{"id":"court_ctb_3745_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3745,"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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 24-05249 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . ACA CAPITAL GROUP, LTD., . et al., . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 24-05273 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . Courtroom 123 NGOK, et al., . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard Defendants. . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Tuesday, October 15, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 1 of 59\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: Douglas Skalka, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and- Luc A. Despins, Esquire Nicholas Bassett, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 For the U.S. Trustee: Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street Room 302 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 For Mei Guo, Hudson Diamond New York LLC, Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, Leading Shine New York, Ltd., and Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC: James M. Moriarty, Esquire ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 (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 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 2 of 59\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 3 of 59\n\n| | | 3 |\n|--|--|---|\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): For G Club Operations, LLC, and G Club International, Ltd.: Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For Yongbing Zhang: James E. Nealon, Esquire NEALON LAW, LLC 1266 East Main Street Suite 700r Stamford, Connecticut 06902 For Beile Li: Ivan J. Ladd-Smith, Esquire SPEARS MANNING & MARTINI, LLC 2425 Post Road Suite 203 Southport, Connecticut 06824 For Victor Cerda: Jason M. Swergold, Esquire YANKWITT, LLP 140 Grand Street Suite 705 White Plains, New York 10601 For Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. and Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.: Bryan Ha, Esquire BRYAN HA, ATTORNEY AT LAW 455 Tarrytown Road Suite 1244 White Plains, New York 10607 For Gladys Chow: Emily McDaniels, Esquire SHER TREMONTE, LLP 90 Broad Street 23rd Floor New York, New York 10004\n\n| | | | 4 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n| 2 | For Celestial Tide | | |\n| | Limited; G Fashion (CA); | | |\n| 3 | G Fashion Hold Co A | | |\n| 4 | Limited; G Fashion Hold
Co B Limited; G Fashion | | |\n| | International Limited; | | |\n| 5 | G Fashion Media Group, | | |\n| | Inc.; GF IP, LLC; GF | | |\n| 6 | Italy, LLC; GFNY, Inc.;
Hamilton Capital Holding | | |\n| 7 | Limited; Hamilton | | |\n| | Investment Management | | |\n| 8 | Limited; Hamilton | | |\n| 9 | Opportunity Fund SPC;
Himalaya Currency | | |\n| | Clearing Pty Ltd.; | | |\n| 10 | Himalaya International | | |\n| 11 | Clearing Limited; Himalaya
International Financial | | |\n| | Group Limited; Himalaya | | |\n| 12 | International Payments | | |\n| | Limited; Himalaya | | |\n| 13 | International Reserves
Limited; Major Lead | | |\n| 14 | International Limited; | | |\n| | William Je; ACA Capital | | |\n| 15 | Group Ltd.; GETTR USA,
Inc.; Hamilton Opportunity | | |\n| 16 | Fund SPC; Hamilton PE Fund | | |\n| | SP; Hamilton Digital | | |\n| 17 | Assets Fund SP; Himalaya | | |\n| 18 | Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.;
Himalaya International | | |\n| | Clearing Ltd.; Himalaya | | |\n| 19 | International Financial | | |\n| 20 | Group Limited; Taurus
Fund LLC; Taurus | | |\n| | Management LLC: | Michael T. Conway, Esquire | |\n| 21 | | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP | |\n| | | 747 Third Avenue | |\n| 22 | | 16th Floor
New York, New York 10017 | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 5 of 59\n\n| | | | 5 |\n|----------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n| 2 | For the Official | | |\n| 3 | Committee of
Unsecured Creditors: | Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire | |\n| 4 | | PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
850 Main Street | |\n| 5 | | 8th Floor
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 | |\n| 6 | | | |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | | | |\n| 10 | | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19
20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\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 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Debtors. Case no. 22-50073 (JAM) Matter No. 3592 #3592; Motion to Sell 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut Free and Clear of Liens Claims, Interests and Encumbrances, (II) Authorizing and Approving Purchase and Sale Agreement and (III) Granting Related Relief Filed by Douglas S. Skalka on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 11 Court's Ruling: 51 Matter No. 3650 #3650; Motion for Order Increasing Cap on Funding of Expenses of Mahwah Mansion Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 53 Court's Ruling: 56 In re: Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v ACA Capital Group Ltd., et al Adversary Proceeding no. 24-05249 (JAM) Matter No. 89 #89; Order Setting Status Conference 12 In re: Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v NGOK, et al. Adversary Proceeding no. 24-05273 (JAM) Matter No. 94 #94; Order Setting Status Conference 19 Transcriptionists' Certificate 59 Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 6 of 59\n\n 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:10 p.m.) THE COURT: Be observing. Have we got parties on observing? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: You're welcome. THE COURT: All right. Then, if the courtroom deputy will call the calendar, please. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok; Adversary Number 24-05249, Despins v ACA Capital Group Ltd., et al.; Adversary 24-05273, Despins v NGOK, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If I could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKALKA: Good afternoon u Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, local counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 7 of 59\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 MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee, and I'm just sitting here because it's an open table. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler. With me today is Steven Kindseth and we represent in Adversary 24-05273, Ms. Mei Guo, Hudson Diamond New York LLC, Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, Leading Shine New York, Ltd., and Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC. And if I may, in Adversary 24-05249, Attorney Kindseth and I filed appearances today on behalf of Ms. Mei Guo. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz, Green & Sklarz, for the Defendants G Club Operations LLC, and G Club International Ltd., in both adversaries. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. NEALON: Your Honor, James Nealon on behalf of Yongbing Zhang in 05273. Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry, I didn't get this gentleman's last name. THE COURT: Nealon. MR. NEALON: Nealon, N-e-a-l-o-n. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Thank you. MR. LADD-SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ivan Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 8 of 59\n\n 9 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 Ladd-Smith from Spears Manning & Martini. I represent Beile Li in the 05273 matter. Good afternoon. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SWERGOLD: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jason Swergold from Yankwitt, LLP. I represent the Defendant Victor Cerda in Adversary Proceeding 05273. And with Your Honor's permission, Defendant Aaron Mitchum (phonetic), who couldn't be here today, asked if I would stand in for him, solely for purposes of discussing scheduling in that adversary proceeding. So I would represent him for that purpose today, as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SWERGOLD: Thank you. MR. HA: Good afternoon, Judge. Bryan Ha. I represent Defendant Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. and Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. in both adversary proceedings. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MCDANIELS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Emily McDaniels and I'm here with my colleague Noam Biale from Sher Tremonte, LLP, and we represent Defendant Gladys Chow in the 05273 matter. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon.\n\n| 1 | MR. CONWAY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Michael |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Conway, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle.
We represent in the |\n| 3 | -- excuse me, Your Honor -- in the 24-05249 matter, ACA |\n| 4 | Capital, LLC, Celestial Tide Limited; G Fashion (CA); G |\n| 5 | Fashion Hold Co A Limited; G Fashion Hold Co B Limited; G |\n| 6 | Fashion International Limited; G Fashion Media Group, Inc.; |\n| 7 | GF IP, LLC; GF Italy, LLC; GFNY, Inc.; Hamilton Capital |\n| 8 | Holding Limited; Hamilton Investment Management Limited; |\n| 9 | Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC; Himalaya financial -- I'm |\n| 10 | sorry -- Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.; Himalaya |\n| 11 | International Clearing Limited; Himalaya International |\n| 12 | Financial Group Limited; Himalaya International Payments |\n| 13 | Limited; Himalaya International Reserves Limited; Major Lead |\n| 14 | International Limited; and William Je. |\n| 15 | In the 24-05237 matter, we represent ACA Capital |\n| 16 | Group Ltd.; GETTR USA, Inc.; Hamilton Capital -- Hamilton |\n| 17 | Opportunity Fund SPC; Hamilton PE Fund SP; Hamilton Digital |\n| 18 | Assets Fund SP; Hamilton Currency Clearing Pty Ltd. [sic]; |\n| 19 | Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.; Himalaya International |\n| 20 | Financial Group Limited; Taurus Fund LLC; Taurus Management |\n| 21 | LLC; and William Je. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Good afternoon. |\n| 23 | MR. CONWAY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to note their |\n| 25 | appearance for the record? |\n\n| | 11 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (No verbal response) |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
Trustee Despins, |\n| 3 | obviously, on the calendar today are two motions in the main |\n| 4 | case and then these status conferences in these two adversary |\n| 5 | proceedings in the alter-ego and civil RICO adversary |\n| 6 | proceeding.
I would bet, but I could be wrong, that the |\n| 7 | majority of people are here for the adversary proceedings, so |\n| 8 | do you want to proceed with the adversary proceeding status |\n| 9 | conferences first? |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
I think it makes |\n| 11 | sense to do that. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Mr. Bassett will be handling that. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | All right.
So for whomever is here, in addition |\n| 16 | for the trustee's counsel, the status conferences were set in |\n| 17 | these two adversary proceedings because there are numerous |\n| 18 | Defendants and there are numerous motions to dismiss filed in |\n| 19 | both of the adversary proceedings and, in fact, I think, and |\n| 20 | I -- Attorney Bassett, you can correct the record, please, |\n| 21 | when you do speak, I think in one of these adversary |\n| 22 | proceedings, some parties had until today to respond, as |\n| 23 | well.
I'm not sure if everyone has responded, but in any |\n| 24 | event, as you know and all the people here know, these |\n| 25 | adversary proceedings have multiple Defendants and whether |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 parties have been defaulted or a request for default is entered or a default judgment is entered or an answer has been filed or a motion to dismiss has been filed, we have all different kinds of statuses, with regard to the numerous Defendants.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So if we look first at the alter-ego adversary, which happens to have the first number numerically, 24-05249, I see that there has been an answer filed, default judgments have entered against a few Defendants. Several Defendants have been defaulted, but there's also several motions to dismiss pending. And the Court entered an order staying the trustee's time to respond to those motions to dismiss until after the status conference today.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 So, obviously, I -- well, maybe it's not obvious, but the order was entered so that all of the parties, including any Defendants that wished to participate and then have filed motions to dismiss, would think about how the parties expect the Court is going to handle these matters. So, Attorney Bassett, I'll turn to you, first.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. So I'll also start with the obvious alter-ego complaint and then we can talk about civil RICO, as well. So, just to recap the status, your observation was correct. There have been some answers filed. There's been some default judgments entered. There's been some entries of\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 default and several motions to dismiss. I think altogether, by my count, in the alter-ego litigation, there are, I believe, 43 total Defendants. Of those 43, I believe there were 3 answers filed. I believe 18 Defendants have moved to dismiss, some of those who were represented by common counsel were part of one consolidated motion, but 18 total Defendants have filed motions to dismiss. There are two Defendants against whom the Court has actually already entered default judgments; that is K Legacy and Chang Guo, pursuant ECF 76. In addition to those two default judgments, the Court has entered 16 entries of default, so the trustee is in the process of preparing a motion for default judgment, but that has not yet occurred for those 16. And then there are another four Defendants who have not yet answered and there's not yet an entry of default.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, Your Honor, I think the answer to the question of how we proceed from here is going to be, in some ways simplified by the fact that our intention, in response to the motions to dismiss that were filed, is to amend the complaint as a matter of right. We would do that to, obviously, add additional allegations, based on the trustee's ongoing investigation. There may be other parties that are added to the litigation, as well. Our view is that while the trustee is amending the complaint, it does not make sense for the trustee to have to respond to pending motions to dismiss or\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for the Court to spend its time and resources addressing those motions to dismiss. Obviously, any parties who have filed motions to dismiss in response to the original complaint would have their right to file a motion to dismiss in response to the amended complaint, including raising the same arguments that they think that those grounds for dismissal still exist.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 We would propose filing that amended complaint within 14 days from today if that's acceptable to the Court. Parties could, thereafter, answer, and then, if they filed motions to dismiss, obviously, the trustee would respond to those in due course. But hopefully this time, if there's been an amended complaint, there would be more consolidation in terms of uniform answer deadlines and, therefore, we could move forward on a briefing schedule that's common to all the parties.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A couple other notes, Your Honor. One primary other note or consideration, as I said, there are two default judgments have been entered and then 16 entries of default. It is important to the trustee to not have either the default judgments or the entries of default disturbed by an amended complaint, so what we would propose to do as part of the Court's scheduling order in this matter is to have those Defendants against whom either defaults have entered or against whom the Court has entered a default judgment severed\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 from the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which the Court can do in its discretion and we think that's warranted here, because the trustee, you know, has no need to pursue an amended complaint as to those parties who already have the defaults and then would intend to take advantage of those defaults and move for a default judgment when that has not yet been done.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 So, Your Honor, that's where things stand from the trustee's perspective on the omnibus alter-ego litigation. And while these motions to dismiss the amended complaint are pending, we would confer with the Defendants regarding discovery and, you know, try to present something uniform to the Court. Obviously, we haven't done that yet, but from a sort of broad level, that's how we envision proceeding.\n\n15 16 17 18 THE COURT: Okay. With regard to what you've stated, you're saying that the trustee is going to prepare an amended complaint that will be filed two weeks from today -- MR. BASSETT: That's what we're proposing, Your\n\n19 Honor.\n\n20\n\nTHE COURT: -- the 29th?\n\n21 MR. BASSETT: Correct.\n\n22 23 24 25 THE COURT: And what's the responsive -- what's the response to that for the Defendants who aren't defaulted or against whom a default judgment has entered? You said a date and I didn't hear you.\n\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
Oh, I did not actually give a |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | response deadline.
I would propose 21 days for Defendants to |\n| 3 | respond to the amended complaint and then the trustee could |\n| 4 | file an opposition to the motions to dismiss within 14 days |\n| 5 | after that. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So, I haven't looked at Rule 21 |\n| 7 | recently.
You have to file a motion to sever? |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
I believe that's what the rule |\n| 9 | contemplates, Your Honor.
I would propose to do it orally |\n| 10 | under the circumstances, given that we are severing |\n| 11 | Defendants who have defaulted.
Obviously, if the Court would |\n| 12 | like us to file a written motion, we could do that. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I don't know.
I have to look at it. |\n| 14 | I haven't looked at it for some time, so I'd have to look at |\n| 15 | it. |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I understand, I |\n| 18 | believe, what your thoughts are, as far as the management of |\n| 19 | this adversary proceeding would take place.
