{"id":"court_ctb_336_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":336,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-06","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWO","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 1 of 61\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* May 4, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF INTERIM AND FINAL DIP ORDERS (I) AUTHORIZING THE DEBTOR TO OBTAIN UNSECURED, SUBORDINATED POST PETITION FINANCING AND (II) SCHEDULING INTERIM AND FINAL HEARINGS, and (III) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: BENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ. JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For Golden Spring SCOTT ROSEN, ESQ. (New York), Interested Cohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C. Party: 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proposed counsel for the IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Creditors Committee: JOHN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\nFor Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng, Creditors: McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890\n\nFor Logan Cheng, Creditor: JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 2:18 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the debtor's counsel, please. MR. JONAS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Jeff Jonas from Brown Rudnick on behalf of the debtor and I believe my colleague Ben Silverberg is also on the line as well. MR. SILVERBERG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for PAX. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX and I believe Mr. Birney is also here from Robinson and Cole. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon to both of you Counsel for the committee. MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the committee and with me is Jonathan Kaplan. MR. KAPLAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Rosen. MR. ROSEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Scott Rosen of Cohen, Birnbaum and Shea for Golden Spring New York the proposed DIP lender.\n\n|    | 4                                                             |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | With me also is Tim Miltenberger, but he was                  |\n| 2  | having some technical issues.<br>He may join my in my office. |\n| 3  | He may not be visible on screen.                              |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                             |\n| 5  | Attorney Claiborn.                                            |\n| 6  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Holley        |\n| 7  | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee.                                |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                 |\n| 9  | Attorney Mayhew.                                              |\n| 10 | MS. MAYHEW:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Kristen         |\n| 11 | Mayhew, on behalf of creditors Rui Ma and Zheng Wu.           |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                 |\n| 13 | Attorney Wolman.                                              |\n| 14 | MR. WOLMAN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Jay             |\n| 15 | Wolman of (indiscernible)<br>for creditor Logan Cheng.        |\n| 16 | MS. MAYHEW:<br>Good afternoon.                                |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>I think that is everyone.<br>Have I             |\n| 18 | missed anyone who would like to note their appearance for     |\n| 19 | the record?                                                   |\n| 20 | (No response.)                                                |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                             |\n| 22 | All right.<br>So Attorney Jonas and Attorney                  |\n| 23 | Silverberg I saw yesterday a notice of filing on the DIP      |\n| 24 | issue, which is the subject of today's continued hearing      |\n| 25 | essentially, which looks to me, although you can please       |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n|    | 5                                                              |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | correct me if I'm wrong, that other than some reservation of   |\n| 2  | rights, which are important, by PAX and I think the United     |\n| 3  | States Trustee, that there is an interim order that's agreed   |\n| 4  | to by the parties to obtain the unsecured subordinated post    |\n| 5  | petition financing.                                            |\n| 6  | Is that correct?                                               |\n| 7  | MR. JONAS: Your Honor, it's Jeff Jonas, from Brown             |\n| 8  | Rudnick, for the debtor.                                       |\n| 9  | I believe -- other parties are certainly on the                |\n| 10 | phone and I don't want to speak for them and they can speak    |\n| 11 | for themselves.                                                |\n| 12 | I think the actual form of order is agreed to. I               |\n| 13 | believe, however, PAX and perhaps the UST, I don't know if     |\n| 14 | I'd call them comments, but I'd certainly let them speak for   |\n| 15 | themselves.                                                    |\n| 16 | But we believe we submitted an order that                      |\n| 17 | accomplishes what it needs to consistent with our prior        |\n| 18 | hearing.                                                       |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Attorney Friedman.                      |\n| 20 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor, the order is in its               |\n| 21 | form not an order we have objections to anything specific      |\n| 22 | regarding.<br>We discussed on numerous positions I think a DIP |\n| 23 | with the budget that was attached of millions and millions     |\n| 24 | of dollars on a case with \\$3,850 in claimed debtor assets is  |\n| 25 | not a good faith 364 and we stand on that.                     |\n\n And if there is to be a DIP order, we believe this is the least offensive one in terms of what we could have negotiated. But we do object. We've not withdrawn our objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee is also pursing the objection that we filed earlier in this case. We think that the funding should not be in the form of a loan, it should be just a gift, and we have opposition to it. In particular, with respect to the form of the order and consistent with what I said at the prior hearing, the U.S. Trustee takes the position that any loan that may be approved by this Court should be disbursed into the debtor in possession fund and funds should be held in that account and should not be held by attorneys. THE COURT: Okay. Understood. Anything further, Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: No, other than just to revisit the idea that this should not be approved. THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: I think I made my point in the last hearing and I just want to reiterate to the Court that we're still in the same position.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: Understood. And obviously, we had an evidentiary hearing on the issue, so this interim order, while the Court appreciates, you know, efforts of parties, is not going to be the final form of order that will enter because I have to make some findings based upon the evidentiary hearing, right? And there is -- you know, there isn't any -- I mean, there is reference to the evidentiary hearing, but in any event. All right. So does anyone else wish to be heard before I make my comments to the interim order? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Irve Goldman for the committee. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. GOLDMAN: Excuse me my voice. The committee views the proposed DIP financing as absolutely essential to the proper administration of this case. Without it the committee would be completely hamstrung to do any type of investigation into the debtor's assets, including causes of action against insiders that really is essential to be done in this case. The terms of the loan are about as salable as you could expect for a DIP loan. The funding is subordinate with priority to administrative and unsecured claims. The funds can be used to investigate the potential claims and\n\n bring claims against the DIP lender itself. There's an express provision that states the DIP order won't be pursued to waive or relinquish any rights that the committee, the estate, or any creditor has against the DIP lender, and if there's an event of default based on the appointment of the trustee, the professional fee escrow in the amount of \\$500,000 will be there, \\$400,000 of which is going to be reserved for a Chapter 11 trustee and (indiscernible) professionals. This is functionally a gift based on these terms, and PAX's position that there should be no DIP loan at all, we view as a litigation tactic. Refer to its motion to dismiss. Because if there is no DIP funding for professionals, there can be no investigation into the scope and extent of the debtor's assets and causes of actions that might recover assets from the estate so that the essential purpose of this proceeding then seizes to exist, and of course, that opens the gateway to their motion to dismiss. They already have alter ego or veil piercing claims pending in the British Virgin Islands and in New York State Court, which we believe are property of the estate, pursuant to a settlement agreement that was approved in the *Genever Holding* Chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York prior to the filing of this case, in which PAX was\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n a party. There was a stipulation that they could proceed to litigate the ownership issue of who owns the Sherry Netherlands apartment in New York State Court. That is a cause of action that belongs to the estate, not to PAX. So if this funding is not approved, all of that really will fall to the wayside and it will open the gateway to this motion to dismiss. So I would prevail upon the Court to approve some type of DIP order so this case could be administered properly. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I could just briefly? THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm sorry. I see that you raised your hand. MS. CLAIBORN: Two comments I wanted to make. THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't see that before, but I see it now. Go ahead. MS. CLAIBORN: Well, first of which I want to clarify a point Attorney Goldman just made. The proposed order that is before the Court at paragraph 5(d) does have a limitation on the use of the proceeds. While the proceeds can be use to investigate\n\n causes of action, they cannot be used to prosecute or bring causes of action or positive affirmative actions to recover funds or take other remedies. So there is a limitation on how the money can be used.\n\n And second of all I do want to say that with respect to the Chapter 11 trustee component of this loan, the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee is an event of default that stops the lending.\n\n There is a limited sum of money that is then available to a Chapter 11 trustee, and I understand that to be \\$400,000, and I just want to put that sort of in scope. That is a very limited amount of money in this overall case, and it is a fraction of the money that the debtor seems to think is out there, if the debtor were to be successful on his claims against UBS. The sum of the UBS litigation is 500 million.\n\n So when you put that sort of in context, when you put in context with how much the budget is attached to the order, it shows there's already been accrued to date which is over \\$1.8 million for Brown Rudnick alone. 400,000 for a Chapter 11 trustee is very small amount and is inadequate, I think, to prosecute this Chapter 11 case.\n\n That said, (indiscernible) I acknowledge that, but we still think that this should be a process by which the debtor funds this case and it goes wherever it goes, and the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 11 of 61\n\n money gets used for whatever appropriate purposes it needs to be used for. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, if I may respond to Mr. Goldman's comments? THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, PAX doesn't apologize for opposing this DIP. PAX has \\$268 million, at least, of pre-petition claims. PAX has been pursuing for five years, assets. I don't -- the committee is filled with people with contingent unliquidated claims. This case is a sham. It was filed to prevent enforcement of judgments owed to one creditor, and the millions and millions of dollars are being spent on professional fees in this case are just an attempt to divert PAX and collect what it wants, and the DIP budget shows that. PAX has conducted prepetition investigations. PAX has proved to Justice Ostrager in his orders, the asset shifting between and among different entities. What Mr. Goldman refers to as a litigation tactic -- if it's a litigation tactic, it's a good faith one, Your Honor, borne by years of bad faith conduct by the debtor. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, just let me comment, briefly on those comments.\n\n THE COURT: I'm having a little trouble understanding you, Attorney Goldman. I know you're having trouble speaking, but can you try that again? MR. GOLDMAN: I'm sorry. I'll try better. PAX's attempts, however long they've been undertaken, did not elevate this claim in terms of priority over any other creditor -- THE COURT: No one has ever suggested -- I know I keep hearing that argument, but no one has ever suggested that its claim is elevated, not even PAX. So I don't know why that argument keeps being made. I really don't. MR. GOLDMAN: Well -- THE COURT: No one has made that argument. MR. GOLDMAN: Well, it seems to me the taking a position that because they've litigated for many years and made many efforts to recover on their judgment, that PAX's claim should be accorded some sort of superiority in terms of -- THE COURT: They have not asserted that, Attorney Goldman. They have not -- they have not asserted that. They said they might make a claim -- MR. GOLDMAN: Well, that's how I -- THE COURT: -- for substantial contribution. They haven't done that yet, number one. Number two -- MR. GOLDMAN: Yes.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: -- I'm not going to address an issue that's not before the Court. It's not before the Court -- MR. GOLDMAN: At least I -- THE COURT: -- and there's nothing that PAX has said -- MR. GOLDMAN: I mean -- THE COURT: -- in this court that somehow should elevate them over general unsecured creditors at this point in time. They haven't said that, so let's move on. We've got to get -- let's talk about the reality of this order. The reality of this order is I look at a budget where -- and Attorney Jonas, I think you need to talk to me about this. You've already -- Brown Rudnick has already incurred a million eight in fees for a case that's not even two and a half months old? Doing what? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, we -- we've had -- let's see. Where should I start? I'll start with -- THE COURT: Well, you can start anywhere you want, but a million eight in fees for two and a half months of a bankruptcy case where a debtor has no money, we've had two hearings that haven't even lasted a day. You know, part of the problem I have is, this interim order for financing just seems to be a mechanism to get all the professionals paid, and that's all it is. What's going to happen here? What is going to happen in\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n this case? You already have a million dollar retainer. Now you've got -- now your budget says -- and I'm looking at page 60 of 60 of the document that you filed, that you've already incurred through April 30, which was four days ago, a million-eight, almost a million-nine in fees. That seems extremely high to me, and one of the things I will tell you is, I am not sure I'm entering any order on these getting paid outside of the ordinary course of the bankruptcy code every three months, because when you look at this, and you look at this, you try to look at this with an eye of -- with no judgment associated with it, what possibly could have you done from February 15 to April 30 that could have incurred fees in this case? This isn't GM or Chrysler. This isn't a company that's producing goods that are being sold on the market. This is a gentleman who has come in and says he has nothing, yet you've incurred a million-eight, almost a million-nine in fees? That -- and every month -- every week, you're going to incur a quarter of a million dollars in fees? Well, 330 of the Bankruptcy Code says that the Court has to make determinations as to whether the fees are reasonable, the hourly rate is reasonable, whether there's duplication of efforts, whether this actually benefitted the estate. All those kind of things. And if I don't make\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n those findings, then you're not getting paid a million- eight. And right now, this loan is for \\$2 million. So everything but \\$100,000 is going to use to be paid you? That seems completely inequitable and uncalled for and not supported by the record in this case. I am shocked by the budget, quite frankly. And that the -- what has -- I had -- the Virtulina and Lowey, what have they done from February 15 to April 30 to incur fees of \\$150,000? I don't know. 11 And then they're going to incur fees every week of another \\$20,000. And then the committee has already incurred fees -- who just got retained a week ago, of 110, and then they're going to retain fees -- or incur fees of \\$80,000 every week. Wow. That's pretty interesting. In a case that's not -- an individual Chapter 11 case. If you were telling me that this gentleman had assets all over the world that were going to become part of this estate and liquidated and pay creditors, I might have a different viewpoint. But right now, I've been told that maybe there will be some distribution to unsecured creditors, and where is that money going to come from? Well, the boat, according to the debtor, is an asset of the -- is not an asset of the estate, so I don't\n\n know what -- he doesn't have any other assets or any other bank accounts. So who -- why aren't we just taking the \\$8 million and just paying the creditors right now? I mean, I don't understand it. This seems to me -- I am not going to have -- allow a Chapter 11 case to run just so professionals can get paid. Sorry. That's not how it works.\n\n And to -- this isn't that kind of a case. If you had a different case, if we were in here and we were talking about a company producing chairs that had a business record of producing this amount of chairs and this is what they were doing, they were going to consolidate their businesses, or they were going to sell part of their business, or they were going to take over their business, or they were going to make another plan of how they were going to continue their operations for the next three to five years, we might be talking about something different, but we are now in a case that's not even -- that's barely two months old and you've already incurred \\$2 million in fees.\n\n Well, you're not -- I can tell you right now, it's highly unlikely you're going to be awarded those \\$2 million in fees. And I had this discussion at the beginning with Mr. Baldiga about the hourly rate, and I said look, you're going to be retained as counsel, but you have to come to the realities of this case.\n\nAnd so, you're getting a loan from somebody who's\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n just saying, okay, yeah, let's pay all these professionals all this money, which by the way, that's what it does, and you don't reference anywhere in your procedures for interim compensation Section 330, which has to be referenced, because that's the only standard under which fees and expenses are allowed.\n\n Interim compensation 331 only talks about when you can file your applications for interim compensation. It doesn't talk about the grounds or the reasoning or the consideration that the Court has to take into account when it determines whether those fees are reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of the case.\n\n This isn't a blank check. I'm not issuing orders with blank checks. If that's true, why do you need me? Why don't you just go outside of the court and do all of this outside of the court?\n\n Well, you can't do it outside of the court because you've got a creditor who's been after you for a long time, and that's why you want this court. Understood. That can be a legitimate reason.\n\n But I'm not entering orders that now -- so I don't understand the note on the budget that says there will be \\$250,000 retainer balance after accrual, Brown Rudnick fees against the retainer. It doesn't even tell me when that has happened. Okay? Your total through 4/30 is 1,874,852. So\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 18 of 61\n\n are you reducing -- you're not -- you're not applying it to the entire retainer? You're only taking that million-eight from the 2 million? How does that work? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I -- you've asked a lot of questions, so with your permission -- THE COURT: I have. That's fair. That's a fair statement, Attorney Jonas. I have asked a lot of questions. MR. JONAS: I tried to make notes but let me see if I can respond to all of your questions. I'll do my best. I apologize if I miss one or two. I was trying to -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. JONAS: -- feverishly write everything down. THE COURT: I did ask a series of questions, which was unfair. So do what you can and -- MR. JONAS: No, no -- THE COURT: -- I'll ask whatever I want to ask when -- MR. JONAS: -- no, I -- THE COURT: -- if I don't think you've answered me. MR. JONAS: I actually enjoy it, Your Honor, so I'll take it on. So let me start at the -- let me start at kind of the end, Your Honor. First, let me say, we appreciate and we understand\n\n that all of our fees will be subject to court approval. Every party will have an -- we will have to file fee applications. Every party, and I am sure they'll take advantage of it, will have an opportunity to review our detailed fee statements, object, we will have hearings, so let's -- I don't know that today is the time or the place to make even a preliminary determination as to the appropriateness of our fees. We understand that's going to be looked at very -- in a very discerning way and we will take that on when the day comes. That's number one. I will say, though, in part -- let me just tell you what -- I think you know what's been happening because you can see your docket. We have had -- everything we've tried to do in this case has been opposed, and that's okay. That's the way the system works. But there's nothing that has been easy. We've had to fight about, which takes time and therefore, you know, does incur our time and does run up the fees unfortunately, the retentions, which we've fought about but ultimately resolved in large part. There was an -- and again, in a very short order in this case, there was an examiner trustee motion which\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 19 of 61\n\n required briefing and response. The schedules and statement of affairs required some of our attention. Those have been filed. There has been numerous depositions in the case, not yet of the debtor but of other parties that required our involvement. There has been two -- in one case, I don't want to say all day but maybe close to it, two 341 meetings, and these are not the, what I call the more standard simple 341 meetings, multiple creditor inquiries at the 341 meetings. Hopefully, there is now a DIP in place, or almost a DIP in place that has been fairly contentious. We had a, I think almost a full day trial on the DIP. As you know, a trial requires lots of preparation and that took a lot of our time. There -- I think on a good note, we have filed a plan in this case in only the first few weeks and months of the case -- of this case. We have resolved in large part, which took a lot of time and litigation, the boat issue where the boat -- there is now an order in place where \\$37 million in cash has been put up to secure return of the boat. Granted, it resolved the contempt order, at least for the time being, that was issued in New York, but we'll - - not only has the 37 million put up, the boat hopefully to use a euphemism, will be on its way back to Bridgeport in\n\n fairly short order. As you know, the plan contemplates contribution of the boat, which is significant in terms of value. We've also, I think -- I will tell you, leading up to the motion to dismiss, which I think will be a fairly seminal event in this case, either the case is going to survive a motion to dismiss or it's not, obviously, and that's coming up at the end of the month. We've received in the last few days, I believe PAX has notice and it certainly -- I'm not quibbling with it, I'm just reporting -- they have noticed, I think, 10 to 12 depositions. We have a trial in three weeks. We'll be spending lots of time getting ready for that and sitting at depositions over the weeks to come. We have resolved for a case where there was question about how a creditor's committee, which we welcome and we welcome their participation, the creditor's committee is now supportive of the DIP, and we've put arrangements into place in order to fund the creditor's committee and the work that they have to do. So, Your Honor, I'll just say, I think my quick and off the top of my head recitation, a lot -- yes, there hasn't been that much time in the case, but it has required a lot of time. I think there have been -- I think just -- I mean,\n\n justifying that time in some part, in some part, is the results we've achieved despite tremendous opposition on everything from, you know, is the sun outside to all of the other matters that we've gotten through in this case and presented to the Court.