{"id":"court_ctb_432_3","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":432,"sub_number":3,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-04-13","title":"22-01073-dsj Doc 14-12 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 12 Pg 1 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"22-01073-dsj Doc 14-12 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 12 Pg 1 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 1 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 12**\n\n**Case Number :BVIHCOM2020/0137 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2022 08:08 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1089 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-12 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 12 Pg 2 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 2 of 174\n\n**FILED** HIGH COURT TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS\n\n**THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT**\n\n**VIRGIN ISLANDS**\n\n**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE**\n\n**COMMERCIAL DIVISION**\n\n**Submitted Date:07/12/2021 09:48**\n\n**Filed Date:07/12/2021 09:48**\n\n**Fees Paid:72.59**\n\n**Claim No BVIHC (Com) 137 of 2020**\n\n**BETWEEN**\n\n**PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP**\n\n**Claimant**\n\n**and**\n\n## **(l)GENEVER HOLDINGS CORP. (2) BRAVO LUCK LIMITED (3) KWOK HO WAN (also known as MILES KWOK, HO WAN KWOK and GUO WEN GUI) (4)QIANG GUO (also known as QUO QIANG and MILESON KWOK)**\n\n**Defendant**\n\n## **ORDER**\n\n**BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ADRIAN JACK [Ag]**\n\n**MADE** 6 December 2021\n\n**ENTERED** December 2021\n\nUPON the Supreme Court of the State of New York having made an order on 8 September 2021 directing the Third Defendant to transfer the shares issued by the First Defendant and held in his name to the Claimant {the **Turnover Order)**\n\nAND UPON the application of the Claimant dated 11 November 2021 (the **Variation Application)**\n\nAND UPON the application of the Second Defendant for an order which would (i) adjourn today's hearing and (ii) dismiss the Claimant's application dated 11 November 2021 (the **Adjournment Application)**\n\nAND UPON HEARING Mr Andrew Willins and Miss Tamara Cameron of Appleby (BVI) Limited for the Claimant, Mr Robert Nader of Forbes Hare on behalf of the First and Third Defendants, and Mr Dan Wise and Miss Nadine Whyte-Laing of O'Neal Webster on behalf of the Second and Fourth Defendants\n\nIT IS ORDERED THAT:\n\n- 1 The Adjournment Application be dismissed.\n- 2 The Order of this Court dated 3 December 2019 (originally made in Claim Number 170/2019, but consolidated with this action) and the further order of this Court dated 30 October 2020, in each case as subsequently continued, be varied to:\n\t- (i) Permit the Third Defendant to transfer the shares registered in his name in the First Defendant to the Claimant in compliance with the Turnover Order; and\n\t- (ii) Permit the First Defendant (and its Registered Agent) to update the Register of Members of the First Defendant to reflect the transfer by the Third Defendant of the shares registered in his name to the Claimant.\n- 3 The Second and Fourth Defendants shall pay the Claimant's costs of the Adjournment Application and the Variation Application, to be assessed if not agreed.\n\nBY THE COURT\n\nfor the REGISTRAR\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_11.jpeg)\n\nTHE EASTERN **CARIBBEAN** SUPREME COURT\n\nVIRGIN ISLANDS\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE\n\nCOMMERCIAL DIVISION\n\nClaim No BVIHC (Com) 137 of 2020\n\n## **BETWEEN**\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE **ASIA** OPPORTUNITY FUND LP\n\nClaimant\n\nand\n\n- (1) GENEVER HOLDINGS CORP\n- (2) **BRAVO** LUCK LIMITED\n- (3) KWOK HO WAN (also known as MILES KWOK, HO WAN KWOK and GUO WEN GUI)\n- (4) QIANG GUO (also known as QUO QIANG and MILESON KWOK)\n\nDefendant\n\n**ORDER**\n\n![](_page_3_Picture_17.jpeg)\n\n## Legal Practitioners for the Claimant\n\nTel: + 1 284 393 5323 Email: awillins@applebyglobal.com\n\nRef: AW.432766.0003\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-13 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 13 Pg 1 of 6 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 5 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 13**\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 14-13 | Filed 04/13/22 | Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | Exhibit 13 |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| 22-01073-dsj | Doc 432-3 | Filed 05/24/22 | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 | Page 6 of |\n| | | | | |\n\n| From: | Pg 2 of 6
174
Erica Cheng |\n|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| To: | Steffi Tam |\n| Sent: | 3/16/2011 8:51 :03 AM |\n| Subject: | Pangu |\n| Attachments: | Loan Facility 20110316.pdf; Notice of Confirmation 20110316.pdf; Personal Guarantee
20110316.pdf |\n\n## Dear Steffi,\n\nSorry for my late reply. Attached plesae find herewith documents signed by Mr. Kwok Ho Wan for your further handling.\n\nKind regareds, Erica 111::::.rica Cheng STll::::.Vlll::::.N SOIN, WONG & **CO.**\n\n4/F & 5/F. Central Tower. 28 Quee n's Road Central. HK. D + 852 2533 2585 F + 852 2157 5550 e rica .che ng(rosw-hk.corn htt /www.sw-hk.com/\n\nThis email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient My other use or dissemination is strictly prohibited. *W* you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.\n\nStevenson, Wong & Co. 4/F & 5/F, Central Tower, No.28 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2526 6311 , Fax: (852) 2845 0638, Web site: htt\n\nChina Office Suite 1704, Citic Plaza, 233 Tian He N. Road, Guangzhou 510613, China Tel: (8620) 8752 1228, Fax: (8620) 8752 1268\n\nWorldwide coverage of Legal Advisory Services since 1982 through the well established lnterlaw network constituted by 5000 lawyers in 70 law firms in 127 Business Centres in all Principal Jurisdictions. A list of the firm's principals will be provided upon request\n\n**From:** Steffi Tam [mailto:stam@pacific-alliance.com] **Sent:** Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:37 PM **To:** Erica Cheng **Subject:** RE: Pangu\n\nHi, Erica - So when can you send me the signed documents?\n\n## **Steffi Tam Legal Counsel**\n\n15/F, AIA Central 1 Conna ught Road Central Hong Kong ~;itp:J=tFFMB~tp 1'iu'1lz:'f~~i¥Jttp1Co,15tl\n\nT (852) 3719 3373 F (852) 2918 0881\n\n**Pacific Alliance** Group:t:fil/:f'Sc\\:j\\'~M] www.pacific-alliance.com\n\n**From:** Steffi Tam **Sent:** Friday, March 11, 2011 3:18 PM **To:** 'Erica Cheng' **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Ian Zheng; 'pg-office@panguplaza.com'; 'Hank Lo'; Derek Crane\n\n#### **Subject:** RE: Pangu 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-13 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 13 Pg 3 of 6 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 7 of 174\n\nHI , Erica:\n\nWould you please let us have the update on the status? Is there anything that we can help to expedite the process? You/your client signed off on the documents about 10 days ago and still we have not received the signed documents.