{"id":"court_ctb_3852_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3852,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-11-26","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, *et al.*, . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05017 (JAM) Plaintiffs, . . v. . . TAURUS FUND, LLC, *et al.,* . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05007 (JAM) Plaintiff, . . v. . . AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY . COMPANY, . . Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS . Adversary Proceeding . No. 24-05225 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . CURTIS DESIGN CORPORATION, . *et al.,* . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 1 of 117\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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 24-05273 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . NGOK, *et al.,* . . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 24-05318 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building ALFA GLOBAL VENTURES . 915 Lafayette Boulevard LIMITED *et al.,* . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . Defendants. . Tuesday, November 19, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:05 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 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 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 2 of 117\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3852
Filed 11/26/24 | Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30
Page 3 of 117 |\n|---------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | 3 |\n| | | |\n| 1 | APPEARANCES: | |\n| 2 | For the Chapter 11 | |\n| 3 | Trustee: | Patrick Linsey, Esquire
NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.
195 Church Street |\n| 4 | | 13th Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06510 |\n| 5
6 | | -and- |\n| 7 | | Luc A. Despins, Esquire
PAUL HASTINGS, LLP |\n| 8 | | 200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166 |\n| 9 | | Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire
Doug Barron, Esquire |\n| 10 | | 2050 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036 |\n| 11 | For Taurus Fund LLC, | |\n| 12 | Taurus Fund Management,
and Scott Barnett: | Michael T. Conway, Esquire |\n| 13 | | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP
747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor |\n| 14 | | Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10017 |\n| 15
16 | For Genever Holdings: | Michael T. McCormack, Esquire
O'SULLIVAN MCCORMACK JENSEN |\n| 17 | | & BLISS, P.C.
180 Glastonbury Boulevard |\n| 18 | | Suite 210
Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 |\n| 19 | For AIG Property | |\n| 20 | Casualty Company: | Michael P. Thompson, Esquire
GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
95 Glastonbury Boulevard |\n| 21 | | Suite 206
Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | -and- |\n| 24 | | John O'Connor, Esquire
John J. Kavanagh, Esquire
STEPTOE, LLP |\n| 25 | | 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036 |\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 For G-Club International Limited and G-Club Jeffrey Sklarz, Esquire Operations: GREEN & SKLARZ LLC One Audubon Street, Third Floor Hew Haven, Connecticut 06511 For Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Hudson Diamond New York, Gypsy Mei Food Services, Leading Shine New York, and Hudson Diamond Holdings: Steven Kindseth, Esquire Zeisler & Zeisler 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 For Rule of Law Foundation 3 Inc. and Rule of Law Society 4 Inc.: Bryan Ha, Esquire John Newton, Esquire BRYAN HA, ATTORNEY AT LAW 455 Tarrytown Road, #1244 White Plains, New York 10607 For Victor Cerda: Jason Swergold YANKWITT LLP 140 Grand Street, Suite 705 White Plains, New York 10601 For Beile Li: Ivan Ladd-Smith, Esquire SPEARS, MANNING & MARTINI 2425 Post Road, Suite 203 Southport, Connecticut 06890 For Yongbing Zhang: James Edward Nealon, Esquire NEALON LAW LLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, Connecticut 06902 For Gladys Chow: Emily McDaniels, Esquire SHER TREMONTE LLP 90 Broad Street, 23rd Floor New York, New York 10004 Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 4 of 117\n\n 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 136: **Genever Holdings LLC v. AIG Property Casualty Company Adversary Case no. 23-05007** Order Scheduling Status Conference on Motion To Modify Scheduling Order Matter No. 124: **Luc A. Despins** *et al***. v. Taurus Fund LLC** *et al***. Adversary Case No. 23-05017** Motion for Summary judgment Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Plaintiff Matter No. 23: **Despins v. Cirrus Design Corporation** *et al.* **Adversary Case No. 24-05225** Motion for Default Judgment by Court 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 Matter No. 94: **Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee v NGOK et al. Adversary Case 24-05273** Order setting Status Conference Matter **Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee v. Alfa** No. 106**: Global Ventures Limited et al.** Order Scheduling Status Conference on Stipulated Judgment Transcriptionist's' Certificate Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 5 of 117\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 6 of 117\n\n 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:05 p.m.) THE CLERK: Adversary Number 23-05007, Genever Holdings LLC versus AIG Property Casualty Company; 23-05017, Despins versus Taurus Fund LLC, *et al*.; 24-05225, Despins versus Cirrus Design Corporation, *et al*.; 24-05273, Despins versus Ngok, *et al.;* 24-05318, Despins versus Alpha Global Ventures Limited, *et al*. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. If we 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. Excuse me. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: And Your Honor, my colleague, Doug Barron from Paul Hastings is also on the Zoom today. THE COURT: Great. Good afternoon. MR. BARRON: Thank you.\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 MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz for G-Club Operations and G-Club International in Adversary 24-5273. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Steven Kindseth for Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Hudson Diamond New York, Gypsy Mei Food Services, Leading Shine New York, and Hudson Diamond Holdings. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HA: Good afternoon, Judge. This is Bryan Ha for Defendant Rule of Law Foundation 3 Inc, and Rule of Law Society 4 Inc. And also on the call is my colleague, John Newton. Good afternoon, Judge. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. O'CONNOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John O'Connor, joined by Michael Thompson representing AIG in matter 23-5007. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael McCormack on behalf of Genever Holdings LLC in the Genever Holdings versus AIG matter, No. 23-05-007 THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SWERGOLD: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jason Swergold, Yankwitt LLP, on behalf of Victor Cerda in 24- 05273. Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 7 of 117\n\n 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. CONWAY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Conway, Lazare, Potter, Giacovas & Moyle. I'm here on behalf of Taurus Fund LLC, Taurus Fund Management LLC, Scott Barnett, and a host of others in the status conferences. Did you want me to recite every one of them? THE COURT: You do not need to do that, Attorney Conway. Thank you. We have your -- I mean, we can indicate, for any recording purposes or transcript purposes, the parties for whom you are counsel of record. MR. CONWAY: I appreciate that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Is there anyone else whose appearance we haven't taken yet? MR. LADD-SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. Ivan Ladd-Smith from Spears, Manning & Martini on behalf of Beile Li in the 24-5273 matter. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. NEALON: (Inaudible) for Defendant Yongbing Zhang in the 5273 matter. THE COURT: I'm sorry, counsel. I spoke over you. Would you announce your appearance again? MR. NEALON: Sure. James Nealon for the Defendant Yougbing Zhang in the 5273 adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. NEALON: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 8 of 117\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3852
Filed 11/26/24
Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30
Page 9 of 117 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 9 |\n| 1 | MS. MCDANIELS:
And good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | I'm Emily McDaniels on behalf of Defendant Gladys Chow in 24- |\n| 3 | 5273. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
Does that include |\n| 5 | everyone's appearance now?
Okay.
Hearing nothing to the |\n| 6 | contrary then, there are, as you all know, many matters on |\n| 7 | the calendar this afternoon.
So I'm going to turn to the |\n| 8 | Chapter 11 Trustee to see what your suggestion is as to how |\n| 9 | to handle these matters. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I was |\n| 11 | thinking that we should start with the AIG matter, so that |\n| 12 | would allow Mr. O'Connor and Mr. McCormack to leave after |\n| 13 | because I'm not really interested in the rest of the case, if |\n| 14 | that's okay with Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
That makes complete sense to me.
Go |\n| 16 | right ahead.
Well, I can tell you why I scheduled the status |\n| 17 | conference, actually.
You as far as the AIG adversary, 23- |\n| 18 | 5007.
Because I know you filed a motion with regard to |\n| 19 | extending the discovery deadline. |\n| 20 | And when we had our last hearing, I was, you know, |\n| 21 | we had talked about some final deadlines, and I was concerned |\n| 22 | that the supplemental brief on summary judgment relating to |\n| 23 | fact discovery, the extended deadlines might have an impact |\n| 24 | on discovery being delayed. |\n| 25 | And maybe I'm wrong, but that's why I set it for a |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 10 of 117\n\n 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 status conference. Because when we had our last status conference, the representations on the record was -- were that there was no need for delay, and that's why we had set those deadlines. So I just want to hear from the parties to make sure I'm not missing something, with regard to these issues related to fact discovery. MR. O'CONNOR: Yeah. Your Honor -- Your Honor, this is John O'Connor for AIG. I can -- I can speak to that. The request for an extension came about because of two things that occurred about a week before the close of discovery. One, we had a deposition set for a third party witness who concluded that he needed to change counsel because he needed to put his -- it's a broker. He needed to put his carrier on notice and let the carrier select counsel. And so, in speaking with Genever's counsel, there was, you know, we wanted to be able to accommodate that because someone should -- you know, we don't\n\n19 20 want to jam someone so they can't have their counsel of choice.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Also, one week before the close of discovery, Genever sent us over, for the first time, a 30(b)(6) notice. And at the time, I was in the middle of a federal court trial in Virginia. And it just wasn't going to be practical to get a notice on the 1st and have a witness by 8th.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 11 of 117\n\n11\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 So as we talked about it with counsel, it we thought it made sense to modestly extend the deadline to allow those things to occur. And Genever wants a -- wants to depose a former AIG employee that, you know, they will - they'll pursue it or they won't. But it seemed to make sense to put a little\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 breathing room there for those things to occur. I will say, you know, the motion we filed asked to extend the discovery deadline to December 6. Actually, we'd like to extend it to December 13th, if we could, just to allow for the scheduling of those couple of matters. There's no additional discovery. It's just getting those things scheduled.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor had asked about the briefing on summary judgment. We would like -- and I'm speaking just for AIG - to move those dates back by just one week. And I think if we -- if we're able to extend the discovery to December 13, I think, just a week move back on the briefing would be fine. That would involve us filing -- AIG filing its supplemental paper. That would move from November 26th to December 3rd, and then Genever would have two weeks, they'd have until the 17th. But it would not meaningfully affect\n\n22 the briefing on summary judgment.\n\n25\n\n23 24 THE COURT: Okay. Have you talked with, Genever's counsel about that? Or about\n\nMR. O'CONNOR: Talked about everything in the\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 briefing? The proposed one week move back on briefs, which occurred to me as I was preparing, but everything else is agreed to. THE COURT: Okay. Debtor Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael McCormack. Yes. We have had discussions with Attorney O'Connor about the extension to complete the outstanding depositions. With respect to the brief, one-week extension for briefing, I don't see an issue with that if Attorney Despins does not, my client. THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: No. No. No. No. No issues, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. So then what I need you to do, Attorney O'Connor and Attorney McCormack, is submit a joint, you know, consent order with all that, please? MR. O'CONNOR: Okay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Because I just thought we were very clear, and it's fine. I have no problem doing what you want to do. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't having some kind of an impact on what was going forward, being, you know, having it be delayed. But if everyone's in agreement, that's fine. So if you can just submit an order to that effect, do you think you can submit an order by this Friday? Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 12 of 117\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 13 of 117\n\n 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. O'CONNOR: I'm sure we can, Your Honor. I will -- I'll take the first stab, and I'll send it to Mr. McCormack no later than tomorrow. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then unless I'm missing something, which is possible, I think that does address all the issues I wanted to address in the status conference in this adversary proceeding. But obviously, if anyone else wishes to be heard -- meaning Attorney O'Connor, Attorney McCormack, or Trustee Despins -- on any other issues in the adversary proceeding, you're welcome to raise them now. MR. O'CONNOR: Nothing from AIG, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing from me, Your Honor, Attorney McCormack, at the time. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Well, then I think that concludes the status conference in the AIG adversary proceeding, and they -- the parties will submit a joint, or a consent order, whatever you want to call it, modifying the scheduling order by on or before November 22nd. Okay? MR. O'CONNOR: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you both. And\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 14 of 117\n\n| 1 | obviously, you're welcome to leave.
You don't have to stay |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | unless you would like to.
That's up to you. |\n| 3 | MR. O'CONNOR:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, with your |\n| 6 | permission, we would like to move on to the RICO status |\n| 7 | conference.
By the way, if I could ask everyone that's not |\n| 8 | speaking on these things to go -- to turn down their cameras. |\n| 9 | I think it makes it easier for everyone in the court to see |\n| 10 | exactly who's addressing the Court.
But I think Mr. Bassett |\n| 11 | will handle the RICO status conference if that's okay, Your |\n| 12 | Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Again, |\n| 15 | Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 |\n| 16 | Trustee. |\n| 17 | Your Honor, we were last before the Court on, I |\n| 18 | believe, October 15th, for a status conference in the civil |\n| 19 | RICO adversary proceeding, which I believe is 24-5273.
At |\n| 20 | that hearing, as the Court will recall, we requested that the |\n| 21 | Court enter an order staying the civil RICO adversary |\n| 22 | proceeding pending developments and ultimately the outcome of |\n| 23 | the omnibus alter ego adversary proceeding, the basis for |\n| 24 | that request being that there is substantial overlap in |\n| 25 | parties and that all -- and that legal theories in the two |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 15 of 117\n\n15\n\nadversary proceedings are asserted in the alternative.\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 It's the Trustee's view that developments in the omnibus alter ego adversary proceeding could significantly limit and/or focus what would ultimately need to be litigated in the civil RICO adversary proceeding. And for that reason, we think a stay makes good sense for the parties and for the Court.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 At that last status conference, a few of the defendants appeared. Based on my review of the transcript and recollection, there were, I think, ultimately, maybe three defendants who actually were continuing to oppose any stay of the litigation. Those defendants are -- it was Victor Cerda, whose counsel is on the line. And I'm getting the other names in a moment, Your Honor. My apologies.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 It was counsel it was Victor Cerda, Your Honor, Defendant Gladys Chow, and Defendant Beile Li. We have had discussions with their counsel since the last hearing, and I believe we have resolved their objection to this day. I'll describe how we've done that in a moment. And with that objection being -- with those objections being resolved, I think there is no longer any party opposing the Trustee's requested stay.\n\n23 24 25 Now, the way we had resolved the objection, as the Court may recall, those defendants had asserted that at the last hearing that they wanted to have the opportunity to be\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 16 of 117\n\n16\n\n1 2 3 4 5 heard on their motions to dismiss. They explained that they thought the Trustee should file an amended complaint, and one of the reasons they opposed the stay is because they said they didn't want -- that it was harmful for them to have the complaint pending.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 Well, what we've done to resolve that, Your Honor, is we have agreed with those defendants, to enter into a stipulation that will dismiss the Trustee's claims against them without prejudice. And to be very clear, the reason we are doing this is because it simply preserves the status quo.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 We are dismissing the claims without prejudice to our ability to add them back in to the adversary proceeding in an amended complaint, which, as we've described previously, the Trustee does, in fact, intend to file once this adversary proceeding moves forward.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 And the Defendants, in exchange, have agreed that they will not raise any statue of limitations or other timebased defenses as a result of the Defendants having been temporarily dismissed from the complaint and then added back in, which we fully expect will be the case when the Trustee refiles.\n\n22 23 24 25 So, basically, it will, you know, result in those three Defendants no longer being a part of the case in the interim. But if and when the Trustee amends and decides to add them back in, he can do that, and they have agreed to\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 17 of 117\n\n1 2 3 not, you know, argue that the Trustee is unable to do that based on the statute of limitations or other similar defenses.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 We have a stipulation that we've agreed upon with those Defendants, that we are prepared to submit to the Court today. Subject to having done that, as I said, I believe there is no longer any opposition to the Trustee's request to stay the adversary proceeding.\n\n9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Okay. I understand what you're saying. And so and I'll obviously hear from any of the Defendants' counsels who wish to be heard. But my question, Attorney Bassett, is just logistics, I suppose.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 So the stipulation that you're talking about that you're going to present to the Court, that will dismiss the specific Defendants from the adversary proceeding without prejudice when you file an amended complaint to add them back in. You're going to submit that to the Court, and then after that enters, then an order enter -- staying the adversary proceeding would enter? Is that how you would --\n\n20 21 22 MR. BASSETT: That's -- yes, Your Honor. That's how I envision the sequencing, and I believe we still owe the Court a proposed order staying the adversary --\n\n23 24 25 THE COURT: On the stay. Right. Right. Okay. All right. That's what -- that's what I thought you were - you meant, so that's good that I've understood what you said.\n\n 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So thank you. Do any of the Defendants' counsel wish to be heard with regard to the comments and agreements that Attorney Bassett has noted on the record? Okay. Well, then that's fine. And I think that's -- MR. NEALON: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm sorry. I was on mute. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. NEALON: James Nealon for Defendant Yongbing Zhang. THE COURT: Yes. MR. NEALON: You know, I think it's fine that three of the defendants entered into this stipulation, but I think there are 57 other defendants. And the same stipulation or arrangement should, in theory, be open to them. THE COURT: Well, if they didn't object initially, Attorney Nealon, when they had the opportunity to do so and they were unnoticed, then I don't agree with you. MR. NEALON: Okay. Well, the other thing is I think that the Trustee should actually file a motion to stay with the proposed order. THE COURT: I think he -- I think he's already filed the motion to stay, hasn't he? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I believe the way that Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 18 of 117\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 19 of 117\n\n19\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 this transpired was the Court had requested a status conference on both the civil RICO and the omnibus alter ego adversary proceedings on October 15th. At that conference, we made an oral request on the motion to stay. Obviously, that conference was on notice to all the Defendants. So there has not been, I don't believe, a formal written motion filed.\n\n8 9 10 11 We are happy to give -- you know, to upload a proposed order on the docket and give parties the opportunity to, you know, respond or comment on it if the Court would like, but there's not been an actual written motion filed.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. NEALON: Well, Your Honor, there's potential moving parts that were discussed, none of which were run to ground at the last status conference. Was there going to be a stay? What was going to happen with the defaulting Defendants? When would an amended complaint be filed. And that's why I think all of that should be put into a motion.\n\n18 19 20 21 It could be heard on an expedited basis. Attorney Bassett could attach his order. But there were some elements or concepts that were being thrown around that were problematic.\n\n22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, I don't think you would -- I don't think it's fair to say that they were being thrown around. It's the status conference on the adversary proceeding. All of the Defendants were made aware of it.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 20 of 117\n\n20\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 I'm not going to have every issue be heard seven times to make sure that every Defendant asserts whatever rights they feel they have. They had an opportunity to be at a -- at a status conference. You were there. Your client was there, and I'm not going to accept other Defendants making arguments on behalf of other Defendants.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 So that's -- so just so that's clear, I don't think it's fair to say that it was thrown around. It was a status conference on an adversary proceeding in which all the claims are submitted in an -- in a complaint. Everybody's on notice as to what the claims are.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 MR. NEALON: Right. Your Honor, respectfully, Attorney Bassett laid out for the 1st time at that hearing a whole bunch of different ideas about how the stay could work, some of which had not been raised previously. And there's questions about at least the legality of part of those.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 For example, one of the concepts was you could sever off the defaulting Defendants and somehow put them into a separate action or adversary proceeding, and that's contrary to Supreme Court precedent. That came up for the first time at that conference.\n\n22 23 24 25 So my only point is -- and I understand what Your Honor is saying is this should be put in a motion and parties should have a chance to weigh in on it, whatever the final form of order is.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 21 of 117\n\n21\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 Your Honor, I believe counsel may actually be confusing the two adversary proceedings. The Court already entered an order severing Defendants from the omnibus alter ego adversary proceeding. That has already happened. So that's done, over with. The only issue that we raised at the last hearing with respect to the civil RICO litigation was a request to stay the litigation. I don't believe there were any permutations on that. It was simply a request to stay. THE COURT: Right. MR. NEALON: Okay. I'll accept that representation, Your Honor. But there was also some discussion that the Trustee was giving thought as to what they were going to propose on an amended complaint. THE COURT: Well, exactly. But they haven't amended their complaint yet. And so when they amend their complaint, you can act accordingly under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Correct? MR. NEALON: Right, Your Honor. Based on Attorney Bassett's representation, I withdraw my objection. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HA: Your Honor, if I may, at the last conference, on behalf of the Rule of Law Foundation 3 and the Rule of Law Society 4, Inc., I did reserve our right to object to the stay after consulting with my clients and to\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 22 of 117\n\n22\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 object on the same substantially the same grounds as raised by the other Defendants who objected. And on that basis, Your Honor, we would also request the same situation that the Trustee's counsel is extending to those objecting Defendants and have our clients dismissed without prejudice as well. THE COURT: Sorry. Did you have any discussions with Attorney Bassett about that, counsel? Rule of Law Foundation 3 and the Rule of Law Society 4, Inc: We haven't discussed that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, to the extent to the extent that the Rule of Law Foundation entities had a continuing objection to the motion, I think it was very clear on the record at the last status conference that the parties were to meet and confer. We did that with the two parties who had indicated clearly to us that they were objecting. And therefore, we had to meet and confer with them to see if those objections could be resolved. We did not have any reason to meet and confer with the Rule of Law entities. If they had decided they were going to press their objection, they obviously could have reached out to us. But we're not, you know, we're not agreeing to -- the Trustee is not in a position to agree to dismiss all of these entities from the complaint.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 23 of 117\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\nWe've done that on a case by case basis to resolve objections that were asserted. But again, we could have met and conferred about this in advance of today, but that didn't happen. We didn't receive any communication from counsel.\n\n5 6 7 8 MR. HA: Well, Judge, I mean, we stand in the same position as to those other objecting Defendants. So I mean, it's for the same reasons, the same grounds we're dismissing those. I mean, it would apply to us.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MR. BASSETT: The other thing I would note, Your Honor, is that the other three people who have raised this issue, and which the Trustee was willing to talk to them about, was the fact that they had asserted that there was a long stay as entity or as individuals who, you know, have professional reputations, et cetera. They had expressed to us that, you know, they may incur some form of hardship in the event that this complaint remain pending against them.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We don't agree with that. But in in response to that concern, we worked out an arrangement that ultimately preserves everybody's rights and works for all involved. I don't think the same issue at all applies to the Rule of Law entities. These are parties that are, you know, components of the Debtor's fraudulent activities. I believe their websites have been shut down. I mean, they're not -- they're not individuals who have a reputation to protect. It's just not -- it's apples and oranges.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 24 of 117\n\n24\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. HA: But we strongly disagree with that, Your Honor. Those are allegations. The Rule of Law entities are nonprofit organizations. They continue to operate, and they continue to raise funds, and having this complaint is extremely prejudicial. THE COURT: But weren't you involved in the last status conference, counsel? You were there? MR. HA: I was, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So why didn't you reach out to Attorney Bassett or somebody else? I don't mean it necessarily has to be Attorney Bassett, but the Trustee or his counsel. MR. HA: I was discuss -- I was in discussion with my client about the issue and what to do. And -- THE COURT: I think you even made a statement that you wanted to discuss it with your client on the record. It's my recollection. I could be wrong, though. I don't have the transcript in front of me. But I could be wrong. MR. HA: That's -- yes. That's my recollection as well. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HA: I think I do have the right to object after consulting with my client, Your Honor. THE COURT: Right. But you didn't object. You and you didn't tell Attorney Bassett or anybody, the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 25 of 117\n\n25\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Trustee's counsel, what you -- how you consulted with your client. Right? You didn't say anything before today. MR. HA: Correct, Your Honor. Correct. I have not spoken to Attorney Bassett. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll think about it then. I mean, the long story short is we had a conference. These issues were raised. Defendants, including you, counsel, raised concerns about the stay. And the -- at the conclusion of that conference, we continued the hearings of today, the conference of today, and that the Trustee and the Defendants were to discuss the Trustee's proposal to stay. You didn't have that conversation, apparently, but other Defendants did. The Trustee's counsel has agreed to enter into stipulation, and I guess you can try to talk about that with Attorney Bassett after the status conference. But as I said to Attorney Nealon, you know, I'm not going to have Defendants raise issues for other Defendants and/or if they have issues that they want to raise, then they have to raise them, and they have to deal with them. So at this point in time, what I'm going to do is have the parties who have agreed with the Trustee's counsel about dismissal with prejudice -- without prejudice, excuse me -- to have that stipulation submitted, and then you can talk with Attorney Bassett and/or whomever else, you know,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 26 of 117\n\n26\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Trustee or the Trustee's counsel, about what position they may take with regard to you. But at this point, I'm not going to have any more discussion about it today. It is what it is, and you'll see where things stand. Okay? MR. HA: Understood, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. So Attorney Bassett, when do you believe you'll be submitting this stipulation? MR. BASSETT: I believe we could do that later today, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure we're going to get to it today, but that's fine. MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, can I be heard with respect to the proposed order? THE COURT: What proposed order? MR. KINDSETH: For the stay. My clients are not opposing the stay, generally, but we would like, as Attorney Bassett had stated on the record, to have the opportunity to just review and comment upon the form of the proposed order. THE COURT: I think that's what Attorney Bassett said. Right? He's going to be submitting some form of an order. So we'll -- all right. So let's figure out the logistics with regard to that, Attorney Bassett. MR. KINDSETH: Sure, Your Honor. MR. NEALON: And Your Honor, if I could just\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 27 of 117\n\n27\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 clarify on behalf of Mr. Zhang, we're not opposing a stay. That really wasn't the basis for me to raise it. It was only a question about what the fine print of that stay would include. So just want to clarify that. We don't have an objection to a stay of the RICO case. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Did I lose all of you or are you still there? MR. BASSETT: No, we're here, Your Honor. THE COURT: It must be me. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, I think, as I said, we should be able to submit the stipulation that we've reached with three of the Defendants by the end of the day today, and then, we could follow that with a proposed order that we could submit, I would say, certainly, by the end of the week. And I think, you know, we could do whatever Your Honor would like. We could file that proposed order on the docket. We could submit it to chambers, copying counsel, on the -- on the conference today. Happy to proceed it however the Court would like. THE COURT: Well, I think we have to set up a way for people to be able to respond to the order staying the adversary proceeding. And I suppose what would be the best thing to do is to -- well, I'm not sure. My thought process is to docket the order in this adversary proceeding.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 28 of 117\n\n| 1 | Therefore, every Defendant that's already appeared, including |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Defendant's counsel that are participating in this status |\n| 3 | conference, will see the order.
And then I think you could |\n| 4 | say -- you could say notice of filing of proposed order and |\n| 5 | with an objection deadline, Attorney Bassett. |\n| 6 | And I would give, depending upon when you have the |\n| 7 | order filed, I would probably give, you know, 14 days for an |\n| 8 | objection period. |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
That's fine with the Trustee, Your |\n| 10 | Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Does any of -- do any of the appearing |\n| 12 | Defendants have an issue with the 14 days for an objection |\n| 13 | proposed by the Court? |\n| 14 | MR. NEALON:
No issue, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MALE VOICE:
No objection.
Okay. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I think that's the way |\n| 17 | we should proceed in the -- in this adversary proceeding.
Is |\n| 18 | there anything else that we need to address in this adversary |\n| 19 | proceeding this afternoon? |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
Your Honor, Jeff Sklarz for G-Club |\n| 21 | International.
I just want to make sure that my silence |\n| 22 | doesn't mean I don't want to look at the order as well. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Are you a defend -- you're a Defendant |\n| 24 | in this adversary proceeding? |\n| 25 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes.
Yes. |\n| | |\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: Then you can look at that order. MR. SKLARZ: Thank you. THE COURT: I thought you were. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I just -- MR. SKLARZ: I don't have to be if Attorney Bassett wants to dismiss the case, but I assume he doesn't. THE COURT: If you're a Defendant in the adversary proceeding, you will see it and you will be -- there'll be an objection deadline set. MR. SKLARZ: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anything else that we need to address on this adversary proceeding then? MR. BASSETT: I don't believe so, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then a notice of proposed order saying adversary proceeding will be submitted with an objection deadline of 14 days after the submission. MALE VOICE: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: All right. Thank you all. And I think we can move on to the next -- whatever matter, Attorney Despins, you think we should address next. MR. DESPINS: So the next one that should not be too extensive either is the -- that you'll recall that we commenced the alter ego proceeding. We call that alter ego part 1 proceeding in February, and there were a series of Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 29 of 117\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 30 of 117\n\n30\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 defaulted parties. One of them was Karen Mastriello (phonetic), and there was, you know, these were severed from the main proceedings so we could deal with the default separately. And there is a resolution with, Ms. Mastriello, and Mr. Bassett will handle this matter, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MALE VOICE: I apologize, Your Honor. May I be excused? THE COURT: Oh, of course. Yes. Anyone that is not involved in any other matters may absolutely be excused. Thank you. MALE VOICE: Thank you, Your Honor. Have a good day. THE COURT: You too. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, as the Trustee indicated, today the filing of issue is Docket No. 104 in the omnibus alter ego adversary proceeding, which is adversary proceeding number 24-5318. THE COURT: Yes. MR. BASSETT: As the Trustee indicated, the Trustee has entered into an agreement through discussions with counsel for one of the Defendants, Karen Mastriello, in that adversary proceeding, pursuant to which -- and I guess, by way of background first, Your Honor. It it's alleged in the complaint that Defendant\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 31 of 117\n\n31\n\n1 2 3 4 Mastriello is the nominal sole owner of an entity called Alpha Global Ventures Limited, which is also a Defendant in the alter ego litigation and one of the entities that the Trustee alleges is an alter ego of the Debtor.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Counsel for Ms. Mastriello had reached out to us, Your Honor, to see if a resolution of the adversary proceeding was possible. She indicated to her counsel indicated to us that Ms. Mastriello does not believe that she has any interest in that entity, and to the extent that she does, she is willing to relinquish that interest to the Trustee and to the Chapter 11 estate.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 So the stipulation that we ended up reaching is simply a stipulation which says that to the extent Ms. Mastriello holds any interest in that entity, for example, to the extent that she is the nominal record shareholder of that entity, which the Trustee has, you know, believes that she is based on documentation the Trustee has obtained, she will relinquish that interest to the Chapter 11 estate and will take whatever actions are reasonably necessary to ensure that ownership of the entity is transferred to the estate.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 And we believe, you know, as far as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are concerned, Your Honor, Rule 54 as an example, I mean, there is, in our view, no just reason for delaying entry of this judgment. It's, as the Court knows from, you know, past requests that the Trustee has made\n\n 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to resolve portions of adversary proceedings, this is very important for the Trustee to -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BASSETT: -- move expeditiously and where he can, you know, obtain orders of ownership over entities so he can proceed accordingly to protect the estate assets. So, happy to answer any questions -- THE COURT: Understood. MR. BASSETT: -- but that's just the background of where we are. THE COURT: I under- -- yeah. Attorney Bassett, I understand completely. And the reason that this was scheduled for a hearing was status conference was just because of the 54(b) issue. Right? We need to say somewhere in that judgment that there's no just reason for delay and that, you know, cite to cases that approved that because I have to make, at least from all of the case law that I have seen and on appeals and issues where there have not been that finding by the Court, that express finding. But there's been a remand and things for the Court to make that express finding under Rule 54(b). So what my point is I think you need to do that in order for the Court to enter the judgment. Otherwise, someone could try to attack it at some point in the future, and we could have an appeal on it. And I do find that under Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 32 of 117\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 33 of 117\n\n33\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the specific facts and circumstances, as you've described with regards to the Defendant Karen Mastriello, that there is no just reason for delay for the entry of a judgment with regard to that specific Defendant. And I think that the rules support that finding, but I -- but the judgment itself, and the order granting the judgment has to say that. Otherwise, we could have issues in the future that none of us would want to spend any time on. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. And we should have anticipated as much. We will certainly submit a revised proposed order that includes that language. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That would be very helpful. So how much time, again, Attorney Bassett, you can have as much time as you would like. I just do this -- we do this for the -- it's helpful for the clerk's office to be able to track things if we have a date by which a revised proposed order will be submitted. MR. BASSETT: Certainly, Your Honor. By the end of the week would be more of a time. THE COURT: Thank you. Then I'll note that the revised proposed order will be submitted on or before November 22nd.\n\n23 24 MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, I'd like to make a very brief statement, with respect to this matter.\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: You don't represent the Defendant\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 34 of 117\n\n34\n\n1 though, Attorney Kindseth.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KINDSETH: It's -- very briefly and it's really just a courtesy to the Court. And just to alert, and I've already alerted the Trustee and just to make sure not in the future accused of sitting on our hands, Ms. Mei Guo believes adamantly that she is the sole shareholder of Alpha Global Ventures. We're not seeking any relief here, we're not objecting, we're not -- we just felt as a courtesy to the Court, it should put on the record. And just so Your Honor knows -- THE COURT: What information does your client have to support that belief? MR. KINDSETH: Well, we've requested records from BBI, the corporate body. And we've also requested records from the Trustee, and we're going to be looking into it further. Again, we're not seeking any relief now. We're not in a specific case -- THE COURT: What records would you be seeking from the -- you mean Trustee Despins? MR. KINDSETH: Yeah. As to what records he's relying upon to establish that Ms. Mastriello, who actually does not believe she is the sole shareholder, is, in fact, the sole shareholder, which was the basis for the allegation in the complaint. There's no allegation against Ms. Guo. And again,\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 35 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Your Honor, I'm not -- we're not interfering. We're just -- I don't want to be accused of not advising the Court of such an issue. We intend to gather what information we can, provide it to the Trustee, find out what information the Trustee has to establish the ownership of Alpha Global, and then we'll take whatever action we feel is appropriate.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 But I don't want -- I just didn't want to be accused of sitting on my hands. And so we're just advising the Court that Ms. Mei Guo adamantly believes she's the sole shareholder and that Ms. Mastriello is not the sole shareholder of Alpha Global.\n\n12 13 14 15 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, we had the, exact same questions as the Court. You know, to the extent that Ms. Guo believes she is the owner of this entity and has evidence to support that position, we are happy to see it.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As far as any request for information from the Trustee as to the Trustee's allegations in the complaint, I don't see any basis for that request. As it stands, as far as I'm concerned, Ms. Guo has no standing to contest claims that we have asserted against other parties. The stipulation that we are asking the Court to enter is only going to resolve the claims as to Ms. Mastriello. It's not going to prejudice Ms. Guo. Again, she has evidence she owns the entity, happy to see it from Attorney Kindseth, and we can go from there.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 36 of 117\n\n| 1 | MR. KINDSETH:
Your Honor, we agree.
