{"id":"court_ctb_545_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":545,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-07-13","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 545 Filed 07/13/22 Entered 07/13/22 15:20:05 Page 1 of 32\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* July 5, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF APPLICATION TO APPOINT TRUSTEE APPLICATION FOR ORDER APPROVING APPOINTMENT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: 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 06103-3597 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 Creditor's Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For Creditors Rui MA, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Zheng Wu, and Weican Meng: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For Creditor Logan Cheng: JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 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\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 3:54 p.m.) THE CLERK: Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. Court is -- we just had another hearing that ran long, so I'm sorry to keep everyone waiting. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the debtor's counsel, please? MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for PAX? MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. I see Mr. Sarnoff as well and Mr. Birney. THE COURT: Good afternoon to all of you. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Counsel for the creditor's committee. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, counsel for the creditor's committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for Rui Ma and the other creditors? MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, & Carpenter, on behalf of creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu, and Weican Meng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the U.S. Trustee?\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Do we anticipate anyone else? Oh, I'm sorry, Attorney Wolman. Go ahead. I didn't see you. MR. WOLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor, Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. I think that I've taken everyone's appearances. Is that correct? Okay. All right. So today's hearing was a hearing on an application to appoint trustee and application for order approving the Chapter 11 trustee appointment, which was ECF No. 499, and a motion to expedite the hearing, which was filed on Thursday, June 20 -- 30, excuse me -- Thursday, June 30, 2022. The order granting the motion to expedite entered, setting a hearing for today at 3:30 p.m. It's 3:58. As I said, I'm sorry. We did -- our 3:00 hearing ran later than we thought it might, but in any event, the motion to expedite was granted because the Court wasn't sure why the U.S. Trustee's Office had filed an application to appoint a trustee and asking for an order approving the appointment of a trustee, and then today,\n\n there was a withdrawal filed by the U.S. Trustee's Office of the application.\n\nSo, Attorney Claiborn, I'm not sure what is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 545 Filed 07/13/22 Entered 07/13/22 15:20:05 Page 4 of 32\n\n happening here, but as of June 30, Mr. White -- I don't know if it's Whitley or Whitely, accepted the appointment as being a Chapter 11 trustee in documents filed on the docket of this case. He also filed an affidavit saying he was a disinterested person and, therefore, appeared to meet all the requirements of a trustee and as of June 30, became the representative of this estate. And then today, a withdrawal was filed by your office, signed by you on behalf of Mr. Harrington as the U.S. Trustee for this -- for this region. So I'm a little confused as to where things stand, and why the U.S. Trustee's office felt it even needed an order approving the appointment because under -- the documents say under 1104(d), but 1104(d) doesn't come into effect when I've already ruled for the appointment of a trustee. So your office's role, I think is what you did. You appointed a trustee. So what's the -- what's the issue now? Why is this being withdrawn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. The process is implemented through Rule 2007.1. THE COURT: Yep. MS. CLAIBORN: Subsection C. THE COURT: No, but that subsection doesn't come\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n into effect unless there's a problem. 2007.1 says that in order to appoint a trustee or examiner in a Chapter 11 case, a motion for an order to appoint a trustee or an examiner -- and that was -- that motion was already granted and that order entered.\n\n So 2007.1 is already taken -- A is taken care of. The rest of the section talks about an election of a trustee, and there -- if there was an election of a trustee, your office would have to certify there was an election and say what the results were, and there's nothing on this docket that indicates this trustee was elected, number 1.\n\n And number 2, if there's some problem with regard to this trustee, then it needs to be disclosed. Is the trustee resigning? Are you removing the trustee? Has the trustee passed away? I mean, those are the three grounds under which there would be a need for a court order. So -- and this trustee is still the trustee until this trustee is not, so what is the status?\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, getting back to the interplay between Rule 2007.1, Subsection C, and 1104(d), the process, as envisioned by the combination of that statute and that rule, is that the Court orders the U.S. Trustee to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, and then the U.S. Trustee is to file an application that gets approved by the Court and, thereafter, if that approval is obtained from the Court, then the Chapter 11 trustee who is appointed becomes effective.\n\n So the U.S. Trustee has no current candidate before the Court, and there is no current Chapter 11 trustee before the Court.\n\n THE COURT: Well, 1104(d) says, if the Court orders the appointment of a trustee or examiner, which I've already done in a memorandum of decision that was issued on June 15, if a trustee or examiner dies or resigns during the case or is removed under Section 324 of this title, or if a trustee fails to qualify under Section 322 of this title, then the United States Trustee, after consultation with parties in interest, shall appoint subject to the Court's approval, one disinterested person other than the United States Trustee to serve as a trustee or examiner as the case may be.\n\n So it -- it already talks about the prior trustee dying or resigning or being removed. So 1104(d) deals with a successor trustee issue, not the original trustee. And so --\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I think it's important -- I apologize. THE COURT: That's all right. And so, 2007.1 is\n\n premised on -- 2007.1(c), approval of appointment, is premised on 1104(d), which I just read, which is --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n addresses the issue of when the trustee or examiner dies, resigns or is removed.\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, 1104(d) has three topics, as it were, that start that section. One is if the Court orders the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee or an examiner. Two, if a Chapter 11 trustee or examiner dies or resigns. Or three, if a trustee fails to qualify under Section 322.\n\n So we are in the first section. If the Court orders the appointment, which the Court has, then you skip down to the part that says, the United States Trustee, after consultation with the parties in interest, shall appoint, subject to the Court's approval, one disinterested person to serve as the Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n THE COURT: But we don't approve the appointment of trustees in Chapter 7 cases, in Chapter 13 cases, or in Chapter 11 cases. We've never entered orders approving the appointment of a trustee unless there was an election or a dispute with regard to the trustee.\n\n So -- but that's still not answering the question. This is the trustee. How does the trustee just get to withdraw when they already said that they are -- accepted the appointment, and now five days later they don't?\n\n Where is the trustee and why isn't the trustee here? How do you get to withdraw a trustee? We've already\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n -- we've now lost five days of which somebody was supposedly the representative of this estate and you don't have anybody else here, right? There's no successor trustee. So what is the plan? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, currently there is no Chapter 11 trustee appointed. THE COURT: Well, that's not true. MS. CLAIBORN: The U.S. Trustee withdrew -- Your Honor, I respectfully disagree with -- THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. MS. CLAIBORN: -- the Court's interpretation of this section and the rule we've just been discussing. It's the U.S. Trustee's viewpoint that the intersection of the rule and the section require a process that the U.S. Trustee has engaged in, and that process includes the notice of appointment. It includes the application to ask the Court to approve the appointment and that process also offers the opportunity for anyone to come in and have comments or criticisms or objections to the appointment and for that process to play out. We are here today after the U.S. Trustee has withdrawn the notice of appointment and has withdrawn the application to approve the appointment and that withdrawal happened due to a late arrival of information that happened this morning with respect to a conflict search.