{"id":"court_ctb_1082_7","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1082,"sub_number":7,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-11-11","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"附件：受托人请求确认公司治理权及境外代表权限的动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1082-7（2022-11-11立案）。该附件载有第11章受托人此前提出的动议，请求法院确认其对债务人控制实体（包括 Genever BVI 及雪莉-荷兰酒店公寓产权）拥有全部经济与公司治理权，并依破产法第1505条授权其作为境外代表开展跨国资产调查与追收。","summary_en":"Exhibit: Trustee's Motion Confirming Corporate Governance Rights and Foreign Authority —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1082-7 (filed 2022-11-11). This exhibit is the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion seeking an order confirming his economic and corporate governance rights over debtor-controlled entities (including Genever BVI and the Sherry-Netherland apartment) and authorization under 11 U.S.C. § 1505 to act as foreign representative.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |                                  |       |  |  |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------|--|--|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11             |       |  |  |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                     | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073<br>: | (JAM) |  |  |  |  |\n| Debtor.1                                                         | :<br>:                           |       |  |  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x                                |       |  |  |  |  |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 363, 541, 1108, AND 1505, (A) CONFIRMING THAT CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE HOLDS ALL OF DEBTOR'S ECONOMIC AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS IN DEBTOR-CONTROLLED ENTITIES, (B) AUTHORIZING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO ACT IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF ESTATE, AND (C) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), respectfully states as follows in support of this motion (the \"Motion\"):\n\n# **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n1. By this Motion, the Trustee seeks entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), confirming that, as of his appointment on July 8, 2022, the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), with respect to all corporate entities owned and/or controlled by the Debtor (the \"Debtor-Controlled Entities\"). The Debtor-Controlled Entities include, without limitation, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\"), a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") corporation that, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Genever Holdings LLC\n\n<sup>1</sup> Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 2 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 2 of 26 26\n\n(\"Genever (US)\"), 2 a New York limited liability company, is the registered owner of, among other things, an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland building in New York, New York (the \"Sherry-Netherland Apartment\"). 3 This relief is necessary because the Debtor has shown a willingness to defy court orders, suggesting that the Debtor and related persons (whether acting individually or through the Debtor-Controlled Entities) may try to take advantage of any ambiguity or misunderstanding concerning the Trustee's rights in order to frustrate the Trustee's efforts to identify and recover property of the Estate.\n\n2. In addition, to facilitate the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities and to support the Trustee's investigation, collection, and recovery of other Estate assets that may be located in foreign jurisdictions, the Trustee requests, pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code, the authority to act, as the Debtor's foreign representative, in any foreign country on behalf of the Estate in any way permitted by applicable foreign law for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities)\n\n<sup>2</sup> On October 12, 2020, Genever (US) commenced a chapter 11 case, which is currently pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 20-12411 (JLG). For the avoidance of doubt, at this time, the Trustee is not requesting any relief with respect to the chapter 11 case of Genever (US), including any modification of the *Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement*, dated as of September 24, 2021 [ECF No. 131-1 in Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)]. Nor should the requested relief, if granted, be deemed to authorize the Trustee to take any particular action with respect to Genever (US) in its chapter 11 case, with respect to which the Trustee will seek relief from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"New York Bankruptcy Court\"), as may be appropriate. The Trustee reserves all its rights in that regard.\n\n<sup>3</sup> As the Court is aware, the identity of the true owner of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment is presently subject to dispute.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 3 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 3 of 26 26\n\nholding such documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate BVI entity.\n\n3. To enable the Trustee to exercise the foregoing authority without interference from the Debtor, the Trustee requests confirmation from the Court that the Debtor may not interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities or the Trustee's authority as the Debtor's foreign representative under section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n4. Finally, the Trustee requests that the Court request the assistance of the foreign courts in furtherance of the Trustee's exercise of the foregoing authority, including the assistance of the BVI courts regarding any request of the Trustee for relief (including on an emergency basis) with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over Genever (BVI).\n\n# **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASES**\n\n5. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\") has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended). This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n6. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n7. The statutory bases for the relief requested herein are sections 363, 541, 1108, and 1505 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n8. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 4 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 4 of 26 26\n\n9. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (\"Committee\") in the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"). No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n10. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [ECF No. 465] (the \"Trustee Order\") directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n11. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 523] (the \"Appointment Order\").\n\n## **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n# **A. The Court Should Confirm that the Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic and Governance Rights with Respect to All Debtor-Controlled Entities**\n\n12. Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that property of the estate includes \"all property, wherever located and by whomever held, to which the debtor has legal or equitable interest.\" 11 U.S.C. § 541. In addition, section 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that \"[u]nless the court, on request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, orders otherwise, the trustee may operate the debtor's business.\" *Id*. § 1108. The related case law confirms that a chapter 11 trustee \"possesses both the economic and governance rights to participate in the management of [the debtor-owned entity] that the Debtor himself enjoyed prior to his bankruptcy filing.\" *In re Modanlo*, 412 B.R. 715, 728 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006) (confirming chapter 11 trustee's authority to, among other things, amend formation papers of debtor's wholly-owned Delaware LLC, designate himself as the LLC manager, and place LLC into voluntary chapter 11). *See also In re Albright*, 291 B.R. 538 (Bankr. D. Col. 2003) (\"Because the Trustee became the sole member of [debtor-owned entity] upon the Debtor's bankruptcy\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 5 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 5 of 26 26\n\nfiling, the Trustee now controls, directly or indirectly, all governance of that entity, including decisions regarding liquidation of the entity's assets.\").\n\n13. It is paramount that the Trustee exercise, as soon as possible, economic and corporate control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including Genever (BVI), in order to preserve and recover assets for the benefit of the Estate. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the Trustee's authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the Debtor-Controlled Entities.\n\n14. It is undisputed that the Debtor owns all of the equity in Genever (BVI).<sup>4</sup> It is also undisputed that Genever (BVI), in turn, wholly owns Genever (US),<sup>5</sup> which owns, among other things, the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. According to the Genever (US)'s schedules of assets and liabilities in its chapter 11 case, the Sherry-Netherland Apartment had an initial purchase price of \\$70 million, and the Trustee believes it continues to have substantial value. Genever (US) is seeking in its chapter 11 case to sell the Sherry-Netherland Apartment, with the proceeds to be distributed pursuant to a proposed chapter 11 plan.<sup>6</sup> Chapter 11 counsel to Genever (US) has advised the Trustee that, to date, the Debtor has been directing such counsel in the conduct of Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case. In light of the Trustee having stepped into the shoes of the Debtor, including as it relates to the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to Genever (BVI), *the Trustee, not the Debtor*, should have the authority to provide direction to Genever (US). Accordingly, the Trustee needs to exercise, as soon as possible, the\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See, e.g.*, *Global Notes and Statements of Limitations, Methodology, and Disclaims Regarding the Debtor's Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs* at 4 [ECF No. 77] (the \"Global Notes\"). The Debtor has asserted that he holds the equity in Genever (BVI) in trust for Bravo Luck Limited, the equity of which is owned by the Debtor's son. The Trustee is investigating to what extent this assertion is accurate.\n\n<sup>5</sup> *See* List of Equity Holders attached to Chapter 11 Petition of Genever (US) [ECF No. 1] (Case No. 20-12411 (JLG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (identifying Genever (BVI) as sole equity holder).\n\n<sup>6</sup> To be clear, the Trustee is not seeking to stop the sale process with respect to the Sherry Netherland Apartment. The Debtor reserves all rights, however, with respect to the proceeds of such sale.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 6 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 6 of 26 26\n\nEstate's rights in Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case, which will include seeking relief in the New York Bankruptcy Court, as necessary.\n\n15. In addition, the Trustee is investigating the extent to which the Debtor owns and/or controls additional corporate entities.<sup>7</sup> As part of this investigation, on July 12, 2022, the Trustee sent letters to Debtor's counsel requesting, among other things, documentation and information regarding the Debtor's economic and governance rights in the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including Genever (BVI). Among other things, the Trustee requested, with respect to each such entity, the organizational documents, capitalization tables, structure charts, schedules identifying the composition of board of directors, board of directors, or similar governing bodies, schedules of all officers, and other related documents.<sup>8</sup> To date, the Debtor has not provided any such documents to the Trustee. The Trustee needs these documents to understand the full universe of corporate entities with respect to which the Trustee has governance rights.\n\n16. Unless the Court confirms the Trustee's governance rights with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities, the Trustee is deeply concerned that the Debtor will continue his efforts to impede the Trustee's exercise of control over assets of the Estate. Indeed, as the Court is aware, Justice Barry Ostrager of the New York Supreme Court already found that the Debtor has a history of \"secret[ing] his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"<sup>9</sup> He further observed:\n\n<sup>7</sup> For example, in addition to Genever (BVI), the Debtor's *Statements of Financial Affairs* identifies two corporate entities that the Debtor claims he owned in the past, but for various reasons, no longer controls, namely Shiny Times Holdings, LTD, and Well Origin Limited. *See* Global Notes at 6-7.\n\n<sup>8</sup> The Trustee's letter also requested that Debtor's counsel preserve all documents, data, information, and communications related in any what to the Debtor, his affiliates, the Estate, property of the Estate, and/or the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n<sup>9</sup> *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.