{"id":"court_ctb_3391_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3391,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"RESPONSE","filed_date":null,"title":"| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :      | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                         |\n|                                                             |        |                         |\n\n### **OMNIBUS REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE (I) IN SUPPORT OF FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND AUGUST 15, 2024 DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS AND (II) IN RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS THERETO**\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply (the \"Reply\") (i) in support of the *First Supplemental Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* [Docket No. 3329] (the \"Supplemental Motion\")[2](#page-1-0) and (ii) in response to the objections filed thereto. In support of this Reply, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n#### **RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On July 17, 2024, the Court granted the Trustee's unopposed motion[3](#page-1-1) and entered the *Order Limiting Service of Motion to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* [Docket No. 3323] (the \"Notice Order\"). The Notice Order directed the Trustee to serve the Supplemental Motion on (among others) all parties that filed a response to the Trustee's original motion to extend and all defendants that have appeared in the over-270 adversary proceedings commenced by the Trustee.\n\n2. The Trustee has received a total of ten objections to the Supplemental Motion (collectively, the \"Objections,\" filed by the \"Objectors\"). The Objections were filed by: (i) Hing Chi Ngok [Docket No. 3373]; (ii) G Club Operations, LLC (\"G-Club\") [Docket No. 3374]; (iii) Meta Platforms, Inc. (\"Meta\") [Docket No. 3375] (iv) Apple Inc. (\"Apple\") [Docket No. 3376][4](#page-1-2) ; (v) FFP (BVI) Limited (\"FFP\") [Docket No. 22 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5056]; (vi) Himalaya New World Inc. and (vii) Himalaya New York Rock Inc. (together with Himalaya New World Inc., \"Himalaya\") [Docket Nos. 15 and 16 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5269]; (viii) Ogier [Docket No. 18 in\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Supplemental Motion.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> *See* Docket No. 3301.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-2\"></span><sup>4</sup> Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. serves as the Trustee's exclusive counsel for all arguments made in this Reply in connection with Meta and Apple, including (without limitation) those in footnote 5 and in section II.b hereof.\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-5012]; (ix) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (\"Pillsbury\") [Docket No. 24 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5014]; and (x) Weddle Law PLLC (\"Weddle Law\") [Docket No. 29 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5188].\n\n### **REPLY**\n\n# **I. Court Has Already Declined to Follow** *Walnut Hill* **and Should Ignore Arguments to the Contrary**\n\n3. Each of the Objections argues, in one form or another, that the Court lacks authority to grant the requested relief. But the Court has already held that, as a matter of law, Bankruptcy 9006(b) *does* authorize a bankruptcy court to extend the statutes of limitation found in sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. Nor did the Court make this ruling in a vacuum. To the contrary, this issue was extensively briefed and argued, and the Court carefully and thoroughly addressed the cases that have held to the contrary, and explained why it disagreed. In fact, *every one* of the Objections cites to *In re Walnut Hill*, 2018 WL 2672242 (Bankr. D.Conn. June 1, 2018) (\"*Walnut Hill*\"), a case the Court already addressed and declined to follow[.](#page-2-0)<sup>5</sup>\n\n4. Five of the Objectors (all of whom are represented by the same counsel) argue that the Court should reconsider its prior ruling in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in *Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.