{"id":"court_ctb_3330_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3330,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-07-22","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, et al., . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05028 (JAM) Plaintiffs, . . v. . . ACE DECADE HOLDINGS . LIMITED, et al., . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05005 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building GREENWICH LAND, LLC and . 915 Lafayette Boulevard HING CHI NGOK, . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . Defendant . Tuesday, July 16, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: James C. Graham, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 1 of 88\n\n 2 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 -and- Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 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. APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): For the U.S. Trustee: Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 For Greenwich Land, LLC: Christopher J. Major, Esquire MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP 125 Park Avenue 7th Floor New York, New York 10017 For the Joint Liquidators of Ace Decade: David R. Roth, Esquire WIGGIN AND DANA One Century Tower 265 Church Street 17th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 2 of 88\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3330
Filed 07/22/24 | Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00
Page 3 of 88 | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | 3 | |\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n| 2 | | | |\n| 3 | | -and- | |\n| 4 | | David Litterine-Kaufman, Esquire
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP | |\n| 5 | | 51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019 | |\n| 6 | For The Sherry | | |\n| 7 | Netherland, Inc.: | Sherry Millman, Esquire | |\n| | | HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
390 Madison Avenue | |\n| 8 | | New York, New York 10017 | |\n| 9 | For the Official | | |\n| 10 | Committee of | | |\n| 11 | Unsecured Creditors: | Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire
PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC | |\n| 12 | | 850 Main Street
8th Floor | |\n| 13 | | Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n 4 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 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 1: Luc A. Despins v Greenwich Land, LLC et al Adversary Case no. 24-05005 Status Conference 6 Court's Ruling: 43 Matter No. 2: HO WAN KWOK, et al. Case No. 22-50073 #3259; Motion for Order / Joint Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee and Debtors Genever US and Genever BVI for Entry of Final Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363 and 364, Authorizing Amendment to Interdebtor Postpetition Financing Agreement Filed by Luc A. Despins on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever Holdings LLC, Chapter 11 Trustee, Debtors Trustee's Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server for Service Abroad 43 Court's Ruling: 49 Matter No. 3: #3301; Motion to Limit Service of Motion to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions Filed by Douglass E. Barron on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: 51 53 Matter No. 4: Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v Ace Decade Holdings Limited, et al. Adversary Case no. 23-05028 #40; Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (b)(2) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 against Ace Decade Holdings Limited and Yanping 'Yvette' Wang . Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, Plaintiff 54 Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 4 of 88\n\n 5 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: Adversary Number 23-05005. Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, versus Greenwich Land, LLC, et al., 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and 23-05028, Despins, et al. versus Ace Decade Holding, Limited, et al. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Lindsay of Neubert Pepe & Monteith for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein. We represent the defendants, Greenwich Land, LLC and Hing Shih Nak, who we refer to as Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So this is the matter with regard to Greenwich Land is the first matter on today's calendar, so I assume we are handling that matter first? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Please proceed. MR. DESPINS: May I approach Your Honor? Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 5 of 88\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may.
Thank you. |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter |\n| 3 | 11 Trustee.
We requested the status conference, Your Honor, |\n| 4 | based on the order you entered on July 2nd.
That order not |\n| 5 | only granted the summary judgment but had some very specific |\n| 6 | language regarding the Greenwich parties must transfer |\n| 7 | control -- or I don't have the precise language, but the |\n| 8 | order speaks for itself -- as of July 22nd of this year. |\n| 9 | We reached out to counsel for the Greenwich parties |\n| 10 | right away on -- actually on July 4th, saying that there are |\n| 11 | a lot of logistical issues that need to be addressed to |\n| 12 | implement that order.
You know, basic things like, you know, |\n| 13 | I know I have not been to the house, but I've seen it from |\n| 14 | the outside.
There are two sets of electronic -- of gates. |\n| 15 | I'm sure there are elaborate alarm systems, all |\n| 16 | sorts of systems in the house like this that's worth between |\n| 17 | \\$6 and 7 million or so.
And so I can't -- it's not a case of |\n| 18 | just giving us the keys and, you know, good luck with it.
We |\n| 19 | need to have an organized transfer of possession of that |\n| 20 | asset. |\n| 21 | And I've been trying to push that agenda with |\n| 22 | counsel for the Greenwich parties but without success.
They |\n| 23 | are -- they filed a request for a stay, and I'm sure Your |\n| 24 | Honor is aware of that, although they have not filed a motion |\n| 25 | to shorten time to have that heard before July 22nd. |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 And I would say, footnote, I'm a little concerned that they will run to District Court saying, hey, we filed a motion for a stay. Judge Manning has not ruled, and therefore, you need to grant us a stay. But that's a different issue. But I think that there should be a stay hearing because there are complex issues here of potential damage to the estate to the extent we don't get the property now, in terms of, you know, the timing of selling this house, the risks to the house and the property generally, that would need to be addressed in a stay context, which is not the hearing today. I understand that, but I just want to point Your Honor to the fact that their stay request basically says, we'll wane on the merits, forget about a bond, we don't need\n\n16 that, everything's fine.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 But one of the Greenwich parties, the debtor's wife, you know, has been living there, frankly, rent free for months and months. And a house like this rents for about 30-, 35,000 a month, Your Honor. So there's value there that the estate is not -- would not be capturing.\n\n22 23 24 25 So again, I don't want to argue the stay, but the point is the stay needs to be dealt with. But in the meantime, we have these -- we've asked for the status conference to deal with these logistical issues.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Today, counsel filed a request -- counsel for the Greenwich parties filed a request to extend the time of July 22nd by 90 days, saying that, well, there's all sorts of furniture in that house, we don't know who owns it. Therefore, we need to have time to resolve that issue. And I want to cut right through that.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 One, she barely knew that she owned the house, okay? So meaning she didn't know which house she -- was which. This one she thought she owned it through this company, but barely. The concept that somehow she would have evidence that she owns furniture in that house is, you know, I'd like to see that, the evidence of any items other than her personal property or clothes and all that.\n\n14 15 16 17 And we're not proposing to change that in any way. The furniture should stay in the house, and we can sort out the ownership issue of the furniture, and the artwork, and electronics, and all that later without any prejudice to her.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 Again, I don't believe for a second that she owns anything in that house, but just to address the issue of we need -- she needs to stay 90 days, and they're rent free again, while the issue of sorting out who's the owner does, you know, that doesn't need to happen.\n\n23 24 25 We need to put the house up for sale. We need to sell it as quickly as possible. Again, I talked to the broker. The broker I'm hiring is the same broker that sold\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 9 of 88\n\n9\n\n| 1 | the house, Julie Burke from -- I forget which company. |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Anyway, she sold the house to the Kwoks three years, four |\n| 3 | years ago or so. |\n\n4 5 6 7 8 So she knows the house inside out, and she was very forceful about the fact that the market is now to sell this house, not in November, because then you're talking about selling it in the spring of next year. And this house costs a lot of money.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 For example, there are taxes that are due on July 31st of \\$27,000 and change. Who's paying that? And by the way, out of -- where is that money coming from that is being paid? I'd like to understand that, as well. But the point, Your Honor, is that this issue of we don't know who owns the furniture is a delaying tactic.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 Their rights will not be prejudiced because we're not going to sell the furniture. We're not going to dispose of it. And we believe the Court should enter an order, and we have filed at Docket Number 143 a proposed order. And I - - look, Your Honor, I apologize. It was filed late, at 11:40 this morning.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 But the order basically says it's the same issues that I've raised with counsel for the Greenwich parties on July 4th, which is, we need access to the control of the house, that means the remotes, the electronic system, the passwords, knowing who's providing services, who's taking\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 care of the pool, who's taking care of the landscaping, et cetera, et cetera. It's not onerous to provide that. I'm sure there's a person that takes care of that, meaning that pays these people, so that person could certainly provide that list to us very easily. And that's what this order says. And the order also says they shall not take anything out of the house other than their personal effects and, you know, family pictures and the like. And the trustee shall not sell or dispose of anything in the house without a further court order, again, to protect their alleged right that they own -- they being, you know, Ms. Guo -- own some of the furniture or anything along those lines. We, you know, the statement that was filed by counsel for the Greenwich party said that I will con -- I want to conduct a fire sale. No. I want to sell it at the best price possible, which is now. Also, broker told me that if you want to rent this, you need to rent it before the school season starts. And therefore, there's a very limited window to do that. So it may be that we are going to try to rent it, but that's -- that would be 30-, 35,000 a month in income for the estate. And therefore, you know, if we're going to capture that value, we need to do it now. There is a paragraph in there that says -- that\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 order -- that failure to comply with this order may lead the Court -- may lead the Court -- THE COURT: This is the order that you talked - that you -- that was filed at 11:14? MR. DESPINS: Yes. I -- THE COURT: Okay. I just want to make sure I understand what you're reading from. MR. DESPINS: Yes. That's -- THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. DESPINS: I have an -- may I -- THE COURT: Oh, go ahead. It's fine. I can find it. MR. DESPINS: Okay. I think it's Document Number 143. So basically it says, ordered that failure to comply with this order may lead the Court to direct the United States Marshal Service to assist the trustee. I know you're not big on that from prior events. And basically it says may; it doesn't say shall, but the point is that we need to get control of this property on July 22nd. This has been taking a long time to get here, and there's value to be realized by the estate, and that should happen now. I would point out as well, Your Honor, that Mr. Guo's wife is a defendant in \\$800,000 plus adversary, you know, adverse proceedings that I filed against her where Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 11 of 88\n\n1 we're seeking 800,000 plus from her now.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 We're not implying that somehow you should assume that we're going to prevail on that. But the point is, there's a lot of issues here with her conduct. And in fact, in the opinion you entered, Your Honor, that you were very specific about the fact that they subverted these bankruptcy proceedings by doing all sorts of things that are inappropriate.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 So when counsel for the Greenwich parties comes to court to say, hey, we need more time, we need to sort out who owns what, we just can't, you know, we can't rely on them to operate in a way in which they should have operated and which complies with the bankruptcy code, because they have not.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 It's been established, and it could be very detrimental to the estate to leave a person that has no stake in the house, in control of that house. I don't even know if there's insurance on that house. You remember that Mahwah, there was no insurance at all.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And there's been no attempt by counsel for the Greenwich party to say, okay, I understand we lost, but we're willing to put up X amount of money to protect the estate, a bond or something like that, or we're willing to pay rental for this property while we're appealing. There's no effort of that. It's just give us a free ride and hope for the best.\n\n 13 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 And, Your Honor, we cannot support that. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Major? MR. MAJOR: May I go to the podium, Your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. Thank you. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor, for the record, Chris Major, Meister, Seelig & Fein. We represent the two defendants in this adversary proceeding. So Your Honor, I think there are a couple of very important procedural issues that I think have to be addressed here, and we do address them in our motion for a stay, which we filed on Friday. And we filed it in this court in accordance with Rule 8007. You know, I do think, frankly, that we have a good argument that it's not practical to come, first to the Bankruptcy Court given the exigencies here, and the fact that the Bankruptcy Court, in your order, Your Honor, you said that there would be no stay. I realize that's under 7062, so in an abundance of caution we filed the motion in the Bankruptcy Court. I knew when we filed it on Friday afternoon that we had this status conference. I think one of the things to address at the status conference is whether and when the Bankruptcy Court can address that motion because we do have a tight clock here Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 13 of 88\n\n1 2 3 4 5 with Monday. I mean, the trustee has just outlined, including in the proposed order they filed a few minutes before court started, what his intentions are. And I think, you know, the basis for our stay motion is multifaceted. But most importantly, we've had a\n\n6 7 motion for withdrawal of the reference pending for more than a year now that has not been decided by the District Court.\n\n8 9 10 11 And if things proceed the way the trustee just outlined, that motion wouldn't be decided until after Ms. Guo's home is sold, and she's evicted, and she's never gotten a ruling on her motion to withdraw the reference.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 The Bankruptcy Court made a statement in the summary judgment memorandum of decision along the lines of if a court later adjudicates that the Bankruptcy Court didn't have jurisdiction to enter a final judgment, that this should be treated as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 But if Ms. Guo has already been evict[ed, if Ms. Guo's home has already been sold at a time when the District Court decides that it has to enter the final order, well, the final order's already been entered and executed upon because the home is gone, and Ms. Guo has been evicted.\n\n23 24 25 So that is, you know, I think an issue that has to be addressed by the District Court before we can execute on the Bankruptcy Court's judgment, because if we get into a\n\n1 2 3 4 situation where the Bankruptcy Court's judgment has already been executed upon by the trustee, then that takes away our client's right to what we think should be a determination by the District Court of this case.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 But more importantly, we don't even get to the stage where the District Court tells us whether or not the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction. So that's one of the main thrusts of our motion for stay, and I'm sure the other wouldn't surprise the Bankruptcy Court, but this is Ms. Guo's home.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 I understand that, you know, there's been a lot of allegations and things that have happened in this greater bankruptcy case. But the facts of the matter are that Ms. Guo came here in 2017 and applied for asylum. She doesn't speak English. There's a jury deliberating in Manhattan right now about her husband's criminal trial.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 She has a bad back. I can tell you I've sat with her, and when I say I sat with her, I was sitting, she's standing because she can't sit for a period of time, and she's in a foreign country. She's been here for a while, but she doesn't speak English. The culture's obviously very different, and you know, say what you want about whatever Mr. Kwok did in connection with this bankruptcy or anything else he's alleged to do, the fact of the matter is our client is in a really difficult position.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 And so having her have to move out of her home, where she's been for four years in three weeks -- and there's never been litigation, let alone a determination, about who owns what in the house. I mean, the trustee says he has all these rulings. My understanding is several of them are on default judgments, but he has all these rulings in other cases about other entities.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 And that may be, but that doesn't mean that there's been any determination that X item in the house is owned by those other entities. So she's being told, you have to get out. I, the trustee, am going to take possession of everything. And then, from what the trustee has said to us, we would then have the burden of proof of proving that the materials inside the house are not his.\n\n15 16 17 18 But that's not the way it works. He's still on the plaintiff's side of the V here, and he chose to litigate this case in a way that didn't address the items that are in the house and who owns them.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's a process that I think we don't need to go to, in my view, have a court, whether it be this court or the District Court, go item by item with us. I mean, that's not -- I don't think that's a good use of the Court's resources. But there has to be some period of time where we can go through this process because, I mean, I can tell you, from my client's perspective, she's being told in one sense,\n\n| 1 | you have to be out on the 22nd.
And in the other sense, I |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | was told by the trustee that we should assume the house is |\n| 3 | being surveilled, and if they bring anything out of the house |\n| 4 | that the trustee is going to run into the Bankruptcy Court. |\n| 5 | So what's she supposed to do?
Is she supposed to |\n| 6 | move or not move?
And it's -- the fact of the matter is, she |\n| 7 | should be entitled to a stay because this involves her home. |\n| 8 | An eviction from your primary residence, the sale of your |\n| 9 | primary residence, is by definition irreparable harm.
And I |\n| 10 | think that that's the most important factor. |\n| 11 | We argue this in our brief, and I don't want to go |\n| 12 | too deep into it.
But I do think that the stay motion, |\n| 13 | whether it be the motion that's on file, or the one we file |\n| 14 | in the District Court, that that needs to get addressed. |\n| 15 | I've had to -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
So what motion in the District Court? |\n| 17 | You mean the withdrawal to reference?
Or you filed a motion |\n| 18 | for stay in the District Court as well? |\n| 19 | MR. MAJOR:
We haven't filed a motion for stay in |\n| 20 | the District Court, but -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | MR. MAJOR:
-- and I'm just being completely frank, |\n| 23 | Your Honor, I acknowledge -- I'll say it this way.
There's |\n| 24 | at least a risk that Your Honor is going to deny our stay |\n| 25 | motion given what's happened with prior stay motions, what |\n| | |\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 happened with the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy Court's, you know, current order. But more important than any of that, given the amount of time that we have -- THE COURT: Just so I'm clear for the record, just so other people are clear for the record, when you say the automatic stay, you mean the stay imposed by the rules with regard to the order granting the motion for summary judgment. MR. MAJOR: Yes. I don't -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. MAJOR: -- I'm not talking about a 362 -- THE COURT: I just want to be clear on that so people understand the distinction. That's all. MR. MAJOR: Yeah. I appreciate that, Your Honor. And I should have been -- THE COURT: No, that's fine. MR. MAJOR: -- more detailed. THE COURT: That's absolutely fine. I just want to make that note for the record. MR. MAJOR: But more important than anything, I mean, just given the timing of things, we have to be prepared for the contingency of going to the District Court, and so, you know, I think that the -- and that sort of precipitated filing the motion for extension, including discussions we've had with the trustee, which is --\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 THE COURT: So the motion for extension, was that filed -- that wasn't filed on Friday. The motion for stay pending appeal was filed on Friday. MR. MAJOR: Correct. And -- THE COURT: So what was -- when was the extension motion filed? MR. MAJOR: Sometime, I believe, between 9:30 and 10 o'clock this morning. THE COURT: Okay. So your motion for extension is seeking an extension of the date in the summary judgment motion? Is that what you're saying? MR. MAJOR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, summary judgment ruling, I apologize. MR. MAJOR: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And oh, it's what Trustee Despins said. Now I'm getting that. The 90 days. That's what you're asking for in your motion for extension of time. You're asking that the enforceability of the order granting summary judgment, that the date in that order be extended for 90 days. MR. MAJOR: Yes, Your Honor. That's what we seek in the motion. And I think what the motion for extension would assist with is, one, it would allow time for the stay motion or motions to be dealt with. It would allow time for Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 19 of 88\n\n1 2 3 a process to determine the items in the house and whether or not they are -- who owns them, whether it's the trustee or is it Ms. Guo and so forth.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 But I recognize what the trustee is going to -- I think, has told the Court today, and will tell the Court when he gets back up, is we're going to put the things in storage, we're not going to get rid of it, so your rights are preserved.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 But really, at the end of the day, the extension of time is -- my client needs more time to move out of her home, if she -- if, in fact, she's going to have to move out. If we lose our stay motions and there are marshals knocking on the door, she's got to leave, but she has to have somewhere to go.\n\n15 16 17 And I think that it's not too much to ask for the trustee, you know, to wait some period of time so these things can shake out.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Because as I started off at the top, I mean, the withdrawal of the reference motion, if that never gets decided before the trustee sells the home, well, our client's rights under the constitution have -- are gone at that point, because she would not have had the opportunity to have the District Court decide whether or not, you know, Greenwich Land is an alter ego of the debtor, Mr. Kwok.\n\n25\n\nAnd if the home is sold, then there's not going to\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be a determination that would have much meaning because she's already lost her home and been evicted and so forth. And so the extension of time, if I could just sort of lay bare my request here, is we're just hoping that she can get a little more time. And I understand that our client doesn't paint a sympathetic picture for the trustee, but, you know, her husband is -- there's a jury deliberating. She's not in good health, and she's being asked to leave her home on extremely short notice at a time when I would have to tell her, I still don't have a ruling on your motion to withdraw the reference. I may or may not -- THE COURT: As you know, this court cannot control it. MR. MAJOR: Yes, of course, I understand that completely. And I don't know that I will have rulings on the stay motions. If you -- THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a few questions -- MR. MAJOR: Sure. THE COURT: -- based upon what both Trustee Despins said and what you have just said. And this is a status conference. And that's what the trustee asked for last week because of the -- I believe because of the date of July 22nd in the summary judgment order. Do you know whether there is insurance, property insurance, on the house? MR. MAJOR: I don't, Your Honor.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 THE COURT: Okay. I think I'm going to need to know the answer to that question, all right? I think that's a legitimate question where we are. So I would like to know the answer to that question, whatever it is. Yes or no. I'd like to know.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 With regard to the taxes, do you know, other than what Trustee Despins has said about the July payment, which I don't know if you live in Connecticut, but that is when it's due. I mean, it's due this month, either the 1st or the 31st, depending -- I don't know how Greenwich works, but I would assume that you have until the 31st of July to pay your, you know, one part of your annual taxes, okay? So do you know -- I'm not even asking about the\n\n14 15 16 17 18 July 31st payment. I'm just trying to understand, and you probably don't know the answer, but I'd like to get an answer, of whether all the taxes prior to the taxes that are due and owing this month of July have been paid. I want to know, is it bleeding, essentially, okay?\n\n19 20 21 22 Is the -- have the taxes been paid on this property? I have no idea. I don't know if you do, but I need to take all these facts into consideration, right? And so I would need to know the answer to those two.\n\n23 24 25 With regard to the July payment, again, obviously it hasn't -- well, I shouldn't say obviously. According to what the trustee has stated, it hasn't been paid yet. But I\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't think that there's a negative ramification from that. I think you have until July 31st to pay your taxes. So I'd like to know if there's -- I mean Ms. Ngok is the managing member of Greenwich Land, according to the facts that we've found and what we've seen, right? So she should know if the taxes are going to be paid. I'd like to know that question as well. Because when -- and I heard you both say, and trustee Despins, I'm obviously going to give you an opportunity to respond, but I heard you both say the stay motion needs to be addressed, okay? The stay motion was filed on Friday. It hasn't been addressed yet, obviously. It hasn't been. If the Court is going to address that, and I am going to address that, but, I mean, if we're going to address that in connection with the concern that you raised about the 22nd, then I need to figure out whether or not the date in the summary judgment motion, excuse me, order should change or if I can have a hearing on the stay between now and Monday. I think the likelihood of that happening is not high, of having a hearing between now and Monday. But I can change the summary judgment order to a different date, given what the status of the proceedings are right now. Whether I change them to 90 days, I don't know. I haven't even read\n\n1 your motion, of course, right?\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 You and Trustee Despins have both told me you filed things within the last few hours. We had hearings this morning. I obviously haven't read the motion, okay? I understand your concerns. I understand the trustee's concerns. I think you both have concerns that have to be weighed by the Court. There's no question about that, okay?\n\n8 9 10 11 12 So a few things that I'd like you both to think about. I heard what the trustee said, and I don't know that you have a response to it. Although, I guess not a response is a response. There's no payment of rent. There's no nothing.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 If you get to the -- if I get to the point where - and I'm going to determine the stay motion, right, one of the things I have to determine is whether a bond is appropriate. And as you know, I would have to determine an amount of the bond based upon what would be attributable to the harm to the trustee in not being able to exercise the judgment that was part -- that was set forth in the order granting summary judgment.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 So there has to be some, at least in my opinion, some discussion about that issue. I would be surprised if you two came to an agreement on that, even just theoretically. But -- and that's not a problem. I'm not saying that's a problem.\n\n| 1 | But I have to weigh that in consideration of all |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the -- whether -- if a stay is going to be granted, I have to |\n| 3 | weigh whether or not a bond should need to be posted.
