{"id":"court_ctb_4004_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4004,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-01-24","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"延长诉讼时限动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #4004（2025-01-24立案）。第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交第二次补充动议，请求将受托人提起撤销权诉讼的截止日期从 2025 年 2 月 15 日延长至 2025 年 8 月 15 日。受托人指出境外资产调查极其复杂，法务会计已识别约 745 个关联银行账户及约 203,500 笔出入交易，累计涉案金额超 100 亿美元。","summary_en":"Motion to Extend Deadline — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / Ho Wan Kwok), CTB 22-50073 ECF #4004 (filed 2025-01-24). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins filed a second supplemental motion requesting to extend the deadline for filing avoidance actions from February 15, 2025, to August 15, 2025. The Trustee cited the extraordinary complexity of the debtor's overseas finances, noting that forensic accountants identified approximately 745 accounts and 203,500 transactions totaling over $10 billion.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>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>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n## **SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND FEBRUARY 15, 2025 DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this motion (the \"Motion\"), pursuant to section 105(a) of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rule 9006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), for an order, substantially in the form of the proposed order attached as **Exhibit 1** hereto (the \"Proposed Order\"), further extending the Ordered Extension (as defined below) for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions. In support of the Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. In February 2024, the Court granted the Trustee's first motion to extend the limitations periods for the Trustee to file avoidance actions. In August 2024 the Court granted the\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\nTrustee's second motion seeking such relief, extending the limitations period through and including February 15, 2025. In its August ruling, the Court found that cause existed to extend the deadline due to, among other things, \"the complexity and extent of Mr. Kwok's financial affairs; and . . . the Trustee's diligence in his investigation.\"[2](#page-1-0) As discussed herein, this Chapter 11 Case remains extraordinarily complex, and the Trustee has diligently continued his investigation into the Debtor's labyrinthine finances, in particular overseas. Accordingly, by this Motion the Trustee requests that the Court further extend the limitations periods through and including **August 15, 2025**. The Trustee expects that, absent unexpected developments, this will be the last such blanket extension he requires in this case and that he will instead address any necessary tolling requests on a case-by-case basis going forward or by addressing specific categories of claims.\n\n2. Since the Court last ruled in August, the Trustee has engaged in extensive and farreaching discovery efforts in locations throughout the world. New information learned through Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and other discovery tools, and evidence obtained from the Debtor's criminal proceedings, has led to yet more subjects and topics requiring investigation. In keeping with the Debtor's complex web of deceit, following one thread often leads to another thread, and so on. The Trustee has learned new information about, among other things, the Debtor's international activities, has filed additional omnibus Bankruptcy Rule 2004 motions and hasserved additional subpoenas. In the last twelve months, the Trustee has also increasingly pursued his investigation and resulting litigation outside the United States, which is generally more complex and time-consuming than domestic investigations and enforcement. The Trustee has also continued his forensic accounting analysis of the Debtor's vast shell game and his forensic accounting firm, Kroll, has identified more Debtor-associated bank accounts (bringing the total to\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Second Extension Order, p.3\n\napproximately 745 accounts and approximately 203,500 transactions in and out of these accounts). Kroll's investigation reveals that these transactions aggregate to more than \\$10 billion dollars.\n\n3. As more fully set forth in the Trustee's prior Extension Motions and herein, this Chapter 11 Case—which already presents the difficulties inherent in wading through the aftermath of a largescale, international fraud—was further complicated by the significant, and unending, stream of impediments placed in the Trustee's way by the Debtor and his associates. As this Court well knows, those impediments include the Debtor's failure to provide the Trustee with any books and records and his (and his associates') failure to comply with multiple Court orders. Unfortunately, that course of conduct continues.\n\n4. Another factor outside of the Trustee's control was the Debtor's criminal trial, which required the Trustee to curtail certain aspects of his investigation and recovery efforts for months. The Trustee has continued to learn additional information revealed in connection with the Debtor's criminal proceedings since the Debtor's conviction in July—including material portions of the criminal case record that were not available until September and October of 2024 and information that came to light later still in connection with Yvette Wang's sentencing on January 6, 2025. The Trustee expects that further relevant information may be learned in connection with the Debtor's sentencing, which has yet to be held. This information may lead to the discovery of additional estate assets and sources of recovery for the estate.\n\n5. Ultimately, while the Trustee has made substantial progress since August, more work remains. The Trustee's investigation and recovery efforts continue to be hindered by factors outside of the Trustee's control, including the incredibly complex nature of this Chapter 11 Case, which complexity is exacerbated by the Debtor's barriers (in addition to the obstructive behavior of Debtor's family and associates).