We don't |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | have any standing to oppose claims against other parties. |\n| 3 | We're not trying to interfere.
It really is just both a |\n| 4 | courtesy to the Court and to avoid an accusation that we |\n| 5 | should have brought it to the Court's attention sooner.
And |\n| 6 | we will file whatever is necessary in the future should I be |\n| 7 | able to gather the documentation necessary to prove the |\n| 8 | ownership interest. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you, Judge, for hearing me. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then I think with regard |\n| 12 | to adversary 24-05318, we've done all we can do in that |\n| 13 | matter today.
Is that correct, Attorney Bassett? |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then the only thing |\n| 16 | left on the calendar today, if I'm correct, is the motion for |\n| 17 | summary judgment in the Taurus Fund adversary and then the |\n| 18 | motion for default judgment in the Cirrus Design Corporation |\n| 19 | adversary.
Is that correct? |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor.
And we |\n| 21 | would propose to go to the Cirrus matter.
Mr. Linsey would |\n| 22 | handle because it should be shorter. |\n| 23 | MALE VOICE:
Your Honor, may I be excused?
I'm |\n| 24 | not -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
You may.
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 37 of 117\n\n 37 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 MALE VOICE: Thank you, Judge. MR. HA: And may I be excused as well, Your Honor? THE COURT: Absolutely. Anybody that is not involved in any other matters. I did say that at the beginning, but I should have said it again. You're absolutely welcome to leave, when your matter is resolved. Thank you. MR. HA: Thank you, Judge. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Patrick Linsey for the Chapter 11 Trustee. This is on an adversary proceeding that the Trustee commenced against Cirrus Design Corporation and Qiang Guo on February 14, 2024. The only one of the Trustee's five claims in the adversary proceeding is at issue. The first four claims are fraudulent transfer claims, actual and constructive fraudulent transfer claims against Cirrus under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law. The fifth claim is the claim issue in the motion for default judgment. That is the claim the Trustee has asserted against Qiang Guo to recover the value of the transfers from Qiang Guo because he is the party for whose benefit the transfers were made. That claim was brought pursuant to Section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. The clerk issued a summons on February 24th. And\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 38 of 117\n\n38\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 on March 21st, 2024, the Trustee caused Qiang Guo to be served via Federal Express at his address in London, England. Pursuant to the summons and the procedures governing avoidance actions, Qiang Guo had a deadline of May 20, 2024, to respond to the complaint. He did not respond to the complaint by the deadline, and he's not responded to the complaint since. On September 17th, 2024, the Trustee requested entry of default against Qiang Guo, and the clerk entered that default on September 23, 2024. On October 28, the Trustee filed this motion. I will briefly describe the factual allegations in the complaint, which in the posture of a motion for default judgment are taken as proved. As discussed in the complaint and the Trustee's memorandum of law, the complaint involves transfers to Cirrus Design Corporation by the Debtor via Lamp Capital LLC, HCHK Technologies, and Leading Shine, New York. As to the first two of those entities, Lamp Capital and HCHK Technologies, the Court has already entered judgments determining that these were among the Debtor's alter egos. As to Leading Shine New York, the Trustee has a pending summary judgment motion to establish that. And the Trustee has incorporated by reference his claims for that declaratory relief into his complaint against Qiang Guo -- Cirrus and Qiang Guo.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 39 of 117\n\n39\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 The complaint describes five transfers totaling approximately \\$3.9 million made between September 2019 and the petition date. All of these transfers fall within the lookback period under applicable state law, that's New York law. All but one of them fall within the two-year lookback period under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 The Debtor's fraudulent intent in connection with these transfers is readily apparent based on facts discussed in the complaint. Those include that the transfers were effectuated by the Debtor's alter ego shell companies, which -- and operated as part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 The Debtor organized his financial affairs as a shell game for the purpose of concealing and dissipating millions of dollars of assets in order to live like a billionaire and allow his family to live like billionaires while creating poverty to his creditors.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 The assets the Debtor concealed and dissipated included funds that the Debtor obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency securities and other fraudulent sweepings. And the Debtor knew that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner, there would not be sufficient assets remaining to pay his creditors.\n\n23 24 25 In particular here, Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son, is a close family member, an insider of the Debtor, and participated in many of the Debtor's fraudulent schemes. At\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 40 of 117\n\n40\n\n1 2 3 4 the time of the transfers, the Debtor was facing significant creditor claims, including, among others, by tax. These transfers, it's further discussed in the complaint and in our memorandum of law, were made for the benefit of Qiang Guo.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 As the Court is well aware, Qiang Guo is the Debtor's son, who's played a critical role in the Debtor's shell game. The Court has already determined that Qiang Guo received other direct fraudulent transfers from the Debtor. Qiang Guo was also involved in efforts to -- attempts to falsely claim an interest in the Debtor's apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel in Manhattan, and in similar efforts involving an apartment in London.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Specifically, the transfers at issue here funded the purchase of two aircraft from Cirrus Design Corporation, an SR 22 propeller aircraft, and an SS 50 single-engine, personal, private jet. The value of those transfers went to Qiang Guo. Qiang Guo was the one, not the Debtor, who enjoyed the use of those aircraft, after the aircraft were delivered. And as mentioned, the Debtor received no consideration for the transfers.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 The Trustee explained in the memorandum of law that the motion is intended to be solely seeking relief as to Qiang Guo and not relief with respect to Cirrus Design Corporation. After the Trustee filed the motion, counsel for Cirrus contacted the Trustee and requested that the Trustee\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 41 of 117\n\n41\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 add language to the proposed order, making, I guess, further formalizing that fact. And the Trustee has filed a revised form of order under the docket, which is at Docket No. 27 of this adversary proceeding. And that adds language to paragraph 13, which language has been agreed upon with Cirrus.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 The Trustee's memorandum of law also addresses by final judgment should enter under 54(b) solely as to the Trustee's claim against Qiang Guo. Entry of judgment on this claim will benefit the estate so that the Trustee may take steps to seek to enforce the judgment against Qiang Guo before he further dissipates assets.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 As the Court is aware, Qiang Guo is abroad, is possessed of substantial resources and ability to dissipate assets and to endeavor to frustrate the Trustee's claims. As the Trustee has further advised the Court, the Trustee is involved in litigation abroad and obtaining judgment against Qiang Guo will bolster the Trustee's efforts to protect the estate's interests abroad.\n\n20 21 With that, I'm happy to answer any questions the Court may have.\n\n22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I'm looking at your -- thank you. I'm looking at your revised proposed order, and I don't see any reference to Rule 54(b) in the revised proposed order. I know you said -- you recited some issues about 54(b), but\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 42 of 117\n\n1 2 3 maybe I'm missing something. But obviously, this is only a judgment against one defendant and one count of the complaint.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 So, I think we need to -- I don't know what language necessarily because I didn't compare what Cirrus asked you to add to this revised proposed order, but that's fine. Whatever you've agreed to with them is fine. But I don't see any language about Rule 54(b) and that there's no just cause for delay in connection with this matter, and I do think we need that.\n\n11 12 13 14 I mean, I'm not -- regardless of what I think, I'm going to insist that on it because, otherwise, this judgment could be, you know, appealed and said that I was -- it was an improper entry of a judgment without that express finding.\n\n15 16 17 MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. So the answer to the one issue, the language that was added that was agreed upon with Cirrus was --\n\n18 THE COURT: Paragraph 6?\n\n19 20 MR. LINSEY: Paragraph -- it's paragraph 13. THE COURT: Oh.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: And it's the final sentence of the revised paragraph 13, which is the Trustee will not use this order or any other order on the motion, whether as law of the case or otherwise against Cirrus or against the other -- THE COURT: Yeah. That's paragraph 6 in the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 43 of 117\n\n43\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 proposed order I'm looking at anyway. Are you looking at the motion? Or I'm looking at a proposed order, revised proposed order that I think is what I should be looking at, 27? MR. LINSEY: Oh, that's correct, Your Honor. I apologize. So we filed the -- we filed the revised order and we filed a red line together with it. THE COURT: Oh, I see. I'm looking at the red line. Yeah. MR. LINSEY: Well, yeah. It it's less helpful than it should be, Your Honor, because for some reason, where the numbering of the decretal paragraph picks up in the red line -- THE COURT: Oh, I see. MR. LINSEY: -- starts where the prior version -- THE COURT: Right. Right. MR. LINSEY: -- writes off. Which is why I'm saying -- we're looking at the same paragraph. Just the red line version. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. LINSEY: So in any event, we would -- we would appreciate the opportunity to file or provide the Court with a revised order, and we'll use language that is in keeping with the other orders where the Court has entered final judgment on less than all of the claims at issue in the adversary proceeding.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 44 of 117\n\n44\n\n1 2 3 MR. DESPINS: And we cannot be at the same the same language that that was used in the last milestone, the Qiang Guo default judgment.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Yeah. It's necessary because otherwise, the whole -- the whole judgment could become - could come undone. And I have found on the record that there is no just reason for delay in connection with this specific claim and other matters with those specific claims as you've recited in your motions and in the motion to expedite the hearing and under the specific facts and circumstances of the case. So that's fine. You can submit a revised proposed order. And I do see the language that you've added that with Cirrus's request, so that's fine as well. MR. LINSEY: We will submit that by the end of the week, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Just give me one moment, please. So then -- I'm just -- I'm sorry. Just a little delayed here. Just give me a second. MR. LINSEY: I hope Your Honor feels better. THE COURT: I do too, but thank you. Here we go. I'm just -- I don't know why I'm just a little delayed. In any event -- oh, I got -- I'm just having a little computer problem. If you just bear with me for a second. Okay. So the motion for default judgment, ECF 23, is granted as against the Defendant Guo, and the -- a revised\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 45 of 117\n\n45\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 proposed order will be submitted on or before November 22nd. I'm sorry. That's Friday. November 22nd. So I think that concludes that adversary proceeding that is on the calendar this afternoon as well. MR. LINSEY: That does, Your Honor. One thing I just wanted to mention, Your Honor entered an order approving my firm's fee application. My colleagues at Paul Hastings pointed out there was an arithmetical error in one of the paragraphs of my firm's fee application. If it's all right with Your Honor, we'll send a revised form of order and a red line -- THE COURT: Sure. And just cite to Rule 60 in 9024 that there was some clerical error you discovered, and that's the reason for an amended order. Okay? MR. LINSEY: I just wanted to let the Court know that that will be coming. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So then we're moving to the Taurus Fund adversary. Is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. And Mr. Bassett will take the lead. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: May I proceed, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. You may. MR. BASSETT: Thank you. Again, for the record,\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 46 of 117\n\nNick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, one logistical item, I have my colleague Doug Barron, who is on the line at some point, not right at the beginning, I'm going to ask him to share on the screen if he can, some slides that we prepared to help walk through some of the evidence. So I just want to make sure he has the technological capability to do that. THE COURT: Has Mr. Conway seen these slides yet? MR. BASSETT: Yeah. We sent them this morning, Your Honor, and they are -- they do nothing other than highlight for the Court evidence that is already in the record as attachments to our Rule 56 statement and cited it\n\n14 on memorandum of law.\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\n15 16 THE COURT: Okay. I just want to make sure Mr. Conway has seen them.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. CONWAY: And Your Honor, Michael Conway of Lazare, Potter, Giacovas & Moyle for the Defendants in this adversary. Yeah. I got them a few hours ago. I've been able to peruse them, somewhat, and they do look like they are a compilation of things that were produced by counsel in the motion for summary judgment.\n\n23 24 25 I will note that I object to every one of these slides on the grounds that every piece of information in them lacks foundation and is -- constitutes hearsay. And so,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 47 of 117\n\n47\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 while I suspect you're going to let them use the slides, I want to make sure the record is clear that we do not consent to their use and we -- nor do we consent to, as you know, any of the exhibits that they produced. So we're not -- they're not part of the record is what I'm saying. They're documents that they wish to be part of the record. They've not been admitted into the record yet. THE COURT: They're not -- they've never been - what's contained in the slides have not been submitted in support of summary judgment? MR. CONWAY: They've been submitted. They've been filed on the record, but they've not been admitted is what I -- it's accepted over objection. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, they are part of the record on summary judgment. They're submitted with the Trustee's statement of undisputed facts. They are admissible on summary judgment for a variety of reasons. I'm happy to discuss all of that in the context of responding to Attorney Conway's evidentiary objections. I would note that his evidentiary objections are actually waived because, per the local rule, he did not articulate those objections in his opposition to the Trustee's motion for summary judgment, did not provide any basis other than one line in his response to the Trustee's\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 48 of 117\n\n48\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 statement of undisputed facts and why he objects to many of the Trustee's exhibits. It's all admissible. Most of the testimony that we're going to introduce in support of summary judgment is testimony under oath in a criminal trial citing case law in paragraph 67 of our motion for summary judgment, the memorandum of law talking about how courts routinely consider sworn testimony from other proceedings, including criminal proceedings on summary judgment, has the exact same effect as a declaration because that testimony under oath could be elicited at trial. Case law is ironclad on that. To the extent that we're citing to exhibits, those are exhibits that were authenticated by evidence in the criminal trial and/or otherwise are admissible because they fall within a hearsay objection. They have been properly authenticated by deposition testimony taken in this adversary proceeding or otherwise. I'm happy to go through as to every document that Attorney Conway wants to talk about as to why they're admissible, but we think there's no question about that. And again, I think the argument over admissibility has been waived anyway. THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, Attorney Bassett. Oh, I'm sorry, Attorney Conway. Let me ask Attorney Bassett a question first, and then I'll hear back\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 49 of 117\n\n49\n\n1 from you.\n\n25\n\n2 3 4 5 So are you asking the Court -- and I haven't seen whatever your -- you know, these slides yet. Are these just demonstratives, or are you asking them to be admitted as evidence?\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, we're asking them to be considered by the Court on summary judgment. I think there may be some confusion created by Attorney Conway's objection. The slides are simply demonstratives. We are not asking for the slides themselves to be admitted into evidence. They are designed to help aid the Court, in understanding the evidence that we have presented.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 Every single document that is excerpted on these slides has been independently put into the record as part of the Trustee's statement of undisputed facts and/or as an exhibit to one of the declarations that we submitted with that.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 We followed the exactly correct procedure that is always followed in offering evidence to the Court in support of the motion for summary judgment, which is to submit that evidence as part of the statement of undisputed facts, task the declarations as necessary. And again, in this case, much of it does come from the criminal trial, but that is all information that the Court can and should consider.\n\nBut it's all in the record as part of our exhibits\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 50 of 117\n\n50\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submitted to the Court. We're not asking the Court to, separately accept in the evidence the demonstrative. I think it's simply an aid, to help facilitate the argument today. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Conway, I cut you off before. I'm sorry. Go right ahead with what your point is. MR. CONWAY: And yeah, the point that I was going to make is that there were a host of comments made by Attorney Bassett, one of which was that there were documents authenticated in other proceedings. There's only there's only a handful of those, and those we didn't object to, frankly. But the entirety of the 280 or so documents that were produced in this motion were authenticated by Mr. Barron, with the following: attached are a true and correct copy of the following documents. That's the entirety of the authentication in our -- in both in our memorandum where we say we find that these are not authenticated broadly and not -- and they are hearsay, and in the accompanying list of specific objections, we've reserved properly our objections to these documents. Frankly, like I say, with respect to -- even though Mr. Barron didn't actually authenticate anything, we just didn't object to certain things because I know that I was there or one of my partners was there when they were\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 51 of 117\n\n51\n\n1 2 authenticated, and we're not going to make frivolous objections.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 So even though they weren't properly presented to Your Honor in this motion, we didn't object to the things that we know could have been properly authenticated. But for the most part, we've got a bunch of information that, you know, there's actually no attempt to offer foundation for it. And just saying it came from a criminal trial is not enough. That's always hearsay, didn't involve us. We didn't have an opportunity to cross examine. We weren't invited to that criminal trial.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And frankly, even if we had been, none of the information that's been produced was authenticated something that went into evidence at the criminal trial. Not even the transcripts. They're not even certified. So that said, Your Honor, I think we should probably move on to the actual crux of why we're here because I'd anticipate we'd get to objections to evidence, but it's really not the heart of the presentation I think Mr. Bassett wants to make.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, let me just briefly respond. Attorney Conway is wrong across the board. First of all, they submitted a 15-page objection to summary judgment that maybe has the word we object to evidence in it. There's absolutely no articulation in that opposition as to the basis for any of these evidentiary objections. We cite\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 52 of 117\n\n52\n\n1 2 3 4 5 the local rule in our reply brief. Any objection that is not articulated in an opposition to the motion for summary judgment is waived. These have absolutely been waived. We've not been put on any notice of these arguments, number one.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number two, all of these documents have been authenticated. I'll give you an example. He says that the exhibits that are attached to the Barron declaration have not been authenticated. That is categorically untrue. We've attached to the Barron declaration things like the criminal trial testimony of the broker who represented the buyer of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 She testified in the criminal trial about, for example, text messages that she sent and received with Aaron Mitchell (phonetic). She authenticated those text messages as part of the criminal trial testimony that we are also offering. That is the exact same thing as submitting a declaration and a sworn testimony where the witness who is able to authenticate the underlying exhibits has done so.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 It's no different than if we had the broker submit a declaration to the Court attaching those documents that is all in the record. We cited case law in paragraph 67 of our motion for summary judgment talking about how courts routinely consider sworn testimony from other proceedings. That's exactly what we've done here. All the exhibits were\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 53 of 117\n\n1 2 properly authenticated through that testimony. I think we should just move on, Your Honor.\n\n3 4 5 THE COURT: All right. Well, why don't you proceed, and we will see where we stand after each party makes their respective arguments.\n\n6\n\nMR. CONWAY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MR. BASSETT: So, just to just to level set, obviously, Your Honor, in this adversary proceeding, we are here on the Trustee's motion for summary judgment that the Chapter 11 estate is the beneficial owner, reference for the Debtor having been the beneficial owner, of the property known as the Mahwah Mansion. We also seek summary judgment on our claim that Defendant Taurus Fund LLC, which as the nominal owner of the mansion, is the Debtor's alter ego.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Now, Your Honor, as the Court is aware, there's a criminal trial this past summer in which the Debtor, Mr. Kwok, was convicted for orchestrating multiple massive fraudulent schemes and leading a criminal racketeering enterprise, all for the purpose of lining his pockets and funding his and his family's over-the-top, extravagant lifestyle. The Court has heard a lot about that. It's very familiar with it.\n\n23 24 25 The Court may not know is that a major focal point of the Government's case in the criminal trial was showing how Mr. Kwok directed monies within his controls to be used\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 54 of 117\n\n54\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to purchase, renovate, and furnish the Mahwah Mansion as a home for his family. The Government spent days on this topic across multiple witnesses and numerous exhibits. By the end of the trial, this evidence convinced a federal jury beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Kwok's guilt. Of course, that is a much higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard that applies to proceedings before this Court.\n\n9 10 11 12 Now, I want to be clear. The Trustee is not asking Your Honor to find that the guilty verdict in the criminal trial has a binding effect in this adversary proceeding. It does not.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 But what I am asking you to do is to look at the same evidence, which is properly before this Court, that was presented to that jury and more evidence that the Trustee has uncovered in his litigation that the Government didn't even have access to and conclude from that evidence that there cannot possibly be a genuine dispute of material fact that Mr. Kwok beneficially owns the mansion and that Taurus Fund is Mr. Kwok's alter ego.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 I'll get to this in a moment with the slides, Your Honor. The evidence supporting these conclusions is absolutely overwhelming. In fact, I would have a hard time imagining a record more definitive on this issue in a case involving these claims than the one the Trustee has put\n\n55\n\n1 before the Court.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 Now, to briefly summarize the legal standard, Your Honor, which I won't spend too much time on because I know the Court is very familiar with it from this and other cases, but I do think it is important to briefly recap what is required to defeat summary judgment.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 Under Rule 56, Your Honor, a movant who has presented competent evidence supporting his claims is entitled to summary judgment unless the opposing party can show through its own evidence that there is no genuine dispute of material fact -- or sorry. The opposing party has to show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And in that standard, Your Honor, the words genuine and material are both critical because what they show is that not just any dispute of fact will suffice to defeat summary judgment. The disputed fact must first be a material one, and what that means according to the case law is that the fact might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.\n\n20 21 22 If the outcome of the suit under the applicable law would be the same, regardless of whether the fact is true, then the fact is not material.\n\n23 24 25 And in addition, Your Honor, even if the fact is material, in order to defeat summary judgment, the dispute about that fact must also -- must also be genuine. And that\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 56 of 117\n\n56\n\n1 2 3 means, Your Honor, that the evidence must be such that a reasonable jury, a reasonable finder of fact, could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 Not just any dispute will suffice. It needs to be one that could genuinely support a decision by the fact finder for the nonmovant. So, again, here, which we'll come back to, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Kwok was guilty in this criminal trial.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Your Honor, we also have in our papers, and I will not address it at the moment, but the law of governing the substance of the Trustee's claims. In short, under New Jersey law, which we believe applies here, courts will look past nominal title and look at who actually exhibits the characteristics of beneficial ownership and control over an asset. Court system that they quote, will not be concerned with the technicalities of title in bankruptcy when it comes to determining what is property in the estate.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In addition, Your Honor, I won't spend too much time with it. And by the way, I would just say, too, that, you know, the Court has already applied, you know, similar law or similar jurisdictions to reach conclusions that other property nominally owned by the Debtor's relatives or others close to him is actually property of the estate. The Court did that in the adversary proceeding involving the Debtors from (inaudible), the Lady May adversary proceeding, and of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 57 of 117\n\n1 2 3 course, the adversary proceeding involving the Debtor's home in Greenwich, Connecticut, the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding.\n\n57\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 Your Honor, we also have our alter ego claims with respect to the Debtor's ownership and control over Taurus Fund LLC. The law there is similar to that which the Court has applied in other adversary proceedings, including, again, the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding. I won't repeat that in detail again today.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 What I would like to do now because, I do think the evidence is critical -- I know from past experience the Court does focus on the evidence on summary judgment -- is walk through it. And I would like, at this point, to see if my colleague, Mr. Barron, could put the slides on the screen. MR. BARRON: And this is Doug Barron, Your Honor.\n\n16 17 18 I have requested the ability to share my screen. Thank you. THE COURT: Certainly. I'm sure the courtroom deputy is working on that right now.\n\n19 20 COURT OFFICER: (Inaudible) he should be able to share right now.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: All right. Thank you for that. So, Your Honor, if the Court will indulge me, there are a large number of slides here. I will not dwell on each one of them. Part of the reason there's a large number of slides is because there is so much evidence of the Debtor's ownership\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 58 of 117\n\n58\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 of the mansion. And frankly, Your Honor, it is from really beginning to end all aspects of ownership that one would look to in determining who is the actual beneficial ownership of a property. The evidence that we will go through in a moment shows that Mr. Kwok was intimately involved in every aspect of purchasing the home, renovating the home, and living in the home. Everything that an owner would do with respect to a property, Mr. Kwok did. And to the contrary, there is no evidence that anyone else, including the Defendants, ever took any actions that would be consistent with them and not the Debtor owning the property. If we could please move to the third slide. And by the way, is this large enough on Your Honor's screen for the Court to see? THE COURT: I can see it. Yes. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Okay. Great. So, Your Honor, what this slide shows, this is sort of the beginning of the process. This is November, approximately, of 2021, early December 2021. There was testimony in the criminal trial from Christine Prostini (phonetic), who is the buy side broker, and also from Amy Buck (phonetic), who is the attorney for the buyer of the property.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 59 of 117\n\n59\n\n1 2 3 4 5 What this testimony from both of these witnesses shows is that the Debtor's personal counsel within the Court is very familiar reached out to both of them about the Mahwah Mansion to start the process of potentially purchasing the property in December of 2021.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 You'll see according to Ms. Prostini's testimony, Mr. Mitchell said he had a client who \"wanted to see a couple of homes\" including the Crocker Mansion. Again, referring to this property as a home. Amy Buck, the lawyer, said essentially the same. She went on to also refer to Mr. Mitchell's clients as clients who were \"like family\" to Mr. Mitchell's wife. I don't know about the Court, but I don't think that sounds like a reference to a bunch of G-Club investors.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 If Mr. Barron could please go to the next slide. This slide, Your Honor, and again, there are references to the exhibits which are attached to the Trustee's statement of undisputed facts, which are before the Court. This is merely summarizing the documents that have already been submitted. Just want that to be very clear, and the exhibit references are on all of the slides.\n\n22 23 24 25 This slide, Your Honor, shows that initially, when Mr. Mitchell reached out about the property, he suggested that Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, and her \"family trust\" were going to be buying the property. No reference to G-\n\n 60 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 Club, no reference to Hamilton, no reference to other of the entities that now form the basis for the Defendant's story to the contrary. This is also shown in a text message from Mr. Mitchell on the right hand of the page, talking about how the Debtor's daughter initially was the one who was purportedly interested in buying the property. If we go to the next slide, Your Honor, slide 5. This slide talks about the first visit that occurred for the first showing of the property on November 28, 2021. Who attended that showing of the property? Of course, it was Mr. Kwok and his wife. Slide 6, please, Doug. This slide shows that following the first visit, Mr. Kwok through Mr. Mitchell reached out and asked questions about the property, including whether it had any ghosts, other questions that somebody looking to purchase a property for themselves might want to ask. Please go to slide 7, Doug. This slide, Your Honor, shows that in late November of 2021, the Debtor communicated an offer of \\$26 million to buy the property. The Debtor himself was the one who came up with this offer. We know this because the Debtor asked his top lieutenant, Ya Li (phonetic), who testified at the criminal trial, to transcribe and translate his voice Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 60 of 117\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 61 of 117\n\nmemo that he gave to her and have it sent to Mr. Mitchell. That was an exhibit in the criminal trial, and the testimony that we've attached, sworn testimony, the Court has considered on summary judgment, talks about that voice memo, authenticates that voice memo. All of it is admissible and can be considered by the Court.\n\n61\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Notably, in his transcribed voice memo that was sent to Mr. Mitchell, the Debtor says that the \"family fund\" will buy the property. And he says that William G, the Debtor's close friend and criminal coconspirator, is the one who should be contacted about it, Your Honor. Family fund, there's no reference to the G-Club. There's no reference to the story the Defendants would now have the Court believe.\n\nSlide 8.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 This slide, Your Honor, shows that after formulating the offer, the Debtor visited the mansion for a second time on December 2nd, 2021. And if you look at these text messages, it's very telling. You have, Mr. Mitchell texting the real estate agent, saying would it be possible for the father to come back to the house tomorrow? And then he talks about how there's -- that how the mother had a concern about the air conditioning.\n\n23 24 25 Your Honor, this is Mr. Kwok visiting a project, visiting a property that he wanted to purchase, and it's Mr. Kwok's wife asking questions about the air conditioning,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 62 of 117\n\n1 2 something that somebody who is going to live in that house would want to ask.\n\n62\n\n3 4 5 6 And the testimony from Ms. Prostini at the criminal trial on the right hand side of the page describes who she understood the buyers to be, the father of Ms. Guo and the mother, his wife.\n\nThe next page, please.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 This slide, Your Honor, is more testimony from Ms. Prostini at the criminal trial, talking about what happened at the second visit on December 2nd. During that visit, Mr. Kwok and his wife went through every room in the house. Again, the behavior of somebody looking to buy a home for themselves.\n\n14\n\n7\n\nNext slide, please.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Your Honor, this is, another excerpt from the voice memo that we discussed previously, which it's, I think, the same excerpt but it shows that the Debtor, not only did he send the offer memo to Mr. Mitchell communicating his \\$26 million offer price, but on the right hand side of the page, you see that on December 3rd, 2021, Mr. Mitchell sent a letter to the seller formally conveying that offer. It's the exact same offer. The \\$26 million offer that the Debtor relayed was the one that Mr. Mitchell sent to the seller. Again, the Debtor controlling every aspect of the process. On the next page, slide 11, we see that Mr.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 63 of 117\n\n63\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mitchell begins texting the real estate agent, asking for copies of the floor plans for the mansion, saying that they, referring to the buyers, were focused on getting it ready for their case. She then said in the next -- in a subsequent text message on the left hand side of the page at the bottom that Mei and the mother really want to see them, referring to the floor plans.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 Again, it is obvious to anyone who the buyer of this property is going to be. And sure enough, on the right hand side of the page, Ms. Prostini, the real estate agent who interacted with the buyers, said that the buyers were, \"the Guo family\" at the bottom of the page.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The next slide, Your Honor, I won't belabor the details, but what this shows, these are, again, exhibits authenticated and entered into evidence at the criminal trial, is that the Debtor's assistant, Gladys Chow, who has an email address of HGHK Technologies, which, of course, is one of the Debtor's alter egos, sent floor plans to the real estate agent, to the real estate broker, highlighting certain things that she would like to have done, including, rearranging certain rooms.\n\n22 23 24 25 And there's a corresponding invoice from a design firm which talks about creating a wing for the son on the 3rd level and a wing for the daughter also on the 3rd level. That's at the bottom of the page. Again, Your Honor, from\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 64 of 117\n\n64\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all this evidence, very clear who's going to be living in this house. The next page, page 13. Who else visited the property? The Debtor's criminal coconspirator, agent, and employee, Yvette Wang. As Ms. Prostini testified, she, of course, worked with Mr. Guo. She also visited the property. The next slide, Your Honor. These are the actual documents that were put together by Mr. Mitchell initially identifying Taurus Fund SP as the purchaser of the property. I will get into in a moment how that changed. If you look at page 15, the next slide, there is language from the purchase contract, indicating that the property would be used \"as a single-family residential dwelling\". We have that highlighted on the page, not as a clubhouse for G-Club members, as Defendants claim. The next slide, Your Honor, is the buyer's affidavit from the transaction. This, again, if you look at the bottom of the page, we have it highlighted, designated as residential property. The next slide, Your Honor, slide 17. This shows testimony from Amy Buck, the lawyer for the buyer at the criminal trial, talking about how at closing, in fact, on the day of closing, an LLC, Taurus Fund LLC, was created to acquire the property. Again, this shows very clearly, Taurus 1 2 3 Fund LLC is an entity that does nothing and never has done anything other than serve as a vehicle to acquire this property for the Debtor.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The next slide, Your Honor, corporate formation documents for Taurus Fund LLC shows how it was structured, its two managers in the document on the left, bottom of the page, for Taurus Management LLC and another defendant to the adversary proceeding, and Scott Barnett, also a Defendant. Mr. Barnett, of course, is the Debtor's bodyguard and acknowledged head of security.\n\n11 12 13 Mr. Barnett's signature appears on the formation document, which is also exhibited on the right hand of the page.