{"id":"court_ctb_411_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":411,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWO","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 1 of 30\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* May 17, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND PROTECTIVE ORDER BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: BENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ. JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: LAURA ARRONSON, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Official Committee IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. of Unsecured Creditors: JOHN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng, Creditors: McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 CAROLLLYNN CALLARI, ESQ. Law firm of Callari Partners One Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020 For HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments (USA) Limited, AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. LLC, Interested Party: Zeisler & Zeisler 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n|    | 3                                                            |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (Proceedings commenced at 12:05 p.m.)                        |\n| 2  | THE CLERK:<br>Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok.                |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.<br>If we could have            |\n| 4  | appearances for the record, starting with the debtor's       |\n| 5  | counsel, please.                                             |\n| 6  | MR. JONAS:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeff               |\n| 7  | Jonas, Brown Rudnick.<br>With me is Ben Silverberg on behalf |\n| 8  | of the debtor.                                               |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                |\n| 10 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.               |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Aaron          |\n| 12 | Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler.<br>With me is Stephen Kindseth, |\n| 13 | my partner, for HK International Investments USA, LLC, and   |\n| 14 | Mei Guo.                                                     |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.<br>Attorney Friedman.          |\n| 16 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.                 |\n| 17 | It's Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny and Myers, on            |\n| 18 | behalf of Pacific Alliance Group.<br>I'm joined by my        |\n| 19 | colleague Mr. Sarnoff -- Stuart Sarnoff and Patrick Birney   |\n| 20 | of the Robinson Cole firm.                                   |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.<br>Attorney Goldman.           |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Irve          |\n| 23 | Goldman, Pullman and Comley.<br>With me Jonathan Kaplan.     |\n| 24 | We're representing the Committee of Unsecured Creditors.     |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney and Carpenter on behalf of creditors Rui Ma and Weican Meng, and my co-counsel, Carollynn Callari is appearing remotely today. THE COURT: Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Attorney Callari. MS. CALLARI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. So today's status conference -- we're going to start with the status conference first and then we'll move to the motion for a protective order that was filed by the debtor. But with regard to the status conference -- and we continued this from last week regarding the protective order for Mei Guo and as a designated representative of HKI Delaware. When we last spoke it seemed that the issue was whether or not the deposition would need to be recorded, and it was the position of -- video recorded. And it was the position of PAX that it should and the position of the deponent that it should not. I asked you to file statements, which you did, and\n\n I appreciate that. But I was just a little confused and, again, because we had hearings today and I probably haven't looked at these -- I know I haven't looked at these to the extent that I would have otherwise had we not had hearings. The committee's response says that PAX intends to withdraw its subpoena and notice of deposition -- will not be proceeding with the deposition. Is that correct, Attorney Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: So, Your Honor. It's sort of a packaged deal and it relates to the status conference. THE COURT: Okay. Then go ahead, please. MR. FRIEDMAN: So we have had discussions with committee counsel and with Ms. Callari. And the agreement -- and I just wanted everybody to -- sort of suggest that it is on the record today is that there were be no contest with respect to whether there is cause for dismissal, conversion or appointment of a trustee. No one's going to dispute that. And now there's also just a few other things to mention. One is we still file a reply brief tomorrow. We will also be filing exhibits on Friday, which are based on, you know, a variety of things, filings made in this case, et cetera, from which we believe the court can also actually make a factual determination that cause exists. In return for that, as well as one other issue, we\n\n would not take any more discovery. So discovery from our perceptive -- we wouldn't need anymore discovery. The other issue is that counsel for the committee has requested or proposed that each party be able to file simultaneously on Friday something no more than seven pages as to what is the right path forward. Is it dismissal? Is it appointment of a trustee? Is it conversion? So we certainly don't have an objection to that if it's acceptable to the court. We would also file something along those lines stating our position as to what we think the right answer is and that's the way we believe in light of all the things that have occurred over the last week, frankly, the last several months, since February, is the best way to proceed on our motion to dismiss the case, or in the alternative join in the appointment of a trustee. THE COURT: So I understand that and I appreciate that. So that means that we don't have to address the protective order or -- because you're not going to conduct the deposition? MR. FRIEDMAN: So, Your Honor, we would not need to address the protective order, the conditions for a deposition of Mei Guo. None of that would be relevant. We've been having discussions with counsel. To me the important thing is that the idea that on one is challenging whether cause exists be agreed to on the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| 1  | record by the parties today, so that nobody needs to expend  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | more time, resources, energy with a particular court.        