{"id":"court_ctb_4172_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4172,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2025-02-27","title":"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 CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"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, February 11, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:02 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire 2050 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (APPEARANCES CONTINUED) 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 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 1 of 82\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 4172 | Filed 02/27/25 | Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 | Page 2 of 82 |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------|\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------|\n\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n|--------|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | For the Chapter 11 | | |\n| 3 | Trustee: | Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire
NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.
195 Church Street | |\n| 4 | | 13th Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | |\n| 5
6 | For Weddle Law PLLC;
FFP (BVI) Limited; G | | |\n| 7 | Club Operations, LLC;
and Ogier: | Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire | |\n| 8 | | GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC
One Audubon Street
3rd Floor | |\n| 9 | | New Haven, Connecticut 06511 | |\n| 10 | For Apple, Inc. and
Meta Platforms, Inc.: | Jin Yan, Esquire | |\n| 11 | | ARENTFOX SCHIFF, LLP
1717 K Street, NW | |\n| 12 | | Washington, DC 20006 | |\n| 13 | For American Express | | |\n| 14 | Company: | Darryl S. Laddin, Esquire
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY, LLP
171 17th Street, NW | |\n| 15 | | Suite 2100
Atlanta, Georgia 30363 | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | | | 3 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | |\n| 2 | For Wang's Realty | | |\n| 3 | Management, Inc.; River
Valley Operations, LLC; | | |\n| 4 | ACA Capital Group, Ltd.;
GETTR USA, Inc.; | | |\n| 5 | Hamilton Opportunity Fund
SPC; Hamilton PE Fund SP; | | |\n| 6 | Hamilton Digital Assets
Fund SP; Himalaya | | |\n| 7 | Currency Clearing Pty
Ltd.; Himalaya | | |\n| 8 | International Clearing
Ltd.; Himalaya | | |\n| 9 | International Financial
Group Limited; Taurus | | |\n| 10 | Fund LLC; Taurus
Management LLC; and | | |\n| 11 | William Je: | Michael T. Conway, Esquire
LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP | |\n| 12 | | 747 Third Avenue
16th Floor | |\n| 13 | | New York, New York 10017 | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n 4 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 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 3981 Eighteenth Motion for Examination of Additional Relevant Banks, Additional Entities and Individuals Associated with Debtor, and Payroll Processing Entity Filed by Kari A. Mitchell on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 8 Court's Ruling: 18 Matter No. 4004 Second Supplemental Motion to Extend Time to Assert Claims Subject to Time Limitations Under Sections 108, 546, and 549 of Bankruptcy Code to 8/15/2025 Filed by Patrick R. Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 18 Court's Ruling: 81 \\* \\* \\* WITNESSES CALLED BY THE TRUSTEE: PAGE LUC A. DESPINS Direct examination by Mr. Bassett 20 Cross-examination by Mr. Sklarz 33 Cross-examination by Mr. Laddin 43 Redirect examination by Mr. Bassett 47 Transcriptionist's Certificate 82 Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 4 of 82\n\n 5 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 (Proceedings commenced at 1:02 p.m.) THE COURT: So I ask the courtroom deputy to please call the calendar. THE DEPUTY: Okay. Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz for G Club Operations, LLC; and then also, Ogier; FFP BVI, Ltd.; and Weddle Law, PLLC. Thank you. THE COURT: Would you just -- Ogier -- O-g -- MR. SKLARZ: Yeah, O -- Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 5 of 82\n\n 6 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 THE COURT: -- i-e-r. MR. SKLARZ: Correct. MR. DESPINS: Ogier. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: O-g-i-e-r, you got it right. THE COURT: Okay. I think Mr. Despins had a different pronunciation. What is it there? I'm sure I pronounced it incorrectly. MR. SKLARZ: It's Ogier. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Ogier. THE COURT: Ogier is what we're being told. MR. DESPINS: Monsieur Despins. (Laughter) THE COURT: Okay. But in any event -- MR. SKLARZ: Well, I've just heard -- THE COURT: -- we've now spelled it for the record, which was important, so thank you. MR. SKLARZ: I don't care how we pronounce it. (Laughter) MR. YAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jin Yan on behalf of Apple, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 6 of 82\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 4172
Filed 02/27/25
Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42
Page 7 of 82 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 7 |\n| 1 | MR. LADDIN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | Darryl Laddin of Arnall Golden Gregory, on behalf |\n| 3 | of American Express Company. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 5 | MR. CONWAY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | Michael Conway, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle. |\n| 7 | On the first matter, I'm here on behalf of Wang's |\n| 8 | Realty Management, Inc., and River Valley Operations.
On the |\n| 9 | second matter, I'm here for ACA Capital Group Ltd.; GETTR |\n| 10 | USA, Inc.; Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC; Hamilton PE Fund |\n| 11 | SP; Hamilton digital assets fund SP; Himalaya Currency |\n| 12 | Clearing Pty. Ltd.; Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.; |\n| 13 | Himalaya International Financial Group Limited; Taurus Fund |\n| 14 | LLC; Taurus Management LLC; and William Je. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 16 | All right.
On the calendar in the case today are |\n| 17 | the two matters.
As Attorney Conway noted, there's, the |\n| 18 | first is the Rule 2004 examination motion, which is the |\n| 19 | eighteenth omnibus motion, and then the second motion on the |\n| 20 | calendar is the motion to extend time to assert claims, |\n| 21 | subject to time limitations. |\n| 22 | Trustee Despins, these are both of your matters, |\n| | |\n| 23 | so how would you like to proceed? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Mr. Linsey will handle the 2004 |\n| 25 | matter first, Your Honor. |\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. LINSEY:
May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Yes, thank you. |\n| 4 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | Patrick Linsey for the Chapter 11 Trustee.
I'll |\n| 6 | try to go quickly, realizing there's another matter. |\n| 7 | The eighteenth Rule 2004 motion requests authority |\n| 8 | to examine seven individuals and entities.
These are three |\n| 9 | banks and financial institutions, one payroll and human |\n| 10 | resources firm, and two entities and an individual who are |\n| 11 | associated with the debtor. |\n| 12 | An objection has been filed by River Valley |\n| 13 | Operations LLC and Wang's Realty Management Service, Inc., |\n| 14 | both citing the pending proceeding doctrine, because they are |\n| 15 | Defendants in an action to avoid certain transfers. |\n| 16 | Speaking to River Valley first, River Valley is |\n| 17 | not even an examinee in the 2004 motion; this entity is |\n| 18 | simply mentioned in the document requests that are appended |\n| 19 | to the forms of subpoena that are attached to the motion. |\n| 20 | Since the outset of the Chapter 11 case, the trustee's |\n| 21 | document requests have included requests that discuss the |\n| 22 | debtor and the debtor's associated individuals and entities. |\n| 23 | This is in recognition of the fact that the way the debtor's |\n| 24 | shell game was conducted was through shell companies that |\n| 25 | were nominally owned by associated entities. |\n| | |\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 Some brief background on River Valley Operations. River Valley is an entity that the trustee understands the debtors used to transfer funds to and from other debtorcontrolled entities and individuals. Just a few examples. The debtor used River Valley to fund operations in the United Arab Emirates, including \\$8 million that River Valley received from ACA Capital, which is what the trustee believes, and has asserted in his first omnibus alter-egos action, is one of the debtor's alter-egos. River Valley used that \\$8 million by transferring 4.5 million to an entity called \"H Reserve\" that funded debtor operations in the United Arab Emirates. River Valley also, itself, paid millions of dollars of expenses for the debtor's operations in the United Arab Emirates, including luxury hotels, resources, and BMW vehicles purchased there. River Valley has also wired funds to the debtor's daughter, which she has used to pay her legal fees. Now, realizing River Valley is not even an examinee under the 2004 motion, the Court has resolved numerous prior objections of this nature. I would direct the Court, respectfully, to its orders granting the second, fifth, sixth, and eighth omnibus Rule 2004 motions, all of which overruled similar objections. The Court has been clear that to the extent that the pending proceeding doctrine applies at all, it is\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 implicated where the trustee seeks discovery from the party that is party to a pending proceeding, not from third parties. And, certainly, there is no blanket carve-out of litigation parties from the scope of Rule 2004 discovery. This has been clearly since at least June of 2023, when Greenwich Land said we shouldn't be able to take discovery from Bento, the financial transactions company, because of the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding. Your Honor overruled that objection. The discovery that we got from Bento was crucial in putting together a number of the avoidance complaints that we put together that had nothing to do with Greenwich Land.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 As to Wang's Realty, the eighteenth Rule 2004 motion is clear that the trustee seeks this investigation, not because of transfers made to Wang's Realty, but because Wang's Realty, itself, has made millions of dollars of transfers to the debtor's alter-ego shell companies. There is a chart on the fourth page of the trustee's reply that summarizes approximately two dozen transfers totaling nearly \\$10 million that were made by Wang's Realty; by contrast, the claim in the avoidance action, as to which Wang's Realty is a party, is a single transfer to Wang's Realty.\n\n24 25 The pending proceeding doctrine is appropriately applied when a trustee attempts to use Rule 2004 discovery as\n\n 11 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 a substitute for Rule 45 discovery in an adversary proceeding. Plainly, that's not what the trustee is doing here. As the Court is aware, there are more than 300 parties, Defendants to avoidance actions. The trustee is not filing Rule 2004 motions to take discovery from these parties. As discussed in the motion, the reason that Wang's Realty is an examinee in this Rule 2004 motion is not because of transfers to Wang's Realty, but because of the transfers that Wang's Realty is making. To make that even clearer, the trustee has appended to his reply, a revised order that includes an express carve-out of the transfer to Wang's Realty that is implicated in the avoidance action from the scope of Rule 2004 discovery. So, unless Your Honor has any questions, the trustee would ask that the eighteenth Rule 2004 motion be granted. THE COURT: Thank you. I do not have any questions at this time. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. CONWAY: Yes, may I, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, thank you. MR. CONWAY: Good afternoon, Michael Conway, again, on behalf of Wang's Realty and River Valley\n\n| 1 | Operations. |\n|---|-------------|\n|---|-------------|\n\n2 3 4 5 6 I think that what we just heard sort of makes it clear that with respect to River Valley, this is exactly the concern that the courts have about doing this through a 2004 process, as opposed to Rule 45. The Civil Rules provide protections that don't exist when it comes to a 2004 exam.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 The trustee is not being told, if you deny the motion, they can't take discovery; he's just being told he has to do it the right way, which is through the civil, the Rules of Civil Procedure and, thereby, give River Valley its appropriate protections.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 With respect to Wang's Realty, you know, I'm not sure what we heard makes sense. If the trustee is saying that, well, we know that you gave money to the debtor, therefore, we want to depose you, there's no purpose of it; they already know the money came to the debtor, they know exactly where the money went. There's no need to have that deposition.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We know what really is going on here, Your Honor. They want to ask Wang's Realty about other issues that can be used in the adversary proceeding relating to Wang's Realty or River Valley or probably one of many others that have already been filed. But the bottom line is, Your Honor, the same issue applies: we should be doing this pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, not pursuant to the Bankruptcy Rules,\n\n1 2 because that provides, as you know, unfettered rights that are unfair to the deponents.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 And I don't want to belabor the point. It sounds like Your Honor has gone through this analysis before. Like in most situations, though, I haven't had the benefit of any of those hearings, so I don't know when Counsel refers to those hearings, what hearings he's referring to. But if Your Honor has already made up your mind, then so be it. But it really is inappropriate and we stand by our objection.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Just give me a second there, Attorney Conway, I just want to -- when you say -- just so I'm clear on the record -- that you haven't had the benefit of those hearings, I believe you have a notice of appearance in the main case on behalf of many entities, including the entities you're representing today. So, you would have gotten notice of those hearings and you would have been served with the prior motions for Rule 2004 examinations, at least at some point, because you have appear -- according to the docket anyway. I'm not going to go through the 4,400 entries at the moment, but I just wanted to note that.\n\n21 22 At least from what I see, you do have appearances in the main case.\n\n23 24 25 MR. CONWAY: As of the date of the next hearing that's set for today, I did file -- I didn't file notices of appearances, but I appeared on behalf of entities in those\n\n 14 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 cases. And in -- I'm sorry -- in that proceeding, I noticed that when I did that -- THE COURT: What proceeding? MR. CONWAY: The one that's following this one, relating to the -- THE COURT: Well, that's in the main case -- MR. CONWAY: -- request for an extension of time. THE COURT: -- as well. These are document - these are motions. This is relief sought by the trustee in the Chapter 11 case, not in specific adversary proceedings. MR. CONWAY: Which is exactly what I just said, Your Honor. I said when I filed my objection in the next matter to be heard in the main case, I noticed that I wasn't on record as representing anybody in the main case. I am now. THE COURT: Well, I've got you -- I've got notices of appearance that you've filed on behalf of Hamilton PE Fund, Hamilton Opportunity Fund, GETTR USA, ACA Capital. Are you saying those have just been filed in the main case? MR. CONWAY: Those were never filed in the main case; those were filed in the adversary. THE COURT: Well, they are filed in the main case because they're -- according to the docket they are, anyway. MR. CONWAY: They're filed in the adversary, but Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 14 of 82\n\n 15 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 they were just filed in the main case Friday. I was not -- I checked the box: You're not listed as an attorney for this particular party in this case. I -- THE COURT: Sometimes the CM ECF issues are - anyway, I understand what you're saying. I'll have to go back and look. My -- what's in front of me, which I'm not studying, so I could be completely wrong, okay, appears to show that you have notices of appearance that have been here, but you may be right that it's all just recent in the main case. MR. CONWAY: And, Your Honor, it's not as if I didn't have a curiosity interest in the main case, but that does not mean that when the trustee filed the second motion for 2004 exams, I even knew what this case was. THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. MR. CONWAY: So, yeah, just -- THE COURT: That's why I'm asking the question, okay. MR. CONWAY: After 4,000 filings by the trustee, I don't think I've paid attention to all of them. THE COURT: Well, they're not all by the trustee. MR. CONWAY: Yeah. THE COURT: There were quite a few before the Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 15 of 82\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 trustee was appointed, as well, by the debtor-in-possession. MR. CONWAY: I was saying that tongue-in-cheek, Your Honor, and I think, you know, you probably were as well, and I see the smile on your face. THE COURT: I just want to make sure the record is clear, okay? MR. CONWAY: The record should reflect that I didn't participate in any of those hearings. And the only point of my comment was to point out that, you know, it's somewhat unfair to say, As you know from prior hearings, we've talked about this or we've talked about that. You know -- THE COURT: Well, I don't think that's what they said. I think he -- I think what I heard Attorney Linsey say was, you already addressed these in four different orders; that's what I think he had said. I don't -- you may or may not have been involved in the case at that time. All I can -- I can see things back in late 2023 and early '24 when you represented, at least -- MR. CONWAY: Taurus. THE COURT: -- Taurus Fund, right, in the main case, not just in the adversary. So, it's fine. I was just asking you the question and you've answered it. And I will look at the docket and understand.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 17 of 82\n\n17\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 But I understand your argument and I will consider your argument, obviously, that you weren't involved at a point where you could have made an argument with regard to the prior orders that Attorney Linsey referred to when he was making his argument. MR. CONWAY: Yes. And I can assure you that, in any event, I didn't see it. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. CONWAY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. LINSEY: Very briefly, Your Honor. I think just speaks to why there is a meet-andconfer obligation, so that these issues can be discussed, prior to discovery disputes being adjudicated before Your Honor. I would also note that prior to Mr. Conway appearing for River Valley, River Valley filed a motion to quash, with respect to Rule 2004 discovery that was directed to third parties through another counsel. This was back in September and -- THE COURT: Of '24? MR. LINSEY: Of 2024. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: The trustee was required to file an\n\n| 1 | opposition that ultimately led to a stipulation that |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | permitted the trustee to obtain discovery.
In that |\n| 3 | opposition, the trustee noted that River Valley had not |\n| 4 | complied with the meet-and-confer obligations when filing its |\n| 5 | motion to quash.
It, similarly, did not do so here. |\n| 6 | This has been a trend with debtor-associated |\n| 7 | entities of not picking up the phone prior to adjudicating |\n| 8 | discovery disputes or seeking to adjudicate discovery |\n| 9 | disputes. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Anything further, Attorney Conway? |\n| 11 | MR. CONWAY:
No, Your Honor; that's fine. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anyone else -- thank you -- |\n| 13 | anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 14 | (No verbal response) |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I'm just looking at the docket for one |\n| 16 | second. |\n| 17 | (Pause) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
I will -- I will review |\n| 19 | the arguments of counsel and take the matter under advisement |\n| 20 | and will rule accordingly.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. CONWAY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Trustee Despins, would you like to |\n| 23 | proceed with the motion to extend time now? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | Mr. Bassett is going to handle that matter. |\n| | |\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3 4 Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings for the record, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Your Honor, we are here today on what is the trustee's third request to extend the period for filing avoidance actions. The Court has already granted two such motions; specifically, on February 15th of 2024, the Court granted the trustee's first motion to extend the deadline to file avoidance actions from February 15th, 2024, through August 15th, 2024. That order is at ECF 2921 in the main case.\n\n13 14 15 16 And then after that, Your Honor, on August 14th of 2024, the Court granted the trustee a further extension of that deadline from August 15th, 2024, through February 15th, 2025; that order being at ECF 3417 in the main case.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As we did at the last two hearings that preceded those two prior orders of the Court, I would propose today to start with a brief presentation of evidence in support of the trustee's motion and then proceed to argument thereafter. And, Your Honor, in terms of evidence, we had filed a witness and exhibit list on the docket, which asked the Court to take judicial notice of the record in this case; again, as consistent with how we proceeded at the last two hearings before this Court on the two prior motions. And then we have\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 4172 | Filed 02/27/25 | Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 | Page 20 of 82 |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------|\n\n| | 20 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | also identified the trustee as the one witness that we intend |\n| 2 | to have offer some brief testimony in support of the motion |\n| 3 | and then, of course, the trustee would be subject to cross |\n| 4 | examination. |\n| 5 | So, with that, Your Honor, I would propose to |\n| 6 | proceed with the examination of the trustee at this time.
As |\n| 7 | I said, he will, of course, be subject to cross-examination |\n| 8 | and then we would proceed to argument on the motion |\n| 9 | thereafter, if that's acceptable to the Court? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
That's fine with me. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
So, with that, Your Honor, we would |\n| 12 | call the trustee to the stand. |\n| 13 | THE DEPUTY:
Trustee Despins, if you could stand, |\n| 14 | please? |\n| 15 | LUC A. DESPINS, TRUSTEE'S WITNESS, SWORN |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
I do. |\n| 17 | THE DEPUTY:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | State your name and address for the record, |\n| 19 | please. |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:
Luc Despins.
Business address is |\n| 21 | 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York. |\n| 22 | DIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 23 | BY MR. BASSETT: |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Despins, good afternoon. |\n| 25 | Do you recall testifying on February 13th, 2024, in |\n| | |\n\n 21 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 this court in support of the first motion to extend the limitations period? A Generally, yes. Q And then you also recall that you testified, again, I believe it was on October 13th of 2024 in support of your second motion? A Yes. Q Okay. So, with that in mind and you having testified twice already, I'm going to endeavor to not repeat testimony you've already given and, instead, try to focus my questions on, for the most part unless I say otherwise, the period that has occurred since August of 2024 to the present. Is that okay? A Sure. Q Now, could you please just take a moment and describe to the Court in general terms what you and your team have been doing in terms of your investigation since August of 2024? A Well, we continued to review all the documents that had been produced by that time; that's step number one. That involves Kroll and also, generally, you know, the two firms, you know, Mr. Linsey's firm and Paul Hastings. We also filed additional Rule 2004 document requests and we prosecuted or we commenced prosecution of certain actions for seeking recovery of funds. And, also, we Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 21 of 82\n\n| | 22 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | embarked, I would say more fully, on a foreign, on foreign |\n| 2 | processes in various countries to seek information, but also |\n| 3 | to recover assets. |\n| 4 | Q
Among the items that you just mentioned was the filing |\n| 5 | of additional Rule 2004 motions. |\n| 6 | Do you recall approximately how many new motions you |\n| 7 | filed since August of last year? |\n| 8 | A
Four. |\n| 9 | Q
And within those four motions or across those four |\n| 10 | motions, do you have a ballpark of the number of additional |\n| 11 | discovery targets? |\n| 12 | A
I think it's approximately 27 targets. |\n| 13 | Q
And then of those 27 targets, are you seeking documents |\n| 14 | from all 27? |\n| 15 | A
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q
And approximately how many documents, if you know, or |\n| 17 | pages of documents, if you can explain to the Court, have you |\n| 18 | received on account of those Rule 2004 motions since August? |\n| 19 | A
From those targets, approximately 30,000 pages of |\n| 20 | documents. |\n| 21 | Q
And just -- I think you've been over this a bit |\n| 22 | before -- but can you describe to the Court, generally, |\n| 23 | what's your process of what happens when you receive those |\n| 24 | documents? |\n| 25 | A
Well, obviously, they're downloaded on the software |\n| | |\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 practice that allows us -- and by \"us,\" I mean, not only the lawyers, but also Kroll -- to access this and to do word searches. So that's the process that goes on when we receive these documents. Often, they would refer to bank accounts, so Kroll would get involved and start preparing an inventory of bank accounts that we don't have that are new, et cetera, et cetera. Q And how long -- you don't have to be specific with days or weeks -- but how long does that process take, generally speaking? A It takes quite a while because -- especially with the bank account process. But we have to remember we have no books and records, so the only books and records that we really have that we rely on are the bank accounts because they're coming from third parties and we have to presume they're authentic. So we -- Kroll goes through these bank accounts and I've already described, you know this -- I use this analogy of the Russian dolls, right. So you start with an account, you open it, and then in there, there's money coming in and money going out; coming in from accounts, either we know about or we don't know about, and money coming out to accounts that we know or don't know about. And based on that, that generates a whole series of additional inquiries so that Kroll would say to Mr. Linsey,\n\n| because his firm is really mostly handling bank discovery, We |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| have the following 10 new bank accounts -- that's just an |\n| example; it's much more than that -- but 10 bank accounts. |\n| You already have obtained orders with respect to these |\n| banks, but they have never produced those bank accounts; go |\n| and seek those.
