Event and Time
Event Description
The plaintiff seeks the continuation of a freezing order initially granted on June 1, 2021, against the second defendant, Lotus, and a respondent, Mr. Kunyi Qui (also known as Edward Qiu). The freezing order restrains both parties from disposing of or diminishing the value of specific assets while the plaintiff investigates claims regarding a potential fraud related to asset transfers.
Application and Claims
- Plaintiff (Owners Corporation):
- Seeks to maintain the freezing of Lotus's and Mr. Qiu's assets to prevent dissipation before the resolution of their claims for breach of statutory warranties. - Claims a strong arguable case of fraud in asset transfers that may affect their ability to enforce any future judgment.
- Defendants (Lotus and Mr. Qiu):
- Do not oppose the continuation of the freezing order, but argue for a reduction of the asset value from $3.78 million to $800,000. - Request discharge of the order against Mr. Qiu if conditions regarding prior notice of dealings are met.
Judicial Decisions
The judge ruled to continue the freezing order in its current form for four months after recognizing the Owners Corp's strong arguable case of fraud and the implications of the ongoing statutory processes.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Claims:
- The Owners Corp alleges breaches of statutory warranties and seeks asset preservation to ensure that any future judgment can be satisfied. - Lotus and Mr. Qiu counter that the asset values under the freezing order are excessive and not reflective of the Owners Corp's claims.
- Arguments:
- Owners Corp: The need for asset preservation to prevent fraudulent actions by Lotus and Mr. Qiu, asserting that any dissipation would frustrate potential remedies. - : Argue that a freezing order is a drastic remedy and should not exceed the estimated value of claims or the risk posed by the current situation.