---
type: court_doc
id: "court_ctb_111_0"
court: "CTB"
case_no: "22-50073"
doc_number: 111
doc_type: "ORDER"
filed_date: "2022-03-21"
lang: "zh"
url: "https://mubeitech.com/court/court_ctb_111_0"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_ctb_111_0"
---
# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KW



> 原始法庭文件为英文；下方为英文全文，顶部为中文摘要。

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK, \* Bridgeport, Connecticut \* March 1, 2022 Debtor. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE SCHEDULES OR PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: BENNETT SILVERBERG, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Fund L.P.: STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. ASHLEY MARIE, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103-3597 For the Creditor, Logan JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ. Cheng: Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**

APPEARANCES Cont'd:

For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510

 (Proceedings commenced at 4:03 p.m.) THE CLERK: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the debtor's counsel, please? MR. SILVERBERG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Bennet Silverberg of Brown Rudnick. I'm joined by my sponsor attorney, Dylan Kletter. THE COURT: Good afternoon to both of you, and I think -- MR. KLETTER: Good afternoon. THE COURT: -- Attorney Silverberg, there may have been an order entered allowing your admission pro hac vice is it? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor, and we thank you for that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., or PACS. With me in the courtroom, Your Honor, to my right is Attorney Peter Friedman. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BIRNEY: To my left is Attorney Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Good afternoon.

 MR. BIRNEY: And a couple other folks. Attorney David Harbach and Ashley Marie from -- all from O'Melveny. Your Honor, the motions for pro hac vice have been filed and granted by Your Honor, and Mr. Friedman will be taking over with lead argument today. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, all. Welcome, everyone. Go ahead, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Wolman. MR. WOLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jay Wolman of, Randazza Legal Group, the Creditor, Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. MR. WOLMAN: And, thank you very much, Your Honor, for permitting me to appear remotely. THE COURT: Yes, as I noted -- oh, I forgot to put the camera on. Sorry, Attorney Wolman. We're doing different -- MR. WOLMAN: It's okay. THE COURT: -- kinds of hearings today, so I don't even know if you can -- if that works, but in any event, it's there. As I noted, you know, this was an expedited

 hearing, so you were allowed to participate today remotely. We are back in court. There are a number of us in the courtroom but people are masked and apparently, you know, comfortable with distancing and so we'll proceed today. Now before we talk about anything specifically, I got a message that there is an interpreter here today for the debtor. MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And before we talk anything about that, I just want to -- do other counsel understand that the debtor has an interpreter today? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny and Myers, on behalf of PACS. We do understand. THE COURT: Okay. And do you have an opposition to the interpreter? MR. FRIEDMAN: No, Your Honor. I have no opposition to the interpreter. THE COURT: Okay. And you believe the interpreter is qualified to interpret whatever the debtor is saying? MR. FRIEDMAN: I don't have any basis one way or another, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I understand from the Office of the United State's Trustee's pleadings that were filed, I think yesterday, I could be -- I think I'm correct -- that

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 there was an interpreter for the debtor at the initial debtor interview that your office conducted. Is that correct? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee used the services of an interpreter over the telephone, and then the debtor had his own personal interpreter who was present physically with the debtor. THE COURT: So did -- so is the gentleman that's here today -- I shouldn't even say. I assume it's a gentleman because I'm looking in the back of the courtroom, but is the gentleman here today the same gentleman that was with the debtor during the initial debtor interview? MS. CLAIBORN: No, Your Honor. MR. SILVERBERG: No, Your Honor. This -- the interpreter's name is John Lau. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I just need to understand at some point if Mr. Lau is going to be interpreting anything that the debtor says, I want to understand Mr. Lau's qualifications, if we get to that point. Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: Understand. THE COURT: You know, we obviously were not prepared to have an interpreter, but that's not necessarily a problem. All I'm suggesting to you is, I don't want there -

Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 6 of 57

Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 7 of 57

 - I'm not going to have a hearing continue and be held if there is going to be any controversy over the interpreter. That's my point. Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Now -- THE CLERK: Judge, I'm sorry. We didn't pick up what Attorney Claiborn is saying -- said before. I'm sorry. She's a little far from the mic. THE COURT: Yeah, it's not your fault, Attorney Claiborn. The problem is, with all of us with masks and, you know, distancing, it's sometimes -- we might have to ask you to talk a little more loudly. MS. CLAIBORN: I'll do my best to speak louder. THE COURT: Thank you. Even just that -- that angle, unfortunately, picks up your voice better in the microphone. And as I think you're all aware, our record is audio, so we have to be very careful about the microphones. And if there's times when I ask you, or someone asks you to repeat yourself, it's because we need to make sure we have a clear record. Okay? All right. So a week or so ago -- and I can pull it up. You probably all know it better than I at this point, the clerk's office entered a docket entry in this case regarding certain deficiencies with regard to the

#### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 8 of 57

 petition and other documents that are required to be filed in a bankruptcy case by a voluntary debtor. The amended petition was filed. I saw that. That corrected that deficiency. There is a -- I understand, you know, the office is thinking that they can sometimes use other people's numbers, but we don't allow that, and so that was why there was a need for the filing of the amended petition. So I understand that's been done. I understand there was a notation about a creditor who didn't have an appropriate attention line, and that's been corrected as well. So the Court appreciates that. What the order that I believe the debtor's counsels are -- not the order, but the deficiency notice that the debtor's counsel is concerned about, that resulted in this motion to extend time to file the schedules, is because -- and I'm telling you both something I know you already know. This isn't any news to you, the bankruptcy code requires, and the rules, that schedules and statements be filed within 14 days of the filing of the case. For as many reasons as all of us in this room know, that's an important problem -- issue, because a case can't be properly administered if a debtor hasn't met its duties, his duties, in this case his duties, of preparing and filing the schedules and statements of affairs. That's an essential requirement that this Court, and I think all

