{"id":"court_ctb_316_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":316,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2022-05-03","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. 21-50073 : 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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| | |\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\n\n Justice Ostrager imposing that, that was unanimously affirmed 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 believe will ultimately be reviewable by this Court and\n\norder that's already on appeal. Mr. Kwok lost a motion\n\nshould not be second guessed because they are part of an\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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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\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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 -- 15 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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\n\n 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 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\n16 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 Page 54 of 57\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 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":"美利坚合众国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n--------------------------x\n关于：\n案件编号 21-50073\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）：\n第11章债务人。\n--------------------------x\n2022年3月1日\nBrien McMahon Federal Bldg.\n915 Lafayette Street\nBridgeport, Connecticut\n延长提交清单期限的动议\n（电子录音转录稿）\n审理法官：\n尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A.·曼宁）法官\n美利坚合众国破产法院法官\n转录服务由 FALZARANO COURT REPORTERS, LLC（法尔扎拉诺法庭记录员有限责任公司）提供\n4 Somerset Lane\nSimsbury, CT 06070\n860.651.0258\n[www.falzaranocourtreporters.com]\n\n2 出庭人员（通过电话）：\n代表债务人：\nBROWN RUDNICK, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n212-209-4800\n代理律师：BENNETT SILVERBERG（本内特·西尔弗伯格）律师\nBROWN RUDNICK, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n860-509-6500\n代理律师：DYLAN KLETTER（迪伦·克莱特）律师\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（奥麦利文与迈尔斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n212-326-2000\n代理律师：STUART M. SARNOFF（斯图尔特·M.·萨诺夫）律师\nAISLING MURRAY（艾斯林·默里）律师\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP（奥麦利文与迈尔斯律师事务所）\n1625 Eye Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20006\n202-383-5300\n代理律师：PETER FRIEDMAN（彼得·弗里德曼）律师\nDAVID HARBACH, II.（大卫·哈巴赫二世）律师\nROBINSON & COLE（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n860-275-8275\n代理律师：PATRICK BIRNEY（帕特里克·伯尼）律师\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（郑洛根）：\nRANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团专业有限责任公司）\n100 Pearl Street - 14th Floor\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n702-420-2001\n代理律师：JAY M. WOLMAN（杰伊·M.·沃尔曼）律师\n（通过视频会议）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 Page 2 of 57\n代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）：\n\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（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代理律师：HOLLY L. CLAIBORN（霍莉·L.·克莱伯恩）律师\n\n（程序于下午4时04分开始。）\n法庭书记员：编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n法官：好的。下午好。请先由债务人的律师进行记录在案的出庭陈述。\n西尔弗伯格先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Brown Rudnick 的本内特·西尔弗伯格。与我一同出庭的是我的担保律师迪伦·克莱特。\n法官：两位下午好。而且我认为，西尔弗伯格律师，可能已录入一项准许您以 pro hac vice 身份出庭的命令，是吗？\n西尔弗伯格先生：是的，是的，法官阁下，我们对此表示感谢。\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n伯尼先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole 的帕特里克·伯尼，代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP，即 PAX。法官阁下，在法庭内与我一同出庭的，我右边是彼得·弗里德曼律师，我左边是斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师。\n法官：下午好。\n伯尼先生：还有几位其他人士，大卫·哈巴赫律师和艾斯林·默里律师，均来自 O'Melveny。法官阁下，pro hac vice 出庭动议已提交并获法官阁下准许，弗里德曼先生将\nCase 22-50073 Doc 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 Page 4 of 57\n\n在今天接手进行主要辩论。