United States of America v. Real Property Located in New York, New York

Filing 143

CONSENT JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (SEE CONSENT JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFICS). (jp)

JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN
NEW YORK, NEW YORK,

No. CV 16-5374-DSF (PLAx)
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF
FORFEITURE

[This Consent Judgment is case-dispositive]

Defendant.

15

16 ________________________________
80 COLUMBUS CIRCLE (NYC) LLC,
17
18

Claimant.

19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION

21

1.

Plaintiff United States of America (“United States” or “the government”)

22

and claimant 80 Columbus Circle (NYC) LLC (“Claimant”) (collectively, together with

23

certain non-claimants who have agreed to be bound by this Judgment 1, the “Parties”)

24
25
26
27
28

1

The non-claimant parties to the Stipulation seeking entry of this Judgment are
FFP (Cayman) Limited, FFP Trustee (NZ) Limited, and FFP (Directors) Limited, FFP
(Corporate Services) Limited (collectively, “FFP”); the FFP-controlled claimants
identified below (together with “FFP,” the “Claimant Entities”); and beneficiaries Low
(footnote cont’d on next page)

1

have made a stipulated request for the entry of this Consent Judgment, which entry

2

disposes of the entirety of this action.

3

2.

During 2016 and 2017, the government commenced thirty related civil

4

forfeiture cases in the Central District of California, against a wide variety of real and

5

personal property located in the United States and abroad, including defendant assets

6

owned personally by members of the Low Family or by the Claimant Entities

7

(collectively, the "Defendant Assets")2, as set forth in further detail below.

8

3.

The United States initiated this civil forfeiture action on July 20, 2016.

9

(Docket Number (“DN”) 1). A First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on August

10

4, 2017. (DN 105). Notice was given and published according to law. On October 31,

11

2016, Low Hock Peng, Goh Gaik Ewe, Low Taek Szen and Low May Lin filed a

12

verified claim (DN 31), which claim was subsequently withdrawn on May 9, 2017. (DN

13

96). Pursuant to this Court’s Order of March 21, 2017 (DN 92), claims were filed on

14

March 24, 2017 by Claimant 80 Columbus Circle (NYC) LLC (DN 93, in response to

15

the Complaint) and October 11, 2017 (DN 116, in response to the FAC). On May 31,

16

2019, this Court entered an Order authorizing an interlocutory sale of the defendant

17

asset. (DN 135). No sale has been completed as of the date of this filing. 80 Columbus

18

Circle (NYC) LLC remains the sole claimant in this action, and the time for filing claims

19

and answers has expired.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Hock Peng, Goh Gaik Ewe, Low May Lin, Low Taek Szen, and Low Taek Jho
(collectively, the “Low Family”).
2

The Defendant Asset(s) in each case are either the res or the proceeds of the
interlocutory sale of the res (“substitute res”) as identified in further detail in the legal
descriptions provided in the operative Complaints filed in each Action, and the
Stipulations and Consent Judgments for each incorporate those descriptions by reference.
The Defendant Assets are owned either personally by members of the Low Family, or by
the Claimant Entities. FFP directly owns and/or controls each of the Claimant Entities
either through a trust structure and/or shareholding(s) and/or directorship(s).
2

1

4.

The Stipulations sought entry of Consent Judgments in each of the

2

following Actions, which would be case dispositive due to the lack of presence of other

3

claimants:
a.

4

United States v. One Bombardier Global 5000 Jet Aircraft, Bearing

5

Manufacturer's Serial Number 9265 and Registration Number N689WM, its Tools and

6

Appurtenances, and Aircraft Logbooks, CV 16-5367 DSF (PLAx) (“Bombardier Jet

7

Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action is Global One Aviation (Global

8

5000) Ltd.
b.

9

United States v. Real Property Located in New York, New York, CV

10

16-5374 DSF (PLAx) (“Columbus Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action

11

is 80 Columbus Circle (NYC) LLC.
c.

12

United States v. Real Property Located in New York, New York, CV

13

16-5375 DSF (PLAx) (“Greene Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action is

14

118 Greene Street (NYC) LLC.
d.

15

United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California,

16

CV 16-5378 DSF (PLAx) (“Oriole Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action

17

is Oriole Drive (LA) LLC.