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 Now, interestingly, Your Honor, if you look at slide 19, despite Mr. Barnett's role in signing the documents and serving as a manager of Taurus Fund LLC, he testified at the criminal trial that he basically knew nothing about it. When he was asked if he had a role at Taurus Fund, he said he did not have a role.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 He acknowledged that he was a signatory, and then he says, well, he didn't find that out until much later. And on the right hand side of the page, he said they had me down on paper as a manager. And what that amounted to, Your Honor, and how he explained that, as well, and this is the bottom of the right hand side of the page, Mr. Mitchell gave\n\n 65\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 66 of 117\n\n1 2 3 him paperwork. Mr. Mitchell, the Debtor's personal attorney, well known to the Court, gave him paperwork to sign, and Mr. Barnett simply signed it.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 Your Honor, this bears all the hallmarks of the other activity we have seen the Debtor engage in when a company -- when he tries to take assets that are really his and put them in the nominal control of others. He has people like his bodyguard, his wife, his daughter's boyfriend, others, stand in and put their names on documents.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The next slide, Your Honor, this is after the home was purchased. Further communications which, again, make crystal clear to anyone that the buyers of the home were, in fact, Mr. Kwok and his family and not G-Club or anyone else. You have Ms. Prostini, the real estate agent, texting Mr. Mitchell, saying that she wants to congratulate the buyers, saying the buyers are so nice and so is their staff.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I want to do -- I want to talk to you about what I can do to thank them. In the last text, she wanted to talk about them, talk about buying them a nice holiday gift, a floral arrangement. And she says, tellingly, she wants to know where to send something, and asking if she could send it to their Connecticut home. Who has a home in Connecticut, Your Honor? Of course, the Debtor. That's the home at Taconic Road that the estate now owns. Testimony from Ms. Prostini on the right hand side of the page refers\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 67 of 117\n\n67\n\n1 definitively to the Debtor as the buyer.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 The next slide, Your Honor, and it's hard to imagine something more telling than this. This is testimony of Mr. Barnett from the criminal trial. And again, you can take, you know, all of Attorney Conway's evidentiary objections for what they are worth, which I think is, frankly, nothing.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 But this one is his client testifying at the criminal trial in response to questioning from Mr. Kwok's counsel. Were you surprised when Mr. Guo purchased the property? Referring to the Mahwah Mansion. Yes. What does this show, Your Honor? He didn't even fight the suggestion that Mr. Guo is the one who purchased the property. Everybody knew that. That was baked into the question, and he acknowledged it, didn't question it in his response.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 So, Your Honor, next -- to the next slide, we've now sort of summarized evidence, and that's just a portion of the evidence to be clear. All the evidence is discussed in our -- in our papers and then set forth in the statement of undisputed facts, relating to the Debtor's purchase of the property.\n\n22 23 24 25 The next slide, which I'll try to go through, hopefully, relatively quickly, detail how after purchasing the property and while he was still in the process of purchasing it, in fact, the Debtor worked with his assistant\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 68 of 117\n\n68\n\n1 2 3 4 5 to buy furnishings for the property. The documents that are -- the messages that are exhibited on slide 22, these are all text messages, which were authenticated in the criminal trial through testimony that is in the record in support of the Trustee's motion for summary judgment.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mr. Kwok is texting with Gladys Chow, his assistant, talking about all the things that he wanted to buy -- lampshades, custom furniture, et cetera. And in the highlighted text there, he said it's all to be used in New Jersey. Talked about ordering a bed and furnishings for his wife's room and his daughter's room at the bottom of the page.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The next slide, Your Honor, this actually details testimony from a deposition that occurred in this adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court, where the Trustee deposed the owner of La Belle Modern, which is one of the outlets from which Mr. Kwok bought furnishings for the home. The witness testified that an individual resembling Mr. Kwok came in, acquired pieces for his home, and that that home was located in Mahwah. He confirmed that that picture on the right, which the Court can see based on her experience in this case, is Mr. Kwok. He's the individual who came in and made the purchases.\n\n24 25 On the next slide, Your Honor, slide 24, this is sort of more of the same. I won't go over this in detail,\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 69 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 but it is Gladys Chow, communicating with the owner of La Belle Modern concerning purchases. Gladys Chow is using a Golden Spring address in her signature block, and she is making purchases of these furnishings to go to the Mahwah Mansion. Your Honor, Golden Spring is already an adjudicated alter ego of the Debtor, and the connection there is very clear.\n\n8 9 10 11 The next slide, Your Honor, slide 25. This is an account statement of La Belle Modern, again, showing that Amy Buck's escrow account that was used for furnishings at the mansion was actually used to make purchases.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Slide 26, Your Honor, I'm going to go through these fairly quickly. But I would actually ask the Court to focus on these, as well, because they are, in my view, incredibly compelling. These are excerpts from text messages where the Debtor actually attached videos that he sent to Ms. Chow, which he was going through in painstaking detail and marking up the floor plan of the Mahwah Mansion, talking about where he wanted to place his daughter's bathroom, where he wanted to place her bedroom. He marked up a spot for the Debtor's boyfriend's room.\n\n22 23 24 On the next slide, on slide 27, he's marking up where he wants Miles' room, Qiang Guo's room to be, talking about his dressing room.\n\n25\n\nThe next slide, slide 28, this is his wife's wing\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 70 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 of the house, talking about where he wanted her bedroom to be, what he wanted her bathroom -- where he wanted her bathroom to be, et cetera. Again, this is all coming directly from the Debtor.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The next slide, more of the same, Your Honor. Finally, if you get to slide 30, this is further compelling evidence of the Debtor's ownership, as if what we've seen already were not enough. This is testimony in the bankruptcy case of the -- of an individual with, Pro Memoria, which is a high end design company that does renovations for projects such as this. And as we'll see on the next page, they've done renovations for Mr. Kwok in the past.\n\n13 14 15 16 Over here on page 30, he testified that somebody reached out to him on behalf of Mr. Kwok to do a project in the New York area. And he just testified that it was for a renovation project at the Mahwah Mansion in New Jersey.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 He was contacted by Gladys Chow, the Debtor's assistant, to come up with a bid for the project. And when it came time to talk about the project in detail on the right hand side of the page, what did he do? In September, he met -- in September of 2022, he met with the Debtor in his offices in Columbus Circle and discussed the plan in detail. Where else -- where else did he meet with the Debtor? He knows the Debtor at his home at Taconic Road in Greenwich. Again, the Debtor controlling intimately every aspect of the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3852
Filed 11/26/24
Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30
Page 71 of |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 117
71 |\n| 1 | process. |\n| 2 | The next page, Your Honor, I won't spend too much |\n| 3 | time on it, but this is demonstrating that this isn't the |\n| 4 | first time Pro Memoria had worked for Mr. Kwok personally. |\n| 5 | They also did work on Mr. Kwok's home in Beijing. |\n| 6 | Slide 32.
If it weren't already clear who the |\n| 7 | client was, who the person controlling the renovation of this |\n| 8 | home was, here is the offer proposal submitted by -- and this |\n| 9 | is an exhibit to the deposition transcript.
She's |\n| | authenticated.
There's no evidentiary objection whatsoever. |\n| | This is Pro Memoria is sending the offer to Dear MK, |\n| | addressing the offers for the renovations to Mr. Kwok |\n| | himself. |\n| | And then when you look at the details of the offer |\n| | of the proposal, does it say anything about a meeting room |\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 authenticated. There's no evidentiary objection whatsoever. This is Pro Memoria is sending the offer to Dear MK, addressing the offers for the renovations to Mr. Kwok And then when you look at the details of the offer of the proposal, does it say anything about a meeting room for members of a club? No. It's the daughter's room, the mother's room, the son's room, to the tune of millions of dollars. This is Mr. Kwok and Mr. Kwok alone controlling a renovation of this house so it would suit him and his family as their home.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 If it weren't painfully obvious enough what was going on here, Your Honor, on slide 33, what happens in April of 2023 after the Debtor gets arrested? Pro Memoria reaches out to Gladys Chow, the Debtor's assistant, and says, it is with great regret what happened in Miles Kwok. At this\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 72 of 117\n\n1\n\npoint, we can consider definitively the project canceled.\n\n2 3 4 5 Why would the project be canceled if this was a G-Club house? Of course not. It was a house for Mr. Kwok, and when he was arrested, the project no longer needed to go forward.\n\n6 7 8 The next slide, Your Honor, I won't spend time on it because we've covered over and over again more evidence of furnishings for the Debtor's family's rooms in the house.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Slide 35, this is Amy Buck testifying at the criminal trial, again, the lawyer, who worked on the purchase, talking about how she used funds from her trust account belonging, ostensibly, to Taurus Fund to purchase, among other items, a \\$36,000 mattress, which ultimately went into the daughter's bedroom. Again, more overwhelming evidence of the Debtor's ownership.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Scott Barnett, the Defendant in this case at the criminal trial, slide 36. Your Honor, he acknowledged all of this. That Mr. Kwok had a bedroom in the mansion, his wife had a bedroom in the mansion, his son had a bedroom there, his daughter did. Not only did they have bedrooms, they had whole wings. All of that acknowledged by Mr. Barnett in his testimony.\n\n23 24 25 Slide 37, Your Honor. In addition to having orchestrated the purchase process from beginning to end and controlling the renovation and furnishing process from\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 73 of 117\n\n1 2 3 beginning to end, Mr. Kwok also directed the flow of funds used to purchase the mansion. On slide 37 here, we have a diagram showing how the funds flowed.\n\n73\n\n4 5 6 7 8 The funds ultimately were at Crane Advisory Group. They were transferred to an account, a trust account at Mr. Mitchell's law firm, then they flowed through William G's Hamilton entities and ultimately to the recipients of funds on behalf of the sellers of the mansion.\n\n9 10 11 12 Now, the next slide, slide 38, this is Mr. Collette's (phonetic) testimony at the criminal trial. Mr. Collette was a key witness at the criminal trial. All this testimony is admissible, Your Honor, on summary judgment.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 What did Mr. Collette say? That Mr. Kwok was the principal. All this testimony shows that Crane was simply an entity that Mr. Kwok used to do his bidding. Mr. Kwok was the boss. When Mr. Collette was hired originally, he met with Yvette Wang, and this is on the right hand side of the page.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 And he -- whether he was going to be hired depended upon Mr. Kwok approving him being hired. His offer letter when he was hired was from Saraca Media Group, one of the Debtor's alter egos. Who paid Mr. Collette's salary? Of course, it was Lexington Properties, another adjudged alter ego of the Debtor.\n\n25\n\nYou go to the next page, and the Defendants\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 74 of 117\n\n74\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 will -- I'm sure you'll hear from Attorney Conway that all these funds were not Mr. Kwok's funds. What did Mr. Collette say at the criminal trial? On the right hand side of the page, the wires that you received for G-Clubs, Mr. Guo, Mr. Kwok had control over those. Correct? Correct. And if he had control over them, he had a financial -- did you believe he had a financial interest in those wires? Yes. This is Mr. Collette at Crane saying that the Debtor had control over the funds. Further evidence of the Debtor's control over funds at Crane on slide 40. This is a recorded phone call, which is -- which was authenticated as part of testimony, but it's also part of the record on summary judgment. This is Mr. Kwok not just asking, not just demanding, but screaming at the top of his lungs to force Mr. Collette and others to transfer funds to Mr. William G's foundation. That's exactly what he did in this case as well, Your Honor. The next slides I will flip through quickly. It just -- it keeps piling on top of each other. If we need more evidence of the Debtor's use of the Mahwah Mansion as its own, let's look at what we seized from the residence. Again, all these images were authenticated in the criminal trial. That testimony is admissible here. These images are admissible here.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3852
Filed 11/26/24
Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30
Page 75 of |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 117
75 |\n| 1 | You have the Debtor's medication on slide 41. |\n| 2 | You have a club membership card of the Debtor on |\n| 3 | slide 42. |\n| 4 | On slide 43, you have a picture of the Debtor's |\n| 5 | Brioni suits found in the closet.
You have his New York |\n| 6 | learner's permit.
You have a Hong Kong passport.
You have |\n| 7 | the Debtor's Hong Kong ID. |\n| 8 | On slide 44, you have more of the same, a credit |\n| 9 | card of the Debtor's wife, the Debtor's Social Security card, |\n| 10 | health insurance card. |\n| 11 | Slide 45, you have images of the Debtor's family |\n| 12 | members, all found in the mansion. |\n| 13 | Slide 46, pictures of the closets, showing that |\n| 14 | they're stocked full of clothes, including the Debtor's |\n| 15 | suits.
Obviously, this is not a place that was used as |\n| 16 | something other than a home for the Debtor and his family. |\n| 17 | More of the same on page 47.
We have, certificate |\n| 18 | to the Debtor's son concerning his participation in a Ferrari |\n| 19 | challenge program.
You have Legos that were found in one of |\n| 20 | the rooms, and there's Scott Barnett's -- again, the |\n| 21 | Defendant's testifying in a criminal trial talking about how |\n| 22 | much the Debtor's daughter likes Legos and that these were |\n| 23 | for her.
All the indications of what one would do with a |\n| 24 | home they live in. |\n| 25 | Slide 48, Your Honor.
This is a full list, so I |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 76 of 117\n\n1 2 3 won't go through in detail of what we found in the criminal - - in the mansion when it was raided in connection with the criminal proceedings.\n\n4 5 6 We have on slide 49, a receipt from an antique dealer, talking about certain items that were going to be used for Madame's bed living maid's bedroom.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Slide 50, Your Honor. This shows that the Debtor had property moved from his current home, or his -- one of his homes in Greenwich, the Taconic Road property, which is now property of the estate, to the Mahwah Mansion. This is signed by the Defendant, Mr. Barnett. Again, the common thread was Debtor's house. He's moving things from one of his houses to the other.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The next few slides, Your Honor, these really go to beyond everything that we've already talked about. What additional indicia are there that the Debtor controlled Taurus Fund LLC and that Taurus Fund LLC was the Debtor's alter ego. Well, the evidence we have with that, Your Honor, is that were all -- there are all kinds of things that Taurus Fund LLC did, and this is just in addition to help the overwhelming evidence of the Debtor actually controlling the mansion and owning the mansion and using Taurus Fund as a novel owner of it.\n\n24 25 In addition to all of that, the Debtor used Taurus Fund to buy items unrelated to the mansion and do other\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 77 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 things for his other alter egos. For example, he caused Taurus Fund to buy a \\$130,000 piano and have it shipped to his office on Columbus Circle, care of Gladys Chow. That's on page 51.\n\n5 6 7 8 On page 52, this shows that the Debtor had invoices due to Golden Spring billed to Taurus Fund, for items shipped to Columbus Circle. Again, this is the Debtor using Taurus Fund to fund the Golden Spring expenses.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 It gets even worse on slide 53. This is Taurus Fund paying an invoice for plumbing work at the Debtor's home in Connecticut. Now, if correspondence with the Defendants claim it to be, there's absolutely no logical explanation for why making payments to satisfy plumbing invoices for work done at the Taconic Road property.\n\n15 16 17 18 And Your Honor, if we needed any further evidence that Taurus Fund existed for no purpose other than to do the Debtor's bidding, I think we all saw that play out in real time.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 On Slide 54, this is an excerpt of the email that the Court has already seen where, shortly after the Debtor was convicted, a representative of Taurus Fund reached out to the security company and said, in light of the verdict in the criminal trial, they were no longer going to fund the expenses of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n25\n\nOnce Mr. Kwok went down, Taurus Fund no longer had\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 78 of 117\n\n1 2 3 a reason to continue existing and no reason to continue maintaining the property. That much is obvious from the correspondence and from everything else that we've seen.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 I'll pause there, Your Honor, and briefly I know I've been going on for a while, but like I said, I appreciate the Court's indulgence, and I think that it is important to really understand just how extensive the evidence is in support of the Trustee's claims.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 And before concluding, I do want to briefly be, you know, more directly responsive to some of the arguments that the Defendants have made in response to the Trustee's motion. And we can keep this -- we can take the slides down for now and just leave it there, I guess.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 But briefly, Your Honor, you know, the Defendants filed an objection to the motion. The Court, I'm sure, has read it. It's a 15-page objection which, frankly, in my view, barely puts up a fight. And I say that because it does virtually nothing to address the mountain of evidence that we just went through, and there's more, supporting the Debtor's ownership of the mansion.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 The Defendants raised some factual arguments and some legal ones. I'll address the factual ones first and then briefly the legal ones at the end, although I won't spend much time on those because they're standing arguments that the Court has heard before and overruled on multiple\n\n79\n\n1 occasions.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 In terms of their attempts to create a genuine dispute of material fact, Your Honor, the Defendants -- I can't believe they say this, but they make the remarkable contention in their brief that the Trustee \"has failed to present any evidence that the Debtor has an interest in the mansion\".\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. And what makes this assertion all the more remarkable is if you actually look at the substance of the Defendant's objection and their response to the Trustee's Rule 56 statement, they dispute virtually none of the Trustee's facts. They simply try to ignore them and I guess, ask the Court to ignore them.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 I won't go over this in in detail because it's in our paper. We do this in paragraph 16 to 21 of our reply brief. But there, we talk about how the Defendants only even purport to dispute 6 of these 56 paragraphs in the Trustee's statement of undisputed facts.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, having no ability to actually dispute the Trustee's facts, what do the Defendants do? They do two things. First, they try to come up with a gotcha moment by arguing that the Trustee has admitted virtually every fact in the case based on the Defendant's request for admissions. And then second, they put forward two declarations that are, for reasons I will discuss, wholly deficient to\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 80 of 117\n\n80\n\n1 create a genuine dispute of material fact.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 First, on the request for admissions, I won't spend too much time on this, Your Honor, because it's laid out very clearly in our reply brief. The Trustee never had a deadline to respond to those requests for admissions because they were served shortly before the Court granted its order staying this litigation pending the conclusion of the Debtor's criminal trial. The Court very clearly directed the parties within seven days following the termination of that stay to file a joint proposed order proposing modification of existing scheduling deadlines or in the absence of an agreement to request a status conference.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I would note that in correspondence prior to the motion for that stay being filed, after the request for admission had been served, defense counsel had initially suggested setting a deadline in the order which would say that the Trustee would have a certain number of days following the expiration of the stay by which to respond to request for admissions, but that did not actually end up being in the order.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Instead, the order entered by the Court contained no deadline, but rather established a meet-and-confer requirement. And after the criminal trial, when it came time to meet and confer as required by the order, the Trustee reached out to Attorney Conway twice, once on August 7th and\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 81 of 117\n\n1 2 once on August 8th, to meet and confer and telling him that we plan to file for summary judgment.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 In response to that, we got no response, other than asking if we believe discovery would be closed. And we said we didn't think further discovery was necessary. Zero mention of request for admissions or Defendant's position that they were entitled to have a deadline set for response to those.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 To make matters worse, after that, in accordance with the order when we had a status conference before the Court, which I'm sure the Court will recall, on August 13th, Taurus Fund did not even appear. The Defendants did not even appear at that status conference. By their own preference, it occurred only between the Trustee and the Court with Defendants not showing up, raising any issue about further discovery, any issue about their request for admissions, et cetera.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So, Your Honor, if they wanted a deadline, they could have asked for it. They could have met deferred as they were required to do it. They didn't. Even if there was a deadline, the Court is well within its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) to permit the Trustee to amend his responses. There's no prejudice to the Defendants.\n\n```\n25\n```\nMost of the requests for admissions were central\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 82 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 issue type requests, like admit that the Debtor is not the owner of the mansion or admit the Taurus Fund is not the Debtor's alter ego. The Defendants obviously knew that the Trustee had taken the opposite position in the litigation, so they were not prejudiced by not seeing that in writing in response to a request for admission.\n\n7 8 9 To the extent required, we've attached to my declaration in support of the reply at ECF 147 responses to the requests for admission.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Your Honor, once that straw man argument is cast to the side, the Defendants are left with two declarations that they submitted in support of their counternarrative in their opposition that what really happened here is that Taurus Fund and the William G-controlled Hamilton entities located in the BVI, they helped G-Club, which again is the Debtor's fraudulent membership organization, acquire this mansion as a clubhouse for members that they could use and enjoy as part of their G-Club membership, which again was proven to be a big fraud in the criminal trial.\n\n20 21 22 23 And they say that the Debtor has no interest in the property and indeed no relationship to it whatsoever than having helped G-Club find the property and then assist with renovations.\n\n24 25 Two declarations, Your Honor. The declaration of Mr. Mohammed, who purports to be, I think, I believe the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 83 of 117\n\n83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 corporate secretary of one of the Hamilton entities, and then a declaration from Defendant Barnett. The Mohammed declaration talks about the purported process that was followed to find a clubhouse for members and the entities that were formed in accordance with that effort.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 But Your Honor, the Mohammed declaration, first, shouldn't be considered by the Court for two reasons, which I will discuss. And then even if it were considered, it is not even close to sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 First, the declaration should not be considered because Mr. Mohammed was not identified anywhere in the Defendant's initial disclosures. Had they listed Mr. Mohammed, the Trustee could have taken his deposition. They didn't, and we have this -- we have the case law and the authority for this in our papers. Because they didn't, the Court can and should exclude his declaration on that basis. And by the way, this is an individual that we have never heard of prior to receiving his declaration.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 In addition, if the declaration were not excluded for that reason, it should be excluded because it is not based on personal knowledge and relies entirely on hearsay. Mr. Mohammed admits in the first paragraph of the declaration that he was not personally involved in any of the transactions that he discusses. Instead, he said he reviewed\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 84 of 117\n\n84\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 Hamilton documents, in the ordinary course of business, but he never describes what those records are. And there are some cases, Your Honor, which has said that on summary judgment, a corporate representative can testify on matters outside of his personal knowledge if that person says that the testimony is based on his review of particular corporate records. But at a minimum, that business must reasonably identify what those records are and show that there's a plausible connection between those records and the testimony that the witness is offering. For example, a chief financial officer could say that he reviewed financial statements created prior to his involvement with the company to testify about obligations that a company owes. But here, Mr. Mohammed simply says, I reviewed all of the records of Taurus Fund, and all of these records told me that Taurus Fund purchased the Mahwah Mansion as a clubhouse for members. That's essentially the thrust of his testimony. There is zero citation to a single record. Not a single one of these records that allegedly supports this story was produced to the Trustee in discovery. You would think that if the Defendants were serious about opposing summary judgment and Mr. Mohammed had access to documents\n\n25 which supported his story, he would have attached those to\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 85 of 117\n\n85\n\n| 1 | | his declaration. | | | | | He did no such thing. | |\n|---|--|------------------|--|--|--|--|-----------------------|--|\n|---|--|------------------|--|--|--|--|-----------------------|--|\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And even if the Court were to consider this testimony, Your Honor, it is flatly contradicted by the mountain of evidence to the contrary. The idea that G-Club purchased a mansion and a clubhouse for members cannot remotely be reconciled with all the evidence of the Debtor having controlled the purchase process from the very beginning, worked with the broker, worked with counsel, formulated the offer, designed whole wings of the property for his wife, filled the house with his own personal items from his medication to his suits.\n\n12 13 14 All of the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that this was a personal residence of the Debtor, and none of it supports this fantastical theory to the contrary.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Your Honor, in the interest of time, I'm not going to go over some additional slides at the end of the deck that sort of compare and contrast some of the testimony that the Debtor's witnesses offered in their declarations with the evidence to the contrary. But suffice it to say that everything they said is simply not supportable by the other evidence in the record, including Mr. Barnett's own testimony where he talks about how this is not a home of the Debtor. In the criminal trial, he talked about how the\n\n24 25 Debtor -- this is all on the record -- sometimes, you know, in the first few weeks after its purchase was there two to\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 86 of 117\n\n86\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 three times a week. Sometimes, he stayed there for four or five nights in a row. He acknowledged that the Court saw in response to questioning from the Debtor's counsel that it was, in fact, the Debtor who purchased the property. None of that can be reconciled with the story that he's now trying to tell the Court in his declaration, Your Honor. And that is not, in that situation, sufficient to create a genuine dispute of any material fact.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lastly, Your Honor, before wrapping up, I will very briefly address the legal arguments, and I'll do this briefly because there are arguments that have been raised before. The Defendants argue that the Trustee lacks standing under both Section 541 and Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Those arguments should be rejected. The Court has already considered this in prior adversary proceedings.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 For example, on the motion to dismiss the Trustee's counterclaims in the HCHK USA adversary proceeding the Court correctly found there that Wagner and in pari delicto do not bar the Trustee's claims under Section 541 because the insider exception applies.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 That same exception applies here, Your Honor. Taurus Fund, as alleged by the Trustee, is an insider of the Debtor. It'd be inequitable, to say the least, to permit Taurus Fund to keep the mansion after having assisted the Debtor and hiding it from his creditors.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 87 of 117\n\n87\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In addition, Your Honor, even if the Trustee lacks standing under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, due to the Wagner rule or the in pari delicto doctrine, he can get around that as the Court has recognized in other adversary proceedings by pursuing his claims under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code as claims are brought on behalf of all creditors equally.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The Court reached the same conclusion in the Lamp Capital and the Greenwich Land adversary proceedings. And I would also direct the Court, Your Honor, to a case that we cite in our papers, the new Second Circuit decision from 2024, the In Re Nordlicht case, which completely undermines all the arguments that Defendants have made in their papers to the effect that an alter ego claim is not a claim that can be pursued on behalf of creditors generally, and that's an individual claim. That case held squarely to the opposite.\n\n17 18 19 20 Your Honor, with that, again, I think that was a lengthy presentation, but I thought it was important to go through the evidence in detail. Appreciate the Court's indulgence. I'm happy to answer any questions.\n\n21 22 23 THE COURT: Thank you. I do not have any questions at the moment. I may later, but I don't at the moment. Thank you.\n\n24 25 Mr. Conway, do you wish to be heard? MR. CONWAY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Michael\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 88 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 Conway on behalf of the Defendants. We heard a lot just now. Most of it is concerning because the Trustee has taken two positions in this case. Now he's taking one, granted. But it at the outset, couldn't come up with the theory that he would ultimately rely on.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The two theories under which a Trustee can say that this -- here, the Taurus Fund property is estate property, one being that it was new -- it was purchased or acquired using funds that come from the bankruptcy estate, come from the Debtor. Okay? And you know, there have been times where the Trustee has said, he was a billionaire. Of course, it was his money.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 They're not doing that now, and for obvious reason. They can't find any evidence. They've gone around the world. They've gotten every bank account they can find, they prosecuted cases around the world, but there's not a single shred of evidence that ties any dollar that the Debtor may have ever touched with the Taurus Fund property.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So they changed course. They changed course by saying that, well, the Taurus Fund property was acquired through this fraud. I use Trustee's counsel's language. These facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, which resulted in the Debtor's conviction for, among other things, using G-Club as a fraudulent membership organization to fleece victims out of hundreds of 1 millions of dollars.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Okay. That's theory two. It's not his money. It's somebody else's money that he defraud -- he defrauded these people into investing their money or contributing their money, and then he misused their money so that he could live like a billionaire. He wasn't a billionaire. He used somebody else's money to live like a billionaire. That's what they've settled on in this motion.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 And in order to prove their motion, they -- and I got to say, I'll get to this issue of whether we had a meetand-confer. It's a flatly false statement. The Trustee has argued that there was a criminal trial in which the Debtor, not our clients, but the Debtor was faced with evidence. And he's gone through, as he points out, mountains of evidence that came into that criminal trial.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Now, we don't have any evidence that's actually provided to Your Honor in a way that's admissible. In other words, there's no trial transcript that's certified. There's no -- there's been no exhibit from the criminal trial where we can show that it was actually admitted in the criminal trial, as opposed to the judge in the criminal trial saying, well, that's hearsay.\n\n23 24 25 Now, we don't know what these documents are. The audio recordings in Chinese with some translation that's not authenticated. We don't know what those documents are. We\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 90 of 117\n\n90\n\n1 2 3 4 can't, as Mr. Bassett rightly stated, we state in a lot of our responses, we can't really address those because we don't know why those people testified, where those allegations come from.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 What we can say, though, is that they're all irrelevant. And what is relevant is what happened here, not what somebody else thought might have happened, what somebody heard from their brother, sister's cousin. What really happened here is what's important. And what is it that really happened here?\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 We have -- and there -- and I just want to -- I don't want to belabor this point, but I got to say, all of this testimony that we just saw, you know, if I had been invited to the criminal case, I would have asked for followup questions such as, well, why do you think that? To see whether there's any basis for any foundation for making a statement.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You know, statements by, Scott Barnett. You know? Well, were you surprised when Mr. Guo bought the house? But of course, somebody on the witness stand is not going to say, well, you can't ask me a question like that. He didn't buy the house. No. The response was, it made no sense to me. The allegation of him buying the house made no sense to him because it didn't happen. Okay? That's why it made no sense to him.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 91 of 117\n\n91\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 But moving along, Your Honor, we've got a fairly, I'll call it, simple but distressing fact pattern here. And either the Debtor was engaged in a massive fraud that ultimately hurt the G-Club members, or this is his money. We know there's no evidence it's his money. So let's focus on the latter because that's consistent with what we have presented as what happened here.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 What happened here is a bunch of members of the New Federal State of China, who put the Debtor as their figurehead, much like the United States puts their president as their figurehead, they put him in a position where he could utilize their property.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 In G-Club's case, they brought in memberships. The membership money was used at first to buy a casino in London. That casino in London didn't work out because of circumstances that are not really relevant here. Only -- the only thing that's really relevant here is had they really been doing this for the benefit of the Debtor, they wouldn't have done it in a -- in a country where the Debtor couldn't actually travel to, which is, you know, common knowledge on you just Google it, and he says he can't do that. He's stuck here.\n\n23 24 25 Now, when that fell through, according to our evidence that's been presented here, they came to United States. Now, who in the United States has an understanding\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 92 of 117\n\n92\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 based on their relationships with their -- the person who developed their homes, the person from whom they bought their antiques, the people who manage their properties, who has those connections? The Debtor. So they go to the Debtor, and they say, look. You helped us with our purchase of the Mahwah House, and we let you use it as your home base for the New Federal State of China. That's in the record. There's no reason to believe -- THE COURT: Where is that in the record, Attorney Conway? MR. CONWAY: That's in the record -- THE COURT: I listened to everything you just said except for that last sentence. You said it's in the record that people from G-Club or the New Federal State of China came to Mr. Kwok and said, help me purchase this mansion? MR. CONWAY: It's in the -- THE COURT: Is that what you said? MR. CONWAY: I did. Your Honor. And that's the declaration of Mr. Mohammed and the declaration of Mr. Barnett. THE COURT: Mr. Barnett -- but I have -- I have to be honest about Mr. Mohammed. I looked at it once, but I don't recall all of it right now as we're talking. But Mr. Barnett testified that the New Federal State of China came to\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 93 of 117\n\n| | 93 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mr. Kwok and asked that him to help them buy the Mahwah |\n| 2 | Mansion? |\n| 3 | MR. CONWAY:
Would you like me to read it? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
I would, please. |\n| 5 | MR. CONWAY:
Okay.