I'm just looking |\n| 20 | to make sure I don't have any other questions at the moment |\n| 21 | before I hear from the Defendants who are here. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
And, Your Honor, we could take each |\n| 23 | one in turn or I'm happy to do civil RICO now, as well, |\n| 24 | whichever you think is most efficient. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, I would assume that your plan |\n| | |\n\n 17 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 isn't very different. Is it different? MR. BASSETT: It is actually different. THE COURT: Oh, so I made the improper assumption. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Well, yeah, hold on a second. MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: I want to -- for the Defendants that are in the courtroom and that have filed motions to dismiss, does anyone wish to be heard, with regard to the trustee's proposal of how to proceed in the alter-ego proceeding? MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz for G Club. I would just ask that -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. MR. SKLARZ: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's all right. MR. SKLARZ: I would just ask that the trustee will make sure to file a redline version of the amended complaint, as required by the Local Rules, to make it easier for us to respond to the amended complaint. THE COURT: I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem. MR. BASSETT: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, Attorney Sklarz, just before you walk away, so you don't have any objection to the plan as outlined by Attorney Bassett? So -- because what that would do, if that is the plan that gets carried forward, then all Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 17 of 59\n\n| 1 | the motions to dismiss are moot because you have to, then, |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | look at an amended complaint and discern whether you're going |\n| 3 | to file another amended -- not another, but a Ms. Convoy's to |\n| 4 | the amended complaint.
So you have no opposition to that? |\n| 5 | MR. SKLARZ:
If they're going to file an amended |\n| 6 | complaint, I see no reason why we need to adjudicate what |\n| 7 | would be an ultimately moot motion.
So I have no -- as long |\n| 8 | as the amended complaint is actually filed, I have no problem |\n| 9 | proceeding that way and I have no reason to believe that |\n| 10 | Attorney Bassett isn't going to file his amended complaint. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
And the 21-day response period that's |\n| 12 | been proposed by Attorney Bassett, I think that -- well, |\n| 13 | that's what the Local Rule -- that's what the District Court |\n| 14 | Rules are. |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:
I don't have any issue with that. |\n| 16 | The following week is Thanksgiving.
The following week on |\n| 17 | that, I start a trial, so there's no good time for me, so the |\n| 18 | 19th sounds great. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 22 | (No verbal response) |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then, Attorney Bassett, we can |\n| 24 | go to the RICO action, then and your proposal about it. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank -- |\n| | |\n\n 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. BASSETT: Yeah, sorry. Thank you, Your Honor. So, I'll do the same for civil RICO, at the outset, just give a brief recap of the number of Defendants and sort of where things stand. So, in that litigation, there are, by my count 54 total Defendants. On August 16th, the Court entered an order extending many answer deadlines and there was some one-off additional extensions. Ultimately, parties either responded or not last month. Twenty-six of the Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint; again, many of those are in combined motions where Defendants are represented by common counsel. Twenty-eight Defendants, Your Honor, have not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. At present, I don't believe there are entries of default or default judgments just yet, but the trustee intends to pursue those. So, Your Honor, our proposal, with respect to this complaint is different because there's sort of a -- and some of this is pointed out in the motions to dismiss -- but there's an overlap between the complaints in that the relief that the trustee is seeking in the civil row coalition as to many Defendants is in the alternative to the relief that he is seeking in the omnibus alter-ego litigation, the reason being that many of the entities at issue in the omnibus\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 alter-ego litigation, which the trustee believes are alteregos of the debtor and which the trustee seeks an order from the Court, providing that all of their assets are property of the estate, many of those same entities are also Defendants in the civil RICO litigation where the trustee is seeking an award of damages.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Obviously, if the trustee were to prevail on his argument that these entities are alter-egos of the debtor, such that all of their assets are property at the estate, the trustee, at that point, would have no reason to, and would not intend to continue to pursue damages claims against those entities in the civil RICO litigation because that would be a claim by the trustee against himself, essentially.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And so, if you look at, of the civil RICO Defendants who have actually responded to the complaint, I think I said there were 26 or 28 who have filed motions to dismiss, nearly half of those, Your Honor, are entities that are also subject to the omnibus alter-ego litigation. And because of that and because the trustee does not have any reason to move forward with civil RICO claims against those entities at this time until the alter-ego litigation is adjudicated, it's our view that it would be in the best interests of the estate and the Court and all parties concerned for the Court to actually impose a stay on the civil RICO litigation for the time being while the omnibus\n\n1 alter-ego litigation continues.\n\n| 2 | I think the result of that, Your Honor, is while |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | the alter-ego litigation sorts itself out, the civil RICO |\n| 4 | case, in the meantime, could be drastically simplified. |\n| 5 | Obviously, again, if the Court were to enter orders finding |\n| 6 | that some or all of the entities in the alter-ego litigation |\n| 7 | are, in fact, property of the estate, those entities would be |\n| 8 | removed from the list of Defendants in the civil RICO |\n| 9 | litigation.
In addition to that, we have not been sitting on |\n| 10 | our hands for the past several months while these litigations |\n| 11 | have been on file.
We have, in fact, been having discussions |\n| 12 | with Defendants, where we were able to do so, including the |\n| 13 | civil RICO Defendants, in particular.
I anticipate having a |\n| 14 | settlement with least one of the individual Defendants in the |\n| 15 | civil RICO litigation, if not more, so I think over time we'd |\n| 16 | likely be able to simplify that litigation by reducing the |\n| 17 | number of Defendants in that way, as well. |\n| 18 | So, that's how we would propose, Your Honor, |\n| 19 | dealing with the civil RICO litigation; again, we just think |\n| 20 | that makes logical sense in light of the overlap between the |\n| 21 | two adversary proceedings.
The other thing that we would do, |\n| 22 | and we can do this, again, by written motion, is for those |\n| 23 | who have had the opportunity to respond to the complaint and |\n\n25 move to sever those particular parties from the complaint so\n\nhave not timely done so, again, our view is that we would\n\n24\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 22 of 59\n\n1 2 that the trustee could proceed to file suits against them while the remainder of the litigation is stayed.\n\n22\n\n3 4 THE COURT: Just on the parties that haven't timely responded?\n\n5 6 7 MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I think I understand what you're saying.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 All right. So, then, I guess I need to hear from the Defendants in the civil RICO action who are in the courtroom and have filed motions to dismiss, if they have any opposition. What is the position of one or any of the Defendants with regard to the proposal how to proceed with the civil RICO action that Attorney Bassett just made on the record?\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, the last thing I would note, if I may, is that if and when we do proceed with the civil RICO litigation, our intention, as in the omnibus alter-ego litigation, would be to file an amended complaint, which we have not yet done and, therefore, have the ability to do as of right, and therefore, I think the pending motions to dismiss should be mooted in any way, in any event when we get to that point. But, again, I don't think it makes sense for these --\n\n24 25 THE COURT: But you're saying that's only if the matter isn't stayed or when the stay is lifted?\n\n 23 MR. BASSETT: Exactly, Your Honor. Our view, in the interests of saving estate resources, significantly curtailing the costs that we would otherwise incur, it makes sense to not spend the time and effort completing an amended complaint at this time when, again, you know, a lot of what we would add may end up coming out based on intervening events. THE COURT: Understood, thank you. Do any of the Defendants wish to be heard, with regard to the trustee's proposal of how to proceed in the civil RICO action? MR. SWERGOLD: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Jason Swergold on behalf of Defendant Victor Cerda. Obviously, my intention here is not to litigate our pending motion to dismiss, but I think a little bit of background is important for the argument that I'm going to make, which would be to oppose the stay, at least with respect to my client. Mr. Cerda is a private attorney. He has had this civil RICO action pending over his head now for civil E. several months because it was stayed pending the criminal case against the debtor. In the 18-month investigation of the trustee to date, prior to the filing of the civil RICO action, there were a total of two allegations\n\nagainst him, one, that he was listening on a phone call and\n\none that his law firm was paid for legal work. He obviously\n\n24\n\n25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n1 2 3 4 has an interest in being done with this civil RICO claim against him, which we feel is meritless and which the trustee is not going to be able to amend their complaint in a way to even be able to stay the claim.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Courts in this circuit have observed the dangers and the damages to Defendants just by being named as Defendants in civil RICO matters, which is why courts give such exacting scrutiny to civil RICO claims. And so, you know, I emailed with Mr. Bassett last week about this case and I was told that they were going to amend the complaint as of right.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Now, I hear for the first time that they are seeking to just stay the civil RICO matter, which means that my client now will have to sit here sort of in purgatory waiting and waiting while these claims against him, again, a private attorney at his own law firm with a distinguished career in both, public and private practice, has to wait with these claims pending against him. So I would object to the stay because he has a real interest in litigating the civil RICO claim against him. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SWERGOLD: Thank you. THE COURT: Any of the other Defendants? MS. MCDANIELS: Yes, Your Honor, thank you. Emily\n\nMcDaniels and Noam Biale, on behalf of Gladys Chow.\n\n25\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 We would join in Attorney -- THE COURT: Would you just spell your Defendant's last name for me, please. MS. MCDANIELS: Chow, C-h-o-w. THE COURT: Right. Okay. Thank you. MS. MCDANIELS: So, we would join in Attorney Swergold's objection to the stay. Our client is similarly situated. She is only alleged to have engaged in two different -- She's only mentioned twice in the entire complaint; she is not mentioned with respect to any of the predicate acts. She has an interest in moving on with her life. She no longer works with any of the defendants' companies. And we think that, you know, our motion to dismiss deserves to be handled promptly and not after a stay or after a further amendment. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (Participants confer) MR. MORIARITY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarity for Mei Guo, Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, Leading Shine New York Limited, and Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC. I'm not taking a position, Your Honor, on the trustee's request for a stay. I just want to clarify. My five clients have not responded to the complaint -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 25 of 59\n\n 26 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: Hold on just a second, Attorney Moriarity. (Pause in proceedings) MR. MORIARITY: I won't take that as a hint that my time is up. THE COURT: No, it's not a time thing, it's an issue of air in the courtroom. MR. MORIARITY: I see. THE COURT: You can go right ahead. MR. MORIARITY: All right. Thank you, Your Honor. My clients have not responded to the complaint as of today by agreement with the trustee, who, through his counsel, has worked with us on extensions, as we worked to figure out the direction that his case is going. My clients' response is due today. And I would ask that, to the extent the case is going to be stayed or it's going to be dismissed without prejudice to refile, whatever is going to happen procedurally, that my clients be included on the side of those who have responded. I don't want to be back in front of the Court arguing a motion for default because my clients have not responded to the complaint or don't respond to it as of today. So I would ask that the Court, whatever order is entered, that the case be stayed as to my five clients. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 26 of 59\n\n 27 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. LADD-SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ivan Ladd-Smith on behalf of Beile Li. I have a question of the Court, which is, if the Court knows: Does Your Honor know whether you plan to decide whether to issue a stay today? THE COURT: I have no idea. I just heard the request a few minutes ago, just like you did, so -- MR. LADD-SMITH: Right. And that's why I ask because I guess I would respectfully request that defendants be given some time to consult with clients and to think about whether or not they object -- THE COURT: About the stay -- MR. LADD-SMITH: About the -- THE COURT: -- in particular? MR. LADD-SMITH: Correct, correct. And you know, not a lot of time, a few days. THE COURT: Well, I think -- you know, I -- well, okay. I understand your request. That's a fair request, and I'll -- but I'll want to hear back from the trustee, too. Do you have any other issues that you want to raise other than asking for some time to consult with your clients about the request for a stay from the trustee? MR. LADD-SMITH: Well, I had one other thought, Your Honor. And again, you know, just hearing this for the first time today. And it seems as though it may take a long\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 time for the alter ego matter to resolve itself, such that a stay will last a significant amount of time. And if the trustee, it seems has already decided to amend the RICO claim, I just wonder if it might make sense to have that amendment occur prior to a stay being put in place. You know, otherwise, defendants are sort of in the dark during the course of the stay as to what the new complaint is going to say; whereas, you know, if, essentially, the substance of the amendment is known to the trustee at this time, it would seem as though a similar twenty-one-day period would be sufficient for the trustee to make those amendments. And to the extent is that the point is that some of the alter ego defendants would be dismissed from the case, you know, that could still happen at the conclusion of the stay of the alter ego matters. So I'm not -- it's just a thought -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. LADD-SMITH: -- for the Court's consideration. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LADD-SMITH: Thank you. MR. HA: Judge, on behalf of the Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society, I would join in the request for some additional time to consult with my clients and respond to the trustee's request for a stay.\n\n 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: And is the issue that you would like time on the same, just with regard to the stay, nothing else? MR. HA: Just with the stay of the civil RICO action, correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HA: Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, do you have any response to the issues raised by the defendants' counsel who spoke? MR. BASSETT: Just briefly, Your Honor. Again, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings for the record. So, in response to the request for time to confer among clients, the trustee has no objection to that. From our point of view, people can take as much time as they need. If they want to consult with us in the meantime, that's fine, too. So no objection to that request. Also no objection to Attorney Moriarity's request concerning his clients. We're not trying to force anybody else to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint at this time, if we're -- since we are requesting a stay. As to the request -- or the opposition, rather, to the stay that was raised by counsel for two of the parties, Your Honor, we, as I said, intend to amend the complaint in Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 29 of 59\n\n1 2 3 4 5 response to motions to dismiss that have been filed. I don't really understand the prejudice argument. I mean, to the extent that the -- some of the defendants in the complaint are the subject of fewer allegations than others, that's exactly what we intend to address in our amendment.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As the Court may recall, we filed this complaint in February of 2024. The -- since then, a lot has happened. Not only has our investigation continued, but the debtor's entire criminal trial played out. We've gotten access to thousands of pages of exhibits, hundreds, if not thousands of pages of transcript from that trial of testimony. So suffice it to say we will be amending the complaint substantially when we do that to add additional allegations, et cetera. And I don't know how that's going to serve any of these defendants in a way that they would expect.