{"id":"court_ctb_3375_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3375,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"RESPONSE","filed_date":"2024-08-06","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nChapter 11\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n#### **NOTICE OF FILING OF META PLATFORMS, INC.'S OBJECTION TO EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. (\"Meta\") files this notice of filing of its objection to the *Motion of*\n\n*Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* in\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05117. A true and correct copy of Meta's objection is attached.\n\nDated: August 6, 2024 New York, New York */s/ George Angelich*  George Angelich (ct27542) Eric Roman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Patrick Feeney (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 T: 212.457.5423 E: [george.angelich@afslaw.com](mailto:george.angelich@afslaw.com) [eric.roman@afslaw.com](mailto:eric.roman@afslaw.com) patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- and -\n\nJin Yan (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 T: 202.778.6442 E: [jin.yan@afslaw.com](mailto:jin.yan@afslaw.com)\n\n*Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.*\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,\n\nDebtors.\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC.,\n\nDefendant.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05117\n\n# **META PLATFORMS, INC.'S OBJECTION TO EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. (\"Meta\") objects to the motion of Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") to further extend the August 15, 2024 deadline to file avoidance actions and states as follows:\n\n1. Meta is already a defendant in the above-captioned adversary proceeding, in which the Trustee seeks to avoid and recover purported fraudulent transfers made by a non-debtor to Meta. ECF No. 1. Meta has moved to dismiss the Trustee's complaint. *Id.*, ECF No. 18.\n\n2. To the extent the Trustee may seek to bring additional actions or claims against\n\nMeta that would be time-barred but for for an extension of the August 15, 2024 deadline, Meta\n\nobjects to the extension of that deadline.[1](#page-2-0) Meta's objection is also prompted by the Trustee's proposed order, which asks the Court to order \"that any party that has received notice, whether actual or constructive, of the Motion and did not object to the Motion has waived its right to assert a limitations period defense if ultimately named in an action that is timely brought under the terms of this Order[.]\" ECF No. 25, Ex. 1.\n\n3. The Court cannot extend the applicable statutes of limitations under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) because by its terms, that rule apply applies to deadlines set by \"these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court.\"[2](#page-2-1) *In re Walnut Hill*, No. 16-20960 (JJT), 2018 WL 2672242, at \\*1 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 1, 2018); *In re Tubular Techs., LLC*, 438 B.R. 699, 710-11 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2006); *In re Damach, Inc.*, 235 B.R. 727, 731 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999); *see also* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1001 (defining \"rules\" as the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure); *U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York*, 540 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"When interpreting a rule of procedure, we review the text for its 'plain meaning.'\") (citation omitted). Indeed, Rule 9006(b) is patterned after on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), *see* Advisory Committee Notes, and \"[e]very court to have considered this question has held that Rule 6(b) may be used only to extend time limits imposed by the court itself or by other Federal Rules, but not by statute.\" *Argentine Republic v. Nat'l Grid Plc*, 637 F.3d 365, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing cases).\n\n4. But even assuming Rule 9006(b) authorizes what the Trustee requests, as the Court also recognized, fairness to defendants is an animating concern. Memorandum Order at 13. Here,\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> Meta also reserves the right to challenge any claims brought by the Trustee that would be untimely but for the extension of the original February 15, 2024 deadline.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> Meta recognizes that the Court held otherwise in its prior Memorandum Order granting the Trustee an extension. Case No. 22-50073, ECF No. 2921. However, Meta was never served with the Trustee's prior extension motion and had no opportunity to raise this argument, which it now does for purposes of preserving its rights.