Let me find his -- okay. |\n| 6 | The Debtor was an asylum -- this is the Barnett |\n| 7 | declaration paragraph 2.
The Debtor was an asylum seeker in |\n| 8 | the United States and leader of political movement known as |\n| 9 | the New Federal State of China, the movement.
He required |\n| 10 | security due to the issues with Chinese government monitoring |\n| 11 | his communications and the attempts for the Chinese |\n| 12 | operatives to physically remove him from the United States. |\n| 13 | In December 2021, I learned that a property been |\n| 14 | purchased in Mahwah, New Jersey, which is the subject of a |\n| 15 | case, the Mahwah property, and that in exchange for his |\n| 16 | assistance with locating the Mahwah property in the first |\n| 17 | place, construction and remodeling, the movement would be |\n| 18 | allowed to use this location as a home base of sorts. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Well, that's a little bit different |\n| 20 | than what you just said, first of all.
First of all, it says |\n| 21 | he learned that.
So I don't know who he learned it from, |\n| 22 | number one.
But number two, he said in exchange, they'd be |\n| 23 | allowed to use it.
He didn't -- it didn't say what you said, |\n| 24 | which is they came to Mr. Kwok and asked him to help them buy |\n| 25 | that.
That's a different -- those are two -- that's a -- in |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 94 of 117\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 my opinion, that's a -- that's a distinction with a difference. MR. CONWAY: Okay. Fair enough, Your Honor. I move on. And I would note that a good majority of what was stated by Trustee's counsel was characterizations that I would consider to be false. So if I have offended you by saying -- THE COURT: No, no, you haven't offended me at all. No, no, don't -- don't get me wrong, Mr. Conway. You haven't offended me at all. I'm trying to remember what I've looked at, right, as far as this motion for summary judgment and everything in the -- in the record. Don't -- not at all. I probably sound odd because I'm not feeling well. My voice is weird. All that kind of stuff. But what I was asking you was not about Mr. Mohammad's declaration, but Mr. Barnett's, which I have looked at. I didn't recall him testifying in his declaration to what you said, which was that -- that he -- that Mr. Barnett testified that he had firsthand knowledge that the - that the movement came to Mr. Kwak to help -- have Mr. Kwok help them buy the Mahwah Mansion. That's what you had said. And I didn't recall that being in Mr. Barnett's declaration anywhere. That was my question. MR. CONWAY: Okay. THE COURT: So go ahead. I wasn't -- I wasn't --\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 95 of 117\n\n1 2 3 I'm not taking offense to anything. Don't worry about that. I'm asking questions based upon what I have reviewed prior to this hearing.\n\nMR. CONWAY: Correct.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay?\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6 7 8 9 10 MR. CONWAY: So we can sort of summarize the bulk of what you saw from Mr. Bassett as Mr. Kwok going out. At least we can assume it was Mr. Kwok. There's no, you know, there's certain testimony that somebody had made that Mr. Kwok did this or, you know, resembled Mr. Kwok did that.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 But let's just assume for the moment, arguendo, that Mr. Kwok is going out and buying things for the mansion, that he's going -- that he's talking to people about renovating the mansion. He's doing that, as testified by Mr. Barnett and Mr. Mohammed, in exchange for using the Mahwah property as a home base for the movement, which as we heard from Mr. Mohammed, the G-Club members are 90 percent members of the movement.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So we have a rationale for why they would do this, and we know that simply living -- let's just say for a moment that he's living in the house. We argue in our papers that's not proven. In fact, Mr. Barnett says that's just not true. He went to the -- to the house a few times a week or a month. He went there mainly because that's where the broadcast facility was that he was broadcasting on behalf of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 96 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 the movement for. It's very rare for him to spend the night. And you know, again, Mr. Bassett has repeatedly said, and it's in other papers as well, that the main residence of the Debtor is in Taconic -- the Taconic house in in Greenwich.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 So we're not -- there's no dispute here as to what whether or not the Debtor lived in Connecticut. The Trustee admits that. The dispute is whether or not his occasional use of the Mahwah house gives him an ownership interest. That -- because that's what's really at stake here.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And again, I go back to if the Trustee were to come to you four years from now and say that the president of the United States has been living in the White House for four years, he and his wife helped redecorate it, and his suits are there, his driver's license is there, his medications are there, you would look at the Trustee and say, are you crazy? He's the president of the United States. That's where he's expected to spend his time. He's expected to do all these things.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, that's the position that our clients are taking here, that Mr. Kwok was the putative leader, the president, so to speak, of the movement. And while we never got to the point where this house was completed because this case was filed, and then Your Honor issued an injunction, and it was no longer possible for our clients to complete the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 97 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 construction, there was activity at the house, but not the activity that was intended because it was never completed. And frankly, the idea that, at the end of the criminal case, the manager, not Mr. Barnett, the manager for Taurus Fund, Mr. Barnett has never been a manager for Taurus Fund. In fact, as the Trustee cannot dispute, we've given a list of all the managers throughout time for Taurus Fund.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And the current one indicated that after reading in the newspaper that the Government was taking the house, he was under the impression he had to leave the house. Yeah. That's -- we brought this to Your Honor's attention in a court filing. Your Honor said we need to do something about this and figure out who's going to pay for everything because, on this emergency motion by the Trustee, we have this email from the manager saying that they want to stop funding. Well, that's not evidence that Mr. Kwok owned the house.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 So we what we have here is Mr. Kwok using the house, being involved in the location of the house, being involved in the -- in the decoration of the house. What we don't have is a single shred of evidence that ties into the ownership of the house.\n\n23 24 25 Now, what we also have is a problem for the Trustee. Because if what they're saying now is that the reason they should have this control of the house, the reason\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 98 of 117\n\n98\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 they should have the ownership of the house is that it belonged -- it was purchased by these -- using the money of these defrauded victims, well, that's going to mean that the defrauded victims get defrauded twice because they can't - if they -- if their house, which they feel like they own, is now presented to the Trustee, that means that not only were they, it's in the words of the Trustee, policed by putting their money into G-Clubs, but now the property that was purchased with their money is given to somebody else. And this brings us, in part, to this point about standing. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because I've seen Your Honor's response to the standing issues when they've been raised in other cases. But I do want to point one thing out. The Trustee makes it clear in their papers that under 541, it's not enough to say that there is a hypothetical creditor, and that's -- which Your Honor found in Lamp Capital, et cetera. You have to go beyond that and find that that hypothetical creditor has the same claim as the people across the board in the bankruptcy. And that's something that when this construct was created was fairly reasonable because what they're doing is they're saying if a Debtor -- in other words, if a CEO of a corporation takes property from the corporation and puts it in his own pocket, all the creditors in the corporation are\n\n99\n\n| 1 | | hurt equally. |\n|---|--|---------------|\n|---|--|---------------|\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 Here, you've got a hands -- I don't want to call it a handful because it's a number of people, but it is a discernible group who put their money in the G-Club. That money was put into the Hamilton Opportunity Fund, which was then put into the Taurus Fund, and then the property was purchased.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 What the Trustee wants to do is take the proceeds of the sales of all this property and distribute it amongst all the creditors, maybe including them if you give them an opportunity to file a proof of claim, but to everybody else who might have a claim for -- personal injury claim against the Debtor, for all of the administrative claims of the Debtor. All that money is going to be gone. None of these putative victims are going to see a penny of it.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 I pointed this out to the Trustee, you know, that they -- I don't represent them, and so they wouldn't -- and the Trustee didn't want to talk to me about this, but they all said, look. Just give the property to the DOJ where they can then sell it and give us back our property.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 But no. What they're trying to do here is give this property to everybody, not just this group that was defrauded, not these putative victims, but to everybody who might have a claim for any reason against the Debtor. That's not a 541 claim. That is not acceptable under 541 because\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 100 of 117\n\n100\n\n1 2 3 these are different people with different creditors, different claims. They're separate and apart from all the other creditors in the estate.\n\n4 5 6 7 But moving all the way from that, I want to just -- I want to -- I want to talk about the Rule 26 issue. You know, these requests for admissions and this idea that there's no set date for response.\n\n8 9 10 11 Rule 26 actually does set a date for response. It's 30 days. I offered, when I served these documents, the opportunity to get a potential number of days after there was a recommence of the case. That didn't happen.\n\n12 13 14 15 So we're stuck with the 30 days. And even if it had happened, we had said 10 days. So that would have put us at August 11th. We did not get a response by August 11th. We did not get a response at all.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Now, counsel says, well, this is a sandbag moment. Well, no. It's not a sandbag moment, and Your Honor yourself said that if you don't respond to requests for admission, they're admitted, and they can be used against you in summary judgment. And that's what we're doing here. Counsel says, well, we should be allowed to just, you know, have a do over and say, well, no. We didn't -- we didn't fail to respond. Mr. Conway didn't meet and confer with us.\n\n24 25 We did meet and confer. And this is what's - it's one of several things that's very frustrating about\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 101 of 117\n\n101\n\n1 2 3 4 5 these papers and by what was said here today. On July 29th, we specifically met and conferred about all the discovery issues, about the fact that we're going to put together a scheduling order, finish discovery, and present it to Your Honor in conjunction with the recommencement of the case.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 And on August -- I'll call it August 8th, I get an email saying, we want to set up a briefing schedule for summary judgment. I was shocked. We'd already gone through a substantial meeting confer on exactly what was left to be done. And counsel for the Trustee said, we're going to take this deposition, this deposition. They could've taken the deposition of each of these witnesses at the criminal trial.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 But you know what? They didn't do it because they thought, well, we can just get this in under the radar without an actual foundation, where Mr. Conway could actually cross examine and get the actual facts into the record. They didn't do that. They completely turned everything on its head and said, we're not going to give you any more opportunity to discover, Mr. Conley. We're just going to set this for summary judgment. I was shocked.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 There's no reason, though, for me to meet and confer on that. We met and conferred on discovery, and there was not any discussion at that point in time about a request by Mr. Bassett for more time to put in responses to the request to admit. He still had time at that point. He\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 102 of 117\n\n102\n\n1 2 didn't say I'm going to need more time, and he didn't respond when the time came and went.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 So now he says, well, let me just say, Judge, that, you know, we deny everything. Well, what does that do to me? I'm now in a position where I didn't press the issue of discovery because we had admissions from him. When he made his motion for summary judgment, we had admissions from him on multiple points that win the case for us.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 And now he's saying, well, you know what? We want to say that we deny all those, and at the same time, deny Mr. Conway's client the right to do any discovery here. So at the very least, one, we don't think there's any basis for them making this oral motion now to put in responses to our request to admit. They haven't made a motion. They're asking you informally for this right, and there's no basis for that. There's no basis in the papers for that.\n\n17 18 19 20 If Your Honor is willing to give them that, which we object to, we certainly should have the right to then proceed with discovery on all these points that we thought were admitted.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Now, that said, we also make the point that the Trustee had no standing under 541. And the response to that -- and again, I don't want to belabor this because I know Your Honor has dealt with this in other cases. And by no means do we concede that any other case is relevant here,\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 103 of 117\n\n103\n\n1 2 3 4 5 you know, that we were not a part of. And I'm just saying this to the record, Your Honor. We object to this repeated construct that if it's been decided somewhere else, it's binding on Mr. Conway's clients. That's not the way collateral estoppel works.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 We didn't -- if we didn't have a chance to participate, it's not binding on us. But that said, the idea that there is a -- this exception to the Wagner doctrine for insiders, what counsel is saying is this case involves an individual debtor, not a corporation, where insiders is appropriate to take into consideration, but an individual. And they can provide no evidence that the individual debtor has an ownership interest in any of the entities that are relevant or the entities are relevant here -- there's the - the only one they really care about is Taurus Fund. Let's face it. (Inaudible) and Taurus Management are irrelevant to this proceeding. They don't own the property that's being requested.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But there's no evidence that the Debtor has any interest in Taurus Fund LLC. So what they -- what they're saying is, what you should do, Judge, you should say, we win, that he has an interest in Taurus Fund LLC, and therefore, Taurus Fund LLC is an insider. And therefore, going back now to the case, as an insider, they're entitled to a defense under the Wagner doctrine. That's basically this -- the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 104 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 bootstrap logic there doesn't work. And the reason you shouldn't let it work is for the -- it's a logical reason. You don't employ this insider's theory to an individual Debtor. It's meant to be used when you've got insiders to a corporation, and the corporate -- the corporate entity is a Debtor.\n\n104\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 So I guess I'm going to finish off by just saying that, again, just to be more clear on the objections to evidence, what we have here is Mr. Barron stating that he's throwing a bunch of documents together, and they're true and correct copies. That's it. You know, their objections here to the evidence of Mr. Mohammed and Mr. -- and Mr. Barnett and their declarations, they're talking about what they have either reviewed in records and seen in records, what they know for a fact on their own, what they're entitled to testify about in terms of corporate ownership.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 What we have from the other side is Mr. Barron saying, hey. I got a bunch of documents here. Check them out. It's -- they're legit. We don't know why he's saying that because he doesn't tell us. And what we do know is that they didn't even go so far as to explain any individual exhibits what the foundation was, such as a certified copy of the transcript, a certified interpretation of the Chinese audio piece.\n\n25\n\nThe fact of the matter is, though, it's not\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 105 of 117\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 critical because none of that information, in our opinion, is relevant to the issue at hand. The fact that Mr. Kwok was involved in some way, shape, or form in locating and decorating, even the renovation of the house is no different from when the president of the United States does it with the White House.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 If we're saying that Mr. Kwok owns this house, I guess what we're saying is that the president of the United States owns the White House. It makes no sense. Nobody would agree to that, and god forbid, in four years, that's the argument that's made. And somebody says, yeah. You know what? We got a point.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 I'm just -- I think that, Your Honor, we've been here a long time. I feel bad, and you feel bad. I also -- I think I have the same thing. Our whole family does. And so, I've -- as soon as this is over, I'm going to probably lay down and feel exactly as bad as you do. So I know what you're feeling.\n\n19 20 21 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Conway. I understand your argument, and obviously, we'll go back and review some of the information.\n\n22 23 24 Attorney Bassett, is there anything you'd like to add? MR. BASSETT: I know it's been a very long day,\n\nYour Honor, so maybe just a few very, very brief points.\n\n25\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 106 of 117\n\n106\n\n1 2 3 4 5 I just want to correct the record of the responses to a couple of arguments that Attorney Conway made. First of all, he started with this notion that the Trustee has shifting theories of the case. That's just categorically untrue.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 The Trustee's theory has always been that the Debtor acquired this property as a home for him and his family to live in, using funds that he was able to direct and had control over, and that he is the equitable owner of this mansion by all the evidence in the record. There's never been a change in that theory.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 Now, what Attorney Conway focuses so much on is the, you know, idea that these funds, originally, were given to G-Club by members of G-Club. Your Honor, the fact that the Debtor may have acquired funds through fraudulent means does not mean they're not funds that he controlled and then deployed for his own benefit.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 There's no bank account. The Court knows that the Debtor filed for Chapter 11 in February of 2022 claiming to have \\$0. That's why we're here. If the Debtor had bank accounts with hoards of cash in them that he used to buy things like his Mahwah Mansion, his property in Connecticut, his Sherry-Netherland residence, his jets, his yacht, we wouldn't even have this case.\n\n25\n\nWe're here because the Debtor never owns anything\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 107 of 117\n\n107\n\n1 2 3 4 5 himself. He takes funds that are really his, that he has control of, or they're tucked in other companies and with other individuals, and deploys them for his own benefit. That's exactly what he did here. He took G-Club funds, and he bought the mansion.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 You heard all this, you know, recitation from Attorney Conway, the story of how Mr. Mohammed says that this is really a club for members. I mean, Mr. Conway did not because he can't actually respond to the evidence that we presented.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 How do you possibly explain if Mr. Kwok is using this property simply as a place to host members of the movement that he developed entire wings of the property for his wife, for his daughter, for his son, kept all of his belongings there? There's no logical response to any of that.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 Your Honor, to briefly go through some of the other -- so the idea that we've admitted that the Debtor's home was in Connecticut, no, we haven't. The Debtor had multiple homes. It's been established. The Debtor had an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel. He had a home in Connecticut, and he had a mansion in New Jersey.\n\n23 24 25 And he had, I'm sure, other homes as well. It doesn't mean that any one of them is any less his property. In fact, the Court has already found that he owned the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 108 of 117\n\n108\n\n1 2 Connecticut home, and the Sherry-Netherland apartment is also property of the estate.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 And Your Honor, this -- I can't believe Attorney Conway is making this White House analogy. I don't think time is required on that. I'm pretty sure that Joe Biden did not defraud people and use the funds to buy the White House and design it from the ground up for his purposes. It's not even a remotely close analogy.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The case law that we cited in our papers, Your Honor, stands exactly for the proposition that even though nominal title to a property may be held by somebody else, that the law will look through that, particularly in bankruptcy, and look if you actually beneficially own and control the property, and then that person is the one who has actual recognizable ownership rights. We cited the cases in our papers. They're there for the Court to review.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The idea that the Trustee's Section 541 and 544 theories somehow fail, first of all, the Court has decided this in a number of other contexts. I don't think we need to go through it all again, but Attorney Conway raised an argument that I was trying to follow about how it doesn't work here because the members of G-Club who initially gave funds to G-Club that were later used, potentially, to buy the mansion that they somehow have different claims. I don't even follow that argument.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 109 of 117\n\n109\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 What I do know is that whatever claims people have will be determined later. To the extent that Attorney Conway is raising an argument that the G-Club members have something other than an unsecured claim against the estate, A, that's premature, and, B, he cited zero case law or any other laws for that proposition.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Our theory and what we've proven is that the Debtor took funds over which he had control and bought an asset, a mansion in New Jersey, that he equitably owns. If the Court agrees with that, then that property is property of the estate. Attorney Conway has cited zero law to suggest that there would be any other result in that situation and that the Bankruptcy Code would operate how it normally operates.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 And all of Mr. Kwok's creditors who have claims against the estate could assert those claims, and as part of the claims reconciliation process, will have an ability to receive a distribution or not from all of these assets, including assets of the mansion. To the extent that Attorney Conway wanted to argue otherwise, he could have articulated that in his papers, and he didn't. I don't know what the argument would be.\n\n23 24 25 Lastly, Your Honor, on the request for admissions, we've stated what we stated in our papers. I've submitted a declaration. I categorically disagree with Attorney Conway's\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 110 of 117\n\n110\n\n1 2 3 4 suggestion that we, following the conclusion of the criminal trial, met and conferred about taking additional depositions. Our position had always been that we didn't believe further discovery was necessary following the criminal trial.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And the bottom line is Attorney Conway never once mentioned wanting responses to his request for admissions when we talked about moving for summary judgment. He just said, do you think discovery is closed? And we said, yes. We don't think there's any more discovery necessary. That was a perfectly appropriate time for Attorney Conway to raise his hand and say something about his request for admissions.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 He also could have attended the status conference, which he decided simply to sit home for with no advance notice whatsoever. And finally, it's well within the Court's discretion to allow the Trustee to amend his responses. There's absolutely no prejudice. If you look at the request for admissions, Attorney Conway said things like -- he asked for admissions on things like whether or not Taurus Fund LLC is the Debtor's alter ego. Literally, the ultimate issue in the case.\n\n21 22 23 For him to sit here and suggest that he believed based on that, that we were conceding, that Taurus Fund is not the Debtor's alter ego is just not credible.\n\n24 25 Finally, Your Honor, there's virtually no response to the issues that we raised with the declaration that\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 111 of 117\n\n111\n\n1 2 3 4 5 Attorney Conway submitted from Mr. Mohammed, zero response to the fact that he was not identified in their initial disclosures, and no response to the fact that he shockingly doesn't attach a single document and relies entirely on hearsay.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 It's -- if you look at the balance of the scales of the evidence in this case, you look at the slide deck that we showed to Your Honor today of all the evidence that absolutely is admissible based on the case law that we cite in our motion and for the reasons I explained, if you look at that and you weigh that against this declaration that says there were unknown documents that support this fantastical story, it's not even remotely close, Your Honor. It's not a closed call.\n\n15 16 17 18 Trustee is entitled to summary judgment. This case is what summary judgment is for, to prevent the parties from having to go further down the path of disputing issues of fact that are simply not subject to dispute.\n\n19 20 So with that, Your Honor, unless the Court has questions, I have nothing further.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I have nothing further. Thank you. Attorney Conway, anything further? MR. CONWAY: Yeah. I want to make three responsive points. One, with respect to the 544 issue that confused counsel, I hope we didn't confuse Your Honor, but it\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 112 of 117\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\nis something that they put in their own papers, so I'm not sure why they're confused. You have to have a claim that's identical to -- for all creditors to have standing, not just a hypothetical creditor.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 And my point was, very clearly put, I thought, that these particular claims by the G-Club members who put the money in to buy the mansion are different from all the other claims in the estate such as, I believe they're even, you know, auto accident claimants. I don't -- you know, there are lots of different categories of claimants.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 But unless they're all the same, which is why the rule was created where CEOs taking money from a corporation, putting it in his own pocket to the detriment of every creditor, they're all the same. Unless you have that fact, 544 standing does not exist.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, the second point is with respect to the Rule 26 issue, the request for admissions issue. Counsel should understand -- I know he wasn't being sarcastic, but he should understand that if he denies a request to admit, which they didn't do here, it's not sufficient to simply say deny. You have to say we deny because and explain why you deny, which allows us to then say, okay. We better deal with something about that. The because is what's important that they deny. We have to go out and do further discovery in the event of a denial or request for admission. And so\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 113 of 117\n\n1\n\n2\n\nsandbagging by saying nothing, and then later saying, well, we deny is inappropriate.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Third, and this was not raised before. I raised this as an afterthought because it just seems like it needs to be addressed on the record. There's a comment made in the reply brief that I somehow used some other law firm to assist me in our opposition, which is categorically false. And had counsel actually taken the time to call me and ask me, and I would have said, that's categorically false. That law firm didn't even know that I was doing this.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 I, as a matter of practice, will take the last pleading in my file to start the next pleading. And the last pleading, as you may recall, Your Honor, that I was involved with was the motion to dismiss in the civil RICO action where that law firm did assist me.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 And in this case, counsel made the allegation that I somehow secretly used another law firm to assist in my opposition. I can say to you, Your Honor, that no law firm, including the law firm mentioned by counsel, had any knowledge I was even working on in opposition to a summary judgment motion here.\n\n22 23 24 25 And the fact that I'm hearing now that they're raising this in other matters as if it's true is something that's very distressing. You know, it's like, you know, they start saying, no. Mr. Barnett was the chauffeur or the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 114 of 117\n\n| 1 | driver for the Debtor.
They said that early on.
And then it |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | became an every document occurrence.
And now I'm sure Your |\n| 3 | Honor believes Mr. Barnett somehow is a driver for the |\n| 4 | Debtor, which is absolutely false.
Never driven the car for |\n| 5 | the Debtor in his life. |\n| 6 | But it's these little things, and I say this only |\n| 7 | because they add up, Your Honor.
These little misstatements |\n| 8 | in these briefs add up, and they get used in other cases as |\n| 9 | if they're fact.
And I just want to make that point for the |\n| 10 | record.
It's just untrue. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
May I just respond to that last -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Very briefly. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Very, very briefly.
Your Honor, as |\n| 15 | the Court well knows, we've had -- this case has a long and |\n| 16 | tortured history where people aren't who they say they are, |\n| 17 | people aren't representing who they say they are.
We've seen |\n| 18 | this time and time again, the HCHK case.
We've seen it |\n| 19 | elsewhere.
It all played out in front of Judge Dooley |\n| 20 | recently. |\n| 21 | What the Trustee discovered was that the metadata |\n| 22 | and the PDF that Attorney Conway filed said that it had been |\n| 23 | prepared by attorneys at another law firm.
As always, |\n| 24 | indicated, it is the facts supporting that.
