{"id":"court_sdny_160_2","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":160,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-10-19","title":"EXHIBIT B UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\*","summary_zh":"破产法庭诉讼记录（附件 B）—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案相关破产诉讼，康州桥港破产法院 22-50073 号案（2023年8月29日庭审记录）。Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins 与 Bravo Luck、Mileson Guo (Qiang Guo) 就 Sherry-Netherland 房产争议达成和解协议，各方放弃已提出的诉讼主张；法院就第六份综合动议的异议截止期限相关事宜进行了裁示。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy Court Transcript (Exhibit B) — Transcript of proceedings in related bankruptcy case, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division (case no. 22-50073, proceedings of Aug. 29, 2023). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins reached a settlement with Bravo Luck and Mileson Guo (a/k/a Qiang Guo) concerning the Sherry-Netherland property; the parties abandoned their respective claims and counterclaims. The Court addressed objection deadline procedures.","body_en":"# **EXHIBIT B**\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027 \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* BRAVO LUCK, LIMITED, et al., \\* \\* Defendant. \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiff, \\* August 29, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of U.S. Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For Bravo Luck: FRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 For Hing Chi Ngok and CHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ. Greenwich Land, LLC: Meister Seelig & Fein LLP 125 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 For Taurus Fund, LLC: MICHAEL T. CONWAY, ESQ. Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP 747 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017\n\n2\n\n| #2049 | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY W/BRAVO<br>LUCK LTD AND MILESON GUO a/k/a QIANG GUO AND/OR<br>GUO QIANG, P.O. BOX 957 OFFSHORE INC CENTRE, ROAD<br>TOWN, TORTOLA, BVI (BRAVO LUCK LTD); 5 PRINCESS<br>GATE, G3, LONDON, UK (Qiang Guo) |\n|-------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| # 111 | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY WITH BRAVO LUCK<br>AND MILESON GUO a/k/a QIANG GUO AND/OR<br>GUO QIANG, P.O. BOX 957 OFFSHORE INC CENTRE, ROAD<br>TOWN, TORTOLA, BVI (BRAVO LUCK LTD); 5 PRINCESS<br>GATE, G3, LONDON, UK (Qiang Guo)  |\n| #2083 | MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO BANKR.<br>RULE 9019 FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WITH USA                                                                                                                                       |\n| # 24  | MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO BANKR.<br>RULE 9019 FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WITH USA                                                                                                                                       |\n| #2079 | MOTION FOR 2004 EXAM OF ADDITIONAL ENTITIES AND<br>INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED WITH DEBTOR AND RELEVANT<br>BANKS (SIXTH OMNIBUS)                                                                                                             |\n| #2127 | ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE                                                                                                                                                                                                      |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 4 (Proceedings commenced at 2:01 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC, 22-5027, Despins, et al, versus Bravo Luck Limited, et al, and 23-5017, Despins, et al, versus Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LAWALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Fran Lawall, Bravo Luck. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein. We represent Hing Chi Ngok\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 5 and Greenwich Land, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. CONWAY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Conway here for Taurus Fund, LLC THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. We have, as I mentioned, several matters on the calendar this afternoon. Trustee Despins, I've look at the matters insofar as whether objections have been filed and things of that nature. And with regard to the Bravo Luck motion to compromise, I see that no objections have been filed to that. Am I correct on that? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So does it make sense to proceed with the Bravo Luck matter first? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Please proceed. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. This is actually a pretty straightforward motion to settle the controversy between the various debtor's estates and Bravo Luck and the debtor's son with respect to the Sherry-Netherland. And basically you'll recall that we had brought, you know, three separate adversary proceedings against Bravo\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 6 Luck. And also had objected to the claims of the son. And there had been no answer to that or no response to that. And there was a lot of litigation and motions to dismiss, amendments, et cetera, et cetera. So to make a long story short, the parties have reached an agreement to settle this. And I believe it's pretty straightforward in the sense that what I would call the Bravo Luck parties, Bravo Luck and the son, are abandoning any arguments that they have an interest in the Sherry-Netherland apartment, directly or indirectly. They're waiving claims, et cetera, et cetera. We are withdrawing the litigation that was commenced against them. I mean everything I'm saying is subject to the settlement agreement, which is much more detailed, but that's, in a nutshell that's what's happening. So it's pretty straightforward. I would just point out that the releases are not symmetric, so that's important in the sense that they are releasing claims. We're not releasing all our claims in the world against them. So that we are releasing the claims asserted in the complaint. And again, what I'm saying is subject to the terms of settlement agreement, which is in much more detail, but conceptually I wanted to make sure the Court understood this is not a global release of claims.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 7 THE COURT: I think I -- that was my thought, that it is not a global release of claims. MR. DESPINS: So unless the Court has questions, and Mr. Lawall wants to be heard, but I have nothing else at this time. THE COURT: I do want to hear from you, Counsel, Mr. Lawall, when you have a moment. I just -- there are many pending matters related to a pending objection to claim and the adversary proceedings that we haven't acted on because you've been talking, right? MR. DESPINS: Right. THE COURT: And you've made representations to the Court, even in pleadings or in court, that the parties have been working together toward resolution of these issues. So obviously you've worked hard. And you've come to a resolution, which is appreciated. That will mean, I think, assuming this is approved, that you may see, because the clerk's office has to do certain things, you know, motions terminated, or you're going to withdraw adversary proceedings, right? You're going to dismiss? Or what are you do -- what is the actual -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. Frankly, I'm not sure of the plumbing, but there is plumbing that remains to be done in\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 8 terms of probably withdrawing the adversary proceeding, or perhaps the settlement (indiscernible). I'll look at that. But -- THE COURT: Well, I've got it here. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I don't recall exactly. But what I'm saying is if you both see some entries made because it appears that certain matters that have been pending are resolved pursuant to an approval of the settlement, then that will be ministerial. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: I just want you to understand that. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes. The order provides that the plaintiff's authorized to execute, deliver, implement all sorts of documents or instruments necessary to implement this. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: I think that Mr. Lawall -- that there were signatures provided. There were signatures to the settlement agreement provided by Bravo Luck. There was no signature provided by the son because that's held in trust by Mr. Lawall. They didn't want to provide the signature -- THE COURT: But you have it?\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 11                                  |\n| 1  | afternoon. Fran Lawall, Troutman Pepper, on behalf of Bravo       |\n| 2  | Luck.                                                             |\n| 3  | To answer, I guess, some of your procedural                       |\n| 4  | questions, I think the way the settlement agreement is            |\n| 5  | structured is that the three adversaries will be dismissed        |\n| 6  | with prejudice.                                                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT: Right.                                                 |\n| 8  | MR. LAWALL: The proofs of claim that were filed                   |\n| 9  | are deemed withdrawn.                                             |\n| 10 | By having the complaints withdrawn with prejudice,                |\n| 11 | that will obviously take off your calendar the motions to         |\n| 12 | dismiss. This is in the form of a typical settlement. None        |\n| 13 | of the defendants are admitting any of the -- any of the          |\n| 14 | assertions within the complaints. And in fact, there are          |\n| 15 | specific denials. But again, this is a settlement.                |\n| 16 | THE COURT: Yes.                                                   |\n| 17 | MR. LAWALL: There are some things that will                       |\n| 18 | happen in the Virgin Islands with litigation that was             |\n| 19 | ancillary to this, which will go away as well.                    |\n| 20 | But again, I agree with Mr. Despins. The                          |\n| 21 | settlement agreement is sufficiently complex that we would        |\n| 22 | rely upon the four corners of that settlement agreement.          |\n| 23 | But generally I think your understanding of the essence of        |\n| 24 | it is largely correct.                                            |\n| 25 | THE COURT: And I -- and again, I only raise the                   |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 12 issue about what you may see coming across dockets to let you know that that would be ministerial from the clerk's office point of view. So for example, as you said, the adversaries will be withdrawn -- dismissed, I'm sorry, dismissed. So I don't know, are you going to file a separate Rule 7041 dismissal or is this document the stipulation of dismissal? MR. LAWALL: I think I can work that out with Mr. Despins' team. THE COURT: Fine. MR. LAWALL: And we'll -- I think we can take that off Your Honor. And we'll -- if the clerk's office doesn't automatically take care of that, we can sign whatever is necessary to effectuate the settlement agreement. THE COURT: Okay. That's helpful. MR. LAWALL: Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LAWALL: Okay. THE COURT: It may be unfortunately. But you know, it can be as simple as a stipulation, a two-line stipulation, that under Rule 7041(a)(1), (a)(2), or whatever it is the parties stipulate to dismissal of the adversary proceeding with prejudice and then it's self-effectuating and the clerk's office doesn't have to do anything other than close that adversary proceeding in the ordinary course\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 13 of business. MR. LAWALL: Understood, Your Honor. Whatever the clerk's office needs, we'll get it. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. LAWALL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And then with regard to the motions to dismiss, I don't even -- I think we've just continued the hearings on those, right? MR. LAWALL: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LAWALL: They've all been pushed. I forget whether there were any ancillary motion practice. But again, my expectation is because they were all under the consolidated adversary everything effectively falls off the docket. THE COURT: I agree with you. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. That's how I view it. If there's any issues from the clerk's office perspective, someone will reach out and let you both know. How's that? MR. LAWALL: Not a problem. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So again, I do appreciate the efforts. We've been talking about this for some time. And I do find that under the bankruptcy rule and the standard that's been applied by courts in connection with a settlement or compromise under Rule 9019, that the\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 15                                  |\n| 1  | Court is done today. May I be excused?                            |\n| 2  | THE COURT: Absolutely. Thank you very much.                       |\n| 3  | MR. LAWALL: Thank you, Your Honor.                                |\n| 4  | THE COURT: All right. So the first two matters                    |\n| 5  | on the calendar, ECF 2049 in the main case, and ECF 111 in        |\n| 6  | the adversary, 22-5027, are granted for the reasons stated        |\n| 7  | on the record. And the proposed orders will enter.                |\n| 8  | Now, the other settlement agreement has an                        |\n| 9  | objection, Trustee Despins. And then there's also the             |\n| 10 | motion for 2004 examination, I think there's an objection.        |\n| 11 | I don't know if that's been resolved.                             |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor.                          |\n| 13 | THE COURT: That has an objection as well?                         |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS: Yes.                                                 |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Okay. And then the order scheduling                    |\n| 16 | the status conference in connection with the motion to            |\n| 17 | remediate areas of the Sherry-Netherland, do you want to          |\n| 18 | talk about that now or do you want to --                          |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS: Sure, we can.                                        |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Okay. That's ECF 2127 in the main                      |\n| 21 | case. The only reason that was set for a status conference        |\n| 22 | was because someone had brought to my attention that there        |\n| 23 | was -- there were two things, well, actually I guess three        |\n| 24 | things.                                                           |\n| 25 | The motion was filed under Section 363, so I                      |\n\n there's no objection, takes place soonish thereafter. THE COURT: Well, we can -- we can do one of two things. We can issue a notice of hearing right now setting an objection -- I don't mean right now, but today or\n\ntomorrow -- setting an objection deadline of September 13\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 17 and then a hearing a few days after that. Or we can wait until the objection deadline and set a hearing. But there's going to be a hearing regardless, so to me it seems to make sense to issue a notice of hearing with the objection deadline of September 13. MR. DESPINS: That's right, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Better to do that. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So we'll do that. And let me just look at the calendar as far as when the actual hearing would be held. I mean, we have matters on the calendar in the afternoon of September 19th, but -- and I don't know how long they would last, but it could last at least an hour or more in the afternoon. We could either do it later that afternoon or we could do it on Wednesday the 20th, whatever you prefer. MR. DESPINS: If we could do it on the 19th, that would be preferable, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So I would schedule that. I probably wouldn't schedule it before 3:30 because the matter on at 2:00 is either going to be contested or it's going to last for two minutes. I don't know. So how -- or you can -- we can schedule it for 3:00. Or we can schedule it for 2:00 and you just have to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 18 wait. MR. DESPINS: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what time? Would you like 2:00 then? MR. DESPINS: Two o'clock is fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So we'll schedule it at 2:00, but there is another matter that would go forward first if it -- if it is not resolved. Okay? MR. DESPINS: That other matter is not in this case. THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: No, it's not in this case. That's what I'm saying. