{"id":"court_ctb_313_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":313,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2022-05-02","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION --------------------------x In Re: : Case No.","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION --------------------------x In Re: : Case No. 21-50081 : HO WAN KWOK, : Chapter 11 Debtor. : --------------------------x March 1, 2022 Brien McMahon Federal Bldg. 915 Lafayette Street Bridgeport, Connecticut MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SCHEDULES (Transcription from Electronic Recording) Held Before: THE HON. JULIE A. MANNING United States Bankruptcy Judge Transcription Services of FALZARANO COURT REPORTERS, LLC 4 Somerset Lane Simsbury, CT 06070 860.651.0258 [www.falzaranocourtreporters.com](htt)\n\n2 A P P E A R A N C E S (via telephone): For the Debtor: BROWN RUDNICK, LLP Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 212-209-4800 BY: BENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ. BROWN RUDNICK, LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 860-509-6500 BY: DYLAN KLETTER, ESQ. For Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP (PAX): O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 212-326-2000 BY: STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. AISLING MURRAY, ESQ. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 202-383-5300 BY: PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. DAVID HARBACH, II., ESQ. ROBINSON & COLE 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 860-275-8275 BY: PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. For the Creditor Logan Cheng: RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 100 Pearl Street - 14th Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06103 702-420-2001 BY: JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ. (Via videoconference) Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 2 of 57\n\n3\n\nFor the U.S. Trustee:\n\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street - Room 302 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 203-773-2210 BY: HOLLY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 4:04 p.m.) COURTROOM DEPUTY: Number 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 Bennett Silverberg of Brown Rudnick. I'm joined by my sponsoring attorney, Dylan Kletter. THE COURT: Good afternoon to both of you. And I think, Attorney Silverberg, there may have been an order entered allowing your admission *pro hac vice* is it? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, 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, LP or PAX. With me in the courtroom, your honor, to my right is Attorney Peter Friedman, to my left is Attorney Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BIRNEY: And couple of other folks, Attorney David Harbach and Aisling Murray all from O'Melveny. Your Honor, the motions for *pro hac vice* have been filed and granted by your Honor and Mr. Friedman will Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 4 of 57\n\n 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, for the creditor Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. MR. WOLMAN: 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 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 hearing so you're 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's an interpreter here today for\n\n 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 Friedberg from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX. We do understand. 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 States Trustee's pleadings that were filed I think yesterday, I think I'm correct, that 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\n\n| 1 | interpreter
who
was
present
physically
with
the
Debtor. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE
COURT:
So
is
the
gentleman
that's
here |\n| 3 | today
--
I
shouldn't
even
say,
I
assume
it's
a
gentleman |\n| 4 | because
I'm
looking
in
the
back
of
the
courtroom,
but
is |\n| 5 | the
gentleman
here
today
the
same
gentleman
that
was
with |\n| 6 | the
Debtor
during
the
initial
Debtor
interview? |\n| 7 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
No,
your
Honor.
The |\n| 8 | interpreter's
name
is
John
Lao. |\n| 9 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
Okay.
I
just
need
to |\n| 10 | understand
at
some
point
if
Mr.
Lao
is
going
to
be |\n| 11 | interpreting
anything
that
the
Debtor
says
I
want
to |\n| 12 | understand
Mr.
Lao's
qualifications,
if
we
get
to
that |\n| 13 | point,
okay?
We
obviously
were
not
prepared
to
have
an |\n| 14 | interpreter
but
that's
not
necessarily
a
problem.
All
I'm |\n| 15 | suggesting
to
you
is
I
don't
want
there
--
I'm
not
going |\n| 16 | to
have
a
hearing
continue
and
be
held
if
there's
going
to |\n| 17 | be
any
controversy
over
the
interpreter.
That's
my
point, |\n| 18 | okay? |\n| 19 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
Yes,
your
Honor. |\n| 20 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
Thank
you. |\n| 21 | All
right.
Now
-- |\n| 22 | MS.
MURRAY:
Judge,
I'm
sorry,
we
didn't
pick
up |\n| 23 | what
Attorney
Claiborn
is
saying
--
said
before,
I'm |\n| 24 | sorry.
She's
a
little
far
from
the
mic. |\n| 25 | THE
COURT:
Yeah,
it's
not
your
fault,
Attorney |\n\n| 1 | Claiborn.
The
problem
is
with
all
of
us
with
masks
and, |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | you
know,
distancing,
and
sometimes
we
might
have
to
ask |\n| 3 | you
to
talk
a
little
more
loudly. |\n| 4 | MS.
CLAIBORN:
I'll
do
my
best
to
speak
louder. |\n| 5 | THE
COURT:
Thank
you.
Even
just
that
angle |\n| 6 | unfortunately
picks
up
your
voice
better
in
the |\n| 7 | microphone.
And
as
I
think
you're
all
aware
our
record
is |\n| 8 | audio,
so
we
have
to
be
very
careful
about
the
microphones |\n| 9 | and
if
there's
times
when
I
ask
you
or
someone
asks
you
to |\n| 10 | repeat
yourself
it's
because
we
need
to
make
sure
we
have |\n| 11 | a
clear
record.
Okay? |\n| 12 | All
right.
So
a
week
or
so
ago,
and
I
can
pull |\n| 13 | it
up,
you
probably
all
know
it
better
than
I
at
this |\n| 14 | point,
the
Clerk's
Office
entered
a
docket
entry
in
this |\n| 15 | case
regarding
certain
deficiencies
with
regard
to
the |\n| 16 | petition
and
other
documents
that
are
required
to
be
filed |\n| 17 | in
a
bankruptcy
case
by
a
voluntary
debtor.
The
amended |\n| 18 | petition
was
filed,
I
saw
that,
that
corrected
that |\n| 19 | deficiency.
There
is
a
--
I
understand,
you
know,
the |\n| 20 | office
is
thinking
that
they
can
sometimes
use
other |\n| 21 | people's
numbers
but
we
don't
allow
that
and
so
that
was |\n| 22 | why
there
was
a
need
for
the
filing
of
the
amended |\n| 23 | petition.
So
I
understand
that's
been
done. |\n| 24 | I
understand
there
was
a
notation
about
a |\n| 25 | creditor
who
didn't
have
an
appropriate
attention
line
and |\n\n that's been corrected as well. So the Court appreciates that.\n\n 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 and 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 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 courts take very seriously.\n\n The deficiency notice said that the case may be dismissed. It didn't say shall, but I understand the Debtor's counsels 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 extend time to file the schedules.\n\n| 1 | Now,
I
understand
what
you're
looking
for. |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | You're
looking
for
60
days.
You
know
that
you've
got
two |\n| 3 | written
objections
to
that
already.
I
can
tell
you
you're |\n| 4 | not
going
to
get
60
days.
That's
not
going
to
happen. |\n| 5 | But
what
I
want
to
know
is
have
you
had
any
discussions |\n| 6 | with
counsel
for
the
creditors
or
the
U.S.
Trustee's |\n| 7 | Office
about
your
request
and
their
objections. |\n| 8 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
Yes,
your
Honor.
As
a
matter |\n| 9 | of
fact
we
had
our
--
I'm
not
sure
if
your
Honor
can
hear |\n| 10 | me. |\n| 11 | THE
COURT:
That's
perfect,
thank
you. |\n| 12 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
Your
Honor,
we
had
our
initial |\n| 13 | Debtor
interview
with
Ms.
Claiborn
in
her
office |\n| 14 | yesterday.
It
was
a
3-hour
interview.
At
the
conclusion |\n| 15 | of
the
interview
we
asked
Ms.
Claiborn
what
the
Office's |\n| 16 | position
was
on
the
extension
request.
She
made
clear |\n| 17 | that
60
days
was
going
to
be
met
with
an
objection
and
she |\n| 18 | strongly
admonished
that
we
consider
requesting
an |\n| 19 | extension
that
expired
in
advance
of
the
section
341 |\n| 20 | meeting
and
creditors
sufficient
time
to
review
the |\n| 21 | schedules
and
statements
so
that
they
can
ask
informed |\n| 22 | questions
at
the
341
meeting. |\n| 23 | Last
night
after
consulting
with
the
client
who |\n| 24 | happens
--
sorry,
did
we
make
any
introduction
to
our |\n| 25 | client,
Mr.
Ho
Wan
Kwok? |\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 11 of 57\n\n| 1 | MR.
KWOK:
Good
afternoon,
your
Honor. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE
COURT:
Good
afternoon,
sir. |\n| 3 | MR.
SILBERBERG:
He
goes
my
Miles. |\n| 4 | THE
COURT:
Good
afternoon.
Thank
you.
You
can |\n| 5 | have
a
seat,
sir.
Thank
you. |\n| 6 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
So
yesterday,
last
evening, |\n| 7 | sorry,
we
made
a
proposal
to
the
U.S.
Trustee
to
extend |\n| 8 | the
deadline
to
file
the
schedules
and
the
statements |\n| 9 | until
March
16th,
which
is
the
Wednesday
before
the
Monday |\n| 10 | 341
meeting.
The
reason
why
we
didn't
go
exactly
a
week |\n| 11 | prior
is
that
we're
dealing
with
some
of
the
logistics
of |\n| 12 | translating
the
schedules
and
statements
into
Mr.
Kwok's |\n| 13 | native
Chinese.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
when
he |\n| 14 | certifies
and
attests
to
the
accuracy
under
penalty
of |\n| 15 | perjury
that
he
completely
understands
in
his
own
language |\n| 16 | what
the
schedules
and
statements
are
saying
so
that |\n| 17 | there's
absolutely
no
question
as
to
what
the
words
are
on |\n| 18 | the
page. |\n| 19 | THE
COURT:
I
understand.
Okay.
So
are
you |\n| 20 | saying
that
you
are
prepared
--
and
I'm
going
to
hear
from |\n| 21 | other
parties,
but
I
just
want
to
ask
you
this
question. |\n| 22 | You
are
prepared
on
behalf
of
the
Debtor
to
agree
to
an |\n| 23 | extension
of
time
that
would
expire
on
March
16th;
is
that |\n| 24 | correct? |\n| 25 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
That
is
correct,
your
Honor. |\n\n THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. I 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 of 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 PAX presentation before the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Oh, that's fine. Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: And I make that suggestion because there is a long history of the Debtor and PAX that I think would be informative to the analysis of what kind of an extension of time makes sense for this case. THE COURT: That's fine. Counsel? MR. SILVERBERG: And your Honor, if PAX is going to go into a gory detail of what led us here I think -- I have a presentation I can make as well if you want to hear it, otherwise you can hear -- THE COURT: Well, are you suggesting you'd like to make your presentation first; is that what you're saying? Or do you want to respond to their presentation?\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 13 of 57\n\n MR. SILVERBERG: I'd like to make our presentation first if that -- THE COURT: 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. 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 is first give a background of Mr. Kwok 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, Mr. Kwok was born in Shandong Province in China. He currently resides in Greenwich, Connecticut with his wife of 35 years, Hing Chi. He has two adult children, together they have a son, Mr. Qiang Guo, and a daughter, Ms. Mei Guo. The son lives\n\n| 1 | in
the
United
Kingdom,
the
daughter
splits
her
time |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | between
New
York
City
and
Connecticut,
hopefully
more
time |\n| 3 | out
of
the
parents'
house
now
that
Covid
is
receding. |\n| 4 | He
grew
up
in
a
large
but
poor
household
which |\n| 5 | inspired
his
entrepreneurial
spirit.
At
the
age
of
13
Mr. |\n| 6 | Kwok
dropped
out
of
middle
school
and
began
selling |\n| 7 | clothing
and
electronics
to
help
support
his
family.
In |\n| 8 | May
1989
was
detained
and
tortured
for
his
support
of
the |\n| 9 | Tiananmen
Square
protest.
While
detained
for |\n| 10 | approximately
20
months
he
created
key
relationships
with |\n| 11 | political
activists,
intellectuals,
business
people
and |\n| 12 | religious
leaders.
One
of
these
contacts
will
later |\n| 13 | introduce
him
to
a
Ms.
Ping
Xia,
a
successful
business |\n| 14 | woman
and
investor
from
Hong
Kong. |\n| 15 | In
1991
Mr.
Kwok
began
to
work
with
Ms.
Xia
in |\n| 16 | Yuda
property
company,
a
company
which
focused
on |\n| 17 | commercial
real
estate
development
in
the
Henan
Province |\n| 18 | of
China.
Shortly
after
its
launch
Yuda
successfully |\n| 19 | developed
and
constructed
the
high
end
Yuda
International |\n| 20 | Trade
Center
in
Henan
Province's
capital
city
of |\n| 21 | Zhengzhou.