I'll take |\n| 25 | Attorney Conway's representation today that they had no |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 115 of 117\n\n115\n\n1 2 3 4 5 involvement. But you know, that's what the Trustee had learned from what he uncovered, and we're taking discovery from the other law firm, who has volunteered to comply with our 2004 request. And we'll see where that goes. That's what 2004 discovery is for.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 But I take exception to the fact that or to the allegation that the Trustee or his counsel is intentionally misleading the parties or the Court. We absolutely have not done that. I think the record in this case is 100 percent clear to the extent that there's been obstruction and other games that have been played throughout this case, it's come from only one direction. I'll just leave it at that, Your Honor.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to take the motion for summary judgment under advisement, as I think you both can understand. There is a lot of information that is in the motion, the opposition, the attachments, and what we talked about today. So I have to review that, and I will rule accordingly. I have no idea on the timing, but I will do what I can, obviously, with regard to the motion.\n\n21 22 So is there anything further we need to address this afternoon?\n\n23 24 MR. DESPINS: Not from the Trustee's point, Your Honor. Thank you.\n\n25\n\nMR. CONWAY: I think we're good from the\n\n# Defendant's side too, Your Honor. I feel better. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. I believe then, Trustee Despins, that takes care of all the matters on today's calendar. Is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay then. Thank you then. Thanks to all of you, and Court is adjourned. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. MR. CONWAY: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 3:49 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3852 Filed 11/26/24 Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30 Page 116 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3852
Filed 11/26/24
Entered 11/26/24 14:12:30
Page 117 of |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 117
117 |\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/ Wendy K. Sawyer
November 23, 2024 |\n| 8 | WENDY K. SAWYER, CDLT |\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 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court）\n康涅狄格区（District of Connecticut）\n布里奇波特分部（Bridgeport Division）\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\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等人，\n\n对抗程序\n\n案号 23-05017 (JAM)\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nTAURUS FUND, LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）等人，\n\n被告。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司），\n\n对抗程序\n\n案号 23-05007 (JAM)\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nAIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY（AIG财产意外保险公司），\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\n对抗程序\n\n案号 24-05225 (JAM)\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nCIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION（西锐设计公司）等人，\n\n被告。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 1 页，共 117 页\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n对抗程序\n\n案号 24-05273 (JAM)\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nNGOK（恩戈克）等人，\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n对抗程序\n\n案号 24-05318 (JAM)\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n法庭 123\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\nALFA GLOBAL VENTURES LIMITED（Alfa Global Ventures有限公司）等人，\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n被告。\nTuesday, November 19, 2024\n\n1:05 p.m.\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法院法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n记录整理公司：Reliable\nThe Nemours Building\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，庭审记录由记录整理服务制作。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 2 页，共 117 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章\n受托人：Patrick Linsey, Esquire（帕特里克·林赛律师）\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\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）\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\nNicholas A. Bassett, Esquire（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\nDoug Barron, Esquire（道格·巴伦律师）\n2050 M Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n代表 Taurus Fund LLC、\nTaurus Fund Management\n及 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）：Michael T. Conway, Esquire（迈克尔·T·康韦律师）\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP\n747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor\nFifth Floor\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n代表 Genever Holdings：Michael T. McCormack, Esquire（迈克尔·T·麦考马克律师）\nO'SULLIVAN MCCORMACK JENSEN\n& BLISS, P.C.\n180 Glastonbury Boulevard\nSuite 210\nGlastonbury, Connecticut 06033\n\n代表 AIG Property\nCasualty Company：Michael P. Thompson, Esquire（迈克尔·P·汤普森律师）\nGORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI\n95 Glastonbury Boulevard\nSuite 206\nGlastonbury, Connecticut 06033\n\n以及\n\nJohn O'Connor, Esquire（约翰·奥康纳律师）\nJohn J. Kavanagh, Esquire（约翰·J·卡瓦纳律师）\nSTEPTOE, LLP\n1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n代表 G-Club International Limited（G-Club国际有限公司）及 G-Club Operations（G-Club运营公司）：Jeffrey Sklarz, Esquire（杰弗里·斯克拉茨律师）\nGREEN & SKLARZ LLC\nOne Audubon Street, Third Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n代表 Hing Chi Ngok（吴庆）、Mei Guo（郭美）、Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）、Gypsy Mei Food Services（吉普赛美食品服务公司）、Leading Shine New York（领先光辉纽约）及 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）：Steven Kindseth, Esquire（史蒂文·金德塞思律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n代表 Rule of Law Foundation 3 Inc.（法治基金会3公司）及 Rule of Law Society 4 Inc.（法治协会4公司）：Bryan Ha, Esquire（布赖恩·哈律师）\nJohn Newton, Esquire（约翰·牛顿律师）\nBRYAN HA, ATTORNEY AT LAW\n455 Tarrytown Road, #1244\nWhite Plains, New York 10607\n\n代表 Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）：Jason Swergold（杰森·斯韦戈尔德）\nYANKWITT LLP\n140 Grand Street, Suite 705\nWhite Plains, New York 10601\n\n代表 Beile Li（李贝乐）：Ivan Ladd-Smith, Esquire（伊万·拉德-史密斯律师）\nSPEARS, MANNING & MARTINI\n2425 Post Road, Suite 203\nSouthport, Connecticut 06890\n\n代表 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）：James Edward Nealon, Esquire（詹姆斯·爱德华·尼隆律师）\nNEALON LAW LLC\n1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R\nStamford, Connecticut 06902\n\n代表 Gladys Chow（周嘉丽）：Emily McDaniels, Esquire（艾米丽·麦克丹尼尔斯律师）\nSHER TREMONTE LLP\n90 Broad Street, 23rd Floor\nNew York, New York 10004\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 4 页，共 117 页\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项编号 136：Genever Holdings LLC 诉 AIG Property Casualty Company\n对抗程序案号 23-05007\n关于安排就修改进度安排命令的动议举行状态会议的命令\n\n事项编号 124：Luc A. Despins 等人诉 Taurus Fund LLC 等人\n对抗程序案号 23-05017\nPatrick R. Linsey 代表原告 Luc A. Despins 提交的简易判决动议\n\n事项编号 23：Despins 诉 Cirrus Design Corporation 等人\n对抗程序案号 24-05225\n法院依据 Fed.R.Civ.P.55(b)(2) 和 Fed.R.Bankr.P.7055，针对 Qiang Guo（郭强）作出缺席判决的动议。Patrick R. Linsey 代表原告 Luc A. Despins 提交。\n\n事项编号 94：Despins, Luc A., 第11章受托人诉 NGOK 等人\n对抗程序案号 24-05273\n设定状态会议的命令\n\n事项编号 106：Despins, Luc A., 第11章受托人诉 Alfa Global Ventures Limited 等人\n关于就约定判决安排状态会议的命令\n\n记录整理员证明书\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 5 页，共 117 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 6 页，共 117 页\n\n（程序于下午 1:05 开始。）\n\n书记员：对抗程序案号 23-05007，Genever Holdings LLC 诉 AIG Property Casualty Company；23-05017，Despins 诉 Taurus Fund LLC 等人；24-05225，Despins 诉 Cirrus Design Corporation 等人；24-05273，Despins 诉 Ngok 等人；24-05318，Despins 诉 Alfa Global Ventures Limited 等人。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。请先由第11章受托人作庭审记录中的出庭声明。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett。请原谅。Paul Hastings 的 Nick Bassett，第11章受托人的代理律师。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，Neubert, Pepe & Monteith，第11章受托人的代理律师。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：并且，法官阁下，我的同事、Paul Hastings 的 Doug Barron 今天也通过 Zoom 出席。\n\n法院：很好。下午好。\n\nBARRON先生：谢谢。\n\nSKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey Sklarz，代表对抗程序 24-5273 中的 G-Club Operations 和 G-Club International。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nKINDSETH先生：下午好，法官阁下。Steven Kindseth，代表 Hing Chi Ngok、Mei Guo、Hudson Diamond New York、Gypsy Mei Food Services、Leading Shine New York 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nHA先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Bryan Ha，代表被告 Rule of Law Foundation 3 Inc. 和 Rule of Law Society 4 Inc。我的同事 John Newton 也在线上。下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nO'CONNOR先生：下午好，法官阁下。John O'Connor，与 Michael Thompson 一同代表事项 23-5007 中的 AIG。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nMCCORMACK先生：下午好，法官阁下。Michael McCormack，代表 Genever Holdings LLC，涉及 Genever Holdings 诉 AIG 一案，案号 23-05-007。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nSWERGOLD先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jason Swergold，Yankwitt LLP，代表 24-05273 中的 Victor Cerda。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 7 页，共 117 页\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nCONWAY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Michael Conway，Lazare, Potter, Giacovas & Moyle。我代表 Taurus Fund LLC、Taurus Fund Management LLC、Scott Barnett，以及状态会议中的许多其他当事人出席。您希望我逐一陈述他们所有人的姓名吗？\n\n法院：不需要这样做，Conway律师。谢谢。我们已经有你——我的意思是，为了任何录音或庭审记录目的，我们可以注明你作为登记代理律师的当事人。\n\nCONWAY先生：感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。还有其他尚未作出庭审记录中出庭声明的人吗？\n\nLADD-SMITH先生：有，法官阁下。我是 Spears, Manning & Martini 的 Ivan Ladd-Smith，代表 24-5273 事项中的 Beile Li。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nNEALON先生：（听不清）代表 5273 事项中的被告 Yongbing Zhang。\n\n法院：抱歉，律师。我说话时盖过了你的声音。请再作一次出庭声明好吗？\n\nNEALON先生：当然。James Nealon，代表 5273 对抗程序中的被告 Yougbing Zhang。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nNEALON先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 8 页，共 117 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852\n提交日期 11/26/24\n录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30\n\nMCDANIELS女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n我是 Emily McDaniels，代表 24-5273 中的被告 Gladys Chow。\n\n法院：\n下午好。现在是否已包括所有人的出庭声明？\n好的。既然没有人提出异议，正如各位都知道的，今天下午日程表上有许多事项。因此，我将请第11章受托人说明您建议如何处理这些事项。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。我认为我们应当从 AIG 事项开始，这样 O'Connor 先生和 McCormack 先生之后就可以离开，因为如果法官阁下允许，我对本案其余事项确实不感兴趣。\n\n法院：\n这对我而言完全合理。请继续。实际上，我可以告诉你为什么安排这次状态会议。关于 AIG 对抗程序，23-5007。因为我知道你们提交了一项关于延长证据开示期限的动议。\n\n在我们上一次听证会时，我当时——你知道，我们讨论过一些最终期限，我担心与事实证据开示有关的简易判决补充书状及延长期限，可能会影响证据开示并导致其延迟。\n\n也许我是错的，但这就是我安排状态会议的原因。因为在我们上一次状态会议时，庭审记录中的陈述是——是没有必要延迟，因此我们才设定了那些期限。所以，我只是想听取各方意见，以确保我没有遗漏与事实证据开示相关的这些问题。\n\nO'CONNOR先生：是，法官阁下——法官阁下，我是代表 AIG 的 John O'Connor。我可以——我可以谈谈这一点。提出延长期限的请求，是因为在证据开示结束前约一周发生了两件事。其一，我们原定对一名第三方证人进行证言录取，该证人认为自己需要更换律师，因为他需要将他的——他是一名经纪人——他需要通知其保险人，并让保险人选择律师。因此，在与 Genever 的律师沟通时，我们确实希望能够对此予以配合，因为任何人都应当——你知道，我们不希望仓促逼迫某人，以致其无法获得自行选择的律师。\n\n此外，在证据开示截止前一周，Genever（杰尼弗）首次向我们送达了一份30(b)(6)通知。当时，我正在弗吉尼亚州进行一场联邦法院审判。于1日收到通知并在8日前安排一名证人，实在不可行。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 11 页，共 117 页\n\n因此，在我们与律师讨论此事时，我们认为适度延长截止日期以便这些事项得以进行是合理的。Genever希望——希望对一名前AIG（美国国际集团）员工进行讯问；至于此事，他们会继续进行或不会继续进行。但似乎合理的是，为这些事项的进行留出一些\n\n余地。我想说的是，我们提交的动议请求将证据开示截止日期延长至December 6。实际上，如果可以，我们希望将其延长至December 13th，只是为了安排这几项事项。没有额外的证据开示，仅是安排这些事项。\n\n法官阁下曾询问有关简易判决的书面陈述。我们希望——我仅代表AIG发言——将这些日期仅向后推迟一周。我认为，如果我们能够将证据开示延长至December 13，将书面陈述仅向后推迟一周即可。这将涉及我们提交——AIG提交其补充文件。该日期将从November 26th移至December 3rd，随后Genever将有两周时间，即截至17th。但这不会实质性影响\n\n简易判决的书面陈述。\n\n法庭：好的。你是否已就此与Genever的律师沟通过？或者就\n\nO'CONNOR先生：关于书面陈述中的一切都沟通过？关于书面陈述拟议向后推迟一周一事，是我在准备时想到的；但其他一切均已达成一致。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n债务人：下午好，法官阁下。我是Michael McCormack（迈克尔·麦考马克）。是的，我们已与O'Connor律师就延期完成尚未完成的讯问进行了讨论。关于书面陈述延期一周，如果我的委托人Despins律师没有异议，我对此没有异议。\n\n法庭：好的。是的。Despins受托人？\n\nDESPINS先生：没有。没有。没有。没有。没有异议，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，O'Connor律师和McCormack律师，我需要你们提交一份共同的、经同意的命令，将所有这些内容载明，可以吗？\n\nO'CONNOR先生：好的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因为我原本认为我们已经非常明确了，而这没问题。我对按你们希望的方式处理没有任何问题。我只是想确保这不会对后续事项产生某种影响，即造成延迟。但如果所有人都同意，那就没问题。因此，如果你们能够提交一项具有该等效力的命令，你们认为能否在本周五前提交该命令？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 12 页，共 117 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 13 页，共 117 页\n\nO'CONNOR先生：我相信我们可以，法官阁下。我将——我会先起草，并且最迟于明天将其发送给McCormack先生。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么，除非我遗漏了什么——这也是可能的——我认为这确实解决了我希望在本对抗诉讼的状态会议中处理的所有问题。但显然，如果任何其他人希望就本对抗诉讼中的任何其他问题发表意见——即O'Connor律师、McCormack律师或Despins受托人——欢迎现在提出。\n\nO'CONNOR先生：AIG没有其他事项，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nMCCORMACK先生：我没有其他事项，法官阁下，McCormack律师目前没有。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。那么，我认为AIG对抗诉讼中的状态会议至此结束，双方将于November 22nd当日或之前提交一项共同命令，或经同意的命令，随你们如何称呼，修改排期命令。好的？\n\nO'CONNOR先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\nMCCORMACK先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢二位。而且\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 14 页，共 117 页\n\n显然，你们可以离开。\n\n除非你们愿意留下，否则不必留下。\n\n这由你们决定。\n\nO'CONNOR先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，法官阁下，经您许可，我们希望转入RICO状态会议。顺便说一句，如果我可以请所有未就这些事项发言的人关闭摄像头。我认为这会使法庭内的每个人更容易看到究竟是谁在向法庭发言。但如果法官阁下同意，我认为Bassett先生将处理RICO状态会议。\n\n法庭：可以。谢谢。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。再次说明，我是代表Chapter 11受托人的Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n\n法官阁下，我相信我们上次出庭是在October 15th，就民事RICO对抗诉讼举行状态会议，我相信案号为24-5273。在那次听证会上，如法庭所记得，我们请求法庭作出命令，在综合替身责任对抗诉讼的发展情况及最终结果出炉前，中止民事RICO对抗诉讼；该请求的依据是，两起对抗诉讼中的当事人存在重大重叠，并且所有——并且两起对抗诉讼中的法律理论均是作为备选主张提出的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 15 页，共 117 页\n\n受托人认为，综合替身责任对抗诉讼中的进展可能会显著限制和/或聚焦最终需要在民事RICO对抗诉讼中审理的事项。因此，我们认为中止对当事人和法庭而言都非常合理。\n\n在上一次状态会议上，有几名被告出庭。根据我对庭审记录的审阅和记忆，我认为最终实际继续反对任何诉讼中止的被告可能有三名。这些被告是——Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达），其律师在线。我稍后会提供其他姓名，法官阁下。抱歉。\n\n是其律师——是Victor Cerda，法官阁下，被告Gladys Chow（周格拉迪斯）以及被告Beile Li（李贝乐）。自上次听证会以来，我们已与其律师进行讨论，我相信我们已解决他们对该中止的异议。我稍后将说明我们如何做到这一点。随着该项异议——随着那些异议得到解决，我认为不再有任何一方反对受托人所请求的中止。\n\n现在，我们解决异议的方式是，如法庭可能记得，那些被告在上次听证会上主张，他们希望有机会就其撤诉动议发表意见。他们解释说，他们认为受托人应当提交经修订的起诉状，而他们反对中止的一个原因是，他们表示不希望——认为起诉状继续待决会对他们不利。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 16 页，共 117 页\n\n法官阁下，为解决该问题，我们所做的是，我们已同意与那些被告订立一项约定，无损权利地驳回受托人针对他们提出的主张。为明确起见，我们这样做的原因是，这仅仅维持现状。\n\n我们无损权利地驳回这些主张，不影响我们在经修订的起诉状中将其重新加入该对抗诉讼的能力；如我们此前所述，一旦本对抗诉讼继续推进，受托人确实打算提交经修订的起诉状。\n\n作为交换，被告已同意，他们不会因被告被暂时从起诉状中驳回后又被重新加入而提出任何诉讼时效或其他基于时间的抗辩；我们完全预计，在受托人重新提交时将会如此。\n\n因此，基本上，在此期间，这将导致该三名被告不再是本案的一部分。但如果及当受托人修订起诉状并决定将他们重新加入时，他可以这样做，而他们已同意\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 17 页，共 117 页\n\n不会主张，受托人基于诉讼时效或其他类似抗辩而无权这样做。\n\n我们已与那些被告就一项约定达成一致，准备于今日提交法庭。在完成该事项的前提下，如我所述，我相信不再有人反对受托人请求中止该对抗诉讼。\n\n法庭：好的。我理解你的意思。因此，我显然会听取任何希望发表意见的被告律师的陈述。但我想问的，Bassett律师，只是程序安排，我想。\n\n因此，你所说将提交法庭的约定，是指当你提交经修订的起诉状将特定被告重新加入时，该约定将无损权利地将该等特定被告从对抗诉讼中驳回。你们将向法庭提交该约定，然后在该约定生效后，作出中止该对抗诉讼的命令？你所设想的程序是这样——\n\nBASSETT先生：是的，法官阁下。这是我设想的顺序，我相信我们仍应向法庭提交一项中止该对抗诉讼的拟议命令——\n\n法庭：关于中止。对。对。好的。好的。这就是——这就是我以为你——你的意思，所以我理解你的陈述，这很好。\n\n谢谢。因此，是否有任何被告律师希望就Bassett律师已在记录中说明的意见和协议发表意见？好的。那么这没问题。我认为这——\n\nNEALON先生：对不起，法官阁下。很抱歉。我刚才处于静音状态。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nNEALON先生：我是代表被告Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）的James Nealon（詹姆斯·尼隆）。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nNEALON先生：我认为，三名被告订立该约定没有问题，但另有57名被告。从理论上说，同样的约定或安排也应当向他们开放。\n\n法庭：Nealon律师，如果他们最初在有机会提出异议且已获得通知时未提出异议，那么我不同意你的看法。\n\nNEALON先生：好的。另一点是，我认为受托人实际上应当提交一项附有拟议命令的中止动议。\n\n法庭：我认为他——我认为他已经提交中止动议了，不是吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，我相信事情的经过是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 18 页，共 117 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 于 11/26/24 提交 于 11/26/24 14:12:30 录入 第 19 页，共 117 页\n\n法庭曾要求于October 15th就民事RICO和综合替身责任对抗诉讼举行状态会议。在该会议上，我们口头请求中止。显然，该会议已通知所有被告。因此，我相信尚未提交正式的书面动议。\n\n如果法庭希望，我们很乐意——将拟议命令上传至案卷，并给予各方机会对其作出回应或发表意见，但实际上尚未提交书面动议。\n\nNEALON先生（尼伦）：法官阁下，存在一些可能的变动事项曾被讨论，但在上次状态会议上均未得到彻底解决。是否会中止？对于缺席的被告将如何处理？何时会提交修正后的起诉书？因此，我认为所有这些事项均应通过动议提出。\n\n该动议可以加速审理。Bassett律师（巴塞特）可以附上其命令。但当时提出的一些要素或设想存在问题。\n\n法庭：嗯，我不认为你会——我不认为说这些事项是被随意提出的，这样说并不公平。这是关于对立诉讼程序的状态会议。所有被告均已知悉此事。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 20 页，共 117 页\n\n我不会让每个问题都被审理七次，以确保每位被告都主张其认为享有的任何权利。他们有机会参加一次——一次状态会议。你在场。你的当事人在场，而且我不会接受其他被告代表其他被告提出论点。\n\n所以——为明确起见，我不认为说这些事项是被随意提出的，这样说并不公平。这是一次关于对立诉讼程序的状态会议，其中所有请求均在一份——一份起诉书中提出。每个人均已获悉各项请求为何。\n\nNEALON先生：是的。法官阁下，恭敬地说，Bassett律师在那次听证中首次提出了大量关于中止可如何运作的不同设想，其中一些此前并未提出。对于其中至少一部分的合法性存在疑问。\n\n例如，其中一个设想是，您可以将缺席的被告分离出来，并以某种方式将他们置于单独的诉讼或对立诉讼程序中，而这与最高法院（Supreme Court）的判例相悖。该问题是在那次会议上首次提出的。\n\n因此，我唯一的观点是——我理解法官阁下的意思是，应当将此事通过动议提出，并且无论命令的最终形式为何，各方都应有机会就此发表意见。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 21 页，共 117 页\n\n法官阁下，我认为律师可能实际上混淆了两项对立诉讼程序。法庭已经作出命令，将被告从综合性另我对立诉讼程序中分离出来。这已经发生。因此，此事已经完成，结束。我们在上次听证中就民事 RICO 诉讼提出的唯一问题，是请求中止该诉讼。我不认为对此存在任何变体。这只是一个中止请求。法庭：是的。NEALON先生：好的。法官阁下，我接受该陈述。但也曾讨论到，受托人正在考虑其将就修正后的起诉书提出何种方案。法庭：嗯，正是如此。但他们尚未修正其起诉书。因此，当他们修正起诉书时，你可以依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）采取相应行动。对吗？NEALON先生：是的，法官阁下。基于Bassett律师的陈述，我撤回我的异议。法庭：好的。谢谢。HA先生（哈）：法官阁下，如果可以的话，在上次会议上，我代表法治基金会3（Rule of Law Foundation 3）和法治协会4公司（Rule of Law Society 4, Inc.），确实保留了在与我的当事人协商后反对中止的权利，并且\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 22 页，共 117 页\n\n基于与提出异议的其他被告所提出的实质上相同的理由提出异议。基于此，法官阁下，我们还请求给予受托人律师向那些提出异议的被告所给予的同样处理，并同样无损害地驳回针对我们当事人的请求。法庭：抱歉，律师，你是否曾就此与Bassett律师进行任何讨论？法治基金会3和法治协会4公司：我们没有讨论过此事，法官阁下。法庭：好的。BASSETT先生：法官阁下，就法治基金会实体持续反对该动议而言，我认为上次状态会议的记录已非常明确，即各方应当进行会谈协商。我们与两方明确向我们表示其提出异议的当事人进行了协商。因此，我们必须与他们进行会谈协商，以了解能否解决这些异议。我们没有任何理由与法治实体进行会谈协商。如果他们已决定要坚持其异议，他们显然可以联系我们。但我们并没有，您知道，我们并未同意——受托人无权同意将所有这些实体从起诉书中驳回。