*, 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024), because (they argue) *Purdue* prohibits bankruptcy courts from providing relief that is not specifically permitted by the\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> Three Objectors go so far as to say that the Trustee \"asks this Court to reject\" *Walnut Hill*, *see* Hing Chi Ngok's Objection to the Supplemental Motion [Docket No. 3373] (the \"Ngok Objection\"), ¶ 2, Himalaya Objections to the Supplemental Motion [Docket Nos. 15 and 16 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5269] (the \"Himalaya Objections\"), ¶ 4, happily ignoring that the Court has already spoken on this issue. Two other Objectors (Apple and Meta) more honestly concede that the Court has already rejected these arguments, but claim they did not previously have an opportunity to raise their arguments and do so now to reserve their rights. Regardless, the arguments they raise are not new and were already considered, and rejected, in the Extension Order. For example, Meta and Apple cite to *Walnut Hill*, *In re Damach, Inc.*, 235 B.R. 727 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), all of which were addressed in the Extension Order.\n\nBankruptcy Code. [6](#page-3-0) This argument misapprehends the Court's Extension Order.\n\n5. In the Extension Order, the Court held that the limitations periods at issue were just that—statutes of limitations, as opposed to statutes of repose. This was a critical aspect of the Extension Order because statutes of limitations are \"subject to tolling, extension, equitable estoppel, and other principles of equity.\"[7](#page-3-1) In so ruling, the Court expressly disagreed with *In re Butcher*, 829 F.2d 596 (6th Cir. 1987), [8](#page-3-2) to which the Objectors continue to cite.[9](#page-3-3) The Court then held that Rule 9006 provides a mechanism for such an equitable extension and, in doing so, declined to adopt *Walnut Hill*. [10](#page-3-4) The Court did not use Rule 9006(b) as a \"catchall\" provision, as these Objectors describe.[11](#page-3-5) *Purdue* is, therefore, entirely inapposite.\n\n### **II. Court Should Exercise Equitable Authority and Grant Requested Extension**\n\n6. Following the same approach the Court laid out in the Extension Order, after confirming (again) that the Court has the authority to grant the requested relief, the next inquiry is whether there is cause to exercise that authority. In the Supplemental Motion, the Trustee explained that cause exists (i) because the Trustee had acted diligently, and any delays were due to factors outside his control, and (ii) due to the Debtor's continued lack of cooperation and, indeed, active obstruction.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> *See* G-Club's Objection to the Supplemental Motion [Docket No. 3374] (the \"G-Club Objection\"), at 2-5; FFP's Objection to the Supplemental Motion [Docket No. 22 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5056] (the \"FFP Objection\"), at 2; Ogier's Objection to the Supplemental Motion [Docket No. 18 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5012] (the \"Ogier Objection\"), at 2; (ix) Pillsbury's Objection to the Supplemental Motion [Docket No. 24 in Adv. Proc. No. 24- 5014] (the \"Pillsbury Objection\"), at 2; and (x) Weddle Law's Objection to the Supplemental Motion [Docket No. 29 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5188] (the \"Weddle Law Objection\"), at 2.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>7</sup> Extension Order at 9.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-2\"></span><sup>8</sup> Extension Order at 9-10.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-3\"></span><sup>9</sup> *See* G-Club Objection at 6; FFP Objection at 6; Ogier Objection at 6; Pillsbury Objection at 6; Weddle Law Objection at 6.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-4\"></span><sup>10</sup> Extension Order at 10-12.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-5\"></span><sup>11</sup> *See* G-Club Objection at 3-5; FFP Objection at 5; Ogier Objection at 5; Pillsbury Objection at 5; Weddle Law Objection at 5.\n\n7. None of the Objectors challenges the Trustee's diligence or disputes that the Trustee's investigation and discovery has been delayed. Nor, most importantly, do any Objectors claim that the Trustee already is, or already should be, in position to bring all of his claims. *See In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. 784, 791 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013) (\"The only reason not to enlarge the § 546(a) deadline in this case is if, as the targets claim, the Trustee is already in a position to bring all of her avoidance actions.\").\n\n8. Instead, the Objectors present two principal arguments against the Court's invocation of its equitable authority. First, G-Club, FFP, Ogier, Weddle, and Pillsbury all argue that the Trustee has not shown facts sufficient to support his requested relief. Second, Meta and Apple argue that the requested relief would be unfair to them because they, themselves, have not caused any delay.