{"id":"court_ctb_3589_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3589,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-09-30","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al., .* . (Jointly Administered) . . Debtors. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Tuesday, September 24, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:29 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 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 PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 1 of 63\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 2 of 63\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 Anthem Health Choice Assurance, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., Sedgwick Realty Corp., Direct Persuasion, and Federal Express Corp.: Eric S. Goldstein, Esquire SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103 For Federal Express Corporation: Michael A. Siedband, Esquire FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building 2, 3rd Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38125 For Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc.: Brian T. Peterson, Esquire K&L GATES, LLP 925 Fourth Avenue Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98104 For G Club Operations, LLC and G Club International, LLC: Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For American Express Company, Inc.: Darryl S. Laddin, Esquire ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY, LLP 171 17th Street, NW Suite 2100 Atlanta, Georgia 30363 For ARI Americas, Inc.: Michael T. Conway, Esquire LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP 747 3rd Avenue 16th Floor New York, New York 10017\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 3 of 63\n\n| | | 3 |\n|---|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | |\n| 2 | For 3 Columbus Circle,
Baron Yachts, and | |\n| 3 | ModSquad, Inc.: | Matthew A. Pesce, Esquire
MURTHA CULLINA, LLP |\n| 4 | | 107 Elm Street
11th Floor |\n| 5 | | Stamford, Connecticut 06902 |\n| 6 | For Avoidance Action | |\n| 7 | Defendants: | Anthony J. Proscia, Esquire
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP
40 Exchange Place |\n| 8 | | 20th Floor
New York, New York 10005 |\n| 9 | | |\n\nFor Mark Gunderson: David J. Kozlowski, Esquire MORRISON COHEN, LLP 909 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n19\n\nFor Cirrus Design\n\n20\n\n21\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 For Mei Guo, Hudson Diamond Holding, Hudson Diamond New York, Leading Shine NY, Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC, and Zeisler & Zeisler: Stephen M. Kindseth, Esquire ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 10 Middle Street 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\nCorporation: Richard J. Bernard, Esquire FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas 41st Floor New York, New York 10036\n\n22 23 24 25 For Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure: Jeffrey Hellman, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC 195 Church Street 10th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): For Jamestown Associates and Target Enterprises: Kara Anne Zarchin, Esquire CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD, LLC 6 Landmark Square Stamford, Connecticut 06901 For 270 West 39th Street, LLC: Robert N. Sensale, Esquire BERSHTEIN, VOLPE & MCKEON, P.C. 900 Chapel Street 11th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 For Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder, LLP: Matthew D. Valauri, Esquire WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP 1010 Washington Boulevard Stamford, Connecticut 06901 For Agora Lab, Inc.: Benjamin O. Gilbert, Esquire SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 For Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, P.C.: Rowena A. Moffett, Esquire BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN, LLP 271 Whitney Avenue New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For Greenwich Land, LLC and Hing Chi Ngok: Christopher J. Major, Esquire MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 4 of 63\n\n125 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n7th Floor\n\n21 22 23\n\n20\n\n| age | C | ol | 0
CL |\n|-----|---|----|---------|\n| | | | |\n\n| | | | 5 |\n|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n| 2 | For B&H Foto & | | |\n| 3 | Electronics, Corp.: | Tracy Ellis Williams
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP
300 Atlantic Street | |\n| 4 | | 3rd Floor
Stamford, Connecticut 06901 | |\n| 5 | | -and- | |\n| 6 | | Scott M. Kessler, Esquire | |\n| 7 | | AKERMAN, LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas | |\n| 8
9 | | 37th Floor
New York, New York 10020 | |\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| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3589 | Filed 09/30/24 | Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 | Page 6 of 63 | |\n|---------------|----------|----------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------------|------|\n| | | | | | | 6 |\n| 1 | | | | INDEX | | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | | | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter | | | | | |\n| 4 | No. 3532 | | | Order Granting Request for Status Conference | | 7 |\n| 5 | | | Court's Ruling: | | | -- |\n| 6 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | Transcriptionist's Certificate | | | 63 |\n| 8 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:29 p.m.) THE CLERK: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, are starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, these. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, counsel for the trustee. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Eric Goldstein, on behalf of Anthem Health Choice Assurance, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., Sedgwick Realty Corporation, Federal Express Corporation, and Direct Persuasion, LLC. To my right is Michael Siedband, who is in-house counsel for FedEx Corporation. MR. SIEDBAND: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. PETERSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Brian Peterson of K&L Gates, on behalf of Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz. I represent approximately 21 individual clients. Do you want me to state -- identify them all or - it's identified on the docket. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 7 of 63\n\n 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I think for right now we're fine and then we'll go from there. How's that? MR. SKLARZ: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LADDIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Darryl Laddin of Arnall Golden Gregory on behalf of American Express Company. Mr. Ron Chorches, our Connecticut counsel, couldn't be here today. I appreciate the Court admitting me *pro hac vice*. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Welcome. MR. CONWAY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Conway, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, here today for Ari America's, Inc. I think that's the only one that's going to be involved on this dance card. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. PESCE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Matthew Pesce, Murtha Cullina, on behalf of 3 Columbus Circle, Baron Yachts, and ModSquad, Inc. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. PROSCIA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Anthony Proscia from Kaufman Dolowich, LLP, on behalf of four of the avoidance action Defendants. THE COURT: Good afternoon. May I stop you for a moment? Attorney Sklarz and Attorney that you just noted your appearance, I think what Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 8 of 63\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 9 of 63\n\n| | 9 | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 1 | I'd have you do at the end, not during the hearing, but if | | |\n| 2 | you would reach out to the Clerk's Office appeared just | | |\n| 3 | provide them a list -- | | |\n| 4 | You have a list already? | | |\n| 5 | THE CLERK:
We have a list, Your Honor. | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- of whom -- because, for the record, | | |\n| 7 | and if anybody -- if any party wants a transcript, we have to | | |\n| 8 | list all the people.
So, you don't have to do it right now; | | |\n| 9 | we can do it later.
But anybody that is here that's | | |\n| 10 | representing more than one Defendant that doesn't note that | | |\n| 11 | for the record, I think we should proceed that way so that | | |\n| 12 | the record is accurate. | | |\n| 13 | THE CLERK:
Understood, Your Honor. | | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | |\n| 15 | Go ahead, Counsel.
Sorry. | | |\n| 16 | MR. KOZLOWSKI:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
David | | |\n| 17 | Kozlowski with Morrison Cohen, representing Mark Gunderson, a | | |\n| 18 | Defendant in an adversary proceeding. | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. | | |\n| 20 | MR. KINDSETH:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. | | |\n| 21 | Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler, for Mei Guo, Hudson | | |\n| 22 | Diamond Holding, Hudson Diamond New York, Leading Shine New | | |\n| 23 | York, Gypsy Mei Food Services, and Zeisler & Zeisler. | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. | | |\n| 25 | MR. BERNARD:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Richard | | |\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 Bernard, Faegre Drinker, on behalf of Cirrus Design Corporation. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HELLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Hellman, on behalf of Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. ZARCHIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kara Zarchin from Cummings & Lockwood, on behalf of Jamestown Associates and Target Enterprises. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SENSALE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Robert Sensale for 270 West 39th Street LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. VALAURI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Matthew Valauri with Wilson Elser for Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder, a Defendant in an adversary proceeding. THE CLERK: I'm sorry, I didn't get your last name. MR. VALAURI: Oh, sorry. THE COURT: Could you just spell it for the record. MR. VALAURI: Sure. V, as in Victor, a-l-a-u-r-i. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GILBERT: Good afternoon. Benjamin Gilbert of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, on behalf of Agor Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 10 of 63\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 Lab, Inc. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MOFFETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Rowena Moffett from Brenner Saltzman & Wallman. My client is Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C. THE COURT: Thank you and welcome. MS. MOFFETT: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning or good afternoon. Tracy Williams of Shipman & Goodwin. I'm appearing today for B&H Foto & Electronics. I'm here today with Scott Kessler of Akerman, LLP, who also has a *pro hac vice* application pending. THE COURT: And when was that -- are you Attorney Akerman. MR. KESSLER: Yes. THE COURT: When was that filed? MS. WILLIAMS: It was filed September, I think it was the 19th. THE COURT: That was Friday, right? I'm sorry, we probably haven't gotten to it yet, but we'll try to get to that today or tomorrow, probably, okay. Thank you. But you're welcome to be here, obviously. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. KESSLER: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 11 of 63\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 THE COURT: Thank you. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein, representing Hing Chi Ngok and potentially Greenwich Land, depending on how things shake out. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. We -- has everyone noted their appearance who wishes to do so? Apparently, that is the case. This is a status conference that was set upon request of a joint motion of several parties who are Defendants in mediation, in adversary proceedings that have been referred to mediation. The hearing was, for the status conference, was scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m., but I understand the parties wanted some time to talk. So, is there anything that the parties want to report on? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. If I may approach for two seconds before I turn over the podium to Mr. Goldstein? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: For the record, Your Honor, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. I will turn over the podium to Mr. Goldstein in two minutes, but just to mention that, obviously, we had a Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 12 of 63\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 deadline on February 15th to file all these actions and we did file them. And right away, we understood that they could be, these actions could be a tremendous burden on the Court and we wanted to try to manage that and minimize that, to the extent possible. That's why we proposed a mediation process, which is ongoing.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 However, we don't have, I would say, global, positive results in the mediation. We are presenting, from time to time, settlements for the Court. There are some settlements, but it would be misleading to tell the Court that we have an acceptance by a huge number of Defendants.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 And in that context, the Defendants requested the status conference to explore the issue of briefing on a common basis, coordinated basis, efficient basis, some key issues that they believe are key to the case, to these cases, the adversary proceedings. And I'm happy to report that after, I wouldn't say too much back-and-forth, but after some back-and-forth between the parties, that there's, there appears to be a consensus on how to present this to the Court.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 And, obviously, it's Your Honor's prerogative to agree or not agree with this, but I'm happy to report that there's been a lot of progress made. And on that note, unless you have questions, I will turn over the podium to Mr. Goldstein, who will describe the terms of this proposed\n\n| | 14 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | agreement. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The only question I would have, at |\n| 3 | this point, of you, which I may be more, is whatever this |\n| 4 | consensus is, which I'm happy to hear about, and assuming |\n| 5 | that it's acceptable, is that going to be somehow -- that |\n| 6 | will have to be somehow put together in some form of order, |\n| 7 | because it would be managed the existing mediation |\n| 8 | procedures, I presume? |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | So the idea is that because we came to terms just |\n| 11 | a few minutes ago, the final terms, we hope a proposed |\n| 12 | stipulation will be submitted to the Court tomorrow, but the |\n| 13 | idea is that Mr. Goldstein will describe in a lot of details, |\n| 14 | the terms of that stipulation today. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | Attorney Goldstein? |\n| 18 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | I'm going to use this podium, because trying to |\n| 20 | see my computer from down there is going to be a challenge. |\n| 21 | So, as Your Honor noted, this was brought by |\n| 22 | about 24 Defendants in a number of the adversary proceedings |\n| 23 | that are engaged in the mediation.
One of the challenges |\n| 24 | that we had with it, there were very similar claims pending |\n| 25 | before this Court which were coming up for hearings on |\n\n| 1 | dispositive motion practice, some as soon as October 1.
So, |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the purpose of the request for a status conference was a way |\n| 3 | for us to, in a group way, to put forward a consolidated |\n| 4 | briefing process to allow our clients to be heard, |\n| 5 | contemporaneous with these others, and in an efficient manner |\n| 6 | to have some discrete legal issues decided, which would help |\n| 7 | the cases. |\n| 8 | And so, as I mentioned, there were 24 Defendants |\n| 9 | that signed on to the request for the status conference. |\n| 10 | Since then, there are four other adversary Defendants that |\n| 11 | are going to participate in this process, which includes |\n| 12 | both, American Express, the two Amazon entities, and then |\n| 13 | another Defendant, Flat Rate Movers.
So, we're up to a total |\n| 14 | of 28. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
The last four that you mentioned, and |\n| 16 | I have no idea sitting here, obviously, are those people in |\n| 17 | this courtroom? |\n| 18 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yes. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And they announced their |\n| 20 | appearances? |\n| 21 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yes, with the exception of the |\n| 22 | Flat Rate Movers; they're represented by the law firm, Norris |\n| 23 | McLaughlin.
They happened to call me yesterday and said |\n| 24 | they'd like to participate, but were unable to be here today. |\n| 25 | So I said, I will let the Court know that you |\n| | |\n\n 16 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 would like to participate, but that you could not be here today -- THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDSTEIN: -- and I've done that. So, Your Honor, let me explain what we've discussed with the trustee and the trustee's counsel. We discussed that the joint Defendants, in this procedure, would file one memorandum and it would be addressed to a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings for a handful of them that have already answered. But it will be one brief that will cover, by all of us, which would cover a discrete set of legal issues, which I will go through in a second. In addition, each joint Defendant, to the extent they want to put forward any additional legal argument on those same five discrete legal issues, can have a supplemental brief of up to 7 pages. Frankly, I don't know how many of the joint Defendants would take advantage of that, but it could be that a number of them do. THE COURT: If they're allowed to. MR. GOLDSTEIN: If they're allowed to. All the other bases for any kind of motion to dismiss or motion for a judgment on the pleadings, would be reserved for another day, with the idea, here in discussions with the trustee, was to just get to the common legal issues Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 16 of 63\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that cut across all of these adversary proceedings. And we also discussed with trustee's counsel that the briefing would not involve a number of partially stayed matters, which I think largely relate to entities formed in BVI and I think Puerto Rico. They'll correct me if I have any of that wrong, but -- THE COURT: So the Defendants on Exhibit 3-B? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, I believe that is the right exhibit. THE COURT: That is the right exhibit, I'm almost sure. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. Just those that are partially stayed, those claims will remain stayed and so those will kind of sit to the side. And so, the briefing will have to do with anything other than that. I think what makes the most sense is to, and to help Your Honor kind of consider this, we just talk a little bit about the common legal issues that we talked about amongst ourselves. THE COURT: And I'm happy to hear that. I want to start by saying you're saying there's five; is that correct? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Correct. THE COURT: And this is the position of the joint Defendants, that there are five legal issues? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Correct.\n\n 18 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: And then the trustee is saying, okay, go ahead and brief those five issues -- MR. GOLDSTEIN: Correct. THE COURT: -- and then the trustee is going to respond? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And so, I am not inclined to allow anyone to raise anything, other than these five legal issues, if I even go down this path, because the papers, as submitted, talk about issues that, these are motions to dismiss. The standard on a motion to dismiss is that I have to accept the allegations, as well-pled. I'm not going to be spending a lot of time having people argue about factual issues. If they're not truly legal issues, then I'm not going to entertain them, okay, and I just want to be very clear about that from the start. I understand people have concerns and want those issues to be addressed, but these are adversary proceedings in which people are Defendants and you have rights and processes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So I would like to hear what these five legal issues are and then I'll hear what else the trustee may have to say or someone else may have to say. But the argument that someone else can then submit a supplemental brief on some other discrete issue, I don't Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 18 of 63\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 19 of 63\n\n| 1 | think that's going to work, if this process is going to go |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | forward.
So I just wanted you to know that at this point. |\n| 3 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | And I think -- let me clarify one thing.
The |\n| 5 | supplemental brief is not to raise a new issue.
It would |\n| 6 | only be to -- there may be a different spin that somebody |\n| 7 | wants to put on -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, a different spin would probably |\n| 9 | be factual and that's not a legal issue for the Court to |\n| 10 | decide.
So I'm not going to let someone put a different |\n| 11 | spin. |\n| 12 | If we're all going to do this jointly, it's going |\n| 13 | to be joint, and there'll be five, maybe, issues that the |\n| 14 | Court will entertain.
