{"id":"court_ctb_3486_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3486,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-08-29","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 24-05249 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . Courtroom 123 ACA CAPITAL GROUP, LTD., . Brien McMahon Federal Building et al., . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendants. . . Tuesday, August 27, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:03 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE (APPEARANCES CONTINUED) Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 1 of 24\n\n 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and- Luc A. Despins, Esquire Shlomo Maza, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire 2050 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 For the U.S. Trustee: Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 For Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund: Annecca H. Smith, Esquire ROBINSON & COLE, LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 -and- Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 For the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors: Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC 850 Main Street 8th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 2 of 24\n\n| 3 |\n|---|\n\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | For G Club Operations, | |\n| 3 | Weddle Law PLLC, FFP BVI
Limited, Ogier, and | |\n| 4 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman, LLP: | Kellianne Baranowsky, Esquire
GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC |\n| 5 | | One Audubon Street
3rd Floor |\n| 6 | | New Haven, Connecticut 06511 |\n| 7 | For Urban Legend: | Eilis Meagher, Esquire
FINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP |\n| 8 | | 6 Landmark Square
Stamford, Connecticut 06901 |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al. Main Case no. 22-050073 (JAM) Matter No. 3396 Motion to Amend Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing The Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings to Facilitate Consensual Pre-Litigation Mediation Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 7 Court's Ruling: 14 Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v ACA Capital Group, Ltd., et al. Adversary Case No. 24-05249 (JAM) Matter No. 3: Motion for Default Judgment by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (b)(2) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 against K Legacy Ltd. and Qiang Guo . Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee, Plaintiff 16 Court's Ruling: 20 Transcriptionist's Certificate 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 4 of 24\n\n 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:03 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Adversary 24-05249, Despins v ACA Capital Group, et al. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please. We'll start with is Attorney Claiborn, who's in the courtroom. Can anybody see Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: I'm a small person. (Laughter) MS. CLAIBORN: Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. Then we can start with the remote participants with the can Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 5 of 24\n\n 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, for creditor PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel for the creditor PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MEAGHER: Good afternoon, Eilis Meagher of Finn Dixon & Herling, on behalf of Urban Legend. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Meagher, do you have an appearance in the main case or just in an adversary? I'm just curious. I don't have all the names of people in front of me at the moment. MS. MEAGHER: Just in an adversary. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. BARANOWSKY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kellianne Baranowsky. I represent several parties in the main case. In the adversary proceeding, I'm appearing strictly in an observational capacity. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 6 of 24\n\n| 1 | All right.
Trustee Despins, there are two matters |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | on the calendar.
The matter in the main case is the motion |\n| 3 | to amend the order approving procedures with regard to the |\n| 4 | mediation of matters.
And then there's the matter in the |\n| 5 | adversary proceeding, so how do you wish to proceed. |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
The matter in the main case, Your |\n| 7 | Honor, then Mr. Linsey will address that. |\n| 8 | Basically, I think that maybe he'll state this, |\n| 9 | but Judge Tancredi has the modification, but nevertheless, |\n| 10 | Your Honor needs to consider it and approve it if you think |\n| 11 | it's appropriate, but Mr. Linsey, go ahead. |\n| 12 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | This motion amends the existing mediation |\n| 14 | procedures to create a procedure for voluntary mediation of |\n| 15 | claims prior to litigation.
The trustee is presently |\n| 16 | negotiating with quite a few parties that have not yet been |\n| 17 | sued.
As the Court is aware, numerous potential Defendants |\n| 18 | have executed tolling stipulations.
There are some potential |\n| 19 | Defendants that are amenable to mediating on a fully |\n| 20 | voluntary basis.
As the trustee said, the trustee has |\n| 21 | consulted with Judge Tancredi and understands that Judge |\n| 22 | Tancredi is amenable to doing that in appropriate |\n| 23 | circumstances. |\n| 24 | The effect of this order would be to create a |\n| 25 | supplemental program that would apply only to consensual pre |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 litigation mediation; it would not change the procedures for parties who are presently in the mediation program under the existing order. It would apply to potential Defendants that the trustee has not yet sued or to Defendants who have been sued, but not yet appeared, such that litigation has not yet occurred; again, only to the extent that the counterparties wish to take advantage of it.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Any party participating in the program would be required to agree in writing to be bound by the consensual mediation procedures, among other things. This includes the provisions in the existing order regarding confidentiality of mediation proceedings and confirming Judge Tancredi's judicial immunity for service as mediator. The consensual mediation program would also be voluntary on a case-by-case basis, as applied to Judge Tancredi. It would be within his discretion to accept or reject any proposed consensual prelitigation mediation. This was done intentionally to permit Judge Tancredi to determine whether he believes matters are appropriate for motion and to avoid overburdening Judge Tancredi.