{"id":"court_ctb_3376_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3376,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"NOTICE","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\nChapter 11\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n#### **NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLE INC.'S OBJECTION TO EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nApple Inc. (\"Apple\") files this notice of filing of its objection to the *Motion of Chapter 11*\n\n*Trustee to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* in Adv. Proc.\n\nNo. 24-05060. A true and correct copy of Apple'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 Apple 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\nAPPLE INC., HING CHI NGOK, ALEX HADJICHARALAMBOUS, BERNARDO ENRIQUEZ, CHUNGUANG HAN, and MEI GUO,\n\nDefendants.\n\n#### **APPLE INC.'S OBJECTION TO EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nApple Inc. (\"Apple\") 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. Apple is already a defendant in the above-captioned adversary proceeding, in which the Trustee seeks to avoid and recover purported fraudulent transfers made by non-debtors to Apple. ECF No. 1. Apple has moved to dismiss the Trustee's complaint. *Id.*, ECF No. 32.\n\n2. To the extent the Trustee may seek to bring additional actions or claims against Apple that would be time-barred but for for an extension of the August 15, 2024 deadline, Apple\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05060\n\nobjects to the extension of that deadline.[1](#page-2-0) Apple'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. 42, 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> Apple 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> Apple recognizes that the Court held otherwise in its prior Memorandum Order granting the Trustee an extension. Case No. 22-50073, ECF No. 2921. However, Apple 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\nApple has already incurred costs to defend against the Trustee's existing claims. The Trustee's complaint against Apple 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 Apple. Apple should not have to incur additional cost in any further litigation brought by the Trustee. Apple has not caused any delay in the Trustee's being able to timely file additional avoidance actions, and Apple 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 Apple 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 was 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 of the Debtor.\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 Apple. 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 Apple should be carved out from that extension.\n\n7. Apple reserves all rights, defenses, and remedies.\n\nWHEREFORE, Apple 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 Apple, and grant Apple 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 Apple 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\nIn re（关于）:\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\nChapter 11（第 11 章）\n\nDebtors（债务人）。\n\n（联合审理）\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\nAPPLE INC.（苹果公司）关于反对延长提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的立案通知\n\nApple Inc.（苹果公司，简称“苹果”）特此提交本立案通知，告知其对第 11 章受托人提出的《关于将 Adv. Proc. No. 24-05060 案中受托人提起撤销权诉讼的 2024年8月15日 截止日期予以延长的动议》提出异议。苹果异议书的真实且准确的副本附于其后。\n\n日期：2024年8月6日 纽约州纽约市 /s/ George Angelich（乔治·安杰利奇）  George Angelich (ct27542) Eric Roman（埃里克·罗曼，经特许出庭） Patrick Feeney（帕特里克·费尼，经特许出庭） ArentFox Schiff LLP（艾伦福克斯·希夫律师事务所） 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 电话：212.457.5423 邮箱：[george.angelich@afslaw.com] [eric.roman@afslaw.com] patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- 以及 -\n\nJin Yan（严谨，经特许出庭） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 电话：202.778.6442 邮箱：[jin.yan@afslaw.com]\n\nApple Inc. 的法律顾问\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\nIn re（关于）:\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\nDebtors（债务人）。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人，\n\nPlaintiff（原告），\n\nv.