{"id":"court_ctb_349_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":349,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSE TO MEI GUO'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully submits this response to Mei Guo's (\"Ms. Guo\") motion for a protective order (the \"Motion\") establishing the means by which PAX may conduct the May 16, 2022, depositions of Ms. Guo and Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HKI Delaware\") in connection with PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, In the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Motion to Dismiss\") (ECF No. 183).\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n1. PAX sued the Debtor, Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\") in April 2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division (Justice Ostrager presiding) (the \"New York Court\"), asserting a breach-of-contract claim under Hong Kong law against Kwok (the \"New York Action\").<sup>2</sup> PAX won that breach-of-contract claim in September\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 4 (Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 3).\n\n2020 and judgment was entered in February 2021.<sup>3</sup> Since then, PAX has been attempting to collect against Kwok by focusing principally on two assets: a New York City penthouse apartment in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel that Kwok owns through shell companies (the \"Residence\") and a luxury yacht called the \"Lady May.\"\n\n2. Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International Hong Kong\") purchased the Lady May for €28 million in February 2015. HK International Hong Kong is a Hong Kong company that Kwok set up and funded in 2006, before transferring it in late 2014 with a family business associate for no consideration just before being criminally charged and fleeing Asia.<sup>4</sup> In June 2017, the business associate transferred HK International Hong Kong to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, for \\$1.<sup>5</sup> Subsequently, Ms. Guo established HKI Delaware, a Delaware LLC, and transferred title to the Lady May to that Delaware shell entity, once again for no consideration.<sup>6</sup>\n\n3. On September 30, 2020, the New York Court entered a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok from, among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\"<sup>7</sup> On October 15, 2020 the New York Court permanently (i) \"restrained [Kwok] from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him . . . \"; and (ii) specifically restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 1 (February 3, 2021 Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 716).\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 2 (\"Final Contempt Order\") at 4.\n\n<sup>5</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>6</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 22 (Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 591).\n\nHotel and (2) the yacht, 'the Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\"<sup>8</sup>\n\n4. Despite the New York Court's orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the Lady May from removing the yacht from the court's jurisdiction, Kwok allowed the Lady May to flee New York on or around October 9, 2021.<sup>9</sup>\n\n5. After a series of appeals on PAX's for contempt, the New York Court held an evidentiary hearing held on February 2, 2022 concerning the ownership of the Lady May, where the New York Court heard testimony from seven witnesses, including Ms. Guo, the purported owner of the Lady May.