{"id":"court_ctb_432_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":432,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-04-14","title":"EXHIBIT B Remand Motion","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT B**\n\nRemand Motion\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 1 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 2 of193\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MANHATTAN DIVISION**\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nCase No. 22-01073-dsj\n\nv.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION TO REMAND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ABSTENTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1)**\n\nTO THE HONORABLE DAVID S. JONES, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully moves this Court for\n\nan order remanding this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New\n\nYork: Commercial Division (Justice Ostrager presiding) (the \"New York Court\") or, in the\n\nalternative, for an order abstaining from determining this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n\n§ 1334(c)(1).\n\n## **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n## **Page**\n\n| | | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | | |\n|--------------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | BACKGROUND 3 | | |\n| ARGUMENT 14 | | | | |\n| I. | | THIS ACTION MUST BE REMANDED BECAUSE THE COURT
LACKS JURISDICTION UNDER THE ROOKER-FELDMAN
DOCTRINE. 14 | | |\n| II. | | ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM
EXERCISING JURISDICTION. 20 | | |\n| | A | The Mandatory Abstention Doctrine Precludes the Court From
Exercising Its Authority Over the New York Action. 20 | | |\n| | B | Even if Mandatory Abstention Does Not Apply, The Court Should
Decline to Hear the Action Under the Permissive Abstention
Doctrine 27 | | |\n| | | CONCLUSION 33 | | |\n\n## **Page(s)**\n\n## **Cases**\n\n| 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.,
No. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL 2012296 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) 29, 30 | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Acolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of New York,
69 B.R. 155 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986) 21 | |\n| Baker v. Simpson,
613 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2010) 20, 22, 23, 24 | |\n| Balcor/Morristown Ltd. Partnership v. Vector Whippany Associates,
181 B.R. 781 (D. N.J. 1995) 31 | |\n| Beard v. Braunstein,
914 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1990) 23 | |\n| Butner v. United States,
440 U.S. 48 (1979) 25 | |\n| Campbell v. Greisberger,
80 F.3d 703 (2d Cir. 1996) 14 | |\n| Catalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue,
279 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2002) 19 | |\n| Cornell v. Burke,
559 F. App'x 577 (7th Cir. 2014) 18 | |\n| D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983) 14 | |\n| Del. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A.,
534 B.R. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) 21, 23, 26, 28 | |\n| Deloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP,
31 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011) 22 | |\n| Holblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections,
422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) 15, 16, 17 | |\n| In re AHT Corp.,
265 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001) 22 | |\n\n(continued)\n\n| In re Ameribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc.,
399 B.R. 129 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 33 | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re Briarpatch Film Corp.,
281 B.R. 820 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 29, 30, 31, 32 | |\n| In re CitX Corp.,
302 B.R. 144 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003) 19 | |\n| In re Coudert Bros.,
No. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) 20, 23, 25 | |\n| In re Drauschak,
481 B.R. 330 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) 32 | |\n| In re Eight-115 Associates, LLC,
626 B.R. 383 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021) 21, 22 | |\n| In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico,
899 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2018) 19 | |\n| In re Freehand H.J., Inc.,
No. 07 0157, 2007 WL 2071877 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007) 14 | |\n| In re Ivani,
308 B.R. 132 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004) 18 | |\n| In re Knapper,
407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) 17 | |\n| In re Kurimsky,
No. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) 14, 17 | |\n| In re Lyondell Chem. Co.,
402 B.R. 596 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 20, 30 | |\n| In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.,
419 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2005) 23 | |\n| In re Orion Pictures Corp.,
4 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1993) 23 | |\n| In re Pacheco,
616 B.R. 126 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020) 14 | |\n\n(continued)\n\n| Page(s) | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re Rodriguez,
No. 18-14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019) 28, 32 | |\n| In re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc.,
45 F.3d 702 (2d Cir. 1995) 21 | |\n| In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC,
475 B.R. 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 22, 23 | |\n| In re Stahl,
526 F. App'x 179 (3d Cir. 2013) 18 | |\n| In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 28 | |\n| In re: Genever Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 8 | |\n| In re: Ho Wan Kwok,
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn. 2 | |\n| Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.,
62 B.R. 723 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 18 | |\n| Juidice v. Vail,
430 U.S. 327 (1977) 18 | |\n| Kelleran v. Andrijevic,
825 F.2d 692 (2d Cir. 1987) 30 | |\n| KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.,
600 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) passim | |\n| Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Exploration & Development II, L.P.,
487 B.R. 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 22 | |\n| Loudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co.,
481 B.R. 388 (S.D.W. Va. 2012) 19 | |\n| M.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC,
2021 WL 5046216 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021) 33 | |\n| Marciano v. White,
431 F. App'x 611 (9th Cir. 2011) 18, 28 | |\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 6 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 7 of193\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n(continued)\n\n**Page(s)**\n\n| McKithen v. Brown,
626 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) 2, 14, 16 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Parmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
639 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 2011) 23, 26, 27 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) passim |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 2021-00740 (N.Y. App. Div.) 7 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.) 10 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.) 12 |\n| PAX v. Kwok,
Case No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 1, 3, 13 |\n| PAX. v. Genever Holdings Corp., et al.,
Case No. BVICOM2020/0137 (BVI) 6 |\n| PAX. v. Kwok,
Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) passim |\n| Perkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC,
773 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2011) 15 |\n| Phifer v. City of New York,
289 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002) 14 |\n| Rahl v. Bande,
316 B.R. 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 28 |\n| Robinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc.,
No. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017) 15, 16 |\n| Robinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co.,
918 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1990) 22 |\n| Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923) 14 |\n\n(continued)\n\n**Page(s)**\n\n| Rose v. Cty. of York,
No. CIV.A. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007) 17, 32 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Sindone v. Kelly,
439 F.Supp.2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 16 |\n| Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.,
549 U.S. 422 (2007) 1 |\n| Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair,
No. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012) 3, 14 |\n| Stern v. Marshall,
564 U.S. 462 (2011) 22 |\n| Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
773 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2014) 14 |\n| Worldview Entertainment Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow,
611 B.R. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 26, 27 |\n| Statutes |\n| 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) 20, 21 |\n| 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 1 |\n| 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 20 |\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 8 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 9 of193\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT[1](#page-8-1)**\n\nKwok's Notice of Removal[2](#page-8-2) is the latest in a long series of improper delay tactics designed to avoid paying state court judgments totaling over \\$250 million and to re-litigate issues already decided by the New York Court.\n\nThe underlying dispute is straightforward. In March 2011, Kwok personally guaranteed a debt of more than \\$46 million owed to PAX.[3](#page-8-3) For years, Kwok evaded PAX's collection efforts, and no portion of the guaranteed debt has been repaid. PAX filed this breach-of-contract action against Kwok in New York in 2017 (the \"New York Action\"). In February 2021, PAX secured a judgment in the New York Action for over \\$116 million. [4](#page-8-4) Currently, two appeals are pending in the New York action: (i) on the merits of the breach of contract judgment and (ii) a final civil contempt order against Kwok for \\$134 million for failing to return the Lady May yacht—which\n\n1 All exhibit citations are to the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Peter Friedman in Support of PAX's Motion to Remand (\"Friedman Decl.\"). Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and all internal quotations are omitted.\n\n2 Kwok filed a notice of removal of the New York Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1. Kwok later moved for entry of an order transferring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1412 and Rule 7087 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1. The parties stipulated that a transfer would serve the interests of justice, and would foster the economic and efficient administration of the estate. *See* 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a). Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1. In so doing, PAX expressly preserved its right to seek timely remand of the New York Action on any proper ground. *Id.* (citing *Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp*., 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007) (A district court may properly transfer an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), \"bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.\")). 3 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 5–7.\n\n4 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok et al.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 716 at 2.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 9 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 10 of 193\n\nthe New York Court found Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls\"[5](#page-9-0) —to New York in connection with PAX's post-judgment collection efforts. [6](#page-9-1)\n\nKwok's Notice of Removal—attaching PAX's April 2019 amended complaint in the New York Action (the \"Amended Complaint\")[7](#page-9-2) —alleges that this Court has original jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 1334(e). This is a transparently inappropriate attempt to have this Court act as an appellate court over the New York Court and to allow Kwok to re-litigate issues already fully heard and decided against him in New York.\n\nThe Court should remand the action to the New York Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, abstain from exercising jurisdiction, for two principal reasons.\n\n*First*, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the New York Action under the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine. The New York Court already considered and rejected Kwok's arguments on the same two claims he seeks to remove, which resulted in judgments holding that Kwok (i) is liable under the 2011 guarantee and (ii) is in contempt of court for 268 days in a manner that undermined the rule of law. Those judgments are now before the New York appellate court. Kwok is the textbook \"state-court loser[]\" seeking improper federal court appellate review of a state court judgment. *McKithen v. Brown*, 626 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair*, No. 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at \\*5\n\n5 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt.. No. 1181 (\"Final Contempt Order\") at 4.\n\n6 PAX has a pending request for relief to permit it to seek limited enforcement of the contempt order. *See In re: Ho Wan Kwok*, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., Mot. of PAX For Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief From the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, Mar. 1, 2022, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n7 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 10 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 11 of 193\n\n(D.N.J. July 30, 2012) (\"the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the state court's entry of summary judgment\").\n\n*Second*, even if this Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, abstention is appropriate here. The New York Action—a breach-of-contract dispute involving a pre-petition contract and a pre-petition contempt order issued against Kwok for his contumacious behavior is a \"non-core\" proceeding under well-established caselaw, and thus mandatory abstention applies. But even if the New York Action were a \"core\" bankruptcy proceeding, equitable factors nevertheless warrant permissible abstention. For example, the New York Court has fully ruled on the merits—leaving little to nothing for the Court to adjudicate, and Kwok's removal petition is naked forum shopping for the purpose of escaping sanctions for his defiance of the New York Court. It would be an improper disruption of federal-state comity for this Court to assert control over and review contempt proceedings issued by the New York Court.\n\nFor these and the other reasons explained below, the New York Action should be remanded.\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\nPAX sued Kwok in April 2017 in New York, asserting a breach-of-contract claim under Hong Kong law against Kwok. In April 2019, PAX added a veil-piercing claim against Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI,\" and together with Genever NY, (the \"Genever defendants\").[8](#page-10-1) PAX prevailed on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim in September 2020 and judgment was entered in February 2021.[9](#page-10-2) Since then, PAX has been attempting to collect against Kwok by focusing primarily on two high-value\n\n8 *Id.*\n\n9 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549; Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 716.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 11 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 12 of 193\n\nassets: a luxury apartment in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel in New York City that Kwok owns through nested shell companies (the \"Residence\"), and the Lady May yacht.\n\n## **Kwok's Breach of Contract**\n\nIn 2008, PAX entered into an agreement with a Kwok-controlled entity, Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit Charter\"), under which PAX provided Spirit Charter with a loan facility of \\$30 million.[10](#page-11-0) Kwok simultaneously executed a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's loan.[11](#page-11-1) In 2009, Spirit Charter executed a deed (\"2009 Deed of Settlement\") under which another Kwok-controlled entity, Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), assumed the debt that Spirit Charter owed PAX.[12](#page-11-2) Kwok again executed a personal guarantee to secure Shiny Times' repayment obligation.[13](#page-11-3)\n\nPAX and Shiny Times entered into a new loan facility in 2011 that superseded the 2009 Deed of Settlement.[14](#page-11-4) Kwok also entered into a new personal guarantee (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\"), which superseded the 2009 guarantee.[15](#page-11-5) The 2011 Personal Guarantee provided, among other things, that Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally … guarantee[s] to PAX the due and punctual payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Loan Facility] and agree[s] that promptly on PAX's demand he will pay to PAX all [o]obligations that are due but unpaid.\"[16](#page-11-6)\n\n10 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 1.\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 *Id.* at 1–2.\n\n13 *Id.* at 2.\n\n14 *Id.*\n\n15 *Id.*\n\n16 *Id.* at 7.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 12 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 13 of 193\n\nIn April 2013, the parties entered into another deed of settlement (\"2013 Deed of Settlement\"), under which the outstanding loan amount due to PAX would be settled if PAX received possession of and legal title to three apartments from a different Kwok business entity called Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\").[17](#page-12-0) Under the 2013 Deed of Settlement, Beijing Pangu was required to satisfy ten conditions precedent in connection with the transfer to PAX of the three apartments, and if any were not satisfied by June 2013, the 2013 Deed of Settlement would terminate, and the 2011 Loan Facility and Personal Guarantee would revert to full force and effect.[18](#page-12-1) PAX and Kwok subsequently executed four extensions to the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the last of which required that all ten conditions precedent be satisfied by June 2015.[19](#page-12-2) Kwok failed to satisfy timely all of the conditions,[20](#page-12-3) triggering the revival the 2011 Personal Guarantee.[21](#page-12-4)\n\nBy the time Kwok executed the final Deed of Settlement extension, and unbeknownst to PAX, Kwok had fled China. Kwok then purchased the Residence in March 2015 for \\$67.5 million through an entity called Genever NY (a New York LLC), which is wholly owned by Genever BVI (a British Virgin Islands company).[22](#page-12-5) Kwok is the sole shareholder and director of\n\n17 *Id.* at 4.\n\n18 *Id.*\n\n19 *Id.*\n\n20 *Id.* at 5. Namely, Kwok failed (i) to deliver clean title, (ii) to provide PAX with an invoice for the purchase of the apartments, (iii) to provide PAX with evidence regarding the payment of relevant taxes and charges in connection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and (iv) to deliver the house ownership certificates of any of the three apartments to PAX. *Id.* at 5–6. 21 *Id.* at 5.\n\n22 Friedman Decl., Ex. 10, Residence Purchase Application, *PAX. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 256 at SN 0046–47; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, Genever NY LLC Agreement, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 252 at SN 0198–206.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 13 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 14 of 193\n\nGenever BVI.[23](#page-13-0) Also around this time, the Lady May was purchased for €28 million through Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"), a Hong Kong company that Kwok set up and funded in 2006 and solely owned and controlled for 8 years before transferring it to a family\n\nbusiness associate for no consideration in October 2014, right before he fled China.[24](#page-13-1) In 2017,\n\nthe Lady May was transferred, again for no consideration, to Hong Kong International Funds\n\nInvestments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"Hong Kong International USA\"), a Delaware LLC\n\ntechnically owned by his daughter, Mei Guo. [25](#page-13-2)\n\nIn April 2017, after two demand letters by PAX went unanswered by Kwok or his\n\ncompanies, PAX filed the New York Action. [26](#page-13-3) After approximately three years of proceedings,\n\nthe New York Court granted partial summary judgment in PAX's favor on September 15, 2020\n\non the breach-of-contract claim (the \"Summary Judgment Order\").[27](#page-13-4) The New York Court\n\n23 Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, Genever BVI Corporate Documents, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 252 at SN 0158–163. In addition to the New York Action, PAX also initiated ancillary proceedings in the in the British Virgin Island High Court Commercial Court Division (\"BVI Court\") in order to prevent a transfer of the a Residence at the parent level. Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1089.\n\n24 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 4.\n\n25 As an interim measure, Kwok's family business associate transferred the parked title to HK International to Kwok's daughter for no consideration in June 2017. *Id.*\n\n26 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n27 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 7. It should be noted that the only defense to summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim that Kwok even tried to muster was the bogus claim that the 2011 Personal Guarantee—which Kwok himself proffered in evidence, produced from his own files, admitted was authentic and relied on for several years in the litigation—somehow was a forgery. The New York Court properly determined that Kwok was estopped from raising that defense at summary judgment or trial, and it is distressing to hear Kwok's bankruptcy counsel perpetuate that obviously false narrative in presentations before this Court. Indeed, all one need look at to understand that Kwok's representation that he did not sign the 2011 Guarantee is perjurious is the contemporaneous email from his then lawyers at Stevenson, Wong & Co. in Hong Kong to PAX the same morning Kwok executed that guarantee, which provides\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 14 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 15 of 193\n\nordered PAX to move to establish damages as to the amount due and owing under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, including applicable interest.[28](#page-14-0) On December 18, 2020, the New York Court awarded PAX \"damages of \\$46,426,489.00 plus contractual interest pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010 and at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of entry of this decision and order.\"[29](#page-14-1) This judgment was entered on February 3, 2021 in the amount of \\$116,402,019.57.[30](#page-14-2)\n\nOn March 4, 2021, Kwok appealed the Summary Judgment Order.[31](#page-14-3) The appeal was fully briefed on October 15, 2021 and argued on December 6, 2021.[32](#page-14-4) The appeal is pending in the New York Appellate Division, First Department, but is stayed due to Kwok's chapter 11 filing.\n\nThe New York Court was scheduled to adjudicate PAX's veil-piercing claim against the Genever defendants in January 2021.[33](#page-14-5) Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that proceeding was postponed. On October 12, 2020, Genever NY filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, staying PAX's judgment efforts against the\n\n"Attached [] find herewith documents signed by Mr. Kwok Ho Wan for your further handling.\" *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, at PAX-KWOK-017468.\n\n28 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 8.\n\n29 Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision & Order on Damages, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 685 at 5.\n\n30 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 716 at 2.\n\n31 Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Notice of Appeal, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 725*.*\n\n32 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 16, Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellant, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021- 00740 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 16.\n\n33 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 716 at 5.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 15 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 16 of 193\n\nGenever defendants.[34](#page-15-0) The New York Bankruptcy Court later granted stay relief to allow PAX to prosecute, and Genever NY to defend, the state court action.[35](#page-15-1) As explained below, PAX later successfully moved for turnover of Kwok's shares of Genever BVI under New York CPLR§ 5225, although—as he did with regard to the New York Court's order regarding the yacht—Kwok to date has also entirely flouted that turnover order by failing to take any of the steps necessary to effect the transfer of his Genever BVI shares to PAX. [36](#page-15-2)\n\n## **Post-Judgment Asset Discovery**\n\nShortly after the New York Court issued the Summary Judgment Order, PAX moved for a post-judgment restraining order under CPLR § 5229.[37](#page-15-3) On September 30, 2020, the New York Court restrained Kwok from, among other things, \"interfer[ing] with any property in which he has an interest.\"[38](#page-15-4) On October 15, 2020 the New York Court clarified its prior restraining order, expressly holding Kwok \"restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him\n\n34 Friedman Decl., Ex. 17, Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, *In re: Genever Holdings, LLC*, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n35 Friedman Decl., Ex. 18, Order Granting Debtor's Second Renewed Motion to Approve the Revised Settlement Agreement, *In re: Genever Holdings, LLC*, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 141.\n\n36 Friedman Decl., Ex. 19, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2-17 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904. PAX subsequently moved for an order of civil contempt. Friedman Decl., Ex. 20, Notice of Motion for Order of Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court's Turnover Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078. The motion was fully briefed when Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition. Friedman Decl., Ex. 21, PAX's Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. for Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116.\n\n37 Friedman Decl., Ex. 22, PAX's CPLR 5229 Mot. and Request for TRO, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 576.\n\n38 Friedman Decl., Ex. 23, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 16 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 17 of 193\n\n….\"[39](#page-16-0) The New York Court's October 15, 2020 order (the \"Restraining Order\") identified the Residence and the Lady May, stating that \"[s]pecifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, 'the Lady May' are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\"[40](#page-16-1) The New York Court also held that PAX was entitled to post-judgment discovery regarding the Residence, the Lady May, and any other assets that Kwok directly or indirectly owns.[41](#page-16-2)\n\nPAX then undertook a year-long effort to enforce its judgment. As the New York Court recognized, \"PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle ….\"[42](#page-16-3) PAX's efforts were further thwarted by Kwok's broad invocation of his Fifth Amendment right in connection with PAX's post-judgment discovery requests. [43](#page-16-4)\n\n## **Lady May Contempt Proceedings**\n\nDespite the New York Court's restraining orders, [44](#page-16-5) Kwok allowed the Lady May to flee New York on or around October 9, 2021.[45](#page-16-6) PAX filed and the New York Court granted its\n\n44 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 23, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591; Friedman Decl., Ex. 24, Decision & Order on\n\n39 Friedman Decl., Ex. 24, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630 at 1.\n\n40 *Id.*\n\n41 *Id.* at 2.\n\n42 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 1.\n\n43 *Id.* at 2, 9–10.\n\nMotion, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630.\n\n45 Friedman Decl., Ex. 25, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 17 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 18 of 193\n\nmotion for a conditional order of civil contempt on March 16, 2021, explaining that \"it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit in proceedings before this New York Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht 'Lady May' …. Rather than catalogue the many 'shell games' defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better\" \"[f]or every day the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000.\"[46](#page-17-0)\n\nKwok appealed the New York Court's order to the First Department, but remained in contempt for 268 days.[47](#page-17-1) The First Department affirmed the New York Court's March 16, 2021 order on November 4, 2021,[48](#page-17-2) finding that \"[t]he motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights.\"[49](#page-17-3) The First Department held that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing.\"[50](#page-17-4) The First Department also \"instructed\" the New York Court \"to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht.\"[51](#page-17-5)\n\nhttp) (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n46 Friedman Decl., Ex. 26, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 728 at 2.\n\n47 Friedman Decl., Ex. 27, Notice of Appeal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n48 Friedman Decl., Ex. 28, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 17. 49 *Id.* at 1.\n\n50 *Id* at 2.\n\n51 *Id.* Kwok filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals on December 3, 2021, which was denied by the First Department on January 20, 2022. Friedman Decl., Ex. 29, Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 22.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 18 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 19 of 193\n\nThat evidentiary hearing was held on February 2, 2022, and the New York Court heard testimony from seven witnesses, including Kwok's daughter, who is the sole member of Hong Kong International USA, the purported owner of the Lady May.[52](#page-18-0) On February 9, 2022, the New York Court issued a final Order of Civil Contempt (the \"Final Contempt Order\"), noting that the New York Action's \"1,180 docket entries\" \"almost all [] involve defendant Kwok['s] efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\"[53](#page-18-1) The New York Court found that \"Kwok exercised dominion and control over [] the Lady May\"[54](#page-18-2) and that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"[55](#page-18-3)\n\nThe New York Court concluded that \"[a]s of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days\" and imposed a \\$134 million fine. Kwok was ordered to remit \\$134 million to PAX within five business days or the Court would be \"prepared to exercise its full authority Judiciary Law § 753,\" New York's civil contempt provision.[56](#page-18-4)\n\n52 Friedman Decl., Ex. 30, Third Interim Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1098.\n\n53 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 1.\n\n54 *Id.* at 2.\n\n55 *Id.* at 4.\n\n56 *Id.* at 10; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 31, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 19 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 20 of 193\n\nOn February 14, 2022, Kwok filed a notice of appeal of the Final Contempt Order and requested an emergency interim stay pending appeal.[57](#page-19-0) The Appellate Division, First Department denied Kwok's interim stay request the next day.[58](#page-19-1) On February 15, Kwok filed for bankruptcy. Notably, Kwok had not filed for bankruptcy when judgment was rendered against him on the underlying breach of contract claim. Equally notable, Kwok's bankruptcy petition lists \\$50,001–\\$100,000 in assets[59](#page-19-2)—omitting the valuable Lady May, which remains outside of the United States,[60](#page-19-3) unsupervised by any trustworthy fiduciary.\n\n## **Genever BVI Turnover Proceedings**\n\nAs mentioned above, because they were the sole assets Kwok admitted owning, PAX moved for turnover of Kwok's shares in Genever BVI, the ultimate owner of the Residence, under CPLR § 5225. On September 22, 2021, the New York Court granted PAX's motion (the \"Genever Turnover Order\") and, subject to the BVI Court amending an existing restraining order (which it did in early December 2021), required Kwok to \"take whatever steps are necessary in the British Virgin Islands to turnover all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership interest in Genever Holdings Corporation.\"[61](#page-19-4) Kwok did not appeal the Genever Turnover Order, yet—true to form—flouted that order by failing and refusing to take any steps at all to effect the transfer of his Genever BVI shares to PAX.\n\n57 Ex. 32, Notice of Appeal, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1187.\n\n58 Friedman Decl., Ex. 33, Summary Statement on Application for Expedited Service and/or Interim Relief, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 5. 59 Voluntary Chapter 11 Petition, Dkt. No. 1 at 7.\n\n\n\n60 Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer,\n\nhttp (last accessed on April 12, 2022).\n\n61 Friedman Decl., Ex. 19, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904 at 1.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 20 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 21 of 193\n\nAs a result, on January 7, 2022, PAX moved for another order of civil contempt.[62](#page-20-0) The motion was fully briefed on January 25, 2022.[63](#page-20-1) When Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition,[64](#page-20-2) the New York Court \"propose[d] that [PAX] either withdraw the pending contempt motion [] without prejudice to an appropriate application in the Bankruptcy Court and/or without prejudice to renewal before this Court, if appropriate, upon the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings.\"[65](#page-20-3) The New York Court explained that \"[t]he Court prefers not to keep fully submitted motions pending for an indefinite time.\"[66](#page-20-4) PAX subsequently withdrew its motion without prejudice.[67](#page-20-5)\n\n## **Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing and Notice of Removal**\n\nKwok filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Connecticut February 15, 2022.[68](#page-20-6)\n\nAs noted above, on March 18, 2022, Kwok removed the New York Action to the District Court\n\nfor the Southern District of New York before Kwok moved to transfer venue with PAX's\n\nconsent.[69](#page-20-7)\n\n62 Friedman Decl., Ex. 20, Notice of Motion for Order of Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court's Turnover Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078.\n\n63 Friedman Decl., Ex. 21, PAX's Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. for Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116.\n\n64 Friedman Decl., Ex. 34, Suggestion of Bankruptcy, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1190.\n\n65 Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Court Notice, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1191.\n\n66 *Id.*\n\n67 Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Decision & Order on Voluntary Withdrawal of Contempt Motion, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1193.\n\n68 Voluntary Chapter 11 Petition, Dkt. No. 1.\n\n69 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV\n\n(S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1; Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. THIS ACTION MUST BE REMANDED BECAUSE THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION UNDER THE** *ROOKER-FELDMAN* **DOCTRINE.**\n\nUnder the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine, federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that challenge state-court judgments. *Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.*, 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); *D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman*, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); *Phifer v. City of N.Y.*, 289 F.3d 49, 55–56 (2d Cir. 2002). In the Second Circuit, the preclusive nature of *Rooker-Feldman* extends to lower state court judgments, interlocutory decisions, and matters on appeal. *Campbell v. Greisberger*, 80 F.3d 703, 707 (2d Cir. 1996); *McKithen*, 626 F.3d at 154–55 (holding \"[t]he proper vehicle for [the Plaintiff] to challenge the state court's interpretation of section 440.30(1–a)(a) was an appeal to the New York Appellate Division\"). Bankruptcy courts have acknowledged *Rooker-Feldman*'s \"strong public policy grounded in the interest of comity between federal and state courts and the notion of federalism, that federal courts should not unnecessarily interfere with state court proceedings.\" *In re Pacheco*, 616 B.R. 126, 132–33 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020). In this context, the doctrine \"does not permit [the Bankruptcy Court] to disturb or disregard [a previous j]udgment,\" and courts have held that \"attempts to have it do so are an improper use of the Bankruptcy Court.\" *In re Kurimsky*, No. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) (Manning, C.J.). *See also Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair*, No. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at \\*5 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012) (holding that \"the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the state court's entry of summary judgment\"). When the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over removed claims, the case must be remanded. *Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.*, 773 F.3d 423, 427 (2d Cir. 2014); *In re Freehand H.J., Inc.*, No. 07-12172, 2007 WL 2071877, at \\*1 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007) (\"Because\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 22 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 23 of 193\n\nthis Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine, the adversary proceeding will be remanded to the state court.\").\n\nIn the Second Circuit, *Rooker-Feldman* applies if four requirements are met: \"(i) the federal court plaintiff must have lost in state court, (ii) the plaintiff must complain of injuries caused by a state court judgment, (iii) the plaintiff must invite district court review and rejection of that judgment, and (iv) the state court judgment must have been rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.\"[70](#page-22-0) *Holblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections*, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005). The first and fourth requirements are procedural, while the second and third are substantive. *Robinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc.*, No. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017).\n\nHere, the removed New York Action consists of PAX's two-count Amended Complaint, attached to PAX's Notice of Removal. Kwok's notice also refers to the New York Court's finding that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May, although it ignores the critical fact that those findings were issued in a contempt proceeding to vindicate the integrity of the New York Court.[71](#page-22-1) Kwok brings no other independent claim. Kwok accordingly appears to be\n\n70 PAX invokes *Rooker-Feldman* against the losing state court *defendant*, but the same four factor test applies. *E.g.*, *Perkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC*, 773 F. Supp. 2d 553, 558 (E.D. Pa. 2011).\n\n71 Although Kwok's removal notice is required to contain a statement of the facts that purportedly justify his notice to remove, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027, in his Objection to PAX's motion to confirm the inapplicability of the stay to the Final Contempt Order, Kwok previewed his intent to attempt to re-litigate the issue of ownership of the Lady May. He asserted that the Final Contempt Order was \"wrongfully issued against him\" and that Kwok's interest in the Lady May is \"ultimately [to] *be determined*.\" Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 (Mar. 15, 2022), at ¶¶ 4, 14. As noted in footnote 24 above, Kwok also continues to assert, disingenuously and against the weight of overwhelming evidence—including Kwok proffering of the very document to the NY Court and admitting and stipulating to its authenticity—that his 2011 Personal Guarantee somehow was a \"forgery,\" Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 at ¶ 12, an argument squarely rejected by the New York Court. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 3 (\"Kwok was\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 23 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 24 of 193\n\nchallenging in federal court: (1) the Summary Judgment Order issued on September 15, 2020 (which resulted in a judgment entered against Kwok on February 3, 2021); and (2) the Final Contempt Order issued on February 9, 2022,[72](#page-23-0) requiring Kwok to remit \\$134 million to PAX and holding that Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls\" the Lady May. Both judgments easily satisfy the four *Rooker-Feldman* requirements.\n\n*First*, Kwok is a \"state-court loser\" with respect to the two judgments because both were issued in PAX's favor. *McKithen*, 626 F.3d at 154.\n\n*Second*, Kwok is complaining of \"injuries\" imposed by the New York Court. *Rooker-Feldman* is applicable where, as here, \"*the state court itself is the decision-maker* whose action produces the injury.\" *Sindone v. Kelly*, 439 F. Supp. 2d 268, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); *see, e.g.*, *Robinson*, 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3 (holding that \"the causal requirement—the second prong—is satisfied because it is the state court foreclosure judgment that has caused Plaintiff's injury\"). In *Hoblock*, for example, after first noting that the \"voters' claims in this case seem at first to complain only of the [Board of Elections'] refusal to tally their votes rather than of any injury caused by the state court's judgment,\" the court clarified that \"in refusing to tally the votes, the Board [was] acting under compulsion of a state-court order.\" 422 F.3d at 88. Thus, \"the statecourt judgment produced the Board's refusal to count the ballots, the very injury of which the\n\njudicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of the agreements that Kwok had previously sponsored as authentic before the Court in this proceeding.\"). Kwok is bound by these findings.\n\n72 On March 1, 2022, PAX moved the bankruptcy court for an order confirming its right to institute further proceedings to enforce the Final Contempt Order or, in the alternative, relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and Rule 4001of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to permit enforcement of the Final Contempt Order, except to the extent it requires Kwok to immediately pay money to PAX. *See In re: Ho Wan Kwok*, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., PAX's Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 24 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 25 of 193\n\nvoters complain.\" *Id.* at 89. Similarly here, Kwok seeks to avoid the New York Court's \"power of compulsion\" that entered judgments against him in excess of \\$250 million and its holding that, under New York law, Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May.[73](#page-24-0)\n\n*Third*, Kwok plainly seeks direct federal court review and reversal of the two state court judgments. Kwok buries the lead in a footnote, acknowledging that removal is a collateral attack on the Final Contempt Order. Kwok's footnote provides: \"The New York State Court has issued orders that contain factual findings with respect to these issues, including determining that the most relevant purported asset (the Lady May yacht) is within Mr. Kwok's beneficial ownership\"[74—](#page-24-1)and then invites this Court to \"[re-]determine what is (or is not) property of the estate.\"[75](#page-24-2) Kwok's removal attempt is a thinly-veiled gambit at improper federal court review, an impermissible \"end-run around the state court appeals process\" and \"an impermissible collateral attack on the contempt charge.\" *See Rose v. Cnty. of York,* No. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682, at \\*3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007); *In re Kurimsky*, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5 (applying *Rooker-Feldman* where the prior court held that \"Avail-1, LLC *owns the secured debt*,\" and the bankruptcy court complaint alleged that it did not) (emphasis added).\n\n*Rooker-Feldman* does not allow Kwok to seek relief that, if granted, would prevent the New York Court from enforcing its orders. *In re Knapper*, 407 F.3d 573, 581 (3d Cir. 2005). The doctrine accordingly applies especially to state court contempt proceedings, where federalism concerns are particularly strong. *Cornell v. Burke*, 559 F. App'x 577, 579 (7th Cir. 2014) (\"Because a contempt order qualifies as a state-court judgment, *Rooker-Feldman* divests\n\n73 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok.,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 4.\n\n74 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 7 n.1.\n\n75 *Id.* at ¶ 5.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 25 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 26 of 193\n\nthe district court of jurisdiction to review it.\"). The ability of a court to issue contempt orders and award sanctions \"lies at the core of the administration of a State's judicial system.\" *Marciano v. White*, 431 F. App'x 611, 614 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing *Juidice v. Vail*, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1977)). In *In re Ivani*, 308 B.R. 132, 137 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004), for example, the court denied the debtor's motion to reverse the New York state court contempt finding under *Rooker-Feldman* because \"the [d]ebtor's argument will succeed only if this Court finds that the [state court] made an incorrect determination and overrules that determination.\" *See also Int'l Distrib. Ctrs., Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.*, 62 B.R. 723, 729–30 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (recognizing the state court's \"inherent power to punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of either the state or federal court, is not curtailed by the bankruptcy action\"); *see In re Stahl*, 526 F. App'x 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2013) (recognizing that challenge to state court summary judgment order disguised as a notice of removal pursuant to Fed. Bankr. P. 9027 would be barred by *Rooker-Feldman*).\n\n*Fourth*, both of the New York Court's judgments—entered on February 3, 2021 and February 9, 2022 respectively—were issued before Kwok's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 filing.[76](#page-25-0)\n\nBecause the four *Rooker-Feldman* factors are met, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the New York Action.\n\nKwok's red-herring assertion that the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over the Lady May, and thus the New York Action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e), is wrong as a matter of\n\n76 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No 716; Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181; Friedman Decl., Ex. 31, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 26 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 27 of 193\n\nlaw. While it is correct that the bankruptcy court has exclusive *in rem* jurisdiction \"of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate.\"[77](#page-26-0) 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e), the exclusive jurisdiction granted by § 1334(e)(1) \"is only in *rem*.\" *Loudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co.*, 481 B.R. 388, 394 (S.D. W. Va. 2012) (citing *In re CitX Corp.*, 302 B.R. 144, 161 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003)). Section 1334(e) does not extend to *in personam* breach-of-contract actions, like this one, that \"seek[] to establish personal liability of the debtor on a claim, but [are not] specifically targeted to ownership of, or rights in and to, property of the estate.\" *Id.* In fact, the Final Contempt Order applies to Kwok *personally*; Kwok could have complied with the Order, but has refused to do so.\n\nAnd of course, any effort to have this case heard in federal court on § 1334(e)(1) grounds would be mooted if the bankruptcy court grants PAX's Motion For Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief From the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.[78](#page-26-1) It is well within this Court's powers to permit the New York Court to oversee actions related to the Lady May. *See In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico*, 899 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 2018) (recognizing that Section 1334(e) does not \"limit[] the bankruptcy court's power to allow others to act on the debtor's property,\" including permitting a non-bankruptcy court to \"grant leave to allow a creditor to sell a debtor's property\" (citing *Catalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue*, 279 F.3d 682, 687 (9th Cir. 2002)).\n\n77 PAX acknowledges that liquidation of the Lady May, which the New York Court found Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls,\" and distribution of resulting proceeds should occur in the chapter 11 process (in the event this case is not dismissed).\n\n78 *See* PAX's Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 27 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 28 of 193\n\nIn sum, Kwok's appropriate avenue to seek relief from the contempt order is in the New York appellate courts. *In re Lyondell Chem. Co.*, 402 B.R. 596, 610 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (\"[B]y reason of the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine, and common sense, New Jersey's appellate courts are the only entities that can decide the legal issues as to whether the judgment against Lyondell was in accordance with New Jersey law.\"). Because the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims and issues decided in the New York Action, this action must be remanded.\n\n## **II. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION.**\n\nEven if the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the New York Action (it should not), the Court should abstain from hearing it. *See* 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). Because, *inter alia*, the New York Action is a garden-variety breach-of-contract dispute based on a contract executed over a decade before the chapter 11 petition, it is considered a \"non-core\" proceeding, *see, e.g.*, *In re Coudert Bros.*, No. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011). Accordingly, the doctrine of mandatory abstention precludes the Court from hearing such non-core proceedings. But even if the breach-of-contract claim were a \"core\" proceeding, equitable factors—including that very few issues remain for the federal court to adjudicate, *see supra* at 14–20, and that Kwok's removal is blatant forum shopping—strongly support remand under the permissive abstention doctrine.\n\n## **A The Mandatory Abstention Doctrine Precludes the Court From Exercising Its Authority Over the New York Action.**\n\nUpon determining that a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over a matter, courts \"look to the abstention doctrine to provide guidance as to the proper exercise of that jurisdiction.\" *Baker v. Simpson*, 613 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 2010). \"The abstention provisions implicate the question whether the bankruptcy court *should* exercise jurisdiction, not whether the court *has* jurisdiction\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 28 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 29 of 193\n\nin the first instance.\" *In re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc.*, 45 F.3d 702, 708 (2d Cir. 1995).\n\nUnder the mandatory abstention doctrine, \"the district court shall abstain from hearing such\n\nproceeding if an action … can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate\n\njurisdiction.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). Where, as here, a case has been removed, remand is\n\nrequired if six criteria are met:\n\n(1) a \"timely\" motion for abstention must have been brought; (2) the action must be based upon a state-law claim; (3) the action must be \"related to\" a bankruptcy proceeding, as opposed to \"arising under\" title 11 or \"arising in\" a case under title 11; (4) the sole federal jurisdictional basis for the action must be Section 1334; (5) the action must have been \"commenced\" in state court; and (6) the action must be capable of being \"timely adjudicated\" in state court.\n\n*Del. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A.*, 534 B.R. 500, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The party \"arguing in favor of the Court's retention of jurisdiction\"—*i.e.*, Kwok—\"bears the burden of showing that mandatory abstention is not warranted.\" *In re Eight-115 Associates, LLC*, 626 B.R. 383, 391 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021). Here, each element is satisfied, and Kwok cannot demonstrate otherwise.\n\n*First*, the abstention motion is timely. Whether an abstention motion is timely \"must be determined on a case-by-case basis.\" *Id.* at 392. Courts consider:\n\n(1) whether the movant moves as soon as possible after he or she should have learned the grounds for such a motion, (2) whether the moving party has already invoked the substantive process of the federal court on a matter going to the merits of the complaint, and in particular, moved for abstention only after receiving an unfavorable outcome, and (3) whether the granting of the motion would prejudice or delay the rights of others.\n\n*Id.* Here, little time has elapsed since Kwok's removal, which is well within the time courts have found abstention motions timely. *See Acolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of N.Y.*, 69 B.R. 155, 177 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986) (motion timely when filed less than two months after filing of adversary complaint); *see also Robinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co.*, 918 F.2d 579, 584 (6th Cir. 1990)\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 29 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 30 of 193\n\n(finding the motion was timely more than eight months after removal). Second, PAX has not invoked the substantive process of this Court \"going to the merits of the complaint,\" nor is it moving \"only after receiving an unfavorable outcome.\" *In re Eight-115 Assocs.*, 626 B.R. at 391–92; *cf. In re AHT Corp.*, 265 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001) (motion untimely when made after receiving an adverse ruling on a motion to dismiss). Finally, abstention would not prejudice or delay Kwok. Accordingly, the motion is timely.\n\n*Second*, the New York Action is based on PAX's breach-of-contract claim against Kwok, the type of claim routinely litigated in state court. *E.g.*, *Deloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP*, 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (breach-ofcontract claim appropriate for abstention).\n\n*Third*, the New York Action does not \"arise under\" or \"arise in\" Title 11, but merely \"relate[s] to\" Kwok's bankruptcy. 28 U.S.C. § 1334 vests district courts with jurisdiction over \"all proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.\" *See generally Stern v. Marshall*, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). These \"three types of jurisdiction\" \"are colloquially referred to as 'arising under,' 'arising in,' and 'related to' jurisdiction.\" *Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Expl. & Dev. II, L.P.*, 487 B.R. 158, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). \"Arising under\" jurisdiction exists in \"any matter under which a claim is made under a provision of title 11.\" *In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC*, 475 B.R. 9, 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). \"Arising in\" jurisdiction exists in a matter where the claims \"are not based on any right expressly created by title 11, but nevertheless would have no existence outside of the bankruptcy.\" *Baker*, 613 F.3d at 350–51. Lastly, \"related to\" jurisdiction exists if the action's \"outcome might have any\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 30 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 31 of 193\n\nconceivable effect on the bankrupt estate.\" *Parmalat Cap. Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp.*, 639 F.3d 572, 579 (2d Cir. 2011).[79](#page-30-0)\n\nThe Second Circuit has explained that \"a proceeding that 'arises under' or 'arises in' Title 11 is a 'core' bankruptcy proceeding, but a proceeding that is merely 'related to' a Title 11 case is not—and in a non-core proceeding, the doctrine of mandatory abstention applies.\" *Wilmington Tr.*, 534 B.R. at 512 (quoting *Baker*, 613 F.3d at 350). The determination of whether a contract action is a core proceeding or a non-core proceeding requires consideration of \"(1) whether [the] contract is *antecedent* to the reorganization petition; and (2) the degree to which the proceeding is *independent* of the reorganization.\" *In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.*, 419 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2005). Claims \"for pre-petition contract damages\"—such as PAX's breachof-contract action against Kwok—are generally \"non-core.\" *See In re Orion Pictures Corp.*, 4 F.3d 1095, 1102 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing *Beard v. Braunstein*, 914 F.2d 434, 443 (3d Cir. 1990)); *see also In re Coudert Bros.*, 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*5 (\"Where a contract sued upon was formed prior to the bankruptcy petition, it will generally be highly unlikely that a proceeding based on that contract turns on the bankruptcy laws.\").\n\nNeither \"arising under\" nor \"arising in\" jurisdiction exists here. First, Kwok does not suggest that \"arising under\" jurisdiction exists; he could not, because the proceeding involves a breach-of-contract claim—not a claim \"under a provision of title 11.\" *In re Salander*, 475 B.R. at 27; *see also KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.*, 600 B.R. 214, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no \"arising under\" jurisdiction existed where \"Plaintiffs assert[ed] state law breach of contract and related claims, which do not arise under Title 11\"). Nor does \"arising in\"\n\n79 PAX acknowledges \"related to\" jurisdiction exists here.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 31 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 32 of 193\n\njurisdiction exist, because the claims existed \"outside of the bankruptcy\" for almost five years. *Baker*, 613 F.3d at 350–51.\n\nAnd Kwok's perfunctory suggestion that the New York Action \"arises in\" chapter 11 because it involves a determination of Kwok's ownership in the Lady May does not withstand scrutiny.[80](#page-31-0) Kwok appears to argue that because section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code governs what becomes property of the estate, and the New York Court determined as part of its Final Contempt Order that Kwok beneficially owns the Lady May, the New York Action must \"arise in\" his bankruptcy case. Not so. Whether Kwok could be held in contempt for refusing to return property he beneficially owned pre-petition was a legal matter that existed under New York law completely independent of this chapter 11 case, as does his continued contempt.\n\nThe New York Action was not, as Kwok claims, one \"seeking to determine what is (or is not) the property of Mr. Kwok or his estate.\"[81](#page-31-1) No \"estate\" existed when Justice Ostrager decided Kwok's interest in the Lady May. As a consequence of the New York Action, there has already been a finding that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May under New York law. *There is nothing further to litigate on that issue.* If this case is remanded and the automatic stay modified, Justice Ostrager will not revisit the property issue. Rather, the only issue the New York Court might address is the consequence of Kwok's continued contumacious behavior. Moreover, Justice Ostrager's decision does not invoke Section 541 or encroach on any action that might arise under Section 541 in the bankruptcy court. If there must be a separate proceeding that implicates Section 541, that can occur in Kwok's chapter 11 case, but any potential action regarding the Lady May will be significantly informed by (if not outright\n\n80 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 6.\n\n81 *Id.*\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 32 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 33 of 193\n\ncontrolled by) the findings of fact and judgments in the New York Action, as issues regarding property rights in bankruptcy are generally determined by state law. *See Butner v. United States*, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979). Indeed, PAX will establish that the doctrines of *res judicata* and collateral estoppel bar Kwok and others who participated in the New York Action from relitigating claims and issues already decided in that forum. In any event, Kwok already was held liable for contract damages; the court's determination that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht was a prerequisite to the finding that Kwok had violated the court's orders and was in contempt. The underlying cause of action is what matters, and that is based on contract rights that exist \"independent of the reorganization.\" *Cf. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 227 (\"arising in\" jurisdiction existed over a dispute concerning \"a post-petition contract the resolution of which depend[ed] upon the interpretation of bankruptcy court orders\"). \"Put differently, where, as here, a non-core legal claim has essentially been 'dressed up as a bankruptcy claim,' that label does not justify treating the claim as core.\" *In re Coudert Bros.*, 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*4.\n\n*Fourth*, 28 U.S.C. § 1334 is the sole purported federal jurisdictional basis for the New York Action identified in the removal petition. As explained, the New York Action involved contract construction and the application of New York's judgment collection provisions. Moreover, given there is a foreign-based plaintiff (PAX) and a foreign-based defendants, no diversity jurisdiction exists.\n\n*Fifth*, the New York Action was \"commenced\" in state court.[82](#page-32-0)\n\n82 *See.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 33 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 34 of 193\n\n*Sixth*, the New York Action is \"capable of being timely adjudicated in state court.\" *Wilmington Tr.*, 534 B.R. at 512. Courts evaluate whether an action may be timely adjudicated in state court by considering four factors: \"(1) the backlog of the state court's calendar relative to the federal court's calendar; (2) the complexity of the issues presented and the respective expertise of each forum; (3) the status of the title 11 bankruptcy proceeding to which the state law claims are related; and (4) whether the state court proceeding would prolong the administration or liquidation of the estate.\" *Parmalat*, 639 F.3d at 580.\n\nThese factors demonstrate that the New York Action is *capable* of being timely adjudicated in state court, primarily because it *already* has been adjudicated. First, no concern about backlog of the state court's calendar exists, because the case has been litigated for five years and Justice Ostrager *already* adjudicated PAX's breach-of-contract claim, and *already* decided the contempt issue. *See Worldview Ent. Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow*, 611 B.R. 10, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"If anything, this factor cuts in favor of abstention because the state court proceeding has been ongoing for five years.\"). Second, the \"facts in [the] case [were] especially complex,\" rendering the state court the more appropriate forum. *Parmalat*, 639 F.3d at 580–81. Indeed, as Justice Ostrager aptly noted in the Final Contempt Order, the New York Action is a \"2017 case with *1,180 docket entries* – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok's efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\"[83](#page-33-0) This factor also favors abstention because the state court action is a breach-of-contract dispute over which a federal court has no specialized expertise. *Woodrow*, 611 B.R. at 19. Finally, there is no doubt that any additional\n\n83 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 34 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 35 of 193\n\ncontempt proceedings instituted before Justice Ostrager can and will be adjudicated on a timely basis. Either Kwok will remain in contempt or not; that issue is not complicated.\n\nThe third and fourth factors also weigh in favor of state court adjudication. The third factor considers \"the status\" of the chapter 11 proceeding, asking \"whether the litigants in a state proceeding need the state law claims to be quickly resolved as a result of the status of the ongoing title 11 bankruptcy proceeding.\" *Parmalat*, 639 F.3d at 581. This factor counsels in favor of abstention because \"the bankruptcy proceedings began relatively recently in comparison to the state court proceedings.\" *Woodrow*, 611 B.R. at 19. Finally, state court adjudication would not \"prolong the administration or liquidation of the estate,\" because \"[i]t is undisputed that the proceedings in the state court will remain subject to the automatic stay unless and until it is lifted by the bankruptcy court.\" *Id.* at 19–20. Thus, either the automatic stay will be modified and the New York Action will aid resolution of Kwok's bankruptcy, or the New York Action will remain dormant and not impact proceedings in the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, \"there is little chance that the bankruptcy proceedings will be affected or delayed by the state court proceeding.\" *Id.* at 19.\n\nFor each of these reasons, the doctrine of mandatory abstention precludes this Court from hearing the New York Action.\n\n## **B Even if Mandatory Abstention Does Not Apply, The Court Should Decline to Hear the Action Under the Permissive Abstention Doctrine.**\n\nEven if the Court were to find that jurisdiction exists (it does not) and that mandatory abstention does not apply (it should were jurisdiction to exist), the Court nevertheless should abstain under the doctrine of permissive abstention.[84](#page-34-1) That doctrine is based on 28 U.S.C. §\n\n84 Alternatively, the Court should remand the case for equitable reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), which provides that \"[t]he court to which such claim or cause of action is removed may remand such claim or cause of action on any equitable ground.\" \"In assessing whether to\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 35 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 36 of 193\n\n1334(c)(1), which states, \"nothing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.\" In deciding whether to abstain on this ground, courts weigh considerations of comity and federalism, judicial economy, and efficiency. *Wilmington Tr.*, 534 B.R. at 512.\n\nIt is difficult to think of a case where comity requires remand more than this one: Kwok filed this case to avoid being held accountable for contempt, first via invocation of the automatic stay and now by removal of the New York Action. Kwok earned every bit of his sanction by flagrantly disregarding court orders and affronting the dignity and sanctity of the New York court system. Out of respect for state courts alone, remand should be granted. *Marciano*, 431 F. App'x at 614 (challenge to state court's issuance of sanctions implicates power that \"lies at the core of the administration of a State's judicial system\"); *see, e.g.*, *In re Rodriguez*, No. 18- 14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009, at \\*4–5 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019) (permissive abstention appropriate where debtor's removal of state court action \"had the effect of depriving the State Court of authority\" to enforce its prior order through contempt sanctions).\n\nremand a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), courts consider a similar set of factors as when deciding whether to permissively abstain, including: '(1) whether issues of state law predominate; (2) whether judicial economy would be served by … equitable remand; (3) whether § 1334(b) is the sole basis for exercising federal jurisdiction; (4) whether the proceeding involves non-debtors; (5) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case; and (6) the likelihood that the proceeding was commenced in a particular forum because of forum shopping on the part of one of the parties.'\" *KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 226 (quoting *Rahl v. Bande*, 316 B.R. 127, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). Because the factors overlap, this Motion addresses permissive abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) and equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) jointly. *In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.*, 293 B.R. 308, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (\"The equitable remand analysis ... is essentially the same as the Section 1334(c)(1) abstention analysis.\").\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 36 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 37 of 193\n\nCourts in the Second Circuit consider multiple factors when determining whether to\n\npermissively abstain:\n\n(1) the effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a Court recommends abstention, (2) the extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues, (3) the difficulty or unsettled nature of the applicable state law, (4) the presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court or other nonbankruptcy court, (5) the jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334, (6) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case, (7) the substance rather than form of an asserted 'core' proceeding, (8) the feasibility of severing state law claims from core bankruptcy matters to allow judgments to be entered in state court with enforcement left to the bankruptcy court, (9) the burden on the court's docket, (10) the likelihood that the commencement of the proceeding in a bankruptcy court involves forum shopping by one of the parties, (11) the existence of a right to a jury trial, and (12) the presence in the proceeding of nondebtor parties.\n\n*47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.*, No. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL\n\n2012296, at \\*9 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) (quoting *KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 225).\n\nApplication of these factors—factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10—overwhelmingly\n\nfavors permissive abstention. With respect to factors 2 and 4, not only did state law issues—\n\nincluding in the context of judgment collection proceedings under Article 52 of the CPLR—\n\npredominate, they were *already decided* by the New York Court. As explained, Justice Ostrager\n\nalready issued (i) the Summary Judgment Order in PAX's favor on its breach of contract claim\n\nand (ii) the Final Contempt Order, holding that Kwok was in contempt of court.[85](#page-36-0) *See supra* at\n\n6–7, 11. Under these circumstances—for essentially the same reasons that the *Rooker-Feldman*\n\ndoctrine applies—principles of comity \"virtually require\" remand. *In re Briarpatch Film Corp.*,\n\n281 B.R. 820, 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (equitable remand appropriate because \"[s]tate law issues not\n\nonly predominated,\" \"they were determined by that Court\"); *see also 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.*,\n\n85 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 3.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 37 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 38 of 193\n\n2021 WL 2012296, at \\*10 (permissive abstention appropriate where \"[t]he entirety of the case [was] ready for summary adjudication,\" and \"that summary adjudication [could] be most efficiently handled by the state court judge who already ha[d] been presiding over the state law issues in this case\"). This is especially true because \"[b]ankruptcy proceedings may not be used to re-litigate issues already resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.\" *Kelleran v. Andrijevic*, 825 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1987); *see also In re Lyondell Chem. Co.*, 402 B.R. at 609 (observing that \"[u]ntil or unless New Jersey's courts say otherwise,\" the judgment creditor who won a judgment in New Jersey state court \"now has a claim in this Court in the amount awarded by the trial court\"). For the same reasons, factor 1—efficient administration of the estate similarly favors remand: \"[I]t would be highly inefficient for this Court to reconsider matters which the State court tried and determined.\" *In re Briarpatch*, 281 B.R. at 831. The same is true for factor 3, the difficulty or unsettled nature of the issues. *Briarpatch* is directly on point: \"[T]he question is not whether the issues were difficult or not; the key factor here is that the State court determined them.\" *Id.* at 829*.*\n\nFor factor 5, no jurisdictional basis other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334 exists, further strengthening the case for permissive abstention. Factors 6—the degree of relatedness—and 8 the feasibility of severing the New York Action—also favor remand. The action exists—and has existed for almost five years—entirely independently of the bankruptcy. It involves a breach-ofcontract claim based on a pre-petition contract that in no way relates to the bankruptcy. *See 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.*, 2021 WL 2012296, at \\*9 (\"simple state law contract case\" was not \"directly related to the bankruptcy\"). And, unlike cases where courts have found permissive abstention inappropriate, the New York Action requires no interpretation of orders from the Bankruptcy Court. *Cf. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n*, 600 B.R. at 233 (severing the state law claims was\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 38 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 39 of 193\n\nnot straight-forward \"because they involve issues that require interpreting the Bankruptcy Court's orders.\"). With respect to factor 9, remand would place no burden on the state court's docket, because the state court *already adjudicated* PAX's claim (and the First Department had already received a fully-briefed appeal on the Summary Judgment Order).\n\nFinally, Kwok's commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding and attempt to remove the New York Action and transfer it to the bankruptcy court strongly suggest improper forum shopping (factor 10). Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition just before Justice Ostrager's contempt sanctions were to take effect, and removed the case shortly thereafter. *See Balcor/Morristown Ltd. P'ship v. Vector Whippany Assocs.*, 181 B.R. 781, 793 (D.N.J. 1995) (forum shopping likely where motion for contempt sanctions was \"on the eve of decision\" when debtor filed removal petition). *In re AMeribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc.,* 399 B.R. 129, 134–35 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (\"There are strong reasons to remand or to abstain\" where the timing of removal suggests an attempt to avoid contempt sanctions); *M.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC,* 2021 WL 5046216, at \\*6 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021) (abstention and remand appropriate where timing of removal \"at least suggests that the defendants might be seeking a better result by shopping around\"). Moreover, Kwok's Notice of Removal offers no description of what the federal court would in fact adjudicate—likely because the removal is merely a ploy to (i) delay PAX's motion in the bankruptcy court to confirm the inapplicability of the automatic stay with respect to Justice Ostrager's Final Contempt Order,[86](#page-38-0) and (ii) try to get a second bite at the apple by attempting to\n\n86 Mot. of PAX For Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief From the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 57.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 39 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 40 of 193\n\nre-litigate issues already decided against him by the New York Court. [87](#page-39-0) But, as Judge Gropper aptly noted in *Briarpatch*, \"[b]ankruptcy courts must respect the orders and judgments of State courts and cannot act as a court of review or appeal as to matters that have been decided by State courts with jurisdiction. 281 B.R. at 829*.* There, the debtor \"complain[ed] bitterly about the State court proceedings,\" but failed to identify \"what motions\" \"would be available to them today,\" \"or precisely what they would have th[e] Court accomplish, other than to act as a general court of review.\" *Id.* at 829–30. In effect, the debtor sought \"a judge who [would] take a 'new look,' which is \"an impermissible attempt at forum shopping\"—precisely the case here. *In re Rodriguez*, 2019 WL 137009, at \\*4 (reasoning that \"[t]he specter of forum shopping is significant\" where debtor removed shortly after an \"evidentiary hearing was scheduled on a motion to hold the Debtor … in civil contempt\"); *In re Drauschak*, 481 B.R. 330, 347 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) (same); *Rose*, 2007 WL 136682, at \\*3 (barring federal court challenge to state contempt order as \"an impermissible collateral attack on the contempt charge\").\n\nMany of the factors relevant to permissive abstention ultimately are tied to the decision in Kwok's bankruptcy case on PAX's motion to confirm the inapplicability of the automatic stay or, in the alternative, relief from the automatic stay concerning the Final Contempt Order. Specifically, if the bankruptcy court determines that the stay does not apply or should be modified, then—by definition—it will be deciding that remand is warranted and that proceeding with enforcement of the Final Contempt Order will not interfere with the bankruptcy. Conversely, if the Court determines that the stay applies to enforcement of the Final Contempt\n\n87 In his Objection to PAX's motion to confirm the inapplicability of the stay to the Final Contempt Order, Kwok previewed his intent improperly to attempt to re-litigate the issue of ownership of the Lady May. *See supra* note 71.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 40 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 41 of 193\n\nOrder, or that it should not be modified, then remand still will not interfere with the bankruptcy, because the automatic stay will remain in effect until the Court says otherwise.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, PAX respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion\n\nto remand the New York Action to the New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division.\n\nGiven the facts and circumstances, PAX requests that the Court waive, to the extent applicable,\n\nthe 14-day stay of the enforcement of a judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 7062.\n\nDated: April 13, 2022 New York, NY\n\n## **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*/s/ Peter Friedman* Peter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 41 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 42 of 193\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 13, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties receiving notice by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Peter Friedman* Peter Friedman\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 43 of 193\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nCase No. 22-01073-dsj\n\nv.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **DECLARATION OF PETER FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION TO REMAND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ABSTENTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1)**\n\nI, Peter Friedman, declare:\n\n1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York and\n\nWashington, D.C. and am a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, 7 Times Square,\n\nNew York, NY 10036, counsel for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"). I\n\nrespectfully submit this Declaration in support of PAX's Motion to Remand or, in the\n\nAlternative, for Abstention Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1).\n\n2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Kwok's March 18, 2022\n\nNotice of Removal of the New York Action to the United States District Court for the Southern\n\nDistrict of New York in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 2 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 44 of 193\n\n7-1.\n\n4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the September 15, 2020 Decision and Order in *PAX. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549.\n\n5. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the February 3, 2021 Judgment in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 716.\n\n6. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the February 9, 2022 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181.\n\n7. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 3.\n\n8. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the February 18, 2022 Court Notice in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1191.\n\n9. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of screenshots from the website http (last accessed on April 12, 2022).\n\n10. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the March 4, 2022 Decision and Order on Voluntary Withdrawal of Contempt Motion in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1193.\n\n11. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the Executed Contract of Sale in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 256.\n\n12. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of Genever Defendants' Corporate Documents, filed as Exhibit 5 to PAX's Motion for Pre-Judgment Attachment in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 252.\n\n13. Attached as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the December 8, 2021 Order in *PAX. v. Genever Holdings Corp.*, filed as Exhibit 2 to the Affidavit of Andrew Willins in\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 3 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 45 of 193\n\nSupport of PAX's Motion for an Order of Civil Contempt as to Defendant Miles Kwok for his Failure to Comply with the Court's Turnover Order, in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1089.\n\n14. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a document PAX produced in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020) bearing Bates number PAX-KWOK-017468.\n\n15. Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the December 18, 2020 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 685.\n\n16. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the March 2, 2021 Notice of Appeal in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 725.\n\n17. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of the October 15, 2021 Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellant in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2021-00740 (N.Y. App. Div., First Dep't), Dkt. No. 16.\n\n18. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of the Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy in *In re: Genever Holdings, LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n19. Attached as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of the October 8, 2021 Order Granting Debtor's Second Renewed Motion to Approve the Revised Settlement Agreement in *In re Genever Holdings, LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), ECF 141.\n\n20. Attached as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of the September 22, 2021 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904.\n\n21. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the January 7, 2022 Notice of Motion for Order of Civil Contempt as to Defendant Miles Kwok for His Failure to Comply\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 4 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 46 of 193\n\nWith the Court's Turnover Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078.\n\n22. Attached as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of the January 24, 2022 Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of PAX's Motion for an Order of Civil Contempt as to Defendant Miles Kwok for his Failure to Comply With the Court's September 22, 2021 Turnover Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116.\n\n23. Attached as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Law in Support of PAX's CPLR 5229 Motion and Request for TRO in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 576.\n\n24. Attached as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of the September 30, 2020 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591.\n\n25. Attached as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of the October 15, 2020 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630.\n\n26. Attached as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of screenshots from VesselFinder \"Voyage Analyzer\" [http](http) [e66055d9856504](http) (last accessed on April 12, 2022).\n\n27. Attached as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of the March 16, 2021 Decision and Order of Conditional Contempt in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 728.\n\n28. Attached as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of the March 23, 2021 Notice of Appeal in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n29. Attached as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of the November 4, 2021 Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 17.\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 5 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 47 of 193\n\n30. Attached as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of the January 20, 2022 Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 22.\n\n31. Attached as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of the January 14, 2022 Third Interim Decision and Order on Motion in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1098.\n\n32. Attached as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of the February 9, 2022 Final Order of Civil Contempt in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182.\n\n33. Attached as Exhibit 32 is a true and correct copy of the February 10, 2022 Notice of Appeal in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1187.\n\n34. Attached as Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of the Summary Statement on Application for Expedited Service and/or Interim Relief in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 5.\n\n35. Attached as Exhibit 34 is a true and correct copy of the February 15, 2022 Suggestion of Bankruptcy in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1190.\n\nDated: April 13, 2022 New York, New York\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Peter Friedman* Peter Friedman pfriedman@omm.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061\n\n*Attorney for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-1 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 1 Pg 1 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 48 of 193\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n## **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n## PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nvs.\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nCivil Action No.\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\nDefendants.\n\n## **NOTICE OF REMOVAL**\n\n## **TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that on this date, defendant Ho Wan Kwok (\"Mr. Kwok\") by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027, removing this entire action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (the \"New York State Court\") to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Court\" or the \"New York District Court\"), the abovecaptioned case brought by plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (the \"Plaintiff\") in the New York State Court. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 1334(e).\n\nIn support of this Notice of Removal, Mr. Kwok states as follows:\n\n1. On April 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil action numbered 652077/2017 (the \"Action\"). Numerous aspects of the Action are currently on appeal. At present, the Plaintiff in\n\nthe Action seeks to enforce an order to compel Mr. Kwok to move a boat (the \"Lady May\") that he is alleged to own or control into the jurisdiction of the State of New York, and to otherwise exercise control over purported assets of Mr. Kwok to satisfy a judgment. *See 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*, Case No. 22-50073, Docket No. 57, at ¶ 12 (Bankr. D. Conn 2022) (noting that plaintiff is seeking in this Action the enforcement of an order \"requiring the return of the Lady May to New York\").\n\n2. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), Mr. Kwok (\"Mr. Kwok\") filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division (the \"CT Bankruptcy Court\"), and was assigned Case No. 22- 50073 (JAM), (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"). Accordingly, the time for removal prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(2) has not expired.\n\n3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) \"[a] party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action . . . to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or action under § 1334 of this Title[.]\"\n\n4. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), this Court has jurisdiction to hear all civil proceedings that \"aris[e] under title 11, or aris[e] in or [are] related to cases under title 11\" of the United States Code, the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n5. As of the filing of the Chapter 11 Case, the CT Bankruptcy Court has \"exclusive jurisdiction\" over \"all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate[.]\" 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e) Accordingly, the Civil Action presently impinges on the exclusive jurisdiction of the CT Bankruptcy Court to determine what is\n\n(or is not) property of the estate, and to exercise jurisdiction over such property. *See In re AE Liquidation, Inc.*, 435 B.R. 894, 904 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (determination whether property is property of the estate falls within the bankruptcy court's exclusive jurisdiction); *In re 245 Assocs., LLC*, 188 B.R. 743, 749 fn. 6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995), corrected (Nov. 9, 1995) (\"The commencement of the bankruptcy case vests the district court with exclusive jurisdiction over property of the debtor and the estate.\").\n\n6. Accordingly, as of the filing of the Chapter 11 Case, any action seeking to determine what is (or is not) the property of Mr. Kwok or his estate is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 541 and, thus, the Action is an action \"arising in\" the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n7. This case also is \"related to\" the Chapter 11 Case because it has a close nexus to the bankruptcy proceedings and seeks to determine issues regarding Mr. Kwok's ownership and/or control (or lack thereof) of property and to exercise control over certain assets that are alleged to be within his ownership or control, 1 as well as actions he is alleged to have taken with respect to his creditors.\n\n8. The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County is within the Southern District of New York, and accordingly removal to the Southern District of New York is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). Following removal, Mr. Kwok anticipates seeking to transfer venue to the District of Connecticut and referral to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut based on the ongoing Chapter 11 Case, rather than seeking referral to a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York.\n\n1 The New York State Court has issued orders that contain factual findings with respect to these issues, including determining that the most relevant purported asset (the Lady May yacht) is within Mr. Kwok's beneficial ownership. That finding is on appeal and Mr. Kwok does not waive his objections to that factual finding or any others that are on appeal.\n\n9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(c), a copy of this Notice\n\nof Removal will be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and a copy of this Notice of Removal will be served upon counsel for the Plaintiff.\n\n10. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(1), Mr. Kwok consents to the entry of a final order by the Bankruptcy Court with respect to any non-core claim within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).\n\n**WHEREFORE**, Mr. Kwok removes the entire action now pending in the Supreme\n\nCourt of New York, New York County to this Court.\n\nDated: March 18, 2022\n\n## **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: */s/ William R. Baldiga* William R. Baldiga, Esq. Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. Uriel Pinelo, Esq. Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com Email: bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com Email: upinelo@brownrudnick.com\n\n*Proposed Counsel for Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor*\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-2 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 2 Pg 1 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 53 of 193\n\n# **EXHIBIT 2**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MANHATTAN DIVISION**\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nAdversary Proceeding No. 22-01073-dsj\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **STIPULATION RESOLVING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE**\n\nWHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") filed the underlying state court action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York –\n\nCounty of New York: Commercial Division against Defendant Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\"), *see*\n\n*Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al.*, Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny.\n\nCnty.), Dkt. No. 1 (the \"New York Action\"); and\n\nWHEREAS, on February 3, 2021, the New York state court granted partial summary\n\njudgment and entered a judgment in favor of PAX, *see Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund*\n\n*L.P. v. Kwok et al.*, Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 716; and\n\nWHEREAS, on February 9, 2022, the New York state court issued a final order of civil contempt against Kwok, *see Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al.*, Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 1181; and\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 7-1 Filed 04/05/22 Entered 04/05/22 11:09:45 Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue Pg 2 of 3 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-2 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 2 Pg 3 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 55 of 193\n\nWHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, Kwok filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division (the \"CT Bankruptcy Court\"), and was assigned Case No. 22-50073 (JAM); and\n\nWHEREAS, on March 18, 2022, Kwok filed a notice of removal of the New York Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, *see Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al.*, Case No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1; and\n\nWHEREAS, on March 21, 2022, pursuant to the Amended Standing Order of Reference dated January 31, 2012, the District Court referred the Action to this Court; and\n\nWHEREAS, on March 23, 2022, Kwok moved for entry of an order transferring this action to the CT Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1412 and Rule 7087 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, *see Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al.*, Case No. 1:22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 4; and\n\nWHEREAS, on March 30, 2022, the Action was reassigned from Judge Martin Glenn to Judge David S. Jones, *see Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al.*, Case No. 1:22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 5;\n\nNOW THEREFORE\n\nIT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the counsel of record for the respective parties herein, that:\n\n1. A transfer of the Action to the District Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division, for referral to the CT Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would serve the interests of justice, and would foster the economic and efficient administration of the estate; and\n\n#### 22-01073-dsj Doc 7-1 Filed 04/05/22 Entered 04/05/22 11:09:45 Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue Pg 3 of 3 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-2 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 2 Pg 4 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 56 of 193\n\n2. PAX does not waive, and expressly preserves, its right to seek, before the CT Bankruptcy Court, timely remand of this adversary proceeding on any proper ground, *see, e.g.*, *Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.*, 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007) (A district court may properly transfer an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), \"bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.\"). Kwok likewise does not waive, and expressly preserves, the right to oppose such relief sought by PAX on any proper ground. Kwok agrees, however, that PAX's consent to Kwok's motion to transfer venue does not constitute consent to subject-matter jurisdiction or a waiver of PAX's right to seek timely remand. *E.g.*, *Sinochem International Co.*, 549 U.S. at 430-32.\n\nSO STIPULATED:\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP *Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund*\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP *Attorneys for Defendant Ho Wan Kwok*\n\nBy: *Stuart M. Sarnoff* Stuart M. Sarnoff\n\nBy: *William R. Baldiga* William R. Baldiga\n\nSO ORDERED: April \\_\\_, 2022\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 1 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 57 of 193\n\n# **EXHIBIT 3**\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 2 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 58 of 193\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., | | |\n| | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\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 HAOYUN, | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 007 |\n| | a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS
LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | |\n\nDefendants.\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nBefore the Court is plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s (\"Pacific Alliance\") motion for partial summary judgement on Count I of the Amended Complaint against defendant Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\") and defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument on motion 006. The Court heard oral argument via Skype on September 14, 2020. Based on the papers submitted and the arguments made on the record of September 14, 2020, and for the reasons that follow, Pacific Alliance's motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and Kwok's motion for reargument on motion 006 is denied.\n\n## **Background**\n\nIn 2008, Pacific Alliance entered into an agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which Pacific Alliance provided Spirit with a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. Kwok executed a personal Guarantee of the loan. In September 2009, Spirit executed a deed under which Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), a business listing Kwok as its sole shareholder and director, assumed\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 3 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 59 of 193\n\nthe loan debt that Spirit owed to Pacific Alliance. Kwok again executed a personal guarantee in favor of Pacific Alliance to secure Shiny Times' repayment obligation.\n\nIn March 2011, Pacific Alliance and Shiny Times entered into a new loan facility (\"2011 Loan Facility\") that expressly superseded and replaced the 2009 Deed of Settlement and a 2010 Letter Agreement. Simultaneously, Kwok entered into a new personal guarantee (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\") which expressly superseded the 2009 Guarantee. The 2011 Personal Guarantee is the operative agreement in this action.\n\nIn April 2013, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement, whereby the outstanding loan amount would no longer be due and owing to Pacific Alliance if Pacific Alliance purchased certain apartments from Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another Kwok business entity, and Shiny Times' made certain installment payments to Pacific Alliance. Beijing Pangu was required to satisfy ten conditions precedent in connection with the sale and purchase of each of the apartments by Pacific Alliance. If any such condition was not satisfied by June of 2013, the Deed of Settlement would be terminated in its entirety. Pacific Alliance and Kwok subsequently executed four extensions of the Deed of Settlement, changing only the date by which the conditions precedent needed to be satisfied. The latest Deed of Settlement required that the conditions precedent be satisfied by June of 2015.\n\nPacific Alliance seeks summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint which alleges that Kwok failed to satisfy the conditions precedent by June of 2015 and thus, per the terms of the agreement, the Deed of Settlement was terminated in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee again controlled.\n\nThe Court recently held, in response to Pacific Alliance's motion for sanctions, that Kwok was judicially estoppel from challenging the authenticity of documents that Kwok had\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 4 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 60 of 193\n\npreviously sponsored in proceedings before this Court. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 404. Specifically, at his November 2019 deposition, Kwok denied having signed several agreements discussed above, including the 2011 Loan Facility, the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the 2013 Deed of Settlement, and the four Supplemental Deeds. Kwok testified that the documents were forgeries. On the motion for contempt, Pacific Alliance argued, and the Court found, that these denials were inconsistent with the positions Kwok had taken throughout the duration of this 2017 case. As such, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of these agreements in opposition to Pacific Alliance's motion for summary judgment or at trial.\n\n## **Kwok's Cross-Motion**\n\nTurning first to defendant Kwok's cross-motion for leave to reargue the Court's Decision and Order dated July 7, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 404), this motion is denied. As stated above, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of the agreements that Kwok had previously sponsored as authentic before the Court in this proceeding. Kwok argues that the Court misapprehended the law in reaching this holding. This Court rejects that argument in its entirety.\n\nAt the outset of this case, Kwok moved to dismiss this action on *forum non conveniens* grounds (motion 001). The Court granted Kwok's motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102), which decision was subsequently reversed and remitted by the First Department (NYSCEF Doc. 121). In making his motion to dismiss, Kwok argued that the contracts at issue were governed by Hong Kong law. Specifically, Kwok attached to his motion \"true and correct\" copies of several agreements among the parties including the 2011 Personal Guarantee (NYSCEF Doc. No. 17) and the 2013 Deed of Settlement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18), which he now contests.\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 5 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 61 of 193\n\nKwok now argues that because the thrust of his argument on the motion to dismiss and the Court's decision related to *forum non conveniens,* (1) he is not actually changing his position on the authenticity of the documents, and (2) the Court did not actually determine the authenticity of the documents. This argument is incorrect. Kwok's assertion that the case should have been dismissed in favor of a resolution in Hong Kong *because the agreements on their face are governed by Hong Kong law* necessarily required an argument by Kwok, and an acceptance by the Court, that the agreements were authentic and not forgeries, as Kwok now claims.\n\nKwok further argues that in any event judicial estoppel cannot apply because there was no final determination on the merits on the issue of whether the contracts were authentic, because the First Department reversed this Court's decision on the motion to dismiss. This argument is not supported by the case law in the First Department. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine used to prevent a party from changing its position during the same litigation. *See e.g. Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000) (\"[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding.\"). Indeed, because judicial estoppel is used to prevent parties from changing their position in the same litigation – a final determination *cannot* be a prerequisite for judicial estoppel. *See id* (precluding the landlord from relying on a different lease on appeal than had been relied on at the trial-court level in the same proceeding).\n\nAdditionally, the Court notes that Kwok never pleaded that the documents were forgeries in either of his Answers, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g., Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C*., 214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995) (granting a motion for leave to amend the pleadings to add affirmative defense of forgery); *Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Giardino,* 71 A.D.2d\n\n836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979) (holding that \"proof of defendants' handwriting was material in light of their affirmative defense of forgery\").\n\nKwok's recent, uncorroborated assertion that the agreements are forgeries is inconsistent with his prior position in this litigation – and therefore provides an appropriate basis for judicial estoppel. Accordingly, Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied, and the agreements previously sponsored by Kwok are accepted as authentic for the purpose of evaluating plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.\n\n## **Pacific Alliance's Motion**\n\nThe Court is granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Pacific Alliance holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract under the 2011 Personal Guarantee. By the plain terms of the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the failure to satisfy the conditions precedent to the settlement by June 30, 2015, would result in reverting to the 2011 Personal Guarantee being in full force and effect. *See* NYSCEF Doc. 461.\n\n> **Clause 3.4:** Reversion of the Facility Letter after 31 July 2013. In the event that all conditions precedent set out in Clause 3.2 for all Apartments have not been satisfied by 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing[ here, 30 June 2015, per the fourth and final supplemental Deed of Settlement]), **then the entire settlement as contemplated under this Deed shall be terminated and the Parties acknowledge that the Facility Letter shall revert and be in full force and effect immediately** after 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing) and Shiny Times shall be obliged to settle the Total Outstanding Amount and any interest accrued thereon in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Facility Letter. (emphasis added).\n\n*See also* NYSCEF Doc. No. 472 \"Fourth Supplemental Deed of Settlement\" (changing the date to satisfy the conditions precedent to \"30 June 2015\").\n\nPlaintiff Pacific Alliance has shown, and defendant Kwok has failed to refute, that several of the conditions precedent in the 2013 Deed of Settlement were not fulfilled. Namely, defendant Kwok failed to deliver clean title, failed to provide plaintiff with an invoice for the\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 7 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 63 of 193\n\npurchase of the apartments, failed to provide plaintiff with evidence regarding the payment of all relevant taxes and charges in connection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and failed to deliver the House Ownership Certificates of any of the Apartments to plaintiff. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i).\n\nKwok does not dispute that these conditions were never satisfied. Instead, in opposition, Kwok argues that plaintiff Pacific Alliance failed to mitigate its damages when it allegedly did not act on an opportunity to potentially seize the three apartments with the aid of Beijing police.\n\nFirst, even taking Kwok's version of events as true, mitigation speaks to damages, not liability, and thus these events would not preclude partial summary judgment on liability. Second, as demonstrated by the documentary evidence sponsored by both parties, the alleged opportunity to take possession of the three apartments with the aid of police only came up *after* June 2015, and thus the 2013 Deed of Settlement had already been nullified in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in full force and effect. Third, Kwok has never pleaded, in either of his Answers, mitigation, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g. Eskenazi v. Mackoul,* 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010) (referring to \"the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages\").\n\nFinally, under Hong Kong law, a party is only required to act *reasonably* to mitigate damages. *See* Affirmation of Vishal Prakash Melwani at ¶17.2 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 535) *and see* Affirmation of Phillip Loukis Georgiou (NYSCEF Doc. No. 498) at ¶¶ 18.3 and 21. The record currently indicates that to take advantage of the alleged offer of the Beijing Police, Pacific Alliance would have needed to pay RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million] per unit to get them released. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288. The prospect of paying approximately \\$16 million for assets that the parties had agreed would be transferred free of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 8 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 64 of 193\n\ncharge to settle a debt would likely not have qualified as a *reasonable* opportunity to mitigate\n\ndamages under Hong Kong law. Nevertheless, the Court reserves decision as to the issue of\n\ndamages.\n\nUnder the 2011 Personal Guarantee\n\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally. . . guarantee[d] to PAX [Pacific Alliance] the due and punctual payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Facility] and agree[d] that promptly on PAX's demand he will pay to PAX all [o]bligations that are due but unpaid\";\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally agree[d] (as primary obligor and not only as surety) to indemnify and hold harmless PAX on demand from and against any and all losses incurred by PAX as a result of any [o]bligation [of Shiny Times] being or becoming void, voidable, unenforceable, or ineffective as against Shiny Times for any reason whatsoever . . . .\";\n- Kwok agreed that his \"obligations . . . under this Guarantee shall constitute and be continuing obligations which shall not be released or discharged by any intermediate payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Loan Facility] or any of them, shall continue in full force and effect until the unconditional and irrevocable payment and discharge in full of [those o]bligations and are in addition to and independent of, and shall not prejudice or merge with, any other security (or any right of setoff) which PAX may at any time hold in respect of [those o]bligations or any of them;\"\n- PAX was permitted to seek recourse against Kwok as primary obligor without first enforcing the debt against Shiny Times; and\n- Kwok agreed to a catchall waiver of any defenses based on \"any other act, event or omission which might operate to discharge, impair or otherwise affect the Guarantor or any of the Obligations or any of the rights, powers, and remedies conferred upon [PAX LP] by this Guarantee or by law.\"\n\nKwok does not argue that either he or Shiny Times made any payments under the 2011 Loan\n\nFacility or the 2011 Personal Guarantee to satisfy the debt. Accordingly, the Court finds Kwok\n\nliable for breach of the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n## **Conclusion**\n\nThe remaining issue in the action – Count II of the Amended Complaint – seeks to hold\n\ntwo of Kwok's companies—Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation— liable\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 9 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 65 of 193\n\nfor Kwok's debt to Pacific Alliance as alter egos. This action was scheduled for a jury trial on October 5, 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court is unable to have a jury trial on that date and the trial is rescheduled for January 15, 2021.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED that defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint is granted in favor of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. and against Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/ka, GWO Wen Gui, a/ka/ Gui Wengui, a/ka/ Guo Wen-Gui, a/ka/ Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/ka/ Haoyun Guo to the extent of holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall move no later than October 14, 2020 by notice of motion returnable in the Submissions Part to establish damages on Count I by presenting affidavits on personal knowledge and evidence in admissible form as to the principal amount due and owing under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the rate of interest applicable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, and the date from which interest is accruing, so that the Clerk of Court may calculate the total amount due and owing as of the date of entry of judgment; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall simultaneously move for an award of legal fees and expenses, setting forth the document which plaintiff is relying on and attaching invoices for services rendered; and it is further\n\nORDERED that the parties appear for a status conference on December 22, 2020 at 10:20\n\nam.\n\nDated: September 15, 2020\n\n| CHECK ONE: | CASE DISPOSED | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|---|-----------------------|-----------|\n| | GRANTED
DENIED | X | GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | SETTLE ORDER | | SUBMIT ORDER | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 1 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 67 of 193\n\n# **EXHIBIT 4**\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 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 2 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 68 of 193\n\n| SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------|\n| COUNTY OF NEW YORK | | |\n| PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY | | |\n| FUNDL.P., | | 17 652077 |\n| Plaintiff, | | |\n| V. | Index No. 652077/2017 | |\n| KWOK HOW AN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO
WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO | [liftOI OSEff] JUDGMENT | |\n\nWEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAO YUN, *a/k/a*\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and\n\nDefendants.\n\nMILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nWHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., filed a complaint against Defendant 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\"), alleging a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant Kwok.\n\nWHEREAS, on April 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Kwok, and Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation ( together with Genever Holdings LLC, the \"Genever Defendants\"), alleging causes of action for (i) breach of contract against Defendant Kwok and (ii) veil piercing against the Genever Defendants.\n\nWHEREAS, on July 24, 2020, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Kwok, and the motion was fully briefed and heard before Justice Barry R. Ostrager, who issued a Decision and Order dated September 15, 2020, which was entered in the New York County Clerk's Office on September 16, 2020, granting Plaintiffs motion on Count I of the Amended Complaint for breach of contract, and directed Plaintiff move by Notice of Motion to establish damages on Count I no later than October 14, 2020.\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 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 3 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 69 of 193\n\n## **17 652077**\n\nWHEREAS, (i) on September 21, 2020, Plaintiff moved by Notice of Motion to establish damages, legal fees and expenses; (ii) Plaintiff agreed to temporarily withdraw, without prejudice and with the Court's permission and the other parties' understanding that it would be renewed at a later date, the portion of its application relating to legal fees and expenses (i.e., enforcement costs); and (iii) the motion was fully briefed and heard before Justice Barry R. Ostrager, who issued a Decision and Order dated December 18, 2020 (the \"Damages Order\"), and entered into the New York County Clerk's office on December 18, 2020, directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Kwok in the amount of \\$46,426,489.00 plus contractual interest at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010 and at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of entry of this decision and order.\n\nNOW, upon motion ofO'Melveny & Myers LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff, it is:\n\nADJUDGED that Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., having a business address at 33/F, Three Pacific Place, 1 Queen's Road East, Hong Kong, have judgment against and do recover from Defendant Kwok Ho Wan, residing at 781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022, the amount of **\\$46,426,489.00** , plus contractual ------------ interest in the amount **of \\_\\_\\_ ~\\$\\_6\\_9~,\\_4\\_4\\_8~,\\_9\\_3\\_9\\_.\\_7\\_1 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ ,** plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of9% in the amount **of \\_\\_\\_ \\$\\_5\\_2\\_6\\_,\\_5\\_9\\_0\\_.\\_8\\_6 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ ,** for a total of\n\n**X \\$116,402,019.57** , and Plaintiff shall have execution thereof.\n\n| Ji ii1~nHt 1i~1111••11t0£c11 this _th Ja5 cf | | | !OH
, | |\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\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 4 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 70 of 193\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\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 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 71 of\n\nPg 5 of 5 193\n\n> SlXPRE.\\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\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 1 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 72 of 193\n\n## **EXHIBIT 5**\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,
-
v - | MOTION DATE | | |\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 | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 019 | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a
HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and
GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 3 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 74 of 193\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 4 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 75 of 193\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 5 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 76 of 193\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 6 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 77 of 193\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 7 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 78 of 193\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 8 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 79 of 193\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 9 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 80 of 193\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 10 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 81 of 193\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 11 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 82 of 193\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 | |\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\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-6 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Errata 6 Pg 1 of 20 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 83 of 193\n\n## **EXHIBIT 6**\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\nv.\n\n Index No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2019 10:50 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 309 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2019\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\nDefendants.\n\n**FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT**\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 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. Kwok executed that guarantee, and PAX LP lent \\$30 million to Spirit Charter on February 4, 2008.\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 again executed a personal guarantee with respect to that debt.\n\n4. Then in 2011, PAX LP and Shiny Times entered into a written agreement (the \"2011 Facility Letter\") that expressly superseded the 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 executed another personal guarantee (that similarly expressly superseded Kwok's prior personal guarantee) pursuant to which Kwok guaranteed payment of the amount owed to PAX LP by Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"2011 Personal Guarantee\").\n\n6. After both Shiny Times and Kwok failed to repay PAX LP, Kwok, Shiny Times, and Beijing Pangu (another Kwok-controlled entity) negotiated a potential settlement with PAX LP, under\n\nwhich PAX LP, to settle the debt, was to take ownership of three apartments located in Beijing that were owned by Beijing Pangu. But Kwok and Beijing Pangu failed to meet the specific conditions precedent for the settlement (including, among other ways, failing to transfer title for the apartments to PAX LP), even after PAX LP, through four separate extensions, provided Kwok and Beijing Pangu an additional 23 months to satisfy these conditions.\n\n7. As the conditions precedent were not satisfied when the last deadline expired at the end of June 2015, the 2011 Facility Letter and the 2011 Personal Guarantee by their express terms reverted to being in full force and effect, and PAX LP then began its pursuit of repayment of the mounting, contractual debt from both Shiny Times and Kwok. Shiny Times, however, had no assets when PAX LP had it liquidated in the British Virgin Islands. And Kwok to this date has refused to repay a penny of his debt. In fact, Kwok has recently denied the very existence of the debt and has stated repeatedly that he should not have to repay it, including on his Twitter account and in a deposition in this very lawsuit.\n\n8. Two of Kwok's shell companies—Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\" and together with Genever NY, the \"Genever Defendants\")—are liable for his debt to PAX LP because each is Kwok's alter ego. Kwok is the sole shareholder and director of Genever BVI, which in turn is the sole shareholder of Genever NY, through which Kwok purchased a luxury apartment at The Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Inc. (the \"Sherry-Netherland\" and the apartment the \"Residence\") in New York in early March 2015 for \\$67.5 million in cash. Kwok dominates and controls both Genever NY and Genever BVI, neither of which has offices, employees, or any separate existence apart from being the shells through which Kwok purchased the Residence.\n\n9. Kwok purchased the Residence for almost the precise amount of money he owed at the time to PAX LP under the Personal Guarantee. He formed the Genever Defendants at a time when he knew his debt would be due and owing to PAX LP, and almost immediately thereafter, he purchased the Residence through the Genever Defendants in an attempt to shield that asset from PAX LP. Kwok has made false statements to both the Sherry-Netherland and this Court about the Genever Defendants in an attempt to further that debt-avoidance effort. This and other Kwok conduct with respect to the Genever Defendants, detailed below, demonstrates that Kwok has abused the privilege of the corporate form in order to perpetrate a fraud, wrong, or injustice against PAX LP.\n\n10. PAX LP has taken all necessary and appropriate steps in accordance with its agreements with Shiny Times and Kwok to recover the monies it is owed—now totaling more than \\$100 million including contractual interest. To date, however, Shiny Times and Kwok have failed to satisfy even one dollar of their contractual repayment obligations on the outstanding debt. And as a result of this failure to repay the debt, PAX LP has also incurred \"costs, claims losses, [and] expenses (including legal fees)\" in connection with enforcing the 2011 Personal Guarantee, which Kwok is obligated to indemnify under the express terms of the 2011 Personal Guarantee. (*See* Exhibit A § 5.3.)\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n11. 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, is domiciled in the state, and owns the Residence, located in New York County.\n\n12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Genever NY pursuant to C.P.L.R § 301, because it is incorporated in New York and its sole business purpose is to own shares in Kwok's Residence, located in New York County.\n\n13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Genever BVI because, as alleged herein, by virtue of Kwok's domination and control over it to perpetrate a fraud against PAX LP, Genever BVI is Kwok's alter ego. Moreover, Genever BVI has engaged in relevant conduct in, and availed itself of the laws of, New York by becoming the sole shareholder of a New York LLC (Genever NY) and being the indirect owner of the Residence. Indeed, Genever BVI's sole business purpose is to own (through its 100% ownership of Genever NY) the Residence. Genever BVI is represented by Kwok's counsel in this litigation (in which that counsel accepted service of and responded to a third-party subpoena to Genever BVI). Kwok's counsel also made representations to this Court in this case regarding certain pledges of Genever BVI's assets.\n\n14. Venue is proper in this Court under C.P.L.R § 503(a) because Kwok's residence is in New York County and Genever NY's place of incorporation is New York County.\n\n## **PARTIES**\n\n15. Plaintiff PAX LP is an investment fund organized as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands.\n\n16. 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. Kwok is the sole shareholder and director of Genever BVI. Kwok resides in the Residence.\n\n17. Defendant Genever NY is a limited liability company established under the laws of New York. Genever NY's sole business purpose is to own shares in the Residence, which is apartment number 1801 in the Sherry-Netherland. Genever NY purchased the Residence in 2015 for \\$67.5 million.\n\n18. Defendant Genever BVI is a BVI business company established under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. Genever BVI's sole business purpose is to own (through its 100% ownership of Genever NY) the Residence.\n\n\n\n## **STATEMENT OF FACTS**\n\n## *The Loan Facility and Kwok's Personal Guarantees to Repay PAX LP*\n\n19. PAX LP and Kwok have had business dealings since approximately February 4, 2008, when PAX LP entered into a written agreement (the \"2008 Facility Agreement\") with Spirit Charter (attached as Exhibit B), 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 (*see* Exhibit B § 3). Kwok executed the 2008 Facility Agreement on behalf of Spirit Charter. The 2008 Facility Agreement specified that \"[PAX LP] shall not be obliged to make the Advance to the Borrower unless it shall first have received . . . a duly executed Kwok[] Guarantee.\" (Exhibit B § 4(d).) Having received Kwok's guarantee, PAX LP lent the full \\$30 million available under the loan facility to Spirit Charter on February 4, 2008.\n\n20. On March 12, 2008, PAX LP and Spirit Charter amended and restated the 2008 Facility Agreement (\"Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement\"). (*See* Exhibit C.) Kwok executed the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement on behalf of Spirit Charter, which acknowledges and confirms that Spirit Charter \"received the US\\$30,000,000 principal amount of the Original Facility on 4 February 2008.\" (Exhibit C § 2.)\n\n21. By a deed dated September 17, 2009 (the \"September 2009 Deed\"), Shiny Times, 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. (*See* Exhibit D.) Kwok executed the September 2009 Deed on behalf of Shiny Times, Spirit Charter, and himself. 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 \\$45,357,534.25 as of September 12, 2009. (*See* Exhibit D at 4.)\n\n22. The September 2009 Deed required Kwok to execute a new personal guarantee in favor of PAX LP to secure Shiny Times's repayment of the approximately \\$45 million then owed under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement. (*See* Exhibit D § 5.10.) Kwok executed his personal guarantee on November 18, 2009. (*See* Exhibit E.)\n\n23. In 2011, PAX LP, Kwok, and Shiny Times agreed to supersede the foregoing agreements with two contracts executed on March 16, 2011—the 2011 Facility Letter (attached as Exhibit F) and the 2011 Personal Guarantee (attached as Exhibit A).\n\n24. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 as of that date and would repay that amount, with 15% annual interest running from December 31, 2010, by June 30, 2012. (*See* Exhibit F §§ 3, 5.)\n\n25. 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. (*See* Exhibit F § 13.)\n\n26. Like the prior agreements between the parties, the 2011 Facility Letter was also expressly conditioned on Kwok's execution of the 2011 Personal Guarantee to fully backstop Shiny Times's 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\n(Exhibit F at 1.)\n\n27. Kwok executed the 2011 Facility Letter on behalf of Shiny Times and on the same day\n\nsigned the 2011 Personal Guarantee, under which he agreed to \"irrevocably and unconditionally\"\n\nguarantee Shiny Times's payment of all amounts owed under the 2011 Facility Letter. In particular,\n\nKwok:\n\n- (a) guaranteed to PAX LP the \"due and punctual payment\" of Shiny Times's obligations under the 2011 Facility Letter;\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\n(Exhibit A §§ 2.1–2.2, 3.3, and 5.3.)\n\n28. Kwok also agreed in the 2011 Personal Guarantee to waive defenses, including those based on the winding up or dissolution of Shiny Times or PAX LP's inability to recover against Shiny Times \"for any reason.\" (Exhibit A § 3.4.) Kwok further agreed to a catchall waiver of 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.\" (Exhibit A § 3.4(g).)\n\n29. In short, Kwok personally executed an unambiguous and ironclad guarantee that he would satisfy Shiny Times's debt to PAX LP.\n\n## *The Settlement Attempts, Extensions, and Shiny Times's Ultimate Failure to Repay PAX LP*\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2019 10:50 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 309 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2019\n\n30. 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 structured an attempt to resolve that debt through a settlement agreement—and then several extensions thereof—each of which was styled a \"Deed of Settlement.\"\n\n31. PAX LP, Shiny Times, and Kwok entered into the Original Deed of Settlement\n\n(attached as Exhibit G) along with Beijing Pangu, another Kwok-owned company, on April 19, 2013.\n\nKwok executed the Original Deed of Settlement on behalf of Shiny Times and himself.\n\n32. The Original Deed of Settlement provided that (i) the total outstanding amount due\n\nunder the 2011 Facility Letter plus all accrued and unpaid interest was \\$52 million as of the date of the\n\nOriginal Deed of Settlement, and (ii) that amount would no longer be due and owing upon the\n\noccurrence of the following events:\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\n(*See* Exhibit G §§ 2–3.1.)\n\n33. Before PAX LP could complete the purchase the three apartments from Beijing Pangu, however, Beijing Pangu was required under the Original Deed of Settlement to satisfy certain express conditions precedent relating to title, taxes, satisfaction of mortgages, and other common aspects of Chinese real estate transactions. (*See* Exhibit G § 3.2.) If any of these conditions were not met for any of the three apartments by July 31, 2013, the Original Deed of Settlement provided that \"the Facility Letter shall revert and be in full force and effect immediately after such failure and Shiny Times shall\n\nbe obliged to settle any outstanding Total Outstanding Amount and any interest accrued thereon in accordance with the terms of the [2011] Facility Letter.\" (Exhibit G § 4.2.)\n\n34. If the 2011 Facility Letter were to revert into full force and effect, Kwok's obligations would also be in full force and effect under the terms of the 2011 Personal Guarantee: \"The obligations of [Kwok] . . . shall continue in full force and effect until the unconditional and irrevocable payment and discharge in full of\" Shiny Times's payment and performance obligations under the 2011 Facility Letter. (Exhibit A § 3.1.)\n\n35. Kwok and Beijing Pangu failed to satisfy the conditions precedent by July 31, 2013.\n\n36. Four supplemental deeds of settlement—on December 3, 2013; May 15, 2014; July 11, 2014; and February 10, 2015 (attached as Exhibits H–K)—extended the dates in the Original Deed of Settlement, including the repayment date and the date for Kwok and Beijing Pangu to satisfy the conditions precedent.\n\n37. Each of the supplemental deeds had the same terms as the Original Deed of Settlement. And the result was the same each time: Kwok and Beijing Pangu never satisfied several of the required, express conditions. Thus, PAX LP was not required to (and in fact could 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 Original Settlement Deed.\n\n38. 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 potential sale to Kwok of shares in entities that owned the three Beijing Pangu apartments subject to the Original Deed of Settlement (*see* Exhibit L § 2), giving Kwok the option to buy back the apartments from PAX LP.\n\n39. Pursuant to its terms, the Option Agreement was to terminate if certain conditions were not satisfied: \"For the avoidance of doubt, if any of the following conditions to the Option is not satisfied, this Agreement shall terminate with immediate effect (without prejudice to any rights or remedies available to PAX LP under the Deed of Settlement).\" (Exhibit L § 2.) As none of the Option Agreement conditions were satisfied, the Option Agreement similarly was terminated without relieving Shiny Times of its obligation to pay PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n40. Thus, when both the last Deed of Settlement and the Option Agreement expired unsatisfied on June 30, 2015, the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, Kwok's obligations under the 2011 Personal Guarantee became fully enforceable, and Kwok was (and remains) independently liable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee for the full amount of Shiny Times's debt owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n## *Kwok Incorporates the Genever Defendants as Shell Companies that he Completely Dominates and Controls to Fraudulently Purchase the Residence in Order to Shield His Assets from PAX LP*\n\n41. In late January or early February 2015, Kwok's Chinese assets—including the three Beijing Pangu apartments that were to be transferred to PAX LP in the proposed settlement—were seized by the Chinese government, and Kwok fled to the United States.\n\n42. Nevertheless, on February 10, 2015, Kwok signed the fourth and final extension of the Original Deed of Settlement. (*See* Exhibit K.) Unlike PAX LP, Kwok knew at the time that his Chinese assets, including the three apartments, already had been seized, and thus was aware that he could *never* satisfy the conditions precedent for transferring ownership of the apartments to PAX LP. Kwok did not inform PAX LP that the apartments had been seized, and instead induced PAX LP to enter into the fourth and final extension while concealing this important fact.\n\n43. The new deadline to satisfy the conditions precedent in the fourth and final extension was June 30, 2015. Thus, Kwok knew at the time that he executed the February 10, 2015 extension\n\nthat he would never satisfy the conditions precedent (indeed, he did not) and, therefore, that he had only four months to shield his assets before his more than \\$70 million debt to PAX LP became due and payable.\n\n44. Kwok immediately went to work. On February 13, 2015—a mere 72 hours after signing the final settlement extension that Kwok knew he could never satisfy—Kwok formed Genever BVI in the British Virgin Islands and incorporated Genever NY in New York. Kwok did not capitalize either entity. Neither entity opened offices or hired any employees. Kwok is the sole owner of Genever BVI, which is the sole owner of Genever NY. Kwok is the sole director of Genever BVI based on official filings in the BVI.\n\n45. Between February 13 and March 24, 2015—again, knowing that he would be unable to meet the terms of the settlement agreement and that his debt to PAX LP would come due in June 2015—Kwok entered into negotiations with the Sherry-Netherland to purchase the Residence.\n\n46. In order to induce the Sherry-Netherland to accept his application, Kwok, through his lawyers, presented financial statements to the Board of the Sherry-Netherland. These financial statements represented that Kwok owned and controlled Beijing Zenith, a Chinese company whose balance sheet showed almost \\$4 billion in assets. This balance sheet was a critical piece of Kwok's application because it was only one of two assets Kwok ever disclosed.\n\n47. Significantly, Kwok testified in this case that he not only knew at the time he had his lawyers submit his Sherry-Netherland application that these Beijing Zenith assets already had been frozen by the Chinese government, but also that, at the time of the application, he did not \"have any ownership interest in Beijing Zenith\" and that he had \"no control at all over Beijing Zenith.\"\n\n48. A few days later, Kwok, again through counsel, presented to the Sherry-Netherland the financial statements of a second foreign company: Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\"), which held\n\nover \\$490 million in a UBS Hong Kong bank account. While this submission expressly represented that Kwok and his son owned and controlled Bravo Luck, Kwok again testified in this case that he had \"no ownership interest in Bravo Luck.\"\n\n49. As proposed to the Sherry-Netherland, Kwok intended to and did purchase the Residence through Genever NY, which was wholly-owned by Genever BVI. The Sherry-Netherland's Executive Vice President testified he had never seen a resident make a purchase through two separate shell companies in his four decades in the industry. Because the Sherry-Netherland recognized that this structure, coupled with Kwok's failure to disclose any U.S. assets on his application, would make it difficult to collect the monthly fees it would charge to Kwok, the Sherry-Netherland required Kwok to put down the largest security deposit in the Sherry-Netherland's history—five years' worth of his roughly \\$56,000 in monthly fees.\n\n50. On the basis of what, according to Kwok's testimony, was false and misleading financial information presented to the Sherry-Netherland and Kwok's agreement to post the approximately \\$3 million security deposit—and at a time when Kwok's debt to PAX LP was more than \\$70 million—Kwok and Genever NY obtained the Sherry-Netherland Board's approval to purchase the Residence for approximately \\$67.5 million in cash on March 24, 2015.\n\n51. The Contract of Sale and Proprietary Lease Agreement with the Sherry-Netherland are signed by Genever NY. The Purchase Agreement for the apartment lists \"'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever [NY])\" and \"Kwok Ho Wan\" as the applicant.\n\n52. Even though Genever NY is listed on the Contract of Sale, Purchase Agreement, and the Proprietary Lease with the Sherry-Netherland, Genever NY was not capitalized and had no assets with which to purchase the Residence. Instead, Kwok purchased the Residence with funds wired from Bravo Luck.\n\n53. Kwok all but admitted at his deposition that the funds used to purchase the Residence came from Shiny Times. When asked whether there was a connection between the Genever Defendants and Shiny Times, he testified that Genever BVI and Shiny Times had a \"representative relationship . . . like when you purchase house, there will be some agent on behalf.\"\n\n## *PAX LP Seeks to Enforce Its Contractual Rights and Collect Amounts Owed, and Kwok and the Genever Defendants Attempt to Further Shield the Residence in Response*\n\n54. 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 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n55. 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 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n56. Kwok never responded to the Notice of Demand.\n\n57. At around the same time PAX LP sent the Notice of Demand, Kwok and the Genever Defendants listed the Residence for sale.\n\n58. 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\n59. Shiny Times never responded to the Shiny Times Demand Letter.\n\n\n\n60. When Shiny Times did not respond, PAX LP submitted an application to court in the British Virgin Islands 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\n61. Shiny Times was in fact placed into liquidation as a result of the BVI proceeding, but it had no assets. Thus, PAX LP was unable to collect any of the monies owed to it under the 2011 Facility Letter through the BVI liquidation proceeding (or at all).\n\n62. In June 2016, a few months after PAX LP had initiated the BVI liquidation proceeding, Kwok and the Genever Defendants dropped the asking price for the Residence. That same month, Kwok attempted to further shield the Residence by trying to restructure the ownership of Genever BVI and transfer it into a trust in his son's name.\n\n## *PAX LP Files this Lawsuit, and Kwok and the Genever Defendants Make Clear that They Intend to Frustrate any Judgment Entered in Favor of PAX LP*\n\n63. PAX LP filed this lawsuit on April 18, 2017.\n\n64. About a week later, Kwok tweeted that \"I neither have to nor should I repay this amount of boring money irrelevant to me.\"\n\n65. Only after PAX LP filed suit and took discovery related to its motion for a prejudgment order of attachment did it learn of all of Kwok's evasive maneuvers discussed above, including: (i) his formation of the Genever Defendants to shield the Residence from PAX LP; (ii) his failure to capitalize the Genever Defendants or observe proper corporate formalities; (iii) his submission of what he himself admitted under oath was false information to the Sherry-Netherland to induce it to approve the purchase of the Residence while Kwok knew that his similarly sized debt to PAX LP was immediately due and owing; (iv) his use of an unprecedented nested shell company\n\nstructure to protect the Residence from PAX LP; and (v) his apparent use of Shiny Times funds to purchase the Residence.\n\n66. Kwok's history of lying in an attempt to evade his debt to PAX LP has continued throughout this litigation, including making repeated misrepresentations to the Court and under oath at his deposition. As detailed above and below, those misrepresentations include false statements about the Genever Defendants and their assets. As Kwok made these false statements regarding the Genever Defendants in an attempt to avoid having his Residence attached by the Court at PAX LP's request, the Genever Defendants are integrally involved in Kwok's abuse of the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud, wrong, or injustice against PAX LP.\n\n67. In May 2015, just two months after purchasing the Residence—and while Kwok knew he would have to repay his debt to PAX LP—Kwok pledged Genever BVI's assets (*i.e.*, the Residence) to an entity named Roscalitar 2, in direct violation of the terms of his and Genever NY's agreements with the Sherry Netherland. Although that pledge was terminated in March 2017, Kwok argued in 2018—in papers submitted to this Court in opposition to PAX LP's attachment request—that the pledge was still effective and should provide a basis for denying the attachment.\n\n68. Kwok again improperly pledged the Residence in February 2018, after PAX LP had filed this lawsuit, this time to an entity named Blue Capital. And while that pledge was terminated on June 12, 2018, Kwok's counsel inaccurately represented to the Court—at the June 27, 2018 oral argument on PAX LP's attachment motion—that the \"lien is still in effect today.\"\n\n69. Kwok also suborned a bogus affidavit in support of his opposition to PAX LP's attachment request. Specifically, in May 2018, Kwok had his employee Yan Ping Wang file an affidavit with this Court swearing to supposed facts that Kwok argued should defeat PAX LP's attachment request, including about the ownership of the Residence, the pledges of the Residence, and\n\nthe source of the funds Kwok used to purchase the Residence. At her deposition, however, Wang testified that *she knew nothing* about any of these issues. And when the Sherry-Netherland asked Kwok in a letter why he had represented in the Wang affidavit that he had pledged the Residence (which violated his agreements with the Sherry-Netherland), Kwok's counsel denied that the Wang affidavit stated that Kwok had pledged the Residence—even though that is precisely what the Wang affidavit said in no uncertain terms.\n\n70. Kwok also lied repeatedly about the most basic information regarding the Residence and the Genever Defendants, including their ownership. Wang's affidavit swears that Kwok is the owner of the Residence, but, as noted above, Kwok testified that he did not own it. Kwok also testified that he at no time had any ownership or control over the Genever Defendants, even though the corporate documents for the Genever Defendants make clear that Kwok owns 100% of Genever BVI (which in turn owns 100% of Genever NY) and is its sole director. Moreover, in a complaint filed by Genever NY and Kwok in the Southern District of New York in August 2016, Genever NY and Kwok alleged that \"Genever [NY] is owned and operated by Mr. Kwok.\"1\n\n## **COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT Against Defendant Kwok**\n\n71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 70 as though fully set forth herein.\n\n72. The 2011 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 more than \\$100 million.\n\n73. Plaintiff performed under the 2011 Personal Guarantee (and other related agreements).\n\n1 Verified Complaint, *Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al.*, Case No. 1:16 cv-06246 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016) (Dkt. No. 1).\n\n74. Kwok has not repaid any of the money due and owing to PAX LP under the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n75. As a direct result of Kwok's breach of his payment obligations under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, Plaintiff continues to suffer the loss of more than \\$100 million.\n\n## **COUNT II – VEIL PIERCING Against the Genever Defendants**\n\n76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 75 as though fully set forth herein.\n\n77. Kwok created the Genever Defendants for the purpose of shielding the Residence from PAX LP.\n\n78. In creating the Genever Defendants, Kwok failed to follow proper corporate formalities. Kwok failed to capitalize either of the Genever Defendants and used funds from a different entity to purchase the Residence, the only asset held by the Genever Defendants.\n\n79. At no time has either of the Genever Defendants had any employees, offices, or\n\nbusiness purpose other than owning the Residence and shielding it from Kwok's creditors, including PAX LP.\n\n80. Kwok completely dominates the Genever Defendants, which he wholly owns and controls. The Genever Defendants are the alter egos of Kwok.\n\n81. Kwok, through his domination and control of the Genever Defendants, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud, wrong, or injustice against PAX LP.\n\n82. Accordingly, the corporate veil of the Genever Defendants should be pierced, and the Genever Defendants should be held jointly and severally liable for Kwok's breach of contract.\n\n20 of 20\n\n193\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judg-ent against Defendants as follows:\n\n(a) in the amount greater than \\$100,000,000 owed as of this date under the 2011 Personal Guarañtee (\\$46,426,489 plus accrued interest) against Kwok and the Genever Defendants as jointly and severally liable as alter egos of Kwok;\n\n(b) the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expêñses PAX LP has incurred, and will continue to incur, in connection with its enforcement of the 2011 Personal Guarantee agaiñst Kwok, and the Genever Defendants as jointly and severally liable as alter egos of Kwok, under the 2011 Personal Guarañtee's indamnification clause, and\n\n(c) such other and further relief to which PAX LP shows itself justly entitled.\n\nDATED: New York, New York April 18, 2019\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nBy: -- -\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseideñ@said-1agal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\nAttorneys for Plaintiff\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-7 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 7 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 103 of 193\n\n## **EXHIBIT 7**\n\n**COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. MOTION JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK** Pg 2 of 2 193\n\n\n\n**Motion 026**\n\n**Index No.**\n\n**652077/2017**\n\n**Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n**- v. -**\n\n**Kwok Ho Wan et al**\n\n## **COURT NOTICE**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2022 11:18 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1191 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-7 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 7\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 104 of\n\nFiling on Behalf of - Rose Ann Magaldi, Principal Law Clerk to Justice Ostrager\n\nIn light of the bankruptcy filing by Mr. Kwok, the Court proposes that plaintiff either withdraw the pending contempt motion (026) without prejudice to an appropriate application in the Bankruptcy Court and/or without prejudice to renewal before this Court, if appropriate, upon the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court prefers not to keep fully submitted motions pending for an indefinite time. If counsel have an alternative suggestion, the Court will, of course, consider it.\n\nWe ask that plaintiff, and any other interested party, efile a letter by March 3, 2022 addressing the issues raised in this Court Notice. Thank you. DATED 02/18/2022 FILED By RoseAnn Magaldi\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-8 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 8 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 105 of 193\n\n## **EXHIBIT 8**\n\nThis website uses cookies and local storage. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies and local storage. **MfHM-M** 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-8 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 8 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 106 of\n\n\n\nDocument title: LADY MAY Current position (Yacht, IMO 1012359) - VesselFinder [Capture URL: http](http) Capture timestamp (UTC): Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:52:33 GMT Page 1 of 2\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-9 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 9 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 107 of 193\n\n## **EXHIBIT 9**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2022 12:16 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-9 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 9 Pg 2 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 108 of 193\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., | | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | -
v - | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | MOTION DATE | |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | | 026 |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn light of the bankruptcy filing by defendant Ho Wan Kwok (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1190), the Court hereby permits plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. to withdraw its motion for an Order of Civil Contempt based on Mr. Kwok's alleged noncompliance with this Court's September 22, 2021, Turnover Order (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 1192). A status conference is scheduled for December 6, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. via Microsoft Teams. The Court requests that Mr. Kwok's counsel efile a letter as to the status of the bankruptcy proceedings at least one week before the conference date, along with an updated appearance sheet for Teams.\n\nDated: March 4, 2022\n\n| CHECK ONE: | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | | |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|--------|---|-----------------------|---|-----------|\n| | GRANTED | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | X | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | SETTLE ORDER | | | SUBMIT ORDER | | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | | REFERENCE |\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 1 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 109 of 193\n\n## **EXHIBIT 10**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 2 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 110 of 193\n\n## **Susan Hennelly**\n\nFrom: Sent: To: **Subject:** Attachments: Susan Hennelly Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:31 PM BoardOfDirectors Sale of Apartment 1801 and Maid's Room 2219 Kwok board package.pdf\n\nWe have received a contract for the sale of the 2,950 shares allocated to Apartment 180'1 and the 50 shares allocated to Maid's Room 2219 from Sherry 1800s, LLC (Haroche) to Genever Holdings LLC (Miles Kwok).\n\nAttached are copies of the contract of sale1 Mr. Kwok's application and several letters of reference.\n\nThe purchase price is \\$67,500,000, plus \\$2,500))00 for the furnishings. The 2015 maintenance is \\$55,214 per month plus an additional \\$936 for the Maid's Room. This is a residential apartment and will be used by Mr. Kwok and his family.\n\nDue to Mr. Kwok's foreign status and purchasing in an LLC, he will be required to sign an occupancy agreement and personally guarantee the lease. He will also be required to provide a security deposit.\n\nThis apartment encompasses the entire floor and is approximately 7,300 sq. ft. plus 2,170 sq. ft. of terraces. Attached is a floor plan.\n\nMr. Kwok has also entered into a contract to purchase Maid's Room 719 which he will purchase simultaneously, if approved.\n\nMichael Horvitz and Fred Seegal have interviewed Miles Kwok and his son, Mileson Kwok. His wife, Hing Chi, was present via Skype.\n\nVery truly yours,\n\nMichael J. Ullman Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer The Sherry Netherland Hotel 781 Fifth A venue New York, NY 10022 P: 212-231-6811 F: 212-832-4845 For reservations and special offers, go to\n\n## Executed Contract of Sale\n\n## CONSULT YOUR LA WYER l3EP'ORE SIGNJNC THIS AGREEMENT Contrllc(of Salc-\\_Cooperative Apartment\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 4 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 112 of 193\n\nT/Jis Contract is marle as of February \\_\\_\\_ , *2015* between the \"Seller\" and the \"Purchaser)I identified be!ow.\n\nJ Certain Dcfinlt!ons And foformation ! . I The: \"Parties\" arc: J.f.'Z \"Purclrnsor\"; Gcncver Holdingi LLC\n\n*1.1.1* ''Seller\"; Sherry l800s, LLC *Prtor Hames 1.1.ud by Sellar: ;fddrc~s. l 233 Rock Rimmon RMr/i Sf(lmf1'rd, CT 06903*\n\n*Tcv: ID. No .. l0-0780J54*\n\n*A dd1e,1·,r* · *SS. No .. •*\n\n1.2 Tl1e \"Atcornc:ys\" ort *(name, firm name, address <111d telephone.fax).*\n\nMichael *J.* Jones, Esq, Im Gilbert, **Esq, 170 Muon** *Street,* Greenwich, CT O@JIJ 1285 Avenue of the Amerl.:11 Tel: 203-661..{;000 New Ywk1 [';\\' 10019-6064 Fax: *203-661,1088* **Tei;** 2l2ft.W-.,1JMl6il-·-O-f--O-booft-C~fflfflt{moot-~t.ir-..to/-U1e fixtures, central a.ir-<.:ondition/ng **;and/or** window or sleeve unit:;, 6%ft~!ffi~-Ga~.:i+, washing 111aci1ine;;, *cryrrs,* screen:; .ind storm wiodows, window +~~P.¼lr-\\lfl~-may-af})lly--feHiFWM~nH~oo-Yrlth-lhts !m1rmcnts. switch pJatcs, door h:mJwllfc, mirrors. buif:-ins not ~-&-~H1~as~RHJ0Hgalien-to-fHtl'OOtlSfH.l1ltlef-4.is-GMtffi~-tS excluded Jn *1* l.12 tllld all of the 'urnishiogs n,,ekt1**LLC Paul, Weiss, **Rffkl11ci 1**Wlrnrton & Gnrr!son, LLP igllbcrt@pa ulwclss .com\n\n1see l.12 below0\n\nt. !2 Sp.c,;;;.fi.1;..iUy..cx,.;Juo,:,J../.;o~l..illL&.s11lc-u .all..J1\"t.501Jl'i .. pt0f~- **-!lwi.** in1 s* Room# 15191/ f Pw-ktftg-SpslOOJ (\"lnch,Jed !nten:sts\")\n\n1.14 TI1e \"Closing\" is the transfer of ownership of the !-ihares and Lease,\n\n1.15 The dato scheduled for Closing is no later than 3/6/15\n\nC'Scheduled Closing Date\"} at I0:00 **A.M.** (Sec ml *9* and lO)\n\nI. t6 The uPurchase Price\" is: \\$67,500,000.00\n\n1.16.1 The \"Contract Deposit\" is: \\$7,000,0-00.00\n\nl .16.2 The HBalance\" of the Purchase Price due al Closing is;\n\n\\$63rOOO,OOO.OO (See~ 2.2.2) See SR18 in Second Rider 1.17 The monthly \"Ma.lntc1111ncc\" charge is \\$57,085.53 (Sec i\n\n4) LI 8 The \"As:;i;ssment\", if any, payable to the Corporation, n(\n\n*the* date of this Contract *is* NONE, pay11bfc *as* follows:\n\nI.I I \"Personally\" is lht: following person11/ property, to the *+.-a~tftfttlfflg-GptiiiFY.,-{~le-AWH,/-lh.e-{o/lewittg* ?11 *UI.I,*\n\n*bltt\"'ttt'-c-ilr\"* and personal property (except os 1.21 Tr~ I 2G. I or-1..,;,o~ffli~o-!!-RMn-G~w+J.S\n\nspecifically excluded in 1.2.2), including but uroH1-loon--of-~----f1•HJ~(unn--0~----.ye,m;..:1r-1;uch-J£1r,1;t,r not UJtlited t..o 411 it~ms set t,oxth i.ri trie series of videos contained in the DVD(the \"DVD\") delivered by Brown Harris Stevens to Unit 1801 at L:Ou pm or i-ebruary :LU, 201 o.\n\n(j 1.12 - Specifically excluded from this sate are thirteen (13) **paintings** and drawings; one antique secretary desk on east wall of LR *(to* be replaced by a piece of furniture that resembles this desk); personal 'knick knacks' such as small boxes, docks, picture frames, pictures, etc. (but if 'knick knacks' are in the DVD, they are included); file cabinets in Gil's office and contents thereof; all the clothing, framed photographs(except specific frame to be designated by buyer) and the model of the Seller's private yacht located in Seller's office.\n\n#### c,,:1nut *,(* j,1,ft (ll~jtHttl','t n.pl'l(/l,j(fli1 1-:.00 I J'cop.r,,I h) \"'' (.',,,,,,i,rr11 1Gonovcr f-loldlngs LLC\n\n*Prior Hattuu 1md by Sd!ar: Addr!!n: 1233 Rock Rlt11mott Read, Sla11tf(}nf1 CT 0690J*\n\n*Tax ID. No.: 'J0-0780.fJ'I*\n\n*Addre,v.,;·: S.S. N1J,:*\n\n1.2 The \"Attorneys\" ore *(nam,, firm name, add,·e.rs and ulephone, fax),* 1.2. I \"Seller's /\\tcornoy\" ! .2.2 \"Purchast:r's Allomey'' Mlch11e! J. *Jones,* E;q, *il'R* GUbert, *tsq,* Ivty, 131mn1m & O1 M11r11 1 LLC Poul, **Weiss,** Rll'kfnd, Wh11rton & G11rrlsori1 LLP *1 '70* Muon *Street,* Groenwlch1 CT 06830 l:28~ Avenue o(the America Tel: 203-661-6000 New York, N\\' 10019-6064 Fu: 203-651-7088 Tri: Zl2-J7J.JSl9 mJorie.s@lhofow.com Fin:: **212-492•0529**\n\nl .3 The \"E~crowcc\" *Is 1he /Seller 'J}* A Horney.\n\nl ,4 The Managing l\\genl is *(Ham,e, addres., and telep!wrra, fu.X): Slfttrry Nti1(11:rin11d Hori:( Susan H1m11el{J! 781 Flftlt Avttnw.:, 1'1 1 Nt!W fork, NY 10011 Td: :Jl].J3J,681J P~ JJJ-8J:.i-fU5*\n\n*1.5* TI1c real cstat~ 1 'Brnl<~r(s)\" (see~ 12) ls/are: John Burger, 1rnd Kathy S1011.ne, Drown **Harris** *Stevens ind* Serena Dondm•n, Sotheby'\\$ 1.v The name of the ccoporatlve hol.l!llng corporal/on ( 11C-Orporarlon\") b: Sherry Netherland, Inc.\n\nI. 7 'Jl10 \"Unit\" 1wmber I:;: 1801, which eticompaues the entire•\n\n! , *8* The Unii ls locate..J-tlf'-/-;-J{):1-) frcc,.crs,* ranges, *ovens,* bul/(•in m lcrowovo oven~, dish washers, ~~r-fifi8:fKttilf:-tlH9fHl-eeHeA-Wkfl---#lJs gorb~ge dlspo5fll units, Cftblnets DJld counter.i, llghtlng fj:,:turcs, ~1&-P-uf'OOB~&Hgatwn-4~hl&-Ooo\\taCHil chn11dollers, wal/-10-wflll *carpo:ing,* plumbing ond he!lting &OOt-ffi&:~~~er--Oy--tlie *f1xturos,* Qan(rai alr...cundhlon/ng ;and/or window or sleeve uni!s, l,,ffn fl-WHIHhf5 treafmcnt5, switch piatcs, door h!mlware, mirrors, buil:•lns no! ealiHl~~UgaHen-40-p1;1HJtWJ&-u~Hltl~ excluded /11 Y l. 12 *and* all of tit~ .. urn/.,hJni:.v tR1ktdf1tg-b«l-tt&! IHl~gtlflt--upon--i~o~n-{;emmltmool-le¼Wr H11tf~- **-~~d** 'tr - c-ftfti11 ;-p-&f,,---p1'1ltr,-ci,oirinir-H'C m,, ~~~1:1,-tiwi~1~tofi00-with fltt **tw1tt1e; 1tt-wttl-M-c-ry,<-11-t 1Mltt'\"1tttd--d~e1t!lieNr -e~** m-tm,\n\nlgllbor(@pllulwob-.com\n\n1soe 1.12 helow0\n\nI. 12 Spc.;;!kt1Uy..e;..;;lu.;JuLCl'.,ru....i.h~alc.J\\$.lllLp,:ironaJ.propco.y .• mJl• tn-t,looe,d ..Jn ~\"a-1 *\"\"1-1-u .. i.* all-400tt..u'-Jw:;Juded. .ia..t!ie-.-i.1+:t~ **wfff\"t-+ite--e«\"t><~J.J..p~,g1r«ffQ4f°ffW~~~ te«l&fff')'~&tt-ffM--Wili-ff.1.J+twUI-IJ+-~r~ttWH- \"knl-t.1<'1ffl1ttkt1'-~t-•t-e~~~~lfH--ff•Mff\\ plct11'1\"C3;e((',** I. 1J nw safo [dtwsJ [~) lnclude Scllc(s !ntttest io (Sto~t,i)/ [Servnnt's Room 1115191/ (PsAEi11g opaaej (•tncJudol.f **Jntt1ro-il.f')** 1.14 The ~closing\" i, the tram:for of ownership of tho Shares and **Lcase,** *I.IS* The date scheduled for Closing ts no later than 3/6/15 Scheduled Closing Date\") *at* I0:00 **A.M.** (Seo *V'\\19* and 10) I, 16 The \"Purohuse Price\" Js: \\$67,500,000.00 I, 16, l Tho \"Contraot Deposit\" *Is:* \\$71000,000,00 LI *6,2* The \"13alence\" of the Purchase Price dUI! a( Closing !s: \\$6J,ooo,ooo.oo (See~ 2.2,2) See SR18 in Second Rider LI 7 The rnonthly \"Malnlcnoncc'' charge fs \\$S7,0BS.5J (Sec 1 1.18 The \"As~i:ssrnenl\", If any, payable to the Cnrporatlo11, 111 the dale ofthfs Contract is NON€, payable as fol!uw:;: f. I r uri:rson11/!y\" is tile followlng pmon11I propcrt1, to th or a new Lease.\n\n10,2 At Closing, Purchaser shall: t0.2, I PRY the 8Rlancc In 11ocordonce with ~2.2,2;\n\n10.2,2 execute and deliver to Seller and the Corporation an agreement wisumlng the Lease, in the form required by the Corporation; and\n\nto,2.3 if requested by the Corporation, execute nnd deliver **counterparts** of a new **lease** substantially the same 11s the Lease, for the **bu:ance** of the Lease term, in which cflse the Lease shall be canceled and surrendered to the Corporation togeiher whh Seller's assignment tl1ereofto Purch11Rer\n\n10.J At Closing, the Parlics shall complete end execute all documents necessury:\n\nI0.3, l for Internal Revenue Ser.ice (\"IRS\") form !099-S or othor ,9/mll0r requirements:\n\nI 0.3.2 to comply with smoke detecior requiremonts and any applicnble transfer tux ftl!ngs; and\n\nt 0.3 .3 to trnnsfer Seller's lnteresl, if any, In and to the Personalty and Included rnterests.\n\nI 0.4 Purchnser shrill not be. obligurcd to close urilcs,q, u1 Closing, the Corporntion dellvers ·\n\n10.4, 1 to Purchaser u new certli: cute for (he Shares in the nume of Purcha5er; and\n\nI 0.4.2 a written statement by an officer or nuthori1.cd agent of tho Corporation consenting *to* the traMfcr of tho Shares and Lease to Purchaser and setting forth the amounts of *and* payment status of all sums owed by Seller to tne Corporation, Including Molntenance and any Assessments, nnd the date.'! tn which e!lch has been paid.\n\n### ll **Closing Fees, Tftxca llnd Apportionments**\n\n11. l At *or* prior to Clo.,fng,\n\nI 1.1, l Seller shnll pny, if t1ppl!cuble:\n\n**11,** I. f, i the cost of stock tram fer .stamps; and\n\n11. r, 1,2 transfer taxes, except as set forth in l I. l. 2 .2\n\n11. 1.2 Purchaser shnl! pt1y, if 11pplicable:\n\nl I, 1,2, l any foe Jmpo~cd by the Corporntion relRting to Purcha:rnr's financing; 11nd\n\n11.1.2.2 trnr.~fcr taxes imposed by statute pdnrnrlly on Purchaser (e.g., the ''mAn,ion ~ux 11 ),\n\n! l.2 The Flip Tax, if any, shall b1; paid by the Purty sr,ec1ficd In ,, I.I 9,\n\nI I J Any fee imposed by the Corporation and not specified in this Contract she\\! be p1tld by the Party upon whom such fee Is expressly *imposed* hy the Co•ror•tlon, nnd 1f 110 Pr1r1y !~ sped fied by the Corporation, t·1en :mch foe sh11ll be p!iid by Seller,\n\n114 Tht\". Port/c3 sluill npportlon es of ! 1 :59..P.M. o: lhc *day* preceding tho Closing, the Malrtcnance, 11nd anyother periodic charges due the Corporation 'other thun Assessments) und STAR Tax Exumption (if tho Uolt ls tht: beneficiary of &amo), 'oas~d on \\he 11umber of the days in the month of Closin6,\n\nl l *.5* Assessment,, whether fnyablc In II lump sum or instflllmenls, *shall* not be apportioned, out shall be paid by UH: Party who is the owner of the **Shues** on the d!lte specified by the Corporation for payrnenL Purch~ser slwl! pay nny lnstollments payable after Closing provided Selier had the right and oiected to pay tl1e Assessment 111 installmonts,\n\nI l .6 E11ch Party sh&IJ timely pay any transfer **taxes** for which it is prlmndly ltabte purs1111n1 tn law by cashier's, official bank, i:;1iriiiied *or* Rl!orney's escrow chock, Th/9 l 1.6 shul. survive Closing,\n\nI l. 7 Any computational errors Cli' omissions shall be l.)Orrected within 6 months after Clo~ing, *Ths* ~I l 7 shall **survive** Closing, 12 Broker\n\n12. l Each Pa11y represents that SL ch Party hes not dealt with 1rny pe,3011 uctin~ Iii/ a broker, whctfier licensed or onliceirned, in connection wlU1 this transactlnn other thnn the Broker(-'>) named in~ U.\n\n12.2 **Seller** ~hall pay lhc l3roket's commis~ion pursuant to a suporntc Rgreemcnl The Broker(s) shn/1 not be dccmcc to be a third-party bt:neficiary of this Crmtrnct.\n\n12.3 \"111/s ~l2 shall survive Cioslng, conce!lntlon or (er:nim1Uon of th is Contract.\n\n#### 13 Def11ults 1 Remedies *and* Indumnities\n\nI J. l In the event of n dofo11!t or m i:.rcpros\\!ntotlon by Purchaser, Sollcr's soto und exclutiivo rcn.;:dics shall he to ctmce! thl~ Contract, rctt1l11 lho Contract Depos1t as liquldtncd d11rnages und, *If* npp/lcoblc, Soller may enforce the indomnlty in , l3.3 as co brokcrago comrnl!slon or sue uncer ii l 3.4. Purchaser prcfors to limit Purchaser's exposure for actual damages to the amount of the Controct Deposit, which Purchasor e.groc:; constltuta11 a fair ond reasonable amount of compensation for S~ller>s tl!images under Hie clroutnstnnces and is not a penally, The principles of real property law shtill apply to this liquidated damogcs provision.\n\n13.2 ln the event of a default o· mlsrcprcscntatlon by Seller, Purchager shall have:: su(.:h remedies as Purchaser Is entitled to nl *11\\W M* in equity, i11cludi11g sped1-: pr.:rformirncc, bccuuse tit,;: Unit and possession tbereof can no: be dup/ icated,\n\n13.3 Subject to th¢ provi:1ions of~ 4.3, **ea.oh** Party indemnifies nnd holds harmless the other egalnst and from an} claim, Judgment, los~, liability, cosl or cxpen:.e rt:sultlng from the indcmnltor's breach of ony of Its rt:prescntations or ccvenants stated to survive Closing, cence l11tion or tennltlation of this Con(racc Purchtl-'icr indtrnnlfles and holds harmles~ Seller nguinsi and from any cloim, Judiment, [oss, li~blllty, i:;ost or i;:xpense resulting from the Lct\\sc '.)b/igations 11ccru!ng from ond after the Closing. Each indernnit) in..:lud~s, without llmltatlon, reasonable attorneys' **fees** and disbursernc:nt.~, court ccsts und l!tlga\\ion expenses arising from the defense of any cliim and cnforcemcn1 or coliectio11 of fl judgment under this indemnity, provided the indemnitoc is glvea Nollce nnd upportunlly lo defend th¢ cluil11, Thi~ ii IJ,J shall survive Closing, cuncclfa!ion or l<.:rm inatlon of th is Contract,\n\n13 .4 In the event 11ny instrument for the payment of the Contrnc( Dopo~it falls of collection, Seiter shall have the right to sue on the uncollected instrument. In nrlditlon, such fullurn of collect Ion shall be a defo.ult under this Contract, provided Selle1 gives Purchaser Notice of such raHun: of collcctlon and, within 3 business dayi after Notice ls givi,n, E,gcrowee do~ not recelvc from Purchaser an unondor:.ed good cortlfiod check, bank che-ck or immediately avalfab/e funds in th\" amount of the uncollected funds, failure to cure \\$UCh default shall en!ltle Seller to the remedies set forth in **1** 13. I and to retain 1111 sums as mny be coHcctcd and/or recovered\n\n### 14 Entire Agreement; Modlfk1H!on\n\n!4.1 l'dl prlM ord! or written rcprcsentntl11nfi, understandings nnd **11greemcnts** had between Hie P;;rtJI::, wl\\h rclµte\\ lo the subjecl ,nnttcr of thb Contract, nnd with the Escrnwcc as to 27, aro merged in lhi11 Con!racl, whlch alone fully and compk:tely expresses the Parties' find Escrowee•~ t1greement. 14.2 The Attorneys may extend In wrl1f og any of the time llmlM:t!ons ~tat~d in thio Contract.. Any otllef provi1,lon of !his Contrnc( ,rniy bo chtinse-d or wuived only in writing signed by !he Party or Bscrnwcc to **be** charged,\n\n#### **15** Removal of Liens rrnd Judgm~nts\n\nl *5,* 1 Purchnscr shall deliver or cnuse to be delivered to Seller or Seller's Atto1·noy, not less than l O oulendnr 1lhen Seller shall have the right to adjourn the Clolllng for periods nol exceeding 60 calendar days in !he **llggregate,** bul not extending beyond the expiration of Purch11ser'i Loan Commitment Letter, lffi l .20. J or 1.20.2 app!les.\n\nl 6.2 ff Seller does not duct tu ad}ourn tho Closing or (if odjournod) on tho odjournod date of Closing Seller is stlll unflhle :o perform. tl1en unless Purchaser clecti to proceed with lhe Closing without abatement of the Purchase Price, either Party may cancel this Contract on Notlce to the other Party given e.t any time thereafter.\n\n16.J In the even~ of such cancel let ion, lhti sole liability of Seller shall be to cause the Contract Deposit lo be refunded to Purchaser nnd to reimburse Purchaser *for* the actual *casts* incurred for Purcha.sc's lion and tltle !iea.rch, If 11ny,\n\n#### 17 Notice, nnd Contrnct Delivery\n\n17.1 Any notlcti or demond (\"Norioe\") shnll be in writing ond delivered either by hand. Overnight llel1very or certified or registeroct :ntill, return reoeipt rcque,ted, to the; Party ~d j/mu!tancously, in like manner, to such Party's Attorney, if uny, and to ERcrowee ut their respective 11ddn:sses or to such other 11ddrtlss as shall hereafter be designntcd by Notice g!vcn pursuant to this i1 17.\n\nnot reqt-Jir11d tG flpply ffl6ttt~~\n\ndatt¾-\n\n~.J.2 Puroha:ser 11hall-4¼Hv-0f-No;roe-of-eoo00Hauoo~»t>r wkhin-5-iw&i06Ss-day1r-1tfter-th!'r•t->&a~\n\n+-&.lr+rt~~t-400--bea»-G~Hf¼ffittf'f!?l\\{~(tf tlfl1taeffi•ng--f211roha8~--L1-11ot **Ale( (d.g. Jl11Fehoso1 1 j**fmanolal oofltl.W011 **91 IIA1pl0~1 HHIRI 6ta(Le 6t:1fte1s 8FI ~~oo--reJ.a~e-&&le-ot:-o11 e1tlstlAg n,,leenaa, ele.) el'**\n\nI 8 **a,? J ewo** to **1h11** ~11p~t-a--beoo-•G~mmiIBH)ll~ ~tte'B,* whenever tl!e *context so* requires. lf *more* !hl¾n one person cons1ltutes Seller or Purchaser, their obi fgafions as such Party shall be Joini and ~evcra/.\n\n### 20 **No** Sundv11i\n\nNo representation and/or co~nant contained herein shell survive Closing except as exprc.ssly provided. Payment of the Delancc sh~ll constitute *a* dlscha:-ge and release by Purchaser of nil of Seller's obligations hemmder except those expressly stuted to survive Cio~ing.\n\n#### 2l lnsp11ctio11s\n\nPurchaser Md Purchnser's representatives sho/J he.ve the ri&hl to Inspect the U11it within 48 hour.; prioi· to Closing, anc at other misonable times upon nmona.bk request *tq* Seller.\n\n#### 22 Governing LRw and Venue\n\nThis Contract !ihttll be governed by the laws o[thc Ste.tc of New York without regard to principies of conflict ofh1ws. Any 11ctlon or proceedini **Oiising** o\\lt or this Contrnct slrnl I b~ brought In tile county or Federal district whe!'! the Unit is located and the Parties hereby consent to said venue.\n\n#### 23 No **Assignment** by Purclrnser; Death of Purchaser\n\n2J, I Purchescr may *not* ns.slin this Contract or any of Purchaser'~ right:i hereunder. A:iy such purported assignment :Jhiill be null ond *void*\n\n23,2 This Contract shnll ttrmirrnte upon the death of ft!. persons comprising Purchaser ond the Contract Deposit shall be refunded 10 the Purchaser. Upon maklng .mch ref'md and rvimtium:ment. ncilhc:r Party she.II have any further liability or claim against tile **other hereu11del',** except !lS Sllt forth In ,r 12,\n\n### 24 **Cooparatlon** of Parties\n\n24. l The ?~rtics shall each CJopernte with the other, the Corporation and Purchaser's hstltutlonal Lender and title compc1ny, if *any,* and obtain execule and delive1· such documents as are reasonably necessary (a consummate 1.11. sale. 24,2 The Parties shall timely f le all required documents in vonncclion witb nil governmentil fl!lngs that are reqJlred by luw. Each *Pany represents* ro the *otiwr that its* 1.tatementJ In *such tilings* shall be true end complete. This **,i** 24.2 :,hall survive Clo~ing,\n\n### 25 **FIRPTA**\n\nThe parties she!I comply with !RC \\*1 897, 1445 and the regulation~ thereunder e.~ :mme m.!ly be amended (\"FIRPTA\"). If appllcoblc, Seller shalt execute and deliver to purc!111Ser 11t Closlng a Ccrtlflcntlon of Non~ Foreign Stulus (\"C~S\") or Jeli11et ti Withho!dlng Certi(1catc from **the** JRS, ff Seller fails to deliver a CNS or a Wlthhoidhig Certiflcale, Purchaser shall withhold from the Balance, ond ~emit lo the IRS, such sum **11s** may be required *by* law. Seller he·eby waivos any right of action nga!nst Purchaser on account of such withholdlng ond rcrniHance. This 12,~ shall survive Closlnli',,\n\n### 26 Additional Rcq11irement.s\n\n26.1 Purchaser shall not be oblfb'(ltcd lo closi.; unle:;s all of 1he following requirements **are** sntisfied at the time o(the Cbsing;\n\n26, i. I the Corporation *19* !n good standing;\n\n26. l .2 cho Corporntlon hos fee or leasehold title to the Premises, whether or :10t mttrkc111b(e or Insurable; and\n\n26, l.3 there is no pending *In rem* action, rnx certiticate/ Jon sule *or* foreclosure action of any unde dying mongogc affecting the Prcmi~cs,\n\n26.2 lf any rcqulremcnt in 26. l ls not sa{isfred o.t !he time of lhe Closing, Purchaser .~hnll give Seller Notict:l and if the some L'.l noi sulisflcd wlth!n a reasom1bk period of time thereafti.;r, Chen either Party *way* cancel this Contract (pursuant to ,i 16.3) by Notice,\n\n### **2 7 Escrow** Terms\n\n27.1 The Contmct Deposit shul! he deposited by Rscrowoe ln un escrow account us set forth tn *'i* l ,24 and !lie proceeds held 1md disbursed in 11ccordancc **with** the ti.:rms of this Conlract At Closing, 1he Contract Deposit shall be p11id by Escrowee to Seller. If the Closlng does nor occur *and* eHher Party gives Notice lo Escrnwcc demundlng payment of the Contract De:po81t, Escrowee shall gfve prompt Notlcc to the other Party of such demand. lf Esctowee does not receive a Notice of objection to the proposed pAyment from such o~her Party within l 0 bus(ness dny5 after the **giving** of l3scrowee's Notice, B:icrowce **b** h\\lrcby 11uthorizcd and directed to make such p11ymcnt to the domand[ng party. If Escrowee does receive such *a* Nottcc of objoctlon within soid period, or if for any reason Escrowee in good faith e!ecls not to make such paycrn:ml, Escrowco may continue to hold the Contnict Deposit until otherwise directed by a joint Notice by tht: Partlos or a fins!, non-appealeble judimcnt, order or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. However, Bscrowee shall hnve the right at ony time to dcpo~lt the Contract Deposit er,d the interest thereon, if any, with t.hc cl~rk of fl court In tho cou1ty as set forth in 1 22 and shall give Notico of such deposit to each Party, Upon disposition of the Contrac.:t Depo5it *and* Interest thereon, *if* any, in accordance wl\\h this 27, Escrowee shall be **released and** discharged of all e~crow\n\n**obligations** and **liabilities,**\n\n**27.2 The** Pnrty whose **Attorney** is Escrowce shall be llable for loss of the Contract Deposit. **Jf the** Escrowee is Scl!cr'i **attorney,** then Purchaser shall be credited with the amount or !he **contract** Deposit at Closing.\n\n27.3 Escrawee wlll ~erve without compensotlon. Escrowec **is** tlctrng solely as a stakeho!dcr at the Par(le61reque8C ~nd for their convenience, Escrowee :shull not be liable to either Party for a11y oct *or* omissfon unless lt involves bad faith, willful disregard or this Contract or gniss negligence. [n the evenl of any dispute, Seller nnd Purchns1;:r sh.ti! jointly and severally (with rJght of contribution) defend (by 11ttorneys elected by Escrowec}, indemnify and hold harmlti~a' Escrowee erom and against any chtlm, judgment, foss, !iab!lity, cost and tJxpensts tncurred in connection with the performance of Escrowee's acts or omissions not lnvolvlng bad fallh, wl llful disrer.ard of thls Contract *or* gross negligence. This Indemnity *Includes,* without limitation, rcRsonnble attornoys' fees either p!ild lo retoin nttomeys or repre~entlng the fair value of loge.I services rendered by Escrowee to itself and disbursements, court (;OSts and litigation expenses.\n\n27.4 Escrowcc i,.cknowlodges receipt of the Contract Deposit, by check subject to collection.\n\n27.5 Rscrowoe agrees *to* tho provisions of this~ 27.\n\n?.7.6 If Escrowcc Is the Attorney for **a** Party, E:icrowec shall be\n\npt:rmltted to t'eprosent such Party !n ,my d{spulc or lawsuit. 27.7 Thi~ 1 27 shall survive Closing, canctilla(ion or \\~rmlnlllion of this Contrncl\n\n### 28 M~rgln Headlnis\n\n**The margin** bending do not constitute part of lhc tcxl of ~his Conlrnct.\n\n#### **29 Misccllancou.s**\n\nThis Contract sh1t!I not bt, binding units~ nnd until Seller delivers **a** fully executed counterpart of this Controct lo Purchaser (or P Jrchaser's Attorney) purrnont to 17.2 and I 7.3. This Contract shal! bind\n\nonrt Inure to tho benefit of the Porties hereto 11nct their respective helm, ptrsorrnl and kgul represe11tellv~~ and successors In i:Herest\n\n30 Lead Paint If appJlcabfo, lho oomplote and fully executed Disclosure or lnformlltlon on Lead Based Paint and or Lead•Basod Paint Hanrd3 Is attached hereto and mid,; a part hereof.\n\nIn Witness Whereof, the Parties horeto havo duly executed this Contract us of tho date flrst above written.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 11 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 119 of 193\n\n| S .d(1mo TO: | SBLLER:
SUB:RRY 1800s, LLC
/
Hy: • f!:.
