{"id":"court_sdny_3375_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":3375,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 3375","summary_zh":"破产异议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案附诉 24-05117，康州破产法院 Case No. 22-50073，ECF 3375（2024 年 8 月）。Meta Platforms, Inc. 反对延长避免交易诉讼期限，主张法院无权根据破产规则 9006(b) 延长法定时效，并指出受信人采取多项不当程序对被告方构成不公平。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy Objection — United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073, Adversary Proceeding No. 24-05117, ECF No. 3375 (August 2024). Meta Platforms, Inc. objects to extension of deadline to file avoidance actions, arguing court lacks statutory authority under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) to extend statutory time limits and objecting to procedural tactics.","body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nChapter 11\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n#### **NOTICE OF FILING OF META PLATFORMS, INC.'S OBJECTION TO EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. (\"Meta\") files this notice of filing of its objection to the *Motion of*\n\n*Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* in\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05117. A true and correct copy of Meta's objection is attached.\n\nDated: August 6, 2024 New York, New York */s/ George Angelich*  George Angelich (ct27542) Eric Roman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Patrick Feeney (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 T: 212.457.5423 E: [george.angelich@afslaw.com](mailto:george.angelich@afslaw.com) [eric.roman@afslaw.com](mailto:eric.roman@afslaw.com) patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- and -\n\nJin Yan (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 T: 202.778.6442 E: [jin.yan@afslaw.com](mailto:jin.yan@afslaw.com)\n\n*Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.*\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,\n\nDebtors.\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC.,\n\nDefendant.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05117\n\n# **META PLATFORMS, INC.'S OBJECTION TO EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. (\"Meta\") objects to the motion of Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") to further extend the August 15, 2024 deadline to file avoidance actions and states as follows:\n\n1. Meta is already a defendant in the above-captioned adversary proceeding, in which the Trustee seeks to avoid and recover purported fraudulent transfers made by a non-debtor to Meta. ECF No. 1. Meta has moved to dismiss the Trustee's complaint. *Id.*, ECF No. 18.\n\n2. To the extent the Trustee may seek to bring additional actions or claims against\n\nMeta that would be time-barred but for for an extension of the August 15, 2024 deadline, Meta\n\nobjects to the extension of that deadline.[1](#page-2-0) Meta's objection is also prompted by the Trustee's proposed order, which asks the Court to order \"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[.]\" ECF No. 25, Ex. 1.\n\n3. The Court cannot extend the applicable statutes of limitations under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) because by its terms, that rule apply applies to deadlines set by \"these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court.\"[2](#page-2-1) *In re Walnut Hill*, No. 16-20960 (JJT), 2018 WL 2672242, at \\*1 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 1, 2018); *In re Tubular Techs., LLC*, 438 B.R. 699, 710-11 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2006); *In re Damach, Inc.*, 235 B.R. 727, 731 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999); *see also* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1001 (defining \"rules\" as the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure); *U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York*, 540 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"When interpreting a rule of procedure, we review the text for its 'plain meaning.'\") (citation omitted). Indeed, Rule 9006(b) is patterned after on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), *see* Advisory Committee Notes, and \"[e]very court to have considered this question has held that Rule 6(b) may be used only to extend time limits imposed by the court itself or by other Federal Rules, but not by statute.\" *Argentine Republic v. Nat'l Grid Plc*, 637 F.3d 365, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing cases).\n\n4. But even assuming Rule 9006(b) authorizes what the Trustee requests, as the Court also recognized, fairness to defendants is an animating concern. Memorandum Order at 13. Here,\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> Meta also reserves the right to challenge any claims brought by the Trustee that would be untimely but for the extension of the original February 15, 2024 deadline.