{"id":"court_ctb_3744_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3744,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-10-23","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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05007 (JAM) Plaintiff, . . v. . . Courtroom 123 AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY . Brien McMahon Federal Building COMPANY, . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendant . . Tuesday, October 8, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE (APPEARANCES CONTINUED) Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 1 of 66\n\n 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and- Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 For Genever Holdings: Michael T. McCormack, Esquire O'SULLIVAN MCCORMACK JENSEN & BLISS, P.C. 180 Glastonbury Boulevard Suite 210 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 For AIG Property Casualty Company: Michael P. Thompson, Esquire GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 95 Glastonbury Boulevard Suite 206 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 -and- John O'Connor, Esquire STEPTOE, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 For the U.S. Trustee: Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street Room 302 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 2 of 66\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 3 of 66\n\n| | | | 3 |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n| 2
3 | For Pacific Alliance
Asia Opportunity Fund: | Annecca H. Smith, Esquire
ROBINSON & COLE, LLP | |\n| 4 | | 280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103 | |\n| 5 | | -and- | |\n| 6
7 | | Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
Times Square Tower | |\n| 8 | | 7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036 | |\n| 9 | For the Official | | |\n| 10 | Committee of
Unsecured Creditors: | Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire | |\n| 11 | | PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
850 Main Street | |\n| 12 | | 8th Floor
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14
15 | For G Club Operations: | Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire
GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC
One Audubon Street | |\n| 16 | | 3rd Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06511 | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Debtors. Case no. 22-50073 (JAM) Matter No. 3534 (ZG) #3534; Application to Employ Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C., as New Jersey Real Estate Counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 8 Court's Ruling: 12 Matter No. 3551 (ZG) #3551; Motion of Genever Holdings LLC for Entry of Order Amending Order Authorizing Genever Holdings LLC Retention of Sotheby's International Realty as its Real Estate Broker and Sales Agent Filed by Georg Alexander Bongartz on behalf of Genever Holdings LLC, Debtor 13 Court's Ruling: 15 Matter No. 3565 (ZG) #3565; Motion to Limit Notice of Motions Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 Regarding Mediated/Avoidance Claim Settlements Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 21 Court's Ruling: 39 Matter No. 3569 (ZG) #3569; Application to Employ Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC as Cypriot Law Counsel to Chapter 11 Trustee Filed by Luc A. Despins on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 16 Court's Ruling: 20 Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 4 of 66\n\n 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Genever Holdings, LLC v. AIG Property Casualty Company Case no. 23-05007 (JAM) Matter No. 115 (ZG) #115; Motion to Amend Pre-Trial Order to Extend Damages Expert Discovery Filed by Timothy P. Jensen on behalf of Genever Holdings LLC, Plaintiff 43 Court's Ruling: 58 Matter No. 116 (ZG) #116; Order Setting Status Conference -- Court's Ruling: -- Matter No. 121 (ZG) #121; Motion for Leave to Depose Incarcerated HO WAN KWOK Filed by Michael P. Thompson on behalf of AIG Property Casualty Company, Defendant 53 Court's Ruling: 58 Transcriptionist's Certificate 66 Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 5 of 66\n\n 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:10 p.m.) THE COURT: So I ask the courtroom deputy to please call the calendar. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Adversary Number 22- -- I'm sorry -- Adversary Number 23-05007, Genever Holdings, LLC v AIG Property Casualty Company. THE COURT: Thank you. Good afternoon, if we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, for the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael McCormack for the Plaintiff, Genever Holdings LLC, in the adversary proceeding against AIG Property Casualty Company. MR. O'CONNOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John O'Connor for AIG, joined by Michael Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz for G Club Operations LLC. Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 6 of 66\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 THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, on behalf of PAG. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith of Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel for Creditor PAG. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon to everyone. I think that is everyone that I see on this remote hearing, so I think everyone has noted their appearances. So, we will start, I think Trustee Despins, with the matters in the main Chapter 11, jointly consolidated cases. Is that the applications to employ, is that where you'd like to start? MR. DESPINS: Sure, Your Honor, and I will try to cover that quickly. So, I don't know if the New Jersey counsel, local counsel was on first or whether the Sotheby's or Cyprus' counsel was on. THE COURT: I'll tell you what I see and we can go from there. I think the Cyprus counsel is on first, which is Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 7 of 66\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 3534, the application to employ Winne, Banta Basralian & Kahn, I guess, counsel. MR. DESPINS: Yeah, that's the New Jersey counsel, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, so go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Mr. Linsey is handling that. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Linsey? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. By this application, the trustee seeks to retain, I've been saying Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn. Your Honor may actually be right. I'll just say, \"Winne Banta,\" so I don't get tripped up. Winne Banta will provide legal services related to the Mahwah Mansion, including the anticipated sale of the property, to the extent the Court authorizes the sale or the trustee prevails in the adversary proceeding. The trustee is seeking to have New Jersey real estate counsel ready to go at the earliest opportunity in light of the expense of maintaining the Mahwah Mansion. As the Court may have noted in the application and in other motions recently filed by the trustee, the costs of maintaining the Mahwah Mansion presently exceed \\$282,000 per quarter. The trustee proposes to engage Winne Banta as special counsel for New Jersey real estate issues, pursuant to Section 327(e) of the Code. Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 8 of 66\n\n1 2 3 Winne Banta is experienced real estate counsel with offices in Bergen County, New Jersey, which is the county where Mahwah is located.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Following the filing of the application, the United States Trustee reached out to Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel and requested that Winne Banta provide a supplemental disclosure. That supplemental disclosure was provided and filed at ECF 3636. The United States Trustee also requested the Chapter 11 Trustee and Winne Banta add provisions to the retention order that are in line with the provisions of other trustee counsel retention orders; specifically, one providing for notice of any rate increases to be filed on the docket in advance, and the other providing allowable compensation shall not include the performance of trustee duties.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 The trustee has added those provisions, which are in the revised order filed by the trustee at ECF 3630. After the trustee filed the supplemental declaration and the revised order, the United States Trustee filed a statement of no objection, which is at ECF 3640.\n\n20 21 22 23 The trustee, the Chapter 11 Trustee is happy to answer any questions the Court may have and, otherwise, requests that the Court approve the application and enter the revised form of order at ECF 3630.\n\n24 25 MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, if I may, just two seconds?\n\n| 1 | I don't want this application to be perceived as |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | presumptuous because, you know, we actually would use them if |\n| 3 | there was a sale, but we needed them in August because of |\n| 4 | the -- we have to pay the taxes.
They were, you know, late, |\n| 5 | and we needed representation on the issue of whether we could |\n| 6 | get to pay just the full amount without interest and all |\n| 7 | that.
So he provided advice on that issue.
That's why we |\n| 8 | retained them at that time. |\n| 9 | It's true that our goal, as you noted, too, is to |\n| 10 | own and sell the property, but we got them involved early |\n| 11 | because of the tax issue with the Mahwah Mansion.
Thank you, |\n| 12 | Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | Attorney Claiborn, do you wish to be heard? |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I have nothing |\n| 16 | substantive to add.
Attorney Linsey covered all of the |\n| 17 | actions of the U.S. Trustee that are reflected on the docket. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
In the new order, the revised order |\n| 19 | 3630? |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes, that is satisfactory to the |\n| 21 | U.S. Trustee. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | Does anyone else wish to be heard on the |\n| 24 | application to retain special counsel? |\n| 25 | (No verbal response) |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hearing nothing, I'm looking at |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the proposed, revised order, ECF 3630.
I understand why the |\n| 3 | trustee is seeking to employ New Jersey real estate counsel |\n| 4 | in connection with the jointly administered Chapter 11 cases |\n| 5 | and I do understand that the counsel was retained to address |\n| 6 | issues, other than a potential sale, including payment of the |\n| 7 | taxes, with regard to the property in Mahwah, New Jersey. |\n| 8 | Plus, I did review the supplemental declaration |\n| 9 | and it appears to be in order.
The only thing that I would |\n| 10 | ask the courtroom deputy to do is note in the record before |\n| 11 | the first ordered paragraph, \"And after a hearing held on |\n| 12 | October 8th, 2024.\" |\n| 13 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I'm just looking to make sure I don't |\n| 15 | have any other changes to the proposed order. |\n| 16 | (Pause) |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
The only thing it doesn't, the order |\n| 18 | doesn't say, but I'm not sure that it needs to say it as |\n| 19 | specifically as some other orders have, is that counsel will |\n| 20 | seek reimbursement of compensation and expenses by submitting |\n| 21 | applications to the Court.
It just says, \"the allowance of |\n| 22 | compensation shall be determined, in accordance with the |\n| 23 | procedures set forth in,\" but it doesn't -- oh, it says, |\n| 24 | \"Local Bankruptcy Rule 2016,\" I suppose, that says -- I'm |\n| 25 | just seeing in different orders that you've been more |\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 specific about the need for them to file an application, but I don't think that that's critical. I will just let you know that they will have to file an application for compensation if the order doesn't say it that clearly. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. And that's the intention on our end, if not -- THE COURT: Well, it -- MR. LINSEY: -- phrased super explicitly. THE COURT: -- it's not only the intention; it's the requirement of the Code. Right? MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: So that's what's required. In any event, I have no other changes to the proposed order. So for all those reasons, the application is granted and the proposed order can enter with the minor changes noted on the record. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome. So which matter do you want to take next? MR. DESPINS: Luc -- I apologize, I said either the Sotheby's retention or the Cyprus counsel, Your Honor. I'm happy to do either. THE COURT: All right. Let me just look back at the calendar. Sotheby's is next on the calendar -- MR. DESPINS: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 13 of 66\n\n13\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: -- 3551, the motion -- MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: So, thank you, Your Honor. So, yeah, the Docket 3551, and to give you the history there, this is the broker that was retained by Genever to sell The Sherry-Netherland apartment. Because of changes in the law that you made, you know, that you recall, you have to go through this with Greenwich counsel -- Greenwich broker. As well, regarding the allocation of commissions between seller/broker and buyer/broker, we have filed this amendment. And in addition to that, the -- we had to increase the percentage to the buyer/broker, because in New York in the, you know, competing buildings and also in our own building, in The Sherry-Netherland, the buyer is getting a - the buyer/broker is getting a commission of 3 percent, as opposed to 2 percent, which we used to have. So we, therefore, modified the -- we sought modification of that retention agreement to allow for us to pay 3 percent to a buyer/broker. Still Sotheby's as the seller's broker remains at 2 percent. If there's no broker for a buyer, and that happens more and more now, then Sotheby's percentage or commission would be 3 percent.\n\n| 1 | And we also covered the point that the particular |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | broker here, Serena Boardman, could not act for another |\n| 3 | buyer, even if he or she wanted to retain Ms. Boardman, and |\n| 4 | that's been covered, except that Sotheby's -- other agents |\n| 5 | from Sotheby's are allowed to represent the -- a buyer, while |\n| 6 | Boardman represents us, or Genever, as the seller. |\n| 7 | So, no objections were filed and I believe the |\n| 8 | U.S. Trustee filed a statement of no objection at Docket |\n| 9 | 3614.
And a copy of the proposed order was attached to |\n| 10 | Docket 3551. |\n| 11 | So that's all we have on that issue, ma'am. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | Attorney Claiborn, did you wish to be heard? |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Just to state, Your Honor, for the |\n| 15 | record, that the U.S. Trustee remains concerned about using |\n| 16 | dual-agency provisions.
I recognize that that's been a prior |\n| 17 | feature of -- the pre-feature retention of its broker done |\n| 18 | earlier and then in connection with other sales in this |\n| 19 | Court.
That said, the U.S. Trustee has no objection to the |\n| 20 | motion and I reflected that in Statement 3614. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | Does anyone else wish to be heard on a motion to |\n| 23 | amend the order authorizing the retention of Sotheby's as the |\n| 24 | real estate broker and sales agent? |\n| 25 | (No verbal response) |\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hearing nothing, then I have |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | reviewed the motion for an order amending the prior order |\n| 3 | authorizing the retention of Sotheby's.
Again, the only |\n| 4 | change I would make, and I'm turning to the courtroom deputy, |\n| 5 | is to add, \"And after a hearing held on October 8th, 2024\" -- |\n| 6 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- \"it is hereby ordered that\" |\n| 8 | The only other thing I would note for the |\n| 9 | courtroom deputy is the amended engagement agreement should |\n| 10 | be attached to the order as Exhibit 1 -- |\n| 11 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
-- okay? |\n| 13 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
So -- because that's what the proposed |\n| 15 | order provides.
And I would like that to be attached to the |\n| 16 | order so that if someone views it, they will have that |\n| 17 | amended engagement agreement attached as Exhibit 1. |\n| 18 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
But for all the reasons that have been |\n| 20 | stated on the record, including, and in the motion and the |\n| 21 | U.S. Trustee's statement of no objection, and in accordance |\n| 22 | with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, |\n| 23 | including Sections 327(a), 328(a), and 336(b) -- 363(b) -- I |\n| 24 | don't know why I said, \"336\"; I apologize -- the motion is |\n| 25 | granted and the proposed order will enter with the minor |\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 change noted on the record. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? May I ask the Court to hold entry of the order for -- until tomorrow at noon? I just want to verify a technical point in the order, which I don't have in front of me. I think it's a non-issue, but I just want to do a last check before you enter the order -- THE COURT: Certainly. MR. DESPINS: -- if possible. THE COURT: That's fine. I will not enter that. MR. DESPINS: And I will be in communication with the courtroom deputy before noon tomorrow. THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I would move on to the retention of Cyprus counsel. So the name of the firm, it's hard to pronounce, but I think it's Chryssafinis & Polyviou. So they're our proposed Cyprus counsel. As we stated, we need them to represent us in Cyprus, with respect to the apartment that's located in Cyprus that is owned by -- and I put owned in quotes -- by a company called Bouillor Holdings, which entity is nominally, again, owned, in quotes, by the debtors' son. And, Your Honor, we have filed an adversary proceeding regarding that matter that's pending before Your Honor, but at the same\n\n| 1 | time, Cyprus counsel filed a -- they call them a \"motion\" |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | before the Cyprus Court -- to enjoin the sale and disposition |\n| 3 | of that apartment, pending a ruling on our action before Your |\n| 4 | Honor, so that's why we needed the Cyprus counsel. |\n| 5 | And I believe that we've received no objections. |\n| 6 | The U.S. Trustee filed a statement of no objection at Docket |\n| 7 | 3612.
That's all. |\n| 8 | I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, |\n| 9 | Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So my only question is, so what has |\n| 11 | happened in the court there?
Has your proposed counsel |\n| 12 | responded to this -- |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, they -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
They filed a -- I don't want to use |\n| 16 | the word \"complaint\" or \"motion,\" but I don't know the |\n| 17 | technical term over there -- but it's, essentially, a request |\n| 18 | for the Cyprus Court to issue an injunction to prevent the |\n| 19 | sale of the apartment.
And that injunction was issued.
It |\n| 20 | was issued ex parte and now it's on notice to Bouillor and to |\n| 21 | the debtors' son.