\n\n3\n\n6. Equally true is that the relief requested herein remains vital. Absent an extension, the Trustee will be forced to litigate the limitations period on a one-off basis in free-standing adversary proceedings with any avoidance defendants who raise the issue. This would impose a massive burden on the Trustee and this Court, and the cost borne by the estate, both in time and in dollars, would be astronomical, and would directly harm creditors.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n7. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n8. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") in the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case.\n\n9. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order [Docket No. 523] appointing the Trustee.\n\n## **a. Original Extension Motion and Original Extension Order**\n\n10. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022, claimed only \\$3,850 in assets compared to hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.[3](#page-3-0) The Debtor asserted in the Bankruptcy Court that he was essentially penniless and that his luxurious homes, the Lady May yacht, and his other publicly flaunted trappings of wealth did not belong to him, but to companies purportedly owned by his family members.[4](#page-3-1) As several courts have now observed, the Debtor was able to maintain his opulent lifestyle while professing to own virtually no assets by constructing a\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> *See* Schedules of Assets & Liabilities, at 1 [Docket No. 78].\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>4</sup> *See Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions* [Docket No. 107].\n\nvast maze of shell companies in which he hid his wealth in the names of family members and close associates.\n\n11. Since his appointment, the Trustee has been working diligently to identify and recover for the benefit of the estate the assets the Debtor has hidden and/or transferred. To that end, in accordance with the Court's directive, the Trustee has launched a complex and thorough investigation and litigation process, focusing on the Debtor's \"shell game\"—*i.e.*, his use of alter ego companies to hide his assets from creditors. Broadly speaking, the process has included (a) discovery pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and (b) litigation to establish that certain entities are alter egos of the Debtor and/or recover specific property and assets.\n\n12. Locating and recovering the Debtor's assets has required the Trustee to retain attorneys in multiple jurisdictions, as well as other professionals, such as Kroll, LLC (\"Kroll\"), a forensic accounting firm with international reach. Unraveling the Debtor's maze of shell companies and tens of thousands of transactions (on its own, a hugely complex task) was further complicated and delayed by the efforts of the Debtor, his family members, and his associates to obstruct the Trustee's efforts at every turn. Accordingly, on January 18, 2024, the Trustee filed a motion to extend or toll certain statutes of limitations that would have expired on February 15, 2024 (the \"Original Extension Motion\").[5](#page-4-0) The Original Extension Motion contained (and this Motion incorporates by reference) a detailed description of the Trustee's efforts and successes to that date, as well as the various obstruction efforts with which the Trustee had been forced to contend.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> *See* Docket No. 2509, *Motion for Entry of Order Extending Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions Under Bankruptcy Code Sections 108, 546(a), and 549*.\n\n13. On February 15, 2024, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the Original Extension Motion [Docket No. 2921] under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) (the \"Original Extension Order\"). The Court extended the Trustee's time to commence avoidance actions through August 15, 2024, and provided that such date is subject to further extension.\n\n#### **b. Second Extension Motion and Second Extension Order**\n\n14. On July 19, 2024, the Trustee filed the *First Supplemental Motion to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* [Docket No. 3329] (the \"Second Extension Motion\" and, jointly with the Original Extension Motion, the \"Extension Motions\"). The Second Extension Motion is incorporated herein by reference, including the Second Extension Motion's discussion of the Trustee's further efforts and developments in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n15. Certain entities objected to the Second Extension Motion and the Court held an evidentiary hearing on August 13, 2024. The Trustee testified and was subject to crossexamination at the evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing, on August 14, 2024, the Court entered an order (the \"Second Extension Order\") [Docket No. 3417] further extending until February 15, 2025 (the \"Ordered Extension\") the time for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions and other actions on behalf of the estate and for amending pending complaints.\n\n#### **c. Developments Since Second Extension Order**\n\n16. Three days before the Trustee filed the Second Extension Motion and following a criminal trial that lasted nearly two months, the Debtor was convicted on nine counts of felony racketeering, fraud, and, money laundering. Obtaining relevant portions of the record from the Debtor's criminal trial (including exhibits, most of which were not immediately publicly filed by the prosecution) has taken additional months, with the Trustee obtaining relevant documents in September and October of 2024. The Trustee also learned further information relevant to his investigation in connection with the sentencing of Yvette Wang, which did not occur until January\n\n6, 2025. The Debtor's sentencing hearing is not scheduled at this time and the Trustee expects that additional relevant information will be revealed in the Debtor's sentencing proceedings.