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Under the consensual procedures, any mediating party or Judge Tancredi can terminate the consensual prelitigation mediation at any time for any reason. So what we have is a voluntary avenue for parties that are interested in participating, as long as they are interested in\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 participating, which ensures that the program will be productive. No objections have been filed with respect to the motion. That speaks, in part, presumably to the fact that these procedures are voluntary and they're flexible. The trustee is optimistic that a consensual, prelitigation mediation program will result in settlements that will avoid potential litigation that would otherwise require the estate, counterparties, and the Court to invest resources in dealing with that litigation. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Court may have. THE COURT: I do not have any questions, thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. I just wanted to make one comment. There is a paragraph that speaks to the possibility that motions to settle with parties who are participating in this process would be filed under seal and I just wanted to stand to rise to say to the parties and the Court that the U.S. Trustee has no objection to this process, but reserves all rights to object to any pleading that may be filed under seal for not meeting the standards that are required. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There is nothing in the proposed order that I recall about filing under seal, but you're talking about a paragraph in the motion? MS. CLAIBORN: There's a paragraph in the order. It's paragraph 2, little four, no, sorry, little five, the bottom of page 2. THE COURT: Oh, I see. Okay. I didn't see that. Let me look at that, then. (Pause) THE COURT: Well, it says it may be filed under seal. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: It doesn't say it will be filed under seal. MS. CLAIBORN: Right. I just didn't want there to be any discussion later about not having objected to this process. We don't object to the actual process, but we don't -- by not doing so, admit that -- THE COURT: You're not waiving any rights to claim that it shouldn't be filed under seal. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: That's fine, thank you. MR. LINSEY: And I would just note, Your Honor, there is a similar provision in the existing mediation procedures for the claims mediation now. Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 10 of 24\n\n 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: But those that have pending causes of action; there's a difference, right? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: The matters that are under -- that are subject to -- MR. LINSEY: Correct. THE COURT: -- mediation, and which matters there may be pleadings filed under seal relate to actually pending adversary proceedings. This procedure relates to matters that will have not been commenced by the trustee, correct? MR. LINSEY: In large part. It would also apply where a Defendant has been sued, but not yet appeared, that's because we've been contacted by (indiscernible) counsel that wish to try to negotiate a resolution without having to appear on the litigation perspective and defense. And the trustee is amenable to doing that, provided that they consent in writing to respect the mediation procedures. THE COURT: So you're saying only in the prior order that it won't be referred to mediation unless someone files an appearance on behalf of a Defendant? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: Under the prior order -- THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 11 of 24\n\n 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: -- with the (indiscernible). I apologize for -- THE COURT: No, go ahead, Attorney Linsey. MR. LINSEY: No, it's fine. I have nothing else to add, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the trustee's motion to amend the order directing parties to mediation and amending and approving procedures applicable to avoidance claim adversary proceedings to facility consensual pre-litigation mediation -- see, when you say, \"prelitigation mediation,\" it's not only pre-litigation mediation, though; you've just clarified that, that there are matters are pending. It's just that that could apply to this -- that this process could apply to, but that Defendant hasn't filed a notice of appearance on -- no one has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of a Defendant. MR. LINSEY: That's a good point, Your Honor, and I struggled with the semantics of that, so if I didn't phrase it articulately, I apologize. I just meant that no -- we just meant that nobody has shown up and begun defending. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? (No verbal response) THE COURT: So I guess what I need to do is, I'm looking at the proposed order and it says by modifying -- on the first page of the order: Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 12 of 24\n\n| 1 | \"By modifying and supplementing the mediation |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | procedures to provide for the consensual mediation,\" and then |\n| 3 | you defined it as \"consensual pre-litigation mediation\" of |\n| 4 | claims, estate claims, okay.
But I guess the only issue is, |\n| 5 | it's not necessarily pre-litigation; that's the only |\n| 6 | difference.
There are some cases that are pending.
When I |\n| 7 | say, \"cases,\" I should say, \"adversary proceedings,\" correct? |\n| 8 | MR. LINSEY:
That's correct. |\n| 9 | We can submit -- we can tweak that language and |\n| 10 | submit a revised order if the Court would like. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I think you might need do that.
I |\n| 12 | don't want to hear someone say, well, wait a minute, I didn't |\n| 13 | understand that.
I'd just rather it be a little more |\n| 14 | pointed, which is that it applies to any pending adversary |\n| 15 | proceeding in which a Defendant -- a notice of appearance has |\n| 16 | not been filed on behalf of a Defendant or any claims that |\n| 17 | have not been commenced as an adversary proceeding.
However |\n| 18 | you want to amend it.
But I think you would need to do that |\n| 19 | in order for it to be clear. |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
We'll make that clarification, Your |\n| 21 | Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right.
Hearing nothing from |\n| 23 | anyone else, is that correct, no one else wishes to be heard |\n| 24 | on the motion? |\n| 25 | (No verbal response) |\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
I've reviewed the motion. |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | I understand that Judge Tancredi has consulted through the |\n| 3 | mediation process with the trustee about the relief sought in |\n| 4 | this motion to amend so that Judge Tancredi would agree to be |\n| 5 | a mediator and facilitate a possible -- the mediation and |\n| 6 | possible resolution of number one, either pending adversary |\n| 7 | proceedings in which a Defendant has not filed a -- no one |\n| 8 | has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of a Defendant, or |\n| 9 | estate claims that have not been brought through an adversary |\n| 10 | proceeding. |\n| 11 | No one has filed any written objections to the |\n| 12 | motion.
There is no one participating in this hearing today |\n| 13 | that's objecting to the motion.
This motion and this order |\n| 14 | apply to all of the mediation issues and will be filed, as |\n| 15 | the motion was filed in the main case. |\n| 16 | You're not going to file them in any adversary |\n| 17 | proceedings, nor should you; it's a main case request for |\n| 18 | relief.