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So that's helpful, but I want         |\n| 4  | to be clear.<br>So the court -- you don't need the court to  |\n| 5  | make any findings of fact with regard to cause.<br>All you   |\n| 6  | need the court to do is to determine whether the case should |\n| 7  | be dismissed, converted or a Chapter 11 trustee appointed.   |\n| 8  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor, we will submit a record         |\n| 9  | -- we will submit documentary evidence from which we believe |\n| 10 | the court can draw inference as to the existence of cause.   |\n| 11 | We do think that is important but we don't think -           |\n| 12 | -                                                            |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>I think it's important too but --              |\n| 14 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>We --                                       |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>I thought I just heard you say that no         |\n| 16 | one's going to contest that cause exists.                    |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>No one is contesting it.<br>I do            |\n| 18 | think we still belt and suspenders ought to be able to make  |\n| 19 | our arguments.<br>We think some of the reasons for cause     |\n| 20 | warrant dismissal.<br>But --                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Understood.                                    |\n| 22 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>And people can draw inferences,             |\n| 23 | right?                                                       |\n| 24 | I mean, as an example, our argument based on the             |\n| 25 | documentary evidence is that this case was filed for one     |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n purpose. Mr. -- you know, the committee may dispute that from the face of the evidence, right, and how that deals with conversion, or dismissal, or appointment of a trustee. I don't think anybody needs it. THE COURT: Right. MR. FRIEDMAN: We don't need to take anybody's deposition to do that at this point, even where people stand. And so have I accurately -- I just want to be fair to counsel -- MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Irve Goldman for the committee, Your Honor. That was nicely and accurately presented. We would -- I would just put a little bit of a finer point on it. We're not only not opposing cause, we would stipulate that cause exists. Now if Mr. Friedman feels like he -- THE COURT: Well, is the debtor stipulating that cause exists? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I've not been -- we've not been -- other than a call -- a courtesy call from Mr. Friedman probably an hour or two ago advising me of the arrangements that had been met or agreed to we haven't been privy to all these conversations. So honestly, I didn't know that I was being asked\n\n on behalf of the debtor to -- THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. That's fair. MR. JONAS: Our view, as you know, Your Honor, we consented to dismissal. We support dismissal. We don't think the case should be converted. We don't think a Chapter 11 or other trustee -- THE COURT: Okay. That's my question. All right. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So if you consent to dismissal, then you consent that cause exists at least for dismissal under 1112 of the bankruptcy code. MR. JONAS: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, Attorney Jonas. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I'd just ask Ms. Callari to confirm that as well so we don't have -- there's no open -- nothing open, because her client filed a motion - - a position statement, or an objection to our motion. THE COURT: Attorney Callari, could you hear Attorney Friedman? MS. CALLARI: I did, Your Honor. Thank you. And I'm happy to confirm. Again, we are not going to dispute that there is cause but our position is going to be that cause exists for conversion. But we're not going to dispute that cause exists for one of those.\n\n The question's going to be for Your Honor which one of those are in the best interests of the estate, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So that's helpful. Then all I'll have to find is what factors I think are appropriate cause for one of the three avenues, whether it's dismissal, conversion of an appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. MR. GOLDMAN: That's why we thought that the supplemental briefing might be helpful. THE COURT: Okay. And we'll get there in a second. So I just want to be very clear then. I want to make sure I understand where you all are and that I'm on the same place you are, which is -- so next week we're going to have a hearing on the -- starting on the 25th, where you're going to, Attorney Friedman, present evidence that you think supports whatever path it is you think this case should take. But I'm not going to have to make findings that cause exists. I'm just going to have to make findings that whatever these facts are that I find based upon whatever you submit or any other party submits, by the way. I'm not saying it's just you. That those factors that I will find, those facts will establish why the court determines it's in\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 11 of 30\n\n the best interest of the creditors in the estate, or whatever 1112(b) says, to do A, B or C. So you're not -- are you anticipating calling witnesses or is this all documents? MR. FRIEDMAN: It should be -- we may have one attorney declaration, Your Honor. I don't think I would put my colleague on the stand, but we would otherwise be using documents that we believe are self authenticating. MR. GOLDMAN: That would be the same for us, Your Honor, although I may have one or two witnesses. I haven't really focused enough on that aspect of the evidentiary hearing. THE COURT: Didn't I set a date -- MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, you did. You did. THE COURT: -- for a list of witnesses and exhibits. MR. GOLDMAN: It's Friday. THE COURT: Correct? MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Friday. And I would ask the court if witnesses are identified by Friday that they be available to be deposed Monday or Tuesday. THE COURT: Yes, they'd have to be. I mean, if that's the situation, right? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, I can tell you in advance -- I'm not going to wait until --\n\n THE COURT: Okay. So all I'm going to be doing -- and that's not all. I'm not trying to -- I appreciate the efforts of the parties in narrowing the issue, but I don't have to make findings about -- that cause exists. I just have to make findings of what cause is -- what is cause and that in order for me to determine what's in the best interests of creditors in the estate with regard to dismissal, conversion or the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. Now does the Office of the U.S. Trustee still want an examiner? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, as of the moment the U.S. Trustee is in support of dismissal. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'm just looking at the statute, 1112(b) where there is a reference to an examiner being appointed. And obviously, I know you filed a motion for the appointment of an examiner -- your office, some time ago. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, we would reserve all the opportunities that 1112 presents and all the relief that could be provided pursuant to that statute. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. So then as far as this afternoon is concerned we don't have to address the protective order for Ms. Guo.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n That's one. It's moot essentially because of the agreement of the parties with regard to how we're proceeding with the evidentiary hearing next week. Is that correct? MR. ROMNEY: That's correct, Your Honor. To keep the record clean we would like to withdraw our motion, docket no. 343, without prejudice to renewing it if anyone else seeks to depose Ms. Guo or HKI's corporate representative. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. So then Attorney Jonas, is the only thing left your protective order for this afternoon? MR. JONAS: It is, Your Honor. And honestly, if -- as long as we're all clear, I don't want to make a misstep but I think I've heard that discovery pointed at the debtor is not going forward and if that's the case, effectively withdrawn, I'm happy to withdraw the -- we don't need a protective order. If anyone has a different view, by all means I'd ask them to speak now but I'm happy to do it that way, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Friedman. MR. FRIEDMAN: I guess I should confirm one thing if you can ask me -- if it's okay for me to address counsel. THE COURT: Certainly. Go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: Mr. Kwok isn't coming to the\n\n|    | 14                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | hearing next week to testify, correct?                         |\n| 2  | MR. JONAS:<br>Your Honor, I guess what I'd say is my           |\n| 3  | present intention is I don't think it's necessary.<br>If in    |\n| 4  | any way that changes, I'll follow the same rule and we'll      |\n| 5  | even do it before Friday, but we'll make sure, obviously,      |\n| 6  | that if we're going to present, then we'll make him            |\n| 7  | available, et cetera, consistent with the other practice.      |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Is that satisfactory to you,            |\n| 9  | Attorney Friedman?                                             |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>That is satisfactory, Your Honor.             |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Attorney Callari, is that               |\n| 12 | satisfactory what Attorney Jonas just said about Mr. Kwok's    |\n| 13 | presence at the hearing on the 25th?                           |\n| 14 | MS. CALLARI:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.                 |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 16 | Okay.<br>So what else do we need to do this                    |\n| 17 | afternoon then?<br>I thought we might be here for a while, but |\n| 18 | maybe we're not and you all had to come here for nothing,      |\n| 19 | unfortunately.<br>Not nothing --                               |\n| 20 | MR. JONAS:<br>It's always a pleasure, Your Honor.              |\n| 21 | Honestly, Your Honor -- Jeff Jonas, from Brown                 |\n| 22 | Rudnick.                                                       |\n| 23 | I don't think there's anything else to accomplish.             |\n| 24 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>There's one other item.                        |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, there is. I'm sorry.<br>You did,             |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n| 15                                                             |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Attorney Goldman, ask for something and I was -- we were in    |\n| here at 2 o'clock when it was filed, so I didn't look at it    |\n| except for 14 seconds I would say.<br>But it's an extension of |\n| time to file dischargeability complaints.<br>Is that correct?  |\n| MR. GOLDMAN: Yes.<br>Yes.                                      |\n| I believe that since I filed that we worked out I              |\n| believe a stipulation between the debtor and the committee     |\n| which is acceptable to PAX, I believe.<br>I don't know if      |\n| they've had an opportunity to review it but --                 |\n| MS. CALLARI:<br>I have not.                                    |\n| MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Okay. I understand -- now I'm being            |\n| informed it was just circulated maybe right before the         |\n| hearing.<br>So --                                              |\n| THE COURT:<br>I have no idea.                                  |\n| MS. CALLARI:<br>Mr. Goldman --                                 |\n| THE COURT:<br>Go right ahead, Attorney Callari.                |\n| MS. CALLARI:<br>My understanding, Your Honor, is               |\n| right before the hearing debtor's counsel sent a revised       |\n| stipulation, but my understanding is that that revised         |\n| stipulation and the last I saw was limiting who that           |\n| extension for the complaint was covering.                      |\n| And maybe that's changed inside the courtroom with             |\n| people and I'm not there, but the last thing I happened to     |\n| see was limiting the extension for certain parties and that    |\n| was not my understanding prior to an hour ago.                 |\n|                                                                |\n\n MR. JONAS: If I may, Your Honor. THE COURT: Certainly. MR. JONAS: Jeff Jonas, Brown Rudnick. That has been changed, corrected, however you want to refer to it and the extension is available to all creditors. THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Callari. Did you hear that? The extension is available to all creditors. MS. CALLARI: With that, Your Honor, a 30-day extension with all creditors (indiscernible) the details I'm sure can be worked out if they're not (indiscernible). I will defer to Attorney Goldman on that and my co-counsel in the courtroom. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Everyone is in agreement then? There'll be some form of an order, a stipulated order extending the deadline to file dischargeability or objection to discharge. MR. GOLDMAN: Well, the objection to discharge under 272 I don't think would apply at this point because obviously we're not in a Chapter 7. So it could potentially apply under Section -- THE COURT: It could potentially apply -- MR. GOLDMAN: -- 1141(d)(3). THE COURT: Yes. MR. GOLDMAN: But we're not going to know if\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 17 of 30\n\n there's ever going to be a plan, let alone a liquidating plan where the debtor doesn't engage in business thereafter, which would be the only circumstances under which a 272 action would be relevant. So there's no sense in forcing -- THE COURT: Okay. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. MR. GOLDMAN: Actually, the stipulation actually says that to the avoidance of doubt the 1141(d)(3) deadline remains the date of confirmation. The date of the confirmation hearing on any plan. That's how the 341 notice sets it up. THE COURT: Well, that is what it's supposed to be. You're right. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: You're right, but the practice has been in many jurisdictions that it's the same date even though it shouldn't be in an 11, or a 12, or a 13. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah, I agree. It should not be. You shouldn't force creditors to -- THE COURT: You don't get a -- you are not entitled to a discharge until some point in the future. And only after certain events occurred. MR. GOLDMAN: Correct. MR. JONAS: It would arguably not -- right. I'm\n\n|    | 18                                                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | not even sure there would be constitutional jurisdiction.    |\n| 2  | It would be purely an advisory opinion, because nobody       |\n| 3  | knows.                                                       |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>I couldn't hear what you said. I'm             |\n| 5  | sorry.                                                       |\n| 6  | MR. JONAS:<br>Arguably it wouldn't even be ripe.<br>It       |\n| 7  | wouldn't even be constitutionally right.                     |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Will, I think it's not -- I think              |\n| 9  | that's what Attorney Goldman and I are saying.<br>This is -- |\n| 10 | the practice has been throughout the country that the dates  |\n| 11 | are the same, but they're not the same if it's not a Chapter |\n| 12 | 7 case.                                                      |\n| 13 | MR. JONAS:<br>Correct.                                       |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>You have to have a plan. You have to           |\n| 15 | have substantial consummation of a plan. You can't get a     |\n| 16 | discharge arguably until you have completed the plan.        |\n| 17 | Now you can argue that the effective confirmation            |\n| 18 | discharges but it discharges if the plan is substantially    |\n| 19 | consummated, or in a Chapter 13 all payments under the plan. |\n| 20 | So I know -- I think that's confusing myself. I've           |\n| 21 | always wondered why there isn't a more -- one of the things  |\n| 22 | that the Bankruptcy Rules Committee nationally could do is   |\n| 23 | address that issue, but it's never been addressed --         |\n| 24 | Congress, but whatever.                                      |\n| 25 | In any event, I agree. If your stipulation is with           |\n\n regard to 523 causes of action, that's fine. MR. JONAS: Yes. MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor. It's Bennett Silverberg, from Brown Rudnick, on behalf of the debtor. What the stipulation proposes to do is simply extend the period under Rule 4007(c), the 60 days by 30 days. And the stipulation, which perhaps Mr. Goldman hasn't had an opportunity to review, simply says that all of the other deadlines prescribed by the bankruptcy rules are unaffected by the stipulation. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So how much time do you need to submit -- you want that done before Friday though because the extension -- the deadline is Friday, correct? MR. GOLDMAN: Correct. May 20th. THE COURT: So you need to get that order in tomorrow or Thursday to be on the safe side, right? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. That's fine. As I said, I looked at it very quickly, but let's go back to just make sure we're clear on the record. Mr. Jonas, so the debtor's motion for a protective order, are you also withdrawing that on the record at this time? MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And you'd have the same rights to, you know, renew it if someone for some reason sought that same discovery. MR. JONAS: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Then with regard to the position papers that parties would like the opportunity to file by Friday, May 20, concerning which path you all believe the court should take under 1112(b), dismissal, conversion or appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. I'd like those papers filed by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, please. And then I'm not sure there's anything else we need to -- and Attorney Goldman, are you going to be responsible for getting the orders submitted on the extension of time? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I just wanted to put a finer point on that briefing schedule. Is it a required briefing or is it an optional? THE COURT: It's optional. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. THE COURT: If anybody wants to -- I'm not requiring anybody to submit their positions but if they would like to, you're more than welcome to, okay? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may add one more\n\n statement to the record. Ms. Guo and HKI are a third party to this proceeding. We have no position on PAX's motion to dismiss. We would like to put on the record that we do not intend to be here, either our client or counsel, as long as we may be excused by the court. THE COURT: As long as no one else expects your client to be here and question your client, I have no problem with that. So does anyone expect Ms. Guo to be here and be available to testify in connection with the motion to dismiss? MR. FRIEDMAN: Not PAX, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: Not from the committee, Your Honor. THE COURT: The committee. MS. CLAIBORN: Not from the U.S. Trustee, Your Honor. MR. JONAS: Not the debtor, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then yes, you can be dismissed. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: And you don't -- there's no need for you to attend the hearing. I should have asked Attorney Callari and Attorney Mayhew that though. I think that I didn't ask that question. Do you have any interest -- intention, I should say, of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 22 of 30\n\n questioning Ms. Guo at the dismissal hearing? MS. CALLARI: Not at this time, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Well, if it's not a -- it's kind of now or never as they say. MS. CALLARI: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So then you'll be dismissed from the hearing. So I'm just looking. Again, I don't think there's anything else we need to accomplish this afternoon, is there? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, the only -- we've been discussing it and I just want to put it out there for the court. I think it's presently scheduled for two days, the 25th and the 26th. You know, I guess we should -- if the court desires to leave both days open, obviously, the facts on the ground have changed and I doubt we'll need two days. So one of the things we had discussed moments before the hearing began, we didn't resolve it in any way, was whether or not the second day could be taken off the court's calendar. I know it's a long weekend, et cetera, but I don't\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 23 of 30\n\n know -- we don't have an agreement on that. It's just something I -- THE COURT: You know, what? I think we'll just keep them on and -- MR. JONAS: Very good. THE COURT: And just so nobody -- because what could happen, and it's not likely to happen, but somebody could schedule something else on that day and -- MR. JONAS: Very good. THE COURT: I think just keep it there and we'll see how it goes. MR. JONAS: Very good. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. But I appreciate you mentioning that you think it may not take both days. And I think your -- given the facts that I've seen, and I don't pretend to have looked at all the facts in the same way you all have, but I would be surprised if we needed two days as well. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I just want to make one statement. I don't know that it would change anybody's position or strengthen or weaken the case for dismissal, which we think is clearly the right option. And I don't want to get into an argument about the merits, which is not for today, other than to say, you know,\n\n one of our arguments is going to be that nobody should be worse off for this case having been filed and it shouldn't be a condition. But I would encourage the debtor to see if there's a mechanism for making sure that committee counsel and other individuals -- PAX would waive any right to do it. But that other people who have been put in this position of having to spend the last three months showing up and litigating, the debtor, which at one point as willing to make a DIP proposal, make an arrangement so that those people aren't burdened in the event the court chooses to dismiss the case. I can't make anybody do anything. I understand that. Mr. -- you know, the committee counsel has its fiduciary obligation to everybody -- it's constituents. I understand that, too. But I do think as a matter of equity if something can be worked out, that would be great. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I actually do have a question that we can talk about on Thursday -- I mean, Wednesday, excuse me. And we should talk about before we go much further is what about the order that you all agreed to with regard to the boat and the funds. What happens upon dismissal? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, the order --\n\n THE COURT: If there is dismissal, or conversion, or the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee. Obviously, if there's conversion or appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, the order still has effect in the case. What about dismissal? MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. Jeff Jonas, Brown Rudnick for the debtor. First of all, Your Honor -- and it's not my client but I did see there was a filing made by the boat owner with respect to the boat, and a status report as required, which indicates that -- and, again, I'm just -- I don't want to -- I'm not being too specific but there was a declaration attached and I believe it -- THE COURT: I'm not sure it was a declaration, by the way. MR. JONAS: Okay. THE COURT: Because it doesn't say that it was signed under the United States statute -- MR. JONAS: Understood. THE COURT: Or it was sworn and subscribed to. MR. JONAS: Whatever it is, Your Honor. THE COURT: I did see that. I have to say I did see that. MR. JONAS: In any event, I think it said the boat would be back certainly by the end of June, which would be\n\n early, and the order, you may recall, actually contemplates what would happen upon dismissal.\n\n And I believe, and I don't want to misspeak and obviously it says what is says, but I believe that it effectively provided for everything to happen that should happen, which is the court would maintain jurisdiction, the boat would come back. The money would be returned.\n\n If there's dismissal, the boat then would be brought to New York under the jurisdiction of the court in New York so that nothing will -- I should say this. I don't think anything will be lost, if you will, with respect to the boat upon a dismissal, since it was contemplated.