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交日期 11/26/24 录入日期 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 23 页，共 117 页\n\n我们是按个案方式这样做，以解决已经提出的异议。但同样，我们本可以在今天之前就此进行会谈协商，但这没有发生。我们没有收到律师的任何沟通。\n\nHA先生：嗯，法官，我的意思是，就那些其他提出异议的被告而言，我们处于相同地位。因此，我的意思是，出于相同理由、相同依据，我们正在驳回那些被告。我是说，这应当适用于我们。\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，我要指出的另一点是，提出这一问题的另外三人，而受托人愿意与他们讨论的原因，是他们主张，在长期中止期间，作为实体或作为个人的他们，您知道，拥有职业声誉等等。他们向我们表示，您知道，如果该起诉书继续针对他们未决，他们可能会遭受某种形式的困难。\n\n我们不同意这一点。但为回应该顾虑，我们制定了一项安排，最终保留了每个人的权利，并且对所有相关方都适用。我认为同样的问题根本不适用于法治实体。这些当事方，您知道，是债务人欺诈活动的组成部分。我相信他们的网站已经关闭。我的意思是，他们不是——他们不是需要保护声誉的个人。这根本不是——这是截然不同的两回事。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 24 页，共 117 页\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 哈先生（Ha先生）：但是，法官阁下，我们强烈不同意这一点。这些只是指控。Rule of Law entities（法治实体）是非营利组织。它们持续运营，并且持续筹集资金，而存在这份起诉状会造成极大不利影响。法庭：但是，律师，您不是参与了上一次状态会议吗？您当时在场吗？哈先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么，您为什么没有联系巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）或其他人？我的意思并不一定非得是巴塞特律师，但可以是受托人或其律师。哈先生：我当时正在与我的当事人讨论——我正在就该问题以及应如何处理与我的当事人讨论。并且——法庭：我认为您甚至曾在记录中表示，您想与您的当事人讨论此事。这是我的记忆，不过我可能错了。我面前没有庭审记录。但我可能错了。哈先生：是的——这也是我的记忆。法庭：好的。哈先生：我认为，在与我的当事人协商后，我有权提出异议，法官阁下。法庭：对。但是您没有提出异议。您也没有告诉巴塞特律师或任何人，即受托人的律师，您——您如何与您的当事人协商。对吗？在今天之前，您什么也没说。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 25 页，共 117 页\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 哈先生：正确，法官阁下。正确。我没有与巴塞特律师交谈。法庭：好的。那么，我会考虑此事。我的意思是，长话短说，我们举行了一次会议。提出了这些问题。被告方，包括您在内，律师，对中止表示了关切。并且——在该会议结束时，我们延续至今天举行听证会和今天的会议，并由受托人与被告方讨论受托人关于中止的提议。显然，您没有进行那次讨论，但其他被告方进行了。受托人的律师已同意订立一项协议，我想您可以在状态会议后尝试与巴塞特律师讨论此事。但是，正如我对尼隆律师（Attorney Nealon）所说，我不会让被告方替其他被告方提出问题，和/或如果他们有想提出的问题，那么他们必须自己提出，并且必须自行处理。因此，目前我要做的是，让那些已与受托人律师就有偏见驳回——不影响再行起诉的驳回，对不起——达成一致的当事人提交该协议，随后您可以与巴塞特律师和/或其他任何人，即\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 26 页，共 117 页\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 受托人或受托人的律师，就他们可能就您采取何种立场进行讨论。但目前，我今天不会再就此进行任何讨论。事情就是这样，您会看到情况如何。好吗？哈先生：明白，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，巴塞特律师，您认为何时会提交这项协议？巴塞特先生（Bassett先生）：我认为我们可以在今天晚些时候完成，法官阁下。法庭：好的。我不确定我们今天是否会处理到它，但那没关系。金德塞斯先生（Kindseth先生）：法官阁下，就拟议命令，我可以发言吗？法庭：什么拟议命令？金德塞斯先生：关于中止的命令。我的当事人总体上并不反对中止，但正如巴塞特律师在记录中所述，我们希望有机会仅审阅并就拟议命令的形式提出意见。法庭：我认为这正是巴塞特律师所说的。对吗？他将提交某种形式的命令。那么我们——好的。那么，巴塞特律师，我们来确定与此有关的具体安排。金德塞斯先生：当然，法官阁下。尼隆先生（Nealon先生）：法官阁下，如果我可以——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 27 页，共 117 页\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 代表张先生（Mr. Zhang）澄清一下，我们并不反对中止。这实际上并不是我提出此事的依据。这只涉及该中止所包括的细则为何的问题。因此，只是想澄清这一点。我们不反对中止该 RICO 案件。法庭：好的。谢谢。是我失去你们所有人的联系了吗，还是你们还在线？巴塞特先生：没有，我们在，法官阁下。法庭：一定是我的问题。巴塞特先生：因此，法官阁下，我认为，正如我所说，我们应当能够在今天结束前提交我们与三名被告方达成的协议，随后我们可以提交一项拟议命令。我认为，当然可以在本周结束前提交。并且我认为，我们可以按法官阁下希望的任何方式办理。我们可以将该拟议命令提交至案卷。我们可以将其提交至法官办公室，并抄送今天会议上的律师。乐意按法庭希望的任何方式推进。法庭：嗯，我认为我们必须建立一种方式，使人们能够对中止该对抗程序的命令作出回应。我想，最好的做法是——嗯，我不确定。我的想法是将该命令登记在这项对抗程序的案卷中。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 28 页，共 117 页\n\n1 因此，每一名已经出庭的被告方，包括\n\n2 参加本次状态会议的被告方律师，\n3 都将看到该命令。然后，我认为您可以\n4 说明——您可以说明拟议命令提交通知，并\n5 规定异议期限，巴塞特律师。\n6 并且，视您何时提交该\n7 命令而定，我可能会给予，您知道，14 天的\n8 异议期限。\n9 巴塞特先生：这对受托人而言没有问题，\n10 法官阁下。\n11 法庭：是否有任何——任何出庭的\n12 被告方对法庭提出的 14 天\n13 异议期限有异议？\n14 尼隆先生：没有问题，法官阁下。谢谢。\n15 男声：没有异议。好的。\n16 法庭：好的。因此，我认为这就是\n17 我们应当在——在本对抗程序中推进的方式。是否\n18 还有任何我们需要在今天下午于本对抗\n19 程序中处理的事项？\n20 斯克拉兹先生（Sklarz先生）：法官阁下，我是代表 G-Club International（G-Club International）的杰夫·斯克拉兹（Jeff Sklarz）。我只是想确保，我的沉默\n21 并不意味着我也不想审阅该命令。\n22 \n23 法庭：您是一名被告——您是本对抗程序中的\n24 被告方？\n25 斯克拉兹先生：是。是。\n\n29 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 法庭：那么您可以审阅该命令。斯克拉兹先生：谢谢。法庭：我原本以为您是。我并非作出其他暗示。我只是——斯克拉兹先生：如果巴塞特律师想驳回该案，我可以不再是，但我假定他并不想这样做。法庭：如果您是该对抗程序中的被告方，您将会看到该命令，并且将会设定异议期限。斯克拉兹先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，本对抗程序还有任何我们需要处理的事项吗？巴塞特先生：我认为没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么将提交拟议命令通知，说明该对抗程序将被提交，并规定提交后 14 天的异议期限。男声：谢谢，法官阁下。德斯平斯先生（Despins先生）：好的。谢谢各位。我认为我们可以继续处理下一项——德斯平斯律师，您认为我们接下来应处理的任何事项。德斯平斯先生：那么，下一项也不应过于冗长，即——您会记得，我们于二月启动了另我程序。我们称之为另我第一部分程序，并且有一系列\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 29 页，共 117 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 30 页，共 117 页\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 被缺席判决的当事人。其中一人是凯伦·马斯特里埃洛（Karen Mastriello，音译），并且，这些当事人已从主程序中分离出来，以便我们可以单独处理缺席事宜。与马斯特里埃洛女士已达成解决方案，巴塞特先生将处理此事，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。男声：对不起，法官阁下。我可以退席吗？法庭：哦，当然可以。是的，任何未涉及其他任何事项的人当然可以退席。谢谢。男声：谢谢，法官阁下。祝您一天愉快。法庭：您也是。巴塞特先生：因此，法官阁下，如受托人所述，今日待处理的提交文件是综合另我对抗程序中的案卷编号 104，该对抗程序编号为 24-5318。法庭：是。巴塞特先生：如受托人所述，受托人已通过与该对抗程序中一名被告方凯伦·马斯特里埃洛的律师进行讨论，达成了一项协议，据此——我想先说明背景情况，法官阁下。起诉状中指称，被告方\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 已于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记 第 31 页，共 117 页\n1 2 3 4 马斯特里埃洛是名为 Alpha Global Ventures Limited（Alpha Global Ventures Limited）的实体的名义唯一所有人，该实体也是另我诉讼中的被告方，并且是受托人指称为债务人另我的实体之一。\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 马斯特里埃洛女士的律师曾联系我方，法官阁下，以了解是否可能解决该对抗程序。她向其律师表示，而其律师向我方表示，马斯特里埃洛女士认为她在该实体中不拥有任何权益；如她确有任何权益，她愿意将该权益放弃给受托人和 Chapter 11 财产。\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 因此，我们最终达成的协议仅仅是一项协议，其规定，如马斯特里埃洛女士在该实体中持有任何权益，例如，如她是该实体的名义登记股东——受托人基于其取得的文件认为她是如此——她将把该权益放弃给 Chapter 11 财产，并将采取为确保该实体的所有权转移给该财产而合理必要的一切行动。\n\n21 22 23 24 25 并且，法官阁下，我们认为，就《联邦民事诉讼规则》而言，以第 54 条为例，我的意思是，依我方观点，并无任何正当理由延迟作出该判决。正如法庭从受托人过去提出的请求中所知，\n\n为解决对抗性诉讼程序的部分事项，这对受托人而言非常重要，即——\n\n法院：对。\n\nBASSETT 律师：——迅速采取行动，并在其能够做到的情况下，就实体取得所有权命令，以便其能够相应地推进，以保护破产财产资产。因此，乐意回答任何问题——\n\n法院：明白。\n\nBASSETT 律师：——但这只是我们目前所处阶段的背景情况。\n\n法院：我明——对。Bassett 律师，我完全理解。之所以将此事安排为听证会，即状态会议，仅仅是因为 Rule 54(b) 问题。对吗？我们需要在该判决书中的某处说明不存在延迟的正当理由，并且，你知道，引用认可该做法的判例，因为我必须作出该项认定，至少根据我所见的全部判例法以及上诉案件和在法院未作出该认定、该项明示认定的问题中，已有发回重审，以便法院根据 Rule 54(b) 作出该项明示认定。因此，我的意思是，我认为你们需要这样做，法院才能作出判决。否则，将来某人在某个时候可能会试图对其提出质疑，我们可能会就此出现上诉。而且，我认定，根据你们就被告 Karen Mastriello（卡伦·马斯特里耶洛）所描述的具体事实和情况，就该特定被告作出判决不存在延迟的正当理由。我认为规则支持该项认定，但是，我——但是，判决书本身以及准许该判决的命令必须说明这一点。否则，我们将来可能会遇到我们任何人都不愿花时间处理的问题。\n\nBASSETT 律师：明白，法官阁下。我们本应预料到这一点。我们当然会提交一份包含该等措辞的修订拟议命令。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。这会非常有帮助。那么，Bassett 律师，再问一下，需要多长时间？你可以有任何你希望的时间。我这样做——我们这样做，是为了——如果我们有一个提交修订拟议命令的日期，这将有助于书记官办公室追踪事项。\n\nBASSETT 律师：当然，法官阁下。到本周末会更合适。\n\n法院：谢谢。那么我会记录，修订拟议命令将在 11 月 22 日或之前提交。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：法官阁下，我想就此事作一项非常简短的陈述。\n\n法院：不过，Kindseth 律师，你并不代理该被告。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：这——非常简短，而且确实只是出于对法院的礼貌。并且只是为了提醒，我已经提醒了受托人，并确保将来不会被指责袖手旁观，Mei Guo（郭美）女士坚信她是 Alpha Global Ventures（阿尔法全球创投）的唯一股东。我们并未在此寻求任何救济，我们没有提出异议，我们没有——我们只是认为，出于对法院的礼貌，应当将此记入记录。并且让法官阁下知道——\n\n法院：你的当事人有什么信息支持该信念？\n\nKINDSETH 律师：嗯，我们已向公司主体 BBI 请求记录。我们也已向受托人请求记录，并且我们将进一步调查。再次说明，我们目前并未寻求任何救济。我们并不在某一具体案件中——\n\n法院：你会向——你是指 Despins 受托人——请求哪些记录？\n\nKINDSETH 律师：是的。关于他所依赖的、用以确立 Mastriello 女士——她实际上并不认为自己是唯一股东——事实上是唯一股东的记录，而这正是起诉书中所称主张的依据。并无针对 Guo 女士的主张。而且再次说明，法官阁下，我并不——我们并未干涉。我们只是——我不希望被指责没有就该问题告知法院。我们打算尽我们所能收集信息，将其提供给受托人，了解受托人掌握何种信息以确立 Alpha Global 的所有权，然后我们将采取我们认为适当的任何行动。\n\n但我不希望——我只是不希望被指责袖手旁观。因此，我们只是告知法院，Mei Guo 女士坚信她是唯一股东，而 Mastriello 女士并非 Alpha Global 的唯一股东。\n\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，我们与法院有完全相同的问题。你知道，在 Guo 女士认为她是该实体的所有人并有证据支持该立场的范围内，我们乐意查看该等证据。\n\n至于向受托人请求有关受托人在起诉书中所作主张的信息，我看不出该请求有任何依据。就目前而言，在我看来，Guo 女士无资格对我们向其他当事人提出的请求提出异议。我们请求法院作出的协议规定，仅将解决涉及 Mastriello 女士的请求。它不会损害 Guo 女士的利益。再次说明，她若有证据证明她拥有该实体，我们乐意从 Kindseth 律师处查看，然后我们可以据此继续处理。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：法官阁下，我们同意。我们无资格反对针对其他当事人的请求。我们并非试图干涉。这确实只是出于对法院的礼貌，并为避免被指责我们本应更早提请法院注意此事。如果我将来能够收集到证明该所有权权益所必需的文件，我们将提交任何必要文件。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：谢谢法官听取我的陈述。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我认为，就对抗性诉讼程序 24-05318 而言，我们今天已尽可能处理了该事项。Bassett 律师，是否正确？\n\nBASSETT 律师：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么，如果我没弄错，今天日程上唯一剩下的是 Taurus Fund（托鲁斯基金）对抗性诉讼中的简易判决动议，以及 Cirrus Design Corporation（西锐设计公司）对抗性诉讼中的缺席判决动议。是否正确？\n\nDESPINS 受托人：正确，法官阁下。我们建议先处理 Cirrus 事项。Linsey 先生将负责，因为该事项应当较短。\n\n男声：法官阁下，我可以离席吗？我并未——\n\n法院：可以。可以。你可以离席。谢谢。\n\n男声：谢谢法官。\n\nHA 律师：法官阁下，我也可以离席吗？\n\n法院：当然可以。任何未涉及其他事项的人都可以离席。我在开始时确实说过这一点，但我本应再次说明。当你的事项处理完毕后，你完全可以离开。谢谢。\n\nHA 律师：谢谢法官。\n\nLINSEY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。为记录在案，Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）代表 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）。这是受托人于 February 14, 2024 对 Cirrus Design Corporation（西锐设计公司）和 Qiang Guo（郭强）提起的一项对抗性诉讼程序。对抗性诉讼程序中受托人的五项请求中，只有一项正在审理。前四项请求是欺诈转让请求，即根据 Bankruptcy Code（破产法典）Section 548 和适用州法针对 Cirrus 提出的实际欺诈转让和推定欺诈转让请求。第五项请求是缺席判决动议所涉的请求。该请求是受托人针对 Qiang Guo 提出的，以追回转让的价值，因为他是为其利益作出该等转让的一方。该请求是依据 Bankruptcy Code Section 550(a)(1) 提出的。书记官于 February 24th 签发传票。\n\n并且于 March 21st, 2024，受托人安排通过 Federal Express（联邦快递）在 Qiang Guo 位于 England（英格兰）London（伦敦）的地址向其送达。根据传票和管辖撤销诉讼的程序，Qiang Guo 答复起诉书的期限为 May 20, 2024。他未在期限内答复起诉书，此后也未答复该起诉书。于 September 17th, 2024，受托人请求对 Qiang Guo 作出缺席登记，书记官于 September 23, 2024 作出该缺席登记。于 October 28，受托人提交了本动议。我将简要说明起诉书中的事实主张；在缺席判决动议的情形下，该等主张视为已获证明。如起诉书和受托人的法律备忘录所述，该起诉书涉及债务人通过 Lamp Capital LLC、HCHK Technologies 和 Leading Shine, New York 向 Cirrus Design Corporation 作出的转让。就前两个实体，即 Lamp Capital 和 HCHK Technologies 而言，法院已作出判决，认定它们属于债务人的另我。就 Leading Shine New York 而言，受托人有一项待决的简易判决动议，以确立该事实。受托人已通过援引方式将其寻求该宣告性救济的请求纳入其针对 Qiang Guo——Cirrus 和 Qiang Guo——的起诉书。\n\n起诉书描述了于 September 2019 与破产申请日之间作出的五笔转让，总额约为 $3.9 million。所有该等转让均落入适用州法，即 New York（纽约）法律规定的追溯审查期间内。其中除一笔外，均落入 Bankruptcy Code Section 548 规定的两年追溯审查期间内。\n\n债务人与该等转让有关的欺诈意图，根据起诉书所述事实显而易见。其中包括，该等转让是由债务人的另我空壳公司实施的，该等公司——并作为债务人空壳游戏的一部分运营。\n\n债务人为隐瞒和耗散数百万美元资产，以便过上亿万富翁的生活并让其家人过上亿万富翁的生活，同时令其债权人陷入贫困，而将其财务事务组织成一场空壳游戏。\n\n债务人隐瞒和耗散的资产包括债务人从其加密货币、证券及其他欺诈性募集活动的受害人处获得的资金。债务人知悉，以该方式隐瞒和耗散其资产，将不会剩余足够资产来偿付其债权人。\n\n尤其在本案中，债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo 是债务人的近亲属、债务人的内部人，并参与了债务人的多项欺诈计划。在该等转让发生时，债务人正面临重大债权人请求，其中包括税务请求。如起诉书和我们的法律备忘录进一步所述，该等转让是为 Qiang Guo 的利益作出的。\n\n如本庭所充分知悉，Qiang Guo（郭强）是债务人的儿子，并且在债务人的空壳骗局中发挥了关键作用。本庭已认定，Qiang Guo收受了债务人作出的其他直接欺诈性转让。Qiang Guo还参与了以下努力——试图虚假主张其对债务人位于曼哈顿Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）公寓享有权益，以及涉及伦敦一处公寓的类似努力。\n\n具体而言，此处争议的转让为从Cirrus Design Corporation（西锐设计公司）购买两架飞机提供了资金，即一架SR 22螺旋桨飞机和一架SF50单引擎私人喷气机。该等转让的价值归Qiang Guo所有。飞机交付后，享有该等飞机使用权的是Qiang Guo，而非债务人。如前所述，债务人未就该等转让获得任何对价。\n\n受托人在法律备忘录中说明，该动议拟仅寻求针对Qiang Guo的救济，而非寻求有关Cirrus Design Corporation的救济。受托人提交该动议后，Cirrus的律师联系受托人，请求受托人\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 41 页，共 117 页\n\n在拟议裁定中增加措辞，以便，我想，进一步正式明确该事实。受托人已在案卷中提交经修订的裁定格式，其载于本对抗程序的案卷编号27。该修订在第13段增加了措辞，该措辞已与Cirrus达成一致。\n\n受托人的法律备忘录还说明，为何应当根据54(b)仅就受托人针对Qiang Guo的请求作出终局判决。就该请求作出判决将有利于破产财产，使受托人能够在Qiang Guo进一步转移资产之前采取措施寻求执行该判决。\n\n如本庭所知悉，Qiang Guo身在国外，拥有大量资源并有能力转移资产，以及试图挫败受托人的请求。正如受托人进一步告知本庭，受托人正在国外参与诉讼，而获得针对Qiang Guo的判决将加强受托人在国外保护破产财产利益的努力。\n\n就此，我乐意回答本庭可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：我正在看您的——谢谢。我正在看您经修订的拟议裁定，但在经修订的拟议裁定中没有看到任何提及Rule 54(b)的内容。我知道您说过——您陈述了关于54(b)的一些问题，但是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 42 页，共 117 页\n\n也许是我遗漏了什么。但显然，这仅是针对一名被告和起诉状中一个罪名项的判决。\n\n因此，我认为我们需要——我不一定知道需要何种措辞，因为我没有比较Cirrus要求您加入的内容与这份经修订的拟议裁定，但那没有问题。您与他们商定的任何内容都没有问题。但我没有看到任何关于Rule 54(b)以及就本事项而言不存在延迟的正当理由的措辞，我确实认为我们需要该等措辞。\n\n我的意思是，我并不是——不论我怎么想，我都将坚持要求加入该内容，因为否则，该判决可能会被上诉，并被主张我——在没有该明确认定的情况下作出判决是不适当的。\n\nLinsey先生：明白，法官阁下。因此，关于其中一个问题，增加并与Cirrus达成一致的措辞是——\n\n法庭：第6段？\n\nLinsey先生：第——是第13段。\n\n法庭：哦。\n\nLinsey先生：该措辞是经修订第13段的最后一句，即受托人不会将本裁定或关于该动议的任何其他裁定，无论作为本案既判事项还是以其他方式，用于针对Cirrus或针对其他——\n\n法庭：是的。无论如何，在我正在看的拟议裁定中，那是第6段。您是在看该动议吗？还是我正在看一份拟议裁定，即我认为我应当看的经修订拟议裁定，27号？\n\nLinsey先生：哦，是的，法官阁下。抱歉。因此，我们提交了——我们提交了经修订的裁定，并同时提交了一份修订痕迹稿。\n\n法庭：哦，我明白了。我正在看修订痕迹稿。是的。\n\nLinsey先生：嗯，是的。法官阁下，它没有应有的那么有帮助，因为不知何故，裁定性段落的编号在修订痕迹稿中承接之处——\n\n法庭：哦，我明白了。\n\nLinsey先生：——是前一版本——\n\n法庭：对。对。\n\nLinsey先生：——结束之处。这就是我说——我们在看同一段。只是修订痕迹稿版本。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。\n\nLinsey先生：因此，无论如何，我们将——我们将感谢有机会提交或向本庭提供一份经修订裁定，我们将采用与其他裁定一致的措辞，即本庭已在对抗程序中就争议请求中少于全部的请求作出终局判决的其他裁定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 44 页，共 117 页\n\nDespins先生：而且我们可以采用在上一个里程碑事项中，即Qiang Guo缺席判决中使用的相同措辞。\n\n法庭：是的。这是必要的，因为否则，整个——整个判决可能会失效——可能会被推翻。而且，我已在记录中认定，就该特定请求及与该特定请求有关的其他事项而言，不存在延迟的正当理由，正如您在动议以及加速审理动议中所陈述，并且基于本案的具体事实和情况。因此，这没有问题。您可以提交一份经修订的拟议裁定。我也看到了您应Cirrus请求增加的措辞，所以那也没有问题。\n\nLinsey先生：我们将在本周结束前提交，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等片刻。那么——我只是——抱歉。我这里稍有延迟。请给我一秒钟。\n\nLinsey先生：希望法官阁下感觉好些。\n\n法庭：我也希望如此，但谢谢。好了。我只是——我不知道为什么我只是有点延迟。无论如何——哦，我——我只是有一点电脑问题。如果您稍等我一秒钟。好的。因此，缺席判决动议，ECF 23，针对被告Guo获准，并且一份经修订的\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 45 页，共 117 页\n\n拟议裁定将于11月22日或之前提交。抱歉。那是星期五。11月22日。因此，我认为这也结束了今天下午日程表上的该对抗程序。\n\nLinsey先生：是的，法官阁下。我只想提及一件事，法官阁下已作出裁定，批准了我所在律师事务所的费用申请。我在Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的同事指出，我所在律师事务所费用申请的其中一段存在算术错误。如果法官阁下同意，我们将发送一份经修订裁定格式及一份修订痕迹稿——\n\n法庭：当然。只需引用Rule 60和9024，说明您发现了某项文书错误，且这就是作出经修订裁定的理由。好吗？\n\nLinsey先生：我只是想让本庭知道，该文件将会提交。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么我们转入Taurus Fund（陶鲁斯基金）对抗程序。对吗？\n\nDespins先生：正确，法官阁下。Bassett先生将主导进行。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nBassett先生：法官阁下，我可以开始吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nBassett先生：谢谢。再次说明记录，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 46 页，共 117 页\n\n代表Chapter 11受托人的Paul Hastings律师Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。法官阁下，有一项程序性事项，我的同事Doug Barron（道格·巴伦）在线上，在某个时候，不是在一开始，我将请他尽可能在屏幕上分享我们准备的一些幻灯片，以协助梳理部分证据。因此，我只是想确保他具备这样做的技术能力。\n\n法庭：Conway先生是否已经看过这些幻灯片？\n\nBassett先生：是的，法官阁下。我们今天上午已发送给他们，除了向本庭突出显示已经作为我们Rule 56陈述附件并在法律备忘录中引用的证据外，它们没有做任何其他事情。\n\n法庭：好的。我只是想确保Conway先生已经看过。\n\nConway先生：法官阁下，我是代表本对抗程序被告的Lazare, Potter, Giacovas & Moyle（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯与莫伊尔律师事务所）律师Michael Conway（迈克尔·康威）。是的，我几小时前收到了它们。我已能够大致阅览，它们看起来确实是律师在简易判决动议中提交材料的汇编。\n\n我注意到，我对每一张幻灯片均提出异议，理由是其中的每一项信息均缺乏基础，且——构成传闻证据。因此，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 47 页，共 117 页\n\n尽管我预计您会允许他们使用这些幻灯片，但我希望确保记录明确：我们不同意其使用，我们——也不同意使用，如您所知，他们提交的任何证物。因此，我的意思是，它们——并非记录的一部分。它们是他们希望成为记录一部分的文件。它们尚未获准纳入记录。法院：它们没有——它们从未——幻灯片中所载内容未被提交以支持简易判决？CONWAY律师（康威）：它们已经提交。它们已提交至记录中，但尚未获准纳入，我的意思是——它们是在异议下被接受的。BASSETT律师（巴塞特）：法官阁下，它们是简易判决记录的一部分。它们随受托人（Trustee）的无争议事实陈述一并提交。基于多种理由，它们在简易判决中均可采纳。我很乐意在回应CONWAY律师的证据异议时讨论所有这些问题。我想指出，他的证据异议实际上已被视为放弃，因为根据地方法规，他未在其对受托人简易判决动议的反对意见中阐明这些异议，除在其对受托人无争议事实陈述的答复中有一行文字外，未就其为何反对受托人的许多证物提供任何依据。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 48 页，共 117 页\n\n一切均可采纳。我们将为支持简易判决而提出的大部分证言，均是在刑事审判中宣誓作出的证言；我们在简易判决动议的法律备忘录第67段援引判例法，其中说明法院通常会在简易判决中考虑其他程序，包括刑事程序中的宣誓证言，该等证言与声明具有完全相同的效力，因为该等宣誓证言可在审判中获得。判例法对此毫无疑问。在我们援引证物的范围内，该等证物已由刑事审判中的证据予以认证，及／或因其不属于传闻证据异议的范围而可采纳。它们已通过本对抗程序中取得的证言笔录或其他方式得到适当认证。我很乐意逐一说明CONWAY律师希望讨论的每份文件为何可采纳，但我们认为对此毫无疑问。而且，我再次认为，无论如何，关于可采纳性的争议已经被放弃。法院：让我问您一个问题，BASSETT律师。哦，抱歉，CONWAY律师。让我先问BASSETT律师一个问题，然后我再听取\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 49 页，共 117 页\n\n您的答复。\n\n那么，您是否请求法院——我尚未看到您——您知道，这些幻灯片。它们只是演示材料，还是您请求将其作为证据准予采纳？\n\nBASSETT律师：法官阁下，我们请求法院在简易判决中予以考虑。我认为CONWAY律师的异议可能造成了一些混淆。这些幻灯片只是演示材料。我们并不请求将幻灯片本身作为证据准予采纳。其目的在于协助法院理解我们已提交的证据。\n\n这些幻灯片中摘录的每一份文件，均已作为受托人无争议事实陈述的一部分及／或作为我们随该陈述提交的某一份声明的证物，独立纳入记录。\n\n我们遵循了为支持简易判决动议而向法院提供证据时一贯遵循的完全正确程序，即将该等证据作为无争议事实陈述的一部分提交，并在必要时附具声明。再次说明，在本案中，其中大部分确实来自刑事审判，但这些均是法院能够且应当考虑的信息。\n\n但这些材料均已作为我们向法院提交的证物的一部分纳入记录。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 50 页，共 117 页\n\n我们并未请求法院将该演示材料另行作为证据予以接纳。我认为它只是为促进今日庭辩而提供的辅助材料。法院：好的。谢谢。CONWAY律师，我刚才打断了您。抱歉。请继续陈述您的观点。CONWAY律师：是的，我本来想指出的是，BASSETT律师作出了许多评论，其中之一是，某些文件已在其他程序中得到认证。坦率地说，只有少数几份此类文件，而我们并未对其提出异议。但是，本动议中提交的约280份文件全部由Barron先生（巴伦）以如下方式认证：随附的是下列文件的真实、准确副本。这就是全部认证内容。在我们的法律备忘录中，我们认为这些文件总体上未经认证，并且——它们属于传闻证据；在随附的具体异议清单中，我们已适当保留了对这些文件的异议。坦率地说，正如我所说，就——即使Barron先生实际上并未认证任何内容而言，我们也未对某些事项提出异议，因为我知道在它们被认证时，我本人或我的一名合伙人在场，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 51 页，共 117 页\n\n而我们不会提出无理异议。\n\n因此，即使它们在本动议中未被适当地提交给法官阁下，我们也未对我们知道本可得到适当认证的事项提出异议。但大体而言，我们面对的是一大批信息，您知道，实际上根本没有尝试为其提供基础。仅仅说它来自刑事审判并不足够。那始终是传闻证据，且该审判不涉及我们。我们没有机会进行交叉询问。我们未被邀请参加该刑事审判。\n\n坦率地说，即使我们参加了，所提交的信息中也没有任何一项是作为已在刑事审判中获准作为证据的内容而得到认证的。连庭审记录也没有。它们甚至未经认证。因此，法官阁下，我认为我们大概应当转向我们来到这里的实际核心问题，因为我预计会涉及证据异议，但我认为那并非BASSETT先生希望进行陈述的核心。\n\nBASSETT律师：法官阁下，请允许我简要回应。CONWAY律师在各方面都错了。首先，他们提交了一份15页的简易判决异议书，其中或许有“我们反对证据”这几个字。该反对意见中绝对没有阐明任何这些证据异议的依据。我们在答复状中援引了地方法规。任何未在对简易判决动议的反对意见中阐明的异议，均被视为放弃。这些异议绝对已被放弃。第一，我们未被告知这些论点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 52 页，共 117 页\n\n第二，所有这些文件均已得到认证。我举一个例子。他说，附于Barron声明的证物未经认证。这完全不属实。我们在Barron声明中附上了诸如代表Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）买方的经纪人在刑事审判中所作的证言。\n\n例如，她在刑事审判中就其与Aaron Mitchell（音译）发送和接收的短信作证。她将这些短信作为我们同样提交的刑事审判证言的一部分予以认证。这与提交声明及宣誓证言完全相同，即能够认证基础证物的证人已完成认证。\n\n这与让该经纪人向法院提交一份附有这些文件的声明没有任何不同；这些材料均在记录中。我们在简易判决动议第67段援引了判例法，说明法院通常会考虑其他程序中的宣誓证言。这正是我们在此所做的。所有证物均通过该等证言得到适当认证。我认为我们应当继续进行，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 53 页，共 117 页\n\n法院：好的。那么请继续，待各方分别提出其论点后，我们将视情况而定。CONWAY律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nBASSETT律师：那么，为了先统一一下认识，显然，法官阁下，在本对抗程序中，我们现就受托人的简易判决动议进行审理，即第11章破产财产是Mahwah Mansion的实益所有人，所指的是债务人（Debtor）为该庄园的实益所有人。我们还请求就我们的主张作出简易判决，即作为该庄园名义所有人的被告Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）是债务人的另我。\n\n现在，法官阁下，如法院所知，今年夏天进行了一场刑事审判，债务人Kwok先生（郭文贵）被判定犯有策划多项大规模欺诈计划并领导犯罪敲诈勒索企业罪，其目的均是中饱私囊，并资助他本人及其家人极其奢华的生活方式。法院已听取许多有关情况。对此非常熟悉。\n\n法院可能不知道的是，政府在刑事审判中的案件重点之一，是证明Kwok先生如何指示将其控制下的资金用于购买、翻修和布置Mahwah Mansion，作为其家人的住所。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 54 页，共 117 页\n\n政府就该主题花费数日时间，传唤多名证人并出示大量证物。审判结束时，该等证据使联邦陪审团以排除合理怀疑的标准确信Kwok先生有罪。当然，这一标准远高于适用于本法院程序的优势证据标准。\n\n现在，我想明确一点。受托人并未请求法官阁下认定刑事审判中的有罪裁决在本对抗程序中具有约束力。它不具有约束力。\n\n但我请求您所做的是，审视适当地提交至本法院的同一证据——即提交给该陪审团的证据——以及受托人在其诉讼中发现、而政府甚至无法获得的更多证据，并据此认定，不可能存在关于Kwok先生实益拥有该庄园以及Taurus Fund是Kwok先生另我的任何真实重大事实争议。\n\n法官阁下，我稍后会结合幻灯片说明这一点。支持这些结论的证据绝对具有压倒性。事实上，在涉及这些主张的案件中，我很难想象有比受托人提交给法院的记录更能确定地证明该问题的记录。\n\n现在，法官阁下，简要概述一下法律标准——我不会花太多时间，因为我知道法院从本案及其他案件中对其非常熟悉——但我确实认为，简要回顾击败简易判决所需满足的条件是重要的。\n\n根据第56条，法官阁下，已经提出支持其主张的合格证据的动议方，有权获得简易判决，除非对方能够通过其自身证据证明不存在对重要事实的真实争议——或者，对不起。对方必须证明存在对重要事实的真实争议。\n\n在该标准中，法官阁下，“真实”和“重要”这两个词都至关重要，因为它们表明，并非任何事实争议都足以阻却简易判决。争议事实首先必须是重要事实，根据判例法，这意味着该事实可能会影响诉讼在适用法律下的结果。\n\n如果无论该事实是否属实，诉讼在适用法律下的结果都会相同，那么该事实就不重要。