\n\n### a. Trustee Has Shown Cause to Further Extend Limitations Period\n\n9. According to G-Club,[12](#page-4-0) \"the Trustee has not identified anything new since February 2024 that has undermined his ability to complete his investigation, other than receiving more information and Mr. Kwok's criminal trial.\"[13](#page-4-1) This is akin to arguing the \"sun never rises, except on Sunday through Saturday.\"\n\n10. The Trustee has explained, at length and in detail, why his investigation remains ongoing. G-Club does not contest the legal authorities marshaled in the Supplemental Motion in support of the principle that a pending criminal matter can create extraordinary circumstances that call for an extension of the limitations period. Nor does it contest that the complexity of a case and the volume of information can also provide cause. G-Club does not even seem to dispute that, as a factual matter, the Trustee has been delayed.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>12</sup> And Ogier, FFP, Pillsbury, and Weddle Law.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-1\"></span><sup>13</sup> G-Club Objection at 10.\n\n11. Instead, G-Club argues that (i) the Trustee is making the same argument as in support of the original Extension Motion, and should not be allowed to rely on \"more of the same,\" and (ii) the delay is self-inflicted.\n\n12. G-Club offers no support for the first argument, and nor could it. Stated simply, G-Club's argument seems to be that the Trustee already had to deal with the Debtor's lack of cooperation and active obstruction, already had to deal with a tremendously complex financial reconstruction project, and already had to deal with a tremendous volume of information—so those realities cannot be the basis for an additional extension because they are \"more of the same,\" and, therefore, not extraordinary. This makes no sense. The fact that Trustee is dealing with the same type of extraordinary circumstances (and the same parties with the same tactics) as he was six months ago does not make them not extraordinary. Just the opposite, it demonstrates just how extreme the circumstances really are, and just how onerous and difficult the Trustee's task is. Regardless, G-Club ignores that the Supplemental Motion explains, in detail, additional developments after the Extension Order, and their impact on the Trustee's investigation including significant new information and the Debtor and his associates' continuing efforts to oppose and obstruct the Trustee's investigation.[14](#page-5-0)\n\n13. G-Club's second argument fares no better. It is true that the Trustee sought a limited stay of the bankruptcy case pending the criminal trial. But that actually expedited progress in this case as, absent the limited stay the Trustee requested, the Trustee would have been forced to litigate the Debtor's request for a stay of the entire bankruptcy case. Further, G-Club does not even dispute that the pendency of the criminal case would impair the Trustee's ability to conduct his discovery and investigation efforts.[15](#page-5-1)\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>14</sup> *See* Supp. Mot. ¶¶ 13-17.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-1\"></span><sup>15</sup> G-Club reserves its right to cross-examine the Trustee. The Trustee does not oppose this request.\n\n# b. Cause to Extend Limitations Period Does Not Require Misconduct By Every Potentially Impacted Party\n\n14. Apple and Meta point to their own innocence, and argue that the requested relief\n\nwould be unfair to them. As the Court noted in the Extension Order:\n\nA bankruptcy case presents a rather different slant on equitable tolling. In the typical situation, it is the debtor's conduct rather than the defendant's conduct which invokes equitable tolling. *In some senses, this is unfair to the defendant*. On the other hand, unlike the usual civil case where a plaintiff at least has the advantage of being a party to the underlying transaction, a bankruptcy trustee must rely almost entirely on a third party (the debtor) to provide the information necessary to uncover avoidable transfers. [16](#page-6-0)\n\n15. Accordingly, the Court explained, courts consider whether the debtor failed to\n\ncooperate, or actively sought to impede, the trustee's investigation, \"[r]egardless of the Objecting Parties' arguments that they have individually caused no harm to the Trustee's investigation.