··-········
_______ | PUR.CHASBR:
G!NEVER HOLD~QS LLC
~#\"v· -~x/
,,~~-
vi'Ji-,< LL_(
Byt~\\!,,.,,X:,<, |\n|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| | | ------
~-+••··--- |\n| | | |\n\n## **FIRST RIDER ANNEXED TO AND FORMING A PART OF CONTRACT OF SALE FOR THE 18TH FLOOR KNOWN AS UNIT 1801 AT SHERRY NETHERLAND**• **INC .• 781 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT BETWEEN SHERRY 1800s, LLC, AS SELLER, AND GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, AS PURCHASER, DATED FEBRUARYZ..I, 2015**\n\n31. In the event of any conflict between the provision of this Rider or any other Rider, and the provisions of the Contract to which this Rider is attached, the provisions of this Rider shall control.\n\n32. In addition to the representation made by Purchaser in Paragraph 4 of this Contract) Purchaser) jointly and severally, represents and warrants to Seller that Purchaser knows of no outstanding judgments or tax liens and knows of no threatened lawsuit or claim (including criminal and/or tax proceedings).\n\n33. Supplementing Paragraph 20, the acceptance of the Shares and the assumption of the Lease by Purchaser anc the delivery of possession of the Unit and keys by Seller shall be deemed full perfonmmce by Seller of Seller's obligations under this Contract, except any of which that survive Closing, and such acceptance and assumption by Purchaser shall discharge Seller from all terms• conditions, representations and agreements required to be performed by Seller under this Contract1 except any of which that survive Closing. No liability on the part of Seller shall survive the Closing except as expressly set forth *in* this Contract.\n\n34. In the event that there is any refund on real estate taxes attributable to the time period in which Seller has owned the Unit, such refund shall belong solely to Seller. In this regard, Purchaser shall cooperate with Seller in connection with obtaining such refund and Purchaser agrees to sign any reasonable documentat:on to assist Seller in obtaining such refund, If such refund is delivered to Purchaser (or credited t::Jwards Purchaser's monthly maintenance by the Corporation), Purchaser shall promptly remit such refund to Seller. The Parties acknowledge that the provision of this Paragraph 34 shall survive the Closing\n\n35. An increase in the maintenance or the imposition of an assessment after the date hereof shall not be deemed a misreprcsentF,ltion or breach by Seller hereunder. In this regard, any assessment imposed by the Corporation after the date of this Contract, shall be solely the obligation of Purchaser if such assessment is payable on or after the date of Closing, Seller will send Purchaser a copy of any notices from the Corporation regarding material facts relating to the Corporation including any maintenance increases.\n\n3 6. A \"Disc~osure of Infonnation on Lead.Based Paint and/or Lead Based Paint Hazards\" *is* attached hereto as Exhibit A hereto. Such document may be executed in counterpruis, This Contract shall be ceemed executed when signed by the parties hereto notwithstanding that the Broker's signature on such Exhibit A have not yet been obtained. Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser has received the pamphlet Protect Your Home From Lead in Your Home and Purchaser hereby waives the opportunity to conduct a. risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead• based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the Unit and/or the Premises. Purchaser acknowledges that Seller has made no representations to Purchaser concerning the presence of lead paint in the Premises except in the Unit and then only to the extent expressly set forth in the attached disclosure form. Notwithstanding any requirements pursuant to any Local Law, Purchaser\n\nthe Premises and Unit in their current 11as is 11 condition concerning the presence of lead paint and any hazards related to same,\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 13 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 121 of 193\n\n> 37. All representations made by the Seller in the Contract or any Rider thereto are made to the best of Seller's knowledge and belief without independent investigation and shall not survive the closing.\n\n**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** of the parties hereto have executed this Rider to Contract of Sale as of the date first above written.\n\n## **SELLER:**\n\n## **PURCHASER:**\n\n**GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 14 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 122 of 193\n\nSECOND RlDER TO CONTRACT *OF* SALE DATED AS OF FEBRUARYjJ\\_, 2015, BETWEEN SHERR v 1800S LLC, AS SELLER, AND GENEVER HOLDrNGS LLC, AS PURCHASER, COVERING PREMISES LOCATED AT 781 FIFTH A VENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 18TH FLOOR (UNITS 1801, 1804, 1807, 18091 1811, SERVANTS ROOM 1519)\n\nSR 1. In case of any inconsistency or conflict between the printed portion of this Contract or the First Rider, and the provisions of this Second Rider, the provisions of this Second Rider shall control,\n\nSR2. Seller shall, promptly after receipt thereof, deliver to Purchaser copies of any written notices from the Corporation receiwd after the Delivery Date and relating to: (1) any increase in the amount of the monthly Maintenance as set forth in paragraph 1.1 7; (2) any intended or proposed assessment other than the Assessment; (3) any intended or proposed changes to the \"flip tax\" or other transfer fee charged by the Corporation or its Managing Agent; ( 4) any proposed amendment or modification of the Lease, the Certificate ofincorporation of the Corporation or the Cc-rporation's By-Laws; (5) any proposed construction or repair work the cost of which is intended to be borne by the Corporation, its insurers or its shareholders; (6) any refinancing or other material change with respect to any mortgage affecting the Premises; or (7) any damage or casualty to the Unit or the Premises.\n\nSR3. Supplementing paragraph 3.3: In the event Setler removes any light fixtures from the Unit, such fixtures will be replaced with standard fixtures, so that no exposed wiring or bulbs remain in place of the removed fixtures. Seller shall, at its own expense and prior to the Closing, remove from the Unit all furniture, furnishings and other personal property and/or fixtures not included in this transaction and shall repair in a good and workmanlike manner any material damage caused cy such removal. Any of Seller's personal property not included in the sale contemplated hereby which is not removed from the Unit prior to the Closing shall be deemed abandoned property. Purchaser may (but shall not be obligated to) cause any such abandoned property to be removed from the Unit at Seller's risk and expense. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the Closing.\n\nSR4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 7 or any other provision of this Contract to the ccntrary, Seller represents and warrants that the plumbing, heating, electrical and air conditioning systems and fixtures and all Personalty shall be in working order at the Closing, to the extent the responsibility of Seller under the Lease.\n\nSR5. (a) As 1i material inducement to Purchaser entering into this Contract, Seller hereby represents that Seller has obtained all necessary approvals, pennits and certificates from the Corporation and the New York City Department of Buildings for any work done by Seller to the Unit. Fu:iher, Seller is not obligated to perform any work or expend any monies\n\nD(1cY: US! 984 I I 54v4\n\n## ( other than maintenance) pursuant to any agreement ( other than the Lease and other Co-op Documents) with the Corporation that would be binding on Purchaser after Closing.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 15 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 123 of 193\n\n> (b) Prior to Closing, Seller shall, at its sole cost and expense, cause any and all open permits against the Unit to be closed, discharged, and otherwise paid **for,** and shall deliver satisfactory proof of same to Purchaser. A Letter of Completion from the NYC Department of Buildings shall be deemed satisfactory proof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller shall not be required to close two open permits that are listed by the New York City Department of Buildings as Job Nos. 101785169 and 101778836, copies of which Jobs are attached hereto. The parties acknowledge the reason for the prior sentence is that the Corporation has stated it will agree in writing to duly close these two open pennits. In the event the Corporation does not deliver such written agreement, then Seller may either elect to close these permits, but if it does not, then either party may terminate this Contract.\n\n(c) Seller shall either (a) deliver to Purchaser a letter of completion from the New York City Deprrtment of Buildings evidencing that the Unit has been legally combined, or (b) at Closing, execu:e and file with the transfer taxes returns an affidavit stating the reELo;;ons that the Unit is properly and legally considered to be a single unit with one kitchen and that transfer tax should be paid to New York City at the rate of 1.425%. Seller shall also deliver an indemnity letter to Purchaser indemnifying Purchaser against any costs and damages (including, but not limited to penalties and interest for late payment) resulting from the City's requiring payment at a higher rate of taxafon. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if (i) Seller is unable to deliver a letter of completion as set ::'brth above, and (ii) Seller elects to pay the New York City transfer tax at the rate of 1.425% (rather than the so-called \"bulk rate\" of 2.625% ), then Seller's attorneys shall hold in escrow the sum of \\$840,000 representing the difference between these rates of taxation. Seller's attorneys shall hold such sum for the shorter of (i) two (2) years (representing the current audit period for this tax by the New York City Department of Finance (\"DOF\")i or (ii) until such time that the Corporation delivers satisfactory written evidence from the New York City Department of Buildings (and/or other appropriate governmental entities) that the Unit has been properly and legally combined. Seller's attorneys shall either release the balance to Seller if it is determined thet 1.425% was the appropriate rate of taxation, or pay this sum, plus interest and penalties, if any, in the event it is determined by DOF that 2.625% was the appropriate transfer tax rate.\n\nSR6. Supplementing paragraph 4.1: \"4.1.10. To Seller's knowledge, Seller has not received any written notice of any major repairs or replacements contemplated to the Premises or to the building systems in the Premises (including, without limitation, the heating, plumbing and electrical systems~ that could materially affect the Premises or the Unit.\n\n\"4.1.1 L To Seller 1 s knowledge, there are currently no water leaks into the Unit and there have been no such leaks during the twelve (12)- month period immediately\n\npreceding the date hereof. In addition, Seller has not been notified during said twelve ( 12) month period of any water leaks elsewhere in the Premises which were purported to emanate from the Unit.\"\n\nPg 16 of 32\n\n193\n\n\"4.1.12 During Seller's ownership of the Unit, to Seller's knowledge, Seller has not been aware of (a)° the presence any toxic mold in either the Unit, or (b) any bedbug infestation in the Unit.\"\n\n\"4. 1. 13 That to Seller's knowledge, there are no claims, actions, suits or legal proceedings of any kind pending or threatened (in writing), wrjch affect the Unit, Seller's ownership of the Unit or which may cause a lien of any kind to be imposed against the Unit or the Seller.''\n\n''4.1.14 To Seller's knowledge, in the last twelve ( 12) months, that neither Seller, nor any person acting on behalf of Seller, has made any complaint **(in writing,** electronic communication or by telephone) to tl:e Corporation, Managing Agent, superintendent or any other unit owner or tenant-shareholder at the Premises regarding noise, offensive odors, offensive conduct, lack of heat or hot water, or any other disturbance or adverse condition affecting the Unit.\"\n\nSR 7. All representations, warranties and covenants of Seller set forth in this Contract shall be true in all material respects as of the Closing, and Purchaser's obligation to perform under this Contract is expressly conditioned upon there being no breach, inaccuracy or misrepresentation in any of the same.\n\nSR8. If the Corporation approves the Purchaser's application but conditions its consent upon Purchaser complying with requirements outside the scope of the Contract, such as a demand for the Purchaser to deposit funds into escrow, then Purchaser may elect, in its sole discretion, to either (i) comply with such conditions and proceed with the Purchase, or (ii) decline to comply wi-:h such conditions. If Purchaser decHnes *to* comply, then Purchaser shall deliver to Seller written notice of same and this Contract shall be deemed canceled, and Escrowee shall promptly refund ,the Contract Deposit to Purchaser. Further, Seller acknowledges and agrees that Purchaser shall only be required to disclose to the Corporation liquid assets of \\$420,000,000.00 (more than five times the Purchase Price), with supporting docwnentation as may be required by the Corporation as *to* the aforesaid amount (such as bank statements), Submission by Purch3.ser of the foregoing shall be deemed complete for purposes of the \"Financial Statemenf', \"Statement of Assets and Liabilities signed by Purchaser or Accountant\" and supporting \"Veri4cation of Assets\" which are required by the Corporation as part of its HStandard Transfer Requirements\" Board application. Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, decline any request by the Corporation to submit any documentation showing liquid assets in excess of the aforesaid amount, so th2.t in the event the Corporation rejects the Purchaser's\n\nDoc# US I 984 I I 54v4\n\n**SN 0041**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 17 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 125 of 193\n\n4\n\napplication for any reason (other than willful bad faith by Purchaser), this Contract shall be deemed canceled, and Escrowee shall promptly refund the Contract Deposit to Purchaser.\n\nSR9. Supplementing paragraph 11. l. 1.2: Seller's obligation with respect to payment of transfer taxes shall apply to transfer taxes imposed by both the City and the State of New York. Within fourteen (14) days following the Closing, Seller shall furnish to Purchaser's attorney proof of filir:g of such transfer taxes. Seller shall indemnify and hold Purchaser harmless from and against any and all costs, loss or expenses incurred by Purchaser, including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements, by reason of Seller's failure to timely perform its obligations with respect to such transfer taxes. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the Closing.\n\nSR 10. Supplementing paragraph 13: \"13 *.5* Should either party willfully default in its obligations hereunder, it shall be liable to the other for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the other party in enforcing this Contract as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event that either party purports to cancel this Contract and Seller elects to retain the Contract Deposit as liquidated damages, the prevailing party in any subsequent lawsuit shall recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the non~prevailing party. The award of such attorneys' fees and costs shall be recoverable as actual compensatory damages in addition to the amour:t of the Contract Deposit and/or liquidated damages which may be payable hereunder by either party.\"\n\nSRl 1. Supplementing paragraph 15.1: Purchaser may also deliver a supplemental list of s·.1ch Liens at a later date but not subsequent to the Closing if Purchaser becomes aware of the same at such later date.\n\nSR12. Supplementing paragraph 16: \"16.4. Seller shall not be deemed unable to transfer the Lease anc. the Shares if such inability can be overcome by the payment of a sum of money by Seller not in excess of the Purchase Price less any loan payoff, brokerage commission, transfer truces and customary closing costs.\"\n\nSR! 3. Seller agrees to deliver to Purchaser, at or prior to the execution of this Contract, to the extent within Seller) s actual possession, all drawings and plans of the Unit, including the original floor plans, and all renderings of any proposed or completed renovations therein. In addition, Seller agrees to deliver to Purchaser, at or prior to the Closing and to the extent within Seller's actual possession, originals of all instruction manuals and all guaranties and warranty agreements affecting the Unit or any of the appliances or other personalty included in this sale, the rights under which shall be deemed assigned, to the extent assignable, to Purchaser at the Closing.\n\nSRI 4. This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts. Each such counterpart shaH for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shalJ\n\nDocJ/: {JS i ;984 t I 54v4\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 18 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 126 of 193\n\ntogether constitute and be but one and the same instrument. Facsimile signatures or scanned signatures sent by e~mail shall bind the parties,\n\nSRI 5 Seller hereby agrees to cooperate with Purchaser if Purchaser elects to obtain leasehold title insurance or the Eagle 9 UCC Cooperative Interest Insurance Policy in connection with Purchaser's purchase of the Unit, including, without limitation, signing a title affidavit in the form requested by the issuer of the Eagle 9 UCC Cooperative Interest Insurance Policy.\n\nSR16. 1ffor any reason the Corporation does not permit the Purchaser to purchase the Unit1 then Purchaser may assign this Contract to another entity within the control of the Purchaser herein.\n\nSR 1 7. Each of the parties hereto desire that this Contract and the terms thereof (the \"Confidential Aspects\") be kept confidential to the greatest extent practicable. Accordingly, each of the parties hereto shall, and s~all instruct his or her agents, representatives and contractors to, maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Aspects. It is understood, however, that the Co:ifidentia1 Aspects may be disclosed: (a) to the professional advisors of each of the parties (for example, without limitation, their attorneys and accountants), and to various other third parties (such as, for example, title insurance companies) who may be involved in aspects of the transactions or are otherwise necessary in order to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby; (b) if required to be disclosed by court order, subpoena, or other government process, or ifrequired by law; (c)with the consent of the parties; or (d) if already in the public domain,\n\nSRI 8. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the parties hereby agree that the sum of (a) \\$67,500,000 is hereby allocated to the Purchase Price for the Unit, and that the adc:.itional sum of (b) \\$2,500,000 is hereby allocated to the Personalty included in the Unit. Accordingly, appropriate New York State and City transfer taxes shall be paid by the respective parties based upon the sum of \\$67,500,000, and, in addition, Purchaser shall pay the New York State sales tax on the Personalty, whlch Seller shall collect at Closing. *() fY1 flt7*\n\nSRl 9. Seller represents it will cause the third party sale of an additional maid'{n the Building to Purchaser either prior to or simultaneously with the closing of this transaction, In the event that Pmchaser is unable to buy this additional maid's room either prior to or simultaneous with the actual Closing of this transaction, Seller acknowledges that Purchaser may terminate this Contra~t and receive a full and prompt refund of the Contract Deposit, with interest. It is within the sole discretion of Purchaser whether to exercise or waive thls option to terminate. It is also r..oted that the Brokers listed ln this Contract shall pay for the maid's room, including costs and expenses associated therewith (including transfer **taxes).**\n\nDoc/I: *US* I :984 l ( 54v4\n\n*I / l*\n\n6\n\nSR20. In the event th2.t for any reason the parties are unable to close this transaction by March *6,* 2015, then Purchaser may terminate this Contract and receive a full refund of the Contract Deposit. It is within the sole discretion of Purchaser whether to exercise or waive this option t:) terminate.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 19 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 127 of 193\n\n> SR21. Seller shal! pay the brokerage commissions based upon the total consideration being paid by Purchase:- for both the Unit and Personalty (which is the sum of \\$70,000,000.00).\n\nSHERRY 1800s LLC, Seller ,,,., -•~~•~•••~'<~•••,\\_. · \">' vs•••••••~,.V,•--\n\nName: Title:\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Purchaser V\\..- \\.../ 1 (.., ,\\_ <- l,-'\"', By: ~-? */J\"'J,.,~~'=-~/,* , *c:--:-:~::-;;.~i r~* Ira J. Gi~ert 1 Authorized Person\n\nDoc#: USl :98411 **S4v4**\n\nPg 20 of 32 193\n\n\n\n• 3142--Ludp,i•l• C'FR Put ,S, Cfll fu, *?<1\\$, 9+96,*\n\n## **Disclosure** of **Information on Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards**\n\n## **SALES**\n\n## **Lead Warning Statement**\n\n**Ev~ry purchaser of any interest in residential** real property on which a residential dwelling was **built prior to 1978 is notified that such property** mny present exposurt: to lead from lead-1:msed paint **that may place young children at risk of developing** lt>,t1d poisoning. Lead poisoning in young children **may produce permanent neurological damage,** including learning disabilities, reduced intclti~cnce quotient, behavioral problems, and impaired memory. I.,ead poisoning also poses a particular nsk to pregnant women. The seller of any interest in residential real property is required to provide the buyer with any inlbmrntion on lead-bused paint hazards from risk assessments or inspections in the seUer's possession and notify the buyer of any known lead-based paint haiards. A risk assessment or inspec~ tion for possible lend~based paint hazards is recommended prior to purchase.\n\n## **Seller's Disclosure**\n\n(a) ~resence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards *(Check (i) or (ii) below):*\n\n(1) D Known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards are present in the housing *(explain).*\n\n<<' \"•••• •••••\"\\*·•' • ••••'·\"•'''\"'\"' •• •••••••••• •• ••~•••• .,.,.,.,, •• n,;, ,,, \"' ,.,.,,,,, . ., .... ,,, .............................. ,.,.,0.,,, .. 0.,,,,.,, •• ,\\_.,,,u•,•••• •••••••••• •~•• ••\"••••• •••• ,,.,,, ,.,., .-..,\n\n\n\n/P~··::··:.·::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::·:::::::::::::·::::::::.:::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (ii) Seller has no bow ledge of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing. /\n\n(b) Records and reports available to the seller *(Check (i) or (ii) below):*\n\n- (i) Cl Seller has provided the purchaser with all available records and reports pertaining to lead- *fii/J* based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing *(list documents below).*\n- *w* .. , .. ,,,.,::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.,::.::::::.::::::.::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\t- (ii) eller has no reports or records pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint aza ·ds in the housing.\n\n## **Purchaser's Acknowledgment** *(initial)*\n\n(c) Purchaser has received copies of all infonnation listed above. *\\_L* Purchaser has received the pamphlet *Protect Your Family from lead in four lf ome.*\n\n- ··-·· --··· Purchaser has *(check (i) or (ii) below):*\n- (i) D received a lQ .. day opportunity (or mutually agreed upon period) to conduct a risk assess- ,m;nt or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazMds; or\n\n(ii) 05- wai vcd the opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead- \\_..- based paint and/or lead-based paim hazards,\n\n## **Agent's Acknowledgment** *(initial)*\n\n(f) \\_\\_\\_ Agent has bfonned the seller of the seller's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 4852d and is aware of his/her responsibility to ensure compliance.\n\n## Certfficatton **of Accuracy**\n\n| The following parties have reviewed the information above and certify, to the best of their knowledge,
Iha< the information they have provioed is true and | ac~
Y
;/l,; | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|\n| | ~--~-,-~--
/Ill ta | _;., • /.~' r / LC_ |\n| siCu:Re,.z;,,~.-J<--;.-,;::,;\"J.) L,(-c:. i,,;.
-DATE:
l
,
,
'-
/
P
-~ :±-
-~-~\\ I (>_,:'::,} !'½-to, l·\\'s\"\\<
j} | e\"Jr
SF.Ll~R
'
\\ (f~f!. v'\". 11r
---
b | '1i/:!;!-P |\n| T
--}
PuRCHASe;R
IDAre: | Pu~t;M,i.,.1.a:r-r | DATE |\n\n;\n\n*[*\n\n## Purchase Application\n\nPg 22 of 32 193\n\nPt:rchase Application\n\nNew York . Fe~ru~\\_ry 26 20 15 Apoiicant's N.irn,! 11Miles\" KwokJ:i?.\\IY~\\_r:!\\_JGeneve£ t{\\_olqLQ\\_gs L\\_!:-\\_fJ \\_\\_ (t-fam~ or Nam~~ mu,t f.><: t!nt;,r1>d ~hove i11 manner rhat Srcrk Cert1[icole ~nd oilier Doc.Jm~I),IS ,rn tc b~ drawl\\.) Applicant's Attorney Ira Gi!bert Esq. (igilbert@paulweiss~\\_:>-~rduphoiw 212-373-3529 1\\1tomey'~ Firm and Addrn\\$, \\_\\_\\_ eaul: ~~is\\_s\\B\\_i!\\_½\\_i~S!, Y\\'harton, & Ga\\_r[i~q\\_n L~p 1285.A.v\\_eoue.ofJhe.8.rnencas. New York,.NYJ0O19:6064 Se!ltn's Nnme **She,r~ 1800s,b~Q** Seller's Attorney MifhaE?J J. Jones) Es\\_q. J'elq:ho11!'\\_?9~::.?~1~E3gpo Attonwis Fi~.n and :\\ddrcs.~ \\_\\_ Jvey, Barnum & O'Ma\\_r.c1.~~q\\_ .. -------~- 170 MafiQn S.tr~~t Greenwich, CT 0683D Closing Date and Tirne\\_Jj\\_Q lat~J.tb~D *~L6{16* at 1 O.am \\_\\_\\_\\_ .\\_ D~f-? of Po9session\\_l'J9 later tnan *316115* ThP u11dcrs11-;ned lwrnby 1.,if,11\\ to p~(rcha:;r 3,000 .shares of the 1.\\1p,hli stvd: n/ Ttw :::iiwrry-Nrlhelland, Inc. and the ;1,:t:ompa11yu,g prupr1eta1y li.!aiie lot Ap.irtm(•nr :J..B.OJ\\* \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ in thQ huildit·,g !oc,1ted a1 781 Fifth /\\vcmh!, *:,.Jew* Yc,rk, New York, en !lw lolfr\\_,v,nng term•; m-:.i condtll()OS • and Maid's room 1519 Purchase Pnce d Stock\\$ 67,500,000 Mcnrh *1,* 57,085.53 \\_Present Estimated Prnpriu'.ary Rental Per DCf!OSit S \\_\\_ Z,QQO,OQQ\\_\\_\\_ Specla: conditions, ff ;mv:.6Q.ditiqnal sum of \\$2.,\\_;)QQ,QOO is allocated to the personal prop~rty inc:ludE?c1Jn the ~nit-F1nar.c-,ns: Yes • No(8J 1\\mOi.HI!\\_ **None \\_\\_ ·~---**Bank. \\_\\_\\_ ~----- :he undersigned h;c;s filled 0ci! the irformation sheei below and understands fr,,;t thif> inform,,!ion is essential lo considering this appllcatlcm. 1t is further und<:rstood th.it t.his appl.cat1on, wher signed by rhe under~igned, ts to be subiect to appruval by the Seller or Authorlzed Representative and to the Terms and Conditions on the r nllmber and their apprc,xmtate ;,ge~:(1) Kwok Ho Wa, Purchc!\\_~~L(?Jf\\lgok Hmg\\_Chi;yVife *of* PL1rchas€lr 13) QLJo\\_ Qia ng\\_; \\$c:>n\\_ 9,( Purchaser ('1J QJJ\\_o Mei:. Daug.hter.of...2u.rctiaseL(5).Yaz Qinghua;\\_ Sister of Purchaser:s Wife N,11\\_nes of a!l :.·Jubs ar,d society m,m1bersi1ipsl fraterr\\llies and honorary societies to which ;;ppl1cant t-;elongs: .Mar:~.--~~~g c.,Ll~, Pa,.m Beach: FL Jru\\_rnp Golf Cql)\\_rse. Palm Beach. FL Schools ,md coll,•rts .3t'.end1•d by hu;-;l;<11id, wdP and chi!dr,,11:. \\_\\_\\_\\_ , Mr and \\_ty1rs. \\_rwwk receiye.cJ\\_H1e.ir education in GJtlr29 Guo of Mr. Kv\\_.iokj attended Bard-College\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 131 of\n\nPg 23 of 32 193\n\n| | | No
Does applicant wish to maintain pets, and lf so please spHcify: |\n|----|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| | Landlwd: | |\n| | | Present Landlord or Agent Own a p_rivat~!:_e5idenc~_
• Addrt'»> !~:='??_Lilh ~ay Road_,_ ~r1JL K2D.9 |\n| | | Approximate L~ngth oi Occupancy_ |\n| | | Previous Landlord or i\\r,cnl __ _ |\n| | | |\n| | | Address of previous rcsidertce and approx,rnate l&ngth of ,v:cup,mcy: ___
_ |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| A. | | _ -· _ --·······
Ste':~~_ Wong
(Bank- Personal Account) |\n| | | Addr~s,
UBSA~~2.fF Two l~tE:_rnational fir1~11ce Centre.!8f=ir1anc~_Street, Central, Hong Kong |\n| B | | (Business) H~~~_!:<'.l, Pa_rtner~~tev~_!lS_C>_n, Wor_igJtQQ_ |\n| | | ,\\,Mrm Centraf To~er,. ?§.9.U§EJn'sRq~cf. C~n.trnl, t!,Q[19152rt9 |\n| C | | Stock Brol i\\dJrc;; ____ . |\n| | | _______ ····---··\"
For Information regarding source of income contact. |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | N.1m,• | ··\"···
_!he Rt Hon. Tony Blah~_
|\n| | | ,\\ |\n| | | |\n| | | ---- |\n| | | ··- ------~~ |\n| | | |\n| 4 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | Special Remarks: | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 24 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 132 of 193\n\nPurchase Application\n\n| | New York _______ ~20_,_
|\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| KWOK
·~-ll:.->-a-k'\\,A
Applicant's Name | __________ _ |\n| (Name or Names must be entenro abQve in manner that Stock Certibcatund other DocW!lents are to be drawn.) | Ira_. J. t:td~ ~~Te!ephonelJ,I )-J jj
3 3;.).tj |\n| Applicant's Attorney
inn and Address~~~~~~-WNL.b¼d:•
Alloc1;1ey' | 6~
~JM
i,J' |\n| !L~-rl\\L~w,'), r-:ltw
J>:_\\l.2
Seller's Name, ____________________________ _ | rC[ - 60 l:t!f: |\n| Seller's Attomey ________________ Telephone ______ | _ |\n| Attorney's Firm and Address ______________________ _ | |\n| Closing Date and Time ______________ Dateof Possession ___ _ | |\n| The undersigned hereby o{fers to purchase __________ .shares of the | |\n| capital stock of The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. and the accompanying proprietary lease for
_____
Apartment
the foHowing terms and conditions. | ln the building located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, on |\n| Purchase Price of Stock \\$ _________ ,Prt>sent Estimated Proprietary Rental Per
___
Month\\$
_ | |\n| | Special conditions, if any;, ____________ _ |\n| | Amount _______ Sank _______ |\n| parties <:oncer11ed.)
The undersigned has filled out the information sheet below and understands that this
information is essential in considering this application. It is further understood that this
application, when signed by the undersigned, is to be subject to approval by the Seller or
Authorized Representative and to the Terms and Conditions on the
Broker ___________ _ | --------
reof. |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n## Personal Letter of Reference\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 26 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 134 of 193\n\nFrom The Rt Hon Tony Blair\n\nFebruary 2015\n\nLadies and Gentlemen *9f* the Board of The Sherry Netherland,\n\nIt is my great pleasure that I am writing you this letter of reference for Miles Kwok as a potential owner in your building. I have known Miles for seven years and have only the highest respect for him in business and as a friend. I have worked closely with Miles over the years and have always admired his honesty and loyalty.\n\nMiles is dependable, sincere and extremely responsible as an individual; conducting himself with dignity and intelligence. Miles is honest, forthright and has impeccable taste.\n\nI would highly recommend him to your building as I know that Miles would be a wonderful addition as your neighbour at The Sherry Netherland. Miles is a very accomplished man and, in my opinion, would be a most valuable asset to The Sherry Netherland.\n\nPO Box 60619 London W27JU\n\n## Business Letter of Reference\n\n| | FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM | | | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 | Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj
Doc 432-2
Doc 14-10 | Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | Exhibit 10
Page 136 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 |\n| | Stevenson Wong &Co. | Pg 28 of 32
193 | Wi!ly Y.P. Cheng- 0
.Hank H.F Lo• | ~::;::ii
~tfHt |\n| | X 1:_ ]![
§£:.
