{"id":"court_ctb_111_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":111,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-03-21","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* March 1, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE SCHEDULES OR PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: BENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Fund L.P.: STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. ASHLEY MARIE, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103-3597 For the Creditor, Logan JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ. Cheng: Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd:\n\nFor the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 4:03 p.m.) THE CLERK: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the debtor's counsel, please? MR. SILVERBERG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Bennet Silverberg of Brown Rudnick. I'm joined by my sponsor attorney, Dylan Kletter. THE COURT: Good afternoon to both of you, and I think -- MR. KLETTER: Good afternoon. THE COURT: -- Attorney Silverberg, there may have been an order entered allowing your admission pro hac vice is it? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor, and we thank you for that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., or PACS. With me in the courtroom, Your Honor, to my right is Attorney Peter Friedman. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BIRNEY: To my left is Attorney Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Good afternoon.\n\n MR. BIRNEY: And a couple other folks. Attorney David Harbach and Ashley Marie from -- all from O'Melveny. Your Honor, the motions for pro hac vice have been filed and granted by Your Honor, and Mr. Friedman will be taking over with lead argument today. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, all. Welcome, everyone. Go ahead, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Wolman. MR. WOLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jay Wolman of, Randazza Legal Group, the Creditor, Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. MR. WOLMAN: And, thank you very much, Your Honor, for permitting me to appear remotely. THE COURT: Yes, as I noted -- oh, I forgot to put the camera on. Sorry, Attorney Wolman. We're doing different -- MR. WOLMAN: It's okay. THE COURT: -- kinds of hearings today, so I don't even know if you can -- if that works, but in any event, it's there. As I noted, you know, this was an expedited\n\n hearing, so you were allowed to participate today remotely. We are back in court. There are a number of us in the courtroom but people are masked and apparently, you know, comfortable with distancing and so we'll proceed today. Now before we talk about anything specifically, I got a message that there is an interpreter here today for the debtor. MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And before we talk anything about that, I just want to -- do other counsel understand that the debtor has an interpreter today? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny and Myers, on behalf of PACS. We do understand. THE COURT: Okay. And do you have an opposition to the interpreter? MR. FRIEDMAN: No, Your Honor. I have no opposition to the interpreter. THE COURT: Okay. And you believe the interpreter is qualified to interpret whatever the debtor is saying? MR. FRIEDMAN: I don't have any basis one way or another, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I understand from the Office of the United State's Trustee's pleadings that were filed, I think yesterday, I could be -- I think I'm correct -- that\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n there was an interpreter for the debtor at the initial debtor interview that your office conducted. Is that correct? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee used the services of an interpreter over the telephone, and then the debtor had his own personal interpreter who was present physically with the debtor. THE COURT: So did -- so is the gentleman that's here today -- I shouldn't even say. I assume it's a gentleman because I'm looking in the back of the courtroom, but is the gentleman here today the same gentleman that was with the debtor during the initial debtor interview? MS. CLAIBORN: No, Your Honor. MR. SILVERBERG: No, Your Honor. This -- the interpreter's name is John Lau. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I just need to understand at some point if Mr. Lau is going to be interpreting anything that the debtor says, I want to understand Mr. Lau's qualifications, if we get to that point. Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: Understand. THE COURT: You know, we obviously were not prepared to have an interpreter, but that's not necessarily a problem. All I'm suggesting to you is, I don't want there -\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 6 of 57\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 7 of 57\n\n - I'm not going to have a hearing continue and be held if there is going to be any controversy over the interpreter. That's my point. Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Now -- THE CLERK: Judge, I'm sorry. We didn't pick up what Attorney Claiborn is saying -- said before. I'm sorry. She's a little far from the mic. THE COURT: Yeah, it's not your fault, Attorney Claiborn. The problem is, with all of us with masks and, you know, distancing, it's sometimes -- we might have to ask you to talk a little more loudly. MS. CLAIBORN: I'll do my best to speak louder. THE COURT: Thank you. Even just that -- that angle, unfortunately, picks up your voice better in the microphone. And as I think you're all aware, our record is audio, so we have to be very careful about the microphones. And if there's times when I ask you, or someone asks you to repeat yourself, it's because we need to make sure we have a clear record. Okay? All right. So a week or so ago -- and I can pull it up. You probably all know it better than I at this point, the clerk's office entered a docket entry in this case regarding certain deficiencies with regard to the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 8 of 57\n\n petition and other documents that are required to be filed in a bankruptcy case by a voluntary debtor. The amended petition was filed. I saw that. That corrected that deficiency. There is a -- I understand, you know, the office is thinking that they can sometimes use other people's numbers, but we don't allow that, and so that was why there was a need for the filing of the amended petition. So I understand that's been done. I understand there was a notation about a creditor who didn't have an appropriate attention line, and that's been corrected as well. So the Court appreciates that. What the order that I believe the debtor's counsels are -- not the order, but the deficiency notice that the debtor's counsel is concerned about, that resulted in this motion to extend time to file the schedules, is because -- and I'm telling you both something I know you already know. This isn't any news to you, the bankruptcy code requires, and the rules, that schedules and statements be filed within 14 days of the filing of the case. For as many reasons as all of us in this room know, that's an important problem -- issue, because a case can't be properly administered if a debtor hasn't met its duties, his duties, in this case his duties, of preparing and filing the schedules and statements of affairs. That's an essential requirement that this Court, and I think all\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n courts, take very seriously. The deficiency notice said that the case may be dismissed. It didn't say shall, but I understand the debtor's counsel's desire to then get a hearing quickly held so that you would -- because you don't want to have your case dismissed, and I understand that. So in any event, that was the reason that the motion for an expedited hearing was granted and is set today on the motion to extent time to file the schedules. Now, I understand what you're looking for. You're looking for 60 days. You know that you've got two written objections to that already. I can tell you you're not going to get 60 days. That's not going to happen. But what I want to know is, have you had any discussions with counsel for the creditors or the U.S. Trustee's office about your request and their objections? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, we had our -- I'm not sure if Your Honor can hear me. THE COURT: That's perfect. Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, we had our initial debtor interview with Ms. Claiborn in her office yesterday. It was a three hour interview. At the conclusion of the interview, we asked Ms. Claiborn what the office's position was on the extension\n\n request. She made clear that 60 days was going to be -- was going to be met with an objection, and she strongly admonished that we consider requesting an extension that expired in advance of the Section 341 meeting and gave creditors sufficient time to review the schedules and statements so that they can ask informed questions at the 341 meeting. Last night, after consulting with the client, who happens -- sorry. Didn't make the introduction to our client, Mr. Ho Wan Kwok. MR. KWOK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon, sir. MR. SILVERBERG: He goes by Miles. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. You can have a seat, sir. Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: So yesterday -- last evening, sorry, we made a proposal to the U.S. Trustee to extend the deadline to file the schedules and statements until March 16th, which is the Wednesday before the Monday 341 meeting. The reason why we didn't go exactly a week prior is that we're dealing with some of the logistics of translating the schedules and statements into Mr. Kwok's native Chinese, so we want to make sure that when he certifies and attests to the accuracy under penalty of\n\n perjury that he completely understands in his own language what the schedules and statements are saying so that there's absolutely no question as to what the words are on the page. THE COURT: I understand. Okay. So are you saying that you are prepared -- and I'm going to hear from other parties, but I just want to ask you this question. You are prepared on behalf of the debtor to agree to an extension of time that would expire on March 16th? Is that correct? MR. SILVERBERG: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. I'd appreciate that. Now, Attorney Claiborn, you filed the first objection to this motion. You've now heard counsel and his agreement to limit the extension of time if it's granted, to March 16th. What else would you like to add to the record, or what other thoughts do you have with regard to the extension request? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I think it might be helpful if I could ask the Court to listen to the PACS presentation before the U.S. Trustee opines. THE COURT: Oh, that's fine. Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: And I make that suggestion because there is a long history of the debtor and PACS that I think would be informative to the analysis of what kind of an\n\n extension of time makes sense to this case. THE COURT: That's fine. Counsel? MR. SILVERBERG: And, Your Honor, if PACS is go into a gory detail of what led us here, I think it -- you know, I have a presentation I can make as well if you want to hear it. Otherwise, you can hear -- hear me. THE COURT: Well, are you suggesting you'd like to make your presentation first? Is that what you're saying? Or you want to respond to their presentation? MR. SILVERBERG: I'd like to make our presentation first if that's -- THE COURT: All right. And your presentation is going to be about why the case was filed and why you need the extension of time? MR. SILVERBERG: That is correct. To -- THE COURT: All right. I'll let them go first, Counsel, and then I will absolutely hear from you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SILVERBERG: Do you want me to do it from here or from the podium? THE COURT: You can do it right from there, counsel. MR. SILVERBERG: Perfect. So, Your Honor, what I was proposing to do was to first give a background of Mr.