{"id":"court_ctb_404_23","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":404,"sub_number":23,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 23 Decision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 549","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 23**\n\nDecision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 549\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                                                                                       | PART            | IAS MOTION 61EFM           |  |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|--|\n|          | Justice                                                                                                      |                 |                            |  |\n|          | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X                           |                 |                            |  |\n|          | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY<br>FUND L.P.,                                                              |                 |                            |  |\n|          |                                                                                                              | INDEX NO.       | 652077/2017                |  |\n|          | Plaintiff,                                                                                                   |                 |                            |  |\n|          | -<br>v -                                                                                                     | MOTION DATE     |                            |  |\n|          | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a<br>GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 007                        |  |\n|          | a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS<br>LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,               |                 | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |  |\n\n10\n\nDefendants.\n\n### HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nBefore the Court is plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s (\"Pacific Alliance\") motion for partial summary judgement on Count I of the Amended Complaint against defendant Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\") and defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument on motion 006. The Court heard oral argument via Skype on September 14, 2020. Based on the papers submitted and the arguments made on the record of September 14, 2020, and for the reasons that follow, Pacific Alliance's motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and Kwok's motion for reargument on motion 006 is denied.\n\n#### **Background**\n\nIn 2008, Pacific Alliance entered into an agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which Pacific Alliance provided Spirit with a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. Kwok executed a personal Guarantee of the loan. In September 2009, Spirit executed a deed under which Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), a business listing Kwok as its sole shareholder and director, assumed\n\nthe loan debt that Spirit owed to Pacific Alliance. Kwok again executed a personal guarantee in favor of Pacific Alliance to secure Shiny Times' repayment obligation.\n\nIn March 2011, Pacific Alliance and Shiny Times entered into a new loan facility (\"2011 Loan Facility\") that expressly superseded and replaced the 2009 Deed of Settlement and a 2010 Letter Agreement. Simultaneously, Kwok entered into a new personal guarantee (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\") which expressly superseded the 2009 Guarantee. The 2011 Personal Guarantee is the operative agreement in this action.