And there's a hearing later in October -- |\n| 22 | I forget which day -- it may be the 21st, but don't hold me |\n| 23 | to that precisely -- but it's later in October where the |\n| 24 | Court will revisit the issuance of that free order. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
The only other question I had, |\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 which is -- and thank you for that explanation -- paragraph 7 of the order says that the payment in euro will be converted from U.S. dollars to euro at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of payment, as opposed to the date of award. How you -- I mean, I could understand the reason for either one of those, but I don't know, you're going to determine what the date of payment so going to be? MR. DESPINS: Well, we'll know when the one making the payment, what the rate would be, but we're happy to make it as of the date of approval, if Your Honor would prefer. THE COURT: Well, I just -- MR. DESPINS: But I don't think there's going to be such a swing between the -- THE COURT: -- don't know if I prefer anything - one or the other -- it's just that I think there's more certainty to the date of the entry of the order awarding the fees, as there is to the date of payment, that's all. MR. DESPINS: So, we're happy to make that change, Your Honor. You're right, it's more precise, as the entry of the order cannot be debated exactly as to when that was. THE COURT: I think it's probably -- you know, it's more precise. MR. DESPINS: Would you like us to make that change or would -- THE COURT: We can make that change. That's fine.\n\n 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Just say on the date of -- on the date, such fees and expenses are awarded. How about that? MR. DESPINS: That works, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? (No verbal response) THE COURT: I don't have any other questions, Trustee Despins. If you had anything else you want to tell me, I'm happy to hear from you. MR. DESPINS: Not at this time, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard with regard to the trustee's retention of counsel in Cyprus? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has no objection and the suggestion that the Court is making about changing the exchange process is fine. I had, since I originally asked, that there be a mechanism to know when the exchange rate would be calculated, so the Court's suggestion works perfectly fine. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think it makes more sense just like a record date in a transaction, right. That's the way I look at it anyway. But in any event, anyone else wish to be heard? Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 19 of 66\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 (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, then, I understand why the trustee is seeking to employ counsel in Cyprus. I am familiar with the facts surrounding the trustee's desired retention of counsel and I do think it's in the best interests of the debtors' estate and its creditors. And the trustee has set forth the basis under the Bankruptcy Code under Section 327(a), in particular, to retain counsel. The order contemplates that counsel will only be paid after compliance with the Bankruptcy Code sections regarding payment of compensation and the local bank -- and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016 and Local Rule 2016 and the interim compensation order. The only other change I would have to the proposed order, again, speaking with the courtroom deputy, is to note that there was a hearing held on October 8th, 2024, and we can make that change, and I can show you later if you'd like, to the end of paragraph 7, as well. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. And then Trustee Despins, there's no issue from your perspective with that -- this order issuing -- I'm sorry -- entering with those changes? MR. DESPINS: No issues at all, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Then the application is granted\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3744 | Filed 10/23/24 | Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 | Page 21 of 66 |\n|---------------|-------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| | | | | 21 |\n| 1 | | | and the proposed order with the changes noted on the record, | |\n| 2 | will enter. | | | |\n| 3 | | MR. DESPINS: | Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| 4 | | THE COURT: | Thank you. | |\n| 5 | | MR. DESPINS: | I think that covers the case | |\n| 6 | | | matters, as opposed to the adversary proceeding. | |\n| 7 | | THE COURT: | No, there's one other matter. | |\n| 8 | | MR. DESPINS: | Oh. | |\n| 9 | | THE COURT: | There's the motion to limit notice in | |\n| 10 | | | the main case; isn't that in the main case, as well -- | |\n| 11 | | MR. LINSEY: | Yes, Your Honor. | |\n| 12 | | THE COURT: | -- on the avoidance procedures? | |\n| 13 | | MR. LINSEY: | I will handle that. | |\n| 14 | | THE COURT: | Yeah, go ahead. | |\n| 15 | | MR. LINSEY: | Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| 16 | | | The motion to limit notice requests that the Court | |\n| 17 | | | approve that notice of mediation and avoidance 9019 motions | |\n| 18 | | | be limited to what we'll call the \"noticed parties.\" | This |\n| 19 | | | motion was filed at the same time that the trustee filed a | |\n| 20 | | | motion requesting authority to settle claims against one | |\n| 21 | | | particular avoidance defendant; that's Wildes & Weinberg; | |\n| 22 | | | however, to be clear, it would apply globally to the | |\n| 23 | | | mediation and avoidance 9019 motions, that is, motions | |\n| 24 | | | requesting approval of settlements reached through the | |\n| 25 | | | mediation proceedings under the processes approved by the | |\n\n1 2 Court, or otherwise requesting settlement or approval of settlement of avoidance claims.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The noticed parties proposed by the trustee are, specifically, the United States Trustee, the debtor, the Committee, the counterparty to any settlement addressed by the relevant motion, and all appearing parties that received notice via the ECF system, and any appearing parties that have requested notice in the Chapter 11 case, but don't receive the ECF notice.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 The vast majority of those parties, the noticed parties, would receive notice of mediation and avoidance 9019 motions by ECF. I guess the only mailing that would need to be done would be with the manual-notice party, as there are less than 20 of those at this point.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Without the limitation on notice requested by the trustee's motion, every time the trustee files a motion requesting approval of a mediated settlement, the trustee would be required to undertake a mailing of all creditors, which would require a large-scale mailing to individuals and entities all over the world. To date, there have been more than 1400 proofs of claim that have been filed in the debtors' Chapter 11 case and that would incur substantial expense.\n\n24 25 The proposed notice parameters are appropriate, particularly in light of the fact that the Committee will\n\n| 1 | receive notice, as well as any creditors that have appeared |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | in the Chapter 11 case, and the United States Trustee. |\n| 3 | No one has objected to this relief.
The trustee |\n| 4 | notes that G Club Operations filed an objection, which states |\n| 5 | that it is directed to both, the motion to limit notice and |\n| 6 | the Wildes & Weinberg 9019 motion.
Suffice it to say that |\n| 7 | the trustee does not agree with what G Club says in its |\n| 8 | objection and will respond at the appropriate time, but given |\n| 9 | that the objection does not address the relief requested by |\n| 10 | the trustee and the motion to limit notice, the trustee does |\n| 11 | not believe that this is the appropriate forum to address |\n| 12 | that. |\n| 13 | G Club's counsel has advised the trustee that it |\n| 14 | directed its objection, in part, to the motion to limit |\n| 15 | notice because if G Club is correct, the trustee will be |\n| 16 | required to re-serve the Wildes & Weinberg 9019 motion. |\n| 17 | The trustee has already served the Wildes & |\n| 18 | Weinberg 9019 motion on the noticed parties in the form filed |\n| 19 | on the public docket.
The trustee doesn't believe that the |\n| 20 | Court ultimately will require the trustee to serve a |\n| 21 | different forum in the future, however, if the trustee is |\n| 22 | incorrect in that view, then given the noticed parties will |\n| 23 | receive notice almost entirely by ECF, any additional costs |\n| 24 | to serve this in the future would be minimal. |\n| 25 | With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that |\n\n1 the Court may have.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: I have two questions -- well, it's actually the same question, just two different parties. On page 2 of the proposed order, the noticed parties, paragraph 2, it says, \"the debtor and the committee.\" I think you mean the debtors' counsel and the Committee's counsel, don't you? Otherwise, you're going to have to serve the debtor and I believe he's in prison.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 And we're also talking about -- well, the other debtors, so I think it should be the debtors' counsels. You know, I mean, this is a jointly administered case, right, so -- and then the Committee's counsel, are you actually going to serve each Committee member? I would assume you mean counsel on both of those, but I'm asking that question.\n\n15 16 17 MR. LINSEY: No, we do mean counsel, Your Honor, and we can make that change indicating that service will be to their counsel.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: Well, if there aren't any other changes, and we'll see, then we can make that change, because we're also going to make the -- the courtroom deputy knows I will ask her to add, \"And after a hearing held on...\" in the order, as well.\n\n23 24 25 So, at this point, I do not have any other questions at the moment, but I can see that Attorney Sklarz wants to speak and be heard, so he will be in a second,\n\n 25 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 Attorney Sklarz, okay? I just want to make sure that the U.S. Trustee had -- I do -- let me step back. I did not see that the U.S. Trustee filed any opposition to this motion, where I did see the U.S. Trustee had filed opposition to the settlement, the specific settlement 9019 motion that Attorney Sklarz referenced in his objection to the motion to limit notice. So I want to make sure, Attorney Claiborn, that that is accurate, that the Office of the United States Trustee does not have any objection to this motion to limit notice of all settlement motions in the avoidance actions cases -- adversaries, I should say -- from this point forward. MS. CLAIBORN: That's correct, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee has no objection to the motion to limit notice. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Attorney Sklarz, I'm happy to hear from you. Go right ahead. MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, we filed our objection to the motion to limit out of an abundance of caution because, number one, of the service issue addressed by Attorney Linsey, so I won't belabor that, and as the substance implicates the process, but if the Court prefers to defer that issue, as Attorney Linsey indicated, to a final hearing Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 25 of 66\n\n| 1 | on the 9019 motion itself, I don't have an issue to |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | proceeding in the manner suggested with the redacted, sealed |\n| 3 | motion served out.
If the Court rules in favor of the |\n| 4 | trustee, obviously, the service will be proper.
If the Court |\n| 5 | rules against the trustee, I think they have to re-serve. |\n| 6 | But we have no objection to limiting notice, as |\n| 7 | the trustee proposes, as long as the legally operative |\n| 8 | documents are filed on the public record in the manner the |\n| 9 | Court so-orders, whether that be redacted or unredacted.
But |\n| 10 | the substance of our objection is to the redactions and |\n| 11 | sealing. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I just heard -- I'm thinking |\n| 13 | about what you just said, Attorney Sklarz.
So you're saying, |\n| 14 | I believe, that if I grant the motion today limiting notice, |\n| 15 | then your -- and this is -- I just want to make sure I |\n| 16 | understand your position -- then when and if there's a |\n| 17 | hearing on -- and there will be, because it's a 9019 |\n| 18 | motion -- on the settlement with the firm -- and I apologize, |\n| 19 | I don't have -- I know it's W & W; I can't say anything more |\n| 20 | than that at the moment -- that you would like to be heard on |\n| 21 | that motion because you feel that it's inappropriately been |\n| 22 | served because it is sealed, correct? |\n| 23 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes, our object -- the basis of our |\n| 24 | substantive objection is that under prevailing law, plus |\n| 25 | statutory rules and cases, which I won't get into now, a |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 27 of 66\n\n1 2 3 trustee cannot file a sealed 9019 motion or a redacted 9019 motion in the way that's been done here, certainly, without submitting a lot more evidence.\n\n27\n\n4 5 6 Whether the trustee ultimately prevails on its evidentiary burden under the rules and the law, would be for an ultimate hearing.\n\n7 8 9 THE COURT: Well, what evidentiary burden are you talking about, on a 9019 motion or -- I mean, because the -- MR. SKLARZ: No.\n\n10 11 THE COURT: -- evidentiary burden on a 9019 motion isn't very high.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. SKLARZ: No, no, I'm talking under 11 U.S.C. 107, for sealing or obscuring documents from a public record, and under our local rule, for sealing or redacting documents from the court record. These are judicial documents that the Court is going to use to make decisions and those are - both, the Bankruptcy Code, our Local Rules, and Second Circuit precedent says that there's only very narrow ways to seal judicial documents from the public record. This is what our brief is about.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 But my point here is if the Court were to rule in our favor, ultimately, in G Club's favor, ultimately, the service of a redacted or sealed 9019 motion at this point would be improper and, therefore, we'd be back to stage one. Now, I don't -- it sounds like it may not matter\n\n1 2 3 4 5 because there's very few parties that need mail service or special service and that as long as the trustee files the unredacted versions on the record and emails it to the 20 odd-noticed parties that would get a mailing, they can probably come back and get their 9019 motion heard.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I just wanted to make sure that we didn't miss a deadline or that the Court, or that we've waived anything, or that the Court -- and I just wanted to make sure the Court understood the issue here, because it really goes to First Amendment issues, as well as fundamental, public, open courts and public dockets issues that are delineated in the Bankruptcy Code, itself, Section 107, and in our Local Rules, which are very specific on sealing and redacting.\n\n14 15 16 17 THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Thank you. My question, Attorney Linsey, now, is if I'm looking at paragraph 3 of the proposed order on page 2, and it says:\n\n18 19 20 21 \"For the avoidance of doubt, in a mediation/avoidance 9019 motion is filed under seal, notice shall be served on the noticed parties of the redacted version of the motion.\"\n\n22 23 24 25 Shouldn't that just say, \"The redacted version of the motion will be served,\" as opposed to \"notice\"? I mean, if you're proposing to have -- right now, the issue is this. I have no issue with limiting notice, right, to any of the\n\n| 1 | parties that you've asked for, the United States Trustee, the |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | debtors' counsels, including counsel for Genever, I suppose, |\n| 3 | the Genever entities, the Committee's counsel, the |\n| 4 | counterparty to any settlement, by electronic filing to all |\n| 5 | parties, and any parties requested notice, but that is unable |\n| 6 | to accept. |\n| 7 | I don't know what that is, by the way.
Could you |\n| 8 | enlighten me on that, Number 5? |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | Parties, basically, that have filed an appearance, |\n| 11 | but are not able to receive ECF notice. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
There is no such thing as a party that |\n| 13 | can file a notice that isn't able to seek and receive ECF |\n| 14 | notice.
There's no such thing in our court.
So I don't know |\n| 15 | who that is, unless you can -- |\n| 16 | MR. LINSEY:
I can only -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
-- point me to an example, I can't -- |\n| 18 | there is no such thing.
You either -- there's -- we issued |\n| 19 | ruling and the procedure years ago that said that filing a |\n| 20 | demand for service is not acceptable under the rules and if |\n| 21 | you want to get service electronically, you either have to |\n| 22 | get service by mail or you have to consent to electronic |\n| 23 | service if you don't have counsel who is an electronic filer |\n| 24 | and who obtains service. |\n| 25 | So, I'm not sure who five is, (2)(v) -- |\n\n 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: -- or, actually, it's (vi), I'm sorry. MR. LINSEY: No, it's (v), Your Honor. So when documents are filed by ECF -- and I'm glad we're talking about this -- the -- there is an ECF notice that issues that sends notice to counsel who are able to receive electronically. And then on that, and I'm speaking to the automatically generated email -- THE COURT: Yep. MR. LINSEY: -- that gets circulated -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: -- there is a supplemental message that says notice will not be electronically mailed to, and then lists a number of parties by address. THE COURT: But those are just parties that are listed on a creditor list or something. Those aren't -- or on proofs of claim. Those aren't people who necessarily have filed a notice of appearance. MR. LINSEY: So those are -- I don't know that they're all creditors who filed proofs of claim; at least, the numbers wouldn't make sense. And it is a little bit of a head-scratcher, because to a certain extent, some of these parties who appear on the list are parties who actually also have, like, ECF -- THE COURT: I don't understand that, either. Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 30 of 66\n\n 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: -- are receiving by ECF. THE COURT: I don't understand that, either. I've had that question for 11 years now. I don't understand it either. MR. LINSEY: I have, too, Your Honor. But out of an abundance of caution, what we have been doing is stripping out anyone who does get an ECF. So, for example, Mr. Sarnoff, for some reason, his address is on there. So is Steven Mackey's address is on there. The trustee understands that Mr. Sarnoff and the U.S. Trustee are receiving ECF notice, so we don't send mailings to them. But anyone who's on that list who is not receiving ECF notice, that is -- those are the manual-notice parties that we do typically send paper mailings to. I don't know if anyone reads them, but out of an abundance of caution from a notice perspective, that's what we've been doing -- THE COURT: Well, it's really not -- MR. LINSEY: -- that is what we've been doing. THE COURT: It's really not notice, obviously; it's service. It's service, right? I mean, everybody calls it \"notice,\" but it's service, because, otherwise, you know, whatever. But the point is, I don't -- in any event, I don't understand 6, \"any who's requested notice but is unable.\" Now, that would apply to a party who has filed a proof of Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 31 of 66\n\n1 2 3 claim, because they can check the box and say, Send all notices to this box, but they haven't filed a notice of appearance.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 But we might need to work on that in the future; I mean, remember, there's a new rule that went into effect, I don't know, 2017, '18, '19, something, that says under 2002(k) or some subsection -- I don't remember if that's the right subsection -- you can ask for a specific list in a case.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I've never understood why we can't do that. I think we can. But I don't want to waste everybody's time this afternoon talking about that. I'm just raising this as an issue, because I'm not sure what 6 means, because it's not -- as -- as unable -- I understand that the notice of electronic filing is different, Attorney Linsey, than what the Bankruptcy Noticing Center sends out. But you're saying on the notice of electronic filing, for example -- Attorney Sarnoff, I'm going to use you as an example -- you're saying, Attorney Linsey, he gets electronic filing; obviously, he has notice of appearance. But you're also saying he's listed as somebody who gets it mailed to him, as well?\n\n22 23 MR. LINSEY: He is listed in the manual-noticed parties, correct --\n\n24 25 THE COURT: That doesn't make any sense. MR. LINSEY: -- where it says, notice will not be\n\n1 electronically mailed to him.\n\n2\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. All right.\n\n3 4 5 Well, we'll take a look at that, then. Then we'll just leave it in for now and we'll go from there, but that doesn't make any sense to me. But, you know, in any event...\n\n6 7 8 MR. LINSEY: And, Your Honor, we had it in as an abundance of caution, so we would be happy to not have this subsection.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: No, I think we have to keep it for -- I think we should keep it in for right now until I can review what you've just said, which is Attorney Sarnoff is a perfect example of someone who shouldn't be, being mailed something. He has a notice of appearance in the case and I think has since the beginning, so I don't know why anybody would be required to or spend time and money serving Attorney Sarnoff; he's already consented to electronic service of all documents by being a filer.\n\n18 19 So, in any event, again, I don't want to waste any time. Let's -- we'll move on from that.\n\n20 21 But with regard to paragraph 3, Attorney Sklarz, are you reading -- do you see paragraph 3?\n\n22 MR. SKLARZ: I do, Your Honor.\n\n23 24 THE COURT: All right. So are you objecting to paragraph 3?\n\nMR. SKLARZ: I mean, I object to the concept of\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 filing a 9019 motion under seal or in a redacted format. And that's why I raised this as an objection to the motion to limit. If it gets served out that way and Your Honor ultimately rules in my favor and in the U.S. Trustee's favor, then it has to be reserved. But for purposes of this discussion today, Attorney Linsey has said what he said -- I won't say it again -- and if we -- and if the trustee -- I apologize -- if the trustee ultimately prevails, no harm, no foul. If the trustee doesn't prevail -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: -- they may have to re-serve. THE COURT: I understand. All right. MR. SKLARZ: I just didn't want to waive the argument. I didn't want the Court to say, why didn't you bring it to my attention before? I wanted to make sure it was squared up, because I think it is a service issue nested within what I think is a fundamental problem with how they're noticing it. THE COURT: I understand. Okay. So, looking at paragraph 3 in the context of this motion to limit notice, which, in fact, it's to limit service -- I know that's what everyone says, but it's really service; that's what it's all about, right -- the notice provisions of Rule 2002 are what the Clerk's Office or Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 34 of 66\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 someone else that the Court directs, has to provide a time frame of notice of. But the underlying motion or whatever it is for relief has to be served, so it's really -- it's -- if it's filed under seal, service of the redacted version shall be served on the noticed parties, right. Isn't that what it should say, Attorney Linsey, I think, anyway. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, you can push back if you disagree, I'm just -- MR. LINSEY: No, I mean, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't disagree. THE COURT: -- saying I think that's what it should say. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor has known me long enough, I wouldn't agree just to be agreeable. We agree, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, I just -- I think that if you can clean that up, please, and then clean up paragraph 2 with the debtors' counsel and counsel for the Genever parties. I mean, they're going to get it. They're electronically - these are all people that are going to get it; they're all electronic receivers. So, I think you should keep 6 the same for now, but I do want to look into the issue. I will, with the\n\n| 1 | Clerk's Office, about an example like Attorney Sarnoff |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | getting something in the mail when he's already gotten it |\n| 3 | electronically; I don't understand that for one minute. |\n| 4 | But, in any event, so Attorney Sklarz, I |\n| 5 | understand your point.