\n法官：好的。谢谢。谢谢各位。欢迎各位。克莱伯恩律师，请继续。\n克莱伯恩女士：下午好，法官阁下。霍莉·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。\n法官：下午好。沃尔曼律师？\n沃尔曼先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Randazza Legal Group 的杰伊·沃尔曼，代表债权人 Logan Cheng。\n法官：下午好。好的。\n沃尔曼先生：非常感谢法官阁下允许我远程出庭。\n法官：是的。如我所指出的——哦，我忘记打开摄像头了，抱歉，沃尔曼律师。我们今天正在举行不同类型的听证，因此我甚至不知道您能否——这是否可行，但无论如何，摄像头已经打开了。如我所指出的，这是一次加急听证，因此您获准今天远程参与。我们已恢复在法庭审理，法庭内有若干人，但大家都戴着口罩，而且显然都对保持距离感到适应，因此我们今天将继续进行。现在，在具体讨论任何事项之前，我收到消息称今天有一名债务人的口译员在场。\n\n西尔弗伯格先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：在就此讨论任何事项之前，我想要——其他律师是否明白债务人今天有一名口译员？\n\n弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。我是代表 PAX 的 O'Melveny & Myers 的彼得·弗里德伯格。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\n弗里德曼先生：不反对，法官阁下。我不反对使用该口译员。\n\n法官：好的。您认为该口译员有资格翻译债务人所说的任何内容吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我没有任何依据作出肯定或否定的判断。\n\n法官：好的。我从美国受托人办公室所提交的书面文件中了解到，我认为是昨天提交的，我想我是正确的，在贵办公室进行的初次债务人面谈中，有一名债务人口译员；是否正确？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是的，法官阁下。美国受托人通过电话使用了一名口译员的服务，随后债务人有其自己的个人\n\n1 口译员，其实际在场陪同债务人。\n\n2 法官：\n那么，今天在场的这位先生\n3 ——我甚至不该这样说，我假定是位先生，\n4 因为我正在看法庭后方，但\n5 今天在场的这位先生是否就是\n6 在初次债务人面谈期间陪同债务人的同一位先生？\n7 西尔弗伯格先生：\n不是，法官阁下。这名\n8 口译员名叫 John Lao（劳约翰）。\n9 法官：\n好的。好的。我只需要\n10 了解，如果 Lao 先生将要\n11 翻译债务人所说的任何内容，我希望\n12 届时了解 Lao 先生的资格，\n13 如果进行到那一步，好吗？显然，我们并未准备安排\n14 口译员，但这未必\n是一个问题。我只是\n15 向您说明，我不希望出现——我不会\n16 在口译员问题存在任何争议的情况下继续举行\n17 听证会。我的意思就是这个，\n18 好吗？\n19 西尔弗伯格先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n20 法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n21 好的。现在——\n22 默里女士：\n法官，不好意思，我们没有听清\n23 克莱伯恩律师所说——之前所说的话，我很\n24 抱歉。她离麦克风有点远。\n25 法官：\n是的，这不是您的错，克莱伯恩律师。\n\n1 问题在于我们所有人都戴着口罩，而且，\n\n2 您知道，还要保持距离，有时我们可能需要请\n3 您说得更大声一些。\n4 克莱伯恩女士：\n我会尽力\n说得更大声。\n5 法官：\n谢谢。遗憾的是，仅仅那个角度\n6 就能使麦克风更好地收录您的声音。\n7 而且，如我认为各位都知道，我们的记录是\n8 音频，因此我们必须非常注意麦克风，\n9 如果有时我要求您，或者有人要求您\n10 重复所说内容，那是因为我们需要确保留有\n11 清晰的记录。好吗？\n12 好的。那么，大约\n13 一周前，我可以调出来，你们此时可能都比我\n14 更清楚，书记官办公室在本案中录入了一项\n15 案卷记录，涉及\n16 自愿债务人在破产案件中必须提交的申请书和其他文件的\n17 某些瑕疵。修正后的\n18 申请书已提交，我看到了，它纠正了\n该项\n19 瑕疵。有一个——\n我理解，您知道，\n20 办公室认为他们有时可以使用他人的\n21 号码，但我们不允许这样做，因此这就是需要提交\n22 修正后申请书的原因。\n23 因此，我理解这已完成。\n24 我理解有一项说明，涉及一名\n25 债权人没有适当的收件人栏，\n\n该问题也已纠正。法院对此表示感谢。\n\n我认为债务人律师所——不是命令，而是债务人律师所关注的、导致本项延长提交清单期限动议的瑕疵通知，是因为——我是在告诉你们双方一些你们已经知道的事情，这对你们并不是什么新消息。《破产法典》要求，规则也要求，清单和陈述书必须在案件提交后14日内提交。由于本法庭内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义务，就无法妥善管理案件。在本案中是其本人义务。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瑕疵通知称案件可能被驳回。它没有说应当被驳回，但我理解债务人的律师希望迅速举行听证，以便你们能够——因为你们不希望案件被驳回，我理解这一点。因此，无论如何，这就是准许加急听证动议并安排今日就延长提交清单期限动议举行听证的原因。\n\n1 现在，我理解你们所寻求的内容。\n\n2 你们寻求60日。你们知道对此已经收到两份\n3 书面异议。我可以告诉你们，你们\n4 不会获得60日。这不会发生。\n5 但我想知道的是，你们是否已与\n6 债权人的律师或美国受托人办公室的律师就\n7 你们的请求及其异议进行过讨论。\n8 西尔弗伯格先生：\n是的，法官阁下。事实上，\n9 我们进行了我们的——我不确定法官阁下能否听到\n10 我说话。\n11 法官：\n听得很清楚，谢谢。\n12 西尔弗伯格先生：\n法官阁下，我们昨天在\n13 克莱伯恩女士的办公室与她进行了初次\n14 债务人面谈。这是一场3小时的面谈。面谈\n15 结束时，我们询问克莱伯恩女士办公室\n16 对延期请求的立场。她明确表示，\n17 对60日延期将提出异议，并且她\n18 强烈劝告我们考虑请求一项在\n19 § 341 会议之前届满的延期，以便债权人有\n20 充足时间审阅清单和陈述书，\n21 从而能够在341会议上提出有根据的\n22 问题。\n23 昨晚，在与当事人协商后，\n24 也就是——抱歉，我们是否介绍过我们的\n25 当事人 Ho Wan Kwok 先生？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 316 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 12:26:47 Page 11 of 57\n\n1 郭先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n2 法官：\n下午好，先生。\n3 西尔伯伯格先生：\n他用的名字是 Miles。\n4 法官：\n下午好。谢谢。\n5 您可以坐下，先生。谢谢。\n6 西尔弗伯格先生：\n所以，\n昨天，抱歉，昨晚，\n7 我们向美国受托人提议将\n8 提交清单和陈述书的截止日期延长至3月16日，\n9 即周一341会议之前的那个星期三。\n10 我们没有将日期恰好定在一周之前的原因\n11 是，我们正在处理将清单和陈述书翻译成\n12 郭先生母语中文的一些后勤问题。\n13 因此，我们希望确保，在他\n14 以伪证罪处罚为条件证明并确认其准确性时，\n15 他能够以自己的语言完全理解\n16 清单和陈述书所载明的内容，\n17 从而对页面上的文字内容绝无\n18 任何疑问。\n19 法官：\n我明白。好的。那么，您是\n20 说你们已经准备好——我将听取其他\n21 当事人的意见，但我只是想问您这个问题。\n22 你们已准备好代表债务人同意一项\n23 于3月16日届满的延期；是否正确？\n24 西尔弗伯格先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好。谢谢。我对此表示感谢。现在，Claiborn 律师，您对该动议提出了第一项异议；您现已听取律师意见，并听到其同意如获准，将期限延长限制至3月16日。对于延期请求，您还希望补充哪些记录内容，或者还有何其他意见？