\n\n I actually think we -- you know, the case is progressing very, very quickly. We'll see what happens at the end of the month at our trial.\n\n But in any event, you know, in terms of the DIP funding professional fees, yes, the DIP in large part -- it's not completely -- don't forget, the DIP also provides a million -- effectively, a million dollar gift to the estate. It provides up to -- at least initially, up to \\$2 million of funding to the creditor's committee and to -- and make funding available for an examiner or possibly a trustee.\n\n I think those are very salutatory effects of the DIP, but yes, I'm not going to again quibble with you that the DIP -- there aren't millions of dollars available to fund professional fees, because there's no other -- the debtor has no other source to do it.\n\n So yes, the DIP lender, under the terms of the DIP, has agreed that as we've talked about and I think as was presented at trial, in order to help his father and wanting to see his father have a successful resolution with his creditors in a successful Chapter 11 case, yes, Mr.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n Kwok's son, and through his entities, is prepared to fund the DIP to pay professional fees so that we can hopefully have a successful case. I will say on that, philosophically, Your Honor, and you may be of a different view, and I don't know, I firmly believe that debtors in Chapter 11 are entitled to qualified Chapter 11 counsel. Sometimes that's very expensive. I don't think that the rates that O'Melveny is charging are any different than ours, and if creditors -- THE COURT: Yeah, but they're not getting paid from the estate -- MR. JONAS: -- are bringing this -- THE COURT: But they're not getting paid from the estate, Mr. Jonas. There's a big difference. MR. JONAS: And, Your Honor, I'll say this. I don't -- you know, while I don't want to say it's a fiction, but you know, to say that this estate is paying our fees, again, there are no -- subject to the gifts and the boat return and everything else, there are little to no assets in the estate. The DIP lender is willing to fund, on a subordinated unsecured basis -- we've said this loud and clear, the DIP lender is funding this case, is funding us, is funding the creditor's committee, will fund an examiner, will fund the trustee to some extent --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: Is it going to fund a -- MR. JONAS: -- it's from the US -- THE COURT: -- distribution to creditors? MR. JONAS: Is it -- well, for starters, Your Honor, there's a million dollars coming into the estate as a gift -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: -- under the DIP, number one. THE COURT: All right. That's a start. MR. JONAS: It also -- THE COURT: That's a start, but you have \\$400 million in claims. MR. JONAS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: So it's going to be -- MR. JONAS: -- Your Honor, if I can -- THE COURT: -- so what do we got there, a cent on the dollar? Maybe -- MR. JONAS: Well, let me finish -- please, Your Honor, if I -- THE COURT: Sure. Sure. MR. JONAS: -- if I can finish? THE COURT: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. JONAS: Well, no, that's okay. The structure of this case, which in large part is the DIP, has afforded the filing of a plan that provides for\n\n contribution of the boat, which is worth, I don't know, but I think, tens of millions of dollars. If there was no DIP to pay professionals, there would be no plan, there would be no return of the boat. And so yes, Your Honor, there's an underpinning by which the DIP funds professionals. That's how you get to a successful -- maybe. Maybe yes, maybe no, we'll see. But I think the debtor is entitled to, if you will, fight it out, see if we can get through this and come out maybe consensually. I don't want to give that up, but with a successful plan where there will be a significant distribution of creditors. So we're trying to get there desperately, Your Honor. I think we need to get through the next month. We've got a lot of work to do. I think if we can -- obviously, we have to see where the motion to dismiss goes, but I think the debtor is entitled, especially on a basis where as -- you know, I know you keep -- I don't want to say struggling, but focusing on the fact that it's not as if creditors are paying for our fees. They're not. This is an unsecured subordinated DIP loan. This is behind creditors. So they're not bearing the burden if you will. In fact, the DIP is providing counsel to creditors, because the creditor committee counsel is getting paid out of a DIP as\n\n we are. So I think, Your Honor, respectfully, for all of those reasons -- and we've worked -- by the way, Your Honor, I'll just comment. Notwithstanding Mr. Friedman and the U.S. Trustee's comments, we've worked very hard as you instructed us, to come up with a consensual form of order, and I think we've done that, notwithstanding the principal's objections. And so, you know, we're going to continue to work hard in the face of adversity and try and get to a successful case, but we really do need the DIP to do that, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: I understand. MR. FREIDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard? THE COURT: Not yet, Attorney Friedman. I just have a few more questions for Attorney Jonas and it's fair for Attorney Jonas to say that I asked him about 15 questions and there's now way to have answered those because I was issuing concerns without giving him an opportunity to respond. But with regard to the budget the million-eight figure total through 430 that's in your document, page 60 of (indiscernible) on ECF 315, my question is none of the retainer funds, the million dollar retainer that your firm already got will be applied to those amounts, or will they?\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MR. JONAS: Your Honor, if I could just ask, and I think I told you I'm actually sitting in Judge Kaplan's chambers in Trenton, New Jersey right now. He's been kind enough to allow me to do the Zoom call from here. Could I just ask my partner, Mr. Silverberg, to respond to that? I've been busy preparing for today. MR. SILVERBERG: Are you able to hear me? THE COURT: Yes, we can hear you fine. Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: If you're looking at the budget - - the short answer to your question is yes, a portion of the retainer is going to be applied against the million-eight. If you look down about half way down the budget -- THE COURT: \\$750,000? MR. SILVERBERG: \\$668,000 and change of the amount that's being held in retainer will be applied against the million eight. Our retention application provided that we would maintain a floor of \\$250,000 in retainer during the case. THE COURT: All right. So of the million dollar retainer that your firm received then there was monies drawn down on the retainer pre-petition? MR. SILVERBERG: About \\$50,000 or so. THE COURT: Okay. And so that would leave \\$950,000 or so -- I'm not asking you to be to the penny. I'm just trying to get an idea here, okay? So that would leave\n\n \\$950,000 in the retainer and then you can only draw down -- you have to leave 250. So that would only give you 700 is what you're saying? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I could interject. I apologize. But one of the objection components the U.S. Trustee raised was to having a floor and it was my understanding that Brown Rudnick (indiscernible) -- MR. SILVERBERG: I think Ms. Claiborn muted herself. THE COURT: No, I think I -- Attorney Claiborn muted you mistakenly. So can you say that -- you said the floor of \\$250,000 and I pushed the wrong button. So my mistake. MS. CLAIBORN: Okay. I'll try to do a better job with it this time. The application to employ Brown Rudnick did request to have a floor of \\$250,000 on the retainer. The U.S. Trustee objected to that. And it was my understanding that Brown Rudnick agreed to resolve that by removing that. I cannot recall as I sit here today as whether or not that's in the actual order, but that was the understanding. THE COURT: So you didn't want them to maintain a floor is what you're saying. You wanted them to draw down - -\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: -- apply the entire retainer to post- petition fees. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: All right. So what I'm trying to understand, Attorney Silverberg is -- this is what I'm trying to understand and I probably didn't ask the questions very well because I kept asking a lot of questions. But what I'm trying to understand is this. There's a budget figure of 1,874,852. Your firm received a retainer of a million dollars. Under this DIP loan two million more is coming into the estate. And if I enter this order establishing procedures for interim compensation, you're all going to draw down on that more subject to final fee applications that have to be filed by July 15th or something like that, if I even do that. But my point is I need to understand the dollars. If the 2 million comes in right now, and this is what I asked, what's it going to be used -- what's it going to pay? And if you still have -- if you can only draw down \\$750,000. Let's just say that I agree with you, on your retainer, then you still have a million one that's due and owning through 430, right? The Pullman and Comley has \\$110,000 so now we're\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 30 of 61\n\n up to a million two. And then Virtulina and Lowey has 150 so we're up to a million-350. And so of the 2 million that comes in is 1,350,000 of it going to be paid immediately? And I think the answer is yes, but I need to know that. I need to understand that. MR. SILVERBERG: I can take this if you want me to. UNIDENTIFIED: Sure. Go ahead. MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, the \\$2 million which is defined as the initial -- the interim DIP loan -- THE CLERK: Excuse me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Hold on a second, Attorney Silverberg. I think we're having trouble hearing you. Are we having trouble? THE CLERK: I just wasn't sure who was speaking. THE COURT: Oh, it's Attorney Silverberg speaking right now. THE CLERK: Thank you. THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm sorry. MR. SILVERBERG: I apologize. I should have announced myself before responding. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, what's defined in paragraph 2(a) of the interim DIP order is an interim DIP loan of \\$2 million. That \\$2 million is going to Attorney\n\n Goldman's either IOLTA trust or other segregated account. That same paragraph provides for additional subsequent DIP borrowing of up \\$3 million. So the initial \\$2 million which was going to Attorney Goldman's account is exclusively to pay committee professional fees. Brown Rudnick's and the other committee -- I'm sorry, the other debtor professional fees are going to be paid from what are referred to as the subsequent DIP draws up to \\$3 million. So the answer to your specific question is no, Brown Rudnick will not be touching the first \\$2 million which is drawn on the DIP. THE COURT: Well, when is the additional \\$3 million coming in, because I thought we were taking this in increments. MR. SILVERBERG: The initial -- the interim DIP loan provides for the million dollar estate contribution loan, the \\$2 million that's going -- THE COURT: My reading of it, Attorney Silverberg, but correct me if I'm wrong, that million dollars isn't supposed to be used to pay any professional fees, correct? MR. SILVERBERG: That is correct. I'm just describing -- THE COURT: No, no. I understand. I need to make sure I understand what's going on so I'm asking the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 32 of 61\n\n questions. So don't worry about the million dollars because that's not going to be used to pay professional fees. So just put that aside. So you've got \\$2 million that's going to what you call the UCC account, correct? MR. SILVERBERG: Correct. THE COURT: And then when does this other \\$3 million come in? MR. SILVERBERG: As it's needed over the course of the next month. THE COURT: But you determine as it's needed if I enter an order allowing for these interim procedures because you would then say I need to get paid a million-8 in fees and if I need to get paid -- and nobody objects, then I'm just going to get paid that money. The money's going to come in and I'm going to get paid. So you determine what's needed, correct? MR. SILVERBERG: No, Your Honor. The money is coming into the DIP account to ensure that it's there for payment of the professional fees whenever they're allowed. THE COURT: Well, that was my -- so then you didn't answer my question because I asked you that specifically. So when is the \\$3 million coming in and you said\n\n when it's needed, but that's not correct. It's coming in now and then it will be drawn down on when you decide it's needed. Is that the mechanics, because I need to understand the mechanics. MR. SILVERBERG: Absolutely, Your Honor. So once the DIP is approved, assuming it's approved in its current form, whatever's been incurred by the debtor professionals, which is the million-8 for Brown Rudnick, the 