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> Meta recognizes that the Court held otherwise in its prior Memorandum Order granting the Trustee an extension. Case No. 22-50073, ECF No. 2921. However, Meta was never served with the Trustee's prior extension motion and had no opportunity to raise this argument, which it now does for purposes of preserving its rights.\n\nMeta has already incurred costs to defend against the Trustee's existing claims. The Trustee's complaint against Meta was filed before the original February 15, 2024 deadline to commence avoidance actions expired, and since getting an extension, the Trustee has not moved to amend to add new claims against Meta. Meta should not have to incur additional cost in any further litigation brought by the Trustee. Meta has not caused any delay in the Trustee's being able to timely file additional avoidance actions, and Meta should not be prejudiced by others' delays. The Trustee has already received a six-month extension. He should not get another six months, particularly where his motion is vague as to actions he plans to take to ensure that he will not need yet another extension if this one is granted.\n\n5. The Trustee has already tried to stack the deck against Meta and other adversary defendants through stretch legal theories and unorthodox procedural maneuvers, including the following:\n\n- The Trustee is bringing claims belonging to non-debtors without having substantively consolidated them with the Debtor. He is prosecuting those claims as a result of alter ego rulings in other cases, which rulings do not substitute for substantive consolidation and which are not binding on any adversary defendant that not a party to those cases. In some cases, portions of the Trustee's claims are unripe and stayed pending ruling on whether certain non-debtor transferors are alter egos.\n- The Trustee has withheld information concerning the very transfers he challenges and conditioned an adversary defendant's receipt of that basic information on that defendant's agreeing to be bound by a protective order entered in the Debtor's main bankruptcy case. It appears that the reason such information is subject to the protective order is because that information was obtained from third party financial institutions, and that information (along with the claims derived from that information) belongs to non-debtors. The Trustee has made no motion to unseal or otherwise redact only truly confidential information such as bank account details, not basic information concerning the amounts and dates of transfers.\n- The Trustee has implemented a mandatory mediation program that shuttles adversary defendants into mediation while staying challenges to the sufficiency of the Trustee's allegations, thus compelling defendants to mediate, and potentially to settle, facially invalid claims. While mediation\n\nis ordinarily voluntary, the Trustee has forced defendants to affirmatively opt out of it.\n\n6. The Trustee ought not be allowed to further stack the deck by getting more time to tack on additional claims against Meta. Thus, to the extent the Court is inclined to extend the Trustee's August 15, 2024 deadline to file avoidance actions, any additional actions or claims against Meta should be carved out from that extension.\n\n7. Meta reserves all rights, defenses, and remedies.\n\nWHEREFORE, Meta respectfully requests that the Court deny the Trustee's motion to extend the August 15, 2024 deadline to file avoidance actions, at least as it applies to any actions or claims against Meta, and grant Meta such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.\n\nDated: August 6, 2024 New York, New York */s/ George Angelich*\n\nGeorge Angelich (ct27542) Eric Roman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Patrick Feeney (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 T: 212.457.5423 E: [george.angelich@afslaw.com](mailto:george.angelich@afslaw.com) [eric.roman@afslaw.com](mailto:eric.roman@afslaw.com) patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n- and -\n\nJin Yan (admitted *pro hac vice*) ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 T: 202.778.6442 E: [jin.yan@afslaw.com](mailto:jin.yan@afslaw.com)\n\n*Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.*\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI certify that on August 6, 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.\n\nDated: New York, New York August 6, 2024\n\n */s/ George Angelich*  George Angelich","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\nIn re（关于）:\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\nChapter 11（第 11 章）\n（合并审理）\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC. 就第 11 章受托人延长提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的动议提出异议的提交通知\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc.（Meta）特此提交关于其在 Adv. Proc. No. 24-05117 中对《第 11 章受托人延长 2024 年 8 月 15 日受托人提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的动议》提出异议的提交通知。随附 Meta 异议书的真实准确副本。\n\n日期：2024 年 8 月 6 日 纽约州纽约市 /s/ George Angelich  George Angelich (ct27542) Eric Roman（获准 pro hac vice 临时执业） Patrick Feeney（获准 pro hac vice 临时执业） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 电话：212.457.5423 电子邮箱：george.angelich@afslaw.com eric.roman@afslaw.com patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n及\n\nJin Yan（获准 pro hac vice 临时执业） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 电话：202.778.6442 电子邮箱：jin.yan@afslaw.com\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. 代理律师\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\nIn re（关于）:\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（第 11 章受托人），\n原告，\nv.\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC.，\n被告。\n\nChapter 11（第 11 章）\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n（合并审理）\nAdv. Proc. No. 24-05117\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC. 关于反对延长提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的异议书\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc.（Meta）反对 Luc A. Despins 作为第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）关于进一步延长 2024 年 8 月 15 日提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的动议，并陈述如下：\n\n1. Meta 已是上述标题所示对抗性程序中的被告，在该程序中，受托人试图撤销并追回由非债务人向 Meta 进行的涉嫌欺诈性转让。ECF No. 1。Meta 已提出驳回受托人起诉状的动议。同上，ECF No. 18。\n\n2. 如果受托人试图对 Meta 提起额外的诉讼或主张，而这些诉讼或主张若非延长 2024 年 8 月 15 日的截止日期就会因超过时效而被禁止，Meta 对延长该截止日期提出异议。[1] Meta 的异议也是由受托人的拟议命令引发的，该拟议命令要求法院命令“任何收到本动议的实际或推定通知且未对本动议提出异议的当事人，如果最终在根据本命令条款及时提起的诉讼中被列为被告，则已放弃提出时效抗辩的权利[。]” ECF No. 25, Ex. 1。\n\n3. 法院不能根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) 延长适用的诉讼时效，因为根据该规则的条款，该规则适用于“本规则或根据其发出的通知或法院命令”所设定的截止日期。[2] In re Walnut Hill, No. 16-20960 (JJT), 2018 WL 2672242, at *1 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 1, 2018)；In re Tubular Techs., LLC, 438 B.R. 699, 710-11 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2006)；In re Damach, Inc., 235 B.R. 727, 731 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999)；亦见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1001（将“rules”定义为《联邦破产程序规则》）；U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 540 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2008)（“在解释程序规则时，我们审查文本的‘字面含义’。”）（引用省略）。事实上，Rule 9006(b) 仿照了 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)，见《咨询委员会说明》，且“审理过此问题的每一家法院均认定，Rule 6(b) 仅可用于延长法院自身或其它联邦规则所规定的时限，而不能用于延长法定时限。” Argentine Republic v. Nat'l Grid Plc, 637 F.3d 365, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2011)（引用判例）。\n\n4. 但即便假定 Rule 9006(b) 授权了受托人所请求的事项，正如法院所认识到的那样，对被告的公平性是一个核心关切。备忘录裁定书第 13 页。在此案中，\n\n[1] Meta 亦保留对受托人提起的任何若非延长最初的 2024 年 2 月 15 日截止日期即属逾期的主张提出异议的权利。\n\n[2] Meta 承认法院在其先前准许受托人延期的备忘录裁定书中作出了相反的裁定。Case No. 22-50073, ECF No. 2921。然而，Meta 从未收到过受托人先前延期动议的送达，没有机会提出此项抗辩理由，现出于保留权利的目的提出此项抗辩。\n\nMeta 已经为针对受托人现存主张进行抗辩承担了费用。受托人针对 Meta 的起诉状是在最初的 2024 年 2 月 15 日提起撤销权诉讼截止日期届满之前提交的，且自获得延期以来，受托人并未动议修改诉状以针对 Meta 增加新的主张。Meta 不应当在受托人提起的任何进一步诉讼中承担额外费用。Meta 未曾造成受托人无法及时提起额外撤销权诉讼的任何拖延，Meta 不应因他人的拖延而受到损害。受托人已经获得了六个月的延期。他不应再获得另外六个月，特别是在其动议对于其计划采取何种行动以确保如果本次延期获准后其将不再需要又一次延期的问题上语焉不详的情况下。\n\n5. 受托人已经试图通过牵强的法律理论和非正统的程序手段来操控局面对 Meta 和其他对抗性程序被告造成不公，包括以下方面：\n\n- 受托人在未将非债务人与债务人进行实质性合并的情况下，提起了属于非债务人的主张。他是根据其他案件中的“另我/人格混同”（alter ego）裁定来提起这些主张的，而这些裁定不能替代实质性合并，且对非这些案件当事人的任何对抗性程序被告均无约束力。在某些案件中，受托人主张的部分内容尚未成熟，并已被中止，等待就某些非债务人转让人是否属于另我作出裁定。\n- 受托人隐瞒了关于其所质疑的转让本身的信息，并将对抗性程序被告获取该基本信息的条件设定为该被告同意受债务人主要破产案件中作出的保护令的约束。此类信息之所以受保护令约束，似乎是因为该信息是从第三方金融机构获取的，且该信息（以及源自该信息的主张）属于非债务人。受托人没有提出解封动议，也没有动议仅对真正机密的信息（如银行账户明细）进行涂覆，而不是对有关转让金额和日期的基本信息进行涂覆。\n- 受托人实施了强制调解程序，将对抗性程序被告推入调解，同时中止对受托人指控充分性的异议审查，从而迫使被告就表面无效的主张进行调解并可能进行和解。虽然调解\n\n通常是自愿的，但受托人强迫被告必须主动明确声明退出调解。\n\n6. 不应允许受托人通过获得更多时间来针对 Meta 追加额外主张而进一步操纵局面对被告造成不公。因此，如果法院倾向于延长受托人 2024 年 8 月 15 日提起撤销权诉讼的截止日期，则针对 Meta 的任何额外诉讼或主张均应排除在延期之外。\n\n7. Meta 保留所有权利、抗辩和救济。\n\n据此，Meta 谨请求法院驳回受托人关于延长 2024 年 8 月 15 日提起撤销权诉讼截止日期的动议（至少在适用于针对 Meta 的任何诉讼或主张的范围内），并给予 Meta 法院认为适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2024 年 8 月 6 日 纽约州纽约市 /s/ George Angelich\n\nGeorge Angelich (ct27542) Eric Roman（获准 pro hac vice 临时执业） Patrick Feeney（获准 pro hac vice 临时执业） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 电话：212.457.5423 电子邮箱：george.angelich@afslaw.com eric.roman@afslaw.com patrick.feeney@afslaw.com\n\n及\n\nJin Yan（获准 pro hac vice 临时执业） ArentFox Schiff LLP 1717 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 电话：202.778.6442 电子邮箱：jin.yan@afslaw.com\n\nMeta Platforms, Inc. 代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n本人证明，于 2024 年 8 月 6 日，本人已通过 CM/ECF 提交系统向法院书记官提交了上述文件的真实准确副本，该系统将向所有记录在案的律师发送该提交通知。\n\n日期：纽约州纽约市 2024 年 8 月 6 日\n\n/s/ George Angelich  George Angelich","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1355,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:26:15"}