grp | Pfr | Cathenne K.G. Por
Er,c CH. Lui•
1~4evHte J,J, \\VatkinS\"'
W(:ndy \\NS. L,;m•
Lai 5, Lam•
Cornelia VV,C. Chu· | ;~U~
Sz,~
ta£J
1H~H
,tf;(r,\\\"
;;~~]{ |\n| ()ur Ref | EYC/HLO(P)/75450/15 | | J,mice L.H
Heidi H. Chui•
Er \\;,f,rf Ya; | | \\;,f,rf Ya; |\n| Your ,' | | )er·ior Consultant:
Angus Forsyth1n | | | | | )er·ior Consultant:
Angus Forsyth1n | |\n| Rep!y Fax | | | Consuf!ant
Sher!ynn G. Chan | |\n| | 17 February 2015 | | Notary Public of Hong K0ng
~~,;,:-::m:~Rt | |\n| | | | o China-Appointed Attesting Officer
q:i:ffl~H.i;lifA | |\n| BY POST | | | • Civil CelebiJnt of fAarriages
~~~-lf}, | |\n\nBoard of Directors of The Sherry-Netherland The Sherry-Netherland 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022\n\nDear Board members of The Sherr/ Netherland,\n\nI am writing this letter of recommendation rn support of the application of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan (also known as Miles Kwok) to become a resident shareholder of your cooperative.\n\nI first met Miles when he engaged my /aw firm in one of his business transactions about seven years ago. I was and am a partner of my firm. We have since established a long-standing relationship. Over the years, my firm has acted for Miles in various business transactions in different areas, including project financing, fund-raising, corporate mergers and acquisitions and acquisition of aircrafts, leisure boats and properties in Hong Kong, China and different parts of the world.\n\nMiles is a successful businessman and a polite, dependable and responsible individual who conducts himself with dignity and intelligence. Putting aside our work relations, Miles has also been a good friend of mine. Personally, I know Miles to be delightful, considerate and respectful. I trust that his personal qualities will definitely make him a good neighbor and responsible steward of your building.\n\nIn my opinion, Miles will be a valued addition to your building.\n\nIf you wish to contact me personally, please feel free to call me at +852 2533 2552,\n\nq\n\n**[ Hank** Lo Partner STEVENSON, WONG & CO.\n\n*t1!~~,* Tt.~!: i 852 2526 6.J 11 **·WJ,i** fax, ~e52 2845 0638 **l!lt(l** [m,,i/ info(\\llsv,;-hk.com *\\NWW.* S\\V~hk.corr,\n\ng™ 1N .. dfJ it B *i&, W* itr\\_;, t,U·ti ri;ii \\* ;;,tt; i **i.HH** *i-1,:Jf* % *it'.* a~ Hong Kong Cuangzhou 5h;:,ngha. -~anjing Shenz~ien Suzhou !n!erl.:i-v 19/l.1\n\n18 February 2015\n\n## **BY POST**\n\nBoard of Directors of The Sherry-Netherland The Sherry-Netherland 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022\n\nDear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of The Sherry Netherland,\n\nIt is a great pleasure for me to recommend Kwok Ho Wan, also known as Miles Kwok, to be a shareholder in The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. and~ resident in your building. I am a managing director of the Wealth Management and Swiss Bank Department at UBS AG and attach my name card for your kind reference. I *have* known Miles for about five years since he first began working with UBS AG. Miles has since been working with us in the areas of securities investment and also in financing his various projects in areas such as aircraft acquisitions.\n\nMiles has been a successful and accomplished entrepreneur who has developed and managed a number of companies, both domestically and internationally. Over the years, Miles has earned his credibility in our bank. He is very reliable and always fulfills his repayment obligations. For this reason, our bank is happy to have him as our long-term client.\n\nFrom a personal standpoint, Miles is a sincere and modest gentleman with a warm heart. He is financially sound but very humble. He is also one of the most intelligent, genuine and respectful people I have ever known.\n\nBased on my long standing relationship with Miles, I do recommend Miles to be a shareholder in your cooperative and a resident in your building. I am sure your community will be pleased to have him and his family join you at The Sherry.\n\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at stephen-kc. wong@ubs.com.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 30 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 138 of 193\n\n## Financial Letter of Reference\n\n.UDu\n\nPg 31 of 32 193\n\nHong Kong Branch 52/F Two International Finance Centre 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong Tel. +852-2971 8888 Fax +852-2971 8001\n\nFeb. 23, 2015\n\nBoard of Directors of the Sherry-Netherland The Sherry-Netherland 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022\n\nDear Sirs,\n\n## **Bank Reference - [Application for Real Estate Investments]**\n\nWe have been asked to provide a reference letter in connection with Application for Real Estate Investments. We confirm that:\n\n## **Kwok Ho Wan**\n\n[client's ID: P746467(7)J\n\nhas been a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012 and during this time Mr. Kwok Ho Wan has had a satisfactory banking relationship with us. As at 18 Feb, 2015, the funds involved in thts banking relationship is not less than USD400, 000,000.\n\nThe above information is based on our experience of this banking relationship as at current date and is given in confidence for your private use only, without any responsibility on the part of UBS AG or its employees. This letter may only be used in the business context outlined at the beginning of this letter and does not constitute a guarantee or any other obligation on the part of UBS AG. In particular, we are under no obligation to inform you of any subsequent change of circumstances in this banking relationship.\n\nYours faithfuliy, For and on behalf of UBS AG Hong Kong Branch\n\n~})/ rom4 Che6ng\n\nManaging1Director\n\nStephen ong Managing Director\n\n\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 1 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 141 of 193\n\n## **EXHIBIT 11**\n\n\n\n## Genever Holdings LLC\n\nCorporate Documents\n\n## LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT\n\nPg 3 of 53\n\n193\n\n## OF\n\n## GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC *./l*\n\nLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT made as ofthe *11* :ay -d--............::....;..\\_---1- , 2015 by and among (a) GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC (the · d b) the persons identified on Schedule A as members of the Company · li to as th~ \"Members\" and each individually, a \"Member\").\n\nThe Members are entering into this Agreement in order to form the Company as a New York limited liability company by organizing the Company in accordance with the New York Limited Liability Company Law, as amended from time to time (the \"Act\").\n\nThe parties hereto desire to set forth the terms and conditions for the operation of the Company. This Agreement sets forth fully the agreements and understandings of the Members in respect of the Company.\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:\n\n1. Definitions.\n\n1.1 ''Family Group,\" with respect to any Member, includes (i) with respect to any Member who is an individual, such Member's spouse and descendants, (ii) with respect to any Member that is a trust, any beneficiary of the trust and the spouse and descendants of any beneficiary and (iii) with respect to any Member that is an entity, any beneficial owner of such entity and the spouse and descendants of any such beneficial owner.\n\n1.2 \"Membership InteresC means the ownership interest of a Member in the Company. The Membership Interest of each of the Members as of the date hereof is set forth on Schedule A.\n\n1.3 \"Property\" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.\n\n2. Name. The name of the Company shall be GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC.\n\n3. Articles; Ccrtificatc:-i. The Members, from time to time as such Members deem advisable, may, by written instrumcn~ elect one or more additional natural persons and designate them as \"authorized persons\" of the Company. The Members or any officer or authorized person shall execute, deliver and file any other articles and/or certificates (and any amendments and/or restatements thereof) necessary for the Company to qualify to do business in any jurisdiction in which the Company may wish to conduct business.\n\n## **GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 4 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 144 of 193\n\n## . **GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC**\n\n## Designation of Authorized Person\n\nThe undersigned, being an Authorized Person of Genever Holdings Corporation, a\n\nBritish Virgin Islands limited company (the \"Corporation\"), hereby makes the following\n\ndelegation of authority:\n\n**THE AUTHORIZED PERSON** hereby designates each of Ira Gilbert, Esq. and Steven Simkin, Esq., acting alone or jointly, as an \"Authorized Person\" ofGenever Holdings LLC ( \"Genever New York''), a New York limited liability company of which the Corporation is the sole member, and delegates authority to and directs each of them to enter into a purchase agreement with Sherry 1800s LLC, as seller, for the purchase of certificates of stock in The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., a cooperative apartment located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York City, New York (the \"Sherry-Netherland\") with respect to UNITS 1801, 1804, 1807, 1809, 1811, and Servant's Room 1519) on terms and conditions as have been discussed among representatives of the Corporation and Genever New York and the director and sole shareholder of the Corporation. This authority is non-delegable by either of Messrs. Gilbert and Simkin.\n\n**Pursuant to this designation of authorized person,** Messrs. Gilbert and Simkin are each authorized to take such other actions and make such revisions to the purchase documents as such person deems advisable or necessary in order to carry out the actions authorized in this designatiof½ the approval of such revised documents being evidence of such authorized person's determination. *k~*\n\nDated as of February 17, 2015\n\nMichael F. O'Connor Authorized Person\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 5 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 145 of 193\n\n> British Virgin Islands Certificate of Incorporation\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11\n\n## **TERlUTORY OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS BVI BUSINESS COMPANIES ACT, 2004**\n\nPg 6 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 146 of 193\n\n\n\n15Cl;l941585\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF JNCORPOR.A.TION** , **(SECTION 7)**\n\nThe REGISTRAR of CORPORATE AFFAIRS, of the Briti~.h Virgin Isl;md~ HBR.El3Y CERTIHES, that pursuant to the BVI Business Cotnpanies Act, 20Q4, all th.e requirements of the Act in respect of incorporation )laving·been complied with,\n\n**Genever Holdings CQrporation**\n\nBVI COMPANY NUMBER: 1862840\n\ni{in#ciri:1orated in the BR.it'ISH VIRGIN ISLANDS as aBVI BUSINESS COl\\,fl>ANY, this '13th day ofFebruary, 2015'.\n\n\n\nRAR OF CORPORATE AFFAJRS 13th day of Febnia:ry, 2015\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 7 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 147 of 193\n\n## British Virgin Islands Share Certificate\n\n\n\n\n\nBritish Virgin Islands Director Registry\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 10 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 150 of 193\n\nCllent Register of Directors OGBVIU.., Genever Holdings Corporation Current Directors Formal Name Mr Ho Wan Kwok **Residential Address 49th** Floor Formor Names Surname Forename Current Secretaf'{ Company Name Plaeeot Incorporation Principal Office Former Names **Previous Name** Bank of China Tower No.1 Garden Road CENTRAL Hong Kong Ell1111 Secretaries (BVI) Limited British Vlrgln Islands Nem .,;\\ •{•c;f~. *');: ~11i..* The first registered offite,~of~fl,e Com ·· {atNembutt~·.lthambers, Road Town, Tortola, *:f ·\"4,,-=* J\\! ..,\\_,,\"' */•t;~::,t.-* \\- . ,~r.~ *'.f* ·~ British Virgin Islands, t,O~.o~e o~ the fi~ . tered ag~;(lt;~ .. ~-\n- **3.2** ill ;~:; *i~* . *:* . . . . -· . i(I *?:* t The first registered a}i~ntf1 i:6,mi::dlaJ91U~t.Pf the votes of Shares entitled to **vote** thereon; /ll;/'' :if, ,,>\"~;,' ~;,;;}\\\n\n**Seal** means any seal w\\_wi~~·h\\$s be~n c;f(l tecf ~s tnj~cgf!i~on seal of the Company; *Ht i.:..-* l;i : -: *.-.:* rJ1 \".'.:·• ft\n\nSecurities means Sha~s• ai~:debt\\_gbl '.ot -~v~ry/~trfd~~t the Company, and including )-<0 · *Y,* , ., ~- *-::J~* ,,. · .., }-t. without limitation option~tl wa · · s,an· cquf har~ or debt obligations;\n\n\\ \\_\\_ ,,::~:.s ->. , . . • •. • .\"· <-.•. **.~f Share** means a Share issu~-or'toi~, · \\~Y.J~~t€omg~y; (f \"1\",:>l,'>.,.\"11~- ,\\_ ~;, -.:-~•1'Vt4r .. 3l-., *'ijfi'*\n\n**Treasury Share** means a Shar~:::;that~.xva~ pr'evt9Mi51y1 'iisued but was repurchased, redeemed \"\"••lt{~~;-':1'\".J~tiif\",t1·<',\"'~ or otherwise acquired by the Company and not cancelled; and\n\n**written** or any term of like import includes information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, electrical, digital, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, biometric or photonic means, including electronic data interchange, electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy, and 11 in writing\" shall be construed accordingly.\n\n- 12.2 In the Memorandum and the Articles, unless the context otherwise requires a reference to:\n\t- (a) a Regulation is a reference to a regulation of the Articles;\n\t- (b) a Clause is a reference to a clause of the Memorandum;\n\t- (c) voting by Member is a reference to the casting of the votes attached to the Shares held by the Member voting;\n\n(d) the Act, the Memorandum or the Articles is a reference to the Act or those documents as amended; and\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 17 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 157 of 193\n\n- {e) the singular includes the plural and vice versa.\n- 12.3 Any words or expressions defined in the Act unless the context otherwise requires bear the same meaning in the M~orandum and Articles unless otherwise defined herein.\n- 12,4 Headings are inserted for convenience only and shall be disregarded in interpreting the Memorandum and Articles.\n\nWe, Elian Fiduciary Services (BVI) limited of Nemours Chambers, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, for the purpose of incorporating a BVI business company under the laws of the British Virgin Islands hereby sign this Memorandum of Association.\n\nDated the 13th day of February, 2015\n\nlncorporator\n\nSigned for and Nemours Chambers, Road Tow\n\nCharlotte Balley Print name· ---- signatory\n\n5 -155Z0821-2\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 18 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 158 of 193\n\n### The BVI Business Companies Act 2004\n\n### Articles of Association\n\nof\n\n### Genever Holdings Corporation\n\n### a company limited by Shares\n\n### 1 **Registered Shares**\n\n- 1.1 Every Member is entitled to a certificate signed by a director of the Company or under the Seal specifying the number of Shares held by him and the signature of the director and the Seal may be facsimiles.\n- 1.2 Any Member receiving a certifi and officers hannless from wrongful or fraudulent u thereof. If a certificate wom out certificate or required by a f(esoluti hold the Company and its directors they may Incur by reason of any · on by virtue of the possession enewed on production of the ·th such indemnity as may be\n- 1.3 If several Eligible Pe Eligible Persons may giv a y Shares, any one of such\n- **2 Shares**\n- 2.1 Shares and other Securities may be option to acquire Shares or other Securities may be granter at such times, to such Eligible Persons, for such consideration and on such terms as the directors may by Resolution of Directors determine.\n- 2.2 Section 46 of the Act does not apply to the Company.\n- 2.3 A Share may be issued for consideration In any form, including money, a promissory note, real property, personal property (Including goodwill and know-how) or a contract for future services.\n- 2.4 No Shares may be issued for a consideration other than money, unless a Resolution of Directors has been passed stating:\n\t- (a) the amount to be credited for the issue of lhe Shares;\n\t- (b) their determination of the reasonable present cash value of the non-money consideration for the issue; and\n\n- (c) that, in their opinion, the present cash value of the non-money consideration for the issue is not less than the amount to be credited for the issue of the Shares.\n- (d) The Company shall keep a register **(register** of members) containing:\n- (e) the names and addresses of the persons who hold Shares;\n- (f) the number of each class and series of Shares held by each Member,\n- (g) the date on which the name of each Member was entered in the register of members; and\n- (h) the date on which any Eligible Person ceased 1o be a Member.\n- 2.5 The register of members may be in any such form as the directors may approve, but if it is in magnetic, electronic or other data storage form, the Company must be able to produce legible evidence of its contents. Until the directors otherwise determine, the magnetic, electronic or other data storage fonn shall be the, gri§inal.regis!~r of members.\n- 2.6 *,;i~::\"~)* 0 RP{)~i;i~~i'.,. A Share is deemed to be .\\~~li~, \\.. ,, ..,.·2;1.mt~£ \\_b~~::··r,.:/ i\"'.~\\-,, . ./'~· ·i:i,,::~;~~;1Jl~\"'\\_ . .., ,,:;~:}~~ \"'·\"~}tr:f *1:~·* · *'}\\h*\n- 8.2 Upon the written reque\\$!' df< mbers eotj. · ~0 11e1f ,.39~per cent or more of the voting *lS* ',..J:\"-..... , *{* ..-n~·.,; .~d~, 4, *.~·t']* ; t:; rights in respect of the t,p,at.f . or whi.c . .trng is 'l~4~l;ed the directors shall convene a eeting f Memb '4> *?t* A'~t~•: ~j < i~i( t~:·.:. 1~ m o ers.;:! ,¥.,., i~ *t;* ;,.-:: .. *.t ~;u~ it·::* :\\_ ) \\_· · · -- ·: *::JI* c,.r•~:tr\n- 8.3 The director convening\\ me, ·url\\_~p.s~~l t less :t~.i!i 7 ctjys• written notice of a meeting of Members to: ,. *,:.~.At ff* \"\\ *V* , ~;-i'i •'<',,'~:{ff' *ir*\n\t- (a) those Members whot\"e::r1am~fi6 \"' JJ6ti~ is given appear as Members in the register of members 'tff,th~.,Qg~~:.m:':~n<:f1 ~r~ entitled to vote at the meeting; and\n\t- (b) the other directors.\n- 8.4 The director convening a meeting of Members may fix as the record date for determining those Members that are entitled to vote at the meeting the date notice is given of the meeting, or such other date as may be specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than the date of the notice.\n- 8.5 A meeting of Members .. held in contravention of the requirement to give notice is valid if Members holding at least 90 per cent of the total voting rights on all the matters to be considered at the meeting have waived notice of the meeting and, for this purpose, the presence of a Member at the meeting shall constitute waiver in relation to all the Shares which that Member holds.\n- 8.6 The inadvertent failure of a director who convenes a meeting to give notice of a meeting to a Member or another director, or the fact that a Member or another director has not received notice, does not invalidate the meeting.\n\n8. 7 A Member may be represented at a meeting of Members by a proxy who may speak and vote on behalf of the Member.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 23 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 163 of 193\n\n- 8.6 The instrument appointing a proxy shall be produced at the place designated for the meeting before the time for holding the meeting at which the person named in such instrument proposes to vote.\n- 8.9 The instrument appointing a proxy shall be in substantially the following form or such other form as the chairman of the meeting shall accept as properly evidencing the wishes of the Member appointing the proxy.\n\n### **[Name of Company]**\n\nIN\\/e being a Member of the above Company HEREBY APPOINT [ ) or failing him [ ] of ( ] to be my/our proxy to vote for me/us at the meeting of Members to be held on the [ J day of [ J, 20[ J and at any adjournment thereof.\n\nSigned this [ ] day of [ J, 2 Member . :\\1 ! /JJ er.' *·i·*\n\n8.10 The following applies\n\n- (a) if two or more persons '(l-i,, by proxy at a meeting'·o f-\\$' .:il'ihem *may* be present in person or 'e1i1< as a Member;\n- (b} If only one of the Joint owners is present in person or by proxy he may vote on behalf of all joint owners; and\n- (c) if two or more of the joint owners are present in person or by proxy they must vote as one and in the event of disagreement between any of the joint owners of Shares then the vote of the joint owner whose name appears first (or earliest) In the register of members in respect of the relevant Shares shall be recorded as the vote attributable to the Shares.\n- 8.11 A Member shall be deemed to be present at a meeting of Members if he participates by telephone or other electronic means and all Members participating in the meeting are able to hear each other.\n- 8.12 A meeting of Members is duly constituted if, at the commencement of the meeting, there are present in person or by proxy not less than 50 per cent of the votes of the Shares entltled to vote on Resolutions of Members to be considered at the meeting. If the Company has two or\n\n11 • 15520821-2\n\nmore classes of Shares, a meeting may be quorate for some purposes and not for others. A quorum may comprise a single Member or proxy and then such person may pass a Resolution of Members and a certificate signed by such person accompanied where such person holds a proxy by a copy of the proxy instrument shall constitute a valid Resolution of Members.\n\n- 8. 13 If within two hours from the time appointed for the meeting a quorum is not present, the meeting, if convened upon the requisition of Members, shall be dissolved; in any other case it shall stand adjourned to the next business day in the jurisdiction in which the meeting was to have been held at the same time and place, and if at the adjourned meeting there are present within one hour from the,.,time appointed for the meeting in person or by proxy not less than one third of the votes of the Shares or each class or series of Shares entitled to vote on the matters to be considered by the meeting, those present shall constitute a quorum but otherwise the meeting sha!I be dissolved.\n- 8.14 At every meeting of Members, the Chainnan of the Board shall preside as chairman of the meeting. If there is no Chairman of the1 ,~Q;S!JJJ r ff the Chairman of the Board is not present at the meeting, the Memt>ers p ,.,, . [F.~·· '•ne. of their number to be the chairman. If the Members are unable to J? -'eijSOn, then the person representing the greatest number of v ' · ·o;~b~t by proxy at the meeting shall preside as chairman failipg< . n the o l)er.\\_ or representative of a Member present shall take the 1~2: *{i\"* . • \\i'~ \\\n- 8.15 The chairman may, witij :fhel~ns~ht ~ti0.9; a~~j81h1;i11y meeting from time to time, and from place to placel r-1 • •· *rt'* .>;'~ .~ ~. ;i. \\_\\_ .,;:-: /J\n- 8.16 At any meeting of the *M:i¼~* '.l~· hawn~n *f* j~~~'c>n~~Jgr for deciding in such manner as he considers appropriate wh~tlJer *an* \"\"olutibri' proB,9sed has been carried or not and the result of his decision shall be ~~116u~ l .,:t,,~iJ.lleefting and recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If the chairman has any doubt as to the outcome of the vote on a proposed resolution. he shall cause a poll to be taken of all votes cast upon such resolution. If the chairman fails to take a poll then any Member present in person or by proxy who disputes the announcement by the chairman of the result of any vote may immediately following such announcement demand that a-poll be taken and the chairman shall cause a poll to be taken. If a poll is taken at any meeting, the result shall be announced to the meeting and recorded in the minutes of the meetil)g.\n- 8.17 Subject to the specific provisions contained In this Regulation for the appointment of representaUves of Members other than individuals the right of any individual to speak for or represent a Member shall be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where, and by the documents by which, the Member is constituted or derives its existence. In case of doubt, the directors may in good **faith** seek legal advice and unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction shall otherwise rule, the directors may rely and act upon such advice without incurring any liability to any Member or the Company.\n\n8.18 Any Member other than an individual may by resolution of its directors or other governing body authorise such individual as it thinks fit to act as its representative at any meeting of Members or of any cla~ of Members, and the individual so authorised shall be entitled to exercise the same rights on behalf of the Member which he represents as that Member could exercise *if* it were an individual.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 25 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 165 of 193\n\n- 8.19 Toe chairman of any meeting at which a vote is cast by proxy or on behalf of any Member other than an individual may at the meeting but not thereafter call for a notarially certified copy of such proxy or authority which shall be produced within 7 days of being so requested or the votes cast by such proxy or on behalf of such Member shall be disregarded.\n- 8.20 Directors of the Company may attend and speak at any meeting of Members and at any separate meeting of the holders of any class or series of Shares.\n- 8.21 An action that may be taken by the Members at a meeting may also be taken by a Resolution of Members consented **to** in writing, without the need for any prior notice. If any Resolution of Members is adopted otherwise than by t.he .~nanimous written consent of all Members, a copy of such resolution shall forthw\\,thtbffcr.it;(o~~il:Me.cgJ:>ers not consenting to such resolution. ,-, ~. \\\\_ *'-.1* j *,,.,r ('* ., ..,,,., The consent may be in th! ,, ., :1 ~-~;~mt~r. . · · ~9t1:;founterpart being signed by one or more Members. If the .Sf>!,~~~~tif§qf) OD.~,ff mo, arts, and the counterparts bear different dates, then the,'f( tion shall ·e eff 'b)U · artiest date upon which Eligible Persons holding a suffi6i€nt ~umber of.. ·fshare~?.fo con\\$titute a Resolution of Members have consented to thefr~~9~~tion by-\\$ig lt.~terpa~~fi ~Ji\n\n# **9 Directors** \\\"' ~.· *·,:;} ~\\: ,{i '}*\n\n- 9.1 The first dir~ctors of t~e'~?mP~O.~!.u~-.;< .-, :~~P;oi led b~f~the firs~ registered agent within 30 days of the incorporation oli4C? Cbrrf Pc'.ID:Y.t~9nd .. ,~fter, the directors shall be elected by Resolution of Member~ or b/.:.'Resolution';rof Di[ecit6rs for such tenn as the Members or , .. ~,•·~ ~,~,.~t:. . .--y • ..l\"\\~•t\"', .~- -~·1,i:\"7<:\"' directors detennine. - •h-., ·•\n- 9.2 No person shall be appointed as a director of the Company unless he has consented in writing to act as a director.\n- 9.3 The minimum number of directors shan be one and there shall be no maximum number of directors.\n- 9.4 Each director holds office for the term, if any, fixed by the Resolution of Members or Resolution of Directors appointing him, or until his eartier death, resignation or removal. If no term is fixed on the appointment of a director, the director serves indefinitely until his earlier death, resignation or removal.\n- 9.5 A director may be removed from office with or without cause by,\n\t- (a) a Resolution of Members passed at a meeting of Members called for the purposes of removing the director or for purposes Including the removal of the director or by a\n\n13 **-15520821 ·2**\n\nwritten resolution passed by a least seventy five per cent of the Members of the Company entitled to vote; or\n\n- (b) a Resolution of Directors passed at a meeting of directors.\n- 9.6 A director may resign his office by giving written notice of his resignation to the Company and the resignation has effect from the date the notice is received by the Company at the office of its registered agent or from such later date as may be specified in the notice. **A** director shall resign forthwith as a director if he is, or becomes, disqualified from acting as a director under the Act\n\nPg 26 of 53\n\n193\n\n- 9.7 The directors may at any time appoint any person to be a director either to fill a vacancy or as an addition to the existing directors. Where the directors appoint a person as director to fill a vacancy, the term shall not exceed the term that remained when the person who has ceased to be a director ceased to hold office.\n- 9.8\n- 9.9 The Company shall keep\n\t- (a) the names and ors of the Company;\n\t- (b) the date on w in the register was appointed\n\t- (c) Company; and ceased to be a director of the\n\t- (d}\n- 9.10 The register of directors may be kept in any such form as the directors may approve, but if it is in magnetic, electronic or other data storage fonn, the Company must be able to produce legible evidence of its contents. Until a Resolution of Directors determining otherwise is passed, the magnetic, electronic or other data storage shall be the original register of directors.\n- 9.11 The directors may, by a Resolution of Directors, fix the emoluments of directors with respect to services to be rendered in any capacity to the Company.\n- 9.12 A director is not required to hold a Share as a qualification to office.\n- **10 Powers** of directors\n- 10.1 The business and affairs of the Company shall be managed by, or under the direction or supervision of, the directors of the Company. The directors of the Company have all the powers necessary for managing, and for directing and supervising, the business and affairs of\n\n14 -1552082 f-2\n\nthe Company. The directors may pay all expenses incurred preliminary to and in connection with the incorporation o~ the Company and may exercise all such powers of the Company as are not by the Act or by the Memorandum or the Articles required to be exercised by the Members.\n\n10.2 If the Company is the whoHy owned subsidiary of a holding company, a director of the Company may, when exercising powers or perfonning duties as a director, act in a manner which he believes is in the best interests of the holding company even though it may not be in the best interests of the Company.\n\nPg 27 of 53\n\n193\n\n- 10.3 If the Company is a subsidiary, but not a wholly owned subsidiary, of a holding company, and the shareholders other than the holding company agree in advance, a director of the Company may, when exercising powers or perfonning duties as a director in connection with the carrying out of the joint venture, act in a manner which he believes Is in the best interests of a Member or some Members even though it may not be in the best interests of the Company.\n- 10.4 •-?'\"7,i;'\\*~\\ii;t~i;vt.~H • If the Company is carrying o -atJoint \\V~ntt'.liet~~t~een shareholders, a director of the Company may, when exerqlsi{ig 'p'1\\y~ii:9\\_-rtJ ., ~fn :•i\",1:-., ~.uties as a director, act in a manner which he believes is in th~ib,i?Nitt&P&sis ,.Ql:the ~'fo o~fi'\\pany even though it may not be in -;'t!\\_/ ;,,,1, ... :1:+· *,fl,5t* f ;. \"l l -~\\_7 Ya the best interests of the\"'e· ny. .,, .• ,. ~rfi,,'v '1 - jtf;i (c\n- 10.5 Each director shall exl,,: pex pu~~,\\~d shall not act or agree to the Company acting in a![ .. the M~?n'S~a;pdum, the Articles or the Act. '< ' ·,,\\_ *f*·~ Each director, in exeroi ormlrig;,J1is ctuties, shall act honestly and in *...:::1* ·< .. *:.,...,,,; r(t:f* good faith in what the di be§!Jo{ere~~ of the Company.\n- 10.6 \\ii~ -, *f* •• , r ·· ·: -:~;ij'' ;, *i,l* . Any direct~r which Is a boo,~,;:o ~\\_t~~iti~y,i;~p~i\\_~li3~tfy individual\\_ as its du!y authorised representative for the purpose •of.r£~Qr~sen.t1n~ 1t0~meetings of the directors, with respect to the signing of consents or otherwis~:•1 ' 1 \"~m:rJ'.lffc2,;0,,11\"}\" 1 ''\"\n- 10.7 The continuing directors may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their body.\n- 10.8 The directors may by Resolution of Directors exercise all the powers of the Company to incur indebtedness, liabilities or obligations and to secure indebtedness, liabilities or obligations whether of the Company or of any third party.\n- 10.9 All cheques, promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments and all receipts for moneys paid to the Company shall be signed, drawn, accepted, endorsed or otherwise executed, as the case may be, in such manner as shall from time to time be determined by Resolution of Dlrectors.\n- 10.10 Section 175 of the Act shall not apply to the Company.\n\n#### **11 Proceedings of directors**\n\n- 11.1 Any one director of the Company may call a meeting of the directors by sending a written notice to each other directors.\n- 11.2 The directors of the Company or any committee thereof may meet at such times and in such manner and places within or outside the British Virgin Islands as the notice calling the meeting provides.\n- 11.3 A director is deemed to~ present at a meeting of directors if he participates by telephone or other electronic means and all directors participating in the meeting are able to hear each other.\n- 11.4 A director shall be given not less than 3 days' notice of meetings of directors, but a meeting of directors heid without 3 days' notice having been given to all directors sha!l be valid if all the directors entitled to vote at the meeting who do not attend waive notice of the meeting, and for this purpose the presence of a director at a meeting shall constitute waiver by that director. The inadvertent failure \\_tg;;gfvrf~otfp1 ~::Qfa~.,,\\_rneeting to a director, or the fact that a director has not received the no!tfEt;\\~o~lrMi;.in!~'hq; *'':.* tie meeting. ,/ 1 ~t:-~,:~:.f.j;fi• ~!h,v?~:·~' , r,ra;~iLl1:::-~t::~;•:;\\-~\n- 11.5 A meeting of directors i~:rqutY:g;G'cinstitut , ~for alliJibr)?,\"9~~s~~[ at the commencement of the meeting there are preserft 1~\"~{~on or t? . ~m:gi;{fioiftes·rtK~n one-half of the total number of pirectors, unless therfaJfaJ:9~1y 2 d,\\f~f )i?!1 ca'\\~ ·tRf1 ~uorum is 2.\n- 11.6 ; *ZZ ~t* . . , · ~;t{ . '. -11~ *D~* ~t A director may by a wntten 'fn~truni~~Jl ·an a1te,rn~te \":'.,ho need not be a director and the alternate shall be en\\Ued Tt\"o.;a\\_tten'd~fu;. in the.~,b'sen,~ of the director who appointed .... **\"t, .. ,** *.'.,•t£'* **--ct.~** ,. *->-/'fil;! f'Jc'* him and to vote or cons~nt .. iif:-\"P.,lace·,; 'fajre¢tor ul)!H the appointment lapses or is **tem1inated.** ~%•~~~:':»~/;( *',~f ti~* :,0;::~ ,.#l'\n\n11\n\n- 11.7 **If the Company has only one d,tectbr:·Jt1e7:.•pro~sions herein contained for meetings of** directors do not apply and such sole director has full power to represent and act for the Company in all matters as are not by the Act, the Memorandum or the Articles required to be exercised by the Members. In lieu of minutes of a meeting the sole director shall record in writing and sign a note or memorandum of all matters requiring a Resolution of Directors. Such a note or memorandum constitutes sufficient evidence of such resolution for alt purposes.\n- 11.8 At meetings of directors at which the Chairman of the Board is present, he shall preside as chairman of the meeting. If there is no Chairman of the Board or if the Chainnan of the Board is not present, the directors present shall choose one of their number to be chairman of the meeting. If the directors are unable to choose a chairman for any reason, then the oldest individual Director present (and for this purpose an alternate director shall be deemed to be the same age as the director that he represents) shall take the chair.\n- 11.9 An action that may be taken by the directors or a committee of directors at a meeting may also be taken by a Resolution of Directors or a resolution of a committee of directors\n\nconsented to In writing by all directors or by all members of the committee, as the case may be, without the need for any notice. The consent may be in the form of counterparts each counterpart being signed by one or more directors. If the consent is in one or more counterparts, and the counterparts bear different dates, then the resolution shall take effect on the date upon which the last director has consented to the resolution by signed counterparts.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 29 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 169 of 193\n\n## **12 Committees**\n\n- 12.1 The directors may, by -Resolution of Directors, designate one or more committees, each consisting of one or more directors, and delegate one or more of their powers, including the power to affix the Seal, to the committee.\n- 12.2 The directors have no power to delegate to a committee of directors any of the following powers:\n\t- (a) to amend the Memorandum or the Articles;\n\t- (b) to designate com\n\t- (c) to delegate p\n\t- (d) to appoint di\n\t- (e) to appoint an\n\t- (f)\n\t- \\. i~;\\·\\<\\ ~'< ,~ {g) '. .i1\\l~fo1:a pro\n- *1i:* 12.3 Regulations 12.2(b) and 12.2(c) do no n a committee of directors, where authorised by the Resolution of Directors appointing such committee or by a subsequent Resolution of Directors, from appointing a sub-committee and delegating powers exercisable by the committee to the sub-committee.\n- 12.4 The meetings and proceedings of each committee of directors consisting of 2 or more directors shall be governed mutatis mutandis by the provisions of the Articles regulating the proceedings of directors so far as the same are not superseded by any provisions in the Resolution of Directors establishing the committee.\n\n## **13 Officers and agents**\n\n13.1 The Company may by Resolution of Directors appoint officers of the Company at such times as may be considered necessary or expedient. Such officers may consist of a Chairman of the Board of Directors, a Chief Executive Officer, one or more vice-presidents, secretaries and treasurers and such other officers as may from time to time be considered necessary or expedient. Any number of offices may be held by the same person.\n\n17 ·15520821-2\n\n13.2 The officers shall perforrn such duties as are prescribed at the time of their appointment subject to any modification in such duties as may be prescribed thereafter by Resolution of Directors. In the absence of any specific prescription of duties it shall be the responsibility of the Chairman of the Board to preside at meetings of directors and Members, the Chief Executive Officer to manage the day to day affairs of the Company, the vice-presidents to act in order of seniority in the absence of the Chief Executive Officer but otherwise to perform such duties as may be delegated to them by the Chief Executive Officer, the secretaries to maintain the register of members, minute books and records (other than financial records) of the Company and to en.~ure compliance with all procedural requirements imposed on the Company by applicable law, and the treasurer to be responsible for the financial affairs of the Company.\n\nPg 30 of 53\n\n193\n\n- 13.3 The emoluments of all officers shall be fixed by Resolution of Directors.\n- 13.4 The officers of the Company shall hold office until their death, resignation or removal. Any officer elected or appointed by the directors may be removed at any time, with or without cause, by Resolution of Directors. At1Y:,)ti~fJ~llRY occurring in any office of the Company may be filled by Resolution of DirectgJS~'\"';i'n-•( ft J,t i;:::\":'4;,1 , *,,,/!:a:* t,) .· .. .,:,:;.,~:;/::,/ *'i:)·* :·//. ,t~~~t.\n- 13.5 The directors may, by a 13:et~1Jt1~.ri~Jh:,{(;;~rs',m.}p~~n.t';iY. person, including a person who *,\"t{ .... ,.* :w / ''-. ; ; *--f* } •.• ·4.:-1t1 • }t ;;-? is a director, to be an <:J9~ht''gfAhe COf!!l?,~,,,Qy. ftZr}Xt!§rit1ot~.the Company shall have such **powers and authority** O ;f% 'e\\iirectors, i ,,,, ,,,.,.,,,g{'Jt,J~ po'/4~i:ah~ **authority to affix the Seal, as** are set forth in the Arti Ei£q~\"ln the.B · 9fDire ., •~ ointlng the agent, except that no agent has any po ·• ·or ~~,t!)orjty \"~ . t .!()\\_:.thfpf att~~ specified in Regulation 12 .1. The Resolution of Direc.t~xs ().fi:~~it1t!Xf .,, t ma;r~JJthor{~e the agent to appoint one or 7\" ':\"'·---· ..:.,..,. h3/ -. \"\"><: .vj,i,, *,rr* more substitutes or deleg?ttes ·t ct igr p,lfof;the r:,wers conferred on the agent by 'T,.:. .. ' .. ,. *{i:1,/\",(~t i\\} other enterpnsef;. *:;* /:,;.\" *,ff* \\_~it *;,..:,;* ', . . ,<};:.~? *;,f'*\n- 15.2 The indemnity in Regulatlor;t1 . \"'11?i,qj... · n,itfl~\" pe(¥5n acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interesls:~91!:'e'\"b\"c:Jri·an·y ~~,~1gfri1 'the case of criminal proceedings, the person had no reasonable cause tO\"b\"elieverlhat:tm:=iir conduct was unlawful.\n- 15.3 The decision of the directors as to whether the person acted honestly and In good faith and with a view to the best interests of the Company and as to whether the person had no reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful is, in the absence of fraud, sufficient for the purposes of the Articles, unless a question of law is involved.\n- 15.4 The termination of any nrn,l\"Ot:>rlll'lnC, by any judgment, order, settlement. conviction Of the entering of a nolle prosequi does not, by itself, create a presumption that the person did not act honestly and in good faith and with a view to the best interests of the Company or that the person had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful.\n- 15.5 The Company may purchase and maintain insurance in relation to any person who is or was a director, officer or liquidator of the Company, or who at the request of the Company is or was serving as a director. officer or liquidator of, or in any other capacity is or was acting for, another company or a partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, against any liability asserted against the person and incurred by the person in that capacity, whether or not the\n\nPg 32 of 53 193\n\nCompany has or would have had the power to indemnify the person against the liability as provided in the Articles.\n\n## **16 Records**\n\n- 16.1 The Company shall keep the following documents at the office of its registered agent:\n\t- (a) the Memorandum and the Articles;\n\t- (b) the register of members, or a copy of the register of members;\n\t- (c) the register of directors, or a copy of the register of directors; and\n\t- (d) copies of all notices and other documents filed by the Company with the Registrar of Corporate Affairs in the previous 1 O years.\n\t-\n\n-\n- 16.2\n\t-\n\t- (b) minutes of meetings and Resolutions of Directors and committees of directors; and\n\t- (c) an impression of the Seal, if any.\n- 16.3 Where any original records referred to in this Regulation are maintained other than at the office of the registered agent of the Company, and the place at which the original records is changed, the Company ·shall provide the registered agent with the physical address of the new location of the records of the Company within 14 days of the change of location.\n- 16.4 The records kept by the Company under this Regulation shall be in written form or either wholly or partly as electronic records complying with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act.\n\n### **17 Registers of charges**\n\n- 17 .1 The Company shall maintain at the office of its registered agent a register of charges in which there shall be entered the following particulars regarding each mortgage, charge and other encumbrance created by the Company:\n\t- (a) the date of creation of the charge;\n\t- (b) a short description of the liability secured by the charge;\n\t- (c) a short description of the property charged;\n\t- (d) the name and address of the trustee for the security or, if there is no such trustee, the name and address of the chargee;\n\t- (e) unless the charge is a security to bearer, the name and address of the holder of the charge; and\n\n.. ....,-, X *;{t!{~fr':r.;\\_* .t./i1cl, ~\\;~· :,;\n\n(f) details of any prohibitioo:~tf'estr1cJioJ1;cor!ffaiqed In the instrument creating the charge on the power of lt}.ftrf\"'' · :J11y~61•-~r~~}l'ri~)µt,ure charge ranking in priority to or equally with the q~fafge·.'::;fp:l' ,: ~:~:·--: *\\*,,~i~~~~~,:>,;1t:~,* **18 Continuation** *{\\l'* :~;~f. *'(~·:'\\{\\*\n\nThe Company may by;{,Res,. 4tio~ ;~f, or,~y a ~~solftion of Directors continue as a company incorporatedftin aW diction--p.ptsidf the British Virgin Islands In the • *·~f.-* .., *--J!;i.' ,,e* manner provided under tf1oseJ,. , ytlf# / **19 Seal** ~\\.¾,::,:~)f,i *lf* J~~=~//\n\nThe Company may have more th;·~\"<>ne·tts·eaf'ind references herein to the Seal shall be references to every Seal which shall have been duly adopted by Resolution of Directors. The directors shall provide for the safe custody of the Seal and for an Imprint thereof to be kept at the registered office. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein the Seal when affixed to any written instrument shall be witnessed and attested to by the signature of any one director or other person so authorised from time to time by Resolution of Directors. Such authorisation may be before or after the Seal is affixed, may be general or specific and may refer to any number of sealings. The directors may provide for a facsimile of the Seal and of the signature of any director or authorised person which may be reproduced by printing or other means on any instrument and it shall have the same force and validity as if the Seal had been affixed to such instrument and the same had been attested to as hereinbefore described.\n\n#### **20** Accounts and audit\n\n- 20.1 The Company shall keep records that are sufficient to show and explain the Company's transactions and that will, at any time, enable the financial position of the Company 10 be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n- 20.2 The Company may by Resolution of Members call for the directors to prepare periodically and make available a profit and loss account and a balance sheet. The profit and loss account and balance sheet shall be drawn up so as to give respectively a true and fair view of the profit and loss of the Company for a financial period and a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities of the Company as at the end of a financial period.\n- 20.3 The Company may by Resolution of Members call for the accounts to be examined by auditors.\n- 20.4 The first auditors shall be appointed by Resolution of Directors; subsequent auditors shall be appointed by a Resolution of Members or a Resolution of Directors . .. .-.!!l,;q:W.;,,.-:ii f~ ... ~;vt~\" *~c* ..\\_\n- 20.5 The auditors may be Mernb~r.s'tb~t '· · · \"· ·tn,~r officer shall be eligible to be an ~,· \"'-· .-. , *\\*i:,~--.* , **·t** -~,~l\\_;~ auditor of the Company dugng\\_~!J:fe\\_k~bn muance!ini~;i, *\"i\\it*\n- 20.6 The remuneration ofthe/u'~~g,::;the *,;il·'* ',;, \\Ji•·::\\\n\t- Nt3j~, ··· . \\&t:.l (a) In the case of !ii~gi .. direcm.rs;:r(fay be fixed by Resolution of Directors; and t *·;..:...:* . ~. *..:: 1~1' ~-\"~f* -~ .,. ,/~iY *tt*\n\t- *~\\* \"1i~~-}i~j~:.. *\\_:: A;-: .:f;* (b) subject to the fore§!oing~~Yrl'' ~t~oTuti~~.µ•of Members or in such manner as the Company may~~yR(j\\$.9it'Jtt~2~~~-ft~JPBers g,~lermlne.\n- 20.7 The auditors shall examine eadi1pro.fi,l,e,i;t~!gS,i, . .fa't:count and balance sheet required to be laid before a meeting of the Members or otherwise given to Members and shall state In a written report whether or not\n\n<.;i-',,;;,\\_, \"'• ..;,i.;;,;;,;~':r;. · ,.,~;;,4\"\n\n- (a) In their opinion the profit and loss account and balance sheet give a true and fair view respectively of the profit and loss for the period covered by the accounts, and of the assets and liabilities of the Company at the end of that period; and\n- **(b)** all the information and explanations required by the auditors have be~n obtained.\n- 20.8 The report of the auditors shall be annexed to the accounts and shall be read at the meeting of Members at which the accounts are laid before the Company or shall be otherwise given to the Members. -\n- 20. 9 Every auditor of the Company shall have a **right** of access at all times to the books of account and vouchers of the Company, and shall be entitled to require from the directors and officers of the Company such information and explanations as he thinks necessary for the performance of the duties of the auditors.\n\n22 **-15520821·2**\n\n20.10 The auditors of the Company shall be entitled to receive notice of. and to attend any meetings of Members at which the Company's profit and loss account and balance sheet are to be presented.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 35 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 175 of 193\n\n- **21 Notices**\n- 21.1 Any notice, lnfonnation \\_or written statement to be given by the Company to Members may be given by personal service or by mail addressed to each Member at the address shown in the register of members.\n- 21.2 Any summons, notice, order, document, process, information or written statement to be served on the Company may be served by leaving it, or by sending it by registered mail addressed to the Company, at its registered office, or by leaving it with, or by sending it by registered mail to, the registered agent of the Company.\n- 21.3 Service of any summons, notice, order, document, process, information or written statement to be served on the Company may be .eroved by showing that the summons, notice, order, document, process, informatro was delivered to the registered office or the registered agent of th in such time as to admit to its beihg delivered to the registere e Company in the normal course of delivery within the correctly addressed and the postage was prepaid.\n- **22 Voluntary winding** u\n\nThe Company may by voluntary liquidator. solution of Directors appoint a\n\nWe, Elian Fiduciary Services (BVI) bers, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands, for the purpose of in VI business company under the laws of the British Virgin Islands hereby sign these Articles of Association.\n\nDated the 13th day of February, 2015\n\nlncorporator\n\nSigned for and on behalf of Elian Fiduciary Services (BVI) Limited of Nemours Cha~bers',,:P~d Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands \\_ *~UGL \\_r~* Signature of authorised fflgnatory Signatu~ *, \\_\\_ ,,/*\n\nCharlotte Bailey -Print name\n\nSusan Palmer \\_\\_\\_ .,, \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ .,..,..,\\_.,\\_....,\\_,,.,.,=, ---~,~~-· - ·----\"~ Print name\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 36 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 176 of 193\n\n## British Virgin Islands Director's Authorization\n\n## **AUTHORIZATION TO DA TE DIRECTOR'S RESOLUTION**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 37 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 177 of 193\n\n> The undersigned is forming a corporation under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, such corporation to be known as Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Company\"), Jn connection with the fonnation of the Company, the undersigned has executed a Director's Resolution (the \"Resolution'') nominating certain \"Authorized Persons,\" providing for the formation of a limited liability company under the laws of the State of New York to be known as Genever Holdings LLC (the \"LLC''), and further providing for the purchase by the LLC of one or more certificates of stock in a cooperative association, all as set forth in more detail in the Resolution.\n\n> The undersigned hereby authorizes, effective as of this 12th day of February 2015. any of Robert B. Barnett, Jerry L. Shulman or Michael F. O'Connor of the law finn of Williams & Connolly LLP to date the Resolution effective on or after the date on which the fonnation of the Company is complete.\n\n## **GENEVERHOLDINGS CORPORATION**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 38 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 178 of 193\n\n### Written Consent of Sole Director\n\nThe undersigned, being the sole director of Genever Holdings Corporation, a British\n\nVirgin [slands limited company (the ~'Corporation\"t acting by written consent without a meeting\n\npursuant to \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ \\_.\\_BVI law], does hereby consent to the adoption of the following\n\nresolutions:\n\n**RESOLVED,** that Andrea L. Sanft, Esq., is hereby authorized as an \"Authorized **Person\"** of the Corporation to file a certificate of fonnation for the formation of a **New York limited** liability **company** named **Genever** Holdings LLC (\"Gen ever **New York\")** and **take** such **other acts** and do such other things as are necessary to **permit Genever New York to exist and** obtain authority **to** do business **in** the State **ofNew York and New York City. To the extent necessary** to complete such **actions, the Corporation,** as **the sole member** of **Genever New York,** hereby **authorizes Ms. Sanft** to **enter her** name as \"Authorized **Person\" for Genever New York for the same purpose.**\n\n**RESOLVED, FURTiiER,** that Michael F. O1 Connor, Esq., is hereby authorized to execute a limited liability company **agreement** for Genever New **York** as an \"Authorized Person\" with such terms **and** conditions as Mr. O'Connor deems **appropriate.**\n\n**RESOLVED, FURTHER,** that Michael F. O'Connor, Esq. 1 is hereby authorized as an \"Authorized Person\" of the Corporation to cause the Corporation's subsidiary, Genever New York, to enter into a purchase agreement with Sherry 1800s LLC, as seller, for the purchase of certificates of stock in The Sheny-Netherland, Inc., a cooperative apartment loca1ed at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York City, New York (the \"Shen)1-Netherlandn) with respect to UNITS 1801, 1804, 1807 > 1809, 181 1 > and Servant's Room 15 i 9) on terms and conditions as have been discussed among representatives of the Corporation and Gen ever New York and the director and sole shareholder of the Corporation. This authority is delegable by Mr. O'Connor who may designate one or more \"Authorized Persons\" of Genever New York for the same purpose.\n\n*r-----*\n\n*1*\n\n1 l\n\n**RESOLVED, FURTHER,** that Ms. Santl and Mr. O'Connor urc each uuthorized to take such other actions and make such revisions to documents as such person deems advisable or necessary in order to carry out 1hc actions set forth in these resolutions, the approval of such revised documents being evidence of such authorized person's determination. Each of the Authorized Persons shall act, perform and exercise their sole discrcti()n in the best interest of the Corporation and its shareholder in nny respect and the director of the Corporation is and be authorized to change any of the Authorized Persons us he thinks fit\n\nPg 39 of 53\n\n193\n\n**Dated as of February 12, 2015**\n\n\"•·•·-·--··>\"--•-· --~··\n\n) - Lb~ **HoWan WOK**\n\n## British Virgin Islands/New York Designation of Authorized Persons\n\n*V*\n\n## **GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION**\n\nPg 41 of 53\n\n193\n\n## **GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC**\n\n## Designation of Authorized Person\n\nThe undersigned, being an Authorized Person of Genever Holdings Corporation, a\n\nBritish Virgin Islands limited company (the \"Corporation\"), hereby makes the following\n\ndelegation of authority:\n\n**THE AUTHORIZED PERSON** hereby designates each ofira Gilbert, Esq. and Steven Simkin, Esq., acting alone or jointly, as an \"Authorized Person\" of Genever Holdings LLC ( \"Genever New York\"), a New York limited liability company of which the Corporation is the sole member, and delegates authority to and directs each of them to enter into a purchase agreement with Sherry 1800s LLC, as seller, for the purchase of certificates of stock in The Sherry-- Netherland, Irie., a cooperative apartment located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York City, New York (the \"Sherry-Netherland\") with respect to UNITS 1801, 1804, 1807, 1809, 1811, and Servant's Room 1519) on tenns and conditions as have been discussed among representatives of the Corporation and Genever New York and the director and sole shareholder of the Corporation. This authority is non-delegable by either of Messrs. Gilbert and Simkin.\n\n**Pursuant** to **this designation of authorized person,** Messrs. Gilbert and Simkin are each authorized to take such other actions and make such revisions to the purchase documents as such person deems advisable or necessary in order to carry out the actions authorized in this designation, the approval of such revised documents being evidence of such authorized person's determination.\n\nDated as of February *JJ,* 2015\n\n.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 42 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 182 of 193\n\n## New York LLC\n\n## Evidence of Formation\n\nPg 43 of 53 193\n\nNYS Department of State - Corporations Public Inquiry System - Session ID: 1586 Pagel of l\n\n| DOSP:CTECS | | | CORPOAATIONS POBLIC INQUIRY SYSTEM | | 02/l-7/15 |\n|-------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|\n| | | | CURRENT STATUS INFORMATION | | |\n| | CORR NAME GENEV!i:R HOI.DINGS LLC | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| NAME ASSMD | | | | | |\n| EF'll'ECTIVE DATE | | *••······· TYPE OlDA A STATUS A