<sup>10</sup>\n\n6. In advance of that hearing, counsel for HKI Delaware and Ms. Guo sought PAX's permission to seal the virtual courtroom during her testimony.<sup>11</sup> PAX did not oppose, and the Court granted that request.<sup>12</sup> On the day after the hearing, counsel for Kwok filed a request that the transcript remain under seal.<sup>13</sup> Again, PAX did not oppose that request.<sup>14</sup> The New York Court denied that request, ordering that the transcript be filed on the docket and explaining that \"Ms. Guo's whereabouts were not disclosed during the contempt trial\" and there was \"no basis [for sealing] other than counsel's request.\"<sup>15</sup>\n\n<sup>8</sup> ECF No. 183, Ex. 23 (Decision & Order on Motion at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 630).\n\n<sup>9</sup> No. 183, Ex. 36 (Decision & Order of Conditional Contempt at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 728).\n\n<sup>10</sup> No. 183, Ex. 38 (Third Interim Decision + Order on Conditional Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 1098).\n\n<sup>11</sup> Harbach Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit A), Ex. 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF 1170 (Jan. 31, 2022).\n\n<sup>12</sup> *Id.* at 1-2.\n\n<sup>13</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 1173 (Feb. 3, 2022). <sup>14</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>15</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 4, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 1174 (Feb. 4, 2022).\n\n7. At the February 2 hearing, Ms. Guo testified that her brother, Qiang Guo, bought the Lady May for her, but there was no evidence in the record that Mr. Guo was involved in any of the transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of title to the Lady May.<sup>16</sup>\n\n8. On February 9, 2022, the New York Court issued a final Order of Civil Contempt (the \"Yacht Contempt Order\").<sup>17</sup> The New York Court found, among other things, that \"Kwok exercised dominion and control over [] the Lady May\"<sup>18</sup> and that \"[t]he 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.\"<sup>19</sup> In its findings, the New York Court cited multiple credibility issues with Ms. Guo's testimony.<sup>20</sup> The New York Court specifically discredited Ms. Guo's contention that her brother bought the Lady May for her, and held that \"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.\"<sup>21</sup>\n\n9. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Kwok filed for voluntary bankruptcy on February 15, 2022. Notwithstanding the Yacht Contempt Order, Kwok continues to maintain that the Lady May is owned by Ms. Guo.<sup>22</sup>\n\n<sup>16</sup> Final Contempt Order at 5.\n\n<sup>17</sup> *Id.* at 1.\n\n<sup>18</sup> *Id.* at 2.\n\n<sup>19</sup> *Id.* at 4.\n\n<sup>20</sup> *Id.* at 5, 6-7.\n\n<sup>21</sup> *Id.* at 6-7.\n\n<sup>22</sup> For example, Kwok's notice of removal of the New York Action provides that \"[t]he New York State Court has issued orders that contain factual findings with respect to these issues, including determining that the most relevant purported asset (the Lady May yacht) is within Mr. Kwok's beneficial ownership\"—and invites this Court to \"[re- ]determine what is (or is not) property of the estate.\" Harbach Decl., Ex. 5, Notice of Removal at ¶ 7 n.1, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1.