. MS. SIGNOR: With regard to point 2, that's the in-person requirement for attendance of an avoidance defendant representative. This requirement, Your Honor, requires clients who in the case, just by way of example, of Art Wolf requires cross country plane fare, lodging, the time cost of money that these individuals will be out. And Your Honor, it's easily resolved in today's day and age to have these avoidance defendant's representatives appear telephonically or remotely or through video conferencing. Our clients have no objections to counsel being required to be present, and that is completely doable. It's with regard to the avoidance defendant's representative, to try and avoid those costs, that we think should be a part of the mediation procedure order. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 83 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 84 of 186\n\n84\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Your Honor, turning to our first point, which is in regard to cost splitting of the mediator fee. The way it's currently set up in the motion is that it would be split equally between the Trustee and each avoidance defendant. That being said, the motion does not have any sort of a fee cap. There's no sense of a mediator's hourly rate. If they were to, we did have a mediator.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 And that although there is a provision in the mediation order that an avoidance defendant can make a hardship showing, the very act of having to make that hardship showing and make that motion with the Court will only incur additional fees for these avoidant defendants.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 Our objection has cited to four cases throughout the country where there have been these omnibus avoidance action, where the Court requires the plaintiff bringing those actions to bear the full cost of the mediation. I understand that the Trustee's motion cited to six different cases. Five of those, I think, are fairly easily distinguished.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For those cases, if you look at the Court's orders, they require caution on a fixed predictable schedule. That's not what we have here. There's just a straight split between both parties. One of the other cases was cited had the Trustee (indiscernible) the mediator's fees for all adversaries proceedings weather it's seeking \\$20,000,000 or less.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 And anything over \\$20 million would be by \"order\". Again, there's sort of a predictable nature to what those fees would be. And I believe that the Trustee cited one case that just required sort of a straight split, which seems to be what they're suggesting here.\n\n85\n\n6 7 8 9 10 At base, Your Honor, suing the party to receive these transfers in the ordinary course, speaking to them, stay a litigation against them to compel mediation and then forcing a 50/50 split on those parties, it's at its base, unfair and inequitable.\n\n11 12 13 14 And we would just request that there -- there be some sort of cost splitting or something clarified in the order that brings some predictability to what those costs may be instead of this open ended nature.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor, that addresses all of the points in our objections. And we just call the Court's attention to one item we were unable to address in the red line version of what was filed on Friday afternoon in ECF number 3105. I happen to look. I just think there might be some language that creates an unintended ambiguity for the -- for the avoidance defendants and the Trustee.\n\n22 23 24 25 And we're happy to work that out, but since we're on the record, we just thought to close it out. In ECF 3105 at page 39, there seems to be, I guess, maybe the best way to explain this is by way of example.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 86 of 186\n\n| 1 | The mediation referral seems to be triggered upon |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the notice of appearance with no actual mediation referral |\n| 3 | being made until May 15th.
We have some clients where now we |\n| 4 | have stipulation with the responsive meeting deadline before |\n| 5 | May 15th, when we might have this gap period.
We just don't |\n| 6 | want to see a situation where the mediation referral date -- |\n| 7 | there could be any question of any sort of default. |\n| 8 | So I guess maybe there might be -- there might |\n| 9 | need to be some clarifying language.
And, of course, we're |\n| 10 | happy to work with Trustee's counsel to get that language.
I |\n| 11 | just would point it out to the Court. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MS. SIGNOR:
And I'm happy to take any of the |\n| 14 | Court's questions with regard to our objections if that would |\n| 15 | be helpful. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions.
Thank |\n| 17 | you.
Attorney Bassett, do you want to respond to these |\n| 18 | issues?
First of all, obviously, one of the issues is no |\n| 19 | longer an issue, but the issue about remote attendance of |\n| 20 | client representatives. |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor.
I think it does |\n| 22 | probably make sense for me to address these issues now |\n| 23 | because my comments and proposals that I have may end up |\n| 24 | resolving some of the same objections other parties would |\n| 25 | have. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 87 of 186\n\n87\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 As to in-person attendance, I believe it's Section 2-L of the mediation procedures, which that's the mediator with the authority to decide whether the mediation will be held by video or whether it will be in person. And then, the mediator, I believe, in paragraph 2-O, will also decide the location.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So to the extent that individual defendants have concerns about their ability to travel across the country if somebody is located in Washington or California, they don't - - a major hardship for them to travel here, we are obviously going to be flexible with that. And I assume that Judge Tancredi or any other mediator will be flexible in that as well.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 What we didn't want to do was, at the outset, allow everyone to participate by video because in our experience, particularly from maybe dealing with some people who don't necessarily have the strongest appetite to engage, it may not be productive. And our experience is a lot more productive when you get people in the same room, both as the two parties and the mediator. So that's the reason for setting it up that way.\n\n22 23 24 25 But in practice, I can't imagine it will be a real concern because, like I said, we're certainly going to be sensitive to any major hardship travel issues that is imposed on people. And the judge will ultimately decide that as\n\n88\n\n1 well. Judge Tancredi will.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: Well, I'm looking at L and it says that the mediation referral letter, the letter I was talking about with you, describes the claims at issue and advises - and advising regarding their ability to participate in mediation the following 60 days as well as whether the mediation session should take place in person or via video conference.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 So I suppose the mediation letter could request that the individuals participate via the -- that the client representatives participate via video conference. Right? Isn't that what that -- I mean, that language seems to provide the ability to make that request.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. BASSETT: That's exactly right, Your Honor. The parties join the request form, they can make that request and the following (indiscernible) describes how, after receiving a letter, Judge Tancredi will direct that the mediation be conducted in person or via video conference. THE COURT: Well, maybe what you need to add to that paragraph is that, you know, it's counsel for a defendant is an appearing counsel. They'll need to expect to appear in person unless otherwise directed by the mediator.\n\n23 And that the client representative may be allowed to\n\n24 25 participate via video conference upon request, but it must be a client representative with authority to settle. I mean, I\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 89 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 don't think I saw that anywhere in here, did I? I mean, you you've got to have somebody who's got authority to settle. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. And I think that's an issue where someone appears and they do not have authority to settle, then the Trustee would have an issue to bring to the Court.\n\n7 8 9 MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. I don't have the reference at my fingertips, but I believe we did have that concept.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: But maybe you need to put it there, too, is what I'm saying, right? I think more than one defendant has raised this issue about being in person. I think the lawyers should expect, and I think Judge Tancredi would require the lawyers to be there.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 And at certain points, it's possible that they could -- he could require the client representatives to be there. But I think a client representative could make a request from the start not to be there as long as that client representative clearly states that they have the authority to settle the matter.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: That's fine with us, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, I think you need to - especially if it's -- again, I don't know what buckets are always are going to be put into. But if there is a defendant that is then described as an ordinary course defendant,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 90 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 right, that might be a completely different type of mediation than some of the other avoidance concerns. So in any event, I think if you add that language -- and Attorney Signor, does that address your concern?\n\n90\n\n5 6 MS. SIGNOR: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that that would address our concern.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: And I do think you can request that in your letter initially, even with the language that's in this order right now, and I think that would be the time to do it because Judge Tancredi would be reading that letter and making a determination of how he would be handling the mediation.\n\nMS. SIGNOR: Yes, Your Honor.\n\n13\n\n18\n\n14 15 16 17 THE COURT: So I think that's fair. I don't think that's unreasonable, Attorney Bassett, and you don't seem to think it's unreasonable. Or I should say in the affirmative that you seem to agree that it is not unreasonable.\n\nMR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: Okay, good. All right. So that takes care of the remote attendance issue. But with regards to the cost, what is your response at this point, Attorney Bassett, with regard to the (indiscernible) there and the cost of mediation.\n\n24 25 MR. BASSETT: So my response, Your Honor, is that the Trustee hears the issue that's being raised. But we also\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 91 of 186\n\n91\n\n1 2 3 4 think it is one that does not need to be decided today because, frankly, it's not presently an issue. One of the things that we discussed earlier was that the mediation panel may or may or may not be created.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 Initially, all mediation is going to be under the supervision of Judge Tancredi, and there will be no fees involved in his oversight of the process. If and when there's a mediation panel, that will be subject to the approval of the Court.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 And as stated and as the revised order indicates, any defendant at that time can raise an objection, including, if they want to raise the objection at that time to both the cost or fee arrangements involved with the proposed mediators for the panel and the requirement that they share in those costs. We're happy to put in a reservation of rights.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: I think that would resolve the issue, a reservation of rights for now. And because that's why I asked about the mediation panel originally, Attorney Bassett, which was there might not be a panel. And if there isn't a panel and Judge Tancredi handles these matters, then there is no cost to handle them.\n\n22 23 24 25 But I also understand the concern about if there is a mediation panel, those people that get appointed will want to be paid. So I think if you put in language reserving rights, I think that's an acceptable resolution that turns\n\n 92 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 more of your -- your other basis for objections. MS. SIGNOR: Yes, Your Honor. I think that we can put that over for another time should it become an issue in the future. THE COURT: Okay. Great. Then I think with regard to the objections of Art Wolf in ECF 3083 and Anthem Healthcare Assurance Inc. in 3084, that those objections are resolved as noted on our record. MS. SIGNOR: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may, just want to make sort of a global statement in this. It is not my intention to have a panel. It makes no sense for every such -- for example, I always use Federal Express as an example because they are actual defendants. It makes no sense to have a separate mediation for Federal Express and UPS. All these potentially (indiscernible) to be determined whether they're in the course or not should be bucketized in the same especially if they're post-petition transferees or pre-petition transferees. The idea is to create buckets. And that way, Judge Tancredi could work with them as a group. But if we have 290 individual mediation, this process will not have been working well. So I really want to make sure the Court knows directionally. Of course, Judge Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 92 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 93 of 186\n\n93\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 Tancredi will determine that, but directionally, we're not in favor of having individual mediation. That would be time consuming, costly, and not necessary in most of the cases. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And I mean, I think from our prior hearings, I don't think anyone thought we were going to have 275 separate mediations. Okay. But we need to make sure that the procedures are clear enough that they can be while still providing some flexibility and control to Judge Tancredi as the mediator. Okay? All right. So the next matter, the next objecting party is Markham LLP, which is ECF number 3088. MR. GOTTESMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOTTESMAN: Again, Andrew Gottesman from Mintz and Gold representing Markham, LLC. We had just filed a substantially similar objection, if not almost the same objection for Fox News Network. I think they were filed on the same day. So like they're just done together if possible. THE COURT: Yes. You're right. The Fox News objection is 3089. So go right ahead. You can certainly address them both together. MR. GOTTESMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, as we said before at the last status conference, we have no problem with mediating (indiscernible) mediation.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 94 of 186\n\n94\n\n1 It's a good thing in a situation like that.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 However, the procedures that had been promulgated by the Trustee leave out some important -- some important procedural protections for all of the avoidance defendants. Specifically, we believe and we put in our objection and we also provided a markup of the procedures with our objection, we believe that any recommendation made by Judge Tancredi or the mediators with respect to the process should be subject to notice and an objection period.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 And the reason for that is twofold, Your Honor. Number one, there could be substantive issues that could (indiscernible) recommendation that could impact the rights of our clients, but all of the dependents, all of the avoidance defendants. For example, buckets are fine. There might be an objection to being in one bucket as opposed to another bucket, especially when it comes to claimants. There may be information that gets disclosed in a mediation that certain clients and certain defendants don't want disclosed in a group setting. There might be a business ramification for doing so.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 So all that we're asking is that before any kind of recommendation gets approved that we -- and when I say we, I don't just mean my side -- I mean all of the defendants have an opportunity to come to the Court and object to whatever it is in those recommendations that they believe\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 95 of 186\n\n1 2 prejudice them from a business perspective or from a legal perspective.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I also think, and this is also in our case, but I believe that that kind of procedure would make it infinitely easier for this Court to make determinations with respect to that procedure. The way it is currently -- the way the procedures are currently drafted, if an individual avoidance defendant has an issue with something in the recommendation from Judge Tancredi or one of the other mediators, the burden is then on the defendant to make an affirmative motion to the Court in order to address that.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I mean, I think it is pretty obvious where that could go, which is 270 defendants, 270 various motions about different issues, all on different calendars. If there was a mechanism where there was a recommendation made by a mediator and that recommendation was subject to an objection period, you know, it could all get knocked out at once. Very clean, at one hearing, and then everything will move on without significant delay of multiple motions in front of the Court on different days and different issues.\n\n21 22 23 24 So we think both from a procedural perspective and from a technical perspective, all of the avoidant defendants should be allowed to have a notice of the recommendation, which they do in the -- in the procedures.\n\n25\n\nBut then, the opportunity, some level, some amount\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 96 of 186\n\n96\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 of time, and it doesn't have to be a very long amount of time, but some amount of time for them objection to specific things in those procedures to bring those before the Court. If the parties can't work it out, then there's going to be (indiscernible) before Your Honor, and Your Honor can decide what you believe is the right thing to do. And we think that that is an infinitely better procedure when requiring the defendants to come to the order with an affirmative motion for things that they object to in the recommendation made by one of the mediators. So that is\n\n11 that is really what our first point and I think --\n\n12 13 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question about the first point.\n\nMR. GOTTESMAN: Certainly.\n\n14\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure if it really should apply to people who haven't already objected to the mediation procedures. That's just the point of putting this -- making this procedure and these orders be served out and have another hearing on it. Right? I mean, I think you could make that argument. You've objected. Right?\n\n22 23 24 25 And I -- and I understand your objection. But when you say on behalf of all the other defendants, I'm not sure that that's accurate, given the process that we've gone through at this point.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 97 of 186\n\n97\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 If someone had your concern, the argument, I think, would be they should have filed an objection from the timeframe that was set forth in the order that this Court entered some time ago to get to where we are today. So I'm not saying I disagree with your point fully in any way, but I'm saying I don't think you can make it on behalf of other people. You may disagree with me on that, but that was the whole point of having another hearing. I mean, the point was to, just like we do in many situations in a bankruptcy case, flesh out who has a problem with the situation. And you have rightfully filed your objection. So I have no problem with that, your objection for your two parties. But I think your argument with regard to you, your clients, I understand, but I think it could be more chaotic if you then say -- you apply it to everybody who didn't file an objection. MR. GOTTESMAN: (indiscernible) I mean, I am here to argue for my two clients, and I agree with your assessment. We will obviously because it's here, we will still object to something that the Trustee put forward. I\n\n22 23 24 25 just think that kind of if you put it into the procedures, it will have a broader application. And I think the deal today is mostly about procedures where I think the recommendation frankly would be about more about substance. Right?\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 98 of 186\n\n98\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 So if the mediator says, as an example, we want to litigate all these kinds of claims together. That's going to affect a list of people. But those people might have specific reasons why they object to that from a substantive perspective. Now, if Your Honor wants to say they should be there now, I don't know that I disagree with that. But I just think it's the only -- I think that there is a potentially broader application, and I was trying not to be overly provincial in my concerns. THE COURT: Well, I think the problem is having a process for someone who hasn't already objected then being able to object to the -- it'll go on forever. And that's not what the mediation is supposed to do. It's a mediation. Right? It's not binding. It's not what it says. It's not binding. MR. GOTTESMAN: Absolutely not, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, I think -- I'm not sure I'm persuaded with regard to any one other -- obviously, with regard to your argument, with regard to any other parties than the clients you represent. But go ahead. I just wanted to make that point. Okay. Go ahead. MR. GOTTESMAN: Fair enough, Your Honor. If it only applies to my clients if you think (indiscernible) I can completely live with that.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 99 of 186\n\n| | 99 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 2 | MR. GOTTESMAN:
Another point that we raised in |\n| 3 | our objection is that the procedures currently link the |\n| 4 | reason to object to a particular mediator being assigned to a |\n| 5 | particular case to a conflict of interest.
Typically, in |\n| 6 | mediation, the parties get together and, obviously, this is a |\n| 7 | different scenario.
But as the Court well knows, in a |\n| 8 | typical mediation, the parties get together.
And usually, |\n| 9 | there is a list of three or four mediators that is discussing |\n| 10 | (indiscernible) authorities and they have to consent to who's |\n| 11 | actually going to do the job.
And there's a number of |\n| 12 | reasons why someone might be acceptable and someone might not |\n| 13 | be acceptable other than the conflict of interest. |\n| 14 | Here, all the defendants are allowed to object to, |\n| 15 | under the procedures, is whether a particular mediator has a |\n| 16 | conflict of interest.
We think that should be broader, and |\n| 17 | we should be allowed to object to the mediator mediating our |\n| 18 | particular case on any grounds.
For any reason, |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Well, what other grounds would there |\n| 20 | be? |\n| 21 | MR. GOTTESMAN:
Typically, I have seen, you know, |\n| 22 | situations where, let's say, there is a particular mediator |\n| 23 | that's written an article, and particularly, let's say, I |\n| 24 | don't want to call it -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
On avoidance actions? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 100 of 186\n\n100\n\n1 2 MR. GOTTESMAN: Sure. Who knows? There's lots of law reviews all across the country.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: That's true. That's true. MR. GOTTESMAN: And so if a particular mediator is someone who has taken a position that is particularly hostile to one of my client's positions, I would at least like the opportunity to say I would prefer to have somebody else mediating this so we make sure we have -- we get a fair shake and have the best chance to have a successful mediation. We don't want to do this, butt our head up against the wall, and I'm sure that's not what the Trustee wants to do. We would like to have the mediation (indiscernible) our clients. Also, (indiscernible) everybody's goal is to have a defensible mediation.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So if there is a panel of mediators, we would like to be able to choose. So if it's Judge Tancredi is the only mediator, then that is actually not a concern that would end up mattering because Judge Tancredi is the guy, then he is. But if there's a panel of mediators, we would like the opportunity to say, we would like this particular one as opposed to that particular one or another one other than a particular one.\n\n23 24 25 And at least raise the concern so Your Honor can have it before the Court and make the decision as to whether our concerns are valid, are not valid, are well grounded or\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 101 of 186\n\n101\n\n1 2 whether you're going to overrule our concerns. But that is the other point.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 The last point that we note in our objection is also about attendance by our clients, but not on -- not solely in person. The way I get the feeling, and I can be wrong, but the way I feel about this, this is especially if you're going to lump claims together, these mediations are going to be a process, not one shot mediation.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 And in order for our clients, some of the numbers we're talking about and some of the issues we're talking about could sit through days of mediation. And, you know, a lot of them have pretty big jobs and have a lot of other things to do. We believe that that ultimately is a burden they shouldn't need to bear.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 Now, I do agree that somebody needs to have authority to settle, but that can be the lawyer. It's not that uncommon. And there can be something in the -- in the procedures to say as we see in every courtroom, I'm sure in front of Your Honor (indiscernible) waiting to call back on to get additional authorization to make changes.\n\n21 22 23 That shouldn't slow things down sufficiently. Whereas the other way around, the burden is all on the process.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: Well, I don't think the -- I think you've already heard me say that I don't think that the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 102 of 186\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\nclients necessarily have to physically be there and can make the request, number one. But we all -- I've also been involved in mediations where the lawyer says I need to go call my client to get additional authority, and I hear something eight hours later. That's not how it's going to work. There has to be someone available with authority. Otherwise, it's -- you know.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I understand people don't like mediation sometimes, and they don't like to make that determination. But you started off by saying that your clients are not adverse to mediation, then that's part of mediation. They have to be available, and they have to be ready. And I don't want to have somebody waiting a day or two or three or four for whether they have authority to resolve the issue. That's not how it's going to work.\n\n16 17 18 19 So, otherwise, there's no point. There's just no point. We'll just start setting pre-trial conferences. It's not a problem. We can do that. And we can just proceed in a normal course of a civil litigation.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 So while I think that your issue -- I think your client doesn't need to be available and appear. It may be two different people with two different days. I don't know. But as long as they have authority from someone in authority and they combined your clients to a -- as far as if there's a resolution, then I think that's part of mediation.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 103 of 186\n\n103\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Otherwise, we're just not going to get very far. So while I understand your argument about remote appearances, I don't think your clients should be excused from mediation. I think that if you start off by saying clients are excused, then why bother? There's no point. And Judge Tancredi can take things into consideration as a mediation progresses.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 That's what he can do. Part of what we're trying to do here is not have every single step be determined because he's the mediator. Right? He's got to have flexibility. He has to control it in the way that he thinks is appropriate.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 So but I don't agree that a client should be automatically excluded. And if that's a position that's being taken, then I -- then, you know, maybe you could opt out, because it doesn't make sense to me. A client has to understand what's going on. They have big jobs, and they have -- I understand that. So does Judge Tancredi, but he's making himself available to do this or to hopefully help the process along so your clients don't have to spend the money that they might have to spend defending this litigation. And maybe they will have to spend money.\n\n22 23 24 25 I'm not suggesting that it's a given, but that's the point. Right? The point is to try to provide an ability to resolve these matters without having a trial two or three years from now. And it wouldn't be that long anyway.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 104 of 186\n\n| 1 | But I'm just saying, you know, if you took the |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | worst case scenario.
Right?
So I think with regard to what |\n| 3 | I've already said about the remote appearance of clients, I |\n| 4 | think the time to make that request is in that mediation |\n| 5 | letter that goes to Judge Tancredi.
And -- but I don't -- I |\n| 6 | would be surprised.
I've never seen a mediator say from the |\n| 7 | start of a mediation that a client is excused.
Never seen |\n| 8 | that.
Maybe I'm -- maybe I'm just, you know, that's the kind |\n| 9 | of mediations I've been involved in, but I've never seen |\n| 10 | that.
And to me, that just doesn't support the process. |\n| 11 | Now it might get to a point where you could make |\n| 12 | that request from Judge Tancredi.
My client's been here for |\n| 13 | nine days.
Nothing's happened.
You know?
He needs to be |\n| 14 | here or there.
I don't know.
Maybe there's a way to do |\n| 15 | that. |\n| 16 | But I don't -- I don't think that's a way to |\n| 17 | start.
So I'm not in support of that -- of that position.
I |\n| 18 | am in support of a defendant being able to ask the mediator |\n| 19 | if the client representative who has authority to settle may |\n| 20 | be able to be remotely available.
But, again, that means |\n| 21 | available.
That doesn't mean I'm in a meeting for five |\n| 22 | hours, and I can't respond to you. |\n| 23 | That means that person is obligated to be |\n| 24 | available.
So that's my -- I guess I'm ruling on that one |\n| 25 | for you.
I've given you half of what you want, but not the |\n| | |\n\n 105 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 other half. Okay? MR. GOTTESMAN: Fair enough, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And I apologize. Are there any other grounds that you'd like to assert before I hear from Attorney Bassett? MR. GOTTESMAN: Those are the three of our objections. I will stick with those, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOTTESMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. So, I guess, on my account, there are two issues remaining. The first issue, that counsel has related to and I don't know -- THE COURT: There's a conflict issue. Right? Like, he wants to be able to say, I don't want that mediator, not just because there's a conflict of interest, but because there's some other issues that he feels is prejudicial for his client. MR. BASSETT: That's correct. THE COURT: (indiscernible) mediation panel. MR. BASSETT: Right. And as to that issue, I think the way that this is designed is, again, they can object. There may not be a mediation panel. If there is a mediation panel, that panel will be presented to the Court for approval. And then at that time, if there's a proposed Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 105 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 106 of 186\n\n106\n\n1 2 3 4 member of the panel that particular party thinks is not a good mediator because that person is biased in terms of the past views or articles they've been written, et cetera that's the time in which they can raise objections.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 THE COURT: But the order doesn't say that. Right now it only says conflict of interest. So maybe you need to just expand that to address this concern so you don't have to worry about it. While at the same time, I agree that that issue would be raised if and when there's a mediation panel. MR. BASSETT: So that -- we're happy to make that\n\n11 change, Your Honor.\n\n12\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. BASSETT: The other issue that I wanted to address was -- and I apologize, it was not entirely perfectly clear to me as to the extent of the issue counsel is raising, but what I heard him say was that, anytime the -- anytime Judge Tancredi would make a recommendation as to the way the mediation should proceed in terms of bucketing or other mechanics within the mediation process.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 Now there should be a motion filed with the Court, and everybody, including the client, should have the opportunity to object. That, we don't think is workable at all for reasons I will talk about in just a second. THE COURT: Well, I don't think that's workable either. I think I've already said that.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 107 of 186\n\n107\n\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor.
To the |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | extent, however, what counsel is saying is that to the extent |\n| 3 | Judge Tancredi makes a recommendation to this Court as to how |\n| 4 | adversary proceedings should be litigated as some being |\n| 5 | stayed, et cetera, and we've already went through this.
We |\n| 6 | have added a change that specifically does allow parties to |\n| 7 | be heard on that because those types of recommendations that |\n| 8 | affect the path forward for litigation are ones that have to |\n| 9 | be proposed to the Court for the defendants having the |\n| 10 | opportunity to respond. |\n| 11 | I won't go further addressing the other issues, |\n| 12 | the Court I think agrees with me on, but that is this is |\n| 13 | designed to be a framework, right?
A framework that the |\n| 14 | Trustee, the defendants, Judge Tancredi can work together on |\n| 15 | to try to, as efficiently as possible and hopefully as |\n| 16 | productive as possible, mediate these plans. |\n| 17 | And there has to be some flexibility both into the |\n| 18 | procedures or by the mediator can decide how that process is |\n| 19 | going to be run.
And if you had to come back to Your Honor |\n| 20 | every time there's a proposal for how particular, you know, |\n| 21 | mediation processes may be structured, and then give |\n| 22 | everybody an opportunity to object, that would just not be |\n| 23 | workable.
We would back here actually be having this kind of |\n| 24 | hearing constantly. |\n| 25 | So I don't think that change is acceptable to the |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 108 of 186\n\n 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Trustee. But, again, I think the other one, as it relates to litigation going forward, there's Court approval there. I'll make the change as to mediators and the ability to object. And I think that would resolve all the remaining issues. THE COURT: Do counsel agree that that resolves your issues? MR. GOTTESMAN: Except for the first one, Your Honor. THE COURT: Except for the issue about Judge Tancredi's recommendation. MR. GOTTESMAN: Right. Those are specific recommendations to Your Honor as to how mediations should go forward. In other words, it wouldn't be recommendations. There would be an order of Judge Tancredi or order of this Court. So I think in that instance -- and maybe it is and it's not for everybody, but it's anybody that's in this here. We don't believe Judge Tancredi or the Trustee should have to file a motion every time they want to do something. But if there is a recommendation that says, all of\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 these particular adversaries, here are all the numbers, they're all going to proceed this way, we should at least get notice before that becomes -- and an opportunity to be heard -- before that becomes the law of the case in the -- in our adversary proceedings. So what about everybody else's adversaries? At least in our adversary proceedings, we would\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 109 of 186\n\n109\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 like and we believe that it's right to have at least the opportunity to move Your Honor to say too bad, so sad. Well, I hear your objection. I don't agree with you. And I'm going to accept Judge Tancredi's recommendation. Go with that. That's obviously -- that's what you do. Right? You do it every day. So what we're saying is we want the opportunity to at least be heard, especially on things that could have a substantive impact on our client, like bucketing, like, typical claims billing, claim-based bucketing and having joint mediations with 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 50 different defendants. All these kinds of things are things that at least we should be heard on and not be dictated to and allow Your\n\n15 Honor to make the ultimate decision.\n\n16\n\nTHE COURT: Attorney Bassett.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, again, this is designed to be a framework. To the extent that Judge Tancredi wants to recommend how particular mediations will proceed, whether that's bucketing or otherwise, it's contemplated that he needs the flexibility to do that. It is not contemplated that he would come back to the Court every single time he wants to propose a --\n\n24 25 THE COURT: I don't think that's what counsel is saying. I think what counsel is saying is that if a\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 110 of 186\n\n110\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 recommendation is made, that impacts -- because it's only going to be with regard to your clients -- impacts the adversary proceedings in which he represents his client. He gets to see what that recommend -- he gets to determine whether he can object to that recommendation. Meaning, I'm going to --- but I have to be -- have to be careful about that because it has to be a recommendation about process. Right? I mean, he's not going to make a recommendation about substance, he's going to make a recommendation about process. He's going to say -- Judge Tancredi's going to say, if we take the example, these 20 adversary proceedings all have the same -- I'm just making an example. Okay? The same issue of law, and I'm going to clear them all in the next three weeks during these mediation sessions. What counsel is saying is he wants to know that and he wants to be able to object to that. That's what he's saying. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Is that what you're saying? MR. GOTTESMAN: That's absolutely correct, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: There's a difference between Judge Tancredi making a recommendation to Your Honor about -- I think you would advance the case if you decided whether defendants who didn't know who Mr. Kwok was can be held\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 111 of 186\n\n111\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 liable. Okay? I'm making that as an example. That should be heard on all day long. But if Judge Tancredi says, I just -- I think that the way I should handle my mediation is to create these buckets and all that, you shouldn't have to come to Court to seek approval of that. That's his mediation. THE COURT: Well, but he's not going to seek approval of that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: No way that I'm going to ask Judge Tancredi to seek approval of that. MR. DESPINS: Exactly. So that's why -- THE COURT: The only thing I'm hearing from counsel is he wants an opportunity to say, I don't agree with what Judge Tancredi's doing. And I may agree or disagree with him. I don't know. I'm not even sure if I'm there yet. But I -- just to be clear, I'm not going to approve or disapprove whatever Judge Tancredi decides is the way to proceed with mediation. That's not going to happen. Okay? He'd have to have a valid reason if I'm going to go there, which I haven't -- we're talking about this right now. Right? I have -- I'd have to have a valid reason why you think you shouldn't be in that process. And as I said, when you talk about other things, maybe you just opt-out.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 112 of 186\n\n| 1 | I don't know.
But the point is I'm not going to |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | get into a lot of hearings about whether or not you have a |\n| 3 | basis to say I don't want to be included in that bucket.
And |\n| 4 | it's a hard -- it's hard for me to come up with a thought as |\n| 5 | to why you wouldn't -- what would be your reason to not be |\n| 6 | included in that bucket other than the issue you've already |\n| 7 | raised about a mediator, in particular, which I understand. |\n| 8 | Okay?
And I think that's been resolved by we're going to |\n| 9 | change the language in the order, and it's not just going to |\n| 10 | be based on a conflict of interest. |\n| 11 | It could be based on other issues.
What would be |\n| 12 | the reason?
Can you come up with an example? |\n| 13 | MR. GOTTESMAN:
Well, as I said in my papers, Your |\n| 14 | Honor, there is a -- in a group setting, especially when you |\n| 15 | -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
But that's a protective order issue. |\n| 17 | That's you don't want to disclose something about what your |\n| 18 | client does.
Right?
Is that your -- isn't that what you're |\n| 19 | talking about?
You don't want to -- you don't want to have |\n| 20 | any of their business dealings or processes or policies and |\n| 21 | procedures become of the party -- become part of a mediation |\n| 22 | of a group mediation. |\n| 23 | I think Judge Tancredi can handle that.
He can |\n| 24 | handle that.
He can say, you know, counsel, I hear you.
We |\n| 25 | don't want Markham's internal policy and procedures talked |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 113 of 186\n\n113\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 in front of this whole group. I'm going to have a separate session just with you. MR. GOTTESMAN: I agree, Your Honor. I think although -- THE COURT: And that's what he's going to do. So you tell him that. You don't need to tell the Court that. You can tell him that. You can say, Judge Tancredi, I understand that this is how you want to proceed, but I can't get into specifics about my client's business practices in this mediation because we think that information is protected and privileged, whatever else you want to call it, from our business operations. And we don't think that that should have to be shared with the group. I honestly -- I can't imagine Judge Tancredi would disagree with you. MR. GOTTESMAN: Your Honor, I'm -- THE COURT: He'd have the conversation with you. Right? I think that -- this session -- just because there could be group sessions doesn't mean there isn't going to be a time when he takes you into a room and says, I'm going to talk only to this person. That's -- it happens all the time. MR. GOTTESMAN: I agree. And I -- and I think I'm and we are obviously hopeful that Judge Tancredi will do exactly that and expect that that (indiscernible). THE COURT: He's a seasoned mediator. MR. GOTTESMAN: Absolutely.\n\n 114 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: He will -- he will be able to -- MR. GOTTESMAN: (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: It won't be his first complex mediation. MR. GOTTESMAN: That is absolutely undoubtedly true. All I'm saying is that the way the procedures are currently written, there is no way to address something that Judge Tancredi does not agree with us on, and we would want to take it to the -- THE COURT: Then I'll let you do whatever you think is appropriate. I don't think we need to put it into this motion. If you want -- or order. If you want to come before me and say he's doing something inappropriate, you know, it'll get -- probably get heard. I don't know. But we can't -- we can't doom the process from the start, which is the -- I understand and I think your concern is a valid concern from a lawyer's perspective with regard to your client's business operations. I'm not -- I don't have any -- I don't think that that is an unfounded concern, but I don't think there should be a process set up because that might occur. It might not occur. Right? MR. GOTTESMAN: I would hope that we don't ever have to get there. We can have a conversation with Judge Tancredi. I'm sure we can. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 114 of 186\n\n 115 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'm sure you can. MR. GOTTESMAN: And able to resolve that, but there is a scenario where that doesn't happen. And all I'm saying -- THE COURT: And you'll have to assert whatever you have to assert at that point. MR. GOTTESMAN: And what I'm trying -- what I'm saying is that while we would then have an affirmative burden to come before Your Honor as well with any other -- THE COURT: You're going to have an affirmative burden to come before me anyway. MR. GOTTESMAN: But if there was this -- if there was an objection period, if there was a seven-day objection period, you could knock them all out of once. THE COURT: I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what. The Trustee and his lawyers have, at least in my experience in this case, when people have brought issues before them and the lawyers who have brought issues before them have been very reasonable and have worked out the overwhelming majority of issues, even in very, very, very contested situations. This is a mediation. I think you can work it out. I don't think it needs to be part of this order. If you -- I just don't. And if -- but if you feel that you're not being treated properly, then file the motion. You Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 115 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 116 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 know, what's Trustee Despins going to do if you don't show up at mediation because you feel that he didn't take into consideration your concern about your client's business policies? He's not going to -- I mean, what can he do? He's got nothing. It's a -- it's a nonbinding mediation. What do -- you can't be sanctioned. We've already gone through that. Right?\n\n116\n\n8 9 10 11 You can't be sanctioned. You can't be found to have acted in bad faith. You can't -- I think it's an issue that I expect lawyers should be able to address without the need for Court intervention.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. GOTTESMAN: Your Honor, I completely agree, I just want to point out two things. Number one, before we filed an objection, we did send comments to the Trustee and never did heard back. So while I think that the Trustee's counsel is usually reasonable, I don't think I can rely on it.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: Well, I think that's a strong statement, so just hold on there. Okay? I think that's a strong statement. There's -- I don't want to get into -- I don't want to -- if we're starting there, you should carve yourself out right now.\n\n23 24 25 Okay? Because that is not how you start a mediation. There are 275 adversary proceedings, like it or not. I understand you don't care. You only care about your Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 117 of 186\n\n1 2 3 two. And that's a fair point too. That's a fair point. But I have to look at the whole. Right? And I don't think it's fair to say you can't rely on them.\n\n4 5 6 7 That's a strong statement. I think what you could say is, you know, we made comments. We didn't hear back. So I feel like I have no choice but to tell you, Judge, that that's where we stand.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 Okay. You told me. I'm telling you that lawyers should be able to work it out. You have a -- and if you can't, then do whatever you think is appropriate. And the Court will act in any way the Court thinks it's appropriate under the process. But I think it's an issue that is not an issue.\n\n14 15 16 17 It's not an issue from this Court. And I can't imagine it's going to be an issue from Judge Tancredi's standpoint. I just can't imagine that. And maybe I'm wrong. So you know what?\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last time, but this is a mediation. This is not a litigation. This is not I'm going in, and I'm going to make an argument to Judge Tancredi about why I shouldn't have to pay a dime and why they're wrong on everything they said. If that's the position, then carve yourself out because that's not what a mediation is. That is not what a mediation is.\n\n25\n\nThis is mediation is designed to come to a result.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 118 of 186\n\n118\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 We're not going to make arguments about, you know -- well, you know what I'm saying, counsel. I don't mean to go on that. But I think -- I think your issue can be and should be resolved by Judge Tancredi as the mediator. If there's a mediation panel and you have any of those other concerns, I think that's valid, and we can address that if and when that happens.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 But otherwise, I think you have the right to opt out. I mean, you have the right to say, I don't want to be part of it. But if you're going to be part of it, you have to be part of what it is (indiscernible) mediation. Okay? That's my ruling on that issue.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I'm not going to set up a process where Judge Tancredi makes some recommendation and then it has to be a notice to everybody and then you get to -- first of all, it wouldn't be on notice to everybody. It would just be on notice to be objecting party. I've already made that ruling. But with regard to what you would -- what you can and cannot do, every party in an adversary proceeding or a main case has a right under the Bankruptcy Code to request a conference of the Bankruptcy Court. Now the Court may not agree, may not grant you the conference, but you've got that right.\n\n24 25 So I think your rights are preserved with regard to those issues. So I'm not going to change the order along\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 119 of 186\n\n119\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 those lines. Okay? I just -- I don't see it being something -- and then you can prove me wrong. You can come in and show me why whatever everything I just decided was wrong. And if you do that, then I will reconsider. But I'm not going to reconsider until you're able to do that. Okay? MR. GOTTESMAN: Fair enough, Your Honor. I hope it never happens. THE COURT: I hope -- I hope not too. I really think Judge Tancredi can handle that. I really do. You can handle it by telling Judge Tancredi you need that issue to be handled. Right? So I think it will be fine. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, wanted to just correct the record at one point. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LINSEY: We have engaged in well more than a dozen telephone conferences with the avoidance defendants regarding their objections. We received from Mr. Gottesman written objections sent in the red line. There was no phone conference requested. I responded to Mr. Gottesman on April 10, 2024, saying here is a further revised proposed order that is acceptable to the Trustee, which considers your client's feedback. That further version of the order specifically excepted many of the revisions that were in the red line that Mr. Gottesman sent to me and then invited him that if he wished to further discuss the matter with us, he\n\n 120 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 could do so or should not avail -- (Overlapping voices) MR. LINSEY: So certainly, we have -- THE COURT: I understand. I understand. I do understand, and I don't want to spend any more time on it. Okay? I think we need to get to the meat of the issues. But I understand. MR. LINSEY: (indiscernible). THE COURT: I understand. All right. So with regard to Markham and Fox News Network's objections, the objection regarding of time to be provided with notice and object to recommendations of Judge Tancredi, I'm overruling that objection right now, with the understanding that if you truly believe during the mediation process that that occurs, then you have a right to seek relief from this Court. Whether the Court will agree with you or not depends upon the relief that you seek. Okay? With regard to the issue about the conflict of interest, Attorney Bassett agreed to change that order. Attorney Bassett -- that it's not if there is a panel of mediators, the only -- the ability for a defendant to object to a mediator is not solely limited to a conflict of interest. If they're showed -- if they're able to show some bias or some other, you know, they're in competition with Fox Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 120 of 186\n\n## 121 Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 121 of 186\n\n1 2 3 News or Markham or something, I don't know, then that could be -- form a basis as well. So you'll change that language, Attorney Bassett?\n\nMR. BASSETT: Correct, Your Honor.\n\n4\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Okay. And then with regards to the clients being able to attend remotely and/or be excused, I've already ruled the clients are not excused unless and until they are by the mediator. And that in that meet -- that letter that's sent to Judge Tancredi, the referral letter, that is the time for your client to request to be available remotely and not have to necessarily attend the mediation session in person.\n\n13 14 Okay? So I think that addresses all of your concerns. Is that correct?\n\n15 16 17 18 19 MR. GOTTESMAN: It does. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. The next is Blueberry Builders, which is ECF number 3091. Good afternoon. Will you just state your name again for the record, please?\n\n20 21 MS. ODEN: Yes. Amy Oden, O-D-E-N. THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n22 23 MS. ODEN: Pashman and Stein on behalf of Blueberry Builders LLC.\n\n24 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n25 MS. ODEN: We filed our limited objection for the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 122 of 186\n\n| 1 | procedure's motion at Docket No. 3091.