\n\nIn April 2013, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement, whereby the outstanding loan amount would no longer be due and owing to Pacific Alliance if Pacific Alliance purchased certain apartments from Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another Kwok business entity, and Shiny Times' made certain installment payments to Pacific Alliance. Beijing Pangu was required to satisfy ten conditions precedent in connection with the sale and purchase of each of the apartments by Pacific Alliance. If any such condition was not satisfied by June of 2013, the Deed of Settlement would be terminated in its entirety. Pacific Alliance and Kwok subsequently executed four extensions of the Deed of Settlement, changing only the date by which the conditions precedent needed to be satisfied. The latest Deed of Settlement required that the conditions precedent be satisfied by June of 2015.\n\nPacific Alliance seeks summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint which alleges that Kwok failed to satisfy the conditions precedent by June of 2015 and thus, per the terms of the agreement, the Deed of Settlement was terminated in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee again controlled.\n\nThe Court recently held, in response to Pacific Alliance's motion for sanctions, that Kwok was judicially estoppel from challenging the authenticity of documents that Kwok had\n\npreviously sponsored in proceedings before this Court. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 404. Specifically, at his November 2019 deposition, Kwok denied having signed several agreements discussed above, including the 2011 Loan Facility, the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the 2013 Deed of Settlement, and the four Supplemental Deeds. Kwok testified that the documents were forgeries. On the motion for contempt, Pacific Alliance argued, and the Court found, that these denials were inconsistent with the positions Kwok had taken throughout the duration of this 2017 case. As such, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of these agreements in opposition to Pacific Alliance's motion for summary judgment or at trial.\n\n10\n\n#### **Kwok's Cross-Motion**\n\nTurning first to defendant Kwok's cross-motion for leave to reargue the Court's Decision and Order dated July 7, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 404), this motion is denied. As stated above, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of the agreements that Kwok had previously sponsored as authentic before the Court in this proceeding. Kwok argues that the Court misapprehended the law in reaching this holding. This Court rejects that argument in its entirety.\n\nAt the outset of this case, Kwok moved to dismiss this action on *forum non conveniens* grounds (motion 001). The Court granted Kwok's motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102), which decision was subsequently reversed and remitted by the First Department (NYSCEF Doc. 121). In making his motion to dismiss, Kwok argued that the contracts at issue were governed by Hong Kong law. Specifically, Kwok attached to his motion \"true and correct\" copies of several agreements among the parties including the 2011 Personal Guarantee (NYSCEF Doc. No. 17) and the 2013 Deed of Settlement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18), which he now contests.\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-23 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of 10\n\n> Kwok now argues that because the thrust of his argument on the motion to dismiss and the Court's decision related to *forum non conveniens,* (1) he is not actually changing his position on the authenticity of the documents, and (2) the Court did not actually determine the authenticity of the documents. This argument is incorrect. Kwok's assertion that the case should have been dismissed in favor of a resolution in Hong Kong *because the agreements on their face are governed by Hong Kong law* necessarily required an argument by Kwok, and an acceptance by the Court, that the agreements were authentic and not forgeries, as Kwok now claims.