{"id":"court_ctb_3803_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3803,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"JUDGMENT","filed_date":"2024-11-08","title":"EXHIBIT 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF","summary_zh":"庭审记录附件（Exhibit 2） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #3803-2（2024-11-08立案）。本文件为2024年9月24日听证会的庭审记录节录，记录了法庭与辩护律师围绕揭开公司面纱、认定债务人替身（alter-ego）实体以及该认定是否具有追溯效力（nunc pro tunc）影响第三方债权人等法律争议的口头辩论。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript Exhibit (Exhibit 2) — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #3803-2 (filed 2024-11-08). This document is an excerpt of the transcript from the September 24, 2024 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning. It records legal oral arguments between the Court and counsel regarding corporate veil piercing, alter-ego liability, and whether judicial determinations that entities are alter egos of the debtor apply retroactively (*nunc pro tunc*) to third-party creditors.","body_en":"## **EXHIBIT 2**\n\n 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al., .* . (Jointly Administered) . . Debtors. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Tuesday, September 24, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:29 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and- Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 3803-2 Filed 11/08/24 Entered 11/08/24 16:44:45 Page 2 of 5\n\n28\n\n| 1 | If it's the alter -- what would happen under Connecticut law |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | if you sued a corporation and then you had -- you pierced the |\n| 3 | corporate veil to get to its individual owners.
If the |\n| 4 | individual owner made the transfer, you, as the lawyer for |\n| 5 | that corporation, you would go after that individual and |\n| 6 | you'd say, Give me back that money.
You made that transfer. |\n| 7 | You just used the corporate structure as a shield to defraud |\n| 8 | everyone and avoid and be judgment-proof. |\n| 9 | That's what you would say, right; wouldn't you |\n| 10 | argue that? |\n| 11 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
It would depend, you know, if the |\n| 12 | transfer was made before or after.
It would depend if the |\n| 13 | transfer was made -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
It would depend, wouldn't it?
That's |\n| 15 | a fact.
Isn't it a fact? |\n| 16 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Well, again, if you take all the |\n| 17 | facts as true in the complaint and then make a determination |\n| 18 | whether or not the law allows for what's being proposed, |\n| 19 | right.
That's the point of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a |\n| 20 | motion for judgment on the pleadings. |\n| 21 | And an additional legal issue, which you may or |\n| 22 | may not agree with, is the ability to do so nunc pro tunc, |\n| 23 | which is another major issue. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I don't understand that argument at |\n| 25 | all. |\n| | |\n\n29\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well -- THE COURT: If you breached a contract on January 1st, 2015, and Trustee Despins sued you on January 1st, 2016, and the Court, on January 1st, found, 2017, that you breached the contract in 2015, that's not *nunc pro tunc*; that's the Court found that that happened. And what I've found in these cases is that the debtor, that the entity is the alter-ego of the debtor. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. Well, that is nunc - here's the hypothetical. If I'm a trade creditor of Acme Corporation, right, which is unrelated to a debtor, I'm a trade creditor, I'm just doing business with Acme Corporation. I have no clue Acme Corporation may have some interrelationship or have some involvement with the debtor and I'm doing business with them. I'm providing my goods and services and they're paying me for it. Now, all of a sudden, two years go by and you're getting sued because Acme Corporation wasn't Acme Corporation. Acme Corporation was Mr. Kwok, right? THE COURT: Yeah. MR. GOLDSTEIN: That's a different set of facts. If, for example, Acme Corporation -- THE COURT: It may not be if a Court has found that Acme Corporation and Mr. Kwok were one in the same. MR. GOLDSTEIN: But that --\n\n30\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
It happens all the time.
This is |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | not -- to say it's nunc pro tunc, every creditor, no matter |\n| 3 | whether there's -- every creditor takes a risk at some point |\n| 4 | that they might be sued on a preference or fraudulent |\n| 5 | conveyance claim.
Every creditor's lawyer knows that.
Every |\n| 6 | creditor's lawyer counsels their clients about that. |\n| 7 | This isn't -- the stretch of saying that it's nunc |\n| 8 | pro tunc because the Court found during a proceeding |\n| 9 | involving the debtor, individual debtor, that its corporate |\n| 10 | entities are the same as the debtor, show me a case on that |\n| 11 | because I don't -- I just don't see it at all.
And I think |\n| 12 | it's a stretch and I think it could be not a good use of |\n| 13 | Court time. |\n| 14 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
The difference is, is that we're |\n| 15 | years later, disregarding the corporate form of an entity, |\n| 16 | unbeknownst to third parties who had no notice -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
But that always happens. |\n| 18 | Even if Mr. Kwok was the one who gave you the |\n| 19 | money, you had no idea when he gave you the money that he was |\n| 20 | going to be found guilty of whatever, you have no idea, so |\n| 21 | how is it any different? |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDSTEIN:
And not only the corporate forms |\n| 23 | being disregarded, but they would now be under the auspices |\n| 24 | of Title 11 as a debtor.