\n\n17. Since filing the Second Extension Motion, the Trustee has filed four additional Bankruptcy Rule 2004 motions (three of them omnibus motions) [Docket Nos. 3398, 3594, 3758, 3981]—the most recent one filed just last week—and has served approximately fifteen additional Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoenas and approximately twenty amended subpoenas. During this time, the Trustee has obtained production of more than 30,000 pages of documents and has learned of approximately 200 additional bank accounts relevant to the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n18. Since the Trustee filed his Second Extension Motion, the Trustee has commenced at least twenty-five new avoidance actions seeking the avoidance of over \\$20 million of prepetition and postpetition transfers and has filed fourteen amended complaints seeking additional recovery of over \\$12.7 million in prepetition transfers and \\$1.6 million in postpetition transfers. The Trustee is currently preparing numerous additional new and amended avoidance complaints based on the Trustee's further investigation and analysis.\n\n19. Additional progress in the Trustee's investigation also led to the filing, on December 23, 2024, of the *Second Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 541, 542 and 544, Seeking (i) Declaratory Judgment that Certain Entities are Alter Egos of Debtor and (ii) Related Relief* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322, Docket No. 1]. This complaint discusses the Trustee's investigation leading to the identification of more than three dozen additional shell companies (the \"Additional Alter Ego Entities\") participating in and/or integral to Debtor's enterprise, which the Trustee asserts are alter egos of and/or beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\n20. Upon identification of the Additional Alter Ego Entities, the Trustee's investigation turned to identification of these entities' assets, transactions, and personnel. Again, each thread in the investigation often leads to yet another thread to be pulled. The Trustee's investigation remains active and ongoing. The Trustee anticipates filing numerous new and amended avoidance complaints to recover fraudulent prepetition and unauthorized postpetition transfers based on both the Trustee's identification of the Additional Alter Ego Entities and further progress in the Trustee's investigation and analysis of the Debtor's finances.\n\n21. The Trustee has also expanded his investigation overseas, including by engaging counsel in the United Arab Emirates, where the Trustee believes the Debtor's associates may be holding and continuing to engage in financial activity involving property of the bankruptcy estate. In addition, the Trustee is currently undertaking investigations and/or litigation in locations including the United Kingdom, the British Virgin Islands, Mauritius, Switzerland, and Cyprus. The Trustee believes that his ongoing investigation outside the United States may lead to the identification of additional avoidance claims.\n\n## **d. Debtor's Continued Obstruction Efforts and Other Challenges**\n\n22. Since entry of the Second Extension Order, the Debtor and his associates have continued to oppose and obstruct the Trustee's efforts. For example, multiple associates of the Debtor filed objections and/or motions to quash in connection with Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery sought by the Trustee.[6](#page-7-0) G Club Operations LLC, which the Trustee has asserted is the Debtor's alter ego and which the Debtor's criminal trial demonstrated was a major component in\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> *See Notice of Bofang Investment LLC and Feibo Jiang's Opposition to \"Seventeenth Supplemental Omnibus Motion\" for Further Discoveyr and Cross-Motion to Quash Subpoena* [Docket No. 3648]; *Motion to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order* [Docket No. 3541] filed by Yumei Hao, River Valley Operations, LLC, and Golden Eagle Ventures, LLC.\n\nthe Debtor's criminal fraud, also sought to quash one of the Trustee's Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoenas.[7](#page-8-0) Through Court orders and stipulations these matters were all eventually resolved in the Trustee's favor.\n\n23. Meanwhile, the Debtor and his associates (including his family members) continue to fail to produce documents and information responsive to the Trustee's discovery requests. For example, the defense that the Debtor attempted at his criminal trial (which involved essentially admitting his ownership of numerous assets that the Debtor told this Court that he did not own), strongly suggests that the Debtor (through his agents) has responsive documents and information, which the Debtor continues to withhold from the Trustee. Meanwhile, the Debtor's family members (*e.g.*, his daughter and his alleged wife) have prosecuted meritless appeals, requiring the Trustee to devote resources to ensuring that this Court's judgments are respected and enforced.\n\n24. Multiple financial institutions with operations located both within and outside the United States have also resisted the Trustee's efforts to obtain discovery on purported grounds of jurisdiction and international comity, requiring the Trustee to negotiate parameters of discovery. Through these negotiations, the Trustee has successfully obtained compliance from multiple international financial institutions since the Second Extension Order, and the Trustee expects to obtain additional relevant documents and information from abroad in the coming months.\n\n## **RELIEF SOUGHT**\n\n25. The Trustee requests entry of the Proposed Order extending the Ordered Extension for additional six months, through and including August 15, 2025.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>7</sup> *See G Club Operations LLC's Motion to Quash and Objections to the Trustee's Rule 2004 Examination Subpoena*  [Docket No. 3752].\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n26. In the Original Extension Order, the Court held that, as a matter of law, Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) authorizes a bankruptcy court to extend the statutes of limitations found in sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. The question, therefore, \"is whether there is 'cause,' on the facts and circumstances before the Court,\" to do so.[8](#page-9-0) The Court found cause in connection with the earlier extension motions filed by the Trustee, and the Trustee submits there is cause to grant the instant Motion.