And, |\n| 4 | you know, I will tell you that I think most judges would say |\n| 5 | that when a stay is granted, a bond does need to be posted. |\n| 6 | It's rare.
It's more the exception than the rule that a bond |\n| 7 | is not required. |\n| 8 | And I understand everything you've said.
And as I |\n| 9 | said to you, I think your points are -- need to be addressed |\n| 10 | by this Court, just as Trustee Despins's points need to be |\n| 11 | addressed.
But there does come a point where I have to do |\n| 12 | something, right?
I have to do something. |\n| 13 | You've now filed a motion for extension time.
I |\n| 14 | haven't read it yet.
You filed a motion for stay pending |\n| 15 | appeal.
I haven't -- I know it's filed.
I know the |\n| 16 | arguments about irreparable harm when it comes to a |\n| 17 | residence. |\n| 18 | So I assume those are the arguments that you've |\n| 19 | made.
I don't know.
I mean, I know I -- you've told me that |\n| 20 | they are.
I mean, I haven't looked at the cases or anything |\n| 21 | that you've cited.
I haven't done any of that yet. |\n| 22 | So all those things would have to be taken into |\n| 23 | consideration, both the trustee's position that he's been |\n| 24 | successful and your position that you need a stay of that |\n| 25 | order for many reasons, including the fact that she, your |\n\n1 2 client, is living in that house and that there's other issues going on.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 And the issue about the withdrawal of reference, as we've already said, this Court can't control that. But the one thing that I would like to note for the record, and I understand why you've raised it, when -- in the summary judgment order, the language about proposed findings backed in conclusions of law all go to the United States Supreme Court case of Stern, and the fact that your client has not agreed that this Court can enter a final order, right?\n\n11 12 13 14 15 And so under the Wellness decision, you're not consenting to that. So I have to stay -- the decision has to say that, so that the District Court, if the withdrawal of the reference is granted, can do with it what it feels is appropriate, right?\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 So I just want you to understand that it wouldn't matter whether it was this case or some other case where some party said that they don't consent to the entry of a final order by this -- or judgment by this Court, that that language would be there as well because it -- the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require it, an acknowledgement of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as do the Supreme Court cases in Stern and Wellness.\n\n24 25 So there was nothing particular to this case by having that language in that summary judgment order. I just\n\n| 1 | want you to understand that.
I'm not saying you were making |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | an argument that it was, but I just want that to be clear. |\n| 3 | If any fact pattern that was brought before the |\n| 4 | court in any case where the -- where a party does not consent |\n| 5 | to the entry of a final judgment, you have to -- the |\n| 6 | Bankruptcy Court should be adding that language to the |\n| 7 | decision so that the District Court understands. |\n| 8 | MR. MAJOR:
And I was not making that argument. |\n| 9 | And I've seen Your Honor put that language in other orders in |\n| 10 | this case, in other cases, and so forth, so I wasn't making |\n| 11 | that argument.
The only point I was making is if Ms. Guo is |\n| 12 | evicted and the home is sold, it will be little solace to her |\n| 13 | for me to tell her, well, it's not a final judgment. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 15 | MR. MAJOR:
That was my only point. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
That's more than fair.
I |\n| 17 | understand.
So as far as this, I'm going to let Trustee |\n| 18 | Despins respond to you, and then you respond to Trustee |\n| 19 | Despins, and then we'll see where things stand.
But I think |\n| 20 | I understand both of your arguments -- oh, I believe I do |\n| 21 | understand both of your arguments to the best of my ability |\n| 22 | as I sit here right now, having not read what was filed |\n| 23 | today. |\n| 24 | MR. MAJOR:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\n 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. DESPINS: Briefly, Your Honor, I would point out, Your Honor ruled on July 2nd. They didn't file a motion for stay till July 12th. And so to say that there are exigencies, I mean, they're self-created in the sense that, you know, 20 days, they had 20 days' notice, and they sat on it for 10 days or so. Then, this argument that she's being evicted. She's not being evicted. They chose the corporate form, they chose to have this house owned by a company. That company has certain rights, and the Court has determined what those rights are. There's no -- she's not a tenant. She's not - she has no contractual right to be there. The issue, you know, about, you know, she has a bad back and, you know, et cetera, et cetera, and, you know, I'm not disputing that. The point is here, look at the amount of spending that went on with other people's money. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by her or for her. So the idea that somehow she's kind of an impoverished person that's going to have a hard time finding a place, there are millions of dollars behind that group. And I hope I'll find all those millions of dollars, but I'm not sure I will.\n\n23 24 25 But, you know, there's the son hiding in the United Arab Emirates or in Switzerland. There's millions of dollars that were transferred there. So there's money. There are\n\n1 ways for them to find money to take care of the mom.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 I never argued that it's his burden to show what is owned. I'm saying I'm diffusing the issue by leaving -- by agreeing that I'm not going to touch the furniture and the artwork. I mean, I'm not going to sell it. So that diffuses the emergency of dealing with that completely.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 Now, Your Honor, as to insurance, taxes, and all these things, the first thing on insurance, Your Honor, I'm a bit concerned about this argument. But the point is, there's already been an incident involving insurance, and Your Honor knows about that because you have a motion for summary judgment pending before you on that.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 Can you imagine if there's another incident involving that house -- this house now, do you think that insurance company would voluntarily pay for that? I guarantee you there would be litigation, so that's Number 1, even if they have insurance.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Two, taxes. It's the same thing as insurance and all that. Who's paying for this? Is this me paying for their stay? In a sense, if they're going into pockets that you've already found that I own, for them to use that money to provide adequate -- not adequate protection in the sense of 363 or 362 adequate protection, but to provide adequate protection to our position while they're appealing -- Then it's illusory because there's no protection\n\n 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 because it's the -- it's our -- not personally, but it's the money of the trustee that's being used to provide the protection to the trustee. So that's another thing we need to look at, which is if they say, yes, we'll pay the insurance. Where's that money coming from? If it's coming from this entity, then, again, I'm providing the protection to myself from my own funds. That makes no sense. Oh, of course, that needs to be addressed in the context of a stay pending appeal, but that's really critically important. And Your Honor, we'll get to that eventually, but, as I said, the rental value of this property is about 35,000 a month. And the value of this house is between \\$6 and \\$7 million, in that range. And that's a huge risk to the estate, to leave that in the hands of people that have not hesitated in violating court orders. She transferred money out of Greenwich Land after she consented to a preliminary injunction. You found that in\n\n19 20 21 22 your opinion. So the equities here are just, you know, I don't want to exaggerate, but it's so clear that they have no leg to stand on because they violate a court order, they violate the bankruptcy code, and then some.\n\n23 24 25 And therefore, any leeway that may be given, look, if we can't have a hearing before the 22nd, maybe we'll have it the 23rd, 24th. Fine. But to -- the concept that somehow\n\n1 2 3 they will get a free ride for a while, while these issues shake out, is not appropriate unless there's real protection. And they have the ability to do that.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 If they want to give us real protection, look at the yacht. At one point, you remember that somebody was moving to lift the stay to go back to Judge Ostrager. It could be the risk of imprisonment for the debtor in front of Ostrager. All of a sudden, \\$37 million appeared in this courtroom. How did that happen? Maybe it can happen again. I'm all for that, if, again, it doesn't come from my own pocket. And the point is they have means to deal with that, and they need to be no different than any other defendant here. There's been a finding made, and if they\n\n14 15 want to appeal, they can appeal all they want, but they need to protect the estate. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Major?\n\n16\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. MAJOR: Chris Major, for the defendants, Your Honor. So I just want to pick up on a procedural point that I was about to raise, but then when you said I'd get another chance I deferred it to now, which is, the trustee mentioned that we had not filed a motion to shorten notice in connection with our stay motion.\n\n23 24 25 As I said in my first time up here, we had this status conference coming. I understand we did not file our motion for stay, you know, on the 2nd after getting the\n\n1 2 3 4 Court's decision, but it was a 61-page decision. I think, filing on July 12th, notwithstanding the fact that there was a long holiday period in between there, which, of course, I worked over the holiday on the stay motion.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 But that, I don't see how someone could question our diligence in filing a stay motion on July 10th after getting a decision on the afternoon of July the 2nd. We didn't take the arguments lightly. We did a, in my view, we did a very strong job on our research and our analysis of the decision.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 But more importantly, I can't see any court saying that ten days is too long to seek the stay. We filed the motion. As to the motion's short notice, we knew we had the status conference, and I thought we could address that here. So I just want to make sure I get the Court's either guidance or just, you know, I can file a motion to shorten notice today if that's what we need to do to satisfy, of course, most importantly, the Court or the trustee.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 But I wanted to address that with the Court, so that, if we end up in the District Court, I don't want to, you know, have the trustee say that we were not availing ourselves of the Bankruptcy Court, even though I do think we had a good argument under 8007 to go straight to the District Court.\n\n25\n\nBut I wanted to make sure, you know, that we had it\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 on file with the with the Bankruptcy Court, so that if we have to go to the District Court when we do, we can say we've followed 8007 to a T. So that's one point I definitely wanted to address with the Court. THE COURT: 8007 doesn't require a party to seek an emergency hearing, as far as I know. I mean, I'll take a look at it. But to answer your question, you don't need to file a motion to shorten time and limit notice on the hearing. I will address it in the context of this being a status conference related to the enforcement of the order granting the motion for summary judgment. So you don't need to do that, okay? MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: With regard to -- I was going to ask you a question, then I forgot. With regard to -- as you probably are aware, there were, you know, hundreds of adversary proceedings filed. And I, of course, may have seen the names and things, but I haven't looked at them unless and until it's necessary at the point. And not many of them have been necessary at this point yet. But Trustee Despins spoke about an adversary proceeding that was commenced against your client, Ms. Ngok,\n\n24 represent her in that adversary proceeding?\n\nindividually, apparently, to recover monies. Do you\n\n23\n\n25\n\nMR. MAJOR: So, yeah, Your Honor, I have entered an\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 appearance on behalf of Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land. Forgive me, there was a deluge of adversary proceedings and several against our clients -- so if my numbers are a little bit off. I believe there are seven adversary proceedings that may - other than the one we're in right now. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MAJOR: I believe there's seven that name Ms. Guo and/or Greenwich Land, two of which are stayed. I'm sure the Court's familiar. There's one adversary proceeding that is denoted as a RICO action. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MAJOR: That is stayed in favor of the criminal case. And then, there is, I guess -- THE COURT: The omnibus. Is that the other one? MR. MAJOR: There's two omnibuses. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MAJOR: So I don't want to confuse the record. There's -- THE COURT: There's the RICO, and then, there's the alter ego omnibus issue, I think. And so is that another matter which Greenwich Landing and Ms. Ngok listed as defendants? MR. MAJOR: I'm not sure about -- THE COURT: Well, it doesn't -- MR. MAJOR: -- I don't remember --\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- all I wanted to understand, and |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | you've answered the question, is she is being represented by |\n| 3 | counsel, and it's you in those adversary proceedings? |\n| 4 | MR. MAJOR:
Yes, Your Honor.
And the one, the |\n| 5 | omnibus, there's a footnote where the trustee basically says, |\n| 6 | and I'm paraphrasing here and probably being a little bit too |\n| 7 | colloquial, if he wins this case, he's going to drop that |\n| 8 | case, because he filed it under compulsion of the statute of |\n| 9 | limitations. |\n| 10 | And then, there are some fraudulent transfer, post |\n| 11 | petition transfer cases which are not stayed. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, that was my question.
I |\n| 13 | just didn't recall whether you had actually filed appearances |\n| 14 | on behalf of Greenwich Land and/or Ms. Ngok in those |\n| 15 | adversary proceedings.
And your belief is that you have.
So |\n| 16 | that's -- I just was curious. |\n| 17 | Again, I don't know everything that's going on in |\n| 18 | every -- |\n| 19 | MR. MAJOR:
Sure.
Of course. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
-- adversary proceeding.
But in any |\n| 21 | event, so you don't need to file a motion to shorten time or |\n| 22 | limit notice on the motion for stay pending appeal.
What I'm |\n| 23 | going to do is -- I've heard -- I think -- is there anything |\n| 24 | else?
I don't want to cut you off, if there's anything else |\n| 25 | you'd like to say for the record. |\n\n 36 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. MAJOR: No, Your Honor. I think that covers it. THE COURT: All right. Well, thank you. MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Then, as Trustee Despins had requested last week, we have held a status conference in this adversary proceeding today. And since that request was made last Tuesday and granted, it was -- I think it was even granted on the record, but it -- Things have happened since last Tuesday, including the defendants filing a motion for stay pending appeal, and, apparently, the most -- the defendants filing today a motion for extension of time of the enforceability date of the judgment in the order granting summary judgment. I understand the trustee's concerns about timing, and I also understand the defendant's concerns about timing. What I'm going to do is within the next day or -- I'm going to change the July 22nd date in the summary judgment order. That's clear. I'm not going to be able to -- you haven't even filed a response yet, Trustee Despins. And I'm not saying you should have, but to the stay pending appeal, you haven't done that yet. And I know you're going to respond, and I was going to order you to respond, so that's going to happen, okay? And then, you'll have an opportunity, Attorney Major, for a reply to the trustee's Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 36 of 88\n\n| 1 | response. |\n|---|-----------|\n| | |\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 And then, we'll have it -- whatever order I issue, we'll have all the dates and times in them. I'm not going to -- I don't know what the timing is as I sit here right now, but I'm not going to grant a motion for 90 days of extension of time. I don't see that as being productive at this point in time, but you can reserve your right to ask for additional time depending upon whatever I do.\n\n9 10 11 But I don't see that just granting an extension of time for 90 days right now is the appropriate thing to do. So I have to go back and review certain things.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And my belief is that -- today's Tuesday, so my belief is before Thursday, if not sooner, some form of order will issue with regard to this adversary proceeding that will set up a schedule of time for the trustee to respond to the motion for stay pending appeal, the defendants to reply to that response, and setting a hearing, and also extending or modifying, I suppose, the date of July 22nd in the order granting summary -- motion for summary judgment.\n\n20 21 22 23 So have I forgotten anything? Or is there anything else that you either of you would like to state for the record before we move on to the next matter? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. The only concern is\n\n24 25 whether things are getting paid for the house and -- but -- THE COURT: Well, that'll be all part of the order.\n\n| 38 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay?
I will -- and I already told |\n| Attorney Major on the record that I want him to be able to |\n| answer those questions.
So that's going to be whether the |\n| question is yes or no -- whether the answer is yes or no, I |\n| don't know.
But I need him to answer those questions. |\n| He's asking for a stay pending appeal, which he's |\n| absolutely entitled to do.
I need to know some facts that I |\n| need to consider in connection with that motion for stay |\n| pending appeal.
So that'll be all part of that order. |\n| I think that what we'll do is, as I said, I think |\n| we'll enter an order in the next few days, maybe sooner.
I'm |\n| forgetting something, apparently, which is good that |\n| |\n\n14 somebody's reminding me. Yeah.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n20\n\n15 16 17 18 19 Again, I think -- I talked about this issue already a little bit, but you all -- you have to think about whether or not a bond -- I know you've argued that a bond, or I don't know, but I believe you've argued that you shouldn't have to post a bond. Is that correct?\n\nMR. MAJOR: Yes, Your Honor.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: All right. So and I told you, I think, during this hearing that I think that's a rare occasion, that if a party is successful in obtaining a stay pending appeal, that there isn't a bond required. And I know -- I don't know, but I believe I'm accurate, that the trustee is going\n\n1 to say you have to post a bond.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 So there's going to be an argument about the bond, right? We've already talked about if there -- if we get to this stay, if the Court grants a stay, we've already talked about the harm to the trustee for not being able to execute on the judgment. And he's offered up some initial ideas about the harm, including the taxes, the rental.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 But you all both have to think about what is it - what would be an appropriate bond and what would it be based on because it's not as if the Court is going to just make a determination of an amount of a bond. This isn't a money judgment, right? We don't have a money judgment that I can just say -- not that I, you know, that I could at least have a basis to formulate the amount of the bond.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So, you know, the value of the property and losing the property from the trustee's perspective is probably what he's going to focus on as an amount of bond. I don't know what you're going to focus on. You can continue to make the argument that you're not entitled -- I mean, you're not required, excuse me, to file a bond. But I think I've made it clear that I think that's unusual under these circumstances.\n\n23 24 25 You do whatever you think. But I'm explaining to both of you that that has to be part of what's in your papers. And if there's something that you're relying on that\n\n1 2 3 4 is factual, that relates to a dollar amount of a bond, then, I need to see that because I need to be able to consider that in connection with the possible need to post a bond of a stay pending appeal.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 We're not going to do it in segments, right? We're going to do it all in one. I don't know if I'm going to grant, I have no idea. I have to look at your papers. I have to look at the response. I have to look at the reply. And then I have to figure out if the stay is warranted, what -- is there a bond? And if there is, what is it?\n\n11 12 13 14 So we have to plan for all eventual possibilities. And so you have to think about that. And I -- and it's not going to be that we're going to raise a new issue about how we're going to get to the bond.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 You're going to have to tell me in your papers. I think a bond should be -- like the trustee, I think the bond should be X because I can -- I got -- I have an affidavit of a real estate broker who says, which, by the way, doesn't mean that that's evidence, but it is an opinion that the value of the property is X, or the rental value is Y, or the taxes are due and owing is Z.\n\n22 23 24 25 And if you add all those up, those are the harm that comes to me, Trustee, if you don't let me sell this property right now because you grant a stay pending appeal, right? And the same thing, you're going to have to tell me\n\n 41 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 why you think you don't have to, or if you do, why -- what the amount should be. And I understand -- I mean, I can anticipate somewhat of the arguments, right? It isn't anything we haven't talked about before in general. But I want it to be specific is the point. Does anybody have any questions about that? MR. MAJOR: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I just -- I mean, you know, I'm not going to go through another round of briefing on what it is the information that you're both relying on as far as how does the Court set the amount of the bond. I have to consider that at this point, if there's going to be a stay pending appeal. We've just got to get everything done in one briefing schedule because failure to address that issue may result in a denial. And I don't want it to be -- I would prefer not to deny a motion because you didn't address an issue. I would like the address -- the issue should be addressed. I mean, the statute says, right? I mean, it's not a statute. The rule says that the bond -- I mean, it anticipates the bond. And as we all know, under general, you know, principles of litigation, the party against -- the party who is not able to execute on the judgment, arguably, is being\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 harmed. And that's the point of the bond. So anyway, I think that's -- I hope I've made myself clear. If I haven't, please, you know, ask me a question right now. I'm happy to try to make it more definitive. I'm not suggesting you have to have a specific piece of evidence. But you may want one, and you may need some. And I think you probably do. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, my only question is regarding timing. And I -- it's a kind of a personal issue, I'm gone from the 30th for a little while. And please don't take that as the trustee saying, oh, let's schedule this later in August. That's not what I'm suggesting. We're willing to squeeze ourselves on terms of filing a response to what they filed in order to get this heard before or on the 30th. THE COURT: Yeah, I don't know if that can happen. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I have to say, I'm not sure that can happen. I understand your request, and I will take it into consideration. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, I would just like to -- I, of course, understood everything the Court said about the bond completely. I just want to note for the record, I didn't want to just be silent and have it look otherwise. I\n\n| 1 | mean, we do argue that the bond, under these circumstances, |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | are unnecessary.
It's not a money judgment, and there's an |\n| 3 | unencumbered piece of real estate sitting there, subject to |\n| 4 | an injunction and things like that. |\n| 5 | I understand everything you said.
I just didn't |\n| 6 | want my silence to be construed as us not continuing to make |\n| 7 | that argument.
But we certainly understood everything that |\n| 8 | the Court has said. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. MAJOR:
And, you know, we'll take that under, |\n| 11 | obviously, heavy consideration. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
All right, so with regard to the status |\n| 15 | conference in adversary 23-05005, we've conducted the status |\n| 16 | conference.
We've discussed the issues that are relevant to |\n| 17 | the order granting the summary judgment, including the motion |\n| 18 | for stay pending appeal, and a motion for extension of time, |\n| 19 | and the trustee's request for immediate enforcement of the |\n| 20 | summary judgment order on July 22nd. |\n| 21 | And as I've stated, I'm going to extend that date |\n| 22 | of July 22nd, I don't know for how long, in accordance with a |\n| 23 | scheduling order that will be issued by the Court, and that |\n| 24 | should memorialize the issues we've discussed on the record |\n| 25 | today.
