{"id":"court_sdny_198_12","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":198,"sub_number":12,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-09-07","title":"EXHIBIT I UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\*","summary_zh":"破产法庭庭审记录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，康涅狄格州破产法院案号 22-50073 ECF #198（2023年8月29日）。Hon. Julie A. Manning 法官主持的听证会记录，涉及受托人与 Bravo Luck 等实体及 Taurus Fund LLC 的多项和解动议的口头辩论。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy court hearing transcript —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / Kwok Ho Wan), Case No. 22-50073, U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut, ECF #198 (August 29, 2023). Proceedings before Judge Julie A. Manning recording oral arguments on multiple settlement motions regarding Bravo Luck entities and Taurus Fund LLC.","body_en":"# EXHIBIT I\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\n3\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.\n\n 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.\n\n 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.\n\n 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.\n\n 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\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 8                            |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | terms of probably withdrawing the adversary proceeding, or |\n| 2  | perhaps the settlement (indiscernible). I'll look at that. |\n| 3  | But --                                                     |\n| 4  | THE COURT: Well, I've got it here.                         |\n| 5  | MR. DESPINS: Yeah.                                         |\n| 6  | THE COURT: I don't recall exactly.                         |\n| 7  | But what I'm saying is if you both see some                |\n| 8  | entries made because it appears that certain matters that  |\n| 9  | have been pending are resolved pursuant to an approval of  |\n| 10 | the settlement, then that will be ministerial.             |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS: Yes.                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURT: I just want you to understand that.             |\n| 13 | Okay?                                                      |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS: Yes.                                          |\n| 15 | The order provides that the plaintiff's authorized         |\n| 16 | to execute, deliver, implement all sorts of documents or   |\n| 17 | instruments necessary to implement this.                   |\n| 18 | THE COURT: Right.                                          |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS: I think that Mr. Lawall -- that               |\n| 20 | there were signatures provided. There were signatures to   |\n| 21 | the settlement agreement provided by Bravo Luck. There was |\n| 22 | no signature provided by the son because that's held in    |\n| 23 | trust by Mr. Lawall. They didn't want to provide the       |\n| 24 | signature --                                               |\n| 25 | THE COURT: But you have it?                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 9 MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I mean, you have the actual signature? MR. DESPINS: That's what we've been told. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So that when -- if the Court approves the settlement, then the signature will be added. But to the extent there are ministerial things that need to happen, we will make those happen, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. I don't know that there's a lot of things you need to do other than what you've just discussed. I just want you to be aware that when I looked at this, and again, I'm looking at it again now to refresh my recollection, but there are matters that are outstanding in the adversary proceedings in the main case that I believe now are resolved by this settlement. MR. DESPINS: Yes, they're all resolved. Yes. THE COURT: So that's the way I view it. And I want to make sure that neither one of you view it differently, because I don't want to make a mistake in my view. MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. The settlement agreement is pretty detailed in terms of -- THE COURT: Yes, it is. MR. DESPINS: -- this claim is waived, that claim is waived, so it's very precise. I think these are self-\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 10 executing. But to the extent we need to do more, we will do that to implement the settlement. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So unless the Court has other questions -- THE COURT: I don't have any other questions at the moment. Again, I note for the record that no one has filed any written objection to the settlement. It's been on notice. It was served appropriately in accordance with the Court's review of the service of the motion and the hearing notice, so I don't see -- I should say it in the affirmative. There is nothing before the Court that would concern me to -- with regard to approving the settlement. I mean, the parties have been working together. You've come and told the Court that many times. And so I appreciate the efforts obviously of the parties in resolving these issues. And I do think the settlement agreement is detailed, but I also agree that the releases are not -- they are limited to the claims that were brought in these -- in the main case and in the adversary proceedings. So I'm fine with that. Attorney Lawall, would you like to be heard? MR. LAWALL: Yes, Your Honor. Again, good\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 11 afternoon. Fran Lawall, Troutman Pepper, on behalf of Bravo Luck. To answer, I guess, some of your procedural questions, I think the way the settlement agreement is structured is that the three adversaries will be dismissed with prejudice. THE COURT: Right. MR. LAWALL: The proofs of claim that were filed are deemed withdrawn. By having the complaints withdrawn with prejudice, that will obviously take off your calendar the motions to dismiss. This is in the form of a typical settlement. None of the defendants are admitting any of the -- any of the assertions within the complaints. And in fact, there are specific denials. But again, this is a settlement. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LAWALL: There are some things that will happen in the Virgin Islands with litigation that was ancillary to this, which will go away as well. But again, I agree with Mr. Despins. The settlement agreement is sufficiently complex that we would rely upon the four corners of that settlement agreement. But generally I think your understanding of the essence of it is largely correct. 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 14 settlement falls within the range of reasonableness. I think it's a -- it is a positive step. Although I understand, you know, no one's -- you're all doing what you can under the circumstances to move things forward and I think that's very positive. No one has filed any written objections to the motion to compromise. And under our local rules the reason it has to be -- the motion has to be filed not just in the adversary proceedings, but in the main case, is so that all parties are served. And they were served and no one has filed any written objections. So for all those reasons, the motion to compromise filed both in the main case and the adversary proceedings are granted. I have the proposed order here and it looks fine to me. It does attach the settlement agreement as Exhibit 1 to the order, which is absolutely fine. I think that's actually preferable to have it there so someone can look at it if they need to. And I think that I don't need to do anything else at the moment unless you think otherwise, Attorney Lawall? MR. LAWALL: I think we're good, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. LAWALL: Your Honor, my business with the\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>15                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Court is done today.<br>May I be excused?                     |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Absolutely.<br>Thank you very much.             |\n| 3  | MR. LAWALL:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>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.<br>And the proposed orders will enter.         |\n| 8  | Now, the other settlement agreement has an                    |\n| 9  | objection, Trustee Despins.<br>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:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.                   |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>That has an objection as well?                  |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                          |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>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:<br>Sure, we can.                                 |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>That's ECF 2127 in the main            |\n| 21 | case.<br>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|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 16                              |\n| 1  | assume it was filed under, but I could be wrong, that it was  |\n| 2  | filed under 363 because you're talking about use of estate    |\n| 3  | property?                                                     |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor.                             |\n| 5  | THE COURT: Okay. Under our local rules, and it's              |\n| 6  | not as clear as it could be, but normally, any motion         |\n| 7  | seeking relief under 363 is automatically set for a hearing.  |\n| 8  | And this was filed under the contested matter                 |\n| 9  | procedure. So I don't know how you want to -- if you want     |\n| 10 | to wait for a response period to go by, that's fine. Or it    |\n| 11 | can be automatically set for a hearing in which there will    |\n| 12 | be an objection deadline, but that -- that is one of the      |\n| 13 | reasons it was brought to my attention.                       |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. You're                    |\n| 15 | correct.                                                      |\n| 16 | And we had -- pursuant to that contested matter               |\n| 17 | rule, we had set forth as an exhibit an objection deadline    |\n| 18 | of September 13th. And we're content with that --             |\n| 19 | THE COURT: Okay.                                              |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS: -- as long as the hearing, if                    |\n| 21 | there's no objection, takes place soonish thereafter.         |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Well, we can -- we can do one of two               |\n| 23 | things. We can issue a notice of hearing right now setting    |\n| 24 | an objection -- I don't mean right now, but today or          |\n| 25 | tomorrow -- 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 19 held the status conference with regard to that matter. The only other thing the U.S. Trustee's Office may want, I have no idea, Attorney Claiborn, but that motion that's seeking to remediate different issues at the Sherry- Netherland apartment also seeks the employment. So I don't know if you want the order to refer to Section 327 or something too. I have no idea. But maybe you can all work that out before we have a hearing. And maybe if you all come in and there's no problem, you'll go first at 2 p.m. Okay? MR. DESPINS: That's a good incentive. THE COURT: All right. So with regard to the status conference that was held today that -- the status conference has been held. There's no need for any -- no further status conferences will be scheduled and a notice of hearing will issue on ECF No. 2113. Okay? So then how would you like to proceed next? MR. DESPINS: We'll go to Mahwah at this point. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. So Your Honor, this is a motion to approve a settlement with the Department of Justice. That's under document 24 in the adversary proceeding. And I have already testified as to this, but I think it's important that we set the stage again on this because last time that was not the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 20 main focus. I wanted the Court to know about it, but clearly that was not the purpose of that hearing. So the first question is why enter into a settlement with the DOJ? Second question is what does the settlement do or not do? And so let me try to address that. The first question is why? As we state in the motion, the DOJ has expressly targeted the Mahwah mansion as a -- that's not a verb -- forfeitable asset and they've actually identified that asset. We did not know about it. So we have to be candid with the Court. We did not know about that asset until the indictment was released. And, however, the Department of Justice, their tools are sort of limited in the pre-conviction phase in the sense that they cannot obtain title to this property now or do much with it before there's a conviction, which is a final conviction. Given that the trial is not going to last -- not going to start until April I think, at least until April of next year, obviously, the DOJ and we were aware of what was going there and we're really concerned about this very valuable asset being left in limbo for lack of a better term. So, however, because they identified this asset as a potentially forfeitable asset, we did not want to begin 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 avoid that. 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. 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. This settlement agreement does not dictate the sale of the property because it provides that certain things will happen if we prevail. 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. 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 24 the case, but of course Your Honor will have to rule on that. So the estate is not worse off because the fees and expenses are covered. It's better off by a million dollars. And it can be better off by a lot more than that if we are successful in convincing the DOJ that the distribution of proceeds from this property -- and by the way, we're going to try that with other -- you know, for example, I've mentioned the cash that's being frozen right now, \\$630 million we -- that's not today's issue, but the game plan here, based on other cases where the DOJ has sought and obtained forfeiture of assets, is for the Chapter 11 Trustee to wear two hats, Chapter 11 Trustee and forfeiture receiver. And it all comes back to this court for distribution. And I know there are issues there. And they know that too, meaning the DOJ. They're not naive. They know that. 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. 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 25 proof of claim, you'll see that there's really bad -- that bad things are being alleged there. Clearly she would say I'm a victim. So the point is, we're not asking the Court to determine who's a victim today. The only point is that this would go to the victims of the debtor, TBD as to what that means, but that's going to be a clear benefit to the estate as long as they have an allowed claim, which Your Honor will need to determine. So you might say, well, if you're able to get the million, why didn't you negotiate the full package? And the reason is very clear, and that's stated in the motion. The DOJ cannot have -- there's a very strict procedure for the DOJ to do that. There's a forfeiture team under the DOJ, and they need to get the approval of the Attorney General to agree to things like that have been done. And I believe one of them was done before Your Honor or a case that you may have inherited from another judge, but this has happened before. In that case, they went all the way to the Attorney General and got the approval. They're not going to do that and cannot do that now until they have a finding of guilt that is final against the debtor or the other defendants. So that is why we could not go further than that.\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 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\n\n 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 27 cannot confirm a plan that provides that secured creditors get paid after unsecured. So we want to be clear that approval of the settlement agreement is just approval of a way forward. You're not signing off on any plan, any future plan, and all that. So if you want to put in that section subject to applicable law, including the bankruptcy code, that's fine with us. We're not trying to prejudge that. What we're trying to prejudge is that this estate is going to get a million dollars on top of the expenses so that it cannot be said that we just did this, you know, to spin our wheels. You know, there's a net benefit to the estate and that was critical here. So that's a long description, but I think that covers the entire settlements. I want to leave, you know, Your Honor, with the following thought, right? This is not an approval of any distribution to anyone. This is not the approval of a sale of the property. That will happen only if we prevail on the alter ego or inequitable ownership claims. And, therefore, any objection on that is premature, because if we lose on that, none of this matters. And also there's another benefit here, which is\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.\n\n 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.\n\n 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.\n\n 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.\n\nWe're not anywhere near that here, but I want to\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\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>30                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | file something there or not.                                 |\n| 2  | THE COURT: Okay.                                             |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS: They understood that we needed to do            |\n| 4  | that with Your Honor, but more than that, no.                |\n| 5  | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.                                  |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 7  | THE COURT: Attorney Conway, would you like to be             |\n| 8  | heard?                                                       |\n| 9  | MR. CONWAY: Thank you, Your Honor. Michael                   |\n| 10 | Conway, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, for Taurus Fund,     |\n| 11 | LLC.                                                         |\n| 12 | Obviously you've read the papers, but I want to              |\n| 13 | just address the gaping hole that Mr. Despins just referred  |\n| 14 | to, and that is there has been no identification of the      |\n| 15 | victims here.                                                |\n| 16 | What the settlement calls for is creating a res              |\n| 17 | that certain creditors of the bankruptcy estate can claim    |\n| 18 | against, others cannot. We don't know who can and who        |\n| 19 | can't.                                                       |\n| 20 | And the fundamental question on any motion like              |\n| 21 | this is how is it fair and equitable? We can't answer that   |\n| 22 | question now for the simple reason that we don't know which  |\n| 23 | creditors can or can't claim against it. The obvious         |\n| 24 | solution would have been for them to come to an agreement on |\n| 25 | who can claim against the res, who is a victim as they put   |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 31 it? 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. 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. 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. 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\n\n 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 33 MR. CONWAY: Yes. And it's -- it is -- this is all -- we're all -- everybody's putting the cart before the horse here in that the hypothetical is this, Your Honor. This case gets finished first. Mr. Despins sells the house. There's a fund of money that's sitting there. Okay. That sounds great to everybody but the people who bought the house. Now there's a finding in the criminal proceeding that, you know what? There was no fraud here. That house never should have been listed in the indictment. Those people who bought the house should get the house back. There's no more house. Now there's a fund of money. THE COURT: But you'd have the ability -- I understand what you're saying, but you have the ability to object to any -- what you're saying, and I -- you're saying you're putting the cart before the horse, but I don't know if that's accurate yet. Because unless and until Mr. Despins is successful in his claims, the house isn't an asset of the estate. What he appears to be doing, to me, and you can disagree and I'm happy to hear you on it, is he's attempting to have a mechanism in place to resolve what would be, what could be, could be, competing interests between the Government and this bankruptcy estate. 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 36 claim in this situation? And if you did that, I think you'd also, in whatever order you would issue, have to include a procedure which allows for the people who determine they have a claim at the end of our case, would have a right, for instance, to file a proof of claim of that -- THE COURT: Well, that's easy. That part is easy. MR. CONWAY: It certainly is, if it was in the order. THE COURT: But the part of setting a deadline for filing claims with regard to an asset that was not deemed to be an asset of the estate, that's easy. I mean, that part, when you talked about that initially, I said, okay, well, that's a -- that's a valid point, but that's easy. I mean, that can be done. MR. CONWAY: That's the easiest part of what I'm suggesting. The second part is not hard. I think the Trustee has indicated that they haven't reached an agreement because it's difficult. It's not difficult to identify who would have an allowed claim. I think it's a simple matter of saying anybody who is claimed to have given money to the debtor that was used for the purpose of buying this house would have an allowed claim. But the other claimants in the bankruptcy who may have a personal injury claim against the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 37 debtor do not. 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? 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 -- 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. 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 39 might have to be a determination made by this court whether or not that claim is an allowed claim or a disallowed claim. That's the process, right? So I don't -- there wouldn't be an issue of a late-filed claim with regard to this specific asset because it hasn't been -- it wasn't an asset of the estate yet. And it may never be. MR. CONWAY: It may never be. And that's why I'm suggesting that I rephrase my objection to a limited objection suggesting that as long as there's nothing in an order that's contrary to what you just said, then perhaps nothing is being decided here that we have to worry about today. THE COURT: Well, maybe you and Trustee Despins can take a look at that order and see whether or not you can come to agreeable language. But what I'm -- what I understand that I'm being asked to do is approve a process that is -- an agreement between two parties that has certain conditions in the future that have to be met. Those conditions haven't been met yet. 