{"id":"court_ctb_430_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":430,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-24","title":"EXHIBIT B Remand Motion","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 1 of 42\n\n### **EXHIBIT B**\n\nRemand Motion\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 1 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 2 of 42\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MANHATTAN DIVISION**\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nCase No. 22-01073-dsj\n\nv.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nDefendants.\n\n# **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION TO REMAND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ABSTENTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1)**\n\nTO THE HONORABLE DAVID S. JONES, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully moves this Court for\n\nan order remanding this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New\n\nYork: Commercial Division (Justice Ostrager presiding) (the \"New York Court\") or, in the\n\nalternative, for an order abstaining from determining this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n\n§ 1334(c)(1).\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n### **Page**\n\n| | | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | | |\n|---------------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| BACKGROUND 3 | | | | |\n| ARGUMENT 14 | | | | |\n| I. | | THIS ACTION MUST BE REMANDED BECAUSE THE COURT
LACKS JURISDICTION UNDER THE ROOKER-FELDMAN
DOCTRINE. 14 | | |\n| II. | | ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM
EXERCISING JURISDICTION. 20 | | |\n| | A | The Mandatory Abstention Doctrine Precludes the Court From
Exercising Its Authority Over the New York Action. 20 | | |\n| | B | Even if Mandatory Abstention Does Not Apply, The Court Should
Decline to Hear the Action Under the Permissive Abstention
Doctrine 27 | | |\n| | | CONCLUSION 33 | | |\n\n**Page(s)**\n\n# **Cases**\n\n| 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.,
No. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL 2012296 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) 29, 30 | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Acolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of New York,
69 B.R. 155 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986) 21 | |\n| Baker v. Simpson,
613 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2010) 20, 22, 23, 24 | |\n| Balcor/Morristown Ltd. Partnership v. Vector Whippany Associates,
181 B.R. 781 (D. N.J. 1995) 31 | |\n| Beard v. Braunstein,
914 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1990) 23 | |\n| Butner v. United States,
440 U.S. 48 (1979) 25 | |\n| Campbell v. Greisberger,
80 F.3d 703 (2d Cir. 1996) 14 | |\n| Catalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue,
279 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2002) 19 | |\n| Cornell v. Burke,
559 F. App'x 577 (7th Cir. 2014) 18 | |\n| D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983) 14 | |\n| Del. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A.,
534 B.R. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) 21, 23, 26, 28 | |\n| Deloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP,
31 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011) 22 | |\n| Holblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections,
422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) 15, 16, 17 | |\n| In re AHT Corp.,
265 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001) 22 | |\n\n(continued)\n\n**Page(s)**\n\n| In re Ameribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc.,
399 B.R. 129 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 33 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re Briarpatch Film Corp.,
281 B.R. 820 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 29, 30, 31, 32 |\n| In re CitX Corp.,
302 B.R. 144 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003) 19 |\n| In re Coudert Bros.,
No. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) 20, 23, 25 |\n| In re Drauschak,
481 B.R. 330 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) 32 |\n| In re Eight-115 Associates, LLC,
626 B.R. 383 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021) 21, 22 |\n| In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico,
899 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2018) 19 |\n| In re Freehand H.J., Inc.,
No. 07 0157, 2007 WL 2071877 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007) 14 |\n| In re Ivani,
308 B.R. 132 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004) 18 |\n| In re Knapper,
407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) 17 |\n| In re Kurimsky,
No. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) 14, 17 |\n| In re Lyondell Chem. Co.,
402 B.R. 596 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 20, 30 |\n| In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.,
419 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2005) 23 |\n| In re Orion Pictures Corp.,
4 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1993) 23 |\n| In re Pacheco,
616 B.R. 126 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020) 14 |\n\n(continued)\n\n| Page(s) | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re Rodriguez,
No. 18-14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019) 28, 32 | |\n| In re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc.,
45 F.3d 702 (2d Cir. 1995) 21 | |\n| In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC,
475 B.R. 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 22, 23 | |\n| In re Stahl,
526 F. App'x 179 (3d Cir. 2013) 18 | |\n| In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 28 | |\n| In re: Genever Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 8 | |\n| In re: Ho Wan Kwok,
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn. 2 | |\n| Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.,
62 B.R. 723 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 18 | |\n| Juidice v. Vail,
430 U.S. 327 (1977) 18 | |\n| Kelleran v. Andrijevic,
825 F.2d 692 (2d Cir. 1987) 30 | |\n| KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.,
600 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) passim | |\n| Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Exploration & Development II, L.P.,
487 B.R. 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 22 | |\n| Loudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co.,
481 B.R. 388 (S.D.W. Va. 2012) 19 | |\n| M.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC,
2021 WL 5046216 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021) 33 | |\n| Marciano v. White,
431 F. App'x 611 (9th Cir. 2011) 18, 28 | |\n\n(continued)\n\n**Page(s)**\n\n| McKithen v. Brown,
626 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) 2, 14, 16 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Parmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
639 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 2011) 23, 26, 27 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) passim |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 2021-00740 (N.Y. App. Div.) 7 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.) 10 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.) 12 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 1, 3, 13 |\n| PAX. v. Genever Holdings Corp., et al.,
Case No. BVICOM2020/0137 (BVI) 6 |\n| PAX. v. Kwok,
Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) passim |\n| Perkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC,
773 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2011) 15 |\n| Phifer v. City of New York,
289 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002) 14 |\n| Rahl v. Bande,
316 B.R. 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 28 |\n| Robinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc.,
No. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017) 15, 16 |\n| Robinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co.,
918 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1990) 22 |\n| Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923) 14 |\n\n(continued)\n\n**Page(s)**\n\n| Rose v. Cty. of York,
No. CIV.A. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007) 17, 32 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Sindone v. Kelly,
439 F.Supp.2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 16 |\n| Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.,
549 U.S. 422 (2007) 1 |\n| Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair,
No. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012) 3, 14 |\n| Stern v. Marshall,
564 U.S. 462 (2011) 22 |\n| Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
773 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2014) 14 |\n| Worldview Entertainment Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow,
611 B.R. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 26, 27 |\n| Statutes |\n| 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) 20, 21 |\n| 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 1 |\n| 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 20 |\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 8 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 9 of 42\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT[1](#page-8-1)**\n\nKwok's Notice of Removal[2](#page-8-2) is the latest in a long series of improper delay tactics designed to avoid paying state court judgments totaling over \\$250 million and to re-litigate issues already decided by the New York Court.\n\nThe underlying dispute is straightforward. In March 2011, Kwok personally guaranteed a debt of more than \\$46 million owed to PAX.[3](#page-8-3) For years, Kwok evaded PAX's collection efforts, and no portion of the guaranteed debt has been repaid. PAX filed this breach-of-contract action against Kwok in New York in 2017 (the \"New York Action\"). In February 2021, PAX secured a judgment in the New York Action for over \\$116 million. [4](#page-8-4) Currently, two appeals are pending in the New York action: (i) on the merits of the breach of contract judgment and (ii) a final civil contempt order against Kwok for \\$134 million for failing to return the Lady May yacht—which\n\n1 All exhibit citations are to the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of PAX's Motion to Remand (\"Friedman Decl.\"). Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and all internal quotations are omitted.\n\n2 Kwok filed a notice of removal of the New York Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1. Kwok later moved for entry of an order transferring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1412 and Rule 7087 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1. The parties stipulated that a transfer would serve the interests of justice, and would foster the economic and efficient administration of the estate. *See* 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a). Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1. In so doing, PAX expressly preserved its right to seek timely remand of the New York Action on any proper ground. *Id.* (citing *Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp*., 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007) (A district court may properly transfer an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), \"bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.\")). 3 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 5–7.\n\n4 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok et al.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 716 at 2.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 9 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 10 of 42\n\nthe New York Court found Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls\"[5](#page-9-0) —to New York in connection with PAX's post-judgment collection efforts. [6](#page-9-1)\n\nKwok's Notice of Removal—attaching PAX's April 2019 amended complaint in the New York Action (the \"Amended Complaint\")[7](#page-9-2) —alleges that this Court has original jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 1334(e). This is a transparently inappropriate attempt to have this Court act as an appellate court over the New York Court and to allow Kwok to re-litigate issues already fully heard and decided against him in New York.\n\nThe Court should remand the action to the New York Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, abstain from exercising jurisdiction, for two principal reasons.\n\n*First*, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the New York Action under the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine. The New York Court already considered and rejected Kwok's arguments on the same two claims he seeks to remove, which resulted in judgments holding that Kwok (i) is liable under the 2011 guarantee and (ii) is in contempt of court for 268 days in a manner that undermined the rule of law. Those judgments are now before the New York appellate court. Kwok is the textbook \"state-court loser[]\" seeking improper federal court appellate review of a state court judgment. *McKithen v. Brown*, 626 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair*, No. 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at \\*5\n\n5 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt.. No. 1181 (\"Final Contempt Order\") at 4.\n\n6 PAX has a pending request for relief to permit it to seek limited enforcement of the contempt order. *See In re: Ho Wan Kwok*, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., Mot. of PAX 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, Mar. 1, 2022, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n7 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 10 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 11 of 42\n\n(D.N.J. July 30, 2012) (\"the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the state court's entry of summary judgment\").\n\n*Second*, even if this Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, abstention is appropriate here. The New York Action—a breach-of-contract dispute involving a pre-petition contract and a pre-petition contempt order issued against Kwok for his contumacious behavior is a \"non-core\" proceeding under well-established caselaw, and thus mandatory abstention applies. But even if the New York Action were a \"core\" bankruptcy proceeding, equitable factors nevertheless warrant permissible abstention. For example, the New York Court has fully ruled on the merits—leaving little to nothing for the Court to adjudicate, and Kwok's removal petition is naked forum shopping for the purpose of escaping sanctions for his defiance of the New York Court. It would be an improper disruption of federal-state comity for this Court to assert control over and review contempt proceedings issued by the New York Court.\n\nFor these and the other reasons explained below, the New York Action should be remanded.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\nPAX sued Kwok in April 2017 in New York, asserting a breach-of-contract claim under Hong Kong law against Kwok. In April 2019, PAX added a veil-piercing claim against Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI,\" and together with Genever NY, (the \"Genever defendants\").[8](#page-10-1) PAX prevailed on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim in September 2020 and judgment was entered in February 2021.[9](#page-10-2) Since then, PAX has been attempting to collect against Kwok by focusing primarily on two high-value\n\n8 *Id.*\n\n9 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549; Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 716.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 11 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 12 of 42\n\nassets: a luxury apartment in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel in New York City that Kwok owns through nested shell companies (the \"Residence\"), and the Lady May yacht.\n\n### **Kwok's Breach of Contract**\n\nIn 2008, PAX entered into an agreement with a Kwok-controlled entity, Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit Charter\"), under which PAX provided Spirit Charter with a loan facility of \\$30 million.