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: It's another case. So I can either schedule yours at 2:00 as well -- MR. DESPINS: That's fine. THE COURT: -- and then you'll just have to wait. Okay. All right. So let's do that. We're going to schedule what -- the underlying motion is ECF 2113. We're going to issue a notice of hearing on that motion for September 19th at 2 p.m. with an objection deadline of September 13. That's all we need to do with that. Then that -- then our status conference, we've\n\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 19                                  |                                                                   |\n| 1                                                                 | held the status conference with regard to that matter.            |\n| 2                                                                 | The only other thing the U.S. Trustee's Office may                |\n| 3                                                                 | want, I have no idea, Attorney Claiborn, but that motion          |\n| 4                                                                 | that's seeking to remediate different issues at the Sherry-       |\n| 5                                                                 | Netherland apartment also seeks the employment. So I don't        |\n| 6                                                                 | know if you want the order to refer to Section 327 or             |\n| 7                                                                 | something too. I have no idea. But maybe you can all work         |\n| 8                                                                 | that out before we have a hearing.                                |\n| 9                                                                 | And maybe if you all come in and there's no                       |\n| 10                                                                | problem, you'll go first at 2 p.m. Okay?                          |\n| 11                                                                | MR. DESPINS: That's a good incentive.                             |\n| 12                                                                | THE COURT: All right. So with regard to the                       |\n| 13                                                                | status conference that was held today that -- the status          |\n| 14                                                                | conference has been held. There's no need for any -- no           |\n| 15                                                                | further status conferences will be scheduled and a notice of      |\n| 16                                                                | hearing will issue on ECF No. 2113. Okay?                         |\n| 17                                                                | So then how would you like to proceed next?                       |\n| 18                                                                | MR. DESPINS: We'll go to Mahwah at this point.                    |\n| 19                                                                | THE COURT: Go right ahead.                                        |\n| 20                                                                | MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor.                               |\n| 21                                                                | So Your Honor, this is a motion to approve a                      |\n| 22                                                                | settlement with the Department of Justice. That's under           |\n| 23                                                                | document 24 in the adversary proceeding. And I have already       |\n| 24                                                                | testified as to this, but I think it's important that we set      |\n| 25                                                                | the stage again on this because last time that was not the        |\n\n|                                                                   | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 20                                  |\n| 1                                                                 | main focus. I wanted the Court to know about it, but              |\n| 2                                                                 | clearly that was not the purpose of that hearing.                 |\n| 3                                                                 | So the first question is why enter into a                         |\n| 4                                                                 | settlement with the DOJ? Second question is what does the         |\n| 5                                                                 | settlement do or not do? And so let me try to address that.       |\n| 6                                                                 | The first question is why?                                        |\n| 7                                                                 | As we state in the motion, the DOJ has expressly                  |\n| 8                                                                 | targeted the Mahwah mansion as a -- that's not a verb --          |\n| 9                                                                 | forfeitable asset and they've actually identified that            |\n| 10                                                                | asset. We did not know about it. So we have to be candid          |\n| 11                                                                | with the Court. We did not know about that asset until the        |\n| 12                                                                | indictment was released.                                          |\n| 13                                                                | And, however, the Department of Justice, their                    |\n| 14                                                                | tools are sort of limited in the pre-conviction phase in the      |\n| 15                                                                | sense that they cannot obtain title to this property now or       |\n| 16                                                                | do much with it before there's a conviction, which is a           |\n| 17                                                                | final conviction. Given that the trial is not going to last       |\n| 18                                                                | -- not going to start until April I think, at least until         |\n| 19                                                                | April of next year, obviously, the DOJ and we were aware of       |\n| 20                                                                | what was going there and we're really concerned about this        |\n| 21                                                                | very valuable asset being left in limbo for lack of a better      |\n| 22                                                                | term.                                                             |\n| 23                                                                | So, however, because they identified this asset as                |\n| 24                                                                | a potentially forfeitable asset, we did not want to begin         |\n| 25                                                                | any adversary proceeding which could be perceived as hostile      |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 21 towards the DOJ because obviously it's important we believe to work with them as cooperatively as possible. Why? Because they have all sorts of tools that we don't have. We don't want them to be fighting us and us being at cross purposes with them with respect to this asset, and this is where we came up with this idea of -- first of all, we did our homework. We believe that this asset through the relief we're seeking in the adversary proceeding is an estate asset. We're convinced of that. The Court will have to determine if that's the case or not. That's for another day. But we approached the DOJ and said we want to go forward with this adversary proceeding to try to establish that this is an asset of the estate. And eventually, if the Court rules in our favor, to sell this asset to liquidate it for the benefit of holders of allowed claims. And so we had this discussion about, okay, how is that going to play out, because their view is that they have superior claims. And I'm not going to go into all the details on this, but we pointed out and we cited in the motion some case law, because there's a lot of cases on this where Chapter 11 trustees or Chapter 7 trustees are battling against the DOJ over issues like that as to who has first dibs on an asset of the -- and I'm saying in those cases the alleged wrongdoer -- and, you know, obviously we want to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 22\n\navoid that.\n\n And we also wanted to avoid the following, which is we filed this adversary proceeding. In my dreams, we prevail. We sell the assets and the DOJ comes in and says thank you very much, we will take that money, and thank you for your work, and that's the end of it. We could not have that.\n\n This estate cannot be in a position where it's financing any other activity. It has to net neutral. And I believe move than net neutral, and I'll get to that piece in a second. So that we negotiated the fact that if we prevail, that's very important, only if we prevail.\n\n This settlement agreement does not dictate the sale of the property because it provides that certain things will happen if we prevail.\n\n So if we prevail and we sell the asset, we can use the net proceeds to pay all the expenses that the estate will have incurred. At that time, we thought we would incur not only legal fees, but security fees, a broker to sell the property, a mortgage if -- there's no mortgage on the property, but if there are people that have mechanics liens that need to be paid, that of course comes off the top.\n\n So that creates a concept of net proceeds. And the net proceeds under that stipulation, we're kicking down -- that down the road, which is to be determined. And I'll\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 23 come back to why there's not more progress on that. So the net proceeds are very important. And what I said is, okay, that's great. We're going to get all our expenses back. That's good. But this case is not being run for the professionals for the case. There has to be a benefit to the estate. That's where we came in with the deemed expense of a million dollars. So that assuming for a second that we prevail, the mansion is sold, we get all the expenses paid, and the DOJ and us cannot agree on the distribution of the net proceeds, we're getting a million dollars to the estate guaranteed. And it says in there to be paid to the holders of allowed claims, so an allowed claim in your court, so it has to be an allowed claim, allowed claims of victims. And, you know, people pointed out, well, victims is not defined. That's not an accident. Meaning, I want to have a shot at convincing the DOJ that the victims -- first of all, you have to have an allowed claim. You cannot receive a penny of this unless you have an allowed claim as determined by Your Honor. But if you have an allowed claim, the issue of who's a victim or not, that's -- I would like that to be subject to further discussion. But the bottom line is this estate will end up with a million positive, if we're right that this property is part of the estate. And we feel pretty strongly that is\n\n that too, meaning the DOJ. They're not naive. They know that.\n\n The question is, okay, who's a victim? In their book, a victim might be only the victim of certain alleged schemes. But, you know, I can see that there are other people in this case that Mr. Goldman represents that also are victims.\n\n For example, Bru Ma(ph), you don't know her, but I'm using her as an example, because if you ever read her\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 26 but I would -- and I don't want to, you know, oversell, but I think that this is a blueprint for future discussions. Of course there are no agreements as to that. They have not given us any indication they would consider that. The point though is that I think it's very good for the estate to have that in place, to have this as the first step, to make sure that we are no worse off, and plus we're better off by a million dollars. Again, if we prevail. If we don't prevail, it's like any case that we bring. If we don't prevail, we don't prevail. And so that's the risk we take. Now, this settlement agreement, when it says that\n\n the extra million dollars, the deemed expense, will be distributed to the holders of allowed claims that are victims, you're not, I want to be clear about this, you're not approving that distribution today, meaning that the bankruptcy code needs to be complied with.\n\n The objection by Taurus, which was kind of confusing, said, oh, what about secured creditors? If there are secured creditors, one, if there are secured creditors on the property, they will be paid off the top of that property, meaning out of the proceeds.\n\n Second, if there are secured creditors in the case, and we know of none, I'm pretty sure of that, I mean, at least none have been alleged to date, then, you know, you\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 28 that it's possible that the DOJ will not gain -- get a conviction against Mr. Kwok. That's not our -- it's not in my domain. I have no views on that. I know nothing of it. I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I'm not going to opine on that, but that happens every day. And, therefore, this settlement, it says, you know, if they don't obtain a final conviction and forfeiture, all this settlement goes away, meaning it's all our money again if we prevail. So that sets that into motion today and it allows us to do what we did through the preliminary injunction, which Your Honor granted, which is to protect the property in the meantime, which is critical. So I believe that for all these reasons this is clearly to the benefit of the estate. It's a blueprint for future collaboration with the DOJ. This has been done before in other cases. And by the way, the other cases where this has been done, there's a clear order that says the bankruptcy -- when the DOJ's agreed to this, and they have not yet, to be clear, agreed to any of this -- but there's a clear procedure that says the bankruptcy court shall determine holders of allowed claims. Sometimes there's an allocation, X dollars can only go to the following types of creditors, that's a settlement with the DOJ. We're not anywhere near that here, but I want to\n\n28\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 29 make sure Your Honor knows that this is not the first time that these types of agreements have been done, except that I think this is the first time that it's been done prior to a conviction and where they actually have obtained forfeiture. In the other cases, generally, they won, they got a conviction, they got a forfeiture order, and then there's either a battle with the trustee or a negotiation with the trustee and the estate to try to resolve things on a consensual basis. So unless Your Honor has questions, that would be really my presentation on this. I'm happy to answer any questions. Obviously, I want to cover any issues raised by Taurus here. THE COURT: The only question I have at the moment is, if, if this settlement is approved, does it -- does it get filed in the criminal action? I mean, how does this work as far as people? Does the judge in the criminal action know? I mean, I don't know if the judge in the criminal action cares. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I'm just asking a question. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. That's a good question. I'm not sure I know the answer other than to say that my understanding is the DOJ was not going to seek approval of this in the criminal court, so I'm not sure if they would\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 31\n\nit?\n\n You know, we obviously take the position that it's premature to start divvying up our property, our client's property, before there's been any finding, but that's not really relevant here.\n\n But the fundamental concept is that there are people who put their money into this property and none of them had any idea and still don't really think they have a claim in the bankruptcy estate.