\n\nYour prompt response is highly appreciated.\n\nThanks.\n\nSteffi\n\n**From:** Steffi Tam **Sent:** Monday, March 07, 2011 10:37 AM **To:** 'Erica Cheng' **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Ian Zheng; 'pg-office@panguplaza.com'; 'Hank Lo'; Derek Crane **Subject:** RE: Pangu\n\nHi, Erica - Would you please update us the status of signing by your client? We would like to get these documents signed ASAP.\n\nThanks.\n\nBest regards, Steffi\n\n**Steffi Tam Legal Counsel**\n\n15/F, AIA Centra l 1 Connaught Road Central Hong Kong WiitpJ:tFFMB~tp 1'iu'1lz:'f~~i¥Jttp1Co,15tl\n\nT (852) 3719 3373 F (852) 2918 0881\n\n**Pacific Alliance** Group:t:fil/:f'St:j\\'-i':[~] www.pacific-alliance.com\n\n**From:** Steffi Tam **Sent:** Tuesday, March 01, 20111:01 PM **To:** 'Erica Cheng' **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Ian Zheng; 'pg-office@panguplaza.com'; Hank Lo; Derek Crane **Subject:** RE: Pangu\n\nHi, Erica - Yes, please. Please send us the documents signed by your client and we will sign afterwards.\n\nSteffi\n\n**Steffi Tam Legal Counsel**\n\n15/F, AIA Central 1 Connaught Road Central Hong Kong WiitpJ:tffM'imtp 1'iu'1lz:'f~~i¥Jttp1Co,15tl\n\nT (852) 3719 3373\n\n**Pacific Alliance** Group:t:fil/:f'Sc\\:j\\'~M] www.pacific-alliance.com\n\n**From:** Erica Cheng [mailto:Erica.Cheng@sw-hk.com] **Sent:** Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:58 PM **To:** Steffi Tam **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Ian Zheng; 'pg-office@panguplaza.com'; Hank Lo; Derek Crane **Subject:** RE: Pangu\n\nDear Steffi,\n\nWe are arranging Mr. Kwok to sign the documents, including facility letter, notice of confirmation and personal guarantee. Shall we exchange the execution pages by email first once they are signed? Originals will follow.\n\nKind regards, Erica\n\n**From:** Steffi Tam [mailto:stam@pacific-alliance.com] **Sent:** Monday, February 28, 2011 9:08 AM **To:** Erica Cheng **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Ian Zheng; 'pg-office@panguplaza.com'; Hank Lo; Derek Crane **Subject:** Re: Pangu\n\nHi, Erica:\n\nWould you please follow up with your client on the documents? We need to get these signed ASAP.\n\nThanks. Steffi\n\n**From:** Steffi Tam **To:** 'Erica.Cheng@sw-hk.com' < Erica.Cheng@sw-hk.com> **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Ian Zheng; 'pg-office@panguplaza.com' ; 'Hank.Lo@sw-hk.com' ; Derek Crane **Sent:** Thu Feb 24 13:06:53 2011 **Subject:** Re: Pangu\n\nHi, Erica:\n\nThanks for the revised draft Facility Letter.\n\nRe 2(a) of the Facility Letter, the Borrower needs to pay the US\\$5m within 7 business days after receipt of the RMB from the Lender. Please incorporate that change and we are in a position to sign.\n\nPlease confirm with your client and arrange for signing of the Facility Letter and Guarantee ASAP.\n\nThanks. Steffi\n\n**From:** Erica Cheng **To:** Steffi Tam **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Ian Zheng; 'pg-office@panguplaza.com' ; Hank Lo **Sent:** Wed Feb 23 23:36:07 2011 **Subject:** Pangu\n\nDear Steffi,\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-13 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 13 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 9 of\n\nEnclosed please find herewith draft 3 of the facility letter for your consideration. Kindly note that the revised faciity letter is sending to our client simultaneously and will be subject to further comments, if any. Pg 5 of 6 174\n\nWe have no further comments on the guarantee.\n\nKind regards, Erica Erica Cheng STEVENSON, WONG & **CO.**\n\n4/F & 5/F. . Ce ntral Tower. 28 Quee n's Road Central. HK. D + 852 2533 2585 F + 852 2157 5550 erica.cheng(rosw-hk.com htt /www.sw-hk.com/\n\nThis email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient My other use or dissemination is strictly prohibited. *W* you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.\n\nStevenson, Wong & Co. 4/F & 5/F, Central Tower, No.28 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2526 6311 , Fax: (852) 2845 0638, Web site: htt\n\nChina Office Suite 1704, Citic Plaza, 233 Tian He N. Road, Guangzhou 510613, China Tel: (8620) 8752 1228, Fax: (8620) 8752 1268\n\nWorldwide coverage of Legal Advisory Services since 1982 through the well established lnterlaw network constituted by 5000 lawyers in 70 law firms in 127 Business Centres in all Principal Jurisdictions. A list of the firm's principals will be provided upon request\n\n**From:** Steffi Tam [mailto:stam@pacific-alliance.com] **Sent:** Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:33 PM **To:** Erica Cheng **Cc:** Jon Lewis **Subject:** Re: Pangu\n\nHi, Erica: Any update on the documents? We need to sign the documents ASAP. Please revert.\n\nThanks. Steffi\n\n**From:** Christie Ching **To:** 'Erica Cheng' **Cc:** Jon Lewis; Steffi Tam **Sent:** Mon Feb 14 15:41:30 2011 **Subject:** Pangu\n\nDear Erica,\n\nEnclosed please find our comments on the attached personal guarantee and facility letter.\n\nKind regards,\n\n**Christie Ching** c/o Pacific Alliance Investment Management (HK) Limited 16/F St John\\$B !&(B€\\$B !&(Bs Building 33 Garden Road, Central Hong Kong \\$B!&(B1\\$B!&!&(B:7,y\\$B!&(B:71\\$B!&!&(B-\\$B!&!&(B7\\$B!&!&!&!&!&!&(B33\\$B!&!&!&!&!&!&!&(BI\\$B!&!&(B'/-\\$B!&(B, r\\$B!&(Blr\\$B!&(B16\\$B!&(B1\\$B!&(B\n\nT (852) 3719 3306 F (852) 2918 0881\n\nThe information contained in this email (including all attached files) is confidential and may be legally privileged. *W* you are not the intended recipient. you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way. *W* you have received this email in error. please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the email and all attachments from your system. Thank you.\n\nThe information contained in this email (including all attached files) is confidential and may be legally privileged. *W* you are not the intended recipient. you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way. *W* you have received this email in error. please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the email and all attachments from your system. Thank you.\n\nThe information contained in this email (including all attached files) is confidential and may be legally privileged. *W* you are not the intended recipient. you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way. *W* you have received this email in error. please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the email and all attachments from your system. Thank you.\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 14 Pg 1 of 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 11 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 14**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 14 Pg 2 of 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 12 of 174\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | |\n| | -
v - | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 009 |\n| | GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE | | |\n| | HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, | | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS | | |\n| CORPORATION, | | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nThe Court heard oral argument on motion 009 by plaintiff for damages on December 18, 2020 via Microsoft Teams. In accordance with the documents submitted and the proceedings on the record, plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent of awarding plaintiff damages of \\$46,426,489.00 (unpaid principal) plus contractual interest pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010. *See* Aff. of Jon Lewis made on personal knowledge (NYSCEF Doc. No. 563).\n\n## **Procedural History**\n\nOn September 15, 2020, the Court issued a Decision and Order on Motion 007, plaintiff's motion for summary judgement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 549). The Court found Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") liable for breach of contract, specifically the 2011 Personal Guarantee entered into by the parties. In this Decision and Order, the Court expressed skepticism about Kwok's newly raised mitigation argument but reserved ruling on the issue until the Court determined damages. The Court directed plaintiff to file a motion setting forth both damages pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee and attorney's fees which the Court expressly found that plaintiff is entitled\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 14 Pg 3 of 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 13 of 174\n\nto under the contract. The issue of damages, and whether the Court should pierce the corporate veil and hold the Genever defendants liable remained outstanding.\n\nBecause the veil piercing issue will require a trial by jury, the Court asked plaintiff to withdraw the portion of Motion 009 which sought attorney's fees, and to renew it at the resolution of the entire action. Plaintiff agreed to do so, and thus this motion only addresses the damages portion of Motion 009.\n\nThe initial briefing on this motion included a cross-motion by defendant Kwok to amend his Answer to assert mitigation as an affirmative defense. In its November 12, 2020 Status Conference Order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 648) the Court directed that Kwok need not amend his Answer to argue his mitigation defense. Accordingly, this Decision and Order addresses the merits of plaintiff's motion for damages and Kwok's mitigation defense.\n\n## **Discussion**\n\nAs the Court had already found Kwok liable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, plaintiff filed a straightforward motion setting forth the interest owed on the unpaid principal pursuant to the terms of the agreement. In opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff had a duty to mitigate its damages, specifically by pursuing an offer from the Beijing police to potentially sell apartments to plaintiff – the same apartments that Kwok was supposed to transfer to plaintiff to satisfy his debt owed to plaintiff.\n\nAs stated in the Decision and Order on Motion 007 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 549):\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\n\nand 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. . . . [S]everal 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 purchase of the apartments, failed to provide plaintiff with evidence regarding the payment of all relevant taxes and charges in\n\nconnection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and failed to deliver the\n\nHouse Ownership Certificates of any of the Apartments to plaintiff. . . . Because the conditions precedent were not satisfied by June 30, 2015 the Deed of Settlement was terminated and its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee was once again in full force and effect.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 14 Pg 4 of 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 14 of 174\n\nDefendants first argue that plaintiff had a duty to mitigate its damages \"once the Deed of Settlement was breached.\" However, the Deed of Settlement was never \"breached\" because the Deed of Settlement never went into effect, because the conditions precedent were not satisfied by June 30, 2015. Defendants argue that the conditions listed above were not conditions precedent, because \"the Deed of Settlement was not conditioned upon anything happening before it could come into full force and effect\" (*See* Def. Sur-Reply at p. 7). The Court rejects this argument raised for the first time in defendants' sur-reply. Defendants had until June 30, 2015 to satisfy the conditions precent. Failure to meet the conditions prior to June 30, 2015 was not a breach of the agreement, and on June 30, 2015, the failure to meet the conditions precedent resulted in the nullification of the Deed of Settlement and reversion to the 2011 Personal Guarantee, not a \"breach\" of the agreement.\n\nDefendants next argue that there are genuine issues of material fact that would show plaintiff had the opportunity to mitigate its damages prior to the expiration of the Deed of Settlement. First, the Court has already found – based on documentary evidence submitted by both parties – that the opportunity presented by the Beijing police only came up *after* June 2015\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 14 Pg 5 of 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 15 of 174\n\nwhen the Deed of Settlement had already expired. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 549 at p. 6. Second, it does not make a difference as a matter of law when the police presented the opportunity to plaintiff. If it was prior to June 30, 2015, then plaintiff did not know whether or not Kwok would fulfill the conditions precedent and transfer plaintiff the apartments, and thus there was nothing to mitigate and no reason to pursue alternative methods of procuring the apartments. If it was after June 30, 2015, the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in effect, and under Hong Kong law, mitigation is inapplicable to a debt-repayment claims. Both plaintiff and Kwok's experts in Hong Kong law affirm this. *See* Melwani Aff. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 640) at ¶ 10 (\"the Court of Final Appeal … has confirmed … that mitigation is not applicable to claims for repayment of a debt\") *and* Georgiou Aff. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 667) at ¶ 7 (\"I agree with Mr. Melwani that the principle of mitigation does not apply to a claim for repayment of a debt where that claim is made under a . . . personal guarantee.\").