18

e.

United States v. Real Property in London, United Kingdom, owned by

19

Stratton Street (London) Ltd., CV 17-4240 DSF (PLAx) (“Stratton Action”). The FFP-

20

controlled claimant in this action is Stratton Street (London) Limited.
f.

21

United States v. Real Property in London, United Kingdom, owned by

22

Seven Stratton Street (London) Ltd., CV 17-4242 DSF (PLAx) (“Seven Stratton

23

Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action is Seven Stratton Street (London)

24

Ltd.

25

g.

United States v. Real Property in London, United Kingdom owned by

26

Eight Nine Stratton Street (London) Ltd., CV 17-4244 DSF (PLAx) (“Eight Nine

27

Stratton Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action is Eight Nine Stratton

28

Street (London) Ltd.
3

1

h.

United States v. Certain Rights and Interests in the Electrum Group,

2

CV 17-4447-DSF (PLAx) (“Electrum Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this

3

action is JW Aurum (Cayman) GP Ltd.
i.

4

United States v. All Rights to and Interests in the Shares of Flywheel

5

Common Stock Held or Acquired by FW Sports Investments LLC, CV 17-4448 DSF

6

(PLAx) (“Flywheel Action”). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action is FW Sports

7

Investments LLC.
j.

8
9

United States v. Any Rights to Profits, Royalties and Distribution

Proceeds Owned by or Owed to JW Nile (BVI) Ltd., JCL Media (EMI Publishing Ltd),

10

and/or Jynwel Capital Ltd, Relating to EMI Music Publishing Group North America

11

Holdings, Inc., and D.H. Publishing L.P., CV 16-5364 DSF (PLAx) ("EMI Publishing

12

Action"). The FFP-controlled claimant in this action is JW Nile (BVI) Ltd.

13

5.

The Stipulations further sought entry of Consent Judgments in the following

14

Actions, which would resolve all claims of FFP, the Claimant Entities, and members of

15

the Low Family, but would not be case-dispositive due to the presence of other claimants

16

not party to the Stipulations:

17

a.

United States v. The Real Property Known as The Viceroy L'Ermitage

18

Beverly Hills, CV 16-5368 DSF (PLAx) (“L’Ermitage Real Property Action”). The

19

FFP-controlled claimant in this action is LBH Real Estate (Beverly Hills) LLC. The

20

claimant not party to the Stipulation in this case is VHG Beverly Hills LLC.

21

b.

United States v. All Business Assets of The Viceroy L'Ermitage

22

Beverly Hills, Including All Chattels and Intangible Assets, Inventory, Equipment, and

23

All Leases, Rents and Profits Derived Therefrom, CV 16-5369 DSF (PLAx)

24

(“L’Ermitage Business Assets Action”). The FFP-controlled claimants in this action are

25

LBH Real Estate (Beverly Hills) LLC; JW Hospitality (VHG US) LLC; and JW

26

Hospitality (VHG Intl) Ltd. The claimant not party to the Stipulation in this case is

27

VHG Beverly Hills LLC.

28
4

1

c.

United States v. Certain Rights to and Interests in The Viceroy Hotel

2

Group, CV 17-4438 DSF (PLAx) (“VHG Action”). The FFP-controlled claimants in

3

this action were JW Hospitality (VHG US) LLC and JW Hospitality (VHG Intl) Ltd.

4

The claimant not party to the Stipulation in this case is Mubadala Development

5

Company PJSC.

6

6.

Lastly, the Stipulations have noted that – although the following cases have

7

been resolved – they are nonetheless considered part of the global, comprehensive

8

resolution reached in the Stipulations:
a.

9

United States v. All Right and Title to the Yacht M/Y Equanimity, CV

10

17-4441 DSF (PLAx) (“Equanimity Action”). The FFP-controlled claimants in this

11

action were Equanimity (Cayman) Ltd.; Equanimity Crew (Cayman) Ltd.; Equanimity

12

Lifestyle (Cayman) Ltd.; and Equanimity Operations & Maintenance (Cayman) Ltd. The

13

case was dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation of the parties.
b.

