{"id":"court_ctb_114_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":114,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-03-22","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 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\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 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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\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\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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n|    | 29                                                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | and I do now.<br>I understand that he made these findings and |\n| 2  | that's still on appeal at the moment.                         |\n| 3  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Yeah.<br>But Your Honor asks a great         |\n| 4  | question.<br>What happened after that?                        |\n| 5  | Well, what happened after that, the first thing               |\n| 6  | that happened, is that Mr. Kwok filed a company called        |\n| 7  | Genever New York, for bankruptcy in the Southern District of  |\n| 8  | New York.                                                     |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>And you mentioned that in your                  |\n| 10 | papers --                                                     |\n| 11 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Yeah.                                        |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>-- so I have that name correct.<br>I've         |\n| 13 | seen it.                                                      |\n| 14 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Right.<br>So very upsetting that that        |\n| 15 | was not listed as an affiliated bankruptcy, because Mr. Kwok  |\n| 16 | owns 100 percent of the equity of a company called Genever -  |\n| 17 | - Genever, British Virgin Islands.                            |\n| 18 | It's<br>Genever Holdings, British Virgin Islands,             |\n| 19 | which in turn owns 100 percent of the equity of a debtor in   |\n| 20 | the Southern District of New York.<br>That is, of course, the |\n| 21 | classic case of an affiliate.                                 |\n| 22 | It wasn't listed on a petition.<br>Really troubling,          |\n| 23 | and one of the animating forces behind why we think no        |\n| 24 | extension should be given beyond the 14 days that congress    |\n| 25 | provides statutorily.                                         |\n|    |                                                               |\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 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 114 Filed 03/22/22 Entered 03/22/22 09:34:07 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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\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| file anything, but we do join generally to Mr. Cheng in the    |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| objections both by the U.S. Trustee and by PACS.               |\n| A little background, Mr. Cheng was the victim in               |\n| Nevada of Mr. Guo's serial campaign of defamation lawsuits.    |\n| Mr. Cheng himself opposes the Chinese Communist Party, and     |\n| he took issue with how Mr. Guo was addressing that movement,   |\n| as it were, and after Mr. Guo made a defamatory video about    |\n| Mr. Cheng, my client had a few tweets, and then found          |\n| himself the subject of the SLAPP suit.                         |\n| Now the Court is aware with about lawsuits that                |\n| are called strategic lawsuits against (indiscernible)          |\n| participation.<br>Nevada has a very strong anti-SLAPP statute. |\n| And my client --                                               |\n| THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second, Attorney Wolman.               |\n| Hold on a second.<br>The alarm is going off.                   |\n| Glen, do you think we need to --                               |\n| THE MARSHAL: I'll let you know.                                |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I'm sorry, but the alarm is             |\n| going off in the building.                                     |\n| MR. WOLMAN:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| THE COURT:<br>So you just need to wait one second.             |\n| I mean, you can try to talk.<br>Can you hear, Attorney Wolman, |\n|                                                                |\n| even when the alarm is going, or -- the United States          |\n| marshal going to go check right now to see if we need to       |\n|                                                                |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 114 Filed 03/22/22 Entered 03/22/22 09:34:07 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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\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\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\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 114 Filed 03/22/22 Entered 03/22/22 09:34:07 Page 57 of 57\n\n say, the section of the Bankruptcy Code 341 is entitled, Meeting of Creditors, and that's its point. And so I -- that is why I've ruled as I have ruled, and there is nothing further for the Court to attend to this afternoon, unless I'm forgetting something. Okay. Thank you. And that's the last matter on today's calendar, so court is adjourned. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. SILVERBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 5:23 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 19 March 21, 2022 20 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 桥港分院 关于　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊　案号：22-50073 (JAM) 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊ HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　　　　　　　　　　＊　康涅狄格州桥港市 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊　2022年3月1日 债务人。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　＊ ＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊　＊ 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 尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁） 美国联邦破产法院法官 出庭人员： 代表债务人： BENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ.（贝内特·西尔弗伯格，律师） Brown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所） Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 代表债权人 Pacific PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼，律师） Alliance Asia Opportunity PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼，律师） Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）： STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫，律师） ASHLEY MARIE, ESQ.（阿什莉·玛丽，律师） O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所） Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼，律师） Robinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所） 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103-3597 代表债权人 Logan JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼，律师） Cheng（程洛根）： Randazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团专业有限责任公司） 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 庭审由电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。 Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司） 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表美国受托人： HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师） Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室） The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n（庭审于下午4时03分开始。）\n\n书记员：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法院：好的。下午好。请各位为记录目的说明出庭身份，先请债务人的代理律师？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的 Bennet Silverberg（贝内特·西尔弗伯格）。与我一同出庭的是我的出庭担保律师 Dylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特）。\n\n法院：两位下午好，我想——\n\nKLETTER先生：下午好。\n\n法院：——Silverberg律师，似乎已有一项命令准许您以临时出庭资格出庭，是吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：是的，法官阁下，我们对此表示感谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nBIRNEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的 Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼），代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），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法院：下午好。\n\nBIRNEY先生：位于我左侧的是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）律师。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nBIRNEY先生：还有另外几位人士。David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）律师和 Ashley Marie（阿什莉·玛丽）均来自 O'Melveny（奥美律师事务所）。法官阁下，临时出庭资格动议已提交并获您准许，今日将由 Friedman先生主导辩论。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。谢谢各位。欢迎各位。请继续，Claiborn律师。