So the order will enter in the main case. |\n| 19 | You're going to submit a revised proposed order, |\n| 20 | Attorney Linsey? |\n| 21 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, by tomorrow, if that's |\n| 22 | acceptable to the Court? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
You can have until the |\n| 24 | end of the week if you'd like.
Whatever you would prefer. |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:
We'll get it in by tomorrow. |\n| | |\n\n 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Just give me one moment, please. (Pause) THE COURT: So, with regard to the motion to amend mediation procedures, to facilitate consensual mediations, either for pending actions, in which a notice of appearance has not been filed on behalf of a Defendant, or action of estate actions of estate claims which have not been brought, upon review of the motion, for the reasons stated on the record and because no one has filed any objection to the motion, the motion is granted and the trustee's counsel will submit a revised proposed order on or before August 28th. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Trustee Despins, how about we now turn to the motion for default judgment in the adversary proceeding, correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor, and Mr. Bassett will handle that matter. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Attorney Bassett, you may proceed -- MR. BASSETT: Yes. THE COURT: -- in connection with the motion for default judgment in Adversary 24-05249. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 15 of 24\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So the motion today is to hold two of the Defendants in that adversary proceeding, K Legacy Ltd. and Qiang Guo, the debtor's son, to have the Court enter default judgment against those two Defendants. By way of brief background, Your Honor, K Legacy is another shell company of the debtor and it's similar in many ways to HK USA, which, as the Court knows, the debtor used to hold title to his yacht and HK USA was, itself, nominally, opened by the debtor's daughter. In this case, K Legacy is a BVI-based shell company that is nominally owned by the debtor's son and the K Legacy, in turn, holds title to a luxury apartment belonging to the debtor, located in London that was purchased in 2016 for approximately 33 million pounds. The complaint seeks a judgment like many complaints before it, both, declaring that K Legacy and its assets are, and always have been, property of the Chapter 11 estate, that includes the London apartment, and then, also an order that such property be surrendered to the trustee. As Your Honor is aware from past default judgments that we have filed in this case, in order to obtain a default judgment, the trustee has to both, demonstrate that the Defendants were served validly with a summons and complaint, but they, thereafter, failed to timely answer, and then the trustee also has to show that the complaint, on its face,\n\n1 2 3 4 with the allegations deemed admitted, plausibly alleges facts sufficient to support a determination that the trustee entitled to the relief seeks, namely, an order that the estate owns K Legacy and its assets.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Your Honor, all of these elements are satisfied in this case. First, as we set forth in our papers, the trustee served both Defendants. Qiang Guo, the debtor's son is located in the United Kingdom. He was validly served with a summons and a complaint via mail on March 21st, 2024. The summons, with which he was served gave him 60 days to answer, until May 26th. He filed to answer.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On June 10th, the Court entered a default against Qiang Guo. This service is compliant, Your Honor, with both, the Federal Rules and the Hague Convention. The applicable Federal Rule would be -- sorry -- Rule 4(f)(1), which permits service, according to Hague Convention, and then pursuant to Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, a Plaintiff may serve documents, via mail, to the extent that the signatory country to the Convention does not object. Here, the United Kingdom has not objected to service by mail under 10(a), therefore, service by mail is appropriate. And we cite cases which have held accordingly in our papers.\n\n23 24 25 K Legacy, as I mentioned, is an entity based in the BVI. It was validly served with the summons and compliant through its registered agent in the BVI on\n\n1 2 3 February 29th, 2024. It, too, had 60 days to answer until April 29th and it failed to do so. And on May 17th, the Court entered a default against K Legacy.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Service in the manner I just described, colony replied with the applicable rules and the Hague Convention; again, the rule referenced would be Rule 4(f)(1) and then Article 10(c) of the Hague Convention, which allows service through judicial officers and officials of the state of destination, and, in particular, the United Kingdom, which controls the BVIs. Signing on to the Convention has stated that one can serve a BVI company through a solicitor and/or an agent, therefore, the service that was conducted on K Legacy's registered nation in the BVI, complies with the applicable rules and the Hague Convention.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Service having been complete and the Defendants having failed to answer, the only question remaining is whether the complaint states a valid claim for the relief that it seeks. Here, the allegations in the complaint establish, in our view, overwhelmingly that the debtor is the true beneficial owner of K Legacy and its assets. We go through this in our papers, but to quickly summarize, K Legacy Ltd., to the trustee's knowledge, and as alleged in the complaint, has no business purpose, other than to serve as a shell company, holding title to the London apartment. We allege that the debtor funded the purchase of the London\n\n| 1 | apartment.
We also allege in detail that the debtor |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | exercised control and dominion over the London apartment.
It |\n| 3 | was the debtor's home in London.
The debtor occupied the |\n| 4 | master bedroom of that apartment.
The debtor publicly |\n| 5 | referred to the apartment as his home.
He, in a television |\n| 6 | interview, boasted that he owned the most luxurious apartment |\n| 7 | in London.
The debtor kept all the relevant documents |\n| 8 | related to the London apartment, including the purchase |\n| 9 | contract in his possession.
He decided when and how to pay |\n| 10 | for the bills to the apartment.