110 for -- sorry, the 150 for Virtulina, less the \\$700,000 of retainer that will be reserved but not actually applied against fees will be borrowed against the DIP. Then on a weekly basis going forward, as fees are incurred they'll be borrowed by the DIP lender and placed into the DIP account so that they're there for whenever the fees are allowed. THE COURT: All right. So actually, it's not just those figures in column 1 because it's column 2, 5/1, 2022, because today's 5/4, 2022. So the amount of money that's going to be -- you're going to -- the 3 million's going to come in but you're going to draw down a 1,762,000 -- oh, no. I've got to back out the Pullman and Comley fees. So what you're -- so just answer -- I just need to make sure I understand. Two million's going to the\n\n unsecured creditor committee's counsel's office to be put in an account, what you call the UCC account. The 3 million's coming in now too. So we talked about doing this incrementally. This 8 million loan wasn't going to be an 8 million loan. But essentially it's going to be a 5 million loan right now, right? That's what you're telling me. MR. SILVERBERG: It's a total of up to 5 million for professional fees, but the \\$3 million that is above and beyond the interim DIP loan is not coming in now. Only a portion of that is coming in now to cover what's been accrued and is not covered by -- THE COURT: But where does it say that, counsel? Where does it say that? It doesn't say that. That's not what it says. It says that there's \\$2 million is the interim DIP loan. This was what it's supposed to be, an interim DIP loan, right, to get us through the next few weeks. We don't need to have this funded to pay professional fees for the next few weeks, especially if there isn't any procedure to allow you all to get paid and that you have to follow the code and get paid every 120 days. So this is my point. The point that I'm having\n\nis, the problem that I'm having is the only purpose of this\n\n account -- this lending, other than the million dollars that can't be paid for fees at this point is to pay fees. There is no other purpose. And you're now telling me something different than what your order says. So why don't you just say the debtor's borrowing \\$5 million, 2 million of which is going into the UCC account and 3 million of it is going into the debtor account, which is defined in the DIP order, which you don't define in the DIP -- excuse me. Which is defined in the DIP loan documents, but not defined in the DIP order. So you're really authorizing -- you want this order to authorize you to immediately borrow \\$5 million, correct? MR. JONAS: Your Honor -- MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Jeff.\n\n MR. JONAS: Your Honor, let me just back up for one second. Let me just say I don't want you to have any impression that there's anything improper here because there's not.\n\n Let me just explain that when we started this and we entered into a negotiation with the committee, the committee requested and ultimately acknowledged and agreed that \\$2 million would be effectively borrowed immediately, if you will, carved out for committee professionals and we\n\nultimately agreed to that.\n\n So yes, the first \\$2 million -- and that was not where we started. I'll admit, Your Honor, that was not what we wanted but that's how it happened. The committee, if you will, demanded that and that's fine. And we agreed. So even though that's not where we started, we had no intention of that right off the top \\$2 million of our DIP would be carved off and unavailable to any other professional except the committee, but we agreed to that. So just to be clear the first \\$2 million is carved out and goes to -- effectively goes to the committee. THE COURT: And where does it say that in the proposed order? See my problem is it doesn't say that in the proposed order. That's not what it says. It just says there's an interim DIP loan of \\$2 million. And then it talks about amount set forth in the budget. I specifically asked you all -- to show me what was being loaned and what it was going to be used for to pay. And so now you're saying there's 2 million -- first of all, why does \\$2 million need to be loaned right now? The committee hasn't even incurred \\$220,000. MR. JONAS: The committee required that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, that may be, but that doesn't\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n mean that's what they're going to get, is it? MR. JONAS: Well, Your Honor, we've been trying to reach consensus with as many parties as we could. The DIP lender acquiesced to that and so that was the way the DIP was structured. THE COURT: Well, the DIP lender has acquiesced to everything. So that's not really a problem, right? The problem is what is the purpose of this loan and how is it being used. And I've been asking that question for days. Every hearing I ask the same question. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, let me be as clear as I can possibly be. 13 And, again, respectfully, if you don't think the order and the loan documents in the budget are clear, we will certainly -- we can certainly fix that. We did everything we possibly could to be as clear as possible. To be as up front with the court as possible. So to be clear, yes, you are correct that between now and let's say the motion to dismiss hearing at the end of May, \\$5 million could be drawn on the DIP. Yes, that is correct. \\$2 million would go to the committee and up \\$3 million would be available to fund other professionals. And yes, largely that would be Brown Rudnick because as you already identified there would (indiscernible) a significant amount of fee already, close\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n to a million dollars, that's already accrued that needs to be paid. So I don't know that I can be any clearer than that, Your Honor. But that's what's before you. And let me just say, Your Honor, to just -- just because I'm concerned that somehow there's a thought that some of this is improper. This was -- in my opinion, this was what was before the court when we had our hearing, the form of DIP order and documents that had been filed prior to the hearing we had, this is what they provided. THE COURT: That may be, but we had a evidentiary hearing at which point the issue was raised of whether or not there was really an emergency need for funding, because that's what your papers said. That there was an emergency need, an immediate need to fund \\$8 million. And I said at the end of that hearing I don't see any immediate need to fund \\$8 million. And why aren't we taking this in increments. There is a motion to dismiss pending. Why am I going to enter an order that sets forth all the parties' rights, responsibilities, remedies and boxes them into corners in a case that might be dismissed in a month? And I also said I would like to see the budget and I would like you to show me specifically what every dollar\n\n is that you're borrowing, where it's going to be used to be paid. And this doesn't do that. Right now this doesn't say that there's going to be a \\$5 million loan right now. It doesn't say that. Nor does the DIP loan document say that. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, if you look on total DIP - - THE COURT: And it doesn't say that the 2 million's only for the committee, by the way. I just says that the committee's going to hold it. That's what it says. It doesn't say it's earmarked for the committee's expenses. And I don't think I would agree to that at this point, because why would they be able to incur \\$2 million in fees between now and March -- and May 29th when there's a case with no assets and no income. We keep -- we're like in this circle that we can't get out of. And I'm telling you right now that's a problem that you have counsel. And I identified that problem from day one of the first hearing in this case. I identified that problem prior to the evidentiary hearing on the DIP. I identified that problem during the DIP and the Virtulina and Lowey evidentiary hearings. I didn't enter orders on specific issues you've already asked the court to do because I have concerns. I have concerns that this case -- sure, you can\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n fund professionals. Somebody can do that. But to what end? If there isn't going to be a meaningful distribution to unsecured creditors what's the point of this case? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, first of all let me say if you look at the budget and you look at the total DIP draws, it's at the bottom of the page. And you look at the date, May 29th, 2022, it shows you that \\$4,576,631 will be drawn on the DIP by 5/29/22 in all of its gory detail. It shows every dollar that will be - - THE COURT: I understand. But that was filed yesterday, Attorney Jonas. This was not filed before yesterday. There was no breakdown of these amounts. MR. JONAS: No, I know because you asked us at the last hearing -- THE COURT: No, I understand that. MR. JONAS: -- to file a -- THE COURT: I did. I understand I asked you that. But don't -- I didn't know that this is what your plan was. That this is what you were going to do. That you were going to take \\$2 million of the \\$8 million and give it to the committee and then you were going to draw down these -- I didn't know what any of these dollar amounts were before yesterday when you filed this document. There's nowhere in any document that's been filed\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 41 of 61\n\n in this court that shows until you filed this yesterday that your firm has incurred over a million-8 in fees already. There's nothing there.\n\n So how can you -- you can say yes, it's all in its gory details. That's right. And you filed it yesterday. There is nothing else in this record that establishes anything that's in this document, this page 60 of 60, that was filed before yesterday.\n\n All it was is you had a DIP loan of \\$8 million. That's what it was. And it was objected to. That's why we had an evidentiary hearing. And the objections raised were that there was no immediate need to fund \\$8 million into this estate. And that you hadn't met your burden to show that there was an immediate need for \\$8 million to be funded into this estate.\n\n And so I said why don't we take this in increments? And I even said this before you ever filed a DIP motion that in Connecticut we file things -- we do things on a -- especially in cases that don't support it, like the fact pattern in this case, we don't enter final orders on DIP financing. We take things on an interim basis and we see how things go. We see how the case progresses.\n\n Well, the problem that you have in this case is that there's been a pending motion to dismiss for quite some time. And it's going to be scheduled -- it's already\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n scheduled for an evidentiary hearing. So now you want -- aside from that, you want the loan to be \\$5 million of the \\$8 million, which is not where I thought you were going to go when I said you know, show me what you need to fund over the next few weeks. None of you need to be paid over the next few weeks. You want to be paid and I understand that. I think that's an understandable desire, okay? But you don't need to be paid to keep this case open. Tell me why you need to be paid? MR. JONAS: Because, Your Honor, again, perhaps it's philosophical. I don't think it is. How -- we do need assurance -- I think debtor's counsel in the face of overwhelming adversity, including ten or 12 depositions being scheduled, including three 341 meetings in the course of six weeks. In terms of dealing with an examiner trustee motion. In terms of dealing with the contempt and the return of the boat. In terms of dealing with the DIP motion, in dealing with contested retention I think the debtor is entitled to have counsel and that that counsel is entitled to reasonable assurance that they're going to be paid. And fortunately, we have a DIP lender that is willing on an unsecured subordinated basis to fund those professional fees so the debtor can be --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 43 of 61\n\n|    | 43                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>An insider of the debtor, not          |\n| 2  | -- this isn't you didn't go out to the market and get a DIP    |\n| 3  | loan.                                                          |\n| 4  | MR. JONAS:<br>Because no one would could.                      |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>This is an insider of the debtor.                |\n| 6  | MR. JONAS:<br>No one could make<br>-- no one would             |\n| 7  | make this type of loan, except the --                          |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I agree.<br>I agree.<br>And doesn't that         |\n| 9  | highlight part of the problem, Attorney Jonas.<br>No one would |\n| 10 | make this loan.                                                |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:<br>No, Your Honor, because -- Your Honor,           |\n| 12 | it's the loan that affords the case an opportunity to be       |\n| 13 | successful.                                                    |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Successful in what way?<br>To defeat             |\n| 15 | PAX?                                                           |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:<br>In a way that there will be a                    |\n| 17 | distribution to legitimate creditors.                          |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Why wouldn't that happen outside of              |\n| 19 | this court, Attorney Jonas?                                    |\n| 20 | MR. JONAS:<br>Well, it can when you have creditors             |\n| 21 | that you can negotiate with and reach resolutions.<br>Here     |\n| 22 | that didn't happen.                                            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Well, Attorney Jonas --                          |\n| 24 | MR. JONAS:<br>That's why sometimes people file --              |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>-- I know you didn't create the facts.           |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n You took the facts as they were when you took on this case. You've got a million dollar retainer for an individual Chapter 11 case. That's an assurance that you're going to get paid something. The bankruptcy code doesn't give you assurances that you're going to be paid in full and, in fact, as you know, Section 330 of the code requires the court to scrutinize your fees and expenses for many, many, many reasons. So you may not get paid. So you're taking that risk. That's a business risk you decided to take. But when you talk about -- MR. JONAS: But the -- THE COURT: No, but hold on a minute. You can't come in and act like nothing didn't happen before you came to this court. You can't do that. You're not being genuine. This litigation has been going on since I think 2017. Your client was held in contempt of court for not paying a judgment. You can't expect this court to ignore that an act like it isn't there. And to act like the whole reason we should do everything in this case is because PAX has been exercising its rights and remedies under applicable non-bankruptcy law and they're the horrible people, and your client hasn't done\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 45 of 61\n\n anything wrong, that's just not accurate, Attorney Jonas. It's just not accurate no matter how you slice it. It's just not accurate. And then when I came -- MR. JONAS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Hold on. When I came and I said to you I'm not going to enter this kind of an order and then you come back and now I'm seeing from the order that filed yesterday that has different dollar amounts in it that I completely anticipated, and wants me to still approve 5 million of the 8 million, after I said that I had concerns about what's the need to fund this kind of dollar amount at this time in this case. And you're still asking for it regardless. And you're saying the only think we're not asking for is \\$3 million. And, by the way, the overwhelming majority of the money that is funding is just going to pay us. That's what it's about. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I'm a little taken aback, because I've been practicing 35 years and I take my professional responsibilities seriously. I've never been accused, having been before hundreds and hundreds of bankruptcy judges of not being genuine, because I work really hard to always do that.\n\n THE COURT: Well, I'm not -- Mr. Jonas, you just made an argument that this was all about PAX without acknowledging what your client did pre-petition. So you and I can disagree about genuineness but not to bring that into the record in this case and try to act as if your client wasn't in contempt of prior court orders of another court. If you find that that's insulting, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to -- MR. JONAS: No, no. I don't find it insulting, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm trying to establish the facts. MR. JONAS: I find, Your Honor, that bankruptcy was about a fresh start where -- THE COURT: For the honest but unfortunate debtor, Mr. Jonas. And you've been practicing for 35 years -- MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and you know that. MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. And I was just going to use those words myself. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: And we will find out -- we will find out at the motion to dismiss trial at the end of this month whether or not you believe or find that this is an appropriate bankruptcy case or not.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n And all I'm saying, Your Honor, is I think we're entitled to have a fair fight about that. And we've been -- THE COURT: You are going to have a fair fight about that. That's different -- MR. JONAS: I don't think that -- Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- than whether or not you should be paid all along the way. MR. JONAS: No. No, but here's the difference, Your Honor. We are willing -- as debtor's counsel, we are willing to take the risk that our fees will not get approved by Your Honor after objection. We are willing to take that risk. The risk that I don't think it's fair to ask us to take is that in the face of having a DIP lender who on an unsecured subordinated basis is willing to assure us that money will be there to pay us, subject to court approval, I think that's a different risk that it is not fair to ask us to take. THE COURT: Where in the bankruptcy code -- MR. JONAS: It's not fair to say to us -- THE COURT: -- do you get support for that, Mr. Jonas, after practicing 35 years. MR. JONAS: I get support -- THE COURT: I get it because you've been able to\n\n accomplish it other cases. MR. JONAS: No. THE COURT: But those other cases are not like this case. MR. JONAS: No. No. No, Your Honor. I get it because I think we have to take this case in bite size pieces and respectfully I think you're looking at lots of different stuff at one time. We are here on a DIP motion. We are here on a DIP loan. THE COURT: Right. MR. JONAS: We had an evidentiary hearing. The debtor said there's no other way for him -- we put on evidence. I think the -- I don't want to speak for you, but when I walked out of there my belief was you told us -- you didn't make a ruling, but you told us try and get a consensual order in place. My expectation was we had met our burden on a DIP, after the evidentiary hearing. We went out. We got a consensual order in place. And I'm sorry it was yesterday that we got you a detailed budget that you asked us for at the end of the trial. It did take us a couple of days. We did our best. We did submit everything that I think was requested. And so we're here on a DIP that I think we've met Case 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 48 of 61\n\n our burden. I think we're entitled to have the DIP approved. Never mind the terms of the DIP itself being yes, amazing in the sense that I don't think anybody's ever seen an unsecured, subordinated DIP that is not likely, as Mr. Kwok said on the stand, not likely to be retained. But nevertheless what comes with the DIP is a million dollar DIP. What comes with the DIP is the underpinnings of the work that's been done, which is the plan. What comes with the DIP is letting us have a fair fight on whether -- on the motion to dismiss. And, again, we're not -- we understand -- you know, if you do enter the interim compensation order and we do get partial payment. It's all subject coming back. We're not going anywhere. We understand that all of our fees are at risk and subject to approval by the court. And we accept that risk. All we're asking for is please don't make us take the risk in the face of a DIP on which we've met our burden. Don't ask us to take the payment risk. We know the debtor can't pay us. That's a given. So yes, there's another arrangement in place to pay professional fees which cost the estate effectively nothing in light of the fact that it's unsecured and subordinated. And it allows the debtor to see if we can get\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 50 of 61\n\n through the next month and survive a motion to dismiss. And that's all we're asking for. THE COURT: But it only works if I approve the interim procedures for compensation. If not, you can borrow \\$5 million but you don't get to use one penny of it. Your Honor, yes, we would like -- again, on the interim compensation order, as I'm sure you know and at least in many jurisdictions that is fairly standard practice. And I think it's standard -- THE COURT: In cases that support it, Attorney Jonas. In cases where there are -- MR. JONAS: And, Your Honor, this case supports it. That's what the DIP does. This case supports interim compensation. THE COURT: Where's the immediate need for you to be paid when you have a million dollar retainer? MR. JONAS: Again, it's not the immediate need to be paid. It's assurance of payment, which is what that does. And yes, Your Honor, I think most bankruptcy judges would agree -- bankruptcy counsel, whether it's a lender's counsel, committee counsel, debtor's counsel, they shouldn't have to work months at end without getting paid. That's why interim compensation orders are common place throughout the country.\n\n THE COURT: I disagree with you that they're commonplace throughout the country, number one. Number two, they're commonplace in big Chapter 11 cases that have operations and that have income and that are going to reorganize, which is not what we have here. That's not what's happening. And so you can make all the arguments you want to make but Congress decided when you're supposed to get paid. Right? That's what the code says. Section 330 and 331 says when you're supposed to get paid. You're now asking the court -- and you're moving under 105. So that shows you don't have the authority under the code to have the court enter an order that does something more than the code provides. And the Second Circuit said that you can't do that. You can't use 105 to take a power that doesn't exist in the bankruptcy code to create one. And that's what you're asking the court to do. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I'm sitting in Judge Kaplan's chambers in the *LTL* case. We have an interim compensation order. I can name all the cases I'm working on right now -- THE COURT: The LTL case -- Attorney Jonas, the *LTL* case is a little bit different than this case, don't you think? MR. JONAS: No, but you're making the principal\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n argument that interim compensation orders -- there's something wrong with interim compensation orders and I'm saying -- THE COURT: I'm saying the Second Circuit might think there is and that's where you are right now. You're in the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit says you can't use 105 to create a power that doesn't exist under the bankruptcy code. And that's what you're asking the court to do. So does anyone else wish to be heard on the DIP financing? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I just want to make two comments in response to things Mr. Jonas said. It's Peter Friedman. And one observation. One is I think this is a problem of the debtor's making for not having filed a DIP budget at the very outset of the case, which is common to put in 13 week cash flows of every DIP motion. And that could have been done two months ago when this DIP was filed. Everybody knew from the very beginning that this was going to be a contested DIP. We noted that from the very outset of the case with respect -- I think in opposition to an extension of schedules. The other two things that are problematic and one I will acknowledge, Your Honor, is not directly before you,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 52 of 61\n\n but when Mr. Jonas says that Mr. Kwok's son will do anything to resolve this case, I have to tell you his counsel is refusing to accept service of subpoena's for testimony in connection with the dismissal hearing on Golden Spring, on Golden Spring employees, on Mr. Kwok's son, which is not true that Mr. Kwok's son will do anything to resolve this case. He'll do anything to resolve this case if it's in his own very personal interest and if he can manipulate the system. So it's just not an accurate thing for Mr. Jonas to say. Your Honor, the other point I want to make is that the discussion of the plan -- remember -- and the return of the boat being value and a continuation to his family and that's what the DIP supports. Your Honor, we have an order from Justice Ostrager saying that the person who's purporting returning the boat wasn't telling the truth about the boat ownership. That Mr. Kwok owns the boat. It's just a plan that says I'll give you a tiny bit of what I owe you in order to get releases from family members. It's not a meaningful plan. It's not a meaningful plan. And so I don't think the DIP does anything to foster a benefit to creditors. I firmly believe that and you\n\n can always believe that. And I think it's