cified period by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion ... order the period enlarged if the request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b).In an opinion issued on February 15, 2024, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, the court held that Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) may be utilized to extend the statutes of limitation set forth in sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22-550073 (JAM) ), 2024 WL 666646, at *3-4 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 15, 2024).The Trustee, relying on IBT International, Inc. v. Northern (In re International Administrative Services, Inc.), 408 F.3d 689 (11th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, argues that it is within the Court's discretion to extend the deadlines. The Objecting Parties – particularly G Club – rely on 28 U.S.C. § 2075, Joint Council Dining Car Employees Local 370 v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, 157 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1946), In re Walnut Hill, No. 16-50960 (JJT), 2018 WL 2672242 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 1, 2018) (Tancredi, J.), and In re Damach Inc., 235 B.R. 727 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1999) (Krechevsky, J.), to argue that Rule 9006(b) may not extend the deadlines set forth in sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d).The bankruptcy court first addressed whether sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d) contain statutes of limitation – subject to tolling, extension, equitable estoppel, and other principles of equity – or statutes of repose, which are not susceptible to equity. The court stated that “sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d) have either no tolling provisions or tolling provisions that supplement rather than supplant traditional principles of equity. 11 U.S.C. §§ 108(a) (no tolling provision), 546(a) (potentially tolled by the first appointment of a trustee within the two-year period), 549(d)