*, Case No. 22-50073 (February 9, 2022) (the \"New York State Court Ruling\") at 1. A copy of New York State Court Ruling is attached hereto to **Exhibit B**.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 7 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 7 of 26 26\n\n[t]he machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending . . . <sup>10</sup>\n\nAccordingly, the relief the Trustee seeks with respect to corporate governance rights is both critically important and very time sensitive.\n\n17. To be clear, through this Motion, the Trustee is merely seeking confirmation from this Court that he now holds the same economic and corporate governance rights in the Debtors-Controlled Entities as the Debtor had prior to entry of the Appointment Order. The Trustee is not seeking permission to *exercise* such governance rights, as doing so is well within the ordinary course of the Debtor's business. However, to the extent the Court finds it necessary to authorize such actions under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee requests such authorization and submits that sound business justification exists for this request for all the reasons set forth above. *See Modanlo*, 412 B.R. at 732 (granting chapter 11 trustee's request, under section 363(b) of Bankruptcy Code, to take corporate action related to subsidiary of entity owned by debtor, but without deciding whether such action was inside or outside the ordinary course of business). To be clear, by this Motion, the Trustee is not seeking authority to sell or otherwise dispose of any equity in any Debtor-Controlled Entities or other assets of the Debtor. To the extent the Trustee seeks to sell or otherwise dispose of assets that are identified and recovered for the benefit of the Estate, the Trustee will seek approval of any such sales or dispositions by separate motion.\n\n18. Finally, to the extent the Court finds it necessary to rely on section 363(b) for the relief requested in this Motion, the Trustee requests a waiver of the fourteen-day stay requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), such that the Proposed Order be effective\n\n<sup>10</sup> New York State Court Ruling at 7.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 8 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 8 of 26 26\n\nimmediately upon entry thereof. For all the reasons set forth above, delays in the Trustee's exercise of economic and corporate governance rights could adversely affect the Trustee's ability to identify and recover property of the Estate.\n\n### **B. The Court Should Appoint the Trustee as Foreign Representative of Debtor's Estate**\n\n19. Section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that, to the extent consistent with applicable foreign law, a \"trustee or another entity (including an examiner) may be authorized by the court to act in a foreign country on behalf of an estate created under section 541.\" 11 U.S.C. § 1505. Here, the Trustee requests authority under section 1505 to act as the Debtor's foreign representative in any foreign country for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting, and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities) holding corporate documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate BVI entity. The Trustee will, of course, comply with all applicable foreign law requirements when acting in any foreign country.\n\n20. In addition, and in furtherance of the this relief, the Trustee requests that the Court request the assistance of the foreign courts, including the assistance of the BVI courts regarding any request of the Trustee for relief with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over Genever (BVI). In this regard, the Trustee is informed by BVI counsel that the BVI courts will be in summer recess until September 2022, which practically means that no hearing could be held in the BVI until September 2022, except on an emergency basis. The Trustee respectfully\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 9 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 9 of 26 26\n\nrequests this Court's assistance in obtaining emergency relief from the BVI courts as necessary.<sup>11</sup> Such relief is plainly warranted in light of the Debtor's propensity, as discussed above, to hide his assets from creditors and to disregard court orders (even when threatened with contempt sanctions). Given this history, the Debtor should not be left to exercise any corporate governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities for one more day.\n\n21. To enable the Trustee to exercise the foregoing authority without interference from the Debtor, the Court should confirm that the Debtor may not to interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities or the Trustee's authority as the Debtor's foreign representative under section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code, including any action taken by the Trustee in a foreign court on behalf of the Estate in furtherance thereof. To the extent the Debtor opposes any action taken or to be taken by the Trustee in accordance with the foregoing authority, the Debtor should be limited to seeking relief from this Court (and not the relevant foreign court or other foreign entity, as the case may be) on notice of parties in interest in this case, to the extent the Debtor can show that he has standing to do so.\n\n### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n22. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\n<sup>11</sup> The Trustee is hopeful that he will not have to seek the intervention of the BVI courts on an emergency basis but needs to be authorized to do so to the extent necessary.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 10 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 10 of 26 26\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the\n\nProposed Order granting the relief requested in this Motion and such other relief as is just and\n\n# proper.\n\nDated: July 23, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Proposed counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                                         |  |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                      |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM)<br>: |  |\n| Debtor.                                                     | :<br>:                                    |  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                                         |  |\n\n# **ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 363, 541, 1108, AND 1505, (A) CONFIRMING THAT CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE HOLDS ALL OF DEBTOR'S ECONOMIC AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RIGHTS IN DEBTOR-CONTROLLED ENTITIES, (B) AUTHORIZING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO ACT IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF ESTATE, AND (C) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for the entry of an order (this \"Order\"), pursuant to sections 363, 541, 1108, and 1505 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), (a) confirming that the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and corporate governance rights in all corporate entities owned and/or controlled by the Debtor (the \"Debtor-Controlled Entities\"), including, without limitation, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\") and granting related relief, (b) authorizing the Trustee to act in any foreign country on behalf of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"), and (c) granting related relief, all as more fully set forth in the Motion; and this Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended); and consideration of the Motion and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper in this Court\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 13 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 13 of 26 26\n\npursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interest of the Estate, its creditors, and all parties in interest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and any objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. Effective as of entry of the order, dated July 8, 2022, granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 523], the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of the Estate, with respect to all Debtor-Controlled Entities, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI). For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the Trustee's authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the Debtor-Controlled Entities. As part of the foregoing, to the extent necessary, the Trustee is authorized to act, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee in this Chapter 11 Case, as any such officer, director, manager, or similar person who has been removed.\n\n3. To the extent the Trustee's exercise of economic and governance rights with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities is deemed to be outside the ordinary course of business, such exercise is hereby approved, as there is sound business justification for the exercise of such rights, including because the Trustee holds all of the Debtor's economic and governance rights with respect to such entities for the benefit of the Estate. Notwithstanding the applicability of any of Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h) or any other provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules or the Local\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 14 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 14 of 26 26\n\nRules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut to the contrary, the terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry, and any applicable stay of the effectiveness and enforceability of this Order is hereby waived. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Order authorizes the Trustee to sell or otherwise dispose of any equity in Debtor-Controlled Entities or other assets of the Debtors.\n\n4. Pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is hereby authorized to act, as the Debtor's foreign representative, in any foreign country on behalf of the Estate in any way permitted by applicable foreign law for the purpose of (a) investigating, collecting, and recovering assets of the Debtor located in foreign countries, including relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, (b) exercising control over the Debtor-Controlled Entities, including seeking relief in foreign courts in furtherance thereof, as necessary or appropriate, and (c) requesting and obtaining corporate documents from appropriate foreign corporate registries (or similar entities) holding such documents with respect to the Debtor-Controlled Entities. Without limiting the foregoing, the Trustee is authorized, pursuant to section 1505 of the Bankruptcy Court, to request and obtain the corporate documents related to Genever (BVI) from the appropriate British Virgin Island (\"BVI\") entity holding such corporate documents.\n\n5. The Debtor shall not interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the authority under this Order, including any action taken or to be taken by the Trustee in a foreign court on behalf of the Estate in furtherance of such authority. To the extent the Debtor opposes the Trustee's exercise of such authority, the Debtor shall be limited to seeking relief from this\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 15 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 15 of 26 26\n\nCourt (and not the relevant foreign court or other foreign entity, as the case may be) on notice to parties in interest, to the extent the Debtor can show that he has standing to do so.\n\n6. In furtherance of the Trustee's exercise of the authority under this Order, the Court respectfully requests the assistance of the foreign courts, including the assistance of the BVI courts regarding any request of the Trustee for relief (including on an emergency basis) with respect to the Trustee's exercise of corporate control over Genever (BVI).\n\n7. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to authorize any particular action with respect to Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\") in its chapter 11 case pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Genever Court\"). The Trustee shall appear before, and seek guidance from, the Genever Court to the extent the Trustee's exercise of corporate governance rights with respect to Genever (US) would impact its chapter 11 case.\n\n8. The Trustee is authorized and empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this Order.\n\n9. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.\n\n10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 16 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 16 of 26 26\n\n# **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**February 9, 2022 Decision of Supreme Court of the Statue of New York**\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 17 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 17 of 26Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 7 of 73 26\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                                                                                             | PART            | IAS MOTION 61EFM           |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n|          | Justice                                                                                                            |                 |                            |\n|          | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X                                 |                 |                            |\n|          | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND                                                                             |                 |                            |\n| L.P.,    |                                                                                                                    | INDEX NO.       | 652077/2017                |\n|          | Plaintiff,<br>-<br>v -                                                                                             | MOTION DATE     |                            |\n|          | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN<br>GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a                       | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 019                        |\n|          | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a<br>HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and<br>GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, |                 | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.<sup>1</sup> This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n<sup>1</sup> \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 10 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 20 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 20 of 26 26\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n<sup>2</sup> \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 11 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 21 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 21 of 26 26\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 12 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 22 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 22 of 26 26\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 13 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 23 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 23 of 26 26\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other 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.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 14 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 24 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 24 of 26 26\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n![](_page_24_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n![](_page_25_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　:\n:\n案件编号 22-50073\n:　(JAM)\n债务人。1　:\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第11章受托人根据《破产法》第363、541、1108及1505条提出的动议，请求作出命令，以（A）确认第11章受托人持有债务人在债务人控制实体中的全部经济权利及公司治理权利；（B）授权第11章受托人代表财产在任何外国行事；及（C）给予相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其获任命为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第11章案件（“债务人”）第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，谨就支持本动议（“本动议”）陈述如下：\n请求的救济\n\n1. 受托人通过本动议请求作出一项命令，其形式实质上如本文件附件A所附（“拟议命令”），确认自其于 July 8, 2022 获任命起，受托人为债务人财产（“财产”）之利益，就债务人拥有和/或控制的所有公司实体（“债务人控制实体”）持有债务人的全部经济权利及治理权利。债务人控制实体包括但不限于 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever（英属维尔京群岛）），一家英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）公司，该公司通过其全资子公司 Genever Holdings LLC\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定姓名为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），其亦被称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名。债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为9595。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 2 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 2 of 26 26\n\n（“Genever（美国）”），2 一家纽约有限责任公司，是包括位于纽约州纽约市 Sherry-Netherland 大厦的一套公寓（“Sherry-Netherland 公寓”）在内的财产的登记所有人。3 该等救济是必要的，因为债务人已表现出蔑视法院命令的意愿，这表明债务人及相关人员（无论以个人身份行事，还是通过债务人控制实体行事）可能试图利用有关受托人权利的任何歧义或误解，以阻挠受托人识别及追回财产资产的努力。\n\n2. 此外，为便利受托人对债务人控制实体行使公司控制权，并支持受托人对可能位于外国司法辖区的其他财产资产进行调查、收集及追回，受托人根据《破产法》第1505条请求获得授权，以债务人的外国代表身份，代表财产在任何外国以适用外国法律所允许的任何方式行事，目的在于：(a) 调查、收集及追回位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；(b) 对债务人控制实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；以及 (c) 向持有与债务人控制实体有关的该等文件的适当外国公司登记机构（或类似实体）请求并取得公司文件，包括向适当的 BVI 实体取得与 Genever（BVI）有关的公司文件。\n\n2 于 October 12, 2020，Genever（US）启动了一宗第11章案件，目前正在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦破产法院）审理，案件编号为20-12411 (JLG)。为免生疑义，目前受托人并未就 Genever（US）的第11章案件请求任何救济，包括对日期为 September 24, 2021 的《第二次修订及重述和解协议》作出任何修改[案件编号20-12411 (JLG)中 ECF No. 131-1]。即使获准，所请求的救济亦不应被视为授权受托人就 Genever（US）在其第11章案件中采取任何特定行动；就此，受托人将视情况向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（“纽约破产法院”）寻求救济。受托人就此保留其一切权利。\n\n3 如本院所知，Sherry-Netherland 公寓真正所有人的身份目前存在争议。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 3 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 3 of 26 26\n\n3. 为使受托人能够不受债务人干扰地行使上述授权，受托人请求本院确认，债务人不得干涉、阻碍或拖延受托人就债务人控制实体行使债务人的经济权利及治理权利，或不得干涉、阻碍或拖延受托人根据《破产法》第1505条以债务人外国代表身份行使的授权。\n\n4. 最后，受托人请求本院请求外国法院协助受托人行使上述授权，包括就受托人请求有关其对 Genever（BVI）行使公司控制权的救济（包括紧急救济）时，请求 BVI 法院提供协助。\n管辖权、审理地点及法定依据\n\n5. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）（“本院”）根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）的移送常设命令（经修订），对本事项具有管辖权。本案属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 所称的核心程序。\n\n6. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本区为适当审理地点。\n\n7. 本文所请求救济的法定依据为《美国法典》第11编（“破产法”）第363、541、1108及1505条。\n背景\n\n8. 于 February 15, 2022（“申请日”），债务人向本院提交了根据《破产法》第11章请求救济的自愿申请。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 4 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 4 of 26 26\n\n9. 于 March 21, 2022，美国受托人于债务人的第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中任命了无担保债权人官方委员会（“委员会”）。第11章案件中尚未任命审查员。\n\n10. 于 June 15, 2022，本院作出一份决定备忘录及命令[ECF No. 465]（“受托人命令”），指示美国受托人在第11章案件中任命一名第11章受托人。根据受托人命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任受托人。\n\n11. 于 July 8, 2022，本院作出一项命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任第11章案件中的受托人[ECF No. 523]（“任命命令”）。\n救济依据\nA. 本院应确认受托人就所有债务人控制实体持有债务人的全部经济权利及治理权利\n\n12. 《破产法》第541条规定，财产包括“债务人在其中享有法定或衡平权益的所有财产，无论位于何处，亦无论由何人持有。”11 U.S.C. § 541。此外，《破产法》第1108条规定：“除非法院应利害关系方请求，并在通知和听证后另有命令，受托人可以经营债务人的业务。”同上，第1108条。相关判例法确认，第11章受托人“拥有债务人在其提出破产申请前所享有的、参与[债务人拥有实体]管理的经济权利及治理权利。”In re Modanlo, 412 B.R. 715, 728 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006)（确认第11章受托人有权进行包括修改债务人全资拥有的特拉华有限责任公司设立文件、指定其本人为该有限责任公司管理人，以及使该有限责任公司自愿进入第11章程序在内的事项）。另见 In re Albright, 291 B.R. 538 (Bankr. D. Col. 2003)（“由于受托人在债务人提出破产申请时成为[债务人拥有实体]的唯一成员，受托人现在直接或间接控制该实体的全部治理，包括有关清算该实体资产的决定。”）。\n\n13. 受托人尽快对债务人控制实体，包括 Genever（BVI），行使经济及公司控制权至关重要，以便为财产利益保全及追回资产。为免生疑义，这包括受托人有权替换债务人控制实体中任何现有高级职员、董事、管理人或类似人员。\n\n14. 无争议的是，债务人拥有 Genever（BVI）的全部股权。