He came and went from the |\n| 11 | London apartment whenever he wished, without anyone's |\n| 12 | permission, and the security staff at the apartment took |\n| 13 | direction from the debtor, not from his son or anybody else. |\n| 14 | When the debtor was asked about the London apartment in his |\n| 15 | deposition, he invoked the Fifth Amendment. |\n| 16 | So, Your Honor, based on the fact that both of the |\n| 17 | Defendants were validly served, that they failed to answer |\n| 18 | and that the complaint sufficiently contains allegations to |\n| 19 | support the relief requested, we would respectfully request |\n| 20 | that the Court enter the default judgment that we've |\n| 21 | requested in the form of the proposed order attached to the |\n| 22 | motion. |\n| 23 | I'm happy to answer any questions. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
I do not have any |\n| 25 | questions. |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 Does anyone else wish to be heard in connection with the motion for default judgment in this adversary proceeding?\n\n(No verbal response)\n\n4\n\n5 6 THE COURT: Okay. I hear no response from anyone, with regard to the motion for default judgment.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I am going to take it under advisement, but I think I will rule in short order. I would like to look back at some of the allegations in the complaint and the proposed order, which I did look at, but I want to make sure that I've got everything in my head in front of me properly and that I understand the default judgment is to liability only, with regard to certain counts in the complaint, and then also, that the ownership interests in K Legacy and that were held by the debtor's son and the assets of K Legacy, including that apartment -- but I don't know if there are other assets -- were property of the debtor and the debtor's Chapter 11 estate, and that I just need to look at all of those again.\n\n20 21 22 So I will take the matter under advisement, but I do believe that there will be an order entered within the next, you know, 7 to 10 days, at the longest.\n\n23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone have any questions? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. I don't have a\n\n| 1 | question. | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | I would just want to thank the Court for that | | | | | |\n| 3 | because we know that the owner of the building in which the | | | | | |\n| 4 | apartment was located has commenced litigation against K | | | | | |\n| 5 | Legacy for failure to pay maintenance, et cetera, for many | | | | | |\n| 6 | months.
They've obtained a default judgment, so there's a -- | | | | | |\n| 7 | I wouldn't say there's a race to the courthouse, but we | | | | | |\n| 8 | appreciate the fact that Your Honor is going to look at this | | | | | |\n| 9 | on the schedule that we proposed.
We really appreciate that. | | | | | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yeah, I mean, it could be before the | | | | | |\n| 11 | end of the week, but I just don't want to promise anything | | | | | |\n| 12 | that I might not be able to, a deadline that I might not be | | | | | |\n| 13 | able to meet, okay? | | | | | |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you. | | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
Is there anything else | | | | | |\n| 17 | that we should address this afternoon?
I know we have a | | | | | |\n| 18 | hearing next week, as well, on, I believe retention of a real | | | | | |\n| 19 | estate broker.
I think that's the only thing that's coming | | | | | |\n| 20 | up next week. | | | | | |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
Retention of a broker and also, plus | | | | | |\n| 22 | any payments that we've made and will continue to make, with | | | | | |\n| 23 | respect to the maintenance of the Taconic property. | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Is that on the calendar or -- | | | | | |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