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：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法院：下午好。Wolman律师。\n\nWOLMAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Randazza Legal Group（兰达扎法律集团）的 Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程洛根）。\n\n法院：下午好。好的。\n\nWOLMAN先生：并且，法官阁下，非常感谢您允许我远程出庭。\n\n法院：是的，如我所指出的——哦，我忘了打开摄像头。抱歉，Wolman律师。我们今天进行不同——\n\nWOLMAN先生：没关系。\n\n法院：——类型的听证会，所以我甚至不知道您是否能——是否有效，但无论如何，它已经在那里。如我所指出的，您知道，这是一次加急听证会，因此您获准今日远程参与。我们已经恢复在法庭内开庭。法庭内有若干人，但大家均佩戴口罩，且显然，您知道，对保持距离感到适应，因此我们今天将继续进行。现在，在我们具体讨论任何事项之前，我收到消息称，今日有一名债务人的口译员在场。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：在我们就此讨论任何事项之前，我只是想——其他律师是否了解债务人今日有口译员在场？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是的，法官阁下。我是代表 PACS、来自 O'Melveny and Myers（奥美律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我们了解。\n\n法院：好的。您是否反对使用该口译员？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：不反对，法官阁下。我不反对使用该口译员。\n\n法院：好的。您认为该口译员具有资格翻译债务人所说的任何内容吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我没有任何依据作出肯定或否定的判断。\n\n法院：好的。我从美国受托人办公室提交的书面文件中了解到，我认为是在昨天提交的，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，有一名债务人的口译员在场。对吗？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\nCLAIBORN女士：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，随后债务人有其自己的私人口译员，亲自与债务人在场。\n\n法院：那么——那么今日在场的这位先生——我甚至不该这样说。我因为正看向法庭后方而假定其为先生，但今日在场的这位先生，是否就是在初次债务人面谈期间陪同债务人的同一位先生？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：不是，法官阁下。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：不是，法官阁下。这位——口译员的姓名是 John Lau（刘约翰）。\n\n法院：好的。好的。我只需要在某个时候了解，如果 Lau先生将要翻译债务人所说的任何内容，我想了解 Lau先生的资格，如果我们进行到那一步。好吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：明白。\n\n法院：您知道，我们显然没有准备安排口译员，但这并不一定是问题。我只是向您说明，我不希望——如果将对口译员存在任何争议，我不会让听证会继续进行并举行。这就是我的意思。好吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好。现在——\n\n书记员：法官，很抱歉。我们没有听清 Claiborn律师刚才所说的——所说的话。很抱歉。她离麦克风有些远。\n\n法院：是的，这不是您的过错，Claiborn律师。问题是，我们都戴着口罩并且，您知道，保持距离，有时——我们可能得请您说得稍微大声一些。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我会尽力说得更大声。\n\n法院：谢谢。即使仅仅是那个——不幸的是，那个角度会使麦克风更好地收录您的声音。而且，我想各位都知道，我们的记录是音频记录，因此我们必须非常谨慎地使用麦克风。如果有时我请您，或者有人请您重复一遍，是因为我们需要确保我们有清晰的记录。好吗？好。因此，大约一周前——我可以调出来。你们现在可能都比我更了解，书记员办公室在本案中录入了一项案卷条目，涉及自愿申请的债务人在破产案件中必须提交的申请书及其他文件存在的某些瑕疵。修正后的申请书已提交。我看到了。那纠正了该项瑕疵。存在一项——我理解，您知道，该办公室认为他们有时可以使用他人的号码，但我们不允许这样做，因此这就是为何需要提交修正后的申请书。所以我理解该事项已经完成。我理解有一项注明涉及一名债权人没有适当的收件人栏，该事项也已纠正。因此，法院对此表示认可。债务人的律师——不是命令，而是债务人的律师所关切的瑕疵通知，导致提出这项延长提交财产清单期限的动议，是因为——我是在告诉你们双方一件我知道你们已经知道的事。这对你们不是任何新消息。《破产法》及相关规则要求，在案件提交后14日内提交财产清单和陈述。基于本庭内所有人都知道的诸多理由，这是一个重要的问题——事项，因为如果债务人未履行其义务，本案中是其本人义务，即编制并提交财产清单和财务状况陈述的义务，案件便无法得到适当管理。这是一项基本要求，本院以及我认为所有法院，都极为严肃地对待该要求。瑕疵通知称该案可能被驳回。它并未说应当被驳回，但我理解债务人的律师希望迅速举行听证会，因为你们会——因为你们不希望案件被驳回，我理解这一点。因此，无论如何，这就是准许加急听证会动议，并于今日就延长提交财产清单期限之动议举行听证的原因。现在，我理解你们所寻求的内容。你们寻求60日。你们知道，已经有两项针对该请求的书面异议。我可以告诉你们，你们不会获得60日。那不会发生。但我想知道的是，你们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过任何讨论？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：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说话。\n\n法院：非常清楚。谢谢。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：法官阁下，我们昨天在 Claiborn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 Claiborn女士该办公室对延长期限请求的立场。她明确表示，60日将会——将会遭到异议，并且她强烈建议我们考虑请求一项在第341条会议之前届满的延期，以给予债权人充足时间审阅财产清单和陈述，使其能够在341会议上提出知情的问题。昨晚，在与客户协商后，恰好——抱歉。没有介绍我们的客户，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生。\n\nKWOK先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法院：下午好，先生。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：他使用 Miles（迈尔斯）这个名字。\n\n法院：下午好。谢谢。先生，您可以坐下。谢谢。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：因此，昨天——抱歉，昨天晚上，我们向美国受托人提出建议，将提交财产清单和陈述的期限延长至3月16日，即周一341会议前的那个周三。我们没有恰好定在一周之前的原因是，我们正在处理将财产清单和陈述翻译成 Kwok先生母语中文的一些程序安排，因此我们希望确保，当他在伪证处罚的前提下证明并确认其准确性时，他能够以自己的语言完全理解财产清单和陈述所述内容，以便对于页面上的文字内容绝对不存在任何疑问。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n法院：我明白。好的。那么，您是否在说您已准备好——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，准备同意一项将于3月16日届满的延期吗？对吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。好。谢谢。我对此表示感谢。现在，Claiborn律师，您提交了对该动议的第一项异议。您现在已听到律师及其同意在获准延期的情况下将延长期限限定至3月16日。您还希望补充什么至记录中，或者您对于延长期限请求还有什么其他看法？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：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，可能会有所帮助。\n\n法院：哦，可以。好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我提出该建议是因为债务人与 PACS 之间有一段长期历史，我认为这将有助于分析何种——\n\n延长时限适用于本案是有道理的。法庭：可以。律师？SILVERBERG 律师：而且，法官阁下，如果 PACS（帕克斯）要详细说明导致我们来到这里的经过，我想——您知道，如果您愿意听，我也可以作陈述。否则，您可以听——听我说。法庭：那么，您是说您想先作陈述吗？您的意思是这样吗？还是您想回应他们的陈述？SILVERBERG 律师：如果可以的话，我想先作我们的陈述——法庭：好的。您的陈述将涉及为何提起本案，以及为何需要延长时限？