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 courts, take very seriously. The deficiency notice said that the case may be dismissed. It didn't say shall, but I understand the debtor's counsel's desire to then get a hearing quickly held so that you would -- because you don't want to have your case dismissed, and I understand that. So in any event, that was the reason that the motion for an expedited hearing was granted and is set today on the motion to extent time to file the schedules. Now, I understand what you're looking for. You're looking for 60 days. You know that you've got two written objections to that already. I can tell you you're not going to get 60 days. That's not going to happen. But what I want to know is, have you had any discussions with counsel for the creditors or the U.S. Trustee's office about your request and their objections? MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, Your Honor. As a matter of fact, we had our -- I'm not sure if Your Honor can hear me. THE COURT: That's perfect. Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, we had our initial debtor interview with Ms. Claiborn in her office yesterday. It was a three hour interview. At the conclusion of the interview, we asked Ms. Claiborn what the office's position was on the extension

 request. She made clear that 60 days was going to be -- was going to be met with an objection, and she strongly admonished that we consider requesting an extension that expired in advance of the Section 341 meeting and gave creditors sufficient time to review the schedules and statements so that they can ask informed questions at the 341 meeting. Last night, after consulting with the client, who happens -- sorry. Didn't make the introduction to our client, Mr. Ho Wan Kwok. MR. KWOK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon, sir. MR. SILVERBERG: He goes by Miles. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. You can have a seat, sir. Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: So yesterday -- last evening, sorry, we made a proposal to the U.S. Trustee to extend the deadline to file the schedules and statements until March 16th, which is the Wednesday before the Monday 341 meeting. The reason why we didn't go exactly a week prior is that we're dealing with some of the logistics of translating the schedules and statements into Mr. Kwok's native Chinese, so we want to make sure that when he certifies and attests to the accuracy under penalty of

 perjury that he completely understands in his own language what the schedules and statements are saying so that there's absolutely no question as to what the words are on the page. THE COURT: I understand. Okay. So are you saying that you are prepared -- and I'm going to hear from other parties, but I just want to ask you this question. You are prepared on behalf of the debtor to agree to an extension of time that would expire on March 16th? Is that correct? MR. SILVERBERG: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. I'd appreciate that. Now, Attorney Claiborn, you filed the first objection to this motion. You've now heard counsel and his agreement to limit the extension of time if it's granted, to March 16th. What else would you like to add to the record, or what other thoughts do you have with regard to the extension request? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I think it might be helpful if I could ask the Court to listen to the PACS presentation before the U.S. Trustee opines. THE COURT: Oh, that's fine. Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: And I make that suggestion because there is a long history of the debtor and PACS that I think would be informative to the analysis of what kind of an

 extension of time makes sense to this case. THE COURT: That's fine. Counsel? MR. SILVERBERG: And, Your Honor, if PACS is go into a gory detail of what led us here, I think it -- you know, I have a presentation I can make as well if you want to hear it. Otherwise, you can hear -- hear me. THE COURT: Well, are you suggesting you'd like to make your presentation first? Is that what you're saying? Or you want to respond to their presentation? MR. SILVERBERG: I'd like to make our presentation first if that's -- THE COURT: All right. And your presentation is going to be about why the case was filed and why you need the extension of time? MR. SILVERBERG: That is correct. To -- THE COURT: All right. I'll let them go first, Counsel, and then I will absolutely hear from you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SILVERBERG: Do you want me to do it from here or from the podium? THE COURT: You can do it right from there, counsel. MR. SILVERBERG: Perfect. So, Your Honor, what I was proposing to do was to first give a background of Mr.

 Kwok, the event -- and then follow it up with the events leading to the commencement of this Chapter 11 case, and provide the justification for the extension request. Your Honor, by way of background -- sorry. Mr. Kwok was born in Shandong Province in China. He currently resides in Greenwich, CT with his wife of 35 years, Qingzhi. He has two adult children. Together, they have a son, Mr. Qiang Guo, and a daughter, Ms. Mei Guo. The son lives in the United Kingdom. The daughter splits her time between New York City and Connecticut. Hopefully more time out of the parents' house now that COVID is receding. He grew up in a large but poor household which inspired his entrepreneurial spirit. At the age of 13, Mr. Kwok dropped out of middle school and began selling clothing and electronics to help support his family. In May 1989, Mr. Kwok was detained and tortured for his support of the Tiananmen Square protest. While detained for approximately 20 months, he created key relationships with political activists, intellectuals, business people, and religious leaders. One of these contacts would later introduce him to a Ms. Ping Sia (ph), a successful businesswoman and investor from Hong Kong. In 1991, Mr. Kwok began to work with Ms. Sia in Yuda Property Company (ph), a company which focused on

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 commercial real estate development in the Henan Province of China. Shortly after its launch, Yuda successfully developed and constructed the high end Yuda International Trade Center in Henan Province's capital city of Zhengzhou. The commercial complex includes what was at the time the tallest sky scraper in Henan Province, and china's fifth tallest building.

 Upon completion of its construction, the complex had a then value of 300 million. The trade center was financially successful and established Mr. Kwok's presence in China's world of real estate developers, particularly in the Henan Province where Yuda continued to develop high-end residential and commercial projects.

 Around 2000, building on the -- building on the success in Hehan Province, Mr. Kwok shifted his real estate aspirations to Chinese Capital, Beijing where he expanded his business to include private financing for his projects in which his six siblings participated.

 Through success in Henan Province, Mr. Kwok's immediate and extended family members were lifted out of poverty.

 In Beijing, Mr. Kwok helped establish Beijing Morgan Investment Company and Beijing Zenith Holdings Company, a real estate development and investment management consultant company. Entities in which Mr. Kwok's immediate

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 and extended family were shareholders and employees. In 2002, these businesses acquired two parcels spanning approximate 2 million square meters of undeveloped land in Northern Beijing. The value of these parcels increased dramatically after China was named the host country for the 2008 Olympics, and the government announced its plans to build the Olympic venue adjacent to these land parcels. The increased value of these parcels spawned Mr. Kwok's long-standing political fight with the Chinese Communist Party. Deputy Mayor, Gi Wa (ph), attempted to improperly appropriate Morgan Investment's property. Mr. Kwok fought back, reporting this corruption to the government, and after a lengthy fight, ultimately recovered Morgan Investment's land parcels. Mr. Kwok then oversaw the successful construction and timely completion of the Beijing Pangu Plaza and Xin Wang Plaza. The Pangu Plaza has become a Beijing landmark adjacent to the Olympic venue. Mr. Kwok, however, with his criticism of the CCP's corruption, drew a harsh response. When it became clear his life was in jeopardy, he fled to the United States in 2015. In absentia, the CCP froze or seized his assets in China, including assets held by companies in which he held an interest.