14

United States v. All Right to and Interest in Symphony CP (Park

15

Lane) LLC, Held or Acquired, Directly or Indirectly, by Symphony CP Investments LLC

16

and/or Symphony CP Investments Holdings LLC, Including Any Interest Held or Secured

17

by the Real Property and Appurtenances Located at 36 Central Park South, New York,

18

New York, Known as The Park Lane Hotel, Any Right to Collect and Receive Any Profits

19

and Proceeds Therefrom, and Any Interest Derived From the Proceeds Invested in The

20

Symphony CP (Park Lane) LLC by Symphony CP Investments LLC and Symphony

21

CP(Park Lane) LLC, CV 16-5370 DSF (PLAx) (“Park Lane Action”). The FFP-

22

controlled claimants in this action were 36 CPS Condos (NYC) LLC; 36 CPS Luxury

23

Hotel (NYC) Limited; 36 CPS Parking (NYC) Limited; and 36 CPS Residential Sales

24

(NYC) Limited. The FFP-controlled claimants withdrew their claims, and a consent

25

judgment of forfeiture was entered by the Court thereafter.

26

II.

27

The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause

28

FINDINGS

appearing therefor, HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES:
5

1
2

Jurisdiction
7.

For purposes of this Consent Judgment, this Court has jurisdiction over the

3

Parties and over the subject matter of the actions set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5

4

(collectively, the “Actions”). The government has given and published notice of this

5

Action as required by law, including Supplemental Rule G for Admiralty or Maritime

6

Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local

7

Rules of this Court. If taken as true, the allegations set out in the operative complaint are

8

sufficient to state a claim for forfeiture of the Defendant Asset(s). All potential

9

claimants to the Defendant Asset, other than FFP, the Claimant Entities, and the Low

10
11

Family, are deemed to have admitted the allegations of the Complaint.
8.

This Consent Judgment does not constitute a finding of guilt, fault, liability

12

and/or any form of wrongdoing on the part of FFP, the Claimant Entities, or the Low

13

Family. Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California

14

and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, shall be bound by the

15

terms of this Consent Judgment and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral

16

estoppel. The entry of this Consent Judgment shall resolve all of the government’s civil,

17

criminal, and administrative asset forfeiture actions or proceedings relating to the

18

Defendant Asset(s) as they relate to FFP, the Claimant Entities, or members of the Low

19

Family, arising from any acts or omissions alleged in the Actions, or any of

20

them. Nothing in this Consent Judgment constitutes a waiver or release by the

21

government of criminal claims, except for the asset forfeiture claims related to the

22

Defendant Assets. The Defendant Asset(s) in this Action shall be disposed of as

23

provided herein, except that where a Defendant Asset is subject to a pre-existing order

24

for interlocutory sale (the “Order(s) for Interlocutory Sale”), such order shall govern that

25

interlocutory sale, and this Consent Judgement shall not abrogate or nullify the sales

26

terms and procedures defined by an Order for Interlocutory Sale, or any underlying

27

contracts or agreements entered into to effectuate those sales terms and procedures,

28

unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Parties.
6

1
2

Disposition of Forfeited Defendant Asset(s)/Substitute Res
9.

Upon entry of this Consent Judgment, all right, title, and interest of FFP, the

3

Claimant Entities, and the Low Family concerning the Defendant Asset(s) shall

4

immediately be forfeited to the United States, and no other right, title, or interest shall

5

exist therein, unless otherwise provided in this Consent Judgment, and with the

6

exception of the Defendant Assets in the Stratton Action, the Seven Stratton Action, and

7

the Eight Nine Stratton Action (collectively, the “Stratton Actions”), which shall not be

8

deemed forfeited until February 29, 2020, subject to Paragraph 10 below.

9

10.

Where a Defendant Asset in the Stratton Actions is sold to a third party in

10

an interlocutory sale prior to February 29, 2020, the proceeds of such sale shall be

11

considered forfeited as the substitute res for the Defendant Asset in that Stratton Action

12

on the date the sale is completed. A sale shall be considered “completed” after (1) the

13

sales proceeds have been released from escrow, and (2) the sales proceeds have been

14

distributed in accordance with the terms of the applicable Order(s) for Interlocutory Sale.