So I just want to be clear from the |\n| 15 | start, that is not how this is going to work. |\n| 16 | The Court has to worry about -- by the way, and |\n| 17 | everyone who's been here before, and who hasn't been here |\n| 18 | before, knows these issues have been teed up in certain ways |\n| 19 | before today, with regard to hearings on the motion to extend |\n| 20 | time for the statute of limitations and on the motions for |\n| 21 | avoidance procedures.
We've been through hearings on these. |\n| 22 | These are not issues that necessarily could not have been |\n| 23 | raised already by the parties. |\n| 24 | So while you have a consensus on how to proceed, |\n| 25 | and I appreciate that, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm |\n| | |\n\n 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to agree with how you've decided that you all think you can proceed, because the Court has to worry about the management of these actions as a whole. So I'd like to get to the five legal issues that are going to be, that you believe are common legal issues that the Court could decide. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure. So the five legal issues that we talked about, and I'm going to frame this -- we discussed this with the trustee -- this is the Defendants' language. They don't necessarily agree with that any of this is a concession or anything on their part. So with that framing, the first issue would be, can the trustee avoid an initial transfer by a nondebtor entity? THE COURT: That's a legal issue? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. THE COURT: Can the trustee avoid an initial transfer by a nondebtor? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. THE COURT: That's a legal issue? Okay. Can the trustee avoid an initial transfer by a nondebtor, okay. MR. GOLDSTEIN: And the second one is, does applicable law allow for reverse veil-piercing or alter-ego determination? THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. Hold one second on\n\n 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. THE COURT: Does applicable law do what? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Allow for reverse veil-piercing or alter-ego determination? THE COURT: Well, I've already made alter-ego determinations, so how could that possibly be a determination of law? I've already made them in this court, some of which are final and haven't been appealed. So with regard to, does applicable law allow reverse veil-piercing, I've already found that it -- I've already talked about it. And all the law that talks about reverse veil-piercing depends upon the facts that underlie the transaction that might be subject of the reverse veilpiercing. So I understand your point, but, first of all, I don't understand the second part, does applicable law allow alter-ego claims; is that what you were saying? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. That is not an issue that -- I don't understand how that's an issue of law. What state do we know of that doesn't allow veilpiercing claims? And don't we all agree that Delaware law applies? So what's in dispute with regard to that? That, I don't even understand remotely. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 21 of 63\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, I think the issue would be that this would be the instance where creditors have had their first -- where folks who are creditors or transferors of these alter-ego entities have not had an opportunity to discuss what would be the, you know, what's the impact on them. THE COURT: What difference does that make, ultimately? If you get to your point of your responsive pleading, you can argue in your responsive pleading that the Court misapplied the law or whatever you -- but to issue, to have me have briefs submitted and have me rule on whether\n\n12 13 applicable law allows for veil-piercing, that, to me, is a waste of time.\n\n14 15 16 I've already found that in many -- in one of the decisions in the Golden Spring case, it hasn't been appealed. So it's the law of the case that alter-ego law applies.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 And I understand that there's a desire to try to move together in a certain manner, but I'm not going to allow parties to move together in a certain manner on an issue on which there is no dispute. There is no dispute that alterego law applies.\n\n22 23 24 25 Whether or not you agree with that is a different issue; that's not a legal issue. Show me anywhere where any law says where you can find a case that says that alter-ego doesn't apply. You know why it would say that? On the facts\n\n 23 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 of the case, so it's not a legal issue. MR. GOLDSTEIN: The -- okay. Well, if you turn to the next one, which I think is, what is the effect under applicable law of reverse veil-piercing on an alter-ego determination? THE COURT: And isn't that a factual issue? MR. GOLDSTEIN: That, Your Honor, is a legal issue. THE COURT: How is it a legal issue? If you look at all the cases that have acknowledged reverse veilpiercing, by the way, and they're in the Delaware Chancery Court, the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court, the Fourth Circuit, the Connecticut District Court, Judge Meyer found that Delaware would apply reverse veil-piercing law. And what did they do to make that determination? They went through facts and they said, These are the facts that the Court would have to find in order for there to be reverse veil-piercing. That's what the cases cite, and they say, on a motion to dismiss, those claims would stand a motion to dismiss. Now, at the trial, the trustee may not be able to prove all of those things, but to argue that somehow that is a legal issue, what the effect is, the effect is whatever the effect if reverse veil-piercing is found, right? So that's a Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 23 of 63\n\n| 1 | factual issue; it's not a legal issue.
And I'm not going to |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | allow the parties to try to take factual issues and allege |\n| 3 | that they're legal issues, because they're not. |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
May I articulate it a little |\n| 5 | differently and see if I -- the law in different |\n| 6 | jurisdictions, based on my review, is a little different, |\n| 7 | depending on if you make a determination that the corporate |\n| 8 | veil is going to be pierced, right, or if we're going to |\n| 9 | ignore it.
In some jurisdictions, there's a view that it |\n| 10 | just creates vicarious liability. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 12 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
In other jurisdictions, there's, I |\n| 13 | think they call it the \"identity theory,\" where you |\n| 14 | essentially mush everything together, including assets. |\n| 15 | And I think the legal question that we would |\n| 16 | raise, and what I meant by this was, what is the legal effect |\n| 17 | in Delaware, for example? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
The legal effect in Delaware depends |\n| 19 | upon the facts of the case.
And if you look at the most |\n| 20 | recent Delaware Chancery Court case about reverse veil |\n| 21 | piercing from outsider, it endorses only outsider veil |\n| 22 | piercing, and it's when the trustee is -- this is -- the |\n| 23 | trustee is a judgment creditor; he's already gotten judgments |\n| 24 | which are final that are no longer appealable.
He's a |\n| 25 | judgment creditor, so under 544(a), he's a judgment creditor. |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's not insider reverse veil-piercing; it's outsider reverse veil-piercing. And the Delaware Chancery Court has said that they have to look at the facts to make that determination, to determine whether or not that there are, that this -- that the doctrine should be applied to, as a deterrent so that the parties can't shuffle their assets among their controlled entities with the express purpose of avoiding a judgment. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Uh-huh. THE COURT: And every cause of action that the trustee has brought on the avoidance claims, he brings as a judgment creditor. It's not even as a hypothetical judgment creditor; it's as a judgment creditor. So, I don't -- I'm still struggling with, where's the legal issue? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, yeah. And it would be based on the allegations, which would be taken as true, which are generally very consistent between the complaints that are made against all the joint Defendants. If those are taken as true, under the applicable law, most of the -- almost all cases here will be Delaware, would those facts, if true, result in a conglomeration of the assets as into one or vicarious liability under applicable law. THE COURT: Well, doesn't that have to happen once we get to that point; meaning, that the trustee would have to\n\n| | 26 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | prove it? |\n| 2 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
If Your Honor were to say, You |\n| 3 | know what?
If I take all of these allegations as true and, |\n| 4 | okay, and I look at what Delaware law says, well, then, it's |\n| 5 | really just -- it's vicarious liability, as opposed to the |\n| 6 | identity theory.
And then, in that instance, well, then that |\n| 7 | could be dispositive of the, for example, a 549 claim, |\n| 8 | because, then, it couldn't possibly be property of the estate |\n| 9 | that was transferred. |\n| 10 | So that's -- I mean, maybe I'm doing a poor job of |\n| 11 | articulating, but that was the legal -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I don't think you're doing a poor job, |\n| 13 | I just don't know that I agree. |\n| 14 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Okay. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I mean, I think what -- if we |\n| 16 | go back to what was number two -- |\n| 17 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yeah. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
-- I think you said, so please correct |\n| 19 | me if I'm wrong, that the second legal issue is, does |\n| 20 | applicable law allow reverse veil-piercing?
And I've just |\n| 21 | cited to you a bunch of cases, a number of cases, including a |\n| 22 | Delaware Chancery Court case from 2021, which does, and then |\n| 23 | the second part of yours was, whether applicable law allows |\n| 24 | for alter-ego claims. |\n| 25 | And I've already found in this case that the |\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 trustee has succeeded on an alter-ego claim, at least with regard to the Golden Spring entity, and that is a final, nonappealable order at this point. Nobody appealed that. So I'm struggling with understanding what it is that you would expect the Court to rule on when I've already ruled. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, one, I think our position would be -- and you're not going to be surprised at - because we -- these Defendants were not parties to any of those cases that that's now law of the case. You may ultimately get to the same place anyway, but, again -- THE COURT: Most of the time in bankruptcy cases when rulings are made, the Defendants in avoidance actions were never parties to those cases. I'd like to see a time when it was. This is an avoidance action under the trustee's powers that Congress provided -- not the Court -- Congress provided. This is not an unusual circumstance and I guess I'm struggling with trying to understand why parties think it is. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I would say an avoidance claim being brought against the recipient of a transfer of a nondebtor that happens -- THE COURT: Well, the nondebtor has been found to be the alter-ego. So it's not a nondebtor; it's a debtor.\n\n| 1 | If it's the alter -- what would happen under Connecticut law |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | if you sued a corporation and then you had -- you pierced the |\n| 3 | corporate veil to get to its individual owners.
If the |\n| 4 | individual owner made the transfer, you, as the lawyer for |\n| 5 | that corporation, you would go after that individual and |\n| 6 | you'd say, Give me back that money.
You made that transfer. |\n| 7 | You just used the corporate structure as a shield to defraud |\n| 8 | everyone and avoid and be judgment-proof. |\n| 9 | That's what you would say, right; wouldn't you |\n| 10 | argue that? |\n| 11 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
It would depend, you know, if the |\n| 12 | transfer was made before or after.
It would depend if the |\n| 13 | transfer was made -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
It would depend, wouldn't it?
That's |\n| 15 | a fact.
Isn't it a fact? |\n| 16 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Well, again, if you take all the |\n| 17 | facts as true in the complaint and then make a determination |\n| 18 | whether or not the law allows for what's being proposed, |\n| 19 | right.
That's the point of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a |\n| 20 | motion for judgment on the pleadings. |\n| 21 | And an additional legal issue, which you may or |\n| 22 | may not agree with, is the ability to do so nunc pro tunc, |\n| 23 | which is another major issue. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I don't understand that argument at |\n| 25 | all. |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Well -- |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
If you breached a contract on |\n| 3 | January 1st, 2015, and Trustee Despins sued you on |\n| 4 | January 1st, 2016, and the Court, on January 1st, found, |\n| 5 | 2017, that you breached the contract in 2015, that's not nunc |\n| 6 | pro tunc; that's the Court found that that happened. |\n| 7 | And what I've found in these cases is that the |\n| 8 | debtor, that the entity is the alter-ego of the debtor. |\n| 9 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Okay.
Well, that is nunc -- |\n| 10 | here's the hypothetical.
If I'm a trade creditor of Acme |\n| 11 | Corporation, right, which is unrelated to a debtor, I'm a |\n| 12 | trade creditor, I'm just doing business with Acme |\n| 13 | Corporation.
I have no clue Acme Corporation may have some |\n| 14 | interrelationship or have some involvement with the debtor |\n| 15 | and I'm doing business with them.
I'm providing my goods and |\n| 16 | services and they're paying me for it. |\n| 17 | Now, all of a sudden, two years go by and you're |\n| 18 | getting sued because Acme Corporation wasn't Acme |\n| 19 | Corporation.
Acme Corporation was Mr. Kwok, right? |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 21 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
That's a different set of facts. |\n| 22 | If, for example, Acme Corporation -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
It may not be if a Court has found |\n| 24 | that Acme Corporation and Mr. Kwok were one in the same. |\n| 25 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
But that -- |\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
It happens all the time.
This is |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | not -- to say it's nunc pro tunc, every creditor, no matter |\n| 3 | whether there's -- every creditor takes a risk at some point |\n| 4 | that they might be sued on a preference or fraudulent |\n| 5 | conveyance claim.
Every creditor's lawyer knows that.
Every |\n| 6 | creditor's lawyer counsels their clients about that. |\n| 7 | This isn't -- the stretch of saying that it's nunc |\n| 8 | pro tunc because the Court found during a proceeding |\n| 9 | involving the debtor, individual debtor, that its corporate |\n| 10 | entities are the same as the debtor, show me a case on that |\n| 11 | because I don't -- I just don't see it at all.
And I think |\n| 12 | it's a stretch and I think it could be not a good use of |\n| 13 | Court time. |\n| 14 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
The difference is, is that we're |\n| 15 | years later, disregarding the corporate form of an entity, |\n| 16 | unbeknownst to third parties who had no notice -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
But that always happens. |\n| 18 | Even if Mr. Kwok was the one who gave you the |\n| 19 | money, you had no idea when he gave you the money that he was |\n| 20 | going to be found guilty of whatever, you have no idea, so |\n| 21 | how is it any different? |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
And not only the corporate forms |\n| 23 | being disregarded, but they would now be under the auspices |\n| 24 | of Title 11 as a debtor.
So if I -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, that's the only way these |\n| | |\n\n1 actions are brought.\n\n| 2 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
In a trade creditor knew those |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | things, they could come to -- they could make a determination |\n| 4 | and say, Is this a 363 ordinary course transaction?
If they |\n| 5 | had concerns, they go to the bankruptcy judge and get a |\n| 6 | comfort order or the judge says, No, this isn't ordinary |\n| 7 | course.
And then the trade creditor has the opportunity to |\n| 8 | stop doing business with them and not expose them. |\n| 9 | This is changing the set of facts that existed |\n| 10 | when they were dealing with the corporation to what's now |\n| 11 | happening two years later.
That is changing the facts of the |\n| 12 | world. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Yeah, and that's what happens every |\n| 14 | time someone gets sued for a preference or a fraudulent |\n| 15 | transfer, because it changes the course of fact.
No creditor |\n| 16 | ever thought that they were going to be sued for a preference |\n| 17 | or a fraudulent transfer. |\n| 18 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Which is why Congress has |\n| 19 | defenses, like the ordinary course defense, the subsequent |\n| 20 | new value defense, the contemporaneous exchange for value. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
And you can still raise all these |\n| 22 | defenses. |\n| 23 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Not in a 549 case.
That's a |\n| 24 | different animal.
