{"id":"court_ctb_430_4","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":430,"sub_number":4,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-24","title":"EXHIBIT D Referral Motion","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT D**\n\nReferral Motion\n\n### **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n## PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nvs.\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 LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,\n\n3:22-cv-00553-VAB\n\nDefendants.\n\nApril 21, 2022\n\n## **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION TO REFER CASE TO UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT**\n\nPursuant to sections 151 and 157(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, this Court's\n\nStanding Order, dated September 21, 1984 (the \"Standing Referral Order\"),1 and the *So Ordered*\n\n*Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue*, entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court\n\nfor the Southern District of New York (Jones, U.S.B.J.) on April 15, 2022 (the \"Conditional\n\nTransfer Order\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), respectfully moves2\n\nthat this Court refer the above-captioned proceeding to the United States Bankruptcy Court for\n\nDistrict of Connecticut for assignment to the Honorable United States Bankruptcy Judge Julie A.\n\n1 A copy of the Standing Order can be found at http\n\n2 The instant motion supersedes and is intended to replace the motion seeking the same relief filed on April 20, 2021 [ECF No. 5], which filing omitted the signature of counsel and did not indicate the Debtor's conditional consent. *See ¶¶* 4, 19, *infra*. The Debtor's consent was obtained *after* the initial filing on April 20, 2021.\n\nManning, who is currently presiding over the bankruptcy case captioned *In re Ho Wan Kwok*, Bankruptcy Case Number 22-50073 (JAM) (the \"Bankruptcy Case\").\n\n#### **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") commenced the Bankruptcy Case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Connecticut Bankruptcy Court\") after failing to satisfy a civil contempt order issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division (Justice Ostrager presiding) (the \"New York Court\"), captioned *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. vs. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.* and bearing Index Number 652077/2017 (the \"Removed Action\").3\n\n2. On March 18, 2022, the Debtor removed the Removed Action from the New York Court to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York, which referred the Removed Action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York (the \"New York Bankruptcy Court\") pursuant to the *Amended Standing Order of Reference*, dated January 31, 2012. On April 15, 2022, the New York Bankruptcy Court entered the Conditional Transfer Order transferring the Removed Action to this Court.4\n\n3. Pursuant to sections 151 and 157(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, the Standing Referral Order, the Conditional Transfer Order and for the reasons argued, *infra*, PAX seeks the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for assignment to Judge Manning, who is presiding over the Bankruptcy Case, to permit Judge Manning to adjudicate the Remand Motion (as hereinafter defined). The Remand Motion challenges the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court's subject matter jurisdiction under section 1334(b) of Title 28 or,\n\n3 *See* Ex. 1*,* Compl., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr 18, 2017), ECF 2.\n\n4 *See* Ex. 2, So Ordered Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-01073 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2022), ECF 16.\n\nin the alternative, requests that the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court abstain from hearing the Removed Action.\n\n4. The Debtor consents to the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court but does not join in the motion or adopt the statements made herein.\n\n#### **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**\n\n5. On April 18, 2017, PAX commenced the Removed Action by suing the Debtor for breach of a personal guarantee contract in the New York Court.5 Following nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, PAX secured a judgment against the Debtor for \\$116,402,019.57 in the Removed Action.6 PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon [the Debtor's] assets in the United States.\"7 This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, the Debtor, \"who is a self-declared multibillionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"8 The Debtor has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which accrued post-judgment interest at the rate of 9 percent per year.9\n\n6. The Debtor has (at a minimum)10 beneficial ownership of the Lady May, a luxury yacht purchased in 2015 for €28 million. On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a\n\n8 *Id*.\n\n5 *Id.*\n\n6 *See* Ex. 3, Judgment at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 3, 2021), ECF 716.\n\n7 *See* Ex. 4, Decision and Order on Motion at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), ECF 1181.\n\n9 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004 (McKinney 2022).\n\n10 Notably, the Debtor claims to have no assets in certain Schedules of Assets and Liabilities he filed under penalty of perjury in the Bankruptcy Case. *But see United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs* at ¶ 12, Bankruptcy Case ECF No. 49 (during his Initial Debtor Interview with the United States Trustee, Kwok \"disclosed he has no bank accounts, no credit cards, is not employed such that he earns income, and that all of his living expenses are paid for and through an entity known as Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. ('Golden Spring'). [He] also disclosed that he does not directly own any real estate, does not own any cars, and does not insure any assets.\").\n\ntemporary restraining order in the Removed Action preventing the Debtor \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\"11 Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that this restraint on the Debtor included the Lady May.12 But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9.13 The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe, where it remains to this day.14\n\n7. In response, PAX filed a contempt motion15 and on March 16, 2021, the New York Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing the Debtor or the boat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction by May 15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained beyond its jurisdiction.16 The New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the New York Court's order, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [the Debtor had] violated a lawful clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"17; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly\n\n13 *See* Ex. 7, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer\n\n11 *See* Ex. 5, Decision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 62077-2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 30, 2020), ECF 591.\n\n12 *See* Ex. 6, Decision and Order on Motion at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/217 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 15, 2020), ECF 630.\n\nhttp (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n14 As of February 28, 2022, the Lady May was located in Genoa, Italy. *See id.*\n\n15 *See* Ex. 8, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 24, 2020), ECF No. 689; *see also* Ex. 9, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 27, 2021), ECF 709.\n\n16 *See* Ex. 10, Decision and Order on Motion at 2, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2021), ECF 728 (\"Initial Contempt Order\"). In other words, the court provided Mr. Kwok a full two-month grace period to return the yacht and thereby avoid any fine at all.\n\n17 *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021).\n\nencourage [the Debtor] to purge himself of the contempt.\"18 Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.19\n\n8. The New York Court held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After hearing testimony from seven witnesses, Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [the Debtor]'s witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that [the Debtor] beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"20 The court further found that \"[n]ot only does [the Debtor] control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"21 As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the Final Order of Civil Contempt, dated February 8, 2022 (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\").22\n\n9. The Debtor failed to pay the contempt fine, and as of this date has not returned the Lady May to the United States.23 On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed the Bankruptcy Case in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.24\n\n10. On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion for Entry Of An Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay*\n\n18 *Id.* at 424.\n\n19 Ex. 3, *supra* note 7, at 4.\n\n20 *Id.* at 4.\n\n21 *Id.* at 8.\n\n22 *See* Ex. 11, Final Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), ECF 1182.\n\n23 *See* Ex. 12, Bankruptcy Case ECF 57.\n\n24 Ex. 13, Voluntary Petition at 7, Bankruptcy Case ECF 1.\n\n*Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code* (the \"Stay Motion\") in the Bankruptcy Case.25 In the Stay Motion, PAX sought a Bankruptcy Court order finding that the automatic stay provisions of Bankruptcy Code were inapplicable to the judicial remedies contained in the February 9 Contempt Order issued in the Removed Action. Alternatively, the Stay Motion sought relief from the automatic stay to permit PAX to seek enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order. The Debtor opposed the relief sought in the Stay Motion and the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court has presided over two hearings related to the Stay Motion in the Bankruptcy Case.\n\n11. On March 18, 2022, the Debtor removed the Removed Action from the New York Court to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, which referred the Removed Action to the New York Bankruptcy Court. On March 23, 2022, the Debtor filed its *Motion to Transfer Case*, wherein it sought to transfer the Removed Action to this Court for referral to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.\n\n12. On April 5, 2022, PAX filed a proposed *Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue* (the \"Conditional Transfer Stipulation\") with the New York Bankruptcy Court. In the Conditional Transfer Stipulation, PAX consented to the transfer of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court; but expressly preserved and did not waive its right to have the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court consider the remand of the Removed Action or, in the alternative, abstain from hearing the Removed Action. The Debtor did not waive, and expressly preserved, any objections to the right to oppose PAX's request for remand or abstention in the Conditional Transfer Stipulation.\n\n25 *See* Ex. 12, Stay Motion, *supra* note 23.\n\n13. On April 14, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion to Remand Or, In The Alternative, For Abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1)* in the New York Bankruptcy Court (the \"Remand Motion\").\n\n14. On April 15, 2022, the New York Bankruptcy Court entered the Conditional Transfer Order.\n\n15. PAX now seeks the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court so that it may adjudicate the Remand Motion.\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n16. By this Motion, PAX requests the entry of an order referring the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for assignment to the Honorable Judge Julie A. Manning, who is currently presiding over the Bankruptcy Case. Upon reference of the Removed Action to Judge Manning, PAX will request adjudication of the Remand Motion, which challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, requests that the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court abstain from hearing the Removed Action.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF**\n\n17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy \"cases\" and enumerated \"civil proceedings\" pursuant section 1334 of Title 28. Although the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court does not have independent subject matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy \"cases\" and those \"civil proceedings,\" section 151 of Title 28 grants the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court the power to exercise certain \"authority conferred\" upon this Court under Title 28. 28 U.S.C. § 151. Under section 157 of Title 28 and the Standing Referral Order, this Court may refer bankruptcy \"cases\" and certain enumerated \"proceedings\" to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for either entry of a\n\nfinal judgment (core proceedings) or proposed findings and conclusions (noncore, related-to proceedings). *Id.*; *see also* Standing Referral Order.\n\n18. Here, because the Bankruptcy Case is pending in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court before Judge Manning and the Removed Action involves the Debtor and PAX, the Debtor's largest unsecured creditor, PAX requests that the Removed Action be referred to the Bankruptcy Court in the first instance so that Judge Manning may adjudicate the Remand Motion.\n\n19. Counsel for PAX has conferred with counsel for the Debtor. The Debtor consents to the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court but does not join in the motion or adopt the statements made herein.\n\n20. Additionally, the Removed Action should be referred to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order, the entry of which was sought consensually by PAX and the Debtor. *See* Conditional Transfer Order, ¶¶ 1-2.\n\n#### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\n21. Notwithstanding anything in this Motion, PAX reserves all rights regarding the Removed Action, including but not limited to the right to prosecute the Remand Motion in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court upon the referral of the Removed Action.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nPAX respectfully requests this Court enter an order referring the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for assignment to the Honorable Julie A. Manning, who is presiding over the Bankruptcy Case.\n\n[*Signature on Following Page*]\n\nDated: April 21, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n#### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By*: */s/ Patrick M. Birney* Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP** 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 21, 2022, a copy of the foregoing Motion was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System and served, with notice of this filing being sent by email to all Notice Parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system and by mail to the below described parties. Parties in interest may access this document through the court's CM/ECF system.\n\n### **Parties Served by Mail**:\n\nCounsel to Kwok Ho Wan William Baldiga BROWN RUDNICK LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 209-4800 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nCounsel to Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holding Corp. Aaron A. Mitchell LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC 162 E. 64th Street New York, NY 10065 Phone: (973) 285-3280\n\nEmail: aaron@lmesq.com\n\nCounsel to Genever Holdings LLC J. Ted Donovan GOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP 1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 221-5700\n\n*/s/ Patrick M. Birney*\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nPatrick M. Birney\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nIndex No.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2017 04:01 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2017\n\nv.\n\n**COMPLAINT**\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,\n\n Defendant.\n\n#### **NATURE OF THE ACTION**\n\n1. This is a straightforward breach of contract case. Kwok 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 (\"Kwok\"), a reported billionaire, and his controlled entities borrowed millions of dollars from Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX LP\") but have failed to pay any of the amount owed to PAX LP under binding written agreements.\n\n2. In 2008, PAX LP entered into a written agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit Charter\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. This loan facility was conditioned on Kwok's execution of a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's repayment obligations.\n\n3. In 2009, another of Kwok's entities, Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), assumed the debt that Spirit Charter owed to PAX LP, which the parties agreed at the time totaled \\$45,357,534.25. Kwok executed a personal guarantee of this debt.\n\n4. Then in 2011, PAX LP and Shiny Times entered into a written agreement (the \"2011 Facility Letter\") that expressly superseded prior agreements between the parties. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 and would repay that amount (plus 15% annual interest from December 31, 2010) by June 30, 2012.\n\n5. That same day, Kwok entered into a separate personal guarantee (that similarly expressly superseded Kwok's prior personal guarantee) under which Kwok guaranteed payment of all amounts owed to PAX LP by Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"Personal Guarantee\").\n\n6. To date, neither Shiny Times nor Kwok have paid any amount owed to PAX LP under either the 2011 Facility Letter or the Personal Guarantee.\n\n7. PAX LP has taken all necessary and appropriate steps in accordance with its contracts with Shiny Times and Kwok to recover the monies it is owed—now totaling approximately\n\n#### 2 of 11\n\n\\$88 million including contractual interest—but has recovered nothing because it has been ignored by Shiny Times and Kwok at each step.\n\n8. Given that Kwok regularly transacts business, is domiciled and resides, and owns real estate in New York, PAX LP brings this action in this Court to enforce its contractual rights against Kwok.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kwok pursuant to New York's general personal jurisdiction statute, C.P.L.R § 301, because he is engaged in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York and is domiciled in the state.\n\n10. Venue is proper in this Court under C.P.L.R § 503(a) because Kwok's residence is in New York County.\n\n## **PARTIES**\n\n11. Plaintiff PAX LP is an investment fund organized as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands.\n\n12. Defendant Kwok is a Chinese national who is domiciled in New York and engages in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York.\n\n13. Kwok resides on the 18th Floor of The Sherry-Netherland Hotel in New York City—a residence he purchased in 2015 for \\$67.5 million through Genever Holdings, LLC (\"Genever\"), a domestic limited liability company that he solely owns and that maintains its principal place of business in New York State at 80 State Street in Albany.\n\n14. Kwok also maintains offices at 767 Fifth Avenue for Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), a Delaware company that he owns, which is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in New York and has a registered agent for service of process in New York.\n\n15. Kwok also has employees or agents in New York, including those who work for Golden Spring and the attorneys he hired to represent him in two cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York over the last two years.1\n\n### **STATEMENT OF FACTS**\n\n#### *The Shiny Times Loan and Kwok's Personal Guarantee to Repay PAX LP*\n\n16. PAX LP and Kwok have had business dealings since approximately February 4, 2008,\n\nwhen PAX LP entered into a written agreement (the \"2008 Facility Agreement\") with Spirit Charter, one of Kwok's business entities, under which PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million.\n\n17. This loan facility was conditioned on Kwok's execution of a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's repayment obligations.\n\n18. On March 12, 2008, PAX LP and Spirit Charter amended and restated the 2008 Facility Agreement (\"Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement\").\n\n19. By a deed dated September 17, 2009 (the \"September 2009 Deed\"), Shiny Times (another of Kwok's entities), Spirit Charter, PAX LP, and various other parties agreed that Shiny Times would replace Spirit Charter as the borrower under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement. The parties to the September 2009 Deed also agreed that the outstanding amount under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement, including accrued and unpaid interest, was then \\$45,357,534.25 as of September 12, 2009 (the \"Amended 2008 Loan Facility\").\n\n 1 In 2015, Kwok and Golden Spring were sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in that lawsuit, Kwok (through counsel) acknowledged that he was properly served with a summons and complaint at The Sherry-Netherland Hotel. *Ahn v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al.*, No. 1:15-cv-09697 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015). In 2016, Kwok and Genever filed a lawsuit (through counsel) against The Sherry-Netherland Hotel and others relating to a leak in his apartment at the hotel. *Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al.,* No. 1:16-cv-06246-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016).\n\n20. The September 2009 Deed required Kwok to execute a personal guarantee in favor of PAX LP to secure Shiny Times' due and punctual performance and repayment of the Amended 2008 Loan Facility. Kwok executed his personal guarantee on November 18, 2009.\n\n21. PAX LP, Kwok, and Shiny Times thereafter agreed to supersede the foregoing agreements with two contracts executed on March 16, 2011—the 2011 Facility Letter (attached as Exhibit A) and the Personal Guarantee (attached as Exhibit B).\n\n22. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 and would repay that amount (plus 15% annual interest from December 31, 2010) by June 30, 2012.\n\n23. The parties further agreed in the 2011 Facility Letter that any failure by Shiny Times to pay any amount owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter would constitute an Event of Default, and that in such event PAX LP could (i) declare the entire loan, accrued and unpaid interest, and any other money payable to be immediately due and payable without further demand or notice or other legal formality of any kind, and/or (ii) declare the 2011 Facility Letter terminated.\n\n24. Finally, like the prior agreements between the parties, the 2011 Facility Letter was expressly conditioned on Kwok's execution of the Personal Guarantee to fully backstop Shiny Times' payment obligations to PAX LP:\n\nThe Lender [PAX LP] and the Borrower [Shiny Times] agree to enter into this Agreement . . . on the condition that a new personal guarantee of Mr. Kwok (the \"Personal Guarantee\"), in favour of the Lender is delivered to secure the due and punctual performance of the Borrower to fully repay the [2011 Facility Letter] plus all accrued and unpaid interest in accordance with this Agreement.\n\n25. Kwok signed the 2011 Facility Letter as a Director of Shiny Times and also, on the same day, signed the Personal Guarantee, under which Kwok agreed to \"irrevocably and unconditionally\" guarantee Shiny Times' payment of all amounts owed under the 2011 Facility Letter. In particular, Kwok:\n\n(a) guaranteed to PAX LP the \"due and punctual payment\" of Shiny Times' obligations under the 2011 Facility Letter;\n\n121\n\n- (b) agreed \"that promptly on [PAX LP's] demand [Kwok] will pay to [PAX LP] all [such amounts] that are due but unpaid\";\n- (c) agreed to \"indemnify and hold harmless [PAX LP] on demand from and against all losses incurred by [PAX LP] as a result of any obligation of Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter being or becoming void, voidable, unenforceable or ineffective as against Shiny Times for any reason whatsoever\";\n- (d) agreed that PAX LP's demand for payment would constitute *prima facie* evidence that such payment was due and owing;\n- (e) agreed that PAX LP could seek repayment from either Shiny Times or Kwok; and\n- (f) agreed to indemnify PAX LP from \"any and all costs, claims losses, [and] expenses (including legal fees)\" incurred as a result of exercising or enforcing the Personal Guarantee.\n- 26. Furthermore, Kwok agreed to waive several defenses, including those based on the\n\nwinding up or dissolution of Shiny Times, or PAX LP's inability to recover against Shiny Times \"for any reason.\" Kwok also agreed to a catchall waiver of any conceivable defenses based on \"any other act, event or omission which might operate to discharge, impair or otherwise affect the Guarantor or any of the Obligations or any of the rights, powers, and remedies conferred upon [PAX LP] by this Guarantee or by law.\"\n\n27. In other words, Kwok signed an unambiguous and ironclad guarantee that he would\n\nsatisfy Shiny Times' debt to PAX LP under any circumstances.\n\n### *The Extensions and Shiny Times' Ultimate Failure to Repay PAX LP*\n\n28. Shiny Times did not repay any portion of the loan principal or accrued interest before the June 30, 2012 repayment date set forth in the 2011 Facility Letter, and the parties subsequently entered into a series of extensions, each labeled a \"Deed of Settlement.\"\n\n29. PAX LP, Shiny Times, and Kwok entered into the first Deed of Settlement (the\n\n\"Original Deed of Settlement\") along with Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another company within the Kwok empire, on April 19, 2013.\n\n30. The Original Deed of Settlement provided that the total outstanding amount due under\n\nthe 2011 Facility Letter plus all accrued and unpaid interest was \\$52 million as of the date of the\n\nOriginal Deed of Settlement, and that amount would be no longer due and owing upon the satisfaction\n\nof the following conditions:\n\n- (a) If PAX LP completed the purchase of three apartments from Beijing Pangu in a series of three separate transactions for approximately \\$5 million each, for a total of approximately \\$15 million; and\n- (b) If Shiny Times completed three installment payments to PAX LP of approximately \\$5 million each—one installment payment to be made after each separate apartment purchase—for a total of approximately \\$15 million.\n\n31. Before PAX LP could purchase any of the three apartments from Beijing Pangu, however, Beijing Pangu was required under the Original Deed of Settlement to satisfy certain conditions precedent relating to title, taxes, and other common aspects of real estate transactions. If any of these conditions were not met for any of the three apartments by July 31, 2013, the Original Deed of Settlement expressly provided that it would be terminated in its entirety, and the 2011 Facility Letter would revert into full effect.\n\n32. Beijing Pangu failed to satisfy these conditions precedent by July 31, 2013, PAX LP therefore did not complete its purchase of any of the apartments, and Shiny Times did not make any of the three installment payments it owed to PAX LP under the Original Deed of Settlement.\n\n33. Four supplemental deeds of settlement—on December 3, 2013, May 15, 2014, July 11, 2014, and February 10, 2015—extended the dates in the Original Deed of Settlement, including the repayment date and the date for Beijing Pangu to satisfy the conditions precedent.\n\n34. Each of the supplemental deeds had the same terms as the Original Deed of Settlement. And the result was the same each time: Beijing Pangu never met the conditions it was required to satisfy, PAX LP therefore was not required to, and did not, complete its purchase of any of the apartments, and Shiny Times never made any of the three installment payments it owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n35. Finally, on March 31, 2015, Shiny Times and PAX LP, together with Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited and Empire Growth Holdings Limited, entered into an Option Agreement (the \"Option Agreement\") that provided, among other things, for the repayment via share sale transaction of amounts owed by Shiny Times to PAX LP.\n\n36. Pursuant to its terms, the Option Agreement was to terminate if certain conditions relating to the transfer of property (as stated in the Option Agreement) were not satisfied. None of these conditions were satisfied, and the Option Agreement was terminated without negating Shiny Times' obligation to pay PAX LP.\n\n37. Thus, the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, Kwok's obligations under the Personal Guarantee are fully enforceable, and Kwok is independently liable under the Personal Guarantee for the full amount of Shiny Times' debt owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n## *PAX LP Seeks to Enforce Its Contractual Rights and Collect Amounts Owed*\n\n38. On October 16, 2015, after the Deeds of Settlement and Option Agreement were terminated and the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, PAX LP sent a written notice of demand (the \"Notice of Demand\") to Kwok's address in Hong Kong, as specified under the terms of the Personal Guarantee.\n\n39. The Notice of Demand informed Kwok that \"Shiny Times ha[d] failed to repay any part of the sum due\" under the 2011 Facility Letter and demanded immediate payment of \\$71,818,633.44. The Notice of Demand also informed Kwok that legal proceedings might be commenced against him if he did not make immediate payment, and reserved PAX LP's contractual rights under both the 2011 Facility Letter and the Personal Guarantee.\n\n40. Kwok never responded to the Notice of Demand.\n\n41. On February 19, 2016, PAX LP sent a letter to Shiny Times demanding payment of \\$82,219,404.08 due and owing under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"Shiny Times Demand Letter\"), which represented the principal plus contractual interest of 15% per annum calculated up to the date of the Shiny Times Demand Letter.\n\n42. Shiny Times never responded to the Shiny Times Demand Letter.\n\n43. When Shiny Times did not respond, PAX LP submitted an application to court in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") on February 29, 2016 seeking the appointment of joint liquidators to put Shiny Times, which is a BVI corporation, into liquidation. The application alleged that (i) Shiny Times had failed to pay the sum then-owing of \\$82,410,197.87, (ii) Shiny Times was unable to pay its debts, and (iii) Shiny Times was insolvent and should be liquidated.\n\n44. Although Shiny Times was in fact placed into liquidation as a result of the BVI proceeding, PAX LP was unable to collect any of the monies owed to it under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n45. To date, Kwok has not repaid any of the money due and owing to PAX LP under the Personal Guarantee. The sum due and owing—which includes the outstanding principal plus accrued and unpaid interest—is currently approximately \\$88 million.\n\n46. As a result of Kwok's failure to repay any of the money due and owing to PAX LP, Plaintiff has incurred \"costs, claims losses, [and] expenses (including legal fees)\" in connection with\n\nenforcing the Personal Guarantee. Kwok is obligated to indemnify those amounts under the express terms of the Personal Guarantee (*see* Paragraph 25(f)).\n\n## **COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT Against Defendant Kwok**\n\n47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 46 as though fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Personal Guarantee obligates Kwok to repay PAX LP for the loan facility (as amended) that PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter, along with unpaid interest. The current amount due and owing is approximately \\$88 million.\n\n49. Plaintiff performed its own obligations under the Personal Guarantee (and other related agreements).\n\n50. Kwok has not repaid any of the money due and owing to PAX LP under the Personal Guarantee.\n\n51. As a direct result of Kwok's breach of his payment obligations under the Personal\n\nGuarantee, Plaintiff continues to suffer the loss of approximately \\$88 million dollars, an amount that continues to incur interest.\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant as follows:\n\n(a) in the amount of \\$46,426,489 under the Personal Guarantee;\n\n(b) in the amount of \\$41,096,982.46 in interest;\n\n(c) the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses PAX LP has incurred, and will continue to incur, in connection with its enforcement of the Personal Guarantee against Kwok under the Personal Guarantee's indemnification clause; and\n\n(d) such other and further relief to which PAX LP shows itself justly entitled.\n\n'\\$7(' 1HZ, | |\n|----------------------------------------------|---|-----|---------------|-----------|\n| FILED | | | 1/lt;tlk
H | ~~--
- |\n| Feb 03 2021
NEW YORK | | 3rd | Clerk
Feb. | 2021 |\n| COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE | 2 | | | |\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nV.\n\nKWOK HOW AN, *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 HAO YUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**AFFIRMATION OF EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.**\n\n\n\nDefendants.\n\nI, Edward Moss, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the\n\nState of New York, hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the Civil Practice Law\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021\n\nand Rules of the State ofNew York§ 2106, as follows:\n\n1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and a partner in the law firm of O'Melveny\n\n& Myers LLP, counsel ofrecord for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") in this matter.\n\n2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances in this action. For purposes\n\nof entry of this judgment, I submit this affirmation waiving costs and disbursements.\n\nDated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York By: /s/ *Edward Moss* Edward Moss\n\n121\n\nSlXPRE.\\lE COURT Of THE STATE OF NE\\V YC)RK COUNTY or··Nt\\v·.·vonK fod~KNn,. 652077/2(H7\n\nPACTFlC. ALJ.lANC E ASl.A OFPO.RTl)NfTY FU ND LJt,\n\nKWOK HO W.AN,. *dlkht* KWOK HO, ,#kh GWO \\\\.'EN oc 1,· {l-''ls,/t1. ··Gt.Jo··tvENG·Ul, .tuk·\\I.·GUn•·\"'{ EN:..ou1, a/l:.ld W.AN GUE HAO-YUN, a//4/a NULE:S K\\VOK, idkki HAOYUN GLD, (iENE\\/ER HOL1)1NGS (.IJRm)RA.TiON, and GEN EV'hR HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n\n\n## **JUDGMENT**\n\n**UtBOtlOfUOl~•Ull(Ji\\lKNT**\n\n## o~ , u ,J,\\'l '.NY & 1\\-lHiRi'i LLP\n\nT! :i,{fS.SQfi.ll.RE·'.rffWER -'! T!\\WS \\$QCARf NF\\\\' \\'ORK, NF\\V vrnn,;; !{itH6 (:Z } .Z) **·l lt~~-Jt~OO**\n\n.:.\\ttrnm«y~ for Pb.infrfff';,i(:Hk i\\l lfam~('. .. :\\jfa OppmtrnRy Fimd,LY.\n\n# **EXHIBIT 4**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | |\n| L.P., | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 019 |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | |\n| | | | |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n1 \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n2 \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**\n\n# **EXHIBIT 5**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a
HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and | | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn September 30, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Skype, with counsel for all parties. On consent, the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Mr. Kwok from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nThe Court will hear further argument, and if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing, on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file their opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm. Plaintiff must file their reply, if any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm. If either party intends to call witnesses, they must exchange witness lists with one another and e-file a witness list with the Court no later than October 13, 2020.\n\nAdditionally, the Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion 008 for damages and attorney's fees on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file\n\ntheir opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm and Plaintiff must file their reply,\n\nif any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm.\n\nAny violation of the temporary restraining order issued today shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\n\nDated: September 30, 2020\n\n\n\n# **EXHIBIT 6**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | |\n| | -
v - | | |\n| KWOK 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 | | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 |\n| | | | |\n| | HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, | | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS | | |\n| CORPORATION, | | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n\n#### HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn October 15, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Microsoft Teams, with counsel for all parties participating, on plaintiff's motion for a post-judgment restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 (motion 011). On September 15, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on liability, with damages and the issue of whether the corporate defendants are defendant Kwok's alter egos to be determined at a later date. NYSCEF Doc. 549.\n\nPlaintiff's motion for a restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 is granted. Mr. Kwok is 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 subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020.\n\nSpecifically, 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.\n\n\n\nPlaintiff is entitled, under CPLR 5229, to take discovery into the above-identified assets as well as to seek discovery into any other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\n\nThe next appearance will be a pre-trial conference on November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm via Microsoft Teams.\n\n| October 15, 2020
DATE | \\$SIG\\$
BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C. |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|\n| X
CHECK ONE:
CASE DISPOSED
NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
X
GRANTED
DENIED
GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION:
SETTLE ORDER
SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN
FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |\n\n# **EXHIBIT 7**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# **EXHIBIT 8**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\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*\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\nDefendants.\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and\n\nMILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n## **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020\n\n#### **Page**\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | |\n|--------------------------|--|\n| BACKGROUND 2 | |\n| ARGUMENT 4 | |\n| CONCLUSION 6 | |\n\n| No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016)………………4 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| 59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)……………………………………………4 |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n\n## CPLR § 5104 ..............………………...........................………………....................................….1\n\n\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, under CPLR § 5104 and Judiciary Law § 753, for an order (i) finding Defendant Miles Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Court's October 15, 2020 Restraining Order (the \"Order\"); (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThis Court previously has recognized that Kwok has \"flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted\" its orders, and has made \"intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court.\"1 In the words of Yogi Berra, it is déjà vu all over again: there is no doubt that Kwok knowingly has violated this Court's Order restraining him from moving his yacht2 outside the Court's jurisdiction and—perhaps worse—he has once again put his counsel in the line of fire by instructing him to *request the Court's permission to move the yacht even though Kwok knew it already had been moved outside of U.S. territorial waters at the time that request was made*. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt, require him immediately to return the yacht to the jurisdiction, and grant whatever additional relief it deems necessary and appropriate to finally stop Kwok from making a mockery of this proceeding.\n\n1 Dkt. 647 at 26:6–8.\n\n2 Any suggestion by Kwok in opposition that the yacht technically is not \"his\" would be disingenuous nonsense. If Kwok advances that false argument (which is directly contradicted by, among other evidence and admissions, Kwok's counsel's request at a recent conference *for Kwok* to be able to move the yacht outside this Court's jurisdiction), PAX will respond on reply. PAX notes, however, that any such argument would be irrelevant to this motion because the Order expressly covers the yacht even if it is held by another registered owner (whether it be a Kwok shell company or family member).\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\nOn September 30, 2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\")\n\npreventing Kwok from, among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an\n\ninterest.\"3 In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\"4 About two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order,\n\nwhich granted PAX's motion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is 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 subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. *Specifically, 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.*5\n\nOn November 12, 2020, the Court held a conference, during which Kwok's counsel\n\n(presumably at his client's instruction) made a specific point to ask this Court if Kwok could\n\nmove the yacht offshore:6\n\n Apparently the boat is registered offshore I believe in the British Virgin Islands, and there is a requirement that it return to its home port at sixmonth intervals. It is not an issue that is going to affect in any way ownership or title, but *it needs to travel offshore at some point for a brief period and then come back into the United States*. And we just wanted to disclose that so that there is no thought that this is being secreted or transferred. This is just an ordinary thing it has to do for licensing purposes.7\n\n7 *Id.* at 13:9–18.\n\n3 Dkt. 591 at 1.\n\n4 *Id.* at 2.\n\n5 Dkt. 630.\n\n6 Moss Aff. Ex. 1 (Nov. 12, 2020 Conf. Tr.) at 12:23–25.\n\nThe Court unequivocally responded that Kwok was *not* permitted to remove the yacht from this jurisdiction and would be required to make a motion before doing so:\n\n> You will have to make that application on papers. I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands. I seriously doubt [PAX] wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court . . . You will make a motion with supporting documentation on notice to [PAX], and I will rule on it. What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for [PAX] to levy upon . . . that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for [PAX] to reply.8\n\nAlthough Kwok's counsel responded that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" and would \"provide that information in writing,\"9 Kwok made no such motion.\n\n Given their experience with Kwok and his misbehavior, PAX and its counsel were concerned by Kwok's counsel's question and did some research. A few days later—based on publicly available information accessed at MarineTraffic.com—PAX learned that the yacht had in fact departed Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on *November 1, 2020*, and as of November 18, 2020, was located in the Bahamas at or near Old Fort Bay, Nassau.10 In other words, Kwok had actually moved the yacht out of United States waters approximately *two weeks after the Order* and *two weeks before his counsel sought permission for Kwok to do precisely that at the*\n\n## *November 12 conference.*\n\nIn light of this information, PAX's counsel wrote to Kwok's counsel on November 18,\n\n2020, providing the information it had accessed as to the yacht's whereabouts, expressing its\n\n8 *Id.* at 13:19–15:4.\n\n9 *Id.* at 14:2–3, 15:5–6.\n\n10 Moss Aff. Ex. 2 (Nov. 18, 2020 Ltr.) at Ex. A.\n\nconcern \"given Mr. Kwok's history of making misrepresentations throughout this litigation,\" and asking Kwok's counsel to \"confirm the location of the Lady May\" and \"that the vessel will be back in New York within 48 hours.\"11\n\nKwok's counsel never responded. Rather, later that night, Kwok's counsel filed a letter\n\nwith the Court claiming to know nothing and committing to investigate and report back:\n\n[W]e have just become aware this evening that the yacht, the Lady May, referenced in this Court's restraining order (NYSCEF Doc. 630) and discussed during the Pre-Trial conference held before this Court on November 11, 2020, is currently in international waters. Although Plaintiff's counsel has just sent us a letter regarding the purported whereabouts of the yacht, we have not confirmed any details . . . We are attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.12\n\nBut as of today's filing—*five weeks later*—Kwok's counsel has provided no further information\n\nto either the Court or to PAX's counsel. Also as of today, according to MarineTraffic.com, the\n\nyacht is still moored in or around Nassau, Bahamas.13\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\nUnder Judiciary Law section 753:\n\nIn order to find that contempt has occurred in a given case, [(1)] it must be determined that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [(2)] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed. [(3)] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party. [(4)] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 Dkt. No. Dkt. 649.\n\n13 *See* Moss Aff. ¶ 5.\n\n*McCormick v. Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983); *see also Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.* No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016) (Ostrager, J.) (citing *McCormick* and applying the four-pronged test). PAX easily satisfies each of the four elements for contempt here.\n\n*First*, the Order is a lawful order of the Court: an unequivocal mandate that Kwok is \"restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with [the yacht].\"14\n\n*Second*, Kwok disobeyed the Order by causing the yacht to leave the jurisdiction about two weeks after the Court issued the Order (and continues to disobey it).\n\n*Third*, Kwok is a sophisticated party, who is involved with this litigation and obviously had knowledge of the Order. Moreover, his counsel specifically sought clarification of the Order at the November 12 conference,15 during which he stated that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" that Kwok was required to make a motion before removing the yacht from the jurisdiction.16\n\n*Fourth*, PAX has been prejudiced by Kwok's intentional flouting of the Order. Kwok has been trying for years to frustrate the eventual judgment of this Court, and he has been trying for far longer than that to avoid repaying his debt to PAX. Kwok shields his assets through family members and shell companies, and it will be difficult enough for PAX to collect on assets within the United States. If Kwok were permitted to expand his shell game by hiding his yacht\n\n14 *See supra* n.5.\n\n15 *See supra* n.6.\n\n16 *See supra* n.9.\n\nsomewhere on the open seas outside this Court's jurisdiction, PAX's chances of enforcing against that asset would decrease significantly.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully requests that the Court enter an order, under CPLR 5104 and Judiciary Law section 753, (i) finding Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Order; (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht, the Lady May, to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n#### **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nPlaintiff hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n# **EXHIBIT 9**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\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\nMot Seq. No. 12\n\nPart 61\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n#### **Page**\n\n| | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | | | | |\n|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | ARGUMENT 1 | | | | |\n| I. | The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved
Outside this Court's Jurisdiction. 1 | | | | |\n| II. | The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt. 4 | | | | |\n| CONCLUSION 11 | | | | | |\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 121\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n#### **Pages**\n\n## **Cases**\n\n| 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC,
2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007) 10 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.,
303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003) 2 |\n| Bogoni v. Friedlander,
197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994) 6 |\n| Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.,
208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)
10 |\n| L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg,
2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) 10 |\n| Wengui v. Zeng,
Index No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 5 |\n| Other Authorities |\n| MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, Interfere 2 |\n| Rules |\n| N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3 4 |\n\n\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**1\n\nGiven this case's history, it is not clear whether Kwok's Opposition is the single most disingenuous submission he has made to this Court. But it certainly is up there. With a straight face, Kwok argues that (i) moving and keeping the Lady May outside this Court's jurisdiction did not violate the October 15 Order—even though the Court expressly and repeatedly has said that it did; and (ii) even if moving the yacht were a violation, Kwok should not be sanctioned because he does not own the Lady May—even though he repeatedly has stated, both in a court filing and on social media, that he does. Enough is enough. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt and impose a sanction sufficient to motivate him to comply with the Order and bring his yacht back to this jurisdiction—and keep it here.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n### **I. The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved Outside this Court's Jurisdiction.**\n\nKwok does not dispute that (i) the October 15 Order restrained, \"in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020,\" both \"Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . 'the Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or *interference* with th[at] asset[]\"; 2 or (ii) the Lady May has been moved out of U.S. waters. Instead, he argues that the move out of the Court's jurisdiction did not technically violate the October 15 Order because\n\n1 This brief refers to (i) Defendant Kwok Ho Wan's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Contempt (Dkt. No. 698) as the \"Opposition\" or \"Opp;\" (ii) the Affirmation of Edward Moss in Further Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Moss Reply Aff.\"; and (iii) the Affirmation of Nathaniel Francis in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Francis Aff.\" Unless otherwise specified, (i) defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok (Dkt. No. 689), (ii) all emphasis is added, and (iii) all internal citations and quotations are omitted.\n\n2 Opp. at 3 (citing (Dkt. No. 630)).\n\n(i) the Lady May's \"ownership\" has not changed; (ii) \"Plaintiff neither asked for nor received any direction from the Court prohibiting the Lady May's relocation\" at the October 15 hearing; and (iii) the Court explained at the October 15 hearing that ordinary course expenditures—for example, \"if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic\" were permitted.3\n\nThese arguments are frivolous. To begin, Kwok has no answer for why moving the yacht does not count as \"interference\" with the October 15 Order (it does), 4 nor how spending money in the ordinary course on a vacation somehow equates to moving a restrained, multi-million dollar asset outside of the jurisdiction (it does not). Indeed, the Court already has rejected Kwok's \"ordinary-course\" argument. In response to Kwok's counsel's question seeking clarification as to whether the restraining order applied to the payment of legal fees, the Court explained the contours of what it meant by \"ordinary course.\"5 *Immediately after that clarification***,** Kwok's counsel asked whether the Lady May could be moved to the British Virgin Islands because that was \"just an *ordinary thing* that is has to do for licensing purposes.\"6 The Court responded in no uncertain terms that Kwok *was not permitted to move the yacht before making (and winning) a motion seeking leave to do so*. 7\n\n3 Opp. at 6–9.\n\n4 \"[I]t is common practice for the courts of this State to refer to the dictionary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words to a contract.\" *2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.*, 303 A.D.2d 299, 301 (1st Dep't 2003). The ordinary meaning of \"to interfere\" is \"to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes.\" MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, *Interfere* (*available at* http).\n\n5 *See* Dkt. 691 at 12:23–13:5 (permitting legal fees that are \"customary and reasonable\").\n\n6 *Id.* at 13:9–18.\n\n7 *Id.* at 13:19–24.\n\n\n\nWorse, Kwok completely ignores this Court's *repeated, clear, and unequivocal statements* that moving the Lady May *would (and did) violate the Order*. First, at the October 15 hearing (which was expressly incorporated into the October 15 Order that issued later that day), the Court specifically discussed the Lady May and directed Kwok that the yacht and other assets not be moved so that they would be available for collection if PAX were to prevail (*i.e.*, so as not to *interfere* with PAX's potential judgment-enforcement efforts):\n\n> *Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside* and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, *those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.*8\n\nThen, at the November 20 hearing, Kwok's counsel asked \"two questions . . . *clarifying*\n\n*the scope of the restraining order* that the Court has entered\"—one of which was whether the\n\nLady May could be moved outside the jurisdiction (even though, we now know, it already had\n\nbeen moved by that time).9 As noted above, the Court unequivocally answered \"no\"—not\n\nwithout first making and winning a motion and a further Court order:\n\nYou will have to make that application on papers. *I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands*. I seriously doubt Mr. Moss wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court. . . . *What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for Mr. Moss's client to levy upon*. . . . Mr. Siegal asked me a question about *whether the restraining order can be modified to allow this yacht to move from a US port to the British Virgin Islands*, and I said that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for Mr. Moss to reply.10\n\n 8 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:8–14.\n\n9 Dkt*.* No. 691 at 12:23–25.\n\n10 Dkt*.* No. 691 at 13:19–15:4.\n\nFinally, at the most recent hearing on December 18, the Court again reiterated what should have been quite obvious to Kwok by that point:\n\n> Okay. So, let me ask you, we have an issue *with respect to a boat that I enjoined Mr. Kwok from moving* which he may or may not have *moved in violation of the Court's order*. . . . It seems to me *I ordered the boat not be moved*. 11\n\nGiven the plain meaning of \"interference\" (*see supra* note 4) and the Court's repeated,\n\nunequivocal directives, there is no question that the October 15 Order has been violated. Kwok's\n\nsuggestion otherwise is misleading. 12 And if Kwok argues that he should get a pass because the\n\nyacht already had been moved by the time of the October 15 hearing (*i.e.*, before his counsel\n\nasked and was denied permission to move it), then the answer is quite simple: it should have\n\nbeen brought back *immediately* after the Court issued the October 15 Order.13\n\n## **II. The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt.**\n\nWhile Kwok advances several other meritless arguments for why he personally should\n\n 11 Dkt. No. 695 at 25:15–18, 27:21–22.\n\n12 *See* N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (providing that a lawyer's duty of candor toward the tribunal prohibits him or her from knowingly \"mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal\"); *see also* Dkt. No. 647 at 21:11–16 (\"The Court believes . . . that Mr. Kwok has attempted to mislead the Court. The Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court orders, the spirit of court orders.\"), 26:5–9 (\"While orders of the Court are either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going to have closure in this case in January of 2021.\").\n\n13 We take Kwok's counsel at his word that he did not know the Lady May already had been moved out of the jurisdiction when he asked the Court if the Lady May could be moved out of the jurisdiction. But later—after being informed by PAX that the yacht was actually out of the jurisdiction—Kwok's counsel wrote to the Court and explained that because his firm had just been informed by PAX about the yacht's location, \"we have not confirmed any details,\" but were \"attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.\" Dkt. No. 649. Contrary to that representation, however, Kwok did not, before responding to this Motion, provide any additional information to the Court about the yacht's location. *See* N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(b) (\"A lawyer who represents a client before a tribunal and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.\").\n\nnot be held in contempt, they all reduce to his core assertion that he does not own—and therefore cannot control the movements of—the Lady May. Who does Kwok think he's kidding?\n\nAs PAX already has demonstrated, Kwok alleged fewer than five months ago—in a September 1, 2020 complaint *he filed i*n New York Supreme Court—that \"pawns of the Chinese Communist Party . . . have attempted to cause Guo [a/k/a Kwok] injury while on *his yacht*.\" *See Wengui v. Zeng*, Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint at ¶ 8). That sentence in Kwok's own complaint ends with a footnote that cites and links to (and thereby incorporates by reference) an article by *freebeacon.com* entitled \"Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht *Owned by* Chinese Billionaire,\" which states that \"Guo Wengui, who uses the English name *Miles Kwok, said* several incidents involving *his 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May*, appear to be part of a Chinese government effort to threaten and intimidate him.\"14 It is not surprising, then, that in the context of restraining the Lady May, the Court described it as the \"27 million-dollar yacht *which Mr. Kwok once claimed to have owned*.\"15\n\nNotably, counsel for the Genever Defendants in this action, Aaron Mitchell, serves as counsel for Kwok personally in *Wengui v. Zeng*. Mr. Mitchell signed the complaint that repeatedly referred to the Lady May as \"his [*i.e.*, Kwok's] yacht\" and incorporated by reference the *freebeacon.com* article reporting that the yacht was \"owned\" by Kwok. Even though Mr. Mitchell supposedly does not represent Kwok in this case, he argued on Kwok's behalf at the December 18 hearing, contending that his September 2020 complaint \"wasn't referring to ownership,\" but rather merely to \"the fact that Mr. Kwok was on that boat,\" and chided PAX's\n\n14 *See id.* at 3 n.1 (citing http). The complaint also refers to the Lady May as \"his\" (*i.e.*, Kwok's) yacht in Paragraph 7 and in Prayer for Relief (d).\n\n15 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:5–6.\n\ncounsel for its \"absurd reliance\" on that pleading.16 Given Kwok's track record, perhaps Mr. Mitchell was onto something when he suggested it was \"absurd\" for PAX to actually rely on Kwok's own words.\n\nKwok's Opposition is even more disingenuous; it mischaracterizes PAX as arguing that Kwok owns the yacht in part because he was supposedly a \"guest\" on it (something PAX has never argued), and claims that PAX has no evidence of ownership.17 Even if Kwok's *own pleading*—a judicial admission18—were insufficient to establish ownership (and it is more than sufficient), PAX has much, much more:\n\nOn May 10, 2017, Kwok \"tweeted\" (on his since-suspended Twitter account) the following photo of himself sitting on the Lady May, accompanied by Chinese characters that, translated, state \"I am posting a few photos of the yacht *I gave to my daughter* and named after her. . . . Her name is Lady May. . . . *I bought it for 41 million euro*\":19\n\n16 Dkt. No. 695 at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 Opp. at 8–9.\n\n18 *See Bogoni v. Friedlander*, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 (1st Dep't 1994) (An admission in an initial pleading is a \"formal judicial admission\" which is \"evidence of the facts admitted.\").\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n\n\n121\n\nThen, on August 27, 2017, Kwok (again, on his since-suspended account), referred to the\n\n\"Lady May\" as \"*my ship*\" and recalled that \"two years ago when I was in Miami . . . *I [] signed*\n\n*the most important investment contract of my life*,\" and it \"all seems so meaningful.\"21\n\nBut we have saved the best for last. As an October 14, 2017 YouTube video shows,22\n\nKwok was filmed *stating unequivocally that the boat was his*: 23\n\n> *I decided to sell it* because it has an aluminum body. With an aluminum body, it drifts a bit at sea. It's okay in shallow waters. I wanted to use the heavier one, the bigger one, which is also a Feadship, since it is made of steel. I wanted to go further out to sea. . . . *I advertised it twice*, but my offers were relatively high, about US\\$50 million, 31 million euros, which\n\n 20 *Id*.\n\n21 *Id.*\n\n22 *See* Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3 (directing the Court to minute 2:50 through minute 4:15 in a YouTube video available at http).\n\n23 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 4.\n\nwas around US\\$50 million. When *I listed* it at that higher price, *I had one offer* just below *my* asking price, but *I did not sell it.*\n\n\n\n\n\nThis is all straight from Kwok's mouth: *He* bought the Lady May, *he* had it shipped, *he* decided to list it for sale, and *he* put it in his daughter's name to shield it from creditors. Kwok's contention that he is merely some \"guest\" aboard the yacht is (yet another) flat-out lie.\n\n24 *Id.* The screenshots were taken directly from YouTube and already included the captions, which a certified translation confirms are substantially accurate. *See* Moss Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n Of course, Kwok's contention that he does not own or control the Lady May and that it is really owned by an entity, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, which is wholly owned and controlled by his daughter Mei (pronounced \"May\") Guo, is right on-brand. Kwok is a self-proclaimed billionaire who, when it suits him, pretends to have no assets25 precisely because his practice is to use shell companies and his children and employees to shield his assets. For example, Kwok is now claiming in the Genever bankruptcy case that the Genever Defendants are beneficially owned by another shell company that is owned by his son—despite never disclosing that to the Sherry-Netherland and never making that argument before this Court to try to avoid an attachment.26 And not only has Kwok repeatedly stated that the Lady May is \"his\" (including in the above-described September 2020 complaint that he filed *after* he supposedly gave the yacht to his daughter), but HK International is a mere shell company (i) that did not have the yacht registered in its name until April 2020 (when PAX was in the red zone in this litigation);27 and (ii) with a \"principal office\" address of 162 E. 64th Street—the same address as (surprise!) the offices of Mr. Mitchell—who regularly represents Kwok or his shell entities, depending on the case.28\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n During the October 15 hearing, even before the Court knew that Kwok had moved the yacht, it explained that in this \"2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a\n\n25 Dkt. No. 580 at 100:2–3 (testifying that his net worth is \"negative\"); 101:3–5 (testifying that \"[i]n reality, under the law\" he has \"no\" assets).\n\n26 *See* Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 5 at ¶ 4 (claiming that Bravo Luck is (i) \"the beneficial owner\" of the Sherry-Netherland apartment and (ii) \"a company owned by Mr. Qiang Guo, the son of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok\").\n\n27 *See* Opp. at 4, n.2.\n\n28 *See* Dkt. No. 705 at 1*.*\n\ngreat deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders . . . [t]he Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets . . . .\"29 The Court further stated that \"we are not going to have any more shell games.\"30 Unfortunately, Kwok's shell games have continued, his dissembling and gamesmanship have only intensified, and he has once again flagrantly violated an order of this Court.\n\n This Court has the discretion to impose a sanction on Kwok sufficient to motivate him to comply with the October 15 Order. Indeed, \"the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce obedience to a court order.\"31 In a separate case against him in Nevada, for example, Kwok was sanctioned \\$250,000 per day until he finally complied with a court order requiring him to meet his most basic discovery obligations.32 The violation here is far worse.\n\n Given Kwok's repeated violation of this Court's orders, his obvious financial means as a self-proclaimed multi-billionaire, and the gravity of and materiality to PAX of the current violation, PAX respectfully requests a sanction—monetary or otherwise—that is sufficient to compel Kwok to comply with the October 15 Order and bring the Lady May back to the jurisdiction immediately.\n\n29 Dkt. No. 647 at 24:9–11; 21:13–15.\n\n30 *Id.* at 22:7.\n\n31 *1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC*, 2007 WL 2701271, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007); *see also Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.*, 208 A.D.2d 37, 42 (2d Dep't 1995) (\"A civil contempt penalty is imposed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court's mandate.\")*; L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg*, 2011 WL 1564647, at \\*4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) (\"The court has authority to punish a litigant that disobeys a lawful mandate. The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance with a court order or to compensate a party who is injured as a result of disobedience of a court order.\").\n\n32 *See* Dkt. No. 557 at 2 (ordering Kwok to provide the Court with a phone number where he could be reached and either (i) an address where he would accept service of discovery documents, or (ii) and email address where such documents may be sent).\n\n\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully submits that the Court should hold Kwok in\n\ncontempt and order appropriate sanctions.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n#### **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\n PAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n# **EXHIBIT 10**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| | | Justice | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. | 012 |\n| KWOK | HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n\n### HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") in contempt. This Court previously issued\n\nthree orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the \"Lady May.\" On September 30,\n\n2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\") preventing Kwok from,\n\namong other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" NYSCEF Doc.\n\nNo. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\" *Id.* On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's\n\nmotion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is 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 subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. Specifically, 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.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630. Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the Court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request at the time and directed counsel to make a motion if necessary.\n\nPlaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.\n\nThe Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling. and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht \"Lady May.\"\n\nThe defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000. The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place.\n\nA status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: March 16, 2021\n\n| CHECK ONE: | | CASE DISPOSED | | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | | | |\n|-----------------------|---|----------------------------|--|--------|---|-----------------------|--|-----------|--|\n| | X | GRANTED | | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | | OTHER | |\n| APPLICATION: | | SETTLE ORDER | | | | SUBMIT ORDER | | | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | | REFERENCE | |\n\n# **EXHIBIT 11**\n\n#### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOKHO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/kla GUO WENGUI, a/kla GUO WEN GUI; a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/kla MILES KWOK, a/kla HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nv.\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No: 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n**[Fl4QjL08ED]** FINAL ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT\n\nMotion Sequence No. 19\n\nWHEREAS this Co~rt's conditional order of civil contempt, dated March 16,2021, directed that if Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") failed to return the Lady May yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 15, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000 fine-for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction;-\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nWHEREAS the Lady May was not returned to the jurisdiction by May 15, 2021;\n\nWHEREAS on November 4,2021, the Appellate Division's First Department affIrme,d this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of .\\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing,\" and \\_instructing this Court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties;\n\nWHEREAS Kwok to date has failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction;\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 121\n\nWHEREAS the evidentiary hearing specified by the First Department's November 4,\n\n2021 Order was held on February 2,2022;\n\nWHEREAS both Kwok and the registered title holder of the Lady May, HK International (q)peCt.r~(i by *co~V\\\\$e \\* Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, were pregent at the hearini proffered evidence and were represented by counsel; and\n\nWHEREAS, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court determines that\n\nPAX has clearly and convincingly established that Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control\n\n. h L d M *AS se--'- r-*--l\\_ I \"\" ~ Cr, \\A.,/t \\:> 'R-'v;,VIMt *Uf* '1, *;:).0* 'd---1-. over tea y aYj \"'- ., .~ \" ~ ( \\)~ C\\-'> \\'c)v\\ ltA,Ad. CJv~ . . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:\n\n- 1. Kwok has violated New York Judiciary Law 9753 and is civil contempt of this Court's orders.\n- 2. Kwokis directed to tender immediate payment to PAX in the amount of \\$134,000,000, representing \\$500,000 for each day between May 15,2021 and February 7,2022.\n- \"3. The amount due to PAX shall continue to accrue at t~~rate of \\$500,000 per day until Kwok returns the Lady May to the jurisdiction, which additional accrual shall begin ten . ~ e'fv,'(;Il.. ~ *N* f.,' ..L.. *'C* iv business days from t e Bltte of this Order, \"'VJ1'~. *i>* u... *crl v* 11 *Y* I\n- 4. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be made to PAX within five se...rv *,'(JL , .*f f..rv business days of the ~ of this Order, w I~ No-t-t (...L. *t!) .* GVt,. *I .*\n\n;:\", ' 1'l;::t\"l 5. The Court shall exercise its full authority under NeWYork Judiciary Law 9 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid to PAX.\n\nIt is SO ORDERED this ?-'\" ~ day of *Ii b VYt a* '='Cd' ,2022. R. OSTRAGERJ...\\$.C. **A.OSTRAGER .** ,,~SC;}\n\n2\n\n2 of 2\n\n# **EXHIBIT 12**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| Chapter 11 Case No. |\n|---------------------|\n| 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| March 1, 2022 |\n| |\n\n## **MOTION OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 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**\n\nTO THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") moves (this \"Motion\") for an\n\norder, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, confirming that the automatic stay\n\nis inapplicable to a discrete pre-petition proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of the State of\n\nNew York (Justice Ostrager presiding), holding the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (\"Kwok\"), in civil\n\ncontempt for failure to return his yacht, the \"Lady May,\" to New York in violation of that court's\n\norders.2 In issuing his February 9, 2022 final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok, Justice\n\n1 The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n2 Liquidation of the Lady May, which Justice Ostrager found Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls,\" and distribution of resulting proceeds should occur in the chapter 11 process (to the extent this case is not dismissed).\n\nOstrager warned, \"if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law.\"3 This applies with equal force to these chapter 11 proceedings. Kwok cannot exploit the protections of the Bankruptcy Code to evade Justice Ostrager's orders, and the automatic stay does not allow him to do so.\n\nKwok's contumacious behavior is long-standing and flagrant. First, Kwok moved the Lady May out of the jurisdiction of the New York Supreme Court in direct violation of that court's September 30 and October 15, 2020 Orders.4 Then, in March 2021, Justice Ostrager issued a conditional order of civil contempt—which was unanimously affirmed by the New York Appellate Division, First Department5—requiring Kwok or the registered owner to return the Lady May by May 15, 2021 or face a daily \\$500,000 fine for each day that the yacht remained outside of that court's jurisdiction.6 Nearly a year later, after an evidentiary hearing, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order directing (i) Kwok to pay \\$134 million (\\$500,000 per day for the period between May 15, 2021 and February 7, 2022); and (ii) continued accrual of the \\$500,000 daily fine if the Lady May was not returned to the court's jurisdiction within ten business days from notice of entry.7 One day before the deadline to pay the \\$134 million contempt fine to PAX, and after Kwok's efforts to obtain an emergency stay of that order pending appeal failed, Kwok filed this chapter 11 case. But bankruptcy protection is\n\n3 *See* Declaration of Peter Friedman in support of Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. for a Declaration of Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, attached hereto as Exhibit B (\"Friedman Decl.\"), Ex. 1. Decision + Order on Mot, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1181 (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") at 10. 4\n\nFriedman Decl., Ex. 2, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok,* 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 591; Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok,* 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 630. 5 *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n6 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728 (\"Initial Contempt Order,\" and together with the February 9 Contempt Order, the \"Contempt Orders\"). 7 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Final Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1182, at 2.\n\nfor honest, good-faith debtors. And the automatic stay does not shield debtors from the consequences of defying court orders and assaulting the dignity of the judicial system. Therefore, PAX asks this Court to enter an order confirming its right to institute further proceedings to enforce Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order.\n\nAlternatively, PAX moves for relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rule 4001of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to permit enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order, except to the extent it requires Kwok to immediately pay money to PAX. Such relief includes enforcing the February 9 Contempt Order to ensure the return of the Lady May to New York, allowing continued accrual of fines (which constitute debts that Kwok cannot discharge in this chapter 11 case), and permitting Justice Ostrager to order any other appropriate sanctions (including issuance of an arrest warrant),8 if Kwok fails to promptly return the Lady May to New York.9\n\nIn support thereof, PAX respectfully represents as follows:\n\n#### **JURISDICTION**\n\n1. This Court has jurisdiction over this Motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, and, for purposes of this Motion, PAX accepts that venue may be proper in this district without prejudice to any future motion to transfer venue. This Motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §157(b), and the basis for PAX's requested relief is section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n8 *See, e.g.*, NY Judiciary Law § 753 (\"A court of record has power to punish, by fine and imprisonment, or either, a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct, by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special proceeding, pending in the court may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced.\").\n\n9 PAX intends to initiate an adversary proceeding to confirm the non-dischargeability of the civil contempt fines issued by Justice Ostrager. *See In re Singer*, No. 10–00045, 2010 WL 3732944 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010) (contempt sanctions non-dischargeable in bankruptcy); *In re Marini,* 28 B.R. 262, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (same).\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n2. Nearly eleven years ago, PAX signed a loan agreement with a Kwok-owned entity called Shiny Times.10 Kwok personally guaranteed that loan.11 Despite multiple repayment extensions and PAX's numerous attempts to settle the debt, Kwok has never repaid the loan.12\n\n3. PAX sued Kwok for breach of the personal guarantee contract on April 18, 2017 in New York State Supreme Court.13 Following nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, PAX secured a judgment against Kwok for \\$116,402,019.57.14 PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States.\"15 This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"16 Kwok has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which accrued post-judgment interest at the rate of 9 percent per year.17\n\n10 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549, at 2.\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 *Id.* at 7.\n\n13 Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Compl., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2.\n\n14 Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716 at 2.\n\n15 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n16 *Id*.\n\n17 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022); Friedman Decl., Ex. 8 at 2; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 23 at KWOK000652, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455 (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\").\n\n4. Although Kwok claims to have no assets,18 he has (at a minimum) beneficial ownership of the Lady May, purchased in 2015 for € 28 million.19 On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\"20 Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that this restraint on Kwok included the Lady May.21 But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9.22 The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe, where it remains to this day.23\n\n5. In response, PAX filed a contempt motion24 and on March 16, 2021, the court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing Kwok or the boat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction by May 15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained beyond its jurisdiction.25 The New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's order, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok had] violated a lawful\n\n18 *See United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs*, ECF No. 49, at ¶ 12 (during his Initial Debtor Interview with the United States Trustee, Kwok \"disclosed he has no bank accounts, no credit cards, is not employed such that he earns income, and that all of his living expenses are paid for and through an entity known as Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. ('Golden Spring'). [He] also disclosed that he does not directly own any real estate, does not own any cars, and does not insure any assets.\").\n\n19 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 4. Although Kwok denies it, he also owns a full-floor luxury apartment at the Sherry Netherland hotel that is currently listed for sale at \\$45 million in connection with a related bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York.\n\n20 Friedman Decl., Ex. 2.\n\n21 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3 at 1.\n\n22 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 10 (VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer\n\nhttp) (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n23 As of February 28, 2022, the Lady May is located in Genoa, Italy. *See id.*\n\n24 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 689; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709.\n\n25 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2. In other words, the court provided Mr. Kwok a full two-month grace period to return the yacht and thereby avoid any fine at all.\n\nclear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"26; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt.\"27 Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.28\n\n6. Justice Ostrager held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After hearing testimony from seven witnesses,29 Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [Kwok]'s 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.\"30 The court further found that \"[n]ot only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"31 As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order.32\n\n7. Consistent with his past practice of flouting court orders, Kwok failed to pay the contempt fine, and has not returned the yacht to the United States.33 Instead, on February 15, 2022, Kwok filed for bankruptcy in this Court.34 Kwok's bankruptcy petition lists \\$50,001-\n\n26 *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*, 199 A.D.3d at 423.\n\n27 *Id.* at 424.\n\n28 *Id.*\n\n29 Kwok invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery efforts and Kwok did not testify at the February 2 hearing. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 3.\n\n30 *Id.* at 4. 31 *Id.* at 8.\n\n32 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5.\n\n33 *See supra* note 23.\n\n34 Voluntary Petition, ECF No. 1 at 7.\n\n\\$100,000 in assets35—omitting the valuable Lady May, which remains outside of the United States,36 unsupervised by any trustworthy fiduciary.\n\n8. In light of Kwok's history of contumacious behavior and extensive \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members,\"37 PAX respectfully urges this Court to order that the automatic stay does not bar it from resuming the contempt proceedings before Justice Ostrager to seek to force Kwok to return the Lady May to New York, and to permit Justice Ostrager to impose any available penalties on Kwok other than ordering him to make an immediate monetary payment to PAX. In the alternative, PAX respectfully requests this Court provide narrow relief from the automatic stay to allow PAX to proceed before Justice Ostrager to obtain the same result.\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n9. By this Motion, PAX requests a determination that the automatic stay is inapplicable to the enforcement of Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order. In the alternative, PAX requests an order modifying the automatic stay to permit PAX to enforce the February 9 Contempt Order, except to the extent any relief requires Kwok to immediately pay any money to PAX.38\n\n35 *Id.* at 7.\n\n36 *See supra* note 23. As noted above, Kwok also fails to list the considerable value of the Sherry-Netherland apartment that he purchased for \\$67.5 million in March 2015, which he owns through two shell companies, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\") and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\"). *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, Executed Contract of Sale, *Kwok v. PAX*, Index No. 652077/2017, ECF No. 256 (Executed Contract of Sale listing \"Genever Holdings LLC\" as the purchaser); *see also id.* at SN 0047 (Purchase Application listing \"'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)\" as the applicant). Consistent with Kwok's actions here, Genever NY also declared bankruptcy immediately after PAX won summary judgment in late 2020. *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 1:20-bk-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).\n\n37 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n38 PAX filed—prepetition—another contempt motion in the New York court concerning Kwok's failure to turn over his shares in a British Virgin Islands-registered company, Genever BVI, in accordance with Justice Ostrager's September 22, 2021 order. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 904. That motion has been fully briefed since January 24, 2022 and is\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. THE AUTOMATIC STAY IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE CONTEMPT ORDER AS IT RELATES TO THE RETURN OF THE LADY MAY.**\n\n10. Criminal contempt proceedings are statutorily exempt from the automatic stay. *See* § 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(1) (\"commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor\" not subject to the stay.) Civil contempt remedies can be issued by courts to \"secure future compliance with a court order\" or \"provide compensation or other remedial relief\" to a party for another party's failure to comply with a court order. *Universal City Studios v. New York Broadway Int'l Corp*., 705 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1983); *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nair*, 3:10cv88 (SRU), 2011 WL 1832774, at \\*2 (D. Conn. May 13, 2011). Although there is no *per se* exception from the automatic stay for civil contempt proceedings, \"certain civil contempt proceedings may continue even in the face of a bankruptcy petition.\" *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.*, 62 B.R. 723, 727 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Courts distinguish between civil contempt \"motion[s] made to punish, and [those] made to collect on a judgment,\" finding the former exempt from the stay. *Id.* at 729; *see also Booth v. Wilson,* No. 96 CIV. 920 (RO), 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1997) (\"The threshold issue is whether the motion for contempt is made to satisfy a judgment or if it is directed at an asserted defiance of a court order.\").\n\n11. Courts routinely hold that civil contempt orders that are designed to punish debtors for non-compliance with court orders are not subject to the automatic stay because bankruptcy does not provide a safe harbor for parties that have engaged in sanctionable conduct\n\npending. On February 18, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a notice requesting that PAX, by March 3, 2022, withdraw the motion without prejudice in light of Kwok's bankruptcy filing. Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Court Notice, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1191. PAX intends to do so, and is not now seeking this Court's confirmation that the automatic stay is inapplicable to that contempt proceeding, but may, and reserves the right to, do so in the future.\n\nthat is an affront to the dignity of a court. And the bankruptcy process may not be \"used as a sword\" to prevent courts from punishing contemptuous acts. *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.,* 62 B.R. at 730. For example, in *Roberts v. Bennaceur*, No. 3:12-CV-01222, 2015 WL 1471889, (D. Conn. 2015), the defendant filed for bankruptcy after repeatedly failing to disclose information relating to its assets and financial condition. Judge Meyer held that the bankruptcy filing did not preclude the Court from issuing sanctions relating to the debtor's abuses of the disclosure and discovery process, stating:\n\n[t]he bankruptcy stay does not preclude plaintiff from seeking sanctions against the individual defendants' [violations of the Court's orders], even violations relevant to claims that are stayed. I am entitled to 'continue to ... consider whether the defendant[s]' 'may be sanctioned as a result of their failure 'to comply with a prior [] order' as long as the sanction does not have the effect of 'securing assets protected by the stay or harassing' the debtor.\n\n*Id.* at \\*16 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the court sanctioned the debtor and its officers *after* the bankruptcy filing. Other courts agree, recognizing that contempt orders may be enforced against a debtor in bankruptcy to protect the dignity of the court and punish the debtor for disobeying court orders. *See Shaoxing Bon Textiles Co., Ltd. v. 4-U Performance Grp. LLC*, 16 Civ. 6805, 2017 WL 6413993, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (motion for relief from the stay unnecessary where \"the proceeding in reality is one to punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of [the] court.\"); *In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, Inc.*, 62 B.R. 369, 378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) *aff'd*, 70 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1986), 831 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1987) (\"a state court prepetition order which does not relate to the collection of prepetition claims or property of the estate may be enforced by contempt proceedings against the debtor and its officers in order to vindicate the dignity of the state court without violating the automatic stay.\"); *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 729–30 (concluding that its \"inherent power to 'punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of either the state or federal court,' is not\n\ncurtailed by the bankruptcy action\" and finding stay inapplicable where contempt request was \"designed to uphold an order of this Court, and [wa]s not one calculated to enforce a money judgment.\"); *Booth,* 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2 (\"this contempt order enforcing my pre-bankruptcy order to compel discovery is not stayed by § 362(a) as it is 'vindicat[ing] the integrity of the court.'\").\n\n12. Consistent with these authorities, the automatic stay is inapplicable to past and future contempt orders designed to ensure Kwok's compliance with court orders. Justice Ostrager did not hold Kwok in contempt for failing to satisfy PAX's judgment or to compensate PAX for any monetary loss. Indeed, the fine imposed is separate from the judgment on PAX's breach of contract claim. That court held Kwok in contempt because of his flagrant and continued disregard of court orders. And PAX is not \"moving at this time out of a 'collection motive,'\" but rather for leave to seek enforcement of Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order requiring the return of the Lady May to New York,39 which has remained outside of the New York Supreme Court's jurisdiction contrary to court orders for more than a year. *See Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 730 (stay inapplicable where movant was not moving out of a \"collection motive\"). Continuation of the contempt proceedings is necessary to protect the dignity of the New York Supreme Court (and has the added benefit of forcing Kwok to return property he beneficially owns to the United States). Therefore, the New York Supreme Court should be permitted to take any actions it deems necessary in the contempt proceedings, short of enforcing the collection of fines, without stay relief.\n\n13. To the extent this Court may be concerned about any impact on Kwok's estate, the Court can clarify that the automatic stay applies to the enforcement or collection of any fines\n\n39 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2 (\"Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request.\").\n\nor other relief against property of the estate during the pendency of the automatic stay. *See Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 730 (the automatic stay is inapplicable where the order is not \"calculated to *enforce a money judgment*, or to harass a defendant.\") (emphasis added). Moreover, this Court can make clear that future disposition of the Lady May is within the exclusive purview of this Court (absent further Court order).\n\n### **II. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE AUTOMATIC STAY SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUSTICE OSTRAGER'S ORDERS.**\n\n14. Even if the automatic stay applies to the February 9 Contempt Order, good cause exists to modify the stay pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 362(d)(1).\n\n15. The decision to modify the automatic stay is \"committed to the sound discretion of the court.\" *In re David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 2325758, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 22, 2018); *In re Wysocki*, No. 3:16-CV-248, 2016 WL 4099031, at \\*4 (D. Conn. Aug. 2, 2016)*.* Under Bankruptcy Code section 362(d), relief from the automatic stay shall be granted \"for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest.\" *See* 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1). The Bankruptcy Code does not define \"cause.\" *In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.*, 907 F.2d 1280, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990). In *Sonnax*, the Second Circuit enumerated twelve factors which serve as the touchpoint when courts determine whether relief from the automatic stay should be granted to permit litigation to continue in another forum.40 *See, e.g., In re Case*, 384 F. App'x 43, 44 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting the Bankruptcy Court properly\n\n40 Those factors are: \"(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action; (5) whether the debtor's insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending it; (6) whether the action primarily involves third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant's success in the other proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor; (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; (11) whether the parties are ready for trial in the other proceeding; and (12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.\" *Sonnax*, 907 F.2d at 1286.\n\nconsidered the *Sonnax* factors); *In re Friedberg*, No. 08–51245, 2009 WL 1292273, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn., May 8, 2009) (applying the *Sonnax* factors). The Court need not assign equal weight to each factor, nor are all factors relevant in each case. *See In re David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2018), *appeal dismissed,* No. 28cv778, 2018 WL 3079470 (D. Conn, Jun. 21, 2018). Rather, \"[w]hen applying these factors and considering whether to modify the automatic stay, the Court should take into account the particular circumstances of the case, and ascertain what is just to the claimants, and the estate.\" *Id.* at \\*5 (citing *In re Taub*, 413 B.R. 55, 62 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)).\n\nHere, the relevant *Sonnax* factors are:\n\n- \"(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;\"\n- \"(2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;\"\n- \"(4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action;\"\n- \"(7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors;\"\n- \"(10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation;\" and\n- \"(12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.\"41\n\n#### **A. Stay Relief Will Resolve Issues Important to the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n16. The first *Sonnax* factor weighs in favor of lifting the stay. The February 9\n\nContempt Order has the ultimate goal of seeing the return of the Lady May to New York.\n\n41 The other *Sonnax* factors are inapposite. In particular, there is no possible basis for equitably subordinating PAX's claim on a personal guarantee from Kwok (*Sonnax* factor 8), and none of the orders issued by Justice Ostrager will give rise to a voidable lien (*Sonnax* factor 9).\n\n17. As Justice Ostrager determined, the Lady May is an asset available for satisfaction of Kwok's debts.42 The court found that Kwok \"has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May,\" he not only \"control[s] the yacht\" but \"provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"43 Accordingly, Kwok's interests in the Lady May must be made available to creditors in this chapter 11 case, despite Kwok's \"extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors.\"44 Not only did Kwok fail to return the Lady May to New York in violation of Justice Ostrager's orders, but on filing his bankruptcy petition (and in his amended petition), notwithstanding Justice Ostrager's clear findings in his February 9, 2022 Order, Kwok failed to include the Lady May's value among his assets.45 A chapter 11 debtor has a duty to disclose all assets—of all types—in a chapter 11 petition. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (a debtor's estate consists of \"all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property.\"); *Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., Inc.*, 233 B.R. 46, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"A basic tenet of bankruptcy law is that all assets of the debtor . . . are assets of the bankruptcy estate that must be scheduled for the benefit of creditors.\"); *In re Beckford*, 729 F. App'x 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2018) (\"The filing of a bankruptcy petition creates a bankruptcy estate that is comprised of 'all legal or equitable interests of the debtor.'\"). Kwok's willful failure to include the value of the Lady May as an asset in his petition—just six days after Justice Ostrager unambiguously ruled that Kwok beneficially owned and controlled it—is a continuation of his scheme to keep the Lady May out of the reach of his creditors. This scheme must end.\n\n42 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 8–9.\n\n43 *Id.*\n\n44 *Id.* at 9; *see also id.* at 7 (discussing the \"machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May.\")\n\n45 Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7 (listing assets as between \\$50,001 - \\$100,000); *cf.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10 (noting the € 28 million [sic] purchase price of the Lady May).\n\n18. Allowing continued efforts before Justice Ostrager to have the Lady May returned to New York will resolve a pertinent issue to this chapter 11 case. *See In re Fleming*, No. 19- 51611, 2020 WL 3816282, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jul. 2, 2020) (the fact state court proceedings could resolve issues in an adversary proceeding, weighed in favor of stay relief). Return of the Lady May to New York will facilitate the marshaling of that asset and the ultimate distribution of the proceeds for the benefit of all creditors. It will also resolve PAX's year-long effort to have the yacht within the New York Supreme Court's jurisdiction, a further factor supporting relief from the automatic stay. *In re Ice Cream Liquidation Inc.*, 281 B.R. 154, 166 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002) (complete resolution of an issue related to the Debtor favored stay relief); *David X. Manners Co.*, 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6 (even partial resolution of the issues weighs in favor of lifting the stay).\n\n## **B. Enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order Will Not Interfere with the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n19. For similar reasons, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order will not interfere with the bankruptcy case; rather, it will complement and facilitate these proceedings, *In re Dunne*, No. 13–50484, 2015 WL 7625609, at \\*6 (Bankr. D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2015) (stay relief granted where continuation of litigation \"complement[ed] the [] bankruptcy case\"), and protect the interests of all creditors by ensuring a critical estate asset is brought to the United States. Therefore, the second, seventh and tenth *Sonnax* factors weigh heavily in PAX's favor.\n\n20. Stay relief is favored where it would facilitate progress in a bankruptcy case. *See David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*6 (this factor weighed in favor of stay relief where \"the progress of th[e] case \"appear[ed] dependent upon and require[d] the resolution of the issues . . . awaiting judgment in the state court.\"); *In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc*., No. 18- 10077, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018) (permitting claims to proceed\n\nin the district court which would \"assist resolution of the bankruptcy action\"). Here, returning the Lady May is a threshold issue: the Lady May has a value many multiples of the assets Kwok listed in his petition. Its prompt return benefits the estate as well as creditors.46 Further, return facilitates an essential function of this bankruptcy case: to \"maximiz[e] the value of the bankruptcy estate.\" *Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.*, 137 S.Ct. 973, 985–86 (2017) (the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to maximize the value of the estate). Thus, relief from the automatic stay would \"assist resolution of the bankruptcy action.\" *Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc.*, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4.\n\n21. Returning the Lady May also will not interfere with this Court's jurisdiction over reorganization (or liquidation) of Kwok's debts or the orderly distribution of his assets to creditors. Nor will it result in any immediate distribution to PAX. Rather, return will assist in marshaling an estate asset to enable liquidation of that asset and distribution to creditors in order of priority under the supervision of this Court (unless the case is dismissed). *See Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc.*, No. 05 Civ. 15, 2006 WL 176983, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2006) (the goals of a bankruptcy proceeding \"require a marshaling of the debtor's assets and an orderly payment of claims in order of priority\").\n\n22. Further, this Court should not allow Kwok to use the bankruptcy case to evade state court sanctions. The contempt proceedings sanction Kwok's flagrant and repeated past disregard of the New York Supreme Court's orders and, if the stay relief is granted, can be used to prevent further noncompliance. Kwok filed his Chapter 11 petition six days after the New York Supreme Court announced it was \"prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753\"—which could include issuing an order for Kwok's arrest—if Kwok continued to\n\n46 *See* Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7 (listing assets as between \\$50,001 - \\$100,000); *cf.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10 (noting the purchase price of the Lady May).\n\nignore its orders.47 Kwok should not be permitted to exploit the bankruptcy process to avoid sanctions. *See In re Rudaw/Empirical Software Prod. Ltd*., 83 B.R. 241, 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (\"The automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) may not be used as a shield to sanction contumacious conduct in violation of a prepetition order enjoining a debtor from violating a party's property rights.\" (citing *In re Cinnabar 2000 Haircutters, Inc*., 20 B.R. 575 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982))). Misuse of the bankruptcy process is itself an interference with this bankruptcy case, as bankruptcy protections are reserved for \"the honest but unfortunate debtor.\" *In re Ciarcia*, 578 B.R. 495, 503 (Bankr. D. Conn, 2017). To the extent the bankruptcy petition prevented the New York court enforcing its orders, the stay should be modified to prevent that outcome.\n\n23. This Court can also protect creditors by tailoring stay relief to avoid depletion of estate assets by prohibiting collection of any fines for the duration of the stay and making clear the ultimate liquidation of the Lady May and the distribution of proceeds is subject to the Court's further orders. *David X. Manners Co. Inc*., 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6 (risk to creditors addressed by limiting the scope of stay relief to \"allow the state court to determine the issues up to the entry of judgment, but not enforcement.\")\n\n### **C. The New York Court Has the Necessary Expertise to Enforce the February 9 Contempt Order and Lifting the Stay Facilitates Judicial Economy.**\n\n24. *Sonnax* factors four and ten favor relief from the automatic stay because the New York court has \"the necessary expertise\" to enforce its orders and \"the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation\" are served by modification of the stay. *See Sonnax*, 907 F.2d at 1286. Justice Ostrager has been overseeing the dispute between PAX and Kwok since April 2017, rendering it \"considerably more advanced on the\n\n47 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10.\n\n'learning curve' with respect to the merits of this matter.\" *In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167–68 (as litigation was pending before the district court for almost five years it was presumed to be significantly more advanced on the merits of the matter). As Justice Ostrager noted in his February 9 Contempt Order, over 1,180 docket entries have accumulated in the almost five years that the litigation has been pending.48 All discovery, motion practice, evidentiary hearings, and conferences precipitating the contempt orders have taken place before that court. Justice Ostrager developed a full factual record leading to the issuance of the February 9 Contempt Order and is uniquely well-versed in the procedural history of the case.\n\n25. Moreover, the proceedings relating of the Lady May are far-advanced; not only has the New York court issued the final February 9 Contempt Order, but it has also already considered imminent further action to ensure compliance with that order.49 This too favors stay relief. *See In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167–68 (considering relevant that the case was close to completion). This vividly demonstrates Justice Ostrager's familiarity with and competence to enforce the February 9 Contempt Order, and it illustrates that his court is a more efficient venue for that undertaking, weighing heavily in favor of lifting the stay. *See In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc*., 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (the fact the District Court was \"familiar with the particular issues involved in the FLSA Litigation\" and \"[a]ll discovery and the majority of pre-trial motions [were] completed and the matter [was] ready for trial\" weighed heavily in favor of lifting the stay); *see also In re Fleming*, 2020 WL 3816282, \\*3 (granting relief from the stay where restarting the process of confirming an arbitration award where the State Court had already commenced that process would \"not be an effective use of judicial resources.\").\n\n48 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 7.\n\n49 *See id.* at 10 (the Court stated it is \"prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753\" if Kwok continues to ignore its orders.\")\n\n26. In contrast, asking this Court to parse the voluminous record to determine appropriate enforcement mechanisms would not be efficient. Therefore, stay relief is in the interest of judicial economy.\n\n## **D. Modifying the Stay Will Not Prejudice Other Creditors and the Balance of Harms Favors Stay Relief.**\n\n27. *Sonnax* factors seven and twelve also favor stay relief. Modifying the stay benefits all creditors because it will bring the valuable Lady May to the United States and prevent its dissipation. The Lady May is debtor property, as the New York court has ruled, and Kwok must act as a fiduciary for his creditors with respect to it. That starts by following court orders regarding the Lady May.\n\n28. PAX is not now seeking to levy on the Lady May or obtain any priority status for its debts compared to the debts of other legitimate creditors. No creditor would be prejudiced or harmed by return of the Lady May to New York. *See In re Mildred Deli Grocery*, *Inc.*, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (creditors were not harmed as claimant did not seek to collect on its claim against the debtor); *In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167 (lifting the stay would cause no legally cognizable harm on the estate, except some minor expenses, weighing in favor of lifting the stay). To the contrary, creditors as a whole will only benefit by the yacht's return to New York.\n\n29. Absent stay relief, Kwok will have no incentive to bring the Lady May back within reach of his creditors. His gambit in filing bankruptcy will have borne fruit, as he will be effectively shielded from the February 9 Contempt Order—a clear misuse of the bankruptcy process.\n\n30. For these reasons, the balance of harms favors relief from the stay.\n\n### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\nNotwithstanding anything in this Motion, PAX reserves all rights, claims and defenses with respect to these chapter 11 proceedings, including but not limited to the right to contest venue, seek dismissal or conversion of the case, and any other remedy.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nPAX respectfully requests this Court enter an order (i) that the automatic stay is\n\ninapplicable to contempt proceedings before the New York Supreme Court related to Kwok's\n\nfailure to return the Lady May to New York, or (ii) in the alternative, granting relief from the\n\nautomatic stay to permit PAX to seek enforcement of the New York Supreme Court's February 9\n\nContempt Order; and (iii) granting such other relief as may be just and proper.\n\nDated: Hartford, Connecticut March 1, 2022\n\n#### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*\n\n Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP** 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2293 E-mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n## **EXHIBIT 13**\n\n| 121 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| |\n| Case number (If known): _________________________ Chapter you are filing under:
‰ Chapter 7
✔
‰ Chapter 11
‰ Chapter 12
‰ Chapter 13 |\n| |\n\n Check if this is an amended filing\n\n## Official Form 101\n\n## Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy **/**\n\n**The bankruptcy forms use** *you* **and** *Debtor 1* **to refer to a debtor filing alone. A married couple may file a bankruptcy case together—called a** *joint case***—and in joint cases, these forms use** *you* **to ask for information from both debtors. For example, if a form asks, \"Do you own a car,\" the answer would be** *yes* **if either debtor owns a car. When information is needed about the spouses separately, the form uses** *Debtor 1* **and** *Debtor 2* **to distinguish between them. In joint cases, one of the spouses must report information as** *Debtor 1* **and the other as** *Debtor 2***. The same person must be** *Debtor 1* **in all of the forms.**\n\n**Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number (if known). Answer every question.**\n\n#### Part 1: Identify Yourself\n\n| | | About Debtor 1: | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1. | Your full name | | |\n| Write the name that is on your
government-issued picture
identification (for example,
your driver's license or | | Ho Wan
__________________________________________________
First name | __________________________________________________
First name |\n| | passport).
Bring your picture | __________________________________________________
Middle name
Kwok
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________
Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | identification to your meeting
with the trustee. | Last name
___________________________ | Last name
___________________________ |\n| | | Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) | Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) |\n| 2. | All other names you | Miles
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________ |\n| | have used in the last 8
years | First name
__________________________________________________ | First name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | Include your married or
maiden names. | Middle name
Kwok; Guo
__________________________________________________ | Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | | Last name | Last name |\n| | | Wengui
__________________________________________________
First name | __________________________________________________
First name |\n| | | __________________________________________________
Middle name
Guo
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________
Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | | Last name | Last name |\n| | | | |\n| 3. | Only the last 4 digits of
your Social Security
number or federal | 9
5
9
5
xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____
OR | xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____
OR |\n| | Individual Taxpayer
Identification number
(ITIN) | 9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ | 9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ |\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n| | | About Debtor 1: | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): |\n| Any business names
4.
and Employer
Identification Numbers | | ✔
‰
I have not used any business names or EINs. | ‰
I have not used any business names or EINs. |\n| | (EIN) you have used in
the last 8 years
Include trade names and | _________________________________________________
Business name | _________________________________________________
Business name |\n| | doing business as names | _________________________________________________
Business name | _________________________________________________
Business name |\n| | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN |\n| | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN |\n| 5. | Where you live | | If Debtor 2 lives at a different address: |\n| | | c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.
_________________________________________________
Number
Street | _________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n| | | 162 East 64th Street
_________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ |\n| | | New York
NY
10065
_________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code |\n| | | New York
_________________________________________________
County | _________________________________________________
County |\n| | | If your mailing address is different from the one
above, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to you at this mailing address. | If Debtor 2's mailing address is different from
yours, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to this mailing address. |\n| | | _________________________________________________
Number
Street | _________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n| | | _________________________________________________
P.O. Box | _________________________________________________
P.O. Box |\n| | | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code |\n| 6. | Why you are choosing
this district to file for
bankruptcy | Check one:
✔
‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district.
‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.) | Check one:
‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district.
‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.) |\n| | | ________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________ | ________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________ |\n| | | ________________________________________ | ________________________________________ |\n\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
_______________________________________________________
First Name
Middle Name | | Kwok
Last Name | | | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | |\n| Part 2: | Tell the Court About Your Bankruptcy Case | | | | | | | |\n| 7. | The chapter of the
Bankruptcy Code you | | | for Bankruptcy (Form 2010)). Also, go to the top of page 1 and check the appropriate box. | | | Check one. (For a brief description of each, see Notice Required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) for Individuals Filing | |\n| | are choosing to file
under | ‰ | Chapter 7 | | | | | |\n| | | ✔
‰
Chapter 11 | | | | | | |\n| | | ‰ | Chapter 12 | | | | | |\n| | | ‰ | Chapter 13 | | | | | |\n| 8. | How you will pay the fee | ✔
‰
‰
‰ | I will pay the entire fee when I file my petition. Please check with the clerk's office in your
local court for more details about how you may pay. Typically, if you are paying the fee
yourself, you may pay with cash, cashier's check, or money order. If your attorney is
submitting your payment on your behalf, your attorney may pay with a credit card or check
with a pre-printed address.
I need to pay the fee in installments. If you choose this option, sign and attach the
Application for Individuals to Pay The Filing Fee in Installments (Official Form 103A).
I request that my fee be waived (You may request this option only if you are filing for Chapter 7.
By law, a judge may, but is not required to, waive your fee, and may do so only if your income is
less than 150% of the official poverty line that applies to your family size and you are unable to
pay the fee in installments). If you choose this option, you must fill out the Application to Have the
Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Official Form 103B) and file it with your petition. | | | | | |\n| 9. | Have you filed for | ✔ | | | | | | |\n| | bankruptcy within the | ‰
No
‰ | | Yes. District __________________________ When | | | _______________ Case number ___________________________ | |\n| | last 8 years? | | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | | |\n| | | | | District __________________________ When | | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number ___________________________ | |\n| | | | | District __________________________ When | | | _______________ Case number ___________________________ | |\n| | | | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | | |\n| | 10. Are any bankruptcy | ✔
‰ No | | | | | | |\n| | cases pending or being
filed by a spouse who is | ‰ | | Yes. Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you | | | _____________________ | |\n| | not filing this case with
you, or by a business
partner, or by an
affiliate? | | | District __________________________ When | | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number, if known____________________ | |\n| | | | | Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you | | | _____________________ | |\n| | | | | District __________________________ When | | | _______________ Case number, if known____________________ | |\n| | 11. Do you rent your
residence? | ✔
‰
No.
‰ | Go to line 12.
‰
‰ | Yes. Has your landlord obtained an eviction judgment against you?
No. Go to line 12.
part of this bankruptcy petition. | | MM / DD / YYYY | Yes. Fill out Initial Statement About an Eviction Judgment Against You (Form 101A) and file it as | |\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | 121
Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n| Part 3: | | Report About Any Businesses You Own as a Sole Proprietor | |\n| | 12. Are you a sole proprietor | ✔
‰
No. Go to Part 4. | |\n| business? | of any full- or part-time | ‰
Yes. Name and location of business | |\n| | A sole proprietorship is a
business you operate as an
individual, and is not a
separate legal entity such as
a corporation, partnership, or | Name of business, if any
Number
Street | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ |\n| LLC.
If you have more than one
sole proprietorship, use a
separate sheet and attach it
to this petition. | | _______________________________________________
City | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
__________________________
State
ZIP Code |\n| | | Check the appropriate box to describe your business:
‰
‰ | Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)) |\n| | | ‰ | Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)) |\n| | | Stockbroker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A))
‰
Commodity Broker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(6)) | |\n| | | ‰
None of the above | |\n| | 13. Are you filing under
Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code and
are you a small business | | If you are filing under Chapter 11, the court must know whether you are a small business debtorRUDGHEWRU
FKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9 so that it can set appropriate deadlines. If you indicate that you
are a small business debtorRU\\RXDUHFKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9, you must attach your
most recent balance sheet, statement of operations, cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return or
if any of these documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B). |\n| | debtorRUDGHEWRUDV
GHILQHGE\\86&† | ‰
No. I am not filing under Chapter 11. | |\n| ? | For a definition of small | ✔
‰
the Bankruptcy Code. | No. I am filing under Chapter 11, but I am NOT a small business debtor according to the definition in |\n| | business debtor, see
11 U.S.C. § 101(51D). | ‰ | &RGHDQG,GRQRWFKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU |\n| | | ‰ | |\n| | | | %DQNUXSWF\\&RGHDQG,FKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU |\n\n| Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Part 4: | | | Report if You Own or Have Any Hazardous Property or Any Property That Needs Immediate Attention |\n| 14. Do you own or have any | ✔
‰
No | | |\n| property that poses or is
alleged to pose a threat | ‰
Yes. | What is the hazard? | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| of imminent and
identifiable hazard to | | | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| public health or safety?
Or do you own any | | | |\n| property that needs
immediate attention? | | | If immediate attention is needed, why is it needed? _______________________________________________ |\n| For example, do you own
perishable goods, or livestock | | | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| that must be fed, or a building
that needs urgent repairs? | | | |\n| | | | Where is the property? ________________________________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n| Part 5: | | Explain Your Efforts to Receive a Briefing About Credit Counseling | | | |\n| 15. Tell the court whether | About Debtor 1: | | | | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): |\n| you have received a
briefing about credit | You must check one: | | | You must check one: | |\n| counseling.
The law requires that you
receive a briefing about credit | ✔
‰
certificate of completion. | I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a | ‰
I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a
certificate of completion. | | |\n| counseling before you file for
bankruptcy. You must
truthfully check one of the | | Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment
plan, if any, that you developed with the agency. | | | Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment
plan, if any, that you developed with the agency. |\n| following choices. If you
cannot do so, you are not
eligible to file.
If you file anyway, the court
can dismiss your case, you | ‰
certificate of completion. | I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a
Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition,
you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment | | ‰
certificate of completion. | I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a
Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition,
you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment |\n| will lose whatever filing fee
you paid, and your creditors | plan, if any. | | | plan, if any. | |\n| can begin collection activities
again. | ‰
of the requirement. | I certify that I asked for credit counseling
services from an approved agency, but was
unable to obtain those services during the 7
days after I made my request, and exigent
circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver | | ‰
of the requirement. | I certify that I asked for credit counseling
services from an approved agency, but was
unable to obtain those services during the 7
days after I made my request, and exigent
circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver |\n| | required you to file this case. | To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the
requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining
what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why
you were unable to obtain it before you filed for
bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances | | required you to file this case. | To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the
requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining
what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why
you were unable to obtain it before you filed for
bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances |\n| | | Your case may be dismissed if the court is
dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a
briefing before you filed for bankruptcy. | | | Your case may be dismissed if the court is
dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a
briefing before you filed for bankruptcy. |\n| | may be dismissed. | If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must
still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file.
You must file a certificate from the approved
agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you
developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case
Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted
only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 | | may be dismissed. | If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must
still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file.
You must file a certificate from the approved
agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you
developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case
Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted
only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 |\n| | days.
‰ | I am not required to receive a briefing about | | days.
‰ | I am not required to receive a briefing about |\n| | ‰
Incapacity. | credit counseling because of:
I have a mental illness or a mental
deficiency that makes me
incapable of realizing or making
rational decisions about finances. | | credit counseling because of:
‰
Incapacity. | I have a mental illness or a mental
deficiency that makes me
incapable of realizing or making
rational decisions about finances. |\n| | ‰
Disability. | My physical disability causes me
to be unable to participate in a
briefing in person, by phone, or
through the internet, even after I
reasonably tried to do so. | | ‰
Disability. | My physical disability causes me
to be unable to participate in a
briefing in person, by phone, or
through the internet, even after I
reasonably tried to do so. |\n| | ‰ | Active duty. I am currently on active military
duty in a military combat zone. | | ‰ | Active duty. I am currently on active military
duty in a military combat zone. |\n| | | If you believe you are not required to receive a
briefing about credit counseling, you must file a
motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court. | | | If you believe you are not required to receive a
briefing about credit counseling, you must file a
motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court. |\n| | | | | | |\n\n|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | |\n| Part 6: | | Answer These Questions for Reporting Purposes | | | | |\n| | 16. What kind of debts do | | as \"incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose.\" | 16a. Are your debts primarily consumer debts? Consumer debts are defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8) | | |\n| you have? | | ✔
‰
No. Go to line 16b.
‰
Yes. Go to line 17. | | | | |\n| | | | money for a business or investment or through the operation of the business or investment. | 16b. Are your debts primarily business debts? Business debts are debts that you incurred to obtain | | |\n| | | ✔
‰
No. Go to line 16c.
‰
Yes. Go to line 17. | | | | |\n| | | | 16c. State the type of debts you owe that are not consumer debts or business debts.