The
commercial
complex
includes
what
was
at |\n| 22 | the
time
the
tallest
skyscraper
in
Henan
Province
and |\n| 23 | China's
5th
tallest
building.
Upon
completion
of
its |\n| 24 | construction
the
complex
had
a
then
value
of
300
million. |\n| 25 | The
trade
center
was
financially
successful
and |\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 15 of 57\n\n established Mr. Kwok's presence in China's world of real estate developers, particularly in Henan Province where Yuda continued to develop high end residential and commercial projects.\n\n Around 2000 building on his success in Henan Province Mr. Kwok shifted his real estate aspirations to the Chinese capital Beijing where he expanded his business to include private financing for his projects in which his six siblings participated. 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 consulting company, entities in which Mr. Kwok's and extended family were shareholders and employees.\n\n In 2002 these businesses acquired two parcels spanning approximately 2 million square meters of undeveloped land in northern Beijing. The value of these parcels increased dramatically after China was named to host country for the 2008 Olympics and the government announced its plans to build the Olympic venue adjacent to these land parcels.\n\nThe increased value of these parcels spawned Mr.\n\n Kwok's longstanding political fight with the Chinese Communist Party. Deputy Mayor Zhihua attempted to improperly appropriate Morgan Investments property, Mr. Kwok fought back, reporting this corruption to the Government, and after a lengthy fight ultimately recovered Morgan Investments land parcels.\n\n Mr. Kwok then oversaw the successful construction and timely completion of the Beijing Pangu Plaza and Jhihuan 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. The CCP also caused the seizure of his assets elsewhere including Hong Kong and caused Interpol to issue a red notice for his arrest.\n\n In September of 2017 he claimed political asylum in the United States and his application remains pending to this day. He continues his criticism of the CCPs 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 Getter -- I had to look Getter up, I didn't know what it was --\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 17 of 57\n\n where he shares his personal views and opinions concerning the CCP and the need for democracy in China. He has over one million followers across the various social media platforms. Notably he has not monetized his social media presence.\n\n Mr. Kwok is not employed and he relies on the support of family, principally his son, to cover his daily living expenses. Through Mr. Kwok's son's family office in Golden Spring New York, his on advances his monthly expenses. Brown Rudnick's retainer was paid by another entity own by Mr. Kwok's son, Lamp Capital, LLC as set forth 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 fine.\n\n MR. SILVERBERG: Turning to the PAX litigation, though he left China he didn't leave all his troubles behind. We suspect the Court will hear quite a bit from PAX'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.\n\n PAX, a Hong Kong investment fund commenced actions against Mr. Kwok in New York and BVI. The New York action commenced in 2017 is before Justice Ostrager in New York Supreme Court. In the New York action Mr.\n\n Kwok is represented by BakerHostetler. These are principally collection actions related to a 30 million dollar loan made to a Chinese entity called Spirit Charter back in 2008. PAX claims that Mr. Kwok provided a personal guarantee of the PAX 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 PAX's favor. Mr. Kwok has appealed this judgment to the Appellate Division and the appeal remains pending though stayed as a result of the commencement of this case. In the meantime Pax sought to enforce a restraining order issued by Justice Ostrager on\n\n Mr. Kwok prohibiting him from transferring or dissipating assets and moving them outside the jurisdiction of the New York courts.\n\n PAX became laser-focused on a yacht name the Lady May. PAX wanted the yacht back in New York so that it could arrest the boat and levy on it. Mr. Kwok denied owning the board and asserted that he couldn't order the boat back to New York. Justice Ostrager directed Mr. Kwok\n\n to return the boat to New York by May 15, 2021 or face a massive daily fine of \\$500,000 for every day the boat remained outside its 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 dollar fine to PAX within just 5 days or risk jail time. The February 9th decision is also on appeal to the Appellate Division. Mr. Kwok lacked the means to satisfy the fine. He 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 manner. He is hopeful that he can agree with his creditors on the terms of a Chapter 11 plan. Counsel for PAX is in the same building as our firm, just an elevator bank away. His principal assets are litigation claims. Assuming he prevails on these claims he may be able to fund full recovery 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,\n\n 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 Creditors Committee 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.\n\n Chiefly we suspect they'll investigate the allegations that PAX made in their papers, which brings us to the motion for the request for the extension for 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. If we had more time we would have made sure that the schedules were filed on time. Or certainly maybe in advance of the -- contemporaneous with the filing.\n\n 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 the 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\n\n liabilities 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 Stretto who your Honor may be familiar with. As I noted, your Honor, we discussed Mr. Kwok's extension request yesterday afternoon with the U.S. Trustee. Yesterday two parties filed objections to the extension motion, the U.S. Trustee and PAX. Both pretty much make the same point, the requested extension was too long and they want to get on with the case. 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 the 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. Mr. Kwok agrees that it's best to work harder to get the schedule statements on file sooner. The sooner the schedules are on file the soon he can established a\n\n bar date for claims, start reconciling them, and see if he can propose a feasible Chapter 11 plan. And your Honor, I already mentioned the proposal that we extended 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. 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. As I mentioned and you all know we have audio for our record. There's some names that you recited during your presentation that I think it would be helpful to get to the Clerk's Office so that the Clerk's Office can make sure they're properly spelled and accounted for in the record in this case. MR. SILVERBERG: Absolutely, your Honor, and we're happy to provide the English spelling and I guess my phonetic transliteration. THE COURT: Whatever, whatever, yes, that would be very helpful because we do want the record to be accurate and so I would like you to do that. MR. SILVERBERG: Absolutely, your Honor. THE COURT: I'll speak with the courtroom deputy but we could probably have the Clerk of the Court reach out to you, Counsel, and figure out a way to get that\n\n information so that we clearly have it for our record and have it accurate. MR. SILVERBERG: It will be our pleasure. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just want to think if I had any other though when -- I mean I had other thoughts but anything I wanted to say when you were speaking. With regard to the 341 meeting and whatever happens here today I think 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. I think that this is a fluid case with a lot of issues and that's the U.S. Trustee's Office's 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 apparently going to have to have an interpreter there and there may or may not be a lot of creditors that have interest and questions but I want to make sure that they're provided with that opportunity. Keep it timely and with enough notice that when the documents are filed they have enough time to intelligently review them. Okay?\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 24 of 57\n\n So I urge you to -- you would communicate that with the U.S. Trustee and explain that the Debtor's counsel has no problem with that. MS. CLAIBORN: I will do that, your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Counsel for PAX, you may proceed. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. I actually gave -- Mr. Silverberg? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- Mr. Silverberg a copy of my declaration. I have it in binder form. I actually have two binders if I can hand them up to you. THE COURT: Sure. MR. FRIEDMAN: It may be helpful for you, you and your Clerk, we may refer to some things -- THE COURT: Sure. 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: Did I say the wrong name? MR. SILVERBERG: That's okay. THE COURT: I apologize. I'm looking at two\n\n things at the same time. Yes, you have no problem; is that correct? 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 from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX. So your Honor, there are many, many, many different things that are worth responding to but let me start with just the straightforward 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 -- THE INTERPRETER: (Indiscernible) I cannot possibly translate anything -- THE COURT: Hold on a second, sir. Just hold on a second, okay? He has a right to make his presentation and you can listen to it later because we record it and we put it 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. THE INTERPRETER: I understand. Do you think he\n\n can use the mic, at least we can all hear back here? THE COURT: Can you just pull the microphone a little bit closer to you, Counsel? MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure, your Honor. I have serious doubt 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. Okay? MR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely, your Honor. 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 -- 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 but -- 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. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, should I try that one up there?\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 27 of 57\n\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
Maybe
it
might
be
better.
Let's
see |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | how
we
do,
okay?
There's
been
a
problem
with
that |\n| 3 | microphone
today.
I
can't
tell
you
why. |\n| 4 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
So
your
Honor,
Justice
Ostrager |\n| 5 | held,
and
I
believe
tab
4
of
your
binder
is
the
opinion, |\n| 6 | that
Mr.
Kwok
couldn't
claim
the
documents
were
forgery |\n| 7 | for
a
litany
of
reasons.
Estoppel,
that
he
had
made |\n| 8 | representations
in
the
past,
that
he
had
actually
produced |\n| 9 | those
documents.
So
the
claim
is
just
on
its
face
not
a |\n| 10 | meaningful
claim
and
not
one
that
this
Court
should |\n| 11 | ultimately
be
able
to
sit
in
judgment
over
the
reasoned |\n| 12 | findings
of
Justice
Ostrager. |\n| 13 | THE
COURT:
May
I
ask
you
a
question
about |\n| 14 | Exhibit
4? |\n| 15 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 16 | THE
COURT:
The
exhibit
you
just
pointed
me
to. |\n| 17 | So
of
course
I
haven't
reviewed
anything
-- |\n| 18 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 19 | THE
COURT:
--
before
today,
but
I'm
looking
at |\n| 20 | Exhibit
4
and
it
appears
that
Justice
Ostrager
issued
this |\n| 21 | --
let
me
just
see
what
it
--
I
apologize.
Let
me
see |\n| 22 | what
it
is
entitled.
It's
a
Decision
and
Order
on
Motion, |\n| 23 | that
he
issued
this
on
September
15,
2020;
I'm
correct
in |\n| 24 | that? |\n| 25 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
Yes,
your
Honor.
This
is
his |\n\n| 1 | summary
judgment
motion
finding
that
Kwok
in
fact
did
owe |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | money
to
PAX
on
a
personal
guarantee. |\n| 3 | THE
COURT:
And
then
what
happened
after
the |\n| 4 | summary
judgment
decision?
Was
there
an
appeal
or
is
this |\n| 5 | considered
interlocutory
or
what
is
the
situation
with |\n| 6 | regard
to
this
specific
ruling
that
you're
appointing
me |\n| 7 | to
right
now? |\n| 8 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
So
it
is
on
appeal,
it
is
outside |\n| 9 | of
-- |\n| 10 | THE
COURT:
It
is.
Okay. |\n| 11 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
So
it's
not
an
issue
that
this |\n| 12 | Court
could
review
-- |\n| 13 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I |\n| 14 | understand
because
as
you
can
see
there's
a
lot
of |\n| 15 | documents
here
-- |\n| 16 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
There
are. |\n| 17 | THE
COURT:
--
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
and |\n| 18 | I
want
to
understand
the
status
and
I
do
now.
I |\n| 19 | understand
that
he
made
these
findings
and
that's
still
on |\n| 20 | appeal
at
the
moment. |\n| 21 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
Yes.
But
your
Honor
asks
a
great |\n| 22 | question,
what
happened
after
that.
Well,
what
happened |\n| 23 | after
that,
the
first
thing
that
happened
is
that
Mr.
Kwok |\n| 24 | filed
a
company
called
Genever
New
York
for
bankruptcy
in |\n| 25 | the
Southern
District
of
New
York. |\n\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
And
you
mention
that
in
your
papers |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | so
I
have
that
name
correct.
I've
seen
it. |\n| 3 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
Yeah.
So
it
was
very
upsetting |\n| 4 | that
that
was
not
listed
as
an
affiliated
bankruptcy |\n| 5 | because
Mr.
Kwok
owns
a
hundred
percent
of
the
equity
of
a |\n| 6 | company
called
Genever,
Genever
British
Virgin
Islands, |\n| 7 | it's
Genever
Holdings
British
Virgin
Islands,
which
in |\n| 8 | turns
owns
a
hundred
percent
of
the
equity
of
a
debtor
in |\n| 9 | the
Southern
District
of
New
York.
That
is
of
course
the |\n| 10 | classic
case
of
an
affiliate,
it
wasn't
listed
on
the |\n| 11 | petition.
Really
troubling,
and
one
of
the
animating |\n| 12 | forces
behind
why
we
think
no
extension
should
be
given |\n| 13 | beyond
the
14
days
that
Congress
provides
statutorily. |\n| 14 | That
entity
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York |\n| 15 | is
now
the
subject
of
--
it's
too
long
to
get
into, |\n| 16 | eventually
we
will
be
seeking
relief
from
this
Court
to |\n| 17 | permit
us
to
pursue
--
to
vindicate
Mr.
Kwok's
ownership |\n| 18 | rights
of
that
entity
and
to
object
to
bogus
claims |\n| 19 | asserted
by
his
family
members.
That's
been
part
of
his |\n| 20 | effort
to
frustrate
our
efforts
to
have
that
judgment |\n| 21 | satisfied. |\n| 22 | Your
Honor,
Congress
listed
14
days
for
a |\n| 23 | reason.
We
think
it's
important.
