{"id":"court_ctb_3816_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3816,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-11-13","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al., .* . (Jointly Administered) . . Debtors. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Tuesday, November 5, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:05 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and-Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: [gmatthews@reliable-co.com](about:blank) Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 1 of 39\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 2 of 39\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 Aaron Mitchell, V.X. Cerda & Associates, The Francis Law Firm PLLC, Berkeley Rowe Limited, Weddle Law PLLC, and Lawall & Mitchell, LLC: Kellianne Baranowsky, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For 3 Columbus Circle, Baron Yachts, and ModSquad, Inc., Mercedes Benz Manhattan New York, Philip Eisner: Matthew A. Pesce, Esquire MURTHA CULLINA, LLP 107 Elm Street 11th Floor Stamford, Connecticut 06902 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\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 3 of 39\n\n| | | | 3 |\n|----------|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|\n| 1 | | INDEX | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter | | |\n| 4 | (HY) #31: | Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by | 6 |\n| 5 | | Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Aaron
Mitchell, Defendant | |\n| 6 | Matter | | |\n| 7 | | (HY) #22: Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by
Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of V.X. Cerda | |\n| 8 | | & Associates P.A., Defendant | |\n| 9 | Matter
(HY) #25: | Amended Motion To Stay Discovery Pending | |\n| 10 | | Court's Decision on Motion to Dismiss
Filed by Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of | |\n| 11 | | The Francis Firm PLLC, Defendant | |\n| 12 | Matter
(HY) #31: | Motion To Stay Pending Defendant's | |\n| 13
14 | | Response to Amended Complaint Filed by
Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Berkeley
Rowe Limited, Defendant | |\n| 15 | Matter | | |\n| 16 | (HY) #30: | Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by | |\n| 17 | | Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Weddle Law
PPLC, Defendant | |\n| 18 | Matter | | |\n| 19 | (HY) #35: | Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by
Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Lawall & | |\n| 20 | | Mitchell, LLC, Aaron Mitchell, Defendants | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter (HY) #3659: Motion to Amend Avoidance and Mediation Procedures Order by Temporarily Staying Discovery and Response to Motions to Stay Discovery Filed by Certain Avoidance Defendants Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: 16 Matter (HY) #3594: Motion for 2004 Examination of Additional 18 Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor and Additional Relevant Banks (Seventeenth Omnibus) Filed by Kari A. Mitchell on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: 24 Matter (HY) #3701: Application to Employ James Morgan as 26 Barrister in British Virgin Islands Filed by Luc A. Despins on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: 28 Matter (HY) #17: Motion for Default Judgment by the Court 29 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (b)(2) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 against Qiang Guo Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A.Despins, Plaintiff Court's Ruling: 32 Transcriptionist's Certificate 39 Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 4 of 39\n\n| 1 | (Proceedings commenced at 1:05
p.m.) |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE CLERK:
22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok.
24-05110, |\n| 3 | Despins v. Mitchell.
24-05134, Despins v. V.X. Cerda & |\n| 4 | Associates P.A.
24-50168, Despins v. The Francis Firm PLLC. |\n| 5 | 24-05186, Despins v. Berkeley Rowe Limited.
24-05188, |\n| 6 | Despins v. Weddle Law PLLC.
24-05199, Despins v. Lawall
& |\n| 7 | Mitchell, LLC et al.
24-05238, Despins v. Guo. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. If we could
have |\n| 9 | appearances
for the
record starting
with the
Chapter 11 |\n| 10 | Trustee, please. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your
Honor.
Luc |\n| 12 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 13 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 14 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Your
Honor.
Patrick |\n| 15 | Linsey of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, for the Chapter 11 |\n| 16 | Trustee. |\n| 17 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon.
Holley Claiborn |\n| 19 | for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 21 | Anyone else in the
courtroom noting their |\n| 22 | appearance? |\n| 23 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Good afternoon, Your
Honor. |\n| 24 | Kellianne Baranowsky of Green & Sklarz
on behalf of Adversary |\n| 25 | Proceeding Defendants Aaron Mitchell, V.X. Cerda & |\n| | |\n\n| | 6 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Associates, The Francis Law Firm PLLC, Berkeley Rowe Limited, |\n| 2 | Weddle Law PLLC, and Lawall & Mitchell, LLC. |\n| 3 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 4 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Good afternoon. |\n| 5 | MR. PESCE:
Good
afternoon, Your
Honor.
Matthew |\n| 6 | Pesce on behalf of 3 Columbus Circle, Baron Yachts, ModSquad, |\n| 7 | Inc., Mercedes of New York --
excuse me, Mercedes Benz |\n| 8 | Manhattan New York, and Philip Eisner. |\n| 9 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 10 | All right.
Trustee
Despins, there are several |\n| 11 | matters on the
calendar today.
I would
assume you have an |\n| 12 | idea of how you would like to proceed. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your
Honor.
Mr. Linsey will |\n| 14 | handle the discovery stay
and
the
related matters because |\n| 15 | that
covers most people in the courtroom and
then we will |\n| 16 | proceed with the other ones after that. |\n| 17 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
May I
approach, Your
Honor? |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you. The Trustee has moved for |\n| 21 | a temporary stay of discovery in the avoidance actions,
that |\n| 22 | is until the Court has resolved
the joint briefing issues, |\n| 23 | and as to any non-mediation defendants that has filed a |\n| 24 | motion to dismiss until
the Court resolves
that motion
to |\n| 25 | dismiss. |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | At
the
outset, the Trustee notes that as for the |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | vast majority of avoidance
claims
discovery
is already |\n| 3 | stayed; that is because
those claims are either
in mediation |\n| 4 | already or because
they are
on the
fully stayed list, that is |\n| 5 | the Exhibit 3-A to the
operative procedures order.
So, what |\n| 6 | we are really talking about here is a limited subset of |\n| 7 | avoidance defendants numbering approximately
in the 40's. |\n| 8 | So,
in terms of its practical impact
the
relief |\n| 9 | the Trustee is looking for is limited.
Largely,
these are |\n| 10 | defendants that were on the Exhibit 4 list to the operative |\n| 11 | procedures order; that is that we are not automatically |\n| 12 | referred to mediation for a few of the
impacted defendants. |\n| 13 | They are defendants that filed motions requesting to
be |\n| 14 | excused from mediation and
the Court allowed that. |\n| 15 | A
temporary stay of discovery is appropriate here |\n| 16 | for several reasons.
First of all, the Court's ruling on the |\n| 17 | joint briefing
issues, as well as issued raised
in the |\n| 18 | motions to dismiss, may obviate the need for certain |\n| 19 | discovery.
As a practical issue, the Trustee believes it is |\n| 20 | likely
that the
Court's resolution of those issues may lead |\n| 21 | to settlements
of some avoidance
claims.
Additionally,
there |\n| 22 | are legal issues in dispute that the Court addressing may |\n| 23 | cause
subject matter of discovery
in avoidance
actions to be |\n| 24 | narrowed. |\n| 25 | Further, the
Trustee notes that it's
likely that |\n\n| 1 | there
are going to
be some common issues
in discovery |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | involving avoidance claims.
And while the Trustee is |\n| 3 | cognizant of the
need to pursue these claims expeditiously, |\n| 4 | the Trustee also recognizes that there are economies of scale |\n| 5 | and when efficiencies reveal themselves,
they should
be |\n| 6 | pursued.
For that reason, the
Trustee believes
it is |\n| 7 | appropriate to wait for a limited period of time to undertake |\n| 8 | discovery for there to be a critical mass of
avoidance |\n| 9 | defendants to move into discovery and, therefore, to pursue |\n| 10 | efficiencies
and common discovery practices to the
extent |\n| 11 | that that is an available --
you know, something
that is |\n| 12 | available. |\n| 13 | The
Trustee filed this motion after consulting |\n| 14 | with
counsel for the non-mediating defendants.
Certain of |\n| 15 | the non-mediating defendants themselves filed motions seeking |\n| 16 | this relief. In
fact, prior to the Trustee filing his motion |\n| 17 | seeking this relief on a
more global scale, others have |\n| 18 | responded with
reservations of rights saying they do not |\n| 19 | disagree with the relief requested.