Litigation expenses, claims, and judgments
_______________________________________________________________ | | | |\n| | 17. Are you filing under
Chapter 7? | ✔
‰
No. I am not filing under Chapter 7. Go to line 18. | | | | |\n| | Do you estimate that after
any exempt property is | ‰ | | Yes. I am filing under Chapter 7. Do you estimate that after any exempt property is excluded and
administrative expenses are paid that funds will be available to distribute to unsecured creditors? | | |\n| | excluded and
administrative expenses | ‰
No
‰ | | | | |\n| | are paid that funds will be
available for distribution
to unsecured creditors? | Yes | | | | |\n| | 18. How many creditors do
you estimate that you | ‰
1-49
✔
‰
50-99 | ‰
1,000-5,000
‰
5,001-10,000 | ‰
25,001-50,000
‰
50,001-100,000 | | |\n| owe? | | ‰
100-199
‰
200-999 | ‰
10,001-25,000 | ‰
More than 100,000 | | |\n| | 19. How much do you
estimate your assets to | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000
✔
‰
\\$50,001-\\$100,000 | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million
‰
\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion
‰
\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion | | |\n| be worth? | | ‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000
‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million
‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion
‰
More than \\$50 billion | | |\n| | 20. How much do you | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000 | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion | | |\n| to be? | estimate your liabilities | ‰
\\$50,001-\\$100,000
‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000 | ‰
\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million
‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million | ‰
\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion
‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion | | |\n| Part 7: | Sign Below | ‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ✔
‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
More than \\$50 billion | | |\n| For you | | correct. | | I have examined this petition, and I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and | | |\n| | | If I have chosen to file under Chapter 7, I am aware that I may proceed, if eligible, under Chapter 7, 11,12, or 13
of title 11, United States Code. I understand the relief available under each chapter, and I choose to proceed
under Chapter 7. | | | | |\n| | | | this document, I have obtained and read the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b). | If no attorney represents me and I did not pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help me fill out | | |\n| | | | | I request relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United States Code, specified in this petition. | | |\n| | | 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571. | | I understand making a false statement, concealing property, or obtaining money or property by fraud in connection
with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to \\$250,000, or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both. | | |\n| | | 8
/s/ Ho Wan Kwok
______________________________________________ | 8 | _____________________________ | | |\n| | | Signature of Debtor 1 | | Signature of Debtor 2 | | |\n| | | 02/15/2022
Executed on _________________
MM
/ DD | / YYYY | Executed on __________________
MM / DD
/ YYYY | | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | For your attorney, if you are
represented by one
If you are not represented
by an attorney, you do not
need to file this page. | I, the attorney for the debtor(s) named in this petition, declare that I have informed the debtor(s) about eligibility
to proceed under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code, and have explained the relief
available under each chapter for which the person is eligible. I also certify that I have delivered to the debtor(s)
the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) and, in a case in which § 707(b)(4)(D) applies, certify that I have no
knowledge after an inquiry that the information in the schedules filed with the petition is incorrect.
8
_________________________________
/s/
William
R.
Baldiga | Date | _________________
02/15/2022 |\n| | | Signature of Attorney for Debtor | | MM
/
DD
/ YYYY |\n| | | William R. Baldiga
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Printed name
Brown Rudnick LLP
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | |\n| | | Firm name
7 Times Square
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Number
Street | | |\n| | | _________________________________________________________________________________________________
New York
______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ | NY | 10036 |\n| | | City | State | ZIP Code |\n| | | (212) 209-4800
Contact phone _____________________________________ | Email address | wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
______________________________ |\n| | | 4813846
______________________________________________________ ____________ | NY | |\n| | | Bar number | State | |\n\n| | 121 | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | |\n| For you if you are filing this
bankruptcy without an
attorney
If you are represented by
an attorney, you do not
need to file this page. | | | The law allows you, as an individual, to represent yourself in bankruptcy court, but you
should understand that many people find it extremely difficult to represent
themselves successfully. Because bankruptcy has long-term financial and legal
consequences, you are strongly urged to hire a qualified attorney. | | |\n| | | To be successful, you must correctly file and handle your bankruptcy case. The rules are very
technical, and a mistake or inaction may affect your rights. For example, your case may be
dismissed because you did not file a required document, pay a fee on time, attend a meeting or
hearing, or cooperate with the court, case trustee, U.S. trustee, bankruptcy administrator, or audit
firm if your case is selected for audit. If that happens, you could lose your right to file another
case, or you may lose protections, including the benefit of the automatic stay. | | | |\n| | | | You must list all your property and debts in the schedules that you are required to file with the
court. Even if you plan to pay a particular debt outside of your bankruptcy, you must list that debt
in your schedules. If you do not list a debt, the debt may not be discharged. If you do not list
property or properly claim it as exempt, you may not be able to keep the property. The judge can
also deny you a discharge of all your debts if you do something dishonest in your bankruptcy
case, such as destroying or hiding property, falsifying records, or lying. Individual bankruptcy
cases are randomly audited to determine if debtors have been accurate, truthful, and complete.
Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime; you could be fined and imprisoned. | | |\n| | | If you decide to file without an attorney, the court expects you to follow the rules as if you had
hired an attorney. The court will not treat you differently because you are filing for yourself. To be
successful, you must be familiar with the United States Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, and the local rules of the court in which your case is filed. You must also
be familiar with any state exemption laws that apply.
Are you aware that filing for bankruptcy is a serious action with long-term financial and legal | | | |\n| | | consequences? | | | |\n| | | ‰
No
‰
Yes | | | |\n| | | Are you aware that bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime and that if your bankruptcy forms are
inaccurate or incomplete, you could be fined or imprisoned? | | | |\n| | | ‰
No
‰
Yes | | | |\n| | | Did you pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help you fill out your bankruptcy forms?
‰
No
‰
Yes. Name of Person_____________________________________________________________________.
Attach Bankruptcy Petition Preparer's Notice, Declaration, and Signature (Official Form 119). | | | |\n| | | | By signing here, I acknowledge that I understand the risks involved in filing without an attorney. I
have read and understood this notice, and I am aware that filing a bankruptcy case without an
attorney may cause me to lose my rights or property if I do not properly handle the case. | | |\n| | | 8
_______________________________________________ | 8
______________________________ | | |\n| | | Signature of Debtor 1 | Signature of Debtor 2 | | |\n| | | Date
_________________
MM / DD
/ YYYY | Date
_________________
MM / DD / YYYY | | |\n| | | Contact phone ______________________________________ | Contact phone
________________________________ | | |\n| | | Cell phone
______________________________________ | Cell phone
________________________________ | | |\n\nEmail address \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Email address \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n121\n\n| Fill in this information to identify your case: | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho Wan | | Kwok
__________________________________________________________________ | | |\n| | First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | |\n| Debtor 2 | | ________________________________________________________________ | | | |\n| (Spouse, if filing) First Name | | Middle Name | Last Name | | |\n| United States Bankruptcy Court for the: __________ District of __________
District of Connecticut | | | | | |\n| Case number ___________________________________________ | | | | | |\n| (If known) | | | | | |\n\n Check if this is an amended filing\n\n## 2IILFLDO)RUP104\n\n## For Individual Chapter 11 Cases: List of Creditors Who Have the 20 Largest Unsecured Claims Against You and Are Not Insiders **12/15**\n\n**If you are an individual filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, you must fill out this form. If you are filing under Chapter 7, Chapter 12, or Chapter 13, do not fill out this form. Do not include claims by anyone who is an** *insider***. Insiders include your relatives; any general partners; relatives of any general partners; partnerships of which you are a general partner; corporations of which you are an officer, director, person in control, or owner of 20 percent or more of their voting securities; and any managing agent, including one for a business you operate as a sole proprietor. 11 U.S.C. § 101. Also, do not include claims by secured creditors unless the unsecured claim resulting from inadequate collateral value places the creditor among the holders of the 20 largest unsecured claims.**\n\n**Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information.**\n\nPart 1: List the 20 Unsecured Claims in Order from Largest to Smallest. Do Not Include Claims by Insiders.\n\n| | | | | Unsecured claim |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | (approx) 254,000,000.00
\\$____________________________ |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | |\n| C/O O'Melveney & Myers, LLP
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Contingent | |\n| Number
Street | | | ‰
Unliquidated | |\n| 7 Times Square
__________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10065 | ‰
None of the above apply | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | |\n| Stuart Sarnoff, Esq | | |
‰
No | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | | | - | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Value of security:
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | | | Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | Litigation Funding
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | |\n| Golden Spring New York | | | | (approx) 21,000,000.00
\\$____________________________ |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | |\n| 162 E. 64th Street
__________________________________________ | | |
‰
Contingent | |\n| Number
Street | | | ‰
Unliquidated | |\n| __________________________________________ | | | ‰
Disputed | |\n| New York | NY | 10605 |
‰
None of the above apply | |\n| __________________________________________
City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | |\n| | | | ‰
No | |\n| Max Krasner
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | -
Value of security:
\\$_____________________ | |\n\n121\n\n| Ho Wan
Debtor 1 | | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | | Unsecured claim |\n| Rui Ma | 3 __________________________________________ | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | | 20,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | |\n| __________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent | | |\n| C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10022 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰ | | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo
__________________________________________
Contact | | | No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 4 __________________________________________
Cheng Jian Wu Jian She | | | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | Litigation | 14,898483.90
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | |\n| Flushing | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| __________________________________________
City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 5 __________________________________________
Ning Ye | | | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | Litigation | 12,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | |\n| 135-11 38th Avenue
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent | | |\n| C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10022 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 6 __________________________________________
Guo Baosheng | | | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | Litigation | 12,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
135-11 38th Avenue | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | |\n| __________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | | |\n| Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No | | |\n| Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________
Litigation | 10,000,000 |\n| Yang Lan and Wu Zheng
__________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________
As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | \\$____________________________ |\n| 750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Contingent | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10022 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No | | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n\nContact phone\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho Wan | | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | |\n|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|\n| | First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | | |\n| | | | | | | Unsecured claim |\n| | 8 __________________________________________
Hong Qi Qu | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 9,809,422.71
\\$____________________________ |\n| | Creditor's Name
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰ | | |\n| | Number
Street
C/O Kevin Tung, Esq. | | | Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| | __________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________
City | NY
State | 11354
ZIP Code | ‰
None of the above apply
Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| | | | | ‰
No | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| | ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| | 9 __________________________________________
Nan Tong Si Jian
Creditor's Name | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 5,568,522.66
\\$____________________________ |\n| | 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰ | | |\n| | Number
Street
C/O Kevin Tung, Esq. | | | Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| | __________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________
City | NY
State | 11354
ZIP Code | ‰
None of the above apply
Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| | | | | ‰
No | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| | ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| | 10 __________________________________________
Jian Gong
Creditor's Name | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 5,380,262.32
\\$____________________________ |\n| | 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | | |\n| | Number
Street
C/O Kevin Tung, Esq. | | | ‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| | __________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply
Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | ‰
No | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________
- | |\n| | ____________________________________ | | | Value of security:
Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | Contact phone | | | | | |\n| | 11 __________________________________________
Yan Zhao
Creditor's Name | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 3,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| | 135-11 8th Ave
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | |\n| | Number
Street
C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq. | | | ‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| | __________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No | | |\n| | Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| | ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| 12 | Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________
Litigation | 1,571,530.36 |\n| | Yua Hua Zhuang Shi
__________________________________________ | | | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | \\$____________________________ | |\n| | Creditor's Name
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| | __________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| | C/O Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | ‰
No | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| | ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | | | |\n\n| Ho Wan
Debtor 1 | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------|\n| First Name | Middle Name
Last Name | | | | |\n| | | | | Unsecured claim | |\n| Liehong Zhuang/Xiao Yan Zhu | 13 __________________________________________ | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | Litigation | | 1,005,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
224 West 35th Street, 11th Floor | __________________________________________ | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Trexler & Zhang, LLP | | ‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | | | |\n| | __________________________________________ |
‰
Disputed | | | |\n| New York | NY
10001
__________________________________________ | ‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| City | State
ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No | | | |\n| Jonathan T. Trexler, Esq.
Contact | __________________________________________ | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| ____________________________________ | | Value of security:
Unsecured claim | -
\\$_____________________
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| Contact phone | | | | | |\n| Weican Meng/Boxun, Inc.
Creditor's Name | 14 __________________________________________ | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | Litigation | | 1,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| | 750 Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor
__________________________________________ | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP | | ‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | | | |\n| | __________________________________________ |
‰
Disputed | | | |\n| New York
City | NY
10022
__________________________________________
State
ZIP Code | ‰
None of the above apply
Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo | | ‰
No | | | |\n| Contact | __________________________________________ | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________
- | | |\n| ____________________________________ | | Value of security:
Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| Contact phone | | | Litigation | | 1,000,000 |\n| Samuel Nunberg
Creditor's Name | 15 __________________________________________ | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | | | \\$____________________________ |\n| 363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor | __________________________________________ | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP | __________________________________________ | ‰
Unliquidated
| | | |\n| New York | NY
10001 | ‰
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| City | __________________________________________
State
ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | | |\n| Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq. | __________________________________________ | ‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| Contact | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| Lamp Capital, LLC | 16 __________________________________________ | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | Litigation Loan | | 1,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | | |\n| One Commerce Plaza
Number
Street | __________________________________________ | ‰
Contingent | | | |\n| 99 Washington Avenue | __________________________________________ | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | | |\n| Albany | NY
12231
__________________________________________ |
‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| City | State
ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰ | | | |\n| C/O NYS, Secretary of State | __________________________________________ | No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| Contact | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| 17
Jun Chen aka Jonathan Ho | __________________________________________ | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | Litigation | | 1,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112 | __________________________________________ | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | | |\n| Number
Street | | ‰
Unliquidated | | | |\n| C/O Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq | __________________________________________ | ‰
[
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| Flushing | NY
11355
__________________________________________ | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | | |\n| City | State
ZIP Code | ‰
No | | | |\n| Wayne Wei Zhu
Contact | __________________________________________ | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________
- | | |\n| ____________________________________ | | Value of security: | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| Contact phone | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | | |\n\n| Ho Wan
Debtor 1 | | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | | Unsecured claim |\n| 18
Yue Hua Zhu Shi
__________________________________________ | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 981,501.72
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | |\n| Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City
Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No
‰ | | |\n| Contact | | | Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 19 | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | |\n| Jia Li Wang
__________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | | | 430,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| C/O Thompson Hine
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰ | | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10017 | Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Brian P. Lanciault, Esq
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 20 | | | | Litgiation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 319,130
\\$____________________________ |\n| WA&HF, LLC/Ruizeng An | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰ | | |\n| 41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| C/O AFN Law
__________________________________________ | | | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10010 | ‰
No | | |\n| City
Angus Ni, Esq. | State | ZIP Code | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Part 2:
Sign Below | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the information provided in this form is true and correct. | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 8
V+R:DQ.ZRN | | | 8 | | |\n| ______________________________________________
Signature of Debtor 1 | | | Signature of Debtor 2 | ______________________________________________ | |\n|