\n\nMeta has already incurred costs to defend against the Trustee's existing claims. The Trustee's complaint against Meta was filed before the original February 15, 2024 deadline to commence avoidance actions expired, and since getting an extension, the Trustee has not moved to amend to add new claims against Meta. Meta should not have to incur additional cost in any further litigation brought by the Trustee. Meta has not caused any delay in the Trustee's being able to timely file additional avoidance actions, and Meta should not be prejudiced by others' delays. The Trustee has already received a six-month extension. He should not get another six months, particularly where his motion is vague as to actions he plans to take to ensure that he will not need yet another extension if this one is granted.\n\n5. The Trustee has already tried to stack the deck against Meta and other adversary defendants through stretch legal theories and unorthodox procedural maneuvers, including the following:\n\n- The Trustee is bringing claims belonging to non-debtors without having substantively consolidated them with the Debtor. He is prosecuting those claims as a result of alter ego rulings in other cases, which rulings do not substitute for substantive consolidation and which are not binding on any adversary defendant that not a party to those cases. In some cases, portions of the Trustee's claims are unripe and stayed pending ruling on whether certain non-debtor transferors are alter egos.\n- The Trustee has withheld information concerning the very transfers he challenges and conditioned an adversary defendant's receipt of that basic information on that defendant's agreeing to be bound by a protective order entered in the Debtor's main bankruptcy case. It appears that the reason such information is subject to the protective order is because that information was obtained from third party financial institutions, and that information (along with the claims derived from that information) belongs to non-debtors. The Trustee has made no motion to unseal or otherwise redact only truly confidential information such as bank account details, not basic information concerning the amounts and dates of transfers.\n- The Trustee has implemented a mandatory mediation program that shuttles adversary defendants into mediation while staying challenges to the sufficiency of the Trustee's allegations, thus compelling defendants to mediate, and potentially to settle, facially invalid claims. While mediation\n\nis ordinarily voluntary, the Trustee has forced defendants to affirmatively opt out of it.\n\n6. The Trustee ought not be allowed to further stack the deck by getting more time to tack on additional claims against Meta. Thus, to the extent the Court is inclined to extend the Trustee's August 15, 2024 deadline to file avoidance actions, any additional actions or claims against Meta should be carved out from that extension.\n\n7. Meta reserves all rights, defenses, and remedies.\n\nWHEREFORE, Meta respectfully requests that the Court deny the Trustee's motion to extend the August 15, 2024 deadline to file avoidance actions, at least as it applies to any actions or claims against Meta, and grant Meta such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.\n\nDated: August 6, 2024 New York, New York */s/ George Angelich*\n\nGeorge Angelich (ct27542) Eric Roman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Patrick Feeney (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 T: 212.457.5423 E: [george.angelich@afslaw.com](mailto:george.angelich@afslaw.com) [eric.roman@afslaw.com](mailto:eric.roman@afslaw.com) patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- and -\n\nJin Yan (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 T: 202.778.6442 E: [jin.yan@afslaw.com](mailto:jin.yan@afslaw.com)\n\n*Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.*\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI certify that on August 6, 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.\n\nDated: New York, New York August 6, 2024\n\n */s/ George Angelich*  George Angelich","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n第11章\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并管理）\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC. 就延长提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的异议申请提交通知\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc.（“Meta”）特此提交其就第11章受托人在 Adv. Proc. No. 24-05117 中提出的《延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼之2024年8月15日截止日期的动议》之异议申请提交通知。随函附上 Meta 异议申请的真实准确副本。