Various things that |\n| 20 | avoidance defendants have said in these filings are things |\n| 21 | the Trustee does not agree with; however, because
there is no |\n| 22 | disagreement as to the
ultimate relief,
the Trustee is not |\n| 23 | going to raise those issues
for sport. |\n| 24 | The
Trustee has reviewed --
oh, the Trustee would |\n| 25 | note that the
Trustee has, in compliance with
the
Court's |\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 order regarding notice, has caused all appearing avoidance defendants to be served with both the Trustee's motion for a stay of discovery and the Court's order setting a hearing on this motion. The Trustee did that by filing those documents in all of the pending avoidance actions which automatically, by ECF, caused any appearing avoidance defendant to be served with those documents. THE COURT: Let me stop you on that. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: It might not be as automatic as we all think. Something occurred this morning in hearings where I think in this case it probably is and in these adversary proceedings, but apparently when you, and any lawyer, or ECF filer agrees to become an ECF filer you can choose when you obtain the actual document that is placed on the docket, whether its automatic or at midnight the next day, through a report which I honestly had no idea was true. So, when you say \"automatically\" that is the way I believe and have always believed its worked even if we had another email box or more to obtain filings, but apparently an ECF filer can make a choice as to whether or not they obtain anything filed in a case automatically through that automatic NEF or at some later point in a day through a report of all matters that are related to that ECF filer's account.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, the only thing I am saying is when you say \"automatic\" apparently, it's not. That is something I learned today. It has nothing to do with this case. MR. LINSEY: I appreciate the information, Your Honor. I had no idea of that. THE COURT: I had no idea of it either. MR. LINSEY: There are days where I might wish to not get an email every time. THE COURT: Apparently there is a way you can do that. MR. LINSEY: Then there are certain things where its good to know the moment they are filed. THE COURT: Yeah, I never knew that you could do - - well, that is not fair. I know there is an ability to gather things through a report, but I thought that also was separate and distinct from the NEF that you would obtain in any case in which you are an ECF filer. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: It is not automatic. MR. LINSEY: Well, for technical reasons like that I was endeavoring to, at least, be precise about the way that we delivered the notice. So, hopefully I have accomplished that. THE COURT: Well, its automatically served through NEF, but when it is received by the recipient it's the\n\n 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recipients issue ultimately but I just wanted you to be aware of that. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Unless the Court has any questions, the Trustee would ask that the motion be -- oh, there is one thing that the Trustee would add. There is a safety valve built into the order which is in Paragraph 4 of the order which allows any party to an adversary proceeding, upon a showing of cause, to request that discovery be allowed in that adversary proceeding. You know, given that no one knows what circumstances may occur that would affect any pending avoidance action. THE COURT: Hold on. Let me just take a look at that. Paragraph 4? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: \"Any party to an avoidance action may request that the stay of discovery in such action be lifted upon a motion filed in the action setting forth cause.\" That is what you mean by your safety valve? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then with regard to this motion that you filed on behalf of the Trustee I did not see any written objections to this order. I saw the motions to stay, as you completely correctly noted, that were filed by defendants prior to the Trustee's motion, but are there any\n\n 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 written objections to this motion that you are aware of? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: There are responses in the nature of reservations of rights but there are not objections. THE COURT: And those responses that are in the nature of reservations of rights, are they filed in the main case adversaries or both? I am not sure, that is why I am asking that question. MR. LINSEY: I am aware that they are filed -- THE COURT: I think they're in both. MR. LINSEY: They may be in both. The copies I have with me are in the main case. THE COURT: So, it's just procedural the questions I am asking you right now because I think you have already answered them but I just want to make sure I understand your answer. With regard to this motion to further amend the avoidance and mediation procedures order by temporarily staying discovery, obviously, that was filed in the main case because that is where the avoidance procedures order was filed and where that matter was administered. You also said you then filed a notice or something in every adversary proceeding related to this temporary stay motion, is that correct? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. The Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 12 of 39\n\n1 2 3 4 5 Trustee filed both notices of the motion and when the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion, notices that the hearing had been scheduled. When I say \"notice\" it's really just a one-pager saying this was filed in the main case attaching the substantive filing.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Understood. That is what I thought you said. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you said because I wasn't sure. I know that you have done that in the past where there is an order, or a motion, or something filed in the main case that impacts the adversary proceeding, then a notice is filed in the adversary proceedings which, essentially, telling people in every adversary proceeding this is what has happened, go back to the main case and look at if you would like.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. And it would be the Trustee's intention to, upon any order entering with respect to this motion, then filing that order in the -- filing, you know, the same, a one-pager, see attached order, that is entered in the main case so that notice has occurred in all of the avoidance actions.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Understood. So, this motion that the Trustee has filed in the main case, 3659, relates, obviously, to all the motions to stay filed on behalf of Attorney Baranowsky's clients that are also on for motion for stay for today, correct?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 14 of 39\n\n| | 14 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. LINSEY:
It covers all of those defendants. |\n| 2 | Correct, Your
Honor. |\n| 3 | THE
COURT:
And Attorney Baranowsky has seen this |\n| 4 | proposed order?
You have no --
I
am going to have to hear |\n| 5 | from you, Attorney Baranowsky, obviously, since there are six |\n| 6 | motions to stay or seven motions to stay
--
six
that are |\n| 7 | filed by you. I want
to make sure that this order does what |\n| 8 | you think it should
do. |\n| 9 | I know we talked about this
a week or so ago in so |\n| 10 | far as we thought that the
Trustee's motion may moot all |\n| 11 | these motions to stay filed in the adversary
proceedings in |\n| 12 | which
Attorney Sklarz and Attorney Baranowsky represent the |\n| 13 | defendants, and that are on the
calendar today.
The
24- |\n| 14 | 05110, 24-05134, 24-05168, 24-05186, 24-05188, and 24-05199. |\n| 15 | So, I
am going to hear from Attorney Baranowsky to |\n| 16 | make sure we are set on this proposed order, Attorney
Linsey, |\n| 17 | okay. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your
Honor. |\n| 19 | THE
COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Thank you, Your
Honor. |\n| 21 | On behalf of the
client group, if that is okay to |\n| 22 | use that shorthand -- |\n| 23 | THE
COURT:
Sure. |\n| 24 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
--
of the six that have filed |\n| 25 | motions to stay discovery, we have no objection
to the
relief |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 that the Trustee is seeking through modification of the order. As Attorney Linsey pointed out, there is no disagreement as to the ultimate relief that order will provide, and it does mirror what we are asking for in the motions to stay.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I just do want to make a point on behalf of the clients that have moved to stay discovery and on behalf of all of our clients that we represent that are subject to the mediation procedures orders that we do -- just to clarify, we do disagree with some of the statements made in the motion concerning various findings that have been made by the Court to date and the applicability of those findings to adversary defendants but, you know, we recognize that those are just statements by the Trustee in a motion. They are not the equivalent of findings by the Court.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We just want to make it clear for the record that our position is that we reserve all rights to contest the Trustee's position on those statements but ultimately we agree with the relief that is being requested and whether the Court, you know, finds that the motions are moot because of that order or that the motions should be stayed -- motions to stay should be granted because the stay relief is being order, I will leave that to the discretion of the Court. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. BARANOWSKY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Attorney Linsey, any response? MR. LINSEY: No, that's fine with the Trustee, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to amend the avoidance and mediation procedures order? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. I have reviewed the Trustee's motion and I have reviewed the motions to stay that were filed in the six adversary proceedings that the Court just recited on the record. At a hearing a week or so ago, and I apologize I don't remember what day it was at the moment, but this issue was highlighted and Attorney Sklarz was here and Trustee Despins and Attorney Bassett, we all talked about this issue in general before today's hearing. I understand why the Trustee is seeking to amend the avoidance procedures order and temporarily stay discovery. I understand why the defendants were seeking to stay discovery. Given the posture of where things stand at this point in time and procedurally how the avoidance action order was obtained through the main case, and that order was entered in the main case, I am going to grant the Trustee's motion to amend the avoidance and mediation procedures order by temporarily staying discovery. And I am going to enter the proposed order. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 16 of 39\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 Now, the proposed order was filed under seal, Attorney Linsey. Are we filing this -- are we entering this order under seal? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. I don't believe -- THE COURT: Oh, it wasn't filed under seal. That is my mistake. Another ECF thing that occurred that is every day bringing more joy to this Court. MR. LINSEY: I think I know what Your Honor is talking about on that one. THE COURT: It isn't sealed. The copy I have in front of me indicated something that is not correct, but I read your order and it's the same order. We went over Paragraph 4 that you already highlighted. So, then the proposed order to 3659 we will enter. Just give me one moment, please. (Pause) THE COURT: Then, Attorney Baranowsky, what I am going to do in all the adversary proceedings is deny your motion as moot due to the entry of the order in the main case on the Trustee's motion 3659. Okay. MS. BARANOWSKY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. If anyone was only here for that matter they are, obviously, welcome to stay or go, whatever you prefer, but you certainly do not need to stay. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 17 of 39\n\n| 1 | Trustee, Despins, how would
you like to proceed |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | with
the other matters that are on today's calendar? |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
There
was a 2004 motion that Mr. |\n| 4 | Linsey will handle as well, Your
Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. LINSEY:
May I
approach again, Your
Honor? |\n| 7 | THE
COURT:
Yes, please.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. LINSEY:
For the
record Patrick Linsey for the |\n| 9 | Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 10 | Your
Honor, I
have a presentation that includes |\n| 11 | discussion of the objection
that was filed with respect
to |\n| 12 | the motion. I don't
see anyone here to prosecute
the |\n| 13 | objection
but I
will cover that if Your
Honor thinks I'm |\n| 14 | going too long at any point. Once we move along Your
Honor |\n| 15 | can just let me know. |\n| 16 | THE
COURT:
Have
you had conversations with |\n| 17 | counsel? |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
I have no, Your
Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
Your
Honor, this is the Trustee's |\n| 21 | seventeenth Rule 2004 motion by which the Trustee requested |\n| 22 | authority to take the Rule 2004 examination of certain |\n| 23 | financial
institutions at which
entity as an individual is |\n| 24 | associated
with
the debtor banked, as well as a very |\n| 25 | particular entity and individual
with connections to the |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 debtor. Those are Bofang Investment LLC (phonetic) and Fabo Jong (phonetic). Those are the objectors to the seventeenth Rule 2004 motion.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 As the Trustee noted in his motion, Bofang is an entity that has transferred millions of dollars to debtor alter-egos and other debtor associated entities including HCHK entities and GFNY Inc. As further noted in the motion, Fabo Jong is an individual who has been a member of an entity associated with the debtor, that is HGA, which funded Mahwah Mansion expenses and who has personally transferred more than \\$1 million to the debtors alter-egos and associated entities including Saraca Media Group.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For these reasons, the Trustee reasonably believes that Bofang and Jong may have information and documents relevant to the debtors business and financial affairs. Both of this individual and entity objected to the Rule 2004 motion. The Trustee filed a reply to that objection which sets forth copious evidence of the objectors connections to the debtor. These include records of transactions between HCHK Technology and GFNY to debtor associated shell companies, one of which has already been adjudicated in an alter ego, and the objectors which records were photographed by the US Government as part of its search of Yvette Wang's apartment and which were exhibits that were admitted in the debtors criminal prosecution. That is attached to the\n\n1 Trustee's reply as Exhibit 3.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Both of the objectors also appeared on a master service list created in connection with New York State Court assignment for the benefit of creditors proceedings for the HCHK entities. On this list they are listed as using a common email address that is [mosfoundation2064@gmail.com.](mailto:mosfoundation2064@gmail.com) That master service list is Exhibit 5 to the Trustee's reply. The Truste understands the MOS to refer to Mountains of Spices, which is the name of one of the debtors; Himalaya Farms, the Himalaya Farm based in New York. Evidence to that effect is attached to the reply as Exhibit 6, which is the debtors superseding indictment in the criminal case and Exhibit 7, an order by the criminal Court admitting certain co-conspirator statements.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The District Court in the debtors criminal cases determined that Mr. Yong Ben Zon (phonetic), a name of which the Court is now well familiar, was the \"legal group\" leader of the Mountains of Spices farm. As discussed in footnote 3 of the Trustee's replay, Mr. Zon was also co-counsel with the objectors counsel, Mr. Freeth, in frivolous litigation filed against the Trustee and his law firm as well as counsel for Pak. Finally, objector Jong is listed as a member of HGA Property Operation LLC, the company formed and managed by another of the debtors supporters, Ms. Kim Lee, for the purpose of paying expenses related to the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 As a matter of procedure, the objectors did not request to meet and confer with the Trustee regarding the Rule 2004 motion either before or after objecting to the motion. In light of the numerous connections between the debtor and the objectors, the request for sanctions in the objection is frivolous.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The Trustee sets out case law in his reply to the objection discussing that Rule 2004 authorizes broad discovery likened to a Court sanctioned fishing expedition; however, as the Trustee's reply should make clear, there is more then ample evidence and cause to specifically warrant an investigation of the objectors connections to the debtor, and his associated entities and individuals such that the Trustee's motion far exceeds the showing required to undertake a Rule 2004 investigation.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 Otherwise, the Trustee's motion, Rule 2004 motion, was timely served. The Trustee's certificate of service is filed at ECF No. 3610. The Trustee thus requests that the Court overrule the objection, grant the Trustee's Rule 2004 motion and I would be happy to answer any questions. THE COURT: So, you didn't have any discussions\n\n22 23 with Attorney Freeth? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Just give me one moment, please.\n\n| 1 | (Pause) |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 2 | THE
COURT:
So,
the
proposed order I
am looking |\n| 3 | at, and maybe there is a newer one and I
might be looking at |\n| 4 | the
wrong one, it doesn't
recite anything about the motion to |\n| 5 | quash or that a hearing was scheduled on this and, obviously, |\n| 6 | whether its granted or denied, right.