Date _________________ | | | Date _________________ | | |\n| | | | | | |","body_zh":"证据附件 D\n\n移送动议\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格联邦地区法院）\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原告，\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 LLC（GENEVER：控股有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司），\n\n3:22-cv-00553-VAB\n\n被告。\n\nApril 21, 2022\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 关于将案件移交康涅狄格联邦破产法院的动议，以及支持该动议的并入法律备忘录\n\n依据《美国法典》第 28 编第 151 条及第 157(a)条、本院于 September 21, 1984 作出的\n\n常设命令（“常设移交命令”）1，以及 United States Bankruptcy Court\n\nfor the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦破产法院）（Jones, U.S.B.J.）于 April 15, 2022 作出的经命令确认的\n\n解决变更审判地动议的协议（“附条件移送命令”），Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）谨此提出动议2，\n\n请求本院将上述案件移交 United States Bankruptcy Court for the\n\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦破产法院），并分配给目前正在审理题为 In re Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵破产案）、破产案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)（“破产案件”）的 Honorable United States Bankruptcy Judge Julie A.\n\n1 常设命令副本可查阅：http\n\n2 本动议取代并旨在替换于 April 20, 2021 提交、请求相同救济的动议 [ECF No. 5]；该提交文件遗漏了律师签名，且未表明债务人附条件同意。见下文 ¶¶ 4、19。债务人的同意是在 April 20, 2021 首次提交后取得的。\n\nManning。\n\n引言\n\n1. 于 February 15, 2022，Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）因未能履行 Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院纽约县商事庭）（Ostrager 法官主持）（“纽约法院”）作出的民事藐视法庭命令，而在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（“康涅狄格破产法院”）启动破产案件。该民事藐视法庭命令所涉案件题为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. vs. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.，案卷编号为 652077/2017（“被移送诉讼”）。3\n\n2. 于 March 18, 2022，债务人将被移送诉讼从纽约法院移送至 United States District Court for Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院），后者依据于 January 31, 2012 作出的经修订常设移交命令，将被移送诉讼移交纽约南区破产法院。于 April 15, 2022，纽约南区破产法院作出附条件移送命令，将被移送诉讼移送至本院。4\n\n3. 依据《美国法典》第 28 编第 151 条及第 157(a)条、常设移交命令、附条件移送命令以及下文所述理由，PAX 请求将被移送诉讼移交康涅狄格破产法院，并分配给正在审理破产案件的 Manning 法官，以使 Manning 法官能够裁决发回动议（定义如下）。该发回动议对康涅狄格破产法院依据《美国法典》第 28 编第 1334(b)条享有的事项管辖权提出异议，或者，\n\n3 见证据附件 1，起诉状，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr 18, 2017)，ECF 2。\n\n4 见证据附件 2，经命令确认的解决变更审判地动议的协议，PAX v. Kwok，Adv. Pro. No. 22-01073 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2022)，ECF 16。\n\n备选地，请求康涅狄格破产法院不受理被移送诉讼。\n\n4. 债务人同意将被移送诉讼移交康涅狄格破产法院，但不加入本动议，亦不采纳本文件中的陈述。\n\n程序经过\n\n5. 于 April 18, 2017，PAX 通过在纽约法院起诉债务人违反个人担保合同而提起被移送诉讼。5 经历近四年诉讼后，于 February 3, 2021，PAX 在被移送诉讼中获得针对债务人的 $116,402,019.57 判决书。6 此后，PAX“通过首先确认、继而尝试扣押[债务人]在美国的资产，进行了长达数年的判决执行努力”。7 这绝非易事，因为 Ostrager 法官认定，该债务人“自称为亿万富翁，却将其资产隐匿于由公司实体及家庭成员构成的迷宫之中”。8 债务人迄今尚未偿还 $116,402,019.57 判决款中的任何部分，该判决款按年利率 9 percent 计收判决后利息。9\n\n6. 债务人对豪华游艇 Lady May 至少享有10 受益所有权；该游艇于 2015 年以 €28 million 购得。于 September 30, 2020，Ostrager 法官在被移送诉讼中作出一项\n\n8 同上。\n\n5 同上。\n\n6 见证据附件 3，判决书，第 2 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 3, 2021)，ECF 716。\n\n7 见证据附件 4，关于动议的裁定及命令，第 1 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022)，ECF 1181。\n\n9 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004 (McKinney 2022)。\n\n10 值得注意的是，债务人在其于破产案件中经具结提交的某些资产和负债清单中声称其没有资产。但见 United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs，第 ¶ 12 段，Bankruptcy Case ECF No. 49（债务人在与 United States Trustee（美国受托人）进行初次债务人面谈时，Kwok“披露其没有银行账户、没有信用卡、未受雇而取得收入，其全部生活费用均由名为 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）的实体支付并通过该实体支付。[其]还披露其不直接拥有任何不动产、不拥有任何汽车，且未为任何资产投保。”）。\n\n临时限制令，禁止债务人“对其享有权益的任何财产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰……。”11 两周后，即 October 15, 2020，Ostrager 法官明确，该项对债务人的限制包括 Lady May。12 但 Ostrager 法官及 PAX 均不知情的是，Lady May 早在大约 October 9 时已离开纽约前往佛罗里达。13 该游艇随后前往巴哈马，最终前往欧洲，并至今仍停留在那里。14\n\n7. 作为回应，PAX 提交了一项藐视法庭动议15；于 March 16, 2021，纽约法院作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示债务人或该船的登记船东于 May 15, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回该法院管辖范围内，并对该游艇此后每超出其管辖范围一日处以 $500,000 罚款。16 New York Appellate Division, First Department（纽约上诉分庭第一部门）一致维持纽约法院的命令，认定：(i) PAX“已以明确且令人信服的证据证明，[债务人]违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反导致对[PAX]权利的损害……”17；及 (ii)“每日 $500,000 的罚款旨在强力\n\n13 见证据附件 7，VESSELFINDER，Voyage Analyzer\n\n11 见证据附件 5，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 62077-2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 30, 2020)，ECF 591。\n\n12 见证据附件 6，关于动议的裁定及命令，第 1 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/217 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 15, 2020)，ECF 630。\n\nhttp（最后访问于 Feb. 28, 2022）。\n\n14 截至 February 28, 2022，Lady May 位于意大利热那亚。见同上。\n\n15 见证据附件 8，PAX 支持针对被告 Kwok 的藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 24, 2020)，ECF No. 689；另见证据附件 9，PAX 进一步支持针对被告 Kwok 的藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 27, 2021)，ECF 709。\n\n16 见证据附件 10，关于动议的裁定及命令，第 2 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2021)，ECF 728（“初步藐视法庭命令”）。换言之，法院给予 Kwok 先生整整两个月的宽限期以送回游艇，从而完全避免任何罚款。\n\n17 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)。\n\n促使[债务人]消除其藐视法庭状态。”18 因此，第一部门指示 Ostrager 法官“在作出最终藐视法庭命令前，进行证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当处罚”。19\n\n8. 纽约法院于 February 2, 2022 举行了该证据听证。听取七名证人的证言后，Ostrager 法官认定：“听证中出自[债务人]证人之口的证言，已明确且令人信服地证明，[债务人]受益拥有并控制 Lady May，且对本院及司法程序极尽蔑视。”20 法院进一步认定：“[债务人]不仅控制该游艇，看来还是其提供了购买资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”21 因此，Ostrager 法官作出日期为 February 8, 2022 的最终民事藐视法庭命令（“February 9 藐视法庭命令”）。22\n\n9. 债务人未支付藐视法庭罚款，且截至目前尚未将 Lady May 送回美国。23 于 February 15, 2022，债务人在康涅狄格破产法院提交破产案件。24\n\n10. 于 March 1, 2022，PAX 在破产案件中提交其依据《破产法》第 362(d)(2)条提出的请求作出命令确认自动中止不适用，或备选地请求解除自动中止的动议（“中止动议”）。25 在中止动议中，PAX 请求破产法院作出命令，认定《破产法》的自动中止规定不适用于在被移送诉讼中作出的 February 9 藐视法庭命令所载司法救济措施。备选地，中止动议请求解除自动中止，以允许 PAX 寻求执行 February 9 藐视法庭命令。债务人反对中止动议所请求的救济，康涅狄格破产法院已在破产案件中主持两次与中止动议有关的听证。\n\n11. 于 March 18, 2022，债务人将被移送诉讼从纽约法院移送至纽约南区联邦地区法院，后者将被移送诉讼移交纽约南区破产法院。于 March 23, 2022，债务人提交其案件移送动议，请求将被移送诉讼移送至本院，以便移交康涅狄格破产法院。\n\n12. 于 April 5, 2022，PAX 向纽约南区破产法院提交一份拟议的解决变更审判地动议协议（“附条件移送协议”）。在附条件移送协议中，PAX 同意将被移送诉讼移送至康涅狄格破产法院；但明确保留且未放弃其请求康涅狄格破产法院审议将被移送诉讼发回，或者备选地不受理被移送诉讼的权利。债务人在附条件移送协议中未放弃且明确保留对反对 PAX 提出的发回或不受理请求之权利的一切异议。\n\n25 见证据附件 12，中止动议，见上文注释 23。\n\n13. 2022年4月14日，PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) 向 New York Bankruptcy Court（纽约破产法院）提交了其发回动议，或备选地，请求回避审理的动议（“发回动议”）。\n\n14. 2022年4月15日，纽约破产法院作出了有条件移交命令。\n\n15. PAX现请求将被移送案件移交 Connecticut Bankruptcy Court（康涅狄格破产法院），以便其裁决发回动议。\n\n请求的救济\n\n16. PAX通过本动议，请求作出一项命令，将被移送案件移交康涅狄格破产法院，并分配给目前正在主持该破产案件的尊敬的 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官。被移送案件移交曼宁法官后，PAX将请求裁决发回动议；该动议对本院的事项管辖权提出质疑，或备选地，请求康涅狄格破产法院回避审理被移送案件。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\n17. 本院依据《美国法典》第28编第1334条，对破产“案件”和列举的“民事程序”具有事项管辖权。尽管康涅狄格破产法院对破产“案件”和该等“民事程序”不具有独立的事项管辖权，《美国法典》第28编第151条授予康涅狄格破产法院行使本院依据《美国法典》第28编被赋予的某些“权限”的权力。28 U.S.C. § 151。根据《美国法典》第28编第157条及常设移交命令，本院可以将破产“案件”和某些列举的“程序”移交康涅狄格破产法院，以便其作出终局判决（核心程序）或提出拟议事实认定和结论（非核心、与破产案件相关的程序）。Id.; 另见常设移交命令。\n\n18. 在此，由于破产案件正在曼宁法官面前的康涅狄格破产法院审理，且被移送案件涉及债务人和PAX，即债务人最大的无担保债权人，PAX请求首先将被移送案件移交破产法院，以便曼宁法官裁决发回动议。\n\n19. PAX的律师已与债务人的律师进行协商。债务人同意将被移送案件移交康涅狄格破产法院，但不加入本动议，也不采纳本动议中的陈述。\n\n20. 此外，根据有条件移交命令，应将被移送案件移交康涅狄格破产法院；PAX和债务人一致同意请求作出该命令。见有条件移交命令，第 ¶¶ 1-2 段。\n\n权利保留\n\n21. 尽管本动议中有任何相反内容，PAX保留与被移送案件有关的一切权利，包括但不限于在被移送案件被移交后于康涅狄格破产法院推进发回动议的权利。\n\n结论\n\nPAX谨请求本院作出一项命令，将被移送案件移交康涅狄格破产法院，并分配给正在主持该破产案件的尊敬的 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官。\n\n［签名见下一页］\n\n日期：2022年4月21日，康涅狄格州哈特福德\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼）（CT No. 19875）\n\nAnnecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯）（CT No. 31148）\n\nROBINSON & COLE LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n\n280 Trumbull Street\n\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\n\nasmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）（临时获准出庭）\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）（临时获准出庭）\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\n7 Times Square\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\n\nssarnoff@omm.com\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，2022年4月21日，上述动议的副本已通过本院的 CM/ECF System 以电子方式提交；本院电子提交系统已向所有通知当事方发送电子邮件通知，并已通过邮寄方式送达给下述当事方。利害关系方可通过本院的 CM/ECF system 查阅本文件。\n\n通过邮寄方式送达的当事方：\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）的律师\n\nWilliam Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加）\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n\n7 Times Square\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n电话：(212) 209-4800\n\n电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司）和 Genever Holding Corp.（杰内弗控股公司）的律师\n\nAaron A. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）\n\nLAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC（拉沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n\n162 E. 64th Street\n\nNew York, NY 10065\n\n电话：(973) 285-3280\n\n电子邮件：aaron@lmesq.com\n\nGenever Holdings LLC的律师\n\nJ. Ted Donovan（J. 泰德·多诺万）\n\nGOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈德斯坦律师事务所）\n\n1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n电话：(212) 221-5700\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney____________________\n\nPatrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼）\n\n附件 1\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院纽约县）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n\n原告，\n\n案卷编号\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2017 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2017\n\n诉\n\n起诉状\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，\n\n被告。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 这是一起直接的违约案件。据报道为亿万富翁的 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）及其控制的实体向原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX LP”）借入数百万美元，但未能依据具有约束力的书面协议向PAX LP支付任何应付款项。\n\n2. 2008年，PAX LP与郭文贵的一家商业实体 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit Charter”）订立书面协议，根据该协议，PAX LP向Spirit Charter提供本金为 $30 million 的贷款额度。该贷款额度以郭文贵签署对Spirit Charter还款义务的个人保证为条件。\n\n3. 2009年，郭文贵的另一实体 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）承接了Spirit Charter对PAX LP所负的债务，双方当时同意该债务总额为 $45,357,534.25。郭文贵对该债务签署了个人保证。\n\n4. 随后于2011年，PAX LP与Shiny Times订立书面协议（“2011年信贷函”），明确取代双方此前的协议。在2011年信贷函中，双方约定Shiny Times欠付PAX LP $46,426,489，并将在2012年6月30日前偿还该款项（另加自2010年12月31日起按年利率15%计算的利息）。\n\n5. 同日，郭文贵订立了一份单独的个人保证（该保证同样明确取代郭文贵此前的个人保证），据此，郭文贵保证支付Shiny Times根据2011年信贷函欠付PAX LP的所有款项（“个人保证”）。\n\n6. 截至目前，Shiny Times和郭文贵均未支付根据2011年信贷函或个人保证欠付PAX LP的任何款项。\n\n7. PAX LP已依照其与Shiny Times及郭文贵签订的合同，采取一切必要和适当的措施以追回其应收款项——现连同合同利息合计约为 $88 million——但未追回任何款项，因为Shiny Times和郭文贵在每一步均未予理会。\n\n8. 鉴于郭文贵经常在纽约进行商业交易、以纽约为住所并居住于纽约，且在纽约拥有不动产，PAX LP向本院提起本诉，以执行其对郭文贵享有的合同权利。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n9. 本院依据纽约州一般人身管辖权法 C.P.L.R § 301 对郭文贵具有人身管辖权，因为其持续且系统地在纽约“从事商业活动”，并以该州为住所。\n\n10. 根据 C.P.L.R § 503(a)，由于郭文贵的住所位于纽约县，本院为适当审判地。\n\n当事方\n\n11. 原告PAX LP是依开曼群岛法律组织成立的获豁免有限合伙投资基金。\n\n12. 被告郭文贵是以纽约为住所的中国国民，并持续且系统地在纽约“从事商业活动”。\n\n13. 郭文贵居住在纽约市 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-尼德兰酒店）18层——该住所由其于2015年通过 Genever Holdings, LLC（“Genever”）以 $67.5 million 购得；Genever是其独资拥有的本国有限责任公司，并在纽约州奥尔巴尼 80 State Street 设有主要营业地。\n\n14. 郭文贵还在 767 Fifth Avenue 为其拥有的特拉华州公司 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）设有办公室；该公司已登记为获准在纽约经营的外国公司，并在纽约设有送达诉讼文书的注册代理人。\n\n15. 郭文贵在纽约还拥有雇员或代理人，包括为Golden Spring工作的人员，以及其在过去两年中为在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的两起案件中代表其出庭而聘请的律师。1\n\n事实陈述\n\nShiny Times贷款及郭文贵向PAX LP作出的个人还款保证\n\n16. 自约2008年2月4日起，PAX LP与郭文贵一直存在商业往来；当时PAX LP与郭文贵的一家商业实体Spirit Charter订立书面协议（“2008年信贷协议”），根据该协议，PAX LP向Spirit Charter提供本金为 $30 million 的贷款额度。\n\n17. 该贷款额度以郭文贵签署对Spirit Charter还款义务的个人保证为条件。\n\n18. 2008年3月12日，PAX LP与Spirit Charter修订并重述了2008年信贷协议（“经修订并重述的2008年信贷协议”）。\n\n19. 根据日期为2009年9月17日的契据（“2009年9月契据”），Shiny Times（郭文贵的另一实体）、Spirit Charter、PAX LP及其他各方同意，由Shiny Times取代Spirit Charter成为经修订并重述的2008年信贷协议项下的借款人。2009年9月契据的各方还同意，截至2009年9月12日，经修订并重述的2008年信贷协议项下的未偿金额，包括已产生但未支付的利息，为 $45,357,534.25（“经修订的2008年贷款额度”）。\n\n1 2015年，郭文贵和Golden Spring因涉嫌违反 Fair Labor Standards Act（公平劳动标准法）而被起诉；在该诉讼中，郭文贵（通过律师）确认，其在The Sherry-Netherland Hotel已被适当送达传票和起诉状。Ahn v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al., No. 1:15-cv-09697 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015)。2016年，郭文贵和Genever（通过律师）就该酒店其公寓发生漏水一事，对The Sherry-Netherland Hotel及其他方提起诉讼。Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06246-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016)。\n\n20. 2009年9月契据要求郭文贵向PAX LP签署个人保证，以确保Shiny Times适当且及时履行并偿还经修订的2008年贷款额度。郭文贵于2009年11月18日签署了其个人保证。\n\n21. 此后，PAX LP、郭文贵和Shiny Times同意以于2011年3月16日签署的两份合同取代上述协议——2011年信贷函（作为附件A附后）和个人保证（作为附件B附后）。\n\n22. 在2011年信贷函中，双方约定Shiny Times欠付PAX LP $46,426,489，并将在2012年6月30日前偿还该款项（另加自2010年12月31日起按年利率15%计算的利息）。\n\n23. 双方还在2011 Facility Letter中约定，Shiny Times（闪耀时代）未能向PAX LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）支付其根据2011 Facility Letter所欠的任何款项，即构成违约事件；在该等情形下，PAX LP可以：(i) 宣布全部贷款、本金已产生但未支付的利息以及任何其他应付款项立即到期应付，无需进一步催告、通知或任何其他法律手续；及/或(ii) 宣布2011 Facility Letter终止。\n\n24. 最后，与双方此前的协议相同，2011 Facility Letter明确以Kwok（郭文贵）签署Personal Guarantee（个人保证）为条件，以全面担保Shiny Times对PAX LP的付款义务：\n\n贷款人[PAX LP]和借款人[Shiny Times]同意订立本协议……条件是交付一份有利于贷款人的Kwok先生新的个人保证（“Personal Guarantee”），以确保借款人按照本协议适时、按期履行义务，足额偿还[2011 Facility Letter]项下款项及全部已产生但未支付的利息。\n\n25. 郭文贵以Shiny Times董事身份签署了2011 Facility Letter，并于同日签署了Personal Guarantee；根据该保证，郭文贵同意“不可撤销且无条件地”保证Shiny Times支付其根据2011 Facility Letter所欠的全部款项。具体而言，郭文贵：\n\n（a）向PAX LP保证Shiny Times适时、按期支付其在2011 Facility Letter项下的义务；\n\n（b）同意“[郭文贵]将在[PAX LP]提出要求后立即向[PAX LP]支付全部到期但未支付的[该等款项]”；\n\n（c）同意“应要求赔偿并使[PAX LP]免受因Shiny Times在2011 Facility Letter项下的任何义务因任何原因对Shiny Times而言为或成为无效、可撤销、不可执行或不具效力，而使[PAX LP]遭受的所有损失”；\n\n（d）同意PAX LP提出的付款要求将构成该等付款已到期应付的初步证据；\n\n（e）同意PAX LP可向Shiny Times或郭文贵任何一方寻求偿还；以及\n\n（f）同意赔偿PAX LP因行使或执行Personal Guarantee而产生的“任何及全部费用、索赔、损失[及]支出（包括律师费）”。\n\n26. 此外，郭文贵同意放弃若干抗辩，包括基于Shiny Times清算或解散，或者PAX LP“因任何原因”无法向Shiny Times追偿的抗辩。郭文贵还同意概括性放弃基于“任何其他可能导致保证人或任何义务，或本保证或法律赋予[PAX LP]的任何权利、权力和救济被解除、减损或以其他方式受到影响的作为、事件或不作为”的一切可设想抗辩。\n\n27. 换言之，郭文贵签署了一份明确且无懈可击的保证，承诺其将在任何情况下清偿Shiny Times对PAX LP所负的债务。\n\n和解延期及Shiny Times最终未能偿还PAX LP\n\n28. Shiny Times未在2011 Facility Letter规定的2012年6月30日还款日前偿还任何贷款本金或已产生利息，双方随后达成一系列延期协议，每份均题为“Deed of Settlement（和解契据）”。\n\n29. 2013年4月19日，PAX LP、Shiny Times和郭文贵与Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资公司，“Beijing Pangu”）签署了第一份Deed of Settlement（“Original Deed of Settlement”）；北京盘古投资公司是郭文贵商业帝国中的另一家公司。\n\n30. Original Deed of Settlement规定，截至Original Deed of Settlement之日，2011 Facility Letter项下到期应付的未偿总额加上所有已产生但未支付的利息为$52 million；在满足下列条件后，该金额将不再到期应付：\n\n（a）如PAX LP通过三项独立交易完成向北京盘古购买三套公寓，每套约$5 million，总计约$15 million；以及\n\n（b）如Shiny Times向PAX LP完成三笔每笔约$5 million的分期付款——每次独立购买公寓后支付一笔分期款项——总计约$15 million。\n\n31. 然而，在PAX LP能够向北京盘古购买任何一套三套公寓之前，北京盘古须根据Original Deed of Settlement满足与产权、税费及房地产交易中其他常见事项有关的若干先决条件。如三套公寓中的任何一套未能在2013年7月31日前满足任何该等条件，Original Deed of Settlement明确规定其将整体终止，且2011 Facility Letter将恢复完全效力。\n\n32. 北京盘古未能在2013年7月31日前满足该等先决条件，因此PAX LP未完成购买任何公寓，Shiny Times也未支付其根据Original Deed of Settlement应向PAX LP支付的三笔分期款项中的任何一笔。\n\n33. 四份补充和解契据——日期分别为2013年12月3日、2014年5月15日、2014年7月11日和2015年2月10日——延长了Original Deed of Settlement中的日期，包括还款日期以及北京盘古满足先决条件的日期。\n\n34. 每份补充和解契据的条款均与Original Deed of Settlement相同。每次结果也相同：北京盘古从未满足其须满足的条件，因此PAX LP无须且未完成购买任何公寓，Shiny Times从未支付其根据2011 Facility Letter应向PAX LP支付的三笔分期款项中的任何一笔。\n\n35. 最后，2015年3月31日，Shiny Times和PAX LP与Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited（全球机遇控股有限公司）及Empire Growth Holdings Limited（帝国增长控股有限公司）共同签订了Option Agreement（“Option Agreement”），其中规定通过股份出售交易偿还Shiny Times欠付PAX LP的款项等事项。\n\n36. 根据其条款，如未满足与财产转让有关的某些条件（如Option Agreement所述），Option Agreement将终止。该等条件均未获满足，Option Agreement因此终止，且未消灭Shiny Times向PAX LP付款的义务。\n\n37. 因此，2011 Facility Letter恢复完全效力，郭文贵在Personal Guarantee项下的义务完全可执行，且郭文贵根据Personal Guarantee独立就Shiny Times根据2011 Facility Letter欠付PAX LP债务的全部金额承担责任。\n\nPAX LP寻求执行其合同权利并收取欠款\n\n38. 2015年10月16日，在Deeds of Settlement和Option Agreement终止且2011 Facility Letter恢复完全效力后，PAX LP按照Personal Guarantee条款规定，向郭文贵在香港的地址发送书面催告通知（“Notice of Demand”）。\n\n39. Notice of Demand通知郭文贵，Shiny Times“未能偿还任何到期款项”，并要求立即支付$71,818,633.44。Notice of Demand还通知郭文贵，如其未立即付款，可能对其提起法律程序，并保留PAX LP在2011 Facility Letter和Personal Guarantee项下的合同权利。\n\n40. 郭文贵从未对Notice of Demand作出回应。\n\n41. 2016年2月19日，PAX LP向Shiny Times发送函件，要求支付根据2011 Facility Letter到期应付的$82,219,404.08（“Shiny Times Demand Letter”）；该金额为本金加上按年利率15%计算至Shiny Times Demand Letter之日的合同利息。\n\n42. Shiny Times从未对Shiny Times Demand Letter作出回应。\n\n43. Shiny Times未作回应后，PAX LP于2016年2月29日向British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，“BVI”）法院提交申请，请求指定共同清算人，以使作为BVI公司的Shiny Times进入清算程序。该申请称：(i) Shiny Times未支付当时到期的$82,410,197.87；(ii) Shiny Times无力偿还其债务；以及(iii) Shiny Times资不抵债，应予清算。\n\n44. 尽管Shiny Times事实上因BVI程序而进入清算，PAX LP未能收回其根据2011 Facility Letter应收的任何款项。\n\n45. 截至目前，郭文贵尚未偿还根据Personal Guarantee到期应付给PAX LP的任何款项。到期应付金额——包括未偿本金加上已产生但未支付的利息——目前约为$88 million。\n\n46. 由于郭文贵未能偿还任何到期应付给PAX LP的款项，原告因执行Personal Guarantee而产生了“费用、索赔、损失[及]支出（包括律师费）”。根据Personal Guarantee的明示条款，郭文贵有义务赔偿该等金额（见第25(f)段）。\n\n第一项罪名——被告郭文贵违约\n\n47. 原告重新主张并以引用方式纳入第1至46段中的每一项指称，如同在此完整列明。\n\n48. Personal Guarantee要求郭文贵向PAX LP偿还PAX LP向Spirit Charter（精神宪章）提供的贷款额度（经修订）以及未支付的利息。目前到期应付金额约为$88 million。\n\n49. 原告履行了其在Personal Guarantee（及其他相关协议）项下自身的义务。\n\n50. 郭文贵尚未偿还根据Personal Guarantee到期应付给PAX LP的任何款项。\n\n51. 由于郭文贵直接违反其在Personal Guarantee项下的付款义务，原告持续遭受约$88 million dollars的损失，该金额仍在产生利息。\n\n因此，原告请求法院作出有利于原告、针对被告的判决如下：\n\n（a）根据Personal Guarantee判令支付$46,426,489；\n\n（b）判令支付利息$41,096,982.46；\n\n（c）PAX LP已经产生并将继续产生的合理律师费、费用和支出，该等款项与其根据Personal Guarantee的赔偿条款针对郭文贵执行Personal Guarantee有关；以及\n\n（d）PAX LP依法有权获得的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：纽约州纽约市，4月\n\n谨此提交\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP（塞登集团）\n由：SEIDEN GROUP（塞登集团）\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·塞登） rseiden@seidenlegal.com\nAvenue of the Americas（美洲大道）\nNew York, NY（纽约州纽约市）\n\n以及\n\nO’MELVENY & MYERS LLP（欧迈律师事务所）\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫） ssarnoff@omm.com\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯） emoss@omm.com\nTimes Square（时代广场）\nNew York, NY（纽约州纽约市）\n\n原告代理律师\n\n证据2\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Manhattan Division（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原告，\n\n诉\n\n对立诉讼案号22-01073 (DSJ)\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO、GWO WEN GUI、GUO WENGUI、GUO WEN GUI、WAN GUE HAOYUN、MILES KWOK、HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司）及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n解决移送审判地动议的协议\n\n鉴于，2017年4月18日，原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）在Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院——纽约县商事庭）对被告Miles Kwok（郭文贵）提起本案所涉州法院诉讼，见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 1（“New York Action”）；以及\n\n鉴于，2021年2月3日，纽约州法院作出部分简易判决，并作出有利于PAX的判决，见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 716；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年2月9日，纽约州法院对Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）作出民事藐视法庭的终局命令，见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉Kwok等，案号652077/2017（纽约州纽约县最高法院），卷宗编号1181；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年2月15日，郭文贵在康涅狄格州地区布里奇波特分庭依据《破产法》第11章自愿提交破产救济申请，并获分配案号22-50073 (JAM)（下称“康涅狄格州破产法院”）；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月18日，郭文贵提交通知，将纽约诉讼移送至United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院），见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.诉Kwok等，案号1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.)，ECF编号1；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月21日，根据2012年1月31日的经修订移交常设命令，地区法院将本案移交本院；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月23日，郭文贵依据28 U.S.C. §§ 1404和1412以及《联邦破产程序规则》第7087条提出动议，请求作出将本案移送康涅狄格州破产法院的命令，见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.诉Kwok等，案号1:22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)，ECF编号4；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月30日，本案由Martin Glenn法官改由David S. Jones法官审理，见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.诉Kwok等，案号1:22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)，ECF编号5；\n\n因此\n\n兹由本案各方登记在案的代理律师约定并同意：\n\n1. 将本案移送至District Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院布里奇波特分庭），以便依据28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)移交康涅狄格州破产法院，符合司法公正利益，并将促进破产财团的经济、高效管理；以及\n\n2. PAX不放弃并明确保留其在康涅狄格州破产法院就任何适当理由及时寻求将本对抗程序发回的权利，参见，例如，Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007)（地区法院可在便利、公平及司法经济方面的考量有此必要时，依据28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)适当移送诉讼，“从而绕过对事项管辖权和属人管辖权的审查。”）。郭文贵同样不放弃并明确保留就PAX基于任何适当理由寻求的该等救济提出反对的权利。但郭文贵同意，PAX同意郭文贵的变更审判地动议，并不构成同意事项管辖权，亦不构成放弃PAX及时寻求发回的权利。例如，Sinochem International Co., 549 U.S. at 430-32。\n\n兹此约定：\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund的代理律师\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的代理律师\n\n签字人：Stuart M. Sarnoff\nStuart M. Sarnoff\n\n签字人：William R. Baldiga\nWilliam R. Baldiga\n\n兹此命令：\n\n日期：New York, New York\n2022年4月15日\ns/ David S. Jones\n尊敬的DAVID S. JONES\n美国破产法院法官\n\n附件3\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n17 652077\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n索引号652077/2017\n\n判决书\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 HAO YUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n被告。\n\n鉴于，2017年4月18日，原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.对被告Kwok 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（“郭文贵”）提起诉讼，主张被告郭文贵构成违约。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 索引号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号716 NYSCEF接收日期：02/03/2021\n\n鉴于，2019年4月18日，原告对郭文贵、Genever Holdings LLC和Genever Holdings Corporation（与Genever Holdings LLC合称“Genever被告”）提交第一份经修订的起诉状，主张：（i）被告郭文贵违约；及（ii）刺破公司面纱以追究Genever被告责任。\n\n鉴于，2020年7月24日，原告就其针对郭文贵的违约请求提出部分简易判决动议，该动议已完成书面陈述并由Barry R. Ostrager法官审理；该法官于2020年9月15日作出判决和命令，并于2020年9月16日录入纽约县书记官办公室，准许原告就经修订起诉状第一罪名项的违约请求提出的动议，并命令原告最迟于2020年10月14日通过动议通知提出动议，以确定第一罪名项的损害赔偿额。\n17 652077\n\n鉴于，（i）2020年9月21日，原告通过动议通知提出动议，以确定损害赔偿、律师费和费用；（ii）原告经法院许可并在其他当事方理解其将在日后续行的前提下，同意暂时无偏见地撤回其申请中有关律师费和费用（即执行费用）的部分；及（iii）该动议已完成书面陈述并由Barry R. Ostrager法官审理；该法官于2020年12月18日作出判决和命令（“损害赔偿命令”），并于2020年12月18日录入纽约县书记官办公室，指示法院书记员录入有利于原告且不利于被告郭文贵的判决，金额为$46,426,489.00，另加自2010年12月31日生效日起按年利率15%计算的合同利息，以及自该判决和命令录入之日起按法定年利率9%计算的利息。\n\n现经原告代理律师O'Melveny & Myers LLP提出动议，裁定如下：\n\n裁定，营业地址为33/F, Three Pacific Place, 1 Queen's Road East, Hong Kong的原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，有权向居住于781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022的被告Kwok Ho Wan追偿，并就$46,426,489.00作出对其有利的判决，另加合同利息$69,448,939.71，另加按9%法定利率计算的判决后利息$526,590.86，合计\n\n$116,402,019.57，原告有权据此申请强制执行。\n\n兹于2021年2月3日录入。\n\n已提交\n2021年2月3日\n纽约县书记官办公室\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\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 HAO YUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n索引号652077/2017\n\nEDWARD MOSS律师声明书\n\n被告。\n\n本人Edward Moss，已正式获准在纽约州法院执业的律师，现依据纽约州《民事诉讼法与规则》第2106条，在伪证罪处罚下声明如下：\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 索引号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号716 NYSCEF接收日期：02/03/2021\n\n1. 本人系本院律师协会成员，并为O'Melveny & Myers LLP律师事务所合伙人；该所系本案原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）的登记在案代理律师。\n\n2. 本人完全了解本案的事实和情形。为录入本判决书之目的，本人提交本声明，并放弃诉讼费用及支出。\n\n日期：2021年1月25日\nNew York, New York\n签字人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\n索引号652077/2017\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN，又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAO-YUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n判决书\n\n经O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP提出动议\n\n本判决书录入于纽约州纽约县，10006，1251 Avenue of the Americas，地址为2号的法院书记员办公室。\n\n原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.的代理律师。\n\n附件4\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\n\n出席法官：尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n审判庭：IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.，\n索引号：652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉\n动议日期\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN\n动议序号：019\nGUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，以及\n动议判决及命令\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，\n\n被告。\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n在这起始于2017年、共有1,180项案卷记录的案件中——其中几乎全部涉及被告Kwok Ho Wan（“郭文贵”）通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为——本院被要求确定，原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）是否已完成举证责任，证明本院应对郭文贵作出民事藐视法庭终局命令。基于下述理由，本院同时作出民事藐视法庭终局命令。\n\nPAX于2021年2月3日取得针对郭文贵、金额为$116,402,019.57的判决书（NYSCEF文件编号716）。此后，PAX进行了一年之久的努力以执行其判决，首先识别、继而试图扣押郭文贵在美国的资产。PAX在识别由郭文贵行使控制权的资产时遇到困难，因为自称亿万富翁的郭文贵将其资产隐藏在错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该安排使郭文贵能够声称其没有资产，尽管其生活奢华；原告以社交媒体剪报、照片和录像资料对此进行了汇编，显示郭文贵生活奢靡，并夸耀其财富、豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。如2022年2月2日庭审记录所述，该等证据的证明价值甚微，因为提供该等证据的证人对其真实性并无第一手了解，除非该等“证据”可在各种网站上获取。\n\n2022年2月2日，本院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人以宣誓书提交直接证词，并接受交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX 就查找及扣押执行被告 Kwok（郭文贵）所有资产进行了长期程序。这些程序尤其确定，Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇行使支配权和控制权，并导致作出一系列命令，限制 Kwok 和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记船主将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。首项此类命令于2020年9月30日作出，详见下文，随后于2020年10月15日作出一项命令，限制“Mr. Kwok 和/或……游艇，即‘Lady May’的登记船主”离开本院管辖范围。（NYSCEF Doc. No. 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在2020年7月、8月和9月的大部分时间都在 Lady May 上。与导致2020年9月30日和10月15日限制命令的程序同时，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于2020年10月初驶往 Florida（佛罗里达州），此后驶往 Bahamas（巴哈马）。2021年3月16日，本院作出有条件的民事藐视法庭命令，指示如 Kwok 未能在2021年5月31日前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围，则 Lady May 在本院管辖范围外停留的每一天，他将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（第一部门上诉分庭）维持了本院认定 Kwok 构成有条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管其获准如此做，但他未表现出任何这样做的意愿……”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时行使了其自由裁量权，因为原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（参见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753）。……指示动议法院通过证据听证会解决有关该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉分庭的命令，本院安排了2022年2月2日的证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否对该游艇享有受益所有权并进行控制的问题。Kwok 未在2022年2月2日的听证会上作证；此前，在回应 PAX 的资产调查取证工作时，他援引《第五修正案》规定的权利，拒绝就 Lady May 作证或回应与其有关的证据开示请求。PX 27, 28, 29, 30。1 尽管援引《第五修正案》，Kwok 仍是多个法域中的积极诉讼参与人，并且已在本案及其他程序中作过先前证言。\n\nKwok 还向本院提交了一份题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng, 157025/2020 的起诉状，其中提及 Freebeacon.com 于2017年9月8日发布的一篇博客文章，Kwok 在该文中抱怨“涉及其152英尺长机动游艇 Lady May 的若干事件……”（Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng Complaint”）。Zeng Complaint 将 Kwok 描述为“CCP（中国共产党）的直言不讳的批评者”，其竭尽全力“揭露 CCP 和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，前 President Trump（特朗普总统）顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于2020年在 Lady May 船上被捕，并将 Mr. Bannon 描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业伙伴，Kwok 是“一名直言不讳的中国政府网络批评者，曾与该国情报机构关系密切，但现因欺诈、敲诈和贿赂指控而遭北京当局通缉。”\n\n1 “PX”系指原告的审判证物。\n\n其他新闻媒体报道称，Mr. Bannon 曾不止一次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往政治集会。\n\n听证会上由被告方证人作出的证词，以明确且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益所有权并进行控制，且其对本院及司法程序极尽藐视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上取得的证词表明，2014年，Kwok 无偿将 HK International 的100%权益转让给一名 Qu Guo Jiao（曲国娇）。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族信赖的商业伙伴。其后，Kwok 逃离中国；2015年2月23日，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP 购得 Lady May。听证会上没有任何证词确定购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）未经反驳的证词证明，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44。2 因此，合理推论是 Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，Qu 女士于2017年6月17日前后以 $1 或无对价将 Lady May 的所有权转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。Tr. 47。根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给现任权属持有人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）。Guo 女士进一步宣称，她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管 Lady May 的所有数百万美元年度费用，包括燃料、维护以及船长和船员费用，均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）支付；该公司据称是 Kwok 家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”系指证据听证会笔录，已作为 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179 以电子方式提交。