So if I -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, that's the only way these |\n| | |","body_zh":"证据 2\n\n1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n关于：\n第 11 章\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n（合并审理）\n债务人。\n123 法庭\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大厦）\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n2024 年 9 月 24 日，星期二\n下午 1:29\n听证会笔录\n审理法官：JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）尊长\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE（美国破产法官）\n出庭律师：\n代表第 11 章托管人：\nPatrick Linsey, Esquire\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n以及\nLuc A. Despins, Esquire\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n音频操作员：电子记录\n转录公司：Reliable\nThe Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮箱：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，笔录由转录服务机构生成。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3803-2 Filed 11/08/24 Entered 11/08/24 16:44:45 Page 2 of 5\n\n1 法官：如果是另一定盘——在康涅狄格州法律下，\n2 如果你起诉了一家公司，然后你——你刺破了\n3 公司面纱以追及其实际个人所有者，会发生什么。如果\n4 该个人所有者进行了转让，你作为\n5 该公司的律师，你会去追究该个人，\n6 并且你会说：把钱还给我。是你进行了那笔转让。\n7 你只是利用公司结构作为盾牌来欺诈\n8 所有人，并逃避债务、使自己无财产可供执行。\n9 这就是你会说的，对吧；你难道不会这样\n10 辩论吗？\n11 GOLDSTEIN 先生：这取决于，您知道，该\n12 转让是在之前还是之后进行的。这取决于该\n13 转让是否是在——\n14 法官：这取决于，难道不是吗？这是\n15 一个事实问题。这难道不是一个事实吗？\n16 GOLDSTEIN 先生：嗯，再说一次，如果你将起诉书中的所有\n17 事实推定为真实，然后作出判定\n18 法律是否允许所拟提的内容，\n19 对吧。这就是 Rule 12(b)(6)（第 12(b)(6) 条）动议或\n20 依诉状作出判决的动议的意义所在。\n21 还有一个额外的法律问题，您可能会同意\n22 也可能不会同意，那就是溯及既往（nunc pro tunc）作出这一行为的能力，\n23 这是另一个重大问题。\n24 法官：我完全不理解\n25 那个论点。\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GOLDSTEIN 先生：嗯—— 法官：如果你在 2015 年 1 月 1 日违约，而 Despins 托管人在 2016 年 1 月 1 日起诉了你，法院在 2017 年 1 月 1 日认定你在 2015 年违约了，那并不是溯及既往；那是法院认定该事实发生了。而我在这些案件中认定的是，债务人，即该实体是债务人的另一定盘（alter-ego）。 GOLDSTEIN 先生：好的。嗯，那就是溯及——这里有个假设情形。如果我是 Acme Corporation（阿克米公司）的商业债权人，对吧，该公司与债务人无关，我是商业债权人，我只是在与阿克米公司做生意。我根本不知道阿克米公司可能与债务人存在某种相互关联或牵涉，而我在与他们做生意。我提供货物和服务，他们为此向我付款。现在，突然之间，两年过去了，你被起诉了，因为阿克米公司不是阿克米公司。阿克米公司就是郭先生，对吧？ 法官：是的。 GOLDSTEIN 先生：那是另一组事实了。例如，如果阿克米公司—— 法官：如果法院认定阿克米公司与郭先生实为一体，那可能就不是另一回事了。 GOLDSTEIN 先生：但是那——\n\n1 法官：这种情况一直都在发生。这\n2 不是——要说这是溯及既往，每一个债权人，不论\n3 是否存在——每一个债权人在某个时刻都会承担\n4 他们可能因偏颇性清偿（preference）或欺诈性\n5 转让（fraudulent conveyance）主张而被起诉的风险。每一个债权人的律师都知道这一点。每一个\n6 债权人的律师都会就此向其客户提供法律意见。\n7 这并不是——硬要说是溯及既往，\n8 就因为法院在涉及债务人即个人债务人的\n9 程序中认定其公司\n10 实体与该债务人实为同一，请给我出示一个支持该观点的判例，\n11 因为我没有——我根本看不出有何依据。而且我认为\n12 这是牵强附会的，我认为这可能不是对\n13 法院时间的良好利用。\n14 GOLDSTEIN 先生：区别在于，我们在\n15 数年之后，对一个实体的公司形式不予考虑，\n16 而根本不知情的第三方事先并未收到任何通知——\n17 法官：但这种情况总是会发生。\n18 即使是郭先生本人把钱给你的，\n19 当他给你钱的时候，你根本不知道他\n20 将会被判定犯有任何罪行，你根本不知道，所以\n21 这又有何不同呢？\n22 GOLDSTEIN 先生：而且不仅是公司形式\n23 被不予考虑，他们现在还将依据\n24 Title 11（破产法第 11 编）作为债务人受到管辖。所以如果我——\n25 法官：嗯，这是这些事情的唯一解决办法","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1075,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-11-08 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-11-08","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:40:54"}