SILVERBERG 律师：是的。为——法庭：好的。我会让他们先说，律师，然后我一定会听取您的陈述。FRIEDMAN 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：请讲。SILVERBERG 律师：您希望我在这里讲，还是在讲台上讲？法庭：您可以就在这里讲，律师。SILVERBERG 律师：很好。那么，法官阁下，我原本提议先介绍 Kwok 先生的背景、事件——然后说明导致本次 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件启动的事件，并说明请求延长期限的理由。法官阁下，作为背景介绍——抱歉。Kwok 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（康涅狄格州）格林尼治。他有两名成年子女。他们育有一子 Qiang Guo 先生（郭强）和一女 Mei Guo 女士（郭梅）。儿子居住在英国。女儿的时间分别在纽约市和康涅狄格州度过。希望随着 COVID（新冠疫情）的消退，她现在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，Kwok 先生从中学辍学，开始销售服装和电子产品，以帮助供养家庭。1989 年 5 月，Kwok 先生因支持 Tiananmen Square protest（天安门广场抗议）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、商界人士和宗教领袖建立了重要关系。其中一位联系人后来将他介绍给 Ping Sia 女士（萍·夏，音），一位来自香港的成功女商人和投资者。1991 年，Kwok 先生开始与 Sia 女士在 Yuda Property Company（裕达地产公司，音）共事，该公司专注于\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n中国河南省的商业房地产开发。Yuda 在成立后不久，即在河南省省会郑州成功开发并建造了高端的 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，并确立了 Kwok 先生在中国房地产开发商领域的地位，特别是在河南省；Yuda 继续在那里开发高端住宅和商业项目。\n\n约在 2000 年，凭借——凭借在 Hehan Province（河南省）取得的成功，Kwok 先生将其房地产抱负转向中国首都北京，在那里他扩展了业务，包括为其项目提供私人融资，其六名兄弟姐妹参与其中。\n\n凭借在河南省取得的成功，Kwok 先生的直系及旁系家庭成员摆脱了贫困。\n\n在北京，Kwok 先生帮助成立了 Beijing Morgan Investment Company（北京摩根投资公司）和 Beijing Zenith Holdings Company（北京泽尼思控股公司），这是一家房地产开发和投资管理咨询公司。Kwok 先生的直系及旁系家庭成员在这些实体中担任股东和雇员。2002 年，这些企业收购了北京北部两块合计约 2 million square meters 的未开发土地。在中国被选定为 2008 Olympics（2008 年奥运会）主办国，且政府宣布计划在这些地块相邻处建设奥运场馆后，这些地块的价值大幅上升。这些地块的增值引发了 Kwok 先生与 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）长期以来的政治斗争。Deputy Mayor Gi Wa（副市长 Gi Wa，音）试图不当侵占 Morgan Investment（摩根投资公司）的财产。Kwok 先生进行了反击，向政府举报该腐败行为；经过长期斗争后，最终收回了 Morgan Investment 的地块。随后，Kwok 先生监督 Beijing Pangu Plaza（北京盘古大观）和 Xin Wang Plaza（新旺广场）的成功建设及按时竣工。Pangu Plaza 已成为毗邻奥运场馆的北京地标。然而，Kwok 先生对 CCP（中国共产党）腐败的批评招致了严厉回应。当其生命明显处于危险之中时，他于 2015 年逃往美国。CCP 在其缺席的情况下冻结或没收了其在中国的资产，包括其持有权益的公司所持资产。\n\nCCP 还促使没收其在其他地方的资产，包括香港，并促使 Interpol（国际刑警组织）发出针对其逮捕的 Red Notice（红色通缉令）。2017 年 9 月，他在美国申请政治庇护，其申请至今仍在审理中。他至今仍继续批评 CCP 的腐败和侵犯人权行为。多年来，他在 YouTube、GTV、Twitter 和 GETTR——我实际上还得查一下 GETTR；我不知道那是什么——等各种数字及媒体平台上积累了追随者；他在那里分享其对 CCP 以及中国民主必要性的个人观点和意见。他在各种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。Kwok 先生没有工作，并依赖家人，主要是其儿子的支持，以支付日常生活开支。在 Kwok 先生儿子位于纽约 Golden Spring（黄金泉）的家族办公室中，其儿子垫付其每月开支。Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的预付费用由 Kwok 先生儿子拥有的另一实体 Lamp Capital, LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）支付，如我们在本次听证会前不久提交的 Docket Number 54（案卷编号 54）律师报酬声明所载。法庭：好的。我还没有看到那个，但\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n没关系。SILVERBERG 律师：转向 PACS 诉讼。尽管他离开了中国，但并未把所有麻烦都抛在身后。我们预计，在本案审理期间，法庭将从 PACS 的律师那里听到相当多的内容。我们不会过多讨论这起诉讼，但高层面的概述可能有助于理解背景。PACS（一家香港投资基金）在纽约和 BBI（贝贝艾）对 Kwok 先生提起诉讼。纽约诉讼始于 2017 年。该案由 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的 Ostrager 法官审理。在纽约诉讼中，Kwok 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（斯皮里特·查特）的中国实体提供的 \\$30 million 贷款有关的追偿诉讼。PACS 主张，Kwok 先生就 PACS 债务提供了个人担保，并在多年间多次再次确认该担保，最近一次是在 2011 年。Kwok 先生承认其于 2008 年提供了个人担保，但主张该贷款其后已获全额偿还，且后续文件均系伪造。这就是争议的核心，法官阁下。Ostrager 法官未经听证即作出有利于 PACS 的简易判决。Kwok 先生已向 Appellate Division（上诉分院）就该判决提起上诉，上诉\n\n仍在审理中，但因本案启动而被中止。与此同时，PACS 寻求执行 Ostrager 法官针对 Kwok 先生签发的限制令，禁止其转移或耗散资产，或将资产移出纽约法院的管辖范围。PACS 将焦点集中于一艘名为 Lady May（梅夫人号）的游艇。PACS 希望该游艇回到纽约，以便其可以扣押该船并对其执行扣押。Kwok 先生否认拥有该船，并主张其无法命令该船返回纽约。Ostrager 法官命令 Kwok 先生在 2021 年 5 月 15th 前将该船送回纽约，否则该船每滞留在其管辖范围之外一天，将面临 \\$500,000 的巨额每日罚款。2 月 9th，Ostrager 法官认定 Kwok 先生实益拥有并控制 Lady May，对其作出最终民事藐视法庭命令，并命令其在仅五天内向 PACS 支付 \\$134 million 罚款，否则将面临监禁。2 月 9th 的裁决也已上诉至 Appellate Division。Kwok 先生无力支付该罚款，于 2 月 14th 聘请了本所，并于第二天即申请 Chapter 11。他申请 Chapter 11，不只是为了获得自动中止的益处，也是为了在单一法院以有序\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n的方式解决其全部债权。他希望能与债权人就 Chapter 11 计划的条款达成协议。PACS 的律师与本所位于同一栋大楼，仅隔一个电梯厅。其主要资产为诉讼请求权。假设他——假设他在这些请求权上胜诉，他可能能够为债权人提供全额清偿。他还将向其家庭成员寻求支持，为该计划提供资金。所有选项均在考虑之中。此外，正如法官阁下在异议中指出的，人们对所谓的障眼法以及藏匿资产的指控进行了大量讨论。如果这些指控属实，而我们认为并不属实，那么破产案件可能是对他们而言可能发生的最好的事情。案件中可能会任命债权人委员会。U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）已征求债权人参与的意愿。如果任命了该委员会，那么他们将有自己的工作要做。我们预计，主要是调查 PACS 在其文件中提出的指控；这就引出了关于请求延长截止日期的动议。我们与 Kwok 先生合作准备其申请的时间极少。这就是文件如此单薄的原因。这就是缺陷通知最终出现在命令中的原因。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n如果我们有更多时间，我们本会确保按时提交财产清单。或者当然——甚至可能在——可能与申请同时提交。那绝非理想情形。我们有大量工作要做，以协助 Kwok 先生准备财产清单和陈述书。2 月 23rd，我们已告知 United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室，Kwok 先生拟请求延期。2 月 24th，正如法官阁下在 Docket 27（案卷 27）中指出的，我们提交了 Kwok 先生请求延期约 60 days 的申请。