15

11.

Upon entry of a Consent Judgment in any of the Oriole Action, the Greene

16

Action, or the Columbus Action, any pre-existing contracts that FFP and/or the Claimant

17

Entities have entered into with third parties in relation to the sale of those Defendant

18

Assets shall be terminated, and new contracts with substantially similar material terms

19

executed between the government and those third parties will govern.

20

12.

Any and all monetary proceeds from income (“Income Proceeds”)

21

generated from the operations and business activities of the Defendant Assets in the

22

Greene Action, the Columbus Action, the L’Ermitage Real Property Action, the

23

L’Ermitage Business Assets Action, and the Stratton Actions (collectively the “Income

24

Property Actions”), including but not limited to rental income and/or income from hotel

25

operations, shall be paid to and retained by the government for payments or

26

reimbursement of any taxes or liabilities becoming due on said Income Proceeds prior to

27

forfeiture, from the respective filing dates of each Income Property Action through the

28

date of entry of the Stipulation in the applicable Action. For the avoidance of doubt, in
7

1

no event will the United States be liable for the payment of any tax liabilities that exceed

2

the amount of the Income Proceeds unless pursuant to a separate court order.
Released Funds

3
4
5
6

13.

The government shall release the sum of USD 15,000,000.00, without

interest (the “Released Funds”), as described below.
14.

The Released Funds shall be drawn from a portion of the funds held in

7

escrow in the EMI Publishing Action (“EMI Proceeds”), and shall be transferred to

8

accounts as directed by Kobre & Kim LLP, The Christie Law Firm LLC, and

9

Lowenstein Sandler LLP, which shall provide any reasonable information required,

10

including personal identifiers required by federal law or regulation to facilitate payment,

11

and complete all documents required to facilitate such payment. The payment of the

12

Released Funds shall be made as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event before

13

the later of (i) 30 days after the entry of Consent Judgments in all of the Actions listed in

14

paragraphs 4 and 5, above; (ii) 30 days after the government’s receipt of the information

15

needed to make the payment (including the necessary identifiers and bank account and

16

routing information); or (iii) 14 days after the granting of the Cayman court petition as

17

referenced in Paragraph 21 below.

18

15.

The Released Funds shall be applied in their entirety solely to pay for the

19

Low Family’s outstanding legal fees and costs relating to the Actions. Under no

20

circumstances shall the Released Funds be remitted and/or credited back by counsel,

21

either in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, to FFP, the Claimant Entities, or the Low

22

Family. For the avoidance of doubt, the application, and/or use of the Released Funds as

23

payment of legal fees and costs relating to the Actions listed in paragraphs 4 and 5,

24

above, including for use as payment of future legal fees and costs incurred on behalf of

25

the Low Family to implement this Consent Judgment, shall not itself be considered a

26

remittance, credit, and/or benefit whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to FFP, the Claimant

27

Entities, or the Low Family. Violation of this term shall constitute a material breach of

28

this Consent Judgment and, notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent
8

1

Judgment, shall entitle the government to seek, and this Court to impose, any remedy or

2

sanction authorized by law or equity.

3

16.

With the exception of the foregoing conditions, and consistent with the

4

doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the entry of this Consent Judgment shall

5

resolve all of the government’s civil, criminal, and administrative asset forfeiture actions

6

or proceedings relating to the Released Funds or any interest earned on the Released

7

Funds as they relate to FFP, the Claimant Entities, or members of the Low Family,

8

arising from any acts or omissions alleged in the Actions, or any of them.

9

17.

Furthermore, and with the exception of the aforementioned conditions, upon

10

entry of this Consent Judgment, neither the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central

11

District of California nor the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division,

12

shall now or in the future institute any action against Kobre & Kim LLP, The Christie

13

Law Firm LLC, or Lowenstein Sandler LLP, or seek the seizure, freezing, return,

14

forfeiture, or restraint of any kind of any of the Released Funds, or any interest earned on

15

the Released Funds, for any acts or omissions relating to the Released Funds and

16

preceding the date of receipt of the Released Funds.