Your objection is reserved to the |\n| 6 | hearing on the motion on the 9019 motion that hasn't even |\n| 7 | been set for a hearing yet, okay.
And it hasn't been set for |\n| 8 | a hearing because I haven't even looked at it, number one, |\n| 9 | but number two, when I got this -- when we got this motion to |\n| 10 | limit the notice, but it should be the notice and service -- |\n| 11 | call it notice and service, I think, Attorney Linsey, of |\n| 12 | motions -- |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
-- then -- and it applies in all |\n| 15 | avoidance actions, I thought we better address that first, |\n| 16 | okay. |\n| 17 | So I think that I understand your point, Attorney |\n| 18 | Sklarz.
You've made your -- and we will address it when that |\n| 19 | matter gets set for a hearing, okay? |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right.
In the meantime -- |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yes? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, if I may? |\n| 25 | There's -- under the rule (indiscernible), what |\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 doesn't make sense here -- I need to raise this from a case management point of view -- Attorney Sklarz is appearing on behalf of G Club. G Club is an entity that we're seeking an alter-ego ruling about, and that was filed in February, February 15th or 14th of this year. So, you might say, Well, you don't have the ruling yet, but that entity, there's extensive testimony at the criminal trial that it was run by Kwok and Wang and that there's -- that company doesn't exist; it's in liquidation. So the question is, who's instructing Mr. Sklarz to spend our money on these issues? Because the money that is a G Club is going to be the estate's money. That's presumptuous to say that, but it's very likely to be, in light of the testimony at the criminal trial. So I'm really concerned about somebody appearing on behalf of a liquidating company. Who's running the company today? Who's giving instructions to Mr. Sklarz? It's a fundamental issue in the case and I just -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: -- it just needed to be put on the table. THE COURT: And I think that's what you'll have to raise all those issues when we come to the next hurdle after this motion, right, after this motion to limit notice and\n\n 38 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 service of -- MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- compromised motions. Because I don't have any of that in front of me. I understand what you've said, but I don't know what was -- you know, I don't know what the testimony or the evidence was at the criminal trial, with regard to -- I just understand that there was a guilty verdict and the jury returned guilty verdict on several counts. And that Mr. Kwok, I believe, is going - was going to be sends in November and is now not going to be sentenced until December; that's all I know. I don't know anything more than that. So, I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying, I don't have anything in the record before me. MR. DESPINS: I understand. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: It's just that this company doesn't exist. It doesn't operate. It's -- THE COURT: Well, you all let me know about that -- MR. DESPINS: -- it was always a name. THE COURT: -- okay? MR. DESPINS: Okay. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, obviously, we disagree. Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 38 of 66\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 THE COURT: I'm sure you do, so -- MR. SKLARZ: -- but that's not necessary. THE COURT: And we'll see where we end up on that issue, okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: But in the meantime, I do find that the G Club objection to the motion to limit notice, and I will call it, \"and service\" is not, in my opinion, applicable to this motion, this specific motion that's going to apply to all compromises that may be filed in the avoidance actions and that G Club reserves their right to raise that objection. And I'm going to allow them, subject to whatever anybody else has to say, including what the trustee just said, Attorney Sklarz. If there's something in front of me to show me something that I need to consider, I will consider it, obviously. We have not set that hearing yet and we will after we enter this order. Now, Attorney Linsey, so I'd like you to revise the proposed order, please. And just revise it to say that it's, you know, an order granting the motion to limit notice and service of motions, pursuant to 9019 in the mediation avoidance claim settlements. And then make the changes -- I'm sorry -- before the first ordered paragraph, you know, add the language, \"and after a hearing held on October 8th,\" Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 39 of 66\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and then change paragraph two to add the debtors' counsel, and Genever's counsel, and then the Committee's counsel. And then I think you change the third paragraph to say that the motion, the mediation avoidance 9019 motion shall be served on the noticed parties, with the version - the redacted version filed on the public docket, okay. Does that make sense, Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: So, to be clear on the change to paragraph (f)(3), Your Honor, I just want to look at that for a moment. (Pause) MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: I don't want you to serve a notice. I want you to serve whatever -- MR. LINSEY: Understood. So, it will say -- yeah, it will say a copy of the motion will be served -- THE COURT: Right. MR. LINSEY: -- rather than a notice shall be served. THE COURT: Right. MR. LINSEY: That change so completely fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: Understood. THE COURT: All right. So I will give you until\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 this Friday, which you may or may not need, unless you tell me you need longer than that, and that's fine. But I was thinking to give you until this Friday to submit the revised proposed order. MR. LINSEY: That's plenty of time, Your Honor. I'll have it in by tomorrow. THE COURT: Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Now -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, now, I can -- I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, when the Court considers what date to use to schedule the hearing on a motion to compromise with W & W and the (indiscernible) to seal issue, could I just ask that that hearing not be scheduled the week of November 18th? I'm anticipating Your Honor would schedule it for earlier than that, but I just wanted to ask in the event that (indiscernible). THE COURT: Yeah, I'm not sure when it's going to be scheduled. We have some scheduling conflicts already in existence, but I understand you're asking not the week of November 18th, which the week before Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is the following week. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. We will note that Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 41 of 66\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 request. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Now, we can turn, since we've dealt with all the merits in the -- MR. SKLARZ: One more thing, Your Honor? THE COURT: Oh, Attorney Sklarz, yeah, go ahead. MR. SKLARZ: May I be excused? THE COURT: Yes. MR. SKLARZ: I don't have anything to do with the rest -- THE COURT: Yes, you may. Thank you. MR. SKLARZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Have a good afternoon. THE COURT: Okay. You, too. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor -- I apologize -- may I mention one thing prior to Your Honor turning to IG, which we're not involved in? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. I just wanted to note that the trustee filed, this morning, a motion to increase the funding cap, with respect to the Mahwah Mansion, which is at 3650. The funding order for the Mahwah Mansion provided that, subject to the Court's schedule, that a motion that's limited to that relief, just Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 42 of 66\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 increasing the funding cap, may be heard on seven days' notice. So, if possible, we'd ask that that be heard at the hearing a week from today; if not, then a hearing a week after that. I just wanted to mention that notice provision of the funding order and that's all I have, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a look at that, hopefully, later today, okay? MR. LINSEY: Thank you so much, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. Now, we'll turn to the Genever/AIG Adversary 23-05007. And the three matters that are on the calendar in that adversary are the motion to amend the primarily order to extend damage, expert discovery; the order setting the status conference, we -- you know, I think we did that; for many reasons, we obviously don't need to set another status conference at this time unless someone tells me that we should -- and then the motion for leave to depose the individual debtor. So, to me, the 115 and 121 are interrelated. I'm not sure if everybody else agrees with that, but I'm happy to hear from the Plaintiff first and then the Defendant. MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Michael McCormack, on behalf of Genever. As the Court is aware, we filed a motion to modify the\n\n1 2 3 4 5 pretrial order to stay deposition and further discovery of expert witnesses, pending a decision by the Court on Genever's motion for summary judgment, as to Count 4, which is a count for declaratory relief, as to coverage under the AIG policy for the loss, and AIG has opposed that motion.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The motion was filed because AIG seeks to take six depositions of experts that we previously testified as damages experts, who will testify about repairs and costs and replacement costs to repair and replace the damaged apartment arising from the buyer. And given the fact that these depositions do not have anything to do with whether or not AIG is obligated to provide coverage under the policy, as we argued in our motion for summary judgment, we think good cause exists to stay those depositions until after a ruling to avoid what we consider to be unnecessary use of bankruptcy estate resources to do those depositions.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 You know, the Court obviously has the discretion and given the fact that they wish to take six depositions of nothing that relates to liability under the policy and they have not indicated that it relates to liability, as we set forth in our motion and our reply brief, we think it makes judicial and economic sense to stay these depositions and further expert discovery until the Court rules on the summary judgment motion.\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n| 1 | Attorney O'Connor? |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. O'CONNOR:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | We're in violent agreement with Genever on |\n| 4 | something Mr. McCormack just said twice, and that is these |\n| 5 | depositions have nothing to do with the issues raised in the |\n| 6 | summary judgment motion.
And that's our point, our point is |\n| 7 | no matter how that motion is decided, these depositions are |\n| 8 | going to have to take place because the Court could grant the |\n| 9 | motion -- we don't think it should, but it could -- and if it |\n| 10 | does, then there's still going to be a damages case and we're |\n| 11 | still going to have to take deposition testimony. |\n| 12 | If the Court denies the motion, which we think it |\n| 13 | should, we're still going to have to take deposition |\n| 14 | testimony of their experts on damages. |\n| 15 | Now, I'm as happy to prevent expenditure of legal |\n| 16 | costs that don't need to be expended, but there's no |\n| 17 | connection between the summary judgment motion and these |\n| 18 | depositions.
If they want to not do the damages discovery, |\n| 19 | staying it for a motion that's completely unrelated doesn't |\n| 20 | make any sense. |\n| 21 | What we would do, if they want to see if they can |\n| 22 | avoid those costs, we can stay them and go to mediation and |\n| 23 | see if we can work it out.
If that happened, we wouldn't |\n| 24 | need any damages discovery.
But if the case isn't going to |\n| 25 | resolve, then whether their motion is granted or denied, |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | doesn't have any effect on damages. | |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | If the Defendant moves for summary judgment, then | |\n\n3 4 5 I kind of understand because, well, geez, the Court might grant that, then, you know, they win the case. There's no damages. Why are we going to waste everybody's time?\n\n6 7 8 But that's just not the case here. So we don't see that there's a reason to not do the damages discovery that we're going to have to do anyway.\n\n9 10 11 THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure -- MR. MCCORMACK: Your Honor, if I may respond? THE COURT: Yeah, go right ahead.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. MCCORMACK: As we pointed out in our reply brief, a ruling on the motion for summary judgment, as to the issue of whether this is a covered loss under the property coverage section of the policy, could affect these depositions and we're thinking of counsel. And one thing that I think is important to note is that, as we point out in our reply brief, the insurance policy contains what's called an \"appraisal provision,\" which allows the parties to proceed with appraisal whenever there's a dispute over the amount of the loss. Appraisal cannot be used for purposes of determining questions of law, such as coverage in this case. So it is -- look, we recognize that if the case\n\n24 25 goes to trial, eventually, that the expert depositions may be necessary, but it's also possible that if coverage is found\n\n1 2 3 4 5 to exist here, the case becomes, in one aspect, an issue of damages. And if the parties dispute the amount of the loss, either side, I believe, can invoke the appraisal clause, which is an alternative form of resolution under the policies for purposes of monetary disputes.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 So it's not necessarily absolutely true to say that if the Court grants a summary judgment motion and finds that this is a covered loss, that these damages experts and the depositions will need to go forward. As we point out in our reply brief, AIG opposed the motion for summary judgment claiming that it needed to do additional discovery to respond to the motion for summary judgment. They acknowledge that these depositions have nothing to do with liability under summary judgment and for 10 months before the initial stay entered, AIG did nothing other than serve written discovery last summer as to discovery with respect to any liability if coverage. And up until just a few weeks ago, they did not make any attempt to conduct any depositions that relate to liability in the policy; all they sought to do was to take the depositions of these six experts.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 MR. O'CONNOR: That's not quite right, Your Honor. We subpoenaed the FDNY for records relating to the cause and origin of the fire. The response we got is that it remains under investigation and that we will get the report and any other relevant materials once the investigation is complete,\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 but it's not correct that we didn't do anything. We've been trying. We're limited because there's an ongoing investigation as to the cause and origin of the fire. THE COURT: When did you get that response, Attorney O'Connor, from the FDNY? MR. O'CONNOR: I would say it was in the spring, Your Honor. I believe we served the subpoena in February. I'm going off memory, but that's about right. We got a response and we've been checking in every few weeks just to make sure that we didn't fall through the cracks and the investigation is over, and we've been told the investigation is not over, so there's no final report to issue or materials to materials to provide. THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you a few other questions. That's helpful for me to know, thank you. But let me ask you a few other questions. MR. O'CONNOR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Right now, if I am correct, and I believe I am, fact discovery is completing by November 8th. That's the date in the order that was agreed upon and extended by the parties. And I have listened or I tried to listen very carefully to everyone's arguments in the case, including Attorney O'Connor, your arguments that you needed additional discovery in order to respond to the summary judgment motion.\n\n| 1 | And so, I have allowed that to happen, as far as |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | time has gone by, I should say.
I'm not saying I know |\n| 3 | exactly what you did, but I have allowed the time to be |\n| 4 | extended and then, obviously, stayed, subjects to the |\n| 5 | criminal proceeding in New York.