\n\n Kwok, the event -- and then follow it up with the events leading to the commencement of this Chapter 11 case, and provide the justification for the extension request. Your Honor, by way of background -- sorry. Mr. Kwok was born in Shandong Province in China. He currently resides in Greenwich, CT with his wife of 35 years, Qingzhi. He has two adult children. Together, they have a son, Mr. Qiang Guo, and a daughter, Ms. Mei Guo. The son lives in the United Kingdom. The daughter splits her time between New York City and Connecticut. Hopefully more time out of the parents' house now that COVID is receding. He grew up in a large but poor household which inspired his entrepreneurial spirit. At the age of 13, Mr. Kwok dropped out of middle school and began selling clothing and electronics to help support his family. In May 1989, Mr. Kwok was detained and tortured for his support of the Tiananmen Square protest. While detained for approximately 20 months, he created key relationships with political activists, intellectuals, business people, and religious leaders. One of these contacts would later introduce him to a Ms. Ping Sia (ph), a successful businesswoman and investor from Hong Kong. In 1991, Mr. Kwok began to work with Ms. Sia in Yuda Property Company (ph), a company which focused on\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n commercial real estate development in the Henan Province of China. Shortly after its launch, Yuda successfully developed and constructed the high end Yuda International Trade Center in Henan Province's capital city of Zhengzhou. The commercial complex includes what was at the time the tallest sky scraper in Henan Province, and china's fifth tallest building.\n\n Upon completion of its construction, the complex had a then value of 300 million. The trade center was financially successful and established Mr. Kwok's presence in China's world of real estate developers, particularly in the Henan Province where Yuda continued to develop high-end residential and commercial projects.\n\n Around 2000, building on the -- building on the success in Hehan Province, Mr. Kwok shifted his real estate aspirations to Chinese Capital, Beijing where he expanded his business to include private financing for his projects in which his six siblings participated.\n\n Through success in Henan Province, Mr. Kwok's immediate and extended family members were lifted out of poverty.\n\n In Beijing, Mr. Kwok helped establish Beijing Morgan Investment Company and Beijing Zenith Holdings Company, a real estate development and investment management consultant company. Entities in which Mr. Kwok's immediate\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n and extended family were shareholders and employees. In 2002, these businesses acquired two parcels spanning approximate 2 million square meters of undeveloped land in Northern Beijing. The value of these parcels increased dramatically after China was named the host country for the 2008 Olympics, and the government announced its plans to build the Olympic venue adjacent to these land parcels. The increased value of these parcels spawned Mr. Kwok's long-standing political fight with the Chinese Communist Party. Deputy Mayor, Gi Wa (ph), attempted to improperly appropriate Morgan Investment's property. Mr. Kwok fought back, reporting this corruption to the government, and after a lengthy fight, ultimately recovered Morgan Investment's land parcels. Mr. Kwok then oversaw the successful construction and timely completion of the Beijing Pangu Plaza and Xin Wang Plaza. The Pangu Plaza has become a Beijing landmark adjacent to the Olympic venue. Mr. Kwok, however, with his criticism of the CCP's corruption, drew a harsh response. When it became clear his life was in jeopardy, he fled to the United States in 2015. In absentia, the CCP froze or seized his assets in China, including assets held by companies in which he held an interest.\n\n The CCP also caused the seizure of his assets elsewhere, including Hong Kong, and of caused Interpol to issue a Red Notice for his arrest. In September 2017, he claimed political asylum in the United States and his application remains pending to this day. He continues his criticism of the CCP's corruption and human rights abuses to this day. Over the years, he has amassed a following on various digital and media platforms such as YouTube, GTV, Twitter, and GETTR -- I actually had to look GETTR up. I didn't know what it was -- where he shares his personal views and opinions concerning the CCP and the need for democracy in China. He has over 1 million followers across the various social media platforms. Notably, he has not monetized his social media presence. Mr. Kwok is not employed and he relies on the support of family, principally his son, to cover his daily living expenses. In Mr. Kwok's son's family office in Golden Spring, New York, his son advances is monthly expenses. Brown Rudnick's retainer was paid by another entity owned by Mr. Kwok's son, Lamp Capital, LLC, as set forth in our attorney compensation declaration at Docket Number 54, which was filed shortly before this hearing. THE COURT: Okay. I haven't seen that, but that's\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n fine. MR. SILVERBERG: Turning to the PACS litigation. Though he left China, he didn't leave all his troubles behind. We suspect the Court will hear quite a bit from PACS's counsel during this case. We won't get too much into this litigation, but a high level interview might help put things into context. PACS, a Hong Kong investment fund, commenced actions against Mr. Kwok in New York and BBI. The New York action commenced in 2017. It was before Justice Ostrager in New York Supreme Court. In the New York action, Mr. Kwok is represented by BakerHostetler. These are principally collection actions related to a \\$30 million loan made to a Chinese entity called Spirit Charter, back in 2008. PACS claims that Mr. Kwok provided a personal guarantee of the PACS debt and reaffirmed that guarantee multiple times over the years, most recently in 2011. Mr. Kwok agrees that he provided a personal guarantee in 2008, but asserts that the loan was fully repaid thereafter and that the subsequent documents are forgeries. And that's the crux of the dispute, Your Honor. Without a hearing, Justice Ostrager entered summary judgment in PACS's favor. Mr. Kwok has appealed this judgment to the appellate division and the appeal\n\n remains pending, though stayed as a result of the commencement of this case. In the meantime, PACS sought to enforce a restraining order issued by Justice Ostrager and Mr. Kwok, prohibiting him from transferring or dissipating assets, or moving them outside the jurisdiction of the New York courts. PACS became laser focused on a yacht named the Lady May. PACS wanted the yacht back in New York so that it could arrest the boat and levy on it. Mr. Kwok denied owning the boat and asserted that he couldn't order the boat back to New York. Justice Ostrager directed Mr. Kwok to return the boat to New York by May 15th, 2021, or face a massive daily fine of \\$500,000 for every day the boat remained outside it's jurisdiction. On February 9th Justice Ostrager found that Mr. Kwok beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May, issued a final order of civil contempt against him, and ordered him to pay a \\$134 million fine to PACS within just five days, or risk jail time. The February 9th decision is also on appeal to the appellate decision. Mr. Kwok lacked the means to satisfy the fine, retained our firm on February 14th, and filed for Chapter 11 the very next day. He filed for Chapter 11, not just to obtain the benefit of the automatic stay, but to resolve all his claims in a single forum in an orderly\n\n manner. It is hopeful that he can agree with his creditors on the terms of a Chapter 11 plan. Counsel for PACS is in the same building as our firm, just an elevator bank away. His principal assets are litigation claims. Assuming he -- assuming he prevails on these claims, he may be able to fund full recoveries to his creditors. He will also approach his family members for support to fund the plan. All options are on the table. Further, as Your Honor noted in the objections, much has been made of supposed shell games and allegations of squirreling assets away. If the allegations are true, and we say they're not, then the bankruptcy case may be the best thing that could have happened for them. There may be a creditor's committed appointed in the case. The U.S. Trustee has solicited creditor interest in the participation. If one is appointed, then they'll have their work to do. Chiefly, we suspect they'll investigate the allegations that PACS made in their papers, which brings us to the motion for the request for the extension of the deadlines. We had very little time to work with Mr. Kwok to prepare his filing. That's why the papers were so skinny. That's why the deficiency notice ended up on the order.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n If we had more time, we would have made sure that the schedules were filed on time. Or certainly -- maybe even in advance of the -- maybe contemporaneous with the filing. It was far from ideal circumstances. We have a considerable amount of work to do on our end to assist Mr. Kwok with the preparation of schedules and statements. On February 23rd, we advised the United States Trustee's office of Mr. Kwok's intention to seek an extension. On February 24th, as Your Honor noted at Docket 27, we filed Mr. Kwok's request for an extension of approximately 60 days. The rationale for the extension was the need for us to work with counsel who had been representing Mr. Kwok for years to ensure that litigation related assets and liabilities were actually -- were accurately captured on the schedules and statements. Also, since Mr. Kwok does not read or write English, he requested a Chinese translation of the official forms. Mr. Kwok is also going to retain a service provider to assist him with the generation of the schedules and statements. This morning, we began discussions with Strutta (ph), who Your Honor may be familiar with. As I noted, Your Honor, we discussed Mr. Kwok's\n\n extension request yesterday afternoon with the U.S. Trustee. Yesterday, two parties filed objections to the extension motion, the U.S. Trustee and PACS. Both pretty much make the same point. The requested extension was too long and they want to get on with the case.\n\n Your Honor, it bears mentioning that even though the requested extended deadline was after the scheduled 341 meeting, we thought maybe we can work with the U.S. Trustee to commence that 341 meeting and adjourn it to make sure that folks had an opportunity to review them and ask informed questions. We recognize it would be unacceptable to deny the creditors the opportunity to ask informed questions.\n\n Mr. Kwok agrees that it's best to work harder to get the scheduled statements on file sooner. The sooner the schedules are on file, the sooner he can establish a bar date for claims, start reconciling them, and see if he can propose a feasible Chapter 11 plan.\n\n And, Your Honor, I already mentioned the proposal that we extend to the United States Trustee, and should we get there, I'm prepared to make a short proffer of what Mr. Kwok's testimony would be if he were called to testify.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Let me just think if I have a -- oh, yes, I do have a question or two. It's not really a question.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| 1  | As I mentioned, and you all know, we have audio              |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | for our record.<br>There are some names that you recited     |\n| 3  | during your presentation that I think it would be helpful to |\n| 4  | get to the clerk's office so that the clerk's office can     |\n| 5  | make sure they're properly spelled and accounted for in the  |\n| 6  | record of this case.                                         |\n| 7  | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>Absolutely, Your Honor, and we're         |\n| 8  | happy to provide the English spelling, and I guess my        |\n| 9  | phonetic --                                                  |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Whatever --                                    |\n| 11 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>-- translation.                           |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>-- whatever -- yes.<br>That would be           |\n| 13 | very helpful because we do want the record to be accurate,   |\n| 14 | and so, I would like you to do that.                         |\n| 15 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>Absolutely, Your Honor.                   |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>I can figure out -- I'll speak with            |\n| 17 | the courtroom deputy, but we could probably have the clerk   |\n| 18 | of the court reach out to you, counsel, and figure out a way |\n| 19 | to get that information so that we clearly have it for our   |\n| 20 | record and have it accurately.                               |\n| 21 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>It would be our pleasure.                 |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>I just want to          |\n| 23 | think if I had any other thought when -- I mean, I had other |\n| 24 | thoughts, but what -- anything I wanted to say when you were |\n| 25 | speaking.                                                    |\n\n With regard to the 341 meeting, and whatever happens here today, I think, you know, the U.S. Trustee's office -- I think it would make sense, even if your extension is granted to the 16th, to not close that 341 meeting after the first meeting.\n\n I think that this is a fluid case with a lot of issues, and you know, that's the U.S. Trustee's office call, but I would urge them to consider -- and of course I'm talking to you now, Attorney Claiborn, to consider that the debtor does not seem to have any issue with that 341 meeting taking place more than one day, and I would urge the U.S. Trustee's office to consider doing that, given many issues, including the fact that we're going to -- apparently going to have to have an interpreter there, and there's going -- there may or may not be a lot of creditors that have interest and questions.\n\n But I want to make sure that they're provided with that opportunity timely and with enough notice that when the documents are filed, they have enough time to intelligently review them. Okay?\n\n So I urge you to, if you would, communicate that with the U.S. Trustee and explain that the debtor's counsel has no problem with that.\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: I will do that, Your Honor. Thank you.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Counsel for PACS, you may proceed. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny and Myers. I actually gave Mr. Silverberg -- MR. SILVERBERG: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- Mr. Silverberg a copy of my deceleration. I have it in binder form. I actually have two binders, if I could hand them up to you? THE COURT: Sure. MR. FRIEDMAN: I feel like they're maybe helpful for you, you and your clerk -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- when we refer to something -- THE COURT: Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- that are in them. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, you have no problem with me looking at this binder while counsel is speaking? MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, was that -- THE COURT: I mean, Mr. -- did I say the wrong name? I apologize. MR. SILVERBERG: It's okay. THE COURT: I've got -- I'm looking at two things at the same time. Yes, you have no problem, then, correct?\n\n MR. SILVERBERG: I have no issue, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I appreciate that, Attorney Silverberg. And, Attorney Friedman, go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, Peter Friedman of O'Melveny and Myers on behalf of PACS. So, Your Honor, there are many, many, many different things that are worth responding to, but let me start with just the straight forward issue of what Justice Ostrager found. Justice Ostrager found that Mr. Kwok couldn't claim that the documents were a forgery because they were inconsistent -- that was inconsistent with everything he had done. THE COURT: Hold on one second, Attorney Friedman. (Pause) THE COURT: That's -- hold on a second, sir. Just hold on a second, okay? He's got -- he has a right to make his presentation, and you can listen to it later, because we record it and we put it on the -- on docket, and you can then talk to the debtor and interpret it if you can't do it simultaneously. But we have to go on with the hearing. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I understand. You think he can use the mic? At least we can more hear better here?\n\n THE COURT: Can you just pull the microphone a little bit closer to you, counsel? MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure, Your Honor. I have serious doubts as to the good faith of that request. THE COURT: I understand. I understand, but I'm not -- MR. FRIEDMAN: These are the kinds of antics, Your Honor -- THE COURT: I completely understand, but we're not -- we're going to proceed. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay? MR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. THE COURT: And as is true in every bankruptcy case in Connecticut and in most of the country, this recording will be placed on the docket of the case after the -- it will be on there by tomorrow morning I think, right? It's pretty -- it's very quick. It's within 24 hours. And anybody can listen to it. And it's not your fault, but the microphones -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: -- sometimes work well, and sometimes don't. And for whatever reason, that one today, has not worked well. That's -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, should I try that one\n\n up there? THE COURT: Well, maybe it might be better. Let's see how we do. Okay? There has been a problem with that microphone today. I can't tell you why. MR. FRIEDMAN: So, Your Honor, Justice Ostrager held -- and it's at, I believe Tab 4 of your binder is the opinion -- that Mr. Kwok couldn't claim the documents were a forgery for a litany of reasons. Estoppel, that he had made representations in the past, that he -- that he had actually produced those documents. So the claim is just, on its face, not a meaningful claim and not one that this Court should ultimately be able to sit in judgment over the recent findings of Justice Ostrager. THE COURT: May I ask you a question about Exhibit 4? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: The exhibit that you just pointed me to. So of course, I haven't reviewed anything -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: -- before today, but I'm looking at Exhibit 4, and it appears that Justice Ostrager issued this -- let me just see what it -- I apologize. Let me just see what it is entitled. It's a decision and order on motion that he issued\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 28 of 57\n\n this on September 15, 2020. Is that -- that -- I'm correct in that? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. This was his summary judgment motion finding that Kwok in fact did owe money to PACS on a personal guarantee. THE COURT: And then what happened after the summary judgment decision. Was there an appeal, or is this considered interlocutory, or what is the situation with regard to this specific ruling that you're pointing me to right now? MR. FRIEDMAN: So it is on appeal. THE COURT: It is. MR. FRIEDMAN: It is outside of -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: So it's not an issue I think this Court could review. THE COURT: Okay. That's what -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I just want to make sure I understand, because as you can see, there's a lot of documents here and I -- MR. FRIEDMAN: There are. THE COURT: -- just want to make sure -- MR. FRIEDMAN: There are. THE COURT: -- I want to understand the status,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 29 of 57\n\n and I do now. I understand that he made these findings and that's still on appeal at the moment. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. But Your Honor asks a great question. What happened after that? Well, what happened after that, the first thing that happened, is that Mr. Kwok filed a company called Genever New York, for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. THE COURT: And you mentioned that in your papers -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: -- so I have that name correct. I've seen it. MR. FRIEDMAN: Right. So very upsetting that that was not listed as an affiliated bankruptcy, because Mr. Kwok owns 100 percent of the equity of a company called Genever - - Genever, British Virgin Islands. It's Genever Holdings, British Virgin Islands, which in turn owns 100 percent of the equity of a debtor in the Southern District of New York. That is, of course, the classic case of an affiliate. It wasn't listed on a petition. Really troubling, and one of the animating forces behind why we think no extension should be given beyond the 14 days that congress provides statutorily.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 30 of 57\n\n That entity in the Southern District of New York is now the subject of -- it's too long to get into. Eventually, we will be seeking relief from this Court to permit us to pursue -- to vindicate Mr. Kwok's ownership rights of that entity and to object to bogus claims asserted by his family members. That's been part of his effort to frustrate our efforts to have that judgment satisfied. Your Honor, Congress listed 14 days for a reason. We think it's important. I will say, of course, often times I am in a position of asking for an extension of schedules, and to be honest -- and so, for filing dates. And to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever seen anybody object, because ordinarily there's a good reason. It's an operating business and they have hundreds of subsidiaries. It's an entity that may have to deal on its first couple of days with vendors and creditors and employees and can't pay immediate and prompt attention. None of that's true here. Mr. Kwok isn't an operating business. He claimed in his IDI and in his petition, he has no assets at all which, of course, raises the question of how could there possibly be a reorganization purpose here? How could there be a Chapter 11 purpose? Given all of his asset shuffling and -- not my word for it. Everything you heard from opposing counsel is his word. I have Justice Ostrager's opinions, and those\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n opinions and findings of fact show that Mr. Kwok uses a maze of entities and family members and trusted confidants to shift around assets. That kind of person can't be a fiduciary in a Chapter 11 for creditors. He'll never pursue claims against family members and other related entities. It raises really serious questions about the purpose of this case. I want to add on top of that, Your Honor, there is a \\$134 million contempt fine. And that's not just Justice Ostrager imposing that. That was unanimously affirmed by the appellate division in New York State. THE COURT: I did see that. MR. FRIEDMAN: It was Mr. Kwok's doing. He waited 268 days. That's why it got so large. Mr. Kwok cannot challenge in this court, the state court's ruling that Mr. Kwok owns –- has a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Frankly, any responsible debtor would have already filed a 58 turnover motion to require the person who is in the custody of the yacht to return it completely to Mr. Kwok. That obviously hasn't happened. I will note, Your Honor, that later tonight we will be filing a motion asking you to hold the automatic stay does not apply to a civil contempt order against Mr. Kwok, as well as a motion, in the alternative, asking you to hold that if it does apply that the automatic stay be\n\n modified to permit Justice Ostrager to require that -- to the return of the Lady May the New York Harbor. We're not asking to be able to levy on it or collect on it right now, but Mr. Kwok should not be permitted to keep such a valuable asset outside of the United States, to be brought here where it can be properly monetized eventually and liquidated. Again, Justice Ostrager's findings I don't believe will ultimately be reviewable by this Court and should not be second-guessed, because they are a part of an order that's already on appeal. Mr. Kwok lost a motion for an interim stay in New York. He could not even provide any –- the slightest level of confidence to anybody that he would have a likelihood of success on that appeal. Now, the reason we believe that civil contempt order is not subject to the automatic stay leads to another issue which is, we also believe it's going to give rise to \\$134 million non-dischargeable claim. We noted that in a footnote. We will also be commencing an adversary proceeding to hold that debt non-dischargeable, which also gives rise to the question, how could there ever be a feasible Chapter 11 plan when Mr. Kwok will be facing \\$134 million debt if he ever got a discharge? And I think those kind of issues call into\n\n question everything in paragraph 15 of the debtor's motion. They talk about retaining counsels, and retaining financial advisors, and proposing plans using other people's money. You know, I realize, Your Honor, that we will have to prove a lot of things to you. But we have the evidence. Many of those things have already been established by Justice Ostrager. This is not a debtor who comes to you with anything even remotely approaching clean hands.