And we had |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | discussions with the Trustee last week, and we were able to |\n| 3 | resolve almost all of our objections with the clarifying |\n| 4 | language and the revised the proposed order. |\n| 5 | The only issue that remains, which is not for |\n| 6 | today, but we just want to reserve our rights regarding the |\n| 7 | sealed complaint.
We reserve the right to -- we don't think |\n| 8 | we should be required to sign on for this extensive |\n| 9 | protective order just to find out what we'll (indiscernible) |\n| 10 | for which in our client's case is really just a schedule of |\n| 11 | transfers.
But we understand that's an issue for the parties |\n| 12 | to the protective order. |\n| 13 | And it's again, it doesn't prevent, you know, any, |\n| 14 | procedures from being approved today.
But just want to |\n| 15 | reserve our rights on that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Understood.
Thank you. |\n| 17 | MS. ODEN:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Attorney Bassett, do you have any |\n| 19 | response? |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes.
No issue, Your Honor.
In |\n| 21 | fact, we are preparing a motion to modify certain aspects of |\n| 22 | the protective order, which we'll present to your Court in |\n| 23 | due course.
But I think we can work out any issues that the |\n| 24 | parties may have regarding confidentiality.
But certainly, |\n| 25 | there needs to be some form of protective order that remains |\n\n 123 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 in place for the mediation. THE COURT: So I just had one question about that. I think that's fine. So have you not seen the schedule of payments? Is that what you're saying? MS. ODEN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. So you'll need to address that Attorney Bassett. MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. And I guess the only issue is it can't be to the extent of what counsel is suggesting. It can't be that they can just receive matter -- or materials that have already been produced and designated confidential pursuant to the existing protective order without themselves agreeing -- without either themselves agreeing to be bound by it or this Court modifying the existing protective order to remove the designation. And we are planning to address, in particular, in our forthcoming motion, which I mentioned, the issue of many banks and other parties, designating highly confidential bank statements, which we don't think should be designated highly confidential because obviously the principals or clients on the other side need to see those transactions. We do intend to address that, but there obviously has to be a protective order in place. The current one is in place until it's modified by the Court. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 123 of 186\n\n 124 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: Understood. So counsel, that addresses your issues for now. And obviously, depending upon what's filed, you'll be able to reply or respond to that. But I understand your point. MS. ODEN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay? And that's why I asked the question. Have you seen your schedule? You haven't seen it. So that has to be fixed somehow, and I'll let the lawyers fix that. Is there anything else that you'd like to be heard on with regard to your objection? MS. ODEN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then that's - again, the objections that I've talked about already have either been overruled and/or resolved through what will be further changes to the order regarding the mediation procedures and/or the protective order that's in place in the main case. MS. ODEN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. The next matter, Lester Hill Informatics has been withdrawn by the objecting party. It was withdrawn today. There -- that objection was 3093, and it was withdrawn at 3116. The next matter is Nardello and Company LLC, which is ECF number 3095. And Attorney Baer, that appears to be -- oh, do you have another one as Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 124 of 186\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 well? MR. BAER: Yes, Your Honor. Actually, two others as well. We filed on behalf of Nardello and Company, (indiscernible) Phoenix, and then Post Oak Motors and there substantially identical. So I believe the Court can handle all of them. THE COURT: So we'll handle ECF numbers objections 3095, 3096, and 3097 altogether. So go ahead, Attorney Baer. MR. BAER: Thank you, Your Honor. And a lot of the issues that we raised have been addressed by the Court and by counsel already. There are just a few additional issues. Some of which might be actually (indiscernible) raised. I think perhaps it makes the most sense to talk about just, I think, which is a housekeeping matter first. One of the issues raised by this Court at the beginning of this hearing, which deals with exactly which matters are being referred to mediation. The way that I read the order, and I think it's simply a drafting issue, is that there's 3-A and 3-B, 3-A being the matters that are I think it's called state avoidance claims. And there's 3-B, which are partially stated avoidance claims. And Exhibit 4 are the matters that are not being referred to mediation at all. But I think as I understand it, the intent is that 3-A and 3-B are also not being referred to mediation. Right? They're being stayed independently but not\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 126 of 186\n\n126\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 actually done mediation. The 3-D portions are not being stayed are but the stayed portions of 3-D and all of 3-A are not going to mediation. Correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct. So all of 3-A would not go to mediation, but I think parties could obviously elect into it if they wanted to -- would be to the extent that there is a part of that adversary proceeding and claim that adversary proceeding is not stayed that will go to mediation unless it is also on Exhibit 4. MR. BAER: Okay. And to be clear, I think the way it's drafted right now, and I'm sure it's unintentional. But the clean version, I'm looking at the bottom of Page 4 and paragraph J, it says upon appearance of any avoidance defendant in the avoidance action, it would be automatically referred to mediation. I think that does not apply to 3-A and 3-B. Later in that paragraph, it excepts out Exhibit 4. I think it can be resolved by just saying anything on 3-A (indiscernible) 3-B and 4 are not referred to mediation. MR. BASSETT: We can look at that drafting issue, Your Honor. THE COURT: I see where Attorney Baer -- what the language he's looking at on J that starts not within notwithstanding anything to the contrary. That's what you're talking about. Right?\n\n 127 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. BAER: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: No claims, but a Trustee against avoidance set forth on attached Exhibit 4 shall be subject to referral. But I -- you know? Yeah. You look at it. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. We -- I'm sure that we can resolve this. (Overlapping voices) THE COURT: That's one of the reasons I did ask the question at the beginning of the hearing. So go ahead. So actually, you go ahead, Attorney Baer. So that seems, you'll work out that issue. Go ahead. MR. BAER: Thank you, Your Honor. Our other objections, the remaining objection probably fall within one of two different buckets, one of which is going to be a simple objection to the -- to the extent that the mediation procedures are not even or not necessarily the same as well as to the plaintiff and to the defendant. To the extent that the mediation procedure is put in place and pretty much every single -- I shouldn't say pretty much -- in every single other mediation I have ever been involved in, the rules of them, people aren't (indiscernible) both parties the same. There are several cases in the mediation procedures in which the rules were applicable to the Trustee are different than the rules applicable with the defendants. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 127 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 128 of 186\n\n| 1 | I don't think that that's appropriate, and I also don't think |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | it's entirely necessary at all in this case. |\n| 3 | For example, and it's probably important to point |\n| 4 | out with respect to some of the procedures we've already |\n| 5 | talked about.
I understand that the idea that there will not |\n| 6 | be fact be a mediation panel, but that there will only be a |\n| 7 | panel to the extent necessary.
But the way the procedure is |\n| 8 | currently drafted, it says that the Trustee would then |\n| 9 | appoint a mediation panel to the extent necessary. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I don't think that -- well, if it |\n| 11 | does, I miss that because I thought it was Judge Tancredi did |\n| 12 | that.
But I could be wrong. |\n| 13 | MR. BAER:
So looking at paragraph K, why that's |\n| 14 | the definition of mediation panel, it's the Trustee |\n| 15 | determined in consultation with the Trustee that |\n| 16 | (indiscernible) to create.
The members of the mediation |\n| 17 | panel shall be selected by the Trustee in consultation with |\n| 18 | Judge Tancredi.
And as well, there are two objections to |\n| 19 | that.
First of all, entirely inappropriate to have one of |\n| 20 | the parties to mediation picking the panel.
I think Judge |\n| 21 | Tancredi is more than able to pick any panel members |\n| 22 | necessary. |\n| 23 | I think second of all, I don't think it's |\n| 24 | appropriate to have ex parte communications between one of |\n| 25 | the parties and Judge Tancredi to the extent (indiscernible). |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3150
Filed 04/30/24
Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20
Page 129 of
186 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 129 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Mediation is all about ex parte. |\n| 2 | We're talking to different judges all the time in mediation, |\n| 3 | and you should too. |\n| 4 | MR. BAER:
Right.
And to the extent that both |\n| 5 | parties are -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I think what he's saying is -- I think |\n| 7 | what Attorney Baer is saying is you just can't tell the |\n| 8 | Trustee who is he going to pick and they're going to pick the |\n| 9 | panel.
That's the point.
Right? |\n| 10 | MR. BAER:
Exactly.
Yeah.
And I don't think -- |\n| 11 | and to the extent that it says that the Trustee in |\n| 12 | consultation with even the -- if Judge Tancredi is picking |\n| 13 | the panel, which I think it sounds like we're all in |\n| 14 | agreement would happen, it shouldn't just be in consultation |\n| 15 | with the Trustees, it should be in consultation with the |\n| 16 | other parties or it could simply be that Judge Tancredi does |\n| 17 | it.
And that type of consultation (indiscernible). |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
The issue -- we understand the |\n| 19 | point.
But again, we're dealing with the practicalities of |\n| 20 | the situation.
So, ultimately, Judge Tancredi is going to be |\n| 21 | the one who presents a panel, if there is a panel necessary |\n| 22 | for this Court for approval.
The procedures contemplate that |\n| 23 | the Trustee will consult with Judge Tancredi regarding that. |\n| 24 | I have no problem of concept with other defendants |\n| 25 | also being able to consult.
The issue is, I don't know how |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 130 of 186\n\n| 1 | that is practically workable with 270 plus parties.
It can't |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | be that there has to be a process in place where -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
There wouldn't be. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
-- feedback is solicited from -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
It would only be with regards to |\n| 6 | objecting parties.
I'm not going to -- because that's not |\n| 7 | going to happen.
So that -- you don't have to even go down |\n| 8 | that road.
All right?
But I think the point is that there's |\n| 9 | -- there can be a process for objecting parties if there's |\n| 10 | going to be a panel to suggest people to be on the panel. |\n| 11 | Okay?
That's what you're asking for, isn't it? |\n| 12 | MR. BAER:
Yes, Your Honor.
To the extent -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And I think that Judge Tancredi has to |\n| 14 | determine the panel, not the Trustee and Judge Tancredi. |\n| 15 | MR. BAER:
Yes, Your Honor.
And I would suggest |\n| 16 | to the extent that any party is proposing the mediator for |\n| 17 | the panel that it should be done on notice of the other |\n| 18 | parties.
I think in this case, as I said, directing will be |\n| 19 | the Trustee and the other objecting parties, which I think is |\n| 20 | fine.
Just so that everybody has an opportunity to see |\n| 21 | what's being proposed and give input potentially as a |\n| 22 | panelist.
I don't think it has to be on all parties.
I |\n| 23 | don't think we need any procedure for it. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
We're not going to do that. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't agree.
The Trustee does not |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 131 of 186\n\n| 1 | agree to that aspect of the request, Your Honor.
There's |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | going to lots of ex parte communications.
There has to be a |\n| 3 | communication between the Trustee and Judge Tancredi or |\n| 4 | between the defendants and Judge Tancredi about, hey, here's |\n| 5 | the suggested mediator.
If that person's proposed, then you |\n| 6 | have an opportunity to object. |\n| 7 | MR. BAER:
That's actually my point, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | And I'm fine with that if the person's proposed, we have an |\n| 9 | opportunity to object, that no issues at all. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So you might be saying the same |\n| 11 | thing. |\n| 12 | MR. BAER:
Yes.
I believe that's fine, Your |\n| 13 | Honor. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Good to hear. |\n| 15 | MR. BAER:
The other issues in the procedures that |\n| 16 | are unnecessarily one-sided include allowing the location of |\n| 17 | the mediation to be in the office of the Trustee.
Again, |\n| 18 | |\n| | it's appropriate to have it be in one party's office. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I didn't see that. |\n| 20 | MR. BAER:
Yeah.
That's included in paragraph 2- |\n| 21 | O.
That's an automatic allowed location to the extent the |\n| 22 | parties can't agree, able to agree that it can be in the |\n| 23 | Trustee's office in one of the possible locations. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, we're trying to be |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 132 of 186\n\n132\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 locations. It's not a mandatory requirement that mediation occur in our offices. We're just trying to be helpful in offering space. Judge Tancredi -- (Overlapping voices) THE COURT: I think Judge Tancredi is going to decide where the mediation is going to be. So I think we don't have to worry about that. And if he can -- if there's a need to delete that language or just modify it, I think let's do that so we can move on MR. BAER: Okay. That's fine, Your Honor. In paragraph 2-F and I'm not sure if this is intentional -- THE COURT: 2-F? MR. BAER: 2-F. Yes, Your Honor. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but there have already been some discussion with the Court about the attendance of parties at the mediation, and I very much heard the Court's point that clients are mandatory to be there. The only issue would be that the way that it's drafted, the Trustee does not have to have a representative there, but the defendant does. And again, that's an unnecessary inequality. I think that the Trustee, obviously, Mr. Despins is not going to show up at every single mediation. We expect that counsel, the settlement authority is acceptable for the Trustee, should be counsel the settlement authority is\n\n25 acceptable to the defendant.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 133 of 186\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I disagree.
I'm sorry.
I disagree |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | with you on that point.
The Trustee is in a different |\n| 3 | position than the defendants are in this case.
The Trustee |\n| 4 | has statutory duties to resolve -- to try to resolve issues. |\n| 5 | And the Trustee is not going to be at every |\n| 6 | adversary proceeding, but one of his representatives as |\n| 7 | lawyer is going to be there.
He has to be available just |\n| 8 | like any of your clients who aren't going to be at the maybe |\n| 9 | physically at the mediation have to be available.
So I don't |\n| 10 | agree that that's an issue.
And so I don't -- I don't think |\n| 11 | we need to discuss it.
The Trustee is not going to be at |\n| 12 | every -- at every mediation session. |\n| 13 | MR. BAER:
Your Honor -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
To be clear.
Neither are your |\n| 15 | clients. |\n| 16 | MR. BAER:
Yeah.
And I'm sorry, Your Honor, I |\n| 17 | didn't mean to interrupt you.
I apologize.
But just to make |\n| 18 | that -- I'm not suggesting that the Trustee should be there. |\n| 19 | I'm aware that that's just practically not possible.
What |\n| 20 | I'm suggesting is whatever the rules are, should be the rules |\n| 21 | for both of them. |\n| 22 | To the extent that it can be a representative, |\n| 23 | that's fine.
To the extent that it's counsel, the settlement |\n| 24 | authority, that's fine.
To the extent that it's simply |\n| 25 | available -- |\n| | |\n\n134\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: I disagree with your client. The defendants are going to be there. Even if they're remote, they're going to be -- what I said at the beginning of the hearing was that the defendants have to be available. They're not going to be excused from mediation. And when I say available, I'm not saying that they necessarily have to be on a video screen. It's up to Judge Tancredi how he's going to handle that, but they have to be available. It's not -- I'm not going to have a situation, and I've already described it, I think, three times in the record, where a lawyer says, yes. I have a settlement authority, but now I have to go call Mr. Smith because I need more settlement authority, and Mr. Smith isn't available until tomorrow. That's unacceptable. MR. BAER: I agree. I agree completely, Your Honor, but I believe that that applies equally to the Trustee. To the extent that the Trustee is not available to -- THE COURT: The Trustee is going to be available. I'm so -- MR. BAER: That's all I'm asking. That the Trustee is available the same way that if the Trustee or his representative is -- THE COURT: There is no question that the party - the plaintiff is going to be on the same level playing field\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 135 of 186\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\nas the defendant, which is the plaintiff has to be available with authority, not -- I'm not going to hear that Attorney Lindsey had authority up to this amount, and then he had needed to get involved with the Trustee, and he couldn't get him for three days. If I hear that, I'm not going to be happy.\n\n7 8 9 10 MR. BAER: Your Honor, that resolves my issue. I think there's probably language that could make it better, but I think that resolves my issue, Your Honor. I think that makes sense.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 My other issues, Your Honor, are with the consolidation and categorization, and I think that is in a couple of different ways. As a starting point, just to be clear, I think as a conceptual matter it makes a lot of sense for all the reasons that have been addressed by the parties. I think that there is going to be a lot of similarities conceptually that make sense to deal with if not at or around the same time, possibly, even if it's from the same mediator, whether that's Judge Tancredi or somebody else. So, I understand the concept of it and I agree with it. I think that I have a couple of issues with it.\n\n22 23 24 25 First of all, is that it says in the procedures only that, as I said before about the ex parte, it says that the trustee cannot run up negotiations with the trust, with the Judge Tancredi about those categorizations. And I think\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 136 of 186\n\n136\n\n1 2 3 4 that is necessarily substantive, but, again, it should not necessarily be an ex parte communication substantively about those procedures unless everybody is going to be a legal basis for them.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 But My larger concern about the categorization - again, again, I should also say upfront the procedures talk about categorization in a couple of places and it talks about consolidation in, at least, one place. I am not sure if that is supposed to be the same claim or if it's a different claim. I would address them just the same just for ease of reference.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 My concerns about the categorization, and I guess I should also say, I think, the procedures talked about categorization in a couple of places and it talks about consolidation in at least one place. I'm not sure if that's supposed to be the same thing or if they're different things. I'll address them as if they're the same, just for ease of reference. Buy my concerns about the categorization is all it says is that that might happen and it doesn't actually say what the impact of that is. And I think that means that they are one of two different things. One is they have a substantive impact and I think we have talked about ways that it might be. In other words, if they are 10 defendants that are all -- I think the terminology they've used before were ordinary course defendants and all 10 of them are going to be\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 137 of 186\n\n137\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 together, I am not entirely sure what that means. Does that mean that I only get one-tenth, then, of the pagination? Does it mean I only get one-tenth of the time to make the argument? Does that mean that I have to sit in the conference room and listen to nine other -- nine hours of other arguments until I get to my one?\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The point is I think I have all the faith in the world that Judge Tancredi will be able to create procedures that make sense for everybody and that \"categorize\" adversary proceedings that are similar, but I don't think that necessarily has to be in this order. That can simply be done as a process of scheduling. That can be which is already embedded in there. But to the extent that Judge Tancredi believes, and it can be on consultation with the trustee as long as it's in the open and parties have an opportunity to say, hold on, I don't want to be a part of that bucket or I don't want to be a part of the consolidated proceedings for those reasons, as long as that is the case, and Judge Tancredi wants to propose a procedure that he thinks makes the most sense, I have all the faith in the world that the procedure will make sense and that that will be (indiscernible).\n\n23 24 25 But I think including it in this order, especially to the extent that it says the trustee can have ex parte communications about that categorization, it just brings on\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 138 of 186\n\n138\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 the danger of an order that we don't know that it means, because we don't know the implication is. We don't know that it's going to have substantively. We don't know what the impact is going to be. If Judge Tancredi wants to categorize, he has that authority. We don't need to include that in this order. What I would suggest is if there's something very specific that we need from this Court to authorize Judge\n\n9 10 11 12 Tancredi to do, we need to be specific as to what that is. If it's something -- nothing more than scheduling, talking views of logic and tactical purpose, Judge Tancredi does not need that to be in this order.\n\n13 14 THE COURT: What paragraph is the language that you are speaking about? Do you recall, because I --\n\n15 16 17 MR. BAER: I think the most obvious one -- it's in a couple of different places -- but I think it's the last paragraph, Your Honor, (indiscernible) is paragraph (y):\n\n18 19 20 21 \"To facilitate the mediation process and minimize any burden of Judge Tancredi, the trustee shall endeavor,\" not Judge Tancredi, but, \"the trustee shall endeavor in consultation to divide categories of avoidance actions.\"\n\n22 23 24 25 That should be done by Judge Tancredi and if the authority of Judge Tancredi doesn't meet -- this is a -- if it's purely a scheduling issue for logic and for practicality that doesn't need to be in there. We already have Judge\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 139 of 186\n\n139\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 Tancredi has the ability to make scheduling decisions and then to schedule them as necessary. To the extent there's any substantive point to that, we need to know what that is. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's very substantive. There's a (indiscernible) of different claims. There are post-petition claims, prepetition claims. There are some that I clearly know who they're dealing with. Others may not. So, that is the whole point about buckets. But we can change the language to say that we are free to propose that to Judge Tancredi and he's free to reject them, but that's -- MR. BAER: To the extent they're going to propose it to Judge Tancredi, you know, I would suggest that it should be proposed with notice to the parties that will be in the bucket. MR. DESPINS: No, we're not going to do that for the mediation. The fact that he's a sitting judge -- it's not very productive unless we can have direct ex parte communications with him about the merits of the claims. We're going to tell him, We think these claims are stronger than those claims or not, and I'm not going to share that with the defendants. MR. BAER: Oh, well, that's understandable, Your Honor; they're not going to share all of the discussions about that. But again, that's exactly what I am talking\n\n 140 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 about, it's a substantive conversation with Judge Tancredi that will have an impact over the -- THE COURT: But he's not acting as a judge; he's acting as a mediator. MR. BAER: Pardon? THE COURT: He's not acting as a judge; he's acting as a mediator. You always have substantive conversations with a mediator depending upon who you -- what side of the fence you are on. I mean that's what you do, right? MR. BAER: Which means it doesn't need to be in the order because they already have that authority. You know, Judge Tancredi already has the authority to bucket, as necessary, because the trustee already has the authority to have -- THE COURT: Then what about Trustee Despins' language that they can propose and he can reject? That does not address your issue? MR. BAER: That addresses my issue as long as to the extent that they propose, and Judge Tancredi were to consider it, we would be on notice and have an opportunity to -- THE COURT: But you wouldn't be on notice if you propose -- you're not going to provide him with any notice of what you suggested to Judge Tancredi. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 140 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 141 of 186\n\n141\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MR. BAER: I am not suggesting that we have to be on notice or propose it, but this goes back to an earlier conversation I believe that the Court had with one of the other objectors around what would happen to the extent that they make a proposal and Judge Tancredi approves it? We shouldn't have to go back at that point and file a motion to be heard by this Court and an objection.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 There should be some process to the extent -- and Judge -- and Trustee Despins made clear that he believes it's very substantive, which (indiscernible). I believe, Your Honor, it's very substantive. That should not be done without the participation of the defendants.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. BASSETT: But no. Your Honor, I think they are spinning our wheels because, as counsel just said, we absolutely addressed this exact same issue with counsel for Fox News and Marcum and the way it was resolved was to say if somebody gets to the point where there's been something proposed throughout the mediation process that they don't agree with, and they think they need to file a motion with this Court to be heard to have something changed, it is up to them to decide whether to do that. I don't think we need to keep revisiting the same issue, Your Honor, respectfully.\n\n23 24 25 MR. BAER: Your Honor, I actually came up with it in the middle of it, but I thought it might make sense to be heard on it. But I wasn't heard on the issue\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 142 of 186\n\n142\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (indiscernible); although, I don't need to continue spinning wheels on it. I understand the Court's position. I understand the Trustee's position. I do think it would be inappropriate to suggest that something substantive can be done without the defendants knowing and then put them, to the point that they have no choice but to file a motion in front of this Court to undo what has been done.\n\n8 9 10 More importantly, again, I would think we can take out the paragraph entirely, to the extent that they say that they had this authority.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: Well, I think that Trustee Despins' language solved the problem, okay. They can propose and Judge Tancredi can reject, and then you can do whatever you think is appropriate. We have to remember, and I know you all are remembering, but I am going to say it again anyway, he is not acting as a judge; he's acting as a mediator. That's what he's doing. This isn't an ex parte communication because he is not acting as the Court. It's a mediation. That's what happens all the time. Everybody is going to come in and tell the mediator their side of the story and expect that the mediator is not going to share the whole thing with the other side. That's not how it works.\n\n23 24 25 And Judge Tancredi is going to want an order that basically, you know, holds him harmless from all -- what you're talking about because he's not going to do it\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 143 of 186\n\n1 2 3 otherwise. Why would he? As we already talked about, he's got a big job all day and he's expecting to spend a lot of time trying to help this process forward.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 So, I do understand your point, but I am not going to strike the -- I am not going to strike the paragraph (y), but I am going to ask Attorney Bassett for you to put in Trustee Despins' language about you have the right to -- you can propose, but Judge Tancredi can reject, okay. Just like you could propose something and Judge Tancredi could object -- I mean -- excuse me -- reject.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 So, I understand your point, but I am not going to -- I don't agree with the argument that either the language should be stricken or that there be some kind of notice provided to the objecting parties that then has some series of hearings. That's just going to derail the process in my opinion with the understanding that if you truly believe there's a problem, you have a right to come to the Court and seek relief.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BAER: Thank you, Your Honor. Perhaps just a last issue, and I don't know if this is a substantive one. I think it is, but just to be clear, the Court -- we've talked before -- I've heard the Court say that to the extent that some objected and didn't like the way these things were coming along, they had an opportunity to opt out. Just to be clear, the way that the language works right now, they don't\n\n 144 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 actually have an opportunity opt out. THE COURT: Well, they have to file a motion. MR. BAER: But it has to be a motion on good cause. THE COURT: Well, everything has to be a motion on good cause, doesn't it? MR. BAER: I think that's the legal standard, Your Honor. I think it has to be -- THE COURT: It is the legal standard, but you can't just move and say, I don't want to be part of it, because I don't want to be part of it. MR. BAER: I believe that -- I would actually, to the extent (indiscernible) that doesn't have names to our mediation should be able to opt out, if you simply decide in your own best interests that it doesn't make sense to put this to mediation. I also think it should be if you file a motion, good cause is different that cause. THE COURT: I -- you know, you can make that argument. I understand. I sometimes -- I understand the difference between cause and good cause, and sometimes the statute says cause and sometimes the statute says good cause. MR. BAER: I will also propose that you should simply be able to file a notice saying you're opting out of the mediation procedures. I don't think it should be Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 144 of 186\n\n| 1 | mandatory. |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Well, has anyone actually raised -- |\n| 3 | did you -- I apologize if you did, I just don't recall -- did |\n| 4 | you actually raise that as an objection in your -- oh, you |\n| 5 | did, that you should be able to opt out by notice, rather |\n| 6 | than motion.
So, that was in the objection. |\n| 7 | So, what is your response to that, Attorney |\n| 8 | Bassett? |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
My response, Your Honor, is that we |\n| 10 | think it is very important for parties to be bound to |\n| 11 | participate in the mediation process, subject to the ability |\n| 12 | that they can demonstrate, again, a good reason why they |\n| 13 | should not participate, should be part of the process.
We |\n| 14 | think that's the only way this is going to work.
There are a |\n| 15 | number -- I mean, numerous examples of -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, let me just say something about |\n| 17 | that.
If I were to allow that, to opt out, it would only be |\n| 18 | with regard to parties who have objected; I'm not going to |\n| 19 | open the flood gates.
So that's not going to happen.
I just |\n| 20 | want you to understand that. |\n| 21 | That was the whole point of making you, the |\n| 22 | Trustee, serve this order on everyone and set up this hearing |\n| 23 | and establish an objection date, was to have parties object. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
That's fine, Your Honor.
If he |\n| 25 | wants a carve-out saying that this one particular, or two |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 146 of 186\n\n| 1 | particular clients that he's representing here today, that |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | they could have the right to opt out, sure. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
So, you will work that out. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
But not to any other parties that -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
No.
I mean, if no one has raised that |\n| 6 | as an objection, they don't get it; that was the point.
The |\n| 7 | point was you have a right to object to these procedures, you |\n| 8 | need to make your objections in writing, and the Court will |\n| 9 | consider them. |\n| 10 | And Attorney Baer's objection do have an objection |\n| 11 | that they should be allowed to opt out via notice, rather |\n| 12 | than motion, so I forgot -- there's a lot of them, okay -- |\n| 13 | but it does say that.
So, if you could put in the order that |\n| 14 | those two objections, those parties, or actually, there's |\n| 15 | probably three, there's three of them.
There's Nardello & |\n| 16 | Co., Teris-Phoenix, and Post Oak Motors; those are the three |\n| 17 | that have talked about, at least up to this point, that have |\n| 18 | put in their written objections that they would like to opt |\n| 19 | out by notice rather than motion.
I think that, actually, |\n| 20 | the last objection may have the same thing, but we haven't |\n| 21 | gotten to those yet. |\n| 22 | Okay.
I am not agreeing that this means anyone |\n| 23 | can do that.
That was the whole point; otherwise, what's the |\n| 24 | point of today and the whole process?
The point was do what |\n| 25 | we've done.
So it sounds like that issue will be resolved, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 147 of 186\n\n147\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 Attorney Baer, where your clients, your three clients, with regard to those three objections will be carved out and have a right to file a notice to opt out versus the motion, okay. MR. BAER: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So, I think that addresses all of your objections; is that correct? MR. BAER: I believe so, yes. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Then final objections, I think, are Attorney Sklarz, are your objections: G Club Operations and Weddle Law, 3098 and 3100 are the two objections that I -- are the remaining -- that's the last I have, anyway. MR. SKLARZ: Yes, Your Honor. I'll handle G Club and -- THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry, someone else is standing up. Did you have another -- no, I apologize, right behind you, behind the bench. Did you have an objection, too, counsel? MR. PESCE: I have 3087. THE COURT: Which one? MR. PESCE: 3087. THE COURT: For some reason I don't have 3087. So, can you just hold on and then -- I appreciate that.\n\n 148 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. PESCE: No problem. THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. MR. SKLARZ: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I will handle G Club and (indiscernible) and Attorney Corbi, who are local counsel for us, will handle Weddle. THE COURT: That's fine. Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: And I'll let him go first because he'll probably take all the wind out of my sail and then you won't have to hear from me. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. All right. Counsel, would you just state your name for the record please? MR. CORBI: Yes, Your Honor. Richard Corbi on behalf of Weddle Law PLLC. My pro hac was drafted last week. Also, we filed our objection to the mediation procedures and we also filed our motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding yesterday. (Indiscernible) deadline, working off a different order that was entered several weeks ago. Given that I'm one of the last few people to speak today, I think a lot of this has been addressed, but I think to my objection, to the extent necessary, on stuff that has not been resolved, the first point in the mediation (indiscernible) -- and I'll just go through my objection, I'm looking at page 4, Paragraph 13 -- the fist point of the objection, there's a provision in Paragraph 2(d) that Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 148 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 149 of 186\n\n| 1 | provides for the service of the redacted avoidance complaint |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | as being good service of process; that's inappropriate in the |\n| 3 | mediation.
Your Honor, we actually got to the point -- we |\n| 4 | actually briefed our motion to dismiss we filed yesterday, so |\n| 5 | to the extent the Court wants to make any decision about |\n| 6 | whether that's deemed -- it can't be deemed a waiver of any |\n| 7 | defendants by any avoidance action (indiscernible), Your |\n| 8 | Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Did you -- not any defendants. |\n| 10 | Your defendant. |\n| 11 | MR. CORBI:
Yes, my defendant.
I actually don't |\n| 12 | care about everyone else, I just care about my client. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I would assume that's the case. |\n| 14 | So, I didn't look at your motion to dismiss.
You |\n| 15 | raised an insufficiency of service to process in your motion |\n| 16 | to dismiss? |\n| 17 | MR. CORBI:
Yes. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I didn't know that you filed a |\n| 19 | motion to dismiss, but that's fine. |\n| 20 | MR. CORBI:
Well, what -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
S, you are saying you want, at least |\n| 22 | with regard to your defendant, that's subparagraph -- that |\n| 23 | paragraph 2, you're carved out because you don't agree with |\n| 24 | it and you've already filed a motion to dismiss that raises |\n| 25 | an insufficiency of service of process defense. |\n| | |\n\n 150 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. CORBI: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CORBI: Inappropriate for a mediation procedures order. THE COURT: Well, I don't know if I even need to get there, right. If you have already raised it as a defense in your motion to dismiss, then you're protected, as far as raising it, correct? MR. CORBI: Yes. THE COURT: And you can't be found to have waived it if you've raised it as a defense. MR. CORBI: Yes, that's correct. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. MR. CORBI: The next one was Paragraph ii(e), little two, that was the partial stay (indiscernible). We spoke about that earlier, about an hour ago. THE COURT: Are you -- do you believe the way that we've discussed Exhibits 3-A, 3-B and 4 address your concerns? MR. CORBI: I think it does. It's written clearer, but I don't want to -- THE COURT: I think that there is -- there was a suggestion -- and maybe it was by Attorney Baer, I don't remember now -- that that paragraph (l) maybe, that only refers to Exhibit 4, should also include Exhibit 3-A and 3-B? Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 150 of 186\n\n 151 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. CORBI: Yes. MR. BASSETT: J, Your Honor. THE COURT: J. Exhibit J. I think, Mr. Bassett, you said that you were amenable to that. MR. BASSETT: That's correct; we'll make a change to (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. So, that takes care of that. MR. CORBI: That should deal with that. THE COURT: All right, go ahead. MR. CORBI: The next -- and I know you're going to hate this, too -- but it's talking about the mediation panel. I raised it, because you've seen in our objection, paragraph 2(k) -- yeah, paragraph 2(k) -- I understand where the Trustee's counsel is coming from, (indiscernible), but if you have 270 defendants, it is actually more manageable if everybody who actually objected gets a say because (indiscernible). We want a law proposed that was actually similar to what we've done in the Diocese of Buffalo case where if there's a mediation panel, we suggest it be Judge Tancredi and that's it because -- THE COURT: Who determines the panel, you mean? MR. CORBI: Who determines the panel. It should just be Judge Tancredi to avoid unnecessary motion practice, costs for my client, and costs to the Trustee by having Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 151 of 186\n\n 152 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 another hearing like this on whether person A or person B is appropriate for the panel. It should really just be Judge Tancredi making that decision as it was done in the Diocese of Buffalo case. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: I thought we resolved that, Your Honor. THE COURT: I thought we did too, but I could be wrong because there's a lot of things we've been talking about -- MR. CORBI: I just want to be fair and -- THE COURT: -- which is that you can propose, but he can reject. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, he's picking. THE COURT: Yes, he's picking the panel MR. CORBI: Your Honor, it just wasn't clear in the draft that was filed. THE COURT: That's true, but they've agreed to modify and amend the language. MR. CORBI: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CORBI: The next issue we have is Paragraph 2(r). This has been addressed a couple of times, but I just wanted to say it for my own client's benefit, again, this dovetails into the mediation panel and ex parte Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 152 of 186\n\n 153 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 communications. If it's just -- THE COURT: It's not an ex parte communication. You are not talking to a Judge. It's a Judge, but he's acting as a mediator. MR. CORBI: I understand, but it should work both ways that not only the Trustee, but also the defendants should be able to speak to Judge Tancredi in his capacity as a mediator. THE COURT: They are going to be able to. Judge Tancredi is going to run the mediation like he would any mediation. I'm sure there are -- I mean there's going to be times when he is going to speak just to you, right? MR. CORBI: Agreed, yes. THE COURT: So then you can have whatever communication you want to have with him when he speaks just to you. That is not an ex parte communication. That is your statement or representation of how you believe the case should be held, the adversary proceeding should progress, or what the mediation is, right. That is going to happen. So, I guess my point is on the ex parte, it isn't ex parte, number one, because he's not a judge for these purposes; he's a mediator, number one. Number two, as I said, he's going to want everybody to hold him harmless anyway or he's not going to do it. Number three, you are going to have that opportunity. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 153 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 154 of 186\n\n| 1 | MR. CORBI:
The next part was actually just raised |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | with the opt-out.
We had actually made that point in our |\n| 3 | objection that it should be an opt-out without having to file |\n| 4 | a motion.