So, he would go and seek production from |\n| those already-existing banks or if they -- what I mean by |\n| \"existing,\" subject to a Rule 2004 order -- or, if not, then |\n| we add that to our list of targets. |\n| Q
So, I'll ask you a couple of questions about those bank |\n| accounts and the work that you've been doing in analyzing |\n| those in a minute.
Before that, I just want to go back to, I |\n| think you said there were 27 additional parties as to which |\n| you filed 2004 motions since August; is that right? |\n| A
Correct. |\n| Q
Is there any reason why you hadn't targeted those |\n| particular 27 parties with Rule 2004 requests prior to August |\n| or at any point earlier in the case? |\n| A
Sure.
We typically add targets as soon as we learn of |\n| them.
There's no incentive not to do that. |\n| I would say, to be candid, is that we try to not file a |\n| motion every week, so we try to have a certain number of |\n| targets before we file the 2004; otherwise, we'd be filing |\n| a 2004 every week, every two weeks and that would burden the |\n| Court for no reason.
But other than that, we seek 2004 |\n| |\n\n| | 25 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | relief -- I wouldn't say the minute -- but soon after we |\n| 2 | learn of new entities. |\n| 3 | So these entities were discovered through what I would |\n| 4 | refer to as the, again, the Russian doll analogy, that you |\n| 5 | open the bank account and, oh, there's a transfer to |\n| 6 | Company X.
I've never heard of Company X before.
Then, we |\n| 7 | go with that lead and so on and so forth. |\n| 8 | Q
So, I'd like to go back to what you were saying about |\n| 9 | the bank accounts and I was hoping maybe you could put some |\n| 10 | figures around it, if possible, to try to give the Court a |\n| 11 | sense of the scope of that investigation. |\n| 12 | Starting with the number of, you said you identified, I |\n| 13 | believe, additional accounts, can you say, ballpark, how many |\n| 14 | additional accounts you and your team have identified since |\n| 15 | August? |\n| 16 | A
It's more than 200. |\n| 17 | Q
And then within those accounts, any ballpark sense of |\n| 18 | how many additional transactions you've identified and had |\n| 19 | your team analyze? |\n| 20 | A
Yeah, it's over 55,000 transactions. |\n| 21 | Q
And what -- are those transactions that are money |\n| 22 | coming in, coming out? |\n| 23 | A
Both. |\n| 24 | So, for these 55,000 transactions, there's an inflow |\n| 25 | of 800 -- again, these are rough numbers -- 800 million, an |\n\n1 outflow of 1.4 billion.\n\n| 2 | Q
And I think you touched on this before, but with all |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | that information, what are you and your team, with the |\n| 4 | assistance of Kroll, doing with all of that? |\n| 5 | A
Well, we're look -- trying to figure out what these |\n| 6 | entities were doing, what role they were playing in the Kwok |\n| 7 | environment and, you know, through the document production we |\n| 8 | have or other sources, we're able to piece it together and |\n| 9 | say, Okay, now, we know this entity was an alter-ego of Kwok |\n| 10 | for the following reasons.
Then, we add that entity to an |\n| 11 | alter-ego or an amended complaint or a new complaint for an |\n| 12 | alter-ego or we know this was a third party that was getting |\n| 13 | paid by the Kwok enterprise and we will assert or have |\n| 14 | asserted an avoidance action against that entity. |\n| 15 | Q
I believe when I asked you generally what you and your |\n| 16 | team have been doing over the past, approximately, six |\n| 17 | months, you also mentioned undertaking some efforts overseas. |\n| 18 | I'm not sure if I'm characterizing that correctly. |\n| 19 | Assuming that's correct, can you expand on that for the |\n| 20 | Court? |\n| 21 | A
Yes.
We knew there was overseas activity, but by |\n| 22 | didn't have the level of detail required to really determine |\n| 23 | whether it made sense to invest estate money to go after |\n| 24 | certain, to go after certain activities in certain |\n| 25 | jurisdictions.
But through the criminal trial and other |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 sources, we're able to piece together, eventually, I would say, August, September, October, starting to have a picture of the countries where there was the most activity. So, these include, you know, Switzerland, UAE, U.K., British Virgin Islands, and Mauritius.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 And so that's -- so what we did in these jurisdictions, either we were resisting an activity by a Kwok alter-ego, as we perceived it, to dispose of funds or to do certain transactions, or we were seeking, ourselves, to be recognized as a foreign representative in these jurisdictions to assert claims in those jurisdictions against recipients of funds from Kwok enterprise entities.\n\n13 14 15 Q And can you give the Court a sense of, like, what stage these, if you recall this, I guess your foreign-investigation efforts, what stage those are in now?\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A It varies from country to country, but I would say compared to this proceeding, we're at a fairly -- generally, fairly preliminary stage in the sense that it's much slower. There's much more resistance in these countries; not by the countries' judicial body itself, but rather, by Kwok proxies and therefore, it's really slow-going, compared to the level of activity and the success we've had here.\n\n23 24 Q When you say resistance by Kwok proxies, can you give some examples of that?\n\n25\n\nA Yes, I mean, an example is Ace Decade, which, you know,\n\n1 2 3 4 5 this Court is very familiar with. Ace Decade is a BVI entity and what it did is -- what the purported shareholder of that entity, a Swiss resident, did, is he commenced an insolvency proceeding for Ace Decade and for non-estate subsidiary in the BVI.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So, we've been fighting that and the level of resistance is just mind-boggling in the sense that, you know, just recently, you know, people are taking positions that Mr. Kwok was not the owner of these entities, that there's somebody else was the owner, but we can't say who that is because that would put that person at risk. So, it's just, like, delaying tactics that are just never-ending and are time-consuming and costly. That's one example.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But in the U.K., a Hamilton entity commenced an insolvency proceeding, basically saying to the Court over there, We're an operating business. Of course, we showed the FBI screenshots that say this site is closed, that's been foreclosed on by the FBI. So, they told the Court that it's an ongoing business but there's a few issues that need to be sorted out and we need to send the money to the UAE where we're going to continue the operations of this business. So, of course, we need to appear and tell the Court, Wait a minute, this is not what's going on. The people in the UAE, that's William Je, he's a fugitive from justice, et cetera, et cetera.\n\n| 1 | So that's an example of these actions that are |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | conducted by what we refer to as \"Kwok proxies\" to try to |\n| 3 | evade this Court's jurisdiction and to cleanse the money to |\n| 4 | distribute to Kwok people.
So it's the equivalent of the |\n| 5 | assignment for the benefit of the creditor that was attempted |\n| 6 | in New York to try to say, Oh, well, we just need to clean |\n| 7 | this up, et cetera, et cetera.
But it became very clear that |\n| 8 | this was designed to, that where the creditors of that entity |\n| 9 | were Kwok entities and, therefore, they're trying to recycle |\n| 10 | the funds to give them to Kwok entities.
It's the equivalent |\n| 11 | of that, but it's happening in the U.K.; that's pending. |\n| 12 | It's happening in -- well, to a certain extent, in Mauritius, |\n| 13 | and that's what we have to contend with, basically. |\n| 14 | Q
And how, if at all, are these issues that you're |\n| 15 | encountering that are making your, you know, causing |\n| 16 | difficulties with your foreign investigation, how, if at all, |\n| 17 | has that impacted your ability to identify and pursue |\n| 18 | additional avoidance claims that you would, otherwise, want |\n| 19 | to pursue before February 15th? |\n| 20 | A
Well, it's the same team in the sense that, yes, we |\n| 21 | have foreign counsel, but -- and this is not a knock on |\n| 22 | them -- but they know nothing about the case, so at the end |\n| 23 | of the day, we have to spoon-feed them what has happened |\n| 24 | here, the various rulings by the Court, et cetera, et cetera. |\n| 25 | So that means that the team that would normally be |\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 focusing on the types of claims that we're talking about has to be sidelined to address these various proceedings that are popping up around the world, to stop them or to, you know, basically, to try to stop them. Q Just a couple more questions. So, as we noted at the outset, you testified previously in support of the two prior motions for an extension that you filed before the Court, and do you recall testifying at those two prior occasions on some of the delay and obstruction at the hands of the debtor, an associate that you faced earlier on in this case? A Yes. Q So, my question for you is, how, if at all, has that observers obstruction that you faced earlier on in the case continued to affect your investigation going forward, including in the past six months? A Well, basically, as I said, because we don't have books and records -- you know, this is not a hardware store we're trying to recreate their books and records; this is a multibillion-dollar enterprise. So, to recreate that from scratch is a huge task and that's why the failure to cooperate and to basically give us the roadmap of why these documents exist, what's the -- how do they work and you combine that with the fact that there are all these secret documents, for example, these trust agreements that pop up from time to time that\n\n1 2 3 say, The real owner of this company is not so and so; it's Mr. X, or another one that says, The apartment is really owned by Mr. Y.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 But, by the time we resolve all of this, months go by. Hundreds, if not millions, of dollars go to -- you know, the perfect example is The Sherry-Netherland where the son showed up in court here to say, Oh, I have a trust agreement that says I'm the owner and not my father. We had to spend a lot of time and a lot of money on that; of course, that all occurred before August, but the point is that's money - that's time that could have been spent on looking at other matters that had to be spent dealing with these various strategies to slow us down and, basically, impede the process.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 Q Now, Mr. Despins, certain of the objecting parties here today have taken the position in their papers, at least, that they don't think you should be able to seek, be able to obtain in perpetuity, indefinite extensions of time to pursue avoidance actions in a blanket manner against any party in the future.\n\n21 How do you respond to that?\n\n22 23 24 25 A That's a fair point, in the sense that in the motion, we said that this, our intention was that, subject to unforeseen events, this would be the last blanket objection and that if we came back to Court for another extension, it\n\n1 2 3 4 would be, we would try to seek extensions for categories of claims or targets. And I can't define what those are now, but the idea is that there has to be an end to this process. I agree with that concept, absolutely.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 And we're not there yet, but I would hope that this would be the last blanket -- that's the way we described them in the motion -- the last blanket objection. There may need to be further extensions, but that would have to be dealt with in terms of categories of targets or types of, for example, international transfers and the like, as an example. Q And my last question for you is just whether there's anything else that you think, that you haven't testified to already, that, in your view as the trustee in this Chapter 11 case, justifies your request for an additional six months to file avoidance actions?\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A No, I mean, other than to say that it would be kind of perverse for people to get away with, you know, bad conduct, based on a technical issue like this. As I said, I don't think we should have 10 years to do this, and we're not seeking that, but, you know, it would be really unfortunate and inappropriate for guilty parties to get away with this, with what has occurred here based on some technical issue. Q Thank you.\n\n MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, we pass the witness. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n24\n\n25\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 4172
Filed 02/27/25
Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 | Page 33 of 82 |\n|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| | | 33 |\n| 1 | Cross-examination, Attorney Sklarz? | |\n| 2 | CROSS-EXAMINATION | |\n| 3 | BY MR. SKLARZ: | |\n| 4 | Q
Good afternoon, Trustee Despins. | |\n| 5 | A
Good afternoon. | |\n| 6 | Q
What additional claims do you have against G Club? | |\n| 7 | A
Well, I don't know precisely, but there's things | |\n| 8 | relating to that two-million-dollar check that, I guess, was | |\n| 9 | being withheld.
So that's something that we're looking into. | |\n| 10 | Q
The two-million-dollar check that's with the | |\n| 11 | government, is that what you're referring to? | |\n| 12 | A
Yes, but that G Club was holding for a year-plus. | |\n| 13 | Q
And you've been aware of that check since, | |\n| 14 | approximately, November or December of last year, correct? | |\n| 15 | A
Something around that time, sure. | |\n| 16 | Q
And since that time, you haven't asked G Club for any | |\n| 17 | more information regarding that check, have you? | |\n| 18 | A
Not that I know, no. | |\n| 19 | Q
What other information would you like to know about | |\n| 20 | that check? | |\n| 21 | A
Well, I'm not sure I need more information from G Club | |\n| 22 | about that check, but we're analyzing, you know, the | |\n| 23 | situation with respect to the check; that's one of them. | |\n| 24 | Q
So funds that have been turned over to the Government, | |\n| 25 | have you talked to the Government about the check? | |\n| | | |\n\n 34 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 A Not -- no, I don't think so. Q So you don't know if you have any other claims against G Club; is that fair to say? A In contrast to the people managing or representing G Club, that's correct. Q G Club itself? A Well, we already have filed an alter-ego action, so... Q Are there any other claims that you would like to bring against G Club? A I -- I mean, I -- none come to mind at this time. Q Okay. And you've had since the beginning of the case to investigate G Club, correct? A Well, we've had from the beginning of the case to investigate everything, but that's -- G Club is one of the thousands of issues. Q And G Club has turned over hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, sat for a 2004 exam, been sued several times, correct? A Well, if you want the full picture, is that they withheld documents -- Q I just -- they did -- they withheld documents? A Sure. Q Name a time when Her Honor has ruled on a document issue that the documents haven't been turned over. You can't name one, correct? Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 34 of 82\n\n 35 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 A No, there was a whole proceeding where we had to compel and there was a whole production -- Q Correct. And Judge Manning ruled and the documents were turned over, correct. That's a true statement I just made; yes, sir? A Well, they were withheld; that's a true statement. And then we had to compel, the Court had to order you to produce (inaudible) -- Q And do you believe that adhering to court order is somehow improper? A No, but this was all (inaudible) -- Q Thank you, you've answered the question. So, G Club turned over documents in November and December of last year, correct? THE COURT: Just so the record is clear, you mean of 2024, right? MR. SKLARZ: Of 2024, yes. THE COURT: I just want to make sure. MR. SKLARZ: I just want to make sure, Trustee Despins is standing here and counsel for the trustee has said several times that my client has not turned over documents. We have interposed objections, as Your Honor knows, which you have dually ruled on and we have turned over documents. I find it offensive -- Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 35 of 82\n\n 36 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 THE COURT: Where did -- MR. SKLARZ: -- to the judicial process -- THE COURT: Are you talking about what Mr. Bassett said today during argument that G Club hasn't turned over documents? MR. SKLARZ: No. THE COURT: You're talking -- you asked -- MR. SKLARZ: Trustee Despins. THE COURT: Yeah. And he answered the question, so I'll give it whatever weight and credibility I think is appropriate. MR. SKLARZ: Fair enough, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. SKLARZ: Q So in November and December of 2024, G Club turned over documents, correct? A They turned over certain documents, yes. Q The documents you asked for, correct? A Well, I don't know, because you're to produce them. So, we asked for documents. I don't know if you produced all the documents. Q Have you asked for more documents since November or December of 2024 from G Club? A I don't know. Q You don't know. Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 36 of 82\n\n| | 37 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | So, you would agree, regardless of your |\n| 2 | characterization, that G Club has turned over hundreds of |\n| 3 | thousands of pages of documents, correct? |\n| 4 | That's a yes-or-no question. |\n| 5 | A
I don't know if it's hundreds of thousands.
I know |\n| 6 | they produced documents.
Hundreds of thousands, I don't |\n| 7 | know. |\n| 8 | Q
And G Club produced a 30(b)(6) witness for a deposition |\n| 9 | that was taken by Attorney Bassett, correct? |\n| 10 | A
That's correct. |\n| 11 | Q
And as you sit here today, you're not aware of any |\n| 12 | claim that you, additional claim that you could bring against |\n| 13 | G Club, correct? |\n| 14 | A
I don't think I said that; I said we're looking into an |\n| 15 | additional claim.
We haven't made the decision on that. |\n| 16 | Q
What claim are you aware of, as you sit here today, |\n| 17 | that you believe that you can bring against G Club? |\n| 18 | A
I -- we're looking into that, so I (inaudible) -- |\n| 19 | Q
I understand that you're looking, but please listen to |\n| 20 | my question, sir. |\n| 21 | As you sit here today, what claim can you bring against |\n| 22 | G Club, do you know of any? |\n| 23 | A
Well, I told you we're looking at the issue of the two |\n| 24 | million-dollar check that was withheld for a year. |\n| 25 | Q
But a two-million-dollar check is not a claim; a two |\n\n 38 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 million-dollar check is a check. Please listen to my question: What claims are you aware of, as you sit here today, that you could bring against G Club? A I don't understand your point about the two-milliondollar check is a check; that's an asset of the alter-ego, which G Club is, so -- MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, I've asked the question several times. I'd ask that he just answer it, as opposed to giving a speech. THE COURT: (Inaudible.) MR. SKLARZ: I'll pose the question again. BY MR. SKLARZ: Q As you sit here today, Trustee Despins, what claims are you aware of that you could bring against G Club, if any? A I said we're looking at bringing a claim with respect to the two-million-dollar check. Q So you don't know of any? A No, I'm not saying that. I've answered the question. Q What claims regarding the two-million-dollar check do you think you can bring against G Club? A To recover the \\$2 million. Q The \\$2 million that was turned over to the United States Government? A You've given the check to the Government; I'm not sure Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 38 of 82\n\n 39 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 that it's been cashed, so, unless you tell me it's been cashed, but ... Q And you haven't talked to the Government about this? A No. Q What -- THE COURT: So the record is clear, too, on the two-million-dollar check turned over to the Government; I don't know what you're -- I mean, I have an idea, probably, of what you're talking about, but I don't believe there's anything in this record of this case, yet, unless I -- I'm missing something. MR. SKLARZ: You aren't, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: I'll -- THE COURT: So, when you say, \"turned over to the Government,\" do you mean in connection with the criminal action? MR. SKLARZ: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's all I need to know. That's all -- I'm just asking, because I didn't know. There's nothing -- I don't recall seeing anything in the papers or anything about a two-million-dollar check, and then you say, \"the Government,\" so I'm just asking. That's all. BY MR. SKLARZ: Q And you're aware that the Government's issued a Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 39 of 82\n\n 40 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 subpoena to G Club to turn over that check? A Yeah, I saw the subpoena. Q Thank you. Should G Club have ignored that subpoena, in your view? A I don't represent G Club, so that's not for me to decide. But I assume that means that G Club thinks that it was part of a criminal action, right, because it was turning over proceeds of what, a crime? Q Is -- are you asking me a question? A I -- MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, I'd ask that that statement be stricken. THE COURT: That's fine. We'll just continue. THE DEPUTY: Excuse me, if Attorney -- if Trustee Despins could just pull the mic a little closer. We're picking him up, but he's a little low. THE WITNESS: Sorry. Will do. THE DEPUTY: Thank you. BY MR. SKLARZ: Q What other claims does, do you believe you have against Ogier, or I apologize if I'm mispronouncing it? A You might be pronouncing it correctly that I saw, but we will assert additional claims against Ogier. Q What claims? A Fraudulent transfer. Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 40 of 82\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 4172
Filed 02/27/25
Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42
Page 41 of 82 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 41 |\n| 1 | Q
When did you become aware of those claims? |\n| 2 | A
In recent months. |\n| 3 | Q
So, even though you're aware of these claims, you |\n| 4 | haven't asserted them yet? |\n| 5 | A
As I said, we cannot file a claim every day when we |\n| 6 | find out about it.