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 40 no matter when it happens, it has issues. However, this process is saying, look, we don't know if it's going to happen. But if it is, this is how it will play out. And these are what these two parties have agreed to. I think that fits within the range of reasonableness at this point in time. I don't think that you, your clients lose any rights to contest -- well, I know they don't. Your clients don't lose any rights to contest the claims that Trustee Despins has to prove to this court and get a judgment in order for that asset to be an asset of the estate. He has to do that. There is a preliminary injunction in effect, but there still hasn't been a trial on the merits. So we still have to have that happen, number one. Number two, with regard to the claims issues, there is -- I don't see an issue from a bankruptcy court perspective of setting up a process for claimants to file claims in this, you know, in the -- in the case, in the -- against the estate with regard to an asset that was never an asset but now is. Okay? But it still flows through the same process, just like all the other claims that's already -- that are already filed in this case, which is -- which are the process is as follows.\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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 44 sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which were granted in part. Not every form of relief that was requested was granted, but a substantial part of the relief requested was granted. The reason that the insurance was part of that injunction is I don't know how you can protect the status quo if there isn't insurance. You could say, well, there wasn't insurance. That's not protecting the status quo. Well, then somebody could go burn down the house tomorrow, right, and that's not protecting the status quo. So in any event -- MR. CONWAY: We're on the same page. THE COURT: -- that sounds like you've made great progress on that. MR. CONWAY: We're on the same page. THE COURT: And hopefully you've been talking with the Trustee about security services and things of that nature as well. MR. CONWAY: We did have a conversation about that and, you know, there's been a security service team on site since before the hearing. And, you know, security protocol is in place, so I'm not overly concerned about that either. We're discussing that now. THE COURT: Well, from your filing, it -- not yesterday, but the previous filing, where you did comply by\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>45                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | filing what was in the contents of the house, the mansion, I  |\n| 2  | mean, there's obviously substantial sophisticated security    |\n| 3  | equipment throughout the whole place.<br>I mean --            |\n| 4  | MR. CONWAY:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>-- I don't even know what it is, but I          |\n| 6  | think I said 59 cameras or something.<br>I mean, there was    |\n| 7  | substantial security equipment at the property, so it didn't  |\n| 8  | seem to be burdensome for -- and I'm not saying you said it   |\n| 9  | was burdensome --                                             |\n| 10 | MR. CONWAY:<br>No.                                            |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>-- I'm just saying it doesn't seem to           |\n| 12 | be burdensome for the Taurus Fund to make sure --             |\n| 13 | MR. CONWAY:<br>We wanted it and still want it.                |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>-- that this property is secure.                |\n| 15 | MR. CONWAY:<br>We wanted it before and we still want          |\n| 16 | it now, Your Honor.<br>So, yeah, it's not burdensome.<br>It's |\n| 17 | what we want.                                                 |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 19 | MR. CONWAY:<br>So, you know, I think we're all on             |\n| 20 | the same page.                                                |\n| 21 | Again, I don't have anything more to say about the            |\n| 22 | motion that's on right now other than to say that I'm happy   |\n| 23 | to try and talk to the Trustee about the form of an order.    |\n| 24 | But if he's not willing to talk to me, as long as             |\n| 25 | it does not prejudice the rights down the road as             |\n|    |                                                               |\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 47 would be this is an asset owned by the debtor. If that's the case, everyone is in the soup together, meaning that they all share. And I'm not trying to have Your Honor prejudge that, but the point is I'm not going to put in an order something that says, oh, and they'll have a right to file a claim and they will be the only ones who have a right to file a claim against that res. No. If the asset is owned by the debtor, as we believe it is, the proceeds will be shared among all unsecured creditors that have allowed claims, including the people who, and I'm not even buying that for a second that they invested in the house, but let's pretend that that's what happened, including those people, if they have allowed claims. So that's not an issue at all. Also, I question, you know, Mr. Conway's standing. It shows you what's going on here. It's like, oh, the victim. You know, he represents the technical owner of this property, but he's talking on behalf of the people he's interfacing with, which are Kwok people. So I want to be very -- I'm sorry to be strident about this, but this insurance thing is a huge issue. They don't have insurance. That tells you that the owner that I bet you didn't even know they didn't have insurance because Kwok runs it. And, you know, this whole thing about Taurus\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 48 being the owner is just, we'll prove that. 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. 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. 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. 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 insanity. 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. If he gets insurance tomorrow, fine, they can all -- not all by the way. 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. 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. I want to make sure this point is clear. I thought it was clear in the order that there was a 20\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 50                           |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\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 51 just coming out of his mouth. That's not what's -- THE COURT: Well, no. We saw some evidence about that during the hearing. I mean, we saw people coming in and out of the, which wasn't controverted, coming in and out of the house in numbers. And we saw two people talking about the fact that it's -- well, we saw more than two people. We saw several video clips where different people from different parts of the country talked about using the house, the mansion, as their base, and that they were thanking the debtor for making that available to them. And there were people coming and going. And if there are people -- if there are people coming and going who are not these people that are working that you say are insured, then that is a problem. And I understand everything you're saying, but there's no evidence in the record right now to support anything you're saying. The only evidence in the record supports the fact that people are coming and going from this house. That they -- that the evidence established that the individuals who started talking about using the mansion for a clubhouse or a base didn't even know about the mansion until April 9th. That was -- that was their words. And no one else came in here and said anything to the contrary. No one.\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 (No audible response) 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. 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. 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. 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. MR. CONWAY: Nor does anybody else. THE COURT: He wasn't talking about the interpretation of that provision of the preliminary injunction. MR. 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.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 56 MR. CONWAY: And so they're the ones who want to -- THE COURT: So they need to come here and make their case. MR. CONWAY: Well, they don't have to come here. The fund can come here and say here's what we offered them. We said if you -- if you want a -- us to go out and buy this house so that you can use it, here's what we'll do. We'll buy the house with your money. THE COURT: But the evidence to the -- the evidence that was submitted at the preliminary injunction doesn't support what you just said, because the two people that talked about and did the tour of the land, the lands, the grounds, said they didn't even know about the mansion until August, April 9th, excuse me, so how would they have invested in something to use it as a clubhouse or a base? MR. CONWAY: Those people weren't members of G Clubs. Those people were members of the movement that were making a video for the purpose -- THE COURT: So you're saying G Club is the investors? MR. CONWAY: G Club Internationals is the one that invested money. THE COURT: In the Mahwah -- you mean it funded the purchase of the Mahwah mansion?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 57 MR. CONWAY: Absolutely. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CONWAY: Specific people, specific investments, it will all come out in this case. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CONWAY: I can't prove my case without being specific. THE COURT: I agree. MR. CONWAY: To a point. THE COURT: I agree. MR. CONWAY: The Trustee should be held to the same standard, but I certainly will be. THE COURT: Well, he put forth substantial evidence that no one controverted. MR. CONWAY: Well, I asked him specifically where did Mr. Kwok get the money to do this? He said, well, Mr. Kwok doesn't do it that way. He just gets money from other people and, therefore, it's his. That's not evidence. That's just speculation. THE COURT: That's not -- that wasn't -- MR. CONWAY: That's exactly what he said. THE COURT: It may be your conversation, but that's not what happened in the courtroom. MR. CONWAY: That's exactly what happened when he was on the stand. When I asked him where the money came\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 58                             |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | from, he said, I don't know. That's just not the way Mr.     |\n| 2  | Kwok does business. And I don't know where the money came    |\n| 3  | from. He speculates.                                         |\n| 4  | I will put forth the actual evidence in this case.           |\n| 5  | We're not here to debate what the evidence will be. We're    |\n| 6  | not here to try the case today, Your Honor.                  |\n| 7  | The point is that the people who, when they put              |\n| 8  | the money in, thought that they would have the right to go   |\n| 9  | and sleep at the house shouldn't be prevented from going and |\n| 10 | sleeping at the house. And that's just the same as if --     |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Then you'll have to file a motion and             |\n| 12 | they'll have to come to tell me why they should be able to   |\n| 13 | sleep at the house.                                          |\n| 14 | MR. CONWAY: Well, then you might as well just                |\n| 15 | grant the motion in its entirety, because you're taking the  |\n| 16 | house away.                                                  |\n| 17 | THE COURT: No, I don't agree with you. I don't               |\n| 18 | agree. I gave that -- I don't agree with you.                |\n| 19 | What we -- what happened was the preliminary                 |\n| 20 | injunction issued to attempt to preserve the status quo.     |\n| 21 | And according to the testimony and the evidence submitted,   |\n| 22 | none of these people that have been going in and out of the  |\n| 23 | mansion even knew about the mansion before April 9th.        |\n| 24 | MR. CONWAY: It wasn't in use. Why would they                 |\n| 25 | know about it? Everybody agrees and should agree because     |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 59 the evidence is absolutely crystal clear that they bought the house and started rehabbing it. And that the house was not ready. THE COURT: Who's they? Who's they? You keep saying they. I don't know who they is. MR. CONWAY: Well, Taurus Fund bought the house. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CONWAY: Taurus Fund hired contractor after contractor after contractor. I've seen the invoices. I've seen the work. They were doing this work. They haven't even finished the work yet. THE COURT: Then why are people going in and out if the work isn't finished? MR. CONWAY: Because the work that needs to be done doesn't prevent people from going in and out. They're not having people in and out like we saw on the screen from months ago. They're having people right now going in and out that are security, people staying there who are security. People who are going in and out now are people trying to make sure that the house is secure and run properly. But right now -- THE COURT: Are those people employees of the Taurus Fund? MR. DESPINS: No. MR. CONWAY: Those people are employees of a\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<br>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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 62 that the log is as detailed as possible going forward. But, Your Honor, as Mr. Despins also said, this case and all the stigma around it makes getting insurance more difficult. So asking for us to get a \\$40 million policy in 24 hours, which is what would have happened essentially, is difficult. I think everybody can see that.\n\n I think we're going to have that policy either today, they may have it now, I've been here in court, but the only -- the only stumbling blocks were that they wanted the confirmation that this -- that the preliminary injunction requirements were agreed to by the people who are going to be on that premises. They signed that. I think that that's something that both Your Honor and the Trustee should welcome. They also wanted the evidence of other business insurance by the management company.\n\n So I don't see how anything that has happened here, this, you know, a matter of a couple of days since the order issued, should be a concern. We're doing our best. And I think we're going to succeed. If we can't, Your Honor, I'm an officer of the court, I'll the Trustee, look, 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 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| Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 64 |                                                              |\n| 1                                | tomorrow whether there's an agreed order or there's two      |\n| 2                                | separate orders and we'll go from there. Okay?               |\n| 3                                | MR. CONWAY: I think that's very fair, Your Honor.            |\n| 4                                | Thank you very much.                                         |\n| 5                                | THE COURT: All right. Thank you.                             |\n| 6                                | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor?                                     |\n| 7                                | THE COURT: Yes.                                              |\n| 8                                | MR. DESPINS: This argument that somehow they're              |\n| 9                                | working really fast in getting insurance, that's             |\n| 10                               | interesting, but anybody that owns a \\$29 million house      |\n| 11                               | should have insurance long before Your Honor told them to    |\n| 12                               | show that they had insurance.                                |\n| 13                               | So, Your Honor, I renew my request until -- and if           |\n| 14                               | he wants a 24-hour, you know, standstill on that, that's     |\n| 15                               | fine, but there should be a very short fuse where there      |\n| 16                               | should be a complete prohibition on anyone other than        |\n| 17                               | security people and the Trustee representative to go to this |\n| 18                               | house until they have insurance. It's just a fundamental     |\n| 19                               | issue. Thank you, Your Honor.                                |\n| 20                               | THE COURT: Yes. And I understand your concern                |\n| 21                               | and I'm going to give him until 5 p.m. tomorrow to show you  |\n| 22                               | and the United States Trustee's Office that the property is  |\n| 23                               | insured.                                                     |\n| 24                               | And then if not, you'll have to file something,              |\n| 25                               | Mr. Despins, after that time frame saying you want an        |\n|                                  | Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023<br>65                          |\n| 1                                | immediate order prohibiting people from going on the         |\n| 2                                | property or in the property other than security until and    |\n| 3                                | unless insurance is obtained. Okay?                          |\n| 4                                | MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 5                                | THE COURT: All right. Thank you.                             |\n| 6                                | MR. CONWAY: Your Honor, may I be excused?                    |\n| 7                                | THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.                                   |\n| 8                                | All right. So then the only other matter on the              |\n| 9                                | calendar is the Rule 2004 examination motion.                |\n| 10                               | And I think, Attorney Major, you're here on that             |\n| 11                               | as well, is that correct?                                    |\n| 12                               | MR. MAJOR: Yes, Your Honor.                                  |\n| 13                               | THE COURT: Okay. All right.                                  |\n| 14                               | MR. LINSEY, are you going to start?                          |\n| 15                               | MR. LINSEY: Yes. May I approach, Your Honor?                 |\n| 16                               | THE COURT: Yes, you may.                                     |\n| 17                               | MR. LINSEY: Thank you.                                       |\n| 18                               | The Trustee's sixth omnibus 2004 exam motion seeks           |\n| 19                               | to extend the Trustee's Rule 2004 investigation to           |\n| 20                               | additional relevant banks where the Trustee's investigation  |\n| 21                               | suggests that relevant transactions have occurred and to     |\n| 22                               | additional entities and individuals who were employed or     |\n| 23                               | otherwise involved with the debtor's financial affairs via   |\n| 24                               | certain associated entities.                                 |\n| 25                               | 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. 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. 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. 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. The Court has already considered Greenwich Land's position and twice decided it against the position in favor of the Trustee. In the first instance, Mei Guo and HK USA made a\n\nTrustee's second omnibus 2004 exam motion. That was back in\n\nsubstantively and nearly identical objection to the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 67 December. And the Court ruled that while the Trustee may not seek Rule 2004 discovery from parties to pending adversary proceedings, the Trustee is free to continue his investigation with respect to non-parties, even to the extent that matters may relate to pending adversary proceedings. That decision is at docket no. 1184 in the main case. So that means that this issue was decided almost ten months ago. Then several months ago, in May, Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok again objected on this identical basis citing their own pending adversary proceeding. At that time, Trustee's counsel explained to the Greenwich Land parties that the Court has already ruled on this issue, but the parties insisted on objecting anyway. And so the Court decided that same issue again. Unsurprisingly, the Court decided it the same way. The Trustee may continue his 2004 investigation as to non-parties even if some of the subject matter may bear on a pending adversary proceeding. The first point that the Trustee made in response to Greenwich Land's last objection is the first point that we make here, which is that this issue is law of the case. The complexities of this Chapter 11 case are manifest. The number of docket entries exceeds many other Chapter 11 cases\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 68 in this district by an order of magnitude. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 69 Land parties' alleged assets. In fact, looking at the RFPs themselves, one finds that they implicate a range of assets that go well beyond the Greenwich Land parties' claimed assets. For example, and these are just examples, the RFPs also implicate the property at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel. We just settled the Bravo Luck adversary proceedings today. If this 2004 exam is really a substitute for adversary proceeding discovery, why would we possibly be seeking discovery, an investigation that implicates those matters? The same thing with the Lady May. The Lady May is listed in their RFPs. The Lady May has already been sold. We're not -- we're not listing things for fun. We're not listing things as a substitute for Part 7 discovery under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The reality here is, and this court has lived with this case long enough to know, the Trustee's finances or rather the debtor's finances are an intricate, supremely complicated spider web. And to unravel his business and his assets you can't hack chunks out of the web and expect everything to fit together. There has to be a holistic review. I think that the Court's two prior rulings have recognized that. Beyond that, the Greenwich Land parties argue 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\n\n will delay the granting of the 2004 exam motion and thus the issuance of subpoenas by several weeks.\n\n 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.