 The CCP also caused the seizure of his assets elsewhere, including Hong Kong, and of caused Interpol to issue a Red Notice for his arrest. In September 2017, he claimed political asylum in the United States and his application remains pending to this day. He continues his criticism of the CCP's corruption and human rights abuses to this day. Over the years, he has amassed a following on various digital and media platforms such as YouTube, GTV, Twitter, and GETTR -- I actually had to look GETTR up. I didn't know what it was -- where he shares his personal views and opinions concerning the CCP and the need for democracy in China. He has over 1 million followers across the various social media platforms. Notably, he has not monetized his social media presence. Mr. Kwok is not employed and he relies on the support of family, principally his son, to cover his daily living expenses. In Mr. Kwok's son's family office in Golden Spring, New York, his son advances is monthly expenses. Brown Rudnick's retainer was paid by another entity owned by Mr. Kwok's son, Lamp Capital, LLC, as set forth in our attorney compensation declaration at Docket Number 54, which was filed shortly before this hearing. THE COURT: Okay. I haven't seen that, but that's

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 fine. MR. SILVERBERG: Turning to the PACS litigation. Though he left China, he didn't leave all his troubles behind. We suspect the Court will hear quite a bit from PACS's counsel during this case. We won't get too much into this litigation, but a high level interview might help put things into context. PACS, a Hong Kong investment fund, commenced actions against Mr. Kwok in New York and BBI. The New York action commenced in 2017. It was before Justice Ostrager in New York Supreme Court. In the New York action, Mr. Kwok is represented by BakerHostetler. These are principally collection actions related to a \$30 million loan made to a Chinese entity called Spirit Charter, back in 2008. PACS claims that Mr. Kwok provided a personal guarantee of the PACS debt and reaffirmed that guarantee multiple times over the years, most recently in 2011. Mr. Kwok agrees that he provided a personal guarantee in 2008, but asserts that the loan was fully repaid thereafter and that the subsequent documents are forgeries. And that's the crux of the dispute, Your Honor. Without a hearing, Justice Ostrager entered summary judgment in PACS's favor. Mr. Kwok has appealed this judgment to the appellate division and the appeal

 remains pending, though stayed as a result of the commencement of this case. In the meantime, PACS sought to enforce a restraining order issued by Justice Ostrager and Mr. Kwok, prohibiting him from transferring or dissipating assets, or moving them outside the jurisdiction of the New York courts. PACS became laser focused on a yacht named the Lady May. PACS wanted the yacht back in New York so that it could arrest the boat and levy on it. Mr. Kwok denied owning the boat and asserted that he couldn't order the boat back to New York. Justice Ostrager directed Mr. Kwok to return the boat to New York by May 15th, 2021, or face a massive daily fine of \$500,000 for every day the boat remained outside it's jurisdiction. On February 9th Justice Ostrager found that Mr. Kwok beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May, issued a final order of civil contempt against him, and ordered him to pay a \$134 million fine to PACS within just five days, or risk jail time. The February 9th decision is also on appeal to the appellate decision. Mr. Kwok lacked the means to satisfy the fine, retained our firm on February 14th, and filed for Chapter 11 the very next day. He filed for Chapter 11, not just to obtain the benefit of the automatic stay, but to resolve all his claims in a single forum in an orderly

 manner. It is hopeful that he can agree with his creditors on the terms of a Chapter 11 plan. Counsel for PACS is in the same building as our firm, just an elevator bank away. His principal assets are litigation claims. Assuming he -- assuming he prevails on these claims, he may be able to fund full recoveries to his creditors. He will also approach his family members for support to fund the plan. All options are on the table. Further, as Your Honor noted in the objections, much has been made of supposed shell games and allegations of squirreling assets away. If the allegations are true, and we say they're not, then the bankruptcy case may be the best thing that could have happened for them. There may be a creditor's committed appointed in the case. The U.S. Trustee has solicited creditor interest in the participation. If one is appointed, then they'll have their work to do. Chiefly, we suspect they'll investigate the allegations that PACS made in their papers, which brings us to the motion for the request for the extension of the deadlines. We had very little time to work with Mr. Kwok to prepare his filing. That's why the papers were so skinny. That's why the deficiency notice ended up on the order.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 If we had more time, we would have made sure that the schedules were filed on time. Or certainly -- maybe even in advance of the -- maybe contemporaneous with the filing. It was far from ideal circumstances. We have a considerable amount of work to do on our end to assist Mr. Kwok with the preparation of schedules and statements. On February 23rd, we advised the United States Trustee's office of Mr. Kwok's intention to seek an extension. On February 24th, as Your Honor noted at Docket 27, we filed Mr. Kwok's request for an extension of approximately 60 days. The rationale for the extension was the need for us to work with counsel who had been representing Mr. Kwok for years to ensure that litigation related assets and liabilities were actually -- were accurately captured on the schedules and statements. Also, since Mr. Kwok does not read or write English, he requested a Chinese translation of the official forms. Mr. Kwok is also going to retain a service provider to assist him with the generation of the schedules and statements. This morning, we began discussions with Strutta (ph), who Your Honor may be familiar with. As I noted, Your Honor, we discussed Mr. Kwok's

 extension request yesterday afternoon with the U.S. Trustee. Yesterday, two parties filed objections to the extension motion, the U.S. Trustee and PACS. Both pretty much make the same point. The requested extension was too long and they want to get on with the case.

 Your Honor, it bears mentioning that even though the requested extended deadline was after the scheduled 341 meeting, we thought maybe we can work with the U.S. Trustee to commence that 341 meeting and adjourn it to make sure that folks had an opportunity to review them and ask informed questions. We recognize it would be unacceptable to deny the creditors the opportunity to ask informed questions.

 Mr. Kwok agrees that it's best to work harder to get the scheduled statements on file sooner. The sooner the schedules are on file, the sooner he can establish a bar date for claims, start reconciling them, and see if he can propose a feasible Chapter 11 plan.

 And, Your Honor, I already mentioned the proposal that we extend to the United States Trustee, and should we get there, I'm prepared to make a short proffer of what Mr. Kwok's testimony would be if he were called to testify.

 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Let me just think if I have a -- oh, yes, I do have a question or two. It's not really a question.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

| 1  | As I mentioned, and you all know, we have audio              |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2  | for our record.<br>There are some names that you recited     |
| 3  | during your presentation that I think it would be helpful to |
| 4  | get to the clerk's office so that the clerk's office can     |
| 5  | make sure they're properly spelled and accounted for in the  |
| 6  | record of this case.                                         |
| 7  | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>Absolutely, Your Honor, and we're         |
| 8  | happy to provide the English spelling, and I guess my        |
| 9  | phonetic --                                                  |
| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Whatever --                                    |
| 11 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>-- translation.                           |
| 12 | THE COURT:<br>-- whatever -- yes.<br>That would be           |
| 13 | very helpful because we do want the record to be accurate,   |
| 14 | and so, I would like you to do that.                         |
| 15 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>Absolutely, Your Honor.                   |
| 16 | THE COURT:<br>I can figure out -- I'll speak with            |
| 17 | the courtroom deputy, but we could probably have the clerk   |
| 18 | of the court reach out to you, counsel, and figure out a way |
| 19 | to get that information so that we clearly have it for our   |
| 20 | record and have it accurately.                               |
| 21 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>It would be our pleasure.                 |
| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>I just want to          |
| 23 | think if I had any other thought when -- I mean, I had other |
| 24 | thoughts, but what -- anything I wanted to say when you were |
| 25 | speaking.                                                    |

 With regard to the 341 meeting, and whatever happens here today, I think, you know, the U.S. Trustee's office -- I think it would make sense, even if your extension is granted to the 16th, to not close that 341 meeting after the first meeting.