延期的理由是，我们需要与多年来一直代理 Kwok 先生的律师合作，以确保与诉讼相关的资产和负债确实——被准确列入财产清单和陈述书。此外，由于 Kwok 先生不会读写英语，他请求对官方表格进行中文翻译。Kwok 先生还将聘请服务提供商，以协助其生成财产清单和陈述书。今天上午，我们开始与 Strutta（斯特鲁塔，音）讨论，法官阁下可能熟悉该机构。如我所述，法官阁下，我们昨天下午与 U.S. Trustee 讨论了 Kwok 先生的延期请求。昨天，两方就延期动议提出异议，即 U.S. Trustee 和 PACS。二者基本提出相同观点：所请求的延期过长，他们希望继续推进本案。\n\n法官大人，值得一提的是，尽管所请求延长的期限是在预定的341会议之后，我们认为或许可以与 United States Trustee（美国受托人）合作，启动该341会议并将其延期，以确保各方有机会审阅相关文件并提出知情的问题。我们认识到，剥夺债权人提出知情问题的机会是不可接受的。\n\nKwok先生同意，最好更加努力地尽早提交预定报表。预定报表越早提交，他就越早能够确定债权申报截止日期，开始核对债权，并查看是否能够提出可行的Chapter 11计划。\n\n而且，法官大人，我已经提到我们向美国受托人提出的建议；如果事态发展至此，我已准备好就若Kwok先生被传唤作证时其证词将为何内容作简短陈述。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。让我想想我是否有——哦，是的，我有一两个问题。这其实不算是问题。\n\nFiore 记录与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n正如我所提到的，并且诸位都知道，我们有音频记录。有一些姓名是你们在陈述过程中提到的，我认为将其提供给书记官办公室会有所帮助，以便书记官办公室能够确保这些姓名在本案记录中得到正确拼写和记载。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：当然，法官大人，我们很乐意提供英文拼写，以及我想，我的语音——\n\n法院：无论什么——\n\nSILVERBERG先生：——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，我希望你这样做。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：当然，法官大人。\n\n法院：我可以想办法——我会与法庭书记员沟通，但我们可能可以让法院书记官联系你，律师，并想办法取得该信息，以便我们在记录中清楚且准确地载明该信息。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：我们非常乐意。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。我只是想想，在你发言时，我是否还有其他想法——我的意思是，我有其他想法，但有没有什么我想说的。\n\n关于341会议，以及今天在这里发生的任何事情，我认为，你知道，美国受托人办公室——我认为，即使你们的延期获准延至16日，也应当在第一次会议后不关闭该341会议，这样做是有意义的。\n\n我认为这是一个存在许多问题、情况不断变化的案件；而且，你知道，这是美国受托人办公室的决定，但我敦促他们考虑——当然，我现在是在对你说，Claiborn律师——考虑债务人似乎并不反对该341会议举行不止一天；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安排一名口译员在场，而且可能会有，也可能不会有，大量对此感兴趣并有问题的债权人。\n\n但我希望确保及时向他们提供该机会，并给予充分通知，以便在文件提交后，他们有足够时间对其进行审慎审阅。好吗？\n\n因此，我敦促你，如果可以的话，就此与美国受托人沟通，并说明债务人的律师对此没有异议。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我会这样做，法官大人。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好。PACS（PACS）的律师，你可以继续。FRIEDMAN先生：谢谢，法官大人。我是来自 O'Melveny and Myers（O'Melveny and Myers）的Peter Friedman。我实际上已向Silverberg先生——SILVERBERG先生：是。FRIEDMAN先生：——向Silverberg先生给了一份我的声明副本。我有装订成册的版本。我实际上有两册，如果我可以呈交给您？法院：当然。FRIEDMAN先生：我觉得它们或许对您、您和您的书记员——法院：当然。FRIEDMAN先生：——在我们提及其中某些内容时会有帮助——法院：谢谢。FRIEDMAN先生：——其中所载的内容。谢谢，法官大人。法院：Friedman先生，在律师发言时我查看这份装订册，你没有异议吧？SILVERBERG先生：法官大人，那是——法院：我的意思是，先生——我叫错名字了吗？我很抱歉。SILVERBERG先生：没关系。法院：我同时在看两样东西。是的，那么你没有异议，对吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：我没有异议，法官大人。法院：好。谢谢。我感谢你，Silverberg律师。Friedman律师，请继续。FRIEDMAN先生：法官大人，我是代表PACS的 O'Melveny and Myers律师事务所的Peter Friedman。因此，法官大人，有许许多多不同的事项值得回应，但让我先从Ostrager法官所认定的直接问题开始。Ostrager法官认定，Kwok先生不能主张该等文件是伪造的，因为那将与他所作的一切不一致。法院：请稍等一下，Friedman律师。（暂停）法院：那是——先生，请稍等一下。请稍等一下，好吗？他有权作陈述，你可以稍后听取，因为我们会录音并将其放到——放到案卷记录中；如果你无法同时进行，那么你随后可以与债务人交谈并为其口译。但我们必须继续进行听证。身份不明的发言人：我明白。您认为他可以用麦克风吗？至少我们在这里能听得更清楚？\n\n法院：律师，你能否把麦克风稍微拉近一些？FRIEDMAN先生：当然，法官大人。我对该请求的善意有严重怀疑。法院：我明白，我明白，但我不会——FRIEDMAN先生：这类小动作，法官大人——法院：我完全明白，但我们不会——我们将继续进行。FRIEDMAN先生：是。法院：好吗？FRIEDMAN先生：当然。法院：而且，正如康涅狄格州每一宗破产案件以及全国大多数案件的情形一样，本案录音将在——我认为到明天早晨就会被放入本案案卷记录，对吗？速度相当——非常快。会在24小时内完成。任何人都可以收听。这不是你的过错，但麦克风——FRIEDMAN先生：是。法院：——有时工作良好，有时则不然。无论什么原因，今天那一个工作得不好。那是——FRIEDMAN先生：法官大人，我是否应该试试上面那个？\n\n法院：嗯，也许会好些。让我们看看效果如何，好吗？今天那个麦克风一直有问题。我无法告诉你原因。FRIEDMAN先生：那么，法官大人，Ostrager法官裁定——我相信该意见位于您的装订册标签4——Kwok先生基于一连串理由不能主张文件是伪造的。禁止反言，因为他过去作出过陈述，因为他——他实际上曾提交过那些文件。因此，该主张从表面上看就不是有意义的主张，也不是本法院最终应当能够对Ostrager法官近期认定进行审查的问题。法院：我可以就证物4问你一个问题吗？FRIEDMAN先生：可以。法院：就是你刚刚指给我看的那份证物。因此，当然，我在今天之前没有审阅任何材料——FRIEDMAN先生：是。法院：——但我正在查看证物4，看来Ostrager法官作出了这份——让我看看它是什么——抱歉。让我看看它的标题。它是他于September 15, 2020作出的一份动议裁决及命令。是这样——我这样理解正确吗？FRIEDMAN先生：是的，法官大人。这是他就简易判决动议作出的认定，即Kwok确实基于个人保证对PACS负有债务。法院：那么，在简易判决裁定之后发生了什么？是否提出了上诉，还是这被视为中间裁定，或者就你现在指给我的这项具体裁定而言，情况如何？FRIEDMAN先生：因此，该裁定正在上诉中。法院：正在上诉中。FRIEDMAN先生：它不属于——法院：好的。FRIEDMAN先生：因此，我认为这不是本法院可以审查的问题。法院：好的。这就是——FRIEDMAN先生：是。法院：——我只是想确保自己理解，因为如你所见，这里有许多文件，而我——FRIEDMAN先生：确实如此。法院：——只是想确保——FRIEDMAN先生：确实如此。法院：——我想了解其状态，\n\nFiore 记录与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n而现在我了解了。我明白他作出了这些认定，而该事项目前仍在上诉中。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。但法官大人问了一个很好的问题。在那之后发生了什么？\n\n那么，在那之后发生的第一件事是，Kwok先生让一家名为 Genever New York（Genever New York）的公司在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）申请破产。\n\n法院：你在你的文件中提到了这一点——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。\n\n法院：——所以我正确记下了这个名称。我见过它。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：对。因此，令人非常不安的是，该公司未被列为关联破产案件，因为Kwok先生拥有一家名为Genever——Genever, British Virgin Islands的公司100%的股权。\n\n那是 Genever Holdings, British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛Genever Holdings），其继而拥有纽约南区一名债务人100%的股权。