Considering that we've already filed our motion to |\n| 5 | dismiss yesterday and my clients received payments from the |\n| 6 | non-debtor that is not in bankruptcy, my client's already |\n| 7 | spent over \\$100,000 in legal fees in this case; he shouldn't |\n| 8 | have to spend more. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
In this adversary proceeding? |\n| 10 | MR. CORBI:
Well, and the mediation procedures |\n| 11 | and -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
A \\$100,000 in the last month? |\n| 13 | MR. CORBI:
Yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Wow, okay. |\n| 15 | MR. CORBI:
That is also our motion to dismiss |\n| 16 | that we filed yesterday, but they've spent over \\$100,000 in |\n| 17 | fees, you know, objecting to mediation and (indiscernible) as |\n| 18 | a matter of law. |\n| 19 | The next point I have is in paragraph 2(q).
This |\n| 20 | may be -- I do recall having a conversation with United |\n| 21 | States Attorney (indiscernible), Your Honor, regarding the |\n| 22 | documents produced at mediation are not subject to discovery. |\n| 23 | It should be -- we're not looking for testimony |\n| 24 | from any mediator or settlement offers that were made |\n| 25 | (indiscernible), documents that were produced (indiscernible) |\n| | |\n\n 155 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 as bank statements, if we could get that through the normal avenues of discovery we should be able to get that and it should be -- THE COURT: Why? It's mediation. MR. CORBI: If somebody produced bank statements that go to the core of the issue and we don't settle and we have to go to trial, I need to see those bank statements and if somebody hides behind the shield that they're covered by the mediation privilege, that's not what we're supposed to do. THE COURT: Why? MR. CORBI: Because the -- mediation doesn't - mediation rules aren't meant to cover documents -- THE COURT: Right, but you can get them in discovery in your adversary proceeding. MR. CORBI: Okay. I just wanted that -- I wanted -- THE COURT: You can ask, right. I mean that's the whole point. If you don't resolve this and you go through your trial, your case, you have a right to discovery. MR. CORBI: That's true, and I was trying -- THE COURT: So what's your point? You want to not have to make the discovery request? MR. CORBI: No, we will make the discovery requests. We just don't want to stonewalled because there Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 155 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 156 of 186\n\n156\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 was a bank statement was produced in mediation; therefore, the other side, the Trustee doesn't have to give it to me. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, the documents that already exist that happens to be shared with the mediator, if that document was already discoverable prior to being shared, it doesn't all of a sudden become cloaked in a mediation privilege because we have mediation; we agree on that. But he can't use the mediation process to short circuit the discovery process. THE COURT: I don't think that is what he is saying. That's why I asked him that question. He is saying he would still make a discovery request. MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: All he's saying is you can't say I don't have to give it to you because you saw it in the mediation. Isn't that what you are saying? MR. CORBI: Yes, exactly. MR. BASSETT: But to be clear, the discovery requests can't be, Give me those documents that you showed in mediation. Just request them the way you would request them. THE COURT: He will. MR. CORBI: Yes, and that's what -- THE COURT: That's what you all get paid for.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 157 of 186\n\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
But, Your Honor, the other point -- |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | I'm a little confused because he made a very clear point |\n| 3 | about saying his client is ligating, not mediating, and if |\n| 4 | he's opting out, which we'll give him that right, as we did |\n| 5 | the last party, I don't know why he has an issue. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
You don't know why what? |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't know why we are looking to |\n| 8 | these other issues. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, because he had to raise them. |\n| 10 | He had to raise them.
It's fine.
Don't worry, it's all |\n| 11 | fine.
It'll all work out one way or another. |\n| 12 | MR. CORBI:
I thought the Court directed that if I |\n| 13 | wanted to be heard, I had to file an objection. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 15 | MR. CORBI:
But if I didn't resolve something -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
No, I agree.
I agree. |\n| 17 | MR. CORBI:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
That's fine. Go ahead. |\n| 19 | MR. CORBI:
The final point, this is the |\n| 20 | reservation of rights on the legal fees.
It's inappropriate |\n| 21 | for the Trustee to seek equal sharing of the legal fees.
I |\n| 22 | know you'd reserve that -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
You mean not legal fees, but the costs |\n| 24 | of the mediation? |\n| 25 | MR. CORBI:
Costs of the mediation, yes. |\n| | |\n\n 158 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: Yes. That issue has been reserved -- MR. CORBI: Yes, so -- THE COURT: -- because it may not be an issue. MR. CORBI: I wanted to have it for the record. THE COURT: Understood. MR. CORBI: The last point that is really troubling and I don't know if its intentional by the Trustee, but Paragraph 2(v), it's these bespoke sanctions procedures that are put in place, via the order. Now, I understand a non-mediation order is if you act in bad faith or if you send someone who doesn't have settlement authority or whatever to mediations, it should be subject to automatic sanctions. I think 2(v) should be just -- THE COURT: Well, it doesn't say, \"automatic.\" Where do you say -- it doesn't say, \"automatic.\" It says: Where a mediator's report or an interim report indicates non-compliance with mediation procedures the Court may, without the filing of a motion by any party, schedule a hearing to consider the appropriateness of sanctions against a non-compliant party. And it says that even -- and then it goes even further: Additionally, in cases of willful persistence or egregious non-compliance, the Court may enter a default Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 158 of 186\n\n 159 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 judgment. So, I don't think there's any -- maybe I am missing something, but I don't see anything that is automatic here. MR. CORBI: The way it reads is without having to file a motion by any party, if they're going to -- THE COURT: No, that says, \"the Court.\" It says, \"the Court may\"; it doesn't say a party may. It presumes that I read some report, right, a mediator's report or an interim report that says somebody failed to comply with the mediation procedures. And then I could say, you know, what, I think I am going to schedule a hearing on that. That's what it says. MR. CORBI: Okay. THE COURT: That's how I read it. MR. CORBI: The way I read it, it was selfeffectuating. THE COURT: Am I wrong? Was that your intention? MR. BASSETT: It requires a hearing, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, but what I'm saying is you're not telling -- you're not filing a motion. This section is based upon the Court determining that I could make that determination myself; no one has to file a motion for sanctions. MR. BASSETT: Based on the mediator's report, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 159 of 186\n\n 160 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 Honor could determine there's grounds to hold a hearing -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BASSETT: -- and then make a determination based on the hearing. THE COURT: Right. There'd be no sanctions before a hearing. MR. BASSETT: Or parties could file a motion, which -- THE COURT: Sure, the parties could file a motion, but there'd be no sanctions before a hearing. MR. CORBI: It should be clearer in the order, then. It shouldn't be -- the way I read it is -- THE COURT: Well, it says schedule a hearing to consider the appropriateness. It doesn't say impose sanctions. It says consider a hearing -- schedule a hearing. So, I don't think -- I think I'm fine with that -- MR. CORBI: Okay. THE COURT: -- the way it's worded. I don't -- I mean, I hear what you're saying, but I'm not persuaded that that needs to be changed. Okay? MR. CORBI: Okay. MR. CORBI: And those are all my points, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then I think what -- with regard to Weddle Law, Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 160 of 186\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 161 of 186\n\n161\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 ECF 3100, you want to be carved out like -- and I apologize, but Attorney Baer's three clients, I don't remember all their names -- to file a notice to opt out, as opposed to a motion? MR. CORBI: Yes. THE COURT: And so, Attorney Bassett is going to do that because he's going to do that with regard to Attorney Baer's three clients. And you put it in your objection, so that will happen. With regard to the insufficiency of service of process, that's been addressed by the fact that Paragraph 2(v) won't apply to this defendant, Attorney Bassett, because they've already raised insufficiency of service of property. I didn't read the motion to dismiss, but that's what counsel is telling me. MR. LINSEY: So, Your Honor, I just want to be clear, Paragraph 2(v) was already in effect as part of the avoidance action procedures that this Court previously ordered, and governs the way that the Trustee served all avoidance defendants. THE COURT: But it didn't say that it was a waiver of raising an insufficiency of service of process; that couldn't be. MR. LINSEY: No, the only -- my understanding is the only version that counsel is taking issue with is that\n\n 162 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 Trustee served the redacted complaints rather than -- THE COURT: No -- MR. LINSEY: -- the sealed complaints. THE COURT: -- no, no. His issue is this -- at least this is my understanding of it. MR. LINSEY: Right. THE COURT: I haven't read his motion to dismiss -- he just told me he filed a motion to dismiss yesterday -- and one of the grounds for seeking dismissal was insufficiency of service of process. And he's saying, if 2(v) stays in place, then you can argue that he's waived that right to claim -- to assert an affirmative defense of insufficiency of service of process in his motion to dismiss. Isn't that what you're saying, Counsel? MR. BASSETT: Well, I think what Attorney Linsey was saying, Your Honor, is that this exact language was already -- THE COURT: It may be, but he raised in his motion to dismiss insufficiency of -- I don't believe that we had an order in place that said no one can ever raise an -- MR. BASSETT: No, of course not -- THE COURT: -- insufficiency of service of process. MR. BASSETT: -- of course not, Your Honor. All the provision clarifies is that because we have this Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 162 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 163 of 186\n\n| 1 | challenge of this protective order being in place, which |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | required us -- we had no choice -- but to serve our |\n| 3 | complaints with certain of these -- just the exhibit that |\n| 4 | lists the (indiscernible) is redacted -- all the prior order |\n| 5 | that was in effect says is that it is -- it is sufficient to |\n| 6 | serve that redacted version of the complaint -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
-- in accordance with the rules. |\n| 9 | So, to the extent that -- and I honestly have not reviewed |\n| 10 | his motion to dismiss, but to the extent that the argument in |\n| 11 | the motion to dismiss is that service is insufficient because |\n| 12 | of the redactions, then I think that has already been -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well -- |\n| 14 | MR. CORBI:
Then I would move to reconsider |\n| 15 | under 60(b). |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, hold on, wait a minute.
So |\n| 17 | you're moving for insufficiency of service of process because |\n| 18 | the exhibit was under seal, not because they didn't serve you |\n| 19 | properly? |\n| 20 | MR. CORBI:
Yes.
You have to know it and -- |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
(Indiscernible) - |\n| 22 | MR. CORBI:
-- well, there are many things on why |\n| 23 | we're looking to dismiss a complaint -- a 549 complaint |\n| 24 | against a non-debtor. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
I figured we might be talking past |\n| | |\n\n 164 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 each other. MR. CORBI: But that's one of the points, you have to put some on notice. You have to see the schedule that they're being subject to. THE COURT: That's not insufficiency of service of process, that's -- you're saying -- that's a 12(b)(6) motion, you failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because you don't even know what the relief is. That's a different motion than insufficiency of -- that's different grounds under 12 -- Rule 12 -- MR. CORBI: Well, we have a lot of (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: -- that's insufficiency of service of process. Insufficiency of service of process means you didn't get served. You did get served. MR. CORBI: You have to get served the whole complaint, you have to -- THE COURT: You did get served with a whole complaint, but it was redacted because of a prior order. You have a ground under 12(b) to argue that that still doesn't state a claim, but that doesn't state a claim because you can't grant relief on something -- you can't respond, you can't respond to the complaint because you don't even know what it is that they're alleging your client got. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 164 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 165 of 186\n\n| 1 | That's a different -- that's not insufficiency of service of |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | process, I don't think.
I mean, that could be -- that's new, |\n| 3 | if it is, I'll have to see, but, you know, maybe it is. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, and the other point I |\n| 5 | would just make is that any time a defendant -- and we've had |\n| 6 | this conversation with a number -- I mean, hundreds, maybe, |\n| 7 | of defendants -- if they've had a redacted exhibit, they got |\n| 8 | served with a complaint, the first thing they did is they |\n| 9 | reached out to us and said, hey, how do I get a copy of that |\n| 10 | unredacted exhibit? |\n| 11 | I'd say, Hey, no problem.
Here's your copy of the |\n| 12 | protective order.
Sign that and we'll send it to you.
We've |\n| 13 | done that, and now they're evaluating it and they'll respond |\n| 14 | accordingly. |\n| 15 | His tactic apparently was to make the service -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't -- I don't -- it's not a |\n| 17 | tactic, don't -- I don't want to go there, it's not |\n| 18 | necessary, okay? |\n| 19 | But I don't think you're going to win on that, if |\n| 20 | it's insufficiency of service of process because -- well, |\n| 21 | maybe you have a case that says that, I don't know. |\n| 22 | MR. CORBI:
Well, there's a myriad of issues as to |\n| 23 | why this complaint needs to be dismissed -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Yeah, but that's a different -- the |\n| 25 | insufficiency of service of process issue, what was in 2(v) |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 166 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is what Attorney Linsey and Attorney Bassett are saying you can't come before the Court and say because you've got a complaint with a redacted exhibit, you didn't get service. That's a different -- that's a different argument than what you're making, which is you've got a complaint to which you can't respond because you don't even know what the allegation is.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. CORBI: I'd just like to give one comment on the protective order. When we asked for a protective order -- again, I think another objector said it was overreaching -- we had to do several rounds of revisions for our markups like this order in order to eventually -- to eventually (indiscernible) a protective order.\n\n14 15 16 17 THE COURT: And you know why? Because there's 275 adversary proceedings and there's been a protective order in place for a year and a half or more. Okay? MR. CORBI: I understand.\n\nTHE COURT: And I hear you, I understand your\n\n18\n\n19 20 point. Okay? But there's a way we can all figure it out. Okay?\n\n21 22 23 24 25 But I think you have to -- Attorney Bassett, with regard to 2(v), I think we just need to acknowledge on the record at some point that 2(v) was meant to address an issue that, if someone claimed that they weren't served properly because the exhibit was redacted, that's not an argument\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 167 of 186\n\n167\n\n1 that's going to win in this court. Okay?\n\n2 3 4 5 6 What would win, an insufficiency of service of process, is if Weddle Law was served at the Smith Law Group. Okay? And then they never got service. That would win, right? That's not what -- we're talking about two different things.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So I think 2(v) is different, Counsel, than what you're arguing. I think you have -- you know, a court can take a Rule 12 motion and decide it how it thinks appropriate. If you are saying the case should be dismissed because you can't even respond, there's other parts -- it's not just 12(b), there's other parts of Rule 12 you could rely on --\n\n14 15 16 MR. CORBI: We've argued many grounds to dismiss the complaint. I just didn't want to have any waiver arguments thrown in my face. That's really the point.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, I think the waiver argument is -- your way that you're talking about two different things being waived. He's -- Attorney Bassett is saying you can't come in and say to me -- you can't say to the Judge you should dismiss my cause of action because you attached a redacted exhibit; that's what he's saying. You're saying, yeah, I shouldn't be bound by that because I don't even know what I'm being sued for. Those are two different things. Insufficiency of service of process means you weren't\n\n 168 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 properly served; it doesn't mean that you can't respond to the complaint. MR. CORBI: And we've made several (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. CORBI: As to the 549, I'm not getting a payout from the non-debtor. THE COURT: So I'm just letting you know, okay, with regard to 2(v) -- MR. CORBI: Okay. THE COURT: -- the purpose of that provision was that it would not be a successful ground to defeat the complaint in a motion to dismiss to say that what you were served with included a redacted exhibit. If that's your basis, you lose. Okay? MR. CORBI: Okay. THE COURT: But you seem to have other bases, you're telling me. So -- MR. CORBI: We have a lot -- THE COURT: -- we'll address those in the ordinary course. Okay? MR. CORBI: That's a little hard hearing it. THE COURT: All right. Then I think everything else has been addressed with regard to your objection. We - do you think there's anything else that needs to be -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 168 of 186\n\n 169 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. CORBI: No. I have the reservation of rights on the fees; we've already discussed that. THE COURT: So the costs of -- MR. CORBI: Yeah, and the costs -- THE COURT: -- and that's going to be addressed with prior -- with new language -- MR. CORBI: Yes. THE COURT: -- okay? All right. Attorney Bassett, do you have anything further with regard to Weddle Law? I think we've addressed all of the bases of objections set forth in Counsel's objection. MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. I did have a question before Attorney Sklarz starts, but nothing further with -- THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. BASSETT: So I believe -- and Attorney Sklarz can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he said he was here representing G Club and Pillsbury, and, given the hour of the day, I just wanted to make two observations. The first is, both G Club and Pillsbury are on Exhibit 4, which means they are excluded from mediation. So I'm not, therefore -- unless he's going to say he wants back in, I'm not sure why we would -- and we don't want them back in. The Trustee has affirmatively put them on Exhibit 4 because we Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 169 of 186\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 170 of 186\n\n1 2 3 4 don't intend to mediate with them, so there's not going to be an agreement on mediation, so I don't know why we would - you know, why these clients would have issues with the procedures, number one.\n\n170\n\n5 6 7 8 Number two, I don't believe Pillsbury -- I could be wrong -- but I don't believe Pillsbury filed an objection. I think the objection was only filed on behalf of G Club, which again, is part of Exhibit 4.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: I didn't see an objection filed by Pillsbury either. I could have missed it, so Attorney -- I think that you're all set right now on Weddle Law. You can stay at counsel table, you don't have to move, but I think we're going to talk about these other --\n\n14 15 MR. BASSETT: I didn't want to be rude while these guys were talking --\n\n16\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you, I appreciate that.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SKLARZ: We've had so many -- we've had so many filings and, honestly, Your Honor, I've been on trial for a bit, so I'm not a hundred percent sure of everything that's involved, but I take Attorney Bassett's statement that there hasn't been a Pillsbury motion filed. Again, we filed objections because we were ordered to file objections, and I commend counsel, we spent a lot of time negotiating through this, and I think there's been a lot of changes, but one of the items in here that if the parties want to mediate, these\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 171 of 186\n\n| 1 | are the orders that will apply to a mediation. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Everything we've raised in our objection has |\n| 3 | been -- has been raised, so I'm not going to go over |\n| 4 | everything again.
All I wanted to point out is that in |\n| 5 | paragraph D -- 2(v), which is the sanctions provision that |\n| 6 | Attorney Corbi pointed out, it does -- it is very different |\n| 7 | than any of the mandatory mediation orders or any of the |\n| 8 | mediation orders I've seen, particularly out of Delaware, |\n| 9 | Southern District -- I've seen a lot of these mediations -- |\n| 10 | and on -- I'm looking specifically at page 76. |\n| 11 | And this language has been in there since the |\n| 12 | beginning, it's the second-to-last sentence -- or, I'm sorry, |\n| 13 | the second- and third-to-last sentence before the redline. |\n| 14 | It just makes me -- again, it makes me queasy that if a party |\n| 15 | wants -- in mediation and reaches a point where they don't |\n| 16 | want to settle for any reason other than they want to |\n| 17 | litigate, that there seems to be ability to go to court and |\n| 18 | say, We didn't resolve the mediation and now we're having a |\n| 19 | fight over the meaning of good faith. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Now we have to fight over what? |\n| 21 | MR. SKLARZ:
The meaning of whether -- whether the |\n| 22 | negotiation itself was in good faith. |\n| 23 | I don't have an issue with -- if Judge Tancredi |\n| 24 | issues a report saying the party didn't act in good faith, |\n| 25 | yeah, Your Honor should have a show-cause hearing, but to |\n| | |\n\n 172 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 have an adversarial type between the two parties saying, You didn't negotiate in good faith. Yes, I did. How do we ever resolve that? It's just -- again, these issues don't come up frequently. I don't want to -- I don't think it needs too much -- THE COURT: But what are you looking at? I don't know what language you're looking at (indiscernible) -- MR. SKLARZ: It says, \"Additionally, if any party to the mediation proceeding is not attempting to schedule or resolve the mediation in good faith.\" Okay, if there's a mediation order and you're refusing to schedule it; yeah, you should be sanctioned. But I don't know what \"resolved in good faith\" means. Does that mean I say I know you're suing me for \\$100 million, but I will offer you a thousand dollars because that's -- because I want to go to trial here? I don't think that would be bad faith, but I don't know. That's -- that's the concern. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, do you have any response to that; other than, I know what you're going -- I understand your point that they're not going to be subject to mediation, so -- MR. BASSETT: So, yes, Your Honor, they're not going to be subject to mediation, but taking the argument at face value, I think it's addressed by the last sentence, Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 172 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 173 of 186\n\n| 1 | which, frankly, is one of the other comments I believe that |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Attorney Sklarz had raised, is just to make clear that |\n| 3 | failure to reach a settlement in and of itself cannot be |\n| 4 | grounds for sanctions.
If there is a lack of good faith that |\n| 5 | has been exhibited by a party in mediation, then, yes, the -- |\n| 6 | another party can move the Court for sanctions. |\n| 7 | And as Attorney Linsey just pointed out to me, |\n| 8 | this identical language was just entered by the Southern |\n| 9 | District of New York Bankruptcy Court in the Revlon case just |\n| 10 | law month.
So this -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
The \"failure to achieve settlement\"; |\n| 12 | is that what you're talking about, or the \"Additionally, if |\n| 13 | any party\" language? |\n| 14 | MR. LINSEY:
No, it's the mediator shall |\n| 15 | (indiscernible) party in the mediation is not attempting to |\n| 16 | schedule or resolve in good faith (indiscernible) -- |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
Right, the language that he read |\n| 18 | saying that if there's an issue with a party not attempting |\n| 19 | to schedule or resolve in good faith; that language was |\n| 20 | entered in that order, correct? |\n| 21 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
And I guess I don't understand -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, you know what I think about that |\n| 24 | actually, honestly -- I understand your point, okay, and I |\n| 25 | understand what your point is, Attorney Bassett, but the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 174 of 186\n\n174\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 Court will address it in and when -- if and when it comes forward to the Court, right? And you'll be able to raise any issues you think are appropriate, assuming you're even part of this, which you're not at this point. MR. SKLARZ: Yeah, and I'm just trying to make the Court aware of this -- THE COURT: Understood -- MR. SKLARZ: -- issue, Judge, -- THE COURT: -- understood. MR. SKLARZ: -- and that's all I have. THE COURT: Okay, all right, that's fair. So with regard to -- now, we just have one more objection that I didn't have for some reason and I'm not sure why, but I just probably missed it because there were so many. It was 3087, Counsel, did you say? MR. PESCE: 3087, Your Honor. THE COURT: By Attorney Pesce, yes. All right. Let me just take a look at it -- I apologize -- because I don't have it at the moment, so you'll have to give me a moment, if you don't mind. And I'll just have you note your name for the record and whom you represent for the courtroom deputy, please. MR. PESCE: Yes, Your Honor, Matthew Pesce, 3 Columbus Circle. (Pause)\n\n 175 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: Is 3 Columbus Circle one of the parties that is on 3(a) or 4? No? I don't know. I have no idea, I'm just -- MR. PESCE: It is not. THE COURT: Okay. So are you just the landlord; is that what you're telling me? MR. PESCE: Yes -- THE COURT: I don't mean \"just the landlord,\" but -- MR. PESCE: -- the tenant. THE COURT: I haven't read this until now, so I apologize. (Pause) So one of your issues is the costs borne by the estate, and that issue, I think, Counsel, has been addressed today insofar as everyone is going to have a reservation - all objecting parties are going to have a reservation of rights with regard to cost of mediation and there may -- it may not become an issue if Judge Tancredi is able to mediate all of the matters without any other mediators being involved. MR. PESCE: Yes, Your Honor, that would be the ideal scenario. The only thing I would want to flag for the Court and for the Trustee's consideration with respect to 2(u), which I believe is the relevant provision that deals Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 175 of 186\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 176 of 186\n\n176\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 with the mediation fee, is that the current paragraph deals with a process for objecting to the initial mediation fee, which I believe kind of pertains to the reservation of rights, but it does not contain a procedure for objecting to any subsequent fee associated with the mediation, which could become relevant in the scenario where there's bucketing, and say a defendant who's dragged along into a bucket where the mediation pertained to that specific defendant, may be much shorter and discrete, but because of its placement within a larger group, could result in a longer period of mediation regarding those issues that are pertinent to the group, in which case we'd hope that the Trustee might (indiscernible) come up with a procedure that could deal with the allocation issue in that scenario, but, again, understanding that it's entirely dependent on their being --\n\n16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Okay, I understand your point. So I think it's noted for the record and I think the Trustee will consider that if and when we get to that point, but I understand your point, I do.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 MR. PESCE: With respect to their first point regarding the Trustee's designation and whether or not the action against 3 Columbus Circle should be stayed, that has been resolved and after a conference with the Trustee. So we will withdraw that on the record today.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Counsel, I\n\n 177 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 appreciate that. MR. PESCE: The only -- THE COURT: Anything else that you raised in your objection? MR. PESCE: Nothing raised in the objection, but this issue has come up in various ways throughout the day today regarding 2(m), the opt-out provision, and the corresponding kind of other side of the coin regarding sanctions. We're hoping just to get clarification that 2(m), which I just will (indiscernible) the opt-out provision, it doesn't seek to act as some kind of waiver of rights in the event that a party elects not to try to -- or elects not to terminate the mediation procedures, essentially reserving all rights to challenge the validity of the action and whether it should have been brought in the first place if the mediation is ultimately unsuccessful. THE COURT: Well, I don't -- I don't read paragraph M as -- and I'll ask Attorney Bassett -- as limiting any rights that a defendant would have to raise in accordance with a responsive pleading to a complaint. Can you, Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Certainly not, Your Honor, and if the mediation process terminates, I think it's very clearly contemplated that a party may move to dismiss and raise any and all arguments for dismissal that it deems appropriate. Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 177 of 186\n\n 178 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 think that's -- so that's clarification, I hope. MR. PESCE: Yes, that is, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: And then is there any other matter that you would like to have clarified? MR. PESCE: Those are the only ones. THE COURT: All right, then I appreciate that. Thank you. So with regard to all of the objections we've heard today, I've tried to be very careful on the record about what was either overruled or going to be resolved by the parties, or that is not essentially ripe yet, until the mediation procedures are in place and Judge Tancredi starts the mediation process. It does seem to me, Attorney Bassett, that you're going to have to make some changes to this second revised order. How much time would you like to do that? MR. BASSETT: Well, I think, unless somebody else at my table corrects me, we've tried as fast as possible to capture everything, but if we could get the transcript first, that might be helpful. I think, after we've seen the transcript, we could very quickly turn the comments. It wouldn't take a long -- THE COURT: The reason I asked the question is not Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 178 of 186\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 179 of 186\n\n179\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 so much that I need to know a time, per se, it's does it change the May 15 deadline in your order, which I think was in paragraph -- I forget what paragraph it was in now -- if you give me a second -- when you would start making mediation referrals, I believe. I guess it doesn't because it's -- it's keyed off of appearances, I think. MR. BASSETT: I don't think it would, Your Honor, but we may need to think about that on our side. THE COURT: I'm just trying to find it and see if I think it does, but -- (Pause) THE COURT: It probably doesn't, but if you need to change that date, I would assume you'd be only changing it by a few days or a week. MR. BASSETT: I think that's right, Your Honor. My initial reaction is that it wouldn't need to change given that we have plenty of time, but we'll consider that further. THE COURT: All right. Well, today is Tuesday. Do you think you will have the revised order in before the end of this week or next week? Again, I'm not - whatever works, I'm just asking the question. MR. BASSETT: So my understanding for the transcript, it usually takes 48 hours, so I think it would be helpful for us to just have that in hand when we're making\n\n# 180 Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 180 of 186\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 other revisions to make sure we don't miss anything. THE COURT: So, well, how about a week from today, if not sooner? You can always get it in sooner. MR. BASSETT: Yeah, that would be -- THE COURT: Okay? MR. BASSETT: -- that would work, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. There's nothing stopping that from happening, and sometimes it actually does happen, so then I -- then what I would note for the record is that with regard to the Trustee's motion for an order to modify avoidance action procedures, to include procedures for mediation of avoidance actions, which is ECF Number 3003, and then the order that the Court entered setting today's hearing on the mediation procedures and setting the dates by which objections were filed, all of the objectors that were timely filed were heard, the Court made rulings in accordance with the objections that needed to be ruled on, many of which - some of which were resolved by the parties and will be set forth in the revised proposed order that will be submitted on or before May 7, then the Court believes all the objections have been either overruled, resolved by agreement, or are not ripe at this time and will be addressed when and if they become ripe. And, for all those reasons, the motion for an order modifying procedures is granted. Then the revised proposed order will be submitted on or before May 7th.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 181 of 186\n\n181\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may, just a twominute update. And may I approach? THE COURT: Certainly. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, I just wanted to tell the Court that there should be a motion coming in -- if not tomorrow, the day after tomorrow -- regarding the Sherry Netherland. This never ends, but, as you know, there's an affected area where the fire was. The work is ongoing there to clean that up and to deal with all that, but it was discovered that even though there was a major cleanup of the rest of the apartments probably seven months, eight months ago, which was paid by AIG, consensually, it's apparent that there is soot or ash in between the ceiling and the cement, I guess, part of the ceiling, and where the wires are or the pipes are, and we need to bring down the ceilings and clean all of that up. And so, therefore -- THE COURT: The co-op is not responsible for that? MR. DESPINS: Pardon me? THE COURT: The co-op is not responsible for that? MR. DESPINS: Well, the co-op -- this is just\n\n24 25 really technical, but we're responsible for the ceiling and everything above the ceiling until we reach the concrete.\n\n| | 182 | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay. | | | | | | |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
They're responsible for the concrete | | | | | | |\n| 3 | and they're going to pay something like \\$250,000 for their | | | | | | |\n| 4 | part of that job, but we have to -- we're trying to reduce | | | | | | |\n| 5 | the costs.
We have to pay a substantial amount of money to | | | | | | |\n| 6 | get that work done; otherwise, we'll always be in a cycle | | | | | | |\n| 7 | where it keeps being re-circulated in the apartment. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | In addition to that, we need to move all the | | | | | | |\n| 9 | furniture out of the apartment and to get rid of bedding, | | | | | | |\n| 10 | sheets, and all the soft goods because there's still soot in | | | | | | |\n| 11 | there.
Because there's no point in cleaning up if this stuff | | | | | | |\n| 12 | is still there.
We need to really clean house. | | | | | | |\n| 13 | So, therefore, we're going to file a motion and | | | | | | |\n| 14 | we're going to ask for expedited consideration of that, Your | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Honor, because the idea is that that process should take | | | | | | |\n| 16 | place at the same time that the other work is being | | | | | | |\n| 17 | undertaken, so that we're able to actually come to a point | | | | | | |\n| 18 | where we can sell this apartment and as soon as possible.
It | | | | | | |\n| 19 | still will take a few months, several months.
So that's the | | | | | | |\n| 20 | report on -- it's a complicated process. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Obviously, the parties that have -- | | | | | | |\n| 22 | claim an interest in the apartment will have to have notice | | | | | | |\n| 23 | and an opportunity to be heard. | | | | | | |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
So we're obviously -- | | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
You're talking about furniture and | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 183 of\n\n186\n\n| 1 | anything -- | | | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, so -- but we're not -- | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
You're going to store it somewhere? | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah, we're going to store it. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | So the furniture itself -- the bedding, I think | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | it's just going to be -- and the sheets are going to be | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | thrown out, but -- and the mattress is going to be thrown | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | out, but the furniture is going to be moved to a warehouse | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | that we're already occupying with the HCHK equipment and | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | other furniture that was in the New York City place.
And | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | we're going to segregate the two so that we know that this | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | came from the Sherry Netherland, this HCHK, so there will be | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | like a -- not a real wall, but there will be like a partition | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | there to make sure that we keep track of that, but that | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | furniture will be moved to that area. | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | The reports we're getting is that the furniture is | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | not -- this is not real antiques; it is like -- | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, isn't it damaged by the fire? | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, no.
Some of it was completely | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | destroyed by the fire, but the rest is not damaged, but the | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | value of that would not be more, let's say, than a hundred | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | thousand, \\$200,000.
It's not real antiques; it's like | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | antiques that you can buy, you know, regular people can buy. | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | So, but we're going to move the furniture, but, | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | obviously, we're giving notice to AIG.
They already know | | | | | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 184 of\n\n| 1 | because we're going to seek -- we're going to tell them that | | | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | we want them to pay for that because we're -- I'm talking now | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | about the clean-up process because it's, you know, caused by | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | the fire, and, you know, to be continued on that. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
All right, I believe, unless someone | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | feels otherwise, that concludes the hearing today in the Kwok | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | matter and in the adversary proceeding 23-05013. | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Anyone disagree with that? | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | (No verbal response) | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay, thank you all.