\n\nDefendants further argue that plaintiff had an obligation to pursue the offer from the Beijing police because plaintiff was allegedly being presented with an opportunity to receive the benefit it had bargained for under the Deed of Settlement – the apartments. As stated above, plaintiff did not have an obligation to pursue mitigation of a debt-repayment claim. However, even if plaintiff did have a duty to mitigate, as the Court has already found, plaintiff is only ever required to *reasonably* mitigate damages. The proposal to purchase the apartments from the Beijing police for \\$17 M, when plaintiff was supposed have the apartments transferred to it for zero dollars (in satisfaction of a debt) is hardly receiving the benefit for which plaintiff had bargained.\n\nFinally, defendants argue that plaintiff has possession of the keys to the apartments, and that that must be worth something to offset the contractual damages under the 2011 Personal\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-14 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 14 Pg 6 of 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 16 of 174\n\nGuarantee. Defendants cite no legal authority for this contention. While this type of conclusory assertion is insufficient to bar judgment as a matter of law, the Court notes that even under the Deed of Settlement, plaintiff did not bargain for mere possession of the apartments, and instead plaintiff bargained for clean title so that it could legally sell the apartments in satisfaction of the debt Kwok owed plaintiff. *See* Pl. Reply Memo at p. 11.\n\nIn conclusion, Kwok's mitigation argument is without merit and plaintiff is entitled to contractual damages and interest under the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\nThe Court notes that plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for veil piercing against the Genever defendants must still be tried. A trial on the remaining claim was set for January 15, 2021. The parties have submitted a stipulation requesting to adjourn the trial without a date, in light of (1) the present prohibition on jury trials in New York State due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and (2) the bankruptcy stay against one of the Genever defendants. This request is granted. A status conference is scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am to report on the status of the Genever bankruptcy.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. and against defendant Kwok Ho Wan in the amount 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.\n\nDecember 18, 2020 **\\$SIG\\$**\n\n**DATE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C.**\n\n| FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM | | | | | | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---|--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 | Doc 14-14
Doc 432-3 | | Filed 04/13/22
Filed 05/24/22
Pg 7 of 7
174 | | Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22
Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 | Exhibit 14
Page 17 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| CHECK ONE: | | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | |\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 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15 Pg 1 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 18 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 15**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15 Pg 2 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 19 of 174\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**NOTICE OF APPEAL**\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\n- against -\n\nKWOK HO WAN, et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE**, that Defendant Kwok Ho Wan hereby appeals to the Appellate\n\nDivision, First Judicial Department, from the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New\n\nYork, County of New York dated February 3, 2021, and entered in the office of the New York\n\nCounty Clerk on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716), and from each and every part thereof.\n\nDated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, March 2, 2021\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n\nBy: *\\_/s/ John Siegal\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_*\n\nJohn Siegal Melissa Carvalho Erica Barrow 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 212-589-1400 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com ebarrow@bakerlaw.com *Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan*\n\nTo: Clerk of the County of New York (via NYSCEF) All counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)\n\n# **~r.cm.c s llll\\\\ cau,e· b) \\\\ hic·h th 111.Jllel \\\\,h pr is tt, be· ~·n111111c·11L·,·d. Pl ,1' a111c11tkd.For Court of Original Instance | For Court of Original Instance | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP. | | | |\n| -
against -
Kwok Ho Wan, et al. | | | Date Notice of Appeal Filed
For Appellate Division |\n| ( .i,c· l pc·
' I | | | |\n| iii
Civil Action
0
CPLR article 75 Arbitration | D CPLR article 78 Proceeding
D
Special Proceeding Other
D Habeas Corpus Proceeding | iii Appeal
D
Original Proceedings
0 CPLR Article 78
0 Eminent Domain
0 Labor Law 220 or 220-b
D Public Officers Law§ 36
0 Real Property Tax Law§ 1278 | D Transferred Proceeding
0 CPLR Article 78
0 Executive Law § 298
• CPLR 5704 Review |\n| Nature of Suit: ( IK·ck up 111 tlm:1· tll. | th1· li) | | ll t)\\\\ i11g catcg11ri1·-., \"hich h1·-.,1 r1·ll1·ct th1· 11:1turc tlf till' 1·a,1·. |\n| • Administrative Review | !ii Business Relationships | !ii Commercial | iii Contracts |\n| • Declaratory Judgment | D Domestic Relations | • Election Law | D Estate Matters |\n| D Family Court | D Mortgage Foreclosure | D Miscellaneous | 0 Prisoner Discipline & Parole |\n| • Real Property
( other than foreclosure) | • Statutory | 0 Taxation | •
Torts |\n\n| | Appeal | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Paper Appealed From (Check one only): | | | If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or
judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please
indicate the below information for each such order or
judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. |\n| D Amended Decree
• Amended Judgement
• Amended Order
• Decision | • Determination
D Finding
• Interlocutory Decree
• Interlocutory Judgment | • Order
0 Order & Judgment
D Partial Decree
• Resettled Decree | • Resettled Order
• Ruling
D Other (specify): |\n| D Decree | i!!I Judgment | D Resettled Judgment | |\n| Court: | El
Supreme Court | New York
County: | |\n| Dated:
02/03/2021 | | Entered: 02/03/2021 | |\n| Judge (name in full): Hon. Barry R. Ostrager | | Index No.:652077/2017 | |\n| Stage: | D Interlocutory i!!I Final • Post-Final | D Yes • No
Trial: | lfYes: 0 Jury D Non-Jury |\n| | Prior Un perfected Appeal and Related Case Information | | |\n| | Index No. 150823/2021. Dismissed without prejudice.