\"[17](#page-6-1) The fact that \"some targets may not be responsible for impeding or delaying the Trustee's investigation is not a basis, by itself, for refusing to enlarge the two-year limitations period for bringing avoidance actions.\" *In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. at 791; *see also Heyman v. Dec (In re Dec)*, 272 B.R. 218, 225 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001) (\"The statute of limitations under Code § 546(a) may also be tolled where the fraud goes undiscovered even though the defendant does nothing to conceal it.\").\n\n16. Apple and Meta argue that they have are not complicit in the ceaseless efforts of the Debtor and his associates to delay the Trustee's efforts, and the Trustee has not asserted otherwise. But, stated simply, what is fair to the trustee outweighs what may not be fair to a potential defendant. To argue otherwise \"does not hold up,\" as a party that is potentially liable to the estate \"would essentially receive a windfall if it is another target that actively or negligently\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>16</sup> Extension Order at 13 (emphasis added) (quoting *In re Pomaville*, 190 B.R. 632, 637 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1995)).\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span><sup>17</sup> Extension Order at 13.\n\nconceals the Trustee's potential claim.\" *Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. at 791. \"If the Trustee has been impeded from discovering potential avoidance actions, then the deadline ought to be enlarged as to all claims—not on a party-by-party basis.\" *Id*. [18](#page-7-0)\n\n#### **III. Other Objections Are Without Merit**\n\n17. Himalaya and Ngok both invoke *Stern v. Marshall* and claim that the Supplemental Motion involves \"private rights of action\" that could must be decided by the District Court.[19](#page-7-1) The Court rejected this argument in the Extension Order, and should reject it now.[20](#page-7-2)\n\n18. Himalaya and Ngok also both argue that the Supplemental Motion should be denied because equitable tolling cannot be sought prospectively.[21](#page-7-3) But the Trustee is not seeking relief under the doctrine of equitable tolling. Instead—and consistent with the Extension Order—the Trustee has merely reserved all rights to invoke \"equitable tolling or other equitable arguments in response to a defense that an adversary proceeding commenced by the Trustee is time-barred.\"[22](#page-7-4)\n\n### **IV. Revised Proposed Order**\n\n19. As with the original Extension Motion, the Trustee has revised the Proposed\n\nOrder submitted with the Motion, and a revised form of proposed order (and redline to the\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>18</sup> Meta and Apple, who are defendants in pending adversary proceedings brought prior to the first Extension Order, also argue, as part of their \"fairness\" arguments, that they should not have to face the potential of defending against claims the Trustee may bring in an amended complaint, because the Trustee has already \"tried to stack the deck\" through \"stretch legal theories and unorthodox procedural maneuvers.\" *See* Meta's Objection to the Supp. Motion [Docket No. 3375] (the \"Meta Objection\"), ¶ 5; Apple's Objection to the Supp. Motion [Docket No. 3376] (the \"Apple Objection\"), ¶ 5. The Court should see this for what it is: an attempt to argue the merits of the pending litigation that has no bearing on the instant Supplemental Motion.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-1\"></span><sup>19</sup> *See* Himalaya Objections, ¶ 3; Ngok Objection, ¶ 11.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-2\"></span><sup>20</sup> Extension Order at 7.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-3\"></span><sup>21</sup> *See* Himalaya Objections, ¶¶ 16-17; Ngok, ¶ 5 (claiming the \"bar against prospectively applying the doctrine of equitable tolling is well established in this District\").\n\n<span id=\"page-7-4\"></span><sup>22</sup> Supp. Mot. ¶ 35 (quoting Extension Order).\n\noriginal order) is attached as **Exhibits A-1 and A-2** hereto. [23](#page-8-0)\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>23</sup> These changes also resolve Ngok's objection to the Proposed Order. *See* Ngok Objection, ¶ 10.\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter the revised Proposed Order granting the relief requested herein and grant any other relief as the Court considers proper.