In a 547 and a 540 -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, that's because it's a post |\n| | |\n\n 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 petition transaction. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Exactly. THE COURT: Right. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Exactly. That's my -- THE COURT: But when you say that, though -- MR. GOLDSTEIN: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- under the facts of this case when you say that, if any creditor was paying attention to what was going on, who -- it's, again, no matter whether it's a post-petition or a prepetition, it's still a risk that every creditor takes. At any time a creditor deals with any entity, it takes a risk, whether there's a bankruptcy proceeding or not. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure. I think there's, I think, to me, I'm getting a little far afield because my clients are mostly 549 Defendants, but -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDSTEIN: -- 547 has -- Congress has defenses for people who deal with it and somebody who may wind up in the next 90 days to become a debtor. 548 has defenses that help creditors deal with somebody who may become a debtor in the next two years in state law, for four years, good faith and value defenses. THE COURT: And all of the cases involving, I think, all these clients, but I could be wrong, so you can Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 32 of 63\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 correct me, but I think every single one of these was filed before the statute of limitations, so there's no issue that there isn't a statute -- that there's a problem with the statute of limitations. These are all avoidance actions. MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, and I didn't raise anything with regard to statute of limitations. I was just explaining that there are defenses for 548 claims, 547 claims that kind of protect the ordinary course of business relationship of vendors and folks who may wind up being debtors in the next few days, months, or years. 549 is a different animal, right; 549 is, hey, you're in bankruptcy and because you're in bankruptcy, you can do things in the ordinary course of business or you have to have a judge approve everything you do in the ordinary course of business. That's a completely different world than when you're dealing with Acme Corporation, who you are providing a service to or selling goods to. It's just different. And our view is that saying that they're alter-ego years later or it's essentially substantive consolidation, right, I mean, you're taking their assets and their liabilities and smooshing it together with the debtor years later. So I know Your Honor may not agree, but, I mean, that's our viewpoint, I think, for most of the joint\n\n25 Defendants.\n\n 34 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: On *nunc pro tunc*? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, on *nunc pro tunc*. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDSTEIN: And then the last issue is one that doesn't apply to my clients. It's not something that we would be raising, because it's inapplicable. THE COURT: I'm up to four. Are you up to five? MR. GOLDSTEIN: I'm up to -- the *nunc pro tunc* was number four. THE COURT: All right. So, then, you -- did you break number two, veil-piercing and alter-ego into two different or was it one? That's the way -- I may have misheard you, so... MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, let me just recap, because we've had a long colloquy. So, we (indiscernible) where we are. So, one was, can the trustee avoid an initial transfer by a nondebtor entity? Two was, does applicable law allow for reverse veil-piercing or alter-ego? Three was, what's the effect of -- THE COURT: Oh, you're right. I forgot to put that down. MR. GOLDSTEIN: -- of applicable law? And then four is can you do it *nunc pro tunc* or retroactively? THE COURT: So let's just do three again. What is Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 34 of 63\n\n 35 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 effect of if there is a finding of reverse veil-piercing? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, exactly, Your Honor. Exactly. Exactly. Is it vicarious liability or is it that identity or unit theory -- I forget what it's called -- where you mush the assets together. Then the last issue, which, a caveat is not one that applies to my clients, but there are certain Defendants who have not signed a protective order and so they don't know the dates or specifics about the transfers and they want to allege -- THE COURT: Well, I think that was all dealt with in the mediation procedures order, wasn't it? MR. GOLDSTEIN: I take no position on it issue. THE COURT: I understand, but that's my recollection. MR. GOLDSTEIN: I take no position on the issue. I'm merely the messenger on that one. So, Your Honor, those were the five common issues that we discussed with the trustee and the idea would be, to the extent it's acceptable to the Court, would be one common brief, which we'd have a common brief of 50 pages for the 28 or so of us. Oh, I'm sorry. One other thing. We think that there may be a few more similarly situated Defendants who would maybe want to participate jointly in this one brief and Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 35 of 63\n\n| 1 | so we would, if this process was amenable to the Court, we |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | would, in the order, say you've got seven days to file |\n| 3 | something to say, I want to participating in this.
And then, |\n| 4 | if so, they would be part of this common brief. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And you're going to serve that order |\n| 6 | if that happens, you, or someone on behalf of the joint |\n| 7 | Defendants, because that's what would have to happen? |\n| 8 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yeah. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Because everyone's been on notice of |\n| 10 | all of these things, by the way -- |\n| 11 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
We -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
-- for some time.
And I'm not going |\n| 13 | to start protecting people that don't protect themselves. |\n| 14 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
A hundred percent. |\n| 15 | Yeah, the Defendants can -- we can -- you know, |\n| 16 | most of the people should be seeing this stuff anyway, but we |\n| 17 | can certainly email it around to anybody who's represented a |\n| 18 | Defendant in these cases.
But I do certainly know for some |\n| 19 | folks who have come out since we filed the request for status |\n| 20 | conference that they did want to participate.
For example, |\n| 21 | American Express is here today.
Amazon is here today and |\n| 22 | Flat Rate Movers.
I suspect there might be one or two more. |\n| 23 | So what we would do -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Fifty pages seems like a lot for those |\n| 25 | issues, especially the last one. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3589
Filed 09/30/24
Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09
Page 37 of 63 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 37 |\n| 1 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
The -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Defendants who have not signed a |\n| 3 | confidentiality order?
I mean, that's what the Federal Rules |\n| 4 | of Civil Procedure are about, right?
The lawyers are |\n| | |\n| 5 | supposed to work that out and it shouldn't be the Court's |\n| 6 | issue. |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
The -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So I think 50 pages is a lot on those |\n| 9 | issues. |\n| 10 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yeah, the thinking for the |\n| 11 | additional, more than your typical pages, is just because we |\n| 12 | are dealing with a good number of Defendants.
I didn't know |\n| 13 | if we would have to go beyond Delaware law, but where maybe |\n| 14 | one other jurisdiction's law that we would have to touch on. |\n| 15 | Yeah, I think maybe one other jurisdiction's law. |\n| 16 | And we probably don't maybe need all the 50 pages, |\n| 17 | but it was rather than come and bother you, again, for more |\n| 18 | pages if we needed to, just ask for more.
Certainly, if you |\n| 19 | want to trim us back, so be it. |\n| 20 | And, essentially, what we would have is a |\n| 21 | mirroring page limit for the trustee.
So, you know, if we |\n| 22 | have 50 pages for the common brief, 7 pages, (indiscernible) |\n| 23 | was going to do the supplemental, which we talked about |\n| 24 | before, which Your Honor may not authorize, and then the |\n| 25 | trustee would have 50 pages, plus 7 pages for any |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supplemental, like, if it even got submitted. So we would just mirror each other. And then on the, the reply would be for the joint Defendants would be 25 pages and then 5 pages for any supplemental, but Your Honor may not authorize that. And then the mechanics that we talked about, we didn't -- what we could do is just file the relevant motion in each of our individual adversaries and then file the common brief in each of the individual adversaries so we could have it. THE COURT: Well, I don't think that if we do that, that that makes sense either. This is, you'd be amending an order entered in the main case, with regard to mediation procedures. So, we have, you know, 3500 docket entries in the main case and then we have 270 adversary proceedings with (indiscernible). So, no, I mean, the point is to, if we're doing this, is it make it easier and more streamlined. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. The other option, you caught me on, was first off, what we would do if Your Honor accepts, this would be -- we would put together an order that would just go on the main case docket. Done. The other option, a way we could do this is, we could just file, just put it on the main case docket, you know, the common brief. We just didn't know how best, you know, the Court wanted to track this. If the Court didn't\n\n 39 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 want this filing in 28 different adversaries, we could put it in the main case. Another idea we had was some of the lawyers on the joint defense group had an experience where a miscellaneous docket just gets created just to put -- THE COURT: We don't need a create a miscellaneous docket. It can be an amended order with another exhibit attached to it, that all these parties are joint Defendants and these are the adversary proceeding numbers to which they apply. MR. GOLDSTEIN: And then the motion to dismiss, the motion for judgment of pleadings, where would Your Honor want that filed? THE COURT: Well, what -- you're going to file a joint motion, right? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Some folks would do a motion for judgment on the pleadings, again, if they filed an answer. Most of them will do motions to dismiss, yes. THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to do 28 motions to dismiss. If we're going to do that, then there's no point in this. MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, no, no. We would have a brief, like, we would have a two-page motion and then a memorandum of law, which would be the common brief. We just -- I didn't know how Your Honor wanted to track that. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 39 of 63\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 We could do it through, like, or we could just submit the common brief and just refer to the Court's order. We could slice that a bunch of different ways. THE COURT: Yeah, I don't know, sitting here, yet, but I would most likely just have one motion filed in the main case that applies to all the Defendants who are asking for this relief and that's how it would be handled. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Perfect. THE COURT: Because, otherwise, there'd be 28 motions, which, if we're going down that path, then that doesn't make any sense. MR. GOLDSTEIN: The idea here is simplicity. Wherever we can make simplicity, that's a good thing. So that's -- we can make that work. And then the last part of our discussion with the trustee was just to, again, in the sense of consolidating and simplicity was to have just one, like, oral argument on these common issues, along with the oral arguments on the -- there are a couple of cases that are pending where these similar issues are already afoot, we could have those all kind of heard together, just in one fell swoop on one particular day and then just be done with them. And so those cases, those motions to dismiss that are pending, would just be held until one oral argument would be held across all of them, along with this joint defense\n\n 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 group. THE COURT: All right. MR. GOLDSTEIN: And I think that's it for me. I'd invite others -- THE COURT: Assume I agree with you, when are you going to file your common brief that's going to be 50 pages or less? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Oh, I'm sorry, if I missed that. I'm sorry if I missed that. We agreed to within 42 days. So, we would have -- THE COURT: Well, it's not going to be 42 days. I'm not going to do that, okay. These cases are proceeding forward. We're not -- you don't get 42 days to do a motion to dismiss, so you're not getting 42 days to do a brief on common issues that you've been talking about for some time. That's not going to happen, so I just want to be very clear about that. It's not going to be 42 days. So, if I agree to do this, it's much more likely going to be 21 days, like the normal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And then we can -- but anyway, go ahead -- MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, no, that's fine. THE COURT: -- you asked for 42 days. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Let me just describe the process. The order would enter. Folks would have another seven days to say, Hey, we want to participate or not, and then the Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 41 of 63\n\n 42 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 brief would be 42. If Your Honor wants it in 21, we'll do it in 21. THE COURT: The other parties, whether they want to participate or not, it shouldn't impact the time for a brief. MR. GOLDSTEIN: That's fine. And then we had agreed with the trustee that, you know, they could file it within 42, but -- THE COURT: That won't happen here. MR. GOLDSTEIN: -- whatever Your Honor wants to do there. And then with regard to the reply, we had 21 days for our reply, but if Your Honor wants to shorten that up to 14 -- THE COURT: I think if we go down this path, it will -- all of this -- if we go with the time frame that you've suggested, we're going into January. MR. GOLDSTEIN: That's correct. THE COURT: And that's not going to happen. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. THE COURT: This case has been pending since February of 2022. We're not -- that's not happening. MR. GOLDSTEIN: All right. So I think, then, now, let me just check, but I think we've covered everything in my notes, so I will yield at this point, unless Your Honor had questions for me. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 42 of 63\n\n 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: If we go down this process, which I have to consider, by the way. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Uh-huh. THE COURT: Obviously, I had no idea what you were going to say, so I have to think about it. When you say you have one oral argument in one fell swoop, I'm not allowing 28 lawyers to make an argument that's going to be the same argument. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Correct. THE COURT: That's not going to happen either; if we go down that path, I'm being very clear about this. And I don't even know if I would allow oral argument. It's legal issues. Would could oral argument add? What could be added by oral argument on a legal issue? It either is or it isn't. So I'm not sure about that either. What I do need to know, Trustee Despins, is I know you've said there's a consensus on how this is subject to the Court approval, but what happens to the hearings that are coming up on October 1st and October 8th, and I think there's another one after that, too, on the pending motions to dismiss in adversary proceedings that are not in mediation and are excluded from mediation? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. I was going to come up here to raise that. The goal of this, I know, initially, you don't see Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 43 of 63\n\n| 1 | this as progress, but from my perspective, any Defendant can |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | file any brief and argue any theory in the world they want. |\n| 3 | If we can consolidate them in one brief, that's progress. |\n| 4 | All the arguments you made, Your Honor, we've made |\n| 5 | them, so at the end of the day, they're entitled to file a |\n| 6 | brief.
If we can consolidate them, that's good, because it |\n| 7 | saves you time, it saves us time, and it's more efficient. |\n| 8 | Now, on your issue, the idea is that nobody is |\n| 9 | going to go forward on these global issues, on motions to |\n| 10 | dismiss based on the points that Mr. Goldstein raised.
The |\n| 11 | order we would submit to you would provide that all -- |\n| 12 | everyone is now at the same pace, meaning that if you've |\n| 13 | already filed a brief, there's no oral argument on |\n| 14 | October 1st.
It will be at the time that the global oral |\n| 15 | argument is -- takes place.
And if you have -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
If there is a global oral argument. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
If there is one, yes. |\n| 18 | So the idea would be everyone gets stayed to match |\n| 19 | this new schedule.
I'm happy to answer any other questions |\n| 20 | you may have, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I don't know that I have any |\n| 22 | questions. |\n| 23 | We had a process in place.
It was amended. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
It's not seeking to be further |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 amended, where parties who are in mediation are now centrally staying matters that aren't in mediation and then these issues that you want to raise, if they're truly legal issues, then I don't see that there's a need for oral argument. What would the -- there's no need for it and that would not be a good use of the Court's time, as well.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 As you know, and I've stated already, we're up to almost 4,000 docket entries in this case. The Court has an obligation to manage the docket appropriately of this case and all the other adversary proceedings. This isn't going to be here 10 years from now. It needs to be appropriately managed, and so I need to reflect upon what you've both said and determine what, if anything, I'll allow.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. DESPINS: I guess the way to look at this, Your Honor, is let's look at the alternative. First of all, the people who have oral argument scheduled for October 1st, they're Defendants. I don't think they're -- I actually can't speak for them -- but they're not anxious to get to a finish line where they might lose, so I think they will take any additional time they may get.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 But in terms of the issue we have here about this briefing, as I said, I think that every Defendant is allowed to file a brief on whatever legal theory they want to advance, including that the earth is flat or something like that, because I can't stop that. So we're always better off\n\n 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to consolidate, if we can. That's the thinking, Your Honor. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: Sorry. Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Goldstein, is there anything else you would like to add? MR. GOLDSTEIN: No, Your Honor. The only other thing I was thinking about when I sat down was whether or not if it's helpful to you, we have a little write-up that we had done between us, if that was helpful while you were thinking about this, if it was helpful for us to -- we could submit it to the Court. THE COURT: Well, we're not going to do anything yet. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Right. I was thinking until Your Honor has made the threshold determination of whether we're going to go down this road, then we would -- if Your Honor said, Yes, we're going to go down the road, of course, we would prepare a proposed order. I was thinking more of an interim step. To the extent you wanted to see the Word document that we have been going back and forth on, if that would be helpful to you as you reflect on this, I'm happy to provide Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 46 of 63\n\n 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. That was all. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BERNARD: Your Honor? THE COURT: I'm not going to hear from 28 lawyers. I just want you to know that, okay. So... -- MR. BERNARD: If I could just get one minute, Your Honor? THE COURT: Well, then, you need to -- you'll have one minute and I will time you. MR. BERNARD: Thank you, Your Honor. Richard Bernard of Faegre Drinker on behalf of Cirrus. Your Honor, the mediation, which is indefinite interim for a lot of the Defendants is really at an impasse. The bid and ask are too far apart. THE COURT: I don't need to hear about the mediation. That's not appropriate for me to hear. That's why it's in mediation, Counsel. MR. BERNARD: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Then you shouldn't be telling me anything about it. MR. BERNARD: The point of the motion is to try and get the -- the point of this request is to have legal issues teed up to Your Honor to create gray area that, potentially, the parties could find some way to settle. THE COURT: I don't understand what you just said. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 47 of 63\n\n 48 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 You said to create gray area? MR. BERNARD: The trustee and the Defendants are way over here. THE COURT: If it's legal issues, then, what's the gray area? MR. BERNARD: Because, Your Honor, they are legal issues. If they determine one way or the other, it determines a shift in negotiating leverage and, therefore -- THE COURT: I understand that, Counsel. MR. BERNARD: -- can overlap -- THE COURT: I understand that, Counsel. MR. BERNARD: -- to get us to -- THE COURT: But I want -- if they're really legal issues, they should be legal issues, okay. To have me decide whether or not alter-ego law applies, you think that's a legal issue? MR. BERNARD: Your Honor, the way -- yes, it will be framed up as a legal issue. THE COURT: How could it be framed as a legal issue? MR. BERNARD: Your Honor, that's a very broad characterization of the details of that particular element. THE COURT: Okay. Your minute is up. MR. BERNARD: So, I know my minute is up and I didn't want to get into that. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 48 of 63\n\n 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Yes, thank you. You've got a minute, Attorney Sklarz. MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, I'm not with them. My point -- THE COURT: Then why are you here? (Laughter) MR. SKLARZ: To state on the record that I'm not with them. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: Because my client -- THE COURT: Because you're on Exhibit 4? MR. SKLARZ: Well, I have clients in -- all over the place. As I indicated, I represent a number of clients, and if I can approach the clerk, I can hand up my list. THE COURT: Yeah, you can do that later. I'm just trying to understand. MR. SKLARZ: No, no, no. And I'm not trying to be -- THE COURT: Go ahead. No, go ahead. MR. SKLARZ: -- glib. My clients, some of whom are in the various mediation buckets, many of which are law firms that were retained prepetition, post-petition, various individuals. I represent a very broad spectrum of individuals and entities. They span from New York law to Delaware law, Puerto Rico law, Connecticut law, English law, Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 49 of 63\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all different scopes. We do not want to be part of any group briefing. My office, as Your Honor knows, has been filing a lot of papers, including motions to dismiss in every case we're retained in that hasn't been stayed. And even some of those that have been stayed, we filed motions to dismiss. My clients wish to pursue their individual rights. Now, do we have an objection to an adjournment of a hearing on October 1st or October 8th to November, December, January? No. These are big -- THE COURT: But you're not involved in those hearings. MR. SKLARZ: Yeah, I am. THE COURT: On next week's hearing? MR. SKLARZ: Next week's, I'm up first. THE COURT: Oh, okay. You're up first. MR. SKLARZ: For better or worse. THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. I didn't recall that you were up first; I thought you were the following week. Sorry. MR. SKLARZ: I might be the following week, as well -- THE COURT: As well, yeah. MR. SKLARZ: -- but we're taking it one day at a\n\n| | 51 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | time here. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 3 | MR. SKLARZ:
One of the things I did want to |\n| 4 | express, having just gotten back from the NCBJ conferences, |\n| 5 | these are big, important issues in a big, important, national |\n| 6 | and international case.