[10](#page-11-0) Kwok simultaneously executed a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's loan.[11](#page-11-1) In 2009, Spirit Charter executed a deed (\"2009 Deed of Settlement\") under which another Kwok-controlled entity, Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), assumed the debt that Spirit Charter owed PAX.[12](#page-11-2) Kwok again executed a personal guarantee to secure Shiny Times' repayment obligation.[13](#page-11-3)\n\nPAX and Shiny Times entered into a new loan facility in 2011 that superseded the 2009 Deed of Settlement.[14](#page-11-4) Kwok also entered into a new personal guarantee (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\"), which superseded the 2009 guarantee.[15](#page-11-5) The 2011 Personal Guarantee provided, among other things, that Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally … guarantee[s] to PAX the due and punctual payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Loan Facility] and agree[s] that promptly on PAX's demand he will pay to PAX all [o]obligations that are due but unpaid.\"[16](#page-11-6)\n\n15 *Id.*\n\n10 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 1.\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 *Id.* at 1–2.\n\n13 *Id.* at 2.\n\n14 *Id.*\n\n16 *Id.* at 7.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 12 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 13 of 42\n\nIn April 2013, the parties entered into another deed of settlement (\"2013 Deed of Settlement\"), under which the outstanding loan amount due to PAX would be settled if PAX received possession of and legal title to three apartments from a different Kwok business entity called Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\").[17](#page-12-0) Under the 2013 Deed of Settlement, Beijing Pangu was required to satisfy ten conditions precedent in connection with the transfer to PAX of the three apartments, and if any were not satisfied by June 2013, the 2013 Deed of Settlement would terminate, and the 2011 Loan Facility and Personal Guarantee would revert to full force and effect.[18](#page-12-1) PAX and Kwok subsequently executed four extensions to the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the last of which required that all ten conditions precedent be satisfied by June 2015.[19](#page-12-2) Kwok failed to satisfy timely all of the conditions,[20](#page-12-3) triggering the revival the 2011 Personal Guarantee.[21](#page-12-4)\n\nBy the time Kwok executed the final Deed of Settlement extension, and unbeknownst to PAX, Kwok had fled China. Kwok then purchased the Residence in March 2015 for \\$67.5 million through an entity called Genever NY (a New York LLC), which is wholly owned by Genever BVI (a British Virgin Islands company).[22](#page-12-5) Kwok is the sole shareholder and director of\n\n17 *Id.* at 4.\n\n18 *Id.*\n\n19 *Id.*\n\n20 *Id.* at 5. Namely, Kwok failed (i) to deliver clean title, (ii) to provide PAX with an invoice for the purchase of the apartments, (iii) to provide PAX with evidence regarding the payment of relevant taxes and charges in connection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and (iv) to deliver the house ownership certificates of any of the three apartments to PAX. *Id.* at 5–6. 21 *Id.* at 5.\n\n22 Friedman Decl., Ex. 10, Residence Purchase Application, *PAX. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 256 at SN 0046–47; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, Genever NY LLC Agreement, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 252 at SN 0198–206.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 13 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 14 of 42\n\nGenever BVI.[23](#page-13-0) Also around this time, the Lady May was purchased for €28 million through Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"), a Hong Kong company that Kwok set up and funded in 2006 and solely owned and controlled for 8 years before transferring it to a family\n\nbusiness associate for no consideration in October 2014, right before he fled China.[24](#page-13-1) In 2017,\n\nthe Lady May was transferred, again for no consideration, to Hong Kong International Funds\n\nInvestments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"Hong Kong International USA\"), a Delaware LLC\n\ntechnically owned by his daughter, Mei Guo. [25](#page-13-2)\n\nIn April 2017, after two demand letters by PAX went unanswered by Kwok or his\n\ncompanies, PAX filed the New York Action. [26](#page-13-3) After approximately three years of proceedings,\n\nthe New York Court granted partial summary judgment in PAX's favor on September 15, 2020\n\non the breach-of-contract claim (the \"Summary Judgment Order\").[27](#page-13-4) The New York Court\n\n23 Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, Genever BVI Corporate Documents, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 252 at SN 0158–163. In addition to the New York Action, PAX also initiated ancillary proceedings in the in the British Virgin Island High Court Commercial Court Division (\"BVI Court\") in order to prevent a transfer of the a Residence at the parent level. Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1089.\n\n24 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 4.\n\n25 As an interim measure, Kwok's family business associate transferred the parked title to HK International to Kwok's daughter for no consideration in June 2017. *Id.*\n\n26 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n27 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 7. It should be noted that the only defense to summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim that Kwok even tried to muster was the bogus claim that the 2011 Personal Guarantee—which Kwok himself proffered in evidence, produced from his own files, admitted was authentic and relied on for several years in the litigation—somehow was a forgery. The New York Court properly determined that Kwok was estopped from raising that defense at summary judgment or trial, and it is distressing to hear Kwok's bankruptcy counsel perpetuate that obviously false narrative in presentations before this Court. Indeed, all one need look at to understand that Kwok's representation that he did not sign the 2011 Guarantee is perjurious is the contemporaneous email from his then lawyers at Stevenson, Wong & Co. in Hong Kong to PAX the same morning Kwok executed that guarantee, which provides\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 14 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 15 of 42\n\nordered PAX to move to establish damages as to the amount due and owing under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, including applicable interest.[28](#page-14-0) On December 18, 2020, the New York Court awarded PAX \"damages of \\$46,426,489.00 plus contractual interest pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010 and at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of entry of this decision and order.\"[29](#page-14-1) This judgment was entered on February 3, 2021 in the amount of \\$116,402,019.57.[30](#page-14-2)\n\nOn March 4, 2021, Kwok appealed the Summary Judgment Order.[31](#page-14-3) The appeal was fully briefed on October 15, 2021 and argued on December 6, 2021.[32](#page-14-4) The appeal is pending in the New York Appellate Division, First Department, but is stayed due to Kwok's chapter 11 filing.\n\nThe New York Court was scheduled to adjudicate PAX's veil-piercing claim against the Genever defendants in January 2021.[33](#page-14-5) Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that proceeding was postponed. On October 12, 2020, Genever NY filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, staying PAX's judgment efforts against the\n\n"Attached [] find herewith documents signed by Mr. Kwok Ho Wan for your further handling.\" *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, at PAX-KWOK-017468.\n\n28 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 8.\n\n29 Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision & Order on Damages, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 685 at 5.\n\n30 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 716 at 2.\n\n31 Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Notice of Appeal, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 725*.*\n\n32 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 16, Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellant, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021- 00740 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 16.\n\n33 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 716 at 5.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 15 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 16 of 42\n\nGenever defendants.[34](#page-15-0) The New York Bankruptcy Court later granted stay relief to allow PAX to prosecute, and Genever NY to defend, the state court action.[35](#page-15-1) As explained below, PAX later successfully moved for turnover of Kwok's shares of Genever BVI under New York CPLR§ 5225, although—as he did with regard to the New York Court's order regarding the yacht—Kwok to date has also entirely flouted that turnover order by failing to take any of the steps necessary to effect the transfer of his Genever BVI shares to PAX. [36](#page-15-2)\n\n### **Post-Judgment Asset Discovery**\n\nShortly after the New York Court issued the Summary Judgment Order, PAX moved for a post-judgment restraining order under CPLR § 5229.[37](#page-15-3) On September 30, 2020, the New York Court restrained Kwok from, among other things, \"interfer[ing] with any property in which he has an interest.\"[38](#page-15-4) On October 15, 2020 the New York Court clarified its prior restraining order, expressly holding Kwok \"restrained 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\n\n34 Friedman Decl., Ex. 17, Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, *In re: Genever Holdings, LLC*, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n35 Friedman Decl., Ex. 18, Order Granting Debtor's Second Renewed Motion to Approve the Revised Settlement Agreement, *In re: Genever Holdings, LLC*, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 141.\n\n36 Friedman Decl., Ex. 19, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2-17 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904. PAX subsequently moved for an order of civil contempt. Friedman Decl., Ex. 20, Notice of Motion for Order of Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court's Turnover Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078. The motion was fully briefed when Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition. Friedman Decl., Ex. 21, PAX's Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. for Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116.\n\n37 Friedman Decl., Ex. 22, PAX's CPLR 5229 Mot. and Request for TRO, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 576.\n\n38 Friedman Decl., Ex. 23, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 16 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 17 of 42\n\n….\"[39](#page-16-0) The New York Court's October 15, 2020 order (the \"Restraining Order\") identified the Residence and the Lady May, stating that \"[s]pecifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, 'the Lady May' are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\"[40](#page-16-1) The New York Court also held that PAX was entitled to post-judgment discovery regarding the Residence, the Lady May, and any other assets that Kwok directly or indirectly owns.[41](#page-16-2)\n\nPAX then undertook a year-long effort to enforce its judgment. As the New York Court recognized, \"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 ….\"[42](#page-16-3) PAX's efforts were further thwarted by Kwok's broad invocation of his Fifth Amendment right in connection with PAX's post-judgment discovery requests. [43](#page-16-4)\n\n### **Lady May Contempt Proceedings**\n\nDespite the New York Court's restraining orders, [44](#page-16-5) Kwok allowed the Lady May to flee New York on or around October 9, 2021.[45](#page-16-6) PAX filed and the New York Court granted its\n\n39 Friedman Decl., Ex. 24, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630 at 1.\n\n40 *Id.*\n\n41 *Id.* at 2.\n\n42 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 1.\n\n43 *Id.* at 2, 9–10.\n\n44 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 23, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591; Friedman Decl., Ex. 24, Decision & Order on\n\nMotion, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630.\n\n45 Friedman Decl., Ex. 25, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 17 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 18 of 42\n\nmotion for a conditional order of civil contempt on March 16, 2021, explaining that \"it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit in proceedings before this New York Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht 'Lady May' …. Rather than catalogue the many 'shell games' defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better\" \"[f]or every day the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000.\"[46](#page-17-0)\n\nKwok appealed the New York Court's order to the First Department, but remained in contempt for 268 days.[47](#page-17-1) The First Department affirmed the New York Court's March 16, 2021 order on November 4, 2021,[48](#page-17-2) finding that \"[t]he 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.\"[49](#page-17-3) The First Department held that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing.\"[50](#page-17-4) The First Department also \"instructed\" the New York Court \"to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht.\"[51](#page-17-5)\n\nhttp) (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n46 Friedman Decl., Ex. 26, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 728 at 2.\n\n47 Friedman Decl., Ex. 27, Notice of Appeal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n48 Friedman Decl., Ex. 28, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 17. 49 *Id.* at 1.\n\n50 *Id* at 2.\n\n51 *Id.* Kwok filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals on December 3, 2021, which was denied by the First Department on January 20, 2022. Friedman Decl., Ex. 29, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 22.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 18 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 19 of 42\n\nThat evidentiary hearing was held on February 2, 2022, and the New York Court heard testimony from seven witnesses, including Kwok's daughter, who is the sole member of Hong Kong International USA, the purported owner of the Lady May.[52](#page-18-0) On February 9, 2022, the New York Court issued a final Order of Civil Contempt (the \"Final Contempt Order\"), noting that the New York Action's \"1,180 docket entries\" \"almost all [] involve defendant Kwok['s] efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\"[53](#page-18-1) The New York Court found that \"Kwok exercised dominion and control over [] the Lady May\"[54](#page-18-2) 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.\"[55](#page-18-3)\n\nThe New York Court concluded that \"[a]s of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days\" and imposed a \\$134 million fine. Kwok was ordered to remit \\$134 million to PAX within five business days or the Court would be \"prepared to exercise its full authority Judiciary Law § 753,\" New York's civil contempt provision.[56](#page-18-4)\n\n52 Friedman Decl., Ex. 30, Third Interim Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1098.\n\n53 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 1.\n\n54 *Id.* at 2.\n\n55 *Id.* at 4.\n\n56 *Id.* at 10; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 31, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 19 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 20 of 42\n\nOn February 14, 2022, Kwok filed a notice of appeal of the Final Contempt Order and requested an emergency interim stay pending appeal.