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I think it's in everybody's best interests, including especially conserving estate resources, to not require us to move forward with litigation at this time, not require us to spend time and effort preparing an amended complaint because, again, there is substanatial overlap with what is happening in the omnibus alter ego litigation. And depending upon how that's resolved, depending on other resolutions that we may be able to work out in the background, a lot of the work we would do will just become unnecessary.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So that's our position, Your Honor, but certainly no opposition to giving people time to think about this. THE COURT: So how do you want to handle that? If you're going to give them time to think about it, what is it that you would like the Court to do? MR. BASSETT: I think ... (Participants confer) MR. BASSETT: Yeah, I think the logical conclusion would be to have a, at a minimum, temporary adjournment of all deadlines or a temporary stay of the litigation, pending, you know, whatever period of time people think they need to confer. At the end of that period of time, we could either have another status conference or submit something to Your Honor with a -- you know, our respective proposals. And at that point, you know, we would expect the Court to issue a ruling on a scheduling order moving forward. THE COURT: So you are -- you will be prepared to submit some kind of order to the Court that will set forth your proposal and then provide parties with time to object to it or do you -- are you having these conversations with the parties in the courtroom and then you're going to report back to the Court? MR. BASSETT: I mean, I think our proposal is really a lot more detailed than what I have stated, so I think it probably makes sense -- I think it would be\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sufficient to confer with the parties for whatever period of time they think they need. And then, at the end of that, to the extent that there's agreement, we could submit a proposed order, you know, with the agreement of the parties; to the extent that there's not, then we could submit competing orders. And if people still oppose it, we could be back before Your Honor to have those disputes resolved.\n\n8 9 10 THE COURT: All right. Let me take a look for a moment; if you would, please, just give me a moment. (Pause in proceedings)\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: So, with regard to the alter ego proposal that you made, no one has objected. And I think that the proposal that you made is that you'll file -- the trustee will file an amended complaint on October 29th. All defendants would have 21 days to respond to that complaint, which I think Attorney Sklarz said was November 19th or something, sounds about right. And then the -- and then the trustee would have 14 days to respond to the defendants' response.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 And that you then would propose a briefing schedule with regard to that or how are you going -- I just want to -- I think the -- obviously, to me, at least, the alter ego proposal is not controversial and no one opposes it. So I understand the dates and I'm -- that's fine. What happens when you then respond, the trustee?\n\n 33 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. BASSETT: I think the movants, whoever files a motion to dismiss, would naturally have the opportunity to file a reply. THE COURT: Yeah. No, I'm including all of that. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: You file your amended complaint on the 29th. MR. BASSETT: Right. THE COURT: The defendants file their motions to dismiss 21 days later, which -- MR. BASSETT: We will then file opposition briefs to those motions. THE COURT: Fourteen days later. And then what happens? Are you expecting me to have a hearing on every motion to dismiss? I mean, part of why we were doing this was so that we could figure out how we can not have, I don't know, twenty motions to dismiss to decide, right?? MR. BASSETT: So I -- very fair point, Your Honor. So I think, to contrast this a little bit with the avoidance action status conference we had several weeks ago and the large number of adversary proceedings pending there, I think the path forward here is a little bit more streamlined and that, while there are, say, 20 motions to dismiss, a lot of those -- I would say -- off the top of my head, I think there are maybe 5 or 6, potentially 7 or 8, Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 33 of 59\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 actual motions to dismiss. But they are consolidated, in that many of them are on behalf of multiple parties, Attorney Conway, for example. THE COURT: Well, I was going to ask Attorney Conway -- MR. BASSETT: Yeah. THE COURT: -- if he can file one motion to dismiss, as opposed to several, right? MR. BASSETT: I think that's -- I think that's what he has done, generally. And I think Attorney Sklarz did that, as well, although maybe he did file a couple of separate ones. But in any event, from our point of view, the issues are very similar across all of the motions to dismiss. And the number of motions is not so unmanageable, that we don't think, if the Court wanted to have a hearing, that couldn't happen all at the same time. I wouldn't think it would be necessary to have a separate hearing each of the motions to dismiss. We could, I think, figure out a way to do that all in one -- THE COURT: Well Attorney -- MR. BASSETT: -- all in -- THE COURT: -- Conway has -- MR. BASSETT: -- one shot. THE COURT: -- just for example, has at least four Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 34 of 59\n\n1 2 3 motions to dismiss on behalf of his parties. So that's what my question is. Why -- do we need to have four motions to dismiss?\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Are they raising -- I mean, Attorney Conway, maybe you can -- I'm sorry I'm using you as an example, but I have to. You're here and I see ECF 84, 85, 86, 87, and 89 -- oh, no, I guess those four. So are those -- can that be consolidated into one motion? And if not, please explain to me why. I'm not saying that you don't have a valid explanation, I'm trying to understand.\n\n11 12 13 14 MR. CONWAY: Several of the issues were common in those motions, as you can imagine, Your Honor, and the way they were categorized was by jurisdiction, where there was some different law that related to different jurisdictions.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 Whether I need to make a motion to increase the briefing size, just so I can put them into one motion or not, I'm open to whatever suggestions. I think we -- they could easily be in one motion. And the only issue would be that I think it would take a few extra pages to do that.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: And that's fine with us, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, why don't you both talk about that? I think it's fine -- I think it would be easier for the Court, right? If it's all, if it's really the same issues because I'm not going to -- at some point, I assume, unless these issues are resolved, which I don't anticipate\n\n 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they will be, I'll have to write something, right? MR. CONWAY: Yes, Your Honor, and -- THE COURT: So I'd rather not write 20 things, maybe just 2 or 1. MR. CONWAY: And Your Honor, it was difficult for us, as well, trying to split them up that way, so we would welcome the idea of putting them in one motion. And to be honest with you, you may have seen that there is a motion relating to default on Sunday that was filed by Mr. Bassett. The -- we've talked about that and he's graciously agreed -- because we managed to leave off some of the parties on these multiple motions because they had to be stuck in different buckets. So putting them all into one motion would be welcome and easier for us. And I'll talk to Mr. Bassett about what I think the pages that we would need to do that are. I can't imagine that -- since some of the issues overlap, that it would be that many more pages, but -- THE COURT: If there's an agreement, I will have no problem with that, exceeding what -- the local rule page limit. Okay? If everyone agrees, that's fine with me. MR. CONWAY: Okay. And obviously, we would be welcome to whatever Mr. Bassett suggests for a response, increasing pages for the response. The other issue I wanted to raise, Your Honor, Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 36 of 59\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 while I'm up here, is Mr. Bassett noted that there was this conference a few weeks ago with the avoidance action parties, where a lot of the communal motion issues were going to be made in the hopes that Your Honor could resolve these issues, to make it easier to mediate. I have now one of those clients, as well.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Several of these issues are common with those issues. And I just wanted to throw out there that whatever briefing schedule we end up with here -- and I know we've got a briefing schedule for those motions -- for those issues, as well; they don't have to correspond, necessarily. But I would just suggest the Court that maybe the hearing could be on the same date, given the fact that the issues are so similar, and Your Honor won't have to listen to parties argue all these motions -- all these issues on different days, when they are so similar. I don't think we have to have corresponding briefing schedules for that, but I just wanted it pointed out that there are similar issues. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. CONWAY: Uh-huh. THE COURT: So, Attorney Bassett, what do you propose to do today or tomorrow with regard to the alter ego action, submit a scheduling order? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
We would submit a scheduling order |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | along the lines that we discussed.
I'm happy to do that say, |\n| 3 | like Your Honor was suggesting, I think tomorrow.
In the |\n| 4 | meantime, I could confer with Attorney Conway about the |\n| 5 | consolidation of his motions to dismiss and a page limit |\n| 6 | extension, and then hopefully submit something that is |\n| 7 | acceptable to everybody. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
And in that, I think you |\n| 9 | should propose, also, that the claims against the defendants |\n| 10 | who have -- default judgments have entered against and |\n| 11 | defaults have entered will be severed, subject to court |\n| 12 | approval, because I have to look at it.
I haven't looked at |\n| 13 | it.
I have to look at it, right?
So I would do that, as |\n| 14 | well. |\n| 15 | I think that makes sense, unless someone else |\n| 16 | wishes to be heard on the alter ego status conference.
And I |\n| 17 | think we've done what we can do today with regard to the |\n| 18 | alter ego complaint and the pending motions, correct, |\n| 19 | Attorney Bassett? |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
I believe so, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So then I'll let |\n| 22 | you submit something -- I'll give you until Thursday. |\n| 23 | Obviously, I know you may get it in tomorrow.
And I will |\n| 24 | just say, if you get it in late tomorrow -- and Thursday, we |\n| 25 | have hearings -- but it will be done by early afternoon.
So |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 that's the only thing I would say, as far as if you're looking for the entry of some order, it may not be in until then, after those hearings. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Understood. Thank you.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then let's go back to the RICO action. So the -- you have no prob -- you have no opposition, the trustee has no opposition to giving the parties to -- when I say the \"parties,\" the defendants that are in the courtroom -- time to determine whether they have any problem with the stay that you've proposed; and that, with regard to Attorney Moriarty's clients, their responsive pleading deadline is today. That's going to be extended for however long. They're not going to be thrown into the default bucket because of where we are today.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: With regard to the Defendants Mr. Cerda and the Defendant Chow, they would like -- they object to the stay, and they'd like to have their motions to dismiss heard. So your point -- your response to that is you don't see that that's necessary and they're not being prejudiced. So what I have to ask is -- I think you're going\n\n22 23 24 25 to have to talk to them, right? To both of those defendants because they didn't know -- nobody knew until -- and that's why we're having a status conference -- that you were going to ask for a stay, so I think you need to talk to them.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 And then what about the issue that was raised about filing the amended complaint now? You're saying you don't want to do that right now because it would be -- it would be a use of resources that you'd rather use in another way at this time in this estate. MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. That's true for a number of reasons. There -- and our investigation has been going on and is still ongoing, you know, up to this moment. So, you know, even though we've had access to\n\n10 11 12 13 information, for example, from the criminal trial for awhile, we have a lot more work to do to continue supplementing an amended complaint with all of the additional information that we would want to include.\n\n14 15 16 There are also additional amendments we would make in light of or in response to arguments that have been raised motions to dismiss, which, of course, we are entitled to do.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 And then, finally, Your Honor, a lot of the allegations that we would add and a lot of the substance that would go into our amendment would relate to defendants that are either omnibus alter ego parties or, potentially, defendants who may come out as a result of other negotiated resolutions of our claims.\n\n23 24 25 So the result would be spending a ton of time and effort, a lot of estate resources, a lot of costs putting together an amended complaint that, you know, may ultimately\n\n1 2 3 not be necessary. So, for that reason, yes, Your Honor, we do not think, if we are going to stay the litigation, an amended complaint has to be filed first.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 THE COURT: Okay. I think I heard you also say that you -- it might make sense then to adjourn or continue this status conference for some time in the alter ego -- I'm sorry -- in the civil RICO action, in order for you to have discussions with parties who appeared and discussed these issues today. Is that correct?\n\n10 11 12 MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. And I'll defer to defense counsel as to how long they might need, but they can have as much time as they would like.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: Well, I'm looking at the calendar. For now, we have hearings in this case and in adversary proceedings on November 5th, that's three weeks from today. That seems, to me, to be a reasonable amount of time for the parties to -- but if people want to go longer, apparently - you know, that's fine, too. I'm just looking at the calendar to see when other -- there's also a hearing on the 19th of November, which is the week before Thanksgiving. And there's also a hearing on the -- November 26th, which is the week of Thanksgiving. I don't see anything scheduled into December yet.\n\n24 25 So I don't know how you'd like to proceed. If you'd like to take a recess, talk to people, if you'd like to\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 suggest a date of those dates I just suggested, Attorney Bassett, and we'll see whatever others think, or however you'd like to proceed. MR. BASSETT: Just choosing a date, Your Honor, November 19th would be fine with us. If other defense counsel want to be heard on that, they certainly may. Does anyone have any objection to continuing these -- this status conference in the civil RICO action, Adversary 24-05273, to November 19th, at 1 p.m.? If you do, you need to raise it now, please. (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, then I'm going to continue the status conference until October 19th, with the understanding, Attorney Bassett, that the trustee's counsel is going to be speaking to the counsel who spoke today about their issues and see whether or not there's some kind of agreed-upon order that can be submitted with regard to the continued prosecution of the civil RICO action. MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you very much. THE COURT: All right. So we'll continue the civil RICO action status conference to October -- I'm sorry -\n\n24 - November 19th, at 1 p.m.\n\n25\n\nAll right. That takes care of the status\n\n| 43 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| conferences in the adversaries.
We have matters in the main |\n| case.
People are welcome to stay, obviously, but they're |\n| also welcome to go if they don't have any interest in the |\n| main case.
So thank you, all. |\n| (Pause in proceedings) |\n| MR. DESPINS:
May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| THE COURT:
Yes, go right ahead. |\n| MR. DESPINS:
For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter |\n| 11 Trustee. |\n| And we were -- we would turn now for the motion to |\n| sell the Taconic property.
I would -- you know, the |\n| highlight, Your Honor, is that -- very good news for the |\n| estate, we were able to increase the purchase price |\n| substantially, and I'll get to that in a second. |\n| But we filed, at Docket Number 3682, yesterday, a |\n| notice of the receipt and acceptance, subject to Bankruptcy |\n| Court approval, of a higher and better offer.
And we also |\n| attached a revised contract and a revised proposed order. |\n| I'll say at the outset that the buyer intended to |\n| use an LLC for confidentiality reasons and -- but for the |\n| purpose of this hearing, I need to disclose the name of the |\n| new buyer.
His name is Ross Jackman, R-o-s-s, Jackman, of |\n| New York City.
He has represented he has no connection or -- |\n| at all with Mr. Kwok or affiliates of Mr. Kwok.