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n The U.S. Trustee takes the role of finding a disinterested person who is qualified to perform the services of the Chapter 11 trustee seriously, and as a result of information that was provided this morning, determined that it was no longer appropriate to put forward that candidate and, therefore, withdrew the application. The U.S. Trustee is now engaged in trying to fill the role with another candidate. THE COURT: So you're saying as of this morning the trustee disclosed more information that resulted in the determination that the trustee has a conflict of interest and is not a disinterested person? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Even though the trustee -- MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: -- signed an affidavit that said he was? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Well, isn't that a problem. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, it is unfortunate and the timing of this does cause a delay for which the U.S. Trustee is also unhappy about but, nevertheless, it's appropriate to select and install a person who is conflict free and who has the appearance that he can be impartial to all parties involved in this case.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n And the determination was made by the U.S. Trustee that it was appropriate to withdraw that trustee who was noticed last week and, therefore, that's what I did today. THE COURT: Well, but it's not a withdrawal, because you're saying he's not qualified now. He doesn't meet the qualification, so it's a removal because he's the trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor -- THE COURT: He accepted the appointment -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, that -- THE COURT: -- as of June 30, and he posted a bond -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I respectfully disagree with the Court. THE COURT: -- and he submitted an affidavit. MS. CLAIBORN: The appointment -- THE COURT: I already ordered the appointment. MS. CLAIBORN: -- (indiscernible) become effective in the case. THE COURT: I ordered the appointment of a trustee on June 15th. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor directed the U.S. Trustee to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee by order that entered on June 15th. THE COURT: That is correct.\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: And you did that. Now you're saying this person is not qualified. Well, that -- there should be a process -- you can't withdraw it. How would anybody know that this person isn't -- isn't -- no longer qualified? How is that transparent? And what's the conflict? I mean, he signed an affidavit saying that he had no conflicts and that he was a disinterested person. That's what he said. The Court has to be able to -- and the creditors and the public have to be able to rely on that. So this should be a removal. This should be a motion to remove the trustee for being -- not being qualified under Section 324 of the code. I don't think you can withdraw the application. You've already appointed him, subject to approval. So maybe I don't approve it, but you can't not tell everybody what the problem is. The problem is there is some conflict of interest that came up today when the individual already signed a document that accepted the appointment and submitted an affidavit that said he had no conflict of interest and was a disinterested person. So how does that -- I mean, I don't see how you can withdraw the appointment. I don't see it. There's nothing in the code that allows that to happen. The removal\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n of a trustee -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, by virtue of the -- THE COURT: -- or examiner is under Section 324. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the appointment and the approval process is set forth, as we discussed today, in 1104(d), and section -- sorry, Rule 2007.1. THE COURT: I don't -- you know, I -- MS. CLAIBORN: And the process has not been finished, the appointment has not been approved, and the U.S. Trustee, based upon the information provided today, determined that it was appropriate to withdraw the notice of appointment which we have done. THE COURT: Yeah, but you didn't say why. If I didn't have this hearing, nobody would know why. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, that's correct. The withdrawal does not cite a reason, and due to the governmental privilege and the deliberative process that the U.S. Trustee engages in, I am not in a position to share that reasoning or that discussion with the Court or with the parties. But it was in the best interest of the estate and the creditors and the process to not pursue the selected candidate. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on this issue, because we've now lost five days of which\n\n somebody was supposedly in charge of this estate. And then what happens? What if something happened in the last five days? You're saying, oh, and by the way -- so you're saying that even though there was a trustee appointed and you note -- you had -- you noticed it, it really didn't take effect until there is a court order. That's crazy. MS. CLAIBORN: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: I already ordered the appointment of the trustee. If someone wants to object to the -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor entered an order directing the U.S. Trustee to appoint a trustee -- THE COURT: I didn't direct anybody. I granted a motion -- MS. CLAIBORN: -- and that's the process. THE COURT: -- that said a trustee shall be appointed. That's what it said. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. And there's a process that follows and so that's what we had done. THE COURT: Well, I -- the process is broken then, if that's the process. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Attorney Friedman, I think I saw you raise your hand. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. You know, for what it's worth, I do think 1104 may be read to have the *if/or*, and that the Court may have ultimate authority to approve any application, the same as any other professional.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n But I think more fundamentally, we are concerned. You know, there are issues. The Lady May will be returned. We had hoped that when the order was entered on June 15th, that, you know, that there would be a trustee in place to deal with that so PAX didn't have to. Our concern has always been, there's no funding for the estate. Perhaps the trustee, had it been appointed quickly, could have addressed that.\n\n We now have a boat being returned, an inspection has to be conducted, there's still no money in the estate to deal with that. If PAX has to deal with that, obviously, it will have to file substantial contribution motion.\n\n You know, the Court's order, which we respect and we reviewed was without prejudice, but in the absence of a trustee being able to take command, one who we would be -- you know, we -- let me take a step back.\n\n We reached out to the trustee immediately to have discussions, the proposed trustee. You know, we were prepared to try to work cooperatively because we read what the Court's opinion said, noting that it was without prejudice.\n\n But what -- the absence of a trustee causes prejudice. The estate is already being prejudiced. We think, as the Court knows, that PAX is by far the overwhelming creditor of this estate, and so it's being\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n prejudiced by this delay. You know, we respect the Court's decision and that's why we didn't appeal because it was without prejudice, but if -- if sort of, this is the way the case is going, we're going to have to reinstitute our motion, you know, sooner rather than later, because we think that there is prejudice to PAX already by the delay in time. And you know, we'll be sort of guided accordingly. If there is a fast appointment, again, we will try in good faith to work cooperatively. But without a trustee in place, you know, there's a vacuum here. If PAX has to step up, there will be substantial contribution motions. PAX is already going to have to file one, I think, you know, to deal with the return of the boat. And we just want that to be clear that if there's no one else to pay for things -- you know, and PAX may have to address that and seek compensation from the estate on, you know, a very quick basis. Your Honor, this is an unfortunate circumstance with delay. THE COURT: Anyone else wish to be heard? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. William Baldiga. MR. GOLDMAN: I think -- 23 MR. BALDIGA: Go ahead, Irve. I'm sorry. MR. GOLDMAN: I think this temporary setback ought to be used as some sort of platform to revisit the --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: Mr. Baldiga, I can't hear you. You need to speak into your microphone a little bit more, please. I can't hear you. MR. GOLDMAN: It's Mr. Goldman, Your Honor. I'll -- THE COURT: Oh, okay, Mr. Goldman. I thought Mr. Baldiga was talking. Go ahead. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. I'll try to adjust my volume here. Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. Let's see if we can hear you. MR. GOLDMAN: Is this any better? THE COURT: Let's -- go ahead and speak. MR. GOLDMAN: Yep. No, what I was going to say was, the -- or what I did try to say was that I don't think this temporary setback should be used as some sort of platform to revisit the dismissal motion. I expect that the U.S. Trustee is going to move with expedition. We will all work together, as we did with respect to this appointment and we will get a trustee in place. And I've already indicated to Mr. Friedman that the committee conceptually has no problem with a substantial contribution claim. We recognize that if they step up and, for example, have to pay for the inspection, that it should\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 545 Filed 07/13/22 Entered 07/13/22 15:20:05 Page 18 of 32\n\n be a considered a substantial contribution. So I don't see that there are any issues right now that the Court needs to address, other than to try to get a handle on when the U.S. Trustee might expect to appoint -- THE COURT: Well, okay -- MR. GOLDMAN: -- the next trustee. THE COURT: -- I understand what you're saying, Attorney Goldman, but there's nothing in this record other than this hearing right now that has any information to anyone about why this trustee, who accepted the appointment and filed a docket -- document on this docket, accepting the appointment and saying that he has no -- had no -- he was disinterested and had no conflicts, and then come today -- he certainly -- he suddenly does. That's a problem. So the last -- who knows what's happened in the last five days of this case when there supposedly was a trustee in place. And I understand what you just said, but I think - - the Court is very concerned about it. I think it's -- I think it's -- you know, the -- it was issued on -- everybody kept saying, the Court has to act quickly and everybody knew that the -- a trustee was a possibility, but yet it took two weeks to get a trustee and then five days later the trustee whatever -- which by the way, I don't agree that the trustee isn't a trustee right now, but that's the position that's\n\n being taken. Now we're five days after that and there's no trustee. And now how long is it going to take to get another trustee? And what happens if something happens during this time frame? I'm very disappointed in this whole process. It's not as if this hasn't been on the table since, oh, I think the middle of March and it's July 5th. 9 So I don't know -- you know, I'm not worried about substantial contribution and dismissal right now. I've heard all those issues. I know those issues. What I'm worried about is where is the trustee? I ordered it on June 15th, after everyone said I had to act quickly, which I did to the best of my ability and I didn't do it in 15 days, I did it in 17 days. Okay. Where is the trustee? So what's the next step, Attorney Claiborn? When is the U.S. Trustee's office going to have another trustee, which it is another trustee in my mind, whether or not you agree with that. And I'm not suggesting that this trustee has been -- this gentleman, who said he was disinterested and accepted the appointment, is not subject to some kind of claim someone could bring against him for these five days, or however many days he's the trustee until there's a successor trustee.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n The only thing that the code talks about in any kind of vacancy of a trustee is if a trustee dies or resigns. Neither one of those things apparently has happened. So what's the plan? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee, as soon as the order entered directing U.S. Trustee to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, engaged in a appropriate request of the parties for input and solicitation as to appropriate and suitable candidates. Thereafter, the U.S. Trustee conducted a number of interviews over a number of days with many candidates. And as part of that interview process and that vetting process candidates were asked to submit and perform some conflict checks. As it turns out, the particular candidate selected ultimately uncovered something that was important enough for the U.S. Trustee to withdraw the selection. So the U.S. Trustee will now go to alternate candidates and will select an appropriate candidate as soon as possible. The U.S. Trustee is very aware that this is an urgent situation and the U.S. Trustee is taking it very seriously and all I can say is that we are acting as quickly as we can. I cannot promise a date, but we know that it is important. THE COURT: Well, I don't agree that you have the ability to withdraw, so that's -- I don't -- I've never seen\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 545 Filed 07/13/22 Entered 07/13/22 15:20:05 Page 21 of 32\n\n a case. You show me a case where the U.S. Trustee's office has a -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- ability to withdraw the appointment of a trustee. I don't -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, you may have -- Your Honor has done it before, actually, in the case of *Perilla*. THE COURT: When we had a successor trustee in place. There was a difference. MS. CLAIBORN: No, the original -- THE COURT: We had a successor -- MS. CLAIBORN: The original appointment of Steve Cohen. THE COURT: -- and the original trustee actually served as a trustee. There's a difference. A big difference. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct, but the original appointment of Trustee Cohen was done pursuant to the same process. THE COURT: The creditors all agreed in that case. That was -- that's a different situation and I think this process doesn't make any sense. Either you have -- you appoint someone, or you have a vote and you -- that's what the -- that's what the code sections require. That's what it says.\n\n And you didn't have a vote. You appointed somebody, and the person said that they accepted the appointment and that they had no -- and they were disinterested. You can't then just say, withdraw. Why? Why shouldn't the person have to come in here and explain the problem? He accepted it. He's made statements under penalty of perjury that's in this docket. Why shouldn't he have to come in and explain why he's no longer qualified, or why shouldn't you have to file a motion to remove him, to explain everything to everyone, because if we didn't have this hearing, there would be no explanation that anyone would understand as to why this trustee is not serving in this case according to the United States Trustee's office. So why shouldn't you have to file the -- MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, can I -- THE COURT: -- why -- you know, you cite to Rule 2007. Well, look at section of the Bankruptcy Code 324 that says removal of trustee or examiner. This gentleman already accepted the appointment under an order in which he was -- that this Court directed the appointment of that Chapter 11 trustee. So according to you then every time there's a Chapter 11 trustee appointed, we're going to have to wait\n\n another -- if you didn't do an expedited hearing, when were we going to have the hearing? So it could be 30 days. How does that possibly make sense? When a court rules that a Chapter 11 trustee is appointed, and then the U.S. Trustee's office appoints one, and then the U.S. Trustee's office can say, no, that's all right, I'm going to take that back. I don't think that's how it works and that's not the way it should work. If there's a problem, you file a motion. You say that -- I'm -- we're removing him because he's no longer qualified, because he discovered something that he didn't discover at the time and we're moving with all due speed to get a successor trustee appointed. But you don't get to -- he doesn't get to just walk away as if he was -- never accepted the appointment, and that's essentially what you're allowing him to do. You're allowing him to absolve himself of any liability that he -- that he incurred when he agreed to be appointed as the trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, it's the U.S. Trustee's position that until the appointment is approved by the Court, the U.S. -- the Chapter 11 trustee is not installed as the Chapter 11 trustee, because that -- THE COURT: So is that going to be true in all Chapter 7 cases --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: -- is part of a process -- THE COURT: -- and Chapter 13 cases as well, because all the same sections of the code apply with regard to the qualifications of a trustee. And in Chapter 7 they're supposed to vote on the trustee at 341 meetings, but that doesn't happen, because that's what the code says. MS. CLAIBORN: Only if there is an election process -- THE COURT: -- that a trustee is an interim trustee until after the 341 meeting where the creditors are supposed to elect the trustee. That doesn't happen. MS. CLAIBORN: Creditors have the right to -- THE COURT: Same as Chapter 13 trustees. MS. CLAIBORN: -- ask the Court to have an election process. That has not been done in this case. THE COURT: No, I'm not asking about this case. MS. CLAIBORN: That process -- THE COURT: I'm saying, you don't follow the process in the Chapter 7 and 13 cases where the trustee is supposed to only be an interim trustee and then be elected by the creditors at a -- at 341 meeting in Chapter 7 and 13. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: So why are we doing that? It makes absolutely no sense to say the trustee isn't the trustee until after there's an order appointing him, approving the\n\n| | 25 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | appointment, when I already ordered that he be appointed. |\n| 2 | The Court doesn't -- why am I approving anything |\n| 3 | you do?
It doesn't matter.
I already said it's your office |\n| 4 | that's responsible for the appointment, not the Court. |\n| 5 | And those sections that you're reading those deal |\n| 6 | with different issues than when there is a court order |\n| 7 | deciding that a trustee should be appointed.
So I mean, |\n| 8 | that's fine.
I understand your position, I don't agree with |\n| 9 | it. |\n| 10 | So what's the plan?
So are we going to have |\n| 11 | another hearing tomorrow or the next day, because I'm going |\n| 12 | to have one.
I want to know when this trustee is going to |\n| 13 | be appointed.
And it's going to be a successor trustee. |\n| 14 | That -- I mean, because by the way, the code and the rules |\n| 15 | talk about successor trustees. |\n| 16 | This gentleman can't escape liability just because |\n| 17 | he's now found that he's got a conflict.