\n\n10. On March 18, 2022, PAX filed a Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (\"Stay Motion\").<sup>23</sup> PAX filed the Stay Motion to \"to ensure that [the Lady May,] a valuable estate asset is brought to New York where it can be protected for the benefit of Kwok's creditors subject to further order of the Court.\"<sup>24</sup>\n\n11. Thereafter, the parties submitted a Stipulated Order Compelling HKI Delaware to Transport and Deliver That Certain Yacht arrangement, whereby HKI Delaware posts a \\$37 million bond pending the return of the Lady May.<sup>25</sup>\n\n12. On April 6, 2022, PAX filed its Motion to Dismiss, which will be heard on May 25, 2022. In connection with its Motion to Dismiss, PAX served discovery on several parties, including HKI Delaware and Ms. Guo.\n\n13. Ms. Guo sought accommodations for her May 16, 2022 deposition. The parties met and conferred on May 5 and May 6, 2022. In connection with those efforts, the parties already agreed to certain conditions, including that Ms. Guo be permitted to use a personal translator as a secondary translator. PAX offered certain additional accommodations as reflected in the parties' correspondence,<sup>26</sup> but asked that Ms. Guo appear on video during the deposition so that she could be seen by counsel to PAX.<sup>27</sup> PAX invited Ms. Guo to seek similar accommodations from other participating parties, including the Office of the United States Trustee and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.<sup>28</sup>\n\n<sup>23</sup> *See* ECF No. 57, PAX's Stay Motion.\n\n<sup>24</sup> *See* EFF No. 93, PAX's Reply in Support of its Stay Motion, at 2.\n\n<sup>25</sup> *See generally* ECF No. 299, Stipulated Order.\n\n<sup>26</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 1 at 1.\n\n<sup>27</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>28</sup> *Id.*\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n14. PAX will consent to much of the relief requested in the Motion, but PAX will not consent to the relief sought in Paragraphs 40c, 40d, and 40f because the relief sought does not align with the alleged security concerns expressed in the Motion.\n\n15. During the meet and confer correspondence, to its recollection, PAX was never asked whether it would consent to Ms. Guo's request that her physical location not be disclosed on the record.<sup>29</sup> PAX would have consented to this request. If her physical location is not disclosed, Ms. Guo has not identified any connection between the concerns identified in the Motion and the participants to the deposition. As the New York Court held, if \"Ms Guo's whereabouts [are] not disclosed,\" there is no basis for sealing, \"other than counsel's request.\"<sup>30</sup>\n\n16. Depositions are not broadcast live or otherwise publicly available. Subject to the terms of a valid protective order, members of the public do not have access to audio or video recordings or to transcripts. This is not a situation where the witness is testifying in live court and is at risk of legitimate retaliation threats. *Cf. People v. Jones*, 96 N.Y.2d 213, 214–15, 750 N.E.2d 524, 525 (2001) (\"When the People can establish an overriding interest that open-court testimony by an undercover officer would jeopardize the officer's safety, the Trial Judge may close the courtroom during the testimony of that witness.\"). Moreover, Ms. Guo's participation in these proceedings is already public. The transcript of her testimony from the February 2, 2022 hearing is publicly available, and the filing of the Motion shines a further light on her participation, including by identifying the date and time of her deposition.