So, I
think we need to |\n| 7 | do that.
You need to have an order because
they're going -- |\n| 8 | you know, you need to --
otherwise, they may file another |\n| 9 | motion with
regard to a subpoena
I
suppose because
you |\n| 10 | haven't issued the subpoena
yet, right? |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your
Honor. |\n| 12 | THE
COURT:
So,
hold on one second, please. |\n| 13 | Again, just looking at -- |\n| 14 | (Pause) |\n| 15 | THE
COURT:
So, I
am looking
at the docket but I |\n| 16 | missed it for whatever reason.
I am not sure why. |\n| 17 | MR. LINSEY:
Is Your
Honor looking for something |\n| 18 | specific on the
docket? |\n| 19 | THE
COURT:
I was looking for the objection. |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
I believe
its at ECF No. 3649.
There |\n| 21 | were two.
There was an original
and then -- |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
I see it.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | So, on October 8th Attorney Richard N. Freeth, as |\n| 24 | attorneys for Bofang Investment LLC and Fabo Jong, filed an |\n| 25 | opposition
to the
seventeenth supplemental
omnibus motion and |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 23 of 39\n\n23\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 further discovery and cross-motion to quash subpoena which is ECF 3649 as you stated. Thank you. I just couldn't find it. I was looking in -- I don't know where I was, but I wasn't at the right place of the almost 3,700 ECF numbers. The objection says that Mr. Yang, the individual movant, does not have any firsthand knowledge regarding the debtors business or any materially relevant information regarding Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy estate. He says he has joined the whistleblower movement. Has no financial\n\n10 11 12 13 transactions. He and the corporate entity have had no financial transactions with Mr. Kwok. And the movants should be awarded attorneys fees and costs. That is the sanction that they are seeking.\n\n14 15 16 17 Counsel is not here today to prosecute that opposition and that cross motion to quash and for sanctions. I don't know why. This was his -- his opposition was dated October 8th.\n\n18 19 MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. This matter was noticed for a hearing at 3727.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, it was actually twice the same day because there was just a typographical error in the first one, but on October 18th a notice of hearing was issued with regard to the Trustee's seventeenth omnibus motion for Rule 2004 examinations. Sitting today, November 5th, at 1 p.m., is the hearing on the seventeenth omnibus motion for\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 examination after the opposition was filed by Attorney Freeth. I am just looking for the service of the notice of hearing, Attorney Linsey. Well, Attorney Freeth would have gotten it regardless because he has an appearance in the main case on behalf of these two entities. MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, Attorney Freeth would have received a notice of electronic filing of the notice of hearing. MR. LINSEY: I would note, Honor, that the notice of hearing provides that if the Court is to consider any response to the above mentioned matters, which include the seventeenth Rule 2004 motion, then the party or its counsel must be in attendance at this hearing date and absent such attendance the Court may decide that the party does not oppose the relief in the above referenced matter which, again, includes the Rule 2004 motion. THE COURT: Counsel for the objecting parties is not in attendance. With regard to the Trustee's motion, seventeenth supplemental omnibus motion, for an entry of an order under Rule 2004 with respect to additional parties, including additional banks, and the subpoenas issued in connection with that the Court grants the Trustee's seventeenth supplemental omnibus motion and finds wholly\n\n24\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 unpersuasive the objection filed by Attorney Freeth on behalf of his two clients not only because the facts don't support - - it doesn't matter whether Mr. Jong and Bofang Investments have any material -- what they claim is material information regarding the debtor, the Trustee and part of his investigation is entitled to take the Rule 2004 examination, subpoena those documents, and the movants shall comply to the extent that they are able to comply. Rule 2004, as you correctly noted, is a broad discovery device that is available under the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure and I am unpersuaded by the objection.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, the proposed order, as I said, Attorney Linsey, does not note, because it wasn't filed until after, the objection and the fact that there was a hearing today and that he didn't appear. So, I would like you to revise that proposed order to include those facts; the fact that there was an objection filed that a notice of hearing was issued, that counsel for the objecting parties did not appear at the hearing, okay, and that a motion to quash -- cross motion to quash is denied, okay, because right now the order doesn't say any of those things and I think it's important for the record to do that. Obviously, you couldn't have done that at the time when you filed the motion because you didn't know there was going to be an objection filed but I would like the proposed order to be revised to address those issues.\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 MR. LINSEY: Understood. We will have that - would Your Honor like that to be filed or would Your Honor like that to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy? THE COURT: You can email that to the Courtroom Deputy. It does not need to be filed. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, do you think that is something you might have completed by Friday? I would like to give the Clerk's Office a date so they are looking for the order. MR. LINSEY: We will have it in by tomorrow, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So, then the Rule 2004 examination is granted. The cross motion to quash the subpoena and for sanctions is denied. The revised proposed order will be submitted on or before November 8th. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Trustee Despins, what would you like to have the Court address next? MR. DESPINS: I will handle the rest of the matters, Your Honor. And the first one on my list is the retention of James Morgan as King Counsel in the BVI. May I approach?\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3816
Filed 11/13/24
Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47
Page 27 of 39 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 27 |\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
Yes. Thank you. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
For the record
Luc Despins, Chapter |\n| 3 | 11 Trustee. |\n| 4 | On October 15th, Your
Honor,
Docket 3701, we filed |\n| 5 | a motion to retain Mr. Morgan as King's Counsel. He is a |\n| 6 | Barrister in the
BVI. As you know, the UK system we need a |\n| 7 | Solicitor and
a Barrister.
Because
we are getting into a |\n| 8 | heavier litigation
phase in the BVI with
respect to K Legacy, |\n| 9 | you know, that is the alleged owner of the London apartment, |\n| 10 | we need his assistance
and
that is why we filed the |\n| 11 | application.
We are asking for the retention to be effective |\n| 12 | as of September 16th which
is the day that he started working |\n| 13 | on this matter, Your
Honor.
We also filed at 3779 an amended |\n| 14 | proposed order to delete the reference
to Section 328. |\n| 15 | That is all I
have, Your
Honor,
on this issue. It |\n| 16 | should
be a pretty routine retention
but we, unfortunately, |\n| 17 | need his services because there is more litigation activity |\n| 18 | in the BVI. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Understood.
Does anyone else wish to |\n| 20 | be heard? |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Holley Claiborn for the U.S. |\n| 22 | Trustee. |\n| 23 | The
U.S. Trustee has no objection. I filed a |\n| 24 | statement so reflecting at ECF 3749.