 I think that this is a fluid case with a lot of issues, and you know, that's the U.S. Trustee's office call, but I would urge them to consider -- and of course I'm talking to you now, Attorney Claiborn, to consider that the debtor does not seem to have any issue with that 341 meeting taking place more than one day, and I would urge the U.S. Trustee's office to consider doing that, given many issues, including the fact that we're going to -- apparently going to have to have an interpreter there, and there's going -- there may or may not be a lot of creditors that have interest and questions.

 But I want to make sure that they're provided with that opportunity timely and with enough notice that when the documents are filed, they have enough time to intelligently review them. Okay?

 So I urge you to, if you would, communicate that with the U.S. Trustee and explain that the debtor's counsel has no problem with that.

 MS. CLAIBORN: I will do that, Your Honor. Thank you.

 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Counsel for PACS, you may proceed. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny and Myers. I actually gave Mr. Silverberg -- MR. SILVERBERG: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- Mr. Silverberg a copy of my deceleration. I have it in binder form. I actually have two binders, if I could hand them up to you? THE COURT: Sure. MR. FRIEDMAN: I feel like they're maybe helpful for you, you and your clerk -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- when we refer to something -- THE COURT: Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- that are in them. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, you have no problem with me looking at this binder while counsel is speaking? MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, was that -- THE COURT: I mean, Mr. -- did I say the wrong name? I apologize. MR. SILVERBERG: It's okay. THE COURT: I've got -- I'm looking at two things at the same time. Yes, you have no problem, then, correct?

 MR. SILVERBERG: I have no issue, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I appreciate that, Attorney Silverberg. And, Attorney Friedman, go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, Peter Friedman of O'Melveny and Myers on behalf of PACS. So, Your Honor, there are many, many, many different things that are worth responding to, but let me start with just the straight forward issue of what Justice Ostrager found. Justice Ostrager found that Mr. Kwok couldn't claim that the documents were a forgery because they were inconsistent -- that was inconsistent with everything he had done. THE COURT: Hold on one second, Attorney Friedman. (Pause) THE COURT: That's -- hold on a second, sir. Just hold on a second, okay? He's got -- he has a right to make his presentation, and you can listen to it later, because we record it and we put it on the -- on docket, and you can then talk to the debtor and interpret it if you can't do it simultaneously. But we have to go on with the hearing. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I understand. You think he can use the mic? At least we can more hear better here?

 THE COURT: Can you just pull the microphone a little bit closer to you, counsel? MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure, Your Honor. I have serious doubts as to the good faith of that request. THE COURT: I understand. I understand, but I'm not -- MR. FRIEDMAN: These are the kinds of antics, Your Honor -- THE COURT: I completely understand, but we're not -- we're going to proceed. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay? MR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. THE COURT: And as is true in every bankruptcy case in Connecticut and in most of the country, this recording will be placed on the docket of the case after the -- it will be on there by tomorrow morning I think, right? It's pretty -- it's very quick. It's within 24 hours. And anybody can listen to it. And it's not your fault, but the microphones -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: -- sometimes work well, and sometimes don't. And for whatever reason, that one today, has not worked well. That's -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, should I try that one

 up there? THE COURT: Well, maybe it might be better. Let's see how we do. Okay? There has been a problem with that microphone today. I can't tell you why. MR. FRIEDMAN: So, Your Honor, Justice Ostrager held -- and it's at, I believe Tab 4 of your binder is the opinion -- that Mr. Kwok couldn't claim the documents were a forgery for a litany of reasons. Estoppel, that he had made representations in the past, that he -- that he had actually produced those documents. So the claim is just, on its face, not a meaningful claim and not one that this Court should ultimately be able to sit in judgment over the recent findings of Justice Ostrager. THE COURT: May I ask you a question about Exhibit 4? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: The exhibit that you just pointed me to. So of course, I haven't reviewed anything -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: -- before today, but I'm looking at Exhibit 4, and it appears that Justice Ostrager issued this -- let me just see what it -- I apologize. Let me just see what it is entitled. It's a decision and order on motion that he issued

Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 28 of 57

 this on September 15, 2020. Is that -- that -- I'm correct in that? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. This was his summary judgment motion finding that Kwok in fact did owe money to PACS on a personal guarantee. THE COURT: And then what happened after the summary judgment decision. Was there an appeal, or is this considered interlocutory, or what is the situation with regard to this specific ruling that you're pointing me to right now? MR. FRIEDMAN: So it is on appeal. THE COURT: It is. MR. FRIEDMAN: It is outside of -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: So it's not an issue I think this Court could review. THE COURT: Okay. That's what -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I just want to make sure I understand, because as you can see, there's a lot of documents here and I -- MR. FRIEDMAN: There are. THE COURT: -- just want to make sure -- MR. FRIEDMAN: There are. THE COURT: -- I want to understand the status,

Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 29 of 57

 and I do now. I understand that he made these findings and that's still on appeal at the moment. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. But Your Honor asks a great question. What happened after that? Well, what happened after that, the first thing that happened, is that Mr. Kwok filed a company called Genever New York, for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. THE COURT: And you mentioned that in your papers -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: -- so I have that name correct. I've seen it. MR. FRIEDMAN: Right. So very upsetting that that was not listed as an affiliated bankruptcy, because Mr. Kwok owns 100 percent of the equity of a company called Genever - - Genever, British Virgin Islands. It's Genever Holdings, British Virgin Islands, which in turn owns 100 percent of the equity of a debtor in the Southern District of New York. That is, of course, the classic case of an affiliate. It wasn't listed on a petition. Really troubling, and one of the animating forces behind why we think no extension should be given beyond the 14 days that congress provides statutorily.

#### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 30 of 57

 That entity in the Southern District of New York is now the subject of -- it's too long to get into. Eventually, we will be seeking relief from this Court to permit us to pursue -- to vindicate Mr. Kwok's ownership rights of that entity and to object to bogus claims asserted by his family members. That's been part of his effort to frustrate our efforts to have that judgment satisfied. Your Honor, Congress listed 14 days for a reason. We think it's important. I will say, of course, often times I am in a position of asking for an extension of schedules, and to be honest -- and so, for filing dates. And to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever seen anybody object, because ordinarily there's a good reason. It's an operating business and they have hundreds of subsidiaries. It's an entity that may have to deal on its first couple of days with vendors and creditors and employees and can't pay immediate and prompt attention. None of that's true here. Mr. Kwok isn't an operating business. He claimed in his IDI and in his petition, he has no assets at all which, of course, raises the question of how could there possibly be a reorganization purpose here? How could there be a Chapter 11 purpose? Given all of his asset shuffling and -- not my word for it. Everything you heard from opposing counsel is his word. I have Justice Ostrager's opinions, and those

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 opinions and findings of fact show that Mr. Kwok uses a maze of entities and family members and trusted confidants to shift around assets. That kind of person can't be a fiduciary in a Chapter 11 for creditors. He'll never pursue claims against family members and other related entities. It raises really serious questions about the purpose of this case. I want to add on top of that, Your Honor, there is a \$134 million contempt fine. And that's not just Justice Ostrager imposing that. That was unanimously affirmed by the appellate division in New York State. THE COURT: I did see that. MR. FRIEDMAN: It was Mr. Kwok's doing. He waited 268 days. That's why it got so large. Mr. Kwok cannot challenge in this court, the state court's ruling that Mr. Kwok owns –- has a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Frankly, any responsible debtor would have already filed a 58 turnover motion to require the person who is in the custody of the yacht to return it completely to Mr. Kwok. That obviously hasn't happened. I will note, Your Honor, that later tonight we will be filing a motion asking you to hold the automatic stay does not apply to a civil contempt order against Mr. Kwok, as well as a motion, in the alternative, asking you to hold that if it does apply that the automatic stay be

 modified to permit Justice Ostrager to require that -- to the return of the Lady May the New York Harbor. We're not asking to be able to levy on it or collect on it right now, but Mr. Kwok should not be permitted to keep such a valuable asset outside of the United States, to be brought here where it can be properly monetized eventually and liquidated. Again, Justice Ostrager's findings I don't believe will ultimately be reviewable by this Court and should not be second-guessed, because they are a part of an order that's already on appeal. Mr. Kwok lost a motion for an interim stay in New York. He could not even provide any –- the slightest level of confidence to anybody that he would have a likelihood of success on that appeal. Now, the reason we believe that civil contempt order is not subject to the automatic stay leads to another issue which is, we also believe it's going to give rise to \$134 million non-dischargeable claim. We noted that in a footnote. We will also be commencing an adversary proceeding to hold that debt non-dischargeable, which also gives rise to the question, how could there ever be a feasible Chapter 11 plan when Mr. Kwok will be facing \$134 million debt if he ever got a discharge? And I think those kind of issues call into

 question everything in paragraph 15 of the debtor's motion. They talk about retaining counsels, and retaining financial advisors, and proposing plans using other people's money. You know, I realize, Your Honor, that we will have to prove a lot of things to you. But we have the evidence. Many of those things have already been established by Justice Ostrager. This is not a debtor who comes to you with anything even remotely approaching clean hands.

 For the life of me I can't understand how if a judge has held that you have a beneficial ownership in something worth \$30 million, you don't even footnoted in your petition.

 It's just astonishing. It's astonishing that somebody wouldn't list an affiliate is a debtor when there's a specific box.

 It's astonishing that the entity Mr. Kwok uses as his family office is listed as the second largest creditor, when the instructions specifically say don't list insiders. A company controlled by his son that funds his living expenses is the paradigmatic example of a nonstatutory insider.

 A petition, Your Honor, which was verified, signed under penalty of law, is so rife with dishonesty it's astounding. I would add even what Brown Rudnick filed this afternoon, which says they will be paid based on a loan

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

#### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 34 of 57

 that was made from Lamp, also Mr. Kwok's family office, to Mr. Kwok. So Look at the schedule -- the petition. Lamp turns up as a million-dollar creditor for that loan. But even though that loan is still -– is at Brown Rudnick as a retainer, it's still Mr. Kwok's property, so I don't how they could assess or assert that he has zero assets. He has the \$998,000 of assets that he came into the case with under that loan. It's a pre-petition loan. Again, just the lack of candor to this Court already is what impels us to believe that there's -- no quarter should be given. I want to note, in our brief, we cited virtually everything Justice Ostrager said, but I didn't cite one portion that I think it's really important. And it comes on page 7 of Justice Ostrager's opinion. THE COURT: Which opinion would you like me to look at? I want to make sure –- MR. FRIEDMAN: This is the contempt order, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, attached to your objection? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, as well as the U.S. Trustee's. THE COURT: Oh, but it's also in the book here? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, it's also attached to the U.S. Trustee's objection. THE COURT: Okay.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 MR. FRIEDMAN: That might be the easiest way to find it. THE COURT: If you give me a second, I will locate it. (Pause) THE COURT: I think I have it here but let me make sure. 8 A decision and order on motion, dated February 9, 2022. That is ten pages. Is that correct? MR. FRIEDMAN: It is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. I have it. MR. FRIEDMAN: So before I get to the quote, I want to point out this came after a live trial, and this came after Mr. Kwok's daughter, who counsel referenced, was basically held to be a liar by Justice Ostrager. When you read the opinion, you'll see how -- the lack of credibility that Justice Ostrager referenced with her testimony. He's not the only judge to do that. Judge Liman and in the case from the Southern District of New York also cast extreme, extreme doubt over to the credibility of her testimony relating to the interfamily transfer of funds. Your Honor, on page 7 it says, the machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other

## Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 35 of 57

 evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case. And clearly, Your Honor, not to let this case turn out like that case, Kwok has taken so many extraordinarily evasive and dishonest steps that cannot be squared with the good-faith requirements to be a Chapter 11 debtor. Congress required disclosures be made within 14 days. The request for 60 days was, to put it mildly, outrageous. We request the Court deny the motion in the entirety. But I'm going to say something else, Your Honor. 12 Ultimately, I realized that, you know, your job is to balance a variety of factors. We believe strongly that no extension should be given. But if an extension were given for a few days, until the end of the week because it's going to be run out today, we of course, you know, aren't going to say, you didn't file something by the end of the day today, the case should be dismissed automatically. So you know, as passionately as I feel about these issues, which I think you can tell, I would not object to it being extended. Our client would not object to it being extended until Friday. And we think given the fact that Mr. Kwok has said in his IDI that he has no assets, that part of it should be

 easy. If there are these contingent lawsuits, it it seems impossible to believe they aren't known to him already, and they should be scheduled as soon as possible so that we can frankly dig in. We may even seek Rule 2004 discovery between his 341 if necessary, depending on what's disclosed in there.

 But we believe we need a full and fair chance to continue our pursuit of his assets in order to take an appropriate 341 Examination and, you know, that I think -– I don't know if the Court has any questions for me, but those are the key issues that I thought were worth addressing with respect to our objection.