[57](#page-19-0) The Appellate Division, First Department denied Kwok's interim stay request the next day.[58](#page-19-1) On February 15, Kwok filed for bankruptcy. Notably, Kwok had not filed for bankruptcy when judgment was rendered against him on the underlying breach of contract claim. Equally notable, Kwok's bankruptcy petition lists \\$50,001–\\$100,000 in assets[59](#page-19-2)—omitting the valuable Lady May, which remains outside of the United States,[60](#page-19-3) unsupervised by any trustworthy fiduciary.\n\n### **Genever BVI Turnover Proceedings**\n\nAs mentioned above, because they were the sole assets Kwok admitted owning, PAX moved for turnover of Kwok's shares in Genever BVI, the ultimate owner of the Residence, under CPLR § 5225. On September 22, 2021, the New York Court granted PAX's motion (the \"Genever Turnover Order\") and, subject to the BVI Court amending an existing restraining order (which it did in early December 2021), required Kwok to \"take whatever steps are necessary in the British Virgin Islands to turnover all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership interest in Genever Holdings Corporation.\"[61](#page-19-4) Kwok did not appeal the Genever Turnover Order, yet—true to form—flouted that order by failing and refusing to take any steps at all to effect the transfer of his Genever BVI shares to PAX.\n\n57 Ex. 32, Notice of Appeal, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1187.\n\n58 Friedman Decl., Ex. 33, Summary Statement on Application for Expedited Service and/or Interim Relief, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 5. 59 Voluntary Chapter 11 Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 7.\n\n\n\n60 Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer,\n\nhttp (last accessed on April 12, 2022).\n\n61 Friedman Decl., Ex. 19, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904 at 1.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 20 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 21 of 42\n\nAs a result, on January 7, 2022, PAX moved for another order of civil contempt.[62](#page-20-0) The motion was fully briefed on January 25, 2022.[63](#page-20-1) When Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition,[64](#page-20-2) the New York Court \"propose[d] that [PAX] either withdraw the pending contempt motion [] without prejudice to an appropriate application in the Bankruptcy Court and/or without prejudice to renewal before this Court, if appropriate, upon the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings.\"[65](#page-20-3) The New York Court explained that \"[t]he Court prefers not to keep fully submitted motions pending for an indefinite time.\"[66](#page-20-4) PAX subsequently withdrew its motion without prejudice.[67](#page-20-5)\n\n# **Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing and Notice of Removal**\n\nKwok filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Connecticut February 15, 2022.[68](#page-20-6)\n\nAs noted above, on March 18, 2022, Kwok removed the New York Action to the District Court\n\nfor the Southern District of New York before Kwok moved to transfer venue with PAX's\n\nconsent.[69](#page-20-7)\n\n62 Friedman Decl., Ex. 20, Notice of Motion for Order of Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court's Turnover Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078.\n\n63 Friedman Decl., Ex. 21, PAX's Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. for Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116.\n\n64 Friedman Decl., Ex. 34, Suggestion of Bankruptcy, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1190.\n\n65 Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Court Notice, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1191.\n\n66 *Id.*\n\n67 Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Decision & Order on Voluntary Withdrawal of Contempt Motion, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1193.\n\n68 Voluntary Chapter 11 Petition, Dkt. No. 1.\n\n69 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV\n\n(S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1; Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1.\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **I. THIS ACTION MUST BE REMANDED BECAUSE THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION UNDER THE** *ROOKER-FELDMAN* **DOCTRINE.**\n\nUnder the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine, federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that challenge state-court judgments. *Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.*, 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); *D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman*, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); *Phifer v. City of N.Y.*, 289 F.3d 49, 55–56 (2d Cir. 2002). In the Second Circuit, the preclusive nature of *Rooker-Feldman* extends to lower state court judgments, interlocutory decisions, and matters on appeal. *Campbell v. Greisberger*, 80 F.3d 703, 707 (2d Cir. 1996); *McKithen*, 626 F.3d at 154–55 (holding \"[t]he proper vehicle for [the Plaintiff] to challenge the state court's interpretation of section 440.30(1–a)(a) was an appeal to the New York Appellate Division\"). Bankruptcy courts have acknowledged *Rooker-Feldman*'s \"strong public policy grounded in the interest of comity between federal and state courts and the notion of federalism, that federal courts should not unnecessarily interfere with state court proceedings.\" *In re Pacheco*, 616 B.R. 126, 132–33 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020). In this context, the doctrine \"does not permit [the Bankruptcy Court] to disturb or disregard [a previous j]udgment,\" and courts have held that \"attempts to have it do so are an improper use of the Bankruptcy Court.\" *In re Kurimsky*, No. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) (Manning, C.J.). *See also Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair*, No. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at \\*5 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012) (holding that \"the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the state court's entry of summary judgment\"). When the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over removed claims, the case must be remanded. *Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.*, 773 F.3d 423, 427 (2d Cir. 2014); *In re Freehand H.J., Inc.*, No. 07-12172, 2007 WL 2071877, at \\*1 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007) (\"Because\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 22 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 23 of 42\n\nthis Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine, the adversary proceeding will be remanded to the state court.\").\n\nIn the Second Circuit, *Rooker-Feldman* applies if four requirements are met: \"(i) the federal court plaintiff must have lost in state court, (ii) the plaintiff must complain of injuries caused by a state court judgment, (iii) the plaintiff must invite district court review and rejection of that judgment, and (iv) the state court judgment must have been rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.\"[70](#page-22-0) *Holblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections*, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005). The first and fourth requirements are procedural, while the second and third are substantive. *Robinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc.*, No. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017).\n\nHere, the removed New York Action consists of PAX's two-count Amended Complaint, attached to PAX's Notice of Removal. Kwok's notice also refers to the New York Court's finding that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May, although it ignores the critical fact that those findings were issued in a contempt proceeding to vindicate the integrity of the New York Court.[71](#page-22-1) Kwok brings no other independent claim. Kwok accordingly appears to be\n\n70 PAX invokes *Rooker-Feldman* against the losing state court *defendant*, but the same four factor test applies. *E.g.*, *Perkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC*, 773 F. Supp. 2d 553, 558 (E.D. Pa. 2011).\n\n71 Although Kwok's removal notice is required to contain a statement of the facts that purportedly justify his notice to remove, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027, in his Objection to PAX's motion to confirm the inapplicability of the stay to the Final Contempt Order, Kwok previewed his intent to attempt to re-litigate the issue of ownership of the Lady May. He asserted that the Final Contempt Order was \"wrongfully issued against him\" and that Kwok's interest in the Lady May is \"ultimately [to] *be determined*.\" Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 (Mar. 15, 2022), at ¶¶ 4, 14. As noted in footnote 24 above, Kwok also continues to assert, disingenuously and against the weight of overwhelming evidence—including Kwok proffering of the very document to the NY Court and admitting and stipulating to its authenticity—that his 2011 Personal Guarantee somehow was a \"forgery,\" Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 at ¶ 12, an argument squarely rejected by the New York Court. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 3 (\"Kwok was\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 23 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 24 of 42\n\nchallenging in federal court: (1) the Summary Judgment Order issued on September 15, 2020 (which resulted in a judgment entered against Kwok on February 3, 2021); and (2) the Final Contempt Order issued on February 9, 2022,[72](#page-23-0) requiring Kwok to remit \\$134 million to PAX and holding that Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls\" the Lady May. Both judgments easily satisfy the four *Rooker-Feldman* requirements.\n\n*First*, Kwok is a \"state-court loser\" with respect to the two judgments because both were issued in PAX's favor. *McKithen*, 626 F.3d at 154.\n\n*Second*, Kwok is complaining of \"injuries\" imposed by the New York Court. *Rooker-Feldman* is applicable where, as here, \"*the state court itself is the decision-maker* whose action produces the injury.\" *Sindone v. Kelly*, 439 F. Supp. 2d 268, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); *see, e.g.*, *Robinson*, 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3 (holding that \"the causal requirement—the second prong—is satisfied because it is the state court foreclosure judgment that has caused Plaintiff's injury\"). In *Hoblock*, for example, after first noting that the \"voters' claims in this case seem at first to complain only of the [Board of Elections'] refusal to tally their votes rather than of any injury caused by the state court's judgment,\" the court clarified that \"in refusing to tally the votes, the Board [was] acting under compulsion of a state-court order.\" 422 F.3d at 88. Thus, \"the statecourt judgment produced the Board's refusal to count the ballots, the very injury of which the\n\njudicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of the agreements that Kwok had previously sponsored as authentic before the Court in this proceeding.\"). Kwok is bound by these findings.\n\n72 On March 1, 2022, PAX moved the bankruptcy court for an order confirming its right to institute further proceedings to enforce the Final Contempt Order or, in the alternative, relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and Rule 4001of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to permit enforcement of the Final Contempt Order, except to the extent it requires Kwok to immediately pay money to PAX. *See In re: Ho Wan Kwok*, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., PAX's Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 24 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 25 of 42\n\nvoters complain.\" *Id.* at 89. Similarly here, Kwok seeks to avoid the New York Court's \"power of compulsion\" that entered judgments against him in excess of \\$250 million and its holding that, under New York law, Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May.[73](#page-24-0)\n\n*Third*, Kwok plainly seeks direct federal court review and reversal of the two state court judgments. Kwok buries the lead in a footnote, acknowledging that removal is a collateral attack on the Final Contempt Order. Kwok's footnote provides: \"The 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\"[74—](#page-24-1)and then invites this Court to \"[re-]determine what is (or is not) property of the estate.\"[75](#page-24-2) Kwok's removal attempt is a thinly-veiled gambit at improper federal court review, an impermissible \"end-run around the state court appeals process\" and \"an impermissible collateral attack on the contempt charge.\" *See Rose v. Cnty. of York,* No. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682, at \\*3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007); *In re Kurimsky*, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5 (applying *Rooker-Feldman* where the prior court held that \"Avail-1, LLC *owns the secured debt*,\" and the bankruptcy court complaint alleged that it did not) (emphasis added).\n\n*Rooker-Feldman* does not allow Kwok to seek relief that, if granted, would prevent the New York Court from enforcing its orders. *In re Knapper*, 407 F.3d 573, 581 (3d Cir. 2005). The doctrine accordingly applies especially to state court contempt proceedings, where federalism concerns are particularly strong. *Cornell v. Burke*, 559 F. App'x 577, 579 (7th Cir. 2014) (\"Because a contempt order qualifies as a state-court judgment, *Rooker-Feldman* divests\n\n73 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 4.\n\n74 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 7 n.1.\n\n75 *Id.* at ¶ 5.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 25 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 26 of 42\n\nthe district court of jurisdiction to review it.\"). The ability of a court to issue contempt orders and award sanctions \"lies at the core of the administration of a State's judicial system.\" *Marciano v. White*, 431 F. App'x 611, 614 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing *Juidice v. Vail*, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1977)). In *In re Ivani*, 308 B.R. 132, 137 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004), for example, the court denied the debtor's motion to reverse the New York state court contempt finding under *Rooker-Feldman* because \"the [d]ebtor's argument will succeed only if this Court finds that the [state court] made an incorrect determination and overrules that determination.\" *See also Int'l Distrib. Ctrs., Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.*, 62 B.R. 723, 729–30 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (recognizing the state court's \"inherent power to punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of either the state or federal court, is not curtailed by the bankruptcy action\"); *see In re Stahl*, 526 F. App'x 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2013) (recognizing that challenge to state court summary judgment order disguised as a notice of removal pursuant to Fed. Bankr. P. 9027 would be barred by *Rooker-Feldman*).\n\n*Fourth*, both of the New York Court's judgments—entered on February 3, 2021 and February 9, 2022 respectively—were issued before Kwok's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 filing.[76](#page-25-0)\n\nBecause the four *Rooker-Feldman* factors are met, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the New York Action.\n\nKwok's red-herring assertion that the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over the Lady May, and thus the New York Action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e), is wrong as a matter of\n\n76 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No 716; Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181; Friedman Decl., Ex. 31, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 26 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 27 of 42\n\nlaw. While it is correct that the bankruptcy court has exclusive *in rem* jurisdiction \"of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate.\"[77](#page-26-0) 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e), the exclusive jurisdiction granted by § 1334(e)(1) \"is only in *rem*.\" *Loudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co.*, 481 B.R. 388, 394 (S.D. W. Va. 2012) (citing *In re CitX Corp.*, 302 B.R. 144, 161 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003)). Section 1334(e) does not extend to *in personam* breach-of-contract actions, like this one, that \"seek[] to establish personal liability of the debtor on a claim, but [are not] specifically targeted to ownership of, or rights in and to, property of the estate.\" *Id.* In fact, the Final Contempt Order applies to Kwok *personally*; Kwok could have complied with the Order, but has refused to do so.\n\nAnd of course, any effort to have this case heard in federal court on § 1334(e)(1) grounds would be mooted if the bankruptcy court grants PAX's 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.[78](#page-26-1) It is well within this Court's powers to permit the New York Court to oversee actions related to the Lady May. *See In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico*, 899 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 2018) (recognizing that Section 1334(e) does not \"limit[] the bankruptcy court's power to allow others to act on the debtor's property,\" including permitting a non-bankruptcy court to \"grant leave to allow a creditor to sell a debtor's property\" (citing *Catalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue*, 279 F.3d 682, 687 (9th Cir. 2002)).\n\n77 PAX acknowledges that liquidation of the Lady May, which the New York Court found Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls,\" and distribution of resulting proceeds should occur in the chapter 11 process (in the event this case is not dismissed).\n\n78 *See* PAX's Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 27 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 28 of 42\n\nIn sum, Kwok's appropriate avenue to seek relief from the contempt order is in the New York appellate courts. *In re Lyondell Chem. Co.*, 402 B.R. 596, 610 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (\"[B]y reason of the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine, and common sense, New Jersey's appellate courts are the only entities that can decide the legal issues as to whether the judgment against Lyondell was in accordance with New Jersey law.\"). Because the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims and issues decided in the New York Action, this action must be remanded.\n\n# **II. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION.**\n\nEven if the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the New York Action (it should not), the Court should abstain from hearing it. *See* 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). Because, *inter alia*, the New York Action is a garden-variety breach-of-contract dispute based on a contract executed over a decade before the chapter 11 petition, it is considered a \"non-core\" proceeding, *see, e.g.*, *In re Coudert Bros.*, No. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011). Accordingly, the doctrine of mandatory abstention precludes the Court from hearing such non-core proceedings. But even if the breach-of-contract claim were a \"core\" proceeding, equitable factors—including that very few issues remain for the federal court to adjudicate, *see supra* at 14–20, and that Kwok's removal is blatant forum shopping—strongly support remand under the permissive abstention doctrine.\n\n## **A The Mandatory Abstention Doctrine Precludes the Court From Exercising Its Authority Over the New York Action.**\n\nUpon determining that a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over a matter, courts \"look to the abstention doctrine to provide guidance as to the proper exercise of that jurisdiction.\" *Baker v. Simpson*, 613 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 2010). \"The abstention provisions implicate the question whether the bankruptcy court *should* exercise jurisdiction, not whether the court *has* jurisdiction\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 28 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 29 of 42\n\nin the first instance.\" *In re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc.*, 45 F.3d 702, 708 (2d Cir. 1995).\n\nUnder the mandatory abstention doctrine, \"the district court shall abstain from hearing such\n\nproceeding if an action … can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate\n\njurisdiction.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). Where, as here, a case has been removed, remand is\n\nrequired if six criteria are met:\n\n(1) a \"timely\" motion for abstention must have been brought; (2) the action must be based upon a state-law claim; (3) the action must be \"related to\" a bankruptcy proceeding, as opposed to \"arising under\" title 11 or \"arising in\" a case under title 11; (4) the sole federal jurisdictional basis for the action must be Section 1334; (5) the action must have been \"commenced\" in state court; and (6) the action must be capable of being \"timely adjudicated\" in state court.\n\n*Del. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A.*, 534 B.R. 500, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The party \"arguing in favor of the Court's retention of jurisdiction\"—*i.e.*, Kwok—\"bears the burden of showing that mandatory abstention is not warranted.\" *In re Eight-115 Associates, LLC*, 626 B.R. 383, 391 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021). Here, each element is satisfied, and Kwok cannot demonstrate otherwise.\n\n*First*, the abstention motion is timely. Whether an abstention motion is timely \"must be determined on a case-by-case basis.\" *Id.* at 392. Courts consider:\n\n(1) whether the movant moves as soon as possible after he or she should have learned the grounds for such a motion, (2) whether the moving party has already invoked the substantive process of the federal court on a matter going to the merits of the complaint, and in particular, moved for abstention only after receiving an unfavorable outcome, and (3) whether the granting of the motion would prejudice or delay the rights of others.\n\n*Id.* Here, little time has elapsed since Kwok's removal, which is well within the time courts have found abstention motions timely. *See Acolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of N.Y.*, 69 B.R. 155, 177\n\n(Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986) (motion timely when filed less than two months after filing of adversary\n\ncomplaint); *see also Robinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co.*, 918 F.2d 579, 584 (6th Cir. 1990)\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 29 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 30 of 42\n\n(finding the motion was timely more than eight months after removal). Second, PAX has not invoked the substantive process of this Court \"going to the merits of the complaint,\" nor is it moving \"only after receiving an unfavorable outcome.\" *In re Eight-115 Assocs.*, 626 B.R. at 391–92; *cf. In re AHT Corp.*, 265 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001) (motion untimely when made after receiving an adverse ruling on a motion to dismiss). Finally, abstention would not prejudice or delay Kwok. Accordingly, the motion is timely.\n\n*Second*, the New York Action is based on PAX's breach-of-contract claim against Kwok, the type of claim routinely litigated in state court. *E.g.*, *Deloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP*, 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (breach-ofcontract claim appropriate for abstention).\n\n*Third*, the New York Action does not \"arise under\" or \"arise in\" Title 11, but merely \"relate[s] to\" Kwok's bankruptcy. 28 U.S.C. § 1334 vests district courts with jurisdiction over \"all proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.\" *See generally Stern v. Marshall*, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). These \"three types of jurisdiction\" \"are colloquially referred to as 'arising under,' 'arising in,' and 'related to' jurisdiction.\" *Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Expl. & Dev. II, L.P.*, 487 B.R. 158, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). \"Arising under\" jurisdiction exists in \"any matter under which a claim is made under a provision of title 11.\" *In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC*, 475 B.R. 9, 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). \"Arising in\" jurisdiction exists in a matter where the claims \"are not based on any right expressly created by title 11, but nevertheless would have no existence outside of the bankruptcy.\" *Baker*, 613 F.3d at 350–51. Lastly, \"related to\" jurisdiction exists if the action's \"outcome might have any\n\n22\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 30 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 31 of 42\n\nconceivable effect on the bankrupt estate.\" *Parmalat Cap. Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp.*, 639 F.3d 572, 579 (2d Cir. 2011).[79](#page-30-0)\n\nThe Second Circuit has explained that \"a proceeding that 'arises under' or 'arises in' Title 11 is a 'core' bankruptcy proceeding, but a proceeding that is merely 'related to' a Title 11 case is not—and in a non-core proceeding, the doctrine of mandatory abstention applies.\" *Wilmington Tr.*, 534 B.R. at 512 (quoting *Baker*, 613 F.3d at 350). The determination of whether a contract action is a core proceeding or a non-core proceeding requires consideration of \"(1) whether [the] contract is *antecedent* to the reorganization petition; and (2) the degree to which the proceeding is *independent* of the reorganization.\" *In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.*, 419 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2005). Claims \"for pre-petition contract damages\"—such as PAX's breachof-contract action against Kwok—are generally \"non-core.\" *See In re Orion Pictures Corp.*, 4 F.3d 1095, 1102 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing *Beard v. Braunstein*, 914 F.2d 434, 443 (3d Cir. 1990)); *see also In re Coudert Bros.*, 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*5 (\"Where a contract sued upon was formed prior to the bankruptcy petition, it will generally be highly unlikely that a proceeding based on that contract turns on the bankruptcy laws.\").\n\nNeither \"arising under\" nor \"arising in\" jurisdiction exists here. First, Kwok does not suggest that \"arising under\" jurisdiction exists; he could not, because the proceeding involves a breach-of-contract claim—not a claim \"under a provision of title 11.\" *In re Salander*, 475 B.R. at 27; *see also KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.*, 600 B.R. 214, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no \"arising under\" jurisdiction existed where \"Plaintiffs assert[ed] state law breach of contract and related claims, which do not arise under Title 11\"). Nor does \"arising in\"\n\n79 PAX acknowledges \"related to\" jurisdiction exists here.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 31 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 32 of 42\n\njurisdiction exist, because the claims existed \"outside of the bankruptcy\" for almost five years. *Baker*, 613 F.3d at 350–51.\n\nAnd Kwok's perfunctory suggestion that the New York Action \"arises in\" chapter 11 because it involves a determination of Kwok's ownership in the Lady May does not withstand scrutiny.[80](#page-31-0) Kwok appears to argue that because section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code governs what becomes property of the estate, and the New York Court determined as part of its Final Contempt Order that Kwok beneficially owns the Lady May, the New York Action must \"arise in\" his bankruptcy case. Not so. Whether Kwok could be held in contempt for refusing to return property he beneficially owned pre-petition was a legal matter that existed under New York law completely independent of this chapter 11 case, as does his continued contempt.\n\nThe New York Action was not, as Kwok claims, one \"seeking to determine what is (or is not) the property of Mr. Kwok or his estate.\"[81](#page-31-1) No \"estate\" existed when Justice Ostrager decided Kwok's interest in the Lady May. As a consequence of the New York Action, there has already been a finding that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May under New York law. *There is nothing further to litigate on that issue.* If this case is remanded and the automatic stay modified, Justice Ostrager will not revisit the property issue. Rather, the only issue the New York Court might address is the consequence of Kwok's continued contumacious behavior. Moreover, Justice Ostrager's decision does not invoke Section 541 or encroach on any action that might arise under Section 541 in the bankruptcy court. If there must be a separate proceeding that implicates Section 541, that can occur in Kwok's chapter 11 case, but any potential action regarding the Lady May will be significantly informed by (if not outright\n\n80 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 6.\n\n81 *Id.*\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 32 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 33 of 42\n\ncontrolled by) the findings of fact and judgments in the New York Action, as issues regarding property rights in bankruptcy are generally determined by state law. *See Butner v. United States*, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979). Indeed, PAX will establish that the doctrines of *res judicata* and collateral estoppel bar Kwok and others who participated in the New York Action from relitigating claims and issues already decided in that forum. In any event, Kwok already was held liable for contract damages; the court's determination that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht was a prerequisite to the finding that Kwok had violated the court's orders and was in contempt. The underlying cause of action is what matters, and that is based on contract rights that exist \"independent of the reorganization.\" *Cf. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 227 (\"arising in\" jurisdiction existed over a dispute concerning \"a post-petition contract the resolution of which depend[ed] upon the interpretation of bankruptcy court orders\"). \"Put differently, where, as here, a non-core legal claim has essentially been 'dressed up as a bankruptcy claim,' that label does not justify treating the claim as core.\" *In re Coudert Bros.*, 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*4.\n\n*Fourth*, 28 U.S.C. § 1334 is the sole purported federal jurisdictional basis for the New York Action identified in the removal petition. As explained, the New York Action involved contract construction and the application of New York's judgment collection provisions. Moreover, given there is a foreign-based plaintiff (PAX) and a foreign-based defendants, no diversity jurisdiction exists.\n\n*Fifth*, the New York Action was \"commenced\" in state court.[82](#page-32-0)\n\n82 *See.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 33 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 34 of 42\n\n*Sixth*, the New York Action is \"capable of being timely adjudicated in state court.\" *Wilmington Tr.*, 534 B.R. at 512. Courts evaluate whether an action may be timely adjudicated in state court by considering four factors: \"(1) the backlog of the state court's calendar relative to the federal court's calendar; (2) the complexity of the issues presented and the respective expertise of each forum; (3) the status of the title 11 bankruptcy proceeding to which the state law claims are related; and (4) whether the state court proceeding would prolong the administration or liquidation of the estate.\" *Parmalat*, 639 F.3d at 580.