--- type: court_doc id: "court_ctb_3816_0" court: "CTB" case_no: "22-50073" doc_number: 3816 doc_type: "TRANSCRIPT" filed_date: "2024-11-13" lang: "zh" url: "https://mubeitech.com/court/court_ctb_3816_0" json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_ctb_3816_0" --- # 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC > 原始法庭文件为英文；下方为英文全文，顶部为中文摘要。 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al., .* . (Jointly Administered) . . Debtors. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Tuesday, November 5, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:05 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and-Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: [gmatthews@reliable-co.com](about:blank) Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 1 of 39 Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 2 of 39 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: For Aaron Mitchell, V.X. Cerda & Associates, The Francis Law Firm PLLC, Berkeley Rowe Limited, Weddle Law PLLC, and Lawall & Mitchell, LLC: Kellianne Baranowsky, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For 3 Columbus Circle, Baron Yachts, and ModSquad, Inc., Mercedes Benz Manhattan New York, Philip Eisner: Matthew A. Pesce, Esquire MURTHA CULLINA, LLP 107 Elm Street 11th Floor Stamford, Connecticut 06902 For the U.S. Trustee: Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 3 of 39 | | | | 3 | |----------|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | 1 | | INDEX | | | 2 | MOTIONS: | | PAGE | | 3 | Matter | | | | 4 | (HY) #31: | Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by | 6 | | 5 | | Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Aaron
Mitchell, Defendant | | | 6 | Matter | | | | 7 | | (HY) #22: Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by
Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of V.X. Cerda | | | 8 | | & Associates P.A., Defendant | | | 9 | Matter
(HY) #25: | Amended Motion To Stay Discovery Pending | | | 10 | | Court's Decision on Motion to Dismiss
Filed by Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of | | | 11 | | The Francis Firm PLLC, Defendant | | | 12 | Matter
(HY) #31: | Motion To Stay Pending Defendant's | | | 13
14 | | Response to Amended Complaint Filed by
Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Berkeley
Rowe Limited, Defendant | | | 15 | Matter | | | | 16 | (HY) #30: | Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by | | | 17 | | Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Weddle Law
PPLC, Defendant | | | 18 | Matter | | | | 19 | (HY) #35: | Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Court's
Decision on Motion to Dismiss Filed by
Jeffrey M. Sklarz on behalf of Lawall & | | | 20 | | Mitchell, LLC, Aaron Mitchell, Defendants | | | 21 | | | | | 22 | | | | | 23 | | | | | 24 | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter (HY) #3659: Motion to Amend Avoidance and Mediation Procedures Order by Temporarily Staying Discovery and Response to Motions to Stay Discovery Filed by Certain Avoidance Defendants Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: 16 Matter (HY) #3594: Motion for 2004 Examination of Additional 18 Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor and Additional Relevant Banks (Seventeenth Omnibus) Filed by Kari A. Mitchell on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: 24 Matter (HY) #3701: Application to Employ James Morgan as 26 Barrister in British Virgin Islands Filed by Luc A. Despins on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee Court's Ruling: 28 Matter (HY) #17: Motion for Default Judgment by the Court 29 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (b)(2) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 against Qiang Guo Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A.Despins, Plaintiff Court's Ruling: 32 Transcriptionist's Certificate 39 Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 4 of 39 | 1 | (Proceedings commenced at 1:05
p.m.) | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | THE CLERK:
22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok.
24-05110, | | 3 | Despins v. Mitchell.
24-05134, Despins v. V.X. Cerda & | | 4 | Associates P.A.
24-50168, Despins v. The Francis Firm PLLC. | | 5 | 24-05186, Despins v. Berkeley Rowe Limited.
24-05188, | | 6 | Despins v. Weddle Law PLLC.
24-05199, Despins v. Lawall
& | | 7 | Mitchell, LLC et al.
24-05238, Despins v. Guo. | | 8 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. If we could
have | | 9 | appearances
for the
record starting
with the
Chapter 11 | | 10 | Trustee, please. | | 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your
Honor.
Luc | | 12 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. | | 13 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. | | 14 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Your
Honor.
Patrick | | 15 | Linsey of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, for the Chapter 11 | | 16 | Trustee. | | 17 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. | | 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon.
Holley Claiborn | | 19 | for the U.S. Trustee. | | 20 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. | | 21 | Anyone else in the
courtroom noting their | | 22 | appearance? | | 23 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Good afternoon, Your
Honor. | | 24 | Kellianne Baranowsky of Green & Sklarz
on behalf of Adversary | | 25 | Proceeding Defendants Aaron Mitchell, V.X. Cerda & | | | | | | 6 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Associates, The Francis Law Firm PLLC, Berkeley Rowe Limited, | | 2 | Weddle Law PLLC, and Lawall & Mitchell, LLC. | | 3 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. | | 4 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Good afternoon. | | 5 | MR. PESCE:
Good
afternoon, Your
Honor.
Matthew | | 6 | Pesce on behalf of 3 Columbus Circle, Baron Yachts, ModSquad, | | 7 | Inc., Mercedes of New York --
excuse me, Mercedes Benz | | 8 | Manhattan New York, and Philip Eisner. | | 9 | THE
COURT:
Good afternoon. | | 10 | All right.