当然，这就是关联方的典型情形。\n\n它未在申请书中列出。极其令人担忧，也是我们认为不应给予超过国会法定规定的14日期限之延期的原因之一。\n\n纽约南区的该实体现在正涉及——此事过于冗长，无法在此详述。最终，我们将向本法院寻求救济，准许我们追究——维护Kwok先生对该实体的所有权，并对其家属提出的虚假债权提出异议。这一直是他挫败我们使该判决获得清偿之努力的一部分。法官大人，国会规定14天是有原因的。我们认为这很重要。当然，我要说，很多时候我会处于请求延长提交预定报表期限的立场，而且坦率地说——也就是提交期限。而且坦率地说，我不确定我是否曾见过有人提出异议，因为通常有合理理由。那是一家正在经营的企业，拥有数百家子公司。那是一个可能必须在最初几天处理供应商、债权人和员工事务，因而无法立即、及时关注此事的实体。这里没有任何一种情形属实。Kwok先生不是一家正在经营的企业。他在其IDI和申请书中声称自己根本没有任何资产，这当然引出了一个问题：这里怎么可能有重组目的？怎么可能有Chapter 11目的？鉴于他进行的一切资产转移和——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Ostrager法官的意见书，以及那些\n\n意见和事实认定表明，Kwok先生（郭文贵）利用错综复杂的实体、家庭成员及其信赖的密友来转移资产。这种人不能在第11章破产程序中为债权人担任受托人。他绝不会追究家庭成员及其他关联实体的请求权。这对本案的目的提出了极为严肃的问题。此外，法官阁下，还有一项$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。这并非仅由Ostrager法官（Ostrager）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（FRIEDMAN）：这是Kwok先生自己造成的。他等了268天。这就是金额如此之大的原因。Kwok先生不能在本法庭质疑州法院关于Kwok先生拥有——对Lady May享有受益权益的裁定。坦率地说，任何负责任的债务人早已提出交付动议，要求实际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，我要指出，今天晚些时候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；另行提出一项备选动议，请求您裁定，如其确实适用，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。我们并不请求现在对其实施扣押或收取，但不应允许Kwok先生将如此有价值的资产留在美国境外；应将其带至此处，以便最终能够适当变现和清算。再次说明，我认为Ostrager法官的认定最终不应由本法庭进行审查，也不应被事后质疑，因为这些认定属于一项已在上诉中的命令的一部分。Kwok先生在纽约未能获得一项临时中止动议的支持。他甚至无法向任何人提供哪怕最微小程度的信心，表明他在该上诉中具有胜诉可能性。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引出了另一个问题，即我们还认为这将产生一项$134 million的不可免责债权。我们在脚注中指出了这一点。我们还将提起一项对抗程序，请求裁定该债务不可免责，这也引出了一个问题：如果Kwok先生即使获得免责仍将面临$134 million债务，那么怎么可能存在可行的第11章破产计划？我认为此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。但我们有证据。其中许多事情已由Ostrager法官认定。这不是一个以任何哪怕稍微接近清白无过错的姿态来到您面前的债务人。\n\n我实在无法理解，如果一名法官已认定你对一项价值$30 million的财产享有受益所有权，你怎么甚至不在申请书的脚注中提及它。\n\n实在令人震惊。有人在设有专门栏目的情况下，竟不将关联方列为债务人，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，而说明明确规定不得列示内部人。一家由其儿子控制、为其生活开支提供资金的公司，正是非制定法内部人的典型例子。\n\n一份经核实并在法律惩罚责任下签署的申请书，竟充满了如此之多的不诚实陈述，令人震惊。我还要补充，即使是Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）今天下午提交的文件也称，他们将依据一笔贷款获得报酬\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与转录服务公司）\n\n该贷款由Lamp（Lamp）——也是Kwok先生的家族办公室——向Kwok先生提供。所以看看财产清单——申请书。Lamp作为该笔贷款的百万美元债权人出现。但是，尽管该笔贷款仍然——作为预付律师费存放在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。在该笔贷款项下，他拥有进入本案时带来的$998,000资产。这是一笔申请前贷款。再次说明，仅是对本法庭缺乏坦诚这一点，就已促使我们认为不应给予任何宽容。我想指出，在我们的书面意见中，我们引用了Ostrager法官所说的几乎所有内容，但我没有引用其中一部分，而我认为那一部分确实很重要。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？我想确认一下——FRIEDMAN先生：这是藐视法庭命令，法官阁下。法庭：因此，它附在你们的异议之后？FRIEDMAN先生：是的，也附在美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的异议之后。法庭：哦，但它也在这里的卷宗中？FRIEDMAN先生：是的，它也附在美国受托人的异议之后。法庭：好的。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：那可能是最容易找到的方式。法庭：请给我一点时间，我会找到它。（暂停）法庭：我想我已经找到了，但让我确认一下。8 一项关于动议的决定和命令，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，在我谈到该引文之前，我想指出，这是在一次现场审判之后作出的，而且是在律师提到的Kwok先生的女儿基本上被Ostrager法官认定为说谎者之后作出的。您阅读该意见书时，将会看到Ostrager法官就其证词所提到的——缺乏可信度。他并不是唯一这样做的法官。Liman法官（Liman）以及纽约南区（Southern District of New York）的案件中，也对其有关家庭成员之间资金转移的证词可信度表示了极其、极其严重的怀疑。法官阁下，第7页写道，Kwok就Lady May精心策划的这场空壳把戏所涉及的种种操弄，与Kwok在该诉讼待决的五年间所采取的每一项其他\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 114 Filed 03/22/22 Entered 03/22/22 09:34:07 Page 35 of 57\n\n规避性和藐视法庭行为如出一辙，这就是为什么本案有1,180项案卷记录。显然，法官阁下，为避免本案变成那个案件，Kwok采取了如此多极其规避和不诚实的步骤，无法与作为第11章债务人的善意要求相协调。国会要求在14天内作出披露。请求60天延期，至少可以说，是令人愤慨的。我们请求法庭驳回该动议的全部内容。但法官阁下，我还要说一件事。12 最终，我意识到，您知道，您的职责是权衡多项因素。我们坚信不应给予任何延期。但如果给予几天延期，延至本周末，因为期限将在今天届满，我们当然，您知道，不会说，你们今天结束前没有提交文件，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，我想您可以看得出来，但我不会反对延期。我们的客户不会反对将其延至Friday。鉴于Kwok先生在其IDI中称其没有资产，我们认为其中这一部分应当很容易。如果存在这些或有诉讼，似乎不可能相信他尚不知情；应尽快将其列入清单，以便我们坦率地深入调查。视其中披露的内容而定，如有必要，我们甚至可能在其341会议之间寻求依据Rule 2004进行取证。\n\n但我们认为，为了进行适当的341审查，我们需要获得充分且公平的机会，继续追查其资产；而且，您知道，我认为——我不知道法庭是否有任何问题要问我，但这些是我认为值得就我们的异议加以说明的关键问题。\n\n法庭：我不确定我是否有任何问题。我已看过你们的异议，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。我在其提交时有更多时间。我确实看了你们的异议。不过，我打算再看一遍，正如我看了美国受托人的异议一样，我也将看延期动议。\n\n因此，我认为我在本次听证开始时已经相当明确：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将期限延至March 16th的提议。\n\n你们表示，如法庭作出命令将截止日期延至March 4th，你们不会反对。在某些方面，我们相距不远，但我理解你们的立场。\n\n如果你们二位不想就此谈谈，看看能否就某些事项达成一致，那也可以。法庭将作出裁定。我对此没有问题。\n\n但如果你们想花些时间谈谈，我们也可以这样做，我们可以——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，今天，问题是是否会批准延期。两名提出异议的当事人——而且我认为我已——我认为已经明确表示，当我已说过不会给予60天延期时，我显然认为这些异议是有根据的。这只是——不会发生。这并不适当。我能想到适当的案件极少。而本案不是其中之一。好吗？所以这很明确。美国受托人办公室似乎认为March 16th可以。你们希望是March 4th。341会议是哪一天？CLAIBORN女士（CLAIBORN）：法官阁下，请原谅我打断法庭。法庭：没关系。