\n\nDated: August 9, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n### **Exhibit A-1 Revised Proposed Order (Clean)**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |  |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND AUGUST 15, 2024 DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nUPON CONSIDERATION OF the First Supplemental Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions (the \"Motion\"), and good cause having been shown, and the Court having considered any and all objections and other responses to the Motion, and the Court finding that (i) there is good cause for the relief requested, (ii) the Trustee has acted diligently, and (iii) the Motion has been served in accordance with the Court's prior Order granting the Notice Motion, and such notice is proper and sufficient under the circumstances and no other notice is required, and the relief provided herein being narrowly tailored to serve the foregoing purposes, it is by the Court, hereby\n\nORDERED, that the Motion is granted as set forth herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the time limitations set forth in 11 U.S.C. 108, 546, and 549 for the\n\nTrustee to commence avoidance actions and other actions on behalf of the estate, as well as for\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\namending any pending complaints, are extended through and including February 15, 2025 (such extension, the \"Ordered Extension\"), which date may be further extended upon notice and a hearing; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that, notwithstanding anything in this Order to the contrary, this Order and the Ordered Extension herein shall not apply to avoidance actions, and other actions on behalf of the estate, brought against: (i) UBS AG; and (ii) Sotheby's International Realty, Inc., Sotheby's International Realty Affiliates LLC, Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC, Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company Inc., Martha Turner Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC, Martha Turner Properties, LP, MTPGP, LLC, Anywhere Advisors LLC, Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC, Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC, Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC, and Anywhere Real Estate Inc; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that this Order is without prejudice to the Trustee raising equitable tolling or other equitable arguments in response to a defense that an adversary proceeding commenced by the Trustee is time-barred, which arguments and rights are fully preserved; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the interpretation or implementation of this Order.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n### **Exhibit A-2 Revised Proposed Order (Redline)**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                         |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND AUGUST 15, 2024 DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nUPON CONSIDERATION OF the First Supplemental Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions (the \"Motion\"), and good cause having been shown, and the Court having considered any and all objections and other responses to the Motion, and the Court finding that (i) there is good cause for the relief requested, (ii) the Trustee has acted diligently, and (iii) the Motion has been served in accordance with the Court's prior Order granting the Notice Motion, and such notice is proper and sufficient under the circumstances and no other notice is required, and the relief provided herein being narrowly tailored to serve the foregoing purposes, it is by the Court, hereby\n\nORDERED, that the Motion is granted as set forth herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the time limitations set forth in 11 U.S.C. 108, 546, and 549 for the\n\nTrustee to commence avoidance actions and other actions on behalf of the estate, as well as for\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\namending any pending complaints, are extended through and including February 15, 2025 (such extension, the \"Ordered Extension\"), which date may be further extended upon notice and a hearing; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that, notwithstanding anything in this Order to the contrary, this Order and the Ordered Extension herein shall not apply to avoidance actions, and other actions on behalf of the estate, brought against: (i) UBS AG; and (ii) Sotheby's International Realty, Inc., Sotheby's International Realty Affiliates LLC, Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC, Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company Inc., Martha Turner Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC, Martha Turner Properties, LP, MTPGP, LLC, Anywhere Advisors LLC, Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC, Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC, Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC, and Anywhere Real Estate Inc; and it is further\n\nORDERED, 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 Orderthis Order is without prejudice to the Trustee raising equitable tolling or other equitable arguments in response to a defense that an adversary proceeding commenced by the Trustee is time-barred, which arguments and rights are fully preserved; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the interpretation or implementation of this Order.