And I hope to have that order issued by Thursday. |\n| | |\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 Anything further? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. MAJOR: Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you both. And you don't have to stay, Attorney Major, if that was your question. MR. MAJOR: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MAJOR: Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. The next matter on the calendar is with regard to Genever and the DIP motion. Is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Please proceed. MR. DESPINS: So Your Honor, this is relating to a motion filed at Docket 3259, it's a continuation of the inter-debtor DIP financing. It's to authorize an amendment of that financing, the financing by Kwok's estate of Genever US, and Genever BVI. And basically to make a long story short, you recall that you had authorized up to \\$2 million of such inter-debtor borrowing. We have not fully used the \\$2 million, but we know that the 2 million will not be sufficient to complete the work that has been done. So to date, we've used 1.3. And by the way, attached to the motion is a schedule of the types of usage Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 44 of 88\n\n1 2 3 4 5 that have been made of the -- that's Exhibit B. It's the summary of borrowings to date. And we know that the 2 million will not be enough because we believe there's going to be an additional 1.1 million of repairs or, you know, renovation.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 You're familiar with all -- you've approved all this work before, but it's being done right now. It should be completed, you know, God willing, by mid-August so we can put the property on the market to sell it, but we know we're going to run short on the 2 million, so we're asking for a million more, not -- the intent is not to use the full million, it's just that we don't want to come back to Your Honor, to the extent we need to do this.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 Normally, AIG, that's our view, should pay for that, but they're refusing to pay it until they're ordered to do so. So that's why we need to advance the funds right now from the Kwok estate to the Genever Estate on a super priority basis.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 Basically it's the same loan as before. It's just we're adding \\$1 million incremental borrowing capacity. We filed a motion, no objections were filed. The Sherry-Netherland has consented to this financing, so unless Your Honor has questions, we -- that's what --\n\n24 25 THE COURT: I don't have any questions, but I -- it might be that other people wish to be heard. Is there anyone\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 else wish to be heard? I see counsel for, I think, the Sherry-Netherland in the courtroom. Do you wish to be heard? MS. MILLMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes? MS. MILLMAN: If possible, yes. THE COURT: Yes, please. MS. MILLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sherry Millman with Hogan Lovells US on behalf of Sherry-Netherland. As Mr. Despins indicated, we do consent to the funding because we believe the work previewed for the Court in the last hearing is necessary under the proprietary lease and the related agreements. We give our consent reluctantly, unfortunately, because we really do believe there's another source, being the insurance proceeds, and we recognize that every additional ounce of funding, particularly which is secured by the apartment, although junior to our position, raises the bar on the price that Mr. Despins will be seeking when he tries to sell this because he's just going to have to cover more. So we are where we are, and we do give that consent. But we wanted to provide that context to the Court. Really, we're hoping AIG would step up to the plate or be compelled to do so. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. I don't -- I might not have Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 46 of 88\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 heard Trustee Despins say this, so apologize. He may have already said it and I'd missed it. But do you know when this is going to be completed? I mean, what, you know, the work so that you can start to try to sell this property? MS. MILLMAN: He did indicate, and we have Sherry-Netherland has been working closely with Mr. Despins -- THE COURT: That's why I figured you'd know. MS. MILLMAN: -- his contractors and it -- THE COURT: Yeah. MS. MILLMAN: -- and, hopefully, it'll be completed in mid-August as he indicated. THE COURT: Mid-August, okay. All right. Well, I thank you for being present and making that -- your -- known on the record that your client consents to the entry of this order. MS. MILLMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard? MS. MAYHEW: Your Honor, Christine Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the committee. I just wanted to express the committee's support for the motion, as well, to allow the borrowing so that these -- the remediation can be completed. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3330
Filed 07/22/24
Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00
Page 48 of 88 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 48 |\n| 1 | the US Trustee.
We have no objection to the motion. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
So Your Honor, just one |\n| 4 | clarification.
Counsel for the Sherry-Netherland, you know, |\n| 5 | mentioned that they support this because it's necessary under |\n| 6 | the lease.
I don't want to have a polemic over that, but |\n| 7 | whether that's necessary under the lease or not, or we're |\n| 8 | obligated legally to do it, I don't want to park that issue |\n| 9 | to decide. |\n| 10 | We're asking for the financing.
We're doing the |\n| 11 | repairs, but I didn't want my silence to that to be, you |\n| 12 | know, looked at acquiescence that that's a viable legal |\n| 13 | theory.
Again, we don't need to debate that, I just want to |\n| 14 | make sure my silence was not acquiescent to that point. |\n| 15 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Understood.
So I don't know how I |\n| 17 | missed you saying the middle of August, but obviously, I did, |\n| 18 | so I apologize.
I wasn't sure when this would be completed. |\n| 19 | The findings of fact in the order that you've submitted, I |\n| 20 | didn't have an opportunity to completely compare, but I think |\n| 21 | they are the same findings that were made in the prior order. |\n| 22 | Is that correct? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
So give me one moment, please.
So I'm |\n| 25 | just wondering if we shouldn't be referring, and maybe we |\n| | |\n\n 49 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 are, and again, I might not be seeing it because I'm looking at the proposed order, but referring to the order that already entered, right? Because this is just an amendment to the credit agreement. So the order that already entered has some effect, doesn't it? Or are you saying it doesn't because this is just with regard to an amendment to the credit facility? MR. DESPINS: We can make reference more clear - we can make clearer, Your Honor, if -- THE COURT: I think it would be helpful -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- to make that a little more clear, and to refer to the prior order. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. And basically saying that we're not modifying it. It's just additional -- THE COURT: Additional funding, right? That's the whole point. MR. DESPINS: That's the intent, Your Honor. I apologize if we didn't -- THE COURT: No, that's fine. And I understand the reason why you are seeking the amendment to the credit agreement. And under the code sections that you've cited in your proposed order, those sections authorize or supplement the authorization of entering into an amendment to the DIP credit agreement.\n\n| 1 | I agree with your proposed order that no one has |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | filed any written objections to the motion.
There is no one |\n| 3 | participating in this hearing that is objecting to the |\n| 4 | motion.
The Sherry-Netherland has consented to the motion. |\n| 5 | The Committee and the U.S. Trustee -- well, the Committee |\n| 6 | supports the motion.
The U.S. Trustee had no opposition to |\n| 7 | the motion. |\n| 8 | And for all those reasons, the motion is granted. |\n| 9 | And I would just ask for a revised proposed order. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
And, you know, we will address that as |\n| 12 | soon as it is submitted to the courtroom deputy email box, |\n| 13 | okay?
I would just ask that you cc counsel for the Sherry |\n| 14 | Netherland and the Committee and the U.S. Trustee when you |\n| 15 | submit that order, please. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So that motion is granted.
And |\n| 18 | the revised proposed order, will you be able to submit that |\n| 19 | by Thursday? |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
We can do that tomorrow, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
Then |\n| 22 | that takes care of the issues with regard to Genever, I |\n| 23 | believe; is that correct? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then, as the last matter |\n| | |\n\n 51 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 with regard to Ace Decade? No, we have one other matter. MR. DESPINS: There's a motion to limit notice. THE COURT: Oh, right. I apologize. I'm sorry. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: So Your Honor, this is Docket No. 3301. It's a motion to limit the service of the motion that has not been filed, but that will be filed soon, to extend the August 15 deadline to bring avoidance actions. And basically, very simply, we -- last time we did this we spent a lot of money with Federal Express and publication notice and all that, and a number of people objected. And what we're proposing this time is to serve all the people who objected, obviously, everyone that's on the 2002 service list and the Committee, the U.S. Trustee, etcetera. The only issue that we bracketed for your consideration is whether you also want us to provide service on the defendants and the adversary proceedings where -- and an email address has been provided by them because they've appeared. We're happy to do that because email service is cheap, doesn't take a lot of time. That's the only question mark because I -- we put that as a footnote to the motion on Page 6 Footnote 4 and in the order, Paragraph 2, there's a bracket under Roman Numeral V where we say all defendants that have appeared in pending Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 51 of 88\n\n 52 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 adversarial proceeding. THE COURT: Oh, okay, I see that. MR. DESPINS: So it's up to you whether, frankly, I think these people would be covered under some other theory, but we're happy to do it so it's really up to Your Honor as to whether we -- THE COURT: Well, I think since it's not burdensome, I would ask you to do it. MR. DESPINS: Okay, we will. So therefore, just these brackets would need to be taken out of the order, if Your Honor's otherwise okay with the order. THE COURT: I have a couple of my -- first of all, I'd like to make sure no one else wishes to be heard on the motion, excuse me, the motion to limit. MR. DESPINS: The objection deadline was Friday, but we didn't receive any objections. THE COURT: Exactly. I looked at that. So does any -- I'm hearing no one else wishes to be heard. So I would ask a few minor changes to the proposed order. I would like -- and it may seem overkill, but I think it's helpful in the future for other people that aren't in the room and haven't paid attention, possibly, because they didn't need to for whatever reason, and that's absolutely fine. I would like the proposed order to indicate that there was a motion to expedite hearing filed. That was Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 52 of 88\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 granted. The hearing was scheduled for today. No one filed any objection by the objection deadline of July 12th. Just be a little bit more specific on that. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And that's really all I -- that's the only issues that I see with the proposed order, okay? MR. DESPINS: Will do. THE COURT: The Paragraph 2, Number 5, I agree that I would like you to serve all the defendants that have appeared in the pending adversary proceedings because I think that will be fairly straightforward and not too burdensome to the estate. MR. DESPINS: Will do. THE COURT: Otherwise, the motion is granted, and the order will enter upon submission of the revised proposed order. So again, would you be able to get the revised proposed order to the Court by Thursday? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. No problem. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Actually, probably by tomorrow. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll give you to Thursday just because it's easier for the clerk's office to track that way. So I'll just ask that -- I will note that the motion to limit notice, ECF 3301 is granted, and the revised proposed order will be submitted on or before 18th.\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. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? All right. Thank you. The final matter on today's calendar is a continued hearing on the motion for default judgment in adversary 23- 05028. We've already taken Trustee Despins's appearance and Attorney Linsey's appearance. So if the defendants would note their appearances for the record, please? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honor. David Litterine-Kaufman from Orrick for the joint liquidators. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. MR. ROTH: David Roth of Wiggin and Dana for the joint liquidators. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And so when we were here last -- and then, I'm going to let you both argue -- I just want to make sure that we have no issue on this issue of the defendants. Trustee Despins, you seem to say there's no issue. And if that's fine with you, that's fine. You're just going to be bound by that. I'm not -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: -- again, I've made clear what my concerns were about it, and I didn't see any change to the appearances. They're still listed as an appearance on behalf of the liquidators.\n\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, I believe my opposing counsel |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | will address that, but I wanted to be clear.
My point was I |\n| 3 | view this as a, like, standing issue.
Often Your Honor will |\n| 4 | rule that someone doesn't have the standing, but nevertheless |\n| 5 | reach the merits to make sure the record is covered.
And |\n| 6 | that was only my point.
It's not that I -- not that I |\n| 7 | supported the fact that they didn't need to do certain |\n| 8 | things, but -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I didn't take it as a supporting issue. |\n| 10 | I took it as you decided that -- or not decide.
I don't know |\n| 11 | if that's fair.
You determined that it's a fight not worth |\n| 12 | fighting about because they've filed their motion.
And I've |\n| 13 | already heard it, essentially. |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Well, so when we |\n| 16 | were here last, I asked, well, I instructed there be another |\n| 17 | meet-and-confer, and that there be some kind of report made |\n| 18 | to the Court about what's happened with discovery and what |\n| 19 | the parties' positions are in connection with the default |\n| 20 | judgment at this continued hearing. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
So if I may, Your Honor, I'll offer |\n| 22 | up my version of where we are.
So Your Honor, first on the |\n| 23 | discovery, there were a few meet-and-confers, and they have |\n| 24 | provided us with some documentation.
I would say that in |\n| 25 | terms of what's relevant to today, they produced documents |\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 that showed that they, the JPLs, were contacted by counsel for Ace Decade in February. So for us that -- but no filing actually occurred until June of this year, but they were initially contacted in February. And for us, that bolsters the argument that Ace Decade, you know, you know, basically sat on their rights, and therefore, that's why default should be entered. But I don't think -- THE COURT: Default judgment. The default's already been entered. MR. DESPINS: Sorry -- THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- the default judgment. So but other than that, I would say more importantly, there were several discussions between myself and the JPLs, the joint provisional liquidators, or one of them, and I would say that I think we've made some progress. I'm saying this cautiously, and that's going to lead to a kind of bifurcated approach, meaning progress in the sense that there may be a way working with them, them being the JPLs, to have me appointed in the BVI as the registered shareholder. That's not a done deal. That's a potential resolution, and it would be potentially a first step of a resolution. And as a result of that, I've agreed to -- you may\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 remember that we filed an amended revised proposed order last Friday, Docket Number 59. THE COURT: I don't remember. You mean after our hearing last week? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: It was filed Friday of last week and you -- THE COURT: I may have -- I may have looked at it; I may not. I don't recall. MR. DESPINS: We had added some language -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- asking you to enter some paragraphs in the order that would say that you're seeking the assistance from the BVI court. We had mentioned that we were going to do that, but we actually did that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: The liquidators were not happy with that. They actually filed something this morning that said that, and attached a letter saying, basically only BVI can deal with these issues. Bottom line on that is that I -- because there's a potential path to resolve our issues, I've agreed to, if Your Honor is inclined to grant the default judgment, I've agreed to take out of that order the request by you of the BVI court Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 57 of 88\n\n1 to do certain things.\n\n| 2 | I want to be very clear.
It's not an |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | acknowledgment that they were right on that.
It's more an |\n| 4 | acknowledgment that there's maybe a path forward that would |\n| 5 | not involve heavy litigation over there, and we want to see |\n| 6 | if that's going to play out.
If it doesn't play out, we will |\n| 7 | be back in front of Your Honor asking you to enter the same |\n| 8 | type of language that would say, please assist this Court, |\n| 9 | please, BVI court, assist this Court on providing all the |\n| 10 | relief to the trustee, including a declaration that the |\n| 11 | appointment of the JPLs was a nullity. |\n| 12 | But for now, we would take this out of the order. |\n| 13 | So the order would remain the same on that score as the order |\n| 14 | that you saw initially, the default judgment order.
So |\n| 15 | that's what's happening. |\n| 16 | But you might say, okay, so does that resolve the |\n| 17 | issue today?
Unfortunately, not.
In a sense that we still |\n| 18 | want the Court to enter a default judgment order against |\n| 19 | Yvette Wang and Ace Decade, and we're ready to argue the |\n| 20 | merits of that or whatever remaining merits of that there may |\n| 21 | be. |\n| 22 | And I believe the counsel for the JPLs is also |\n| 23 | ready to argue whatever remaining merits there may be to that |\n| 24 | argument.
And in connection with that I wanted to let you |\n| 25 | know, because they're challenging Your Honor having personal |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 jurisdiction over Ace Decade, Mr. Bassett last week mentioned that Ace Decade had filed a complaint in the U.S. in 2016 yeah, 2016, at which -- in which Ace Decade said that its principal place of business was New York City, where Mr. Kwok was located.\n\n6 7 8 And we filed today a copy of that complaint, so it's in the record now, so you have it. It's in the -- the paragraph in question is Paragraph 10 of that complaint.\n\n9 10 11 12 In addition to that, you already had in the docket, in this case, in the general case, the declaration of Mr. Kwok that was filed in support of that Southern District of New York action against Ace Decade.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 And I believe that's -- actually, I'll come back with the actual number of that -- the actual docket number for that declaration. But that declaration, basically, Your Honor, I think you've seen many times before, he basically says, I moved to the U.S. in 2015, and I'm Ace Decade, and we were running meetings out of my apartment with my colleagues.\n\n19 20 21 22 We were doing all the negotiations regarding Ace Decade and the investment with UBS out of New York, et cetera, et cetera. And so that's relevant obviously to the personal jurisdiction point.\n\n23 24 25 I also wanted to point out, Your Honor, to bring to your attention two decisions because the argument was made, wait a minute, there's no reference to personal jurisdiction\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 over Ace Decade in the complaint. And I wanted Your Honor to have the two following cases which basically stand for the proposition that when personal jurisdiction is challenged, the Court may look outside of the four corners of the complaint. And the first case is, Xie, that's X-I-E versus\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Sklover, S-K-L-O-V-E-R, 260 F. Supp. 3d, Page 30, jump cite 3037, District Court of District of Columbia 2017, \"In resolving the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court is not limited to the four corner of the operative complaint, but rather may receive and weigh affidavits and other relevant documents, et cetera.\" The next case is Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Number 22-CV-6495. That's 2023 Westlaw, 2775830 at Page 2. THE COURT: You have to say that again. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I'm sorry. MR. DESPINS: So the cite is 2023 Westlaw, 2775830 at Page 2, and it's a Southern District of New York April 4th, 2023, decision. And basically the Court is, in reviewing whether plaintiff has met this burden to establish personal jurisdiction, the Court \"can consider materials outside the pleadings, including affidavits and other written materials\".\n\n25\n\nAnd therefore, it's perfectly appropriate for Your\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 Honor to look at the statements made by Ace Decade saying, our headquarter is in New York. And the key here is that there's no evidence from the joint provisional liquidators or anyone else that, in fact, that changed somehow. Even if you believe the theory of -- I'm putting myself in Yvette Wang's shoes now -- that she is the proper shareholder of Ace Decade, she was in New York at all times, as well. So was Kwok. And I would say, so am I, in the sense that if we are focusing on the time where this complaint was started and I was the person that should have been in charge of Ace Decade, I'm the only -- I'm located in New York, so is Mr. Kwok, so is Yvette Wang. So there's no argument that, oh, you know, there is a -- that there's -- that Ace Decade is being run out of the BVI, other than the fact that it's a BVI corporation. There's no argument that somehow management is located in BVI or operating a business in BVI. Not at all. None of that. And therefore, that is sufficient for Your Honor to find that there's personal jurisdiction over Ace Decade in your court because of nationwide service of process, and the fact that they were properly served, as well, in the BVI. There is a one last point I want to mention, Your Honor, which is the other defendant, the person located in Switzerland, who obtained the shares from Ms. Wang and then\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 authorized the JPL, the liquidation filing in the -- not filing, but the commencement of liquidation case in the BVI. We have filed -- this is Docket Number 61 in this case, in this adversary proceeding. We filed a notice of request of Chapter 11 Trustee for entry of default against Defendant Rui (phonetic) Hao. That's spelled H-A-O. We filed this on Friday, Your Honor. And basically, what we said there is that we received confirmation from Swiss counsel, who confirmed themselves with the Swiss authorities that are in charge of ensuring service under the Hague Convention, that this defendant was properly served at the latest on May 17, 2024. And 60 days after that date is July 16, 2024. That's today. And in this filing that we made, Your Honor, on the Docket Number 61 in this adversary proceeding, we told -- we said to Your Honor that we would ask for entry of default, not default judgment, but entry of default at the conclusion of this hearing against him. And ideally, again, if Your Honor is inclined to grant the default judgment against Ace Decade and Ms. Wang, we would -- we believe it would be beneficial to have a statement in there that default has been entered against Rui Hao. And you might say, well, today is 16th. He might still file something by the end of the day, and that's true. So what do we propose to do, Your Honor, is to file\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 a supplemental notice tomorrow morning, again, if Your Honor is inclined to enter the default judgment against Wang and Ace Decade, that would state that no response of any kind was filed by him. And based on that, we're asking that default be granted as to him and the order that you would enter would make a reference to that.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 And you might say, well, I know the difference between default and default judgment, but from an international, you know, execution point of view, I think it's beneficial to have the order you would enter, again, if you're inclined to enter it, contain such a reference or finding.\n\n13 14 15 So therefore, we would complete this item by filing tomorrow a statement confirming that by midnight tonight, nothing was filed by this gentleman.\n\n16 17 18 19 So that's the status, Your Honor, and by the way, that was also my argument, why the default judgment should be granted, but that's the current state of play. So that's why I said this is kind of an imperfect, not complete solution.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 You know, we believe that some progress has been made, but we're not, you know, it's like going from Point A to Point B. We're not at Point B yet, and therefore, out of abundance of caution and more than abundance of caution, we think it's important for Your Honor to enter the default judgment today, which I understand will be opposed by the\n\n 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 JPLs. But I'll be happy to an answer any questions you may have. THE COURT: I do not have any questions. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Just a couple brief points. First, as Your Honor observed Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 64 of 88\n\n8 9 10 appearance. I should clarify the statements I made on the record last week. My clients are the JPLs, and only these JPLs, as\n\nand as the trustee noted, we did not change our notices of\n\n7\n\n11 12 13 14 15 the individuals charged with management of the company's affairs under BVI law, at least for the time being. They instructed me to come here and make certain arguments on behalf of the company, but the company is not itself my client, and I don't represent the company here.\n\n16 17 18 It's my understanding that the trustee, nonetheless, does not object to mine and the JPLs' participation in this motion.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 As the trustee mentioned, we made a filing, I believe it was first thing this morning. I just wanted to explain briefly the context and reason for that filing. It's a response to the trustee's amended proposed order. We filed it for two reasons.\n\n24 25 The first is to explain the issues from a BVI law perspective of the new language that the trustee had added to\n\n1 2 3 the amended proposed order, which I understand the trustee is now willing to remove for the time being, so I won't belabor that point.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The other was Your Honor had expressed interest at the last hearing in hearing more about what the proceedings in the BVI might be to rectify the registry of members for Ace Decade. And there is some discussion in that letter of what that process looks like. And we, in our cover filing, we cite to where in the letter Your Honor can find that discussion. So that was the reason for filing that response. Finally, on the default judgment motion, I don't have much to add to what I said last week. I'll just briefly reiterate the JPLs do continue to object to personal jurisdiction with regard to when they were contacted. It is true, my understanding is that they were contacted in February or perhaps January of this year. But I just will note for the record that they were not formally appointed until I believe it was June 24th. And so they themselves could not act on behalf of the company\n\n21 believe, two days before the opposition deadline.\n\nuntil that appointment became effective, which was, I\n\n20\n\n25\n\n22 23 24 THE COURT: Who contacted them? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I believe they were contacted by counsel. I don't -- by BVI counsel.\n\nTHE COURT: And who's that?\n\n 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: It is the firm, Walkers. I don't know which individual at Walkers. THE COURT: And who was Walkers representing? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I believe Walkers was representing the shareholder listed on the registry. I believe Mr. Hao. THE COURT: So Mr. Hao? Rui Hao? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I believe so, yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: But you're not sure? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That's my understanding, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And when they contacted them in February or possibly January. Let me step back. Walkers contacted your clients, the liquidators, the two gentlemen who serve as liquidators, in January or February on behalf of Mr. Hao or Ho. I'm sorry. I may be mispronouncing it. For what reason? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I believe to inquire whether or not they could serve as joint liquidators. There's a conflict checking process similar to what attorneys do here that they have to go through. So I believe the outreach was to ask if they could clear conflicts on -- THE COURT: When did your clients tell Walkers that they cleared conflicts? Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 66 of 88\n\n 67 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. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I do not know, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: In February. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Was it in February? THE COURT: So your clients were just asked to wait until -- is that what you're telling me? That Walkers, who represented Mr. Rui Hao, who was the alleged holder of the share of stock, was contacted in February by Walkers, by the firm that represents Mr. Hao, and that then your clients were told not to do anything until then they -- in June, just a few days after the extension, the time to respond in the adversary, and then start the liquidation proceedings? Is that what you're representing to the Court? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Your Honor, the trustee has all of the communications between the liquidators and Walkers. I do not -- THE COURT: Well, don't you have them? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I do, as well. I have not personally read them, Your Honor. So I do not know the answer to this. THE COURT: Well, why don't you read them, and then we'll take a break, and you can answer those questions for me. You're their counsel. You just stood here and told me that you don't represent Ace Decade. You represent the liquidators, the gentlemen whose names I don't have in front of me, but I read them into the record at the last hearing. Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 67 of 88\n\n| 1 | And you came here asking for an extension of a |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | deadline, saying that you needed to protect Ace Decade. |\n| 3 | You're now telling me you don't represent Ace Decade.