\n\n If Your Honor were to find at the end of this case that the bankruptcy estate gets the house, then they'd have a claim to file. And there's no protocol which says, okay, well, if that's the case, then people who invested their money into this house can file a late-filed claim, what have you.\n\n There's no identification of whether somebody with a personal injury claim -- I think I saw something on the claims registration, I didn't read all the claims -- but I saw something described as a personal injury claim. Is that person going to have a claim against this res? We don't know. There's no protocol here in this settlement motion. And there needs to be in order to determine whether it's fair and reasonable to the creditors of this estate, whether it's fair and reasonable to the Taurus Fund, for one. But the Taurus Fund obviously is made up of the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 32 people who funded the Taurus Fund. Those people are going to come in here in this case and they're going to tell you don't take away my house. You know, this is my money. You know. I know that the Trustee and the Government want to say, you know, you were defrauded by Mr. Kwok, but I don't believe I was defrauded. I don't think you should take away my property. And if you do take the property away, then how are they going to be able to get their money back, because they're then going to need a process.\n\n So I guess the general conclusion, and again, we rest on the papers that were filed, which point out that there's a distinct prejudice against the loss of rights in the forfeiture proceeding that Taurus Fund is suffering. Because we no longer will have the right, if, as Mr. Despins points out, there's no finding there against Mr. Kwok, and the forfeiture doesn't go forward, they won't get their house back, which they would be able to get if this process played the normal course.\n\n THE COURT: I almost followed you until the end there. I'm sorry. So you're saying your client's prejudiced because if the Government doesn't succeed in its charges it won't get their house back because Mr. Despins will have -- the Trustee of the estate will have an interest in the property? But don't I have to make that determination, which I haven't made yet?\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>33                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. CONWAY: Yes. And it's -- it is -- this is                |\n| 2  | all -- we're all -- everybody's putting the cart before the  |\n| 3  | horse here in that the hypothetical is this, Your Honor.     |\n| 4  | This case gets finished first. Mr. Despins sells             |\n| 5  | the house. There's a fund of money that's sitting there.     |\n| 6  | Okay. That sounds great to everybody but the people who      |\n| 7  | bought the house.                                            |\n| 8  | Now there's a finding in the criminal proceeding             |\n| 9  | that, you know what? There was no fraud here. That house     |\n| 10 | never should have been listed in the indictment. Those       |\n| 11 | people who bought the house should get the house back.       |\n| 12 | There's no more house. Now there's a fund of money.          |\n| 13 | THE COURT: But you'd have the ability -- I                   |\n| 14 | understand what you're saying, but you have the ability to   |\n| 15 | object to any -- what you're saying, and I -- you're saying  |\n| 16 | you're putting the cart before the horse, but I don't know   |\n| 17 | if that's accurate yet. Because unless and until Mr.         |\n| 18 | Despins is successful in his claims, the house isn't an      |\n| 19 | asset of the estate.                                         |\n| 20 | What he appears to be doing, to me, and you can              |\n| 21 | disagree and I'm happy to hear you on it, is he's attempting |\n| 22 | to have a mechanism in place to resolve what would be, what  |\n| 23 | could be, could be, competing interests between the          |\n| 24 | Government and this bankruptcy estate.                       |\n| 25 | My understanding of the reading of the papers is             |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 34 that this is really a settlement that -- whose provisions won't go into effect unless and until certain things happen. And if Mr. Despins loses, right, and he doesn't -- and he doesn't prevail, then the estate has no interest. If the Government loses and they can't seek the property in forfeiture, then the Government loses, and then your clients haven't lost anything. So while I understand your argument, I'm having a little trouble with it insofar as I think your rights are still being protected. You still will have a right. First of all, you're going to have a right to -- the preliminary injunction is issued, right? You're going to have a right to file a pleading. You're going to have a right to do discovery, do whatever you want to do in the adversary proceeding, and then we still have to have a trial, at which point you're going to represent the defendants. And you're going to, you know, argue that Trustee Despins is wrong. And you're to be able to present all your evidence and do all that. And then the Court's going to have to rule. You also have a right -- you'd also have a right at some point, it seems to me -- right now, the Trustee's claims are alter ego and beneficial equitable ownership, right? You're saying today that there's people that put\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 35 money into the house that have a right to recover essentially that money. You might be right. I don't know. But you'd have to put that information forward, right? We don't have any of that information at this point. And the only information that we have is the information that was found in the preliminary injunction, right, those findings that were in the preliminary injunction. So I'm not sure how this is negatively impacting your clients at this moment. MR. CONWAY: If I may, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. CONWAY: And I -- the point where you said that you were confused, when we draft briefs, you know, we put our best arguments first and our lesser important arguments last, that was our last argument because we felt there was a hypothetical problem. The more important one was the one I started with, was the fact that the victims have, you know, have not been identified. What the Trustee is attempting to do here is identify a res and saying that allowed claims will be allowed to recover from that res. What we're suggesting here is that in order to satisfy the fair and reasonable requirement, they're going to have to say what would you have to do to bring an allowed\n\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 36                                  |                                                              |  |\n| 1                                                                 | claim in this situation?                                     |  |\n| 2                                                                 | And if you did that, I think you'd also, in                  |  |\n| 3                                                                 | whatever order you would issue, have to include a procedure  |  |\n| 4                                                                 | which allows for the people who determine they have a claim  |  |\n| 5                                                                 | at the end of our case, would have a right, for instance, to |  |\n| 6                                                                 | file a proof of claim of that --                             |  |\n| 7                                                                 | THE COURT: Well, that's easy. That part is easy.             |  |\n| 8                                                                 | MR. CONWAY: It certainly is, if it was in the                |  |\n| 9                                                                 | order.                                                       |  |\n| 10                                                                | THE COURT: But the part of setting a deadline for            |  |\n| 11                                                                | filing claims with regard to an asset that was not deemed to |  |\n| 12                                                                | be an asset of the estate, that's easy. I mean, that part,   |  |\n| 13                                                                | when you talked about that initially, I said, okay, well,    |  |\n| 14                                                                | that's a -- that's a valid point, but that's easy. I mean,   |  |\n| 15                                                                | that can be done.                                            |  |\n| 16                                                                | MR. CONWAY: That's the easiest part of what I'm              |  |\n| 17                                                                | suggesting.                                                  |  |\n| 18                                                                | The second part is not hard. I think the Trustee             |  |\n| 19has indicated that they haven't reached an agreement because    |                                                              |  |\n| 20                                                                | it's difficult. It's not difficult to identify who would     |  |\n| 21                                                                | have an allowed claim. I think it's a simple matter of       |  |\n| 22                                                                | saying anybody who is claimed to have given money to the     |  |\n| 23                                                                | debtor that was used for the purpose of buying this house    |  |\n| 24                                                                | would have an allowed claim. But the other claimants in the  |  |\n| 25                                                                | bankruptcy who may have a personal injury claim against the  |  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 37\n\ndebtor do not.\n\n THE COURT: I hear what you're saying. But again, why would I need to do that now? Why would I need to do that before the, before and if, because there may not be a determination that this property is property of the estate. So why would I need to go through that process now?\n\n MR. CONWAY: Because I don't think that the code allows for this motion to be granted until it's shown that it's fair and reasonable, and --\n\n THE COURT: Well, it's -- I'm not sure -- the standard is does it fall below the range of reasonableness, that's the compromise standard that the courts all talk about. And what I -- why I'm not hearing from you why your client is being harmed at the moment is because nothing's really happening right now.\n\n What's happening is this settlement agreement is conditioned upon events happening in the future which may or may not happen. So if Mr. -- if Trustee Despins loses, then there's no settlement agreement. Nothing's going to happen. There isn't going to be a million dollars in the estate. There aren't going to be repayment of fees. There isn't going to be a res from which certain creditors could assert a claim that this court would have to determine is an allowed claim. I wouldn't have to go through all that, right, if he loses?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 38 So I'm still -- I'm struggling a little bit with how is this harmful to you at the moment? When I say you, I'm talking about your clients obviously. MR. CONWAY: Understood. I've done the same thing today myself. Your Honor, I guess maybe the easiest way to do this would be for me to suggest my objection is a limited objection then, that's nothing in any order that's issued from this motion that would prejudice the rights of the various parties who may have an allowed claim relating to that property, and nothing that would allow -- nothing in the order that would allow people that don't have a claim relating to that property to claim against any res that's created, and nothing that would prevent a late claim from being filed. Those protections, if they -- if they were in place -- THE COURT: Well, it wouldn't be a late claim, right, because we'd set up a process for the claims to be filed, number one. Number two, the claims will have to be filed. And so like any proof of claim in a bankruptcy case, they'll have to be supported by evidence saying that it would establish it to be a claim, to which the Trustee or any other party could file an objection, and then there still\n\nmet yet.\n\n So what my understanding, and if you look at the case law where there has been this tension between a bankruptcy estate and a forfeiture action, it usually does occur after the fact, and then it becomes -- it has a lot --\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 41 Just because someone files a, and I think you know this, just because they file a proof of claim doesn't mean that that claim is an allowed claim. It still has to go through the process. And if someone objects to it, then the Court has to make a determination as to whether that claim is a claim that's allowed under Section 502 of the code or disallowed under Section 502 of the code. So that comes down to the distribution issues, not -- because you have to have an allowed claim to receive a distribution. So I understand what you're saying, but I'm not convinced right now that your client is being harmed at this point in time. So I don't know if there's anything else that you want to say. But if you want to take a moment to talk to Trustee Despins about it? I mean, you know, the preliminary injunction had some requirements associated with it. And I saw the document I think that you filed last night -- MR. CONWAY: Yes. THE COURT: -- about there's no insurance on the property. Well, in a bankruptcy case, you know, the United States Trustee's Office would immediately move to dismiss a case where there's no insurance over estate assets. Now, there hasn't been a determination that this is an estate asset yet, but, but, the preliminary injunction\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>42                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | in connection with your -- the arguments that you made that, |\n| 2  | you know, the Taurus Fund shouldn't be -- should be able to  |\n| 3  | use the property in the manner in which the Taurus Fund      |\n| 4  | believes it is allowed to, it doesn't seem to me in the      |\n| 5  | context of the preliminary injunction that the Taurus Fund   |\n| 6  | can have a property worth -- I don't know what it's worth,   |\n| 7  | right? People have thrown around numbers. I didn't have to   |\n| 8  | make a finding of a value, but somebody did and said it's,   |\n| 9  | you know, I don't know --                                    |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS: Twenty-nine.                                    |\n| 11 | THE COURT: -- how many millions?                             |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS: Twenty-nine.                                    |\n| 13 | MR. CONWAY: They paid high 20s, but we're trying             |\n| 14 | -- the insurance policy that we've asked for is 40, covers   |\n| 15 | 40.                                                          |\n| 16 | THE COURT: Okay. So, you know, I think you need              |\n| 17 | to have insurance.                                           |\n| 18 | MR. CONWAY: Oh, yeah. And, Your Honor, you'll be             |\n| 19 | --                                                           |\n| 20 | THE COURT: And I think that is, you know, with               |\n| 21 | regard to the property and its contents. I mean, that --     |\n| 22 | there are issues there.                                      |\n| 23 | MR. CONWAY: And, Your Honor, this obviously                  |\n| 24 | doesn't directly affect the motion, but just for your own    |\n| 25 | benefit, the holdup was that your injunction order is being  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 43 incorporated into this so that anybody who uses the property has to agree that they'll do it pursuant to your injunction order. The insurance carrier wants that, and proof that anybody managing the property has separate liability insurance, which is all apparently being provided to the carrier today, so that they can write the property. Forty- million dollars -- THE COURT: Good. MR. CONWAY: -- I understand for the liability and then \\$10 million for property. So I think we're -- I think everything will happen and be satisfactory to Your Honor and to the Trustee. THE COURT: And when you say satisfactory, I just want to be clear about that, it's not my satisfaction. It's the satisfaction of the bankruptcy code and the rules and the need to protect assets, right? I mean, one of the reasons the Trustee was appointed in this case was because of allegations that have been made by many parties that there were all these assets out there that were never disclosed. And that's why trustees are appointed in a Chapter 11 case to investigate those affairs and see whether or not those assets can be brought into an estate for the benefit of creditors. Trustee Despins filed this adversary proceeding,\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>44                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary        |\n| 2  | injunction, which were granted in part. Not every form of   |\n| 3  | relief that was requested was granted, but a substantial    |\n| 4  | part of the relief requested was granted.                   |\n| 5  | The reason that the insurance was part of that              |\n| 6  | injunction is I don't know how you can protect the status   |\n| 7  | quo if there isn't insurance. You could say, well, there    |\n| 8  | wasn't insurance. That's not protecting the status quo.     |\n| 9  | Well, then somebody could go burn down the house tomorrow,  |\n| 10 | right, and that's not protecting the status quo.            |\n| 11 | So in any event --                                          |\n| 12 | MR. CONWAY: We're on the same page.                         |\n| 13 | THE COURT: -- that sounds like you've made great            |\n| 14 | progress on that.                                           |\n| 15 | MR. CONWAY: We're on the same page.                         |\n| 16 | THE COURT: And hopefully you've been talking with           |\n| 17 | the Trustee about security services and things of that      |\n| 18 | nature as well.                                             |\n| 19 | MR. CONWAY: We did have a conversation about that           |\n| 20 | and, you know, there's been a security service team on site |\n| 21 | since before the hearing. And, you know, security protocol  |\n| 22 | is in place, so I'm not overly concerned about that either. |\n| 23 | We're discussing that now.                                  |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Well, from your filing, it -- not                |\n| 25 | yesterday, but the previous filing, where you did comply by |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 45 filing what was in the contents of the house, the mansion, I mean, there's obviously substantial sophisticated security equipment throughout the whole place. I mean -- MR. CONWAY: Yes. THE COURT: -- I don't even know what it is, but I think I said 59 cameras or something. I mean, there was substantial security equipment at the property, so it didn't seem to be burdensome for -- and I'm not saying you said it was burdensome -- MR. CONWAY: No. THE COURT: -- I'm just saying it doesn't seem to be burdensome for the Taurus Fund to make sure -- MR. CONWAY: We wanted it and still want it. THE COURT: -- that this property is secure. MR. CONWAY: We wanted it before and we still want it now, Your Honor. So, yeah, it's not burdensome. It's what we want. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CONWAY: So, you know, I think we're all on the same page. Again, I don't have anything more to say about the motion that's on right now other than to say that I'm happy to try and talk to the Trustee about the form of an order. But if he's not willing to talk to me, as long as it does not prejudice the rights down the road as\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 46 articulated by me today, I want to make sure that anybody who claims through the Taurus Fund to have an interest here can make it, file a proof of claim, and say that person with a personal injury claim should not take from this res. So as long as those issues are not prejudiced, those rights are not prejudiced, I have nothing more to say, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. So conceptually you're absolutely right, Your Honor, that if we prevail there should be a bar date. And we have not done that yet, but we will have to do that for various pockets that we're finding. For example, HCHK. If we prevail on that, these folks, without prejudging whether they have claims or equity or not, they should have a right to try to file a claim. So they will be -- unfortunately, there's going to be, there's going to be a lot of work, but we'll need to have a new bar date for -- and that's why I'm putting that to the side for now -- but if we prevail on this, people should be able to file a claim if they have a claim and their claim be processed by the Court. But if we prevail on this, people are not going to have a claim against the res. The finding by the Court\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 48\n\nbeing the owner is just, we'll prove that.\n\n But the point is there should be no one on that property right now other than security guards when there's no insurance, zero. These Kwok people who are going there to have, to do whatever, they should not be in there when there's no insurance.\n\n Because remember the Lady May, Your Honor, we forget sometimes the parts of the case, but remember that they tried to get insurance and nobody would -- yeah, they had very good conversations with insurance companies, but at the end insurance companies said, Kwok, no insurance. This happened after March 15th.\n\n So god bless Mr. Conway if he's able to get insurance with full disclosure of what's going on, but I'm not comforted by the fact he's having good conversation, that's great, but until there's -- until there's insurance, no one should be in that house. No one. And I'm sorry to be strident about this, Your Honor, but this was part of the relief we sought. You said you did not deny it. You would -- but this is a critical issue.\n\n If he gets insurance tomorrow, god bless him, then they can go back. But in the meantime, there should be no one on that property when there's no insurance in place. And also the fact there's no insurance tells you everything you need to know about the case. It's just this is\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 49\n\ninsanity.\n\n And so, Your Honor, this is part of our preliminary injunction. I know that's not before you, but you did reserve the right under your preliminary injunction order to order the relief that you did not grant. This relief should be granted today.\n\n If he gets insurance tomorrow, fine, they can all -- not all by the way.\n\n We're having a dispute over the way your order should be read. You know, Mr. Conway is of the view that all these friends can come in 20 at a time only and then they can come out and another 20 can come in an hour later, and then another 20 an hour later as long as there's no more than 20 at a particular time. This is exactly what we were concerned about, the college dorm syndrome.\n\n If they can pick the 20 people that they want to have access, god bless those people. Again, that's if they have insurance. But it's the 20 and that we're going to stick to that. We cannot have a rotation where people come in, 20 come in one day, leave, another 20 come in the next day. The owner has no interest in that. This is all to protect the Kwok regime and that should not be happening, Your Honor.\n\n I want to make sure this point is clear. I thought it was clear in the order that there was a 20\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 <span style=\"float:right\">50</span> |\n| 1  | person, not on a rotating 20, because then it becomes like        |\n| 2  | uncontrollable. Who are all these people?                         |\n| 3  | But certainly today, when there's no insurance in                 |\n| 4  | place, there should be no one on the premises. I would            |\n| 5  | really urge Your Honor to order that relief immediately.          |\n| 6  | Thank you.                                                        |\n| 7  | THE COURT: Thank you.                                             |\n| 8  | Any response, Attorney Conway?                                    |\n| 9  | MR. CONWAY: Yeah. A couple of points there.                       |\n| 10 | Both offensive.                                                   |\n| 11 | The property was purchased and then went through a                |\n| 12 | major rehabilitation. It hasn't been finished yet. It             |\n| 13 | stopped because of all this. Every contractor that's gone,        |\n| 14 | set foot there, has had to provide insurance. There's been        |\n| 15 | insurance for every person that's done work at that               |\n| 16 | property. I don't know if the security company has its own        |\n| 17 | certificate of insurance. I haven't seen that, but I would        |\n| 18 | imagine they probably do.                                         |\n| 19 | You know, it's not a matter of, oh, well, there's                 |\n| 20 | no consideration of insurance. The property is not ready          |\n| 21 | yet for its intended purposes. It's intended purpose, and         |\n| 22 | this goes to the second point, was to be used by the              |\n| 23 | putative owners of Taurus Fund.                                   |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Then why are people coming and going?                  |\n| 25 | MR. CONWAY: They're not coming and going. That's                  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 52 You didn't -- I mean, I understand you appeared the morning of and you -- MR. CONWAY: I tried. THE COURT: Yeah. But you didn't bring any witnesses. You didn't -- where's your people? MR. CONWAY: I tried to -- THE COURT: Where's anybody from Taurus Fund that has filed any kind of things that say I am the so-and-so of Taurus Fund. These are my responsibilities. I make sure that I have insurance, do not have insurance. That I'm only allowing this. I mean, you've had time now. You've had a little bit of time. And by the way, if you -- if you watched the timing in this adversary proceeding, it was filed on July 11th. It's August 29th. And the temporary restraining order didn't go in effect until August 1st, so there's been time. And we had a trial. And as I said, you know, your clients, whoever they are, made a determination not to pen the mail I guess when they got served with these things. And Mr. Bennett, now that you represent him, I mean, his wife was served. I haven't seen anything that he's filed. He's not here. I don't see anybody else in the courtroom. Mr. Bennett, is Mr. Bennett here?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 53\n\n(No audible response)\n\n THE COURT: Your entity has to work through a human being, at least one. And so that human being has to do something or not do something.\n\n But to say there aren't people coming and going, the evidence that's in the record right now does not support that statement. The evidence in the record supports the statement that there are people coming and going and that there's no insurance at the property.\n\n MR. CONWAY: Well, the evidence in the record was about four events that took place long before the hearing. The Trustee just said to you that this is a college dorm with 20 people going in every hour. That's not -- there's no evidence to support that. You've got to grant me that, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Well, he didn't say there were 20 people going in every hour. He said he doesn't want 20 people going in every hour. He doesn't want a group of 20 coming in, then leaving, and another group of 20 coming in, then leaving. That's what he was saying.\n\n MR. CONWAY: Nor does anybody else. THE COURT: He wasn't talking about the interpretation of that provision of the preliminary injunction.\n\nMR. CONWAY: Right.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 54 THE COURT: But all I'm saying to you is we need to have someone responsible be responsible, right? MR. CONWAY: Absolutely, Your Honor. THE COURT: And -- MR. CONWAY: And Your Honor issued an order saying that nothing further should be filed with respect to the injunction hearing the day after -- the night of the hearing or the day after the hearing, so -- THE COURT: Well, I also said that you could move for -- you could file a motion if you wanted more than 20 people there. You could. It says that. It says in the order somewhere. I can pull it up. MR. CONWAY: And if we do, I'm sure we will. We have so far, right now, we're trying to get everything settled. We're not trying to have people there at all right now. We're trying to get this -- all the administrative issues resolved here. You know, to my knowledge, there are not movement people going in and out right now. We're trying to make sure that everything gets squared away. The issue is not one where, you know, I've been told, oh, my god, they want to have this event there. You've got to get the judge's permission to do it. There's nobody that said that. There's no reason to come to Your Honor and make a motion to have more than 20 people there\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 55\n\nright now.\n\n But the fact of the matter is that if Your Honor were to say, well, it has to be the same 20 people throughout this case, what you've done is you've said I'm giving the property to the Trustee in advance of the decision in this case, because the people who invested in this property are not 20 people. There may be two people who want to use it next month. There might be ten people who want to use it the following month. But it's not going to be used as a base of operations for a hundred people. THE COURT: What do you mean the people that invested in this entity? I mean, you're an entity. So you have -- you're out there -- your clients are out there fund- raising or raising money for the operations of the LLC? MR. CONWAY: Your Honor, it shouldn't be that difficult to visualize why the Taurus Fund, LLC was created as a special purpose vehicle to buy a property by the fund that was subscribed to by its investors. The people who -- THE COURT: But who are its investors? MR. CONWAY: The people who took the money and put it into the fund. THE COURT: I understand. But they have names I would assume and identifies. MR. CONWAY: They certainly do, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n55\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 60 management company. THE COURT: And is the management -- MR. CONWAY: The Taurus Fund is an LLC. THE COURT: I understand what the Taurus Fund is. But they have obligations as an LLC. They can't just -- MR. CONWAY: To hire a management company. THE COURT: All right. So who's the managing company? MR. CONWAY: I'm going to give the Trustee by September 1 all the information about the security company and the management company. We're trying to make sure now that there is absolutely nothing that the Trustee or this court can take issue with. That everybody agrees to everything that's in the preliminary injunction order. It's all -- you know, Your Honor, we're trying our best to do exactly what we were ordered to do and what -- exactly what the Trustee says he wants. THE COURT: I understand. I understand that. All I'm saying is I raised -- you filed a document. And I appreciate you filed the document because it was required by the preliminary injunction order, but it says there's no insurance. That's concerning. Okay? That's very concerning. As I said, the United States Trustee's Office, if, if there had been a determination, which there is not at\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 61 |                                                              |\n|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1                                | this point, that this asset was an asset of the estate, the  |\n| 2                                | United States Trustee's Office would run into this courtroom |\n| 3                                | and say you have to dismiss this case immediately. There is  |\n| 4                                | no insurance. The rights of the estate aren't being          |\n| 5                                | protected and this case cannot continue.                     |\n| 6                                | And we have that happen a lot. I mean, that's one            |\n| 7                                | of the requirements is that there has to be insurance.       |\n| 8                                | Okay?                                                        |\n| 9                                | So you're now telling me you're going to get                 |\n| 10                               | insurance and you have to -- but Trustee Despins is saying,  |\n| 11                               | well, until you get insurance, nobody should be able to come |\n| 12                               | in and out of the building. You say, well, the only people   |\n| 13                               | coming in and out of the building are people who are         |\n| 14                               | insured. Well, I don't know that.                            |\n| 15                               | MR. CONWAY: No. I'm saying that that's what has              |\n| 16                               | been the case. I don't think any of the contractors are      |\n| 17                               | doing work right now. I think right now the people who are   |\n| 18                               | at the premises are security.                                |\n| 19                               | THE COURT: Okay.                                             |\n| 20                               | MR. DESPINS: No.                                             |\n| 21                               | THE COURT: Well, that would be good. And                     |\n| 22                               | hopefully they're keeping a log on all the things that the   |\n| 23                               | preliminary injunction has asked them to do.                 |\n| 24                               | MR. CONWAY: And I've asked whether that was being            |\n| 25                               | kept before. I was told it was. I'm going to make sure       |\n\n I tried, I can't get it. Let's go back to the judge and see what we need to do.\n\n THE COURT: All right. With regard to the settlement with the United States, what I'd like you both to do is I'd like you to confer on the form of a proposed\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>63                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | order. And if you can't agree, then I'd like you to both     |\n| 2  | submit your proposed orders by 5 p.m. tomorrow. And I'll     |\n| 3  | take a look at them. And I'll decide which one, if either,   |\n| 4  | I'll enter. Or I'll make, you know, comments to them and     |\n| 5  | tell you that's what the order is going to say.              |\n| 6  | As I stated already, the test is does this                   |\n| 7  | settlement fall below the range of reasonableness?           |\n| 8  | And because I am not convinced or I'm not                    |\n| 9  | persuaded at this point that there's any harm to your client |\n| 10 | if this settlement agreement is approved under the terms and |\n| 11 | conditions that exist right now, which is nothing's going to |\n| 12 | happen unless and until Mr. Despins is successful on a trial |\n| 13 | on the merits, and, you know, I guess I don't recall what it |\n| 14 | says about that, but, you know, final, non-appealable order, |\n| 15 | whatever the situation may be, then I don't see how your     |\n| 16 | client's being harmed.                                       |\n| 17 | So I do think that this settlement is within the             |\n| 18 | range of reasonableness.                                     |\n| 19 | I'm going to give you an opportunity -- and you              |\n| 20 | stated and I appreciate that maybe your objection is more    |\n| 21 | limited than you thought originally, because if the order    |\n| 22 | can provide for language that works for your clients, then   |\n| 23 | you might be okay with it, but you might not. So I'm going   |\n| 24 | to let you both take the opportunity to figure that out.     |\n| 25 | And then you file on the docket of the case by 5 p.m.        |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 65 immediate order prohibiting people from going on the property or in the property other than security until and unless insurance is obtained. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MR. CONWAY: Your Honor, may I be excused? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. All right. So then the only other matter on the calendar is the Rule 2004 examination motion. And I think, Attorney Major, you're here on that as well, is that correct? MR. MAJOR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Linsey, are you going to start? MR. LINSEY: Yes. May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. The Trustee's sixth omnibus 2004 exam motion seeks to extend the Trustee's Rule 2004 investigation to additional relevant banks where the Trustee's investigation suggests that relevant transactions have occurred and to additional entities and individuals who were employed or otherwise involved with the debtor's financial affairs via certain associated entities. To date, Rule 2004 has been one of the most\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 66 effective tools for the Trustee to investigate the debtor's finances.\n\n As the Court is aware, the debtor has pursued his business activities through a complicated and convoluted web of dozens, if not hundreds, of associated entities and individuals. Money and property have flowed through that web to the point that there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individual transfers that are reflected in financial records.\n\n As such, it is imperative that the Trustee's Rule 2004 examination be able to undertake a holistic review of the debtor's financial affairs.\n\n The only objection to the sixth 2004 exam motion is the objection that was filed by Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok, who I'll refer to as the Greenwich Land parties. The basis for their objection is that the Trustee's Rule 2004 examination relates to issues relevant to the pending adversary proceeding that Trustee has brought against the Greenwich Land parties.\n\n The Court has already considered Greenwich Land's position and twice decided it against the position in favor of the Trustee.\n\n In the first instance, Mei Guo and HK USA made a substantively and nearly identical objection to the Trustee's second omnibus 2004 exam motion. That was back in\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 67                             |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | December. And the Court ruled that while the Trustee may     |\n| 2  | not seek Rule 2004 discovery from parties to pending         |\n| 3  | adversary proceedings, the Trustee is free to continue his   |\n| 4  | investigation with respect to non-parties, even to the       |\n| 5  | extent that matters may relate to pending adversary          |\n| 6  | proceedings.                                                 |\n| 7  | That decision is at docket no. 1184 in the main              |\n| 8  | case. So that means that this issue was decided almost ten   |\n| 9  | months ago.                                                  |\n| 10 | Then several months ago, in May, Greenwich Land              |\n| 11 | and Hing Chi Ngok again objected on this identical basis     |\n| 12 | citing their own pending adversary proceeding.               |\n| 13 | At that time, Trustee's counsel explained to the             |\n| 14 | Greenwich Land parties that the Court has already ruled on   |\n| 15 | this issue, but the parties insisted on objecting anyway.    |\n| 16 | And so the Court decided that same issue again.              |\n| 17 | Unsurprisingly, the Court decided it the same way.           |\n| 18 | The Trustee may continue his 2004 investigation as           |\n| 19 | to non-parties even if some of the subject matter may bear   |\n| 20 | on a pending adversary proceeding.                           |\n| 21 | The first point that the Trustee made in response            |\n| 22 | to Greenwich Land's last objection is the first point that   |\n| 23 | we make here, which is that this issue is law of the case.   |\n| 24 | The complexities of this Chapter 11 case are manifest. The   |\n| 25 | number of docket entries exceeds many other Chapter 11 cases |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 68\n\nin this district by an order of magnitude.\n\n If this case is to proceed in an orderly manner, parties should not be free to relitigate decided issues at will, much less on multiple occasions. Beyond that, the Court was right the first time it ruled. And the Court for that matter was right the second time it ruled.\n\n I hesitate to go too far down the rabbit hole here because I don't want to take the Greenwich Land parties' bait, but they have selectively quoted and cited authority in their objection to stand for a proposition that simply doesn't exist, that continuing a Rule 2004 investigation with respect to non-parties that may have some subject matter overlap with pending adversary proceedings is not allowed.\n\n The case law does not stand for that proposition. In fact, the case law contradicts it and that's why Your Honor has twice ruled what Your Honor ruled.\n\n There's one more concerning feature of the objection that was filed by the Greenwich Land parties and that is the way that it discusses the investigation that is sought to be continued by the sixth Rule 2004 motion.\n\n Just looking at the summary of that investigation as it's described, as it excerpts from the subpoenas and requests for production, one would think that the Rule 2004 motion is being conducted solely to investigate Greenwich\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 69 |                                                             |\n|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1                                | Land parties' alleged assets. In fact, looking at the RFPs  |\n| 2                                | themselves, one finds that they implicate a range of assets |\n| 3                                | that go well beyond the Greenwich Land parties' claimed     |\n| 4                                | assets. For example, and these are just examples, the RFPs  |\n| 5                                | also implicate the property at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel. |\n| 6                                | We just settled the Bravo Luck adversary proceedings today. |\n| 7                                | If this 2004 exam is really a substitute for                |\n| 8                                | adversary proceeding discovery, why would we possibly be    |\n| 9                                | seeking discovery, an investigation that implicates those   |\n| 10                               | matters?                                                    |\n| 11                               | The same thing with the Lady May. The Lady May is           |\n| 12                               | listed in their RFPs. The Lady May has already been sold.   |\n| 13                               | We're not -- we're not listing things for fun.              |\n| 14                               | We're not listing things as a substitute for Part 7         |\n| 15                               | discovery under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.  |\n| 16                               | The reality here is, and this court has lived with          |\n| 17                               | this case long enough to know, the Trustee's finances or    |\n| 18                               | rather the debtor's finances are an intricate, supremely    |\n| 19                               | complicated spider web. And to unravel his business and his |\n| 20                               | assets you can't hack chunks out of the web and expect      |\n| 21                               | everything to fit together. There has to be a holistic      |\n| 22                               | review. I think that the Court's two prior rulings have     |\n| 23                               | recognized that.                                            |\n| 24                               | Beyond that, the Greenwich Land parties argue               |\n| 25                               | about issues that are related to discovery in the pending   |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 70 adversary proceeding. And while I want to be very clear, the Trustee disagrees with the Greenwich Land parties' position as to what they're entitled to and what they're not entitled to in the adversary proceeding, the proper way to litigate a discovery dispute in an adversary proceeding is not to object to a 2004 exam motion. Finally, I will just briefly note that even if the Court overrules the Greenwich Land parties' objection, there's already prejudice to the estate here. The objection will delay the granting of the 2004 exam motion and thus the issuance of subpoenas by several weeks. And this reminds me of being in high school when my parents would say you've got to do your math homework every week because what you learn next week builds on what you do this week, the Trustee's investigation is the same way. The subject matter, the people that we're issuing subpoenas to under this motion, the terms of the RFPs, the subject matter, that's all -- a large portion of it is subject matter that the Trustee has learned through his existing 2004 exam investigation. And to the extent that that 2004 exam investigation is delayed, the delay builds on itself, everything takes longer, everything's more expensive, the docket entries continue to click, the administrative expenses continue to build. So we would ask that Your Honor grant the sixth\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 72 when I object to say, well, you didn't object to our sixth omnibus motion. So I think it's entirely appropriate that we asserted our objection.\n\n The issues are similar, not identical, but, and for that reason I will be brief. I'm mindful of what the Court's prior orders are, but I have to make the record. I can't just say, well, the Court did this and, therefore, we'll just acquiesce with it. Because if we're in front of an appellate tribunal or in front of any trial court and I make an objection I don't want to hear a waiver argument. So it's an objection that I felt we were obligated to make and I think it's entirely appropriate.\n\n As I said, I'll be particularly brief on the legal issue. I'm mindful of the Court's prior rulings. There's no dispute about the existence of the pending procedures rule, which is this rule against taking discovery under 2004 for use in an adversary proceeding. There's no dispute that the discovery that is sought in this sixth omnibus motion for 2004 discovery addresses issues in the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding.\n\n And counsel for the Trustee took exception to the fact that our objection focuses on all of the discovery requests relating to Greenwich Land and doesn't mention the others, well, Your Honor, the filing, I believe, the omnibus motion, when you include the subpoenas, it's like over 300\n\n72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 74 Bankruptcy Procedure 7026 et seq. after an adversary proceeding is commenced for discovery as to both entities affected by the proceeding and issues addressed in this proceeding.\"\n\n The second case, *In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.*, 2010 Westlaw 5128608, from the Middle District of North Carolina. It's a 2010 case. At page 3 of that decision, the Court wrote, \"In order to prevent injustice and to ensure the parties in bankruptcy adversary proceedings have the same rights as parties to a federal law suit in a non-bankruptcy context, it is important to ensure the procedural safeguards of the discovery process provided in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, incorporated by reference in Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7026 through 7037, are not avoided by permitting a Rule 2004 examination while an adversary proceeding is pending.\"\n\n Your Honor, we also, with respect to that legal argument, rest on the other case law that we cite and discuss in our objection.\n\n I want to touch on -- I mentioned at the top that this situation is similar, but not identical, to where we were back in June when we objected to the fifth omnibus motion for Rule 2004 discovery.\n\nThere's another inequity here with what the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 75 Trustee is proposing to do, which is discovery -- the Trustee advocated for and achieved an extremely quick discovery schedule in our adversary proceeding. That's coming to a close. He's come into court now and said he wants to take 2004 discovery relevant to the issues in the Greenwich Land proceeding, adversary proceeding. We're going to be cut off from being able to take any discovery. We're not -- we're not allowed to participate in the discovery he's taking concerning the issues in the adversary proceeding that we're defending, and he'll be able to continue to do that. I guess his position is he can do that right up to the time through trial. And if he finds something he can try to use it, we will of course object to that.\n\n But what he's calling an investigation as it relates to Greenwich Land is discovery for claims he's already made and preliminary relief he's already obtained, and so I think that the appropriate way to do this would be discovery that the parties can participate in.\n\n So, Your Honor, those are our arguments. I'm happy to answer any questions the Court has.\n\n THE COURT: Thank you. No. I don't have any questions at the moment, but thank you.\n\n MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LINSEY: Very quickly, Your Honor?