Then Court is | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | adjourned. | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | COUNSEL:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | (Proceedings concluded at 5:02 p.m.) | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3150
Filed 04/30/24
Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20
Page 185 of
186 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | 185 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | We 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 our | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | /s/ Mary Zajaczkowski
April 29, 2024 | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Mary Zajaczkowski, CET-531 | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | For Reliable | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | /s/ Tracey J. Williams
April 25, 2024 | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Tracey J. Williams, CET-914 | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | For Reliable | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | /s/ Coleen Rand
April 25, 2024 | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Coleen Rand, CET-341 | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | For Reliable | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | 1 | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3150 | Filed 04/30/24
186 | Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 | Page 186 of |\n|---------------|----------|-----------------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | | | 186 |\n| 1 | | | | |\n| 2 | | | | |\n| 3 | | | | |\n| 4 | | | | |\n| 5 | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |","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\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n债务人。\n\nLUC. A DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n原告，\n\n对\n\n对抗程序\n案号 23-05013\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技公司）；HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.（HCHK物业管理公司）；LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.（列克星敦物业与人事服务公司）；HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.（圣城香港创投有限公司）；ANTHONY DIBATTISTA（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）；YVETTE WANG（王悦）；以及 BRIAN HOFMEISTER（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特），作为 HCHK ENTITIES（HCHK实体）的受让人，\n\n被告。\n\n第123法庭\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\nTuesday, April 23, 2024\n\n1:00 p.m.\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记录制作公司：Reliable（可靠记录服务公司）\nThe Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮箱：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n程序通过电子录音记录，记录文本由记录服务机构制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 1 of 186\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章\n受托人：Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）律师\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保尔·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\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）律师\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：Holley 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\n官方委员会：Kristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休）律师\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\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）：Stuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）律师\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n\nAnnecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯）律师\nROBINSON & COLE, LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 2 of 186\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3150\nFiled 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 3 of 186\n\n另行出庭：\n\n代表 G Club Operations（G俱乐部运营公司）：Jeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）律师\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹律师事务所）\nOne Audubon Street\n3rd Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\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）：Henry 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\n代表 HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理公司）：John T. Shaban（约翰·T·沙班）律师\nLEVINE & LEVINE, PLLC（莱文与莱文律师事务所）\n2 Jefferson Plaza I\nNew York, Suite 100\nPoughkeepsie, New York 12601\n\n代表 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）：Michael T. Conway（迈克尔·T·康韦）律师\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所）\n747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor\nFifth Floor\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n代表 Weddle Law PLLC（韦德尔律师事务所）：Richard J. Corbi（理查德·J·科尔比）律师\nTHE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. CORBI PLLC（理查德·J·科尔比律师事务所）\n1501 Broadway, 12th Floor\nNew York, New York 10036\n\n代表 Blueberry Builders, LLC（蓝莓建筑商有限责任公司）：Heather Spaide（希瑟·斯派德）律师\nMARINO, ZABEL & SCHELLENBERG, PLLC（马里诺、扎贝尔与谢伦贝格律师事务所）\n657 Orange Center Road\nOrange, Connecticut 06477\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 4 of 186\n\n另行出庭：\n\n代表 3 Columbus Circle LLC（哥伦布圆环3号有限责任公司）：Matthew Pesce（马修·佩谢）律师\nMURTHA CULLINA（默萨·卡利纳律师事务所）\n107 Elm Street, 11th Floor\nStamford, Connecticut 06902\n\n代表 Anthem Health Plans, Inc.（安塞姆健康计划公司）：Jessica Signor（杰西卡·西格诺）律师\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP（希普曼与古德温律师事务所）\n300 Atlantic Street, Third Floor\nStamford, Connecticut 06901\n\n代表 Mei Guo（郭梅）：Stephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思）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代表 Marie Petrantoni（玛丽·彼特兰托尼）：Holly G. Rogers（霍莉·G·罗杰斯）律师\nMELICK & PORTER, LLP（梅利克与波特律师事务所）\n900 Main Street South\nSuite 102\nSouthbury, Connecticut 06488\n\n代表被告：Ivan J. Ladd-Smith（伊万·J·拉德-史密斯）律师\nSPEARS MANNING & MARTINI LLC（斯皮尔斯、曼宁与马蒂尼律师事务所）\n2425 Post Road\nSuite 203\nSouthport, Connecticut 06824\n\n索引\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项\n#3003：由 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）提出的动议，请求作出命令，修改撤销诉讼程序，以纳入对已提起的撤销诉讼进行调解的程序 6\n\n事项\n#268：原告 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）由 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）代表提出的动议，请求法院依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) 和 Fed. R. Bank. P. 7055，对 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）；HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理公司）；Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（列克星敦物业与人事服务公司）；Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd.（圣城香港创投有限公司）；Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）；Yvette Wang（王悦）；以及 Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特），作为 HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的受让人，作出缺席判决。\n\n（程序于下午1时04分开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。以及对抗程序案号 23-5013，Despins（德斯平斯）诉 HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）等。\n\n法院：好的。下午好。我将首先记录所有在主要第11章合并管理案件中出庭的当事方的出庭情况，随后记录在对抗程序 23-05013 中出庭的当事方。Despins（德斯平斯）受托人，您愿意先开始吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），第11章受托人的律师。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所）的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法院：下午好。下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法院：您必须到前面来。抱歉。因为所有内容都在录音，我们必须确保麦克风能够收录您的声音。\n\nSHABAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 John Shaban（约翰·沙班），代表 HCHK 实体。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 6 of 186\n\n法院：下午好，Shaban律师。\n\nSKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Green & Sklarz（格林与斯克拉兹律师事务所）的 Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹），代表 G Club（G俱乐部），也代表 Weddle Law Firm（韦德尔律师事务所）；该所亦由我左侧的 Richard Corbi（理查德·科尔比）代理，他将为 Corbi律师提交 pro hac vice 文件，请求由其处理与（无法辨认）有关的事项。\n\n法院：好的。请稍等片刻，好吗？因此，您出庭时——这完全没有问题——我只是想知道，您是否涉及与调解程序有关的特定对抗程序？对吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：对。\n\n法院：所以我想我可能有一份清单，但我更希望您先告诉我您认为自己涉及哪些案件，然后我可以看看我是否正确。\n\nSKLARZ先生：法官阁下，我承认我不确定具体是哪些对抗程序。\n\n法院：但我想我有这些，我有——\n\nSKLARZ先生：我也有一份清单。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：但我——如果可以，请给我一点时间。\n\n法院：我有——我相信您已出庭，并且您请求一名外州律师在 24-05275 和 24-05188 中出庭。\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的。5188，我知道是 Weddle（韦德尔）对抗程序。我认为您所提及的另一宗对抗程序是 Pillsbury Winthrop（皮尔斯伯里·温思罗普）。\n\n法院：我相信是。是的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的。但 Pillsbury Winthrop（皮尔斯伯里·温思罗普）尚未提起，或者实际上，他们已在本案中提起。因此，是的，我们将为 Pillsbury（皮尔斯伯里）出庭——\n\n法院：嗯，您已对调解程序提交异议，而这涉及那两宗对抗程序。好吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：是。是。\n\n法院：我只是希望尽可能明确地记录在案，以便——自 2022年2月 Kwok先生（郭文贵）的主要第11章案件提交以来，如同所有听证会一样，本次录音也将被记录。该录音将可用于在主案中制作文字记录。并且其将引用各种对抗程序。显然，作为今日日程的一部分，我们将就一宗在主案中——与这些主案相关的——对抗程序举行听证会。我之所以试图具体说明，是因为在某个时候，某些律师可能只希望取得部分文字记录。我不知道。这取决于他们。但所有——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 8 of 186\n\n——任何文字记录申请均须通过主案提出。我只是想明确这一点，并明确您为何事项而出庭。与调解有关的程序是在主案中提交的，但您代表那两宗特定对抗程序中的当事方。\n\nSKLARZ先生：是。\n\n法院：也一样。好的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：G Club（G俱乐部）、Pillsbury（皮尔斯伯里）和 Weddle（韦德尔）。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nSKLARZ先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nCONWAY先生：Michael Conway（迈克尔·康韦），Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所），代表 First Funding（第一融资公司），（无法辨认）。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nGOTTESMAN先生：早上好，法官阁下。我很抱歉，下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法院：没关系。\n\nGOTTESMAN先生：我是 Mintz & Gold（明茨与戈尔德律师事务所）的 Andrew Gottesman（安德鲁·戈特斯曼）。我在对抗程序 24-0515 中代表 Fox News（福克斯新闻），并在对抗程序 24-05229 中代表 Markham LLP（马卡姆律师事务所）。\n\n法院：谢谢。下午好。我看到 Baer律师在这两宗事项中均与您共同出庭。对吗，Baer律师？\n\nBAER先生：下午好，法官阁下。是的。\n\n法院：那么您还有其他事项吗？\n\nBAER先生：有，法官阁下。我还代表 Nardello（按发音记载）& Company（纳尔德洛公司）出庭，该案为对抗程序 24-05162。Teris-Phoenix LLC（特里斯-菲尼克斯有限责任公司），案号为 24-05044。Post Oak Motors（波斯特奥克汽车公司），案号 24-05017，以及 Hanon Hong Kong Opportunities Offshore and Onshore Funds（汉农香港机会离岸及在岸基金），案号为 24-05272。\n\n法院：您是否代表最后一名被告提交了异议？\n\nBAER先生：我们没有，法官阁下。（无法辨认）。\n\n法院：好的，没问题。我只是想——我没有相关记录，因此我想确保我所持有的信息准确无误。\n\nBAER先生：没错。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nSPAIDE女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg（马里诺、扎贝尔与谢伦贝格律师事务所）的 Heather Spaide（希瑟·斯派德），在此代表 Blueberry Builders, LLC（蓝莓建筑商有限责任公司）。并且我有——\n\n书记员：抱歉。我没有听清您的姓名。\n\n法院：您只需对着麦克风再说一些。抱歉。\n\nSPAIDE女士：我是 Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg（马里诺、扎贝尔与谢伦贝格律师事务所）的 Heather Spaide（希瑟·斯派德）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 10 of 186\n\n书记员：抱歉，您能再说一遍吗？\n\nSPAIDE 女士：Heather Spaide（希瑟·斯派德）。\n\n法院：拼写是 S-P-A-I-D-E，对吗？是的，我看到了您的出庭通知。\n\nSPAIDE 女士：是的，谢谢。我们——Blueberry Builders LLC（蓝莓建筑有限责任公司）是对抗程序 24-05007 的一方，并且也就今日日程表上的动议提出了有限异议。我们还申请了 Amy Oden 律师（艾米·奥登律师）的临时执业许可，她今天与我一同到庭。\n\n法院：下午好。该申请可能已被送交录入。我相信，如果尚未录入，也将会被录入。因此没有问题。您当然可以出庭。我只想指出一点，Spaide 律师，请贵所留意。书记员办公室注意到，Marino 律师使用其 CM/ECF 代表 Zabel 律师提交了出庭通知，但我们不能这样做。因此，我只是告知您，书记员办公室必须由实际提交文件的人维持该记录。所以没有问题。您不必——只是，如果您能就此与他们沟通，并确保今后妥善处理，我将不胜感激。\n\nSPAIDE 女士：我会与我们的律师助理谈谈。是的，谢谢。\n\n法院：我对此表示感谢。谢谢。\n\nROGERS 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holly Rogers（霍莉·罗杰斯），Melick & Porter（梅利克与波特律师事务所），代表 Marini Pietrantoni（马里尼·皮特兰托尼）和 Muniz（穆尼斯，发音如此）；该方是对抗程序 24-05205 中的一名被告。我们尚未就受托人有关撤销程序的动议提交任何答复。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nPESCE 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Matthew Pesce（马修·佩斯），Murtha Cullina（默萨·库利纳律师事务所），代表撤销诉讼被告 3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号）。我们代表 3 Columbus Circle 在主案中提交了有限异议，但我们还代表另外两名撤销诉讼被告，不过我们未代表那些客户在该等事项中提出异议。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。下午好。\n\nSIGNOR 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Jessica Signor（杰西卡·西尼奥尔），Shipman Goodwin（希普曼·古德温律师事务所）。我代表三名不同的撤销诉讼被告出庭。第一名是 Art Wolf Inc.（阿特·沃尔夫公司）。该撤销诉讼被告见于对抗程序 24-05033。我还代表 Anthem Healthcare Choice Assurance Inc（安森医疗保健选择保险公司），其原名为 Empire Health Choice Assurance Inc（帝国健康选择保险公司），并以 Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield（帝国蓝十字蓝盾）名义经营；该案见于对抗程序 24-05112。最后，我代表 Anthem Health Plans Inc.（安森健康计划公司）。该案见于对抗程序 24-05058。我们已提交有限异议。我们在本案的主案卷中提交了该等异议，也在对抗程序中提交了该等异议。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nSIGNOR 女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：Despins 受托人，Signor 律师，请稍候片刻。Signor 律师多年前曾担任我的书记员。因此我希望各位知悉此事。如存在任何利益冲突，且任何人有任何疑虑，我希望他们尽早提出，而不是拖延提出。我不——我没有见过 Signor 律师。我确实与她相识，也认识她的家人，但坦率地说，我已有相当长一段时间未与她进行任何讨论。不过，无论如何，我们确实偶尔会与书记员聚会。因此，我只是希望各位知悉此事，并确保从贵方的角度不存在任何利益冲突。\n\nDESPINS 先生：没有问题，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nSIGNOR 女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stewart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），O'Melveny and Myers（奥美律师事务所），代表主案中的债权人 PAX。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所），主案中债权人 PAX 的主办律师。\n\n法院：下午好。我觉得我们需要把麦克风调高一些，或者采取其他办法，这样我们就不必都弯下身来，不过抱歉。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表无担保债权人官方委员会。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nKINDSETH 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）（听不清）。我很抱歉，我们没有我代表她起诉的对抗程序。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nKINDSETH 先生：而且，我们没有在我预计不会参与的主案即时对抗程序中提出任何异议。我只是来旁听，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nKINDSETH 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nLADD-SMITH 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Ivan Ladd-Smith（伊万·拉德-史密斯），Spears, Manning & Martini（斯皮尔斯、曼宁与马蒂尼律师事务所），代表对抗程序被告 Beile Li（李贝乐）。我们未对拟议的调解程序提出异议，也无意提出异议。\n\n法院：下午好。为记录清楚起见，该名称中的 Manning 是我的亲属，即我的兄弟，但他并未参与本案。除看到他们提交的一份出庭通知外，我对此一无所知。因此，Despins 受托人，我不知道您是否对此有任何疑虑，但我——\n\nDESPINS 先生：没有问题。\n\n法院：——为记录在案指出这一点。好的。谢谢。\n\nLADD-SMITH 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n书记员：我可以再确认一下那个姓名吗？\n\nLADD-SMITH 先生：可以。Ivan，I-V-A-N，姓氏带连字符。是 Ladd-Smith。L-A-D-D 连字符 S-M-I-T-H。\n\n书记员：好的。谢谢。\n\nLADD-SMITH 先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。好的。在讨论调解程序之前，我认为先处理缺席判决动议可能更合适，因为就调解程序到庭的人比就缺席判决动议到庭的人更多。\n\n因此，既然我们转到对抗程序 23-05013，即 Despins 诉 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技公司），我认为按该方式进行更合适。Bassett 律师，您将就该动议继续陈述吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢。我可以走近吗？\n\n法院：当然可以。谢谢。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢。再次为记录在案，Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）。法官阁下，今天下午我将尽量简短陈述，因为我们再次审议本案中法院已有多次机会考虑的问题。事实上，实质上是在这同一对抗程序中，针对这同一被告或同一组被告。\n\n如法院现已充分知悉，涉案被告，即在此提出异议的主要被告，是被称为 HCHK parties（HCHK 各方）的实体。这包括 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技公司）、HCHK Property Management（HCHK 物业管理公司）、Lexington Property and Staffing（列克星敦物业与人力配置公司），以及其母公司 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures（圣城香港创投公司）。我稍后将更详细地说明该关系，尽管法院已熟悉该关系。\n\n法官阁下，这些当事方此前已在本法院获得多次机会，陈述其为何应获听取意见，以及为何认为其对受托人的请求拥有有根据的抗辩理由。他们每一次都未能做到。\n\n他们于 June 2023 收到起诉状送达。三名被告的答辩期限在 July of 2023 到期；对于最后一名被告 Holy City，该被告为外国被告，其答辩期限由法院命令设定，于 August of 2023 到期。\n\n四个实体均无正当理由地错过了这些答辩期限。在 August 28th，即最后答辩期限届满之后，他们共同申请延长其对起诉状作出答复的期限。约一个月后，在书面陈述和听证之后，法院正当地驳回了该动议，并准许受托人提出的反动议，将被告记入缺席。在 November，HCHK 各方再次寻求机会，在经广泛书面陈述和再次听证后，在其已未能证明有权获得答辩期限延长的情况下，申请撤销缺席。在 February 28th of this year，法院驳回了撤销动议，并在该过程中认定，除其他事项外，被告已被适当送达起诉状，随后故意缺席，并且未能对受托人的请求提出有根据的抗辩理由。受托人现申请对 HCHK 各方作出缺席判决。法官阁下，该判决应予准许，因为受托人显然满足 Second Circuit（第二巡回区）法律规定的缺席判决要求。这些要求有两项。第一，被告已被有效送达起诉状；第二，起诉状中的指控，在视为真实并作出一切有利于原告的推论后，根据适用法律充分提出一项请求。\n\n我不会花太多时间处理——事实上，我根本不会花时间处理送达程序问题，因为我认为法院面前的记录很清楚。我认为被告甚至并未争议他们已被送达诉讼文书。因此，除非律师提出该问题，我不会占用法院时间讨论送达。\n\n相反，我将重点说明，受托人为何已通过起诉状中的指控证明，其依法有权就以下请求获得缺席判决：HCHK 实体，即三家子公司实体，是债务人的替身实体和/或由其享有受益所有权。\n\n正如我所言，法官阁下，在进行该分析时，务必记住，Second Circuit（第二巡回区）法律极为明确：发生缺席后，被告已放弃对起诉状中任何指控的真实性或准确性提出争议的能力。法院面临的唯一问题是，视为真实的指控，以及重要的是作出一切有利于原告的推论后，是否提出了一项表面成立的救济请求。受托人的起诉状显然满足该标准。\n\n法官阁下，因此作出判决是适当的。因此，HCHK 各方提出异议的主要论点，以及其认为起诉书不足的原因，是其将所涉这些实体描述为运营实体，与 HKUSA 截然不同；本院此前已认定 HKUSA 是债务人的另一个替身实体。HKUSA 当然是债务人用以持有其游艇 Lady May 所有权的空壳公司，而他将 HKUSA 置于其女儿的名义所有权之下。法官阁下，我首先承认，HCHK 实体确实不同于 HKUSA。HCHK 实体并非债务人为持有单一资产的所有权这一特定目的而使用的空壳公司。相反，它们是债务人用以支付其个人开支、并将其其他资产隔离于债权人之外的实体。但它们不同于 HKUSA 这一事实，绝不意味着它们就较少构成替身实体。事实上，正如我将说明的，我认为，就这些实体的替身实体分析而言，本案所涉事实在某些方面远比 HKUSA 所涉事实更加恶劣。根据 Delaware（特拉华州）法律进行替身实体分析时，法官阁下，法院首先审查是否存在——当然，法院适用若干因素，但这些因素的核心实质是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 20 of 186\n\n起诉书是否主张债务人或所涉人员对相关实体行使了支配和控制，以表明它们均共同处于债务人的控制之下，构成单一经济单位。\n\n在本案中，起诉书中有大量事实支持该结论；而对该动议提出异议时作出的任何相反暗示——此类暗示甚多——均极不诚实。我稍后会谈到这一点。\n\n法官阁下，相关主张首先涉及本院非常熟悉的人员。Yvette Wang（王雁），债务人的刑事共谋者，目前与其一同在押，是被告 Holy City（圣城）的唯一所有人。\n\n本院已认定，Yvette Wang 是受雇于债务人并受其控制的人员。Holy City 持有各 HCHK 实体 99.9999% 的所有权。因此，HCHK Property、HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington 的上层 99.999% 所有人是 Holy City，而其上层唯一所有人是 Yvette Wang。\n\n在每个运营层级实体中持有 0.0001% 所有权的另一名人士是 Anthony Di Bautista 先生，本案中其姓名不断出现的另一名人士；他同样受雇于债务人并受其控制。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 21 of 186\n\n起诉书还主张，另一名受所有 HCHK 实体雇用的人员是 Max Krasner 先生。Max Krasner 先生的姓名也几乎在本 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件的每一处都出现过；他受雇于债务人，并按照债务人的指示开展其业务交易，等等。\n\n除起诉书所主张的、显然受债务人控制的这些实体的所有人和控制人员外，所有 HCHK 实体均位于纽约市 3 Columbus Circle。\n\n该地址意义重大，因为该地址也是债务人及按其指示行事的人员拍摄视频的地点；这些视频是本院此前已予禁止的抗议和骚扰活动的对象。本院已认定，该等抗议和骚扰活动由债务人及其同伙指挥，旨在干扰本 Chapter 11 案件。\n\n除上述两类主张外，法官阁下，起诉书主张，HCHK 实体充当债务人的——实质上是其钱袋子，既接收来自债务人控制的其他实体的资金，随后又为债务人及其同伙支付开支。例如，起诉书主张，HCHK\n\nTechnologies 为债务人据称拥有的 Cirrus 喷气机支付款项。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 22 of 186\n\nHCHK Technologies 还协助资助 Lady May 的维护和运营，而本院已认定该游艇属于破产财产。HCHK Technologies 还协助资助债务人 Bombardier 喷气机的同类维护和运营开支；该喷气机是本院另一宗对立诉讼的标的。\n\n起诉书主张，Lexington Property and Staffing 向债务人的个人法律顾问，以及 Lamp Capital 等其他由债务人控制实体的律师支付款项；本院已认定 Lamp Capital 是债务人的替身实体。\n\n起诉书进一步主张，Lexington 向已知的债务人同伙和雇员支付款项，其中包括 Yvette Wang、Max Krasner、Brock Barnett——本院熟悉的另一名人士，受托人主张其为债务人的司机和保镖——以及 Aaron Mitchell；Aaron Mitchell 是代表债务人的律师，本院熟悉其人且其曾出庭。\n\n异议人竭力指出，关于向 HCHK Property 提供资金的主张较少。但是，法官阁下，起诉书第 27 段及其他部分明确主张，HCHK Property 与 HCHK Technologies、Lexington Property and Staffing 以及债务人的许多\n\n其他空壳公司同属同一单一企业的一部分。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 23 of 186\n\n它也在同一地点运营，拥有相同的雇员和所有人，即 Yvette Wang、Anthony Di Bautista、Max Krasner，并受同一控制。法官阁下，就各实体而言，相关主张已经远远足以表明，在作出一切有利于受托人的推论后，起诉书提出了一项合理可成立的主张，即每一实体均为债务人的替身实体。\n\n为进一步说明这一点，法官阁下，我认为，受聘为所有 HCHK 实体服务的会计师事务所（听不清）。同样，这是起诉书中的主张。受聘为 HCHK 实体从事会计工作的 Markham LLP（马克汉姆有限责任合伙）的会计师在一封电子邮件中表示，引用原文，其代表的是由 GTV Media 所有人 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）间接拥有的实体。法官阁下，我自己也无法说得更好，因为这正是 HCHK 实体的经济实质。\n\n在我继续说明为何起诉书中的事实表明 HCHK 实体显然被债务人用以实施欺诈和不公正——我认为这或许是我们在此拥有的最有力事实之一——之前，我确实想花一点时间回应异议中的几项主张。\n\n我认为是在异议第 26 段及其他部分，HCHK 各方竟称起诉书明确支持相反结论，即起诉书不知何故描绘出这些实体是独立运营的企业，拥有自己的银行账户、资产、经营目标，等等。\n\n法官阁下，我不知道任何人如何能够一本正经地阅读我们的起诉书后得出那种印象。我们的起诉书中绝无任何此类主张。\n\n事实上，异议试图描绘该种图景的唯一方式，是援引纽约让与程序中提交的材料；我稍后会进一步谈到，该等让与文件——如我稍后将说明，我们主张其属于试图实际欺骗本院和破产财产的一部分——将 HCHK 各方的业务描述为独立业务，且具有某些经营目标，等等。在我们的起诉书中，我们明确——如果您看起诉书第 27 段——明确说明这些陈述不准确。\n\n而且，这些 HCHK 各方事实上并非如此；它们事实上是债务人的空壳公司。因此，他们称我们主张 HCHK 实体是相互分离、彼此不同且并非债务人替身实体的运营实体，这完全是不诚实且不准确的。\n\n法官阁下，根据 Delaware 法律，替身实体检验的第二个要件是，原告须表明——在此即债务人——利用其与相关实体，即此处 HCHK 实体之间的替身实体关系，实施了欺诈或不公正行为。\n\n现在，如同 HKUSA 一样，我们主张债务人利用这些实体协助其向债权人隐匿资产，并通过表面上不受其控制的实体支付其个人开支。在这一方面，该主张与 HKUSA 相似，即债务人利用一家空壳公司隐匿其资产。\n\n但本案远不止于此，因为在本 Chapter 11 案件启动很久之后，债务人不仅过去曾利用这些实体隐匿其资产，并协助将其资金输送至其他空壳公司；如起诉书所主张，他还将其作为一项计划的一部分，用以使资产不受本 Chapter 11 案件管理，并置于本院监督之外。他们于 2023 年 4 月在纽约州法院启动让与程序，以此实现该目的。\n\n现在，本院——本院非常熟悉该让与程序，因此我不会对其作过多详述，也不会赘述。但显然，启动让与程序或许看似无害，直到您了解该让与程序中的债权人是谁、受益人为谁（听不清）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 26 of 186\n\n而且，如本院所知，并且如与介入动议有关的对立诉讼中的独立诉讼已经确定的，这些债权人是与债务人有关联的人员，受债务人的经常受到制裁的个人律师 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）控制，并按其指示行事。本院认定，张永兵一方面在该介入诉讼中作为“债权人代表和债权人委员会”的成员代表其利益；另一方面，正如本院从此前与撤销缺席判决登记动议有关的诉讼中所知，他也是在此指挥 HCHK 实体律师的同一人。\n\n而且，若法院当时未准予解除以阻止那些转让程序继续进行，它们很可能已经成功；在此情况下，所有依法属于破产财产的资产，都会被分配给所有这些债权人，而这些债权人实际上是按照债务人的指示行事的人。所有这些情况，法官阁下，均在诉状中有所指称。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 27 页，共 186 页\n\n法官阁下，我想，就衡平考量中的恶意问题，我还要提出的另一点是，我们也不能忘记，我们是如何经由撤销动议和延期动议走到这一步的。正如法院所记得的那样，被告就其何时受聘作出了虚假陈述；聘用函显示，他们在最初答辩截止日期之前很早就已知悉此事并实际上已受到其客户联系，但该聘用函最初并未向法院披露。最终披露时，Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）先生的姓名在毫无正当理由的情况下被涂黑。法官阁下，从一开始，这些被告就在耍花招。\n\n而且，我认为，这也应在本案整体衡平考量中占据重要分量，因此也影响另我分析的第二项要件。\n\n所以，法官阁下，我最后要做的就是非常简要地回应一下 HCHK 当事方提出的其他一些论点。除非法院希望我展开说明，否则我实际上不会花时间讨论它们，只是为记录在案而提及。\n\nHCHK 当事方主张，受托人提出的反向刺破公司面纱请求不属于特拉华州法律下可受理的请求。法院已经多次驳回该论点，我认为最近一次是在 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）缺席判决裁定中。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 28 页，共 186 页\n\n他们还主张，受托人的请求受同等过错抗辩和 Wagner 规则所阻却。法院已经多次处理过该问题，包括在 HKUSA 和 Lamp Capital 案中。显然，正如法院所裁定的，该规则不适用于本案，因为受托人正依据《破产法》第 544 条代表债权人提出部分请求。因此，法官阁下，概而言之，受托人已适当向被告送达，并且已远不止具有合理可能性地证明，其关于另我及其衡平法上所有权的请求在特拉华州法律下有效。针对诉状提出的其他所有反对论点均无依据。因此，我们认为缺席判决是适当的，并恭请准许我们的动议。法院：谢谢。SHABAN（沙班）先生：我可以上前吗？法院：当然可以。谢谢。SHABAN 先生：谢谢。法官阁下，下午好。法院：下午好。SHABAN 先生：我会尽量简短。我认为这个问题已经得到了相当充分的书面论述。先作一些总体评论，然后再作一些具体评论。我认为具有讽刺意味的是，我们实际上——我实际上——发现自己在这里基本上是在就一项 12(b)(6) 动议进行辩论，因为自本案开始以来，我们一直试图做的只是提出答辩。我们一直试图做的只是回应诉状。我们实际上已经提交了一份拟议答辩状，选择不对和解协议提出异议。我们确实——我们不会质疑诉状。让我们直面问题的实质。不幸的是，出于法院所知的原因，这一直未获允许。因此我们到了这里。现在我们实际上必须面对这份诉状。