CLAIBORN女士：我尚未就\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n美国受托人对该日期的立场发表意见。法庭：哦。对不起。CLAIBORN女士：而且我不知道律师是否希望接受法庭提出的机会，在我们继续之前先讨论一分钟，或者——法庭：我可以休庭五分钟。这不会——CLAIBORN女士：我只是不知道各方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。我没有强迫任何人做任何事。如果你们希望把握这个机会，我就给你们这个机会。如果你们不想把握，也没关系。您知道，我对此没有问题。SILVERBERG先生（SILVERBERG）：法官阁下，如果PACS（PACS）要在4日这个日期上寸步不让，那么从后勤角度看，这根本不可行，所以——法庭：嗯，从谈判角度看这可能确实如此，但我可能会作出该命令。所以，您知道，这就是我们要处理的方式。而且没关系。你们——每一位——你们都已表明了各自的立场，而我甚至尚未询问Wolman律师（Wolman）的立场可能是什么，因为他正在参加本次听证，但你们已经明确表明了立场。这不是一项\n\n供法院裁定的复杂问题。我确实想花几分钟回顾一下提交的文件，而且我现在可以这么做。我可以休庭 5、10、15 分钟。都无所谓。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，取决于你们希望如何进行。我是在给你们一个机会，向我建议你们认为怎样做有些道理。如果你们希望休庭商议一下，也可以。如果不希望，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，我可以尝试回来后今晚作出裁定。这两种进行方式对我都没有问题。西尔弗伯格先生：所以，我总是处于达成协议的模式，因此如果 PACS 想发言，那么——法院：嗯，为什么我们不——现在是 5:00 差 10 分。为什么我们不——沃尔曼先生：法官阁下。法院：是。哦，沃尔曼律师。抱歉。沃尔曼先生：我可以发言吗？法院：请讲。沃尔曼先生：没关系。我只是想简要说几句，但我觉得这应当被听取。我们没有提交任何文件，但我们总体上加入程先生就美国受托人和 PACS 两方提出的异议。\n\n一些背景情况：程先生是郭先生在内华达州持续发起诽谤诉讼活动的受害人。程先生本人反对中国共产党，他对郭先生处理该运动的方式提出异议，可以说，在郭先生制作了一段诽谤程先生的视频后，我的当事人发了几条推文，随后便发现自己成为 SLAPP 诉讼的对象。\n\n现在，法院了解被称为针对公众参与的策略性诉讼的诉讼。\n\n内华达州有一部非常强有力的反 SLAPP 法。\n\n而我的当事人——\n\n法院：等一下，沃尔曼律师。等一下。警报响了。格伦，你认为我们需要——\n\n法警：我会通知您。\n\n法院：好的。抱歉，但大楼里的警报响了。\n\n沃尔曼先生：好的。\n\n法院：所以你只需稍等一下。我的意思是，你可以尝试继续说。沃尔曼律师，即使警报响着，你能听见吗，还是——美国法警现在要去查看我们是否需要——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷报告与速记服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 114，提交于 03/22/22，录入于 03/22/22 09:34:07，第 42 页，共 57 页\n\n沃尔曼先生：不，如果您需要疏散，法官阁下——法院：嗯，我现在还不知道。我正在等候了解情况。沃尔曼先生：我待在这里没问题。法院：他们会通知我们。如果我们必须疏散，那么我想你们必须从前门出去。好吗？并站在大楼前面。但他们会告诉你们。应该会有人告诉你们。（停顿）法院：约翰，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。我们的警报系统有问题。我们正在重新布线。法院：好的。法警：如果有任何情况，我们会尽快通知您。法院：好。好。约翰，我们正在听证进行当中，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？不过我们在法庭里时不是这样，但，是的。不过，好的。非常感谢你查看。我很感激。\n\n好的。沃尔曼律师，如果您可以——抱歉，我不记得您具体说到哪里了，但您当时在谈论一宗诽谤诉讼及其他一些问题。沃尔曼先生：对。是的，法官阁下。程先生是郭先生在内华达州持续诉讼活动的受害人，他在一项反 SLAPP 动议中胜诉，该案被驳回，因为郭先生未能证明其案件具有任何依据。内华达州反 SLAPP 法中有一项称为“SLAPP 反诉”的规定，因为尽管该法向胜诉的被告授予律师费，但这并非遭受诉讼之害的全部和终点。因此，为执行律师费判决，在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提起了一宗诉讼，因为郭先生起初未付款，直至 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）汇入资金以支付该判决，之后才付款；因此，我们提起诉讼以执行该判决，并根据内华达州法规中的 SLAPP 反诉理论提起诉讼，以获得补偿性损害赔偿。事实上，该案已准备就简易判决作出裁定，当时代表郭先生、郭文贵先生的加维门律师提前提交其答辩备忘录，以便在破产申请提交前刚好提交；其他方面的书面陈述也已全部完成。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷报告与速记服务公司）\n\n法官阁下，这一诉讼已经持续了相当长一段时间，事实上，一年前我有机会对郭先生进行证言录取。实际上，即使在今天，也有一些有趣的事情是我此前不知道的，例如郭先生目前与其妻子居住在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）。因此，这些事实——是郭先生陈述却未予证实的有关其本人的事实，令人担忧。他在内华达州的起诉状中列举了一长串其背景情况，今天其律师在此复述了其中一些。然而，当我们在纽约南区就此寻求证据开示时，因为这当然必定是重要且相关的，他予以抗拒。他提出异议。他拒绝证实其中任何内容。我们就其财务状况寻求某些证据开示，他拒绝。他抗拒。事实上，就无需提供该信息而言，他援引了 Fifth Amendment（美国宪法第五修正案），并且成功地这样做了。Failla 法官认为援引第五修正案是恰当的，因此我们将获得不利推定。此人自称为亿万富翁。这就是他在全球范围内展现自己的方式。事实上，在 February 9，新闻界不仅因 PACS 案中的制裁裁定而沸腾，也因郭先生——新闻特别提到其姓名——作为原告就其针对 UBS（瑞银集团）的 $500 million 请求在伦敦赢得了一项审理地动议而沸腾。也许是通过他的某个实体。我们不知道。\n\n这意味着法院应当审慎看待所说的一切，而且——你知道，我并不反对 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）尝试挑起争议，但他们是新来的。他们不了解郭先生，他们需要——本法院也需要审慎看待他说的每一句话。\n\n因此，我确实认为 March 4th 或许太早，因为他们需要自行核实，他们将向法院提交的材料此前未经核实。因此，你知道，这将由他们的（无法辨认）负责，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 341 会议之前有时间审查。\n\n而且，尽管我们被列为债权人，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。但申请书中并未如此说明，事实上，正如 PACS 指出，Golden Springs（黄金泉）这一内部人士被列为债权人，并且是 20 名最大债权人之一。因此，此处提交的文件中已经存在一些不当之处，而且，我们只是希望确保有足够时间。我希望是在 341 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已收到的其他披露材料进行比对，而且我们可能需要处理该案的管辖性保密令及其在此处如何适用。但是，我们在其他方面加入美国受托人和 PACS 对该 60-day 延期提出的异议，并请求期限为至少在 341 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 回来，然后如果各方有任何希望报告的事项，我将听取各方陈述，之后我将作出裁定。因此，现在休庭。书记员：全体起立。现在休庭。（下午 4:48 至下午 5:09 休庭）法院：好的。在西尔弗伯格律师、弗里德曼律师、克莱伯恩律师和沃尔曼律师就债务人延长提交破产法典及规则所要求文件期限的动议发表陈述后，我们进行了短暂休庭。我不知道，西尔弗伯格律师、弗里德曼律师，你们是否进行了任何讨论。我看到你们摇头表示没有。西尔弗伯格先生：遗憾的是——法官阁下，布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所代表债务人的 Bennett Silverman（本尼特·西尔弗曼）。遗憾的是，那些讨论没有成果。我们提出给予几天时间——法院：没关系。我不需要知道。谢谢。西尔弗伯格先生：好的。法院：没关系。我对此表示感谢，但我不需要知道。我只需要知道没有达成协议。西尔弗伯格先生：没有达成协议，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。克莱伯恩律师。克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，如果我现在可以就延期动议发表意见，我也想向法院作出一些其他说明。法院：可以。克莱伯恩女士：我先从说明开始。法院：等一下，克莱伯恩律师。这里有东西在回响。我不知道为什么会有回响。我能听见您，克莱伯恩律师。然后我又能听见您一次。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷报告与速记服务公司）\n\n克莱伯恩女士：哦，太好了。\n\n法院：所以我们只是想确保能够清楚听见您。（停顿）书记员：你好，你好。我仍然能听见回响。法院：是的，我认为我们将不得不——你们能够记录吗，还是需要先解决这个问题？