\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士证称，她的哥哥为她购买了 Lady May。Tr. 46。本院不能采信该证词，因为没有证据表明 Guo 女士的哥哥参与了导致 Guo 女士取得该游艇权属的公司交易。事实上，针对本院的提问，Guo 女士承认，在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，她的哥哥均未参与。Tr. 47。\n\n听证会上取得的其他证词表明，Kwok 每年夏季都多次在该游艇上，而 Guo 女士极少在该游艇上。Trial Tr. 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长证称，Kwok 在2020年7月、8月及9月的大部分时间都在该游艇上，这与其通常的夏季惯例一致。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7。在本院2020年9月30日的限制命令之后，Lady May 于2020年10月被送往 Florida，随后前往 Bahamas 维修，并于2021年10月又被派往 Italy（意大利），据称系依 Golden Spring 的指示。Guo 女士承认，她知悉本院2020年9月30日的限制命令，以及本院随后于2021年3月16日作出的命令，该命令指示将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62。\n\nGuo 女士证称，一方面，她指示 Lady May 的航行计划；但另一方面，她又证称，对 Kwok 的安保如此担忧，以至于不会留存任何航行计划记录。Tr. 52。她进一步证称，当其父亲未由她陪同在该游艇上时，他可自由选择想去的任何地方。然而，根本问题是，谁指示于2020年10月将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。Guo 女士声称，2020年10月初，她不再希望使用该游艇，并将该指示转达给 Golden Spring，后者继而将其指示转达给当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。Tr. 53。\n\n经进一步询问，Guo 女士承认，是 Golden Spring 告知她该游艇需要移往较暖和的地方。Tr. 55。Guo 女士随后重复了其已撤回的证词，即其哥哥将该游艇赠与她，并称其哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56。该证词不可信，因为在2020年9月30日，本院作出临时限制令，限制 Kwok\n\n……出售、让与、转让或干扰其享有权益的任何财产，或支付或以其他方式处分目前到期或此后到期应支付给他的任何债务，但受 CPLR 5222 所规定的例外及正常业务过程中行为的限制。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。重要的是，当时的 Lady May 船长 Captain Heaslop 证称，在 Lady May 于2020年10月初启程前往 Florida 前“数日”，Kwok 告诉 Captain Heaslop，Kwok 将不再作为 Lady May 的客人（且显然是在本院2020年9月30日命令作出之后）。Tr. 89。Captain Heaslop 还反驳了 Guo 女士关于 Guo 女士向 Captain Heaslop 发出有关游艇移动指示的证词。Tr. 94。\n\nGuo 女士还承认，其后已阅读本院2021年3月16日作出的命令，该命令要求在2021年5月31日前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她已与其律师讨论过该命令（该律师服务费由 Golden Spring 支付），且她无视了该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）证称，其公司与 HK USA 签订了日期为2021年5月的管理合同，并且其与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 沟通，但从未与 Guo 女士沟通。Tr. 78。这也是继任船长 Captain Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫船长）的证词。Tr. 82。简言之，Guo 女士关于其拥有并控制 Lady May 的证词在任何方面均不能采信。Guo 女士似为一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据表明其对 Lady May 行使支配权和控制权，且未提供任何确认其取得 Lady May 占有的证据，除非这是一项旨在使 Lady May 免遭其父债权人扣押执行的骗局。\n\nKwok 就 Lady May 策划的这一连串空壳把戏所涉及的诡计，与 Kwok 在本诉讼待决的五年期间所采取的其他每一项逃避及藐视行为如出一辙，这也正是本案有1,180项案卷记录的原因。\n\n本院有权依据 Judiciary Law § 753 认定 Kwok 构成民事藐视法庭——并“以罚款和监禁处罚[他]”——在如本案中，本院“明确认定[Kwok 的]行为意图或实际确已挫败、减损、妨碍或损害民事程序当事人的权利或救济”时。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753)。第753条规定了四项要求：\n\n“为认定某一案件中已发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达无歧义命令的合法法院命令正在生效；[2] 必须具有合理确定性地显示该命令未被遵守……；[3] 此外，拟被认定构成藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管该命令不必实际送达该方……；[4] 最后，必须证明诉讼一方的权利受到损害。”\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证词满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，上诉分庭亦有此暗示。见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）, 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX]已通过清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok（郭文贵）]违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反导致原告权利受到损害。……”）。\n\nPAX 持续遭受“损害”的程度，取决于其是否证明其最终能够对 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）实施扣押，以清偿其现时针对 Kwok 的数亿美金判决。根据 CPLR § 5225，如债务人持有必要的“权益”，则“金钱或其他动产”可以被扣押。为满足该项要求，“判决债务人无须拥有该财产的法定所有权；受益权益即已足够。” Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“受益权益系‘对某物享有的一项权利或期待……而非对该物享有法定所有权。’” Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。Kwok 对 Lady May 所享有的远不止受益权益。Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，看起来还是其购置资金的提供者，并且是主要享用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于，“该财产是否使[受益所有人]获益，如同其直接获得该财产一般。”同上（引自 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；另见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持驳回判决债务人关于其因将权益转让给女儿而不再持有该财产权益的主张）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人主张其已将财产转让给一家公司，仍准许判决债权人的交付动议，因即使该主张为真，证据亦显示其“保留了对该财产的控制权和/或权益”））。\n\n证据以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 持有 Lady May 的受益权益并对其实施控制。就后者而言，法院对 Zeng 案的提交予以司法认知，并根据全部案卷事实推断，Kwok 已采取非常措施，以保护该游艇免受其债权人的追索。此外，Kwok 的“家族办公室”为该游艇的日常运营和维护提供资金。\n\n法院认定，Guo 女士的证词不仅前后矛盾且有所掩饰，而且受到 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长以及 Stockil 先生的证词显著削弱；他们称，在 Guo 女士直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未接受过 Guo 女士就游艇相关事项作出的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州既定法律规定，当事人在民事程序中援引第五修正案的权利“可以构成作出不利事实推断的基础。” DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。只要有必要或获准作出事实认定，即可适用不利推断，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实裁判者可以针对未作证的证人，作出对方证据所允许的最强推断。” Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“将知悉证据所提出的一项重要争点”时适用不利推断）。\n\nPAX 有权依上述两种途径均获得不利推断。Kwok 在回应 PAX 的判决后证据开示时援引了其第五修正案反自证其罪权，包括回应专门涉及 Lady May 的请求时。虽然 Kwok 主张，在此作出不利推断并不适当，因为“[只有在初步证明一项证据真实后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应，]”但该主张不攻自破。PAX 已提出大量可采证据，证明 Kwok 对 Lady May 享有必要的受益权益并实施控制。见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（解释称，如证据“倾向于证明或否定一项重要事实，即案件中直接争议的事实”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至 February 7, 2022，Lady May 已在法院管辖范围外停留 268 天。根据本院施加并经上诉分庭确认的每日 \\$500,000 罚款，由此产生的罚款将达 \\$134,000,000.00，超过 PAX 近 \\$120 million 的未清偿判决金额，且为 Lady May GBP £ 28 million 购买价格的数倍。尽管如此，如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以一方面寻求在纽约及美国其他地区使用法院程序，另一方面明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治将不复存在。Kwok 必须在本院附送登记通知的命令送达后五个营业日内，向 PAX 支付 \\$134,000,000.00。如未及时支付该罚款，法院准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权限。\n\n日期：February 9, 2022\n\n请选择一项：案件已结案 X 非终局处置 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他申请：签署命令 提交命令 如适用，请勾选：包括移送/重新分配 受托人任命 转介\n附件 5\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 09/30/2020 04:44 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 591 NYSCEF 收到日期：09/30/2020\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R. 奥斯特拉格法官） 庭别 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告， 案号 652077/2017\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN 动议序号 011\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）， 关于动议的裁定和命令\n被告。\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R. 奥斯特拉格法官）\n\nOn September 30, 2020，法院通过 Skype 进行了口头辩论，各方代理律师均出席。经同意，法院作出临时限制令，限制 Kwok 先生出售、让与、转让或干扰其拥有权益的任何财产，或支付、交付或以其他方式处分目前到期或以后将到期支付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外以及正常业务过程中发生的事项除外。\n\n法院将于 October 15, 2020 上午 10:00 通过 Microsoft Teams 进行进一步辩论，并在必要时举行证据听证会。被告必须于 October 13, 2020 下午 4:00 前提交对动议 011 的反对意见。原告必须于 October 14, 2020 下午 4:00 前提交答复，如有。若任一方拟传唤证人，双方必须相互交换证人名单，并最迟于 October 13, 2020 向法院电子提交证人名单。\n\n此外，法院将于 October 15, 2020 上午 10:00 通过 Microsoft Teams 就原告关于损害赔偿及律师费的动议 008 进行口头辩论。被告必须于 October 13, 2020 下午 4:00 前提交其对动议 011 的反对意见，原告必须于 October 14, 2020 下午 4:00 前提交答复，\n\n如有。\n\n对今日作出的临时限制令的任何违反，均应被视为\n\n刑事藐视法庭。\n\n日期：September 30, 2020\n附件 6\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R. 奥斯特拉格法官） 庭别 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）， 案号 652077/2017\n原告， 动议日期\n\n诉\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名\nGUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE 动议序号 011\n\nHAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS\nCORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）， 关于动议的裁定和命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R. 奥斯特拉格法官）\n\nOn October 15, 2020，法院通过 Microsoft Teams 就原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出的判决后限制令动议（动议 011）进行了口头辩论，各方代理律师均参加。On September 15, 2020，法院就责任问题作出有利于原告的简易判决，损害赔偿以及公司被告是否为被告 Kwok 的另我之问题，将于日后确定。NYSCEF Doc. 549。\n\n准许原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出的限制令动议。Kwok 先生被限制不得直接或间接出售、让与、转让或干扰其拥有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付、交付或以其他方式处分目前到期或以后将到期支付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外除外，并应符合 October 15, 2020 记录在案程序的规定。\n\n具体而言，限制 Kwok 先生和/或以下财产的登记所有人出售、让与、转让或干扰该等资产：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-尼德兰酒店）的住宅，以及 (2) 游艇“Lady May（梅夫人号）”。\n\n原告有权根据 CPLR 5229 就上述确定的资产进行证据开示，亦有权就 Kwok 先生可能直接或间接拥有的任何其他资产寻求证据开示。\n\n下一次出庭将为预审会议，于 November 12, 2020 下午 2:00 通过 Microsoft Teams 进行。\n\nOctober 15, 2020\n日期 \\$SIG\\$\nBARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R. 奥斯特拉格），J.S.C.\n\nX\n请选择一项：\n案件已结案\n非终局处置\nX\n准许\n驳回\n部分准许 其他\n申请：\n签署命令\n提交命令\n如适用，请勾选：\n包括移送/重新分配\n受托人任命 转介\n附件 7\n附件 8\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 PACIFIC 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原告，\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\n\n诉。\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n第 61 庭\n\n动议序号 \\_\\_\n\n被告。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司），以及\n\nMILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），\n支持 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 就被告 KWOK 提出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 收到日期：12/24/2020\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n背景 2\n论证 4\n结论 6\n\nNo. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016)………………4\n\n59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)……………………………………………4\n\nCPLR § 5104 ..............………………...........................………………....................................….1\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）谨提交本法律备忘录，以支持其根据 CPLR § 5104 和 Judiciary Law § 753 提出的动议，请求作出命令：(i) 认定被告 Miles Kwok 因不遵守法院 October 15, 2020 限制令（“命令”）而构成藐视法庭；(ii) 指令 Kwok 立即促使其游艇（“Lady May”）返回法院管辖范围；及 (iii) 授予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n初步陈述\n\n本院此前已认定，Kwok（郭文贵）曾“蔑视或极其宽松地解释”本院命令，并作出“故意或非故意地误导本院的不实陈述”。1 用 Yogi Berra（尤吉·贝拉）的话说，这又是似曾相识的一幕：毫无疑问，Kwok 明知而违反了本院禁止其将其游艇2 移出本院管辖范围的命令，而且——或许更糟的是——他再次通过指示其律师请求本院准许移动游艇，使其律师身陷险境，尽管 Kwok 明知在提出该请求时游艇已被移至美国领海以外。本院应认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭，要求其立即将游艇送回本院管辖范围，并给予本院认为为最终阻止 Kwok 将本程序视同儿戏所必需且适当的任何额外救济。\n\n1 Dkt. 647 at 26:6–8.\n\n2 Kwok 在反对意见中任何声称该游艇在技术上并非“其”所有的说法，均属不诚实的无稽之谈。若 Kwok 提出该虚假论点（该论点尤其与其他证据及承认事项直接矛盾，包括 Kwok 的律师在最近一次会议上请求允许 Kwok 将游艇移出本院管辖范围），PAX 将在答复中回应。PAX 但指出，任何此类论点均与本动议无关，因为该命令明确涵盖该游艇，即使其由另一登记所有人持有（无论其为 Kwok 的空壳公司还是家庭成员）。\n\n背景\n\n2020年9月30日，本院发布了一项临时限制令（下称“ TRO”），禁止 Kwok（郭文贵）实施包括“干扰其拥有权益的任何财产”在内的行为。3 在发布 TRO 时，本院指出，“任何违反……的行为均应被视为刑事藐视法庭”。4 约两周后，即 2020年10月15日，本院发布该命令，准许 PAX 依据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制 Lady May：\n\nKwok 先生被限制不得直接或间接进行或促成对其拥有权益的任何财产的任何出售、让与、转让或干扰，且不得支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或日后到期应付给其的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外，并依照 2020年10月15日记录在案的程序进行。具体而言，Kwok 先生和/或（1）Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-尼德兰酒店）住所及（2）游艇“Lady May”的登记所有人，均被限制不得进行或促成对该等资产的任何出售、让与、转让或干扰。5\n\n2020年11月12日，本院举行了一次会议，期间 Kwok 的律师（推定系依其当事人指示）特别询问本院 Kwok 是否可以将游艇移至近海：6\n\n显然，该船舶是在近海登记的，我相信是在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），并且有一项要求，即其每六个月须返回其母港。此事绝不会以任何方式影响所有权或产权，但其须在某个时候短暂驶往近海，然后返回美国。我们只是希望披露此事，以免有人认为该船舶被藏匿或转让。这只是其为满足许可要求而必须进行的一项常规事项。7\n\n7 Id. at 13:9–18.\n\n3 Dkt. 591 at 1.\n\n4 Id. at 2.\n\n5 Dkt. 630.\n\n6 Moss Aff. Ex. 1 (Nov. 12, 2020 Conf. Tr.) at 12:23–25.\n\n本院明确回应称，Kwok 不得将游艇移出本院管辖范围，并且在此之前须提出动议：\n\n你方必须通过书面材料提出该申请。我对一项在美国被限制处分的资产为何应被允许前往 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）这一要求毫不知情。我严重怀疑 [PAX] 希望该游艇处于本院管辖范围之外……你方将向 [PAX] 送达载有支持性文件的动议，我将就此作出裁决。我不会允许 Kwok 先生将游艇移至 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），随后使 [PAX] 可能无法对其进行执行……该申请必须以正式动议书及支持性文件提出，并给予 [PAX] 适当机会作出答复。8\n\n尽管 Kwok 的律师回应称其“理解”“本院的指示”，并将“以书面形式提供该信息”，9 Kwok 并未提出任何此类动议。\n\n鉴于其对 Kwok 及其不当行为的了解，PAX 及其律师对 Kwok 律师的问题感到担忧，并进行了调查。数日后，PAX 根据从 MarineTraffic.com 获取的公开信息得知，该游艇事实上已于 2020年11月1日离开 Fort Lauderdale, Florida（佛罗里达州劳德代尔堡），且截至 2020年11月18日，位于 Bahamas（巴哈马）Nassau（拿骚）Old Fort Bay（旧堡湾）或其附近。10 换言之，Kwok 实际上在该命令发布约两周后，以及其律师在 11月12日会议上请求许可让 Kwok 实施该等行为之前两周，已将游艇移出美国水域。\n\n鉴于该信息，PAX 的律师于 2020年11月18日致函 Kwok 的律师，提供其获取的有关游艇所在地点的信息，表达其“鉴于 Kwok 先生在整个本诉讼中作出虚假陈述的历史”的担忧，并要求 Kwok 的律师“确认 Lady May 的位置”以及“该船舶将在 48 小时内返回纽约”。11\n\nKwok 的律师从未作出回应。相反，当晚稍后，Kwok 的律师向本院提交了一封函件，声称对此一无所知，并承诺进行调查并回复：\n\n我方于今晚刚刚得知，本院限制令（NYSCEF Doc. 630）中提及并在 2020年11月11日本院举行的审前会议期间讨论的游艇 Lady May，目前位于国际水域。尽管原告律师刚刚向我方发来一封关于该游艇据称所在地的函件，但我方尚未确认任何细节……我方正试图获取进一步信息，并将在得知任何进一步情况时立即通知本院及律师。12\n\n但截至今日提交本文件之时——五周后——Kwok 的律师尚未向本院或 PAX 的律师提供任何进一步信息。同样截至今日，根据 MarineTraffic.com 的信息，该游艇仍停泊在 Bahamas（巴哈马）Nassau（拿骚）或其附近。13\n\n论证\n\n根据 Judiciary Law（司法法）第 753 条：\n\n为认定某一案件中发生藐视法庭，[(1)] 必须确定一项明确表达无歧义命令的合法法院命令当时有效。[(2)] 必须以合理确定性表明该命令未获遵守。[(3)] 此外，被认定构成藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管无须证明该命令实际上已向该方送达。[(4)] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成了损害。\n\n11 Id.\n\n12 Dkt. No. Dkt. 649.\n\n13 See Moss Aff. ¶ 5.\n\nMcCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983); 另见 Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc. No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016) (Ostrager, J.)（援引 McCormick 并适用四要件检验）。PAX 在此轻易满足藐视法庭的全部四项要件。\n\n第一，该命令是本院的一项合法命令：其明确无歧义地命令 Kwok “被限制不得进行或促成任何对[该游艇]的出售、让与、转让或干扰”。14\n\n第二，Kwok 在本院发布该命令约两周后促使游艇离开本院管辖范围，从而违反了该命令（且仍在违反该命令）。\n\n第三，Kwok 是一名精明的当事人，参与本诉讼，且显然知悉该命令。此外，其律师在 11月12日会议上特别请求澄清该命令，15 并在会议期间表示其“理解”“本院的指示”，即 Kwok 在将游艇移出本院管辖范围前必须提出动议。16\n\n第四，PAX 因 Kwok 故意蔑视该命令而受到损害。多年来，Kwok 一直试图阻挠本院最终作出的判决，而在更早以前，他便一直试图逃避偿还其对 PAX 的债务。Kwok 通过家庭成员和空壳公司隐匿其资产，PAX 对位于美国境内资产的执行已将足够困难。若允许 Kwok 通过将其游艇藏匿在本院管辖范围外公海的某处而扩大其障眼法，PAX 对该资产进行执行的机会将显著降低。\n\n14 See supra n.5.\n\n15 See supra n.6.\n\n16 See supra n.9.\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 恭请本院依据 CPLR 5104 及 Judiciary Law（司法法）第 753 条作出命令，(i) 认定 Kwok 因不遵守该命令而构成藐视法庭；(ii) 指示 Kwok 立即促使其游艇 Lady May 返回本院管辖范围；以及 (iii) 给予本院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：December 24, 2020 New York, New York 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所） 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）(ssarnoff@omm.com)\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）(emoss@omm.com)\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n-以及-\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登）(rseiden@seidenlegal.com)\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）的律师\n\n字数证明\n\n原告特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17（商事庭规则第17条）的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word（微软 Word）编制，本法律备忘录的总字数不包括抬头、标题和签名栏，少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：December 24, 2020 New York, New York 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所） 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）(emoss@omm.com)\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）的律师\n\n附件 9\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院）\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约县）\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），亦称 KWOK HO，亦称 GWO WEN GUI，亦称 GUO WENGUI，亦称 GUO WEN-GUI，亦称 WAN GUE HAOYUN，亦称 MILES KWOK，亦称 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）和 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），\n\nMot Seq. No. 12\n\nPart 61\n\n被告。\n\n支持原告 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）请求就被告 KWOK 作出藐视法庭命令之动议的进一步法律备忘录\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n论证 1\nI. 2020年10月15日命令禁止将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。 1\nII. 本院应认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭。 4\n结论 11\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 121\n\n引证案例目录\n\n页码\n\n案例\n\n1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC,\n2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007) 10\n\n2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.,\n303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003) 2\n\nBogoni v. Friedlander,\n197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994) 6\n\nDep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.,\n208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)\n\nL & R Expl. Venture 诉 Grynberg，\n2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) 10\nWengui 诉 Zeng，\nIndex No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 5\n其他权威资料\nMERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM，Interfere 2\n规则\nN.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3 4\n初步陈述1\n\n鉴于本案的历程，尚不清楚Kwok（郭文贵）的反对意见是否是其向本院提交的最不真诚的一份材料。但它当然名列前茅。Kwok面不改色地主张：(i) 将Lady May移出并留置于本院管辖范围之外并不违反10月15日命令——尽管本院已明确且反复表示其确已违反；以及(ii) 即使移动该游艇构成违反，Kwok也不应受到制裁，因为其并不拥有Lady May——尽管其曾在法庭提交文件及社交媒体上反复表示其拥有该游艇。适可而止。本院应认定Kwok构成藐视法庭，并施加足以促使其遵守该命令、将其游艇带回本管辖范围并留置于此的制裁。\n\n论证\n\nI. 10月15日命令禁止将Lady May移出本院管辖范围。\n\nKwok并不争议：(i) 10月15日命令“依照2020年10月15日记录在案的程序”，限制“Kwok和/或……‘Lady May’……的登记所有人对该资产作出或促成任何出售、让与、转移或干预”；2 或(ii) Lady May已被移出美国水域。相反，其主张，将该游艇移出本院管辖范围在技术上并未违反10月15日命令，因为\n\n1 本简报将：(i) 被告Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）就原告要求作出藐视法庭命令之动议所提交的法律备忘录（Dkt. No. 698）称为“反对意见”或“Opp.”；(ii) Edward Moss就Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）要求作出认定被告Kwok藐视法庭命令之动议进一步支持所作的宣誓陈述称为“Moss Reply Aff.”；以及(iii) Nathaniel Francis就Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.要求作出认定被告Kwok藐视法庭命令之动议所作的支持性宣誓陈述称为“Francis Aff.”。除非另有说明，(i) 已定义术语具有Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.支持其要求作出认定被告Kwok藐视法庭命令之动议的法律备忘录（Dkt. No. 689）中所赋予的含义，(ii) 所有强调均为后加，且(iii) 所有内部引证及引文均予省略。\n\n2 Opp. at 3 (citing (Dkt. No. 630))。\n\n(i) Lady May的“所有权”并未改变；(ii) 在10月15日听证会上，“原告既未请求本院禁止Lady May迁移，也未获本院作出该等指示”；以及(iii) 本院在10月15日听证会上说明，正常业务过程中的支出——例如，“如果Kwok先生想在冠状病毒疫情期间度假”——是被允许的。3\n\n这些论点毫无根据。首先，对于为何移动该游艇不构成对10月15日命令的“干预”（其确实构成），4 以及为何在正常业务过程中为度假花钱竟等同于将一项受限制的价值数百万美元资产移出本管辖范围（其并不等同），Kwok均无法作答。事实上，本院已驳回Kwok关于“正常业务过程”的论点。针对Kwok律师请求澄清限制令是否适用于支付律师费的问题，本院说明了其所称“正常业务过程”的范围。5 紧接该项澄清之后，Kwok的律师询问能否将Lady May移至英属维尔京群岛，因为那“只是其为许可目的而必须做的一项普通事务”。6 本院以毫不含糊的措辞答复，在提出（并获准）请求许可进行该等移动的动议之前，不允许Kwok移动该游艇。7\n\n3 Opp. at 6–9。\n\n4 “本州法院通常会查阅词典，以确定合同文字的通常及普通含义。”2619 Realty, LLC 诉 Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 303 A.D.2d 299, 301 (1st Dep't 2003)。 “to interfere”的通常含义是“以妨碍或阻挠的方式介入”。MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM，Interfere (available at http)。\n\n5 See Dkt. 691 at 12:23–13:5（允许“惯常且合理”的律师费）。\n\n6 Id. at 13:9–18。\n\n7 Id. at 13:19–24。\n\n更糟的是，Kwok完全无视本院反复、清楚且明确的陈述，即移动Lady May将会（且已经）违反该命令。首先，在10月15日听证会上（该听证会被明确纳入当日稍后作出的10月15日命令），本院具体讨论了Lady May，并指示Kwok不得移动该游艇及其他资产，以便在PAX（太盟亚洲机会基金）胜诉时可供执行收取（即，不干预PAX可能进行的判决执行工作）：\n\n无论这些资产被持有于何处，它们都将继续留在其目前所在地；若确定目前被列为该等资产所有人的实体是Kwok先生的另我，或者完全受Kwok先生支配和控制，*该等资产将可用于清偿原告获得的任何判决。*8\n\n随后，在11月20日听证会上，Kwok的律师提出“两个问题……以澄清本院已作出之限制令的范围”——其中之一是Lady May是否可以移出本管辖范围（尽管我们现已知晓，该游艇当时已经被移走）。9 如上所述，本院明确回答“不能”——除非先提出并获准一项动议及本院进一步命令：\n\n你必须以书面材料提出该项申请。*我对一项在美国受到限制的资产为何应被允许前往英属维尔京群岛的要求一无所知。*我严重怀疑Moss先生希望那艘游艇位于本院管辖范围之外。……*我不会允许发生这样的事：Kwok先生将游艇移至英属维尔京群岛，然后它可能无法供Moss先生的当事人扣押执行。*……Siegal先生曾问我，是否可以修改限制令，允许该游艇从美国港口移至英属维尔京群岛；我答复说，这是一项必须通过正式动议书面材料提出的申请，须有支持文件，并给予Moss先生适当机会作出答复。10\n\n8 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:8–14。\n\n9 Dkt. No. 691 at 12:23–25。\n\n10 Dkt. No. 691 at 13:19–15:4。\n\n最后，在最近一次12月18日听证会上，本院再次重申了截至当时对Kwok而言本应相当显而易见的事项：\n\n好的。那么，让我问你，我们有一个关于一艘船的问题；我曾禁止Kwok先生移动该船，而他可能已经违反本院命令移动了该船。……在我看来，我已命令不得移动该船。11\n\n鉴于“干预”的通常含义（见上文注4）以及本院反复、明确的指示，毫无疑问，10月15日命令已遭违反。Kwok的相反主张具有误导性。12 而且，如果Kwok主张其应被豁免，因为截至10月15日听证会时该游艇已经被移走（即，在其律师请求并被拒绝允许移动游艇之前），那么答案十分简单：本院作出10月15日命令后，应立即将其带回。13\n\nII. 本院应认定Kwok构成藐视法庭。\n\n尽管Kwok提出数项其他毫无依据的论点，说明为何不应认定其个人构成藐视法庭，但这些论点都归结为其核心主张：其并不拥有——因而不能控制——Lady May的移动。Kwok以为他在愚弄谁？\n\n正如PAX已经证明的，Kwok在不足五个月前——在其于2020年9月1日向New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的一份起诉书中——主张，“中国共产党的爪牙……曾试图在Guo [a/k/a Kwok]位于其游艇上时使其受到伤害。”见Wengui 诉 Zeng，Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), Dkt. No. 1（起诉书第8段）。Kwok自身起诉书中的该句以一项脚注结束，该脚注引用并链接至（从而以引用方式纳入）freebeacon.com上一篇题为“Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht Owned by Chinese Billionaire”的文章，其中称，“使用英文名Miles Kwok的Guo Wengui表示，涉及其152英尺长机动游艇Lady May的数起事件，似乎是中国政府企图威胁和恐吓他的一部分。”14 因此，在限制Lady May的语境中，本院将其称为“Kwok先生曾声称拥有的价值2700万美元游艇”，并不令人意外。15\n\n值得注意的是，本案Genever Defendants（Genever被告）的律师Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）在Wengui 诉 Zeng案中担任Kwok本人的律师。Mitchell先生签署了该起诉书；该起诉书反复将Lady May称为“其［即Kwok的］游艇”，并以引用方式纳入报道称该游艇由Kwok“拥有”的freebeacon.com文章。尽管Mitchell先生据称并不在本案中代理Kwok，但其在12月18日听证会上代表Kwok进行辩论，主张其2020年9月的起诉书“并非指所有权”，而只是指“Kwok先生在那艘船上的事实”，并指责PAX的律师对该诉状作出了“荒谬的依赖”。16 鉴于Kwok的一贯记录，或许Mitchell先生在暗示PAX实际依赖Kwok本人的话语是“荒谬的”时，确有其道理。\n\n11 Dkt. No. 695 at 25:15–18, 27:21–22。\n\n12 See N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1)（规定律师对法庭的诚实义务禁止其明知而“向法庭作出虚假的事实或法律陈述”）；另见Dkt. No. 647 at 21:11–16（“本院认为……Kwok先生曾试图误导本院。本院认为，正如原告所主张，Kwok先生正在对其资产玩弄障眼法，并且即使未违反法院命令的字面规定，也违反了法院命令的精神。”），26:5–9（“在法院命令要么遭到蔑视、要么被过度宽泛地解释之际，并且在已向本院作出误导本院的故意或非故意失实陈述之际，我们将在2021年1月对本案作出结案处理。”）。\n\n13 我们相信Kwok的律师所言，即其在询问本院Lady May能否移出本管辖范围时，不知道Lady May已经被移出本管辖范围。但后来——在PAX告知其该游艇实际上位于本管辖范围之外后——Kwok的律师致函本院并解释说，由于其律所刚刚从PAX获悉该游艇的位置，“我们尚未确认任何细节”，但正“试图取得更多信息，并将在获悉任何进一步情况时立即通知本院及律师”。Dkt. No. 649。然而，与该陈述相反，Kwok在答复本动议之前，未向本院提供有关该游艇位置的任何进一步信息。见N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(b)（“在法庭前代理当事人的律师，如明知某人意图实施、正在实施或已经实施与该程序有关的犯罪或欺诈行为，应采取合理的补救措施，必要时包括向法庭披露。”）。\n\n郭文贵（Kwok Ho Wan，以下简称“Kwok”）的反对意见更加不诚实；其歪曲称，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，以下简称“PAX”）主张 Kwok 拥有该游艇，部分原因是他据称曾是该游艇上的“客人”（PAX 从未作出过此等主张），并声称 PAX 没有所有权证据。17 即使 Kwok 自己的诉状——一项司法自认18——不足以确立所有权（而其已绰绰有余），PAX 还有更多、更多证据：\n\n2017年5月10日，Kwok 在其后被暂停的 Twitter 账户上“发推”发布了以下其坐在“Lady May”号游艇上的照片，附有中文字符，译文为：“我正在发布几张我送给女儿并以她名字命名的游艇照片……她的名字是 Lady May……我以 41 million euro 买下了它”：19\n\n16 Dkt. No. 695 at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 Opp. at 8–9.\n\n18 See Bogoni v. Friedlander, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 (1st Dep't 1994)（初始诉状中的自认属于“正式司法自认”，且为“对所承认事实的证据”。）.\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n随后，于2017年8月27日，Kwok（同样在其后被暂停的账户上）将“Lady May”称为“我的船”，并回忆称，“两年前我在迈阿密时……我[]签署了我一生中最重要的投资合同”，而这一切“似乎都如此意义非凡。”21\n\n但我们把最有力的证据留到了最后。正如2017年10月14日的一段 YouTube 视频所示，22 Kwok 被录下明确表示该船属于他：23\n\n“我决定卖掉它，因为它是铝制船体。铝制船体在海上会有些漂。浅水区还可以。我想用那艘更重、更大的，也是 Feadship，因为它是钢制的。我想去更远的海域……我登广告两次，但我的报价相对较高，约 US$50 million，31 million euros，也就是约 US$50 million。当我以那个较高价格挂牌时，有一份报价略低于我的要价，但我没有卖。”\n\n20 Id.\n\n21 Id.\n\n22 See Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3（指引法院查阅 http 上可获取的一段 YouTube 视频的第 2:50 分钟至第 4:15 分钟）.\n\n23 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n这一切均出自 Kwok 之口：他买下了“Lady May”号，将其运送过来，决定将其挂牌出售，并将其登记在其女儿名下以躲避债权人。Kwok 声称自己仅仅是该游艇上的某位“客人”，完全是（又一次）赤裸裸的谎言。\n\n24 Id. 截图直接取自 YouTube，且已包含字幕；经认证的翻译确认该等字幕实质上准确。See Moss Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n当然，Kwok 声称其并不拥有或控制“Lady May”号，而该游艇实际由 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（HK International Funds Investments（美国）有限责任公司）所有，该实体完全由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅，发音为“May”）拥有和控制，这完全符合其一贯作风。Kwok 自称为亿万富翁，但在对其有利时，却假装自己没有任何资产25，正是因为其惯常做法是利用空壳公司、其子女及雇员来隐匿其资产。例如，Kwok 目前在 Genever 破产案中声称，Genever Defendants（Genever 被告）由其儿子拥有的另一家空壳公司实益拥有——尽管他从未向 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰酒店）披露此事，也从未在本院提出该主张以试图规避扣押。26 而且，Kwok 不仅多次表示“Lady May”号是“他的”（包括在上文所述的2020年9月诉状中；该诉状系在其据称将该游艇赠与女儿后提交），HK International 也不过是一家空壳公司：(i) 直至2020年4月才将该游艇登记在其名下（彼时 PAX 在本案中已进入红色区域）；27 以及 (ii) 其“主要办事处”地址为 162 E. 64th Street——与 Mr. Mitchell（米切尔先生）的办事处地址相同（真是令人意外！）；视具体案件而定，Mr. Mitchell 经常代理 Kwok 或其空壳实体。28\n\n＊ ＊ ＊\n\n在10月15日的听证会上，甚至在本院得知 Kwok 已移动该游艇之前，本院即说明，在这起“2017年的案件中，存在大量的策略性操作、大量的掩饰，以及某些对法院命令的公然漠视……本院相信，正如原告所主张，Kwok 先生正在就其资产玩弄空壳游戏……”29 本院进一步表示，“我们不会再容忍任何空壳游戏。”30 不幸的是，Kwok 的空壳游戏仍在继续，其掩饰和策略性操作只愈发严重，而且他再次公然违反了本院的一项命令。\n\n25 Dkt. No. 580 at 100:2–3（证称其净资产为“negative”）；101:3–5（证称“[i]n reality, under the law”，其拥有“no”资产）.\n\n26 See Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 5 at ¶ 4（声称 Bravo Luck 为：(i) Sherry-Netherland 公寓的“实益所有人”；以及 (ii) “由 Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok 之子 Qiang Guo 先生拥有的公司”）.\n\n27 See Opp. at 4, n.2.\n\n28 See Dkt. No. 705 at 1.\n\n鉴于 Kwok 屡次违反本院命令、其作为自称数十亿美元富翁显而易见的财力，以及当前违反行为的严重性及其对 PAX 的重大影响，PAX 恭请本院施加足以促使 Kwok 遵守10月15日命令并立即将“Lady May”号带回本院管辖范围内的制裁——无论金钱制裁或其他制裁。\n\n29 Dkt. No. 647 at 24:9–11; 21:13–15.\n\n30 Id. at 22:7.\n\n31 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2701271, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007); see also Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp., 208 A.D.2d 37, 42 (2d Dep't 1995)（“民事藐视法庭罚金并非为惩罚而施加，而是为补偿受害的私人当事人或强制遵守法院命令。”）；L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg, 2011 WL 1564647, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011)（“法院有权惩罚不遵守合法命令的诉讼当事人。民事藐视法庭的目的，是强制遵守法院命令，或补偿因不遵守法院命令而受到损害的一方。”）.\n\n32 See Dkt. No. 557 at 2（命令 Kwok 向本院提供可联系到其的电话号码，以及：(i) 其将接受送达证据开示文件的地址，或 (ii) 可向其发送此类文件的电子邮件地址）.\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 恭请本院裁定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭，并命令施加适当制裁。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021 纽约州纽约市 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（欧麦律师事务所） 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）（ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登）（rseiden@seidenlegal.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\n字数证明\n\nPAX 特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17（商事庭规则第17条）的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制，且本法律备忘录的总字数，不包括案件抬头、标题及签名栏，少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021 纽约州纽约市 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\n附件10\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院） NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约县）\n\n出庭法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.， 案号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 动议日期\n动议序号 012\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，等， 动议裁定及命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n本院审理原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提出的第012号动议，请求裁定被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）构成藐视法庭。本院此前已发布三项命令，限制 Kwok 对名为“Lady May”的游艇所享有的权益。2020年9月30日，本院作出临时限制令（“TRO”），禁止 Kwok，除其他事项外，“干涉其享有权益的任何财产”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 591。在作出 TRO 时，本院指出，“任何违反……的行为均应被视为刑事藐视法庭。”Id. 2020年10月15日，本院作出该命令，准许 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制“Lady May”号：\n\nKwok 先生被禁止直接或间接对其享有权益的任何财产作出或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干涉，且不得支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或日后到期应付给他的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外，并应符合2020年10月15日记录在案的程序。具体而言，Kwok 先生及/或下列财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-内瑟兰酒店）的住所；及 (2) “Lady May”号游艇，均被禁止对该等资产作出或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干涉。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630。Kwok 的律师特别询问本院，Kwok 是否可为取得许可之目的将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。本院当时驳回该请求，并指示律师如有必要应提出动议。\n\n原告提出本动议，是因为尽管存在上述命令，“Lady May”号已被移至美国境外。\n\n本院已审阅双方就 PAX 请求裁定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭的动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论 Kwok 先生的任何律师是否违反了职业行为准则，很显然，在本院审理的、涉及“Lady May”号游艇所在地及所有权的程序中，存在令人无法容忍的大量策略性操作、掩饰和欺骗。\n\n被告声称，尽管本院对游艇移动施加了限制，该游艇仍因“正常业务过程”中的“冬季维护”而被移出本院管辖范围。