That statement
did |\n| 25 | reference
the
need to remove the reference
to Section 328 in |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n 28 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 order and that has been done. So, with that the U.S. Trustee has no issues. THE COURT: So, which order am I -- just so I make sure I am looking at the right order. MS. CLAIBORN: I think it's 3779. MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Just give me one moment, please. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. I am looking at the proposed order, ECF No. 3779, granting the application for the entry of an order authoring and approving retention and employment of James Morgan as Barrister in British Virgin Islands. I have reviewed the terms and conditions of the order and they all appear to be fine to the Court. No one has filed any written objection to the application filed by the Trustee. There is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the application filed by the Trustee and the United States Trustees Office has filed a statement of no objection with a change to the proposed order that has been made. So, for all of those reasons the application to employ is granted and the proposed order will be entered. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 28 of 39\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the next and I think last matter on the agenda is a motion for entry of a default judgment in an adversary proceeding. So, this is Adversary Proceeding No. 24-05238. It was commenced on February 15th and it's an adversary proceedings against the debtors son, Qiang Guo, that seeks upwards of \\$90 million in fraudulent transfers; however, the relief we are seeking today is only related to \\$20 million of that \\$90 million because that was made by an entity that the Court has already found to be an alter-ego of the debtor. That entity being Lamp Capital.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So, we filed the motion for entry of a default judgment on October 11th. On October 16th, at Docket 21, we filed a certificate of service of the motion on Mr. Guo and also his counsel. You know, given that this is a default motion, Your Honor, for entry of a default judgment I am not going to go through in detail all the elements but I would start by saying that the case law on this is clear which is the Court in a default context, a default judgment context is required to accept all of the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the moving party which is the trustee here.\n\n23 24 25 The elements of the complaint are fairly simply which is that there was a transfer of the debtors property of \\$20 million. It was done in 2021 so, therefore, we did two a\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 year period of the filing of the case. It was done with actual intent by the debtor to defraud his creditors and they're we're relying on the badges of fraud. You know, this is a transfer by the debtor to his son for no consideration. You know, a secret transfer is not disclosed to anyone. So, all the badges of fraud are all there stated in our memorandum of law in support of our motion. So, they are all addressed therein.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 So, there is no real debate here. The issue I wanted to address is the fact that this is part of a larger complaint and as you know, under Rule 54(b) the Court needs to make a finding that there is no just reason for delay. This is what I want to address, why are we doing this. Why not just wait until all these adversary proceedings are heard all at the same time or sort of at the same time. The reason is that there is a critical need for us to obtain this now because we are, obviously, asserting claims abroad in many jurisdictions against the debtors son.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There is a huge difference between showing up in a Court to say, hey, we believe we have claims against that person and we have -- in contrast we have a Court order, it's a default judgment but that says he owes us \\$20 million. That is why we are doing this now because it is critical for us given the posture of the case and our efforts to recover money from the debtors son on the international scene to have\n\n1 that order entered in the case.\n\n| 2 | So, essentially, that is why we are doing this. |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | So, that is why we believe
its appropriate for the Court to |\n| 4 | address that relief separately
then the
other \\$70 million of |\n| 5 | fraudulent transfers that we allege in this complaint. |\n| 6 | THE
COURT:
The
other transfers that you allege, |\n| 7 | are they also in the first and second counsel
to complaint. |\n| 8 | The
reason I
am asking is I
understand what you are asking me |\n| 9 | but I
think the order might need to be --
first of all, we |\n| 10 | have to make sure that the judgment that you are seeking, the |\n| 11 | default judgment of \\$20,070,000 is in the first and second |\n| 12 | count of the complaint. I believe it is. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
It is, yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
But that there are no other
--
if |\n| 15 | there are other transfers in those sections,
we
may have to |\n| 16 | make that a little
bit more specific, number one. |\n| 17 | Number two, with
regard to your correct assertion |\n| 18 | about Rule 54, I
think you have to say something
in this |\n| 19 | order about that there is no just cause for delay of the |\n| 20 | entry of this judgment because
its not a complete judgement, |\n| 21 | right? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
In the order --
I
think the |\n| 23 | order
is fairly specific, Your
Honor,
but, obviously, we -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I don't
think
it has those words those |\n| 25 | of Rule 54. |\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 MR. DESPINS: No, no. On this issue you are absolutely right. I was going back to the other issue which is the fact that there are other counts in count two of the complaint but we refer to specifically certain of these transfers. THE COURT: That's fine. I just want to make sure that that is -- MR. DESPINS: So, we need to add some language about there is no just cause. THE COURT: I think you have to, unfortunately, or it won't -- there could be a -- I understand the reason why you would like the Court to find that there is no reason to delay the entry of the judgment in this case, that being that you are -- part of your duties as the Chapter 11 Trustee involved in proceedings in the United States and outside of the United States to try to recover assets of the estate and this order will help you do so or at least make arguments that you might not, otherwise, be able to make without this order. So, with regard to the federal rules I do make that finding that there is no just reason for delay. I am expressly determining that on the record and you will put that in the order under Rule 54(b). But with regard to the default judgment itself I have not seen any written objection to the entry of the default judgment. I know that the rules,\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, do not require service of a default judgment on a defendant who has been defaulted but I believe you attempted -- you did make service of this motion on the defendant. No one has filed any appearance on behalf of the defendant, no one has filed any written objection on behalf of the defendant, and there is no one participating in this hearing today that is appearing on behalf of the defendant.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I find that, as noted, I have to review the allegations in the complaint in the same way you would view a motion to dismiss that they meet the elements of the cause of action on which the Court enters judgment and I find that the supporting material that was submitted and the effect of the default on the allegations in the complaint form the basis for the entry of a judgment on the first and second counts of the complaint with regard to the \\$20,070,000 in transfers that you have alleged in the complaint.\n\n19 20 21 So, for all those reasons the motion for default judgment is granted and then I would just need a revised proposed order.\n\n22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. I wanted to address one issue which we would request that the Court modify our proposed order slightly and that is the issue of service. In the motion, itself, and the memorandum has\n\n1 2 3 4 5 extensive discussions of this but the order was a bit cryptic because we say that, you know, he was properly served under Bankruptcy Rule 7004, 7005, in the Hague Convention, but we want to add, and if I could approach the bench to give you, a version of the modified --\n\nTHE COURT: Sure. Thank you.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's on the second page. Basically, we have added because he was served in accordance with Rule 6.92 of the English Civil Procedure Rules at the address at the London apartment, we added that because in foreign jurisdiction, you know, to the extent there are any questions about service we want to make sure that this issue has been addressed. So, you might say, well, how do I know that what Rule 6.9 of the English Rules provided we have - you know, obviously, these are public rules, but we have kind of a short extract of those rules that if I may approach, I can give to the Court.\n\n18\n\n6\n\nTHE COURT: Yes. Thank you.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, that extract, obviously, contains a reference to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f) to the Hague Convention itself, but then to Section 6.9 which provides that when you are serving an individual you can serve it at his usual or last known residence. So, that is why we wanted to have this reference because that is on that basis that we are serving him.\n\n| 1 | I don't
think its an issue.
We are not --
we are |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | kind of cryptic about this and I
don't
want
a foreign Court, |\n| 3 | to the
extent
its ever confronted or presented with
this |\n| 4 | order, to have any doubts as to Your
Honor finding that there |\n| 5 | was proper service from the
US point
of view
of this. |\n| 6 | THE
COURT:
I don't
even think service needs to be |\n| 7 | made though, but I
-- |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
We're talking about the
service of |\n| 9 | the
complaint, Your
Honor. |\n| 10 | THE
COURT:
Oh, I
see where you are in Paragraph |\n| 11 | 2, yes.
Well, I
would
have had to have found
that anyway in |\n| 12 | order to enter the default. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
You would, but -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I understand what you are saying and, |\n| 15 | obviously, you have
counsel
in the
United Kingdom who has |\n| 16 | reviewed all this information as well. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct, Your
Honor.
So, I |\n| 18 | understand
that we need to make certain changes
to the
order |\n| 19 | but we wanted
you to have
this and understand why
we were |\n| 20 | seeking that modification
as well because
you were making |\n| 21 | that finding anyway, but now you are making it with
more |\n| 22 | information or more description, a better description
of
why |\n| 23 | you are doing that.
So,
we will submit a revised order.
We |\n| 24 | can do that tomorrow, Your
Honor.
It shouldn't
be a problem. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then for the reasons that |\n\n| 1 | we just
discussed on the
record and upon my review of the |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | adversary proceeding, the
default that is already entered, |\n| 3 | the motion for default judgment, and
the attachments thereto, |\n| 4 | and the memorandum of law, the motion for default judgment is |\n| 5 | granted
and revised proposed order will be submitted I
will |\n| 6 | just say on or before Friday,
but I
know you will probably -- |\n| 7 | you have
indicated that you would like to get it in before |\n| 8 | Friday and that is fine. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your
Honor.
Thank you very |\n| 10 | much. |\n| 11 | THE
COURT:
Thank you.
Now the
only thing is |\n| 12 | Attorney Baranowsky is still here. We have a hearing |\n| 13 | tomorrow, is that correct, on the
motion to quash. Is that |\n| 14 | still proceeding? |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:
That
is, Your
Honor.
I was going to |\n| 16 | bring it up as a housekeeping matter actually. |\n| 17 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your
Honor.
Trustee's |\n| 19 | counsel just wanted to note that we have been in touch with |\n| 20 | Ms. Baranowsky and her partner, Mr. Sklarz, regarding the |\n| 21 | hearing tomorrow. We understand that its acceptable to the |\n| 22 | Trustee and acceptable to G
Club to, if the
Court is willing, |\n| 23 | have that hearing occur on
a remote basis by Zoo. |\n| 24 | THE
COURT:
Yes.