And so, my question is, |\n| 6 | what -- aside from the request that you made to have the |\n| 7 | Court issue an order to allow you to depose the individual |\n| 8 | debtor, what other discovery, fact discovery do you need to |\n| 9 | complete between now and November 8th? |\n| 10 | MR. O'CONNOR:
We have been trying to subpoena the |\n| 11 | builder for a deposition, who was involved in the issuance of |\n| 12 | these policies, Captain Skabeki (phonetic). |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Yeah, you haven't been able to |\n| 14 | subpoena her? |\n| 15 | MR. O'CONNOR:
We've tried twice and been |\n| 16 | unsuccessful, so we're changing tack and we're going to issue |\n| 17 | a 30(b)(6) subpoena to the company.
What we've been told is |\n| 18 | she works from home and so they would not accept a subpoena |\n| 19 | for her as Wolfson, her employer.
I don't know her home |\n| 20 | address, so we're going to issue, this week, a subpoena for |\n| 21 | Wolfson, a 30(b)(6), that I would assume that will intending |\n| 22 | to provide Ms. Skabeki. |\n| 23 | Then we have Kwok.
We have the ongoing FDNY |\n| 24 | subpoena that we're waiting for the resolution of their |\n| 25 | report so that we can get discovery there the FDNY on cause |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 50 of 66\n\n50\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and origin of the fire. Those are the things that we have - things in the fire right now. THE COURT: But, okay, the summary judgment issue is whether or not there's coverage, not what the extent of the liability is, correct? MR. O'CONNOR: I certainly agree with that, Your Honor. The summary judgment motion does not address damages; it addressed coverage and also, as a component of that, whether we're entitled to rescind, based on misrepresentation or concealment. THE COURT: My recollection of the facts -- again, it's a recollection, so -- but at the time that the fire occurred, which was, I believe, March 15, 2023, wasn't the policy in place the policy that was negotiated with the Chapter 11 Trustee? MR. O'CONNOR: The policy was not negotiated with the Chapter 11 Trustee. The policy was renewed and issued to Genever. At the time that the policy was issued to Genever, the trustee, unbeknownst to AIG, had become the owner of the British Virgin Islands Genever, which my client didn't even know the BVI company was an owner of the domestic Genever that it insured. It did receive a request to add the trustee as a notice recipient under the policy. Yeah, we understood that Kwok wasn't insured, and so that was not -- you know, we knew that, but we did not\n\n1 2 3 know anything about the trustee's ownership posture and we were not negotiating with the trustee or anything like that concerning a renewal of the policy.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Okay. Well, the reason I say I think these two issues are related, meaning the request by the trustee to stay the discovery of the experts and the request to issue an order to allow AIG to seek to depose Mr. Kwok, is because the fact discovery is running out. And as I've said already, you made a request some time ago, Mr. O'Connor, to allow you -- your client to conduct discovery, which this Court has allowed, and over the objection of the trustee, by the way, and the trustee's counsel.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They argued that that wasn't necessary, but I did allow it. But at this point, when I look at the request to stay the expert discovery because I could rule against the trustee, right, on summary judgment. If there's no coverage, if I find there's no genuine issue of material fact or if there is a genuine issue of material fact, then the whole issue of coverage would have to be determined by trial before you'd even get to the damages aspect of it, isn't that right? MR. O'CONNOR: Well, ordinarily, Your Honor, we take liability and damages discovery at once. And you're right, if the Court were to deny Genever's motion, then the case would proceed to trial, but that trial would involve liability and damages.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: Well, but the Court can also control how that works. I mean, the Court can bifurcate those claims into one, of a trial on liability and then a subsequent trial on damages. As Attorney McCormack has stated, there's a provision in the policy that says that there can be some kind of appraisal process that is undertaken if there is a determination of liability. But there isn't a determination of coverage yet; there isn't that determination. And so, there's a lot of reasons why the time that has passed during this adversary proceeding has not been beneficial to the estates as a whole, which is what I have to\n\n12 13 14 15 consider, Attorney O'Connor, which I know is different from the considerations you have for your client. But I have to consider all of those issues and how they impact these estates as a whole.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And the request to conduct the deposition of the individual debtor, you know, you put forth seven bases upon which that request should be granted. And when I look at them in your papers, the first four relate, in my opinion, to whether or not there's liability on AIG's part to cover - there's coverage under the policy for this fire. The first four impact that issue and then the last three impact the damages issues, and those are two separate issues in this case. And I think that the liability issue has to be determined and that's why I said, your fact discovery ends\n\n1 November 8th.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 So what I'm going to do is, I'm going to grant the trustee's motion to stay the discovery of the experts until further order of the Court, which means I can -- when I see what goes on in this adversary proceeding or how this proceeds so I can make a determination that maybe that changes, but right now, it's stayed until further order of the Court, the expert discovery.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And with regard to your motion to conduct the deposition of Mr. Kwok, I have -- I don't want to let -- if you want to make a statement for the record, I would like you to do that, but I have read your documents, your motions. And you're -- and I understand the rules. I understand 26(b)(1), (b)(2), 26(c), which, of course, I believe we all would be shocked if you didn't get met automatically with a protective order or something, Attorney O'Connor, given that Mr. Kwok is incarcerated and his, from what I understand, sentencing isn't going to be held until December, so they're not going to produce him for a deposition. That's not going to happen, even if you have an order. I don't see it. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but he's -- ever time he's been asked a question about the corporate structure of Genever LLC and Genever Holdings, he's asserted his right against selfincrimination. And in this court, with regard to very simple questions, in the overall scheme of his bankruptcy case, he\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 asserted his right against self-incrimination. If you're going to ask him about the precondition -- the pre-fire conditions of the apartment and its contents, all the damages issues, I don't see that he would answer those questions, but, you know, you may need to make that order at some point. That's on the damages issue. But on the liability issue, the ownership structure of Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corp., he's already asserted his Fifth Amendment right to not answer those questions, those very specific questions, by the way. The facts and circumstances surrounding the procurement and the issuance of the AIG policies and the renewal of such, again, he's asserted Fifth Amendment rights. And I heard what you just said about the broker, but we've all known about the broker since last June or July when we had the preliminary injunction hearing, right. So you've got to get that information, if at all, from her, and apparently you're trying to do that. You've got 30 days, it seems. And then, with regard to Mr. Kwok and Genever's relationship and communications with its broker, again, you know, you can get that information through the broker. Mr. Kwok has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against not answering those questions and under the refusal Rules of\n\n25 Civil Procedure, it would be more convenient and less\n\n1 2 3 4 5 burdensome for you to obtain that information from Wolfson as opposed to trying to get it through an individual who's awaiting sentencing, incarcerated, and we have no idea if there's going to be an appeal of whatever the sentence is. So I don't see how that's going to work.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With regard to the potential cause of the fire, I understand what you said about the Fire Department and them not releasing that information. Again, the cause of the fire, I mean, at only way that's relevant is if you somehow can say under your policy that there isn't coverage because you -- well, you know the standards under your policy better than I, but we have a preliminary injunction in place that already says that the Court thinks it's more likely than not that there would be coverage under this circumstance, right. And so -- MR. O'CONNOR: We do, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. O'CONNOR: -- but that's preliminary. THE COURT: Yeah, it is preliminary, but it's preliminary after an extensive evidentiary hearing on it. It wasn't an order that entered without the benefit of testimony and evidence. So my -- so, I'm sorry, Attorney O'Connor, is there anything else you wanted to add before I rule? MR. O'CONNOR: No, Your Honor. I think we made\n\n 56 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 our record. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: There's a factual point. I'm not going to argue the law, but Mr. O'Connor said that AIG did not know -- you know, when he answered your question about whether I negotiated the policy, I did not negotiate a policy. There's no issue about that, but AIG was on clear notice that a trustee -- that Kwok was in bankruptcy -- this is two months before the renewal, by the way -- when -- that Kwok was in bankruptcy, that I was a trustee. So they have all the information -- and that Genever and the parent of Genever were in bankruptcy, as well. So they had all the information they needed to determine, you know, who they're dealing with. So the argument that somehow they did not know I was on the scene, that's not right. They had written notice of the appointment and of the fact that it was part of a case involving Genever and Genever Holdings. So I think that's important to correct that statement. MR. O'CONNOR: Your Honor, I don't think it's a correction; I think I said exactly that. The trustee was added as a notice recipient. Not as an issuer, but as a notice recipient on the policy. We acknowledge that. Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 56 of 66\n\n1 2 3 4 MR. DESPINS: Yeah, but the argument that Kwok was still on the scene makes no sense because the trustee was there. MR. O'CONNOR: We had notice of that.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I think the point on that, Your Honor, we addressed this in the motion for summary judgment briefing, Kwok had no interest in any of these companies as of, I think it was August of 2022. And then, as Attorney Despins just pointed out, AIG was on notice that he was the trustee as of December of 2022, nearly three months before the fire.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 And this whole issue of the cause of the fire was, I believe, addressed extensively in the summary judgment motion. We submit it's not relevant to the issue of coverage because this is an all-risk policy and the issue is whether there was any conduct of the insured, Genever LLC, and AIG presented no evidence and cannot present any evidence, in my opinion, that they had knowing to do with this fire.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 So we don't think that the cause is related to coverage and the fact that the federal authorities have an ongoing investigation, I think that means that the fire, at this point in time, has to be determined, or the cause being undetermined, meaning no cause.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard?\n\n| | 58 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (No verbal response) |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
With regard to the motion |\n| 3 | on behalf of Genever Holdings LLC, to amend the pretrial |\n| 4 | order to extend damages expert discovery, that motion is |\n| 5 | granted for the reasons stated on the record. |\n| 6 | Attorney McCormack, I'll need your office to |\n| 7 | submit a proposed order granting that motion, please. |\n| 8 | MR. MCCORMACK:
Will do, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
How much time do you need to do that? |\n| 10 | I can give you as much time as you need, but I usually like |\n| 11 | to put a date on it for the Clerk's Office. |\n| 12 | MR. MCCORMACK:
I think Friday of this week, if |\n| 13 | that would be possible? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Friday's fine.
Friday's fine. |\n| 15 | So we will note -- and just give me one moment, |\n| 16 | please. |\n| 17 | (Pause) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
So the proposed order |\n| 19 | granting the motion will be submitted on or before |\n| 20 | October 10.
And if you would submit that to the courtroom |\n| 21 | deputy email box, please, and, obviously, CC Attorney |\n| 22 | O'Connor and Attorney Thompson so that they obviously know |\n| 23 | that you have submitted the order to the Court for entry. |\n| 24 | MR. MCCORMACK:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n\n| 1 | And then with regard to the motion of AIG to |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | conduct the deposition of the individual debtor, Mr. Kwok, |\n| 3 | I'm going to grant that in part, but I'm going to stay its |\n| 4 | enforcement, Attorney O'Connor.
Because until we -- I decide |\n| 5 | the motion for summary judgment, I see no point in you having |\n| 6 | an order to go obtain a two thousand -- excuse me -- a |\n| 7 | deposition of Mr. Kwok.
And, certainly, it's not going to |\n| 8 | change the discovery deadline of November 8th, with regard to |\n| 9 | a fact discovery. |\n| 10 | So there's two ways we can proceed.
I can grant |\n| 11 | it, in part, but say that it does not change and it will, in |\n| 12 | no way, alter or affect the motion for summary judgment, |\n| 13 | which I'm going to give you some more -- I'm going to talk |\n| 14 | about that in a minute -- or I can grant it, in part, and |\n| 15 | then stay its enforcement until after the motion for summary |\n| 16 | judgment is decided. |\n| 17 | But I'm not going to allow -- and I'm not saying |\n| 18 | you were suggesting this -- I'm just telling you, I am not |\n| 19 | going to have an order with regard to Mr. Kwok's deposition, |\n| 20 | stall, or in any way, change the November 8th deadline for |\n| 21 | fact discovery and the Court's ruling on the motion for |\n| 22 | summary judgment.
In the Court's opinion, whatever Mr. Kwok |\n| 23 | has to say, if you are able to obtain his deposition, has |\n| 24 | nothing to do with the motion for summary judgment that's |\n| 25 | pending before the Court. |\n\n| 1 | So, what's your thought on how you want that to -- |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | well, you can present me with an order, Attorney O'Connor, |\n| 3 | because I'm going to make you.
I don't have an order.
But I |\n| 4 | want to be clear, if you want that relief, you're entitled to |\n| 5 | it, but you can't enforce it, or if you do enforce it, it |\n| 6 | cannot be used to extend out the fact discovery deadline of |\n| 7 | November 8th and it will have no impact whatsoever on the |\n| 8 | motion for summary judgment. |\n| 9 | How would you like to proceed? |\n| 10 | MR. O'CONNOR:
I'm trying to understand, Your |\n| 11 | Honor. |\n| 12 | So if it's granted -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
This is what -- go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. O'CONNOR:
-- you're still not going to |\n| 15 | consider anything on account of summary judgment? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
On the pending motion for summary |\n| 17 | judgment on whether or not there's coverage. |\n| 18 | MR. O'CONNOR:
Right. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Right.
With regard to Count 4. |\n| 20 | MR. O'CONNOR:
Well, if the Court's ruling that |\n| 21 | it's not going -- nothing will be considered on summary |\n| 22 | judgment, then I suppose it would make sense to grant it and |\n| 23 | stay it. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
No, what I'm saying so the taking of |\n| 25 | the deposition, if you're able to do so, will not impact 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 fact -- there's going to be no extension of November 8th; that's the end of fact discovery. And whatever you obtain from Mr. Kwok, if you obtain anything, is not -- will not be allowed to be submitted in connection with summary judgment. Here's the deal, right, you said to me, I need time to conduct fact discovery. And I said, Okay, and I didn't rule on the summary judgment, even though the trustee wanted me to. And then you all agreed, which the Court appreciates, to extend the fact discovery out until November 8th. And then, when we're getting close to the end of discovery, you file a motion to take Mr. Kwok's deposition, which you could have done a year and a half ago. I am not going to have that be -- if you decide to proceed with Mr. Kwok, that will not serve as any basis to extend out the November 8th fact discovery deadline or you will not be able to make a submission and further response to the motion for summary judgment, with regard to whatever you obtain from Mr. Kwok. MR. O'CONNOR: Okay. That's why I wanted to make sure I understood you, Your Honor. If those are the ground rules, then, we might as well grant it and stay it. THE COURT: Okay. So will you prepare that proposed order, then, please and submit it the same way.\n\n 62 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. O'CONNOR: We will prepare that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Do you think you could do it by Friday? MR. O'CONNOR: I can do it by Friday. I just want to put on the record, we're not consenting, but we'll prepare the order that effect. THE COURT: I'm sure you're not, but that's how we're going to proceed. MR. O'CONNOR: Okay. I just want to make sure the record is clear. Understood. THE COURT: Now, I will say one other thing, though, Attorney O'Connor. I did allow the time to go by to see -- to allow you to complete your fact discovery. I waived that issue and I thought you had some merit to your argument on the fact discovery appeared that's why the time has gone by, okay. I will give you until November 26th to file whatever supplemental document you want to file with regard to the pending motion for summary judgment, based upon whatever discovery, but it's got to be on something you haven't already told me that has to do with some discovery that you obtained since you filed your first response. And then I'm going to give you until November 26th to do that. MR. DESPINS: Understood, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: That takes into account you're closing Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 62 of 66\n\n| 1 | up discovery on -- both parties closing up fact discovery on |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | November 8th and then I'm going provide -- give the trustee |\n| 3 | until December 10 to respond to whatever you file. |\n| 4 | By the way, you don't have to file anything, but |\n| 5 | if you want to, that's the date by which you have to file |\n| 6 | something, Attorney O'Connor. |\n| 7 | MR. O'CONNOR:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And then the trustee, if you do |\n| 9 | file something, the trustee will file whatever response the |\n| 10 | trustee feels is appropriate, if any, on or before December |\n| 11 | 10th. |\n| 12 | I'm not inclined to enter another order about |\n| 13 | that -- make the oral ruling on that unless the both of you, |\n| 14 | Mr. McCormack and Mr. O'Connor, want to enter into some kind |\n| 15 | of order that solidifies those dates and/or joins both, the |\n| 16 | motion to stay the discovery deadline -- excuse me -- the |\n| 17 | expert discovery and the deposition of Mr. Kwok.