这不是第三次机会。这是一个新问题。我们前几次来到这里时说，对不起我们迟到了。我们已经重整，我们已经组织就绪。请允许我们答辩，因为我们认为他们所说的不正确。我们不认为他们有可成立的——您知道，我们不认为他们的另我请求是正确的。这次机会——可以这么说，或者说唯一的机会——我们是在质疑诉状，因为这就是我们目前所处的阶段。根据第二巡回区法律，要获得缺席判决，他们必须依据特拉华州法律提出可成立的请求，证明这四个实体是该债务人的另我，或由该债务人在衡平法上拥有。而他们没有做到这一点。而且，您知道，我认为理由相当明显，因为可以理解的是，他们当时有些仓促。受托人很仓促，因为，瞧，天哪，有一项行政程序正在进行。我们得阻止这个。所以他们拼凑了一份带有指控、关联关系和附属关系的诉状，以及模糊的——您知道，基于模糊关联的有罪推定，来堆砌足够的事实，以寻求初步禁令动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 29 页，共 186 页\n\n这就是你这样做的方式。因此，如果所有这些事情都是真的，这里或许可以构成一项请求，所以让我们暂缓一下。为获得初步禁令动议，这没有问题。但现在我们与他们在此，他们处于缺席判决阶段，而其后端就是一项 12(b)(6) 动议。这份诉状不足以对其三项请求中的任何一项，或针对这些实体的刺破公司面纱请求，提出充分主张。\n\n而且，我认为，最好的起点是——我们稍后会这样做——将法院已审理的其他案件与本案进行对照。如果您看这份诉状，其中没有任何指称，没有任何指称表明该债务人对这些实体拥有日常控制权。没有。没有任何指称表明该债务人对这些实体中任何一个的财务拥有直接控制权。没有。\n\n没有任何指称。没有。而且受托人不得不——不得不承认这一点——即没有任何指称表明该债务人如何筹集其资金，以及对这些实体拥有很高的接触权限。这与其他案件 HKUSA 和 Lamp Capital 截然不同。所以他不得不承认这一点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 30 页，共 186 页\n\n因此，您审视这份诉状并审视这些当事方，它们与债务人可能使用或可能未使用的其他空壳公司截然不同。我们看这份诉状，他们没有陈述可成立的诉因。\n\n我的意思是，让我们看看这份诉状与 HKUSA 诉状之间的巨大差异，我们在反对意见中附上了一份证据，而且我认为这相当迅速或者相当清楚地说明了这一点。关于控制权的各种指称，您知道，在 HKUSA 案中有，而关于 HCHK 的直接控制权则没有。这就是我们稍后将讨论的循环论证。直接控制权。您知道，在 HKUSA 案中，他们指称——他们指称其未遵守公司形式要件。本案没有任何这样的指称。\n\n事实上，他们实际上主张这些实体是特拉华州公司以及其所有权结构；而他们附在诉状中的证据——法院在审理时应予考虑——谈到了其经营目的，并列出了所有债权人、所有账簿以及这些正常运营实体的全部财务情况。HKUSA 案甚至 Lamp Capital 案并非如此。您知道，在 HKUSA 案中，他们具体指称，这是债务人为隐匿资产而使用的空壳公司。我认为那是游艇被据为己有的那一案。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3150\n提交日期 04/30/24\n登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20\n\n游艇被据为己有。这在本案中不存在。这不是我们这里的情况。您知道，同样——我的意思是，Lamp Capital 也是如此。\n\n您知道，他们主张 Lamp Capital 是由债务人成立的。本案中没有这一指称。他们主张 Lamp Capital 的设立是为了隐匿——抱歉，游艇和公寓。本案中没有这一指称。他们主张与债务人存在共同所有权。\n\n本案中没有这一指称。他们主张 Lamp Capital 实体没有独立目的。法院：那么，你刚才说他们主张存在什么共同关系？抱歉。SHABAN 先生：我相信是在 Lamp Capital 诉状中。其指称是我们——他们与债务人共用场所。（听不清）而且，如果我对此有误，那么——我很久以前读过那份诉状。我的理解是，那份诉状说，他们与（听不清）共用办公空间。\n\n这里，他们所说的是，他们彼此共用办公空间，且某些关联人士是债务人的附属方，但并非债务人本人。因此，再次，这就是不断回来的整个循环论证。它构成了本诉状本身的基础。Lamp Capital 案中，存在未遵守公司形式要件的情形。这是被指称的。他们没有在本案中作出该指称，因为他们无法作出。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 33 页，共 186 页\n\n这些案件与本案之间唯一的联系——唯一的联系——是 Wang（王）女士的参与，而本法院已裁定她是一名雇员。好。没问题。\n\n是的。她是一名雇员。有——有一些共同雇员。但是，他们所主张的理论与我们谈到的案件和这些案件或本诉状之间的巨大区别在于，在那些案件中，债务人利用这些空壳实体隐匿资产、隐匿其资产、隐匿其财产、隐匿其资金，并利用其儿子或女儿这样做。在这里，我们没有这种情况，但这并非正在发生的事情。\n\n这份诉状适当地指称，这里的部分资产和大量——大量资产来自该债务人的附属方、被指称的附属方——无论那意味着什么——以及属于该运动一部分的中国异见人士。而这一直是本案中发生情况的一个共同主题。是的，当事方之间会有交叉。雇员之间会有交叉。一些债权人之间会有交叉，因为不可否认，所有这些当事方都是一项广泛、全球性政治运动的一部分。这不是什么大型诈骗计划。这是\n\n一项广泛的、政治性的、全球性运动的一部分。仅仅因为其中一些 HCHK 实体经营一项业务以支持该运动，并不当然地通过 Wang 女士，将这些正常存续的特拉华州实体与债务人进行循环关联；没有任何指称表明她以某种方式受债务人控制，或者她与其雇员存在关联。我认为，根据特拉华州法律，这还不够。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 34 页，共 186 页\n\n然后又回到一名债务人，没有任何指称表明他隐匿资金、控制它们、您知道，瓦解它们，或将它们——将它们作为空壳游戏的一部分使用。这些实体是正常运营的实体。它们拥有价值 \\$29,800,000 至 \\$30,000,000 的资产。它们有债权人。是的。\n\n其中一些与其他实体相对应。嗯，令我惊讶的是，这位受托人似乎认为，仅仅因为存在共同性、经营目的、政治目的以及某些财务目的，就意味着所有人——所有人都与债务人有关联。法院以前听过我在书面意见中使用这个比喻。仅仅因为乐队领队被逮捕，并不意味着乐队其他成员都要入狱。也不意味着乐队其他成员要为乐队领队的行为承担责任。而这正是这份诉状试图做的事情。它没有作出特拉华州法律所要求的具体指称。\n\n现在，就实际的具体性而言，我会尽量说快一些，法官阁下。再次，并无任何指称。\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 35 页，共 186 页\n并无任何关于单一单位的指称。并无关于共同出资的指称。并无关于资本不足的指称。但关于 HKUSA 到处都是的指称为零。并无指称称资金来自债务人。没有。零。并无指称称该债务人会向这些实体提供资金，以向债权人隐匿它们。唯一的指称是，该债务人与这些关联方有关联，而这些关联方是 Wang 女士，且作为该运动一部分的一些捐赠者向这些实体投入了一些资金。这与 HKUSA 所发生的情况以及 Lamp Capital 所发生的情况相去甚远。\n\n他们通过其附件承认其具有公司目的。这是我们的主张。他们明白，受托人称，嗯，我们试图予以剔除。他们有点断章取义，很有意思，对吧？实质上，他们拿 ABC 诉讼申请书，并将他们想要的用作证据，但随后又将他们不想要的从证据中挑拣出去。我不太确定这是否恰当，但由法院作出该项决定。\n\n他们指称有单独的纳税申报表。比如，他们——Markham LLP。我想那里有人在场。是的。他们提交了纳税申报表。事实上，几周前，我不得不给受托人办公室打电话，以获取这些 HK 实体部分雇员的税务信息（听不清），以便他们能够报税。\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 36 页，共 186 页\n这些是正在经营的企业，有雇员、有合同、有租约、有受管理的财产、有资产、摄像机、视频以及所有这些东西。是的，它属于该运动的一部分，但这并非非法目的。那是该运动的一部分。\n\n他们指称来自这些中国企业的债权人/捐赠者。这很重要。依我拙见。这恰恰表明了我们一直在说的内容。（听不清）债务人隐匿资产。许多这些资金来自中国企业。而且，再次，并无关于来源的指称。\n\n因此，对于这四个实体，HKA（按读音）（听不清）BVI。没有——实际上，根本没有任何指称。在答复中，他们试图——他们试图说，嗯，我们只是想要移交——移交资产，但他们没有提交任何法律依据。当未对该 BVI 实体提出任何请求时，为何该 BVI 实体须移交资产？他们被混在一起了。我的意思是，他们弄出一个又大又脏的雪球。G Series、Holy City、Lamp Capital。然后他们试图挑出雪花，说，啊哈，他们不能那样做。这个 Holy——对于该 BVI 实体，并无任何指称。其公司存续有效。其\n\n公司存续实际上已在提交给法院的宣誓书中得到证明。其公司存续不能被刺破。\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 37 页，共 186 页\n因为他们没有提出任何刺破母公司公司面纱的指称。他们是子公司股权的所有人。因此我不知道——我不知道他们如何跨越那一障碍。\n\n但是，即便假定您能够跨越这样一个事实：该母公司并未被——实质上并未被起诉，却被列入本案。但该母公司并未被起诉。并无任何刺破该公司面纱的指称。\n\n关于 HCHK Properties，再次，没有任何指称称其受债务人控制，没有任何指称（听不清）——没有任何关于形式要件的指称（听不清），没有任何关于资金来源的指称。没有任何指称称债务人的部分费用由其支付。\n\n事实上，他们援引——他们说在书面陈述中援引了该项内容，但他们实际援引的是 Lexington、Lexington Properties。因此，这是这个肮脏雪球式捆绑起诉状的又一部分。他们挑出一堆随机事实和一些名称及关联关系，把它们全都塞进一大堆，然后说，啊哈，所有人都要被同一把刷子涂上颜色。这不是 Delaware（特拉华州）法律。\n\n全部四个实体均具有有效的公司存续，且根据 Delaware 法律享有有效性推定。而该起诉状并未使该\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 38 页，共 186 页\n公司存续失效或穿透该公司存续。我们不能通过从该实体挑一个事实、从这个 G Shares 人士挑一个事实，以及另一个案件中有人说过什么，就这么做。\n\n把它们硬塞进去，然后说，嗯，你知道，给你们所有人（听不清）降下瘟疫。这根本不是 Delaware 法律。也不是 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）法律。再次，没有财产来源。没有来自债务人的资金来源。HCHK Tech。情况相同。没有关于债务人控制的指称。没有关于其资本不足的指称。没有关于缺乏形式要件的指称。没有关于其为幌子的指称。没有关于债务人的资金被放入其中的指称。他们所指称的是债务人的关联人士将资金放入其中。\n\n这能说明什么？关联人士。我的意思是——我想几个月前我曾举过一个例子，15 年前 Jim Bakker（吉姆·贝克）和 Tammy Faye Baker（塔米·费·贝克）失势时，教会中的每个人都不应为他们的违法行为负责。教会中的每个人都不应对他们产生的债务承担责任。教会中的每个人都没有被带到法庭前，然后被告知，啊哈，你也必须被涂上与这两人相同的颜色。\n\n这正是本案受托人试图做的事。再次，再次，没有关于资金来源的指称。HCHK Tech，情况相同。没有关于控制、资本不足的指称，没有关于不当形式要件的指称，没有。绝对没有，实际上恰恰相反。\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 39 页，共 186 页\nDelaware 公司，只是另一位所有人。关于资金被放入其中的唯一指称是债务人的关联人士。嗯，其中一个是——其中一个是关联方，但也可以使用关联人士一词。不过，再次，这不是标准。这不是 Lamp Capital 所发生的情况。这不是 HKUSA 所发生的情况。\n\n在那些案件中，债务人拿走资金，拿走一艘船，拿走一架飞机，设立一个纸面实体，并试图隐匿它。这里的情况是，具有存续能力的实体以该运动的名义履行并开展经营活动，这是不可否认的，且它们有雇员、合同、房地产、设备和目的。而该起诉状没有采取任何措施使之失效。这是同样的牵强附会。\n\n嗯，债务人雇用了 Wang。Wang 是这些实体的一部分，因此，故而，你可以越过 Wang 并刺破公司面纱，你知道，从这些实体回溯至债务人，而没有关于 Wang 的任何指称，除了她是其雇员这一事实。没有——没有关于 Wang 女士的另我指称。没有——是的。你说她是债务人的雇员。那是控制论点。但就公司形式要件和实际商业合同而言，其中什么也没有，因为（听不清）这并不属实。很有意思的是，如果以及当所有这些\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 40 页，共 186 页\n文件真正披露时——其中大部分由受托人控制。您知道，法院已经看过其中一些。我们目前有许多文件被隐藏或隐匿。它们是合同、实体和具有存续能力的企业。共同名称。绝对如此。共同运动。绝对如此。这是否使每个人都要为债务人的事情负责？不。不会。最后，HCHK、Lexington。他们说没有关于控制、资本、形式要件、（听不清）的指称，什么都没有。没有任何指称称债务人将其资金投入那里以隐匿之。主张称——我们确实主张，您知道，那里有一些资产。他们有多个银行账户，然后或许支付了一些账单。这很有意思。而且——我会在此作一总结。我的意思是，这可能是他们提出的最不真诚的论点：一方面，HKUSA 和/或 Lamp Capital，债务人利用其隐匿自己的资产。债务人利用其隐匿资金并向债权人隐匿。这里，他们主张牵强附会，即无论是通过 Wang 女士还是通过关联方，这些实体获得了资金，不是来自债务人，而是来自某处、债权人、\n\n其他企业、合同，并且——以某种方式，至少就其中一个实体而言——我认为是 Lexington——债务人或许确实有部分费用\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 41 页，共 186 页\n得到支付。我认为是第 38 或 39 段，在该处列出了一大堆已支付的费用。包括一名司机，比如五份律师事务所账单，以及所有其他这些东西。因此，隐匿资产与挪用资金之间的区别极其巨大，极其巨大。这里，HCHK 实体除其他事项外，为该运动之目的经营具有存续能力的企业。有物业管理和其他一切，但有一些（听不清）是为了该运动之目的。而这里，债务人隐匿资产，隐匿飞机，隐匿船只。这是一个容易的案件。这是一个困难的案件，而他们未作出充分主张。所以，您知道，再次，控制本案的是起诉状。不是影射，不是——我的意思是，他们一直提及委托书。只是——\n\n法院：起诉状中关于 HCHK Tech 为 Lady May 和该喷气式飞机付款的指称呢？这怎么不是充分的指称？您刚才谈到——您刚才说 HKUSA 和 Lamp Capital 及其全部提出了请求。他们使用了那个。您所说的话是，他们——那些实体被设立或控制债务人的资产以隐匿这些资产。难道这不是您刚才所说的吗？\n\nSHABAN 先生：正确。（听不清）。\n\n法院：那么——那么，起诉状中关于 HCHK Technology 的指称称，款项从 HCHK Technology 的资金中支付，用于支付 Lady May 和该喷气式飞机的费用，这怎么会不相关？我不明白，就该问题而言，您如何能够说这不是一个具有合理可能性的诉因。\n\nSHABAN 先生：嗯，我认为——\n\n法院：鉴于在此阶段，因已作出缺席裁定，所有指称均被视为真实。\n\nSHABAN 先生：但是——所有经主张——提出的指称均被视为真实。有一些指称，但我记不起来——\n\n法院：嗯，我并未认定其中任何一项在缺席裁定中并非充分主张。对吗？我的意思是，没有人要求我认定存在一项并非充分主张的指称。\n\nSHABAN 先生：是的。而且那——而且那是（听不清）。这就是目的。这就是——我们为何处于当前境地。\n\n法院：嗯，那并不完全是目的。区别在于，您是说其未能提出可获救济的请求。\n\nSHABAN 先生：对。\n\n法院：这并不是说它并非充分主张。二者有区别。对吗？您是在说，从法律上讲它\n\n并未充分陈述诉因。这两项标准之间存在区别。SHABAN 律师：我理解。法庭：因此，我要对您说的是，在审视您的论点时，我审视的是起诉状中的指控。对吗？SHABAN 律师：正确。法庭：这正是我需要审视的内容，我还需要审视您对这些指控的回应。在您的部分回应中，您谈到证据附件与起诉状各段的实际措辞之间的区别。虽然我完全理解我可以审视这些附件，但我审视的是起诉状中的指控。它们是否陈述了可成立的、表面可信的救济请求？因此，我不会再问您很多其他问题，但就您关于 Lady May（“Lady May”号）和该喷气机，以及这两个实体被设立用于隐匿债务人资产的陈述——这是您自己的措辞——既然该实体的资金被用于支付 Lady May 和庞巴迪喷气机的费用，那么为何 HCHK Tech（HCHK 科技）作为债务人资产的另一个自我或实益所有人这一主张不具有表面可信性？Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 43 of 186\n\nSHABAN 律师：嗯，具体而言——我理解法庭关于充分陈述与\n\n可成立诉因之间的提问和意见。是的，两者确有区别，但是——我理解这一点。关于 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技公司），受托人主张资金来自中国异议人士。因此，这是第 34 段。受托人主张，该实体及其债权人的资金来自作为该运动一部分的中国异议人士。这在——这在指控中。因此，无论我——而且我认为其中一些可能已经——法庭：第 33 至 38 段称，HCHK 各实体由债务人提供资金。这就是那些段落中的指控。SHABAN 律师：嗯，那是论点。法庭：不。那是起诉状中的全部指控。我的意思是，我可以读给您听。我们可以调出来查看。SHABAN 律师：是的。但是就该起诉状表面而言，我认为这并不充分，这就是我们的论点。法庭：没问题，没问题。我只是基于——基于您的陈述提问。我理解您不同意，这完全没有问题。我——该问题是基于您就 HKUSA（HKUSA）和 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）所作的陈述。Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 44 of 186\n\nSHABAN 律师：嗯，这算是以另一种方式间接回答法庭的问题。如果您看答辩回复，该回复为了弥补起诉状中失败的指控而——翻腾跳跃。您看第 4 页和第 6 页。它作出了所有这些关于幌子、缺乏公司目的以及日常控制的指控。\n\n他们本应在起诉状中提出而未提出的所有内容，都在答辩回复中提出了；他们援引动议文件，却从未援引起诉状。原因在于，他们没有在起诉状中陈述这些内容。他们以这种模糊、漫无边际的方式做了，主要是因为他们试图获得初步禁令。我理解。现在是（听不清）。\n\n如果我们必须提出起诉状，如果我们必须——这份起诉状并未陈述可成立的诉因。特拉华州法律非常严格，并且高度保护其公司。至于其他——其他案件，即 Lamp Capital、HKUSA，情况很简单，简单得多。而在这里，有雇员、合同、财产、租赁、来自中国的捐赠者。这是该运动的一部分。我们一直所说的所有这些内容，却没有任何一项指控，没有一项指控称该债务人将其资金投入这些实体。没有一项。法庭：我不同意该陈述。您刚才——您刚才所作的最后一项陈述。至少根据我对起诉状中该段落的理解，HCHK——其主张 HCHK 各实体由债务人提供资金。SHABAN 律师：通过关联方和联系方。法庭：其称由债务人提供资金。SHABAN 律师：恭敬地说，我认为所有这些指控——法庭：其中有“债务人的”一词。而且它——SHABAN 律师：哦，确实有。法庭：——而且它——由债务人提供资金。SHABAN 律师：坦率地说，我不确定是否有一项直接明确的指控。我会查看。但是，起诉状正文是，如果债务人的关联方、债务人的联系方、债务人的——拼凑起来。法庭：债务人的——债务人的——在债务人指示下行事。SHABAN 律师：可以说，如果——那是他们的论点。但那不是他们的指控。法庭：那就是他们的指控。那就是他们的指控。SHABAN 律师：嗯，我——恭敬地说，我们认为这太过——这是拼凑起来的。他们可以重新起草这份起诉状，并且很可能——很可能达到特拉华州标准。我确信，只要给予足够时间，他们能够做到，而且我认为应当要求他们这样做，因为这些指控未能跨越公司平衡中出现的门槛。而且最后，我知道我们讨论过，律师，简要谈及 in pari delicto（同等过错）Wagner（瓦格纳）问题。法庭已经对此作出裁定。Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 46 of 186\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 47 of 186\n\n我们认为，本案因这种拼凑而有所不同。我认为，基于这些事实，债务人的债权人无论是通过 Wang（王某）还是中国异议人士，或未具名关联方，都无法向 HCHK 追偿；同样，我也认为该债务人——债务人只有——我的意思是，受托人仅享有债务人所享有的权利，或者受托人仅享有——未具名者或一般债权人所享有的权利。基于这些指控，这种拼凑，所有事情都要通过王某，所有事情都要通过未具名关联方，所有事情都要通过未具名联系方。这些是我们的法律术语。这些是他为追及 HCHK 而使用的措辞。\n\n我认为——我认为此处适用 in pari delicto（同等过错）原则，因为如果受托人所说的一切属实，如果我们说——如果该债务人和 HCHK 中的每个人都在试图实施欺诈，那么——那么我们就不能主张。这正是该文件所说的。这正是该文件所说的。对吗？因此，基于我们所说的理由，该原则在此适用。所以，我讲得比预期长得多。我致歉。如果还有其他事项，我在此恭候法庭。\n\n法庭：不，我肯定会给 Bassett 律师一个回应的机会，然后再给您最后一次回应机会。\n\nSHABAN 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nBASSETT 律师：再次祝您下午好。我是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），代表 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）。法官阁下，HCHK 各方的律师可以尽其所能地大声、反复声称起诉状中没有关于控制、债务人提供资金等等的指控，但这并不能使其成为事实。起诉状才是决定性文件。具体而言，起诉状中的指控才是决定性的。今日法庭面前唯一的问题是：在将这些指控视为真实、并作出一切有利于受托人的推断后，它们是否根据特拉华州法律陈述了表面可信的救济请求。它们绝对做到了。是否已经跨越该门槛，甚至不存在任何接近的问题。\n\n法官阁下，对方律师正非常激烈地主张该起诉状充分。我理解。但是，我认为，要理解其客户对该论点的真正坚定程度，您可以回看他们依据 Rule 55(c)（规则 55(c)）提出的撤销违约登记动议。该标准的一个关键要件——对此他们负有举证责任——是他们对起诉状具有有理由的抗辩。其他当事人曾处于同样情况。Lamp Capital。Lamp Capital 试图通过提出他们所能想到的一切 12(b)(6) 抗辩来作出该证明。in pari delicto（同等过错）、Wagner（瓦格纳）、起诉状的指控不充分。HCHK 各方做了什么？他们甚至没有假装想要提出驳回动议。他们唯一所说的是：法官阁下，而且对方律师今日在此再次重复了这一点，法官阁下，这些是可存续的实体。仅因它们是该运动的一部分，并不使其成为债务人的另一个自我。法官阁下，这就是——这就是他们选择采取的立场，即对另一个自我指控作出毫无证据支持的一概否认。今日不能予以考虑。但其所表明的是，当他们必须提出有理由的抗辩时，这项 12(b)(6) 抗辩根本无处可寻。他们现在提出该抗辩，作为最后一搏，试图避免对其作出缺席判决；而此前一次又一次、一次机会又一次机会，他们都有机会来到法庭，说明尽管其极其拖延且不可原谅的行为，为何仍应允许他们发表意见。他们没有这样做。Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 49 of 186\n\n法官阁下，他们曾有机会，但他们失败了。现在，对方律师所说的不在起诉状中的所有内容，都在起诉状中。他称没有关于控制的指控。就起诉状表面而言，这完全不属实。\n\n起诉状多处主张，这些实体的名义所有人 Yvette Wang（王雁）是债务人的副手、其雇员、执行其意旨之人。此人曾与债务人一同在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）被刑事起诉；她被指称为其副手、其犯罪伙伴、执行其一切意愿之人，诈骗他人超过 $1,000,000,000。这就是我们所说的王雁。认为这不是关于债务人控制的指控，这种想法毫无道理。当然是。\n\n这是债务人控制这些实体的具体而有力的证据。而且并不止于王雁。我们还有 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），起诉状指称债务人控制的另一人，并且法庭在本案先前裁定中已讨论并认定该事实。他也是这些实体的雇员。Anthony Di Bautista（安东尼·迪·包蒂斯塔）也是如此。法官阁下，起诉状主张债务人本人通过其指挥之人行使控制权。当然，他不会亲自指挥其企业中的每一个另一个自我实体。那没有任何意义。他是通过受其指示之人这样做。这正是起诉状所主张的内容。对方律师还称，没有隐匿资产的指控。\n\n错误。而且我并未承认不存在该等指控。当然有。这正是他利用这些实体所做的事情。它们持有的所有现金、拥有的所有资产，都是依法属于债务人并依法属于本破产财团的实体。\n\n他正在利用这些实体隐匿它们。这在起诉状中已有主张。对方律师还称，没有指控这些实体的现金来源于债务人。再次，这是错误的。法庭刚刚对此进行了梳理。\n\n起诉状直接指称，债务人通过其控制的其他现金来源向这些实体提供资金。他本人没有从自己的支票簿开出支票这一事实——并无此类指称——无关紧要。当然，他并非以这种方式运作。他通过多层空壳公司运作，而这正是起诉状所指称的内容。\n\n更具体而言，就 Lexington（莱克星顿）而言，起诉状具体指称了一些本院非常熟悉的公司名称，包括向 Lexington 提供资金的某些实体，即 Golden Spring（金泉）。本院已经认定 Golden Spring 是债务人的另一个自我。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 52 页，共 186 页\n\nSaraca（音译：萨拉卡），本院已在抗议诉讼中认定 Saraca 受债务人控制。Leidenschein（莱登沙因），针对 Leidenschein 的另一个自我起诉状尚待审理。ACA Capital（ACA资本），同样如此，针对 ACA Capital 的另一个自我起诉状尚待审理。\n\n至于另外两个实体，起诉状中也有明确、具体的指称，并且本院已在介入诉讼中作出的其他认定进一步支持了这些指称，即它们由债务人提供资金。那些指称是，列为这些实体债权人的所有个人，即向其提供资金的人，并非如律师所说——且起诉状中并未如此指称——由无关联的异议人士提供资金。这绝对不是所作的指称。\n\n所作的指称是，两个 HCHK 实体由按债务人指示并受其控制行事的人提供资金。这些人由债权人代表代理，属于“债权人委员会”的成员。本院已在介入诉讼中作出这一认定。\n\n这些人听从债务人的私人律师 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）先生的指示；张先生已提起多起轻率诉讼，并因此受到制裁，制裁对象涉及受托人、我的律师事务所、Sarnoff（萨尔诺夫）先生及其律师事务所和其客户。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 53 页，共 186 页\n\n同一位律师，正是 HCHK 各方律师在其向本院提交的委托函中选择涂去其姓名的那位律师，以使本院看不到该关联。\n\n法官阁下，起诉状中关于债务人控制这些实体及为其提供资金的指称比比皆是。这甚至毫无争议余地。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我只是想说——律师就 Holy City（圣城）提出论点，称其中实际上没有任何关于 Holy City 的内容。法官阁下，您以前见过这一论点。Holy City 被列入起诉状，是因为其被指称为名义上拥有涉案公司的实体，而这些公司被指称为债务人的另一个自我。本院已经驳回过该论点，并应在此处予以驳回。\n\n法官阁下，除非您还有其他问题，我目前要说的就是这些。\n\n法庭：我目前没有问题。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢。\n\n沙班先生：我可以简短发言吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n沙班先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我可以走近吗？\n\n法庭：请。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 54 页，共 186 页\n\n沙班先生：一直在提出有实质依据的抗辩。\n\n这不是我们目前所处的阶段。我们在此依据第二巡回法院具有控制力的判例，即在缺席判决动议中，必须审查起诉状，看其是否依据适用法律适当主张了可成立的诉因。它没有做到。这就是论点。因此，提出关于张先生的旧有且实质上无关的论点，或者，您知道，先前动议中发生的事情，这些并非本院当前审理的事项。当前审理的是这份起诉状、这些指称。\n\n而我认为这份起诉状不成立的原因，仍然是，他们试图——他们试图——他们试图照搬他们对 HKUSA 和 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）及其他一些实体所采用的同一套方案，因为那是他们手头所拥有的办法。他们完成此事的时间很少，因为他们必须阻止让与。他们想阻止让与诉讼。好。\n\n因此，他们试图——他们试图将方榫硬塞进圆孔，没有足够的指称填补该孔洞，但他们有——他们有足够的指称获得初步禁令。如今我们审查起诉状时，其起诉状中的缺漏比比皆是。仅仅因为你说某人有关联，并不意味着什么。\n\n仅仅因为你说某人受他人指示，也不符合特拉华州法律规定的标准。再次强调，这是循环论证。\n\n这是 HCHK 实体，没有人否认其是为主要用于（听不清）并相互支持而运营的可存续实体。然后是 Wang（王），再然后据称是债务人。嗯，她通过王进行循环论证，并试图取得这些实体，而任何其他债权人或债务人本人均无法做到这一点。如今他们试图这样做。他们试图以受托人的名义这样做。\n\n与其他（听不清）情况不同。一、二、三。公司、公司、公司在此。其中存在介于其间的人，无论是关联方、投资者，还是王。\n\n请审阅起诉状，法官阁下。显然，我遗憾本院将不得不重新阅读这份文件，但其中有——其中有很多烟雾。然而，当涉及特拉华州法律中的构成要件时，却没有多少火焰。存在含糊的提及，其并不具体，无法满足可成立诉因所要求的负担。\n\n因此，谨此请求，我们认为他们应当重新起诉。我的意思是，本院有两个选择：撤销起诉状——本院不会这样做——或者命令他们重新起诉。而且，谨此请求，我们认为目前应当如此处理。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢，律师。好。我将把该事项，即缺席判决动议，留待审议，审查你们今天提出的论点，以及再次审查所提交的诉状和起诉状，并将据此作出裁定。谢谢。缺席判决动议的听证至此结束。\n\n我不确定，各位律师，你们是否必须留在这里参加任何调解；但如果不必，你们当然无需留下。\n\n沙班先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我可能会待一会儿，但会在恰当的时候悄悄离开。\n\n法庭：可以。谢谢。那么，今天日程上的另一事项是修改撤销诉讼程序命令的动议。我想说，我已看到已提交的异议。共有 11 项异议。其中一项今天被撤回。事实上，据我了解，是在今天早些时候。\n\n我想，Despins（德斯平斯）受托人，您正与（听不清）讨论，您是否想说明有关调解程序及异议目前进展如何？然后我将听取任何已提交异议且希望发言的当事人的意见。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。巴塞特先生将处理这一事项。我认为我们在星期五或星期六提交了一份经修正的拟议命令？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：第二份经修正的拟议命令，您指的是这个吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：如果可以，我可以在律师席向本院陈述吗？\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢。而且，在适当时候，我很可能会请 Linsey（林赛）律师补充，因为在提交拟议命令之前，他与其他各方进行了许多讨论，等等。但我先非常简要地向本院说明一下经过。因此，在提交动议后，我们举行了一次状态会议。在该状态会议之后，我相信是在 March 22nd，受托人提交了一份经初步修订的调解程序拟议命令。随后，受托人按照本院指示，向撤销诉讼的所有当事人送达了该命令。我可以说明，其中包括我相信在超过 100 起诉讼中的每一名位于国内的已迁移被告，不包括仍在送达过程中的位于国外的被告。但总的来说，就——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 57 页，共 186 页\n\n国内被告而言，我认为我们最终向大约 200 名、甚至更多被告送达了调解程序。\n\n在已收到调解程序送达的当事人中，我相信截至期限共提交了 12 项异议。除这 12 项异议外，还有几名其他当事人以非正式方式联系我或 Linsey 律师，讨论他们对该程序存在的一些问题。\n\n此后，我们通过电话和电子邮件与提出异议的当事人及其他联系过我们的当事人进行了交谈，以了解是否能够解决其中一些问题。实际上，我相信我们最终至少处理了每一名提出异议的当事人或提出其问题的其他当事人的部分问题，但并非全部问题。由于这些努力，我相信我们至少能够完整解决一项异议。我相信 Lester Hill（莱斯特·希尔）是其异议已获解决的当事人。\n\n随后，其他一些曾告知我们其可能提出异议的当事人，由于我们能够采纳其部分修改意见，最终未提出异议。\n\n因此，法官阁下，此时我不会向您逐一说明我们在经修正的拟议命令中变更的所有事项。顺便说，为记录在案，最新的经修正拟议命令于 April 19th，即上周五提交。其载于主案卷 ECF 3105。经修正的拟议命令载于附件 A，而附件 B，我相信，是显示对初始拟议命令所作修改的红线稿。我认为附件 C 是对经修正拟议命令、即先前经修正拟议命令所作的修改。\n\n例如，法官阁下，我们作出的一些修改——这一问题在上次听证会上已被提出——其中一个被提出的问题是，调解应仅对实际上已被送达的当事人具有强制性。\n\n例如，在位于国外的被告尚未被送达的范围内，他们在最初阶段不应受强制调解约束，尽管在当事人被送达后，可为那些对抗性程序制定程序。该事项现已在命令中得到明确处理。\n\n对于在发生利益冲突时调解员——即调解员和小组可能会如何处理，提出了一些意见。我们将通过修改并在某种程度上加强该措辞来回应这些意见；此前的措辞称，如调解员发现潜在的利益冲突，该调解员可以自行回避。现将该措辞改为应当回避。\n\n我们延长了某些期限，包括\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 60 页，共 186 页\n\n就任何已提交的驳回动议提交支持答复的期限。各方请求给予更多时间，我们予以批准。\n\n一些当事方提出了上次听证会中出现的一个问题，即未善意参与调解程序的后果。调解程序中有一段规定讨论了法院可能采取的救济和制裁措施。\n\n一些当事方担心，如果其尽最大努力仍无法达成和解，仅因此便可能触犯该规定。我们试图使其放心，我们当然无意如此处理。因此，我们在命令中增加了一些措辞，基本上规定：未能达成和解本身当然不会成为施加任何制裁的理由。\n\n一些当事方提出的另一项意见涉及调解程序中的一项规定，该规定涉及坦克雷迪法官（Judge Tancredi）就某些对抗性听证程序应如何中止、而其中一些应如何继续进行等事项向本法院提出建议的权限，以帮助促进这些必须通过诉讼解决事项的有序诉讼。\n\n一些当事方希望就此发表意见。因此，我们设置了一段期限，在坦克雷迪法官提出该等建议后，他们可以作出回应。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 61 页，共 186 页\n\n因此，这些是——这些是我们所解决的一些主要类型问题的概述。\n\n我不确切知道还有多少问题尚待解决。我认为可能接近 10 个，也许有十几个。但与其试图预先设想所有这些问题，我认为让法院听取提出异议的当事方的意见或许是有意义的，然后我可以据此作出回应。\n\n法院：是。我先有几个问题，但我认为这样可以。我正在看您刚才在庭上提到的那份文件。ECF 3105。我对此有几个问题。\n\n当我们看到第 3 页时，我正在看该文件第 37 页开始的红线版本。我原以为在查看整份文件时，那是我应当看的版本，但我不知道是否正确。在我看来，那似乎是载有您刚才在庭上提到的修改内容的版本。\n\n巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：这是正确的。我相信这会是显示——这会是显示我们随动议提交的命令原始版本所有修改之处的红线版本。\n\n法院：好的。那么我——那么第二个红线版本涵盖了您就提出异议的当事方所谈到的一切内容？\n\n巴塞特先生：正确。两个版本\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 62 页，共 186 页\n\n均涵盖了所有修改，但第 96 页中的第 67 页所载的第二个红线版本将显示并追踪仅在我们与各方沟通后向其送达的命令中所作的修改。\n\n法院：那么，您认为法院将签发这两个命令中的哪一个？我正在看——\n\n巴塞特先生：哦，不是。法官阁下，我很抱歉。为明确起见，它们是同一份命令；我们为各方和法院的便利提供了两个不同版本的红线稿。因此，如果您想查看我们请求法院签发的命令的清洁版本，实际上应当查看附件 A 中的版本，因为那只是经修订的拟议命令的清洁版本，未显示任何修改。后面两个版本显示了现行命令与先前命令的不同对比。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：该版本在第 96 页中的第 7 页。我愿意查看任何内容。\n\n法院：第 7 页？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：但内容（听不清）。\n\n法院：好。那么请稍等片刻。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 63 页，共 186 页\n\n因此，我正在看我认为您刚才所指明的、巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）所称的清洁版本，即经第二次修订的拟议修正命令的清洁版本，该命令批准适用于撤销权请求对抗程序的程序，始于第 96 页中的第 6 页。\n\n巴塞特先生：正确，法官阁下。我说错了。是第 96 页中的第 6 页。\n\n法院：没关系。我想确保我在这份命令中查看的是正确位置。因此，请稍等片刻。好的。那么，当我们从第 96 页中的第 8 页 E 段开始时，其中谈到任何撤销权被告对起诉状作出回应的期限应自送达之日起 60 天；但是，无须法院另行命令，受托人（Trustee）和任何撤销权被告可约定将被告的答复期限进一步延长最多 90 天。因此，我认为我在上周看到其中一些约定已被提交。为使记录更准确，我所说的其中一些，是指受托人已同意在某些对抗程序中进一步延长答复日期。正确吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：正确。\n\n法院：至少延长 90 天。好的。因此，我试图弄清楚的是，也许您已经做过这件事，我在这份命令中看到 5 月 14 日或 15 日的日期，这可能——可能是事项进入调解程序的触发日期。但是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 64 页，共 186 页\n\n这是否不适用于您已经同意——还是适用于您已经同意延长提交答辩状或以其他方式回应起诉状期限的那些事项？\n\n巴塞特先生：因此，林赛律师（Attorney Linsey）或许可以在我对正确段落引用有误时帮助我，但我相信，法官阁下，程序中规定的运作方式是，提交调解——该程序是由特定被告提交答辩状或回应的到期日触发的。\n\n法院：对。因此，我想对您说的是，我相信在过去一两周内，我看到数个对抗程序——我不知道有多少。我无法告诉您。我没有统计。\n\n但我会说有 20 个，我们就随便取一个数字，其中受托人已约定将被告的答复日期额外延长 90 天。他们不需要法院命令，这没有问题。这完全没有问题。我问的是，假定这 20 个——我说的是 275 个左右的对抗程序中的 20 个——其 90 日期限到 5 月 14 日或 15 日时，无论该日期为何，尚未届满。我很抱歉。我马上会在文件中找到它。\n\n就目前而言，将这些事项放在一边，律师们问——我之所以提出这个问题，而且我可能没有\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 65 页，共 186 页\n\n把问题问得很好。上次听证会我们讨论了时间安排，以及在何时将有多少对抗程序交给坦克雷迪法官，以及在一段时间内是否会实质上形成滚动数量的对抗程序。因此，我认为在某些对抗程序中已提交的约定所涉及的 90 天，基本上意味着那些程序不会进入交给坦克雷迪法官的第一批对抗程序。\n\n我对此可能理解有误。这就是我提出该问题的原因。\n\n巴塞特先生：嗯，我相信这是程序第 2(J) 段，在该情形下的运作方式是，它们在答辩期限届满后才会交给坦克雷迪法官。因此，程序将按该方式依序进行。\n\n法院：这正是我试图理清的——（背景交谈）\n\n法院：您是以出庭日期还是回应日期触发它们？\n\n（背景交谈）\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，请允许我们就此商议。\n\n法院：我认为您可能是依据出庭日期而非回应日期触发。并且我认为这可能是因为上次听证会期间的讨论，当时有人说，嗯，如果我已经\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 66 页，共 186 页\n\n提交了回应怎么办？诸如此类的话。\n\n巴塞特先生：明白。我所设想的情形，法官阁下，是受托人已告知法院延长答辩期限，但该对抗程序的被告尚未出庭。然后将不会——\n\n法院：好的。那不同。那是不同类别，对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：在该情形下，由出庭触发。正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：为回应您的问题，我所设想的情形是，出庭日期要到 90 日期限时才会发生。\n\n法院：对。因此，我的意思是有几种类别。这就是我的观点，对吗？所以我再次试图弄清楚，在可能的范围内——当然是可能的。我只是不知道我们可以多么具体——您可以通过该程序多么具体地说明，最初有多少这类案件将交给坦克雷迪法官？我只是试图弄清楚这一点。我认为——这不必一成不变，但我认为坦克雷迪法官需要对此有某种概念。对吗？我们是在说，到 5 月 15 日或 14 日——我想是 15 日。我一直在说 14 日。我不知道\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 67 页，共 186 页\n\n它们是什么。我会在命令中找到。我们——我们是在对坦克雷迪法官说，这里有 200 个对抗程序吗？\n\n还是说，根据命令是 5 月 15 日？还是说，坦克雷迪法官，这里有 40 个？我不知道。我不知道我们在说什么。这就是我想了解的。我并不——我并不预期任何一种情况必然会造成问题，但我认为我们需要知道。我要说的就是这些。\n\n巴塞特先生：明白，法官阁下。我想提出的一点，或者我想到的是，正如我们过去讨论过的，鉴于被告数量巨大，且所有这些对抗程序中的问题具有共同性，并且各方将提出的一些法律问题几乎完全相同，我们所设想的这些调解程序将会如何运作。对吗？\n\n因此，正如我们过去讨论过的，在与坦克雷迪法官讨论的前提下，我们认为尝试将问题组或对抗程序组归类并一并调解将非常合理，这也将为财产和所有涉案被告节省费用。\n\n为此，我认为，程序和划分设想的是，所有事项将在大致相同的时间进入调解，以实现此类分组或归类的发生。\n\n不过，如本院从已提交的约定书中所知，我们愿意——您知道——给予相关人员额外的答复时间，而且未必所有事项都处于同一进度轨道上。\n\n本院：那么，你们是否预计由Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）就此作出决定——这是否正是你们所请求的？\n\n巴塞特律师：完全正确，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。好。这是第一点。\n\n第二点，在第——第8页，再次是E段，随后有第1、第2子段。你们谈到暂缓审理的撤销请求、部分暂缓审理的撤销请求以及暂缓的指定通知。\n\n通知问题没有问题。我的意思是，这只是在一项将被暂缓的对抗程序中提交某项文件，无论其是被完全暂缓还是部分暂缓。至于如果是部分暂缓，涉及哪些人。明白吗？\n\n但我的问题是——我对其的理解方式，再说一次，我可能错了，是完全暂缓的请求和部分暂缓的请求在某种程度上受到一项已暂缓某些对抗程序的命令影响，因为该命令涉及债务人，以及债务人的实体或雇员，以及你们将主张与债务人有关联的人员。