CLAIBORN 女士：法官大人，我认为，如我可以请求法庭听取 PAX 在美国受托人面前所作的陈述，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 之间有着很长的历史，我认为这将有助于分析本案何种期限延长较为合理。法庭：可以。律师？SILVERBERG 先生：法官大人，如果 PAX 要详细陈述导致我们走到今天的经过，我认为——如果您希望听取，我也可以作陈述；否则您可以听取——法庭：那么，您是否是在建议您希望先作陈述？您的意思是这样吗？还是您希望回应他们的陈述？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 316 提交于 05/03/22 登记于 05/03/22 12:26:47 第 13 页，共 57 页\n\nSILVERBERG 先生：如果可以的话，我希望先作我们的陈述——法庭：您的陈述将涉及本案为何提出，以及您为何需要延期，是吗？SILVERBERG 先生：是的。法庭：好的。我会让他们先进行，律师，然后我绝对会听取您的意见。FRIEDMAN 先生：谢谢，法官大人。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，法官大人，我拟先介绍 Kwok 先生的背景，随后说明导致本 Chapter 11 案件启动的事件，并阐述延期请求的理由。法官大人，就背景而言，Kwok 先生出生于中国山东省。他现与结婚35年的妻子 Hing Chi 居住于康涅狄格州格林尼治。他有两名成年子女，二人育有一子 Qiang Guo 先生及一女 Mei Guo 女士。其子居住在英国；其女在纽约市与康涅狄格州两地居住，希望随着 Covid 消退，她如今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。Kwok 先生13岁时从初中辍学，开始销售服装和电子产品以帮助供养家庭。1989年5月，他因支持天安门广场抗议活动而被拘留并遭受酷刑。在被拘留约20个月期间，他与政治活动人士、知识分子、商界人士及宗教领袖建立了关键联系。其中一名联系人后来将他介绍给 Ping Xia 女士，一名来自香港的成功商人及投资者。1991年，Kwok 先生开始与 Xia 女士共同经营裕达房地产公司，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。建成时，该综合体当时价值为300 million。该贸易中心在财务上取得成功，并确立了 Kwok 先生在中国房地产开发商界的地位，特别是在河南省；裕达此后继续开发高端住宅和商业项目。\n\n约在2000年，基于其在河南省取得的成功，Kwok 先生将其房地产抱负转向中国首都北京，并扩展其业务，将其六名兄弟姐妹参与的项目私人融资纳入其中。凭借在河南省取得的成功，Kwok 先生的近亲及大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）及 Beijing Zenith Holdings Company（北京鼎辉控股公司），该等实体为房地产开发及投资管理咨询公司，Kwok 先生及其大家庭成员为其股东和雇员。\n\n2002年，这些企业购得位于北京北部的两块未开发土地，总面积约为2 million square meters。在中国被确定为2008 Olympics 主办国且政府宣布计划在这些地块相邻处建设奥运场馆后，这些地块的价值大幅上升。\n\n这些地块价值的上升，引发了 Kwok 先生与 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）长期的政治斗争。Zhihua 副市长企图不当侵占 Morgan Investments 的财产，Kwok 先生进行了反击，向政府举报该腐败行为，并在长期斗争后最终收回了 Morgan Investments 的土地。\n\n随后，Kwok 先生监督 Beijing Pangu Plaza（北京盘古大观）和 Zhihuan Plaza 的成功建设及按时竣工。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严厉回应。当其生命明显处于危险之中时，他于2015年逃往美国。在其缺席的情况下，中国共产党冻结或没收了他在中国的资产，包括由其持有权益的公司所持资产。中国共产党还促成没收其在其他地区、包括香港的资产，并促使 Interpol（国际刑警组织）就逮捕他发布红色通报。\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。他至今仍继续批评中国共产党的腐败及侵犯人权行为。多年来，他在 YouTube、GTV、Twitter 和 Getter 等各种数字及媒体平台上积累了追随者——我得查一下 Getter，我不知道那是什么——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。他在各个社交媒体平台上拥有逾一百万名关注者。值得注意的是，他并未将其社交媒体影响力变现。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 316 提交于 05/03/22 登记于 05/03/22 12:26:47 第 15 页，共 57 页\n\nKwok 先生未受雇用，依靠家人，主要是其儿子的支持，支付其日常生活开支。通过 Kwok 先生儿子位于 Golden Spring New York 的家族办公室，其儿子垫付其每月开支。Brown Rudnick 的预付律师费由 Kwok 先生儿子拥有的另一实体 Lamp Capital, LLC 支付，如本次听证会前不久提交的案卷编号54中的我方律师报酬声明所载。法庭：好的。我尚未看到该文件，但没关系。\n\nSILVERBERG 先生：转向 PAX 诉讼，尽管他离开了中国，却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。我们不会过多涉及该诉讼，但高层概述或许有助于将事情置于背景之中。\n\nPAX（一家香港投资基金）在纽约和 BVI 对 Kwok 先生提起诉讼。2017年提起的纽约诉讼目前由纽约州最高法院 Ostrager 法官审理。在纽约诉讼中，Kwok 先生由 BakerHostetler 代理。这些主要是与2008年向一家名为 Spirit Charter 的中国实体提供的30 million dollar贷款有关的追偿诉讼。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 先生承认其于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，法官大人。Ostrager 法官在未举行听证的情况下作出了有利于 PAX 的简易判决。Kwok 先生已向上诉庭就该判决提起上诉；该上诉仍在审理中，但因本案启动而被中止。与此同时，PAX 试图执行 Ostrager 法官针对 Kwok 先生作出的限制令，禁止其转移或耗散资产，或将资产移出纽约法院管辖范围。\n\nPAX 将注意力高度集中于一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇。PAX 希望将该游艇带回纽约，以便其能够扣押该船并对其执行。Kwok 先生否认拥有该船，并主张其无法命令该船返回纽约。Ostrager 法官命令 Kwok 先生于2021年5月15日前将该船送回纽约，否则该船每在其管辖范围外停留一天，即面临 $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天内向 PAX 支付134 million dollar罚款，否则将面临监禁风险。2月9日的裁定亦正在上诉庭审理中。Kwok 先生无力支付该罚款。他于2月14日聘请本所，并于次日即提出 Chapter 11 申请。他提出 Chapter 11 申请，不仅是为了获得自动中止的利益，也是为了以有序方式在一个法庭中解决其所有请求权。他希望能与债权人就 Chapter 11 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。他的主要资产为诉讼请求权。假定其在这些请求权中胜诉，他可能能够为债权人提供全额清偿资金。他还将向其家人寻求支持，为该计划提供资金。所有选择均在考虑范围内。此外，正如法官大人在异议中指出的，对于所谓资产腾挪和藏匿资产的指控已有诸多议论。如果这些指控属实，\n\n而我方称其并不属实，那么破产案件可能是对他们而言所能发生的最好事情。本案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。如果指定该委员会，那么他们将有工作要做。\n\n主要而言，我们预计他们将调查 PAX 在其书面文件中提出的指控，这使我们回到关于延长期限的动议。我们与 Kwok 先生协作准备其申请的时间极少，这就是文件如此简略、缺陷通知最终出现在命令中的原因。如果我们有更多时间，我们会确保附表及时提交，或者至少可能在提交申请之前——与申请同时提交。\n\n情况远非理想。