You figure |\n| 18 | out how you all want to do that, but -- |\n| 19 | MR. O'CONNOR:
Your Honor, the Court set the |\n| 20 | deadlines.
I don't know that we need an order to do |\n| 21 | anything.
I mean, we've all taken notes. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Whatever you decide to do, just |\n| 23 | whatever you do, you're going to do it on or before |\n| 24 | October 10th with the submission of one order, two orders, or |\n| 25 | possibly three to the courtroom deputy, okay? |\n| | |\n\n 64 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: Isn't it the 11th, Your Honor, the 11th? THE COURT: What did I just say? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: You said the 10th. MR. DESPINS: You said the 10th. THE COURT: Oh, it is the 11th, I'm sorry. I apologize, I was looking at the wrong date on the calendar. I'm so sorry. Yes, this Friday, October 11. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon? MR. O'CONNOR: No, Your Honor. MR. MCCORMACK: Your Honor, maybe -- and perhaps this won't be an issue and I can speak offline with Attorney O'Connor -- but having heard the date that you entered today, there are fact witnesses of AIG that relate to other counts of the complaint. I am -- do I understand correctly that you expect that discovery to be done by the November deadline? THE COURT: Yes. MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. It relates to the bad faith claims, which may or may not be an issue, depending on how the Court rules. But I will work with Attorney O'Connor on scheduling those. THE COURT: Thank you. If you both come up with some other process, then you can let the Court know, but that's where things stand and Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 64 of 66\n\n that is in accordance with the pretrial order that is in effect at this time. MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else we should discuss this afternoon? MR. O'CONNOR: No, Your Honor. MR. MCCORMACK: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Well, that is the last matter on today's calendar, so hearing nothing from anyone, then Court is adjourned. Thank you all. COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 2:40 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 65 of 66\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3744 | Filed 10/23/24 | Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 | Page 66 of 66 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------|---------------------------|------------------|\n| | | | | | 66 |\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 | | October 20, 2024 |\n| 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | |\n| 10 | For Reliable | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20
21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于： 第11章\n 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n （合并管理）\n债务人。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）， 对抗程序\n 案号：23-05007 (JAM)\n原告，\n\n诉 法庭123\nAIG PROPERTY CASUALTY Brien McMahon联邦大楼\nCOMPANY（AIG财产意外保险公司）， 915 Lafayette Boulevard\n Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n被告。 2024年10月8日，星期二\n\n 下午1:10\n\n尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官主持的听证会记录\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n记录转写公司：\nReliable\nThe Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮箱：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n程序由电子录音记录，记录文本由转写服务制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 1 of 66\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPatrick Linsey, Esquire\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins, Esquire\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n代表 Genever Holdings：\nMichael T. McCormack, Esquire\nO'SULLIVAN MCCORMACK JENSEN & BLISS, P.C.\n180 Glastonbury Boulevard\nSuite 210\nGlastonbury, Connecticut 06033\n\n代表 AIG Property Casualty Company：\nMichael P. Thompson, Esquire\nGORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI\n95 Glastonbury Boulevard\nSuite 206\nGlastonbury, Connecticut 06033\n\n以及\n\nJohn O'Connor, Esquire\nSTEPTOE, LLP\n1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHolley L. Claiborn, Esquire\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street\nRoom 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 2 of 66\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance\nAsia Opportunity Fund：\nAnnecca H. Smith, Esquire\nROBINSON & COLE, LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\n以及\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n\n代表无担保债权人\n官方委员会：\nKristin B. Mayhew, Esquire\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC\n850 Main Street\n8th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06601\n\n代表 G Club Operations：\nJeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC\nOne Audubon Street\n3rd Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n动议索引： 页码\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok等，债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n事项编号3534 (ZG)\n#3534；申请聘用 Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C. 作为第11章受托人的新泽西州房地产法律顾问\n由 Patrick R. Linsey 代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交 8\n法院裁定： 12\n\n事项编号3551 (ZG)\n#3551；Genever Holdings LLC 关于作出裁定以修改授权 Genever Holdings LLC 聘用 Sotheby's International Realty 作为其房地产经纪人和销售代理人的裁定之动议\n由 Georg Alexander Bongartz 代表债务人 Genever Holdings LLC 提交 13\n法院裁定： 15\n\n事项编号3565 (ZG)\n#3565；根据《破产规则》9019，就经调解的／可撤销请求权和解限制动议通知的动议\n由 Patrick R. Linsey 代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交 21\n法院裁定： 39\n\n事项编号3569 (ZG)\n#3569；申请聘用 Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC 作为第11章受托人的塞浦路斯法律顾问\n由 Luc A. Despins 代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交 16\n法院裁定： 20\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 4 of 66\n\n动议索引： 页码\n\n关于：Genever Holdings, LLC 诉 AIG Property Casualty Company\n案号：23-05007 (JAM)\n\n事项编号115 (ZG)\n#115；修改审前命令以延长损害赔偿专家证据开示期限的动议\n由 Timothy P. Jensen 代表原告 Genever Holdings LLC 提交 43\n法院裁定： 58\n\n事项编号116 (ZG)\n#116；设定状态会议的命令\n法院裁定：—\n\n事项编号121 (ZG)\n#121；申请许可对被监禁的 HO WAN KWOK 进行证言录取的动议\n由 Michael P. Thompson 代表被告 AIG Property Casualty Company 提交 53\n法院裁定： 58\n\n转写员证明书 66\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 5 of 66\n\n（程序于下午1:10开始。）\n\n法庭：因此，我请法庭书记员宣读日程。\n\n法庭书记员：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok，以及对抗程序编号22——抱歉——对抗程序编号23-05007，Genever Holdings, LLC诉AIG Property Casualty Company。\n\n法庭：谢谢。下午好，请各方为记录说明出庭情况，先从第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，来自 Neubert Pepe & Monteith，代表第11章受托人。\n\nMCCORMACK先生：下午好，法官阁下。Michael McCormack，代表原告 Genever Holdings LLC，其在对AIG Property Casualty Company提起的对抗程序中为原告。\n\nO'CONNOR先生：下午好，法官阁下。John O'Connor，代表AIG，Michael Thompson与我共同出庭。\n\nTHOMPSON先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey Sklarz，代表 G Club Operations LLC。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 6 of 66\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew，来自 Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\nSARNOFF先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff，代表PAG。\n\nSMITH女士：下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith，来自 Robinson & Cole，担任债权人PAG的康涅狄格州律师。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：各位下午好。我认为在本次远程听证中，我所见的人员就是全部人员，因此我认为各位均已说明出庭情况。那么，我想，Despins受托人，我们将从主要第11章合并案件中的事项开始。是有关聘用的申请吗？这是您希望开始讨论的事项吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：当然，法官阁下，我会尽量迅速处理。我不知道新泽西州律师、当地律师的事项是否排在最前面，还是 Sotheby's 或塞浦路斯律师的事项排在前面。\n\n法庭：我告诉您我所看到的顺序，然后我们再继续。我认为塞浦路斯律师的事项排在前面，即\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 7 of 66\n\n3534，即申请聘用 Winne, Banta Basralian & Kahn，我想，是法律顾问。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，那是新泽西州律师，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是的，请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：Linsey先生正在处理该事项。\n\n法庭：好的。Linsey先生？\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。通过本申请，受托人寻求聘用——我一直称其为 Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn。法官阁下实际上可能是对的。为了避免说错，我就称其为“Winne Banta”。如果法院授权出售该房产，或者受托人在对抗程序中胜诉，Winne Banta将就Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）提供法律服务，包括该房产预期的出售。鉴于维持马瓦庄园的费用，受托人寻求在最早机会就让新泽西州房地产法律顾问做好准备。正如法院可能已在申请和受托人最近提交的其他动议中注意到，目前维持马瓦庄园的费用每季度超过$282,000。受托人提议根据《法典》第327(e)条，聘用 Winne Banta 作为处理新泽西州房地产事务的特别法律顾问。\n\nWinne Banta是在新泽西州卑尔根县设有办事处、经验丰富的房地产法律顾问；马瓦位于该县。\n\n申请提交后，美国受托人与第11章受托人的律师联系，并要求 Winne Banta 提供补充披露。该补充披露已提供并作为ECF 3636提交。美国受托人还要求第11章受托人和 Winne Banta 在聘用命令中加入与其他受托人法律顾问聘用命令条款一致的规定；具体而言，一项规定要求任何费率上调须事先在案卷中提交通知，另一项规定允许的报酬不包括履行受托人职责。\n\n受托人已加入该等规定，载于受托人以ECF 3630提交的修订命令中。在受托人提交补充声明和修订命令后，美国受托人提交了无异议声明，载于ECF 3640。\n\n受托人，即第11章受托人，乐意回答法院可能提出的任何问题；除此之外，请求法院批准该申请，并作出ECF 3630所载修订格式的命令。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果可以，我只说两秒钟？\n\n我不希望这项申请被视为\n\n僭越，因为，您知道，如果有出售，我们实际上会使用他们，但我们在8月时需要他们，因为——我们必须缴纳税款。他们，您知道，逾期了，\n\n我们需要就我们是否可以仅支付全额而无需利息及其他费用这一问题获得代理。因此，他就该问题提供了意见。这就是我们当时聘用他们的原因。\n\n诚然，正如您也指出的，我们的目标是拥有并出售该房产，但由于马瓦庄园的税务问题，我们让他们尽早介入。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nClaiborn律师，您希望陈述吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，我没有任何实质性补充。Linsey律师已涵盖了美国受托人在案卷中反映的所有行动。