\n\n2\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |                                       |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                  |  |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)     |  |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered)<br>: |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x                                     |  |  |\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on August 9, 2024, the foregoing Reply was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: August 9, 2024 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n> *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n<span id=\"page-18-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).","body_zh":"-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：　（合并管理）\n\nx\n\n第11章受托人综合答复：（I）支持第11章受托人关于延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼期限至 2024年8月15日的第一份补充动议；以及（II）答复对此提出的异议\n\n1 本第11章案件的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅限通知和通信之目的）。\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（以下简称“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）的身份，经由其下署律师，特此提交本答复（以下简称“答复”）：(i) 支持第11章受托人关于延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼期限至 2024年8月15日的第一份补充动议 [Docket No. 3329]（以下简称“补充动议”）[2]；以及 (ii) 答复就此提交的异议。为支持本答复，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n相关程序背景\n\n1. 2024年7月17日，法院批准了受托人未经异议的动议[3]，并作出《限制送达关于延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼期限至 2024年8月15日之动议的命令》[Docket No. 3323]（以下简称“通知命令”）。通知命令指示受托人向（除其他人士外）对受托人原先的延期动议提交答复的所有当事人，以及受托人在已提起的逾270宗对立诉讼中已出庭的所有被告送达补充动议。\n\n2. 受托人共收到十份针对补充动议的异议（合称“异议”，由“异议人”提交）。异议由以下人士提交：(i) Hing Chi Ngok [Docket No. 3373]；(ii) G Club Operations, LLC（“G-Club”）[Docket No. 3374]；(iii) Meta Platforms, Inc.（“Meta”）[Docket No. 3375]；(iv) Apple Inc.（“Apple”）[Docket No. 3376][4]；(v) FFP (BVI) Limited（“FFP”）[Docket No. 22 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5056]；(vi) Himalaya New World Inc. 以及 (vii) Himalaya New York Rock Inc.（与 Himalaya New World Inc. 合称“Himalaya”）[Docket Nos. 15 and 16 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5269]；(viii) Ogier [Docket No. 18 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5012]；(ix) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP（“Pillsbury”）[Docket No. 24 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5014]；以及 (x) Weddle Law PLLC（“Weddle Law”）[Docket No. 29 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5188]。\n\n2 本文所使用但未另行定义的首字母大写术语，应具有补充动议中赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n3 见 Docket No. 3301。\n\n4 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 就本答复中与 Meta 和 Apple 有关的所有论点担任受托人的专属律师，包括（但不限于）脚注 5 和本文第 II.b 节中的论点。\n\n答复\n\nI. 法院已拒绝遵循 Walnut Hill，且应不予理会相反论点\n\n3. 每份异议均以某种形式主张法院无权准予所请求的救济。但法院已依法裁定，《破产程序规则》9006(b) 确实授权破产法院延长《破产法典》第 108(a)、546(a) 和 549(d) 条规定的时效期限。法院作出该裁定亦非毫无依据。恰恰相反，该问题经过广泛书面陈述和辩论，法院谨慎且全面地处理了持相反观点的判例，并说明其不同意的理由。事实上，每份异议均援引 In re Walnut Hill, 2018 WL 2672242 (Bankr. D.Conn. June 1, 2018)（“Walnut Hill”），而法院已经处理过该案并拒绝遵循该案。[5]\n\n4. 五名异议人（均由同一律师代理）主张，鉴于最高法院近期在 Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) 中作出的裁决，法院应重新考虑其先前裁定，因为（其主张）Purdue 禁止破产法院提供《破产法典》未明确允许的救济。[6] 该论点误解了法院的延期命令。\n\n5 三名异议人甚至称受托人“要求本法院拒绝” Walnut Hill，见 Hing Chi Ngok 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 3373]（“Ngok 异议”），¶ 2；Himalaya 对补充动议的异议 [Docket Nos. 15 and 16 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5269]（“Himalaya 异议”），¶ 4，却欣然忽视法院已就该问题作出裁断。另两名异议人（Apple 和 Meta）则较为诚实地承认法院已经驳回这些论点，但声称其此前没有机会提出其论点，现提出该等论点以保留其权利。无论如何，其提出的论点并非新颖，且已在延期命令中得到审议并被驳回。例如，Meta 和 Apple 援引 Walnut Hill、In re Damach, Inc., 235 B.R. 727 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999) 和《联邦民事诉讼规则》6(b)，而延期命令已处理上述所有内容。\n\n5. 在延期命令中，法院认定所涉期间确属时效期限，而非除斥期间。这是延期命令的关键方面，因为时效期限“可适用中止、延长、衡平禁止反言及其他衡平原则。”[7] 作出该裁定时，法院明确不同意 In re Butcher, 829 F.2d 596 (6th Cir. 1987)，[8] 而异议人仍持续援引该案。[9] 随后，法院认定规则 9006 为此类衡平延长提供了机制，并因此拒绝采纳 Walnut Hill。[10] 法院并未如这些异议人所称，将规则 9006(b) 用作“一揽子”条款。[11] 因此，Purdue 完全不适用。\n\nII. 法院应行使衡平权力并准予所请求的延期\n\n6. 