\n\n此外，法官阁下，即使该事实是重要的，为阻却简易判决，关于该事实的争议还必须——还必须是真实的。而这\n案号 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 记录于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 56 页，共 117 页\n意味着，法官阁下，证据必须足以使合理的陪审团、合理的事实认定者，能够作出有利于非动议方的裁决。\n\n并非任何争议都足以成立。它必须是能够真实支持事实认定者作出有利于非动议方决定的争议。因此，还是回到本案，我们稍后会再谈到，陪审团在本刑事审判中认定 Kwok（郭文贵）先生有罪，且排除合理怀疑。\n\n法官阁下，我们的书面材料中还包括，我此刻不会加以论述，即关于受托人主张实体内容的适用法律。简而言之，根据我们认为在此适用的新泽西州法律，法院将穿透名义所有权，考察谁实际上具有对资产的受益所有权和控制权的特征。其所引用的法院判例认为，在确定何者属于破产财产时，法院不会拘泥于破产程序中所有权名义的技术细节。\n\n此外，法官阁下，我不会在此花费太多时间。顺便说一句，我还要指出，法院已经适用类似法律或类似管辖区的法律，得出结论认为，由债务人的亲属或与其关系密切的其他人名义持有的其他财产，实际上属于破产财产。法院在涉及来自（听不清）的债务人的对抗程序、Lady May（“五月女士”）对抗程序，以及当然，\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 记录于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 57 页，共 117 页\n涉及债务人在康涅狄格州格林尼治住所的对抗程序，即 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）对抗程序中，均作出了该认定。\n\n法官阁下，我们还就债务人对 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）的所有权和控制权提出了另一个自我主张。该方面的法律与法院在其他对抗程序中适用的法律相似，其中再次包括 Greenwich Land 对抗程序。我今天不会再次详细重复。\n\n我现在想做的是，因为我确实认为证据至关重要——根据以往经验，我知道法院在简易判决中会关注证据——逐一说明这些证据。此时，我想看看我的同事 Barron（巴伦）先生能否把幻灯片显示在屏幕上。巴伦先生：法官阁下，我是 Doug Barron（道格·巴伦）。\n\n我已请求获得共享屏幕的权限。谢谢。法院：当然。我相信法庭书记员现在正在处理此事。\n\n法庭工作人员：（听不清）他现在应该能够共享。\n\nBassett（巴塞特）先生：好的。谢谢。那么，法官阁下，如法院允许，这里有大量幻灯片。我不会逐一详述。之所以有大量幻灯片，部分原因是存在如此多关于债务人对该大宅所有权的证据。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 记录于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 58 页，共 117 页\n坦率地说，法官阁下，这些证据确实从头到尾涉及在确定谁是某项不动产实际受益所有人时所会考察的所有权各个方面。我们稍后将要说明的证据表明，Kwok先生深度参与了购买该住所、翻修该住所及居住于该住所的每一个方面。所有所有人就某项不动产会做的事情，Kwok先生都做了。相反，没有任何证据表明，包括被告在内的任何其他人，曾采取任何与其而非债务人拥有该不动产相一致的行动。请转到第三张幻灯片。顺便问一下，法官阁下，这在您的屏幕上是否足够大，能让法院看清？法院：我能看见。是的。谢谢。巴塞特先生：好的。很好。那么，法官阁下，这张幻灯片展示的是，可以说是该过程的开始。这大约是在2021年11月、2021年12月初。在刑事审判中，买方经纪人 Christine Prostini（克里斯汀·普罗斯蒂尼，音译）以及该不动产买方的律师 Amy Buck（艾米·巴克，音译）均作了证言。\n\n这两名证人的证言表明，法院非常熟悉的债务人的私人律师 Mitchell（米切尔）先生，就 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦大宅）联系了她们二人，以于2021年12月启动可能购买该不动产的程序。\n\n根据 Prostini女士的证言，您会看到，Mitchell先生表示，他有一名客户“想看几套房子”，其中包括 Crocker Mansion（克罗克大宅）。再次将该不动产称为住所。律师 Amy Buck 的说法实质相同。她还称，Mitchell先生的客户与 Mitchell先生的妻子“像一家人”。我不知道法院怎么想，但我认为这听起来不像是在指一群 G-Club 投资者。\n\n如果 Barron先生可以转到下一张幻灯片。这张幻灯片，法官阁下，再次说明，载明了附于受托人无争议事实陈述、且已提交法院审理的证物的引用。这只是对已经提交的文件进行概述。我只是想对此作出非常明确的说明，所有幻灯片上都有证物引用。\n\n这张幻灯片，法官阁下，显示 Mitchell先生最初就该不动产联系时，表示 Mei Guo（梅·郭）、即债务人的女儿，及其“家族信托”将购买该不动产。没有提及 G-\n\n60\nClub，没有提及 Hamilton（汉密尔顿），没有提及现今构成被告相反说法依据的其他实体。这一点也显示在页面右侧 Mitchell先生的一条短信中，该短信谈到债务人的女儿最初是据称有意购买该不动产的人。如果我们转到下一张幻灯片，法官阁下，即第5张。这张幻灯片谈到2021年11月28日该不动产首次展示时发生的首次看房。谁参加了那次看房？当然，是 Kwok先生及其妻子。请看第6张，Doug。这张幻灯片显示，首次看房后，Kwok先生通过 Mitchell先生联系并询问了关于该不动产的问题，包括是否有鬼魂，以及其他准备为自己购买不动产的人可能会问的问题。请转到第7张，Doug。这张幻灯片，法官阁下，显示在2021年11月下旬，债务人传达了一项以 \\$26 million 购买该不动产的要约。债务人本人提出了该要约。我们知道这一点，是因为债务人要求其首席亲信 Ya Li（亚·李，音译），其曾在刑事审判中作证，将他交给她的语音\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 记录于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 60 页，共 117 页\n案号 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 记录于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 61 页，共 117 页\n备忘录转写并翻译，然后发送给 Mitchell先生。那是刑事审判中的一份证物，而我们附上的证言，即宣誓证言，法院已在简易判决中予以考虑，其中谈到了该语音备忘录，并对该语音备忘录进行了认证。所有这些均可采纳，且法院可以予以考虑。\n\n值得注意的是，在发送给 Mitchell先生的转写语音备忘录中，债务人表示“家族基金”将购买该不动产。他还表示，应就此联系债务人的密友及刑事共谋者 William G（威廉·G）。法官阁下，家族基金，没有提及 G-Club。没有提及被告如今希望法院相信的说法。\n\n第8张幻灯片。\n\n这张幻灯片，法官阁下，显示债务人在拟定要约后，于2021年12月2日第二次造访该大宅。如果您看这些短信，其含义非常明显。Mitchell先生给房地产经纪人发短信，询问父亲明天是否可以回到房子；然后他谈到——谈到母亲对空调有所担忧。\n\n法官阁下，这是 Kwok先生造访一个他想购买的项目、造访一个他想购买的不动产，而这是 Kwok先生的妻子询问有关空调的问题，\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 记录于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 62 页，共 117 页\n这是将要居住在那所房子里的人会想问的事情。\n\n页面右侧 Prostini女士在刑事审判中的证言描述了她所理解的买方是谁，即 Guo女士的父亲和母亲，即其妻子。\n\n请看下一页。\n\n这张幻灯片，法官阁下，是 Prostini女士在刑事审判中的更多证言，谈到12月2日第二次造访时发生的事情。在那次造访中，Kwok先生及其妻子查看了房子的每一个房间。再次，这是正在为自己购买住所之人的行为。\n请看下一张幻灯片。\n\n法官阁下，这是我们之前讨论过的语音备忘录中的另一段摘录，我认为是同一段摘录，但它显示，债务人不仅向 Mitchell先生发送了传达其 \\$26 million 要约价格的要约备忘录，而且在页面右侧，您可以看到，2021年12月3日，Mitchell先生向卖方发送了一封正式传达该要约的信函。这是完全相同的要约。债务人传达的 \\$26 million 要约，就是 Mitchell先生发送给卖方的要约。再次说明，债务人控制着该过程的每一个方面。在下一页，即第11张幻灯片中，我们看到 Mitchell先生\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 记录于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 63 页，共 117 页\n开始给房地产经纪人发短信，索要该大宅的平面图副本，并称他们——指买方——正着重准备好供他们的案件使用。随后，她在页面左侧底部的下一条——后续短信中称，Mei和母亲确实想看这些平面图。\n\n再次，任何人都显而易见，该不动产的买方将会是谁。而果然，在页面右侧，与买方互动的房地产经纪人 Prostini女士称，页面底部的买方是“Guo family（郭氏家族）”。\n\n下一张幻灯片，法官大人，我不再赘述细节，但这表明——这些同样是在刑事审判中经认证并作为证据提交的证物——债务人的助理 Gladys Chow（格拉迪斯·周），其电子邮箱地址属于 HGHK Technologies（HGHK Technologies），而该公司当然是债务人的另我实体之一，向房地产经纪人、房地产中介发送了平面图，标明她希望完成的若干事项，包括重新布置某些房间。\n\n并且有一份设计公司的相应发票，其中提及在三层为儿子设置一个区域，并在三层为女儿也设置一个区域。该内容位于页面底部。再次说明，法官大人，根据所有这些证据，谁将居住在这栋房屋中非常明确。下一页，第13页。还有谁到访过该房产？债务人的刑事共谋者、代理人和雇员 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）。正如 Prostini 女士所作证，她当然与 Guo 先生共事过。她也到访过该房产。下一张幻灯片，法官大人。这些是最初由 Mitchell 先生编制的实际文件，其中将 Taurus Fund SP（Taurus Fund SP）确定为该房产的买方。我稍后会说明这如何发生变化。如果看第15页，即下一张幻灯片，其中有购买合同的措辞，表明该房产将被用作“单户住宅”。我们已在页面上对此作出标注，而不是如被告所称的供 G-Club（G-Club）会员使用的俱乐部会所。下一张幻灯片，法官大人，是该交易中的买方宣誓书。同样，如果看页面底部，我们已作出标注，其被指定为住宅房产。下一张幻灯片，法官大人，幻灯片17。这显示了刑事审判中买方律师 Amy Buck（艾米·巴克）的证词，谈及实际上在交割时、即交割当天，成立了一家有限责任公司 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund LLC）来取得该房产。再次说明，这非常清楚地表明，Taurus Fund LLC 是一个除作为为债务人取得该房产的工具外从不从事任何活动、也从未从事过任何活动的实体。\n\n下一张幻灯片，法官大人，Taurus Fund LLC 的公司设立文件显示了其架构：该文件左侧页面底部列出的两名管理人，分别来自 Taurus Management LLC（Taurus Management LLC）以及本对抗性程序中的另一名被告，还有同为被告的 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）。Barnett 先生当然是债务人的保镖，并被确认担任安保负责人。\n\nBarnett 先生的签名出现在设立文件上，该文件也展示在页面右侧。\n\n有意思的是，法官大人，如果看幻灯片19，尽管 Barnett 先生在签署文件及担任 Taurus Fund LLC 管理人方面发挥了作用，但他在刑事审判中作证称，他基本上对此一无所知。当被问及他在 Taurus Fund 是否担任职务时，他回答说自己没有担任职务。\n\n他承认自己是签字人，随后他说，嗯，直到很久以后他才知道这一点。页面右侧显示，他说他们在文件上把我列为管理人。而这意味着什么，法官大人，以及他对此的解释是，页面右侧底部所示，Mitchell 先生给了他文件。Mitchell 先生，即债务人的私人律师、法院熟知的人士，给了他文件让其签署，而 Barnett 先生只是签了字。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第66页，共117页\n\n法官大人，这具有我们见过债务人从事的其他活动的所有特征：当他试图将实际上属于他的资产置于他人的名义控制之下时。他让保镖、妻子、女儿的男友及其他人代为出面，并在文件上署名。\n\n下一张幻灯片，法官大人，这是该房屋购买之后的情况。进一步的通信再次向任何人清楚表明，该房屋的买方事实上是 Kwok 先生及其家人，而不是 G-Club 或任何其他人。房地产经纪人 Prostini 女士向 Mitchell 先生发送短信，称她想祝贺买方，说买方人非常好，他们的员工也是如此。\n\n我想——我想和您谈谈我可以做些什么来感谢他们。在最后一条短信中，她想谈谈他们，谈谈为他们购买一份精美的节日礼物、一份花艺摆设。并且值得注意的是，她想知道应把东西寄往何处，并询问她是否可以寄到他们位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的住所。谁在 Connecticut 有住所，法官大人？当然是债务人。那就是如今由破产财产拥有的 Taconic Road（塔科尼克路）住宅。页面右侧 Prostini 女士的证词明确将债务人称为买方。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第67页，共117页\n\n下一张幻灯片，法官大人，很难想象还有比这更能说明问题的内容。这是 Barnett 先生在刑事审判中的证词。再次说明，您可以自行评判 Conway 律师所有证据异议的价值，而我坦率地认为，其价值为零。\n\n但这一次，是他的当事人在刑事审判中回应 Kwok 先生律师的询问。Guo 先生购买该房产时，您感到惊讶吗？此处指的是 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）。是。这说明了什么，法官大人？他甚至没有反驳 Guo 先生是购买该房产之人的说法。每个人都知道这一点。这一点已内含于问题之中，而他承认了这一点，且在回答中未予质疑。\n\n因此，法官大人，下一张——转到下一张幻灯片，我们现已概述了证据，为明确起见，这仅是部分证据。所有证据均在我们的书面材料中讨论，并载于无争议事实陈述中，涉及债务人购买该房产。\n\n下一张幻灯片，我会尽量相对快速地讲述，其详细说明了债务人在购买该房产之后以及实际上仍在购买过程中，如何与其助理合作，为该房产购买家具。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第68页，共117页\n\n幻灯片22展示的文件，即展示的信息，均为短信；这些短信在刑事审判中通过证词得到认证，而该等证词已载入支持受托人简易判决动议的记录中。\n\nKwok 先生正与其助理 Gladys Chow 发送短信，谈论他想购买的所有物品——灯罩、定制家具等等。在标注出的短信中，他说这些全都将在 New Jersey（新泽西州）使用。页面底部还谈到为其妻子的房间和女儿的房间订购床和家具。\n\n下一张幻灯片，法官大人，这实际上详细列出了在破产法院本对抗性程序中进行的一次证词录取的证词，受托人在该次证词录取中询问了 La Belle Modern（La Belle Modern）的所有人；La Belle Modern 是 Kwok 先生购买该住宅家具的销售渠道之一。该证人作证称，一名长相类似 Kwok 先生的人来到店内，为其住宅购置了物品，而该住宅位于 Mahwah（马瓦）。他确认，右侧的那张照片——法院可基于其在本案中的经验辨认——是 Kwok 先生。他就是到店购买物品的人。\n\n在下一张幻灯片中，法官大人，幻灯片24，内容大致相同。我不会详细说明，但其中是 Gladys Chow 与 La Belle Modern 的所有人就购买事宜进行通信。Gladys Chow 在其签名栏中使用 Golden Spring（Golden Spring）的地址，并购买这些家具以送往马瓦庄园。法官大人，Golden Spring 已被裁定为债务人的另我实体，二者之间的联系非常明确。\n\n下一张幻灯片，法官大人，幻灯片25。这是 La Belle Modern 的账户对账单，再次显示，Amy Buck 的托管账户曾用于该庄园的家具，实际上被用于进行购买。\n\n幻灯片26，法官大人，我会较快地讲述这些内容。但我实际上请求法院也重点关注这些内容，因为在我看来，它们极具说服力。这些是短信摘录，其中债务人实际附上了他发送给 Chow 女士的视频；他极其细致地审阅并标注马瓦庄园的平面图，谈论他希望将女儿的浴室设在何处、希望将她的卧室设在何处。他还标注了债务人男友房间的位置。\n\n下一张幻灯片，幻灯片27，他标注了希望 Miles（迈尔斯）的房间、Qiang Guo（郭强）的房间设在何处，并谈到他的更衣室。\n\n下一张幻灯片，幻灯片28，这是其妻子在房屋中的区域，谈到他希望她的卧室设在何处、他希望她的浴室——希望她的浴室设在何处，等等。再次说明，这些内容全都直接来自债务人。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3852\n提交 11/26/24\n录入 11/26/24 14:12:30\n\n下一张幻灯片，法官大人，内容大致相同。最后，如果看幻灯片30，这进一步构成债务人拥有该房产的有力证据，仿佛我们已看到的证据尚不足够。这是破产案件中一名来自 Pro Memoria（Pro Memoria）人士的证词；Pro Memoria 是一家为诸如此类项目进行装修的高端设计公司。正如我们将在下一页看到的，他们过去曾为 Kwok 先生进行装修。\n\n在这里的第30页，他作证称，有人代表 Kwok 先生联系他，以便在 New York（纽约）地区进行一个项目。他刚刚作证称，该项目是位于 New Jersey 的马瓦庄园装修项目。\n\nGladys Chow，即债务人的助理，联系他，请其为该项目提出报价。到了需要在页面右侧详细讨论项目时，他做了什么？在9月，他会面——在2022年9月，他在 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环）的办公室会见了债务人，并详细讨论了该计划。他还在何处会见过债务人？他认识债务人，是在其位于 Greenwich（格林尼治）Taconic Road 的住宅。再次说明，债务人亲自控制该过程的每一个方面。\n\n下一页，法官大人，我不会花太多时间说明，但这表明 Pro Memoria 并非第一次亲自为 Kwok 先生工作。他们还曾为 Kwok 先生位于 Beijing（北京）的住宅进行工作。\n\n幻灯片32。\n\n如果尚不清楚客户是谁、控制该住宅装修的人是谁，这里是提交的报价提案——这也是证词录取记录的证物。她已得到认证。不存在任何证据异议。这是 Pro Memoria 向“Dear MK”发送报价，将装修报价直接致给 Kwok 先生本人。然后，当您查看该报价提案的细节时，其中是否提及任何会议室\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 已经认证。完全不存在任何证据异议。这是 Pro Memoria（普罗·梅莫里亚）向 Dear MK（亲爱的MK）发送报价，涉及为 Kwok（郭文贵）先生进行翻修的报价。而且，当您查看该报价提案的细节时，其中是否提到任何供俱乐部会员使用的会议室？没有。这是女儿的房间、母亲的房间、儿子的房间，耗资数百万美元。这是 Kwok 先生，而且仅仅是 Kwok 先生，控制对这所房屋的翻修，以使其适合他及其家人作为他们的住宅。\n\n21 22 23 24 25 如果这里究竟发生了什么还不够显而易见，法官阁下，请看幻灯片33：2023年4月债务人被捕后发生了什么？Pro Memoria 联系了债务人的助理 Gladys Chow（周格莱迪斯），并表示，对 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）所发生之事深表遗憾。在此\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第72页，共117页\n时，我们可以确定该项目已取消。\n\n2 3 4 5 如果这是一栋 G-Club（G俱乐部）房屋，为什么该项目会被取消？当然不是。那是 Kwok 先生的房屋，而在他被捕后，该项目已无须继续进行。\n\n6 7 8 下一张幻灯片，法官阁下，我不会花时间讨论，因为我们已经一再审查了更多关于该房屋内债务人家人房间家具的证据。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 幻灯片35，这是 Amy Buck（艾米·巴克）在刑事审判中的证词；再次提及，那位参与购买的律师，谈及她如何使用其信托账户中表面上属于 Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）的资金，购买了包括一张 $36,000 床垫在内的物品，而该床垫最终放入了女儿的卧室。再次，这是债务人所有权的更多压倒性证据。\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特），本案被告，在刑事审判中的证词，幻灯片36。法官阁下，他承认了这一切：Kwok 先生在该庄园有一间卧室，他的妻子在该庄园有一间卧室，他的儿子在那里有一间卧室，他的女儿也有。不仅他们有卧室，他们还各自拥有整片翼楼。Barnett 先生在其证词中承认了所有这些。\n\n23 24 25 幻灯片37，法官阁下。除自始至终策划购买程序，并自始至终控制翻修和布置程序外，\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第73页，共117页\n\n1 2 3 债务人 Kwok 先生还指挥了用于购买该庄园的资金流向。在此处的幻灯片37中，我们有一张图表，展示资金如何流动。\n4 5 6 7 8 这些资金最终存放于 Crane Advisory Group（克兰咨询集团）。资金被转入 Mitchell（米切尔）先生律师事务所的一个信托账户，随后流经 William G（威廉·G）的 Hamilton entities（汉密尔顿实体），最终流向代表该庄园卖方接收资金的收款人。\n\n9 10 11 12 下一张幻灯片，幻灯片38，这是 Collette（科莱特）先生在刑事审判中的证词。Collette 先生是该刑事审判中的一名关键证人。法官阁下，所有这些证词在简易判决中均可采纳。\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 Collette 先生说了什么？他说 Kwok 先生是负责人。所有这些证词表明，Crane 只是 Kwok 先生用来贯彻其意图的一个实体。Kwok 先生是老板。Collette 先生最初受聘时曾与 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）会面，这一点载于页面右侧。\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 而他——他是否会被聘用，取决于 Kwok 先生是否批准聘用他。他受聘时的聘用函来自 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团），即债务人的一个另我实体。谁支付 Collette 先生的薪水？当然是 Lexington Properties（列克星敦地产），债务人的另一个已被裁定的另我实体。\n请看下一页，被告\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第74页，共117页\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 将会——我相信您会听取 Conway（康韦）律师的陈述，即所有这些资金都不是 Kwok 先生的资金。Collette 先生在刑事审判中说了什么？在页面右侧，您收到的为 G-Clubs（G俱乐部）汇入的电汇款项，Guo（郭）先生、Kwok 先生对其拥有控制权。正确吗？正确。而且，如果他对这些款项拥有控制权，您是否认为他对这些电汇款项拥有经济——您是否认为他对这些电汇款项拥有经济利益？是。这是 Crane 的 Collette 先生所说，即债务人对这些资金拥有控制权。幻灯片40进一步证明债务人对 Crane 所持资金的控制权。这是一段录音电话，其——其作为证词的一部分已经认证，但也属于简易判决记录的一部分。这是 Kwok 先生不只是请求、不只是要求，而是声嘶力竭地迫使 Collette 先生及其他人将资金转入 William G 先生的基金会。这也正是他在本案中所做的事情，法官阁下。接下来的几张幻灯片我会快速翻过。它只是——不断层层累加。如果我们需要更多证据证明债务人将 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）作为其自身住所使用，让我们看看从该住所查获的物品。再次，这些图像均在刑事审判中经过认证。该证词在此可采纳。这些图像在此可采纳。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3852\n提交 11/26/24\n录入 11/26/24 14:12:30\n\n1 幻灯片41上有债务人的药物。\n2 幻灯片42上有债务人的一张俱乐部会员卡。\n3 \n4 幻灯片43上有一张在衣柜中发现的债务人的\n5 Brioni（布里奥尼）西装照片。还有他的纽约州\n6 学习驾照。有一本香港护照。还有\n7 债务人的香港身份证。\n8 幻灯片44上有更多同类物品，即债务人妻子的\n9 信用卡、债务人的社会保障卡、\n10 健康保险卡。\n11 幻灯片45上有债务人家庭成员的图像，\n12 均在该庄园中发现。\n13 幻灯片46上有衣柜的照片，显示\n14 衣柜中塞满衣物，包括债务人的\n15 西装。显然，这并非被用作\n16 债务人及其家人的住宅以外用途的地方。\n17 第47页上还有更多同类物品。我们有一份\n18 颁发给债务人儿子的证书，涉及其参加 Ferrari（法拉利）\n19 挑战赛项目。还有在其中一个房间发现的乐高积木，\n20 并且有 Scott Barnett——再次强调，即\n21 被告——在刑事审判中作证，谈及\n22 债务人的女儿多么喜欢乐高积木，以及这些物品\n23 是给她的。这些都是人们对于其居住的\n24 住宅会做的事情的全部迹象。\n25 幻灯片48，法官阁下。这是一份完整清单，因此我\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第76页，共117页\n\n1 2 3 不会详细逐一说明，在与刑事程序有关的突击搜查中，我们在该庄园内发现的物品。\n\n4 5 6 幻灯片49上有一份古董商的收据，谈及某些将用于夫人床、起居室、女仆卧室的物品。\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 幻灯片50，法官阁下。这显示债务人将财产从其在 Greenwich（格林尼治）的现住房，或者说其——位于 Taconic Road（塔科尼克路）的其中一处住宅，该房产现为破产财产，搬运至 Mahwah Mansion。这由被告 Barnett 先生签署。再次，共同主线是债务人的房屋：他正将物品从他的一处房屋搬到另一处。\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 接下来的几张幻灯片，法官阁下，确实超出了我们已讨论的一切。还有哪些额外迹象证明债务人控制 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus基金有限责任公司），并且 Taurus Fund LLC 是债务人的另我实体？法官阁下，我们掌握的证据是，Taurus Fund LLC 所做的事情——有各种各样的事情，而这些只是进一步补强债务人实际控制该庄园、拥有该庄园，并将 Taurus Fund 作为其名义所有人使用的压倒性证据。\n\n24 25 除此以外，债务人还使用 Taurus Fund 购买与该庄园无关的物品，并为其其他\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第77页，共117页\n\n1 2 3 4 另我实体做其他事情。例如，他使 Taurus Fund 购买一架 $130,000 钢琴，并由 Gladys Chow 代收，运送至其位于 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环）的办公室。此事见于第51页。\n\n5 6 7 8 第52页显示，债务人将应付给 Golden Spring（金泉）的发票开具给 Taurus Fund，所涉物品运往 Columbus Circle。再次，这是债务人使用 Taurus Fund 支付 Golden Spring 的费用。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 幻灯片53的情况更糟。这是 Taurus Fund 支付债务人位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）住宅的管道工程发票。现在，如果与被告的往来函件所声称的情况相符，那么为何要支付 Taconic Road 房产所做工程的管道发票，绝对没有任何合乎逻辑的解释。\n\n15 16 17 18 而且，法官阁下，如果我们还需要进一步证据证明 Taurus Fund 存在的唯一目的就是贯彻债务人的意图，我认为我们都亲眼看到了这一点实时发生。\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 幻灯片54中，这是法院已经看过的电子邮件节选，其中，在债务人被定罪后不久，Taurus Fund 的一名代表联系了安保公司，并表示，鉴于刑事审判中的裁决，他们将不再为 Mahwah Mansion 的费用提供资金。\n一旦 Kwok 先生垮台，Taurus Fund 就不再有\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交 11/26/24 录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第78页，共117页\n\n1 2 3 继续存在的理由，也没有继续维护该房产的理由。这从往来函件以及我们所看到的一切中已显而易见。\n\n4 5 6 7 8 法官阁下，我将在此暂停，并简要说明：我知道我已经讲了很久，但正如我所说，我感谢法院的宽容，我认为真正理解支持受托人主张的证据究竟何等广泛是重要的。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 在结束之前，我确实希望简要地、更直接地回应被告针对受托人动议所提出的一些论点。我们现在可以把幻灯片撤下，就先停在这里，我想。\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 不过简要而言，法官阁下，被告对该动议提出了异议。我相信法院已经阅读了。这是一份15页的异议书，坦率地说，依我之见，几乎没有构成任何抗辩。我这样说是因为，它几乎完全没有回应我们刚才审查的大量证据，而且还有更多证据，支持债务人对该庄园的所有权。\n\n21 22 23 24 25 被告提出了一些事实论点和一些法律论点。我将先回应事实论点，最后再简要回应法律论点，尽管我不会在后者上花太多时间，因为这些是法院此前已听取并多次驳回的诉讼资格论点。\n1 次。\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 就其试图制造真实重大事实争议而言，法官阁下，被告——我无法相信他们竟然这样说——在其书面陈述中提出了令人瞩目的主张，即受托人“未能提出任何证据证明债务人对该庄园享有权益”。\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 证据绝对是压倒性的。使该主张更令人瞩目的是，如果您实际查看被告异议及其对受托人《规则56》陈述的回应的实质内容，他们几乎没有争议受托人的任何事实。他们只是试图忽略这些事实，并且我想，请求法院也忽略这些事实。\n\n14 15 16 17 18 我不会逐一详细说明，因为这已载于我们的书面文件。我们在答复状第16至21段对此作了说明。但在那里，我们谈到，被告甚至只是声称对受托人无争议事实陈述中的这56个段落中的6个提出争议。\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 现在，既然无力真正对受托人的事实提出争议，被告方又做了什么？他们做了两件事。第一，他们试图通过主张受托人已根据被告方的承认请求承认了本案中几乎所有事实，来制造一个“抓到了”的时刻。第二，他们提交了两份声明，基于我将要讨论的理由，这两份声明完全不足以\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 80 页，共 117 页\n\n1 就重要事实问题形成真实争议。\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 首先，关于承认请求，法官阁下，我不会在此花费太多时间，因为我们的答复状已经非常清楚地阐明了这一点。受托人从未有回应这些承认请求的期限，因为这些请求是在法院作出命令、中止本诉讼以待债务人刑事审判结束前不久送达的。法院非常明确地指示各方，在该中止终止后七日内提交一份联合拟议命令，提议修改现有的排期截止日期；或者，如未能达成协议，则请求召开状态会议。\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 我想指出，在提出该中止动议之前的通信中，在承认请求已经送达后，辩护律师最初曾建议在命令中设定一个截止日期，即规定受托人应在中止期届满后的一定天数内回应承认请求，但这一内容最终并未写入命令。\n\n21 22 23 24 25 相反，法院作出的命令未载明任何截止日期，而是确立了一项会商要求。刑事审判结束后，在按命令要求进行会商时，受托人曾两次联系康威律师（Attorney Conway），一次是在 August 7th，另一次是在 August 8th，要求会商，并告知他我们计划申请简易判决。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 81 页，共 117 页\n\n1 2\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 对此，我们没有收到任何回复，除了询问我们是否认为证据开示将会结束。我们表示认为没有必要进行进一步的证据开示。对承认请求或被告方认为其有权要求设定回应期限的立场，只字未提。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 更糟的是，此后，在我们依命令于 August 13th 在法院召开状态会议时，我相信法院会记得，Taurus Fund（金牛基金）甚至没有出席。被告方甚至没有出席该状态会议。依其自身选择，该会议仅在受托人与法院之间举行，被告方没有到场，也没有提出任何有关进一步证据开示的问题、有关其承认请求的问题，等等。\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 因此，法官阁下，如果他们想要一个截止日期，他们本可以提出请求。他们本可以按要求进行会商。他们没有这样做。即使存在截止日期，法院也完全有权依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》36(b)允许受托人修改其答复。被告方并未受到任何不利影响。大多数承认请求都是核心争点类型的请求，例如承认债务人并非该庄园的所有人，或承认 Taurus Fund 并非债务人的另一个自我。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 82 页，共 117 页\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 被告方显然知道受托人在本诉讼中持相反立场，因此，因未以书面形式看到对承认请求的回应，他们并未受到不利影响。\n\n7 8 9 在必要范围内，我们已将对承认请求的答复附于我为支持答复而提交、载于 ECF 147 的声明中。\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 法官阁下，一旦这一稻草人论点被搁置一旁，被告方就只剩下两份声明，以支持其在反对意见中提出的反向叙事：这里真正发生的是，Taurus Fund 和由 William G 控制、位于 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的 Hamilton entities（Hamilton实体），协助 G-Club（G俱乐部）——再次说明，这是债务人的欺诈性会员组织——购得这座庄园，作为会员俱乐部会所，会员可以作为其 G-Club 会员资格的一部分使用并享受该会所；再次说明，该组织已在刑事审判中被证明是一场重大欺诈。\n\n20 21 22 23 他们称，债务人对该财产不享有任何权益，事实上与该财产毫无关系，只是曾帮助 G-Club 寻找该财产，然后协助进行翻修。\n\n24 25 两份声明，法官阁下。一份是 Mohammed 先生（Mr. Mohammed）的声明，据称我认为、我相信，他是其中一个 Hamilton 实体的公司秘书；另一份是被告 Barnett（Defendant Barnett）的声明。Mohammed 声明谈及为会员寻找会所所遵循的所谓程序，以及根据该努力而设立的实体。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 83 页，共 117 页\n\n1 2 3 4 5\n\n6 7 8 9 10 但是，法官阁下，Mohammed 声明首先不应由法院考虑，理由有二，我将予以说明。即使予以考虑，它也远不足以就重要事实问题形成真实争议。\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 首先，不应考虑该声明，因为 Mohammed 先生在被告方的初步披露中从未被识别出来。若他们列出 Mohammed 先生，受托人本可以对其进行证言录取。他们没有这样做，而且我们在书面材料中已列明相关判例法和依据。因此，法院可以且应当据此排除其声明。顺便说一句，这是一个在收到其声明之前我们从未听说过的人。\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 此外，即使该声明并非因该理由被排除，也应予排除，因为它并非基于个人知情，而是完全依赖传闻证据。Mohammed 先生在其声明第一段中承认，他并未亲自参与其所讨论的任何交易。相反，他称其审阅了\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 84 页，共 117 页\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 Hamilton 文件，是在正常业务过程中审阅的，但他从未说明那些记录是什么。法官阁下，有一些案件认为，在简易判决阶段，公司代表可以就超出其个人知情范围的事项作证，前提是该人员称其证言基于其审阅的特定公司记录。