\n\n法庭：在新命令，即修订命令3630中？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：是的，美国受托人对此感到满意。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n还有其他人希望就聘用特别法律顾问的申请陈述吗？\n\n（无人作出言语回应）\n\n法庭：好的。未听到回应，我正在查看。\n\n修订后的拟议命令，ECF 3630。\n\n我理解为何受托人寻求聘请新泽西州房地产法律顾问，以处理共同管理的第11章案件；我也确实理解，该法律顾问受聘处理与新泽西州Mahwah房产有关的、潜在出售以外的问题，包括缴纳税款。\n\n此外，我审阅了补充声明，其内容看来符合要求。\n\n我唯一要请法庭书记员做的，是在第一项命令段落之前于记录中注明：“并经于2024年10月8日举行的听证会。”\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法院：我只是想确认，对拟议命令我没有其他修改。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：唯一未载明的事项是——该命令没有说明，但我不确定是否需要像其他一些命令那样具体说明——法律顾问将通过向法院提交申请来请求补偿报酬和费用。该命令仅称：“报酬的准许应按照……所规定的程序确定”，但它没有——哦，它写着“《地方破产规则2016条》”，我想，该规则规定——我只是看到，在不同的命令中，你们对于其必须提交申请的要求写得更具体；但我认为这并不关键。如果该命令没有如此明确地说明，我只是要告知你们，他们仍必须提交报酬申请。\n\nLINSEY先生（林赛先生）：明白，法官阁下。这也是我们方面的意图，即使未——\n\n法院：嗯，这——\n\nLINSEY先生：——作出非常明确的表述。\n\n法院：——这不仅是意图；这是《破产法》的要求。对吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：当然。\n\n法院：因此，这是所要求的。无论如何，我对拟议命令没有其他修改。因此，基于上述所有理由，申请获准，拟议命令可按记录中所述的轻微修改予以签发。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：不客气。那么，你们想接下来审理哪一事项？\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：Luc——抱歉，法官阁下，我说的是Sotheby's（苏富比）聘任事项或者塞浦路斯法律顾问事项中的任一项。我很乐意处理其中任一项。\n\n法院：好的。我看一下日程表。日程表上的下一项是Sotheby's——\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。\n\n案件22-50073 文件3744 提交日期10/23/24 录入日期10/23/24 09:10:51 第13页，共66页\n\n法院：——3551号，动议——\n\nDESPINS先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。是的，案卷编号3551，说明一下其背景，这是Genever（杰内弗）为出售The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰人酒店）公寓而聘请的经纪人。由于您所作的法律变更，您记得，必须通过格林尼治法律顾问——格林尼治经纪人办理。此外，关于卖方/经纪人和买方/经纪人之间佣金的分配，我们已提交该修正案。除此之外，我们必须提高买方/经纪人的佣金比例，因为在纽约的竞争性楼盘以及我们自己的楼宇，即The Sherry-Netherland，买方——买方/经纪人获得的是3%的佣金，而非我们过去采用的2%。因此，我们修改了——我们请求修改该聘任协议，以允许我们向买方/经纪人支付3%。作为卖方经纪人的Sotheby's仍为2%。如买方没有经纪人——这现在越来越常见——则Sotheby's的比例或佣金将为3%。\n\n我们还处理了一个问题，即此处的特定经纪人Serena Boardman（塞雷娜·博德曼）不得代表另一买方，即使该买方希望聘请博德曼女士；该问题已经处理，但Sotheby's的其他经纪人可以代表买方，而博德曼代表我们或Genever作为卖方。\n\n因此，未提交任何异议，我相信美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）已在案卷编号3614提交无异议声明。拟议命令副本已附于案卷编号3551。\n\n法官阁下，这就是我们就该事项所陈述的全部内容。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩律师），您是否希望发表意见？\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩女士）：法官阁下，仅为记录说明，美国受托人仍然担忧使用双重代理条款。我承认，这一直是——此前聘任该经纪人时的一个特点，并且此前在本法院进行的其他出售中也是如此。尽管如此，美国受托人不反对该动议，我已在第3614号声明中反映这一点。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就修订准许聘任Sotheby's担任房地产经纪人和销售代理人的命令之动议发表意见吗？\n\n（无口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。既然无人发言，我已审阅修订先前准许聘任Sotheby's之命令的动议。再次说明，我唯一会作出的修改——我现在向法庭书记员说明——是增加：“并经于2024年10月8日举行的听证会”——\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法院：——“特此命令如下”。\n\n我还要向法庭书记员指出的唯一事项是，经修订的聘任协议应作为附件1附于该命令——\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法院：——可以吗？\n\n法庭书记员：可以。\n\n法院：因此——因为拟议命令就是这样规定的。我希望将其附于命令，以便任何人查阅时，都能看到作为附件1附上的该经修订的聘任协议。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法院：但基于记录中陈述的所有理由，包括动议中的理由、美国受托人的无异议声明，以及根据《破产法》的适用规定，包括第327(a)、328(a)和336(b)——363(b)条——我不知道我为什么说“336”；我道歉——该动议获准，拟议命令将按记录中所述的轻微修改予以签发。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果可以？我能否请求法院暂缓签发该命令，直至明天中午？我只是想核实命令中的一个技术性问题，我现在手头没有该命令。我认为这不是问题，但我只是希望在您签发命令之前作最后检查——\n\n法院：当然可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：——如果可以。\n\n法院：可以。我不会签发该命令。\n\nDESPINS先生：我将在明天中午前与法庭书记员沟通。\n\n法院：可以。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法官阁下，我接下来转至聘任塞浦路斯法律顾问事项。该律所名称很难发音，但我认为是Chryssafinis & Polyviou（克里萨菲尼斯及波利维乌律师事务所）。因此，他们是我们拟聘任的塞浦路斯法律顾问。如我们所述，我们需要他们在塞浦路斯代表我们，处理位于塞浦路斯的一套公寓；该公寓由一家名为Bouillor Holdings（布伊约尔控股）的公司“拥有”——我对“拥有”一词加引号——而该实体名义上同样“由”债务人的儿子“拥有”。法官阁下，我们已就该事项提起一项对抗诉讼，目前正由您审理；但与此同时，塞浦路斯法律顾问向塞浦路斯法院提交了一项——他们称之为“motion（动议）”——请求禁止在您就我方诉讼作出裁决前出售和处分该公寓，因此我们需要塞浦路斯法律顾问。\n\n我相信我们未收到任何异议。美国受托人已在案卷编号3612提交无异议声明。这就是全部内容。\n\n法官阁下，我很乐意回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法院：那么，我唯一的问题是，那里的法院发生了什么？你们拟聘任的法律顾问是否已经回应了这一——\n\nDESPINS先生：是，他们——\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：他们提交了一项——我不想使用“complaint（起诉状）”或“motion（动议）”一词，但我不知道那里所用的专业术语——但实质上，这是请求塞浦路斯法院发布禁令，以阻止出售该公寓。该禁令已获发布。该禁令是在单方程序中发布的，目前已通知Bouillor和债务人的儿子。10月稍后将举行听证会——我忘了是哪一天——可能是21日，但请不要以此为准——但将在10月稍后，法院将重新审查该项临时命令的发布。\n\n法院：好的。我唯一的另一个问题是——也谢谢你的说明——命令第7段称，以欧元支付的款项将按付款日而非裁定日的现行汇率由美元兑换为欧元。你们将如何——我是说，我可以理解采用其中任一日期的理由，但我不知道，你们将如何确定付款日期是什么时候？\n\nDESPINS先生：嗯，当付款人付款时，我们会知道汇率是多少；但如果法官阁下愿意，我们也很乐意将其定为批准之日。\n\n法院：嗯，我只是——\n\nDESPINS先生：但我认为两者之间不会出现如此大的波动——\n\n法院：——我不知道我偏好哪一种——一个或另一个——只是我认为，裁定费用的命令录入日期比付款日期具有更大的确定性，仅此而已。\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，我们很乐意作出该项修改，法官阁下。您说得对，命令录入日期更为准确，因为无法对其具体时间产生争议。\n\n法院：我认为这大概——你知道——更准确。\n\nDESPINS先生：您希望我们作出该项修改，还是——\n\n法院：我们可以作出该项修改。可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：只要写明，在——于裁定该等费用和支出之日。这样如何？\n\nDESPINS先生：这样可以，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n（无口头回应）\n\n法院：我没有其他问题，德斯平斯受托人。如果你还有任何想告诉我的事，我很愿意听取。\n\nDESPINS先生：目前没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。还有其他人希望就受托人聘任塞浦路斯法律顾问一事发表意见吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，美国受托人没有异议，法院关于修改兑换程序的建议也没有问题。由于我最初曾请求设定一种机制，以便知晓何时计算汇率，因此法院的建议完全可行。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。我认为这更合理，就像交易中的记录日期一样，对吧。无论如何，这是我的看法。但是，还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n案件22-50073 文件3744 提交日期10/23/24 录入日期10/23/24 09:10:51 第19页，共66页\n\n（无口头回应）法院：好的。既然未听到任何回应，我理解为何受托人寻求在塞浦路斯聘任律师。我熟悉受托人拟聘任律师所涉的事实，并且我确实认为这符合债务人财产及其债权人的最佳利益。受托人已根据《破产法》Section 327(a)具体阐明了聘任律师的依据。该命令设想，律师费用仅会在遵守《破产法》中关于支付报酬的条款、当地破产规则及《联邦破产程序规则》2016、地方法则2016以及临时报酬命令后才予支付。对于拟议命令，我唯一会作出的其他修改，再次说明，经与法庭书记官沟通，是注明已于2024年10月8日举行听证；我们可以作出该项修改，如您愿意，我稍后也可以向您展示，并将其加入第7段末尾。法庭书记官：好的。法院：好的。那么，Despins受托人，对于以该等修改签发——抱歉——录入该命令，您方面没有异议吧？DESPINS先生：完全没有异议，法官阁下。谢谢。法院：好的。那么，申请获准。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 21 of 66\n\n并将录入附有记录中所述修改内容的拟议命令。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：我认为这涵盖了本案事项，而不是对抗程序。\n\n法院：不，还有另一事项。\n\nDESPINS先生：哦。\n\n法院：主案中还有一项限制通知的动议；那也属于主案，对吧——\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——关于撤销权程序的？\n\nLINSEY先生：我来处理。\n\n法院：好的，请继续。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。该限制通知动议请求法院批准，将调解及撤销权9019动议的通知限于我们称之为“受通知方”（“noticed parties”）的当事人。该动议与受托人请求获准就一名特定撤销权被告的请求达成和解的动议同时提交；该被告为Wildes & Weinberg（怀尔兹与温伯格律师事务所）。但为明确起见，该动议将普遍适用于调解及撤销权9019动议，即根据法院批准的程序，请求批准通过调解程序达成的和解，或者以其他方式请求就撤销权请求达成和解或批准和解的动议。\n\n受托人具体拟定的受通知方为：United States Trustee（美国受托人）、债务人、委员会、相关动议所涉及任何和解的相对方、通过ECF系统收到通知的所有出庭当事人，以及在Chapter 11案件中请求通知但未收到ECF通知的任何出庭当事人。\n\n绝大多数该等当事人，即受通知方，将通过ECF收到调解及撤销权9019动议的通知。我认为唯一需要邮寄通知的是手工通知方，因为目前该等当事人不足20名。\n\n如无法按受托人动议所请求限制通知，每次受托人提交请求批准经调解达成和解的动议时，受托人均须向全体债权人邮寄通知，这将要求向世界各地的个人和实体进行大规模邮寄。截至目前，债务人的Chapter 11案件中已提交超过1400份债权证明，这将产生大量费用。\n\n拟议的通知参数是适当的，尤其考虑到委员会、在Chapter 11案件中出庭的任何债权人以及美国受托人均将收到通知。\n\n无人对该项救济提出异议。受托人指出，G Club Operations（G Club运营公司）提交了一项异议，称其针对限制通知动议和Wildes & Weinberg 9019动议两者。毋庸赘言，受托人不同意G Club在其异议中所述内容，并将在适当时候作出回应；但鉴于该异议并未涉及受托人在限制通知动议中请求的救济，受托人认为这不是处理该问题的适当场合。\n\nG Club的律师已告知受托人，其部分针对限制通知动议提出异议，是因为如果G Club的观点正确，受托人将须重新送达Wildes & Weinberg 9019动议。\n\n受托人已按在公开案卷中提交的形式，向受通知方送达Wildes & Weinberg 9019动议。受托人不认为法院最终会要求受托人日后以不同形式送达；但是，如果受托人的该项看法不正确，那么鉴于受通知方几乎完全通过ECF收到通知，日后送达该文件的任何额外费用将微乎其微。\n\n说到这里，我乐意回答法院可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法院：我有两个问题——其实是同一个问题，只是涉及两个不同当事人。在拟议命令第2页第2段关于受通知方的部分，其中写道：“债务人和委员会。”我认为你的意思是债务人的律师和委员会的律师，对吧？否则，你将必须向债务人送达，而我相信他在监狱里。\n\n我们也在谈论——嗯，其他债务人，所以我认为应当是债务人的律师。我的意思是，这是一个联合管理案件，对吧，所以——还有委员会的律师，你们实际上要向每一位委员会成员送达吗？我假定你的意思是这两者的律师，但我提出这个问题。\n\nLINSEY先生：不，我们的意思确实是律师，法官阁下，我们可以作出该项修改，表明将向其律师送达。\n\n法院：如果没有其他修改——我们再看看——那么我们可以作出该项修改，因为我们还要作出——法庭书记官知道我会要求她在命令中加入“并在……举行听证后”。\n\n所以，目前我暂时没有其他问题，但我看到Sklarz律师希望发言并陈述意见，因此稍后轮到您，Sklarz律师，好吗？我只是想确认美国受托人是否——是的——让我退一步说。我没有看到美国受托人对该动议提交任何反对意见，而我确实看到美国受托人对和解，即Sklarz律师在其对限制通知动议的异议中所提及的特定和解9019动议，提交了反对意见。因此，我想确认一下，Claiborn律师，是否准确：从现在起，美国受托人办公室对于限制所有撤销权诉讼案件——我是说对抗程序——中全部和解动议的通知的该项动议，没有任何异议。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：正确，法官阁下。美国受托人不反对限制通知动议。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。Sklarz律师，我乐意听取您的意见。请讲。\n\nSKLARZ先生：法官阁下，我们出于谨慎而对限制通知动议提出异议，第一，是因为Linsey律师所述的送达问题，所以我不再赘述；该问题的实体内容涉及程序，但如果法院倾向于如Linsey律师所言，将该问题留待9019动议本身的最终听证处理，我不反对按所建议的方式继续进行，并送达经过删节、密封的动议。如果法院裁定支持受托人，显然送达将是适当的。如果法院裁定不支持受托人，我认为他们必须重新送达。\n\n但是，我们不反对按受托人所提议限制通知，只要具有法律效力的文件按照法院命令的方式提交至公开记录，无论其为删节版本还是未删节版本。但我们异议的实体内容针对的是删节和密封。\n\n法院：好的。我刚刚听到——我正在思考您刚才所说的话，Sklarz律师。所以，我理解您的意思是，如果我今天准许限制通知动议，那么您——我只是想确保我理解您的立场——当就与该律师事务所的和解举行听证时——而且会举行，因为这是9019动议——我对此表示抱歉，我知道是W & W；目前我无法说出更多——您希望就该动议发表意见，因为您认为该动议因被密封而未得到适当送达，对吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的，我们实质性异议的依据是，根据现行法律，以及我现在不展开说明的成文规则和判例，受托人不得以此处所采用的方式提交密封的9019动议或经过删节的9019动议，尤其是在未提交更多证据的情况下。\n\n受托人最终是否根据规则和法律满足其举证责任，将由最终听证决定。\n\n法院：那么，您所说的举证责任是什么，是关于9019动议，还是——我的意思是，因为——\n\nSKLARZ先生：不是。\n\n法院：——9019动议的举证责任并不很高。\n\nSKLARZ先生：不是，不是，我说的是根据11 U.S.C. 107，为将文件密封或从公开记录中遮蔽而承担的举证责任，以及根据我们的地方法则，为将文件密封或从法院记录中删节而承担的举证责任。这些是法院将用于作出决定的司法文件，而且《破产法》、我们的地方法则和Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）判例均规定，仅存在极为狭窄的方式可以将司法文件从公开记录中密封。这正是我们书面陈述所涉及的内容。\n\n但我在此的观点是，如果法院最终裁定支持我们、支持G Club，那么此时送达经删节或密封的9019动议将属不当，因此我们将回到第一阶段。现在，我不——听起来这或许无关紧要，因为需要邮寄送达或特别送达的当事人极少，只要受托人将未删节版本提交至记录，并通过电子邮件发送给那约20名本会收到邮寄通知的受通知方，他们大概可以回来并就其9019动议进行听证。\n\n我只是想确保我们没有错过期限，或法院，或我们放弃了任何权利，或法院——我只是想确保法院理解这里的问题，因为这确实涉及第一修正案问题，以及基本的公开法庭和公开案卷问题；《破产法》本身的Section 107和我们对密封及删节作出非常具体规定的地方法则，均对这些问题作出了界定。