\n\nThese factors demonstrate that the New York Action is *capable* of being timely adjudicated in state court, primarily because it *already* has been adjudicated. First, no concern about backlog of the state court's calendar exists, because the case has been litigated for five years and Justice Ostrager *already* adjudicated PAX's breach-of-contract claim, and *already* decided the contempt issue. *See Worldview Ent. Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow*, 611 B.R. 10, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"If anything, this factor cuts in favor of abstention because the state court proceeding has been ongoing for five years.\"). Second, the \"facts in [the] case [were] especially complex,\" rendering the state court the more appropriate forum. *Parmalat*, 639 F.3d at 580–81. Indeed, as Justice Ostrager aptly noted in the Final Contempt Order, the New York Action is a \"2017 case with *1,180 docket entries* – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok's efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\"[83](#page-33-0) This factor also favors abstention because the state court action is a breach-of-contract dispute over which a federal court has no specialized expertise. *Woodrow*, 611 B.R. at 19. Finally, there is no doubt that any additional\n\n83 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 34 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 35 of 42\n\ncontempt proceedings instituted before Justice Ostrager can and will be adjudicated on a timely basis. Either Kwok will remain in contempt or not; that issue is not complicated.\n\nThe third and fourth factors also weigh in favor of state court adjudication. The third factor considers \"the status\" of the chapter 11 proceeding, asking \"whether the litigants in a state proceeding need the state law claims to be quickly resolved as a result of the status of the ongoing title 11 bankruptcy proceeding.\" *Parmalat*, 639 F.3d at 581. This factor counsels in favor of abstention because \"the bankruptcy proceedings began relatively recently in comparison to the state court proceedings.\" *Woodrow*, 611 B.R. at 19. Finally, state court adjudication would not \"prolong the administration or liquidation of the estate,\" because \"[i]t is undisputed that the proceedings in the state court will remain subject to the automatic stay unless and until it is lifted by the bankruptcy court.\" *Id.* at 19–20. Thus, either the automatic stay will be modified and the New York Action will aid resolution of Kwok's bankruptcy, or the New York Action will remain dormant and not impact proceedings in the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, \"there is little chance that the bankruptcy proceedings will be affected or delayed by the state court proceeding.\" *Id.* at 19.\n\nFor each of these reasons, the doctrine of mandatory abstention precludes this Court from hearing the New York Action.\n\n## **B Even if Mandatory Abstention Does Not Apply, The Court Should Decline to Hear the Action Under the Permissive Abstention Doctrine.**\n\nEven if the Court were to find that jurisdiction exists (it does not) and that mandatory abstention does not apply (it should were jurisdiction to exist), the Court nevertheless should abstain under the doctrine of permissive abstention.[84](#page-34-1) That doctrine is based on 28 U.S.C. §\n\n84 Alternatively, the Court should remand the case for equitable reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), which provides that \"[t]he court to which such claim or cause of action is removed may remand such claim or cause of action on any equitable ground.\" \"In assessing whether to\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 35 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 36 of 42\n\n1334(c)(1), which states, \"nothing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.\" In deciding whether to abstain on this ground, courts weigh considerations of comity and federalism, judicial economy, and efficiency. *Wilmington Tr.*, 534 B.R. at 512.\n\nIt is difficult to think of a case where comity requires remand more than this one: Kwok filed this case to avoid being held accountable for contempt, first via invocation of the automatic stay and now by removal of the New York Action. Kwok earned every bit of his sanction by flagrantly disregarding court orders and affronting the dignity and sanctity of the New York court system. Out of respect for state courts alone, remand should be granted. *Marciano*, 431 F. App'x at 614 (challenge to state court's issuance of sanctions implicates power that \"lies at the core of the administration of a State's judicial system\"); *see, e.g.*, *In re Rodriguez*, No. 18- 14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009, at \\*4–5 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019) (permissive abstention appropriate where debtor's removal of state court action \"had the effect of depriving the State Court of authority\" to enforce its prior order through contempt sanctions).\n\nremand a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), courts consider a similar set of factors as when deciding whether to permissively abstain, including: '(1) whether issues of state law predominate; (2) whether judicial economy would be served by … equitable remand; (3) whether § 1334(b) is the sole basis for exercising federal jurisdiction; (4) whether the proceeding involves non-debtors; (5) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case; and (6) the likelihood that the proceeding was commenced in a particular forum because of forum shopping on the part of one of the parties.'\" *KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 226 (quoting *Rahl v. Bande*, 316 B.R. 127, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). Because the factors overlap, this Motion addresses permissive abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) and equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) jointly. *In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.*, 293 B.R. 308, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (\"The equitable remand analysis ... is essentially the same as the Section 1334(c)(1) abstention analysis.\").\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 36 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 37 of 42\n\nCourts in the Second Circuit consider multiple factors when determining whether to\n\npermissively abstain:\n\n(1) the effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a Court recommends abstention, (2) the extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues, (3) the difficulty or unsettled nature of the applicable state law, (4) the presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court or other nonbankruptcy court, (5) the jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334, (6) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case, (7) the substance rather than form of an asserted 'core' proceeding, (8) the feasibility of severing state law claims from core bankruptcy matters to allow judgments to be entered in state court with enforcement left to the bankruptcy court, (9) the burden on the court's docket, (10) the likelihood that the commencement of the proceeding in a bankruptcy court involves forum shopping by one of the parties, (11) the existence of a right to a jury trial, and (12) the presence in the proceeding of nondebtor parties.\n\n*47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.*, No. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL\n\n2012296, at \\*9 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) (quoting *KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 225).\n\nApplication of these factors—factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10—overwhelmingly\n\nfavors permissive abstention. With respect to factors 2 and 4, not only did state law issues—\n\nincluding in the context of judgment collection proceedings under Article 52 of the CPLR—\n\npredominate, they were *already decided* by the New York Court. As explained, Justice Ostrager\n\nalready issued (i) the Summary Judgment Order in PAX's favor on its breach of contract claim\n\nand (ii) the Final Contempt Order, holding that Kwok was in contempt of court.[85](#page-36-0) *See supra* at\n\n6–7, 11. Under these circumstances—for essentially the same reasons that the *Rooker-Feldman*\n\ndoctrine applies—principles of comity \"virtually require\" remand. *In re Briarpatch Film Corp.*,\n\n281 B.R. 820, 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (equitable remand appropriate because \"[s]tate law issues not\n\nonly predominated,\" \"they were determined by that Court\"); *see also 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.*,\n\n85 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 3.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 37 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 38 of 42\n\n2021 WL 2012296, at \\*10 (permissive abstention appropriate where \"[t]he entirety of the case [was] ready for summary adjudication,\" and \"that summary adjudication [could] be most efficiently handled by the state court judge who already ha[d] been presiding over the state law issues in this case\"). This is especially true because \"[b]ankruptcy proceedings may not be used to re-litigate issues already resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.\" *Kelleran v. Andrijevic*, 825 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1987); *see also In re Lyondell Chem. Co.*, 402 B.R. at 609 (observing that \"[u]ntil or unless New Jersey's courts say otherwise,\" the judgment creditor who won a judgment in New Jersey state court \"now has a claim in this Court in the amount awarded by the trial court\"). For the same reasons, factor 1—efficient administration of the estate similarly favors remand: \"[I]t would be highly inefficient for this Court to reconsider matters which the State court tried and determined.\" *In re Briarpatch*, 281 B.R. at 831. The same is true for factor 3, the difficulty or unsettled nature of the issues. *Briarpatch* is directly on point: \"[T]he question is not whether the issues were difficult or not; the key factor here is that the State court determined them.\" *Id.* at 829*.*\n\nFor factor 5, no jurisdictional basis other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334 exists, further strengthening the case for permissive abstention. Factors 6—the degree of relatedness—and 8 the feasibility of severing the New York Action—also favor remand. The action exists—and has existed for almost five years—entirely independently of the bankruptcy. It involves a breach-ofcontract claim based on a pre-petition contract that in no way relates to the bankruptcy. *See 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.*, 2021 WL 2012296, at \\*9 (\"simple state law contract case\" was not \"directly related to the bankruptcy\"). And, unlike cases where courts have found permissive abstention inappropriate, the New York Action requires no interpretation of orders from the Bankruptcy Court. *Cf. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 233 (severing the state law claims was\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 38 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 39 of 42\n\nnot straight-forward \"because they involve issues that require interpreting the Bankruptcy Court's orders.\"). With respect to factor 9, remand would place no burden on the state court's docket, because the state court *already adjudicated* PAX's claim (and the First Department had already received a fully-briefed appeal on the Summary Judgment Order).\n\nFinally, Kwok's commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding and attempt to remove the New York Action and transfer it to the bankruptcy court strongly suggest improper forum shopping (factor 10). Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition just before Justice Ostrager's contempt sanctions were to take effect, and removed the case shortly thereafter. *See Balcor/Morristown Ltd. P'ship v. Vector Whippany Assocs.*, 181 B.R. 781, 793 (D.N.J. 1995) (forum shopping likely where motion for contempt sanctions was \"on the eve of decision\" when debtor filed removal petition). *In re AMeribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc.,* 399 B.R. 129, 134–35 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (\"There are strong reasons to remand or to abstain\" where the timing of removal suggests an attempt to avoid contempt sanctions); *M.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC,* 2021 WL 5046216, at \\*6 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021) (abstention and remand appropriate where timing of removal \"at least suggests that the defendants might be seeking a better result by shopping around\"). Moreover, Kwok's Notice of Removal offers no description of what the federal court would in fact adjudicate—likely because the removal is merely a ploy to (i) delay PAX's motion in the bankruptcy court to confirm the inapplicability of the automatic stay with respect to Justice Ostrager's Final Contempt Order,[86](#page-38-0) and (ii) try to get a second bite at the apple by attempting to\n\n86 Mot. of PAX 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, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 39 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 40 of 42\n\nre-litigate issues already decided against him by the New York Court. [87](#page-39-0) But, as Judge Gropper aptly noted in *Briarpatch*, \"[b]ankruptcy courts must respect the orders and judgments of State courts and cannot act as a court of review or appeal as to matters that have been decided by State courts with jurisdiction. 281 B.R. at 829*.* There, the debtor \"complain[ed] bitterly about the State court proceedings,\" but failed to identify \"what motions\" \"would be available to them today,\" \"or precisely what they would have th[e] Court accomplish, other than to act as a general court of review.\" *Id.* at 829–30. In effect, the debtor sought \"a judge who [would] take a 'new look,' which is \"an impermissible attempt at forum shopping\"—precisely the case here. *In re Rodriguez*, 2019 WL 137009, at \\*4 (reasoning that \"[t]he specter of forum shopping is significant\" where debtor removed shortly after an \"evidentiary hearing was scheduled on a motion to hold the Debtor … in civil contempt\"); *In re Drauschak*, 481 B.R. 330, 347 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) (same); *Rose*, 2007 WL 136682, at \\*3 (barring federal court challenge to state contempt order as \"an impermissible collateral attack on the contempt charge\").\n\nMany of the factors relevant to permissive abstention ultimately are tied to the decision in Kwok's bankruptcy case on PAX's motion to confirm the inapplicability of the automatic stay or, in the alternative, relief from the automatic stay concerning the Final Contempt Order. Specifically, if the bankruptcy court determines that the stay does not apply or should be modified, then—by definition—it will be deciding that remand is warranted and that proceeding with enforcement of the Final Contempt Order will not interfere with the bankruptcy. Conversely, if the Court determines that the stay applies to enforcement of the Final Contempt\n\n87 In his Objection to PAX's motion to confirm the inapplicability of the stay to the Final Contempt Order, Kwok previewed his intent improperly to attempt to re-litigate the issue of ownership of the Lady May. *See supra* note 71.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 40 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 41 of 42\n\nOrder, or that it should not be modified, then remand still will not interfere with the bankruptcy,\n\nbecause the automatic stay will remain in effect until the Court says otherwise.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, PAX respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion\n\nto remand the New York Action to the New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division.\n\nGiven the facts and circumstances, PAX requests that the Court waive, to the extent applicable,\n\nthe 14-day stay of the enforcement of a judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 7062.