\n\n For the life of me I can't understand how if a judge has held that you have a beneficial ownership in something worth \\$30 million, you don't even footnoted in your petition.\n\n It's just astonishing. It's astonishing that somebody wouldn't list an affiliate is a debtor when there's a specific box.\n\n It's astonishing that the entity Mr. Kwok uses as his family office is listed as the second largest creditor, when the instructions specifically say don't list insiders. A company controlled by his son that funds his living expenses is the paradigmatic example of a nonstatutory insider.\n\n A petition, Your Honor, which was verified, signed under penalty of law, is so rife with dishonesty it's astounding. I would add even what Brown Rudnick filed this afternoon, which says they will be paid based on a loan\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 34 of 57\n\n that was made from Lamp, also Mr. Kwok's family office, to Mr. Kwok. So Look at the schedule -- the petition. Lamp turns up as a million-dollar creditor for that loan. But even though that loan is still -– is at Brown Rudnick as a retainer, it's still Mr. Kwok's property, so I don't how they could assess or assert that he has zero assets. He has the \\$998,000 of assets that he came into the case with under that loan. It's a pre-petition loan. Again, just the lack of candor to this Court already is what impels us to believe that there's -- no quarter should be given. I want to note, in our brief, we cited virtually everything Justice Ostrager said, but I didn't cite one portion that I think it's really important. And it comes on page 7 of Justice Ostrager's opinion. THE COURT: Which opinion would you like me to look at? I want to make sure –- MR. FRIEDMAN: This is the contempt order, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, attached to your objection? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, as well as the U.S. Trustee's. THE COURT: Oh, but it's also in the book here? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, it's also attached to the U.S. Trustee's objection. THE COURT: Okay.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MR. FRIEDMAN: That might be the easiest way to find it. THE COURT: If you give me a second, I will locate it. (Pause) THE COURT: I think I have it here but let me make sure. 8 A decision and order on motion, dated February 9, 2022. That is ten pages. Is that correct? MR. FRIEDMAN: It is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. I have it. MR. FRIEDMAN: So before I get to the quote, I want to point out this came after a live trial, and this came after Mr. Kwok's daughter, who counsel referenced, was basically held to be a liar by Justice Ostrager. When you read the opinion, you'll see how -- the lack of credibility that Justice Ostrager referenced with her testimony. He's not the only judge to do that. Judge Liman and in the case from the Southern District of New York also cast extreme, extreme doubt over to the credibility of her testimony relating to the interfamily transfer of funds. Your Honor, on page 7 it says, the machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 35 of 57\n\n evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case. And clearly, Your Honor, not to let this case turn out like that case, Kwok has taken so many extraordinarily evasive and dishonest steps that cannot be squared with the good-faith requirements to be a Chapter 11 debtor. Congress required disclosures be made within 14 days. The request for 60 days was, to put it mildly, outrageous. We request the Court deny the motion in the entirety. But I'm going to say something else, Your Honor. 12 Ultimately, I realized that, you know, your job is to balance a variety of factors. We believe strongly that no extension should be given. But if an extension were given for a few days, until the end of the week because it's going to be run out today, we of course, you know, aren't going to say, you didn't file something by the end of the day today, the case should be dismissed automatically. So you know, as passionately as I feel about these issues, which I think you can tell, I would not object to it being extended. Our client would not object to it being extended until Friday. And we think given the fact that Mr. Kwok has said in his IDI that he has no assets, that part of it should be\n\n easy. If there are these contingent lawsuits, it it seems impossible to believe they aren't known to him already, and they should be scheduled as soon as possible so that we can frankly dig in. We may even seek Rule 2004 discovery between his 341 if necessary, depending on what's disclosed in there.\n\n But we believe we need a full and fair chance to continue our pursuit of his assets in order to take an appropriate 341 Examination and, you know, that I think -– I don't know if the Court has any questions for me, but those are the key issues that I thought were worth addressing with respect to our objection.\n\n THE COURT: I'm not sure I have any questions. I have looked at your objection, although I will say, I didn't look at it until today, and we did have hearings today, and so I looked at the United States Trustee's objection yesterday. I had more time when that was filed. I definitely looked at your objection. However, I'm intending on looking at it again, as I went to the U.S. Trustee's objection, as I will the motion for extension of time.\n\n So but I think I was fairly clear at the start of this hearing, there will be no extension of time for 60 days. If there's an extension of time, it will not be for 60 days. Counsel has stated he's made an offer to the United States Trustee's office to go to March 16th.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n You're stating that you would not object if the Court entered order extending the deadline to March 4th. We're not that far apart in some ways, but I understand your position.\n\n If the two of you don't want to talk about that and see if you can agree on something, that's fine. The Court will rule. I have no problem doing that.\n\n But if you want to take time to talk about it, we can do that too, and you can all -– we can take a five- minute recess. We don't have to take a recess. We can do whatever you want.\n\n But right now, today, the issue is, is there going to be an extension of time granted. The two objecting parties –- and I think I have been, I think clear, that I obviously find merit to the objections when I said already, there will not be a 60-day extension of time. It's just -– it's not going to happen. It's not appropriate. In very few cases I could ever think that it would be appropriate. And this is not one of them. Okay? So that's clear. The United States Trustee's office seems to be fine with March 16th. You'd like March 4th. The 341 meeting is what day? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I apologize for interrupting the Court. THE COURT: That's okay. MS. CLAIBORN: I didn't yet opine as to what the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n U.S. Trustee's position was with respect to the date. THE COURT: Oh. I'm sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: And I didn't know whether or not counsel wanted to take the Court up on the opportunity to discuss for a minute before we do that or –- THE COURT: I can take a five-minute recess. It won't –- MS. CLAIBORN: I just don't know whether or not the parties were interested in discussing it. THE COURT: Yeah. And if there isn't an interesting discussion, that's fine too. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm giving you an opportunity if you'd like to take it. If you don't want to take it, that's fine. You know, I have no problem with that. MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, if PACS is going to dig in their heels on the 4th, that's just not going to be worth workable from a logistics standpoint, so -- THE COURT: Well, and that may be true on the negotiation standpoint, but I might order it. So, you know, that's where we go. And that's fine. You are -- every single -- you've all made your positions, and I haven't even asked Attorney Wolman what his position might be yet, because he is dissipating in this hearing, but you've made your positions clear. It's not a\n\n complex issue for the Court to decide. I do want to look back at the papers for a few minutes, and I can do that now. I can take a 5, 10, 15- minute recess. It doesn't matter. And then I can come back and rule today, or I can rule tomorrow. It's not complex. I'm not worried about issuing a ruling. That I can tell you. And so, however you'd like to proceed. I'm trying to give you an opportunity suggest to me what you think makes some sense. If you'd like a recess to talk about it, that's fine. If you don't, we can conclude this hearing and I can rule tomorrow, or we can take a recess and I can try to come back and rule tonight. I have no problem with either one of those ways of proceeding. MR. SILVERBERG: So, I'm always in deal making mode, so if PACS wants to speak, so -- THE COURT: Well, why don't we take -- it's 10 of 5:00. Why don't we -- MR. WOLMAN: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Oh, Attorney Wolman. I'm sorry. MR. WOLMAN: Can I be heard? THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. WOLMAN: That's all right. I just wanted to be brief, but I feel like this should be heard. We did not\n\n|    | 41                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | file anything, but we do join generally to Mr. Cheng in the    |\n| 2  | objections both by the U.S. Trustee and by PACS.               |\n| 3  | A little background, Mr. Cheng was the victim in               |\n| 4  | Nevada of Mr. Guo's serial campaign of defamation lawsuits.    |\n| 5  | Mr. Cheng himself opposes the Chinese Communist Party, and     |\n| 6  | he took issue with how Mr. Guo was addressing that movement,   |\n| 7  | as it were, and after Mr. Guo made a defamatory video about    |\n| 8  | Mr. Cheng, my client had a few tweets, and then found          |\n| 9  | himself the subject of the SLAPP suit.                         |\n| 10 | Now the Court is aware with about lawsuits that                |\n| 11 | are called strategic lawsuits against (indiscernible)          |\n| 12 | participation.<br>Nevada has a very strong anti-SLAPP statute. |\n| 13 | And my client --                                               |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second, Attorney Wolman.               |\n| 15 | Hold on a second.<br>The alarm is going off.                   |\n| 16 | Glen, do you think we need to --                               |\n| 17 | THE MARSHAL: I'll let you know.                                |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I'm sorry, but the alarm is             |\n| 19 | going off in the building.                                     |\n| 20 | MR. WOLMAN:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>So you just need to wait one second.             |\n| 22 | I mean, you can try to talk.