\n\n#### **I. Cause Exists Under Rule 9006(b) to Grant Trustee's Requested Extension**\n\n27. In the Second Extension Order, the Court found cause from, among other things, the combination of (i) the Debtor's ongoing contempt and his failure to perform statutory duties (ii) the complexity and extent of Debtor's financial affairs, and (iii) the Trustee's diligence in his investigation. The Trustee submits that these factors remain applicable.\n\n#### **a. Trustee Has Acted Diligently**\n\n28. A bankruptcy trustee acts diligently if any delay is not self-inflicted. *Schmidt v. Twosons Corp. (In re Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC)*, No. 15-34287, 2022 WL 1589190, at \\*11 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 19, 2022) (noting extraordinary circumstance that supports equitable tolling \"derives from some external obstacle to timely filing beyond the plaintiff's control, not from self-inflicted delay\") (as modified) (internal quotation marks and references omitted);[9](#page-9-1) *see also In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. 784, 790-91 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013) (\"It is enough to say that the targets cannot credibly claim the Trustee's inability to\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>8</sup> Original Extension Order at 12.\n\n<span id=\"page-9-1\"></span><sup>9</sup> *Black Elk Energy* dealt with equitable tolling, not cause under Rule 9006(b). However, the Court has already noted that there is overlap between the factual predicates that justify the application of the two doctrines. *See* Extension Order at 13 (citing decisions regarding equitable tolling in context of determining whether cause exists under Rule 9006(b) to extend statutes of limitation).\n\ncomplete her investigation is a result of any lack of diligence on her part.\"). Here, the Trustee's investigation and asset recovery have been delayed by events outside of his control and apart from the Debtor's obstruction (which, to be clear, also exists).\n\n29. Those outside factors are (i) the sheer volume of information the Trustee must obtain and analyze, combined with the total lack of any books and records from the Debtor, and (ii) the evidence uncovered solely through the Debtor's ongoing criminal proceedings. [10](#page-10-0)\n\n### i. Volume of Information\n\n30. The Trustee's investigation and financial analysis remains ongoing and continues to reveal the nature and extent of the Debtor's financial affairs and to identify further property of the estate and sources of estate recovery. Evidence brought to light through the Debtor's criminal proceedings, Bankruptcy Rule 2004 motions, and painstaking forensic financial analysis by Kroll, has broadened the investigation to include more than three dozen Additional Alter Ego Entities, whose assets and business dealings must be analyzed by the Trustee's forensic accountants and attorneys so that the Trustee may take appropriate measures (including, where necessary, avoidance and turnover litigation) to recover estate assets and liquidate estate claims.\n\n31. As was the case with the prior Extension Motions, what the Trustee learns is very rarely, if ever, a standalone piece of information. Everything the Trustee learns is another thread in the Debtor's web of deceit, with each thread leading to another, revealing more assets hidden and/or transferred. *See In re ThermoView Indus., Inc.*, 381 B.R. at 227 (granting extension motion\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>10</sup> These two factors were the basis of the trustee's motion in *In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc.,* Case No.: 16-20516- AJC. In that case, the trustee was investigation a \"multi-jurisdictional Ponzi scheme,\" and due to the nature and scope of the fraud the trustee was unable to complete her forensic accounting analysis or \"piece together all of the claims that the estate would have\" in two years. Another \"major impediment\" was that \"key witnesses and perpetrators\" were \"embroiled in several regulatory and criminal matters\" with the SEC, DOJ, and foreign counterparts. The court granted the motion, as well as several further extensions. *See In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc.*, No. 16-20516 (AJC) (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018) [Docket No. 198], *Transcript of Hearing May 10, 2018* (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018), and Docket Nos. 284 and 292 (motion and order). Relevant portions of the transcript, the motion, and the court's order, are attached as Exhibit 2 to the Second Extension Motion.\n\nunder Rule 9006(b) in \"an exceedingly complex case in which the Trustee has pursued and filed nearly 400 adversary proceedings\"); *see also In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. 784, 790 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013) (\"The Court notes—as it has done many times in the past—that this case is unique. That is true not only of the facts of this case, but the legal issues as well. And the stakes are unquestionably high. There is over \\$1 billion in claims in this case, and the Trustee may be seeking to recover that much from the targets.\").\n\n## ii. Debtor's Criminal Proceedings\n\n32. While a valuable resource, the Debtor's criminal proceedings also complicated the Trustee's investigation by revealing information that requires additional investigation, adding to the volume of information the Trustee must analyze, which the Trustee has been diligently pursuing these past months. The flow of information did not end with the Debtor's criminal verdict but has continued, as the Trustee gained access to portions of the record from the criminal case in September and October of 2024 and learned still further information in the context of Yvette Wang's sentencing. Additionally, the \"Stay Order\" in effect from March 22 through July 18, 2024 [Docket Nos. 3038, 3327] required the Trustee to curtail certain aspects of his investigation and recovery efforts during the pendency of the criminal trial. *See generally Collins v. Decker (In re Decker)*, No. 06-60886, 2011 WL 2174349, at \\*5 n. 5 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. June 1, 2011) (citation omitted) (\"pendency of other legal proceedings which prevent enforcement of the subject claim\" justify extending limitations period); *In re Dwek,* No. 07- 11757 (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) (\"[E]quitable tolling of the Statute of Limitations is appropriate here given the recent activities by the U.S. Attorney and the FBI in conducting their investigations. That has involved a lengthy delay of continued 2004 deposition of the Debtor, and that's beyond the control of the Trustee.