\n\n因此，我提出该问题的要点是，该命令是否——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 69 页，共 186 页\n\n而且我认为你们目前无法回答这个问题，但我希望你们思考一下。该命令，即已经暂缓其中一些对抗程序、等待刑事程序处理结果的命令。\n\n巴塞特律师：对。\n\n本院：它们——您知道——成为本命令的一部分。\n\n巴塞特律师：因此，我认为并非如此，法官阁下，因为该命令——抱歉，我手头没有 ECF 编号。\n\n本院：3038。\n\n巴塞特律师：好的。法官阁下，该命令涉及并暂缓两项对抗程序。即我们所称的综合性替身（alter ego）对抗程序，在该对抗程序中，债务人寻求确认多个不同实体均为债务人的替身实体。该命令还暂缓民事 RICO 诉讼，其中——\n\n本院：但它也有例外条款。记得那个例外条款。\n\n巴塞特律师：（听不清）legacy。正确，法官阁下。本程序命令所核心涉及的撤销诉讼对抗程序本身并不直接属于该暂缓命令的一部分。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 70 页，共 186 页\n\n3-A 的内容——我将在此说明各个类别。附件 3-A 和 3-B，此外还有附件 4；但附件 3-A，即本程序命令项下暂缓审理的撤销请求，由所有此类撤销诉讼构成，在这些诉讼中，受托人主张转让是由综合性替身诉状中的某一被告作出的。\n\n换言之，该撤销诉讼中的主张将是，债务人某一被指称的替身实体是名义上向被告作出转让的一方。\n\n此前提出并且我们通过附件 3-A 处理的一个问题是，这些对抗程序实际上不应继续进行诉讼；为了妥善秩序和效率，应当等待针对该诉状中所涉替身实体的综合性替身对抗程序完成后再进行。\n\n本院：所以它是有关联的。\n\n（声音重叠）\n\n巴塞特律师：正是如此，法官阁下。\n\n本院：它与先前的暂缓命令有关联。\n\n巴塞特律师：正是如此。它——它——它与此非常有关联，法官阁下，因为它再次涉及——那些撤销诉讼涉及作为综合性替身诉讼被告的实体，而该等实体已被另一项命令暂缓。但如果没有该措辞和本命令，这些撤销诉讼本身不会被暂缓。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 71 页，共 186 页\n\n本院：对。因此，我要说的只是，也许你们需要在该段中提及先前的命令，对吗，以及两者之间的联系。因为我没有把它们加起来。我没有计算，但在我看来，你们可能是在谈论 270 项对抗程序中的 70 项。对吗？我的意思是，附件 3-A 有三四页。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白。\n\n本院：对吗？我不知道有多少项。我没有把它们加起来，但数量很多。\n\n巴塞特律师：你们当然可以提及另一项——\n\n本院：不过，我实际上也理解，因为我必须查看它。我一开始没有注意到。我认为在某些情况下——至少我原以为是这样，是的——对抗程序被列出，其编号被列出不止一次，因为你们要确保它适用于每一名被告。那是这样做的目的，对吗？例如，有一项编号为 24-05248 的对抗程序，它出现了七次，但每一行项目都有不同被告的姓名。\n\n巴塞特律师：正确，法官阁下。另一个原因是，我们所提议的暂缓是针对具体请求，而不是针对具体对抗程序。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 72 页，共 186 页\n\n本院：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：这就是——这就是附件 3-B 发挥作用之处，因为其中一些撤销诉状涉及受托人的请求——抱歉，涉及受托人的主张，即已确定由债务人拥有和控制的实体，是名义上向被告作出转让的实体。例如，Golden Spring（黄金泉）是一个已经被裁定为债务人替身实体的实体。\n\n在债务人主张——抱歉，受托人主张 Golden Spring 向某一特定撤销诉讼被告作出转让的范围内，暂缓该请求的同一逻辑不适用于涉及综合性替身诉状中所涉实体的其他请求，因为对于该转让受让实体——或者说转让人实体——已经作出了作为前提的替身认定。因此，这些请求不会被暂缓。\n\n本院：尽管如此，它们可能会被部分暂缓。\n\n巴塞特律师：这些请求不会被暂缓。我的意思是，一项包含其他综合性替身实体所作转让主张的对抗程序，该等对抗程序只能被部分暂缓。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 3150\n提交 04/30/24\n录入 04/30/24 08:17:20\n\n本院：而在这些对抗程序中被部分暂缓的请求，其他请求将继续进入调解？\n\n巴塞特律师：除非它们列于附件 4 中，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。再说一次，我没有进行交叉引用或任何分析。我认为这是你们需要做的。对吗？我的意思是，附件 4 是——\n\n巴塞特律师：附件 4 是一份实体名单，或者更准确地说，是一份被告名单；除非存在协议或本院命令，这些被告不会接受自动调解。\n\n本院：他们只是被告。\n\n巴塞特律师：他们只是被告。\n\n本院：这并不意味着整个对抗程序都被暂缓。而且整个对抗程序也并非可能——抱歉。这不准确。\n\n这可能意味着，在一项对抗程序中，附件 4 所列当事人之一是被告，但其他被告所在的该对抗程序仍可继续推进，并可能接受调解？\n\n巴塞特律师：正确，法官阁下。而且附件 4 所列的某些个人可能涉及被完全暂缓的对抗程序。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 74 页，共 186 页\n\n本院：对。\n\n巴塞特律师：因为他们涉及替身实体问题。但附件 4 中的某些实体可能处于一项完全未被暂缓的对抗程序中，因为其中没有任何事项涉及综合性替身实体或另一名应接受调解的当事人。\n\n本院：对。但你们明白我为什么提出这些问题。我只是想确保我理解。因此，如果Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）对我说什么——虽然他不会就实体问题向我表示任何意见——但如果他说了什么，就某项程序向我提问，我希望能够说，好吧，这就是我认为所说的内容。\n\n无论如何，你们会订购一份庭审记录并希望交给他，对吗？因为我只是希望他理解你们的程序。明白吗？我认为我理解了。我已经审阅过，但在某些地方存在重叠，而在某些地方则不存在重叠。\n\n因此，这需要清楚。我的意思是，我认为它是清楚的，但这就是我向你们提出问题的原因。明白吗？而且，我确实认为附件 3-A 的名单以先前暂缓 RICO 诉讼和综合性替身对抗程序的命令为条件，或者与该命令有关联。那些事项已经确定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 75 页，共 186 页\n\n巴塞特律师：正是如此。我们很乐意在该条款中加入适当的提及。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：（听不清）。\n\n本院：好吧。那么，让我看看。我还有几个其他问题。最大的一个问题是，我希望理解该程序。明白吗？然后，还有若干其他事项，我认为提出异议的当事人——某些提出异议的当事人——已经提出了这些事项；我会听取当事人对此的意见，但我想先向你们指出。\n\n因此，我对调解小组的理解是，巴塞特律师——再说一次，我可能错了——可能不会设立调解小组。但如果Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）认为适当，则可能会设立一个。明白吗？这就是——这是否是你们所主张的，或者是你们的程序所规定的？正确吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：正确，法官阁下。并不一定会设立调解小组。\n\n本院：好的。现在，关于调解小组的问题，我认为存在——我会听取提出异议当事人的意见。我的意思是，我认为——我不确定调解小组是由Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）确定，还是由当事人确定。我认为受托人不能在与Tancredi法官协商后确定该小组。至少——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 76 页，共 186 页\n\n巴塞特律师：因此，我认为我们在命令第 2-K 段中拟定的方式——\n\n本院：我正在看这一段。\n\n巴塞特律师：——是说明受托人将就可能使用调解小组一事与Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）协商。但最终，向该调解小组指定任何其他调解员均须经本院批准。在法官阁下——之前，这不会发生。\n\n本院：对。但如果被告提出异议，会发生什么？因为这正是我试图确定的，即程序是什么？\n\n巴塞特律师：因此，任何被告都将有机会对任何拟议调解小组作出回应。在其提出异议的范围内，本院将听取其意见（听不清）。\n\n本院：这并未完全如此表述，但我认为这是必要的。\n\n巴塞特律师：好的。当然。我们会明确说明这一点，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。下一段，我希望你们写明，在任何调解转介后的 14 天内，或在以Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）的可用时间为准的其他日期内。对吗？因为我不知道他的日程安排。我不知道他是否会在某一事项后的 14 天内准备就绪。\n\n调解转介。我的意思是，这很可能确实如此，但我不希望一项命令把他限制在这一点上。好吗？您明白我在 L 项中的意思吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：明白，法官阁下。我认为我们在该条款中的意图只是说明，在转介后 14 天内。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n巴塞特律师：一封信——\n\n法庭：提交一封信。我明白。但该信提交后，其他期限就开始起算了。我只是建议——\n\n巴塞特律师：哦，明白，法官阁下。明白。\n\n法庭：好的。我只是希望明确，若 Tancredi 法官（Tancredi Judge）尚未准备就绪，14 天不应必然开始起算。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。您想发送给法庭助理书记员的那封信——巴塞特律师，您知道我们有通用的法庭助理书记员电子邮箱吧？您在 Hartford（哈特福德）将使用同一个电子邮箱。您将使用该电子邮箱。好吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：好的。\n\n法庭：然后，显然，无须在其中写明这一点。我并非要求您修改该命令。但 Case 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 77 of 186\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 78 of 186\n\n当该信由您或代表受托人的任何人提交时，必须向该对抗程序中的被告抄送。因此，即使 Tancredi 法官将担任调解员，也不会有人指称存在任何单方沟通或其他情况。我也希望确保每个人都理解这一基本规则，好吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：明白。我们说的是——\n\n法庭：那封信。\n\n巴塞特律师：——提交该信。\n\n法庭：对。只是——我只是——我只是想，您知道，我们只是想确保记录清楚，并且在提交该信时每个人都已得到通知。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白。\n\n法庭：好吗？那么，请转到 M 项。这是关于撤销被告认为针对其的请求不应接受调解的情形。对此，我唯一的问题并非关于那些尚未被送达的被告，巴塞特律师，因为我明白您对此所说的内容。您知道，待其被送达时我们会处理，但须在调解转介后 14 天内。因此，调解转介仍然是指那封信。对吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：对，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 79 of 186\n\n法庭：好的。那封信是——您将会——实际上，让我问您这个问题。这一点不一定清楚。那么，如果被告没有律师，但一直在与您沟通——我假定有些人一直如此，对吗？那么，他们将如何被送达该调解转介？我只是希望——我不希望有人进来说，我们没有 14 天。我们没有被送达。您知道吗？因此，如果我在您转介调解后的第 21 天提交我的动议，我不希望——我不希望就其是否及时提出发生争议。好吗？这就是我提出这一点的目的。\n\n巴塞特律师：好的。\n\n法庭：也就是说，如果您有律师，并且他们——您——他们显然同意提交该信，并且可以向他们送达，那是一回事。但您必须考虑没有律师的当事人。如果他们同意并接受通过电子邮箱向其发送的任何文件作为送达，那没有问题。但我认为您需要取得该同意。我并不是说这必须写入本命令，巴塞特律师。我只是告诉您，我不希望——我希望不会就某项动议是否及时提出举行任何听证会，如果有人认为他们不应接受调解。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 80 of 186\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：明白，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：至于下一段，唯一的一点——您之前说过，而我——他们会使用的措辞——如果存在利益冲突，调解员会——或许您已经修改了措辞。不。在其中的第三行，我不会写“应当回避”，我会写“应当拒绝”或“不应采取行动”。我——“回避”具有我也确实不想讨论的含义。好吗？请只修改那个词。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白。谢谢。\n\n法庭：在我们讨论提出异议的当事人时，我们将必须处理调解员的费用和成本问题，但 U 项，即 U 段，谈到了调解员的费用和成本。因此，您将不得不——看来该问题尚未解决。因此，这是我们必须处理的事项。\n\n巴塞特律师：确实如此，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：再次说到 X 项，在我看来，X 项唯一的问题是，如果被告没有律师，这 30 天如何开始对其起算？您知道，您如何——您如何向其送达？对吗？如果提交了一份报告，称未达成完全和解，而他们随后只有 30 天对起诉状作出答复，那么请想出一种机制，以便我们也不必处理这个问题，可以吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：明白。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为，那——那些是我主要关切的问题，除此之外，我将听取提出异议的当事人的意见，并处理那些问题。但您对我的问题有任何疑问吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：我认为没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：非常感谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。因此，已有数方当事人提出异议。如果我们按提交时间顺序处理，我认为前两项是 Art Wolf, Inc.（Art Wolf公司）和 Anthem Health Choice Assurance, Inc.（Anthem Health Choice Assurance公司）提出的异议。请 Signor 律师（Attorney Signor）发言。\n\n西格诺尔律师：谢谢，法官阁下。再次说明，我是来自 Shipman & Goodwin（Shipman & Goodwin律师事务所）的 Jessica Signor（杰西卡·西格诺尔），代理 Art Wolf, Inc.，以及 Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield（帝国蓝十字蓝盾），后者是其中一名被告使用的营业名称。我将不向法官阁下逐一列举所有曾用名称和现用名称，另外还有 Anthem Health Plans Inc.（Anthem Health Plans公司）。感谢法官阁下听取我们的意见。我们就三名被告提出的异议基本相同。因此，如果法庭允许，我将一并陈述。\n\n法庭：可以。请继续。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 81 of 186\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 82 of 186\n\n西格诺尔律师：法官阁下，与其他撤销被告类似，我方当事人因在正常业务过程中从受托人所称的替身实体收取转移款项而受到诉讼。暂且不论这些问题，以及我方当事人不反对调解并推进调解这一事实，我们代表各撤销被告提出的有限异议基本相同，集中于三点。第一，调解员费用应由受托人与各撤销被告平均分担。第二，要求撤销被告代表和律师亲自到场。第三，是关于调解结果本身的说明，法官阁下。（听不清）第三点，受托人的律师表示，他们已经加入了我认为解决该问题的措辞；与其说是异议，不如说是我们希望明确的一点。但我们认为，该问题已在第二次修订命令中得到解决。\n\n法庭：您——我想您所指的是，我将询问巴塞特律师。我本应在您刚才提到这一点时就问您，巴塞特律师，但我想您所指的是 V 项中的内容？\n\n巴塞特律师：对。\n\n法庭：未能达成和解本身不得构成认定恶意或实施制裁的依据？\n\n巴塞特律师：对。V 项，即 Victor 的 V，最后一句。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，这就解决了您代表当事人提出的其中一项异议理由，西格诺尔律师。对吗？\n\n西格诺尔律师：是的。对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。那么，请继续。\n\n西格诺尔律师：关于第二点，即要求撤销被告代表亲自出席。法官阁下，该要求使当事人——以 Art Wolf 为例——须承担跨越全国的机票费用、住宿费用以及这些人员缺席所造成的时间成本。而且，法官阁下，在当今时代，让这些撤销被告的代表通过电话、远程方式或视频会议出席，很容易解决这一问题。我方当事人并不反对要求律师必须出席，这完全可行。我们认为，调解程序命令应当规定撤销被告代表可以不亲自出席，以避免这些费用。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 83 of 186\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 84 of 186\n\n法官阁下，转向我们的第一点，即关于分担调解员费用。目前，该动议的安排是由受托人与各撤销被告平均分担费用。尽管如此，该动议并未设定任何费用上限。没有关于调解员时薪的说明。如果他们要——我们确实有一位调解员。\n\n而且，尽管调解命令中有一项规定，撤销被告可以证明其存在经济困难，但仅仅必须提出该经济困难证明并向法庭提出该动议的行为，就只会给这些撤销被告产生额外费用。\n\n我们的异议援引了全国范围内的四个案件，在这些案件中存在此类综合撤销诉讼，法庭要求提起这些诉讼的原告承担全部调解费用。我理解，受托人的动议援引了六个不同案件。其中五个，我认为，很容易加以区分。\n\n对于这些案件，如果您查看法庭的命令，它们要求按照固定、可预测的时间表谨慎处理。这不是我们这里的情况。这里只有双方之间的直接平均分担。所援引的另一个案件中，受托人（听不清）所有对抗程序的调解员费用，无论其请求的是 \\$20,000,000 还是更少。\n\n任何超过 \\$20 million 的金额均须依“命令”处理。再次说来，对于这些费用将为何种数额，存在某种可预测性。我相信，受托人援引了一个仅要求直接平均分担的案件，这似乎正是他们在此建议的做法。\n\n从根本上说，法官阁下，起诉在正常业务过程中收取这些转移款项的当事人，与其沟通，对其暂缓诉讼以强制进行调解，然后又强制这些当事人以 50/50 的比例分担费用，这从根本上说是不公平且不平衡的。\n\n我们只是请求，在命令中作出某种费用分担安排，或澄清某些内容，从而使这些费用可能为何种数额具有一定可预测性，而不是如此开放式的安排。\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 法官阁下，这涵盖了我们对异议提出的全部要点。我们仅提请本院注意一项我们无法在周五下午提交的 ECF 编号3105的红线修订稿中处理的问题。我碰巧注意到，我认为其中可能存在某些措辞，会给撤销权被告和受托人造成非预期的歧义。\n\n22 23 24 25 我们很乐意解决该问题，但既然我们正在记录在案，我们想将其一并处理完毕。在 ECF 3105 第39页，似乎有一处，我想，或许最好的解释方式是举例说明。\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第86页，共186页\n\n1 调解转介似乎在提交出庭通知时即被触发，\n\n2 但实际的调解转介要到 May 15th 才会作出。\n3 我们有一些客户目前\n4 其约定中的答复会议期限在\n5 May 15th 之前，这时我们可能会出现这一间隔期。我们只是\n6 不希望出现这样一种情况：调解转介日期——\n7 可能会产生任何形式的违约疑问。\n8 因此，我想也许可能——可能\n9 需要一些澄清性措辞。当然，我们\n10 很乐意与受托人的律师共同拟定该措辞。我\n11 只是想向本院指出这一点。\n12 本院：\n谢谢。\n13 西尼奥尔女士（Ms. Signor）：\n如有帮助，我很乐意回答本院\n14 关于我们异议的任何问题。\n15 本院：\n我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n16 谢谢。巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett），您想对这些\n17 问题作出回应吗？\n首先，显然，其中一个问题已不再是\n18 问题，但关于客户代表远程出席的\n19 问题——\n20 巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：\n是的，法官阁下。我认为\n21 由我现在处理这些问题或许\n22 确实是有意义的，\n23 因为我将提出的意见和建议最终可能会\n24 解决其他当事人可能提出的一些相同异议。\n25\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第87页，共186页\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 关于现场出席，我认为这是调解程序第 2-L 节，其中规定由调解员有权决定调解将通过视频举行，还是现场举行。然后，我认为，调解员还将在第 2-O 段决定地点。\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 因此，倘若个别被告担心其跨越全国出行的能力，例如有人位于 Washington 或 California，他们——来此对他们造成重大困难，我们显然会对此保持灵活性。我也认为坦克雷迪法官（Judge Tancredi）或任何其他调解员也会在此方面保持灵活性。\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 我们不希望做的是，在一开始就允许所有人通过视频参加，因为根据我们的经验，特别是可能在与一些不一定最愿意参与的人打交道时，这样可能不会富有成效。根据我们的经验，当双方当事人和调解员都在同一房间时，成效要大得多。因此，这就是以该方式作出设置的原因。\n\n22 23 24 25 但在实践中，我无法想象这会成为真正的问题，因为，如我所说，我们肯定会对施加于人们的任何重大出行困难保持敏感。而法官最终也将对此作出决定。\n1 坦克雷迪法官将作出决定。\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 本院：嗯，我在看 L，其中写道，调解转介函，即我刚才与您谈到的那封信，说明争议中的请求权，并告知——并就其在随后 60 天内参加调解的能力，以及调解会议应现场举行还是通过视频会议举行，提供建议。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 因此，我想调解函可以请求个人通过——请求客户代表通过视频会议参加。对吗？那不正是——我的意思是，该措辞似乎赋予提出该请求的能力。\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 巴塞特先生：完全正确，法官阁下。当事人共同提交请求表，他们可以提出该请求，而随后一段（听不清）说明，在收到一封信后，坦克雷迪法官将指示调解以现场方式或通过视频会议方式进行。本院：嗯，也许您需要在该段中补充，您知道，如果被告的律师是出庭律师，他们应当预期现场出席，除非调解员另有指示。\n\n23 并且，客户代表可经请求获准\n\n24 25 通过视频会议参加，但其必须是具有和解权限的客户代表。我的意思是，我\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第89页，共186页\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 认为我在这里任何地方都没有看到这一点，对吗？我的意思是，您——您必须有具备和解权限的人。否则，您是在浪费时间。我认为，如果有人出席而其没有和解权限，那么受托人将有问题可提交本院。\n\n7 8 9 巴塞特先生：明白，法官阁下。我手头没有该引用，但我相信我们确实已包含该概念。\n\n10 11 12 13 14 本院：但也许您也需要把它写在那里，这就是我所说的，对吗？我认为不止一名被告提出了关于现场出席的问题。我认为律师应当预期出席，并且我认为坦克雷迪法官会要求律师到场。\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 并且，在某些时候，他可能——他可能会要求客户代表到场。但我认为，客户代表可以从一开始就请求不必到场，只要该客户代表明确说明其具有和解该事项的权限。\n\n21 22 23 24 25 巴塞特先生：我们对此没有异议，法官阁下。本院：我的意思是，我认为您需要——特别是如果——再次说明，我不知道将一贯被归入什么类别。但如果有一名被告随后被描述为正常业务过程被告，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第90页，共186页\n\n1 2 3 4 对吗，那可能是与其他一些撤销权争议完全不同类型的调解。因此，无论如何，我认为如果您补充该措辞——西尼奥尔律师（Attorney Signor），那是否解决了您的关切？\n5 6 西尼奥尔女士：是的，法官阁下。我相信那将解决我们的关切。\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 本院：而且我确实认为，即使采用本命令目前的措辞，您也可以在最初的信函中提出该请求；我认为那将是提出请求的时机，因为坦克雷迪法官会阅读该信函，并决定他将如何处理调解。\n\n西尼奥尔女士：是的，法官阁下。\n14 15 16 17 本院：所以我认为这是公平的。我不认为这是不合理的，巴塞特律师，而且您似乎也不认为这不合理。或者我应当以肯定方式说，您似乎同意这并非不合理。\n\n巴塞特先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n19 20 21 22 23 本院：好的，很好。好。那么这解决了远程出席的问题。但是，关于费用，巴塞特律师，您目前对那里（听不清）以及调解费用有何回应？\n\n24 25 巴塞特先生：因此，我的回应是，法官阁下，受托人听到了所提出的问题。但我们也\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第91页，共186页\n\n1 2 3 4 认为该问题无需在今天作出决定，因为坦率地说，它目前不是一个问题。我们此前讨论的事项之一是，调解小组可能会，也可能不会成立。\n\n5 6 7 8 9 最初，所有调解将由坦克雷迪法官监督，其对该程序的监督不会产生任何费用。如果且当调解小组成立时，该小组将须经本院批准。\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 并且，如所述及修订命令所示，任何被告届时均可提出异议，包括如果其届时希望对小组拟议调解员涉及的费用或收费安排，以及要求其分担该等费用提出异议。我们很乐意加入权利保留条款。\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 本院：我认为这将解决问题，目前作出权利保留。因为这就是我最初询问调解小组的原因，巴塞特律师，也就是可能不会有小组。如果没有小组且由坦克雷迪法官处理这些事项，那么处理这些事项就没有费用。\n\n22 23 24 25 但我也理解，如果有调解小组，被指定的人员将希望获得报酬的关切。因此，我认为如果您加入保留权利的措辞，我认为这是可接受的解决办法，可处理\n\n92 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 您——您提出异议的其他依据。西尼奥尔女士：是的，法官阁下。我认为如果将来成为问题，我们可以在其他时间再处理。 本院：好的。很好。那么我认为，关于阿特·沃尔夫（Art Wolf）在 ECF 3083 中提出的异议，以及安瑟姆医疗保健保险公司（Anthem Healthcare Assurance Inc.）在 3084 中提出的异议，该等异议均已按我们在庭审记录中所述得到解决。 西尼奥尔女士：谢谢，法官阁下。 本院：好的。谢谢。 德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：法官阁下，如果可以，我想就此作一个总体说明。我无意设立一个小组。为每一个此类——例如，我总是以联邦快递（Federal Express）为例，因为它们是实际被告。为联邦快递和 UPS（联合包裹服务公司）分别进行调解没有意义。所有这些潜在的（听不清）应被确定其是否属于正常业务过程，并被归入同一类别，特别是如果它们是申请破产后受让人或申请破产前受让人。其理念是建立类别。这样，坦克雷迪法官便可与它们作为一组开展工作。但如果我们有 290 场单独调解，该程序就不会运作良好。因此，我确实希望确保本院了解总体方向。当然，法官\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第92页，共186页\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第93页，共186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 坦克雷迪将作出决定，但从总体方向上说，我们不赞成进行单独调解。在大多数案件中，那将耗时、费用高昂且没有必要。 本院：好的。谢谢。我的意思是，我认为根据我们先前的听证会，我不认为有人曾以为我们会进行 275 场单独调解。好的。但我们需要确保程序足够清楚，同时仍向作为调解员的坦克雷迪法官提供一定的灵活性和控制权。好吗？好。那么下一事项，下一异议方是马卡姆律师事务所（Markham LLP），即 ECF 编号3088。 戈特斯曼先生（Mr. Gottesman）：下午好，法官阁下。 本院：下午好。 戈特斯曼先生：再次说明，我是明茨和戈尔德律师事务所（Mintz and Gold）的安德鲁·戈特斯曼（Andrew Gottesman），代表马卡姆有限责任公司（Markham, LLC）。我们刚刚提交了一份实质上相似的异议，即使不是几乎完全相同的异议，也是为福克斯新闻网络（Fox News Network）提交的。我认为它们是在同一天提交的。因此，如有可能，就将它们一并处理。 本院：是的。您说得对。福克斯新闻的异议是 3089。因此，请继续。您当然可以将二者一并陈述。 戈特斯曼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法官阁下，正如我们此前在上一次状态会议上所述，我们并不反对通过调解（听不清）调解。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 已提交 04/30/24 已登记 04/30/24 08:17:20 第94页，共186页\n\n1 这在这种情况下是一件好事。\n\n然而，受托人已颁布的程序遗漏了对所有撤销诉讼被告的一些重要——一些重要的程序性保护。具体而言，我们认为，并且我们已在异议中提出，也随异议提交了程序的修订稿，我们认为，Tancredi 法官或调解员就该程序所作的任何建议，均应经过通知和异议期限。\n\n其原因有二，法官阁下。第一，可能存在会影响我方当事人以及所有被告、所有撤销诉讼被告权利的实体问题，而这些问题可能涉及该建议的内容（听不清）。例如，分类本身没有问题。但对于被归入某一类别而非另一类别，可能会有异议，尤其是涉及权利主张人时。调解中可能披露某些信息，而某些当事人和某些被告不希望在群体环境中披露这些信息。这样做可能会产生商业上的影响。\n\n因此，我们所请求的只是，在任何类型的建议获批准之前，我们——我所说的“我们”不只是指我方——我的意思是所有被告，都有机会向法院提出异议，针对其认为会从商业角度或法律角度对其造成不利影响的建议内容提出异议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 95 页，共 186 页\n\n我还认为，这也是我方案件中的情况，但我相信，这种程序将使本法院能够无限期地更容易就该程序作出决定。按照目前的情况——按照目前程序的起草方式，如果某一撤销诉讼被告对 Tancredi 法官或其他调解员之一所作建议中的某项内容存在问题，则该被告须承担主动向法院提出动议以处理该问题的负担。\n\n我的意思是，我认为很显然这可能会导致什么结果，即 270 名被告，针对不同问题提出 270 项不同动议，全部排在不同的日程上。如果存在一种机制，即由调解员提出建议，而该建议须经过异议期限，那么，您知道，所有问题都可以一次解决。非常清楚，在一次听证中解决，之后一切即可继续推进，不会因法院在不同日期审理不同问题的多项动议而造成重大延误。\n\n因此，我们认为，无论从程序角度还是技术角度，所有撤销诉讼被告均应获准收到有关建议的通知，而这一点他们在程序中已有规定。但随后，他们还应有机会，在某个期限内——不必是很长的期限，但应有一定期限——就该程序中的具体事项提出异议，并将这些事项提交法院。如果当事人无法解决，那么将在法官阁下面前进行（听不清），法官阁下可以决定您认为正确的处理方式。我们认为，这比要求被告就其反对某一调解员所作建议中的事项，主动向法院提出动议的程序好得多。因此，这就是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 96 页，共 186 页\n\n这就是我们第一点的实质，我认为——\n\n法院：那么，让我就第一点问你一个问题。\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：当然。\n\n法院：我认为我理解你的观点，但我不确定它是否确实应适用于那些尚未对调解程序提出异议的人。这正是提出本程序、使这些命令得以送达并就此再举行一次听证的意义所在。对吗？我的意思是，我认为你可以提出这一论点。你已经提出异议了，对吗？\n\n而且我——我理解你的异议。但是，当你说代表所有其他被告时，鉴于我们截至目前所经历的程序，我不确定这是否准确。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 97 页，共 186 页\n\n如果有人有你所担忧的问题，我认为其论点应当是：他们本应在本法院先前作出的命令所规定的期限内提交异议，才能走到我们今天所处的位置。因此，我并不是说我以任何方式完全不同意你的观点，但我是说，我认为你不能代表其他人提出这一观点。你可能不同意我这一点，但这正是再次举行听证的全部意义所在。我的意思是，其目的在于，如同我们在破产案件的许多情形中所做的那样，厘清谁对该情况存在问题。你已正当地提交了异议。因此，对于你两名当事人的异议，我没有任何问题。但我理解你就你本人、你当事人所作的论点；不过，我认为，如果你将其适用于所有未提交异议的人，情况可能会更加混乱。\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：（听不清）我的意思是，我在这里是为我的两名当事人进行辩论，我同意您的判断。显然，由于此事在此，我们仍会对受托人提出的任何事项提出异议。我只是认为，如果将其写入程序之中，其适用范围会更广。而且我认为，今天的讨论主要是关于程序，而我坦率地认为，该建议将更多地涉及实体问题。对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 98 页，共 186 页\n\n因此，例如，如果调解员说，我们希望将所有这类权利主张合并诉讼。这将影响一份人员名单。但这些人可能有具体理由，从实体角度反对此做法。现在，如果法官阁下要说他们现在就应当到场，我不认为我会不同意。但我只是认为，这是唯一——我认为其可能具有更广泛的适用，我试图不让我的担忧过于局限于自身。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为问题在于，为尚未提出异议的人设立一个程序，使其随后能够对——这将永无止境。这不是调解应当做的事情。这是调解。对吗？它不具有约束力。它所说的并不具有约束力。\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：绝对不具有约束力，法官阁下。\n\n法院：所以，我认为——对于除你所代表当事人以外的任何其他当事人，我不确定我已被说服接受你的论点。但请继续。我只是想指出这一点。好的，请继续。\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：可以，法官阁下。如果它只适用于我的当事人，如果您认为（听不清），我完全可以接受。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 99 页，共 186 页\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：我们在异议中提出的另一点是，现行程序将反对指派某一特定调解员处理某一特定案件的理由，限定为利益冲突。通常，在调解中，当事人会聚在一起，显然，这里是不同的情形。但如法院非常清楚，在典型的调解中，当事人会聚在一起。通常会有三或四名调解员的名单，在讨论（听不清）授权，并且他们必须同意实际由谁来完成这项工作。除利益冲突外，一个人可能可以接受或不可以接受，还有许多其他理由。在这里，根据程序，所有被告获准提出异议的事项，仅是某一特定调解员是否存在利益冲突。我们认为，这一范围应当更广，我们应获准以任何理由反对由该调解员调解我们的特定案件。以任何理由。\n\n法院：那么，还会有什么其他理由？\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：通常，我见过这样一些情形，比如说，某一特定调解员写过一篇文章，特别是，比如说，我不想称之为——\n\n法院：关于撤销诉讼吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 100 页，共 186 页\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：当然。谁知道呢？全国各地有许多法律评论文章。\n\n法院：这是真的。这是真的。\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：因此，如果某一特定调解员曾采取与我某一当事人的立场特别敌对的立场，我至少希望有机会说，我更愿意由其他人来调解此事，以确保我们——我们能得到公平对待，并有最佳机会实现成功调解。我们不希望这样做却像用头撞墙一样，我相信这也不是受托人希望做的。我们希望进行对我方当事人有利的调解（听不清）。此外，（听不清）每个人的目标都是实现一场可辩护的调解。\n\n因此，如果有一个调解员小组，我们希望能够进行选择。所以，如果 Tancredi 法官是唯一的调解员，那么这实际上不是一个会产生影响的问题，因为 Tancredi 法官就是那个人，他就是。但如果有一个调解员小组，我们希望有机会说，我们希望由这一位而不是那一位，或由另一位而不是某一特定人士来处理。\n\n并且至少提出这一担忧，以便法官阁下能将其提交法院，并决定我们的担忧是否有效、是否无效、是否有充分依据，或者您是否要驳回我们的担忧。但这就是另一点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 101 页，共 186 页\n\n我们在异议中指出的最后一点也涉及我方当事人的出席，但并非——并非仅限于亲自出席。我所获得的印象可能有误，但我对此的感觉是，尤其是如果您要将权利主张合并在一起，这些调解将是一个过程，而非一次性的调解。\n\n而且，就我方当事人而言，我们所讨论的一些金额以及一些问题，可能需要他们连续数日参加调解。您知道，他们中的许多人担任相当重要的职务，还有许多其他事情要做。我们认为，这最终是他们不应当需要承担的负担。\n\n现在，我同意需要有人具有和解授权，但那个人可以是律师。这并不罕见。并且程序中可以规定，如同我们在每一个法庭上所见的那样，我确信在法官阁下面前也是如此，（听不清）等待回电，以获得额外授权来作出变更。\n\n这不应当足以拖慢进程。反过来，负担则全都落在程序上。\n\n法院：嗯，我不认为——我认为你已经听我说过，我不认为当事人必须亲自到场，并且可以提出该请求，这是第一点。但我们都——我也曾参与过调解，律师说我需要去打电话给我的当事人以取得额外授权，然后八小时后才得到消息。事情不会这样运作。必须有人能够取得联系并拥有授权。否则，这就——您知道。\n\n我理解，人们有时不喜欢调解，也不愿作出那种决定。但你一开始就说，你的客户并不反对调解，那么这就是调解的一部分。他们必须能够联络到，并且必须做好准备。我不希望有人等上一天、两天、三天或四天，才知道他们是否有权解决该问题。事情不会这样进行。\n\n否则，就没有意义了，完全没有意义。我们就开始安排审前会议。这不是问题，我们可以这么做。然后我们就可以按照民事诉讼的正常程序推进。\n\n因此，尽管我认为你提出的问题——我认为你的客户不需要能够联络到并亲自出席。可能是两名不同的人，在两个不同的日期。我不知道。但只要他们获得某位有权人士的授权，并且能够使你们的客户受约束——即在达成解决方案时——那么我认为这就是调解的一部分。\n案件 22-50073，文档 3150，于 04/30/24 提交，于 04/30/24 08:17:20 登记，第 103 页，共 186 页\n\n否则，我们就不会取得多大进展。因此，尽管我理解你关于远程出席的论点，但我不认为应当免除你们客户参加调解。我认为，如果一开始就说客户被免于参加调解，那又何必进行呢？没有意义。随着调解的进行，Tancredi法官（Judge Tancredi）可以酌情考虑相关情况。\n\n这正是他可以做的事情。我们在这里所要做的一部分，就是不要让每一个步骤都被确定下来，因为他是调解员。对吗？他必须具有灵活性。他必须以其认为适当的方式控制程序。\n\n但是，我不同意应自动将客户排除在外。如果这是所持立场，那么我——那么，你知道，也许你们可以选择退出，因为这对我而言没有意义。客户必须了解正在发生什么。他们工作繁重，而且他们有——我理解这一点。Tancredi法官也理解，但他愿意抽出时间来做这件事，或者希望推动程序进展，从而使你们的客户不必花费他们可能不得不为应诉本案而花费的费用。也许他们确实将不得不花钱。\n\n我并不是说这是必然的，但这就是重点。对吗？重点是设法提供一种途径，在两三年后无需开庭审理即可解决这些事项。反正也不会那么久。\n案件 22-50073，文档 3150，于 04/30/24 提交，于 04/30/24 08:17:20 登记，第 104 页，共 186 页\n\n但我的意思是，如果你考虑最坏的情形。对吗？因此，关于我已经就客户远程出席所说的内容，我认为提出该请求的时机是在提交给Tancredi法官的调解函中。但是——不过我不——我会感到惊讶。我从未见过调解员在调解一开始就说客户可以免于参加。我从未见过这种情况。也许我——也许只是，你知道，这是我所参与的那类调解，但我从未见过这种情况。对我而言，这并不支持该程序。\n\n现在，可能会到某个时候，你们可以向Tancredi法官提出该请求。我的客户已经在这里九天了，什么都没有发生。你知道？他需要在这里或那里。我不知道。也许有办法做到这一点。\n\n但是，我不——我不认为这是开始的方式。因此，我不支持该——该立场。我支持被告可以询问调解员，拥有和解授权的客户代表是否可以远程待命。但同样，这意味着能够联络到。这并不意味着我在开会五个小时，无法回应你。这意味着该人士有义务能够联络到。因此，这就是我的——我想我就此为你作出裁定。我满足了你一半的要求，但没有满足另一半。好吗？\n\nGottesman先生（MR. GOTTESMAN）：可以接受，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。我表示歉意。在我听取Bassett律师（Attorney Bassett）的陈述之前，你们还有其他希望主张的理由吗？\n\nGottesman先生：那就是我们的三项异议。我将坚持这些异议，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nGottesman先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：Bassett律师？\n\nBassett律师：是，法官阁下。因此，我认为，就我而言，尚有两个问题。第一个问题是，律师已经提到的，而我不知道——\n\n法院：存在利益冲突问题。对吗？