I mean, we deal |\n| 18 | with this all the time in debtor's counselor and other |\n| 19 | professionals, and you -- and the argument is, well, they |\n| 20 | said they didn't have a conflict, but now they do. |\n| 21 | Well, then there should be a ramification for |\n| 22 | that.
There should be some responsibility for that, and |\n| 23 | there shouldn't be a Chapter 11 debtor who, you know, since |\n| 24 | June 15, wasn't -- isn't supposed to be in control of the |\n| 25 | estate, but he still is apparently.
And he's still going to |\n\n| | 26 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | be until a new trustee is appointed. |\n| 2 | So I don't agree with you that Mr. Whitely doesn't |\n| 3 | have any liability in this case, because he does from the |\n| 4 | Court's perspective. |\n| 5 | He accepted the appointment and he said he had no |\n| 6 | conflict of interest, and no -- and he was a disinterested |\n| 7 | party. |\n| 8 | And if he later discovers there's a problem, then |\n| 9 | you move to remove him under the code, under Section 342 of |\n| 10 | -- 24 of the code.
That's what you do.
That's how it |\n| 11 | should be handled, not a withdrawal of an application.
He's |\n| 12 | already accepted the position. |\n| 13 | So what time are we having a hearing tomorrow so I |\n| 14 | can find out when the successor trustee is going to be |\n| 15 | available? |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, with all due respect, I |\n| 17 | may not have an answer for the Court tomorrow as to whether |\n| 18 | or not there is a time frame during which I can tell the |\n| 19 | Court that a Chapter 11 trustee will be installed. |\n| 20 | All I can tell the Court is that the U.S. Trustee |\n| 21 | is actively working on this situation, we are actively |\n| 22 | communicating with people and the process will be done as |\n| 23 | soon as it is possible to do so. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Attorney Friedman.
Attorney Goldman. |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Your Honor. |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 545 Filed 07/13/22 Entered 07/13/22 15:20:05 Page 26 of 32\n\n THE COURT: Attorney Mayhew. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Have you -- have your clients identified anyone that they would want to act as the Chapter 11 trustee in this case? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, we -- it's Peter Friedman. We have consulted with the U.S. Trustee and made a recommendation. We have also consulted with other creditors and, you know -- and indicated other names of candidates who would be acceptable to our clients. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, on behalf of the Committee, we did submit two names for consideration for the trusteeship (indiscernible) with PAX and the U.S. Trustee concerning the preference. So we've gone through that process. MS. MAYHEW: And on behalf of the creditors, Your Honor, we also consulted with the United States Trustee's office and joined in the recommendation of the creditor's committee. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm going to order -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- you all to -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- Your Honor, but -- THE COURT: -- meet tomorrow, and I want to know\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 545 Filed 07/13/22 Entered 07/13/22 15:20:05 Page 28 of 32\n\n where we are on the trustee by first thing Thursday morning. This is unacceptable. This is unacceptable. This is now a situation where this debtor in possession has been in control of this estate for a period of now more than 20 days -- 21 days since the order appointing the trustee, which didn't come from thin air, was entered. And I'm not going to allow this to happen again. If I have to order you to have a vote, you'll have to have a vote. This is just unacceptable, and I'm just -- I will decide at the end of the day how -- where this all comes out. But if I find out that something happened during these five days, I'm not going to be happy about it. Or these six days, or these seven days, or however many days it takes to get a trustee in place. So all the creditors, you need to set up a call with Attorney Claiborn and Attorney Harrington, if you need to have Attorney Harrington involved, the U.S. Trustee involved. But this -- there has to be a trustee appointed in this case. And this form over substance process -- so every single time there's a Chapter 11 trustee appointed, we have to have an emergency hearing to enter another order to approve -- that doesn't make any sense. If someone doesn't like the trustee, they can move\n\n to remove him. It's just form over substance. Just complete form over substance. The job of th U.S. Trustee's office is to appoint the trustee. You did that. He has a conflict, then he should have to be removed and disclose the conduct -- the conflict to this Court. The fact that none of this as disclosed and none of this would happen if this hearing didn't go forward, is unacceptable to this Court and it should be to all of you