{"id":"court_sdny_198_7","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":198,"sub_number":7,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-12-15","title":"EXHIBIT E1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\","summary_zh":"破产庭庭审记录 —— 美国康涅狄格州破产法庭(案号22-50073)关于Ho Wan Kwok和Genever Holdings Corporation破产案的2023年8月29日庭审记录。Chapter 11受信人Luc A. Despins向法院陈述与司法部的和解协议，涉及标记为可没收资产的Mahwah大宅的处置和权利分配。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy Court Proceedings — Transcript from U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut dated August 29, 2023 in the case of Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corporation (Case No. 22-50073). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins presents settlement agreement with DOJ regarding disposition of Mahwah mansion property designated as potentially forfeitable asset and allocation of proceeds.","body_en":"# EXHIBIT E1\n\n UNITED 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 19 1 held the status conference with regard to that matter. 2 The only other thing the U.S. Trustee's Office may 3 want, I have no idea, Attorney Claiborn, but that motion 4 that's seeking to remediate different issues at the Sherry-5 Netherland apartment also seeks the employment. So I don't 6 know if you want the order to refer to Section 327 or 7 something too. I have no idea. But maybe you can all work 8 that out before we have a hearing. 9 And maybe if you all come in and there's no 10 problem, you'll go first at 2 p.m. Okay? 11 MR. DESPINS: That's a good incentive. 12 THE COURT: All right. So with regard to the 13 status conference that was held today that -- the status 14 conference has been held. There's no need for any -- no 15 further status conferences will be scheduled and a notice of 16 hearing will issue on ECF No. 2113. Okay? 17 So then how would you like to proceed next? 18 MR. DESPINS: We'll go to Mahwah at this point. 19 THE COURT: Go right ahead. 20 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. 21 So Your Honor, this is a motion to approve a 22 settlement with the Department of Justice. That's under 23 document 24 in the adversary proceeding. And I have already 24 testified as to this, but I think it's important that we set 25 the stage again on this because last time that was not the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 20 1 main focus. I wanted the Court to know about it, but 2 clearly that was not the purpose of that hearing. 3 So the first question is why enter into a 4 settlement with the DOJ? Second question is what does the 5 settlement do or not do? And so let me try to address that. 6 The first question is why? 7 As we state in the motion, the DOJ has expressly 8 targeted the Mahwah mansion as a -- that's not a verb -- 9 forfeitable asset and they've actually identified that 10 asset. We did not know about it. So we have to be candid 11 with the Court. We did not know about that asset until the 12 indictment was released. 13 And, however, the Department of Justice, their 14 tools are sort of limited in the pre-conviction phase in the 15 sense that they cannot obtain title to this property now or 16 do much with it before there's a conviction, which is a 17 final conviction. Given that the trial is not going to last 18 -- not going to start until April I think, at least until 19 April of next year, obviously, the DOJ and we were aware of 20 what was going there and we're really concerned about this 21 very valuable asset being left in limbo for lack of a better 22 term. 23 So, however, because they identified this asset as 24 a potentially forfeitable asset, we did not want to begin 25 any adversary proceeding which could be perceived as hostile\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 21 1 towards the DOJ because obviously it's important we believe 2 to work with them as cooperatively as possible. Why? 3 Because they have all sorts of tools that we don't 4 have. We don't want them to be fighting us and us being at 5 cross purposes with them with respect to this asset, and 6 this is where we came up with this idea of -- first of all, 7 we did our homework. We believe that this asset through the 8 relief we're seeking in the adversary proceeding is an 9 estate asset. We're convinced of that. The Court will have 10 to determine if that's the case or not. That's for another 11 day. 12 But we approached the DOJ and said we want to go 13 forward with this adversary proceeding to try to establish 14 that this is an asset of the estate. And eventually, if the 15 Court rules in our favor, to sell this asset to liquidate it 16 for the benefit of holders of allowed claims. 