17

Other Terms

18

18.

FFP, the Claimant Entities, and the Low Family shall not contest or assist

19

any other individual or entity in contesting the forfeiture -- administrative, civil judicial,

20

or criminal judicial -- of any of the Defendant Assets against which forfeiture is sought

21

in connection with the acts alleged in the operative complaints in the Actions. Upon

22

request of the government, FFP, the Claimant Entities, and the Low Family shall

23

reasonably cooperate with the government in endorsing the effectiveness of this Consent

24

Judgment and the Stipulation when responding to any claims contesting the forfeiture of

25

the Defendant Assets, including the disposition thereof, and in connection with any

26

disputes relating to the operation and maintenance of the Defendant Assets concerning or

27

during the period prior to the date of the Stipulation. The Parties shall reasonably

28

cooperate to effectuate the forfeiture of additional assets at issue in United States v. One
9

1

Pen and Ink Drawing by Vincent Van Gogh, etc., et al., CV 16-5366-DSF (PLAx);

2

United States v. One Painting Entitled “Nature Morte au Crane de Taureau” by Pablo

3

Picasso, et al., CV 17-4443-DSF (PLAx); United States v. One Pair of Diamond

4

Earrings and Matching Diamond Ring, CV 17-4449-DSF (PLAx); and United States v.

5

One 18-Carat White Gold Diamond Jewelry Set; et al.; CV 17-4445.

6

19.

The following shall not be a breach of the foregoing clauses: (1) asserting

7

defenses in any actions brought against FFP, the Claimant Entities, or members of the

8

Low Family by third parties seeking to recover any of the Defendant Assets (or any

9

substitute res) following the Court’s entry of applicable Consent Judgments, or any of

10

them; and (2) judicially mandated compliance by FFP, the Claimant Entities, and/or

11

members of the Low Family with valid subpoenas ad testificandum, subpoenas duces

12

tecum, or otherwise lawful compulsion orders. Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall

13

require FFP, the Claimant Entities, or members of the Low Family to waive attorney-

14

client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege, immunity, or statutory

15

or constitutional right or protection.

16

20.

The government may request receipt of documents and/or information

17

relating to the Defendant Assets for purposes of managing and liquidating the Defendant

18

Assets, and FFP and the Claimant Entities shall make good faith efforts to produce any

19

such documents and/or information in their possession, or otherwise request that third-

20

parties in possession of such documents and/or information make them readily available

21

for the government’s receipt in accordance with the Letter Agreement entered into by

22

FFP and the government dates October 30, 2019.

23

21.

With respect to Defendant assets held in trusts, FFP shall petition the

24

foreign courts in the relevant trust jurisdictions – New Zealand and/or Cayman Islands –

25

for orders known as “blessing orders” and other protective orders that would authorize

26

FFP to forfeit or otherwise distribute the Defendant Assets to the United States in

27

accordance with the orders of this Court.

28
10

1

22.

In effectuating the terms of this Consent Judgment, the Parties shall act in

2

accordance with the laws and regulations of the foreign jurisdiction(s) in which the

3

relevant Defendant Assets are located insofar as such laws and regulations are consistent

4

with U.S. law.

5

23.

Should any dispute arise about the interpretation of or compliance with the

6

terms of this Consent Judgment, the Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any

7

such disputes. However, should the parties be unable to resolve this dispute, the Parties

8

may move this Court to impose any remedy this Court deems necessary to enforce the

9

terms of this Consent Judgment.

10
11

24.

Each of the Parties shall bear its own fees and costs in connection with

these Actions in a manner consistent with the terms of this Consent Judgment.

12
13

DATED: November 4, 20199

14

Honorable Dale S. Fischer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

PRESENTED BY:
DEBORAH CONNOR
Chief, MLARS
NICOLA T. HANNA
United States Attorney
/s/
JOHN J. KUCERA
Assistant United States Attorney
WOO S. LEE
Deputy Chief, MLARS
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

27
28
11