\n\nSo we would ask that Your Honor grant the sixth\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 71 2004 exam motion, overrule the objection, and make clear that this time Your Honor's ruling should be respected and further objections in this -- in this respect should not be -- should not be filed. And I'm happy to answer any questions the Court may have. THE COURT: Thank you. I do not have any questions at this time. MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein representing Hing Chi Ngok and Greenwich Land, LLC. I want to address the point that counsel for the Trustee led and closed with, with the idea that we should be prohibited from objecting to the motions. And we didn't cost the Trustee weeks. We filed our objection on August 18th. It's August 29th and the matter is being heard. We have not just the right, but the obligation to make a record in the case. Also I want to protect our clients' rights to make future objections, for example, evidentiary objections at trial. If the Trustee tries to spring evidence that he's collected in the 2004 about the issues in the adversary proceeding, and he doesn't turn them over to us and then tries to put them in at trial, I don't want the Trustee,\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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 73 pages I believe. It's at least over 200 pages. So certainly we weren't going to spend a lot of time talking about issues that are outside our very narrow in this bankruptcy proceeding, which is the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding. So we were of course, and appropriately so, focused on the request to the extent they mentioned Greenwich Land. And even in the body of the Trustee's sixth omnibus motion, Greenwich Land is mentioned as the reason for seeking discovery from one of the targets. So I think that the key legal issue, and I'll be very brief here, is, again, not the existence of the prior pending proceeding rule, or that these subpoenas are seeking information concerning the issues in the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding, those are undisputed, but what the Trustee says is, well, we can get discovery relating to the adversary proceeding as long as we're not getting it from you. And I just want to put into the record two quotations from cases that we cite. Number one is *In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, which is 203 B.R. 24. It's from the Northern Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of New York. It's a 1996. At page 29 of that decision the Court wrote, \"Thus, a Trustee like a creditor must look to Federal Rules of\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.\n\n 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\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 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 80 Oh, that was the other thing I was going to say. Mr. Major, you may not know this either. But the district court in Connecticut, when a motion is filed in what you would call a civil action, plaintiff and defendant, has an automatic 21-day response period that just gets set. And so we follow that rule. So immediately upon a pleading in an adversary, the CM/ECF system populates this language that says, I don't remember what it says, but it says something like response due 21 days and then it calculates the date I think. What I have said to people, and our local rules don't address it, but we're in the process of looking at our local rules again, is if someone believes that there should be some other date for a response, or there's some emergency issue, or an extension of that response date, then that doesn't preclude anyone from filing something asking for that relief. Okay? It's a -- I think, you know, in the bankruptcy context it often is the 21 days cannot always apply as neatly as it does in a district court action. And I'm not saying it applies neatly in a district court action all the time either because I'm sure there are circumstances where someone would want something either before that. But I wanted to make that clear to the parties, is 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| Ho Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 82 |                                                              |\n|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\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 83 THE COURT: The box, everything doesn't fit into the box. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: Right? So that's part of the problem. MR. DESPINS: But we didn't take any chance. We applied that 10-day rule. THE COURT: No. That is part of the problem. And we're going to review that. And I've said that to the bar -- not I, everyone that -- all the judges who are involved with the standing committee on local rules have raised issues saying, you know, a lot of times -- there isn't a local rule that says anything about the 21 days because it's a district court rule. It just says the district court rule's adopted. But we might need to say something that says unless provided by applicable statute or rule or order or otherwise ordered by the Court, blah, blah, blah. You know. I think that -- so you all think about that, make your -- tell us what the rules should say and we'll try to do that. Okay? But we are thinking about it is the point. And I just wanted, you know, someone who, you're not here all the time, you're not worrying about the district court rules necessarily. It doesn't preclude any party from seeking something prior to that 21 days. Whether they'll get it or not is a wholly different question. Okay?\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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 85 same box. And, you know, we could probably spend weeks going through the local rules figuring out all the things that don't fit into the box. But in any event, I just say that so parties are aware that it -- I don't want anyone to think that that means they couldn't seek relief in some way, shape or form prior to the 21 days. Whether or not you get it is a wholly different issue. Okay? All right. Well, that concludes the hearings today, so -- (Proceedings concluded at 3:47 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 19 September 6, 2023 20 Christine Fiore, CERT 21 Transcriber","body_zh":"物证 I\n\n美国康涅狄格区破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut）布里奇波特分院（Bridgeport Division）\n关于\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，\n债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n原告，\n诉\nBRAVO LUCK, LIMITED 等，\n被告。\n对抗程序案号：22-05027\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n原告，\n诉\nTAURUS FUND, LLC 等，\n被告。\n对抗程序案号：23-05017\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2023年8月29日\n庭审笔录\n主审法官：JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）尊长\n美国破产法院法官\n出庭人员：\n第11章托管人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（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诉讼程序由电子声音记录仪记录，笔录由转录服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n代表第11章托管人：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林西）律师\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n代表美国联邦破产受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍利·L·克莱伯恩）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代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE J. GOLDMAN（欧文·J·高曼）律师\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n代表 Bravo Luck：\nFRANCIS J. LAWALL（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代表 Hing Chi Ngok 及 Greenwich Land, LLC：\nCHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR（克里斯托弗·J·梅杰）律师\nMeister Seelig & Fein LLP\n125 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n代表 Taurus Fund, LLC：\nMICHAEL T. CONWAY（迈克尔·T·康威）律师\nLazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP\n747 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n第2049项 与 BRAVO LUCK LTD 以及 MILESON GUO 又名 QIANG GUO 及/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)] 和解争议的动议\n第111项 与 BRAVO LUCK 以及 MILESON GUO 又名 QIANG GUO 及/或 GUO QIANG [P.O. BOX 957 OFFSHORE INC CENTRE, ROAD TOWN, TORTOLA, BVI (BRAVO LUCK LTD)；5 PRINCESS GATE, G3, LONDON, UK (Qiang Guo)] 和解争议的动议\n第2083项 第11章托管人依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Bankr. Rule）第9019条请求批准与美国政府和解的动议\n第24项 第11章托管人依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》第9019条请求批准与美国政府和解的动议\n第2079项 对与债务人相关的其他实体和个人及相关银行进行第2004条调查的动议（第六次综合动议）\n第2127项 排定案件进展会议的命令\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第4页\n（诉讼程序于下午2:01开始）\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok 与 Genever Holdings, LLC；22-5027，Despins 等诉 Bravo Luck Limited 等；以及 23-5017，Despins 等诉 Taurus Fund, LLC 等。\n法官：好的。下午好。请出庭人员按记录登记出庭身份，先从第11章托管人开始。\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章托管人。\n法官：下午好。\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 律师事务所的 Patrick Linsey 代表托管人。\n法官：下午好。\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Pullman & Comley 律师事务所的 Irve Goldman 代表债权人委员会。\n法官：下午好。\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn 代表美国联邦破产受托人。\n法官：下午好。\nLAWALL 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Fran Lawall 代表 Bravo Luck。\n法官：下午好。\nMAJOR 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Meister Seelig & Fein 律师事务所的 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法官：下午好。\nCONWAY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Michael Conway 在此代表 Taurus Fund, LLC。\n法官：下午好。好的。正如我所提到的，今天下午我们的日程上有几起事项。Despins 托管人，我已经审阅了这些事项，包括是否有人提出异议以及类似的情况。关于 Bravo Luck 的和解动议，我看到对此没有提出任何异议。我说的对吗？\nDESPINS 先生：没错，法官阁下。\n法官：好的。那么先处理 Bravo Luck 的事项是否妥当？\nDESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n法官：好的。请继续。谢谢。\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢。下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章托管人。关于雪利-荷兰大厦（Sherry-Netherland），这实际上是一项相当明确的动议，旨在和解各个债务人破产财团与 Bravo Luck 以及债务人之子之间的争议。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程序。并且也对该儿子的权利主张提出了异议。而对此一直没有答辩或回应。并且此前进行了大量的诉讼、驳回起诉动议、修订起诉状等等。\n\n因此长话短说，各方已达成和解协议。我认为这相当直接，其含义是，我所称的 Bravo Luck 方（即 Bravo Luck 和该儿子）放弃关于他们直接或间接在雪利-荷兰大厦公寓中享有权益的任何主张。他们正在放弃索赔主张等等。\n\n我们正在撤回对其提起的诉讼。我的意思是，我所说的一切均以和解协议为准，和解协议要详尽得多，但简而言之，情况就是这样。所以这相当直接。\n\n我只想指出，免责条款并不是对等的，这一点很重要，意思是他们免除了权利主张。我们并没有免除我们对其拥有的世界上所有的权利主张。我们免除的是起诉书中所主张的权利。\n\n再次说明，我所说的话均以和解协议的条款为准，协议有更为详细的规定，但从概念上讲，我想确保法庭理解这并非一揽子的全面免责。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第7页\n法官：我想我——我也是这么想的，这不是全面的免责。\nDESPINS 先生：所以除非法庭有疑问，且 Lawall 先生想要发言，否则我目前没有其他事项了。\n法官：Lawall 律师，待会儿有时间的话，我确实想听听您的意见。我只是——有许多与未决的索赔异议及对抗程序相关的未决事项，我们此前没有采取行动是因为你们一直在谈判，对吧？\nDESPINS 先生：对。\n法官：而且你们曾向法庭陈述过，甚至在诉答文书或庭审中表示，各方一直在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，对此我们表示赞赏。我认为，假设这项和解获得批准，这意味着你们可能会看到——因为书记官办公室需要做一些工作——例如终结某些动议，或者你们将要撤回对抗程序，对吧？你们是要申请撤诉吗？或者你们要怎么做——具体的——\nDESPINS 先生：是的。坦率地说，我不确定具体的操作细节，但仍有操作细节需要完成，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第8页\n1 主要是可能撤回对抗程序，或者\n2 也许是和解（听不清）。我会查看一下。\n3 但是——\n4 法官：嗯，我手头有这个材料。\n5 DESPINS 先生：是的。\n6 法官：我不完全记得了。\n7 但我想说的是，如果你们双方看到做出了一些\n8 录入登记，因为某些一直未决的事项\n9 似乎根据和解的批准而得到了解决，\n10 那么这些录入将是事务性的。\n11 DESPINS 先生：是的。\n12 法官：我只是想让你们明白这一点。\n13 好吗？\n14 DESPINS 先生：好的。\n15 该命令规定，原告获授权\n16 签署、交付并落实执行本和解所必需的各类文件或\n17 文书。\n18 法官：对。\n19 DESPINS 先生：我认为 Lawall 先生——\n20 已经提供了签字。Bravo Luck 提供了\n21 和解协议的签字。而\n22 并没有提供该儿子的签字，因为那是\n23 由 Lawall 先生信托保管的。他们此前不想提供\n24 签字——\n25 法官：但你们拿到了？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第9页\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n法官：我的意思是，你们拿到实际的签字了吗？\nDESPINS 先生：别人是这么告诉我们的。\n法官：好的。\nDESPINS 先生：因此，当——如果法庭批准和解，那么该签字就会被附上。但只要有需要处理的事务性工作，我们都会去落实完成，法官阁下。\n法官：是的。我认为除了你们刚才讨论的之外，并没有很多事情需要去做。我只是想让你们知道，当我审阅这个案件时——现在我再次审阅以唤起我的记忆——主案对抗程序中存在一些未结事项，我认为现在通过这项和解已经解决了。\nDESPINS 先生：是的，它们全部都解决了。是的。\n法官：这就是我的看法。我想确保你们双方都没有不同的看法，因为我不想在我的看法上出现差错。\nDESPINS 先生：没错，法官阁下。和解协议在内容上相当详尽——\n法官：是的，确实如此。\nDESPINS 先生：——这项主张被放弃，那项主张被放弃，所以非常明确。我认为这些都是自动\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第10页\n生效的。但只要需要我们做更多的事情，我们都会去做以落实执行该和解。\n法官：好的。\nDESPINS 先生：因此，除非法庭还有其他问题——\n法官：我目前没有其他问题了。我再次记录在案，没有人对和解提出任何书面异议。通知已发出。根据法庭对动议送达情况和听证通知的审查，该送达是妥当的，所以我看不出——我应该肯定地说。法庭面前没有任何会让我对批准和解产生顾虑的事情。我的意思是，各方一直在合作。你们曾多次到庭告诉法庭这一点。因此，我显然对各方在解决这些问题上所付出的努力表示赞赏。而且我确实认为和解协议很详尽，但我也同意免责并不是——它们仅限于在这些——在主案和对抗程序中所提起的诉求。所以对此我没有异议。Lawall 律师，您想发言吗？\nLAWALL 先生：是的，法官阁下。再次向您问好\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 11\n下午。Fran Lawall，来自 Troutman Pepper，代表 Bravo Luck。为了回答您提出的一些程序性问题，我认为和解协议的构成方式是：三起对抗性诉讼将被带有偏见地驳回。法庭：好的。LAWALL 律师：已提交的债权证明被视为撤回。通过带有偏见地撤回起诉书，显然会将驳回动议从您的日程表上移出。这是典型的和解形式。没有被告承认起诉书中的任何——任何指控。事实上，存在明确的否认。但话说回来，这是一项和解。法庭：是的。LAWALL 律师：维尔京群岛那边关于此案附属诉讼的一些事务也会随之平息。但再次强调，我同意 Despins 先生的意见。和解协议相当复杂，我们将完全以该和解协议的四角（字面条款）为准。但总体而言，我认为您对其核心实质的理解大致是正确的。法庭：而且我——再次说明，我只是提出\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 12\n关于您可能在案卷中看到的内容的问题，以便让您知道从书记官办公室的角度来看这纯属事务性工作。所以举例来说，如您所言，对抗性诉讼将被撤回——对不起，是被驳回。所以我不知道，你们是准备根据 Rule 7041 单独提交一份驳回申请，还是这份文件本身就是驳回约定书？LAWALL 律师：我想我可以与 Despins 先生的团队共同协商解决。法庭：好的。LAWALL 律师：我们会——我想我们可以替法官阁下分担这部分工作。并且我们——如果书记官办公室没有自动处理，我们可以签署落实和解协议所必需的任何文件。法庭：好的。这很有帮助。LAWALL 律师：好的。法庭：谢谢你。LAWALL 律师：好的。法庭：可能有点遗憾。但你知道，这可以很简单，就像一份约定书，一份两行的约定书，说明根据 Rule 7041(a)(1)、(a)(2) 或其他相应条款，各方约定带有偏见地驳回该对抗性诉讼程序，然后它就会自行生效，书记官办公室除了在日常业务流程中关闭该对抗性诉讼程序外，无需进行任何其他操作\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 13\n日常业务。