{"id":"court_ctb_2554_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2554,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, [1](#page-0-0) Chapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n## **UBS AG'S OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS UNDER BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 108, 546(A), AND 549**\n\nNon-party UBS AG (\"UBS\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this objection (the \"Objection\") to the *Motion for Entry of Order Extending Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions Under Bankruptcy Code Sections 108, 546(a), and 549* [ECF No. 2509] (the \"Motion\"), filed by Luc A Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case. In support of this Objection, UBS respectfully states as follows:\n\n1. UBS assumes that the Court is familiar with the Motion and the relief sought therein. UBS further assumes that the Trustee served UBS with notice of the Motion solely because UBS is one of more than 250 recipients of subpoenas pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 (the \"Rule 2004 Subpoena\") in this case. (Motion ¶ 13.) To be clear, UBS is not aware of any basis on which the Trustee could bring an avoidance action against UBS, but UBS files this\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation (collectively, the \"Debtors\").\n\nObjection in an abundance of caution and specifically to reserve UBS's rights to oppose the relief requested by the Trustee in the event that the Trustee asserts claims against UBS.\n\n2. As the Trustee acknowledges in his Motion, which relies primarily on authorities from outside the District of Connecticut, at least one bankruptcy court in the District of Connecticut has held that a motion to equitably toll the limitations period for avoidance actions is premature and improper when filed \"prospective[ly],\" *i.e.*, before any adversary proceeding has been instituted. (Motion ¶ 31 (citing *In re Walnut Hill, Inc.*, 2018 WL 2672242, at \\* 2 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 1, 2018)). The court in *In re Walnut* held that it was \"wholly premature and procedurally flawed\" to seek to toll the limitations period *before* a statute of limitations defense has been asserted, and \"outside the context\" of allegations \"against specific defendants.\" *In re Walnut Hill, Inc.*, 2018 WL 2672242, at \\*2. The Trustee relies upon largely unpublished decisions from outside of the Second Circuit as the basis for the requested relief. (Motion ¶ 30.) These purported authorities are readily distinguishable.[2](#page-1-0)\n\n3. Even if the Motion were procedurally sound (a proposition UBS rejects), the Trustee cannot demonstrate that \"extraordinary circumstances\" prevent him from bringing any action specifically as against UBS by February 15, 2024. (Motion ¶ 2.) The Trustee has had in his possession for months detailed information on Debtor Kwok's and his affiliates' purported\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> *See In re Farwest Pump Co.*, 2020 WL 257784, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2020) (tolling granted where it was proposed in chapter 11 plan and no parties objected); *In re Martin Levy Of Berlin D.M.D., P.C.*, 416 B.R. 1, 8 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009) (tolling granted where motion was unopposed); *In re Rockport Dev., Inc.*, No. 20-11339-SC (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2022) [ECF No. 822] (tolling granted where motion was unopposed); *In re Dwek*, No. 07- 11757 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) [ECF No. 3790] (tolling granted where federal investigations delayed trustee's investigation); *In re Visiting Nurse Ass'n of Inland Counties*, No. 18-16908-MH (Bankr C.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) [ECF No. 683] (tolling granted in six-line order with no rationale stated); *In re Builders Holding Co.*, No. 16-06643-EAG7 (Bankr. D.P.R. April 25, 2019) [ECF No. 501] (tolling granted for 90 days where \"super priority order\" impeded trustee's administration of the estate).\n\ninteractions with UBS, so the Trustee cannot credibly argue that he presently lacks sufficient knowledge of any possible claims he may believe he has against UBS. By mid-November last year, UBS had produced nearly 17,000 pages of documents to the Trustee, along with a privilege log, in response to the Rule 2004 Subpoena. (Declaration of Lisa J. Fried, dated February 5, 2024 (\"Fried Decl.