Original Proceeding | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) | |\n| Court: | | | |\n| Judge (name in full): | | | |\n| | Choose Court | | |\n| | CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: | | |\n| | | | |\n| Court: | Choose Court | County: | Choose Countv |\n| Judge (name in full): | Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues | Dated: | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15 Pg 5 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 22 of 174\n\nIssues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal.\n\nWithout limiting the arguments that may be presented on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan states: that the Judgment should be reversed in its entirety; that the Supreme Court's orders which, inter alia, imposed sanctions and a judicial estoppel upon him, granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against him, and awarded damages against him, were in error and should be reversed; and that numerous genuine issues of material fact existed as to both liability and damages that should have precluded the entry of summary judgment on either liability or damages.\n\n## Party Information\n\nInstructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party's name and his, her, or its status in this court.\n\n| No. | Party Name | | Original Status | | | |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------|-----|--|\n| 1 | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. | Plaintiff | | Appellate Division Status
El Respondent | | |\n| 2 | Kwok Ho Wan | Defendant | | G Appellant | Ell | |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings LLC | Defendant | El | -
None | G | |\n| 4 | Genever Holdings Corporation | Defendant | | 13 None | G | |\n| s | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15 Pg 6 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 23 of 174\n\n| in the spaces provided. | | | Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the
notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division,
only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or
himself, the box marked \"Pro Se\" must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied |\n|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Attorney/Firm Name:Edward Moss, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | | I |\n| Address:? Times Square | | | |\n| City:New York | I State:New York | I Zip:10036 | I Telephone No:212-326-2000 |\n| E-mail Address:emoss@omm.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | • Government | • Prose
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
Attorney/Firm Name: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | | I |\n| Address:7 Times Square | | | |\n| City:New York | I State:New York | I Zip:10036 | I Telephone No:212-326-2000 |\n| E-mail Address: ssamoff@omm.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | D Government | • Pro Se
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: Robert W. Seiden | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | \\ |\n| Address:1120 Avenue of the Americas | | | |\n| City:New York | I State:NewYork | I Zip:10036 | I Telephone No:212-626-6708 |\n| | E-mail Address:rseiden@seidenlegal.com | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | D Government | • Prose
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| Address:45 Rockefeller Center | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
Attorney/Firm Name: John Siegal, Baker & Hostetler LLP | | \\ |\n| City:New York | I State:New York | I Zip:10111 | I Telephone No:212-589-1400 |\n| E-mail Address:jsiegal@baker1aw.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | D Government | • Pro Se
0 Pro Hae Vice |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
Attorney/Firm Name: Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | | a |\n| Address: 99 Church Street, 4th floor | | | |\n| City: White Plains | I State:New York | I Zip: 10601 | I Telephone No:973-285-3280 |\n| E-mail Address:aaron@lrnesq.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
Retained | 0 Government | • Prose
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | 3 MG,\\ t{ |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: | | | |\n| Address: | | | |\n| City: | I State: | I Zip: | I Telephone No: |\n| E-mail Address: | | | |\n| | • Assigned | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice |\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\n**17 652077**\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nV.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**[liftOI OSEff] JUDGMENT**\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\nDefendants.\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\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\nPg 7 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 24 of 174\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. **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/20216 of 922-01073-dsj Doc 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15\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 Pg 8 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 25 of 174\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. **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/20217 of 922-01073-dsj Doc 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15\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, **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/20218 of 922-01073-dsj Doc 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**AFFIRMATION OF EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.**\n\n![](_page_25_Picture_6.jpeg)\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\nPg 9 of 10 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 26 of 174\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 |\n|---------------------|--|---------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 432-3 | Filed 05/24/22 | | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 | Page 27 of | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 |\n| | | | | | Pg 10 of 10
174 | | | |\n\nSlXPRE.\\lE COURT Of THE STATE OF NE\\V YC)RK COUNTY or··Nt\\v·.·vonK fod~KNn,. 652077/2(H7\n\nPACTFlC. ALJ.lANC E ASl.A OFPO.RTl)NfTY FU ND LJt,\n\nKWOK HO W.AN,. *dlkht* KWOK HO, ,#kh GWO \\\\.'EN oc 1,· {l-''ls,/t1. ··Gt.Jo··tvENG·Ul, .tuk·\\I.·GUn•·\"'{ EN:..ou1, *a/l:.ld* W.AN GUE HAO-YUN, a//4/a NULE:S K\\VOK, idkki HAOYUN GLD, (iENE\\/ER HOL1)1NGS (.IJRm)RA.TiON, and GEN EV'hR HOLDINGS LLC, **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/20219 of 922-01073-dsj Doc 14-15 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 15\n\n![](_page_26_Picture_8.jpeg)\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 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 1 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 28 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 16**\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 29 of\n\nPg 2 of 26\n\n174\n\n**FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 10/15/2021 02:10 PM** 2021-00740\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2021\n\nMARK C. ZAUDERER *(Time Requested: 15 Minutes)*\n\n*To be Argued by:*\n\n# New York Supreme Court\n\nAppellate Division—First Department\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n*Plaintiff-Respondent,*\n\n– against –\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui, a/k/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui, a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun, a/k/a Miles Kwok, a/k/a Haoyun Guo,\n\n*Defendant-Appellant,*\n\n– and –\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n*Defendants.*\n\n## **REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT**\n\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP 360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 922-9250 mzauderer@ganfershore.com imatetsky@ganfershore.com jcohen@ganfershore.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant*\n\nNew York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/17\n\n**Appellate Case No.: 2021-00740**\n\n## **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n## **Page**\n\n| | TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ii |\n|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 |\n| | ARGUMENT 2 |\n| POINT I | |\n| | THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS
BASED ON AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL
ESTOPPEL 2 |\n| A. | The Elements of Judicial Estoppel Were Not Present 2 |\n| B. | PAX's Judicial Admissions Theory, Which Was
Not
Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit
8 |\n| C. | PAX's \"Sanctions for Perjury\" Theory, Which Was
Not Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit
12 |\n| D. | PAX's Contention that It Was Entitled to Summary
Judgment
Apart
from the Judicial Estoppel Ruling Is
Meritless15 |\n| POINT II | |\n| | THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE
THE
MOTION COURT ERRED BY REJECTING THE
DEFENSE
THAT PAX FAILED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES16 |\n| | CONCLUSION20 |\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n## **Page(s)**\n\n## **Cases:**\n\n| 35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC,
171 A.D.3d 545 (1st Dep't 2019) 2 | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon,
171 A.D.3d 197 (2d Dep't 2019) 8 | |\n| Barish v. Association of the Bar,
20 N.Y.2d 154 (1967) 5 | |\n| Bernstein v. Freudman,
180 A.D.2d 420 (1st Dep't 1992)18 | |\n| Carr v. Caputo,
114
A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013) 3 | |\n| CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen,
23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)
13, 14 | |\n| D & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC,
287 A.D.2d 65 (1st Dep't 2001)3, 4 | |\n| Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.,
169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019) 5 | |\n| Koch v. National Basketball Ass'n,
245 A.D.2d 230 (1st Dep't 1997)5, 6 | |\n| MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith,
182 A.D.3d 514 (1st Dep't 2020) 3 | |\n| Matter of Daniel C.,
99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984)11 | |\n| Matter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P.,
181 A.D.3d 461 (1st Dep't 2020)8, 12 | |\n| Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny,
189 A.D.3d 583 (1st Dep't 2020), leave to appeal granted,
36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021) 7 | |\n| Micro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst,
155 A.D.3d 1638 (4th Dep't 2017)
5-6 | |\n\n## 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 5 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 32 of 174\n\n| MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,
166 A.D.3d
13 (1st Dep't 2018) 3 | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| Napoli v. Bern,
171 A.D.3d 489 (1st Dep't 2019)14 | |\n| Nestor v. Britt,
270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000) 6 | |\n| Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.,
18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005) 7 | |\n| Orr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp.,
172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019) | 4, 5, 6 |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok,
160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018) 3 | |\n| Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc.