我们需要在我方方面完成大量工作，以协助 Kwok 先生准备附表和陈述。2月23日，我们向 United States Trustee’s Office（美国受托人办公室）告知 Kwok 先生拟寻求延期。2月24日，正如法官大人在案卷27中指出的，我们提交了 Kwok 先生要求延期约60天的请求。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，以确保与诉讼有关的资产及\n\n负债均已在清单和陈述中准确列明。此外，由于 Kwok先生（郭文贵）不会读写英语，他要求将正式表格译成中文。Kwok先生还将聘请服务提供商协助其编制清单和陈述。今天上午，我们已开始与 Stretto（Stretto）进行讨论，法官阁下可能熟悉该机构。如我所述，法官阁下，我们昨日下午已与 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）讨论了 Kwok先生的延期请求。昨日有两方就延期动议提出异议，即美国受托人和 PAX（PAX）。两方基本上都提出同一点，即所请求的延期时间过长，他们希望推进本案。法官阁下，值得一提的是，尽管所请求的延长期限截止日在预定的 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。Kwok先生同意，最好加倍努力，尽早提交清单和陈述。清单越早提交，他就能越早确定债权申报截止日期，开始核对债权，并了解其是否能够提出一项可行的 Chapter 11 计划。法官阁下，我已提及我们向 United States Trustee（美国受托人）提出的建议；如有必要，我准备就若 Kwok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。让我想想我是否有——哦，是的，我确实有一两个问题。这其实并不算问题。如我所提及，且诸位都知道，我们的庭审记录有音频。在你陈述期间提到了一些姓名，我认为应当向书记官办公室提供这些姓名，以便书记官办公室能够确保其在本案记录中的拼写正确并得到妥善记载。\n\nSILVERBERG先生（西尔弗伯格先生）：当然可以，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。\n\n法庭：无论如何，是的，这会非常有帮助，因为我们确实希望记录准确，因此我希望你这样做。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：当然可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我会与法庭书记员交谈，但我们大概可以让法院书记官联系你，律师，并设法取得该信息，以便我们在记录中清楚、准确地保有该信息。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：我们非常乐意。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我只是想想我是否还有其他——我是说，我还有其他想法，但在你发言时，是否有我想说的内容。关于 341 会议以及今天在此发生的任何事情，我认为美国受托人办公室——我认为即便你的延期获准至 16 日，在第一次会议后也不应结束该 341 会议，这样做是合理的。我认为这是一个存在许多问题、情况仍在变化的案件，当然这由美国受托人办公室决定；但我敦促他们考虑——我现在当然是在对你说，Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩律师）——考虑债务人似乎并不反对该 341 会议举行超过一天。我敦促美国受托人办公室鉴于诸多问题而考虑这样做，包括我们显然将不得不在那里配备一名口译员，以及可能有、也可能没有许多感兴趣并有疑问的债权人，但我希望确保为他们提供这样的机会。保持及时，并给予充分通知，以便在文件提交后，他们有足够时间进行明智审阅。好吗？\n\n案号 22-50073，文书 316，提交日期 05/03/22，录入日期 05/03/22 12:26:47，第 24 页（共 57 页）\n\n因此，我敦促你——你应当将此事与美国受托人沟通，并说明债务人的律师对此没有异议。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我会这样做，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的，PAX 的律师，你可以继续。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼先生）：法官阁下，我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥迈律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我实际上已经给了——Silverberg先生？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：是。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：——Silverberg先生一份我的声明副本。我有装订成册的版本。实际上我有两册，如果可以的话，我可以递交给您。\n\n法庭：当然。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：这可能对您、您和您的书记员有所帮助，我们可能会提及其中的一些内容——\n\n法庭：当然。谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：——其中载有的内容。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Friedman先生，在律师发言时，我查阅这本装订册，你没有异议吧。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：法官阁下，那是——\n\n法庭：我说错名字了吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：没关系。\n\n法庭：抱歉。我同时在看两件事。是的，你没有异议；对吗？\n\nSILVERBERG先生：我没有异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢。我对此表示感谢，Silverberg律师。Friedman律师，请继续。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我是代表 PAX 的 O'Melveny & Myers 律师事务所的 Peter Friedman。因此，法官阁下，有许许多多不同的问题值得回应，但请让我先从 Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）所作认定这一直接问题说起。Ostrager法官认定，Kwok先生不能主张这些文件系伪造，因为这些文件与其所做的一切不一致——\n\n法庭：请稍等一下，律师——\n\n口译员：（听不清）我不可能翻译任何内容——\n\n法庭：先生，请稍等一下。请稍等一下，好吗？他有权作出陈述；如果你无法同步翻译，你可以稍后听取，因为我们会录音并将其放入案卷，之后你可以与债务人交谈并为其口译，但我们必须继续进行听证。\n\n口译员：我明白。您认为他能否使用麦克风，至少让我们这里所有人都能听到？\n\n法庭：律师，你能否把麦克风稍微拉近一些？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：当然，法官阁下。我对该请求是否出于善意深表怀疑。\n\n法庭：我明白。我明白，但我并不——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：这类伎俩，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：我完全明白，但我们不会——我们将继续进行。好吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：而且，如同康涅狄格州每一个破产案件以及全国大多数案件一样，这份录音将在之后放入本案案卷——我想，明天早上前就会放入，对吗？这相当——非常快。会在 24 小时内完成，任何人都可以听取；但——这并非你的过错——麦克风——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。\n\n法庭：——有时运作良好，有时却不，而不知何故，今天那一支没有很好地运作。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我是否应当试用上面的那一支？\n\n案号 22-50073，文书 316，提交日期 05/03/22，录入日期 05/03/22 12:26:47，第 27 页（共 57 页）\n\n法庭：也许那样会更好。让我们看看效果如何，好吗？