It's part -- it's in the same | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 22 of 24\n\n 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 motion. THE COURT: It's part of the motion? MR. DESPINS: Yes, it is. THE COURT: Oh, okay. Okay. Right. Right. Sorry. Sometimes -- MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, I want to say this, because I've been very critical of the Kwok family over time and I hope I will not regret this later, but we took possession of the house and I can imagine this being the equivalent of a foreclosure, and I was expecting the worse, and quite to the contrary, to date, it appears the house was left in immaculate condition, again, time will tell, so I wanted to make sure the Court was aware of this, because I have been very critical of them in the past, but I will say on this aspect, so far, it looks like they were very professional about the transfer of possessions. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, thank you for letting the Court know that. I appreciate that. And I will say that if there are not objections filed to your motion that is scheduled for a hearing next week, we will probably conduct it remotely, as well, in an attempt to keep costs down in this case. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: I don't know if there will be an objection. I understand Attorney Major, representing those\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entities, has been cooperative in connection with the pleadings and the representations made in the court -- made in court by Attorney Major, so I'm happy to hear that. And if we -- you know, we're obviously closed next Monday, as hopefully all of you might have a day off, as well, for the holiday, but we will most likely, Friday afternoon, or Friday, indicate that if there are no objections filed, that the hearing will be remote, okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is there any other business that we should address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Not at this time, Your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Well, thank you, all. As I said, the motion with regard to the mediation procedures is granted. The motion for default judgment in the adversary proceeding, I'm taking under advisement, but will rule in short order. So that is the last matter on today's calendar, so court is adjourned. Thank you, all. COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE CLERK: All rise. Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 1:31 p.m.)\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3486 | Filed 08/29/24 | Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 | Page 24 of 24 | |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|--|\n| | | | | | 24 | |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | | |\n| 2 | I certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | | |\n| 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | | | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | /s/ William J. Garling | | | August 29, 2024 | |\n| 8 | | | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | |\n| 9 | | | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | |\n| 10 | | For Reliable | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n| 21
22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国联邦破产法院\n康涅狄格地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n（合并管理）\n\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n对抗程序\n\n案号 24-05249 (JAM)\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n法庭 123\n\nACA CAPITAL GROUP, LTD.（ACA资本集团有限公司）等，\n\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\n\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n被告。\n\nTuesday, August 27, 2024\n\n1:03 p.m.\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n转录公司：\n\nReliable\n\nThe Nemours Building\n\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\n\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n\n电话：(302)654-8080\n\n电子邮箱：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n程序以电子录音方式记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 1 of 24\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nPatrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）律师\n\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思专业公司）\n\n195 Church Street\n\n13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）律师\n\nShlomo Maza（什洛莫·马扎）律师\n\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, New York 10166\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）律师\n\n2050 