\n\n THE COURT: I think that's correct. I haven't looked back at it, but that was my recollection, that the court would retain jurisdiction, so that even if the case was dismissed, the case would not be closed, because there'd be a retention of jurisdiction with regard to that order.\n\n MR. JONAS: Yes, the point being that nobody wants to lose the -- all parties, nobody wants to lose the benefits of that order based on a dismissal, which obviously we were aware was coming in light of the motion had been filed.\n\n MR. FRIEDMAN: That's something that Mr. Kindseth and I spent a considerable amount of time, and his colleague, discussing and there would have to be further\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n order of the court to reach a -- how do we transfer either the boat or the money and escrow to the supervision of the New York court. That's also specifically contemplated. Mr. Jonas' explanation of what happens to the boat is consistent with what I believe we negotiated for and what was agreed to by counsel for the debtor and counsel for HKI International. MR. KINDSETH: That's correct, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth for HKI International. That's my understanding as well and it was the intention of the parties. And with respect to the declaration, I apologize if there's some technical defect in that. That was obviously an oversight. But we'll get that remedied promptly and a correct form of declaration will be filed within the next day or two, if not today. THE COURT: Well, I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying my review -- I didn't see a reference to the statute under which 28 USC -- whatever. And I don't have it in front of me. I don't remember. But -- or that the declaration was subscribed and sworn to. So if it's not one or the other, then it's not a declaration that has any evidentiary effect is my -- I believe I'm correct on that part of it. But could I have reviewed the declaration and\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n missed something? Sure. So I don't -- MR. KINDSETH: And I could have inadvertently omitted that -- I mean, it is an absolute oversight. Our intention was to submit an appropriate declaration attesting to those facts and we provided documentary support or one component of it. And we will remedy whatever issue there is if there is -- THE COURT: If there is one. MR. KINDSETH: Absolutely. THE COURT: As I said I could be wrong. I mean, everything -- wasn't that just filed last night or something, so -- MR. KINDSETH: Yesterday. THE COURT: And we had hearings all day today. So I could -- my review could have been -- I may be wrong in my review. I might have missed it. MR. KINDSETH: Yes, and my client -- THE COURT: But I did look at it. I have to say I did look to see if I thought it was appropriate -- an appropriate declaration but my initial response is that I don't think it is, but I could be wrong. So if there's an issue, you can correct it, okay? You will correct it. And if there is no issue, then there's nothing to correct. MR. KINDSETH: And to answer your question just\n\n clearly, the parties expressly contemplated what would happen with the Lady Mae. In the event of dismissal, the intent was to provide my client with one opportunity to bring the boat back by July 15th. And if dismissal occurred before July 15th, my client would still have that opportunity. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, that's what my recollection of the order was, but again, you all know it better than I in that I have to look at other matters and I could be wrong in my recollection. So I wanted to make sure that that was not an issue before going into Wednesday's hearing. All right. Is there anything further we need to discuss this afternoon? Okay. Well, thank you all very much and I'll look for the order, Mr. Goldman, on the extension. We'll look for the position papers of the parties, whoever decides to submit one and then we'll see you next Wednesday. ALL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 3:33 p.m.)\n\n I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 9 May 20, 2022 10 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"案件 22-50073 文件 411 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 15:03:33 登记 第 1 页，共 30 页\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格地区 布里奇波特分庭\n关于                                    *    案号 22-50073(JAM)\n                                        *\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），                    *    康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n                                        *    2022年5月17日\n债务人。                                  *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n                                        *\n关于状态会议及保护令动议的庭审记录\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人：\nBENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ.（贝内特·S·西尔弗伯格律师）\nJEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ.（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nLAURA ARRONSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿伦森律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦利文律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼律师）\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录及速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表无担保债权人官方委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nJOHN KAPLAN, ESQ.（约翰·卡普兰律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴峥）及 Weican Meng（孟伟灿）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师）\nMcElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊、德意志、马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）\n30 Jeliff Lane\nSouthport, CT 06890\n\nCAROLLLYNN CALLARI, ESQ.（卡罗琳·卡拉里律师）\nLaw firm of Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人律师事务所）\nOne Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, NY 10020\n\n代表利害关系方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞斯律师）\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n1　（程序于下午12时05分开始。）\n\n2　书记员：\n案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n3　法庭：\n下午好。请先由债务人的律师作庭审记录上的出庭陈述。\n\n6　乔纳斯先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。杰夫·乔纳斯，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）。与我一同出庭的是代表债务人的本·西尔弗伯格。\n\n9　法庭：\n下午好。\n\n10　西尔弗伯格先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n11　罗姆尼先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。