02/17/2015 | BIENNIAL JU>T | | |\n| | ORIG NAME GENEVER HOLI>:INGS I.LC | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| INC. DATE | COUNTY | DURATION | JURISDICTION | FOR. INC. | NFP TYPE |\n| 02/17/2015 | | | | _!_ | |\n| | NEKY | | | I
- | |\n| | | | | CORPID 471.1112 | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | Process Name CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY --•-HH>•-•>,- | | |\n| Address | | 80 STATE STREET ___ W,Y-•-•-- | | - | |\n| City,Bt,Zip | M.BANY | | , NY
12207 | - 2543 | |\n| | | | | | |\n| CEO Nllllle | | | | | |\n| Address | | | --~--·--\"'--~ | | |\n| City,St,Zip | | ----=- | -·-
\"-· -~-,- | -- | |\n| INP'101 - | | | PRESS APPROPlUATE FUNCTION KE¥ FOR DESIRED ACTION | | |\n| ===> | | | | | |\n| lo:C!rn.T SEAL 2 | | 3=PRl!:VI'.OUS | 4=LIST | 5aHI5TORY
6-=STOCK | |\n| 7= | 8= | 9•NAMES | lO•CURR ADD llaBIEN RPT 12=NAME ENTRY | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| IL
JI! | | | | | lllAT _OFF ._ii |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 44 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 184 of 193\n\n## New YorkLLC . Operating Agreement\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 45 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 185 of 193\n\n## **LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT**\n\n**OF**\n\n## · **GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC**\n\n*ti* rr /. LIMITED LIABILI1Y COMPANY AGREEMENT made as of the *jJ* day *of-rt:.A!i~,* 2015 by and among (a) GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC (the \"Comp~y''), <,~ (b) the persons identified on Schedule *A* as members of the Company (hereinafter referred to as the \"Members\" and each individually, a \"Member\").\n\nThe Members are entering into this Agreement in order to form the Company as a New York liII)itcd liability company by organizing the Company in accordance with the New York Limited Liability Company Law, as amended from time to time (the ''Act\").\n\nThe parties hereto desire to set forth the terms and conditions for the operation of the Company. This Agreement sets forth fully the agreements and understandings of the Members in respect of the Company.\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:\n\n1. Definitions.\n\n1.1 \"Family Group,\" with respect to any Member, includes (i) with respect to any Member who is an individual, such Member's spouse and descendants, (ii) 'With respect to any Member that is a trust, any beneficiary of the trust and the spouse and descendants of any beneficiary and (iii) with respect to any Member that is an entity, any beneficial owner of such entity and the spouse and descendants of any such beneficial owner.\n\n1.2 \"Membership Interest\" means the ovmership interest of a Member in the Company. The Membership Interest of each of the Members as of the date hereof is set forth on ~~hcdulc A.\n\n1.3 HProperty\" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.\n\n2. **Name:** The name of the Company shall be GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC.\n\n3. Articles: Certificates. The Members, from time to time as such Members deem advisable, may, by written instrument, elect one or more additional natural persons and designate them as \"authorized persons,, of the Company. The Members or any officer or authorized person shall execute, deliver and file any other articles and/or certificates (and any amendments and/or restatements thereof) necessary for the Company to qualify to do business in any jurisdiction in which the Company may wish to conduct business.\n\n4. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the filing of the Company's Articles of Organization with the Secretary of State of New York and shall have perpetual existence.\n\nPg 46 of 53\n\n193\n\n5. Purposes. The purposes of the Company are to acquire, own, hold, manage, operate, maintain, rs:pair, improve, renovate, sell, finance, refinance and otherwise use or deal with the property described on Schedule B hereto, such other real property as the Members shall determine to acquire and any tangible personal property usually located therein or used or of use in connection therewith (collectively, the \"Property\"); and to engage in any other lawful business or activities for which limited liability companies may be organized under the Act. In furtherance of its purposes, the Members shall have the power and are hereby authorized to take any and all actions and engage in such activities as may be necessary, convenient, advisable or incidental with respect to the conduct of the business of the Company as determined by the Members in their sole discretion (but subject to the further provisions of this Agreement), including, but not limited to, acquiring, maintaining, improving, selling, leasing, and mortgaging real property, and the Members shall have and exercise all of the power and rights conferred upon limited liability companies formed pursuant to the Act.\n\n6. Powers. The Company shall have the power to do all things necessary or desirable in the conduct of its business to the fullest possible extent. Limited Liability. Except as otherwise provided by the Act, the debts, obligations and liabilities of the Company, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, shall be solely the debts, obligations and liabilities of the Company, and the Members shall not be obligated personally for any such debt, obligation or liability of the Company solely by reason of being a Member of the Company.\n\n8. Office. The principal office and place of business of the Company shall be located at such place as the Members may from time to time determine.Management. Management of the Company shall be vested in the Members. The Members shall have full, exclusive and complete discretion to manage and control the business and affairs of the Company and to take all such actions as the Members deem necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the Company as set forth herein.\n\n9.1.1 The Members shall have sole power to bind the Company, except and to the extent that such power is expressly delegated to any other person or entity by the Members, and such delegation shall not cause the Members to cease to have such powers. The Members and/or, to the extent determined by the Members, any officers appointed by the Members in accordance with Section 9.3 shall each have the power and authority to do any and all acts necessary or convenient to or for the furtherance of the purposes of the Company set forth in this Agreement.\n\n9 .1.2 If any vote or consent of the Members is required by the Act at a time when there is only one Member, then the vote of such Member shall be considered the vote or consent of the Members. If there is more than one Member, then, unless a greater majority is required by the Act or this Agreement, the vote of Members holding a majority of the Membership Interests in the Company shall be considered the\n\nvote or consent of the Members. Any action of the Members may be taken by written consent without a meeting and without prior notice.\n\nPg 47 of 53\n\n193\n\n9.2 In addition to the powers granted by law, the Members shall have full power to do everything in administering the Company that the Members may deem advisable, to the full extent that an individual owning property would have and without prior court authority, including the power: To retain so long as the Members may deem advisable and to acquire by purchase or otherwise, any land of real property or personal property; to sell for cash or on credit (at public or private sale), exchange, mortgage, lease for any period ( either as landlord or tenant and including renewals of the term) and modify, extend or cancel leases, grant options or otherwise dispose of or deal with any real or personal property, all without regard to statutory restrictions, in such manner and upon such terms-and conditions as they deem advisable without first obtaining a court order; to erect, renovate or alter buildings or otherwise improve and manage buildings and property; demolish buildings; make ordinary and extraordinary repairs; grant easements and make party wall contracts; dedicate roads; subdivide; adjust boundary lines and partition; to distribute in kind or in money or partly in each, even if shares be composed differently; to hold property in the names of nominees or so that it will pass on delivery; to renew, assign, alter, extend, compromise, abandon or release or arbitrate claims asserted by or against the Company; to engage and rely on brokers and investment counsel, accountants, appraisers and other experts and legal counsel and to compensate them; to employ custodians of the assets and bookkeepers and clerks and other assistants; and to borrow money for any purpose.\n\n9.3 Officers. The Members may, from time to time as they deem advisable, select one or more natural persons and designate them as officers of the Company (the \"Officers\") and assign titles (including, without limitation, President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer) to any such person. The Members may, by written instrument, delegate to any Officer or any other agent of the Company any of the Members' powers under this· Agreement, including, without limitation, the power to bind the Company. Any delegation pursuant to this Section 9.3 may be revoked at any time by the Members. An Officer may be removed with or without cause by the Members. Any Officer may resign at any time by giving written notice to the Members. Any vacancy in any office, due to death, incapacity, resignation or removal, shall be filled by the Members. Officers may be Members or non-Members.\n\n*9A* Fiduciar Dutv of the Members and Officers. In exercising the powers granted by this Agreement and in performing the duties required by this Agreement with respect to the management and operation of the Company, each Member and Officer, pursuant to general principles of law, has a fiduciary duty to act reasonably in ( or not opposed to) the best interests of the Company and the Members.\n\n10. QJl.~J Business. The Members and any person or entity affiliated with any of the Members may engage in or possess an interest in other business ventures (unconnected with the Company) of every kind and description, independently or with others. None of the Company or the other Members shall have any rights in or to such independent ventures or the income or profits therefrom by virtue of this Agreement.\n\n4\n\n## 11. Liabilitv and Indemnity.\n\n11.1 To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, no Member, Officer, employee *9r* agent of the Company (\"Covered Person\") shall be liable to the Company, any Member or any other person or entity who is a party to or otherwise bound by this Agreement for any liability, loss, damage or claim suffered or incurred by reason of any act or omission performed or omitted by such Covered Person, except that a Covered Person shall be liable for any such liability, loss, damage, cost or claim suffered or incurred by reason of such Covered Person's (a) gross negligence or willful misconduct, (b) violation of any express provision of this Agreement or of the implied contractual covcmmt of good faith and fair dealing, and/or (c) breach of such Covered Person,s duty of loyalty ('\"Unprotected Acts and Omissions\"). Consistent with the preceding sentence, each Covered Person may act or refrain from acting without liability to the Company or to any Member in reliance upon any opinion of any consultant or advisor on any matter which the Covered Person reasonably believes to be within the consultant or advisor's professional competence.\n\n11.2 To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, and to the extent of its assets, the Company shall indenmify, defend and hold harmless any Covered Person for any liability, loss, damage, cost or claim suffered or incurred by such Covered Person by reason of any act or omission performed or omitted by such Covered Person in connection with the Company, provided, however, that (i) no Covered Person shall be entitled to be indemnified in respect of any such liability, loss, damage, cost or claim suffered or incurred by such Covered Person by reason of such person's Unprotected Acts and Omissions, and (ii) any indemnity under this Section 11.2 shall be provided out of, and to the extent of, Company assets only, and no Member shall have personal liability on account thereof\n\n11.3 To the fullest exte1~t permitted by law, expenses ((including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) incurred in defending any action, suit or proceeding subject to this Section 11 shall be paid or reimbursed by the Company in advance of the final disposition of any proceeding and without any detennination as to the Covered Person's ultimate entitlement to indemnification; provided, however, that the payment of such expenses incurred in advance of the final disposition of a proceeding shall be made only upon delivery to the Company of a written affirmation by such person of his good faith belief that he or she has met the standard of conduct necessary for indemnification under this Section and a written undertaking, by or on behalf of such person, to repay all amounts so advanced if it shall ultimately be determined that such person is not entitled to be indemnified.\n\n12. Registered Agent. The Secretary of State is designated as agent of the limited liability company upon whom process against it may be served. The address within or without this state to which the Secretary of State shall mail a copy of any process against the limited liability company served upon him or her is: c/o Brad Karp, *Paul,* Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019-6064.\n\n13. Ca1 ital Contributions. The initial Members agree to contribute to the capital of the Company the cash or property described on Schedule A. In exchange for such contribution, each Member shall receive a Membership Interest in the Company in the percentage set forth on s·chedule A. The Company shall maintain a separate Capital Account for each Member in accordance with Treasury Regulations promulgated from time to time under Section 704(6) of the Code.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 49 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 189 of 193\n\n> 14. Additional Contributions/MembcrJ ,oans. No Member is required to make any additional capital contributions to the Company. A Member may extend credit to the Company with an affirmative vote of the Members. Member loans shall not constitute Capital Contributions.\n\n> > 15. Allocations.\n\n15.1 Profits and Losses. The Company's profits and losses shall be allocated to the Members pro rata, in accordance with their Membership Interests. The allocations set forth in this section shall have economic effect equivalence within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section l.704-l(b)(2)(ii)(i) and, solely for tax purposes, be made in accordance with the Regulations promulgated under Code Section 704(c).\n\n15.2 Use of Property.\n\n15.2.1 If the Property is not being leased to a tenant, the Members and any one or more of any Member's Family Group may use the Property in an equitable fashion to be determined by the Members by a vote of a majority in interest of the Members.\n\n15 .2.2 Persons who are neither Members nor members of a Family Group of any Member may 1.1se the Property only upon the prior unanimous approval of the Members.\n\n15.2.3 Nothing herein shall preclude any Member from inviting guests to stay at the Property while such Member or members of any Member's Family Group are using the Property in accordance with Section 15.2.1 above.\n\n16. Distributions. Distributions shall be made to the Members at the times and in the aggregate amounts determined by the Members. Such distributions shall be allocated among the Members in the same proportion as their then positive capital account balances. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Agreement> the Company shall not make a distribution to any Member on account of its interest in the Company if such distribution would violate the Act or other applicable law.\n\n1 7. ~al£\\_of the Prop~\\_ny. Any part or all of the Property may be sold upon the vote of the Members.\n\n## 18. Assinnment of Membership Interests.\n\n18. l A Member shall have the right to sell, assign, mortgage, pledge, or otherwise voluntarily transfer or encumber any portion or all of such Member's Membership Interest with tne consent of a majority in interest of the Members other than the Member requesting such assignment, provided, however, that no such transfer may be made that would cause the Company to violate any ruJes, regulations, bylaw or other governing arrangements of any cooperative association or other legal person of which the Company is a shareholder or member, and any purported sale, assignment, mortgage, pledge or other transfer or encumbrance not in conformity with this Section 18.1 shall be null and void.\n\nPg 50 of 53\n\n193\n\n18.2 In addition, any interest as a Member that is held by a custodian for a minor under a Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, Uniform Transfers to Minors Act or any similar act shall be fully transferable and assignable to the minor when the minor reaches the age of termination of such custodianship under the applicable statute. Any interest held by an entity may be fully transferable and assignable to the beneficial owners thereof.\n\n18.3 Any assignee who receives a Membership Interest in accordance with this Section shall be admitted as a Member only upon his, her or its delivery to the Company or'a written instrument by which he, she or it approves and adopts all of the provisions of this Agreement, as amended. Such admission shall be deemed effective immediately prior to the transfer, and, in the case of a transfer of all of a transferor Member's Interest in the Company> immediately following such admission, the transferor Member shall cease to be a Member of the Company. In the event of an assignment and admission of a transferee in accordance with this Section 18.3, the Company shall continue without dissolution.\n\n19. Admi'Ssion of Additional Members by the Company. One or more additional Members of the Company may be admitted to the Company with the consent of the Members and upon his, her or its delivery to the Company of a written instrument by which he, she or it approves and adopts all of the provisions of this Agreement, as amended.\n\n20. Withdrawal of a Member. A Member may withdraw from the Company at any time.\n\n21. Dissolution.\n\n21.1 The Company shall dissolve and its affairs shall be wound up upon the first to occur of the following: (i) upon the unanimous vote of the Members; (ii) any time there are no Members of the Company unless the Company is continued in accordance with this Agreement and the Act; or (iii) as otherwise required in the Act.\n\n21.2 Upon dissolution of the Company, the Members shall (i) wind up the affairs of the Company, (ii) pay all outstanding expenses, real property taxes and other debts and liabilities of the Company (including without limitation to any\n\n7\n\nMember), (iii) establish any reserves against liabilities or obligations of the Company that the Members deem appropriate and (iv) distribute the remaining assets of the Company to the Members (a) in proportion to their positive capital accounts until such capital accounts reach zero and (b) thereafter.in accordance with their respective Membership Interests.\n\n22. Tax Matters. The Company shall designate a \"tax matters partner\" in accordance vrith Section 6231(a)(7) of the Code. In the event that the Company has more than one Member, it shall be treated as a partnership for federal and state income tax purposes. 1n the event that the Company has a single Member, it shall be treated as a sole proprietorship and a disregarded entity for federal and state income tax purposes.\n\n23. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified, altered) supplemented or amended from time to time only upon the unanimous written consent of the Members.\n\n24. Binding\\_t,greement; Successors and Assigns. The Members agree that this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.\n\n25. Separability of Provisions. Each provision of this Agreement shall be considered separable, and if for any reason any provision or provisions herein are determined to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal under any existing or future law, such invalidity, unenforceability or illegality shall not impair the operation of or affect those portions of this Agreement which are valid, enforceable and legal.\n\n26. Counterpart~. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, including by facsimile or electronic signature, each of which shall be deemed an original of this Agreemel!.t.\n\n27. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior understandings or agreements between the parties with respect to such subject matter.\n\n28. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed under, the laws of the State ofNew York (without regard to any otherwise. applicable conflict of laws principles), all rights and remedies being governed by said laws.\n\n29. Rule Against Perpetuities. If this Agreement or any covenants or provisions **herein** would otherwise be unlawful, void or voidable for violation of the Rule Against Perpetuities, then this Agreement, or such covenant or provision, as the case may be> shall terminate twenty-one (21) years after the death of the survivor of all of the descendants of King George V of England living on the date hereof.\n\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.\n\n## **MEMBER:**\n\nPg 52 of 53 193\n\n8\n\n## GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION\n\nBy: , *~f!>* >e,Jt~~ *J~toxt~ /)~Irr\\* Name and Title r\n\n## GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\nBy: Genever Holdings Corporation, sole Member\n\n**By~** NameandTitle\n\n*o)&«l,A--t-;/' 4'>4:~~~~*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 252 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-11 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 11 Pg 53 of 53 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 193 of 193\n\n## **Schedule A**\n\n**Member**\n\nMembership Interest\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation\n\n100%\n\nTOTAL\n\n100%","body_zh":"证物 B\n\n发回动议\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件第 1 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 2 页，共 193 页\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部）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n\n第 11 章\n\n原告，\n\n案号 22-01073-dsj\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 关于发回案件，或备选地，根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1) 请求回避审理的动议\n\n致尊敬的 DAVID S. JONES（大卫·S·琼斯）美国破产法官：\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）谨此请求本院作出命令，将本案发回纽约州纽约县最高法院商事庭（由 Ostrager 法官主持）（“纽约法院”）；或备选地，根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) 作出命令，回避对本案作出裁判。\n\n目录\n\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n背景 3\n\n论证 14\n\nI. 本案必须发回，因为本院根据 ROOKER-FELDMAN 原则缺乏管辖权。 14\n\nII. 备选地，本院应回避行使管辖权。 20\n\nA. 强制回避原则排除本院对纽约诉讼行使其权限。 20\n\nB. 即使强制回避不适用，本院仍应根据酌定回避原则拒绝审理本案。 27\n\n结论 33\n\n页码\n\n判例\n\n47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.,\nNo. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL 2012296 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021) 29, 30\n\nAcolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of New York,\n69 B.R. 155 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986) 21\n\nBaker v. Simpson,\n613 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2010) 20, 22, 23, 24\n\nBalcor/Morristown Ltd. Partnership v. Vector Whippany Associates,\n181 B.R. 781 (D. N.J. 1995) 31\n\nBeard v. Braunstein,\n914 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1990) 23\n\nButner v. United States,\n440 U.S. 48 (1979) 25\n\nCampbell v. Greisberger,\n80 F.3d 703 (2d Cir. 1996) 14\n\nCatalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue,\n279 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2002) 19\n\nCornell v. Burke,\n559 F. App'x 577 (7th Cir. 2014) 18\n\nD.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,\n460 U.S. 462 (1983) 14\n\nDel. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A.,\n534 B.R. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) 21, 23, 26, 28\n\nDeloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP,\n31 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011) 22\n\nHolblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections,\n422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) 15, 16, 17\n\nIn re AHT Corp.,\n265 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001) 22\n\n（续）\n\nIn re Ameribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc.,\n399 B.R. 129 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 33\n\nIn re Briarpatch Film Corp.,\n281 B.R. 820 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 29, 30, 31, 32\n\nIn re CitX Corp.,\n302 B.R. 144 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003) 19\n\nIn re Coudert Bros.,\nNo. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) 20, 23, 25\n\nIn re Drauschak,\n481 B.R. 330 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) 32\n\nIn re Eight-115 Associates, LLC,\n626 B.R. 383 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021) 21, 22\n\nIn re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico,\n899 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2018) 19\n\nIn re Freehand H.J., Inc.,\nNo. 07 0157, 2007 WL 2071877 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007) 14\n\nIn re Ivani,\n308 B.R. 132 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004) 18\n\nIn re Knapper,\n407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) 17\n\nIn re Kurimsky,\nNo. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) 14, 17\n\nIn re Lyondell Chem. Co.,\n402 B.R. 596 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) 20, 30\n\nIn re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.,\n419 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2005) 23\n\nIn re Orion Pictures Corp.,\n4 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1993) 23\n\nIn re Pacheco,\n616 B.R. 126 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020) 14\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nIn re Rodriguez,\nNo. 18-14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019) 28, 32\n\nIn re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc.,\n45 F.3d 702 (2d Cir. 1995) 21\n\nIn re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC,\n475 B.R. 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 22, 23\n\nIn re Stahl,\n526 F. App'x 179 (3d Cir. 2013) 18\n\nIn re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.,\n293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 28\n\nIn re: Genever Holdings, LLC,\nCase No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 8\n\nIn re: Ho Wan Kwok,\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn. 2\n\nInt'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.,\n62 B.R. 723 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 18\n\nJuidice v. Vail,\n430 U.S. 327 (1977) 18\n\nKelleran v. Andrijevic,\n825 F.2d 692 (2d Cir. 1987) 30\n\nKeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc.,\n600 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) passim\n\nLothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Exploration & Development II, L.P.,\n487 B.R. 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 22\n\nLoudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co.,\n481 B.R. 388 (S.D.W. Va. 2012) 19\n\nM.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC,\n2021 WL 5046216 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021) 33\n\nMarciano v. White,\n431 F. App'x 611 (9th Cir. 2011) 18, 28\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件第 6 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 7 页，共 193 页\n\n法源目录\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nMcKithen v. Brown,\n626 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) 2, 14, 16\n\nParmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp.,\n639 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 2011) 23, 26, 27\n\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) passim\n\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 2021-00740 (N.Y. App. Div.) 7\n\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.) 10\n\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.) 12\n\nPAX v. Kwok,\nCase No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 1, 3, 13\n\nPAX. v. Genever Holdings Corp., et al.,\nCase No. BVICOM2020/0137 (BVI) 6\n\nPAX. v. Kwok,\nIndex No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) passim\n\nPerkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC,\n773 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2011) 15\n\nPhifer v. City of New York,\n289 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002) 14\n\nRahl v. Bande,\n316 B.R. 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 28\n\nRobinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc.,\nNo. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017) 15, 16\n\nRobinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co.,\n918 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1990) 22\n\nRooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,\n263 U.S. 413 (1923) 14\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nRose v. Cty. of York,\nNo. CIV.A. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007) 17, 32\n\nSindone v. Kelly,\n439 F.Supp.2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 16\n\nSinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.,\n549 U.S. 422 (2007) 1\n\nStahl v. Twp. of Montclair,\nNo. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012) 3, 14\n\nStern v. Marshall,\n564 U.S. 462 (2011) 22\n\nVossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,\n773 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2014) 14\n\nWorldview Entertainment Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow,\n611 B.R. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 26, 27\n\n法规\n\n28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) 20, 21\n\n28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 1\n\n28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 20\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件第 8 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 9 页，共 193 页\n\n初步陈述[1]\n\nKwok 的移送通知书[2]是长期以来为规避支付合计超过 $250 million 的州法院判决，并就纽约法院已经裁决的问题重新进行诉讼而采取的一系列不当拖延策略中的最新一项。\n\n基础争议并不复杂。2011 年 3 月，Kwok 亲自为应付 PAX 的超过 $46 million 债务提供保证。[3] 多年来，Kwok 一直逃避 PAX 的追偿努力，而获保证债务未偿还任何部分。PAX 于 2017 年在纽约对 Kwok 提起本违约之诉（“纽约诉讼”）。2021 年 2 月，PAX 在纽约诉讼中取得一项超过 $116 million 的判决书。[4] 目前，纽约诉讼中有两项上诉待决：(i) 关于违约判决的实体问题；及 (ii) 因 Kwok 未返还 Lady May 游艇而对其作出的 $134 million 最终民事藐视法庭命令；纽约法院认定 Kwok 对该游艇“拥有实益所有权并控制”[5]——均与 PAX 的判决后追偿努力有关。[6]\n\nKwok 的移送通知书——附有 PAX 于 2019 年 4 月在纽约诉讼中提交的修正起诉书（“修正起诉书”）[7]——主张本院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 和 1334(e) 对修正起诉书享有初始管辖权。这显然是不当的企图，意在使本院充当纽约法院的上诉法院，并允许 Kwok 就已在纽约经充分审理且已对其作出裁决的问题重新进行诉讼。\n\n本院应因缺乏事项管辖权而将本案发回纽约法院，或备选地，回避行使管辖权，理由主要有二。\n\n第一，根据 Rooker-Feldman 原则，本院对纽约诉讼缺乏事项管辖权。纽约法院已审议并驳回 Kwok 就其寻求移送的相同两项请求提出的论点，并作出判决，认定 Kwok：(i) 根据 2011 年保证承担责任；及 (ii) 以破坏法治的方式藐视法庭达 268 天。该等判决现正在纽约上诉法院审理。Kwok 是教科书式的“州法院败诉者[]”，试图不当地寻求联邦法院对州法院判决进行上诉审查。McKithen v. Brown, 626 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2010); 另见 Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair, No. 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at *5\n\n1 所有证物引文均指 PAX 为支持其发回动议而提交的 Peter Friedman 声明（“Friedman 声明”）所附的证物。除非另有说明，所有强调均为后加，且所有内部引文均被省略。\n\n2 Kwok 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）。Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1。Kwok 随后根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 和 1412 及《联邦破产程序规则》第 7087 条，请求作出移送本案的命令。Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, PAX v. Kwok, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1。双方当事人约定，移送将符合司法公正利益，并将促进破产财产的经济、高效管理。见 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a)。Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, PAX v. Kwok, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1。PAX 在此过程中明确保留其基于任何适当理由及时请求将纽约诉讼发回的权利。同上（引自 Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007)（地区法院可在便利、公平及司法经济的考量有此必要时，根据 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 适当地移送诉讼，“不处理事项管辖权和属人管辖权问题”））。3 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX. v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 5–7。\n\n4 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, PAX v. Kwok et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 716 at 2。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交日期 04/14/22 登记日期 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件第 9 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 10 页，共 193 页\n\n5 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181（“最终藐视法庭命令”）at 4。\n\n6 PAX 有一项待决的救济请求，旨在允许其寻求对藐视法庭命令进行有限执行。见 In re: Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., Mot. of PAX For Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief From the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, Mar. 1, 2022, Dkt. No. 57。\n\n7 Friedman 声明，证据 6，经修订的第一次起诉书，PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），No. 1:22-cv-02258（Southern District of New York（纽约南区）），Dkt. No. 3。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 10 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 11 of 193\n\n（D.N.J. July 30, 2012）（“破产法院无管辖权审查州法院作出简易判决的合法性”）。\n\n第二，即使本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334 享有管辖权，在此情形下也应当中止审理。纽约诉讼——一项涉及破产申请前合同以及因郭文贵藐视法庭行为而对其作出的破产申请前藐视法庭命令的违约争议——根据确立已久的判例法，属于“非核心”程序，因此应当强制中止审理。然而，即使纽约诉讼属于“核心”破产程序，衡平因素仍然支持酌情中止审理。例如，纽约法院已就实体问题作出完整裁决——留给本院裁判的事项微乎其微，甚至没有——而郭文贵的移送申请显然是为逃避其违抗纽约法院所受制裁而进行的择地诉讼。本院对纽约法院作出的藐视法庭程序主张控制权并予以审查，将构成对联邦与州之间礼让原则的不当干扰。\n\n基于上述及下文说明的其他理由，纽约诉讼应被发回。\n\n背景\n\nPAX 于 2017 年 4 月在纽约起诉郭文贵，主张根据香港法律对郭文贵提出违约请求。2019 年 4 月，PAX 对 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever NY”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”，与 Genever NY 合称“Genever 被告”）增加了揭开公司面纱请求。[8] PAX 于 2020 年 9 月在其违约请求的实体问题上胜诉，并于 2021 年 2 月录入判决书。[9] 此后，PAX 一直试图向郭文贵追偿，主要集中于两项高价值资产：\n\n8 同上。\n\n9 Friedman 声明，证据 3，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 549；Friedman 声明，证据 4，判决书，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 716。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 11 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 12 of 193\n\n即郭文贵通过层层嵌套的空壳公司持有的纽约市 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）内的一套豪华公寓（“该住宅”），以及 Lady May（“Lady May”）游艇。\n\n郭文贵的违约行为\n\n2008 年，PAX 与郭文贵控制的实体 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit Charter”）达成协议，根据该协议，PAX 向 Spirit Charter 提供 \\$30 million 的贷款额度。[10] 郭文贵同时就 Spirit Charter 的贷款签署了个人保证。[11] 2009 年，Spirit Charter 签署了一份契据（“2009 年和解契据”），根据该契据，另一家由郭文贵控制的实体 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）承担 Spirit Charter 对 PAX 所负的债务。[12] 郭文贵再次签署个人保证，以担保 Shiny Times 的还款义务。[13]\n\nPAX 与 Shiny Times 于 2011 年达成新的贷款额度协议，取代了 2009 年和解契据。[14] 郭文贵还签署了一份新的个人保证（“2011 年个人保证”），取代了 2009 年的保证。[15] 2011 年个人保证规定，除其他事项外，郭文贵“不可撤销且无条件地……向 PAX 保证[Shiny Times]根据[2011 年贷款额度]所负[义务]得到适当且及时的支付，并同意在 PAX 提出要求后立即向 PAX 支付所有已到期但未付的[义务]。”[16]\n\n10 Friedman 声明，证据 3，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 549 at 1。\n\n11 同上。\n\n12 同上 at 1–2。\n\n13 同上 at 2。\n\n14 同上。\n\n15 同上。\n\n16 同上 at 7。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 12 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 13 of 193\n\n2013 年 4 月，各方签订另一份和解契据（“2013 年和解契据”），根据该契据，如 PAX 取得名为 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（“Beijing Pangu”）的另一郭文贵商业实体所持有三套公寓的占有和合法所有权，则应结清欠付 PAX 的未偿贷款金额。[17] 根据 2013 年和解契据，Beijing Pangu 须满足与向 PAX 转让三套公寓有关的十项先决条件；如其中任何条件未于 2013 年 6 月前满足，2013 年和解契据将终止，2011 年贷款额度和个人保证将恢复完全效力。[18] PAX 和郭文贵其后对 2013 年和解契据签署了四份延期文件，最后一份要求在 2015 年 6 月前满足全部十项先决条件。[19] 郭文贵未能及时满足全部条件，[20] 从而触发 2011 年个人保证的恢复效力。[21]\n\n在郭文贵签署最终和解契据延期文件时，PAX 并不知情的是，郭文贵已逃离中国。郭文贵随后于 2015 年 3 月通过一家名为 Genever NY（纽约有限责任公司）的实体以 \\$67.5 million 购买该住宅，该实体由 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛公司）全资拥有。[22] 郭文贵是 Genever BVI 的唯一股东和董事。\n\n17 同上 at 4。\n\n18 同上。\n\n19 同上。\n\n20 同上 at 5。即，郭文贵未能：(i) 交付无瑕疵产权；(ii) 向 PAX 提供购买该等公寓的发票；(iii) 向 PAX 提供有关支付与该等公寓买卖相关税费和收费的证据；以及 (iv) 向 PAX 交付三套公寓中任何一套的房屋所有权证书。同上 at 5–6。21 同上 at 5。\n\n22 Friedman 声明，证据 10，住宅购买申请，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 256 at SN 0046–47；另见 Friedman 声明，证据 11，Genever NY 有限责任公司协议，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 252 at SN 0198–206。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 13 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 14 of 193\n\nGenever BVI.[23] 同在大约这一时期，Lady May 以 €28 million 通过 Hong Kong Investments Limited（“HK International”）购得；HK International 是郭文贵于 2006 年设立并注资的一家香港公司，郭文贵在将其于 2014 年 10 月、即其逃离中国前不久，无偿转让给一名家族商业伙伴之前，曾对该公司拥有唯一所有权和控制权长达 8 年。[24] 2017 年，Lady May 再次被无偿转让给 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“Hong Kong International USA”），该实体为一家特拉华州有限责任公司，技术上由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）所有。[25]\n\n2017 年 4 月，在 PAX 发出的两封催款函均未获郭文贵或其公司回应后，PAX 提起纽约诉讼。[26] 经约三年程序后，纽约法院于 2020 年 9 月 15 日就违约请求作出有利于 PAX 的部分简易判决（“简易判决命令”）。[27] 纽约法院命令 PAX 提出动议，以确定根据 2011 年个人保证应付和欠付金额所涉损害赔偿额，包括适用利息。[28] 2020 年 12 月 18 日，纽约法院裁定 PAX 获得“\\$46,426,489.00 的损害赔偿金，另加根据 2011 年个人保证、自 2010 年 12 月 31 日生效日起按年利率 15% 计算的合同利息，以及自本裁定及命令录入之日起按年利率 9% 的法定利率计算的利息。”[29] 该判决书于 2021 年 2 月 3 日以 \\$116,402,019.57 的金额录入。[30]\n\n2021 年 3 月 4 日，郭文贵对简易判决命令提起上诉。[31] 该上诉于 2021 年 10 月 15 日完成书面陈述，并于 2021 年 12 月 6 日进行口头辩论。[32] 该上诉正在纽约上诉分院第一部门审理中，但因郭文贵提交第 11 章破产申请而中止。\n\n纽约法院原计划于 2021 年 1 月裁判 PAX 对 Genever 被告提出的揭开公司面纱请求。[33] 由于 COVID-19 疫情，该程序被延期。2020 年 10 月 12 日，Genever NY 在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）破产法院提交第 11 章破产申请，中止了 PAX 针对该等被告的判决执行工作。\n\n“随附请查收由 Kwok Ho Wan 先生签署的文件，以供您进一步办理。”见 Friedman 声明，证据 13，at PAX-KWOK-017468。\n\n28 Friedman 声明，证据 3，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 549 at 8。\n\n29 Friedman 声明，证据 14，关于损害赔偿的裁定及命令，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 685 at 5。\n\n30 Friedman 声明，证据 4，判决书，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 716 at 2。\n\n31 Friedman 声明，证据 15，上诉通知，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 725*.*\n\n32 见 Friedman 声明，证据 16，被告—上诉人答复状，PAX 诉郭文贵，No. 2021-00740（N.Y. App. Div.），Dkt. No. 16。\n\n33 Friedman 声明，证据 4，判决书，PAX 诉郭文贵，Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. No. 716 at 5。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 15 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 16 of 193\n\nGenever 被告。[34] New York Bankruptcy Court（纽约破产法院）随后批准解除中止救济，允许 PAX 提起诉讼，并允许 Genever NY 对该州法院诉讼进行抗辩。[35] 如下所述，PAX 后来根据 New York CPLR § 5225 成功动议要求交付 Kwok（郭文贵）持有的 Genever BVI 股份；但是，正如其对纽约法院有关该游艇的命令所为，Kwok 至今也完全藐视该交付命令，未采取任何为将其 Genever BVI 股份转让给 PAX 所必需的步骤。[36]\n\n判决后资产取证\n\n纽约法院作出简易判决命令后不久，PAX 根据 CPLR § 5229 动议申请判决后限制令。[37] 2020年9月30日，纽约法院限制 Kwok 不得从事其他行为，其中包括“干涉其享有权益的任何财产”。[38] 2020年10月15日，纽约法院澄清其先前的限制令，明确裁定 Kwok“被限制不得直接或间接作出或促成对其享有权益的任何财产的任何出售、让与、转让或干涉，并不得向其支付或以其他方式处分目前到期或此后到期的任何债务\n\n34 Friedman（弗里德曼）声明，附件17，《非个人申请破产的自愿申请书》，In re: Genever Holdings, LLC, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1。\n\n35 Friedman 声明，附件18，《批准债务人第二次续期动议以核准经修订和解协议的命令》，In re: Genever Holdings, LLC, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 141。\n\n36 Friedman 声明，附件19，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2-17 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904。PAX 随后动议申请民事藐视法庭命令。Friedman 声明，附件20，《因未遵守法院交付命令而申请民事藐视法庭命令的动议通知》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078。Kwok 提交其第 11 章破产申请时，该动议的书面陈述已全部提交。Friedman 声明，附件21，《PAX 进一步支持申请民事藐视法庭命令之动议的法律答复备忘录》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116。\n\n37 Friedman 声明，附件22，《PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议及临时限制令请求》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 576。\n\n38 Friedman 声明，附件23，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书15 于04/14/22提交 于04/14/22 14:46:34登记 主文书 第16页，共41页 案件22-50073 文书432-2 于05/24/22提交 于05/24/22 23:04:58登记 第17页，共193页\n\n……”。[39] 纽约法院2020年10月15日的命令（“Restraining Order（限制令）”）明确指认了该住宅和 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇），并称：“具体而言，Kwok 先生和/或（1）位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（Sherry-Netherland 酒店）的住宅，以及（2）‘Lady May’号游艇的登记所有人，均被限制不得作出或促成对该等资产的任何出售、让与、转让或干涉。”[40] 纽约法院还裁定，PAX 有权就该住宅、Lady May 以及 Kwok 直接或间接拥有的任何其他资产进行判决后取证。[41]\n\n随后，PAX 开展了为期一年的努力以执行其判决。正如纽约法院所认定，“PAX 在识别由 Kwok 行使控制权的资产方面遇到困难，因为 Kwok 自称为亿万富翁，却将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之中。该计划使 Kwok 尽管过着奢华生活，却能够声称自己没有任何资产……”。[42] Kwok 就 PAX 的判决后取证请求广泛援引其《宪法第五修正案》权利，进一步阻碍了 PAX 的努力。[43]\n\nLady May 藐视法庭程序\n\n尽管纽约法院已作出限制令，[44] Kwok 仍允许 Lady May 于2021年10月9日前后逃离纽约。[45] PAX 提出动议，纽约法院于2021年3月16日批准其有条件民事藐视法庭命令动议，并说明，“显然，在本纽约法院进行的有关‘Lady May’号游艇下落及所有权的程序中，存在令人无法容忍的策略性周旋、掩饰和欺骗……。与其逐一列举被告 Kwok 在本应更明事理的律师协助下所实施的诸多‘障眼法’，‘在2021年5月15日之后，该游艇在本法院管辖范围外的每一天，被告 Kwok 将被处以 $500,000 罚款。’”[46]\n\n44 参见 Friedman 声明，附件23，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 591；Friedman 声明，附件24，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630。\n\n39 Friedman 声明，附件24，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 630，第1页。\n\n40 同上。\n\n41 同上，第2页。\n\n42 Friedman 声明，附件5，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181，第1页。\n\n43 同上，第2、9–10页。\n\n45 Friedman 声明，附件25，VESSELFINDER，《航程分析器》\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书15 于04/14/22提交 于04/14/22 14:46:34登记 主文书 第17页，共41页 案件22-50073 文书432-2 于05/24/22提交 于05/24/22 23:04:58登记 第18页，共193页\n\nKwok 向 First Department（第一部门）就纽约法院的命令提起上诉，但其藐视法庭状态持续了268天。[47] 第一部门于2021年11月4日维持纽约法院2021年3月16日的命令，[48] 并认定：“动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时，系在其自由裁量权范围内行事，因为原告已以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反损害了原告的权利。”[49] 第一部门认为，“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力促使[Kwok]消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管获准如此做，他却未表现出任何这样做的意愿。”[50] 第一部门还“指示”纽约法院“继续进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议”。[51]\n\nhttp（最后访问于2022年2月28日）。\n\n46 Friedman 声明，附件26，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 728，第2页。\n\n47 Friedman 声明，附件27，《上诉通知》，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 1。\n\n48 Friedman 声明，附件28，《命令》，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 17。49 同上，第1页。\n\n50 同上，第2页。\n\n51 同上。Kwok 于2021年12月3日提出上诉法院上诉许可动议，该动议于2022年1月20日被第一部门驳回。Friedman 声明，附件29，《命令》，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 22。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书15 于04/14/22提交 于04/14/22 14:46:34登记 主文书 第18页，共41页 案件22-50073 文书432-2 于05/24/22提交 于05/24/22 23:04:58登记 第19页，共193页\n\n该证据听证于2022年2月2日举行，纽约法院听取了七名证人的证言，其中包括 Kwok 的女儿；该女儿是 Hong Kong International USA（香港国际美国公司）的唯一成员，后者是 Lady May 的名义所有人。[52] 2022年2月9日，纽约法院发布民事藐视法庭最终命令（“Final Contempt Order（最终藐视法庭命令）”），指出纽约诉讼的“1,180项案卷记录”中“几乎全部[]涉及被告 Kwok 通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、受信赖的亲信及家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的努力”。[53] 纽约法院认定，“Kwok 对[] Lady May 行使支配权和控制权”[54]，并且“听证中由被告证人亲口作出的证言，以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，且其对本法院及司法程序抱有彻底蔑视”。[55]\n\n纽约法院得出结论称，“截至2022年2月7日，Lady May 已在法院管辖范围外停留268天”，并处以 $134 million 的罚款。Kwok 被命令于五个营业日内向 PAX 汇付 $134 million，否则法院将“准备行使其依据 Judiciary Law § 753 所享有的全部权限”，即纽约州有关民事藐视法庭的规定。[56]\n\n52 Friedman 声明，附件30，《关于动议的第三项临时裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1098。\n\n53 Friedman 声明，附件5，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181，第1页。\n\n54 同上，第2页。\n\n55 同上，第4页。\n\n56 同上，第10页；另见 Friedman 声明，附件31，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书15 于04/14/22提交 于04/14/22 14:46:34登记 主文书 第19页，共41页 案件22-50073 文书432-2 于05/24/22提交 于05/24/22 23:04:58登记 第20页，共193页\n\n2022年2月14日，Kwok 提交最终藐视法庭命令的上诉通知，并请求在上诉期间紧急临时中止执行。[57] Appellate Division, First Department（上诉分庭第一部门）于次日驳回 Kwok 的临时中止执行请求。