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 76\n\nTHE COURT: Yes.\n\n MR. LINSEY: First of all, again, the adversary proceeding discovery disputes are an issue for the adversary proceeding. We disagree with the characterization of discovery on negotiations in the adversary proceeding, but if there are disputes, then I expect either party has the -- any party has the ability to bring them there.\n\n But with respect to the brief discussion of the case law, Your Honor substantively considered this issue. To the extent the *Bennett* case sounds familiar, it's because it's one of the cases that Your Honor cited in Your Honor's last decision, and Your Honor noted in the parenthetical after that cite that that was a prohibition on 2004 discovery as to a party to the pending proceeding, not as to a non-party.\n\n With respect to the *Southeastern Materials* case that was cited, it's easy to take a snippet from a case without a context. I'll take a snippet from the *Southeastern Materials* case. \"A handful of decisions have considered the allowable scope of a Rule 2004 examination where it related civil or criminal proceedings are taking place or are likely to occur in another court, the general rule in these cases is that the existence of or a potential for collateral litigation is insufficient reason to deny an examination.\" That's from that case, Your Honor.\n\n76\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 77 Your Honor looked at these cases. This is not a -- there's not a Second Circuit ruling that's directly on point here. What the cases boil down to is the purpose of the discovery examination to substitute for discovery -- rather the 2004 examination is to substitute for discovery in an adversary proceeding under Part 7 of the rules to gain some strategic advantage or are they a proper examination, holistic examination, of a debtor's finances. And I believe in this case, given the record that has built up to date, it's exceptionally clear that what we're undertaking is the latter. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Major, any response? MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, with respect to the case law, we've accurately described what the courts have held. And the two that I read are not the only cases. We've cited several cases in the brief that support our argument. THE COURT: And I understand that. Thank you. And I have seen that you've cited other cases, so I understand that. Okay. With regard to this motion, the Court is going to take the matter under advisement. But I think the ruling will not -- I mean, I'm not going to take a substantial amount of time to rule, but I will rule after\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>78                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | going back and reviewing your arguments and looking at the  |\n| 2  | documents and the cases one more time. Okay?                |\n| 3  | Is there anything further we need to address this           |\n| 4  | afternoon? I think that's the last matter on the calendar.  |\n| 5  | MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor.                    |\n| 6  | THE COURT: Nothing else from any party?                     |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, let me take a            |\n| 8  | chance at this. And the question is, is there a procedure   |\n| 9  | before Your Honor to seek relief in the middle of a         |\n| 10 | deposition where there are issues that arise? Because in    |\n| 11 | some courts --                                              |\n| 12 | THE COURT: There's no -- we don't have a, you               |\n| 13 | know, a procedure that I could point to that says this is   |\n| 14 | what you do, but what has happened in the past is the       |\n| 15 | parties contact the courtroom deputy and ask the Court to   |\n| 16 | have an emergency hearing.                                  |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS: Okay.                                          |\n| 18 | THE COURT: And if the Court's available, the                |\n| 19 | Court can do that. Then if not, then what the Court has     |\n| 20 | said to parties is continue with as much of the deposition  |\n| 21 | as you can. Hold whatever questions or issues there are     |\n| 22 | until the Court can actually conduct that hearing.          |\n| 23 | Now, that's not I know ideal because that means             |\n| 24 | you'd have to reconvene for a deposition or an examination, |\n| 25 | but --                                                      |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 79 MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- there is no time -- you know, the Court isn't always available unfortunately. MR. DESPINS: Understood. That's helpful. Thank you. THE COURT: So I don't know how you'd want to proceed, but there have been occasions where both of things has happened. Parties have called, court was available, able to have an emergency hearing. But there's also been occasions where the parties have called, the Court has not been available, and then we'd have to have scheduled a specific hearing to address that issue as soon as possible. I think that's all I can tell you. We don't have a process in place in our local rules or anything like that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you. Very helpful. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. There are some matters that are -- that are not on the calendar today that are what I would say somewhat ministerial. Like, there's a motion to redact that's been filed. Redactions are usually granted, so that probably will be addressed in the next few days. Otherwise, I think that the majority of matters in the main case and in the adversary proceeding are either set for hearing or there are response dates coming up.\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 80                             |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Oh, that was the other thing I was going to say.             |\n| 2  | Mr. Major, you may not know this either.                     |\n| 3  | But the district court in Connecticut, when a                |\n| 4  | motion is filed in what you would call a civil action,       |\n| 5  | plaintiff and defendant, has an automatic 21-day response    |\n| 6  | period that just gets set. And so we follow that rule. So    |\n| 7  | immediately upon a pleading in an adversary, the CM/ECF      |\n| 8  | system populates this language that says, I don't remember   |\n| 9  | what it says, but it says something like response due 21     |\n| 10 | days and then it calculates the date I think.                |\n| 11 | What I have said to people, and our local rules              |\n| 12 | don't address it, but we're in the process of looking at our |\n| 13 | local rules again, is if someone believes that there should  |\n| 14 | be some other date for a response, or there's some emergency |\n| 15 | issue, or an extension of that response date, then that      |\n| 16 | doesn't preclude anyone from filing something asking for     |\n| 17 | that relief. Okay?                                           |\n| 18 | It's a -- I think, you know, in the bankruptcy               |\n| 19 | context it often is the 21 days cannot always apply as       |\n| 20 | neatly as it does in a district court action. And I'm not    |\n| 21 | saying it applies neatly in a district court action all the  |\n| 22 | time either because I'm sure there are circumstances where   |\n| 23 | someone would want something either before that.             |\n| 24 | But I wanted to make that clear to the parties, is           |\n| 25 | that that 21-day period is automatically populated. The      |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 81 Court has nothing to do with that. It's just it's there. It's part of the program, and following the district court rules, which we follow.\n\n So there may be a circumstance where any party could seek to change that date or get some form of a status conference or something prior to that. You're not -- no party is precluded from seeking that. Whether it's going to be granted or not is a wholly different issue.\n\n But I've noticed recently that there have been some motions filed where, you know, I could understand why a party would want some other form of relief and not have to wait for the 21 days, but nothing's necessarily been filed, so I just wanted parties to understand that. Okay?\n\n MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, that reminded me of an issue. In the HCHK adversary proceeding, there is -- without getting in to the substance of it, there's a recently filed motion for extension of time for a pleading deadline. It indicates that the Trustee has no objection. We are planning to file a response. That response should be filed this week. I say that only because I'm aware that, you know, that has the same 21-day thing in the docket text as Your Honor noted typically occurs, but also it is, you know, typically or oftentimes we see motions for extension granted in advance of the 21-day deadline. So I just wanted to mention to Your Honor there is going to be a response\n\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 82                                  |                                                              |\n| 1                                                                 | forthcoming this week for the Trust --                       |\n| 2                                                                 | THE COURT: I thought there already was an                    |\n| 3                                                                 | objection to that extension of time.                         |\n| 4                                                                 | MR. LINSEY: There's an objection that's indicated            |\n| 5                                                                 | in the motion, but we will be filing a substantive --        |\n| 6                                                                 | THE COURT: Oh. Okay. I understand.                           |\n| 7                                                                 | MR. LINSEY: -- objection explaining the grounds.             |\n| 8                                                                 | THE COURT: I understand.                                     |\n| 9                                                                 | MR. LINSEY: And I just --                                    |\n| 10                                                                | THE COURT: I understand what you're saying.                  |\n| 11                                                                | MR. LINSEY: We're not going to hold -- we're not             |\n| 12                                                                | going to -- we're not going to string them out 21 days to do |\n| 13                                                                | that. We're going to get that on file.                       |\n| 14                                                                | THE COURT: I understand. Okay. I appreciate                  |\n| 15                                                                | that.                                                        |\n| 16                                                                | MR. LINSEY: Thank you.                                       |\n| 17                                                                | MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, the issue you                  |\n| 18                                                                | raised in the leave to appeal context is kind of dangerous   |\n| 19                                                                | in the sense that the docket will say you have 21 days, and  |\n| 20                                                                | it gives you the date as you indicated, but the Bankruptcy   |\n| 21                                                                | Rule, 8004, says you have ten days.                          |\n| 22                                                                | THE COURT: I know.                                           |\n| 23                                                                | MR. DESPINS: So that's like --                               |\n| 24                                                                | THE COURT: That's part of the problem.                       |\n| 25                                                                | MR. DESPINS: Yeah.                                           |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 84 MR. MAJOR: Yeah. Your Honor, I apologize if I've made myself seem like an out of towner, but I've been admitted in this district for -- THE COURT: No. I don't mean it like that. MR. MAJOR: -- a long time. THE COURT: I just mean I don't think you're coming into the bankruptcy court very often and having to worry about the interplay or our local rules and the district court rules. That's all. MR. MAJOR: I just want to make a point Your Honor in response to your comment. And I might be coming, appear to be coming out of left field with this because this is not at all what you had in mind, but because the Trustee complained about delay that we caused by objecting, I just want to make sure that the record's clear that the Trustee filed the sixth omnibus motion on us Friday, August 11th. The motion indicates that the objections were due the next Friday, August 18th, and we complied with that. So we didn't take the 21 days to put our objection in. THE COURT: I agree. And I saw that you complied with the objection deadline in the motion. So we have some unfortunate, you know, there's an unintended consequence of trying to have uniformity, because it doesn't always work. Everything doesn't fit into the\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>85                                        |\n| 1  | same box.<br>And, you know, we could probably spend weeks                  |\n| 2  | going through the local rules figuring out all the things                  |\n| 3  | that don't fit into the box.                                               |\n| 4  | But in any event, I just say that so parties are                           |\n| 5  | aware that it -- I don't want anyone to think that that                    |\n| 6  | means they couldn't seek relief in some way, shape or form                 |\n| 7  | prior to the 21 days.<br>Whether or not you get it is a wholly             |\n| 8  | different issue.<br>Okay?                                                  |\n| 9  | All right.<br>Well, that concludes the hearings                            |\n| 10 | today, so --                                                               |\n| 11 | (Proceedings concluded at 3:47 p.m.)                                       |\n| 12 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court                             |\n| 13 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a                  |\n| 14 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound                      |\n| 15 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.                 |\n| 16 |                                                                            |\n| 17 |                                                                            |\n| 18 |                                                                            |\n| 19 | September 6, 2023                                                          |\n| 20 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                                      |\n| 21 | Transcriber                                                                |\n| 22 |                                                                            |\n| 23 |                                                                            |\n| 24 |                                                                            |\n| 25 |                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                            |","body_zh":"附件 B\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n关于\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（源丰控股有限公司），\n破产债务人。\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n原告，\nv.\nBravo Luck, Limited（宝力有限公司）等，\n被告。\n对抗性程序编号：22-05027\n\nLuc A. Despins，\n原告，\nv.\nTaurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等，\n被告。\n对抗性程序编号：23-05017\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2023年8月29日\n\n庭审记录\n主审法官：Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n第11章破产受托人：\nLuc A. Despins, Esq.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n诉讼过程由电子录音设备记录，记录文稿由转录服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n代表第11章破产受托人：\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.（帕特里克·R·林赛律师）\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国联邦破产受托人：\nHolley L. Claiborn, Esq.