书记员：仍在记录，但我不知道是否会记录到这种回响。法院：我认为应该没问题。书记员：好的。法院：无论如何我们试一下，好吗？如果情况确实很糟，你就告诉我们，然后我们——书记员：好的。法院：——我们会停止。我们是否应当通知我们信息技术部门的任何人？书记员：嗯，我已向 Peter（彼得）发送消息，希望那会——我会向 Will（威尔）发送消息。法院：好的。书记员：好的。法院：好。看看情况如何——克莱伯恩女士：我使用哪一个麦克风会有任何区别吗？\n\n法院：不，遗憾的是声音来自这里。因此，请继续，我们看看效果如何，好吗？克莱伯恩女士：谢谢。法官阁下，我想简要谈一下几项事项，第一项是申请书，以及郭文贵先生的律师今天就其在 Greenwich（格林尼治）的住所所作的说明，随后沃尔曼先生表示他此前并不知道格林尼治是一个住所。我想向法院指出，申请书中，就“您居住在哪里”这一问题，债务人的地址被列为 Golden Spring。该申请书没有列出其住宅地址。鉴于已表达的一些担忧，我们一直认为债务人将采取一些措施保护其实际居住地点的信息。此事尚未发生。但我确实想提出一个相关观点，即昨天的初步债务人访谈简要涉及郭文贵先生在哪里收取邮件这一议题，也谈及了应当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——这是法院唯一掌握的地址——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能够就所有适当的诉状获得适当通知，并确保所有当事人均知悉应使用何种适当地址联系债务人。我想提出的另一点意见是，总体而言，根据今天所作的陈述以及昨天在初次债务人面谈中获悉的信息，本案呈现出无资产、大额债务且需要作出解释这一有趣的组合。美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）目前认为，寻求任命一名审查员可能是适当的，我想向法院预先说明这一点。我们已向债务人的律师提出该意见，他们已知悉。因此，我想向法官阁下提出这几点，随后我想补充说，就今天的延期请求而言，美国受托人认为——抱歉，3月9日最为合理。该日期介于相对方当事人提出的日期之间，并为当事人留出一周以上的提前时间，以便审阅、消化相关材料，并做好准备举行一次有实质意义的债权人会议。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？Silverberg（西尔弗伯格）律师，关于地址所提出的问题很重要。申请书上的地址与你——嗯，你没有给出地址，但你说他居住在格林威治——所说的地址不同。如有地址变更，我们对此有一项地方法则，也有一份本地表格，需要完成该表格，因为显然必须妥善作出通知和送达。因此，我不知道你们将如何处理该问题，但我告诉你，这是我此后会予以关注的事项，因为如果债务人居住在格林威治，申请书上并非如此写明。因此，我不再进一步说明。我是在告诉你我目前对此的想法。好吗？\n\nSILVERBERG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，曾希望继续将其康涅狄格州格林威治的地址保密。因此，我认为，你知道，在准备申请书时，我们没有意识到该地址已经在公共领域被披露到何种程度。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：我们后来得知，该地址公开可能并不存在那么高的敏感性；一旦我们与债务人确认这一点，我们将完成适当的文书手续以修改地址，确保他能够获得通知。\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。谢谢。还有其他人希望就延长提交破产法和破产规则所要求文件期限的动议发言吗？以及我们当地规则所要求的文件。\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：好的。正如我今天早些时候在本次听证会开始时所表示的，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——并且在休庭期间再次查阅了——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，我将简称其为PACS，即ECF No. 50。我还听取了Silverberg律师、Friedman（弗里德曼）律师、Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师和Wolman（沃尔曼）律师的陈述和论辩，并已将这些论辩纳入对债务人所提请求的考量。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录及速记服务公司）\n\n正如我已表明的，我知道各位也都知道，《破产法》，特别是《破产法》第521条，要求债务人作为其职责的一部分，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，为向债权人提供适当通知和信息所必需，从而使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》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，履行具体职责、作为其向法院申请救济所承担负担的一部分的法条外，《联邦破产程序规则》第1007条要求提交确定的文件，包括财务状况说明书以及资产、负债清单和其他清单，在个人案件中包括A至G表以及H表和I表；《联邦破产程序规则》第1007(c)条规定，完成该等事项的期限为随申请书一并提交，或在其后14日内提交。\n\n就本债务人案件而言，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，以及为反对该请求所提出的论点，法院裁定如下。根据11 USC Sections 521及规定债务人职责的《破产法》其他适用条款、《联邦破产程序规则》第1007(c)条，以及我们的当地破产程序规则1007-1，债务人关于延期的动议部分准许。债务人必须于2022年3月9日或之前提交所有必需的声明和清单，包括依照我刚才列举的破产法条款、《联邦破产程序规则》及我们当地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？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：没有，法官阁下，谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。这是我们今天唯一需要处理的事项。Birney（伯尼）律师，您是否还有其他希望向法院提出处理的事项？\n\nBIRNEY先生：没有。没有，法官阁下。只是，谢谢。很高兴重新——我们很高兴重新亲自出庭。\n\n法庭：是的，能亲自出庭很好。还有其他人有任何问题，或者有任何事项——\n\n法庭：——希望今天提出处理吗？\n\nKLETTER先生：哦，法官阁下，我能否免于出席今后的听证会？Silverberg先生可以出席任何进一步——\n\n法庭：可以，您已获准以临时许可身份出庭，因此可以免于出席，律师。\n\nKLETTER先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：谢谢，法官阁下。该临时许可——\n\n法庭：不过显然，出于送达目的，仍可向该本地地址送达。\n\nKLETTER先生：正确。\n\n法庭：即使您获准免于出席，这也没有问题。\n\nKLETTER先生：是。\n\n法庭：如果有人仅向债务人位于贵所的本地办公室地址送达，根据规则，那仍被视为适当送达。好吗？\n\nKLETTER先生：是。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。我还要说的唯一一点是，我已经作出裁定。第341条会议已经排定。我已经就我对第341条会议的敦促与Claiborn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。Friedman律师，您有需要补充的吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：有，法官阁下，只是因为我不熟悉您的一般惯例。您是否还会签发一项命令，还是听证记录即视为命令？\n\n法庭：我可以——如果您希望我——我通常会做的是，如果您愿意，而且我很乐意这样做，就是我将作出一项电子命令。好吗？但该命令很可能要到明天早晨才会登记在案。截至目前，即2002 [原文如此]年3月1日下午5时23分，现予命令。好吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。谢谢。\n\n法庭：当该电子命令录入时，其将注明截至——我刚才所说的时间，即2022年3月1日下午5时23分。好吗？如此一来，您至少会拥有除本次听证会记录以外的其他文件。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，并确定其是否希望参加第341条会议非常重要；正如我经常所说，《破产法》第341条的标题是“债权人会议”，这正是其目的。因此，我——这就是我作出目前裁定的原因；除非我遗漏了什么，否则法院今天下午没有其他需要处理的事项。好的。谢谢。今天日程表上的最后一项事项至此结束，现休庭。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n身份不明的发言人：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（程序于下午5时23分结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员及速记员，特此证明，前述内容系根据上述案件程序的正式电子录音制作的正确记录。\n\n19 2022年3月21日\n\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":12099,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:13:16"}