亚伦·罗姆尼，Zeisler and Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）。与我一同出庭的是我的合伙人斯蒂芬·金德塞斯，代表 HK International Investments USA, LLC（香港国际投资美国有限责任公司），以及梅·郭。\n\n15　法庭：\n下午好。弗里德曼律师。\n\n16　弗里德曼先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。我是彼得·弗里德曼，来自 O'Melveny and Myers（奥麦利文律师事务所），代表 Pacific Alliance Group（太平洋联盟集团）。与我一同出庭的是我的同事萨诺夫先生——斯图尔特·萨诺夫——以及 Robinson Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的帕特里克·伯尼。\n\n21　法庭：\n下午好。戈德曼律师。\n\n22　戈德曼先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。欧文·戈德曼，Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）。与我一同出庭的是乔纳森·卡普兰。我们代表无担保债权人委员会。\n\n25　法庭：\n下午好。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：下午好，法官阁下。霍莉·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n梅休女士：下午好，法官阁下。克里斯滕·梅休，McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney and Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊、德意志、马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所），代表债权人马锐和孟伟灿；我的共同代理律师卡罗琳·卡拉里今日远程出庭。\n\n法庭：是。下午好。下午好，卡拉里律师。\n\n卡拉里女士：下午好，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，今天的状态会议——我们将先进行状态会议，然后转而审理债务人提交的保护令动议。但就状态会议而言——我们从上周延续至今，涉及为梅·郭及作为 HKI Delaware（HKI 特拉华州公司）的指定代表而提出的保护令。我们上次交谈时，似乎争议在于证言录取是否需要录制，即进行视频录制。PAX 的立场是应当如此，而受讯问人的立场是不应如此。我要求你们提交陈述，你们也确实提交了，我对此表示感谢。不过我有些困惑，而且再次说明，因为我们今天有听证会，我可能尚未以若非有听证会本会审阅的程度来审阅这些材料——我知道我没有审阅到那个程度。委员会的答复称，PAX 拟撤回其传票及证言录取通知——将不再进行证言录取。这是否正确，弗里德曼律师？\n\n弗里德曼先生：是这样，法官阁下。这算是一项打包安排，并且与状态会议有关。\n\n法庭：好的。那么请继续。\n\n弗里德曼先生：因此，我们已与委员会律师和卡拉里女士进行讨论。该协议——我只是希望大家——可以说今天将其记入记录——即，对于是否存在驳回、转换程序或指定受托人的理由，将不提出争议。任何人都不会对此提出异议。现在还有几件其他事项需要提及。其一，我们仍将在明天提交答辩状。我们还将在周五提交证据附件，其基于，您知道，本案中提交的各类文件等等；我们认为，法院也可据此作出存在理由的事实认定。作为对此以及另一事项的交换条件，我们将不再进行任何证据开示。因此，从我们的角度而言，我们将不再需要任何证据开示。另一事项是，委员会律师已请求或提议，各方可于周五同时提交一份不超过七页的文件，说明正确的前进路径为何。是驳回？是指定受托人？还是转换程序？因此，若法院可以接受，我们当然不反对此安排。我们也将提交一份该等文件，说明我们认为正确答案为何；鉴于过去一周、坦率地说过去数月、从二月以来发生的所有事情，我们认为这是就我们要求驳回本案的动议，或作为替代方案加入指定受托人的请求，最适当的处理方式。\n\n法庭：那么，我理解这一点，也对此表示感谢。这意味着我们无须处理保护令，或者——因为你们不会进行证言录取？\n\n弗里德曼先生：因此，法官阁下，我们将无须处理保护令、梅·郭证言录取的条件。这些均不再相关。我们一直在与律师进行讨论。对我而言，重要的是，各方今天在庭审记录中同意没有人对是否存在理由提出质疑，因此没有人需要再向这个特定法院花费更多时间、资源和精力。\n\n菲奥雷庭审记录及速记服务公司\n\n1　法庭：\n好的。这很有帮助，但我希望明确一点。因此，法院——你们不需要法院就理由作出任何事实认定。你们所需要法院做的，只是决定本案应被驳回、转换程序，还是指定一名第11章受托人。\n\n8　弗里德曼先生：\n法官阁下，我们将提交一份记录——我们将提交书面证据，我们认为法院可据此推断存在理由。\n\n11　我们确实认为这很重要，但我们不认为——\n\n13　法庭：\n我也认为这很重要，但是——\n\n14　弗里德曼先生：\n我们——\n\n15　法庭：\n我想我刚才听到您说，没有人会对存在理由提出争议。\n\n17　弗里德曼先生：\n没有人对此提出争议。我确实认为，为求稳妥，我们仍应能够提出我们的论点。我们认为，存在理由的一些原因足以支持驳回。但是——\n\n21　法庭：\n明白。\n\n22　弗里德曼先生：\n而且人们可以作出推断，对吗？\n\n24　我的意思是，举例而言，我们基于书面证据提出的论点是，本案是为一个目的而提起的。\n\n菲奥雷庭审记录及速记服务公司\n\n一个目的。先生——您知道，委员会可根据证据表面情况对该观点提出异议，对吗，以及这如何涉及转换程序、驳回或指定受托人。我认为任何人都不需要这样做。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n弗里德曼先生：在现阶段，我们无需为此取得任何人的证言，即使考虑到各方目前的立场。因此，我是否准确地——我只是希望对律师公平——\n\n戈德曼先生：是的。欧文·戈德曼代表委员会，法官阁下。刚才的陈述很好且准确。我们会——我只想进一步明确一点。我们不仅不反对存在理由，我们将约定存在理由。现在，如果弗里德曼先生觉得他——\n\n法庭：那么，债务人是否约定存在理由？\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我没有——我们没有——除弗里德曼先生大约一两个小时前礼节性来电告知我已达成或同意的安排之外，我们没有参与这些全部讨论。因此，坦率地说，我不知道有人要求我代表债务人——\n\n法庭：好的。这很公平。这很公平。\n\n乔纳斯先生：如您所知，法官阁下，我们同意驳回。我们支持驳回。我们不认为本案应被转换程序。我们不认为应指定一名第11章或其他受托人——\n\n法庭：好的。这就是我的问题。好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，如果你们同意驳回，那么至少就《破产法典》第1112条下的驳回而言，你们同意存在理由。\n\n乔纳斯先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。好的。谢谢您，乔纳斯律师。\n\n弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我只想请卡拉里女士也确认这一点，以免我们有——没有任何悬而未决的事项，因为她的委托人提交了一项动议——一份立场陈述，或者对我们的动议提出了异议。\n\n法庭：卡拉里律师，您能听到弗里德曼律师吗？\n\n卡拉里女士：我听到了，法官阁下。谢谢。我很乐意确认。再次说明，我们不会对存在理由提出争议，但我们的立场将是，存在转换程序的理由。但我们不会对存在某一种理由提出争议。\n\n问题将是，法官阁下，这其中哪一种最符合破产财产的利益。\n\n法庭：好的。这很有帮助。那么，我只须认定我认为哪些因素构成通向三种路径之一的适当理由，即驳回、转换程序，或指定一名第11章受托人。\n\n戈德曼先生：这就是我们认为补充书面陈述可能有所帮助的原因。\n\n法庭：好的。我们稍后会谈到这一点。因此，我只是想非常明确。我想确保我理解你们各方的立场，并且我与各位处于相同的理解，即——下周我们将从25日开始举行听证会，届时您，弗里德曼律师，将提交您认为支持本案应采取的任何路径的证据。但我无需认定存在理由。我只须认定，无论基于您提交的任何材料或任何其他当事人提交的任何材料——顺便说一句，我并非说只有您——所认定的这些事实为何。这些我将认定的因素、这些事实，将确立法院为何认定其符合\n\n为债权人和破产财产之最佳利益，或者 1112(b) 规定的任何内容，采取 A、B 或 C。因此，你们并不——你们是否预计传唤证人，还是全部依据文件？FRIEDMAN 律师（弗里德曼）：法官阁下，应当是——我们可能会有一份律师声明。我认为不会让我的同事出庭作证，但除此之外，我们将使用我们认为可自证真实性的文件。GOLDMAN 律师（戈德曼）：法官阁下，我们也是如此，尽管我可能有一两名证人。我尚未就证据听证会的该方面进行充分考虑。法庭：我不是已经确定了日期——GOLDMAN 律师：是，您确定了。您确定了。法庭：——提交证人和证据清单。GOLDMAN 律师：是星期五。法庭：对吗？FRIEDMAN 律师：是星期五。而且我请求法庭，如在星期五前确定证人，则应当可以在星期一或星期二接受证言录取。法庭：是，他们必须可以。我的意思是，如果情况如此，对吧？GOLDMAN 律师：是，我可以预先告诉您——我不会等到——\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我将要做的一切——而且那并非全部。我并非试图——我感谢各方为缩小争议所作的努力，但我无需就——存在事由作出认定。我只须就何为事由作出认定——何为事由，并且为了让我能够确定，就驳回、转换程序或指定第 11 章受托人而言，何者符合债权人和破产财产的最佳利益。现在，美国受托人办公室（Office of the U.S. Trustee）是否仍希望指定审查员？CLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩）：法官阁下，截至目前，美国受托人支持驳回。法庭：好的。谢谢。我正在查看法条 1112(b)，其中提及指定审查员。显然，我知道你们办公室此前一段时间曾提交指定审查员的动议。CLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我们保留 1112 所提供的一切机会以及可依据该法条给予的一切救济。法庭：好的。好。谢谢。因此，就今天下午而言，我们无需处理 Guo 女士（郭女士）的保护令。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n那是一项。鉴于各方就我们下周如何进行证据听证会达成的协议，该事项实质上已无实际意义。对吗？ROMNEY 律师（罗姆尼）：正确，法官阁下。为保持记录清晰，我们希望撤回我们的动议，案卷编号 343；但如任何其他人寻求对 Guo 女士或 HKI（HKI）的公司代表进行证言录取，我们保留重新提出该动议的权利。法庭：明白。谢谢。那么，Jonas 律师（乔纳斯），今天下午剩下的唯一事项是你们的保护令吗？JONAS 律师：是，法官阁下。坦率说，如果——只要我们都明确，我不想失误，但我认为我听到的是，针对债务人的证据开示不会继续进行；如果是这样，实际上已被撤回，我很乐意撤回该——我们不需要保护令。如果任何人持不同看法，我当然请求他们现在发言，但我愿意如此处理，法官阁下。法庭：Friedman 律师。FRIEDMAN 律师：我想，如您能允许我——如果我可以向律师发言，我应当确认一件事。法庭：当然。请继续。FRIEDMAN 律师：Kwok 先生（郭文贵）不会来参加下周的听证会作证，对吗？\nJONAS 律师：法官阁下，我想我要说的是，我目前的意图是认为这没有必要。如有任何变化，我将遵循同一规则，而且我们甚至会在星期五之前这样做；但显然，我们会确保，如我们准备提交其证言，则会使他可以出席，等等，与其他惯例一致。\n法庭：好的。这令你满意吗，Friedman 律师？\nFRIEDMAN 律师：满意，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。Callari 律师（卡拉里），Jonas 律师刚才所说关于 Kwok 先生在 25 日听证会出席一事，是否令你满意？\nCALLARI 女士：是，法官阁下。谢谢。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n好的。那么，我们今天下午还需要做什么？\n我原以为我们可能会在这里待一段时间，但或许不会；遗憾的是，你们各位可能白跑一趟。\n并非白跑一趟——\nJONAS 律师：法官阁下，始终是我的荣幸。\n坦率说，法官阁下——我是来自 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）的 Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯）。\n我认为没有其他事项需要完成。\nGOLDMAN 律师：还有一项其他事项。\n法庭：哦，确实有。抱歉。Goldman 律师，你确实请求过某项事项，而我当时——提交该文件时我们在这里是 2 点钟，因此我除了大约看了 14 秒钟以外，没有看过它。\n但那是延长提交可否免除债务之诉的期限。\n对吗？\nGOLDMAN 律师：是。\n是。\n我相信，自从我提交该文件后，我们已经拟定了债务人与委员会之间的一项协议，我相信 PAX（PAX）可以接受该协议。\n我不知道他们是否有机会审阅，但——\nCALLARI 女士：我还没有。\nGOLDMAN 律师：好的。我明白——现在有人告知我，该文件可能就在听证会之前刚刚传阅。\n所以——\n法庭：我完全不知道。\nCALLARI 女士：Goldman 先生——\n法庭：请继续，Callari 律师。\nCALLARI 女士：法官阁下，据我了解，就在听证会之前，债务人的律师发送了一份修订后的协议；但据我了解，该修订协议以及我最后所见的版本，是在限制该延长期限所涵盖的提出诉讼人员。\n也许在法庭内，相关人员之间情况已有变化，而我不在那里；但我最后恰好看到的内容，是将延长期限限制于某些当事人，这与我在一小时前之前的理解不一致。\n\nJONAS 律师：法官阁下，如可允许。法庭：当然。JONAS 律师：我是来自 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）的 Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯）。该事项已经变更、纠正，无论您想如何称呼；该延长期限适用于所有债权人。法庭：好的。Callari 律师。你听到了吗？