LAWALL 律师：明白了，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：那么关于驳回动议，我甚至不——我想我们只是将这些动议的听证延期了，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属的动议程序。但同样，我的预期是，由于它们都在合并审理的对抗性诉讼项下，所有内容实际上都会从案卷中移出。法庭：我同意你的看法。好的。我只是想确认一下。这就是我的看法。如果从书记官办公室的角度出现任何问题，会有人联系并通知你们双方。这样如何？LAWALL 律师：没问题。法庭：好的。行。因此，再次感谢大家所做的努力。我们讨论这个已经有一段时间了。而且根据破产规则以及法院在涉及 Rule 9019 项下的和解或妥协时所适用的标准，我认定该\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 14\n和解方案属于合理范围之内。我认为这是——这是一个积极的步骤。尽管我理解，大家都知道，没有人——你们都在现有情况下尽己所能地推进事项，我认为这非常积极。没有人对妥协动议提出任何书面异议。而且根据我们的本地规则，之所以必须——该动议不仅必须在对抗性诉讼中提交，还必须在主案中提交，是为了送达所有当事人。他们已经被送达，且没有任何人提出书面异议。因此，基于上述所有理由，在主案和对抗性诉讼中提交的妥协动议均获准许。我这里有拟定裁定书，在我看来没问题。该裁定书确实将和解协议作为 Exhibit 1 附在裁定书后，这完全没问题。我认为附在上面实际上更好，以便有人需要时可以查阅。我想目前我不需要做其他任何事情了，除非你有其他想法，Lawall 律师？LAWALL 律师：我想我们这边没问题了，法官。法庭：好的。非常感谢。我很感谢。LAWALL 律师：法官阁下，我在本法庭的事务\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023\n1　今天已经结束了。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事项，\n5　主案中的 ECF 2049，以及对抗性诉讼 22-5027 中的\n6　ECF 111，基于记录中陈述的理由均获准许。\n7　拟定裁定将予录入。\n8　现在，另一份和解协议有一份\n9　异议，Despins 破产受托人。另外还有关于\n10　2004 调查的动议，我认为存在异议。\n11　我不知道那是否已经解决。\n12　DESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n13　法庭：那项也有异议？\n14　DESPINS 先生：是的。\n15　法庭：好的。那么关于修复 Sherry-Netherland\n16　区域动议的地位会议日程安排裁定，\n17　你们想现在谈谈这个，\n18　还是想——\n19　DESPINS 先生：当然，我们可以谈。\n20　法庭：好的。那是主案中的 ECF 2127。\n21　安排地位会议的唯一原因\n22　是因为有人提醒我注意到了\n23　两件事，嗯，实际上我想是三件事。\n24　该动议是根据 Section 363 提交的，所以我\n25　假定它是根据——但我可能是错的——它是根据 363 提交的，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 16\n1　因为你们谈论的是使用破产财产？\n2　\n3　\n4　DESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n5　法庭：好的。根据我们的本地规则，虽然它不像本可以做到的那样明确，但通常情况下，任何根据 363 寻求救济的动议都会自动安排听证。\n6　\n7　\n8　而这是根据争议事项程序提交的。所以我不知道你们想怎么做——如果你们想等待答复期限过去，那也可以。或者它可以自动安排听证，届时会有一个异议截止日期，但那——那就是它被提请我注意的原因之一。\n9　\n10　\n11　\n12　\n13　\n14　DESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。您是对的。\n15　\n16　我们已经——依据该争议事项规则，我们已在附件中列明异议截止日期为 9月13日。我们对此感到满意——\n17　\n18　\n19　法庭：好的。\n20　DESPINS 先生：——只要在没有异议的情况下，听证能够在此后不久举行。\n21　\n22　法庭：嗯，我们可以——我们可以做两件事之一。我们现在就可以发出一份听证通知，设定异议——我不是指此时此刻，而是今天或明天——设定异议截止日期为 September 13\n23　\n24　\n25　\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 17\n然后在几天后举行听证。或者我们可以等到异议截止日期之后再安排听证。但无论如何都会有一场听证，所以在我看来，发出设定异议截止日期为 September 13 的听证通知似乎是合理的。DESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。DESPINS 先生：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，看看实际的听证时间安排。我的意思是，我们在 September 19th 下午的日程表上有安排事项，但是——而且我不知道它们会持续多久，但下午至少可能会持续一个小时或更长时间。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，看你们倾向哪一种。DESPINS 先生：如果能在 19日 进行，那就更好了，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那我就这样排期。我可能不会安排在 3:30 之前，因为 2:00 的事项要么会存在争议，要么会持续两分钟。我不知道。所以怎么——或者你可以——我们可以安排在 3:00。或者我们可以安排在 2:00，然后你们只需要\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 18\n等待。DESPINS 先生：没问题，法官阁下。法庭：那么什么时间？你们想定在 2:00 吗？DESPINS 先生：两点可以，法官阁下。法庭：行。那我们就安排在 2:00，但如果有另一项事项未得到解决，该事项将优先进行。好吗？DESPINS 先生：另一项事项不是本案的。法庭：不是。DESPINS 先生：好的。法庭：不是，不是本案的。我就是这个意思。DESPINS 先生：好的。法庭：是另一个案件。所以我也可以把你们的安排在 2:00——DESPINS 先生：没问题。法庭：——然后你们只需等待。好的。行。那就这么办。我们将安排——基础动议是 ECF 2113。我们将就该动议发出听证通知，定于 September 19th 下午 2 点，异议截止日期为 September 13。这就是我们需要对此处理的全部事项。那么该——那么我们的地位会议，我们已经\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 19\n就该事项举行了地位会议。美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee's Office）可能还想要的唯一另一件事，我完全不清楚，Claiborn 律师，但是那份寻求修复 Sherry-Netherland 公寓各种问题的动议中，也寻求了聘用事项。所以我不知道你们是否希望裁定书中也引用 Section 327 之类的条款。我完全不知道。但也许你们大家可以在我们举行听证之前协商解决。也许如果你们大家都出席且没有任何问题，你们将在下午 2 点首先进行。好吗？DESPINS 先生：这是个很好的激励。法庭：行。那么关于今天举行的地位会议，该——地位会议已经举行完毕。无需再——不会安排进一步的地位会议，并且将就 ECF No. 2113 发出听证通知。好吗？那么接下来你们想如何进行？DESPINS 先生：我们现在转到 Mahwah 事项。法庭：请继续。DESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法官阁下，这是一项批准与美国司法部（Department of Justice）达成和解的动议。对应的是对抗性诉讼中的 document 24。关于这一点我已经作过证，但我认为我们有必要就此再次说明背景情况，因为上次并非\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 20 主要焦点。我希望法庭了解这一点，但显然那并不是那次听证会的目的。因此，第一个问题是：为什么要与 DOJ（司法部）达成和解？第二个问题是：这项和解做了什么，又没做什么？那么让我来试着解答一下。第一个问题是为什么？正如我们在动议中所述，DOJ 已明确将 Mahwah（马鞍山）豪宅锁定为——这不是一个动词——可予没收的财产，并且他们实际上已经认定了该项财产。我们此前对此并不知情。所以我们必须向法庭坦诚相告。在起诉书公布之前，我们对该项财产一无所知。然而，司法部在定罪前阶段的手段在某种意义上是受限的，即在获得最终定罪之前，他们现在无法取得该项财产的所有权，也无法对其采取太多行动。鉴于审判要到——我认为要到明年4月，至少要到明年4月才会开始，显而易见，DOJ 和我们都清楚当时的情况，我们非常担心这项极其珍贵的财产因缺乏更好的形容词而陷入悬而未决的状态。因此，然而，正因为他们将该财产认定为潜在的可予没收财产，我们不想启动任何可能被视为对 DOJ 具有敌意的对抗性程序\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 21 因为我们认为，与他们开展尽可能多的合作显然非常重要。为什么？因为他们拥有各种我们所不具备的手段。我们不希望他们与我们对抗，也不希望我们在该项财产上与他们目的相悖，而这正是我们提出这一想法的契机——首先，我们做足了功课。我们认为，通过我们在对抗性程序中请求的救济，该财产属于破产财产。对此我们深信不疑。法庭必须裁定情况是否属实。那是另一天的事了。但我们与 DOJ 接洽并表示，我们希望推进这一对抗性程序，以试图确立这是属于破产财产的资产。并且最终，如果法庭作出有利于我们的裁决，则出售该财产以将其变现，用于使获准债权持有人受益。于是我们展开了讨论：好，这具体该如何运作，因为他们的观点是他们拥有优先求偿权。我不想在这里详述所有细节，但我们指出并在动议中引用了一些判例法，因为在这方面有大量案例，即第11章破产受托人或第7章破产受托人就此类问题与 DOJ 争夺谁对涉案财产享有第一优先权——我指在这些案例中涉嫌违法者的财产——而且，如您所知，我们显然希望\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 22 避免这种情况。而且我们还希望避免以下情况：即我们提起了这项对抗性程序。在我的设想中，我们胜诉了。我们出售了财产，而 DOJ 介入并说非常感谢，我们将拿走这笔钱，感谢你们的工作，事情就此结束。我们绝不能接受这种情况。该破产财产不能处于为任何其他活动提供资金的境地。它必须达到净额中立。而且我认为不仅要净额中立，我稍后会谈到那一部分。因此我们协商确定：如果我们胜诉，这一点非常重要，仅在我们胜诉的前提下。本和解协议并未强制规定出售该财产，因为它规定了如果我们胜诉将会发生某些特定事项。因此，如果我们胜诉并出售该财产，我们可以使用所得净收益来支付破产财产将发生的所有费用。在当时，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（如果有的话）——该财产上没有抵押贷款，但如果有持有机械工留置权的人需要得到清偿，那当然要首先扣除。因此这就产生了一个净收益的概念。而在该约定下的净收益，我们暂时予以搁置——将其推后，留待日后确定。我稍后会\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 23 回头解释为什么在这方面没有取得更多进展。所以净收益非常重要。而我当时说的是，好吧，太好了。我们所有的费用都能收回。这很好。但本案的运作并不是为了案件的专业人士。它必须使破产财产受益。这就是我们提出100万美元推定费用的由来。因此，暂且假设我们胜诉了，豪宅被出售，我们所有的费用得到了支付，并且 DOJ 与我们无法就净收益的分配达成一致，破产财产也保证能获得100万美元。协议中写道，该款项将支付给获准债权持有人，即在贵法院获准的债权，所以它必须是一项获准债权，受害人的获准债权。而且，您知道，有人指出，受害人一词并未界定。这并非偶然。意思是，我希望有机会去说服 DOJ，让其认可受害人——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，否则你连一分钱都拿不到。但如果你拥有获准债权，那么谁是受害人谁不是的问题，那——我希望那成为进一步讨论的主题。但底线是，如果我们关于该财产属于破产财产一部分的判断是正确的，该破产财产最终将净增加100万美元。而且我们非常确信事实\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 24 就是如此，但法官阁下当然必须就此作出裁定。因此，由于规费和各项开支得到了覆盖，破产财产并没有变得更糟。它反而改善了100万美元。如果我们成功说服 DOJ 同意该财产收益的分配方式，它甚至可以获得比这多得多的利益——顺便提一句，我们将尝试对其他资产也采取这种做法——例如，我提到了目前被冻结的现金，6.3亿美元，我们——那不是今天的议题，但这里的总体规划，基于 DOJ 寻求并取得财产没收的其他案例，是由第11章破产受托人身兼两职，既担任第11章破产受托人又担任没收财产接管人。而这一切都将交回本法院进行分配。我知道其中存在争议。他们也知道这一点，我指的是 DOJ。他们并不天真。他们知道这一点。问题在于：好，谁是受害人？在他们的标准中，受害人可能仅指某些涉嫌诈骗方案的受害者。但是，您知道，我可以看到本案中高盛（Goldman）先生所代表的其他人也是受害人。例如，Bru Ma（音译），您不认识她，但我以她为例，因为如果您读过她的\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 25 债权证明书，您会看到那里有非常恶劣的——指控了非常恶劣的事实。显然她会说自己是受害人。因此重点在于，我们今天并不是要求法庭裁定谁是受害人。唯一的重点是，这笔款项将归于债务人的受害人，具体含义有待确定，但只要他们拥有获准债权（这需要法官阁下予以裁定），这对于破产财产而言就将是一个明确的利益。所以您可能会说：好吧，既然你们能争取到这100万美元，为什么没有就一揽子方案进行完整谈判？原因非常明确，动议中也对此进行了解释。DOJ 无法——DOJ 要这样做有着极其严格的程序。DOJ 内部设有一个没收团队，他们必须获得司法部长的批准才能同意此类此前已办结的事项。我相信其中一起就是在法官阁下面前办结的，或者是您可能从另一位法官手中接管的案件，但这在此前确实发生过。在那个案件中，他们一直上报到司法部长并获得了批准。在对债务人或其他被告作出最终有罪认定之前，他们现在不会也不会被允许这样做。这就是为什么我们无法走得比现在更远的原因。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 26 但我会——而且我不想，您知道，夸大其词，但我认为这是未来讨论的蓝图。当然，目前在这方面尚未达成任何协议。他们并未向我们给出任何他们会予以考虑的迹象。不过重点在于，我认为让破产财产确立这一安排、将其作为第一步是非常有利的，以确保我们的处境不会变糟，外加我们能净多出100万美元。重申一遍，前提是我们胜诉。如果我们败诉，那就和我们提起的任何案件一样。如果我们败诉，那就是败诉了。这就是我们承担的风险。现在，当本和解协议规定这额外的100万美元（即推定费用）将分配给同为受害人的获准债权持有人时，您并不是——我想明确这一点——您\n\n 今天并不是在批准该分配方案，这意味着必须遵守破产法典。\n\n Taurus（金牛座）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？如果有有担保债权人，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，也就是从所得收益中受偿。\n\n 第二，如果本案中存在有担保债权人——而我们目前并不知道有任何这类债权人，对此我相当确信，我的意思是，至少迄今为止尚未有任何此类主张——那么，您知道，你\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 27 就不能确认一项规定有担保债权人在无担保债权人之后受偿的重整计划。因此我们想明确一点，批准和解协议仅仅是批准一种推进途径。您并不是在签署同意任何重整计划、任何未来的重整计划以及诸如此类的一切。因此，如果您希望在该条款中加入受制于适用法律（包括破产法典）的表述，我们完全接受。我们并不试图对此作预先评断。我们试图预先确定的是，该破产财产将在各项开支之外获得100万美元，从而不能说我们做这些只是在白费力气。您知道，这对破产财产有净收益，而这在其中至关重要。虽然叙述很长，但我认为这涵盖了整个和解协议。法官阁下，我想给您留下以下思考，对吧？这不是对向任何人进行任何分配的批准。这不是对出售该财产的批准。那只有在我们关于人格混同或不公所有权的主张胜诉的情况下才会发生。因此，就此提出的任何异议都是过早的，因为如果我们在此败诉，这一切都无关紧要了。此外，这里还有另一个好处，那就是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 28 有可能 DOJ 不会获得——不会对 Kwok（郭）先生定罪。那不是我们的——那不在我的管辖范围内。我对那没有任何看法。对此我一无所知。我不是刑事律师，所以我不会对此发表意见，但这种情况每天都在发生。因此，该和解协议规定，如您所知，如果他们未能获得最终定罪和没收令，那么所有这些和解都将失效，这意味着如果我们胜诉，所有的钱又全部归我们所有。\n\n 因此，这在今天启动了该进程，并使我们能够通过初步禁令来做我们所做的事情（法官阁下已经批准了该禁令），即在此期间对该财产进行保护，这是至关重要的。\n\n 因此我相信，出于所有这些理由，这显然有利于破产财产。这是未来与 DOJ 合作的蓝图。这在其他案件中已有先例。\n\n 顺便说一句，在已有先例的其他案件中，有一份明确的命令规定破产——当 DOJ 同意这一点时（需要明确的是，他们目前尚未同意其中的任何内容）——存在一个明确的程序规定破产法院应当确定获准债权持有人。有时会有一项划拨分配，即 X 美元只能分配给以下类型的债权人，那是与 DOJ 达成的和解。\n\n我们目前离那种情况还相去甚远，但我想\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 29 确保法官阁下知晓这并非首次达成此类协议，只不过我认为这是首次在定罪之前且他们实际已获得没收的情况下达成。在其他案件中，通常情况是他们胜诉了、获得了定罪判决、拿到了没收命令，然后要么与受托人展开争斗，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，除非法官阁下有疑问，否则这基本上就是我就此所作的陈述。我很乐意回答任何问题。显然，我希望在这里回应 Taurus 所提出的任何问题。法庭：我目前唯一的问题是，如果、如果该和解获得批准，它——它会被归档提交到刑事诉讼中吗？我的意思是，对于相关人员来说这是如何运作的？刑事诉讼中的法官知情吗？我的意思是，我不知道刑事诉讼中的法官是否在乎。DESPINS 律师：是的。法庭：我只是问一个问题。DESPINS 律师：是的。问得很好。除了说明据我理解 DOJ（司法部）并不打算在刑事法院就此寻求批准外，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\n1 在那里提交文件。\n2 法庭：好的。\n3 DESPINS 律师：他们明白我们需要\n4 与法官阁下办理此事，但除此以外，没有了。\n5 法庭：好的。谢谢你。\n6 DESPINS 律师：谢谢法官阁下。\n7 法庭：Conway 律师，您想\n8 陈述意见吗？\n9 CONWAY 律师：谢谢法官阁下。Michael\n10 Conway，来自 Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle 律师事务所，代表 Taurus Fund,\n11 LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司）。\n12 显然您已经审阅了书面文件，但我只想\n13 谈谈 Despins 律师刚才提到的巨大漏洞，\n14 那就是本案中一直没有确定\n15 受害者身份。\n16 该和解方案所要求的，是设立一笔独立财产（res），\n17 破产财产的某些债权人可以针对其提出主张，\n18 其他人则不能。我们不知道谁能主张、谁\n19 不能主张。\n20 对于此类任何动议，其根本问题是\n21 它如何体现公平与公正？我们现在无法回答\n22 该问题，原因很简单：我们不知道哪些\n23 债权人可以或不可以针对其提出主张。显而易见的\n24 解决办法本应是由他们就谁可以对该独立财产提出主张、\n25 如他们所说的谁是受害者达成协议，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 31 对吧？您知道，我们显然持有的立场是，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。然而根本的概念在于，有人把钱投入了这处房产，他们当中没有任何人知情，并且目前仍然不认为自己在破产财产中享有债权。如果法官阁下在本案审结时认定该破产财产获得该房屋，那么他们届时就会有债权需要申报。而且目前没有任何规则程序规定说：好吧，如果是那样的话，把钱投资到这栋房屋中的人可以逾期补报债权等等。没有任何规定说明持有其他人身伤害索赔的人——我想我在债权登记上看到了相关内容，我没有阅读全部债权——但我看到有被描述为人身伤害索赔的内容。那个人是否能针对这笔独立财产享有权利主张？我们不得而知。本和解动议中没有相关规则程序。而为了确定其是否\n\n对本破产财产的债权人公平合理、首先是对 Taurus Fund 是否公平合理，必须有这样的程序。但是 Taurus Fund 显然是由\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 32 出资设立 Taurus Fund 的人组成的。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，您知道，你们被 Kwok 先生欺诈了，但我认为自己没有受骗。我认为你们不应该拿走我的财产。如果你们确实拿走了财产，那么他们之后将如何拿回自己的钱，因为他们届时将需要一套处理程序。\n\n因此我认为总体结论是——我们再次依凭已提交的书面文件——文件指出 Taurus Fund 正在遭受没收程序中权利丧失的显著损害。因为我们届时将不再享有权利——如果正如 Despins 律师所指出的，在刑事诉讼中没有针对 Kwok 先生的定罪认定，并且没收程序未推进，他们将无法收回自己的房屋，而如果该程序按正常途径进行，他们本应能够收回。\n\n法庭：听到最后我差点跟上你的思路了。抱歉。所以你的意思是，你的客户受到了损害，因为如果政府在其指控中未能胜诉，你的客户将无法收回房屋，因为 Despins 律师将拥有——破产财产的受托人将对该财产享有权益？但我难道不需要对此作出裁定吗？而我目前尚未作出裁定。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 33 CONWAY 律师：是的。而且这——这完全是——我们都在——大家在这里都是本末倒置，法官阁下，因为假设的情况是这样的：本案先审结；Despins 律师把房屋卖了；有一笔款项放在那里；好的，除了买房的人之外，这对所有人听起来都很棒；现在刑事诉讼中作出认定，认定什么呢？这里不存在欺诈；那栋房屋根本不应该被列入起诉书；那些买房的人应该拿回房屋；但房屋已经不在了；现在只有一笔资金。法庭：但你完全有能力——我明白你的意思，但你完全有能力对任何——按照你的说法，而且我——你说你们这是本末倒置，但我不知道现在这样说是否准确。因为除非且直到 Despins 律师的主张获得支持，否则该房屋并非破产财产的资产。在我看来，他似乎正在做的是——你可以持不同意见，我很乐意听取你的看法——他正试图建立一种机制，用以解决政府与该破产财产之间存在的、可能存在的、可能出现的利益冲突。我对审阅文件的理解是\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——除非且直到某些特定事项发生，否则其条款不会生效。而如果 Despins 律师败诉，对吧，如果他没有——如果他没有胜诉，那么破产财产就没有任何权益。如果政府败诉，且他们无法通过没收来主张该财产，那么政府败诉，届时你的客户并未失去任何东西。因此，尽管我理解你的论点，但在我认为你的权利仍受到保护的限度内，我对此有些疑问。你届时仍将享有权利。首先，你将有权——初步禁令已经签发了，对吧？你将有权提交答辩诉状。你将有权进行证据开示，在对抗性诉讼程序中进行任何你想做的事，然后我们仍然需要进行庭审，届时你将代表被告。而且你将要，你知道的，辩称受托人 Despins 是错误的。你将能够出示所有证据并完成所有工作。然后法院将不得不作出裁决。你还将有权——在我看来，你在某个时候也将有权——目前，受托人的主张是另一个自我（alter ego）以及实益衡平所有权（beneficial equitable ownership），对吧？你今天说有人把\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 36 资金投入了这种情况中？如果您那样做，我认为您在届时签发的任何命令中，还必须包含一项程序，允许在本案审结时确定自己享有权利主张的人有权（例如）就此提交债权证明——法庭：嗯，那很容易。那部分很容易。CONWAY 律师：如果包含在命令中，那确实容易。法庭：但是关于对未被视为破产财产资产的某项资产设定债权申报截止日期的部分，那是容易的。我的意思是，那部分，当你最初谈到那一点时，我说，好的，嗯，那是——那是一个合理的观点，但那是容易办到的。我的意思是，那是可以做到的。CONWAY 律师：那是我所建议的内容中最容易的部分。第二部分也不难。我认为受托人曾表示他们没有达成协议是因为这很困难。确定谁将享有获准债权并不困难。我认为这很简单，只需说明任何被指称向债务人提供了用于购买该房屋的资金的人都将享有获准债权。但在破产案件中可能对债务人享有其他人身伤害索赔的其他债权人\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 37 则不享有。法庭：我明白你的意思。但话又说回来，为什么我现在需要这样做？为什么我需要在——在确定该财产是否属于破产财产之前且如果其属于之前——就需要这样做，因为届时可能根本不会认定该财产属于破产财产。那么为什么我现在需要经历那个程序？CONWAY 律师：因为我认为破产法典不允许在证明该动议公平合理之前予以批准，而且——法庭：嗯，这——我不确定——审查标准是它是否低于合理性范围，那是所有法院都在谈论的和解审查标准。而我——我之所以没有听出你的客户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。正在发生的是，该和解协议是以未来可能发生也可能不发生的事项为条件的。因此，如果——如果受托人 Despins 败诉，那么就不存在和解协议。什么都不会发生。破产财产中不会有一百万美元。不会有费用的偿付。也不会有一笔独立财产可供特定债权人提出权利主张并由本法院必须裁定其为获准债权。如果他败诉了，我根本不需要经历所有这一切，对吧？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 38 所以我仍然——我仍有点难以理解这在目前对你有什么损害？