M Street, NW\n\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）律师\n\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国受托人办公室）\n\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n\n150 Court Street, Room 302\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）：\n\nAnnecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯）律师\n\nROBINSON & COLE, LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n\n280 Trumbull Street\n\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\n以及\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）律师\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\nTimes Square Tower\n\n7 Times Square\n\nNew York, New York 10036\n\n代表无担保债权人正式委员会：\n\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休）律师\n\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC（普尔曼与科姆利有限责任公司）\n\n850 Main Street\n\n8th Floor\n\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06601\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 2 of 24\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 G Club Operations、Weddle Law PLLC、FFP BVI Limited、Ogier 和 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP：\n\nKellianne Baranowsky（凯莉安娜·巴拉诺夫斯基）律师\n\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉茨有限责任公司）\n\nOne Audubon Street\n\n3rd Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n代表 Urban Legend（都市传奇）：\n\nEilis Meagher（艾莉丝·米格尔）律师\n\nFINN DIXON & HERLING, LLP（芬恩、迪克森与赫林律师事务所）\n\n6 Landmark Square\n\nStamford, Connecticut 06901\n\n索引\n\n动议：页码\n\n关于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等\n\n主案案号 22-050073 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 3396\n\n修改命令的动议：该命令指示各方进行调解，指定尊敬的 James J. Tancredi（詹姆斯·J·坦克雷迪）法官为调解人，并修改批准适用于撤销权请求对抗程序之程序的命令，以促进经协商一致的诉前调解\n\n由 Patrick R. Linsey 代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交\n\n7\n\n法院裁定：\n\n14\n\nLuc A. Despins，第11章受托人，诉 ACA Capital Group, Ltd. 等\n\n对抗案件案号 24-05249 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 3：依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (b)(2) 及 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055，由法院针对 K Legacy Ltd. 和 Qiang Guo（郭强）作出缺席判决的动议。\n\n由 Patrick R. Linsey 代表原告、第11章受托人 Despins, Luc A. 提交\n\n16\n\n法院裁定：\n\n20\n\n转录员证明\n\n24\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 4 of 24\n\n（程序于 1:03 p.m. 开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），以及对抗程序 24-05249，Despins 诉 ACA Capital Group 等。\n\n法院：下午好。请各位为记录而声明出庭身份。我们先从在法庭内的 Claiborn 律师开始。有人能看见 Claiborn 律师吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我是个小个子。\n\n（笑声）\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。好的。那么我们可以从远程参与者中的第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nBASSETT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，来自 Neubert Pepe & Monteith，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 5 of 24\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff，O'Melveny & Myers，代表债权人 PAX。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith，Robinson & Cole，债权人 PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew，Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nMEAGHER 女士：下午好，Eilis Meagher，来自 Finn Dixon & Herling，代表 Urban Legend。\n\n法院：下午好。Meagher 律师，您是在主案中出庭，还是仅在一项对抗程序中出庭？我只是想了解一下。目前我面前没有所有人的姓名。\n\nMEAGHER 女士：仅在一项对抗程序中。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nBARANOWSKY 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kellianne Baranowsky。我代表主案中的若干当事人。在对抗程序中，我严格以观察身份出庭。\n\n法院：好的。下午好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 6 of 24\n\n好的。\n\nDespins 受托人，日程表上有两项事项。主案中的事项是修改批准有关事项调解程序之命令的动议。然后是对抗程序中的事项，那么您希望如何进行？\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，先处理主案中的事项，然后 Linsey 先生将对此进行陈述。基本上，我认为他或许会说明这一点，但 Tancredi 法官已同意该修改；不过，法官阁下仍需审议该项修改，并在您认为适当的情况下予以批准。Linsey 先生，请继续。\n\nLINSEY 先生：是，法官阁下。本动议修改现有调解程序，以建立一项在提起诉讼前自愿调解请求的程序。受托人目前正与相当多尚未被起诉的当事人进行谈判。如法院所知，众多潜在被告已签署时效中止约定。有些潜在被告愿意在完全自愿的基础上进行调解。如受托人所言，受托人已与 Tancredi 法官协商，并了解到 Tancredi 法官愿意在适当情形下进行该等调解。\n\n该命令的效力将是设立一项补充计划，仅适用于经协商一致的诉前调解；其不会改变目前根据现有命令处于调解计划中的当事人所适用的程序。其将适用于受托人尚未起诉的潜在被告，或已被起诉但尚未出庭、因而诉讼尚未实际进行的被告；同样，仅在相对方希望利用该程序的范围内适用。\n\n任何参与该计划的当事人，除其他事项外，均须书面同意受经协商一致的调解程序约束。这包括现有命令中关于调解程序保密性的规定，以及确认 Tancredi 法官作为调解人提供服务时享有司法豁免权的规定。经协商一致的调解计划在逐案适用于 Tancredi 法官时也将是自愿的。是否接受或拒绝任何拟议的经协商一致的诉前调解，将由其自行决定。如此安排是有意为之，以使 Tancredi 法官能够确定其是否认为有关事项适于调解，并避免 Tancredi 法官负担过重。