\").[11](#page-11-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>11</sup> Hr'g Tr. at 9:10-17, *In re Dwek*, No. 07-11757 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) [Docket No. 3916], attached as Exhibit 3 to the Second Extension Motion.\n\nInasmuch as developments in the Trustee's investigation typically unfold sequentially (one discovery leading to another and so on), the Trustee's investigation is still burdened by the effects of this nearly four-month delay.\n\n#### **b. Debtor's Obstruction and Lack of Cooperation**\n\n33. Courts find cause to extend limitations periods when a trustee is unable to make progress on discovery, especially in light of the debtor's obstruction. *See, e.g.*, *In re Int'l Admin. Servs. Inc*., 408 F.3d 689, 702 (11th Cir. 2005) (tolling statute of limitations based, in part, on debtor and defendant's attempts to interfere with trustee's investigation into asset diversion plan by hiding their activities and violating discovery requests).[12](#page-12-0)\n\n34. In a decision that entered since this Court's Original Extension Order, a district court in the Southern District of Florida affirmed a bankruptcy court ruling extending deadlines under sections 108, 546, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code upon the request of a bankruptcy trustee in light of fraudulent conduct by the debtors' principal. *See In re Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC*, 658 B.R. 611, 621 (S.D. Fla. 2024) (endorsing *In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. at 792)). In determining that the extension was a proper exercise of the bankruptcy court's authority under Bankruptcy Rule 9006, the district court noted facts similar to those present in this Chapter 11 Case, including that the debtors' principal had \"engaged in fraudulent concealment, impacting the timing in which [avoidance] claims could be brought,\"\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>12</sup> *See also Bender v. Mann (In re Bender)*, No. 02-00773-RTB, 2010 WL 6467681, at \\*9-10 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2010), *aff'd*, 480 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming lower court decision for equitable tolling where the debtor's obstruction \"stood in the way\" of the trustee's filing of an avoidance action and noting the \"case law is replete with examples where courts have allowed equitable tolling in response to obstructive behavior by a party\"); *Freeland v. CPA Warehouse (In re Livemercial Aviation Holding, LLC)*, 508 B.R. 58, 71(Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2014) (\"The Trustee's inability, despite due diligence, to obtain information/documentation highly material to the core of this case—for whatever reason caused Mathis' inability or failure to promptly produce or provide it—amply supports the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling to this case in order to extend the limitation period of 11 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1)(A)\").\n\nincluding by \"setting up numerous entities all over the world so that they cannot be traced back to him\" and engaging in transfers of assets. *Id.* at 621.\n\n35. On the most basic level, the Debtor has an obligation to fulfill certain duties imposed on him by the Bankruptcy Code, including to cooperate with the Trustee. In the Second Extension Order, the Court noted the Debtor's \"ongoing contempt of court and failure to perform his statutory duties\" in addition to \"other parties' ongoing contempt of court\", none of which has been cured during the Ordered Extension.\n\n36. Despite the passage of time and entry of the criminal verdict, nothing has changed. Neither the Debtor nor his family members, associates, and affiliated entities have had a change of heart and are now cooperating with the Trustee. As has been the case since his appointment, the Trustee has had to utilize discovery practice to obtain the information he needs to conduct his investigation. Even without active obstruction, therefore, the Debtor's lack of cooperation has delayed the Trustee's investigation and constitutes cause under Rule 9006(b) to grant the instant Motion.[13](#page-13-0)\n\n37. To be clear, however, the Debtor, through his allies, *has* continued to actively obstruct and delay the Trustee's efforts. As noted above, the Trustee has been forced to address the continuing efforts of the Debtor's associates and associated entities to obstruct the Trustee from conducting discovery.\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span><sup>13</sup> Other courts have similarly focused on a debtor's recalcitrance forcing a trustee to obtain third-party discovery. See *Ochs Charitable Remainder Trust v. Ochs (In re Ochs)*, 608 B.R. 252, 261–62 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2019) (pointing to, among others, the \"[Defendant's] obstruction of legitimate discovery, requiring the Court to intervene twice in the bankruptcy discovery disputes and rule against the Defendant both times; . . . his failure to provide a complete document production, requiring the Plaintiffs to direct discovery to several third-party financial institutions to obtain documents in 2019; and . . . when finally deposed after multiple delays, his vague and indefinite answers to questions under oath.\").\n\n## **c. Complexity and Extent of Debtor's Financial Affairs**\n\n38. The Court is well aware of the complex and far-reaching nature of Debtor's fraudulent scheme. The Debtor's complex web spread across the globe and involved hundreds of entities and associates and billions of dollars and real and personal property throughout the United States and, indeed, the world.