也就是说，他希望能够说，我不想要那位调解员，不只是因为存在利益冲突，还因为他认为存在其他对其客户不利的问题。\n\nBassett律师：正确。\n\n法院：（听不清）调解小组。\n\nBassett律师：是的。关于该问题，我认为该安排的设计方式是，还是那样，他们可以提出异议。可能不会有调解小组。如果有调解小组，该小组将提交法院批准。届时，如果某一方认为该小组中拟议的一名成员不是合适的调解员，因为该人士就其过去的观点或其所撰写的文章等方面存在偏见，那么届时他们可以提出异议。\n案件 22-50073，文档 3150，于 04/30/24 提交，于 04/30/24 08:17:20 登记，第 105 页，共 186 页\n案件 22-50073，文档 3150，于 04/30/24 提交，于 04/30/24 08:17:20 登记，第 106 页，共 186 页\n\n法院：但命令中没有这样说。目前只说利益冲突。因此，也许你们需要扩大该内容以回应这一关切，这样你们就不必担心这一点。同时，我同意，如果并且在设立调解小组时，该问题将被提出。\n\nBassett律师：那么——我们很乐意作出该项修改，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBassett律师：我想处理的另一个问题是——我很抱歉，律师所提出问题的范围对我而言并非完全清楚，但我听到他所说的是，每当Tancredi法官就调解应如何进行提出建议时，包括就分组或调解程序中的其他机制提出建议时。\n\n现在，应向法院提交一项动议，且包括客户在内的每个人都应有机会提出异议。出于我马上要谈到的理由，我们认为这完全不可行。\n\n法院：嗯，我也不认为这可行。我想我已经说过了。\n案件 22-50073，文档 3150，于 04/30/24 提交，于 04/30/24 08:17:20 登记，第 107 页，共 186 页\n\nBassett律师：明白，法官阁下。但是，如果律师所说的是，在Tancredi法官就对抗程序应如何进行诉讼向本法院提出建议的范围内，例如暂停某些程序等等，而我们已经讨论过这一点。我们已经加入了一项修改，明确允许各方就此陈述意见，因为这类影响诉讼后续路径的建议，必须提交法院，以使被告有机会作出回应。\n\n我不会进一步讨论其他问题，我认为法院在这些问题上同意我的意见；即，该安排旨在建立一个框架，对吗？一个由受托人、被告和Tancredi法官可以共同运作的框架，以便尽可能高效地、并希望尽可能富有成效地调解这些方案。\n\n程序中必须具有一定的灵活性，或者由调解员决定该程序将如何运行。如果每次就特定的——你知道——调解程序可能如何构建提出建议时，都必须回到法官阁下面前，并让每个人都有机会提出异议，那将完全不可行。我们实际上会不断回到这里举行这种听证。\n\n因此，我不认为受托人可以接受该项修改。但是，同样，我认为另一项问题，即与后续诉讼有关的问题，已有法院批准程序。我将就调解员及提出异议的能力作出修改。我认为这将解决所有剩余问题。\n\n法院：律师是否同意这解决了你们的问题？\n\nGottesman先生：除第一个问题外，法官阁下。\n\n法院：除关于Tancredi法官建议的问题外。\n\nGottesman先生：是。这些是就调解应如何推进而向法官阁下提出的具体建议。换言之，那将不是建议，而会是Tancredi法官的命令或本法院的命令。因此，我认为在那种情形下——也许适用于某些人，不适用于所有人，但适用于本案中的任何人。我们不认为Tancredi法官或受托人每次想做某件事时都必须提交动议。但如果有一项建议说，所有这些特定对抗程序，以下是所有案号，它们都将以这种方式推进，那么在该建议成为——并且在其成为我们对抗程序中的本案既定法律之前——我们至少应当得到通知并有机会陈述意见。那么其他人的对抗程序怎么办？至少在我们的对抗程序中，我们希望并且认为正确的是，至少有机会请求法官阁下说，没办法。我听取了你们的异议，但我不同意。我将接受Tancredi法官的建议。照此执行。这显然——这就是您所做的事情。对吗？您每天都这样做。因此，我们所说的是，我们希望至少有机会获得陈述意见的机会，尤其是对于可能对我们客户产生实质影响的事项，例如分组，例如典型索赔计费、基于索赔的分组，以及与2、3、4、5、10、50名不同被告共同调解。所有这类事项至少都应当允许我们陈述意见，而不应由他人单方面决定，并由法官阁下作出最终决定。\n案件 22-50073，文档 3150，于 04/30/24 提交，于 04/30/24 08:17:20 登记，第 109 页，共 186 页\n\n法院：Bassett律师。\n\nBassett律师：法官阁下，同样，这旨在建立一个框架。在Tancredi法官希望就特定调解将如何推进提出建议的范围内，无论是分组还是其他方式，该安排预期他需要具有作出该等决定的灵活性。该安排并不预期他每次想提出一项——\n\n法院：我认为律师所说的不是这个。我认为律师所说的是，如果一项——\n案件 22-50073，文档 3150，于 04/30/24 提交，于 04/30/24 08:17:20 登记，第 110 页，共 186 页\n\n如作出某项建议，则该建议会影响——因为该建议只会涉及你们的当事人——影响其代表当事人的对抗程序。他有权了解该建议为何——他有权决定是否可以对该建议提出异议。我的意思是，我将要——但我必须——必须谨慎处理，因为该建议必须是关于程序的建议。对吗？我的意思是，他不会就实体问题提出建议，他将就程序提出建议。他会说——Tancredi 法官（坦克雷迪法官）会说，举例而言，这20个对抗程序都具有同一——我只是举例。明白吗？同一个法律问题，而我将在未来三周内的这些调解会议中全部将其处理完毕。律师所说的是，他希望知道这一点，并希望能够对此提出异议。这就是他的意思。DESPINS 先生（德斯潘先生）：法官阁下——法院：这是你的意思吗？GOTTESMAN 先生（戈特斯曼先生）：完全正确，法官阁下。DESPINS 先生：Tancredi 法官向法官阁下提出一项建议，与——我认为，如果您决定不知道 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）是谁的被告是否能够被追究责任，您将推动本案进展——这是有区别的。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3150，提交日期 04/30/24，录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 111 页，共 186 页\n\n责任。明白吗？我只是以此为例。该问题应当全天审理。但如果 Tancredi 法官说，我只是——我认为，我处理调解的方式应当是设立这些类别之类的，那么您不应当必须到法院寻求对该做法的批准。那是他的调解。法院：不过，他不会为此寻求批准。DESPINS 先生：好的。法院：我绝不会要求 Tancredi 法官为此寻求批准。DESPINS 先生：正是如此。所以这就是为什么——法院：我从律师那里听到的唯一一点是，他希望有机会说，我不同意 Tancredi 法官正在做的事情。我可能同意他，也可能不同意他。我不知道。我甚至不确定我是否已经到了那一步。但是，我——为明确起见，我不会批准或不批准 Tancredi 法官决定采取何种方式进行调解。这不会发生。明白吗？如果我要介入此事，他必须有正当理由，而我尚未——我们现在正在讨论这个问题。对吗？我必须——我必须有正当理由，说明你为什么认为你不应当参加该程序。正如我所说，当你谈到其他事项时，也许你只需选择退出。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3150，提交日期 04/30/24，录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 112 页，共 186 页\n\n我不知道。但关键在于，我不会就你是否有依据说“我不想被纳入那个类别”举行大量听证。对我而言，很难——很难想到你为什么不愿意——除了你已经提出的、我理解的有关一名调解员，尤其是特定调解员的问题之外，你不被纳入那个类别的理由会是什么。明白吗？我认为该问题已通过以下方式得到解决：我们将修改命令中的措辞，而且不再仅仅基于利益冲突。也可以基于其他问题。理由会是什么？你能举一个例子吗？GOTTESMAN 先生：嗯，正如我在书面文件中所说，法官阁下，在集体环境中，尤其当你——法院：但那是保护令问题。那就是你不想披露有关你当事人所做事情的信息。对吗？这就是你的——难道这不是你在说的吗？你不想——你不想让他们的任何商业交易或流程，或政策和程序，成为当事方的——成为集体调解的一部分。我认为 Tancredi 法官能够处理这个问题。他能够处理。他可以说，律师，我听到你的意见。我们不希望讨论 Markham（马克姆）的内部政策和程序。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3150，提交日期 04/30/24，录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 113 页，共 186 页\n\n在整个集体面前讨论。他可以说，我将只与你举行一次单独会议。GOTTESMAN 先生：我同意，法官阁下。我认为，尽管——法院：而这正是他会做的事。所以你告诉他这一点。你不需要告诉法院。你可以告诉他。你可以说，Tancredi 法官，我明白这是您希望推进的方式，但我不能在本次调解中具体谈论我当事人的商业惯例，因为我们认为该信息受到保护并享有特权，或者无论你想如何称呼它，均源于我们的商业经营。我们认为不应当与该集体共享。我坦率地说——我无法想象 Tancredi 法官会不同意你。GOTTESMAN 先生：法官阁下，我——法院：他会与你进行沟通。对吗？我认为——本次会议——仅仅因为可能会有集体会议，并不意味着不会有他把你带进一个房间并说，我只与这个人谈话的时候。这种情况——一直都会发生。GOTTESMAN 先生：我同意。而且我——而且我认为，我和我们显然都希望 Tancredi 法官会恰好如此处理，并且预期他会如此处理（听不清）。法院：他是一位经验丰富的调解员。GOTTESMAN 先生：完全是这样。\n\n法院：他将——他将能够——GOTTESMAN 先生：（听不清）——法院：这不会是他第一次处理复杂调解。GOTTESMAN 先生：这毫无疑问完全正确。我所说的只是，按照目前所写的程序，对于 Tancredi 法官不同意我们的事项，没有任何办法加以处理，而我们希望将其提交给——法院：那么，我会让你做任何你认为适当的事。我认为我们无需将其写入这项动议——或者命令中。如果你希望——或者命令。如果你希望到我面前来说他在做不适当的事，你知道，这件事会——可能会得到审理。我不知道。但我们不能从一开始就扼杀这个程序，这就是——我理解，而且我认为，从律师的角度而言，你对当事人商业经营的担忧是正当的。我并非——我没有任何——我不认为那是毫无根据的担忧，但我不认为应当因为那种情况可能发生而设立一个程序。它可能发生，也可能不会发生。对吗？GOTTESMAN 先生：我希望我们永远不必走到那一步。我们可以与 Tancredi 法官沟通。我确信我们可以。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3150，提交日期 04/30/24，录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 114 页，共 186 页\n\n法院：我确信你们可以。GOTTESMAN 先生：并且能够解决该问题，但存在无法解决的情形。我所说的只是——法院：届时，你将必须提出你必须提出的任何主张。GOTTESMAN 先生：而我试图——我所说的是，届时我们还将承担积极义务，到法官阁下面前提出任何其他——法院：无论如何，你都将承担到我面前提出申请的积极义务。GOTTESMAN 先生：但是，如果有这个——如果有异议期，如果有七天异议期，您就可以一次性将它们全部解决。法院：我告诉你该怎么办。我告诉你该怎么办。至少就我在本案中的经验而言，当人们向受托人及其律师提出问题时，提出问题的律师一直都非常合理，并且已经解决了绝大多数问题，即使在争议极其、极其、极其激烈的情况下也是如此。这是调解。我认为你们能够解决。我不认为这需要成为本命令的一部分。如果你——我就是不这么认为。而且如果——但如果你觉得自己未受到适当对待，那么就提交动议。你——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3150，提交日期 04/30/24，录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 115 页，共 186 页\n\n知道，如果你因为认为 Despins 受托人没有考虑你对当事人商业政策的担忧而不出席调解，他能怎么办？他不会——我的意思是，他能做什么？他毫无办法。这是——这是不具约束力的调解。什么——你不可能受到制裁。我们已经讨论过这一点。对吗？你不可能受到制裁。你不可能被认定为恶意行事。你不可能——我认为，这是一个我预计律师应当能够在无需法院介入的情况下解决的问题。\n\nGOTTESMAN 先生：法官阁下，我完全同意，我只想指出两点。第一，在我们提交异议之前，我们确实向受托人发送了意见，但从未收到回复。因此，尽管我认为受托人的律师通常是合理的，我不认为我可以依赖这一点。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为这是一个强烈的表述，所以先等一下。明白吗？我认为这是一个强烈的表述。有——我不想介入——我不想——如果我们从那里开始，你现在就应当将自己排除在外。明白吗？因为这不是启动调解的方式。有275个对抗程序，不管你喜不喜欢。我理解你不在乎。你只在乎你的——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3150，提交日期 04/30/24，录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 117 页，共 186 页\n\n两个。那也是一个公平的观点。那是一个公平的观点。但我必须顾及整体。对吗？而且我不认为说你不能依赖他们是公平的。\n\n这是一个强烈的表述。我认为你可以说的是，我们提出了意见。我们没有收到回复。因此，我觉得我别无选择，只能告诉您，法官，这就是我们的立场。\n\n好的。你已经告诉我了。我告诉你，律师应当能够解决这个问题。你有一个——如果不能，那么就做任何你认为适当的事。法院将按照程序，以法院认为适当的任何方式采取行动。但我认为，这是一个并非问题的问题。\n\n这不是本法院的问题。我无法想象它会从 Tancredi 法官的角度成为问题。我就是无法想象。也许我是错的。所以你知道吗？这不会是第一次，也不会是最后一次，但这是调解。这不是诉讼。这不是我进去，然后我要向 Tancredi 法官论证为什么我不应当支付一分钱，以及为什么他们所说的一切都是错的。如果那是立场，那么就将自己排除在外，因为那不是调解。那不是调解。这种调解旨在达成一个结果。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3150，提交日期 04/30/24，录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 118 页，共 186 页\n\n我们不会就——你知道——嗯，你明白我的意思，律师。我不想就此继续说下去。但我认为——我认为，你的问题能够并且应当由作为调解员的 Tancredi 法官解决。如果存在调解小组，而你有任何其他此类担忧，我认为这是正当的，我们可以在其发生时或如其发生时处理。\n\n但除此之外，我认为你有权选择退出。我的意思是，你有权说，我不想成为其中一部分。但如果你要成为其中一部分，你就必须成为其所是的——（听不清）调解的一部分。明白吗？这是我就该问题作出的裁定。\n\n我不会设立这样一种程序，即由Tancredi法官（Tancredi）提出某项建议，然后必须向所有人发出通知，接着你们就可以——首先，这并非向所有人发出通知，而只是向提出异议的一方发出通知。我已经作出了该项裁定。但是，关于你们将要——你们可以和不可以做什么，对抗程序或主案件中的每一方当事人均有权依据《破产法典》请求破产法院召开会议。法院可能不同意，也可能不准许你们召开该会议，但你们享有该项权利。\n\n因此，我认为你们就这些问题所享有的权利已得到保留。因此，我不会沿着那些思路修改该命令。可以吗？我只是——我不认为这是某种——不过你们可以证明我是错的。你们可以到庭向我说明，为何我刚刚作出的所有决定都是错误的。如果你们能够做到，那么我会重新考虑。但在你们能够做到之前，我不会重新考虑。可以吗？\n\nGottesman先生（戈特斯曼）：可以，法官阁下。我希望这永远不会发生。\n\n法庭：我希望——我也希望不会。我确实认为Tancredi法官能够处理此事，确实如此。你们可以通过告诉Tancredi法官你们需要处理该问题来处理。对吗？因此，我认为会没问题。\n\nBassett先生（巴塞特）：法官阁下，我想在一点上更正记录。\n\n法庭：好的。请讲。\n\nLinsey先生（林赛）：我们已就其异议与回避被告进行了远超过十余次的电话会议。我们收到了Gottesman先生以修订痕迹稿形式发送的书面异议。未曾请求召开电话会议。我于2024年4月10日回复Gottesman先生，称这是一份经进一步修订、受托人可以接受的拟议命令，其中考虑了您当事人的反馈意见。该命令的进一步版本明确排除了Gottesman先生发送给我的修订痕迹稿中的许多修改，并邀请他，如其希望与我们进一步讨论该事项，他可以这样做，或者不应利用——\n\n（声音重叠）\n\nLinsey先生：因此，当然，我们已经——\n\n法庭：我明白。我明白。我确实明白，而且我不想再在这件事上花更多时间。可以吗？我认为我们需要进入问题的实质部分。但我明白。\n\nLinsey先生：（无法辨认）。\n\n法庭：我明白。好的。那么，关于Markham（马克汉姆）和Fox News Network（福克斯新闻网络）的异议，即关于应给予时间以接收Tancredi法官建议的通知并对其提出异议的异议，我现驳回该异议，但前提是，如果你们确实认为在调解过程中发生了这种情况，那么你们有权向本院寻求救济。法院是否同意你们，取决于你们请求的救济。可以吗？关于利益冲突的问题，Bassett律师同意修改该命令。Bassett律师——即如有一个调解员小组，被告对调解员提出异议的能力并不仅限于利益冲突。如果他们能够证明存在某种偏见或其他情况，例如，他们与Fox News或Markham存在竞争关系或类似情况，我不知道，那么这也可以构成依据。因此，Bassett律师，你们会修改该措辞吗？\n\nBassett先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。然后，关于当事人能够远程参加和/或获准免于参加的问题，我已经裁定，当事人除非且直至获调解员准许，否则不得免于参加。并且，在发送给Tancredi法官的那封信，即转介函中，是你们的当事人请求可以远程参加且不必亲自出席调解会议的时候。\n\n可以吗？因此，我认为这解决了你们所有的关切。对吗？\n\nGottesman先生：是的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。非常感谢。下一项是Blueberry Builders LLC（蓝莓建筑有限责任公司），即ECF number 3091。下午好。请您再次陈述您的姓名以供记录，好吗？\n\nOden女士（奥登）：好的。Amy Oden，O-D-E-N。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nOden女士：Pashman and Stein（帕什曼与斯坦律师事务所）代表Blueberry Builders LLC出庭。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nOden女士：我们就案卷编号3091的程序动议提交了有限异议。我们上周与受托人进行了讨论，并且通过澄清性措辞及经修订的拟议命令，能够解决我们几乎所有的异议。\n\n唯一仍然存在的问题不属于今日应处理的事项，但我们只是希望保留我们就密封起诉状所享有的权利。我们保留以下权利：我们认为，不应仅为了查明我们将会（无法辨认）的内容而被要求签署该项广泛的保护令；就我们当事人的案件而言，该内容实际上仅是一份转账明细表。但我们理解，这是保护令当事人之间的问题。\n\n而且，这同样不会妨碍任何程序于今日获准。但我们只是希望保留我们在该事项上的权利。\n\n法庭：明白。谢谢。\n\nOden女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Bassett律师，您有任何回应吗？\n\nBassett先生：有。没有问题，法官阁下。事实上，我们正在准备一项动议，以修改保护令的某些方面，我们将在适当时候向贵院提交。但我认为，我们能够解决当事人就保密问题可能存在的任何问题。但是，当然，必须保留某种形式的保护令，以用于调解。\n\n法庭：那么，我对此只有一个问题。我认为这没有问题。那么，您是否尚未看过付款明细表？您是这个意思吗？\n\nOden女士：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，Bassett律师，您需要处理该问题。\n\nBassett先生：是的，法官阁下。我想唯一的问题是，不能达到律师所建议的程度。不能让他们仅仅收到已经根据现有保护令提供并被指定为保密的事项或材料，而他们本人并未同意受该保护令约束，或者本院并未修改现有保护令以解除该指定。我们确实计划在我刚刚提到的即将提交的动议中特别处理这一问题，即许多银行和其他当事人将银行对账单指定为高度保密，而我们认为该等材料不应被指定为高度保密，因为显然另一方的负责人或当事人需要查看这些交易。我们确实打算处理该问题，但显然必须有保护令在效。现有保护令在本院修改之前持续有效。\n\n法庭：明白。那么，律师，目前这就解决了你们的问题。当然，视提交的文件而定，你们将能够对此作出答复或回应。但我明白你们的观点。\n\nOden女士：是的。\n\n法庭：可以吗？这就是我提出该问题的原因。您看过你们的明细表吗？您还没有看过。因此，必须以某种方式解决该问题，我会让律师们解决。关于你们的异议，还有其他希望陈述的事项吗？\n\nOden女士：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么，这——再次说明，我已经讨论过的异议，要么已被驳回，要么已通过将对调解程序命令和/或主案件中现行保护令作出的进一步修改得到解决。\n\nOden女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。下一事项，Lester Hill Informatics（莱斯特·希尔信息学公司）的事项已由提出异议的一方撤回。该事项于今日撤回。该异议为3093，并于3116撤回。下一事项是Nardello and Company LLC（纳德洛公司有限责任公司），即ECF number 3095。Baer律师（贝尔），看来——哦，您是否还有另一项也——\n\nBaer先生：是的，法官阁下。实际上，还有另外两项。我们代表Nardello and Company、（无法辨认）Phoenix（菲尼克斯），以及Post Oak Motors（波斯特奥克汽车公司）提交了文件，它们实质上完全相同。因此，我相信法院可以一并处理所有这些事项。\n\n法庭：那么，我们将一并处理ECF numbers 3095、3096和3097的异议。Baer律师，请讲。\n\nBaer先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我们提出的许多问题已经由法院和律师处理。仅有少数额外问题，其中一些问题实际上可能已经提出。我认为，也许最合理的是，先讨论一项我认为属于事务性的问题。本院在本次听证会开始时提出的问题之一，涉及究竟哪些事项被转介调解。根据我对该命令的理解，我认为这只是起草问题，其中有3-A和3-B，3-A是我认为被称为已中止的回避请求事项。另有3-B，即部分中止的回避请求事项。附件4则是根本不被转介调解的事项。但据我理解，意图是3-A和3-B也不被转介调解。对吗？它们被单独中止，但并非实际进行调解。3-D中未被中止的部分不会被中止，但3-D中被中止的部分以及全部3-A均不会进入调解。正确吗？\n\nBassett先生：正确。因此，全部3-A均不会进入调解，但我认为当事人显然可以选择加入，如果他们希望这样做——即在该对抗程序及请求中存在未被中止的部分，该部分将进入调解，除非其亦列于附件4。\n\nBaer先生：好的。为明确起见，我认为目前的起草方式，而且我确信这并非有意为之。就清稿而言，我看的是第4页底部和J段，其规定，在任何回避诉讼中的任何回避被告出庭后，该事项将自动被转介调解。我认为这不适用于3-A和3-B。该段稍后排除了附件4。我认为只需规定3-A、（无法辨认）3-B和4中的任何事项均不被转介调解，即可解决该问题。\n\nBassett先生：法官阁下，我们可以审阅该起草问题。\n\n法庭：我明白Baer律师——他所看的J项中以“尽管有任何相反规定”开头的措辞。您说的是那个，对吗？\n\n贝尔先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：没有任何请求，但受托人针对所附附件4所载撤销事项提出的请求应予转介。不过我——您知道吗？是的。您看看吧。\n\n巴塞特先生：是的。我们——我相信我们可以解决这个问题。\n\n（多人同时说话）\n\n法庭：这就是我在听证会开始时提出该问题的原因之一。请继续。实际上，您先说吧，贝尔律师。看来你们会解决那个问题。请继续。\n\n贝尔先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我们的其他异议，即其余异议，可能属于两类中的一类。其中一类将是一个简单的异议，即调解程序并不平等，或者至少对原告和被告未必相同。就制定调解程序而言，几乎每一项——我不该说几乎每一项——在我参与过的每一项其他调解中，其规则都以同样方式适用于双方。调解程序中有若干情形，适用于受托人的规则与适用于被告的规则不同。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 127 页，共 186 页\n\n我认为这并不恰当，而且我也认为在本案中这完全没有必要。\n\n例如，就我们已经讨论过的部分程序而言，指出这一点可能很重要。\n\n我理解，并不会实际上设立一个调解小组，而仅会在必要范围内设立小组。但按照目前拟定的程序，其中称受托人将在必要范围内指定一个调解小组。\n\n法庭：我不认为——嗯，如果确实如此，那是我遗漏了，因为我以为是 Tancredi 法官（坦克雷迪法官）做这件事。但我可能错了。\n\n贝尔先生：因此，看第 K 段，即调解小组的定义，是由受托人在与受托人协商后决定需要设立的事项。调解小组成员应由受托人与 Tancredi 法官协商后选定。而且，对此有两项异议。首先，让调解的一方当事人选择小组完全不恰当。我认为 Tancredi 法官完全有能力选定任何必要的小组成员。\n\n其次，我认为在一方当事人与 Tancredi 法官之间进行单方沟通也不恰当，在此范围内——（听不清）。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 3150\n提交 04/30/24\n录入 04/30/24 08:17:20\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：调解本来就都是单方沟通。我们在调解中一直与不同法官交谈，你们也应当如此。\n\n贝尔先生：对。而且，只要双方——\n\n法庭：我认为他的意思是——我认为贝尔律师的意思是，你们不能告诉受托人他要选谁，然后由他们选定小组。这才是重点。对吗？\n\n贝尔先生：完全正确。是的。而且我不认为——即便其中称受托人与——即便是 Tancredi 法官选定小组，我认为听起来我们都同意应当如此，也不应只是与受托人协商，而应与其他当事人协商，或者可以简单地由 Tancredi 法官来做。该种协商——（听不清）。\n\n巴塞特先生：这个问题——我们理解这一点。但同样，我们是在处理该情形的实际问题。因此，最终如果本院需要一个小组供批准，Tancredi 法官将是提出该小组的人。程序设想由受托人就此与 Tancredi 法官协商。\n\n我在概念上并不反对其他被告也能够协商。问题在于，我不知道对于270多个当事人而言，这在实际操作中如何可行。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交 04/30/24 录入 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 130 页，共 186 页\n\n不能要求必须建立一个程序，以便——\n\n法庭：不会这样。\n\n巴塞特先生：——征求反馈意见——\n\n法庭：只会涉及提出异议的当事人。我不会——因为那不会发生。所以——你们甚至无需沿着那条路往下走。好吗？但我认为重点是，如果要设立小组，可以为提出异议的当事人设立一个程序，以建议小组成员人选。好吗？这就是你要求的，是吗？\n\n贝尔先生：是的，法官阁下。在此范围内——\n\n法庭：而且我认为必须由 Tancredi 法官确定小组，而不是受托人与 Tancredi 法官共同确定。\n\n贝尔先生：是的，法官阁下。我建议，只要任何当事人正在为小组提议调解员，就应当通知其他当事人。我认为在本案中，如我所述，将是受托人和其他提出异议的当事人，我认为这没有问题。这样每个人都有机会看到所提议的内容，并可能就小组成员提供意见。我不认为必须通知所有当事人。我不认为我们需要为此制定任何程序。\n\n法庭：我们不会这样做。\n\n巴塞特先生：我不同意。受托人不同意该项请求，法官阁下。将会有许多单方沟通。受托人与 Tancredi 法官之间，或者被告与 Tancredi 法官之间，必须就“这是建议的调解员”进行沟通。如果提议该人员，那么你们有机会提出异议。\n\n贝尔先生：这实际上正是我的观点，法官阁下。如果提议该人员，我们有机会提出异议，我对此完全没有问题。\n\n法庭：好的。所以你们可能说的是同一件事。\n\n贝尔先生：是的。我相信这样可以，法官阁下。\n\n巴塞特先生：很高兴听到这一点。\n\n贝尔先生：程序中其他不必要地偏向一方的问题，包括允许在受托人办公室进行调解。再次，在一方当事人的办公室进行调解并不恰当。\n\n法庭：我没有看到这一点。\n\n贝尔先生：是的。这包括在第 2-O 段中。如果当事人无法达成一致，该段自动允许在受托人办公室作为可能地点之一进行调解。\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我们只是试图提供地点。这不是要求调解必须在我们办公室进行的强制性规定。我们只是试图通过提供场地来帮忙。Tancredi 法官——\n\n（多人同时说话）\n\n法庭：我认为 Tancredi 法官将决定调解地点。因此，我认为我们无需担心这一点。如果他能够——如果需要删除该措辞或只是修改它，我认为就这样做，以便我们继续进行。\n\n贝尔先生：好的。这可以，法官阁下。在第 2-F 段中，我不确定这是否是有意为之——\n\n法庭：2-F？\n\n贝尔先生：2-F。是的，法官阁下。我不确定这是否有意为之，但当事人出席调解的问题已经与法庭进行过一些讨论，我非常清楚地听到了法庭的观点，即当事人必须出席。唯一的问题是，按照其起草方式，受托人无需有代表出席，但被告必须出席。这同样是一种不必要的不平等。我认为，显然，德斯平斯先生不会出席每一次调解。我们预期，就受托人而言，律师具有的和解授权应当是可接受的；就被告而言，律师具有的和解授权也应当是可接受的。\n\n法庭：我不同意。抱歉，我不同意你在这一点上的意见。在本案中，受托人与被告所处地位不同。受托人负有法定职责，以解决——尝试解决问题。\n\n受托人不会出席每一宗对抗程序，但其一名代表或律师将出席。他必须可联系，就像你们任何未必亲自出席调解的委托人也必须可联系一样。因此，我不同意这是一个问题。所以我不——我认为我们无需讨论此事。受托人不会出席每一次——每一场调解。\n\n贝尔先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：需要明确的是，你们的委托人也不会都出席。\n\n贝尔先生：是的。抱歉，法官阁下，我无意打断您。我道歉。但只是为了说明——我并非建议受托人应当出席。我知道这在实际操作中不可能。我建议的是，无论规则是什么，双方都应适用同样的规则。\n\n如果可以由代表出席，这没有问题。如果可以由具有和解授权的律师出席，这没有问题。如果仅需保持可联系状态——\n\n法庭：我不同意你关于委托人的说法。被告将会出席。即使是远程出席，他们也将——我在听证会开始时所说的是，被告必须保持可联系状态。他们不会被免除参加调解。当我说可联系时，我并不是说他们必然必须出现在视频屏幕上。Tancredi 法官将如何处理此事，由他决定，但他们必须保持可联系状态。这不是——我不会允许出现一种情形，而且我认为我已经在记录中描述过三次，即律师说：“是的，我有和解授权，但现在我必须打电话给 Smith 先生（史密斯先生），因为我需要更多和解授权，而 Smith 先生要到明天才有空。”这是不可接受的。\n\n贝尔先生：我同意。我完全同意，法官阁下，但我认为这同样适用于受托人。只要受托人无法——\n\n法庭：受托人将会保持可联系状态。我很——\n\n贝尔先生：这正是我所要求的。即受托人以与受托人或其代表——\n\n法庭：毫无疑问，当事人——原告将与被告处于同等地位，即原告必须具备授权且保持可联系状态，而不是——我不会听到 Lindsey 律师（林赛律师）拥有至某一金额的授权，随后他需要受托人参与，而三天内无法联系到受托人。如果我听到这种情况，我不会高兴。\n\n贝尔先生：法官阁下，这解决了我的问题。我认为可能有一些措辞可以使其更好，但我认为这解决了我的问题，法官阁下。我认为这很合理。\n\n我的其他问题，法官阁下，涉及合并和分类，我认为这体现在几个不同方面。首先，为明确起见，基于各方已经提出的所有理由，我认为从概念上讲这非常合理。我认为在概念上会有许多相似之处，适宜在同一时间或大致同一时间处理；即使由同一名调解员处理，无论该调解员是Tancredi法官（Judge Tancredi）还是其他人。因此，我理解并同意这一概念。我认为我对此有几个问题。\n\n首先，程序中仅规定，正如我此前就单方沟通所说的，受托人不得就这些分类与Tancredi法官进行磋商。我认为这必然具有实质性，但是，同样，除非每个人都将拥有其法律依据，否则不应就这些程序进行实质性的单方沟通。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 136 页，共 186 页\n\n但我对分类更大的担忧是——再次，我还应预先说明，程序在几处提到分类，并且至少在一处提到合并。我不确定这是否应当是同一项请求，还是不同的请求。为便于指称，我将以同样的方式处理它们。\n\n我对分类的担忧是，而且我想我还应当说，程序在几处提到分类，并且至少在一处提到合并。我不确定这是否应当是同一回事，还是不同的事情。为便于指称，我将把它们视为同一回事来处理。但我对分类的担忧是，其中仅说这可能会发生，却没有实际说明其影响是什么。我认为这意味着它们是两种不同事项之一。一种是其具有实质性影响，我认为我们已经讨论过其可能产生影响的方式。换言之，如果有10名被告均为——我认为他们此前使用的术语是正常业务过程被告——而这10名被告都将被归在一起，我并不完全确定这意味着什么。这是否意味着我届时只能获得十分之一的页数？是否意味着我只有十分之一的时间提出论证？是否意味着我必须坐在会议室里，听完另外九名被告——九个小时的其他论证，才能轮到我的那一项？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 137 页，共 186 页\n\n关键在于，我完全相信Tancredi法官将能够制定对每个人都有意义的程序，并对相似的对抗程序进行“分类”，但我认为这并不必然需要写入本命令。这完全可以作为排期程序的一部分完成。这可以是其中已经包含的内容。但是，只要Tancredi法官认为——并且可以在与受托人协商后，只要过程公开且各方有机会说，等等，我不想被归入那一组，或者出于这些理由我不想成为合并程序的一部分——只要如此，并且Tancredi法官希望提出他认为最合理的程序，我完全相信该程序将是合理的，而且这将会是（无法辨认）。\n\n但我认为将其纳入本命令，特别是在其规定受托人可以就该分类进行单方沟通的范围内，只会带来一项我们不知道其含义为何的命令所具有的风险，因为我们不知道其后果是什么。我们不知道它将具有何种实质性影响。我们不知道其影响将会是什么。如果Tancredi法官想要进行分类，他有此权限。我们无需将其列入本命令。我的建议是，如果我们需要本法院作出非常具体的授权，让Tancredi法官去做某事，我们需要具体说明该事项是什么。如果这只不过是排期，涉及逻辑观点和策略目的，Tancredi法官不需要将其写入本命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 138 页，共 186 页\n\n法院：你所谈及的措辞位于哪一段？你记得吗，因为我——\n\nBAER先生（贝尔先生）：我认为最明显的一处——它出现在几个不同地方——但我认为是在最后一段，法官阁下，（无法辨认），即第(y)段：\n\n“为促进调解程序并尽量减轻Tancredi法官的任何负担，受托人应努力，”不是Tancredi法官，而是，“受托人应努力经协商划分撤销之诉的类别。”\n\n这应由Tancredi法官来做；如果Tancredi法官的权限不符合——这是一个——如果这纯粹是出于逻辑和实用性的排期问题，就不需要写在其中。我们已经有Tancredi法官——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 139 页，共 186 页\n\nTancredi法官有权作出排期决定，并在必要时安排这些事项。在其具有任何实质性意义的范围内，我们需要知道那是什么。DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：法官阁下，这非常具有实质性。存在（无法辨认）的不同请求。有申请后请求、申请前请求。有些我清楚知道他们在处理的是谁，其他的可能并不清楚。因此，这正是分组的全部要点。但我们可以修改措辞，说明我们可以自由地向Tancredi法官提出建议，而他可以自由地予以拒绝，但是——BAER先生：在他们将向Tancredi法官提出建议的范围内，您知道，我建议应当在通知将被归入该组的当事人的情况下提出。DESPINS先生：不，我们不会为调解这样做。鉴于他是一名现任法官——除非我们能就请求的是非与他进行直接的单方沟通，否则这并不十分有成效。我们会告诉他，我们认为这些请求比那些请求更有力，或者并非如此，而我不会与被告分享这些内容。BAER先生：哦，那么这是可以理解的，法官阁下；他们不会分享关于该事项的全部讨论。但是，再次，这正是我所谈论的——\n\n第 140 页\n\n这是一场与Tancredi法官的实质性谈话，将会对——产生影响。法院：但他并非以法官身份行事；他是以调解员身份行事。BAER先生：什么？法院：他并非以法官身份行事；他是以调解员身份行事。无论你处于争议哪一方，你总是会与调解员就实质性事项进行谈话。我的意思是，这就是你们所做的，对吗？BAER先生：这意味着不需要写入命令，因为他们已经拥有该权限。您知道，Tancredi法官已经有权在必要时分组，因为受托人已经有权——法院：那么，Despins受托人所说他们可以提出建议而他可以拒绝的措辞呢？那没有回应你的问题吗？BAER先生：只要在他们提出建议且Tancredi法官将予以考虑的范围内，我们将会得到通知并有机会——法院：但是，如果你提出建议，你不会得到通知——你不会向他提供任何关于你向Tancredi法官建议内容的通知。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 140 页，共 186 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 141 页，共 186 页\n\nBAER先生：我并不是建议我们必须在提出建议时得到通知，但这回到了我相信法院此前与另一名异议人讨论的一个问题，即如果他们提出一项建议而Tancredi法官批准，该怎么办？届时我们不应当还必须回到这里，向本法院提出动议并提出异议以获得审理。\n\n应当存在某种程序，在这种程度上——而且——Despins受托人明确表示，他认为这非常具有实质性，（无法辨认）。我认为，法官阁下，这非常具有实质性。这不应当在被告未参与的情况下进行。\n\nBASSETT先生（巴塞特先生）：但不是，法官阁下，我认为我们是在原地打转，因为正如律师刚才所说，我们已经与Fox News（福克斯新闻）和Marcum（马库姆）的律师就完全相同的问题进行了处理，解决方式是说，如果有人到了这样的地步，即在整个调解过程中已有某项建议，而他们不同意，并且认为需要向本法院提出动议以获得审理并使某些事项得到变更，由他们自行决定是否这样做。我认为我们无需不断重提同一问题，法官阁下，恕我直言。\n\nBAER先生：法官阁下，我实际上是在讨论过程中想到这一点的，但我认为就此获得陈述机会或许是有意义的。但我没有就该问题获得陈述机会——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 142 页，共 186 页\n\n（无法辨认）；不过，我不需要继续原地打转。我理解法院的立场。我理解受托人的立场。我确实认为，暗示可以在被告不知情的情况下作出某些实质性事项，继而使他们除了向本法院提出动议以撤销已经作出的事项之外别无选择，是不恰当的。\n\n更重要的是，再次，我认为我们可以完全删除该段，因为他们称其拥有该权限。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为Despins受托人的措辞解决了这个问题，好吗。他们可以提出建议，而Tancredi法官可以拒绝，然后你们可以做你们认为适当的任何事情。我们必须记住，而且我知道你们都记得，但我还是要再说一遍，他不是以法官身份行事；他是以调解员身份行事。这就是他正在做的。这不是单方沟通，因为他不是以法院身份行事。这是调解。这种情况一直都会发生。每个人都会进来，向调解员讲述自己一方的情况，并期待调解员不会把全部内容与另一方分享。这不是其运作方式。\n\n而且Tancredi法官将会希望有一项命令，基本上，您知道，使他免于承担与您所谈论的一切有关的责任，否则他不会这样做。他为什么要这样做？正如我们已经谈过的，他整天都有繁重的工作，并且预计将花费大量时间来努力推动这一程序。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交于 04/30/24 登记于 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 143 页，共 186 页\n\n因此，我确实理解你的观点，但我不会删除——我不会删除第(y)段，但我会要求BASSETT律师（巴塞特律师）替你们加入Despins受托人的措辞，即你们有权——你们可以提出建议，但Tancredi法官可以拒绝，好吗。正如你们可以提出某项建议，而Tancredi法官可以反对——我的意思是——抱歉——拒绝。\n\n因此，我理解你的观点，但我不会——我不同意应当删除该措辞，或应当向提出异议的当事人提供某种通知、继而举行一系列听证会的主张。在我看来，这只会使程序偏离正轨；但前提是，如果你确实认为存在问题，你有权向本院提出并寻求救济。\n\nBAER（贝尔）先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。也许还有最后一个问题，我不知道这是否属于实质性问题。我认为是，但为明确起见，本院——我们以前讨论过——我听本院说过，对于一些提出异议且不喜欢这些事项进展方式的人，他们有机会退出。为明确起见，按照目前措辞的运作方式，他们实际上并没有退出的机会。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 144 of 186\n强制性的。\n\n本院：那么，他们必须提出动议。\nBAER先生：但该动议必须基于正当理由。\n本院：那么，所有事项不都必须基于正当理由提出动议吗？\nBAER先生：我认为这是法律标准，法官阁下。我认为必须——\n本院：这确实是法律标准，但你不能仅仅提出动议并说，因为我不想参与，所以我不想参与。\nBAER先生：我相信——实际上，我认为，在一定程度上，（听不清）不希望参与我们调解的人应当能够退出，如果其仅仅基于自身最佳利益决定，将事项提交调解并无意义。我也认为，如果你提出动议，正当理由不同于理由。\n本院：我——你知道，你可以提出该论点。我理解。我有时——我理解理由与正当理由之间的区别，而且有时法条规定理由，有时法条规定正当理由。\nBAER先生：我还将提议，你应当能够仅提交一份通知，说明你正在退出调解程序。我认为这不应当是\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 144 of 186\n\n本院：那么，是否有人实际上提出过——你是否——如果你提出过，我很抱歉，我只是记不得了——你是否实际上在你的——哦，你确实提出过，即你应当能够通过通知而非动议退出。因此，该事项在异议中提出过。那么，Bassett（巴塞特）律师，你对此有何回应？\nBASSETT律师：法官阁下，我的回应是，我们认为，当事人必须受约束参与调解程序，这一点非常重要，但前提是他们能够再次证明其不应参与、亦不应成为该程序一部分的正当理由。我们认为，这是该程序得以运作的唯一方式。存在许多——我是说，众多例子——\n本院：那么，让我就此说几句。如果我允许这样做，即退出，这只会适用于提出异议的当事人；我不会打开闸门。因此，这不会发生。我只是希望你明白。让你，即受托人，向所有人送达这项命令，并安排本次听证会、确定异议截止日期的全部目的，就是让当事人提出异议。\nBASSETT律师：可以，法官阁下。如果他希望作出一项例外规定，说明他今天在此代理的这一名特定客户或两名\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 146 of 186\n特定客户可以享有退出的权利，当然可以。\n\n本院：那么，你们将把此事处理好。\nBASSETT律师：但不适用于任何其他当事人——\n本院：不。我的意思是，如果没有人将此作为异议提出，他们就不能获得该权利；这就是重点。重点是，你有权对这些程序提出异议，你需要以书面形式提出异议，本院将予以考虑。\n而Baer律师的异议确实包含一项异议，即应当允许他们通过通知而非动议退出，所以我忘记了——异议很多，明白吗——但确实如此规定。因此，如果你能在命令中规定，那两项异议、那些当事人，或者实际上，可能有三项，有三家。Nardello & Co.