 THE COURT: I'm not sure I have any questions. I have looked at your objection, although I will say, I didn't look at it until today, and we did have hearings today, and so I looked at the United States Trustee's objection yesterday. I had more time when that was filed. I definitely looked at your objection. However, I'm intending on looking at it again, as I went to the U.S. Trustee's objection, as I will the motion for extension of time.

 So but I think I was fairly clear at the start of this hearing, there will be no extension of time for 60 days. If there's an extension of time, it will not be for 60 days. Counsel has stated he's made an offer to the United States Trustee's office to go to March 16th.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 You're stating that you would not object if the Court entered order extending the deadline to March 4th. We're not that far apart in some ways, but I understand your position.

 If the two of you don't want to talk about that and see if you can agree on something, that's fine. The Court will rule. I have no problem doing that.

 But if you want to take time to talk about it, we can do that too, and you can all -– we can take a five- minute recess. We don't have to take a recess. We can do whatever you want.

 But right now, today, the issue is, is there going to be an extension of time granted. The two objecting parties –- and I think I have been, I think clear, that I obviously find merit to the objections when I said already, there will not be a 60-day extension of time. It's just -– it's not going to happen. It's not appropriate. In very few cases I could ever think that it would be appropriate. And this is not one of them. Okay? So that's clear. The United States Trustee's office seems to be fine with March 16th. You'd like March 4th. The 341 meeting is what day? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I apologize for interrupting the Court. THE COURT: That's okay. MS. CLAIBORN: I didn't yet opine as to what the

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 U.S. Trustee's position was with respect to the date. THE COURT: Oh. I'm sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: And I didn't know whether or not counsel wanted to take the Court up on the opportunity to discuss for a minute before we do that or –- THE COURT: I can take a five-minute recess. It won't –- MS. CLAIBORN: I just don't know whether or not the parties were interested in discussing it. THE COURT: Yeah. And if there isn't an interesting discussion, that's fine too. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm giving you an opportunity if you'd like to take it. If you don't want to take it, that's fine. You know, I have no problem with that. MR. SILVERBERG: Your Honor, if PACS is going to dig in their heels on the 4th, that's just not going to be worth workable from a logistics standpoint, so -- THE COURT: Well, and that may be true on the negotiation standpoint, but I might order it. So, you know, that's where we go. And that's fine. You are -- every single -- you've all made your positions, and I haven't even asked Attorney Wolman what his position might be yet, because he is dissipating in this hearing, but you've made your positions clear. It's not a

 complex issue for the Court to decide. I do want to look back at the papers for a few minutes, and I can do that now. I can take a 5, 10, 15- minute recess. It doesn't matter. And then I can come back and rule today, or I can rule tomorrow. It's not complex. I'm not worried about issuing a ruling. That I can tell you. And so, however you'd like to proceed. I'm trying to give you an opportunity suggest to me what you think makes some sense. If you'd like a recess to talk about it, that's fine. If you don't, we can conclude this hearing and I can rule tomorrow, or we can take a recess and I can try to come back and rule tonight. I have no problem with either one of those ways of proceeding. MR. SILVERBERG: So, I'm always in deal making mode, so if PACS wants to speak, so -- THE COURT: Well, why don't we take -- it's 10 of 5:00. Why don't we -- MR. WOLMAN: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Oh, Attorney Wolman. I'm sorry. MR. WOLMAN: Can I be heard? THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. WOLMAN: That's all right. I just wanted to be brief, but I feel like this should be heard. We did not

|    | 41                                                             |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1  | file anything, but we do join generally to Mr. Cheng in the    |
| 2  | objections both by the U.S. Trustee and by PACS.               |
| 3  | A little background, Mr. Cheng was the victim in               |
| 4  | Nevada of Mr. Guo's serial campaign of defamation lawsuits.    |
| 5  | Mr. Cheng himself opposes the Chinese Communist Party, and     |
| 6  | he took issue with how Mr. Guo was addressing that movement,   |
| 7  | as it were, and after Mr. Guo made a defamatory video about    |
| 8  | Mr. Cheng, my client had a few tweets, and then found          |
| 9  | himself the subject of the SLAPP suit.                         |
| 10 | Now the Court is aware with about lawsuits that                |
| 11 | are called strategic lawsuits against (indiscernible)          |
| 12 | participation.<br>Nevada has a very strong anti-SLAPP statute. |
| 13 | And my client --                                               |
| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second, Attorney Wolman.               |
| 15 | Hold on a second.<br>The alarm is going off.                   |
| 16 | Glen, do you think we need to --                               |
| 17 | THE MARSHAL: I'll let you know.                                |
| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I'm sorry, but the alarm is             |
| 19 | going off in the building.                                     |
| 20 | MR. WOLMAN:<br>Okay.                                           |
| 21 | THE COURT:<br>So you just need to wait one second.             |
| 22 | I mean, you can try to talk.<br>Can you hear, Attorney Wolman, |
| 23 | even when the alarm is going, or -- the United States          |
| 24 | marshal going to go check right now to see if we need to       |
| 25 | evacuate.                                                      |

Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 42 of 57

 MR. WOLMAN: No, if you need to evacuate, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know that yet. I'm waiting to find out. MR. WOLMAN: I'm fine where I am. THE COURT: They'll let us know. If we have to evacuate, then I would assume that you'll have to go back out the front door. Okay? And stand out in front of the building. But they'll tell you. Someone should tell you. (Pause) THE COURT: John, do we need to evacuate? THE MARSHAL: Stay for now. THE COURT: Stay for now? THE MARSHAL: Stay for now. We have a problem with the alarm system. We're rewiring everything. THE COURT: Okay. THE MARSHAL: If there's anything, we'll let you know ASAP. THE COURT: All right. All right. Where in the middle -- John, were in the middle of the hearing, so I'm going to keep talking and people are going to keep talking. Okay? Oh, there. Okay. Oh, we'll see. Okay. Is that right? Not when we were in court, though, but yeah. But, okay. Thank you so much for checking. I appreciate that.

 All right. Attorney Wolman, if you could -- and I'm sorry, I don't remember exactly where you left off, but you were talking about a defamation suit and some other issues. MR. WOLMAN: Right. Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Cheng was the victim of Mr. Guo's serial campaign of litigation in Nevada, and he prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion and the case was dismissed because Mr. Cheng -- Mr. Guo was unable to show that his case had any merit. The Nevada anti-SLAPP Statute has what is called a SLAPP back provision, because although it awards attorney's fees to the successful defendant, that is the not the end-all and be-all of the victimization of being sued. And so that was -- a suit was brought in the Southern District of New York to enforce the judgment of fees, because originally Mr. Guo did not pay until funds came in from Golden Spring New York to pay that judgment, and so we sued to enforce the judgment, and we sued under the SLAPP back theory under the Nevada statute to -- for compensatory damages. And in fact, that case has been teed up for summary judgment with Attorney Gavimen, who was representing Mr. Guo, Mr. Kwok at the time, accelerating his reply memorandum to get in just before the bankruptcy petition was filed and had otherwise been fully briefed.