\n\nAPPLE INC.（苹果公司）、HING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝）、ALEX HADJICHARALAMBOUS（亚历克斯·哈吉哈拉兰布斯）、BERNARDO ENRIQUEZ（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯）、CHUNGUANG HAN（韩春光）及 MEI GUO（郭美），\n\nDefendants（被告）。\nAPPLE INC. 关于反对延长提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的异议\n\nApple Inc.（苹果公司，简称“苹果”）对 Luc A. Despins 作为第 11 章受托人（简称“受托人”）提出的关于进一步延长 2024年8月15日 提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的动议提出异议，并陈述如下：\n\n1. 苹果已经是上述标题项下对抗性诉讼的被告，受托人在该案中试图撤销并追回非债务人向苹果进行的所谓欺诈性转让。ECF No. 1。苹果已提出动议驳回受托人的起诉状。同上，ECF No. 32。\n\n2. 如果受托人试图对苹果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，则苹果\n\nChapter 11（第 11 章）\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（联合审理）\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05060\n\n对该截止日期的延长提出异议。[1] 苹果提出异议也是受到受托人拟议命令的促动，该拟议命令要求法院命令“任何已收到本动议实际通知或推定通知且未对本动议提出异议的当事人，如果在根据本命令条款及时提起的诉讼中最终被列为当事人，则放弃其主张诉讼时效抗辩的权利[。]” ECF No. 42, Ex. 1。\n\n3. 法院不能根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)（《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第 9006(b) 条）延长适用的诉讼时效，因为根据该规则的条款，该规则仅适用于由“这些规则或根据这些规则发出的通知或法院命令”所设定的截止日期。[2] 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《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》）；U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 540 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2008)（“在解释程序规则时，我们审查文本的‘通常含义’。”）（引文省略）。事实上，第 9006(b) 条是以 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)（《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》第 6(b) 条）为蓝本制定的，见顾问委员会注释，并且“审理过该问题的所有法院均认定，第 6(b) 条只能用于延长法院本身或由其他联邦规则设定的时间限制，而不能用于延长成文法设定的时间限制。” 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) 条授权了受托人所请求的事项，正如法院所认识到的那样，对被告的公平性是一个核心关切。备忘录裁定书第 13 页。在此，\n\n1 苹果还保留对受托人提起的任何主张提出抗辩的权利，这些主张若非原定 2024年2月15日 截止日期的延长，本来属于逾期主张。\n\n2 苹果承认，法院在之前批准受托人延期的备忘录裁定书中作出了相反的裁定。Case No. 22-50073, ECF No. 2921。然而，受托人先前的延期动议从未向苹果送达，苹果没有机会提出这一论点，苹果现提出此论点以保留其权利。\n\n苹果已经为抗辩受托人的现有主张承担了费用。受托人对苹果的起诉状是在启动撤销权诉讼的原定 2024年2月15日 截止日期届满前提交的，并且自获得延期以来，受托人尚未提出修改起诉状以对苹果增加新的主张。苹果不应在受托人提起的任何进一步诉讼中承担额外的费用。苹果并未造成受托人无法及时提起额外撤销权诉讼的任何迟延，苹果不应受到他人迟延的不利影响。受托人已经获得了六个月的延期。受托人不应再获得六个月的延期，特别是在其动议中对于其计划采取哪些行动以确保如果本次延期获准后不会需要又一次延期的问题含糊其辞的情况下。\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苹果及其他对抗性诉讼被告施加不公平优势，包括以下方面：\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。受托人是根据其他案件中做出的“人格混同”裁定来提起这些主张的，而这些裁定不能替代实质性合并，且对未作为这些案件当事人的任何对抗性诉讼被告均不具有约束力。在某些案件中，受托人的部分主张尚不成熟，并处于中止状态，等待裁定某些非债务人转让人是否为债务人的人格混同实体。\n- 受托人隐瞒了关于其所质疑的转让本身的有关信息，并以对抗性诉讼被告同意受债务人主要破产案件中作出的保护令约束作为该被告获取该基本信息的条件。此类信息受保护令约束的原因似乎是因为该信息是从第三方金融机构获得的，且该信息（以及源自该信息的主张）属于非债务人。受托人没有提出任何动议去申请解封或仅隐去真正保密的信息（如银行账户详细信息），而不是隐去关于转让金额和日期的基本信息。\n- 受托人实施了一项强制调解计划，将对抗性诉讼被告送入调解，同时中止对受托人指控充分性的异议审查，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\n\n通常是自愿的，但受托人迫使被告必须主动明确选择退出调解。\n\n6. 不应允许受托人通过获得更多时间来对苹果增加额外主张，从而进一步施加不公平优势。因此，在法院倾向于延长受托人 2024年8月15日 提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的范围内，针对苹果的任何额外诉讼或主张均应被排除在这一延期之外。\n\n7. 苹果保留所有权利、抗辩和救济措施。\n\n为此，苹果谨请求法院驳回受托人关于延长 2024年8月15日 提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的动议（至少在适用于针对苹果的任何诉讼或主张方面），并给予苹果法院认为适当的其他和进一步救济。\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（经特许出庭） Patrick Feeney（经特许出庭） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 电话：212.457.5423 邮箱：[george.angelich@afslaw.com] [eric.roman@afslaw.com] patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- 以及 -\n\nJin Yan（经特许出庭） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 电话：202.778.6442 邮箱：[jin.yan@afslaw.com]\n\nApple Inc. 的法律顾问\n送达证明\n\n本人证明，于 2024年8月6日，本人已促使前述文件的真实且准确的副本通过 CM/ECF 电子立案系统向法院书记官提交备案，该系统将向所有记录在案的律师发送该立案通知。\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":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":32,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":42,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2921,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1364,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-08-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-08-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:51:22"}