（纳德洛公司）、Teris-Phoenix（特里斯-菲尼克斯）和Post Oak Motors（波斯特奥克汽车）；这是截至目前为止在其书面异议中提出希望通过通知而非动议退出的三家。我认为，实际上，最后一项异议可能也有同样的内容，但我们尚未处理到那些。\n好。我并未同意这意味着任何人都可以这样做。这就是全部目的；否则，今天以及整个程序的意义何在？目的就是完成我们已经做的事情。因此，看来该问题将得到解决，\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 147 of 186\nBaer律师，即就那三项异议而言，你的三名客户将被排除在外，并享有提交退出通知而非提出动议的权利，明白吗。\nBAER先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n本院：好。谢谢。那么，我认为这处理了你的所有异议；对吗？\nBAER先生：我相信是的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n本院：好。好的。谢谢。那么，我认为最后的异议是Sklarz（斯克拉兹）律师，你的异议：G Club Operations（G Club运营公司）和Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所），3098和3100是我——其余的两项异议——无论如何，这是我手头最后的。\nSKLARZ先生：是的，法官阁下。我将处理G Club和——\n本院：哦，对不起，还有别人站起来。你还有另一项——不，我道歉，就在你身后，法官席后面。律师，你也有异议吗？\nPESCE（佩谢）先生：我有3087。\n本院：哪一项？\nPESCE先生：3087。\n本院：不知为何，我没有3087。因此，你能否稍等一下——我对此表示感谢。\n\nPESCE先生：没问题。\n本院：好。对不起。谢谢。\nSKLARZ先生：是的，谢谢您，法官阁下。我将处理G Club和（听不清），而Corbi（科尔比）律师——他是我们的本地律师——将处理Weddle。\n本院：可以。下午好。\nSKLARZ先生：我会让他先讲，因为他可能会把我的风头全抢走，那样您就不用听我说了。\n本院：好。可以。谢谢。好的。律师，请你为记录陈述姓名好吗？\nCORBI先生：是的，法官阁下。我是代表Weddle Law PLLC（韦德尔律师事务所PLLC）的Richard Corbi（理查德·科尔比）。我的临时出庭许可于上周获准。此外，我们提交了对调解程序的异议，也于昨日提交了驳回对抗程序的动议。（听不清）截止日期，依据的是数周前作出的一项不同命令。鉴于我是今天最后几位发言的人之一，我认为很多问题已经处理过了，但就我的异议而言，在尚未解决的事项范围内，调解中的第一个问题（听不清）——我将依次说明我的异议，我正在看第4页第13段——异议的第一个要点是，第2(d)款有一项规定，即\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 148 of 186\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 149 of 186\n规定经删节的撤销权诉状的送达构成有效的诉讼文书送达；这在调解中并不适当。法官阁下，我们实际上已经到了这个阶段——我们实际上已就昨日提交的驳回动议进行了书面陈述，因此，如果本院希望就该事项是否被视为——即使将其视为送达，也不能视为任何被告在任何撤销权诉讼中放弃任何抗辩（听不清）——作出任何决定，法官阁下。\n本院：好。不是任何被告。是你的被告。\nCORBI先生：是的，我的被告。我实际上不关心其他所有人，我只关心我的客户。\n本院：我会假定是这种情况。那么，我没有看你的驳回动议。你在驳回动议中提出了诉讼文书送达不足的问题吗？\nCORBI先生：是的。\n本院：好。我不知道你提交了驳回动议，但没关系。\nCORBI先生：那么——\n本院：所以，你是说，你希望至少就你的被告而言，第2段的那个分项——该第2段——将你排除在外，因为你不同意该规定，而且你已提交驳回动议，提出了诉讼文书送达不足的抗辩。\n\nCORBI先生：是的。\n本院：好。\nCORBI先生：这不适合纳入调解程序命令。\n本院：那么，我甚至不知道是否需要处理到这一步，对吗？如果你已经在驳回动议中将其作为抗辩提出，那么就提出该抗辩而言，你受到保护，对吗？\nCORBI先生：是的。\n本院：而且，如果你已将其作为抗辩提出，就不能认定你已放弃该抗辩。\nCORBI先生：是的，正确。是的，法官阁下。\n本院：好的。继续。\nCORBI先生：下一项是第2(e)(ii)款，即部分中止（听不清）。我们大约一小时前已对此进行讨论。\n本院：你是否认为，我们讨论过的附件3-A、3-B和4处理了你的担忧？\nCORBI先生：我认为处理了。措辞更清楚，但我不想——\n本院：我认为曾有人建议——也许是Baer律师提出的，我现在不记得了——即该(l)段可能仅提及附件4，也应当包括附件3-A和3-B？\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3150 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 08:17:20 Page 150 of 186\n\nCORBI先生：是的。\nBASSETT先生：J，法官阁下。\n本院：J。附件J。我认为，Bassett先生，你说过你同意这样做。\nBASSETT先生：正确；我们将对（听不清）作出修改。\n本院：好。那么，这就处理了该问题。\nCORBI先生：那应当能处理该问题。\n本院：好的，继续。\nCORBI先生：下一项——我知道您也会不喜欢这一项——但涉及调解小组。我提出该问题，因为您在我们的异议中看到，第2(k)段——是的，第2(k)段——我理解受托人律师的立场，（听不清），但如果有270名被告，若每个实际提出异议的人都能发表意见，实际上会更易于管理，因为（听不清）。我们建议采用一项实际上类似于我们在Diocese of Buffalo（布法罗教区）案件中所做的规定，即如果设立调解小组，我们建议由Judge Tancredi（坦克雷迪法官）担任，而且仅此而已，因为——\n本院：你的意思是，谁决定小组？\nCORBI先生：谁决定小组。应当仅由坦克雷迪法官决定，以避免不必要的动议实践、我客户的费用，以及受托人的费用，因为有\n\n是否就 A 人或 B 人是否适合加入调解小组再举行一次这样的听证会。确实应当仅由 Tancredi 法官（Tancredi法官）作出该决定，如同在 Buffalo Diocese（布法罗教区）案件中所做的那样。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：阁下，我以为我们已经解决了这个问题。\n\n法庭：我也以为如此，但我可能错了，因为我们一直在讨论很多事情——\n\n科尔比先生：我只是想做到公平，而且——\n\n法庭：——也就是说，你们可以提议，但他可以拒绝。\n\n德斯平斯先生：阁下，是他在挑选。\n\n法庭：是的，是他在挑选调解小组。\n\n科尔比先生：阁下，这一点在已提交的草案中并不明确。\n\n法庭：这是真的，但他们已同意修改和修订措辞。\n\n科尔比先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n科尔比先生：我们接下来的问题是第 2(r) 段。这个问题已经处理过几次，但为了我当事人的利益，我还是想再说明一次，这与调解小组和单方沟通有关。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 152 页，共 186 页\n\n法庭：这不是单方沟通。你不是在与法官交谈。他是一名法官，但他是以调解员身份行事。\n\n科尔比先生：我明白，但这应当是双向的，不仅受托人，而且被告也应当能够以 Tancredi 法官作为调解员的身份与其交谈。\n\n法庭：他们将能够这样做。Tancredi 法官将像主持任何其他调解一样主持此次调解。我相信会有——我的意思是，他会有时候只与你交谈，对吗？\n\n科尔比先生：同意，是的。\n\n法庭：那么，当他只与你交谈时，你就可以与他进行任何你希望进行的沟通。那不是单方沟通。那是你对你认为案件应当如何处理、对抗程序应当如何推进，或者调解内容为何的陈述或说明，对吗。这是会发生的。因此，我想说的是，关于单方沟通，第一，这不是单方沟通，因为就这些目的而言，他不是法官；他是调解员。第二，正如我所说，他无论如何都会要求所有人使其免责，否则他不会做这件事。第三，你将有那样的机会。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 153 页，共 186 页\n\n科尔比先生：下一部分实际上刚刚在退出机制方面被提出。我们实际上已在异议中指出，这应当是一种无需提交动议即可退出的机制。鉴于我们昨天已经提交了驳回动议，而且我的当事人收到了并未处于破产程序中的非债务人的付款，我的当事人在本案中已经花费了超过 $100,000 的律师费；他不应当再花更多。\n\n法庭：是在这项对抗程序中吗？\n\n科尔比先生：嗯，还包括调解程序，以及——\n\n法庭：过去一个月 $100,000？\n\n科尔比先生：是的。\n\n法庭：哇，好的。\n\n科尔比先生：这也包括我们昨天提交的驳回动议，但他们已经花费超过 $100,000 的费用，您知道，来反对调解以及（听不清）作为法律问题。\n\n科尔比先生：我的下一点是在第 2(q) 段。这可能是——我确实记得曾就调解中出示的文件不受证据开示约束一事，与 United States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）（听不清）进行过交谈，阁下。应当是——我们并不是寻求任何调解员的证词，或作出的和解提议（听不清）；但所出示的文件（听不清），例如银行对账单，如果我们能够通过通常的证据开示途径取得，我们就应当能够取得，而且应当——\n\n法庭：为什么？这是调解。\n\n科尔比先生：如果有人出示了涉及问题核心的银行对账单，而我们未能和解且必须开庭审理，我需要看到那些银行对账单；如果有人躲在它们受调解特权保护的盾牌后面，那并非我们应当做的。\n\n法庭：为什么？\n\n科尔比先生：因为——调解不——调解规则并非旨在涵盖文件——\n\n法庭：对，但你可以在你的对抗程序中通过证据开示取得它们。\n\n科尔比先生：好的。我只是希望那一点——我希望——\n\n法庭：你可以提出请求，对吗。我的意思是，这正是重点所在。如果你们未能解决此事并进入审判、审理你们的案件，你们有权进行证据开示。\n\n科尔比先生：这是对的，而且我当时试图——\n\n法庭：那么你的观点是什么？你希望不必提出证据开示请求吗？\n\n科尔比先生：不，我们会提出证据开示请求。我们只是不希望因为——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 155 页，共 186 页\n\n——在调解中出示过一份银行对账单；因此，对方，即受托人，就无需向我提供它，而受到阻挠。\n\n巴塞特先生：阁下，已经存在的文件，如该文件在被分享给调解员之前本可被证据开示，那么仅仅因为我们进行了调解，它不会突然披上调解特权的外衣；我们对此达成一致。但他不能利用调解程序来规避证据开示程序。\n\n法庭：我认为那不是他所说的。这就是我问他那个问题的原因。他是说他仍会提出证据开示请求。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法庭：他所说的只是，你不能说“我不必把它给你，因为你在调解中看过它。”这不就是你所说的吗？\n\n科尔比先生：是的，正是如此。\n\n巴塞特先生：但为明确起见，证据开示请求不能是：“把你在调解中出示的那些文件给我。”只需按照你通常会提出请求的方式请求这些文件。\n\n法庭：他会这样做。\n\n科尔比先生：是的，而这正是——\n\n法庭：这正是你们所有人拿报酬来做的事。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 157 页，共 186 页\n\n巴塞特先生：但是，阁下，另一点是——我有些困惑，因为他非常明确地表示，他的当事人在进行诉讼，而不是调解；如果他选择退出，而我们将给予他该权利，就像我们给予上一方当事人的那样，我不知道他为什么会有异议。\n\n法庭：你不知道什么为什么？\n\n巴塞特先生：我不知道我们为什么要讨论这些其他问题。\n\n法庭：嗯，因为他必须提出这些问题。他必须提出这些问题。没关系。不用担心，一切都没问题。无论如何，事情都会得到解决。\n\n科尔比先生：我以为法庭指示，如果我希望陈述意见，我必须提交异议。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n科尔比先生：但如果我没有解决某个问题——\n\n法庭：不，我同意。我同意。\n\n科尔比先生：谢谢，阁下。\n\n法庭：没关系。请继续。\n\n科尔比先生：最后一点，这是关于律师费的权利保留。受托人寻求平均分担律师费是不适当的。我知道您会保留该问题——\n\n法庭：你的意思不是律师费，而是调解费用？\n\n科尔比先生：调解费用，是的。\n\n法庭：是的。该问题已经保留——\n\n科尔比先生：是的，所以——\n\n法庭：——因为它可能不会成为问题。\n\n科尔比先生：我希望将其记入记录。\n\n法庭：明白。\n\n科尔比先生：最后一点确实令人担忧，我不知道这是否是受托人有意为之，但第 2(v) 段规定了通过该命令设立的这些特别制裁程序。现在，我理解非调解命令是指，如果你恶意行事，或者你派遣没有和解授权的人参加调解，或者诸如此类的情形，就应当受到自动制裁。我认为第 2(v) 段应当只是——\n\n法庭：嗯，它没有说“自动”。你在哪里看到——它没有说“自动”。它说：如调解员报告或中期报告表明未遵守调解程序，法庭可以在无需任何一方提交动议的情况下，安排听证会，以审议对不遵守规定的一方实施制裁是否适当。而且它还说——随后又进一步规定：此外，在故意持续不遵守或严重不遵守的情形下，法庭可以作出缺席判决。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 158 页，共 186 页\n\n因此，我认为没有任何——也许我遗漏了什么，但我看不出这里有任何自动执行的内容。\n\n科尔比先生：按照其表述，无需任何一方提交动议，如果他们要——\n\n法庭：不，那说的是“法庭”。它说的是“法庭可以”；不是说一方可以。其前提是我阅读了一份报告，对吗，即一份调解员报告或中期报告，称有人未遵守调解程序。然后我可以说，知道吗，我认为我要就此安排一次听证会。这就是它所说的。\n\n科尔比先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我是这样理解的。\n\n科尔比先生：我理解其为自动生效。\n\n法庭：我错了吗？那是你们的意图吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：这需要举行听证会，阁下。\n\n法庭：不，但我的意思是，你们并不是在说——你们并没有提交动议。本节的依据是法庭认定我可以自行作出该决定；无需任何人提交制裁动议。\n\n巴塞特先生：根据调解员的报告，阁下可以认定存在举行听证会的理由——\n\n法庭：对。\n\n巴塞特先生：——然后根据听证会作出决定。\n\n法庭：对。在举行听证会之前不会有制裁。\n\n巴塞特先生：或者各方可以提交动议，而——\n\n法庭：当然，各方可以提交动议，但在举行听证会之前不会有制裁。\n\n科尔比先生：那么该命令中应当写得更明确。它不应当——我对它的理解是——\n\n法庭：嗯，它说的是安排听证会，以审议是否适当。它没有说施加制裁。它说的是审议举行听证会——安排听证会。因此，我不认为——我认为这样没问题——\n\n科尔比先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——按照其措辞。我不——我的意思是，我听到了你的说法，但我未被说服认为需要修改。好吗？\n\n科尔比先生：好的。\n\n科尔比先生：以上就是我的所有观点，阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么我认为——关于 Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所），\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 160 页，共 186 页\n\nECF 3100，您希望像——我很抱歉，但 Baer 律师的三位当事人，我记不清他们的所有姓名——那样被排除在外，提交一份选择退出通知，而不是一项动议吗？\n\nCORBI 先生：是。\n\n本院：那么，Bassett 律师将会这么做，因为他会就 Baer 律师的三位当事人这么做。您已在异议中提出该事项，因此将会如此处理。关于送达程序不充分的问题，由于第 2(v) 款不适用于该被告 Bassett 律师，该问题已得到处理，因为他们已经提出送达程序不充分的问题。我没有阅读驳回动议，但律师是这样告诉我的。\n\nLINSEY 先生：因此，法官阁下，我想澄清的是，第 2(v) 款已经作为本院先前命令的回避诉讼程序的一部分生效，并规定了受托人向所有回避诉讼被告送达的方式。\n\n本院：但它并未规定这是对提出送达程序不充分问题的放弃；不可能如此。\n\nLINSEY 先生：没有，唯一——据我理解，律师所质疑的唯一版本是\n\n162\n\n受托人送达的是经删节的起诉书，而不是——\n\n本院：不——\n\nLINSEY 先生：——密封的起诉书。\n\n本院：——不，不。他的问题是这个——至少这是我的理解。\n\nLINSEY 先生：对。\n\n本院：我没有阅读他的驳回动议——他刚刚告诉我，他昨天提交了一项驳回动议——而寻求驳回的理由之一是送达程序不充分。他的意思是，如果第 2(v) 款仍然有效，那么您可以主张，他已放弃在其驳回动议中主张——提出送达程序不充分这一积极抗辩的权利。律师，这不正是您所说的吗？\n\nBASSETT 先生：嗯，我认为 Linsey 律师所说的是，法官阁下，这一完全相同的措辞已经——\n\n本院：可能是这样，但他在其驳回动议中提出了送达不充分——我不认为我们已有一项命令规定任何人永远不得提出——\n\nBASSETT 先生：不，当然不是——\n\n本院：——送达程序不充分。\n\nBASSETT 先生：——当然不是，法官阁下。该条款仅澄清的是，由于我们有这一\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 162 页，共 186 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 163 页，共 186 页\n\n对该保护令提出质疑，而该保护令\n\n要求我们——我们别无选择——只能以\n\n对其中某些内容作出删节的方式送达我们的\n\n起诉书——仅列出（听不清）内容的附件\n\n被删节——先前生效的命令\n\n所规定的只是，送达该经删节版本的起诉书\n\n即属充分——\n\n本院：对。\n\nBASSETT 先生：——符合规则。\n\n因此，在——而且我确实尚未审阅\n\n他的驳回动议——但如果该驳回动议中的论点\n\n是因删节而导致送达不充分，\n\n那么我认为该问题已经——\n\n本院：嗯——\n\nCORBI 先生：那么我将根据 60(b) 提出重新考虑动议。\n\n本院：嗯，等等，等一下。那么\n\n您以送达程序不充分为由提出动议，是因为\n\n附件处于密封状态，而不是因为他们没有适当向您送达？\n\nCORBI 先生：是。您必须知悉它，而且——\n\nBASSETT 先生：（听不清）——\n\nCORBI 先生：——嗯，对于我们为何寻求驳回\n\n针对非债务人的一项 549 起诉书，有许多理由。\n\nBASSETT 先生：我想我们可能是在各说各话。\n\n164\n\nCORBI 先生：但那是其中一点，您必须使某人知悉。您必须看到他们所受约束的清单。\n\n本院：那不是送达程序不充分，而是——您是在说——那是一项 12(b)(6) 动议，即未能提出可获救济的请求，因为您甚至不知道该救济是什么。这与送达不充分不同——这是 Rule 12 下不同的理由——\n\nCORBI 先生：嗯，我们有很多（听不清）——\n\n本院：——那才是送达程序不充分。送达程序不充分意味着您未获送达。您确实获送达了。\n\nCORBI 先生：您必须获送达完整的起诉书，您必须——\n\n本院：您确实获送达了一份完整的起诉书，只是根据先前命令作了删节。您有权根据 12(b) 主张这仍未提出请求，但那是未提出请求，因为您无法就某项事项给予救济——您无法作出回应，您无法对起诉书作出回应，因为您甚至不知道他们主张您的当事人取得了什么。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 164 页，共 186 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 165 页，共 186 页\n\n那是不同的——我认为那不是送达程序不充分。我的意思是，那可能是——如果是，那是新的问题，我得看看，但您知道，也许确实如此。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我还想指出的另一点是，任何时候被告——而且我们已与许多——我的意思是，可能数百名——被告讨论过此事——如果他们收到的是带有经删节附件的起诉书，他们获送达起诉书后做的第一件事，就是联系我们并说，嘿，我如何获得该未删节附件的副本？\n\n我会说，嘿，没问题。这是您的保护令副本。签署它，我们就会发送给您。我们一直如此办理，现在他们正在评估，并将相应作出回应。\n\n他的策略显然是使送达——\n\n本院：嗯，我不——我不——这不是一种策略，不要——我不想谈这个，没必要，好吗？\n\n但我不认为您会在这一点上胜诉，如果它是送达程序不充分，因为——嗯，也许您有判例这样说，我不知道。\n\nCORBI 先生：嗯，这项起诉书应被驳回的理由有很多——\n\n本院：是，但那是不同的——送达程序不充分的问题，第 2(v) 款中的内容\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 166 页，共 186 页\n\n是 Linsey 律师和 Bassett 律师所说的，您不能到本院面前说，因为您收到的起诉书附有经删节的附件，所以您没有获得送达。那与您所作的论点不同——您的论点是，您收到了一份无法回应的起诉书，因为您甚至不知道其指控是什么。\n\nCORBI 先生：我只想就保护令发表一点意见。当我们要求保护令时——再次，我认为另一名异议人称其范围过宽——为了最终——最终（听不清）一项保护令，我们必须就我们对此命令的修改标注进行数轮修订。\n\n本院：您知道为什么吗？因为有 275 项对抗程序，而且保护令已生效一年半或更长时间。好吗？\n\nCORBI 先生：我明白。\n\n本院：我听到了，我明白您的观点。好吗？但我们可以找到办法共同解决。好吗？\n\n但我认为您必须——Bassett 律师，就第 2(v) 款而言，我认为我们只需要在某个时候记录在案，第 2(v) 款旨在处理这样一个问题：如果有人主张，因附件被删节而未获适当送达，该论点在本院不会胜诉。好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 167 页，共 186 页\n\n什么情况下送达程序不充分会胜诉？如果 Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所）是在 Smith Law Group（史密斯律师集团）处被送达。好吗？然后他们从未获得送达。那样会胜诉，对吗？这不是——我们谈的是两件不同的事。\n\n因此，我认为，第 2(v) 款与您所主张的不同，律师。我认为您有——您知道，法院可以受理一项 Rule 12 动议，并按其认为适当的方式作出裁定。如果您说案件应被驳回，因为您甚至无法作出回应，还有其他条款——不仅仅是 12(b)，还有 Rule 12 的其他条款，您可以援引——\n\nCORBI 先生：我们已提出许多驳回起诉书的理由。我只是不希望有人当面向我提出任何放弃权利的论点。这才是真正的重点。\n\n本院：嗯，我认为放弃权利的论点是——您所说的是两种不同事项被放弃。他——Bassett 律师是在说，您不能到我面前来——您不能对法官说，您应当驳回我的诉因，因为您附上了一份经删节的附件；这就是他所说的。您是在说，是的，我不应受此约束，因为我甚至不知道我被起诉的是什么。那是两件不同的事。送达程序不充分意味着您未被\n\n168\n\n适当送达；它并不意味着您不能回应起诉书。\n\nCORBI 先生：而且我们已经提出数项（听不清）——\n\n本院：好。\n\nCORBI 先生：至于 549，我并未从非债务人处获得付款。\n\n本院：因此，我只是让您知道，好吗，关于第 2(v) 款——\n\nCORBI 先生：好。\n\n本院：——该条款的目的在于，若在驳回动议中以您获送达的文件包含一份经删节附件为由，作为击败起诉书的理由，这不会构成成功的理由。如果这是您的依据，您会败诉。好吗？\n\nCORBI 先生：好。\n\n本院：但您似乎还有其他依据，这是您告诉我的。因此——\n\nCORBI 先生：我们有很多——\n\n本院：——我们将按通常程序处理这些。好吗？\n\nCORBI 先生：听到这一点有点困难。\n\n本院：好。那么我认为，就您的异议而言，其他一切都已处理。我们——您认为是否还有任何事项需要——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 168 页，共 186 页\n\n169\n\nCORBI 先生：没有。我保留关于费用的权利；我们已经讨论过了。\n\n本院：因此，成本的——\n\nCORBI 先生：是，及成本——\n\n本院：——将通过先前——通过新的措辞处理——\n\nCORBI 先生：是。\n\n本院：——好吗？好。Bassett 律师，就 Weddle Law 而言，您还有其他要说的吗？我认为我们已经处理了律师异议中提出的所有异议依据。\n\nBASSETT 先生：没有，法官阁下。在 Sklarz 律师开始之前，我确实有一个问题，但就此没有其他内容——\n\n本院：请讲。\n\nBASSETT 先生：因此，我相信——如果我错了，Sklarz 律师可以纠正我——但我相信他表示他在此代表 G Club（G 俱乐部）和 Pillsbury（普盈律师事务所）。鉴于目前的时间，我只想提出两点观察。第一，G Club 和 Pillsbury 均列于附件 4，这意味着它们被排除在调解之外。因此，除非他要说他想重新加入，否则我不确定我们为何会——而且我们不希望它们重新加入。受托人已明确将它们列入附件 4，因为我们\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 169 页，共 186 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3150，提交于 04/30/24，录入于 04/30/24 08:17:20，第 170 页，共 186 页\n\n不打算与它们调解，因此不会达成调解协议，所以我不知道为什么我们会——您知道，为什么这些当事人会对程序有问题，第一点。\n\n第二，我不认为 Pillsbury（普博律师事务所）提出了异议——我可能错了——但我不认为普博律师事务所提出了异议。我认为异议仅代表 G Club（G俱乐部）提出，而该方再次说明，是附件4的一部分。\n\n本院：我也没有看到普博律师事务所提出异议。我可能遗漏了，因此，律师——我认为就 Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所）而言，你们目前都没问题。你可以留在律师席，不必移动，但我认为我们将讨论这些其他——\n\n巴塞特律师：这些人发言时，我不想显得无礼——\n\n本院：谢谢，我很感谢。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我们提交了很多——我们提交了很多文件，而且，坦白说，法官阁下，我有一段时间一直在审判中，所以我对所涉的一切并非百分之百确定，但我接受巴塞特律师关于尚未提交普博律师事务所动议的陈述。再次说明，我们提交异议是因为被命令提交异议，而且我赞扬各位律师，我们花了很多时间就此进行协商，我认为已有很多改动，但其中一项是，如果各方希望进行调解，这些就是将适用于调解的命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 171 页，共 186 页\n\n我们在异议中提出的一切均已提出，因此我不会再次逐一说明。我要指出的是，在D段——2(v)项中，即科比律师指出的制裁条款中，其确实——其与我所见过的任何强制调解命令或任何调解命令都非常不同，尤其是特拉华州、纽约南区的命令——我见过很多此类调解——我具体看的是第76页。\n\n该措辞从一开始就在其中，是标红线前的倒数第二句——或者，抱歉，是倒数第二句和倒数第三句。这只是让我——再次说明，让我感到不安：如果一方希望——在调解中达到某一阶段时，仅因其希望继续诉讼而不想和解，似乎就可以到法院说，我们没有解决调解问题，现在我们要就善意的含义发生争议。\n\n本院：现在我们要就什么发生争议？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：关于——关于谈判本身是否出于善意的含义。\n\n我并不反对——如果 Tancredi（坦克雷迪）法官出具报告称一方并非善意行事，那么，是的，法官阁下应当举行说明理由听证会，但若由双方进行一种对抗性的程序，说，你没有善意协商。是的，我有。我们如何能够解决这个问题？只是——再次说明，这些问题并不经常出现。我不想——我不认为这需要过多——\n\n本院：但你在看什么？我不知道你在看哪一段措辞（听不清）——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：其中写道：“此外，如果调解程序中的任何一方未尝试以善意安排或解决调解。”好的，如果有调解命令而你拒绝安排调解；是的，你应受到制裁。但我不知道“以善意解决”是什么意思。这是否意味着我说，我知道你因 $100 million 起诉我，但我会向你出价一千美元，因为这——因为我想在这里审判？我不认为那会构成恶意，但我不知道。这——这就是担忧所在。\n\n本院：巴塞特律师，除我知道你将要——我理解你的观点，即他们不会受调解约束，因此——之外，你对此有何回应？\n\n巴塞特律师：那么，是的，法官阁下，他们不会受调解约束，但就该论点本身而言，我认为最后一句已经处理了这个问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 172 页，共 186 页\n\n坦白说，我认为那也是斯克拉兹律师提出的其他意见之一，即明确说明，未能达成和解本身不能构成制裁的理由。如果一方在调解中表现出缺乏善意，那么，是的，另一方可以向本院申请制裁。\n\n正如 Linsey（林赛）律师刚刚向我指出的，纽约南区破产法院上个月刚刚在 Revlon（露华浓）案中加入了完全相同的措辞。因此，这——\n\n本院：“未能达成和解”；你说的是这个，还是“此外，如果任何一方”的措辞？\n\n林赛律师：不，是调解员应当——（听不清）调解中的一方未尝试以善意安排或解决（听不清）——\n\n巴塞特律师：对，他所读出的措辞是，如果一方未尝试以善意安排或解决调解存在问题；该措辞已被纳入该命令，对吗？\n\n林赛律师：对。\n\n巴塞特律师：而且我想我不理解——\n\n本院：嗯，你知道我实际上、坦白说对此的看法——我理解你的观点，好吗，我也理解你的观点，巴塞特律师，但——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 173 页，共 186 页\n\n本院将在该问题提交本院时——如果且当其提交本院时——处理它，对吗？你们将能够提出你们认为适当的任何问题，假定你们甚至是其中的一方，而你们目前并非其中一方。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：是的，我只是试图让本院注意到这个——\n\n本院：明白——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——问题，法官——\n\n本院：——明白。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——我就这些。\n\n本院：好的，好吧，这很公平。那么，关于——现在，我们还有一项异议，出于某种原因我没有看到，我不确定为什么，但可能因为文件太多而遗漏了。律师，你说是3087？\n\n佩谢律师：3087，法官阁下。\n\n本院：由 Pesce（佩谢）律师提出，是的。好的。请让我看一下——我很抱歉——因为我目前没有它，所以若你不介意，请给我一点时间。请你为法庭书记员在记录中说明你的姓名以及你所代表的对象。\n\n佩谢律师：是，法官阁下，Matthew Pesce（马修·佩谢），3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号）。\n\n（暂停）\n\n本院：哥伦布圆环3号是3(a)或4项中的一方吗？不是？我不知道。我完全不知道，我只是——\n\n佩谢律师：不是。\n\n本院：好的。那么你只是房东；你是这个意思吗？\n\n佩谢律师：是——\n\n本院：我不是说“只是房东”，但是——\n\n佩谢律师：——租户。\n\n本院：直到现在我才阅读此文件，所以我很抱歉。\n\n（暂停）\n\n那么，你们的问题之一是由破产财产承担的费用，我认为，律师，该问题今天已经得到处理，因为每个人都将保留——所有提出异议的各方都将保留有关调解费用的权利，而且如果坦克雷迪法官能够在没有其他调解员参与的情况下调解所有事项，该问题可能——可能不会成为问题。\n\n佩谢律师：是，法官阁下，那将是理想情形。我希望向本院和受托人提请注意的唯一一点，是关于2(u)，我相信这是处理调解费用的相关条款，即当前段落规定了对初始调解费用提出异议的程序，我认为这某种程度上涉及权利保留，但其并未包含对任何与调解有关的后续费用提出异议的程序。这可能在分组的情形下变得相关，例如，被带入某一组的被告，其涉及该特定被告的调解可能较短且范围有限，但由于其被置于一个较大的组别内，可能导致就与该组相关的问题进行更长时间的调解，在此情况下，我们希望受托人可能（听不清）制定一项能够处理该情形下分摊问题的程序，但再次说明，这完全取决于他们是否——\n\n本院：好的，我明白你的观点。因此，我认为这已记入记录，我认为受托人将在我们达到该阶段时——如果且当我们达到该阶段时——考虑这一点，但我确实明白你的观点。\n\n佩谢律师：关于他们的第一点，即受托人的指定以及针对哥伦布圆环3号的诉讼是否应当中止，该问题已在与受托人举行会议后得到解决。因此，我们今天将在记录中撤回该项。\n\n本院：好的。谢谢你，律师，我——\n\n佩谢律师：唯一的——\n\n本院：你在异议中提出的还有其他事项吗？\n\n佩谢律师：异议中没有提出其他事项，但今天一整天，这个问题以各种方式出现，涉及2(m)、退出条款，以及有关制裁的相应的另一面。我们希望得到澄清，2(m)，即我刚才将（听不清）称为退出条款的规定，并不试图在一方选择不尝试——或选择不终止调解程序时构成某种权利放弃；实质上，如调解最终未成功，则保留对该诉讼的有效性以及其是否本不应被提起提出异议的一切权利。\n\n本院：嗯，我不——我不将M段理解为——我将询问巴塞特律师——限制被告根据对起诉状作出的答辩状所享有的任何权利。巴塞特律师，你能说明吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：当然不会，法官阁下，而且如果调解程序终止，我认为已非常明确地预期一方可以提出驳回动议，并提出其认为适当的任何及全部驳回理由。\n\n本院：我认为这——因此这就是澄清，我希望如此。\n\n佩谢律师：是的，法官阁下，确实如此。谢谢。\n\n本院：那么，你是否还希望澄清任何其他事项？\n\n佩谢律师：仅此而已。\n\n本院：好的，那么我很感谢。谢谢。那么，关于我们今天听取的所有异议，我已尽力在记录中非常谨慎地说明哪些异议被驳回，哪些将由各方解决，或哪些在调解程序到位且坦克雷迪法官启动调解程序之前实质上尚未成熟。巴塞特律师，在我看来，你们将不得不对这份第二次修订命令作出一些修改。你希望有多少时间来做这件事？\n\n巴塞特律师：嗯，我认为，除非我席位上的其他人纠正我，我们已经尽可能快地尝试记录一切，但如果我们能先拿到庭审记录，或许会有帮助。我认为，在我们看过庭审记录后，我们可以很快处理这些意见。这不会花很长——\n\n本院：我提出这个问题的原因不是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 登记日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 178 页，共 186 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 179 页，共 186 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 我并不需要确切知道时间；关键在于，这是否会改变您命令中 5 月 15 日的截止日期，我认为是在某一段中——我现在忘记是哪一段了——请给我一点时间——即您将何时开始作出调解转介，我相信是这样。我想这不会，因为我认为它是以出庭情况为依据的。巴塞特先生：我认为不会，法官阁下，但我们可能需要从我们这一方考虑一下。法庭：我只是想找到它，看看我是否认为会，但——（暂停）法庭：这可能不会，但如果您需要更改该日期，我想您只会将其更改几天或一周。巴塞特先生：我认为是这样，法官阁下。我的初步反应是，鉴于我们有充足时间，它不需要更改，但我们将进一步考虑。法庭：好的。那么，今天是星期二。您认为您会在本周末或下周末之前提交修订后的命令吗？再次说明，我并非——无论怎样都可以，我只是提出这个问题。巴塞特先生：据我了解，庭审记录通常需要 48 小时，因此，我认为在我们作出\n\n180 案号 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 180 页，共 186 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 其他修订时，手头有该记录将会有所帮助，以确保我们没有遗漏任何事项。法庭：那么，嗯，从今天起一周，或者更早，如何？您始终可以更早提交。巴塞特先生：是的，那将会——法庭：可以吗？巴塞特先生：——那样可以，法官阁下。法庭：好的。没有任何事情阻碍此事发生，而且有时它实际上确实会发生，因此，我——那么，我要为记录说明的是，关于受托人提出的修改撤销诉讼程序、纳入撤销诉讼调解程序的命令动议，即 ECF 编号 3003，以及法庭作出的安排今日就调解程序举行听证并确定提交异议期限的命令，所有及时提交异议的异议人均已获得陈述机会，法庭已就需要裁定的异议作出裁决，其中许多——其中一些已由当事人解决，并将载入于 5 月 7 日或之前提交的经修订拟议命令。因此，法庭认为，所有异议均已被驳回、经协议解决，或目前尚不成熟，并将在其成熟时及如其成熟时予以处理。基于上述所有理由，准许修改程序命令的动议。随后，经修订拟议命令将于 5 月 7 日或之前提交。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 181 页，共 186 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 今天下午我们还有其他需要处理的事项吗？德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，如获许可，作一个两分钟的更新。我可以走近吗？法庭：当然可以。德斯平斯先生：那么，法官阁下，我只是想告知法庭，关于 Sherry Netherland（雪莉-内德兰），应当会有一项动议提交——即使不是明天，也会是后天。这件事永无止境，但如您所知，火灾发生地点有一个受影响区域。清理该区域并处理所有相关事项的工作正在进行中，但发现，尽管其余公寓大约在七个月、八个月前进行过一次大规模清理，并且该清理由 AIG（美国国际集团）经协商支付费用，但显然，在天花板与我想是天花板水泥部分之间，以及电线或管道所在之处，仍有烟灰或灰烬，我们需要拆下天花板并清理所有这些区域。因此——法庭：合作公寓社不对此负责吗？德斯平斯先生：您说什么？法庭：合作公寓社不对此负责吗？德斯平斯先生：嗯，合作公寓社——这只是\n\n24 25 非常技术性的问题，但在达到混凝土之前，天花板以及天花板以上的所有部分由我们负责。\n\n1 法庭：\n哦，好的。\n\n2 德斯平斯先生：\n混凝土由他们负责，\n\n3 他们将为其负责的那部分工作支付大约 $250,000，\n\n4 但我们必须——我们正试图降低\n\n5 成本。我们必须支付一大笔钱来\n\n6 完成该工作；否则，我们将永远处于\n\n7 烟灰不断在公寓内重新循环的状态。\n\n8 除此之外，我们需要将所有\n\n9 家具搬出公寓，并丢弃寝具、\n\n10 床单和所有软性物品，因为其中仍有烟灰。\n\n11 因为如果这些物品仍在那里，清理就毫无意义。\n\n12 我们确实需要彻底清理。\n\n13 因此，我们将提交一项动议，\n\n14 并请求对此予以加速审理，法官\n\n15 阁下，因为构想是，该程序应当与其他工作\n\n16 同时进行，\n\n17 以便我们实际上能够达到可以出售该公寓的阶段，并且尽快出售。\n\n18 这\n\n19 仍将需要几个月、数个月。因此，这就是关于——这是一个复杂程序的报告。\n\n20 \n\n21 法庭：\n显然，对该公寓主张\n\n22 权益的当事人必须获得通知\n\n23 及陈述机会。\n\n24 德斯平斯先生：\n是的。因此，我们显然——\n\n25 法庭：\n您说的是家具和\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 183 页，共 186 页\n\n1 任何其他物品——\n\n2 德斯平斯先生：\n是的，所以——但我们不会——\n\n3 法庭：\n您要将其存放在某处吗？\n\n4 德斯平斯先生：\n是的，我们将把它存放起来。\n\n5 因此，家具本身——寝具，我认为\n\n6 将会——床单将被\n\n7 丢弃，床垫也将被丢弃，\n\n8 但家具将被搬至我们已经存放 HCHK 设备\n\n9 以及原在纽约市住所的其他家具的仓库。\n\n10 并且\n\n11 我们将把两者分隔开，以便我们知道这些物品\n\n12 来自 Sherry Netherland，而这些是 HCHK 的，因此将会有\n\n13 类似于——并非真正的墙，但会有类似隔板\n\n14 的东西，以确保我们能够追踪管理这些物品，但该等\n\n15 家具将被搬至该区域。\n\n16 我们收到的报告是，这些家具并非——这不是真正的\n\n17 古董；它只是类似于——\n\n18 法庭：\n嗯，它没有被火灾损坏吗？\n\n19 德斯平斯先生：\n嗯，没有。其中一部分已被火灾完全\n\n20 毁坏，但其余部分没有损坏，不过其价值不会超过，\n\n21 比如说，$100,000、$200,000。这不是真正的古董；它是那种\n\n22 您可以买到的古董，普通人也可以买到的。\n\n23 \n\n24 因此，我们将搬走家具，但\n\n25 显然，我们正在通知 AIG。他们已经知道\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 184 页，共 186 页\n\n1 因为我们将寻求——我们将告知他们，\n\n2 我们希望他们支付该费用，因为我们——我现在说的是\n\n3 清理程序，因为这是由火灾造成的，\n\n4 并且，关于此事将继续处理。\n\n5 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n6 德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n7 法庭：\n好的，我认为，除非有人\n\n8 持不同意见，今日有关 Kwok（郭文贵）事项\n\n9 及对抗程序 23-05013 的听证至此结束。\n\n10 有人不同意吗？\n\n11 （无人作口头回应）\n\n12 法庭：\n好的，谢谢各位。那么法庭现\n\n13 休庭。\n\n14 律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n15 （程序于下午 5:02 结束。）\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3150\n提交日期 04/30/24\n录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20\n\n1 证明\n\n2 我们证明，据我们所知及所能，\n\n3 上述内容是对上述案由程序电子录音的\n\n4 正确庭审记录。\n\n7 /s/ Mary Zajaczkowski（玛丽·扎亚奇科夫斯基）\nApril 29, 2024\n8 Mary Zajaczkowski（玛丽·扎亚奇科夫斯基）, CET-531\n9 认证法庭记录员\n10 代表 Reliable（瑞莱布尔）\n\n12 /s/ Tracey J. Williams（特蕾西·J·威廉斯）\nApril 25, 2024\n13 Tracey J. Williams（特蕾西·J·威廉斯）, CET-914\n14 认证法庭记录员\n15 代表 Reliable\n\n17 /s/ Coleen Rand（科琳·兰德）\nApril 25, 2024\n18 Coleen Rand（科琳·兰德）, CET-341\n19 认证法庭记录员\n20 代表 Reliable\n\n24 1\n案号 22-50073 文件 3150 提交日期 04/30/24\n186 录入日期 04/30/24 08:17:20 第 186 页，共 186 页","key_entities":["Je","HCHK","Despins","CIPA","Kwok","Paul Hastings","Ho Wan Kwok","Saraca","RICO","Guo","Luc Despins","GTV"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3083,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3100,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3105,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":51304,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:05:06"}