I
will
say
of
course |\n| 24 | oftentimes
I
am
in
a
position
of
asking
for
an
extension |\n| 25 | of
schedules
and
to
be
honest
--
and
so
for
filing
dates |\n\n 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, it may 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 is true here.\n\n 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 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 134 million dollar contempt fine, and that's just not Justice Ostrager imposing that, that was unanimously\n\naffirmed by the Appellate Division in New York State.\n\n 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 turnover motion to require the person who is in 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 modified to permit Justice Ostrager to require that -- to the return of the Lady May to New York Harbor. I'm 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\n\n believe will ultimately be reviewable by this Court and should not be second guessed because they are part of an order that's already on appeal. Mr. Kwok lost a motion\n\n 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.\n\n 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 raise to 135 million dollar non-dischargeable claim. We noted that in the footnote. We will also be commencing an adversary proceeding to hold that debt non-dischargeable which also gives right o the question how could there ever be a feasible Chapter 11 plan when Mr. Kwok will be facing 134 million dollar debt if he ever got a discharge.\n\n And I think those kinds of issues call into 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.\n\n I realize, your Honor, that we will have to prove a lot of things to you but we have the evidence, many of those issues have already been established by Justice Ostrager. This is not a Debtor who comes to you with anything even remotely approaching clean hands. 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 dollars you don't even footnote it in your petition. It's just astonishing. It's astonishing that somebody wouldn't list an affiliate as a debtor when there's a specific box. 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 non-statutory insider.\n\n That 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 that they will be paid based on a loan that as made from Lamp, also Mr. Kwok's family office to Mr. Kwok. So if you look at the schedule -- the petition, Lamp turns up as a million dollar creditor for that loan. But even though that loan it's still -- it's at Brown Rudnick as a retainer, it's still Mr. Kwok's property, so I don't know 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, as a prepetition loan. Again, just the lack of candor to this Court\n\n already is what impels us to believe that no quarter should be given.\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 34 of 57\n\n I want to note in our brief we cited virtually everything Justice Ostrager said, but I didn't cite one portion that I think is 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: But it's also in the book here? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. It's also attached to the U.S. Trustee's objection. That might be the easiest way to find it. THE COURT: Okay. If you give me a second I will locate it. (Pause.) THE COURT: I think I have it here but let me make sure. A Decision and Order on Motion dated February 9, 2022 that is 10 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\n\n| 1 | came
after
Mr.
Kwok's
daughter,
who
counsel
referenced, |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | was
basically
held
to
be
a
liar
by
Justice
Ostrager.
When |\n| 3 | you
read
the
opinion
you'll
see
the
lack
of
credibility |\n| 4 | that Justice
Ostrager
referenced
with
her
testimony.
He's |\n| 5 | not
the
only
judge
to
do
that.
Judge
Liman
in
a
case
in |\n| 6 | the
Southern
District
of
New
York
also
cast
extreme
doubt |\n| 7 | over
the
credibility
of
her
testimony
relating
to
the |\n| 8 | interfamily
transfer
of
funds. |\n\n 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 invasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the 5 years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\n I implore 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 require disclosures be made within 14 days. The request for 60 days was, to put it mildly, outrageous.\n\n We request the Court deny the motion in the entirety, but I'm going to say something else, your Honor. Ultimately I realize that, you know, your job is to balance a variety of factors. We believe strongly that no\n\n 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 aren't going to say he didn't file something by the end of the day today, the case should be dismissed automatically.\n\n So 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 easy. If there are these contingent lawsuits 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, 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's 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\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 37 of 57\n\n 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 would the U.S. Trustee's objection, as I will the motion for 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 that he's made an offer to the United States Trustee's Office to go to March 16. You're stating that you would not object if the Court entered an order extending the deadline to March 4th. We're not that far apart in some ways but I understand your position. 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 5-minute recess. We don't have to take a recess, we can do whatever you want. But right now today the issue is, is there going to be an extension of time granted. You, 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 not going to happen. It's not appropriate. In very\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 38 of 57\n\n 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 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 5-minute recess. It won't -- MS. CLAIBORN: I just don't know whether or not the parties were interested in discussing it. THE COURT: Or yeah, and if there isn't an interest in 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 PAX is going to dig in their heels on the 4th that's just not going to be\n\n| 1 | workable
from
a
logistics
standpoint
so
-- |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE
COURT:
And
that
may
be
true
on
the |\n| 3 | negotiation
standpoint
but
I
might
order
it.
So,
you |\n| 4 | know,
that's
where
we
go
and
that's
fine.
You
are
-- |\n| 5 | every
single
--
you've
all
made
your
positions
and
I |\n| 6 | haven't
even
asked
Attorney
Wolman
what
his
position
might |\n| 7 | be
yet
because
he
is
participating
in
this
hearing,
but |\n| 8 | you've
made
your
positions
clear.
It's
not
a
complex |\n| 9 | issue
for
the
Court
to
decide.
I
do
want
to
look
back
at |\n| 10 | the
papers
for
a
few
minutes
and
I
can
do
that
now.
I
can |\n| 11 | take
a
5,
10,
15-minute
recess,
doesn't
matter.
And
then |\n| 12 | I
can
come
back
and
rule
today
or
I
can
rule
tomorrow. |\n| 13 | It's
not
complex.
I'm
not
worried
about
issuing
a
ruling, |\n| 14 | that
I
can
tell
you. |\n| 15 | And
so
however
you'd
like
to
proceed.
I'm |\n| 16 | trying
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
suggest
to
me
what |\n| 17 | you
think
makes
some
sense.
If
you'd
like
a
recess
to |\n| 18 | talk
about
it,
that's
fine.
If
you
don't
we
can
conclude |\n| 19 | this
hearing
and
I
can
rule
tomorrow
or
we
can
take
a |\n| 20 | recess
and
I
can
try
to
come
back
and
rule
tonight.
I |\n| 21 | have
no
problem
with
either
one
of
those
ways
of |\n| 22 | proceeding. |\n| 23 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
I'm
always
in
deal-making
mode |\n| 24 | so
if
PAX
wants
to
speak
so
-- |\n| 25 | THE
COURT:
Well,
why
don't
we
take
--
it's
10 |\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 40 of 57\n\n| 1 | of
5:00.
Why
don't
we
-- |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR.
WOLMAN:
Your
Honor? |\n| 3 | THE
COURT:
Yes.
Oh,
Attorney
Wolman. |\n| 4 | MR.
WOLMAN:
Can
I
be
heard? |\n| 5 | THE
COURT:
I'm
sorry,
go
ahead. |\n| 6 | MR.
WOLMAN:
That's
all
right.
I
just
wanted
to |\n| 7 | be
brief
but
I
feel
like
this
should
be
heard.
We
did
not |\n| 8 | file
anything
but
we
do
join
generally
Mr.
Cheng
in
the |\n| 9 | objections
both
by
the
U.S.
Trustee
and
by
PAX. |\n| 10 | A
little
background.
Mr.
Cheng
was
a
victim
in |\n| 11 | Nevada
of
Mr.
Kwok's
serial
campaign
of
defamation |\n| 12 | lawsuits.
Mr.
Cheng
himself
opposes
the
Chinese
Communist |\n| 13 | Party
and
he
took
issue
with
how
Mr.
Kwok
was
addressing |\n| 14 | that
movement
as
it
were,
and
after
Mr.
Kwok
made
a |\n| 15 | defamatory
video
about
Mr.
Cheng
my
client
had
a
few |\n| 16 | tweets
and
then
found
himself
a
subject
of
a
SLAPP
suit. |\n| 17 | Now
the
Court
is
aware
about
lawsuits
that
are |\n| 18 | called
strategic
lawsuits
against
public
participation. |\n| 19 | Nevada
has
a
very
strong
anti-SLAPP
statute
and
my
client |\n| 20 | litigated
-- |\n| 21 | (Alarm
in
building.) |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
Hold
on
a
second,
Attorney
Wolman, |\n| 23 | hold
on
a
second.
The
alarm
is
going
off.
Glen,
do
you |\n| 24 | think
we
need
to
--
okay. |\n| 25 | I'm
sorry
but
the
alarm
is
going
off
in
the |\n\n building. MR. WOLMAN: Okay. THE COURT: So you just need to wait one second. I mean you can try to talk -- can you hear, Attorney Wolman, even when the alarm is going or -- the United States Marshal is going to go check right now to see if we need to evacuate. MR. WOLMAN: 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 all have to go back out the front door, okay? And stand out in the front of the building. But they'll tell you, someone should tell you. (Pause.) THE COURT: John, do we need to evacuate? JOHN: Stay for now. THE COURT: Stay for now? JOHN: Stay for now. We got a problem with the alarm system. We're rewiring everything. THE COURT: Okay. JOHN: If there's anything we'll let you know\n\n ASAP. THE COURT: All right. Right. We're in the middle -- John, we're in the middle of a hearing so I'm going to keep talking and people are going to keep talking, okay? Oh, there, okay. We'll see. Okay. JOHN: The last time (indiscernible). THE COURT: Is that right? Not when we were in court through, but yeah. But okay, thank you so much for checking. I appreciate that. All right. Attorney Wolman, why don't you 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. Kwok's serial campaign of litigation in Nevada and we prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion and the case was dismissed because Mr. Cheng thought Mr. Kwok was unable to show that his case had any merit. The Nevada anti-SLAPP statute has what's called a SLAPPback provision because although it awards attorney's fees for the successful defendant, that is not the end-all and be-all of the victimization of being sued. And so a suit was brought in the Southern District of New York to enforce the judgement of fees because originally Mr. Kwok did not pay until funds came in from Golden\n\n Spring New York to pay that judgment and we sued to enforce the judgment and we sued under the SLAPPback theory under the Nevada statute for compensatory damages. And in fact that case has been keyed up for summary judgment with Attorney Gavenman who was representing Mr. Kwok at the time accelerating his reply memorandum to get in just before the bankruptcy petition was filed, and otherwise been (indiscernible).\n\n Now, this litigation has been ongoing for quite some time and in fact a year ago I had the opportunity to take Mr. Kwok's deposition and there were actually some interesting things even here today that I was unaware of before such as Mr. Kwok now residing in Connecticut with his wife. And so these are facts that -- that are facts that come out abut Mr. Kwok that he states but then does not back up that is of concern.\n\n His complaints 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 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\n\n 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.\n\n This man holds himself out as a billionaire. That's how he presents himself globally. In fact, on February 9th the news was all aflutter not only with the sanctions award in the PAX case but with the fact that Mr. Kwok, and spoke specifically about his name, won a venue motion in London on a 500 million dollar claim against UBS, but he is the plaintiff and maybe it's through one of his entities. We don't know. And that means the Court should take everything that is said and, you know, Brown Rudnick, I've got no objection to them, they're trying to poke a -- pick a fight, but they are new. They do not know Mr. Kwok. And they need to take and this court needs to take everything that he says with a grain of salt. 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 to the Court materials that have previously not been verified and so, you know, that is going to go under their imprimatur 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\n\n that we have time before the 341 meeting to review. 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 Spring as PAX noted, the insider, is listed as a creditor and one of the 20 largest.\n\n So there's already some improprieties in the filings here and we just want to make sure we have enough time. I would prefer a week before the 341 meeting rather than 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 a governing proactive order in that case and how it applies here but, you know, we do otherwise join in the objections of the U.S. Trustee and in PAX to that 60-day extension and do request that it be something with at least a week before the 341 meeting. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to take a 10-minute recess. We'll be back at 5:10 and then I'll hear from the parties if there is anything they would like to report and then I will rule. So court is in recess. (Recess: 4:58 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.) THE COURT: Okay. We took a short recess after Attorney Silverberg and Attorney Friedman, Attorney\n\n Claiborn and Attorney Wolman made their statements in connection with the Debtor's motion for extension of the 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 Silverberg, 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.\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 47 of 57\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: I'll start with the comments. THE COURT: Hold on just one section, Attorney Claiborn. Something is echoing here. (Pause.) THE COURT: I don't know why it's echoing. I can hear you, Attorney Claiborn, then I can 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 COURT: Yeah, I think we're going to have to proceed. Will you be able to record or do you need to have that resolved? COURTROOM DEPUTY: It's still recording but I don't know if it's going to pick up this echo. THE COURT: I think we'll be okay. Let's try it anyway, okay? And then if it's really bad you tell us and we'll stop. Should we alert anyone in our IT Department? COURTROOM DEPUTY: Well, I sent a message to Pierre and hopefully to will send a message to Will. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's see how this goes -- MS. CLAIBORN: Does it make any difference as to which microphone I use?\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 48 of 57\n\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
No,
it's
coming
from
in
here |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | unfortunately.
So
go
right
ahead
and
let's
see
how
we
do, |\n| 3 | okay? |\n| 4 | MS.