[58] 2月15日，Kwok 申请破产。值得注意的是，在针对其基础违约索赔作出判决时，Kwok 尚未申请破产。同样值得注意的是，Kwok 的破产申请列示 $50,001–$100,000 的资产[59]——其中遗漏了仍在美国境外的高价值 Lady May，[60] 且该游艇未受任何可信受托人的监督。\n\nGenever BVI 股份交付程序\n\n如上所述，由于该等股份是 Kwok 承认拥有的唯一资产，PAX 根据 CPLR § 5225 动议要求交付 Kwok 在 Genever BVI 中的股份；Genever BVI 是该住宅的最终所有人。2021年9月22日，纽约法院批准 PAX 的动议（“Genever Turnover Order（Genever 交付命令）”），并以 BVI Court（英属维尔京群岛法院）修改现有限制令为条件（其已于2021年12月初予以修改），要求 Kwok“在英属维尔京群岛采取一切必要步骤，以交付与其在 Genever Holdings Corporation 中100%所有权权益有关的全部股票证书”。[61] Kwok 未对 Genever 交付命令提起上诉，但仍一如既往地藐视该命令，未采取且拒绝采取任何步骤以实现将其 Genever BVI 股份转让给 PAX。\n\n57 附件32，《上诉通知》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1187。\n\n58 Friedman 声明，附件33，《关于加急送达和/或临时救济申请的摘要陈述》，PAX v. Kwok, No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.), Dkt. No. 5。59 《第11章自愿申请书》，Dkt. No. 1，第7页。\n\n60 Friedman 声明，附件8，VESSELFINDER，《航程分析器》，\n\nhttp（最后访问于2022年4月12日）。\n\n61 Friedman 声明，附件19，《关于动议的裁定及命令》，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 904，第1页。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书15 于04/14/22提交 于04/14/22 14:46:34登记 主文书 第20页，共41页 案件22-50073 文书432-2 于05/24/22提交 于05/24/22 23:04:58登记 第21页，共193页\n\n因此，2022年1月7日，PAX 动议申请另一项民事藐视法庭命令。[62] 该动议的书面陈述于2022年1月25日全部提交。[63] Kwok 提交其第 11 章破产申请时，[64] 纽约法院“建议[PAX]撤回待决的藐视法庭动议[]，但不妨碍其向破产法院提出适当申请，和/或在适当情况下于破产程序结束后不妨碍其在本法院续行该动议”。[65] 纽约法院解释称：“本法院倾向于不使已完全提交的动议无限期处于待决状态。”[66] PAX 随后在不妨碍权利的情况下撤回其动议。[67]\n\n第11章破产申请及移送通知\n\nKwok 于2022年2月15日在 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区）申请第 11 章破产。[68]\n\n如上所述，2022年3月18日，Kwok 将纽约诉讼移送至地区法院\n\n在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区），在 Kwok（郭文贵）经 PAX（PAX）同意提出移送审判地动议之前。[69]\n\n62 Friedman Decl., Ex. 20, 因未遵守法院交付令而申请民事藐视法庭命令的动议通知，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1078。\n\n63 Friedman Decl., Ex. 21, PAX 关于进一步支持申请民事藐视法庭命令之动议的回复法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1116。\n\n64 Friedman Decl., Ex. 34, 破产提示书，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1190。\n\n65 Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, 法院通知，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1191。\n\n66 同上。\n\n67 Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, 关于自愿撤回藐视法庭动议的裁定与命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1193。\n\n68 自愿提出的 Chapter 11 破产申请，Dkt. No. 1。\n\n69 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, 移送通知，PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV\n\n(S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1；Friedman Decl., Ex. 2, 解决移送审判地动议的协议，PAX v. Kwok, No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 7-1。\n\n论证\n\nI. 本案必须发回，因为法院依据 ROOKER-FELDMAN 原则不具有管辖权。\n\n根据 Rooker-Feldman 原则，联邦法院对质疑州法院判决的请求不具有事项管辖权。Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)；D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983)；Phifer v. City of N.Y., 289 F.3d 49, 55–56 (2d Cir. 2002)。在 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院），Rooker-Feldman 的排除效力延及州下级法院判决、中间裁决及上诉中的事项。Campbell v. Greisberger, 80 F.3d 703, 707 (2d Cir. 1996)；McKithen, 626 F.3d at 154–55（认定“[原告]质疑州法院对第 440.30(1–a)(a) 条之解释的适当途径，是向 New York Appellate Division（纽约州上诉分庭）提起上诉”）。破产法院已承认 Rooker-Feldman 所体现的“强有力的公共政策，该政策基于联邦与州法院之间礼让的利益以及联邦制这一理念，即联邦法院不应不必要地干预州法院程序。”In re Pacheco, 616 B.R. 126, 132–33 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2020)。在此情形下，该原则“不允许[破产法院]扰乱或无视[先前的判]决”，且法院已认定，“试图让其如此做，是对破产法院的不当使用。”In re Kurimsky, No. 21-50021, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021) (Manning, C.J.)。另见 Stahl v. Twp. of Montclair, No. CV 12-1644 (SRC), 2012 WL 12910637, at \\*5 (D.N.J. July 30, 2012)（认定“破产法院无权审查州法院作出简易判决是否合法”）。当联邦法院对被移送的请求不具有事项管辖权时，该案必须发回。Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 427 (2d Cir. 2014)；In re Freehand H.J., Inc., No. 07-12172, 2007 WL 2071877, at \\*1 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007)（“因为\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 22 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 23 of 193\n\n本院依据 Rooker-Feldman 原则不具有事项管辖权，该对抗程序将被发回州法院。”）。\n\n在 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院），若满足四项要求，Rooker-Feldman 即适用：“(i) 联邦法院原告必须在州法院败诉，(ii) 原告必须主张由州法院判决造成的损害，(iii) 原告必须请求地区法院审查并推翻该判决，以及 (iv) 州法院判决必须在地区法院程序开始之前作出。”[70] Holblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005)。第一项和第四项要求属于程序性要求，而第二项和第三项属于实体性要求。Robinson v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 15-CV-5480 (VEC), 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017)。\n\n在本案中，被移送的 New York Action（纽约诉讼）由附于 PAX 移送通知的 PAX 两项罪名项修正起诉书构成。Kwok 的通知还提及 New York Court（纽约州法院）认定 Kwok 享有 Lady May（Lady May号游艇）的实益所有权并对其实施控制，尽管其忽略了一个关键事实：这些认定是在藐视法庭程序中作出的，以维护纽约州法院的完整性。[71] Kwok 未提出任何其他独立请求。因此，Kwok 显然是在\n\n70 PAX 对在州法院败诉的被告援引 Rooker-Feldman，但相同的四因素检验仍然适用。例如，Perkins v. Beltway Cap., LLC, 773 F. Supp. 2d 553, 558 (E.D. Pa. 2011)。\n\n71 尽管 Kwok 的移送通知须载明据称使其移送通知正当化的事实陈述，Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027，但在其对 PAX 就确认中止对 Final Contempt Order（最终藐视法庭命令）不适用之动议提出的异议中，Kwok 已预示其意图尝试重新诉讼 Lady May 的所有权问题。他主张 Final Contempt Order 是“被错误地对其作出的”，且 Kwok 对 Lady May 的权益“最终[将]被确定。”Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 (Mar. 15, 2022), at ¶¶ 4, 14。如上文脚注 24 所述，Kwok 还继续不诚实地、且有悖于压倒性证据的分量主张——包括 Kwok 向 NY Court（纽约州法院）提交该文件本身，并承认及约定其真实性——其 2011 Personal Guarantee（2011年个人担保）不知何故是“伪造的”，Objection to Lift Stay, Dkt. No. 83 at ¶ 12；该论点已被纽约州法院明确驳回。见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, 关于动议的裁定与命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 549 at 3（“Kwok 被\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 23 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 24 of 193\n\n在联邦法院质疑：(1) 于 September 15, 2020 作出的 Summary Judgment Order（简易判决命令）（该命令导致于 February 3, 2021 对 Kwok 登记判决）；以及 (2) 于 February 9, 2022 作出的 Final Contempt Order，[72] 该命令要求 Kwok 向 PAX 汇付 \\$134 million，并认定 Kwok “享有并控制” Lady May 的实益所有权。两项判决均轻易满足 Rooker-Feldman 的四项要求。\n\n首先，就这两项判决而言，Kwok 是“州法院败诉方”，因为两项判决均作出有利于 PAX 的裁决。McKithen, 626 F.3d at 154。\n\n其次，Kwok 所主张的是纽约州法院施加的“损害”。在如本案般“州法院本身是其行为造成损害的决策者”时，Rooker-Feldman 适用。Sindone v. Kelly, 439 F. Supp. 2d 268, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)；例如，见 Robinson, 2017 WL 570935, at \\*3（认定“因果关系要求——第二项要件——已获满足，因为造成原告损害的是州法院的止赎判决”）。例如，在 Hoblock 中，法院首先指出，“本案中选民的请求乍看之下似乎仅是对 [Board of Elections（选举委员会）] 拒绝计入其选票提出异议，而非对州法院判决造成的任何损害提出异议”，随后澄清称，“在拒绝计票时，委员会[是]在州法院命令的强制下行事。”422 F.3d at 88。因此，“州法院判决导致委员会拒绝清点选票，而这正是选民所主张的损害。\n\n司法禁止质疑 Kwok 此前在本程序中向法院作为真实文件而提出支持的协议的真实性。”）。Kwok 受这些认定约束。\n\n72 于 March 1, 2022，PAX 向破产法院申请一项命令，以确认其有权提起进一步程序执行 Final Contempt Order；或者，作为替代方案，根据 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) 及 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产程序规则）Rule 4001 解除自动中止，以允许执行 Final Contempt Order，但该命令要求 Kwok 立即向 PAX 支付金钱的范围除外。见 In re: Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, No. 22-50073 (JAM), Bankr. D. Conn., PAX 关于作出命令确认自动中止不适用，或作为替代方案解除自动中止的动议，Dkt. No. 57。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 24 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 25 of 193\n\n”Id. at 89。同样，在本案中，Kwok 试图规避纽约州法院的“强制权力”；该法院已对其作出超过 \\$250 million 的判决，并认定根据纽约州法律，Kwok 享有并控制 Lady May 的实益所有权。[73]\n\n第三，Kwok 显然寻求联邦法院直接审查并推翻两项州法院判决。Kwok 在脚注中掩盖了要点，承认移送是对 Final Contempt Order 的附带攻击。Kwok 的脚注称：“New York State Court（纽约州法院）已作出命令，其中载有与这些问题有关的事实认定，包括认定最相关的声称资产（Lady May yacht）属于 Kwok 先生的实益所有权范围内”[74—]，随后请求本院“[重新]确定何者是（或不是）破产财产。”[75] Kwok 的移送尝试是意图不当取得联邦法院审查的拙劣策略，是一种不被允许的“绕过州法院上诉程序的变通办法”以及“对藐视法庭指控的不被允许的附带攻击”。见 Rose v. Cnty. of York, No. 05-5820, 2007 WL 136682, at \\*3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2007)；In re Kurimsky, 2021 WL 4269817, at \\*5（在先前法院认定“Avail-1, LLC 拥有有担保债务”，而破产法院起诉书主张并非如此时适用 Rooker-Feldman）（着重号为原文所加）。\n\nRooker-Feldman 不允许 Kwok 寻求如下救济：若获准，该救济将阻止纽约州法院执行其命令。In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573, 581 (3d Cir. 2005)。因此，该原则尤其适用于州法院藐视法庭程序，在此类程序中，联邦制方面的考量尤为强烈。Cornell v. Burke, 559 F. App'x 577, 579 (7th Cir. 2014)（“由于藐视法庭命令构成州法院判决，Rooker-Feldman 剥夺\n\n73 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, 关于动议的裁定与命令，PAX v. Kwok., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181 at 4。\n\n74 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, 移送通知，PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 7 n.1。\n\n75 同上，at ¶ 5。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 25 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 26 of 193\n\n地区法院审查该命令的管辖权。”）。法院作出藐视法庭命令及判处制裁的权力“处于一州司法制度管理的核心。”Marciano v. White, 431 F. App'x 611, 614 (9th Cir. 2011)（援引 Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1977)）。例如，在 In re Ivani, 308 B.R. 132, 137 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2004) 中，法院依据 Rooker-Feldman 驳回债务人撤销纽约州法院藐视法庭认定的动议，因为“[债务人]的论点唯有在本院认定[州法院]作出了错误决定并推翻该决定时方能成立。”另见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs., Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 62 B.R. 723, 729–30 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)（承认州法院“因债务人实施有损州或联邦法院尊严的藐视行为而对其予以惩罚的固有权力，并未因破产诉讼而受到限制”）；见 In re Stahl, 526 F. App'x 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2013)（承认伪装成依据 Fed. Bankr. P. 9027 提交的移送通知、对州法院简易判决命令提出的质疑将受到 Rooker-Feldman 禁止）。\n\n第四，纽约法院（New York Court）的两项判决书分别于 February 3, 2021 和 February 9, 2022 作出，均早于 Kwok 于 February 15, 2022 提交的 chapter 11 申请。[76]\n\n由于 Rooker-Feldman 原则的四项要件均已满足，本院对纽约诉讼（New York Action）不具有事项管辖权。\n\nKwok 提出破产法院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e) 对 Lady May（Lady May）以及因此对纽约诉讼享有专属管辖权的障眼法式主张，在法律上是错误的。\n\n76 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Judgment, PAX v. Kwok, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No 716; Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX v. Kwok, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181; Friedman Decl., Ex. 31, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX v. Kwok, Index No 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1182.\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 登记于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 26 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 登记于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 27 页，共 193 页\n\n虽然破产法院对“在该案件开始之时债务人的所有财产，无论位于何处，以及破产财团的财产”享有专属对物管辖权，这一点是正确的。[77] 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e)，但 § 1334(e)(1) 所授予的专属管辖权“仅为对物管辖权”。Loudin v. J.P. Morgan Tr. Co., 481 B.R. 388, 394 (S.D. W. Va. 2012) (citing In re CitX Corp., 302 B.R. 144, 161 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003)). 第 1334(e) 条并不延伸至像本案这样的对人合同违约之诉；该等诉讼“旨在确立债务人就某项请求所承担的个人责任，但并非专门针对破产财团财产的所有权，或对该等财产所享有的权利和权益”。Id. 事实上，最终藐视法庭命令（Final Contempt Order）适用于 Kwok 个人；Kwok 本可以遵守该命令，但其拒绝这样做。\n\n当然，如破产法院准许 PAX（PAX）提出的动议，即“要求作出确认自动中止不适用的命令，或备位地，根据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止的动议”，则任何基于 § 1334(e)(1) 理由要求由联邦法院审理本案的努力都将失去意义。[78] 本院完全有权允许纽约法院监督与 Lady May 有关的诉讼。See In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico, 899 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 2018)（确认第 1334(e) 条并未“限制破产法院允许他人对债务人财产采取行动的权力”，包括允许非破产法院“准许债权人出售债务人财产”（citing Catalano v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 279 F.3d 682, 687 (9th Cir. 2002))）。\n\n77 PAX 承认，纽约法院认定 Kwok“实益拥有并控制”的 Lady May 的清算，以及由此所得款项的分配，应当在 chapter 11 程序中进行（如本案未被驳回）。\n\n78 See PAX's Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No. 57.\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 登记于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 27 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 登记于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 28 页，共 193 页\n\n总而言之，Kwok 寻求免受该藐视法庭命令救济的适当途径，是向纽约上诉法院提起程序。In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 402 B.R. 596, 610 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)（“[B]y reason of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and common sense, New Jersey's appellate courts are the only entities that can decide the legal issues as to whether the judgment against Lyondell was in accordance with New Jersey law.”）。由于 Rooker-Feldman 原则剥夺了本院对纽约诉讼中已裁决的所有请求和争议事项的事项管辖权，本案必须发回重审。\nII. 备位地，法院应当避免行使管辖权。\n\n即使法院认定其对纽约诉讼具有管辖权（其不应如此认定），法院也应避免审理该案。See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). 因为纽约诉讼尤其是一项基于在 chapter 11 申请前十余年签订的合同而提出的普通合同违约争议，其被视为“非核心”程序，see, e.g., In re Coudert Bros., No. 11-cv-4949 (PAE), 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011). 因此，强制避免原则禁止法院审理此类非核心程序。但即使该合同违约请求属于“核心”程序，衡平因素——包括联邦法院尚待裁决的争议极少，see supra at 14–20，以及 Kwok 的移送明显属于挑选审理法院——也强有力地支持依据许可避免原则将本案发回重审。\n\nA 强制避免原则禁止法院对纽约诉讼行使其权限。\n\n在认定破产法院对某一事项具有管辖权后，法院“应当参考避免原则，以指导如何适当行使该管辖权”。Baker v. Simpson, 613 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 2010). “避免规定涉及的问题是破产法院是否应行使管辖权，而非该法院最初是否具有管辖权。”In re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc., 45 F.3d 702, 708 (2d Cir. 1995).\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 登记于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 28 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 登记于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 29 页，共 193 页\n\n根据强制避免原则，“如某项诉讼……能够在具有适当管辖权的州法院获得及时裁决，地区法院应避免审理该程序。”28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). 在如本案一样案件已被移送的情形下，如满足以下六项标准，即必须发回重审：\n\n(1) 必须已提出“及时”的避免动议；(2) 该诉讼必须基于州法请求；(3) 该诉讼必须与破产程序“相关”，而非依据 title 11“产生”或在 title 11 下案件中“产生”；(4) 该诉讼的唯一联邦管辖权基础必须是第 1334 条；(5) 该诉讼必须已在州法院“提起”；以及 (6) 该诉讼必须能够在州法院获得“及时裁决”。\n\nDel. Tr. Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 534 B.R. 500, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “主张法院应保留管辖权”的当事人——即 Kwok——“负有证明强制避免并无必要的举证责任”。In re Eight-115 Associates, LLC, 626 B.R. 383, 391 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021). 在本案中，每一项要件均已满足，而 Kwok 无法证明相反情形。\n\n第一，避免动议是及时的。避免动议是否及时“必须根据个案确定”。Id. at 392. 法院考量：\n\n(1) 动议人是否在其应当知悉提出该等动议的理由后尽快提出动议；(2) 动议方是否已经就涉及诉状实体问题的事项援用联邦法院的实体程序，尤其是是否仅在收到不利结果后才提出避免动议；以及 (3) 准许该动议是否会损害或延误他人的权利。\n\nId. 在本案中，自 Kwok 移送本案以来仅经过很短时间，完全处于法院认定避免动议及时的期限之内。See Acolyte Elec. Corp. v. City of N.Y., 69 B.R. 155, 177 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1986)（在提出对抗性诉状后不足两个月提交的动议属及时）；see also Robinson v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 918 F.2d 579, 584 (6th Cir. 1990)\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 登记于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 29 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 登记于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 30 页，共 193 页\n\n（认定在移送后超过八个月提出的动议仍属及时）。第二，PAX 并未援用本院“涉及诉状实体问题”的实体程序，其也并非“仅在收到不利结果后”提出动议。In re Eight-115 Assocs., 626 B.R. at 391–92; cf. In re AHT Corp., 265 B.R. 379, 384 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001)（在收到关于驳回动议的不利裁定后提出的动议不及时）。最后，避免审理不会损害或延误 Kwok。因此，该动议是及时的。\n\n第二，纽约诉讼基于 PAX 对 Kwok 提出的合同违约请求，该类请求通常在州法院审理。E.g., Deloitte (Cayman) Corp. Recovery Servs., Ltd. v. Sandalwood Debt Fund A, LP, 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. 2011)（合同违约请求适宜适用避免审理）。\n\n第三，纽约诉讼并非依据 Title 11“产生”或在 Title 11 下案件中“产生”，而仅与 Kwok 的破产案“相关”。28 U.S.C. § 1334 赋予地区法院对“依据 title 11 产生、在 title 11 下案件中产生，或与 title 11 下案件相关的所有程序”的管辖权。See generally Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). 这“三类管辖权”“通常被称为‘依据产生’、‘在案件中产生’和‘相关’管辖权”。Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. Lothian Expl. & Dev. II, L.P., 487 B.R. 158, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “‘依据产生’管辖权存在于任何根据 title 11 的某项规定提出请求的事项中。”In re Salander-O'Reilly Galleries, LLC, 475 B.R. 9, 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “‘在案件中产生’管辖权存在于下列事项中：其中的请求并非基于 title 11 明文创设的任何权利，但若无破产程序则不会存在。”Baker, 613 F.3d at 350–51. 最后，如该诉讼的“结果可能对破产财团产生任何可设想的影响”，则存在“相关”管辖权。Parmalat Cap. Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 639 F.3d 572, 579 (2d Cir. 2011).[79]\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 登记于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 30 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 登记于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 31 页，共 193 页\n\n第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）已解释：“依据”或“在” Title 11 下产生的程序属于“核心”破产程序，但仅与 Title 11 案件“相关”的程序则不属于核心程序——而在非核心程序中，强制避免原则适用。Wilmington Tr., 534 B.R. at 512 (quoting Baker, 613 F.3d at 350). 对合同诉讼是否属于核心程序或非核心程序的认定，要求考量“(1) 该合同是否先于重整申请；以及 (2) 该程序独立于重整程序的程度”。In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2005). “申请前合同损害赔偿”请求——如 PAX 对 Kwok 提出的合同违约诉讼——通常属于“非核心”程序。See In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1102 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Beard v. Braunstein, 914 F.2d 434, 443 (3d Cir. 1990)); see also In re Coudert Bros., 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*5（“如被起诉所涉合同在破产申请前订立，则基于该合同的程序通常极不可能取决于破产法。”）。\n\n本案中不存在“依据产生”或“在案件中产生”的管辖权。第一，Kwok 并未主张存在“依据产生”管辖权；其不可能如此主张，因为该程序涉及的是合同违约请求，而非“根据 title 11 的某项规定”提出的请求。In re Salander, 475 B.R. at 27; see also KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Franklin Advisers, Inc., 600 B.R. 214, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)（在“原告提出州法上的合同违约及相关请求，且该等请求并非依据 Title 11 产生”的情形下，不存在“依据产生”管辖权）。也不存在“在案件中产生”的\n\n79 PAX 承认本案中存在“相关”管辖权。\n22-01073-dsj 文件 15 提交于 04/14/22 登记于 04/14/22 14:46:34 主文件 第 31 页，共 41 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 登记于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 32 页，共 193 页\n\n存在管辖权，因为这些请求在“破产程序之外”已存在近五年。Baker, 613 F.3d at 350–51。\n\n以及，Kwok（郭文贵）草率地提出，纽约诉讼“源于”第 11 章破产程序，因为该诉讼涉及对 Kwok 在 Lady May 中所有权的认定；这一主张经不起审查。[80] Kwok 似乎主张，由于《破产法》第 541 条规定哪些财产成为破产财产，并且纽约法院（New York Court）在其最终藐视法庭命令中认定 Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益所有权，因此纽约诉讼必定“源于”其破产案件。事实并非如此。Kwok 是否可因拒绝返还其在申请破产前享有受益所有权的财产而被认定藐视法庭，是一项完全独立于本第 11 章案件、依据纽约州法律存在的法律事项；其持续藐视法庭亦是如此。\n\n纽约诉讼并非如 Kwok 所称，是一宗“旨在确定何者是（或不是）Kwok 先生或其破产财产的财产”的诉讼。[81] Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）裁定 Kwok 在 Lady May 中的权益时，尚不存在任何“破产财产”。作为纽约诉讼的结果，已经作出认定：根据纽约州法律，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益所有权并实施控制。就该问题而言，已无任何事项有待进一步诉讼。若本案被发回重审且自动中止被修改，Ostrager 法官不会重新审查财产问题。相反，纽约法院可能处理的唯一问题，是 Kwok 持续蔑视法庭行为的后果。此外，Ostrager 法官的裁决并未援引第 541 条，亦未侵犯任何可能在破产法院中依据第 541 条产生的诉讼。若必须存在一项涉及第 541 条的独立程序，该程序可在 Kwok 的第 11 章案件中进行，但任何有关 Lady May 的潜在诉讼都将显著受到（即使并非完全）\n\n80 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1, Notice of Removal, PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 6.\n\n81 同上。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 32 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/14/22 23:04:58 Page 33 of 193\n\n受纽约诉讼中的事实认定和判决所控制，因为破产程序中有关财产权的问题通常依州法确定。见 Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979)。事实上，PAX（PAX）将证明，既判力和禁止反言原则禁止 Kwok 及其他参与纽约诉讼的人重新诉讼已在该法庭裁定的请求和争点。无论如何，Kwok 已被裁定对合同损害承担责任；法院关于 Kwok 对该游艇享有受益所有权并实施控制的认定，是作出 Kwok 违反法院命令且构成藐视法庭这一认定的前提。关键在于基础诉因，而该诉因基于“独立于重整”而存在的合同权利。参见 KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 227（对涉及“一项申请破产后合同的争议”存在“源于”管辖权，该合同的解决“取决于对破产法院命令的解释”）。换言之，如同本案，在一项非核心法律请求实质上被“包装成破产请求”的情况下，该标签不足以证明将该请求视为核心请求具有正当性。In re Coudert Bros., 2011 WL 7678683, at \\*4。\n\n第四，28 U.S.C. § 1334 是移送申请中指出的纽约诉讼唯一表面上的联邦管辖权依据。如前所述，纽约诉讼涉及合同解释及纽约州判决执行规定的适用。此外，鉴于存在一名设于外国的原告（PAX）和设于外国的被告，不存在多元管辖权。\n\n第五，纽约诉讼在州法院“提起”。[82]\n\n82 见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, First Amended Complaint, PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 3.\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 33 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/14/22 23:04:58 Page 34 of 193\n\n第六，纽约诉讼“能够在州法院得到及时裁判”。Wilmington Tr., 534 B.R. at 512。法院通过考量四项因素来评估一项诉讼能否在州法院得到及时裁判：“（1）相对于联邦法院日程而言州法院日程的积压情况；（2）所提出争点的复杂性以及各法院的相应专门知识；（3）州法请求所关联的《美国法典》第 11 篇破产程序的状态；以及（4）州法院程序是否会延长破产财产的管理或清算。” Parmalat, 639 F.3d at 580。\n\n这些因素表明，纽约诉讼能够在州法院得到及时裁判，主要是因为其已经得到裁判。第一，不存在州法院日程积压方面的担忧，因为该案已诉讼五年，且 Ostrager 法官已裁判 PAX 的违约请求，并已裁定藐视法庭问题。见 Worldview Ent. Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow, 611 B.R. 10, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)（“即便如此，该因素也支持回避管辖，因为州法院程序已持续五年。”）。第二，“[该]案的事实尤其复杂”，因此州法院是更适当的审理法院。Parmalat, 639 F.3d at 580–81。事实上，正如 Ostrager 法官在最终藐视法庭命令中恰当地指出，纽约诉讼是一宗“2017 年案件，已有 *1,180 项案卷记录*——其中几乎全部涉及被告 Kwok 通过将其大量个人资产停放于一系列公司、可信赖的知己及家庭成员名下，以逃避其债权人并欺骗其债权人的努力。”[83] 该因素亦支持回避管辖，因为州法院诉讼是一宗违约争议，而联邦法院对此不具有专门知识。Woodrow, 611 B.R. at 19。最后，毫无疑问，在 Ostrager 法官面前提起的任何额外\n\n83 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Decision & Order on Motion, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181.\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 34 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/14/22 23:04:58 Page 35 of 193\n\n藐视法庭程序均可且将会得到及时裁判。Kwok 要么将继续处于藐视法庭状态，要么不会；该问题并不复杂。\n\n第三项和第四项因素同样支持由州法院裁判。第三项因素考察第 11 章程序的“状态”，询问“鉴于正在进行的《美国法典》第 11 篇破产程序的状态，州法院程序中的当事人是否需要迅速解决州法请求。” Parmalat, 639 F.3d at 581。该因素支持回避管辖，因为“与州法院程序相比，破产程序开始的时间相对较晚。” Woodrow, 611 B.R. at 19。最后，州法院裁判不会“延长破产财产的管理或清算”，因为“无争议的是，州法院中的程序将继续受自动中止约束，除非且直至破产法院解除该中止。” Id. at 19–20。因此，自动中止要么将被修改，且纽约诉讼将有助于解决 Kwok 的破产问题；要么纽约诉讼将继续处于休眠状态，不会影响破产法院中的程序。因此，“州法院程序影响或延迟破产程序的可能性很小。” Id. at 19。\n\n基于上述各项理由，强制回避管辖原则禁止本院审理纽约诉讼。\n\nB 即使强制回避管辖不适用，法院亦应依据酌情回避管辖原则拒绝审理该诉讼。\n\n即使法院认定存在管辖权（并不存在），且强制回避管辖不适用（若存在管辖权，则应适用），法院仍应依据酌情回避管辖原则回避管辖。[84] 该原则以 28 U.S.C. §\n\n84 或者，法院应依据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 所规定的衡平理由将本案发回重审；该条规定，“移送至该法院的此类请求或诉因，法院可基于任何衡平理由将该请求或诉因发回重审。” “在评估是否应根据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 将案件发回重审时，法院考量的因素与决定是否酌情回避管辖时的因素相似，包括：‘（1）州法问题是否占主导地位；（2）衡平性发回重审是否有助于司法经济；（3）§ 1334(b) 是否是行使联邦管辖权的唯一依据；（4）该程序是否涉及非债务人；（5）该程序与主要破产案件的关联程度或疏远程度；以及（6）程序是否因一方当事人的选择法院行为而在特定法庭提起。’” KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 226（引自 Rahl v. Bande, 316 B.R. 127, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)）。由于这些因素相互重叠，本动议一并处理依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) 的酌情回避管辖以及依据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 的衡平性发回重审。In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 B.R. 308, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)（“衡平性发回重审分析……实质上与第 1334(c)(1) 条回避管辖分析相同。”）。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 35 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/14/22 23:04:58 Page 36 of 193\n\n1334(c)(1) 为基础，该条规定：“本条中任何规定均不妨碍地区法院为司法利益，或为与州法院礼让之利益或尊重州法之利益，而回避审理依据《美国法典》第 11 篇产生、在第 11 篇案件中产生，或与第 11 篇案件相关的特定程序。” 在决定是否基于该理由回避管辖时，法院权衡礼让和联邦主义、司法经济及效率等考量。Wilmington Tr., 534 B.R. at 512。\n\n很难想到有哪一案件比本案更需要基于礼让而发回重审：Kwok 提起本案以逃避因藐视法庭而被追究责任，先是援引自动中止，现在则通过移送纽约诉讼。Kwok 因公然无视法院命令、冒犯纽约州法院体系的尊严和神圣性，而完全应受其所受的每一项制裁。仅出于对州法院的尊重，就应准许发回重审。Marciano, 431 F. App'x at 614（对州法院作出制裁的质疑涉及“处于州司法体系管理核心”的权力）；见，例如，In re Rodriguez, No. 18- 14694-MKN, 2019 WL 137009, at \\*4–5 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2019)（债务人移送州法院诉讼“产生了剥夺州法院权力”的效果，致使其无法通过藐视法庭制裁执行其先前命令，在此情况下酌情回避管辖是适当的）。\n\n在评估是否应根据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 将案件发回重审时，法院考量的因素与决定是否酌情回避管辖时的因素相似，包括：‘（1）州法问题是否占主导地位；（2）衡平性发回重审是否有助于司法经济；（3）§ 1334(b) 是否是行使联邦管辖权的唯一依据；（4）该程序是否涉及非债务人；（5）该程序与主要破产案件的关联程度或疏远程度；以及（6）程序是否因一方当事人的选择法院行为而在特定法庭提起。’” KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 226（引自 Rahl v. Bande, 316 B.R. 127, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)）。由于这些因素相互重叠，本动议一并处理依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) 的酌情回避管辖以及依据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) 的衡平性发回重审。In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 B.R. 308, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)（“衡平性发回重审分析……实质上与第 1334(c)(1) 条回避管辖分析相同。”）。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 15 Filed 04/14/22 Entered 04/14/22 14:46:34 Main Document Pg 36 of 41 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/14/22 23:04:58 Page 37 of 193\n\n第二巡回区法院（Second Circuit）的法院在确定是否酌情回避管辖时，考量多项因素：\n\n（1）如法院建议回避，对遗产高效管理所产生的影响或未产生影响；（2）州法问题在多大程度上较破产问题占主导地位；（3）适用州法的困难程度或其是否尚未确定；（4）州法院或其他非破产法院是否已启动相关程序；（5）除 28 U.S.C. § 1334 外是否存在管辖权依据；（6）该程序与主破产案件的关联程度或疏远程度；（7）所主张“核心”程序的实质而非形式；（8）将州法请求与核心破产事项分割、以便由州法院作出判决并由破产法院负责执行的可行性；（9）对法院案卷的负担；（10）在破产法院启动该程序是否可能涉及一方当事人选择法院；（11）是否存在陪审团审判权；以及（12）该程序中是否存在非债务人当事人。\n\n47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.（纽约东34街47号有限合伙企业）诉 BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.（布里奇街全球公司），No. 20-CV-9978 (LJL), 2021 WL 2012296, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021)（引自 KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 225）。\n\n这些因素的适用——即因素 1、2、3、4、5、6、8、9 和 10——压倒性地支持酌情回避。就因素 2 和 4 而言，州法问题不仅占主导地位——包括 CPLR 第 52 条项下判决执行程序中的问题——而且已由纽约州法院作出裁决。如前所述，Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）已作出：（i）支持 PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）就其违约请求作出简易判决的命令；以及（ii）最终藐视法庭命令，认定 Kwok（郭文贵）藐视法庭。[85] 见上文第 6–7、11 页。在此情形下——基于 Rooker-Feldman 原则适用的实质相同理由——礼让原则“实际上要求”发回重审。In re Briarpatch Film Corp., 281 B.R. 820, 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)（因“州法问题不仅占主导地位”，“而且已由该法院裁定”，故衡平发回重审属适当）；另见 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.，\n\n85 Friedman 声明，附件 5，动议裁定及命令，PAX 诉 Kwok，案号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，Dkt. No. 1181 第 3 页。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 登记，主文档，第 37 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 38 页，共 193 页\n\n2021 WL 2012296, at *10（在“整个案件已可作出简易裁决”，且“该简易裁决可由已在本案中主持州法问题的州法院法官最有效率地处理”的情形下，酌情回避属适当）。这尤其如此，因为“破产程序不得用于重新审理已由具有管辖权的法院解决的问题。”Kelleran v. Andrijevic, 825 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1987)；另见 In re Lyondell Chem. Co., 402 B.R. at 609（指出，“除非或直至新泽西州法院另有裁定”，在新泽西州法院胜诉并取得判决的判决债权人“现已就审判法院裁定的金额在本院享有一项请求权”）。基于同样理由，因素 1——遗产的高效管理——同样支持发回重审：“由本院重新考虑州法院已审理并裁定的事项，将极其低效。”In re Briarpatch, 281 B.R. at 831。因素 3，即问题的困难程度或未确定性质，亦是如此。Briarpatch 与本案直接相关：“问题不在于这些问题是否困难；此处的关键因素是州法院已对其作出裁定。”Id. at 829。\n\n就因素 5 而言，除 28 U.S.C. § 1334 外不存在其他管辖权依据，这进一步增强了酌情回避的理由。因素 6——关联程度——以及因素 8，即分割 New York Action（纽约诉讼）的可行性——亦支持发回重审。该诉讼完全独立于破产而存在——并且已存在近五年。该诉讼涉及基于破产申请前合同的违约请求，与破产毫无关联。见 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P., 2021 WL 2012296, at *9（“简单的州法合同案件”并非“与破产直接相关”）。而且，与法院认定酌情回避不适当的案件不同，纽约诉讼无需解释破产法院的命令。参见 KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 600 B.R. at 233（分割州法请求并不直接，“因为其涉及需要解释破产法院命令的问题。”）。就因素 9 而言，发回重审不会给州法院案卷造成任何负担，因为州法院已裁决 PAX 的请求（且第一部门已收到就简易判决命令提出的、已完成书面陈述的上诉）。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 登记，主文档，第 38 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 39 页，共 193 页\n\n最后，Kwok 启动破产程序并试图移送纽约诉讼并将其移交破产法院，强烈表明存在不当选择法院的行为（因素 10）。Kwok 在 Ostrager 法官的藐视法庭制裁即将生效前提交了其第 11 章申请，并于其后不久移送该案。见 Balcor/Morristown Ltd. P'ship v. Vector Whippany Assocs., 181 B.R. 781, 793 (D.N.J. 1995)（债务人在提出移送申请时，藐视法庭制裁动议“已临近裁定”，因而可能存在选择法院）；In re AMeribuild Const. Mgmt., Inc., 399 B.R. 129, 134–35 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)（在移送时机表明试图避免藐视法庭制裁的情况下，“存在强有力的理由发回重审或回避”）；M.B. v. Roosevelt Inn LLC, 2021 WL 5046216, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021)（移送时机“至少表明被告可能正在通过挑选法院寻求更有利结果”时，回避和发回重审属适当）。此外，Kwok 的移送通知并未说明联邦法院实际上将裁决何事——很可能因为该移送仅仅是一个策略，旨在：（i）拖延 PAX 在破产法院提出的动议，该动议要求确认自动中止不适用于 Ostrager 法官的最终藐视法庭命令；[86] 以及（ii）试图通过再次尝试而获得第二次机会，即试图重新审理纽约州法院已对其作出不利裁定的问题。[87]\n\n86 PAX 关于作出命令以确认自动中止不适用，或备选地，根据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止的动议，Dkt. No. 57。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 登记，主文档，第 39 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 40 页，共 193 页\n\n但是，正如 Gropper 法官（格罗珀法官）在 Briarpatch 中恰当地指出，“破产法院必须尊重州法院的命令和判决，且不得就已由具有管辖权的州法院裁定的事项充当审查或上诉法院。”281 B.R. at 829。在该案中，债务人“强烈抱怨州法院程序”，但未能说明“哪些动议”“现今可供其提出”，或“其究竟希望本院完成何事，除作为一般审查法院外。”Id. at 829–30。实际上，债务人寻求“一位会‘重新审视’的法官”，而这“是不被允许的选择法院行为”——本案正是如此。In re Rodriguez, 2019 WL 137009, at *4（认定在债务人于“为就认定债务人……构成民事藐视法庭的动议安排证据听证会”后不久移送时，“选择法院的疑虑十分重大”）；In re Drauschak, 481 B.R. 330, 347 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012)（同）；Rose, 2007 WL 136682, at *3（禁止在联邦法院对州法院藐视法庭命令提出质疑，因其构成“对藐视法庭指控不被允许的附带攻击”）。\n\n与酌情回避相关的许多因素，最终均与 Kwok 破产案件中就 PAX 确认自动中止不适用的动议所作出的决定有关，或者作为备选，就最终藐视法庭命令解除自动中止。具体而言，若破产法院认定自动中止不适用或应予修改，则——根据定义——其将裁定发回重审有正当理由，且继续执行最终藐视法庭命令不会干扰破产程序。反之，若法院认定自动中止适用于执行最终藐视法庭命令，或者不应予以修改，则发回重审仍不会干扰破产程序，因为自动中止将持续有效，直至法院作出相反裁定。\n\n87 在其对 PAX 确认自动中止不适用于最终藐视法庭命令之动议提出的异议中，Kwok 预示了其将不当地试图重新审理 Lady May 所有权问题的意图。见上文注释 71。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 登记，主文档，第 40 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 41 页，共 193 页\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 恭请法院准许其动议，将纽约诉讼发回纽约州最高法院商事庭。\n\n鉴于相关事实和情形，PAX 请求法院在适用范围内，豁免《破产规则》7062 项下判决执行的 14-day 中止期。\n\n日期：April 13, 2022，New York, NY\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）\n\n/s/ Peter Friedman\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）（获准临时出庭）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 15 于 04/14/22 提交，于 04/14/22 14:46:34 登记，主文档，第 41 页，共 41 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 42 页，共 193 页\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 April 13, 2022，上述文件副本已通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统以电子方式提交。该提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给依照法院电子提交系统而接收通知的所有当事人。利害关系方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n/s/ Peter Friedman\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 14 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，主文档，第 1 页，共 5 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 43 页，共 193 页\n\n美国破产法院\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n第 11 章\n\n原告，\n\n案件编号 22-01073-dsj\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO；GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）；以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）为支持 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1) 提出的发回重审动议，或备选地回避动议而作的声明\n\n本人 Peter Friedman 声明：\n\n1. 本人是一名获准在纽约州及 Washington, D.C.（哥伦比亚特区）执业的律师，并为 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的合伙人，地址为 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036，担任 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）的律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持 PAX 依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(C)(1) 提出的发回重审动议，或备选地回避动议。\n\n2. 附件 1 为 Kwok 于 March 18, 2022 就 PAX 诉 Kwok 一案，将纽约诉讼移送至 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）美国地区法院的移送通知的真实、正确副本，案件编号为 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.)，Dkt. No. 1。\n\n3. 随附的证物2为PAX v. Kwok, Case No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)中关于解决移送审判地动议的约定书的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 7-1。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 2 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 44 of 193\n\n4. 随附的证物3为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2020年9月15日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 549。\n\n5. 随附的证物4为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2021年2月3日判决书的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 716。\n\n6. 随附的证物5为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2022年2月9日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1181。\n\n7. 随附的证物6为PAX v. Kwok, Case No. 1:22-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y.)中第一次修订起诉状的真实、正确副本，ECF No. 3。\n\n8. 随附的证物7为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2022年2月18日法院通知的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1191。\n\n9. 随附的证物8为网站http截图的真实、正确副本（最后访问日期为2022年4月12日）。\n\n10. 随附的证物9为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中关于自愿撤回藐视法庭动议的2022年3月4日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1193。\n\n11. 随附的证物10为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中已签署买卖合同的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 256。\n\n12. 随附的证物11为Genever被告的公司文件的真实、正确副本，该文件作为PAX在PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中判决前扣押动议的证物5提交，Dkt. No. 252。\n\n13. 随附的证物12为PAX. v. Genever Holdings Corp.中2021年12月8日命令的真实、正确副本，该命令作为Andrew Willins（安德鲁·威林斯）为支持PAX在PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中就被告Miles Kwok（郭文贵）未遵守法院移交命令而请求作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议所提交宣誓书的证物2提交，Dkt. No. 1089。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 3 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 45 of 193\n\n14. 随附的证物13为PAX在PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)中出示的一份文件的真实、正确副本，其贝茨编号为PAX-KWOK-017468。\n\n15. 随附的证物14为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2020年12月18日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 685。\n\n16. 随附的证物15为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2021年3月2日上诉通知的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 725。\n\n17. 随附的证物16为PAX v. Kwok, Case No. 2021-00740 (N.Y. App. Div., First Dep't)中被告—上诉人于2021年10月15日提交的答辩状的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 16。\n\n18. 随附的证物17为In re: Genever Holdings, LLC, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)中非自然人申请破产的自愿申请书的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1。\n\n19. 随附的证物18为In re Genever Holdings, LLC, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)中准许债务人第二次续展动议以批准经修订和解协议的2021年10月8日命令的真实、正确副本，ECF 141。\n\n20. 随附的证物19为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2021年9月22日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 904。\n\n21. 随附的证物20为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中就被告Miles Kwok未遵守法院移交命令而请求作出民事藐视法庭命令的2022年1月7日动议通知的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1078。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 4 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 46 of 193\n\n22. 随附的证物21为PAX在PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中就被告Miles Kwok未遵守法院2021年9月22日移交命令而请求作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议所进一步提交的2022年1月24日答辩法律备忘录的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1116。\n\n23. 随附的证物22为PAX在PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中支持其CPLR 5229动议及临时限制令请求的法律备忘录的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 576。\n\n24. 随附的证物23为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2020年9月30日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 591。\n\n25. 随附的证物24为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2020年10月15日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 630。\n\n26. 随附的证物25为来自VesselFinder“航程分析器”的截图的真实、正确副本[http] [e66055d9856504]（最后访问日期为2022年4月12日）。\n\n27. 随附的证物26为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中有条件藐视法庭的2021年3月16日裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 728。\n\n28. 随附的证物27为PAX v. Kwok, Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.)中2021年3月23日上诉通知的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1。\n\n29. 随附的证物28为PAX v. Kwok, Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.)中2021年11月4日命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 17。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Main Document Pg 5 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 47 of 193\n\n30. 随附的证物29为PAX v. Kwok, Case No. 2021-01010 (N.Y. App. Div.)中2022年1月20日命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 22。\n\n31. 随附的证物30为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中关于动议的2022年1月14日第三份临时裁定和命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1098。\n\n32. 随附的证物31为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中民事藐视法庭的2022年2月9日最终命令的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1182。\n\n33. 随附的证物32为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2022年2月10日上诉通知的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1187。\n\n34. 随附的证物33为PAX v. Kwok, Case No. 2022-00609 (N.Y. App. Div.)中关于加急送达及/或临时救济申请的摘要陈述的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 5。\n\n35. 随附的证物34为PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)中2022年2月15日破产告知书的真实、正确副本，Dkt. No. 1190。\n\n日期：April 13, 2022 New York, New York\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Peter Friedman\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）\npfriedman@omm.com\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-1 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 1 Pg 1 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 48 of 193\n\n证物1\n\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n诉\n\n原告，\n\n民事诉讼案号\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，以及GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，\n\n被告。\n\n移送通知\n\n致上述法院书记员：\n\n兹通知，被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，下称“Kwok先生”）于本日通过其下列签名律师，依据28 U.S.C. § 1452及Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027提交本移送通知，将原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（下称“原告”）在纽约州纽约县最高法院（下称“纽约州法院”）提起的上述案件，整体从纽约州纽约县最高法院移送至美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（下称“本院”或“纽约地区法院”）。本院依据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)和1334(e)对本事项享有初始管辖权。\n\n为支持本移送通知，Kwok先生陈述如下：\n\n1. 2017年4月18日，原告提起案号为652077/2017的民事诉讼（下称“本诉讼”）。本诉讼的多个方面目前正在上诉中。目前，原告在本诉讼中寻求执行一项命令，该命令要求Kwok先生将其被指称拥有或控制的一艘船舶（“Lady May”）移入纽约州管辖范围，并以其他方式对据称属于Kwok先生的资产行使控制，以满足一项判决。参见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.提出的请求作出命令确认自动中止不适用的动议，或备选地，根据《破产法典》第362(d)(2)条请求解除自动中止的动议，Case No. 22-50073, Docket No. 57, at ¶ 12 (Bankr. D. Conn 2022)（指出原告在本诉讼中寻求执行一项“要求将Lady May返还纽约”的命令）。\n\n2. 2022年2月15日（下称“申请日”），Kwok先生（“Kwok先生”）在康涅狄格地区布里奇波特分部（下称“康涅狄格破产法院”）依据《破产法典》第11章提交自愿救济申请，并获分配Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)（下称“第11章案件”）。因此，28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)及Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(2)规定的移送期限尚未届满。\n\n3. 根据28 U.S.C. § 1452(a)，“任何一方均可将民事诉讼中的任何请求或诉因……移送至该民事诉讼正在审理地所在地区的地区法院，只要该地区法院根据本编§ 1334对该请求或诉讼享有管辖权[。]”\n\n4. 根据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)，本院有管辖权审理《美国法典》《破产法典》第11编项下“产生的、在……中产生的或与……有关的”所有民事程序。\n\n5. 自第11章案件提交之日起，康涅狄格破产法院对“在该案件开始时债务人位于任何地点的所有财产，以及破产财团的财产[，]”享有“专属管辖权”。28 U.S.C. § 1334(e)。因此，本民事诉讼目前侵及康涅狄格破产法院确定何者构成（或不构成）破产财团财产并对该等财产行使管辖权的专属管辖权。参见In re AE Liquidation, Inc., 435 B.R. 894, 904 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)（确定财产是否为破产财团财产属于破产法院的专属管辖权）；In re 245 Assocs., LLC, 188 B.R. 743, 749 fn. 6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995), corrected (Nov. 9, 1995)（“破产案件的启动使地区法院对债务人及破产财团的财产享有专属管辖权。”）。\n\n6. 因此，自第11章案件提交之日起，任何寻求确定何者构成（或不构成）Kwok先生或其破产财团财产的诉讼，均受11 U.S.C. § 541规管；因而，本诉讼是在第11章案件中“产生的”诉讼。\n\n7. 本案亦“与”第11章案件有关，因为其与破产程序具有密切联系，并寻求确定有关Kwok先生对财产的所有权及/或控制权（或不存在该等所有权及/或控制权）的问题，并对据称属于其所有或控制范围内的某些资产行使控制，1，以及确定其被指称就其债权人采取的行动。\n\n8. 纽约州最高法院纽约县（Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County）位于纽约南区（Southern District of New York）辖区内，因此，根据 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a)，移送至纽约南区是适当的。移送后，郭文贵先生预计将基于正在进行的第 11 章案件，寻求将审理地转移至康涅狄格地区（District of Connecticut），并移交康涅狄格地区破产法院（Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut），而非寻求移交纽约南区的破产法院。\n\n1 纽约州法院已作出包含与这些问题有关的事实认定的命令，包括认定最相关的所谓资产（Lady May 游艇）属于郭文贵先生的受益所有权。该认定正在上诉中，郭文贵先生并未放弃其对该事实认定或任何其他正在上诉中的事实认定提出异议的权利。\n\n9. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) 和 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(c)，本移送通知书副本将提交给纽约州最高法院纽约县书记官，并将向原告代理律师送达本移送通知书副本。\n\n10. 根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(1)，郭文贵先生同意破产法院就 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) 所指的任何非核心请求作出终局命令。\n\n因此，郭文贵先生将目前在纽约州最高法院纽约县审理的整个诉讼移送至本院。\n\n日期：March 18, 2022\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n\n签字人：/s/ William R. Baldiga\nWilliam R. Baldiga, Esq.（威廉·R·鲍尔迪加律师）\nBennett S. Silverberg, Esq.（本内特·S·西尔弗伯格律师）\nUriel Pinelo, Esq.（乌里尔·皮内洛律师）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n电话：(212) 209-4800\n传真：(212) 209-4801\n电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n电子邮件：bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n电子邮件：upinelo@brownrudnick.com\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的拟任代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-2 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 2 Pg 1 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 53 of 193\n附件 2\n美国破产法院 纽约南区 曼哈顿分院\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n对抗程序案号 22-01073-dsj\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n解决审理地转移动议的协议\n\n鉴于，2017年4月18日，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）在纽约州最高法院纽约县商业庭对被告 Miles Kwok（“Kwok”）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（“纽约诉讼”）；且\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 的判决书，见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 716；且\n\n鉴于，2022年2月9日，纽约州法院对 Kwok 作出最终民事藐视法庭命令，见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 1181；且\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 7-1 Filed 04/05/22 Entered 04/05/22 11:09:45 Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue Pg 2 of 3 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-2 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 2 Pg 3 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 55 of 193\n\n鉴于，2022年2月15日，Kwok 在康涅狄格地区布里奇波特分院（“康涅狄格破产法院”）自愿提交了根据《破产法》第 11 章请求救济的申请，并获分配案号 22-50073 (JAM)；且\n\n鉴于，2022年3月18日，Kwok 提交了将纽约诉讼移送至美国纽约南区地区法院的移送通知书，见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1；且\n\n鉴于，2022年3月21日，根据日期为 January 31, 2012 的经修订移交常设命令，地区法院将本诉讼移交本院；且\n\n鉴于，2022年3月23日，Kwok 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1412 及《联邦破产程序规则》第 7087 条，申请作出将本案转移至康涅狄格破产法院的命令，见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 1:22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 4；且\n\n鉴于，2022年3月30日，本诉讼从 Martin Glenn 法官改由 David S. Jones 法官审理，见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 1:22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 5；\n\n现因此\n\n特此由本案各方的登记代理律师约定并同意：\n\n1. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)，将本诉讼转移至康涅狄格地区法院布里奇波特分院，以移交康涅狄格破产法院，符合司法公正利益，并将促进遗产的经济且高效管理；且\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 7-1 Filed 04/05/22 Entered 04/05/22 11:09:45 Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue Pg 3 of 3 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-2 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 2 Pg 4 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 56 of 193\n\n2. PAX 不放弃，并明确保留其在康涅狄格破产法院以任何适当理由及时寻求将本对抗程序发回原法院的权利，参见，例如，Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007)（“地区法院在便利、公平及司法经济的考量有此必要时，可以根据 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 适当转移诉讼，而不处理标的管辖权及对人管辖权问题。”）。Kwok 同样不放弃，并明确保留以任何适当理由反对 PAX 所寻求的该等救济的权利。然而，Kwok 同意，PAX 对 Kwok 转移审理地动议的同意，并不构成同意标的管辖权，亦不构成放弃 PAX 及时寻求将案件发回原法院的权利。例如，Sinochem International Co., 549 U.S. at 430-32.\n\n特此约定：\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 的代理律师\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\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（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）\n\n签字人：William R. Baldiga\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·鲍尔迪加）\n\n特此命令：April __, 2022\n\n美国破产法官\n\n_________________________________________________\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 1 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 57 of 193\n附件 3\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-3 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 3 Pg 2 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 58 of 193\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\n出庭法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格阁下） 庭别 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n索引号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 — 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名\nGUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN， 动议序号 007\n又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS\nLLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司）， 关于动议的裁决及命令\n\n被告。\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格阁下）\n\n本院现审理原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“Pacific Alliance”）针对被告 Kwok Ho Wan 又名 Miles Kwok（“Kwok”）就经修订起诉书中第一项罪名项提出的部分简易判决动议，以及被告 Kwok 就第 006 号动议提出的重新辩论交叉动议。本院于 September 14, 2020 通过 Skype 听取口头辩论。基于提交的书面材料、于 September 14, 2020 作出的记录在案的辩论以及下述理由，准许 Pacific Alliance 的部分简易判决动议，并驳回 Kwok 就第 006 号动议提出的重新辩论动议。\n\n背景\n\n2008年，Pacific Alliance 与 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit”）签订协议，Spirit 是 Kwok 的一家商业实体；根据该协议，Pacific Alliance 向 Spirit 提供本金金额为 $30 million 的贷款额度。Kwok 签署了该贷款的个人保证书。2009年9月，Spirit 签署了一份契据，据此，Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）承担了 Spirit 对 Pacific Alliance 所负的贷款债务；Shiny Times 是一家将 Kwok 列为其唯一股东和董事的企业。Kwok 再次为 Pacific Alliance 签署个人保证书，以担保 Shiny Times 的偿还义务。\n\n2011年3月，Pacific Alliance 与 Shiny Times 签订了一项新的贷款额度协议（“2011 年贷款额度”），明确取代并替换了 2009 年和解契据及 2010 年函件协议。同时，Kwok 签订了一份新的个人保证书（“2011 年个人保证书”），明确取代了 2009 年保证书。2011 年个人保证书是本案中具有法律效力的协议。\n\n2013年4月，各方签订一份和解契据，据此，如 Pacific Alliance 从 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（“Beijing Pangu”）购买若干公寓，且 Shiny Times 向 Pacific Alliance 支付若干分期款项，则未偿贷款金额将不再应付给 Pacific Alliance。Beijing Pangu 是 Kwok 的另一家商业实体。就 Pacific Alliance 购买每一套公寓而言，Beijing Pangu 必须满足十项先决条件。如任何该等条件未在 2013年6月前满足，和解契据将整体终止。Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 随后四次延长和解契据，仅变更先决条件须获满足的日期。最新的和解契据要求先决条件须在 2015年6月前获满足。\n\nPacific Alliance 就经修订起诉书的第一项罪名项寻求简易判决；该项主张 Kwok 未在 2015年6月前满足先决条件，因此，根据协议条款，和解契据整体终止，2011 年个人保证书再次适用。\n\n本院最近在回应 Pacific Alliance 的制裁动议时裁定，Kwok 受司法禁止原则约束，不得质疑其此前在本院审理程序中曾予以支持的文件的真实性。见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 404。具体而言，在其 2019年11月的证言录取中，Kwok 否认曾签署上文讨论的若干协议，包括 2011 年贷款额度、2011 年个人保证书、2013 年和解契据及四份补充契据。Kwok 证称这些文件系伪造。在藐视法庭动议中，Pacific Alliance 主张且本院认定，这些否认与 Kwok 在本 2017 年案件整个期间所持立场不一致。因此，本院裁定，Kwok 受司法禁止原则约束，不得在反对 Pacific Alliance 的简易判决动议时或在审判中质疑这些协议的真实性。\n\nKwok 的交叉动议\n\n首先，就被告Kwok（郭文贵）请求许可重新辩论本院2020年7月7日《决定及命令》（NYSCEF Doc. No. 404）的交叉动议而言，该动议予以驳回。如上所述，本院认定，Kwok此前在本程序中向本院提交并主张为真实的协议，其不得再对其真实性提出质疑，因其受司法禁止反言原则约束。Kwok主张，本院作出该认定时误解了法律。本院完全驳回该主张。\n\n本案伊始，Kwok以不方便法院地为由提出动议，请求驳回本案（动议001）。本院准许了Kwok的动议（NYSCEF Doc. No. 102），该决定随后被第一司法部门撤销并发回重审（NYSCEF Doc. 121）。Kwok在提出驳回动议时主张，争议中的合同受香港法律管辖。具体而言，Kwok随其动议附上了当事人之间若干协议的“真实且正确”副本，包括其现正提出异议的2011 Personal Guarantee（2011年个人保证书）（NYSCEF Doc. No. 17）和2013 Deed of Settlement（2013年和解契据）（NYSCEF Doc. No. 18）。\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号549 已由NYSCEF接收：09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件14-3 提交于04/13/22 登记于04/13/22 01:55:22 证据3 第5页（共10页）案件22-50073 文件432-2 提交于05/24/22 登记于05/24/22 23:04:58 第61页（共193页）\n\nKwok现主张，由于其驳回动议中的论点及本院的决定重点均与不方便法院地有关，(1)其实际上并未改变其对文件真实性的立场，且(2)本院实际上并未对文件真实性作出认定。该主张不正确。Kwok主张本案应当被驳回，以便在香港解决，理由是这些协议从表面上看受香港法律管辖；该主张必然要求Kwok提出、并由本院接受这些协议是真实而非伪造的论点，正如Kwok现今所主张的那样。\n\nKwok进一步主张，无论如何，司法禁止反言均不适用，因为关于合同是否真实的问题并无实体问题上的最终裁定，原因在于第一司法部门撤销了本院就驳回动议作出的决定。第一司法部门的判例法并不支持该主张。司法禁止反言是一项衡平法原则，用于防止一方当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场。参见，例如，Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000)（“[依]据司法禁止反言原则，或针对不一致立场的禁止反言原则，当事人不得在同一程序中不公平地采取与其先前所持立场直接相反或不一致的立场。”）。事实上，由于司法禁止反言用于防止当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场，最终裁定不可能是适用司法禁止反言的前提条件。参见同案（禁止房东在上诉中依赖与其在同一程序初审法院阶段所依赖的不同租约）。\n\n此外，本院注意到，Kwok在其两份答辩状中均未主张文件系伪造，而伪造属于积极抗辩。参见，例如，Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C., 214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995)（准许提出修改诉状动议，以增加伪造这一积极抗辩）；Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Giardino, 71 A.D.2d\n\n836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979)（认定“鉴于被告提出伪造这一积极抗辩，对被告笔迹的证明具有重要性”）。\n\nKwok近期未经佐证地声称协议系伪造，与其在本诉讼中先前的立场不一致，因此构成适用司法禁止反言的适当依据。因此，驳回Kwok请求重新辩论的交叉动议，并将Kwok此前提交并主张的协议视为真实，以用于评估原告请求部分简易判决的动议。\n\nPacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的动议\n\n本院准许原告Pacific Alliance的简易判决动议，认定被告Kwok应就违反2011 Personal Guarantee承担合同违约责任。根据2013 Deed of Settlement的明确条款，未能于June 30, 2015前满足和解的先决条件，将导致2011 Personal Guarantee恢复完全有效。参见NYSCEF Doc. 461。\n\n条款3.4：2013年7月31日后Facility Letter（信贷函）的恢复。若截至2013年7月31日（或当事人以书面约定的较后日期[本案中，根据第四份及最终补充Deed of Settlement，为30 June 2015]），尚未满足条款3.2所列有关所有公寓的全部先决条件，则本契据所设想的全部和解应终止，当事人确认，Facility Letter应于2013年7月31日后立即恢复并完全有效（或当事人以书面约定的较后日期），且Shiny Times（盛世）有义务按照Facility Letter的条款和条件清偿Total Outstanding Amount（未偿总额）及其任何应计利息。（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n另参见NYSCEF Doc. No. 472“Fourth Supplemental Deed of Settlement（第四份补充和解契据）”（将满足先决条件的日期改为“30 June 2015”）。\n\n原告Pacific Alliance已证明，而被告Kwok未能反驳，2013 Deed of Settlement中的若干先决条件未被履行。具体而言，被告Kwok未能交付无瑕疵产权，未能向原告提供购买公寓的发票，未能向原告提供关于支付与公寓买卖有关的所有相关税款及费用的证据，且未能向原告交付任何公寓的房屋所有权证书。参见NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i)。\n\nKwok并不否认这些条件从未得到满足。相反，在反对动议时，Kwok主张，原告Pacific Alliance据称未在北京警方协助下采取可能查封三套公寓的机会，因而未能减轻其损失。\n\n第一，即使将Kwok所述版本的事实视为真实，减轻损失涉及的是损害赔偿，而非责任，因此这些事件不会阻却就责任作出部分简易判决。第二，如双方当事人提交的书证所示，据称在警方协助下取得三套公寓占有的机会，直到June 2015之后才出现；因此，2013 Deed of Settlement届时已经整体失效，2011 Personal Guarantee已完全有效。第三，Kwok在其两份答辩状中均未主张减轻损失，而这属于积极抗辩。参见，例如，Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010)（提及“未能减轻损失这一积极抗辩”）。\n\n最后，根据香港法律，当事人仅须采取合理行动以减轻损失。参见Vishal Prakash Melwani（维沙尔·普拉卡什·梅尔瓦尼）的宣誓陈述¶17.2（NYSCEF Doc. No. 535），以及Phillip Loukis Georgiou（菲利普·卢基斯·乔治乌）的宣誓陈述（NYSCEF Doc. No. 498）¶¶ 18.3和21。现有记录表明，为利用据称北京警方提出的方案，Pacific Alliance须为每个单位支付RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million]，才能将其解除。参见NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288。为清偿债务而支付approximately \\$16 million，以取得当事人已同意应无偿转让的资产，这一前景很可能不构成香港法律下减轻\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号549 已由NYSCEF接收：09/15/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件14-3 提交于04/13/22 登记于04/13/22 01:55:22 证据3 第8页（共10页）案件22-50073 文件432-2 提交于05/24/22 登记于05/24/22 23:04:58 第64页（共193页）\n\n损失的合理机会。尽管如此，本院对损害赔偿问题保留裁定。\n\n根据2011 Personal Guarantee\n\nKwok“不可撤销且无条件地……向PAX [Pacific Alliance]保证，[Shiny Times]在[2011 Facility]项下的义务将得到适时、按期支付，并同意其将在PAX提出要求后立即向PAX支付所有到期未付的义务”；\n\nKwok“不可撤销且无条件地同意（作为主债务人而非仅作为保证人），就因任何[Shiny Times]义务无论因何种原因成为或变为无效、可撤销、不可执行或不发生效力而致PAX产生的任何及全部损失，依PAX要求向PAX作出赔偿并使其免受损害……”；\n\nKwok同意，其“在本保证项下的义务……构成并应持续作为义务，且不因[Shiny Times]在[2011 Loan Facility]项下义务或其中任何义务的任何中间付款而被免除或解除，应持续完全有效，直至[该等义务]得到无条件且不可撤销的全额支付和清偿，并且是对PAX可能在任何时候就[该等义务]或其中任何义务持有的任何其他担保（或任何抵销权）的补充和独立义务，且不损害或并入该等其他担保（或任何抵销权）”；\n\nPAX获准作为主债务人向Kwok追索，而无须首先向Shiny Times执行该债务；以及\n\nKwok同意全面放弃基于“任何其他可能导致解除、减损或以其他方式影响保证人或任何义务，或影响本保证或法律赋予[PAX LP]的任何权利、权力和救济的作为、事件或不作为”的任何抗辩。\n\nKwok并未主张其本人或Shiny Times曾根据2011 Loan Facility或2011 Personal Guarantee作出任何付款以清偿债务。因此，本院认定Kwok应就违反2011 Personal Guarantee承担责任。\n\n结论\n\n本案尚余的争议事项——修订起诉状中的第二项罪名——请求使Kwok的两家公司Genever Holdings LLC和Genever Holdings Corporation作为另一个自我，对Kwok欠Pacific Alliance的债务承担责任。本案原定于October 5, 2020进行陪审团审判。由于Covid-19疫情，本院无法于该日进行陪审团审判，审判改期至January 15, 2021。\n\n因此，兹命令：\n\n命令，被告Kwok请求重新辩论的交叉动议予以驳回；并进一步\n\n命令，就修订起诉状第一项罪名提出的原告部分简易判决动议，对Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.有利、对Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名Kwok Ho（郭浩），又名GWO Wen Gui，又名Gui Wengui（桂文贵），又名Guo Wen-Gui（郭文贵），又名Wan Gue Haoyun，又名Miles Kwok（郭文贵），又名Haoyun Guo，予以准许，限于认定被告Kwok应就合同违约承担责任；并进一步\n\n命令，原告应不迟于October 14, 2020，以可在Submissions Part（书面提交庭）审理的动议通知提出动议，通过提交基于亲身知悉的宣誓书以及关于2011 Personal Guarantee项下到期应付本金金额、2011 Personal Guarantee项下适用利率和利息开始计提日期的可采形式证据，确定第一项罪名的损害赔偿，以便法院书记员能够计算截至判决登记之日的到期应付总额；并进一步\n\n命令：原告应同时提出一项关于裁定律师费及费用的动议，载明原告所依据的文件并附上已提供服务的发票；并进一步\n\n命令：各方应于 December 22, 2020 上午10:20出席一次案件状态会议。\n\n日期：September 15, 2020\n\n勾选一项： 案件已结案 X 非终局处置\n\n准许\n驳回 X 部分准许 其他\n申请： 和解命令 提交命令\n如适用请勾选： 包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 1 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 67 of 193\n证据附件4\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 2 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 68 of 193\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）\n\n纽约县（COUNTY OF NEW YORK）\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）， 17 652077\n原告，\n诉 案号：652077/2017\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\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司），以及\n\n被告。\n\nMILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\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，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（“Kwok”）提起诉状，主张被告 Kwok 违反合同的诉因。\n\n鉴于，2019年4月18日，原告针对 Kwok、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation（与 Genever Holdings LLC 合称“Genever 被告”）提交了第一份修订诉状，主张以下诉因：(i) 被告 Kwok 违反合同；及 (ii) 对 Genever 被告刺破公司面纱。