\n\n> Kwok further argues that in any event judicial estoppel cannot apply because there was no final determination on the merits on the issue of whether the contracts were authentic, because the First Department reversed this Court's decision on the motion to dismiss. This argument is not supported by the case law in the First Department. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine used to prevent a party from changing its position during the same litigation. *See e.g. Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000) (\"[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding.\"). Indeed, because judicial estoppel is used to prevent parties from changing their position in the same litigation – a final determination *cannot* be a prerequisite for judicial estoppel. *See id* (precluding the landlord from relying on a different lease on appeal than had been relied on at the trial-court level in the same proceeding).\n\n> Additionally, the Court notes that Kwok never pleaded that the documents were forgeries in either of his Answers, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g., Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C*., 214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995) (granting a motion for leave to amend the pleadings to add affirmative defense of forgery); *Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Giardino,* 71 A.D.2d\n\n836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979) (holding that \"proof of defendants' handwriting was material in light of their affirmative defense of forgery\").\n\nKwok's recent, uncorroborated assertion that the agreements are forgeries is inconsistent with his prior position in this litigation – and therefore provides an appropriate basis for judicial estoppel. Accordingly, Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied, and the agreements previously sponsored by Kwok are accepted as authentic for the purpose of evaluating plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.\n\n#### **Pacific Alliance's Motion**\n\nThe Court is granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Pacific Alliance holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract under the 2011 Personal Guarantee. By the plain terms of the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the failure to satisfy the conditions precedent to the settlement by June 30, 2015, would result in reverting to the 2011 Personal Guarantee being in full force and effect. *See* NYSCEF Doc. 461.\n\n> **Clause 3.4:** Reversion of the Facility Letter after 31 July 2013. In the event that all conditions precedent set out in Clause 3.2 for all Apartments have not been satisfied by 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing[ here, 30 June 2015, per the fourth and final supplemental Deed of Settlement]), **then the entire settlement as contemplated under this Deed shall be terminated and the Parties acknowledge that the Facility Letter shall revert and be in full force and effect immediately** after 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing) and Shiny Times shall be obliged to settle the Total Outstanding Amount and any interest accrued thereon in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Facility Letter. (emphasis added).\n\n*See also* NYSCEF Doc. No. 472 \"Fourth Supplemental Deed of Settlement\" (changing the date to satisfy the conditions precedent to \"30 June 2015\").