CLAIBORN:
Thank
you. |\n| 5 | Your
Honor,
I
wanted
to
touch
briefly
on
a |\n| 6 | couple
of
items,
first
of
which
was
the
petition
and
the |\n| 7 | comments
that
were
made
by
Mr.
Kwok's
counsel
today
about |\n| 8 | his
residence
in
Greenwich,
and
they
were
followed
by
Mr. |\n| 9 | Wolman's
comments
about
not
being
aware
that
Greenwich
is |\n| 10 | a
residence. |\n| 11 | I
wanted
to
point
out
to
the
Court
that
on
the |\n| 12 | petition
the
Debtor's
address
in
response
to
the
question |\n| 13 | of
where
do
you
live
is
listed
as
being
Golden
Spring.
It |\n| 14 | does
not
list
his
residential
address.
We
had
been
under |\n| 15 | the
impression
that
the
Debtor
was
going
to
take
some |\n| 16 | steps
to
protect
that
information
as
to
where
he
actually |\n| 17 | resides
due
to
some
concerns
that
were
expressed.
That |\n| 18 | hasn't
yet
happened,
but
I
do
want
to
make
a
connected |\n| 19 | point
which
is
that
yesterday's
initial
dinner
(phonetic) |\n| 20 | interview
covered
in
brief
the
topic
of
where
does
Mr. |\n| 21 | Kwok
get
his
mail
and
the
issue
about
where
to
send |\n| 22 | information
was
broached
and
the
concern
expressed
was |\n| 23 | that
perhaps
the
mail
wouldn't
reach
the
right
place
if
it |\n| 24 | went
to
the
Golden
Spring
address
which
is
the
only |\n| 25 | address
that
the
court
has
to
reach
the
Debtor. |\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 49 of 57\n\n 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 is 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 dinner 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\n\n appropriate to seek the 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.\n\n 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 -- 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 creditors.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n| 1 | Does
anyone
else
wish
to
be
heard? |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Attorney
Silverberg,
the
issue
that
was
raised |\n| 3 | about
the
address
is
an
important
one.
The
address
on
the |\n| 4 | petition
is
different
from
the
address
that
you
--
well, |\n| 5 | you
didn't
give
an
address
but
you
said
that
he
resided
in |\n| 6 | Greenwich.
If
there's
a
change
of
address
we
have
a
local |\n| 7 | rule
about
that
and
we
have
a
local
form
and
that
needs
to |\n| 8 | be
completed
because
obviously
notice
has
and
service
has |\n| 9 | to
be
properly
made. |\n| 10 | So
I
don't
know
how
you're
going
to
proceed
on |\n| 11 | that
but
I'm
telling
you
that
that
is
something
that
I |\n| 12 | will
be
paying
attention
to
then
because
if
the
Debtor |\n| 13 | resides
in
Greenwich
that's
not
what
the
petition
says. |\n| 14 | So
I'm
not
going
to
say
anything
further.
I'm
telling
you |\n| 15 | what
my
thought
is
on
that
at
the
moment,
okay? |\n| 16 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
We
understand
the
issue
with |\n| 17 | respect
to
the
New
York
address.
There
was
some
desire
to |\n| 18 | keep
his
Greenwich,
Connecticut
address
private
given
his |\n| 19 | experiences
with
the
CCP
and
so
on,
so
I
think
when
we |\n| 20 | prepared
the
petition
we
didn't
realize
how
much
that |\n| 21 | address
is
already
in
the
public
domain. |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR.
SILVERBERG:
We've
since
learned
that
there |\n| 24 | may
not
be
as
much
sensitivity
to
that
address
being
out |\n| 25 | there
and
once
we
confirm
that
with
the
Debtor
we'll |\n\n| 1 | complete
the
appropriate
paperwork
to
amend
the
address
to |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | make
sure
that
he
gets
those. |\n| 3 | THE
COURT:
Okay.
All
right.
Thank
you. |\n| 4 | Does
anyone
else
wish
to
be
heard
on
the
motion |\n| 5 | for
the
extension
of
the
deadline
to
file
documents |\n| 6 | required
by
the
Bankruptcy
Code
and
Rules?
And
our
local |\n| 7 | rules
as
well. |\n| 8 | Okay.
As
I
indicated
earlier
today
during
the |\n| 9 | beginning
of
this
hearing
over
the
course
of
the
last
few |\n| 10 | days
I've
reviewed
documents
filed
in
this
case
including |\n| 11 | the
Debtor's
motion
to
extend
the
deadline
to
file |\n| 12 | schedules
or
provide
required
information
seeking
an |\n| 13 | extension
to
May
2nd,
2022,
which
is
ECF
number
27. |\n| 14 | I've
also
reviewed
and
again
looked
at
during |\n| 15 | the
recess
the
objection
filed
by
the
--
to
that
motion |\n| 16 | filed
by
the
Office
of
the
United
States
Trustee,
ECF |\n| 17 | number
49,
and
the
objection
of
PAX,
if
I
may
use
PAX
for |\n| 18 | short,
filed
to
that
motion
for
extension
of
time,
ECF |\n| 19 | number
50. |\n| 20 | I've
also
listened
to
the
presentations
and |\n| 21 | arguments
of
Attorney
Silverberg,
Attorney
Friedman, |\n| 22 | Attorney
Claiborn,
Attorney
Wolman
and
I've
taken
those |\n| 23 | arguments
into
consideration
with
regard
to
the
request |\n| 24 | made
by
the
Debtor. |\n| 25 | As
I've
indicated
and
I
know
you
all
know
the |\n\n 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. 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. 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,\n\n Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007 requires that definite documents be filed including the 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 Bankruptcy Procedure 1007(c) says the time for him to do that is with the petition or within 14 days thereafter. 14 days thereafter with regard to this Debtor's case would be today because the case was filed on February 15, and the Court has considered all the requests that the Debtor has made and the arguments\n\n 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 Rule 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, your Honor. Just thank you, it's glad to be back, we're glad to be back in person. THE COURT: It's nice to be in person. Yes. Did somebody else have any questions or anything that you wanted to address today?\n\n MR. KLETTER: Oh, your Honor, may I be excused from future hearings. Mr. Silverberg can attend any further -- THE COURT: Yes. You've been admitted *pro hac*, so yes, you can be excused, Counsel. MR. KLETTER: Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: Thank you, your Honor. The *pro hac* -- THE COURT: Now obviously for service purposes though, service can still be made at the local address and that's service. 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 as I've ruled the 341 meeting is already set, I've already spoken to Attorney Claiborn about my urging with regard to the 341 meeting, but 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?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 54 of 57\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 55 of 57\n\n| 1 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
I
did,
your
Honor,
just
because | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | I'm
unfamiliar
with
your
general
practice.
Will
you
also | | | | | |\n| 3 | issue
an
order
or
is
the
transcript
so
ordered? | | | | | |\n| 4 | THE
COURT:
I
could
to
--
if
you
would
prefer
me | | | | | |\n| 5 | to
--
what
I
would
normally
do
if
you
would
like
and
I'm | | | | | |\n| 6 | happy
to
do
it,
is
I'll
just
do
a
virtual
order,
okay? | | | | | |\n| 7 | But
that
won't
get
most
likely
put
on
the
docket
until | | | | | |\n| 8 | tomorrow
morning.
It
is
so
ordered
as
of
right
now,
5:23 | | | | | |\n| 9 | p.m.
on
March
1st,
2022,
okay? | | | | | |\n| 10 | MR.
FRIEDMAN:
Thank
you,
your
Honor. | | | | | |\n| 11 | THE
COURT:
And
when
the
virtual
order
enters
it | | | | | |\n| 12 | will
say
as
of
whatever
I
just
said,
5:23
p.m.
on
March | | | | | |\n| 13 | 1st,
2022.
Okay?
And
then
you
at
least
have
something | | | | | |\n| 14 | other
than
the
transcript
of
this
hearing. | | | | | |\n| 15 | I
understand
there
may
be