And he will |\n| own the property through and LLC that is called B-E-C-C-T, |\n| |\n\n| | | 44 |\n|--|--|----|\n| | | |\n\n1 LLC.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 So, to make a long story short, Your Honor, there -- you'll recall that there was a bid accepted for six million nine. And after the bid was accepted, we received a higher and better offer from this bidder that was substantially increased after that as a result of competitive bidding between the act -- the existing bidder and the new bidder. And we got to a purchase price of 7,250,000. You'll recall that the asking price was seven million one. So this represents an increase over the existing contract of \\$350,000, an increase of three fifty, which is, you know, very good, considering the circumstances here. The revised order, there's a version that's marked to show changes that reflects all the changes we've made.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 It's really to substitute the new buyer for the old buyer and to implement other changes that were made. So it's not only the purchase price that was increased, Your Honor, but there were other terms that were -- that are now much more favorable to us; so that, for example, if Your Honor were to -- you're inclined to grant the relief we're seeking and to enter an order today, I believe the new buyer would have to close by Friday. For us, that's very beneficial for all sorts of reasons.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: Does the new buyer have counsel? MR. DESPINS: Yes, and counsel -- and I should say\n\n 45 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 counsel, Mr. Murray, is in -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- the courtroom here -- THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: -- today. THE COURT: Okay. Just want to make sure the buyer is ready, willing, and able to close. MR. DESPINS: That -- THE COURT: There's no contingencies, there's no issues? MR. DESPINS: No, there's no financing -- THE COURT: All -- MR. DESPINS: -- contingency -- THE COURT: All cash. MR. DESPINS: -- because no objections were filed. You know, I think the obligation under the contract is to close by Friday of this week, subject to the entry of the order by Your Honor today. Also, I want to address one issue. You may have seen that there was a bracketed paragraph that was added at - - you know, at the end, new Paragraph 24, that said as follows: \"For the reasons stated at the hearing, the trustee is hereby authorized to reimburse the original buyer for up to 20,000 of reasonable, documented out-of-pocket Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 45 of 59\n\n| 1 | expense, such as inspection fees, appraisal fees, and counsel |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | fees incurred by the original buyer in furtherance of the |\n| 3 | potential acquisition of the Greenwich property.\" |\n| 4 | We're not going to proceed with that relief, so |\n| 5 | we're taking that paragraph out of the proposed order at this |\n| 6 | time.
We've had discussions with the U.S. Trustee about |\n| 7 | this.
And it is possible that we'll come back to Your Honor |\n| 8 | and ask for that relief in summary fashion, but we're not |\n| 9 | pursuing that relief today. |\n| 10 | So I'm happy to answer any questions you my have, |\n| 11 | but at this point, it's fairly straightforward.
From our |\n| 12 | point of view, this is 350,000 more value for the estate |\n| 13 | with, I would say, certainty of closing in the short term, |\n| 14 | which will allow us to stop spending money on this property. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I -- my only questions are -- and I |\n| 16 | agree that, you know, the process, it has produced a higher |\n| 17 | and better offer, so I think that's obviously beneficial to |\n| 18 | the estate. |\n| 19 | My question is -- and I see counsel is here for |\n| 20 | the buyer.
I know that Attorney Major cooperated with regard |\n| 21 | to essentially giving up possession of the property to the |\n| 22 | trustee, and I have no idea and I don't -- maybe no one -- |\n| 23 | maybe that's something you've all worked out.
But you know, |\n| 24 | I have no idea what, if anything, is in the home and what has |\n| 25 | to be done. |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
So there is some -- so |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Attorney Major has been -- we've been in touch with him as of |\n| 3 | last Friday, we were in communications.
There are some -- |\n| 4 | I'd say some furniture, although \"furniture\" is a big word, |\n| 5 | sports equipment is in the gym, I think there's outside |\n| 6 | furniture, as well, that the buyer is buying for the |\n| 7 | 7,250,000. |\n| 8 | The rest -- and that was another concession that |\n| 9 | was very favorable to us, is we're allowed to keep our |\n| 10 | furniture that's not sold to the buyer in that house for, I |\n| 11 | think it's 30 or 45 days -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
-- whatever the contract -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
So then -- |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
-- provides. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- we'll figure it out from -- |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
So it's -- it will -- but Mr. |\n| 18 | Major has made no claim to that -- to those assets.
So our |\n| 19 | intent is probably to move this, consolidate that with the |\n| 20 | other furniture that we have from various other locations, so |\n| 21 | that we can have an auction at one point to sell all of this. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
So, in addition to that -- and I |\n| 24 | don't know if I ever told you this -- but they left a car at |\n| 25 | the property, and we figured out who was the owner.
We |\n| | |\n\n 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contacted the \"owner,\" and I say in quote, who said no, I don't own this case, you can have it. So now we have title in my name, so we can -- THE COURT: You have title? MR. DESPINS: -- so we can sell -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- that car. And -- but they've agreed that we can keep the car there for -- I forget if it's 30 or 45 days. UNIDENTIFIED: Forty-five days. MR. DESPINS: Twenty -- UNIDENTIFIED: Forty-five days. MR. DESPINS: But we intend to sell it earlier than the 45 days. So all of that is all good, from our point of view. THE COURT: Okay. Those were my only questions. And obviously -- I think your name is Mr. Murray, did I hear? MR. DESPINS: Yeah, Robert Murray. MR. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So your client, the buyer, is ready, willing, and able to close by this Friday? MR. MURRAY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And obviously, the questions I had about what's at the premises has been answered and Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 48 of 59\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 there's some agreement. I haven't studied it, obviously, because this was all filed yesterday, that the property that the estate claims an interest in will be able to remain at the property for some period of time, 45 days or less, and the trustee will take whatever actions he needs to take with regard to that, and the buyer is fine with that. MR. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I just want to make sure, obviously. I mean, sometimes, we've had issues come up in sales where things have been left behind and that's caused a problem, and I don't want to have any -- we, obviously, want to do whatever we can to avoid any problems. Is there anything else that you would like to tell me about -- and you don't have to, I'm just asking if -- is there anything else you'd like to say about the sale or anything you think the Court needs to be aware of? MR. MURRAY: No, Your Honor. I think the process went very smoothly, and I appreciate Attorney Despins efforts in that regard. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MURRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So then I haven't looked at the order, other than to see it. I mean, I've looked at it. I know it was filed yesterday and we were closed yesterday --\n\n 50 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: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- for the holiday. So I -- what I have looked at, I've skimmed, and it looks fine. You've redlined it. I did see the original order. I don't see anything in the order itself that is of concern to me, but I still want to read it -- MR. DESPINS: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and I haven't read it fully. But I have to ask if anybody else wishes to be heard. Attorney Claiborn, does the U.S. Trustee have any position on -- with regard to the sale? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has no objection to the sale. Trustee Despins added a paragraph that I requested, and that was Paragraph Number 21. It has to do with filing a report of sale after the closing. THE COURT: Yes, that's required under our local rule. Well, maybe it's not as clear as it should be, actually, under the local rules, but I would have wanted that anyway, just to know, so that the record is clear. MS. CLAIBORN: And I have nothing further to add, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Even though you're deleting Paragraph Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 50 of 59\n\n 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24, 23 says that the trustee shall return the original buyer's deposit within two business days -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- of the -- MR. DESPINS: That's -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: We're doing that today, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Yes, that remains. They're entitled to their deposit back. THE COURT: Of course. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I'm just saying -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I was looking at 24, when you said that you were deleting it, but 23 is somewhat related, not exactly. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I -- under the circumstances and the familiarity with this case and this asset and Attorney Major's representation of the corporate entity and the individuals who were residing in the house, the documents that have been filed in connection with Greenwich Land, including -- although I don't have it in front of me, I recall very vividly Mr. Major's agreement to Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 51 of 59\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 turn possession over to the estate on behalf of his clients that had the interests in the property. I understand why the trustee wants to sell the property free and clear of liens and that the new buyer has come in and is ready, willing, and able to close the transaction for a purchase price of \\$7,250,000? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's right. Then, for all those reasons, the -- and there are a lot of reasons that I'm not reiterating for the record at the moment because there has been a lot of hearings and motions and litigation about Greenwich Land and this asset. But I'm obviously going to grant the motion to sell and authorize and approve the sale of the property free and clear of liens, claims, and interests, and authorizing the trustee and approving the trustee to enter into and approving the sale agreement. So all I need to do, at this point, is just review this order, which I should be able to do this afternoon, and try to get that in for you all because I'm sure you're going to want -- well, I would assume you're going to want it for the closing. MR. DESPINS: Well, the entry of the order is what triggers the obligation to close by Friday, so -- THE COURT: Right. So we'll get it done this\n\n 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 afternoon. MR. DESPINS: Okay. But -- so we need to -- Mr. Skalka will send, through the courtroom deputy's email address the clean order without that paragraph that I mentioned. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: That would be very helpful, yes. MR. SKALKA: I will do that, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Just do it in Word format, please. MR. SKALKA: Will do, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So we will get that entered this afternoon. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? So -- and thank you, and thank you, Counsel, for your client's interest and working with the trustee to get this sold. So that concludes the motion to sell, and -- MR. DESPINS: So I think we're moving on, Your Honor, to the motion to increase the expense cap for -- THE COURT: All right. MR. DESPINS: -- the Mahwah mention. And perhaps Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 53 of 59\n\n 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Murray's client is interested in buying that mansion, as well. (Laughter) MR. MURRAY: He's done enough. MR. DESPINS: He's done enough for the estate, yes. So, Your Honor, this is pretty straightforward. The expenses for the Mahwah mansion are -- I use the term \"insane\" too much, but in this case, they are insane. So we had a cap in the initial order that you approved of \\$300,000. We are exceeding that cap by a lot. We need to increase the cap to a \\$1,000,000 total because, you know, the security -- it's not only the security, but electricity, 17,000 a month or something like that. It's just a -- there are numbers that are just -- and by the way, we didn't just take that. We sent someone there to check all the thermostats, tried to reduce them to make sure that there's not -- there's no waste. But this is an incredibly expensive property to maintain; and, therefore, we have no choice but to ask the Court to increase the cap to a million dollars, which we're not happy about, but we have to do it. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: And that's Docket Number 3650, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 54 of 59\n\n 55 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: Attorney Claiborn, does the U.S. Trustee's Office have any position with regard to this motion? MS. CLAIBORN: The U.S. Trustee has no objection to the motion. I'd just ask for an edit to the order to clarify something, so a revised order, I think, should be submitted to Your Honor. THE COURT: What's the edit? MS. CLAIBORN: Let me -- THE COURT: If you remember, I -- MS. CLAIBORN: If you just give me a second, I can pull up the order and I can tell you. (Pause in proceedings) MS. CLAIBORN: I apologize. I'm confusing this with another motion. There are many, and my brain obviously got muddled. I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's all right. MS. CLAIBORN: I have no changes on this one. THE COURT: Three are 3,600 -- MS. CLAIBORN: I apologize. THE COURT: -- and some-odd docket entries in the case, so I think confusion does happen from time to time. But -- so you're fine with the proposed order? MS. CLAIBORN: I am. THE COURT: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 55 of 59\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 MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. I apologize. THE COURT: As filed. MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. THE COURT: The one that was filed on the 8th of October, correct? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I've looked at the proposed order, it looks fine to me, I don't have any changes. The only -- except the one thing I would change, just one minor thing that we can change, you do not need to change, is to say -- as the courtroom deputy knows I like to do, \"and after a hearing held on.\" Okay? MR. DESPINS: Right. THE COURT: \"And after a hearing held on October 15, 2024,\" right before the \"it is hereby ordered\" language, please. And otherwise, I'm fine. I understand the reason, I understand that you don't -- aren't happy about it. But I think, unfortunately, under the circumstances, the increased cap on the funding of expenses is warranted. All the notice parties were served with your motion. No one has filed any written objections to the motion. There is no one -- none -- there is no one Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 56 of 59\n\n 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the motion. And as I said, I think it's warranted under Section 363 of the Code. For all of those reasons, the motion is granted and the proposed order that was attached to the motion can enter. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I think that completes the matters for today. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: But if I may, just going to back to the sale order, although it's not part of the sale order, but that paragraph that we took out. I want to make sure Your Honor knew the intent there. And I'm not going to ask for an advisory opinion, but I want to make sure you understand the context here, which is that the buyer that signed the 6.9 million-dollar offer obviously is ending the process - ending the process with nothing, and they have expended real money. And the estate has benefitted for that -- from that because, for example, the new buyer relied, without seeing it, on the inspection that was done by the first buyer. So that's why I was considering this. And by the way, we're -- I'm not asking for that relief today, but I want to make sure you understand that where we're coming from is that, you know, from their point of view, they end up with nothing, which is -- you know, Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 57 of 59\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's not my problem. On the other hand, they did add a lot of value because they validated the value of the property and the fact that the property was worthy of buying without the new buyer conducting its own investigation. So that would be the reason for this. We're not asking for this today, but I may come back, Your Honor, asking for that relief. But I wanted you -- while it was still fresh in your mind, explaining the situation of why we were considering this. I know there are two ways of looking at this, which is hey, they took their chances, it's a Bankruptcy Court sale, and you may end up with nothing. I understand that. But in this case, I think there was value added. But I just wanted to make sure that it was clear to Your Honor. THE COURT: I understand. Thank you. All right. Is there anything further we need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Not from our point of view, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Then thank you all. All the matters on today's calendar have been addressed, so court is adjourned. THE COURT OFFICER: All rise. Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 2:23 p.m.)\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3745
Filed 10/23/24
Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17
Page 59 of 59 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 59 |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION |\n| 2 | We 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 our |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | /s/ William J. Garling
October 21, 2024 |\n| 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist |\n| 10 | For Reliable |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | /s/ Coleen Rand
October 21, 2024 |\n| 13 | Coleen Rand, CET-341 |\n| 14 | Certified Court Transcriptionist |\n| 15 | For Reliable |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人， 第11章\n债务人。 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n （联合管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人， 对抗程序\n原告， 案号：24-05249 (JAM)\n\n诉\n\nACA CAPITAL GROUP, LTD.（ACA资本集团有限公司）等人，\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人， 对抗程序\n原告， 案号：24-05273 (JAM)\n\n诉\n\nNGOK 等人， 第123法庭\n被告。 Brien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n 915 Lafayette Boulevard\n Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n 2024年10月15日，星期二\n 下午1时10分\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下、美利坚合众国破产法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3745，于 10/23/24 提交，于 10/23/24 09:12:17 登记，第 1 页，共 59 页\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nDouglas Skalka, Esquire（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡律师）\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins, Esquire（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nNicholas Bassett, Esquire（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHolley L. Claiborn, Esquire（霍利·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street\nRoom 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表 Mei Guo（郭美）、Hudson Diamond New York LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Leading Shine New York, Ltd.（领耀纽约有限公司）及 Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC（吉普赛美食品服务有限责任公司）：\nJames M. Moriarty, Esquire（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂律师）\nZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n书记公司：\nReliable（瑞莱布尔）\nThe Nemours Building（尼穆尔大楼）\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮件：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n程序以电子录音方式记录，庭审记录由书记服务机构制作。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3745，于 10/23/24 提交，于 10/23/24 09:12:17 登记，第 2 页，共 59 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3745，于 10/23/24 提交，于 10/23/24 09:12:17 登记，第 3 页，共 59 页\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）及 G Club International, Ltd.