今天那支麦克风出了问题。我无法告诉你原因。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：因此，法官阁下，Ostrager法官裁定——我相信您装订册中的标签 4 是该意见书——Kwok先生基于诸多理由不能主张文件系伪造。禁止反言，因为他先前作出过陈述，因为他实际上曾提交过那些文件。因此，该主张从表面上看就不是一项有实质意义的主张，也不是本院最终应当能够对 Ostrager法官经过审慎推理的认定作出评判的主张。\n\n法庭：我可以就证据 4 向你提一个问题吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：可以。\n\n法庭：你刚才指给我看的那份证据。当然，今天之前我没有审阅过任何内容——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。\n\n法庭：——但我正在看证据 4，看来 Ostrager法官签发了这份——让我看看它——抱歉。让我看看它的标题。它是一份《动议裁定和命令》，他于 September 15, 2020 签发；我的理解正确吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是，法官阁下。这是他就简易判决动议作出的裁定，认定 Kwok 确实因个人担保而欠 PAX 款项。\n\n法庭：那么，在简易判决裁定之后发生了什么？是否提出上诉，还是这被视为中间裁定，或者就你现在指给我看的这项具体裁定而言，情况如何？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：该事项正在上诉中，它不属于——\n\n法庭：它正在上诉中。好的。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：因此，这并不是本院可以审查的问题——\n\n法庭：好的。我只是想确保我理解，因为如你所见，这里有很多文件——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：确实如此。\n\n法庭：——我只是想确保，也想了解其状态，而我现在明白了。我明白他作出了这些认定，而该事项目前仍在上诉中。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。但法官阁下问了一个很好的问题，即那之后发生了什么。那么，那之后发生的第一件事是，Kwok先生在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）为一家名为 Genever New York（纽约 Genever 公司）的公司申请破产。\n\n法庭：你在你的书面材料中提到过该名称，所以我对该名称的记录正确。我见过它。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是的。因此，未将其列为关联破产案件令人非常不安，因为 Kwok先生拥有一家名为 Genever、位于英属维尔京群岛的公司的百分之百股权，即 Genever Holdings British Virgin Islands（Genever Holdings 英属维尔京群岛公司），而该公司继而拥有纽约南区一名债务人的百分之百股权。这当然是关联方的典型情形，但它没有列在破产申请书中。这确实令人不安，也是我们认为不应给予超出 Congress（美国国会）依法规定的 14 天之外延期的推动因素之一。纽约南区的该实体现已成为——此处不宜详述——最终我们将请求本院给予救济，准许我们采取行动，以维护 Kwok先生对该实体的所有权，并对其家属提出的虚假债权提出异议。这一直是他阻挠我们使该判决获得清偿的努力的一部分。\n\n法官阁下，国会规定 14 天是有理由的。我们认为这很重要。当然，我要说的是，我经常处于请求延期的立场，而坦率地说，我不确定我是否曾见过有人提出异议，因为通常有充分理由。这可能是一家经营中的企业，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、债权人和雇员事务，且无法立即、迅速予以关注的实体。这里没有任何一种情况属实。\n\nKwok先生不是一家经营中的企业。他在其 IDI 和破产申请书中声称自己完全没有资产，这当然提出了一个问题：这里怎么可能存在重整目的？怎么可能存在 Chapter 11 目的？鉴于其所有资产调动行为——这不是我所说的；你从对方律师那里听到的一切都是他本人所说。我有 Ostrager法官的意见书，那些意见书及事实认定表明，Kwok先生利用由实体、家属和受信赖的亲信构成的迷宫来转移资产。这样的人不能在 Chapter 11 中担任债权人的受托人。他绝不会向家属和其他关联实体主张权利。这对本案的目的提出了极其严重的问题。在此基础上，法官阁下，我还要补充，存在一项 134 million dollar 的藐视法庭罚款，这并非只是 Ostrager法官作出的裁定；该裁定已获纽约州上诉分院一致维持。\n\n法官：我确实看到了。FRIEDMAN先生：那是Kwok先生（郭文贵）的作为。他等了268天，这就是为什么金额变得如此之大。Kwok先生不能在本法院对州法院关于Kwok先生拥有——在“Lady May”号游艇中享有受益权益的裁定提出异议。坦率地说，任何负责任的债务人早就会提出返还动议，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。我想指出，法官阁下，今晚晚些时候我们将提交一项动议，请求您裁定自动停止不适用于针对Kwok先生的民事藐视法庭命令；同时，我们还将备选地提交一项动议，请求您裁定，如其确实适用，则应修改自动停止，以允许Ostrager法官（Ostrager法官）要求将“Lady May”号游艇返还至纽约港。我现在并不请求能够对其实施扣押或从中收取款项，但不应允许Kwok先生将如此有价值的资产置于美国境外，而应将其带回此处，以便最终得以适当变现和清算。再次强调，我认为Ostrager法官的认定最终不应由本法院予以复审或重新判断，因为其属于一项已经在上诉中的命令的一部分。Kwok先生在纽约未能获得一项临时停止执行动议的支持。他甚至无法向任何人提供哪怕最轻微程度的信心，证明其在该上诉中具有胜诉可能性。\n\n现在，我们认为该民事藐视法庭命令不受自动停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不可免责债权。我们在脚注中提到了这一点。我们还将提起一项对抗程序，以裁定该债务不可免责；这也引出了一个问题：如果Kwok先生在获得免责时将面临134 million dollar债务，那么怎么可能会有一项可行的Chapter 11计划？\n\n我认为，这类问题使债务人动议第15段中的一切都受到质疑。他们谈到聘用律师、聘用财务顾问，并利用他人的资金提出计划。\n\n我意识到，法官阁下，我们必须向您证明许多事情，但我们掌握证据，其中许多问题已经由Ostrager法官认定。这不是一个以哪怕丝毫接近于手脚干净的状态来到您面前的债务人。我实在无法理解，如果一名法官已裁定你对某项价值30 million dollars的财产享有受益所有权，你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却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，而填表说明明确表示不得列出内部人，这实在令人震惊。一家由其儿子控制、为其生活开支提供资金的公司，是非制定法内部人的典型例子。\n\n法官阁下，那份经核实并在法律处罚责任下签署的申请书，充斥着如此之多的不诚实，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，其费用将基于一笔由Lamp（Lamp）——也是Kwok先生的家族办公室——向Kwok先生发放的贷款支付。因此，如果查看附表——申请书，Lamp作为该笔贷款的million dollar债权人出现。但即使该笔贷款仍然——它作为Brown Rudnick的预付聘金，它仍然是Kwok先生的财产，因此我不知道他们怎么能够评估或主张他拥有零资产。他拥有其在本案开始时根据该笔贷款带入本案的$998,000资产，作为一项申请前贷款。再次强调，仅仅是对本法院缺乏坦诚这一点，就已促使我们相信不应给予任何宽宥。\n\n案件22-50073 文件316 提交于05/03/22 录入于05/03/22 12:26:47 第34页，共57页\n\n我想指出，我们在书面意见中引用了Ostrager法官几乎说过的一切，但有一部分我没有引用，我认为这非常重要，位于Ostrager法官意见书第7页。法官：您希望我查看哪一份意见书？我想确认一下——FRIEDMAN先生：这是藐视法庭命令，法官阁下。法官：所以它附在你们的异议之后。FRIEDMAN先生：是的，也附在美国受托人的异议之后。法官：但它也在这里这本材料中吗？FRIEDMAN先生：是的。它也附在美国受托人的异议之后。那或许是最容易找到的方式。法官：好的。如果您给我一点时间，我会找到它。