\n\n法院：好的。我明白了。谢谢。Linsey律师，我现在的问题是，如果我看拟议命令第2页第3段，其中写道：\n\n“为免生疑问，如调解/撤销权9019动议被密封提交，应向受通知方送达该动议的删节版本通知。”\n\n“动议的删节版本将被送达”，难道不应当这样写，而不是写“通知”吗？我的意思是，如果你提议——目前，问题在于此。我不反对将通知限制于你所要求的任何当事人、美国受托人、债务人律师，包括杰内弗（Genever）的律师，我认为还包括杰内弗各实体、委员会的律师、任何和解的相对方、通过电子备案向所有当事人送达，以及任何要求通知但无法接受通知的当事人。我顺便说一下，我不知道那是什么。你能就第5项向我说明一下吗？\n\n林西律师（MR. LINSEY）：可以，法官阁下。\n\n基本上，是指已经提交出庭通知、但无法接收ECF通知的当事人。\n\n法庭：不存在提交通知却无法请求并接收ECF通知的当事人。本庭不存在这种情况。所以我不知道那是指谁，除非你能——\n\n林西律师：我只能——\n\n法庭：——给我指出一个例子，否则我不能——根本不存在这种情况。你要么——此前我们发布过裁定和程序，规定根据规则，提交送达请求不可接受；如果你想获得电子送达，而你没有作为电子备案人的律师并由其接受送达，你要么必须通过邮寄接受送达，要么必须同意电子送达。所以，我不确定第5项，即(2)(v)——\n\n林西律师：当然。\n\n法庭：——或者，实际上是(vi)，抱歉。\n\n林西律师：不，是(v)，法官阁下。因此，当文件通过ECF提交时——我很高兴我们正在讨论这个问题——会发出一份ECF通知，向能够以电子方式接收通知的律师发送通知。然后，在该通知中，我指的是自动生成并发出的电子邮件——\n\n法庭：是。\n\n林西律师：——该邮件会被发送——\n\n法庭：是。\n\n林西律师：——其中会有一条补充信息，称“通知将不会以电子邮件方式发送给”，然后按地址列出若干当事人。\n\n法庭：但那些只是列在债权人名单或类似名单上的当事人。那些并不是——或者说，在债权申报书上的人。那些人并不一定已提交出庭通知。\n\n林西律师：所以那些人——我不知道他们是否全都是提交了债权申报书的债权人；至少从人数上看并不合理。这确实有些令人费解，因为在某种程度上，名单中出现的一些当事人实际上也有，例如，ECF——\n\n法庭：我也不明白这一点。\n\n林西律师：——正在通过ECF接收通知。\n\n法庭：我也不明白这一点。这个问题我已经困惑了11年，我也不明白。\n\n林西律师：我也是，法官阁下。但为谨慎起见，我们一直在剔除任何确实接收ECF通知的人。例如，萨诺夫律师（Mr. Sarnoff），出于某种原因，他的地址在上面。史蒂文·麦基（Steven Mackey）的地址也在上面。受托人理解，萨诺夫律师和美国受托人正在接收ECF通知，因此我们不会向他们邮寄。但名单上任何未接收ECF通知的人，即——那些就是我们通常以纸质邮件向其发送通知的手工通知当事人。我不知道是否有人会阅读它们，但从通知角度出于谨慎考虑，这就是我们一直在做的——\n\n法庭：嗯，实际上那不是——\n\n林西律师：——这就是我们一直在做的。\n\n法庭：显然，那实际上不是通知，而是送达。是送达，对吗？我的意思是，所有人都称其为“通知”，但它是送达，因为，否则的话，嗯，诸如此类。但关键是，无论如何，我不明白第6项，即“任何已请求通知但无法接受通知的当事人”。现在，这会适用于已提交债权申报书的当事人，因为他们可以勾选方框并写明“将所有通知发送至此地址”，但他们并未提交出庭通知。\n\n但将来我们可能需要研究这个问题；我的意思是，请记住，有一项新规则在2017年、2018年或2019年之类的某个时候生效，规定根据2002(k)或某个分项——我不记得那是否是正确的分项——你可以在案件中请求一份特定名单。\n\n我一直不明白为何我们不能这样做。我认为我们可以。但我不想在今天下午浪费大家的时间讨论这个问题。我只是提出这是一个问题，因为我不确定第6项是什么意思，因为这不是——至于——无法接受——我明白，林西律师，电子备案通知与破产通知中心发送的通知不同。但你是说，就电子备案通知而言，例如——萨诺夫律师，我将以你为例——你是说，林西律师，他收到电子备案通知；显然，他已提交出庭通知。但你也是说，他被列为向其邮寄文件的人，对吗？\n\n林西律师：他被列在手工通知当事人名单中，正确——\n\n法庭：这毫无道理。\n\n林西律师：——其中写着，通知不会以电子邮件方式发送给他。\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。\n\n那么，我们届时会看一下。现在就暂且保留，之后再处理，但这对我而言毫无道理。不过，无论如何……\n\n林西律师：而且，法官阁下，我们出于谨慎考虑才将其列入，因此我们很乐意不保留这一分项。\n\n法庭：不，我认为我们必须暂时保留它——我认为现在应当保留，直到我审查你刚才所说的情况，即萨诺夫律师就是一个绝佳例子，说明有人不应被邮寄任何文件。他在本案中已提交出庭通知，我认为从一开始就是如此，所以我不知道为何任何人都必须或者花费时间和金钱向萨诺夫律师送达；他作为备案人，已经同意接受所有文件的电子送达。\n\n因此，无论如何，再说一次，我不想浪费任何时间。我们——就此继续往下。\n\n但关于第3段，斯克拉兹律师（Attorney Sklarz），你正在阅读——你看到第3段了吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：看到了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。那么，你反对第3段吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我的意思是，我反对以密封方式或删节格式提交9019动议这一做法。因此，我将此作为对限制通知动议的异议提出。如果该文件以该方式送达，而法官阁下最终裁定支持我和美国受托人，那么就必须重新送达。但就今天的讨论而言，林西律师已经说了他所说的话——我不会再重复——如果我们——如果受托人——抱歉——如果受托人最终胜诉，则不会造成任何问题。如果受托人未胜诉——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——他们可能必须重新送达。\n\n法庭：我明白。好。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我只是不想放弃这一论点。我不希望法庭说，你为什么此前没有提请我注意？我想确保此事得到妥善处理，因为我认为这是一个送达问题，包含在我认为他们如何进行通知这一根本性问题之中。\n\n法庭：我明白。好的。因此，在这项限制通知动议的背景下审视第3段，该动议实际上是限制送达——我知道大家都这么说，但它实际上是送达；其核心就在于此，对吗——规则2002的通知规定，是书记员办公室或法庭指示的其他人必须在某一期限内作出的通知。但作为基础的动议，或任何其他寻求救济的文件，必须被送达，所以实际上——如果其以密封方式提交，删节版本应向获通知的当事人送达，对吗。我认为它应当这样写，林西律师，对吗？\n\n林西律师：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：如果你不同意，可以反驳，我只是——\n\n林西律师：不，我的意思是，我不会——我不会不同意。\n\n法庭：——说我认为它应当这样写。\n\n林西律师：法官阁下认识我够久了，我不会只是为了表示附和而同意。我们同意，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：不，我只是——我认为如果你能把那一点整理清楚，请这样做；然后也整理第2段中有关债务人律师及杰内弗各方律师的内容。我的意思是，他们将会收到。他们都是电子——这些人都将收到；他们全都是电子接收人。因此，我认为第6项现在应保持不变，但我确实想就这一问题进行调查。我会与书记员办公室一起调查，例如萨诺夫律师已经以电子方式收到文件，却又收到邮寄文件的情形；我完全无法理解。\n\n但无论如何，斯克拉兹律师，我明白你的观点。你的异议保留至尚未排期举行听证会的9019动议听证会时处理，好吗？而它尚未排期举行听证会，第一是因为我甚至还没有审阅它；第二是因为，当我收到这个——当我们收到这项限制通知的动议时，但它应当是通知和送达——我认为应称其为动议的通知和送达，林西律师——\n\n林西律师：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——那么——且它适用于所有撤销权诉讼，我认为我们最好先处理这个问题，好吗。\n\n所以我认为我明白你的观点，斯克拉兹律师。你已经提出了你的——当该事项排期举行听证会时，我们会处理它，好吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。同时——\n\n德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：是？\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，如果可以？\n\n根据该规则——听不清——这里不合逻辑之处是——我需要从案件管理角度提出这一点——斯克拉兹律师代表G俱乐部（G Club）出庭。G俱乐部是我们正在寻求就其作出人格混同裁定的实体，该申请于今年2月，即2月15日或14日提交。因此，你可能会说，嗯，你还没有得到裁定，但该实体——刑事审判中有大量证词表明其由郭文贵（Kwok）和王（Wang）经营，而且——该公司并不存在；它正在清算中。因此，问题是，谁在指示斯克拉兹先生就这些问题花费我们的资金？因为属于G俱乐部的资金将成为破产财团的资金。这样说或许有些武断，但鉴于刑事审判中的证词，这极有可能如此。所以，我确实担心有人代表一家正在清算的公司出庭。如今谁在经营该公司？谁在向斯克拉兹先生发出指示？这是本案中的根本性问题，而我只是——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——这只是需要摆到台面上。\n\n法庭：而且我认为，在我们越过本动议之后、到了下一道关口时，你必须提出所有这些问题，对吗，在这项限制通知动议之后，并且\n\n送达——\n\n德斯平斯律师：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——和解动议。因为我面前没有任何此类材料。我明白你所说的，但我不知道——你知道，我不知道刑事审判中的证词或证据是什么，关于——我只知道作出了有罪裁决，陪审团就数项罪名项作出了有罪裁决。而且我相信，Kwok先生（郭文贵）原定于11月被判刑，现在将不会在12月之前被判刑；这就是我所知道的一切。我对此一无所知。因此，我并不是说你错了；我是说，我面前的记录中没有任何材料。\n\n德斯平斯律师：我明白。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n德斯平斯律师：只是这家公司并不存在。它并未运营。它——\n\n法院：好吧，你们都让我知道那件事——\n\n德斯平斯律师：——它一直都只是一个名称。\n\n法院：——好吗？\n\n德斯平斯律师：好的。是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：法官阁下，显然，我们不同意。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3744 提交于 10/23/24 录入于 10/23/24 09:10:51 第 38 页，共 66 页\n\n法院：我相信你们不同意，所以——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——但这并非必要。\n\n法院：我们将看看该问题最终如何处理，好吗？\n\n德斯平斯律师：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：但与此同时，我认定，G Club（G俱乐部）对限制通知动议——我将称其为“及送达”——提出的异议，在我看来，并不适用于本项动议，即将适用于在撤销权诉讼中可能提交的所有和解的这一特定动议；G Club保留提出该异议的权利。除任何其他人可能提出的意见外，包括受托人刚才所说的意见，即斯克拉兹律师所说的意见，我将允许他们这样做。如果我面前有任何材料向我表明有需要考虑的事项，我显然会予以考虑。我们尚未安排该听证会，并将在录入本裁定后安排。现在，林赛律师，因此，请你修改拟议裁定。仅将其修改为，根据9019，就调解撤销权请求和解准许限制动议通知及送达的裁定。然后作出修改——抱歉——在第一项命令性段落之前，加入“并在10月8日举行听证会后”的措辞，\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3744 提交于 10/23/24 录入于 10/23/24 09:10:51 第 39 页，共 66 页\n\n然后修改第二段，加入债务人律师、Genever（杰内弗）律师，以及委员会律师。然后，我认为你应修改第三段，说明该动议，即调解撤销权9019动议，应向已获通知各方送达，并将删节版本提交至公开案卷，好吗？林赛律师，这是否清楚？\n\n林赛律师：因此，为明确起见，关于对第(f)(3)段的修改，法官阁下，我想稍作查看。\n\n（暂停）\n\n林赛律师：好的。\n\n法院：我不希望你送达通知。我希望你送达任何——\n\n林赛律师：明白。因此，措辞将为——是的，将为送达一份动议副本——\n\n法院：对。\n\n林赛律师：——而非送达一份通知。\n\n法院：对。\n\n林赛律师：该项修改完全没有问题，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n林赛律师：明白。\n\n法院：好的。因此，我将给你们至——\n\n本周五；你们可能需要，也可能不需要这么长时间，除非你们告诉我需要更长时间，那也没问题。但我原本考虑给你们至本周五提交经修改的拟议裁定。\n\n林赛律师：时间非常充裕，法官阁下。我将在明天之前提交。\n\n法院：好的。很好。谢谢。好的。现在——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，现在，我可以——我很抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法院：请讲，克莱伯恩律师。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，当法院考虑使用何日期安排关于与W & W和（听不清）达成和解的动议及密封问题的听证会时，我是否可以请求不要将该听证会安排在11月18日当周？我预计法官阁下会将其安排在更早的日期，但我只是想在（听不清）的情况下提出请求。\n\n法院：是的，我不确定将安排在何时。我们已经存在一些日程冲突，但我明白你请求不要安排在11月18日当周，即感恩节前一周。感恩节在下一周。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：正确。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。我们将记下该——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3744 提交于 10/23/24 录入于 10/23/24 09:10:51 第 41 页，共 66 页\n\n请求。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。好的。现在，既然我们已经处理了——中的所有实体问题，我们可以转向——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：还有一件事，法官阁下？\n\n法院：哦，斯克拉兹律师，是的，请讲。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我可以离席吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我与其余事项没有任何关系——\n\n法院：是的，你可以离席。谢谢。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：谢谢，法官阁下。祝您下午愉快。\n\n法院：好的。你也是。谢谢。\n\n林赛律师：法官阁下——抱歉——在法官阁下转向我们未参与的IG之前，我可以提一件事吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n林赛律师：谢谢。我只是想指出，受托人今天上午就Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）提交了一项提高资金上限的动议，该动议编号为3650。关于Mahwah Mansion的资金裁定规定，视法院日程安排而定，一项仅限于该项救济、即仅提高资金上限的动议，可在提前七日通知后审理。因此，如有可能，我们请求在从今天起一周后的听证会上审理该动议；如不能，则在一周后的听证会上审理。我只是想提及资金裁定中的该通知条款，我的陈述完毕，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。我们希望今天晚些时候审阅该事项，好吗？\n\n林赛律师：非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。现在，我们将转向Genever/AIG（美国国际集团）对抗诉讼23-05007。该对抗诉讼日程上的三项事项为：修改审前裁定以延长损害赔偿专家证据开示的动议；安排状态会议的裁定——我们，你知道，我认为我们已经处理了该事项；显然出于多种原因，除非有人告诉我我们应当这样做，否则目前无需再安排状态会议——以及请求准许讯问个人债务人的动议。因此，对我而言，115和121相互关联。我不确定其他所有人是否同意，但我乐意先听取原告方、再听取被告方的意见。\n\n麦考马克律师：谢谢，法官阁下。再次说明，我是代表Genever的Michael McCormack（迈克尔·麦考马克）。如法院所知，我们提交了一项动议，请求修改审前裁定，在法院就Genever关于第4项罪名项的即决判决动议作出决定之前，暂缓对专家证人的讯问和进一步证据开示；该罪名项请求就该损失是否受AIG保险单保障作出确认性救济，而AIG反对该动议。\n\n提交该动议是因为AIG寻求讯问六名我们此前列为损害赔偿专家的专家，他们将就因火灾造成受损公寓的修理、费用和重置成本作证。鉴于这些讯问与AIG是否有义务根据保险单提供保障毫无关系，正如我们在即决判决动议中所主张的，我们认为存在正当理由，在作出裁定之前暂缓这些讯问，以避免我们认为对破产财产资源的不必要使用来进行这些讯问。\n\n你知道，法院显然拥有裁量权，而且鉴于他们希望进行六项与保险单项下责任毫无关系的专家讯问，并且他们未表明这与责任有关，正如我们在动议及答复状中所述，我们认为在法院就即决判决动议作出裁定之前，暂缓这些讯问和进一步的专家证据开示，符合司法和经济上的合理性。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n奥康纳律师？\n\n奥康纳律师：下午好，法官阁下。对于麦考马克律师刚才两次所说的一点，我们与Genever完全一致，即这些讯问与即决判决动议所提出的问题毫无关系。这正是我们的观点：无论该动议如何裁定，这些讯问都必须进行，因为法院可能准许该动议——我们认为不应当准许，但可能会——而且如果准许，仍将存在损害赔偿案件，我们仍必须取得讯问证言。\n\n如果法院驳回该动议——我们认为应当驳回——我们仍必须取得其损害赔偿专家的讯问证言。\n\n现在，我同样乐于避免不必支出的法律费用，但即决判决动议与这些讯问之间不存在任何联系。如果他们不想进行损害赔偿证据开示，为一项完全无关的动议而暂缓该程序毫无意义。\n\n如果他们希望看看是否能避免那些费用，我们可以暂缓并进行调解，看看能否解决。如果那样做，我们就不需要任何损害赔偿证据开示。但如果案件无法解决，那么无论他们的动议获准还是被驳回，\n\n都不会对损害赔偿产生任何影响。\n\n如果被告提出即决判决动议，那么我某种程度上可以理解，因为，天哪，法院可能会准许该动议；那么，你知道，他们赢得案件。不存在损害赔偿。我们为什么要浪费所有人的时间？\n\n但这并非本案的情形。因此，我们认为没有理由不进行我们无论如何都必须进行的损害赔偿证据开示。\n\n法院：好的。我不确定——\n\n麦考马克律师：法官阁下，我可以回应吗？\n\n法院：可以，请讲。\n\n麦考马克律师：正如我们在答复状中指出的，就该损失是否属于保险单财产保险保障部分下的承保损失这一问题，对即决判决动议作出的裁定可能会影响这些讯问，而我们考虑的是律师意见。还有一点我认为需要指出，即正如我们在答复状中所指出的，该保险单载有一项称为“评估条款”的条款，该条款允许各方在就损失金额发生争议时进行评估。