当我说你时，我显然指的是你的客户。CONWAY 律师：明白。我自己今天也做了同样的事。法官阁下，我想也许对我来说最简单的做法是提出我的异议是一个有限异议，即因本动议签发的任何命令中，均不得损害可能对该财产享有获准债权的各方当事人的权利，且该命令中不得允许——命令中不得允许对该财产不享有权利主张的人针对设立的任何独立财产提出主张，并且不得阻止逾期债权的申报。这些保护措施，如果它们——如果它们落实到位——法庭：嗯，那不会属于逾期债权，对吧，因为首先，我们会建立一个债权申报程序。第二，这些债权将必须申报提交。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确立其构成一项债权，对此受托人或任何其他当事方都可以提出异议，然后届时仍然\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 39 可能必须由本法院作出裁决，判定该债权属于获准债权还是不予准许的债权。程序就是这样的，对吧？所以我并不——对于这项特定财产而言，不会存在迟延申报债权的问题，因为它还没有被——它当时还不是破产财产的一部分。而且它可能永远都不会是。CONWAY 律师：它可能永远都不会是。这就是为什么我建议将我的异议修改为有限异议，表明只要裁定中没有任何内容与您刚才所说的相违背，那么也许这里并没有任何我们在今天需要担心被决定的事情。法官：嗯，也许你和 Trustee Despins（托管人德斯平斯）可以看一看那份裁定，看看你们能否就一致同意的措辞达成协议。但我——据我所理解，要求我做的是批准一个程序，该程序是——双方之间达成的一项协议，其中包含未来必须满足的某些条件。那些条件目前尚未得到满足。因此，根据我的理解，并且如果你看一下在破产财产与没收诉讼之间存在这种紧张关系的判例法，这种情况通常发生在事后，然后它就变成了——它有很多——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 40 无论何时发生，都会存在问题。然而，这个程序表明，看，我们不知道这是否会发生。但如果发生了，这就是它的运作方式。而这些是双方已经同意的事项。我认为目前这符合合理性范围。我不认为你、你的客户失去了任何提出异议的权利——嗯，我知道他们没有。你的客户没有失去任何提出异议的权利去对抗托管人 Despins 必须向本法院证明并取得判决以使该资产成为破产财产的债权主张。他必须这样做。虽然目前有一项初步禁令有效，但尚未就实体问题进行审理。因此我们仍然必须让审理发生，这是第一点。第二点，关于债权问题，存在——从破产法院的角度来看，对于一项以前从未成为破产财产、但现在是的财产，为了让债权人申报债权、针对破产财产申报债权而设立一个程序，我看不出有什么问题。好吗？但它仍然遵循相同的程序，就像在本案中已经申报的所有其他债权一样，其程序如下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 41 仅仅因为有人申报了——而且我认为你知道这一点——仅仅因为他们申报了债权证明，并不意味着该债权就是获准债权。它仍然必须经过该程序。如果有人对此提出异议，那么法院必须作出裁决，判定该债权是属于《破产法》第 502 条下获准的债权，还是属于第 502 条下不予准许的债权。因此，这归结为分配问题，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客户在此时此刻受到了损害。所以我不知道你是否还有其他想说的。但如果你想花点时间与托管人 Despins 就此沟通一下？我是说，你知道，初步禁令有一些与之相关的要求。我看到了我想是你昨晚提交的文件——CONWAY 律师：是的。法官：——关于该房产没有保险的事情。嗯，在破产案件中，你知道，United States Trustee's Office（美国托管人办公室）会立即动议驳回不存在破产财产保险的案件。现在，尚未有裁决认定这是一项破产财产，但是，但是，初步禁令\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日\n1 关于你的——你提出的论点，\n2 即 Taurus Fund（金牛座基金）不应该——应该能够\n3 按照金牛座基金\n4 认为其获准的方式使用该房产，在我看来，在\n5 初步禁令的背景下，金牛座基金\n6 不可能拥有一处价值——我不知道它价值多少，\n7 对吧？人们随口提过一些数字。我当时并不需要\n8 对价值作出认定，但有人估过并说它是，\n9 你知道，我不知道——\n10 DESPINS 律师：两千九百万。\n11 法官：——几千万？\n12 DESPINS 律师：两千九百万。\n13 CONWAY 律师：他们支付了近三千万（2000多万的高位），但我们正在努力\n14 ——我们要求的保单是4000万，涵盖\n15 4000万。\n16 法官：好的。所以，你知道，我认为你需要\n17 购买保险。\n18 CONWAY 律师：噢，是的。而且，法官阁下，您将会\n19 ——\n20 法官：而且我认为这是，你知道，关于\n21 该房产及其内部物品。我是说，那——\n22 那里存在问题。\n23 CONWAY 律师：而且，法官阁下，这显然\n24 不直接影响该动议，但仅供您\n25 了解，耽搁的原因是您的禁令裁定正被\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 43 纳入其中，以便任何使用该房产的人都必须同意他们将依据您的禁令裁定使用该房产。保险承保公司要求做到这一点，并要求提供管理该房产的任何人都拥有单独责任保险的证明，据称所有这些今天都提供给了承保公司，以便他们能够为该房产出具保单。四千万美元——法官：很好。CONWAY 律师：——我理解是责任险，然后是一千万元的财产险。所以我想我们——我想一切都会发生，并且令法官阁下和托管人感到满意。法官：当你提到令人满意时，我只想澄清一点，这不是为了让我满意。这是为了符合破产法和规则的满意度，以及保护资产的需要，对吧？我是说，在本案中任命托管人的原因之一，是因为许多当事方指控存在所有这些从未被披露的资产。这就是为什么在 Chapter 11（第 11 章）破产案件中任命托管人来调查这些事务，并查看这些资产是否可以为了债权人的利益而被追收至破产财产中。托管人 Despins 提起了这项对抗性诉讼，\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 44 申请了临时限制令和初步禁令，这些申请已获得部分准许。并非所请求的每项救济形式都得到了准许，但所请求救济的大部分都获得了准许。保险作为该禁令一部分的原因是，如果没有保险，我不知道你如何能够保护现状。你可以说，好吧，以前没有保险。那不是在保护现状。那么，有人明天就可以去把房子烧掉，对吧，那并不是保护现状。所以无论如何——CONWAY 律师：我们的想法是一致的。法官：——听起来你们在这方面取得了很大进展。CONWAY 律师：我们的想法是一致的。法官：希望你也一直在与托管人就安保服务以及此类性质的事项进行沟通。CONWAY 律师：我们确实就此进行了谈话，并且，你知道，自听证会之前现场就一直有一支安保服务团队。而且，你知道，安保规程已经到位，所以我对此也不过分担心。我们现在正在讨论这个问题。法官：嗯，从你的申报文件来看，它——不是昨天的，而是之前的那份申报，你在其中确实履行了\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日\n1 申报房子、豪宅内部物品的义务，我是\n2 说，显然整处房产各处都有大量尖端的安保\n3 设备。我是说——\n4 CONWAY 律师：是的。\n5 法官：——我甚至不知道那是什么，但我\n6 想我说过有59个摄像头之类的。我是说，房产处\n7 有大量的安保设备，所以这似乎对——我并不是说你说过它\n8 繁重负担——\n9 CONWAY 律师：没有。\n10 法官：——我只是说，确保——\n11 对金牛座基金而言似乎并不算繁重负担——\n12 CONWAY 律师：我们之前想要它，现在仍然想要。\n13 法官：——确保该房产安全。\n14 CONWAY 律师：法官阁下，我们之前想要它，我们现在\n15 仍然想要。所以，是的，这并不繁重。这\n16 正是我们想要的。\n17 法官：好的。\n18 CONWAY 律师：所以，你知道，我认为我们所有人的\n19 想法是一致的。\n20 再次说明，关于目前正在审理的动议，\n21 除了表示我乐意尝试与托管人就裁定的形式\n22 进行沟通之外，我没有更多要说的了。\n23 但如果他不愿意与我沟通，只要\n24 它不损害我今天所阐述的未来的权利，\n25 我希望确保任何通过金牛座基金在此\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 46 主张拥有权益的人都可以提出主张，提交债权证明，并表明拥有人身伤害索赔的人不应从这笔财产标的物（res）中受偿。因此，只要那些问题不受损害，那些权利不受损害，我就没有更多要说的了，法官阁下。法官：好的。谢谢你。托管人 Despins？DESPINS 律师：是的，法官阁下。因此，从概念上讲，法官阁下，您完全正确，如果我们胜诉，应该会有一个申报截止日（bar date）。我们目前还没有这样做，但针对我们发现的各个资金池，我们将不得不这样做。例如 HCHK。如果我们在该事项上胜诉，这些人，在不预先判定他们是否拥有债权或股权的情况下，他们应该有权尝试申报债权。因此他们将会——不幸的是，将会有、将会有很多工作，但我们需要设立一个新的申报截止日来——这就是为什么我现在把这个问题搁置一边——但如果我们在这上面胜诉，人们如果有债权，应该能够申报债权，并由法院处理他们的债权。但如果我们在这上面胜诉，人们将不会对这项财产标的物拥有直接求偿权。法院的认定\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 47 将是这是由债务人拥有的资产。如果是这样的话，每个人都在同一条船上，意味着他们所有人共同分享。我并不是试图让法官阁下预先判定这一点，但关键是，我不会在裁定中加入诸如“噢，并且他们将有权申报债权，并且他们将是唯一有权对该财产标的物申报债权的人”之类的内容。不会的。如果该资产归债务人所有（正如我们所认为的那样），收益将在所有拥有获准债权的无担保债权人之间分享，包括那些——我甚至一秒钟都不相信他们投资了这栋房子，但让我们假装情况确实如此——包括那些人，只要他们拥有获准债权。所以这完全不是问题。此外，你知道，我对 Conway 律师的当事人资格（standing）提出质疑。这表明了这里正在发生的事情。这就像是，噢，受害者。你知道，他代表着这处财产的形式所有权人，但他是在代表与他接洽的人发声，那些人是郭的人。所以我想非常——很抱歉我对此态度强硬，但这件保险的事是一个巨大的问题。他们没有保险。这告诉你，我敢打赌那个所有权人甚至都不知道他们没有保险，因为是郭在经营它。而且，你知道，关于金牛座的整件事\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 48 作为所有者就是，我们会证明这一点的。但关键是，在没有保险、零保险的情况下，现在除了保安人员之外，那处房产上不应该有任何人。这些要去那里聚会、做任何事情的郭氏人员，在没有保险的情况下根本不应该呆在里面。因为法官阁下，请想想 Lady May（五月女士号），我们有时会忘记案件的部分细节，但请记住他们曾试图获取保险，但没有人愿意——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，郭文贵，不予承保。这发生在3月15日之后。因此，如果 Conway（康威）律师在充分披露实际情况的前提下能够获得保险，那愿上帝保佑他，但我并没有因为他正在进行良好的沟通而感到安心，那固然很好，但在有——在有保险之前，任何人都不应该呆在那栋房子里。任何人都不能。法官阁下，很抱歉我在此事上态度如此强硬，但这确实是我们所寻求的救济的一部分。您曾表示您并未拒绝该请求。您会——但这确实是一个关键问题。如果他明天拿到了保险，愿上帝保佑他，那么他们就可以回去。但在此期间，在没有现行有效保险的情况下，该房产上不应有任何人。而且，没有保险这一事实本身就已经说明了关于本案的一切。这简直就是\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 49 荒谬透顶。所以，法官阁下，这是我们初步禁令救济的一部分。我知道这目前不在您面前审理，但您确实在初步禁令命令中保留了就您此前未予批准的救济下达命令的权利。这项救济今天就应当予以批准。如果他明天拿到了保险，行，他们所有人都可以——顺便说一句，不是所有人。我们在如何解读您的命令上存在争议。您知道，康威律师认为所有这些朋友可以一次只进20人，然后他们出来，一小时后另外20人可以进去，再过一小时又可以进另外20人，只要在任何特定时间不超过20人即可。这正是我们所担忧的，即所谓的大学宿舍综合征。如果他们能选定有权进入的20个人，愿上帝保佑那些人。同样，那也是在他们拥有保险的前提下。但这必须是固定的20人，我们坚持这一点。我们不能实行轮换制，即一天来20人，离开后第二天又来另外20人。业主对此毫无利益关联。这完全是为了保护郭氏阵营，而这不应该发生，法官阁下。我想确保这一点是明确的。我本以为命令中已经明确规定了是20\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 50\n1 个人，而不是轮换的20人，因为那样一来就会变得\n2 无法控制。所有这些人到底是谁？\n3 但至少在今天，在没有现行有效保险的情况下，\n4 该场所内不应有任何人。我\n5 强烈恳请法官阁下立即下达该救济命令。\n6 谢谢。\n7 法庭：谢谢。\n8 康威律师，有何回应？\n9 康威律师：有的。针对这些有几点回应。\n10 都是针对指控的。\n11 该房产在购入后进行了一次\n12 大规模修缮。目前尚未竣工。\n13 由于所有这些纷争而停工了。每一个踏入、\n14 踏足那里的承包商，都必须提供保险证明。对于每一个在该\n15 房产从事作业的人员，都一直有保险保障。\n16 我不知道安保公司是否持有其自有的\n17 保险凭证。我没见过，但我\n18 设想他们大概是有的。\n19 您知道，这并不是说，哦，根本\n20 没考虑保险的事。该房产目前\n21 尚未就绪以用于其预定用途。其预定用途——\n22 这涉及到第二点——是供\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 康威律师：他们没有来来往往。那完全\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 51 是他信口雌黄。事实并不是—— 法庭：好了，并非如此。我们在听证会期间看到了一些关于此事的证据。我的意思是，我们看到有人进出该处——这一点并未被反驳——大量进出该房屋。我们看到有两个人谈到该事实——好吧，我们看到的不止两个人。我们看到了几段视频片段，来自全国不同地区的几个人谈到将这栋房屋、这栋庄园用作他们的大本营，并且他们正在感谢债务人将其提供给他们使用。确实有人来来往往。如果有人——如果有来来往往的人不是你所说的那些有保险的工作人员，那么这就是个问题。我理解你所说的一切，但目前记录中没有任何证据支持你所说的任何话。记录中唯一的证据支持这一事实：有人在这栋房屋进进出出。并且他们——证据表明，那些开始谈论将庄园用作会所或大本营的个人，直到4月9日才知晓该庄园的存在。那是——那是他们亲口说的。此外没有任何其他人出庭发表过相反的陈述。没有任何人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 52 你没有——我的意思是，我理解你在当天上午出庭并且你—— 康威律师：我尽力了。 法庭：是的。但你没有带任何证人。你没有——你方的人在哪里？ 康威律师：我曾试图—— 法庭：金牛座基金有任何人提交过任何表明“我是金牛座基金的某某人，这些是我的职责，我负责确保我有保险或没有保险，我只允许这种情况发生”的文件吗？我的意思是，你到现在已经有时间了。你已经有了一些时间。顺便说一句，如果你——如果你注意本附随诉讼程序的时间线，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。而且我们进行了审判。正如我所说，你知道，你的当事人，无论他们是谁，我想在收到这些送达文件时做出了不拆开邮件的决定。至于 Bennett（贝内特）先生，既然你现在代表他，我的意思是，他的妻子已被送达。我没看到他提交过任何材料。他本人不在这里。我在法庭上也没看到其他任何人。贝内特先生，贝内特先生在场吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 53 （无听得见的回应） 法庭：你方的实体必须通过自然人来运作，至少得有一个人。因此，那个自然人必须有所作为或不作为。但若要说没有人来来往往，目前记录中的证据并不支持这一说法。记录中的证据支持的陈述是：有人来来往往，且该房产没有保险。 康威律师：好吧，记录中的证据是关于在听证会很久之前发生的四次事件。受托人刚才对您说这是一个每小时有20人进入的大学宿舍。那不是——没有证据支持这一点。您必须承认我这一点，法官阁下。 法庭：好吧，他并没有说每小时有20人进去。他说的是他不希望每小时有20人进去。他不希望一组20人进去然后离开，接着另一组20人进去然后离开。他表达的是这个意思。 康威律师：其他人也不希望这样。 法庭：他谈论的并不是对初步禁令该条款的解读。 康威律师：对。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 54 法庭：但我对你说的全部意思就是，我们需要有负责人来承担责任，对吧？ 康威律师：完全正确，法官阁下。 法庭：而且—— 康威律师：而且法官阁下在听证会当晚或听证会次日下达了一项命令，规定就禁令听证会而言不得再提交任何文件，所以—— 法庭：好吧，我也说过你可以提出——如果你希望有超过20人在那里，你可以提出动议。你可以的。命令上写着。命令中的某个地方写着这一点。我可以调出来看。 康威律师：如果我们有此需要，我相信我们会提出的。到目前为止，在眼下，我们正试图让所有事情稳定下来。我们现在根本没有试图让人们呆在那里。我们正试图让这里的所有行政问题得到解决。您知道，据我所知，现在并没有运动成员进进出出。我们正在努力确保一切都处理妥当。问题并不在于，您知道，有人告诉我：哦天哪，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。没有任何人这么说过。没有任何理由要到法官阁下您这里来提出动议要求让超过20人呆在\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 55\n\n那里。\n\n但事实是，如果法官阁下说，好吧，在本案审理过程中必须是固定相同的20个人，那么您所做的实际上就等于在本案作出判决之前把房产交给了受托人，因为投资该房产的人并不是这20个人。下个月可能有两个人想使用它。再下个月可能有十个人想使用它。但它绝不会被用作容纳一百人的行动基地。 法庭：你说的投资该实体的那些人是什么意思？我的意思是，你们是一个实体。所以你们有——你们在外面——你的当事人在外面为有限责任公司的运营筹款或募集资金？ 康威律师：法官阁下，应该不难理解为什么 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，用于通过由其投资者认购的基金来购买房产。那些—— 法庭：但谁是它的投资者？ 康威律师：那些把钱拿出来投入该基金的人。 法庭：我理解。但我设想他们是有姓名和身份标识的。 康威律师：他们当然有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 56 康威律师：所以他们才是那些想要—— 法庭：所以他们需要到这里来陈述他们的主张。 康威律师：好吧，他们不必亲自到这里来。基金可以到这里来说，这就是我们向他们提供的条件。我们说，如果你——如果你希望我们去买下这栋房子以便你们可以使用，我们将采取这样的方案：我们将用你们的钱买下这栋房子。 法庭：但在初步禁令阶段提交的证据——提交的证据并不支持你刚才所说的话，因为那两个谈及并参观了该地块、土地、园区的人说，他们直到8月，对不起，4月9日才知晓该庄园的存在，既然如此，他们怎么可能投资某项事物来将其用作会所或基地呢？ 康威律师：那些人不是 G Clubs（G俱乐部）的会员。那些人是为了制作视频目的的运动成员—— 法庭：所以你是说 G Club 是投资者？ 康威律师：G Club Internationals（G俱乐部国际）是出资投资的一方。 法庭：在 Mahwah（马瓦）——你的意思是它为购买马瓦庄园提供了资金？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 29, 2023 57\nCONWAY 律师：当然。\n法官：好的。\nCONWAY 律师：特定的人、特定的投资，在审理本案时都会全部呈现出来。\n法官：好的。\nCONWAY 律师：如果不具体明确，我就无法证明我的主张。\n法官：我同意。\nCONWAY 律师：在一定程度上。\n法官：我同意。\nCONWAY 律师：托管人也应该受到同样的标准约束，而我肯定会达到该标准。\n法官：嗯，他提出了大量无人反驳的证据。\nCONWAY 律师：嗯，我曾具体问过他，郭先生是哪里来的资金做这件事的？他说，嗯，郭先生不是那样做的。他只是从其他人那里拿到钱，因此这就成了他的钱。那不是证据。那只是推测。\n法官：那不是——那并不是——\nCONWAY 律师：他当时原话就是这么说的。\n法官：这可能是你的谈话内容，但法庭上发生的并不是这样。\nCONWAY 律师：他在证人席上时发生的情况千真万确就是这样。当我问他资金是从哪里来的\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 58\n1　时，他说，我不知道。郭先生做生意根本就不是那种方式。而且我不知道资金从何而来。他完全是在推测。\n4　我将在本案中提出确凿的证据。\n5　我们今天来这里不是为了辩论证据将会是什么。法官阁下，我们今天来这里不是为了审理本案实体问题。\n7　关键在于，那些当初出资时以为自己有权前往该房屋并在里面过夜的人，不应该被阻止前往该房屋过夜。这完全就等同于——\n11　法官：那么你就必须提出动议，而他们必须前来告诉我为什么他们应该能够在该房屋过夜。\n14　CONWAY 律师：嗯，那您还不如直接全盘批准该动议，因为您这是把房屋夺走了。\n17　法官：不，我不同意你的看法。我不同意。我作出了——我不同意你的看法。\n19　我们——当时发生的情况是发布了初步禁令以试图维持现状。根据证词和提交的证据，在 4 月 9 日之前，这些进出该豪宅的人甚至根本不知道这处豪宅的存在。\n24　CONWAY 律师：当时它并未投入使用。他们怎么会知道？所有人都同意并且应当同意，因为\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 59\n证据绝对是一清二楚的，他们买下了这栋房屋并开始进行翻修。而且当时房屋还没有完工。\n法官：他们是谁？他们是谁？你一直说他们。我不知道他们是谁。\nCONWAY 律师：嗯，是 Taurus Fund 买下了这栋房屋。\n法官：好的。\nCONWAY 律师：Taurus Fund 雇佣了一家又一家的承包商。我见过发票。我见过工程情况。他们当时正在进行施工。他们甚至到现在都还没有完工。\n法官：那如果工程没有完工，为什么有人进进出出？\nCONWAY 律师：因为需要进行的工作并不妨碍人员进出。他们并没有像我们几个月前在屏幕上看到的那样人员随意进出。他们现在进出的人都是安保人员，住在那里的人也是安保人员。现在进进出出的人都是为了确保房屋安全和正常运转的人。但现在——\n法官：那些人是 Taurus Fund 的雇员吗？\nDESPINS 先生：不是。\nCONWAY 律师：那些人是一家\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 60\n物业管理公司的雇员。\n法官：那该物业管理公司——\nCONWAY 律师：Taurus Fund 是一家有限责任公司。\n法官：我明白 Taurus Fund 是什么。但他们作为一家有限责任公司是有义务的。他们不能仅仅——\nCONWAY 律师：有权聘请物业管理公司。\n法官：好的。那么该管理公司是谁？\nCONWAY 律师：我将在 9 月 1 日之前向托管人提供关于安保公司和物业管理公司的全部信息。我们现在正努力确保绝对没有任何让托管人或本法庭可以挑剔的问题。确保所有人都遵守初步禁令裁定中的每一项规定。法官阁下，您知道，我们正在竭尽全力严格按照命令要求我们做的事，以及——严格按照托管人所说他想做的事来办。\n法官：我明白。我明白这一点。我只是说我提出了——你提交了一份文件。我很感谢你提交了这份文件，因为这是初步禁令裁定所要求的，但文件上说没有购买保险。这令人担忧。明白吗？这非常令人担忧。正如我所说，美国受托人办公室，如果此前已经认定（尽管目前尚未作出认定）该资产属于破产财产，美国受托人办公室就会跑进本法庭说你们必须立即驳回本案。因为没有保险。破产财产的权益没有得到保护，本案无法继续进行。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 61\n1　这种情况经常发生。我的意思是，必须购买保险是硬性要求之一。明白吗？\n9　所以你现在告诉我你要去购买保险，并且你必须——但是 Despins 托管人说，嗯，在你们办好保险之前，任何人都不应该能够进出这栋大楼。你说，嗯，进出大楼的唯一人员都是已经投保的人。嗯，我对此并不知情。\n15　CONWAY 律师：不。我是说过去的情况一直如此。我认为目前没有任何承包商在施工。我认为现在现场的人员都是安保人员。\n19　法官：好的。\n20　DESPINS 先生：不是。\n21　法官：嗯，那会很好。希望他们对初步禁令要求他们做的所有事情都有做记录。\n24　CONWAY 律师：我此前询问过是否一直有在做记录。我得到的答复是有记录。我将确保\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 62\n今后的记录尽可能详尽。但是，法官阁下，正如 Despins 先生所说，本案及其所有的负面名声使得购买保险更加困难。因此要求我们在 24 小时内获得一份 4,000 万美元的保单（实质上就等于这种要求），这是很困难的。我想大家都能看出来。\n\n我认为我们要么今天就能拿到该保单，他们现在可能已经拿到了，我一直在法庭这里，但唯一的——唯一的阻碍是他们需要确认进出该场所的人员同意遵守初步禁令的要求。他们已经签署了确认书。我认为这是法官阁下和托管人都应该乐见的事情。他们还需要物业管理公司提供其他商业保险的证明。\n\n因此我认为这里所发生的事情，您知道，从裁定发布到现在不过短短几天时间，不应该成为令人担忧的问题。我们正在尽最大努力。而且我认为我们会成功办妥。如果我们办不到，法官阁下，作为法庭官员，我会告诉托管人，听着，我尽力了，我办不下来。让我们回到法官那里看看我们需要怎么做。\n\n法官：好的。关于与 United States（美国）的和解，我希望你们双方做的是，我希望你们就拟定裁定的格式进行协商。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 63\n1　如果你们无法达成一致，那么我希望你们双方在明天下午 5 点之前各自提交拟定裁定。我会过目。并且我将决定签署哪一份（如果有的话）。或者我会对它们提出意见并告诉你们裁定内容将是如何。\n6　正如我已经说明的那样，审查标准是：该和解是否低于合理性范围？\n8　而且由于我现在并没有确信，或者说没有被说服如果按照目前存在的条款和条件批准该和解协议会对你的当事人造成任何损害——目前的条件是没有发生任何实质变化，除非且直到 Despins 先生在实体审理中胜诉，而且，您知道，我想我记不清关于这点具体是怎么说的了，但总之是终局不可上诉的裁定，无论具体情况如何——那么我看不出你的当事人受到了什么损害。\n17　因此我认为该和解确实处于合理性范围之内。