So why |\n| 4 | do you need to protect Ace Decade if you don't represent |\n| 5 | them?
And now you're saying that you're agreeing that your |\n| 6 | clients were contacted in February, but you're asking this |\n| 7 | Court to not enter a default judgment because you acted as |\n| 8 | soon as you were appointed?
That's the argument? |\n| 9 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
Your Honor, I'm actually |\n| 10 | not even arguing on the good faith point.
I was saying that |\n| 11 | merely to clarify the record.
My argument is solely on |\n| 12 | jurisdiction.
So I'm happy to move on to that, or I'm also |\n| 13 | happy to take a break and review the emails, if Your Honor |\n| 14 | would like.
But I'm actually not |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
I'd like to take a break.
I'd |\n| 16 | like you to review those emails.
You're their lawyer.
You |\n| 17 | should be able to answer those questions.
So we'll be -- |\n| 18 | court will be in recess until 2:30. |\n| 19 | THE CLERK:
All rise.
The Court's in recess till |\n| 20 | 2:30. |\n| 21 | (Off the record at 2:11 p.m.) |\n| 22 | (On the record at 2:36 p.m.) |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
We're back on the record at |\n| 24 | 2:35.
And when we took a recess, counsel, you were going to |\n| 25 | go and read the emails that we were talking about with regard |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 to your clients being contacted by Walkers, who represents the defendant in this adversarial proceeding, one of the defendants, Rui Hao. And go right ahead and explain to me what you were reading during the recess. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 reviewed the emails that have been produced to the trustee, and it appears that there was just a long gap in communication after conflicts were cleared, and then, Mr. Hao's counsel provided the shareholder resolution appointing my clients on June 22nd. So there was, as I understand it, just a long gap waiting for that shareholder resolution.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Well, when you say waiting for that shareholder resolution, do you mean that there was an email in February 2024 or earlier that indicated that there would be a shareholder resolution that would suggest and -- not suggest -- that would resolve that the liquidators be appointed?\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: There was nothing quite so formal, Your Honor. There was a communication that the liquidators had cleared conflicts. There was some back and forth about scheduling a telephone call. This is all in late February, and then nothing after that until June 22nd when the email was sent with the shareholder resolution. THE COURT: When the email was sent by Walkers, Mr. Mr. Hao's lawyer, to your clients?\n\n 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That is my recollection of the email. THE COURT: On January -- June 22nd, did you say? I thought -- MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I -- THE COURT: -- for some reason, I thought it was the 21st. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I believe -- I can look back at it, Your Honor. My recollection from looking at it a few minutes ago was that it was 22nd, but it -- THE COURT: That's fine. It's either one of those dates -- MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes. THE COURT: -- you're saying they're -- and that email from Walkers to your clients individually, is that who received it? Your clients individually? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: And likely others at their firm, Alvarez and Marsal, yes. THE COURT: Okay. So others at the firm in which they're employed as -- and where they act as these liquidators, correct? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes. That's my recollection. THE COURT: So there was an email sent on June 21st or 22nd that had only -- that only said here's the Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 70 of 88\n\n 71 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 resolution? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That's my recollection of the substance (inaudible) -- THE COURT: Well, why don't you grab that and let me see it, please? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I only have it digitally, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, okay. Well, you know what I'll do? I'll have you produce all those emails as part of this hearing. So I will call that liquidator's exhibits. You're going to tell me they can't be produced? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: No, no. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I believe that that document, the Rui Hao appointment, is attached to your objection or the request to adjourn -- THE COURT: The appointment is, but there's no email. There's -- MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: No, no. THE COURT: -- no email communication that -- MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I'm sorry. THE COURT: -- me -- MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes, I'm sorry. THE COURT: -- that established -- I've seen the two documents. We read them into the record during the last Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 71 of 88\n\n1 2 3 4 5 hearing. And there's -- and I have no idea when Mr. Hao signed them because they're not dated. And I have no record of a resolution of Ace Decade instructing or resolving that Mr. Hao could take that action, which normal corporate books and records would have.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 And I have -- and you're telling me that you've now looked at emails that you didn't look at before that say that there was this contact in January and February of 2024 from Walkers, a BVI law firm, who represented Mr. Hao as the alleged sole shareholder, and said to your clients, whom you represent in this adversary proceeding, who are not named defendants, that we'd like you to clear contact conflicts and act as liquidators.\n\n14 15 16 17 And then, there was no communication between sometime in February of 2024 until the date when the resolution was sent. And that's what you're telling me, correct?\n\n18 19 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes. That is what's reflected in these emails.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. So I'd like all those emails to be filed on the docket of this adversary proceeding. And they can be filed under the Liquidator's 1, Liquidator's 2, Liquidator's 3, Liquidator's 4 in PDF format. And if you have any issues about how to do that, you can contact the Clerk's office. They can walk you through that. I'm not\n\n| 1 | saying you will have any, but if you do, they can help you |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | with that. |\n| 3 | And I'd like those on the record by the close of |\n| 4 | business tomorrow.
Actually, I'd like them on the record by |\n| 5 | 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. |\n| 6 | So there was a gap from February to June.
And what |\n| 7 | you've told me is that your review just now in court was that |\n| 8 | the June, either 20 -- you believe it was the 22nd, doesn't |\n| 9 | matter, when you file it, it'll tell me whether it was the |\n| 10 | 21st or 22nd email-- solely had attached to it these two |\n| 11 | documents, and that's it?
It said Act.
Is that what it |\n| 12 | said? |\n| 13 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
Your Honor, I have the |\n| 14 | email in front of me right now.
I can read it to Your Honor |\n| 15 | if you would like.
It's not very long. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
What's the date? |\n| 17 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
It is the 22nd.
It refers |\n| 18 | to the resolution which was passed on the 21st.
So that -- |\n| 19 | or it says the resolution was passed on the 21st. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead.
Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
It reads, Dear Wes and |\n| 22 | Barry, please find attached the qualifying member's |\n| 23 | resolution passed by Mr. Rui Hao on 21 June 2024, approving |\n| 24 | your appointment as liquidator of Ace Decade.
We trust you |\n| 25 | will now, without delay, take the necessary steps to register |\n| | |\n\n1 your appointment.\n\n14\n\n2 3 4 5 If you need anything further from us or our client, please do not hesitate to contact us. No doubt you will have various queries for our client in relation to the company and the ongoing litigation.\n\n6 7 8 Please do let us know what information you require, and we will endeavor to respond as quickly as practicable. Kind regards, Andrew.\n\n9 10 11 THE COURT: What litigation are they referring to? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I interpret that as referring to the litigation in the UK against UBS.\n\n12 13 THE COURT: All right. As I said, by 1:00 -- did I say 1:00 p.m.? Is that what I said?\n\nMR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: By 1:00 p.m. tomorrow, I'd like all of the emails that have been produced to the trustee docketed on this adversary proceeding docket in PDF format with the notate -- with the, you know, we don't use stickers anymore, but it would say, the Liquidator's 1, Liquidator's 2, Liquidator's 3, whatever.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 I'd like them all with the attachments that were attached to each of those emails, to each and every one of those emails, even if the attachments are duplicative. I want the email to be -- I want the email filed to be the email that was sent and received.\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. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Understood, Your Honor. And Your Honor had asked whether -- how many documents there were attached to that email. There were two. One is the resolution, and one is a certificate of appointment. I believe those are the two documents that were filed with our motion to extend the deadline to oppose. THE COURT: Okay. That may be and we'll see when you file them. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I have nothing else to add on personal jurisdiction, Your Honor, and I will just flag very briefly on subject matter jurisdiction. We argued in our motion to extend the deadline, and I described briefly at the last hearing our position that, as to Ace, there's no additional controversy, given the trustee's position that he controls Ace, and therefore stands on both sides of the V. And unless Your Honor has questions, that's it for me. THE COURT: Have you reviewed the documents that the trust -- not the documents. Excuse me. I misspoke. The law that the trustee cited in his argument about the ability of the Court to look beyond the complaint to determine personal jurisdiction? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I am not familiar with\n\n1 those cases, no, Your Honor.\n\n2 3 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Anything further, Trustee Despins?\n\n4 5 6 7 8 MR. DESPINS: Just one point, Your Honor, on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Ace Decade needs to be a party because people are usurping my right to control it, and Ace Decade is involuntarily being used by people who have no right to use it, such as, for example, the JPL filing.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 That is why it is a proper party that needs to be bound by the injunction, so that when I go to the UK, I can say there's an injunction against Ace Decade, that Ace Decade is bound by the finding that the trustee owns the shares and controls the company. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: Okay. Anything further, counsel? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Just to reiterate my argument from last week that that is not a stand-in for subject matter jurisdiction. And I'm not aware of any cases so holding at least.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: All right. I just need to take a look at something for a moment. So Trustee Despins, I do have a question, given what you've stated on the record this afternoon. You would like the Court, I think, and I want to make sure that I've heard you correctly, that if the Court enters a default judgment to indicate that an entry of default has also entered against the defendant, Rui Hao, that\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 obviously can't happen until tomorrow at this point, correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. DESPINS: And also the Clerk would have to - because sometimes there's a delay so that through your good offices, if there's no -- nothing filed, you know, the Clerk would need to enter it, and then, you could acknowledge that in your order. THE COURT: What do you mean if -- oh, if Mr. Hao doesn't file anything? MR. DESPINS: Doesn't -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. When you say -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah, because we're going to -- THE COURT: Yes, I understand. I just was trying to follow your thought process. MR. DESPINS: We're going to file an update tomorrow morning -- THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- confirming or not confirming what has happened. THE COURT: Okay. So I'm just looking at what you both said and what I haven't looked at -- I guess, there was a letter filed today. I don't really know what the letter says. Is that correct, counsel? You said the first -- it first explains things from a BVI perspective, but you're not Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 77 of 88\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 concerned about that at the moment because the trustee is willing to not have, in the default judgment, this language about cooperation of the BVI courts, correct? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Now what's your second - what's the second point of the letter? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Your Honor, when I was here last week, you had asked about what the BVI proceedings would look like to rectify the registry of members for Ace Decade. And so there is a discussion of that process in the letter, as well. THE COURT: I'm not sure I asked that question. I think I asked whether you were going to cooperate and make the trustee be the shareholder. First, I asked whether you're going to turn over the share, and the answer was no. And then you kept talking about cooperation. And I said, well, how are you going to cooperate? Are you going to make him the share -- the registered holder of the share in the registry. And I don't think you ever answered that question. So I don't know. I haven't looked at your letter. I assume your letter still doesn't offer cooperation to have the trustee become the registered owner, although I guess you are having discussions about that possibly happening?\n\n| 1 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | So there have been discussions between the trustee and my |\n| 3 | clients.
There is a process in the BVIs to amend the |\n| 4 | registry of members, and the joint liquidators have to then |\n| 5 | settle the registry.
The current shareholder has an |\n| 6 | opportunity to object if the trustees amend it to list the -- |\n| 7 | excuse me, if the -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, there is no current shareholder. |\n| 9 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
The -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Don't you -- doesn't your client have |\n| 11 | the rights of the shareholder now? |\n| 12 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
They don't own the equity |\n| 13 | itself, though, Your Honor.
They are not themselves |\n| 14 | shareholders.
They're court-appointed liquidators. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
But what does the resolution say? |\n| 16 | Doesn't the resolution -- see, that was what my question was |\n| 17 | last week. |\n| 18 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
Yeah. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
What are their powers?
You're not -- I |\n| 20 | don't know what their powers are, okay?
There's nothing in |\n| 21 | the documents that you've filed on their behalf as non |\n| 22 | appearing defendants and not-named defendants.
There's |\n| 23 | nothing to answer any of these questions. |\n| 24 | So you filed an emergency motion, I think it was, |\n| 25 | wasn't it? |\n| | |\n\n 80 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. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: To the extent -- THE COURT: An emergency motion -- MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- to stop the default judgment from entering. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: I believe it was to extend the deadline for the judgment. THE COURT: Well, but there wasn't a deadline. The deadline had already expired. So that's what it was. It was a motion to stop the default judgment from entering. You can't extend a deadline that has expired. I think we had that conversation last week, okay? So let's look back at your document. You filed a motion to - -an emergency motion to extend time to respond to default judgment, which was late. So the time had already expired, so there's nothing to extend. And you've now admitted today that your clients knew this proceeding was going to happen at some point, and that they knew on June 22nd. And you -- and that's the day they were -- I think you just read, act accordingly. And then, they didn't file this motion till July 1st. Isn't that accurate? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That is an accurate chronology, yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So what's the purpose of the Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 80 of 88\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 liquidation, counsel? Tell me what the purpose is. If you're saying -- first of all, you don't represent Rui Hao. You've made that clear today. You only represent the joint liquidators. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what's the purpose of the liquidation? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: My understanding of the purpose of the liquidation is it's similar to liquidation proceedings in the United States. The joint liquidators are charged with selling, and -- well, monetizing the company's assets, and then, you know, settling the company's liabilities, and then paying out what remains to creditors and equity holders. THE COURT: So what information do your clients have about the assets and liabilities of the company? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: The primary asset, as I understand it, is this litigation. THE COURT: That wasn't my question. My question is, what information do your clients have about the assets and liabilities of the company? What was given to them? Something had to have been provided to them. They're not just going to act as liquidators, or maybe they are, without any information. But that I'd like to know.\n\n25\n\nBecause if it's a liquidation proceeding and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 82 of 88\n\n82\n\n| 1 | there's no equity in the company, then Mr. Rui Hao's share |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | has no value.
So what information were your clients provided |\n| 3 | about the assets and liabilities of this company?
And who |\n| 4 | provided it to them? |\n| 5 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
I believe that |\n| 6 | investigation is still underway, Your Honor.
I am not aware |\n| 7 | of -- I don't believe they get, like, a packet of materials |\n| 8 | that is the assets and liabilities. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
But you don't know that.
You can't |\n| 10 | answer that question. |\n| 11 | MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, if I may -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
-- I know a little bit about this. |\n| 16 | There are two types of liquidation proceedings in the BVI, |\n| 17 | and this one that was started -- can be started by a |\n| 18 | shareholder without alleging or demonstrating insolvency. |\n| 19 | It's just -- they just sign -- as a shareholder, they sign |\n| 20 | the appointment and off they go.
It's not a court |\n| 21 | proceeding. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
I'm asking the |\n| 23 | question, though.