other
pleadings
filed, | | | | | |\n| 16 | parties
have
mentioned
that.
The
reason
that
the
Court | | | | | |\n| 17 | chose
the
date
that
I
chose
is
because
I
do
think
it's | | | | | |\n| 18 | important
to
give
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
creditors
to | | | | | |\n| 19 | review
the
information
and
determine
whether
or
not
they | | | | | |\n| 20 | want
to
participate
in
the
341
meeting
which
as
I
often | | | | | |\n| 21 | say
the
section
of
the
Bankruptcy
Code
341
is
entitled | | | | | |\n| 22 | Meeting
of
Creditors.
And
that's
its
point.
And
so
that | | | | | |\n| 23 | is
why
I
ruled
as
I
have
ruled.
And
if
there's
nothing | | | | | |\n| 24 | further
for
the
Court
to
attend
to
this
afternoon
unless | | | | | |\n| 25 | I'm
forgetting
something. | | | | | |\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 56 of 57\n\n| 1 | | Okay. | Thank | you. | And | that's | | the | last | matter | on |\n|----|---------|----------|-------|----------------------------|------|------------|-------|-----|------|--------|----|\n| 2 | todays' | calendar | so | Court
is | | adjourned. | | | | | |\n| 3 | | ALL: | Thank | you, | your | Honor. | | | | | |\n| 4 | | | | (Hearing adjourned at 5:34 | | | p.m.) | | | | |\n| 5 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| 1 | CERTIFICATE | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | I hereby certify that the foregoing 56 | | | | | | |\n| 4 | pages are a complete and accurate transcription to the | | | | | | |\n| 5 | best of my ability of the electronic recording of
the | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Motion to
Extend
Time
to
File
Schedules
in
re:
HO
WAN | | | | | | |\n| 7 | KWOK, Debtor, Case No. 22-50073, held before the Hon. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Julie A. Manning, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge,
in
Bridgeport | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Connecticut
on
March
1,
2022. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | ___
___ | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Suzanne Benoit, Transcriber
Date: 03/05/2022 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 布里奇波特分院\n--------------------------x\n关于：\n 案号 21-50081\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n 第11章\n债务人。\n--------------------------x\n2022年3月1日\nBrien McMahon 联邦大楼\n915 Lafayette Street\nBridgeport, Connecticut\n\n延期提交清单的动议\n（电子录音文字记录）\n\n审理法官：\n尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING 法官\n美国破产法院法官\n\n文字记录服务：\nFALZARANO COURT REPORTERS, LLC\n4 Somerset Lane\nSimsbury, CT 06070\n860.651.0258\n[www.falzaranocourtreporters.com]\n\n2 出庭人员（通过电话）：\n\n代表债务人：\nBROWN RUDNICK, LLP\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n212-209-4800\n代理人：BENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ.\n\nBROWN RUDNICK, LLP\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n860-509-6500\n代理人：DYLAN KLETTER, ESQ.\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，PAX）：\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n212-326-2000\n代理人：STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.\nAISLING MURRAY, ESQ.\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP\n1625 Eye Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20006\n202-383-5300\n代理人：PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.\nDAVID HARBACH, II., ESQ.\n\nROBINSON & COLE\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n860-275-8275\n代理人：PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）：\nRANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC\n100 Pearl Street - 14th Floor\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n702-420-2001\n代理人：JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ.\n（通过视频会议）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 2 of 57\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\n美国受托人办公室\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street - Room 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n203-773-2210\n代理人：HOLLY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\n\n（程序于下午4时04分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：22-50073号，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请债务人代理律师先为记录作出庭声明。\n\nSILVERBERG 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Brown Rudnick 的 Bennett Silverberg。我与我的出庭指导律师 Dylan Kletter 一同出庭。\n\n法官：两位下午好。我想，Silverberg 律师，可能已经作出命令准许您以临时执业资格出庭，是吗？\n\nSILVERBERG 律师：是的，是的，法官阁下，我们对此表示感谢。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nBIRNEY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole 的 Patrick Birney，代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP，即 PAX。法官阁下，与我一同在法庭内的，我右边是 Peter Friedman 律师，我左边是 Stuart Sarnoff 律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nBIRNEY 律师：还有另外几位人士，David Harbach 律师和 Aisling Murray，均来自 O'Melveny。法官阁下，关于临时执业资格的动议已经提交，并获法官阁下准许，Friedman 先生将于今日负责主要辩论。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 4 of 57\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。谢谢各位。欢迎各位。Claiborn 律师，请讲。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。Wolman 律师？\n\nWOLMAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Randazza Legal Group 的 Jay Wolman，代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）。\n\n法官：下午好。好的。\n\nWOLMAN 律师：非常感谢法官阁下允许我远程出庭。\n\n法官：是的。如我所提到的——哦，我忘了打开摄像头，抱歉，Wolman 律师。我们今天进行不同类型的听证，因此我甚至不知道您是否能——是否有效，但无论如何，现在已经打开了。如我所提到的，您知道，这是一次加急听证，所以您获准今天远程参加。我们已经回到法庭，有不少人在法庭内，但大家都戴着口罩，而且显然，您知道，大家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情之前，我收到消息称今天有一名债务人的口译员在场。\n\nSILVERBERG 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：在我们讨论与此有关的任何事情之前，我只想——其他律师是否明白债务人今天有一名口译员？\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：是的，法官阁下。我是 O'Melveny & Myers 的 Peter Friedberg，代表 PAX。我们明白。我们明白。\n\n法官：好的。您是否反对使用该口译员？\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：不反对，法官阁下。我不反对使用该口译员。\n\n法官：好的。您认为该口译员具备口译债务人所述任何内容的资格吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：我没有任何依据作出任一方面的判断，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。我从美国受托人办公室提交的书面文件中了解到，我想是昨天提交的，我想我是对的，即贵办公室进行的首次债务人面谈中有一名债务人口译员；这是否正确？\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，随后债务人有其本人私人\n\n1 口译员，\n其本人\n实际\n与\n债务人\n在场。\n\n2 法官：\n那么今天在场的这位\n3 先生——\n我甚至不应该这样说，我假定是一位\n4 先生，\n因为我正看着法庭后方，但\n5 今天在场的这位先生是否与\n6 首次债务人面谈期间陪同\n7 债务人的那位先生是同一人？\n\n8 SILVERBERG 律师：不，法官阁下。该\n9 口译员名为 John Lao（刘约翰）。\n\n10 法官：好的。好的。我只需要\n11 在某个时候了解，如果 Lao 先生将\n12 口译债务人所说的任何内容，我希望\n13 了解 Lao 先生的资格，如果我们进行到\n14 那一步，好吗？显然我们并未准备安排\n15 口译员，但这未必是个问题。我只是\n16 向您表示，我不希望在\n17 口译员问题存在任何争议的情况下，\n18 听证继续并举行。这就是我的意思，\n19 好吗？\n\n20 SILVERBERG 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n21 法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n22 好的。现在——\n\n23 MURRAY 女士：法官，很抱歉，我们没有听清\n24 Claiborn 律师之前所说的内容——\n25 很抱歉。她离麦克风有些远。\n\n1 法官：是的，这不是您的过错，Claiborn 律师。\n问题是我们所有人都戴着口罩，而且，\n\n2 您知道，彼此保持距离，有时我们可能需要请\n3 您说得稍微大声一些。\n\n4 CLAIBORN 女士：我会尽力说得更大声。\n\n5 法官：谢谢。即使只是那个角度，\n6 不幸的是，也能让麦克风更好地收录您的\n7 声音。正如我想各位都知道，我们的记录\n8 是音频记录，因此我们必须非常谨慎对待麦克风；\n9 如果有时我要求您，或有人要求您\n10 重复所说内容，那是因为我们需要确保\n11 记录清楚。好吗？\n\n12 好的。那么大约一周前，我可以调出来，\n13 你们现在可能都比我更了解它，\n14 书记官办公室在本案中录入了一则案卷记录，\n15 涉及申请书以及\n16 自愿债务人在破产案件中必须提交的其他文件\n17 所存在的若干缺陷。修正申请书已经提交，\n18 我看到了，它纠正了该项\n19 缺陷。有一个——我理解，您知道，\n20 办公室认为他们有时可以使用其他人的\n21 号码，但我们不允许这样做，因此\n22 这就是需要提交修正\n23 申请书的原因。因此我理解该项工作已经完成。\n\n24 我理解，有一项关于某债权人\n25 未有适当收件人栏的注明，并且\n\n该项也已得到纠正。因此，法院对此表示认可。\n\n我认为债务人代理律师所关注的、导致本项延期提交清单动议的，并非命令，而是缺陷通知，原因在于——我是在告诉二位你们已经知道的事情，这对你们并不是什么新闻。《破产法典》要求，在案件提交后14日内提交规则、清单及陈述书。基于本庭所有人都知道的诸多原因，这是一个重要问题，因为如果债务人未履行其准备和提交清单及事务陈述书的职责，案件就无法得到妥善管理；在本案中，是其本人职责。这是本法院以及我认为所有法院都极为严肃对待的一项基本要求。\n\n缺陷通知称该案件可能被驳回。它没有说应当被驳回，但我理解债务人代理律师希望迅速举行听证，以便你们——因为你们不希望案件被驳回，我理解这一点。因此，无论如何，这就是关于加急听证的动议获准并于今日就延期提交清单动议进行审理的原因。\n\n1 现在，我明白你们所寻求的内容。\n\n2 你们所寻求的是\n\n日。你们知道，你们已经收到\n3 两份对此的书面异议。我可以告诉你们，你们\n4 不会获得\n\n日。