The
Court is willing. |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your
Honor. |\n\n1 2 THE COURT: For that one matter tomorrow. So, we will hold the 1 p.m. hearing tomorrow.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorney Baranowsky, I think you do know as well, just contact the Courtroom Deputy for the information for the hearing and, Attorney Linsey, you are aware of that as well. With regard to next week, on the 12th, I am still not clear whether or not I will physically be in this courtroom; however, everything on the calendar are applications for compensation. What I have been doing in some cases that are not even Chapter 11 cases, if there is no objection filed to the application for compensation and the United States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection which I think the United States Trustee's Office has with regard to a number of these, if not all, then I will likely -- there will likely be a docket entry that the hearing will not be held and the Court will review the submissions and enter an appropriate order unless Trustee Despins you would like to proceed in a different way. MR. DESPINS: Not necessary, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. I just wanted to note that for the record. Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I just rise to let the Court know that I have filed a statement with respect to each\n\n of the fee applications that are on. THE COURT: I thought you did, but I wasn't a hundred percent sure. MS. CLAIBORN: So, they are all complete. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much for noting that for the record. So, the likelihood is that those matters will be reviewed on the submissions and then appropriate orders will enter. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Not for us. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all. That is the last matter on the calendar today, so Court is -- (Proceedings concluded at 2:02 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 38 of 39\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3816 | Filed 11/13/24 | Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 | | Page 39 of 39 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------|---------------------------|--|-------------------|\n| | | | | | | 39 |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | | |\n| 2 | I
certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | | |\n| 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | | | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | /s/ William J. Garling | | | | November 11, 2024 |\n| 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | | |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | |\n| 10 | For Reliable | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n| 21
22 | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n（合并管理）\n\n债务人。\n\n法庭 123\n\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布莱恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\n\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n2024年11月5日，星期二\n\n下午 1:05\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前举行的听证会记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\n\nPatrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）律师\n\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n\n195 Church Street\n\n13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）律师\n\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n音频操作员：\n\n电子录音\n\n记录公司：\n\nReliable\n\nThe Nemours Building\n\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\n\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n\n电话：(302)654-8080\n\n电子邮件：[gmatthews@reliable-co.com]\n\n庭审程序以电子录音方式记录，庭审记录由记录服务机构制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 1 of 39\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 2 of 39\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、V.X. Cerda & Associates（V.X. Cerda 律师事务所）、The Francis Law Firm PLLC（弗朗西斯律师事务所）、Berkeley Rowe Limited（伯克利·罗律师事务所）、Weddle Law PLLC（韦德尔律师事务所）及 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）：\n\nKellianne Baranowsky（凯莉安·巴拉诺夫斯基）律师\n\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC\n\nOne Audubon Street\n\n3rd Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n代表 3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号）、Baron Yachts（巴伦游艇公司）、ModSquad, Inc.、Mercedes Benz Manhattan New York（纽约曼哈顿梅赛德斯-奔驰）及 Philip Eisner（菲利普·艾斯纳）：\n\nMatthew A. Pesce（马修·A·佩谢）律师\n\nMURTHA CULLINA, LLP\n\n107 Elm Street\n\n11th Floor\n\nStamford, Connecticut 06902\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）律师\n\n美国受托人办公室\n\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n\n150 Court Street, Room 302\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 3 of 39\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #31：由 Jeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）代表被告 Aaron Mitchell 提交的、请求在法院就驳回动议作出决定前中止证据开示的动议 6\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #22：由 Jeffrey M. Sklarz 代表被告 V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A. 提交的、请求在法院就驳回动议作出决定前中止证据开示的动议\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #25：由 Jeffrey M. Sklarz 代表被告 The Francis Firm PLLC 提交的、请求在法院就驳回动议作出决定前中止证据开示的修正动议\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #31：由 Jeffrey M. Sklarz 代表被告 Berkeley Rowe Limited 提交的、请求在被告对修正诉状作出答复前中止程序的动议\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #30：由 Jeffrey M. Sklarz 代表被告 Weddle Law PPLC 提交的、请求在法院就驳回动议作出决定前中止证据开示的动议\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #35：由 Jeffrey M. Sklarz 代表被告 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 及 Aaron Mitchell 提交的、请求在法院就驳回动议作出决定前中止证据开示的动议\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #3659：由 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的、通过暂时中止证据开示并答复特定撤销权被告所提中止证据开示动议以修正撤销权程序及调解程序命令的动议\n\n法院裁定：16\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #3594：由 Kari A. Mitchell（卡里·A·米切尔）代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的、请求对与债务人有关联的额外实体及个人以及额外相关银行进行 2004 审查的动议（第十七次综合动议）\n\n法院裁定：24\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #3701：由 Luc A. Despins 代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的、申请聘用 James Morgan（詹姆斯·摩根）担任英属维尔京群岛出庭律师的申请\n\n法院裁定：28\n\n事项\n\n(HY) #17：由 Patrick R. Linsey 代表原告 Luc A. Despins 根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (b)(2) 及 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 针对 Qiang Guo（郭强）申请法院作出缺席判决的动议\n\n法院裁定：32\n\n记录员证明 39\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 4 of 39\n\n（庭审于下午 1:05 开始。）