该延长期限适用于所有债权人。CALLARI 女士：如此，法官阁下，给予所有债权人 30 天的延长期限——具体细节我确信若尚未解决，可以予以解决。我将在该问题上遵从 Goldman 律师及法庭内我的共同律师的意见。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么所有人均同意？将会有某种形式的命令，即一项经协议的命令，延长提交可否免除债务之诉或反对免除债务的期限。GOLDMAN 律师：嗯，我认为此时根据 272 提出反对免除债务并不适用，因为显然我们并非处于第 7 章程序。因此，它可能会根据第——法庭：它可能会根据——GOLDMAN 律师：——1141(d)(3) 条适用。法庭：是。GOLDMAN 律师：但我们不会知道是否\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 17 of 30\n\n是否会有任何计划，更不用说债务人此后不再从事经营活动的清算计划；这将是 272 诉讼具有关联性的唯一情形。因此，没有必要强迫——法庭：好的。你们各位决定什么，对我都可以。GOLDMAN 律师：实际上，该协议规定，为免生疑义，1141(d)(3) 的截止期限仍是确认日期，即就任何计划举行确认听证会的日期。这正是 341 通知所作的规定。法庭：嗯，那确实应当如此。你说得对。GOLDMAN 律师：是。法庭：你说得对，但许多司法辖区的惯例是期限相同，即使在第 11 章、第 12 章或第 13 章程序中不应如此。GOLDMAN 律师：是，我同意。不应如此。你不应强迫债权人——法庭：你不会获得——你无权在未来某个时点之前获得债务免除。且仅在某些事件发生之后。GOLDMAN 律师：正确。JONAS 律师：可以说并不——对。我甚至不确定是否存在宪法上的管辖权。\n那将纯粹是一项咨询性意见，因为没有人知道。\n法庭：我没有听清你所说的话。抱歉。\nJONAS 律师：可以说甚至尚未成熟。它甚至不符合宪法上的条件。\n法庭：嗯，我认为不是——我认为这正是 Goldman 律师和我所说的。这是——全国各地的惯例都是日期相同，但如非第 7 章案件，日期就并不相同。\nJONAS 律师：正确。\n法庭：你必须有一项计划。你必须有计划的实质完成。可以说，只有在完成计划后，你才能获得债务免除。\n现在，你可以主张有效确认即产生债务免除，但如果计划已实质完成，便产生债务免除；或者在第 13 章程序中，在计划项下所有付款完成后。\n所以，我知道——我想这连我自己都说糊涂了。我一直想知道，为何不存在更——全国破产规则委员会可以做的一件事是处理该问题，但它从未被处理——\n国会，但无论如何。\n无论如何，我同意。如果你们的协议涉及 523 诉因，那没有问题。JONAS 律师：是。SILVERBERG 律师（西尔弗伯格）：是，法官阁下。我是代表债务人的、来自 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）的 Bennett Silverberg（本内特·西尔弗伯格）。该协议拟议的做法只是将 Rule 4007(c) 规定的 60 天期间延长 30 天。该协议——Goldman 先生或许尚未有机会审阅——只是规定，破产规则规定的所有其他期限均不受该协议影响。法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，你们需要多少时间提交——不过你们希望在星期五之前完成，因为延期——截止期限是星期五，对吗？GOLDMAN 律师：正确。May 20th。法庭：那么，为稳妥起见，你们需要在明天或星期四提交该命令，对吗？GOLDMAN 律师：是，法官阁下。法庭：好。没有问题。如我所说，我很快地看了一下，但让我们回到记录上，以确保清楚。Jonas 先生，那么，债务人提出的保护令动议，你现在也在记录上撤回该动议吗？JONAS 律师：是，法官阁下。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。而且，如果有人出于某种原因寻求同样的证据开示，你们将拥有相同的权利，即重新提出该动议。JONAS 律师：谢谢。法庭：好的。然后，关于各方希望有机会在 Friday, May 20 前提交的立场文件，即关于你们各方认为法庭应根据 1112(b) 采取何种路径：驳回、转换程序或指定第 11 章受托人。我希望这些文件在星期五下午 5:00 前提交。然后，我不确定我们还有什么需要——Goldman 律师，关于延长期限的命令，你将负责提交吗？GOLDMAN 律师：是，法官阁下。法庭：Claiborn 律师？CLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我只是想进一步明确该书面陈述时间表。该书面陈述是必须提交还是可选择提交？法庭：可选择提交。CLAIBORN 女士：谢谢。法庭：如果任何人希望——我并不要求任何人提交其立场，但如他们愿意，非常欢迎提交，好吗？ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，如可允许，我再补充一项。\n\n记录在案。郭女士（Guo）和 HKI（HKI）是本程序的第三方。我们对 PAX（PAX）的驳回动议不持立场。我们希望记录在案的是，只要法院准许我们免于出席，我们无意继续留在此处，无论是我们的客户还是律师。法庭：只要没有其他人希望您的客户在此并向其提问，我对此没有异议。那么，是否有人希望郭女士在此并就驳回动议提供证言？弗里德曼先生（Friedman）：PAX 没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。戈德曼先生（Goldman）：委员会没有，法官阁下。法庭：委员会。克莱伯恩女士（Claiborn）：美国受托人没有，法官阁下。乔纳斯先生（Jonas）：债务人没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么，是的，你们可以离席。罗姆尼先生（Romney）：谢谢。法庭：而且你们不必出席听证会。不过，我本应也问问卡拉里律师（Attorney Callari）和梅休律师（Attorney Mayhew）。我想我没有问那个问题。你们是否有意——我是说，是否打算——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 22 of 30\n\n在驳回听证会上询问郭女士？卡拉里女士：目前没有，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：嗯，如果不是——正如人们所说，这基本上就是现在或永不。卡拉里女士：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。好。谢谢。罗姆尼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么，你们将免于出席听证会。我再看一下。再次，我认为今天下午没有其他需要处理的事项了，对吗？乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，唯一的——我们一直在讨论此事，我只是想向法院提出。我认为目前安排为两天，即 25 日和 26 日。您知道，我想我们应当——如果法院希望两天都保留，显然，现有情况已经发生变化，我怀疑我们是否需要两天。因此，在听证会开始前片刻我们讨论过、但并未以任何方式解决的事项之一，是能否从法院日程中取消第二天。我知道那是一个长周末，等等，但我不——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 411 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:03:33 Page 23 of 30\n\n知道——我们对此没有达成一致。这只是我——法庭：您知道吗？我认为我们就保留这两天，而且——乔纳斯先生：很好。法庭：这样就不会有人——因为可能发生的情况是，尽管不太可能发生，但有人可能会在那天安排其他事项，而且——乔纳斯先生：很好。法庭：我认为就保留着，看看情况如何。乔纳斯先生：很好。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。不过，我感谢您提到您认为可能不需要两天。根据我所看到的事实，我想——我并不声称已像各位一样审阅了所有事实——但如果我们需要两天，我也会感到惊讶。乔纳斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：弗里德曼律师？弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我只想作一项陈述。我不知道这是否会改变任何人的立场，或增强或削弱支持驳回的理由，我们认为驳回显然是正确的选择。我不想就案情展开辩论，那不是今天要处理的事，只是想说，您知道，\n\n我们的论点之一将是，任何人都不应因本案被提起而处于更不利的境地，而且这不应成为条件。但我鼓励债务人研究是否存在一种机制，以确保委员会律师和其他个人——PAX 将放弃任何这样做的权利——但使其他因被置于这一境地、不得不在过去三个月中出席并进行诉讼的人，在法院选择驳回本案时，不会承受负担。没有人能让我强迫任何人做任何事。我明白这一点。委员会律师，您知道，对其所有成员负有受托义务。我也明白这一点。但我确实认为，作为衡平事项，如果能够达成某种安排，那将很好。法庭：好的。谢谢。实际上，我有一个问题，我们可以在星期四——我是说星期三，抱歉——讨论。在我们进一步推进之前，我们应当讨论的问题是，各位就该船和资金达成的命令怎么办？驳回后会发生什么？乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，该命令——\n\n法庭：如果发生驳回、转换程序，或任命 Chapter 11 受托人。显然，如果发生转换程序或任命 Chapter 11 受托人，该命令仍在本案中有效。那么驳回呢？乔纳斯先生：是，法官阁下。我是杰夫·乔纳斯（Jeff Jonas），布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所（Brown Rudnick）代表债务人。首先，法官阁下——这不是我的客户，但我看到船舶所有人就该船提交了一份文件，以及一份按要求提交的状况报告，其中显示——再次说明，我只是——我不想——我不想说得过于具体，但附有一份声明，而且我相信它——法庭：顺便说一句，我不确定那是否是一份声明。乔纳斯先生：好的。法庭：因为它没有说明其是根据美国法令签署的——乔纳斯先生：明白。法庭：也没有说明其已宣誓并签署。乔纳斯先生：不管它是什么，法官阁下。法庭：我确实看到了。我必须说，我确实看到了。乔纳斯先生：无论如何，我认为其中说该船肯定会在 6 月底前返回，这会较早，而且您或许记得，该命令实际上规定了在驳回时将发生什么。\n\n而且我相信，我不想失言，显然命令怎么写就是什么，但我相信它实际上规定了应当发生的一切，即法院将保留管辖权，该船将返回，款项将被返还。\n\n如果发生驳回，该船将被带到纽约，受纽约法院管辖，因此不会——我应当这样说。我认为，在驳回后，关于该船不会有任何损失，因为这已经有所设想。\n\n法庭：我认为这是正确的。我没有重新查看，但我的记忆是，法院将保留管辖权，因此即使本案被驳回，本案也不会结案，因为法院将就该命令保留管辖权。\n\n乔纳斯先生：是的，重点是没有人想失去——所有当事人都不想因驳回而失去该命令的利益；显然，鉴于已经提出的动议，我们知道驳回即将到来。\n\n弗里德曼先生：这是金德塞斯先生（Kindseth）、他的同事和我花了大量时间讨论的事项，而且必须由法院进一步作出命令，才能确定——我们如何将该船或款项以及监管账户移交纽约法院监督。这一点也得到了明确设想。乔纳斯先生对该船将发生何种情况的说明，与我认为我们协商取得的结果，以及债务人律师和 HKI International（HKI 国际公司）律师所同意的内容一致。金德塞斯先生：这是正确的，法官阁下。我是斯蒂芬·金德塞斯（Stephen Kindseth），代表 HKI International。这也是我的理解，并且是当事人的意图。关于该声明，如果其中存在某些技术瑕疵，我表示歉意。那显然是疏忽。但我们将迅速予以补正，并将在未来一两天内、如果不是今天，就提交形式正确的声明。法庭：嗯，我并不是说我一定是对的。我是说，根据我的审阅——我没有看到提及 28 USC 所依据的法令——不管是什么。而且我手头没有该文件。我不记得了。但是——或者没有说明该声明已签署并宣誓。因此，如果两者皆非，那么它就不是具有任何证据效力的声明，这是我的——我相信我在这一点上是正确的。但我是否可能审阅了该声明而——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n遗漏了什么？当然有可能。所以我不——金德塞斯先生：而且我也可能无意中遗漏了该内容——我的意思是，这绝对是疏忽。我们的意图是提交一份适当的声明，以证明这些事实，我们也提供了其中一部分的书面支持材料。如果存在任何问题，我们将补正任何问题——法庭：如果有问题的话。金德塞斯先生：当然。法庭：如我所说，我也可能错了。我的意思是，那不就是昨晚或什么时候刚提交的吗，所以——金德塞斯先生：昨天。法庭：而且我们今天一整天都有听证会。所以我可能——我的审阅可能——我的审阅可能有误。我可能遗漏了。金德塞斯先生：是的，而且我的客户——法庭：但我确实看过。我必须说，我确实查看了，以确定我是否认为它是适当的——一份适当的声明，但我的初步反应是，我认为它不是，不过我可能错了。所以如果有问题，你们可以纠正它，好吗？你们将纠正它。如果没有问题，那就没有什么需要纠正的。金德塞斯先生：并且明确回答您的问题，当事人明确设想了“Lady Mae”号（Lady Mae）将发生什么。在驳回的情况下，意图是给予我的客户一次机会，在 7 月 15 日之前将该船带回。如果在 7 月 15 日之前发生驳回，我的客户仍将拥有该机会。法庭：好的。谢谢。好吧。这也是我对该命令的记忆，但再次说明，各位比我更了解它，因为我还要审阅其他事项，而且我的记忆可能有误。因此，在进入星期三的听证会之前，我想确保这不是一个问题。好的。今天下午还有其他需要讨论的吗？好的。那么，非常感谢各位，戈德曼先生，我会等候有关延期的命令。我们会等候各方的立场文件，即决定提交文件的任何一方，然后下周三见。全体：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：休庭。（程序于下午 3:33 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的速记员及认证电子记录员和速记员，证明上述内容是根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确记录。9 2022年5月20日 10 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6321,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:09:01"}