\n\nPlaintiff Pacific Alliance has shown, and defendant Kwok has failed to refute, that several of the conditions precedent in the 2013 Deed of Settlement were not fulfilled. Namely, defendant Kwok failed to deliver clean title, failed to provide plaintiff with an invoice for the\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-23 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of 10\n\n> purchase of the apartments, failed to provide plaintiff with evidence regarding the payment of all relevant taxes and charges in connection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and failed to deliver the House Ownership Certificates of any of the Apartments to plaintiff. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i).\n\nKwok does not dispute that these conditions were never satisfied. Instead, in opposition, Kwok argues that plaintiff Pacific Alliance failed to mitigate its damages when it allegedly did not act on an opportunity to potentially seize the three apartments with the aid of Beijing police.\n\nFirst, even taking Kwok's version of events as true, mitigation speaks to damages, not liability, and thus these events would not preclude partial summary judgment on liability. Second, as demonstrated by the documentary evidence sponsored by both parties, the alleged opportunity to take possession of the three apartments with the aid of police only came up *after*  June 2015, and thus the 2013 Deed of Settlement had already been nullified in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in full force and effect. Third, Kwok has never pleaded, in either of his Answers, mitigation, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g. Eskenazi v. Mackoul,* 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010) (referring to \"the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages\").\n\nFinally, under Hong Kong law, a party is only required to act *reasonably* to mitigate damages. *See* Affirmation of Vishal Prakash Melwani at ¶17.2 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 535) *and see* Affirmation of Phillip Loukis Georgiou (NYSCEF Doc. No. 498) at ¶¶ 18.3 and 21. The record currently indicates that to take advantage of the alleged offer of the Beijing Police, Pacific Alliance would have needed to pay RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million] per unit to get them released. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288. The prospect of paying approximately \\$16 million for assets that the parties had agreed would be transferred free of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-23 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of 10\n\ncharge to settle a debt would likely not have qualified as a *reasonable* opportunity to mitigate\n\ndamages under Hong Kong law. Nevertheless, the Court reserves decision as to the issue of\n\ndamages.\n\nUnder the 2011 Personal Guarantee\n\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally. . . guarantee[d] to PAX [Pacific Alliance] the due and punctual payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Facility] and agree[d] that promptly on PAX's demand he will pay to PAX all [o]bligations that are due but unpaid\";\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally agree[d] (as primary obligor and not only as surety) to indemnify and hold harmless PAX on demand from and against any and all losses incurred by PAX as a result of any [o]bligation [of Shiny Times] being or becoming void, voidable, unenforceable, or ineffective as against Shiny Times for any reason whatsoever . . . .\";\n- Kwok agreed that his \"obligations . . . under this Guarantee shall constitute and be continuing obligations which shall not be released or discharged by any intermediate payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Loan Facility] or any of them, shall continue in full force and effect until the unconditional and irrevocable payment and discharge in full of [those o]bligations and are in addition to and independent of, and shall not prejudice or merge with, any other security (or any right of setoff) which PAX may at any time hold in respect of [those o]bligations or any of them;\"\n- PAX was permitted to seek recourse against Kwok as primary obligor without first enforcing the debt against Shiny Times; and\n- Kwok agreed to a catchall waiver of any defenses based on \"any other act, event or omission which might operate to discharge, impair or otherwise affect the Guarantor or any of the Obligations or any of the rights, powers, and remedies conferred upon [PAX LP] by this Guarantee or by law.