We've -- the folks at my firm, the |\n| 7 | folks another the trustee's firm, everyone here, the Court's |\n| 8 | staff, Your Honor, everyone is thinking very long and hard |\n| 9 | about everything that we're doing. |\n| 10 | And so whether we have an argument next week, the |\n| 11 | week after, or two months from now, whatever time we all |\n| 12 | spend preparing to make the -- to write the briefs, to make |\n| 13 | the argument, makes all of the jurisprudence that follows |\n| 14 | this case better.
So, yes, I agree with the trustee, which |\n| 15 | is maybe the first time in this case I've agreed with the |\n| 16 | trustee, so I'm agreeing with the trustee that the argument |\n| 17 | doesn't need to go forward next week.
But I also agree with |\n| 18 | Your Honor, it shouldn't go to March 2027. |\n| 19 | My clients are anxious to resolve these issues. |\n| 20 | We believe strongly in the arguments we've made and we want |\n| 21 | to pursue them, but we also feel strongly that we have due |\n| 22 | process rights to proceed individually in the cases as |\n| 23 | they've been brought and wish to preserve that right, our |\n| 24 | individual briefing rights, and our individual argument |\n| 25 | rights, should Your Honor grant argument.
And I just wanted |\n| | |\n\n 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to make that clear for the record. THE COURT: So let me just ask you about what you just said. What due process rights do your clients have that haven't been met? MR. SKLARZ: We have briefed that extensively, Your Honor. THE COURT: Right. But you've briefed it and you're going to be heard. MR. SKLARZ: Correct. THE COURT: Right. So what due process rights do you have that haven't been met? MR. SKLARZ: As of today, none. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: If we're not permitted to submit briefs or get lumped in -- THE COURT: So you're thinking that because of whatever happens in this -- if this process is allowed, at some point, it's somehow going to negative impact you? MR. SKLARZ: As long as we are not pushed into this process -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to -- why would I push you into that process? MR. SKLARZ: I just want to -- THE COURT: You're already, at least part of your clients are already exempt from mediation -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 52 of 63\n\n 53 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. SKLARZ: Right. THE COURT: -- so you're not pushed into any process. And I don't recall, sitting here, but maybe you represent people who have already asked to be excluded from the mediation process, too. I can't recall. MR. SKLARZ: We haven't. THE COURT: There are so many Defendants that it's difficult. But I just want to understand what your point is. Is your point, you don't want to be part of this joint Defendants? I didn't think you did, so I don't think there's any confusion on that part. MR. SKLARZ: Excellent. I have nothing further to say on that point. THE COURT: Okay. So is that the point that you wanted to make? MR. SKLARZ: That is the point that I wanted to make. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. SKLARZ: And then, just the ancillary point is, what I do agree with is, the argument doesn't have to happen tomorrow. If Your Honor wants to hold one argument at some point, fine. If Your Honor wants to hold multiple arguments, fine. However the Court wants to do it -- THE COURT: Or maybe not any. Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 53 of 63\n\n 54 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. SKLARZ: We think -- THE COURT: You've got papers. You've espoused your position through papers, correct? MR. SKLARZ: Correct. I think -- THE COURT: There's no rule requiring oral argument. I'm not saying it's not going to get granted -- MR. SKLARZ: There is no rule -- THE COURT: -- I'm just saying, there is no rule that says you have to -- there's no -- your due process rights aren't violated if you don't have -- MR. SKLARZ: Of course. THE COURT: -- an oral argument on a motion that you've fully briefed. MR. SKLARZ: Of course not, Your Honor; I'm not suggesting that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: I think given the enormity of the issues, the concepts that have been argued both, by the trustee and by various Defendants and the trajectory of this case, that argument would be helpful to the Court, but if it isn't, Your Honor won't want it. But however -- whatever happens, whether there's argument on everything, argument on nothing, we're just reserving our rights. And all I'm saying is should Your Honor wish to have oral argument, it doesn't need to happen Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 54 of 63\n\n| 1 | on October 1st.
It could happen on December 1st.
It could | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | happen on January 1st.
It should happen sooner, rather than | | | | | | |\n| 3 | later, but given -- again, I know I sound philosophical | | | | | | |\n| 4 | here -- but given this case and all of the concepts raised, | | | | | | |\n| 5 | measuring twice or three times for all of us, the lawyers, in | | | | | | |\n| 6 | particular, and then proceeding, I think, there is value in | | | | | | |\n| 7 | that. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | MR. SKLARZ:
And I'll hand up the list.
Thank | | | | | | |\n| 10 | you, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yes, thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Counsel, I gave Attorney Sklarz more than a | | | | | | |\n| 13 | minute, which I suppose wasn't fair to prior counsel, so go | | | | | | |\n| 14 | right ahead. | | | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. LADDIN:
Your Honor, I will be less than a | | | | | | |\n| 16 | minute.
Darryl Laddin, again, on behalf of the American | | | | | | |\n| 17 | Express. | | | | | | |\n| 18 | I just wanted to be clear for the record, if | | | | | | |\n| 19 | American Express was not a party to the request that was | | | | | | |\n| 20 | filed by the joint defense group, we have not decided yet | | | | | | |\n| 21 | whether American Express will join the briefing with that | | | | | | |\n| 22 | group or not.
We will make that determination within | | | | | | |\n| 23 | whatever time is required by the Court.
I simply wanted to | | | | | | |\n| 24 | state that for the record. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3589
Filed 09/30/24
Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09
Page 56 of 63 | |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | 56 | |\n| 1 | MR. LADDIN:
Thank you. | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
So, Attorney Goldstein, you said that | |\n| 3 | you and Trustee Despins and his counsel were working on a | |\n| 4 | Word document. | |\n| 5 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yes, Your Honor. | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Do you have that with you? | |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
I have an electronic, yeah. | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, why don't you email that | |\n| 9 | to the courtroom deputy email box, if you would, please. | |\n| 10 | Do you have that email address? | |\n| 11 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
I'll look it up. | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And then, you know, I'll have | |\n| 13 | to review it.
So the issue is this, does everybody want to | |\n| 14 | sit around and wait for me to review it or what do you want | |\n| 15 | to do? | |\n| 16 | I mean, I need -- as I'm sure you can all | |\n| 17 | appreciate, had no idea what anybody was going to say today, | |\n| 18 | right, so I have to consider what you've said and I have to | |\n| 19 | look at, I'd like to look at that document, with the | |\n| 20 | understanding that why you would be giving it to me was to | |\n| 21 | show where you and the trustee were headed, as far as this is | |\n| 22 | concerned, and then I can see what requests that you've made | |\n| 23 | would be either granted or denied. | |\n| 24 | I mean, Trustee Despins, do you have an issue with | |\n| 25 | that? | |\n| | | |\n\n 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Not at all, but I think you should take some time to review it, because there's a lot of stuff -- THE COURT: Well, I'm going to have to take some time. MR. DESPINS: No, I mean, like, in terms of today, I don't -- it's up to you, but it would take me a few hours to actually digest this cold, but maybe you're a faster study. THE COURT: I doubt that, but in any event... MR. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, I'm happy to email it before we walk out of here this afternoon and then, you know, Your Honor, whenever you've made a determination of that, we'll react. If you say, Okay, I want to do this, but here's the things that need to change or what the trustee -- THE COURT: Well, this is what I -- given what you've both just said to me, it's going to take some time to review it, then I'm not going to take a recess and have everyone sit here and wait. That doesn't really make sense for all of you, as well. But what I would do, then, is I'll do whatever I decide, once I read document and look at the document and go back and think about what your requests were. And the courtroom deputy will reach out to you, Attorney Goldstein, as the representative of the joint Defendants and Trustee Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 57 of 63\n\n 58 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 Despins and his counsel, with whatever I decide to do, okay? MR. GOLDSTEIN: All right. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you very much. MR. KINDSETH: May I have less than a minute, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. KINDSETH: Again, just the same -- THE COURT: Yeah, we can't hear you, so you're going to have to -- and state your name for the record, please. MR. KINDSETH: Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler. Just for the record, we were not a party to these discussions. We should not be a party to this order. We're here just observing. And I just want to make sure it's clear that this proposed order, apparently, applies just to those parties who are agreeing to it. But regardless, my clients are not agreeing to it; although, apparently, if there's a 7-day optin period, we may opt in, but as of right now, we haven't seen it, so we're not a party to it. Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: No one's seen it, Attorney Kindseth. MR. DESPINS: To be clear, the idea would be that Case 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 58 of 63\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 it would affect your clients. I'm not saying you agree to that, but the goal here is to have everyone on the same schedule if the Court is inclined to do it. Maybe you're not wanting to do it, but if you're going to do it, we think it makes sense to have everyone on the same timeline. I've (indiscernible) brief, not briefed, because, for example, Zeisler & Zeisler, there's a motion or the motion for judgment on the pleadings. That's -- it'll be fully briefed soon. It raises the same issues. We believe that that should all be heard at the same time if Your Honor is going that direction. MR. KINDSETH: See, this is the issue. The due process issue that Attorney Sklarz alluded to. If it's affecting any other party, there should be a motion -- THE COURT: It's not a due process issue, Attorney Kindseth. We've been through this. MR. KINDSETH: There -- THE COURT: Okay. Stop. We've had hearing after hearing after hearing. Your client gets -- your clients get every single pleading in this case. All of this has been filed in the main case. It's not a due process issue and if you keep raising that issue, I'm not going to be happy about it. You have whatever your rights are. You're a learned lawyer. You can handle that.\n\n| 1 | But to continue to try to characterize this as a | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | due process issue is unfair to the Court and all parties that | | | | | | |\n| 3 | have been involved in this case since this case has started. | | | | | | |\n| 4 | So you do whatever you feel you need to do, but if I hear one | | | | | | |\n| 5 | more time about a due process issue, I'm going to be very | | | | | | |\n| 6 | upset.
This Court has bent over backwards for your clients | | | | | | |\n| 7 | and for everyone else involved in this case and I'm not going | | | | | | |\n| 8 | to hear that someone's due process rights have been violated. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | So, is there anything else you'd like to add for | | | | | | |\n| 10 | the record? | | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. KINDSETH:
The discrete point that I was | | | | | | |\n| 12 | pointing out -- and I'm not saying that Your Honor would do | | | | | | |\n| 13 | such a thing -- but if the order is submitted and enters and | | | | | | |\n| 14 | affects my client without ever having seen it or having had | | | | | | |\n| 15 | an opportunity to object -- | | | | | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
You have an opportunity.
You're here. | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MR. KINDSETH:
But we haven't seen the order.
It | | | | | | |\n| 18 | hasn't been presented.
There's not even a motion filed. | | | | | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I haven't seen the order either. | | | | | | |\n| 20 | MR. KINDSETH:
So there should be a motion. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Everything doesn't have to happen by | | | | | | |\n| 22 | motion, Counsel.
You're wrong about that. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
Okay. | | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
And you have done that plenty of times | | | | | | |\n| 25 | without a motion, by the way.
You have come in and asked for | | | | | | |\n\n| 1 | proposed orders to be entered in this case since the | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | beginning of this case when there's been no motion, so whose | | | | | |\n| 3 | due process rights were violated then? | | | | | |\n| 4 | MR. KINDSETH:
I do not recall such instances. | | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I can tell you when you did.
Would | | | | | |\n| 6 | you like me to point it out to you? | | | | | |\n| 7 | MR. KINDSETH:
Actually -- | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I can go back to the docket and find | | | | | |\n| 9 | it for you, when you came in about The Lady Mei and asking to | | | | | |\n| 10 | stop a hearing on relief from stay and, instead, enter a | | | | | |\n| 11 | stipulation that no one had seen, Counsel. | | | | | |\n| 12 | MR. KINDSETH:
But only those parts -- | | | | | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So let me just -- so don't go down | | | | | |\n| 14 | that road, because that's not a road that's a favorable road | | | | | |\n| 15 | for you to go down. | | | | | |\n| 16 | Now, I'm not going to hear from anyone else this | | | | | |\n| 17 | afternoon. | | | | | |\n| 18 | Attorney Goldstein, you're going to email that | | | | | |\n| 19 | document that you're talking about.