\n\n根据经协商一致的程序，任何参与调解的当事人或 Tancredi 法官均可在任何时间以任何理由终止经协商一致的诉前调解。因此，我们所拥有的是一条供有意参与的当事人自愿选择的途径，只要他们愿意参与，这就确保该计划将富有成效。就该动议尚未提交任何异议。这在一定程度上推定反映出这些程序具有自愿性和灵活性。受托人乐观地认为，经协商一致的诉前调解计划将促成和解，从而避免原本会要求破产财产、相对方和法院投入资源处理的潜在诉讼。就此而言，我乐意回答法院可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法院：我没有任何问题，谢谢。Claiborn 律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我只想提出一项意见。有一段提及，与参与本程序的当事人达成和解的动议可能会密封提交；我只是想起身向当事人和法院表示，美国受托人不反对此程序，但保留对任何可能以密封方式提交、却未达到所要求标准的诉状提出异议的全部权利。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n我记得拟议命令中没有任何关于密封提交的内容，但您说的是动议中的一段吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：命令中有一段。是第2段，小项四，不，抱歉，小项五，第2页底部。\n\n法院：哦，我明白了。好的。我没有看到那一点。那么我看一下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：嗯，其中说的是可以密封提交。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：正确。\n\n法院：其中并没有说将会密封提交。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：是的。我只是不希望日后就我们未对该程序提出异议一事产生任何讨论。我们不反对实际程序，但我们并不因此承认——\n\n法院：您并未放弃主张其不应以密封方式提交的任何权利。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：正确，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：没问题，谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 先生：我还想指出，法官阁下，目前适用于请求调解的现有调解程序中也有类似规定。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 10 of 24\n\n法庭：但是，对于那些已有待决诉因的案件，情况不同，对吗？\n\n林齐律师：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那些正在——受制于——\n\n林齐律师：正确。\n\n法庭：——调解的事项，以及可能有密封提交的书状的事项，实际涉及正在进行的对抗程序。该程序涉及的是受托人尚未提起的事项，对吗？\n\n林齐律师：在很大程度上是这样。该程序也适用于被告已经被起诉但尚未出庭的情形，这是因为我们已接到（听不清）律师的联系，他们希望在无需从诉讼和抗辩角度出庭的情况下尝试协商解决。只要他们书面同意遵守调解程序，受托人愿意这样做。\n\n法庭：所以你的意思是，根据先前的裁定，除非有人代表被告提交出庭通知，否则不会移交调解？\n\n林齐律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n林齐律师：根据先前的裁定——\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3486 提交于 08/29/24 录入于 08/29/24 10:21:31 第 11 页，共 24 页\n\n林齐律师：——关于（听不清）。对于——我表示歉意。\n\n法庭：不，请继续，林齐律师。\n\n林齐律师：不，没关系。我没有其他补充，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望就受托人提出的动议发言吗？该动议请求修订将当事人移交调解的裁定，并修订和批准适用于回避请求对抗程序的程序，以便利当事人合意的诉前调解——你看，当你说“诉前调解”时，这并不只是诉前调解；你刚才已经澄清，有些事项正在待决。只是该程序可以适用于这些事项，但没有被告代表被告提交出庭通知。\n\n林齐律师：这是个很好的观点，法官阁下，我也曾为其中的措辞而苦恼；如果我的表述不够清楚，我表示歉意。我的意思只是，没有人——我们的意思只是，没有人出庭并开始进行抗辩。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法庭：那么，我想我需要做的是，我正在看拟议裁定，它在裁定的第一页写道：\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3486 提交于 08/29/24 录入于 08/29/24 10:21:31 第 12 页，共 24 页\n\n“通过修订和补充调解程序，\n\n以规定进行合意调解”，然后你\n将其界定为对\n请求、财产请求进行“合意诉前调解”，好的。\n但我想唯一的问题是，\n这未必是诉前；这就是唯一的\n区别。有些案件正在待决。当我\n说“案件”时，我应当说“对抗程序”，对吗？\n\n林齐律师：正确。我们可以提交——我们可以调整该措辞，并在法庭需要时提交经修订的裁定。\n\n法庭：我认为你们可能需要这样做。我不希望有人说，等一下，我并不理解。我宁愿措辞更明确一些，即其适用于任何正在待决的对抗程序，在该程序中尚未有人代表被告提交出庭通知，或者适用于任何尚未作为对抗程序提起的请求。你们可以按你们希望的方式修订。但我认为，为使其明确，你们需要这样做。\n\n林齐律师：我们会作出该项澄清，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。既然没有听到其他任何人的意见，是否正确，即没有其他人希望就该动议发言？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法庭：好的。我已审阅该动议。\n\n我了解到，Tancredi 法官（谭克雷迪法官）已通过调解程序就本项修订动议所寻求的救济与受托人进行了协商，因此 Tancredi 法官同意担任调解人，并促成可能的——调解及可能解决下列事项：第一，正在待决的对抗程序，其中被告尚未提交——尚未有人代表被告提交出庭通知；或者，尚未通过对抗程序提出的财产请求。\n\n没有人对该动议提交书面异议。今天参加本次听证的任何人均未反对该动议。该动议和该裁定适用于所有调解事项，并将如同该动议一样在主案中提交。\n\n你们不会在任何对抗程序中提交它们，也不应当这样做；这是一项在主案中请求救济的事项。因此，该裁定将录入主案。\n\n林齐律师，你们将提交经修订的拟议裁定？\n\n林齐律师：是的，如果法庭可以接受，我们将在明天之前提交？\n\n法庭：可以。如果你愿意，可以到本周结束前提交。以你认为合适的为准。\n\n林齐律师：我们将在明天之前提交。\n\n法庭：好的。请给我一点时间。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：因此，关于修订调解程序以便利合意调解的动议，无论是针对尚在待决的诉讼——其中尚未有人代表被告提交出庭通知——还是针对尚未提出的财产诉讼或财产请求，经审阅该动议，基于记录中陈述的理由，并且没有人对该动议提出任何异议，该动议获准，受托人律师将在 August 28th 当日或之前提交经修订的拟议裁定。谢谢。\n\n林齐律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Despins 受托人（德斯平斯受托人），我们现在转入对抗程序中的缺席判决动议，正确吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：正确，法官阁下，Bassett 先生（巴塞特先生）将处理该事项。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。Bassett 律师，你可以就 Adversary 24-05249 中的缺席判决动议继续——\n\n巴塞特先生：是。\n\n法庭：——进行陈述。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3486 提交于 08/29/24 录入于 08/29/24 10:21:31 第 15 页，共 24 页\n\n因此，今天的动议是请求法庭对该对抗程序中的两名被告，即 K Legacy Ltd.（K Legacy有限公司）和债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强），作出缺席判决。简要说明背景，法官阁下，K Legacy 是债务人的另一家空壳公司，在许多方面类似于 HK USA（香港美国公司）；如法庭所知，债务人曾利用 HK USA 持有其游艇的所有权，而 HK USA 名义上由债务人的女儿设立。在本案中，K Legacy 是一家设立于英属维尔京群岛的空壳公司，名义上由债务人的儿子所有，而 K Legacy 则持有一套属于债务人的伦敦豪华公寓的所有权；该公寓于 2016 年以约 33 million pounds 购得。与此前许多起诉状一样，本起诉状请求作出判决，确认 K Legacy 及其资产现在和历来均属于 Chapter 11 财产，包括该伦敦公寓，并进一步命令将该等财产移交给受托人。