\"\n\nKwok does not argue that either he or Shiny Times made any payments under the 2011 Loan\n\nFacility or the 2011 Personal Guarantee to satisfy the debt. Accordingly, the Court finds Kwok\n\nliable for breach of the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n#### **Conclusion**\n\nThe remaining issue in the action – Count II of the Amended Complaint – seeks to hold\n\ntwo of Kwok's companies—Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation— liable\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-23 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of 10\n\nfor Kwok's debt to Pacific Alliance as alter egos. This action was scheduled for a jury trial on October 5, 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court is unable to have a jury trial on that date and the trial is rescheduled for January 15, 2021.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED that defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint is granted in favor of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. and against Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/ka, GWO Wen Gui, a/ka/ Gui Wengui, a/ka/ Guo Wen-Gui, a/ka/ Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/ka/ Haoyun Guo to the extent of holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall move no later than October 14, 2020 by notice of motion returnable in the Submissions Part to establish damages on Count I by presenting affidavits on personal knowledge and evidence in admissible form as to the principal amount due and owing under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the rate of interest applicable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, and the date from which interest is accruing, so that the Clerk of Court may calculate the total amount due and owing as of the date of entry of judgment; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall simultaneously move for an award of legal fees and expenses, setting forth the document which plaintiff is relying on and attaching invoices for services rendered; and it is further\n\nORDERED that the parties appear for a status conference on December 22, 2020 at 10:20\n\nam.\n\nDated: September 15, 2020\n\n| CHECK ONE:            | CASE DISPOSED              |        | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION |           |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|--------|---|-----------------------|-----------|\n|                       | GRANTED                    | DENIED | X | GRANTED IN PART       | OTHER     |\n| APPLICATION:          | SETTLE ORDER               |        |   | SUBMIT ORDER          |           |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN |        |   | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |","body_zh":"物证 PAX 23\n\n关于动议的决定与裁定，PAX 诉 Kwok，案号 Index. No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.［纽约州最高法院］），卷宗编号 Dkt. 549\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约州最高法院纽约县）\n\n出席：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 审判庭：IAS MOTION 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），\n原告，\n案号：652077/2017\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（万古皓云），又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名 HAOYUN GUO（皓云·郭），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（源丰控股有限公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（源丰控股公司），\n动议序列号：007\n被告。