\") ¶ 3.)\n\n4. UBS's compliance with the Rule 2004 Subpoena shows that UBS in no way contributed to, much less created, any circumstances that might justify equitable tolling. The Trustee's allegations of obstruction by the Debtors, (*see*, *e.g.*, Motion ¶ 18), have no relevance to the Motion's requested relief as against UBS. *See Maxon Eng'g Servs. v. Alex Hornedo Robles & Assoc. (In re Maxon Eng'g Servs.)*, 397 B.R. 228, 229 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2008) (for equitable tolling to apply, the defendant against whom tolling is sought \"must have at least been a party to the wrongful conduct\").\n\n5. Although the Trustee claims that service of the *Chapter 11 Trustee's Emergency Motion for Entry of an Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 105(a) and Bankruptcy Rules 2002 and 9014, (I) Approving Form and Manner of Notice of Trustee's Forthcoming Tolling Motion and (II) Scheduling Hearing* [ECF No. 2494] renders potential due process concerns \"not applicable,\" (Motion ¶ 7), the Trustee has to date not made any showing whatsoever of what claims he might seek to pursue against UBS. UBS is therefore by definition *not* a \"properly noticed defendant[]\" with respect to any as-yet unasserted claims that the Trustee may seek to bring in an avoidance action. *See*, *e.g.*, *In re Randolph Hosp., Inc.*, 2022 WL 19298765, at \\*1 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2022). Moreover, the authority offered by the Trustee in support of his assertion that notice has been sufficient is misplaced, since the facts in that case bear no resemblance to the present case. *See In re Martin Levy Of Berlin D.M.D., P.C.*, 416 B.R. 1, 8\n\n(Bankr. D. Mass. 2009) (\"Defendants can not avoid trustees who seek information, ignore a trustee request to extend the statute of limitations, wait for the limitations period to pass and then, months later after a complaint is filed, claim that the trustee is out of luck\"). UBS has produced tens of thousands of pages of documents to the Trustee relating to Debtor Kwok's and his affiliates' purported interactions with the bank and has not \"avoid[ed]….[or] ignore[d]…\" the Trustee.\n\n6. Finally, to the extent the Trustee seeks to rely upon Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) as an alternative to equitable tolling, \"Rule 9006(b) does not apply to Section 546(a),\" and it is therefore not a valid basis for this Court to grant the requested relief. *In re Walnut*, 2018 WL 2672242, at \\*2. The Trustee's reliance upon case law from other federal circuits is unpersuasive. (Motion ¶¶ 39−42.)\n\nWHEREFORE, UBS respectfully requests that this Court sustain the foregoing Objection by denying the Motion as applied to UBS and grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: February 5, 2024 New York, New York.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n By: */s/ Lisa J. Fried\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_*  Lisa J. Fried (ct31425) HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 lisa.fried@hsf.com *Counsel for Non-Party UBS AG*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,\n\nChapter 11\n\nDebtors.\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on February 5, 2024, the foregoing Objection, along with the declaration submitted in support thereof, was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anybody unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.[3](#page-4-0) Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: February 5, 2024\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n By: */s/ Lisa J. Fried\\_\\_\\_\\_*  Lisa J. Fried (ct31425) HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (917) 542-7600 lisa.fried@hsf.com\n\n*Counsel for Non-Party UBS AG*\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>3</sup>\n\nTo the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，[1] 第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并审理）\nUBS AG 对受托人根据《破产法典》第 108 条、第 546(a) 条及第 549 条申请延长提起撤销诉讼截止期限之动议的异议\n\n非当事人 UBS AG（“UBS”）经由其下述署名律师，谨此就上述标题所示第 11 章案件中指定的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）Luc A Despins 提交的《关于根据〈破产法典〉第 108 条、第 546(a) 条及第 549 条延长受托人提起撤销诉讼截止期限之命令的动议》[ECF No. 2509]（“动议”）提出本异议（“异议”）。为支持本异议，UBS 谨陈述如下：\n\n1. UBS 假定法院熟悉该动议及其中所寻求的救济。UBS 进一步假定受托人向 UBS 送达该动议的通知，仅仅是因为 UBS 是本案中根据《破产程序规则》第 2004 条传票（“第 2004 条传票”）的 250 多个接收方之一。