<br>Can you hear, Attorney Wolman, |\n| 23 | even when the alarm is going, or -- the United States          |\n| 24 | marshal going to go check right now to see if we need to       |\n| 25 | evacuate.                                                      |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 42 of 57\n\n MR. WOLMAN: No, if you need to evacuate, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know that yet. I'm waiting to find out. MR. WOLMAN: I'm fine where I am. THE COURT: They'll let us know. If we have to evacuate, then I would assume that you'll have to go back out the front door. Okay? And stand out in front of the building. But they'll tell you. Someone should tell you. (Pause) THE COURT: John, do we need to evacuate? THE MARSHAL: Stay for now. THE COURT: Stay for now? THE MARSHAL: Stay for now. We have a problem with the alarm system. We're rewiring everything. THE COURT: Okay. THE MARSHAL: If there's anything, we'll let you know ASAP. THE COURT: All right. All right. Where in the middle -- John, were in the middle of the hearing, so I'm going to keep talking and people are going to keep talking. Okay? Oh, there. Okay. Oh, we'll see. Okay. Is that right? Not when we were in court, though, but yeah. But, okay. Thank you so much for checking. I appreciate that.\n\n All right. Attorney Wolman, if you could -- and I'm sorry, I don't remember exactly where you left off, but you were talking about a defamation suit and some other issues. MR. WOLMAN: Right. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cheng was the victim of Mr. Guo's serial campaign of litigation in Nevada, and he prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion and the case was dismissed because Mr. Cheng -- Mr. Guo was unable to show that his case had any merit. The Nevada anti-SLAPP Statute has what is called a SLAPP back provision, because although it awards attorney's fees to the successful defendant, that is the not the end-all and be-all of the victimization of being sued. And so that was -- a suit was brought in the Southern District of New York to enforce the judgment of fees, because originally Mr. Guo did not pay until funds came in from Golden Spring New York to pay that judgment, and so we sued to enforce the judgment, and we sued under the SLAPP back theory under the Nevada statute to -- for compensatory damages. And in fact, that case has been teed up for summary judgment with Attorney Gavimen, who was representing Mr. Guo, Mr. Kwok at the time, accelerating his reply memorandum to get in just before the bankruptcy petition was filed and had otherwise been fully briefed.\n\n Your Honor, this litigation has been ongoing for quite some time and, in fact, a year ago I had the opportunity to take Mr. Guo's deposition. And there was actually some interest interesting things even here today that I was unaware of before, such as Mr. Guo now residing in Connecticut with his wife. And so these are facts that -- they're facts that come out about Mr. Guo that he states but then does not back up that is of concern. His complaint in Nevada listed a litany of things about his background that his counsel here today recited some of. And yet, when we sought discovery on that in the Southern District of New York, because certainly it must have been germane and relevant, he resisted. He objected. He refused to back any of that up. We sought certain discovery as to his financial well-being, and he refused. He resisted. And in fact, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment in terms of not having to produce that information, and he did so successfully. Judge Failla felt that the invocation of the Fifth Amendment was well placed and we were to get an adverse inference as a result. This man holds himself out as a billionaire. That's how he presents himself globally. In fact, on\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n February 9, the news was all aflutter, not only with the sanctions award in the PACS case, but with the fact that Mr. Guo, and it spoke specifically about his name, won of venue motion in London on a \\$500 million claim against UBS where he is the plaintiff. And maybe it's through one of his entities. We don't know.\n\n And that means the Court should take everything that is said and -- you know, Brown Rudnick, I've got no objection to them trying to trying to pick a fight, but they are new. They do not know Mr. Guo, and they need to take -- and this Court needs to take everything that he says with a grain of salt.\n\n And so, I do actually think that March 4th is perhaps too soon, because they need to verify for themselves that they are going to be submitting for the Court, materials that have previously not been verified. And so, you know, that is going to go under their (indiscernible), and they need to do their due diligence.\n\n And so, we want to make sure, certainly, that counsel has time to do that, but also strike a balance here that we have time before the 341 meeting to review.\n\n And while we're, you know, listed as a creditor, I should note that we put in our motion, we believe ourselves actually to be one of the 20 largest creditors. But that was not stated in the petition and, in fact, Golden Springs,\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n as PACS noted, the insider is listed as a creditor and one of the 20 largest. So there is already some improprieties in the filings here, and, you know, we just want to make sure that we have enough time. I would prefer a week before the 341 meeting rather than, you know, just a few days, because I need to compare to other production, certainly, that we've received in the New York case, and we may have to address governing protective order in that case and how it applies here. But, you know, we do otherwise join in the objection of the U.S. Trustee and in PACS to that 60-day extension, and do request that it be something, you know, at least a week before the 341 meeting. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to take a ten minute recess. We'll be back at 5:10, and then I'll hear from the parties if there's anything they would like to report, and then I will rule. So Court is in recess. THE CLERK: All rise. Court is in recess. (Recess from 4:48 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.) THE COURT: Okay. We took a short recess after Attorney Silverberg and Attorney Friedman, Attorney Claiborn, and Attorneys Wolman made their statements in connection with the debtor's motion for extension of the\n\n deadline to file documents required by the bankruptcy code and rules. I don't know, Attorney Silverberg, Attorney Friedman, if you had any discussions. I see heads shaking no. MR. SILVERBERG: Unfortunately -- Your Honor, Bennett Silverman of Brown Rudnick for the debtor. Unfortunately, those discussions were not productive. We offered to give a couple of days -- THE COURT: That's all right. I don't need to know. Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: Okay. THE COURT: That's okay. I appreciate it, but I don't need to know. I just need to know that there is no agreement. MR. SILVERBERG: There is no agreement, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I could now weigh in on the extension motion, and I also wanted to make some other comments to the Court. THE COURT: Yes. MS. CLAIBORN: I'll start with the comments. THE COURT: Hold on just one second, Attorney Claiborn. Something is echoing here. I don't know why it's echoing. I can hear you, Attorney Claiborn. Then I can\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n hear you again. MS. CLAIBORN: Oh, that's great. THE COURT: So we just want to make sure we can hear you properly. (Pause) THE CLERK: Hello, hello. I still hear it. THE COURT: Yeah, I think we're going to have to - - will you be able to record, or do you need to have that resolved? THE CLERK: It still recording but I don't know if it's going to pick up this echo. THE COURT: I think we'll be okay. THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: Let's try it anyway, okay? And then if it's really bad you tell us and we'll -- THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: -- we'll stop. Should we alert anyone in our IT department? THE CLERK: Well, I sent a message to Peter, and hopefully that will -- I will send a message to Will. THE COURT: Okay. THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: All right. Let's see how this goes -- MS. CLAIBORN: Does it make any difference as to\n\n which microphone I use? THE COURT: No, it's coming from in here, unfortunately. So go right ahead and let's see how we do, okay? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. Your Honor, I wanted to touch briefly on a couple of items, first of which was the petition and the comments that were made by Mr. Kwok's counsel today about his residence in Greenwich, and they were followed by Mr. Wolman's comments about not being aware that Greenwich is a residence. I wanted to point out to the Court that on the petition, the debtor's address in response to the question of where do you live is listed as being Golden Spring. It does not list his residential address. We had been under the impression that the debtor was going to take some steps to protect that information as to where he actually resides due to some concerns that were expressed. That hasn't yet happened. But I do want to make a connected point, which is that yesterday's initial debtor interview covered in brief the topic of where does Mr. Kwok get his mail, and the issue about where to send information was broached. And the concern expressed was that perhaps the mail wouldn't reach the right place of it went to the Golden Spring address, which is the only address that the Court has\n\n reached the debtor. And so, I bring that up because I want to make sure that the debtor does get proper notice in this case of all the appropriate pleadings, and that all parties are aware what is the appropriate address to be using to contact the debtor. The other comment I wanted to make was about the fact that in general, based upon the presentations that have been made today, and based upon the information that was learned yesterday at the initial debtor interview, this case presents an interesting combination of no assets, large debt and a need for an explanation. The U.S. Trustee, at this point in time, believes it may be appropriate to seek an appointment of an examiner, and I wanted to preview that for the Court. We have made that comment to the debtor's counsel and they are aware. And so I wanted to make those couple of points to Your Honor, and then I want to follow up by saying that with respect to the extension request today, the U.S. Trustee thinks that the date of -- that, sorry, March 9th makes the most sense. It is in between the dates that have been offered by the opposing parties and it does provide over a week of advanced time for parties to take a look at it and digest it and be prepared to conduct a meaningful meeting of\n\n creditors. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Attorney Silverberg, the issue that was raised about the address is an important one. The address on the petition is different from the address that you -- well, you didn't given an address, but you said that he resided in Greenwich. If there's a change of address, we have a local rule about that, and we have a local form and that needs to be completed, because obviously notice has -- and service has to be properly made. So I don't how you're going to proceed on that, but I'm telling you that that is something that I will be paying attention to then, because if the debtor resides in Greenwich, that's not what the petition says. So I'm not going to say anything further. I'm telling you what my thought is on that at the moment. Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: We understand the issue with respect to the New York address. There was some desire to remain -- to keep his Greenwich, Connecticut address private, given his experiences with the CCP and so on. So I think, you know, when we prepared the petition, we didn't realize how much that address is already in the public domain. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n MR. SILVERBERG: We've since learned that there may not be as much sensitivity to that address being out there, and once we confirm that with the debtor, we'll complete the appropriate paperwork to amend the address to make sure that he gets notice. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion for the extension of the deadline to file documents required by the bankruptcy code and rules? And our local rules as well. (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. As I indicated earlier today, during the beginning of this hearing, over the course of the last few days I've reviewed documents filed in this case, including the debtor's motion to extend the deadline to file schedules or provide required information seeking an extension to May 2, 2022, which is ECF No. 27. I've also reviewed, and again looked at during the recess, the objection filed by the -- to that motion filed by the Office of the United States Trustee, ECF No. 49, and the objection of PACS, if I may use PACS for short, filed to that motion for extension of time, ECF No. 50. I've also listened to the presentations and arguments of an Attorney Silverberg, Attorney Friedman, Attorney Claiborn, Attorney Wolman, and I've taken those\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n arguments into consideration with regard to the request made by the debtor.\n\n As I've indicated, and I know you all know, the Bankruptcy Code, in particular Section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code requires the debtor, as part of the debtor's duties, to file a series of documents in order to assist and help to complete the administration of a Chapter 11 case.\n\n Those documents are extremely important and they are necessary to provide appropriate notice and information to creditors in order for creditors to have the ability to determine whether or not they would like to have a meaningful questioning of the debtor at the section 341 meeting, which the debtor is required under the Bankruptcy Code not only to attend but to testify at, under Sections 341, 42, 43 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n In addition to the code sections that require the debtors to provide -- excuse me, to perform specific duties as part of the burden of coming before the Court, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007 requires that definite documents be filed, including the statements of schedule -- statements of -- statements of financial affairs and schedules of assets, liabilities, and other schedules A through G and H and I in the individual case, and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007(c) says the time frame to do that is with the petition, or within 14 days thereafter.\n\n Fourteen days thereafter with regard to this debtor's case would be today, because the case was filed on February 15th, and the Court has considered all the requests that the debtor has made and the arguments advanced in opposition to the request and the Court rules as follows. In accordance with 11 USC Sections 521 and other applicable sections of the Bankruptcy Code that set forth the duties of a debtor, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007(c), and our local role of bankruptcy procedure, 1007-1, the debtor's motion for extension of time is granted in part. The debtor must file all required statements and schedules, including all documents required to be filed in accordance with those bankruptcy sections that I've just recited and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and our local bankruptcy rules on or before March 9, 2022. That is the ruling of the Court. Does anyone have any questions? MR. SILVERBERG: No, Your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: Okay. That was the only matter that we had to address today. Attorney Birney, did you have something else that you wanted to address with the Court? MR. BIRNEY: No. No, Your Honor. Just, thank you. It's glad to be back -- we're glad to be back in person.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: It's nice to be in person, yes. Did somebody else have any questions or anything THE COURT: -- that you wanted to address today? MR. KLETTER: Oh, Your Honor, may I be excused from future hearing? Mr. Silverberg can attend any further -- THE COURT: Yes, you've been admitted to pro hac, so yes, you can be excused, counsel. MR. KLETTER: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. The pro hac -- THE COURT: Obviously, for service purposes though, service can still be made at the local address in that service. MR. KLETTER: Correct. THE COURT: Even if you're excused, which is fine. MR. KLETTER: Yep. THE COURT: If someone makes service on the debtor only at your office, your local office address, that's still deemed appropriate service under the rules. Okay? MR. KLETTER: Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. The only other thing I would say is, I've ruled. The 341 meeting is already set. I've already spoken to Attorney Claiborn about my urging with\n\n regard to the 341 meeting, but that is in the office -- that is in the hands of the Office of the United States Trustee. There is nothing further on the calendar today in this case. Did you have something you wanted to add, Attorney Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: I did, Your Honor, just because I'm unfamiliar with your general practice. Will you also issue an order, or is the transcript so ordered? THE COURT: I could do -- if you would prefer me to -- what I would normally do, if you would like, and I'm happy to do it, is I'll just do a virtual order. Okay? But that won't get, most likely, put on the docket until tomorrow morning. It is so ordered as of right now, 5:23 p.m. on March 1st, 2002 [sic]. Okay? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: And when the virtual order enters, it will say as of, whatever I just said. 5:23 p.m. on March 1st, 2022. Okay? And then you would at least have something other than the transcript of this hearing. I understand there may be other pleadings filed. Parties have mentioned that. The reason that the Court chose the date that I chose is because I do think it's important to give a meaningful opportunity to creditors to review the information and determine whether or not they want to participate in the 341 meeting, which as I often\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 57 of 57\n\n|    | 57                                                          |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | say, the section of the Bankruptcy Code 341 is entitled,    |\n| 2  | Meeting of Creditors, and that's its point.                 |\n| 3  | And so I -- that is why I've ruled as I have                |\n| 4  | ruled, and there is nothing further for the Court to attend |\n| 5  | to this afternoon, unless I'm forgetting something.         |\n| 6  | Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>And that's the last matter on        |\n| 7  | today's calendar, so court is adjourned.                    |\n| 8  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                     |\n| 9  | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.             |\n| 10 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                   |\n| 11 | (Proceedings concluded at 5:23 p.m.)                        |\n| 12 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court              |\n| 13 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a   |\n| 14 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound       |\n| 15 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.  |\n| 16 |                                                             |\n| 17 |                                                             |\n| 18 |                                                             |\n| 19 | March 21, 2022                                              |\n| 20 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                       |\n| 21 |                                                             |\n| 22 |                                                             |\n| 23 |                                                             |\n| 24 |                                                             |\n|    |                                                             |\n|    |                                                             |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分部\n\n关于　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　　　　　*　康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*　March 1, 2022\n债务人。　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\n关于延长提交财产清单或提供所需信息期限之动议的庭审记录\n\n于尊敬的朱莉·A·曼宁\n首席美国破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nBENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ.\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n纽约州纽约市时代广场7号\nNY 10036\n\n代表债权人 Pacific\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业）：\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.\nASHLEY MARIE, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧迈律师事务所）\n纽约州纽约市时代广场大厦\n时代广场7号\nNY 10036\n\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n康涅狄格州哈特福德市特朗布尔街280号\nCT 06103-3597\n\n代表债权人 Logan\nCheng（程龙）：\nJAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团）\n康涅狄格州哈特福德市珍珠街100号14层\nCT 06103\n\n庭审程序以电子录音方式记录，记录文本由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n康涅狄格州谢尔顿市研究路4号402室\nCT 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员续：\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo 联邦大楼\n康涅狄格州纽黑文市法院街150号302室\nCT 06510\n\n（庭审于下午4时03分开始。）\n\n书记官：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请各方为记录说明出庭情况，先请债务人的律师？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Brown Rudnick 的 Bennet Silverberg（贝内特·西尔弗伯格）。与我一同出庭的是我的担保律师 Dylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特）。\n\n法官：两位下午好，我想——\n\n克莱特律师：下午好。\n\n法官：——西尔弗伯格律师，是否已作出命令准许您以临时许可律师身份出庭？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：是的，法官阁下，我们对此表示感谢。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n伯尼律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole 的 Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼），代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，即 PACS。法官阁下，与我一同在法庭内、位于我右侧的是 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\n伯尼律师：位于我左侧的是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\n伯尼律师：另外还有几位人士。David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）律师和 Ashley Marie（阿什利·玛丽），均来自 O'Melveny。法官阁下，临时许可出庭动议已经提交，并已获法官阁下准许，弗里德曼先生今天将进行主要陈述。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。谢谢各位。欢迎各位。请继续，克莱伯恩律师。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。\n\n法官：下午好。沃尔曼律师。\n\n沃尔曼律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Randazza Legal Group 的 Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）。\n\n法官：下午好。好的。\n\n沃尔曼律师：并且，非常感谢法官阁下准许我远程出庭。\n\n法官：是的，正如我所指出的——哦，我忘记打开摄像头了。抱歉，沃尔曼律师。我们正在进行不同——\n\n沃尔曼律师：没关系。\n\n法官：——类型的听证，因此我甚至不知道您是否能够——是否可行，但无论如何，摄像头已经打开。如我所指出，您知道，这是一次加急听证，因此准许您今天远程参加。我们已恢复法庭开庭。法庭内有不少人员，但大家都戴着口罩，并且显然，您知道，对保持距离感到自在，所以我们今天将继续进行。现在，在具体讨论任何事项之前，我收到消息称，今天有一名口译员为债务人服务。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：在我们讨论该事项之前，我想——其他律师是否明白债务人今天有一名口译员？\n\n弗里德曼律师：是的，法官阁下。我是代表 PACS 的 O'Melveny and Myers 的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我们明白。\n\n法官：好的。您是否反对使用该口译员？\n\n弗里德曼律师：不反对，法官阁下。我不反对该口译员。\n\n法官：好的。您认为该口译员有资格翻译债务人所说的任何内容吗？\n\n弗里德曼律师：法官阁下，我没有任何依据作出任何一方面的判断。\n\n法官：好的。我从美国受托人办公室所提交的书状中了解到，我认为是昨天提交的，我可能——我认为我是正确的——在贵办公室进行的初次债务人面谈中，有一名债务人口译员。是否正确？\n\n克莱伯恩律师：是的，法官阁下。美国受托人通过电话使用了一名口译员的服务，随后债务人自己的一名私人口译员与债务人一同实际在场。\n\n法官：那么——那么今天在场的这位先生——我甚至不该这样说。我假定是一位先生，因为我正看着法庭后方，但今天在场的这位先生，是否就是初次债务人面谈期间与债务人在一起的同一位先生？\n\n克莱伯恩律师：不是，法官阁下。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：不是，法官阁下。这位——口译员的姓名是 John Lau（刘约翰）。\n\n法官：好的。好的。我只是需要在某个时候了解，如果 Lau 先生要翻译债务人所说的任何内容，我希望了解 Lau 先生的资格，如果我们进行到那一步。好吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：明白。\n\n法官：您知道，我们显然没有准备配备口译员，但这不一定是问题。我只是向您说明，我不希望——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件111，提交于 03/21/22，录入于 03/21/22 15:38:05，第6页，共57页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件111，提交于 03/21/22，录入于 03/21/22 15:38:05，第7页，共57页\n\n——我不会在对口译员存在任何争议的情况下继续举行听证。我的意思就是如此。好吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。好了，现在——\n\n书记官：法官，抱歉。我们没有收录到克莱伯恩律师先前所说的内容——抱歉。她离麦克风稍远。\n\n法官：是的，这不是您的过错，克莱伯恩律师。问题是，我们所有人都戴着口罩，并且，您知道，保持距离，有时——我们可能需要请您说得稍微大声一点。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：我会尽量说得更大声。\n\n法官：谢谢。即使只是那样——那个角度，不幸的是，麦克风能更好地收录您的声音。