just -- everything Mr. Jonas said confirmed our principal objection, and our principal objection is that this is being done either to hide Mr. Kwok's assets and to let professionals do that or alternatively to run a case for somebody's who's not he debtor. And we just don't think either one of those is acceptable under 364. MR. GOLDMAN: If I may be heard? THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MR. GOLDMAN: The committee is not admitting (indiscernible) hiding of assets but rather to uncover them. We are very differently situated than debtor's counsel or PAX counsel. We did receive a retainer pre- petition. We are not being paid on an ongoing basis. The committee is relying on these funds in order to discharge its duties under the code. We have other professionals that we are seeking to engage to help us do that. A financial advisor and a fraud investigation consultant, which we'll be seeking to retain. They do need before getting into this case some assurance of payment to do what we need to do here. And Your Honor's quite right about the 2 million being allocated to committee professionals. Under -- just in terms of being more specific as\n\n to where that is allocated under Section -- paragraph 6(c) of the proposed order. It does clarify that the funds from the interim DIP, which is the 2 million, would be available solely for authorized disbursements to committee professionals. So that's where I think that could be (indiscernible). We're certainly not going to accrue anywhere near that amount of fees until the end of May. We've budgeted \\$510,000, that includes all the professionals that the committee would like to retain. The 110,000 that Your Honor sees on this budget for the column due April 30th, yes, Your Honor, only signed an order I believe last week or early this week. But it is effective as of the end of March, which is when the application was filed. And we jumped into this case. There were a number of first day type motions that we had to respond to in a matter of days. And this is a case of some complexity so we really -- there was a long runway to get up to speed I'll say. And so -- and it was just Mr. Kaplan and me doing the work at substantially lesser rates than we're seeing in this case. So we are trying to be judicious but this case has gone at a frenzied pace. And it does provide a forum for a\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\npossible resolution. There are viable claims. Yes, there's\n\n|    | 56                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | a million dollar estate contribution loan.<br>That's a         |\n| 2  | fraction of the amount of claims in this case.                 |\n| 3  | There are viable claims out there that PAX is                  |\n| 4  | pursuing for alter ego and veil piercing that we believe       |\n| 5  | belong to the estate.<br>The Sherry Netherland apartment is    |\n| 6  | one of them.<br>The debtor owns a hundred percent of the       |\n| 7  | equity in that apartment, but claims it's held in trust to     |\n| 8  | his son.                                                       |\n| 9  | That is an asset that we claim belongs to the                  |\n| 10 | estate and that should be shared among all creditors.<br>And   |\n| 11 | this case is the forum in which to determine that.<br>And so I |\n| 12 | don't think it's really fair to say that we really -- all we   |\n| 13 | have is a million dollar state contribution loan.              |\n| 14 | There are viable causes of action that we could                |\n| 15 | pursue.<br>We are still early on in this case.<br>We haven't   |\n| 16 | even begun our investigation.<br>We haven't even gotten orders |\n| 17 | retaining our other professionals to track those assets down   |\n| 18 | and more fully develop them.                                   |\n| 19 | And I really think without this DIP the case could             |\n| 20 | be a fait accompli.<br>Yes, the creditors that I represent do  |\n| 21 | not have liquidated claims, but they have just as much         |\n| 22 | standing as PAX does, which is also an unsecured creditor,     |\n| 23 | to lay claim to these assets.                                  |\n| 24 | So the other -- the last point I wanted to make in             |\n| 25 | response to Ms. Claiborn's comment and perhaps somebody can    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 57 of 61\n\n clear this up for me. In the proposed order that was sent to the court yesterday at 12:02. Paragraph 5(d) does not -- THE COURT: What proposed order are you talking about, Attorney Goldman? Which one? MR. GOLDMAN: I'm sorry. It was circulated to the deputy clerk yesterday at 12:02. That's the order I'm -- THE COURT: I don't know that I've seen it. Which order are you talking about? MR. GOLDMAN: It's the proposed DIP order, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, I have what was filed on the docket at ECF 315 -- the docket number is 315 and it was entered on the docket at 11:32 yesterday morning. Is that what you're talking about? MR. GOLDMAN: I'm not sure it's the same one, but I wouldn't think they would circulate a different order to the clerk from the one they filed. THE COURT: I'm looking at what was filed on the docket at 11:23 yesterday -- 11:32, excuse me, yesterday. ECF number 315. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. Maybe it is different. Maybe this is just a typo or something. But in paragraph 5(d) of the order I'm looking at it doesn't prevent the DIP loan proceeds from pursuing\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 58 of 61\n\n claims against the DIP lender except claims in connection with the DIP loan. Or fees that are incurred to impede their rights in enforcing the DIP order. Those are the only two -- and maybe it's different in the order that you're looking at, but the one I'm looking at that was circulated to the deputy clerk it does not exclude from the funding fees that are incurred to pursue claims against the lender. It has a 5(d) -- it goes from Romanette 1 to Romanette 4 in the order I'm looking at. THE COURT: In five? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. 5(d). THE COURT: You mean, loan proceeds -- MR. GOLDMAN: Maybe it's different in the one that's filed -- THE COURT: The section called loan proceeds and reporting? I don't know where you are. I'm sorry? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, loan proceeds and reporting 5(d). MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, it's Bennett Silverberg. It's on page 6 of the proposed order, D in the hole. It goes from numeric 1 to numeric 4 skipping numerics 2 and 3 because those were deleted on the version that was initially proposed. So it's just a typo that the 4 in the hole wasn't changed to 2.\n\n MR. GOLDMAN: But my point is, Your Honor -- UNIDENTIFIED: But Attorney Goldman's point that the DIP proceeds can be used to pursue and investigate claims is correct. And counsel for the DIP lender is probably on the Zoom somewhere and can confirm that point. MR. GOLDMAN: But also to assert claims, because (indiscernible) prevents the use of the funds to impede the rights -- exercise of rights under the DIP order or to object to the claims on account of the DIP loan. So it doesn't prevent the funds from being used to actually prosecute other claims against the DIP lender is my point. MR. SILVERBERG: This is again Bennett Silverberg for the debtor. Mr. Goldman is correctly interpreting the proposed order. THE COURT: I don't even see little Romanettes in part 5 so I don't know what you're talking about. I've got loan proceeds reporting and then I've got an A, and a B, and a C, and a D, and an E and then 6. MR. SILVERBERG: Paragraph D there's a Romanette 1 and a Romanette 4. Four lines and six lines down in that paragraph D. THE COURT: Oh, I thought you were saying B, as in boy. You're saying D, as in dog?\n\n MR. SILVERBERG: As in dog. THE COURT: Okay. And your point, Attorney Goldman, is what? That you can bring claims against the lender unless it's with regard to the monies they loaned. Is that your point? MR. GOLDMAN: That is correct. And I was really responding to Ms. Claiborn's point which is not correct, that the claims are available to pursue claims against the DIP lender, other than under the limited circumstances under 5(d) romanette 1 and 2. THE COURT: Oh, okay. So you're saying because Attorney Claiborn said you can't bring any causes of action if you investigated some -- MR. GOLDMAN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. I see where you have pointed to and I'm reading it so -- all right. Who else would like to be heard? (No response.) THE COURT: All right. Well, hearing nothing further then I'm going to have to review this order in greater detail, given what you've said, and I guess I will rule. Unless someone else has any other suggestion, I will rule on what I think is appropriate and what I think is not appropriate. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate\n\n your time today. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, all. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. SILVERBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. That's the end of the hearing today in the Kwok matter so court is adjourned. (Proceedings adjourned at 3:37 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 18 May 6, 2022 19 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文书 336 提交日期 05/06/22 录入日期 05/06/22 15:56:41 第 1 页，共 61 页\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于                                               *    案号 22-50073(JAM)\n                                                   *\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）                              *    康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n                                                   *    2022年5月4日\n债务人。                                           *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n                                                   *\n关于作出临时及最终 DIP 命令的动议笔录：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资，及 (II) 安排临时及最终听证会，及 (III) 给予相关救济\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING 法官阁下，美国破产法院法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nBENNETT S. SILVERBERG 律师\nJEFFREY L. JONAS 律师\nBrown Rudnick, LLP\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.：\nPETER FRIEDMAN 律师\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY 律师\nRobinson & Cole LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，笔录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN 律师\nOffice of the United States Trustee\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表利害关系方 Golden Spring：\nSCOTT ROSEN 律师（纽约）\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C.\n100 Pearl Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n拟任债权人委员会律师：\nIRVE GOLDMAN 律师\nJOHN KAPLAN 律师\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma、Zheng Wu 及 Weican Meng：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW 律师\nMcElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter\n30 Jeliff Lane\nSouthport, CT 06890\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng：\nJAY MARSHALL WOLMAN 律师\nRandazza Legal Group\n100 Pearl Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n（程序于下午 2:18 开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：好的。请为记录说明出庭情况，先请债务人的律师。\n\nJONAS 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Brown Rudnick 的 Jeff Jonas，代表债务人；我相信我的同事 Ben Silverberg 也在线上。\n\nSILVERBERG 律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。PAX 的律师。\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：法官阁下，我是 O'Melveny & Myers 的 Peter Friedman，代表 PAX；我相信 Robinson and Cole 的 Birney 先生也在场。\n\nBIRNEY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：两位下午好。委员会律师。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：早上好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley 的 Irve Goldman，代表委员会，Jonathan Kaplan 与我一同出席。\n\nKAPLAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。Rosen 律师。\n\nROSEN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Cohen, Birnbaum and Shea 的 Scott Rosen，代表 Golden Spring New York，即拟议的 DIP 出贷方。\n1　Tim Miltenberger 也与我一同出席，但他当时\n2　遇到一些技术问题。\n他可能会加入我在办公室的\n3　会议。\n他可能不会出现在屏幕上。\n4　法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n5　Claiborn 律师。\n6　CLAIBORN 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n我是 Holley\n7　Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n8　法庭：\n下午好。\n9　Mayhew 律师。\n10　MAYHEW 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n我是 Kristen\n11　Mayhew，代表债权人 Rui Ma 和 Zheng Wu。\n12　法庭：\n下午好。\n13　Wolman 律师。\n14　WOLMAN 律师：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n我是 Jay\n15　Wolman，来自（听不清），代表债权人 Logan Cheng。\n16　MAYHEW 女士：\n下午好。\n17　法庭：\n我想所有人都已出席。\n我是否\n18　遗漏了任何希望为记录说明出庭情况的人员？\n19　\n20　（无人回应。）\n21　法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n22　好的。\n那么，Jonas 律师和\n23　Silverberg 律师，我昨天看到就 DIP\n24　问题提交的一份提交通知，这实质上是今天继续听证会\n25　所讨论的事项；在我看来，尽管如我有误请你们\n1　予以纠正，除 PAX 以及我认为美国\n2　受托人作出的一些重要权利保留外，各方已同意作出一项\n3　临时命令，以取得无担保、次级的申请后\n4　融资。\n5　\n6　是否正确？\n\nJONAS 律师：法官阁下，我是 Brown\nRudnick 的 Jeff Jonas，代表债务人。\n\n我相信——当然其他当事人也在电话线上，我不想代表他们发言，他们可以自行发言。\n\n我认为命令的实际文本已获同意。不过，我相信 PAX 和或许美国受托人，我不知道是否应称之为意见，但我当然会让他们自行发言。