\n\n39. In the Debtor's criminal proceedings, the U.S. Government provided evidence of a billion-dollar fraud and money laundering scheme, masterminded by the Debtor, which raised money from the Debtor's online followers through purported investment schemes, then laundered the funds through a vast network of shell companies and bank accounts, using the funds for his personal benefit and to continue the fraudulent scheme. As the criminal indictment explained, the Debtor \"transferred, and directed the transfer of, money into and through more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of at least 80 different entities or individuals, including entities that are part of the Kwok Enterprise.\"[14](#page-14-0)\n\n40. The Debtor created a global fraudulent network of associates and entities to perpetrate his scheme and investigating and analyzing that network is an enormous task—and a necessary task to ensure that estate property is administered and estate claims are prosecuted and liquidated. The Trustee has made significant strides in his investigation, but the efforts are ongoing.\n\n41. Absent a substantial change in circumstances, the Trustee does not intend to seek further blanket orders extending the Trustee's deadlines to file avoidance claims. If it is necessary to file avoidance claims after the duration of the extension requested herein and after the deadlines to file such claims would otherwise have expired, the Trustee will address the timeliness of such\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span><sup>14</sup> *Superseding Indictment*, para. 4, *United States of America v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.,* No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT)(S.D.N.Y.)\n\nfilings on an individual bases within the relevant adversary proceedings (including, where appropriate, by invoking equitable tolling) or by seeking appropriate extensions applied to specific categories of claims.\n\n#### **II. Trustee Reserves Rights Under Equitable Tolling and Other Equitable Doctrines**\n\n42. The Trustee reserves all rights to raise equitable tolling or other equitable arguments in response to a defense that an adversary proceeding commenced by the Trustee is time-barred.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\n43. In *In re Fundamental Long Term Care*, the court explained that the \"only reason not to enlarge\" the limitations periods is if \"the Trustee is already in a position to bring all [his] avoidance actions.\" 501 B.R. at 791. And the Southern District of New York has explained that to \"act diligently is to demonstrate to the Court that one has not slept on his rights.\" *In re Ramsoomair*, No. 21-11215 (DSJ), 2022 WL 828307, at \\*6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022) (internal quotation marks and references omitted). For all the reasons detailed above, there can be no dispute that the Trustee has acted diligently and has not slept on his rights—and, even so, is not yet in position to bring all his avoidance actions. As such, the Motion should be granted.\n\n[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.]\n\n45. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter the Proposed Order granting the relief requested herein and grant any other relief as the Court considers proper.\n\nDated: January 24, 2025 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 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*and*\n\nPatrick 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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4004 Filed 01/24/25 Entered 01/24/25 13:57:28 Page 18 of 20\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n**(Proposed Order)**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\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| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND FEBRUARY 15, 2025 DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nUPON CONSIDERATION OF the *Second Supplemental Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee to*\n\n*Extend February 15, 2025 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\n\ncircumstances and no other notice is required, and the relief provided herein being narrowly\n\ntailored 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 Trustee to commence avoidance actions and other actions on behalf of the estate, as well as for\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).\n\namending any pending complaints, are extended through and including August 15, 2025, which date may be further extended; 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 Order; 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.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人，　：\n：　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n：　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第11章受托人关于延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼的2025年2月15日截止期限的第二份补充动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，经由其下列签署律师，现根据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法”）第105(a)条及《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第9006条，提出本动议（“本动议”），请求作出一项与随附本动议作为附件1的拟议裁定（“拟议裁定”）实质上相同的裁定，进一步延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼的已裁定延长期限（定义见下文）。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 2024年2月，本院准予受托人首次延长其提起撤销权诉讼时效期间的动议。2024年8月，本院准予受托人请求该等救济的第二次动议，将时效期间延长至并包括2025年2月15日。在其8月裁定中，本院认定，鉴于包括“Kwok先生财务事务的复杂性和广泛程度；以及……受托人在其调查中的勤勉”在内的因素，存在延长截止期限的理由。[2] 如下文所述，本第11章案件仍然异常复杂，受托人一直勤勉地继续调查债务人错综复杂的财务状况，尤其是在海外的财务状况。因此，受托人通过本动议请求本院将时效期间进一步延长至并包括2025年8月15日。受托人预计，除非出现意外情况，这将是其在本案中需要的最后一次此类一揽子延长；此后，他将逐案处理任何必要的中止时效请求，或通过处理特定类别的请求权予以处理。\n\n2. 自本院上次于8月作出裁定以来，受托人已在世界各地进行了广泛而深入的证据开示工作。通过《破产规则》第2004条及其他证据开示工具获悉的新信息，以及从债务人刑事诉讼中取得的证据，导致出现更多需要调查的对象和事项。与债务人复杂的欺诈网络相一致，追踪一条线索往往会引向另一条线索，如此反复。受托人已获悉有关债务人国际活动等方面的新信息，已提出额外的一揽子《破产规则》第2004条动议，并已送达额外的传票。在过去十二个月中，受托人还日益在美国境外推进其调查及由此产生的诉讼，这通常比国内调查和执行更复杂且更耗时。受托人还继续对债务人庞大的空壳公司骗局进行法务会计分析，其法务会计师事务所 Kroll, LLC（Kroll有限责任公司，“Kroll”）已识别出更多与债务人有关联的银行账户（使总数达到约745个账户以及这些账户约203,500笔资金转入和转出交易）。Kroll的调查显示，这些交易合计超过 \\$10 billion dollars。\n\n3. 如受托人先前的延期动议及本文更充分阐述，本第11章案件——其本已面临处理一宗大规模国际欺诈后果所固有的困难——又因债务人及其关联人设置在受托人面前的大量且持续不断的障碍而进一步复杂化。如本院所深知，该等障碍包括债务人未向受托人提供任何账簿和记录，以及其本人（及其关联人）未遵守多项本院裁定。遗憾的是，该等行为仍在继续。\n\n4. 另一项非受托人所能控制的因素是债务人的刑事审判，该审判要求受托人在数月内缩减其调查和追偿工作中的某些方面。自债务人于7月被定罪以来，受托人持续获悉与债务人刑事诉讼有关而披露的额外信息——包括直到2024年9月和10月才可获得的刑事案件记录的重要部分，以及与 Yvette Wang（王雁）于2025年1月6日量刑有关、在更晚时候才披露的信息。受托人预计，可能会在与债务人尚未举行的量刑有关的过程中获悉进一步相关信息。该等信息可能导致发现额外的破产财产资产及破产财产的追偿来源。\n\n5. 总而言之，尽管受托人自8月以来已取得实质性进展，但仍有更多工作尚待完成。受托人的调查和追偿工作继续受到其无法控制因素的阻碍，包括本第11章案件极其复杂的性质，而债务人设置的障碍（以及债务人家属和关联人的阻挠行为）进一步加剧了该等复杂性。\n\n6. 同样真实的是，本文请求的救济仍至关重要。