17 And so we had this discussion about, okay, how is 18 that going to play out, because their view is that they have 19 superior claims. And I'm not going to go into all the 20 details on this, but we pointed out and we cited in the 21 motion some case law, because there's a lot of cases on this 22 where Chapter 11 trustees or Chapter 7 trustees are battling 23 against the DOJ over issues like that as to who has first 24 dibs on an asset of the -- and I'm saying in those cases the 25 alleged wrongdoer -- and, you know, obviously we want to\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 22\n\n1 avoid that.\n\n2 And we also wanted to avoid the following, which 3 is we filed this adversary proceeding. In my dreams, we 4 prevail. We sell the assets and the DOJ comes in and says 5 thank you very much, we will take that money, and thank you 6 for your work, and that's the end of it. We could not have 7 that. 3 4 5 6 7\n\n8 This estate cannot be in a position where it's 9 financing any other activity. It has to net neutral. And I 10 believe move than net neutral, and I'll get to that piece in 11 a second. So that we negotiated the fact that if we 12 prevail, that's very important, only if we prevail. 8\n\n13 This settlement agreement does not dictate the 14 sale of the property because it provides that certain things 15 will happen if we prevail.\n\n16 So if we prevail and we sell the asset, we can use 17 the net proceeds to pay all the expenses that the estate 18 will have incurred. At that time, we thought we would incur 19 not only legal fees, but security fees, a broker to sell the 20 property, a mortgage if -- there's no mortgage on the 21 property, but if there are people that have mechanics liens 22 that need to be paid, that of course comes off the top.\n\n23 So that creates a concept of net proceeds. And 24 the net proceeds under that stipulation, we're kicking down 25 -- that down the road, which is to be determined. And I'll\n\n22\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 29, 2023 23 1 come back to why there's not more progress on that. So the 2 net proceeds are very important. 3 And what I said is, okay, that's great. We're 4 going to get all our expenses back. That's good. But this 5 case is not being run for the professionals for the case. 6 There has to be a benefit to the estate. That's where we 7 came in with the deemed expense of a million dollars. 8 So that assuming for a second that we prevail, the 9 mansion is sold, we get all the expenses paid, and the DOJ 10 and us cannot agree on the distribution of the net proceeds, 11 we're getting a million dollars to the estate guaranteed. 12 And it says in there to be paid to the holders of allowed 13 claims, so an allowed claim in your court, so it has to be 14 an allowed claim, allowed claims of victims. And, you know, 15 people pointed out, well, victims is not defined. 16 That's not an accident. Meaning, I want to have a 17 shot at convincing the DOJ that the victims -- first of all, 18 you have to have an allowed claim. You cannot receive a 19 penny of this unless you have an allowed claim as determined 20 by Your Honor. But if you have an allowed claim, the issue 21 of who's a victim or not, that's -- I would like that to be 22 subject to further discussion. 23 But the bottom line is this estate will end up 24 with a million positive, if we're right that this property\n\n25 is part of the estate. And we feel pretty strongly that is","body_zh":"证物 E1\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n关于\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（源泉控股有限公司），\n债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n原告，\nv.\nBRAVO LUCK, LIMITED 等，\n被告。\n对抗程序案号：22-05027\n\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n原告，\nv.\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\n庭审记录\n主审法官：HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁阁下），美国破产法官\n出庭人员：\n第11章破产受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，记录件由转录服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n代表第11章破产受托人：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n代表 U.S. Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人）：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\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代表无担保债权人委员会：\nIRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n代表 Bravo Luck：\nFRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ.\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP\n3000 Two Logan Square\n18th and Arch Street\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\n代表 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）及 Greenwich Land, LLC：\nCHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ.\nMeister Seelig & Fein LLP\n125 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n代表 Taurus Fund, LLC：\nMICHAEL T. CONWAY, ESQ.\nLazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP\n747 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第19页\n1 就该事项举行了状态地位会议。\n2 唯一一件美国联邦破产受托人办公室可能\n3 想要的，我不知道，Claiborn 律师，但那项\n4 寻求修复 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰）公寓各种问题的动议\n5 也申请了聘用事宜。所以我不知道\n6 你是否希望裁定中也提及第327条\n7 或其他内容。我完全不清楚。但也许你们大家可以在\n8 开庭前把这些协商好。\n9 如果你们大家出席并且没有\n10 争议，你们将在下午2点率先进行。可以吗？\n11 DESPINS 先生：这是个很好的激励。\n12 法庭：好的。那么关于\n13 今天举行的状态地位会议——状态地位会议\n14 已经举行完毕。无需再——不会\n15 再安排进一步的状态地位会议，法庭将针对 ECF No. 2113 发出\n16 听证会通知。可以吗？\n17 那么接下来您想如何推进？\n18 DESPINS 先生：我们此时进入 Mahwah（马瓦豪宅）事项。\n19 法庭：请继续。\n20 DESPINS 先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n21 法官阁下，这是一项批准与 Department of Justice（司法部，DOJ）\n22 达成和解的动议。对应于该对抗程序中的\n23 文件24。关于这一点我已经作过证，\n24 但我认为我们有必要就此重新阐明背景，\n25 因为上次这并不是\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第20页\n1 焦点所在。我希望法庭了解它，但\n2 显然那并不是上次听证会的目的。\n3 因此，第一个问题是：为什么要与司法部达成和解？\n4 第二个问题是：这项和解解决或不解决什么？\n5 请允许我逐一说明。\n6 第一个问题是：为什么？\n7 正如我们在动议中所述，司法部已明确\n8 将马瓦豪宅列为——这并非动词——\n9 可没收资产，并且他们实际上已经认定了该\n10 资产。我们此前对此一无所知。我们必须对\n11 法庭坦白。直到起诉书公布，\n12 我们才知道这项资产的存在。\n13 然而，司法部在定罪前阶段的\n14 手段在某种程度上是有限的，\n15 即他们目前无法取得该财产的所有权，或者在\n16 获得定罪（即终审定罪）之前无法对其采取太多行动。\n17 鉴于审判要到四月——我认为要到\n18 明年四月才会开始，显然，司法部和我们\n19 都意识到那里面临的情况，并且我们确实很担心\n20 这项极具价值的资产会因为找不到更好的词来形容而陷入悬而未决的停滞状态。\n21\n22 因此，由于他们将该资产认定为\n23 潜在的可没收资产，我们不希望启动\n24 任何可能被视为对司法部怀有敌意的对抗程序，\n25 因为显然我们认为尽可能与他们进行合作是非常重要的。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第21页\n1 为什么？\n2 因为他们拥有各种我们所不具备的手段。\n3 我们不希望他们与我们争斗，导致双方在该资产上\n4 产生目标冲突，这就是为什么我们提出了这个想法——首先，\n5 我们做足了准备功课。我们相信通过我们在对抗程序中寻求的救济，\n6 该资产属于破产财产。我们对此深信不疑。\n7 法庭届时将必须判定是否属于这种情况。那是后续的事。\n8\n9 但我们与司法部接洽并表示，我们希望推进\n10 这一对抗程序，以确立这项资产属于破产财产。\n11 并且最终，如果法庭作出有利于我们的裁决，\n12 我们将出售该资产以进行变现，从而使获准债权的持有人受益。\n13\n14 于是我们就此进行了讨论，即：好吧，这该如何展开？\n15 因为他们的观点是他们拥有优先债权。\n16 我不会在此赘述所有细节，但我们指出了并\n17 在动议中援引了一些判例法，因为在这类问题上存在大量案例，\n18 即第11章破产受托人或第7章破产受托人与司法部\n19 就谁对涉嫌违法者的资产享有优先受偿权展开争夺——\n20 显然我们希望避免这种情况。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第22页\n1 并且我们还希望避免以下情况：\n2 即我们提起了这一对抗程序。在我的设想中，我们胜诉了。\n3 我们出售了资产，然后司法部过来说：非常感谢，\n4 我们要拿走这笔钱，感谢你们的工作，事情就此结束。\n5 我们绝不能接受这种情况。\n6\n7 破产财产不能处于为任何其他活动提供资金的境地。\n8 它必须达到净中性。而且我认为应当高于净中性，\n9 我稍后会谈到那一部分。因此我们谈判确定：如果我们胜诉——\n10 这一点非常重要，仅在我们胜诉的前提下。\n11\n12 本和解协议并不强制要求出售该房产，\n13 因为它规定了在我们胜诉的情况下将发生某些事项。\n14\n15 因此，如果我们胜诉并且出售了该资产，我们可以使用\n16 净收益来支付破产财团所产生的所有费用。\n17 当时我们认为我们不仅会产生律师费，\n18 还会产生安保费、出售房产的经纪人费用、抵押贷款——\n19 该房产上并没有抵押贷款，但如果有持有机械留置权的人\n20 需要受偿，那当然要优先扣除。\n21\n22 这就产生了一个净收益的概念。\n23 根据该约定，关于净收益的分配，我们暂时搁置——\n24 推迟到以后确定。我稍后会回头说明\n25 为什么这方面没有取得更多进展。所以净收益非常重要。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月29日 第23页\n1 我当时说：好吧，那太好了。我们将收回所有的费用支出。\n2 这很好。但是这个案件并不是为了本案的专业人员而运作的。\n3 破产财产必须获得实际利益。这就是为什么我们提出了\n4 一百万美元的视同费用。\n5\n6 因此，假设我们胜诉，豪宅被出售，\n7 我们所有的费用都得到了支付，而司法部与我们\n8 无法就净收益的分配达成一致，破产财产也将确保获得\n9 一百万美元。\n10 协议中写明该款项应支付给获准债权的持有人，\n11 即在您的法庭上获得的获准债权，因此必须是受害者的获准债权。\n12 而且，有人指出，受害者并没有明确定义。\n13\n14 这并非偶然。意思是，我想保留说服司法部的机会，即受害者——\n15 首先，你必须拥有获准债权。\n16 除非你拥有法官阁下裁定的获准债权，否则你一分钱也拿不到。\n17 但如果你拥有获准债权，关于谁属于受害者的问题，\n18 我希望将其留待进一步讨论。\n19\n20 但底线是，如果我们认定该财产属于破产财产的判断是正确的，\n21 破产财产最终将获得一百万美元的净增益。\n22 我们非常确信这一点。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","forfeiture","Je","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":24,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":151,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2113,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1694,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:26:25"}