\n\nDated: April 13, 2022 New York, NY\n\n# **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*/s/ Peter Friedman* Peter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 41 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 42 of 42\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 13, 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/ Peter Friedman* Peter Friedman","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文书 430-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 1 页，共 42 页\n附件 B\n\n发回重审动议\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文书第 1 页，共 41 页 案号 22-50073 文书 430-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 2 页，共 42 页\n美国破产法院纽约南区曼哈顿分院\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），\n\n第 11 章\n\n原告，\n\n案号 22-01073-dsj\n\n诉\n\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 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 请求发回重审，或备位地根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1) 请求回避审理的动议\n\n致尊敬的美国破产法官 DAVID S. JONES：\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）谨此请求本院作出命令，将本案发回纽约州最高法院纽约郡商事部（由 Ostrager 法官主持）（“纽约法院”），或备位地作出命令，根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) 回避对本案作出裁判。\n\n目录\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n背景 3\n论证 14\nI. 本案必须发回重审，因为法院根据 Rooker-Feldman 原则不具有管辖权。 14\nII. 备位地，法院应当回避行使管辖权。 20\nA 强制回避原则排除法院对纽约诉讼行使其权限。 20\nB 即使强制回避不适用，法院亦应根据许可回避原则拒绝审理本案 27\n结论 33\n\n页码\n判例\n\n47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.,\nNo. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL 2012296 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) 29, 30\n\nAcolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of New York,\n69 B.R. 155 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986) 21\nBaker v. Simpson,\n613 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2010) 20, 22, 23, 24\nBalcor/Morristown Ltd. Partnership v. Vector Whippany Associates,\n181 B.R. 781 (D. N.J. 1995) 31\nBeard v. Braunstein,\n914 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1990) 23\nButner v. United States,\n440 U.S. 48 (1979) 25\nCampbell v. Greisberger,\n80 F.3d 703 (2d Cir. 1996) 14\nCatalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue,\n279 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2002) 19\nCornell v. Burke,\n559 F. App'x 577 (7th Cir. 2014) 18\nD.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,\n460 U.S. 462 (1983) 14\nDel. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A.,\n534 B.R. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) 21, 23, 26, 28\nDeloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP,\n31 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011) 22\nHolblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections,\n422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) 15, 16, 17\nIn re AHT Corp.,\n265 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001) 22\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nIn re Ameribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc.,\n399 B.R. 129 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 33\n\nIn re Briarpatch Film Corp.,\n281 B.R. 820 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 29, 30, 31, 32\nIn re CitX Corp.,\n302 B.R. 144 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003) 19\nIn re Coudert Bros.,\nNo. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) 20, 23, 25\nIn re Drauschak,\n481 B.R. 330 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) 32\nIn re Eight-115 Associates, LLC,\n626 B.R. 383 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021) 21, 22\nIn re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico,\n899 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2018) 19\nIn re Freehand H.J., Inc.,\nNo. 07 0157, 2007 WL 2071877 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007) 14\nIn re Ivani,\n308 B.R. 132 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004) 18\nIn re Knapper,\n407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) 17\nIn re Kurimsky,\nNo. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) 14, 17\nIn re Lyondell Chem. Co.,\n402 B.R. 596 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 20, 30\nIn re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.,\n419 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2005) 23\nIn re Orion Pictures Corp.,\n4 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1993) 23\nIn re Pacheco,\n616 B.R. 126 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020) 14\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nIn re Rodriguez,\nNo. 18-14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019) 28, 32\nIn re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc.,\n45 F.3d 702 (2d Cir. 1995) 21\nIn re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC,\n475 B.R. 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 22, 23\nIn re Stahl,\n526 F. App'x 179 (3d Cir. 2013) 18\nIn re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 28\nIn re: Genever Holdings, LLC,\nCase No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 8\nIn re: Ho Wan Kwok,\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn. 2\nInt'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.,\n62 B.R. 723 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 18\nJuidice v. Vail,\n430 U.S. 327 (1977) 18\nKelleran v. Andrijevic,\n825 F.2d 692 (2d Cir. 1987) 30\nKeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.,\n600 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 多处引用\nLothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Exploration & Development II, L.P.,\n487 B.R. 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 22\nLoudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co.,\n481 B.R. 388 (S.D.W. Va. 2012) 19\nM.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC,\n2021 WL 5046216 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021) 33\nMarciano v. White,\n431 F. App'x 611 (9th Cir. 2011) 18, 28\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nMcKithen v. Brown,\n626 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) 2, 14, 16\n\nParmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp.,\n639 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 2011) 23, 26, 27\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) 多处引用\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 2021-00740 (N.Y. App. Div.) 7\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.) 10\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.) 12\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 1, 3, 13\nPAX. v. Genever Holdings Corp., et al.,\nCase No. BVICOM2020/0137 (BVI) 6\nPAX. v. Kwok,\nIndex No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) 多处引用\nPerkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC,\n773 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2011) 15\nPhifer v. City of New York,\n289 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002) 14\nRahl v. Bande,\n316 B.R. 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 28\nRobinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc.,\nNo. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017) 15, 16\nRobinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co.,\n918 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1990) 22\nRooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,\n263 U.S. 413 (1923) 14\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nRose v. Cty. of York,\nNo. CIV.A. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007) 17, 32\n\nSindone v. Kelly,\n439 F.Supp.2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 16\nSinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.,\n549 U.S. 422 (2007) 1\nStahl v. Twp. of Montclair,\nNo. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012) 3, 14\nStern v. Marshall,\n564 U.S. 462 (2011) 22\nVossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,\n773 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2014) 14\nWorldview Entertainment Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow,\n611 B.R. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 26, 27\n法条\n28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) 20, 21\n28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 1\n28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 20\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文书第 8 页，共 41 页 案号 22-50073 文书 430-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 9 页，共 42 页\n初步陈述[1]\n\nKwok 的移送通知书[2]，是其为逃避支付合计逾 $250 million 的州法院判决款项，以及重新争讼纽约法院已经裁决的问题，而采取的一连串不当拖延策略中的最新一项。\n\n基础争议简单明了。2011 年 3 月，Kwok 个人担保了 PAX 所获一笔逾 $46 million 的债务。[3] 多年来，Kwok 规避 PAX 的追偿努力，且该担保债务未获偿还任何部分。PAX 于 2017 年在纽约对 Kwok 提起该违约诉讼（“纽约诉讼”）。2021 年 2 月，PAX 在纽约诉讼中取得逾 $116 million 的判决。[4] 目前，纽约诉讼中有两项上诉待决：(i) 关于违约判决的实体问题；及 (ii) 针对 Kwok 作出的金额为 $134 million 的终局民事藐视法庭命令，该命令系因其未返还 Lady May 游艇——纽约法院认定 Kwok“实益拥有并控制”[5]该游艇——而作出，并与 PAX 判决后追偿工作有关。[6]\n\nKwok 的移送通知书附有 PAX 在纽约诉讼中于 2019 年 4 月提交的修正起诉状（“修正起诉状”）[7]，并主张本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 和 1334(e) 对修正起诉状具有初始管辖权。这显然是不适当地试图让本院充当纽约法院的上诉法院，并使 Kwok 得以重新争讼已在纽约获得充分审理并对其作出裁决的问题。\n\n本院应当以缺乏事项管辖权为由将本案发回纽约法院，或者备位地，回避行使管辖权，理由主要有二。\n\n第一，根据 Rooker-Feldman 原则，本院对纽约诉讼不具有事项管辖权。纽约法院已经审议并驳回 Kwok 就其寻求移送的相同两项请求所提出的论点，并因此作出判决，认定 Kwok：(i) 应对 2011 年担保承担责任；及 (ii) 因以破坏法治的方式持续 268 日藐视法庭而构成藐视法庭。这些判决现正由纽约上诉法院审理。Kwok 正是寻求不当联邦法院上诉审查州法院判决的典型“州法院败诉者[]”。McKithen v. Brown, 626 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair, No. 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at *5\n\n1 除非另有说明，所有证物引述均指支持 PAX 发回重审动议的 Peter Friedman 声明（“Friedman 声明”）所附证物。除非另有说明，所有强调均为后加，且所有内部引文均已省略。\n\n2 Kwok 已将纽约诉讼移送至美国纽约南区联邦地区法院。Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1。Kwok 随后根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 和 1412 以及《联邦破产程序规则》第 7087 条，请求作出命令移送本案。Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, PAX v. Kwok, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1。各方当事人约定，移送将符合司法公正利益，并将促进破产财产的经济、高效管理。See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a)。Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, PAX v. Kwok, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1。PAX 在此过程中明确保留其基于任何适当理由及时请求将纽约诉讼发回重审的权利。Id.（援引 Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007)（地区法院在便利、公平及司法经济的考量有此必要时，可根据 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 适当移送诉讼，“而不处理事项管辖权和对人管辖权的问题。”））。3 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX. v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 5–7。\n\n4 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, PAX v. Kwok et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 716 at 2。\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文书第 9 页，共 41 页 案号 22-50073 文书 430-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 10 页，共 42 页\n\n5 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt.. No. 1181（“终局藐视法庭命令”）第 4 页。\n\n6 PAX 已提出一项待决的救济请求，以允许其寻求对该藐视法庭命令进行有限执行。See In re: Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., Mot. of PAX 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, Mar. 1, 2022, Dkt. No. 57。\n\n7 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3。\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文书第 10 页，共 41 页 案号 22-50073 文书 430-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 11 页，共 42 页\n\n（D.N.J. July 30, 2012）（“破产法院无管辖权审查州法院作出简易判决的合法性”）。\n\n第二，即使本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334 享有管辖权，在此情况下弃权也是适当的。纽约诉讼——一宗涉及破产申请前合同以及因郭文贵藐视法庭行为而对其作出的破产申请前藐视法庭命令的违约争议——根据确立已久的判例法属于“非核心”程序，因此应适用强制弃权。但即使纽约诉讼属于“核心”破产程序，衡平因素仍支持准许弃权。例如，纽约法院已就实体问题作出完整裁决——留给本院审理的事项几乎为零，且郭文贵的移送申请纯属为逃避其抗拒纽约法院而受到的制裁所进行的选择法院行为。本院对纽约法院作出的藐视法庭程序主张控制权并予以审查，将构成对联邦—州礼让原则的不当扰乱。\n\n基于上述及下文说明的其他理由，应将纽约诉讼发回。\n\n背景\n\nPAX 于 2017年4月在纽约起诉郭文贵，依据香港法律对郭文贵提出违约请求。2019年4月，PAX 对 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever NY）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever BVI，连同 Genever NY，合称“Genever 被告”）追加提出揭开公司面纱请求。[8] PAX 于 2020年9月在其违约请求的实体问题上胜诉，并于 2021年2月录入判决书。[9] 此后，PAX 一直试图向郭文贵追偿，主要聚焦于两项高价值\n\n8 同上。\n\n9 Friedman 声明，附件 3，《动议裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 549；Friedman 声明，附件 4，《判决书》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 716。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 11 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 12 of 42\n\n资产：郭文贵通过层层嵌套的空壳公司拥有的位于纽约市 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里—内瑟兰酒店）的一套豪华公寓（“该住宅”），以及 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）游艇。\n\n郭文贵的违约\n\n2008年，PAX 与郭文贵控制的实体 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（Spirit Charter）订立协议，据此 PAX 向 Spirit Charter 提供了 \\$30 million 的贷款额度。[10] 郭文贵同时签署了对 Spirit Charter 贷款的个人保证。[11] 2009年，Spirit Charter 签署了一份契据（“2009 Deed of Settlement”），据此，另一家由郭文贵控制的实体 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（Shiny Times）承担了 Spirit Charter 对 PAX 所负债务。[12] 郭文贵再次签署个人保证，以担保 Shiny Times 的还款义务。[13]\n\nPAX 与 Shiny Times 于 2011年订立了一项新的贷款额度，取代了 2009 Deed of Settlement。[14] 郭文贵还订立了一项新的个人保证（“2011 Personal Guarantee”），取代了 2009 年保证。[15] 2011 Personal Guarantee 规定，除其他事项外，郭文贵“不可撤销且无条件地……向 PAX 保证，[Shiny Times]在[2011 Loan Facility]项下的[义务]将得到适时和按期履行，并同意在 PAX 提出要求后立即向 PAX 支付所有已到期但未支付的[义务]。”[16]\n\n15 同上。\n\n10 Friedman 声明，附件 3，《动议裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 549，第 1 页。\n\n11 同上。\n\n12 同上，第 1–2 页。\n\n13 同上，第 2 页。\n\n14 同上。\n\n16 同上，第 7 页。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 12 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 13 of 42\n\n2013年4月，各方订立另一份和解契据（“2013 Deed of Settlement”），根据该契据，如 PAX 获得来自另一家郭文贵商业实体 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（Beijing Pangu）的三套公寓的占有权及合法所有权，则应结清应付 PAX 的未偿贷款金额。[17] 根据 2013 Deed of Settlement，Beijing Pangu 须满足与向 PAX 转让该三套公寓有关的十项先决条件；如其中任何一项未在 2013年6月前满足，则 2013 Deed of Settlement 将终止，2011 Loan Facility 和 Personal Guarantee 将恢复完全效力。[18] PAX 与郭文贵随后对 2013 Deed of Settlement 签署了四份延期文件，其中最后一份要求在 2015年6月前满足全部十项先决条件。[19] 郭文贵未能及时满足全部条件，[20] 从而触发 2011 Personal Guarantee 的恢复。[21]\n\n在郭文贵签署最后一份 Deed of Settlement 延期文件时，PAX 并不知情的是，郭文贵已逃离中国。郭文贵随后于 2015年3月通过名为 Genever NY（一家纽约 LLC）的实体以 \\$67.5 million 购得该住宅；Genever NY 由 Genever BVI（一家英属维尔京群岛公司）全资拥有。[22] 郭文贵是 Genever BVI 的唯一股东及董事。\n\n17 同上，第 4 页。\n\n18 同上。\n\n19 同上。\n\n20 同上，第 5 页。即，郭文贵未能：（i）交付无瑕疵产权；（ii）向 PAX 提供公寓购置发票；（iii）向 PAX 提供有关支付与该等公寓买卖相关税费的证据；以及（iv）向 PAX 交付三套公寓中任一套的房屋所有权证书。同上，第 5–6 页。21 同上，第 5 页。\n\n22 Friedman 声明，附件 10，《住宅购买申请》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 256，第 SN 0046–47 页；另见 Friedman 声明，附件 11，《Genever NY LLC 协议》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 252，第 SN 0198–206 页。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 13 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 14 of 42\n\nGenever BVI。[23] 同样在此期间，Lady May 以 €28 million 通过 Hong Kong Investments Limited（HK International）购得；HK International 是郭文贵于 2006年设立并注资的一家香港公司，郭文贵在将其于 2014年10月、即其逃离中国前不久无偿转让给一名家族商业关联人士之前，曾对该公司拥有完全所有权及控制权达 8 年。[24] 2017年，Lady May 再次无偿转让给 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（Hong Kong International USA），该公司是一家在技术上由其女儿郭美拥有的 Delaware LLC。[25]\n\n2017年4月，在 PAX 发出两封催款函均未获郭文贵或其公司回复后，PAX 提起纽约诉讼。[26] 经历约三年的诉讼程序后，纽约法院于 2020年9月15日就违约请求作出有利于 PAX 的部分简易判决（“Summary Judgment Order”）。[27] 纽约法院\n\n23 Friedman 声明，附件 11，《Genever BVI 公司文件》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 252，第 SN 0158–163 页。除纽约诉讼外，PAX 还在 British Virgin Island High Court Commercial Court Division（BVI Court）启动附带程序，以防止在母公司层面转让该住宅。Friedman 声明，附件 12，《命令》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 1089。\n\n24 Friedman 声明，附件 5，《动议裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 1181，第 4 页。\n\n25 作为临时措施，郭文贵的家族商业关联人士于 2017年6月将代持于 HK International 的所有权无偿转让给郭文贵的女儿。同上。\n\n26 Friedman 声明，附件 6，《第一次修正起诉状》，PAX v. Kwok，No. 1:22-cv-02258（S.D.N.Y.），Dkt. No. 3。\n\n27 Friedman 声明，附件 3，《动议裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 549，第 7 页。应当指出，郭文贵就违约请求的简易判决所试图提出的唯一抗辩，是一项虚假的主张：2011 Personal Guarantee——郭文贵本人将其作为证据提出、从其自身档案中出示、承认其真实性并在诉讼中依赖多年——不知何故竟是一份伪造文件。纽约法院正确认定，郭文贵被禁止在简易判决阶段或审判中提出该项抗辩；令人不安的是，郭文贵的破产律师在本院的陈述中延续这一明显虚假的说法。事实上，要了解郭文贵关于其未签署 2011 Guarantee 的陈述属于伪证，只须查看其当时在香港的律师 Stevenson, Wong & Co. 于郭文贵签署该保证的同日早晨向 PAX 发出的同期电子邮件，其中载明\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 14 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 15 of 42\n\n命令 PAX 提出动议，以确定 2011 Personal Guarantee 项下到期应付的金额所涉损害赔偿额，包括适用利息。