v. Mazl Bldg., LLC,
189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020)3, 4 | |\n| Peters v. Peters,
146 A.D.3d 503 (1st Dep't 2017)14 | |\n| Rahman v. Smith,
40 A.D.3d 613 (2d Dep't 2007) 9 | |\n| Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.,
117 A.D.2d 796 (2d Dep't 1986)18 | |\n| Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.,
113 A.D.3d 516 (1st Dep't 2014)3, 4 | |\n| Zanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp.,
193 A.D.3d 536 (1st Dep't 2021) 5 | |\n\n## **Statutes & Other Authorities:**\n\n| CPLR 3123 9 | |\n|-------------|--|\n| CPLR 312612 | |\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 6 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 33 of 174\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nPAX argues that Mr. Kwok should be judicially estopped because he initially prevailed in this action when the motion court granted his *forum non conveniens* motion – and thus asks the Court to disregard the critical fact that on PAX's appeal, this Court reversed that very decision below and denied Mr. Kwok's motion. As a matter of New York law, a party whose temporary win is later overturned is not the prevailing party for the application of judicial estoppel. Because the motion court's granting of summary judgment was predicated entirely on its erroneous judicial estoppel ruling, the judgment should be reversed.\n\nPerhaps recognizing the flaws in the motion court's ruling, PAX suggests several other potential grounds for affirmance, which it admits the motion court did not discuss. PAX's alternative arguments fail. PAX's assertion that Mr. Kwok made \"formal judicial admissions\" that the documents were authentic is not borne out because the statements it cites – which were made not by Mr. Kwok himself, but by former counsel for this non-English-speaking litigant – are cited out of context. None of these statements was a clear, unequivocal, and definitive admission of fact – an essential characteristic of a formal judicial admission. Mr. Kwok's deposition, at which he testified that the documents did not bear his signature, was his first opportunity to speak for himself about the documents and their authenticity.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 7 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 34 of 174\n\nNor is there a basis for this Court to simply reject Mr. Kwok's testimony as a matter of law, as PAX also suggests. Consistent with this State's policies of affording litigants due process and resolving cases on their merits, Mr. Kwok should be allowed to present his factual defenses to PAX's claims – including evidence regarding whether the documents are authentic – to the trier of fact.\n\nFinally, even if summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly granted in PAX's favor – which it was not – then issues of fact existed on Mr. Kwok's defense that PAX failed to mitigate its damages, as required under both New York and Hong Kong law.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **POINT I**\n\n## **THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL**\n\n## **A. The Elements of Judicial Estoppel Were Not Present**\n\nPAX concedes, as it must in the face of this Court's precedents, that judicial estoppel applies only \"where the party 'obtained a favorable ruling or judgment . . . as a result' of [an allegedly] inconsistent position. (PAX Br. 9, quoting *35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC*, 171 A.D.3d 545, 545 (1st Dep't 2019)). Here, Mr. Kwok did not obtain a \"favorable ruling or judgment\" on the *forum non conveniens* issue, because after he initially prevailed before the motion court, this Court reversed the decision below, denied Mr. Kwok's motion to dismiss, and directed that this action\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 8 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 35 of 174\n\nproceed in New York. *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok*, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018). Nor did even the motion court's initial decision, much less this Court's reversal, make a determination on the authenticity of documents (which, contrary to PAX's assertion, did not come from Mr. Kwok's \"own files\").\n\nIn numerous decisions discussed in Mr. Kwok's initial Brief (*see* Kwok Br. 17-19), this Court has held that a party must have secured a judgment or other final relief in its favor through the benefit of its prior, allegedly inconsistent position, before judicial estoppel can be invoked. *See, e.g.*, *Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC*, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020); *MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith*, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020); *MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd*, 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018); *Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.*, 113 A.D.3d 516, 516 (1st Dep't 2014); *Carr v. Caputo*, 114 A.D.3d 62, 71 (1st Dep't 2013). Here, Mr. Kwok obviously did not obtain a judgment in his favor in this action, given that this very appeal is taken from the judgment entered *against* him.\n\nPAX argues that a party need not have obtained a judgment in order to be judicially estopped, relying on *D & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC*, 287 A.D.2d 65, 71 (1st Dep't 2001). While the *D & L Holdings* court held that the document by which the party gained relief need not be *labeled* as a \"judgment,\" it reaffirmed, rather than negated, the rule that judicial estoppel applies only where \"a\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 9 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 36 of 174\n\nparty obtains relief by maintaining one position, and later, in a different action, maintains a contrary position.\" *Id.* at 71-72. To the contrary, judicial estoppel was applied in that case only because \"D & L actually achieved the relief it sought\" from the court in the earlier proceeding. *Id.* at 72.\n\nAs this Court has explained, to be estopped, a party must \"prevail\" and obtain a favorable ruling in the litigation by virtue of its alleged prior position. *See, e.g., Patmos*, 189 A.D.3d at 633 (\"The claim was not barred by judicial estoppel given that, even if contradictory, none of defendants' prior positions prevailed.\"); *Wells Fargo*, 113 A.D.3d at 516 (1st Dep't 2014) (\"As plaintiffs did not prevail on their contractual indemnification claim, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.\"). Here, PAX advances the remarkable argument that Mr. Kwok prevailed in obtaining a favorable ruling on *forum non conveniens* because the motion court initially granted his motion to dismiss – even though this Court, on PAX's appeal from that ruling, reversed the decision below and denied Mr. Kwok's motion.\n\nPAX's position – that a party is deemed to have prevailed on an issue even when an initial ruling in his favor is later reversed – is squarely at odds with recent decisions by this Court explaining what \"prevailing\" and obtaining a \"favorable ruling\" mean. This Court's decision in *Orr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp.*, 172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019), is directly on point. In that case, a party initially was granted relief in a bankruptcy proceeding, but the Bankruptcy Court later reopened\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 10 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 37 of 174\n\nthe case, thus negating that relief. This Court ruled that after that change, the Bankruptcy Court's initial ruling could not be the basis for a judicial estoppel:\n\nThe reopening of Kartsanis's bankruptcy case renders the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable as it \"nullif[ied] the final determination upon which . . . judicial estoppel could be predicated.\"\n\n*Id.