\n\n但我们相信，我们提交的命令与先前听证会一致，实现了其所需实现的内容。\n\n法庭：好的。Friedman 律师。\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：法官阁下，就其形式而言，我们并不对该命令的任何具体内容提出异议。我们讨论过许多立场。我认为，在一个债务人申报资产仅为 \\$3,850 的案件中，附带数百万美元预算的 DIP 融资并非善意的 364，我们坚持该立场。\n\n如果要作出 DIP 命令，我们认为，就我们本可协商达成的内容而言，这是令人反感程度最低的一项。但我们确实反对。法官阁下，我们并未撤回异议。\n\n法庭：明白。谢谢。Claiborn 律师。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。美国受托人亦坚持我们此前在本案中提出的异议。我们认为，该资金不应采取贷款形式，而应仅为赠与，我们反对此事。特别是，就命令的形式而言，并与我在先前听证会上所述一致，美国受托人的立场是，本院可能批准的任何贷款均应拨入债务人占有资金，资金应存放在该账户中，而不应由律师持有。\n\n法庭：好的。明白。Claiborn 律师，还有其他事项吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：没有，除非只是重申这一事项不应获批准。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我认为我在上次听证会上已经说明了我的观点，我只是想向法庭重申，我们仍持相同立场。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n法庭：明白。而且显然，我们已就该问题举行了证据听证会，因此，尽管法庭感谢各方的努力，这项临时命令不会成为将要作出的最终命令形式，因为我必须基于证据听证会作出一些认定，对吗？而且——你知道，其中没有任何——我的意思是，确实提到了证据听证会，但无论如何。好的。那么，在我就临时命令发表意见之前，还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：是的，法官阁下。我是代表委员会的 Irve Goldman。\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：请原谅我的声音。委员会认为，拟议的 DIP 融资对本案的适当管理绝对不可或缺。没有它，委员会将完全束手无策，无法对债务人的资产进行任何类型的调查，包括针对内部人的诉因；该等调查在本案中确实必须进行。贷款条件已尽可能接近可接受的 DIP 贷款条件。该融资在行政债权和无担保债权之后处于次级地位。资金可用于调查潜在债权，并对 DIP 出贷方本身提出债权。明确条款规定，不得通过 DIP 命令寻求放弃或让与委员会、财产或任何债权人对 DIP 出贷方享有的任何权利；如果因任命受托人而发生违约事件，则金额为 \\$500,000 的专业人员费用托管款将可供使用，其中 \\$400,000 将为第 11 章受托人及（听不清）专业人员预留。基于这些条款，这在功能上属于赠与；我们认为，PAX 关于根本不应有 DIP 贷款的立场是一种诉讼策略。请参阅其驳回动议。因为如果没有供专业人员使用的 DIP 融资，就无法调查债务人资产及可能从财产中追回资产的诉因的范围和程度，因此，本程序的基本目的将不复存在，当然，这就为其驳回动议打开了通道。他们已经在英属维尔京群岛和纽约州法院提出了另我或揭开公司面纱债权；我们认为，根据本案提交前纽约南区 Genever Holding 第 11 章案件中获批准的一项和解协议，该等债权属于财产，其中 PAX 是\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n当事人。有一项约定，允许他们在纽约州法院继续就谁拥有 Sherry Netherlands 公寓的所有权问题进行诉讼。那是属于财产的诉因，而不属于 PAX。因此，若不批准该融资，所有这些实际上都将被搁置，并将为这项驳回动议打开通道。因此，我恳请法庭批准某种形式的 DIP 命令，以便本案能够得到适当管理。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我是否可以简短发言？\n\n法庭：请讲。抱歉，我看到您举手了。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我想发表两点意见。\n\n法庭：抱歉，我此前没有看到，但现在看到了。请讲。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：首先，我想澄清 Goldman 律师刚才提出的一点。法庭面前的拟议命令第 5(d) 段确实对收益的使用作出了限制。尽管收益可用于调查\n\n诉因，但不得用于起诉或提出诉因，或为追回资金或采取其他救济而提起积极的肯定性诉讼。因此，资金的使用方式存在限制。\n\n其次，我确实想说，就该贷款中第 11 章受托人的部分而言，任命第 11 章受托人是一项会停止放贷的违约事件。\n\n之后可供第 11 章受托人使用的资金数额有限，我理解为 \\$400,000，我只是想说明其大致范围。就本案整体而言，这是一笔非常有限的金额；如果债务人就其针对 UBS 的债权取得成功，它只是债务人似乎认为可获得资金的一小部分。UBS 诉讼的金额为 500 million。\n\n因此，当你将其置于这种背景下，并结合附于该命令的预算金额来看，就会显示，仅 Brown Rudnick 截至目前已累计发生的费用就超过 \\$1.8 million。为第 11 章受托人提供的 400,000 是非常小的金额，我认为不足以推进本第 11 章案件。\n\n话虽如此，（听不清），我承认这一点，但我们仍认为，这应当是一个由债务人为本案提供资金的程序，并让它走向其所将走向的结果，而\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 336 提交日期 05/06/22 录入日期 05/06/22 15:56:41 第 11 页，共 61 页\n\n该款项将用于其需要用于的任何适当用途。GOLDMAN 律师（戈德曼律师）：法官大人。FRIEDMAN 律师（弗里德曼律师）：法官大人，我可以回应 Goldman 律师的意见吗？法庭：可以。请讲。FRIEDMAN 律师：法官大人，PAX（PAX）并不为反对这项 DIP 融资而道歉。PAX 至少拥有 \\$268 million 的破产申请前债权。PAX 已追索资产五年了。我并不——委员会中充斥着持有附条件未定额债权的人。本案是一场骗局。提起本案是为了阻止执行欠一名债权人的判决，而本案中花费的数以百万计美元的专业费用，只是试图转移 PAX 的注意力并收取其应得款项，DIP 预算显示了这一点。PAX 已进行了破产申请前调查。PAX 已向 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特雷格法官）证明，在其裁定中，不同实体之间及相互之间存在资产转移。Goldman 律师所称的诉讼策略——如果这是一种诉讼策略，那它就是善意的策略，法官大人，是由债务人多年来的恶意行为所导致的。GOLDMAN 律师：法官大人，请允许我简要评论一下这些意见。\n\n法庭：Goldman 律师，我有点听不清您说的话。我知道您说话有困难，但您能再说一遍吗？GOLDMAN 律师：抱歉。我会尽力说得更清楚。PAX 的追索行为，无论持续多久，都不会使该债权相较任何其他债权人获得优先地位——法庭：从未有人这样主张——我知道我一直听到这个论点，但从未有人主张其债权获得了优先地位，连 PAX 也没有。因此，我不知道为什么这个论点不断被提出。我确实不知道。GOLDMAN 律师：嗯——法庭：没有人提出过这个论点。GOLDMAN 律师：嗯，在我看来，认为他们因为多年诉讼并为收回其判决作出诸多努力，PAX 的债权就应在——法庭：他们没有作出该主张，Goldman 律师。他们没有——他们没有作出该主张。他们说他们可能会提出——GOLDMAN 律师：嗯，这就是我——法庭：——重大贡献请求。他们尚未这样做，这是第一点。第二点——GOLDMAN 律师：是。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录与转录服务公司）\n\n法庭：——我不会处理不在法庭审理范围内的问题。它不在法庭审理范围内——GOLDMAN 律师：至少我——法庭：——而且 PAX 没有说过任何——GOLDMAN 律师：我是说——法庭：——在本法庭上所说的任何话，会使其在目前凌驾于普通无担保债权人之上。他们没有这样说，所以我们继续。我们得——让我们谈谈这项命令的实际情况。这项命令的实际情况是，我看着一份预算，其中——Jonas 律师（乔纳斯律师），我认为您需要就此向我说明。你们已经——Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）已经为一个尚不足两个半月的案件产生了 1.8 million 的费用？在做什么？JONAS 律师：法官大人，我们——我们已经——让我想想。我从哪里开始说呢？我先从——法庭：您可以从任何地方开始，但一个债务人没有钱的破产案件，在两个半月内产生 1.8 million 的费用，我们举行过两次听证，连一天都没有持续完。您知道，我面临的问题之一是，这项融资临时命令似乎只是让所有专业人员获得报酬的一种机制，仅此而已。这里将会发生什么？本案将会发生什么？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n本案？你们已经有了 1 million 的预付聘金。现在你们又有了——现在你们的预算显示——我正在看你们提交文件的第 60 页，共 60 页——截至 4/30，即四天前，你们已经产生了 1.8 million、接近 1.9 million 的费用。这在我看来极高。我将告诉你们的一点是，我不确定我会每三个月就你们在《破产法典》正常程序之外获得付款作出任何命令，因为当你看着这个，当你以一种——不带任何评判的眼光来审视这个时，从 February 15 到 April 30，你们究竟可能做了什么，以至于在本案中产生这些费用？这不是 GM（通用汽车）或 Chrysler（克莱斯勒）。这不是一家生产在市场上销售的商品的公司。这是一位来到这里并说他一无所有的人，然而你们却产生了 1.8 million、接近 1.9 million 的费用？而且每个月——每周，你们都将产生 a quarter of a million dollars 的费用？《破产法典》第 330 条规定，法庭必须就费用是否合理、小时费率是否合理、是否存在重复工作、这是否实际使破产财产受益作出认定。诸如此类的事项。如果我不作出\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n这些认定，那么你们就不会获得 1.8 million 的付款。而目前，这笔贷款为 \\$2 million。因此，除了 \\$100,000 之外，其余一切都将被用于支付给你们？这似乎完全不公平、毫无必要，也不受本案记录的支持。坦率地说，我对这份预算感到震惊。而且——Virtulina and Lowey（维尔图利纳和洛伊），他们从 February 15 到 April 30 做了什么，竟产生了 \\$150,000 的费用？我不知道。然后他们每周还将产生另外 \\$20,000 的费用。然后委员会已经产生了费用——其仅在一周前刚刚受聘，就已产生 110 的费用，之后他们将收取费用——或者每周产生 \\$80,000 的费用。哇。这很有意思。在一个并非——一个个人 Chapter 11 案件中。如果你们告诉我，这位人士在世界各地拥有将成为本破产财产一部分、将被清算并用于偿还债权人的资产，我可能会有不同看法。但目前，有人告诉我，也许会向无担保债权人作出某种分配，而这笔钱将从哪里来？嗯，根据债务人的说法，那艘船是——不是破产财产的资产，所以我不\n\n知道——他没有任何其他资产，也没有任何其他银行账户。那么，谁——为什么我们不直接拿出 \\$8 million，现在就支付给债权人？我是说，我不理解。在我看来——我不会——允许一个 Chapter 11 案件仅仅为了让专业人员获得报酬而运行。抱歉。这不是其运作方式。\n\n而且——这不是那种案件。如果是不同的案件，如果我们在这里讨论的是一家生产椅子的公司，该公司有生产如此数量椅子的经营记录，而这就是他们正在做的事，他们将整合其业务，或者出售其部分业务，或者接管其业务，或者制定另一项计划，说明他们将在未来三至五年如何继续经营，那么我们可能讨论的是不同的事情，但我们现在处于一个甚至——勉强满两个月的案件中，而你们已经产生了 \\$2 million 的费用。\n\n嗯，你们不会——我现在就可以告诉你们，你们极不可能被裁定获得那 \\$2 million 的费用。我一开始曾与 Baldiga 先生（巴尔迪加先生）讨论小时费率问题，我说，听着，你们将被聘任为律师，但你们必须面对本案的现实。\n\n因此，你们正从某人那里获得一笔贷款，而该人只是说\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n，好吧，是的，让我们付给所有这些专业人员所有这些钱，顺便说一句，这正是它所做的，而你们在临时报酬程序的任何地方都没有引用第 330 条，而该条必须被引用，因为这是允许费用和支出的唯一标准。\n\n临时报酬第 331 条仅涉及你们何时可以提交临时报酬申请。它并未涉及法庭在判定这些费用在本案情形下是否合理且必要时必须考虑的依据、理由或因素。\n\n这不是一张空白支票。我不会签发附有空白支票的命令。如果真是如此，你们为什么需要我？你们为什么不在法庭之外处理所有这些事项？\n\n嗯，你们不能在法庭之外处理，因为有一名债权人长期追着你们，而这就是你们想要本法庭的原因。明白。这可能是正当理由。\n\n但我不会签发现在这样的命令——所以我不理解预算上的说明，即在应计 Brown Rudnick 费用冲抵预付聘金后，将有 \\$250,000 的预付聘金余额。它甚至没有告诉我这是什么时候发生的。明白吗？你们截至 4/30 的总额为 1,874,852。因此\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 18 of 61\n\n你们是在减少——你们没有——你们没有将其用于整个预付聘金？你们只从 2 million 中扣除那 1.8 million？这是如何运作的？JONAS 律师：法官大人，我——您问了很多问题，因此经您许可——法庭：我确实问了。这很公平。这是公平的说法，Jonas 律师。我问了很多问题。JONAS 律师：我试着做了笔记，但让我看看能否回应您所有的问题。我会尽力而为。如果遗漏一两个问题，我很抱歉。我当时试图——法庭：没关系。JONAS 律师：——拼命地把所有内容记下来。法庭：我确实连续问了一系列问题，这不公平。所以尽你所能，然后——JONAS 律师：不，不——法庭：——如果我认为你没有回答我，我会问任何我想问的问题。JONAS 律师：我其实很享受，法官大人，所以我会接受挑战。那么让我从——让我从大致最后的部分开始，法官大人。首先，让我说，我们理解并且赞赏\n\n我们的所有费用均须经法庭批准。各方将有一个——我们将必须提交费用申请。各方，而且我确信他们会利用这一机会，都将有机会审阅我们详细的费用报表、提出异议，我们将举行听证，因此让我们——我不知道今天是否是就我们费用的适当性作出哪怕初步认定的时间或地点。我们理解，这将以非常——以极为审慎的方式受到审查，届时我们将予以应对。这是第一点。不过，我要说，部分原因是——让我告诉您——我认为您知道已经发生了什么，因为您可以查看您的案卷。我们已经——我们在本案中试图做的每一件事都遭到反对，这没关系。这就是制度的运作方式。但没有任何事情是容易的。我们不得不就各种事项争执，这需要时间，因此，您知道，不幸的是，这确实耗费我们的时间并推高了费用，包括聘任事宜，我们曾就此争执，但最终在很大程度上得到解决。在本案中，而且同样是在极短时间内，曾有一项指定审查员受托人的动议，该动议\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 19 of 61\n\n所需的书面陈述和答复。资产清单和财务状况说明书需要我们投入一些精力。这些均已提交。本案已进行了多次证言录取，尚未对债务人进行，但对其他当事人进行的证言录取需要我们参与。已进行了两次——其中一次，我不想说是整天，但可能接近整天——两次 341 会议，而这些并非我所称的较为标准、简单的 341 会议；在 341 会议上有多名债权人进行询问。希望现在已经有一项 DIP 融资安排，或者几乎已有一项 DIP 融资安排，而该安排一直颇具争议。我们就 DIP 进行了我认为几乎持续整天的审理。正如您所知，审理需要大量准备工作，这占用了我们很多时间。还有——我认为从积极的一面看，我们在本案最初几周和几个月内就提交了一项计划——在本案中，我们在很大程度上解决了游艇问题；该问题耗费了大量时间和诉讼，目前已有一项命令，要求提供 $37 million 现金以担保返还该游艇。诚然，这至少暂时解决了在纽约作出的藐视法庭命令，但我们——不仅已提供 37 million，而且该游艇希望可以借用一个委婉说法，将在相当短的期限内返回 Bridgeport（布里奇波特）的\n\n时间将相当短。正如您所知，该计划设想注入该游艇，就价值而言这意义重大。我们还——我认为——我要告诉您，在撤诉动议之前，该动议我认为将是本案中一个相当具有决定性的事件；显然，本案要么能经受住撤诉动议，要么不能，而该动议将在本月底审理。我相信在过去几天内，PAX（PAX）已发出通知，而且这当然——我并非对此吹毛求疵，我只是陈述情况——他们已通知安排了，我认为，10 至 12 次证言录取。我们将在三周后进行审理。未来几周内，我们将投入大量时间为此准备并参加证言录取。对于一个曾对债权人委员会如何运作存在疑问的案件，我们已解决了相关问题；我们欢迎债权人委员会，也欢迎其参与，债权人委员会现已支持 DIP，而且我们已作出安排，为债权人委员会及其须开展的工作提供资金。因此，法官阁下，我只想说，我这个迅速而未加准备的陈述表明，确实——本案历时尚不算很长，但已需要投入大量时间。我认为已经有——我认为只是——我的意思是，\n\n在某种程度上证明该等时间投入合理的是，尽管从“外面是否有太阳”到本案中我们已处理并提交法院的所有其他事项，均面临巨大反对，我们仍取得了这些成果。\n\n我实际上认为我们——您知道，本案进展得非常、非常快。我们将看看本月底审理时会发生什么。\n\n但无论如何，关于 DIP 为专业费用提供资金的问题，是的，DIP 在很大程度上——并非完全如此——别忘了，DIP 还向破产财团提供了一项百万美元——实际上是一项百万美元的赠与。它提供最多——至少初步提供最多 $2 million 的资金给债权人委员会，并且——并使审查员或可能的受托人获得可用资金。\n\n我认为这些是 DIP 的非常有益的效果，但的确，我不会再次与您争论，DIP 并没有数百万美元可用于支付专业费用，因为不存在其他来源——债务人没有其他来源可这样做。\n\n因此，是的，DIP 贷款人根据 DIP 条款已同意，如同我们所讨论的以及我认为在审理中所陈述的，为了帮助其父亲，并希望看到其父亲在一次成功的 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件中与债权人获得成功解决，是的，Kwok（郭文贵）先生的儿子，通过其实体，准备为 DIP 提供资金以支付专业费用，从而使我们希望能够成功办结本案。就此而言，法官阁下，我要从理念上说，您可能持有不同看法，我不知道，我坚信 Chapter 11 中的债务人有权获得合格的 Chapter 11 律师。有时这非常昂贵。我认为 O'Melveny（奥睿律师事务所）收取的费率与我们并无不同，而且如果债权人——法庭：是的，但他们并非由破产财团支付费用——JONAS 先生（乔纳斯）：——正在提出这一点——法庭：但他们并非由破产财团支付费用，Jonas 先生。这有很大区别。JONAS 先生：而且，法官阁下，我要这样说。我不——您知道，虽然我不想说这是一种虚构，但您知道，说破产财团在支付我们的费用，再说一次，除赠与、返还游艇及其他一切事项外，破产财团几乎没有或根本没有资产。DIP 贷款人愿意在次级无担保基础上提供资金——我们已明确、大声地说明，DIP 贷款人正在为本案提供资金，正在为我们提供资金，正在为债权人委员会提供资金，将为审查员提供资金，将在一定程度上为受托人提供资金——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n法庭：它是否会为——JONAS 先生：——它来自美国——法庭：——向债权人分配提供资金？JONAS 先生：它是否——嗯，首先，法官阁下，根据 DIP，有 $1 million 作为赠与进入破产财团——法庭：好的。JONAS 先生：——这是第一点。法庭：好。这是一个开端。JONAS 先生：它还——法庭：这是一个开端，但你们有 $400 million 的债权申报。JONAS 先生：法官阁下——法庭：所以这将会是——JONAS 先生：——法官阁下，如果我可以——法庭：——那么我们有什么，1 美分兑 1 美元？也许——JONAS 先生：那么，请让我说完——法官阁下，如果我——法庭：当然。当然。JONAS 先生：——如果我可以说完？法庭：抱歉。请继续。JONAS 先生：嗯，不，没关系。本案的结构，在很大程度上就是 DIP，使得提交一项计划成为可能，该计划规定\n\n注入该游艇；我不知道其价值，但我认为是数千万美元。如果没有 DIP 支付专业人士费用，就不会有计划，也不会有游艇返还。因此，是的，法官阁下，DIP 为专业人士提供资金有其基础。这就是如何实现成功——或许。可能成功，也可能不成功，我们将拭目以待。但我认为，债务人有权，姑且这么说，抗争到底，看看我们能否渡过难关，并或许通过协商达成结果。我不想放弃这一点，而是希望通过一项成功的计划，向债权人作出重大分配。因此，法官阁下，我们正竭力实现这一目标。我认为我们需要度过下一个月。我们有很多工作要做。我认为，如果我们能够——显然，我们必须看看撤诉动议的结果，但我认为债务人有权，特别是在如下基础上，即——您知道，我知道您一直——我不想说是困扰，而是关注这样一个事实：债权人并非在支付我们的费用。他们没有。这是一笔无担保次级 DIP 贷款。它排在债权人之后。因此，姑且说，他们并未承担负担。事实上，DIP 正在向债权人提供律师，因为债权人委员会律师的费用与我们一样，都是由 DIP 支付的。因此，法官阁下，恭敬地说，基于所有这些理由——而且我们已经努力——顺便说一句，法官阁下，我只想指出，尽管 Friedman（弗里德曼）先生和 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的意见如此，我们已按照您的指示非常努力地制定一份经协商一致的命令形式，我认为我们已经做到了，尽管委托人的异议。因而，您知道，面对逆境我们将继续努力，争取成功办结本案，但法官阁下，我们确实需要 DIP 来做到这一点。谢谢。法庭：我明白。FREIDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？法庭：还不可以，Friedman 律师。我还有几个问题要问 Jonas 律师，而且 Jonas 律师说得公平，我问了他大约 15 个问题，而无法回答那些问题，因为我在提出关切，却没有给他回应的机会。但关于预算，贵方文件中截至 430 的总额为 180 万，即 ECF 315 中第 60 页的（听不清），我的问题是，贵所已收到的预聘金资金，即 $1 million 预聘金，均不会用于抵扣这些金额，还是会用于抵扣？\n\n菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司\n\nJONAS 先生：法官阁下，如果我可以问一下，而且我想我告诉过您，我现在实际上坐在 New Jersey（新泽西州）Trenton（特伦顿）Kaplan 法官的办公室里。他非常友善地允许我从这里进行 Zoom 通话。我可以请我的合伙人 Silverberg 先生（西尔弗伯格）回答这个问题吗？我一直忙于为今天作准备。SILVERBERG 先生：你们能听到我吗？法庭：是的，我们能很清楚地听到您。谢谢。SILVERBERG 先生：如果您看预算——您问题的简短答案是肯定的，部分预聘金将用于抵扣这 180 万。如果您看预算大约中部的位置——法庭：$750,000？SILVERBERG 先生：预聘金中目前持有的金额，有 $668,000 零头将用于抵扣这 180 万。我们的聘任申请规定，我们将在案件期间维持 $250,000 的预聘金底额。法庭：好的。因此，在贵所收到的 $1 million 预聘金中，当时有资金在申请前从预聘金中支取？SILVERBERG 先生：大约 $50,000 左右。法庭：好的。那么这将剩下大约 $950,000——我并不是要求你精确到一分钱。我只是想了解大致情况，好吗？那么这将剩下\n\n$950,000 的预聘金，而你们只能支取——你们必须留下 250。因此，按你的说法，这只能给你们 700？CLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩）：法官阁下，如果我可以插话。很抱歉。但 U.S. Trustee 提出异议的组成部分之一，是关于设置底额；而我的理解是，Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）（听不清）——SILVERBERG 先生：我想 Claiborn 女士把自己静音了。法庭：不，我想是我——Claiborn 律师误将您静音了。所以您能否说一下——您说的是 $250,000 的底额，而我按错了按钮。因此，是我的错误。CLAIBORN 女士：好的。这次我会尽力做得更好一些。聘用 Brown Rudnick 的申请确实请求在预聘金中设置 $250,000 的底额。U.S. Trustee 对此提出异议。我的理解是，Brown Rudnick 同意通过取消该项来解决此问题。我此刻无法回忆这是否载于实际命令中，但当时的理解是如此。法庭：所以，你的意思是，你们不希望他们维持一个底额。你们希望他们支取——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：正确。法院：——将全部预付律师费用于支付申请后费用。克莱伯恩女士：正确。法院：好的。那么，西尔弗伯格律师（Silverberg），我试图理解的是——这就是我试图理解的，我可能没有把问题问得很好，因为我不断提出很多问题。但我试图理解的是：预算数字为 1,874,852。贵所收到了一笔一百万美元的预付律师费。根据这笔 DIP 贷款，另有两百万美元将进入破产财产。如果我作出这项确立临时补偿程序的命令，你们都将从中支取更多款项，但须以最终费用申请为准，而该等申请必须在 7 月 15 日左右前提交，即使我作出该命令也是如此。但我的重点是，我需要了解这些金额。如果这 2 million 现在到账——这正是我所问的——它将用于什么，支付什么？如果你们仍有——如果你们只能支取 $750,000。就假定我同意你们关于预付律师费的主张，那么你们仍有一百万一的应付及欠付至 4/30 的款项，对吗？普尔曼与康利律师事务所（Pullman and Comley）有 $110,000，所以现在我们达到一百万二。然后维图利纳与洛伊律师事务所（Virtulina and Lowey）有 150，所以我们达到一百万三百五十。因此，到账的 2 million 中，有 1,350,000 将被立即支付吗？我认为答案是肯定的，但我需要知道这一点。我需要理解这一点。西尔弗伯格先生：如果您希望，我可以回答这个问题。身份不明者：当然。请继续。西尔弗伯格先生：法官阁下，这 $2 million 被定义为初始——临时 DIP 贷款——书记员：请原谅，法官阁下。法院：等一下，西尔弗伯格律师。我认为我们听您说话有困难。我们有困难吗？书记员：我只是不确定是谁在发言。法院：哦，现在是西尔弗伯格律师在发言。书记员：谢谢。法院：请继续。抱歉。西尔弗伯格先生：我道歉。我本应在回答前表明身份。法院：没关系。西尔弗伯格先生：法官阁下，临时 DIP 命令第 2(a) 段所定义的是一笔 $2 million 的临时 DIP 贷款。该 $2 million 将进入戈德曼律师（Goldman）的 IOLTA 信托账户或其他独立账户。同一段规定了最高达 $3 million 的后续额外 DIP 借款。因此，最初将进入戈德曼律师账户的 $2 million，仅用于支付委员会专业人士的费用。布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所（Brown Rudnick）以及其他委员会——抱歉，其他债务人专业人士的费用，将从被称为最高达 $3 million 的后续 DIP 提款中支付。因此，针对您具体问题的答案是否定的，布朗·拉德尼克不会动用从 DIP 提取的首笔 $2 million。法院：那么，额外的 $3 million 何时到账？因为我以为我们是分期取得这笔款项。西尔弗伯格先生：初始——临时 DIP 贷款规定了一百万美元的破产财产出资贷款，即将到账的 $2 million——法院：按我对它的理解，西尔弗伯格律师，但如果我错了请纠正我，那一百万美元不得用于支付任何专业人士费用，对吗？西尔弗伯格先生：这是正确的。我只是在说明——法院：不，不。我明白。我需要确保我理解正在发生的事情，所以我才提出这些问题。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 336 于 05/06/22 提交 于 05/06/22 15:56:41 登记 第 32 页，共 61 页\n\n所以不用担心那一百万美元，因为它不会用于支付专业人士费用。因此，先把它放在一边。那么，你们有 $2 million 将进入你们所称的 UCC 账户，即无担保债权人委员会（UCC）账户，对吗？西尔弗伯格先生：正确。法院：那么，另外这 $3 million 何时到账？西尔弗伯格先生：将在下一个月期间按需要到账。法院：但是，如果我作出允许这些临时程序的命令，你们将决定何时需要，因为那时你们会说，我需要获得一百万八的费用支付；如果我需要获得支付——并且没有人反对——那么我就会获得该笔款项。款项将到账，而我将获得支付。因此，你们决定何时需要，对吗？西尔弗伯格先生：不，法官阁下。款项将进入 DIP 账户，以确保无论何时获准支付专业人士费用，账户中均有款项可供支付。法院：嗯，那正是我的——那么你没有回答我的问题，因为我专门问过你。因此，$3 million 何时到账？你说是在需要时到账，但这不正确。