Trustee
Despins, there are several | | 11 | matters on the
calendar today.
I would
assume you have an | | 12 | idea of how you would like to proceed. | | 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your
Honor.
Mr. Linsey will | | 14 | handle the discovery stay
and
the
related matters because | | 15 | that
covers most people in the courtroom and
then we will | | 16 | proceed with the other ones after that. | | 17 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | 18 | MR. LINSEY:
May I
approach, Your
Honor? | | 19 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. | | 20 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you. The Trustee has moved for | | 21 | a temporary stay of discovery in the avoidance actions,
that | | 22 | is until the Court has resolved
the joint briefing issues, | | 23 | and as to any non-mediation defendants that has filed a | | 24 | motion to dismiss until
the Court resolves
that motion
to | | 25 | dismiss. | | | | | 1 | At
the
outset, the Trustee notes that as for the | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | vast majority of avoidance
claims
discovery
is already | | 3 | stayed; that is because
those claims are either
in mediation | | 4 | already or because
they are
on the
fully stayed list, that is | | 5 | the Exhibit 3-A to the
operative procedures order.
So, what | | 6 | we are really talking about here is a limited subset of | | 7 | avoidance defendants numbering approximately
in the 40's. | | 8 | So,
in terms of its practical impact
the
relief | | 9 | the Trustee is looking for is limited.
Largely,
these are | | 10 | defendants that were on the Exhibit 4 list to the operative | | 11 | procedures order; that is that we are not automatically | | 12 | referred to mediation for a few of the
impacted defendants. | | 13 | They are defendants that filed motions requesting to
be | | 14 | excused from mediation and
the Court allowed that. | | 15 | A
temporary stay of discovery is appropriate here | | 16 | for several reasons.
First of all, the Court's ruling on the | | 17 | joint briefing
issues, as well as issued raised
in the | | 18 | motions to dismiss, may obviate the need for certain | | 19 | discovery.
As a practical issue, the Trustee believes it is | | 20 | likely
that the
Court's resolution of those issues may lead | | 21 | to settlements
of some avoidance
claims.
Additionally,
there | | 22 | are legal issues in dispute that the Court addressing may | | 23 | cause
subject matter of discovery
in avoidance
actions to be | | 24 | narrowed. | | 25 | Further, the
Trustee notes that it's
likely that | | 1 | there
are going to
be some common issues
in discovery | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | involving avoidance claims.
And while the Trustee is | | 3 | cognizant of the
need to pursue these claims expeditiously, | | 4 | the Trustee also recognizes that there are economies of scale | | 5 | and when efficiencies reveal themselves,
they should
be | | 6 | pursued.
For that reason, the
Trustee believes
it is | | 7 | appropriate to wait for a limited period of time to undertake | | 8 | discovery for there to be a critical mass of
avoidance | | 9 | defendants to move into discovery and, therefore, to pursue | | 10 | efficiencies
and common discovery practices to the
extent | | 11 | that that is an available --
you know, something
that is | | 12 | available. | | 13 | The
Trustee filed this motion after consulting | | 14 | with
counsel for the non-mediating defendants.
Certain of | | 15 | the non-mediating defendants themselves filed motions seeking | | 16 | this relief. In
fact, prior to the Trustee filing his motion | | 17 | seeking this relief on a
more global scale, others have | | 18 | responded with
reservations of rights saying they do not | | 19 | disagree with the relief requested.
Various things that | | 20 | avoidance defendants have said in these filings are things | | 21 | the Trustee does not agree with; however, because
there is no | | 22 | disagreement as to the
ultimate relief,
the Trustee is not | | 23 | going to raise those issues
for sport. | | 24 | The
Trustee has reviewed --
oh, the Trustee would | | 25 | note that the
Trustee has, in compliance with
the
Court's | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order regarding notice, has caused all appearing avoidance defendants to be served with both the Trustee's motion for a stay of discovery and the Court's order setting a hearing on this motion. The Trustee did that by filing those documents in all of the pending avoidance actions which automatically, by ECF, caused any appearing avoidance defendant to be served with those documents. THE COURT: Let me stop you on that. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: It might not be as automatic as we all think. Something occurred this morning in hearings where I think in this case it probably is and in these adversary proceedings, but apparently when you, and any lawyer, or ECF filer agrees to become an ECF filer you can choose when you obtain the actual document that is placed on the docket, whether its automatic or at midnight the next day, through a report which I honestly had no idea was true. So, when you say "automatically" that is the way I believe and have always believed its worked even if we had another email box or more to obtain filings, but apparently an ECF filer can make a choice as to whether or not they obtain anything filed in a case automatically through that automatic NEF or at some later point in a day through a report of all matters that are related to that ECF filer's account. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, the only thing I am saying is when you say "automatic" apparently, it's not. That is something I learned today. It has nothing to do with this case. MR. LINSEY: I appreciate the information, Your Honor. I had no idea of that. THE COURT: I had no idea of it either. MR. LINSEY: There are days where I might wish to not get an email every time. THE COURT: Apparently there is a way you can do that. MR. LINSEY: Then there are certain things where its good to know the moment they are filed. THE COURT: Yeah, I never knew that you could do - - well, that is not fair. I know there is an ability to gather things through a report, but I thought that also was separate and distinct from the NEF that you would obtain in any case in which you are an ECF filer. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: It is not automatic. MR. LINSEY: Well, for technical reasons like that I was endeavoring to, at least, be precise about the way that we delivered the notice. So, hopefully I have accomplished that. THE COURT: Well, its automatically served through NEF, but when it is received by the recipient it's the 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recipients issue ultimately but I just wanted you to be aware of that. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Unless the Court has any questions, the Trustee would ask that the motion be -- oh, there is one thing that the Trustee would add. There is a safety valve built into the order which is in Paragraph 4 of the order which allows any party to an adversary proceeding, upon a showing of cause, to request that discovery be allowed in that adversary proceeding. You know, given that no one knows what circumstances may occur that would affect any pending avoidance action. THE COURT: Hold on. Let me just take a look at that. Paragraph 4? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: "Any party to an avoidance action may request that the stay of discovery in such action be lifted upon a motion filed in the action setting forth cause." That is what you mean by your safety valve? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then with regard to this motion that you filed on behalf of the Trustee I did not see any written objections to this order. I saw the motions to stay, as you completely correctly noted, that were filed by defendants prior to the Trustee's motion, but are there any 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 written objections to this motion that you are aware of? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: There are responses in the nature of reservations of rights but there are not objections. THE COURT: And those responses that are in the nature of reservations of rights, are they filed in the main case adversaries or both? I am not sure, that is why I am asking that question. MR. LINSEY: I am aware that they are filed -- THE COURT: I think they're in both. MR. LINSEY: They may be in both. The copies I have with me are in the main case. THE COURT: So, it's just procedural the questions I am asking you right now because I think you have already answered them but I just want to make sure I understand your answer. With regard to this motion to further amend the avoidance and mediation procedures order by temporarily staying discovery, obviously, that was filed in the main case because that is where the avoidance procedures order was filed and where that matter was administered. You also said you then filed a notice or something in every adversary proceeding related to this temporary stay motion, is that correct? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. The Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 12 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 Trustee filed both notices of the motion and when the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion, notices that the hearing had been scheduled. When I say "notice" it's really just a one-pager saying this was filed in the main case attaching the substantive filing. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Understood. That is what I thought you said. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you said because I wasn't sure. I know that you have done that in the past where there is an order, or a motion, or something filed in the main case that impacts the adversary proceeding, then a notice is filed in the adversary proceedings which, essentially, telling people in every adversary proceeding this is what has happened, go back to the main case and look at if you would like. 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. And it would be the Trustee's intention to, upon any order entering with respect to this motion, then filing that order in the -- filing, you know, the same, a one-pager, see attached order, that is entered in the main case so that notice has occurred in all of the avoidance actions. 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Understood. So, this motion that the Trustee has filed in the main case, 3659, relates, obviously, to all the motions to stay filed on behalf of Attorney Baranowsky's clients that are also on for motion for stay for today, correct? Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 14 of 39 | | 14 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. LINSEY:
It covers all of those defendants. | | 2 | Correct, Your
Honor. | | 3 | THE
COURT:
And Attorney Baranowsky has seen this | | 4 | proposed order?
You have no --
I
am going to have to hear | | 5 | from you, Attorney Baranowsky, obviously, since there are six | | 6 | motions to stay or seven motions to stay
--
six
that are | | 7 | filed by you. I want
to make sure that this order does what | | 8 | you think it should
do. | | 9 | I know we talked about this
a week or so ago in so | | 10 | far as we thought that the
Trustee's motion may moot all | | 11 | these motions to stay filed in the adversary
proceedings in | | 12 | which
Attorney Sklarz and Attorney Baranowsky represent the | | 13 | defendants, and that are on the
calendar today.