（暂停。）法官：我想我已经在这里找到了，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？FRIEDMAN先生：是的，法官阁下。法官：好的。请继续。我已经找到了。FRIEDMAN先生：因此，在我谈到该引文之前，我想指出，这是在一次现场审判之后作出的，而且这是在Kwok先生的女儿——律师刚才提到的那位——基本上被Ostrager法官认定为说谎者之后作出的。阅读该意见书时，您会看到Ostrager法官提及其证言缺乏可信度。他并非唯一作出这种认定的法官。Liman法官（Liman法官）在纽约南区（Southern District of New York）的一宗案件中，也对其有关家庭成员之间资金转移的证言可信度提出了极大怀疑。\n\n法官阁下，第7页写道，与Kwok就“Lady May”号游艇所策划的障眼法有关的种种伎俩，与Kwok在本诉讼待决的5年间采取的每一项侵害性及藐视法庭行为如出一辙，这正是本案有1,180项案卷记录的原因。\n\n我恳请法官阁下不要让本案变成那个案件的样子。Kwok采取了如此多极其规避且不诚实的步骤，无法与作为Chapter 11债务人所要求的善意要求相协调。国会要求在14天内作出披露。请求60天延期，往轻了说，是令人愤慨的。\n\n我们请求法院全数驳回该动议，但我还要说一点，法官阁下。最终，我意识到，您知道，您的职责是权衡各种因素。我们坚信不应给予任何延期。但如果给予几天延期，直至本周末，因为今天即将结束，我们当然不会说他在今天营业结束前没有提交某些文件，本案就应当自动驳回。\n\n因此，尽管我对这些问题感受强烈，我想您可以看得出来，我不会反对延期，我们的客户也不会反对延期至Friday，并且我们认为，鉴于Kwok先生在其IDI中表示其没有资产，其中一部分应当很容易。如果存在这些或有诉讼，似乎不可能相信他尚不知道它们，而且应当尽快将其列入附表，以便我们坦率地深入调查。视其中披露内容而定，如有必要，我们甚至可能在其341会议期间进行Rule 2004取证，但我们认为，为了进行适当的341审查，我们需要完整且公平的机会继续追查其资产，而且，您知道，我想——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法官：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，而且我们今天确实举行了听证。因此，我昨天看了美国受托人的异议，因为该文件提交时我有更多时间。不过，我肯定看过你们的异议，但我打算再次审阅它，如同我将审阅美国受托人的异议以及延期动议一样。\n\n案件22-50073 文件316 提交于05/03/22 录入于05/03/22 12:26:47 第37页，共57页\n\n异议昨天提交时，我有更多时间。因此，我肯定看过你们的异议，不过我打算再次审阅它，如同我将审阅美国受托人的异议以及延期动议一样。\n\n但是，我认为我在本次听证开始时已相当明确地表示，不会给予60天的延期。如果有延期，将不会是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。你表示，如法院作出命令将截止日期延至March 4th，你不会反对。从某些方面看，我们相距并不远，但我理解你的立场。如果你们二位不想就此讨论，看看能否就某件事达成一致，也没关系。法院将作出裁定。我对此毫无问题。\n\n但如果你们想花时间讨论，我们也可以这样做，你们都可以——我们可以休庭5分钟。我们不必休庭，可以做任何你们想做的事。但现在，今天的问题是，是否将给予延期。你们这两个提出异议的当事人，以及我，我认为我已经——我认为已经明确表示，当我已经说不会给予60天延期时，我显然认为这些异议有其依据。这不会发生。这并不适当。在极少数案件中，我能想到会适当，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认为March 16可以。你希望是March 4th。341会议是在什么时候？CLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，请原谅我打断法院。法官：没关系。CLAIBORN女士：我尚未就美国受托人关于日期的立场发表意见——法官：哦，抱歉。CLAIBORN女士：——而且我不知道律师是否想接受法院提出的机会，在我们这样做之前先讨论片刻，还是——法官：我可以休庭5分钟。不会——CLAIBORN女士：我只是不知道当事人是否有兴趣讨论此事。法官：或者，是的，如果没有讨论的兴趣，那也没关系。我并未强迫任何人做任何事。如果你们愿意接受，我给你们一个机会。如果你们不想接受，也没关系。你知道，我对此毫无问题。SILVERBERG先生：法官阁下，如果PAX要在4th这个日期上寸步不让，那么从后勤角度来说这将无法实行，所以——\n\n法官：从谈判角度看，那可能确实如此，但我可能会作出该命令。所以，你知道，这就是我们会走到的地方，也没关系。你们——每一位——你们都已表明立场，而我甚至还没有问Wolman律师（Wolman律师）其立场可能是什么，因为他正在参与本次听证，但你们已明确表明自己的立场。这对法院而言不是一个复杂的问题。我确实想再看一下文件几分钟，我现在就可以这样做。我可以休庭5分钟、10分钟、15分钟，无关紧要。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。因此，无论你们想如何进行。我正试图给你们一个机会，向我建议你们认为哪些安排具有合理性。如果你们想休庭讨论，也没关系。如果你们不想，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，我可以尝试今晚回来作出裁定。这两种进行方式，我都没有问题。SILVERBERG先生：我总是处于促成交易的模式，所以如果PAX想发言，那么——法官：那么，我们何不休庭——现在是10\n\n案件22-50073 文件316 提交于05/03/22 录入于05/03/22 12:26:47 第40页，共57页\n\n点差5分。我们何不——\n\n2 WOLMAN先生（沃尔曼）：\n法官阁下？\n\n3 法庭：\n是。\n哦，沃尔曼律师。\n\n4 WOLMAN先生：\n我可以发表意见吗？\n\n5 法庭：\n抱歉，请讲。\n\n6 WOLMAN先生：\n没关系。\n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就美国受托人和PAX（PAX）提出的异议所作的反对意见。\n\n10 稍作背景说明。程先生曾是郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）在内华达州持续发起诽谤诉讼活动的受害人。程先生本人反对中国共产党，他对郭先生处理该运动的方式提出异议；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，随后发现自己成为一宗SLAPP诉讼的对象。\n\n17 法庭现已知悉，被称为“反公共参与策略性诉讼”的诉讼。内华达州有一部非常有力的反SLAPP法，我的当事人曾就此进行诉讼——\n\n21 （大楼内警报响起。）\n\n22 法庭：\n稍等一下，沃尔曼律师，稍等一下。警报响了。Glen（格伦），您认为我们是否需要——好的。\n\n25 抱歉，大楼内警报正在响。\n\nWOLMAN先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n所以您只需稍等片刻。我的意思是，您可以试着继续说——沃尔曼律师，即使警报响着，您能听到吗？美国法警现在会去查看我们是否需要疏散。\n\nWOLMAN先生：\n如果您需要疏散，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我现在还不知道。我在等消息。\n\nWOLMAN先生：\n我待在这里没问题。\n\n法庭：\n他们会通知我们。如果我们必须疏散，那么我想你们都得从前门出去，好吗？并站在大楼前面。但他们会告诉你们，应该会有人通知你们。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\nJohn（约翰），我们需要疏散吗？\n\nJOHN：\n目前留下。\n\n法庭：\n目前留下？\n\nJOHN：\n目前留下。警报系统出了问题。我们正在重新布线。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nJOHN：\n如有任何情况，我们会尽快通知您。\n\n法庭：\n好。对。我们正在进行听证——John，我们正在进行听证，所以我会继续说，其他人也会继续说，好吗？哦，那里，好吧。我们看看。好的。\n\nJOHN：\n上一次（听不清）。\n\n法庭：\n是这样吗？不过不是我们在法庭开庭的时候，但好吧。非常感谢您查看此事，我很感谢。好的，沃尔曼律师，如果您可以——抱歉，我不记得您具体讲到哪里了，不过您刚才谈到一宗诽谤诉讼及其他一些问题。\n\nWOLMAN先生：\n对，是的，法官阁下。