as well. So what time are you going -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- to meet and who's going to report back to the Court -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, that -- THE COURT: -- tomorrow on when a Chapter 11 trustee is going to be appointed? I'll just make it easier for you. We're going to have a hearing tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. and it will be virtual. And you will all tell me where things stand on the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. And I expect the U.S. Trustee's office to make themselves available to all the creditors in this case and to make sure that this appointment happens very, very, very soon, because where we stand now is just very unfortunate. Does anyone have any questions?\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Your Honor, it's William Baldiga. Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Go ahead, Attorney Baldiga. MR. BALDIGA: It's Mr. Baldiga. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. I was inferring initially from your comments that the debtor would be able to participate in those conversations, as generally the case. The U.S. Trustee, as appropriate, did reach out to us immediately at the entry of the Court's order. We responded in kind as to thoughts as to a trustee, which I understand is customary. We would expect to continue in that process and I just didn't want your comments to be taken to exclude us from that. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. MR. BALDIGA: Second -- okay. Second, I do inquire as to what information has occurred or has been brought forth. I understand from Ms. Claiborn that there may be an assertion of a privilege with which I'm just not familiar, but I do make that inquiry as to what happened. THE COURT: Are you asking her to tell you this on the record right now, Attorney Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: I would respect that -- if she preferred to that privately, I would respect that. But I am making that request. I -- I'm not --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 545 Filed 07/13/22 Entered 07/13/22 15:20:05 Page 30 of 32\n\n THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure the Court would respect that. If there -- I want to know why this person is -- is not -- no longer qualified. And if you have to file it under seal, file it under seal, but I think it's unacceptable to have proceeded this way and to withdraw the appointment and not disclose to anyone what the reason is. And as I have said, and I will say again, Mr. Whitely accepted that appointment and filed documents under penalty of perjury in this case that he was a disinterested person. So I -- you know, I don't agree that this form over substance order needs to have entered for him to have -- he's already posted a bond. So are you saying that the bonding company is going to say that the bond doesn't go into effect until there's an order entered? Well, that's interesting, because that doesn't happen in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, to my knowledge Mr. Whitely has not posted a bond. THE COURT: Okay. All right. What time did I say we're going to have this hearing tomorrow? THE CLERK: 3:00. THE COURT: 3:00 p.m. All right. So you can all reach out to the courtroom deputy and obtain the information for the hearing and I want to hear what the progress is and\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n I want to know how long it's going to take, because it's been 20 days since that order that everyone insisted needed to enter right away, and it did, and we still don't have a trustee. Anyone else have any questions? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. That concludes today's hearing. Thank you. MS. MAYHEW: Thank you. THE CLERK: Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 4:34 p.m.) 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. 19 July 13, 2022 20 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber","body_zh":"案件 22-50073 文件 545 提交于 07/13/22 登记于 07/13/22 15:20:05 第 1 页，共 32 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭） 关于 \\* 案号 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\\* 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 \\* 2022年7月5日 债务人。 \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* 关于申请任命受托人的庭审记录 申请裁定批准任命第11章受托人 于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前 出庭人员： 代表债务人： WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·巴尔迪加，律师） Brown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所） Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 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）： PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼，律师） STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫，律师） O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈文律师事务所） Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼，律师） Robinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所） 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103-3597 程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。 Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司） 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）： 代表债权人委员会： IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼，律师） Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所） 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 代表债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）、Zheng Wu（吴峥）及 Weican Meng（孟维灿）： KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休，律师） McElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所） 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）： JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼，律师） Randazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团，专业有限责任公司） 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）： HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师） Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室） The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n（程序于下午3:54开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。法庭方才另有一场听证会延长了，所以很抱歉让各位久候。请先由债务人代理律师开始，为记录在案而说明出庭身份，可以吗？\n\nBALDIGA 律师：下午好。William Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加），Brown Rudnick，代表债务人。\n\n法庭：下午好。PAX 的代理律师？\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 O'Melveny & Myers 的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我也看到 Sarnoff 先生和 Birney 先生在场。\n\n法庭：各位下午好。\n\nBIRNEY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：债权人委员会的代理律师。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman & Comley，债权人委员会代理律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。Rui Ma（马睿）及其他债权人的代理律师？\n\nMAYHEW 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, & Carpenter，代表债权人 Rui Ma、Zheng Wu 和 Weican Meng。\n\n法庭：下午好。美国受托人的代理律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。预计还有其他人出庭吗？哦，很抱歉，Wolman 律师。请继续。我没有看到您。\n\nWOLMAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），Randazza Legal Group，代表债权人 Logan Cheng。\n\n法庭：下午好。我认为我已经记录了所有人的出庭身份。对吗？好的。好。那么，今天的听证会是就申请任命受托人及申请裁定批准任命第11章受托人的听证会，该申请为 ECF No. 499；另有一项加快听证会的动议，该动议于星期四、6月20日——30日，抱歉——2022年6月30日星期四提交。准许加快审理动议的命令已登记，安排于今天下午3:30举行听证会。现在是3:58。正如我所说，很抱歉。我们下午3:00的听证会比预期持续得更久，但无论如何，准许加快审理动议，是因为法庭不确定美国受托人办公室为何提交申请任命受托人并请求作出命令批准任命受托人，而今天，\n\n美国受托人办公室又提交了撤回该申请的文件。\n\n所以，Claiborn 律师，我不确定这是怎么回事，但截至6月30日，White 先生——我不知道是 Whitley 还是 Whitely——在本案案卷中提交的文件里接受了被任命为第11章受托人。他还提交了一份宣誓书，称其为无利害关系人，因而似乎符合受托人的全部要求，并且截至6月30日，成为本破产财产的代表。然后今天，贵办公室提交了一份撤回文件，由您代表 Harrington 先生以本地区美国受托人的身份签署。因此，我有些困惑目前的状况，以及美国受托人办公室为何认为其甚至需要一项命令来批准该项任命，因为根据——文件称根据 1104(d)，但在我已经裁定任命受托人的情况下，1104(d) 并不适用。因此，我认为贵办公室的职责就是您所做的事。您任命了一名受托人。那么，现在的问题是什么？为什么要撤回？\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。该程序通过 Rule 2007.1（规则 2007.1）实施。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：C 款。\n\n法庭：不，但除非存在问题，该款并不适用。2007.1 规定，为在第11章案件中任命受托人或审查员，须提出申请命令任命受托人或审查员的动议——该动议已经获准，且该命令已经登记。\n\n因此，2007.1 已经处理完毕——A 款已经处理完毕。该条其余部分谈及受托人的选举，而且——如果存在受托人的选举，贵办公室将须证明确有选举并说明结果，而本案案卷中没有任何内容表明该受托人是经选举产生的，这是第一点。\n\n第二点，如果该受托人存在某些问题，则需要披露。该受托人是否辞职？您们是否在解除该受托人职务？该受托人是否已经去世？我的意思是，这三种情形是需要法庭命令的依据。因此——且该受托人在不再担任受托人之前，仍是受托人。那么，目前的状态是什么？\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，回到 Rule 2007.1 C 款与 1104(d) 之间的相互关系，按照该法条与该规则结合所设想的程序，是法庭命令美国受托人任命一名第11章受托人，然后美国受托人提交一项申请，由法庭批准；此后，如果获得法庭批准，则被任命的第11章受托人的任命生效。\n\n因此，美国受托人目前没有向法庭提出任何候选人，法庭面前目前也没有第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：那么，1104(d) 规定，如果法庭命令任命受托人或审查员——我已经在6月15日发布的裁决备忘录中作出此项命令——如果受托人或审查员在案件期间死亡或辞职，或根据本法第 324 条被解除职务，或者受托人未能依本法第 322 条取得资格，则美国受托人经与利害关系方协商后，应任命一名无利害关系人，但须经法庭批准；该人不得为美国受托人，并应视情形担任受托人或审查员。\n\n因此——它已经谈到先前受托人死亡、辞职或被解除职务。因此，1104(d) 处理的是继任受托人的问题，而不是原受托人。因此——\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，我认为这一点很重要——我很抱歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。因此，2007.1——\n\n是以——2007.1(c)，即任命批准，是以我刚才所读的 1104(d) 为前提，而该条——\n\n处理的是受托人或审查员死亡、辞职或被解除职务时的问题。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，1104(d) 可以说有三个主题作为该条开头。第一，如果法庭命令任命第11章受托人或审查员。第二，如果第11章受托人或审查员死亡或辞职。第三，如果受托人未能根据第 322 条取得资格。\n\n因此，我们处于第一种情形。如果法庭命令任命，而法庭已经作出命令，那么您接着看下文，其中规定，美国受托人在与利害关系方协商后，应任命一名无利害关系人担任第11章受托人，但须经法庭批准。\n\n法庭：但是，在第7章案件、第13章案件或第11章案件中，我们并不批准受托人的任命。除非存在选举或与受托人有关的争议，我们从未作出命令批准任命受托人。\n\n所以——但这仍未回答问题。这就是受托人。在他已经表示接受任命后，受托人怎么能就撤回呢，而现在五天后又不接受了？\n\n受托人在哪里，为什么受托人没有到庭？您们怎么能撤回一名受托人？我们已经——我们现在已经失去五天，而在此期间某人据称是本破产财产的代表，而您们这里没有其他人，对吗？没有继任受托人。那么，计划是什么？\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，目前没有被任命的第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：嗯，那不对。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：美国受托人撤回了——法官阁下，我谨表示不同意——\n\n法庭：好的。抱歉。请继续。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：——法庭对我们刚才讨论的这一条及规则的解释。美国受托人的观点是，该规则与该条款的交汇要求实施一项美国受托人已启动的程序，而该程序包括任命通知。它包括申请请求法庭批准该任命，并且该程序也为任何人到庭提出有关该任命的意见、批评或异议，以及使该程序得以进行，提供机会。今天，我们在美国受托人已撤回任命通知并撤回批准任命申请之后到庭，而该撤回是由于今晨较晚获得的、与利益冲突检索有关的信息。\n\n美国受托人严肃对待寻找一名无利害关系且有资格履行第11章受托人职责之人的责任，并且，由于今晨提供的信息，确定不再适宜提出该候选人，因此撤回了该申请。美国受托人目前正努力由另一名候选人填补该职位。\n\n法庭：所以，您的意思是，截至今晨，受托人披露了更多信息，导致认定该受托人存在利益冲突，并非无利害关系人？\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：正确。\n\n法庭：尽管该受托人——\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：正确。\n\n法庭：——签署了一份宣誓书称其是？\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：正确。\n\n法庭：那么，这难道不是问题吗。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，这很不幸，其时间安排确实造成了延迟，对此美国受托人也并不满意；但尽管如此，选择并任命一名不存在利益冲突、且表面上能够对本案所有相关方保持公正的人，是适当的。