The Court will review it | | | | | |\n| 20 | and the Court will take whatever action it seems necessary | | | | | |\n| 21 | and appropriate under its acknowledged right to manage its | | | | | |\n| 22 | case law and to manage its caseload that the Supreme Court of | | | | | |\n| 23 | the United States has consistently upheld and that is what we | | | | | |\n| 24 | will do this afternoon. | | | | | |\n| 25 | So there's nothing further to address this | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3589 | Filed 09/30/24 | Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 | | Page 62 of 63 |\n|---------------|------------|----------|---------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------|\n| | | | | | | 62 |\n| 1 | afternoon. | | Court is in recess. | | | |\n| 2 | | | MR. DESPINS: | Your Honor -- | | |\n| 3 | | | THE CLERK: | All rise. | Court is adjourned. | |\n| 4 | | | | (Proceedings concluded at 2:36 p.m.) | | |\n| 5 | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3589 | Filed 09/30/24 | Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 | Page 63 of 63 | | |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------|--|--|\n| | | | | 63 | | |\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 | | September 27, 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
20 | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT）\n康涅狄格州联邦地区（DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n布里奇波特分院（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于： 第 11 章\n 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， （合并管理）\n债务人。 法庭 123\n 布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼（Brien McMahon Federal Building）\n 拉斐特大道 915 号\n 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604\n\n2024 年 9 月 24 日，星期二\n\n下午 1:29\n\n在尊敬的朱莉·A·曼宁（JULIE A. MANNING）法官，美国破产法官之前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\n帕特里克·林西（Patrick Linsey）律师\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特·佩佩与蒙泰斯律师事务所）\n丘奇街 195 号\n13 楼\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n\n以及\n\n吕克·A·德斯平（Luc A. Despins）律师\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（博圣律师事务所）\n公园大道 200 号\n纽约州纽约市 10166\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n记录誊写公司：\nReliable（可靠记录公司）\n内穆尔大楼（The Nemours Building）\n北奥兰治街 1007 号，110 室\n特拉华州威尔明顿 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮箱：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n程序通过电子声音录音记录，庭审记录由誊写服务机构制作。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 1 页，共 63 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 2 页，共 63 页\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表 Anthem Health Choice Assurance（安塞姆健康选择保险公司）、Anthem Health Plans, Inc.（安塞姆健康计划公司）、Sedgwick Realty Corp.（塞奇威克房地产公司）、Direct Persuasion（直接劝说公司）及 Federal Express Corp.（联邦快递公司）：\n埃里克·S·戈德斯坦（Eric S. Goldstein）律师\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP（希普曼与古德温律师事务所）\n宪法广场一号\n康涅狄格州哈特福德 06103\n\n代表 Federal Express Corporation（联邦快递公司）：\n迈克尔·A·西德班德（Michael A. Siedband）律师\nFEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION（联邦快递公司）\n哈克斯十字路 3620 号\n2 号楼，3 楼\n田纳西州孟菲斯 38125\n\n代表 Amazon Web Services, Inc.（亚马逊云服务公司）及 Amazon.com, Inc.（亚马逊公司）：\n布赖恩·T·彼得森（Brian T. Peterson）律师\nK&L GATES, LLP（凯威莱德律师事务所）\n第四大道 925 号\n2900 室\n华盛顿州西雅图 98104\n\n代表 G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）及 G Club International, LLC（G俱乐部国际有限责任公司）：\n杰弗里·M·斯克拉茨（Jeffrey M. Sklarz）律师\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉茨律师事务所）\n奥杜邦街一号\n3 楼\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06511\n\n代表 American Express Company, Inc.（美国运通公司）：\n达里尔·S·拉丁（Darryl S. Laddin）律师\nARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY, LLP（阿诺尔·戈尔登·格雷戈里律师事务所）\n西北第 17 街 171 号\n2100 室\n佐治亚州亚特兰大 30363\n\n代表 ARI Americas, Inc.（ARI美洲公司）：\n迈克尔·T·康韦（Michael T. Conway）律师\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯与莫伊尔律师事务所）\n第三大道 747 号\n16 楼\n纽约州纽约市 10017\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 3 页，共 63 页\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环 3 号）、Baron Yachts（巴伦游艇公司）及 ModSquad, Inc.（模块小队公司）：\n马修·A·佩西（Matthew A. Pesce）律师\nMURTHA CULLINA, LLP（默萨·库利纳律师事务所）\n榆树街 107 号\n11 楼\n康涅狄格州斯坦福 06902\n\n代表撤销诉讼被告：\n安东尼·J·普罗希亚（Anthony J. Proscia）律师\nKAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP（考夫曼·多洛维奇律师事务所）\n交易所广场 40 号\n20 楼\n纽约州纽约市 10005\n\n代表 Mark Gunderson（马克·冈德森）：\n大卫·J·科兹洛夫斯基（David J. Kozlowski）律师\nMORRISON COHEN, LLP（莫里森·科恩律师事务所）\n第三大道 909 号\n纽约州纽约市 10022\n\n代表 Mei Guo（郭美）、Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股公司）、Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）、Leading Shine NY（纽约领尚公司）、Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC（吉普赛美食品服务有限责任公司）及 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）：\n斯蒂芬·M·金塞思（Stephen M. Kindseth）律师\nZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n米德尔街 10 号\n15 楼\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604\n\n代表 Cirrus Design Corporation（西锐设计公司）：\n理查德·J·伯纳德（Richard J. Bernard）律师\nFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP（费格雷·德林克·比德尔与里思律师事务所）\n美洲大道 1177 号\n41 楼\n纽约州纽约市 10036\n\n代表 Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure（奥扎尔·什洛莫·所罗门宝藏）：\n杰弗里·赫尔曼（Jeffrey Hellman）律师\nLAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC（杰弗里·赫尔曼律师事务所）\n丘奇街 195 号\n10 楼\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 Jamestown Associates（詹姆斯敦联合公司）及 Target Enterprises（目标企业公司）：\n卡拉·安妮·扎钦（Kara Anne Zarchin）律师\nCUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD, LLC（卡明斯与洛克伍德律师事务所）\n地标广场 6 号\n康涅狄格州斯坦福 06901\n\n代表 270 West 39th Street, LLC（西 39 街 270 号有限责任公司）：\n罗伯特·N·森塞尔（Robert N. Sensale）律师\nBERSHTEIN, VOLPE & MCKEON, P.C.（伯斯坦、沃尔普与麦基翁律师事务所）\n教堂街 900 号\n11 楼\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n\n代表 Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder, LLP（克莱曼·罗森伯格·基什纳与林德律师事务所）：\n马修·D·瓦劳里（Matthew D. Valauri）律师\nWILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP（威尔逊·埃尔瑟·莫斯科维茨·埃德尔曼与迪克律师事务所）\n华盛顿大道 1010 号\n康涅狄格州斯坦福 06901\n\n代表 Agora Lab, Inc.（阿戈拉实验室公司）：\n本杰明·O·吉尔伯特（Benjamin O. Gilbert）律师\nSHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP（谢泼德·穆林·里希特与汉普顿律师事务所）\n洛克菲勒广场 30 号\n纽约州纽约市 10112\n\n代表 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, P.C.（莫维洛·阿布拉莫维茨·格兰德·亚森与阿内洛律师事务所）：\n罗韦娜·A·莫菲特（Rowena A. Moffett）律师\nBRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN, LLP（布伦纳·索尔茨曼与沃尔曼律师事务所）\n惠特尼大道 271 号\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06511\n\n代表 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）及 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）：\n克里斯托弗·J·梅杰（Christopher J. Major）律师\nMEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP（迈斯特·西利格与费因律师事务所）\n公园大道 125 号\n7 楼\n纽约州纽约市 10017\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 B&H Foto & Electronics, Corp.（B&H摄影与电子公司）：\n特雷西·埃利斯·威廉斯（Tracy Ellis Williams）\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP（希普曼与古德温律师事务所）\n大西洋街 300 号\n3 楼\n康涅狄格州斯坦福 06901\n\n以及\n\n斯科特·M·凯斯勒（Scott M. Kessler）律师\nAKERMAN, LLP（阿克曼律师事务所）\n美洲大道 1251 号\n37 楼\n纽约州纽约市 10020\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 6 页，共 63 页\n\n目录\n\n动议： 页码\n事项\n第 3532 号 准许状态会议请求的命令 7\n法院裁定： --\n\n誊写员证明书 63\n\n（程序于下午 1:29 开始。）\n\n书记员：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：下午好。请各方为记录目的出庭登记，先从第 11 章受托人开始。\n\n德斯平先生：下午好，法官阁下。吕克·德斯平，第 11 章受托人。\n\n林西先生：下午好，法官阁下。帕特里克·林西，来自 Neubert Pepe & Monteith，受托人的律师。\n\n戈德斯坦先生：下午好，法官阁下。埃里克·戈德斯坦，代表 Anthem Health Choice Assurance、Anthem Health Plans, Inc.、Sedgwick Realty Corporation、Federal Express Corporation 及 Direct Persuasion, LLC。坐在我右边的是迈克尔·西德班德，他是 FedEx Corporation 的内部法律顾问。\n\n西德班德先生：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n彼得森先生：早上好，法官阁下。布赖恩·彼得森，来自 K&L Gates，代表 Amazon Web Services, Inc. 及 Amazon.com, Inc.\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n斯克拉茨先生：下午好，法官阁下。杰弗里·斯克拉茨。我代表大约 21 名个人客户。您希望我陈述——确认他们全部的身份，还是——他们已在案卷中列明。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 7 页，共 63 页\n\n法庭：我认为目前这样就可以，然后我们再视情况而定。怎么样？\n\n斯克拉茨先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n拉丁先生：下午好，法官阁下。达里尔·拉丁，来自 Arnall Golden Gregory，代表 American Express Company。我们的康涅狄格州律师罗恩·乔切斯（Ron Chorches）今天无法到场。感谢法庭准许我以临时许可身份出庭。\n\n法庭：下午好。欢迎。\n\n康韦先生：下午好，法官阁下。迈克尔·康韦，Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle，今天代表 Ari America's, Inc. 出庭。我认为这是唯一会参与此次事项的一方。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n佩西先生：下午好，法官阁下。马修·佩西，Murtha Cullina，代表 3 Columbus Circle、Baron Yachts 及 ModSquad, Inc.\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n普罗希亚先生：下午好，法官阁下。安东尼·普罗希亚，来自 Kaufman Dolowich, LLP，代表四名撤销诉讼被告。\n\n法庭：下午好。我可以打断您一下吗？斯克拉茨律师，以及刚才登记出庭的律师，我想请你们在结束时，而不是在听证会期间，联系书记员办公室并向其提供一份名单——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 8 页，共 63 页\n\n法庭：——你们已经有名单了吗？\n\n书记员：我们有一份名单，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——列明所代表的人员——因为，为了记录目的，并且如果任何一方当事人需要庭审记录，我们必须列出所有人员。因此，你们现在不必这么做；我们之后可以办理。但是，任何代表一名以上被告而未在记录中注明该情况的出庭人员，我认为我们应当以这种方式处理，以确保记录准确。\n\n书记员：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。请继续，律师。抱歉。\n\n科兹洛夫斯基先生：下午好，法官阁下。大卫·科兹洛夫斯基，来自 Morrison Cohen，代表对抗程序中的一名被告 Mark Gunderson。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n金塞思先生：下午好，法官阁下。