What information, if any, have these |\n| 24 | liquidators been provided? |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Yep. |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 THE COURT: They came here -- I'm looking at this motion that's dated July 1st. I'm listening to the argument that this default judgment shouldn't enter because there's no subject matter. Wait. They've abandoned the good faith. They've already basically admitted they're acting in bad faith.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 And they've said that you can't do anything, Judge, because you don't have subject matter jurisdiction. But they can't explain why. They can't explain. There's no explanation as to why. It's just because that's how things work in the BVI.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 You've just admitted that your clients knew about this since February. You've also admitted that your clients received the documents on June 22nd, which, by the way, was before the deadline to respond. And then you didn't file because the deadline to respond was June 25th. And then, you didn't file anything to July 1st. And you're not a defendant.\n\n19 20 21 But you want this Court to not enter a default judgment because you're claiming this Court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction/personal jurisdiction.\n\n22 23 24 25 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Your Honor, just for the clarity of the record, we're making no argument and taking no position on good faith one way or the other, but it's not our position that they were acting in bad faith. We were\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 limiting our arguments to jurisdictional arguments. THE COURT: Well, that's not what your motion does. Your motion says, second, the Ace liquidators have acted in good faith. The Ace liquidators identified and engaged U.S. counsel within six business days of their appointment and are filing this request on the same day they completed the engagement. That's what your motion says. So are you abandoning Paragraph 7 in your motion? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: As to the joint liquidators, no, Your Honor. Your Honor was asking about Mr. Hao and about the company. The joint liquidators only had the ability to act following their appointment. THE COURT: But they knew about this since February. So somebody had to tell them that don't act until we give you this, right? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Well, they have no legal authority to act. THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that, counsel. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: But somebody -- you've admitted already that these conversations happened maybe even in January of this year, and yet nothing happened in this Court until after the response date for default judgment -- to the default\n\n1 judgment was -- has passed.\n\n5\n\n2 3 4 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And you're acting in good faith? Your clients are acting in good faith?\n\nMR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Yes.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Okay. Well, you say you filed the - you say in your motion, for the avoidance of doubt, the Ace Liquidators are filing this request solely to preserve Ace's rights to respond to the motion. Okay. You've responded, even though it was late, and I didn't grant you an extension of time nor should I have because your clients have not shown that they have acted in good faith.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 This is -- you know, you came here. You weren't sure who you represented last week. Now, you're coming here today. You say you solely represent the liquidating agents or whatever their title is, the liquidators, who are not defendants in this adversary proceeding.\n\n18 19 20 But you want me to consider your argument, that I have no subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over Ace Decade, who is not your client, correct?\n\n21 22 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Ace Decade is not my client.\n\n23 24 25 THE COURT: But isn't that what you're asking me? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Your Honor, the joint liquidators wanted to participate in these proceedings to\n\n1 2 3 4 that extent solely because if the trustee comes down to the BVI with a default judgment order that the BVI court determines was jurisdictionally defective, then, it's not going to be very useful.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 So the trustees came here out of respect to this Court, to the trustee, and the process to try to flag this issue and figure out a way to address it. And my understanding is the trustee is now speaking to the joint liquidators to set out -- down a process in the BVI to do precisely that. So that that was the goal of the joint liquidators in coming here.\n\n12 13 THE COURT: Well, that's not true. You asked me to stay this adversary proceeding. So that's not accurate.\n\n14 15 16 MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: For precisely that reason, Your Honor, to allow this process that the trustee and the joint liquidators are now moving down --\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: You don't need a stay to have that process move forward. You asked for a stay. That's a completely different argument, counsel. I think you need to be careful about that. You asked -- you affirmatively asked for a stay of these proceedings. You asked for this to be heard on an emergency basis.\n\n23 24 25 Your client could have done all these things already with the trustee without having the Court involved. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: It was merely to raise\n\n 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these issues with a default judgment, if it gets entered, so that they could be fixed at the front end. It really was an attempt to, in good faith, have the two jurisdictions coordinating together. THE COURT: Well, if that's the case then, why are you arguing that I should deny the motion for default judgment based on subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, lack thereof? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Because a jurisdictionally defective default judgment isn't going to accomplish much in the BVIs. THE COURT: You don't know that though, counsel. That's only what you've been told. MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Anything further on this motion for default judgment? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: Not for me, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. I will review the pleading that the trustee will file tomorrow morning, and I will enter an order on the motion for default judgment following my review of the information submitted by the Chapter 11 Trustee plaintiff in this adversary proceeding. So the matter is essentially -- the matter will be Case 22-50073 Doc 3330 Filed 07/22/24 Entered 07/22/24 08:19:00 Page 87 of 88\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 ruled on after the filing by the trustee regarding the defendant, Rui Hao, and the request for entry of default. All right. That concludes all of the matters on today's calendar. Is there anything else we are need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything, counsel? MR. LITTERINE-KAUFMAN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you all. Court is adjourned. THE CLERK: All rise. Court's adjourned. (End of Proceedings.) CERTIFICATION I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of our knowledge and ability. /s/ Wendy Sawyer July 18, 2024 Wendy Sawyer, CDLT Certified Court Transcriptionist For Reliable","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A.·德斯平斯）等人， 对抗程序\n 案号：23-05028 (JAM)\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED（艾斯十年控股有限公司）等人，\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A.·德斯平斯），第11章 对抗程序\n受托人， 案号：23-05005 (JAM)\n\n原告， \n\n诉 123号法庭\n Brien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\nGREENWICH LAND, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）及 915 Lafayette Boulevard\nHING CHI NGOK（Hing Chi Ngok）， Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n 2024年7月16日，星期二\n被告。\n\n朱莉·A.·曼宁阁下\n美国联邦破产法官主持之听证会记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nJames C. Graham（詹姆斯·C.·格雷厄姆）律师\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特·佩佩·蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3330 提交于 07/22/24 录入于 07/22/24 08:19:00 第 1 页，共 88 页\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A.·德斯平斯）律师\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n音频操作员：\n电子录音\n\n记录公司：\nReliable（可靠记录公司）\nThe Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮件：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n程序以电子声音录音方式记录，记录文本由记录服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L.·克莱伯恩）律师\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国司法部美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）：\n\nChristopher J. Major（克里斯托弗·J.·梅杰）律师\nMEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP（迈斯特·西利格·范律师事务所）\n125 Park Avenue\n7th Floor\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n代表 Ace Decade 的联合清算人：\n\nDavid R. Roth（大卫·R.·罗斯）律师\nWIGGIN AND DANA（维金与达纳律师事务所）\nOne Century Tower\n265 Church Street\n17th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3330 提交于 07/22/24 录入于 07/22/24 08:19:00 第 2 页，共 88 页\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n以及\n\nDavid Litterine-Kaufman（大卫·利特里恩-考夫曼）律师\nORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP（奥睿律师事务所）\n51 West 52nd Street\nNew York, New York 10019\n\n代表 The Sherry Netherland, Inc.（雪莉荷兰公司）：\n\nSherry Millman（雪莉·米尔曼）律师\nHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP（霍金路伟律师事务所）\n390 Madison Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n代表无担保债权人官方委员会：\n\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B.·梅休）律师\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\n8th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06601\n\n目录\n\n动议： 页码\n\n事项第1项：Luc A. Despins（吕克·A.·德斯平斯）诉 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等人\n对抗案件案号 24-05005\n状态会议 6\n法院裁定： 43\n\n事项第2项：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人\n案号 22-50073\n3259号；第11章受托人与债务人 Genever US（杰纳维尔美国）及 Genever BVI（杰纳维尔英属维尔京群岛）共同提出的动议，请求根据《破产法典》第363条及第364条作出最终命令，授权修订债务人之间的破产申请后融资协议\n由 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A.·德斯平斯）代表 Luc A. Despins、Genever Holdings Corporation（杰纳维尔控股公司）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰纳维尔控股有限责任公司）、第11章受托人及债务人提交\n受托人请求指定特别送达员以进行境外送达的动议 43\n法院裁定： 49\n\n事项第3项：\n3301号；限制送达关于延长受托人提起撤销诉讼的 2024年8月15日截止期限之动议的动议\n由 Douglass E. Barron（道格拉斯·E.·巴伦）代表 Luc A. Despins、第11章受托人提交\n法院裁定： 51\n 53\n\n事项第4项：\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A.·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，诉 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）等人\n对抗案件案号 23-05028\n40号；依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) 及 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055，针对 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）及 Yanping “Yvette” Wang（王艳萍）的缺席判决动议。\n由 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林赛）代表 Luc A. Despins、第11章受托人、原告提交 54\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3330 提交于 07/22/24 录入于 07/22/24 08:19:00 第 4 页，共 88 页\n\n（程序于下午1时04分开始。）\n\n书记员：对抗程序案号 23-05005。Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人，诉 Greenwich Land, LLC 等人；22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok；以及 23-05028，Despins 等人诉 Ace Decade Holding, Limited 等人。\n\n法庭：下午好。请各位为记录出庭。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Lindsay，来自 Neubert Pepe & Monteith，代表受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMAJOR先生：下午好，法官阁下。Chris Major，Meister Seelig & Fein。我们代表被告 Greenwich Land, LLC 及 Hing Shih Nak，我们称其为郭女士。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMAJOR先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，关于 Greenwich Land 的事项是今日日程中的第一项，所以我假定我们首先处理该事项？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：我可以走近法官席吗，法官阁下？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3330 提交于 07/22/24 录入于 07/22/24 08:19:00 第 5 页，共 88 页\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：为记录起见，我是 Luc Despins，第11章受托人。法官阁下，我们根据您于7月2日作出的命令请求召开状态会议。该命令不仅准许了简易判决，还载有非常具体的措辞，规定 Greenwich 各方必须于今年7月22日之前移交控制权——或者我没有准确的措辞，但该命令本身已说明一切。\n\n我们立即于——实际上是7月4日——联系了 Greenwich 各方的律师，称实施该命令需要处理许多后勤问题。您知道，诸如这些基本事项；我知道我没有去过那栋房子，但我从外面看过。那里有两道电子——大门。我确信有精密的警报系统，还有这类价值约 $6 and 7 million 的房屋中的各种系统。因此，我不能——这不是仅仅把钥匙交给我们，然后，您知道，祝我们好运的情形。我们需要有序地移交该资产的占有。\n\n我一直试图与 Greenwich 各方的律师推进该事项，但未获成功。他们——已提出中止请求，我相信法官阁下知悉此事，尽管他们尚未提交缩短期限的动议，以便在7月22日之前就该请求举行听证。\n\n我想说，顺便一提，我有点担心他们会跑到地区法院说，嘿，我们提交了一项中止动议。Manning 法官尚未裁决，因此，你们需要准许我们中止。但那是另一个问题。不过，我认为应当举行中止听证，因为此处存在复杂的问题：如果我们现在无法取得该财产，可能会给破产财产造成损害，例如出售这栋房屋的时机、对该房屋及一般而言该财产的风险；这些问题需要在中止的语境下处理，而那不是今天的听证。我理解这一点，但我只是想请法官阁下注意，他们的中止请求基本上说，我们会在实体问题上获胜，忘掉保证金，我们不需要那个，一切都很好。\n\n但 Greenwich 各方之一，即债务人的妻子，坦率地说，已经在那里无租居住数月之久。而像这样的房屋每月租金约为 30-, 35,000，法官阁下。因此，存在破产财产并未——将无法取得的价值。\n\n因此，我再次说明，我不想就中止进行辩论，但关键是必须处理该中止问题。但与此同时，我们提出状态会议是为处理这些——我们要求处理的这些后勤问题。\n\n今天，律师提交了一项请求——Greenwich 各方的律师提交了一项请求，要求将7月22日的期限延长90天，称，嗯，那栋房子里有各种家具，我们不知道其归谁所有。因此，我们需要时间解决该问题。而我想直截了当地谈谈这一点。\n\n第一，她几乎不知道自己拥有那栋房子，好吗？也就是说，她不知道哪一栋房子——是哪一栋。她以为自己通过这家公司拥有这栋房子，但也只是勉强知道。认为她不知何故会有证据证明她拥有该房子里的家具，这一点，您知道，我很想看到这方面的证据，即任何物品的证据，除她的个人财物、衣物及诸如此类物品外。\n\n而我们绝不提议以任何方式改变这一点。家具应当留在房屋内，我们可以在以后厘清家具、艺术品、电子设备及所有此类物品的所有权问题，而不对她造成任何不利影响。\n\n再次，我一点也不相信她拥有该房屋中的任何物品，但为了回应“我们需要——她需要再住90天，而他们又是免租”的说法，在厘清谁是所有人的问题期间，您知道，这并不需要发生。