程先生是郭先生在内华达州持续进行诉讼活动的受害人，我们在一项反SLAPP动议中胜诉，案件被驳回，因为程先生认为郭先生无法证明其案件具有任何依据。内华达州反SLAPP法中有所谓的“SLAPPback”条款，因为尽管该法向胜诉被告裁定律师费，但这并非遭受诉讼侵害的全部和终点。因此，纽约南区（Southern District of New York）提起了一宗诉讼，以执行律师费判决，因为郭先生起初未付款，直至Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）汇入资金用于支付该判决；我们提起诉讼以执行该判决，并依据内华达州法中的SLAPPback理论，就补偿性损害赔偿提起诉讼。事实上，该案已准备就简易判决作出裁决；当时代表郭先生的Gavenman律师（加文曼）加快提交其答复备忘录，以便在破产申请提交之前提交，而其他方面一直是（听不清）。\n\n目前，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，甚至就今天而言，也有一些我此前并不知晓的有趣事情，例如郭先生现与其妻子居住在康涅狄格州。因此，这些都是——这些是有关郭先生的事实，他陈述了这些事实，却未予证实，这令人担忧。\n\n他在内华达州的起诉状中列举了大量有关其背景的事项，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——因为这些事项当然必定具有实质关联性和相关性——他予以抵制。他提出异议。他拒绝证实其中任何一项。我们寻求与其财务状况有关的某些证据开示，他拒绝了。他予以抵制；事实上，他援引第五修正案，以拒绝提供该等信息，而且他成功地如此主张。Failla法官（法伊拉法官）认为，援引第五修正案的做法恰当，我们因此将获得不利推定。\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案件中的制裁裁定而沸腾，也因郭先生——且特别提到了他的姓名——在伦敦就针对UBS（瑞银）的500 million dollar索赔赢得了管辖地动议而沸腾；但他是原告，也许是通过他的某个实体。我们不知道。这意味着法庭应当审慎对待所说的一切；而且，您知道，Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）方面，我对他们没有异议，他们试图挑起——选一场争端，但他们是新加入的。他们不了解郭先生。他们需要审慎对待他所说的一切，本法庭也需要审慎对待他所说的一切。因此，我确实认为3月4日或许太早，因为他们需要自行核实，他们将向法庭提交此前未经核实的材料；因此，您知道，那将以他们的认可作出，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，但同时也希望在此取得平衡，使我们在第341条会议之前有时间审查。尽管我们被列为债权人，我应指出，我们在动议中表示，我们认为自己实际上是20名最大债权人之一，但申请书中未作此陈述；事实上，正如PAX所指出的，内部人Golden Spring被列为债权人，并且是20名最大债权人之一。\n\n因此，现有提交文件中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条会议之前留出一周，而不是仅几天，因为我需要与我们在纽约案件中已收到的其他材料进行比对；我们可能还必须处理该案中的适用保护令及其如何适用于本案。但无论如何，我们加入美国受托人和PAX对该60-day延期提出的异议，并请求将期限设定为至少在第341条会议前一周。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。好。我将休庭10分钟。我们将在5:10回来；届时，如果各方有任何希望报告的事项，我将听取各方意见，然后作出裁决。因此法庭休庭。\n\n（休庭：下午4:58至下午5:09。）\n\n法庭：\n好的。在Silverberg律师（西尔弗伯格）、Friedman律师（弗里德曼）、Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩）和Wolman律师就债务人请求延长提交《破产法》和规则所要求文件期限的动议发表陈述后，我们进行了短暂休庭。我不知道，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：\n遗憾的是——法官阁下，Bennett Silverberg（本内特·西尔弗伯格），代表债务人的Brown Rudnick律师。遗憾的是，那些讨论没有成效。我们提出给予几天时间——\n\n法庭：\n没关系。我不需要知道。谢谢。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n没关系。我很感谢，但我不需要知道。我只需要知道不存在协议。\n\nSILVERBERG先生：\n不存在协议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。Claiborn律师？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n法官阁下，如果可以，我现在想就延期动议发表意见，我还想向法庭作出其他一些陈述。\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n案号22-50073 文件316 提交日期05/03/22 录入日期05/03/22 12:26:47 第47页，共57页\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n我先谈这些陈述。\n\n法庭：\n稍等一下，Claiborn律师。这里有回声。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n我不知道为什么会有回声。我能听到您，Claiborn律师，随后又能再听到您一次。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n哦，太好了。\n\n法庭：\n所以我们只是想确保能正确听到您的声音。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n是的，我认为我们必须继续进行。您能够录音吗，还是需要先解决这个问题？\n\n法庭书记员：\n仍在录音，但我不知道是否会录到这个回声。\n\n法庭：\n我想应该没问题。无论如何我们试试看，好吗？如果情况确实很糟，您告诉我们，我们就停下来。我们是否应通知信息技术部门的任何人？\n\n法庭书记员：\n嗯，我已向Pierre（皮埃尔）发了消息，希望他会向Will（威尔）发消息。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好。我们看看情况如何——\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n我使用哪一个麦克风是否会有区别？\n\n案号22-50073 文件316 提交日期05/03/22 录入日期05/03/22 12:26:47 第48页，共57页\n\n1 法庭：\n不，很遗憾，声音是从这里传出来的。\n\n2 所以请继续，我们看看效果如何，好吗？\n\n4 CLAIBORN女士：\n谢谢。\n\n5 法官阁下，我想简要谈及几项事项，第一项是申请书，以及郭先生的律师今天就其在格林尼治的住所所作的陈述，随后Wolman先生评论说，他此前并不知道格林尼治是一处住所。\n\n11 我想向法庭指出，申请书中，债务人对“您居住在何处”这一问题所填列的地址为Golden Spring。该申请书未列出其居住地址。我们原以为，由于此前表达的一些担忧，债务人将采取一些措施保护其实际居住地点的信息。该措施尚未采取，但我想提出一个相关问题，即昨天的初步dinner（按音）访谈简要涉及郭先生在哪里收取邮件这一话题，并提出了应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——即法庭用以联系债务人的唯一地址——邮件可能无法送达正确地点。\n\n案号22-50073 文件316 提交日期05/03/22 录入日期05/03/22 12:26:47 第49页，共57页\n\n因此，我提出此事，是因为我想确保债务人在本案中能够获得所有适当诉状的适当通知，并且所有当事人都知晓应使用何种适当地址与债务人联系。我想作出的另一项陈述是，总体而言，根据今天所作的陈述以及昨天在初步dinner（按音）访谈中获知的信息，本案呈现出一种耐人寻味的组合：无资产、巨额债务以及需要作出解释。美国受托人目前认为，寻求指定审查人可能是适当的，我想向法庭预先说明这一点。我们已向债务人的律师作出该陈述，他们知悉此事。\n\n16 因此，我想向法官阁下提出这几点；随后我还想说，就今天的延期请求而言，美国受托人认为——抱歉，3月9日最为合理。该日期处于对方当事人提出的日期之间，并为各方提供超过一周的提前时间，以审阅和消化相关材料，并准备进行一次有实质意义的债权人会议。