We try to get organized to file a series |\n| 7 | of claims at the same time and this is one of the ones that |\n| 8 | will be filed, like, soon and, you know, before |\n| 9 | February 15th; let's put it that way. |\n| 10 | Q
Are you aware of any additional claims against FFP? |\n| 11 | A
That one, I don't recall. |\n| 12 | Ogier, I remember, because of the name.
But this one, |\n| 13 | I couldn't say either way. |\n| 14 | Q
You know FFP is the independent manager of G Club and G |\n| 15 | Club International, correct? |\n| 16 | A
Yeah, now when you mention that, you're correct. |\n| 17 | Q
Having state -- having refreshed your recollection, |\n| 18 | does that refresh your recollection as to whether you have |\n| 19 | any additional claims against FFP? |\n| 20 | A
No, because I -- you know, there's more than 280 |\n| 21 | Defendants and we are adding probably 20, 25, so I can't |\n| 22 | recall whether that entity is on that list or not. |\n| 23 | Q
With respect to Weddle Law, are you aware of any claims |\n| 24 | you would bring against Weddle Law? |\n| 25 | A
I don't recall. |\n\n| 1 | Q
Now, one of the arguments you've made in your briefing, |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | as well as in testimony today, is that Mr. Kwok has continued |\n| 3 | to obstruct your investigation; is that fair to say? |\n| 4 | A
Mr. Kwok or his proxies. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
Well, let's separate Mr. Kwok and his proxies. |\n| 6 | How has Mr. Kwok, since August of this year, when you |\n| 7 | obtained your second extension, obstructed these proceedings? |\n| 8 | A
Because he has not turned over books and records of the |\n| 9 | various entities he controls. |\n| 10 | Q
He's been sitting in solitary confinement for |\n| 11 | approximately two years; is that correct? |\n| 12 | A
I don't know where he's been sitting in prison, but he |\n| 13 | had an obligation, as debtor, to produce books and records. |\n| 14 | He never did, so that's a continuing failure. |\n| 15 | Q
So -- and that was a basis for the first and the second |\n| 16 | extension, correct? |\n| 17 | A
And it's a basis, again, today, as I explained or as I |\n| 18 | testified to, is that there's a knock-on effect to that, that |\n| 19 | continues we continue to suffer today. |\n| 20 | Q
Do you believe Mr. Kwok is ever going to cooperate with |\n| 21 | your investigation? |\n| 22 | A
I doubt it. |\n| 23 | MR. SKLARZ:
I don't have any additional |\n| 24 | questions, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\n 43 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 Any other counsel, cross-examination? I know you've already noticed your appearance, but would you note it again, just for the record, please, Counsel. MR. LADDIN: Yes, Your Honor. Darryl Laddin of Arnall Golden Gregory, on behalf of American Express Company. THE COURT: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LADDIN: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Despins. A Good afternoon. Q I will be brief. You are aware that you've already sued American Express Company, correct? A Correct. Q And that's in Adversary Number 24-05077, for the record? A I don't remember the number, but I don't doubt it. Q Have you identified any additional claims, other than the ones that are in your current lawsuit against American Express Company? A Yes, we have. Q And what are those? A It's several hundred thousand dollars, you know, two Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 43 of 82\n\n| 1 | hundred-plus, but I couldn't give you the precise number.
As | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | I said, there's 20, 25 entities that have already been sued | | | | | | |\n| 3 | that we'll, where we'll amend the complaint to add additional | | | | | | |\n| 4 | claims.
And I know AMEX is one of them. | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Q
Do you believe it's two-hundred-and-some-odd-thousand | | | | | | |\n| 6 | dollars? | | | | | | |\n| 7 | A
More than 200,000, but it's less than 500, so I | | | | | | |\n| 8 | don't -- I don't know precisely what the number is, but it's | | | | | | |\n| 9 | more than 200 and less than 500. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Q
And what are the basis of those claims? | | | | | | |\n| 11 | A
Same as before. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Q
So, 549 claims? | | | | | | |\n| 13 | A
Some, but, yeah, 549, correct. | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Q
Okay.
And who are the alleged alter-egos? | | | | | | |\n| 15 | A
I don't -- I couldn't tell you offhand, I'm sorry. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
And when did you identify those claims? | | | | | | |\n| 17 | A
In the last few months. | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
September or August of '24?
Earlier than that? | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Can you give me a range, at least? | | | | | | |\n| 20 | A
I think it's post-August, but I -- to give you the | | | | | | |\n| 21 | precise month, I couldn't do that. | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Q
And do you know how those claims were identified? | | | | | | |\n| 23 | A
Yeah, as I said, this is going back to the Russian-doll | | | | | | |\n| 24 | thing.
When you go to a bank account, all of a sudden you | | | | | | |\n| 25 | see an entry that says, \"payment to American Express,\" oh, we | | | | | | |\n\n 45 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 didn't know about these payments, so that's how we discover these things, through the bank accounts. Q Well, I understand that's a general answer -- A Yes. Q -- but do you know, specifically, with respect to American Express Company, how these specific claims were identified? A Not precisely, no. Q And when do you intend to amend the lawsuit? A Soon, before February 15th. Q And you're not aware of any other claims, other than those you're planning to add by February 15th; is that correct? A That's correct. Q And would you agree that the Court could, in that lawsuit, adjudicate any claim that you have as to equitable tolling, looking at the specific facts and circumstances? MR. BASSETT: Objection; it's legal argument. It calls for a legal conclusion, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I think it goes beyond direct examination, actually, Counsel, so I'm going to sustain the objection. BY MR. LADDIN: Q Mr. Despins, you can raise facts relating to those specific claims in the lawsuit itself, correct? Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 45 of 82\n\n 46 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 MR. BASSETT: Same objection -- not the same objection, but I object on the basis as to which the Court just -- THE COURT: No, I think that question's okay. THE WITNESS: Can you restate the question, sir, please? BY MR. LADDIN: Q You can allege facts relating to these specific claims and any reasons for delay in the lawsuit, in your amended complaint, correct? A Could we? Sure, we could. Q Focusing on the, any claims, other than the ones that you're planning on amending by the 15th, okay, you have no idea sitting here today what these specific facts and circumstances would be regarding any such other claims; is that correct? A Claims that I don't know anything about? Q Correct. A By definition, that would be correct, if I don't know anything about them. MR. LADDIN: I have nothing further. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else wish to cross-examine Trustee Despins? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. THE COURT: No, Counsel? Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 46 of 82\n\n 47 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 Okay. Redirect, Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Very briefly, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BASSETT: Q Trustee Despins, I just had one clarifying question. You were asked by both counsel on cross-examination about claims that you are aware of that you might be asserting against their clients in the future. My question for you is, is it your intention to assert, by February 15th, all claims that you are presently aware of? A That we're presently aware of, yes. MR. BASSETT: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any recross? MR. SKLARZ: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LADDIN: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Trustee Despins, you can step down. (Witness excused) THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, you had indicated during your opening comments that you will ask the Court to take judicial notice of the docket of the case, which I can obviously take judicial notice that there's a docket that has 4,000 -- I'm not sure what number we're up to now, but I can find out pretty quickly -- more than 4,000 docket Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 47 of 82\n\n 48 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 entries. But if there are specific documents you would like me to review in connection with this, I know, you know, there are -- you could recite many, but I do think, for the record, it would be important to note you're asking the Court not just to take judicial notice of a docket, but documents on that docket and their contents; is that correct? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. And to the extent there are particular documents that I think, they're particular or deserve particular focus by the Court in ruling upon this motion, I would point them out. I think the purpose of asking the Court to take judicial notice of the docket, generally, is not so much for any particular filing, but rather, the overall complexity of the case from beginning to end. The sheer number of Rule 2004 motions that have been filed, the objections and motions for contempt, and all of the related proceedings that are already part of the record from the prior hearings on the two prior motions, I don't have all of those docket references handy, but they are in the record from the prior proceedings before this Court. I would also refer to the Court to -- I don't have the citations handy -- but the trustee testified about four Rule 2004 motions, for example, that he's filed since August of 2024. I could certainly find those ECF references, but\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 I'd imagine that they are easy enough to identify. And then, beyond that, Your Honor, I think the record, in terms of the activity and litigation that the trustee has been pursuing in various adversary proceedings, all of that factors into the record that we think is relevant for the Court to consider on this motion. I'm happy to talk more about that during argument. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Do any of the counsel opposing the motion have any requests of the Court with regard to judicial notice of any documents in the docket of this main case, or any other requests, for that matter? MR. SKLARZ: None from me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. YAN: None for Apple and Meta, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LADDIN: No, Your Honor. MR. CONWAY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Attorney Bassett, then, would you like to continue with your argument? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor; I'll approach with that, if that's okay? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: Thank you.\n\n(Pause)\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, given that we are here for the third time own a motion seeking substantially similar relief as that which the trustee has requested and the Court has granted on two prior occasions, I will try to be brief and I will try not to repeat ground that has already been covered. But just very, very briefly, by way of background, in Your Honor's last two extension orders, the Court concluded over the objection of parties, including some of those present today, that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b) provides a basis to extend the deadlines set forth in Sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d) of the Bankruptcy Code for cause shown.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And accordingly, thereafter, based on a finding that the trustee had demonstrated cause, granted two successive, six-month extensions, excuse me, for of the period to commence avoidance claims. The Court further denied, without prejudice, in its both of its prior orders, the trustee's request for equitable tolling, which the Court noted it would consider if and when appropriate; in particular, adversary proceedings commenced by the trustee. Your Honor, the trustee believes that the Court should reach the same result today that it reached on two prior occasions because the trustee has, again, I would submit, an established good cause for a further, six-month\n\n1 2 3 extension of the deadline until August of 2025. And, Your Honor, the objecting parties, in our view, have provided no basis for the Court to revisit its prior decisions.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Your Honor, on a question of good cause, as the Court is well aware, again, I'm referring to the record that was presented by the Court at the last two hearings, the record presented today, and the overall docket in this case, there's a years-long record, spanning more than 4,000 docket entries, which provides ample good cause for demonstrating why an extension is necessary, given the extremely unique circumstances of these case. Those extremely unique circumstances involve a debtor who has failed to cooperate from the inception of his Chapter 11 case, including at every step of the way, since the trustee's appointment. There have been no books and records produced to the trustee. The trustee has faced an uphill battle from the very beginning, as the record demonstrates, from obtaining discovery there parties associated with the debtor, including his family members and all of that, as the trustee testified today, has continued to affect his investigation today.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Where we are today, Your Honor, is not -- cannot be divorced from where we were and how we got here. The progress, or lack thereof in some cases, that the trustee has been able to make, is a direct result of the challenges he has faced from the inception of this very, very unique, and I\n\n1 would submit, unprecedented Chapter 11 case.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 In terms of the arguments raised by the Defendants, I'll try to tick through them and obviously reserve the right to respond after counsel makes their presentations. Certain of the Defendants take the opportunity in response to the trustee's motion to really just re-argue the same issues that the Court had already considered and rejected on two prior occasions. More specifically, they argue to the Court that Rule 9006(b) cannot be used to extend the limitations periods set forth in 108 and 546 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Your Honor grappled with this in detail in granting the first extension motion and then incorporated that same analysis into Your Honor's second extension motion order. The Court, more specifically, carefully reviewed the text of Rule 9006(b) and concluded, consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's decision in the IBT International case, that the rule can, in fact, be used to extend the limitations periods.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 In reaching that decision, the Court acknowledged some decisions going in the other direction, including from judges in this district, but ultimately agreed with the Eleventh Circuit. And in coming out the way Your Honor did, as you will recall, you discussed, and in our view, appropriately recognized that the deadlines in Sections 108\n\n1 2 3 and 546 are not statutes of repose, but rather, are statutes of limitation, and as statutes of limitation, they can be tolled or extended for equitable reasons.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 On that basis, the Court found that the argument raised by certain Defendants concerning the Rules Enabling Act was not a valid basis to provide or to deny the trustee's motion because what the Rules Enabling Act says is that rules of procedure may not enlarge a substantive right. And, of course, if the limitations period set forth in the Bankruptcy Code are not substantive, they are not statutes of repose, but rather, are statutes of limitation, then it is appropriate within the equitable jurisdiction of the Court to extend those deadlines under appropriate circumstances.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, despite that thorough analysis, I won't rehash all of the various considerations that the Court raised in its extensive analysis of the issue in the two prior decisions, but despite that, the Defendants really take a second bite at the apple and they, for the most part, cite to case law that they cited before and make the same arguments. They cite to the In re Cramer case from the Central District of California to support their position that Rule 9006(b), in their view, should not be allowed to extend the limitations period. But as the Court appropriately recognized in its prior decisions, that case is distinguishable, because as the Court recognized there, it was primarily dealing with a\n\n1 2 situation where it was concerned about the lack of notice to potential Defendants.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Here, the Court recognized that that was not the case because the trustee has provided extensive notice to all parties. The trustee has done, again, what he has done before. He's provided notice to all parties via ECF. To the list of parties who are not available via ECF -- who are note on ECF, by mailing, and to all Defendants in the various adversary proceedings that the trustee has already commenced. Certain of the Defendants, Your Honor, cite to a decision that I don't believe they cited before; it's the In re American Purchasing Services case from the Southern District of Florida Bankruptcy Court in November of 2022. And the way they characterize that decision, Your Honor, is they say that in that case, which, of course, sits in the Eleventh Circuit, they say that the Bankruptcy Court there refused -- and this is a quote from their papers, \"Refused to apply otherwise binding Eleventh Circuit precedent --\" that's the IBT International case that the Court relied on -- \"because of its flaws.\" That's what they said. The Bankruptcy Court there declined to apply that case because of its flaws.\n\n23 24 25 Your Honor, that's not remotely what that decision says. The Bankruptcy Court in that case expressly acknowledged that the IBT International is, of course,\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 binding authority in the Eleventh Circuit, but also recognized, as we agree, that it does not provide a, that the Court's analysis in that case of Rule 9006(b) does not mean that it's appropriate in all circumstances to extend the limitations periods under the Bankruptcy Code, but rather, granting that relief should be limited to appropriate circumstances where it is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. And the Defendants then go on to say, Well, that case involved circumstances that are, I think they say, \"nearly identical\" to the circumstances at issue in our case.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor, I've read that case a couple of times. I'm not sure which decision they are reading. It must be a different one than I'm reading, because it is hard to imagine a case that is more different from the facts that we have here. In that case, Your Honor, the Court expressly observed in distinguishing the IBT Services [sic] case from the Eleventh Circuit or IBT International case, rather, Your Honor, from the Eleventh Circuit, in that case, in the bankruptcy case, there were, as the Court said, nothing - this is a quote from the Court:\n\n22 23 24 25 \"There is nothing that presents facts similar or even remotely close to the facts of the Eleventh Circuit's decision.\" The Court went on to say that there was nothing in the record that shows that anyone has been stymying\n\n1 2 3 4 5 discovery efforts of the trustee, no motions to compel on the docket, no orders to show cause or contempt orders against any of the litigation targets or against anyone else that may be involved in or the subject of the trustee's investigations.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In fact, the only reason in the American Purchasing Services case that the Defendants rely on that the trustee gave for its requested extension, was that the trustee was trying to negotiate funding for litigation with its secured creditor in that case and had not been able to finish negotiating that funding and, therefore, asked for more time. Completely different circumstances from the facts in this case.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Our case involves a robust, extensive record of obstruction, of other difficulties and challenges that the trustee has faced at every turn in his investigation, and truly extraordinary circumstances that have led him to not be able to finish unwinding the tangled web of the various entities and individuals associated with the debtor by this point in the case.\n\n21 22 23 There was absolutely none of that in the case cited by the Defendants and for that reason, it, frankly, deserved a different outcome.\n\n24 25 Your Honor, just to tick through a couple of the other arguments that the -- but before moving on, I just want\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to, I want to point out there is one new decision that is also, incidentally, from the Southern District of Florida that the trustee cited in his papers. This is the Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises case at 658 B.R. 611, where that Court granted an extension of the limitations period under Rule 9006, and in doing so, it was confronted with a record that is, in fact, very similar to the record before the Court.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 In particular, the basis for the extension there included that the debtor's principal had engaged in fraudulent concealment, which impacted the time that the avoidance actions could be brought in and the debtor's principal had also set up numerous entities all over the world which, you know, allowed for his transfers of assets. So, Your Honor, similar circumstances to those that we're confronted with here, which again, support the relief that the trustee is requesting.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Your Honor, to briefly touch on a couple of the other arguments raised by the Defendants, and this sort of permeated some of the questioning that you saw on crossexamination, but G Club and the other clients of Attorney Sklarz seemed to be making the argument to the Court that, well, it's not appropriate to continue extending the limitations period as against those specific entities or Defendants because they, themselves, have not done anything\n\n1 2 in the last six months to hinder or obstruct the trustee's investigation.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I take issue with whether that's a true statement, but it's also beside the point, Your Honor. The Court has already recognized, and this is at page 13 of the first extension order at ECF 2921, that the focus is not on whether or not particular Defendants have necessarily engaged in conduct that has prevented the trustee from bringing, in a timely manner, the claims against those parties; the analysis focuses on, in a case like this especially, whether the debtor and other parties associated with the debtor or other sources of information within the Chapter 11 case have delayed or obstructed the trustee's investigation and whether there are other factors beyond the trustee's control that have rendered him unable to bring avoidance claims as soon as he would otherwise like to. So I think the Court has already dispensed with that particular argument.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The last point I would make, Your Honor, certain of the Defendants claim that if this third extension is granted by the Court, when is it ever going to end? And they appear to be making the point that this is going to set a dangerous precedent, I guess, in their view. I have two responses to that. First of all, the trustee addressed that when he was testifying; we've addressed it in our papers. The trustee is hopeful, we are very hopeful as a team\n\n1 2 3 supporting the trustee, that we will not, in six months from now, need to seek another blanket extension of the deadline to commence avoidance actions.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 On a case-by-case basis, there may be additional actions that we need time to pursue. There may be categories of Defendants, depending upon where we are, but in terms of a blanket extension like the one that we have requested the last two times, we are very hopeful and currently anticipate we will not need to seek that relief again.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The other point, Your Honor, is that, and I think this bears emphasizing so often in this case, this really is an extraordinary Chapter 11 case that, and I think I said this at the last hearing, is unprecedented in that I don't know if there's ever been another case quite like this one, involving a debtor who professed to be a billionaire, filed for bankruptcy claiming to own nothing, and has never provided any schedules of his financial affairs.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And those circumstances, it has been an uphill battle, to say the least, for the trustee to complete his investigation and to bring the types of claims that he's entitled to bring under the Bankruptcy Code. And so any decision that the Court has entered, including the last two that it has already entered in agreeing to extend the limitations period, I think are necessarily going to be limited to the very, very unique circumstances of this case.\n\n| 1 | We think there is cause to grant the further extension that | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | the trustee has sought and we would respectfully ask that the | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | motion be granted, Your Honor.
Thank you. | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Attorney Sklarz, would you like to respond? | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Your Honor, in our papers, we focused -- | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | obviously, we acknowledge and we've appealed twice from the | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | prior extension rulings -- we acknowledge the state of the | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | law and we focused our papers on that. | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | In Your Honor's prior rulings, you've indicated | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | that the Court is reviewing the very specific and | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | extraordinary facts of this case.
What are the very specific | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | facts and -- specific and extraordinary facts that have | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | occurred over the last six months?
We have heard no new | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | ones.
It's that Mr. Kwok is not assisting with the trustee's | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | investigation.
He's never assisted with the investigation | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | and he never will. | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | He's sitting in jail.
He's been convicted of a | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | crime and he's never going to help.