如法官阁下从我们在本案中提交的此前缺席判决所知，为获得缺席判决，受托人必须同时证明被告已被有效送达传票和起诉状，但其后未能及时答辩；受托人还必须证明，起诉状根据其表面内容，在其中指控视为已获承认的情况下，可信地陈述了足以支持认定受托人有权获得所请求救济的事实，即作出命令认定财产属于 K Legacy 及其资产。\n\n法官阁下，本案中所有这些要件均已满足。第一，如我们在书状中所述，受托人已向两名被告送达。债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo 位于 United Kingdom（英国）。他于 March 21st, 2024 通过邮寄方式被有效送达传票和起诉状。向其送达的传票给予其 60 days 答辩期限，至 May 26th。他未提交答辩。\n\nOn June 10th，法庭对 Qiang Guo 作出缺席。本次送达，法官阁下，符合 Federal Rules（联邦规则）和 Hague Convention（海牙公约）。适用的联邦规则是——抱歉——Rule 4(f)(1)，该规则允许依照 Hague Convention 进行送达；并且，根据 Hague Convention Article 10(a)，在公约缔约国未提出异议的范围内，原告可以通过邮寄方式送达文件。在这里，United Kingdom 未对根据 10(a) 进行的邮寄送达提出异议，因此邮寄送达是适当的。我们在书状中援引了作出相应裁决的案例。\n\n如我所述，K Legacy 是一家设立于 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的实体。其于 February 29th, 2024 通过其在 BVI 的注册代理人被有效送达传票和起诉状。它同样有 60 days 的答辩期限，至 April 29th，但未这样做。On May 17th，法庭对 K Legacy 作出缺席。\n\n我刚才描述的送达方式符合适用规则和 Hague Convention；同样，所援引的规则是 Rule 4(f)(1)，以及 Hague Convention Article 10(c)，该条允许通过送达目的地国的司法人员和官员进行送达，尤其是控制 BVI 的 United Kingdom。该国加入公约时已声明，可以通过事务律师和/或代理人向 BVI 公司送达；因此，对 K Legacy 在 BVI 的注册代理人所进行的送达，符合适用规则和 Hague Convention。\n\n送达既已完成，而被告未提交答辩，唯一剩余的问题是起诉状是否陈述了其所请求救济的有效请求。在这里，我们认为，起诉状中的指控压倒性地证明债务人是 K Legacy 及其资产的真正受益所有人。我们在书状中对此作了说明，但简要概括而言，据受托人所知并如起诉状所述，K Legacy Ltd. 除作为持有该伦敦公寓所有权的空壳公司外，没有任何经营目的。我们主张，债务人为购买该伦敦公寓提供了资金。我们还详细主张，债务人\n\n债务人对该伦敦公寓行使控制权并享有支配权。该公寓是债务人在伦敦的住所。债务人居住在该公寓的主卧室。债务人曾公开称该公寓为其住所。他在一次电视采访中夸耀称，他拥有伦敦最豪华的公寓。债务人持有与该伦敦公寓有关的所有相关文件，包括购房合同。他决定何时以及如何支付该公寓的账单。他可随时自由出入该伦敦公寓，无需任何人的许可；该公寓的安保人员听从债务人的指示，而非其儿子或任何其他人的指示。债务人在证言录取中被问及该伦敦公寓时，援引了第五修正案。\n\n因此，法官阁下，鉴于两名被告均已被有效送达、未作答辩，且起诉状充分载有支持所请求救济的指控，我们谨请求法院按照随该动议附具的拟议命令形式，作出我们所请求的缺席判决。\n\n我乐意回答任何问题。\n\n法院：谢谢。我没有任何问题。\n\n是否还有其他人希望就本对抗程序中的缺席判决动议发表意见？\n\n（无口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。关于缺席判决动议，我没有听到任何人的回应。\n\n我将对此保留裁定，但我认为我会很快作出裁定。我想再审阅一下起诉状中的某些指控以及拟议命令；我确实已经看过，但我想确保我已在头脑中正确掌握所有内容，并且我理解，就起诉状中的某些罪名项而言，该缺席判决仅涉及责任；此外，债务人之子所持有的 K Legacy（K传承公司）的所有权权益，以及 K Legacy 的资产，包括该公寓——但我不知道是否还有其他资产——均为债务人的财产及债务人 Chapter 11（第11章）破产财产，并且我只需再次审阅所有这些事项。\n\n因此，我将对此事项保留裁定，但我确实相信，最迟将在未来 7 至 10 天内作出命令。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：有人有任何问题吗？德斯潘斯先生：没有，法官阁下。我没有问题。\n\n我只是想为此感谢法院，因为我们知道，该公寓所在建筑物的业主已对 K Legacy 提起诉讼，原因是其数月未支付管理费等费用。他们已取得缺席判决，因此——我不会说这是一场争先恐后向法院起诉的竞赛，但我们感谢法官阁下将按照我们所提议的时间安排审阅此事。我们确实非常感谢。\n\n法院：是的，我的意思是，可能会在本周结束前作出，但我只是不想承诺任何我可能无法做到的事情，或无法遵守的期限，好吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。今天下午还有其他我们应当处理的事项吗？我知道下周还有一次听证会，我相信是关于聘任一名房地产经纪人。我想这是下周唯一将要处理的事项。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：聘任一名经纪人，以及我们已经作出并将继续作出的、关于 Taconic（塔科尼克）房产维护的任何付款。\n\n法院：那是在日程表上，还是——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：它是其中的一部分——它在同一份动议中。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3486 Filed 08/29/24 Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31 Page 22 of 24\n\n法院：它是该动议的一部分？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：是的。\n\n法院：哦，好的。好的。对，对。抱歉。有时候——\n\n德斯潘斯先生：还有，法官阁下，我想说这一点，因为长期以来我一直非常批评郭氏家族，而且我希望日后不会为此后悔，但我们已经接管了该房屋，我可以想象这相当于一次止赎程序，我原本预期情况会很糟糕，但恰恰相反，截至目前，该房屋似乎被保持得一尘不染。当然，时间会证明一切，因此我想确保法院知悉此事，因为我过去一直非常批评他们，但就这一方面而言，我要说，截至目前，他们在财物移交方面看起来非常专业。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：嗯，谢谢您告知法院此事。我对此表示感谢。而且我要说，如果没有人对定于下周听证的你方动议提出异议，我们很可能也将远程进行该听证，以尽量降低本案成本。\n\n德斯潘斯先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：我不知道是否会有异议。我了解到，代表那些实体的梅杰律师（Attorney Major）一直配合与诉状有关的工作，以及梅杰律师在法庭上所作的陈述——在法庭上作出的陈述，因此我很高兴听到这一点。而且，如果我们——您知道，我们显然下周一休庭，希望各位也能因节日休息一天，但我们很可能会在周五下午或周五说明，如果未提出异议，该听证将远程进行，好吗？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：今天下午还有其他我们应当处理的事项吗？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：目前没有，法官阁下，谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。那么，谢谢各位。正如我所说，关于调解程序的动议获得准许。本对抗程序中的缺席判决动议，我将保留裁定，但会很快作出裁定。因此，这是今日日程表上的最后一项事项，现休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n书记员：全体起立。现休庭。\n\n（程序于下午 1:31 结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3486　Filed 08/29/24　Entered 08/29/24 10:21:31　Page 24 of 24\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力范围内，上述内容是对上述案件程序电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling　August 29, 2024\nWilliam J. Garling（威廉·J·加林），CET-543\n认证法庭速记员\n代表 Reliable","key_entities":["Despins","Je","CIPA","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5990,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-08-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-08-29","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:25:22"}