\n\n鉴于，2020年7月24日，原告就其针对 Kwok 的违反合同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 September 15, 2020 作出决定及命令，并于 September 16, 2020 录入纽约县书记官办公室，准许原告就修订诉状中第一罪名项之违反合同提出的动议，并指示原告至迟于 October 14, 2020 以动议通知的方式提出动议，以确定第一罪名项的损害赔偿。\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 3 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 69 of 193\n17 652077\n\n鉴于，(i) 于 September 21, 2020，原告以动议通知的方式提出动议，以确定损害赔偿、律师费及费用；(ii) 原告同意在不损害权利的情况下，暂时撤回其申请中有关律师费及费用（即执行成本）的部分；经法院许可并在其他各方理解该部分将在日后重新提出的前提下撤回；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 December 18, 2020 作出决定及命令（“损害赔偿命令”），并于 December 18, 2020 录入纽约县书记官办公室，指示法院书记官作出有利于原告并要求被告 Kwok 支付 \\$46,426,489.00 的判决，另加自 December 31, 2010 生效日起按年利率15%计算的合同利息，以及自本决定及命令录入之日起按年利率9%的法定利率计算的利息。\n\n现根据原告代理律师 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 的动议，裁定如下：\n\n判决：原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，营业地址为 33/F, Three Pacific Place, 1 Queen's Road East, Hong Kong，有权向居住于 781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022 的被告 Kwok Ho Wan 取得并收回 \\$46,426,489.00，另加 \\$69,448,939.71 的合同利息，以及按9%法定利率计算的 \\$526,590.86 判决后利息，合计\n\nX \\$116,402,019.57，原告有权据此执行。\n\n本判决书于2021年2月3日登记。\n\nFILED\nFeb 03 2021\nNEW YORK 3rd Clerk\nFeb. 2021\nCOUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 2\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\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案号：652077/2017\n\nEDWARD MOSS, ESQ.（Edward Moss 律师）的声明书\n\n被告。\n\n本人 Edward Moss，纽约州法院正式准许执业的律师，特此根据纽约州《民事诉讼法律与规则》（Civil Practice Law and Rules）§ 2106，在伪证罪处罚的约束下声明如下：\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Pg 4 of 5 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Page 70 of 193\n\n1. 本人是本法院律师协会成员，并且是 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 律师事务所的合伙人；该所为原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）在本案中的登记代理律师。\n\n2. 本人完全熟悉本诉讼的事实及情况。为录入本判决书之目的，本人提交本声明书，放弃诉讼费用及支出。\n\n日期：January 25, 2021 New York, New York 签字：/s/ Edward Moss Edward Moss\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-4 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Page 71 of\n\nPg 5 of 5 193\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 案号：652077/2017\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\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\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nTIMES SQUARE TOWER - 7 TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 1 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Page 72 of 193\n证据附件5\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.， 案号 652077/2017\n原告，\n-\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 动议序号 019\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION， 关于动议的决定及命令\n\n被告。 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n在这起2017年立案、已有1,180项案卷记录的案件中——其中几乎全部涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）通过将其巨额个人资产置于一系列公司、受信赖的亲信及家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为——本院须裁定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）是否已完成举证责任，以证明本院应当对 Kwok 作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。基于以下理由，本院同时作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。\n\nPAX 于 February 3, 2021 就 Kwok 获得金额为 \\$116,402,019.57 的判决（NYSCEF Doc. No. 716）。此后，PAX 开展了历时一年的工作以执行其判决，首先识别、继而尝试扣押 Kwok 在美国的资产。PAX 在识别由 Kwok 行使控制权的资产时遇到困难，因为自称为亿万富翁的 Kwok 将其资产隐匿在错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该安排使 Kwok 能够在其奢华生活方式的情况下仍主张其没有资产；原告以社交媒体剪报、照片和录像材料记录了该生活方式，材料显示 Kwok 过着奢华生活，并炫耀其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机及游艇。\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 3 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Page 74 of 193\n\n如 February 2, 2022 的庭审记录所述，该等证据的证明力很低，因为提供该等证据的证人对这些“证据”的真实性并无第一手知情，仅知其可在不同网站上获取。\n\n于 February 2, 2022，本院举行证据听证会，七名证人以宣誓书提交直接证言，并可供交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX 经历了长期程序，以查找并扣押被告 Kwok 所有的资产。该等程序尤其确认，Kwok 对名为 Lady May 的游艇行使支配及控制，并导致作出一系列命令，限制 Kwok 和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇登记船主将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。如下文详述，首项该等命令于 September 30, 2020 作出，其后于 October 15, 2020 作出的命令限制“Kwok 先生和/或……游艇‘Lady May’的登记船主”离开本管辖区。（NYSCEF Doc. No. 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在2020年7月、8月及9月的大部分时间均在 Lady May 上度过。在导致作出 September 30 和 October 15, 2020 限制令的程序同期，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于2020年10月初驶往佛罗里达州，随后驶往巴哈马。于 March 16, 2021，本院作出有条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示如 Kwok 未能于 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围，则 Lady May 留在本院管辖范围以外的每一天，他将被处以 \\$500,000.00 罚款。\n\n上诉分庭第一部门确认了本院认定 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自行消除藐视法庭状态；尽管其获准如此做，但其没有显示出这样做的任何兴趣……”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时，行使了其裁量权；原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的、法院作出的合法且明确的命令，且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753）。……指示动议法院通过证据听证程序，解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉分院的命令，本院安排于 February 2, 2022 举行证据听证，以解决 Kwok（郭文贵）是否实益拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未在 February 2, 2022 的听证会上作证；此前，为回应 PAX 的资产取证工作，他援引其《宪法第五修正案》权利，拒绝就与 Lady May 有关的证词或取证请求作出回应。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引了《宪法第五修正案》，Kwok 仍是多个审理机构中的积极诉讼当事人，并且已在本案及其他程序中作过证。\n\nKwok 还在本院提起了一项题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng（郭文贵，又名 Miles Kwok 诉 曾虹），157025/2020 的诉讼，该诉状提及 Freebeacon.com 于 September 8, 2017 发布的一篇博客文章；Kwok 在该文中抱怨“涉及其 152-foot 机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件……”（Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng 诉状”）。Zeng 诉状将 Kwok 描述为“一名直言不讳批评 CCP 的人士”，其为“揭露 CCP 和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”付出了巨大“努力”。The Washington Post 报道称，前 President Trump 顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 船上被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业\n\n1 “PX”是指原告的庭审证据附件。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 5 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 76 of 193\n\n伙伴；Kwok 是“一名直言不讳地在网上批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但现因欺诈、敲诈和贿赂指控而被北京当局通缉”。其他新闻媒体报道称，Bannon 先生曾不止一次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往政治集会。\n\n听证会上从被告方证人口中获得的证词，以明确且令人信服的方式证明，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。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，以下简称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上获得的证词证明，2014 年，Kwok 无偿将 HK International 的 100% 权益转让给 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族可信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 逃离中国，并于 February 23, 2015，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP 购得 Lady May。听证会上获得的证词未能确定购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）未被反驳的证词证明，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44.2 因此，可以合理推断，Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，Qu 女士于 June 17, 2017 前后，以 \\$1 或无偿将 Lady May 的所有权转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。Tr. 47. 根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给现登记权利人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〔美国〕有限责任公司，以下简称“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.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring”）支付；据称，该公司是 Kwok 家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”是指证据听证会记录，已作为 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179 电子提交。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 6 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 77 of 193\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士作证称，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 女士取得该游艇产权的公司交易。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证明，Kwok 每年夏天多次在该游艇上，而 Guo 女士极少在该游艇上。Trial Tr. 88:8-20. Lady May 的船长作证称，Kwok 在 2020 年 July、August 和 September 的大部分时间都在游艇上，这与其夏季的一贯做法相符。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. 在本院 September 30, 2020 限制令之后，Lady May 于 October 2020 被送往 Florida，随后又送往 Bahamas 进行维修，并于 October 2021 被派往 Italy，据称系按 Golden Spring 的指示。Guo 女士承认，她知悉本院 September 30, 2020 限制令，以及本院随后于 March 16, 2021 作出的命令，该命令指示将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nGuo 女士作证称，一方面，她指示 Lady May 的航行路线；但另一方面，她又作证称，对 Kwok 的安保如此担忧，以致不会留下任何航行路线记录。Tr. 52. 她还作证称，当其父亲未由她陪同而在游艇上时，他可自由选择希望前往的任何地点。Tr. 50. 然而，根本问题是谁于 October 2020 指示将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。Guo 女士声称，在 October 2020 初，她不再希望\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 7 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 78 of 193\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示转达给 Golden Spring；Golden Spring 随后将她的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 告知她该游艇需要被移往较温暖的地方。Tr. 55. 随后，Guo 女士重复了其已撤回的证词，即她的哥哥将该游艇赠与她；她还称，她的哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56. 该证词不可信，因为本院于 September 30, 2020 作出临时限制令，限制 Kwok\n\n……出售、促成出售、让与、转让或干涉其拥有权益的任何财产，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 CPLR 5222 所列例外及正常业务过程中的行为除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. 值得注意的是，当时的 Lady May 船长 Captain Heaslop 作证称，在 Lady May 于 October 2020 初离开前往 Florida 的“数天”前（且显然是在本院 September 30, 2020 命令作出之后），Kwok 告诉 Captain Heaslop，Kwok 将不再作为 Lady May 的客人。Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop 还反驳了 Guo 女士关于由 Guo 女士向 Captain Heaslop 下达游艇移动指示的证词。Tr. 94.\n\nGuo 女士还承认，她后来阅读了本院 March 16, 2021 的命令，该命令要求于 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她还承认，她已与其律师讨论过该命令（该律师的服务费用由 Golden Spring 支付），并且她无视了该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL（游艇动物园有限责任公司）的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（罗素·斯托基尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 签订了日期为 May 2021 的管理合同，且其与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 沟通，但从未与 Guo 女士沟通。Tr. 78. 继任船长 Captain Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫船长）亦作出了相同证词。Tr. 82. 简言之，Guo 女士关于她拥有并\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 8 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 8 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 79 of 193\n\n控制 Lady May 的证词，在任何方面均不能采信。Guo 女士似乎是一名二十多岁的女性，未提交任何证据证明她对 Lady May 行使了支配和控制，也未提供任何证实其取得 Lady May 占有的材料；她取得该游艇，似乎不过是为使 Lady May 免遭其父亲债权人扣押而实施的手段。\n\nKwok 就 Lady May 所策划的这场障眼法所涉及的种种安排，与本诉讼待决五年期间 Kwok 所采取的所有其他规避性和藐视性行为如出一辙；这正是本案有 1,180 项案卷记录的原因。\n\n本院有权依据 Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753 认定 Kwok 构成民事藐视法庭——并“以罚款和监禁处罚[他]”——在本案情形下，本院“明确认定 [Kwok 的] 行为旨在或实际已经挫败、减损、阻碍或损害民事程序一方当事人的权利或救济”。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（引用 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条规定了四项要求：\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在特定案件中认定发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达无歧义命令的合法法院命令当时有效；[2] 必须以合理确定性表明，该命令已被违反……；[3] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管并不要求该命令实际上已向该方送达……；[4] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方当事人权利造成了损害。\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（引用 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中取得的证词满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，上诉分院已作出如此暗示。见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已] 以明确且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok] 违反了\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-5 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 5 Pg 9 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 80 of 193\n\n其知悉的、法院作出的合法且明确的命令，且该违反行为损害了原告的权利……”）。\n\nPAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）持续遭受的“损害”程度，取决于PAX是否已证明其最终能够对Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）实施执行，以清偿其现已达一亿多美元的针对Kwok（郭文贵）的判决。根据CPLR § 5225，在债务人拥有必要“权益”的情况下，可以对“金钱或其他动产”实施执行。为满足该项要求，“判决债务人无需拥有该财产的法定所有权；受益权益已属足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“受益权益是‘对某物享有的权利或期待……相对于对该物的法定所有权而言。’”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对Lady May享有的远不止受益权益。Kwok不仅控制该游艇，看来还是其购置资金的提供者，并且是主要享用该游艇之人。\n\n关键因素在于，“该财产是否使[受益所有人]受益，如同其直接取得该财产一样。”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已将其权益转让给女儿、因而不再持有财产权益的主张）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，仍准许判决债权人的交付动议，因为即使该主张属实，证据也显示其“仍保留对该财产的控制权和/或权益”）。\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-5 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 5 第 10 页，共 11 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 81 页，共 193 页\n\n证据以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok持有并控制Lady May的受益权益。就后一点而言，本院对Zeng案（曾案）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，将该游艇置于其债权人的追索范围之外。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本院认定，Guo女士（郭女士）的证词不仅前后矛盾且有意掩饰，而且受到Heaslop船长（希斯洛普船长）、Ivanov船长（伊万诺夫船长）及Stockil先生（斯托基尔先生）证词的严重削弱；后三人称，在Guo女士直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未就游艇相关事宜接受Guo女士的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州法律已确立，当事人在民事程序中援引第五修正案的行为“可构成作出不利事实推定的基础。”DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). 凡有必要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形下。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实裁判者可以对未作证的证人作出对方证据所允许的最强不利推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“将会知悉证据所提出的一项实质性争议”的情况下适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX有权依据上述两种途径获得不利推定。Kwok针对PAX的判决后证据开示援引了其第五修正案反自证其罪权利，包括针对Lady May的具体请求。尽管Kwok主张，在此作出不利推定并不适当，因为“只有在初步证明一项证据真实之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，该主张本身不攻自破。PAX已提出大量可采纳证据，证明Kwok对Lady May拥有必要的受益权益及控制权。见People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（说明若证据“倾向于证明某项重要事实，即案件中直接争议之事实，存在或不存在”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至February 7, 2022，Lady May已在本院管辖范围之外停留268天。根据本院施加并经上诉分庭确认的每日$500,000罚金，累计罚金将达到$134,000,000.00，超过PAX尚未清偿的近$120 million判决款，并为Lady May GBP £ 28 million购买价的数倍。然而，若亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够一面寻求使用纽约州及美国其他地区的法院程序，一面明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治将不复存在。Kwok必须在本院附送录入通知的裁定送达之日起五个工作日内，向PAX缴付$134,000,000.00。如未及时缴纳该罚金，本院准备依Judiciary Law § 753行使其全部权限。\n\n日期：February 9, 2022\n\n勾选一项： 案件已结案 X 非终局处置\n\nX 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他\n申请： 拟定裁定 提交裁定\n如适用请勾选： 包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-6 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 更正表 6 第 1 页，共 20 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 83 页，共 193 页\n证物 6\n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企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n 案号 652077/2017\n\nBarry R. Ostrager法官（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n第61审判庭\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/18/2019 10:50 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 309 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/18/2019\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），以及GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），\n\n被告。\n\n第一次修正起诉书\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 这是一起直接的违约案件。据称为亿万富翁的Kwok 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（“Kwok”），以及其控制的实体，向原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX LP”）借入数百万美元，但未能根据具有约束力的书面协议向PAX LP支付所欠金额。\n\n2. 2008年，PAX LP与Kwok的一家商业实体Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit Charter”）签订书面协议，根据该协议，PAX LP向Spirit Charter提供本金为$30 million的贷款额度。该贷款额度的条件是Kwok签署对Spirit Charter还款义务的个人担保。Kwok签署了该担保，PAX LP于February 4, 2008向Spirit Charter出借$30 million。\n\n3. 2009年，Kwok的另一实体Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）承接了Spirit Charter对PAX LP所负债务，双方当时约定该债务总额为$45,357,534.25。Kwok再次就该债务签署个人担保。\n\n4. 随后于2011年，PAX LP与Shiny Times签订书面协议（“2011 Facility Letter（2011年融资函）”），该协议明确取代双方此前的协议。在2011 Facility Letter中，双方约定Shiny Times欠付PAX LP $46,426,489，并将于June 30, 2012前偿还该金额（另加自December 31, 2010起按年利率15%计算的利息）。\n\n5. 同日，Kwok签署另一份个人担保（该担保同样明确取代Kwok此前的个人担保），根据该担保，Kwok保证支付Shiny Times根据2011 Facility Letter应付PAX LP的金额（“2011 Personal Guarantee（2011年个人担保）”）。\n\n6. 在Shiny Times和Kwok均未向PAX LP偿还款项后，Kwok、Shiny Times和Beijing Pangu（另一家由Kwok控制的实体）与PAX LP协商达成一项潜在和解，根据该和解，为清偿债务，PAX LP将取得由Beijing Pangu拥有的位于北京的三套公寓的所有权。但即使PAX LP通过四次单独延期，给予Kwok和Beijing Pangu额外23个月以满足该等条件，Kwok和Beijing Pangu仍未满足和解的具体先决条件（包括但不限于未将公寓所有权转让给PAX LP）。\n\n7. 由于最后期限于June 2015末届满时先决条件仍未满足，2011 Facility Letter和2011 Personal Guarantee依其明确条款恢复完全有效，PAX LP随后开始向Shiny Times和Kwok追索不断增加的合同债务。然而，当PAX LP使Shiny Times在英属维尔京群岛进入清算时，Shiny Times并无任何资产。Kwok迄今拒绝偿还其债务中的一分钱。事实上，Kwok最近否认该债务本身的存在，并一再声称其不应当偿还该债务，包括在其Twitter账户上以及在本案的一次证言录取中。\n\n8. Kwok的两家空壳公司——Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever NY”）和Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”，与Genever NY合称“Genever Defendants”）——应对其欠付PAX LP的债务承担责任，因为每一家都是Kwok的另一个自我。Kwok是Genever BVI的唯一股东和董事，而Genever BVI又是Genever NY的唯一股东；Kwok通过Genever NY于March 2015初以$67.5 million现金购买了位于纽约The Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Inc.（“Sherry-Netherland”）的一套豪华公寓（该公寓称为“Residence”）。Kwok支配并控制Genever NY和Genever BVI，两者均无办公室、雇员，亦不存在任何独立于作为Kwok购买Residence的空壳之外的独立存在。\n\n9. Kwok购买Residence所支付的金额，几乎精确等于其当时根据个人担保欠付PAX LP的金额。其在明知债务将到期应付PAX LP时设立Genever Defendants，且几乎随即通过Genever Defendants购买Residence，意图将该资产置于PAX LP的追索范围之外。Kwok曾就Genever Defendants向Sherry-Netherland和本院作出虚假陈述，以进一步推进其逃避债务的行为。下文详细说明的这一行为及Kwok有关Genever Defendants的其他行为，表明Kwok滥用公司形式所赋予的特权，以对PAX LP实施欺诈、不当行为或不公正。\n\n10. PAX LP 已根据其与 Shiny Times（闪耀时代）及 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）所订立的协议，采取一切必要且适当的措施，以追收其应收款项——目前连同合同利息在内已超过 \\$100 million。然而，迄今为止，Shiny Times 和郭文贵未就未偿债务履行其合同约定的任何一美元还款义务。由于未能偿还该债务，PAX LP 还因执行 2011 年个人保证而产生了“成本、索赔损失及费用（包括律师费）”，根据 2011 年个人保证的明示条款，郭文贵有义务对此予以赔偿。（见附件 A § 5.3。）\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n11. 本院依据纽约州一般对人管辖权法规 C.P.L.R § 301，对郭文贵享有对人管辖权，因为其在纽约持续且系统地“开展业务”，其住所地位于该州，并拥有位于纽约县的该住宅。\n\n12. 本院依据 C.P.L.R § 301，对 Genever NY（纽约 Genever 公司）享有对人管辖权，因为该公司在纽约注册成立，且其唯一业务目的为持有位于纽约县的郭文贵住宅的股份。\n\n13. 本院对 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛 Genever 公司）享有对人管辖权，因为如本文件所述，鉴于郭文贵为对 PAX LP 实施欺诈而对其进行支配和控制，Genever BVI 是郭文贵的另我。此外，Genever BVI 通过成为一家纽约有限责任公司（Genever NY）的唯一股东，并作为该住宅的间接所有人，在纽约实施了相关行为并利用了纽约法律。事实上，Genever BVI 的唯一业务目的，是通过其对 Genever NY 的 100% 持股而拥有该住宅。在本案诉讼中，Genever BVI 由郭文贵的律师代理（该律师代表 Genever BVI 接受并答复了第三方传票）。郭文贵的律师还在本案中就 Genever BVI 资产的某些质押向本院作出陈述。\n\n14. 根据 C.P.L.R § 503(a)，本院为适当审判地，因为郭文贵的住所位于纽约县，且 Genever NY 的注册地位于纽约县。\n\n当事人\n\n15. 原告 PAX LP 是根据开曼群岛法律设立的一家获豁免有限合伙投资基金。\n\n16. 被告郭文贵为中国国籍人士，其住所位于纽约，并在纽约持续且系统地“开展业务”。郭文贵是 Genever BVI 的唯一股东和董事。郭文贵居住于该住宅。\n\n17. 被告 Genever NY 是根据纽约州法律设立的一家有限责任公司。Genever NY 的唯一业务目的，是持有该住宅的股份；该住宅为 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰大厦）1801 号公寓。Genever NY 于 2015 年以 \\$67.5 million 购得该住宅。\n\n18. 被告 Genever BVI 是根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立的一家英属维尔京群岛商业公司。Genever BVI 的唯一业务目的，是通过其对 Genever NY 的 100% 持股而拥有该住宅。\n\n事实陈述\n\n贷款额度及郭文贵向 PAX LP 提供的个人还款保证\n\n19. PAX LP 与郭文贵自约 2008 年 2 月 4 日起即存在商业往来；当时，PAX LP 与郭文贵的一家商业实体 Spirit Charter（精神宪章公司）（作为附件 B 附后）订立书面协议（“2008 年额度协议”），据此，PAX LP 向 Spirit Charter 提供本金金额为 \\$30 million 的贷款额度（见附件 B § 3）。郭文贵代表 Spirit Charter 签署了 2008 年额度协议。2008 年额度协议规定：“除非 [PAX LP] 已首先收到……一份正式签署的 Kwok[] 保证，否则 [PAX LP] 无义务向借款人提供预付款。”（附件 B § 4(d)。）在收到郭文贵的保证后，PAX LP 于 2008 年 2 月 4 日向 Spirit Charter 出借了该贷款额度项下可用的全部 \\$30 million。\n\n20. 2008 年 3 月 12 日，PAX LP 与 Spirit Charter 对 2008 年额度协议进行了修订和重述（“经修订和重述的 2008 年额度协议”）。（见附件 C。）郭文贵代表 Spirit Charter 签署了经修订和重述的 2008 年额度协议；该协议承认并确认 Spirit Charter“于 2008 年 2 月 4 日收到了原始贷款额度的 US\\$30,000,000 本金金额”。（附件 C § 2。）\n\n21. 根据日期为 2009 年 9 月 17 日的一份契据（“2009 年 9 月契据”），Shiny Times、Spirit Charter、PAX LP 及其他各方同意，由 Shiny Times 取代 Spirit Charter，成为经修订和重述的 2008 年额度协议项下的借款人。（见附件 D。）郭文贵代表 Shiny Times、Spirit Charter 及其本人签署了 2009 年 9 月契据。2009 年 9 月契据各方还同意，截至 2009 年 9 月 12 日，经修订和重述的 2008 年额度协议项下未偿金额，包括已累计但未付利息，为 \\$45,357,534.25。（见附件 D 第 4 页。）\n\n22. 2009 年 9 月契据要求郭文贵向 PAX LP 签署一份新的个人保证，以担保 Shiny Times 偿还当时经修订和重述的 2008 年额度协议项下所欠的约 \\$45 million。（见附件 D § 5.10。）郭文贵于 2009 年 11 月 18 日签署了其个人保证。（见附件 E。）\n\n23. 2011 年，PAX LP、郭文贵和 Shiny Times 同意以两份于 2011 年 3 月 16 日签署的合同取代前述协议——2011 年额度函（作为附件 F 附后）及 2011 年个人保证（作为附件 A 附后）。\n\n24. 在 2011 年额度函中，各方同意，截至该日，Shiny Times 欠付 PAX LP \\$46,426,489，并将于 2012 年 6 月 30 日前偿还该金额，以及自 2010 年 12 月 31 日起按年利率 15% 计付的利息。（见附件 F §§ 3, 5。）\n\n25. 各方还在 2011 年额度函中同意，Shiny Times 未能支付其根据 2011 年额度函应付给 PAX LP 的任何金额，即构成违约事件；在该等情况下，PAX LP 可以：（i）宣布全部贷款、已累计但未付利息以及任何其他应付款项立即到期应付，无须进一步催告、通知或任何其他法律手续；和/或（ii）宣布终止 2011 年额度函。（见附件 F § 13。）\n\n26. 与各方此前的协议一样，2011 年额度函也明确以郭文贵签署 2011 年个人保证为条件，以全面担保 Shiny Times 向 PAX LP 支付款项的义务：\n\n贷款人 [PAX LP] 与借款人 [Shiny Times] 同意订立本协议……条件是，为担保借款人按照本协议适时并足额偿还 [2011 年额度函] 项下款项，加上所有已累计但未付利息，向贷款人交付郭文贵先生的一份新个人保证（“个人保证”）。\n\n（附件 F 第 1 页。）\n\n27. 郭文贵代表 Shiny Times 签署了 2011 年额度函，并于同日签署了 2011 年个人保证；根据该保证，他同意“不可撤销且无条件地”保证 Shiny Times 支付 2011 年额度函项下所欠全部款项。尤其是，郭文贵：\n\n（a）向 PAX LP 保证 Shiny Times 适时支付其在 2011 年额度函项下的义务；\n\n（b）同意“在 [PAX LP] 提出要求后， [郭文贵] 将立即向 [PAX LP] 支付所有该等已到期但未支付的款项”；\n\n（c）同意“应要求赔偿并使 [PAX LP] 免受因 Shiny Times 在 2011 年额度函项下的任何义务因任何原因对 Shiny Times 而无效、可撤销、不可执行或不具效力所导致的 [PAX LP] 所遭受的一切损失”；\n\n（d）同意 PAX LP 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 或郭文贵中的任一方寻求偿还；以及\n\n（f）同意就因行使或执行个人保证而产生的“任何及一切成本、索赔损失及费用（包括律师费）”赔偿 PAX LP。\n\n（附件 A §§ 2.1–2.2、3.3 和 5.3。）\n\n28. 郭文贵还在 2011 年个人保证中同意放弃抗辩，包括基于 Shiny Times 清算或解散，或 PAX LP “因任何原因”无法向 Shiny Times 追偿的抗辩。（附件 A § 3.4。）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”的抗辩。（附件 A § 3.4(g)。）\n\n29. 简言之，郭文贵亲自签署了一项明确且牢不可破的保证，承诺其将清偿 Shiny Times 对 PAX LP 所负债务。\n\n和解尝试、延期及 Shiny Times 最终未能向 PAX LP 偿还\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 04/18/2019 10:50 AM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：309 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/18/2019\n\n30. 在 2011 年额度函规定的 2012 年 6 月 30 日还款日前，Shiny Times 未偿还贷款本金或已累计利息的任何部分；此后，各方通过一份和解协议——以及随后对该协议作出的数次延期——安排尝试解决该债务，每一份文件均称为“和解契据”。\n\n31. 2013 年 4 月 19 日，PAX LP、Shiny Times 和郭文贵与郭文贵拥有的另一家公司 Beijing Pangu（北京盘古）共同订立了原始和解契据（作为附件 G 附后）。\n\n郭文贵代表 Shiny Times 及其本人签署了原始和解契据。\n\n32. 原始和解契据规定：（i）截至原始和解契据之日，2011 年额度函项下应付未偿总额加上所有已累计但未付利息为 \\$52 million；以及（ii）在发生下列事件后，该金额不再到期应付：\n\n（a）如 PAX LP 在三项独立交易中完成向北京盘古购买三套公寓，每套约为 \\$5 million，总计约为 \\$15 million；以及\n\n（b）如 Shiny Times 向 PAX LP 完成三笔每笔约为 \\$5 million 的分期付款——在每次独立购买公寓后支付一笔分期款——总计约为 \\$15 million。\n\n（见附件 G §§ 2–3.1。）\n\n33. 然而，在 PAX LP 能够完成向北京盘古购买该三套公寓之前，根据原始和解契据，北京盘古须满足有关产权、税费、抵押权清偿以及中国房地产交易其他常见事项的某些明示先决条件。（见附件 G § 3.2。）如截至 2013 年 7 月 31 日，三套公寓中任何一套的任何该等条件未获满足，原始和解契据规定：“额度函应在该等未履行后立即恢复并完全有效，且 Shiny Times 应依照 [2011 年] 额度函的条款，负有清偿任何未偿未偿总额及其上已累计利息的义务。”（附件 G § 4.2。）\n\n34. 如 2011 年额度函恢复完全效力，郭文贵根据 2011 年个人保证条款所负义务也将完全有效：“[郭文贵]……的义务应持续完全有效，直至 Shiny Times 在 2011 年额度函项下的付款和履行义务获得无条件且不可撤销的全额支付和解除。”（附件 A § 3.1。）\n\n35. 郭文贵和北京盘古未能在 2013 年 7 月 31 日前满足先决条件。\n\n36. 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日及2015年2月10日（作为证据H–K附后）——延长了《原和解契据》规定的日期，包括还款日期以及Kwok（郭文贵）和Beijing Pangu（北京盘古）满足先决条件的日期。\n\n37. 每份补充和解契据的条款均与《原和解契据》相同。每次结果也均相同：郭文贵和北京盘古从未满足数项所要求的明确条件。因此，PAX LP无须（且事实上也无法）完成购买任何一套公寓，而Shiny Times（盛世时代）从未支付其根据《原和解契据》欠付PAX LP的三期分期付款中的任何一期。\n\n38. 最后，于2015年3月31日，Shiny Times和PAX LP连同Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited（环球机遇控股有限公司）及Empire Growth Holdings Limited（帝国增长控股有限公司）订立了一份期权协议（“《期权协议》”）。该协议除其他事项外，规定可能向郭文贵出售持有受《原和解契据》约束的三套北京盘古公寓的实体股份（见证据L第2节），从而赋予郭文贵从PAX LP回购该等公寓的选择权。\n\n39. 根据其条款，如未满足特定条件，《期权协议》即应终止：“为免生疑，如未满足下列任何一项期权条件，本协议应立即终止（但不影响PAX LP根据《和解契据》可享有的任何权利或救济）。”（证据L第2节。）由于未满足《期权协议》的任何条件，《期权协议》同样终止，且并未免除Shiny Times根据《2011年融资函》向PAX LP付款的义务。\n\n40. 因此，当最后一份《和解契据》和《期权协议》均于2015年6月30日因未获满足而期满时，《2011年融资函》恢复完全有效，郭文贵在《2011年个人保证书》项下的义务变得可完全强制执行，并且郭文贵根据《2011年个人保证书》就Shiny Times根据《2011年融资函》欠付PAX LP的全部债务独立承担责任（且至今仍承担该责任）。\n\n郭文贵将Genever被告方设立为其完全支配和控制的空壳公司，以欺诈方式购买该住宅，从而将其资产置于PAX LP的追索之外\n\n41. 2015年1月底或2月初，郭文贵在中国的资产——包括拟根据拟议和解转让给PAX LP的三套北京盘古公寓——被中国政府查封，郭文贵逃往美国。\n\n42. 尽管如此，于2015年2月10日，郭文贵签署了对《原和解契据》的第四次亦即最后一次延期。（见证据K。）与PAX LP不同，郭文贵当时知道其中国资产，包括三套公寓，已被查封，因此知悉其绝不可能满足将公寓所有权转让给PAX LP的先决条件。郭文贵未告知PAX LP该等公寓已被查封，反而在隐瞒这一重要事实的同时，诱使PAX LP订立第四次亦即最后一次延期。\n\n43. 第四次亦即最后一次延期中满足先决条件的新截止日期为2015年6月30日。因此，郭文贵在签署2015年2月10日的延期时便知道，他绝不会满足先决条件（事实上，他也未满足），并因此知道，在其对PAX LP逾$70 million的债务到期应付之前，他仅有四个月时间来隐匿其资产。\n\n44. 郭文贵立即着手行动。2015年2月13日——在郭文贵签署其明知绝不可能满足的最终和解延期仅72小时后——郭文贵在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）设立了Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司），并在纽约注册成立了Genever NY（Genever纽约公司）。郭文贵未向任一实体注资。两个实体均未设立办事处或雇用任何员工。郭文贵是Genever BVI的唯一所有人，而Genever BVI是Genever NY的唯一所有人。根据英属维尔京群岛的官方备案文件，郭文贵是Genever BVI的唯一董事。\n\n45. 在2015年2月13日至3月24日期间——其再次明知自己将无法满足和解协议的条款，且其对PAX LP的债务将于2015年6月到期——郭文贵与Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）就购买该住宅进行谈判。\n\n46. 为诱使谢里-内瑟兰接受其申请，郭文贵通过其律师向谢里-内瑟兰董事会提交了财务报表。这些财务报表称，郭文贵拥有并控制Beijing Zenith（北京泽尼思），一家资产负债表显示近$4 billion资产的中国公司。该资产负债表是郭文贵申请中的关键材料，因为这是郭文贵曾披露的仅有两项资产之一。\n\n47. 值得注意的是，郭文贵在本案中作证称，他不仅在让其律师提交谢里-内瑟兰申请时知道该等北京泽尼思资产已被中国政府冻结，而且在申请当时，他“不拥有Beijing Zenith的任何所有权权益”，并且“对Beijing Zenith完全没有任何控制权”。\n\n48. 数日后，郭文贵再次通过律师向谢里-内瑟兰提交了第二家外国公司的财务报表：Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃幸运有限公司）（“Bravo Luck”），该公司在UBS Hong Kong（瑞银香港）的银行账户中持有逾$490 million。尽管该提交材料明确称郭文贵及其儿子拥有并控制Bravo Luck，郭文贵再次在本案中作证称，他“在Bravo Luck中没有任何所有权权益”。\n\n49. 如向谢里-内瑟兰所提议，郭文贵拟通过并确实通过Genever NY购买了该住宅，而Genever NY由Genever BVI全资拥有。谢里-内瑟兰的执行副总裁作证称，在其四十年的从业经历中，他从未见过住户通过两家独立的空壳公司进行购买。由于谢里-内瑟兰认识到，该结构加上郭文贵未在其申请中披露任何美国资产，将使其难以收取其向郭文贵收取的月费，谢里-内瑟兰要求郭文贵缴纳该机构历史上最高的保证金——相当于其约$56,000月费五年金额的保证金。\n\n50. 根据郭文贵证言所称向谢里-内瑟兰提交的虚假且误导性的财务信息，以及郭文贵同意缴纳约$3 million保证金——且当时郭文贵对PAX LP的债务逾$70 million——郭文贵和Genever NY于2015年3月24日获得谢里-内瑟兰董事会批准，以约$67.5 million现金购买该住宅。\n\n51. 与谢里-内瑟兰订立的《买卖合同》和《专有租赁协议》均由Genever NY签署。该公寓的《购买协议》将“‘Miles’ Kwok Ho Wan（Genever [NY]）”和“Kwok Ho Wan”列为申请人。\n\n52. 尽管Genever NY被列于《买卖合同》、《购买协议》以及与谢里-内瑟兰订立的《专有租赁协议》中，Genever NY并未获得注资，也没有购买该住宅所需的资产。相反，郭文贵使用从Bravo Luck汇入的资金购买了该住宅。\n\n53. 郭文贵在其证言笔录中几乎承认，用于购买该住宅的资金来自Shiny Times。当被问及Genever被告方与Shiny Times之间是否存在关联时，他作证称，Genever BVI与Shiny Times之间存在“代表关系……就像你购买房屋时，会有某些代理人代表你一样”。\n\nPAX LP寻求执行其合同权利并收取应付款项，郭文贵和Genever被告方则试图进一步隐匿该住宅作为回应\n\n54. 于2015年10月16日，在《和解契据》和《期权协议》终止且《2011年融资函》恢复完全有效后，PAX LP按照《2011年个人保证书》条款规定的郭文贵香港地址，向其发出书面催款通知（“《催款通知》”）。\n\n55. 《催款通知》告知郭文贵，Shiny Times“未能偿还到期款项的任何部分”，并要求立即支付$71,818,633.44。《催款通知》还告知郭文贵，如其未立即付款，可能对其提起法律程序，并保留PAX LP根据《2011年融资函》和《2011年个人保证书》享有的合同权利。\n\n56. 郭文贵从未回应《催款通知》。\n\n57. 大约在PAX LP发出《催款通知》的同一时间，郭文贵和Genever被告方将该住宅挂牌出售。\n\n58. 于2016年2月19日，PAX LP向Shiny Times发出函件，要求支付根据《2011年融资函》到期应付的$82,219,404.08（“《Shiny Times催款函》”）；该金额为本金加上按照年利率15%计算至《Shiny Times催款函》日期的合同利息。\n\n59. Shiny Times从未回应《Shiny Times催款函》。\n\n60. Shiny Times未作回应后，PAX LP于2016年2月29日向英属维尔京群岛法院提交申请，请求指定共同清算人，以使作为英属维尔京群岛公司的Shiny Times进入清算。该申请称：(i) Shiny Times未支付当时到期应付的$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\n61. Shiny Times实际上因英属维尔京群岛程序而进入清算，但其没有任何资产。因此，PAX LP无法通过英属维尔京群岛清算程序（或以任何方式）收回根据《2011年融资函》欠付给它的任何款项。\n\n62. 于2016年6月，即PAX LP启动英属维尔京群岛清算程序数月后，郭文贵和Genever被告方降低了该住宅的要价。同月，郭文贵试图通过重组Genever BVI的所有权并将其转入以其儿子名义设立的信托，进一步隐匿该住宅。\n\nPAX LP提起本案，郭文贵和Genever被告方明确表示其意图阻挠任何支持PAX LP的判决书\n\n63. PAX LP于2017年4月18日提起本案。\n\n64. 约一周后，郭文贵发推称：“我既不必也不应偿还这笔与我无关的无聊钱款。”\n\n65. 直至PAX LP提起诉讼并就其申请审前扣押令进行证据开示后，PAX LP才得知上文讨论的郭文贵所有规避行为，包括：(i) 其设立Genever被告方以将该住宅置于PAX LP追索之外；(ii) 其未向Genever被告方注资或遵守适当的公司形式要求；(iii) 其向谢里-内瑟兰提交其本人已在宣誓后承认属于虚假的信息，以诱使其批准购买该住宅，而郭文贵知道其对PAX LP数额相当的债务已立即到期应付；(iv) 其使用前所未有的嵌套空壳公司结构来保护该住宅免受PAX LP追索；以及(v) 其表面上使用Shiny Times资金购买该住宅。\n\n66. 郭文贵为规避其对PAX LP的债务而撒谎的历史贯穿本诉讼始终，包括多次向法院作出虚假陈述，并在其证言笔录中宣誓作出虚假陈述。如上文和下文详述，该等虚假陈述包括关于Genever被告方及其资产的虚假陈述。由于郭文贵就Genever被告方作出该等虚假陈述，是为了避免法院应PAX LP的请求查封其住宅，Genever被告方实质性参与了郭文贵滥用公司形式，以对PAX LP实施欺诈、不当行为或不公正行为。\n\n67. 2015年5月，即购买该住宅仅两个月后——且Kwok（郭文贵）明知其必须向PAX LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）偿还债务之时——Kwok将Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛Genever公司）的资产（即该住宅）质押给名为Roscalitar 2（Roscalitar 2）的一家实体，直接违反了其本人及Genever NY（纽约Genever公司）与Sherry Netherland（谢里-尼德兰酒店）所签协议的条款。尽管该质押于2017年3月终止，Kwok于2018年——在向本院提交、反对PAX LP扣押申请的书面文件中——主张该质押仍然有效，并应构成驳回扣押申请的依据。\n\n68. 在PAX LP提起本案后，Kwok于2018年2月再次不当质押该住宅，此次质押给名为Blue Capital（蓝色资本）的一家实体。尽管该质押于2018年6月12日终止，Kwok的律师在2018年6月27日就PAX LP扣押动议进行的口头辩论中，向法院不准确地陈述称，该“留置权至今仍然有效”。\n\n69. Kwok还唆使制作了一份虚假的宣誓书，以支持其对PAX LP扣押申请的反对。具体而言，2018年5月，Kwok让其雇员Yan Ping Wang（王燕平）向本院提交了一份宣誓书，就Kwok主张应当挫败PAX LP扣押申请的所谓事实宣誓作证，包括有关该住宅的所有权、该住宅的质押以及Kwok用于购买该住宅的资金来源。然而，在其证言录取中，Wang作证称，她对上述任何问题均一无所知。而当Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰公司）在一封信中询问Kwok，为何他在Wang宣誓书中陈述其已质押该住宅（此举违反其与Sherry-Netherland签订的协议）时，Kwok的律师否认Wang宣誓书称Kwok已质押该住宅——尽管Wang宣誓书正是以毫不含糊的措辞如此陈述。\n\n70. Kwok还就该住宅及Genever被告方的最基本信息反复作出虚假陈述，包括其所有权。Wang的宣誓书宣誓称Kwok为该住宅所有人，但如上所述，Kwok作证称其并不拥有该住宅。Kwok还作证称，其从未对Genever被告方拥有任何所有权或控制权，尽管Genever被告方的公司文件明确表明，Kwok拥有Genever BVI的100%权益（后者继而拥有Genever NY的100%权益），并且是其唯一董事。此外，在Genever NY和Kwok于2016年8月向Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提起的一项诉状中，Genever NY和Kwok声称，“Genever [NY]由Kwok先生拥有并经营。”1\n\n第一项罪名——针对被告Kwok的违约\n\n71. 原告重申并通过援引纳入第1至70段所载的每一项陈述，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n72. 2011年个人保证要求Kwok偿还PAX LP向Spirit Charter（精神包机）提供的贷款额度（经修订），以及未付利息。目前到期应付金额超过\\$100 million。\n\n73. 原告已履行2011年个人保证（及其他相关协议）项下义务。\n\n1 经核实的诉状，Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）和Miles Kwok（郭文贵）诉The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-尼德兰公司）等，案号1:16 cv-06246（S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016）（Dkt. No. 1）。\n\n74. Kwok未偿还其根据2011年个人保证应向PAX LP支付的任何到期应付款项。\n\n75. 由于Kwok违反其在2011年个人保证项下的付款义务，原告持续遭受超过\\$100 million的损失。\n\n第二项罪名——刺破公司面纱，针对Genever被告方\n\n76. 原告重申并通过援引纳入第1至75段所载的每一项陈述，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n77. Kwok设立Genever被告方，旨在使该住宅免受PAX LP追索。\n\n78. 在设立Genever被告方时，Kwok未遵循适当的公司程序。Kwok未向任一Genever被告方注入资本，并使用另一实体的资金购买该住宅，即Genever被告方持有的唯一资产。\n\n79. 任一Genever被告方从未拥有任何雇员、办公室或除持有该住宅并使其免受Kwok债权人（包括PAX LP）追索之外的商业目的。\n\n80. Kwok完全支配Genever被告方，其对该等被告方拥有完全所有权和控制权。Genever被告方是Kwok的另我。\n\n81. Kwok通过其对Genever被告方的支配和控制，滥用以公司形式经营的特权，对PAX LP实施欺诈、错误行为或不公正行为。\n\n82. 因此，应刺破Genever被告方的公司面纱，并应判令Genever被告方就Kwok的违约承担连带责任。\n\n因此，原告请求法院作出对被告不利的判决如下：\n\n(a) 判令Kwok及作为Kwok另我而承担连带责任的Genever被告方支付截至本日根据2011年个人保证所欠的超过\\$100,000,000的金额（\\$46,426,489加应计利息）；\n\n(b) 根据2011年个人保证中的赔偿条款，判令Kwok及作为Kwok另我而承担连带责任的Genever被告方支付PAX LP因执行针对Kwok的2011年个人保证而已发生及将持续发生的合理律师费、成本和支出；以及\n\n(c) 判给PAX LP依法有权获得的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：New York, New York 2019年4月18日\n\n谨此提交，\n\n签字：-- -\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所） Stuart Sarnoff（Stuart Sarnoff）（ssarnoff@omm com） Edward Moss（Edward Moss）（emoss@omm.com） 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP（赛登律师集团）\n\nRobert W. Seiden（Robert W. Seiden）（rseideñ@said-1agal.com） 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n原告代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-7 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 7 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 103 of 193\n\n附件7\n\n纽约县 法官OSTRAGER, BARRY R. 动议 法官OSTRAGER, BARRY R. 纽约州最高法院 第2页，共2页，193页\n\n动议026\n\n索引号\n\n652077/2017\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- 诉 -\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）等人\n\n法院通知\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2022 11:18 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1191 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-7 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 7\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 104 of\n\n代表以下人员提交——Rose Ann Magaldi（Rose Ann Magaldi），Ostrager法官的首席法官助理\n\n鉴于Kwok先生已提交破产申请，法院建议原告无损害地撤回尚待裁决的藐视法庭动议（026），但不影响其向破产法院提出适当申请和/或在破产程序结束后，如适当，向本院再次提出申请。法院倾向于不使已完成提交的动议无限期处于待决状态。如律师有替代建议，法院当然将予以考虑。\n\n本院要求原告及任何其他利害关系方于2022年3月3日前通过电子提交方式提交一封信函，就本法院通知提出的问题作出说明。谢谢。日期：02/18/2022 提交人：RoseAnn Magaldi\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-8 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 8 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 105 of 193\n\n附件8\n\n本网站使用Cookie和本地存储。使用我们的服务，即表示您同意我们使用Cookie和本地存储。MfHM-M 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-8 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 8 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 106 of\n\n文件标题：LADY MAY当前位置（游艇，IMO 1012359）- VesselFinder [Capture URL: http] 抓取时间戳（UTC）：Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:52:33 GMT 第1页，共2页\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-9 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 9 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 107 of 193\n\n附件9\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2022 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-9 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 9 Pg 2 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 108 of 193\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER法官 部门 IAS动议61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告， 索引号 652077/2017\n\n诉 -\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN\nGUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名 动议日期\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名 026\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS 动议序号\nCORPORATION（Genever控股公司）及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC， 动议裁定及命令\n被告。\n\n尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER法官\n\n鉴于被告Ho Wan Kwok已提交破产申请（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1190），本院特此准许原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.撤回其关于民事藐视法庭命令的动议，该动议基于对Kwok先生涉嫌未遵守本院2021年9月22日交付命令的指称（见NYSCEF Doc. No. 1192）。定于2022年12月6日上午10:00通过Microsoft Teams举行状态会议。本院要求Kwok先生的律师至迟于会议日期一周前以电子提交方式提交一封关于破产程序状态的信函，并随附更新后的Teams出庭人员表。\n\n日期：2022年3月4日\n\n选择一项：案件已结案 X 非终局性处置\n\n准许 驳回 部分准许 X 其他\n\n申请：协商命令 提交命令\n\n如适当则勾选：包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交审理\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 1 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 109 of 193\n\n附件10\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-10 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 10 Pg 2 of 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-2 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 110 of 193\n\nSusan Hennelly（Susan Hennelly）\n\n发件人： 发件时间： 收件人： 主题： 附件： Susan Hennelly 2015年3月03日，星期二，下午3:31 董事会 出售1801号公寓及2219号女佣房 Kwok董事会材料包.pdf\n\n我们已收到一份出售合同，内容为将分配给1801号公寓的2,950股及分配给2219号女佣房的50股，从Sherry 1800s, LLC（Haroche）出售给Genever Holdings LLC（Miles Kwok）。\n\n随附出售合同副本、Kwok先生的申请以及数封推荐信。\n\n购买价格为\\$67,500,000，另加家具\\$2,500,000。2015年维护费为每月\\$55,214，女佣房另加\\$936。该公寓为住宅公寓，将由Kwok先生及其家人使用。\n\n鉴于Kwok先生的外国人身份及其以有限责任公司名义购买，他将被要求签署入住协议并亲自为租约提供保证。他还将被要求提供保证金。\n\n该公寓占据整层，面积约为7,300平方英尺，另有2,170平方英尺露台。随附平面图。\n\nKwok先生还已签订购买719号女佣房的合同，如获批准，其将同时购买该女佣房。\n\nMichael Horvitz（Michael Horvitz）和Fred Seegal（Fred Seegal）已面谈Miles Kwok及其儿子Mileson Kwok（Mileson Kwok）。其妻Hing Chi（Hing Chi）通过Skype出席。\n\n谨致敬意，\n\nMichael J. Ullman（Michael J. Ullman） 执行副总裁兼首席运营官 The Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里-尼德兰酒店） 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022 电话：212-231-6811 传真：212-832-4845 如需预订及特别优惠，请访问\n\n已签署的出售合同\n\n签署本协议前请咨询您的律师\n\n出售合同——合作公寓\n\n ინგლის\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据 10 第 4 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 112 页，共 193 页\n\n本合同于 2015 年 2 月＿＿日由下述“卖方”和“买方”订立。\n\n某些定义和信息\n\n1.1 “当事人”为：\n\n1.1.1 “买方”：Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）\n\n1.1.1 “卖方”：Sherry 1800s, LLC（Sherry 1800s有限责任公司）\n\n卖方曾用名称： 地址：1233 Rock Rimmon Road, Stamford, CT 06903\n\n税务识别号：10-0780154\n\n地址： 社会保障号码：\n\n1.2 “律师”为（姓名、律师事务所名称、地址及电话、传真）。\n\nMichael J. Jones, Esq.（迈克尔·J·琼斯律师），Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara, LLC（艾维、巴纳姆及奥马拉有限责任公司），170 Mason Street, Greenwich, CT 06830，电话：203-661-6000，传真：203-661-7088，mjones@iholow.com\n\nIra Gilbert, Esq.（艾拉·吉尔伯特律师），Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP（保罗·韦斯、里夫金德、沃顿及加里森律师事务所），1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064，电话：212-373-3529，传真：212-492-0529，igllbert@paulweiss.com\n\n1.3 “托管人”为卖方律师。\n\n1.4 管理代理人为（姓名、地址及电话、传真）：Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉·尼德兰酒店），Susan Hmudley（苏珊·赫姆德利），781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022，电话：212-339-6811，212-831-?。\n\n1.5 房地产“经纪人”（见第 12 条）为：John Burger（约翰·伯格）和 Kathy Sloime（凯茜·斯洛伊姆），Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯），以及 Serena Boardman（塞丽娜·博德曼），Sotheby's（苏富比）。\n\n1.6 合作住房公司（“公司”）的名称为：Sherry Netherland, Inc.（雪莉·尼德兰股份有限公司）。\n\n1.7 “单元”编号为：1801，包括整个\n\n1.8 该单元位于称为：781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 的“不动产”。\n\n1.9 “股份”系公司分配给该单元的股份。\n\n第 18 层，除电梯走廊外，并包括佣人房 1519。\n\n1.10 “租约”系公司就该单元授予的专有租约或入住协议，其于本合同日期届满。\n\n1.19 买方应支付公司的转售税、转让费（不包括过户代理费）及／或选择权放弃费（“转售税”），如有。\n\n在本合同日期现存于该单元内的：冰箱、冷冻柜、炉灶、烤箱、嵌入式微波炉、洗碗机、垃圾处理器、橱柜及台面、照明装置、枝形吊灯、满铺地毯、管道及供暖装置、中央空调及／或窗式或套管式空调机、洗衣机、烘干机、纱窗和防风窗、窗饰、开关面板、门五金、镜子、未在第 1.12 条中排除的内置设施，以及全部家具陈设。\n\n1.2.1 “卖方律师” Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara, LLC（艾维、巴纳姆及奥马拉有限责任公司）\n\n1.2.2 “买方律师” Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP（保罗·韦斯、里夫金德、沃顿及加里森律师事务所），igllbert@paulweiss.com\n\n见下文第 1.12 条。\n\n1.12 本次出售明确排除十三（13）幅绘画和素描；客厅东墙的一张古董写字台（将以一件外观类似该写字台的家具替换）；小盒子、时钟、相框、图片等个人“小摆设”（但如“小摆设”载于 DVD 中，则包括在内）；Gil（吉尔）办公室内的文件柜及其内容物；所有衣物、装框照片（买方指定的特定相框除外），以及位于卖方办公室内的卖方私人游艇模型。\n\n1.13 本次出售［不］［确］包括卖方在［储藏室］／［佣人房 1519］／［停车位］中的权益（“包括的权益”）。\n\n1.14 “交割”系股份和租约所有权的转移。\n\n1.15 预定交割日期不晚于 3/6/15，于上午 10:00（“预定交割日期”）（见第 9 条和第 10 条）。\n\n1.16 “购买价款”为：$67,500,000.00\n\n1.16.1 “合同保证金”为：$7,000,000.00\n\n1.16.2 于交割时到期支付的购买价款“余额”为：$63,000,000.00（见第 2.2.2 条）见第二补充条款中的 SR18。\n\n1.17 每月“维护费”为 $57,085.53（见第 4 条）。\n\n1.18 于本合同日期应付给公司的“特别摊款”（如有）为无，支付方式如下：\n\n1.11 “个人财产”系下列个人财产，包括但不限于 DVD（“DVD”）所载系列视频中列明的全部物品；该 DVD 由 Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）于 2015 年 2 月 20 日下午 2:00 交付至 1801 单元，但第 1.12 条明确排除的个人财产除外。\n\n第 1.12 条——本次出售明确排除十三（13）幅绘画和素描；客厅东墙的一张古董写字台（将以一件外观类似该写字台的家具替换）；小盒子、时钟、相框、图片等个人“小摆设”（但如“小摆设”载于 DVD 中，则包括在内）；Gil（吉尔）办公室内的文件柜及其内容物；所有衣物、装框照片（买方指定的特定相框除外），以及位于卖方办公室内的卖方私人游艇模型。\n\n在签署本协议前请咨询您的律师。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据 10 第 5 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 113 页，共 193 页\n\n合作公寓买卖合同\n\n本合同于 2015 年 2 月 11 日由下述“卖方”和“买方”订立。\n\n某些定义和信息\n\n1.1 “当事人”为：\n\n1.1.1 “卖方”：Sherry 1800s, LLC（Sherry 1800s有限责任公司）\n\n1.1.2 “买方”：Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）\n\n卖方曾用名称： 地址：1233 Rock Rimmon Road, Stamford, CT 06903\n\n税务识别号：10-0780411\n\n地址： 社会保障号码：\n\n1.2 “律师”为（姓名、律师事务所名称、地址及电话、传真）。\n\n1.2.1 “卖方律师”：Michael J. Jones, Esq.（迈克尔·J·琼斯律师），Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara, LLC（艾维、巴纳姆及奥马拉有限责任公司），170 Mason Street, Greenwich, CT 06830，电话：203-661-6000，传真：203-651-7088，mjones@iholow.com\n\n1.2.2 “买方律师”：Ira Gilbert, Esq.（艾拉·吉尔伯特律师），Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP（保罗·韦斯、里夫金德、沃顿及加里森律师事务所），1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064，电话：212-373-3519，传真：212-492-0529，igllbert@paulweiss.com\n\n1.3 “托管人”为卖方律师。\n\n1.4 管理代理人为（姓名、地址及电话、传真）：Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉·尼德兰酒店），Susan Hmudley（苏珊·赫姆德利），781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022，电话：212-339-6813，传真：212-831-?。\n\n1.5 房地产“经纪人”（见第 12 条）为：John Burger（约翰·伯格）和 Kathy Sloime（凯茜·斯洛伊姆），Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）以及 Serena Bondman（塞丽娜·邦德曼），Sotheby's（苏富比）。\n\n1.6 合作住房公司（“公司”）的名称为：Sherry Netherland, Inc.（雪莉·尼德兰股份有限公司）。\n\n1.7 “单元”编号为：1801，包括整个\n\n1.8 该单元位于称为：781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 的“不动产”。\n\n1.9 “股份”系公司分配给该单元的股份。\n\n第 18 层，除电梯走廊外，并包括佣人房 1519。\n\n1.10 “租约”系公司就该单元授予的专有租约或入住协议，其于本合同日期届满。\n\n1.19 买方应支付公司的转售税、转让费（不包括过户代理费）及／或选择权放弃费（“转售税”），如有。\n\n在本合同日期现存于该单元内的：冰箱、冷冻柜、炉灶、烤箱、嵌入式微波炉、洗碗机、垃圾处理器、橱柜及台面、照明装置、枝形吊灯、满铺地毯、管道及供暖装置、中央空调及／或窗式或套管式空调机、窗饰、开关面板、门五金、镜子、未在第 1.12 条中排除的内置设施，以及全部家具陈设。\n\n见下文第 1.12 条。\n\n1.12 本次出售明确排除十三（13）幅绘画和素描；客厅东墙的一张古董写字台（将以一件外观类似该写字台的家具替换）；小盒子、时钟、相框、图片等个人“小摆设”（但如“小摆设”载于 DVD 中，则包括在内）；Gil（吉尔）办公室内的文件柜及其内容物；所有衣物、装框照片（买方指定的特定相框除外），以及位于卖方办公室内的卖方私人游艇模型。\n\n1.13 本次出售［不］［确］包括卖方在［储藏室］／［佣人房 1519］／［停车位］中的权益（“包括的权益”）。\n\n1.14 “交割”系股份和租约所有权的转移。\n\n1.15 预定交割日期不晚于 3/6/15，于上午 10:00（“预定交割日期”）（见第 9 条和第 10 条）。\n\n1.16 “购买价款”为：$67,500,000.00\n\n1.16.1 “合同保证金”为：$7,000,000.00\n\n1.16.2 于交割时到期支付的购买价款“余额”为：$63,000,000.00（见第 2.2.2 条）见第二补充条款中的 SR18。\n\n1.17 每月“维护费”为 $57,085.53（见第 4 条）。\n\n1.18 于本合同日期应付给公司的“特别摊款”（如有）为无，支付方式如下：\n\n1.11 “个人财产”系下列个人财产，包括但不限于 DVD（“DVD”）所载系列视频中列明的全部物品；该 DVD 由 Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）于 2015 年 2 月 20 日下午 2:00 交付至 1801 单元，但第 1.12 条明确排除的个人财产除外。\n\n第 1.12 条——本次出售明确排除十三（13）幅绘画和素描；客厅东墙的一张古董写字台（将以一件外观类似该写字台的家具替换）；小盒子、时钟、相框、图片等个人“小摆设”（但如“小摆设”载于 DVD 中，则包括在内）；Gil（吉尔）办公室内的文件柜及其内容物；所有衣物、装框照片（买方指定的特定相框除外），以及位于卖方办公室内的卖方私人游艇模型。\n\n1.22 本合同的“交付日期”为本合同已完整签署的副本依第 17.3 条规定视为交付给并由买方或买方律师收到之日。\n\n1.23 该单元的所有“拟入住人”为：\n\n1.23.1 人员，以及与买方的关系：\n\n1.23.2 人员：\n\n1.24 合同保证金应存放于非 IOLA 托管账户。如该账户为非 IOLA 账户，则利息应支付给有权获得合同保证金的一方。收取利息的一方应就该利息缴纳任何所得税。托管账户应为设于以下存款机构的独立银行账户：BNY MELLON（纽约梅隆银行）\n\n地址：10 Mamo Street, Greenwich, CT 06830（见第12.7条）\n\n1.25 本合同附有附件。\n\n2 买卖协议；购买价款；托管\n\n2.1 卖方同意向买方出售，买方同意向卖方购买卖方的股份、租约、动产及任何包含权益，以及本次出售所包含的所有其他项目，购买价款及条款和条件均载于本合同。\n\n2.2 买方应按以下方式向卖方支付购买价款：\n\n2.2.1 买方签署本合同时，以开具给托管人的有效支票支付合同保证金；以及\n\n2.2.2 于交割时支付余额，仅可通过由买方开具、直接支付给卖方的银行本票、正式银行支票或保付支票支付。该等支票应由位于与该单元相同城市或县的商业银行、储蓄银行、储蓄及贷款协会或信托公司分支机构开具并付款。卖方可在交割前于合理通知（定义见第17条）后指示，余额的全部或部分应支付给卖方以外的人士（见第17.7条）。\n\n3 动产\n\n3.1 在不影响公司或任何租约从属于其的抵押权持有人之任何权利的前提下，本次出售包括卖方就动产及包含权益所拥有的一切权益（如有）。\n\n3.2 不就动产或包含权益支付任何对价；如未发生交割，则不得向买方出售任何物品。\n\n3.3 交割前，卖方应从该单元移走本次出售未包括的全部家具、陈设及其他财产，并修复因该等移走造成的任何损坏。\n\n4 陈述与承诺\n\n4.1 除影响该房产所有权的任何事项外（就该等事项，卖方不作任何陈述或承诺），卖方陈述并承诺：\n\n4.1.1 卖方现为且于交割时仍为股份、租约、动产及包含权益的唯一所有人，并拥有出售和转让该等权益的完整权利、权力及授权；卖方应及时安排清偿股份和租约上的现有担保权益，并于交割时交付相关解除文件（见第10.1条）；\n\n4.1.2 该等股份已被正式发行、已足额缴付且不可被追加缴款；\n\n4.1.3 租约现为且于交割时仍完全有效，且目前不存在、于交割时亦不存在任何租约项下的违约通知；\n\n4.1.4 截至本合同签署日应付的维护费和评估费，载明于第1.17条和第1.18条；\n\n4.1.5 截至本日期，卖方既无实际知悉亦未收到任何书面通知，表明公司董事会已通过但未反映于第1.17条和第1.18条所载金额中的任何维护费上涨或任何评估费；\n\n4.1.6 卖方未在未经公司要求的任何同意的情况下，或据卖方实际所知未在未遵守所有适用法律的情况下，对该单元作出任何重大改建或增建。本条规定不在交割后继续有效。\n\n4.1.7 卖方未曾订立、不会订立，且并未实际知悉任何影响交割后该单元所有权或其使用及／或占用的协议（租约除外），或任何会在交割后对买方具有约束力或对买方产生不利影响的协议（例如转租或替代安排）；\n\n4.1.8 除第1.1.1条所述外，卖方在过去10年内未使用过其他姓名。\n\n4.1.9 于按照第15.2条进行的交割时：\n\n4.1.9.1 不存在任何针对卖方、且未就从该单元追偿而提供担保的未清偿判决（“判决”）；\n\n4.1.9.2 股份、租约、动产及任何包含权益应不存在任何留置权（公司就股份享有的一般留置权除外，且该等留置权下不应欠付任何款项）、负担及不利权益（“留置权”）；\n\n4.1.9.3 卖方应向公司全额支付截至紧接交割日期之前的付款期间届满时到期的一切款项；\n\n4.1.9.4 卖方不得欠付可能导致就该单元或该房产提交机械师留置权通知的劳务费或材料费；以及\n\n4.1.9.5 不存在任何记录在案的违规事项，而股份及租约的所有人根据租约有义务予以补救。\n\n4.2 买方陈述并承诺：\n\n4.2.1 买方取得股份和租约，仅供第1.23条所列明的拟入住人居住使用；\n\n4.2.2 买方目前不是且在过去7年内未曾是破产程序的对象；\n\n4.2.3 如第1.20.3条适用，买方不得就本次购买申请融资；\n\n4.2.4 构成买方的每一自然人均已年满13岁，并为买方自身账户购买（受益所有权及登记所有权）；\n\n4.2.5 买方不得向公司作出任何与前述内容相反的陈述，并应提供公司就买方申请批准本交易所要求的、支持前述内容的全部文件；以及\n\n4.2.6 目前不存在且于交割时亦不存在任何针对买方的未缴税款留置权或金钱判决。\n\n4.3 各方承诺，其载于第4条的陈述和承诺应于交割时真实且完整，并且除第4.1.6条外，应在交割后继续有效；但基于该等陈述和承诺提起的任何诉讼，必须于交割后一年内提起。\n\n5 公司文件\n\n买方已审阅并对下列文件感到满意；或者，除卖方在本合同中就任何事项作出的陈述外，买方接受并承担未审阅下列文件的风险：租约、公司的公司设立证书、章程细则、住户规则、股东及董事会议记录、最近经审计的财务报表，以及根据《国内税收法典》（“IRC”）第216条（或任何后继法规）可供公司股东享有的最近一期税务扣除额说明。\n\n6 所需批准及资信证明\n\n6.1 本次出售须经公司无条件同意。\n\n6.2 买方应善意地：\n\n6.2.1 向公司或管理代理人提交有关本次出售的申请，申请应采用公司要求的表格，载有公司要求的数据并附具公司要求的文件，并支付公司向买方收取的适用费用和收费。前述全部材料应在交付日后10个营业日内提交；或者，如第1.20.1条或第1.20.2条适用且公司要求提供贷款承诺书，则应在以下较早日期后3个营业日内提交：（i）贷款承诺日期（定义见第1.21条）；或（ii）收到贷款承诺书之日（定义见第18.1.2条）；\n\n6.2.2 按公司要求，参加（并促使任何拟入住人参加）一次或多次面谈；以及\n\n6.2.3 及时向公司提交公司合理要求的进一步资信证明、数据和文件。\n\n6.3 任一方在得知公司的决定后，应及时通知另一方。如公司于预定交割日当日或之前尚未作出决定，则交割应延期30个营业日，以取得该等同意。如在该延期日期前未取得该等同意，任一方均可通过通知取消本合同，但前提是公司的同意在发出该取消通知前尚未作出。如该等同意在任何时候被拒绝，任一方均可通过通知取消本合同。如根据本第6.3条取消，托管人应向买方退还合同保证金。\n\n6.4 如该等同意因买方的恶意行为而被拒绝或未获作出，买方应构成违约，并适用第13.1条。\n\n7 单元和动产的状况；占有\n\n7.1 卖方不就该单元、动产、包含权益或该房产的物理状况或维修状况作出任何陈述。买方已检查或放弃检查该单元、动产和包含权益，并应按本合同日期的“现状”接受该等物品，但合理损耗除外。然而，于交割时，电器应处于可正常使用状态，且应已安装并可正常使用所需的烟雾探测器。\n\n7.2 于交割时，卖方应交付处于第7.1条要求状况的该单元、动产及包含权益的占有，且该等财产应清扫干净、空置，并不存在任何占有人或占有权利。\n\n8 损失风险\n\n8.1 经本合同修订的《一般义务法》第5-1311条应适用于本交易，如同本交易为不动产出售。就本条而言，“单元”包括固定安装的动产。\n\n8.2 如合理估计的恢复该单元的费用超过购买价款的5%，则根据《一般义务法》第5-1311条，毁损应被视为“重大”。\n\n8.3 如该单元或该房产发生任何毁损，而合法所有权和该单元的占有均尚未转移给买方，卖方应于交割日或损失发生日后7个营业日两者中较早之日，向买方发出损失通知（“损失通知”）。\n\n8.4 如该单元发生非因买方过错造成的重大毁损，本合同应根据第16.3条视为取消，除非买方选择通过通知卖方，以减免购买价款的方式完成购买；或者\n\n8.5 无论该单元是否发生任何毁损，如非因买方过错，该房产中超过10%的单元无法居住，或无法合理进入该单元，则买方有权通过通知卖方，根据第16.3条取消本合同。\n\n8.6 买方根据第8.4条或第8.5条发出的通知，应在发出损失通知后7个营业日内发出；但如卖方未发出损失通知，买方的通知可于交割时或交割前任何时间发出。\n\n8.7 如该单元发生任何毁损，买方无权获得以下任何购买价款减免：（i）超过合理估计的修复和恢复费用的减免；或（ii）因公司有义务修复或恢复的任何损失所产生的减免；但卖方应向买方无追索权地转让卖方就该等损失对公司享有的任何请求权（如有）。\n\n9 交割地点\n\n交割应在公司指定的地点举行；如无该等指定，则应在卖方律师的办公室举行。\n\n10 交割\n\n10.1 于交割时，卖方应交付或促成交付：\n\n10.1.1 已正式背书转让给买方的卖方股份证书，或附有一份正式签署的、向买方作出的独立股票转让授权书；无论何种情形，均应附有公司要求的卖方签名保证；\n\n10.1.2 卖方持有的租约对应原件、所有权转让链中的所有转让和承继文件，以及以公司要求的格式正式签署的向买方转让该租约的转让书；\n\n10.1.3 第25条要求的 FIRPTA 文件；\n\n10.1.4 房屋的钥匙、楼宇入口钥匙，以及（如适用）车库、邮箱、储物间和房屋内任何锁具的钥匙；\n\n10.1.5 如有要求，将卖方就动产和所含权益享有的权益转让给买方；\n\n10.1.6 为遵守第15.2条所需的任何文件和付款。\n\n10.1.7 如卖方无法交付第10.1.1条或第10.1.2条所要求的文件，则卖方应交付或促成交付公司为签发股份的新证书或新租约所要求的全部文件和付款。\n\n10.2 在交割时，买方应：\n\n10.2.1 按照第2.2.2条支付余款；\n\n10.2.2 按公司要求的格式，签署并向卖方和公司交付一份承接租约的协议；以及\n\n10.2.3 如公司要求，签署并交付一份与该租约实质相同、期限为剩余租约期限的新租约副本；在该情况下，该租约应被取消并交还公司，同时卖方将其转让给买方。\n\n10.3 在交割时，双方应完成并签署所有必要文件：\n\n10.3.1 用于美国国内收入局（Internal Revenue Service，IRS）表格1099-S或其他类似要求；\n\n10.3.2 为遵守烟雾探测器要求及任何适用的转让税申报；以及\n\n10.3.3 用于转让卖方在动产和所含权益中享有的权益（如有）。\n\n10.4 除非在交割时公司交付下列文件，否则买方无义务完成交割：\n\n10.4.1 以买方名义签发的股份新证书；以及\n\n10.4.2 由公司高级职员或获授权代理人出具的书面声明，同意将股份和租约转让给买方，并列明卖方欠付公司的所有款项（包括维护费和任何特别摊派）的金额及付款状态，以及各项款项的支付日期。\n\n11 交割费用、税费及分摊\n\n11.1 在交割时或交割前，\n\n11.1.1 卖方应支付（如适用）：\n\n11.1.1.1 股票转让印花税费用；以及\n\n11.1.1.2 转让税，但第11.1.2.2条另有规定的除外。\n\n11.1.2 买方应支付（如适用）：\n\n11.1.2.1 公司就买方融资征收的任何费用；以及\n\n11.1.2.2 法律主要向买方征收的转让税（例如“豪宅税”）。\n\n11.2 如有翻转税（Flip Tax），应由第11.19条规定的一方支付。\n\n11.3 公司征收但本合同未规定的任何费用，应由公司明确规定承担该费用的一方支付；如公司未指定任何一方，则该费用应由卖方支付。\n\n11.4 双方应按交割日前一日晚上11:59为基准，按交割月份的天数比例分摊维护费、应付公司的任何其他定期费用（特别摊派除外）以及STAR税收减免（如该房屋为其受益人）。\n\n11.5 特别摊派，无论以一次性付款还是分期付款方式支付，均不予分摊，而应由公司规定付款日当日的股份所有人支付。买方应支付交割后到期的任何分期款项，但以卖方有权并选择分期支付该特别摊派为前提。\n\n11.6 各方应依法律及时以银行本票、官方银行支票、保付支票或律师托管支票支付其依法主要应承担的任何转让税。本第11.6条在交割后继续有效。\n\n11.7 任何计算错误或遗漏应在交割后6个月内予以更正。本第11.7条在交割后继续有效。\n\n12 经纪人\n\n12.1 各方声明，该方未曾就本交易与任何作为经纪人行事的人士进行交易，无论该人士是否持牌，但第4条所列经纪人除外。\n\n12.2 卖方应根据一项单独协议支付经纪人佣金。经纪人不应被视为本合同的第三方受益人。\n\n12.3 本第12条在本合同交割、取消或终止后继续有效。\n\n13 违约、救济及赔偿\n\n13.1 如买方违约或作出失实陈述，卖方唯一且排他的救济应为取消本合同、保留合同定金作为约定损害赔偿，并且，如适用，卖方可就经纪佣金执行第13.3条的赔偿，或依据第13.4条提起诉讼。买方希望将买方对实际损害赔偿的责任限于合同定金金额；买方同意，该金额在当时情形下构成对卖方损害的公平合理赔偿，而非罚金。不动产法原则应适用于本约定损害赔偿条款。\n\n13.2 如卖方违约或作出失实陈述，买方应享有买方在法律上及衡平法上有权享有的救济，包括强制履行，因为该房屋及其占有权无法复制。\n\n13.3 在遵守第4.3条规定的前提下，各方应就因赔偿方违反其任何明确规定在交割、取消或终止本合同后继续有效的陈述或承诺而产生的任何索赔、判决、损失、责任、成本或费用，赔偿另一方并使其免受损害。买方应就交割时及交割后产生的租约义务所导致的任何索赔、判决、损失、责任、成本或费用，赔偿卖方并使其免受损害。每项赔偿均包括但不限于为抗辩任何索赔以及执行或收取本赔偿项下判决而产生的合理律师费和支出、诉讼费用及诉讼开支，但前提是被赔偿方已获通知并有机会抗辩该索赔。本第13.3条在本合同交割、取消或终止后继续有效。\n\n13.4 如任何用于支付合同定金的票据未能收款，卖方有权就未收款票据提起诉讼。此外，该未能收款构成本合同项下的违约，但前提是卖方向买方发出有关未能收款的通知，且在发出通知后3个营业日内，托管代理人未从买方收到金额等同于未收款资金的未经背书的有效保付支票、银行支票或即时可用资金。未能补救该违约，应使卖方有权享有第13.1条规定的救济，并保留可能收取和/或追回的所有款项。\n\n14 完整协议；修改\n\n14.1 双方此前就本合同标的所作的一切口头或书面陈述、谅解及协议，以及就第27条与托管代理人之间的一切陈述、谅解及协议，均并入本合同；本合同单独、完整地表达双方及托管代理人的协议。\n\n14.2 律师可书面延长本合同规定的任何期限。对本合同任何其他条款的修改或豁免，均须以书面形式作出，并由被要求承担责任的一方或托管代理人签署。\n\n15 留置权和判决的清除\n\n15.1 买方应在预定交割日前不少于10个日历日，向卖方或卖方律师交付或促成交付一份留置权和判决检索报告；但在后续检索中首次披露的留置权或判决，应于收到后2个营业日内向卖方报告，但不得晚于交割。卖方有权根据第16条延期交割，以清除任何该等留置权和判决。买方未及时交付该检索报告或后续检索报告，不构成对卖方就第4条中留置权和判决所作承诺的放弃。但是，如交割仅因未及时交付留置权和判决检索报告而延期，则第11.4条项下的分摊应以第15.1条所述预定交割日前一日晚上11:59为基准。\n\n15.2 卖方应自费取得并向买方交付为确保解除、清偿、终止、撤销或从记录中删除任何留置权和判决所必需的文件和付款。卖方可将购买价款的任何部分用于该等目的。\n\n15.3 本第15条在交割后继续有效。\n\n16 卖方无法履行\n\n16.1 如卖方因卖方未能作出所需付款或其他故意作为或不作为以外的任何原因，无法依照本合同转让第2.1条所列项目，则卖方有权延期交割，累计延期期间不得超过60个日历日，但不得延至买方贷款承诺函届满之后，除非第1.20.1条或第1.20.2条适用。\n\n16.2 如卖方选择不延期交割，或（如已延期）在延后的交割日卖方仍无法履行，则除非买方选择在不减免购买价款的情况下完成交割，任何一方均可于其后任何时间向另一方发出通知取消本合同。\n\n16.3 如发生该等取消，卖方唯一责任应为促使合同定金退还买方，并补偿买方为买方的留置权和产权检索实际发生的费用（如有）。\n\n17 通知及合同交付\n\n17.1 任何通知或要求（“通知”）均应采用书面形式，并通过专人递送、隔夜递送、挂号或注册邮件（要求回执）送达一方；同时应以同样方式送达该方律师（如有）及托管代理人，送达至其各自地址，或送达至其后根据本第17条发出的通知指定的其他地址。\n\n无需适用更多日期。\n\n17.2 买方应在……后5个营业日内交付取消通知……\n\n18 ……贷款法案（例如，买方的财务状况或就业状况、出售现有住所等）或……\n\n18 ……按照本合同所述的承诺……贷款……\n\n19 单数/复数及共同/分别\n\n单数的使用应视上下文需要包括复数，反之亦然。如卖方或买方由一人以上构成，其作为该方的义务应为共同及分别义务。\n\n20 不继续有效\n\n除明确规定外，本合同所载任何陈述和/或承诺均不在交割后继续有效。支付余款应构成买方对卖方在本合同项下所有义务的解除和放弃，但明确规定在交割后继续有效的义务除外。\n\n21 检查\n\n买方及买方代表有权在交割前48小时内检查该房屋，并可在向卖方提出合理请求后于其他合理时间进行检查。\n\n22 准据法和审判地\n\n本合同应受纽约州法律管辖，不考虑法律冲突原则。因本合同产生的任何诉讼或程序，应在该房屋所在地的县或联邦地区法院提起，双方特此同意该审判地。\n\n23 买方不得转让；买方死亡\n\n23.1 买方不得转让本合同或买方在本合同项下的任何权利。任何该等声称的转让均属无效。\n\n23.2 本合同应于构成买方的所有人士死亡时终止，且合同定金应退还给买方。在作出该等退款及补偿后，除第12条规定者外，任何一方均不再对另一方承担任何进一步责任或享有任何进一步请求权。\n\n24 当事方的合作\n\n24.1 各当事方应与另一方、公司、买方的机构贷款人及产权公司（如有）相互合作，并取得、签署及交付为完成该出售而合理必要的文件。\n\n24.2 各当事方应及时提交法律要求就所有政府申报事项提交的全部文件。各方均向另一方声明，其在该等申报文件中的陈述应真实且完整。本第24.2条应在交割后继续有效。\n\n25 FIRPTA\n\n各方应遵守 IRC §§ 897、1445及其项下不时修订的规章（“FIRPTA”）。如适用，卖方应在交割时向买方签署并交付《非外国人身份认证》（“CNS”）或美国国税局（IRS）的有效预扣证明书。如卖方未交付 CNS 或预扣证明书，买方应从余额中扣留并向 IRS 汇缴法律可能要求的款项。卖方特此放弃因该等扣留及汇缴而对买方提出任何诉讼的权利。本第25条应在交割后继续有效。\n\n26 附加要求\n\n26.1 除非在交割时满足以下全部要求，否则买方无义务完成交割：\n\n26.1.1 公司具有良好存续资格；\n\n26.1.2 公司对该房产拥有完全所有权或租赁权，无论该等权利是否适销或可投保；以及\n\n26.1.3 不存在影响该房产的任何未决对物诉讼、税务证明/留置权出售或任何基础抵押的止赎诉讼。\n\n26.2 如第26.1条中的任何要求在交割时未获满足，买方应向卖方发出通知；如该要求在其后合理期间内仍未获满足，则任何一方均可通过通知，依第16.3条取消本合同。\n\n27 托管条款\n\n27.1 合同定金应由托管人依第1.24条存入托管账户，且所得款项应依本合同条款持有及支付。在交割时，托管人应将合同定金支付给卖方。如交割未发生，且任何一方向托管人发出通知，要求支付合同定金，托管人应立即向另一方通知该等要求。如托管人在发出通知后 10 个营业日内未收到该另一方对拟议付款提出异议的通知，托管人特此获授权并被指示向提出要求的一方作出该等付款。如托管人在上述期间内收到该等异议通知，或托管人因任何理由善意决定不作出该等付款，托管人可继续持有合同定金，直至当事方共同通知或有管辖权法院作出最终、不可上诉的判决、命令或法令另行指示为止。但是，托管人有权随时将合同定金及其利息（如有）存入第22条所列县内法院的书记官处，并应将该等存款通知各当事方。依本第27条处置合同定金及其利息（如有）后，托管人应解除并免除全部托管义务和责任。\n\n27.2 其律师担任托管人的当事方应对合同定金的损失负责。如托管人为卖方的律师，则买方应在交割时获得相当于合同定金金额的抵扣。\n\n27.3 托管人将无偿提供服务。托管人仅作为应当事方请求并为其便利而设的保管人行事，除非涉及恶意、故意无视本合同或重大过失，否则托管人不就任何作为或不作为向任何一方承担责任。如发生任何争议，卖方和买方应共同及连带地（并享有追偿权）为托管人抗辩（由托管人选定的律师进行），就因履行托管人的作为或不作为而产生、且不涉及恶意、故意无视本合同或重大过失的任何请求、判决、损失、责任、费用和开支，对托管人作出赔偿并使其免受损害。该赔偿包括但不限于为聘请律师而支付的合理律师费，或托管人为自身提供法律服务的公平价值，以及支出、诉讼费用和诉讼开支。\n\n27.4 托管人确认已收到合同定金，付款方式为待收款的支票。\n\n27.5 托管人同意本第27条的规定。\n\n27.6 如托管人为一方的律师，托管人应获准在任何争议或诉讼中代表该方。\n\n27.7 本第27条应在本合同交割、取消或终止后继续有效。\n\n28 页边标题\n\n页边标题不构成本合同正文的一部分。\n\n29 其他\n\n除非且直至卖方依第17.2条和第17.3条向买方（或买方律师）交付本合同经完整签署的副本，否则本合同不具约束力。本合同应对本合同各方及其各自的继承人、个人及法定代表人以及利益继受人具有约束力，并使其受益。\n\n30 铅漆\n\n如适用，完整且经充分签署的《含铅油漆和/或含铅油漆危害信息披露》附于本合同，并构成本合同的一部分。\n\n为昭信守，本合同各方已于上文首次载明的日期正式签署本合同。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10 第 11 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 119 页，共 193 页\n\n兹证明： 卖方：\n\nSHERRY 1800s, LLC（雪莉1800s有限责任公司）\n\n/\n\n签署人：• f!:.\n\n··-········\n\n_______ 买方：\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）\n\n~#\"v· -~x/\n\n,,~~-\n\nvi'Ji-,< LL_(\n\n签署人：~\\!,,.,,X:,<,\n\n~-+••··---\n\n第一补充条款，附于并构成买卖合同的一部分，该合同涉及位于纽约州纽约市第五大道 781 号、Sherry Netherland, Inc.（雪莉尼德兰公司）的第18层、称为1801单元的合作公寓；该合同由作为卖方的 SHERRY 1800s, LLC 与作为买方的 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 订立，日期为 FEBRUARYZ..I, 2015。\n\n31. 如本补充条款或任何其他补充条款的规定与其所附合同的规定发生任何冲突，应以本补充条款的规定为准。\n\n32. 除买方在本合同第4段作出的陈述外，买方共同及连带地向卖方声明并保证，买方不知道任何未清偿判决或税务留置权，也不知道任何已威胁提出的诉讼或请求权（包括刑事和/或税务程序）。\n\n33. 对第20段作补充说明，买方接受股份并承担租约，以及卖方交付该单元及钥匙的占有，应视为卖方已全面履行卖方在本合同项下的义务，但交割后继续有效的义务除外；买方作出的该等接受及承担，应解除卖方履行本合同项下所有条款、条件、陈述及协议的义务，但交割后继续有效者除外。除本合同明确规定外，卖方的任何责任均不得在交割后继续存在。\n\n34. 如有任何可归因于卖方拥有该单元期间的不动产税退税，该等退税应完全归卖方所有。就此而言，买方应就取得该等退税与卖方合作，并同意签署任何合理文件，以协助卖方取得该等退税。如该等退税交付给买方（或由公司抵扣买方的每月维护费），买方应立即将该等退税汇付给卖方。各方确认，本第34段的规定应在交割后继续有效。\n\n35. 本合同日期后维护费的增加或征收评估费，不应视为卖方在本合同项下作出失实陈述或违约。就此而言，如公司在本合同日期后征收任何评估费，且该评估费应于交割日或之后支付，则该评估费应完全由买方承担。卖方将向买方发送公司就与公司有关的重大事实（包括任何维护费增加）发出的任何通知的副本。\n\n36. 本合同附有作为附件A的《含铅油漆和/或含铅油漆危害信息披露》。该文件可分份签署。即使尚未取得经纪人在该附件A上的签字，本合同在本合同各方签署时即视为已签署。买方确认，买方已收到《保护您的家园免受家中铅危害》宣传册，且买方特此放弃就该单元和/或该房产内是否存在含铅油漆和/或含铅油漆危害进行风险评估或检查的机会。买方确认，除该单元内的情况且仅限于所附披露表中明确载明的范围外，卖方未就该房产内是否存在铅漆向买方作出任何陈述。尽管依任何地方法律有任何要求，买方同意按现状接受该房产及单元，涉及铅漆的存在及与其有关的任何危害。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10 第 13 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 121 页，共 193 页\n\n37. 卖方在本合同或其任何补充条款中作出的所有陈述，均系卖方在未经独立调查的情况下，尽其所知和所信作出，且不得在交割后继续有效。\n\n为昭信守，本合同各方已于上文首次载明的日期签署本买卖合同补充条款。\n\n卖方：\n\n买方：\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10 第 14 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 122 页，共 193 页\n\n第二补充条款，涉及日期为 FEBRUARYjJ\\_, 2015 的买卖合同，该合同由作为卖方的 SHERRY 1800S LLC 与作为买方的 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 订立，涉及位于纽约州纽约市第五大道 781 号第18层的房产（单元 1801、1804、1807、1809、1811、佣人房 1519）。