它现在到账，然后在你们决定需要时予以支取。这是运作机制吗？因为我需要理解该机制。西尔弗伯格先生：完全正确，法官阁下。因此，一旦 DIP 获得批准，假定其以目前形式获批，债务人专业人士已发生的任何费用，即布朗·拉德尼克的一百万八、维图利纳的 150——抱歉，扣除将被保留但不实际抵扣费用的 $700,000 预付律师费后，将以 DIP 借款支付。此后，按周计，随着费用发生，该等费用将由 DIP 贷款人借入并存入 DIP 账户，以便在费用获准支付时可供支付。法院：好的。因此，实际上不仅仅是第 1 列中的那些数字，因为还包括第 2 列，即 5/1/2022，因为今天是 5/4/2022。因此，将要——你们将要——这 3 million 将到账，但你们将支取 1,762,000——哦，不。我必须扣除普尔曼与康利的费用。因此，你们——所以请仅回答——我只需要确保我理解。2 million 将进入无担保债权人委员会律师办公室，以存入一个账户，也就是你们所称的 UCC 账户。这 3 million 现在也将到账。我们曾讨论分期进行。这笔 8 million 贷款不会成为一笔 8 million 贷款。但实质上，它现在将成为一笔 5 million 贷款，对吗？这就是你告诉我的。西尔弗伯格先生：专业人士费用的总额最高为 5 million，但超过临时 DIP 贷款的那 $3 million 并不会现在到账。现在仅有其中一部分到账，以支付已经发生且未由——覆盖的款项。法院：但是，律师，这在哪里写明？在哪里写明？没有这样写。这不是它所说的内容。它说，$2 million 是临时 DIP 贷款。这本应是临时 DIP 贷款，对吗，用以让我们度过接下来的几周。我们不需要为支付接下来几周的专业人士费用而预先注入资金，特别是如果不存在允许你们所有人获得支付的程序，而你们必须遵循法典规定每 120 天获得支付一次。因此，这就是我的观点。我所面临的观点，我所面临的问题是，这笔账户——这笔贷款的唯一目的，除那一百万美元目前不能用于支付费用外，就是支付费用。不存在任何其他目的。而你现在告诉我的内容与命令所写不同。因此，为什么不直接说，债务人借款 $5 million，其中 2 million 进入 UCC 账户，3 million 进入债务人账户；该债务人账户在 DIP 命令中有定义，而你们并未在 DIP——抱歉——该账户在 DIP 贷款文件中有定义，但在 DIP 命令中没有定义。因此，你们实际上是在授权——你们希望这项命令授权你们立即借入 $5 million，对吗？乔纳斯先生（Jonas）：法官阁下——西尔弗伯格先生：法官阁下——抱歉，请继续，杰夫。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，请允许我先退一步说明。请允许我说，我不希望您认为这里存在任何不当之处，因为并不存在。\n\n请允许我解释，当我们开始这项工作并与委员会进行谈判时，委员会要求并最终确认和同意，$2 million 将实际上立即借入，如果您愿意这样理解，并为委员会专业人士预留，我们最终同意了这一点。\n\n所以，是的，首笔 $2 million——这并非我们最初的立场。我承认，法官阁下，这不是我们所希望的，但事情就是这样发生的。委员会，可以说，要求这样做，而这没有问题。我们同意了。因此，尽管这不是我们的起点，我们原本并无意让我们 DIP 的首笔 $2 million 一开始就被划出、且无法供除委员会以外的任何其他专业人士使用，但我们同意了。因此，为明确起见，首笔 $2 million 被划出，并且——实际上归委员会使用。法院：拟议命令中在哪里写明这一点？您看，我的问题在于，拟议命令中没有写明。这不是它所说的内容。它只是说有一笔 $2 million 的临时 DIP 贷款。然后它谈到预算中列明的金额。我专门要求你们所有人——向我展示所借款项以及其将用于支付的事项。因此，现在你说有 2 million——首先，为什么现在需要借入 $2 million？委员会甚至尚未发生 $220,000 的费用。乔纳斯先生：委员会要求这样做，法官阁下。法院：嗯，可能如此，但这并不意味着他们会得到这笔钱，对吗？乔纳斯先生：嗯，法官阁下，我们一直在努力尽可能与更多当事方达成共识。DIP 贷款人默许了这一点，因此 DIP 就以这种方式构建。法院：嗯，DIP 贷款人对一切都默许了。因此，这实际上不是问题，对吗？问题在于这笔贷款的目的是什么，以及如何使用它。我已经问这个问题好几天了。每次听证会，我都提出同一个问题。乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，请允许我尽可能明确地说明。并且，再次恭敬地说，如果您认为命令、贷款文件和预算不够明确，我们当然——我们当然可以予以修正。我们已竭尽所能做到尽可能明确，尽可能坦诚地向法院说明。因此，明确地说，是的，您是正确的，在现在至 5 月底驳回动议听证会期间，DIP 可被支取 $5 million。是的，这是正确的。$2 million 将归委员会使用，最高达 $3 million 可用于为其他专业人士提供资金。并且，是的，这在很大程度上将是布朗·拉德尼克，因为如您已经指出的，已有一笔数额可观的费用——接近一百万美元——已经发生，需要支付。因此，我不知道我还能如何更明确地说明，法官阁下。但这就是摆在您面前的内容。并且请允许我说，法官阁下，只是——仅仅因为我担心有人可能认为其中部分内容不当。这是——依我之见，在我们举行听证会时提交法院审理的内容；我们举行听证会之前已提交的 DIP 命令和文件形式，就是它们所规定的内容。法院：可能如此，但我们举行了一次证据听证会，在该听证会上提出了是否确实存在紧急资金需求的问题，因为你们的文件就是这么说的。文件称，存在紧急需要，必须立即提供 $8 million 的资金。而我在该听证会结束时说，我看不出立即提供 $8 million 资金的必要性。为什么我们不分期进行？有一项驳回动议尚待裁决。为什么我要在一个可能于一个月后被驳回的案件中作出一项命令，规定所有当事方的权利、责任、救济，并将他们限制在固定立场？我还说，我希望看到预算，并希望你们具体向我展示每一美元。\n\n是您所借入的款项将用于何处、将从何处偿还。而本文件并未说明这些。现在，本文件并未说明目前将有一笔 $5 million 的贷款。它没有这样写。DIP 贷款文件也没有这样写。JONAS律师（Jonas）：法官阁下，如果您看总计 DIP——法庭：顺便说一句，它也没有说这 $2 million 仅供委员会使用。它只是说委员会将持有该款项。原文就是这么说的。它没有说该款项专门用于委员会的费用。而且现阶段我认为我不会同意这一点，因为在一宗没有资产、没有收入的案件中，他们为何能够在现在至 March——以及 May 29th 之间产生 $2 million 的费用。我们不断——我们仿佛处于一个无法脱身的循环中。而我现在告诉您，律师，这就是您面临的问题。我从本案首次听证的第一天起就指出了这个问题。在就 DIP 举行证据听证会之前，我指出了这个问题。在 DIP、Virtulina（Virtulina）和 Lowey（Lowey）的证据听证会期间，我指出了这个问题。对于您已经请求法院作出的具体事项，我没有下达命令，因为我有顾虑。我担心本案——当然，您可以\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n为专业人士提供资金。有人可以这样做。但目的何在？如果不会向无担保债权人进行实质性分配，本案有什么意义？JONAS律师：法官阁下，首先让我说，如果您看预算并看 DIP 提款总额，它在页面底部。您看日期，May 29th, 2022，它向您显示，截至 5/29/22，DIP 将总共提取 $4,576,631，所有细节都一清二楚。它显示了每一美元将会——法庭：我明白。但那是昨天才提交的，Jonas律师。这不是在昨天之前提交的。当时没有这些金额的明细。JONAS律师：不，我知道，因为您在上次听证会上要求我们——法庭：不，我明白。JONAS律师：——提交一份——法庭：是的。我明白我要求过您。但别——我当时不知道这就是您的计划。这就是您打算做的事。您将从 $8 million 中拿出 $2 million 给委员会，然后您将提取这些——在昨天您提交这份文件之前，我不知道这些金额中任何一项的数额。在本法院提交的任何文件中均未显示\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 41 of 61\n\n在您昨天提交该文件之前，贵所已经产生了超过一百八十万美元的费用。没有任何文件显示这一点。\n\n那么您怎么能——您可以说，是的，所有细节都一清二楚。没错。而且您昨天才提交它。在昨天之前提交的本案记录中，没有任何其他内容能够证实该文件、第 60 页（共 60 页）中的任何内容。\n\n当时仅仅是您有一笔 $8 million 的 DIP 贷款。仅此而已。对此提出了异议。这就是我们举行证据听证会的原因。提出的异议是，没有立即向该破产财产注入 $8 million 资金的必要。而且您没有履行举证责任，证明有立即向该破产财产注入 $8 million 资金的必要。\n\n因此我说，何不分阶段进行？我甚至在您提交 DIP 动议之前就说过，在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州），我们提交文件——我们处理事情时——尤其是在本案这种事实模式下、不具备支持条件的案件中，我们不会就 DIP 融资下达最终命令。我们以临时方式处理，并观察事态如何发展。我们观察案件如何推进。\n\n那么，您在本案中面临的问题是，驳回动议已经待决相当长一段时间。并且将被安排——已经\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n安排进行证据听证会。因此现在，除此之外，您希望贷款为 $8 million 中的 $5 million；而当我说，您知道，向我说明您未来几周需要筹措什么资金时，我并不认为您会这样做。你们任何人在未来几周内都不需要获得付款。你们希望获得付款，我理解这一点。我认为这是可以理解的愿望，好吗？但为了维持本案的进行，你们并不需要获得付款。告诉我，你们为何需要获得付款？JONAS律师：因为，法官阁下，再次说明，也许这是哲学问题。我认为不是。我们确实需要某种保障——我认为，在面临压倒性逆境的情况下，包括已安排十或 12 场证言录取，包括在六周内举行三次 341 会议。就应对指定审查员或受托人的动议而言；就应对藐视法庭以及返还该船只而言；就应对 DIP 动议、应对有争议的聘任而言，我认为债务人有权获得律师协助，而该律师有权获得其将得到付款的合理保障。幸运的是，我们有一名 DIP 贷款人，愿意以无担保、次级顺位的方式为这些专业费用提供资金，使债务人能够——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 43 of 61\n1　法庭：对。债务人的内部人，而不是——这并不是您到市场上取得了一笔 DIP 贷款。\n2　\n3　\n4　JONAS律师：因为没有人会、也没有人能够这样做。\n5　法庭：这是债务人的内部人。\n6　JONAS律师：没有人能够——没有人会——\n7　发放这种贷款，除非是——\n8　法庭：我同意。我同意。这难道不正凸显了问题的一部分吗，Jonas律师。没有人会\n9　\n10　发放这笔贷款。\n11　JONAS律师：不，法官阁下，因为——法官阁下，\n12　正是这笔贷款为本案提供了获得\n13　成功的机会。\n14　法庭：以何种方式成功？击败\n15　PAX（PAX）？\n16　JONAS律师：以这样一种方式，即将会向\n17　正当债权人进行分配。\n18　法庭：为什么不能在\n19　本法院之外发生这种情况，Jonas律师？\n20　JONAS律师：嗯，当您有能够与之\n21　谈判并达成解决方案的债权人时，可以如此。本案中\n22　并未发生这种情况。\n23　法庭：那么，Jonas律师——\n24　JONAS律师：这就是为什么有时人们提交——\n25　法庭：——我知道您并未造成这些事实。\n\n您接手本案时，只是接受了既有事实。您就一宗个人 Chapter 11 案件获得了 $1 million 的预付律师费。这为您将获得某些付款提供了保障。破产法并不保证您会获得全额付款；事实上，如您所知，法典第 330 条要求法院出于许多、许多、许多原因审查您的费用和支出。因此，您可能得不到付款。因此，您承担了该风险。这是您决定承担的商业风险。但当您谈到——JONAS律师：但是——法庭：不，等一下。您不能来到这里，表现得好像在您来到本法院之前什么事都没有发生。您不能这样做。您并不坦诚。这场诉讼自我认为 2017 年起就一直在进行。您的当事人因未支付一项判决款而被裁定藐视法庭。您不能指望本法院忽视这一点，并假装其并不存在。也不能表现得好像我们应当在本案中做所有事情的全部理由，是因为 PAX 一直在行使适用非破产法下的权利和救济，而他们是坏人，而您的当事人没有做错\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 45 of 61\n\n任何事；这并不准确，Jonas律师。无论您如何看待，这都不准确。这就是不准确。然后，当我——JONAS律师：法官阁下——法庭：等一下。当我对您说，我不会下达这种命令，而随后您回来；现在我从昨天提交的命令中看到，其中载有与我完全预期不同的金额，而且在我已表示担心目前本案是否需要筹措此类金额之后，您仍希望我批准 $8 million 中的 $5 million。无论如何，您仍在提出该请求。您说，我们唯一不要求的是 $3 million。并且，顺便说一句，所筹资金中的绝大部分只是用来支付给我们。这才是其目的。JONAS律师：法官阁下，我很抱歉。我有点愕然，因为我执业 35 年，并且严肃对待我的职业责任。在数百、数百位破产法官面前出庭过之后，我从未被指责不坦诚，因为我确实非常努力地始终做到坦诚。\n\n法庭：嗯，我并不是——Jonas先生，您刚才提出的论点是，这一切都与 PAX 有关，却没有承认您的当事人在申请破产前所做的事。因此，您和我可以就坦诚与否存在分歧，但不将该事项载入本案记录，并试图表现得仿佛您的当事人并未因另一法院先前的命令而被裁定藐视法庭。如果您认为这具有侮辱性，我很抱歉。我并非试图侮辱您。我是试图——JONAS律师：不，不。我并不认为这是侮辱，法官阁下。法庭：我是试图确立事实。JONAS律师：我认为，法官阁下，破产是为了给予重新开始，其中——法庭：是为了诚实但不幸的债务人，Jonas先生。而且您已经执业 35 年——JONAS律师：是，法官阁下。法庭：——您知道这一点。JONAS律师：是，法官阁下。而我正打算自己使用这些措辞。法庭：是。JONAS律师：我们将在本月底的驳回动议审理中查明——我们将查明，您是否认为或认定这是一宗适当的破产案件。\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n而我所说的只是，法官阁下，我认为我们有权就此进行公平抗辩。并且我们一直——法庭：您将就此进行公平抗辩。这与——JONAS律师：我不认为——法官阁下——法庭：——您是否应当在整个过程中获得付款，是不同的问题。JONAS律师：不。不，但区别在此，法官阁下。我们愿意——作为债务人的律师，我们愿意承担在异议提出后我的费用不获法官阁下批准的风险。我们愿意承担该风险。我认为不公平地要求我们承担的风险是：面对一名愿意以无担保、次级顺位方式保证将有资金支付给我们、但须经法院批准的 DIP 贷款人，我认为这是一种不同的风险，要求我们承担该风险并不公平。法庭：破产法中的何处——JONAS律师：对我们说这不公平——法庭：——支持您这一观点，Jonas先生，在执业 35 年之后？JONAS律师：我获得支持——法庭：我明白，因为您一直能够在其他案件中\n\n实现这一点。JONAS律师：不。法庭：但那些其他案件并不像本案。JONAS律师：不。不。不，法官阁下。我之所以这样认为，是因为我认为我们必须把本案分成小块来处理，而且恭敬地说，我认为您同时在看许多不同的事情。我们现在是就 DIP 动议出庭。我们现在是就 DIP 贷款出庭。法庭：对。JONAS律师：我们举行了证据听证会。债务人说，他没有其他办法——我们提交了证据。我认为——我不想替您说话，但当我离开那里时，我相信您告诉我们——您没有作出裁定，但您告诉我们，尝试达成一项合意命令。我的预期是，在证据听证会后，我们已履行了有关 DIP 的举证责任。我们出去办理，达成了一项合意命令。对于直到昨天才向您提交您在审理结束时要求我们提交的详细预算，我感到抱歉。我们确实花了几天时间。我们尽了最大努力。我们确实提交了我认为被要求提交的一切。因此，我们现在就一项我认为我们已经满足的 DIP 出庭。Case 22-50073 Doc 336 Filed 05/06/22 Entered 05/06/22 15:56:41 Page 48 of 61\n\n我们的举证责任。我认为我们有权获得对DIP的批准。且不论DIP本身的条款确实令人惊异，我认为从未有人见过一项无担保、次级受偿且如Kwok（郭文贵）先生在证人席上所说不太可能获得保留的DIP。但无论如何，DIP所附带的是一项百万美元的DIP。DIP所附带的是已完成工作的基础，也就是该计划。DIP所附带的是让我们能够就驳回动议进行公平抗辩。再者，我们并非——我们明白——您知道，如果您作出临时报酬命令，而我们确实获得部分付款，一切均须返还。我们不会离开。我们明白我们所有的费用都存在风险，且须经法院批准。我们接受该风险。我们所请求的只是，请不要让我们在已经就DIP完成举证责任的情况下承担风险。不要要求我们承担收款风险。我们知道债务人无法向我们付款。这是既定事实。因此，是的，另有一项安排用于支付专业人员费用；鉴于其无担保且次级受偿，这实际上不会给破产财产造成任何成本。并且它使债务人得以看看我们能否\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 336 于 05/06/22 提交，于 05/06/22 15:56:41 录入，第 50 页，共 61 页\n\n撑过下一个月，并在驳回动议中存续下来。这就是我们所请求的一切。法庭：但只有在我批准临时报酬程序的情况下才行。否则，你可以借入 $5 million，却不能使用其中一分钱。阁下，是的，我们希望——再者，关于临时报酬命令，我相信您知道，至少在许多司法管辖区，这相当属于标准做法。我认为这是标准——法庭：在支持该做法的案件中才是如此，Jonas（乔纳斯）律师。在存在——Jonas先生：而且，阁下，本案支持该做法。这正是DIP的作用。本案支持临时报酬。法庭：当你有一项百万美元的预付款时，你需要立即获得付款的必要性何在？Jonas先生：再者，这并非立即获得付款的必要性，而是付款保障，这正是该安排所提供的。是的，阁下，我认为大多数破产法官都会同意——破产法律顾问，无论是贷款人的律师、委员会律师还是债务人的律师，都不应当在数月期间不获得付款。这就是临时报酬命令在全国普遍存在的原因。\n\n法庭：第一，我不同意你所称此类命令在全国普遍存在。第二，它们在大型第11章案件中普遍存在，那些案件有经营活动、有收入并且将进行重整，而这并非我们这里的情形。这不是正在发生的事。因此，你可以提出你想提出的所有论点，但国会已经决定你应当何时获得付款，对吗？法典对此已有规定。第330条和第331条规定了你应当何时获得付款。你现在请求法院——并且你依据第105条提出动议。因此，这表明你无权依据法典要求法院作出一项超出法典规定的命令。第二巡回上诉法院已经表示，你不能这样做。你不能利用第105条取得破产法典中不存在的权力来创造一项权力。而这正是你请求法院做的事。Jonas先生：阁下，我正坐在Kaplan（卡普兰）法官审理的LTL案件法官办公室内。我们有一项临时报酬命令。我可以列举我现在正在办理的所有案件——法庭：LTL案件——Jonas律师，LTL案件与本案有些不同，您不这样认为吗？Jonas先生：不是，但您是在提出一个主要论点，即临时报酬命令——临时报酬命令存在某种问题，而我说的是——法庭：我说的是，第二巡回上诉法院可能认为确实存在问题，而你目前就在第二巡回上诉法院辖区内。第二巡回上诉法院认为，你不能利用第105条创造破产法典下不存在的权力。而这正是你请求法院做的事。那么，还有其他人希望就DIP融资陈述意见吗？Friedman（弗里德曼）先生：阁下，我只想就Jonas先生所说的事项作出两点评论。这是Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。另有一项观察。第一，我认为这是债务人自身造成的问题，因为其在案件一开始时未提交DIP预算；在每项DIP动议中列入13周现金流是常见做法。本可在两个月前提交该DIP时完成此事。从一开始，每个人都知道这将是一项有争议的DIP。我们在案件伊始时就此指出过，我认为是在反对延长提交清单期限时。另有两项存在问题，其中一项我承认，阁下，并未直接提交至您面前，\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 336 于 05/06/22 提交，于 05/06/22 15:56:41 录入，第 52 页，共 61 页\n\n但当Jonas先生称Kwok先生的儿子将不惜一切代价解决本案时，我必须告诉您，其律师拒绝接受与Golden Spring、Golden Spring员工以及Kwok先生儿子有关的驳回听证证言传票的送达。因此，称Kwok先生的儿子会不惜一切代价解决本案并不真实。他会在符合其个人利益并且能够操纵制度的情况下不惜一切代价解决本案。因此，Jonas先生如此表述并不准确。阁下，我想提出的另一点是，关于该计划的讨论——请记住——以及返还游艇的价值和向其家人的持续安排，而这正是DIP所支持的。阁下，我们有Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官作出的一项命令，称声称返还游艇的人没有如实说明游艇所有权。Kwok先生拥有该游艇。这只是一项计划：我给你们极少一部分我所欠的款项，以换取家庭成员的免责。这不是一项有实质意义的计划。这不是一项有实质意义的计划。因此，我不认为DIP对促进债权人利益有任何作用。我坚信如此，您也始终可以相信这一点。我认为——Jonas先生所说的一切都证实了我们的主要异议，而我们的主要异议是，这样做要么是为了隐匿Kwok先生的资产并让专业人员协助这样做，要么是为了一个并非债务人的人来运行案件。我们认为，这两种做法均不符合第364条的规定。\n\nGoldman（戈德曼）先生：我可以陈述意见吗？法庭：可以。请讲。Goldman先生：委员会并非承认（听不清）隐匿资产，而是要查明这些资产。我们的处境与债务人律师或PAX律师非常不同。我们在申请破产前收到了预付款。我们并非持续获得付款。委员会依赖这些资金来履行其在法典下的职责。我们正在寻求聘用其他专业人员协助我们做到这一点。包括一名财务顾问和一名欺诈调查顾问，我们将寻求聘用他们。在介入本案前，他们确实需要获得某种付款保障，以完成我们在此需要完成的工作。阁下，关于分配给委员会专业人员的 $2 million，您说得完全正确。根据——为了更具体说明其依据何处，根据拟议命令第6(c)段，该条澄清临时DIP的资金，即 $2 million，将仅可用于向委员会专业人员支付获授权的支出。因此，我认为这就是该问题可能（听不清）之处。当然，在5月底前，我们不会累计接近该数额的费用。我们预算为 $510,000，其中包括委员会希望聘用的所有专业人员。阁下，您在该预算中看到的、截至4月30日到期一栏中的110,000，是的，阁下，我相信您仅在上周或本周初签署了一项命令。但该命令自3月底起生效，即申请提交之时。我们立即投入本案。有若干类似首日动议的事项，我们必须在数日内作出回应。本案具有一定复杂性，因此我们确实——我会说，达到熟悉案件所需状态有一段很长的准备期。因此——并且只是Kaplan先生和我以远低于本案所见费率的费率完成该项工作。我们正在努力保持审慎，但本案进展极其迅速。它确实为可能的解决提供了一个平台。存在有价值的请求权。是的，有一项百万美元的破产财产出资贷款。这只是本案请求权金额的一小部分。PAX正在主张存在有价值的请求权，包括替身责任和刺破公司面纱，我们认为这些请求权属于破产财产。Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）公寓便是其中之一。债务人拥有该公寓百分之百的权益，但声称其为其儿子以信托方式持有。这是一项我们主张属于破产财产并应由所有债权人共同分享的资产。本案正是确定这一问题的程序。因此，我认为称我们实际上——我们所拥有的一切只是一项百万美元的破产财产出资贷款，并不公平。我们可以追究有价值的诉因。我们仍处于本案早期阶段。我们尚未开始调查。我们甚至尚未取得聘用其他专业人员的命令，以追踪这些资产并更充分地推进相关工作。我确实认为，没有这项DIP，本案可能已成既成事实。是的，我所代表的债权人没有已确定金额的债权，但他们与同样为无担保债权人的PAX一样，均具有同等资格对这些资产提出权利主张。因此，为回应Claiborn（克莱伯恩）女士的评论，我想提出的另一点——最后一点是，也许有人可以为我澄清这一点。在昨天12:02送交法院的拟议命令中，第5(d)段并未——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 336 于 05/06/22 提交，于 05/06/22 15:56:41 录入，第 57 页，共 61 页\n\n法庭：你说的是哪一项拟议命令，Goldman律师？哪一项？Goldman先生：抱歉。该命令昨天12:02送交给了书记官助理。那就是我——法庭：我不知道我是否看过该命令。你说的是哪一项命令？Goldman先生：是拟议DIP命令，阁下。法庭：哦，我这里有的是在ECF 315案卷中提交的文件——案卷编号为315，昨天上午11:32录入案卷。你说的是这个吗？Goldman先生：我不确定是否是同一份，但我不会认为他们会向书记官发送一份与其提交文件不同的命令。法庭：我正在查看昨天11:23——抱歉，昨天11:32——在案卷中提交的文件。ECF编号315。Goldman先生：好的。也许不同。也许这只是一个笔误或其他错误。但在我正在查看的命令第5(d)段中，它并未阻止DIP贷款所得款项被用于追究\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 336 于 05/06/22 提交，于 05/06/22 15:56:41 录入，第 58 页，共 61 页\n\n除与 DIP 贷款有关的请求外，对 DIP 贷款人提出的请求。或者为阻碍其执行 DIP 命令项下权利而产生的费用。这是仅有的两项——也许您所看的命令有所不同，但我所看的、已传阅给副书记员的那份命令，并未将为对贷款人提出请求而产生的资金费用排除在外。我所看的命令中有一项 5(d)——从罗马小项 1 到罗马小项 4。法庭：在第五项中？GOLDMAN 律师（戈德曼）：是的，法官阁下。5(d)。法庭：您的意思是，贷款款项——GOLDMAN 律师：也许已提交的那份有所不同——法庭：标题为“贷款款项及报告”的那一节？我不知道您说的是哪里。抱歉？GOLDMAN 律师：是的，“贷款款项及报告”第 5(d) 项。SILVERBERG 律师（西尔弗伯格）：法官阁下，我是 Bennett Silverberg（贝内特·西尔弗伯格）。在拟议命令第 6 页，D 项。它从阿拉伯数字 1 到阿拉伯数字 4，跳过了阿拉伯数字 2 和 3，因为初步拟议版本中这两项被删除了。因此，D 项中的 4 没有改成 2，只是一个笔误。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：但我的观点是，法官阁下——身份不明者：但 Goldman 律师所说的，即 DIP 款项可用于追究和调查请求，是正确的。DIP 贷款人的律师可能在 Zoom 的某处，可以确认这一点。GOLDMAN 律师：也包括提出请求，因为（听不清）禁止使用该等资金阻碍权利——行使 DIP 命令项下权利，或反对因 DIP 贷款而产生的请求。因此，我的观点是，它并不阻止将该等资金用于实际起诉针对 DIP 贷款人的其他请求。SILVERBERG 律师：我再次以债务人代理人 Bennett Silverberg 的身份发言。Goldman 律师对拟议命令的解释是正确的。法庭：我在第 5 部分甚至都没有看到罗马小项，因此我不知道你们在说什么。我看到的是“贷款款项及报告”，然后是 A、B、C、D、E，接着就是 6。SILVERBERG 律师：D 段有一个罗马小项 1 和一个罗马小项 4。就在 D 段向下第四行和第六行。法庭：哦，我以为您说的是 B，像 boy 里的 B。您说的是 D，像 dog 里的 D？\n\nSILVERBERG 律师：像 dog 里的 D。法庭：好的。那么，Goldman 律师，您的观点是什么？即，除非涉及他们贷出的款项，否则你们可以对贷款人提出请求。是这个意思吗？GOLDMAN 律师：是的。而且我实际上是在回应 Claiborn 女士（克莱伯恩）的观点；她的观点不正确，即该等请求可用于追究针对 DIP 贷款人的请求，但 5(d) 罗马小项 1 和 2 所列有限情形除外。法庭：哦，好的。所以您的意思是，因为 Claiborn 律师说，如果你们调查了一些——你们就不能提出任何诉因——GOLDMAN 律师：正确。法庭：好的。我明白您所指出的内容了，我正在阅读，所以——好的。还有谁希望发言？（无人回应。）法庭：好的。那么，既然没有进一步意见，鉴于你们所说的情况，我将不得不更详细地审查这份命令，然后我想我会作出裁定。除非有人有其他建议，我将就我认为适当和我认为不适当的事项作出裁定。JONAS 律师（乔纳斯）：谢谢您，法官阁下。我感谢您今天抽出时间。法庭：好的。谢谢各位。GOLDMAN 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。SILVERBERG 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。CLAIBORN 女士：谢谢。法庭：好的。Kwok（郭文贵）案今日的听证至此结束，现宣布休庭。（庭审于下午 3:37 休庭。）本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录转录员及认证电子记录员和转录员，证明上述内容系根据上述案件庭审程序的正式电子录音制作的正确笔录。18 May 6, 2022 19 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":315,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":13627,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:27:03"}