\n\n<sup>29</sup> *See* Motion at ¶ 40e.\n\n<sup>30</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 4.\n\n17. Ms. Guo has offered no reason why the participating parties to the deposition would be unable or unwilling to follow standard confidentiality protocols, as attorneys do in every case.\n\n18. As offered during the meet and confers,<sup>31</sup> PAX continues to offer the following conditions, as modified below:\n\n19. *Paragraph 40a*. PAX will conduct the deposition by remote means using a court reporter and deposition technology of any well-established industry vendor of Ms. Guo's choice, at PAX's cost. A vendor is necessary to facilitate exhibit sharing and to create a proper record. Without a vendor, PAX does not have the appropriate technology or logistics services to conduct the deposition.\n\n20. *Paragraph 40c and d.* Ms. Guo will appear on video so she can be seen by the questioning party during the swearing-in and throughout the entire deposition. A face-to-face deposition will allow the examiner to evaluate Ms. Guo's credibility and to assess whether her testimony is affected by any persons or circumstances in the background. *See, e.g.*, *Ayala v. Speckard*, 131 F.3d 62, 71 (2d Cir. 1997) (\"Disguising the witness risks lessening the jury's opportunity to observe the witness's demeanor and assess credibility.\"). This condition is critical given the New York Court's findings regarding her credibility.<sup>32</sup>\n\n21. *Paragraph 40f*. Ms. Guo's and HKI Delaware's deposition will be recorded by the vendor by stenographic, video, and audio means. PAX previously offered to record the deposition only by audio, but given the posture of these cases, including Kwok's previous authenticity challenges<sup>33</sup> and Ms. Guo's counsel's apparent unwillingness to agree that Ms. Guo\n\n<sup>31</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 1.\n\n<sup>32</sup> Final Contempt Order at 5, 6-7.\n\n<sup>33</sup> *E.g.*, Harbach Decl., Ex. 6, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1178 (Feb. 4, 2022), at 12.\n\nwill appear live in court at the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, PAX has no choice but to request that the deposition be video recorded.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief in the Motion as amended herein, including the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit B, and order such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n[*Signature on Following Page*]\n\nDated: May 12, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n#### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) Laura S. Aronsson (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com laronsson@omm.com\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on May 12, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties receiving notice by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n /s/ *Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第 11 章破产案号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 对 MEI GUO 保护令动议的答辩\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，简称「PAX」）谨此针对 Mei Guo（郭美，简称「郭女士」）请求确立 PAX 依据其《驳回第 11 章案件或备选部分加入联邦受托人请求下达指令指定第 11 章受托人之动议》（简称《驳回动议》）（ECF No. 183）于 2022 年 5 月 16 日对郭女士及 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，简称「HKI Delaware」）进行宣誓取证之方式的保护令动议（简称《动议》）提交本答辩。\n\n背景\n\n1. PAX 于 2017 年 4 月在 Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院纽约县商业法庭，由 Ostrager 法官主持）（简称「纽约法院」）对债务人 Miles Kwok（郭文贵，简称「郭」）提起诉讼，依据香港法律针对郭主张违约索赔（简称「纽约诉讼」）。