斯蒂芬·金塞思，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表 Mei Guo、Hudson Diamond Holding、Hudson Diamond New York、Leading Shine New York、Gypsy Mei Food Services 及 Zeisler & Zeisler。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n伯纳德先生：下午好，法官阁下。理查德·伯纳德，Faegre Drinker，代表 Cirrus Design Corporation。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n赫尔曼先生：下午好，法官阁下。杰弗里·赫尔曼，代表 Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n扎钦女士：下午好，法官阁下。卡拉·扎钦，来自 Cummings & Lockwood，代表 Jamestown Associates 及 Target Enterprises。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n森塞尔先生：下午好，法官阁下。罗伯特·森塞尔，代表 270 West 39th Street LLC。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n瓦劳里先生：下午好，法官阁下。马修·瓦劳里，来自 Wilson Elser，代表对抗程序中的一名被告 Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder。\n\n书记员：抱歉，我没有听清您的姓氏。\n\n瓦劳里先生：哦，抱歉。\n\n法庭：您能为记录拼写一下吗？\n\n瓦劳里先生：当然。V，如 Victor 中的 V，a-l-a-u-r-i。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n吉尔伯特先生：下午好。本杰明·吉尔伯特，来自 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP，代表 Agora Lab, Inc.\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 10 页，共 63 页\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n莫菲特女士：下午好，法官阁下。罗韦娜·莫菲特，来自 Brenner Saltzman & Wallman。我的客户是 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C.\n\n法庭：谢谢，欢迎。\n\n莫菲特女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n威廉斯女士：早上好，或者下午好。特雷西·威廉斯，来自 Shipman & Goodwin。我今天代表 B&H Foto & Electronics 出庭。我今天与 Akerman, LLP 的斯科特·凯斯勒一同出庭，他也有一项临时许可出庭申请正在审理中。\n\n法庭：那是在何时——您是 Akerman 律师吗？\n\n凯斯勒先生：是的。\n\n法庭：那是什么时候提交的？\n\n威廉斯女士：是在 9 月，我想是 19 日提交的。\n\n法庭：那是星期五，对吗？抱歉，我们可能还没有处理到该事项，但我们会尽量今天或明天处理，可能会，好的。谢谢。不过，显然，欢迎您出庭。\n\n威廉斯女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n凯斯勒先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 11 页，共 63 页\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nMAJOR先生：下午好，法官阁下。Chris Major（克里斯·梅杰），来自 Meister Seelig & Fein（迈斯特·西利格与范恩律师事务所），代理 Hing Chi Ngok（兴志·吴），并且视情况发展可能代理 Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）。\n\n法庭：下午好。好的。我们——是否所有希望登记出庭的人员均已登记出庭？显然，情况如此。本次是一次状态会议，系应若干正在调解中的被告共同动议的请求而安排；该等对抗程序已被移送调解。状态会议原定于下午1:00开始，但我理解当事人希望有些时间进行商谈。那么，当事人是否有任何事项需要报告？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。在我将发言席交给 Goldstein（戈德斯坦）先生之前，我可以上前两秒钟吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：为记录在案，法官阁下，我是 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）。我将在两分钟后将发言席交给 Goldstein先生，但仅提及，显然，我们在2月15日之前须提起所有这些诉讼，并且我们确已提起。我们立即理解到，这些诉讼可能会给法庭带来沉重负担，我们希望尽可能对其加以管理并将其降至最低。这就是我们提出目前仍在进行的调解程序的原因。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 12 of 63\n\n然而，我不能说调解已取得全面、积极的结果。我们不时向法庭提交和解协议。确有一些和解，但如果告诉法庭我们已获得大量被告的接受，那将具有误导性。\n\n在此背景下，被告请求召开状态会议，以探讨就其认为对本案、对这些案件以及对抗程序具有关键意义的一些问题，采用共同、协调且有效的书面陈述方式。我很高兴地报告，在当事人之间经过——我不会说过多——但确实经过一些来回磋商后，似乎已就如何向法庭提交此事达成共识。\n\n显然，法官阁下有权决定同意或不同意此事，但我很高兴地报告，已经取得了很大进展。说到这里，除非法官阁下有问题，我将把发言席交给 Goldstein先生，他将说明这项拟议协议的条款。\n\n法庭：此时我唯一想问你的问题，或者说我可能想问的是，无论这项共识为何——我很高兴听到这一点——假定其可以接受，是否将以某种形式编入某项命令，因为我推定其将对现有调解程序进行管理？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。因此，考虑到我们仅在几分钟前就最终条款达成一致，我们希望明天向法庭提交一份拟议约定书，但 Goldstein先生今天将非常详细地说明该约定书的条款。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。Goldstein律师？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我将使用这个发言席，因为从下面看我的电脑将会很困难。\n\n正如法官阁下所指出，本次会议是由参与调解的若干对抗程序中约24名被告提出的。我们面临的挑战之一是，本法庭正在审理非常类似的请求，这些案件即将就终局性动议程序举行听证，其中一些最早于10月1日举行。因此，请求召开状态会议的目的，是让我们以集体方式提出一项合并书面陈述程序，使我们的客户能够与其他当事人同时获得陈述机会，并以有效方式就一些明确的法律问题作出裁决，从而有助于这些案件。\n\n正如我所提到的，24名被告签署了召开状态会议的请求。此后，另有四名对抗程序被告将参与这一程序，其中包括 American Express（美国运通）、两家 Amazon（亚马逊）实体，以及另一名被告 Flat Rate Movers（平价搬家公司）。因此，总数为28名。\n\n法庭：你提到的最后四方，我显然坐在这里对此毫无所知，他们在这个法庭内吗？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。他们已登记出庭？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：是的，Flat Rate Movers除外；该方由 Norris McLaughlin（诺里斯·麦克劳克林律师事务所）代理。他们昨天恰好给我打电话，说他们希望参与，但今天无法到场。因此，我说，我将告知法庭你们希望参与，但今天无法到场——\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：——我已经这样做了。因此，法官阁下，请允许我说明我们与受托人及受托人律师讨论的内容。我们讨论了，在该程序中，共同被告将提交一份备忘录，该备忘录将针对驳回动议，或者针对少数已经提交答辩状的当事人的依诉状判决动议。但这将是一份由我们全体共同提交的书面陈述，涵盖一组明确的法律问题，我稍后将对此进行说明。此外，每名共同被告，如希望就相同的五项明确法律问题提出任何额外法律论点，可提交一份不超过7页的补充书面陈述。坦率地说，我不知道有多少共同被告会利用这一机会，但可能有若干方会这样做。\n\n法庭：如果他们获准这样做。\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：如果他们获准这样做。任何驳回动议或依诉状判决动议的其他依据，都将留待日后处理。与受托人讨论时的想法是，仅处理贯穿所有这些对抗程序的共同法律问题。我们还与受托人律师讨论，书面陈述将不涉及若干部分中止的事项；我认为这些事项主要涉及在 BVI 和 Puerto Rico（波多黎各）成立的实体。如果我有任何说错之处，他们会纠正我，但是——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 16 of 63\n\n法庭：即 Exhibit 3-B（附件3-B）中的被告？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：是的，我相信那是正确的附件。\n\n法庭：我几乎可以肯定，那是正确的附件。\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：好的。仅限于那些部分中止的事项；这些请求将继续中止，因此将暂且搁置。书面陈述将涉及除此以外的事项。我认为最合理的做法是，为帮助法官阁下考虑此事，我们简要谈谈我们彼此讨论过的共同法律问题。\n\n法庭：我很愿意听取。我先说一下，你说有五项，对吗？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：正确。\n\n法庭：共同被告的立场是，存在五项法律问题？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：正确。\n\n法庭：然后受托人表示，好，你们可以就这五项问题提交书面陈述——\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：正确。\n\n法庭：——然后受托人将作出回应？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，即使我同意采取这一程序，我也不倾向于允许任何人提出这五项法律问题以外的任何问题，因为已提交的文件所谈及的问题——这些是驳回动议。在驳回动议中，我必须接受妥为陈述的指控。我不会花很多时间让人们就事实问题进行辩论。如果它们不是真正的法律问题，那么我不会审理它们，好的，我从一开始就希望对此非常明确。我理解人们有所关切，并希望解决这些问题，但这些是对抗程序，其中人们是被告，你们根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）享有权利和程序。因此，我希望听取这五项法律问题为何，然后我将听取受托人或其他人可能还要说什么。但是，认为其他人随后可以就其他明确问题提交补充书面陈述的主张，我不认为——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 18 of 63\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3589 Filed 09/30/24 Entered 09/30/24 08:30:09 Page 19 of 63\n\n——如果这一程序要继续进行，这样做行得通。因此，我只是希望你们此时知悉这一点。\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我想——请允许我澄清一点。补充书面陈述并非为了提出新问题。它仅仅是——可能有人希望从不同角度来阐述——\n\n法庭：不同角度很可能是事实性的，而这不是法庭须裁决的法律问题。因此，我不会允许任何人从不同角度阐述。\n\n如果我们都要共同这样做，那就必须是共同进行，而且法庭将审理五项、或许是五项问题。因此，我一开始就希望明确，这不会按你所说的方式进行。\n\n法庭必须考虑——顺便说一下，所有以前到过这里的人，以及此前未到过这里的人，都知道，这些问题在今天之前已经以某些方式被提出，涉及延长诉讼时效期间的动议以及撤销程序动议。我们已经就这些问题举行过听证。这些问题并非当事人此前一定不能提出的问题。\n\n因此，尽管你们已就如何推进达成共识，而我对此表示感谢，但这并不必然意味着我会同意你们决定并认为可以采取的推进方式，因为法庭必须考虑对这些诉讼整体的管理。因此，我希望讨论你们认为法庭可以裁决的、属于共同法律问题的五项法律问题。\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：当然。我们讨论过的五项法律问题，我将按如下方式表述——我们曾与受托人讨论此事——这是被告的表述。他们并不一定同意其中任何内容构成其让步或任何其他让步。因此，在此前提下，第一项问题是：受托人能否撤销由非债务人实体进行的初始转让？\n\n法庭：这是一个法律问题？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：是。\n\n法庭：受托人能否撤销由非债务人进行的初始转让？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：是。\n\n法庭：这是一个法律问题？好的。受托人能否撤销由非债务人进行的初始转让，好的。\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：第二项是，适用法律是否允许反向揭开公司面纱或作出另一自我认定？\n\n法庭：好的。等一下。请等一下。\n\nGoldstein先生（Goldstein）：是的。\n\n法院：适用法律做什么？\n\nGoldstein先生：允许反向揭开公司面纱或作出另我实体认定吗？\n\n法院：嗯，我已经作出过另我实体认定，那么这怎么可能是一个法律认定问题？我已经在本院作出过这些认定，其中一些已经终局且未被上诉。因此，关于适用法律是否允许反向揭开公司面纱，我已经认定它——我已经讨论过这个问题。而所有讨论反向揭开公司面纱的法律，都取决于可能成为反向揭开公司面纱对象之交易所依据的事实。因此，我理解你的观点，但首先，我不理解第二部分：适用法律是否允许提出另我实体主张；你是这个意思吗？\n\nGoldstein先生：是。\n\n法院：好。这不是一个——我不理解这怎么会是法律问题。我们知道哪个州不允许揭开公司面纱主张？而且我们不都同意适用特拉华州法律吗？那么关于这一点有什么争议？这一点我完全不理解。\n\nGoldstein先生：是，我认为问题在于，这将是债权人首次——即这些另我实体的债权人或转让人，尚未有机会讨论这会对他们产生何种影响的情形。\n\n法院：归根结底，这有什么区别？如果你在答辩状中提出你的观点，你可以在答辩状中主张法院错误适用了法律，或任何你——但是，要提交书面意见并让我裁定适用法律是否允许揭开公司面纱，在我看来，这是浪费时间。\n\n我已经在许多——在 Golden Spring（Golden Spring）案的一项裁定中作出该认定，且该裁定未被上诉。因此，另我实体法适用已构成本案既判程序法。\n\n我理解各方希望以某种方式共同推进，但我不会允许各方就一个不存在争议的问题以某种方式共同推进。另我实体法适用不存在争议。\n\n你是否同意这一点是另一个问题；那不是法律问题。请向我指出任何法律中哪里、或者你能找到哪一个案件说另我实体不适用。你知道它为什么会这样说吗？根据案件事实，所以这不是法律问题。\n\nGoldstein先生：这个——好。那么如果您看下一项，我认为是，依适用法律，反向揭开公司面纱对另我实体认定产生何种效力？\n\n法院：那不属于事实问题吗？\n\nGoldstein先生：法官阁下，那是一个法律问题。\n\n法院：它怎么会是法律问题？顺便说一句，如果你看所有承认反向揭开公司面纱的案件，它们包括 Delaware Chancery Court（特拉华州衡平法院）、Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court（纽约南区破产法院）、Fourth Circuit（第四巡回上诉法院）、Connecticut District Court（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）；Meyer法官（Judge Meyer）认定特拉华州会适用反向揭开公司面纱法。它们为了作出该认定做了什么？它们审查了事实，并且说：这些是法院为适用反向揭开公司面纱而必须认定的事实。这就是这些案件所援引的内容；它们说，在驳回动议阶段，这些主张可以抵御驳回动议。现在，在审判中，受托人可能无法证明所有这些事项，但主张这在某种程度上是法律问题，至于其效力，效力就是在认定反向揭开公司面纱后所产生的效力，对吗？因此，这是一个事实问题；不是法律问题。\n\n我不会允许各方试图把事实问题说成法律问题，因为它们不是。\n\nGoldstein先生：我能否换一种方式表述，看看我是否——根据我的审查，不同司法辖区的法律略有不同，取决于你是否作出将揭开公司面纱的认定，对吗，还是我们是否将不予理会它。在某些司法辖区，有一种观点认为它仅产生替代责任。\n\n法院：对。\n\nGoldstein先生：在其他司法辖区，我认为它们称之为“同一性理论”，在该理论下，你实质上将包括资产在内的一切合并在一起。我认为我们将提出的法律问题，以及我对此的意思是，例如，在特拉华州其法律效力是什么？\n\n法院：在特拉华州的法律效力取决于案件事实。如果你查看特拉华州衡平法院最近关于外部人反向揭开公司面纱的案件，它仅认可外部人揭开公司面纱，而这是在受托人是——这就是——受托人是判决债权人；他已经取得终局且不再可上诉的判决。他是判决债权人，所以根据 544(a)，他是判决债权人。\n\n这不是内部人反向揭开公司面纱；这是外部人反向揭开公司面纱。特拉华州衡平法院已经表示，他们必须审查事实以作出该认定，以确定是否存在——是否应当适用该原则，作为一种威慑，以便各方不能以逃避判决的明确目的，在其控制的实体之间转移资产。\n\nGoldstein先生：嗯。\n\n法院：受托人就撤销请求提出的每一项诉因，均是以判决债权人的身份提出。甚至不是以假设的判决债权人身份；而是以判决债权人身份提出。所以，我仍在困惑，法律问题在哪里？\n\nGoldstein先生：嗯，是的。这将基于指控，即应被视为真实的指控；这些指控在针对所有共同被告提出的诉状中大体上非常一致。如果将这些指控视为真实，根据适用法律——此处绝大多数、几乎所有案件都将适用特拉华州法律——这些事实如属真实，是否会导致资产合并为一体，或者根据适用法律产生替代责任。\n\n法院：那么，这是否必须在我们到达那一步之后才会发生；也就是说，受托人必须证明它？\n\nGoldstein先生：如果法官阁下说，您知道吗？如果我将所有这些指控视为真实，并且，好，我查看特拉华州法律的规定，那么，它实际上只是——替代责任，而不是同一性理论。那么，在该情形下，这可能对例如一项 549 请求具有决定性，因为那么被转让的就不可能是破产财产。因此，这就是——我的意思是，也许我表述得不好，但那就是法律——\n\n法院：我不认为你表述得不好，我只是不了解我是否同意。\n\nGoldstein先生：好。\n\n法院：好。我的意思是，我认为——如果我们回到第二项——\n\nGoldstein先生：是。\n\n法院：——我想你说的是，请在我错了时纠正我，第二个法律问题是，适用法律是否允许反向揭开公司面纱？我刚刚向你列举了一批案件、若干案件，其中包括一项 2021 年的特拉华州衡平法院案件，该案件允许这样做；而你的第二部分是，适用法律是否允许另我实体主张。\n\n而我已经在本案中认定，受托人已在另我实体主张上胜诉，至少就 Golden Spring 实体而言；而目前这是一项终局、不可上诉的命令。没有人对其提出上诉。因此，我困惑于理解，当我已经作出裁定时，你希望法院还就什么作出裁定。\n\nGoldstein先生：嗯，第一，我认为我们的立场将是——而您对此不会感到意外——因为我们——这些被告均不是那些案件的当事人，而那些案件现在被称为既判程序法。