（霍莉·L·克莱本律师）\nOffice of U.S. Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIrve J. Goldman, Esq.（欧文·J·高德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表 Bravo Luck：\nFrancis J. LaWall, Esq.（弗朗西斯·J·拉沃尔律师）\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP\n3000 Two Logan Square\n18th and Arch Street\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\n\n代表 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）以及 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）：\nChristopher J. Major, Esq.（克里斯托弗·J·梅杰律师）\nMeister Seelig & Fein LLP\n125 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n代表 Taurus Fund, LLC：\nMichael T. Conway, Esq.（迈克尔·T·康威律师）\nLazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP\n747 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n#2049 与 Bravo Luck Ltd 及 Mileson Guo（又名 Qiang Guo 和/或 Guo Qiang，郭强），P.O. Box 957 Offshore Inc Centre, Road Town, Tortola, BVI（Bravo Luck Ltd）；5 Princess Gate, G3, London, UK（Qiang Guo）达成争议和解的动议\n#111 与 Bravo Luck 及 Mileson Guo（又名 Qiang Guo 和/或 Guo Qiang，郭强），P.O. Box 957 Offshore Inc Centre, Road Town, Tortola, BVI（Bravo Luck Ltd）；5 Princess Gate, G3, London, UK（Qiang Guo）达成争议和解的动议\n#2083 第11章破产受托人依据《破产程序规则》第9019条提起的批准与美国和解协议的动议\n#24 第11章破产受托人依据《破产程序规则》第9019条提起的批准与美国和解协议的动议\n#2079 对债务人关联的其他实体和个人及相关银行进行2004调查的动议（第六号综合动议）\n#2127 安排案件进展会议的裁定\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第4页\n（庭审于下午2:01开始）\n法庭副书记官：案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings, LLC；22-5027，Despins 等诉 Bravo Luck Limited 等；以及 23-5017，Despins 等诉 Taurus Fund, LLC 等。\n法庭：好的。下午好。请出庭人员按记录登记出庭，首先从第11章破产受托人开始。\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下下午好。Luc Despins，第11章破产受托人。\n法庭：下午好。\n林赛先生：法官阁下下午好。Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 律所的 Patrick Linsey 代表受托人出庭。\n法庭：下午好。\n高德曼先生：法官阁下下午好。Pullman & Comley 律所的 Irve Goldman 代表债权人委员会出庭。\n法庭：下午好。\n克莱本女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn 代表美国联邦破产受托人出庭。\n法庭：下午好。\n拉沃尔先生：法官阁下下午好。Fran Lawall 代表 Bravo Luck。\n法庭：下午好。\n梅杰先生：法官阁下下午好。Meister Seelig & Fein 律所的 Chris Major。我们代表 Hing Chi Ngok\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第5页\n以及 Greenwich Land, LLC。\n法庭：下午好。\n康威先生：法官阁下下午好。Michael Conway 在此代表 Taurus Fund, LLC。\n法庭：下午好。好的。如我所述，今天下午的日程上有几项事务。受托人德斯平斯，我查看了这些事项，涉及是否有人提交过异议以及诸如此类的情况。关于 Bravo Luck 的和解动议，我看到对此并未提交任何异议。我说的对吗？\n德斯平斯先生：完全正确，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。那么先处理 Bravo Luck 的事项是否合理？\n德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。请继续。谢谢。\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢。法官阁下下午好。Luc Despins，第11章破产受托人。这实际上是一项相当直截了当的动议，旨在解决各破产债务人财产与 Bravo Luck 以及债务人之子之间就 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉荷兰公寓）产生的争议。基本上您会记得，我们曾对 Bravo\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第6页\nLuck 提起了三起独立的对抗性诉讼。并且还对该儿子的债权申报提出了异议。而对此一直没有任何答辩或回应。并且此前存在大量的诉讼以及驳回起诉动议、修正案等等。长话短说，双方已达成协议解决此事。我认为这相当明确，即我所称的 Bravo Luck 方，即 Bravo Luck 和该儿子，放弃了他们直接或间接对雪莉荷兰公寓拥有权益的任何主张。他们正在放弃权利主张，等等。我们正在撤回针对他们提起的诉讼。我的意思是，我所说的一切都以和解协议为准，该协议要详尽得多，但简而言之，情况就是这样。所以这非常明确。我只想指出，责任免除并不是对称的，这一点很重要，因为他们是在免除权利主张，而我们并没有免除我们对他们所拥有的一切权利主张。我们免除的是起诉书中所主张的权利主张。再次说明，我所说的均以和解协议的条款为准，协议中有更详细的规定，但从概念上讲，我想确保法庭理解，这不是一项全面的权利主张免除。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第7页\n法庭：我想我——我也是这么认为的，这不是一项全面的权利主张免除。\n德斯平斯先生：因此，除非法庭有疑问且拉沃尔先生想发言，否则我目前没有其他要补充的了。\n法庭：拉沃尔律师，稍后有时间我想听听您的意见。我只是想说——有许多与未决的债权异议和对抗性诉讼相关的待决事项，我们此前没有采取行动是因为你们一直在进行沟通谈判，对吧？\n德斯平斯先生：对。\n法庭：而且你们向法庭陈述过，无论是在诉状中还是在庭上，各方一直共同努力解决这些问题。显然你们付出了很多努力。并且你们达成了解决方案，这值得赞赏。我认为，假设本和解获得批准，这意味着你们可能会看到——因为书记官办公室必须处理某些程序，例如终结动议，或者你们打算撤回对抗性诉讼，对吧？你们打算驳回？还是你们要做——具体是——\n德斯平斯先生：是的。坦率地说，我不确定具体的操作流程，但仍有操作流程需要完成，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第8页\n可能涉及到撤回对抗性诉讼，或者可能是和解（听不清）。我会查看一下。但是——\n法庭：好的，我这里有材料。\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n法庭：我记不太清了。但我说的是，如果你们双方看到有一些登记记录，那是因为某些待决事项似乎依据对和解的批准而得到了解决，那么这将是办事实务性质的。\n德斯平斯先生：是的。\n法庭：我只是想让你们明白这一点。好吗？\n德斯平斯先生：是的。该裁定规定，授权原告签署、交付、执行为落实该事项所必需的各类文件或法律文书。\n法庭：好的。\n德斯平斯先生：我认为拉沃尔先生——此前已经提供了签名。Bravo Luck 已经为和解协议提供了签名。该儿子没有提供签名，因为该签名由拉沃尔先生信托持有。他们此前不想提供签名——\n法庭：但是你已经拿到了？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第11页\n1 下午好。Troutman Pepper 律所的 Fran Lawall，代表 Bravo\n2 Luck。\n3 我想，为了回答您的一些程序性\n4 问题，我认为和解协议的架构方式\n5 是这三起对抗性诉讼将以带有偏见（不可再诉）的方式被驳回。\n6\n7 法庭：好的。\n8 拉沃尔先生：已提交的债权证明\n9 被视为撤回。\n10 通过以带有偏见的方式撤回起诉状，\n11 这显然会将驳回起诉动议从您的庭审日程中\n12 移除。这是典型和解协议的形式。没有任何\n13 被告承认起诉状中的任何——任何\n14 主张。事实上，存在\n15 明确的否认。但再次强调，这是一项和解。\n16 法庭：是的。\n17 拉沃尔先生：在维尔京群岛还会有一些与此\n18 附带的相关诉讼程序，\n19 那些也将一并予以撤回消除。\n20 但同样地，我同意德斯平斯先生的意见。该\n21 和解协议足够复杂，我们应当\n22 依赖该和解协议的四角之内（字面条款）。\n23 但总的来说，我认为您对其实质内容的理解\n24 大体上是正确的。\n25 法庭：而且我——再次说明，我提出关于\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第12页\n你们可能会在案卷目录中看到的内容，只是想让你们知道，从书记官办公室的角度来看，这将属于事务性工作。例如，正如您所说，对抗性诉讼将被撤回——对不起，是被驳回。所以我不知道，你们是打算单独提交一份依据第7041条的驳回申请，还是将此文件作为驳回的约定协议？\n拉沃尔先生：我想我可以和德斯平斯先生的团队共同商定这一点。\n法庭：好的。\n拉沃尔先生：我们——我想我们可以为您分担这一工作，法官阁下。我们将——如果书记官办公室没有自动处理该事项，我们可以签署落实和解协议所必需的任何文件。\n法庭：好的。这很有帮助。\n拉沃尔先生：好的。\n法庭：谢谢。\n拉沃尔先生：好的。\n法庭：虽然可能有些繁琐。但是，如您所知，它可以简单到只是一份两行的约定协议，表明依据第7041(a)(1)条、(a)(2)条或任何适用的条款，各方约定以带有偏见的方式驳回对抗性诉讼，然后它就会自动生效，书记官办公室无需做任何其他事情，只需按常规程序关闭该对抗性诉讼即可\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 13 事务。LAWALL 律师：明白，法官阁下。书记官办公室需要什么，我们都会提供。法庭：好的。谢谢。非常感谢。LAWALL 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：然后关于撤销动议，我甚至都不——我想我们只是顺延了那些动议的听证会，对吧？LAWALL 律师：是的。是的。法庭：好的。LAWALL 律师：它们都被推迟了。我忘了是否有任何附随动议程序。但同样，我的预期是，由于它们都在合并的对抗性诉讼之下，所有内容实际上都从案卷中移除了。法庭：我同意您的看法。好的。我只是想确认一下。我也是这么看的。如果从书记官办公室的角度来看有任何问题，会有人联系并通知你们双方的。这样如何？LAWALL 律师：没问题。法庭：好的。行。那么再次感谢大家所做的努力。我们讨论这件事已经有一段时间了。而且我确实认定，根据破产规则以及法院在涉及 Rule 9019（第9019条规则）下的和解或妥协所适用的标准，该\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 15\n1 法庭今天结束了。我可以退庭了吗？\n2 法庭：当然可以。非常感谢。\n3 LAWALL 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n4 法庭：好的。那么日程表上的前两项\n5 事项，即主案中的 ECF 2049 和对抗性诉讼\n6 22-5027 中的 ECF 111，基于记录中陈述的理由\n7 予以准许。拟议裁定将予录入。\n8 现在，另一份和解协议有\n9 异议，Despins 受托人。然后还有关于\n10 2004 调查的动议，我认为有一项异议。\n11 我不知道那是否已经解决。\n12 DESPINS 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n13 法庭：那个也有异议？\n14 DESPINS 律师：是的。\n15 法庭：好的。然后是就修复 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰酒店）\n16 区域的动议安排状态会议的\n17 裁定，你想现在谈谈\n18 那个，还是你想——\n19 DESPINS 律师：当然可以，我们可以谈。\n20 法庭：好的。那是主案中的 ECF 2127。\n21 将其安排进行状态会议的唯一原因\n22 是因为有人提醒我注意到了\n23 两件事，嗯，实际上我想是三\n24 件事。\n25 该动议是根据 Section 363（第363条）提交的，所以我\n\n如果没有异议，在那之后不久进行。法庭：嗯，我们可——我们可以做两件事之一。我们现在就可以发出听证通知，设定一个异议——我不是指此时此刻，而是今天或\n\n明天——设定9月13日的异议截止日期\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 17 然后在其后几天举行听证会。或者我们可以等到异议截止日期后再安排听证会。但无论如何都会有一场听证会，所以在我看来，发出带有9月13日异议截止日期的听证通知似乎是合理的。DESPINS 律师：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。DESPINS 律师：那样做更好。是的。法庭：好的。那我们就这样做。让我看一下日程表，看看具体听证会何时举行。我是说，我们在9月19日下午的日程表上有事项，但是——而且我不知道它们会持续多久，但下午可能至少会持续一个小时或更久。我们可以在那天下午晚些时候进行，或者我们可以在20日星期三进行，随你们的便。DESPINS 律师：如果我们能在19日进行，那是更理想的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那我来安排。我可能不会安排在3:30之前，因为2:00的事项要么会有争议，要么会持续两分钟。我不知道。那么——或者你们可以——我们可以安排在3:00。或者我们可以安排在2:00，你们就必须\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 18 等待。DESPINS 律师：那很好，法官阁下。法庭：那么什么时间？那你想要2:00吗？DESPINS 律师：两点可以，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那我们就安排在2:00，但如果有另一项事项在没有——没有解决的情况下，会先进行。好吗？DESPINS 律师：那另一项事项不是本案中的。法庭：不是。DESPINS 律师：好的。法庭：不是，那不是本案中的。我就是这个意思。DESPINS 律师：好的。法庭：那是另一个案子。所以我也可以把你们的安排在2:00——DESPINS 律师：那很好。法庭：——然后你们就只需要等待。好的。行。那就这么办。我们来安排——基础动议是 ECF 2113。我们将就该动议发出听证通知，时间定于9月19日下午2点，异议截止日期为9月13日。关于这个我们只需要做这些。那么——那么我们的状态会议，我们就该事项\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 19\n1 举行了状态会议。\n2 U.S. Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）唯一可能\n3 想要的另一件事，我不知道，Claiborn 律师，但那项\n4 寻求修复 Sherry-Netherland 公寓不同问题的动议\n5 也寻求聘用。所以我不知道\n6 您是否也希望裁定中提及 Section 327（第327条）或\n7 类似内容。我不知道。但也许你们大家可以在\n8 我们举行听证会之前解决这个问题。\n9 也许如果你们都出席且没有\n10 问题，你们将在下午2点首先进行。好吗？\n11 DESPINS 律师：那是一个很好的激励。\n12 法庭：好的。那么关于\n13 今天举行的状态会议——状态\n14 会议已经举行。没有必要进行任何——不会\n15 安排进一步的状态会议，并且将就\n16 ECF No. 2113 发出听证通知。好吗？\n17 那么接下来您想如何进行？\n18 DESPINS 律师：我们此时转向 Mahwah（马瓦豪宅）。\n19 法庭：请继续。\n20 DESPINS 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n21 法官阁下，这是批准与\n22 Department of Justice（司法部）达成和解的动议。那是在\n23 对抗性诉讼中的 document 24 下。而且我已经\n24 对此作证过，但我认为重要的是我们要对此\n25 重新作铺垫，因为上次那不是\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 20\n1 主要焦点。我希望法庭知悉此事，但\n2 显然那不是那次听证会的目的。\n3 所以第一个问题是为什么要与\n4 DOJ（司法部）达成和解？第二个问题是该\n5 和解起到了什么作用或没有起到什么作用？因此让我试着解答这些。\n6 第一个问题是为什么？\n7 正如我们在动议中所述，DOJ 已明确将\n8 Mahwah 豪宅作为一项——那不是一个动词——\n9 应予没收的资产，并且他们实际上已经认定了那项\n10 资产。我们此前并不知情。因此我们必须对\n11 法庭坦诚。在起诉书公布之前，我们对那项\n12 资产并不知情。\n13 然而，司法部在定罪前阶段的\n14 手段在某种意义上是有限的，即\n15 他们现在无法获得该财产的所有权，或者\n16 在定罪（即最终定罪）之前无法对其做太多处理。\n17 鉴于审判不会持续\n18 ——我认为至少要到明年4月才\n19 会开始，显然，DOJ 和我们都清楚\n20 那里正在发生什么，而且我们非常担心这项\n21 极其宝贵的资产在缺乏更好措辞的情况下处于悬而未决的状态。\n22 因此，然而，由于他们将该资产认定为\n23 一项可能应予没收的资产，我们不想开启\n24 任何可能被视为对 DOJ 具有敌意的\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 21 对抗性诉讼，因为显然我们认为尽可能与他们合作是至关重要的。为什么？因为他们拥有我们所没有的各种手段。我们不希望他们与我们作对，也不希望我们在该资产上与他们目的相左，这就是为什么我们想出了这个想法——首先，我们做了功课。我们相信，通过我们在对抗性诉讼中寻求的救济，该资产是一项破产财产。我们对此深信不疑。法院将必须裁定情况是否属实。那是另一天的事了。但我们接洽了 DOJ 并表示，我们希望推进这一对抗性诉讼，以试图确立这是破产财产的一项资产。并且最终，如果法院作出有利于我们的裁决，则出售该资产以进行变现，使获准债权的持有人受益。于是我们讨论了，好的，那将如何发展，因为他们的观点是他们拥有优先债权。我不会深入探讨所有的细节，但我们指出并在动议中引用了一些判例法，因为关于 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人或 Chapter 7（第7章）受托人就谁对资产拥有第一优先权等问题与 DOJ 进行争夺的判例有很多——我是说在那些案件中所谓的违法者——而且，您知道，显然我们希望\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 22\n\n避免这种情况。\n\n而且我们还希望避免以下情况，即我们提起了这一对抗性诉讼。在我的设想中，我们胜诉了。我们出售了资产，而 DOJ 介入并说非常感谢，我们将拿走那笔钱，并感谢你们的工作，事情就此结束。我们不能容许这种情况。\n\n该破产财产不能处于资助任何其他活动的地位。它必须保持净中立。而且我认为要高于净中立，我稍后会谈到那一部分。因此我们协商确定，如果我们胜诉——这非常重要，只有在我们胜诉的情况下。\n\n本和解协议并未强制出售该财产，因为它规定了如果我们胜诉将会发生的某些事项。\n\n因此，如果我们胜诉并出售了该资产，我们可以使用净收益来支付破产财产将已发生的所有费用。当时，我们认为我们不仅会产生律师费，还会产生安保费、出售财产的经纪人费用、抵押贷款——如果该财产上没有抵押贷款，但如果有人拥有需要支付的物料机械工留置权，那当然要优先扣除。\n\n这就产生了一个净收益的概念。根据该协议，关于净收益，我们暂时搁置——将其推迟，这有待确定。我将\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 23 回过头来解释为什么在这方面没有取得更多进展。因此，净收益非常重要。我当时说的是，好的，那太好了。我们将收回所有的费用。那很好。但本案的运营不是为了本案的专业人员。必须对破产财产有利。这就是我们提出一百万美元拟制费用的由头。因此，姑且假设一下，如果我们胜诉，豪宅被出售，我们所有的费用都得到了支付，而 DOJ 与我们无法就净收益的分配达成一致，我们保证为破产财产获得一百万美元。协议中注明支付给获准债权的持有人，因此是在您的法庭上的获准债权，所以它必须是获准债权，即受害人的获准债权。而且，您知道，有人指出，嗯，受害人没有定义。那不是偶然的。也就是说，我想有机会说服 DOJ，让受害人——首先，你必须拥有获准债权。除非你拥有法官阁下裁定的获准债权，否则你一分钱也拿不到。但如果你拥有获准债权，关于谁是受害人或不是受害人的问题，那是——我希望那成为进一步讨论的议题。但底线是，如果我们关于该财产是破产财产一部分的看法是正确的，该破产财产最终将净增一百万美元。而且我们非常坚信是\n\n那个也是，指的是 DOJ。他们并不天真。他们知道这一点。\n\n问题是，好的，谁是受害人？在他们看来，受害人可能只是某些涉嫌骗局的受害人。但是，您知道，我可以看到 Goldman 律师在本案中代表的其他人也是受害人。\n\n例如，Bru Ma（音译），您不认识她，但我拿她举个例子，因为如果您读过她的\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 26 但我想——而且我不想，您懂的，言过其实，但我认为这是未来讨论的蓝图。当然，目前就此尚无任何协议。他们没有给我们任何表明他们会考虑此事的迹象。但关键在于，我认为这对破产财产来说是非常有利的，能够落实这一点，将此作为第一步，以确保我们的处境不会变差，而且我们还能多获利100万美元。同样，前提是我们胜诉。如果我们败诉，那就跟我们提起的任何案件一样。败诉就是败诉。这就是我们承担的风险。现在，这份和解协议中说到\n\n这笔额外的100万美元，即视同费用，将分配给身为受害者的获准债权持有人，您今天并不是——我想就此澄清——您今天并不是批准该分配，这意味着仍须遵守破产法典。\n\nTaurus提出的异议有些令人困惑，该异议称，噢，那有担保债权人怎么办？如果存在有担保债权人，第一，如果该财产上存在有担保债权人，他们将从该财产中优先受偿，也就是从收益中受偿。\n\n第二，如果本案中存在有担保债权人——而我们并不知道有任何担保债权人，对此我相当确信，我的意思是，至少迄今为止尚未有任何人主张过——那么，您知道的，您\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 28 美国司法部（DOJ）有可能无法获得——无法对郭先生定罪。那不是我们的——那不在我的执业领域内。我对此没有任何看法。我对此一无所知。我不是刑法律师，所以我不会就此发表意见，但这种情况每天都在发生。因此，这份和解协议规定，如果他们未能获得最终定罪和没收，所有这项和解都将失效，这意味着如果我们胜诉，那所有的钱又归我们了。因此，今天启动了该程序，并允许我们执行通过法官阁下已准予的初步禁令所做的事情，即在此期间保护该财产，这是至关重要的。因此我认为，基于所有这些理由，这显然有利于破产财产。这是未来与司法部合作的蓝图。在其他案件中以前也这样做过。顺便说一句，在这样做过的其他案件中，有一份明确的命令规定破产——当司法部同意这一点时，明确地说，他们尚未同意其中的任何条款——但有一套明确的程序规定破产法院应裁定获准债权持有人。有时会有一项分配方案，即某金额的款项只能给付给以下类型的债权人，那是与司法部达成的和解。我们在这里离那一步还差得很远，但我想\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 29 确保法官阁下知道，此类协议并非首次订立，不同之处在于我认为这是首次在定罪之前且在他们实际获得没收裁决之前订立的。在其他案件中，通常是他们胜诉了、获得了定罪、获得了没收命令，然后要么与受托人展开诉争，要么与受托人及破产财产进行谈判，试图在协商一致的基础上解决问题。因此，除非法官阁下有问题，否则这基本上就是我就此进行的陈述。我很乐意回答任何问题。显然，我想回应Taurus在这里提出的所有问题。法庭：我目前唯一的问题是，如果这项和解获得批准，它是否——是否会提交至刑事诉讼中？我的意思是，就相关人员而言这是如何运作的？刑事诉讼中的法官知道吗？我的意思是，我不知道刑事诉讼中的法官是否在乎。Despins先生：是的。法庭：我只是问个问题。Despins先生：是的。问得好。除了解释我的理解是司法部并不打算在刑事法院寻求对该和解的批准之外，我不确定我知道答案，因此我不确定他们是否会\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 31\n\n它？\n\n您知道，我们的立场显然是，在作出任何认定之前就着手瓜分我们的财产、我们客户的财产，为时尚早，但这在这里并不真正相关。\n\n但基本的概念是，有人把钱投进了这处房产，他们当中没有任何人知道、且目前也仍未真正认为自己在破产财产中享有债权。\n\n如果法官阁下在本案结束时认定这处房屋归破产财产所有，那么他们就会有债权需要申报。而目前没有任何程序方案规定，好吧，如果是这种情况，那么将钱投资到这处房屋的人可以提交逾期申报的债权，等等。\n\n没有任何说明表明是否具有人身伤害索赔的人——我想我在债权登记上看到了相关内容，我没有阅读所有的债权申报——但我看到了被称为人身伤害索赔的内容。那个人会对这个涉案标的物享有债权吗？我们不知道。在这个和解动议中没有相关程序方案。而必须要有程序方案，才能确定这对本破产财产的债权人而言是否公平合理，首先是对Taurus基金而言是否公平合理。但Taurus基金显然是由\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 32 出资成立Taurus基金的人构成的。那些人将会来到本案中，他们会告诉您不要拿走我的房屋。您知道，这是我的钱。您知道的。我知道受托人和政府想说，郭先生欺诈了你们，但我并不认为我受到了欺诈。我认为你们不应该拿走我的财产。如果你们确实把财产拿走了，那么他们将如何能够拿回他们的钱，因为届时他们将需要一个处理程序。\n\n因此我想总体的结论是，而且同样，我们坚持已提交的书面文件，其中指出Taurus基金在没收程序中正在遭受丧失权利的明显损害。因为我们将不再享有该权利，如果正如Despins先生指出的那样，那里没有对郭先生作出不利认定，且没收程序未予推进，他们将无法拿回他们的房屋，而如果该程序按正常进程进行，他们本是可以拿回房屋的。\n\n法庭：听到最后我差点没跟上您的思路。不好意思。所以您的意思是您的客户受到了损害，因为如果政府在其指控中未获成功，您的客户将无法拿回他们的房屋，因为Despins先生将享有——破产财产受托人将对该财产享有权益？但我难道不需要对此作出认定吗？而我尚未作出该认定。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日\n1 Conway先生：是的。而且——确实——这是——我们都在——大家在这里都是本末倒置，因为假设的情况是这样的，法官阁下。\n2 本案先审结。Despins先生卖掉了\n3 房屋。有一笔资金存放在那里。\n4 好的。这对除了买房人之外的\n5 所有人听起来都很不错。\n6 现在刑事诉讼中作出一项认定，\n7 您猜怎么着？这里不存在欺诈。那处房屋\n8 根本不应该被列入起诉书中。那些\n9 买房的人应该拿回房屋。\n10 房屋已经没有了。现在只有一笔资金。\n11 法庭：但您有能力——我\n12 理解您所说的，但您有能力对任何——按照您所说的，而且我——您说\n13 您是在本末倒置，但我还不知道\n14 这是否属实。因为除非且直到Despins先生\n15 在其主张中胜诉，否则该房屋并非\n16 破产财产的资产。\n17 在我看来，他似乎在做的是，您可以\n18 不同意，我也很乐意听取您的意见，他正在试图\n19 建立一套机制，以解决政府与\n20 本破产财产之间将会产生的、可能会产生的\n21 利益冲突。\n22 我阅读文件后的理解是，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 34 这实际上是一份和解协议——其条款除非且直到特定事项发生才会生效。如果Despins先生败诉了，对吧，如果他没有——他没有胜诉，那么破产财产不享有任何权益。如果政府败诉了，并且他们无法在没收程序中追索该财产，那么政府败诉，而您的客户也就没有任何损失。因此，尽管我理解您的主张，但就我认为您的权利仍受到保护而言，我对此主张有些难以认同。您仍将享有权利。首先，您将有权——初步禁令已经发布了，对吧？您将有权提交诉状。您将有权进行证据开示，在附随诉讼程序中做任何您想做的事，然后我们仍然要进行审判，届时您将代表被告。您将去争辩受托人Despins是错误的。您将能够出示您的全部证据并进行所有这些抗辩。然后法院将必须作出裁判。您也享有权利——在我看来，您在某个时候也会享有权利——目前，受托人的主张是人格混同以及实益衡平所有权，对吧？您今天说有人投了\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 35 资金进入该房屋，其有权实质上追回该资金。您可能是对的。我不知道。但您必须提出该信息，对吧？我们目前没有任何这方面的信息。而我们拥有的唯一信息就是初步禁令中认定的信息，对吧，即初步禁令中的那些认定。因此我不确定这在此时此刻对您的客户有何不利影响。Conway先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？法庭：可以。Conway先生：关于您说感到困惑的那一点，在我们起草辩护状时，您知道，我们把最好的论点放在前面，次要的论点放在最后，那是我们的最后一个论点，因为我们觉得那是一个假设性的问题。更重要的论点是我开篇提出的那个，即受害者尚未被确定的事实。受托人在这里试图做的是确定一个涉案标的物，并声称获准债权将被允许从该标的物中受偿。我们在此建议的是，为了满足公平合理的要求，他们必须说明在这种情况下要怎么做才能提出一项获准\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 36\n1 债权？\n2 如果这样做，我认为您在将要签发的\n3 任何命令中，还必须包含一套程序，\n4 允许那些在我们案件结束时确定自己享有债权的人，\n5 能够享有例如提交针对该事项的债权证明的权利——\n6 法庭：嗯，那很容易。那部分很容易。\n7 Conway先生：当然容易，如果写进命令里的话。\n8 法庭：但是关于针对未被视作破产财产资产的\n9 资产设定债权申报截止日期的部分，\n10 那很容易。我的意思是，那一部分，\n11 当您最初谈到那一点时，我说，好的，那是——那是一个\n12 有效的论点，但那很容易解决。我的意思是，\n13 那是可以做到的。\n14 Conway先生：那是我建议的内容中最容易的部分。\n15 第二部分也不难。我认为受托人\n16 已经表示他们尚未达成协议是因为\n17 这很困难。确定谁将享有获准债权并不困难。\n18 我认为这只需简单地规定，任何被主张\n19 曾向债务人提供且被用于购买该房屋之款项的人，\n20 都将享有获准债权。但在破产案中的其他债权人，\n21 其可能对债务人享有侵权人身伤害索赔的，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 37\n\n债务人并非如此。\n\n法庭：我明白你的意思。但话说回来，我为什么现在需要这么做？为什么我需要在——在确定该财产是否属于破产财产之前以及如果确定是破产财产之前——这么做？因为可能根本不会认定该财产属于破产财产。所以我现在为什么需要走那个程序？\n\nCONWAY（康威）先生：因为我认为破产法不允许批准该动议，除非证明其公平合理，并且——\n\n法庭：嗯，这——我不确定——审查标准是它是否低于合理范围，那是法院都在讨论的和解标准。而我——我之所以没有从你那里听到你的当事人目前受到了什么损害，是因为现在实际上什么都还没有发生。\n\n目前的情况是，该和解协议是以未来可能发生也可能不发生的事情为条件的。因此，如果——如果 Trustee Despins（托管人德斯平斯）败诉，那么和解协议就不存在。什么都不会发生。破产财产中不会有一百万美元。也不会有费用的偿还。也不会存在让某些债权人可以主张债权、且必须由本法院认定为获准债权的独立财产（res）。如果他败诉了，我根本不需要经历所有这些程序，对吧？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 38 所以我仍然——我仍然有点困惑于这在目前对你有什么损害？当我说你时，我显然指的是你的当事人。 CONWAY 先生：明白了。我自己今天也犯了同样的代称混淆。法官阁下，我想最简单的处理方式也许是由我提出我的异议是一个有限异议，即该动议作出的任何裁定中都不得损害可能对该财产拥有获准债权的各方的权利，且裁定中不得允许——不得允许对该财产不享有债权的人对所设立的任何独立财产主张权利，并且不得阻止迟延债权申报的提出。这些保护措施，如果它们——如果它们落实到位的话—— 法庭：嗯，这不会是迟延债权，对吧，因为首先，我们会建立一个债权申报程序。第二，债权必须进行申报。因此，就像破产案件中的任何债权证明一样，它们必须有证据支持以证明其构成一项债权，对此托管人或任何其他方都可以提出异议，然后仍然\n\n尚未满足。\n\n所以据我的理解，如果你查看在破产财产与没收诉讼之间存在这种冲突的判例法，这通常确实发生在事后，然后它就变成了——它有很多——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 41 仅仅因为有人提交了——我想你也知道这一点——仅仅因为他们提交了债权证明，并不意味着该债权就是获准债权。它仍然必须经过审查程序。如果有人对此提出异议，那么法院必须作出裁定，判定该债权是根据破产法第 502 条获准的债权，还是根据破产法第 502 条不予支持的债权。因此，这归结为财产分配问题，而不是——因为你必须拥有获准债权才能获得分配。所以我理解你所说的，但我现在并不认为你的当事人此时此刻受到了损害。所以我不知道你是否还有什么其他想说的。但你是否想花点时间和托管人 Despins 谈谈这件事？我的意思是，你知道，初步禁令有一些与之相关的要求。我看到了我想是你们昨晚提交的文件—— CONWAY 先生：是的。 法庭：——关于该财产没有保险。嗯，在破产案件中，你知道，如果在破产财产上没有保险，美国托管人办公室会立即动议驳回案件。现在，虽然尚未认定这是一项破产财产，但是，但是，初步禁令\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023\n1　关于你的——你提出的论点，\n2　即 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）不应该——应该能够\n3　按照 Taurus Fund 认为其获准的方式使用该财产，\n4　在我看来，在初步禁令的背景下，\n5　Taurus Fund 似乎不可能拥有一处价值——我不知道价值多少，\n6　对吧？大家随口抛出了很多数字。我不需要\n7　对价值作出认定，但有人认定了并说是，\n8　你知道的，我不知道——\n9　DESPINS 先生：两千九百万。\n10　法庭：——几千万？\n11　DESPINS 先生：两千九百万。\n12　CONWAY 先生：他们支付了两千多万接近三千万，但我们正在争取\n13　——我们申请的保单是四千万，覆盖\n14　四千万。\n15　法庭：好的。所以，你知道，我认为你们需要\n16　购买保险。\n17　CONWAY 先生：噢，是的。而且，法官阁下，您会——\n18　法庭：而且我认为，你知道，对于\n19　该财产及其附属财物。我的意思是，那——\n20　那里存在问题。\n21　CONWAY 先生：而且，法官阁下，这显然\n22　并不直接影响该动议，但仅供您参考，\n23　耽搁的原因是您的禁令裁定正在被\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 43 纳入其中，以便任何使用该财产的人都必须同意按照您的禁令裁定使用。保险承保人要求这一点，并要求证明管理该财产的任何人都拥有单独的责任险，所有这些显然今天都已提供给承保人，以便他们承保该财产。四千万美元—— 法庭：很好。 CONWAY 先生：——据我了解是责任险，另外一千万美元是财产险。所以我想我们——我想一切都会办妥，并令法官阁下和托管人感到满意。 法庭：当你说满意时，我只想澄清一点，这不是让我满意。而是要符合破产法和相关规则的要求，以及保护财产的需要，对吧？我的意思是，在本案中任命托管人的原因之一，就是因为多方指控存在大量从未披露的财产。这就是为什么在 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件中会任命托管人来调查这些事务，并查看这些财产是否可以为了债权人的利益而被追回并纳入破产财产。托管人 Despins 提起了这项对抗性诉讼（adversary proceeding），\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023\n1　申请了临时限制令（temporary restraining order）和初步禁令，\n2　均已部分获准。