本院不逐一列举被告 Kwok 在本应更加审慎的律师协助下所进行的诸多“空壳游戏”，而是在下列范围内准许藐视法庭动议：自2021年5月15日后，该游艇每在本院管辖范围外停留一日，被告 Kwok 将被罚款 $500,000。有关该游艇所有权及控制权的其他限制仍然有效。\n\n状态会议仍定于2021年5月4日上午10:00举行。\n\n日期：March 16, 2021\n\n勾选一项： 案件已处理 X 非终局性处理\n\nX 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他\n申请： 拟定命令 提交命令\n如适用则勾选： 包括移交/重新分配 指定受托人 转介\n\n附件11\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院纽约县）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\n\nKWOK HO WAN，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 Holdings 公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司），\n\n诉\n\n被告。\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n[已提交] 民事藐视法庭终局命令\n\n动议序号：19\n\n鉴于本院日期为 March 16, 2021 的附条件民事藐视法庭命令指示，如被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵，以下简称“Kwok”）未能于 May 15, 2021 前将 Lady May号游艇（以下简称“Lady May”）返还至本院管辖范围内，则该游艇在管辖范围外每滞留一日，其将被处以 $500,000 的罚款；\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员，02/09/2022 04:33 PM，案卷号 652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号 1182，NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022\n\n鉴于 Lady May 未于 May 15, 2021 前返还至本院管辖范围内；\n\n鉴于上诉分院第一部门（Appellate Division's First Department，纽约州最高法院上诉分院第一部门）于 November 4, 2021 维持了本院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 $500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管被允许有两个月时间完成该事项，但其未显示出任何完成意愿”，并指示本院进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚；\n\n鉴于 Kwok 迄今未能将 Lady May 返还至本院管辖范围内；\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1182，NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022，121\n\n鉴于第一部门 November 4, 2021 命令所规定的证据听证已于 February 2, 2022 举行；\n\n鉴于 Kwok 及 Lady May 的登记所有权人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）均出席了听证会、提交了证据，并由律师代理；以及\n\n鉴于根据听证中提出的证据，本院认定 PAX 已以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益权益并拥有控制权。因此，现特此命令、裁定并判决如下：\n\n（1）Kwok 违反了 New York Judiciary Law § 753，并构成本院命令所涉民事藐视法庭。\n\n（2）责令 Kwok 立即向 PAX 支付 $134,000,000，相当于 May 15, 2021 至 February 7, 2022 期间每日报 $500,000 的金额。\n\n（3）在 Kwok 将 Lady May 返还至本院管辖范围内之前，应付 PAX 的金额将继续按每日 $500,000 累积；该额外累积自本命令送达之日起十个营业日后开始。\n\n（4）上文第（2）段所列金额应于本命令送达之日起五个营业日内支付给 PAX。\n\n（5）如未及时向 PAX 支付该罚款，本院将根据 New York Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权限。\n\n本命令于 2022年2月9日作出。\n\nR. OSTRAGER，J.S.C.\n\n证物12\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n第11章案件编号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nMarch 1, 2022\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）请求作出命令，确认自动中止不适用；或者，作为替代请求，依据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止的动议\n\n致尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官：\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）提出本动议，请求作出一项命令，其形式实质上与随附的证物A一致，确认自动中止不适用于正在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院，Ostrager法官主持）审理的一项特定申请破产前程序；该程序因债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“Kwok”）违反该法院命令，未能将其游艇“Lady May”返还纽约，而认定其构成民事藐视法庭。2 Ostrager法官在针对 Kwok 作出日期为 February 9, 2022 的最终民事藐视法庭命令时警告称：“如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够一边同时寻求利用纽约及美国其他地区的法院程序，一边明知且故意违反法院命令，那么就不存在法治。”3 此原则同样完全适用于本第11章程序。Kwok 不得利用《破产法》的保护来规避 Ostrager法官的命令，自动中止亦不允许其如此行事。\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位数字为 9595。\n\n2 对于 Lady May 的清算——Ostrager法官认定 Kwok“受益所有并控制”该游艇——及由此所得款项的分配，应在第11章程序中进行（以本案未被驳回为限）。\n\nKwok 藐视法庭的行为由来已久且公然无视法院。首先，Kwok 直接违反纽约州最高法院日期为 September 30 和 October 15, 2020 的命令，将 Lady May 移出该法院的管辖范围。4 随后，于 March 2021，Ostrager法官作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令——该命令获纽约州最高法院上诉分院第一部门一致维持5——要求 Kwok 或登记所有权人于 May 15, 2021 前返还 Lady May，否则该游艇在该法院管辖范围外每滞留一日，将面临每日 $500,000 的罚款。6 近一年后，在举行证据听证后，Ostrager法官作出 February 9 民事藐视法庭命令，责令：（i）Kwok 支付 $134 million（May 15, 2021 至 February 7, 2022 期间每日 $500,000）；以及（ii）如 Lady May 未在送达登记通知之日起十个营业日内返还至该法院管辖范围，则继续按每日 $500,000 累积罚款。7 在向 PAX 支付 $134 million 藐视法庭罚款的期限届满前一日，并且 Kwok 为在上诉期间紧急中止该命令所作努力失败后，Kwok 提起本第11章案件。但破产保护是为诚实、善意的债务人而设。自动中止并不使债务人免受违抗法院命令及损害司法制度尊严所产生后果的影响。因此，PAX 请求本院作出命令，确认其有权提起进一步程序以执行 Ostrager法官的 February 9 民事藐视法庭命令。\n\n3 参见 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）为支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 提出确认自动中止不适用或依据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止之动议而提交的声明，随附于此作为证物B（以下简称“Friedman声明”），证物1；PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1181（以下简称“February 9 Contempt Order”）《动议裁定及命令》，第10页。\n\n4 Friedman声明，证物2，PAX v. Kwok, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 591《动议裁定及命令》；Friedman声明，证物3，PAX v. Kwok, 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 630《动议裁定及命令》。\n\n5 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n6 Friedman声明，证物4，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728《动议裁定及命令》（以下简称“Initial Contempt Order”，并与 February 9 Contempt Order 统称为“Contempt Orders”）。\n\n7 Friedman声明，证物5，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1182《最终民事藐视法庭命令》，第2页。\n\n作为替代请求，PAX 依据 United States Code（美国法典）第11编（以下简称“Bankruptcy Code”）第 362(d)(1) 条及 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产程序规则）第4001条，请求解除自动中止，以允许执行 February 9 民事藐视法庭命令，但该命令要求 Kwok 立即向 PAX 支付款项的范围除外。该等救济包括：执行 February 9 民事藐视法庭命令以确保 Lady May 返还纽约；允许罚款继续累积（该等罚款构成 Kwok 在本第11章案件中无法免除的债务）；以及如 Kwok 未能及时将 Lady May 返还纽约，允许 Ostrager法官下令实施任何其他适当制裁（包括签发逮捕令）。8 9\n\n为支持本动议，PAX 谨陈述如下：\n\n管辖权\n\n1. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对本动议拥有管辖权；就本动议而言，PAX 接受本地区可为适当审理地，但不影响其日后提出任何变更审理地动议的权利。本动议属于 28 U.S.C. §157(b) 规定的核心程序，PAX 所请求救济的依据为 Bankruptcy Code 第 362(d) 条。\n\n8 参见，例如，NY Judiciary Law § 753（“记录在案的法院有权以罚款、监禁，或二者并用的方式，惩处怠于履行职责、违反职责或其他不当行为；该等行为可致使在该法院待决的民事诉讼或特别程序中一方当事人的权利或救济受到挫败、减损、阻碍或损害。”）。\n\n9 PAX 拟提起对抗程序，以确认 Ostrager法官作出的民事藐视法庭罚款具有不可免除性。参见 In re Singer, No. 10–00045, 2010 WL 3732944 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010)（藐视法庭制裁在破产中不可免除）；In re Marini, 28 B.R. 262, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)（同上）。\n\n背景\n\n2. 近十一年前，PAX 与一家由 Kwok 所有、名为 Shiny Times（闪耀时代）的实体签署了一份贷款协议。10 Kwok 对该贷款提供了个人担保。11 尽管曾多次延长还款期限，且 PAX 多次尝试和解该债务，Kwok 从未偿还该贷款。12\n\n3. PAX 于 April 18, 2017 在纽约州最高法院起诉 Kwok，主张其违反个人担保合同。13 经历近四年诉讼后，于 February 3, 2021，PAX 获得针对 Kwok 的 $116,402,019.57 判决书。14 此后，PAX“通过先识别 Kwok 在美国的资产、继而尝试对其实施扣押，进行了长达一年的努力以执行该判决书”。15 这绝非易事，因为正如 Ostrager法官所认定，“Kwok 是一名自称的多亿万富翁，其已将资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之中。”16 Kwok 至今仍未偿还该 $116,402,019.57 判决书中的任何款项，该判决书按年利率 9 percent 累积判决后利息。17\n\n10 Friedman声明，证物6，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549《动议裁定及命令》，第2页。\n\n11 同上。\n\n12 同上，第7页。\n\n13 Friedman声明，证物7，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2，起诉书。\n\n14 Friedman声明，证物8，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716，第2页，判决书。\n\n15 Friedman声明，证物1（February 9 Contempt Order），第1页。\n\n16 同上。\n\n17 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022)；Friedman声明，证物8，第2页；另参见 Friedman声明，证物9，支持原告部分简易判决动议的重大事实陈述，证物23，KWOK000652，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455（“2011 Personal Guarantee”）。\n\n4. 尽管 Kwok 声称其没有资产，18 但其对至少在 2015 年以 € 28 million 购得的 Lady May 享有受益所有权。19 于 September 30, 2020，Ostrager法官作出临时限制令，禁止 Kwok“对其享有权益的任何财产作出或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干预……”。20 两周后，于 October 15, 2020，Ostrager法官明确，该项对 Kwok 的限制包括 Lady May。21 但 Ostrager法官及 PAX 并不知情的是，Lady May 早在约 October 9 已离开纽约前往佛罗里达州。22 该游艇随后前往巴哈马，最终抵达欧洲，并至今仍停留于此。23\n\n5. 作为回应，PAX 提交了一项藐视法庭动议24；2021年3月16日，法院作出附条件的民事藐视法庭命令，指示 Kwok（郭文贵）或该游艇的登记所有人须于2021年5月15日前将 Lady May（“五月女士”号游艇）送回法院管辖范围，并规定此后该游艇每在其管辖范围之外滞留一日，即处以 $500,000 的罚款。25 New York Appellate Division, First Department（纽约州上诉分庭第一部门）一致维持初审法院的命令，认定：(i) PAX 已“以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok] 违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该违反行为损害了[PAX]的权利……”26；以及 (ii)“每日 $500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使[Kwok]清除其藐视法庭行为。”27 因此，第一部门指示 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格）在作出最终藐视法庭命令之前，“进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。”28\n\n18 参见 United States Trustee（美国受托人）就债务人延长提交资产和负债明细表及财务状况说明期限之动议提出的异议，ECF No. 49，第 ¶ 12 段（在其与美国受托人进行首次债务人面谈期间，Kwok“披露其没有银行账户、没有信用卡、未受雇而获得收入，且其全部生活开支均由并通过一家名为 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）（‘Golden Spring’）的实体支付。[其]还披露，其并不直接拥有任何不动产、未拥有任何汽车，且未为任何资产投保。”）。\n\n19 Friedman 声明，附件 1，第4页。尽管 Kwok 否认，他还拥有 Sherry Netherland hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的一套整层豪华公寓；该公寓目前正因 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的一项相关破产程序而以 $45 million 挂牌出售。\n\n20 Friedman 声明，附件 2。\n\n21 Friedman 声明，附件 3，第1页。\n\n22 参见 Friedman 声明，附件 10（VESSELFINDER，航程分析器 http）（最后访问于 Feb. 28, 2022）。\n\n23 截至 February 28, 2022，Lady May 位于意大利热那亚。参见同上。\n\n24 参见 Friedman 声明，附件 11，PAX 支持针对被告 Kwok 的藐视法庭命令动议之法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 689；另参见 Friedman 声明，附件 12，PAX 进一步支持针对被告 Kwok 的藐视法庭命令动议之法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 709。\n\n25 Friedman 声明，附件 4（初始藐视法庭命令），第2页。换言之，法院给予 Kwok 先生整整两个月的宽限期以归还该游艇，从而完全避免任何罚款。\n\n6. Ostrager 法官于 February 2, 2022 举行了该证据听证。在听取七名证人的证言后，29 Ostrager 法官认定：“在听证会上由[Kwok]的证人口中得出的证言，以清楚且令人信服的方式表明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，并且对本院及司法程序抱有彻底蔑视。”30 法院进一步认定：“Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，看来还是其提供了购买该游艇的资金，而且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”31 因此，Ostrager 法官作出 February 9 藐视法庭命令。32\n\n7. 与其一贯藐视法院命令的做法一致，Kwok 未支付藐视法庭罚款，也未将该游艇送回美国。33 相反，February 15, 2022，Kwok 在本院申请破产。34 Kwok 的破产申请列示 $50,001-$100,000 的资产35——遗漏了仍在美国境外、且未受任何可信赖受托人监督的贵重 Lady May。36\n\n8. 鉴于 Kwok 一贯抗命的行为以及其为“通过将其大量个人资产停放于一系列公司、受信任的密友及家庭成员名下而逃避并欺骗其债权人”所作的广泛努力，37 PAX 恭请本院裁定，自动中止不禁止其恢复在 Ostrager 法官面前进行的藐视法庭程序，以寻求强制 Kwok 将 Lady May 送回纽约，并允许 Ostrager 法官对 Kwok 施加除命令其立即向 PAX 支付金钱以外的任何可用处罚。或者，PAX 恭请本院有限解除自动中止，以允许 PAX 在 Ostrager 法官面前继续进行程序，从而取得相同结果。\n\n请求的救济\n\n9. PAX 通过本动议请求裁定，自动中止不适用于执行 Ostrager 法官的 February 9 藐视法庭命令。或者，PAX 请求作出一项修改自动中止的命令，允许 PAX 执行 February 9 藐视法庭命令，但任何救济要求 Kwok 立即向 PAX 支付任何金钱的范围除外。38\n\n35 同上，第7页。\n\n36 参见上文脚注23。如上所述，Kwok 还未列示其于 March 2015 以 $67.5 million 购得、并通过两家空壳公司 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）及 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever NY”）持有的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的可观价值。参见 Friedman 声明，附件 13，已签署的买卖合同，Kwok v. PAX，Index No. 652077/2017，ECF No. 256（已签署的买卖合同将“Genever Holdings LLC”列为买方）；另参见同上，SN 0047（购买申请将“‘Miles’ Kwok Ho Wan（Genever Holdings LLC）”列为申请人）。与 Kwok 在本案中的行为一致，Genever NY 亦在 PAX 于 2020 年末赢得简易判决后立即申请破产。In re Genever Holdings LLC，Case No. 1:20-bk-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n37 Friedman 声明，附件 1（February 9 藐视法庭命令），第1页。\n\n38 PAX 在申请破产前，就 Kwok 未按照 Ostrager 法官 September 22, 2021 命令交出其在一家于 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册的公司 Genever BVI 中所持股份一事，向纽约法院提交了另一项藐视法庭动议。参见 Friedman 声明，附件 14，动议裁决及命令，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 904。该动议自 January 24, 2022 起已完成书面陈述，且仍在审理中。February 18, 2022，Ostrager 法官发出通知，请求 PAX 于 March 3, 2022 前鉴于 Kwok 的破产申请而在不妨碍日后再次提出的情况下撤回该动议。Friedman 声明，附件 15，法院通知，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022)，ECF No. 1191。PAX 拟如此办理，现不寻求本院确认自动中止不适用于该藐视法庭程序，但其今后可能寻求，并保留寻求该确认的权利。\n\n论证\n\n一、自动中止不适用于涉及归还 Lady May 的藐视法庭命令。\n\n10. 刑事藐视法庭程序依法不受自动中止约束。参见 § 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(1)（“对债务人提起或继续进行刑事诉讼或程序”不受中止约束）。法院可以作出民事藐视法庭救济，以“确保今后遵守法院命令”，或就一方未遵守法院命令而向另一方“提供赔偿或其他补救性救济”。Universal City Studios v. New York Broadway Int'l Corp.，705 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1983)；Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nair，3:10cv88 (SRU)，2011 WL 1832774, at *2 (D. Conn. May 13, 2011)。尽管民事藐视法庭程序并无当然不受自动中止约束的例外，“某些民事藐视法庭程序即使面对破产申请仍可继续进行。”Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.，62 B.R. 723, 727 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)。法院区分“旨在惩罚”而提出的民事藐视法庭“动议”和“旨在执行判决”而提出的动议，并认定前者不受中止约束。Id. at 729；另参见 Booth v. Wilson，No. 96 CIV. 920 (RO)，1997 WL 241050, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1997)（“门槛问题是，该藐视法庭动议是否旨在满足一项判决，或者其是否针对被主张的抗拒法院命令行为。”）。\n\n11. 法院一贯认为，旨在惩罚债务人不遵守法院命令的民事藐视法庭命令不受自动中止约束，因为破产并不为实施了可受制裁行为、损害法院尊严的一方提供避风港。并且，破产程序不得被“用作一把剑”，以阻止法院惩罚藐视法庭行为。Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.，62 B.R. at 730。例如，在 Roberts v. Bennaceur，No. 3:12-CV-01222，2015 WL 1471889, (D. Conn. 2015) 一案中，被告在一再未披露与其资产和财务状况有关的信息后申请破产。Meyer 法官认定，破产申请并不妨碍法院就债务人滥用披露及证据开示程序的行为施加制裁，并表示：\n\n破产中止并不妨碍原告就个别被告违反法院命令的行为寻求制裁，即使该等违反行为与已中止的请求有关。我有权“继续……考虑被告[们]是否”可因其未能“遵守先前的一项[]命令”而受到制裁，只要该制裁不产生“取得受中止保护的资产或骚扰”债务人的效果。\n\nId. at *16（省略内部引文）。因此，该法院在破产申请后制裁了债务人及其高级管理人员。其他法院亦持相同意见，承认可对破产中的债务人执行藐视法庭命令，以维护法院尊严并惩罚债务人不遵守法院命令的行为。参见 Shaoxing Bon Textiles Co., Ltd. v. 4-U Performance Grp. LLC，16 Civ. 6805，2017 WL 6413993, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)（若“该程序实质上是为了惩罚债务人针对法院尊严的抗命行为”，则无需提出解除中止的动议）；In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, Inc.，62 B.R. 369, 378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) aff'd，70 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1986)，831 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1987)（“与申请破产前请求或破产财产的收取无关的州法院申请破产前命令，可以通过针对债务人及其高级管理人员的藐视法庭程序予以执行，以维护州法院尊严而不违反自动中止。”）；Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.，62 B.R. at 729–30（认定其“惩罚债务人针对州法院或联邦法院尊严的抗命行为”的“固有权力”并未因破产程序而受限制，并认定在藐视法庭请求“旨在维护本院的一项命令，且并非旨在执行金钱判决”时，中止不适用）；Booth，1997 WL 241050, at *2（“执行我在破产前作出的强制证据开示命令的这项藐视法庭命令，不受 § 362(a) 中止，因为其是在‘维护法院的完整性’。”）。\n\n12. 与上述权威意见一致，为确保郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）遵守法院命令而作出的既往及未来藐视法庭命令，不适用自动中止。奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）并未因郭文贵未能履行PAX（PAX）的判决或未就任何金钱损失赔偿PAX而认定其藐视法庭。事实上，所处以的罚款独立于就PAX违约索赔作出的判决。该法院认定郭文贵藐视法庭，是因为其公然且持续无视法院命令。PAX目前并非出于“追收动机”而提出动议，而是请求准许其寻求执行奥斯特拉格法官于2月9日作出的藐视法庭命令，该命令要求将“Lady May”号游艇送回纽约；39 该游艇一年多来一直违反法院命令而处于纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court，纽约州最高法院）管辖范围之外。见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730（动议方并非出于“追收动机”提出动议的，中止不适用）。为维护纽约州最高法院的尊严，继续进行藐视法庭程序是必要的（并且还具有迫使郭文贵将其享有受益所有权的财产返还美国这一附加益处）。因此，纽约州最高法院应获准在藐视法庭程序中采取其认为必要的任何行动，但不得执行罚款的追收，无需获得解除中止的救济。\n\n13. 如本院可能担心对郭文贵破产财团的任何影响，本院可以澄清，在自动中止期间，自动中止适用于对破产财团财产执行或追收任何罚款或其他救济。见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730（该命令并非“旨在执行金钱判决，或骚扰被告”时，自动中止不适用）（着重号为原文所加）。此外，本院可以明确，“Lady May”号游艇的未来处置属于本院专属管辖范围（除非本院另有命令）。\n\n39 见 Friedman Decl.（弗里德曼声明）, Ex. 4（Initial Contempt Order（初始藐视法庭命令））at 2（“郭文贵的律师特别询问法院，郭文贵是否可以为办理许可之目的将该游艇移出管辖范围。法院驳回了该请求。”）。\n\nII. 或者，应修改自动中止，以允许部分执行奥斯特拉格法官的命令。\n\n14. 即使自动中止适用于2月9日的藐视法庭命令，亦存在根据《破产法典》第362(d)(1)条修改中止的正当理由。\n\n15. 是否修改自动中止的决定“属于法院的合理酌处权。”In re David X. Manners Co. Inc., No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 2325758, at *2 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 22, 2018); In re Wysocki, No. 3:16-CV-248, 2016 WL 4099031, at *4 (D. Conn. Aug. 2, 2016)。根据《破产法典》第362(d)条，应“因事由”准予解除自动中止，“包括未能充分保护该利害关系方在财产中的利益”。见 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1)。《破产法典》未对“事由”作出定义。In re Sonnax Indus., Inc., 907 F.2d 1280, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990)。在 Sonnax 一案中，第二巡回上诉法院列举了十二项因素，作为法院在决定是否应准予解除自动中止、允许诉讼在另一审理机构继续进行时的判断基准。40 见，例如，In re Case, 384 F. App'x 43, 44 (2d Cir. 2010)（指出破产法院适当地考量了 Sonnax 因素）；In re Friedberg, No. 08–51245, 2009 WL 1292273, at *2 (Bankr. D. Conn., May 8, 2009)（适用 Sonnax 因素）。本院无须对每项因素赋予同等权重，也并非每项因素在每一案件中都具相关性。见 In re David X. Manners Co. Inc., No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 1997674, at *5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 28cv778, 2018 WL 3079470 (D. Conn, Jun. 21, 2018)。相反，“在适用这些因素并考虑是否修改自动中止时，法院应考虑案件的具体情形，并确定何者对权利主张人及破产财团而言是公正的。”Id. at *5（引用 In re Taub, 413 B.R. 55, 62 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)）。\n\n40 这些因素是：“(1) 给予救济是否将导致争议事项得到部分或全部解决；(2) 与破产案件不存在任何关联或干扰；(3) 其他程序是否涉及债务人作为受托人；(4) 是否已设立具备审理该诉因所需专业知识的专门审理机构；(5) 债务人的保险人是否已承担为其进行抗辩的全部责任；(6) 该诉讼是否主要涉及第三方；(7) 在另一审理机构进行诉讼是否会损害其他债权人的利益；(8) 因另一诉讼产生的判决债权是否应受衡平居次对待；(9) 动议方在另一程序中的胜诉是否将导致债务人可撤销的司法留置权；(10) 司法经济以及迅速、经济解决诉讼的利益；(11) 当事人是否已准备好在另一程序中开庭审理；以及(12) 中止对当事人的影响及损害衡量。”Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1286。\n\n在此，相关的 Sonnax 因素为：\n\n- “(1) 给予救济是否将导致争议事项得到部分或全部解决；”\n- “(2) 与破产案件不存在任何关联或干扰；”\n- “(4) 是否已设立具备审理该诉因所需专业知识的专门审理机构；”\n- “(7) 在另一审理机构进行诉讼是否会损害其他债权人的利益；”\n- “(10) 司法经济以及迅速、经济解决诉讼的利益；”以及\n- “(12) 中止对当事人的影响及损害衡量。”41\n\nA. 解除中止将解决对破产案件重要的争议事项。\n\n16. 第一项 Sonnax 因素支持解除中止。2月9日藐视法庭命令的最终目标是使“Lady May”号游艇返回纽约。\n\n41 其他 Sonnax 因素不适用。尤其是，对于PAX基于郭文贵个人保证提出的债权，不存在任何进行衡平居次对待的可能依据（Sonnax 因素8）；奥斯特拉格法官作出的任何命令也均不会产生可撤销的留置权（Sonnax 因素9）。\n\n17. 如奥斯特拉格法官所认定，“Lady May”号游艇是一项可用于清偿郭文贵债务的资产。42 法院认定，郭文贵“对‘Lady May’号游艇所享有的不仅仅是受益权益”；他不仅“控制该游艇”，而且“提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”43 因此，尽管郭文贵“采取非同寻常的措施以使该游艇免受其债权人的追索”，其在“Lady May”号游艇中的权益仍必须在本第11章案件中供债权人使用。44 郭文贵不仅违反奥斯特拉格法官的命令，未将“Lady May”号游艇送回纽约，而且在提交其破产申请书时（及其修正申请书中），尽管奥斯特拉格法官已在其2022年2月9日命令中作出明确认定，郭文贵未将“Lady May”号游艇的价值列入其资产。45 第11章债务人有义务在第11章申请书中披露所有类型的全部资产。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)（债务人的破产财团包括“债务人在财产中享有的所有法定或衡平权益。”）；Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., Inc., 233 B.R. 46, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)（“破产法的一项基本原则是，债务人的所有资产……均为破产财团资产，必须为债权人的利益而列明。”）；In re Beckford, 729 F. App'x 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2018)（“提交破产申请书即产生破产财团，该财团由‘债务人在财产中享有的所有法定或衡平权益’构成。”）。郭文贵在奥斯特拉格法官明确裁定其享有“Lady May”号游艇的受益所有权并对其实施控制仅六日后，故意未在其申请书中将该游艇的价值列为资产，是其继续实施使“Lady May”号游艇免受债权人追索之计划的行为。该计划必须终止。\n\n42 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1（February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭命令））at 8–9。\n\n43 同上。\n\n44 同上，at 9；另见同上，at 7（讨论“郭文贵就‘Lady May’号游艇所策划的障眼法相关运作”）。\n\n45 Amended Voluntary Petition（修正自愿申请书）, ECF No. 19 at 7（将资产列为 $50,001 - $100,000）；参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1（February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭命令））at 10（指出“Lady May”号游艇的 € 28 million [sic] 购买价格）。\n\n18. 允许在奥斯特拉格法官面前继续努力使“Lady May”号游艇返回纽约，将解决与本第11章案件相关的争议事项。见 In re Fleming, No. 19-51611, 2020 WL 3816282, at *3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jul. 2, 2020)（州法院程序能够解决对抗程序中的争议事项这一事实，支持解除中止）。将“Lady May”号游艇返还纽约，将有利于对该资产进行归集，并最终为全体债权人的利益分配所得款项。这还将解决PAX为使该游艇处于纽约州最高法院管辖范围内所作的一年努力，此亦为支持解除自动中止的另一因素。In re Ice Cream Liquidation Inc., 281 B.R. 154, 166 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002)（完全解决与债务人相关的争议事项支持解除中止）；David X. Manners Co., 2018 WL 1997674 at *6（即使仅部分解决争议事项，也支持解除中止）。\n\nB. 执行2月9日藐视法庭命令不会干扰破产案件。\n\n19. 基于类似理由，执行2月9日藐视法庭命令不会干扰破产案件；相反，这将补充并促进该程序，In re Dunne, No. 13–50484, 2015 WL 7625609, at *6 (Bankr. D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2015)（在继续诉讼“补充[]破产案件”的情况下准予解除中止），并通过确保一项关键的破产财团资产被带回美国而保护全体债权人的利益。因此，第二、第七和第十项 Sonnax 因素强烈支持PAX。\n\n20. 若解除中止将有利于推进破产案件，则应支持解除中止。见 David X. Manners Co. Inc., 2018 WL 1997674, at *6（在“本案的进展似乎取决于并要求解决……正等待州法院判决的争议事项”的情况下，该因素支持解除中止）；In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., No. 18-10077, 2018 WL 1136017, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018)（允许在地区法院继续进行将“有助于解决破产诉讼”的请求）。在此，返还“Lady May”号游艇是一项门槛性问题：该游艇的价值是郭文贵在其申请书中列示资产价值的数倍。其迅速返还将使破产财团和债权人均受益。此外，返还还将促进本破产案件的一项基本职能：即“最大化破产财团的价值”。Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S.Ct. 973, 985–86 (2017)（《破产法典》的目的在于最大化破产财团的价值）。因此，解除自动中止将“有助于解决破产诉讼”。Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at *4。\n\n21. 返还 Lady May 亦不会干扰本院对郭文贵债务重整（或清算）或其资产向债权人有序分配的管辖权。返还也不会导致向 PAX 的任何即时分配。相反，返还将有助于归集一项破产财产，以便在本院监督下清算该项资产并按照优先顺位向债权人分配（除非本案被驳回）。参见 Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 15, 2006 WL 176983, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2006)（破产程序的目标“要求归集债务人的资产，并按照优先顺位有序偿付债权”）。\n\n22. 此外，本院不应允许郭文贵利用破产案件规避州法院制裁。藐视法庭程序制裁郭文贵过去公然且反复无视纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）命令的行为，并且，如准许解除自动中止，该程序可用于防止其进一步不遵守命令。郭文贵在纽约州最高法院宣布，如郭文贵继续\n\n46 参见《经修订的自愿申请书》，ECF No. 19 at 7（列示资产为 $50,001 - $100,000）；参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10（载明 Lady May 的购买价格）。\n\n无视其命令，该院“准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权力”——其中可能包括签发逮捕郭文贵的命令——六天后，提交了其 Chapter 11 申请。47 不应允许郭文贵利用破产程序逃避制裁。参见 In re Rudaw/Empirical Software Prod. Ltd., 83 B.R. 241, 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)（“根据 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) 实施的自动中止，不得被用作保护伞，以纵容违反申请前命令的藐视法庭行为；该命令禁止债务人侵犯一方当事人的财产权。”（引自 In re Cinnabar 2000 Haircutters, Inc., 20 B.R. 575 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982)））。滥用破产程序本身即构成对本破产案件的干扰，因为破产保护仅为“诚实但不幸的债务人”保留。In re Ciarcia, 578 B.R. 495, 503 (Bankr. D. Conn, 2017)。在破产申请阻止纽约法院执行其命令的范围内，应修改自动中止以防止该结果。\n\n23. 本院还可通过量身定制解除自动中止的范围以保护债权人，即在自动中止期间禁止征收任何罚款，并明确 Lady May 的最终清算及所得款项的分配须遵守本院进一步命令。David X. Manners Co. Inc., 2018 WL 1997674 at *6（通过将解除自动中止的范围限制为“允许州法院裁定争议事项直至作出判决，但不允许执行判决”，解决了对债权人的风险）。\nC. 纽约法院具备执行 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令所必需的专业知识，解除自动中止有利于司法经济。\n\n24. Sonnax 因素四和十支持解除自动中止，因为纽约法院具备执行其命令“所必需的专业知识”，且修改自动中止有助于实现“司法经济以及迅速、经济地解决诉讼的利益”。参见 Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1286。自 2017 年 4 月以来，Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）一直监督 PAX 与郭文贵之间的争议，因此该案在\n\n47 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10。\n\n就本案实体问题而言的“学习曲线”上已“显著领先”。In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167–68（由于该诉讼在地区法院已待决近五年，推定其在案件实体问题上已有显著进展）。正如 Ostrager 法官在其 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令中指出，在该诉讼待决的近五年中，已累计有超过 1,180 项案卷记录。48 导致藐视法庭命令的全部证据开示、动议程序、证据听证和会议均在该法院进行。Ostrager 法官形成了促使签发 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令的完整事实记录，并对本案的程序历史具有独特而深入的了解。\n\n25. 此外，与 Lady May 有关的程序已取得重大进展；纽约法院不仅已签发最终的 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令，而且已考虑采取迫在眉睫的进一步行动，以确保遵守该命令。49 这同样支持解除自动中止。参见 In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167–68（认为案件接近完成具有相关性）。这生动表明 Ostrager 法官熟悉且有能力执行 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令，并说明其法院是开展该项工作的更有效率审理地，这强烈支持解除自动中止。参见 In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at *4（地区法院“熟悉 FLSA Litigation 中涉及的具体问题”，且“[全部证据开示和大多数审前动议均已完成，案件已可开庭审理”这一事实强烈支持解除自动中止）；另参见 In re Fleming, 2020 WL 3816282, *3（州法院已经开始确认仲裁裁决程序，重新启动该程序“不会有效利用司法资源”，据此准许解除自动中止）。\n\n48 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 7。\n\n49 参见 id. at 10（法院表示，如郭文贵继续无视其命令，其“准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权力。”）\n\n26. 相比之下，要求本院审阅大量记录以确定适当的执行机制并不高效。因此，解除自动中止符合司法经济的利益。\nD. 修改自动中止不会损害其他债权人，损害衡量支持解除自动中止。\n\n27. Sonnax 因素七和十二亦支持解除自动中止。修改自动中止将使所有债权人受益，因为这将使具有价值的 Lady May 回到美国并防止其被耗散。正如纽约法院已经裁定，Lady May 属于债务人财产，郭文贵就该游艇而言必须为其债权人履行受托义务。这首先要求其遵守有关 Lady May 的法院命令。\n\n28. PAX 目前并未寻求对 Lady May 进行扣押，亦未寻求使其债务相较于其他合法债权人的债务取得任何优先地位。Lady May 返回纽约不会使任何债权人受到不利影响或损害。参见 In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at *4（由于请求人未寻求收取其对债务人的债权，债权人未受到损害）；In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167（除少量费用外，解除自动中止不会给破产财产造成法律上可认定的损害，因此支持解除自动中止）。相反，债权人整体只会因该游艇返回纽约而受益。\n\n29. 如不解除自动中止，郭文贵将没有动机将 Lady May 带回其债权人可及的范围内。其提交破产申请的策略将已得逞，因为他将实际上免受 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令的约束——这显然是对破产程序的滥用。\n\n30. 基于上述理由，损害衡量支持解除自动中止。\n权利保留\n\n尽管本动议有任何相反规定，PAX 保留与本 Chapter 11 程序有关的一切权利、请求权及抗辩，包括但不限于对审理地提出异议、请求驳回或转换本案的权利，以及任何其他救济。\n结论\n\nPAX 恭请本院作出命令：（i）认定自动中止不适用于纽约州最高法院就郭文贵未将 Lady May 返还纽约所进行的藐视法庭程序；或者，（ii）作为备选，解除自动中止，以允许 PAX 请求执行纽约州最高法院 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令；以及（iii）准予其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：Hartford, Connecticut March 1, 2022\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签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（CT No. 19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（CT No. 31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2293\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com\n附件 13\n\n案件编号（如已知）：_________________________ 所申请的章节：\n‰ Chapter 7\n✔\n‰ Chapter 11\n‰ Chapter 12\n‰ Chapter 13\n\n如为经修订的申请，请勾选\nOfficial Form 101\n个人申请破产的自愿申请书\n\n破产表格使用“您”和“债务人 1”指单独申请破产的债务人。已婚夫妇可以共同申请破产案件——称为共同案件——在共同案件中，这些表格使用“您”询问两名债务人的信息。例如，如表格询问“您是否拥有一辆汽车”，若任一债务人拥有汽车，答案即为“是”。需要分别了解配偶信息时，表格使用“债务人 1”和“债务人 2”加以区分。在共同案件中，配偶一方必须报告为债务人 1，另一方报告为债务人 2。同一人在所有表格中必须均为债务人 1。\n\n请尽可能完整、准确。如两名已婚人士共同申请，双方均同等负责提供正确资料。如需更多空间，请在本表附上单独页面。在任何附加页面顶部写明您的姓名和案件编号（如已知）。回答每一个问题。\n\n第 1 部分：确认您的身份\n\n关于债务人 1： 关于债务人 2（仅限共同案件中的配偶）：\n\n1. 您的全名\n填写政府签发的带照片身份证件上的姓名\n（例如，您的驾驶执照或 Ho Wan\n\n名字 __________________________________________________\n名字\n护照）。\n请携带您的带照片身份证件 __________________________________________________\n中间名\nKwok\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\n参加与受托人的会议。 姓氏\n___________________________ 姓氏\n\n后缀（Sr., Jr., II, III） 后缀（Sr., Jr., II, III）\n2. 在过去 8 年中您曾使用过的所有其他姓名 Miles\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n名字\n__________________________________________________ 名字\n\n包括您的婚后姓名或婚前姓名。 中间名\nKwok; Guo\n__________________________________________________ 中间名\n\n姓氏 姓氏\nWengui\n\n名字 __________________________________________________\n名字\n\n中间名\nGuo\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\n姓氏 姓氏\n\n3. 仅填写您的社会保障号码或联邦 9\n\nxxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____\n或者 xxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____\n或者\n个人纳税人识别号码\n（ITIN） 9\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____ 9\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____\n\n债务人 1 Ho\nWan\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n\n姓氏 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n关于债务人 1： 关于债务人 2（仅限联合案件中的配偶）：\n\n任何营业名称\n4.\n及雇主\n识别号码 ✔\n‰\n我未使用任何营业名称或 EIN。 ‰\n我未使用任何营业名称或 EIN。\n\n您在过去 8 年内使用的\n雇主识别号码\n（EIN）\n包括商号和\n以……名义经营的名称 _________________________________________________\n营业名称 _________________________________________________\n营业名称\n_________________________________________________\n营业名称 _________________________________________________\n营业名称\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n\n5. 您的居住地 如债务人 2 居住在不同地址：\n\n转交 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司）\n\n门牌号\n街道 _________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n162 East 64th Street\n_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________\nNew York\nNY\n\n城市\n州\n邮政编码 _________________________________________________\n城市\n州\n邮政编码\nNew York\n\n县 _________________________________________________\n县\n\n如您的邮寄地址与上述地址不同，请在此填写。请注意，法院将向您在该邮寄地址发送任何通知。 如债务人 2 的邮寄地址与您的不同，请在此填写。请注意，法院将向该邮寄地址发送任何通知。\n\n门牌号\n街道 _________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n\n邮政信箱 _________________________________________________\n邮政信箱\n\n城市\n州\n邮政编码 _________________________________________________\n城市\n州\n邮政编码\n\n6. 您选择在本地区申请破产的原因 请选择一项：\n✔\n‰\n在提交本申请前的 180 天内，我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何其他地区居住的时间。\n‰\n我有其他理由。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。） 请选择一项：\n‰\n在提交本申请前的 180 天内，我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何其他地区居住的时间。\n‰\n我有其他理由。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。）