依循法院在延期命令中列明的相同方法，在再次确认法院有权准予所请求的救济后，下一个问题是是否存在行使该权力的理由。在补充动议中，受托人说明存在理由，原因是：(i) 受托人已勤勉行事，任何延误均源于其无法控制的因素；以及 (ii) 债务人持续缺乏合作，且实际上积极阻挠。\n\n6 见 G-Club 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 3374]（“G-Club 异议”），第 2-5 页；FFP 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 22 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5056]（“FFP 异议”），第 2 页；Ogier 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 18 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5012]（“Ogier 异议”），第 2 页；(ix) Pillsbury 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 24 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5014]（“Pillsbury 异议”），第 2 页；以及 (x) Weddle Law 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 29 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-5188]（“Weddle Law 异议”），第 2 页。\n\n7 延期命令第 9 页。\n\n8 延期命令第 9-10 页。\n\n9 见 G-Club 异议第 6 页；FFP 异议第 6 页；Ogier 异议第 6 页；Pillsbury 异议第 6 页；Weddle Law 异议第 6 页。\n\n10 延期命令第 10-12 页。\n\n11 见 G-Club 异议第 3-5 页；FFP 异议第 5 页；Ogier 异议第 5 页；Pillsbury 异议第 5 页；Weddle Law 异议第 5 页。\n\n7. 没有任何异议人质疑受托人的勤勉，或否认受托人的调查和证据开示工作遭到延误。更重要的是，没有任何异议人主张受托人已经处于，或本应已经处于，能够提出其全部请求的状态。见 In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. 784, 791 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013)（“在本案中，不延长 § 546(a) 期限的唯一理由，是如果如相关对象所主张，受托人已经处于能够提出其全部撤销权诉讼的状态。”）。\n\n8. 相反，异议人针对法院援引其衡平权力提出两项主要论点。第一，G-Club、FFP、Ogier、Weddle 和 Pillsbury 均主张，受托人未能证明足以支持其所请求救济的事实。第二，Meta 和 Apple 主张，所请求的救济对其不公平，因为其本身并未造成任何延误。\n\na. 受托人已证明存在进一步延长时效期限的理由\n\n9. 据 G-Club 称，[12]“自 2024年2月以来，除收到更多信息和 Kwok 先生的刑事审判外，受托人并未识别出任何削弱其完成调查能力的新事项。”[13] 这无异于主张“太阳从不升起，星期日至星期六除外。”\n\n10. 受托人已详尽说明其调查为何仍在进行中。G-Club 未对补充动议中所援引的法律权威提出异议；该等法律权威支持如下原则：未决刑事案件可构成需要延长时效期限的特殊情形。其亦未对案件的复杂性和信息量可同样构成理由提出异议。G-Club 似乎甚至并不否认，就事实而言，受托人确有延误。\n\n12 Ogier、FFP、Pillsbury 和 Weddle Law 亦然。\n\n13 G-Club 异议第 10 页。\n\n11. 相反，G-Club 主张：(i) 受托人提出的论点与支持原延期动议的论点相同，不应允许其依赖“更多相同内容”；以及 (ii) 该延误系其自行造成。\n\n12. G-Club 未为第一项论点提供任何支持，也不可能提供。简言之，G-Club 的论点似乎是：受托人已经必须应对债务人的不合作和积极阻挠，已经必须应对极其复杂的财务重建项目，且已经必须应对海量信息——因此，这些现实情况不能成为进一步延长的依据，因为它们是“更多相同内容”，因而并不特殊。此说毫无道理。受托人正在应对与六个月前相同类型的特殊情形（以及采取相同策略的相同当事人）这一事实，并不使这些情形变得不特殊。恰恰相反，这表明情形实际上的极端程度，以及受托人任务的繁重和困难程度。无论如何，G-Club 忽视了补充动议已详细说明延期命令之后的进一步发展及其对受托人调查的影响，包括大量新信息，以及债务人及其关联人士持续反对和阻挠受托人调查的行为。[14]\n\n13. G-Club 的第二项论点同样不能成立。诚然，受托人在刑事审判期间请求对破产案件作出有限中止。但这实际上加快了本案进展，因为若无受托人请求的有限中止，受托人将被迫就债务人要求中止整个破产案件的请求进行诉讼。此外，G-Club 甚至未否认刑事案件的未决状态将削弱受托人开展证据开示和调查工作的能力。[15]\n\n14 见补充动议 ¶¶ 13-17。\n\n15 G-Club 保留对受托人进行交叉询问的权利。受托人不反对该请求。\n\nb. 延长时效期限的理由不要求每一可能受影响的当事人均存在不当行为\n\n14. Apple 和 Meta 指出其自身并无过错，并主张所请求的救济对其不公平。正如法院在延期命令中指出：\n\n破产案件对衡平中止时效提出了一种相当不同的视角。在典型情形中，引发衡平中止时效的是债务人的行为，而非被告的行为。从某些意义上说，这对被告并不公平。另一方面，不同于通常的民事案件——原告至少作为基础交易的一方而具有优势——破产受托人几乎完全必须依赖第三方（债务人）提供发现可撤销转让所必需的信息。[16]\n\n15. 因此，法院解释道，法院会考量债务人是否未予合作，或积极试图阻碍受托人的调查，“[不]论异议方主张其各自并未对受托人的调查造成任何损害。”[17] “某些对象可能无须为阻碍或拖延受托人的调查负责”这一事实，本身并非拒绝延长提起撤销诉讼的两年时效期间的依据。In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. at 791；另见 Heyman v. Dec (In re Dec), 272 B.R. 218, 225 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001)（“即使被告未采取任何隐瞒行为，在欺诈行为未被发现的情况下，依据《法典》第 546(a) 条的时效期间亦可中止。”）。\n\n16. Apple（苹果公司）和 Meta（元平台公司）主张，其并未共谋参与债务人及其关联人士为拖延受托人工作所作出的不懈努力，且受托人并未作出相反主张。但简言之，对受托人公平这一点，胜过对潜在被告可能并不公平这一点。作出相反主张“站不住脚”，因为如果另一对象积极或因过失\n\n16 延期命令第 13 页（着重号已加）（引自 In re Pomaville, 190 B.R. 632, 637 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1995)）。\n\n17 延期命令第 13 页。\n\n隐瞒受托人的潜在请求权，则可能对破产财团承担责任的一方“实质上将获得意外之利”。Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. at 791。“如果受托人被阻碍发现潜在的撤销诉讼，那么该截止日期应就所有请求权予以延长——而非逐方延长。”同上。[18]\n\nIII. 其他异议均无依据\n\n17. Himalaya（喜马拉雅）和 Ngok（恩戈克）均援引 Stern（斯特恩）诉 Marshall（马歇尔）案，并主张补充动议涉及“私权诉因”，只能由地区法院裁决。[19] 法院已在延期命令中驳回该论点，现在亦应予以驳回。[20]\n\n18. Himalaya 和 Ngok 还均主张，补充动议应被驳回，因为不得前瞻性地请求衡平中止时效。[21] 但受托人并非根据衡平中止时效原则寻求救济。相反——且与延期命令一致——受托人仅保留在针对受托人提起的对抗诉讼已过时效这一抗辩作出回应时，援引“衡平中止时效或其他衡平论点”的所有权利。[22]\n\nIV. 修订后的拟议命令\n\n19. 与原延期动议相同，受托人已修订随该动议提交的拟议命令，修订后的拟议命令文本（以及对原命令的红线修订稿）作为本文件的附件 A-1 和 A-2 附上。[23]\n\n18 Meta 和 Apple 均为在首份延期命令之前提起的未决对抗诉讼中的被告；其还作为其“公平性”论点的一部分主张，其不应面临为受托人可能在修正起诉状中提出的请求进行抗辩的可能性，因为受托人已经通过“牵强的法律理论和非正统的程序操作”而“试图操纵牌局”。见 Meta 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 3375]（“Meta 异议”），第 5 段；Apple 对补充动议的异议 [Docket No. 3376]（“Apple 异议”），第 5 段。法院应看清其本质：这是试图就与本补充动议无关的未决诉讼实体问题进行争辩。\n\n19 见 Himalaya 异议，第 3 段；Ngok 异议，第 11 段。\n\n20 延期命令第 7 页。\n\n21 见 Himalaya 异议，第 16-17 段；Ngok，第 5 段（主张“禁止前瞻性适用衡平中止时效原则在本地区早已确立”）。\n\n22 补充动议第 35 段（引自延期命令）。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n23 这些修改亦解决了 Ngok 对拟议命令提出的异议。见 Ngok 异议，第 10 段。\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求法院签发经修订的拟议命令，准许本文件所请求的救济，并授予法院认为适当的任何其他救济。