The
24- | | 14 | 05110, 24-05134, 24-05168, 24-05186, 24-05188, and 24-05199. | | 15 | So, I
am going to hear from Attorney Baranowsky to | | 16 | make sure we are set on this proposed order, Attorney
Linsey, | | 17 | okay. | | 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your
Honor. | | 19 | THE
COURT:
Thank you. | | 20 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Thank you, Your
Honor. | | 21 | On behalf of the
client group, if that is okay to | | 22 | use that shorthand -- | | 23 | THE
COURT:
Sure. | | 24 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
--
of the six that have filed | | 25 | motions to stay discovery, we have no objection
to the
relief | 1 2 3 4 5 that the Trustee is seeking through modification of the order. As Attorney Linsey pointed out, there is no disagreement as to the ultimate relief that order will provide, and it does mirror what we are asking for in the motions to stay. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I just do want to make a point on behalf of the clients that have moved to stay discovery and on behalf of all of our clients that we represent that are subject to the mediation procedures orders that we do -- just to clarify, we do disagree with some of the statements made in the motion concerning various findings that have been made by the Court to date and the applicability of those findings to adversary defendants but, you know, we recognize that those are just statements by the Trustee in a motion. They are not the equivalent of findings by the Court. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We just want to make it clear for the record that our position is that we reserve all rights to contest the Trustee's position on those statements but ultimately we agree with the relief that is being requested and whether the Court, you know, finds that the motions are moot because of that order or that the motions should be stayed -- motions to stay should be granted because the stay relief is being order, I will leave that to the discretion of the Court. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. BARANOWSKY: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Attorney Linsey, any response? MR. LINSEY: No, that's fine with the Trustee, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to amend the avoidance and mediation procedures order? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. I have reviewed the Trustee's motion and I have reviewed the motions to stay that were filed in the six adversary proceedings that the Court just recited on the record. At a hearing a week or so ago, and I apologize I don't remember what day it was at the moment, but this issue was highlighted and Attorney Sklarz was here and Trustee Despins and Attorney Bassett, we all talked about this issue in general before today's hearing. I understand why the Trustee is seeking to amend the avoidance procedures order and temporarily stay discovery. I understand why the defendants were seeking to stay discovery. Given the posture of where things stand at this point in time and procedurally how the avoidance action order was obtained through the main case, and that order was entered in the main case, I am going to grant the Trustee's motion to amend the avoidance and mediation procedures order by temporarily staying discovery. And I am going to enter the proposed order. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 16 of 39 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, the proposed order was filed under seal, Attorney Linsey. Are we filing this -- are we entering this order under seal? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. I don't believe -- THE COURT: Oh, it wasn't filed under seal. That is my mistake. Another ECF thing that occurred that is every day bringing more joy to this Court. MR. LINSEY: I think I know what Your Honor is talking about on that one. THE COURT: It isn't sealed. The copy I have in front of me indicated something that is not correct, but I read your order and it's the same order. We went over Paragraph 4 that you already highlighted. So, then the proposed order to 3659 we will enter. Just give me one moment, please. (Pause) THE COURT: Then, Attorney Baranowsky, what I am going to do in all the adversary proceedings is deny your motion as moot due to the entry of the order in the main case on the Trustee's motion 3659. Okay. MS. BARANOWSKY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. If anyone was only here for that matter they are, obviously, welcome to stay or go, whatever you prefer, but you certainly do not need to stay. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 17 of 39 | 1 | Trustee, Despins, how would
you like to proceed | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | with
the other matters that are on today's calendar? | | 3 | MR. DESPINS:
There
was a 2004 motion that Mr. | | 4 | Linsey will handle as well, Your
Honor. | | 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. Thank you. | | 6 | MR. LINSEY:
May I
approach again, Your
Honor? | | 7 | THE
COURT:
Yes, please.
Thank you. | | 8 | MR. LINSEY:
For the
record Patrick Linsey for the | | 9 | Chapter 11 Trustee. | | 10 | Your
Honor, I
have a presentation that includes | | 11 | discussion of the objection
that was filed with respect
to | | 12 | the motion. I don't
see anyone here to prosecute
the | | 13 | objection
but I
will cover that if Your
Honor thinks I'm | | 14 | going too long at any point. Once we move along Your
Honor | | 15 | can just let me know. | | 16 | THE
COURT:
Have
you had conversations with | | 17 | counsel? | | 18 | MR. LINSEY:
I have no, Your
Honor. | | 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. | | 20 | MR. LINSEY:
Your
Honor, this is the Trustee's | | 21 | seventeenth Rule 2004 motion by which the Trustee requested | | 22 | authority to take the Rule 2004 examination of certain | | 23 | financial
institutions at which
entity as an individual is | | 24 | associated
with
the debtor banked, as well as a very | | 25 | particular entity and individual
with connections to the | | | | 1 2 3 debtor. Those are Bofang Investment LLC (phonetic) and Fabo Jong (phonetic). Those are the objectors to the seventeenth Rule 2004 motion. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 As the Trustee noted in his motion, Bofang is an entity that has transferred millions of dollars to debtor alter-egos and other debtor associated entities including HCHK entities and GFNY Inc. As further noted in the motion, Fabo Jong is an individual who has been a member of an entity associated with the debtor, that is HGA, which funded Mahwah Mansion expenses and who has personally transferred more than \$1 million to the debtors alter-egos and associated entities including Saraca Media Group. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For these reasons, the Trustee reasonably believes that Bofang and Jong may have information and documents relevant to the debtors business and financial affairs. Both of this individual and entity objected to the Rule 2004 motion. The Trustee filed a reply to that objection which sets forth copious evidence of the objectors connections to the debtor. These include records of transactions between HCHK Technology and GFNY to debtor associated shell companies, one of which has already been adjudicated in an alter ego, and the objectors which records were photographed by the US Government as part of its search of Yvette Wang's apartment and which were exhibits that were admitted in the debtors criminal prosecution. That is attached to the 1 Trustee's reply as Exhibit 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Both of the objectors also appeared on a master service list created in connection with New York State Court assignment for the benefit of creditors proceedings for the HCHK entities. On this list they are listed as using a common email address that is [mosfoundation2064@gmail.com.](mailto:mosfoundation2064@gmail.com) That master service list is Exhibit 5 to the Trustee's reply. The Truste understands the MOS to refer to Mountains of Spices, which is the name of one of the debtors; Himalaya Farms, the Himalaya Farm based in New York. Evidence to that effect is attached to the reply as Exhibit 6, which is the debtors superseding indictment in the criminal case and Exhibit 7, an order by the criminal Court admitting certain co-conspirator statements. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The District Court in the debtors criminal cases determined that Mr. Yong Ben Zon (phonetic), a name of which the Court is now well familiar, was the "legal group" leader of the Mountains of Spices farm. As discussed in footnote 3 of the Trustee's replay, Mr. Zon was also co-counsel with the objectors counsel, Mr. Freeth, in frivolous litigation filed against the Trustee and his law firm as well as counsel for Pak. Finally, objector Jong is listed as a member of HGA Property Operation LLC, the company formed and managed by another of the debtors supporters, Ms. Kim Lee, for the purpose of paying expenses related to the Mahwah Mansion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 As a matter of procedure, the objectors did not request to meet and confer with the Trustee regarding the Rule 2004 motion either before or after objecting to the motion. In light of the numerous connections between the debtor and the objectors, the request for sanctions in the objection is frivolous. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The Trustee sets out case law in his reply to the objection discussing that Rule 2004 authorizes broad discovery likened to a Court sanctioned fishing expedition; however, as the Trustee's reply should make clear, there is more then ample evidence and cause to specifically warrant an investigation of the objectors connections to the debtor, and his associated entities and individuals such that the Trustee's motion far exceeds the showing required to undertake a Rule 2004 investigation. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Otherwise, the Trustee's motion, Rule 2004 motion, was timely served. The Trustee's certificate of service is filed at ECF No. 3610. The Trustee thus requests that the Court overrule the objection, grant the Trustee's Rule 2004 motion and I would be happy to answer any questions. THE COURT: So, you didn't have any discussions 22 23 with Attorney Freeth? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Just give me one moment, please. | 1 | (Pause) | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 2 | THE
COURT:
So,
the
proposed order I
am looking | | 3 | at, and maybe there is a newer one and I
might be looking at | | 4 | the
wrong one, it doesn't
recite anything about the motion to | | 5 | quash or that a hearing was scheduled on this and, obviously, | | 6 | whether its granted or denied, right.
So, I
think we need to | | 7 | do that.
You need to have an order because
they're going -- | | 8 | you know, you need to --
otherwise, they may file another | | 9 | motion with
regard to a subpoena
I
suppose because
you | | 10 | haven't issued the subpoena
yet, right? | | 11 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your
Honor. | | 12 | THE
COURT:
So,
hold on one second, please. | | 13 | Again, just looking at -- | | 14 | (Pause) | | 15 | THE
COURT:
So, I
am looking
at the docket but I | | 16 | missed it for whatever reason.
I am not sure why. | | 17 | MR. LINSEY:
Is Your
Honor looking for something | | 18 | specific on the
docket? | | 19 | THE
COURT:
I was looking for the objection. | | 20 | MR. LINSEY:
I believe
its at ECF No. 3649.
There | | 21 | were two.
There was an original
and then -- | | 22 | THE
COURT:
I see it.
Thank you. | | 23 | So, on October 8th Attorney Richard N. Freeth, as | | 24 | attorneys for Bofang Investment LLC and Fabo Jong, filed an | | 25 | opposition
to the
seventeenth supplemental
omnibus motion and | | | | ## Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 23 of 39 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 further discovery and cross-motion to quash subpoena which is ECF 3649 as you stated. Thank you. I just couldn't find it. I was looking in -- I don't know where I was, but I wasn't at the right place of the almost 3,700 ECF numbers. The objection says that Mr. Yang, the individual movant, does not have any firsthand knowledge regarding the debtors business or any materially relevant information regarding Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy estate. He says he has joined the whistleblower movement. Has no financial 10 11 12 13 transactions. He and the corporate entity have had no financial transactions with Mr. Kwok. And the movants should be awarded attorneys fees and costs. That is the sanction that they are seeking. 14 15 16 17 Counsel is not here today to prosecute that opposition and that cross motion to quash and for sanctions. I don't know why. This was his -- his opposition was dated October 8th. 18 19 MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. This matter was noticed for a hearing at 3727. 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, it was actually twice the same day because there was just a typographical error in the first one, but on October 18th a notice of hearing was issued with regard to the Trustee's seventeenth omnibus motion for Rule 2004 examinations. Sitting today, November 5th, at 1 p.m., is the hearing on the seventeenth omnibus motion for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 examination after the opposition was filed by Attorney Freeth. I am just looking for the service of the notice of hearing, Attorney Linsey. Well, Attorney Freeth would have gotten it regardless because he has an appearance in the main case on behalf of these two entities. MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, Attorney Freeth would have received a notice of electronic filing of the notice of hearing. MR. LINSEY: I would note, Honor, that the notice of hearing provides that if the Court is to consider any response to the above mentioned matters, which include the seventeenth Rule 2004 motion, then the party or its counsel must be in attendance at this hearing date and absent such attendance the Court may decide that the party does not oppose the relief in the above referenced matter which, again, includes the Rule 2004 motion. THE COURT: Counsel for the objecting parties is not in attendance. With regard to the Trustee's motion, seventeenth supplemental omnibus motion, for an entry of an order under Rule 2004 with respect to additional parties, including additional banks, and the subpoenas issued in connection with that the Court grants the Trustee's seventeenth supplemental omnibus motion and finds wholly 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 unpersuasive the objection filed by Attorney Freeth on behalf of his two clients not only because the facts don't support - - it doesn't matter whether Mr. Jong and Bofang Investments have any material -- what they claim is material information regarding the debtor, the Trustee and part of his investigation is entitled to take the Rule 2004 examination, subpoena those documents, and the movants shall comply to the extent that they are able to comply. Rule 2004, as you correctly noted, is a broad discovery device that is available under the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure and I am unpersuaded by the objection. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, the proposed order, as I said, Attorney Linsey, does not note, because it wasn't filed until after, the objection and the fact that there was a hearing today and that he didn't appear. So, I would like you to revise that proposed order to include those facts; the fact that there was an objection filed that a notice of hearing was issued, that counsel for the objecting parties did not appear at the hearing, okay, and that a motion to quash -- cross motion to quash is denied, okay, because right now the order doesn't say any of those things and I think it's important for the record to do that. Obviously, you couldn't have done that at the time when you filed the motion because you didn't know there was going to be an objection filed but I would like the proposed order to be revised to address those issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Understood. We will have that - would Your Honor like that to be filed or would Your Honor like that to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy? THE COURT: You can email that to the Courtroom Deputy. It does not need to be filed. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, do you think that is something you might have completed by Friday? I would like to give the Clerk's Office a date so they are looking for the order. MR. LINSEY: We will have it in by tomorrow, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So, then the Rule 2004 examination is granted. The cross motion to quash the subpoena and for sanctions is denied. The revised proposed order will be submitted on or before November 8th. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Trustee Despins, what would you like to have the Court address next? MR. DESPINS: I will handle the rest of the matters, Your Honor. And the first one on my list is the retention of James Morgan as King Counsel in the BVI. May I approach? | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3816
Filed 11/13/24
Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47
Page 27 of 39 | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 27 | | 1 | THE
COURT:
Yes. Thank you. | | 2 | MR. DESPINS:
For the record
Luc Despins, Chapter | | 3 | 11 Trustee. | | 4 | On October 15th, Your
Honor,
Docket 3701, we filed | | 5 | a motion to retain Mr. Morgan as King's Counsel. He is a | | 6 | Barrister in the
BVI. As you know, the UK system we need a | | 7 | Solicitor and
a Barrister.
Because
we are getting into a | | 8 | heavier litigation
phase in the BVI with
respect to K Legacy, | | 9 | you know, that is the alleged owner of the London apartment, | | 10 | we need his assistance
and
that is why we filed the | | 11 | application.
We are asking for the retention to be effective | | 12 | as of September 16th which
is the day that he started working | | 13 | on this matter, Your
Honor.
We also filed at 3779 an amended | | 14 | proposed order to delete the reference
to Section 328. | | 15 | That is all I
have, Your
Honor,
on this issue. It | | 16 | should
be a pretty routine retention
but we, unfortunately, | | 17 | need his services because there is more litigation activity | | 18 | in the BVI. | | 19 | THE COURT:
Understood.
Does anyone else wish to | | 20 | be heard? | | 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Holley Claiborn for the U.S. | | 22 | Trustee. | | 23 | The
U.S. Trustee has no objection. I filed a | | 24 | statement so reflecting at ECF 3749.
That statement
did | | 25 | reference
the
need to remove the reference
to Section 328 in | | | | | | | 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the order and that has been done. So, with that the U.S. Trustee has no issues. THE COURT: So, which order am I -- just so I make sure I am looking at the right order. MS. CLAIBORN: I think it's 3779. MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Just give me one moment, please. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. I am looking at the proposed order, ECF No. 3779, granting the application for the entry of an order authoring and approving retention and employment of James Morgan as Barrister in British Virgin Islands. I have reviewed the terms and conditions of the order and they all appear to be fine to the Court. No one has filed any written objection to the application filed by the Trustee. There is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the application filed by the Trustee and the United States Trustees Office has filed a statement of no objection with a change to the proposed order that has been made. So, for all of those reasons the application to employ is granted and the proposed order will be entered. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 28 of 39 THE COURT: Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the next and I think last matter on the agenda is a motion for entry of a default judgment in an adversary proceeding. So, this is Adversary Proceeding No. 24-05238. It was commenced on February 15th and it's an adversary proceedings against the debtors son, Qiang Guo, that seeks upwards of \$90 million in fraudulent transfers; however, the relief we are seeking today is only related to \$20 million of that \$90 million because that was made by an entity that the Court has already found to be an alter-ego of the debtor. That entity being Lamp Capital. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So, we filed the motion for entry of a default judgment on October 11th. On October 16th, at Docket 21, we filed a certificate of service of the motion on Mr. Guo and also his counsel. You know, given that this is a default motion, Your Honor, for entry of a default judgment I am not going to go through in detail all the elements but I would start by saying that the case law on this is clear which is the Court in a default context, a default judgment context is required to accept all of the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the moving party which is the trustee here. 23 24 25 The elements of the complaint are fairly simply which is that there was a transfer of the debtors property of \$20 million. It was done in 2021 so, therefore, we did two a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 year period of the filing of the case. It was done with actual intent by the debtor to defraud his creditors and they're we're relying on the badges of fraud. You know, this is a transfer by the debtor to his son for no consideration. You know, a secret transfer is not disclosed to anyone. So, all the badges of fraud are all there stated in our memorandum of law in support of our motion. So, they are all addressed therein. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 So, there is no real debate here. The issue I wanted to address is the fact that this is part of a larger complaint and as you know, under Rule 54(b) the Court needs to make a finding that there is no just reason for delay. This is what I want to address, why are we doing this. Why not just wait until all these adversary proceedings are heard all at the same time or sort of at the same time. The reason is that there is a critical need for us to obtain this now because we are, obviously, asserting claims abroad in many jurisdictions against the debtors son. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There is a huge difference between showing up in a Court to say, hey, we believe we have claims against that person and we have -- in contrast we have a Court order, it's a default judgment but that says he owes us \$20 million. That is why we are doing this now because it is critical for us given the posture of the case and our efforts to recover money from the debtors son on the international scene to have 1 that order entered in the case. | 2 | So, essentially, that is why we are doing this. | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 3 | So, that is why we believe
its appropriate for the Court to | | 4 | address that relief separately
then the
other \$70 million of | | 5 | fraudulent transfers that we allege in this complaint. | | 6 | THE
COURT:
The
other transfers that you allege, | | 7 | are they also in the first and second counsel
to complaint. | | 8 | The
reason I
am asking is I
understand what you are asking me | | 9 | but I
think the order might need to be --
first of all, we | | 10 | have to make sure that the judgment that you are seeking, the | | 11 | default judgment of \$20,070,000 is in the first and second | | 12 | count of the complaint. I believe it is. | | 13 | MR. DESPINS:
It is, yes. | | 14 | THE COURT:
But that there are no other
--
if | | 15 | there are other transfers in those sections,
we
may have to | | 16 | make that a little
bit more specific, number one. | | 17 | Number two, with
regard to your correct assertion | | 18 | about Rule 54, I
think you have to say something
in this | | 19 | order about that there is no just cause for delay of the | | 20 | entry of this judgment because
its not a complete judgement, | | 21 | right? | | 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
In the order --
I
think the | | 23 | order
is fairly specific, Your
Honor,
but, obviously, we -- | | 24 | THE COURT:
I don't
think
it has those words those | | 25 | of Rule 54. | | | | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: No, no. On this issue you are absolutely right. I was going back to the other issue which is the fact that there are other counts in count two of the complaint but we refer to specifically certain of these transfers. THE COURT: That's fine. I just want to make sure that that is -- MR. DESPINS: So, we need to add some language about there is no just cause. THE COURT: I think you have to, unfortunately, or it won't -- there could be a -- I understand the reason why you would like the Court to find that there is no reason to delay the entry of the judgment in this case, that being that you are -- part of your duties as the Chapter 11 Trustee involved in proceedings in the United States and outside of the United States to try to recover assets of the estate and this order will help you do so or at least make arguments that you might not, otherwise, be able to make without this order. So, with regard to the federal rules I do make that finding that there is no just reason for delay. I am expressly determining that on the record and you will put that in the order under Rule 54(b). But with regard to the default judgment itself I have not seen any written objection to the entry of the default judgment. I know that the rules, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, do not require service of a default judgment on a defendant who has been defaulted but I believe you attempted -- you did make service of this motion on the defendant. No one has filed any appearance on behalf of the defendant, no one has filed any written objection on behalf of the defendant, and there is no one participating in this hearing today that is appearing on behalf of the defendant. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I find that, as noted, I have to review the allegations in the complaint in the same way you would view a motion to dismiss that they meet the elements of the cause of action on which the Court enters judgment and I find that the supporting material that was submitted and the effect of the default on the allegations in the complaint form the basis for the entry of a judgment on the first and second counts of the complaint with regard to the \$20,070,000 in transfers that you have alleged in the complaint. 19 20 21 So, for all those reasons the motion for default judgment is granted and then I would just need a revised proposed order. 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. I wanted to address one issue which we would request that the Court modify our proposed order slightly and that is the issue of service. In the motion, itself, and the memorandum has 1 2 3 4 5 extensive discussions of this but the order was a bit cryptic because we say that, you know, he was properly served under Bankruptcy Rule 7004, 7005, in the Hague Convention, but we want to add, and if I could approach the bench to give you, a version of the modified -- THE COURT: Sure. Thank you. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's on the second page. Basically, we have added because he was served in accordance with Rule 6.92 of the English Civil Procedure Rules at the address at the London apartment, we added that because in foreign jurisdiction, you know, to the extent there are any questions about service we want to make sure that this issue has been addressed. So, you might say, well, how do I know that what Rule 6.9 of the English Rules provided we have - you know, obviously, these are public rules, but we have kind of a short extract of those rules that if I may approach, I can give to the Court. 18 6 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, that extract, obviously, contains a reference to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f) to the Hague Convention itself, but then to Section 6.9 which provides that when you are serving an individual you can serve it at his usual or last known residence. So, that is why we wanted to have this reference because that is on that basis that we are serving him. | 1 | I don't
think its an issue.