2 PAX 于 2020 年 9 月在该违约索赔案中胜诉，\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位为 9595。\n\n2 参见 ECF No. 183, Ex. 4（《修正起诉书》，PAX v. Kwok，案件号 22-01073-dsj（Bankr. S.D.N.Y.），ECF No. 3）。\n\n并于 2021 年 2 月作出判决。3 自那时起，PAX 一直试图对郭进行执行追索，主要针对两项资产：郭通过壳公司持有的位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-尼德兰酒店）的一套纽约市顶层公寓（简称「住所」）以及一艘名为「Lady May（梅号）」的豪华游艇。\n\n2. Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，简称「HK International Hong Kong」）于 2015 年 2 月以 2800 万欧元购入了 Lady May。HK International Hong Kong 是一家由郭于 2006 年设立并注资的香港公司，随后在 2014 年底郭面临刑事指控并逃离亚洲前夕，被其无偿转让给一名家族商业合伙人。4 2017 年 6 月，该商业合伙人以 1 美元将 HK International Hong Kong 转让给郭的女儿郭美。5 随后，郭女士设立了特拉华州有限责任公司 HKI Delaware，并将 Lady May 的产权再次无偿转让给该特拉华州壳实体。6\n\n3. 2020 年 9 月 30 日，纽约法院下达了一项临时限制令，禁止郭（其中包括）「干预其享有权益的任何财产」。7 2020 年 10 月 15 日，纽约法院永久性地 (i)「禁止［郭］直接或间接进行或促成对其享有权益的任何财产进行任何出售、转让、让与或干预，并禁止其清偿或以其他方式处置目前应付给其或此后到期应付给其的任何债务……」；以及 (ii) 具体禁止「郭先生和/或 (1) 位于 Sherry-Netherland\n\n3 参见 ECF No. 183, Ex. 1（2021 年 2 月 3 日判决书，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF No. 716）。\n\n4 参见 ECF No. 183, Ex. 2（《民事蔑视法庭最终裁定》）第 4 页。\n\n5 同上。\n\n6 同上。\n\n7 参见 ECF No. 183, Ex. 22（《关于动议的决定与裁定》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF No. 591）。\n\nHotel 的住所及 (2) 游艇『Lady May』……的登记所有权人进行或促成对这些资产进行任何出售、让与、转让或干预。」8\n\n4. 尽管纽约法院下达了限制郭和/或 Lady May 登记所有权人将该游艇移出法院管辖范围的裁定，郭仍于 2021 年 10 月 9 日前后放任 Lady May 逃离纽约。9\n\n5. 在就 PAX 提出的蔑视法庭动议进行了一系列上诉之后，纽约法院于 2022 年 2 月 2 日就 Lady May 的所有权问题举行了证据听证会，纽约法院在会上听取了包括 Lady May 所谓的所有权人郭女士在内的七名证人的证词。10\n\n6. 在该听证会之前，HKI Delaware 和郭女士的律师曾寻求 PAX 的许可，以在郭女士作证期间封锁虚拟法庭。11 PAX 未予反对，法院批准了该请求。12 在听证会次日，郭的律师提交了一项要求将听证笔录继续封存的请求。13 PAX 再次未对该请求表示反对。14 纽约法院拒绝了该请求，下令将笔录列入案卷公开，并解释称「在蔑视法庭审理期间并未披露郭女士的行踪」，且「除律师的要求外，没有任何［封存的］依据」。15\n\n8 ECF No. 183, Ex. 23（《关于动议的决定与裁定》第 1 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF No. 630）。\n\n9 No. 183, Ex. 36（《附条件蔑视法庭决定与裁定》第 2 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF No. 728）。\n\n10 No. 183, Ex. 38（《关于附条件蔑视法庭的第三次中期决定与裁定》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF No. 1098）。\n\n11 Harbach 声明（作为附件 A 附于本件后），Ex. 2，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF 1170（2022 年 1 月 31 日）。\n\n12 同上，第 1-2 页。\n\n13 Harbach 声明，Ex. 3，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF No. 1173（2022 年 2 月 3 日）。 14 同上。\n\n15 Harbach 声明，Ex. 4，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，ECF No. 1174（2022 年 2 月 4 日）。\n\n7. 在 2 月 2 日的听证会上，郭女士作证称其兄长 Qiang Guo（郭强）为她购买了 Lady May，但记录中没有任何证据表明郭先生参与了导致郭女士获得 Lady May 产权的任何交易。16\n\n8. 2022 年 2 月 9 日，纽约法院下达了一份最终的《民事蔑视法庭裁定》（简称《游艇蔑视法庭裁定》）。17 纽约法院认定（其中包括）「郭对［］Lady May 行使了支配与控制权」，18 且「在听证会上从被告方证人口中获取的证词清楚且有说服力地证明，郭对 Lady May 拥有实益所有权与控制权，并且对本法院和司法程序抱有极其轻蔑的态度。」19 在其认定中，纽约法院指出了郭女士证词中存在多处可信度问题。20 纽约法院特别对郭女士关于其兄长为她购买 Lady May 的主张不予采信，并认定「郭女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使过支配与控制权，亦未提供任何确认其取得 Lady May 占有权的证据，除非这是为了防止 Lady May 被其父亲的债权人扣押而采取的花招。」21\n\n9. 此后不久，郭先生于 2022 年 2 月 15 日申请了自愿破产。尽管存在《游艇蔑视法庭裁定》，郭仍然坚持主张 Lady May 归郭女士所有。22\n\n16 《民事蔑视法庭最终裁定》第 5 页。\n\n17 同上，第 1 页。\n\n18 同上，第 2 页。\n\n19 同上，第 4 页。\n\n20 同上，第 5、6-7 页。\n\n21 同上，第 6-7 页。\n\n22 例如，郭关于纽约诉讼的移送管辖通知载明：「纽约州法院已就这些问题作出了包含事实认定的裁定，包括认定最相关的所谓资产（Lady May 游艇）处于郭先生的实益所有权之下」——并提请本法院「［重新］认定何为（或何者不是）破产财产。」Harbach 声明，Ex. 5，移送管辖通知第 7 段脚注 1，PAX v. Kwok，No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.)，ECF No. 1。\n\n10. 2022 年 3 月 18 日，PAX 提交了一份《关于请求作出确认自动中止不适用或备选依据破产法典第 362(d)(2) 条免除自动中止之裁定的动议》（简称《中止动议》）。23 PAX 提交《中止动议》旨在「确保［Lady May 这项］宝贵的破产财产被带回纽约，在服从法院进一步裁定的前提下，为了郭的债权人的利益而受到保护。」24\n\n11. 