[28] 2020年12月18日，纽约法院裁定 PAX 获得“损害赔偿 \\$46,426,489.00，另加根据 2011 Personal Guarantee 自生效日 December 31, 2010 起按年利率 15% 计算的合同利息，以及自本裁定及命令录入之日起按法定年利率 9% 计算的利息。”[29] 该判决书于 2021年2月3日录入，金额为 \\$116,402,019.57。[30]\n\n2021年3月4日，郭文贵对 Summary Judgment Order 提起上诉。[31] 上诉材料已于 2021年10月15日全部提交完毕，并于 2021年12月6日进行辩论。[32] 该上诉正在 New York Appellate Division, First Department（纽约上诉分庭第一部门）审理中，但因郭文贵提交 chapter 11 申请而中止。\n\n纽约法院原定于 2021年1月审理 PAX 对 Genever 被告提出的揭开公司面纱请求。[33] 因 COVID-19 疫情，该程序被延期。2020年10月12日，Genever NY 向 Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区破产法院）申请 chapter 11 破产，暂停了 PAX 对 Genever 被告的判决执行工作。[34] 纽约破产法院后来解除自动中止，以允许 PAX 继续推进州法院诉讼，并允许 Genever NY 进行抗辩。[35] 如下文所述，PAX 后来根据 New York CPLR § 5225 成功申请交付郭文贵持有的 Genever BVI 股份；然而，正如其对纽约法院有关游艇的命令所为，郭文贵迄今也完全蔑视该交付命令，未采取任何为将其 Genever BVI 股份转让给 PAX 所必需的步骤。[36]\n\n判决后资产调查\n\n纽约法院（New York Court）作出简易判决命令后不久，PAX（PAX）依据 CPLR § 5229 申请作出判决后限制令。[37] 2020 年 9 月 30 日，纽约法院限制 Kwok（郭文贵）不得从事包括“干涉其享有权益的任何财产”在内的行为。[38] 2020 年 10 月 15 日，纽约法院澄清其先前的限制令，明确裁定 Kwok“不得直接或间接作出或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干涉其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分目前到期或其后到期应付给他的任何债务\n\n34 Friedman 声明，附件 17，非个人申请人自愿破产申请书，In re: Genever Holdings, LLC, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1。\n\n35 Friedman 声明，附件 18，准许债务人第二次续展动议以批准修订后和解协议的命令，In re: Genever Holdings, LLC, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 141。\n\n36 Friedman 声明，附件 19，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2-17 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904。随后，PAX 申请作出民事藐视法庭命令。Friedman 声明，附件 20，因未遵守法院移交命令而申请作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议通知，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078。Kwok 提交其 chapter 11 申请时，该动议的书面陈述已全部完成。Friedman 声明，附件 21，PAX 进一步支持申请作出民事藐视法庭命令之动议的答复法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116。\n\n37 Friedman 声明，附件 22，PAX 关于 CPLR 5229 的动议及临时限制令请求，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 576。\n\n38 Friedman 声明，附件 23，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 16 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 17 of 42\n\n……。”[39] 纽约法院 2020 年 10 月 15 日的命令（“限制令”）列明了位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的住所（Residence）及“Lady May”号游艇（Lady May），并称：“具体而言，Kwok 先生和/或 (1) 位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的住所及 (2) 游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人，均不得作出或促成对该等资产的任何出售、让与、转让或干涉。”[40] 纽约法院还裁定，PAX 有权就该住所、“Lady May”号游艇以及 Kwok 直接或间接拥有的任何其他资产进行判决后取证。[41]\n\nPAX 随后开展了为期一年的工作以执行其判决。正如纽约法院所认定，“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 将其资产隐藏在错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之中。该计划使 Kwok 尽管生活奢华，仍能够声称自己没有任何资产……。”[42] Kwok 就 PAX 的判决后取证请求广泛援引其第五修正案权利，进一步阻碍了 PAX 的工作。[43]\n\n“Lady May”号游艇藐视法庭程序\n\n尽管纽约法院作出限制令，[44] Kwok 仍允许“Lady May”号游艇于 2021 年 10 月 9 日前后驶离纽约。[45] PAX 提交了其申请附条件民事藐视法庭命令的动议，纽约法院于 2021 年 3 月 16 日准许该动议，并说明，“显然，在本纽约法院就游艇‘Lady May’的下落和所有权所进行的程序中，存在令人无法容忍的大量耍手段、掩饰和欺骗行为……。被告 Kwok 在本应更为明智的律师协助下所进行的诸多‘空壳把戏’，无需一一列举”；“自 2021 年 5 月 15 日起，游艇每在本法院管辖范围外停留一天，被告 Kwok 将被处以 $500,000 罚款。”[46]\n\n39 Friedman 声明，附件 24，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630 at 1。\n\n40 同上。\n\n41 同上，第 2 页。\n\n42 Friedman 声明，附件 5，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 1。\n\n43 同上，第 2、9–10 页。\n\n44 参见 Friedman 声明，附件 23，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591；Friedman 声明，附件 24，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630。\n\n45 Friedman 声明，附件 25，VESSELFINDER，航程分析器。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 17 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 18 of 42\n\nKwok 向第一部门上诉庭（First Department）对纽约法院的命令提出上诉，但仍处于藐视法庭状态 268 天。[47] 第一部门上诉庭于 2021 年 11 月 4 日维持纽约法院 2021 年 3 月 16 日的命令，[48] 并认定：“动议法院在裁定被告构成民事藐视法庭时并未滥用其裁量权，因为原告以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了一项其知悉的、合法且明确的法院命令，并且该等违反行为损害了原告的权利。”[49] 第一部门上诉庭认为，“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力促使 [Kwok] 消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管获准如此做，他却未显示出任何意愿。”[50] 第一部门上诉庭还“指示”纽约法院“进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议”。[51]\n\nhttp)（最后访问于 2022 年 2 月 28 日）。\n\n46 Friedman 声明，附件 26，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 728 at 2。\n\n47 Friedman 声明，附件 27，上诉通知，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 1。\n\n48 Friedman 声明，附件 28，命令，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 17。49 同上，第 1 页。\n\n50 同上，第 2 页。\n\n51 同上。Kwok 于 2021 年 12 月 3 日提交了准许向上诉法院提出上诉的动议，该动议于 2022 年 1 月 20 日被第一部门上诉庭驳回。Friedman 声明，附件 29，命令，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 22。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 18 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 19 of 42\n\n该证据听证于 2022 年 2 月 2 日举行，纽约法院听取了七名证人的证言，其中包括 Kwok 的女儿；其为 Hong Kong International USA（香港国际美国公司）的唯一成员，该公司据称是“Lady May”号游艇的所有人。[52] 2022 年 2 月 9 日，纽约法院作出最终民事藐视法庭命令（“最终藐视法庭命令”），指出纽约诉讼的“1,180 项案卷记录”中“几乎全部 [] 涉及被告 Kwok 借助一系列公司、受信任的亲信及家庭成员存放其大量个人资产，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为”。[53] 纽约法院认定，“Kwok 对 [] ‘Lady May’号游艇行使支配权和控制权”[54]，且“听证中由被告证人亲口作出的证言，以清楚且令人信服的方式表明，Kwok 享有并控制‘Lady May’号游艇的实益所有权，且其对本法院及司法程序怀有极度蔑视”。[55]\n\n纽约法院得出结论称，“截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，‘Lady May’号游艇已在法院管辖范围外停留 268 天”，并处以 $134 million 罚款。Kwok 被命令在五个营业日内向 PAX 支付 $134 million，否则法院将“准备行使其依据 Judiciary Law § 753 所拥有的全部权力”，该条为纽约州的民事藐视法庭规定。[56]\n\n52 Friedman 声明，附件 30，关于动议的第三次临时裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1098。\n\n53 Friedman 声明，附件 5，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 1。\n\n54 同上，第 2 页。\n\n55 同上，第 4 页。\n\n56 同上，第 10 页；另参见 Friedman 声明，附件 31，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 19 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 20 of 42\n\n2022 年 2 月 14 日，Kwok 提交了对最终藐视法庭命令的上诉通知，并请求在上诉期间紧急临时中止执行。[57] 上诉庭第一部门（Appellate Division, First Department）于次日驳回了 Kwok 的临时中止执行请求。[58] 2 月 15 日，Kwok 申请破产。值得注意的是，在基础违约合同请求作出针对他的判决时，Kwok 尚未申请破产。同样值得注意的是，Kwok 的破产申请列示 $50,001–$100,000 的资产[59]——未列入仍在美国境外、且未受任何值得信赖的受托人监管的价值不菲的“Lady May”号游艇。[60]\n\nGenever BVI 移交程序\n\n如上所述，由于该等股份是 Kwok 承认拥有的唯一资产，PAX 依据 CPLR § 5225 申请移交 Kwok 所持 Genever BVI（Genever BVI）股份；该公司为该住所的最终所有人。2021 年 9 月 22 日，纽约法院准许 PAX 的动议（“Genever 移交命令”），并在 BVI 法院（BVI Court）修订现有的限制令（其于 2021 年 12 月初如此办理）的前提下，要求 Kwok“在英属维尔京群岛采取一切必要步骤，移交与其对 Genever Holdings Corporation 享有的 100% 所有权权益有关的全部股票证书”。[61] Kwok 未对 Genever 移交命令提出上诉，但——一如既往——其未采取且拒绝采取任何步骤将其 Genever BVI 股份转让给 PAX，藐视了该命令。\n\n57 附件 32，上诉通知，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1187。\n\n58 Friedman 声明，附件 33，关于加急送达和/或临时救济申请的摘要陈述，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 5。59 chapter 11 自愿申请书，Dkt. No. 1 at 7。\n\n60 Friedman 声明，附件 8，VESSELFINDER，航程分析器，\n\nhttp（最后访问于 2022 年 4 月 12 日）。\n\n61 Friedman 声明，附件 19，关于动议的裁定和命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904 at 1。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 20 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 430-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 21:36:18 Page 21 of 42\n\n因此，PAX 于 2022 年 1 月 7 日申请另一项民事藐视法庭命令。[62] 该动议的书面陈述于 2022 年 1 月 25 日全部完成。[63] Kwok 提交其 chapter 11 申请时，[64] 纽约法院“建议 [PAX] 撤回尚待裁决的藐视法庭动议，且不影响其在破产法院提出适当申请的权利，和/或在破产程序结束后，如属适当，不影响其在本法院重新提出申请的权利”。[65] 纽约法院解释称，“本法院不愿使已提交完备的动议无限期地处于待决状态。”[66] PAX 随后在不影响其权利的情况下撤回了其动议。[67]\n\nChapter 11 破产申请及移送通知\n\nKwok 于 2022 年 2 月 15 日在康涅狄格地区（District of Connecticut）申请 chapter 11 破产。[68]\n\n如上所述，2022 年 3 月 18 日，在 Kwok 经 PAX 同意申请变更审判地之前，Kwok 将纽约诉讼移送至纽约南区地区法院（District Court for the Southern District of New York）。[69]\n\n62 Friedman 声明，附件 20，因未遵守法院移交命令而申请作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议通知，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078。\n\n63 Friedman 声明，附件 21，PAX 进一步支持申请作出民事藐视法庭命令之动议的答复法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116。\n\n64 Friedman 声明，附件 34，破产提示书，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1190。\n\n65 Friedman（弗里德曼）声明，附件7，法院通知，PAX（PAX）诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Dkt. No. 1191。\n\n66 同上。\n\n67 Friedman 声明，附件9，自愿撤回藐视法庭动议的决定及命令，PAX 诉 Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Dkt. No. 1193。\n\n68 自愿第11章破产申请，Dkt. No. 1。\n\n69 Friedman 声明，附件1，移送通知，PAX 诉 Kwok，No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.)，Dkt. No. 1；Friedman 声明，附件2，解决移送审判地动议的协议，PAX 诉 Kwok，No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)，Dkt. No. 7-1。\n\n论证\n\nI. 本案必须发回重审，因为法院根据 ROOKER-FELDMAN 原则不具有管辖权。\n\n根据 Rooker-Feldman 原则，联邦法院对质疑州法院判决的请求不具有事项管辖权。Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Phifer v. City of N.Y., 289 F.3d 49, 55–56 (2d Cir. 2002)。在第二巡回区，Rooker-Feldman 的排除效力延及下级州法院判决、中间决定以及正在上诉的事项。Campbell v. Greisberger, 80 F.3d 703, 707 (2d Cir. 1996); McKithen, 626 F.3d at 154–55（认定“[原告]质疑州法院对第440.30(1–a)(a)条解释的适当途径，是向纽约上诉分庭提出上诉”）。破产法院已承认 Rooker-Feldman 所体现的“强有力公共政策，该政策以联邦与州法院之间礼让的利益及联邦制理念为基础，即联邦法院不应不必要地干预州法院程序。”In re Pacheco, 616 B.R. 126, 132–33 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020)。在此情形下，该原则“不允许[破产法院]扰乱或无视[先前的]判决”，而法院已认定，“试图使其如此行事，是对破产法院的不当利用。”In re Kurimsky, No. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) (Manning, C.J.)。另见 Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair, No. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at \\*5 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012)（认定“破产法院无权审查州法院作出简易判决的合法性”）。当联邦法院对被移送的请求不具有事项管辖权时，案件必须发回重审。Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 427 (2d Cir. 2014); In re Freehand H.J., Inc., No. 07-12172, 2007 WL 2071877, at \\*1 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007)（“由于本法院根据 Rooker-Feldman 原则缺乏事项管辖权，对抗程序将被发回州法院。”）。\n\n在第二巡回区，如满足四项要求，Rooker-Feldman 即适用：“(i) 联邦法院原告必须在州法院败诉，(ii) 原告必须就由州法院判决所致的损害提出申诉，(iii) 原告必须请求地区法院审查并推翻该判决，以及 (iv) 州法院判决必须在地区法院程序开始之前作出。”[70] Holblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005)。第一项和第四项要求属于程序性要求，第二项和第三项属于实体性要求。Robinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017)。\n\n本案中，被移送的纽约诉讼由附于 PAX 移送通知的 PAX 两项罪名项修正起诉状构成。Kwok 的通知还提及纽约法院认定 Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益所有权并实施控制，但其忽略了关键事实：该等认定是在藐视法庭程序中作出的，旨在维护纽约法院的权威。[71] Kwok 未提出任何其他独立请求。因此，Kwok 似乎正在联邦法院质疑：(1) 2020年9月15日作出的简易判决命令（导致于2021年2月3日对 Kwok 作出判决）；以及 (2) 2022年2月9日作出的最终藐视法庭命令，[72] 该命令要求 Kwok 向 PAX 支付 \\$134 million，并认定 Kwok“对 Lady May 享有受益所有权并实施控制”。两项判决均轻易满足 Rooker-Feldman 的四项要求。\n\n70 PAX 对州法院败诉被告援引 Rooker-Feldman，但适用同一四因素检验。例如，Perkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC, 773 F. Supp. 2d 553, 558 (E.D. Pa. 2011)。\n\n71 尽管 Kwok 的移送通知须载明据称使其移送通知具有正当性的事实陈述，Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027，但在其对 PAX 确认停止令不适用于最终藐视法庭命令之动议所提出的异议中，Kwok 已预示其意图，即试图重新诉讼 Lady May 所有权问题。他主张最终藐视法庭命令是“被错误地针对其作出的”，且 Kwok 对 Lady May 的权益“最终[将]予以确定”。Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 (Mar. 15, 2022), at ¶¶ 4, 14。如上文脚注24所述，Kwok 还继续不诚实地、且有悖于压倒性证据的分量主张——包括 Kwok 向纽约法院提交该文件本身，并承认及约定其真实性——其2011年个人保证书不知何故是“伪造的”，Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 at ¶ 12，该论点已被纽约法院明确驳回。见 Friedman 声明，附件3，关于动议的决定及命令，PAX 诉 Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Dkt. No. 549 at 3（“Kwok 被司法禁止质疑其先前在本程序中向法院担保为真实的协议之真实性。”）。Kwok 受这些认定约束。\n\n72 2022年3月1日，PAX 向破产法院提出动议，请求作出命令确认其有权提起进一步程序以执行最终藐视法庭命令，或作为替代方案，根据 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) 和《联邦破产程序规则》第4001条解除自动停止，以允许执行最终藐视法庭命令，但该命令要求 Kwok 立即向 PAX 支付金钱的范围除外。见 In re: Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., PAX's Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No. 57。\n\n首先，就这两项判决而言，Kwok 是“州法院败诉方”，因为两项判决均有利于 PAX 作出。McKithen, 626 F.3d at 154。\n\n其次，Kwok 正就纽约法院施加的“损害”提出申诉。在如本案般“州法院本身是其行为造成损害的决策者”时，Rooker-Feldman 适用。Sindone v. Kelly, 439 F. Supp. 2d 268, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)；例如，Robinson, 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3（认定“因果关系要求——第二项要件——得到满足，因为造成原告损害的是州法院止赎判决”）。例如，在 Hoblock 一案中，法院首先指出，“本案中选民的请求表面上似乎仅就[选举委员会]拒绝计票提出申诉，而非就州法院判决造成的任何损害提出申诉”，随后澄清，“委员会拒绝计票时，是在州法院命令的强制下行事。”422 F.3d at 88。因此，“州法院判决导致委员会拒绝计算选票，而这正是选民所申诉的损害。”Id. at 89。同样地，本案中，Kwok 试图逃避纽约法院的“强制权力”，该法院作出了对其超过 \\$250 million 的判决，并认定根据纽约州法律，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益所有权并实施控制。[73]\n\n第三，Kwok 明显寻求联邦法院直接审查并推翻两项州法院判决。Kwok 在脚注中掩盖要点，承认移送是对最终藐视法庭命令的附带攻击。Kwok 的脚注称：“纽约州法院已作出命令，其中包含有关这些问题的事实认定，包括认定最相关的所谓资产（Lady May 游艇）属于 Kwok 先生的受益所有权范围内”[74——]随后请求本法院“[重新]确定何者是（或不是）破产财产。”[75] Kwok 的移送尝试是对不当联邦法院审查的拙劣掩饰，是对“绕过州法院上诉程序”的不允许的规避，以及“对藐视法庭指控的不允许的附带攻击”。见 Rose v. Cnty. of York, No. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682, at \\*3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007); In re Kurimsky, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5（在先前法院认定“Avail-1, LLC 拥有担保债务”，而破产法院起诉状主张其并不拥有的情形下适用 Rooker-Feldman）（强调系原文所加）。\n\n73 Friedman 声明，附件5，关于动议的决定及命令，PAX 诉 Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Dkt. No. 1181 at 4。\n\n74 Friedman 声明，附件1，移送通知，PAX 诉 Kwok，No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.)，Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 7 n.1。\n\n75 同上，at ¶ 5。\n\nRooker-Feldman 不允许 Kwok 寻求如下救济：该救济如获准，将阻止纽约法院执行其命令。In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573, 581 (3d Cir. 2005)。因此，该原则尤其适用于州法院藐视法庭程序，在该等程序中，联邦制方面的关切尤为强烈。Cornell v. Burke, 559 F. App'x 577, 579 (7th Cir. 2014)（“由于藐视法庭命令属于州法院判决，Rooker-Feldman 剥夺了地区法院审查该命令的管辖权。”）。法院作出藐视法庭命令并裁定制裁的能力“处于州司法系统管理的核心。”Marciano v. White, 431 F. App'x 611, 614 (9th Cir. 2011)（引述 Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1977)）。例如，在 In re Ivani, 308 B.R. 132, 137 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004) 一案中，法院根据 Rooker-Feldman 驳回债务人推翻纽约州法院藐视法庭认定的动议，因为“[债务人]的论点只有在本法院认定[州法院]作出了错误决定并推翻该决定时才会成功。”另见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs., Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 62 B.R. 723, 729–30 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)（承认州法院“对债务人实施蔑视法庭尊严行为予以惩罚的固有权力，无论该尊严属于州法院还是联邦法院，均不因破产诉讼而受限”）；见 In re Stahl, 526 F. App'x 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2013)（承认以根据 Fed. Bankr. P. 9027 提交移送通知为伪装、对州法院简易判决命令提出的质疑，将受到 Rooker-Feldman 禁止）。\n\n第四，纽约法院的两项判决——分别于2021年2月3日和2022年2月9日作出——均在 Kwok 于2022年2月15日提交第11章申请之前作出。[76]\n\n由于 Rooker-Feldman 的四项因素均已满足，本法院对纽约诉讼不具有事项管辖权。\n\nKwok 的转移焦点主张，即破产法院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e) 对 Lady May 以及因此对纽约诉讼享有专属管辖权，在法律上是错误的。\n\n76 Friedman 声明，证据 4，判决书，PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵），案号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），案卷编号 716；Friedman 声明，证据 5，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX 诉 Kwok，案号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），案卷编号 1181；Friedman 声明，证据 31，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX 诉 Kwok，案号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），案卷编号 1182。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 录入于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 26 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文件 430-2 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 27 页，共 42 页\n\n法律。尽管破产法院对“案件启动时债务人的所有财产，无论位于何处，以及破产财产”享有专属对物管辖权，这一点是正确的。[77] 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e)，但 § 1334(e)(1) 授予的专属管辖权“仅为对物管辖权”。Loudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co., 481 B.R. 388, 394 (S.D. W. Va. 2012)（援引 In re CitX Corp., 302 B.R. 144, 161 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003)）。第 1334(e) 条不延及本案此类对人合同违约诉讼；此类诉讼“旨在确定债务人就某项债权承担个人责任，但并非具体针对破产财产的所有权，或对该财产享有的权利和权益。”同上。事实上，最终藐视法庭命令适用于 Kwok 本人；Kwok 本可以遵守该命令，但其拒绝这样做。\n\n当然，若破产法院准许 PAX 提出的“请求作出命令，确认自动停止不适用，或备选地，根据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动停止”的动议，[78] 则任何试图依据 § 1334(e)(1) 将本案交由联邦法院审理的努力均将失去意义。本院完全有权允许纽约法院监督与 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）有关的行动。参见 In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico, 899 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 2018)（承认第 1334(e) 条并不“限制破产法院允许他人就债务人财产采取行动的权力”，包括允许非破产法院“准许债权人出售债务人财产”（援引 Catalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 279 F.3d 682, 687 (9th Cir. 2002)））。\n\n77 PAX 承认，纽约法院认定由 Kwok“实益拥有并控制”的 Lady May 的清算，以及对由此所得款项的分配，应在第 11 章程序中进行（如本案未被驳回）。\n\n78 参见 PAX 请求作出命令，确认自动停止不适用，或备选地，解除自动停止的动议，案卷编号 57。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 录入于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 27 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文件 430-2 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 28 页，共 42 页\n\n总之，Kwok 寻求解除藐视法庭命令的适当途径是在纽约上诉法院。In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 402 B.R. 596, 610 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)（“基于 Rooker-Feldman 原则以及常识，新泽西州上诉法院是唯一能够裁决关于针对 Lyondell 的判决是否符合新泽西州法律的法律问题的机构。”）。