\n\n并且，美国受托人作出决定，认为撤回上周已就其任命发出通知的该受托人是适当的，因此，我今天就是这么做的。本院：嗯，但这不是撤回，因为你说他现在不具备资格。他不符合资格条件，因此这是免职，因为他是受托人。克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：法官阁下——本院：他接受了任命——克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，那——本院：——自 June 30 起，并且他提交了保证金——克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我谨不同意本院的意见。本院：——并且他提交了一份宣誓书。克莱伯恩女士：该任命——本院：我已经下令任命了。克莱伯恩女士：——（听不清）在本案中生效。本院：我于 June 15th 下令任命一名受托人。克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下通过于 June 15th 录入的命令，指示美国受托人任命一名第11章受托人。本院：这是正确的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：正确。本院：而且你这么做了。现在你说此人不具备资格。嗯，那——应当有一个程序——你不能撤回它。任何人怎么会知道此人不再——不再——具备资格？这怎么具有透明度？冲突是什么？我的意思是，他签署了一份宣誓书，称他不存在任何冲突，并且他是无利害关系人。这是他所说的。本院必须能够——债权人和公众也必须能够依赖这一点。因此，这应当是免职。这应当是一项根据法典第 324 条，以该受托人不具备资格为由要求免职受托人的动议。我认为你不能撤回该申请。你已经任命了他，但须经批准。因此，也许我不会批准它，但你不能不告诉所有人问题是什么。问题在于，今天出现了某种利益冲突，而该个人已经签署了一份接受任命的文件，并提交了一份宣誓书，称其不存在利益冲突且为无利害关系人。那么这如何——我的意思是，我看不出你如何能够撤回该任命。我看不出来。法典中没有任何规定允许发生这种情况。受托人的免职——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，依照——本院：——或审查员的免职，适用第 324 条。克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，如我们今天所讨论的，任命及批准程序规定于 1104(d) 和第——抱歉，Rule 2007.1。本院：我不——您知道，我——克莱伯恩女士：而且该程序尚未完成，该任命尚未获批准，美国受托人根据今天提供的信息，认定撤回我们已作出的任命通知是适当的。本院：是，但你没有说明原因。如果我没有举行这次听证会，没有人会知道原因。克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，这是正确的。该撤回未说明理由，而且由于美国受托人所适用的政府特权及审议程序，我无法与本院或当事人分享该理由或该讨论。但为了财产、债权人及程序的最佳利益，不继续推进所选候选人是适当的。本院：还有其他人希望就此问题发言吗，因为我们现在已经失去了五天，在这五天中，\n\n据称有人负责管理这项财产。然后会发生什么？如果在过去五天发生了什么事怎么办？你是在说，哦，顺便说一句——所以你是在说，即使已经任命了一名受托人，而且你已——你已——就此发出了通知，它实际上直到有法院命令才生效。这太荒谬了。克莱伯恩女士：这是正确的，法官阁下。本院：我已经下令任命该受托人。如果有人想对该——克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下录入了一项命令，指示美国受托人任命一名受托人——本院：我没有指示任何人。我准许了一项动议——克莱伯恩女士：——这就是程序。本院：——该动议称应任命一名受托人。这就是其所称内容。克莱伯恩女士：正确。后续还有一个程序，因此这就是我们所做的。本院：那么，如果这就是该程序，那该程序就有问题。还有其他人希望发言吗？弗里德曼律师（Attorney Friedman），我想我看到你举手了。弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：是的，法官阁下。您知道，不管怎么说，我确实认为 1104 可以被解读为包含“如果/或者”，而且本院可能拥有批准任何申请的最终权力，就如同任何其他专业人士一样。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n但我认为更根本的是，我们感到担忧。您知道，存在一些问题。“梅夫人”号（Lady May）将被归还。我们原本希望，当 June 15th 录入命令时，您知道，会有一名受托人在任处理此事，以便 PAX（PAX）不必处理。我们的担忧始终是，财产没有资金。也许受托人，如果他被迅速任命，本可以处理这个问题。\n\n现在有一艘船正在被归还，必须进行检查，而财产中仍然没有资金来处理此事。如果 PAX 必须处理此事，显然，它将不得不提出实质性贡献动议。\n\n您知道，本院的命令，我们尊重并审阅了该命令，是不妨害再行提出的，但在受托人无法接管的情况下，一名我们会——您知道，我们——让我退一步说。\n\n我们立即联系了该受托人，以便进行讨论，即拟议受托人。您知道，我们准备尝试合作，因为我们读了本院意见中所说的内容，指出该命令是不妨害再行提出的。\n\n但——缺少受托人会造成不利影响。财产已经受到不利影响。我们认为，如本院所知，PAX 是该财产中压倒性的最大债权人，因此它正因该延误而受到不利影响。您知道，我们尊重本院的决定，这就是我们没有上诉的原因，因为该命令是不妨害再行提出的，但如果——如果大致上，本案将以这种方式进行，我们将不得不尽早重新提出我们的动议，因为我们认为，时间延误已经对 PAX 造成不利影响。并且，您知道，我们将据此行事。如果迅速作出任命，我们仍将再次真诚地尝试合作。但如果没有受托人在任，您知道，这里就存在一个真空。如果 PAX 必须挺身而出，就会提出实质性贡献动议。我认为，PAX 已经将不得不提出一项动议，以处理船只的归还。我们只是希望明确，如果没有其他人支付费用——您知道，PAX 可能不得不处理该问题，并在极短时间内向财产寻求赔偿。法官阁下，这是一个因延误而产生的不幸情况。本院：还有其他人希望发言吗？鲍尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）：是的，法官阁下。William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加）。戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）：我认为——鲍尔迪加先生：请讲，Irve。抱歉。戈德曼先生：我认为，这一暂时挫折不应被用作某种平台来重新审议该——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n本院：鲍尔迪加先生，我听不见你。请你再靠近一点对着麦克风说话。我听不见你。戈德曼先生：是戈德曼先生，法官阁下。我——本院：哦，好吧，戈德曼先生。我以为是鲍尔迪加先生在说话。请继续。戈德曼先生：好的。我会尽量调整一下我的音量，法官阁下。本院：请继续。看看我们能否听见你。戈德曼先生：这样好一些吗？本院：让我们——请继续说。戈德曼先生：是的。不，我要说的是——或者我试图说的是，我不认为这一暂时挫折应被用作某种平台来重新审议驳回动议。我预计美国受托人将迅速行动。我们将一同合作，正如我们在这次任命方面所做的那样，并且我们将安排一名受托人在任。我已经向弗里德曼律师表示，委员会在原则上对实质性贡献请求没有异议。我们承认，如果他们挺身而出并且例如不得不支付检查费用，这应当\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 545 已提交 07/13/22 已录入 07/13/22 15:20:05 第 18 页，共 32 页\n\n被视为一项实质性贡献。因此，我认为本院目前无需处理任何问题，除了设法了解美国受托人预计何时能够任命——本院：嗯，好吧——戈德曼先生：——下一任受托人。本院：——我明白你所说的，戈德曼律师，但除本次听证会以外，本案记录中没有任何信息向任何人说明，为什么该受托人——他接受了任命，并在本案案卷中提交了一份文件，接受该任命并称他没有——曾没有——他是无利害关系人且不存在任何冲突——然后到今天，他当然——突然间有了。这是个问题。因此，在本案过去五天中，当时据称有一名受托人在任，谁知道发生了什么事。我明白你刚才所说的，但我认为——本院对此非常关切。我认为这——我认为这——您知道，该命令是在——每个人都不断地说，本院必须迅速行动，每个人都知道——受托人是一个可能性，但却花了两周才获得一名受托人，然后五天后，该受托人，无论是什么——顺便说一句，我不同意该受托人现在不是受托人，但这就是\n\n正在被采取的立场。现在又过了五天，而且没有受托人。现在还要花多长时间才能获得另一名受托人？如果在这段期间发生了什么事怎么办？我对整个程序非常失望。这并不是说自——哦，我想是自 March 中旬以来——该问题就没有摆在桌面上，而现在是 July 5th。所以我不知道——您知道，我现在并不担心实质性贡献和驳回问题。我已经听过所有这些问题。我知道这些问题。我担心的是受托人在哪里？在所有人都说我必须迅速行动之后，我于 June 15th 下令任命，我也确实尽我所能迅速行动，而且我不是在 15 天内作出，我是在 17 天内作出的。好。受托人在哪里？那么下一步是什么，克莱伯恩律师？美国受托人办公室何时会有另一名受托人——在我看来这确实是另一名受托人，不论你是否同意这一点。而且，我并不是说，这名称自己无利害关系并接受任命的先生，在这五天内，或者在继任受托人到任之前他担任受托人的任何天数内，不会受到任何人可能对其提出的某种请求。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n《破产法典》中唯一涉及受托人出现任何种类空缺的规定，是受托人死亡或辞职的情形。显然这两种情形均未发生。那么计划是什么？克莱伯恩女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：法官大人，在命令作出并指示美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）指定一名第11章受托人后，美国受托人立即适当地征求各方意见，并征集适当且合适的候选人。此后，美国受托人在数日内对众多候选人进行了多次面谈。作为该面谈和审查程序的一部分，候选人被要求提交并进行若干利益冲突核查。结果，最终被选定的特定候选人发现了一项对美国受托人而言足够重要的事项，以致美国受托人撤回了该项指定。因此，美国受托人现在将转向备选候选人，并将尽快选定适当的候选人。美国受托人非常清楚这是紧急情况，并且美国受托人正非常严肃地对待此事；我只能说，我们正尽可能迅速地采取行动。我无法承诺具体日期，但我们知道此事很重要。法庭：嗯，我不同意你们有权撤回，所以这——我不——我从未见过\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 545 提交于 07/13/22 录入于 07/13/22 15:20:05 第 21 页，共 32 页\n\n这样的案件。你给我看一个美国受托人办公室有权——克莱伯恩女士：法官大人——法庭：——撤回对受托人的指定的案件。我不——克莱伯恩女士：法官大人，您可能——实际上，法官大人，您以前在 Perilla（佩里拉）一案中这样做过。法庭：当时我们已有一名继任受托人到位。这是不同的。克莱伯恩女士：不，最初的——法庭：我们已有一名继任者——克莱伯恩女士：最初对 Steve Cohen（史蒂夫·科恩）的指定。