这不会发生。\n5 但我想知道的是，你们是否已与\n6 债权人代理律师或美国受托人\n7 办公室就你们的请求及其异议进行过任何讨论？\n\n8 SILVERBERG 律师：是的，法官阁下。事实上，\n9 我们已经进行了我们的——我不确定法官阁下是否能\n10 听到我说话。\n\n11 法官：非常清楚，谢谢。\n\n12 SILVERBERG 律师：法官阁下，我们昨天在\n13 Claiborn 女士办公室与她进行了首次\n14 债务人面谈。面谈持续3小时。面谈\n15 结束时，我们询问 Claiborn 女士，\n16 该办公室对延期请求的立场为何。她明确表示，\n17 对于\n\n日的请求将提出异议，她还\n18 强烈告诫我们考虑请求一项在\n19 第\n\n条会议之前届满的延期，并使\n20 债权人有充足时间审阅\n21 清单和陈述书，以便他们能够在\n22 第\n\n条会议上提出知情的问题。\n\n23 昨晚，在与恰好是我们的委托人进行协商后——\n24 抱歉，我们是否介绍过我们的\n25 委托人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 11 of 57\n\n1 KWOK 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n2 法官：下午好，先生。\n\n3 SILBERBERG 律师：他去我的 Miles。\n\n4 法官：下午好。谢谢。先生，您可以\n5 坐下。谢谢。\n\n6 SILVERBERG 律师：因此，昨天，抱歉，是昨晚，\n7 我们向美国受托人提出一项建议，将\n8 提交清单和陈述书的截止日期\n9 延长至3月16日，即周一\n10 341会议之前的那个星期三。我们没有恰好提前\n11 一周的原因是，我们正在处理将\n12 清单和陈述书翻译成 Kwok 先生\n13 母语中文的一些后勤事项。因此，我们希望确保，\n14 当他在伪证处罚的约束下证明并确认\n15 其准确性时，他完全以自己的语言理解\n16 清单和陈述书所述内容，\n17 从而对于页面上文字的含义\n18 绝无任何疑问。\n\n19 法官：我明白。好的。那么，您是否表示\n20 你们已准备好——我将听取其他当事人的意见，\n21 但我只想问您这个问题。\n22 你们准备代表债务人同意一项\n23 于3月16日届满的延期；\n24 这是否正确？\n\n25 SILVERBERG 律师：是的，法官阁下，正确。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。谢谢。我对此表示感谢。现在，Claiborn（克莱伯恩律师），您对本动议提出了第一项异议；您现已听取律师的陈述及其同意，如获准，将延期限制至3月16日。对于延期请求，您还希望补充哪些内容载入记录，或者您还有何其他考虑？CLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，我认为，如我可以请求法庭在美国受托人面前听取PAX的陈述，或许会有所帮助。法庭：哦，可以。好的。CLAIBORN女士：我提出该建议，是因为债务人与PAX之间有一段漫长的历史，我认为这将有助于分析何种期限的延期对本案而言是合理的。法庭：可以。律师？SILVERBERG先生：法官阁下，如果PAX要详细叙述导致我们走到这里的种种情况，我认为——如果您愿意听，我也有一份陈述可以提出，否则您可以听——法庭：那么，您是建议您想先作陈述；是这个意思吗？还是您想回应他们的陈述？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 313 提交日期 05/02/22 录入日期 05/02/22 17:09:32 第 13 页，共 57 页\n\nSILVERBERG先生：如果可以，我想先作我们的陈述——法庭：而您的陈述将是关于本案为何提出，以及您为何需要延期？SILVERBERG先生：是的。法庭：好的。我会让他们先进行，律师，然后我一定会听取您的陈述。FRIEDMAN先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：请继续。SILVERBERG先生：您希望我在这里进行，还是在讲台上进行？法庭：您可以就在这里进行，律师。SILVERBERG先生：很好。因此，法官阁下，我拟先介绍Kwok先生（郭文贵）的背景，随后说明导致本第11章案件启动的事件，并就延期请求提供理由。法官阁下，作为背景，Kwok先生出生于中国山东省。他目前与结婚35年的妻子Hing Chi（Hing Chi）居住在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（郭强先生）和一女Mei Guo（郭梅女士）。儿子居住在英国，女儿在纽约市和康涅狄格州之间往返居住；希望随着Covid消退，她现在能有更多时间搬离父母家。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。在……岁时，Kwok先生从初中辍学，开始销售服装和电子产品，以帮助养家。在5月，他因支持天安门广场抗议活动而被拘留并遭受酷刑。在被拘留大约……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 Xia（夏平女士），一位来自香港的成功女商人和投资者。在……年，Kwok先生开始与Xia女士在Yuda property company（裕达地产公司）合作；该公司专注于中国河南省的商业房地产开发。该公司成立后不久，裕达成功开发并建成位于河南省省会郑州的高端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及中国第五高建筑。竣工时，该综合体当时价值……百万美元。该贸易中心在财务上取得成功，并\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 313 提交日期 05/02/22 录入日期 05/02/22 17:09:32 第 15 页，共 57 页\n\n确立了Kwok先生在中国房地产开发商界的地位，尤其是在河南省；裕达此后继续开发高端住宅和商业项目。\n\n大约在2000年，在河南省取得成功的基础上，Kwok先生将其房地产抱负转向中国首都北京，在那里他将业务扩展至为其项目提供私人融资，其六名兄弟姐妹均参与其中。通过在河南省取得的成功，Kwok先生的直系和旁系家庭成员摆脱了贫困。\n\n在北京，Kwok先生协助成立Beijing Morgan Investment Company（北京摩根投资公司）和Beijing Zenith Holdings Company（北京正道控股公司）；后二者为房地产开发及投资管理咨询公司，Kwok先生及其旁系家庭成员是这些实体的股东和雇员。\n\n2002年，这些企业收购了北京北部两块合计约200万平方米的未开发土地。在中国被确定为2008年奥运会主办国、政府宣布计划在该等土地相邻处建设奥运场馆后，这些地块的价值大幅增加。\n\n这些地块价值的增加引发了Kwok先生与Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）长期的政治斗争。副市长Zhihua（Zhihua）试图不当侵占Morgan Investments（摩根投资公司）的财产；Kwok先生予以反击，向政府举报该腐败行为，并在一场长期斗争后最终收回了摩根投资公司的土地地块。\n\nKwok先生随后监督了Beijing Pangu Plaza（北京盘古大观）和Jhihuan Plaza（Jhihuan广场）的成功建设和按时竣工。盘古大观已成为毗邻奥运场馆的北京地标。然而，Kwok先生对中国共产党腐败的批评招致了严厉回应。当其生命显然处于危险之中时，他于2015年逃往美国。在其缺席的情况下，中国共产党冻结或没收了其在中国的资产，包括由其持有权益的公司所持有的资产。中国共产党还促使没收其在其他地区的资产，包括香港，并促使Interpol（国际刑警组织）发布对其实施逮捕的红色通报。\n\n2017年9月，他在美国申请政治庇护，其申请至今仍在审理中。直至今日，他继续批评中国共产党的腐败和侵犯人权行为。多年来，他在YouTube、GTV、Twitter和Getter等各类数字及媒体平台上积累了追随者——我还特意查了Getter，我不知道那是什么——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 313 提交日期 05/02/22 录入日期 05/02/22 17:09:32 第 17 页，共 57 页\n\n他在这些平台上分享其有关中国共产党及中国民主必要性的个人观点和意见。他在各社交媒体平台上的追随者超过一百万人。值得注意的是，他并未将其社交媒体影响力变现。\n\nKwok先生未受雇用，其依赖家人的支持，主要是其儿子，以支付日常生活开支。通过Kwok先生儿子在Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）的家族办公室，其儿子垫付其每月开支。正如我们在本次听证会前不久提交的案卷编号54之律师报酬声明中所述，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的预付律师费由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。法庭：好的。我尚未看到该文件，但可以。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：转向PAX诉讼，尽管他离开了中国，但并未将所有麻烦抛在身后。我们预计法庭将在本案过程中从PAX律师处听到相当多的内容。我们不会过多讨论该诉讼，但概括介绍或许有助于厘清背景。\n\nPAX（一家香港投资基金）在纽约和BVI（英属维尔京群岛）对Kwok先生提起诉讼。纽约诉讼于2017年提起，目前由New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的Ostrager法官（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（精神宪章公司）的中国实体发放的30 million dollar贷款相关的追偿诉讼。PAX主张Kwok先生为PAX债务提供了个人担保，并在多年间多次重申该担保，最近一次是在2011年。Kwok先生同意其于2008年提供了个人担保，但主张该贷款此后已获全额偿还，且后续文件均属伪造。这正是争议的核心，法官阁下。未经听证，Ostrager法官作出有利于PAX的简易判决。Kwok先生已向Appellate Division（上诉分庭）就该判决提起上诉；该上诉仍在审理中，但因本案启动而中止。与此同时，PAX试图执行Ostrager法官对Kwok先生作出的限制令，该限制令禁止其转让或耗散资产，或将资产转移至纽约法院管辖范围之外。\n\nPAX将注意力高度集中于一艘名为Lady May（梅夫人号）的游艇。PAX希望该游艇回到纽约，以便其可以扣押该船并对其执行。Kwok先生否认拥有该船，并主张其不能命令该船返回纽约。Ostrager法官指示Kwok先生于2021年5月15日前将该船返还纽约，否则该船在其管辖范围外停留的每一天，均将面临$500,000的巨额每日罚款。2月9日，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，并命令其仅在5日内向PAX支付134 million dollar罚款，否则将面临监禁风险。2月9日的裁决亦已上诉至上诉分庭。Kwok先生无力支付该罚款。他于2月14日聘请本所，并于次日即申请第11章破产。他申请第11章破产，不仅为获得自动中止的利益，也为在单一法院以有序方式解决其全部请求权。他希望能与债权人就第11章计划的条款达成一致。PAX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。假设其在这些请求权中胜诉，他可能能够为其债权人提供全额清偿资金。他还将寻求家人的支持，以为该计划提供资金。所有选择均在考虑之列。此外，正如法官阁下在异议中所指出的，关于所谓的资产腾挪和藏匿资产的指控已有许多论述。如果这些指控属实，\n\n而我们认为并非如此，那么该破产案件可能是对他们而言所能发生的最好的事情。案件中可能会指定债权人委员会；美国受托人已征询债权人参与的意愿。如果指定了委员会，那么他们将有其工作要做。\n\n我们主要预计，他们将调查PAX在其文件中提出的指控，这就引出了请求延长期限的动议。我们与Kwok先生合作准备其申请的时间极少；这就是文件如此简略的原因，也是为何缺陷通知最终载入命令的原因。如果我们有更多时间，我们本会确保按时提交财产清单。或者至少可能在申请提交之前——与申请同时提交。\n\n情形远非理想。我们需要完成大量工作，以协助Kwok先生编制财产清单和声明。2月23日，我们告知United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）Kwok先生拟寻求延期。2月24日，正如法官阁下在案卷27所指出的，我们提交了Kwok先生请求延期约60日的申请。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及\n\n负债均已在财产清单和报表中准确列明。此外，由于Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生不会读写英文，他请求对正式表格提供中文译本。郭先生还将聘请服务提供商协助其编制财产清单和报表。今天上午，我们开始与Stretto（Stretto）进行讨论，法官阁下或许熟悉该机构。正如我所指出的，法官阁下，我们昨天下午已与美国受托人讨论了郭先生的延期请求。昨日有两方对延期动议提出异议，即美国受托人和PAX。两方基本上都提出同一点：所请求的延期过长，他们希望继续推进本案。法官阁下，值得一提的是，尽管所请求延长后的截止日期在预定的341会议之后，我们认为或许可以与美国受托人合作，启动341会议后再予休会，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。郭先生同意，最好更努力地尽早提交财产清单和报表。财产清单越早提交，他就越早能够确定债权申报截止日期，开始核对债权，并评估其是否能够提出一项可行的Chapter 11计划。法官阁下，我已经提及我们向美国受托人提出的建议；如有必要，我准备就若郭先生被传唤作证时其证言内容作简短陈述。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。让我想一下，我是否有——哦，是的，我确实有一两个问题。这其实不算问题。正如我提到的，而且诸位都知道，我们有音频记录。在你们陈述过程中提到了一些姓名，我认为应将其提供给书记官办公室，以便书记官办公室能够确保其拼写正确，并在本案记录中得到妥善记载。西尔弗伯格先生：当然，法官阁下，我们很乐意提供英文拼写，以及我想是我的语音转写。法庭：无论何种方式，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。西尔弗伯格先生：当然，法官阁下。法庭：我会与法庭书记员沟通，但我们或许可以让法院书记官联系您，律师，并设法取得该等信息，以便我们在记录中明确记载并确保其准确。西尔弗伯格先生：这是我们的荣幸。法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭：我只是想一下，我是否还有其他想法——我是说，我确实有其他想法，但是否有在你发言时我想说的内容。关于341会议以及今天在此发生的任何情况，我认为美国受托人办公室——我认为即使你的延期获准至16日，在第一次会议后也不应结束该341会议，这样做是有意义的。我认为这是一个不断变化、涉及许多问题的案件，是否如此由美国受托人办公室决定；但我敦促他们考虑，当然，我现在是在与克莱伯恩律师交谈，考虑到债务人似乎并不反对该341会议超过一天，我敦促美国受托人办公室鉴于诸多问题考虑这样做，包括显然我们将需要一名口译员在场，以及可能有、也可能没有许多债权人感兴趣并有问题，但我希望确保给予他们该机会。应保持及时，并给予足够通知，以便在文件提交后，他们有足够时间进行理性审阅。好的？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 24 of 57\n\n因此，我敦促你——你应当将此与美国受托人沟通，并说明债务人的律师对此没有异议。克莱伯恩女士：我会这样做，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。PAX的律师，你可以继续。弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我是来自O'Melveny & Myers（奥麦文律师事务所）的Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。实际上，我已经给了——西尔弗伯格先生？西尔弗伯格先生：是。弗里德曼先生：——西尔弗伯格先生一份我的声明。我有装订本。我实际上有两本，如果我可以将它们递交给您。法庭：当然。弗里德曼先生：这可能对您、您和您的书记员有帮助，我们可能会提到其中的一些内容——法庭：当然。谢谢。弗里德曼先生：——其中的内容。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：弗里德曼先生，你不反对我在律师发言时查看这本装订材料吧。西尔弗伯格先生：法官阁下，那是——法庭：我说错名字了吗？西尔弗伯格先生：没关系。法庭：我很抱歉。我同时在看两件事。是的，你不反对；对吗？西尔弗伯格先生：我没有异议，法官阁下。法庭：好的，谢谢。我很感谢，西尔弗伯格律师。弗里德曼律师，请继续。弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我是代表PAX的、来自O'Melveny & Myers的彼得·弗里德曼。因此，法官阁下，有很多、很多、很多不同事项值得回应，但让我先从奥斯特拉格法官作出的裁定这一直接问题开始。奥斯特拉格法官裁定，郭先生不能声称这些文件是伪造的，因为这与——这与他所做的一切不一致——法庭：等一下，律师——口译员：（听不清）我根本不可能翻译任何内容——法庭：等一下，先生。请稍等一下，好吗？他有权作陈述；如果你无法同步翻译，你可以之后听，因为我们会录音并将其放入案卷，你之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。口译员：我明白。您认为他能否至少使用麦克风，这样我们在后面都能听见？法庭：律师，你能否将麦克风稍微拉近一点？弗里德曼先生：当然，法官阁下。我严重怀疑该请求是否出于善意。法庭：我明白。我明白，但我不会——弗里德曼先生：这类伎俩，法官阁下——法庭：我完全明白，但我们不会——我们将继续进行。好吗？弗里德曼先生：当然，法官阁下。法庭：而且，如同康涅狄格州每一宗破产案件以及全国大多数案件的情况一样，这份录音将在——我认为明天上午前——被放入本案案卷，对吗？速度相当——非常快。会在24小时内完成，任何人都可以听取，但——这不是你的过错，不过麦克风——弗里德曼先生：是。法庭：——有时效果良好，有时则不知为何不佳，而不知出于何种原因，今天那个麦克风效果不佳。弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我是否应当试用上面那个？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 313 Filed 05/02/22 Entered 05/02/22 17:09:32 Page 27 of 57\n\n法庭：也许那样会更好。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。弗里德曼先生：因此，法官阁下，奥斯特拉格法官裁定，而且我相信你装订材料中的标签页是该意见书，郭先生基于一连串理由不能声称文件系伪造。禁止反言；他过去已作出陈述；他实际上曾提交过那些文件。因此，该项主张表面上就不是一项有意义的主张，也不是本法庭最终应当对奥斯特拉格法官经审慎推理作出的认定进行评判的事项。法庭：我可以就证物4问你一个问题吗？弗里德曼先生：可以。法庭：就是你刚刚指给我看的那份证物。因此，当然，我今天之前尚未审阅任何材料，但我正在看该证物，看来奥斯特拉格法官作出了这份——让我看一下它——抱歉。让我看看其标题。它是一份《动议裁定及命令》，由他于September 15, 2020作出；我说得对吗？弗里德曼先生：对，法官阁下。这是他就简易判决动议所作的裁定，认定郭确实根据个人保证对PAX负有债务。法庭：那么，在简易判决裁定之后发生了什么？是否提起了上诉，或者该裁定被视为中间裁定，或者就你现在指给我看的这项具体裁定而言，情况是什么？弗里德曼先生：因此，该裁定正在上诉中，它不在——法庭：正在上诉中。好的。弗里德曼先生：因此，这不是本法庭可以审查的问题。法庭：好的。我只是想确保自己理解，因为如你所见，这里有很多文件。弗里德曼先生：确实如此。法庭：——我只是想确保，并且我想了解其状态；现在我了解了。我理解他作出了这些认定，而目前该裁定仍在上诉中。弗里德曼先生：是的。但法官阁下提出了一个很好的问题：此后发生了什么？那么，此后发生的第一件事是，郭先生在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）为一家名为Genever New York（Genever New York）的公司申请破产。法庭：你在书面材料中提到了该公司，因此我已正确记下这个名称。我见过它。弗里德曼先生：是的。因此，令人非常不安的是，该公司没有被列为关联破产案件，因为郭先生拥有一家名为Genever、即Genever Holdings British Virgin Islands（Genever Holdings British Virgin Islands）的英属维尔京群岛公司的百分之百股权，而该公司继而拥有纽约南区一名债务人百分之百的股权。当然，这是关联方的典型情形，但其并未在破产申请书中列明。这确实令人担忧，也是我们认为不应给予超过国会法定规定天数的延期的推动因素之一。该纽约南区实体目前正成为——此事过于冗长，无法在此展开；最终我们将寻求本法庭给予救济，允许我们追究——维护郭先生对该实体的所有权权利，并对其家庭成员提出的虚假债权提出异议。这一直是他阻挠我们使该判决获得清偿的努力的一部分。法官阁下，国会规定了天数是有原因的。我们认为这很重要。当然，我要说的是，我经常处于为财产清单申请延期的立场，而且说实话——以及提交日期——\n\n而且说实话，我不确定我是否曾见过有人提出异议，因为通常都有正当理由。这可能是一家正在经营的企业，可能拥有数百家子公司，可能是一个在最初几天必须处理供应商、债权人和员工事务，因而无法立即且迅速地予以关注的实体。本案中没有任何一种情形存在。\n\n郭先生不是一家正在经营的企业。他在其IDI和破产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：这里怎么可能存在重组目的？怎么可能存在Chapter 11目的？鉴于他进行的所有资产腾挪，以及——这不是我的说法；你从对方律师那里听到的一切都是他自己的说法。我有奥斯特拉格法官的意见书，而这些意见书和事实认定表明，郭先生利用错综复杂的实体、家庭成员和受信任的亲信转移资产。这样的人不能在Chapter 11中为债权人担任受托义务人。他绝不会向家庭成员及其他关联实体追究债权。这对本案的目的提出了极其严重的问题。法官阁下，我还要补充，存在一项134 million dollar的藐视法庭罚款，而这并非仅由奥斯特拉格法官作出，该罚款已获纽约州上诉分庭一致维持。\n\n法院：我看到了。\n\n弗里德曼先生：这是Kwok先生（郭文贵）造成的。他等了268天，所以数额才会变得这么大。Kwok先生不能在本法院质疑州法院关于Kwok先生拥有——对Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）享有受益权益的裁定。坦率地说，任何负责任的债务人都早已提出返还动议，要求实际控制该游艇的人将其完全返还给Kwok先生。显然，这并未发生。法官阁下，我要指出，今晚稍后我们将提交一项动议，请求您裁定自动中止不适用于针对Kwok先生作出的民事藐视法庭命令；同时提交一项备选动议，请求您裁定，如自动中止确实适用，则应予修改，以允许Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）要求将Lady May返还至纽约港。我目前并不请求能够对其实施扣押或从其收取款项，但不应允许Kwok先生将如此有价值的资产留在美国境外；应将其带回此处，以便最终能够妥善变现和清算。再次说明，我认为Ostrager法官的认定最终将无法由本法院审查，也不应受到事后质疑，因为该等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中间暂停执行的动议。他甚至无法向任何人提供任何——哪怕是最轻微程度的信心，证明他在该上诉中具有胜诉的可能性。\n\n现在，我们认为该民事藐视法庭命令不受自动中止约束的理由，还引出了另一个问题，即我们还认为这将产生一项135 million dollar的不可免除债权。我们已在脚注中指出这一点。我们还将提起一项对抗程序，请求裁定该债务不可免除；这也引出了这样一个问题：当Kwok先生在其获得免责后将面临134 million dollar债务时，怎么可能存在一项可行的第11章重整计划。\n\n我认为，这类问题使债务人动议第15段中的全部内容都受到质疑。他们谈到聘用律师、聘用财务顾问，以及利用他人的资金提出计划。\n\n法官阁下，我认识到我们必须向您证明许多事项，但我们有证据，其中许多问题已由Ostrager法官认定。这并不是一个以哪怕稍微接近清白之手的方式来到您面前的债务人。我实在无法理解，如果一名法官已经认定您对一项价值30 million dollars的财产享有受益所有权，您为何甚至不在申请书中以脚注提及它。这实在令人震惊。有人在设有专门栏目的情况下不将关联方列为债务人，实在令人震惊。Kwok先生用作其家族办公室的实体被列为第二大债权人，而说明明确写明不得列出内部人，这实在令人震惊。一家由其儿子控制、为其生活费用提供资金的公司，是非制定法内部人的典型例子。\n\n法官阁下，该申请书已经核实，并在承担法律处罚的责任下签署，其中充斥着不诚实，令人震惊。我还要补充，即使是Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）今天下午提交的文件，也称其将根据一笔由Lamp（兰普）——同样是Kwok先生的家族办公室——向Kwok先生发放的贷款获得付款。因此，如果您查看财产清单——申请书，Lamp作为该笔贷款的million dollar债权人出现。但是，尽管该笔贷款仍然——作为交给Brown Rudnick的预付聘金，它仍然是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。他拥有在本案开始时依该笔贷款带入本案的$998,000资产，作为一笔申请前贷款。再次说明，仅仅是对本法院缺乏坦诚，就已促使我们相信不应给予任何宽限。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 313 提交日期 05/02/22 录入日期 05/02/22 17:09:32 第 34 页，共 57 页\n\n我想指出，在我们的书面陈述中，我们援引了Ostrager法官所说的几乎所有内容，但有一部分我没有援引，而我认为它确实十分重要，它出现在Ostrager法官意见书第7页。法院：您希望我看哪一份意见书？我想确认一下——弗里德曼先生：这是藐视法庭命令，法官阁下。法院：所以它附在你们的异议之后。弗里德曼先生：是的，也附在美国受托人的文件之后。法院：但它也在这里的文件册中？弗里德曼先生：是的。它也附在美国受托人的异议之后。那可能是最容易找到的方式。法院：好的。请给我一点时间，我来找一下。 （暂停。）法院：我想我在这里找到了，但让我确认一下。一份日期为February 9, 2022、共10页的《动议裁决及命令》。对吗？弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。请继续。我有了。弗里德曼先生：所以，在谈到引文之前，我想指出，这是在一次现场审判之后作出的，而且这是在Kwok先生的女儿——律师刚才提到过她——基本上被Ostrager法官认定为说谎者之后作出的。当您阅读该意见书时，您会看到Ostrager法官提到其证言缺乏可信度。他不是唯一这样做的法官。Liman法官（利曼法官）在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的一起案件中，也对她有关家庭成员之间资金转移的证言的可信度表示了极大怀疑。\n\n法官阁下，第7页写道，与Kwok就Lady May所策划的障眼法有关的种种伎俩，与Kwok在本诉讼待决的5年期间所采取的每一项侵扰性和藐视法庭的行为如出一辙，这就是为什么本案有1,180项案卷记录。\n\n我恳请法官阁下不要让本案变成那起案件的样子。Kwok采取了如此多极其规避且不诚实的步骤，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，轻言之，是令人无法接受的。\n\n我们请求法院完全驳回该动议，但我还要说一件事，法官阁下。最终，我认识到，您知道，您的职责是权衡各种因素。我们强烈认为不应给予任何延期。但是，如果给予数天延期，直至本周末，因为今天期限就要届满，我们当然不会说他今天结束前没有提交某项文件，本案就应自动驳回。\n\n因此，尽管我对这些问题感受十分强烈——我想您可以看得出来——我不会反对将期限延长，我们的委托人也不会反对将期限延长至星期五；鉴于Kwok先生在其IDI中称其没有资产，我们认为其中一部分应当很容易处理。如果存在这些或有诉讼，似乎不可能相信他尚不知情；它们应尽快列入清单，以便我们坦率地说能够深入调查。根据其中披露的内容，如有必要，我们甚至可能在其341会议之间寻求依据Rule 2004（规则2004）进行的证据开示；但我们认为，为了能够进行适当的341审查，我们需要一个充分且公平的机会继续追查其资产。您知道，这就是——我认为——我不知道法院是否有任何问题要问我，但这些是我认为就我们的异议而言值得处理的关键问题。\n\n法院：我不确定我是否有任何问题。我已经看过你们的异议，尽管我要说，我直到今天才看，而我们今天也有听证会。因此，我昨天看了United States Trustee（美国受托人）的异议；该文件提交时我有更多时间。我确实看过你们的异议，不过我打算再次审阅它，如同我将审阅美国受托人的异议一样，也如同我将审阅延期动议一样。\n\n但是，我认为我在本次听证开始时已经相当明确地表示，不会给予60天延期。如果有延期，不会是60天。律师表示，他已向美国受托人办公室提出将期限延至March 16的提议。你们表示，如果法院作出命令，将截止日期延至March 4th，你们不会反对。在某些方面，我们的差距并不大，但我理解你们的立场。如果你们两方不想就此交谈，看看能否就某件事达成一致，也可以。法院将作出裁定。我对此没有任何问题。\n\n但如果你们想花时间讨论，我们也可以这样做，我们可以——我们可以休庭5分钟。我们不必休庭，我们可以按你们想要的方式进行。但现在，今天的问题是，是否会批准延期。你们两方异议方，而且我想我已经——我想我已经明确表示，我显然认为这些异议有理由，因为我已经说过，不会给予60天延期。这不会发生。这并不适当。在极少数案件中，我能想到它会是适当的，而本案不是其中之一。好吗？所以，这一点很明确。美国受托人办公室似乎可以接受March 16th。你们希望是March 4th。341会议是哪一天？Claiborn女士（克莱伯恩女士）：法官阁下，抱歉打断法院。法院：没关系。Claiborn女士：我尚未就美国受托人关于该日期的立场发表意见——法院：噢，抱歉。Claiborn女士：——而且我不知道律师是否想抓住法院提供的机会，在我们这样做之前先讨论一下，或者——法院：我可以休庭5分钟。不会——Claiborn女士：我只是不知道各方是否有意讨论此事。法院：或者是的，如果无意讨论，也没关系。我不强迫任何人做任何事。如果你们愿意，我是在给你们一个机会。如果你们不想利用这个机会，也没关系。您知道，我对此没有任何问题。Silverberg先生（西尔弗伯格先生）：法官阁下，如果PAX（PAX）要在4日这一日期上坚持不让，那从后勤角度来说根本不可行，所以——\n\n法院：从谈判角度而言，这可能是事实，但我可能会作出该命令。所以，您知道，这就是我们的处境，也没有关系。你们每一方——你们都已表明各自的立场；我甚至还没有问Wolman律师（沃尔曼律师）他的立场可能是什么，因为他正在参加本次听证会，但你们已经明确表明了各自的立场。这对法院而言不是一个复杂的问题。我确实想再花几分钟回头看一下文件，我现在就可以这样做。我可以休庭5分钟、10分钟、15分钟，都无所谓。然后我可以回来并在今天作出裁定，或者我可以明天作出裁定。这并不复杂。我并不担心作出裁定，这一点我可以告诉你们。因此，你们希望如何进行都可以。我是在努力给你们一个机会，让你们向我建议你们认为哪些做法合理。如果你们想休庭讨论此事，也可以。如果不想，我们可以结束本次听证，我可以明天作出裁定；或者我们可以休庭，我可以努力回来并在今晚作出裁定。这两种进行方式中的任何一种，我都没有问题。\n\nSilverberg先生：我一向处于达成交易的状态，所以如果PAX愿意谈谈，那么——\n\n法院：那么，我们何不——现在是5:00。我们何不——\n\n沃尔曼律师：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：是。哦，沃尔曼律师。\n\n沃尔曼律师：我可以发言吗？\n\n法庭：抱歉，请继续。\n\n沃尔曼律师：没关系。我只是想简要说明，但我认为此事应当听取意见。我们没有提交任何文件，但我们总体上加入程先生对美国受托人和PAX所提出异议的立场。\n\n一些背景情况。程先生是在内华达州郭文贵先生一系列诽谤诉讼行动中的受害人。程先生本人反对中国共产党，并且对郭先生处理该运动的方式持有异议；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一宗SLAPP诉讼的对象。如今，法庭知悉有所谓“针对公众参与的策略性诉讼”。内华达州有一部非常严格的反SLAPP法，我的当事人对此进行了诉讼。\n\n（大楼内警报响起。）\n\n法庭：沃尔曼律师，请稍等一下，请稍等一下。警报响了。Glen，你认为我们是否需要——好的。抱歉，但大楼内的警报响了。\n\n沃尔曼律师：好的。\n\n法庭：所以您只需要等一下。我的意思是，您可以尝试继续说——沃尔曼律师，警报响着时您能听见吗，还是——美国法警现在会去查看我们是否需要疏散。\n\n沃尔曼律师：如果您需要疏散，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：嗯，我现在还不知道。我正在等候消息。\n\n沃尔曼律师：我在我这里没有问题。\n\n法庭：他们会通知我们。如果我们必须疏散，那么我想你们都必须从前门出去，可以吗？并站在大楼前面。但他们会告诉你们，应该会有人通知你们。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：John，我们需要疏散吗？\n\nJohn：目前留在原处。\n\n法庭：目前留在原处？\n\nJohn：目前留在原处。我们的警报系统出了问题。我们正在重新布线。