而且正如我想各位都知道，我们的记录是音频记录，因此我们必须非常注意麦克风。如果有时我要求您，或者有人要求您重复一遍，那是因为我们需要确保记录清楚。好吗？好了。因此，大约一周前——我可以调出来。到目前为止，你们可能都比我更了解此事，书记官办公室在本案中录入了一项案卷条目，涉及自愿债务人在破产案件中必须提交的申请书及其他文件的某些欠缺之处。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件111，提交于 03/21/22，录入于 03/21/22 15:38:05，第8页，共57页\n\n经修正的申请书已提交。我看到了。其纠正了该项欠缺。有一项——我理解，您知道，办公室认为他们有时可以使用其他人的号码，但我们不允许这样做，因此这就是为何需要提交经修正的申请书。所以我理解此事已经完成。我理解其中提到一名债权人没有适当的收件人栏，该问题也已纠正。因此法院对此表示赞赏。我认为债务人律师——不是命令，而是债务人律师所关切的欠缺通知，导致提出这项延长提交财产清单期限动议的原因是——而我是在告诉你们双方你们已经知道的事情。这对你们并不是什么新闻，破产法典及规则要求，财产清单和声明必须在案件提交后14日内提交。由于本庭内我们所有人都知道的诸多原因，这是一个重要的问题——事项，因为如果债务人没有履行其义务，在本案中是其本人义务，即编制并提交财产清单和财务状况声明，案件就无法得到妥善管理。这是一项基本要求，本法院以及我认为所有法院都极为认真对待。欠缺通知称，本案可能被驳回。它没有说应当驳回，但我理解债务人律师希望迅速举行听证，因为你们将会——因为你们不希望案件被驳回，我理解这一点。因此，无论如何，这就是为何准许加急听证动议，并于今日就延长提交财产清单期限的动议举行听证。现在，我理解你们所寻求的内容。你们寻求60日。你们知道，已有两份书面异议提出反对。我可以告诉你们，你们不会得到60日。这不会发生。但我想知道的是，贵方是否已与债权人的律师或美国受托人办公室的律师，就你们的请求及其异议进行任何讨论？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：是的，法官阁下。事实上，我们进行了我们的——我不确定法官阁下是否能听到我。\n\n法官：这样很好。谢谢。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：法官阁下，我们昨天在克莱伯恩女士的办公室与她进行了初次债务人面谈。这是一次三小时的面谈。面谈结束时，我们询问克莱伯恩女士，该办公室对于延期请求的立场是什么。她明确表示，对60日的请求将会——将会遭到异议，并且她强烈劝告我们考虑请求一项在第341条会议之前届满的延期，以给予债权人充分时间审阅财产清单和声明，使其能够在341会议上提出知情的问题。昨晚，在与当事人协商后，他恰好是——抱歉。没有介绍我们的当事人，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生。\n\n郭文贵：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法官：下午好，先生。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：他使用 Miles（迈尔斯）这个名字。\n\n法官：下午好。谢谢。先生，您可以坐下。谢谢。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：因此，昨天——抱歉，昨晚，我们向美国受托人提议，将提交财产清单和声明的截止日期延长至 March 16th，即周一341会议之前的周三。我们没有将期限恰好设定在一周前的原因，是我们正处理将财产清单和声明翻译成 Kwok 先生母语中文的一些后勤问题，因此我们希望确保，当他在伪证处罚下证明并确认其准确性时，他以自己的语言完全理解财产清单和声明所述内容，从而对于页面上的文字绝不会存在任何疑问。\n\n法官：我理解。好的。那么，您是否是在说您已准备好——我将听取其他当事方的意见，但我只想问您这个问题。您代表债务人准备同意一项于 March 16th 届满的延期吗？是否正确？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。很好。谢谢。我对此表示赞赏。现在，克莱伯恩律师，您提交了对该动议的第一份异议。您现在已听取律师的陈述，以及其同意在获准的情况下将延期限制至 March 16th。对于延期请求，您还希望载入记录什么内容，或者您还有什么其他看法？\n\n克莱伯恩律师：法官阁下，我认为如果我可以请求法院在美国受托人发表意见之前先听取 PACS 的陈述，或许会有所帮助。\n\n法官：哦，这没有问题。好的。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：我提出该建议是因为债务人与 PACS 之间有着悠久的历史，我认为这将有助于分析何种类型的——\n\n延长时间适用于本案是有道理的。法庭：可以。律师？SILVERBERG先生：而且，法官阁下，如果PACS要详细叙述导致我们到此的经过，我认为——您知道，如果您愿意听，我也可以作陈述。否则，您可以听——听我陈述。法庭：那么，您是在建议希望先作陈述吗？您是这个意思吗？还是您想回应他们的陈述？SILVERBERG先生：如果可以，我想先作我们的陈述——法庭：好。您的陈述将涉及为何提起本案以及为何需要延长期限吗？SILVERBERG先生：正是如此。为——法庭：好。我会让他们先进行，律师，然后我当然会听取您的陈述。FRIEDMAN先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：请继续。SILVERBERG先生：您希望我在这里陈述，还是在讲台上陈述？法庭：您可以就在那边陈述，律师。SILVERBERG先生：很好。因此，法官阁下，我拟先介绍Kwok先生的背景，然后介绍导致本Chapter 11（第11章）案件启动的事件，并说明请求延长的理由。法官阁下，作为背景说明——抱歉。Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生出生于中国山东省。他目前与结婚35年的妻子Qingzhi（青芝）居住在CT州Greenwich。他有两名成年子女。他们育有一子Qiang Guo（郭强）先生和一女Mei Guo（郭梅）女士。儿子居住在英国。女儿在纽约市和康涅狄格州之间两地居住。希望随着COVID消退，她现在会有更多时间不住在父母家里。他在一个人口众多但贫困的家庭中长大，这激发了他的创业精神。13岁时，郭先生从初中辍学，开始销售服装和电子产品，以帮助养家。1989年5月，郭先生因支持天安门广场抗议活动而遭拘留和酷刑。在被拘留约20个月期间，他与政治活动人士、知识分子、商界人士及宗教领袖建立了重要关系。其中一名联系人后来将他介绍给Ping Sia（平夏，发音不确定）女士，她是一名来自香港的成功女商人和投资者。1991年，郭先生开始与Sia女士在Yuda Property Company（裕达房地产公司，发音不确定）共事，该公司专注于中国河南省的\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore报告与转录服务公司）\n\n商业房地产开发。Yuda成立后不久，成功在河南省省会郑州开发并建成高端的Yuda International Trade Center（裕达国际贸易中心）。该商业综合体包括当时河南省最高的摩天大楼，以及中国第五高的建筑物。\n\n该综合体建成时，当时价值为300 million。该贸易中心在财务上取得成功，确立了郭先生在中国房地产开发商领域的地位，尤其是在河南省；Yuda随后持续开发高端住宅及商业项目。\n\n大约在2000年，凭借——凭借在河南省取得的成功，郭先生将其房地产抱负转向中国首都北京，在那里将其业务扩展至为其项目提供私人融资，其六名兄弟姐妹参与其中。\n\n凭借在河南省的成功，郭先生的直系及扩展家庭成员摆脱了贫困。\n\n在北京，郭先生协助成立了Beijing Morgan Investment Company（北京摩根投资公司）和Beijing Zenith Holdings Company（北京鼎盛控股公司），后者是一家房地产开发及投资管理顾问公司。郭先生的直系\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n及扩展家庭成员是这些实体的股东和雇员。2002年，这些企业收购了北京北部两块总面积约为2 million平方米的未开发土地。中国被指定为2008 Olympics主办国后，政府宣布计划在该等土地毗邻建设奥运场馆，这些地块的价值大幅增加。这些地块价值的增加引发了郭先生与Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）之间长期的政治斗争。副市长Gi Wa（吉瓦，发音不确定）试图不当侵占Morgan Investment的财产。郭先生予以反击，向政府举报该腐败行为；经过长期斗争后，最终收回了Morgan Investment的土地。随后，郭先生监督Beijing Pangu Plaza（北京盘古大观）和Xin Wang Plaza（鑫旺广场）的成功建设并按时完工。Pangu Plaza已成为毗邻奥运场馆的北京地标。然而，郭先生对中共腐败的批评引起了严厉反应。当其生命明显处于危险之中时，他于2015年逃往美国。中共在其缺席期间冻结或没收了他在中国的资产，包括由其持有权益的公司所持资产。\n\n中共还导致其在其他地区的资产被没收，包括香港，并促使Interpol（国际刑警组织）就逮捕他发布Red Notice（红色通报）。2017年9月，他在美国申请政治庇护，其申请至今仍在审理中。直至今日，他仍持续批评中共的腐败和侵犯人权行为。多年来，他在YouTube、GTV、Twitter和GETTR等各种数字及媒体平台上积累了追随者——我实际上还得查一下GETTR。我不知道那是什么——他在这些平台上分享自己对于中共以及中国民主必要性的个人看法和意见。他在各社交媒体平台上拥有超过1 million名追随者。值得注意的是，他并未将其社交媒体影响力变现。郭先生未受雇用，并依赖家人的支持，主要是其儿子，以支付其日常生活开支。在其儿子位于Golden Spring, New York的家族办公室中，其儿子为其垫付每月开支。正如我们在本次庭审前不久提交的卷宗编号54的律师报酬声明所述，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的预付聘金由郭先生儿子拥有的另一实体Lamp Capital, LLC（灯塔资本有限责任公司）支付。法庭：好的。我还没有看到，但没关系。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nSILVERBERG先生：转向PACS诉讼。尽管他离开了中国，但并未将所有麻烦抛在身后。我们预计法庭将在本案期间从PACS的律师处听到相当多的内容。我们不会过多谈及该诉讼，但高层次概览或许有助于理解背景。PACS是一家香港投资基金，其在纽约对郭先生和BBI提起诉讼。纽约诉讼于2017年启动，由New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）审理。在纽约诉讼中，郭先生由BakerHostetler（贝克霍斯特勒律师事务所）代理。这些主要是与2008年向一家名为Spirit Charter（精神宪章公司）的中国实体发放的$30 million贷款有关的追收诉讼。PACS声称，郭先生为PACS债务提供了个人保证，并在多年间多次重申该保证，最近一次是在2011年。郭先生同意其于2008年提供了个人保证，但主张该贷款此后已全额偿还，后续文件均系伪造。这就是争议的核心，法官阁下。未经庭审，Ostrager法官作出有利于PACS的简易判决。郭先生已将该判决上诉至上诉分庭，该上诉仍在审理中，但因本案启动而暂停。\n\n与此同时，PACS寻求执行Ostrager法官针对郭先生签发的禁制令，该禁制令禁止其转让或耗散资产，或者将资产移出纽约法院的管辖范围。PACS将注意力高度集中于一艘名为Lady May（“五月女士”号）的游艇。PACS希望该游艇返回纽约，以便其能够扣船并对其实施扣押执行。郭先生否认拥有该游艇，并主张其无法命令游艇返回纽约。Ostrager法官命令郭先生在May 15th, 2021之前将游艇送回纽约，否则游艇在其管辖范围之外每停留一天，将面临$500,000的巨额日罚款。On February 9th，Ostrager法官认定郭先生对Lady May享有实益所有权并控制该游艇，对其作出终局民事藐视法庭命令，并命令其在仅五天内向PACS支付$134 million罚款，否则面临监禁风险。February 9th的裁定也已上诉至上诉分庭。郭先生无力支付罚款，于February 14th聘请本所，并在翌日即申请Chapter 11。他申请Chapter 11，不仅是为了获得自动停止的利益，而且是为了在一个法庭内以有序方式解决其全部请求权。他希望能与债权人就Chapter 11计划的条款达成一致。PACS的律师与本所位于同一栋大楼，仅隔一个电梯厅。他的主要资产是诉讼请求权。假定他——假定他在这些请求权上胜诉，他或许能够为债权人提供全额清偿的资金。他还将向其家庭成员寻求支持，以为该计划提供资金。所有选择都在考虑之中。此外，正如法官阁下在异议中所指出的，人们对所谓的空壳操作和藏匿资产的指控已作了许多论述。如果这些指控属实，而我们认为并非如此，那么破产案件可能是对他们而言发生的最佳事情。案件中可能会任命债权人委员会。United States Trustee（美国受托人）已征询债权人参与的意向。如果任命了委员会，那么他们将有工作要做。主要而言，我们预计他们将调查PACS在其文书中提出的指控，这就引出了请求延长期限的动议。我们与郭先生合作准备其申请的时间极少。这就是那些文书如此单薄的原因。这就是缺陷通知最终列入该命令的原因。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n如果我们有更多时间，我们本会确保财产清单按时提交。或者当然——甚至可能在——可能与申请同时提交。情况远非理想。我们需要完成大量工作，以协助郭先生编制财产清单和声明。On February 23rd，我们告知美国受托人办公室，郭先生拟申请延期。On February 24th，正如法官阁下在Docket 27中所指出的，我们提交了郭先生约60 days延期请求。延期的理由是，我们需要与多年来一直代理郭先生的律师合作，以确保与诉讼有关的资产和负债确实——准确地载入财产清单和声明。此外，由于郭先生不会读写英文，他要求提供官方表格的中文译本。郭先生还将聘请服务提供商协助其编制财产清单和声明。今天上午，我们开始与Strutta（斯特拉塔，发音不确定）商谈，法官阁下可能熟悉该方。正如我所述，法官阁下，我们昨日下午与美国受托人讨论了郭先生的延期请求。昨日，两方当事人对延期动议提出异议，即美国受托人和PACS。两者基本提出相同观点：请求的延期过长，他们希望继续推进案件。\n\n法官阁下，值得提及的是，即使所请求延长后的期限晚于预定的341会议，我们仍认为或许可以与美国受托人合作启动该341会议，然后将其延期，以确保各方有机会审阅这些文件并提出知情的问题。我们认识到，拒绝债权人提出知情问题的机会是不可接受的。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）先生同意，最好加紧工作，以便尽早提交已排定的报表。报表越早提交，他就越早能够确定债权申报截止日期，开始核对债权，并了解其是否能够提出一项可行的 Chapter 11 重整计划。\n\n而且，法官阁下，我已提到我们向美国受托人（United States Trustee）提出的建议；如果进展至该阶段，我准备就若郭先生被传唤作证时其证词将为何内容作一简要陈述。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。让我想一想我是否有——哦，是的，我有一两个问题。这其实不算是问题。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n正如我提到的，而且各位都知道，我们有本案记录的音频。在你们陈述期间提到了一些姓名，我认为如能将其告知书记官办公室，将会很有帮助，以便书记官办公室能够确保这些姓名在本案记录中拼写正确并得到妥善记载。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师（Attorney Silverberg）：当然，法官阁下，我们很乐意提供英文拼写，以及我想我的语音——\n\n法 院：无论——\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：——译法。\n\n法 院：——无论什么——是的。那将非常有帮助，因为我们确实希望记录准确，因此我希望你们这样做。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：我可以想办法——我会与法庭书记员交谈，但我们大概可以请法院书记官联系你，律师，并设法取得该信息，以便我们的记录中明确载有该信息并且准确无误。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：这是我们的荣幸。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。我只是想一想，在你发言时我是否还有其他想法——我的意思是，我确实有其他想法，但是否有任何我想说的事情。\n\n关于 341 会议，以及今天在这里发生的任何事情，我认为，您知道，美国受托人办公室——我认为，即使批准将期限延至 16 日，也应当在第一次会议后不结束该 341 会议，这将是合理的。\n\n我认为这是一个不断变化、存在许多问题的案件，而且，您知道，这是美国受托人办公室的决定，但我敦促其考虑——当然，我现在是在对克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）说——考虑债务人似乎并不反对该 341 会议举行超过一天；鉴于许多问题，我敦促美国受托人办公室考虑这样做，包括我们显然将不得不在那里配备一名口译员，以及可能会有、也可能不会有许多有利害关系且有问题的债权人。\n\n但我想确保向他们及时提供该机会，并给予足够通知，以便在文件提交后，他们有足够时间进行明智的审阅。好吗？\n\n因此，如果可以的话，我敦促你向美国受托人传达这一点，并说明债务人的律师对此没有异议。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我会这样做，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。好。PACS 的律师，您可以继续。\n\n弗里德曼律师（Attorney Friedman）：谢谢。法官阁下，我是来自 O'Melveny and Myers（奥美律师事务所）的彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）。我实际上已向西尔弗伯格律师——\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：是的。\n\n弗里德曼律师：——西尔弗伯格律师交付了我的声明副本。我有装订成册的版本。实际上我有两册，如果我可以把它们呈交给您？\n\n法 院：当然。\n\n弗里德曼律师：我觉得它们或许对您、您和您的书记员——\n\n法 院：当然。\n\n弗里德曼律师：——在我们提及其中的某项内容时——\n\n法 院：谢谢。\n\n弗里德曼律师：——会有帮助。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：弗里德曼律师，在律师发言时，我查看这册材料，您没有异议吧？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：法官阁下，那是——\n\n法 院：我的意思是，先生——我是否叫错名字了？我道歉。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：没关系。\n\n法 院：我同时在看两件事情。是的，那么您没有异议，对吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：我没有异议，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。我对此表示感谢，西尔弗伯格律师。弗里德曼律师，请继续。\n\n弗里德曼律师：法官阁下，我是代表 PACS 的 O'Melveny and Myers 律师事务所彼得·弗里德曼。法官阁下，有许多、许多、许多不同事项值得回应，但让我先从奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）作出的认定这一直接问题开始。奥斯特拉格法官认定，郭先生不能主张这些文件系伪造，因为这与他此前所做的一切不一致——那种主张与他所做的一切不一致。\n\n法 院：等一下，弗里德曼律师。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法 院：那是——等一下，先生。请稍等一下，好吗？他有权进行陈述，您可以稍后听取，因为我们会录音并将其放到——放到案卷上；如果您无法同时进行，之后您可以与债务人交谈并为其口译。但我们必须继续进行听证。\n\n身份不明发言者：我明白。您认为他能用麦克风吗？至少我们在这里能听得更清楚？\n\n法 院：律师，您能否把麦克风稍微拉近一些？\n\n弗里德曼律师：当然，法官阁下。我对该请求的善意抱有严重怀疑。\n\n法 院：我明白。我明白，但我不会——\n\n弗里德曼律师：这种行径，法官阁下——\n\n法 院：我完全明白，但我们不会——我们将继续进行。\n\n弗里德曼律师：是。\n\n法 院：好吗？\n\n弗里德曼律师：当然。\n\n法 院：并且，如同康涅狄格州每一宗破产案件以及全国大多数案件的惯例，本次录音将在——我认为到明天早上就会放到本案案卷上，对吗？速度相当——非常快。在 24 小时内。任何人都可以收听。这不是你的过错，但这些麦克风——\n\n弗里德曼律师：是。\n\n法 院：——有时工作良好，有时则不然。无论出于何种原因，今天那一个工作得不好。那是——\n\n弗里德曼律师：法官阁下，我是否应当试试上面的那个？\n\n法 院：嗯，也许会更好。让我们看看效果如何，好吗？今天那个麦克风出了问题。我无法告诉您原因。\n\n弗里德曼律师：因此，法官阁下，奥斯特拉格法官裁定——我相信意见书在您材料夹的标签 4——郭先生基于一长串理由不能主张文件系伪造。禁止反言，因为他过去曾作出陈述，并且他——他实际上曾出示过那些文件。因此，该主张从表面上看根本不是有意义的主张，也不是本法院最终应当能够对奥斯特拉格法官近期认定作出评判的主张。\n\n法 院：我能否就证物 4 问您一个问题？\n\n弗里德曼律师：可以。\n\n法 院：就是您刚才向我指出的那份证物。当然，我今天之前没有审阅任何材料——\n\n弗里德曼律师：是。\n\n法 院：——但我正在看证物 4，看来奥斯特拉格法官作出了这份——让我看看它是什么——我道歉。让我看看其标题是什么。这是一份关于动议的裁定及命令，他于\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 111 提交于 03/21/22 登记于 03/21/22 15:38:05 第 28 页／共 57 页\n\n2020 年 9 月 15 日作出了这份裁定。是——我这样理解正确吗？\n\n弗里德曼律师：是的，法官阁下。这是他就简易判决动议作出的认定，认定郭先生事实上确实基于个人保证对 PACS 负有金钱债务。\n\n法 院：那么，在简易判决裁定之后发生了什么？是否提起了上诉，或者这被视为中间裁定，还是就您现在向我指出的这一具体裁定而言，情况如何？\n\n弗里德曼律师：因此，该裁定正在上诉中。\n\n法 院：正在上诉中。\n\n弗里德曼律师：该事项已超出——\n\n法 院：好的。\n\n弗里德曼律师：因此，我认为这不是本法院可以审查的问题。\n\n法 院：好的。这正是——\n\n弗里德曼律师：是。\n\n法 院：——我只是想确保我理解，因为如您所见，这里有很多文件，而我——\n\n弗里德曼律师：确实有。\n\n法 院：——只是想确保——\n\n弗里德曼律师：确实有。\n\n法 院：——我想了解其状态，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 111 提交于 03/21/22 登记于 03/21/22 15:38:05 第 29 页／共 57 页\n\n而我现在已经了解。我理解他作出了这些认定，而目前仍在上诉中。\n\n弗里德曼律师：是。不过法官阁下提出了一个很好的问题。之后发生了什么？嗯，之后发生的第一件事是，郭先生为一家名为 Genever New York（Genever纽约）的公司在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）申请破产。\n\n法 院：您在书面材料中提到了该名称——\n\n弗里德曼律师：是。\n\n法 院：——所以我的名称没有弄错。我见过它。\n\n弗里德曼律师：对。因此，令人非常不安的是，其未被列为关联破产案件，因为郭先生拥有一家名为 Genever——Genever, British Virgin Islands 的公司 100 percent 的股权。即 Genever Holdings, British Virgin Islands，而后者又拥有纽约南区一家债务人 100 percent 的股权。这当然是关联方的典型情形。其未在破产申请书中列明。这确实令人担忧，也是我们认为不应当给予超过国会法定 14 日期限之延长的原因之一。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 111 提交于 03/21/22 登记于 03/21/22 15:38:05 第 30 页／共 57 页\n\n纽约南区的该实体目前是——此事太长，无法在此详述。最终，我们将请求本法院给予救济，允许我们采取行动——维护郭先生对该实体的所有权权利，并反对其家属提出的虚假债权。这是他挫败我们促使该判决得到履行之努力的一部分。法官阁下，国会规定 14 日是有原因的。我们认为这很重要。我当然要说，很多时候我也会处于请求延长提交报表期限的立场，坦率地说——也就是提交日期。坦率地说，我不确定我是否曾见过有人提出异议，因为通常都有充分理由。可能是一个持续经营的企业，拥有数百家子公司。可能是一个实体，在最初几天可能必须处理供应商、债权人和雇员的事务，而无法立即及时地予以关注。这里没有任何一种情况属实。郭先生不是一个持续经营的企业。他在其 IDI 和破产申请书中主张自己根本没有任何资产，这当然引发了一个问题：这里怎么可能存在重整目的？怎么可能存在 Chapter 11 目的？鉴于其所有资产腾挪行为，而且——这不是我说的。你从对方律师那里听到的一切都是他自己的说法。我有奥斯特拉格法官的意见书，而那些\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n判决意见和事实认定表明，Kwok先生（郭文贵）利用迷宫般的实体网络、家属和受信赖的亲信来转移资产。这样的人不能在第11章程序中担任债权人的受托人。他绝不会对家属及其他关联实体提起请求。这对本案的目的提出了极为严重的疑问。法官阁下，我还要补充一点，存在一项\\$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。这并非仅由Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）施加。该罚款已获纽约州上诉分庭一致维持。法庭：我看到了。FRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼先生）：这是Kwok先生自己造成的。他等待了268天。这就是金额如此之大的原因。Kwok先生不能在本法庭对州法院关于Kwok先生拥有——对Lady May（“Lady May”号）享有受益权益的裁定提出质疑。坦率地说，任何负责任的债务人早已提出§ 542返还动议，要求控制该游艇的人将其完整返还给Kwok先生。显然这并未发生。法官阁下，我谨指出，今晚稍后我们将提出一项动议，请求您裁定自动中止不适用于针对Kwok先生的民事藐视法庭命令；另行提出一项备位动议，请求您裁定，如自动中止确实适用，则应修改自动中止，以允许Ostrager法官要求将Lady May返还至纽约港。