（G俱乐部国际有限公司）：\nJeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹律师）\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹律师事务所）\nOne Audubon Street\n3rd Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n代表 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）：\nJames E. Nealon, Esquire（詹姆斯·E·尼伦律师）\nNEALON LAW, LLC（尼伦律师事务所）\n1266 East Main Street\nSuite 700r\nStamford, Connecticut 06902\n\n代表 Beile Li（李贝乐）：\nIvan J. Ladd-Smith, Esquire（伊万·J·拉德-史密斯律师）\nSPEARS MANNING & MARTINI, LLC（斯皮尔斯、曼宁与马蒂尼律师事务所）\n2425 Post Road\nSuite 203\nSouthport, Connecticut 06824\n\n代表 Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）：\nJason M. Swergold, Esquire（杰森·M·斯韦戈尔德律师）\nYANKWITT, LLP（扬克维特律师事务所）\n140 Grand Street\nSuite 705\nWhite Plains, New York 10601\n\n代表 Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会III公司）及 Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治协会IV公司）：\nBryan Ha, Esquire（布莱恩·哈律师）\nBRYAN HA, ATTORNEY AT LAW（布莱恩·哈律师事务所）\n455 Tarrytown Road\nSuite 1244\nWhite Plains, New York 10607\n\n代表 Gladys Chow（周格莱迪斯）：\nEmily McDaniels, Esquire（艾米莉·麦克丹尼尔斯律师）\nSHER TREMONTE, LLP（舍尔·特雷蒙特律师事务所）\n90 Broad Street\n23rd Floor\nNew York, New York 10004\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 Celestial Tide Limited（天潮有限公司）；G Fashion (CA)（G时尚〔加利福尼亚〕）；G Fashion Hold Co A Limited（G时尚控股A有限公司）；G Fashion Hold Co B Limited（G时尚控股B有限公司）；G Fashion International Limited（G时尚国际有限公司）；G Fashion Media Group, Inc.（G时尚媒体集团公司）；GF IP, LLC（GF知识产权有限责任公司）；GF Italy, LLC（GF意大利有限责任公司）；GFNY, Inc.（GFNY公司）；Hamilton Capital Holding Limited（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）；Hamilton Investment Management Limited（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）；Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）；Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.（喜马拉雅货币清算私人有限公司）；Himalaya International Clearing Limited（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）；Himalaya International Financial Group Limited（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）；Himalaya International Payments Limited（喜马拉雅国际支付有限公司）；Himalaya International Reserves Limited（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）；Major Lead International Limited（迈杰领航国际有限公司）；William Je（威廉·杰）；ACA Capital Group Ltd.（ACA资本集团有限公司）；GETTR USA, Inc.（GETTR美国公司）；Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）；Hamilton PE Fund SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金SP）；Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金SP）；Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.（喜马拉雅货币清算私人有限公司）；Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）；Himalaya International Financial Group Limited（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）；Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）；Taurus Management LLC（金牛管理有限责任公司）：\nMichael T. Conway, Esquire（迈克尔·T·康威律师）\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯与莫伊尔律师事务所）\n747 Third Avenue\n16th Floor\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3745，于 10/23/24 提交，于 10/23/24 09:12:17 登记，第 5 页，共 59 页\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表无担保债权人正式委员会：\nKristin B. Mayhew, Esquire（克里斯汀·B·梅休律师）\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\n8th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06601\n\n目录\n\n动议： 页码\n\n关于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等人，债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 3592\n第3592号；关于出售位于康涅狄格州格林尼治市塔科尼克路373号房产、不受留置权、债权、权益及负担约束的动议；(II) 授权并批准买卖协议；及 (III) 准予相关救济\n由 Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）提交 11\n\n法院裁定： 51\n\n事项编号 3650\n第3650号；关于提高马瓦庄园费用资金上限的裁定动议\n由 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）提交 53\n\n法院裁定： 56\n\n关于 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，诉 ACA Capital Group Ltd.（ACA资本集团有限公司）等人\n对抗程序案号：24-05249 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 89\n第89号；设定状态会议的裁定 12\n\n关于 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，诉 NGOK 等人。\n对抗程序案号：24-05273 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 94\n第94号；设定状态会议的裁定 19\n\n书记员证明书 59\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3745，于 10/23/24 提交，于 10/23/24 09:12:17 登记，第 6 页，共 59 页\n\n（程序于下午1时10分开始。）\n\n法官：请注意秩序。是否有当事人在旁听？\n\n法庭书记员：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭书记员：不客气。\n\n法官：好。那么，请法庭书记员宣读日程。\n\n法庭书记员：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok；对抗程序编号24-05249，Despins 诉 ACA Capital Group Ltd. 等人；对抗程序24-05273，Despins 诉 NGOK 等人。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请各方为记录目的申明出庭，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett，担任第11章受托人的律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSKALKA先生：下午好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka，Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（诺伊伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所），担任第11章受托人的本地律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 3745，于 10/23/24 提交，于 10/23/24 09:12:17 登记，第 7 页，共 59 页\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn；我只是坐在这里，因为这是开放席位。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nMORIARTY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）的 James Moriarty。今天与我一同出席的是 Steven Kindseth（史蒂文·金塞思），在对抗程序24-05273中，我们代表 Mei Guo、Hudson Diamond New York LLC、Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC、Leading Shine New York, Ltd. 和 Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC。而且，如获准许，在对抗程序24-05249中，Kindseth律师和我今天代表 Mei Guo 提交了出庭声明。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。下午好。\n\nSKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey Sklarz，Green & Sklarz（格林与斯克拉兹律师事务所），在两宗对抗程序中代表被告 G Club Operations LLC 和 G Club International Ltd.。谢谢。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nNEALON先生：法官阁下，我是 James Nealon，在05273案中代表 Yongbing Zhang。谢谢。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，我没有听清这位先生的姓氏。\n\n法官：Nealon。\n\nNEALON先生：Nealon，N-e-a-l-o-n。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。谢谢。\n\nLADD-SMITH先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Spears Manning & Martini（斯皮尔斯、曼宁与马蒂尼律师事务所）的 Ivan Ladd-Smith。我在05273事项中代表 Beile Li。下午好。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSWERGOLD先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Yankwitt, LLP（扬克维特律师事务所）的 Jason Swergold。我在对抗程序05273中代表被告 Victor Cerda。经法官阁下准许，今天不能出席的被告 Aaron Mitchum（亚伦·米彻姆，音译）请求我代其出庭，仅就该对抗程序中的日程安排事宜进行讨论。因此，我今天也将为该目的代表他。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nSWERGOLD先生：谢谢。\n\nHA先生：下午好，法官阁下。Bryan Ha。我在两宗对抗程序中代表被告 Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. 和 Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nMCDANIELS女士：下午好，法官阁下。我叫 Emily McDaniels，今天与我一同出席的是我在 Sher Tremonte, LLP（舍尔·特雷蒙特律师事务所）的同事 Noam Biale（诺姆·比亚莱）；我们在05273事项中代表被告 Gladys Chow。\n\n法官：下午好。谢谢。\n\nMAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nCONWAY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Michael Conway，Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯与莫伊尔律师事务所）。我们在——请原谅，法官阁下——24-05249事项中代表 ACA Capital, LLC（ACA资本有限责任公司）、Celestial Tide Limited、G Fashion (CA)、G Fashion Hold Co A Limited、G Fashion Hold Co B Limited、G Fashion International Limited、G Fashion Media Group, Inc.、GF IP, LLC、GF Italy, LLC、GFNY, Inc.、Hamilton Capital Holding Limited、Hamilton Investment Management Limited、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Himalaya financial——抱歉——Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.、Himalaya International Clearing Limited、Himalaya International Financial Group Limited、Himalaya International Payments Limited、Himalaya International Reserves Limited、Major Lead International Limited 以及 William Je。\n\n在24-05237事项中，我们代表 ACA Capital Group Ltd.、GETTR USA, Inc.、Hamilton Capital——Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、Hamilton Currency Clearing Pty Ltd. [原文如此]、Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.、Himalaya International Financial Group Limited、Taurus Fund LLC、Taurus Management LLC 以及 William Je。\n\n法官：谢谢。下午好。\n\nCONWAY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：还有其他人希望为记录目的申明出庭吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应。）\n\n法官：好的。Despins受托人，显然，今天日程中有主案中的两项动议，以及这两宗对抗程序中的状态会议，即有关替身主体和民事 RICO 的对抗程序。我敢说，不过我也可能有误，大多数人是为对抗程序而来，因此你们是否希望先进行对抗程序状态会议？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。我认为这样做是合理的。\n\n法官：好的。请开始。\n\nDESPINS先生：Bassett先生将处理该事项。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n法官：好的。那么，除受托人的律师外，对于在场的各位，这两宗对抗程序之所以设定状态会议，是因为两案中均有众多被告，且均已提出众多驳回动议。事实上，我认为，而且——Bassett律师，请在你发言时更正记录——我认为其中一宗对抗程序中，部分当事人截至今天也仍可作出回应。我不确定是否所有人均已回应，但无论如何，如你们所知，也是在场所有人所知，这些对抗程序涉及多名被告；无论当事人是否已被缺席认定，或是否已提出缺席申请，或是否已作出缺席判决，或是否已提交答辩，或是否已提交驳回动议，对于众多被告，我们均面临各种不同的程序状态。\n\n因此，如果我们首先查看数字编号最靠前的另我对抗诉讼，即 24-05249，我看到已经提交了答辩状，且已对几名被告作出缺席判决。数名被告已被记入缺席，但也有数项待决的驳回动议。法庭已下令中止受托人对这些驳回动议作出回应的期限，直至今日的状态会议之后。\n\n因此，显然，我——嗯，也许这并不显然，但作出该命令是为了让所有当事方，包括任何希望参与并已提交驳回动议的被告，考虑当事方预期法庭将如何处理这些事项。因此，Bassett 律师（巴塞特律师），我先请您发言。\n\n巴塞特律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。那么，我也将从显而易见的另我起诉状开始，然后我们也可以讨论民事 RICO。因此，简要回顾一下目前状况，您的观察是正确的。已经提交了一些答辩状。已经作出了一些缺席判决。已经作出了一些缺席记载，并且有数项驳回动议。\n\n我认为，总体而言，按我的计算，在另我诉讼中，我相信共有 43 名被告。在这 43 名被告中，我相信已提交了 3 份答辩状。我相信有 18 名被告提出了驳回动议，其中一些由共同律师代理的被告被纳入一项合并动议，但总共有 18 名被告提交了驳回动议。法庭实际上已对两名被告作出缺席判决；即 K Legacy（K传承）和 Chang Guo（张国），依据 ECF 76。除这两项缺席判决外，法庭还作出了 16 项缺席记载，因此受托人正在准备一项缺席判决动议，但对于这 16 名被告尚未作出该判决。此外，还有另外四名被告尚未答辩，也尚未被记入缺席。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我认为，关于我们从此处如何推进的问题，其答案在某些方面将因以下事实而简化：我们拟对已提交的驳回动议作出回应，即依法修改起诉状。我们将这样做，显然是为了根据受托人持续进行的调查增加额外指控。也可能有其他当事方被加入本诉讼。我们的观点是，在受托人修改起诉状期间，要求受托人对待决驳回动议作出回应，或要求法庭花费时间和资源处理这些驳回动议，均无意义。显然，任何针对原起诉状提交了驳回动议的当事方，均有权针对修改后的起诉状提交驳回动议，包括提出相同论点，即他们认为该等驳回理由仍然存在。\n\n如果法庭可以接受，我们提议自今日起 14 天内提交该修改后的起诉状。此后，各方可以答辩；如其提交驳回动议，显然受托人将适时作出回应。但希望这一次，由于已提交修改后的起诉状，在统一答辩期限方面将有更多整合，因此我们可以依照适用于所有当事方的共同书面陈述时间表继续推进。\n\n法官阁下，还有几点说明。一项主要的其他说明或考虑是，如我所述，已作出两项缺席判决，另有 16 项缺席记载。对受托人而言，重要的是，修改后的起诉状不得扰动任何缺席判决或缺席记载，因此，我们提议作为法庭在本案中所作排期命令的一部分，依《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 21 条，将已被记入缺席或法庭已对其作出缺席判决的被告从起诉状中分离出来。法庭可酌情这样做，而且我们认为此处有此必要，因为受托人无需针对已经缺席的当事方提出修改后的起诉状，而拟利用该等缺席记载，并在尚未作出缺席判决时提出缺席判决动议。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这就是从受托人角度看综合另我诉讼目前的状况。在针对修改后起诉状的这些驳回动议待决期间，我们将与被告就证据开示进行协商，并且尝试向法庭提交某项统一方案。显然，我们尚未这样做，但从总体层面而言，这就是我们设想的推进方式。\n\n法庭：好的。就您所述而言，您是说受托人将准备一份修改后的起诉状，并于自今日起两周内提交——\n\n巴塞特律师：这是我们所提议的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——即 29 日？\n\n巴塞特律师：正确。\n\n法庭：对于尚未缺席、或法庭尚未对其作出缺席判决的被告，回应期限为何——对该事项的回应是什么？您说了一个日期，但我没有听到。\n\n巴塞特律师：哦，我实际上并未提出回应期限。我提议给被告 21 天时间回应修改后的起诉状，此后受托人可在其后 14 天内提交对驳回动议的反对意见。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我最近没有看过第 21 条规则。你们必须提出一项分离动议吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：我相信该规则所设想的正是如此，法官阁下。鉴于我们正在分离已缺席的被告，我提议在此情形下口头提出该请求。显然，如果法庭希望我们提交书面动议，我们可以这样做。\n\n法庭：我不知道。我得看看。我已有一段时间没有看过该规则，因此我得看看。\n\n巴塞特律师：当然。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，就我理解而言，我相信我明白了你们关于如何管理这一对抗诉讼程序的想法。在听取到庭被告的意见之前，我只是想确认目前没有其他问题。\n\n巴塞特律师：而且，法官阁下，我们可以逐一处理，或者我也很乐意现在讨论民事 RICO，以您认为最高效的方式为准。\n\n法庭：嗯，我本以为你们的方案差别不大。它不同吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：实际上不同。\n\n法庭：哦，那么我作出了不恰当的假设。\n\n巴塞特律师：因此，法官阁下，如果我可以？\n\n法庭：嗯，可以，等一下。\n\n巴塞特律师：当然。\n\n法庭：我想要——对于在法庭内且已提交驳回动议的被告，是否有人希望就受托人关于如何推进另我诉讼程序的提议发表意见？\n\nSklarz 律师（斯克拉兹律师）：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表 G Club（G俱乐部）的 Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹）。我只想请求——\n\n法庭：抱歉，我听不见您。