So I suppose in the | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | trustee's view that will, when they're here six months from | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | now with a blanket extension or a slightly frayed blanket | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | extension or whatever they're talking about, that will be a | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | refrain again. | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | Trustee Despins said something interesting in his | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 direct examination that it would be perverse for people to get away with conduct because of a technicality. Well, the technicality is called a \"statute of limitations\" and it was imposed by Congress. There should be some value in that view, particularly for my clients who've already been sued.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 This isn't -- whether there are claims against other parties out there or not, my clients have all been sued already. The trustee has recourse under existing doctrines on relation back rules and other doctrines. There's no reason to extend the statute of limitations against parties who've already been sued, particularly when the trustee just said on examination, he intends to bring all additional claims against all new parties forthwith before February 15th. What are the very specific and extraordinary facts that require a further extension of time, as to my clients?\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The other arguments raised relate to the \"Russian nesting doll\" argument analogy made by Trustee Despins or what they refer to in their papers as \"pulling the thread.\" It is a truism of life that we will all know tomorrow more than we know today; that is always the case. But that cannot be a basis to perpetually extend the statute of limitations. We will always know more. There's always more to\n\n24 25 investigate. In every case every lawyer in this courtroom has ever litigated, we wish we did something else; we wish we\n\n1 knew more yesterday than we knew today.\n\n2 3 4 5 Under Your Honor's ruling, it can't be cause that there's a lot of work to do. We've done a lot of work, but there's a lot more work to do. That is always the case in any significant piece of litigation.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The cases relied upon by the trustee and relied upon by Your Honor in the prior rulings do not discuss blanket rulings -- blanket extensions of time in succession. I haven't found a case where there's multiple, where there's three or more extensions of time. The Fundamental Long Term Care Court, in fact, gave the trustee 30 days from the close of discovery in a pending adversary proceeding, not the oneyear extension they ask for. And the other cases were short extensions.\n\n15 16 17 18 The trustee has had a year and is asking for another six months. The entire statute of limitations under 546 is two years from the petition date. Where does it end?\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 The trustee points to good cause as a years-long record and 4,000 document entries and extremely unique case. These are, again, the same thing that have been said before and will be able to be said by the trustee until the case closes. It cannot be that a condition that always exists is extraordinary.\n\n25\n\nWhat are the specific facts? Your Honor heard the\n\n1 2 3 4 evidence; there are no specific facts that meet the standards Your Honor set forth: very specific in extraordinary facts. There are general and non-extraordinary facts that have been proffered.\n\n5 6 7 8 While whatever Mr. Kwok did was certainly complicated, while Mr. Kwok may not have cooperated, he hasn't cooperated for years at this point; moreover, there's no assurance that the trustee won't be back here again.\n\n9 10 11 12 Your Honor analogized the reason why the extension motion was granted initially to, essentially, equitable tolling; this is on page 15 -- I'm sorry -- page 13 of your initial ruling:\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 \"The equities to consider in determining whether to extend or toll a statute of limitations in bankruptcy proceedings often involve whether the debtor failed to cooperate with the bankruptcy trustee or, indeed, sought to impede the trustee's investigation and liquidation of the assets for the benefit of creditors.\"\n\n19 20 21 That is a ruling that Your Honor made approximately one year ago. That was the case -- that will always be the case, according to trustee.\n\n22 23 24 25 There have to be guardrails. There have to be limiting events. It can't just be that the situation is the same because then it is not extraordinary. We've heard no facts today that justify a further extension of the statute\n\n 64 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 of limitations under Your Honor's initial ruling. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Laddin, do you wish to be heard or make a closing argument? MR. YAN: May I be heard, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MR. YAN: Thank you. May I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. YAN: Thank you. (Pause) MR. YAN: Good afternoon. Again, for the record, Jin Yan on behalf of Apple and Meta. Just a couple points. THE COURT: You didn't make any opening statements, so you're just making your closing arguments here, correct? MR. YAN: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. YAN: Sure. So we talked about 9006, but the trustee's motion also asks for relief under 105, so I just want to address that briefly. Under Law v Siegel, which is a United States Supreme Court decision from 2014, 105(a) can't be used to do something that the Code prohibits. The test of the statute Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 64 of 82\n\n1 2 3 4 5 says it's supposed to carry out the purposes of the Code and the provisions of the Code. And so, here, to use 105(a) to extend the statute of limitations is not enforcing those, but rather, abrogating those, so we don't think 105(a) applies at all.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 With respect to Rule 9006 and the analysis that Your Honor conducted, as trustee's counsel talked about, American Purchasing Services, which is a bankruptcy decision from the Southern District of Florida in 2022, has two core reasonings that, I think, apply here. The first is that it limited the Eleventh Circuit's IBT decision to circumstances where the target of the avoidance action or whatever litigation that the trustee seeks to bring, is the one that's responsible for the delays and the trustee's inability to timely commence those actions.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The second point that American Purchasing Services makes is that entities that transact with the debtor have a commercial and a legal expectation that they're exposure will end two years later and that trumps whatever the trustee's proffered rationale is for getting an extension. And, in fact, Your Honor, the Teras Breakbulk case that came out of the District Court in 2024 is entirely consistent with that. Because in that case, the target was the principal of the debtor, who was accused of fraudulently concealing assets. So, there, as well, you have an instance with the target of\n\n1 2 3 4 5 litigation was the one who prevented a litigation from being filed in a timely manner and, as a matter of equity, it does make sense to extend statutes under the Eleventh Circuit's reasoning, so that they're not rewarded, those targets and those bad actors are not rewarded for their actions.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Here, we have a situation where no one is accusing, at least not Apple and Meta, of having delayed the trustee in any way in his discovery. If punishing entities that are affiliated with Mr. Kwok is akin to punishing the son for the since of the father, I guess the analogy here would be punishing the grocer for something that a customer did. We have no connection to the acts of Mr. Kwok and his affiliated entities.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 The final point I want to make is that with respect to two -- 546 -- sorry -- 546 and 539, those statutes of limitations, but 108 is not. As we said in our brief, courts have recognized that 108 is a tolling statute and it doesn't make sense to do what the trustee is asking, which is to toll a tolling statute.\n\n20 21 22 23 And for all those reasons, we would respectfully ask the Court, deny the trustee's extension, if not on a blanket basis, at least with respect to our clients, Apple and Meta. Thank you.\n\n24 THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n25 Attorney Laddin?\n\n67\n\nMR. LADDIN: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n2 3 Again, for the record, Darryl Laddin of Arnall Golden Gregory, on behalf of American Express Company.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 Your Honor, the amount at issue already, as to American Express Company, is a large sum. They are alleged to have received \\$5.79 million in transfers voiding under 549 in Adversary 24-05077. We are part of the omnibus defense group and, obviously, the Court has the issues raised in that motion under consideration.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I recognize that the Court has obviously taken up prior versions of this motion and that there, obviously, you know, have been other objecting parties, so I will try to be brief. I do want to point out at the outset, though, that the order that is sought here is slightly different from the two prior orders entered by the Court and that was not mentioned in closing by Mr. Bassett.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, in the third motion, the trustee inserted into the proposed order, a new paragraph and it states 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, obviously, on behalf of American Express Company, we timely filed our objection. Again, in the interests of efficiency, I'm just\n\n1 2 3 going to cover a limited number of issues. We do join in the other objections that have been made and the comments to the Court.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 We're certainly aware that the trustee primarily relies on, and this Court has cited the Eleventh Circuit's decision in IBT International where the Eleventh Circuit did find that the Bankruptcy Court had discretion to extend the statute of limitations by motion; however, the Eleventh Circuit cited no statutory authority permitting the Court to extend the statute of limitations because that authority doesn't exist. Most of the opinion was focused on equitable tolling.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 And there's been some discussion of the American Purchasing Services case by both, Mr. Bassett and by the objectors. That case is interesting in that it does have relevance to this case for other reasons than have already been mentioned, as well. So, there's a footnote in that case that points out specifically that the Eleventh Circuit's decision has been criticized in Colliers as, quote, \"involving some convoluted reasoning.\"\n\n21 22 23 24 25 And that is a comment that really is also picked up on in an earlier decision that was cited by the trustee, Fundamental Long Term Care. That was another Florida decision following the IBT case where the Court, there, also seemed to find that decision confusing. And in Fundamental\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Long Term Care, it is worth pointing out that there were a limited number of targets. They were specifically identified and they were already Defendants in pending adversary proceedings. And the Court relied in that case, which is cited by the trustee on equitable tolling grounds, and pointed out that the trustee's efforts had been delayed due to the targets' active opposition.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 And, of course, Counsel just pointed out, there's been a focus in these cases on whether the targets obstructed discovery. And there's no evidence here, obviously, just as there was no evidence for Apple or Meta, there's no evidence that American Express Company has somehow constructed - obstructed the investigation.\n\n14 15 16 17 The Court, there, in the American Purchasing case also did point out, as mentioned, that the Eleventh Circuit decision was pre Law v Siegel, in that that pre Law v Siegel jurisprudence permeates that decision.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Your Honor is already aware there are numerous courts that conclude that 9006 cannot be used, 9006(b) cannot be used to grant the relief that's been requested. Counsel referred to the Cramer case; respectfully, while the Court may disagree with Cramer, the legal conclusion, I think, is not distinguishable in that case. As explained in Cramer and other decisions similar to it, the appropriate relief for the trustee under these circumstances is to seek equitable\n\n1 2 tolling of the statute if and when the trustee identifies future Defendants.\n\n3 4 5 6 And I think that's something that Mr. Despins acknowledged, that if the facts give rise to a claim for equitable tolling, he can go ahead and bring that. We can argue about that later.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Court in Cramer, I will just highlight for this Court -- again, I know Your Honor has read the decision multiple times, I'm sure -- observed that the Bankruptcy Court decision in, In re Walnut Hill was well-reasoned and directly on point. And, obviously, Judge Tancredi's decision is not binding authority; Your Honor's considered that. I just want to simply note that we believe that Judge Tancredi was correct, you know, when he said that, quote:\n\n15 16 17 \"The plain language of Rule 9006(b) prohibits this Court from enlarging the Section 546(a) statute of limitations.\"\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And, again, looking at the statute, because I didn't hear much about the statute and, obviously, again, I know that there have been prior motions, but 9006(a) does refer to statutes and as Judge Tancredi recognized, 9006(b) is plainly missing the language that would apply it to statutes. So I don't think even if one wanted to rely on 9006, you can't rely on 9006(b) because it doesn't include the word \"statute.\" And there have been a number of other\n\n1 2 decisions, which I will not go through here, that are cited in the papers on that precise issue.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 It is also notable that there is another provision in 9006(b)(3) that does expressly permit a time period prescribed by a section of the Code to be enlarged under the Rule and it refers to Section 1116(3) of the Code, which specifically -- this Code section specifically contemplates an extension of time to file schedules. So the authorization there to alter the time limit is built into the statute and the Rule does not trump the statute. That demonstrates, obviously, that drafters of the Rule knew how to draft in exemptions to prohibitions and that Congress also knew how to authorize the Judiciary to make modifications to time limitations.\n\n15 16 17 18 Your Honor, we echoed Judge Tancredi's recognition that it's Congress that passed the limitations period in the Code and when Congress has spoken, Congress has spoken; it's made the determination.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Of course, Section 546 may be subject to an equitable tolling argument, but that's an argument that needs to be made in the right context. So if Your Honor denies the motion, that does not mean the trustee cannot ever bring these causes of action; it means he needs to deal with them in the context of the specific facts relating to these specific Defendants.\n\n| 1 | And as to existing Defendants, such as American | | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | Express Company, that's also consistent with the appropriate | | | | | | |\n| 3 | procedure or amendment of the complaint, which is file a | | | | | | |\n| 4 | motion for leave under Rule 15 and establish that the cause | | | | | | |\n| 5 | of action relates back or that equitable tolling applies. | | | | | | |\n| 6 | So, for those reasons, Your Honor, we respectfully | | | | | | |\n| 7 | request that the Court either deny the motion or except | | | | | | |\n| 8 | American Express from the order's effect.
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. LADDIN:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Attorney Conway? | | | | | | |\n| 13 | MR. CONWAY:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Michael Conway for various, previously identified | | | | | | |\n| 15 | parties. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | We join, obviously, in what's been stated so far | | | | | | |\n| 17 | and the various other pleadings that are on the record in | | | | | | |\n| 18 | terms of objecting to the motion.
I don't want to get into | | | | | | |\n| 19 | the legal basis now.
I think Your Honor has made it clear, | | | | | | |\n| 20 | as far back as the first time you extended the time to bring | | | | | | |\n| 21 | adversary proceedings, that you believed that there was this | | | | | | |\n| 22 | exception that applied here.
As a matter of law, I don't | | | | | | |\n| 23 | think it does. | | | | | | |\n| 24 | However, let's just focus for a moment on the IBT | | | | | | |\n| 25 | Holdings [sic] cause.
There's some possibility that we can | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ignore the law and focus on whether there's a specific cause in this particular case for extending. And what we heard today was really -- and the same thing we've heard in the past -- we didn't get everything done we needed to get done. We don't believe we should be able to do this forever, because that wouldn't be appropriate, but just give us one more chance.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 And there was the discussion about, well, we won't come back and ask for a blanket exception next time; we'll make it specific to the claims or categories of Defendants, which is just another way of saying in this situation that we'll ask for a specific order next time that gives us the same exact rights in terms of an extension. We also know, based on that, we will be here again, Your Honor.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The fact is we need it to end. And we didn't hear from the trustee that there was any real cause that you would expect in a normal bankruptcy case. Now, obviously, Mr. Bassett says this is not a normal case. It's fairly consistent with almost every sort of case where you're dealing with an individual accused of committing fraud on the general public, whether it be Ponzi scheme or otherwise.\n\n22 23 24 25 But let's just say for a moment that it's different, like Mr. Bassett suggested. Well, that, in and of itself, doesn't justify the extension of time; in fact, it's that difference we want to focus on right now. What the\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 extension of time would normally give is an extension of time to find transactions relating to a debtor's assets. And Your Honor knows me from other matters in this case, and I've said this before and I'll say it again here, that's not what we're doing. We're not looking to find Mr. Kwok's assets and bring them back in the estate. What the trustee is suggesting to Your Honor is that he needs more time to go out and find inappropriate transactions that occurred between some third party that assisted him in committing fraud on a third party, who then took that third party's money and transferred it to another third party. And the trustee wants to go out and find those transactions and then bring that asset back into the estate, even though it was never this debtor's asset to begin with. So, what we have is not just a request for an extension to have time; we have an request for an extension of time to do something that's fundamentally inappropriate: to go out and do the Department of Justice's job. And, you know, while the Eleventh Circuit may have said that there are circumstances whereby the debtor con seals his own assets or her own assets or its own assets, the Eleventh Circuit never said that a trustee in bankruptcy is supposed to be deputized to go out and rectify issues relating to non-debtor parties, as amongst non-debtor parties.\n\n25\n\nThat's not -- let me step back -- I don't think\n\n| 1 | it's ever appropriate to do what's being asked her today; | | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | it's just fundamentally, you know, not supported by the law. | | | | | | |\n| 3 | I say that with all due respect, Your Honor, because you've | | | | | | |\n| 4 | said the opposite in your previous rulings; however, when you | | | | | | |\n| 5 | apply it to circumstances like this when we're not even | | | | | | |\n| 6 | dealing with the debtor's assets, it becomes even more | | | | | | |\n| 7 | fundamentally wrong. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Anything further, Mr. Bassett? | | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Very briefly, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | (Pause) | | | | | | |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, again, for the record, | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Trustee. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Your Honor, there was obviously a lot of | | | | | | |\n| 17 | discussion by counsel of the case law of Rule 9006(b) of | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Judge Tancredi's decision and of all the other issues that | | | | | | |\n| 19 | this Court has already grappled with in entering its two | | | | | | |\n| 20 | prior orders.
I'm not going to revisit those discussions, | | | | | | |\n| 21 | other than to say that the law has not changed.
There have | | | | | | |\n| 22 | been no new decisions that any party has pointed the Court to | | | | | | |\n| 23 | that should compel a different conclusion than that which the | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Court has already reached. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | I do want to briefly address one of the points | | | | | | |\n\n1 2 3 that Attorney Sklarz was making and just, in particular, his focus on, you know, what have we seen that has happened since August of 2024 that justifies the extension.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Two responses to that. Your Honor, first, as I said, as the trustee said, and as I will say again, you cannot look at the state of the trustee's investigation in a vacuum that is limited to August 2024 forward. The state of the trustee's investigation and the progress that we've been able to make to date is a direct result of everything that has occurred in this case since the trustee's appointment.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 In addition to that, Your Honor, even if you were to focus on the things that have happened since August of 2024, there's multiple evidence in the record to support good cause for further extending a limitations period. Just to very briefly recap some of the things that the trustee said, this is not a situation, to be very clear, Your Honor, where additional evidence has continued to trickle in and then, according to Attorney Sklarz, you know, that could always happen indefinitely.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 This is a situation where we're talking about 27 new parties that the trustee has identified in the last six months and subpoenaed; tens of thousands of pages of documents that and his team have received and undertaken the process to review; over 55,000 new bank accounts that the trustee has to look through and try to figure out 55,000 --\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 not bank accounts -- 55,000 transactions in over 200 accounts that the trustee and his team has needed to sit through and figure out how they fit together and whether any potential claims can be brought based upon those transactions; and then the trustee described, in detail, the extensive investigation he's now conducting overseas in places like the UAE and Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Your Honor, there's ample evidence in the record to demonstrate good cause for a further extension. I submit that's the only issue before the Court because all the legal issues that have been presented to the Court today are ones that Your Honor has correctly already decided and decided in the trustee's favor. So, with that, Your Honor, we respectfully request that the motion be granted. And that's all I have, unless the Court has any questions? THE COURT: I do not have any questions, thank you. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Sklarz, do you have any -- or anyone, on behalf of the objecting parties, have any further comments? MR. SKLARZ: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. YAN: Your Honor, I just have one point I just\n\n 78 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 wanted to point out for the Court. May I approach? THE COURT: Sure. (Pause) MR. YAN: Your Honor, I just have one comment, which is that the Teras Breakbulk case that the trustee cited from -- THE COURT: Would you just say it again so I know exactly -- I think I know what you're talking about, but it will be helpful for the record, too, please. MR. YAN: Sure. This is the Teras Breakbulk case -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. YAN: -- from the Southern District of Florida, the District Court. THE COURT: After the IBT case, the one that you've all been talking about -- MR. YAN: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- that was issued in 2022? MR. YAN: No, the one we were talking about is American Purchasing Services; that one was a 2022 case. THE COURT: Okay. So tell me this other case, I apologize. MR. YAN: Sure. This one is Teras Breakbulk -- Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 78 of 82\n\n 79 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 THE COURT: Okay. MR. YAN: -- from the Southern District of Florida, the District Court in 2024. THE COURT: Okay. MR. YAN: I just wanted to note that that case is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. THE COURT: Okay. That's helpful to know, thank you. MR. YAN: Thank you. THE COURT: Anyone else have any comments? (No verbal response) THE COURT: I just note for the record -- I don't know if I'm correct, so you'll all correct me if I'm wrong - but no one appeared today on behalf of Amazon or Miller Motorcars, did they? I think they also objected to this - to the trustee's request. MR. LADDIN: Your Honor, I think that's correct. At least as to Amazon, do I recall that their pleading indicated that they were going to rely on the argument of myself and anyone else. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to note for the record that although they did file an objection, Amazon, Inc. and Amazon Web Services filed an objection to the trustee's request at, in the main case at ECF 4041, but that's helpful. Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 79 of 82\n\n| 1 | Attorney Laddin, I'm sure I saw that at one point, | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | but I don't recall that they said that, but I'm sure that | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | they did say that they would rest on their papers. | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | And Miller Motorcars filed an objection in the | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | main case at 40, ECF 4044, and I don't see anybody or heard | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | anybody from Miller Motorcars here today; is that correct? | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | (No verbal response) | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Anybody? | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | (No verbal response) | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I just wanted to note that for | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | the record; otherwise, you all, that have been representing | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | the other objecting parties and I think I have all the | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | objections that were filed, then, based upon the people that | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | are here in court today and the filings that were made by | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Amazon and Miller Motorcars.
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Obviously, I need to take a look at what you've | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | all said and I, as you all have acknowledged, I've obviously | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | entered two orders already granting this relief, but I do | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | need to go back to what everyone has said.
I've heard the | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | testimony of the trustee today.
I've heard arguments from | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | the trustee's counsel and from some of the objecting parties' | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | counsel.
You've talked about some case law that I definitely | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | know about.
Some, I know, exists, but haven't really had an | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | opportunity to read, so I need to read that and then I will | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | rule accordingly. | | | | | | | |\n\n 81 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 So, I will take the matter under advisement. Today is February 11th. You know, I hope to rule as soon as possible. I can't tell you when that'll be as I sit here right now. So, does anyone have any questions? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. Seeing none, then the motion for extension of time is -- to extend the time limitations, I should say, is under advisement. That is the last matter on today's calendar in the case. Is there anything else anyone needs to address before we adjourn court? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor, not from our point of view. THE COURT: Anyone? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. Well, thank you, all. Court is adjourned. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE DEPUTY: All rise. Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 2:53 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 81 of 82\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 4172 | Filed 02/27/25 | Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 | Page 82 of 82 | | | | | |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | 82 | | | | | |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | I certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | /s/ William J. Garling | | February 24, 2025 | | | | | |\n| 8 | | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | For Reliable | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23
24 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n（合并管理）\n债务人。\n\n123 号法庭\nBrien McMahon（布赖恩·麦克马洪）联邦大楼\n915 Lafayette Boulevard（拉斐特大道）\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604\n\n2025 年 2 月 11 日，星期二\n\n下午 1:02\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\nLuc A. Despins, Esquire（吕克·A·德斯潘律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue（公园大道 200 号）\n纽约州纽约市 10166\nNicholas A. Bassett, Esquire（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\n2050 M Street, NW（西北区 M 街 2050 号）\n华盛顿哥伦比亚特区 20036\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n速记公司：Reliable（可靠速记公司）\nThe Nemours Building（内穆尔大楼）\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110（北奥兰治街 1007 号，110 室）\n特拉华州威明顿 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮件：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n庭审程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 4172 提交 02/27/25 登记 02/27/25 09:05:42 第 1 页，共 82 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 4172 提交 02/27/25 登记 02/27/25 09:05:42 第 2 页，共 82 页\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esquire（帕特里克·R·林赛律师）\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street（教堂街 195 号）\n13 层\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n\n代表 Weddle Law PLLC（韦德尔律师事务所）；FFP (BVI) Limited（FFP（英属维尔京群岛）有限公司）；G Club Operations, LLC（G Club 运营有限责任公司）；及 Ogier（奥吉尔律师事务所）：\nJeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹律师）\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林及斯克拉兹律师事务所）\nOne Audubon Street（奥杜邦街 1 号）\n3 层\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06511\n\n代表 Apple, Inc.（苹果公司）及 Meta Platforms, Inc.（Meta Platforms 公司）：\nJin Yan, Esquire（金燕律师）\nARENTFOX SCHIFF, LLP（阿伦特福克斯·希夫律师事务所）\n1717 K Street, NW（西北区 K 街 1717 号）\n华盛顿哥伦比亚特区 20006\n\n代表 American Express Company（美国运通公司）：\nDarryl S. Laddin, Esquire（达里尔·S·拉丁律师）\nARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY, LLP（阿诺尔·戈尔登·格雷戈里律师事务所）\n171 17th Street, NW（西北区第 17 街 171 号）\nSuite 2100（2100 室）\n佐治亚州亚特兰大 30363\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 Wang's Realty Management, Inc.（王氏房地产管理公司）；River Valley Operations, LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）；ACA Capital Group, Ltd.（ACA 资本集团有限公司）；GETTR USA, Inc.（GETTR 美国公司）；Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金 SPC）；Hamilton PE Fund SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金 SP）；Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金 SP）；Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.（喜马拉雅货币清算有限公司）；Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）；Himalaya International Financial Group Limited（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）；Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）；Taurus Management LLC（金牛管理有限责任公司）；及 William Je（威廉·杰）：\nMichael T. Conway, Esquire（迈克尔·T·康威律师）\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所）\n747 Third Avenue（第三大道 747 号）\n16 层\n纽约州纽约市 10017\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项编号 3981\n由 Kari A. Mitchell（卡里·A·米切尔）代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的第十八项动议：请求授权审查其他相关银行、与债务人有关联的其他实体和个人，以及工资处理实体\n8\n\n法院裁定：\n18\n\n事项编号 4004\n由 Patrick R. Linsey 代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提交的第二项补充动议：请求将根据《破产法》第 108、546 和 549 条主张受时限限制的请求权的期限延长至 8/15/2025\n18\n\n法院裁定：\n81\n\n* * *\n\n受托人传唤的证人：页码\n\nLUC A. DESPINS\n\n由 Bassett 律师直接询问\n20\n\n由 Sklarz 律师交叉询问\n33\n\n由 Laddin 律师交叉询问\n43\n\n由 Bassett 律师复询\n47\n\n速记员证明书\n82\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 4172 提交 02/27/25 登记 02/27/25 09:05:42 第 4 页，共 82 页\n\n（庭审于下午 1:02 开始。）\n\n法庭：因此，请法警宣读今日庭审日程。\n\n法警：好的。案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法庭：下午好。请各位为记录说明出庭身份，先请第 11 章受托人。\n\nDESPINS 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第 11 章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBASSETT 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 Paul Hastings 的 Nick Bassett，代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Neubert Pepe & Monteith 律师事务所的 Patrick Linsey，代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSKLARZ 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Jeffrey Sklarz，代表 G Club Operations, LLC；以及 Ogier、FFP BVI, Ltd. 和 Weddle Law, PLLC。谢谢。\n\n法庭：您刚才——Ogier——拼作 O-g——\n\nSKLARZ 律师：是，O——\n\n法庭：——i-e-r。\n\nSKLARZ 律师：正确。\n\nDESPINS 律师：Ogier。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nSKLARZ 律师：O-g-i-e-r，您拼对了。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为 Despins 律师的发音不同。它的发音是什么？我相信我发音不正确。\n\nSKLARZ 律师：是 Ogier。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：Ogier。\n\n法庭：据告知，其发音为 Ogier。\n\nDESPINS 律师：Monsieur Despins。\n\n（笑声）\n\n法庭：好的。但无论如何——\n\nSKLARZ 律师：嗯，我刚刚听到——\n\n法庭：——我们现已为记录拼写了该名称，这一点很重要，所以谢谢。\n\nSKLARZ 律师：我不在乎我们怎么发音。\n\n（笑声）\n\nYAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Jin Yan，代表 Apple, Inc. 和 Meta Platforms, Inc.\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 4172\n提交 02/27/25\n登记 02/27/25 09:05:42\n\nLADDIN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nLaddin 律师：我是 Arnall Golden Gregory 律师事务所的 Darryl Laddin，代表 American Express Company。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nCONWAY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nConway 律师：我是 Michael Conway，来自 Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle。就第一项事项而言，我代表 Wang's Realty Management, Inc. 和 River Valley Operations。就第二项事项而言，我代表 ACA Capital Group Ltd.；GETTR USA, Inc.；Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC；Hamilton PE Fund SP；Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP；Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty. Ltd.；Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.；Himalaya International Financial Group Limited；Taurus Fund LLC；Taurus Management LLC；以及 William Je。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n好的。今天本案庭审日程中有两项事项。如 Conway 律师所述，第一项是第十八项综合性《规则 2004》审查动议，庭审日程中的第二项动议是请求延长在时限限制下主张请求权期限的动议。\n\nDespins 受托人，这两项均为您的事项，您希望如何进行？\n\nDESPINS 律师：法官阁下，Linsey 律师将首先处理 2004 事项。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 律师：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表第 11 章受托人的 Patrick Linsey。考虑到还有另一项事项，我会尽量简短。\n\n第十八项《规则 2004》动议请求授权审查七名个人和实体。其中包括三家银行及金融机构、一家工资和人力资源公司、两家与债务人有关联的实体以及一名个人。\n\nRiver Valley Operations LLC 和 Wang's Realty Management Service, Inc. 已提出异议，二者均援引未决程序原则，因为它们是撤销某些转让之诉讼中的被告。\n\n先谈 River Valley。River Valley 甚至不是该 2004 动议中的被审查对象；该实体仅在附于该动议所附传票格式文本中的文件请求中被提及。\n\n自第 11 章案件开始以来，受托人的文件请求一直包括涉及债务人及与债务人有关联的个人和实体的请求。这是基于这样一个事实：债务人的空壳公司操作是通过名义上由关联实体拥有的空壳公司进行的。\n\n关于 River Valley Operations 的一些简要背景。受托人了解到，债务人曾利用 River Valley 向其他受债务人控制的实体和个人转移资金，以及从其处转入资金。仅举几个例子。\n\n债务人利用 River Valley 为阿拉伯联合酋长国的业务提供资金，其中包括 River Valley 从 ACA Capital 收到的 \\$8 million；受托人认为并已在其第一项综合性另我实体诉讼中主张，ACA Capital 是债务人的另我实体之一。\n\nRiver Valley 将该 \\$8 million 中的 4.5 million 转移给名为“H Reserve”的实体，该实体为债务人在阿拉伯联合酋长国的业务提供资金。\n\nRiver Valley 本身还为债务人在阿拉伯联合酋长国的业务支付了数百万美元的费用，包括豪华酒店、资源，以及在那里购买的 BMW 车辆。\n\nRiver Valley 还曾向债务人的女儿电汇资金，她已将该等资金用于支付其律师费。\n\n鉴于 River Valley 甚至不是该 2004 动议项下的被审查对象，法院此前已处理过多项此类异议。我谨请法院参阅其准许第二、第五、第六及第八项综合性《规则 2004》动议的裁定；这些裁定均驳回了类似异议。\n\n法院已明确指出，即使未决程序原则完全适用，也仅在受托人寻求从未决程序的一方当事人而非第三方获取证据开示时才会被触发。\n\n而且，当然，不存在将诉讼当事人一概排除在《规则 2004》证据开示范围之外的规定。\n\n这一点至少自 2023 年 6 月以来就已明确，当时 Greenwich Land 表示，我们不应因 Greenwich Land 对抗程序而能够从金融交易公司 Bento 获取证据开示。法官阁下驳回了该异议。\n\n我们从 Bento 获取的证据开示，对于编制我们提出的若干撤销诉讼起诉状至关重要，而这些起诉状与 Greenwich Land 毫无关系。\n\n至于 Wang's Realty，第十八项《规则 2004》动议明确表明，受托人寻求进行该调查，并非因为向 Wang's Realty 作出的转让，而是因为 Wang's Realty 本身已向债务人的另我实体空壳公司作出数百万美元的转让。\n\n受托人答复的第四页载有一张图表，概述了 Wang's Realty 作出的约二十四笔转让，合计近 \\$10 million；相比之下，作为 Wang's Realty 当事人的撤销诉讼中的请求仅涉及向 Wang's Realty 作出的一笔转让。\n\n当受托人试图将《规则 2004》证据开示用作对抗程序中《规则 45》证据开示的替代手段时，适用未决程序原则才是恰当的。显然，受托人在此并未如此行事。\n\n如法院所知，撤销诉讼中有 300 多名被告当事人。受托人并未提出《规则 2004》动议以从这些当事人获取证据开示。\n\n如该动议所述，Wang's Realty 成为本《规则 2004》动议被审查对象的原因并非向 Wang's Realty 作出的转让，而是 Wang's Realty 作出的转让。\n\n为使这一点更加明确，受托人已在其答复中附上一份修订后的命令，其中明确将撤销诉讼所涉及的向 Wang's Realty 作出的转让排除在《规则 2004》证据开示范围之外。\n\n因此，除非法官阁下有任何问题，受托人请求准许第十八项《规则 2004》动议。\n\n法庭：谢谢。目前我没有任何问题。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nCONWAY 律师：是的，法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n法庭：可以，谢谢。\n\nCONWAY 律师：下午好。我再次以 Wang's Realty 和 River Valley 的代理人 Michael Conway 的身份出庭。\n\nOperations。\n\n我认为，我们刚才听到的情况在某种程度上清楚地表明，就 River Valley（河谷）而言，这恰恰是法院所担忧的问题：通过 2004 审查程序而非依据第45条规则来处理此事。民事诉讼规则提供了在 2004 审查中并不存在的保护。\n\n如果法院驳回该动议，并不是告诉受托人不能进行证据开示；只是告诉他必须以正确的方式进行，即依据民事诉讼规则，从而给予 River Valley 其应有的保护。\n\n就 Wang's Realty（王氏地产）而言，我不确定我们所听到的说法是否合理。如果受托人说，我们知道你向债务人支付了款项，因此我们要对你进行证言录取，那么这没有任何目的；他们已经知道款项进入了债务人，他们确切知道款项去了哪里。没有必要进行该证言录取。\n\n法官阁下，我们知道这里真正发生了什么。他们想就其他问题询问 Wang's Realty，而这些问题可以用于与 Wang's Realty、River Valley，或者可能是已经提起的众多其他对抗程序之一相关的对抗程序。但归根结底，法官阁下，同一问题仍然适用：我们应当依据民事诉讼规则，而不是依据破产程序规则来进行此事，因为前者赋予了不受限制的权利，而这对接受证言录取者是不公平的。\n\n我不想赘述。听起来法官阁下以前已经进行过这一分析。不过，如同大多数情形一样，我并未有机会参加任何那些听证会，因此当律师提到那些听证会时，我不知道他所指的是哪些听证会。但是，如果法官阁下已经作出决定，那就如此吧。但这确实不适当，我们坚持我们的异议。\n\n法院：请稍等，Conway 律师（康威律师），我只是想——当你说——只是为了使记录清楚——你没有机会参加那些听证会时，我相信你已在主案中代表许多实体提交了出庭通知，其中包括你今天所代表的实体。因此，你本应收到那些听证会的通知，并且至少在某个时间点已被送达先前关于第2004条审查的动议，因为根据案卷记录，你已经出庭——无论如何。我现在不会查阅全部 4,400 项记录，但我只是想指出这一点。\n\n至少根据我所看到的，你确实在主案中出庭。\n\nConway 先生：截至今天安排的下一次听证会之日，我确实提交了——我没有提交出庭通知，但我代表那些案件中的实体出庭。而且，在——抱歉——在该程序中，我注意到当我这样做时——\n\n法院：什么程序？\n\nConway 先生：紧随本案之后的那个程序，涉及——\n\n法院：那也是在主案中——\n\nConway 先生：——延长期间的请求。\n\n法院：——也是如此。这些是文件——这些是动议。这是受托人在第11章案件中寻求的救济，而不是在具体对抗程序中寻求的救济。\n\nConway 先生：这正是我刚才所说的，法官阁下。我说的是，当我在主案中提交对下一项待审事项的异议时，我注意到我在记录上并未显示为在主案中代表任何人。我现在是了。\n\n法院：嗯，我这里有——我有你代表 Hamilton PE Fund（Hamilton 私募股权基金）、Hamilton Opportunity Fund（Hamilton 机会基金）、GETTR USA（GETTR 美国）、ACA Capital（ACA 资本）提交的出庭通知。你是说这些刚刚在主案中提交？\n\nConway 先生：那些从未在主案中提交；它们是在对抗程序中提交的。\n\n法院：嗯，它们是在主案中提交的，因为——无论如何，根据案卷记录，它们是。\n\nConway 先生：它们是在对抗程序中提交的，但是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 14 of 82\n\n它们刚于周五在主案中提交。我没有——我勾选了那个方框：你未被列为本案中该特定当事人的律师。我——\n\n法院：有时 CM/ECF 会出现问题——无论如何，我明白你的意思。我得回去查看。摆在我面前的材料——我并未仔细研究，所以我可能完全错了，好吗——似乎显示你此前已提交出庭通知，但你可能是对的，即这些都只是最近才在主案中提交。\n\nConway 先生：而且，法官阁下，并非我对主案毫无关注，但这并不意味着当受托人提交第二项第2004条审查动议时，我甚至知道这是什么案件。\n\n法院：我明白你的意思。\n\nConway 先生：所以，是的，只是——\n\n法院：这就是我提出这个问题的原因，好吗。\n\nConway 先生：在受托人提交 4,000 多份文件后，我认为我并未关注其中每一份。\n\n法院：嗯，并非全部都是受托人提交的。\n\nConway 先生：是的。\n\n法院：在受托人获任之前，债务人占有期间也提交了相当多的文件。\n\nConway 先生：法官阁下，我刚才是在开玩笑，我想您可能也是如此，我看到您脸上的笑容。\n\n法院：我只是想确保记录清楚，好吗？\n\nConway 先生：记录应当反映，我没有参加过任何那些听证会。我那番评论唯一的目的，是指出，嗯，说“如你从先前听证会所知，我们讨论过这个”或“我们讨论过那个”，在某种程度上是不公平的。您知道——\n\n法院：嗯，我认为他们不是这么说的。我认为——我所听到的 Linsey 律师（林赛律师）所说的是，你已经在四份不同的裁定中处理过这些问题；我认为他是这么说的。我不——你当时可能参加了，也可能没有参加该案。我所能——我能看到的是，在 2023 年末和 2024 年初，你代表了，至少——\n\nConway 先生：Taurus。\n\n法院：——Taurus Fund（Taurus 基金），对吗，在主案中，而不只是在对抗程序中。因此没关系。我只是问你这个问题，而你已经回答了。我会查看案卷并了解情况。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 17 of 82\n\n但我理解你的论点，并且我显然会考虑你的论点，即在 Linsey 律师提出其论点所提及的先前裁定时，你并未在能够就那些先前裁定提出论点的时点参与其中。\n\nConway 先生：是的。而且我可以向您保证，无论如何，我没有看到它。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nConway 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nLinsey 先生：非常简要地说，法官阁下。我认为这恰恰说明了为什么存在会面协商义务，以便在证据开示争议提交法官阁下裁决之前，可以对这些问题进行讨论。我还要指出，在 Conway 先生代表 River Valley 出庭之前，River Valley 曾通过另一位律师，就针对第三方的第2004条证据开示提交了一项撤销动议。这是在九月份——\n\n法院：2024 年？\n\nLinsey 先生：2024 年。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nLinsey 先生：受托人被要求提交一份\n\n反对意见，最终促成了一项允许受托人取得证据开示的协议。在该反对意见中，受托人指出，River Valley 在提交其撤销动议时未遵守会面协商义务。同样，其在本案中也未遵守。这已成为与债务人有关联的实体的一种趋势，即在就证据开示争议作出裁决之前，或在寻求就证据开示争议作出裁决之前，不先打电话沟通。\n\n法院：还有什么要补充的吗，Conway 律师？\n\nConway 先生：没有，法官阁下；就这样。\n\n法院：好的。还有其他人——谢谢——还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：我只是查看一下案卷。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：好的。我将——我将审阅律师们的论点，并将该事项留待裁决，随后将作出相应裁定。谢谢。\n\nConway 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：Despins 受托人（德斯潘斯受托人），您现在希望继续审理延长期限动议吗？\n\nDespins 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\nBassett 先生（巴塞特先生）将处理该事项。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nBassett 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n为记录起见，Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯），代表第11章受托人。\n\n法官阁下，今天我们审理的是受托人第三次请求延长提起撤销诉讼的期间。法院此前已批准过两项此类动议；具体而言，2024 年 2 月 15 日，法院批准了受托人的第一项动议，将提起撤销诉讼的截止期限从 February 15th, 2024 延长至 August 15th, 2024。该命令载于主案 ECF 2921。\n\n随后，法官阁下，2024 年 8 月 14 日，法院批准受托人进一步将该截止期限从 August 15th, 2024 延长至 February 15th, 2025；该命令载于主案 ECF 3417。\n\n如同在法院先前作出那两项命令之前的最近两次听证会中所做的那样，我今天建议先简要陈述支持受托人动议的证据，然后再进行辩论。法官阁下，关于证据，我们已在案卷中提交证人和证物清单，请求法院对本案记录予以司法认知；这同样符合我们在本法院就先前两项动议举行的最近两次听证会中的处理方式。然后，我们还\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 20 of 82\n\n确认受托人为我们拟使其就支持该动议作出简要证言的一名证人，当然，受托人将接受交叉询问。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我建议此时开始询问受托人。正如我所说，他当然将接受交叉询问，此后，如法院可以接受，我们将就该动议进行辩论？\n\n法院：我可以接受。\n\nBassett 先生：因此，法官阁下，我们现在传唤受托人出庭作证。\n\n法警：Despins 受托人，请您站起来好吗？\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯潘斯），受托人证人，经宣誓\n\n证人：我愿意。\n\n法警：谢谢。\n\n请为记录陈述您的姓名和地址。\n\n证人：Luc Despins。营业地址为 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York。\n\n直接询问\n\n由 Bassett 先生进行：\n\n问：Despins 先生，下午好。\n\n您是否记得于 February 13th, 2024 就……作证？\n\n问：您曾在本院就第一次延长时效期限的动议作证，是吗？\n\n答：一般来说，是的。\n\n问：然后您也记得，您再次于 2024 年 October 13th 就您的第二次动议作证，我相信是这样，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。因此，鉴于此，并且您已经作证两次，我将尽量不重复您已经作出的证词，而是努力将我的问题重点放在——除非我另有说明——主要是自 2024 年 August 起至今所发生的期间。可以吗？\n\n答：当然。\n\n问：现在，请您花一点时间，概括向本院说明，自 2024 年 August 以来，您和您的团队就调查工作一直在做什么？\n\n答：嗯，我们继续审阅截至当时已经提交的所有文件；这是第一步。这涉及 Kroll（科尔），并且总体而言，还涉及两家律所，即 Linsey先生（林赛先生）的律所和 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）。我们还提交了额外的 Rule 2004 文件请求，并且我们推进或开始推进某些旨在追回资金的诉讼。还有，我们——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 4172 于 02/27/25 提交 于 02/27/25 09:05:42 录入 第 21 页，共 82 页\n\n——我会说，更全面地着手在多个国家开展外国程序，以寻求信息，也寻求追回资产。\n\n问：您刚才提到的事项中包括提交额外的 Rule 2004 动议。您是否记得，自去年 August 以来，您大约提交了多少项新动议？\n\n答：四项。\n\n问：在这四项动议中，或者合计在这四项动议中，您是否大致知道新增证据开示对象的数量？\n\n答：我认为大约是 27 个对象。\n\n问：那么，对于这 27 个对象，您是否向全部 27 个对象寻求文件？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：如果您知道，大约有多少文件，或者多少页文件，您能否向本院说明，自 August 以来，您因这些 Rule 2004 动议收到了多少文件？\n\n答：从这些对象处，约 30,000 页文件。\n\n问：我想您以前已经略微谈过这个问题——但您能否概括向本院说明，当您收到这些文件时，处理流程是什么？\n\n答：嗯，显然，这些文件会被下载至使我们能够——这里的“我们”不仅指律师，也包括 Kroll（科尔）——访问这些文件并进行关键词检索的软件中。因此，这就是我们收到这些文件后进行的流程。这些文件经常会提及银行账户，因此 Kroll 会介入，开始编制我们此前没有掌握的新银行账户等的清单。\n\n问：这个流程通常需要多长时间——您不必具体到天或周——但一般而言需要多长时间？\n\n答：需要相当长的时间，尤其是在银行账户处理方面。但我们必须记住，我们没有账簿和记录，因此我们实际拥有并依赖的唯一账簿和记录是银行账户，因为它们来自第三方，我们必须推定其真实性。因此，Kroll 会审查这些银行账户，我已经说明过——您知道——我使用俄罗斯套娃的类比，对吧。您从一个账户开始，打开它，里面就有资金流入和流出；资金从我们知道或不知道的账户流入，又流向我们知道或不知道的账户。基于此，就会产生一系列额外查询，因此 Kroll 会对 Linsey先生说——\n\n因为他的律所主要处理银行证据开示——我们发现以下 10 个新的银行账户——这只是一个例子；实际远不止这些——但假设有 10 个银行账户。您已经就这些银行取得了命令，但它们从未提交这些银行账户；请去寻求取得这些资料。\n\n因此，他会向那些已有的银行寻求提交资料，或者——我所说的“已有”，是指受 Rule 2004 命令约束的银行——如果不是，则我们将其加入我们的对象清单。\n\n问：那么，我稍后会就这些银行账户以及您一直在对其进行分析的工作问您几个问题。在此之前，我想回到您刚才所说的，我想您说自 August 以来，您已就 27 个新增方提交了 2004 动议；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：是否有任何理由说明，您在 August 之前或本案更早的任何时候，没有以这 27 个特定方作为 Rule 2004 请求的对象？\n\n答：有。我们通常在得知对象后即将其加入。没有不这样做的动机。坦白说，我们尽量不每周都提交一项动议，因此我们会在提交 2004 动议前积累一定数量的对象；否则，我们每周、每两周都要提交一次 2004 动议，这会无故增加本院负担。但除此之外，我们会在得知新实体后——我不会说是立即——但很快寻求 2004 救济。\n\n因此，这些实体是通过我再次称为俄罗斯套娃类比的方式发现的：您打开银行账户，哦，里面有一笔向 X 公司转账。我此前从未听说过 X 公司。然后，我们沿着这条线索继续调查，如此等等。\n\n问：我想回到您刚才关于银行账户所说的内容，并希望您或许能够提供一些数字，如有可能，以便让本院了解该调查的规模。从账户数量开始，我相信您说您识别出了新增账户，您能否大致说一下，自 August 以来您和您的团队识别出了多少新增账户？\n\n答：超过 200 个。\n\n问：那么，在这些账户中，您大致知道识别出并由您的团队分析了多少笔新增交易吗？\n\n答：是的，超过 55,000 笔交易。\n\n问：这些交易是资金流入和流出吗？\n\n答：两者都是。因此，在这 55,000 笔交易中，流入资金为 800——再次说明，这些都是粗略数字——800 million，流出资金为 1.4 billion。\n\n问：我想您之前谈到过这个问题，但面对所有这些信息，您和您的团队在 Kroll 的协助下正在做什么？\n\n答：嗯，我们正在努力查明这些实体在做什么、它们在 Kwok（郭文贵）体系中扮演什么角色；通过我们掌握的文件提交材料或其他来源，我们能够拼凑出情况，并说，好，现在我们知道该实体基于以下理由是 Kwok 的替身实体。然后，我们将该实体加入一项关于替身实体的诉状或修正诉状，或者我们知道这是一名从 Kwok 企业获得付款的第三方，我们将对该实体主张或已经主张撤销权诉讼。\n\n问：我相信，当我概括询问您和您的团队在过去大约六个月中一直在做什么时，您还提到在海外开展了一些工作。我不确定自己这样表述是否正确。假设这正确，您能否向本院进一步说明？\n\n答：是的。我们知道存在海外活动，但我们没有达到足以真正判断是否值得动用破产财产资金，在某些司法管辖区追查某些活动所需的细节程度。但通过刑事审判和其他来源，我们最终能够拼凑出情况；我会说，在 August、September、October，我们开始形成一幅图景，了解哪些国家的活动最为频繁。这些国家包括 Switzerland（瑞士）、UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国）、U.K.（英国）、British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）和 Mauritius（毛里求斯）。\n\n因此，我们在这些司法管辖区所做的，要么是抵制我们所认为由 Kwok 替身实体进行的处置资金或进行某些交易的活动，要么是我们自己寻求被这些司法管辖区承认为外国代表，以便在这些司法管辖区对从 Kwok 企业实体收取资金的受领人主张权利。\n\n问：如果您记得，您能否让本院了解一下，我想，您的外国调查工作目前处于什么阶段？\n\n答：各国情况不同，但我会说，与本程序相比，我们总体上处于相当初步的阶段，因为进展要慢得多。这些国家的阻力要大得多；不是来自这些国家的司法机构本身，而是来自 Kwok 的代理人，因此，与我们在这里取得的活动程度和成功相比，进展确实非常缓慢。\n\n问：当您说来自 Kwok 代理人的阻力时，您能举几个例子吗？\n\n答：是的，我的意思是，一个例子是 Ace Decade（艾斯迪凯德），本院对此非常熟悉。Ace Decade 是一家 BVI 实体，而它所做的是——该实体的一名自称股东、一名 Swiss（瑞士）居民所做的是——他在 BVI 为 Ace Decade 及一间非破产财产子公司启动了破产程序。\n\n因此，我们一直在与此抗争，而阻力程度令人难以置信，意思是，您知道，就在最近，有人采取立场称 Kwok先生并非这些实体的所有人，另有他人是所有人，但我们不能说那个人是谁，因为那会使该人面临风险。因此，这些只是没完没了、耗时且代价高昂的拖延策略。这是一个例子。\n\n但在 U.K.，一个 Hamilton（汉密尔顿）实体启动了破产程序，基本上是向当地法院称：我们是一家经营中的企业。当然，我们向 FBI（联邦调查局）出示了截图，显示该场所已关闭，已被 FBI 止赎。但他们告诉法院这是一家持续经营的企业，只是有几个问题需要解决，我们需要把钱送往 UAE，在那里继续经营该企业。因此，我们当然需要出庭并告诉法院：等一下，事情并非如此。UAE 的那些人，其中有 William Je（威廉·杰），他是一名在逃人员，等等。\n\n因此，这就是我们所称的“Kwok 代理人”所实施的此类行动的一个例子，目的是规避本院的管辖权，并清洗资金以分配给 Kwok 的人。这相当于曾试图在 New York（纽约）进行的为债权人利益而作的转让，试图说，哦，我们只是需要清理一下，等等。但后来变得非常清楚的是，这项安排的设计目的是，那个实体的债权人是 Kwok 实体，因此他们试图循环使用资金，将其交给 Kwok 实体。这与此相当，但发生在 U.K.；该事项仍在审理中。在 Mauritius 也在一定程度上发生，而这基本上就是我们必须应对的情况。\n\n问：您正在遇到的这些问题如何——如果确有影响——使您的外国调查工作面临困难，又如何——如果确有影响——影响了您在 February 15th 之前识别和追索本来想要追索的额外撤销权请求的能力？\n\n答：嗯，这是同一支团队，意思是，是的，我们有外国律师，但——这并非对他们的批评——他们对本案一无所知，因此归根结底，我们必须向他们详细讲解这里发生的情况、本院作出的各项裁定，等等。因此，这意味着通常会——\n\n对我们正在讨论的各类请求的关注，不得不被搁置，以应对这些在世界各地不断出现的各类程序，阻止它们，或者说，基本上，试图阻止它们。\n\n问：再问几个问题。正如我们在开始时所指出的，您此前曾就您向本院提交的两项延期动议作证予以支持，您是否记得在此前那两次场合，就本案早期您面对的债务人及其关联人士造成的某些拖延和阻挠作过证？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么，我想问您的是，您在本案早期所面对的那种阻挠，此后在何种程度上持续影响了您进一步的调查，包括在过去六个月中？\n\n答：嗯，基本上，正如我所说，因为我们没有账簿和记录——您知道，我们并不是一家试图重建其账簿和记录的五金店；这是一个数十亿美元规模的企业。因此，从零开始重建这些资料是一项巨大的任务，这就是为什么未能合作、未能基本上向我们提供路线图，说明这些文件为何存在、它们如何运作，再加上存在所有这些秘密文件，例如不时出现的这些信托协议，称这家公司的真正所有人不是某某人，而是X先生，或者另一份协议称，这套公寓实际上由Y先生所有。\n\n但是，等到我们解决所有这些问题时，数月已经过去。数十万，甚至数百万美元被用于——您知道，最好的例子是The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店），其儿子在本院出庭称，哦，我有一份信托协议，说明我是所有人而不是我父亲。我们不得不为此投入大量时间和金钱；当然，那一切都发生在8月之前，但关键在于，那些金钱和时间本可用于审查其他事项，却不得不用于应对这些旨在拖慢我们、并且基本上阻碍程序的各种策略。\n\n问：现在，Despins（德斯平斯）先生，今天在场的某些提出异议的当事人在其书面文件中至少主张，他们认为，您不应能够以概括方式，就未来针对任何当事人提起撤销权诉讼，在无限期内持续寻求并获得不确定期限的延期。\n\n您对此如何回应？\n\n答：这是一个合理的观点，即我们在动议中表示，我们的意图是，除非发生无法预见的事件，这将是最后一次一揽子延期；如果我们再次向本院申请延期，我们将尝试针对某些类别的请求或对象寻求延期。我现在无法界定这些类别是什么，但其理念是，这个程序必须有一个终点。我完全同意这一概念。\n\n我们尚未到达那个阶段，但我希望这将是最后一次一揽子——这也是我们在动议中对其的描述——最后一次一揽子延期。可能仍需要进一步延期，但那必须按照对象类别或类型处理，例如国际转账等，举例而言。\n\n问：我最后一个问题是，您认为是否还有任何您尚未作证的事项，以您作为本Chapter 11案件受托人的观点，能够证明您请求获得额外六个月以提起撤销权诉讼是合理的？\n\n答：没有，我的意思是，除非要说，允许人们仅仅基于这样的技术性问题而逃脱——您知道——不当行为，会有些荒谬。正如我所说，我并不认为我们应有10年来做这件事，我们也并未寻求如此做，但您知道，若有责任的当事人仅仅基于某些技术性问题而逃脱本案中已经发生的事情，那将确实非常令人遗憾且不恰当。\n\n问：谢谢。\n\nBASSETT（巴塞特）先生：法官阁下，我们不再询问该证人。\n\n本院：好的。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172\nFiled 02/27/25\nEntered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 33 of 82\n\n交叉询问，Sklarz（斯克拉兹）律师？\n\n交叉询问\n\n由SKLARZ先生进行：\n\n问：\n下午好，Despins受托人。\n\n答：\n下午好。\n\n问：\n您对G Club（G俱乐部）还拥有何种其他请求权？\n\n答：\n嗯，我不确切知道，但有一些事项涉及那张200万美元的支票，我想那张支票此前被扣留。\n所以，这是我们正在调查的事项。\n\n问：\n您指的是由政府持有的那张200万美元支票吗？\n\n答：\n是，但G Club持有该支票一年多。\n\n问：\n大约自去年11月或12月起，您就已知悉该支票，对吗？\n\n答：\n大约是那个时候，当然。\n\n问：\n自那时起，您没有向G Club要求提供有关该支票的更多信息，对吗？\n\n答：\n据我所知，没有。\n\n问：\n您还希望了解有关该支票的哪些信息？\n\n答：\n嗯，我不确定我是否需要G Club就该支票提供更多信息，但我们正在分析——您知道——与该支票有关的情况；这是其中一项。\n\n问：\n对于已移交给United States Government（美国政府）的资金，您是否就该支票与政府谈过？\n\n答：没有——不，我想没有。\n\n问：所以您不知道您是否对G Club拥有任何其他请求权；这样说公平吗？\n\n答：与管理或代表G Club的人员相比，是的。\n\n问：G Club本身呢？\n\n答：嗯，我们已经提起了另我责任诉讼，所以……\n\n问：您是否还希望对G Club提出任何其他请求权？\n\n答：我——我的意思是，我——目前没有想到任何。\n\n问：好的。并且，自本案开始以来，您一直有时间调查G Club，对吗？\n\n答：嗯，自本案开始以来，我们一直有时间调查所有事项，但——G Club只是数千个问题之一。\n\n问：并且，G Club已移交数十万页文件，接受过一次2004审查，并且已被起诉数次，对吗？\n\n答：嗯，如果您想要完整情况，那就是他们扣留了文件——\n\n问：我只是——他们确实——扣留了文件？\n\n答：当然。\n\n问：请说出一次法官阁下就文件问题作出裁定，而文件没有被移交的情形。您说不出一次，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 34 of 82\n\n答：不，曾有整个程序，我们不得不申请强制，并且有整个文件提交过程——\n\n问：正确。Manning（曼宁）法官作出了裁定，文件也被移交了，对吗。我刚才所作的陈述是真实的，对吗，先生？\n\n答：嗯，这些文件曾被扣留；这是事实。然后我们不得不申请强制，本院不得不命令你们提交（听不清）——\n\n问：您是否认为遵守法院命令在某种程度上不妥？\n\n答：不，但这全都是（听不清）——\n\n问：谢谢，您已经回答了问题。那么，G Club在去年11月和12月移交了文件，对吗？\n\n本院：为使记录明确，您指的是2024年，对吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：2024年，是的。\n\n本院：我只是想确认一下。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我只是想确认一下，Despins受托人站在这里，而受托人的律师已数次表示我的委托人没有移交文件。正如法官阁下所知，我们提出了异议，您已对此作出适当裁定，而我们也已移交文件。我认为这令人反感——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 35 of 82\n\n本院：在哪里——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——对司法程序——\n\n本院：您是在说Bassett先生今天在辩论中所说的，即G Club没有移交文件吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：不是。\n\n本院：您是说——您问的是——\n\nSKLARZ先生：Despins受托人。\n\n本院：是的。而且他已经回答了问题，因此我会赋予其我认为适当的分量和可信度。\n\nSKLARZ先生：完全可以，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n由SKLARZ先生进行：\n\n问：那么，在2024年11月和12月，G Club移交了文件，对吗？\n\n答：他们移交了某些文件，是的。\n\n问：您要求的文件，对吗？\n\n答：嗯，我不知道，因为你们应当提交这些文件。因此，我们要求了文件。我不知道你们是否提交了所有文件。\n\n问：自2024年11月或12月以来，您是否向G Club要求过更多文件？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您不知道。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 36 of 82\n\n那么，您会同意，无论您的表述如何，G Club已移交数十万页文件，对吗？\n\n这是一个只能回答“是”或“否”的问题。\n\n答：\n我不知道是否有数十万页。我知道他们提交了文件。至于是否数十万页，我不知道。\n\n问：\nG Club还提供了一名30(b)(6)证人，接受了Bassett律师的证言录取，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n就您今天坐在这里而言，您并不知道任何可对G Club提出的额外请求权，对吗？\n\n答：\n我不认为我这样说过；我说我们正在调查一项额外请求权。我们尚未作出决定。\n\n问：\n就您今天坐在这里而言，您知道自己认为可以对G Club提出何种请求权？\n\n答：\n我——我们正在调查此事，所以我（听不清）——\n\n问：\n我知道您正在调查，但请听我的问题，先生。\n\n就您今天坐在这里而言，您可以对G Club提出什么请求权，您知道有任何吗？\n\n答：\n嗯，我告诉过您，我们正在审查那张被扣留一年的200万美元支票的问题。\n\n问：\n但一张200万美元支票不是请求权；一张200万美元支票就是一张支票。请听我的问题：就您今天坐在这里而言，您知道可以对G Club提出哪些请求权？\n\n答：我不理解您所说的200万美元支票只是支票是什么意思；那是另我主体的资产，而G Club就是该另我主体，所以——\n\nSKLARZ先生：法官阁下，我已多次提出这个问题。我请求他仅回答问题，而不是发表一番讲话。\n\n本院：（听不清。）\n\nSKLARZ先生：我再提出一次问题。\n\n由SKLARZ先生进行：\n\n问：就您今天坐在这里而言，Despins受托人，如果有，您知道可以对G Club提出哪些请求权？\n\n答：我说过，我们正在审查就那张200万美元支票提出请求权。\n\n问：所以您不知道有任何请求权？\n\n答：不，我不是这样说的。我已经回答了问题。\n\n问：您认为可以就那张200万美元支票对G Club提出何种请求权？\n\n答：追回$2 million。\n\n问：已移交给United States Government（美国政府）的$2 million？\n\n答：您已经把支票交给政府；我不确定\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 38 of 82\n\n但它已经被兑现了，所以，除非你告诉我它已经被兑现了，不过……问：你没有就此事与政府沟通过吗？答：没有。问：什么——法庭：为使记录也清楚明确，关于交给政府的那张200万美元支票；我不知道你——我的意思是，我大概知道你在说什么，但我认为本案记录中尚无任何关于此事的内容，除非是我——我遗漏了什么。SKLARZ律师（斯克拉兹）：您没有遗漏，法官阁下。法庭：好的。SKLARZ律师：我会——法庭：那么，当你说“交给政府”时，你是指与该刑事诉讼有关吗？SKLARZ律师：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。这就是我需要知道的全部。就这些——我只是问一下，因为我不知道。没有任何——我不记得在文件中看到过任何关于一张200万美元支票的内容，然后你说“政府”，所以我只是问一下。就这些。由SKLARZ律师询问：问：你知道政府已向G Club（G俱乐部）发出传票，要求交出那张支票吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 4172 提交于 02/27/25 录入于 02/27/25 09:05:42 第39页，共82页\n\n答：是，我看到了传票。问：谢谢。依你之见，G Club是否应当无视该传票？答：我不代表G Club，所以这不是由我决定的事。但我想，这意味着G Club认为那是刑事诉讼的一部分，对吗，因为它交出的是某项什么——犯罪的收益？问：你——你是在问我问题吗？答：我——SKLARZ律师：法官阁下，我请求将该陈述从记录中删除。法庭：可以。我们继续。法警：不好意思，如果Despins受托人（德斯潘）可以把麦克风稍微拉近一些。我们能收录到他的声音，但音量有点低。证人：抱歉。会照办。法警：谢谢。由SKLARZ律师询问：问：你认为你对Ogier（奥杰尔）还有哪些其他请求权，或者如果我把它读错了，敬请见谅？答：你读得可能是对的，我见过这种读法，但我们将对Ogier提出额外请求权。问：什么请求权？答：欺诈性转让。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 4172 提交于 02/27/25 录入于 02/27/25 09:05:42 第40页，共82页\n\n问：你何时知悉这些请求权？答：在最近几个月。问：所以，尽管你知悉这些请求权，但你尚未提出它们？答：如我所说，我们不能每当发现一项请求权时就每天提出一项请求权。我们会尽力组织起来，同时提出一系列请求权，而这是一项将会很快提出的请求权，且会在February 15th之前；就这么说吧。问：你是否知悉针对FFP的任何额外请求权？答：那一项，我不记得了。Ogier，我记得，因为这个名字。但这一项，我无法作出肯定或否定的回答。问：你知道FFP是G Club和G Club International（G俱乐部国际）的独立管理人，对吗？答：是，现在你提到这一点，你是对的。问：既然已陈述——既然你已恢复记忆，这是否使你恢复了关于你是否对FFP拥有任何额外请求权的记忆？答：没有，因为我——你知道，有超过280名被告，而我们大概会增加20、25名，所以我不记得该实体是否在那份名单上。问：关于Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所），你是否知悉你会对Weddle Law提出任何请求权？答：我不记得。\n\n问：现在，你在书面陈述以及今天的证词中提出的论点之一是，Kwok先生（郭文贵）一直在妨碍你的调查；这样说公平吗？答：Kwok先生或其代理人。问：好的。那么，让我们把Kwok先生和他的代理人区分开来。自今年August起，即你获得第二次延期时起，Kwok先生如何妨碍了这些程序？答：因为他没有交出他控制的各个实体的账簿和记录。问：他一直被单独监禁约两年；对吗？答：我不知道他在监狱里被关在哪里，但他作为债务人，有义务提供账簿和记录。他从未这样做，因此这是持续的不履行。问：所以——而且那是第一次和第二次延期的依据，对吗？答：而且，如我所解释或作证的那样，这今天再次构成依据，因为这会产生连锁效应，而我们今天仍持续承受该等影响。问：你认为Kwok先生会与您的调查合作吗？答：我对此表示怀疑。SKLARZ律师：我没有其他问题了，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。\n\n其他律师要进行交叉询问吗？我知道您已经登记出庭，但为了记录，请您再报明一次身份，律师。LADDIN律师（拉丁）：是的，法官阁下。Darryl Laddin（达里尔·拉丁），Arnall Golden Gregory（阿诺尔·戈尔登·格雷戈里律师事务所）律师，代表American Express Company（美国运通公司）。法庭：谢谢。\n\n由LADDIN律师进行交叉询问：问：下午好，Despins先生。答：下午好。问：我会简短一些。你知道你已经起诉了American Express Company，对吗？答：对。问：为记录起见，该案是对抗诉讼案号24-05077，对吗？答：我不记得案号，但我不怀疑是这样。问：除你当前针对American Express Company的诉讼中的请求权外，你是否已确定任何额外请求权？答：是的，我们已确定。问：那些是什么？答：是几十万美元，你知道，二十多万，但我无法给你确切数额。如我所说，已有20、25个实体被起诉，我们将修改起诉状以增加额外请求权。我知道AMEX是其中之一。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 4172 提交于 02/27/25 录入于 02/27/25 09:05:42 第43页，共82页\n\n问：你认为是二十几万美元吗？答：超过200,000，但少于500,000，所以我——我不知道确切数额，但超过200，少于500。问：这些请求权的依据是什么？答：与之前相同。问：所以，是549项请求权？答：一些是，但是，是的，549，对。问：好的。被指称为另我的人是谁？答：我——我无法立即告诉你，抱歉。问：你何时确定这些请求权？答：在过去几个月。问：是'24年的September或August吗？还是更早？至少能给我一个范围吗？答：我认为是在August之后，但我——我无法给你确切月份。问：你知道这些请求权是如何被确定的吗？答：是的，正如我所说，这又回到了俄罗斯套娃的情况。当你查看一个银行账户时，突然看到一项条目写着“向American Express付款”，哦，我们原来不知道这些付款，所以我们就是通过银行账户发现这些事情的。\n\n问：我明白这是一个概括性的回答——答：是。问：——但具体就American Express Company而言，你是否知道这些具体请求权是如何被确定的？答：不确切知道。问：你打算何时修改诉讼？答：很快，在February 15th之前。问：除你计划在February 15th之前增加的请求权外，你不知道任何其他请求权；对吗？答：对。问：你是否同意，法庭可以在该诉讼中，根据具体事实和情形，对你提出的任何有关衡平法上的时效中止的请求权作出裁判？BASSETT律师（巴塞特）：异议；这是法律论证。该问题要求作出法律结论，法官阁下。法庭：嗯，我认为这实际上超出了主询问的范围，律师，因此我维持异议。由LADDIN律师询问：问：Despins先生，你可以在该诉讼本身中提出与那些具体请求权有关的事实，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 4172 提交于 02/27/25 录入于 02/27/25 09:05:42 第45页，共82页\n\nBASSETT律师：同样的异议——不是同样的异议，但我基于法庭刚才——所依据的理由提出异议。法庭：不，我认为该问题可以。证人：先生，请您重述一下问题，好吗？由LADDIN律师询问：问：你可以在修改后的起诉状中，就这些具体请求权以及诉讼延迟的任何理由陈述事实，对吗？答：我们能否这样做？当然，我们可以。问：聚焦于任何请求权——除你计划在15日之前修改增加的请求权外，好吗——你今天坐在这里，对于任何此类其他请求权的具体事实和情形将是什么，毫无头绪；对吗？答：我一无所知的请求权？问：对。答：按定义来说，如果我对此一无所知，那是对的。LADDIN律师：我没有其他问题。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。还有其他人希望对Despins受托人进行交叉询问吗？身份不明发言者：没有。法庭：没有吗，律师？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 4172 提交于 02/27/25 录入于 02/27/25 09:05:42 第46页，共82页\n\n好的。再询问，Bassett律师？BASSETT律师：非常简短，法官阁下。\n\n由BASSETT律师进行再询问：问：Despins受托人，我只有一个澄清性问题。两位律师都在交叉询问中问了你，你目前知道并可能在未来对其客户提出的请求权。我要问你的是，你是否打算在February 15th之前提出你目前知悉的全部请求权？答：我们目前知悉的全部请求权，是的。BASSETT律师：没有其他问题，法官阁下。法庭：有再次交叉询问吗？SKLARZ律师：没有其他问题，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。LADDIN律师：没有其他问题，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。Despins受托人，你可以退席。（证人退席）法庭：Bassett律师，你在开场陈述中表示，你将请求法庭对本案案卷进行司法认知；我显然可以对存在一份有4,000——我不确定我们现在到了什么数字，但我可以很快查明——超过4,000项案卷条目的案卷进行司法认知。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 4172 提交于 02/27/25 录入于 02/27/25 09:05:42 第47页，共82页\n\n但是，如果有你希望我就此审阅的具体文件，我知道，你知道，有——你可以列举许多文件，但我确实认为，为了记录，重要的是指出，你请求法庭进行司法认知的，不仅是一个案卷，而且是该案卷上的文件及其内容；对吗？BASSETT律师：对，法官阁下。并且，如有我认为特别重要、或在法庭裁决本动议时值得法庭特别关注的特定文件，我会指出。我认为，请求法庭一般性地对案卷进行司法认知，其目的并不太在于任何特定提交文件，而是在于本案自始至终的整体复杂性。已提交的Rule 2004动议数量之多、异议和藐视法庭动议，以及所有与两项先前动议的先前听证有关、且已经构成记录一部分的相关程序，我手头没有所有这些案卷编号，但它们都在此前本庭程序的记录中。我还会提请法庭注意——我手头没有引文——但受托人曾作证，例如，他自August 2024以来已提出四项Rule 2004动议。我当然可以找到那些ECF编号，但是\n\n我想它们足够容易识别。除此之外，法官阁下，我认为，就受托人在各项对立诉讼中一直开展的活动和诉讼而言，该等情况均构成我们认为与法庭审理本动议相关的记录。我很乐意在辩论期间进一步说明。法庭：好的。谢谢。反对该动议的任何律师，是否就对本主案案卷中的任何文件予以司法认知，或就任何其他事项，向法庭提出任何请求？SKLARZ先生（斯克拉兹先生）：我没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。YAN先生（严先生）：代表Apple（苹果公司）和Meta（Meta公司）没有，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。LADDIN先生（拉丁先生）：没有，法官阁下。CONWAY先生（康韦先生）：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，Bassett律师，您是否愿意继续陈述？BASSETT先生（巴塞特先生）：是的，法官阁下；如果可以的话，我将带着这个上前陈述？法庭：请继续。BASSETT先生：谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\nBASSETT先生：那么，法官阁下，鉴于这是我们第三次就寻求与受托人所请求且法庭此前两次已准予的救济实质相似的动议出庭，我会尽量简短，也会尽量不重复已经涉及的内容。但仅非常简要地说明背景，在法官阁下此前两项延长期限命令中，法庭在包括今日在场部分当事人在内的各方提出异议的情况下认定，《联邦破产程序规则》第9006(b)条规定，为有正当理由的情形下延长《破产法典》第108(a)、546(a)和549(d)条所规定的期限提供了依据。\n\n因此，其后基于受托人已证明存在正当理由的认定，法庭连续两次准予六个月的延长期限，抱歉，是延长提起撤销权请求的期间。法庭还在此前两项命令中均不妨碍再行提出地驳回了受托人关于衡平法时效中止的请求；法庭指出，其将在适当时机酌情审议该请求，特别是在受托人提起对立诉讼时。法官阁下，受托人认为，法庭今日应作出与此前两次相同的结果，因为受托人再次——我谨提出——已证明存在正当理由，可将期限进一步延长六个月，\n\n直至August of 2025。并且，法官阁下，依我们之见，提出异议的各方未提供任何理由，使法庭重新审视其先前的决定。\n\n法官阁下，关于正当理由的问题，如法庭所充分知悉，我再次提及法庭在此前两次听证会上审阅的记录、今日提交的记录以及本案整体案卷，存在一份历时数年的记录，涵盖4,000多项案卷条目，充分证明鉴于本案极其特殊的情形，为何有必要延长期限。该等极其特殊的情形涉及一名债务人，其自第11章案件启动之初即未予合作，包括自受托人获任命以来的每一个环节。债务人未向受托人提交任何账簿和记录。正如记录所示，受托人自一开始便面临艰巨困难，须从与债务人有关联的各方——包括其家庭成员——取得证据开示；并且，如受托人今日所证实，该等情况至今仍持续影响其调查。\n\n法官阁下，我们今日所处的阶段，不能脱离我们此前所处的位置以及我们如何走到今天。受托人能够取得的进展——或者在某些情况下未能取得的进展——均直接源于其自这起极其特殊且我谨提出前所未有的第11章案件启动以来所面临的挑战。\n\n关于被告提出的论点，我会尽量逐一说明，并且显然保留在各律师陈述后作出回应的权利。某些被告借回应受托人动议之机，实质上只是重新争辩法庭此前两次已经审议并驳回的相同问题。更具体地说，他们向法庭主张，《联邦破产程序规则》第9006(b)条不得用于延长《破产法典》第108条和第546条规定的时效期间。\n\n法官阁下在准予第一次延长动议时已详细审议该问题，随后在法官阁下关于第二次延长动议的命令中纳入了相同的分析。更具体地说，法庭认真审阅了《联邦破产程序规则》第9006(b)条的文本，并认定，与第十一巡回上诉法院在IBT International案中的判决一致，该规则确实可用于延长时效期间。\n\n在作出该决定时，法庭承认存在一些持相反方向的判决，其中包括本区法官作出的判决，但最终认同第十一巡回上诉法院。并且，如您所记得的，法官阁下作出该结论时讨论了，并且依我们之见恰当地确认，《破产法典》第108条\n\n和第546条规定的期限并非除斥期间，而是时效期间；作为时效期间，它们可以因衡平理由而中止或延长。\n\n基于此，法庭认定，某些被告根据《规则授权法》提出的论点，并非准予或驳回受托人动议的有效依据，因为《规则授权法》规定的是，程序规则不得扩大实体权利。当然，若《破产法典》规定的时效期间并非实体性规定，它们并非除斥期间，而是时效期间，那么法庭在适当情形下基于其衡平管辖权延长该等期限即属适当。\n\n现在，尽管法庭已作出该等周详分析——我不会重述法庭在此前两项决定中对该问题作出广泛分析时提出的各种考量——但尽管如此，被告实质上仍是再次争辩，他们大多援引此前已经援引过的判例，并提出相同论点。他们援引加利福尼亚中区的In re Cramer案，以支持其立场，即依其见解，不应允许《联邦破产程序规则》第9006(b)条延长时效期间。但如法庭在此前决定中恰当确认的，该案可以区分，因为如该案法庭所确认，其主要处理的是\n\n一种担忧潜在被告未获通知的情形。\n\n在此，法庭确认情况并非如此，因为受托人已向所有当事人提供了广泛通知。受托人再次采取了其此前所采取的措施。他通过ECF向所有当事人发出通知；对于无法通过ECF取得通知——即未列入ECF的当事人——通过邮寄发出通知；并向受托人已经提起的各项对立诉讼中的所有被告发出通知。法官阁下，某些被告援引了一项我认为他们此前未曾援引的判决；即佛罗里达南区破产法院（Southern District of Florida Bankruptcy Court）于November of 2022作出的In re American Purchasing Services案。法官阁下，他们对该判决的描述是，在该案中——该案当然位于第十一巡回上诉法院辖区内——他们称该破产法院拒绝——这是对其书面文件的引述——“拒绝适用原本具有约束力的第十一巡回上诉法院先例——”即法庭所依赖的IBT International案——“因为其存在缺陷。”这就是他们所说的。该破产法院因该案存在缺陷而拒绝适用该案。\n\n法官阁下，这完全不是该判决所说的内容。该案破产法院明确承认，IBT International当然是第十一巡回上诉法院辖区内具有约束力的权威；但其也确认，如同我们所同意的，该案中法庭对《联邦破产程序规则》第9006(b)条的分析并不意味着在所有情形下延长《破产法典》项下时效期间均属适当；相反，准予该救济应限于依案件事实和情形具有正当性的适当情形。被告随后称，嗯，该案涉及的情形——我认为他们说是——与本案争议情形“几乎相同”。\n\n法官阁下，我读过该案几次。我不确定他们读的是哪一项判决。它一定与我所读的不同，因为很难想象有哪个案件会比它与本案事实更为不同。在该案中，法官阁下，法庭在区分第十一巡回上诉法院的IBT Services [原文如此]案，或者更准确地说，第十一巡回上诉法院的IBT International案时，明确指出，在该破产案件中，正如法庭所说，没有任何——以下是法庭的引述：\n\n“没有任何事实与第十一巡回上诉法院判决中的事实相似，甚至接近。”法庭继而指出，记录中没有任何内容显示任何人一直在阻挠\n\n受托人的证据开示工作；案卷中没有强制执行动议；对任何诉讼对象或任何其他可能参与受托人调查或成为其调查对象的人，没有任何说明理由命令或藐视法庭命令。\n\n实际上，在被告所依赖的American Purchasing Services案中，受托人就其所请求延长提出的唯一理由是，受托人正尝试与该案中的有担保债权人协商诉讼资金，但尚未能完成该资金协商，因此请求更多时间。这与本案事实的情形完全不同。\n\n本案涉及一份充分而广泛的记录，显示受托人在调查的每一环节均面临阻挠、其他困难和挑战，以及确属非同寻常的情形，致使其截至本案现阶段仍无法完成梳理与债务人有关的各实体和个人之间错综复杂的关系网。\n\n被告援引的案件中完全不存在上述任何情况，因此，坦率而言，该案理应产生不同结果。\n\n法官阁下，简要逐一说明被告提出的其他几个论点之前，我只想\n\n指出，还有一项新判决，顺便说也是来自佛罗里达南区（Southern District of Florida），受托人在其书面文件中援引了该判决。该案为Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises案，载于658 B.R. 611，该法庭在该案中依据第9006条准予延长时效期间，并且在作出该决定时，其面对的记录事实上与法庭面前的记录极为相似。\n\n尤其是，该案延期的依据包括：债务人的负责人曾进行欺诈性隐瞒，影响了可提起撤销权诉讼的期限；债务人的负责人还在世界各地设立了众多实体，您知道，这为其资产转移提供了便利。因此，法官大人，这与我们在此面临的情形相似，并且再次支持受托人所请求的救济。\n\n法官大人，简要谈及被告提出的其他几项论点，这一点也贯穿于您在交叉询问中所见到的部分质询；但G Club（G俱乐部）及斯克拉兹律师（Attorney Sklarz）的其他客户似乎向法院主张，嗯，不宜继续延长针对这些特定实体或被告的时效期间，因为他们自身在过去六个月中并未实施任何行为以阻碍或妨碍受托人的调查。\n\n我对这是否属实存有异议，但这也并非要点，法官大人。法院已经认定——该认定载于ECF 2921中第一份延期命令第13页——重点并不在于特定被告是否必然实施了妨碍受托人及时对该等当事方提起诉讼请求的行为；尤其在本案这样的案件中，分析重点在于债务人以及与债务人有关联的其他当事方，或第11章案件中的其他信息来源，是否延误或妨碍了受托人的调查，以及是否存在受托人无法控制的其他因素，致使其无法在原本希望的尽早时间提起撤销权诉讼。因此，我认为法院已经驳回了该项特定论点。\n\n法官大人，我要提出的最后一点是，某些被告声称，如果法院准许这第三次延期，那么何时才会结束？在他们看来，他们似乎是在提出，这将树立一个危险的先例。我对此有两点回应。首先，受托人在作证时已经回应了这一点；我们也已在书面文件中予以回应。受托人希望，我们作为支持受托人的团队也非常希望，\n\n在六个月后，我们将无需再寻求对提起撤销权诉讼期限的又一次全面延期。\n\n在个案基础上，可能会有我们需要时间推进的额外诉讼。视届时情形而定，可能会有某些类别的被告；但就像我们过去两次所请求的那种全面延期而言，我们非常希望并且目前预计无需再次寻求该项救济。\n\n法官大人，另一点是，我认为在本案中这一点常常值得强调：这确实是一个特殊的第11章案件；我想我在上次听证会上说过，这是前所未有的，因为我不知道是否曾有过另一个像本案这样的案件，涉及一名自称亿万富翁、申请破产时却称自己一无所有、且从未提供任何财务状况清单的债务人。\n\n在这些情形下，至少可以说，受托人要完成其调查并提出其有权根据《破产法典》提出的各类诉讼请求，一直是一场艰难的斗争。因此，我认为法院作出的任何决定，包括其已作出的最近两项同意延长时效期间的决定，必然都将限于本案极为、极为独特的情形。\n\n我们认为，有理由准许受托人所请求的进一步延期，并谨请法官大人准许该动议。\n谢谢。\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n斯克拉兹律师，您是否愿意回应？\n斯克拉兹先生：\n谢谢，法官大人。\n法官大人，在我们的书面文件中，我们着重于——\n显然，我们承认，并且我们已对先前的延期裁定提出两次上诉——我们承认法律现状，并且我们的书面文件着重于此。\n在法官大人先前的裁定中，您指出\n法院正在审查本案极为具体且\n特殊的事实。过去六个月发生了哪些极为具体\n且——具体而特殊的事实？\n我们没有听到任何新的\n事实。只是郭先生没有协助受托人的\n调查。他从未协助过调查，\n以后也永远不会。\n他正在服刑。他已被判定犯有\n罪行，而且他永远不会提供帮助。因此，我想在\n受托人看来，当他们六个月后在此\n请求全面延期，或稍有破损的全面\n延期，或无论他们在谈论什么时，那将\n再次成为反复出现的说法。