但至少，该企业必须合理识别那些记录是什么，并表明这些记录与证人所提供的证言之间存在合理联系。例如，一名首席财务官可以称，其审阅了在其加入公司之前制作的财务报表，以就公司所负债务作证。但在此，Mohammed 先生只是称，我审阅了 Taurus Fund 的全部记录，所有这些记录都告诉我，Taurus Fund 购买 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）是作为会员会所。这实质上就是其证言的主旨。对任何一份记录均完全没有引用。据称支持这一说法的这些记录，没有任何一份在证据开示中提供给受托人。你会认为，若被告方认真反对简易判决，而 Mohammed 先生能够取得支持其说法的文件，\n\n25 他本应将其附于\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 85 页，共 117 页\n\n1 其声明。他完全没有这样做。\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 即使法院考虑该证言，法官阁下，它也与大量相反证据直接矛盾。G-Club 为会员购买一座庄园和会所的说法，根本无法与所有证据相调和；这些证据表明债务人从一开始就控制购买过程，与经纪人合作，与律师合作，拟定报价，为其妻子设计该财产的整整几翼，并用自己的个人物品——从药物到西装——填满房屋。\n\n12 13 14 所有证据都压倒性地表明，这是债务人的个人住所，而没有任何证据支持这一相反的荒诞理论。\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 法官阁下，出于时间考虑，我不会逐一讲述幻灯片末尾的其他一些内容；这些内容对债务人的证人在其声明中提供的某些证言与相反证据进行了比较和对照。但只要说明一点即可：他们所说的一切均无法由记录中的其他证据支持，其中包括 Barnett 先生自己的证言，他在其中谈到这并非债务人的住所。在刑事审判中，他谈到债务人——这都在记录中——有时，在购买后的最初几周内，每周在那里两至\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 86 页，共 117 页\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 三次。有时，债务人连续在那里住四或五晚。他承认，法院在回应债务人律师的提问时看到，事实上是债务人购买了该财产。这些都无法与他如今试图在其声明中向法院讲述的故事相调和，法官阁下。在这种情况下，这不足以就任何重要事实形成真实争议。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 最后，法官阁下，在结束之前，我将非常简要地回应法律论点；我会简要回应，因为这些论点此前已被提出。被告方主张，受托人根据《破产法》Section 541 和 Section 544(a)均不具备诉讼资格。这些论点应予驳回。法院已在先前的对抗诉讼中审议过这一问题。\n\n16 17 18 19 20 例如，在 HCHK USA（HCHK美国）对抗诉讼中针对受托人反诉的驳回动议上，法院正确认定，Wagner 和 in pari delicto（同等过错）并不阻却受托人根据 Section 541 提出的请求，因为内部人例外适用。\n\n21 22 23 24 25 同一例外也适用于此，法官阁下。正如受托人所主张，Taurus Fund 是债务人的内部人。至少可以说，允许 Taurus Fund 在协助债务人向其债权人隐匿该庄园后保留该庄园，是不公平的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 3852 提交于 11/26/24 录入于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 87 页，共 117 页\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 此外，法官阁下，即使受托人因 Wagner 规则或 in pari delicto 原则而不具备根据《破产法》Section 541 的诉讼资格，他仍可如法院在其他对抗诉讼中所承认的那样，通过根据《破产法》Section 544 追诉其请求来规避该问题，因为该等请求是代表全体债权人平等提出的。\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 法院在 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）和 Greenwich Land（格林威治土地）对抗诉讼中得出了相同结论。法官阁下，我还请法院注意我们在书面材料中引用的一项案件，即 2024 年第二巡回上诉法院作出的新判决 In Re Nordlicht，该判决完全削弱了被告方在其书面材料中提出的所有论点，即另一个自我请求并非可代表全体债权人追诉的请求，而是一项个人请求。该案明确作出了相反裁决。\n\n法官阁下，就此，再次，我认为刚才的陈述很长，但我认为有必要详细说明证据。感谢法院的宽宥。我愿意回答任何问题。\n\n法院：谢谢。我目前没有任何问题。之后或许会有，但目前没有。谢谢。\n\n康威先生，您希望陈述意见吗？康威先生：是的。谢谢，法官阁下。Michael Conway（迈克尔·康威）代表被告方。刚才我们听到了很多内容。其中大部分令人担忧，因为受托人在本案中采取了两种立场。现在他采取其中一种，诚然如此。但在一开始，他无法提出他最终将依赖的理论。\n\n受托人可以据以主张本案中Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）财产属于破产财产的两种理论，其一是该财产是新购置的——是使用来自破产财产、来自债务人的资金购买或取得的。好吗？而且，受托人曾有时表示，他是亿万富翁。当然，那是他的钱。\n\n他们现在没有这样主张，原因显而易见。他们找不到任何证据。他们走遍世界各地，取得了能找到的每一个银行账户，在世界各地提起诉讼，但没有任何一丝证据将债务人可能曾经接触过的任何一美元与Taurus基金财产联系起来。\n\n因此，他们改变了方向。他们改变方向，称，Taurus基金财产是通过这项欺诈取得的。我使用受托人律师的措辞。这些事实在刑事审判中已获排除合理怀疑的证明，该审判导致债务人被判定犯有多项罪行，其中包括利用G-Club（G俱乐部）作为欺诈性会员组织，骗取受害人数亿美元。\n\n好。这是第二种理论。这不是他的钱。这是别人的钱，他欺诈诱使这些人投资他们的钱或者出资，然后他滥用他们的钱，以便自己过上亿万富翁般的生活。他不是亿万富翁。他用别人的钱过着亿万富翁般的生活。这就是他们在本动议中最终采取的立场。\n\n而为了证明他们的动议，他们——而且我要说，我会谈到我们是否进行过会面协商的问题。这完全是虚假陈述。受托人主张，曾进行过一场刑事审判，在该审判中，债务人，而非我们的当事人，而是债务人，面对了证据。而且，如他所指出，他已经审阅了在那场刑事审判中提交的大量证据。\n\n现在，我们并没有以可采纳的方式向法官阁下实际提供任何证据。换言之，没有经认证的审判记录。没有——也没有任何来自刑事审判的证物能够表明其确实在刑事审判中被采纳，而不是刑事审判中的法官说，嗯，那是传闻证据。\n\n现在，我们不知道这些文件是什么。中文音频录音附有一些未经认证的译文。我们不知道那些文件是什么。正如Bassett先生正确指出的，我们在许多答复中都表示，我们无法真正回应那些文件，因为我们不知道那些人为何作证，那些指控从何而来。\n\n不过，我们可以说，它们全都无关紧要。有关紧要的是此处发生了什么，而不是其他人认为可能发生了什么，不是某人从其兄弟、姐妹的表亲那里听说了什么。真正发生在这里的事情才是重要的。而这里真正发生了什么？\n\n我们有——而且——我只是想——我不想过多纠缠这一点，但我要说，刚才我们看到的所有证词，您知道，如果我受邀参加刑事案件，我会提出后续问题，例如，嗯，你为什么这样认为？以了解作出该陈述是否有任何依据或基础。\n\n您知道，Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）的陈述。您知道？嗯，当Kwok先生买下那栋房子时，你感到惊讶吗？但当然，证人席上的人不会说，嗯，你不能问我那样的问题。他没有买那栋房子。不会。回答是，这对我毫无道理。关于他买了那栋房子的指控对他毫无道理，因为这没有发生。好？这就是为什么那对他毫无道理。\n\n但继续说，法官阁下，我们这里有一种相当——我称之为——简单但令人不安的事实模式。要么债务人从事了大规模欺诈，最终伤害了G俱乐部会员，要么这是他的钱。我们知道没有证据表明这是他的钱。因此，让我们着重讨论前者，因为那与我们所陈述的此处发生的事情相一致。\n\n此处发生的事情是，一群新中国联邦（New Federal State of China）的成员，将债务人作为他们的名义领袖，如同美国将其总统作为名义领袖一样，他们将他置于一个可以使用其财产的位置。\n\n就G俱乐部而言，他们招揽会员。会员费最初被用于在伦敦购买一家赌场。那家伦敦赌场因与此处并不真正相关的情况而未能成功。唯一——此处唯一真正相关的是，若他们确实是在为债务人的利益这样做，他们就不会在债务人实际上无法前往的国家这样做；您知道，这是常识，只要谷歌搜索一下，他也说他无法做到。他被困在这里。\n\n现在，根据我们在此提交的证据，当那项安排落空时，他们来到了美国。现在，在美国，谁基于其与——建造他们房屋的人、他们购买古董的人、管理其财产的人之间的关系而拥有这种了解，谁拥有这些关系？债务人。因此，他们去找债务人，并说，听着。您帮助我们购买Mahwah House（马瓦房屋），而我们让您将其作为新中国联邦的基地使用。这在案卷中。没有理由相信——法院：康威律师，案卷中的何处记载了这一点？康威先生：这在案卷中——法院：除了最后一句外，我听了您刚才所说的一切。您说，案卷中记载，来自G俱乐部或新中国联邦的人来到Kwok先生面前，并说，帮助我购买这座豪宅？康威先生：这在——法院：这是您所说的吗？康威先生：是的，法官阁下。这是Mohammed先生的声明和Barnett先生的声明。法院：Barnett先生——但关于Mohammed先生，我必须坦诚地说，我看过一次，但我们现在谈话时，我不记得其全部内容。不过，Barnett先生证称，新中国联邦来到Kwok先生面前，请求他帮助他们购买Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）？\n\n康威先生：您希望我读出来吗？法院：是的。请读。康威先生：好的。让我找一下他的——好的。债务人是一名寻求庇护者——这是Barnett声明第2段。债务人是美国的寻求庇护者，也是被称为新中国联邦的政治运动，即该运动的领导人。由于中国政府监控他的通信，以及中国特工试图将他实际带离美国，他需要安保。在2021年12月，我得知位于New Jersey（新泽西州）Mahwah的一处房产已被购买，该房产是本案标的，即Mahwah房产，并且作为他最初协助寻找Mahwah房产、施工和翻修的交换条件，该运动将获准将该地点作为某种基地使用。法院：嗯，首先，这与您刚才所说的有些不同。首先，其中说他得知。因此，第一，我不知道他是从谁那里得知的。第二，他说，作为交换，他们将获准使用它。他没有——其中并没有说您所说的，即他们来到Kwok先生面前，请他帮助购买该房产。这不同——那是两件——那是——依我看来，那是——那是一项具有实质差异的区别。康威先生：好的，法官阁下。可以。我继续。我要指出，受托人律师所述内容中的绝大多数是我认为虚假的描述。因此，如果我因说——法院：不，不，您完全没有冒犯我。不，不，请不要——不要误会，康威先生。您完全没有冒犯我。我是在努力回想，关于本简易判决动议以及案卷中的一切，我已经看过什么。完全不是。我可能听起来很奇怪，因为我身体不舒服。我的声音很奇怪。诸如此类。但我问您的并非Mohammad先生的声明，而是Barnett先生的声明，我看过该声明。我不记得他在其声明中证称您所说的内容，即——即他——即Barnett先生证称，他第一手知悉该——该运动来到Kwak先生面前，请求——让Kwok先生帮助他们购买Mahwah庄园。这是您所说的。我不记得Barnett先生的声明中有任何地方写了这一点。这就是我的问题。康威先生：好的。法院：所以请继续。我不是——我不是——\n\n我没有对任何事情感到被冒犯。不必担心这个。我根据本次听证会前审阅的内容提问。\n\n康威先生：正确。\n\n法院：好的？\n\n康威先生：因此，我们可以将您从Bassett先生那里看到的大部分内容概括为Kwok先生外出。至少我们可以假定是Kwok先生。没有，您知道，有某些证词称某人做了Kwok先生做的事，或者，您知道，看起来像Kwok先生做了那件事。\n\n但让我们暂且为论证起见假定，Kwok先生外出为该庄园购买物品，他——他与人谈论翻修该庄园。正如Barnett先生和Mohammed先生所证实，他这样做是为换取将Mahwah房产作为该运动的基地使用；正如我们从Mohammed先生处听到的，G俱乐部会员中90%是该运动成员。\n\n因此，我们有理由说明他们为何会这样做，而且我们知道，仅仅居住——让我们暂且假定他居住在该房屋内。我们在书面文件中主张，这一点没有得到证明。事实上，Barnett先生说，这根本不是真的。他每周或每月去那所房子几次。他主要去那里，是因为那里有广播设施，他在那里代表\n\n这场运动。对他而言，在那里过夜非常罕见。而且，您知道，巴塞特先生一再表示，其他文件中也如此表明，债务人的主要住所位于 Taconic——即位于 Greenwich 的 Taconic 住宅。\n\n因此，我们并不——关于债务人是否居住在 Connecticut，此处并无争议。受托人承认这一点。争议在于，他偶尔使用 Mahwah 住宅是否赋予他所有权权益。因为——这才是本案真正的关键所在。\n\n再者，我回到这样一点：如果四年后受托人来到您面前，说美国总统已在白宫居住四年，他和妻子协助重新装修了白宫，他的西装在那里、驾驶执照在那里、药物也在那里，您会看着受托人说：你疯了吗？他是美国总统。那是他应当花时间的地方。他应当做所有这些事情。\n\n嗯，这正是我们当事人在此所持的立场：郭文贵先生是该运动名义上的领导人，或者说，是其总统。而且，由于本案被提起，随后法官阁下发布了禁令，我们的当事人已无法完成该住宅的建设，因此我们从未走到该住宅完工的阶段。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3852，于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记，第 97 页，共 117 页\n\n虽然该住宅曾有活动，但并非原定的活动，因为它从未完工。坦率地说，在刑事案件结束时，该经理人——并非 Barnett 先生——Taurus Fund（陶鲁斯基金）的经理人；Barnett 先生从未担任过 Taurus Fund 的经理人。事实上，正如受托人无法否认的，我们已提供 Taurus Fund 历来所有经理人的名单。\n\n现任经理人表示，他在报纸上读到政府正在接管该住宅后，认为自己必须搬离该住宅。是的。我们已在一份法庭文件中将此事提请法官阁下注意。法官阁下说，我们需要就此采取措施，并弄清谁将支付所有费用，因为在受托人提出的这项紧急动议中，我们有该经理人的电子邮件，称他们希望停止提供资金。嗯，这并不能证明郭文贵先生拥有该住宅。\n\n因此，我们在此掌握的是郭文贵先生使用该住宅、参与该住宅选址、参与——参与该住宅的装饰。我们所没有的是任何一丝与该住宅所有权有关的证据。\n\n现在，受托人还面临一个问题。因为如果他们现在所说的是，他们应当控制该住宅的理由、他们应当拥有该住宅所有权的理由，是该住宅属于——是使用这些受欺诈受害人的资金购买的，那么这将意味着受欺诈受害人会遭受两次欺诈，因为他们不能——如果他们认为属于自己的住宅现在被交给受托人，那就意味着他们不仅如受托人所言，因将资金投入 G-Clubs（G-俱乐部）而遭受欺诈，而且现在用他们的钱购买的财产还被交给了其他人。这在一定程度上使我们谈到诉讼资格这一点。我不想在这方面花太多时间，因为我已经见过法官阁下在其他案件中提出诉讼资格问题时的回应。但我确实想指出一点。受托人在其文件中明确表示，根据第 541 条，仅仅说存在一名假设债权人是不够的，而这——也是法官阁下在 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）等案中所认定的。你必须进一步认定，该假设债权人与破产程序中全体人员具有相同的请求权。当这一构造被创设时，这相当合理，因为他们所说的是，如果一名债务人——换言之，如果一家公司的一名首席执行官从公司拿走财产并将其装入自己的口袋，该公司的所有债权人都会\n\n同等地受到损害。\n\n在这里，有一群——我不想称其为“一小撮”，因为人数不少——但这是一个可识别的群体，他们将资金投入 G-Club。这些资金被投入 Hamilton Opportunity Fund（汉密尔顿机会基金），随后又被投入 Taurus Fund，然后购买了该财产。\n\n受托人想要做的是，将所有这些财产出售所得分配给所有债权人；如果给予他们提交债权证明的机会，也许包括他们在内；但也分配给其他任何可能对债务人提出请求的人，例如对债务人提出人身伤害请求的人，以及债务人的所有行政费用请求。所有这些钱都会消失。这些所谓受害人没有任何人会看到其中一分钱。\n\n我向受托人指出了这一点，您知道，他们——我并不代表他们，所以他们不会——受托人也不想就此与我交谈，但他们都说，看，把财产交给 DOJ（美国司法部）即可，司法部随后可以出售该财产，并将我们的财产返还给我们。\n\n但不是。他们在这里试图做的是，把该财产交给所有人，而不只是交给这个受到欺诈的群体，不只是交给这些所谓受害人，而是交给因任何理由可能对债务人提出请求的所有人。这不是第 541 条项下的请求。根据第 541 条，这是不可接受的，因为\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3852，于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记，第 100 页，共 117 页\n\n这些是不同的人，具有不同的债权人、不同的请求权。他们与破产财产中的所有其他债权人相互独立、彼此分离。\n\n但暂且不谈这些，我只想——我想——我想谈谈规则第 26 条的问题。您知道，这些承认请求以及认为没有固定答复日期的观点。\n\n规则第 26 条实际上规定了答复日期。是 30 天。我在送达这些文件时提出，可在案件重新启动后给予若干天的期限。那并没有发生。\n\n因此，我们只能适用 30 天。即便发生了，我们当时说的是 10 天。因此，期限将是 8 月 11 日。我们没有在 8 月 11 日之前收到答复。我们根本没有收到答复。\n\n现在，对方律师说，嗯，这是一次突袭。嗯，不是。这不是一次突袭，法官阁下您本人也说过，如果你不对承认请求作出答复，它们即被视为承认，并且可以在简易判决中对你不利地使用。这正是我们在这里所做的。对方律师说，嗯，应当允许我们只是，您知道，重新来过，并说，嗯，不。我们没有——我们没有未作答复。Conway 先生没有与我们协商。\n\n我们确实进行了协商。而这正是——这些文件以及今天在这里所说的内容中，令人生厌的几件事之一。7 月 29 日，我们就所有取证问题进行了明确协商，包括我们将制定一份日程安排令、完成取证，并结合案件重新启动将其提交给法官阁下。\n\n8 月——我就称之为 8 月 8 日吧，我收到一封电子邮件，说我们想为简易判决制定书面陈述日程。我很震惊。我们已经就尚待完成的具体事项进行了实质性的协商。受托人的律师说，我们将进行这项证言录取、那项证言录取。他们本可以在刑事审判中对这些证人中的每一位进行证言录取。\n\n但您知道吗？他们没有这样做，因为他们认为，嗯，我们可以在没有实际基础的情况下瞒天过海地把这些材料弄进来，而 Conway 先生本可以实际进行交叉询问，并将实际事实纳入记录。他们没有这样做。他们完全颠倒了一切，说，我们不会再给你任何取证机会，Conway 先生。我们只会将此事定为简易判决。我很震惊。\n\n不过，我没有理由就此进行协商。我们就取证进行了协商，而在当时，Bassett 先生并未讨论要求更多时间以提交对承认请求的答复。他当时仍有时间。他没有说我将需要更多时间，而且在期限届满后，他也没有作出答复。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3852，于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记，第 102 页，共 117 页\n\n所以现在他说，嗯，让我说，法官阁下，您知道，我们否认一切。嗯，这对我有什么影响？我现在处于这样一种境地：我没有推动取证问题，因为我们已获得他的承认。当他提出简易判决动议时，我们在多个能够使我们胜诉的要点上已获得他的承认。\n\n而现在他说，嗯，您知道吗？我们想说我们否认所有那些事项，同时又否认 Conway 先生的当事人在此进行任何取证的权利。因此，至少第一，我们认为他们现在提出这项口头动议以提交对我方承认请求的答复，毫无依据。他们没有提出动议。他们是在非正式地请求您赋予这项权利，而这毫无依据。文件中没有任何依据支持这一点。\n\n如果法官阁下愿意给予他们这一权利——我们对此提出异议——那么我们当然也应当有权就我们原以为已被承认的所有这些事项继续进行取证。\n\n话虽如此，我们也指出，受托人根据第 541 条不具有诉讼资格。对此的回应是——再说一次，我不想赘述，因为我知道法官阁下已在其他案件中处理过这个问题。而且我们绝不承认任何其他案件与本案有关，\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3852，于 11/26/24 提交，于 11/26/24 14:12:30 登记，第 103 页，共 117 页\n\n您知道，我们并未参与那些案件。我只是为了记录而说这一点，法官阁下。我们反对这种一再出现的构造，即如果某事在其他地方已经裁定，它就对 Conway 先生的当事人具有约束力。这不是禁止反言的运作方式。\n\n我们没有——如果我们没有机会参与，它就不对我们具有约束力。话虽如此，关于针对内部人的 Wagner doctrine（瓦格纳原则）例外，对方律师所说的是，本案涉及的是个人债务人，而非可以适当考虑内部人因素的公司，而是个人。他们无法提供任何证据证明，该个人债务人在任何相关实体中拥有所有权权益，或者这些实体与本案相关——唯一他们真正关心的是 Taurus Fund。面对现实吧。（听不清）和 Taurus Management（陶鲁斯管理公司）与本程序无关。它们并不拥有所请求的财产。\n\n但没有证据表明债务人在 Taurus Fund LLC（陶鲁斯基金有限责任公司）中拥有任何权益。因此，他们——他们所说的是，法官阁下，您应当说，我们胜诉，即他在 Taurus Fund LLC 中拥有权益，因此 Taurus Fund LLC 是内部人。因此，现在回到该案，作为内部人，他们有权依据 Wagner doctrine 提出抗辩。这基本上就是——\n\n这里的自举逻辑行不通。而且不应当让它行得通，原因在于——这是一项逻辑上的理由。你不能将这种内部人理论适用于一名个别债务人。它旨在适用于公司内部人，而公司实体——公司实体本身是债务人的情形。\n\n因此，我想最后再说一点，再次就证据异议说得更清楚一些：我们这里有的是 Barron（巴伦）先生声明，他把一堆文件汇集在一起，而这些都是真实、正确的副本。仅此而已。你知道，他们在此对 Mohammed（穆罕默德）先生和 Barnett（巴内特）先生的证据及其声明提出异议；他们谈论的是两人从记录中审阅和看到的内容、他们基于自身所知确知的内容，以及就公司所有权而言他们有权作证的内容。\n\n我们从对方得到的是 Barron先生说，嘿，我这里有一堆文件。看看它们。它们是——它们是合法的。我们不知道他为什么这么说，因为他没有告诉我们。我们确实知道的是，他们甚至没有进一步说明任何单个证物的基础是什么，例如经认证的庭审记录副本、对该中文音频片段的经认证译文。\n但事实上，这并不\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 105 页，共 117 页\n\n关键，因为在我们看来，这些信息均与当前争点无关。Kwok（郭文贵）先生以某种方式参与寻找和装饰，甚至参与房屋翻修这一事实，与美国总统对白宫所做的事情并无不同。\n\n如果我们说Kwok先生拥有这栋房屋，我想我们就是说美国总统拥有白宫。这毫无道理。没有人会同意这一点，而且天啊，四年后，这就是所提出的论点。然后有人会说，是啊。你知道吗？我们有道理。\n\n我只是——我认为，法官阁下，我们在这里已经很久了。我感到难受，您也感到难受。我也——我想我也是同样的情况。我们全家都是如此。所以，我——一旦这里结束，我可能就会躺下，并且感觉和您一样难受。因此，我知道您的感受。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢您，Conway（康威）律师。我理解您的论点，显然，我们将回去审阅其中的一些信息。\n\nBassett（巴塞特）律师，您还有什么想补充的吗？\n巴塞特先生：我知道今天已经非常漫长了，\n\n法官阁下，所以也许只提几个非常、非常简短的要点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 106 页，共 117 页\n\n我只想就康威律师提出的几个论点，更正记录中对其的回应。首先，他一开始提出受托人的案件理论不断变化的说法。这完全不属实。\n\n受托人的理论始终是，债务人使用其能够指示并控制的资金取得该财产，作为供其本人及其家人居住的住所，并且根据记录中的全部证据，他是这栋豪宅的衡平所有人。这一理论从未改变。\n\n现在，康威律师极力关注的是，呃，这些资金最初是由G-Club（G俱乐部）的成员交给G-Club的这一观点。法官阁下，债务人可能通过欺诈手段获得资金这一事实，并不意味着这些资金不是由其控制、继而为其自身利益所动用的资金。\n\n不存在银行账户。法庭知道，债务人在2022年2月申请第11章破产时，声称拥有$0。这就是我们为何在这里。如果债务人有存有大量现金的银行账户，并用这些账户购买其 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦宅邸）、其在康涅狄格州的房产、其 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）住所、其喷气机、其游艇之类的物品，我们根本不会有本案。\n我们在这里，是因为债务人从不亲自拥有任何东西\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 107 页，共 117 页\n\n。他取得实际上属于其本人、由其控制的资金，或者这些资金被藏在其他公司和其他个人名下，然后为其自身利益动用。这里他做的正是如此。他使用G-Club的资金购买了这栋豪宅。\n\n您听到了康威律师所作的所有这些，呃，陈述，即 Mohammed先生所称这实际上是一个供成员使用的俱乐部的故事。我的意思是，Conway先生没有回应，因为他实际上无法回应我们提出的证据。\n\n如果Kwok先生只是将该房产用作接待其所创立运动成员的场所，您怎么可能解释他为其妻子、女儿和儿子开发了该房产的整整数个翼楼，并将其所有个人物品都放在那里？对此没有任何合乎逻辑的回应。\n\n法官阁下，简要说一下其他几点——因此，关于我们已承认债务人的住所位于康涅狄格州的说法，不，我们没有。债务人有多处住所。这已经得到证实。债务人在 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）有一套公寓。他在康涅狄格州有一处住所，在新泽西州有一栋豪宅。\n\n而且，我相信，他还有其他住所。这并不意味着其中任何一处就较少属于他的财产。事实上，法庭已经认定他拥有该\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 108 页，共 117 页\n\n康涅狄格州住所，而 Sherry-Netherland 公寓也属于破产财产。\n\n法官阁下，这——我无法相信康威律师提出这个白宫类比。我认为无需为此花时间。我相当确定 Joe Biden（乔·拜登）并未欺诈他人并使用资金购买白宫，且为其目的从头开始设计白宫。这根本不是一个哪怕稍有接近的类比。\n\n我们在书面文件中援引的判例法，法官阁下，恰恰支持如下命题：即使某项财产的名义所有权可能由他人持有，法律也会穿透这种形式，尤其是在破产程序中，并审查某人是否实际受益地拥有和控制该财产；而后，该人即为拥有实际可被承认的所有权权利之人。我们在书面文件中援引了这些案例。它们在那里供法庭审阅。\n\n关于受托人依据第541条和第544条提出的理论以某种方式不成立的说法，首先，法庭已在许多其他情境中就此作出裁决。我认为我们无需再次全部讨论，但康威律师提出了一个我试图理解的论点，即由于G-Club成员最初向G-Club提供的资金后来可能被用于购买该豪宅，因此这些成员以某种方式拥有不同的请求权，所以该理论在这里行不通。我甚至无法理解这一论点。\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 109 页，共 117 页\n\n我所知道的是，无论人们拥有什么请求权，都将在以后确定。在康威律师提出G-Club成员对破产财产享有某种不同于无担保请求权的权利这一论点的范围内，A，该论点为时过早；B，他没有援引任何判例法或其他法律来支持该命题。\n\n我们的理论和我们已证明的是，债务人取得了其控制下的资金，并购买了一项他衡平所有的资产，即新泽西州的一栋豪宅。如果法庭同意这一点，那么该财产就是破产财产。康威律师没有援引任何法律表明，在该情形下会有任何其他结果，或者《破产法》不会按其通常方式运作。\n\n而Kwok先生的所有对破产财产享有请求权的债权人，均可提出这些请求权，并且作为请求权核对程序的一部分，将有能力从所有这些资产中获得分配或不获得分配，其中包括该豪宅的资产。在康威律师想要提出不同论点的范围内，他本可在其书面文件中阐明该论点，但他没有。我不知道该论点会是什么。\n\n最后，法官阁下，关于承认请求，我们已在书面文件中陈述了我们的立场。我已提交一份声明。我完全不同意康威律师的\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 110 页，共 117 页\n\n说法，即我们在刑事审判结束后曾会面并协商是否进行额外的证言录取。我们的立场始终是，我们认为刑事审判后没有必要进行进一步取证。\n\n而且，归根结底，在我们讨论提出简易判决动议时，康威律师从未一次提及希望收到其承认请求的答复。他只是说，你认为取证已经结束了吗？而我们说，是的。我们认为不再需要任何取证。那完全是康威律师举手并就其承认请求说些什么的适当时机。\n\n他也本可出席状态会议，但他决定仅仅待在家里，事先完全没有通知。最后，允许受托人修改其答复完全属于法庭的裁量范围。绝无任何不利影响。如果您看看承认请求，康威律师提出的内容包括——他要求承认诸如 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus基金有限责任公司）是否为债务人的另一个自我等事项。这正是本案的最终争点。\n\n他坐在这里并暗示，他基于此相信我们承认 Taurus Fund 并非债务人的另一个自我，这根本不可信。\n\n最后，法官阁下，对于我们就康威律师提交的 Mohammed先生声明所提出的问题，几乎没有任何回应；对于他未在其初始披露中被识别这一事实，没有任何回应；对于令人震惊的是，他没有附上任何一份文件且完全依赖传闻证据这一事实，也没有任何回应。\n案件 22-50073 文件 3852 提交于 11/26/24 登记于 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 111 页，共 117 页\n\n这——如果您审视本案证据的权衡，审视我们今天向法官阁下展示的幻灯片，其中载有根据我们在动议中援引的判例法以及我所说明的理由而绝对可采的全部证据；如果您审视这些，并将其与这份声称有不明文件支持这个荒诞故事的声明相权衡，两者根本毫无可比性，法官阁下。这绝非难以判断的问题。\n\n受托人有权获得简易判决。本案正是简易判决所适用的情形，即防止双方当事人就根本不存在争议的事实问题继续沿着争执的道路走下去。\n\n因此，法官阁下，除非法庭有问题，我没有其他补充。\n\n法庭：我没有其他问题。谢谢。康威律师，还有什么补充吗？\n康威先生：有。我想提出三点回应。第一，关于令对方律师感到困惑的第544条问题，我希望我们没有令法官阁下感到困惑，但这是他们自己在书面文件中提出的内容，因此我不确定他们为何感到困惑。您必须有一项与——对所有债权人而言相同的请求权，以具备诉讼资格，而不仅仅是一个假设的债权人。\n\n我的观点是，我认为已经表述得非常清楚，即，这些出资购买该豪宅的 G-Club（G俱乐部）成员所提出的特定请求权，与破产财产中的其他所有请求权不同，例如，我相信其中甚至包括，您知道，机动车事故索赔人。我不——您知道，有许多不同类别的请求权人。\n\n但是，除非他们全都相同，这正是制定该规则的原因所在：首席执行官从公司拿走资金并装入自己口袋，损害每一位债权人的利益，他们全都相同。除非存在该等事实，否则不存在第544条诉讼资格。\n\n现在，第二点涉及 Rule 26（第26条规则）问题，即承认请求问题。律师应当明白——我知道他并非在讽刺，但他应当明白，如果其否认承认请求，而他们在本案中并未如此做，仅仅说“否认”并不足够。你必须说明“我们否认，因为”，并解释为何否认，这使我们随后能够说，好吧。我们最好就此处理一些问题。“因为”才是他们否认时的重要内容。若发生否认或承认请求，我们必须进行进一步的证据开示。因此，通过什么也不说来伏击对方，然后日后再说，好吧，我们否认，是不适当的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852 已提交 11/26/24 已录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 113 页，共 117 页\n\n第三点，此前未曾提出。我将此作为事后想到的事项提出，因为似乎需要在记录中予以处理。答辩状中有一项评论称，我以某种方式使用另一家律师事务所协助我提出反对意见，这完全不属实。若律师实际花时间致电询问我，我会说，这完全不属实。该律师事务所甚至不知道我在处理此事。\n\n按照惯例，我会拿我案卷中的最后一份诉状作为起草下一份诉状的起点。法官阁下，您或许记得，我所参与的最后一份诉状，是民事 RICO（《反有组织犯罪法》）诉讼中的驳回动议，而该律师事务所在该案中确实协助过我。\n\n而在本案中，律师指称我以某种方式秘密使用另一家律师事务所协助提出反对意见。法官阁下，我可以向您说明，没有任何律师事务所，包括律师所提及的那家律师事务所，知道我甚至正在处理本案中对简易判决动议的反对意见。\n\n而我现在听说，他们在其他事项中仿佛此事属实一样提出这一点，令我深感不安。您知道，就像，他们开始说，不，Barnett（巴尼特）先生是债务人的司机。他们很早就这么说了。随后，这种说法出现在每一份文件中。现在我相信法官阁下确信巴尼特先生以某种方式是债务人的司机，这完全不属实。他一生中从未为债务人开过车。但正是这些小事，我仅仅因为它们会累积起来才这样说，法官阁下。这些书状中的小小不实陈述会累积起来，并在其他案件中被当作事实使用。我只是想就此载入记录。这完全不真实。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852 已提交 11/26/24 已录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 114 页，共 117 页\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：我能否仅就最后一点作出回应——\n\n法庭：非常简短地。\n\n巴塞特先生：非常、非常简短地。法官阁下，如法庭非常清楚，我们曾经——本案有着漫长而曲折的历史，在其中，人们并非其所声称的身份，人们并非代表其所声称代表的人。我们一再见到这种情形，HCHK 案。我们也在其他地方见到过。最近，这一切都在 Dooley（杜利）法官面前展开。\n\n受托人所发现的是，Conway（康威）律师提交的元数据和 PDF 文件显示，该文件由另一家律师事务所的律师准备。一如既往，表明这一点的是支持该结论的事实。我接受康威律师今日所作的陈述，即他们没有任何参与。但是，您知道，那是受托人根据其所发现的情况得知的，而且我们正在向另一家律师事务所进行证据开示；该所已自愿遵从我们的第2004条请求。我们将看看结果如何。这正是第2004条证据开示的用途。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852 已提交 11/26/24 已录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 115 页，共 117 页\n\n但是，我反对以下事实或指控，即受托人或其律师故意误导当事人或法庭。我们绝对没有这样做。我认为本案记录百分之百清楚：如果在本案过程中存在阻挠及其他伎俩，那只来自一个方向。我就此打住，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我将对简易判决动议留待审议，正如我认为你们双方都能理解的那样。该动议、反对意见、附件以及我们今天所讨论的内容中包含大量信息。因此，我必须审阅这些内容，并将据此作出裁决。我不知道时间安排，但显然，我会就该动议尽我所能。\n\n那么，今天下午还有任何需要我们处理的事项吗？\n\n德斯潘先生：受托人方面没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n康威先生：被告方也没有，法官阁下。我感觉好多了。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，我相信，Despins（德斯潘）受托人，这就处理完今天日程表上的所有事项了。是否正确？\n\n德斯潘先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么好的。谢谢。感谢各位，现宣布休庭。\n\n德斯潘先生：谢谢。\n\n康威先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（程序于下午 3:49 结束。）\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3852 已提交 11/26/24 已录入 11/26/24 14:12:30 第 116 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 3852\n已提交 11/26/24\n已录入 11/26/24 14:12:30\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力范围内，上述内容是对上述标题事项程序电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n/s/ Wendy K. Sawyer\nNovember 23, 2024\nWENDY K. SAWYER（温迪·K·索耶），CDLT\n认证法庭速记员\n代表 Reliable","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Despins","RICO","CIPA","Paul Hastings","HCHK","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","Saraca"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":23,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":147,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":31043,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-11-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-11-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:24:46"}