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：哦，抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我只想请求受托人确保按照地方法院规则的要求提交修改后起诉状的修订标示稿，以便我们更容易回应修改后的起诉状。\n\n法庭：我相信那不会有问题。\n\n巴塞特律师：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，斯克拉兹律师，在您离开之前，您对巴塞特律师概述的方案没有异议，是吗？因为——因为如果该方案得以实施，那么所有驳回动议都将失去意义，因为你们必须随后审阅修改后的起诉状，并判断你们是否要针对修改后的起诉状再次——不是再次，而是提出驳回动议。因此，您对此没有反对意见？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：如果他们将提交修改后的起诉状，我看不出我们为何需要裁决一项最终将失去意义的动议。因此，我没有——只要实际提交修改后的起诉状，我对以该方式推进没有问题，而且我没有理由相信巴塞特律师不会提交其修改后的起诉状。\n\n法庭：而巴塞特律师所提议的 21 天回应期限，我认为——嗯，那就是地方法院规则所规定的。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我对此没有任何异议。接下来一周是感恩节。再接下来一周我将开始审判，因此对我而言没有什么好时间，所以 19 日听起来很好。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：谢谢。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法庭：好的。那么，巴塞特律师，我们随后可以转到 RICO 诉讼及您对此的提议。\n\n巴塞特律师：谢——\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n巴塞特律师：是的，抱歉。谢谢您，法官阁下。因此，我先对民事 RICO 做同样的说明，简要回顾被告人数以及大致的目前状况。因此，在该诉讼中，按我的计算，共有 54 名被告。8 月 16 日，法庭作出命令，延长了许多答辩期限，并且还存在一些个别的额外延期。最终，各方于上个月作出回应或未作回应。26 名被告已提出驳回起诉状的动议；同样，其中许多是在由共同律师代理被告所提出的合并动议中。法官阁下，28 名被告尚未答辩或以其他方式回应起诉状。目前，我相信尚未有缺席记载或缺席判决，但受托人拟予以寻求。因此，法官阁下，我们关于该起诉状的提议不同，因为存在某种——而且驳回动议中指出了其中一些——两份起诉状之间存在重叠，即受托人针对许多被告在民事 RICO 诉讼中寻求的救济，是其在综合另我诉讼中寻求救济的替代性救济，原因在于综合另我诉讼中涉及的许多实体，受托人认为其为债务人的另我，并且受托人寻求法庭作出命令，认定其全部资产均为破产财产；其中许多相同实体也是民事 RICO 诉讼中的被告，受托人在该诉讼中寻求损害赔偿裁定。\n\n显然，如果受托人在其论点上胜诉，即这些实体是债务人的另我，以致其全部资产均为破产财产，则受托人届时将没有理由、也无意继续在民事 RICO 诉讼中针对这些实体主张损害赔偿，因为那实质上将是受托人针对其自身提出的请求。\n\n因此，如果您看一下实际已对起诉状作出回应的民事 RICO 被告，我想我说过，有 26 或 28 名被告提交了驳回动议，其中近一半，法官阁下，是同样受该综合性另我诉讼约束的实体。鉴于此，并且在另我诉讼裁决之前，受托人目前没有理由推进针对这些实体的民事 RICO 请求，我们认为，在综合性另我诉讼继续进行期间，由法院暂时中止民事 RICO 诉讼，最符合破产财产、法院及所有相关当事人的利益。\n\n法官阁下，我认为其结果是，在另我诉讼自行厘清期间，民事 RICO 案件可在此期间得到大幅简化。\n\n显然，再次说明，如果法院作出命令，认定另我诉讼中的部分或全部实体实际上属于破产财产，那么这些实体将从民事 RICO 诉讼的被告名单中移除。此外，在过去数月这些诉讼待决期间，我们并非无所作为。事实上，在能够这样做的情况下，我们一直在与被告进行讨论，尤其包括民事 RICO 被告。我预计将与民事 RICO 诉讼中至少一名个人被告达成和解，甚至可能不止一名。因此，我认为，随着时间推移，我们很可能还能够通过以这种方式减少被告人数来简化该诉讼。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这就是我们建议处理民事 RICO 诉讼的方式；再次说明，鉴于这两个对立程序之间的重叠，我们认为这在逻辑上是合理的。我们还将做的另一件事，而且同样可以通过书面动议来做，就是对于那些已有机会回应起诉状但未及时作出回应的当事人，我们认为应申请将该等特定当事人从起诉状中分离出来，以便在其余诉讼中止期间，受托人可以继续对其提起诉讼。\n\n法院：仅限于那些未及时作出回应的当事人？\n\n巴塞特先生：正是如此，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。我认为我理解您的意思。\n\n那么，我想我需要听取在法庭内且已提交驳回动议的民事 RICO 诉讼被告的意见，看他们是否有任何反对意见。对于巴塞特律师刚才在庭上提出的关于如何推进民事 RICO 诉讼的建议，一名或任何被告的立场为何？\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，如果可以，我最后想指出的是，如果以及当我们推进民事 RICO 诉讼时，我们的意图将是如同在综合性另我诉讼中一样提交修正起诉状；我们尚未这样做，因此仍有权当然作出修正。因此，我认为，到那一阶段时，待决的驳回动议无论如何都应失去意义。但是，再次说明，我不认为这些——\n\n法院：但您的意思是，只有在该事项未被中止，或者中止解除时，才会如此？\n\n巴塞特先生：完全正确，法官阁下。我们认为，为节省破产财产资源并大幅削减本来会产生的费用，在目前花费时间和精力完成修正起诉状并不合理，因为再次说明，您知道，我们将增加的许多内容可能会因介入事件而最终被删除。\n\n法院：明白了，谢谢。是否有任何被告希望就受托人关于如何推进民事 RICO 诉讼的建议发表意见？\n\n斯韦戈尔德先生：谢谢，法官阁下。再次说明，我是代表被告 Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）的 Jason Swergold（贾森·斯韦戈尔德）。显然，我此处的意图并非就我们待决的驳回动议进行诉讼，但我认为，对于我将提出的反对中止、至少就我的委托人而言反对中止的论点而言，一些背景情况很重要。Cerda 先生是一名私人律师。由于该案在针对债务人的刑事案件待决期间被中止，这一民事 RICO 诉讼现已在他头上悬而未决数月。在受托人迄今为止为期 18 个月、在提起民事 RICO 诉讼之前进行的调查中，针对他的指控总共只有两项：一项是他在听一通电话，另一项是其律师事务所因法律工作获得报酬。他显然有利益希望结束针对他的这项民事 RICO 请求；我们认为该请求毫无根据，而且受托人将无法以足以提出该项请求的方式修正其起诉状。\n\n本巡回区的法院已注意到，仅仅在民事 RICO 事项中被列为被告就会给被告带来危险和损害，这也是法院对民事 RICO 请求进行如此严格审查的原因。因此，您知道，我上周就本案与巴塞特先生发送了电子邮件，并被告知他们将当然修正起诉状。\n\n现在，我第一次听说他们寻求仅中止该民事 RICO 事项，这意味着我的委托人现在将不得不在此某种程度上处于悬而未决的状态，等待又等待，而针对他的这些请求——再次说明，他是一名私人律师，在其自己的律师事务所执业，且在公共和私人执业领域均有卓著的职业生涯——仍将悬而未决。因此，我反对中止，因为他对于就针对他的民事 RICO 请求进行诉讼具有真实利益。\n\n法院：好的，谢谢。\n\n斯韦戈尔德先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：其他任何被告？\n\n麦克丹尼尔斯女士：是的，法官阁下，谢谢。Emily McDaniels（艾米丽·麦克丹尼尔斯）和 Noam Biale（诺亚姆·比亚莱），代表 Gladys Chow（格拉迪斯·周）。\n\n我们加入律师——\n\n法院：请您为我拼写一下您被告的姓氏，可以吗？\n\n麦克丹尼尔斯女士：Chow，C-h-o-w。\n\n法院：对。好的，谢谢。\n\n麦克丹尼尔斯女士：因此，我们加入斯韦戈尔德律师对中止的反对。我们的委托人处境类似。她仅被指称从事两项不同的——她在整份起诉状中仅被提及两次；关于任何前置行为，均未提及她。她有继续自己生活的利益。她已不再与任何被告公司的任何一家公司共事。我们认为，您知道，我们的驳回动议应得到及时处理，而不是在中止之后或进一步修正之后才予处理。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的，谢谢。还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n（与会者商议）\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表 Mei Guo（郭梅）、Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Leading Shine New York Limited（领耀纽约有限公司）和 Gypsy Mei Food Services, LLC（吉普赛梅餐饮服务有限责任公司）的 James Moriarity（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。法官阁下，我并未就受托人提出的中止请求采取立场。我只是想澄清，我的五名委托人尚未对起诉状作出回应——\n\n法院：请稍等一下，莫里亚蒂律师。\n\n（程序暂停）\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我不会把这当作暗示我的发言时间已到。\n\n法院：不，这不是时间问题，而是法庭内空气的问题。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我明白了。\n\n法院：您可以继续。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。截至今日，经与受托人达成协议，我的委托人尚未对起诉状作出回应；受托人通过其律师，在我们努力确定其案件走向的过程中，与我们就延期事宜进行了协作。我的委托人的回应今日到期。我请求，在案件将被中止或者将被无损害驳回而可重新提起的范围内，无论程序上将发生什么，都将我的委托人列入已作出回应的一方。我不希望因为我的委托人尚未对起诉状作出回应，或者截至今日未作出回应，而再次在法院面前就缺席动议进行争论。因此，我请求法院，无论作出何种命令，均将案件就我的五名委托人予以中止。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的，谢谢。\n\n拉德-史密斯先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表 Beile Li（李贝乐）的 Ivan Ladd-Smith（伊万·拉德-史密斯）。我有一个问题想问法院，即，如果法院知道：法官阁下是否知道您是否计划今天决定是否发布中止令？\n\n法院：我毫无头绪。我和您一样，几分钟前才听到这个请求，所以——\n\n拉德-史密斯先生：是的。我正因如此而询问，因为我想谨此请求，给予被告一些时间与委托人协商，并思考是否反对——\n\n法院：关于中止——\n\n拉德-史密斯先生：关于——\n\n法院：——尤其是该中止？\n\n拉德-史密斯先生：正确，正确。而且，您知道，不需要很多时间，几天即可。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为——您知道，我——嗯，好的。我理解您的请求。这是一个公平的请求，我会——但我也希望听取受托人的回应。除请求一些时间与您的委托人就受托人提出的中止请求进行协商外，您是否还有其他问题希望提出？\n\n拉德-史密斯先生：嗯，我还有另一个想法，法官阁下。再次说明，您知道，今天才第一次听到此事。似乎另我事项可能需要很长时间才能自行解决，以致中止将持续相当长的一段时间。而且，如果受托人看来已经决定修正 RICO 请求，我只是想知道，在实施中止之前进行该修正是否更有意义。您知道，否则，被告在中止期间对于新起诉状将会如何表述可说处于不明状态；而如果本质上受托人目前已知悉修正的内容，那么似乎给予受托人类似的二十一日期限便足以作出这些修正。而且，倘若要点在于部分另我被告将从案件中被驳回，您知道，这仍可在另我事项中止结束时发生。所以我并不是——这只是一个想法——\n\n法院：我明白。\n\n拉德-史密斯先生：——供法院考虑。\n\n法院：好的，谢谢。\n\n拉德-史密斯先生：谢谢。\n\n哈先生：法官阁下，我代表 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）和 Rule of Law Society（法治协会），加入请求给予一些额外时间，以与我的委托人协商并回应受托人提出的中止请求。\n\n法庭：您希望就同一事项获得时间，仅涉及中止，别无其他，对吗？\n\n哈先生：仅涉及中止民事RICO诉讼，正确。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n哈先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法庭：巴塞特律师，您是否对已发言的被告方律师提出的问题作出回应？\n\n巴塞特先生：简要回应，法官阁下。再次说明，为记录在案，我是代表 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。因此，对于请求给予时间让各委托人相互协商一事，受托人不持异议。从我们的角度看，各方可以花费其所需的任何时间。如果他们希望在此期间与我们协商，也没有问题。因此，不反对该请求。对于莫里亚蒂律师就其委托人提出的请求，也不持异议。鉴于我们请求中止，我们目前并不试图强迫任何其他人提交答辩状或以其他方式回应诉状。至于两方当事人的律师提出的请求——或者说，对中止的反对——法官阁下，正如我所说，我们打算修改诉状，以回应已提出的驳回动议。Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 29 of 59\n\n回应已提出的驳回动议。我确实不理解损害论点。我的意思是，就诉状中的一些被告所涉指控少于其他被告而言，这正是我们拟在修改中处理的问题。\n\n如法庭所记得，我们于2024年2月提交了本诉状。自那以后，发生了许多事情。不仅我们的调查仍在继续，而且债务人的整个刑事审判也已进行完毕。我们已获得数千页证物以及该审判中数百页、甚至数千页的证言庭审记录。因此，可以说，我们届时将大幅修改诉状，以增加额外指控等内容。我不知道这将如何以这些被告所预期的方式为其中任何一方带来便利。\n\n因此，我认为，符合所有人的最佳利益，尤其是有利于节约破产财产资源，即不要求我们目前继续进行诉讼，不要求我们花费时间和精力准备修改后的诉状，因为，再次说明，该案与正在进行的统合另我诉讼存在实质性重叠。视该案如何解决，以及视我们可能在幕后达成的其他解决方案而定，我们将要进行的许多工作都会变得没有必要。\n\n因此，这就是我们的立场，法官阁下，但当然不反对给予各方时间考虑此事。\n\n法庭：那么您希望如何处理？如果您要给予他们时间考虑，您希望法庭做什么？\n\n巴塞特先生：我认为……（与会者协商）\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，我认为合乎逻辑的结论是，至少暂时延后所有期限，或者暂时中止诉讼，等待各方认为其需要协商的任何期间届满。在该期间结束时，我们可以再举行一次状态会议，或者向法官阁下提交某些材料，说明——您知道——我们各自的建议。届时，我们预计法庭将就今后的排期命令作出裁定。\n\n法庭：所以，您——您将准备向法庭提交某种命令，载明您的建议，并给予各方时间对此提出异议，还是您——您将在法庭内与各方进行这些讨论，然后向法庭报告？\n\n巴塞特先生：我的意思是，我认为我们的建议实际上比我所陈述的详细得多，因此我认为或许有意义——我认为，与各方协商其认为所需的任何期间即可。然后，在该期间结束时，如能达成一致，我们可以提交一份经各方同意的拟议命令；如未能达成一致，则可以提交相互竞争的命令。如果各方仍然反对，我们可以再次到法官阁下庭前解决这些争议。\n\n法庭：好的。请允许我看一下；请给我一点时间。\n\n（程序暂停）\n\n法庭：那么，就您提出的另我建议而言，没有人提出异议。我认为，您的建议是您将提交——受托人将于10月29日提交修改后的诉状。所有被告将有21天时间回应该诉状，我认为斯克拉兹律师说那是11月19日左右，听起来大致正确。然后——然后受托人将有14天时间回应被告的回应。\n\n然后您会就此提出书面陈述时间表，还是您将如何进行——我只是想——我认为，至少对我而言，显然，另我建议并无争议，且无人反对。因此，我理解这些日期，而且我——这没有问题。随后当受托人作出回应时，会发生什么？\n\n巴塞特先生：我认为，提出驳回动议的动议方，无论是谁，当然将有机会提交回复。\n\n法庭：是的。我把所有这些都包括在内。\n\n巴塞特先生：好的。\n\n法庭：您在29日提交修改后的诉状。\n\n巴塞特先生：对。\n\n法庭：被告在21天后提交其驳回动议，即——\n\n巴塞特先生：我们随后将提交对这些动议的反对意见书。\n\n法庭：14天后。然后会发生什么？您是否期待我就每一项驳回动议举行听证？我的意思是，我们这样做的部分原因，是为了弄清楚如何能够避免——我不知道——需要裁决二十项驳回动议，对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：所以，我——这是非常公平的观点，法官阁下。因此，我认为，与数周前我们举行的撤销权诉讼状态会议以及该处大量待决对抗程序相比，此处今后的路径更为精简，即便有，例如，20项驳回动议，其中许多——我会说——凭我的初步判断，我认为实际的驳回动议或许有5或6项，可能有7或8项。Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 33 of 59\n\n实际的驳回动议。但它们是合并的，因为其中许多是代表多方当事人提出的，例如康韦律师。\n\n法庭：嗯，我正要问康韦律师——\n\n巴塞特先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——他能否提交一项驳回动议，而不是数项，对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：我认为那是——我认为通常他一直是这样做的。我认为斯克拉兹律师也是如此，尽管他可能确实提交了几项单独的动议。但无论如何，从我们的角度看，所有驳回动议涉及的问题都非常相似。动议数量并未多到难以处理，以致我们认为，如果法庭希望举行听证，就不能同时进行。我认为没有必要就每一项驳回动议分别举行听证。我们可以，我认为，设法一次性完成这一切——\n\n法庭：嗯，康韦律师——\n\n巴塞特先生：——全部——\n\n法庭：——康韦律师——\n\n巴塞特先生：——一次完成。\n\n法庭：——例如，至少代表其当事人提出了四项驳回动议。Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 34 of 59\n\n驳回动议。这就是我的问题。为什么——我们是否需要有四项驳回动议？\n\n它们是否提出了——我的意思是，康韦律师，也许您可以——很抱歉我拿您举例，但我不得不这样做。您在场，我看到 ECF 84、85、86、87 和 89——哦，不，我想是那四项。那么那些——能否合并为一项动议？如果不能，请向我解释原因。我并不是说您没有合理的解释，我是在试图理解。\n\n康韦先生：如法官阁下所能想象，那些动议中的若干问题是共同的，而它们的分类方式是按管辖区域划分，因为不同管辖区域适用某些不同的法律。\n\n至于我是否需要提出动议以增加书面陈述篇幅，以便将它们纳入一项动议，我愿意接受任何建议。我认为我们——它们完全可以纳入一项动议。唯一的问题是，我认为这样做需要多几页篇幅。\n\n巴塞特先生：我们对此没有问题，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么你们两位为什么不讨论一下？我认为这没有问题——我认为对法庭会更容易，对吗？如果全都是——如果确实是同样的问题，因为我不会——在某个时候，我假设，除非这些问题得到解决，而我并不预期它们会得到解决。Case 22-50073 Doc 3745 Filed 10/23/24 Entered 10/23/24 09:12:17 Page 36 of 59\n\n它们会得到解决，我将不得不写点什么，对吗？\n\n康韦先生：是的，法官阁下，而且——\n\n法庭：所以我宁可不写20份东西，或许只写2份或1份。\n\n康韦先生：而且，法官阁下，对我们来说也是困难的，试图以那种方式将它们拆分开来，因此我们欢迎将它们纳入一项动议的想法。坦率地说，您可能已经看到，巴塞特先生于周日提交了一项与缺席有关的动议。我们——我们已经讨论过此事，而且他慷慨地同意——因为我们在这些多项动议中遗漏了一些当事人，因为它们不得不被放入不同类别。将它们全部纳入一项动议，对我们而言将是受欢迎且更容易的做法。我将与巴塞特先生讨论我认为我们为此所需的篇幅。我无法想象——由于一些问题重叠——会需要那么多额外篇幅，但是——\n\n法庭：如果达成一致，我对于超出——当地规则的页数限制将没有任何问题。好吗？如果所有人都同意，我对此没有问题。\n\n康韦先生：好的。而且显然，对于巴塞特先生就答复所建议的任何安排，包括增加答复篇幅，我们都欢迎。法官阁下，我想在此提出的另一个问题是，巴塞特先生提到，几周前与撤销权诉讼当事人举行过这次会议，在该会议上，许多共同动议问题将被提出，希望法官阁下能够解决这些问题，以便于进行调解。我现在也有一名这样的委托人。\n\n其中若干问题与那些问题是共通的。我只是想提出，无论我们最终在此确定何种书面陈述时间表——我知道我们已为那些动议确定了书面陈述时间表——对于那些问题也是如此；它们不一定必须相互对应。但我想向法庭建议，鉴于这些问题非常相似，听证会或许可以在同一日期举行，这样法官阁下就不必在不同日期听取各方就所有这些动议——所有这些问题进行辩论，因为它们如此相似。我认为我们不必为此制定相对应的书面陈述时间表，但我只是想指出存在相似的问题。法庭：好的。谢谢。康韦先生（Conway）：嗯。法庭：那么，巴西特律师（Attorney Bassett），关于另我诉讼，您提议今天或明天做什么，提交一份排期命令？巴西特律师：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。\n\n巴西特律师：我们将按照我们讨论过的思路提交一份排期命令。我很乐意这样做，比如，正如法官阁下建议的，我想是明天。在此期间，我可以就合并康韦律师的驳回动议及延长页数限制问题与康韦律师协商，然后希望提交一份各方均可接受的文件。\n\n法庭：好的。而且我认为，您还应提议，对已经作出缺席判决以及已经登记缺席的被告所提出的请求应予分案，但须经法院批准，因为我必须审阅。我还没有审阅。我必须审阅，对吗？所以，我也会这样做。\n\n我认为这很合理，除非其他人希望就另我责任状况会议发言。而且，我认为，就另我起诉书及尚待裁决的动议而言，我们今天已经完成了能够完成的事项，对吗，巴西特律师？\n\n巴西特律师：我相信是这样，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么我会允许您提交文件——我给您到星期四。当然，我知道您可能明天就会提交。如果您明天较晚提交——而星期四我们有听证会——那么将在下午早些时候完成。所以，如果您期待录入某项命令，这是我要说的唯一一点：该命令可能要到那些听证会结束后才会录入。好吗？\n\n巴西特律师：明白。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么让我们回到 RICO 诉讼。也就是说——您没有异议——受托人并不反对给予各方——当我说“各方”时，是指在法庭内的被告——时间，以确定他们是否对您提议的中止有任何问题；并且，就莫里亚蒂律师（Attorney Moriarty）的当事人而言，他们提交答辩状的期限是今天。该期限将延长一段时间。他们不会因为我们今天所处的情况而被归入缺席一类。\n\n巴西特律师：这正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：就被告塞尔达先生（Mr. Cerda）和被告周（Chow）而言，他们希望——他们反对中止，并希望审理其驳回动议。因此，您的观点——您对此的回应是，您认为这并无必要，而且他们并未受到损害。因此，我必须提出的问题是——我认为您将不得不与他们交谈，对吗？与那两名被告都交谈，因为他们不知道——在此之前没有人知道——而这正是我们举行状况会议的原因——您将请求中止，所以我认为您需要与他们交谈。