We are not --
we are | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | kind of cryptic about this and I
don't
want
a foreign Court, | | 3 | to the
extent
its ever confronted or presented with
this | | 4 | order, to have any doubts as to Your
Honor finding that there | | 5 | was proper service from the
US point
of view
of this. | | 6 | THE
COURT:
I don't
even think service needs to be | | 7 | made though, but I
-- | | 8 | MR. DESPINS:
We're talking about the
service of | | 9 | the
complaint, Your
Honor. | | 10 | THE
COURT:
Oh, I
see where you are in Paragraph | | 11 | 2, yes.
Well, I
would
have had to have found
that anyway in | | 12 | order to enter the default. | | 13 | MR. DESPINS:
You would, but -- | | 14 | THE COURT:
I understand what you are saying and, | | 15 | obviously, you have
counsel
in the
United Kingdom who has | | 16 | reviewed all this information as well. | | 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct, Your
Honor.
So, I | | 18 | understand
that we need to make certain changes
to the
order | | 19 | but we wanted
you to have
this and understand why
we were | | 20 | seeking that modification
as well because
you were making | | 21 | that finding anyway, but now you are making it with
more | | 22 | information or more description, a better description
of
why | | 23 | you are doing that.
So,
we will submit a revised order.
We | | 24 | can do that tomorrow, Your
Honor.
It shouldn't
be a problem. | | 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then for the reasons that | | 1 | we just
discussed on the
record and upon my review of the | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | adversary proceeding, the
default that is already entered, | | 3 | the motion for default judgment, and
the attachments thereto, | | 4 | and the memorandum of law, the motion for default judgment is | | 5 | granted
and revised proposed order will be submitted I
will | | 6 | just say on or before Friday,
but I
know you will probably -- | | 7 | you have
indicated that you would like to get it in before | | 8 | Friday and that is fine. | | 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your
Honor.
Thank you very | | 10 | much. | | 11 | THE
COURT:
Thank you.
Now the
only thing is | | 12 | Attorney Baranowsky is still here. We have a hearing | | 13 | tomorrow, is that correct, on the
motion to quash. Is that | | 14 | still proceeding? | | 15 | MR. LINSEY:
That
is, Your
Honor.
I was going to | | 16 | bring it up as a housekeeping matter actually. | | 17 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. | | 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your
Honor.
Trustee's | | 19 | counsel just wanted to note that we have been in touch with | | 20 | Ms. Baranowsky and her partner, Mr. Sklarz, regarding the | | 21 | hearing tomorrow. We understand that its acceptable to the | | 22 | Trustee and acceptable to G
Club to, if the
Court is willing, | | 23 | have that hearing occur on
a remote basis by Zoo. | | 24 | THE
COURT:
Yes.
The
Court is willing. | | 25 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your
Honor. | 1 2 THE COURT: For that one matter tomorrow. So, we will hold the 1 p.m. hearing tomorrow. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorney Baranowsky, I think you do know as well, just contact the Courtroom Deputy for the information for the hearing and, Attorney Linsey, you are aware of that as well. With regard to next week, on the 12th, I am still not clear whether or not I will physically be in this courtroom; however, everything on the calendar are applications for compensation. What I have been doing in some cases that are not even Chapter 11 cases, if there is no objection filed to the application for compensation and the United States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection which I think the United States Trustee's Office has with regard to a number of these, if not all, then I will likely -- there will likely be a docket entry that the hearing will not be held and the Court will review the submissions and enter an appropriate order unless Trustee Despins you would like to proceed in a different way. MR. DESPINS: Not necessary, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. I just wanted to note that for the record. Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I just rise to let the Court know that I have filed a statement with respect to each of the fee applications that are on. THE COURT: I thought you did, but I wasn't a hundred percent sure. MS. CLAIBORN: So, they are all complete. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much for noting that for the record. So, the likelihood is that those matters will be reviewed on the submissions and then appropriate orders will enter. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Not for us. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all. That is the last matter on the calendar today, so Court is -- (Proceedings concluded at 2:02 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3816 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 Page 38 of 39 | Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3816 | Filed 11/13/24 | Entered 11/13/24 14:24:47 | | Page 39 of 39 | |---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------|---------------------------|--|-------------------| | | | | | | | 39 | | 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | | | | 2 | I
certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | | | | 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | | | | 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | | | | | 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | | | | 6 | | | | | | | | 7 | | /s/ William J. Garling | | | | November 11, 2024 | | 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | | | | 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | 10 | For Reliable | | | | | | | 11 | | | | | | | | 12 | | | | | | | | 13 | | | | | | | | 14 | | | | | | | | 15 | | | | | | | | 16 | | | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | | | 19 | | | | | | | | 20 | | | | | | | | 21
22 | | | | | | | | 23 | | | | | | | | 24 | | | | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |