{"id":"court_ctb_448_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":448,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"RESPONSE","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |        |              | -------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n|        |              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n|--------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n| In re: |              |                                                                       | : | Chapter 11              |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        | Ho Wan Kwok, |                                                                       | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : | Date:                   |\n|        |              | Debtor.1                                                              | : | Time:                   |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        |              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n\n## **DEBTOR'S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT AND UNTIMELY BRIEFING FILED BY THE COMMITTEE AND THE INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS**\n\n Mr. Ho Wan Kwok, the debtor and debtor-in-possession (\"Mr. Kwok\" or the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned chapter 11 case, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this response to the filings titled the \"Request of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors For Status Conference Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(d) (the \"Committee Reargument Request,\" Docket No. 444) and the Request Of Creditors, Rui Ma, Zheng Wu, And Weican Meng, For Status Conference Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 105(d) (the \"Individual Creditor Reargument Request,\" Docket No. 443, and together with the Committee Reargument Request, the \"Reargument Requests\").\n\n## **RESPONSE**\n\n1. Two days after the fully briefed Motion to Dismiss was argued, evidence was submitted, and the matter taken under submission, the Committee and the Individual Creditors filed coordinated papers that purport to be requests for a \"status conference\" but, in reality, are requests to re-argue the Motion to Dismiss, file unauthorized supplemental argument, and\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nmisrepresent the record. The Reargument Requests should be denied, and Committee and Individual Creditors' efforts to take new positions, introduce new argument, and misrepresent the record should be stricken.\n\n2. At the end of the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, this Court closed the record and took the matter under submission. *See* May 25, 2022 H'rg Trans. 116:12-15 (\"The hearing is concluded today there being no further evidence to be submitted or arguments to be made so, therefore, the clock starts to run as far as a decision on this motion to dismiss.\"); 117:8-9 (\"I'm taking the motion to dismiss under advisement and I will rule accordingly.\")\n\n3. The Committee and the Individual Creditors appear to have seized upon this Court's statement that \"if you have any other concerns or questions regarding the motion to dismiss, I am generally available for a conference\"[2](#page-1-0) as an invitation to reargue their case. They do not identify in their filings any new \"concerns\" or \"questions\" they have. Instead, they request a conference to purportedly \"clarify\" their position. *See* Committee Reargument Request at 1 (seeking \"a status conference so the Court can be apprised of, and the parties have an opportunity to address, *a clarification of* the Committee's position … \") (emphasis added); Individual Creditor Reargument Request at 2 (seeking \"a status conference at [the Court's] earliest convenience *to the extent needed to clarify the Individual Creditors' position*.\") (emphasis added).\n\n4. In their respective filings, the Committee and the Individual Creditors have identified nothing that has changed between the date of the hearing and the date of the Reargument Requests that would justify any need to \"clarify\" their positions. Nor have they identified any excusable neglect in failing to raise their arguments at the appropriate time, or\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> May 25, 2022 H'rg Trans. 114:2-4.\n\nmade any effort to meet the legal requirements (identified in Paragraph 6 below) to reopen the record. They simply assert that they wish to have another bite at the apple, without providing any basis for such a request.\n\n5. The Committee goes further than merely requesting reargument. *First*, the Committee seeks to submit new authority and argument, after the close of evidence and the close of the hearing, in its request itself. *See* Committee Reargument Request at 2 (seeking to make new legal argument for the Committee's requested conditions on dismissal). The Committee offers no basis for submitting unauthorized post-trial briefing and why such authority, if relevant (it is not), could not have been included in its pre-trial papers. *Second*, the Committee affirmatively misrepresents the record by stating that \"[n]o party has objected to the conditions on dismissal proposed by the Committee.\" *Id*. The U.S. Trustee specifically opposed conditions on dismissal. *See* May 25, 2022 H'rg Trans. 98:5-8 (\"If the Court determines today that dismissal is the most appropriate relief, then this case should be dismissed immediately *and not conditioned on any event*, and nor should the dismissal be in conjunction with any event.\") (emphasis added).\n\n6. This Court should not hold a status conference merely to provide the Committee and the Individual Creditors with a second bite at the apple and require a substantive response to their untimely submissions and argument when no explanation – let alone a valid one – for their failure to raise those issues at the hearing has been proffered. [3](#page-2-0) A party seeking to reopen the record bears the burden to prove that (a) the need to reopen the record is not due to the party's own lack of diligence; (b) the extent to which reopening the record would prejudice the non-\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The Debtor has not substantively responded to the arguments set forth in the Reargument Requests because such arguments, to the extent not made at trial, were waived. To the extent that this Court grants the Reargument Requests, the Debtor reserves all rights to oppose those arguments on any ground.\n\nmovant; and (c) the interests of justice. *See John v. Sotheby's, Inc.*, 858 F. Supp. 1283, 1288 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), *aff'd*, 52 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 1995); *see also Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc'ns, Inc*., 118 F.3d 955, 961 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that a court must consider a party's explanation for its failure to comply with a scheduling order, and that an inadequate justification does not support changing deadlines).\n\n7. Further, as the Reargument Requests themselves seek to introduce this new argument, misrepresent the record, and add new legal authority (rather than request authority to do so), the Court should strike the Reargument Requests to preserve the record. *See John v. Sotheby's, Inc.*, 858 F. Supp. 1283, 1288 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), *aff'd*, 52 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 1995) (denying motion to reopen the record where movant failed to meet its burden to show each of the elements required to reopen the record); *see also Oliver v. New York State Police*, No. 115CV00444BKSDJS, 2020 WL 8614640, at \\*3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2020) (upholding magistrate judge's refusal to grant permission for party to reopen record to make new arguments and submit new documents); *In re Simms-Wilson,* 434 B.R. 452, 469 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010) (striking post-trial briefing on damages as improper attempt to get a \"second bite at the apple\" to introduce new evidence and exceeded scope of court's briefing order). Neither party has made any effort whatsoever to justify the need to reopen the record, let alone met its heavy burden to demonstrate that the failure to submit these arguments was not due to its lack of diligence, that re-opening the record now would cause no prejudice, and that the interests of justice require it.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court deny the\n\nReargument Requests as untimely and strike any argument therein.\n\nDated: May 31, 2022\n\n#### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com kaulet@brownrudnick.com\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nDebtor.[1](#page-5-0)\n\n:\n\nIn re: : Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI, Kenneth J. Aulet, hereby certify that on the 31st day of May, 2022, the Debtor's Response To Requests For Additional Argument And Untimely Briefing Filed By The Committee And The Individual Creditors was sent by e-mail to all appearing parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system\n\nDated: May 31, 2022\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *Kenneth J. Aulet*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq. (*pro hac vice*)\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n案件涉及：　:　第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭浩云），　:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n:　日期：\n债务人。1　:　时间：\n\n债务人对委员会及个人债权人提交的补充辩论请求及逾期简短陈词的答辩书\n\n上述第 11 章破产案件中的债务人及占有中债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭浩云）先生（“郭先生”或“债务人”），通过其下述签字律师，特此对题为《无担保债权人官方委员会根据 11 U.S.C. § 105(d) 召开案情通报会议的请求》（“委员会重新辩论请求”，案卷号 444）以及《债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴征）及 Weican Meng（孟维参）根据 11 U.S.C. § 105(d) 召开案情通报会议的请求》（“个人债权人重新辩论请求”，案卷号 443，与委员会重新辩论请求合称为“重新辩论请求”）的提交文件提出本答辩。\n答辩\n\n1. 在已充分提交简短陈词的驳回动议经口头辩论、提交证据并交由法院审阅两天后，委员会与个人债权人提交了协同一致的文件，声称请求召开“案情通报会议”，但实际上是请求对驳回动议进行重新辩论、提交未经许可的补充辩论意见，并且\n\n1 债务人还使用以下姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n歪曲记录。重新辩论请求应予驳回，委员会和个人债权人采取新立场、引入新辩论意见及歪曲记录的企图应予剔除。\n\n2. 在驳回动议听证会结束时，本法院已终结记录并将该事项交由法院审阅。见 2022 年 5 月 25 日听证会笔录 116:12-15（“今天的听证会结束，不再提交进一步证据或进行辩论，因此，就本驳回动议作出决定的倒计时开始计算。”）；117:8-9（“我将对驳回动议进行审议，并将据此作出裁定。”）\n\n3. 委员会和个人债权人似乎抓住了本法院所作的“如果你们对驳回动议有任何其他顾虑或问题，我通常可以安排会议”[2] 这一表述，将其视为对其案件进行重新辩论的邀请。他们在提交的文件中并未指明他们有任何新的“顾虑”或“问题”。相反，他们请求召开会议据称是为了“澄清”其立场。见委员会重新辩论请求第 1 页（寻求“召开案情通报会议，以便法院了解、各方有机会处理对委员会立场的澄清……”）（强调为后加）；个人债权人重新辩论请求第 2 页（寻求“在[法院]最早方便的时间召开案情通报会议，以澄清个人债权人的立场所需的程度为限。”）（强调为后加）。\n\n4. 在各自的提交文件中，委员会和个人债权人未指出听证会日期与重新辩论请求日期之间发生了任何足以证明有必要“澄清”其立场的合理变化。他们也未指出任何未能按时提出辩论意见的合理疏忽，或\n\n2 2022 年 5 月 25 日听证会笔录 114:2-4。\n\n做出任何努力以符合重新开放记录的法定要求（下文第 6 段所述）。他们只是主张希望获得第二次机会（another bite at the apple），却未为此类请求提供任何依据。\n\n5. 委员会所做的不仅是请求重新辩论。首先，委员会在其请求本身中，试图在证据终结和听证会终结后提交新的判例依据和辩论意见。见委员会重新辩论请求第 2 页（试图就委员会所请求的驳回条件提出新的法律辩论）。对于提交未经许可的庭后简短陈词，以及为何此类判例依据若具相关性（实则不然）却未能在庭前文件中列入，委员会均未提供任何依据。其次，委员会明确歪曲记录，声称“没有任何一方对委员会提出的驳回条件提出异议”。同上。U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）明确反对附加驳回条件。见 2022 年 5 月 25 日听证会笔录 98:5-8（“如果法院今天认定驳回是最为适当的救济，那么本案应当立即予以驳回，而不应附带任何事件条件，驳回也不应与任何事件相关联。”）（强调为后加）。\n\n6. 本法院不应仅仅为了给委员会和个人债权人提供第二次机会，并要求对他们逾期提交的文件和辩论意见作出实质性答辩而召开案情通报会议，尤其是对于为何未能在听证会上提出这些问题，他们未提供任何解释——更不用说合理的解释了。[3] 寻求重新开放记录的一方承担举证责任以证明：(a) 重新开放记录的必要性并非由于该方自身缺乏应有的勤勉；(b) 重新开放记录将在何种程度上损害非\n\n3 债务人未对重新辩论请求中提出的辩论意见作出实质性答辩，因为这些辩论意见若未在庭审中提出，则已被视为放弃。若本法院准许重新辩论请求，债务人保留基于任何理由反对这些辩论意见的一切权利。\n\n动议方的利益；以及 (c) 司法的公正利益。见 John v. Sotheby's, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 1283, 1288 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd, 52 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 1995)；另见 Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc'ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955, 961 (2d Cir. 1997)（判决法院必须考虑当事人未能遵守日程安排令的解释，且不充分的理由不支持更改截止日期）。\n\n7. 此外，鉴于重新辩论请求本身试图引入该新辩论意见、歪曲记录并增加新的法律判例依据（而非请求获得这样做的许可），法院应剔除重新辩论请求以维护记录的完整性。见 John v. Sotheby's, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 1283, 1288 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd, 52 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 1995)（因动议方未能证明重新开放记录所需的各项要件而驳回重新开放记录的动议）；另见 Oliver v. New York State Police, No. 115CV00444BKSDJS, 2020 WL 8614640, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2020)（维持治安法官拒绝准许当事人重新开放记录以提出新辩论意见并提交新文件的决定）；In re Simms-Wilson, 434 B.R. 452, 469 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010)（剔除关于损害赔偿的庭后简短陈词，认定其系为引入新证据而获取“第二次机会”的不当企图，且超出了法院简短陈词命令的范围）。双方均未做出任何努力来证明重新开放记录的必要性，更未能履行其沉重的举证责任以证明未能提交这些辩论意见并非由于自身缺乏勤勉、现在重新开放记录不会造成任何损害以及司法利益确有此要求。\n结论\n\n据此，债务人谨请法院驳回\n\n重新辩论请求，因其逾期提出，并剔除其中的任何辩论意见。\n\n日期：2022 年 5 月 31 日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq. 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（特许出庭律师） 收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq.（特许出庭律师） 收件人：Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq.（特许出庭律师） 收件人：Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq.（特许出庭律师） 电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801 电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com kaulet@brownrudnick.com\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n债务人。[1]\n\n:\n\n案件涉及： : 第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭浩云）， : 案号 22-50073\n送达证明书\n\n我，Kenneth J. Aulet，特此证明：于 2022 年 5 月 31 日，通过法院电子立案系统的运作，《债务人对委员会及个人债权人提交的补充辩论请求及逾期简短陈词的答辩书》已通过电子邮件送达给所有出庭当事方。\n\n日期：2022 年 5 月 31 日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Kenneth J. Aulet  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq. 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（特许出庭律师） 收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq.（特许出庭律师） 收件人：Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq.（特许出庭律师） 收件人：Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq.（特许出庭律师）\n\n1 债务人还使用以下姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Je","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1503,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:57:32"}