\n19　我将给你们一个机会——你提到过，而且我也理解，也许你的异议比你最初想象的要更为有限，因为如果裁定中可以包含适合你当事人的措辞，那么你可能就可以接受，但也可能不行。所以我打算让你们双方利用这个机会去协商解决。然后你们在明天下午 5 点之前在案件卷宗上提交\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 64\n1　一份一致同意的裁定，或者各自提交两份独立的裁定，然后我们再作处理。好吗？\n3　CONWAY 律师：我认为这非常公平，法官阁下。非常感谢。\n5　法官：好的。谢谢。\n6　DESPINS 先生：法官阁下？\n7　法官：请讲。\n8　DESPINS 先生：他们声称自己正在以非常快的速度办理保险，这种说法很有意思，但是任何拥有一套价值 2,900 万美元房屋的人，早在法官阁下要求他们出示保险证明之前就应该已经买好保险了。\n13　因此，法官阁下，我重申我的请求——如果他希望在这件事上有 24 小时的暂缓期，那没问题，但是必须设定一个非常短的时限，届时在该房屋办妥保险之前，除安保人员和托管人代表外，应当完全禁止任何人前往该房屋。这完全是一个根本性原则问题。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n20　法官：是的。我理解你的担忧，我将给他截至明天下午 5 点的时间，向你和美国受托人办公室出示该财产已投保的证明。\n24　如果在该时限之后仍未办妥，Despins 先生，你届时就必须提交一份文件，申请\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 65\n1　一项紧急裁定，禁止除安保人员之外的人员前往或进入该财产，除非且直到获得保险。明白吗？\n4　DESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n5　法官：好的。谢谢。\n6　CONWAY 律师：法官阁下，我可以先行离席吗？\n7　法官：可以。谢谢。\n8　好的。那么日程表上的唯一另一项事项就是根据破产法第 2004 条进行的调查动议。我想，Major 律师，您出庭也是为了这一事项，是这样吗？\n12　MAJOR 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n13　法官：好的。很好。\n14　LINSEY 先生，由您先开始吗？\n15　LINSEY 先生：是的。法官阁下，我可以走上前吗？\n16　法官：可以，请上前。\n17　LINSEY 先生：谢谢。\n18　托管人的第六次综合第 2004 条调查动议旨在将托管人的第 2004 条调查范围扩大至托管人调查显示发生了相关交易的其他相关银行，以及通过某些关联实体受雇于或以其他方式卷入债务人财务事务的其他实体和个人。\n25　迄今为止，第 2004 条规则一直是最\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 66 为受托人调查债务人的财务状况提供了有效工具。正如法庭所知，债务人通过由数十个（甚至上百个）关联实体及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的单笔转账多达数万笔，甚至数十万笔。因此，受托人的第 2004 条调查规则（Rule 2004 examination）必须能够对债务人的财务事务进行全面审查。对第六次 2004 条调查动议的唯一异议，是由 Greenwich Land 以及 Hing Chi Ngok（我将其统称为 Greenwich Land 各方）提出的异议。他们提出异议的依据是，受托人的第 2004 条调查涉及与受托人针对 Greenwich Land 各方提起的未决对抗性诉讼（adversary proceeding）相关的问题。法庭已经审议了 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。在第一起事件中，Mei Guo 和 HK USA 提出了\n\n受托人第二次综合 2004 条调查动议。那是在\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 67 去年12月提出的一项实质上几乎完全相同的异议。法庭当时裁定，虽然受托人不得向未决对抗性诉讼的当事方寻求第 2004 条项下的证据开示，但受托人完全有权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诉讼。该裁定见于主案卷宗号 1184（docket no. 1184）。这意味着该问题在近十个月前就已经作出了裁决。随后在几个月前的5月份，Greenwich Land 和 Hing Chi Ngok 再次援引其自身未决的对抗性诉讼，基于完全相同的理由提出异议。当时，受托人的律师向 Greenwich Land 各方解释法庭已就该问题作出过裁定，但该各方仍然坚持提出异议。于是法庭再次就同一问题作出了裁定。不出所料，法庭作出了相同的裁定。受托人可以继续针对非当事方进行 2004 条调查，即使某些调查标的可能与未决对抗性诉讼相关。受托人在回应 Greenwich Land 上一次异议时提出的第一点，也就是我们在此提出的第一点，即该问题已构成既判案件法则（law of the case）。本第 11 章案件的复杂性是显而易见的。本案的卷宗记录条目数量\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 68 超过了本地区许多其他第 11 章案件整整一个数量级。本案若要有序推进，当事方绝不能随意就已裁决的问题反复诉讼，更不用说多次提起。除此之外，法庭在第一次裁定时是正确的。法庭在第二次裁定时同样也是正确的。我不想在此过度深究细节，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权威，试图支持一个根本不存在的主张，即不允许针对非当事方继续进行可能与未决对抗性诉讼在标的事项上存在重叠的第 2004 条调查。判例法根本不支持这一主张。事实上，判例法与此相矛盾，这正是法官阁下（Your Honor）两次作出如此裁定的原因。Greenwich Land 各方提出的异议中还有一个令人担忧的特点，那就是其论述第六次第 2004 条动议所寻求继续之调查的方式。单看其对该调查的描述性总结，看其从传票和出示文件请求中摘录的内容，人们会以为该第 2004 条动议的进行仅仅是为了调查 Greenwich\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 69 Land 各方所声称的资产。事实上，查看出示文件请求（RFPs）本身就会发现，它们牵涉到的资产范围远远超出了 Greenwich Land 各方所主张的资产。例如——这些仅仅是例子——出示文件请求还牵涉到雪莉荷航酒店（Sherry-Netherland Hotel）的财产。我们今天刚刚就 Bravo Luck 的对抗性诉讼达成了和解。如果这次 2004 条调查真的如他们所说是对抗性诉讼证据开示的替代品，我们又为何要寻求牵涉这些事项的证据开示和调查呢？关于 Lady May 号游艇也是同样的情况。Lady May 被列在他们的出示文件请求中。Lady May 已经被出售了。我们不是——我们列出这些项目不是为了好玩。我们列出这些项目绝不是为了替代《联邦破产程序规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure）第 7 部分项下的证据开示。这里的现实情况是——而且本法庭审理本案的时间足够长，对此心知肚明——受托人的财务状况，更准确地说是债务人的财务状况，是一个错综复杂、极其庞大的蜘蛛网。要理清他的商业和资产，你不能把蜘蛛网切成碎片还指望一切都能拼合在一起。必须进行全面的审查。我认为法庭此前的两次裁定已经认识到了这一点。除此之外，Greenwich Land 各方争论的问题与未决\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 70 对抗性诉讼中的证据开示相关。虽然我想明确表示，受托人不同意 Greenwich Land 各方关于他们在对抗性诉讼中有权获得什么和无权获得什么的立场，但在对抗性诉讼中解决证据开示争议的正确方法不是对 2004 条调查动议提出异议。最后，我只想简要指出，即使法庭驳回 Greenwich Land 各方的异议，破产财产（estate）也已经受到了实质损害。该异议将使批准 2004 条调查动议的时间推迟数周，从而使发出传票的时间推迟数周。\n\n这让我想起高中时我父母常说的一句话：你必须每周都做数学作业，因为你下周要学的内容是建立在你这周所做的基础之上的；受托人的调查也是如此。调查标的、我们在该动议项下向其发出传票的人员、出示文件请求的条款、调查标的，所有这些——其中很大一部分都是受托人通过其现有的 2004 条调查所获知的事项。在该 2004 条调查被延误的限度内，延误会不断累积，所有事情耗时更长，所有费用更为昂贵，卷宗条目不断增加，行政管理费用持续攀升。\n\n因此，我们请求法官阁下批准第六次\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 71 2004 条调查动议，驳回异议，并明确指出这一次应当尊重法官阁下的裁定，不应再就此方面提出——不应再提交此类异议。我很乐意回答法庭可能提出的任何问题。法庭：谢谢。我现在没有任何问题。MAJOR 先生：谢谢法官阁下。我是来自 Meister Seelig & Fein 律师事务所的 Chris Major，代表 Hing Chi Ngok 以及 Greenwich Land, LLC。我想回应受托人律师在开篇和结尾时提到的观点，即我们应当被禁止对动议提出异议。我们并没有让受托人耗费数周时间。我们在8月18日提交了异议。今天是8月29日，该事项正在接受审理。我们不仅有权利，而且有义务在本案中形成诉讼记录。此外，我也想保护我们当事人未来提出异议的权利，例如在审判中提出证据异议。如果受托人试图在审判中突袭出示他在 2004 条调查中收集到的关于对抗性诉讼中各项争议的证据，而他事先没有将这些证据移交给我们就试图在审判中引入，我不希望受托人\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 72 在我提出异议时说：好吧，你们当初并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正当的。\n\n相关争议虽然相似，但并不完全相同，正因如此，我将简明扼要。我清楚法庭此前的各项命令，但我必须形成记录。我不能仅仅说：好吧，法庭既然这么做了，那我们就听之任之。因为如果我们到了上诉法庭或任何审判法院面前而我提出异议时，我不想听到关于放弃异议权（waiver）的辩解。因此，这是我认为我们有义务提出的一项异议，而且我认为这是完全正当的。\n\n正如我所说，关于法律问题我将特别简要地陈述。我清楚法庭此前的各项裁定。关于未决诉讼程序规则（pending proceedings rule）的存在并没有争议，该规则禁止为了用于对抗性诉讼而依据第 2004 条获取证据开示。在本次第六次综合动议中寻求的第 2004 条证据开示涉及 Greenwich Land 对抗性诉讼中的问题，这一点也没有争议。\n\n受托人律师对我们的异议只集中在与 Greenwich Land 相关的所有证据开示请求而未提及其他请求提出了异议，对此，法官阁下，我认为那份综合动议的文件，如果把传票算在内，大概有300多\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月29日 73 页。至少在200页以上。因此，我们当然不会花大量时间去讨论超出我们在此破产程序中非常狭窄范围的事项，即 Greenwich Land 对抗性诉讼。因此，我们理所当然且恰当地将重点放在提及 Greenwich Land 的请求范围内。甚至在受托人第六次综合动议的正文中，Greenwich Land 也被列为向其中一个目标对象寻求证据开示的理由。因此，我认为关键的法律问题——我在这里长话短说——同样不在于此前未决诉讼程序规则的存在，也不在于这些传票是否在寻求有关 Greenwich Land 对抗性诉讼中各项争议的信息，这些都是无可争议的，而在于受托人声称：好吧，只要我们不是从你们那里获取，我们就可以获取与对抗性诉讼相关的证据开示。我只想在记录中记入我们所引用的判例中的两段引文。第一件是《In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.》案，判例汇编为 203 B.R. 24。该案来自纽约北区破产法院（Northern Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of New York）。那是一个1996年的判例。在该判决书的第 29 页，法庭写道：“因此，在对抗性诉讼提起之后，受托人如同债权人一样，必须依据《联邦破产程序规则》第 7026 条及其后各条规定寻求证据开示，无论是针对受诉讼影响的实体，还是针对诉讼中涉及的问题。”\n\n第二件判例是北卡罗来纳中区（Middle District of North Carolina）的《In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.》案，2010 Westlaw 5128608。这是一个2010年的判例。在该判决书的第 3 页，法庭写道：“为了防止不公正并确保破产对抗性诉讼的当事方享有与非破产背景下的联邦诉讼当事方同等的权利，必须确保《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）第 26 条至第 37 条（经《联邦破产程序规则》第 7026 条至第 7037 条引用并入）所规定的证据开示程序的程序性保障，不因在对抗性诉讼未决期间允许进行第 2004 条调查而被规避。”\n\n法官阁下，关于该法律论点，我们还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——我一开始提到过，现在的情况与我们在6月份对第五次第 2004 条证据开示综合动议提出异议时的情况相似，但并不相同。\n\n在这里，还存在另一处不公，即\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 29, 2023 75 受托人（Trustee）打算做的就是证据开示——受托人在我们的对抗性诉讼程序（adversary proceeding）中主张并争取到了极其紧凑的证据开示日程表。该日程即将结束。他现在来到法庭说，他想就与 Greenwich Land（格林威治土地）程序、对抗性诉讼程序中相关的问题进行第 2004 条规则取证。\n\n我们将被剥夺进行任何证据开示的权利。我们无法——我们不被允许参与他就我们正在应诉的对抗性诉讼程序中的争议问题所进行的取证，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审判结束。如果他发现了什么，他可以尝试去使用它，我们对此当然会提出异议。\n\n但他所谓的与 Greenwich Land 相关的调查，实际上是针对他已经提出的诉求以及他已经获得的初步救济进行的证据开示，因此我认为适当的做法应该是允许各方当事人都能参与的证据开示。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这些就是我们的辩论意见。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，不过还是谢谢你。\n\nMajor 律师（Mr. Major）：谢谢法官阁下。Linsey 律师（Mr. Linsey）：法官阁下，能否简短说一句？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 76\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\nLinsey 律师：首先，再次强调，对抗性诉讼程序中的证据开示争议是对抗性诉讼程序本身的问题。我们不同意关于在对抗性诉讼程序中就谈判进行证据开示的定性，但如果存在争议，我认为任何一方都有能力向该程序提出。\n\n但关于判例法的简要讨论，法官阁下曾实质性地审理过这个问题。如果 Bennett 案听起来耳熟，那是因为它是法官阁下在上一次裁决中引用的案件之一，法官阁下在该引用后的括号附注中指出，那项对第 2004 条规则取证的禁止是针对待决程序的当事人，而不是针对非当事人。\n\n关于所引用的 Southeastern Materials 案，脱离上下文截取判例片段是很容易的。我也从 Southeastern Materials 案中截取一段：“少数判决考量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，依照第 2004 条规则进行调查的允许范围，这些案件中的一般规则是，附带诉讼的存在或潜在可能性不足以成为拒绝调查的理由。”法官阁下，这正是出自该判例。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 77 法官阁下审阅过这些判例。本案中并没有——并没有针对此点直接适用的 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）判例。这些判例归结起来的核心在于，取证调查的目的究竟是为了替代证据开示——即依据诉讼规则第 7 部分在对抗性诉讼程序中替代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。我相信在本案中，鉴于迄今为止所形成的记录，极为明确的是我们正在进行的是后者。法庭：谢谢。Linsey 律师：谢谢。法庭：Major 律师，有回应吗？Major 律师：法官阁下，关于判例法，我们准确描述了法院的裁决。我宣读的两个案例并不是仅有的判例。我们在辩护简报中引用了若干支持我们主张的判例。法庭：我理解这一点。谢谢。我也看到了你们引用了其他判例，所以我明白。好的。关于这项动议，法庭将留案审查。但我认为裁决不会——我的意思是，我不会花大量时间来做出裁决，但我会在\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 78\n1　回头审阅你们的辩论意见，并把相关\n2　文件和判例再看一遍之后作出裁决。好的？\n3　今天下午我们还有其他事情需要处理吗？\n4　我想这是日程表上的最后一项事项了。\n5　Despins 律师（Mr. Despins）：是的，法官阁下。\n6　法庭：各方当事人没有其他事宜了吗？\n7　Despins 律师：实际上，法官阁下，请允许我借此机会\n8　请教一下。问题是，在法官阁下这里，是否有某种程序\n9　可以在证词陈述（deposition）进行期间、在出现争议问题时\n10　寻求救济？因为在某些法院——\n11　法庭：并没有——我们没有一个，\n12　你知道的，我可以直接指明说“你就照这个做”的程序，\n13　但过去通常的做法是，\n14　当事人联系法庭书记员（courtroom deputy），请求法庭\n15　举行紧急听证会。\n16　Despins 律师：明白。\n17　法庭：如果法庭有空，\n18　法庭就可以这么做。如果没空，那么法庭对\n19　当事人的要求是，尽可能继续进行\n20　证词陈述。把所有的问题或争议留存起来，\n21　直到法庭能够实际主持听证会。\n22　现在，我知道这并不理想，因为这意味着\n23　你们必须重新召集证词陈述或调查，\n24　但是——\n25　\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 79 Despins 律师：好的。法庭：——没有时间——你知道的，遗憾的是法庭并不总是能抽出空来。Despins 律师：明白了。这很有帮助。谢谢。法庭：所以我不知道你们打算如何进行，但以往两种情况都发生过。当事人打来电话，法庭有空，能够举行紧急听证会。但也发生过当事人打来电话，法庭没有空档，然后我们不得不安排一次专门的听证会以尽快解决该问题的情况。我想这就是我能告诉你的全部了。我们在本地规则中没有设立这样的程序，也没有类似规定。Despins 律师：好的。谢谢。非常有帮助。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。今天日程表上还有一些未列入的事项，我认为属于事务性事项。例如，有一项已提交的遮盖处理（redact）动议。遮盖处理通常都会获准，所以大概在未来几天内会得到处理。除此之外，我认为主案及对抗性诉讼程序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 - August 29, 2023 80 哦，那是我正打算说的另一件事。Major 先生，你可能也不知道这一点。但位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格区）的联邦地区法院在所谓民事诉讼原告与被告提交动议时，会自动设定一个 21 天的答复期限。我们遵循这一规则。因此在对抗性程序中一提交诉状，CM/ECF（案件管理/电子案卷系统）系统就会自动生成这段表述，我不记得具体是怎么写的了，但大概写着 21 天内提交答复之类的内容，然后我想它会计算出具体日期。我对大家说过——虽然我们的本地规则对此未作规定，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答复日期，或者存在某种紧急情况，或者需要延长该答复日期，这并不排除任何人提交文件以寻求该项救济。好吗？这是一种——我认为，在破产语境下，通常这 21 天不能总是像在地区法院诉讼中那样完全照搬适用。我并不是说它在地区法院诉讼中就能一直完全适用，因为我确信也存在有人希望在此之前获得处理的情况。但我希望向各方明确的是，这 21 天的期限是系统自动生成的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 81 法庭与此无关。它只是设置在那里。这是程序的一部分，并且遵循了我们所适用的地区法院规则。\n\n因此，可能存在任何一方当事人寻求更改该日期或在此之前争取某种形式的案件进展状态会议（status conference）等情况。你们并不——任何当事人都未被排除提出该请求。至于它是否会获准，则完全是另一回事。\n\n但我最近注意到提交了一些动议，在这些动议中，我能理解为什么当事人会希望获得其他形式的救济而无需等待 21 天，但当事人并不一定提交了申请，所以我只是想让各方明白这一点。好的？\n\nLinsey 律师：法官阁下，这让我想起了一个问题。在 HCHK 对抗性诉讼程序中，有一项——先不谈其实质内容——最近提交的关于延长诉状提交截止日期的动议。该动议表明受托人对此无异议。我们正计划提交答复。该答复应在本周提交。我之所以这么说，仅仅是因为我知道，正如法官阁下指出的那样，案卷文本中通常会出现同样的 21 天提示，但同时，我们通常或经常会看到延期动议在 21 天截止日期之前就获得了批准。所以我只是想向法官阁下提一下，受托人本周将会\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 82\n1　提交一份答复——\n2　法庭：我以为对那项延期已经有异议了。\n3　Linsey 律师：动议中虽然提及了异议，\n4　但我们将会提交一份实质性的——\n5　法庭：哦。好的。我明白了。\n6　Linsey 律师：——解释理由的异议书。\n7　法庭：我理解。\n8　Linsey 律师：我只是——\n9　法庭：我明白你的意思。\n10　Linsey 律师：我们不会拖延——我们不会——\n11　我们不会为了做这件事而拖延他们 21 天。\n12　我们会把文件归档提交。\n13　法庭：我明白。好的。非常感谢。\n14　Linsey 律师：谢谢。\n15　Despins 律师：而且，法官阁下，您在申请上诉许可（leave to appeal）语境下\n16　提到的问题有点危险，\n17　因为案卷记录会显示你有 21 天，而且\n18　正如您所指出的，它会给出具体日期，但《联邦破产程序规则》\n19　第 8004 条规定你只有 10 天。\n20　法庭：我知道。\n21　Despins 律师：所以这就变成了——\n22　法庭：这就是问题的一部分。\n23　Despins 律师：是的。\n24　\n25　\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 83 法庭：这个框架，并非所有事情都能生搬硬套进这个框架里。Despins 律师：是的。法庭：对吧？所以这就是问题的一部分。Despins 律师：但我们没有冒任何风险。我们适用了那个 10 天的规则。法庭：对。那就是问题所在。我们会对此进行审查。我也对律师界说过——不仅是我，所有参与本地规则常设委员会的法官都提出过意见，说，很多时候——并没有一条本地规则明确规定这 21 天，因为这是一条地区法院规则。它只是规定采纳地区法院规则。但我们可能需要增加一些表述，说明“除适用法规、规则或命令另有规定，或法庭另有命令外”等等诸如此类的内容。你们懂的。我认为——所以请大家思考一下这个问题，提出你们的——告诉我们规则应该如何规定，我们会努力去落实。好的？但重点是我们正在考虑这件事情。我只是想让，你知道的，某些不是经常在这里出庭、不一定时刻注意地区法院规则的人明白。这并不排除任何当事人在那 21 天之前寻求某种救济。至于他们是否能争取到，则是完全不同的另一个问题了。好的？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 84\nMAJOR 先生（梅杰先生）：是的。法官阁下，如果我让自己看起来像个外地人，我很抱歉，但我获准在本区执业已经——\n法庭：不，我不是那个意思。\nMAJOR 先生：——很久了。\n法庭：我只是指，我认为你并不经常来破产法院，也不必费心去考虑我们的本地规则与地区法院规则之间的相互作用。仅此而已。\nMAJOR 先生：法官阁下，针对您的评论，我只想说明一点。我提出这点可能会显得有些突兀，因为这根本不是您刚才所想的，但由于受托人（Trustee）抱怨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日星期五向我们提交了第六次综合动议。该动议表明异议应于下周五即8月18日截止，我们遵照执行了。因此，我们并没有拖延21天才提出异议。\n法庭：我同意。我也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情况，你知道的，试图保持一致性会产生意想不到的后果，因为这并不总是奏效。并非所有事情都能装进\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年8月29日 85\n同一个盒子里。而且，你知道，我们大概可以花上几个星期去研究本地规则，找出所有无法装进这个盒子的具体事项。但无论如何，我说明这点只是为了让各方知悉——我不想让任何人认为这意味著他们无法在21天期限之前以某种形式或方式寻求救济。至于能否获得救济，则完全是另一回事。明白吗？\n好的。那么，今天的听证会就到此结束，所以——\n（庭审于下午3:47结束）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），注册电子法庭速记员兼转录员，兹证明上述内容是上述标件事项庭审官方电子录音的准确转录文本。\n\n19\n2023年9月6日\n20\nChristine Fiore, CERT\n21\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"},{"doc_number":2174,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":20049,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-07","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:25:35"}