\n\n我们需要把房子挂牌出售。我们需要尽快出售它。再次，我与经纪人谈过。我正在聘请的经纪人是出售该房屋的同一位经纪人——Julie Burke，来自——我忘了是哪家公司。\n\n无论如何，她大约三、四年前将该房屋出售给了 Kwok 夫妇。\n\n因此，她对这栋房子了如指掌，而且她非常坚决地指出，现在正是出售这栋房屋的市场时机，而不是11月，因为那样就意味着要到明年春天出售。而这栋房屋花费很多钱。\n\n例如，7月31日到期的税款为 $27,000 and change。谁来支付？而且顺便问一下——正在支付的那笔钱从哪里来？我也想了解这一点。但关键在于，法官阁下，这个“我们不知道家具归谁所有”的问题是一种拖延策略。\n\n他们的权利不会受到不利影响，因为我们不会出售家具。我们不会处分它。我们认为法院应当作出命令，并且我们已在案卷编号143提交了一份拟议命令。而我——法官阁下，请原谅。它是在今天上午11:40迟交的。\n\n但该命令基本上涉及我于7月4日向 Greenwich 各方律师提出的同样问题，即我们需要取得对该房屋的控制权，这意味着遥控器、电子系统、密码、了解谁在提供服务、谁在负责\n\n负责泳池的人、负责景观维护的人，诸如此类。提供这些信息并不繁重。我确信有一个人负责处理这些事务，也就是说，负责向这些人付款，因此该人当然可以非常容易地向我们提供该清单。这正是本命令所规定的。本命令还规定，他们不得从房屋中取走任何物品，个人物品、家庭照片及类似物品除外。受托人未经法院进一步命令，不得出售或处置房屋内的任何物品，这同样是为了保护他们所主张的权利，即他们——也就是郭女士——对某些家具或类似物品享有所有权。格林尼治各方的律师提交的陈述称，我想要进行贱卖。不。我希望以目前能够获得的最佳价格出售。经纪人还告诉我，如果您想出租该房屋，就需要在开学季开始之前出租。因此，能够这样做的窗口期非常有限。所以，我们或许会尝试将其出租，但这将为破产财产带来每月30,000至35,000的收入。因此，如果我们要实现该价值，就需要现在进行。其中有一段规定——该命令规定——不遵守本命令可能会导致法院——可能会导致法院——\n\n法院：这是您刚才谈到的——您所说于11:14提交的命令吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。我——\n\n法院：好的。我只是想确认我理解您正在宣读的内容。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。那就是——\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我有一份——我可以——\n\n法院：哦，请继续。没关系。我能找到。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。我认为是文件编号143。因此，其基本规定是，兹命令，不遵守本命令可能会导致法院指示美国法警局协助受托人。我知道鉴于以往事件，您对此并不热衷。基本上，该规定使用的是“可能”，而不是“应当”，但关键在于，我们需要在7月22日取得对该财产的控制。这一路走来已经花费了很长时间，而破产财产存在可实现的价值，现在应当予以实现。法官阁下，我还要指出，郭先生的妻子是我对其提起的、目前向其追索800,000以上美元的对抗性程序中的被告。\n\n我们并不是暗示您应当假定我们将在该案中胜诉。但关键在于，她的行为涉及很多问题。事实上，在您作出的意见书中，法官阁下，您非常明确地指出，他们通过实施各种不当行为，破坏了这些破产程序。\n\n因此，当格林尼治各方的律师来到法院说，嘿，我们需要更多时间，我们需要理清谁拥有什么时，我们不能指望他们会以其本应采取、并且符合《破产法典》的方式行事，因为他们并未如此行事。\n\n这一点已经得到确立，而且让一个对该房屋没有任何权益的人控制该房屋，可能会对破产财产极为不利。我甚至不知道该房屋是否投保。您记得Mahwah（马瓦）那处房产，当时根本没有保险。\n\n而且，格林尼治一方的律师没有作出任何尝试，例如说，好吧，我明白我们败诉了，但我们愿意提供X数额的资金来保护破产财产，提供保证金或类似安排，或者在我们上诉期间愿意为该房产支付租金。他们没有作出这方面的努力。他们只是要求免费占用，并寄希望于最好的结果。\n\n法官阁下，我们不能支持这种做法。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。梅杰律师？\n\n梅杰先生：法官阁下，我可以到讲台前吗？\n\n法院：当然可以。谢谢。\n\n梅杰先生：下午好，法官阁下。记录在案，Chris Major（克里斯·梅杰），Meister, Seelig & Fein（迈斯特、西利格与法因律师事务所）。我们代理本对抗性程序中的两名被告。因此，法官阁下，我认为这里有几个非常重要的程序性问题必须得到处理，我们也在周五提交的暂缓执行动议中论及了这些问题。我们依据Rule 8007向本法院提交了该动议。坦率地说，鉴于此处的紧急情况，并且破产法院在您的命令中，法官阁下，表示不会暂缓执行，我确实认为，我们有充分理由认为先向破产法院提出申请并不切实际。我知道那是依据7062作出的，因此为谨慎起见，我们向破产法院提交了该动议。周五下午提交时，我知道我们将举行这次状态会议。我认为，状态会议需要处理的问题之一是破产法院能否以及何时能够处理该动议，因为距离周一的时间很紧。\n\n也就是说，受托人刚刚概述了其意图，包括他在开庭前几分钟提交的拟议命令中所述的意图。我认为，我们暂缓执行动议的依据是多方面的。但最重要的是，我们提出的撤回移送动议已待地区法院裁决一年多，尚未获得裁决。\n\n如果事情按照受托人刚才概述的方式推进，那么在郭女士的住宅被出售、她被驱逐之后，该动议才会得到裁决，而她从未获得对其撤回移送动议的裁决。\n\n破产法院在简易判决决定备忘录中作出过大意如下的表述：如果法院日后裁定破产法院无权作出终局判决，则应将该决定视为拟议事实认定和法律结论。\n\n但是，如果在地区法院决定必须作出终局命令时，郭女士已经被驱逐、郭女士的住宅已经被出售，那么终局命令实际上已经作出并被执行，因为房屋已经不存在，而郭女士已经被驱逐。\n\n因此，我认为，在我们执行破产法院的判决之前，该问题必须由地区法院处理，因为如果我们进入这样一种情形，即受托人已经执行了破产法院的判决，那么这就剥夺了我们当事人获得我们认为应由地区法院对本案作出裁决的权利。\n\n但更重要的是，我们甚至还未进入地区法院告知我们破产法院是否具有管辖权的阶段。因此，这是我们暂缓执行动议的主要论点之一，我相信另一项论点也不会令破产法院感到意外，但这是郭女士的住宅。\n\n我理解，在这起更广泛的破产案件中已经出现了许多指控和事件。但事实是，郭女士于2017年来到这里并申请庇护。她不会说英语。此刻，曼哈顿的陪审团正在就其丈夫的刑事审判进行评议。\n\n她背部有伤。我可以告诉您，我曾与她一起待过；当我说我坐在她旁边时，我是坐着的，而她站着，因为她无法长时间坐着，而且她身处一个外国。她已经在这里有一段时间，但她不会说英语。文化显然非常不同，而且，无论您如何评价郭先生在这起破产案或其被指控实施的任何其他事情中所做的行为，事实是我们的当事人处境确实非常困难。\n\n因此，要求她搬离她的住宅——她再过三周就在那里居住满四年——而且从未就房屋内哪些物品归谁所有进行过诉讼，更不用说作出裁定。我的意思是，受托人说他拥有所有这些裁定。据我了解，其中若干项是缺席判决，但他在其他案件中就其他实体获得了所有这些裁定。\n\n这或许是事实，但这并不意味着已经作出任何裁定，认定房屋内的某一物品归那些其他实体所有。因此，她被告知：你必须搬走。我，受托人，将接管一切。然后，根据受托人向我们所说的，我们将负有举证责任，证明房屋内的物品不属于他。\n\n但事情并非如此运作。他仍然处于这个V字形案件标题中的原告一方，而且他选择以一种没有处理房屋内物品及其所有权归属的方式来诉讼本案。\n\n我认为，我们不需要采取这样一种程序，即由法院——无论是本法院还是地区法院——与我们逐项审查。我的意思是，那并非——我认为那并不是对法院资源的良好利用。但是，必须有一段时间让我们能够完成这一程序，因为，我可以告诉您，从我当事人的角度来看，她一方面被告知，\n\n你必须在22日之前搬离。\n\n而另一方面，受托人告诉我，我们应当假定该房屋正受到监控，如果他们从房屋中带出任何物品，受托人就会向破产法院提出申请。\n\n那么她该怎么办？她应当搬家还是不应当搬家？事实是，她应当有权获得暂缓执行，因为这涉及她的住宅。被驱逐出主要住所、主要住所被出售，按定义即构成不可弥补的损害。我认为这是最重要的因素。\n\n我们已在书面陈述中论证了这一点，我不想过于深入讨论。但我确实认为，无论是已提交的暂缓执行动议，还是我们向地区法院提交的动议，都需要得到处理。我不得不——\n\n法院：那么，地区法院的什么动议？您的意思是撤回移送动议？还是您也向地区法院提交了暂缓执行动议？\n\n梅杰先生：我们尚未向地区法院提交暂缓执行动议，但是——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n梅杰先生：——而且我完全坦率地说，法官阁下，我承认——我这样说吧。鉴于先前暂缓执行动议所发生的情况，至少存在一种风险，即法官阁下会驳回我们的暂缓执行动议，什么\n\n……破产法院当前命令中的自动中止如何处理。但比这一切更重要的是，鉴于我们所拥有的时间——\n\n法庭：为使记录清楚，也使其他人清楚，当你说自动中止时，你是指就准许简易判决动议的命令而言，规则所施加的中止。\n\nMAJOR先生：是。我并不——\n\n法庭：是。\n\nMAJOR先生：——不是在说 362——\n\n法庭：我只是想澄清这一点，以便人们理解其中的区别。仅此而已。\n\nMAJOR先生：是的。感谢您，法官阁下。我本应当——\n\n法庭：不，没关系。\n\nMAJOR先生：——更为详细。\n\n法庭：完全没关系。我只是想在记录中作此说明。\n\nMAJOR先生：但比任何事情都更重要的是，我的意思是，鉴于事情的时间安排，我们必须为前往地区法院（District Court）的可能性做好准备，因此，我认为这——而且这某种程度上促成了提交延期动议，包括我们与受托人进行的讨论，即——\n\n法庭：那么，延期动议是在何时提交的——它不是在周五提交的。上诉期间中止动议是在周五提交的。\n\nMAJOR先生：正确。而且——\n\n法庭：那么——延期动议是何时提交的？\n\nMAJOR先生：我相信是在今天上午 9:30 和 10 点之间的某个时候。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，你的延期动议是寻求延长简易判决动议中所定日期吗？你是这个意思吗？\n\nMAJOR先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我的意思是，简易判决裁定，抱歉。\n\nMAJOR先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。哦，这是 Despins受托人所说的。现在我明白了。90 天。这就是你在延期动议中所请求的。你请求将准许简易判决的命令的可执行日期延长 90 天。\n\nMAJOR先生：是的，法官阁下。这是我们在动议中所请求的。我认为延期动议将有助于的是，第一，它将允许有时间处理该中止动议或各项中止动议。它将允许有时间——\n\n确定房屋内物品的程序，以及确定这些物品归谁所有——归受托人还是 Guo女士（郭女士）所有，等等。\n\n法庭：但我认识到受托人将要——我认为，他今天已向法庭表示，并且当他再次发言时将向法庭表示，我们将把这些物品存入仓储，不会处置它们，因此你们的权利得以保全。\n\n但归根结底，延期——如果我的委托人实际上必须搬离，她需要更多时间搬出自己的家。如果我们在中止动议中败诉，法警来敲门，她就必须离开，但她必须有地方可去。\n\n而且我认为，请求受托人等待一段时间，以便这些事情得以明朗，并不过分。\n\n因为正如我一开始所说的，我的意思是，如果撤回移送请求动议在受托人出售房屋之前始终未获裁定，那么，我们委托人依据宪法享有的权利届时就已经丧失，因为她将没有机会让地区法院裁定 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地公司）是否为债务人 Kwok先生（郭文贵）的另一个自我。\n\n而且，如果房屋被出售，那么任何裁定都不会有太大意义，因为她已经失去了自己的家，并被驱逐，等等。因此，如果我可以直言说明我的请求，延期只是我们希望她能得到多一点时间。我理解，我们的委托人在受托人看来并不显得值得同情，但她的丈夫——陪审团正在审议。她身体状况不佳，却被要求在极短通知期限内离开自己的家，而那时我不得不告诉她，我仍未就你的撤回移送请求动议获得裁定。我可能会，也可能不会——\n\n法庭：如你所知，本庭无法控制此事。\n\nMAJOR先生：是的，当然，我完全理解。我也不知道我是否会收到对中止动议的裁定。如果您——\n\n法庭：那么，让我问你几个问题——\n\nMAJOR先生：当然。\n\n法庭：——基于 Despins受托人所说的以及你刚才所说的。这是一次状态会议。这正是受托人上周因——我相信，是因简易判决命令中的 7 月 22 日日期而请求举行的。你是否知道房屋是否有保险，即财产保险？\n\nMAJOR先生：我不知道，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为我需要知道这个问题的答案，好吗？鉴于我们目前所处的状况，我认为这是一个正当的问题。因此，无论答案是什么，我都希望知道这个问题的答案。是或否。我希望知道。\n\n关于税款，除 Despins受托人就 7 月付款所说的以外，你是否知道——我不知道你是否住在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州），但那正是应付款到期之时。我的意思是，根据情况，它在本月 1 日或 31 日到期——我不知道 Greenwich（格林尼治）如何操作，但我会假定你可以在 7 月 31 日之前支付你年度税款中的一部分，好吗？那么，你是否知道——我甚至不是在问——\n\n7 月 31 日的付款。我只是试图了解，而且你可能不知道答案，但我希望得到一个答案：在本月 7 月到期应付的税款之前的所有税款是否均已支付。我想知道，它本质上是否正在流失，好吗？\n\n这处房产的税款是否已支付？我完全不知道。我不知道你是否知道，但我需要将所有这些事实纳入考量，对吗？因此，我需要知道那两个问题的答案。\n\n关于 7 月付款，再次说明，显然它尚未——嗯，我不应当说显然。根据受托人的陈述，它尚未支付。但我——\n\n不认为这会产生负面后果。我认为你可以在 7 月 31 日之前支付税款。因此，我希望知道是否——我的意思是，根据我们查明的事实和所见材料，Ngok女士（Ngok女士）是 Greenwich Land 的管理成员，对吗？因此，她应当知道税款是否会被支付。我也希望知道这个问题。因为，当——我听到你们二位都说了，而 Despins受托人，我显然会给你回应的机会，但我听到你们二位都说中止动议需要处理，好吗？中止动议是在周五提交的。显然，它尚未被处理。它尚未被处理。如果法庭要处理该动议，而且我将处理该动议，但我的意思是，如果我们要结合你就 22 日提出的关切来处理该动议，那么我需要确定简易判决动议中的日期——抱歉，命令中的日期——是否应当变更，或者我是否可以在现在与周一之间就中止问题举行听证会。我认为在现在与周一之间举行听证会的可能性不大。但是，鉴于目前程序的状态，我可以将简易判决命令改为其他日期。是否将其改为 90 天，我不知道。我甚至还没有阅读——\n\n你的动议，当然，对吗？\n\n你和 Despins受托人都告诉我，你们在过去几小时内提交了材料。我们今天上午举行了听证会。显然，我还没有阅读该动议，好吗？我理解你的关切。我理解受托人的关切。我认为你们二位都有必须由法庭权衡的关切。对此毫无疑问，好吗？\n\n因此，有几件事我希望你们二位考虑。我听到了受托人所说的，我不知道你是否对此有回应。尽管我想，没有回应也是一种回应。没有支付租金。什么都没有。\n\n如果你到了——如果我到了这样的地步——而且我将裁定中止动议，对吗，我必须确定的事项之一是保证金是否适当。而且，如你所知，我必须根据受托人因无法行使作为准许简易判决命令一部分所载判决而将遭受的损害，确定保证金金额。\n\n因此，至少在我看来，必须就该问题进行一些讨论。即使只是理论上，如果你们二人就此达成一致，我也会感到意外。但是——这不是问题。我并不是说那是问题。\n\n但我必须权衡所有——如果将准予中止，我必须权衡是否应当要求提交保证金。而且，我告诉你，我认为大多数法官都会说，在准予中止时，确实需要提交保证金。这很少见。不要求保证金是例外，而非常规。\n\n我理解你所说的一切。正如我对你所说的，我认为你的观点——需要由本庭处理，正如 Despins受托人的观点需要得到处理一样。但是，总会到我必须采取行动的时候，对吗？我必须采取行动。\n\n你现在已经提交了延期动议。我尚未阅读。你提交了上诉期间中止动议。我还没有——我知道它已提交。我知道涉及住所时有关不可弥补损害的论点。\n\n因此，我假定这些就是你提出的论点。我不知道。我的意思是，我知道我——你已经告诉我它们是。我的意思是，我尚未审阅你引用的判例或任何材料。我还没有做任何这些事情。\n\n因此，所有这些事项都必须纳入考量：受托人的立场，即他已获胜；以及你的立场，即你因多项理由需要中止该命令，其中包括她——你的委托人——居住在该房屋内，并且还有其他问题正在进行。\n\n正如我们已经说过的，关于撤回移送的问题，本庭无法控制。但是，我想为记录指出的一点是，我理解你为何提出该问题，在——简易判决命令中，关于拟议事实认定和法律结论的措辞都源自美国最高法院（United States Supreme Court）的 Stern 案，以及你的委托人不同意本庭作出最终命令这一事实，对吗？\n\n因此，根据 Wellness 判决，你并未同意这样做。因此，我必须中止——该裁定必须如此表述，以便地区法院在准予撤回移送请求时，可以按其认为适当的方式处理该事项，对吗？\n\n因此，我只是希望你理解，无论是本案还是其他任何案件，只要任何一方表示其不同意由本庭作出最终命令——或判决，该措辞同样会存在，因为《联邦破产程序规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure）要求如此，即确认拟议事实认定和法律结论，最高法院在 Stern 案和 Wellness 案中的判例也同样如此要求。\n\n因此，在该简易判决命令中使用该措辞，并无任何专属于本案之处。我只是希望你理解这一点。我并不是说你在作出——\n\n认为它是最终判决的主张，但我只是想明确这一点。\n\n如果在任何提交给法院审理的案件事实情形中，一方不同意作出终局判决，破产法院应当在裁决中加入该等措辞，以便地区法院理解。\n\nMAJOR（梅杰）律师：\n我并未提出该主张。\n\n而且，我见过法官阁下在本案及其他案件的其他命令中加入该等措辞，诸如此类，所以我并未提出该主张。我的唯一观点是，如果 Guo（郭）女士被驱逐且该房屋被出售，那么我告诉她“这不是终局判决”对她而言将毫无慰藉。\n\n法庭：\n我理解。\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n那是我唯一的观点。\n\n法庭：\n可以。这完全公平。我理解。\n\n因此，就此事而言，我将允许 Despins（德斯平）受托人回应你，然后你回应 Despins 受托人，之后我们再看情况如何。但我认为我理解你们双方的论点——哦，我相信，就我目前坐在这里、尚未阅读今日提交的文件而言，我已尽我所能理解了你们双方的论点。\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 受托人：\n简要而言，法官阁下，我要指出，法官阁下于 July 2nd 作出了裁定。他们直到 July 12th 才提出暂缓执行动议。因此，说存在紧急情形——我是说，这些紧急情形是他们自行造成的，因为，你知道，他们有 20 days 的通知期，却搁置了大约 10 days。其次，关于她正被驱逐的这一论点。她并未被驱逐。他们选择了公司形式，选择由一家公司拥有这所房屋。该公司享有某些权利，而法院已经确定了这些权利。不存在——她不是租户。她不是——她没有留在那里的合同权利。关于她腰背不好以及诸如此类的事情，我并不对此提出异议。关键在于，请看用他人资金所进行的支出金额。她本人或为她花费了数十万美元。因此，说她不知为何是一个难以找到住处的贫困人士，这一群体背后有数百万美元。我希望我能找到所有这些数百万美元，但我不确定我能否做到。\n\n但是，你知道，她的儿子藏在 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）或 Switzerland（瑞士）。有数百万美元被转移到了那里。因此，有钱。他们有办法找到钱来照顾母亲。\n\n我从未主张由他承担证明何物归谁所有的负担。我所说的是，我通过留下——通过同意我不碰家具和艺术品，来消除这一问题。我的意思是，我不会出售它们。因此，这就完全消除了处理该紧急情况的必要。\n\n现在，法官阁下，关于保险、税款及所有这些事项，首先是保险，法官阁下，我对这一论点有些担忧。但关键是，已经发生过一起涉及保险的事件，法官阁下对此知情，因为您面前就该事项有一项简易判决动议待决。\n\n您能想象一下，如果那所房屋——现在的这所房屋——再发生一起涉及保险的事件，您认为保险公司会自愿为此付款吗？我向您保证会发生诉讼，因此这是第一点，即使他们有保险。\n\n第二，税款。这与保险及所有这些事项是同一回事。谁来支付这些费用？是我在为他们的居住支付费用吗？从某种意义上说，如果他们动用您已经认定归我所有的资金，由他们使用该资金来提供充分——并非第 363 或 362 条意义上的充分保护，而是在他们提起上诉期间为我们立场提供充分保护——那么这就是虚幻的，因为不存在保护。\n\n因为那是——那是我们的——并非我个人的，但那是受托人的资金，被用来为受托人提供保护。因此，这是我们需要考量的另一件事，即如果他们说“是的，我们会支付保险费”，那笔钱从哪里来？如果来自该实体，那么，再次说来，我是在用自己的资金为自己提供保护。这毫无意义。当然，这需要在上诉待决期间暂缓执行的语境中予以处理，但这确实至关重要。法官阁下，我们最终会谈到这一点，但如我所说，该不动产的租赁价值约为 $35,000 一个月。而这所房屋的价值介于 $6 和 $7 million 之间，大致在该范围内。将其留在那些毫不犹豫违反法院命令之人手中，对破产财产构成巨大风险。她在同意初步禁令后从 Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）转出了资金。您在您的意见书中已经作出该项认定。\n\n因此，这里的衡平因素只是——我不想夸大其词，但情况如此清楚：他们毫无立足之地，因为他们违反了法院命令，违反了破产法典，且不止于此。\n\n因此，任何可能给予的宽限，看看，如果我们无法在 22nd 之前举行听证，也许可以在 23rd、24th 举行。可以。但是，在这些问题尚待厘清期间，他们不知为何可以暂时免费享受利益的这种设想，除非存在真正的保护，否则并不适当。而他们有能力做到这一点。\n\n如果他们想给我们真正的保护，就看看那艘游艇。有一次，您记得，有人正申请解除暂缓执行，以回到 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官面前。那可能意味着债务人在 Ostrager 法官面前面临监禁风险。突然之间，$37 million 出现在这个法庭上。这是怎么发生的？也许可以再次发生。如果仍然不是从我自己的口袋里支付，我完全赞成这样做。关键是，他们有办法处理这一问题，他们不应当与这里的任何其他被告有所不同。已经作出了认定，如果他们想上诉，他们可以尽管上诉，但他们需要保护破产财产。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。Major 律师？\n\nMAJOR 律师：\nChris Major（克里斯·梅杰），代表被告，法官阁下。因此，我只想谈一个程序问题，我本来正要提出这个问题，但当您说我会再有一次机会时，我就将其留到现在，即受托人提到，我们并未就我们的暂缓执行动议提出缩短通知期限的动议。\n\n如我第一次到这里发言时所说，我们即将举行这次状态会议。我理解，我们在收到法院裁决后并未于 2nd 提出暂缓执行动议，但那是一份 61-page 的裁决。我认为，于 July 12th 提交，尽管其间有一个较长的假期期间——当然，我在假期期间也在处理暂缓执行动议——\n\n但是，我不认为任何人能够质疑我们在 July 10th 提出暂缓执行动议的勤勉程度，因为我们是在 July 2nd 下午收到裁决的。我们并未轻视这些论点。依我之见，我们在研究及对该裁决的分析方面做得非常扎实。\n\n但更重要的是，我无法想象有任何法院会认为，10 days 才寻求暂缓执行是过长的。我们已经提交了动议。至于该动议的缩短通知期限，我们知道将举行状态会议，我认为我们可以在这里处理该问题。因此，我只是想确保得到法院的指引，或者说，如果这是我们为满足——当然，最重要的是满足法院或受托人——所需要做的事情，我今天可以提出缩短通知期限的动议。\n\n但我想与法院处理这一问题，以便如果我们最终到了地区法院，我不希望——你知道——受托人说我们没有利用破产法院，尽管我确实认为，根据 8007，我们有充分论点可以直接前往地区法院。但我想确保，我们已向破产法院提交该动议，以便如果我们必须前往地区法院，当我们前往时，我们可以说我们完全遵循了 8007。这是我绝对想与法院处理的一点。\n\n法庭：\n据我所知，8007 并不要求一方寻求紧急听证。我的意思是，我会看一下。但回答你的问题，你无需提出缩短时间并限制听证通知的动议。我将在这次状态会议——即与执行准许简易判决动议的命令有关的状态会议——的语境中处理该问题。因此，你无需这样做，好吗？\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n关于——我本来要问你一个问题，但后来忘了。关于——如你可能知道的，已经提起了数百项对抗程序。当然，我可能看过名称及诸如此类的事项，但除非且直到某一时点有必要，我尚未审阅它们。而到目前为止，其中并没有多少是必要的。但 Despins 受托人谈到了一项针对你的客户 Ngok（诺克）女士单独提起、显然旨在追回款项的对抗程序。你是否在该对抗程序中代理她？\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n是的，法官阁下，我已代表 Guo 女士和 Greenwich Land 出庭登记。请原谅，对抗程序大量涌来，其中有数项针对我们的客户——所以如果我的数字稍有不准确。我相信，除我们现在正在处理的这一项外，可能还有七项对抗程序。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n我相信，有七项将 Guo 女士和/或 Greenwich Land 列为当事人的程序，其中两项已被暂缓执行。我相信法院很熟悉。其中一项对抗程序被标示为 RICO 诉讼。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n该程序因刑事案件而被暂缓。然后，还有，我想——\n\n法庭：\n综合程序。那是另一项吗？\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n有两项综合程序。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n所以我不想混淆记录。有——\n\n法庭：\n我认为，有 RICO，然后还有人格混同综合程序问题。那么，Greenwich Landing 和 Ngok 女士是否在该另一事项中被列为被告？\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n我不确定——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，这并不——\n\nMAJOR 律师：\n——我不记得——\n\n法庭：\n——我唯一想了解的是，而且\n\n你已回答该问题：她是否由律师代理，以及在那些对抗程序中是否由你代理？\n\n梅杰律师：\n是的，法官大人。至于那项综合动议，其中有一则脚注，受托人大意是——我在此转述，措辞可能有些过于口语化——如果他在本案中胜诉，他将撤回该案，因为他是出于诉讼时效的限制而提起该案的。\n\n此外，还有一些欺诈性转让、申请后转让案件，未获中止。\n\n法庭：\n好的。这正是我的问题。我只是不记得你是否实际上已代表 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）和/或 Ms. Ngok（鄂女士）在那些对抗程序中提交了出庭代理声明。你的理解是你已经提交了。所以——我只是好奇而已。\n\n再次说明，我并不了解每一项——\n\n梅杰律师：\n当然。确实如此。\n\n法庭：\n——对抗程序中发生的一切。但无论如何，你无需就上诉期间中止执行的动议提交缩短期限或限制通知的动议。我将要做的是——我已经听取了——我想——还有其他事项吗？如果你还有任何希望载入记录的陈述，我不想打断你。\n\n梅杰律师：\n没有，法官大人。我认为这已涵盖全部内容。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n梅杰律师：\n谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n那么，正如 Despins 受托人（德斯潘受托人）上周所请求的，我们今天已在本对抗程序中举行了状态会议。自上周二提出并获准该请求以来——我想该请求甚至是在庭上获准的，但自上周二以来已经发生了一些事情，包括被告提出上诉期间中止执行的动议，以及显然——最——被告今日提出一项延长准予简易判决命令中判决可执行日期的动议。我理解受托人对时间安排的关切，也理解被告对时间安排的关切。我将会在未来一天内或——我将修改简易判决命令中的 July 22nd 日期。这一点是明确的。我将无法——Despins 受托人，你甚至尚未就上诉期间中止执行提交答复。我并不是说你本应如此，但你尚未这样做。我知道你将作出答复，而我原本也打算命令你作出答复，因此这将会发生，好吗？然后，梅杰律师，你将有机会对受托人的答复作出答复。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3330 提交于 07/22/24 录入于 07/22/24 08:19:00 第 36 页，共 88 页\n\n然后，我们将会——无论我发布何种命令，其中都会载明所有日期和时间。我现在坐在这里时尚不清楚时间安排为何，但我不会准许延长期限 90 days 的动议。我认为在目前这个时间点，这样做不会产生积极效果，但你可以保留根据我所作出的任何决定请求额外时间的权利。\n\n但我不认为现在仅仅准予延长 90 days 是适当的做法。因此，我必须回去审查某些事项。