\n决定 + 关于动议的裁定\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n现提交本法院审理的是原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“Pacific Alliance”）针对被告 Kwok Ho Wan，又名 Miles Kwok（以下简称“Kwok”）就修改后起诉书第一项求偿主张作出的部分即决判决动议，以及被告 Kwok 就第 006 号动议请求重新辩论的交叉动议。本法院于 2020 年 9 月 14 日通过 Skype 听取了口头辩论。根据提交的文书以及 2020 年 9 月 14 日记录在案的辩论，并基于以下理由，Pacific Alliance 的部分即决判决动议获得准许，Kwok 就第 006 号动议请求重新辩论的动议被驳回。\n\n背景\n\n2008 年，Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 名下的商业实体之一 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（以下简称“Spirit”）签订了一项协议，据此 Pacific Alliance 向 Spirit 提供了本金为 $30 million 的贷款额度。Kwok 为该笔贷款签署了个人担保（Guarantee）。2009 年 9 月，Spirit 签署了一份契据，据此，一家将 Kwok 列为其唯一股东兼董事的企业 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（以下简称“Shiny Times”）承担了\n\nSpirit 欠 Pacific Alliance 的贷款债务。Kwok 再次以 Pacific Alliance 为受益人签署了个人担保，以担保 Shiny Times 的还款义务。\n\n2011 年 3 月，Pacific Alliance 与 Shiny Times 订立了一项新的贷款额度协议（以下简称“2011 年贷款额度协议”），该协议明确取代并废止了《2009 年和解契据》以及一份《2010 年信函协议》。同时，Kwok 订立了一份新的个人担保（以下简称“2011 年个人担保”），该担保明确取代了《2009 年担保》。该 2011 年个人担保是本案中具有约束力的生效协议。\n\n2013 年 4 月，各方订立了一份《和解契据》，据此约定，如果 Pacific Alliance 从 Kwok 名下的另一家商业实体 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古氏投资有限公司，以下简称“Beijing Pangu”）处购买某些公寓，且 Shiny Times 向 Pacific Alliance 支付了某些分期款项，则未清偿的贷款金额将不再到期且不再归欠 Pacific Alliance。Beijing Pangu 被要求在 Pacific Alliance 买卖各套公寓的相关事宜中满足十项先决条件。若在 2013 年 6 月之前有任何此类条件未得到满足，则《和解契据》将全部终止。Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 随后签署了四份关于《和解契据》的延期协议，仅更改了先决条件必须得到满足的截止日期。最新的一份《和解契据》要求先决条件须在 2015 年 6 月之前得到满足。\n\nPacific Alliance 就修改后起诉书的第一项求偿主张申请即决判决，该项主张指控 Kwok 未能在 2015 年 6 月之前满足先决条件，因此，根据协议条款，《和解契据》已全部终止，并且 2011 年个人担保再次恢复支配效力。\n\n本法院最近在回应 Pacific Alliance 提出的制裁动议时裁定，Kwok 在司法上被禁止（judicially estopped）质疑此前在向本法院提起的诉讼程序中由 Kwok 自身\n\n提交作为证据的文件的真实性。参见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 404。具体而言，在 2019 年 11 月的庭外采证宣誓证言（deposition）中，Kwok 否认签署了上文讨论的若干协议，包括《2011 年贷款额度协议》、《2011 年个人担保》、《2013 年和解契据》以及四份《补充契据》。Kwok 作证称这些文件系伪造。在关于藐视法庭的动议中，Pacific Alliance 主张（且本法院亦认定），这些否认与 Kwok 在这起 2017 年案件全程所采取的立场不一致。因此，本法院裁定，在反对 Pacific Alliance 的即决判决动议中或在庭审中，Kwok 在司法上被禁止质疑这些协议的真实性。\n\nKwok 的交叉动议\n\n首先转向被告 Kwok 申请就本法院 2020 年 7 月 7 日的决定与裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 404）重新进行辩论的交叉动议，该动议被驳回。如上所述，本法院裁定，Kwok 在司法上被禁止质疑 Kwok 此前在本诉讼程序中向本法院提交并主张其为真实的协议的真实性。Kwok 主张本法院在作出该裁定时对法律存在误解。本法院全盘驳回该主张。\n\n在本案伊始，Kwok 以不方便法院原则（forum non conveniens）为由提起了驳回本诉讼的动议（第 001 号动议）。本法院准许了 Kwok 的动议（NYSCEF Doc. No. 102），该决定随后被 First Department（第一部门上诉法院）撤销并发回重审（NYSCEF Doc. 121）。在提出其驳回起诉动议时，Kwok 主张涉案合同受 Hong Kong（香港）法律管辖。具体而言，Kwok 在其动议中附上了各方之间若干协议的“真实且正确”的副本，包括他现在提出异议的《2011 年个人担保》（NYSCEF Doc. No. 17）和《2013 年和解契据》（NYSCEF Doc. No. 18）。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 接收于 NYSCEF：09/15/2020 案件号 Case 22-50073 文件 Doc 404-23 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 5 页，共 10 页\n\nKwok 现主张，由于他在驳回起诉动议中的主张要点以及法院的裁定均与不方便法院原则相关，因此（1）他实际上并未改变其关于文件真实性的立场，并且（2）法院实际上并未认定文件的真实性。这一论点是不正确的。Kwok 声称鉴于协议依其字面受香港法律管辖故本案应予驳回以有利于在香港解决，这必然要求 Kwok 作出主张且法院予以采纳：即这些协议是真实的，而非如 Kwok 现今所称的那样系伪造。\n\nKwok 进一步主张，无论如何都不能适用禁止反言原则，因为第一部门上诉法院撤销了本法院关于驳回起诉动议的决定，所以在合同是否真实这一问题上并未作出实体上的终局认定。这一论点并未得到第一部门上诉法院判例法的支持。司法禁止反言是一项衡平法原则，用于防止当事方在同一诉讼中改变其立场。参见如 Nestor 诉 Britt 案，270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000)（“根据司法禁止反言原则，或禁止采取不一致立场原则，禁止当事方不公正地采取与其在同一程序中先前所持立场直接相反或不一致的立场。”）。事实上，由于司法禁止反言是用以防止当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场——终局认定不能作为司法禁止反言的先决条件。参见同上（禁止房东在上诉中依据与同一程序中审判法院层面所依据的不同的租约）。\n\n此外，本法院注意到，Kwok 在其任何一份答辩状中均未主张这些文件系伪造，而这是一项积极抗辩（affirmative defense）。参见如 Proner 诉 Julien & Schlesinger, P.C. 案，214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995)（准许修改诉状以增加伪造这一积极抗辩的动议）；Great Am. Ins. Co. 诉 Giardino 案，71 A.D.2d\n\n836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979)（认定“鉴于被告提出了伪造的积极抗辩，关于被告笔迹的证据具有实质性”）。\n\nKwok 最近关于这些协议系伪造的无佐证断言与其在此前诉讼中的立场不一致——因此构成了适用司法禁止反言的适当依据。据此，Kwok 关于重新辩论的交叉动议被驳回，且 Kwok 先前提交的协议在评估原告的部分即决判决动议时被接受为真实文件。\n\nPacific Alliance 的动议\n\n本法院准许原告 Pacific Alliance 的即决判决动议，认定被告 Kwok 根据 2011 年个人担保承担违约责任。