（动议第 13 段。）明确而言，UBS 未知悉受托人能够对 UBS 提起撤销诉讼的任何依据，但 UBS 提出本\n\n1 本案第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他多个别名）（纳税识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（统称“债务人”）。\n\n异议出于高度审慎，并专门保留 UBS 在受托人对 UBS 提出主张时反对受托人所请求救济的权利。\n\n2. 正如受托人在其动议中所承认的（该动议主要依赖康涅狄格区以外的判例法源），康涅狄格区至少有一家破产法院已认定，在“前瞻性”地（即在任何对抗性诉讼程序提起之前）提交时，申请以衡平法中止撤销诉讼时效期限的动议是不成熟且不当的。（动议第 31 段（援引 In re Walnut Hill, Inc., 2018 WL 2672242, at *2 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 1, 2018)））。In re Walnut 案的法院认定，在提出诉讼时效抗辩之前且在“针对特定被告”的指控“语境之外”寻求中止时效期限是“完全不成熟且在程序上有缺陷的”。In re Walnut Hill, Inc., 2018 WL 2672242, at *2。受托人主要依赖 Second Circuit（第二巡回区）以外未公布的裁决作为所请求救济的依据。（动议第 30 段。）这些所谓的判例极易加以区分。[2]\n\n3. 即使该动议在程序上合理（UBS 否认该主张），受托人也无法证明存在“特殊情况”阻止其在 2024 年 2 月 15 日之前专门针对 UBS 提起任何诉讼。（动议第 2 段。）受托人持有关于债务人郭某及其关联方据称与\n\n2 参见 In re Farwest Pump Co., 2020 WL 257784, at *3 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2020)（在第 11 章计划中提出且无任何当事方反对的情况下准予时效中止）；In re Martin Levy Of Berlin D.M.D., P.C., 416 B.R. 1, 8 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009)（在动议未遭反对的情况下准予时效中止）；In re Rockport Dev., Inc., No. 20-11339-SC (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2022) [ECF No. 822]（在动议未遭反对的情况下准予时效中止）；In re Dwek, No. 07-11757 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) [ECF No. 3790]（在联邦调查延迟了受托人调查的情况下准予时效中止）；In re Visiting Nurse Ass'n of Inland Counties, No. 18-16908-MH (Bankr C.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) [ECF No. 683]（在未陈述理由的六行裁定中准予时效中止）；In re Builders Holding Co., No. 16-06643-EAG7 (Bankr. D.P.R. April 25, 2019) [ECF No. 501]（在“超级优先令”阻碍受托人管理破产财产的情况下准予时效中止 90 天）。\n\nUBS 往来的详细信息已有数月之久，因此受托人无法令人信服地主张其目前对其认为可能对 UBS 拥有的任何潜在主张缺乏充分了解。截至去年 11 月中旬，UBS 已针对第 2004 条传票向受托人出示了近 17,000 页的文件以及一份特权保护清单。（Lisa J. Fried 日期为 2024 年 2 月 5 日的声明（“Fried 声明”）第 3 段。）\n\n4. UBS 对第 2004 条传票的遵从表明，UBS 绝没有助长、更没有制造任何可能构成衡平法时效中止合理理由的情形。受托人关于债务人进行阻挠的指控（参见例如动议第 18 段），与动议所请求的针对 UBS 的救济毫无关联。参见 Maxon Eng'g Servs. v. Alex Hornedo Robles & Assoc. (In re Maxon Eng'g Servs.), 397 B.R. 228, 229 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2008)（适用衡平法时效中止，被寻求时效中止的被告“至少必须是不当行为的一方当事人”）。\n\n5. 尽管受托人声称送达《第 11 章受托人根据〈破产法典〉第 105(a) 条及〈破产程序规则〉第 2002 条和第 9014 条提起的关于 (I) 批准受托人即将提交的时效中止动议的通知形式和方式以及 (II) 排定听证日期的紧急命令动议》[ECF No. 2494] 使得潜在的正当程序担忧“不适用”（动议第 7 段），但受托人迄今为止根本没有展示其可能寻求对 UBS 提起何种主张。因此，就受托人可能在撤销诉讼中寻求提起的任何尚未主张的诉求而言，UBS 从定义上并非“获得正当通知的被告”。参见例如 In re Randolph Hosp., Inc., 2022 WL 19298765, at *1 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2022)。此外，受托人为主张通知已充分而援引的判例是张冠李戴，因为该案的事实与本案毫无相似之处。参见 In re Martin Levy Of Berlin D.M.D., P.C., 416 B.R. 1, 8\n\n(Bankr. D. Mass. 2009)（“被告不能回避索取信息的受托人、无视受托人延长诉讼时效的请求、坐等时效届满，然后在提起起诉书数月后声称受托人运气不好”）。UBS 已就债务人郭某及其关联方据称与该银行的往来向受托人出示了数万页文件，并未“回避……[或]无视……”受托人。\n\n6. 最后，在受托人寻求依赖《破产程序规则》第 9006(b) 条作为衡平法时效中止的替代方案的范围内，“第 9006(b) 条不适用于第 546(a) 条”，因此它不是本法院准予所请求救济的有效依据。In re Walnut, 2018 WL 2672242, at *2。受托人对其他联邦巡回区判例法的依赖缺乏说服力。（动议第 39−42 段。）\n\n综上所述，UBS 谨请求本法院支持前述异议，驳回针对 UBS 适用的该动议，并准予法院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2024 年 2 月 5 日，纽约州纽约市。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n签署人：/s/ Lisa J. Fried_____  Lisa J. Fried (ct31425) HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP（高伟绅律师事务所纽约有限责任合伙） 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 lisa.fried@hsf.com 非当事人 UBS AG 之代理律师\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n第 11 章\n\n债务人。\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并审理）\n送达证明书\n\n下述署名人特此证明，于 2024 年 2 月 5 日，前述异议连同为支持该异议而提交的声明已通过电子方式归档。该归档的通知已通过法院电子归档系统（“CM/ECF”）以电子邮件方式发送给上述标题所示第 11 章案件的所有当事方，或根据电子归档通知上的注明，通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子归档的任何人。[3] 各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本份归档文件。\n\n日期：2024 年 2 月 5 日\n\n谨此提交，\n\n签署人：/s/ Lisa J. Fried____  Lisa J. Fried (ct31425) HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (917) 542-7600 lisa.fried@hsf.com\n\n非当事人 UBS AG 之代理律师\n在前述内容于正常办公时间之外归档的范围内，向无法或无资格接受电子通知的接收人进行的邮寄送达已于下一个工作日完成。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":501,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":683,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":822,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2494,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2509,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3790,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1388,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:51:32"}