\n\n我的理解是——今天是 Tuesday，所以我的理解是，在 Thursday 之前，即便不是更早，将会就本对抗程序发布某种形式的命令，规定受托人就上诉期间中止执行动议作出答复、被告就该答复作出回复的期限安排，并安排听证，同时延长或修改我认为是准予简易——简易判决动议的命令中的 July 22nd 日期。\n\n那么，我是否遗漏了什么？或者，在我们转入下一事项之前，你们二位是否还有任何希望载入记录的陈述？\n\nDespins 律师：\n没有，法官大人。唯一的关切是，房屋相关款项是否正在支付，以及——但是——\n\n法庭：\n好的，那将全部成为命令的一部分。\n\nDespins 律师：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n好吗？我将会——而且我已经在庭上告知梅杰律师，我希望他能够回答那些问题。因此，无论答案是肯定还是否定——我不知道。但我需要他回答那些问题。\n\n他正在请求上诉期间中止执行，他完全有权这样做。我需要了解一些事实，以便我在审议该项上诉期间中止执行动议时予以考虑。因此，这些都将成为该命令的一部分。\n\n我认为我们将会如我所说，在未来几天内，也许更早，作出一项命令。显然我遗漏了什么，幸好有人提醒我。是的。\n\n再次说明，我想——我已经稍微谈过这个问题，但你们都——你们必须考虑是否需要提供保证金——我知道你曾主张不应要求提供保证金，或者我不知道，但我相信你曾主张你不应被要求提供保证金。对吗？\n\n梅杰律师：\n是的，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，我想我已在本次听证期间告知过你，我认为这是罕见的情形：如果一方当事人成功获得上诉期间中止执行，却不被要求提供保证金。我知道——我不确定，但我相信我的理解准确，即受托人将会主张你必须提供保证金。\n\n因此，将会围绕保证金展开争论，对吗？我们已讨论过，如果——如果我们进行到这一中止阶段，如果法庭准予中止，我们已讨论过受托人因无法执行判决而受到的损害。他已提出一些关于损害的初步意见，包括税款、租金。\n\n但你们双方都必须考虑什么是适当的保证金、其金额应基于什么，因为法庭并非将仅仅确定一个保证金金额。这不是金钱判决，对吗？我们没有一项金钱判决，使我可以直接说——并不是说我，嗯，至少可以有一个据以确定保证金金额的基础。\n\n因此，从受托人的角度来看，财产的价值以及失去该财产，很可能是他将作为保证金金额重点考量的事项。我不知道你将重点考量什么。你可以继续主张你无权——我是说，你不需要，对不起，被要求提供保证金。但我认为我已明确表示，我认为在这些情形下这是不寻常的。\n\n你们自行决定你们认为适当的做法。但我是在向你们二位说明，这必须成为你们提交文件内容的一部分。如果你们所依据的任何事项是与保证金金额有关的事实，那么我需要看到该事项，因为我需要能够在考虑上诉期间中止执行可能需要提供保证金时对其加以审议。\n\n我们不会分阶段处理，对吗？我们将一次性处理全部事项。我不知道我是否会准许，我毫无头绪。我必须审阅你们的文件。我必须审阅答复。我必须审阅回复。然后我必须确定中止是否有依据，是否需要保证金，以及如果需要，金额是多少。\n\n因此，我们必须为所有可能情况作出规划。你们必须考虑这一点。而且——我们不会另行提出一个关于如何确定保证金的新问题。\n\n你们必须在文件中告诉我：我认为保证金应当是——如受托人所称，我认为保证金应当为 X，因为我可以——我有——我有一名房地产经纪人的宣誓书称，顺便说一句，这并不意味着那就是证据，但这是一项意见，即财产价值为 X，或者租赁价值为 Y，或者应付未付税款为 Z。\n\n如果将这些全部加总，那么如果你准予上诉期间中止执行、因而不允许我现在出售该财产，这些就是我作为受托人所遭受的损害，对吗？同样，你也必须告诉我，为什么你认为你无需提供保证金，或者如果你需要提供，金额应为何数额。我理解——我的意思是，我可以在一定程度上预见这些论点，对吗？这并非我们此前未曾一般性讨论过的事项。但重点是，我希望它具体明确。对此有人有任何问题吗？\n\n梅杰律师：\n没有，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我只是——我的意思是，你知道，我不会就你们双方所依据的信息、即法庭应如何确定保证金金额，再经历一轮书面陈述。如果将有上诉期间中止执行，我必须在此时考虑该问题。我们必须在一套书面陈述时间安排中完成所有事项，因为未处理该问题可能导致驳回。我不希望——我宁愿不因你未处理某个问题而驳回一项动议。我希望该问题得到处理。我的意思是，法规规定，对吗？我的意思是，不是法规。规则规定保证金——我的意思是，规则预期会有保证金。正如我们都知道的，根据一般的，嗯，诉讼原则，无法执行判决的一方当事人，可以说，正在受到损害。这就是保证金的目的。\n\n所以无论如何，我认为这——我希望我已表达清楚。如果没有，请你们现在向我提问。我很乐意尝试使其更加明确。我并不是说你们必须有某一项特定证据。但你们可能想要一项，也可能需要一些。而我认为你们很可能确实需要。\n\nDespins 律师：\n法官大人，我唯一的问题是关于时间安排。我——这有点是个人问题，我从 30th 起会离开一段时间。请不要将此理解为受托人在说，哦，让我们把这安排到 August 稍晚些时候。这不是我的意思。我们愿意在就他们已提交的文件作出答复方面压缩我们的时间，以便在 30th 当日或之前对此进行听证。\n\n法庭：\n是的，我不知道这是否能够实现。\n\nDespins 律师：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n我必须说，我不确定这是否能够实现。我理解你的请求，并将予以考虑。\n\nDespins 律师：\n谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n梅杰律师：\n法官大人，我只是想——我当然完全理解法庭就保证金所说的一切。我只是希望为记录说明，我不想只是保持沉默而显得并非如此。我的意思是，我们确实主张，在这些情形下，保证金，\n\n2 是不必要的。\n\n这不是金钱判决，而且那里有一项未设负担的不动产，受禁令及诸如此类事项的约束。\n\n我理解您所说的一切。我只是不希望我的沉默被解释为我们不再继续提出该项论点。但我们当然理解法院所说的一切。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nMAJOR先生：而且，您知道，我们显然会对此予以慎重考虑。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的，关于对抗程序 23-05005 的状态会议，我们已经召开了状态会议。我们讨论了与准予简易判决的命令有关的问题，包括上诉待决期间中止执行的动议、延长期限的动议，以及受托人请求于 July 22nd 立即执行简易判决命令的请求。\n\n如我所述，我将延后该 July 22nd 日期，具体延后多久尚不确定，将依照法院将发布的排期命令执行；该命令应当记录我们今日在庭审记录中讨论的问题。我希望在 Thursday 前发布该命令。\n\n还有其他事项吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nMAJOR先生：非常感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢二位。如果这是您的问题，Major律师，您不必留下。\n\nMAJOR先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nMAJOR先生：非常感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。好的。日程上的下一事项涉及 Genever（Genever）及 DIP 动议。对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，法官阁下，这涉及在案卷编号 3259 提交的一项动议，是债务人之间 DIP 融资的延续。该动议请求授权修改该融资，即由 Kwok（郭文贵）遗产为 Genever US（Genever美国）及 Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛）提供的融资。简而言之，您记得此前已授权最高 $2 million 的此类债务人之间借款。我们尚未完全使用该 $2 million，但我们知道 $2 million 将不足以完成已经开展的工作。因此，截至目前，我们已使用 1.3。顺便说一下，该动议所附的是有关资金用途类别的清单\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3330\nFiled 07/22/24\nEntered 07/22/24 08:19:00\n\n该清单载于附件 B。这是截至目前借款的汇总。我们知道 $2 million 将不够，因为我们认为还将有额外 1.1 million 的维修或，您知道，翻新费用。\n\n您熟悉所有这些事项——此前您已批准全部这些工作，但目前正在进行。这些工作应当会在 mid-August 完成，若上帝保佑如此，我们便可将该房产挂牌出售；但我们知道 $2 million 将会不足，因此我们请求再增加 $1 million。意图并非使用完整的 $1 million，只是我们不希望在有此需要时再回到法官阁下面前。\n\n通常，按我们的观点，AIG（美国国际集团）应当为此支付费用，但其拒绝支付，除非法院命令其支付。因此，我们现在需要由 Kwok遗产以超级优先权基础向 Genever遗产垫付资金。\n\n基本上，这与此前是同一笔贷款。只是我们增加了 $1 million 的增量借款额度。我们提交了动议，未收到任何异议。Sherry-Netherland（谢里—荷兰大厦）已同意该融资，因此，除非法官阁下有问题，我们——这就是——\n\n法院：我没有问题，但我——可能其他人希望陈述意见。还有其他人\n\n希望陈述意见吗？我看到，我想，Sherry-Netherland 的律师在法庭内。您希望陈述意见吗？\n\nMILLMAN女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：是吗？\n\nMILLMAN女士：如果可以的话，是的。\n\n法院：好的，请讲。\n\nMILLMAN女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 Hogan Lovells US（霍金路伟美国律师事务所）的 Sherry Millman（谢里·米尔曼），代表 Sherry-Netherland。正如 Despins先生所述，我们确实同意提供资金，因为我们认为，上次庭审中向法院预览的工作，根据专有租赁协议及相关协议是必要的。遗憾的是，我们是勉强同意，因为我们确实认为还有另一资金来源，即保险赔款；而且我们认识到，每增加一分资金，尤其是以该公寓为担保、尽管其优先顺位低于我方权利的资金，都会提高 Despins先生试图出售该房产时所寻求的价格门槛，因为他将不得不弥补更多金额。因此，情况就是如此，我们确实给予同意。但我们希望向法院提供该背景。我们确实希望 AIG 能够承担责任，或者被强制承担责任。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。我不——我可能没有\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3330\nFiled 07/22/24\nEntered 07/22/24 08:19:00\n\n听到受托人 Despins 说过这个，所以请原谅。他可能已经说过了，而我错过了。但您知道这将于何时完成吗？我的意思是，何时，您知道，完成这些工作，以便您可以开始尝试出售该房产？\n\nMILLMAN女士：他确实提到过，而且我们，Sherry-Netherland，一直与 Despins先生密切合作——\n\n法院：所以我才认为您会知道。\n\nMILLMAN女士：——及其承包商，而且它——\n\n法院：是。\n\nMILLMAN女士：——而且，希望会如他所述，在 mid-August 完成。\n\n法院：mid-August，好的。好的。那么，我感谢您出席并在庭审记录中表明——表明您的客户同意录入该命令。\n\nMILLMAN女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\nMAYHEW女士：法官阁下，我是 Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）的 Christine Mayhew（克里斯廷·梅休），代表委员会。我也只是想表达委员会对该动议的支持，以准许借款，从而能够完成这些——补救工作。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。我是代表\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3330\nFiled 07/22/24\nEntered 07/22/24 08:19:00\n\n美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我们不反对该动议。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，法官阁下，仅作一项澄清。Sherry-Netherland 的律师，您知道，提到他们支持此事，因为根据租赁协议这是必要的。我不想就此进行争论，但无论该事项是否根据租赁协议属必要，或者我们是否在法律上有义务这样做，我不希望搁置该问题以待裁决。\n\n我们正在请求融资。我们正在进行维修，但我不希望我对此保持沉默被视为，您知道，默许这是一项站得住脚的法律理论。再次说明，我们无需辩论该问题；我只是希望确保我的沉默不被视为默许该观点。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：明白。那么，我不知道自己怎么错过了您所说的 mid-August，但显然我确实错过了，所以我道歉。我不确定这将在何时完成。\n\n您所提交命令中的事实认定，我没有机会完全比对，但我认为它们与先前命令中作出的认定相同。对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，请稍候。所以我只是想知道，我们是否不应提及，而且或许我们\n\n已经提及了；再次说明，我可能没有看到，因为我正在查看拟议命令，但应提及已经录入的命令，对吗？因为这只是对信贷协议的修正。因此，已经录入的命令具有某些效力，不是吗？还是您认为它不具有效力，因为这仅涉及对 DIP 信贷安排的修正？\n\nDESPINS先生：我们可以使该提及更加明确——我们可以使其更明确，法官阁下，如果——\n\n法院：我认为这会有帮助——\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。\n\n法院：——使这一点更明确，并提及先前的命令。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。基本上是说明我们并未修改它。这只是额外的——\n\n法院：额外资金，对吗？这正是重点。\n\nDESPINS先生：这是意图，法官阁下。如果我们没有——我道歉。\n\n法院：不，没关系。我理解您为何寻求对信贷协议作出修正。而且，根据您在拟议命令中援引的法典条款，这些条款授权或补充授权订立对 DIP 信贷协议的修正。\n\n我同意您拟议命令中的说法，即无人对该动议提交书面异议。本次听证会中没有参与人反对该动议。Sherry-Netherland 已同意该动议。委员会和美国受托人——嗯，委员会支持该动议。美国受托人不反对该动议。\n\n基于所有这些理由，该动议获准。我只要求提交一份经修订的拟议命令。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：而且，您知道，一旦该命令提交至法庭书记员电子邮箱，我们将立即处理，好吗？我只要求您在提交该命令时，抄送 Sherry-Netherland、委员会及美国受托人的律师。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。因此，该动议获准。经修订的拟议命令，您能否在 Thursday 前提交？\n\nDESPINS先生：我们明天就可以提交，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，我认为这就处理完了与 Genever 有关的问题；对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么，作为最后一项\n\n与 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）有关的事项？不，我们还有另一事项。\n\nDESPINS先生：有一项限制通知的动议。\n\n法院：哦，对。我道歉。抱歉。请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，法官阁下，这是案卷编号 3301。这是一项限制送达范围的动议，所涉动议尚未提交，但将很快提交，其目的在于延长提起撤销诉讼的 August 15 期限。基本上，非常简单，我们上次这样做时，在 Federal Express（联邦快递）和公告通知等方面花了很多钱，而且有不少人提出异议。这次我们提议向所有提出异议的人送达，显然，也向 2002 送达名单上的所有人、委员会、美国受托人等送达。\n\n唯一留待您考虑的问题是，您是否还希望我们向对抗程序中的被告送达——其中已提供电子邮件地址的被告，因为他们已经出庭。我们乐意这样做，因为电子邮件送达成本低，也不会花很多时间。这是唯一的疑问，因为我——我们将此作为动议第 6 页脚注 4 的脚注，并在命令第 2 段中，在罗马数字 V 下设有方括号，我们写明所有已在待决案件中出庭的被告\n\n对抗程序。\n\n法庭：哦，好的，我看到了。\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：所以，坦率地说，我认为这些人可能会依据其他理论被涵盖，但是否如此由您决定；不过我们很乐意这样做，因此是否要我们——\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为既然这不会造成负担，我会要求你们这样做。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的，我们会这样做。因此，如果阁下在其他方面认可该命令，只需从命令中删除这些方括号即可。\n\n法庭：我有几个——首先，我想确认没有其他人希望就该动议发言，抱歉，是限制动议。\n\n德斯平斯先生：异议截止日期是星期五，但我们没有收到任何异议。\n\n法庭：正是。我看到了。所以是否有——我听到没有其他人希望发言。因此，我会要求对拟议命令作几项小修改。我希望——这可能看起来有些过度，但我认为这对今后不在场且可能未予关注的其他人会有帮助，因为无论出于何种原因，他们可能无需关注，这完全没问题。我希望拟议命令表明曾提交加速举行听证会的动议。该动议已获准。听证会定于今日举行。在 July 12th 异议截止日期前无人提出任何异议。请就此写得更具体一些。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，阁下。\n\n法庭：这确实是我——这是我看到的拟议命令中唯一的问题，好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：照办。\n\n法庭：第2段第5项，我同意，我希望你们向在待决对抗程序中已出庭的所有被告送达，因为我认为这将相当直接，且不会对破产财产造成太大负担。\n\n德斯平斯先生：照办。\n\n法庭：除此之外，该动议获准，修订后的拟议命令提交后将予录入。因此，再问一次，你们能否在星期四之前向法庭提交修订后的拟议命令？\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以，阁下。没问题。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：实际上，可能明天就可以。\n\n法庭：好的。不过我会给你们到星期四，因为这样书记官办公室更容易追踪。所以我只会要求——我将注明，限制通知动议，ECF 3301，获准，修订后的拟议命令将在不迟于18th提交。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢，阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？好的。谢谢。今日日程表上的最后事项，是对抗程序23-05028中就缺席判决动议举行的续行听证会。我们已经记录了受托人德斯平斯和林赛律师（Attorney Linsey）的出庭。因此，请被告为记录说明其出庭情况，好吗？\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生（Mr. Litterine-Kaufman）：是，阁下。我是来自奥睿律师事务所（Orrick）的戴维·利特林-考夫曼（David Litterine-Kaufman），代表联合清算人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：下午好。\n\n罗斯先生（Mr. Roth）：我是伟凯律师事务所（Wiggin and Dana）的戴维·罗斯（David Roth），代表联合清算人。\n\n法庭：下午好。那么，当我们上次在这里时——然后，我会让你们两位陈述——我只是想确认，对于被告这一问题我们不存在争议。受托人德斯平斯，你似乎表示不存在争议。如果这对你没有问题，那就没有问题。你们将受此约束。我并非——\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法庭：——再次说明，我已经明确了我对此的关切，而且我没有看到出庭情况有任何变化。他们仍被列为代表清算人的出庭律师。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，我相信对方律师会对此作出回应，但我想明确说明。我的观点是，我将此视为一个类似于诉讼资格的问题。阁下经常会裁定某人不具备诉讼资格，但仍会审理实体问题，以确保记录完整。这只是我的观点。并不是我——并不是我支持他们不需要做某些事情这一事实，而是——\n\n法庭：我并未将其理解为支持性问题。\n\n我理解为你已决定——或者并非决定。我不知道这样说是否恰当。你认定这是一场不值得争执的争斗，因为他们已经提交了动议。而且我本质上已经听取了该动议。\n\n德斯平斯先生：这是正确的，阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。那么，当我们上次在这里时，我要求，嗯，我指示再进行一次会谈协商，并向法庭提交某种报告，说明证据开示的进展情况，以及当事人在本次续行听证会中就缺席判决所持的立场。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，如果可以，阁下，我将说明我们目前所处的情况。阁下，首先就证据开示而言，进行了几次会谈协商，他们向我们提供了一些文件。我会说，就与今天相关的事项而言，他们出示的文件表明，Ace Decade（艾斯迪凯德）的律师于 February 联系了他们，即联合临时清算人。因此，对我们而言，这——但实际上直到今年 June 才提交任何文件；不过最初是在 February 联系他们。对我们而言，这加强了如下论点：Ace Decade，您知道，您知道，基本上搁置了其权利，因此这就是应当作出缺席判决的原因。但我认为——\n\n法庭：缺席判决。已经作出缺席登记。\n\n德斯平斯先生：抱歉——\n\n法庭：对。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——缺席判决。不过除此之外，我会说更重要的是，我与联合临时清算人，即联合临时清算人中的一人，进行了几次讨论，我会说我认为我们已经取得了一些进展。我谨慎地这样说，这将导致一种某种二分式的做法，即，进展的意义在于，可能有一种方式，与他们合作，也就是与联合临时清算人合作，使我在英属维尔京群岛（BVI）被任命为登记股东。这尚未敲定。这是一项可能的解决方案，并且可能是解决方案的第一步。因此，我已同意——您可能记得，我们在上周五提交了一份修订后的拟议命令，案卷编号59。\n\n法庭：我不记得。你的意思是在我们上周举行听证会之后？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：该文件于上周五提交，而您——\n\n法庭：我可能——我可能看过，也可能没有。我不记得。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们增加了一些措辞——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——请求您在命令中加入若干段落，说明您正在寻求英属维尔京群岛法院的协助。我们曾提到将会这样做，但我们实际上已经这样做了。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：清算人对此并不满意。他们实际上今天上午提交了一份文件，说明了这一点，并附上一封信，基本上称只有英属维尔京群岛可以处理这些问题。归根结底，由于存在解决我们问题的潜在路径，我已同意，如果阁下倾向于准予缺席判决，我已同意从该命令中删除您请求英属维尔京群岛法院采取某些行动的请求。\n\n我想非常明确。这并非承认他们在该问题上是正确的。更像是承认可能存在一条前进路径，不会涉及在那边进行繁重的诉讼，而我们想看看这是否会实现。如果没有实现，我们将再次到阁下面前，请求您录入同样类型的措辞，即，请协助本法庭，英属维尔京群岛法院，请协助本法庭向受托人提供一切救济，包括宣告任命联合临时清算人无效。但目前，我们会将此从命令中删除。因此，在这一方面，该命令将与您最初看到的命令，即缺席判决命令，保持相同。这就是目前的情况。\n\n但您可能会说，好的，那么这是否解决了今天的问题？遗憾的是，没有。从某种意义上说，我们仍希望法庭对Yvette Wang（王雁南）和Ace Decade作出缺席判决，我们已准备好就此的实体问题，或者可能尚余的任何实体问题，进行辩论。\n\n我相信联合临时清算人的律师也已准备好就该论点可能尚余的任何实体问题进行辩论。就此而言，我想让您知道，由于他们质疑阁下对Ace Decade具有属人管辖权，巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）上周提到，Ace Decade曾于2016年在美国提起诉讼——是的，2016年——在该诉状中，Ace Decade称其主要营业地位于纽约市，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）所在地。\n\n我们今天提交了该诉状的副本，因此其现已载入记录，您已掌握。相关段落为该诉状第10段。\n\n此外，在本案的案卷中，即一般案件中，您已经拥有郭文贵先生为支持纽约南区（Southern District of New York）针对Ace Decade的诉讼而提交的声明。\n\n我相信那是——实际上，我会再提供该声明的实际编号，即实际案卷编号。但该声明基本上，阁下，我认为您之前已经多次看过，他基本上说，我于2015年迁往美国，我就是Ace Decade，我们与我的同事在我的公寓里召开会议。\n\n我们在纽约进行有关Ace Decade及其与UBS的投资的所有谈判，等等，等等。因此，这显然与属人管辖权问题相关。\n\n我还想指出，阁下，我想提请您注意两项判决，因为有人提出论点称，等一下，诉状中没有提及对Ace Decade的属人管辖权。我希望阁下了解以下两案，其基本主张是，当属人管辖权受到质疑时，法庭可以审查诉状四角范围之外的材料。第一案是，Xie，即X-I-E，诉Sklover，即S-K-L-O-V-E-R，260 F. Supp. 3d，第30页，跳引3037，哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院2017年，“在裁决因缺乏属人管辖权而提出的驳回动议时，法庭并不限于审查现行诉状的四角范围，而可以接收并权衡宣誓书及其他相关文件，等等。”下一案是Dicks v. Cooks Junction，编号22-CV-6495。即2023 Westlaw, 2775830，第2页。\n\n法庭：你必须再说一遍。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n法庭：抱歉。\n\n德斯平斯先生：因此，引证是2023 Westlaw, 2775830，第2页，该案是纽约南区于 April 4th, 2023作出的判决。基本上，法庭在审查原告是否已满足确立属人管辖权的举证责任时，法庭“可以考虑诉状之外的材料，包括宣誓书及其他书面材料”。\n\n因此，让阁下完全适当地——\n\n法官阁下，请看 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）作出的陈述，其中称我们的总部位于纽约。关键在于，联合临时清算人或任何其他人均未提供证据证明，事实上，这一情况以某种方式发生了改变。即使您接受——我现在设身处地站在 Yvette Wang（王伊维特）的角度——她是 Ace Decade 的合法股东这一理论，她也始终在纽约。Kwok（郭文贵）也是如此。我也一样；也就是说，如果我们聚焦于本项诉状提起之时，而我是本应负责 Ace Decade 的人，那么我是唯一一位——我位于纽约，Kwok 先生位于纽约，Yvette Wang 也位于纽约。因此，除 Ace Decade 是一家 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）公司这一事实外，并无任何论点称 Ace Decade 是从 BVI 运营的。也无人主张管理层以某种方式位于 BVI，或在 BVI 经营业务。完全没有。毫无此类情况。因此，鉴于全国范围的送达程序，以及其亦已在 BVI 被适当送达这一事实，足以使法官阁下认定贵院对 Ace Decade 享有对人管辖权。法官阁下，我还想提及最后一点，即另一名被告，即位于瑞士、从 Wang 女士处取得股份，随后\n\n授权联合临时清算人启动——不是提交，而是在 BVI 启动清算案件的人。我们已经提交——在本对抗程序中，这是本案案卷编号 61——第 11 章受托人请求对被告 Rui（音译）Hao（郝锐）作出缺席登记的通知。法官阁下，我们于周五提交了该文件。基本上，我们在其中说明，我们已收到瑞士律师的确认；该瑞士律师已向负责确保《海牙送达公约》项下送达的瑞士主管机关确认，该被告最迟已于 May 17, 2024 被适当送达。该日期之后 60 天是 July 16, 2024，也就是今天。法官阁下，我们在本对抗程序案卷编号 61 的该项提交中告知——我们向法官阁下说明，我们将在本次庭审结束时请求对其作出缺席登记，而不是缺席判决。