根据 2013 年和解契据的明文条款，未能在 2015 年 6 月 30 日之前满足和解的先决条件，将导致恢复 2011 年个人担保的完全效力。参见 NYSCEF Doc. 461。\n\n第 3.4 条：2013 年 7 月 31 日后额度函的恢复。如果针对所有公寓在第 3.2 条中规定的所有先决条件在 2013 年 7 月 31 日（或双方书面同意的较晚日期［根据第四份也是最后一份补充和解契据，此处为 2015 年 6 月 30 日］）前未能得到满足，则本契据项下拟定的整个和解应予终止，且双方确认，该额度函应在 2013 年 7 月 31 日（或双方书面同意的较晚日期）后立即恢复并具有完全的法律效力，且 Shiny Times 有义务根据该额度函的条款和条件清偿全部未偿还金额及其上产生的任何利息。（强调为后加）。\n\n亦参见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 472 “第四份补充和解契据”（将满足先决条件的日期修改为“2015 年 6 月 30 日”）。\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance 已经证明，且被告 Kwok 未能反驳，《2013 年和解契据》中的若干先决条件未得到履行。换言之，被告 Kwok 未能交付无瑕疵的产权，未能向原告提供购买\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 接收于 NYSCEF：09/15/2020 案件号 Case 22-50073 文件 Doc 404-23 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 7 页，共 10 页\n\n公寓的发票，未能向原告提供有关支付与买卖公寓相关的所有税费的证明，且未能向原告交付任何一套公寓的房屋所有权证。参见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 第 3.2 条 (e)(g)(h)(i)。\n\nKwok 对这些条件从未得到满足并无异议。相反，在抗辩中，Kwok 主张原告 Pacific Alliance 在据称未抓住在北京警方协助下潜在扣押这三套公寓的机会时，未能减轻其损害。\n\n首先，即使采信 Kwok 对事件的陈述为真，减轻损失涉及的是损害赔偿问题，而非责任问题，因此这些事件不会阻碍就责任部分作出部分即决判决。其次，正如双方提交的书证所证明的那样，所谓的在警方协助下占有这三套公寓的机会仅在 2015 年 6 月之后才出现，因此《2013 年和解契据》当时已全部无效，而《2011 年个人担保》已具有完全效力。第三，Kwok 在其任何一份答辩状中均从未主张过减轻损失，而这是一项积极抗辩。参见如 Eskenazi 诉 Mackoul 案，72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010)（提及“未减轻损害的积极抗辩”）。\n\n最后，根据香港法律，当事人仅须采取合理行动以减轻损害。参见 Vishal Prakash Melwani 的确认书第 17.2 段（NYSCEF 档号 535）以及 Phillip Loukis Georgiou 的确认书（NYSCEF 档号 498）第 18.3 段和第 21 段。目前的记录表明，要利用北京警方所谓的提议，Pacific Alliance（太盟）本需要为每套房产支付 3500 万人民币 [约合 550 万美元] 才能使其获得解封。参见 NYSCEF 档号 519 PAX-KWOK-017288。为了获得双方原本已同意无偿转让以清偿债务的资产而支付约 1600 万美元的前景，根据香港法律，可能不构成减轻损害的合理机会。尽管如此，法院对损害赔偿问题保留裁决。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-23 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of 10\n\n根据 2011 年《个人担保书》\n\n- 郭“不可撤销且无条件地……向 PAX [Pacific Alliance] 担保 Shiny Times [耀胜公司] [在 2011 年贷款协议项下] 的[债]务的按期足额支付，并同意在 PAX 提出要求时，其将立即向 PAX 支付所有到期但未付的[债]务”；\n- 郭“不可撤销且无条件地同意（作为主债务人而不仅作为保证人），在 PAX 提出要求时，对 PAX 因 [Shiny Times 的] 任何[债]务因任何原因对 Shiny Times 成为或变为无效、可撤销、不可执行或不具约束力而遭受的任何及所有损失予以赔偿并使其免受损害……”；\n- 郭同意其“在本担保书项下的……义务应构成且为持续性义务，不因 [Shiny Times 在 2011 年贷款协议项下] 的[债]务或其中任何部分的任何中期支付而被免除或解除，且应持续完全有效，直至[该等债]务被无条件且不可撤销地全额支付和清偿，并且该等义务是对 PAX 在任何时候就[该等债]务或其中任何部分可能持有的任何其他担保（或任何抵销权）的补充且相互独立，不得损害该等担保或与该等担保发生混同；”\n- 允许 PAX 作为主债务人直接向郭追偿，而无需先对 Shiny Times 强制执行债务；以及\n- 郭同意概括性放弃基于“可能产生免除、损害或以其他方式影响担保人或任何债务，或本担保书或法律赋予 [PAX LP] 的任何权利、权力及救济之任何其他行为、事件或不作为”的任何抗辩。\n\n郭并未主张其本人或 Shiny Times 曾根据 2011 年《贷款协议》或 2011 年《个人担保书》进行过任何付款以清偿该债务。因此，法院认定郭对违反 2011 年《个人担保书》承担责任。\n\n结论\n\n本案中的剩余争议——修订起诉书第二项罪名项——旨在主张郭的两家公司，即 Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation，作为其替身（alter egos）对郭欠 Pacific Alliance 的债务承担责任。本诉讼原定于 2020 年 10 月 5 日进行陪审团审判。鉴于 Covid-19 疫情，法院无法在该日期进行陪审团审判，审判改期至 2021 年 1 月 15 日。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-23 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of 10\n\n据此，特此：\n\n裁定驳回被告郭的重审附带动议；并且进一步\n\n裁定支持原告就修订起诉书第一项罪名项提出的即决判决动议，判决 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）胜诉，并判决 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，又名 Kwok Ho、GWO Wen Gui、Gui Wengui、Guo Wen-Gui、Wan Gue Haoyun、Miles Kwok、Haoyun Guo/郭文贵）败诉，以认定被告郭承担违约责任为限；并且进一步\n\n裁定原告应不迟于 2020 年 10 月 14 日通过在材料递交法庭可答辩的动议通知提出动议，通过提供基于亲知亲见的宣誓书以及可采纳形式的证据，确立第一项罪名项下的损害赔偿，说明 2011 年《个人担保书》项下到期未付的本金金额、2011 年《个人担保书》项下适用的利率以及利息起算日期，以便法院书记官能够计算截至判决录入之日到期未付的总金额；并且进一步\n\n裁定原告应同时提出判给律师费和费用的动议，列明原告所依据的文件并附上所提供服务的发票；并且进一步\n\n裁定双方当事人于 2020 年 12 月 22 日上午 10:20 出庭参加案件进展会议。\n\n日期：2020 年 9 月 15 日\n\n勾选一项：案件已结　X　非终局处置\n\n全部支持　驳回　X　部分支持　其他\n申请：拟定裁定书　提交裁定书\n如适用请勾选：包含移交/重新指派　指定受托人　移交案件","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","CIPA","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":121,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":461,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2740,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:27:17"}