由于 Rooker-Feldman 原则剥夺了本院对纽约诉讼中已裁决的所有请求和争议事项的事物管辖权，本案必须发回重审。\n\nII. 备选地，法院应回避行使管辖权。\n\n即使法院认定其对纽约诉讼具有管辖权（其不应作此认定），法院也应回避审理该案。参见 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2)；28 U.S.C. § 1452(b)。因为除其他事项外，纽约诉讼是一宗普通的合同违约争议，所依据的合同在第 11 章破产申请提出十余年前即已签订，故其被视为“非核心”程序，参见例如 In re Coudert Bros., No. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011)。因此，强制回避原则禁止法院审理此类非核心程序。但即使该合同违约请求属于“核心”程序，衡平因素——包括联邦法院尚待裁决的争议极少，参见上文第 14–20 页，以及 Kwok 的移送显然属于挑选法院——亦强力支持依照许可回避原则将案件发回重审。\n\nA 强制回避原则禁止法院对纽约诉讼行使权力。\n\n在认定破产法院对某一事项具有管辖权后，法院“转而参考回避原则，以就如何适当行使该管辖权获得指引。”Baker v. Simpson, 613 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 2010)。“回避规定涉及的问题是破产法院是否应当行使管辖权，而非该法院是否在第一时间即具有管辖权。”In re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc., 45 F.3d 702, 708 (2d Cir. 1995)。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 录入于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 28 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文件 430-2 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 29 页，共 42 页\n\n根据强制回避原则，“如某一诉讼……可在具有适当管辖权的州法院得到及时裁决，地区法院应回避审理该程序。”28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2)。如本案一样，在案件已被移送时，如满足以下六项标准，则必须发回重审：\n\n（1）必须已提出“及时”的回避动议；（2）诉讼必须基于州法请求；（3）该诉讼必须与破产程序“有关”，而非“根据”第 11 编产生，或“在”第 11 编案件中产生；（4）该诉讼唯一的联邦管辖权依据必须是第 1334 条；（5）该诉讼必须已在州法院“提起”；以及（6）该诉讼必须能够在州法院获得“及时裁决”。\n\nDel. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 534 B.R. 500, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)。主张“法院应保留管辖权”的当事人——即 Kwok——“负有证明强制回避不适用的举证责任。”In re Eight-115 Associates, LLC, 626 B.R. 383, 391 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021)。本案中，每一项要件均已满足，Kwok 无法证明并非如此。\n\n第一，回避动议是及时的。回避动议是否及时“必须根据个案情形确定。”同上，第 392 页。法院考虑：\n\n（1）动议方是否在其本应知悉提出该动议依据后尽快提出动议；（2）动议方是否已就涉及起诉状实体问题的事项启动联邦法院的实体审理程序，特别是仅在收到不利结果后才提出回避动议；以及（3）准许该动议是否会损害或延误他人的权利。\n\n同上。本案中，自 Kwok 移送案件以来经过的时间很短，完全处于法院认定回避动议及时的期间之内。参见 Acolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of N.Y., 69 B.R. 155, 177 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986)（在提起对抗性起诉状后不足两个月提交的动议及时）；另参见 Robinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 918 F.2d 579, 584 (6th Cir. 1990)\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 录入于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 29 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文件 430-2 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 30 页，共 42 页\n\n（认定在移送八个多月后提出的动议仍属及时）。第二，PAX 未曾启动本院“涉及起诉状实体问题”的实体审理程序，其提出动议也并非“仅在收到不利结果之后”。In re Eight-115 Assocs., 626 B.R. at 391–92；参见 In re AHT Corp., 265 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001)（在就驳回动议收到不利裁定后提出的动议不及时）。最后，回避不会损害或延误 Kwok。因此，该动议及时。\n\n第二，纽约诉讼基于 PAX 对 Kwok 提出的合同违约请求，此类请求通常在州法院审理。例如，Deloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP, 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011)（合同违约请求适宜适用回避）。\n\n第三，纽约诉讼并非“根据”第 11 编产生，亦非“在”第 11 编中产生，而只是与 Kwok 的破产“有关”。28 U.S.C. § 1334 赋予地区法院对“根据第 11 编产生，或在第 11 编案件中产生或与第 11 编案件有关的所有程序”的管辖权。一般参见 Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011)。这“三类管辖权”“通常被称为‘根据产生’、‘在其中产生’及‘有关’管辖权。”Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Expl. & Dev. II, L.P., 487 B.R. 158, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)。“根据产生”管辖权存在于“根据第 11 编的某项规定提出请求的任何事项中。”In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC, 475 B.R. 9, 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)。“在其中产生”管辖权存在于请求“并非基于第 11 编明确创设的任何权利，但若非破产则根本不会存在”的事项中。Baker, 613 F.3d at 350–51。最后，如诉讼的“结果可能对破产财团产生任何可设想的影响”，则存在“有关”管辖权。Parmalat Cap. Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 639 F.3d 572, 579 (2d Cir. 2011)。[79]\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 录入于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 30 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文件 430-2 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 31 页，共 42 页\n\n第二巡回法院已解释：“根据”第 11 编产生或“在”第 11 编中产生的程序属于“核心”破产程序，但仅与第 11 编案件“有关”的程序则不属于；在非核心程序中，强制回避原则适用。Wilmington Tr., 534 B.R. at 512（引述 Baker, 613 F.3d at 350）。确定合同诉讼属于核心程序还是非核心程序，需要考虑“（1）该合同是否先于重整申请；以及（2）该程序独立于重整的程度。”In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2005)。对于“申请前合同损害赔偿”的请求——如 PAX 对 Kwok 提出的合同违约诉讼——通常属于“非核心”程序。参见 In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1102 (2d Cir. 1993)（援引 Beard v. Braunstein, 914 F.2d 434, 443 (3d Cir. 1990)）；另参见 In re Coudert Bros., 2011 WL 7678683, at *5（“如被诉合同在破产申请前订立，则基于该合同的程序通常极不可能取决于破产法。”）。\n\n本案不存在“根据产生”或“在其中产生”管辖权。第一，Kwok 并未主张存在“根据产生”管辖权；其无法作此主张，因为该程序涉及合同违约请求，而非“根据第 11 编某项规定”提出的请求。In re Salander, 475 B.R. at 27；另参见 KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc., 600 B.R. 214, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)（原告“主张州法上的合同违约及相关请求，且该等请求并非根据第 11 编产生”时，不存在“根据产生”管辖权）。亦不存在“在其中产生”\n\n79 PAX 承认本案存在“有关”管辖权。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 录入于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 31 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文件 430-2 提交于 05/24/22 21:36:18 第 32 页，共 42 页\n\n管辖权，因为该等请求在“破产之外”已存在近五年。Baker, 613 F.3d at 350–51。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）草率地提出，纽约诉讼（New York Action）因涉及认定郭文贵对 Lady May（梅夫人号）的所有权而“在”第11章案件中产生；这一主张经不起审查。[80] 郭文贵似乎主张，由于《破产法典》第541条规定哪些财产构成破产财产，而纽约法院（New York Court）在其最终藐视法庭命令（Final Contempt Order）中认定郭文贵对 Lady May 享有实益所有权，纽约诉讼必定“在”其破产案件中产生。事实并非如此。郭文贵是否可因拒绝返还其在提交破产申请前享有实益所有权的财产而被认定藐视法庭，是一项完全独立于本第11章案件、依据纽约州法律存在的法律事项；其持续的藐视法庭状态亦然。\n\n80 Friedman（弗里德曼）声明，附件1，移送通知，PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 6.\n\n纽约诉讼并非如郭文贵所称，是一项“寻求确定何者属于（或不属于）郭文贵先生或其破产财产的财产”的诉讼。[81] 奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）裁定郭文贵对 Lady May 的权益时，并不存在任何“破产财产”。由于纽约诉讼，现已认定郭文贵依据纽约州法律实益拥有并控制 Lady May。该问题已无任何事项有待进一步诉讼。若本案被发回且自动中止获变更，奥斯特拉格法官不会重新审理财产问题。相反，纽约法院可能处理的唯一问题是郭文贵持续藐视法庭行为的后果。此外，奥斯特拉格法官的裁定并未援引第541条，也未侵占任何可能在破产法院中依据第541条产生的诉讼。若必须进行涉及第541条的独立程序，该程序可在郭文贵的第11章案件中进行；但任何有关 Lady May 的潜在诉讼，均将因纽约诉讼中的事实认定和判决而受到重大影响（如非完全受其控制），因为破产程序中有关财产权利的问题通常由州法决定。参见 Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979)。事实上，PAX（PAX）将证明，既判力和争点排除原则禁止郭文贵及其他参与纽约诉讼之人，就已在该法庭裁决的请求和争点再次提起诉讼。无论如何，郭文贵已被判定应承担合同损害赔偿责任；法院认定郭文贵实益拥有并控制该游艇，是认定郭文贵违反法院命令并构成藐视法庭的前提。关键在于基础诉因，而该诉因基于“独立于重整”而存在的合同权利。Cf. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 227（对“一项在申请破产后订立的合同，其解决取决于对破产法院命令的解释”的争议，存在“在……中产生”的管辖权）。换言之，在如本案般非核心法律请求实质上被“装扮成破产请求”的情况下，该标签并不能证明应将该请求视为核心请求。In re Coudert Bros., 2011 WL 7678683, at *4.\n\n81 同上。\n\n第四，28 U.S.C. § 1334 是移送申请中为纽约诉讼所指明的唯一所称联邦管辖权依据。如前所述，纽约诉讼涉及合同解释及纽约州判决执行规定的适用。此外，鉴于存在一名所在地在境外的原告（PAX）和多名所在地在境外的被告，不存在多元管辖权。\n\n第五，纽约诉讼在州法院“提起”。[82]\n\n82 参见 Friedman（弗里德曼）声明，附件6，第一份修正起诉书，PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n第六，纽约诉讼“能够在州法院得到及时裁决”。Wilmington Tr., 534 B.R. at 512。法院通过考量四项因素，以评估诉讼是否可在州法院得到及时裁决：“(1) 州法院案件日程的积压情况与联邦法院案件日程的积压情况相比如何；(2) 所提问题的复杂性及各法庭各自的专门知识；(3) 与州法请求相关的第11编破产程序的状态；以及 (4) 州法院程序是否会延长破产财产的管理或清算。”Parmalat, 639 F.3d at 580.\n\n这些因素表明，纽约诉讼能够在州法院得到及时裁决，主要原因是该诉讼已经获得裁决。第一，不存在对州法院案件日程积压的担忧，因为该案已诉讼五年，且奥斯特拉格法官已经裁决了 PAX 的违约请求，并已就藐视法庭问题作出裁定。参见 Worldview Ent. Holdings Inc.（世界观娱乐控股公司）v. Woodrow, 611 B.R. 10, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)（“即便有任何影响，该因素也有利于回避审理，因为州法院程序已持续五年。”）。第二，本案“事实尤其复杂”，因此州法院是更适当的法庭。Parmalat, 639 F.3d at 580–81。事实上，正如奥斯特拉格法官在最终藐视法庭命令中恰当地指出，纽约诉讼是“一宗2017年案件，已有1,180项案卷记录——其中几乎全部涉及被告郭文贵通过将其巨额个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信任的亲信和家庭成员名下，试图逃避并欺骗其债权人的行为。”[83] 该因素亦有利于回避审理，因为州法院诉讼是一宗违约争议，联邦法院对此并无专门知识。Woodrow, 611 B.R. at 19。最后，毫无疑问，在奥斯特拉格法官面前提起的任何额外藐视法庭程序均能够且将会得到及时裁决。郭文贵要么仍构成藐视法庭，要么不构成；该问题并不复杂。\n\n83 Friedman（弗里德曼）声明，附件5，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181.\n\n第三和第四项因素亦有利于由州法院裁决。第三项因素考察第11章程序“所处的状态”，即“鉴于正在进行的第11编破产程序的状态，州法院程序中的诉讼当事人是否需要迅速解决州法请求”。Parmalat, 639 F.3d at 581。该因素支持回避审理，因为“与州法院程序相比，破产程序开始的时间相对较近”。Woodrow, 611 B.R. at 19。最后，州法院裁决不会“延长破产财产的管理或清算”，因为“无争议的是，州法院中的程序将继续受自动中止约束，除非且直至破产法院解除该中止。”Id. at 19–20。因此，自动中止要么将被变更，而纽约诉讼将有助于解决郭文贵的破产事宜；要么纽约诉讼将继续处于休眠状态，不会影响破产法院中的程序。因此，“州法院程序影响或延误破产程序的可能性很小。”Id. at 19.\n\n基于上述各项理由，强制回避审理原则禁止本院审理纽约诉讼。\n\nB 即使强制回避审理不适用，法院亦应依据酌情回避审理原则拒绝审理该诉讼。\n\n即使法院认定存在管辖权（实际上不存在），且强制回避审理不适用（若存在管辖权，则应适用），法院仍应依据酌情回避审理原则回避审理。[84] 该原则基于 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1)，其规定：“本条任何规定均不妨碍地区法院为司法公正之利益，或为与州法院礼让之利益或尊重州法之利益，而回避审理根据第11编产生、在第11编案件中产生或与第11编案件相关的特定程序。”在决定是否基于该理由回避审理时，法院会权衡礼让和联邦主义、司法经济以及效率等考量。Wilmington Tr., 534 B.R. at 512.\n\n84 或者，法院应基于衡平理由，依据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 将案件发回；该条规定，“被移送该请求或诉因的法院，可以基于任何衡平理由将该请求或诉因发回。”在评估是否应依据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 发回案件时，法院考量的因素与决定是否酌情回避审理时的因素类似，包括：“(1) 州法问题是否占主导地位；(2) 衡平发回是否有助于司法经济；(3) § 1334(b) 是否为行使联邦管辖权的唯一依据；(4) 程序是否涉及非债务人；(5) 该程序与主要破产案件的关联程度或疏远程度；以及 (6) 该程序是否因一方当事人进行法院选择而在特定法庭提起的可能性。”KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 226（引自 Rahl v. Bande, 316 B.R. 127, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)）。由于这些因素相互重叠，本动议一并论述了依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) 的酌情回避审理和依据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 的衡平发回。In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 B.R. 308, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)（“衡平发回分析……实质上与第1334(c)(1)条的回避审理分析相同。”）。\n\n很难设想有哪一案件比本案更需要基于礼让而发回：郭文贵提起本案，是为了逃避因藐视法庭而被追究责任，起初是援引自动中止，如今则是移送纽约诉讼。郭文贵公然无视法院命令、损害纽约法院系统的尊严和神圣性，因而完全应受其所受的每一项制裁。仅出于对州法院的尊重，也应准予发回。Marciano, 431 F. App'x at 614（对州法院施加制裁的质疑，涉及“处于一州司法系统管理核心”的权力）；参见，例如，In re Rodriguez, No. 18-14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009, at *4–5 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019)（债务人移送州法院诉讼“产生了剥夺州法院权力”的效果，使其无法通过藐视法庭制裁执行先前命令时，酌情回避审理是适当的）。\n\n第二巡回区的法院在决定是否酌情回避审理时，会考量多项因素：\n\n（1）如法院建议回避审理，对破产财产高效管理所产生的影响或未产生的影响；（2）州法争点相对于破产争点所占的主导程度；（3）适用州法的难度或尚未确定的性质；（4）州法院或其他非破产法院已启动相关程序的存在；（5）除 28 U.S.C. § 1334 之外的管辖权依据（如有）；（6）该程序与主要破产案件之间的关联程度或疏远程度；（7）所主张“核心”程序的实质而非形式；（8）将州法请求与核心破产事项分割，以便由州法院作出判决、并由破产法院负责执行的可行性；（9）对法院案卷负担；（10）在破产法院启动该程序是否可能涉及一方当事人进行法院选择；（11）陪审团审判权的存在；以及（12）该程序中非债务人当事人的存在。\n\n47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.，No. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL 2012296, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021)（引述 KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 225）。\n\n适用这些因素——因素 1、2、3、4、5、6、8、9 和 10——压倒性地支持酌情回避审理。就因素 2 和 4 而言，不仅州法争点——包括 CPLR（纽约州民事诉讼法与规则）第 52 条规定的判决执行程序中的争点——占据主导地位，而且这些争点已由纽约州法院作出裁决。如前所述，Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官已作出：（i）支持 PAX 违约请求的简易判决命令；以及（ii）最终藐视法庭命令，认定 Kwok（郭文贵）构成藐视法庭。[85] 见上文第 6–7、11 页。在此情形下——基于 Rooker-Feldman 原则适用的实质相同理由——礼让原则“实际上要求”发回。In re Briarpatch Film Corp., 281 B.R. 820, 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)（衡平发回适当，因为“[州]法争点不仅占据主导地位”，“而且已由该法院作出裁决”）；另见 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.，\n\n85 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX v. Kwok, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 3。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 录入，主文档第 37 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文档 430-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 21:36:18 录入，第 38 页，共 42 页\n\n2021 WL 2012296, at *10（在“[整个案件]已具备简易裁决条件”，且“该简易裁决可由已在本案中主持州法争点的州法院法官以最高效率处理”的情况下，酌情回避审理适当）。这一点尤其如此，因为“[破产程序不得被用来重新审理已由具有管辖权的法院解决的争点。”Kelleran v. Andrijevic, 825 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1987)；另见 In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 402 B.R. at 609（指出“除非或直至新泽西州法院另有裁定”，在新泽西州法院获得判决的判决债权人“现有一项向本院主张的请求，金额为审判法院判定的数额”）。基于相同理由，因素 1——破产财产的高效管理——同样支持发回：“若本院重新审议州法院已经审理并裁定的事项，将极其低效。”In re Briarpatch, 281 B.R. at 831。因素 3，即争点的难度或尚未确定的性质，亦是如此。Briarpatch 与本案直接相关：“问题不在于这些争点是否困难；此处的关键因素是州法院已对其作出裁定。”Id. at 829。\n\n就因素 5 而言，除 28 U.S.C. § 1334 外不存在其他管辖权依据，进一步加强了酌情回避审理的理由。因素 6——关联程度——以及因素 8，即分割纽约诉讼的可行性，也支持发回。该诉讼完全独立于破产程序而存在——并且已存在近五年。其涉及基于一份与破产毫无关联的申请前合同的违约请求。见 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P., 2021 WL 2012296, at *9（“简单的州法合同案件”并非“与破产直接相关”）。而且，与法院认定酌情回避审理不适当的案件不同，纽约诉讼无需解释破产法院的命令。参见 KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 233（分割州法请求并不简单明了，“因为其涉及需要解释破产法院命令的争点。”）。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 录入，主文档第 38 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文档 430-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 21:36:18 录入，第 39 页，共 42 页\n\n就因素 9 而言，发回不会给州法院案卷造成任何负担，因为州法院已对 PAX 的请求作出裁判（且第一部门已收到就简易判决命令提出、完成全部书面陈述的上诉）。\n\n最后，Kwok 启动破产程序，并试图移送纽约诉讼并将其转至破产法院，强烈表明存在不当的法院选择（因素 10）。Kwok 在 Ostrager 法官的藐视法庭制裁即将生效前提出第 11 章申请，并于不久后移送案件。见 Balcor/Morristown Ltd. P'ship v. Vector Whippany Assocs., 181 B.R. 781, 793 (D.N.J. 1995)（债务人提出移送申请时藐视法庭制裁动议“已临近作出裁定”，故可能存在法院选择）；In re AMeribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc., 399 B.R. 129, 134–35 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)（移送时机表明试图规避藐视法庭制裁时，“有充分理由发回或回避审理”）；M.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC, 2021 WL 5046216, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021)（移送时机“至少表明被告可能试图通过选择法院获得更有利结果”时，回避审理和发回适当）。此外，Kwok 的移送通知并未说明联邦法院实际上将裁决何事——很可能是因为该移送仅是为了：（i）拖延 PAX 向破产法院提出的动议，以确认自动中止不适用于 Ostrager 法官的最终藐视法庭命令；[86] 以及（ii）试图通过\n\n86 Mot. of PAX 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, Dkt. No. 57。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 录入，主文档第 39 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文档 430-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 21:36:18 录入，第 40 页，共 42 页\n\n重新审理纽约州法院已对其作出不利裁决的争点，以获得第二次机会。[87] 但是，正如 Gropper（格罗珀）法官在 Briarpatch 一案中恰当地指出：“破产法院必须尊重州法院的命令和判决，且不得就已由具有管辖权的州法院裁定的事项充当审查或上诉法院。”281 B.R. at 829。在该案中，债务人“对州法院程序深表不满”，却未能说明“哪些动议” “现今可供其提出”，或“具体希望本院实现何事，除充当一般审查法院外。”Id. at 829–30。实际上，债务人寻求的是“一名将作出‘重新审视’的法官”，而这“属于不允许的法院选择企图”——正是本案的情形。In re Rodriguez, 2019 WL 137009, at *4（认定债务人在“安排就认定债务人……构成民事藐视法庭的动议举行证据听证会”后不久移送时，“法院选择的风险显著”）；In re Drauschak, 481 B.R. 330, 347 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012)（同上）；Rose, 2007 WL 136682, at *3（禁止在联邦法院对州藐视法庭命令提出质疑，因为其为“对藐视法庭指控的不允许的附带攻击”）。\n\n许多与酌情回避审理有关的因素，最终均取决于 Kwok 破产案件中就 PAX 提出的动议作出的裁定；该动议请求确认自动中止不适用，或备选地，就最终藐视法庭命令给予自动中止救济。具体而言，如破产法院认定自动中止不适用或应予修改，则——根据定义——其将裁定发回具有正当性，且继续执行最终藐视法庭命令不会干扰破产程序。反之，如法院认定自动中止适用于执行最终藐视法庭\n\n87 在其对 PAX 关于确认自动中止不适用于最终藐视法庭命令的动议提出的异议中，Kwok 预示其意图不当地试图重新审理 Lady May 所有权争点。见上文注释 71。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 录入，主文档第 40 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文档 430-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 21:36:18 录入，第 41 页，共 42 页\n\n命令，或认定不应予以修改，则发回仍不会干扰破产程序，因为自动中止将继续有效，直至法院另有裁定。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 恭请法院准许其动议，将纽约诉讼发回 New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院商事庭）。\n\n鉴于相关事实和情形，PAX 请求法院在适用范围内免除根据 Bankruptcy Rule 7062 对判决执行的 14 日期限中止。\n\n日期：April 13, 2022，New York, NY\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）\n\n/s/ Peter Friedman\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M. 萨诺夫）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥麦文律师事务所）\n7 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\nssarnoff@omm.com\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 录入，主文档第 41 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文档 430-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 21:36:18 录入，第 42 页，共 42 页\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 April 13, 2022，上述文件副本已通过法院 CM/ECF 系统以电子方式提交。本次提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给依据法院电子提交系统而接收通知的所有当事人。利害关系方可通过法院 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n/s/ Peter Friedman\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","RICO","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":5,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":7,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":15,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":16,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":17,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":83,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":141,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":252,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":576,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":685,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":725,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1078,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1089,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1098,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1187,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1190,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1191,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1193,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":13491,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:41:38"}