\n\n日期：2024年8月6日 纽约州纽约市 /s/ George Angelich（乔治·安吉利奇） George Angelich（ct27542） Eric Roman（埃里克·罗曼，特许出庭律师） Patrick Feeney（帕特里克·菲尼，特许出庭律师） ArentFox Schiff LLP（艾伦特·福克斯·希夫律师事务所） 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 电话：212.457.5423 电子邮箱：[george.angelich@afslaw.com] [eric.roman@afslaw.com] patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- 以及 -\n\nJin Yan（严谨，特许出庭律师） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 电话：202.778.6442 电子邮箱：[jin.yan@afslaw.com]\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. 代理律师\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC.，\n\n被告。\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05117\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC. 就延长提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的异议申请\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc.（“Meta”）反对第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（“受托人”）进一步延长提起撤销权诉讼之2024年8月15日截止日期的动议，并陈述如下：\n\n1. Meta 已是上述对抗性程序中的被告，受托人在该程序中试图撤销并追回非债务人向 Meta 作出的据称属于欺诈性的转让。ECF No. 1。Meta 已提请驳回受托人的起诉状。同上，ECF No. 18。\n\n2. 若受托人试图对 Meta 提起额外的诉讼或主张，而这些诉讼或主张若非延长2024年8月15日的截止日期就已过诉讼时效，则 Meta 反对延长该截止日期。[1] Meta 提出异议也是由于受托人的拟议命令，该拟议命令要求法院命令“任何收到本动议通知（无论是实际通知还是推定通知）且未对本动议提出异议的当事人，若最终在根据本命令条款及时提起的诉讼中被列为被告，则视为放弃主张诉讼时效抗辩的权利[。]”ECF No. 25, Ex. 1。\n\n3. 法院不能根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)（《联邦破产诉讼规则》第9006(b)条）延长适用的诉讼时效，因为根据其条款，该规则适用于由“本规则或根据本规则发出的通知或法院命令”所设定的截止日期。[2] 参见 In re Walnut Hill, No. 16-20960 (JJT), 2018 WL 2672242, at *1 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 1, 2018)；In re Tubular Techs., LLC, 438 B.R. 699, 710-11 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2006)；In re Damach, Inc., 235 B.R. 727, 731 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999)；另见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1001（将“规则”定义为《联邦破产诉讼规则》）；U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 540 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2008)（“在解释诉讼规则时，我们审查文本的‘通常含义’。”）（引文省略）。事实上，第9006(b)条是仿照 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第6(b)条）制定的，参见咨询委员会注释，且“审理过此问题的所有法院均认定，第6(b)条仅可用于延长由法院自身或其他联邦规则所设定的时间限制，而不能延长成文法规定的时限。”Argentine Republic v. Nat'l Grid Plc, 637 F.3d 365, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2011)（引述相关判例）。\n\n4. 但即便假设第9006(b)条授权了受托人的请求，正如法院所认识到的那样，对被告的公平性是一项核心关切。备忘录命令第13页。此处，\n\n[1] Meta 还保留质疑受托人提起的任何若非延长原定2024年2月15日截止日期即属逾期的主张的权利。\n\n[2] Meta 知悉法院在先前批准受托人延期的备忘录命令中作出了相反的裁定。Case No. 22-50073, ECF No. 2921。然而，Meta 从未收到受托人先前延期动议的送达，没有机会提出此项论点，现在提出是为了保留其权利。\n\nMeta 为抗辩受托人的现有主张已经承担了费用。受托人针对 Meta 的起诉状是在原定提起撤销权诉讼的2024年2月15日截止日期届满之前提交的，且自获得延期以来，受托人并未申请修改起诉状以对 Meta 增加新的主张。Meta 不应当在受托人提起的任何进一步诉讼中承担额外费用。受托人未能及时提起额外的撤销权诉讼并非 Meta 造成的拖延，Meta 不应因他人的拖延而受到不利益。受托人已经获得了六个月的延期。他不应再获得六个月的延期，尤其是在他的动议对于如果本次申请获批其计划采取何种行动以确保不再需要另一次延期含糊其辞的情况下。\n\n5. 受托人已经试图通过牵强的法律理论和非正统的程序手段来对 Meta 和其他对抗性程序被告施加不利影响，包括以下几点：\n\n- 受托人在未将非债务人与债务人进行实质性合并的情况下，提起了属于非债务人的诉求。他根据其他案件中的“第二自我”（alter ego）裁决提起这些诉求，而这些裁决并不能替代实质性合并，且对并非这些案件当事人的任何对抗性程序被告不具有约束力。在某些案件中，受托人的部分主张尚不成熟，并在就某些非债务人转让人是否属于“第二自我”作出裁决之前中止审理。\n- 受托人隐瞒了关于其所质疑的转让本身的具体信息，并以对抗性程序被告同意接受债务人破产主案中签发的保护令约束为条件，才向该被告提供该等基本信息。这些信息之所以受保护令约束，似乎是因为这些信息是从第三方金融机构获取的，且这些信息（以及从这些信息衍生出的主张）属于非债务人。受托人并未提出动议以解封或仅对银行账户明细等真正机密的信息进行隐名处理，而不是隐瞒有关转让金额和日期的基本信息。\n- 受托人推行了一项强制调解计划，将对抗性程序被告分流进入调解，同时中止对受托人指控充分性的异议审理，从而迫使被告就表面上无效的主张进行调解并可能达成和解。虽然调解通常是自愿的，但受托人强迫被告必须明确提出退出申请才能免于调解。\n\n6. 不应允许受托人通过获得更多时间来对 Meta 追加额外主张而进一步对被告施加不利影响。因此，在法院倾向于延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼之2024年8月15日截止日期的范围内，任何针对 Meta 的额外诉讼或主张都应被排除在该延期之外。\n\n7. Meta 保留所有权利、抗辩和救济。\n\n据此，Meta 谨请法院驳回受托人关于延长提起撤销权诉讼之2024年8月15日截止日期的动议（至少在适用于针对 Meta 的任何诉讼或主张时予以驳回），并授予 Meta 法院认为适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2024年8月6日 纽约州纽约市 /s/ George Angelich\n\nGeorge Angelich（ct27542） Eric Roman（特许出庭律师） Patrick Feeney（特许出庭律师） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 电话：212.457.5423 电子邮箱：[george.angelich@afslaw.com] [eric.roman@afslaw.com] patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- 以及 -\n\nJin Yan（特许出庭律师） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 电话：202.778.6442 电子邮箱：[jin.yan@afslaw.com]\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. 代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人证明，于2024年8月6日，本人已通过 CM/ECF 案件电子提交系统将前述文书的真实准确副本提交给法院书记官，该系统将向所有记录在案的律师发送该提交通知。\n\n日期：纽约州纽约市 2024年8月6日\n\n /s/ George Angelich  George Angelich","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":18,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":25,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2921,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1355,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-08-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-08-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:51:07"}