4 同样无争议的是，Genever（BVI）继而全资拥有 Genever（US），5 后者拥有包括 Sherry-Netherland 公寓在内的财产。根据 Genever（US）在其第11章案件中提交的资产及负债清单，Sherry-Netherland 公寓的初始购买价格为 $70 million，且受托人认为其仍具有重大价值。Genever（US）正在其第11章案件中寻求出售 Sherry-Netherland 公寓，所得款项将根据一项拟议的第11章计划进行分配。6 Genever（US）的第11章律师已告知受托人，迄今债务人一直在指示该律师处理 Genever（US）的第11章案件。鉴于受托人已取代债务人的地位，包括就债务人有关 Genever（BVI）的经济权利及治理权利而言，应由受托人而非债务人有权向 Genever（US）提供指示。因此，受托人需要尽快行使财产在 Genever（US）第11章案件中的权利，其中将包括在必要时向纽约破产法院寻求救济。\n\n4 例如，见《有关债务人资产及负债清单和财务状况说明书的全球说明及限制、方法论和免责声明》4页[ECF No. 77]（“全球说明”）。债务人声称，其为 Bravo Luck Limited 持有 Genever（BVI）的股权信托，而 Bravo Luck Limited 的股权由债务人的儿子拥有。受托人正在调查该主张在何种程度上属实。\n\n5 见附于 Genever（US）第11章申请的《股权持有人名单》[ECF No. 1]（案件编号20-12411 (JLG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)）（将 Genever（BVI）列为唯一股权持有人）。\n\n6 为明确起见，受托人并不寻求停止有关 Sherry Netherland 公寓的出售程序。然而，债务人就该出售所得款项保留一切权利。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 6 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 6 of 26 26\n\n15. 此外，受托人正在调查债务人拥有和/或控制其他法人实体的范围。7 作为该调查的一部分，2022年7月12日，受托人向债务人的律师发函，请求提供包括但不限于有关债务人在债务人控制实体（包括 Genever（BVI））中的经济权利和治理权利的文件和信息。其中，受托人就每一该等实体请求提供组织文件、资本结构表、结构图、载明董事会、董事会或类似治理机构构成的清单、所有高级职员清单及其他相关文件。8 截至目前，债务人尚未向受托人提供任何该等文件。受托人需要这些文件，以了解受托人对其享有治理权利的所有法人实体的完整范围。\n\n16. 除非法院确认受托人就所有债务人控制实体享有的治理权利，受托人深切担忧债务人将继续阻碍受托人行使对破产财产资产的控制权。事实上，如法院所知，纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）的 Barry Ostrager 法官已认定，债务人有“将其资产隐匿于由法人实体和家庭成员构成的迷宫中”的历史。9 他进一步指出：\n\n7 例如，除 Genever（BVI）外，债务人的财务事务陈述载明两家法人实体，债务人主张其过去拥有该等实体，但因各种原因已不再控制，即 Shiny Times Holdings, LTD（闪亮时代控股有限公司）和 Well Origin Limited（良源有限公司）。见 Global Notes 第6-7页。\n\n8 受托人的函件还要求债务人的律师保存以任何方式与债务人、其关联方、破产财产、破产财产财产和/或第11章案件有关的所有文件、数据、信息和通信。\n\n9 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业） v. Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）, et al., Case No. 22-50073 (February 9, 2022)（“纽约州法院裁决”）第1页。纽约州法院裁决的副本作为附件B附于本文件之后。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 7 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 7 of 26 26\n\n“Kwok 就 Lady May 所策划的障眼法所涉及的种种操弄，与 Kwok 在本诉讼待决的五年期间采取的其他一切逃避行为和蔑视行为如出一辙……10”\n\n因此，受托人就公司治理权利所请求的救济既至关重要，又具有极强的时间紧迫性。\n\n17. 为明确起见，受托人通过本动议仅寻求本法院确认，其现持有债务人在任命命令作出前在债务人控制实体中享有的相同经济权利和公司治理权利。受托人并非寻求获准行使该等治理权利，因为该等行为完全属于债务人业务的正常经营过程。然而，如法院认定有必要根据《破产法典》第363(b)条授权该等行为，受托人请求给予该等授权，并主张基于上述所有理由，本项请求具有合理的商业理由。见 Modanlo, 412 B.R. at 732（根据《破产法典》第363(b)条，准许第11章受托人请求就债务人拥有的实体之附属公司采取公司行动，但未裁定该等行动是否属于正常经营过程）。为明确起见，受托人并非通过本动议寻求获授权出售或以其他方式处分债务人在任何债务人控制实体中的任何股权或债务人的其他资产。如受托人寻求出售或以其他方式处分为破产财产利益而识别并追回的资产，受托人将通过单独动议寻求批准任何该等出售或处分。\n\n18. 最后，如法院认定有必要依赖第363(b)条给予本动议所请求的救济，受托人请求豁免《破产规则》6004(h)规定的十四日期间中止要求，以使拟议命令在作出后立即生效。\n\n10 纽约州法院裁决第7页。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 8 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 8 of 26 26\n\n基于上述所有理由，延迟受托人行使经济权利和公司治理权利可能会不利影响受托人识别和追回破产财产财产的能力。\n\nB. 法院应任命受托人为债务人破产财产的外国代表人\n\n19. 《破产法典》第1505条规定，在符合适用外国法律的范围内，“受托人或另一实体（包括审查员）可经法院授权代表根据第541条设立的破产财产在外国行事。”11 U.S.C. § 1505。于此，受托人请求根据第1505条授权其在任何外国担任债务人的外国代表人，以便：(a) 调查、收集和追回位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；(b) 对债务人控制实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为此在外国法院寻求救济；以及 (c) 向持有与债务人控制实体有关的公司文件的适当外国公司登记机关（或类似实体）请求并取得公司文件，包括向适当的英属维尔京群岛实体取得与 Genever（BVI）有关的公司文件。受托人在任何外国行事时，当然将遵守所有适用的外国法律要求。\n\n20. 此外，为推进该等救济，受托人请求法院请求外国法院提供协助，包括就受托人任何有关其行使对 Genever（BVI）的公司控制权的救济请求，寻求英属维尔京群岛法院（BVI courts）的协助。在这方面，受托人获英属维尔京群岛律师告知，英属维尔京群岛法院将休庭至2022年9月，这实际上意味着，除紧急情况外，在2022年9月之前无法在英属维尔京群岛举行听证会。受托人谨此\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 9 of Case 22-50073 Doc 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 9 of 26 26\n\n请求本法院协助其在必要时从英属维尔京群岛法院取得紧急救济。11 鉴于如上所述债务人倾向于向债权人隐匿其资产并无视法院命令（即使受到藐视法庭制裁的威胁），该等救济显然具有正当理由。鉴于该等历史，不应再让债务人多一天行使任何有关债务人控制实体的公司治理权利。\n\n21. 为使受托人能够在不受债务人干扰的情况下行使上述授权，法院应确认，债务人不得干扰、妨碍或延迟受托人行使债务人就债务人控制实体享有的经济权利和治理权利，亦不得干扰、妨碍或延迟受托人根据《破产法典》第1505条作为债务人外国代表人的权限，包括受托人为此代表破产财产在外国法院采取的任何行动。如债务人反对受托人根据上述授权已采取或拟采取的任何行动，债务人应仅限于在本案利害关系人获得通知的情况下向本法院（而非视情况向相关外国法院或其他外国实体）寻求救济，但以债务人能够证明其具有如此行事的资格为限。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n22. 受托人此前未向本法院或任何其他法院寻求本文件所请求的救济。\n\n［本页其余部分特意留白。］\n\n11 受托人希望其无需以紧急方式寻求英属维尔京群岛法院的介入，但在必要范围内需要获得如此行事的授权。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 10 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 10 of 26 26\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请作出拟议命令，准予本动议所请求的救济以及其他公正和适当的救济。\n\n日期：July 23, 2022                                      LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut                                    第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林齐）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴西特）（pro hac vice pending） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（pro hac vice pending） Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（pro hac vice pending） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的拟议律师\n\n附件A\n\n拟议命令\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 桥港分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　：\n：\nCase No. 22-50073\n(JAM)\n\n债务人。　：\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n命令：根据《破产法典》第363、541、1108及1505条，(A) 确认第11章受托人持有债务人在债务人控制实体中的全部经济权利和公司治理权利，(B) 授权第11章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国行事，以及 (C) 准予相关救济\n\n兹因 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘斯）先生以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份提出动议（“动议”），请求根据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）第363、541、1108及1505条作出命令（“本命令”），(a) 确认受托人在债务人拥有和/或控制的所有法人实体（“债务人控制实体”）中持有债务人的全部经济权利和公司治理权利，包括但不限于 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever（BVI）”），并准予相关救济；(b) 授权受托人代表债务人破产财产（“破产财产”）在任何外国行事；以及 (c) 准予相关救济，详见动议所述；且本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 及康涅狄格州联邦地区美国联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Connecticut）的移送常设命令（经修订），对审理该动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；且根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审理该动议及其中请求的救济构成核心程序；且本法院为适当审判地\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 13 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 13 of 26 26\n\n根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408和1409；且本院已认定，动议中请求的救济符合破产财产、其债权人及所有利害关系方的最佳利益；且在具体情形下已就该动议发出适当且充分的通知；且显然无需发出任何其他或进一步通知；并基于本院此前进行的全部程序；且对本裁定所请求救济的任何异议已被撤回或经实体审理驳回；且经适当审议并已显示存在充分理由，现特此命令：\n\n1. 兹准许该动议，具体如本裁定所述。\n\n2. 自2022年7月8日作出的、准许任命Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）为本第11章案件受托人的命令录入之日起生效[ECF No. 523]，受托人为破产财产之利益，就所有债务人控制实体持有债务人的全部经济权利及治理权利，包括但不限于Genever (BVI)（Genever（英属维尔京群岛））。为免生疑义，上述权利包括受托人更换债务人控制实体任何现任高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员的权力。作为上述事项的一部分，在必要范围内，受托人获授权以其作为本第11章案件第11章受托人的身份，担任任何已被免职的该等高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员。\n\n3. 如受托人就债务人控制实体行使经济权利及治理权利被视为超出正常营业过程，则该等行使特此获准，因为行使该等权利具有合理的商业正当理由，包括受托人为破产财产之利益持有债务人就该等实体享有的全部经济权利及治理权利。尽管Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h)或《破产规则》或《康涅狄格州联邦破产法院破产实务与程序地方法则》的任何其他规定有相反适用，本裁定的条款和条件应于录入时立即生效并可执行，且特此放弃对本裁定效力及可执行性的任何适用中止。