再者，理想情况下，如果法官阁下倾向于对 Ace Decade 和 Wang 女士作出缺席判决，我们认为，在其中加入一项表述，即已对 Rui Hao 作出缺席登记，将是有益的。您或许会说，今天是 16 日，他仍可能在今天结束前提交某些文件，这确实如此。因此，法官阁下，我们拟采取的做法是提交\n\n明日上午提交一份补充通知；同样地，如果法官阁下倾向于对 Wang 和 Ace Decade 作出缺席判决，该通知将说明他未提交任何形式的答复。基于此，我们请求对其作出缺席登记，并且您将作出的命令将对此予以提及。\n\n您或许会说，我知道缺席登记与缺席判决之间的区别；但从国际执行的角度来看，我认为，让您将作出的命令——同样地，如果您倾向于作出该命令——包含此类提及或认定，是有益的。\n\n因此，我们将于明日提交一份声明，确认截至今晚午夜，这位先生未提交任何文件，以完成这一事项。\n\n因此，这就是目前的情况，法官阁下；顺便说一句，这也是我主张应当作出缺席判决的理由，但这就是目前的局面。因此，我才说这是一种不完美、不完整的解决方案。\n\n您知道，我们认为已经取得了一些进展，但我们尚未——这就像从 A 点到 B 点。我们尚未到达 B 点，因此，出于审慎考虑，而且不仅仅是出于审慎考虑，我们认为法官阁下今天作出缺席判决是重要的；我理解，这将受到联合临时清算人的反对。但我很乐意回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法院：我没有问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯平斯）：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生（利特林-考夫曼）：下午好，法官阁下。仅简要说明几点。首先，如法官阁下所观察到的，以及受托人所指出的，我们没有变更我们的出庭通知。我应澄清我上周在记录中所作的陈述。我的当事人是联合临时清算人，且仅是这些联合临时清算人，作为目前依据 BVI 法律负责管理公司事务的人员。他们指示我代表公司到此提出某些论点，但公司本身并非我的当事人，我在此并不代表公司。\n\n据我了解，尽管如此，受托人并不反对我和联合临时清算人参与该动议。\n\n如受托人所提及，我们提交了一份文件，我相信是在今天一早提交的。我只是想简要解释该项提交的背景和原因。这是对受托人经修订的拟议命令的答复。我们出于两个理由提交该文件。\n\n第一个理由是，从 BVI 法律的角度解释受托人加入经修订拟议命令中的新措辞所涉及的问题；我理解受托人现愿暂时删除该措辞，因此我不再赘述该点。\n\n另一个理由是，法官阁下在上次庭审中表示有兴趣进一步了解，在 BVI 可以采取何种程序来纠正 Ace Decade 的股东名册。该信函中对该程序的具体情形有所讨论。我们在随附提交的文件中引用了法官阁下可在该信函何处找到该讨论。因此，这就是提交该答复的原因。最后，就缺席判决动议而言，我没有太多内容需要补充上周所述。我只简要重申，联合临时清算人继续反对对人管辖权，涉及的是何时联系到他们。确实，据我了解，他们是在今年 2 月或可能 1 月被联系到的。但我仅为记录说明，他们直到我相信是 June 24th 才被正式任命。因此，在该任命生效之前，他们自身不能代表公司行事；我相信该任命生效日是在反对截止日期前两天。\n\n法院：是谁联系了他们？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：我相信是律师联系了他们。我不——是 BVI 律师。\n\n法院：是谁？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：是 Walkers（沃克斯）律师事务所。我不知道 Walkers 的哪位个人。\n\n法院：Walkers 代表谁？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：我相信 Walkers 代表股东名册上列载的股东。我相信是 Hao 先生。\n\n法院：所以是 Hao 先生？Rui Hao？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：我相信是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：但你不确定？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：这是我的理解，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。并且他们是在 2 月或可能 1 月联系到他们的。让我退一步说。Walkers 代表 Hao 先生或 Ho 先生——抱歉，我可能发音不准确——于 1 月或 2 月联系了你们的当事人，即担任清算人的两位先生，代表据称持有该股份的 Rui Hao 先生。其原因是什么？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：我相信是询问他们是否可以担任联合清算人。他们必须经历一项类似于此处律师所进行的利益冲突核查程序。因此，我相信该联系是为了询问他们是否能够通过利益冲突核查——\n\n法院：你们的当事人何时告知 Walkers 他们已通过利益冲突核查？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：我不知道，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是在 2 月。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：是在 2 月吗？\n\n法院：所以，你们的当事人只是被要求等待直到——这是你告诉我的吗？代表据称持有该股份的 Rui Hao 先生的 Walkers，即代表 Hao 先生的律师事务所，于 2 月联系了你们的当事人，然后你们的当事人被告知不要采取任何行动，直到后来他们——在 6 月，也就是延长本对抗程序答复期限后仅数日——启动清算程序？这是你向法院作出的陈述吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：法官阁下，受托人拥有清算人与 Walkers 之间的所有通信。我并未——\n\n法院：那么你没有吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：我也有。我本人尚未阅读，法官阁下。因此，我不知道这个问题的答案。\n\n法院：那么，你为什么不去读一读，然后我们休庭一下，你就可以回答我这些问题。你是他们的律师。你刚才站在这里告诉我，你不代表 Ace Decade。你代表清算人，即两位先生，他们的姓名我现在手边没有，但我在上次庭审中已将其载入记录。\n\n你来到这里请求延长一项期限，称你需要保护 Ace Decade。你现在告诉我你不代表 Ace Decade。那么，如果你不代表他们，为何需要保护 Ace Decade？现在你又表示你同意你们的当事人在 2 月被联系到，但你请求本法院不要作出缺席判决，因为你们在被任命后立即采取了行动？这就是你的论点吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：法官阁下，实际上我甚至没有就善意这一点提出论证。我只是为了澄清记录而如此陈述。我的论点仅涉及管辖权。因此，我很乐意转而讨论该问题；如果法官阁下愿意，我也很乐意休庭并审阅这些电子邮件。但我实际上并不是——\n\n法院：是的。我想休庭。我希望你审阅那些电子邮件。你是他们的律师。你应当能够回答这些问题。因此，我们将——法院休庭至 2:30。\n\n书记员：全体起立。法院休庭至 2:30。\n\n（于下午 2:11 停止记录。）\n\n（于下午 2:36 恢复记录。）\n\n法院：好的。我们于 2:35 恢复记录。我们休庭时，律师，你本将去阅读我们所谈及的电子邮件，涉及 Walkers 联系你们的当事人；Walkers 代表本对抗程序中的一名被告 Rui Hao。请继续，向我说明你在休庭期间阅读了什么。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：是，法官阁下。我审阅了已向受托人出示的电子邮件，看来在通过利益冲突核查后，通信出现了较长间隔；随后，Hao 先生的律师于 June 22nd 提供了任命我当事人的股东决议。因此，据我了解，只是在等待该股东决议期间出现了较长间隔。\n\n法院：那么，当你说等待该股东决议时，你的意思是，2024 年 2 月或更早时有一封电子邮件表明将会有一项股东决议，该决议将提出并且——不是提出——将决定任命清算人吗？\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生（Mr. Litterine-Kaufman）：没有那么正式，法官大人。曾有沟通称清算人已完成利益冲突审查。双方就安排电话会议进行过一些往来。这些都发生在二月底，之后直至6月22日发送附有股东决议的电子邮件前，再无任何进展。法庭（THE COURT）：Walkers（Walkers）发送电子邮件时，是郝先生（Mr. Hao）的律师向你们的委托人发送的吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3330 提交于 07/22/24 录入于 07/22/24 08:19:00 第 70 页，共 88 页\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：这是我对该电子邮件的记忆。法庭：你说是在1月——6月22日？我原以为——利特林-考夫曼先生：我——法庭：——不知为何，我原以为是21日。利特林-考夫曼先生：我相信——我可以回头查看，法官大人。我几分钟前查看时的记忆是22日，但它——法庭：没关系。是这两个日期中的一个——利特林-考夫曼先生：是。法庭：——你是说他们——而那封从Walkers发送给你们各个委托人的电子邮件，是由谁收到的？是你们各个委托人收到的吗？利特林-考夫曼先生：还有可能是他们所在的阿尔瓦雷斯与马萨尔（Alvarez and Marsal）律所中的其他人，是的。法庭：好的。因此，是他们受雇所在的律所中的其他人——并且他们在那里担任这些清算人，对吗？利特林-考夫曼先生：是。这是我的记忆。法庭：因此，6月21日或22日发送了一封电子邮件，其中仅仅——仅仅写着“这是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3330 提交于 07/22/24 录入于 07/22/24 08:19:00 第 71 页，共 88 页\n\n——决议”？利特林-考夫曼先生：这是我对其内容的记忆（听不清）——法庭：那么，你为什么不把它拿来让我看看，可以吗？利特林-考夫曼先生：我只有电子版，法官大人。法庭：哦，好的。这样吧？我会要求你将所有这些电子邮件作为本次庭审的一部分提交。因此，我会将其称为清算人证据。你要告诉我它们无法提交吗？利特林-考夫曼先生：不，不。法庭：好的。利特林-考夫曼先生：我相信，该文件，即郝睿（Rui Hao）的任命文件，附于你方的异议或延期请求——法庭：任命文件在，但没有电子邮件。没有——利特林-考夫曼先生：不，不。法庭：——没有电子邮件通信——利特林-考夫曼先生：对不起。法庭：——向我——利特林-考夫曼先生：是，对不起。法庭：——证明了——我已经看过这两份文件。我们在上一次庭审中已将其宣读并载入记录。\n\n而且——我不知道郝先生何时签署了它们，因为它们没有日期。而且，我没有关于Ace Decade（Ace Decade）作出指示或决议、允许郝先生采取该行动的任何记录；正常的公司账簿和记录本应载有此类记录。\n\n而且——你告诉我，你现在查看了此前未查看过的电子邮件，该等电子邮件称，2024年1月和2月，Walkers——一家代表作为所谓唯一股东的郝先生的英属维尔京群岛（BVI）律师事务所——曾与由你代表、但并非本对抗程序具名被告的你们委托人联系，并称希望你们完成利益冲突审查并担任清算人。\n\n然后，自2024年2月的某个时候起，直至发送该决议之日，双方没有任何通信。这就是你告诉我的情况，对吗？\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：是。这正是这些电子邮件所反映的情况。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我希望所有这些电子邮件均提交至本对抗程序的案卷。它们可以以PDF格式作为清算人1号、清算人2号、清算人3号、清算人4号提交。如果你对如何操作有任何问题，可以联系书记官办公室。他们可以指导你如何操作。我并不是说你会有任何问题，但如果有，他们可以协助你。\n\n我希望在明日营业结束前将其载入记录。实际上，我希望在明日下午1:00前将其载入记录。因此，从2月到6月存在一段间隔。而你告诉我的是，你刚才在法庭上审阅后认为，6月——你认为是22日，无关紧要；当你提交时，它会告诉我这是21日还是22日的电子邮件——其中仅附有这两份文件，仅此而已？它写的是“采取行动”。它是这样写的吗？\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：法官大人，我现在就在面前放着该电子邮件。如果您愿意，我可以向您宣读。它并不长。法庭：日期是什么？利特林-考夫曼先生：是22日。它提到于21日通过的决议。因此——或者它说该决议于21日通过。法庭：好的。请继续。好的。利特林-考夫曼先生：其内容为：“韦斯（Wes）和巴里（Barry）：\n\n请查收附件：由郝睿先生于21 June 2024通过的合格成员决议，批准你们被任命为Ace Decade的清算人。我们相信，你们现在将毫不拖延地采取必要步骤登记你们的任命。\n\n如你们还需要我们或我们的委托人提供任何其他事项，请随时联系我们。毫无疑问，关于该公司及正在进行的诉讼，你们将有各种问题需向我们的委托人询问。\n\n请告知你们需要何种信息，我们将尽力尽快回复。\n\n谨致问候，\n\n安德鲁（Andrew）。”\n\n法庭：他们指的是哪项诉讼？利特林-考夫曼先生：我将其理解为指在英国（UK）针对瑞银（UBS）的诉讼。\n\n法庭：好的。如我所说，在1:00前——我说的是下午1:00吗？我刚才是这样说的吗？利特林-考夫曼先生：是。法庭：明日下午1:00前，我希望将已向受托人提供的全部电子邮件，以PDF格式提交至本对抗程序的案卷，并标注——你知道，我们现在不再使用标签贴纸了，但应标为清算人1号、清算人2号、清算人3号，诸如此类。\n\n我希望所有电子邮件连同各该电子邮件所附的附件一并提交，每一封电子邮件都应如此，即使附件重复。我希望提交的电子邮件——我希望所提交的电子邮件就是实际发送和接收的电子邮件。\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：明白，法官大人。法官大人曾询问——该电子邮件附有多少份文件。有两份。一份是该决议，另一份是任命证书。我相信，这两份文件就是我们随延期提交异议截止日期的动议一并提交的两份文件。法庭：好的。或许如此，待你提交时我们就会看到。利特林-考夫曼先生：好的。法庭：好的？利特林-考夫曼先生：关于对人管辖权，我没有其他补充，法官大人；关于事项管辖权，我只想非常简要地指出，我们在延期提交异议截止日期的动议中已经提出论点，并且我在上次庭审中简要说明了我们的立场：就Ace而言，鉴于受托人的立场是其控制Ace，因而同时处于“v.”的两边，不存在额外争议。除非法官大人有问题，否则我就说到这里。\n\n法庭：你是否审阅了受托人——不是文件。请原谅，我说错了。受托人在其关于法院可审查起诉书以外内容来确定对人管辖权的论证中所引用的法律？\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：我不熟悉那些判例，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），还有其他事项吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：法官大人，关于事项管辖权问题，仅有一点。Ace Decade必须成为当事人，因为有人正在篡夺我控制该公司的权利，而Ace Decade正在被无权使用它的人非自愿地使用，例如JPL提交的文件。\n\n这就是为什么它是应当受禁令约束的适格当事人；这样，当我去英国时，我可以说，针对Ace Decade存在禁令，Ace Decade受以下认定约束：受托人拥有股份并控制该公司。谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。律师，还有其他事项吗？利特林-考夫曼先生：只是重申我上周的论点，即这并不能替代事项管辖权。至少我不知道有任何判例作此认定。\n\n法庭：好的。我只需要暂时看一下某些内容。因此，德斯平斯受托人，鉴于你今天下午在记录中所述，我有一个问题。你希望法院——我认为，并且我想确保我理解无误——如果法院作出缺席判决，表明也已针对被告郝睿作出缺席登记；显然，在目前情况下，这在明天之前无法发生，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：正确，法官大人。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：而且书记官还必须——因为有时会有延迟，所以通过您的协助，如果没有——没有提交任何文件，您知道，书记官需要作出登记，然后您可以在您的命令中确认这一点。法庭：你所说“如果”是什么意思——哦，如果郝先生没有提交任何文件？德斯平斯先生：没有——法庭：对不起。当你说——德斯平斯先生：是，因为我们将——法庭：是，我明白。我只是想理解你的思路。德斯平斯先生：我们明天上午将提交更新——法庭：对。德斯平斯先生：——确认或不确认所发生的情况。法庭：好的。因此，我只是在查看你们双方所说的内容，以及我尚未查看的内容——我想，今天提交了一封信。我实际上不知道该信说了什么。是这样吗，律师？你说其第一部分——首先从英属维尔京群岛的角度解释有关事项，但你目前并不担心该部分，因为受托人愿意不在缺席判决中加入有关英属维尔京群岛法院合作的措辞，对吗？\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：正确，法官大人。法庭：好的。那么你方信函的第二——第二点是什么？利特林-考夫曼先生：法官大人，我上周在这里时，您曾询问，为更正Ace Decade成员名册而进行的英属维尔京群岛程序会是什么样子。因此，信中也讨论了该程序。法庭：我不确定我问过那个问题。我认为我问的是，你们是否会合作并使受托人成为股东。首先，我问你们是否会交出该股份，答案是否定的。然后你们一直在谈合作。我说，好吧，你们将如何合作？你们是否会使他成为成员名册中该股份的——登记持有人。我认为你们从未回答过那个问题。所以我不知道。我还没有看过你们的信。我推定你们的信仍未提出合作使受托人成为登记所有人，尽管我想你们正在讨论这可能发生？\n\n利特林-考夫曼先生：正确，法官大人。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：因此，受托人与我的委托人之间一直在进行讨论。英属维尔京群岛（BVI）有一项变更成员名册的程序，随后共同清算人必须对该名册进行结算。现任股东如受托人将其变更为列示——抱歉，如——\n\n法庭：嗯，目前没有现任股东。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：该——\n\n法庭：难道——您的委托人现在不享有股东权利吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：不过，他们并不拥有股权本身，法官阁下。他们自己并非股东。他们是法院指定的清算人。\n\n法庭：但该决议怎么说？该决议难道——你看，那正是我上周的问题。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：是的。\n\n法庭：他们有哪些权力？你并未——我不知道他们有哪些权力，好吗？你代表这些未出庭被告和未具名被告提交的文件中，没有任何内容。没有任何内容能够回答这些问题。因此，我认为你提交了一项紧急动议，是不是？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：就此而言——\n\n法庭：一项紧急动议——\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——以阻止缺席判决作出。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：我认为，该动议是为了延长就判决作出回应的期限。\n\n法庭：可是，并不存在期限。期限已经届满。因此，这就是它的性质。这是一项阻止缺席判决作出的动议。你不能延长已经届满的期限。我认为我们上周讨论过这个问题，好吗？那么让我们回看你的文件。你提交了一项动议——一项延长就缺席判决作出回应期限的紧急动议，但该动议已逾期。因此，期限已经届满，也就没有什么可以延长的。而且你今天现在已经承认，你的委托人知道这一程序将在某个时候发生，并且他们于6月22日知情。而你——那天他们被——我认为你刚才读到的是，“相应行事”。然而，他们直到7月1日才提交这项动议。这是否准确？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：是的，法官阁下，该时间顺序准确。\n\n法庭：好的。那么清算的目的是什么，律师？请告诉我其目的。如果你是在说——首先，你不代理Rui Hao（郝睿）。你今天已明确说明这一点。你只代理共同清算人。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么清算的目的是什么？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：据我了解，清算的目的与美国的清算程序类似。共同清算人负责出售——或者说，将公司的资产变现，然后，您知道，清偿公司的负债，随后向债权人和股权持有人分配剩余款项。\n\n法庭：你的委托人掌握有关公司资产和负债的哪些信息？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：据我了解，主要资产是本诉讼。\n\n法庭：那不是我的问题。我的问题是，你的委托人掌握有关公司资产和负债的哪些信息？向他们提供了什么？一定有人向他们提供了某些东西。他们不会在没有任何信息的情况下担任清算人，或者也许他们会，但我想知道这一点。因为如果这是一个清算程序，并且公司没有股权，那么Rui Hao先生的股份就没有价值。那么，向你的委托人提供了有关该公司资产和负债的哪些信息？又是谁向他们提供的？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：我相信，法官阁下，该调查仍在进行中。我不知道——我不认为他们会收到类似一套载有资产和负债资料的文件。\n\n法庭：但你不知道这一点。你无法回答这个问题。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，如可容我——\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：——我对此略知一二。英属维尔京群岛有两类清算程序，而这一类程序——可由股东启动，无须主张或证明无力偿债。它只是——他们作为股东签署任命文件，然后程序便开始。这不是法院程序。\n\n法庭：我明白。但我问的是：如果有的话，这些清算人获得了哪些信息？\n\nDESPINS先生：是。\n\n法庭：他们来到这里——我正在看这项日期为7月1日的动议。我听到的论点是，不应作出该缺席判决，因为不存在事项管辖权。等等。他们已放弃善意。他们实际上已经承认自己在恶意行事。\n\n而且他们说，法官，您什么都不能做，因为您没有事项管辖权。但他们无法解释原因。他们无法解释。对于为什么，没有任何解释。仅仅是因为英属维尔京群岛的惯例就是如此。\n\n你刚刚承认，你的委托人自2月起就知道此事。你也承认，你的委托人于6月22日收到了文件，而顺便说一句，那是在回应期限届满之前。之后，你没有提交文件，因为回应期限是6月25日。然后，你直到7月1日才提交任何文件。而你并非被告。\n\n但你希望本法院不要作出缺席判决，因为你主张本法院没有事项管辖权／对人管辖权。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：法官阁下，为澄清记录起见，我们没有就善意作出任何一方的论证，也未采取任何立场，但我们的立场并非他们在恶意行事。我们将论点限定于管辖权论点。\n\n法庭：可是你的动议并非如此。你的动议称，第二，Ace清算人一直善意行事。Ace清算人在被任命后六个工作日内确定并聘请了美国律师，并于完成聘请的当日提交本请求。这就是你的动议所称。因此，你是否放弃动议中的第7段？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：就共同清算人而言，不放弃，法官阁下。法官阁下问的是Hao先生和公司。共同清算人只有在获得任命后才有权采取行动。\n\n法庭：但他们自2月起就知道此事。因此，一定有人告诉他们，在我们向你们提供这个之前，不要采取行动，对吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：嗯，他们没有采取行动的法定权限。\n\n法庭：我明白。我明白这一点，律师。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：是的。\n\n法庭：但有人——你已经承认，这些谈话可能早在今年1月就已发生，但本法院直到就缺席判决作出回应的日期——该缺席判决的回应期限已经过去之后，才有任何行动。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。而且你们是在善意行事？你的委托人是在善意行事？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，你说你提交了——你在动议中说，为免生疑，Ace清算人提交本请求仅是为了保留Ace对该动议作出回应的权利。好的。你们已经作出了回应，尽管已经逾期，而且我没有批准你延长期限，也不应当批准，因为你的委托人没有表明他们一直善意行事。\n\n这件事——您知道，你上周来到这里时，甚至不确定你代理谁。现在，你今天来到这里。你说你仅代理清算代理人，或无论他们的头衔是什么，即并非本对抗程序被告的清算人。\n\n但你希望我审议你的论点，即我对Ace Decade没有事项管辖权或对人管辖权，而Ace Decade并非你的委托人，对吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：Ace Decade不是我的委托人。\n\n法庭：但这不正是你要求我做的吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：法官阁下，共同清算人希望仅在该范围内参与本程序，因为如果受托人带着一份英属维尔京群岛法院认定在管辖权上存在瑕疵的缺席判决命令前往英属维尔京群岛，那么它将不会很有用。\n\n因此，受托人出于对本法院、受托人及程序的尊重来到这里，试图指出这一问题，并设法解决。并且据我了解，受托人目前正与共同清算人沟通，以在英属维尔京群岛建立一个程序，恰好完成此事。因此，这就是共同清算人来到这里的目的。\n\n法庭：嗯，这不是真的。你要求我中止本对抗程序。因此，这不准确。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：正是出于这一原因，法官阁下，为使受托人与共同清算人目前正在推进的这一程序能够——\n\n法庭：你不需要中止程序，就能让该程序继续推进。你要求中止。这是完全不同的论点，律师。我认为你需要谨慎对待这一点。你要求——你明确要求中止这些程序。你要求以紧急方式审理此事。\n\n你的委托人本可以在无需本法院介入的情况下，早已与受托人完成所有这些事情。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：这仅仅是为了提出这些问题，即如果作出缺席判决，以便能够从一开始就予以纠正。这确实是一次善意尝试，旨在让两个法域协调合作。\n\n法庭：那么，如果是这样，你为什么主张我应当基于缺乏事项管辖权或对人管辖权而驳回缺席判决动议？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：因为在管辖权上存在瑕疵的缺席判决，在英属维尔京群岛不会实现多少目的。\n\n法庭：但你不知道这一点，律师。那只是别人告诉你的。\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。关于这项缺席判决动议，还有其他事项吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN先生：就我而言没有，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS先生：没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。我将审阅受托人明天上午将提交的诉状，并将在审阅本对抗程序中的原告第11章受托人所提交的信息后，就缺席判决动议作出命令。因此，此事实质上——此事将——\n\n就被告 Rui Hao（睿浩）及要求作出缺席判决的申请，受托人提交文件后将予以裁定。好的。至此，今日庭审日程上的所有事项均已结束。今天下午还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：没有，法官大人。\n\n法庭：律师，还有吗？\n\nLITTERINE-KAUFMAN 先生：没有，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。好。谢谢各位。现在休庭。\n\n书记员：全体起立。法庭休庭。\n\n（庭审结束。）\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据我们所知及所能，前述内容系上述案件庭审程序电子录音的正确文字记录。\n\n/s/ Wendy Sawyer\n\nJuly 18, 2024\n\nWendy Sawyer（温迪·索耶），CDLT 认证法庭记录转录员\n\n为可靠","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Guo","Kwok","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","RICO","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3301,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":22925,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:57:54"}