您最终可能无论如何都会得出同一结论，但是，再次——\n\n法院：在破产案件中作出裁定时，撤销之诉中的被告大多数时候从未是那些案件的当事人。我很想看到有哪一次他们是当事人。这是依据国会赋予受托人的权力提出的撤销之诉——不是法院赋予的——是国会赋予的。这不是不寻常的情形，我想我困惑于为什么各方认为它是。\n\nGoldstein先生：嗯，我会说，针对非债务人转让之受让人提出撤销请求，而该非债务人恰好——\n\n法院：嗯，该非债务人已被认定为另我实体。因此，它不是非债务人；它是债务人。\n\n如果它是另我实体——若根据康涅狄格州法律会发生什么：你起诉一家公司，然后你——揭开公司面纱以追及其个人所有人。如果该个人所有人作出了转让，你作为该公司的律师，就会追究该个人，并说：把那笔钱还给我。是你作出了该项转让。你只是利用公司结构作为欺诈所有人、逃避责任并使自己免于判决执行的屏障。这就是你会说的，对吗；你难道不会这样主张吗？\n\nGoldstein先生：这将取决于，你知道，转让是在之前还是之后作出的。这将取决于转让是否作出——\n\n法院：这取决于，对吗？那是事实。难道不是事实吗？\n\nGoldstein先生：嗯，再次，如果将诉状中的所有事实视为真实，然后判断法律是否允许所提出的做法，对吗。这正是 Rule 12(b)(6) 动议或依诉状请求判决动议的要点。另一个法律问题，您可能同意也可能不同意，是追溯作出此类认定的能力，这也是另一个重大问题。\n\n法院：我完全不理解该论点。\n\nGoldstein先生：嗯——\n\n法院：如果你在 January 1st, 2015 违反了合同，而 Despins受托人（Trustee Despins）在 January 1st, 2016 起诉你，并且法院在 January 1st, 2017 认定你在 2015 年违反了合同，这不是追溯作出；而是法院认定该事实已经发生。而我在这些案件中认定的是，债务人，即该实体，是债务人的另我实体。\n\nGoldstein先生：好。嗯，那就是追溯——这是一个假设。如果我是 Acme Corporation（Acme Corporation）的贸易债权人，对吗，该公司与债务人无关；我是贸易债权人，我只是与 Acme Corporation 开展业务。我完全不知道 Acme Corporation 可能与债务人存在某种相互关系或某种关联，而我正在与其开展业务。我提供商品和服务，他们为此向我付款。现在，突然间，两年过去了，你被起诉，因为 Acme Corporation 不是 Acme Corporation。Acme Corporation 是 Kwok先生（郭文贵），对吗？\n\n法院：是。\n\nGoldstein先生：那是一组不同的事实。例如，如果 Acme Corporation——\n\n法院：如果法院已经认定 Acme Corporation 与 Kwok先生实为同一主体，那可能不是。\n\nGoldstein先生：但是——\n\n法院：这种情况一直都会发生。这是\n\n并非——就是说将其称为 nunc pro tunc（追溯生效），每一位债权人，无论是否存在——每一位债权人在某个时点都承担这样的风险：他们可能因偏颇清偿或欺诈性转让请求而被起诉。每一位债权人的律师都知道这一点。每一位债权人的律师都会就此向其客户提供建议。这并不是——仅仅因为本院在涉及债务人、即个人债务人的程序中认定其公司实体与债务人相同，就将其称为 nunc pro tunc 的一种牵强说法；请向我出示相关判例，因为我不——我完全看不出这一点。而且我认为这很牵强，我认为这可能不是对法院时间的良好利用。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：区别在于，多年之后，在不知情的、未收到通知的第三方不知情的情况下，无视某一实体的公司形式——\n\n本院：但这种情况总是会发生。即使 Kwok（郭文贵）先生是向你付款的人，在他向你付款时，你也不知道他会因任何事项被判有罪；你毫不知情，那么这又有什么不同？\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：不仅是公司形式被无视，而且他们现在还将作为债务人受《Title 11》管辖。因此，如果我——\n\n本院：嗯，这正是提起这些诉讼的唯一方式。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：如果贸易债权人知道这些事情，他们可以——他们可以作出判断并说：这是否是一项 363 正常业务过程交易？如果他们有所顾虑，他们可以向破产法官申请确认令，或者法官会说：不，这不属于正常业务过程。然后，贸易债权人便有机会停止与其开展业务，从而不使自身暴露于风险之中。这是在将他们与该公司交易时所存在的事实情形，变更为两年后现今发生的情形。这是在改变现实世界的事实。\n\n本院：是的，而且每次有人因偏颇清偿或欺诈性转让而被起诉时，都会发生这种情况，因为它改变了事实进程。没有任何债权人曾想过自己会因偏颇清偿或欺诈性转让而被起诉。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：这就是为什么国会规定了诸如正常业务过程抗辩、后续新增价值抗辩、同时价值交换抗辩等抗辩理由。\n\n本院：而你仍然可以提出所有这些抗辩。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：在 549 案件中则不能。那是完全不同的情况。在 547 和 540——\n\n本院：嗯，那是因为这是一项破产申请后交易。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：正是如此。\n\n本院：对。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：正是如此。这就是我的——\n\n本院：但是，当你这样说时——\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：嗯哼。\n\n本院：——在本案事实情形下，当你这样说时，如果任何债权人注意到正在发生什么，谁——再说一次，无论这是申请后还是申请前，这仍然是每一位债权人所承担的风险。任何时候，债权人与任何实体交易时，无论是否存在破产程序，都会承担风险。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：当然。我认为，我认为，对我而言，我们有些偏离主题了，因为我的客户大多是 549 被告，但是——\n\n本院：好的。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：——547 项下，国会为与某人交易的人规定了抗辩，而该人可能在未来 90 天内成为债务人。548 项下设有抗辩，帮助债权人与可能在未来两年内成为债务人的人交易；在州法下，则是四年，并有善意和价值抗辩。\n\n本院：而且我认为，涉及所有这些客户的案件——但我可能错了，因此你可以纠正我——我认为其中每一件都是在诉讼时效届满之前提起的，因此不存在没有法定时效——不存在法定时效问题。这些都是撤销之诉。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 32 页，共 63 页\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：不是，而且我没有提出任何有关诉讼时效的问题。我只是说明，对于 548 请求、547 请求，存在一些抗辩，某种程度上保护了供应商与可能在未来数日、数月或数年内成为债务人的人之间的正常业务关系。549 是完全不同的情况，对吧；549 是指，嘿，你处于破产程序中，而由于你处于破产程序中，你可以在正常业务过程中做事，或者你必须让法官批准你在正常业务过程中所做的一切。这与您正在向其提供服务或出售货物的 Acme Corporation（阿克米公司）打交道时，完全是不同的世界。就是不同。我们的观点是，多年之后称他们为另一个实体的替身，或者实质上是实质合并，对吧，我是说，你在多年之后将他们的资产和负债与债务人的资产和负债混合在一起。因此，我知道法官阁下可能不同意，但我的意思是，我认为这是我们大多数共同被告的观点。\n\n本院：关于 nunc pro tunc？\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：是的，关于 nunc pro tunc。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：然后最后一个问题不适用于我的客户。这不是我们会提出的问题，因为它不适用。\n\n本院：我记到第四项了。你记到第五项了吗？\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：我记到——nunc pro tunc 是第四项。\n\n本院：好的。那么，你——你是将第二项，即刺破公司面纱和替身，分为两个不同的问题，还是将其视为一个问题？这就是——我可能听错了，所以……\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：是的，让我简要回顾一下，因为我们已经进行了很长时间的讨论。因此，我们（听不清）我们目前所处的位置。第一项是，受托人能否撤销非债务人实体作出的初始转让？第二项是，适用法律是否允许反向刺破公司面纱或替身？第三项是，其效力为何——\n\n本院：哦，你说得对。我忘记记下来了。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：——适用法律的效力。然后第四项是，你能否 nunc pro tunc 或追溯性地这样做？\n\n本院：那么我们再讨论第三项。若认定存在反向刺破公司面纱，其效力为何？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 34 页，共 63 页\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：是的，正是如此，法官阁下。正是如此。正是如此。这是替代责任，还是身份或统一体理论——我忘了它叫什么——即将资产混合在一起？然后最后一个问题，我要说明的是，该问题不适用于我的客户，但有些被告尚未签署保护令，因此他们不知道转让的日期或具体情况，并且他们希望主张——\n\n本院：嗯，我认为那一切不是都已在调解程序命令中处理了吗？\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：我对该问题不持立场。\n\n本院：我明白，但这是我的记忆。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：我对该问题不持立场。我在该问题上仅仅是传话人。因此，法官阁下，这些是我们与受托人讨论的五个共同问题。其设想是，在本院可接受的范围内，提交一份共同书面陈述；我们约 28 人将提交一份 50 页的共同书面陈述。哦，抱歉。还有一件事。我们认为，可能还有几名处境相似的被告希望共同参与这份书面陈述，因此，如果本院认可这一程序，我们将在命令中规定，你们有七天时间提交文件表示：“我希望参与此事。”然后，如此一来，他们将成为该共同书面陈述的一部分。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第 35 页，共 63 页\n\n本院：如果出现这种情况，你，或者代表共同被告的某人，将送达该命令，因为这就是必须发生的事，对吗？\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：是的。\n\n本院：顺便说一句，所有人都已就所有这些事项收到通知——\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：我们——\n\n本院：——已有一段时间了。而且我不会开始保护那些不保护自己的人。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：完全同意。是的，被告可以——我们可以——您知道，大多数人无论如何都应该会看到这些材料，但我们当然可以向在这些案件中代理被告的任何人通过电子邮件发送。不过，我确实知道，有些人在我们提交举行案件状态会议的请求之后出现，他们确实希望参与。例如，American Express（美国运通）今天在场。Amazon（亚马逊）今天在场，还有 Flat Rate Movers（固定费率搬家公司）。我估计可能还会有一两家。因此，我们会做的是——\n\n本院：对于那些问题而言，50 页似乎很多，特别是最后一个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：这——\n\n本院：尚未签署保密令的被告？我的意思是，这正是《Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）》所要处理的事情，对吗？律师应当自行解决此事，而不应成为本院的问题。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：这——\n\n本院：因此，我认为就这些问题而言，50 页很多。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：是的，考虑到我们处理的是相当数量的被告，超出通常页数的额外篇幅是出于这一考虑。我不知道我们是否必须超出 Delaware（特拉华州）法律范围，但或许还需要涉及另一个司法辖区的法律。是的，我认为或许是另一个司法辖区的法律。我们可能也不需要全部 50 页，但这是为了避免如果需要更多页数时，再次来打扰您并请求增加页数，所以就直接多请求一些。当然，如果您希望缩减我们的篇幅，那就照办。\n\n而且，实质上，我们将为受托人设置相应的页数限制。因此，您知道，如果我们共同书面陈述为 50 页，7 页用于补充材料，（听不清）原本打算提交我们先前讨论过的补充材料，而法官阁下可能不会准许，那么受托人将有 50 页，外加 7 页用于任何补充材料，例如，如果其确实提交。因此，我们将彼此对应。然后，就答复而言，共同被告将有 25 页，另有 5 页用于任何补充材料，但法官阁下可能不会准许。\n\n然后，关于我们讨论过的程序安排，我们没有——我们可以做的是，仅在我们各自单独的对立程序中提交相关动议，然后在每一单独对立程序中提交共同书面陈述，以便我们能够拥有它。\n\n本院：嗯，我认为如果我们这样做，也没有意义。这将是修改主案中就调解程序作出的命令。因此，主案中有大约 3500 项案卷记录，然后我们有 270 个对立程序以及（听不清）。所以，不，我的意思是，如果我们要这样做，重点是使其更容易、更精简。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：是的。您提醒了我的另一个选项：首先，如果法官阁下接受，我们会做的是——我们将拟定一项命令，仅提交至主案案卷。完成。另一种可行方式是，我们可以仅提交——仅将共同书面陈述提交至主案案卷。我们只是不知道本院希望如何最好地追踪此事。如果本院不——\n\n如果要在28个不同的对立诉讼中提交这份文件，我们可以将其提交到主案中。我们的另一个想法是，联合辩护组中的一些律师曾遇到过这样的情况：专门设立一个杂项案卷，只是为了放置——法庭：我们不需要设立一个杂项案卷。可以是一份修订后的命令，并附有另一份附件，说明所有这些当事人均为共同被告，以及该命令适用的对立诉讼案号。Goldstein（戈德斯坦）先生：那么，驳回动议、依诉状判决动议，阁下希望将其提交到哪里？法庭：那么，什么——你们将提交一项联合动议，对吗？Goldstein先生：有些人会提出依诉状判决动议，如果他们已经提交了答辩状的话。大多数人会提出驳回动议，是的。法庭：那么，我不会处理28项驳回动议。如果要这么做，那这件事就没有意义了。Goldstein先生：不，不，不。我们会提交一份简要动议，比如说，一份两页的动议，然后附上一份法律备忘录，即共同书面陈述。我们只是——我不知道阁下希望如何追踪这一事项。案号 22-50073 文书 3589 于 09/30/24 提交 于 09/30/24 08:30:09 登记 第39页，共63页\n\n我们可以通过——或者我们可以只提交共同书面陈述，并援引法庭的命令。我们可以用许多不同方式处理。法庭：是的，我现在还不知道，但我很可能只会要求在主案中提交一项动议，该动议适用于所有请求该救济的被告，并将据此处理。Goldstein先生：很好。法庭：因为否则会有28项动议，如果我们走那条路，那就毫无意义。Goldstein先生：这里的理念是简化。凡是能够简化的地方，都是好事。所以——我们可以做到这一点。然后，我们与受托人讨论的最后一部分，再次出于整合和简化的考虑，是仅就这些共同问题举行一次口头辩论，同时还有——目前有几起待决案件，其中这些类似问题已经提出，我们可以在某个特定日期一次性一并审理，然后就此结案。因此，那些待决的驳回动议将被搁置，直至就所有这些动议以及该联合辩护组举行一次口头辩论。\n\n法庭：好的。Goldstein先生：我想我这边就这些。我邀请其他人——法庭：假定我同意你们的意见，你们何时提交不超过50页的共同书面陈述？Goldstein先生：哦，抱歉，如果我漏掉了这一点。抱歉，如果我漏掉了。我们同意在42天内提交。因此，我们将会——法庭：不会是42天。我不会这么做，好吗。这些案件正在推进。我们不会——你们不能有42天来提出驳回动议，因此你们也不会有42天来就你们已经讨论了一段时间的共同问题提交书面陈述。这不会发生，所以我想对此说得非常明确。不会是42天。因此，如果我同意这样做，更可能会是21天，类似于《联邦民事诉讼规则》的通常期限。然后我们可以——但无论如何，请继续——Goldstein先生：不，不，可以。法庭：——你们要求42天。Goldstein先生：让我说明一下程序。该命令将会登记。各方将另有七天时间表示，嘿，我们是否希望参与，然后该——案号 22-50073 文书 3589 于 09/30/24 提交 于 09/30/24 08:30:09 登记 第41页，共63页\n\n书面陈述的期限将是42天。如果阁下希望在21天内提交，我们将在21天内提交。法庭：其他当事人无论是否希望参与，都不应影响提交书面陈述的期限。Goldstein先生：可以。然后，我们与受托人商定，他们可以在42天内提交，但——法庭：这里不会这样。Goldstein先生：——阁下希望如何处理都可以。然后，关于答复，我们的答复期限是21天，但如果阁下希望缩短至14天——法庭：我认为，如果我们走这条路，那么——所有这些——如果按照你们建议的时间表，我们就要进入1月了。Goldstein先生：没错。法庭：这不会发生。Goldstein先生：好的。法庭：本案自 February of 2022 起一直待决。我们不会——这不会发生。Goldstein先生：好的。那么我想，现在让我核对一下，但我认为我的笔记中已经涵盖了所有事项，因此除非阁下有问题要问我，否则此时我将让出发言。案号 22-50073 文书 3589 于 09/30/24 提交 于 09/30/24 08:30:09 登记 第42页，共63页\n\n法庭：如果我们采取这一程序，顺便说一句，我必须考虑。Goldstein先生：嗯哼。法庭：显然，我完全不知道你们要说什么，所以我必须思考。当你说一次性举行一场口头辩论时，我不会允许28名律师提出同样的论点。Goldstein先生：正确。法庭：这也不会发生；如果我们走这条路，我对此说得非常明确。而且我甚至不知道我是否会允许口头辩论。这些是法律问题。口头辩论能增加什么？对于法律问题，口头辩论能增加什么？它要么成立，要么不成立。所以我对此也不确定。Desp ins（德斯平斯）受托人，我确实需要知道的是，我知道你说在法庭批准的前提下，大家已就如何处理此事达成共识，但对于10月1日和10月8日即将举行的听证会，以及我想在那之后还有另一场听证会，又将如何处理？这些听证会涉及未处于调解中且被排除在调解之外的对立诉讼中待决的驳回动议。Desp ins先生：是的，阁下。我正要上来提出这个问题。这件事的目标是，我知道一开始您不认为这是进展，但从我的角度来看，任何被告都可以提交任何书面陈述，并提出他们想提出的世界上任何理论。案号 22-50073 文书 3589 于 09/30/24 提交 于 09/30/24 08:30:09 登记 第43页，共63页\n\n如果我们能够将其整合为一份书面陈述，那就是进展。阁下提出的所有论点，我们都已提出，因此归根结底，他们有权提交书面陈述。如果我们能够将其整合，那很好，因为这能节省您的时间，节省我们的时间，也更有效率。现在，关于您的问题，想法是没有人会就这些整体性问题继续推进，即基于Goldstein先生提出的观点的驳回动议。我们将提交给您的命令将规定，所有——每个人现在都按同一进度推进，这意味着如果你已经提交了书面陈述，10月1日就不会举行口头辩论。届时将在整体口头辩论——举行时进行。如果有——法庭：如果有整体口头辩论的话。Desp ins先生：如果有的话，是的。因此，想法是让所有人都暂停，以与这一新时间表保持一致。阁下如有任何其他问题，我很乐意回答。