若不予延长，受托人将被迫在任何提出该问题的撤销权被告所涉独立对抗程序中，逐案就时效期间进行诉讼。这将给受托人和本院造成巨大负担，破产财产在时间和金钱方面承担的成本将极其高昂，并将直接损害债权人。\n\n背景\n\n7. 2022年2月15日，债务人向本院提交了依据《破产法》第11章申请救济的自愿申请书。\n\n8. 2022年3月21日，美国受托人（United States Trustee）在债务人的第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors，“委员会”）。\n\n9. 2022年6月15日，破产法院作出决定备忘录及裁定[Docket No. 465]，指示美国受托人任命一名第11章受托人。2022年7月8日，破产法院作出任命受托人的裁定[Docket No. 523]。\n\na. 原始延期动议及原始延期裁定\n\n10. 债务人于2022年3月提交的破产财产清单声称，其资产仅为 \\$3,850，而负债高达数亿美元。[3] 债务人在破产法院主张，其实际上身无分文，其奢华住宅、Lady May游艇及其其他公开炫耀的财富象征并不属于他，而是属于据称由其家属拥有的公司。[4] 正如现已有数个法院指出，债务人通过构建一个庞大的空壳公司迷宫，将其财富隐藏在家属和亲密关联人的名下，从而得以在声称几乎不拥有任何资产的同时维持其奢华生活方式。\n\n3. 参见资产及负债清单，第1页[Docket No. 78]。\n\n4. 参见 Ho Wan Kwok先生为支持第11章案件及某些动议所作声明[Docket No. 107]。\n\n11. 自获任命以来，受托人一直勤勉工作，以识别并为破产财产利益追回债务人隐藏和/或转让的资产。为此，根据本院指示，受托人已启动一项复杂而全面的调查和诉讼程序，重点针对债务人的“空壳公司骗局”——即其利用替身公司向债权人隐匿资产的行为。概括而言，该程序包括：(a) 根据《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第2004条进行的证据开示；以及(b) 为认定某些实体为债务人的替身实体和/或追回特定财产及资产而进行的诉讼。\n\n12. 定位并追回债务人的资产，要求受托人在多个法域聘请律师，以及聘请其他专业人士，例如具有国际业务覆盖范围的法务会计师事务所 Kroll, LLC（“Kroll”）。揭开债务人空壳公司迷宫及数万笔交易的真相（其本身即是一项极其复杂的任务），又因债务人、其家属及其关联人竭力处处阻挠受托人工作而进一步复杂化并延误。因此，2024年1月18日，受托人提出动议，请求延长或中止原将于2024年2月15日届满的某些时效期间（“原始延期动议”）。[5] 原始延期动议载有（且本动议通过援引纳入）对受托人截至该日所作努力和取得成功的详细说明，以及受托人被迫应对的各种阻挠行为。\n\n5. 参见 Docket No. 2509，*根据《破产法》第108、546(a)及549条请求作出延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼截止期限裁定的动议*。\n\n13. 2024年2月15日，本院根据《破产规则》第9006(b)条作出意见及裁定，准予原始延期动议[Docket No. 2921]（“原始延期裁定”）。本院将受托人提起撤销权诉讼的期限延长至2024年8月15日，并规定该日期可进一步延长。\n\nb. 第二次延期动议及第二次延期裁定\n\n14. 2024年7月19日，受托人提出关于延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼的2024年8月15日截止期限的第一份补充动议[Docket No. 3329]（“第二次延期动议”，并与原始延期动议合称“延期动议”）。第二次延期动议通过援引纳入本文，包括该动议对受托人在第11章案件中进一步工作和进展的论述。\n\n15. 某些实体对第二次延期动议提出异议，本院于2024年8月13日举行证据听证会。受托人在该证据听证会上作证，并接受交叉询问。听证会后，于2024年8月14日，本院作出裁定（“第二次延期裁定”）[Docket No. 3417]，将受托人代表破产财产提起撤销权诉讼及其他诉讼以及修改待决起诉状的期限进一步延长至2025年2月15日（“已裁定延长期限”）。\n\nc. 第二次延期裁定后的进展\n\n16. 在受托人提出第二次延期动议前三日，且在历时近两个月的刑事审判结束后，债务人被判犯有九项敲诈勒索、欺诈及洗钱重罪。取得债务人刑事审判记录的相关部分（包括大部分并未立即由控方公开提交的证物）又耗费了数月时间，受托人于2024年9月和10月取得相关文件。受托人还在与 Yvette Wang（王雁）量刑有关的过程中获悉了与其调查相关的进一步信息，而该量刑直到2025年1月才举行\n\n6，2025年。债务人的量刑听证会目前尚未安排，受托人预计将在债务人的量刑程序中披露更多相关信息。\n\n17. 自提交第二次延期动议以来，受托人已提交四项额外的《破产程序规则》第2004条动议（三项为综合动议）[Docket Nos. 3398, 3594, 3758, 3981]——最近一项于上周刚刚提交——并已送达约十五份额外的《破产程序规则》第2004条传票及约二十份修订传票。在此期间，受托人已取得逾30,000页文件，并获悉约200个与债务人欺诈计划相关的额外银行账户。\n\n18. 自受托人提交第二次延期动议以来，受托人已提起至少二十五项新的撤销之诉，请求撤销超过$20 million的破产申请前及破产申请后转让；并已提交十四份修订起诉状，请求额外追回超过$12.7 million的破产申请前转让和$1.6 million的破产申请后转让。受托人目前正根据其进一步调查及分析，准备大量额外的新撤销起诉状及修订撤销起诉状。\n\n19. 受托人调查的进一步进展还促成于December 23, 2024提交《Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条提出的第二份起诉状，请求(i)宣告判决确认若干实体为债务人的另我及(ii)相关救济》[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322, Docket No. 1]。该起诉状讨论了受托人的调查，该调查促成识别出三十余家额外的空壳公司（“额外另我实体”），其参与债务人的企业和/或构成该企业不可或缺的一部分；受托人主张，该等实体为债务人的另我和/或由债务人实益拥有。\n\n20. 在识别出额外另我实体后，受托人的调查转向识别该等实体的资产、交易及人员。再次说明，调查中的每一条线索往往会引出另一条有待追查的线索。受托人的调查仍在积极持续进行中。受托人预计，将基于其对额外另我实体的识别，以及其对债务人财务状况的调查和分析的进一步进展，提交大量新的及修订的撤销起诉状，以追回欺诈性的破产申请前转让及未经授权的破产申请后转让。\n\n21. 受托人亦已将调查扩展至海外，包括聘请阿拉伯联合酋长国的律师；受托人相信，债务人的关联人可能持有破产财产，并持续从事涉及破产财产的金融活动。此外，受托人目前正在包括英国、英属维尔京群岛、毛里求斯、瑞士及塞浦路斯在内的地点进行调查和/或诉讼。受托人相信，其在美国境外持续进行的调查可能促成识别出额外的撤销请求权。\n\nd. 债务人持续的阻挠行为及其他挑战\n\n22. 自作出第二次延期命令以来，债务人及其关联人持续反对并阻挠受托人的工作。例如，多名债务人的关联人就受托人寻求的《破产程序规则》第2004条证据开示提出异议和/或撤销传票动议。[6] G Club Operations LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司），受托人主张其为债务人的另我，且债务人的刑事审判表明其是债务人刑事欺诈的主要组成部分之一，亦寻求撤销受托人的一份《破产程序规则》第2004条传票。[7] 通过法院命令及约定，这些事项最终均以有利于受托人的方式得到解决。\n\n6 参见Bofang Investment LLC（Bofang投资有限责任公司）和Feibo Jiang（江飞波）就“第十七份补充综合动议”进一步证据开示提出的反对意见及撤销传票交叉动议 [Docket No. 3648]；Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）、River Valley Operations, LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）及Golden Eagle Ventures, LLC（金鹰创投有限责任公司）提交的撤销传票动议及保护令动议 [Docket No. 3541]。\n\n23. 与此同时，债务人及其关联人（包括其家庭成员）持续未能提交回应受托人证据开示请求的文件和信息。例如，债务人在其刑事审判中试图提出的辩护（其基本上承认其拥有大量曾告知本院其并不拥有的资产），强烈表明债务人（通过其代理人）持有相关文件和信息，而债务人持续向受托人隐匿该等文件和信息。与此同时，债务人的家庭成员（例如其女儿及其所谓妻子）提出毫无根据的上诉，迫使受托人投入资源以确保本院的判决书得到尊重和执行。\n\n24. 多家在美国境内外均设有业务的金融机构，亦以管辖权及国际礼让为由抵制受托人获取证据开示的工作，迫使受托人就证据开示的范围进行协商。通过该等协商，自第二次延期命令以来，受托人已成功取得多家国际金融机构的配合，并预计将在未来数月从境外取得额外相关文件和信息。\n\n请求的救济\n\n25. 受托人请求作出拟议命令，将已命令的延期额外延长六个月，至并包括August 15, 2025。\n\n7 参见G Club Operations LLC就受托人《规则》第2004条审查传票提出的撤销动议及异议 [Docket No. 3752]。\n\n救济依据\n\n26. 在原延期命令中，本院认为，作为法律问题，《破产程序规则》第9006(b)条授权破产法院延长《破产法典》第108(a)、546(a)及549(d)条规定的时效。因此，问题“在于根据本院面前的事实和情形，是否存在‘理由’”作出该等延长。[8] 本院认定，就受托人先前提交的延期动议而言存在理由；受托人主张，批准本动议亦存在理由。\n\nI. 根据第9006(b)条，存在理由批准受托人请求的延期\n\n27. 在第二次延期命令中，本院认定，除其他事项外，以下因素的结合构成理由：(i)债务人持续藐视法庭及未履行法定职责；(ii)债务人财务事务的复杂性及范围；以及(iii)受托人在其调查中的勤勉。受托人主张，该等因素仍然适用。\n\na. 受托人已勤勉行事\n\n28. 如任何延误并非其自身造成，破产受托人即属勤勉行事。Schmidt v. Twosons Corp. (In re Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC), No. 15-34287, 2022 WL 1589190, at *11 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 19, 2022)（指出，支持衡平时效中止的特殊情形“源于原告控制范围之外、妨碍及时提交的某种外部障碍，而非自身造成的延误”）（经修正）（省略内部引号和引证）；[9] 另见In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. 784, 790-91 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013)（“只需指出，被申请人不能可信地主张受托人无法完成其调查是其缺乏勤勉所致。”）。在本案中，受托人的调查及资产追回因其控制范围之外的事件而延误，且不包括债务人的阻挠行为（为明确起见，该等阻挠行为亦确实存在）。\n\n29. 该等外部因素为：(i)受托人必须取得并分析的信息数量极其庞大，加之债务人完全未提供任何账簿和记录；以及(ii)仅通过债务人持续进行的刑事程序所发现的证据。[10]\n\ni. 信息数量\n\n30. 受托人的调查及财务分析仍在进行中，并持续揭示债务人财务事务的性质和范围，及识别更多破产财产和破产财产可追回款项的来源。通过债务人的刑事程序、《破产程序规则》第2004条动议，以及Kroll（科尔尼）的细致法务财务分析所披露的证据，已将调查范围扩大至三十余家额外另我实体；受托人的法务会计师和律师必须分析该等实体的资产和商业交易，以便受托人采取适当措施（包括在必要时提起撤销及交还诉讼），追回破产财产资产并变现破产财产请求权。\n\n31. 如同先前延期动议的情形，受托人所获悉的信息极少——即使有——是独立的信息。受托人所获悉的一切，均是债务人欺诈网络中的另一条线索，每条线索又引向另一条线索，揭示更多被隐匿和/或转移的资产。参见In re ThermoView Indus., Inc., 381 B.R. at 227（在“一宗极为复杂的案件中，受托人已追诉并提起近400宗对抗程序”，根据第9006(b)条批准延期动议）；另见In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. 784, 790 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013)（“本院注意到——正如其过去多次所做的那样——本案具有独特性。这不仅适用于本案事实，也适用于法律问题。而且，争议金额无疑极高。本案中的请求权超过$1 billion，受托人可能寻求向被申请人追回同等数额。”）。\n\n10 该两项因素构成受托人在In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc., Case No.: 16-20516-AJC中的动议依据。在该案中，受托人正在调查一项“多法域庞氏骗局”，由于该欺诈的性质及范围，受托人无法在两年内完成其法务会计分析，或“拼凑出破产财产将拥有的所有请求权”。另一项“主要障碍”是，“关键证人和行为人”与SEC、DOJ及外国对应机构卷入数项监管及刑事事项。法院批准了该动议，以及数次进一步延期。参见In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc., No. 16-20516 (AJC) (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018) [Docket No. 198]，Transcript of Hearing May 10, 2018 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018)，以及Docket Nos. 284 and 292（动议及命令）。