* at 512 (quoting *Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc*. 169 A.D.3d 1010, 1013 (2d Dep't 2019); *Koch v. National Basketball Ass'n*, 245 A.D.2d 230, 230-31 (1st Dep't 1997)).\n\nPAX contends that cases such as *Goodman* are limited to the bankruptcy context, but suggests no reason that would support any such limitation. PAX argues that \"the reopening of a bankruptcy proceeding by the bankruptcy court 'nullif[ies] the final determination upon which . . . judicial estoppel could be predicated.'\" (PAX Br. 33 (quoting *Goodman*)). But precisely the same is true in this case: When this Court reversed the motion court's granting of Mr. Kwok's *forum non conveniens* motion and denied the motion, it \"nullif[ied]\" the prior determination in Mr. Kwok's favor and thereby negated it as a potential predicate for judicial estoppel. *Cf. Barish v. Association of the Bar*, 20 N.Y.2d 154, 158 (1967) (\"reversal of a conviction . . . nullifies it as if it had never been\"); *Zanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp.*, 193 A.D.3d 536, 538 (1st Dep't 2021) (where decision in defendant's favor was reversed, award of attorneys' fees to defendant under a prevailing-party clause \"must likewise be reversed, since the [defendant] is, at this juncture, not the prevailing party\"); *Micro-*\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 11 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 38 of 174\n\n*Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst*, 155 A.D.3d 1638, 1640 (4th Dep't 2017) (\"'where a court has vacated an earlier order, the doctrine of . . . law of the case no longer applies. . . . Indeed, 'a vacated judgment has no preclusive force either as a matter of collateral or direct estoppel or as a matter of law of the case.\") (citations omitted).\n\nAs discussed in our initial Brief, the motion court's and PAX's reliance on *Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000), is misplaced. (*See* Kwok Br. 21- 22). That decision did not even mention, let alone apply, the \"prevailing party\" or \"favorable ruling\" requirement for judicial estoppel; it cannot reasonably be read as overriding decades of this Court's precedents, both before and after *Nestor*, recognizing that requirement. And PAX's interpretation of *Nestor* cannot be reconciled with this Court's decisions in *Orr* and *Koch*, both of which held that a subsequent litigation development precludes the application of judicial estoppel where it \"nullif[ies] the final determination upon which . . . judicial estoppel could be predicated.\" *Orr*, 172 A.D.3d at 512; *Koch*, 245 A.D.2d at 231.\n\nFinally, the motion court's judicial estoppel ruling was inconsistent with this Court's holding that judicial estoppel applies only in the context of two or more separate actions or proceedings, while this case involves only a single action. As discussed in our initial Brief, this Court has squarely held that judicial estoppel requires two successive actions:\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 12 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 39 of 174\n\nWe also reject the employer's argument that the owners are judicially estopped from arguing that plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply here because first, the verdict against the owners cannot be considered a ruling in their favor, and second, the inconsistent positions are being asserted in the same action.\n\n*Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc*., 18 A.D.3d 349, 350-51 (1st Dep't 2005).\n\nContrary to PAX's urging, this Court's clearly stated holding that \"judicial estoppel does not apply . . . [where the allegedly] inconsistent positions are being asserted in the same action\" (*id.*) cannot be disregarded as mere dictum. Where the Court provides two bases for deciding an issue, both within the same sentence of its opinion, there is no basis for a litigant such as PAX to elevate one as the holding of the case while demoting the other to *obiter* status. *Cf. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny*, 189 A.D.3d 583, 583 (1st Dep't 2020) (\"We decline to overrule any of our alternative holdings in *Lavery*, which petitioner erroneously refers to as 'dicta.\"), *leave to appeal granted*, 36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021). Moreover, even assuming *arguendo* that judicial estoppel could sometimes arise from inconsistent positions taken within the same action – despite this Court's direct holding to the contrary in *Olszewski* – it still could not apply against Mr. Kwok, because as discussed above, his position on the *forum non conveniens* motion did not prevail even within the context of this action.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 13 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 40 of 174\n\nThe motion court's granting of summary judgment on liability was based entirely on its judicial estoppel decision. Because that decision was erroneous, the judgment should be reversed.\n\n## **B. PAX's Judicial Admissions Theory, Which Was Not Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit**\n\nUrging alternative grounds to uphold its precipitously awarded judgment without any determinations on the merits, PAX also contends that Mr. Kwok made binding \"formal judicial admissions\" that the documents were authentic. As PAX itself acknowledges (PAX Br. 36), the motion court did not address or rely on Mr. Kwok's supposed \"admissions\" as a basis for its rulings, either orally or in its written decisions. In this case, this Court should not exercise its discretion to consider in the first instance arguments that the motion court did not reach or address.\n\nAlternatively, if this Court chooses to consider PAX's alternative contentions, it should reject them. \"To constitute a judicial admission, a statement must be 'deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.'\" *Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon*, 171 A.D.3d 197, 211 (2d Dep't 2019) (citation omitted); *accord Matter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P.*, 181 A.D.3d 461, 463 (1st Dep't 2020) (statement could not be considered a formal judicial admission where it \"was not sufficiently conclusive or unequivocal to quality\" as such). Even PAX acknowledges that \"[t]o be considered a formal judicial admission, a statement \"must be one of fact,\" \"must be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal,\" and must be \"made with sufficient formality and conclusiveness.\"\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 14 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 41 of 174\n\n(PAX Br. 36-37, quoting *Rahman v. Smith*, 40 A.D.3d 613, 615 (2d Dep't 2007)). The so-called admissions cited by PAX do not meet this standard.\n\nPAX relies primarily upon two alleged admissions, both of which were supposedly made by Mr. Kwok's former counsel. Notably, these \"admissions\" were not contained in Mr. Kwok's deposition testimony, in which he clearly testified that the documents did not bear his genuine signature, or in any writing signed by Mr. Kwok himself. First, PAX asserts that Mr. Kwok admitted the documents' authenticity in responding to a set of requests for admissions. He did not. PAX's voluminous requests for admissions (\"RFAs\") (*see* R411-99) included requests that Mr. Kwok admit having executed various documents. However, PAX did not annex those documents as exhibits to its requests for admission. (*Id*.). As a result, neither Mr. Kwok nor anyone on his behalf had the opportunity to review the specific documents at issue, as required by CPLR 3123.