我们并不请求现在即可对其执行或收取款项，但不应允许Kwok先生将如此有价值的资产置于美国境外；该资产应被带回此处，以便最终能够得到适当变现和清算。再次说明，我认为Ostrager法官的认定最终不应由本法庭复核，也不应受到事后质疑，因为这些认定属于一项已在上诉中的命令的一部分。Kwok先生在纽约就临时中止动议败诉。他甚至不能向任何人提供任何——哪怕是最轻微程度的信心，证明他在该上诉中有胜诉的可能性。现在，我们认为该民事藐视法庭命令不受自动中止约束的理由还引出另一个问题，即我们还认为，这将产生一项\\$134 million的不可免除债权。我们在脚注中指出了这一点。我们还将提起一项对抗程序，以裁定该债务不可免除；这也引出了一个问题：当Kwok先生在获得免责后仍将面临\\$134 million债务时，怎么可能会有一项可行的第11章计划？\n\n我认为，这类问题使债务人动议第15段中的一切都受到质疑。他们谈到聘请律师、聘请财务顾问，以及利用他人的资金提出计划。法官阁下，我知道我们必须向您证明许多事情。但我们掌握证据。其中许多事情已由Ostrager法官认定。这不是一个以哪怕略微接近清白之手的姿态来到您面前的债务人。\n\n我无论如何都无法理解，如果一名法官已认定你对价值\\$30 million的某项财产享有受益所有权，你竟然甚至未在申请书的脚注中提及。\n\n这实在令人震惊。有人竟然不将债务人的关联方列出，而表格中明明设有专门栏目，这实在令人震惊。\n\n更令人震惊的是，Kwok先生用作其家族办公室的实体被列为第二大债权人，而指示明确规定不得列出内部人士。一家由其儿子控制、为其生活开支提供资金的公司，是非制定法内部人士的典型例子。\n\n法官阁下，一份经核实并在法律处罚之下签署的申请书，竟充斥着如此之多的不诚实内容，令人震惊。我还要补充，即使是Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）今日下午提交的文件，也称其将根据一笔贷款获得付款。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n案件 22-50073 文书 111 于 03/21/22 提交 于 03/21/22 15:38:05 登记 第 34 页，共 57 页\n\n该笔贷款由Lamp（兰普）——同样也是Kwok先生的家族办公室——向Kwok先生提供。因此，看看财产清单——申请书。Lamp因该笔贷款而被列为一名百万美元级债权人。但是，即使该笔贷款仍然——仍作为预付聘用费存放于Brown Rudnick处，它仍是Kwok先生的财产，因此我不知道他们如何能够评估或主张他拥有零资产。根据该笔贷款，他带着\\$998,000的资产进入本案。这是一笔申请前贷款。再次说明，仅仅是迄今对本法庭缺乏坦诚，就促使我们认为——不应给予任何宽宥。我想指出，在我们的书面意见中，我们援引了Ostrager法官所说的几乎所有内容，但我没有援引其中一段我认为极其重要的内容。它出现在Ostrager法官意见书第7页。法庭：您希望我看哪一份意见书？我想确保——FRIEDMAN先生：这是藐视法庭命令，法官阁下。法庭：那么，附在你们的异议之后？FRIEDMAN先生：是的，也附在美国受托人的异议之后。法庭：哦，但这里的文件册中也有？FRIEDMAN先生：是的，也附在美国受托人的异议之后。法庭：好的。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：那可能是最容易找到的方式。法庭：如果您给我一点时间，我会找到它。（暂停）法庭：我想我这里有，但让我确认一下。8 一项关于动议的决定及命令，日期为February 9, 2022。共十页。对吗？FRIEDMAN先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。请继续。我找到了。FRIEDMAN先生：因此，在我谈到引文之前，我想指出，这是在一次现场审理之后作出的，也是在Kwok先生的女儿——律师刚才提到的那位——被Ostrager法官基本认定为说谎者之后作出的。当您阅读该意见书时，您会看到——Ostrager法官提及其证言缺乏可信度的情况。他不是唯一这样做的法官。Liman法官（利曼法官）以及纽约南区（Southern District of New York）的案件中，也对其关于家庭成员之间资金转移的证言可信度提出了极其、极其严重的怀疑。法官阁下，第7页写道，Kwok就Lady May所策划的与这场空壳游戏有关的种种操弄，与Kwok在该诉讼待决五年期间所采取的每一项其他规避和藐视行为如出一辙，这就是本案有1,180项案卷记录的原因。而且显然，法官阁下，为避免本案演变成那个案件，Kwok已经采取如此多极其规避且不诚实的步骤，以至于无法与作为第11章债务人的善意要求相一致。国会要求在14天内作出披露。请求给予60天，往轻了说，也是骇人听闻。我们请求法庭整体驳回该动议。但法官阁下，我还要说一件事。12 最终，我意识到，您知道，您的职责是权衡各种因素。我们坚信不应给予任何延期。但如果因为今天将届满，而给予数日延期至本周末，我们当然——您知道——不会说，因为你没有在今天营业结束前提交某项文件，本案就应自动驳回。因此，您知道，尽管我对这些问题感受强烈，我相信您能够看出来，我不会反对延期。我们的委托人不会反对将其延期至星期五。我们认为，鉴于Kwok先生已在其IDI中称其没有资产，其中一部分应当很容易。\n\n如果存在这些或有诉讼，似乎不可能相信他尚不知道它们，而应尽快将其列入清单，以便我们能够坦率地深入调查。如有必要，视其中披露的内容而定，我们甚至可能在其341会议期间寻求规则2004证据开示。\n\n但我们认为，为了采取适当的341审查，我们需要有完整且公平的机会继续追查其资产，而且，您知道，我认为——我不知道法庭是否对我有任何问题，但这些是我认为就我们的异议值得处理的关键问题。\n\n法庭：我不确定我是否有任何问题。我已经看过你们的异议，尽管我要说，我直到今天才看，而我们今天确实举行了听证，因此我昨天看了美国受托人的异议。该文件提交时我有更多时间。我确实看过你们的异议。不过，我打算再次审阅它，如同我审阅美国受托人的异议一样，也会审阅延期动议。\n\n因此，但我认为在本次听证开始时我已经相当明确，绝不会给予60天的延期。如果有延期，也不会是60天。律师称他已向美国受托人办公室提出一项提议，将期限延至March 16th。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n你表示，如果法庭作出命令将截止日期延至March 4th，你不会反对。从某些方面来说，我们相差不大，但我理解你们的立场。\n\n如果你们两位不想就此交谈并看看是否可以就某些事项达成一致，也可以。法庭将作出裁定。我这样做没有任何问题。\n\n但如果你们想花些时间谈一谈，我们也可以这样做，你们都可以——我们可以休庭五分钟。我们不必休庭。你们想怎样都可以。\n\n但现在，就在今天，问题是，是否将批准延期。两名提出异议的当事人——我想我已经，我认为，很明确，即当我已表示不会给予60天延期时，我显然认为这些异议有其依据。只是——不会发生。这不适当。在我能想到的极少数案件中，这也许会是适当的。而本案不是其中之一。好吗？因此这一点很明确。美国受托人办公室似乎接受March 16th。你们希望是March 4th。341会议是哪一天？CLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩女士）：法官阁下，请原谅我打断法庭。法庭：没关系。CLAIBORN女士：我尚未就美国受托人关于该日期的立场发表意见。法庭：哦。抱歉。CLAIBORN女士：而且我不知道律师是否希望接受法庭所提供的机会，在我们那样做之前先讨论一分钟，还是——法庭：我可以休庭五分钟。不会——CLAIBORN女士：我只是不知道当事人是否有兴趣讨论此事。法庭：是的。如果没有有意义的讨论，也没关系。我不强迫任何人做任何事。如果你们愿意接受，我给你们一个机会。如果你们不愿意接受，也没关系。您知道，我对此没有任何问题。SILVERBERG先生（西尔弗伯格先生）：法官阁下，如果PACS坚持March 4th，从后勤角度看这根本不可行，因此——法庭：嗯，从谈判角度而言，这可能属实，但我可能会命令这样做。因此，您知道，这就是我们目前的情况。没关系。你们——每一位——都已表明你们的立场，而我甚至还没有询问Wolman律师（沃尔曼律师）的立场可能是什么，因为他正在参加本次听证，但你们已明确表明你们的立场。这不是一项\n\n对法院而言需要裁决的复杂问题。我确实想花几分钟回头看看文件，我现在就可以这样做。我可以休庭 5、10、15 分钟。这无关紧要。然后我可以回来今天作出裁定，或者明天作出裁定。这并不复杂。我并不担心作出裁定。这一点我可以告诉你们。因此，你们想如何进行都可以。我是在试图给你们一个机会，向我建议你们认为怎样做比较合理。如果你们想休庭讨论一下，也可以。如果不想，我们可以结束本次听证，我可以明天作出裁定，或者我们可以休庭，我可以争取今晚回来作出裁定。这两种进行方式中的任何一种，我都没有问题。SILVERBERG先生（西尔弗伯格先生）：所以，我一贯处于达成交易的模式，因此如果 PACS 想发言，那么——法院：那么，我们何不——现在是 5:00 差 10 分。我们何不——WOLMAN先生（沃尔曼先生）：法官阁下。法院：是。哦，Wolman律师（沃尔曼律师）。抱歉。WOLMAN先生：我可以发言吗？法院：请讲。WOLMAN先生：没关系。我只是想简要说明，但我觉得这应当被听取。我们没有\n\n1　提交任何文件，但我们总体上加入 Cheng先生（程先生）针对美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）和 PACS 所提出异议的立场。\n\n2　\n\n3　一些背景情况，Cheng先生是在内华达州遭受 Guo先生（郭文贵）一系列诽谤诉讼活动侵害的受害者。\n\n4　\n\n5　Cheng先生本人反对中国共产党，\n\n6　他对 Guo先生处理该运动的方式提出异议，\n\n7　可以说，在 Guo先生制作了关于\n\n8　Cheng先生的诽谤性视频之后，我的当事人发了几条推文，随后\n\n9　自己便成为反 SLAPP 诉讼的对象。\n\n10　现在，法院知悉所谓的\n\n11　反对公众参与的策略性诉讼（SLAPP）案件。\n\n12　内华达州有一部非常强有力的反 SLAPP 法律。\n\n13　而我的当事人——\n\n14　法院：等一下，Wolman律师。\n\n15　等一下。警报响了。\n\n16　Glen，你认为我们需要——\n\n17　法警：我会告知您。\n\n18　法院：好的。抱歉，楼里的警报\n\n19　响了。\n\n20　WOLMAN先生：好的。\n\n21　法院：所以你只需要等一下。\n\n22　我的意思是，你可以试着说话。Wolman律师，在警报响着的时候，\n\n23　你能听见吗，还是——美国\n\n24　法警现在要去查看我们是否需要\n\n25　疏散。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 111，提交日期 03/21/22，录入日期 03/21/22 15:38:05，第 42 页，共 57 页\n\nWOLMAN先生：不，如果您需要疏散，法官阁下——法院：嗯，我现在还不知道。我正在等候得知情况。WOLMAN先生：我待在我所在的地方没问题。法院：他们会告知我们。如果我们必须疏散，那么我认为你必须从前门出去。好吗？并站在大楼前面。但他们会告诉你。应该有人会告诉你。（暂停）法院：John，我们需要疏散吗？法警：暂时留在这里。法院：暂时留在这里？法警：暂时留在这里。我们的警报系统出了问题。我们正在重新布线。法院：好的。法警：如果有任何情况，我们会尽快告知您。法院：好。好。我们正在听证中间——John，我们正在听证中，所以我会继续说话，其他人也会继续说话。好吗？哦，那里。好的。哦，我们看看。好的。是这样吗？不过不是在我们开庭时，但对。不过，好的。非常感谢你查看。我很感激。\n\n好的。Wolman律师，如果你可以——抱歉，我不记得你具体停在何处，但你当时在谈一宗诽谤诉讼和其他一些问题。WOLMAN先生：对。是的，法官阁下。Cheng先生是在内华达州遭受 Guo先生一系列诉讼活动侵害的受害者，他在一项反 SLAPP 动议中胜诉，该案被驳回，因为 Guo先生无法证明其案件具有任何法律依据。内华达州反 SLAPP 法有一项所谓的 SLAPP 反诉条款，因为尽管该法向胜诉的被告判给律师费，但这并非遭受起诉这一伤害的全部。因此，为执行律师费判决，已在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提起诉讼，因为 Guo先生起初并未付款，直至 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）提供资金支付该判决，因此我们提起诉讼以执行该判决，并根据内华达州法律中的 SLAPP 反诉理论提起诉讼，以请求补偿性损害赔偿。事实上，该案已经为简易判决作好准备，当时代表 Guo先生、Kwok先生（郭文贵）的 Gavimen律师（加维门律师）加快提交其答复备忘录，以便在破产申请提交之前及时提交，而该案在其他方面已经完成书面陈述。\n\n法官阁下，这场诉讼已经持续相当长时间，事实上，一年前我曾有机会对 Guo先生进行证言录取。甚至在今天，这里也确实有一些我此前不知道的有趣情况，例如 Guo先生现与其妻子居住在康涅狄格州。因此，这些都是——这些是关于 Guo先生浮现的事实，即他陈述但随后并不佐证的事实，这令人担忧。他在内华达州的起诉状列举了许多关于其背景的事项，他今天的律师复述了其中一些。然而，当我们在纽约南区就此寻求证据开示时，因为这些事项当然应当是重要且相关的，他予以抵制。他提出异议。他拒绝佐证其中任何事项。我们就其财务状况寻求某些证据开示，而他拒绝。他予以抵制。事实上，就无需提供该等信息而言，他援引第五修正案特权，并且成功如此做。Failla法官（法伊拉法官）认为，援引第五修正案特权是适当的，因此我们将因此获得不利推定。此人自称是亿万富翁。这是他在全球范围内展示自己的方式。事实上，在\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n2月9日，新闻界一片沸腾，不仅因为 PACS 案件中的制裁裁决，还因为 Guo先生——报道特别提到他的名字——在伦敦针对 UBS（瑞银）提出的 $500 million 索赔中，就一项管辖地动议胜诉，他是该案原告。也许是通过其某个实体。我们不知道。\n\n这意味着法院应当审慎对待所说的一切，而且——你知道，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克），我不反对他们试图挑起争端，但他们是新加入的。他们不了解 Guo先生，他们需要——本法院也需要审慎对待他所说的一切。\n\n因此，我确实认为 3月4日或许过早，因为他们需要自行核实，他们将向法院提交此前未经核实的材料。因此，你知道，这将属于他们的职责范围，他们需要进行尽职调查。\n\n因此，我们当然希望确保律师有时间这样做，但也要在此取得平衡，使我们在第 341 条会议之前有时间进行审查。\n\n虽然我们被列为债权人，但我应当指出，我们在动议中提出，我们认为自己实际上是 20 名最大债权人之一。但这在申请书中没有陈述，事实上，Golden Springs（金泉），正如 PACS 指出的，内幕人士被列为债权人且为 20 名最大债权人之一。因此，这里的申报材料已经存在一些不当之处，而且，你知道，我们只是想确保有足够时间。我希望是在第 341 条会议前一周，而不是仅仅几天，因为我需要与我们在纽约案件中收到的其他材料相比较，我们可能还需要处理该案中适用的保护令及其在本案中的适用方式。但是，你知道，我们在其他方面加入美国受托人和 PACS 对该 60 天延期提出的异议，并请求将期限定为至少在第 341 条会议前一周。法院：好的。谢谢。好。我将休庭十分钟。我们将在 5:10 返回，然后我将听取各方是否有任何想报告的事项，之后我将作出裁定。因此，法院休庭。书记员：全体起立。法院休庭。（下午 4:48 至下午 5:09 休庭）法院：好的。在 Silverberg律师和 Friedman律师（弗里德曼律师）、Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩律师）及 Wolman律师就债务人要求延长提交破产法及规则所要求文件的期限的动议发表陈述后，我们进行了短暂休庭。我不知道，Silverberg律师、Friedman律师，你们是否进行过任何讨论。我看到你们摇头表示没有。SILVERBERG先生：遗憾的是——法官阁下，Brown Rudnick 代表债务人的 Bennett Silverman（本内特·西尔弗曼）。遗憾的是，那些讨论没有成效。我们提出给予几天时间——法院：没关系。我不需要知道。谢谢。SILVERBERG先生：好的。法院：没关系。我很感激，但我不需要知道。我只需要知道不存在协议。SILVERBERG先生：不存在协议，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。Claiborn律师。CLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，如果我现在可以就延期动议发表意见，我还想向法院提出其他一些意见。法院：可以。CLAIBORN女士：我先从这些意见开始。法院：稍等一下，Claiborn律师。这里有东西在回声。我不知道为什么会有回声。我能听到你，Claiborn律师。然后我又能\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n听到你一次。CLAIBORN女士：哦，太好了。法院：所以我们只是想确保能正确听到你。（暂停）书记员：喂，喂。我仍然能听到它。法院：是的，我认为我们将不得不——你还能录音吗，还是需要先解决这个问题？书记员：仍在录音，但我不知道它是否会录到这个回声。法院：我认为我们会没事的。书记员：好的。法院：无论如何我们试一下，好吗？然后如果情况确实很糟，你就告诉我们，我们会——书记员：好的。法院：——我们会停止。我们是否应当通知信息技术部门的任何人？书记员：嗯，我给 Peter（彼得）发了消息，希望那会——我会给 Will（威尔）发消息。法院：好的。书记员：好的。法院：好的。我们看看情况如何——CLAIBORN女士：我使用哪个\n\n麦克风会有区别吗？法院：不，遗憾的是，它是从这里传出来的。所以请继续，我们看看效果如何，好吗？CLAIBORN女士：谢谢。法官阁下，我想简要谈及几个事项，第一个是申请书，以及 Kwok先生的律师今天就他在 Greenwich（格林尼治）的住所所作的陈述，随后 Wolman律师评论说，他此前并不知道 Greenwich 是一处住所。我想向法院指出，在申请书中，债务人就“你居住在哪里”这一问题所填地址是 Golden Spring。其没有列出他的居住地址。由于此前表达的一些担忧，我们一直以为债务人将采取一些措施来保护有关他实际居住地的信息。这尚未发生。但我确实想提出一个相关问题，即昨天的初步债务人访谈简要涉及 Kwok先生在哪里收取邮件这一话题，并谈到了将信息寄往何处的问题。所表达的担忧是，如果邮件寄往 Golden Spring 地址——这是法院仅有的地址——邮件或许无法送达正确地点。\n\n已送达债务人。因此，我提出这一点，是因为我希望确保债务人在本案中确实就所有适当的诉状获得适当通知，并确保各方均知悉应使用何种适当地址联系债务人。我想发表的另一项意见是，总体而言，根据今天所作的陈述，以及昨天在初次债务人访谈中了解到的信息，本案呈现出一种颇为特殊的组合：无资产、巨额债务，并且需要作出解释。美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）目前认为，可能适宜申请指定一名审查员，我希望就此向法院预先说明。我们已向债务人的律师提出这一意见，他们已知悉。因此，我希望向法官阁下提出这几点，然后我还想补充说明，就今天的延期申请而言，美国受托人认为——抱歉，3月9日最为合适。该日期介于对方当事人提出的日期之间，并且为各方留出一周以上的提前时间，以审阅和消化相关材料，并准备召开一次有实质意义的债权人会议。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？西尔弗伯格律师（Attorney Silverberg），关于地址所提出的问题很重要。申请书上的地址与您——嗯，您没有提供地址，但您说他居住在格林尼治（Greenwich）——所说的地址不同。如有地址变更，我们有一项地方法规，也有一份本地表格，必须予以填写，因为显然通知和送达必须适当作出。因此，我不知道您将如何处理此事，但我告诉您，我届时会关注这一点，因为如果债务人居住在格林尼治，这与申请书所载内容并不一致。因此，我不会再进一步说明。我只是告诉您我目前对此的看法。好的？\n\n西尔弗伯格先生：我们理解有关纽约地址的问题。鉴于他与中国共产党（CCP）等方面的经历，曾希望对其康涅狄格州格林尼治地址予以保密。因此，我想，您知道，在我们准备申请书时，我们没有意识到该地址已在公共领域中如此广泛地公开。法院：好的。\n\n西尔弗伯格先生：我们后来得知，对该地址被公开可能并不存在那么大的敏感性；一旦我们与债务人确认此事，我们将完成适当文书，将地址修正，以确保他获得通知。法院：好的。好。谢谢。还有其他人希望就延长提交破产法及规则要求文件期限的动议发言吗？以及我们的地方法规亦是如此。〔无可听见的回应〕法院：好的。如我今天早些时候在本次听证会开始时所表示，在过去几天中，我已审阅本案提交的文件，包括债务人请求将提交清单或提供所需信息的期限延长至2022年5月2日的动议，即ECF No. 27。我还审阅了——并且再次在休庭期间查看了——美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）就该动议提交的异议，即ECF No. 49，以及PACS就该延期动议提交的异议，如允许我简称PACS，即ECF No. 50。我还听取了西尔弗伯格律师、弗里德曼律师（Attorney Friedman）、克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）、沃尔曼律师（Attorney Wolman）的陈述和辩论，并已将这些\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore速记与转录服务公司）\n\n辩论纳入对债务人所提请求的考量。\n\n如我所示明的，并且我知道各位都知道，《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code），尤其是《破产法典》第521条，要求债务人作为其义务的一部分，提交一系列文件，以协助并帮助完成第11章案件的管理。\n\n这些文件极为重要，且有必要向债权人提供适当通知和信息，以便债权人能够决定其是否希望在第341条会议上对债务人进行有实质意义的询问；根据《破产法典》第341、42、43条，债务人不仅必须出席该会议，还必须在该会议上作证。\n\n除要求债务人提供——抱歉，履行特定义务，作为来到法院所承担责任一部分的法典条款外，《联邦破产程序规则》（Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure）1007还要求提交确定文件，包括财务状况说明书、资产、负债清单及其他清单，以及个人案件中的A至G、H和I附表；《联邦破产程序规则》1007(c)规定，完成该等事项的期限为随申请书一并提交，或于其后14日内提交。\n\n就本债务人的案件而言，其后14日即为今天，因为本案于2月15日提交。法院已审议债务人提出的所有请求以及针对该请求提出的反对理由，法院裁定如下。根据11 USC第521条及规定债务人义务的《破产法典》其他适用条款、《联邦破产程序规则》1007(c)以及我们的地方法院破产程序规则1007-1，债务人的延期动议部分准许。债务人必须不迟于2022年3月9日提交所有必要的说明书和清单，包括依照我刚才列举的破产法条款、《联邦破产程序规则》及我们的地方法院破产规则要求提交的所有文件。这是法院的裁定。有人有任何问题吗？西尔弗伯格先生：没有，法官阁下，谢谢。法院：好的。这是我们今天需要处理的唯一事项。伯尼律师（Attorney Birney），您还有其他希望向法院提出的事项吗？伯尼先生：没有。没有，法官阁下。只是，谢谢。很高兴又能——我们很高兴又能亲自出庭。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore速记与转录服务公司）\n\n法院：是的，能够亲自出庭很好。还有其他人有任何问题或任何\n\n法院：——希望今天提出处理的事项吗？克莱特先生（Mr. Kletter）：哦，法官阁下，我可以免于出席今后的听证会吗？西尔弗伯格先生可以出席任何后续——法院：可以，您已获准pro hac，所以可以免于出席，律师。克莱特先生：谢谢。法院：好的？西尔弗伯格先生：谢谢，法官阁下。该pro hac——法院：不过，显然就送达而言，仍可向该本地地址进行送达。克莱特先生：正确。法院：即使您获免于出席，这没有问题。克莱特先生：是。法院：如果有人仅向您办公室、您的本地办公室地址送达债务人文件，依规则这仍视为适当送达。好的？克莱特先生：是。谢谢。法院：好的。我唯一还要说的是，我已经作出裁定。第341条会议已经排定。我已就我关于\n\n第341条会议的敦促与克莱伯恩律师谈过，但该事项在办公室——该事项由美国受托人办公室掌握。今天本案的日程表上没有其他事项。弗里德曼律师，您有什么想补充的吗？弗里德曼先生：有，法官阁下，只是因为我不熟悉您的一般惯例。您还会签发一项命令，还是以记录稿作为命令？法院：我可以——如果您希望我这样做——我通常会做的，如果您愿意，并且我很乐意这样做，就是签发一项电子命令。好的？但该命令很可能要到明天早上才会记入案卷。截至目前，即2002年3月1日下午5时23分〔原文如此〕，现予命令。好的？弗里德曼先生：是。谢谢。法院：电子命令录入后，将写明截至——我刚才所说的时间——2022年3月1日下午5时23分。好的？这样，您至少会有本次听证会记录稿以外的文件。我理解可能还会提交其他诉状。当事人已提到这一点。法院选择我所选择日期的原因，是因为我确实认为，给予债权人有实质意义的机会审阅信息，并决定其是否希望参加第341条会议，是很重要的；正如我经常\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 57 of 57\n1　所说，《破产法典》第341条名为，\n2　债权人会议，而这正是其目的。\n3　因此，我——这就是我作出如上\n4　裁定的原因，今天下午法院没有其他\n5　需要处理的事项，除非我遗漏了什么。\n6　好的。\n谢谢。\n这也是\n7　今日日程表上的最后一项事项，因此休庭。\n8　弗里德曼先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n9　身份不明的发言人：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n10　西尔弗伯格先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n11　（庭审程序于下午5时23分结束。）\n12　本人，克里斯廷·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），经认证电子法庭\n13　记录员兼转录员，证明上述内容为\n14　上述案件程序官方电子录音的\n15　正确记录稿。\n\n19　2022年3月21日\n20　Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","CIPA","CCP","Ho Wan Kwok","GETTR","Chinese Communist Party","GTV"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":49,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":12222,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-21","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:16:10"}