评估不得用于决定法律问题，例如本案中的保险保障问题。因此——请看，我们承认，如果案件最终进入审判阶段，专家讯问可能是必要的，但也可能的是，如果认定此处存在保险保障，本案在一个方面将成为损害赔偿问题。如果各方就损失金额存在争议，我相信任何一方均可援引评估条款；该条款是保险单项下就金钱争议所规定的另一种解决形式。\n\n因此，不能必然断言：如果本院准许简易判决动议并认定这是承保损失，这些损害赔偿专家及相关证言录取就必须继续进行。正如我们在答辩状中指出的，AIG（美国国际集团）反对简易判决动议，称其需要进行额外证据开示以回应简易判决动议。其承认这些证言录取与简易判决项下的责任毫无关系；并且，在最初中止令作出前的10个月内，AIG除就任何承保责任在去年夏天送达书面证据开示请求外，未采取任何行动。直到几周前，其也未试图进行任何与保单责任有关的证言录取；其所寻求的仅是对这六名专家进行证言录取。\n\nO'CONNOR 律师（奥康纳）：这不完全正确，法官大人。我们向FDNY（纽约市消防局）发出了传票，要求提供与火灾起因和源头有关的记录。我们收到的答复是，调查仍在进行中，调查完成后，我们将收到报告及任何其他相关材料，\n\n但说我们什么都没做并不正确。我们一直在努力。由于火灾起因和源头仍在调查中，我们受到限制。本院：O'Connor 律师，您何时收到FDNY的该答复？O'CONNOR 律师：我想是在春季，法官大人。我相信我们是在2月份送达传票的。我是凭记忆说的，但大致如此。我们收到了答复，并且每隔几周都会跟进，以确保我们没有被遗漏，并确认调查是否已经结束；而我们被告知调查尚未结束，因此没有最终报告可以出具，也没有材料可提供。本院：好的。让我再问您几个问题。知道这一点对我很有帮助，谢谢您。但让我再问您几个问题。O'CONNOR 律师：是，法官大人。本院：目前，如果我没有记错，而且我相信我没有记错，事实证据开示将在11月8日完成。这是双方同意并延期的命令中所载日期。我已听取，或者说我曾努力非常仔细地听取本案各方的论点，包括O'Connor 律师，您提出的论点，即您需要额外证据开示以回应简易判决动议。\n\n因此，就时间已经过去而言，我已允许这种情况发生，我应当这么说。我并不是说我确切知道您做了什么，但我已经允许延长时间，随后显然又因纽约的刑事程序而中止。因此，我的问题是，除您提出请求要求本院作出命令准许您对个人债务人进行证言录取外，您在现在至11月8日期间还需要完成哪些其他证据开示、事实证据开示？\n\nO'CONNOR 律师：我们一直试图向参与签发这些保单的建造商Skabeki 上尉（按音译）发出传票，以对其进行证言录取。本院：是，您一直未能向她送达传票？O'CONNOR 律师：我们尝试过两次，均未成功，因此我们正在改变策略，将向该公司发出一份30(b)(6)传票。我们被告知，她在家办公，因此其雇主Wolfson（沃尔夫森）不会代为接受向她送达的传票。我不知道她的住址，因此我们将在本周向Wolfson发出一份30(b)(6)传票；我认为其将拟安排Skabeki 女士提供证言。之后还有Kwok（郭文贵）。我们正在等待FDNY传票事项中其报告完成，以便我们能够从FDNY取得有关火灾起因和源头的证据开示材料。\n\n这些是我们目前在火灾事项上所做的事情。本院：但是，好的，简易判决所涉问题是是否存在承保范围，而不是责任范围有多大，对吗？O'CONNOR 律师：我当然同意，法官大人。简易判决动议并未涉及损害赔偿；它涉及承保范围，以及作为其中一项内容，我们是否有权基于虚假陈述或隐瞒而撤销保单。本院：我对事实的记忆——再次说明，这只是记忆——但是，在火灾发生时，我相信是2023年3月15日，当时生效的保单是否是与Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）协商的保单？O'CONNOR 律师：该保单并非与第11章受托人协商。该保单被续保并签发给Genever（吉尼弗）。在向Genever签发保单时，受托人在AIG不知情的情况下，已成为英属维尔京群岛Genever的所有人；我的当事人甚至不知道该英属维尔京群岛公司是其承保的境内Genever的所有人。AIG确实收到请求，要求将受托人列为保单项下的通知接收人。是的，我们了解Kwok并非被保险人，因此那并不是——您知道，我们知道这一点，但我们并不知道受托人的所有权状况，也没有与受托人就保单续保或类似事项进行协商。\n\n本院：好的。那么，我之所以说我认为这两个问题相关，即受托人要求中止对专家的证据开示，以及要求作出命令准许AIG寻求对Kwok先生进行证言录取，是因为事实证据开示期限即将届满。而且，正如我已经说过的，O'Connor 律师，您此前曾请求准许您——您的当事人进行证据开示，本院已经准许；顺便说一句，是在受托人及受托人律师反对的情况下准许的。\n\n他们主张那并无必要，但我确实准许了。然而，此时，当我审视中止专家证据开示的请求时，因为我可能在简易判决问题上作出对受托人不利的裁定，对吗？如果不存在承保范围，如果我认定不存在任何重大事实争议，或者如果存在重大事实争议，那么在您们甚至进入损害赔偿方面之前，整个承保范围问题都必须通过审判确定，不是吗？O'CONNOR 律师：通常情况下，法官大人，我们会同时进行责任和损害赔偿的证据开示。您说得对，如果本院驳回Genever的动议，那么案件将进入审判，但该审判将涉及责任和损害赔偿。\n\n本院：但是，本院也可以控制其进行方式。我的意思是，本院可以将这些请求分割为先就责任进行审判，随后再就损害赔偿进行审判。正如McCormack 律师所述，保单中有一项规定称，如作出责任认定，可以进行某种评估程序。但是，目前尚未作出承保范围认定；尚未作出该认定。因此，在这一对抗程序期间已经过去的许多时间，对各破产财产整体并无益处；而这正是我必须考虑的，O'Connor 律师，我知道这与您为当事人考虑的事项不同。但我必须考虑所有这些问题及其对这些破产财产整体的影响。\n\n至于对个人债务人进行证言录取的请求，您提出了七项应当准许该请求的依据。当我查看您提交的文件时，依我看来，前四项涉及AIG是否有责任承保——即该火灾是否处于保单承保范围之内。前四项影响该问题，而后面三项影响损害赔偿问题，而它们是本案中两个不同的问题。我认为责任问题必须先行确定，这就是我所说的，您的事实证据开示于\n\n11月8日结束。\n\n因此，我将作出的是，准许受托人提出的动议，中止对专家的证据开示，直至本院另行命令。这意味着，当我看到本对抗程序中发生的情况或其进展方式后，我可以作出认定，或许届时会有所改变；但目前，专家证据开示中止，直至本院另行命令。\n\n关于您要求对Kwok先生进行证言录取的动议，我已——我不想阻止——如果您想作一项供记录之用的陈述，我希望您这样做，但我已阅读您的文件、您的动议。并且您——我理解这些规则。我理解26(b)(1)、(b)(2)、26(c)；当然，O'Connor 律师，我相信如果您不立即遭遇保护令或类似命令，我们都会感到震惊，因为Kwok先生被羁押，而且据我了解，其量刑要到12月才会举行，因此他们不会安排其出席证言录取。这不会发生，即使您有命令也不会。我看不出会发生。我的意思是，也许我错了，但他——每当有人就Genever LLC和Genever Holdings的公司结构向他提问时，他都援引了不自证其罪的权利。在本院，就其破产案件整体框架下非常简单的问题，他\n\n援引了不自证其罪的权利。如果您要询问他有关火灾发生前公寓及其内物品状况、所有损害赔偿问题，我看不出他会回答那些问题；但是，您知道，您可能在某个时候需要取得该命令。那是损害赔偿问题。但是，就责任问题而言，Genever Holdings LLC和Genever Holdings Corp.的所有权结构，他已经援引第五修正案权利，拒绝回答那些问题，顺便说一句，是那些非常具体的问题。关于取得和签发AIG保单以及续保的事实和情况，他同样援引了第五修正案权利。我听到了您刚才关于经纪人的说法，但自去年6月或7月我们举行初步禁令听证会时起，我们都已经知道该经纪人的存在，对吗？因此，无论如何，您必须从她那里取得该信息，而且显然您正试图这样做。看来您还有30天。随后，关于Kwok先生、Genever及其与经纪人的关系和沟通，您同样可以通过经纪人取得该信息。Kwok先生已经援引其第五修正案权利，拒绝回答那些问题；根据《民事诉讼规则》，对您而言，从Wolfson取得该信息会更方便，负担也更轻，\n\n而不是试图通过一名正在等待量刑、被羁押的人取得该信息；并且我们不知道无论判处何种刑罚，是否会提出上诉。因此，我看不出这将如何行得通。\n\n关于火灾的潜在起因，我明白您所说的消防部门未披露该信息。再次说明，火灾起因，我是说，只有在你们能够根据你们的保单主张不存在承保时，这才相关，因为你们——嗯，你们比我更了解你们保单下的标准；但我们已作出初步禁令，该禁令已表明法院认为，在此情形下更有可能存在承保，对吗。因此——奥康纳先生（O'Connor）：确实如此，法官阁下——法院：是。奥康纳先生：——但那是初步的。法院：是，确属初步，但这是在就此举行了广泛证据听证之后作出的初步裁定。该命令并非在未获证言和证据支持的情况下作出。因此，我——抱歉，奥康纳律师（Attorney O'Connor），在我作出裁定前，您还有其他要补充的吗？奥康纳先生：没有，法官阁下。我认为我们已充分保留了记录。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。德斯平斯先生（Despins）：法官阁下，我可以说一句吗？法院：可以。德斯平斯先生：有一点事实问题。我不会争论法律问题，但奥康纳先生说，AIG（美国国际集团）并不知情——您知道，当他回答您关于是否由我协商保单的问题时，我并未协商保单。对此不存在争议；但是，AIG 明确获悉，一名受托人——Kwok（郭文贵）处于破产程序中——顺便说一句，这是在续保前两个月——并且郭文贵处于破产程序中，我是受托人。因此，他们掌握了所有信息——而且 Genever（Genever）及 Genever 的母公司也处于破产程序中。因此，他们掌握了确定其交易对象所需的全部信息。所以，认为他们不知我已介入的说法并不正确。他们已收到关于任命以及该任命属于涉及 Genever 和 Genever Holdings（Genever Holdings）的案件一部分的书面通知。因此，我认为纠正该说法很重要。奥康纳先生：法官阁下，我不认为这是纠正；我认为我说的正是这一点。受托人被列为通知接收人，并非作为签发人，而是作为保单上的通知接收人。我们承认这一点。案件 22-50073，文书 3744，提交于 10/23/24，录入于 10/23/24 09:10:51，第 56 页，共 66 页。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，但认为郭文贵仍在现场的说法毫无意义，因为受托人已在那里。奥康纳先生：我们已收到该事项的通知。\n\n麦科马克先生（McCormack）：是，我认为关于这一点，法官阁下，我们已在简易判决动议的书面陈述中处理过。郭文贵自我认为是 2022 年 8 月起，已不再对这些公司中的任何一家拥有权益。随后，正如德斯平斯律师刚才指出的，AIG 自 2022 年 12 月起已获悉他是受托人，距火灾发生近三个月。\n\n而且，我认为，关于火灾起因的整个问题已在简易判决动议中得到广泛处理。我们主张，这与承保问题无关，因为这是全险保单，问题在于被保险人 Genever LLC（Genever 有限责任公司）是否存在任何行为；而 AIG 没有提出任何证据，并且依我看也无法提出任何证据，证明其明知地与该火灾有关。\n\n因此，我们认为，起因与承保无关；而联邦当局正在进行调查这一事实，我认为意味着该火灾目前必须被认定为原因未明，亦即不存在已确定的起因。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。关于 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）提出的修改审前命令以延长损害赔偿专家证据开示的动议，基于记录中陈述的理由，该动议获准。麦科马克律师（Attorney McCormack），请贵所提交一份准许该动议的拟议命令。麦科马克先生：会的，法官阁下。法院：您需要多长时间完成？我可以给您所需的任何时间，但我通常希望为书记官办公室设定一个日期。麦科马克先生：如果可以的话，我认为本周五可以？法院：周五可以。周五可以。因此，我们将记下——请稍候。 （暂停） 法院：好的。因此，准许该动议的拟议命令应不迟于 October 10 提交。请将其提交至法庭书记员电子邮箱；并且，显然，请抄送奥康纳律师和汤普森律师（Attorney Thompson），以便他们知悉您已将该命令提交法院登记。麦科马克先生：是，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。\n\n随后，关于 AIG 要求对个别债务人郭文贵先生进行询问的动议，我将部分准许，但我将暂缓其执行，奥康纳律师。因为在我们——在我就简易判决动议作出裁定之前，我看不出让你们获得一项命令去取得一场两千——抱歉——对郭文贵先生的询问有何意义。当然，这也不会改变有关事实证据开示的 November 8th 截止日期。因此，我们有两种推进方式。我可以部分准许该动议，但说明其不会改变，且绝不会变更或影响简易判决动议；我稍后会进一步谈及该事项——或者，我可以部分准许该动议，然后在简易判决动议作出裁定后再暂缓其执行。但我不会允许——我并不是说您提出了这种建议——我只是告诉您，就郭文贵先生询问一事作出的命令，不会拖延或以任何方式改变 November 8th 的事实证据开示截止日期以及法院对简易判决动议的裁定。法院认为，无论郭文贵先生可能说什么，如果你们能够取得其询问证词，都与法院待决的简易判决动议无关。\n\n因此，您希望如何处理——嗯，奥康纳律师，您可以向我提交一份命令，因为我会要求您这么做。我没有一份命令。但我想明确的是，如果您希望获得该项救济，您有权获得，但您不能执行它；或者，即使您执行，也不得将其用于延长 November 8th 的事实证据开示截止日期，并且其对简易判决动议不会产生任何影响。您希望如何推进？\n\n奥康纳先生：法官阁下，我正试图理解。如果获准——法院：这就是——请继续。奥康纳先生：——您仍不会就简易判决考虑任何内容？法院：就关于是否存在承保的待决简易判决动议而言。奥康纳先生：是。法院：是。关于第 4 罪名项。奥康纳先生：那么，如果法院裁定不会——不会在简易判决中考虑任何内容，那么我想部分准许并暂缓执行是合理的。法院：不，我的意思是，如果您能够进行询问，该询问不会影响事实——不会延长 November 8th；那是事实证据开示的终止日期。无论您从郭文贵先生处取得什么，如果取得任何内容，都不得获准就简易判决提交。事情是这样的，对吗，您曾对我说，您需要时间进行事实证据开示。我说，好，我没有就简易判决作出裁定，尽管受托人希望我这样做。之后，你们各方同意——法院对此表示感谢——将事实证据开示延长至 November 8th。然后，当我们接近证据开示结束时，您提交动议要求对郭文贵先生进行询问，而您本可在一年半前提出该动议。如果您决定继续对郭文贵先生进行询问，我不会允许这成为延长 November 8th 事实证据开示截止日期的任何依据；并且，您不得就从郭文贵先生处取得的任何内容，提交材料并进一步答复简易判决动议。奥康纳先生：好的。这就是我想确保理解您的原因，法官阁下。如果这些是基本规则，那么我们不妨准许该动议并暂缓执行。法院：好的。那么，请您准备该拟议命令，并以同样方式提交。\n\n奥康纳先生：我们会准备，法官阁下。法院：是。您认为能在周五前完成吗？奥康纳先生：我可以在周五前完成。我只是想在记录中说明，我们并不表示同意，但我们会准备具有该效力的命令。法院：我确信您并不表示同意，但我们将如此推进。奥康纳先生：好的。我只是想确保记录清楚。明白。法院：不过，奥康纳律师，我还要说一件事。我确实允许时间经过，以观察——让您完成事实证据开示。我放弃了该问题，并且我认为您关于事实证据开示的论点似乎具有一定道理，这就是时间已经过去的原因，好吗。我将给予您至 November 26th 的时间，就待决的简易判决动议提交您希望提交的任何补充文件，依据任何证据开示；但必须是您在提交首次答复后取得的、此前尚未向我陈述过的某项证据开示事项。随后，我将给予您至 November 26th 的时间完成此事。德斯平斯先生：明白，法官阁下。谢谢。法院：这考虑到了你们结束——案件 22-50073，文书 3744，提交于 10/23/24，录入于 10/23/24 09:10:51，第 62 页，共 66 页。\n\n双方均于 November 8th 结束事实证据开示；然后，我将给予受托人至 December 10 的时间，对您提交的任何内容作出答复。顺便说一句，您不必提交任何内容；但如果您想提交，奥康纳律师，这是您必须提交某项内容的截止日期。奥康纳先生：明白，法官阁下。法院：好的。然后，受托人，如您确实提交某项内容，受托人将在不迟于 December 10 提交受托人认为适当的任何答复，如有。\n\n我不倾向于就此另行作出命令——除非你们二位，麦科马克先生和奥康纳先生，希望作出某种命令，以确定这些日期和／或合并两项动议，即暂缓证据开示截止日期的动议——抱歉——专家证据开示以及对郭文贵先生的询问。你们自行决定希望如何处理，但——奥康纳先生：法官阁下，法院已设定截止日期。我不知道我们是否需要命令来做任何事情。我的意思是，我们都已作了记录。法院：无论你们决定如何处理，无论做什么，你们都应在 October 10 或之前，向法庭书记员提交一份、两份或可能三份命令，好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：阁下，不是11日吗，11日？\n\n法院：我刚才说什么了？\n\n法庭书记员：您说的是10日。\n\n德斯平斯先生：您说的是10日。\n\n法院：哦，是11日，对不起。我道歉，我看错了日历上的日期。非常抱歉。是的，本周五，10月11日。今天下午我们还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\n奥康纳先生：没有，阁下。\n\n麦考马克先生：阁下，也许——或许这不会成为问题，我可以私下与奥康纳律师沟通——但听到您今天确定的日期后，AIG（美国国际集团）有一些与诉状其他罪名项有关的事实证人。我——我是否正确理解，您预计该证据开示将在11月截止日期前完成？\n\n法院：是的。\n\n麦考马克先生：好的。这涉及恶意索赔，是否会成为问题取决于法院如何裁定。但我会与奥康纳律师就这些事项的排期进行协调。\n\n法院：谢谢。如果你们二位想出其他程序，可以通知法院，但目前情况就是如此，并且这符合目前有效的审前命令。\n\n麦考马克先生：是，阁下。\n\n法院：好的。今天下午还有其他我们应当讨论的事项吗？\n\n奥康纳先生：没有，阁下。\n\n麦考马克先生：没有，阁下。\n\n法院：好。今天日程上的最后一项事项至此结束，因此既然无人发言，法院现在休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n律师：谢谢，阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：法院休庭。\n\n（程序于下午2:40结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3744 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:10:51 Page 66 of 66\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力范围内，以上内容是对上述案件程序电子录音的准确庭审记录文本。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling October 20, 2024\nWilliam J. Garling（威廉·J·加林），CET-543\n认证法庭记录员\n代表 Reliable","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA","Luc Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3636,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3640,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":17091,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-10-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-10-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:43:49"}