为免生疑义，本裁定的任何内容均不授权受托人出售或以其他方式处分债务人控制实体中的任何股权或债务人的其他资产。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1082-7 提交于11/11/22 录入于11/11/22 13:18:26 第14页，共598页 提交于07/23/22 录入于07/23/22 20:10:20 第14页，共26页 26\n\n4. 根据《破产法典》第1505条，受托人特此获授权作为债务人的外国代表，在任何外国代表破产财产以适用外国法律允许的任何方式行事，以便(a)调查、收集及追回位于外国的债务人资产，包括在必要或适当时为促进前述目的在外国法院寻求救济；(b)对债务人控制实体行使控制权，包括在必要或适当时为促进前述目的在外国法院寻求救济；以及(c)向保有与债务人控制实体有关的该等公司文件的适当外国公司登记处（或类似实体）请求并取得公司文件。在不限制前述规定的前提下，受托人获授权根据破产法院第1505条，向持有该等公司文件的适当英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）实体请求并取得与Genever (BVI)有关的公司文件。\n\n5. 债务人不得干预、妨碍或延误受托人行使本裁定项下的权限，包括受托人为促进该等权限而代表破产财产在外国法院已采取或将采取的任何行动。如债务人反对受托人行使该等权限，债务人仅可在通知利害关系方的情况下向本院（而非视情况而定的有关外国法院或其他外国实体）寻求救济，但以债务人能够证明其具有如此行事的诉讼资格为限。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1082-7 提交于11/11/22 录入于11/11/22 13:18:26 第15页，共598页 提交于07/23/22 录入于07/23/22 20:10:20 第15页，共26页 26\n\n6. 为促进受托人行使本裁定项下的权限，本院谨请求外国法院提供协助，包括就受托人关于行使对Genever (BVI)的公司控制权所请求的救济（包括紧急救济）请求，英属维尔京群岛法院提供协助。\n\n7. 本裁定的任何内容均不得视为授权就Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever (US)”）在United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦破产法院）（“Genever Court”）审理中的第11章案件采取任何特定行动。如受托人就Genever (US)行使公司治理权利将影响其第11章案件，受托人应出庭于Genever Court并向其寻求指导。\n\n8. 受托人获授权并有权采取一切必要行动，以落实本裁定所准许的救济。\n\n9. 本裁定的条款和条件应于录入时立即生效并可执行。\n\n10. 本院应就因实施、解释及执行本裁定而产生或与之相关的一切事项保留管辖权。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1082-7 提交于11/11/22 录入于11/11/22 13:18:26 第16页，共598页 提交于07/23/22 录入于07/23/22 20:10:20 第16页，共26页 26\n\n附件B\n\n2022年2月9日纽约州最高法院判决\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件号1181 NYSCEF收到日期：02/09/2022\n\n案件22-50073 文件1082-7 提交于11/11/22 录入于11/11/22 13:18:26 第17页，共598页 提交于07/23/22 录入于07/23/22 20:10:20 第17页，共26页案件22-50073 文件50-1 提交于02/28/22 录入于02/28/22 21:19:53 第7页，共73页 26\n\n出席：尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）　审判庭　IAS动议61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）　案号　652077/2017\n原告，\n-\n诉　动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名　动议序号　019\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，　动议判决及命令\n\n被告。 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n在这起始于2017年、已有1,180项案卷记录的案件中——其中几乎全部涉及被告Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）通过将其巨额个人资产置于一系列公司、受信赖的亲信和家庭成员名下来规避并欺骗其债权人的行为——本院被要求裁定，原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）是否已完成举证责任，证明本院应对Kwok作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。基于下述理由，本院同时作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。\n\nPAX于2021年2月3日取得针对Kwok的$116,402,019.57判决书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 716）。此后，PAX进行了长达一年的努力以执行其判决，首先识别、继而试图扣押Kwok在美国的资产。PAX在识别Kwok行使控制权的资产时遇到困难，因为自称为亿万富翁的Kwok已将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该安排使Kwok得以声称其没有资产，尽管其过着奢华生活；原告通过社交媒体剪报、照片和录像对该等生活进行了列举，显示Kwok过着奢华生活并夸耀其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机和游艇。如2022年2月2日程序记录所述，该证据证明力极低，因为提供该等证据的证人除知悉该“证据”可在各种网站上获取外，并无关于其真实性的第一手知识。\n\n2022年2月2日，本院举行证据听证会，七名证人以宣誓书提交直接证词，并可供交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX进行了长期程序，以查找并扣押被告Kwok拥有的资产。该等程序尤其确定，Kwok对名为Lady May的游艇行使支配权和控制权，并导致作出一系列命令，禁止Kwok和/或该名为Lady May游艇的登记所有人将Lady May移出本院管辖范围。首项该等命令于2020年9月30日作出，如下文详述；其后于2020年10月15日作出的命令禁止“Kwok先生和/或……该游艇，即‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开本管辖范围。（NYSCEF Doc. No. 630）。如下文详述，Kwok于2020年7月、8月及9月的大部分时间均在Lady May上度过。在导致作出2020年9月30日及10月15日限制命令的程序同时，Kwok及其同伙安排Lady May于2020年10月初驶往佛罗里达州，之后驶往巴哈马。2021年3月16日，本院作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示如Kwok未能于2021年5月31日前将Lady May送回本院管辖范围，则Lady May留在本院管辖范围之外的每一日，他将被处以$500,000.00罚款。\n\n上诉分庭第一部门维持本院认定Kwok构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日$500,000.00的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管获准这样做，其未显示有任何兴趣如此行事……”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时行使了其裁量权，因为原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反损害了原告的权利（见El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753）。……指示动议法院进行证据听证会，以解决有关游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当处罚。\n\n根据上诉分庭的命令，本院安排2022年2月2日举行证据听证会，以解决Kwok是否实益拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok未在2022年2月2日听证会上作证；此前，针对PAX为查明资产所作努力中有关Lady May的证据开示请求，他援引《第五修正案》权利，拒绝作证或答复。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引《第五修正案》，Kwok仍是多个法庭中的积极诉讼参与人，且其已在本案及其他程序中作出先前证词。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）还在本院提起了一项题为 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）诉 Hong Zeng（曾虹），157025/2020 的诉状，其中提及 Freebeacon.com（自由灯塔网）于 September 8, 2017 发布的一篇博客文章，Kwok 在文中就“涉及其 152-foot 机动游艇 Lady May（五月花号）的数起事件……”提出抱怨（Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng Complaint（曾案诉状）”）。Zeng Complaint 将 Kwok 描述为“中共的直言批评者”，其为“揭露中共和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”付出了巨大“努力”。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，前 President Trump（特朗普总统）顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 船上被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业\n\n1 “PX”系指原告的审判证据。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 10 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 20 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 20 of 26 26\n\n伙伴，“一名直言不讳的中国政府在线批评者，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但现因欺诈、敲诈勒索和贿赂指控而遭北京当局通缉。”其他新闻媒体报道称，Bannon 先生曾不止一次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往政治集会。\n\n听证会上由被告方证人亲口作出的证词，以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有实益所有权并控制该游艇，且其对本院及司法程序极尽蔑视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，以下简称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上提出的证词证实，Kwok 于 2014 年无偿将 HK International 的 100% 权益转让给 Qu Guo Jiao（曲郭娇）。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族值得信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 逃离中国，并于 February 23, 2015，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP 购得 Lady May。听证会上没有任何证词确立购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）的无争议证词证明，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44. 2 因此，可以作出的合理推论是，Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，Qu 女士于 June 17, 2017 前后以 \\$1 或无偿将 Lady May 的所有权转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。Tr. 47. 根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给现任登记权利人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（美国）有限责任公司，以下简称“HK USA”）。Guo 女士进一步声称，她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管 Lady May 的所有数百万美元年度开支，包括燃料、维护以及船长和船员的费用，均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring”）支付，据称该公司是 Kwok 家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”系指证据听证会的庭审记录，已作为 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179 电子提交。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 11 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 21 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 21 of 26 26\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士证称，其兄长为她购买了 Lady May。Tr. 46. 本院不能采信该证词，因为没有证据表明 Guo 女士的兄长参与了导致 Guo 女士取得游艇产权的一系列公司交易。