\n德斯平受托人（Trustee Despins）在其\n\n直接询问中说了一件有意思的事，即让人们因技术性问题而逃脱其行为后果将是不合常理的。嗯，这项技术性问题称为“诉讼时效”，而且是由国会设定的。该观点应当具有一定价值，尤其是对已经被起诉的我的客户而言。\n\n这并不是——无论是否存在针对其他当事方的诉讼请求，我的客户都已经被起诉。受托人可依据现有的追溯适用规则及其他原则寻求救济。没有理由延长针对已经被起诉当事方的诉讼时效，尤其是受托人刚刚在询问中表示，他打算在February 15th之前立即对所有新当事方提出所有额外诉讼请求。就我的客户而言，需要进一步延期的极为具体且特殊的事实是什么？\n\n所提出的其他论点涉及德斯平受托人所作的“俄罗斯套娃”类比，或者他们在书面文件中称之为“抽丝剥茧”。生活中有一项不言自明的事实：我们明天都会比今天知道得更多；情况向来如此。但这不能成为永久延长诉讼时效的依据。我们将总会知道更多。总会有更多需要\n\n调查的事项。在本法庭每一位律师曾经诉讼过的每一个案件中，我们都会希望自己做过其他事情；我们都会希望我们\n\n昨天知道得比今天更多。\n\n根据法官大人的裁定，存在大量工作要做不能构成理由。我们已经做了大量工作，但仍有更多工作要做。在任何重大诉讼中，情况总是如此。\n\n受托人援引、且法官大人在先前裁定中所援引的案件，并未讨论连续作出的全面裁定——连续的全面延期。我没有找到存在多次、三次或更多次延期的案件。Fundamental Long Term Care法院（长期护理基本案法院）实际上给予受托人自一项待决对抗程序的证据开示结束之日起30天，而非其所请求的一年延期。其他案件则是短期延期。\n\n受托人已经有一年时间，并请求再延长六个月。根据546条，整个诉讼时效自申请日起为两年。何时才会结束？\n\n受托人以历时数年的记录、4,000份文件记录和极其独特的案件为由主张正当理由。这些再次是此前已经说过、且受托人将能够一直说到案件结案时的话。一个始终存在的状况不可能是特殊的。\n具体事实是什么？法官大人已经听取了\n\n证据；不存在符合您所列标准的具体事实：极为具体且特殊的事实。所提出的是一般性且非特殊的事实。\n\n无论郭先生所做的事情确实多么复杂，无论郭先生可能没有合作，他至今已多年未曾合作；此外，无法保证受托人不会再次来到这里。\n\n法官大人将最初准许延期动议的理由类比为，实质上，衡平停止时效；这载于您最初裁定的第15页——抱歉——第13页：\n\n“在确定是否应当在破产程序中延长或停止诉讼时效时，所应考虑的衡平因素往往包括：债务人是否未能与破产受托人合作，或者确实是否试图妨碍受托人为债权人利益而进行的调查和资产清算。”\n\n这是法官大人大约一年前作出的裁定。这就是当时的情况——根据受托人所言，也将永远是这种情况。\n\n必须有护栏。必须有界限性事件。不能仅仅因为情况相同，因为那样它就不是特殊的。我们今天没有听到任何事实，足以证明根据法官大人最初裁定进一步延长诉讼\n\n时效是正当的。谢谢。\n法庭：\n谢谢。拉丁律师（Attorney Laddin），您是否希望发言或作结案陈词？\n严先生（MR. YAN）：\n法官大人，我可以发言吗？\n法庭：\n当然。\n严先生：\n谢谢。我可以上前吗？\n法庭：\n可以，请。\n严先生：\n谢谢。\n（暂停）\n严先生：\n下午好。再次为记录起见，我是代表苹果公司（Apple）和Meta公司（Meta）的严晋（Jin Yan）。仅提几点。\n法庭：\n您没有作开场陈述，所以您现在只是在作结案陈词，对吗？\n严先生：\n是的，法官大人。\n法庭：\n请继续。\n严先生：\n当然。因此，我们谈到了9006，但受托人的动议还请求根据105获得救济，所以我只想简要谈及这一点。根据Law v Siegel（劳诉西格尔案），这是美国联邦最高法院（United States Supreme Court）2014年的一项判决，105(a)不能被用于做《法典》所禁止的事情。该法条的检验标准\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 4172 提交日期 02/27/25 登记日期 02/27/25 09:05:42 第64页，共82页\n\n规定其应当执行《法典》的宗旨和《法典》的规定。因此，在此使用105(a)延长诉讼时效并非在执行这些规定，而是在废止这些规定，因此我们认为105(a)根本不适用。\n\n关于规则9006以及法官大人所进行的分析，正如受托人的律师所谈到的，American Purchasing Services（美国采购服务案）是佛罗里达南区（Southern District of Florida）于2022年作出的一项破产裁定，其中有两项核心理由，我认为适用于此处。第一，它将第十一巡回区的IBT判决限于这样的情形：撤销权诉讼的对象，或受托人寻求提起的任何诉讼的对象，是对延误以及受托人无法及时提起该等诉讼负有责任的一方。\n\nAmerican Purchasing Services提出的第二点是，与债务人进行交易的实体在商业上和法律上都有合理预期，即其风险暴露将在两年后终止，而且这优先于受托人为取得延期所提出的任何理由。事实上，法官大人，地区法院（District Court）于2024年作出的Teras Breakbulk案（泰拉斯散货运输案）与此完全一致。因为在该案中，诉讼对象是债务人的负责人，其被指控欺诈性隐瞒资产。因此，在该案中，您同样存在一个诉讼对象是\n\n诉讼的当事人正是阻止诉讼被及时提起的人；基于衡平原则，依照第十一巡回法院的推理，延长法定期间确有意义，从而不会使其获得奖励，不会使那些目标对象和不法行为人因其行为而获得奖励。\n\n在本案中，至少没有人指控 Apple（苹果公司）和 Meta（元平台公司）以任何方式延误受托人在其取证中的工作。如果惩罚与 Kwok 先生关联的实体类似于因父之罪惩罚其子，我想这里的类比将是因顾客所做之事而惩罚杂货商。我们与 Kwok 先生及其关联实体的行为毫无关联。\n\n我想说明的最后一点是，就 546——抱歉——546 和 539 而言，它们属于诉讼时效规定，但 108 并非如此。正如我们在书面陈述中所述，法院已确认 108 是一项中止时效规定，而按受托人所请求的方式处理并无意义，即对一项中止时效规定进行中止。\n\n基于上述所有理由，我们恭请法院驳回受托人请求延长期间的动议；即使不作全面驳回，至少应就我们的当事人 Apple 和 Meta 驳回该动议。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nLaddin 律师？\n\nLADDIN 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n再次为记录在案，本人 Darryl Laddin，来自 Arnall Golden Gregory（阿诺德·戈登·格雷戈里律师事务所），代表 American Express Company（美国运通公司）。\n\n法官阁下，就美国运通公司而言，目前所涉金额已是一大笔款项。该公司被指称在对抗程序 24-05077 中收取了依 549 可撤销的 $5.79 million 转让款。我们属于综合抗辩组，显然，法院正在审议该动议所提出的问题。\n\n我知道法院显然已审理过本动议的先前版本，而且显然也已有其他提出异议的当事人，因此我会尽量简短。不过，我确实想在一开始指出，此处请求的命令与法院此前作出的两项命令略有不同，而 Bassett 先生在结案陈述中并未提及这一点。\n\n因此，在第三项动议中，受托人在拟议命令中加入了一段新文字，其内容为：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当事人，如最终在根据本命令条款及时提起的诉讼中被列为当事人，即放弃主张时效期间抗辩的权利。显然，代表美国运通公司，我们已及时提交异议。再次出于效率考虑，我只想讨论有限几个问题。我们加入其他已提出的异议及向法院所作的陈述。\n\n我们当然知道，受托人主要依赖于、且本院曾援引第十一巡回法院在 IBT International 一案中的裁决；第十一巡回法院在该案中确实认定破产法院有权酌情通过动议延长诉讼时效。然而，第十一巡回法院没有援引任何允许法院延长诉讼时效的法定授权，因为这种授权并不存在。该意见的大部分内容集中于衡平中止时效。\n\nBassett 先生和异议方均讨论了 American Purchasing Services 一案。该案有趣之处在于，除已提及的理由外，其还在其他方面与本案有关。因此，该案有一则脚注明确指出，第十一巡回法院的裁决曾在 Colliers 中受到批评，称其“涉及一些迂回复杂的推理”。\n\n而该评论实际上也见于受托人援引的较早裁决 Fundamental Long Term Care 一案。该案是另一项遵循 IBT 案的佛罗里达州裁决，其中法院似乎也认为该裁决令人困惑。在 Fundamental Long Term Care 一案中，值得指出的是，目标对象数量有限，均被明确识别，且已是未决对抗程序中的被告。该案法院基于衡平中止时效理由作出裁决——受托人也援引了该案——并指出，受托人的工作因目标对象积极反对而被延误。\n\n当然，律师刚才指出，这些案件的重点在于目标对象是否妨碍取证。显然，本案没有证据表明——正如对于 Apple 或 Meta 也没有此类证据——美国运通公司曾以某种方式妨碍调查。\n\n正如所提到的，American Purchasing 一案的法院还指出，第十一巡回法院的裁决作出于 Law v Siegel 之前，且该裁决贯穿着 Law v Siegel 之前的判例法。\n\n法官阁下，您已知悉，有众多法院认定不得使用 9006，亦不得使用 9006(b)，来给予所请求的救济。律师提及 Cramer 一案；恕言之，尽管法院可能不同意 Cramer 一案，但我认为该案中的法律结论并无可区分之处。如 Cramer 一案及其他类似裁决所说明，在此情形下，对受托人适当的救济，是在受托人识别出未来被告时，寻求对时效的衡平中止。\n\n我认为 Despins 先生也承认，如果事实足以支持衡平中止时效的主张，他可以继续提出该主张。我们之后可以就此进行辩论。\n\n我仅向本院强调 Cramer 一案的法院所述内容——再次说明，我知道法官阁下肯定已多次阅读该裁决——其指出，In re Walnut Hill（沃尔纳特山案）中的破产法院裁决理由充分，且与争议直接相关。显然，Tancredi 法官的裁决并非具有约束力的权威；法官阁下已对此作出考量。我只想简单指出，我们认为 Tancredi 法官是正确的，即其表示：\n\n“规则 9006(b) 的明确文字禁止本院延长第 546(a) 条规定的诉讼时效。”\n\n再次审视该法条，因为我没有听到太多关于法条的讨论，而且显然再次说明，我知道此前已有相关动议，但 9006(a) 确实提到法令，而正如 Tancredi 法官所确认，9006(b) 显然缺少使其适用于法令的文字。因此，我认为即使有人想要依赖 9006，也不能依赖 9006(b)，因为其不包括“法令”一词。还有许多其他裁决，我在此不再逐一说明，书面材料中就这一确切问题援引了这些裁决。\n\n同样值得注意的是，9006(b)(3) 中还有另一项规定，明确允许依据《法典》某一条规定的期间根据该规则予以延长；其提及《法典》第 1116(3) 条，该条明确——该《法典》条款明确设想延长提交清单的时间。因此，变更时限的授权已内置于该法条中，而该规则并不凌驾于法条之上。这显然表明，该规则的起草者知道如何起草对禁止规定的例外，国会也知道如何授权司法机关对时限作出修改。\n\n法官阁下，我们重申 Tancredi 法官的认识：是国会在《法典》中制定了时效期间；当国会已经作出规定时，国会已经作出规定，其已作出决定。\n\n当然，第 546 条可能受制于衡平中止时效的论点，但该论点需要在适当的背景下提出。因此，如果法官阁下驳回该动议，并不意味着受托人永远不能提出这些诉因；而是意味着他需要在与这些特定被告有关的具体事实背景下处理这些诉因。\n\n至于现有被告，例如 American Express Company，这也符合适当程序，即修改起诉状：根据规则 15 提出许可动议，并证明诉因可追溯适用，或者证明衡平中止时效适用。因此，基于上述理由，法官阁下，我们恭请法院驳回该动议，或者将美国运通公司排除在该命令的效力之外。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nLADDIN 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nConway 律师？\n\nCONWAY 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n本人 Michael Conway，代表此前已确认的多方当事人。\n\n显然，我们加入迄今所作的陈述以及记录在案的各项其他书状，反对该动议。\n\n我现在不想讨论法律依据。我认为法官阁下早在您首次延长提起对抗程序的期限时，就已明确表示，您认为此处适用这一例外。就法律而言，我认为并不适用。\n\n不过，让我们暂且聚焦于 IBT Holdings [原文如此] 的理由。我们或许可以暂不考虑法律，而着重考虑在本案这一特定情形中是否存在延长期间的具体理由。我们今天听到的实际上是——以及我们过去听到的同样内容——我们没有完成本应完成的一切。我们不认为应当能够永远这样做，因为那并不适当；但请再给我们一次机会。\n\n还有这样的讨论：下次我们不会再回来请求一项全面例外；我们会将其具体限定于诉求或被告类别。这在本情形下只是换一种说法，即下次我们会请求一项具体命令，赋予我们就延长期限而言完全相同的权利。我们也知道，据此我们还会再次来到这里，法官阁下。\n\n事实是，这必须结束。我们没有听到受托人提出任何通常破产案件中可以预期的真正理由。当然，Bassett 先生称这不是一宗普通案件。这与几乎所有涉及被指控对一般公众实施欺诈的个人的案件颇为一致，无论是庞氏骗局还是其他情形。\n\n但我们暂且假定，如 Bassett 先生所称，这确有不同。那么，仅此本身并不能证明延长期间具有正当性；实际上，正是这种不同之处，才是我们现在要关注的重点。该……\n\n通常情况下，延长期限是为了有时间查找与债务人资产有关的交易。法官阁下在本案的其他事项中了解我，我以前说过，在此还要再说一次，我们并不是在做这件事。我们不是要寻找Kwok先生（郭文贵先生）的资产并将其追回至破产财产。受托人向法官阁下所主张的是，他需要更多时间去查找不当交易，即某一协助其对第三方实施欺诈的第三方之间发生的交易，该第三方随后取得了该第三方的资金并将其转移给另一第三方。受托人希望查找这些交易，然后将该项资产追回至破产财产，尽管该资产从一开始就从未属于本债务人。因此，我们所面对的不仅是要求延长期限以获得时间；而是要求延长期限以做一件根本不当的事：去做司法部的工作。而且，您知道，尽管第十一巡回上诉法院可能曾表示，在某些情形下债务人会隐匿其自身资产，无论是其本人的、她本人的，还是它本身的资产，但第十一巡回上诉法院从未表示，破产受托人应当被授权去处理非债务人当事人之间有关非债务人当事人的事项。这并不是——让我退一步说——我认为\n\n1 今天所请求的做法绝不适当；\n\n2 这在根本上，您知道，并无法律依据。\n3 我在充分尊重的前提下这样说，法官阁下，因为您\n4 在先前的裁定中曾作出相反认定；但是，当您将其\n5 适用于本案这种我们甚至并未\n6 处理债务人资产的情形时，这就变得更加\n7 根本性地错误。\n8 谢谢您，法官阁下。\n9 法庭：\n谢谢。\n10 巴塞特先生（Bassett），还有其他事项吗？\n11 巴塞特先生：\n非常简要地说，法官阁下。\n12 （暂停）\n13 巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下，再次为记录在案，\n14 我是代表Chapter 11受托人的Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的\n15 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n16 法官阁下，显然，\n17 各方律师就Rule 9006(b)、Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）的裁决及\n18 本法庭在作出其两项先前\n19 命令时已经审议过的所有其他问题所涉判例法进行了大量\n20 讨论。我不会重新讨论这些问题，\n21 仅要指出法律并未改变。没有任何一方\n22 向法庭指出任何新的裁决，\n23 足以要求作出与法庭已经作出的结论不同的结论。\n24 我确实想简要回应其中一点\n\n1 2 3 即Sklarz律师（斯克拉兹律师）所提出的观点，尤其是他所关注的，您知道，自2024年8月以来我们看到了哪些已经发生、足以证明延长期限正当的事情。\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 对此有两点回应。法官阁下，第一，如我所说、受托人所说、以及我将再次说明的，您不能孤立地审视受托人调查的状况，并仅限于2024年8月以后。受托人调查的状况及我们迄今能够取得的进展，是自受托人获任以来本案中发生的一切事情的直接结果。\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 此外，法官阁下，即使您专注于自2024年8月以来发生的事情，记录中也有多项证据支持存在正当理由进一步延长时效期间。仅非常简要地概述受托人所说的一些事项，这并不是一种情形，必须明确说明，法官阁下，其中额外证据持续零星出现，然后按照Sklarz律师所说，您知道，这种情况总可能无限期地发生。\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 这是这样一种情形：我们谈论的是受托人在过去六个月中识别并传唤的27个新当事人；受托人及其团队已收到并开始审阅程序的数万页文件；以及超过55,000个新的银行账户，受托人必须审查并试图弄清55,000——\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 不是银行账户——而是200多个账户中的55,000笔交易，受托人及其团队需要逐一审查并弄清这些交易如何相互关联，以及是否可基于这些交易提出任何潜在请求；此外，受托人还详细说明了他目前正在阿联酋、瑞士和英国等海外地区开展的广泛调查。法官阁下，记录中有充分证据证明进一步延长期限存在正当理由。我提交认为，这是法庭面前唯一的问题，因为今天提交给法庭的所有法律问题，法官阁下均已正确地作出裁决，并且裁决有利于受托人。因此，法官阁下，我们谨请求准许该动议。除非法庭有任何问题，否则我就这些。法庭：我没有任何问题，谢谢。巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：Sklarz律师，您是否有任何——或者代表异议方的任何人，是否有任何进一步意见？Sklarz先生：没有进一步意见，法官阁下。法庭：好的。Yan先生（严先生）：法官阁下，我只有一点，我只是\n\n78 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 想向法庭指出。可以走近吗？法庭：可以。（暂停）Yan先生：法官阁下，我只有一项意见，即受托人援引的Teras Breakbulk案——法庭：请您再说一遍，以便我确切了解——我想我知道您在说什么，但为记录在案，这也会有所帮助，请说。Yan先生：当然。这是Teras Breakbulk案——法庭：好的。Yan先生：——佛罗里达南区（Southern District of Florida）的地区法院。法庭：在IBT案之后，就是你们一直在谈论的那个——Yan先生：正确，法官阁下。法庭：——2022年作出的那个？Yan先生：不，我们谈论的是American Purchasing Services；那是2022年的案件。法庭：好的。那么请告诉我这个其他案件，抱歉。Yan先生：当然。这个是Teras Breakbulk案——Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 78 of 82\n\n79 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 法庭：好的。Yan先生：——佛罗里达南区的地区法院于2024年作出的案件。法庭：好的。Yan先生：我只是想指出，该案目前正在向第十一巡回上诉法院提起上诉。法庭：好的。知道这一点很有帮助，谢谢。Yan先生：谢谢。法庭：还有其他人有意见吗？（无人作口头回应）法庭：我只为记录在案说明——我不知道我是否正确，所以如果我错了，你们都可以纠正我——但是今天没有人代表Amazon（亚马逊）或Miller Motorcars（米勒汽车公司）出庭，对吗？我想他们也对这——对受托人的请求提出了异议。Laddin先生（拉丁先生）：法官阁下，我认为是这样。至少就Amazon而言，我是否记得他们的书面文件表明他们将依赖于我本人及其他任何人的论点。法庭：好的。谢谢。我只是想为记录在案说明，尽管他们确实提出了异议，Amazon, Inc.（亚马逊公司）和Amazon Web Services（亚马逊网络服务公司）在主案中于ECF 4041对受托人的请求提出了异议，但这很有帮助。Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 79 of 82\n\n1 Laddin律师，我确信我曾在某个时候看到过这一点，\n\n2 但我不记得他们曾这样说，不过我确信\n3 他们确实说过将依赖其书面文件。\n4 而Miller Motorcars在\n5 主案中于40，ECF 4044提出了异议，我今天在此没有看到任何人，也没有听到任何\n6 来自Miller Motorcars的人发言；这正确吗？\n7 （无人作口头回应）\n8 法庭：\n有人吗？\n9 （无人作口头回应）\n10 法庭：\n好的。我只是想为\n11 记录在案说明这一点；除此之外，你们各位代表其他异议方的律师，\n12 而且我认为我已掌握所有已提出的\n13 异议，那么，就今天在法庭出席的人员以及\n14 Amazon和Miller Motorcars所提交的文件而言。\n15 好的。谢谢。\n16 显然，我需要审阅你们各位所说的内容，而且，正如你们各位所承认的，我显然\n17 已经作出两项准许此项救济的命令，但我\n18 确实需要回顾每个人所说的内容。我已经听取了\n19 受托人今天的证词。我已经听取了\n20 受托人的律师及部分异议方律师的\n21 论证。你们谈论了一些我当然\n22 知道的判例法。有些我知道其存在，但确实尚未有\n23 机会阅读，因此我需要阅读，然后将\n24 相应作出裁决。\n25 \n\n81 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 因此，我将对该事项保留裁定。今天是2月11日。您知道，我希望尽快作出裁决。我现在坐在这里无法告诉你们何时能够作出裁决。那么，是否有人有任何问题？（无人作口头回应）法庭：好的。既然没有，那么延长期限的动议——我是说延长时效期限的动议——将保留裁定。这是本案今天日程表上的最后事项。在我们休庭之前，是否还有任何人需要处理其他事项？Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）：没有，法官阁下，从我们的角度而言没有。法庭：有人吗？（无人作口头回应）法庭：好的。那么，谢谢各位。现在休庭。巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。书记员：全体起立。现在休庭。（庭审于下午2:53结束。）Case 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 81 of 82\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4172 Filed 02/27/25 Entered 02/27/25 09:05:42 Page 82 of 82\n\n1 证明\n2 本人证明，据本人所知和能力所及，\n3 上述内容是对\n4 上述案件程序电子录音的正确\n5 庭审记录。\n\n7 /s/ William J. Garling（威廉·J. 加林） February 24, 2025\n8 William J. Garling（威廉·J. 加林）, CET-543\n9 认证法庭记录员\n10 代表Reliable（瑞莱布尔）","key_entities":["Je","Despins","Kwok","Himalaya","Paul Hastings","CIPA","William Je","GETTR","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2921,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3417,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4041,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4044,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":21658,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-02-27 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-02-27","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:00:15"}