并非申请的每一项\n3　救济都得到了批准，但申请的大部分\n4　救济都获得了批准。\n5　保险成为该禁令一部分的原因在于，\n6　如果没有保险，我不知道你该如何维持现状。\n7　你可以说，嗯，之前就没有保险。但那并不是维持现状。\n8　那么，明天有人就可能去把房子烧了，\n9　对吧，而这绝不是维持现状。\n10　所以无论如何——\n11　CONWAY 先生：我们意见一致。\n12　法庭：——听起来你们在这方面取得了很大进展。\n13　CONWAY 先生：我们意见一致。\n14　法庭：希望你们也一直在就安保服务及\n15　此类性质的事宜与托管人进行沟通。\n16　CONWAY 先生：我们确实就此进行了交谈，\n17　而且，你知道，自听证会之前起现场就已经有了一支安保服务团队。\n18　并且，安保规程已经就绪，所以我对此也并不太担心。\n19　我们目前正在就此进行讨论。\n20　法庭：嗯，从你提交的文件来看，——不是\n21　昨天的，而是之前的那份文件，你在其中确实履行了\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 45 申报房屋、庄园内财物清单的义务，我的意思是，整个地方显然配备了大量先进精密的安保设备。我是说—— CONWAY 先生：是的。 法庭：——我甚至都不知道具体有些什么，但我想我提到过有 59 个摄像头之类。我的意思是，该物业上有大量的安保设备，所以这似乎并不造成负担——我不是说你觉得这是个负担—— CONWAY 先生：不。 法庭：——我只是说，确保—— CONWAY 先生：我们过去希望这样，现在仍然希望这样。 法庭：——确保该财产的安全对 Taurus Fund 来说似乎并不是什么负担。 CONWAY 先生：我们之前就希望这样，法官阁下，我们现在仍然希望这样。所以，是的，这不是负担。这是我们想要的。 法庭：好的。 CONWAY 先生：所以，你看，我认为我们大家的想法是一致的。同样，对于目前审理的动议，除了表示我愿意尝试与托管人就裁定的形式进行沟通之外，我没有更多要说的了。但如果他不愿意和我谈，只要不损害我今天所阐述的后续权利，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 46 我要确保任何通过 Taurus Fund 主张在此享有权益的人都可以提出主张，提交债权证明，并主张享有其他人身伤害索赔的人不应从该独立财产中受偿。因此，只要这些问题不受到损害，这些权利不受到损害，法官阁下，我没有更多要说的了。 法庭：好的。谢谢。托管人 Despins？ DESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。所以从概念上讲，法官阁下您完全正确，如果我们胜诉，应该设定一个债权申报截止日（bar date）。我们目前还没有这样做，但针对我们正在发现的各种资产板块，我们将不得不这样做。例如 HCHK。如果我们在此胜诉，这些人在不预先判定他们是否拥有债权或股权的情况下，应该有权尝试申报债权。所以他们将——不幸的是，将会有、将会有大量的工作，但我们需要为此设定一个新的债权申报截止日——这就是为什么我目前把这放在一边——但如果我们在此胜诉，如果人们拥有债权，他们应该能够申报债权，并由法院对其债权进行审查处理。但如果我们在此胜诉，人们将无法针对该独立财产主张权利。法院作出的认定\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 48\n\n作为所有人是合情合理的，我们会证明这一点。\n\n但关键是，在没有保险的情况下，现在除了保安之外，任何人都不应该留在那处财产上，绝无例外。那些去那里的郭氏人员，去那里不论是做什么，在没有保险的情况下都不应该呆在里面。\n\n因为请记住 Lady May（梅夫人号）游艇，法官阁下，我们有时会忘记案件中的某些部分，但请记住他们曾试图购买保险而没有人愿意——是的，他们与保险公司进行了非常良好的沟通，但最终保险公司表示，由于涉及郭氏，不予承保。这发生在 3 月 15 日之后。\n\n因此，如果 Conway 先生在完全披露实际情况的前提下能够获得保险，那是再好不过了，但我并不因他沟通顺利这一事实而感到放心，那固然很好，但在有——在有保险之前，任何人都不得留在该房屋内。任何人都不得。法官阁下，我很抱歉在此问题上态度如此强硬，但这是我们所寻求的救济的一部分。您说过您并未拒绝它。您会——但这是一个关键问题。\n\n如果他明天拿到了保险，那是再好不过，那么他们就可以回去。但在此期间，在没有生效保险到位的情况下，任何人都不应出现在该财产上。而且，没有保险这一事实本身就说明了关于本案你所需要知道的一切。这简直就是\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 49\n\n荒谬透顶。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这是我们初步禁令的一部分。我知道这并不在您目前审理的范围内，但您确实在初步禁令裁定中保留了就您先前未批准的救济作出裁定的权利。这项救济今天应当予以批准。\n\n如果他明天拿到了保险，没问题，他们所有人都可以——顺便说一句，并不是所有人。\n\n我们在对如何解读您的命令存在争议。您知道，Conway 律师（康威律师）认为，所有这些朋友每次只能来 20 个人，然后他们可以离开，一小时后再来 20 个人，再过一小时又来 20 个人，只要在任何特定时间内不超过 20 人即可。这正是我们所担心的——大学宿舍综合征。\n\n如果他们能指定获准进入的 20 个人，那真是谢天谢地。重申一下，前提是他们有保险。但这必须是固定的 20 个人，而且我们将坚守这一点。我们绝不能允许轮换制，即今天来 20 个人，离开，明天又来另外 20 个人。业主对此不感兴趣。法官阁下，这一切都是为了保护 Kwok（郭文贵）政权，而这是不应该发生的。\n\n我想确保这一点明确无误。我以为命令中已经明确规定了是固定的 20\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 50\n1　个人，而不是轮换的 20 个人，因为否则情况就会变得\n2　无法控制。这些到底都是些什么人？\n3　但毫无疑问，在今天尚未购买保险\n4　的情况下，该场所内绝不应有任何人。我真诚地\n5　敦促法官阁下立即下令给予该项救济。\n6　谢谢。\n7　法庭：谢谢。\n8　Conway 律师，有什么要回应的吗？\n9　CONWAY 律师：有的。我有几点要说明。\n10　均令人反感。\n11　该处房产在购买后经历了一次\n12　大规模改造。目前尚未完工。\n13　由于发生的这一切事情而停工了。每一位去过、\n14　踏足过那里的承包商，都必须提供保险。在那处\n15　房产工作过的每一个人都是有保险的。\n16　我不知道安保公司是否有其自己的\n17　保险凭证。我还没有看到，但我\n18　设想他们大概是有的。\n19　您知道，这并不是说根本没\n20　考虑过保险问题。该处房产尚未准备就绪，\n21　无法投入其预期用途。它的预期用途——\n22　这也引出了第二点——原本是由\n23　Taurus Fund（金牛座基金）的推定所有人使用。\n24　法庭：那为什么会有人来来往往？\n25　CONWAY 律师：他们并没有来来往往。那是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 52 你没有——我的意思是，我知道你当天早上出庭了，而且你—— CONWAY 律师：我尽力了。 法庭：对。但你没有带任何证人来。你没有——你的人呢？ CONWAY 律师：我试图—— 法庭：Taurus Fund（金牛座基金）有谁提交过任何形式的文件，说明“我是金牛座基金的某某人，这些是我的职责。我确保自己购买了保险或未购买保险。我只允许这种行为”吗？我的意思是，你现在已经有时间了。你已经有了一点时间。顺便说一句，如果你——如果你注意本案对抗性诉讼程序（adversary proceeding）的时间节点，它是在 7月11日 提起的。今天是 8月29日。而临时限制令直到 8月1日 才生效，所以是有时间的。而且我们进行了一次审判。正如我所说，你知道，你的当事人，无论他们是谁，在收到这些送达文件时，我猜决定不拆信。至于 Bennett 先生（贝内特先生），既然你现在代表他，我的意思是，文件送达给了他的妻子。我没看到他提交过任何东西。他不在场。我在法庭里没看到其他任何人。Bennett 先生，Bennett 先生在吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 53\n\n（无出声回应）\n\n法庭：你的实体必须通过一个自然人来运作，至少一个。因此，该自然人必须去作为或不作为。\n\n但若说没有人来来往往，目前记录在案的证据并不支持这一说法。记录在案的证据支持有人来来往往且该处房产没有保险的说法。\n\nCONWAY 律师：嗯，记录在案的证据涉及的是在听证会很久之前发生的四次事件。Trustee（受托人）刚才对您说这是一个每个小时都有 20 个人进出的大学宿舍。这并不是——没有任何证据支持这一点。法官阁下，这一点您必须承认。\n\n法庭：嗯，他并没有说每个小时都有 20 个人进去。他说的是他不希望每个小时都有 20 个人进去。他不希望有一组 20 个人进来然后离开，接着另一组 20 个人进来然后离开。他表达的是这个意思。\n\nCONWAY 律师：其他人也并不希望这样。 法庭：他说的不是对初步禁令（preliminary injunction）该条款的解释。\n\nCONWAY 律师：对。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 54 法庭：但我对你说的全部意思就是，我们必须让负责人承担起责任，对吧？ CONWAY 律师：完全正确，法官阁下。 法庭：而且—— CONWAY 律师：而且法官阁下发布了一项命令，规定在禁令听证会当晚或听证会次日之后，不得就禁令听证会提交任何进一步文件，所以—— 法庭：嗯，我也说过你可以提出——如果你希望现场有超过 20 个人，你可以提出动议（motion）。你可以的。命令里是这么写的。在命令的某个地方写着。我可以调出来。 CONWAY 律师：如果我们确实需要，我相信我们会提的。迄今为止，目前我们正努力使一切得到妥善解决。我们目前根本没有打算让人们留在那里。我们正试图在这里解决——所有的行政事务问题。据我所知，目前并没有人来来往往进出。我们正努力确保一切都处理妥当。问题并不在于——你知道，有人告诉我“天哪，他们想在那里举办这个活动。你必须获得法官的许可才能办”。没有人这么说过。目前没有任何理由来找法官阁下并提出动议要求允许超过 20 个人\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 55\n\n留在那里。\n\n但事实是，如果法官阁下说，整个案件审理期间必须始终是相同的 20 个人，那么您的做法实际上就等于在本案作出判决之前把房产交给了受托人，因为投资该处房产的并不只有 20 个人。下个月可能有两个人想要使用它。再下个月可能有十个人想要使用它。但它绝不会被用作一百人的行动基地。 法庭：你说的投资该实体的人是什么意思？我的意思是，你们是一个实体。所以你们——你们在外面——你的当事人是在外面为该有限责任公司（LLC）的运营进行募资或筹集资金吗？ CONWAY 律师：法官阁下，要想象为什么 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司）被设立为一个特殊目的载体（SPV）来由该基金购买房产，且该基金由其投资者认购，这应该并不难。那些—— 法庭：但它的投资者是谁？ CONWAY 律师：是那些拿钱投入基金的人。 法庭：我明白。但我设想他们是有姓名和身份标识的。 CONWAY 律师：他们当然有，法官阁下。 法庭：好的。\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 60 物业管理公司。 法庭：那么物业管理—— CONWAY 律师：金牛座基金是一家有限责任公司。 法庭：我知道金牛座基金是什么。但他们作为一家有限责任公司是有法定义务的。他们不能仅仅—— CONWAY 律师：雇佣一家物业管理公司。 法庭：好的。那么物业管理公司是谁？ CONWAY 律师：我将在 9月1日 之前向受托人提供有关安保公司和物业管理公司的所有信息。我们现在正努力确保绝对没有任何可供受托人或本法庭提出异议的地方。确保所有人都同意初步禁令裁定中的一切规定。这一切都是——你知道的，法官阁下，我们正在尽最大努力严格按照我们被要求做的事情去做，并且——完全按照受托人所说的他的要求去做。 法庭：我明白。我明白这一点。我所说的全部就是我提到了——你提交了一份文件。我很感谢你提交了该文件，因为这是初步禁令裁定所要求的，但上面写着没有保险。这令人担忧。明白吗？这非常令人担忧。正如我所说，United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室），如果——如果在此时已经认定（目前尚未认定）\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 61\n1　该项资产属于破产财产（estate），\n2　美国受托人办公室就会冲进本法庭\n3　并说你们必须立即驳回本案。因为没有\n4　保险。破产财产的权益未得到\n5　保护，本案无法继续进行。\n6　而且我们经常遇到这种情况。我的意思是，必须\n7　有保险是法定要求之一。\n8　明白吗？\n9　所以你现在告诉我你要去办理\n10　保险，而且你必须——但是 Despins 受托人（德斯宾斯受托人）说，\n11　在你们办好保险之前，任何人都不应能进出\n12　该大楼。你说，进出该大楼的\n13　唯一人员都是已投保\n14　人员。可我对此并不知情。\n15　CONWAY 律师：不。我是说过去的情况一直如此。\n16　我认为目前没有任何承包商在施工。\n17　我认为目前现场的人员\n18　都是安保人员。\n19　法庭：好的。\n20　DESPINS 先生：不是。\n21　法庭：嗯，如果属实那就很好了。并且\n22　希望他们正在按照初步禁令的要求，\n23　对所有事项做好记录日志。\n24　CONWAY 律师：我之前问过是否一直在做记录。\n25　我得到的答复是有的。我一定会确保\n\n我尽力了，我拿不到。让我们回到法官那里，看看我们需要做什么。\n\n法庭：好的。关于与 United States（美国）达成的和解，我希望你们双方做的是就拟议命令的形式进行协商。\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日\n|\n1　如果你们无法达成一致，那么我希望你们双方\n2　在明天下午 5 点之前提交各自的拟议命令。我会\n3　审查这些命令。我会决定签署其中哪一份命令（如果有的话），\n4　或者我会对它们提出意见，并\n5　告诉你们最终命令的内容。\n6　正如我已经指出的，审查标准是该项\n7　和解是否低于合理性范围？\n8　并且由于在现阶段我尚未被说服或信服：\n9　如果该和解协议在目前存在的条款和\n10　条件下获得批准，会对你的当事人造成任何损害——\n11　即除非且直到 Despins 先生在实体审理（trial on the merits）\n12　中胜诉，否则任何事情都不会发生，而且，\n13　你知道，我大概不记得关于那点具体是怎么规定的了，\n14　但你知道，最终且不可上诉的裁定，\n15　无论情况如何，我都看不出你的当事人\n16　受到了什么损害。\n17　因此我确实认为该项和解处于\n18　合理性范围之内。\n19　我将给你们一个机会——而且你\n20　陈述了并且我也理解，或许你的异议比你最初\n21　想象的更为有限，因为如果命令中\n22　能加入适用于你当事人的措辞，那么\n23　你们也许可以接受，但也可能不接受。所以我打算\n24　让你们双方利用这个机会把这个问题理清楚。\n25　然后在明天下午 5 点前提交到本案的卷宗（docket）上。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 65 立即下达命令，在获得保险之前且非经获得保险，除安保人员外，禁止人员进入该物业或处于该物业内部。好吗？\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\nCONWAY 先生：法官阁下，我可以先行离席吗？\n法庭：可以。谢谢。好的。那么日程表上的唯一另一项事项就是 Rule 2004（《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第2004条）审查动议了。我想，Major 律师，您也是为此案出庭的，对吗？\nMAJOR 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。好的。Linsey 先生，由您先开始吗？\nLINSEY 先生：是的。法官阁下，我可以走上前吗？\n法庭：可以，请便。\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢。受托人的第六次 2004 条综合审查动议旨在将受托人的 Rule 2004 调查扩大至受托人调查显示发生过相关交易的其他相关银行，以及通过某些关联实体受雇于债务人财务事务或以其他方式卷入其中的其他实体和个人。迄今为止，Rule 2004 一直是受托人调查债务人财务状况的最有效工具之一。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 66\n\n正如法庭所知，债务人通过由数十个乃至数百个关联实体和个人组成的错综复杂的网络开展其商业活动。资金和财产流经该网络，以至于财务记录中反映出的个笔转账达数万笔，甚至数十万笔。\n\n因此，受托人的 Rule 2004 审查必须能够对债务人的财务事务进行全面审查。\n\n对第六次 2004 条审查动议的唯一异议，是由 Greenwich Land 和 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝，我将他们统称为 Greenwich Land 各方）提交的异议。他们提出异议的依据是，受托人的 Rule 2004 审查涉及与受托人针对 Greenwich Land 各方提起的未决对抗性程序（adversary proceeding）相关的问题。\n\n法庭此前已经审议过 Greenwich Land 的立场，并两次作出不利于该立场、有利于受托人的裁定。\n\n首先，Mei Guo 和 HK USA 曾对受托人的第二次 2004 条综合审查动议提出过实质上几乎完全相同的异议。那是在去年十二月。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 67\n1 法庭裁定，虽然受托人不得向未决对抗性程序的当事方寻求 Rule 2004 证据开示，但受托人完全可以继续针对非当事方进行调查，即使相关事项可能涉及未决对抗性程序。\n7 该裁定见于主案卷宗号 1184（docket no. 1184）。因此，这意味着该问题在近十个月前就已作出裁决。\n10 随后在几个月前的五月，Greenwich Land 和 Hing Chi Ngok 援引其自身的未决对抗性程序，再次基于完全相同的理由提出异议。\n13 当时，受托人的代理律师向 Greenwich Land 各方解释称法庭已就该问题作出过裁定，但该等当事方仍坚持提出异议。\n16 于是法庭再次就同一问题作出了裁定。\n17 不出所料，法庭作出了相同的裁定。\n18 受托人可以继续对非当事方开展 2004 条调查，即使部分标的事项可能与未决对抗性程序有关。\n21 受托人针对 Greenwich Land 上一次异议所作回应的第一点，也是我们在此提出的第一点，即该问题属于既决案件法则（law of the case）。\n24 本 Chapter 11（第11章破产重整）案件的复杂性是显而易见的。卷宗记录的数量比本司法管辖区的许多其他 Chapter 11 案件高出一个数量级。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 68\n\n如果本案要有序推进，当事方就不应随意对已决问题重新进行诉讼，更不用说在多次场合下反复进行。除此之外，法庭在第一次作出裁定时是正确的。就此而言，法庭第二次作出裁定时同样是正确的。\n\n我不想在这里陷入过深的无休止纠缠，因为我不想落入 Greenwich Land 各方的圈套，但他们在异议中选择性地引用判例和权威，试图论证一个根本不存在的主张——即不允许针对非当事方继续开展可能与未决对抗性程序存在部分标的重叠的 Rule 2004 调查。\n\n判例法并不支持这一主张。事实上，判例法与此相矛盾，正因如此，法官阁下此前两次作出了您所作出的裁定。\n\nGreenwich Land 各方提交的异议中还有一个令人担忧的特点，那就是其论述第六次 Rule 2004 动议所寻求继续开展的调查的方式。\n\n仅看其所描述的该项调查的摘要，看其从传票和调取文件请求中摘录的内容，人们会以为 Rule 2004 动议仅仅是为了调查 Greenwich Land 各方所谓的财产而进行的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 69\n1 事实上，查看调取文件请求（RFP）本身就会发现，它们涉及的资产范围远远超出了 Greenwich Land 各方所主张的资产。例如（这仅仅是举例），调取文件请求还涉及 Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的物业。\n6 我们今天刚刚就 Bravo Luck 对抗性程序达成和解。\n7 如果这起 2004 条审查真的是对抗性程序证据开示的替代品，我们为什么可能会去寻求涉及这些事项的证据开示和调查呢？\n11 同样的情况也适用于 Lady May 号游艇。Lady May 包含在他们的调取文件请求中。Lady May 已经被出售了。\n13 我们并不是——我们并不是为了好玩才列出这些事项的。\n14 我们并不是把列出这些事项作为《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 7 部分证据开示的替代品。\n16 这里的现实情况是，而且本法庭审理本案的时间足够长，深知这一点：受托人的财务状况，或者更确切地说是债务人的财务状况，是一张错综复杂、极其庞大的蜘蛛网。要理清他的业务和资产，你不能从这张网上硬生生砍下几块，还指望一切都能拼凑在一起。必须进行全面的审查。我认为法庭此前的两次裁定已经认可了这一点。\n24 除此之外，Greenwich Land 各方争论的问题与未决对抗性程序中的证据开示相关。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 70\n\n虽然我想明确指出，受托人不同意 Greenwich Land 各方关于他们在对抗性程序中有权获得什么和无权获得什么的立场，但在对抗性程序中进行证据开示争议诉讼的恰当方式并不是对 2004 条审查动议提出异议。最后，我只想简要说明一点，即使法庭驳回 Greenwich Land 各方的异议，破产财产（estate）在此也已经受到了损害。该异议将使 2004 条审查动议的获批以及随后的传票签发推迟数周时间。这让我想起高中时我父母常说的那句话：你每周都必须做数学作业，因为你下周要学的内容是建立在你本周所做的基础之上的；受托人的调查也是如此。相关标的事项、我们根据本动议向其签发传票的人员、调取文件请求的条款、标的事项，这一切——其中很大一部分都是受托人通过其现有的 2004 条审查调查所掌握的事项。在 2004 条审查调查被拖延的范围内，这种拖延会自我累积，一切耗时更长，一切成本更高，卷宗记录不断增加，破产行政管理费用不断累积。因此，我们请求法官阁下批准第六次动议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 72\n\n在我提出异议时说：“嗯，你们没有对我们的第六次综合动议提出异议。”因此，我认为我们提出异议是完全恰当的。\n\n这些问题相似，但并非完全相同，但也正因如此，我将简明扼要。我清楚法庭此前的命令是什么，但我必须记录在案。我不能仅仅说，好吧，法庭既然这样做了，因此我们就默许接受。因为如果我们是在上诉法庭或任何审判法庭面前，而我提出异议，我不希望听到对方提出放弃权利（waiver）的主张。因此，我认为这是我们有义务提出的异议，而且我认为这完全是恰当的。\n\n正如我所说，关于法律问题我将特别简要说明。我清楚法庭先前的裁决。关于“未决程序规则”的存在并无争议，该规则禁止获取 2004 条下的证据开示用于对抗性程序。本次第六次 2004 条证据开示综合动议所寻求的证据开示涉及 Greenwich Land 对抗性程序中的问题，对此也并无争议。\n\n受托人的代理律师对我们的异议只关注与 Greenwich Land 相关的全部证据开示请求而未提及其他请求这一事实提出了异议，对此，法官阁下，我认为那份备案文件、那份综合动议，如果把传票算进去，大概有 300 多页。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 74\n\n《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 7026 条及以下条款规定的规则，在对抗性程序启动后针对受该程序影响的实体以及该程序中涉及的问题进行证据开示。”\n\n第二个案例是北卡罗来纳中区（Middle District of North Carolina）的 In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.，2010 Westlaw 5128608。这是一个 2010 年的案例。在该裁定的第 3 页，法院写道：“为了防止不公，并确保破产对抗性程序中的当事方享有与非破产背景下的联邦诉讼当事方相同的权利，重要的是确保通过引用并入《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 7026 条至第 7037 条的《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》第 26 条至第 37 条所规定的证据开示程序保障，不会因允许在对抗性程序未决期间进行 Rule 2004 审查而被规避。”\n\n法官阁下，关于该项法律论点，我们同样依据我们在异议中引用并讨论的其他判例法。\n\n我想谈一下——我在开篇时提到过，目前的情况与我们六月份对第五次 Rule 2004 证据开示综合动议提出异议时的情况相似，但并非完全相同。\n\n受托人提议的做法还存在另一种不公，即证据开示——受托人在我们的对抗性程序中主张并争取到了极其迅速的证据开示日程表。该日程即将结束。他现在来到法庭表示，他希望获取与 Greenwich Land 对抗性程序中的问题相关的 2004 条证据开示。我们将被剥夺进行任何证据开示的机会。我们不能——我们不被允许参与他就我们正在抗辩的对抗性程序中的问题所进行的证据开示，而他却能够继续这样做。我想他的立场是他可以一直这样做直到庭审结束。如果他发现了什么，他可以尝试去使用它，届时我们当然会对此提出异议。\n\n但他所谓的与 Greenwich Land 相关的调查，实际上是对他已经提出的主张和他已经获得的初步救济进行的证据开示，因此我认为进行此项调查的恰当方式应当是各方当事人均可参与的证据开示。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这些就是我们的论点。我很乐意回答法庭提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：谢谢。没有，我目前没有任何问题，但谢谢你。\n\nMAJOR 先生：谢谢法官阁下。\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下，可以简短说一句吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 76\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n林西先生（MR. LINSEY）：首先，再次强调，对席诉讼中的证据开示争议是对席诉讼本身的问题。我们不同意对席诉讼中有关谈判的证据开示的定性，但如果存在争议，那么我认为任何一方都有能力——任何一方都有权将这些争议提交到该诉讼程序中去。\n\n但关于对判例法的简短讨论，法官阁下实质上已经考虑过这个问题。如果说《本内特》（*Bennett*）一案听起来很耳熟，那是因为它是法官阁下在上一份裁定中引用的案件之一，而且法官阁下在该引用后面的括号说明中指出，该案是对未决诉讼当事人进行第 2004 条证据开示的禁止，而不是针对非当事人。\n\n关于被引用的《东南材料》（*Southeastern Materials*）案，脱离上下文截取判例片段是很容易的。我也从《东南材料》案中截取一段话：“有少数裁决考虑了在另一法院正在进行或可能发生相关民事或刑事诉讼的情况下，破产规则第 2004 条调查的允许范围，这些案件中的一般规则是，附带诉讼的存在或潜在可能性并不能构成拒绝调查的充分理由。”法官阁下，这是出自该案的原话。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 77\n法官阁下审视了这些判例。这里没有——没有直接针对本案的联邦第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）的裁决。这些判例归结起来的核心在于：证据开示调查的目的是否为了取代诉讼规则第 7 部分项下对席诉讼中的证据开示以获取某种战略优势，还是对债务人财务状况的正当调查、全面调查。而且我认为在本案中，鉴于迄今为止所建立的记录，非常明确的是我们正在进行的是后者。\n法庭（THE COURT）：谢谢。\n林西先生：谢谢。\n法庭：梅杰律师（Attorney Major），有答辩吗？\n梅杰先生（MR. MAJOR）：法官阁下，关于判例法，我们准确描述了法院的裁决。我读的那两个并不是仅有的案件。我们在简要答辩书中引用了几个支持我们论点的判例。\n法庭：我理解。谢谢。我也看到你们引用了其他判例，所以我理解。好的。关于这项动议，法庭将把该事项纳入侵入审议。但我认为裁决不会——我的意思是，我不会花太长时间来作出裁决，但我会在重新审视你们的论点并再次查看文件和判例之后作出裁决。好吗？今天下午我们还需要处理其他事项吗？我想这是日程表上的最后一项事项了。\n德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：没错，法官阁下。\n法庭：任何一方都没有其他事项了吗？\n德斯平斯先生：实际上，法官阁下，请允许我冒昧问一下。问题是，在法官阁下这里，如果在证言录取过程中出现问题，是否有在证言录取过程中寻求救济的程序？因为在某些法院——\n法庭：没有——我们没有一个，你知道，我能明确指出的、规定必须如何操作的程序，但过去发生的情况是，当事人联系法庭副书记官并请求法庭举行紧急听证会。\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n法庭：如果法庭有空，法庭可以这样做。如果法庭没空，那么法庭对当事人说的是，尽可能继续进行证言录取。把不管有什么问题或争议都先搁置，直到法庭能够实际举行该听证会。我知道这并不理想，因为这意味着你们必须为了证言录取或调查重新召集，但是——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 79\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n法庭：——没有时间——你知道，遗憾的是法庭并不总是能腾出时间。\n德斯平斯先生：明白。这很有帮助。谢谢。\n法庭：所以我不知道你们想怎么处理，但曾经有两种情况都发生过。当事人打电话过来，法庭有空，能够举行紧急听证会。但也发生过当事人打电话过来，法庭没空，然后我们必须排期专门举行听证会以尽快处理该问题的情况。我想我能告诉你们的就这些了。我们在本地规则中没有设立相关流程，诸如此类。\n德斯平斯先生：好的。谢谢。非常有帮助。谢谢。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。今天日程表上还有一些不在上面的事项，我认为可以说是事务性的。比如，提交了一项涂黑隐匿动议。涂黑隐匿通常会获准，所以这可能在接下来几天内得到处理。除此之外，我认为主案和对席诉讼中的大部分事项要么已定于举行听证，要么即将到达答复截止日期。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 80\n噢，那是我正打算说的另一件事。梅杰先生，你可能也不知道这件事。但是康涅狄格区联邦地方法院（district court in Connecticut），当在一个你所谓的原告与被告的民事诉讼中提交动议时，会自动设定一个 21 天的答复期。我们遵循这项规则。因此，在对席诉讼中一提交诉答文书，CM/ECF 案件管理/电子案卷系统就会自动生成这样的文字，说——我不记得具体怎么说的了，但大致是说答复期为 21 天，然后我想它会计算出具体日期。我向大家说明过的是——我们的本地规则并未对此作出规定，但我们正在重新审视我们的本地规则——如果有人认为应当有其他的答复日期，或者存在紧急情况，或者需要延长该答复日期，那么这并不妨碍任何人提交申请以寻求该救济。好吗？我认为，你知道，在破产案件的背景下，这 21 天往往不能像在联邦地方法院诉讼中那样生搬硬套。而且我并不是说它在联邦地方法院诉讼中一直都很合适，因为我相信在某些情况下有人会希望在此之前处理某些事项。但我想向各方阐明的是，这 21 天的期限是系统自动生成的。法庭与此无关。它就只是在那里。这是程序的一部分，并且遵循了我们所遵循的联邦地方法院规则。\n\n因此，可能存在任何一方都可以寻求更改该日期，或在此之前获得某种形式的地位协商会议等情况。你们并不——任何一方都不被阻止寻求该救济。至于它是否会获准，那是完全不同的另一个问题。\n\n但我最近注意到提交了一些动议，在这些动议中，你知道，我能理解为什么当事人会希望获得某种其他形式的救济而无需等待 21 天，但并未必然提出相应申请，所以我只是想让各方明白这一点。好吗？\n\n林西先生：法官阁下，这让我想起了一个问题。在 HCHK 对席诉讼中，有——在不涉及其实质内容的前提下，最近提交了一项延长诉答文书截止日期的动议。其中表明破产受托人（Trustee）无异议。我们正计划提交答复。该答复应在本周提交。我提这一点只是因为我知道，你知道，案卷文本中有着与法官阁下所指出的通常会出现的相同的 21 天提示，但同时，你知道，通常或很多时候我们看到延期动议在 21 天截止日期之前就获准了。所以我只是想向法官阁下提及，本周将有一份答复\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 82\n即将由信托——\n法庭：我还以为已经有人对该延期提出异议了。\n林西先生：动议中提到了异议，但我们将提交一份实质性的——\n法庭：噢。好的。我明白了。\n林西先生：——解释理由的异议。\n法庭：我明白了。\n林西先生：而且我只是——\n法庭：我明白你的意思。\n林西先生：我们不会拖延——我们不会——我们不会拖他们 21 天才办这事。我们会把它提交备案。\n法庭：我明白了。好的。感谢你们这样做。\n林西先生：谢谢。\n德斯平斯先生：而且，法官阁下，您在申请上诉许可背景下提出的问题有点危险，因为案卷会显示你有 21 天的时间，并且正如您所指出的那样给出了日期，但《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第 8004 条规定你有十天时间。\n法庭：我知道。\n德斯平斯先生：所以这就好比——\n法庭：那是问题的一部分。\n德斯平斯先生：是的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 84\n梅杰先生：是的。法官阁下，如果我表现得像个外地律师，我深表歉意，但我获准在本区执业已经——\n法庭：不。我不是那个意思。\n梅杰先生：——很长时间了。\n法庭：我的意思只是我觉得你不会经常进出破产法院，也不必操心我们的本地规则与地方法院规则之间的相互配合。仅此而已。\n梅杰先生：法官阁下，针对您的评论，我只想说明一点。我提出这点可能显得很突兀，因为这根本不是您刚才想表达的意思，但是因为受托人抱怨说我们提出异议造成了延误，我只是想确保记录明确显示，受托人是在 8 月 11 日星期五向我们送达了第六次综合动议。该动议表明异议应在下周五，即 8 月 18 日前提出，而我们遵守了该要求。所以我们并没有用满 21 天才提出异议。\n法庭：我同意。而且我看到你们遵守了动议中的异议截止日期。所以我们遇到了一些不幸的，你知道，试图实现统一性所带来的非意图后果，因为这并不总是奏效。并非所有事物都能装进\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日\n同一个盒子里。而且，你知道，我们大概可以花上几周时间去梳理本地规则，找出所有装不进这个盒子的事项。但无论如何，我提这一点只是为了让各方知晓——我不希望任何人认为这意味着他们不能在 21 天之前以某种方式寻求救济。至于你能否获得救济，那是完全不同的另一个问题。好吗？好的。那么，今天的听证会到此结束，所以——\n\n（庭审于下午 3:47 结束）\n\n我，克里斯汀·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），公认电子法庭记录员兼转录员，证明前述内容为对上述案件庭审官方电子录音的正确转录件。\n\n2023年9月6日\n克里斯汀·菲奥雷（Christine Fiore），CERT 认证\n转录员","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","forfeiture","Guo","Luc Despins","HCHK","CIPA","G Clubs","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":24,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":111,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2049,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2113,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2127,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":16111,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-10-19 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-10-19","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:21:11"}