此后，各方当事人提交了一份《关于强制 HKI Delaware 运输并交付特定游艇的约定裁定》安排，据此 HKI Delaware 在 Lady May 返还前提供 3700 万美元的保函。25\n\n12. 2022 年 4 月 6 日，PAX 提交了其《驳回动议》，该动议将于 2022 年 5 月 25 日进行审理。针对其《驳回动议》，PAX 向包括 HKI Delaware 和郭女士在内的数方当事人送达了证据开示请求。\n\n13. 郭女士就其 2022 年 5 月 16 日的宣誓取证寻求了便利安排。各方当事人于 2022 年 5 月 5 日和 5 月 6 日进行了会晤与协商。针对这些努力，各方当事人已就某些条件达成一致，包括允许郭女士使用一名个人翻译作为第二翻译。如各方通信中所反映，PAX 提供了某些额外的便利安排，26 但要求郭女士在宣誓取证期间出镜以便 PAX 的律师能够看到她。27 PAX 建议郭女士向包括 Office of the United States Trustee（美国联邦受托人办公室）和 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）在内的其他参与方寻求类似的便利安排。28\n\n23 参见 ECF No. 57，PAX 的《中止动议》。\n\n24 参见 EFF No. 93，PAX 支持其《中止动议》的答辩意见第 2 页。\n\n25 参见 ECF No. 299 通篇，《约定裁定》。\n\n26 Harbach 声明，Ex. 1 第 1 页。\n\n27 同上。\n\n28 同上。\n\n抗辩理由\n\n14. PAX 将同意《动议》中请求的大部分救济，但 PAX 不会同意第 40c、40d 和 40f 段所寻求的救济，因为所寻求的救济与《动议》中陈述的所谓安全顾虑并不相符。\n\n15. 在会晤与协商的往来函件中，据 PAX 回忆，从未有人询问过 PAX 是否会同意郭女士提出的不在记录中披露其物理位置的请求。29 PAX 本会同意该请求。如果其物理位置不被披露，郭女士并未指出《动议》中所确认的顾虑与宣誓取证的参与人员之间存在任何关联。正如纽约法院所认定，如果「郭女士的行踪未被披露」，那么除了「律师的要求之外」，没有任何封存的依据。30\n\n16. 宣誓取证并不进行现场直播，亦不对公众开放。在有效保护令的条款约束下，公众无权获取录音、录像或笔录。本案并非证人在公开法庭出庭作证并面临合法的报复威胁的情形。参见 People v. Jones, 96 N.Y.2d 213, 214–15, 750 N.E.2d 524, 525 (2001)（「当检察方能够证明存在一项压倒性利益，即卧底警官在公开法庭作证将危及该警官的安全时，初审法官可在该证人作证期间封锁法庭。」）。此外，郭女士参与这些程序的情况已经公开。她在 2022 年 2 月 2 日听证会上的证词笔录已向公众公开，且《动议》的提交进一步披露了她的参与情况，包括指明了对她进行宣誓取证的日期和时间。\n\n29 参见《动议》第 40e 段。\n\n30 Harbach 声明，Ex. 4。\n\n17. 郭女士未提出任何理由说明宣誓取证的各参与方为何会无法或不愿遵守标准的保密规程，而这正是律师在每一个案件中都会履行的职责。\n\n18. 正如在会晤与协商中所提议的那样，31 PAX 继续提供以下条件，并作如下修改：\n\n19. 第 40a 段。PAX 将在郭女士选择的任何知名行业供应商处使用法庭速记员和宣誓取证技术进行远程宣誓取证，费用由 PAX 承担。需要供应商是为了便利证据展示并建立规范的记录。如果没有供应商，PAX 则不具备进行宣誓取证所需的相应技术或后勤服务。\n\n20. 第40c及d段。Guo女士（郭女士）将通过视频出庭，以便提问方在宣誓就职时以及在整个取证过程中都能看到她。面对面的取证将使质询方能够评估Guo女士的可信度，并评估她的证词是否受到背景中的任何人员或情况的影响。参见，例如，Ayala v. Speckard, 131 F.3d 62, 71 (2d Cir. 1997)（“伪装证人可能会减少陪审团观察证人举止和评估可信度的机会。”）。鉴于纽约法院关于其可信度的认定，该条件至关重要。32\n\n21. 第40f段。服务商将通过速记、视频和音频方式对Guo女士和HKI Delaware（香港国际特拉华公司）的取证过程进行记录。PAX此前曾提议仅通过音频记录取证，但鉴于这些案件的态势，包括Kwok（郭文贵）此前对真实性的质疑33，以及Guo女士的律师显然不愿意同意Guo女士\n\n31 Harbach Decl., Ex. 1.\n\n32 Final Contempt Order at 5, 6-7.\n\n33 E.g., Harbach Decl., Ex. 6, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1178 (Feb. 4, 2022), at 12.\n\n在驳回动议的听证会上亲自出庭，PAX别无选择，只能请求对取证过程进行录像。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX谨请法院准予本文件中经修正的动议所请求的救济，包括本文件所附附件B的拟定裁定书，并命令法院认为公正且适当的进一步救济。\n\n[签名见下页]\n\n日期：2022年5月12日 康涅狄格州哈特福德\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋同盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875)\nAnnecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148)\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted pro hac vice / 准予特许临时执业)\nStuart M. Sarnoff (admitted pro hac vice / 准予特许临时执业)\nLaura S. Aronsson (admitted pro hac vice / 准予特许临时执业)\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com laronsson@omm.com\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，2022年5月12日，前述文件的副本已通过法院的CM/ECF系统以电子方式提交。本提交通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行，以电子邮件形式发送给所有接收通知的当事人。利害关系方可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本提交文件。\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney  Patrick M. Birney","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":299,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1098,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1170,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1173,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1174,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1178,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2374,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:13:50"}