\n\n书记员：\n\n22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n24-05110，Despins v. Mitchell。\n\n24-05134，Despins v. V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.\n\n24-50168，Despins v. The Francis Firm PLLC。\n\n24-05186，Despins v. Berkeley Rowe Limited。\n\n24-05188，Despins v. Weddle Law PLLC。\n\n24-05199，Despins v. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 等人。\n\n24-05238，Despins v. Guo。\n\n法院：\n\n下午好。请先由第 11 章受托人开始，为记录在案说明出庭情况。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n\n下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第 11 章受托人。\n\n法院：\n\n下午好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，来自 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith，代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n法院：\n\n下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n\n下午好。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法院：\n\n下午好。法庭内还有其他人要说明出庭情况吗？\n\nBARANOWSKY 女士：\n\n下午好，法官阁下。Kellianne Baranowsky，来自 Green & Sklarz，代表对抗程序被告 Aaron Mitchell、V.X. Cerda & Associates、The Francis Law Firm PLLC、Berkeley Rowe Limited、Weddle Law PLLC 及 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC。\n\n法院：\n\n下午好。\n\nBARANOWSKY 女士：\n\n下午好。\n\nPESCE 先生：\n\n下午好，法官阁下。Matthew Pesce，代表 3 Columbus Circle、Baron Yachts、ModSquad, Inc.、Mercedes of New York——抱歉，Mercedes Benz Manhattan New York——以及 Philip Eisner。\n\n法院：\n\n下午好。好的。Despins 受托人，今天日程上有若干事项。我想您应当已考虑好希望如何进行。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n\n是的，法官阁下。林赛先生将处理证据开示中止及相关事项，因为这涉及法庭内的大多数人，之后我们将处理其他事项。\n\n法院：\n\n好的。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法院：\n\n可以。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n谢谢。受托人已在撤销权诉讼中申请暂时中止证据开示，即在法院解决联合书面陈述问题之前；对于任何已提出驳回动议的非调解被告，则在法院解决该驳回动议之前中止证据开示。\n\n首先，受托人指出，就绝大多数撤销权请求而言，证据开示已被中止；这是因为这些请求要么已经进入调解，要么属于完全中止清单，即现行程序命令的附件 3-A。因此，我们在这里实际讨论的是约四十余名撤销权被告这一有限子集。因此，就实际影响而言，受托人寻求的救济范围有限。大体上，这些被告均在现行程序命令的附件 4 清单中；即，对于少数受影响的被告，我们并未自动将其移送调解。他们是提出动议请求免于调解的被告，法院已准许该请求。\n\n在此暂时中止证据开示有若干适当理由。首先，法院对联合书面陈述问题以及驳回动议中提出的问题所作的裁定，可能使某些证据开示不再必要。作为实际问题，受托人认为，法院对这些问题的解决很可能促成部分撤销权请求的和解。此外，存在争议的法律问题，法院对其进行处理后，可能导致撤销权诉讼中证据开示的事项范围缩小。\n\n此外，受托人指出，涉及撤销权请求的证据开示中很可能存在一些共同问题。虽然受托人认识到需要迅速推进这些请求，但也认识到存在规模经济，并且在效率显现时，应予以追求。因此，受托人认为，适宜在有限期间内等待，以便有足够数量的撤销权被告进入证据开示阶段，从而在可行的范围内追求效率及共同的证据开示做法——即，您知道，在此类做法可用的情况下。\n\n受托人在与非调解被告的律师协商后提交了该动议。某些非调解被告自身也提交了寻求此项救济的动议。事实上，在受托人提交寻求以更全面范围获得此项救济的动议之前，其他人已作出保留权利的答复，表示其不反对所请求的救济。撤销权被告在这些提交文件中所称的各种事项，有些是受托人不同意的；但是，由于对于最终救济并无分歧，受托人不会为争辩而提出这些问题。\n\n受托人已审阅——哦，受托人还要指出，受托人已遵守法院关于通知的命令，使所有已出庭的撤销权被告均获送达受托人请求中止证据开示的动议以及法院就该动议安排听证会的命令。受托人通过在所有未决撤销权诉讼中提交这些文件完成了该事项；通过 ECF，这导致所有已出庭的撤销权被告均被送达这些文件。\n\n法院：\n\n我在这里打断您一下。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n\n这可能并不像我们都认为的那样自动。今天上午在其他听证中发生了一些情况，我认为在本案及这些对抗程序中可能确实如此，但显然，当您或任何律师或 ECF 文件提交人同意成为 ECF 文件提交人时，您可以选择何时取得放置在案卷上的实际文件，是自动取得，还是在次日午夜通过一份报告取得；坦率地说，我此前完全不知道这一点属实。因此，当您说“自动”时，那是我相信并一直相信其运作方式，即使我们有另一个或更多电子邮箱来接收提交文件；但显然，ECF 文件提交人可以选择是否通过该自动 NEF 自动取得本案中提交的任何文件，或者在当天稍后通过一份与该 ECF 文件提交人账户有关的所有事项报告取得该文件。\n\n所以，我唯一想说的是，当您说“自动”时，显然并不是。我今天才了解到这一点。这与本案无关。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n感谢您提供该信息，法官阁下。我对此毫不知情。\n\n法院：\n\n我对此也毫不知情。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n有些日子，我可能希望不要每次都收到电子邮件。\n\n法院：\n\n显然，您可以这样做。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n但对于某些事项，知道它们提交的那一刻是很有益的。\n\n法院：\n\n是的，我此前从不知道您可以——嗯，那样说并不公平。我知道可以通过报告汇集事项，但我认为那也与您作为 ECF 文件提交人的任何案件中会收到的 NEF 相互独立且有所区别。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n\n它不是自动的。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n\n好的，正是出于此类技术原因，我至少努力准确说明我们送达通知的方式。因此，希望我已经做到了。\n\n法院：\n\n嗯，它是通过 NEF 自动送达的，但收件人何时收到它，取决于——\n\n最终将处理收件人问题，但我只是想让您知悉这一点。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。除非法院有任何问题，否则受托人请求该动议被——哦，受托人还有一件事要补充。该命令中设有一项安全阀，载于命令第4段，允许任何对抗程序的一方在说明理由后，请求准许在该对抗程序中进行证据开示。鉴于无人知晓可能出现何种会影响任何待决撤销诉讼的情形。\n\n法院：请稍等。让我看一下。第4段？\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：“任何撤销诉讼的一方，均可通过在该诉讼中提出动议并陈述理由，请求解除该诉讼中的证据开示中止。”这就是您所说的安全阀吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。关于您代表受托人提交的这项动议，我没有看到对该命令提出的任何书面异议。我看到了如您完全正确地指出、由被告人在受托人动议之前提交的中止动议，但是，据您所知，是否有对该动议提出的任何书面异议？\n\n法院：案件 22-50073，文书 3816，提交于 11/13/24，录入于 11/13/24 14:24:47，第12页，共39页。\n\nLINSEY先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nLINSEY先生：有一些性质上为保留权利的答复，但没有异议。\n\n法院：那些性质上为保留权利的答复，是在主案、对抗程序，还是两者中提交的？我不确定，所以才问这个问题。\n\nLINSEY先生：据我所知，它们是在——\n\n法院：我认为两者中都有。\n\nLINSEY先生：两者中可能都有。我随身携带的副本是在主案中。\n\n法院：所以，我现在问您的问题只是程序性的，因为我想您已经回答过了，但我只是想确保我理解了您的回答。关于这项通过暂时中止证据开示而进一步修改撤销及调解程序命令的动议，显然，该动议是在主案中提交的，因为撤销程序命令是在主案中提交并在主案中管理的。您还说，随后您在与这项暂时中止动议相关的每一项对抗程序中提交了一份通知或类似文件，是否正确？\n\nLINSEY先生：正确，法官阁下。受托人既提交了该动议的通知，也在法院就该动议安排听证后，提交了已安排听证的通知。我所说的“通知”，实际上只是一页纸，说明该文件已在主案中提交，并附上实质性提交文件。\n\n法院：明白。这正是我以为您所说的内容。我只是想确保我理解了您所说的内容，因为我此前不确定。我知道您过去曾这样做：若主案中提交了一项命令、动议或其他影响对抗程序的文件，就会在各对抗程序中提交通知，实质上是告知每一对抗程序中的相关人员已经发生了什么，如有需要，可回到主案中查阅。\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。而且，受托人的意图是，在就该动议作出任何命令后，在——提交，您知道，同样的一页纸，即“见所附命令”，该命令已在主案中作出，以便所有撤销诉讼中均已完成通知。\n\n法院：明白。因此，受托人在主案中提交的这项动议，即3659，显然涉及代表BARANOWSKY律师客户提交的所有中止动议，而这些中止动议也都安排于今日审理，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 3816，提交于 11/13/24，录入于 11/13/24 14:24:47，第14页，共39页。\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。其涵盖所有这些被告。\n\n法院：BARANOWSKY律师是否已经看过这份拟议命令？您没有——显然，我将听取您的意见，BARANOWSKY律师，因为有六项中止动议，或者七项中止动议——其中六项由您提交。我想确保该命令实现您认为应当实现的效果。\n\n我知道我们大约一周前讨论过此事，因为我们认为受托人的动议可能会使这些在对抗程序中提交的中止动议失去实际意义；在这些对抗程序中，SKLARZ律师和BARANOWSKY律师代理被告，且这些案件今日列入日程。案号为24-05110、24-05134、24-05168、24-05186、24-05188和24-05199。\n\n因此，我将听取BARANOWSKY律师的意见，以确保我们对这份拟议命令没有问题，LINSEY律师，好吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nBARANOWSKY女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。代表该客户群体——如果可以使用这个简称的话——\n\n法院：当然。\n\nBARANOWSKY女士：——在已提交中止证据开示动议的六方中，我们不反对受托人通过修改命令所寻求的救济。如LINSEY律师所指出，对于该命令最终将提供的救济不存在分歧，该救济也与我们在中止动议中所请求的内容相一致。\n\n我确实想代表已申请中止证据开示的客户，以及代表我们所代理且受调解程序命令约束的所有客户指出一点：为澄清起见，我们确实不同意该动议中就法院迄今作出的各种认定以及这些认定对对抗程序被告的适用性所作的某些陈述；但是，我们承认，那些仅是受托人在动议中的陈述，并不等同于法院的认定。\n\n我们只是想为记录明确说明，我们的立场是保留对受托人就那些陈述所持立场提出异议的一切权利；但最终，我们同意所请求的救济。至于法院是认定该命令使这些动议失去实际意义，还是认定应当准许中止动议，因为中止救济已被命令，我将此交由法院酌定。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nBARANOWSKY女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：LINSEY律师，您有任何回应吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：没有，法官阁下，受托人对此没有异议。\n\n法院：还有其他人希望就修改撤销及调解程序命令的动议发表意见吗？\n\n（无口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。我已审阅受托人的动议，也已审阅法院刚才在记录中列举的六项对抗程序中提交的中止动议。