\n\n那么，现在提交修正起诉书这一问题呢？您是说，您现在不想这样做，因为这将会——这将会占用资源，而您此时希望将这些资源以其他方式用于本破产财产。\n\n巴西特律师：这正确，法官阁下。出于多项原因，这是事实。我们的调查一直在进行，并且截至此刻仍在继续。因此，尽管我们已经能够获取——例如——一段时间以来刑事审判中的信息，但我们仍有大量工作要做，以继续用我们希望纳入的所有补充信息来补充修正起诉书。\n\n鉴于或为回应驳回动议中提出的论点，我们还会作出其他修正，而我们当然有权这样做。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我们将增加的许多指控以及将纳入修正案的大量实质内容，将涉及要么属于综合另我责任当事人的被告，要么可能因我们对请求权的其他协商解决而出现的被告。\n\n因此，结果将是花费大量时间和精力、动用大量破产财产资源及大量成本来编制一份修正起诉书，而该起诉书最终可能并无必要。因此，是的，法官阁下，我们认为，如果我们将中止诉讼，则无需先提交修正起诉书。\n\n法庭：好的。我想我还听到您说，那么，在另我责任——抱歉——在民事 RICO 诉讼中，为了让您与今日出庭并讨论这些问题的各方进行讨论，将本次状况会议延期或续期一段时间或许是合理的。对吗？\n\n巴西特律师：这正确，法官阁下。至于他们可能需要多长时间，我将听从辩方律师的意见，但他们可以获得他们希望获得的尽可能多的时间。\n\n法庭：嗯，我正在看日程。目前，本案和相关诉讼将在 November 5th 举行听证会，那是从今天起三周后。对我而言，这似乎是给各方——但如果有人希望更长时间，显然——您知道，那也没关系。我只是查看日程，看看何时还有其他——在 November 19th 也有一次听证会，那是感恩节前一周。在 November 26th 还有一次听证会，那是感恩节当周。我还没有看到排到 December 的任何事项。\n\n所以我不知道您希望如何进行。如果您希望休会，与他人交谈，如果您希望提出我刚刚建议的那些日期中的一个，巴西特律师，我们将看看其他人的想法，或者无论您希望如何进行。\n\n巴西特律师：只选择一个日期的话，法官阁下，November 19th 对我们来说可以。如果其他辩方律师希望就此发言，他们当然可以。是否有人反对将民事 RICO 诉讼、相关诉讼 24-05273 中的本次状况会议续期至 November 19th, at 1 p.m.？如有，请现在提出。\n\n（无人作出言语回应）\n\n法庭：好的。既然没有听到任何回应，那么我将把状况会议续期至 October 19th，但有一项理解，巴西特律师，即受托人的律师将与今天发言的律师就其问题进行沟通，并确定是否可以就民事 RICO 诉讼的继续推进提交某种经协商一致的命令。\n\n巴西特律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\n巴西特律师：非常感谢。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们将把民事 RICO 诉讼状况会议续期至 October——抱歉——November 19th, at 1 p.m.。好的。这就处理完了相关诉讼中的状况会议。主案中还有事项。各位当然可以留下，但如果对主案没有兴趣，也可以离开。因此，谢谢各位。\n\n（程序暂停）\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请便。\n\n德斯平斯先生：为记录在案，卢克·德斯平斯（Luc Despins），第11章受托人。现在我们将处理出售 Taconic（塔科尼克）房产的动议。我会——您知道，重点是——对破产财产而言这是非常好的消息，我们得以大幅提高购买价格，我稍后会谈到这一点。\n\n昨天，我们在案卷编号 3682 提交了一份通知，说明已收到并接受一项更高且更优的报价，但须经 Bankruptcy Court（破产法院）批准。我们还附上了一份修订后的合同及一份修订后的拟议命令。\n\n我先说明，买方出于保密原因拟使用一家有限责任公司，但是——为本次听证会之目的，我需要披露新买方的姓名。他名叫罗斯·杰克曼（Ross Jackman），R-o-s-s，Jackman，来自 New York City（纽约市）。他表示，他与郭文贵先生（Mr. Kwok）或郭文贵先生的关联方完全没有任何关联。他将通过一家名为 B-E-C-C-T, 1 LLC 的有限责任公司持有该房产。\n\n因此，长话短说，法官阁下，您会记得，曾接受一项 six million nine 的报价。在该报价被接受后，我们收到该竞买人提出的一项更高且更优的报价；此后，由于原有竞买人与新竞买人之间的竞争性竞价，该报价大幅提高。购买价格最终达到 7,250,000。您会记得，要价是 seven million one。因此，这较现有合同增加了 $350,000，增加了 three fifty，鉴于此处的情况，您知道，这是非常好的。修订后的命令有一个标示修改内容的版本，反映了我们作出的所有修改。\n\n其主要是以新买方替代原买方，并落实作出的其他修改。因此，法官阁下，增加的不仅是购买价格，还有其他条款现在对我们更为有利；例如，如果法官阁下——您倾向于批准我们所请求的救济并于今日录入命令，我相信新买方将必须在 Friday 前完成交割。出于各种原因，这对我们都非常有利。\n\n法庭：新买方有律师吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：有，而且律师——我应当说——默里先生（Mr. Murray）在——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——今天在法庭内——\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——出席。\n\n法庭：好的。我只是想确保买方已准备好、愿意并且能够完成交割。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那——\n\n法庭：没有或有条件，没有问题？\n\n德斯平斯先生：没有融资——\n\n法庭：全——\n\n德斯平斯先生：——或有条件——\n\n法庭：全额现金。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——因为没有提交异议。您知道，我认为合同项下的义务是在本周 Friday 前完成交割，但以法官阁下今日录入命令为条件。此外，我想处理一个问题。您可能已经看到，在——您知道，在末尾增加了一段方括号内的段落，即新的第 24 段，其内容如下：“基于听证会上陈述的理由，现授权受托人向原买方偿还最高达 20,000 的合理、有文件证明的自付费用，例如检查费、评估费以及律师\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3745，提交于 10/23/24，录入于 10/23/24 09:12:17，第 45 页，共 59 页\n\n原买方为推进潜在收购 Greenwich property（格林尼治房产）所产生的费用。”\n\n我们不会继续请求该项救济，因此目前正从拟议命令中删除该段。\n\n我们已就此与 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）进行了讨论。\n\n我们可能会以简易程序回到法官阁下面前请求该项救济，但今天不寻求该项救济。\n\n因此，我很乐意回答您可能提出的任何问题，但目前而言，这相当直接明了。从我们的角度来看，这将为破产财产增加 350,000 的价值，并且我认为在短期内成交具有确定性，这将使我们能够停止在该房产上继续花费资金。\n\n法庭：我——我唯一的问题是——我同意，这一程序产生了更高且更优的报价，因此我认为这显然有利于破产财产。\n\n我的问题是——我看到买方的律师在场。我知道 Major 律师配合将该房产的占有权基本移交给受托人，我不知道，而且我也不——也许没有人——也许这是你们都已经解决的问题。但是，我不知道房屋内有什么物品（如有），以及必须做些什么。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。因此，有一些——Major 律师一直——截至上周五我们一直与他保持联系，进行了沟通。有一些——我会说是一些家具，尽管“家具”一词涵盖得很广；健身房里有运动器材，我认为还有户外家具，买方以 7,250,000 一并购买。\n\n其余物品——这也是一项对我们非常有利的让步——我们获准将未出售给买方的家具留在该房屋内，我认为是 30 或 45 天——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——以合同规定为准。\n\n法庭：那么——\n\nDESPINS 先生：——合同所规定的期限。\n\n法庭：——我们将据此处理——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。因此，情况是——将会——但 Major 先生并未对该等资产提出任何权利主张。因此，我们的意图可能是将这些物品搬走，与我们从其他不同地点取得的其他家具合并，以便届时对所有这些物品举行拍卖。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：此外——我不知道我是否曾经告诉过您——他们在该房产留下一辆车，我们查明了谁是所有人。我们联系了这名“所有人”，我之所以加引号，是因为他说，不，我不拥有这辆车，你们可以拿走。因此，现在产权证已经转到我名下，所以我们可以——\n\n法庭：你有产权证？\n\nDESPINS 先生：——所以我们可以出售——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——那辆车。而且——他们同意我们可以将该车留在那里——我忘了是 30 天还是 45 天。\n\n身份不明者：四十五天。\n\nDESPINS 先生：二十——\n\n身份不明者：四十五天。\n\nDESPINS 先生：但我们打算在 45 天期限届满前出售。因此，从我们的角度来看，这一切都很好。\n\n法庭：好的。这些就是我仅有的问题。显然——我想您的名字是 Murray 先生，对吗，我有没有听错？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，Robert Murray（罗伯特·默里）。\n\nMURRAY 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，您的当事人，即买方，已准备好、有意愿并有能力在本周五之前完成交割？\n\nMURRAY 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。显然，我对房产内有什么物品的疑问已经得到答复，并且存在某种协议。我显然尚未仔细研究，因为这些材料都是昨天提交的，即破产财产声称享有权益的财产将能够在该房产内留置一段时间，45 天或更短，受托人将就此采取其需要采取的任何行动，而买方对此没有异议。\n\nMURRAY 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我显然只是想确保这一点。我的意思是，有时我们在出售中遇到过遗留物品而造成问题的情形，我不希望有任何——我们显然希望尽一切可能避免任何问题。您还有没有什么想告诉我的——您不一定要说，我只是问一下——还有没有任何您想就该出售说明的事项，或任何您认为法庭需要知悉的事项？\n\nMURRAY 先生：没有，法官阁下。我认为程序进行得非常顺利，并且我感谢 Despins 律师在这方面所作的努力。\n\n法庭：好的。非常感谢。\n\nMURRAY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我除看过该命令外，尚未审阅它。我的意思是，我看过它。我知道它昨天提交，而我们昨天因节假日休庭——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——因此，我已经看过的部分只是略读，看起来没有问题。你们已作红线修订。我确实看过原始命令。我没有看到该命令本身有任何令我担忧之处，但我仍希望阅读它——\n\nDESPINS 先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——而且我尚未完整阅读。不过，我必须询问是否还有其他人希望发表意见。Claiborn 律师，U.S. Trustee 是否对该出售持有任何立场？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，U.S. Trustee 不反对该出售。受托人 Despins 增加了一段，是我要求增加的，即第 21 段。该段涉及在交割后提交出售报告。\n\n法庭：是的，这是我们地方法规所要求的。嗯，事实上，地方法规对此的规定或许并不像应有的那样清楚，但无论如何我都会要求这样做，只是为了知悉情况，并使记录清楚。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我没有其他补充，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n（无口头回应）\n\n法庭：尽管你们正在删除第 24 段，第 23 段规定受托人应在两个工作日内返还原买方的定金——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——自……起——\n\nDESPINS 先生：那是——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我们今天正在办理，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，该项规定保留。他们有权取回其定金。\n\n法庭：当然。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：我只是说——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：我当时是在看第 24 段，因为你说要删除它，但第 23 段在某种程度上与其有关，尽管并不完全相同。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，我——鉴于本案、该资产以及 Major 律师对法人实体和居住在该房屋内的个人的代理情况，并鉴于就 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）提交的文件，包括——尽管该文件现在不在我面前，但我非常清楚地记得 Major 先生代表其在该房产中享有权益的当事人，同意将占有权移交给破产财产。我理解受托人为何希望出售不附带留置权的房产，也理解新的买方已经出现，并且已经准备好、有意愿并有能力以 7,250,000 的购买价格完成该交易？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是的。因此，基于所有这些理由——还有许多理由，我现在不在记录中重述，因为就 Greenwich Land 和该资产已举行过许多听证、提出过许多动议并进行过诉讼——我显然将准许出售动议，并授权和批准出售不附带留置权、权利主张及权益的房产，授权受托人订立出售协议并予以批准，同时批准该出售。因此，此时我需要做的只是审阅该命令，我应能在今天下午完成，并尽力为各位录入该命令，因为我相信你们会希望——嗯，我假定你们会希望在交割时使用它。\n\nDESPINS 先生：嗯，命令的录入触发了于本周五前完成交割的义务，所以——\n\n法庭：对。因此，我们将在今天下午完成。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。不过——因此我们需要——Skalka 先生将通过法庭书记员的电子邮件地址发送我提到的、删除该段的无修订命令。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：这将非常有帮助，是的。\n\nSKALKA 先生：我会这样做，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。请以 Word 格式发送。\n\nSKALKA 先生：会的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，我们将在今天下午录入该命令。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？那么——谢谢，也感谢律师为其当事人对该房产的兴趣，以及与受托人合作促成该房产出售。因此，出售动议至此结束，并且——\n\nDESPINS 先生：那么，我认为接下来将转至提高 Mahwah mansion（马瓦庄园）费用上限的动议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——关于该 Mahwah 庄园。也许 Murray 先生的当事人也有兴趣购买该庄园。\n\n（笑声）\n\nMURRAY 先生：他已经做得够多了。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，他已经为破产财产做得够多了。因此，法官阁下，这相当直接明了。Mahwah 庄园的费用——我过于频繁地使用“荒谬”这个词，但在本案中，这些费用确实荒谬。因此，在您批准的最初命令中，我们设定的上限为 300,000。我们已大幅超过该上限。我们需要将上限提高至总额 1,000,000，因为，您知道，安保费用——不仅是安保费用，还有电费，每月 17,000 左右。这些金额实在是——顺便说一下，我们并非仅仅接受了这些费用。我们派人去检查了所有恒温器，试图调低它们，以确保不存在浪费。但维护该房产的费用极其高昂；因此，我们别无选择，只能请求法庭将上限提高至一百万美元。我们对此并不满意，但必须这样做。\n\n法庭：我理解。\n\nDESPINS 先生：这是案卷编号 3650，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Claiborn 律师，U.S. Trustee 办公室对该动议是否持有任何立场？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：U.S. Trustee 不反对该动议。我只是要求对命令作一项修改以澄清某件事，因此，我认为应向法官阁下提交一份修订后的命令。\n\n法庭：是什么修改？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：让我——\n\n法庭：如果你记得，我——\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：如果您给我一点时间，我可以调出命令并告诉您。\n\n（程序暂停）\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我很抱歉。我把这项动议与另一项动议混淆了。动议很多，我的头脑显然有些混乱。我很抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我对这一项没有修改意见。\n\n法庭：本案中有三千六百——\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我很抱歉。\n\n法庭：——多项案卷记录，因此我认为偶尔发生混淆是难免的。但是——那么，你对拟议命令没有异议？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：没有异议。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。抱歉。\n\n法庭：按已提交的版本。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是。\n\n法庭：10月8日提交的那份，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。是。\n\n法庭：好的。好。我已审阅拟议裁定，对我来说没有问题，我没有任何修改意见。唯一——除了有一处我会修改的地方，只是一处小改动，我们可以修改，你们无需修改——是加上——如法庭书记员所知，我一向喜欢这样写——“并于……举行听证后。”好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n法庭：请在“兹命令如下”措辞之前加上“并于 October 15, 2024 举行听证后”。除此之外，我没有问题。我理解理由，也理解你们对此——并不满意。但是，我认为，不幸的是，在此情形下，提高费用资金上限是适当的。所有应通知当事方均已收到你们动议的送达。无人就该动议提交书面异议。没有人——没有——没有人在今天的听证会上对该动议提出异议。而且，如我所说，我认为这根据《法典》第363条是适当的。基于所有这些理由，准予该动议，附于该动议的拟议裁定可以录入。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3745\n提交于 10/23/24\n录入于 10/23/24 09:12:17\n第 56 页，共 59 页\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我认为这就完成了今天的事项。\n\n法庭：是。\n\n德斯平斯先生：但如果可以，我想回到出售裁定，尽管这并非出售裁定的一部分，而是我们删除的那一段。我想确保法官阁下知道其中的意图。我不会请求咨询性意见，但我想确保您理解这里的背景，即签署了 6.9 million-dollar 要约的买方显然最终结束了该程序——结束该程序时一无所获，而且他们已经支出了实际费用。破产财产从中——从中获益，因为，例如，新买方在未查看的情况下，依赖于第一买方所进行的检查。因此，这就是我考虑此事的原因。顺便说一下，我们——我今天并未请求该项救济，但我想确保您理解，我们的出发点是，从他们的角度看，他们最终一无所获，这——您知道——并非我的问题。另一方面，他们确实增加了很多价值，因为他们验证了该财产的价值，以及该财产值得购买这一事实，而无需新买方自行进行调查。这将是提出此事的理由。我们今天并未请求此项救济，但我可能会回来，法官阁下，请求该项救济。不过，我想在此事仍在您记忆清晰之际，向您说明我们为何考虑此事的情况。我知道对此有两种看法，即，他们承担了风险，这是一次破产法院出售，你可能最终一无所获。我理解这一点。但在本案中，我认为确实增加了价值。不过，我只是想确保法官阁下对此有清楚了解。\n\n法庭：我理解。谢谢。好的。今天下午还有任何需要处理的事项吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：从我们的角度没有了，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，谢谢各位。今日日程表上的所有事项均已处理完毕，现休庭。\n\n法警：全体起立。现休庭。\n\n（程序于下午 2:23 结束。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3745\n提交于 10/23/24\n录入于 10/23/24 09:12:17\n\n证明\n\n我们证明，据我们所知及所能，前述内容是上述标题案件程序电子录音的正确文字记录。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling（威廉·J·加林）\nOctober 21, 2024\nWilliam J. Garling（威廉·J·加林）, CET-543\n认证法庭文字记录员\n代表 Reliable（可靠）\n\n/s/ Coleen Rand（科琳·兰德）\nOctober 21, 2024\nColeen Rand（科琳·兰德）, CET-341\n认证法庭文字记录员\n代表 Reliable（可靠）","key_entities":["Despins","RICO","Je","Himalaya","Murray","CIPA","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","William Je","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":76,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":84,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":14902,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-10-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-10-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:34:45"}