事实上，在回答本院的问题时，Guo 女士承认，在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，其兄长均未参与。Tr. 47.\n\n听证会上提出的其他证词证明，Kwok 每年夏天均多次在该游艇上，而 Guo 女士则很少在该游艇上。Trial Tr. 88:8-20. Lady May 的船长证称，Kwok 于 2020 年 July、August 和 September 的大部分时间都在游艇上，这与其夏季的一贯做法相一致。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. 在本院 September 30, 2020 限制令之后，Lady May 于 October 2020 被送往 Florida，随后送往 Bahamas 进行维修，并于 October 2021 被派往 Italy，据称系按照 Golden Spring 的指示。Guo 女士承认，她知悉本院 September 30, 2020 限制令，以及本院随后于 March 16, 2021 作出的命令，该命令指示将 Lady May 返还至本院管辖范围内。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nGuo 女士证称，一方面，她指示 Lady May 的航线；但另一方面，她又证称，对 Kwok 的安保极为关切，以致不会留存任何航线记录。Tr. 52. 她进一步证称，当其父亲未由她陪同在游艇上时，其父亲可自由选择任何想去的地方。Tr. 50. 然而，根本问题是谁指示于 October 2020 将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。Guo 女士声称，于 October 2020 初，她不再希望使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给 Golden Spring，后者继而将她的指示传达给当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。Tr. 53.\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 12 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 22 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 22 of 26 26\n\n经进一步询问，Guo 女士承认，是 Golden Spring 告知她该游艇需要移至较温暖的地方。Tr. 55. Guo 女士随后重复了其已撤回的证词，即其兄长将游艇赠予她，并称其兄长是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56. 该证词不可信，因为本院于 September 30, 2020 作出临时限制令，限制 Kwok\n\n……出售、指使出售、让与、转让或干涉其享有权益的任何财产，或支付或以其他方式处置现已到期或此后到期应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外以及正常业务过程中的行为除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. 值得注意的是，Lady May 当时的船长 Captain Heaslop 证称，在 Lady May 于 October 2020 初启程前往 Florida 前“数日”，Kwok 先生告诉 Heaslop 船长，Kwok 将不再作为 Lady May 的客人（且显然是在本院 September 30, 2020 命令作出之后）。Tr. 89. Heaslop 船长还反驳了 Guo 女士关于 Guo 女士曾向 Heaslop 船长就游艇移动发出指示的证词。Tr. 94.\n\nGuo 女士还承认，其随后阅读了本院 March 16, 2021 作出的命令，该命令要求于 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 返还至本院管辖范围内（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她已与其律师讨论过该命令（该律师服务费由 Golden Spring 支付），并且她无视该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL（Yachtzoo 有限责任公司）的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（罗素·斯托基尔）证称，其公司与 HK USA 签订了一份日期为 May 2021 的管理合同，且其与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 沟通，但从未与 Guo 女士沟通。Tr. 78. 继任船长 Captain Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫船长）也作出了相同证词。Tr. 82. 简言之，Guo 女士关于其拥有并\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 13 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 23 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 23 of 26 26\n\n控制 Lady May 的证词，在任何方面均不能采信。Guo 女士似为一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据表明其对 Lady May 行使支配和控制，亦未提供其取得 Lady May 占有的任何佐证，除非该等安排是为使 Lady May 免受其父亲债权人扣押而采取的掩饰手段。\n\nKwok 就 Lady May 所策划的这一套空壳游戏相关操作，与 Kwok 在本案诉讼待决的五年期间所采取的其他一切规避及蔑视行为如出一辙，这也是本案存在 1,180 项案卷记录的原因。\n\n本院有权根据 Judiciary Law § 753 认定 Kwok 构成民事藐视法庭，并“以罚款和监禁予以惩处”——在如本案的情形下，本院“明确认定［Kwok 的］行为旨在或实际上已经挫败、减损、妨碍或损害民事诉讼一方当事人的权利或救济。”Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep’t 1985)（引用 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条规定四项要求：\n\n“［要］认定某一案件中已发生藐视法庭，必须确定：［1］一项明确表达无歧义指令的合法法院命令当时有效。［2］必须以合理确定性表明，该命令未被遵守……［3］此外，被认定构成藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管该命令实际上并不必须已送达该方……［4］最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成损害。”\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（引用 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证词满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，上诉分庭已暗示如此。见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep’t 2021)（“［PAX 已］以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，［Kwok］违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反导致对原告权利的损害……”）。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 14 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1082-7 Filed 11/11/22 Entered 11/11/22 13:18:26 Page 24 of 598 Filed 07/23/22 Entered 07/23/22 20:10:20 Page 24 of 26 26\n\nPAX 持续遭受的“损害”程度，取决于 PAX 是否证明其最终可对 Lady May 执行扣押，以清偿其现已达数亿美元的针对 Kwok 的判决。根据 CPLR § 5225，债务人持有必要“权益”时，“金钱或其他动产”可被扣押。为满足该要求，“判决债务人无须拥有该财产的法定所有权；实益权益即已足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是‘对某物享有的［一项］权利或期待……而非对该物享有法定所有权。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（引用 Black’s Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。Kwok 对 Lady May 的权益远不止实益权益。Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，其似乎还提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且其是主要享用该游艇之人。\n\n关键因素在于，“该财产是否使[受益所有人]如同其直接获得该财产一样受益。”同上（引自 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；另见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持驳回判决债务人的主张，即其因将其权益转让给女儿而不再持有该财产权益）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，仍准许判决债权人的交付动议，因为即使该主张属实，证据表明其仍“保留了对该财产的控制权和/或权益”）。\n\n证据以清楚且令人信服的方式表明，Kwok（郭文贵）持有并控制 Lady May（“梅夫人号”游艇）的受益权益。就后者而言，法院对 Zeng 案的立案予以司法认知，并根据记录中的全部事实推断，Kwok 已采取非同寻常的措施，以使该游艇免受其债权人的追索。此外，Kwok 的“家族办公室”为该游艇的日常运营和维护提供资金。\n\n法院认定，Guo 女士（郭女士）的证词不仅前后不一致且具有欺瞒性，而且受到 Heaslop 船长（希斯洛普）、Ivanov 船长（伊万诺夫）及 Stockil 先生（斯托基尔）的证词的显著削弱；三人均称，在 Guo 女士直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未接受过 Guo 女士就该游艇作出的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州法律已确立，一方当事人在民事程序中援引第五修正案的行为“可以构成作出不利事实推断的依据。”DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。在需要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推断，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形下。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“对于未出庭作证的证人，事实裁判者可以作出对方证据所允许的最强不利推断。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“将知悉证据所提出的重大争议问题”时适用不利推断）。\n\nPAX 有权根据这两种途径获得不利推断。Kwok 在回应 PAX 判决后的证据开示时援引了其免于自证其罪的第五修正案权利，包括在回应专门涉及 Lady May 的请求时。尽管 Kwok 主张，由于“[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it”，在此作出不利推断并不适当，但该主张不攻自破。PAX 已提出大量可采纳证据，证明 Kwok 对 Lady May 具有必要的受益权益和控制权。见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（说明如证据“倾向于证明重大事实，即案件中直接争议的事实，存在或不存在”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至 February 7, 2022，Lady May 已在法院管辖范围之外停留 268 天。根据本院裁定并经上诉分院维持的每日 \\$500,000 罚款，累计罚款将达 \\$134,000,000.00，超过 PAX 尚未履行的近 \\$120 million 判决债务，且为 Lady May GBP £ 28 million 购买价的数倍。然而，若亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够一面寻求利用纽约及美国其他地区的法院程序，一面明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治无存。Kwok 必须在送达本院附有立案通知的命令后五个工作日内，向 PAX 支付 \\$134,000,000.00。如未及时支付罚款，法院准备依据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权限。\n\n日期：February 9, 2022\n\n勾选一项：案件结案 X 非终局处置 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他 申请：和解命令 提交命令 如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新分配 受托人任命 转介","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Despins","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":598,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8264,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-11-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-11-11","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:35:27"}