大约一周前的一次听证会上——抱歉，我目前不记得具体是哪一天——这个问题被提出，SKLARZ律师、DESPINS受托人和BASSETT律师都在场，我们在今天听证会之前就该问题作了总体讨论。我理解受托人为修改撤销程序命令并暂时中止证据开示所寻求的内容。我也理解被告人为中止证据开示所寻求的内容。鉴于目前事项所处的阶段，以及从程序上看撤销诉讼命令是通过主案取得并在主案中作出的，我将准许受托人通过暂时中止证据开示而修改撤销及调解程序命令的动议。我将作出拟议命令。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 3816，提交于 11/13/24，录入于 11/13/24 14:24:47，第16页，共39页。\n\n法院：现在，拟议命令是密封提交的，LINSEY律师。我们是否以密封方式提交——是否以密封方式作出该命令？\n\nLINSEY先生：不，法官阁下。我不认为——\n\n法院：哦，它不是密封提交的。那是我的错误。又是一个ECF系统问题，它每天都给本法院带来更多欢乐。\n\nLINSEY先生：我想我知道法官阁下所说的是哪一项问题。\n\n法院：它没有被密封。我面前的副本显示了不正确的内容，但我已阅读您的命令，它是同一份命令。我们讨论过您已经强调的第4段。因此，我们将作出针对3659的拟议命令。请稍等片刻。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：然后，BARANOWSKY律师，我将在所有对抗程序中，因主案中就受托人第3659号动议作出命令，而以失去实际意义为由驳回您的动议。好的。\n\nBARANOWSKY女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。如果任何人只是为了该事项而来，显然可以留下或离开，悉听尊便，但当然无需留下。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 3816，提交于 11/13/24，录入于 11/13/24 14:24:47，第17页，共39页。\n\n法院：DESPINS受托人，您希望如何处理今日日程上的其他事项？\n\nDESPINS先生：还有一项2004规则动议，也将由LINSEY先生处理，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY先生：我可以再次走近吗，法官阁下？\n\n法院：可以，请。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY先生：为记录在案，我是代表第11章受托人的Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）。\n\n法官阁下，我有一份陈述，其中包括对就该动议所提交异议的讨论。我没有看到有人到场推进该异议，但我会予以涵盖；如果法官阁下认为我在任何时候讲得过长，随着我们继续进行，法官阁下可以告诉我。\n\n法院：您与律师进行过沟通吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\nLINSEY先生：法官阁下，这是受托人的第十七项Rule 2004（规则2004）动议，受托人借此请求授权，对若干金融机构进行Rule 2004（规则2004）审查；与债务人有关联的实体和个人在这些金融机构办理过银行业务；此外，还涉及与债务人有联系的一家特定实体和一名特定个人。该实体和个人分别是Bofang Investment LLC（博方投资有限责任公司，音译）和Fabo Jong（法博·钟，音译）。他们是对第十七项Rule 2004（规则2004）动议提出异议的人。\n\n正如受托人在其动议中指出，Bofang是一家曾向债务人的替身实体及其他债务人关联实体转移数百万美元的实体，其中包括HCHK实体和GFNY Inc.（GFNY公司）。正如动议进一步指出，Fabo Jong是一名个人，其曾是与债务人关联的实体HGA的成员，该实体为Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）的费用提供资金；其本人还曾向债务人的替身实体及关联实体转移超过$1 million，其中包括Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）。\n\n基于上述原因，受托人有合理理由相信，Bofang和Jong可能持有与债务人的业务及财务事务相关的信息和文件。该个人和实体均对Rule 2004（规则2004）动议提出异议。受托人就该异议提交了答复，其中列举了大量关于异议人与债务人之间联系的证据。这些证据包括HCHK Technology（HCHK技术公司）和GFNY与债务人关联空壳公司及异议人之间交易的记录，其中一家空壳公司已被裁定为替身实体；该等记录由美国政府在搜查Yvette Wang（王怡薇）公寓时拍摄，并作为证物在债务人的刑事诉讼中被采纳。该材料作为附件3附于受托人的答复。\n\n两名异议人还均出现在一份主送达名单上，该名单系就 HCHK 实体在 New York State Court（纽约州法院）进行的为债权人利益而转让程序而编制。在该名单上，他们被列为使用同一个电子邮箱地址，即 [mosfoundation2064@gmail.com.]。该主送达名单为受托人答复的附件 5。受托人理解，MOS 是指 Mountains of Spices（香料山），即债务人之一；Himalaya Farms（喜马拉雅农场），即位于纽约的 Himalaya Farm。证明此事的证据作为答复的附件 6 和附件 7 附上；附件 6 为债务人在刑事案件中的替代起诉书，附件 7 为刑事法院作出的准许接纳某些共谋者陈述的命令。\n\n债务人刑事案件中的地区法院认定，Yong Ben Zon 先生（永·本·宗，音译）——本院现已十分熟悉该姓名——是 Mountains of Spices 农场“法律组”的负责人。如受托人答复的脚注 3 所述，宗先生还曾与异议人律师 Freeth 先生（弗里思）共同担任律师，代理针对受托人及其律师事务所，以及 Pak 的律师提起的轻率诉讼。最后，异议人 Jong（仲）被列为 HGA Property Operation LLC（HGA物业运营有限责任公司）的成员，该公司由债务人的另一名支持者 Kim Lee 女士（金·李）成立并管理，目的在于支付与 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）有关的费用。\n\n就程序而言，异议人在对该 Rule 2004 动议提出异议之前或之后，均未请求与受托人会面协商。鉴于债务人与异议人之间存在众多关联，异议中提出的制裁请求是轻率的。\n\n受托人在其对异议的答复中列举了判例法，说明 Rule 2004 授权范围广泛的取证，可被比作经法院批准的钓鱼式取证；然而，如受托人的答复应已清楚表明，存在远超过充分的证据和理由，具体支持调查异议人与债务人及其关联实体和个人之间的联系，因此受托人的动议远远超出启动 Rule 2004 调查所需的证明标准。\n\n此外，受托人的 Rule 2004 动议已及时送达。受托人的送达证明已作为 ECF No. 3610 提交。因此，受托人请求法院驳回该异议，准许受托人的 Rule 2004 动议；我很乐意回答任何问题。法官：那么，您没有与 Freeth 律师进行任何讨论？Linsey 先生（林西）：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。请给我一点时间。\n\n（停顿）\n\n法官：那么，我正在查看拟议命令，也许有更新版本，也许我看的不是正确版本；该命令没有载明任何有关撤销动议的内容，也没有载明本事项已安排听证，当然，也没有载明该动议是获准还是驳回，对吗？所以，我认为我们需要这样做。您们需要有一份命令，因为他们将会——您知道，您们需要——否则，我想他们可能会就传票另行提出动议，因为您们尚未发出传票，对吗？Linsey 先生：是的，法官阁下。法官：那么，请稍等一下。再次查看——\n\n（停顿）\n\n法官：那么，我正在查看案卷，但不知为何我错过了它。我不确定原因。Linsey 先生：法官阁下是在案卷中寻找某项具体内容吗？法官：我在找该异议。Linsey 先生：我相信它在 ECF No. 3649。有两份。一份是原始文件，然后——法官：我看到了。谢谢。那么，10月8日，Richard N. Freeth 律师（理查德·N·弗里思）作为 Bofang Investment LLC（博方投资有限责任公司）和 Fabo Jong（法博·仲）的律师，提交了对第十七项补充综合动议及进一步取证的反对意见，并提出撤销传票的交叉动议，即如您所述的 ECF 3649。谢谢。我刚才找不到它。我在——我不知道我刚才在哪里找，但在近 3,700 个 ECF 编号中，我没有找对位置。该异议称，Yang 先生（杨），即个人动议提出人，对债务人的业务或与 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）的破产财产有重大关联的任何信息，均不具有任何第一手了解。他称其已加入举报人运动。不存在任何金融交易。他和该公司实体均未与 Kwok 先生发生任何金融交易。并且，动议提出人应获得律师费和费用。这就是他们请求的制裁。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3816 提交 11/13/24 录入 11/13/24 14:24:47 第 23 页，共 39 页\n\n律师今日未出席，以推进该反对意见、该撤销交叉动议及制裁请求。我不知道原因。这是他的——他的反对意见日期为 10月8日。\n\nLinsey 先生：是的，法官阁下。本事项已在 3727 中通知安排听证。\n\n法官：实际上，同一天曾通知两次，因为第一份中仅有一个排版错误；但在 10月18日，就受托人关于 Rule 2004 审查的第十七项综合动议发出了听证通知。今日，即 11月5日，下午 1 点，在 Freeth 律师提交反对意见后，举行关于第十七项综合审查动议的听证。我正在寻找听证通知的送达情况，Linsey 律师。不过，Freeth 律师无论如何都会收到，因为他代表这两个实体在主案中已提交出庭代理。Linsey 先生：是的，法官阁下。法官：因此，Freeth 律师本应收到听证通知的电子提交通知。Linsey 先生：法官阁下，我要指出，听证通知规定，如法院拟考虑对上述事项的任何答复——其中包括第十七项 Rule 2004 动议——则当事人或其律师必须在该听证日期出席；如未出席，法院可认定该当事人不反对上述所述事项中的救济，其中同样包括 Rule 2004 动议。法官：异议当事人的律师未出席。关于受托人的第十七项补充综合动议，即就包括额外银行在内的其他当事人，根据 Rule 2004 作出命令，以及就此发出的传票，法院准许受托人的第十七项补充综合动议，并认定 Freeth 律师代表其两名客户提交的异议完全没有说服力，不仅因为事实并不支持——Jong 先生和 Bofang Investments 是否拥有其所称的、与债务人有关的重大信息并不重要；受托人作为其调查的一部分，有权进行 Rule 2004 审查、传唤该等文件，且动议提出人应在其能够遵从的范围内遵从。正如您正确指出的，Rule 2004 是《联邦破产程序规则》下可用的广泛取证工具，我不被该异议说服。\n\n现在，如我所述，Linsey 律师，拟议命令没有注明——因为该异议是在之后才提交的——该异议以及今日举行听证且其未出席的事实。因此，我希望您修改该拟议命令，以纳入这些事实；即已提交异议、已发出听证通知、异议当事人的律师未出席听证，好的，并且撤销动议——撤销交叉动议被驳回，好的，因为目前命令没有说明这些内容，我认为为案卷记录而这样做很重要。显然，在您提交动议时，您无法这样做，因为您不知道会提交异议，但我希望修改拟议命令以处理这些问题。\n\nLinsey 先生：明白。我们将会——法官阁下希望将其提交，还是希望通过电子邮件发送给法庭书记员？法官：您可以通过电子邮件发送给法庭书记员。无需提交。Linsey 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法官：那么，您认为您可在星期五之前完成吗？我想给书记官办公室一个日期，以便他们等候该命令。Linsey 先生：我们将在明天之前提交，法官阁下。法官：好的。Linsey 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法官：好的。那么，Rule 2004 审查获准。撤销传票及请求制裁的交叉动议被驳回。修改后的拟议命令将于 11月8日或之前提交。Linsey 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法官：谢谢。Despins 受托人（德斯平斯），您希望法院接下来处理什么事项？Despins 先生：我将处理其余事项，法官阁下。我清单上的第一项是聘任 James Morgan（詹姆斯·摩根）担任 BVI 的御用大律师。我可以上前吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3816 提交 11/13/24 录入 11/13/24 14:24:47\n\n法官：可以。谢谢。Despins 先生：为记录在案，Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人。法官阁下，10月15日，案卷编号 3701，我们提交了一项动议，申请聘任 Morgan 先生为御用大律师。他是 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的出庭大律师。正如您所知，在英国制度下，我们需要一名事务律师和一名出庭大律师。由于我们就 K Legacy（K传承）——即被指称为伦敦公寓所有人的实体——在英属维尔京群岛正进入更为密集的诉讼阶段，我们需要他的协助，这就是我们提交该申请的原因。我们请求该聘任自 9月16日生效，该日是他开始处理本事项的日期，法官阁下。我们还在 3779 提交了一份修改后的拟议命令，以删除对 Section 328 的提及。法官阁下，关于此问题我就这些。这应当是相当常规的聘任，但遗憾的是，由于英属维尔京群岛的诉讼活动更多，我们需要他的服务。法官：明白。还有其他人希望发言吗？Claiborn 女士：Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。美国受托人没有异议。我已在 ECF 3749 提交了一份反映该立场的声明。该声明确实提及需要删除命令中对 Section 328 的提及，而这已经完成。因此，美国受托人对此没有问题。法官：那么，是哪一份命令——只是为了确保我正在看的是正确的命令。