法庭：——且原受托人实际上曾担任受托人。这不同。大不相同。克莱伯恩女士：正确，但对 Cohen 受托人的最初指定是依照同一程序作出的。法庭：在该案中，所有债权人都同意。那是——那是不同的情形，而且我认为这个程序毫无道理。要么你们——指定某人，要么进行表决，而你们——那正是——那正是法典条款所要求的。条文就是这么规定的。\n\n而你们没有进行表决。你们指定了某人，该人表示接受该指定，并表示其不存在——且其无利害关系。你们不能随后就说，撤回。为什么？为什么该人不应当到庭说明这个问题？他已经接受了。他已在本案卷宗中作出经伪证处罚声明。为什么他不应当到庭说明为何其不再具备资格，或者为什么你们不应当提出动议将其免职，向所有人说明一切，因为如果我们没有举行这次听证会，就不会有任何人能够理解的说明，解释为何该受托人未按照美国受托人办公室的安排在本案中履职。那么为什么你们不应当提出该——克莱伯恩女士：法官大人，我能否——法庭：——为什么——你知道，你援引《规则》2007。可是看看《破产法典》第324条，其规定受托人或审查人的免职。该先生已经依照一项命令接受了指定，该命令中本院指示指定该第11章受托人。因此，按你们的说法，每次指定第11章受托人时，我们都必须再等待——如果你们没有进行加急听证，我们何时才会举行听证？因此可能是30天。这怎么可能合理？当法院裁定应指定一名第11章受托人，而美国受托人办公室指定了一人，随后美国受托人办公室又可以说，不，没关系，我要收回该指定。我不认为程序是这样运作的，也不应当这样运作。如果存在问题，你们就提出动议。你们应当说——我——我们正在将其免职，因为他不再具备资格，因为他发现了其当时未发现的事项，而我们正以一切应有速度推进指定一名继任受托人。但你们不能——他不能就这样离开，仿佛他从未接受指定，而这实质上正是你们允许他做的。你们允许他免除其在同意被指定为受托人时产生的任何责任。克莱伯恩女士：法官大人，美国受托人的立场是，在指定未经法院批准前，美国——第11章受托人尚未就任第11章受托人，因为那——法庭：那么这在所有第7章案件中是否也将如此——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——是程序的一部分——法庭：——以及第13章案件中也是如此，因为法典中关于受托人资格的同样条款均适用。在第7章案件中，他们应当在341会议上对受托人进行表决，但这并未发生，尽管法典就是这么规定的。克莱伯恩女士：只有在存在选举程序时——法庭：——受托人在341会议之后、债权人本应在该会议上选举受托人之前，是临时受托人。这并未发生。克莱伯恩女士：债权人有权——法庭：第13章受托人也是一样。克莱伯恩女士：——请求法院进行选举程序。本案中并未这样做。法庭：不，我不是在问本案。克莱伯恩女士：该程序——法庭：我的意思是，你们在第7章和第13章案件中并未遵循该程序；在那些案件中，受托人本应仅为临时受托人，随后在第7章和第13章的341会议上由债权人选出。克莱伯恩女士：正确。法庭：那么我们为什么要这样做？说受托人在已有批准其指定的命令之前不是受托人，这绝对毫无道理；而我已经命令指定他了。本院并不——我为什么要批准你们所做的任何事情？这无关紧要。我已经说过，负责指定的是你们办公室，不是法院。你正在阅读的那些条款处理的问题，与已有法院命令决定应指定一名受托人的情形不同。所以，我的意思是，这没问题。我理解你们的立场，但我不同意。\n\n那么计划是什么？我们明天或后天是否还要举行一次听证，因为我会举行一次。我想知道这名受托人何时会被指定。而且将是一名继任受托人。那——我的意思是，顺便说一句，法典和规则都谈到继任受托人。该先生不能仅因他现在发现自己存在利益冲突就逃避责任。我的意思是，我们在债务人律师和其他专业人员的情形中一直处理这种问题，而你们——论点是，好吧，他们说自己没有利益冲突，但现在有了。那么，这就应当产生后果。对此应当承担一定责任，而且不应当存在一名第11章债务人，自6月15日起本不应控制破产财产，却显然仍在控制。他仍将继续控制，直至指定新的受托人。\n\n因此，我不同意你们所说 Whitely 先生（怀特利先生）在本案中不负有任何责任，因为从本院的角度看，他负有责任。他接受了指定，并称其不存在利益冲突，也——并且他是无利害关系方。若他后来发现存在问题，那么你们就应根据法典、根据法典第342——24条将其免职。你们就该这样做。这才是应当处理的方式，而不是撤回申请。他已经接受了该职位。那么我们明天何时举行听证，以便我了解继任受托人何时能够就任？克莱伯恩女士：法官大人，恕我直言，明天我可能无法就是否存在一个时间范围、使我能够告知法院第11章受托人何时将就任这一问题向法院作出答复。我所能告知法院的是，美国受托人正在积极处理这一情况，我们正积极与有关人员沟通，并将尽快完成该程序。法庭：Friedman 律师（弗里德曼律师）。Goldman 律师（戈德曼律师）。弗里德曼先生：法官大人。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 545 提交于 07/13/22 录入于 07/13/22 15:20:05 第 26 页，共 32 页\n\n法庭：Mayhew 律师（梅休律师）。弗里德曼先生：好的。抱歉。法庭：你们——你们的客户是否已确定任何希望在本案中担任第11章受托人的人选？弗里德曼先生：法官大人，我们——我是 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我们已与美国受托人协商并提出了一项推荐。我们也已与其他债权人协商，并且，您知道——并提出了其他我方客户可接受的候选人姓名。戈德曼先生：法官大人，代表委员会，我们确实提交了两个人选供考虑担任受托人（听不清），并与 PAX（PAX）和美国受托人就优先选择进行了沟通。因此，我们已走完该程序。梅休女士：法官大人，并且代表债权人，我们也已与美国受托人办公室协商，并加入债权人委员会的推荐。法庭：好的。那么，我将命令——身份不明的发言人：法官大人——法庭：——你们全体——身份不明的发言人：——法官大人，但是——法庭：——明天开会，我希望在周四一早知道\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 545 提交于 07/13/22 录入于 07/13/22 15:20:05 第 28 页，共 32 页\n\n受托人事项进展如何。这不可接受。这不可接受。现在的情形是，自作出指定受托人的命令——该命令并非凭空而来——录入以来，已经超过20天，即21天，该占有财产中的债务人一直控制着该破产财产。我不会允许这种事情再次发生。如果我必须命令你们进行表决，你们就必须进行表决。这实在不可接受，而我——我将在最终决定这一切将如何、在哪里得出结果。但如果我发现这五天内发生了什么事，我不会高兴。或者这六天，或者这七天，或者无论需要多少天才能让一名受托人就位。因此，所有债权人，你们需要与克莱伯恩律师和 Harrington 律师（哈林顿律师）安排一次电话会议；如果你们需要 Harrington 律师参与，就让美国受托人参与。但是，本案必须指定一名受托人。而这种重形式轻实质的程序——所以每次指定第11章受托人时，我们都必须举行紧急听证并作出另一项批准命令——这毫无道理。如果有人不喜欢该受托人，他们可以提出动议\n\n将其免职。这只是重形式轻实质，完全是重形式轻实质。美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee's office）的职责是指定受托人。你们已经这样做了。他存在利益冲突，那么就应当将其免职，并向本院披露该行为——该利益冲突。如果此次听证没有继续进行，这些情况都不会被披露，也都不会发生，这对本院而言不可接受，对你们各位而言也应当如此。那么你们何时——身份不明的发言者：法官阁下——法官：——开会，以及谁将在——身份不明的发言者：法官阁下，那个——法官：——明天向本院汇报何时将指定一名 Chapter 11 受托人？我就让你们更方便一些。我们将在明天下午 3:00 举行听证会，并将以线上方式进行。届时你们都将告知我有关指定 Chapter 11 受托人的进展情况。我希望美国受托人办公室向本案所有债权人提供协助，并确保该指定尽快、尽快、尽快完成，因为我们目前的处境实在非常不幸。有人有任何问题吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）：法官阁下，我是威廉·巴尔迪加（William Baldiga）。是的。是的。法官：请讲，巴尔迪加律师。巴尔迪加先生：是巴尔迪加先生。您能听到我吗？是的，谢谢。我最初从您的评论中推断，债务人将能够参与这些谈话，这通常也是如此。美国受托人在适当情况下，于本院命令作出后立即联系了我们。我们也相应就受托人人选表达了意见，据我了解，这是惯例。我们希望继续参与该程序，我只是不希望您的评论被理解为将我们排除在外。法官：好的。我明白。巴尔迪加先生：第二——好的。第二，我询问已发生或已提出了哪些信息。我从克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）处了解到，可能有人主张某项特权，而我对此并不熟悉，但我确实询问发生了什么。法官：巴尔迪加律师，您是要求她现在在记录中向您说明此事吗？巴尔迪加先生：如果她更愿意私下说明，我会尊重这一点。但我正在提出该请求。我——我并非——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 545 提交日期 07/13/22 登记日期 07/13/22 15:20:05 第 30 页，共 32 页\n\n法官：嗯，我不确定本院会尊重这一点。如果有——我想知道为什么此人——不再——具备资格。如果你们必须密封提交，就密封提交，但我认为以这种方式进行，撤回该指定，却不向任何人披露原因，是不可接受的。而且，正如我已经说过并将再次说明的那样，怀特利先生（Mr. Whitely）接受了该指定，并在本案中提交了经伪证处罚约束的文件，声明其为无利害关系人士。因此，我——你知道，我不同意为了让他——他已经提交了一份保证金——而需要作出这种重形式轻实质的命令。那么，你是在说保证公司将称该保证金在命令作出之前不生效吗？嗯，这很有意思，因为在 Chapter 7 和 Chapter 13 案件中并非如此。克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，据我所知，怀特利先生尚未提交保证金。法官：好的。好。那么我刚才说我们明天何时举行听证会？书记员：3:00。法官：下午 3:00。好的。因此，你们都可以联系法庭助理书记员，以获取听证会信息；我想听取进展情况，而且\n\nFiore 速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n我想知道还需要多长时间，因为自各方都坚持必须立即作出的那项命令以来，已经过去 20 天了，而该命令确已作出，但我们仍然没有受托人。还有其他人有任何问题吗？（无可听见的回应）法官：好的。今日听证会至此结束。谢谢。梅休女士（Ms. Mayhew）：谢谢。书记员：现在休庭。（程序于下午 4:34 结束。）本人，克里斯汀·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），经法院批准的转录员及经认证的电子记录员和转录员，证明上述内容系从上述事项程序的官方电子录音中制作的正确笔录。July 13, 2022 Christine Fiore，CERT 转录员","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":499,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6921,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:23:22"}