\n\n________________________________________ ________________________________________\n\n________________________________________ ________________________________________\n\n债务人 1 Ho\nWan\n\n名字\n中间名 Kwok（郭文贵）\n姓氏 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 2 部分：向法院说明您的破产案件\n\n7. 您选择依据《破产法》申请破产的章节 请选择一项。（各章节的简要说明，见《依据 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) 向个人破产申请人发出的通知》（表格 2010）。另请前往第 1 页顶部并勾选适当方框。）\n‰ 第 7 章\n✔\n‰\n第 11 章\n‰ 第 12 章\n‰ 第 13 章\n\n8. 您将如何缴纳费用 ✔\n‰\n‰\n‰ 我将在提交申请时缴清全部费用。有关缴费方式的更多详情，请向您所在地法院的书记官办公室查询。通常，如由您本人缴费，您可以使用现金、银行本票或汇票支付。如由您的律师代表您提交付款，您的律师可以使用信用卡或印有预先印制地址的支票支付。\n\n我需要分期缴纳费用。如选择此项，请签署并附上《个人分期缴纳申请费申请表》（官方表格 103A）。\n\n我请求免除费用（仅当您申请第 7 章破产时方可请求此项。依法，法官可以但并非必须免除您的费用，且仅在您的收入低于适用于您家庭人数的官方贫困线的 150%，并且您无法分期缴纳费用时，方可如此处理）。如选择此项，您必须填写《第 7 章申请费减免申请表》（官方表格 103B），并与您的申请一并提交。\n\n9. 您在过去 8 年内是否申请过破产？ ✔\n‰\n否\n‰ 是。地区 __________________________ 日期 _______________ 案号 ___________________________\n月 / 日 / 年\n地区 __________________________ 日期 月 / 日 / 年 _______________ 案号 ___________________________\n地区 __________________________ 日期 _______________ 案号 ___________________________\n月 / 日 / 年\n\n10. 是否有未结的破产案件，或由未与您共同提交本案的配偶、业务合伙人或关联方正在提交的破产案件？ ✔\n‰ 否\n‰ 是。债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系 _____________________\n地区 __________________________ 日期 月 / 日 / 年 _______________ 案号（如已知）____________________\n债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系 _____________________\n地区 __________________________ 日期 _______________ 案号（如已知）____________________\n\n11. 您租住您的住所吗？ ✔\n‰\n否。\n‰ 转至第 12 项。\n‰\n‰ 是。您的房东是否已取得针对您的驱逐判决书？\n否。转至第 12 项。\n月 / 日 / 年 是。填写《针对您的驱逐判决书初始陈述》（表格 101A），并将其作为本破产申请的一部分提交。\n\n债务人 1 Ho\nWan\n名字\n中间名 121\nKwok\n姓氏 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 3 部分：报告您作为独资经营者拥有的任何企业\n\n12. 您是否为任何全职或兼职企业的独资经营者？ ✔\n‰\n否。转至第 4 部分。\n‰\n是。企业名称及所在地\n\n独资企业是指您以个人身份经营的企业，而非公司、合伙企业或 LLC 等独立法律实体。\n\n如您拥有一家以上独资企业，请使用单独的附页并将其附于本申请。 企业名称（如有）\n门牌号\n街道 _______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n_______________________________________________\n城市 _______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n州\n邮政编码\n\n勾选适当方框以说明您的企业：\n‰\n‰ 医疗保健企业（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)）\n‰ 单一资产房地产（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)）\n证券经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)）\n‰\n商品经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(6)）\n‰\n以上均非\n\n13. 您是否依据《破产法》第 11 章申请，并且您是否为小企业债务人？ 如您依据第 11 章申请，法院必须了解您是否为小企业债务人或选择依据第 V 子章进行程序，以便其设定适当期限。如您表明自己是小企业债务人，或选择依据第 V 子章进行程序，您必须附上最新的资产负债表、经营报表、现金流量表和联邦所得税申报表；如其中任何文件不存在，则应遵循 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B) 规定的程序。\n\n债务人或债务人，如 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D) 所定义？ ‰\n否。我并非依据第 11 章申请。\n\n有关小企业债务人的定义，见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D)。 ✔\n‰\n否。我依据第 11 章申请，但根据《破产法》中的定义，我并非小企业债务人。\n\n‰ 是。我依据第 11 章申请，根据《破产法》中的定义，我是小企业债务人，且我不选择依据第 11 章第 V 子章进行程序。\n\n‰ 是。我依据第 11 章申请，根据《破产法》中的定义，我是债务人，并选择依据第 11 章第 V 子章进行程序。\n\nHo\nWan\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n姓氏 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 4 部分：报告您是否拥有或持有任何危险财产，或任何需要立即处理的财产\n\n14. 您是否拥有或持有任何对公共健康或安全构成或被指称构成迫在眉睫且可识别危险的财产？或者，您是否拥有任何需要立即处理的财产？ ✔\n‰\n否\n‰\n是。危险是什么？ ________________________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________________________\n\n如需要立即处理，为何需要处理？ _______________________________________________\n\n例如，您是否拥有易腐货物、必须喂养的牲畜，或者需要紧急维修的建筑物？\n________________________________________________________________________\n\n该财产位于何处？ ________________________________________________________________________\n\n门牌号\n街道\n\nHo\nWan\n债务人 1\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n\n姓 案号（如知悉）_____________________________________\n\n第5部分：说明您获得信用咨询简报所作的努力\n\n15. 请向法院说明，就债务人1而言： 就债务人2而言（仅限联合案件中的配偶）：\n您是否已获得\n关于信用咨询的简报。 您必须勾选一项： 您必须勾选一项：\n\n法律要求您在申请\n破产前获得关于信用 ☑ 我在提交本破产申请前180日内，从经批准的信用\n咨询机构获得了简报，并获得了一份 ☐ 我在提交本破产申请前180日内，从经批准的信用\n咨询机构获得了简报，并获得了一份\n完成证明。 完成证明。\n\n咨询的简报。您必须\n如实勾选下列选项之一。 请附上完成证明副本，以及您与该机构制定的\n付款计划（如有）。 请附上完成证明副本，以及您与该机构制定的\n付款计划（如有）。\n如无法做到，您不具备\n提交申请的资格。\n\n即使您仍然提交申请，法院 ☐ 我在提交本破产申请前180日内，从经批准的信用\n咨询机构获得了简报，但我没有 ☐ 我在提交本破产申请前180日内，从经批准的信用\n咨询机构获得了简报，但我没有\n可以驳回您的案件，您 完成证明。 完成证明。\n\n在您提交本破产申请后14日内，您必须提交完成证明和\n付款计划副本（如有）。 在您提交本破产申请后14日内，您必须提交完成证明和\n付款计划副本（如有）。\n将失去您已支付的任何申请费，\n并且您的债权人 付款计划（如有）。 付款计划（如有）。\n\n可以再次开始追收活动。 ☐ 我证明，我已向经批准的机构请求信用咨询\n服务，但在我提出请求后的7日内未能获得该等服务，且紧急\n情况足以支持给予30日临时豁免 ☐ 我证明，我已向经批准的机构请求信用咨询\n服务，但在我提出请求后的7日内未能获得该等服务，且紧急\n情况足以支持给予30日临时豁免\n该要求。 该要求。\n\n如要请求对该要求给予30日临时豁免，请附上一张单独的说明页，\n说明您为获得该简报所作的努力、您为何无法在申请\n破产前获得该简报，以及何种紧急情况 如要请求对该要求给予30日临时豁免，请附上一张单独的说明页，\n说明您为获得该简报所作的努力、您为何无法在申请\n破产前获得该简报，以及何种紧急情况\n要求您提交本案。 要求您提交本案。\n\n如果法院不满意您在申请破产前未获得简报的理由，\n您的案件可能被驳回。 如果法院不满意您在申请破产前未获得简报的理由，\n您的案件可能被驳回。\n\n可能被驳回。 如果法院满意您的理由，您仍必须在提交申请后30日内\n获得简报。您必须提交经批准机构出具的证明，以及您所制定的\n付款计划副本（如有）。如未如此办理，您的案件 如果法院满意您的理由，您仍必须在提交申请后30日内\n获得简报。您必须提交经批准机构出具的证明，以及您所制定的\n付款计划副本（如有）。如未如此办理，您的案件\n\n对30日期限的任何延长仅在有正当理由时准予，且最长不得超过15 可能被驳回。 对30日期限的任何延长仅在有正当理由时准予，且最长不得超过15\n日。 日。\n\n☐ 我无需获得关于 ☐ 我无需获得关于\n信用咨询的简报，原因如下：\n\n☐ 无行为能力。 我患有精神疾病或精神\n缺陷，致使我无法认识或作出\n有关财务的理性决定。 信用咨询的简报，原因如下：\n\n☐ 无行为能力。 我患有精神疾病或精神\n缺陷，致使我无法认识或作出\n有关财务的理性决定。\n\n☐ 残疾。 我的身体残疾导致我\n无法亲自、通过电话或\n互联网参加简报，即使在我已作出\n合理努力之后亦然。 ☐ 残疾。 我的身体残疾导致我\n无法亲自、通过电话或\n互联网参加简报，即使在我已作出\n合理努力之后亦然。\n\n☐ 现役。我目前在军事战区执行\n现役军事任务。 ☐ 现役。我目前在军事战区执行\n现役军事任务。\n\n如果您认为您无需获得关于信用咨询的\n简报，您必须向法院提交豁免信用咨询的动议。 如果您认为您无需获得关于信用咨询的\n简报，您必须向法院提交豁免信用咨询的动议。\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字 Ho\n\n中间名 Wan\n\n姓 Kwok\n\n姓 案号（如知悉）_____________________________________\n\n第6部分：为申报目的回答下列问题\n\n16. 您拥有哪些种类的债务？ 消费者债务在11 U.S.C. § 101(8)中被定义为“个人主要为个人、家庭或家居目的而发生的债务”。 16a. 您的债务是否主要为消费者债务？\n\n☑ 否。转至第16b项。\n\n☐ 是。转至第17项。\n\n为经营企业或投资、通过企业或投资的运营而取得资金所发生的债务。 16b. 您的债务是否主要为商业债务？商业债务是您为取得\n\n☑ 否。转至第16c项。\n\n☐ 是。转至第17项。\n\n16c. 请说明您所负不属于消费者债务或商业债务的债务类型。\n\n诉讼费用、请求权和判决\n\n17. 您是否依据第7章提交申请？ ☑ 否。我并非依据第7章提交申请。转至第18项。\n\n您是否估计，在任何\n豁免财产被排除后， ☐ 是。我依据第7章提交申请。您是否估计，在任何豁免财产被排除且\n行政费用支付后，是否将有资金可供分配给无担保债权人？\n\n行政费用 ☐ 否\n\n支付后，是否将有资金\n可供分配给无担保债权人？ ☐ 是\n\n18. 您估计您负有多少债权人的债务？\n\n☐ 1-49\n\n☑ 50-99 ☐ 1,000-5,000\n\n☐ 5,001-10,000 ☐ 25,001-50,000\n\n☐ 50,001-100,000\n\n☐ 100-199\n\n☐ 200-999 ☐ 10,001-25,000 ☐ 超过100,000\n\n19. 您估计您的资产价值为多少？\n\n☐ \\$0-\\$50,000\n\n☑ \\$50,001-\\$100,000 ☐ \\$1,000,001-\\$10 million\n\n☐ \\$10,000,001-\\$50 million ☐ \\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion\n\n☐ \\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion\n\n☐ \\$100,001-\\$500,000\n\n☐ \\$500,001-\\$1 million ☐ \\$50,000,001-\\$100 million\n\n☐ \\$100,000,001-\\$500 million ☐ \\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion\n\n☐ 超过\\$50 billion\n\n20. 您估计您的负债为多少？\n\n☐ \\$0-\\$50,000 ☐ \\$1,000,001-\\$10 million ☐ \\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion\n\n☐ \\$50,001-\\$100,000\n\n☐ \\$100,001-\\$500,000 ☐ \\$10,000,001-\\$50 million\n\n☐ \\$50,000,001-\\$100 million ☐ \\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion\n\n☐ \\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion\n\n第7部分：在下方签字 ☐ \\$500,001-\\$1 million ☑ \\$100,000,001-\\$500 million ☐ 超过\\$50 billion\n\n供您填写 我已审阅本申请书，并在伪证罪处罚下声明，所提供的信息真实且\n准确。\n\n如我选择依据第7章提交申请，我知悉，如具备资格，我可依据《美国法典》第11编第7章、第11章、第12章或第13章继续进行。我了解各章规定的可获得救济，并选择依据第7章继续进行。\n\n如无律师代理我，且我未向非律师人员支付或同意支付费用以协助我填写本文件，我已获得并阅读11 U.S.C. § 342(b)要求的通知。\n\n我请求根据本申请书中指定的《美国法典》第11编章节获得救济。\n\n我了解，在破产案件中作出虚假陈述、隐瞒财产，或通过欺诈取得金钱或财产，可导致最高\\$250,000罚款，或最长20年监禁，或二者并处。18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.\n\n/s/ Ho Wan Kwok\n______________________________________________ 8 _____________________________\n\n债务人1签名 债务人2签名\n\n02/15/2022\n\n签署日期 _________________\n\n月\n/ 日 / 年 签署日期 __________________\n\n月 / 日\n/ 年\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字 Ho\n\n中间名 Wan\n\n姓 Kwok\n\n姓 案号（如知悉）_____________________________________\n\n供您的律师填写，如您由律师代理\n\n如您未由律师代理，\n则无需提交本页。 本人，作为本申请书所列债务人的律师，声明本人已告知债务人其依据《美国法典》第11编第7章、第11章、第12章或第13章继续进行的资格，并已说明该人员有资格适用的各章所提供的救济。本人还证明，本人已向债务人送达11 U.S.C. § 342(b)要求的通知；并且，在适用§ 707(b)(4)(D)的案件中，本人证明，经查询后本人并不知悉随申请书提交的附表中的信息不正确。\n\n/s/\nWilliam\nR.\nBaldiga（威廉·R·鲍尔迪加） 日期 _________________\n\n02/15/2022\n\n债务人律师签名 月\n/\n日\n/ 年\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga\n\n正楷姓名\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克有限责任合伙企业）\n\n律师事务所名称\n\n7 Times Square（时代广场7号）\n\n门牌号\n\n街道\n\nNew York（纽约）\n______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ NY 10036\n\n城市 州 邮政编码\n\n(212) 209-4800\n\n联系电话 _____________________________________ 电子邮箱地址 wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n______________________________________________________ ____________ NY\n\n律师执业证号 州\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字 Ho\n\n中间名 Wan\n\n姓 Kwok\n\n姓氏 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n如您在没有律师的情况下\n提交本破产申请，供您使用\n\n如您由律师代理，\n则无需提交本页。 法律允许您作为个人在破产法院自行代理，但您应了解，许多人认为成功自行代理极其困难。由于破产会产生长期的财务和法律后果，强烈建议您聘请一名合格律师。\n\n为获得成功，您必须正确提交和处理您的破产案件。相关规则具有很强的技术性，错误或不作为可能影响您的权利。例如，您的案件可能因未提交所需文件、未按时缴纳费用、未出席会议或听证会，或未与法院、案件受托人、美国受托人、破产管理人或（如您的案件被选中审计）审计公司合作而被驳回。如发生这种情况，您可能丧失提交另一案件的权利，或可能失去包括自动中止利益在内的保护。\n\n您必须在须向法院提交的财产清单中列明您的全部财产和债务。即使您计划在破产程序之外偿还某项特定债务，亦必须在财产清单中列明该债务。如未列明债务，该债务可能不获免责。如未列明财产或未正确主张其为豁免财产，您可能无法保留该财产。如您在破产案件中实施任何不诚实行为，例如毁坏或隐匿财产、伪造记录或撒谎，法官还可拒绝免除您的全部债务。个人破产案件将被随机审计，以确定债务人是否准确、如实且完整。破产欺诈是一项严重犯罪；您可能被罚款及监禁。\n\n如您决定在没有律师的情况下提交申请，法院将要求您像已聘请律师一样遵守规则。法院不会因您自行提交申请而对您区别对待。为获得成功，您必须熟悉《美国破产法典》、《联邦破产程序规则》以及案件提交地法院的地方规则。您还必须熟悉任何适用的州豁免法。\n\n您是否知悉，申请破产是一项具有长期财务和法律后果的严重行为？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是\n\n您是否知悉，破产欺诈是一项严重犯罪，如您的破产表格不准确或不完整，您可能被罚款或监禁？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是\n\n您是否曾向非律师人士支付或同意支付报酬，以协助您填写破产表格？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。该人士姓名_____________________________________________________________________。\n\n请附上《破产申请文件准备人通知、声明及签名》（官方表格 119）。\n\n本人在此签名，确认本人了解在没有律师的情况下提交申请所涉风险。本人已阅读并理解本通知，并知悉如未妥善处理案件，在没有律师的情况下提交破产案件可能导致本人丧失权利或财产。\n\n_______________________________________________ 8\n\n债务人 1 签名 债务人 2 签名\n\n日期\n\nMM / DD\n/ YYYY 日期\n\nMM / DD / YYYY\n\n联系电话 ______________________________________ 联系电话\n\n手机\n______________________________________ 手机\n\n电子邮件地址 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 电子邮件地址 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n填写以下信息以识别您的案件：\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n债务人 2 ________________________________________________________________\n\n（如共同申请，配偶）名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n美国破产法院：__________ 地区 __________\n\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格地区）\n\n案号 ___________________________________________\n\n（如已知）\n\n如属修正申请，请勾选\n\n官方表格 104\n\n个人 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件：对您享有最大 20 项无担保债权且并非内部人的债权人名单 12/15\n\n如您是根据 Chapter 11 申请破产的个人，必须填写本表。如您根据 Chapter 7、Chapter 12 或 Chapter 13 提交申请，则无需填写本表。不得列入任何内部人的债权。内部人包括您的亲属；任何普通合伙人；任何普通合伙人的亲属；您作为普通合伙人的合伙企业；您担任高级职员、董事、控制人，或拥有其有表决权证券 20 percent 或以上的公司；以及任何管理代理人，包括为您作为独资经营者经营的企业担任管理代理人的人。11 U.S.C. § 101。此外，除非因担保物价值不足产生的无担保债权使该债权人位列持有最大 20 项无担保债权的债权人之中，否则不得列入有担保债权人的债权。\n\n请尽可能完整、准确地填写。如两名已婚人士共同提交申请，双方均对提供正确信息承担同等责任。\n\n第 1 部分：按从大到小的顺序列出 20 项无担保债权。不得列入内部人的债权。\n\n无担保债权\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity（太平洋联盟亚洲机会） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？ ____________________________ （约）254,000,000.00\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称 截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\nC/O O'Melveney & Myers, LLP\n__________________________________________ ‰\n附条件\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n未清算\n\n7 Times Square\n\n‰\n有争议\n\nNew York\n__________________________________________ NY 10065 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\nStuart Sarnoff, Esq.\n‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。有担保及无担保债权总额：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 担保物价值：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n无担保债权\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n诉讼资金\n\n债权性质为何？ ____________________________\n\nGolden Spring New York（纽约金泉） （约）21,000,000.00\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称 截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n162 E. 64th Street\n\n‰\n附条件\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n未清算\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n有争议\n\nNew York NY 10605\n\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\n‰\n否\n\nMax Krasner\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。有担保及无担保债权总额：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ -\n\n担保物价值：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n债务人 1 Kwok（郭）\n_______________________________________________________ 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏 无担保债权\n\nRui Ma（马蕊） 3 __________________________________________ 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？ ____________________________ 20,000,000\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\n750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor 截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n附条件\n\nC/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未清算\n\n‰\n有争议\n\nNew York\n__________________________________________ NY 10022 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\n‰\n\nRobert C. Angelillo\n\n联系人 否\n\n‰\n是。有担保及无担保债权总额： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n4 __________________________________________\n\nCheng Jian Wu Jian She 债权性质为何？ ____________________________ 诉讼 14,898,483.90\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ 截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n‰\n附条件\n\n门牌号\n街道\n\nC/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未清算\n\n‰\n有争议\n\nFlushing NY 11354 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\nNing Ye, Esq.\n__________________________________________ ‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。有担保及无担保债权总额： \\$_____________________\n\n联系人 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n5 __________________________________________\n\nNing Ye 债权性质为何？ ____________________________ 诉讼 12,000,000\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称 截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n135-11 38th Avenue\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n附条件\n\nC/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未清算\n\n‰\n有争议\n\nNew York\n__________________________________________ NY 10022 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\nRobert C. Angelillo\n__________________________________________ ‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。有担保及无担保债权总额： \\$_____________________\n\n联系人 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n6 __________________________________________\n\nGuo Baosheng（郭宝胜） 债权性质为何？ ____________________________ 诉讼 12,000,000\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\n135-11 38th Avenue 截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n附条件\n\n‰\n未清算\n\nC/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.\n\n‰\n有争议\n\nFlushing\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\n‰\n否\n\nNing Ye, Esq.\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。有担保及无担保债权总额： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n诉讼 10,000,000\n\nYang Lan and Wu Zheng（杨澜和吴征）\n\n债权人名称 债权性质为何？ ____________________________\n\n截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。 \\$____________________________\n\n750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor\n__________________________________________ ‰\n附条件\n\n门牌号\n街道\n\nC/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未清算\n\n‰\n有争议\n\nNew York\n__________________________________________ NY 10022 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\n‰\n否\n\nRobert C. Angelillo\n__________________________________________ ‰\n是。有担保及无担保债权总额： \\$_____________________\n\n联系人 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n联系电话\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n_______________________________________________________ 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n无担保债权\n\n8 __________________________________________\n\nHong Qi Qu 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？ ____________________________ 9,809,422.71\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ 截至提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n‰\n\n门牌号\n街道\n\nC/O Kevin Tung, Esq. 附条件\n\n‰\n未清算\n\n‰\n有争议\n\nFlushing\n\n城市 NY\n州 11354\n邮政编码 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n\n‰\n否\n\nKevin Tung, Esq.\n\n联系人 □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n\\$_____________________\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n9 __________________________________________\nNan Tong Si Jian（南通四建）\n债权人名称 诉讼\n债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 5,568,522.66\n\\$____________________________\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n门牌号\n街道\nC/O Kevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师） 或有债权\n□\n未确定数额\n\n□\n有争议\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n\n城市 NY\n州 11354\n邮政编码 □\n以上均不适用\n债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n□\n否\nKevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）\n\n联系人 □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n\\$_____________________\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n10 __________________________________________\nJian Gong（龚建）\n债权人名称 诉讼\n债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 5,380,262.32\n\\$____________________________\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n或有债权\n门牌号\n街道\nC/O Kevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师） □\n未确定数额\n\n□\n有争议\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 □\n以上均不适用\n债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n城市 州 邮政编码 □\n否\nKevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）\n\n联系人 □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值：\n无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\\$_____________________\n联系电话\n11 __________________________________________\nYan Zhao（赵岩）\n债权人名称 诉讼\n债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 3,000,000\n\\$____________________________\n135-11 8th Ave\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n门牌号\n街道\nC/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师事务所） □\n或有债权\n□\n未确定数额\n\n□\n有争议\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 □\n以上均不适用\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n□\n否\nNing Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师）\n\n联系人 □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n\\$_____________________\n12 联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n诉讼 1,571,530.36\nYua Hua Zhuang Shi（裕华装饰）\n__________________________________________ 债权的性质是什么？____________________________ \\$____________________________\n债权人名称\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n或有债权\n\n门牌号\n街道 □\n未确定数额\nC/O Kevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）\n\n□\n有争议\n□\n以上均不适用\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n城市 州 邮政编码 □\n否\nKevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）\n\n联系人 □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n担保物价值： \\$_____________________\n-\n\\$_____________________\n无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n联系电话\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n债务人 1 \n_______________________________________________________ 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字 中间名\n姓氏\n无担保债权\nLiehong Zhuang/Xiao Yan Zhu（庄烈宏/朱小燕） 13 __________________________________________ 债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 诉讼 1,005,000\n\\$____________________________\n债权人名称\n224 West 35th Street, 11th Floor __________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n门牌号\n街道\nC/O Trexler & Zhang, LLP（特雷克斯勒和张律师事务所） □\n或有债权\n□\n未确定数额\n\n□\n有争议\nNew York（纽约） NY\n\n__________________________________________ □\n以上均不适用\n城市 州\n邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n□\n否\nJonathan T. Trexler, Esq.（乔纳森·T·特雷克斯勒律师）\n联系人 __________________________________________ □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n____________________________________ 担保物价值：\n无担保债权 -\n\\$_____________________\n\\$_____________________\n联系电话\nWeican Meng/Boxun, Inc.（孟维参/博讯公司）\n债权人名称 14 __________________________________________ 债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 诉讼 1,000,000\n\\$____________________________\n750 Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n门牌号\n街道\nC/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP（阿金·索尔巴肯律师事务所） □\n或有债权\n□\n未确定数额\n\n□\n有争议\nNew York（纽约）\n城市 NY\n\n州\n邮政编码 □\n以上均不适用\n债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\nRobert C. Angelillo（罗伯特·C·安杰利洛） □\n否\n联系人 __________________________________________ □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值：\n无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\\$_____________________\n联系电话 诉讼 1,000,000\nSamuel Nunberg（塞缪尔·纽恩伯格）\n债权人名称 15 __________________________________________ 债权的性质是什么？____________________________ \\$____________________________\n363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor __________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n或有债权\n门牌号\n街道\nC/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP（内塞诺夫和米尔滕伯格律师事务所） __________________________________________ □\n未确定数额\n\nNew York（纽约） NY\n10001 □\n有争议\n□\n以上均不适用\n城市 __________________________________________\n州\n邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\nAndrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.（安德鲁·T·米尔滕伯格律师） __________________________________________ □\n否\n□\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n联系人 担保物价值： -\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\nLamp Capital, LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司） 16 __________________________________________ 债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 诉讼贷款 1,000,000\n\\$____________________________\n债权人名称 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\nOne Commerce Plaza\n门牌号\n街道 __________________________________________ □\n或有债权\n99 Washington Avenue __________________________________________ □\n未确定数额\n□\n有争议\nAlbany（奥尔巴尼） NY\n\n□\n以上均不适用\n城市 州\n邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n□\nC/O NYS, Secretary of State（纽约州州务卿） __________________________________________ 否\n□\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n联系人 担保物价值： -\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\nJun Chen aka Jonathan Ho（陈军，又名何乔纳森） __________________________________________ 债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 诉讼 1,000,000\n\\$____________________________\n债权人名称\n41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112 __________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n或有债权\n门牌号\n街道 □\n未确定数额\nC/O Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq（朱伟恩律师） __________________________________________ □\n有争议\n□\n以上均不适用\nFlushing（法拉盛） NY\n\n__________________________________________ 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n城市 州\n邮政编码 □\n否\nWayne Wei Zhu（朱伟恩）\n联系人 __________________________________________ □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： \\$_____________________\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n债务人 1 \n_______________________________________________________ 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏 无担保债权\n\nYue Hua Zhu Shi（裕华装饰）\n__________________________________________ 诉讼\n债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 981,501.72\n\\$____________________________\n债权人名称\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n或有债权\n门牌号\n街道\nC/O Kevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）\n__________________________________________ □\n未确定数额\n\n□\n有争议\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 □\n以上均不适用\n城市\nKevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）\n__________________________________________ 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\n□\n否\n□\n联系人 是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n担保物价值： \\$_____________________\n-\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n19 诉讼\n债权的性质是什么？____________________________\nJia Li Wang（王佳丽）\n\n债权人名称 430,000\n\\$____________________________\n335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor\n\n门牌号\n街道 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n或有债权\nC/O Thompson Hine（汤普森·海因）\n__________________________________________ □\n未确定数额\n\n□\nNew York（纽约）\n__________________________________________ NY 10017 有争议\n□\n以上均不适用\n城市 州 邮政编码 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\nBrian P. Lanciault, Esq（布赖恩·P·兰西奥律师）\n\n联系人 □\n否\n□\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： \\$_____________________\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n\\$_____________________\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n20 诉讼\n债权的性质是什么？____________________________ 319,130\n\\$____________________________\nWA&HF, LLC/Ruizeng An（WA&HF有限责任公司/安瑞增） 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n□\n或有债权\n\n债权人名称 □\n未确定数额\n\n□\n41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor\n\n门牌号\n街道 有争议\n□\n以上均不适用\nC/O AFN Law（AFN律师事务所）\n__________________________________________ 债权人是否对您的财产享有留置权？\nNew York（纽约）\n__________________________________________ NY 10010 □\n否\n城市\nAngus Ni, Esq.（倪安格斯律师） 州 邮政编码 □\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n担保物价值： \\$_____________________\n-\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系人 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n联系电话\n\n第 2 部分：\n请在下方签署\n\n本人在伪证处罚的责任下声明，本表所提供的信息真实且正确。\n\nV+R:DQ.ZRN 8\n\n债务人 1 签名 债务人 2 签名 ______________________________________________\n\n日期 _________________ 日期 _________________","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Finkel","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":5,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":16,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":49,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":557,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":580,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":649,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":691,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":695,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":698,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":705,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":709,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1191,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":32779,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:17:28"}