Claiborn 女士：我认为是 3779。Despins 先生：正确，法官阁下。法官：好的。请给我一点时间。（停顿）法官：好的。我正在查看拟议命令，ECF No. 3779，该命令准许申请作出命令，授权并批准聘任 James Morgan 为英属维尔京群岛出庭大律师。我已审阅该命令的条款和条件，对法院而言均属适当。没有人就受托人提交的申请提出书面异议。今日参与本听证的任何人均未反对受托人提交的申请，并且 United States Trustee’s Office（美国受托人办公室）已提交无异议声明，其中对拟议命令提出的一项修改已经作出。因此，基于所有上述理由，聘任申请获准，拟议命令将予录入。Despins 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3816 提交 11/13/24 录入 11/13/24 14:24:47 第 28 页，共 39 页\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，议程上的下一项，我认为也是最后一项，是一项请求在对抗程序中作出缺席判决的动议。因此，这是对抗程序案号 24-05238。该程序于 February 15th 提起，是针对债务人之子 Qiang Guo（郭强）的对抗程序，请求追回逾 \\$90 million 的欺诈性转移；但我们今天寻求的救济仅涉及该 \\$90 million 中的 \\$20 million，因为该笔款项由一个本院已认定为债务人替身实体的实体作出。该实体为 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）。\n\n因此，我们于 October 11th 提交了请求作出缺席判决的动议。于 October 16th，在案卷条目 21，我们提交了该动议向 Guo 先生及其律师送达的送达证明。鉴于这是一项缺席动议，法官阁下，一项请求作出缺席判决的动议，我不会详细说明所有要件，但我首先要说的是，关于此问题的判例法很明确，即在缺席情形下、在缺席判决情形下，法院必须将原告的所有事实主张视为真实，并作出有利于动议方的所有合理推断；本案中的动议方即为受托人。\n\n诉状的要件相当简单，即存在一笔 \\$20 million 的债务人财产转移。该转移于 2021 作出，因此是在本案提交前两年期间内作出。该转移由债务人怀有欺诈其债权人的实际意图而作出，而我们所依赖的是欺诈迹象。该转移是债务人向其儿子作出的，未获得任何对价。该秘密转移未向任何人披露。因此，所有欺诈迹象均已在支持我们动议的法律备忘录中列明。故而，其中均已得到说明。\n\n因此，此处并无真正争议。我想处理的问题是，这是更大范围诉状的一部分，如您所知，根据 Rule 54(b)，法院需要作出不存在延迟的正当理由的认定。这正是我想说明的，即我们为何这样做。为何不等到所有这些对抗程序都在同一时间或大致同一时间审理完毕。原因在于，我们现在获得该项救济具有关键必要性，因为我们显然正在多个司法管辖区对债务人之子在境外主张请求权。\n\n到法院出庭并称，嘿，我们认为我们对该人享有请求权，与我们拥有一项法院命令——虽然是一项缺席判决——确认他欠我们 \\$20 million，两者之间存在巨大差别。这正是我们现在这样做的原因，因为鉴于本案的程序状态，以及我们在国际层面向债务人之子追回款项的努力，在本案中作出该项命令对我们至关重要。\n\n本质上，这就是我们这样做的原因。\n\n因此，这就是我们认为法院宜于将该项救济与我们在该诉状中主张的其他 \\$70 million 欺诈性转移分别处理的原因。\n\n法庭：您所主张的其他转移，是否也属于诉状的第一项和第二项罪名项？\n\n我之所以询问，是因为我理解您请求我做什么，但我认为该命令可能需要——首先，我们必须确保您所寻求的 \\$20,070,000 缺席判决，属于诉状的第一项和第二项罪名项。我相信是如此。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，属于。\n\n法庭：但是，如果这些部分中还有其他转移，我们可能需要将其表述得更具体一些，这是第一点。\n\n第二点，关于您对 Rule 54 的正确主张，我认为您必须在该命令中说明，对于作出该判决不存在延迟的正当理由，因为这不是一项完整判决，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。在该命令中——我认为该命令相当具体，法官阁下，但显然我们——\n\n法庭：我认为其中没有 Rule 54 的那些措辞。\n\nDESPINS 先生：没有，没有。关于这一问题，您完全正确。我刚才回到的是另一个问题，即诉状第二项罪名项中还有其他罪名项，但我们具体提及其中某些转移。\n\n法庭：这没有问题。我只是想确保这一点——\n\nDESPINS 先生：因此，我们需要增加一些关于不存在正当延迟理由的措辞。\n\n法庭：我认为不幸的是您必须这样做，否则便不会——可能会有一个——我理解您希望法院认定，本案判决的作出不存在延迟理由，原因在于，作为 Chapter 11 受托人，您的职责之一涉及在美国境内及境外进行程序，以努力追回破产财产，而该命令将有助于您这样做，或者至少使您能够提出若无该命令本无法提出的论点。因此，就联邦规则而言，我作出不存在延迟的正当理由这一认定。我在记录中明确作出该认定，您将根据 Rule 54(b) 将其写入命令中。但是，就缺席判决本身而言，我未见对作出缺席判决提出任何书面异议。我知道，Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）及适用的 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产程序规则》）并不要求向已被缺席的被告送达缺席判决，但我相信您曾尝试——您确实已将该动议送达被告。无人代表被告提交出庭通知，无人代表被告提交书面异议，今日参加本次听证的人员中也无人代表被告出庭。\n\n我认定，如前所述，我必须以审查驳回动议的相同方式审查诉状中的主张，即该等主张满足法院据以作出判决的诉因要件；并且我认定，所提交的支持材料以及缺席对诉状中主张所产生的效力，构成就您在诉状中主张的 \\$20,070,000 转移，对诉状第一项和第二项罪名项作出判决的依据。\n\n因此，基于所有这些理由，准许缺席判决动议，随后我只需要一份经修订的拟议命令。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我想处理一个问题，即我们请求法院对我们的拟议命令作出轻微修改，那就是送达问题。动议本身和备忘录对此有广泛论述，但该命令略显含糊，因为我们称，您知道，他已根据 Bankruptcy Rule 7004、7005 及 Hague Convention（《海牙送达公约》）得到适当送达，但我们希望增加一些内容；如果我可以到审判席前，我可以向您提交一份修改后的版本——\n\n法庭：当然。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，在第二页。基本上，我们增加了以下内容：由于根据 English Civil Procedure Rules（《英格兰民事诉讼规则》）Rule 6.92 向其伦敦公寓地址进行了送达，我们增加了这一点，因为在外国司法管辖区，您知道，如果对送达有任何疑问，我们希望确保该问题已得到处理。因此，您可能会说，我怎么知道 English Rules 的 Rule 6.9 所规定的内容；我们已经——您知道，显然这些是公开规则，但我们有一份这些规则的简短摘录，如获准到审判席前，我可以将其交给法院。\n\n法庭：可以。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，该摘录显然提及 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f) 及 Hague Convention 本身，但随后提及 Section 6.9，其规定，在向个人送达时，可以在其通常住所或最后已知住所进行送达。因此，这就是我们希望加入该引用的原因，因为我们正是在该基础上向其送达。\n\n我不认为这是一个问题。我们并非——我们对此表述得有些含糊，我不希望任何外国法院，在其日后面对或被提交该命令的情况下，对法官阁下认定从美国角度而言已完成适当送达存有任何疑问。\n\n法庭：不过，我甚至不认为需要进行送达，但是我——\n\nDESPINS 先生：我们说的是诉状的送达，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：哦，我明白您在 Paragraph 2 所指的内容了，是的。无论如何，为作出缺席判决，我本来就必须作出该项认定。\n\nDESPINS 先生：您必须作出，但——\n\n法庭：我理解您的意思，而且显然，您在 United Kingdom（英国）的律师也审查了所有这些信息。\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。因此，我理解我们需要对命令作出某些修改，但我们希望您掌握这些材料，并理解我们为何也寻求该项修改，因为您无论如何都在作出该项认定，但现在您是在掌握更多信息或更多说明的情况下作出认定，对您为何这样做作出了更好的说明。因此，我们将提交一份经修订的命令。我们明天就可以提交，法官阁下。这应当不会有问题。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，基于我们刚才在记录中讨论的理由，并经我审查该对抗程序、已作出的缺席、缺席判决动议及其附件，以及法律备忘录，准许缺席判决动议，并将提交经修订的拟议命令。我只说最迟于 Friday 提交，但我知道您可能——您已表示希望在 Friday 之前提交，这没有问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。非常感谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。现在唯一的问题是，Baranowsky 律师（巴拉诺夫斯基律师）仍在场。我们明天就撤销动议举行听证，对吗？仍将继续进行吗？\n\nLINSEY 先生：是的，法官阁下。实际上，我正打算将其作为一项程序性事项提出。\n\n法庭：好的。请讲。\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。受托人的律师只是想说明，我们已就明天的听证与 Baranowsky 女士及其合伙人 Sklarz 先生（斯克拉兹先生）取得联系。我们理解，如法院愿意，受托人和 G Club（G俱乐部）均同意通过 Zoom（Zoom）远程方式举行该听证。\n\n法庭：是的。法院愿意。\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：明天仅就该一事项。因此，我们将于明天 1 p.m. 举行听证。\n\nBaranowsky（巴拉诺夫斯基）律师，我想您也知道，只需联系法庭书记员以获取听证会信息；Linsey（林赛）律师，您对此也知悉。关于下周12日，我仍不清楚届时我是否会亲自在本法庭出席；不过，日程表上的所有事项均为报酬申请。对于一些案件——甚至并非第11章案件——我一直采取的做法是：如果未对报酬申请提出异议，且United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）已提交无异议声明，我认为就其中若干项（即使不是全部）而言，美国受托人办公室已经提交了该声明，那么我很可能——届时很可能会有一条案卷记录载明不举行听证会，本庭将审查所提交的材料并作出适当命令，除非Despins（德斯平斯）受托人希望以不同方式处理。DESPINS先生：没有必要，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：好的。我只是想为记录说明这一点。Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师。CLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，我起身只是为了告知本庭，我已就每一项待审的费用申请提交声明。法庭：我以为您已经提交了，但并非百分之百确定。CLAIBORN女士：因此，它们都已完整。法庭：好的。非常感谢您为记录说明此事。因此，这些事项很可能将根据所提交的材料进行审查，并作出适当命令。今天下午我们还有其他需要处理的事项吗？DESPINS先生：我们没有。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢各位。这是今天日程表上的最后一项事项，因此法庭——（程序于下午2:02结束。）Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 38 of 39\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 39 of 39\n\n1 证明\n2 本人证明，据本人所知及能力所及，\n3 上述内容系对上题所述事项程序电子录音的正确\n4 文字记录。\n5 \n\n7 /s/ William J. Garling November 11, 2024\n8 William J. Garling, CET-543\n9 认证法庭记录员\n10 代表Reliable","key_entities":["Je","Despins","Guo","Kwok","HCHK","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","CIPA","Luc Despins","Saraca","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3610,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3649,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3749,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3779,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9946,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-11-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-11-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:09:18"}