\n\nSR 1. 如本合同印刷部分或第一补充条款与本第二补充条款的规定之间存在任何不一致或冲突，应以本第二补充条款的规定为准。\n\nSR2. 卖方应在收到后立即向买方交付其在交割日后从公司收到的、与下列事项有关的任何书面通知副本：(1) 第1.17款所述每月维护费金额的任何增加；(2) 除该项特别征费外任何拟议或拟实施的特别征费；(3) 公司或其管理代理人就“转售税”或其他转让费拟议或拟实施的任何变更；(4) 对租约、公司注册证书或公司章程的任何拟议修订或修改；(5) 拟由公司、其保险人或其股东承担费用的任何拟议施工或修缮工程；(6) 就影响该房产的任何抵押贷款进行的任何再融资或其他重大变更；或(7) 该单元或该房产遭受的任何损坏或意外事故。\n\nSR3. 对第3.3款的补充：如卖方从该单元拆除任何灯具，该等灯具将以标准灯具予以替换，以使被拆除灯具原处不留有外露电线或灯泡。卖方应自费并在交割前从该单元移走本交易未包括的所有家具、陈设及其他个人财产和/或固定装置，并应以良好且符合行业规范的方式修复因该等移除造成的任何重大损坏。卖方未在交割前从该单元移走的、未包括在本协议所设想出售范围内的任何个人财产，均应视为遗弃财产。买方可以（但无义务）由卖方承担风险和费用，将任何该等遗弃财产从该单元移走。本款规定在交割后继续有效。\n\nSR4. 尽管第7款或本合同任何其他相反规定，卖方声明并保证，在租约规定卖方负有责任的范围内，管道、供暖、电气及空调系统和固定装置，以及所有动产，均应在交割时处于正常运作状态。\n\nSR5. (a) 作为促使买方订立本合同的重要诱因，卖方特此声明，卖方已就其对该单元所作的任何工程，从公司及纽约市建筑局（New York City Department of Buildings）取得所有必要的批准、许可及证书。此外，卖方不负有根据其与公司订立的任何协议（租约及其他合作公寓文件除外）履行任何工程或支出任何款项（维护除外）的义务，而该等义务将在交割后对买方具有约束力。\n\nD(1cY: US! 984 I I 54v4\n\n（除维护外）根据与公司订立的任何协议（租约及其他合作公寓文件除外），该协议将在交割后对买方具有约束力。\n\n已提交：New York County Clerk（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 10 第 15 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 123 页，共 193 页\n\n(b) 在交割前，卖方应自担全部费用和开支，促使针对该单元的任何及所有未结许可予以结案、解除并以其他方式付清，并应向买方交付令其满意的证明。纽约市建筑局出具的完工函应视为令人满意的证明。尽管有前述规定，卖方无须结清纽约市建筑局列示为工程编号101785169和101778836的两项未结许可，该等工程的副本附于本协议。双方确认，前句的原因在于公司已表示其将书面同意适当结清该两项未结许可。如公司未交付该等书面同意，则卖方可以选择结清该等许可；但如其未予结清，则任一方均可终止本合同。\n\n(c) 卖方应当：(a) 向买方交付纽约市建筑局出具的完工函，证明该单元已被合法合并；或(b) 在交割时，就该单元被适当且合法地视为具有一个厨房的单一单元、且应按1.425%的税率向纽约市缴纳转让税的理由，签署并与转让税申报表一并提交一份宣誓书。卖方还应向买方交付一份赔偿函，就因纽约市要求按较高税率缴纳税款而产生的任何成本和损害（包括但不限于逾期付款的罚金和利息），向买方作出赔偿。尽管有前述规定，如(i) 卖方无法按上述规定交付完工函，且(ii) 卖方选择按1.425%的税率（而非所谓2.625%的“批量税率”）缴纳纽约市转让税，则卖方律师应将$840,000存入托管账户，该金额代表该等税率之间的差额。卖方律师应在以下两者中较短的期间内持有该款项：(i) 两(2)年（即纽约市财政局（New York City Department of Finance，简称“DOF”）目前对该税种的审计期间）；或(ii) 直至公司交付纽约市建筑局和/或其他适当政府实体出具的、令其满意的书面证据，证明该单元已被适当且合法地合并。若确定1.425%为适当税率，卖方律师应将余额返还卖方；若DOF确定2.625%为适当的转让税税率，则卖方律师应支付该款项以及利息和罚金（如有）。\n\nSR6. 对第4.1款的补充：“4.1.10. 据卖方所知，卖方未收到任何有关拟对该房产或该房产内建筑系统（包括但不限于供暖、管道和电气系统）进行重大修缮或更换的书面通知，而该等修缮或更换可能对该房产或该单元产生重大影响。\n\n“4.1.11. 据卖方所知，目前没有任何渗水进入该单元，且在紧接本协议日期前的十二(12)个月期间内亦未发生任何该等渗水。此外，在所述十二(12)个月期间内，卖方未获通知该房产其他地方存在任何据称源自该单元的渗水。”\n\n第 16 页，共 32 页\n\n“4.1.12 在卖方拥有该单元期间，据卖方所知，卖方并未知悉：(a) 该单元内存在任何有毒霉菌；或(b) 该单元内存在任何臭虫侵扰。”\n\n“4.1.13 据卖方所知，不存在任何正在进行或以书面形式威胁提出的任何性质的索赔、诉讼、诉讼程序或法律程序，会影响该单元、卖方对该单元的所有权，或可能导致对该单元或卖方设定任何性质的留置权。”\n\n“4.1.14 据卖方所知，在过去十二(12)个月内，卖方或代表卖方行事的任何人均未就噪音、令人反感的气味、令人反感的行为、缺乏供暖或热水，或影响该单元的任何其他干扰或不利状况，向公司、管理代理人、管理员或该房产内任何其他单元所有人或租户股东提出任何投诉（以书面、电子通信或电话方式）。”\n\nSR7. 本合同所载卖方的所有陈述、保证及承诺在交割时均应在所有重大方面真实无误，且买方履行本合同项下义务的条件明确为：其中不存在任何违约、不准确或虚假陈述。\n\nSR8. 如公司批准买方的申请，但将其同意以买方遵守本合同范围外的要求为条件，例如要求买方将资金存入托管账户，则买方可自行酌情选择：(i) 遵守该等条件并继续进行购买；或(ii) 拒绝遵守该等条件。如买方拒绝遵守，则买方应向卖方交付有关该事项的书面通知，本合同应视为已取消，且托管人应立即将合同保证金退还买方。此外，卖方确认并同意，买方仅须向公司披露$420,000,000.00的流动资产（超过购买价的五倍），并按公司就上述金额所要求提供支持文件（例如银行对账单）。买方提交前述材料，应视为已完成公司作为其“标准转让要求”董事会申请一部分所要求的“财务报表”、“由买方或会计师签署的资产及负债表”及支持性“资产核验”。买方可自行酌情拒绝公司提出的任何要求，即提交显示超过上述金额的流动资产的任何文件；因此，如公司以任何理由（买方故意恶意行为除外）拒绝买方的申请，本合同应视为已取消，且托管人应立即将合同保证金退还买方。\n\n文件编号 US I 984 I I 54v4\n\nSN 0041\n\n已提交：New York County Clerk（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 10 第 17 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 125 页，共 193 页\n\nSR9. 对第11.1.1.2款的补充：卖方就缴纳转让税所负的义务，应适用于纽约市和纽约州征收的转让税。交割后十四(14)日内，卖方应向买方律师提供已申报该等转让税的证明。卖方应就因其未能及时履行有关该等转让税的义务而使买方产生的任何及所有成本、损失或费用（包括合理的律师费及支出），向买方作出赔偿并使买方免受损害。本款规定在交割后继续有效。\n\nSR10. 对第13款的补充：“13.5 如任一方故意不履行其在本合同项下的义务，其应对另一方为执行本合同而产生的、由有管辖权法院确定的合理律师费和费用承担责任。如任一方声称取消本合同，且卖方选择将合同保证金作为约定损害赔偿予以保留，则任何后续诉讼中的胜诉方应向未胜诉方追偿其合理律师费和费用。除任一方可能根据本合同应付的合同保证金和/或约定损害赔偿金额外，该等律师费和费用裁定可作为实际补偿性损害赔偿予以追偿。”\n\nSR11. 对第15.1款的补充：如买方于较后日期知悉该等留置权，买方亦可在较后日期但不迟于交割时交付该等留置权的补充清单。\n\nSR12. 对第16款的补充：“16.4. 如卖方支付不超过购买价减去任何贷款清偿款、经纪佣金、转让税及惯常交割费用的金额即可克服该等不能情形，则卖方不应被视为无法转让租约及股份。”\n\n第3条。卖方同意在签署本合同之时或之前，在卖方实际持有的范围内，向买方交付该单元的所有图纸和规划，包括原始平面图，以及其中任何拟议或已完成装修的所有效果图。此外，卖方同意在交割时或之前，在卖方实际持有的范围内，向买方交付影响该单元或本次出售所包括的任何电器或其他动产的所有使用说明书、保证书及保修协议的原件；该等文件项下的权利应于交割时在可转让的范围内视为已转让给买方。\n\n第4条。本合同可签署任何数量的副本。为一切目的，每一该等副本均应视为原件，且所有该等副本应共同构成同一份文书。通过电子邮件发送的传真签名或扫描签名对各方均具有约束力。\n\n文件编号：USI:98411 S4v4\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 收到 NYSCEF：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件14-10，提交于04/13/22，录入于04/13/22 01:55:22，证据10，第18页，共32页 案件22-50073，文件432-2，提交于05/24/22，录入于05/24/22 23:04:58，第126页，共193页\n\n第5条。若买方选择就其购买该单元取得租赁权益产权保险或 Eagle 9 UCC Cooperative Interest Insurance Policy，卖方特此同意与买方合作，包括但不限于签署以 Eagle 9 UCC Cooperative Interest Insurance Policy 签发人要求的形式出具的产权宣誓书。\n\n第6条。如因任何原因，公司不允许买方购买该单元，则买方可将本合同转让给受本合同项下买方控制的另一实体。\n\n第7条。本合同各方均希望本合同及其条款（“保密事项”）在最大可行范围内予以保密。因此，本合同各方均应，并应指示其代理人、代表及承包商，维持保密事项的保密性。但是，应理解，保密事项可予披露：(a) 向各方的专业顾问（例如但不限于其律师和会计师）以及可能参与交易各方面或为完成本合同所设想交易而有其他必要的各类其他第三方（例如产权保险公司）披露；(b) 根据法院命令、传票或其他政府程序要求披露，或法律要求披露；(c) 经各方同意；或 (d) 如已处于公共领域。\n\n第8条。尽管本合同另有相反规定，各方特此同意，(a) $67,500,000 分配给该单元的购买价，另行的 (b) $2,500,000 分配给该单元所包括的动产。因此，适当的纽约州及纽约市转让税应由各方分别按 $67,500,000 的金额缴纳；此外，买方应就该动产缴纳纽约州销售税，该税款由卖方于交割时收取。\n\n第9条。卖方声明，其将促成向买方出售该大楼内另一间女佣房，该出售将在本交易交割之前或与本交易交割同时完成。如买方无法在本交易实际交割之前或与之同时购买该额外女佣房，卖方确认买方可终止本合同，并及时全额收回合同定金及利息。是否行使或放弃该终止选择权，完全由买方自行决定。另请注意，本合同所列经纪人应支付该女佣房的费用，包括与之相关的成本和费用（包括转让税）。\n\n文件编号：USI:98411 S4v4\n\n第20条。如因任何原因，各方无法于 March 16, 2015 前完成本交易交割，则买方可终止本合同，并全额收回合同定金。是否行使或放弃该终止选择权，完全由买方自行决定。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 收到 NYSCEF：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件14-10，提交于04/13/22，录入于04/13/22 01:55:22，证据10，第19页，共32页 案件22-50073，文件432-2，提交于05/24/22，录入于05/24/22 23:04:58，第127页，共193页\n\n第21条。卖方应基于买方就该单元及动产支付的总对价（即 $70,000,000.00）支付经纪佣金。\n\nSHERRY 1800s LLC（卖方）\n姓名：\n职务：\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（买方）\n授权人员：Ira J. Gilbert\n\n文件编号：USI:98411 S4v4\n\n第20页，共32页 193\n\n基于铅涂料和/或铅涂料危害的信息披露\n销售\n铅警示声明\n\n特此通知，凡购买于 1978 年之前建有住宅的住宅不动产任何权益的购买人，该等不动产可能因含铅涂料而导致铅暴露，从而使幼儿面临铅中毒风险。幼儿铅中毒可能造成永久性神经损伤，包括学习障碍、智商降低、行为问题及记忆力受损。铅中毒亦对孕妇构成特别风险。出售住宅不动产任何权益的卖方，须向买方提供其持有的风险评估或检查中有关铅涂料危害的任何信息，并通知买方任何已知的铅涂料危害。建议在购买前对可能存在的铅涂料危害进行风险评估或检查。\n\n卖方披露\n\n(a) 含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害的存在情况（勾选以下 (i) 或 (ii)）：\n\n(i) 住宅内存在已知的含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害（请说明）。\n\n(ii) 卖方不知道住宅内存在含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害。\n\n(b) 卖方可获得的记录和报告（勾选以下 (i) 或 (ii)）：\n\n(i) 卖方已向买方提供有关住宅内含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害的所有可获得记录和报告（请在下方列明文件）。\n\n(ii) 卖方没有关于住宅内含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害的报告或记录。\n\n买方确认（签署姓名首字母）\n\n(c) 买方已收到上述所列全部信息的副本。\n\n(d) 买方已收到《保护您的家庭免受家中铅危害》宣传册。\n\n(e) 买方已（勾选以下 (i) 或 (ii)）：\n\n(i) 获得 10 日的机会（或双方约定的期间），对是否存在含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害进行风险评估或检查；或\n\n(ii) 放弃对是否存在含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害进行风险评估或检查的机会。\n\n代理人确认（签署姓名首字母）\n\n(f) 代理人已告知卖方其在 42 U.S.C. 4852d 项下的义务，并知悉其有责任确保遵守该规定。\n\n准确性证明\n\n下列各方已审阅上述信息，并证明，据其所知，\n\n其所提供的信息真实且准确。\n\n签名：\n日期：\n\n卖方\n\n买方\n日期： 买方 日期：\n\n购买申请书\n\n第22页，共32页 193\n\n购买申请书\n\n纽约，2015年2月26日\n\n申请人姓名：“Miles” Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n（姓名必须以上述方式填写，以便据此制作股票证书及其他文件。）\n\n申请人律师：Ira Gilbert, Esq.（igilbert@paulweiss.com）；电话：212-373-3529\n\n律师事务所及地址：Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP（保罗·韦斯、里夫金德、沃顿和加里森律师事务所），1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064\n\n卖方姓名：Sherry 1800s,b\n\n卖方律师：Michael J. Jones, Esq.；电话：203-?51-?3?0\n\n律师事务所及地址：Ivey, Barnum & O’Mara, LLC（艾维、巴纳姆和奥马拉有限责任律师事务所），170 Mason Street, Greenwich, CT 06830\n\n交割日期及时间：不得晚于 3/16/15 上午10时\n\n交付占有日期：不得晚于 *3/16/15*\n\n下列签署人特此要约购买 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-尼德兰公司）资本股票 3,000 股，以及位于 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 的建筑物内公寓 35B 的附带专有租约，条款及条件如下；以及女佣房 1519。\n\n股票购买价格：$ 67,500,000\n\n目前预计每月专有租金：$ 57,085.53\n\n保证金：$ 2,000,000\n\n特别条件，如有：另有 $2,500,000 分配给该单元所包含的个人财产。\n\n融资：是；否 ☒\n\n金额：无\n\n银行：\n\n下列签署人已填写以下资料表，并理解该等资料对于审议本申请至关重要。进一步理解，本申请经下列签署人签署后，须经卖方或获授权代表批准，并受本文件背面所载条款及条件约束。\n\n经纪人：卖方：Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）及 Serena Boardman（塞雷娜·博德曼），Sotheby’s（苏富比）；买方：Kathy Sloane（凯茜·斯隆），Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）\n\n购买申请人签名：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n住宅地址：6A South Bay Road, Hong Kong\n\n电话：+852 2169 0888\n\n业务联系及职务：所有人（证券及房地产投资）\n\n营业地址：20/F, Bank of China Tower, 1 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong\n\n电话：+852 2160 0888\n\n共同居住人员姓名：如有子女，请说明人数及其大致年龄：(1) Kwok Ho Wa（郭浩华），购买人；(2) Kwok Hing Chi（郭英姿），购买人之妻；(3) Guo Qiang（郭强），购买人之子；(4) Guo Mei（郭美），购买人之女；(5) Yaz Qinghua（雅清华），购买人妻子的姐妹。\n\n申请人所属的所有俱乐部和协会会员资格、兄弟会及荣誉协会名称：Mar-a-Lago Club（海湖庄园俱乐部），Palm Beach, FL；Trump Golf Course（特朗普高尔夫球场），Palm Beach, FL。\n\n丈夫、妻子及子女曾就读的学校和学院：Kwok 先生及夫人（郭先生及夫人）在中国受教育。Kwok 先生的子女曾就读 Bard College（巴德学院）。\n\n纽约县书记官处存档：11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期：04/13/22 登记日期：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期：05/24/22 登记日期：05/24/22 23:04:58 第 131 页，共\n\n第 23 页，共 32 页 193\n\n否\n\n申请人是否希望饲养宠物；如是，请说明：\n\n房东：\n\n现房东或代理人：拥有私人住宅\n\n地址：6 South Bay Road, Hong Kong\n\n大致居住期限：\n\n前房东或代理人：\n\n前住所地址及大致居住期限：\n\nA Steven Wong（史蒂文·黄）\n（银行——个人账户）\n地址：\nUBS AG（瑞银集团）52/F Two International Finance Centre, 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong\n\nB （业务）Hank Lo（汉克·罗），Stevenson Wong & Co.（史蒂文森·黄律师事务所）合伙人\n地址：Central Tower, 28 Queen’s Road, Central, Hong Kong\n\nC 股票经纪人、任何注册会计师、遗嘱执行人（如有）\n地址：\n\n有关收入来源的信息，请联系：\n\n姓名：\nThe Rt Hon. Tony Blair（托尼·布莱尔阁下）\n\n地址：PO Box 60519, London W2 7JU, UK\n\n特别备注：\n\n纽约县书记官处存档：11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期：04/13/22 登记日期：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10 第 24 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期：05/24/22 登记日期：05/24/22 23:04:58 第 132 页，共 193\n\n购买申请书\n\n纽约 _______，20___年\n\nKWOK\n申请人姓名：__________\n\n（姓名必须以上述方式填写，以便据此制作股票证书及其他文件。）\n\n申请人律师：Ira J. ________ 电话：________\n\n律师事务所及地址：________\n\n卖方姓名：____________________________\n\n卖方律师：________________ 电话：________\n\n律师事务所及地址：____________________________\n\n交割日期及时间：________________ 交付占有日期：________\n\n下列签署人特此要约购买 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-尼德兰公司）资本股票 __________ 股，以及附带的专有租约，涉及位于 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 的建筑物内 __________ 公寓，条款及条件如下。\n\n股票购买价格：$__________；目前预计每月专有租金：$\n__________\n\n特别条件，如有：________________\n\n金额：________ 银行：________\n\n下列签署人已填写以下资料表，并理解该等资料对于审议本申请至关重要。进一步理解，本申请经下列签署人签署后，须经卖方或获授权代表批准，并受本文件背面所载条款及条件约束。\n\n经纪人：________________\n\n个人推荐信\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期：04/13/22 登记日期：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10 第 26 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期：05/24/22 登记日期：05/24/22 23:04:58 第 134 页，共 193\n\n来自 The Rt Hon Tony Blair（托尼·布莱尔阁下）\n\n2015年2月\n\n尊敬的 The Sherry Netherland（谢里·尼德兰）董事会各位女士、先生：\n\n我非常高兴为 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）作为贵楼潜在业主出具本推荐信。我认识 Miles 已有七年，无论在商业上还是作为朋友，我都对他抱有最高敬意。多年来，我与 Miles 密切合作，并一直钦佩他的诚实和忠诚。\n\n作为个人，Miles 值得信赖、真诚且极具责任感；其举止庄重而睿智。Miles 诚实、坦率，且品味无可挑剔。\n\n我强烈推荐他入住贵楼，因为我知道 Miles 作为贵方在 The Sherry Netherland 的邻居，将会是极好的补充。Miles 是一位极有成就的人士，并且依我之见，将成为 The Sherry Netherland 极具价值的资产。\n\nPO Box 60619, London W2 7JU\n\n商业推荐信\n\n纽约县书记官处存档：11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号：652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：256 案件 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj\n文件 432-2\n文件 14-10 提交日期：05/24/22\n提交日期：04/13/22 登记日期：05/24/22 23:04:58\n登记日期：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10\n第 136 页，共\nNYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018\nStevenson Wong & Co.（史蒂文森·黄律师事务所） 第 28 页，共 32 页\n193 Willy Y.P. Cheng\nHank H.F. Lo\nCatherine K.G. Por\nEric C.H. Lui\nNeville J.J. Watkins\nWendy W.S. Lim\nLai S. Lam\nCornelia W.C. Chu\n\n我方档案号：EYC/HLO(P)/75450/15\nJanice L.H.\nHeidi H. Chui\nEr Ya\nEr Ya\n贵方档案号：\n高级顾问：\nAngus Forsyth\n高级顾问：\nAngus Forsyth\n回复传真 顾问\nSherlynn G. Chan\n2015年2月17日 香港公证人\n中国委托公证人\n邮寄 婚姻监礼人\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰）董事会\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n\n尊敬的 The Sherry Netherland（谢里·尼德兰）董事会成员：\n\n本人致函支持 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）申请成为贵合作公寓的住户股东。\n\n约七年前，Miles 聘请本人所在律师事务所处理其一项商业交易时，我首次认识他。我当时及目前均为本所合伙人。此后，我们建立了长期关系。多年来，本所曾在不同领域的多项商业交易中为 Miles 提供代理服务，包括项目融资、筹资、公司合并与收购，以及在香港、中国和世界不同地区收购飞机、游艇和房地产。\n\nMiles 是一位成功的商人，也是礼貌、可靠且负责任的个人，其举止庄重而睿智。撇开我们的工作关系不谈，Miles 也是我的一位好朋友。就个人而言，我认为 Miles 令人愉快、体贴且值得尊敬。我相信，他的个人品质必将使他成为贵楼的好邻居和负责任的管理者。\n\n依我之见，Miles 将成为贵楼极有价值的补充。\n\n如希望亲自联系本人，请随时致电 +852 2533 2552。\n\nHank Lo（汉克·罗）\n合伙人\nSTEVENSON, WONG & CO.（史蒂文森·黄律师事务所）\n\n电话：852 2526 6211 传真：852 2845 0638 电子邮箱：info@sw-hk.com www.sw-hk.com\n\nHong Kong Guangzhou Shanghai Nanjing Shenzhen Suzhou Interlaw\n\n2015年2月18日\n\n邮寄\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰）董事会\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n\n尊敬的 The Sherry Netherland（谢里·尼德兰）董事会各位女士、先生：\n\n本人非常高兴推荐 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）成为 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-尼德兰公司）的股东并成为贵楼住户。本人是 UBS AG（瑞银集团）财富管理及瑞士银行部的董事总经理，随函附上本人名片供您参阅。自 Miles 首次开始与 UBS AG 合作以来，本人认识他约五年。此后，Miles 一直在证券投资领域以及为其各类项目融资方面与我们合作，例如飞机收购。\n\nMiles 是一位成功而卓有成就的企业家，曾在国内和国际上发展及管理多家公司。多年来，Miles 已在我行赢得信誉。他非常可靠，并始终履行其还款义务。因此，我行很高兴将他作为我们的长期客户。\n\n从个人角度而言，Miles 是一位真诚、谦逊且热心的绅士。他财务状况良好，但十分谦逊。他也是我所认识的最聪明、真诚和值得尊敬的人之一。\n\n基于本人与 Miles 的长期关系，本人确实推荐 Miles 成为贵合作公寓的股东及贵楼住户。我相信，贵社区将很高兴他和他的家人加入贵方并居住于 The Sherry。\n\n如有任何问题，请随时通过 stephen-kc.wong@ubs.com 联系本人。\n\n谨上\n\n纽约县书记官处存档：11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-10 提交日期：04/13/22 登记日期：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 10 第 30 页，共 32 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期：05/24/22 登记日期：05/24/22 23:04:58 第 138 页，共 193\n\n财务推荐信\n\n.UDu\n\n第 31 页，共 32 页 193\n\nHong Kong Branch（香港分行）\n52/F Two International Finance Centre\n8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong\n电话：+852-2971 8888 传真：+852-2971 8001\n\n2015年2月23日\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰）董事会\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n\n敬启者：\n\n银行资信证明—[房地产投资申请]\n\n我们获要求就房地产投资申请出具资信证明函。我们确认：\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）\n\n[客户身份证明：P746467(7)J\n\n自 July 2012 起，其一直通过一家个人投资公司成为本行客户。在此期间，Kwok Ho Wan 先生与本行保持了令人满意的银行业务关系。截至 18 Feb, 2015，该银行业务关系所涉资金不少于 USD400, 000,000。\n\n上述信息以截至当前日期本行对该银行业务关系的经验为依据，仅供贵方私下使用，并以保密方式提供；UBS AG（瑞银集团）及其雇员对此不承担任何责任。本函仅可用于本函开头所述的业务目的，且不构成 UBS AG 的保证或任何其他义务。尤其是，本行无义务通知贵方该银行业务关系随后发生的任何情况变化。\n\n谨启\n代表 UBS AG Hong Kong Branch（瑞银集团香港分行）\n\nNorman Cheung\n\n董事总经理\n\nStephen Ong\n\n董事总经理\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11，第 1 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 141 页，共 193 页\n\n证物 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）\n\n公司文件\n\n有限责任公司协议\n\n第 3 页，共 53 页\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n有限责任公司协议，于 2015 年 *11* 日由以下各方订立：(a) GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（以下简称“公司”）；以及 (b) 附表 A 所列明作为公司成员的人士（以下统称“成员”，个别称为“一名成员”）。\n\n成员订立本协议，旨在依照经不时修订的 New York Limited Liability Company Law（纽约州有限责任公司法）（以下简称“本法”）组建公司，使公司成为一家纽约州有限责任公司。\n\n本协议各方拟订明公司运营的条款和条件。本协议完整载明成员就公司达成的协议及共识。\n\n因此，鉴于下文所载的承诺和协议，本协议各方同意如下：\n\n第1条 定义。\n\n1.1“家庭集团”就任何成员而言，包括：(i) 如该成员为个人，该成员的配偶及后代；(ii) 如该成员为信托，该信托的任何受益人以及任何该等受益人的配偶及后代；以及 (iii) 如该成员为实体，该实体的任何实益拥有人以及任何该等实益拥有人的配偶及后代。\n\n1.2“成员权益”系指成员在公司中的所有权权益。截至本协议日期，各成员的成员权益载于附表 A。\n\n1.3“财产”具有第5条所规定的含义。\n\n第2条 名称。公司名称为 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC。\n\n第3条 组织章程文件；证明文件。成员可在其不时认为适宜时，通过书面文件选任一名或多名额外自然人，并指定其为公司的“获授权人士”。成员或任何高级职员或获授权人士应签署、交付及提交公司在其可能希望经营业务的任何司法管辖区取得经营资格所必需的任何其他组织章程文件及／或证明文件（及其任何修订及／或重述文件）。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）\n\n已提交：New York County Clerk（纽约县书记员）11/28/2018 12:22 PM；案号：652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号：252；NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018；22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11，第 4 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 144 页，共 193 页\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n获授权人士指定书\n\n下列签署人作为 Genever Holdings Corporation 的获授权人士；该公司是一家 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）有限责任公司（以下简称“该公司”），现作出以下授权委派：\n\n获授权人士特此指定 Ira Gilbert, Esq.（艾拉·吉尔伯特律师）及 Steven Simkin, Esq.（史蒂文·西姆金律师）各自单独或共同担任 Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“Genever New York”）的“获授权人士”。Genever New York 是一家纽约州有限责任公司，该公司为其唯一成员。获授权人士授予并指示二人各自有权与作为卖方的 Sherry 1800s LLC（雪莉1800s有限责任公司）订立购买协议，以购买 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（雪莉-尼德兰公司）的股票证书；该股票涉及位于 New York City（纽约市）781 Fifth Avenue 的合作公寓 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰），即 UNITS 1801、1804、1807、1809、1811 及 Servant's Room 1519），其条款和条件应为该公司及 Genever New York 的代表与该公司的董事兼唯一股东已讨论的条款和条件。Gilbert 先生及 Simkin 先生任何一人均不得再行转授权。\n\n根据本获授权人士指定书，Gilbert 先生及 Simkin 先生各自获授权采取其认为适宜或必要的其他行动，并对购买文件作出修订，以实施本指定书所授权的行动；对该等经修订文件的批准，即构成该获授权人士作出该等决定的证据。\n\n日期：February 17, 2015\n\nMichael F. O'Connor（迈克尔·F·奥康纳）\n\n获授权人士\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/28/2018 12:22 PM；案号：652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号：252；NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018；22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11，第 5 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 145 页，共 193 页\n\n英属维尔京群岛公司注册证书\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：252；NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018；22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11\n\n英属维尔京群岛领地 2004 年 BVI Business Companies Act（英属维尔京群岛商业公司法）\n\n第 6 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 146 页，共 193 页\n\n15Cl;l941585\n\n公司注册证书（第 7 条）\n\n英属维尔京群岛公司事务登记官特此证明：根据 2004 年 BVI Business Companies Act，就公司注册成立而言，本法规定的一切要求均已得到遵守，\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation\n\nBVI 公司编号：1862840\n\n已于 '13th day ofFebruary, 2015' 在英属维尔京群岛注册成立为一家 BVI 商业公司。\n\n公司事务登记官 13th day of Febnia:ry, 2015\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/28/2018 12:22 PM；案号：652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号：252；NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018；22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11，第 7 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 147 页，共 193 页\n\n英属维尔京群岛股票证书\n\n英属维尔京群岛董事名册\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/28/2018 12:22 PM；案号：652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号：252；NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018；22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11，第 10 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 150 页，共 193 页\n\n董事客户名册 OGBVIU..，Genever Holdings Corporation\n\n现任董事\n\n正式姓名：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生\n\n住址：49th Floor\n\n原名称\n\n姓氏\n\n名字\n\n现任秘书\n\n公司名称：Bank of China Tower\n\n注册地：No.1 Garden Road\n\n主要办事处：CENTRAL Hong Kong（香港）\n\nElian Secretaries (BVI) Limited（伊利安秘书服务（BVI）有限公司）\n\n英属维尔京群岛\n\nNemours Chambers\n\nRoad Town\n\nTortola VG1110\n\n英属维尔京群岛\n\n法定参考编号\n\n职业：投资者\n\n国籍：中国\n\n出生日期：10/05/68\n\n任命日期：13/02/15\n\n备注\n\n法定参考编号\n\n任命日期：13102/15\n\n备注\n\n18. Februa,y 2015 第 ! 页\n\n前任董事\n\n公司名称：Elian First Director (BVi) Limited（伊利安首任董事（BVI）有限公司）\n\n注册地：英属维尔京群岛\n\n任命日期：13/02/15\n\n主要办事处：Nemours Chambers\n\n辞任日期：13/02/15\n\nRoad Town\n\n备注\n\nTortola VG1110\n\n英属维尔京群岛\n\n原名称\n\n既往名称\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/28/2018 12:22 PM；案号：652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号：252；NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018；22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11，第 11 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 151 页，共 193 页\n\n英属维尔京群岛\n\n章程细则\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/28/2018 12:22 PM；案号：652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号：252；NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018；22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 11，第 12 页，共 53 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 152 页，共 193 页\n\n编号：1862840\n\n英属维尔京群岛\n\nElian Fiduciary Services (BVI) Limited（伊利安信托服务（BVI）有限公司）\nNemours Chambers\nRoad Town, Tortola\n英属维尔京群岛 VG 1110\n\n英属维尔京群岛领地\n\n2004 年 BVI Business Companies Act\n\n组织章程大纲\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation\n\n一家股份有限公司\n\n第1条 名称\n\n1.1 公司的名称为 Genever Holdings Corporation。\n\n第2条 地位\n\n2.1 公司为一家股份有限公司。\n\n第3条 注册办事处及注册代理人\n\n3.1 公司的首个注册办事处位于 Nemours Chambers, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands，即其首个注册代理人的办事处。\n\n3.2 公司的首个注册代理人为 Elian Fiduciary Services (BVI) Limited，地址为 Nemours Chambers, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands。\n\n3.3 公司可通过董事决议或成员决议变更其注册办事处或注册代理人；该项变更应在登记官登记根据本法第 92 条提交的变更通知后生效。\n\n第4条 行为能力及权力\n\n4.1 在遵守本法及当时有效的任何其他英属维尔京群岛立法的前提下，无论是否具有公司利益，公司均拥有：\n\n(a) 从事或开展任何业务或活动、实施任何行为或订立任何交易的完全行为能力；以及\n\n(b) 为第4.1(a)款之目的而拥有完全的权利、权力及特权。\n\n4.2 在遵守第4.1条的前提下，公司可从事的业务不受任何限制。\n\n第5条 股份的数额及类别\n\n5.1 公司获授权发行最多 50,000 股股份，每股面值为 US\\$0.001，且仅设一个类别。\n\n5.2 公司可发行零碎股份，零碎股份应享有与同类别或同系列完整股份相应的按比例权利、义务及责任。\n\n第6条 股份的指定、权力及优先权\n\n6.1 公司中的每一股份赋予成员：\n\n（a）在公司成员会议上或就任何成员决议享有一票表决权；\n\n（b）有权平等分享公司支付的任何股息；以及\n\n（c）在公司清算时，有权平等分享公司剩余资产。\n\n6.2 董事可自行酌情决定，但须遵守章程细则第3条，赎回、购买或以其他方式取得公司的全部或任何股份。\n\n附属于任何类别股份的权利可随时变更，无论公司是否正在清盘，但须经该类别已发行股份超过50%的持有人书面同意，或经该等持有人在会议上通过决议予以同意。\n\n6 因按同等地位发行股份而不变更权利\n\n除非该类别股份的发行条款另有明确规定，就附带优先权或其他权利而发行的任何类别股份的持有人所获赋权，不得因设立或发行与该等股份享有同等地位的进一步股份而视为已被变更。\n\n9 记名股份\n\n9.1 公司仅发行记名股份。\n\n9.2 公司无权发行不记名股份、将记名股份转换为不记名股份，或以记名股份交换不记名股份。\n\n10 股份转让\n\n10.1 在遵守组织章程大纲规定的前提下，股份可在公司通过成员决议或董事决议作出事先或事后批准的条件下转让。\n\n10.2 成员和／或董事可全权且不受限制地自行酌情拒绝批准任何拟议的股份转让。\n\n11 组织章程大纲及章程细则的修订\n\n11.1 公司可通过成员决议或董事决议修订其组织章程大纲或章程细则，但不得通过董事决议作出以下修订：\n\n（a）限制成员修订组织章程大纲或章程细则的权利或权力；\n\n12\n\n12.1\n\n章程细则，指随附的公司章程细则；\n\n董事会主席，具有第13条所规定的含义；\n\n分派，就公司作出的分派而言，指就成员持有的股份，直接或间接向成员转让除股份以外的资产，或为成员利益而转让该等资产；无论是通过购买资产、赎回或以其他方式取得股份、分派债务，或以其他方式进行，且包括股息；\n\n合资格人士，指个人、法人、信托、已故个人的遗产、合伙企业及非公司组织的人员协会；\n\n成员，指其姓名已作为一股或多股股份或零碎股份持有人登记于公司成员名册的合资格人士；\n\n第16页，共53页\n\n组织章程大纲，指本公司组织章程大纲；\n\n董事决议，指以下任一项：\n\n（a）在正式召集并依法组成的公司董事会议或公司董事委员会会议上，由出席会议并参加表决的董事过半数投赞成票通过的决议；但如某董事获授超过一票的表决权，则为确定多数时，应按其所投的票数计算；或\n\n（b）视情况而定，经全体董事或公司董事委员会全体成员书面同意的决议；\n\n成员决议，指以下任一项：\n\n（a）在正式召集并依法组成的公司成员会议上，由有权就该事项表决且出席会议并已投票的股份所附表决权过半数投赞成票通过的决议；或\n\n（b）经有权就该事项表决的股份所附表决权过半数书面同意的决议；\n\n印章，指已获批准作为公司法定印章的任何印章；\n\n证券，指公司的股份及各种债务凭证，包括但不限于认购权、认股权证及取得股份或债务凭证的权利；\n\n股份，指由公司发行或将由公司发行的股份；\n\n库存股份，指先前已发行、但由公司回购、赎回或以其他方式取得且未被注销的股份；以及\n\n书面或具有类似含义的任何用语，包括通过电子、电气、数字、磁性、光学、电磁、生物识别或光子方式生成、发送、接收或储存的信息，包括电子数据交换、电子邮件、电报、电传或传真；“以书面形式”应作相应解释。\n\n12.2 在组织章程大纲及章程细则中，除非文义另有要求，提及：\n\n（a）条款细则，是指章程细则的条款细则；\n\n（b）条款，是指组织章程大纲的条款；\n\n（c）成员投票，是指该成员投出其所持股份附带的表决权；\n\n（d）该法、组织章程大纲或章程细则，是指经修订后的该法或该等文件；以及\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 11 第17页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第157页，共193页\n\n（e）单数包括复数，反之亦然。\n\n12.3 除非文义另有要求，该法中定义的任何词语或表达在组织章程大纲及章程细则中具有相同含义，除非本文另有定义。\n\n12.4 标题仅为便利而设，在解释组织章程大纲及章程细则时不予考虑。\n\n我们，Elian Fiduciary Services (BVI) Limited（Elian 受托服务（英属维尔京群岛）有限公司），地址为 Nemours Chambers（内穆尔斯大楼）, Road Town（罗德城）, Tortola（托托拉岛）, British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），为根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立一家英属维尔京群岛商业公司，特此签署本组织章程大纲。\n\n日期：2015年2月13日\n\n公司设立人\n\n代表 Nemours Chambers, Road Town 签署\n\nCharlotte Balley（夏洛特·贝利） 正楷姓名：____ 签署人\n\n5 -155Z0821-2\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 11 第18页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第158页，共193页\n\nThe BVI Business Companies Act 2004（《2004年英属维尔京群岛商业公司法》）\n\n公司章程细则\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）\n\n一家股份有限公司\n\n1 记名股份\n\n1.1 每名成员均有权获得由公司董事签署或加盖公司印章的证书，载明其持有的股份数目；董事签名及印章可以是复制件。\n\n1.2 收到证书的任何成员应保障公司及其董事和高级职员免受因该证书被不当或欺诈性使用而可能产生的任何责任。如证书已磨损或遗失，可在出示磨损的证书后，或按董事可通过董事决议要求的证据及赔偿条件补发证书。\n\n1.3 如若干合资格人士持有一股股份，其中任何一名该等合资格人士均可就该股份应付的任何股息或其他分派出具有效收据。\n\n2 股份\n\n2.1 股份及其他证券可在董事通过董事决议确定的时间，向该等合资格人士，按该等对价及条款发行；取得股份或其他证券的选择权亦可按上述方式授予。\n\n2.2 该法第46条不适用于公司。\n\n2.3 股份可按任何形式的对价发行，包括金钱、本票、不动产、动产（包括商誉及专有技术）或提供未来服务的合同。\n\n2.4 除非已通过一项董事决议载明下列事项，否则不得以非金钱对价发行股份：\n\n（a）就发行股份应记入贷方的金额；\n\n（b）董事对该等非金钱发行对价的合理现时现金价值所作的认定；以及\n\n（c）董事认为，该等非金钱发行对价的现时现金价值不少于就发行股份应记入贷方的金额。\n\n（d）公司应保存一份名册（成员名册），其中载有：\n\n（e）持有股份人士的姓名和地址；\n\n（f）每名成员所持每一类别及系列股份的数目；\n\n（g）每名成员姓名载入成员名册的日期；以及\n\n（h）任何合资格人士不再为成员的日期。\n\n2.5 成员名册可采用董事批准的任何形式，但如采用磁性、电子或其他数据储存形式，公司必须能够出示其内容的清晰证据。在董事另有决定前，磁性、电子或其他数据储存形式应为成员名册的原始名册。\n\n2.6 股份在成员姓名载入成员名册时，视为已发行。\n\n3\n\n3.1 未缴足股款的股份须受本条款细则所规定的没收条款约束；为此目的，为本票或提供未来服务的合同而发行的股份，视为未缴足股款。\n\n3.2 应向未支付其股份应付款项的成员送达书面催缴通知，载明须支付的催缴款项。\n\n3.3 第3.2条所述的书面催缴通知，应指定一个不得早于送达通知之日起14日届满后的进一步日期，要求在该日期当日或之前支付通知所要求的款项，并应载明，如未在通知指定的时间当日或之前付款，未支付款项所涉的股份或其中任何股份将可能被没收。\n\n3.4 如已根据第3.2条发出书面催缴通知，而通知的要求未获遵守，董事可在付款交付前任何时间，没收并注销该通知所涉股份。\n\n3.5 公司没有义务向其股份已根据第3.4条被注销的成员退还任何款项，该成员应解除对公司的任何进一步义务。\n\n4 股份转让\n\n4.1 在遵守组织章程大纲的前提下，股份可通过由转让人签署并载有受让人姓名和地址的书面转让文书转让；该文书应提交公司登记。\n\n第20页，共53页\n\n4.2 股份转让于受让人的姓名记入成员名册时生效。\n\n4.3 如公司董事确信有关股份的转让文书已经签署，但该文书已遗失或毁坏，则董事可通过董事决议决定：\n\n（a）接受其认为适当的股份转让证据；以及\n\n（b）尽管缺少转让文书，仍应将受让人的姓名记入成员名册。\n\n4.4 在遵守组织章程大纲的前提下，已故成员的遗产代理人可转让股份，即使该遗产代理人在转让时并非成员。\n\n6 分派\n\n5.1 公司董事可通过董事决议，在其认为适当的时间并以其认为适当的金额授权进行分派，前提是其有合理理由确信，在紧接该分派后，公司的资产价值将超过其负债。\n\n5.2 股息可用金钱、股份或其他财产支付。\n\n5.3 任何已宣派股息的书面通知，应依照第21条规定向每名成员发出；在已向成员发出通知后3年内无人认领的所有股息，可通过董事决议予以没收，归公司所有。\n\n5.4 任何股息均不得向公司计息，且不得就库藏股支付任何股息。\n\n6 股份赎回及库藏股\n\n6.1 公司可购买、赎回或以其他方式取得并持有其自身股份，但除非公司获《法案》或《组织章程大纲或章程细则》的任何其他规定允许在未经该等同意的情况下购买、赎回或以其他方式取得股份，否则未经其股份将被购买、赎回或以其他方式取得的成员同意，公司不得购买、赎回或以其他方式取得其自身股份。\n\n8 -15520621-2\n\n6.2 在下列情况下，公司购买、赎回或以其他方式取得其自身股份，不视为分派：\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 11 第 21 页，共 53 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 161 页，共 193 页\n\n6.3 公司依据成员要求赎回其股份或将其股份兑换为公司的金钱或其他财产的权利，购买、赎回或以其他方式取得该等股份；或\n\n6.4 公司依据《法案》第179条的规定购买、赎回或以其他方式取得该等股份。\n\n6.5 《法案》第60、61及62条不适用于公司。\n\n6.6 公司根据本条规定购买、赎回或以其他方式取得的股份，可予注销或作为库藏股持有；但如该等股份超过已发行股份的50%，则应予注销，但可供重新发行。\n\n6.7 附属于库藏股的所有权利和义务均予中止，在公司将该股份作为库藏股持有期间不得行使。\n\n6.8 库藏股可由公司按照公司通过董事决议确定的条款和条件（不得与《组织章程大纲或章程细则》相抵触）处置。\n\n6.9 如股份由另一法人团体持有，而公司直接或间接持有该另一法人团体中拥有超过50%董事选举表决权的股份，则附属于该另一法人团体所持股份的权利和义务均予中止。\n\n7 股份的抵押及设定担保\n\n7.1 成员可通过书面文书抵押其股份或就其股份设定担保。\n\n7.2 应成员的书面请求，应在成员名册中登记：\n\n(a) 其所持股份已被抵押或设定担保的声明；\n\n(b) 抵押权人或担保权人的姓名；及\n\n(c) 第7.2(a)及7.2(b)所述详情记入成员名册的日期。\n\n(d) 如抵押或担保的详情已记入成员名册，该等详情可予注销：\n\n(e) 经具名抵押权人或担保权人，或获授权代表其行事的任何人士书面同意；或\n\n(f) 在向董事提供令其满意的证据，证明由该抵押或担保所担保的债务已获清偿，并提供董事认为必要或适宜的赔偿保证后。\n\n第 22 页，共 53 页\n\n(g) 在根据本条规定将股份抵押或担保的详情记入成员名册期间：\n\n(h) 不得办理作为该等详情标的的任何股份转让；\n\n(i) 公司不得购买、赎回或以其他方式取得任何该等股份；及\n\n(i) 除非经具名抵押权人或担保权人书面同意，不得就该等股份签发替代证书。\n\n8 成员会议及同意\n\n8.1 公司任何董事均可在该董事认为必要或适宜的时间，并以其认为必要或适宜的方式及在英属维尔京群岛境内或境外的地点召集成员会议。\n\n8.2 经有权就请求召开会议的事项行使30%或以上表决权的成员提出书面请求，董事应召集成员会议。\n\n8.3 召集成员会议的董事，应至少提前7日向下列人士发出成员会议书面通知：\n\n(a) 于发出通知之日，其姓名载于成员名册并有权在会议上表决的成员；及\n\n(b) 其他董事。\n\n8.4 召集成员会议的董事可将发出会议通知之日，或通知中指定的其他日期（但不得早于通知日期），确定为确定有权在会议上表决的成员的记录日期。\n\n8.5 违反发出通知要求而召开的成员会议，如持有就会议拟审议的所有事项享有合计至少90%表决权的成员已放弃会议通知，则为有效；为此目的，成员出席会议即构成其就该成员所持全部股份放弃通知。\n\n8.6 召集会议的董事无意中未向成员或另一董事发出会议通知，或成员或另一董事未收到通知的事实，并不使会议无效。\n\n8.7 成员可由代理人代表出席成员会议，该代理人可代表该成员发言及表决。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 11 第 23 页，共 53 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 163 页，共 193 页\n\n8.8 委任代理人的文书，应在该文书中指名的人拟于其上表决的会议举行时间之前，提交至指定的会议地点。\n\n8.9 委任代理人的文书，应大致采用以下格式，或采用会议主席接受为适当证明委任代理人的成员意愿的其他格式。\n\n[公司名称]\n\n本人／我们作为上述公司的成员，特此委任[ ]；如其不能履职，则委任[ ]，地址为[ ]，作为本人／我们的代理人，代表本人／我们在于20[ ]年[ ]月[ ]日举行的成员会议及其任何延期会议上表决。\n\n签署于20[ ]年[ ]月[ ]日。\n\n成员\n\n8.10 下列规定适用：\n\n(a) 如两名或以上人士共同持有股份，其可作为一名成员亲自或由代理人出席会议；\n\n(b) 如仅一名共同所有人亲自或由代理人出席，其可代表全体共同所有人表决；及\n\n(c) 如两名或以上共同所有人亲自或由代理人出席，其必须作为一体表决；如股份的任何共同所有人之间存在分歧，则就有关股份在成员名册中姓名最先（或最早）出现的共同所有人的表决，应记为归属于该等股份的表决。\n\n8.11 如成员通过电话或其他电子方式参加成员会议，且所有参加会议的成员均能够互相听见，则该成员应视为出席该成员会议。\n\n8.12 如在会议开始时，亲自或由代理人出席并持有不少于就会议拟审议的成员决议享有表决权的股份表决权50%的人员，则成员会议即为适当组成。如公司有两个或以上类别的股份，会议可就某些目的构成法定人数，而就其他目的则不构成法定人数。法定人数可由一名成员或代理人构成，而该人士可通过成员决议；该人士签署的证明，如该人士持有代理权，则附有代理文书副本，即构成有效的成员决议。\n\n11 • 15520821-2\n\n8.13 如在指定会议时间起两小时内未达到法定人数，则如会议系应成员请求召集，该会议应予解散；在其他情况下，会议应延期至原定举行会议的司法管辖区内的下一个营业日，于同一时间及地点举行。如在延期会议指定时间起一小时内，亲自或由代理人出席并持有不少于有权就会议拟审议事项表决的股份或每一类别或系列股份表决权三分之一的人员，则出席人员构成法定人数；否则，会议应予解散。\n\n8.14 在每次成员会议上，董事会主席应主持会议并担任会议主席。如无董事会主席，或董事会主席未出席会议，出席的成员应从其成员中选出一人担任主席。如成员无法选出一人，则亲自或由代理人出席会议并代表最多表决权的人士应主持会议并担任主席；如仍无法确定，则出席的最年长成员或成员代表应主持会议。\n\n8.15 经会议同意，主席可不时并可由一地至另一地将任何会议延期。\n\n8.16 在任何成员会议上，会议主席负责以其认为适当的方式决定所提决议是否获得通过，其决定结果应向会议宣布，并记入会议记录。如主席对拟议决议的表决结果有任何疑问，其应安排就该决议所投的全部表决进行投票。如主席未进行投票，则任何亲自或由代理人出席并对主席宣布的任何表决结果有异议的成员，可在该宣布后立即要求进行投票，主席应安排进行投票。如在任何会议上进行投票，结果应向会议宣布，并记入会议记录。\n\n8.17 在不影响本条中有关委任非自然人成员代表的具体规定的前提下，任何自然人代表成员发言或代表成员的权利，应由该成员成立或取得其存续资格所在地司法管辖区的法律，以及该成员据以成立或取得其存续资格的文件确定。如有疑问，董事可善意寻求法律意见，除非及直至有管辖权的法院另作裁定，董事可依赖并根据该等意见行事，而无需对任何成员或公司承担任何责任。\n\n8.18 任何非自然人成员可通过其董事或其他管理机构的决议，授权其认为适当的自然人在任何成员会议或任何类别成员会议上担任其代表；获授权的自然人有权代表其所代表的成员行使该成员如为自然人时本可行使的相同权利。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记员）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收悉：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 11 第25页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第165页，共193页\n\n8.19 在任何以委托投票方式或代表非个人成员进行投票的会议上，会议主席可在会议期间但不得在其后要求提供该项委托或授权的经公证认证副本；该副本应在提出请求后7日内提交，否则，由该项委托或代表该成员所投的票数应不予计入。\n\n8.20 公司董事可出席任何成员会议及任何类别或系列股份持有人的任何单独会议，并在该等会议上发言。\n\n8.21 成员可在会议上采取的行动，亦可通过经书面同意的成员决议采取，无需事先通知。如任何成员决议并非经全体成员一致书面同意而通过，则应立即向未同意该决议的所有成员发送该决议副本。该同意可采用副本形式，每份副本由一名或多名成员签署。如该同意采用一份或多份副本形式，且各副本日期不同，则该决议应自持有足以构成成员决议所需数量股份的合资格人士通过签署副本同意该决议之最早日期起生效。\n\n9 董事\n\n9.1 公司的首任董事应由首任注册代理人在公司成立后30日内任命；此后，董事应由成员决议或董事决议选举，任期由成员或董事决定。\n\n9.2 任何人除非已书面同意担任公司董事，否则不得被任命为公司董事。\n\n9.3 董事的最低人数应为一名，且董事人数不设上限。\n\n9.4 每名董事的任期（如有）由任命其的成员决议或董事决议确定，或至其较早发生的死亡、辞职或被免职时止。如任命董事时未确定任期，该董事应无限期任职，直至其较早发生的死亡、辞职或被免职时止。\n\n9.5 董事可因下列方式被免职，无论是否具有理由：\n\n(a) 在为免除该董事或包括免除该董事目的而召集的成员会议上通过的成员决议，或经有表决权的公司成员中至少百分之七十五通过的书面决议；或\n\n13 -15520821 ·2\n\n(b) 在董事会议上通过的董事决议。\n\n9.6 董事可向公司提交书面辞职通知而辞去职务；辞职自该通知由公司在其注册代理人办公地点收到之日起生效，或自通知中载明的较晚日期起生效。如董事依据《法案》丧失或成为丧失担任董事资格者，该董事应立即辞任董事职务。\n\n第26页，共53页\n\n9.7 董事可随时任命任何人士担任董事，以填补空缺或增加现有董事人数。如董事任命某人士担任董事以填补空缺，其任期不得超过已不再担任董事的人士停止任职时所剩余的任期。\n\n9.8\n\n9.9 公司应保存：\n\n(a) 公司董事的姓名及地址；\n\n(b) 董事被任命并记载于名册的日期；\n\n(c) 董事不再担任公司董事的日期；及\n\n(d)\n\n9.10 董事名册可采用董事批准的任何形式保存，但如采用磁性、电子或其他数据存储形式，公司必须能够提供其内容的清晰可读证据。在通过另有规定的董事决议之前，磁性、电子或其他数据存储记录应为董事名册正本。\n\n9.11 董事可通过董事决议，就向公司以任何身份提供的服务确定董事报酬。\n\n9.12 董事无需持有股份作为任职资格。\n\n10 董事的权力\n\n10.1 公司的业务及事务应由公司董事管理，或在公司董事的指示或监督下管理。公司董事拥有管理、指示及监督公司业务及事务所必需的一切权力。董事可支付公司成立前及与公司成立有关的一切费用，并可行使公司不被《法案》、章程大纲或章程细则要求由成员行使的一切权力。\n\n14 -1552082 f-2\n\n10.2 如公司为某控股公司的全资子公司，公司董事在行使董事权力或履行董事职责时，可按其认为符合该控股公司最佳利益的方式行事，即使该方式未必符合公司的最佳利益。\n\n第27页，共53页\n\n10.3 如公司为某控股公司的子公司但并非全资子公司，且除该控股公司以外的股东事先同意，则公司董事在就实施合资企业行使董事权力或履行董事职责时，可按其认为符合一名或数名成员最佳利益的方式行事，即使该方式未必符合公司的最佳利益。\n\n10.4 如公司正在股东之间开展合资企业，公司董事在行使任何权力或履行董事职责时，可按其认为符合该合资企业最佳利益的方式行事，即使该方式未必符合公司的最佳利益。\n\n10.5 每名董事应为正当目的行使其权力，且不得作出或同意公司作出任何违反章程大纲、章程细则或《法案》的行为。每名董事在行使其权力或履行职责时，应诚实并善意地按照其认为符合公司最佳利益的方式行事。\n\n10.6 任何作为法人团体的董事，均可指定一名自然人作为其正式授权代表，以代表其出席董事会议、签署同意书或以其他方式行事。\n\n10.7 尽管董事会存在任何空缺，继续任职的董事仍可行事。\n\n10.8 董事可通过董事决议行使公司的一切权力，以承担债务、责任或义务，并为公司或任何第三方的债务、责任或义务提供担保。\n\n10.9 所有支票、本票、汇票、汇兑票据及其他可转让票据，以及就向公司支付的款项出具的所有收据，均应按董事决议不时确定的方式，视情况予以签署、开立、承兑、背书或以其他方式签立。\n\n10.10 《法案》第175条不适用于公司。\n\n11 董事会议程序\n\n11.1 公司任何一名董事均可通过向每名其他董事发出书面通知而召集董事会议。\n\n11.2 公司董事或其任何委员会可按召集会议通知所规定的时间、方式及地点，在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）境内或境外举行会议。\n\n11.3 如董事通过电话或其他电子方式参加董事会议，且参加会议的所有董事均能够相互听见，则该董事视为出席该董事会议。\n\n11.4 董事应至少提前3日收到董事会议通知；但如所有有权在会议上表决而未出席会议的董事均放弃会议通知，则未向全体董事提前3日发出通知而举行的董事会议仍属有效；为此目的，董事出席会议即构成该董事放弃通知。无意中未向董事发出会议通知，或董事未收到通知，均不使会议无效。\n\n11.5 如在会议开始时，超过董事总人数二分之一的董事亲自出席或由候补董事代表出席，则董事会议应就一切目的构成法定人数；但如董事仅有2名，则法定人数为2名。\n\n11.6 董事可通过书面文书任命一名候补董事，该候补董事无需为董事；在任命该候补董事的董事缺席时，该候补董事有权出席并代替该董事投票或表示同意，直至该任命失效或终止。\n\n11.7 如公司仅有一名董事，则本章程细则所载有关董事会议的规定不适用，该唯一董事有全权代表公司并就《法案》、章程大纲或章程细则未要求由成员行使的一切事项为公司行事。该唯一董事应以书面记录并签署所有需要董事决议事项的记录或备忘录，以代替会议记录。该等记录或备忘录就一切目的而言构成该等决议的充分证据。\n\n11.8 在董事会主席出席的董事会议上，其应担任会议主席。如无董事会主席，或董事会主席未出席，则出席董事应从其成员中选出一人担任会议主席。如董事因任何原因无法选出主席，则出席的最年长自然人董事（为此目的，候补董事应视为与其所代表的董事年龄相同）应主持会议。\n\n11.9 董事或董事委员会可在会议上采取的行动，亦可通过全体董事或全体委员会成员（视情况而定）书面同意的董事决议或董事委员会决议采取，无需任何通知。该同意可采用副本形式，每份副本由一名或多名董事签署。如该同意采用一份或多份副本形式，且各副本日期不同，则该决议应自最后一名董事通过签署副本同意该决议之日起生效。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记员）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收悉：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 11 第29页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第169页，共193页\n\n12 委员会\n\n12.1 董事可通过董事决议指定一个或多个委员会，每个委员会由一名或多名董事组成，并将其一项或多项权力（包括加盖印章的权力）授予该委员会。\n\n12.2 董事无权将以下任何权力授予董事委员会：\n\n(a) 修改组织章程大纲或章程细则；\n\n(b) 指定董事委员会；\n\n(c) 向董事委员会授予权力；\n\n(d) 委任董事；\n\n(e) 委任代理人；\n\n(f) 批准合并、整合或安排计划；或\n\n(g) 作出偿付能力声明或批准清算计划。\n\n12.3 第12.2(b)条和第12.2(c)条并不妨碍董事委员会在任命该委员会的董事决议或其后的董事决议授权下，任命小组委员会并向该小组委员会授予委员会可行使的权力。\n\n12.4 由2名或以上董事组成的每个董事委员会的会议及议事程序，应在不被设立该委员会的董事决议中任何规定取代的范围内，比照适用章程细则中规管董事议事程序的规定。\n\n13 高级职员及代理人\n\n13.1 公司可在其认为必要或适宜的任何时间通过董事决议委任公司高级职员。该等高级职员可包括董事会主席、首席执行官、一名或多名副总裁、秘书、财务主管，以及不时认为必要或适宜的其他高级职员。同一人可担任任何数目的职务。\n\n17 ·15520821-2\n\n13.2 高级职员应履行其获委任时规定的职责，但该等职责可其后由董事决议予以修改。如未对职责作出具体规定，则董事会主席应负责主持董事及成员会议；首席执行官应负责管理公司的日常事务；副总裁应在首席执行官缺席时按资历顺序代行其职务，但在其他情况下履行首席执行官授予其的职责；秘书应保存公司的成员名册、会议记录簿及记录（财务记录除外），并确保遵守适用法律对公司施加的一切程序性要求；财务主管应负责公司的财务事务。\n\n第30页，共53页\n\n13.3 所有高级职员的报酬应由董事决议确定。\n\n13.4 公司高级职员应任职至其死亡、辞职或被免职为止。任何由董事选举或委任的高级职员，均可由董事通过董事决议随时有因或无因免职。公司任何职务出现的空缺，可由董事决议填补。\n\n13.5 董事可通过董事决议委任任何人士（包括董事）担任公司的代理人。公司的代理人应具有章程细则或委任该代理人的董事决议中规定的董事权力及权限，包括加盖印章的权力及权限，但任何代理人均无权就第12.1条所规定的事项行使任何权力或权限。委任代理人的董事决议可授权该代理人委任一名或多名替代人或受托人，以行使公司授予该代理人的全部或部分权力。董事可免除公司委任的代理人，并可撤销或变更授予该代理人的权力。\n\n14 利益冲突\n\n14.1 公司董事在知悉其于公司已订立或拟订立的交易中拥有利益后，应立即向公司的所有其他董事披露该利益。\n\n14.2 就第14.1条而言，向所有其他董事披露某董事是另一指定实体的成员、董事或高级职员，或就该实体或某指定个人具有受托关系，并应被视为在该实体或个人于作出记载或披露之日后可能订立的任何交易中拥有利益，即构成就该交易作出的充分利益披露。\n\n14.3 在公司已订立或拟订立的交易中拥有利益的公司董事可：\n\n(a) 就与该交易有关的事项投票；\n\n(b) 出席讨论与该交易有关事项的董事会议，并在计算法定人数时计入出席该会议的董事；以及\n\n第31页，共53页\n\n(c) 代表公司签署与该交易有关的文件，或以董事身份作出任何其他与该交易有关的行为，\n\n并且，在遵守该法案的前提下，不应仅因其职务而就其从该交易中取得的任何利益向公司承担责任，且任何该等交易不得以该等利益或受益为由被撤销。\n\n15 赔偿\n\n15.1 在遵守下文规定的限制条件下，公司应就任何人士因下列情形而合理发生的、与法律、行政或调查程序有关的一切费用（包括律师费）、以及一切判决、罚款及和解支付金额，向该人士作出赔偿：\n\n(a) 该人士是或曾是任何受到威胁、未决或已完成的民事、刑事、行政或调查程序的一方，或受到威胁将被列为该等程序的一方，原因是该人士是或曾是公司的董事；或\n\n(b) 该人士曾应公司的请求担任另一家公司、合伙企业、合资企业、信托或其他企业的董事，或以任何其他身份为其行事。\n\n15.2 第15.1条规定的赔偿仅在该人士以诚实、善意及符合公司最佳利益的方式行事时适用；如属刑事程序，则该人士须无合理理由相信其行为属违法。\n\n15.3 在不存在欺诈的情况下，董事就该人士是否以诚实、善意及符合公司最佳利益的方式行事，以及该人士是否无合理理由相信其行为属违法所作出的决定，除涉及法律问题外，就章程细则而言应属充分。\n\n15.4 任何程序因任何判决、裁定、和解、定罪或作出不予起诉声明而终结，本身并不产生如下推定：该人士并非以诚实、善意及符合公司最佳利益的方式行事，或该人士有合理理由相信其行为属违法。\n\n15.5 公司可就任何现任或前任公司董事、高级职员或清算人，或任何应公司请求现任或前任另一家公司、合伙企业、合资企业、信托或其他企业的董事、高级职员或清算人，或以任何其他身份为其行事的人士，购买及维持保险，以承保针对该人士提出并由其以该等身份招致的任何责任，无论公司是否拥有或本可拥有章程细则规定的就该责任向该人士作出赔偿的权力。\n\n第32页，共53页 193\n\n公司是否拥有或本可拥有章程细则规定的就该责任向该人士作出赔偿的权力。\n\n16 记录\n\n16.1 公司应在其注册代理人办事处保存下列文件：\n\n(a) 组织章程大纲和章程细则；\n\n(b) 成员名册或成员名册副本；\n\n(c) 董事名册或董事名册副本；以及\n\n(d) 公司在此前10年内向公司事务登记官提交的所有通知及其他文件副本。\n\n16.2 公司应保存下列记录：\n\n(a) 成员及各类别成员会议记录和决议；\n\n(b) 董事及董事委员会会议记录和董事决议；以及\n\n(c) 印章印模（如有）。\n\n16.3 如本条所述任何原始记录并非保存在公司注册代理人办事处，且保存原始记录的地点发生变更，公司应在地点变更后14日内向注册代理人提供公司记录新存放地点的实际地址。\n\n16.4 公司根据本条保存的记录应为书面形式，或全部或部分为符合《电子交易法》要求的电子记录。\n\n17 担保权益登记册\n\n17.1 公司应在其注册代理人办事处保存担保权益登记册，其中应记载公司设立的每项抵押、担保权益及其他权利负担的下列详情：\n\n(a) 设立担保权益的日期；\n\n(b) 由该担保权益担保的债务的简要说明；\n\n(c) 设定担保权益的财产的简要说明；\n\n(d) 担保受托人的姓名和地址；如无该等受托人，则为担保权人的姓名和地址；\n\n(e) 除非该担保权益为不记名担保，否则为担保权益持有人的姓名和地址；以及\n\n(f) 设立该担保权益的文书中所载、对公司设立任何优先于或与该担保权益同等顺位的未来担保权益之权力的任何禁止或限制的详情。\n\n18 延续存续\n\n公司可通过成员决议或董事决议，按照英属维尔京群岛以外司法管辖区法律规定的方式，延续存续为根据该司法管辖区法律注册成立的公司。\n\n19 印章\n\n公司可拥有一个以上印章，本文件中对印章的提述应指经董事决议正式采纳的每一枚印章。董事应安排妥善保管印章，并在注册办事处保存其印模。除非本文件另有明确规定，印章加盖于任何书面文书时，应由一名董事或董事决议不时授权的其他人士签字见证及证明。该等授权可在加盖印章之前或之后作出，可为一般授权或特别授权，并可涉及任何数目的盖章行为。董事可规定将印章及任何董事或获授权人士签名的复制件，通过印刷或其他方式复制于任何文书上；其效力和有效性与印章已加盖于该文书并按前述方式予以证明者相同。\n\n账目及审计\n\n20.1 本公司应保存足以显示和说明本公司交易情况的记录，并应使得在任何时候均能以合理准确性确定本公司的财务状况。\n\n20.2 本公司可经成员决议要求董事定期编制并提供损益表和资产负债表。损益表和资产负债表应分别编制得能够真实、公允地反映本公司某一财务期间的损益，以及本公司于该财务期间结束时的资产和负债。\n\n20.3 本公司可经成员决议要求由审计师审查账目。\n\n20.4 首任审计师应由董事决议任命；后续审计师应由成员决议或董事决议任命。\n\n20.5 审计师可以是成员，但任何董事或高级职员于其任职期间均无资格担任本公司的审计师。\n\n20.6 审计师的报酬：\n\n(a) 如属董事任命的审计师，可由董事决议确定；及\n\n(b) 在遵守前述规定的前提下，可由成员决议确定，或按本公司可经成员决议决定的方式确定。\n\n20.7 审计师应审查须提交成员会议审议或以其他方式提供给成员的每一份损益表和资产负债表，并应在书面报告中说明：\n\n(a) 其认为损益表和资产负债表是否分别真实、公允地反映了账目所涵盖期间的损益，以及本公司于该期间结束时的资产和负债；及\n\n(b) 是否已取得审计师所要求的全部资料和说明。\n\n20.8 审计师报告应附于账目，并应在账目提交本公司审议的成员会议上宣读，或以其他方式提供给成员。\n\n20.9 本公司的每名审计师均有权在任何时候查阅本公司的账簿及凭证，并有权要求本公司的董事和高级职员提供其认为履行审计师职责所必需的资料和说明。\n\n22 -15520821·2\n\n20.10 本公司的审计师有权收到有关任何成员会议的通知，并有权出席任何拟在该会议上提交本公司损益表和资产负债表的成员会议。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约郡书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号：252 收到 NYSCEF：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-11 提交：04/13/22 录入：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 11 第35页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-2 提交：05/24/22 录入：05/24/22 23:04:58 第175页，共193页\n\n21 通知\n\n21.1 本公司向成员发出的任何通知、资料或书面陈述，可通过专人送达，或以邮寄方式寄送至成员名册所载每名成员的地址。\n\n21.2 应向本公司送达的任何传票、通知、命令、文件、法律程序文件、资料或书面陈述，可通过将其留置于本公司的注册办事处，或以挂号邮件寄送至本公司的注册办事处，或将其留置于本公司的注册代理人处，或以挂号邮件寄送至本公司的注册代理人，予以送达。\n\n21.3 对应向本公司送达的任何传票、通知、命令、文件、法律程序文件、资料或书面陈述的送达，可通过证明该传票、通知、命令、文件、法律程序文件、资料或书面陈述已于足以使其在正常投递过程中送达本公司注册办事处或注册代理人之时间送达，且已正确填写地址并预付邮资，予以证明。\n\n22 自愿清盘\n\n本公司可经董事决议任命一名自愿清算人。\n\n我们，Elian Fiduciary Services (BVI) Limited（Elian 受托服务（BVI）有限公司），地址为 Nemours Chambers（内穆尔斯大厦）, Road Town（罗德城）, Tortola（托托拉岛）, VG1110, British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），为根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立一家英属维尔京群岛商业公司之目的，特此签署本组织章程。\n\n日期：2015年2月13日\n\n公司设立人\n\n代表位于 Nemours Chambers（内穆尔斯大厦）, Road Town（罗德城）, Tortola（托托拉岛）, British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的 Elian Fiduciary Services (BVI) Limited（Elian 受托服务（BVI）有限公司）签署\n\n授权签字人签名\n\nCharlotte Bailey（夏洛特·贝利）——正楷姓名\n\nSusan Palmer（苏珊·帕尔默）——正楷姓名\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约郡书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号：252 收到 NYSCEF：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-11 提交：04/13/22 录入：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 11 第36页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-2 提交：05/24/22 录入：05/24/22 23:04:58 第176页，共193页\n\nBritish Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）董事授权书\n\n为董事决议填注日期的授权\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约郡书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号：252 收到 NYSCEF：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-11 提交：04/13/22 录入：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 11 第37页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-2 提交：05/24/22 录入：05/24/22 23:04:58 第177页，共193页\n\n下列签署人正在根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立一家名为 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）（以下简称“本公司”）的公司。就本公司的设立而言，下列签署人已签署一份董事决议（以下简称“该决议”），提名若干“授权人士”，规定根据纽约州法律设立一家名为 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）（以下简称“该有限责任公司”）的有限责任公司，并进一步规定由该有限责任公司购买合作公寓协会的一份或多份股票证书，所有内容均详载于该决议中。\n\n下列签署人特此授权 Williams & Connolly LLP（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）的 Robert B. Barnett（罗伯特·B·巴尼特）、Jerry L. Shulman（杰里·L·舒尔曼）或 Michael F. O'Connor（迈克尔·F·奥康纳）中的任何一人，自2015年2月12日起生效，于本公司设立完成之日或之后，为该决议填注生效日期。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约郡书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号：252 收到 NYSCEF：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-11 提交：04/13/22 录入：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 11 第38页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-2 提交：05/24/22 录入：05/24/22 23:04:58 第178页，共193页\n\n唯一董事书面同意书\n\n下列签署人作为 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）唯一董事，该公司为一家英属维尔京群岛有限公司（以下简称“本公司”），根据英属维尔京群岛法律，以书面同意方式且不召开会议，特此同意通过以下决议：\n\n兹决议，Andrea L. Sanft, Esq.（安德里亚·L·桑夫特律师）特此获授权作为本公司的“授权人士”，提交设立名为 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）（以下简称“Genever New York”）的纽约有限责任公司组织证书，并采取其他必要行动及办理其他必要事项，以使 Genever New York 得以存续并取得在纽约州及纽约市开展业务的授权。在完成该等行动所必需的范围内，本公司作为 Genever New York 的唯一成员，特此授权桑夫特女士为同一目的以 Genever New York 的“授权人士”身份填写其姓名。\n\n兹进一步决议，Michael F. O'Connor, Esq.（迈克尔·F·奥康纳律师）特此获授权作为“授权人士”，代表 Genever New York 签署有限责任公司协议，其条款和条件由奥康纳先生认为适当者确定。\n\n兹进一步决议，Michael F. O'Connor, Esq.（迈克尔·F·奥康纳律师）特此获授权作为本公司的“授权人士”，促成本公司的子公司 Genever New York 与作为卖方的 Sherry 1800s LLC（Sherry 1800s 有限责任公司）订立购买协议，以购买 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（Sherry-Netherland 公司）的股票证书；该公司为位于纽约州纽约市第五大道781号的合作公寓（以下简称“Sherry-Netherland”），该购买涉及1801、1804、1807、1809、1811号单元及1519号佣人房，条款和条件应为本公司及 Genever New York 的代表与本公司的董事兼唯一股东已讨论的条款和条件。该授权可由奥康纳先生转授权；其可为同一目的指定 Genever New York 的一名或多名“授权人士”。\n\n兹进一步决议，桑夫特女士和奥康纳先生均获授权采取其他行动，并对文件作出其认为为执行本决议所列行动而适宜或必要的修改；对该等修改后文件的批准，即为该授权人士作出该等决定的证据。各授权人士均应在各方面为本公司及其股东的最佳利益而行事、履行职责并行使其专属酌处权，本公司的董事现获授权并将获授权按其认为适当的方式变更任何授权人士。\n\n第39页，共53页\n\n日期：2015年2月12日\n\n签署：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\nBritish Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）／New York（纽约）授权人士指定书\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）\n\n第41页，共53页\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）\n\n授权人士指定书\n\n下列签署人作为 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）的一名授权人士，该公司为一家英属维尔京群岛有限公司（以下简称“本公司”），特此作出以下授权委托：\n\n授权人士特此指定 Ira Gilbert, Esq.（艾拉·吉尔伯特律师）和 Steven Simkin, Esq.（史蒂文·西姆金律师）各自单独或共同作为 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）（以下简称“Genever New York”）的“授权人士”；Genever New York 为一家纽约有限责任公司，本公司是其唯一成员。授权人士向二人各自授予授权并指示二人各自与作为卖方的 Sherry 1800s LLC（Sherry 1800s 有限责任公司）订立购买协议，以购买 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（Sherry-Netherland 公司）的股票证书；该公司为位于纽约州纽约市第五大道781号的合作公寓（以下简称“Sherry-Netherland”），该购买涉及1801、1804、1807、1809、1811号单元及1519号佣人房，条款和条件应为本公司及 Genever New York 的代表与本公司的董事兼唯一股东已讨论的条款和条件。该授权不得由吉尔伯特先生或西姆金先生中的任何一人转授权。\n\n根据本授权人士指定书，吉尔伯特先生和西姆金先生均获授权采取其他行动，并对购买文件作出其认为为执行本指定书所授权行动而适宜或必要的修改；对该等修改后文件的批准，即为该授权人士作出该等决定的证据。\n\n日期：2015年2月13日\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约郡书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号：252 收到 NYSCEF：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-11 提交：04/13/22 录入：04/13/22 01:55:22 证物 11 第42页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-2 提交：05/24/22 录入：05/24/22 23:04:58 第182页，共193页\n\nNew York LLC（纽约有限责任公司）\n\n设立证明\n\n第43页，共53页 193\n\nNYS Department of State（纽约州务院）— Corporations Public Inquiry System（公司公开查询系统）— 会话编号：1586 第1页，共1页\n\nDOSP:CTECS 公司公开查询系统 02/17/15\n\n当前状态信息\n\n公司名称 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n假定名称\n\n生效日期 类型 状态\n\n02/17/2015 两年期报告\n\n原始名称 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n英语>>>\n\n公司成立日期 县 存续期限 管辖地 外国公司成立日期 非营利类型\n02/17/2015 _!_\nNEKY I\n\nCORPID 471.1112\n\n送达代理人名称 CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY\n地址 80 STATE STREET\n城市、州、邮编 ALBANY，NY\n12207 - 2543\n\n首席执行官姓名\n地址\n城市、州、邮编\n\nINP'101 - 按所需操作对应的功能键\n===>\n1=当前 2=印章 3=上一页 4=列表 5=历史记录\n6=股票\n7= 8= 9=名称 10=当前地址 11=留置权报告 12=名称录入\n\nIL\nJI! lllAT _OFF ._ii\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：252 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 11 第 44 页，共 53 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 184 页，共 193 页\n\n纽约有限责任公司。经营协议\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：252 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 录入日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 11 第 45 页，共 53 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 录入日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 185 页，共 193 页\n\n有限责任公司协议\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）\n\n本有限责任公司协议由 (a) GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（以下简称“公司”）及 (b) 附表 A 所列明的公司成员（以下简称“成员”，单称“一名成员”）于 2015 年 -rt:.A!i~ 的第 jJ 日订立。\n\n成员订立本协议，旨在依照经不时修订的 New York Limited Liability Company Law（纽约州有限责任公司法）（以下简称“本法”）组建公司，从而将公司设立为纽约州有限责任公司。\n\n本协议各方希望规定公司运营的条款和条件。本协议完整载明成员就公司达成的协议和谅解。\n\n因此，鉴于下文所载的承诺和协议，本协议各方同意如下：\n\n1. 定义。\n\n1.1 就任何成员而言，“家庭集团”包括：(i) 就作为个人的任何成员而言，该成员的配偶及后代；(ii) 就作为信托的任何成员而言，该信托的任何受益人及任何受益人的配偶和后代；以及 (iii) 就作为实体的任何成员而言，该实体的任何实益所有人及任何该等实益所有人的配偶和后代。\n\n1.2 “成员权益”是指成员在公司中的所有权权益。截至本协议日期，各成员的成员权益载于附表 A。\n\n1.3 “财产”具有第 5 条规定的含义。\n\n2. 名称：公司的名称为 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC。\n\n3. 组织文件；证书。成员可在其不时认为适当时，以书面文书选任一名或多名其他自然人，并指定其为公司的“获授权人士”。成员、任何高级职员或获授权人士应签署、交付和提交为使公司取得在公司希望开展业务的任何管辖区从事经营资格所必需的任何其他组织文件和/或证书（及其任何修订和/或重述）。\n\n4. 存续期限。本协议应自向纽约州州务卿提交公司的组织章程之日起生效，并永久存续。\n\n第 46 页，共 53 页\n\n5. 宗旨。公司的宗旨是取得、拥有、持有、管理、经营、维护、修理、改善、翻修、出售、融资、再融资以及以其他方式使用或处置本协议附表 B 所述财产、成员决定取得的其他不动产，以及通常位于其中、与其有关、用于其或供其使用的任何有形动产（统称为“财产”）；并从事本法项下有限责任公司可为之设立的任何其他合法业务或活动。为促进其宗旨，成员有权且据此获授权采取成员依其全权酌情决定认为为开展公司业务所必需、便利、适当或附带的一切行动，并从事相关活动（但须遵守本协议的进一步规定），包括但不限于取得、维护、改善、出售、出租和抵押不动产；成员应拥有并行使依本法设立的有限责任公司所获赋予的一切权力和权利。\n\n6. 权力。公司有权在最大可能范围内从事其业务所必需或适宜的一切事项。有限责任。除本法另有规定外，公司的债务、义务和责任，无论因合同、侵权或其他原因产生，均仅为公司的债务、义务和责任；成员不应仅因其为公司成员而就公司的任何该等债务、义务或责任承担个人责任。\n\n8. 办公地点。公司的主要办事处和营业地点应设于成员不时确定的地点。管理。公司的管理权应归属于成员。成员应拥有管理和控制公司业务及事务的完全、专属和完整的酌处权，并有权采取成员认为为实现本协议所述公司宗旨所必需或适当的一切行动。\n\n9.1.1 成员应享有约束公司的专属权力，但成员明确将该等权力授予任何其他个人或实体的除外；该等授权不应导致成员不再拥有该等权力。成员及/或在成员决定的范围内，根据第 9.3 条由成员任命的任何高级职员，均有权采取为促进本协议所载公司宗旨所必需或便利的一切行为。\n\n9.1.2 如在仅有一名成员时，本法要求成员作出任何表决或同意，则该成员的表决应视为成员的表决或同意。如有一名以上成员，除非本法或本协议要求更高多数，则持有公司多数成员权益的成员的表决应视为\n\n成员的表决或同意。成员可通过书面同意采取任何行动，无需召开会议，亦无需事先通知。\n\n第 47 页，共 53 页\n\n9.2 除法律授予的权力外，成员应拥有完全权力，在个人财产所有人所拥有的最大范围内且无需事先获得法院授权，采取成员认为管理公司适宜的一切行动，包括以下权力：在成员认为适宜的期间内保留，并通过购买或其他方式取得任何土地、不动产或动产；在无需先行取得法院命令的情况下，不受法定限制，以其认为适宜的方式以及按其认为适宜的条款和条件，以现金或赊销方式（通过公开或私下出售）出售、交换、抵押、以任何期间出租（无论作为出租人还是承租人，且包括续租），以及修改、延长或解除租约，授予选择权，或以其他方式处分或处理任何不动产或动产；建造、翻修或改造建筑物，或以其他方式改善和管理建筑物及财产；拆除建筑物；进行通常和非常规修理；授予地役权并订立共用墙协议；将道路供作公共用途；分割地块；调整边界线及进行分割；以实物、金钱或两者兼有的方式进行分配，即使各份额的构成不同；以代名人名义持有财产，或使其得以通过交付转让；续展、转让、修改、延长、和解、放弃、解除或仲裁公司提出或针对公司的请求权；聘请并依赖经纪人和投资顾问、会计师、评估师及其他专家和法律顾问，并向其支付报酬；雇用资产保管人、簿记员、文员及其他助理；以及为任何目的借款。\n\n9.3 高级职员。成员可在其不时认为适当时，选任一名或多名自然人，并指定其为公司的高级职员（以下简称“高级职员”），并向任何该等人士授予职称（包括但不限于总裁、副总裁、秘书和司库）。成员可通过书面文书将成员根据本协议享有的任何权力授予任何高级职员或公司的任何其他代理人，包括但不限于约束公司的权力。成员可随时撤销根据本第 9.3 条作出的任何授权。成员可有因或无因罢免高级职员。任何高级职员可随时向成员发出书面通知而辞职。任何职务因死亡、无行为能力、辞职或罢免而出现的空缺，应由成员填补。高级职员可以是成员或非成员。\n\n*9A* 成员和高级职员的信义义务。在行使本协议授予的权力及履行本协议就公司管理和运营所要求的职责时，根据一般法律原则，每一名成员和高级职员均负有信义义务，应合理地为公司和成员的最佳利益行事（或不与该等最佳利益相抵触）。\n\n10. 其他业务。成员及与任何成员有关联的任何个人或实体，可独立或与他人共同从事或持有各种类别和性质的其他业务经营（与公司无关）中的权益。公司或其他成员均不得仅凭本协议而对该等独立经营或由此产生的收入或利润享有任何权利。\n\n11. 责任和赔偿。\n\n11.1 在适用法律允许的最大范围内，公司的任何成员、高级职员、雇员或代理人（“受保护人士”）均不应就因该受保护人士作出或未作出的任何作为或不作为而遭受或产生的任何责任、损失、损害或请求权，对公司、任何成员或作为本协议一方或以其他方式受本协议约束的任何其他个人或实体承担责任；但受保护人士应就因该受保护人士的以下行为而遭受或产生的任何该等责任、损失、损害、成本或请求权承担责任：(a) 重大过失或故意不当行为；(b) 违反本协议的任何明示规定，或违反诚信和公平交易的默示合同承诺；及/或 (c) 违反该受保护人士的忠实义务（“不受保护的作为和不作为”）。与前句一致，每一名受保护人士可依赖其合理认为属于任何顾问或咨询人的专业能力范围内的任何事项之意见而作为或不作为，无需对公司或任何成员承担责任。\n\n11.2 在适用法律允许的最大范围内，并以公司资产为限，公司应就任何受保障人士因其就公司所实施或未实施的任何行为或不作为而遭受或发生的任何责任、损失、损害、费用或索赔，对该受保障人士予以赔偿、辩护并使其免受损害；但前提是：(i) 任何受保障人士均无权就该人士因其不受保护的行为及不作为而遭受或发生的任何该等责任、损失、损害、费用或索赔获得赔偿；以及 (ii) 根据本第11.2条作出的任何赔偿仅应从公司资产中并以公司资产为限提供，任何成员均不因此承担个人责任。\n\n11.3 在法律允许的最大范围内，就受本第11条约束的任何诉讼、诉讼程序或程序进行抗辩所发生的费用（包括但不限于合理的律师费及开支），应由公司在任何程序最终处置之前预先支付或偿还，且无需确定该受保障人士最终是否有权获得赔偿；但前提是，就程序最终处置之前预先发生的该等费用所作的支付，仅应在该人士向公司提交书面确认后作出，该确认载明其善意相信其已达到根据本条获得赔偿所必需的行为标准，并由该人士或代表该人士提交书面承诺，如最终确定该人士无权获得赔偿，则偿还所有如此预付的款项。\n\n12. 登记代理人。指定州务卿为可向其送达针对该有限责任公司的法律文书的有限责任公司代理人。州务卿应将向其送达的针对该有限责任公司的任何法律文书副本邮寄至本州境内或境外的下列地址：转交 Brad Karp（布拉德·卡普），Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP（保罗·韦斯、里夫金、沃顿及加里森律师事务所），1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019-6064。\n\n13. 资本出资。初始成员同意向公司资本出资附件A所述的现金或财产。作为该等出资的交换，每位成员应获得附件A所列百分比的公司成员权益。公司应根据不时依《法典》第704(6)条颁布的财政部条例，为每位成员维持独立的资本账户。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 11 第49页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第189页，共193页\n\n14. 额外出资/成员贷款。任何成员均无须向公司作出任何额外资本出资。经成员作出赞成票，成员可以向公司提供信贷。成员贷款不构成资本出资。\n\n15. 分配。\n\n15.1 利润与亏损。公司的利润和亏损应根据各成员的成员权益按比例分配给成员。本条规定的分配应在财政部条例第1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(i)条所指意义上具有等同的经济效果，并且仅为税务目的，应按照根据《法典》第704(c)条颁布的条例作出。\n\n15.2 财产的使用。\n\n15.2.1 如该财产未出租给租户，成员以及任何一位或多位成员家庭组成员均可公平使用该财产，具体使用方式由成员按成员权益多数表决决定。\n\n15.2.2 既非成员亦非任何成员家庭组成员的人士，仅可在事先获得成员一致批准后使用该财产。\n\n15.2.3 本协议任何规定均不得阻止任何成员在该成员或任何成员家庭组成员根据上述第15.2.1条使用该财产期间，邀请宾客在该财产留宿。\n\n16. 分派。应在成员确定的时间并按成员确定的总额向成员作出分派。该等分派应按照成员当时资本账户正余额的相同比例在成员之间分配。尽管本协议载有任何相反规定，如向任何成员就其在公司的权益作出分派将违反该法或其他适用法律，公司不得作出该等分派。\n\n17. 财产的出售。经成员表决，可出售该财产的任何部分或全部。\n\n18. 成员权益的转让。\n\n18.1 经除请求该等转让的成员以外的成员按成员权益多数同意，成员有权出售、转让、抵押、质押，或以其他方式自愿转移或设定负担于该成员成员权益的任何部分或全部；但前提是，不得作出任何会导致公司违反公司作为股东或成员的任何合作社协会或其他法人实体的任何规则、条例、章程或其他管辖安排的转让，且任何不符合本第18.1条规定的声称出售、转让、抵押、质押或其他转移或设定负担，均属无效。\n\n第50页，共53页\n\n18.2 此外，根据《未成年人统一赠与法》、《未成年人统一转让法》或任何类似法律，由保管人为未成年人持有的任何成员权益，可在该未成年人达到适用法规规定的该保管关系终止年龄时，全部转让及让与给该未成年人。由实体持有的任何权益，均可全部转让及让与给其受益所有人。\n\n18.3 任何根据本条取得成员权益的受让人，仅在其向公司交付书面文书、据此批准并采纳经修订的本协议全部条款后，方可被接纳为成员。该等接纳应视为于转让之前立即生效；如转让的是转让成员在公司中的全部权益，则在该等接纳后，转让成员应立即不再是公司成员。如根据本第18.3条发生转让及接纳受让人，公司应继续存续而不解散。\n\n19. 公司接纳额外成员。经成员同意，并在其向公司交付书面文书、据此批准并采纳经修订的本协议全部条款后，可接纳一名或多名额外成员加入公司。\n\n20. 成员退出。成员可随时退出公司。\n\n21. 解散。\n\n21.1 在下列事项中最先发生的一项发生时，公司应解散并清算其事务：(i) 经成员一致表决；(ii) 公司没有任何成员时，除非公司根据本协议及该法继续存续；或 (iii) 该法另有要求时。\n\n21.2 公司解散后，成员应：(i) 清算公司事务；(ii) 支付公司所有未偿费用、不动产税及其他债务和责任（包括但不限于对任何成员所负的债务和责任）；(iii) 就成员认为适当的公司责任或义务设立准备金；以及 (iv) 将公司剩余资产分配给成员，(a) 按其资本账户正余额的比例分配，直至该等资本账户降至零；以及 (b) 此后按其各自成员权益分配。\n\n22. 税务事项。公司应根据《法典》第6231(a)(7)条指定一名“税务事项合伙人”。如公司拥有多于一名成员，则就联邦及州所得税目的而言，公司应被视为合伙企业。如公司仅有一名成员，则就联邦及州所得税目的而言，公司应被视为独资企业及被忽略实体。\n\n23. 修订。本协议仅可经成员一致书面同意不时修改、变更、补充或修订。\n\n24. 具有约束力的协议；继承人及受让人。成员同意，本协议对本协议各方及其各自继承人和获准受让人具有约束力，并应使本协议各方及其各自继承人和获准受让人受益。\n\n25. 条款可分割性。本协议的每项条款均应被视为可分割；如因任何原因，本协议中任何一项或多项条款根据任何现行或未来法律被认定为无效、不可执行或不合法，该等无效性、不可执行性或不合法性不得损害本协议中有效、可执行及合法部分的实施或影响该等部分。\n\n26. 副本。本协议可签署任意数量的副本，包括通过传真或电子签名签署，每一副本均应视为本协议的正本。\n\n27. 完整协议。本协议构成本协议各方就本协议标的事项达成的完整协议，并取代各方此前就该标的事项达成的所有谅解或协议。\n\n28. 准据法。本协议应受纽约州法律管辖并依其解释（不考虑任何其他适用的法律冲突原则），所有权利和救济均受该等法律管辖。\n\n29. 永久规则。如本协议或本协议中的任何约定或条款因违反永久规则而原本属不合法、无效或可撤销，则视具体情况而定，本协议或该约定或条款应于本协议签署日仍在世的英格兰国王乔治五世所有后裔中最后一位存活者死亡后二十一（21）年终止。\n\n兹证明，本协议各方已于上述首次载明日期正式签署本协议。\n成员：\n\n第52页，共53页 193\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司）\n\n签署人：, ~f!> >e,Jt~~ J~toxt~ /)~Irr\\ 姓名及职务 r\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）\n\n签署人：Genever Holdings Corporation，唯一成员\n\n签署人：姓名及职务\n\no)&«l,A--t-;/' 4'>4:~~~~\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 252 NYSCEF 收讫：11/28/2018 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-11 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 11 第53页，共53页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-2 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第193页，共193页\n\n附件A\n\n成员\n\n成员权益\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation\n\n100%\n\n合计\n\n100%","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":5,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":7,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":15,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":16,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":17,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":83,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":121,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":141,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":252,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":461,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":576,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":685,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":725,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1078,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1089,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1098,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1187,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1190,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1191,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1193,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":60055,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-04-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-04-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:37:19"}