 Your Honor, this litigation has been ongoing for quite some time and, in fact, a year ago I had the opportunity to take Mr. Guo's deposition. And there was actually some interest interesting things even here today that I was unaware of before, such as Mr. Guo now residing in Connecticut with his wife. And so these are facts that -- they're facts that come out about Mr. Guo that he states but then does not back up that is of concern. His complaint in Nevada listed a litany of things about his background that his counsel here today recited some of. And yet, when we sought discovery on that in the Southern District of New York, because certainly it must have been germane and relevant, he resisted. He objected. He refused to back any of that up. We sought certain discovery as to his financial well-being, and he refused. He resisted. And in fact, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment in terms of not having to produce that information, and he did so successfully. Judge Failla felt that the invocation of the Fifth Amendment was well placed and we were to get an adverse inference as a result. This man holds himself out as a billionaire. That's how he presents himself globally. In fact, on

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 February 9, the news was all aflutter, not only with the sanctions award in the PACS case, but with the fact that Mr. Guo, and it spoke specifically about his name, won of venue motion in London on a \$500 million claim against UBS where he is the plaintiff. And maybe it's through one of his entities. We don't know.

 And that means the Court should take everything that is said and -- you know, Brown Rudnick, I've got no objection to them trying to trying to pick a fight, but they are new. They do not know Mr. Guo, and they need to take -- and this Court needs to take everything that he says with a grain of salt.

 And so, I do actually think that March 4th is perhaps too soon, because they need to verify for themselves that they are going to be submitting for the Court, materials that have previously not been verified. And so, you know, that is going to go under their (indiscernible), and they need to do their due diligence.

 And so, we want to make sure, certainly, that counsel has time to do that, but also strike a balance here that we have time before the 341 meeting to review.

 And while we're, you know, listed as a creditor, I should note that we put in our motion, we believe ourselves actually to be one of the 20 largest creditors. But that was not stated in the petition and, in fact, Golden Springs,

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 as PACS noted, the insider is listed as a creditor and one of the 20 largest. So there is already some improprieties in the filings here, and, you know, we just want to make sure that we have enough time. I would prefer a week before the 341 meeting rather than, you know, just a few days, because I need to compare to other production, certainly, that we've received in the New York case, and we may have to address governing protective order in that case and how it applies here. But, you know, we do otherwise join in the objection of the U.S. Trustee and in PACS to that 60-day extension, and do request that it be something, you know, at least a week before the 341 meeting. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to take a ten minute recess. We'll be back at 5:10, and then I'll hear from the parties if there's anything they would like to report, and then I will rule. So Court is in recess. THE CLERK: All rise. Court is in recess. (Recess from 4:48 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.) THE COURT: Okay. We took a short recess after Attorney Silverberg and Attorney Friedman, Attorney Claiborn, and Attorneys Wolman made their statements in connection with the debtor's motion for extension of the

 deadline to file documents required by the bankruptcy code and rules. I don't know, Attorney Silverberg, Attorney Friedman, if you had any discussions. I see heads shaking no. MR. SILVERBERG: Unfortunately -- Your Honor, Bennett Silverman of Brown Rudnick for the debtor. Unfortunately, those discussions were not productive. We offered to give a couple of days -- THE COURT: That's all right. I don't need to know. Thank you. MR. SILVERBERG: Okay. THE COURT: That's okay. I appreciate it, but I don't need to know. I just need to know that there is no agreement. MR. SILVERBERG: There is no agreement, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I could now weigh in on the extension motion, and I also wanted to make some other comments to the Court. THE COURT: Yes. MS. CLAIBORN: I'll start with the comments. THE COURT: Hold on just one second, Attorney Claiborn. Something is echoing here. I don't know why it's echoing. I can hear you, Attorney Claiborn. Then I can

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 hear you again. MS. CLAIBORN: Oh, that's great. THE COURT: So we just want to make sure we can hear you properly. (Pause) THE CLERK: Hello, hello. I still hear it. THE COURT: Yeah, I think we're going to have to - - will you be able to record, or do you need to have that resolved? THE CLERK: It still recording but I don't know if it's going to pick up this echo. THE COURT: I think we'll be okay. THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: Let's try it anyway, okay? And then if it's really bad you tell us and we'll -- THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: -- we'll stop. Should we alert anyone in our IT department? THE CLERK: Well, I sent a message to Peter, and hopefully that will -- I will send a message to Will. THE COURT: Okay. THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: All right. Let's see how this goes -- MS. CLAIBORN: Does it make any difference as to

 which microphone I use? THE COURT: No, it's coming from in here, unfortunately. So go right ahead and let's see how we do, okay? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. Your Honor, I wanted to touch briefly on a couple of items, first of which was the petition and the comments that were made by Mr. Kwok's counsel today about his residence in Greenwich, and they were followed by Mr. Wolman's comments about not being aware that Greenwich is a residence. I wanted to point out to the Court that on the petition, the debtor's address in response to the question of where do you live is listed as being Golden Spring. It does not list his residential address. We had been under the impression that the debtor was going to take some steps to protect that information as to where he actually resides due to some concerns that were expressed. That hasn't yet happened. But I do want to make a connected point, which is that yesterday's initial debtor interview covered in brief the topic of where does Mr. Kwok get his mail, and the issue about where to send information was broached. And the concern expressed was that perhaps the mail wouldn't reach the right place of it went to the Golden Spring address, which is the only address that the Court has

 reached the debtor. And so, I bring that up because I want to make sure that the debtor does get proper notice in this case of all the appropriate pleadings, and that all parties are aware what is the appropriate address to be using to contact the debtor. The other comment I wanted to make was about the fact that in general, based upon the presentations that have been made today, and based upon the information that was learned yesterday at the initial debtor interview, this case presents an interesting combination of no assets, large debt and a need for an explanation. The U.S. Trustee, at this point in time, believes it may be appropriate to seek an appointment of an examiner, and I wanted to preview that for the Court. We have made that comment to the debtor's counsel and they are aware. And so I wanted to make those couple of points to Your Honor, and then I want to follow up by saying that with respect to the extension request today, the U.S. Trustee thinks that the date of -- that, sorry, March 9th makes the most sense. It is in between the dates that have been offered by the opposing parties and it does provide over a week of advanced time for parties to take a look at it and digest it and be prepared to conduct a meaningful meeting of

 creditors. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? Attorney Silverberg, the issue that was raised about the address is an important one. The address on the petition is different from the address that you -- well, you didn't given an address, but you said that he resided in Greenwich. If there's a change of address, we have a local rule about that, and we have a local form and that needs to be completed, because obviously notice has -- and service has to be properly made. So I don't how you're going to proceed on that, but I'm telling you that that is something that I will be paying attention to then, because if the debtor resides in Greenwich, that's not what the petition says. So I'm not going to say anything further. I'm telling you what my thought is on that at the moment. Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: We understand the issue with respect to the New York address. There was some desire to remain -- to keep his Greenwich, Connecticut address private, given his experiences with the CCP and so on. So I think, you know, when we prepared the petition, we didn't realize how much that address is already in the public domain. THE COURT: Okay.

 MR. SILVERBERG: We've since learned that there may not be as much sensitivity to that address being out there, and once we confirm that with the debtor, we'll complete the appropriate paperwork to amend the address to make sure that he gets notice. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion for the extension of the deadline to file documents required by the bankruptcy code and rules? And our local rules as well. (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. As I indicated earlier today, during the beginning of this hearing, over the course of the last few days I've reviewed documents filed in this case, including the debtor's motion to extend the deadline to file schedules or provide required information seeking an extension to May 2, 2022, which is ECF No. 27. I've also reviewed, and again looked at during the recess, the objection filed by the -- to that motion filed by the Office of the United States Trustee, ECF No. 49, and the objection of PACS, if I may use PACS for short, filed to that motion for extension of time, ECF No. 50. I've also listened to the presentations and arguments of an Attorney Silverberg, Attorney Friedman, Attorney Claiborn, Attorney Wolman, and I've taken those

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 arguments into consideration with regard to the request made by the debtor.

 As I've indicated, and I know you all know, the Bankruptcy Code, in particular Section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code requires the debtor, as part of the debtor's duties, to file a series of documents in order to assist and help to complete the administration of a Chapter 11 case.

 Those documents are extremely important and they are necessary to provide appropriate notice and information to creditors in order for creditors to have the ability to determine whether or not they would like to have a meaningful questioning of the debtor at the section 341 meeting, which the debtor is required under the Bankruptcy Code not only to attend but to testify at, under Sections 341, 42, 43 of the Bankruptcy Code.

 In addition to the code sections that require the debtors to provide -- excuse me, to perform specific duties as part of the burden of coming before the Court, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007 requires that definite documents be filed, including the statements of schedule -- statements of -- statements of financial affairs and schedules of assets, liabilities, and other schedules A through G and H and I in the individual case, and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007(c) says the time frame to do that is with the petition, or within 14 days thereafter.

 Fourteen days thereafter with regard to this debtor's case would be today, because the case was filed on February 15th, and the Court has considered all the requests that the debtor has made and the arguments advanced in opposition to the request and the Court rules as follows. In accordance with 11 USC Sections 521 and other applicable sections of the Bankruptcy Code that set forth the duties of a debtor, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007(c), and our local role of bankruptcy procedure, 1007-1, the debtor's motion for extension of time is granted in part. The debtor must file all required statements and schedules, including all documents required to be filed in accordance with those bankruptcy sections that I've just recited and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and our local bankruptcy rules on or before March 9, 2022. That is the ruling of the Court. Does anyone have any questions? MR. SILVERBERG: No, Your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: Okay. That was the only matter that we had to address today. Attorney Birney, did you have something else that you wanted to address with the Court? MR. BIRNEY: No. No, Your Honor. Just, thank you. It's glad to be back -- we're glad to be back in person.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

 THE COURT: It's nice to be in person, yes. Did somebody else have any questions or anything THE COURT: -- that you wanted to address today? MR. KLETTER: Oh, Your Honor, may I be excused from future hearing? Mr. Silverberg can attend any further -- THE COURT: Yes, you've been admitted to pro hac, so yes, you can be excused, counsel. MR. KLETTER: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay? MR. SILVERBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. The pro hac -- THE COURT: Obviously, for service purposes though, service can still be made at the local address in that service. MR. KLETTER: Correct. THE COURT: Even if you're excused, which is fine. MR. KLETTER: Yep. THE COURT: If someone makes service on the debtor only at your office, your local office address, that's still deemed appropriate service under the rules. Okay? MR. KLETTER: Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. The only other thing I would say is, I've ruled. The 341 meeting is already set. I've already spoken to Attorney Claiborn about my urging with

 regard to the 341 meeting, but that is in the office -- that is in the hands of the Office of the United States Trustee. There is nothing further on the calendar today in this case. Did you have something you wanted to add, Attorney Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: I did, Your Honor, just because I'm unfamiliar with your general practice. Will you also issue an order, or is the transcript so ordered? THE COURT: I could do -- if you would prefer me to -- what I would normally do, if you would like, and I'm happy to do it, is I'll just do a virtual order. Okay? But that won't get, most likely, put on the docket until tomorrow morning. It is so ordered as of right now, 5:23 p.m. on March 1st, 2002 [sic]. Okay? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: And when the virtual order enters, it will say as of, whatever I just said. 5:23 p.m. on March 1st, 2022. Okay? And then you would at least have something other than the transcript of this hearing. I understand there may be other pleadings filed. Parties have mentioned that. The reason that the Court chose the date that I chose is because I do think it's important to give a meaningful opportunity to creditors to review the information and determine whether or not they want to participate in the 341 meeting, which as I often

### Case 22-50073 Doc 111 Filed 03/21/22 Entered 03/21/22 15:38:05 Page 57 of 57

|    | 57                                                          |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1  | say, the section of the Bankruptcy Code 341 is entitled,    |
| 2  | Meeting of Creditors, and that's its point.                 |
| 3  | And so I -- that is why I've ruled as I have                |
| 4  | ruled, and there is nothing further for the Court to attend |
| 5  | to this afternoon, unless I'm forgetting something.         |
| 6  | Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>And that's the last matter on        |
| 7  | today's calendar, so court is adjourned.                    |
| 8  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                     |
| 9  | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.             |
| 10 | MR. SILVERBERG:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                   |
| 11 | (Proceedings concluded at 5:23 p.m.)                        |
| 12 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court              |
| 13 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a   |
| 14 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound       |
| 15 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.  |
| 16 |                                                             |
| 17 |                                                             |
| 18 |                                                             |
| 19 | March 21, 2022                                              |
| 20 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                       |
| 21 |                                                             |
| 22 |                                                             |
| 23 |                                                             |
| 24 |                                                             |
|    |                                                             |
|    |                                                             |