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n1 还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师（Attorney Silverberg），就地址提出的问题很重要。申请书上的地址与您——嗯，您没有提供地址，但您说他居住在格林威治（Greenwich）——所述的地址不同。如果地址有变更，我们对此有一项地方法则，也有一份地方表格，需要填写该表格，因为显然必须适当发出通知并完成送达。因此，我不知道您将如何处理该事项，但我要告诉您，我会关注这一点，因为如果债务人居住在格林威治，那就与申请书所载不符。因此，我不会再多说什么。我是在告诉您我目前对此的看法，明白吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：我们理解有关纽约地址的问题。鉴于他与中国共产党（CCP）等方面的经历，曾希望对其位于康涅狄格州格林威治的地址予以保密，因此我认为，我们在准备申请书时没有意识到该地址已在多大程度上进入公共领域。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：我们后来得知，对于该地址公开可能并没有那么敏感；一旦我们与债务人确认这一点，我们将完成适当的文件手续以修改地址，确保他收到这些文件。\n\n法院：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》要求文件期限的动议发表意见吗？以及我们的地方法则所要求的文件。\n\n好的。如我今天早些时候在本次听证开始时所表示，在过去几天中，我审阅了本案提交的文件，包括债务人请求将提交财产清单或提供所需信息的期限延长至 May 2nd, 2022 的动议，即 ECF number 27。\n\n我还审阅了，并且在休庭期间再次查阅了美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）就该动议提交的异议，即 ECF number 49，以及PAX（PAX）就该延长期限动议提交的异议，即 ECF number 50。如可，我将简称其为PAX。\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）的陈述和论证，并已就债务人提出的请求考虑了这些论证。\n\n如我所表示的，并且我知道各位都了解，《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，有必要向债权人提供适当的通知和信息，以便债权人能够确定其是否希望在第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，还必须依照《破产法典》第341、342、343条在该会议上作证。除要求债务人提供——抱歉，履行特定义务，作为其向法院提出申请所承担负担的一部分的法典条款外，《联邦破产程序规则》第1007条还要求提交明确的文件，包括个人案件中的财务状况说明书、资产清单、负债清单及其他清单，即(a)至(g)以及(h)和(i)项。《联邦破产程序规则》第1007(c)条规定，提交期限为随申请书一并提交，或在其后14日内提交。就本债务人的案件而言，其后14日即为今天，因为本案于 February 15 提交；法院已考虑债务人提出的所有请求以及就该请求提出的反对论证，法院裁定如下：根据 11 USC Sections 521 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)条以及我们的《地方破产程序规则》第1007-1条，债务人延长期限的动议部分准许。债务人必须不迟于 March 9, 2022 提交所有所需的说明书和清单，包括依照我刚才列述的破产法条款、《联邦破产程序规则》及我们的地方破产规则须提交的全部文件。这是法院的裁定。有人有任何问题吗？\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。那是我们今天需要处理的唯一事项。伯尼律师（Attorney Birney），您是否还有其他希望向法院提出处理的事项？\n\n伯尼律师：没有，法官阁下。只是谢谢，很高兴回来，我们很高兴恢复现场出庭。\n\n法院：能够现场出庭很好。是的。还有其他人有任何问题，或有任何希望今天提出处理的事项吗？\n\n克莱特律师（Mr. Kletter）：哦，法官阁下，我可以免于出席今后的听证吗？西尔弗伯格先生可以出席任何后续——\n\n法院：可以。您已获准以临时出庭律师资格（pro hac vice）出庭，因此可以免于出席，律师。\n\n克莱特律师：谢谢。\n\n西尔弗伯格律师：谢谢，法官阁下。该临时出庭——\n\n法院：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，也是如此，这没有问题。\n\n克莱特律师：是。\n\n法院：如果有人仅向您办公室，即您的本地办公室地址，向债务人送达，依规则这仍视为适当送达。明白吗？\n\n克莱特律师：是，谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。我唯一还要说的是，如我已裁定，第341条会议已经安排，我已经就我对第341条会议的敦促与克莱伯恩律师谈过，但该事项由美国受托人办公室负责。本案今天的日程上没有其他事项。弗里德曼律师，您是否有任何希望补充的内容？\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 316 提交于 05/03/22 登记于 05/03/22 12:26:47 第 54 页，共 57 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 316 提交于 05/03/22 登记于 05/03/22 12:26:47 第 55 页，共 57 页\n\n弗里德曼律师：有，法官阁下，只是因为我不熟悉您的一般做法。您还会发布命令，还是听证记录即构成命令？\n\n法院：我可以——如果您希望我——我通常会做的，如您愿意，我也乐意这样做，就是我将发布一项电子命令，明白吗？但该命令很可能要到明天上午才会登记在案。截至目前，即 March 1st, 2022 下午5:23，现予命令，明白吗？\n\n弗里德曼律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：电子命令登记后，将注明截至我刚才所说的时间，即 March 1st, 2022 下午5:23。明白吗？这样，您至少可以拥有本次听证记录以外的某种文件。我理解可能还会提交其他诉状，当事人已经提到了这一点。法院选择我所选择日期的原因，是因为我确实认为，给予债权人有意义的机会审阅信息，并确定他们是否希望参加第341条会议，非常重要；正如我经常所说，《破产法典》第341条的标题是“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。如果今天下午法院没有其他需要处理的事项，除非我遗漏了什么。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 316 提交于 05/03/22 登记于 05/03/22 12:26:47 第 56 页，共 57 页\n\n好的。谢谢。这是今天日程上的最后一项事项，现宣布休庭。\n\n全体：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（听证于下午5:34休庭。）\n\n证明\n\n本人特此证明，上述56页系本人尽最大能力对在康涅狄格州布里奇波特（Bridgeport, Connecticut）于 March 1, 2022 在美国破产法院法官朱莉·A·曼宁阁下（Hon. Julie A. Manning, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge）面前举行的关于 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）债务人、案号 22-50073 的“延长提交财产清单期限动议”电子录音所作的完整、准确誊录。\n\nSuzanne Benoit（苏珊娜·伯努瓦），誊录员 日期：03/05/2022","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","CIPA","CCP","Ho Wan Kwok","Murray","Guo","Gavenman","GTV","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":13580,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-03 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-03","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:34:19"}