法庭：我不知道我是否有任何问题。我们原本已有一套程序。它被修订了。Desp ins先生：是。法庭：现在又寻求进一步修订，即处于调解中的当事人现在集中暂停并未处于调解中的事项，而你们希望提出的这些问题，如果确实是法律问题，那么我看不出有进行口头辩论的必要。这——没有这个必要，而且这同样不会是对法庭时间的良好利用。\n\n如你所知，而且我已经说过，本案的案卷登记事项已接近4,000项。法庭有义务妥善管理本案及所有其他对立诉讼的案卷。本案不会在10年后仍在这里。它需要得到妥善管理，因此我需要思考你们二人所说的内容，并确定我将允许什么，如果有的话。\n\nDesp ins先生：我想看待这个问题的方式，阁下，是让我们看看另一种选择。首先，定于10月1日举行口头辩论的那些人，他们是被告。我不认为他们——实际上，我不能代表他们发言——但他们并不急于走到一个他们可能败诉的终点线，所以我认为他们会接受他们可能获得的任何额外时间。\n\n但是，就我们在此就这些书面陈述所涉及的问题而言，正如我所说，我认为每名被告都获准就他们希望提出的任何法律理论提交书面陈述，包括地球是平的之类的理论，因为我无法阻止他们。因此，如果可以，我们总是最好尝试整合。这就是这一考虑，阁下。法庭：我明白。Desp ins先生：谢谢您，阁下。法庭：我明白。Desp ins先生：抱歉。谢谢。法庭：Goldstein律师，你还有什么想补充的吗？Goldstein先生：没有，阁下。我坐下后唯一想到的另一件事是，如果这对您有帮助，我们有一份我们之间起草的小文件，如果在您考虑此事时这会有帮助，如果让我们——我们可以将其提交给法庭。法庭：那么，我们现在还不会做任何事。Goldstein先生：对。我想的是，在阁下作出门槛性决定、确定我们是否要走这条路之前，然后我们将会——如果阁下说，是的，我们要走这条路，那么当然，我们会准备一份拟议命令。我想得更多的是一个中间步骤。如果您希望查看我们一直来回修改的 Word 文档，若这在您思考此事时对您有帮助，我很乐意提供。案号 22-50073 文书 3589 于 09/30/24 提交 于 09/30/24 08:30:09 登记 第46页，共63页\n\n就这些。法庭：好的。谢谢。Bernard（伯纳德）先生：阁下？法庭：我不会听取28名律师的陈述。我只是想让你知道这一点，好吗。所以……——Bernard先生：阁下，我能否只占用一分钟？法庭：那么，你需要——你将有一分钟，我会计时。Bernard先生：谢谢您，阁下。代表Cirrus（赛勒斯）的Faegre Drinker（费格雷·德林克律师事务所）Richard Bernard（理查德·伯纳德）。阁下，对于许多被告而言，调解这种无限期的中间状态实际上已陷入僵局。双方的出价和要价相差太远。法庭：我不需要听取有关调解的内容。我听取这些并不适当。这正是为什么该事项在调解中，律师。Bernard先生：正确，阁下。法庭：那么你不应当告诉我任何有关此事的内容。Bernard先生：该动议的重点是试图让——该请求的重点是将法律问题提交给阁下，以创造灰色地带，使当事人可能找到某种和解方式。法庭：我不明白你刚才说了什么。案号 22-50073 文书 3589 于 09/30/24 提交 于 09/30/24 08:30:09 登记 第47页，共63页\n\n你们说要形成模糊地带？\n\nBERNARD先生（伯纳德）：受托人和被告方的位置相距甚远。\n\n法庭：如果是法律问题，那么模糊地带在哪里？\n\nBERNARD先生：因为，法官阁下，它们是法律问题。如果它们以这样或那样的方式得到裁定，就会导致谈判筹码发生变化，因此——\n\n法庭：我明白，律师。\n\nBERNARD先生：——可能会重叠——\n\n法庭：我明白，律师。\n\nBERNARD先生：——使我们能够——\n\n法庭：但我想说——如果它们确实是法律问题，它们就应当作为法律问题处理，好吗。让我裁定另我法理是否适用，您认为那是一个法律问题吗？\n\nBERNARD先生：法官阁下，按照——是的，它将被界定为一个法律问题。\n\n法庭：怎么会被界定为法律问题？\n\nBERNARD先生：法官阁下，那是对该特定要件细节的非常宽泛的概括。\n\n法庭：好的。您的一分钟时间到了。\n\nBERNARD先生：所以，我知道我的一分钟时间到了，我并不想谈到那个问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第48页，共63页\n\n法庭：是的，谢谢。Sklarz律师（斯克拉兹），您有一分钟。\n\nSKLARZ先生：法官阁下，我不与他们同属一方。我的观点——\n\n法庭：那您为什么在这里？（笑声）\n\nSKLARZ先生：为了在记录中说明我不与他们同属一方。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：因为我的当事人——\n\n法庭：因为您在证据4中？\n\nSKLARZ先生：嗯，我在——各处都有当事人。如我所述，我代理多名当事人；如果我可以走近书记员，我可以提交我的名单。\n\n法庭：可以，您之后可以这样做。我只是想弄明白。\n\nSKLARZ先生：不，不，不。我并不是想要——\n\n法庭：请继续。不，请继续。\n\nSKLARZ先生：——轻率地说。我的当事人，其中一些属于各种调解分组，其中许多是破产申请提交前、申请后受聘的律师事务所，以及各种个人。我代理的个人和实体范围非常广泛。他们涉及纽约州法律、特拉华州法律、波多黎各法律、康涅狄格州法律、英国法律，\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第49页，共63页\n\n各种不同的范围。我们不希望参与任何集体提交书面意见程序。正如法官阁下所知，我的事务所已提交许多文件，包括在我们受聘代理且尚未中止的每一案件中提交驳回动议。即使在一些已经中止的案件中，我们也提交了驳回动议。我的当事人希望行使其个人权利。现在，我们是否反对将10月1日或10月8日的听证延期至11月、12月或1月？不反对。这些是重大的——\n\n法庭：但您并不参与那些听证。\n\nSKLARZ先生：不，我参与。\n\n法庭：下周的听证？\n\nSKLARZ先生：下周的，我第一个出庭。\n\n法庭：哦，好的。您第一个出庭。\n\nSKLARZ先生：不论好坏。\n\n法庭：好的。抱歉。我不记得您第一个出庭；我以为您是下一周出庭。抱歉。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我也可能在下一周出庭——\n\n法庭：也可能，是的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：——但我们在这里一次只处理一天。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我确实想表达的一点是，刚刚从NCBJ会议回来，这些是在一宗重大、重要、全国性和国际性案件中的重大、重要问题。我们——我律所的人员、受托人律所的人员、在场的每个人、法庭工作人员、法官阁下，每个人都在非常认真、深入地思考我们正在做的每一件事。\n\n因此，无论我们是在下周、再下一周，还是两个月后进行辩论，无论我们为准备——撰写书面意见、进行辩论——花费多少时间，都会使此案之后形成的全部判例法更完善。所以，是的，我同意受托人的意见，这也许是我在本案中第一次同意受托人的意见；因此，我同意受托人，即辩论无需在下周进行。但我也同意法官阁下的意见，不应当推迟到2027年3月。我的当事人急于解决这些问题。我们坚信我们提出的论点，并希望继续主张这些论点，但我们也坚信，我们有权在案件按其提出方式进行的过程中单独行使正当程序权利，并希望保留该权利、我们单独提交书面意见的权利以及我们单独进行辩论的权利，如法官阁下准许辩论。我只是想\n\n为记录明确这一点。\n\n法庭：那么，我想问您刚才所说的内容。您的当事人有哪些尚未得到满足的正当程序权利？\n\nSKLARZ先生：法官阁下，我们已就此进行了广泛的书面陈述。\n\n法庭：是的。但您已经提交了书面意见，而且将会获得陈述机会。\n\nSKLARZ先生：正确。\n\n法庭：是的。那么，您有哪些尚未得到满足的正当程序权利？\n\nSKLARZ先生：截至今日，没有。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：如果我们不被允许提交书面意见，或者被归入——\n\n法庭：所以您认为，由于在这一——如果这一程序被允许，在某个时候发生的任何事情，会以某种方式对您造成不利影响？\n\nSKLARZ先生：只要我们不被推入这一程序——\n\n法庭：嗯，我不会——我为什么会把您推入那个程序？\n\nSKLARZ先生：我只是想——\n\n法庭：您的当事人至少有一部分已经获准不参加调解——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第52页，共63页\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——所以您没有被推入任何程序。而且我坐在这里记不清了，但也许您代理了一些已经请求被排除在调解程序之外的人。我记不起来了。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我们没有。\n\n法庭：被告如此之多，确实很难。但我只是想理解您的观点。您的观点是，您不想成为这个联合被告方的一部分吗？我原本就认为您不想，因此我不认为在这一点上存在任何混淆。\n\nSKLARZ先生：很好。关于这一点，我没有更多要说的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，这就是您想提出的观点吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：这就是我想提出的观点。\n\n法庭：好的。好。\n\nSKLARZ先生：此外，附带的一点是，我确实同意的是，辩论不必在明天进行。如果法官阁下希望在某个时候举行一次辩论，可以。如果法官阁下希望举行多次辩论，也可以。法庭希望如何进行——\n\n法庭：或者根本不进行。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09 第53页，共63页\n\nSKLARZ先生：我们认为——\n\n法庭：您已有书面文件。您已通过书面文件阐述了您的立场，对吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：正确。我认为——\n\n法庭：没有规则要求进行口头辩论。我并不是说不会准许——\n\nSKLARZ先生：没有这样的规则——\n\n法庭：——我只是说，没有规则规定您必须——没有——如果您没有——\n\nSKLARZ先生：当然。\n\n法庭：——就一项您已充分提交书面意见的动议进行口头辩论，您的正当程序权利不会因此受到侵害。\n\nSKLARZ先生：当然不会，法官阁下；我并没有作此主张。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我认为，鉴于这些问题的重大性、受托人和各被告方均已提出论述的概念，以及本案的发展轨迹，进行辩论将有助于法庭；但如果没有帮助，法官阁下就不会希望进行辩论。不过，无论——无论发生什么，无论是就所有事项进行辩论，还是不就任何事项进行辩论，我们只是保留我们的权利。我所说的只是，如法官阁下希望进行口头辩论，则无需在\n\n10月1日进行。可以在12月1日进行。可以在1月1日进行。应当尽早进行，而不是推迟进行，但鉴于——再次，我知道我在这里听起来颇为哲理化——但鉴于本案和提出的所有概念，对我们所有人，尤其是律师而言，先衡量两次或三次，然后再继续，我认为这样做是有价值的。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我会提交该名单。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是的，谢谢。\n\n律师们，我给了Sklarz律师超过一分钟的时间，我想这对先前发言的律师并不公平，所以请继续。\n\nLADDIN先生（拉丁）：法官阁下，我会少于一分钟。再次说明，我是代表American Express（美国运通）的Darryl Laddin（达里尔·拉丁）。\n\n我只是想为记录明确，如果美国运通不是联合辩护团所提交请求的一方，我们尚未决定美国运通是否会加入与该团体共同提交书面意见。我们将在法庭要求的任何期限内作出该决定。我只是想为记录作此说明。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3589 提交于 09/30/24 录入于 09/30/24 08:30:09\n\nLADDIN先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：那么，Goldstein律师（戈尔茨坦），您说您、Despins受托人（德斯平斯）和他的律师正在处理一份Word文档。\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：您带着那份文档吗？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：我有电子版，是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，请您把它通过电子邮件发送至法庭书记官电子邮箱。\n\n您有那个电子邮件地址吗？\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：我会查找。\n\n法庭：好的。然后，您知道，我需要审阅它。那么问题是，大家是想坐在这里等我审阅，还是你们想怎么做？\n\n我的意思是，我需要——我相信你们都能理解，我完全不知道今天任何人会说什么，对吧，所以我必须考虑你们所说的内容，我也必须查看，我希望查看那份文档；要理解的是，你们向我提交它的原因，是为了说明就此事项而言你们和受托人正在朝什么方向推进，然后我可以了解你们提出的哪些请求将被准许或驳回。\n\n我的意思是，Despins受托人，您对此有异议吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：完全没有，但我认为您应当花一些时间审阅，因为有很多内容——\n\n法庭：嗯，我将不得不花一些时间。\n\nDESPINS先生：不，我的意思是，例如，就今天而言，我不——这由您决定，但我实际上一开始审阅这个需要几个小时，不过也许您学得更快。\n\n法庭：我对此表示怀疑，但无论如何……\n\nGOLDSTEIN先生：法官阁下，我很乐意在今天下午我们离开这里之前通过电子邮件发送；然后，法官阁下，无论您何时对此作出决定，我们都会作出回应。如果您说，好的，我想这样做，但以下事项需要变更，或者受托人——\n\n法庭：嗯，鉴于你们二位刚才对我所说的情况，审阅它需要一些时间，那么我不会休庭并让所有人坐在这里等待。那样对你们所有人而言也确实没有意义。不过，我会做的是，在我阅读文档、查看文档并回过头考虑你们提出的请求后，我将作出我所决定的处理。法庭书记官将联系您，Goldstein律师，作为联合被告方和受托人的代表\n\n德斯潘（Despins）及其律师，无论我决定如何处理，明白吗？\n\n戈尔茨坦先生（MR. GOLDSTEIN）：好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：好的。\n\n戈尔茨坦先生：非常感谢。\n\n金塞斯先生（MR. KINDSETH）：法官阁下，我可以占用不到一分钟吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n金塞斯先生：再次说明，同样的——\n\n法庭：是的，我们听不见您说话，所以您必须——并请为记录说明您的姓名。\n\n金塞斯先生：斯蒂芬·金塞斯（Stephen Kindseth），Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所）。仅为记录起见，我们并非这些讨论的一方。我们不应成为该命令的一方。我们到场只是旁听。我只是想确保明确的是，这项拟议命令显然仅适用于同意该命令的当事方。但无论如何，我的委托人并未同意；尽管显然，如果有7天的选择加入期限，我们可能会选择加入，但截至目前我们尚未见到该命令，因此我们不是其当事方。谢谢，法官。\n\n法庭：没有人见过该命令，金塞斯律师。\n\n德斯潘先生：为明确起见，设想是该命令会影响您的委托人。我并不是说您同意这一点，但如果法庭倾向于这样做，目的就是让所有人遵循同一时间安排。也许您不想这样做，但如果您要这样做，我们认为让所有人处于同一时间线是合理的。我已经（听不清）提交了书面陈述，不是已经完成书面辩论，因为，例如，Zeisler & Zeisler，有一项动议，或者说针对依诉状作出判决的动议。那项动议——很快将完成书面辩论。它提出了相同的问题。我们认为，如果法官阁下朝这个方向推进，所有这些事项都应当同时审理。\n\n金塞斯先生：您看，这就是问题所在。斯克拉茨律师（Attorney Sklarz）提到的正当程序问题。如果它影响任何其他当事方，就应当提出一项动议——\n\n法庭：这不是正当程序问题，金塞斯律师。我们已经讨论过这个问题。\n\n金塞斯先生：有——\n\n法庭：好。停下。我们已经举行了一次又一次又一次的听证。您的委托人——您的委托人在本案中收到每一份诉状。所有这些文件均已在主案中提交。这不是正当程序问题，如果您继续提出这个问题，我会很不高兴。您享有您应有的一切权利。您是一位博学的律师。您可以处理此事。\n\n但是，继续试图将此定性为正当程序问题，对法庭以及自本案开始以来参与本案的所有当事方都是不公平的。因此，您做任何您认为需要做的事，但如果我再听到一次正当程序问题，我会非常生气。\n\n本法庭已经竭尽全力照顾您的委托人以及参与本案的所有其他人，我不会听任有人说其正当程序权利受到侵犯。\n\n那么，您是否还有任何内容希望补充记入记录？\n\n金塞斯先生：我所指出的具体问题——我并不是说法官阁下会做这种事——但如果该命令被提交并登记，而且在我的委托人从未见过该命令或未获得提出异议机会的情况下影响其权益——\n\n法庭：您有机会。您在这里。\n\n金塞斯先生：但我们尚未见到该命令。它尚未被提交。甚至没有提出动议。\n\n法庭：我也没有见过该命令。\n\n金塞斯先生：因此应当提出一项动议。\n\n法庭：并非所有事情都必须通过动议进行，律师。您在这一点上是错误的。\n\n金塞斯先生：好的。\n\n法庭：顺便说一句，您也多次在未提出动议的情况下这样做。自本案开始以来，您曾来到法庭请求在本案中登记拟议命令，而当时并没有提出动议，那么当时侵犯了谁的正当程序权利？\n\n金塞斯先生：我不记得有这种情形。\n\n法庭：我可以告诉您您何时这样做过。您想让我向您指出来吗？\n\n金塞斯先生：实际上——\n\n法庭：我可以回查案卷，为您找出来：当您就The Lady Mei（“梅女士号”）一事到庭，请求停止关于解除自动中止的听证，并改为登记一份无人见过的协议书时，律师。\n\n金塞斯先生：但仅那些部分——\n\n法庭：所以让我说——不要走那条路，因为那不是一条对您有利的路。\n\n现在，今天下午我不会再听取任何其他人的发言。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师，您将通过电子邮件发送您所谈及的那份文件。法庭将审阅该文件，并将依据其经确认的、管理其判例法并管理其案件负荷的权利——该权利一贯得到美国最高法院（Supreme Court of the United States）的支持——采取其认为必要且适当的任何行动，这就是我们今天下午将要做的。\n\n因此，今天下午没有其他需要处理的事项。法庭休庭。\n\n德斯潘先生：法官阁下——\n\n书记员（THE CLERK）：全体起立。法庭散庭。\n\n（庭审于下午2:36结束。）\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力所及，前述内容是上述案件庭审程序电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling September 27, 2024\n\nWilliam J. Garling，CET-543\n\n认证法庭誊录员\n\n代表 Reliable","key_entities":["Despins","Je","CIPA","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","RICO","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":16909,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-09-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-09-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:45:09"}