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nJohn：如有任何情况，我们会尽快通知您。\n\n法庭：好。对。我们正在开庭——John，我们正在进行听证，所以我会继续说话，其他人也会继续说话，可以吗？哦，那里，好。我们看看。好的。\n\nJohn：上一次（听不清）。\n\n法庭：是吗？不是我们开庭的时候，不过，是的。好的，非常感谢您查看此事。我很感激。好，沃尔曼律师，您是否可以——抱歉，我不记得您刚才具体讲到哪里了，但您当时谈到一宗诽谤诉讼和其他一些问题。\n\n沃尔曼律师：是的，法官阁下。程先生是郭先生在内华达州一系列诉讼活动的受害人，我们在一项反SLAPP动议中胜诉，该案被驳回，因为程先生认为郭先生无法证明其案件具有任何实质依据。内华达州反SLAPP法有一项被称为SLAPPback的规定，因为尽管该法向胜诉被告判给律师费，但这并非遭受起诉这一伤害的全部和终结。因此，为执行律师费判决书，在纽约南区（Southern District of New York）提起了一宗诉讼，因为郭先生起初并未付款，直至Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）汇入资金以支付该判决书；我们提起诉讼以执行该判决书，并依据内华达州法律中的SLAPPback理论请求补偿性损害赔偿。事实上，该案已准备进行简易判决，当时代理郭先生的加文曼律师（Attorney Gavenman）加快提交其答复备忘录，以便在破产申请提交前及时提交，而其他方面一直处于（听不清）状态。\n\n如今，这场诉讼已持续相当长时间，事实上，一年前我曾有机会对郭先生进行证言录取。即使在今天，也有一些我此前并不知悉的有趣情况，例如郭先生如今与其妻子居住在康涅狄格州。因此，这些是——这些是郭先生所陈述却未予证实、因而令人担忧的有关郭先生的事实。\n\n他在内华达州的起诉状中列举了许多有关其背景的事项，今天其律师也陈述了其中一些；然而，当我们在纽约南区寻求证据开示时——因为这些事项显然必定具有实质关联性和相关性——他予以抗拒。他提出异议。他拒绝证实其中任何事项。我们寻求有关其财务状况的某些证据开示，他拒绝。他抗拒，而且事实上，他援引第五修正案以免提交该等信息，并且成功了。Failla法官（Judge Failla）认为援引第五修正案是适当的，因此我们可以据此获得不利推定。\n\n此人自称为亿万富翁。这是他在全球范围内展示自己的方式。事实上，2月9日，新闻界不仅因PAX案件中的制裁裁决而沸腾，也因郭先生——而且明确提到他的名字——就在伦敦针对瑞银集团（UBS）的5亿美元索赔赢得了一项审判地动议；但他是原告，也许是通过其某一实体。我们不知道。这意味着法庭应当对所说的一切——您知道，Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所），我对他们没有异议，他们正试图挑起——选择一场争斗，但他们是新来的。他们不了解郭先生。他们需要对他所说的一切持保留态度，法庭也需要如此。因此，我确实认为3月4日可能过早，因为他们需要自行核实，他们将向法庭提交的材料此前并未经过核实，因此，您知道，那将以他们的名义提交，他们需要进行尽职调查。\n\n因此，我们当然希望确保律师有时间这样做，但也要在此取得平衡，使我们在第341条会议之前有时间审查。虽然我们被列为债权人，但我应当指出，我们在动议中提出，我们相信自己实际上是20家最大债权人之一，但申请书中并未如此陈述；事实上，正如PAX指出的那样，Golden Spring这一内幕人被列为债权人，且为20家最大债权人之一。\n\n因此，此处提交的文件已经存在一些不当之处，我们只是希望确保有足够的时间。我倾向于在第341条会议前一周，而不是仅仅几天，因为我需要与我们当然已在纽约案件中收到的其他材料进行比较，而且我们可能需要处理该案中的保护令及其如何适用于本案；但是，您知道，我们在其他方面加入美国受托人和PAX对该60日期限延长提出的异议，并请求将期限设定为至少在第341条会议前一周。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好，我将休庭10分钟。我们将在5时10分返回，之后如各方有任何希望报告的事项，我将听取各方意见，然后作出裁定。现在休庭。\n\n（休庭：下午4时58分至下午5时09分。）\n\n法庭：好的。在Silverberg律师、Friedman律师、Claiborn律师和沃尔曼律师就债务人延长提交《破产法》和《破产程序规则》所要求文件的期限之动议发表意见后，我们进行了短暂休庭。我不知道，Silverberg律师、Friedman律师，你们是否进行过任何讨论。我看到你们摇头，表示没有。\n\nSilverberg先生：很遗憾——法官阁下，我是Bennett Silverberg，代表债务人的布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所。很遗憾，那些讨论没有取得成果。我们提出给予几天时间——\n\n法庭：没关系。我不需要知道。谢谢。\n\nSilverberg先生：好的。\n\n法庭：没关系。我感谢你，但我不需要知道。我只需要知道没有达成协议。\n\nSilverberg先生：没有达成协议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Claiborn律师？\n\nClaiborn女士：法官阁下，如果可以的话，我现在想就延长期限动议发表意见，并且我还想向法庭作出一些其他说明。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书313，提交于05/02/22，登记于05/02/22 17:09:32，第47页，共57页\n\nClaiborn女士：我先说明这些事项。\n\n法庭：请稍等一下，Claiborn律师。这里有些回声。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：我不知道为什么会有回声。我能听到您，Claiborn律师，然后又能再次听到您。\n\nClaiborn女士：哦，那太好了。\n\n法庭：所以我们只是要确保能够正确听到您。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：是的，我认为我们将不得不继续进行。你们能够录音吗，还是需要先解决这个问题？\n\n法庭书记员：仍在录音，但我不知道是否会录到这个回声。\n\n法庭：我想我们应该没问题。无论如何我们试一下，好吗？如果情况真的很糟，您告诉我们，我们就停止。我们是否应当通知信息技术部门的任何人？\n\n法庭书记员：嗯，我给Pierre发了消息，希望他会给Will发消息。\n\n法庭：好的。好。看看情况如何——\n\nClaiborn女士：我使用哪一个麦克风是否会有任何区别？\n\n案件 22-50073，文书313，提交于05/02/22，登记于05/02/22 17:09:32，第48页，共57页\n\n法庭：不，遗憾的是声音来自这里。那么请直接继续，我们看看效果如何，好吗？\n\nClaiborn女士：谢谢。\n\n法官阁下，我想简要谈及几项事项，第一项是申请书，以及今天郭先生律师就其在格林威治（Greenwich）住所所作的陈述，随后沃尔曼律师表示，他并不知道格林威治是一个住所。\n\n我想向法庭指出，在申请书中，债务人对“您居住在哪里”这一问题的回答所列地址为Golden Spring。该申请书未列出其居住地址。我们此前的理解是，由于已经表达的某些担忧，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问题，即昨天的初次债务人访谈简要涉及郭先生在哪里收取邮件的问题，并且讨论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——该地址是法庭联系债务人的唯一地址——邮件可能无法寄达正确地点。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书313，提交于05/02/22，登记于05/02/22 17:09:32，第49页，共57页\n\n因此，我提出这一点，是因为我希望确保债务人在本案中能够就所有适当的诉状获得适当通知，并确保所有各方知悉应使用何种适当地址联系债务人。我想作出的另一项说明是，概括而言，根据今天所作陈述以及昨天在初次债务人访谈中获悉的信息，本案呈现出无资产、大额债务以及需要解释的有趣组合。美国受托人目前认为，寻求指定一名审查员可能是适当的，我想向法庭预先说明此事。我们已向债务人的律师作出该说明，他们知悉此事。\n\n因此，我想向法官阁下提出这几点，然后我想补充说，就今天的延长期限请求而言，美国受托人认为——抱歉，3月9日最为合理。该日期介于对方各方提出的日期之间，并为各方提供超过一周的提前时间，以审阅并消化相关材料，并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。\n\n还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师，所提出的地址问题很重要。申请书上的地址与您——嗯，您没有提供地址，但您说他居住在格林尼治——所述的地址不同。如果地址发生变更，我们对此有一项地方法规，也有一份本地表格，必须填写，因为显然通知和送达必须适当作出。因此，我不知道您将如何处理此事，但我告诉您，此后我将关注此事，因为如果债务人居住在格林尼治，那与申请书所述不符。所以我不会再说什么了。我只是告诉您我目前对此事的看法，好吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格先生：我们理解关于纽约地址的问题。鉴于他与中国共产党（CCP）等方面的经历，曾希望对其康涅狄格州格林尼治地址予以保密，因此我认为，在准备申请书时，我们没有意识到该地址已经在公共领域公开到何种程度。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n西尔弗伯格先生：我们后来了解到，该地址公开可能没有那么敏感；一旦我们与债务人确认此事，我们将完成适当手续以修改地址，以确保他能收到这些。\n\n法庭：好的。好。谢谢。还有其他人希望就延长提交《破产法典》及《破产规则》所要求文件期限的动议发表意见吗？以及我们本地规则所要求的文件。\n\n好的。正如我今天早些时候在本次听证会开始时所指出，在过去几天中，我审阅了本案提交的文件，包括债务人延长提交清单或提供所要求信息期限的动议，该动议请求将期限延长至 May 2nd, 2022，即 ECF 编号 27。\n\n我还审阅了，并在休庭期间再次审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 编号 49，以及 PAX（PAX）就该延期动议提交的异议——如果允许我简称为 PAX——即 ECF 编号 50。\n\n我还听取了西尔弗伯格律师、弗里德曼律师（Attorney Friedman）、克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）、沃尔曼律师（Attorney Wolman）的陈述和辩论，并已就债务人提出的请求考虑了这些论点。\n\n正如我已指出的，而且我知道你们都知道，《破产法典》，特别是《破产法典》第 521 条，要求债务人作为其义务的一部分提交一系列文件，以协助并帮助完成第 11 章案件的管理。这些文件极其重要，并且是向债权人提供适当通知和信息所必需的，以便债权人能够决定是否希望在第 341 条会议上对债务人进行实质性询问；根据《破产法典》，债务人不仅必须出席该会议，还必须依据《破产法典》第 341、42、43 条在该会议上作证。除要求债务人提供——抱歉，履行特定义务，作为到本院寻求救济所承担负担的一部分——的法典条款外，\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》第 1007 条要求提交特定文件，包括财务状况说明、资产清单、负债清单及其他清单，即个人案件中的（a）至（g）以及（h）和（i）项。《联邦破产程序规则》第 1007(c) 条规定，其提交期限为与申请书同时提交，或在其后 14 天内提交。就本债务人案件而言，其后 14 天即为今天，因为本案于 February 15 提交；本院已考虑债务人提出的所有请求以及针对该请求提出的反对意见和论点。\n\n本院作出如下裁定：依据 11 USC Sections 521 以及规定债务人义务的《破产法典》其他适用条款、《联邦破产程序规则》第 1007(c) 条和我们的《本地破产程序规则》第 1007-1 条，债务人延长期限的动议部分准许。债务人必须于 March 9, 2022 当日或之前提交所有所需说明和清单，包括依照我刚才列举的破产法条款、《联邦破产程序规则》以及我们的本地破产规则所要求提交的全部文件。这是本院的裁定。有人有任何问题吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格先生：没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。这是我们今天需要处理的唯一事项。伯尼律师（Attorney Birney），您是否还有其他想向本院提出的事项？\n\n伯尼先生：没有，法官阁下。只是谢谢，很高兴回来，我们很高兴能恢复现场出席。\n\n法庭：能现场出席很好。是的。还有其他人有任何问题或今天希望提出的任何事项吗？\n\n克莱特先生（Mr. Kletter）：哦，法官阁下，我是否可以免于出席今后的听证会。西尔弗伯格先生可以出席任何后续——\n\n法庭：可以。您已获准以临时出庭资格（pro hac vice）出庭，所以可以免于出席，律师。\n\n克莱特先生：谢谢。\n\n西尔弗伯格先生：谢谢，法官阁下。临时出庭——\n\n法庭：不过，显然就送达而言，仍可向本地地址送达，这即构成送达。即使您获准免于出席，也没有问题。\n\n克莱特先生：是。\n\n法庭：如果有人仅向您办公室，即您的本地办公地址，向债务人进行送达，根据规则，仍视为适当送达。好吗？\n\n克莱特先生：是，谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。我唯一还要说的是，正如我已作出裁定，第 341 条会议已经安排；我已就我关于第 341 条会议的敦促与克莱伯恩律师交谈过，但此事由美国受托人办公室负责。本案今天的日程表上没有其他事项。弗里德曼律师，您有要补充的吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 313 提交于 05/02/22 登记于 05/02/22 17:09:32 第 54 页，共 57 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 313 提交于 05/02/22 登记于 05/02/22 17:09:32 第 55 页，共 57 页\n\n弗里德曼先生：有，法官阁下，只是因为我不熟悉您的一般做法。您是否还会签发命令，还是本记录文本即视为命令？\n\n法庭：我可以——如果您希望我——如果您愿意，我通常会这样做，而且我很乐意这样做：我会签发一份电子命令，好吗？但该命令很可能要到明天早上才会登记在案。截至目前，即 March 1st, 2022 5:23 p.m.，现作出命令，好吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：电子命令登记后，其中将载明，截至我刚才所说的时间，即 March 1st, 2022 5:23 p.m.。好吗？这样，您至少会有听证会记录文本以外的文件。\n\n我理解可能还会提交其他诉状，当事人已经提到这一点。本院选择该日期的原因是，我确实认为，给予债权人实质性机会审阅信息并决定是否希望参加该会议很重要；正如我经常所说，《破产法典》的该条款标题为“债权人会议”。这正是其目的。因此，这就是我作出该裁定的原因。如果本院今天下午没有其他需要处理的事项，除非我遗漏了什么。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 313 提交于 05/02/22 登记于 05/02/22 17:09:32 第 56 页，共 57 页\n\n好的。谢谢。这是今日日程表上的最后一项事项，因此本庭休庭。\n\n全体：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（听证会于 5:34 p.m. 休庭。）\n\n证明\n\n本人特此证明，前述 56 页系本人尽最大能力对关于债务人 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、案件编号 22-50073 的《延长提交清单期限动议》电子录音所作的完整、准确文字记录。该听证会于 March 1, 2022 在康涅狄格州布里奇波特，由尊敬的 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法院法官主持。\n\n___\n___\nSuzanne Benoit（苏珊娜·伯努瓦），记录员 日期：03/05/2022","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","CIPA","CCP","Murray","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Gavenman","GTV","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":11094,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:38:50"}