听证记录、动议及法院命令的相关部分附于第二次延期动议，作为附件2。\n\nii. 债务人的刑事程序\n\n32. 尽管债务人的刑事诉讼程序是一项宝贵资源，但其也因披露了需要进一步调查的信息、增加了受托人必须分析的信息量而使受托人的调查更为复杂；在过去数月中，受托人一直在勤勉推进该等工作。信息流并未随着债务人的刑事有罪裁决而终止，而是持续不断：受托人在2024年9月和10月获得了刑事案件记录的部分内容，并在Yvette Wang（王雁）的量刑程序中了解到更多信息。此外，2024年3月22日至7月18日期间生效的“中止命令”（“Stay Order”）[Docket Nos. 3038, 3327]要求受托人在刑事审判未决期间缩减其调查和追偿工作的某些方面。一般参见 Collins v. Decker (In re Decker), No. 06-60886, 2011 WL 2174349, at \\*5 n. 5 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. June 1, 2011) (citation omitted)（“妨碍执行涉案请求权的其他法律程序未决”构成延长时效期间的正当理由）；In re Dwek, No. 07- 11757 (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009)（“鉴于美国检察官和联邦调查局近期开展调查活动，本案适用诉讼时效的衡平停止计算是适当的。这导致债务人持续进行的2004年询问程序长期延迟，而该等延迟超出受托人的控制范围。”）。[11]\n\n11 Hr'g Tr. at 9:10-17, In re Dwek, No. 07-11757 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) [Docket No. 3916]，作为第二次延期动议的附件3随附。\n\n由于受托人调查的进展通常按顺序展开（一项发现引出另一项发现，依此类推），受托人的调查仍受这一近四个月延迟所造成影响的负担。\n\nb. 债务人的妨碍和不合作\n\n33. 当受托人无法在取证方面取得进展时，尤其是考虑到债务人的妨碍行为，法院认定存在延长时效期间的正当理由。参见，例如，In re Int'l Admin. Servs. Inc., 408 F.3d 689, 702 (11th Cir. 2005)（部分基于债务人和被告试图通过隐瞒其活动并违反取证请求，干扰受托人对资产转移计划的调查，而停止计算诉讼时效）。[12]\n\n34. 在本院作出原延期命令后作出的一项裁决中，Southern District of Florida（佛罗里达南区）的一家地区法院鉴于债务人负责人实施的欺诈行为，应破产受托人的请求，维持了破产法院根据《破产法典》第108、546和549条延长期限的裁定。参见 In re Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC, 658 B.R. 611, 621 (S.D. Fla. 2024)（赞同 In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. at 792）。该地区法院认定，延期是破产法院根据《破产规则》第9006条行使权限的适当行为，并指出了与本Chapter 11案件中存在的事实相似的情况，包括债务人的负责人曾“从事欺诈性隐瞒，影响了可提起［撤销权］请求的时间”，\n\n12 另见 Bender v. Mann (In re Bender), No. 02-00773-RTB, 2010 WL 6467681, at \\*9-10 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2010), aff'd, 480 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2012)（在债务人的妨碍行为“阻碍”受托人提起撤销权诉讼时，维持下级法院关于衡平停止计算的裁决，并指出“判例中充满了法院为回应一方当事人的妨碍行为而允许衡平停止计算的例子”）；Freeland v. CPA Warehouse (In re Livemercial Aviation Holding, LLC), 508 B.R. 58, 71(Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2014)（“受托人尽管勤勉行事，仍无法获得对本案核心极为重要的信息／文件——无论何种原因导致Mathis无法或未能及时出示或提供该等信息／文件——充分支持在本案中适用衡平停止计算原则，以延长11 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1)(A)规定的时效期间。”）。\n\n其中包括“在世界各地设立众多实体，以致无法追溯至其本人”，并进行资产转移。Id. at 621.\n\n35. 在最基本层面上，债务人负有履行《破产法典》施加于其的若干义务，包括与受托人合作。在第二次延期命令中，本院注意到债务人“持续藐视法庭和未履行其法定义务”，以及“其他当事人持续藐视法庭”，在所命令的延期期间内，前述情形均未得到纠正。\n\n36. 尽管时间已经过去且刑事有罪裁决已经作出，情况并无改变。债务人及其家庭成员、关联人士和关联实体均未改变主意并开始与受托人合作。自受托人获任以来，受托人一直不得不利用取证程序取得其开展调查所需的信息。因此，即使不存在积极妨碍，债务人的不合作也已延误受托人的调查，并构成根据Rule 9006(b)准许本动议的正当理由。[13]\n\n37. 然而，为明确起见，债务人仍通过其盟友积极妨碍和延误受托人的工作。如上所述，受托人被迫应对债务人的关联人士和关联实体持续试图妨碍受托人开展取证的行为。\n\n13 其他法院同样关注债务人的顽抗迫使受托人向第三方取证。参见 Ochs Charitable Remainder Trust v. Ochs (In re Ochs), 608 B.R. 252, 261–62 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2019)（指出，其中包括，“［被告］对合法取证的妨碍，致使法院不得不两次介入破产取证争议，并且两次均作出对被告不利的裁定；……其未能提供完整的文件出示，致使原告必须向数家第三方金融机构发出取证请求，以于2019年取得文件；并且……在历经多次延误后最终接受询问时，其对宣誓提问作出含糊且不确定的回答。”）。\n\nc. 债务人财务事务的复杂性和范围\n\n38. 本院充分知悉债务人欺诈计划的复杂且影响深远的性质。债务人的复杂网络遍布全球，涉及数百个实体和关联人士，以及遍及美国乃至全球的数十亿美元、不动产和动产。\n\n39. 在债务人的刑事诉讼程序中，美国政府提供了由债务人策划的、涉案金额达数十亿美元的欺诈和洗钱计划的证据；该计划通过所谓投资计划向债务人的线上追随者筹集资金，随后通过庞大的空壳公司和银行账户网络洗白资金，并将资金用于其个人利益和继续实施欺诈计划。如刑事起诉书所述，债务人“将资金转入并指示将资金转入及经由约500多个账户，该等账户以至少80个不同实体或个人的名义持有，其中包括属于Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）的实体。”[14]\n\n40. 债务人建立了由关联人士和实体组成的全球欺诈网络以实施其计划，而调查和分析该网络是一项艰巨任务——也是确保遗产财产得到管理、遗产请求权得到追诉和清算所必需的任务。受托人的调查已取得重大进展，但相关工作仍在进行中。\n\n41. 除非情况发生重大变化，受托人无意再寻求全面命令，以延长受托人提起撤销权请求的期限。如有必要在本申请所请求的延期期间届满后，且在提起该等请求的期限原本已届满后提起撤销权请求，受托人将于相关对抗程序中逐项处理该等\n\n14 Superseding Indictment, para. 4, United States of America v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, et al., No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT)(S.D.N.Y.)\n\n提交的及时性问题（包括在适当情况下援引衡平停止计算），或寻求适用于特定类别请求的适当延期。\n\nII. 受托人保留根据衡平停止计算及其他衡平法原则主张权利\n\n42. 对于受托人提起的对抗程序已超过时效的抗辩，受托人保留提出衡平停止计算或其他衡平法论点的一切权利。\n\n结论\n\n43. 在 In re Fundamental Long Term Care 一案中，法院解释说，不延长时效期间的“唯一理由”是“受托人已经能够提起其所有［撤销权］诉讼”。501 B.R. at 791。Southern District of New York（纽约南区）也解释说，“勤勉行事即向法院表明其并未怠于行使自己的权利。”In re Ramsoomair, No. 21-11215 (DSJ), 2022 WL 828307, at \\*6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022) (internal quotation marks and references omitted)。基于上文详述的所有理由，毫无争议，受托人一直勤勉行事，且并未怠于行使其权利——即便如此，仍尚未具备提起其所有撤销权诉讼的条件。因此，应准许本动议。\n\n［本页余下部分故意留白。］\n\n45. 因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求本院作出拟议命令，准许本申请所请求的救济，并授予本院认为适当的任何其他救济。\n\n日期：January 24, 2025                                      LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut                                      Chapter 11受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准pro hac vice出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（博钦律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准pro hac vice出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（博钦律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nChapter 11受托人代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4004 Filed 01/24/25 Entered 01/24/25 13:57:28 Page 18 of 20\n附件1\n\n（拟议命令）\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院） DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州联邦地区） BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　:\n:\n:　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并管理）\n\nx\n［拟议］命令：准许Chapter 11受托人提出的第二次补充动议，以延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼的February 15, 2025期限\n\n经审议Chapter 11受托人提出的第二次补充动议，以\n\n延长受托人提起撤销权诉讼的February 15, 2025期限（“本动议”），且已显示存在正当理由，并且本院已审议对本动议提出的任何及所有异议和其他答复，并认定：(i) 所请求的救济具有正当理由，(ii) 受托人已勤勉行事，及 (iii) 本动议已根据本院先前准许通知动议的命令送达，且该等通知在\n\n该等情况下适当且充分，无需其他通知，并且本命令提供的救济经严格限定，\n\n以实现上述目的，故本院现此\n\n命令，本动议按本命令所述予以准许；并进一步\n\n命令，就受托人代表遗产提起撤销权诉讼和其他诉讼，以及就受托人而言，11 U.S.C. 108、546和549规定的时限，连同就\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、Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：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 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n对任何待决诉状进行修订的期限延长至并包括 2025年8月15日，该日期可进一步延长；并进一步\n\n命令，任何已实际或推定收到该动议通知但未对该动议提出异议的一方，如最终被列为依本命令条款及时提起之诉讼的当事人，即放弃主张时效期间抗辩的权利；并进一步\n\n命令，本命令的条款和条件自录入之日起立即生效并可执行；并进一步\n\n命令，授权受托人采取一切必要行动，以落实本命令所准予的救济；并进一步\n\n命令，法院对因解释或执行本命令而产生或与之相关的一切事项保留管辖权。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5690,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-01-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-01-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:16:18"}