\n\n日期：August 9, 2024　　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　　第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n(203) 781-2847\n\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）(admitted pro hac vice)\n\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（博钦律师事务所）\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n(212) 318-6079\n\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）(admitted pro hac vice)\n\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n\n2050 M Street NW\n\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n\n(202) 551-1902\n\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n附件 A-1　修订后的拟议命令（清稿）\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：\n：　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n［拟议］命令：准许第11章受托人首次补充动议，以延长受托人提起撤销诉讼的 August 15, 2024 截止日期\n\n经审议第11章受托人关于延长受托人提起撤销诉讼的 August 15, 2024 截止日期的首次补充动议（“动议”），并已证明存在正当理由，且法院已审议针对该动议提出的任何及全部异议和其他回应，且法院认定：(i) 所请求的救济具有正当理由，(ii) 受托人已勤勉行事，以及 (iii) 该动议已依照法院先前准许通知动议的命令送达，且在该等情形下该通知适当且充分，无需其他通知，并且本命令所提供的救济经过严格限定以服务于上述目的，故法院现命令如下：\n\n命令：准许该动议，具体如本命令所述；并进一步\n\n命令：11 U.S.C. 108、546 和 549 规定的受托人代表破产财团提起撤销诉讼及其他诉讼，以及\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n修改任何未决起诉状的期限，延长至并包括 February 15, 2025（该延长期限称为“命令确定的延长期限”）；该日期可在通知并举行听证后进一步延长；并进一步\n\n命令：尽管本命令有任何相反规定，本命令及本命令项下的命令确定的延长期限不适用于针对下列主体提起的撤销诉讼及代表破产财团提起的其他诉讼：(i) UBS AG（瑞银集团）；以及 (ii) Sotheby's International Realty, Inc.（苏富比国际房地产公司）、Sotheby's International Realty Affiliates LLC（苏富比国际房地产加盟有限责任公司）、Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC（苏富比国际房地产推荐公司有限责任公司）、Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company Inc.（苏富比国际房地产推荐公司）、Martha Turner Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC（玛莎·特纳苏富比国际房地产推荐公司有限责任公司）、Martha Turner Properties, LP（玛莎·特纳房地产有限合伙企业）、MTPGP, LLC、Anywhere Advisors LLC（安悦顾问有限责任公司）、Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC（安悦房地产服务集团有限责任公司）、Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC（安悦房地产集团有限责任公司）、Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC（安悦中间控股有限责任公司）及 Anywhere Real Estate Inc（安悦房地产公司）；并进一步\n\n命令：本命令不妨碍受托人针对受托人提起的对抗诉讼已过时效这一抗辩提出衡平中止时效或其他衡平论点；该等论点及权利均予以完整保留；并进一步\n\n命令：本命令的条款和条件应于其签发后立即生效并可执行；并进一步\n\n命令：授权受托人采取一切必要行动，以实现本命令授予的救济；并进一步\n\n命令：对于因解释或实施本命令而产生或与之相关的一切事项，法院保留管辖权。\n\n日期：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法官\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n附件 A-2　修订后的拟议命令（红线修订稿）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：　（合并管理）\n\nx\n［拟议］命令：准许第11章受托人首次补充动议，以延长受托人提起撤销诉讼的 August 15, 2024 截止日期\n\n经审议第11章受托人关于延长受托人提起撤销诉讼的 August 15, 2024 截止日期的首次补充动议（“动议”），并已证明存在正当理由，且法院已审议针对该动议提出的任何及全部异议和其他回应，且法院认定：(i) 所请求的救济具有正当理由，(ii) 受托人已勤勉行事，以及 (iii) 该动议已依照法院先前准许通知动议的命令送达，且在该等情形下该通知适当且充分，无需其他通知，并且本命令所提供的救济经过严格限定以服务于上述目的，故法院现命令如下：\n\n命令：准许该动议，具体如本命令所述；并进一步\n\n命令：11 U.S.C. 108、546 和 549 规定的受托人代表破产财团提起撤销诉讼及其他诉讼，以及\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n修改任何未决起诉状的期限，延长至并包括 February 15, 2025（该延长期限称为“命令确定的延长期限”）；该日期可在通知并举行听证后进一步延长；并进一步\n\n命令：尽管本命令有任何相反规定，本命令及本命令项下的命令确定的延长期限不适用于针对下列主体提起的撤销诉讼及代表破产财团提起的其他诉讼：(i) UBS AG（瑞银集团）；以及 (ii) Sotheby's International Realty, Inc.（苏富比国际房地产公司）、Sotheby's International Realty Affiliates LLC（苏富比国际房地产加盟有限责任公司）、Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC（苏富比国际房地产推荐公司有限责任公司）、Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company Inc.（苏富比国际房地产推荐公司）、Martha Turner Sotheby's International Realty Referral Company LLC（玛莎·特纳苏富比国际房地产推荐公司有限责任公司）、Martha Turner Properties, LP（玛莎·特纳房地产有限合伙企业）、MTPGP, LLC、Anywhere Advisors LLC（安悦顾问有限责任公司）、Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC（安悦房地产服务集团有限责任公司）、Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC（安悦房地产集团有限责任公司）、Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC（安悦中间控股有限责任公司）及 Anywhere Real Estate Inc（安悦房地产公司）；并进一步\n\n兹命令，任何已实际或推定收到该动议通知且未对该动议提出异议的当事人，如最终被列为根据本命令条款及时提起的诉讼中的当事人，即放弃主张时效期间抗辩的权利；本命令不妨碍受托人针对受托人提起的对立诉讼已逾时效的抗辩提出衡平停止计算或其他衡平论点，该等论点和权利均得到完全保留；并进一步\n\n兹命令，本命令的条款和条件自登记之日起立即生效并可执行；并进一步\n\n兹命令，授权受托人采取实现本命令所授予救济所必需的一切行动；并进一步\n\n兹命令，法院就因本命令的解释或实施而产生或与之相关的所有事项保留管辖权。\n\n日期：__________________, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法院法官\n\n_________________________________________________________\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于 August 9, 2024，上述答复书已以电子方式提交。通过法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统的运行，已向上述标题所示第11章案件的所有当事人发送本次提交的电子邮件通知；或如电子提交通知所示，对于无法接受电子提交的任何人，则通过邮件发送通知。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n日期：August 9, 2024　New Haven, Connecticut（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛） Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙泰斯律师事务所，专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知和通信）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4330,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:36:53"}