\n\nMr. Kwok's lawyers' responses to the RFAs included a general objection to the RFAs in their entirety as well as specific objections that Mr. Kwok was being asked to stipulate to the authenticity of documents that were not attached. (R411- 78; *see, e.g.,* Responses to Request Nos. 10, 13, 19, 30, 37, 44, and 51). Thus, Mr. Kwok did not admit the authenticity of any specific document, much less did he do so conclusively or unequivocally. How could he have done that, when no specific documents were presented for anyone to review? After receiving the responses and\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 15 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 42 of 174\n\nobjections submitted by Mr. Kwok's then-counsel, PAX advised counsel that PAX would respond \"shortly\" in order to address his counsel's objections. But PAX never did so, and it never mentioned the so-called \"admissions\" again until it filed its sanctions motion.\n\nThe second document that PAX mischaracterizes as an \"admission\" was a cover letter to an exhibit list. (*See* NYSCEF Doc. 325). This document was created after the motion court had scheduled an evidentiary hearing on a motion by PAX to attach a New York apartment that it alleged belonged to Mr. Kwok. In advance of that hearing, the parties, through their counsel, entered into a formal stipulation designed to limit the scope of that specific hearing – not, of course, of the entire action – to the attachment-related issues. (NYSCEF Doc. 306). Thus, the parties stipulated that for purposes of the specific evidentiary hearing on the attachment, the court could assume that PAX had a cause of action against Mr. Kwok and a likelihood of success, so that PAX need not prove these elements at the hearing. (*Id.* at 3). The stipulation emphasized that it addressed only the proof that PAX must present at this particular hearing and that PAX was \"not relieved of its obligation to prove the merits of each of its claims in order to obtain a final judgment.\" (*Id*.).\n\nThe parties then prepared for the evidentiary hearing on the attachment. The motion court's practice rules required that in advance of the hearing, the parties submit exhibit lists, noting whether the admissibility of the exhibits was stipulated\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 16 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 43 of 174\n\nor disputed. On April 19, 2019, PAX's counsel submitted a cover letter to the motion court, \"writ[ing] jointly under Practice Rule 28 for Part 61 . . . to provide the Court with the . . . materials ahead of the April 26, 2019 evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's attachment motion\" and stating in that context only that, *inter alia,* Mr. Kwok was not disputing the authenticity of PAX's exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. 325 at 1).\n\nBoth the April 3, 2019 stipulation and the April 19, 2019 cover letter reflected the parties' efforts, through their counsel, to focus the upcoming evidentiary hearing on the attachment motion solely on attachment-related issues, it being understood that \"full merits discovery [would] be held\" later in the case. (NYSCEF Doc. 306 at 3). The statements in both documents plainly related solely to the admissibility of the listed exhibits for purposes of the impending attachment hearing. Mr. Kwok did not thereby admit in this cover letter that the exhibits were authentic for purposes of the subsequent merits proceedings, any more than he stipulated to the exhibits' admissibility at a merits trial or that he would not offer any exhibits of his own at that trial. *Matter of Daniel C.*, 99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984), cited by PAX, is readily distinguishable, because in that case counsel's stipulation concerning the scope of the issues was made on the record at the trial on the merits, at which the represented party was present in court and testified under oath – not, as here, in a letter submitted in advance of a hearing on an ancillary procedural issue and submitted for purposes of that hearing.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 17 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 44 of 174\n\nA litigant whose counsel entered into a stipulation governing a motion hearing should not be penalized by having the limited-purpose stipulation thrown in his face for a completely different purpose later in the case, and certainly not to the extent of having his main defense vitiated. This Court ought not conclude on the record before it that this cover letter, not signed by Mr. Kwok or even by his counsel, was \"sufficiently conclusive or unequivocal to qualify\" as a binding judicial admission on Mr. Kwok's behalf. *Matter of Daniel M. G.*, 181 A.D.3d at 463.\n\nThis is not a situation in which a party testifies as his or her deposition that \"the light was green\" and then later submits an affidavit stating \"the light was red.\" Here, Mr. Kwok's first opportunity to speak for himself, when shown the documents at issue, and to address whether they were authentic, was at his deposition. It is undisputed that during his deposition, Mr. Kwok clearly, definitely, and unequivocally stated that his signatures on the documents were *not* authentic. (*See* Kwok Br. 6-7). This Court should not reach out on a theory that the motion court neither discussed nor adopted in order to reject the most reliable evidence of Mr. Kwok's knowledge on a disputed issue of fact: his own deposition testimony.\n\n## **C. PAX's \"Sanctions for Perjury\" Theory, Which Was Not Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit**\n\nPAX also suggests that this Court itself grant sanctions against Mr. Kwok. PAX is not seeking sanctions under CPLR 3126 for discovery misconduct, such as failure to provide adequate document discovery or to appear for a deposition.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 18 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 45 of 174\n\nRather, PAX asks the Court to \"preclude[e] Kwok from relying on his testimony as to forgery\" because PAX says it does not believe the testimony. (PAX Br. 45). There is no basis for such a sanction.\n\nThe type of sanction sought by PAX is rarely sought and even more rarely granted. In *CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen*, 23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014), cited by PAX, the Court of Appeals held that courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for conduct that \"undermine the truth-seeking function of the judicial system and place in question the integrity of the courts and our system of justice.\" *Id.* at 318. But before imposing a sanction on this basis, the moving party \"must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the offending 'party has acted knowingly in an attempt to hinder the fact finder's fair adjudication of the case and his adversary's defense of the action.\" *Id.* at 320. The Court of Appeals emphasized that case-terminating sanctions such as dismissal are \"an extreme remedy that 'must be exercised with restraint and discretion,'\" and only \"where the conduct is particularly egregious, characterized by lies and fabrications in furtherance of a scheme designed to conceal critical matters from the court and the nonoffending party; where the conduct is perpetrated repeatedly and wilfully, and established by clear and convincing evidence\". *Id.* at 321 (citation omitted). It is only \"the rare case\" that could warrant such a sanction, and a court's basis for imposing it should be explained. *Id.* at 322.\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 19 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 46 of 174\n\nIn *C.D.R. Créances* itself, the Court of Appeals affirmed the striking of pleadings as a sanction where, *inter alia*, there was testimony that defendants had instructed and conspired with witnesses that they provide false and misleading testimony, including providing them with a written \"script\" of false answers to be given at depositions; defendants \"created fictitious characters\" who were the subject of testimony; multiple individuals \"repeatedly perjured themselves at their depositions\"; and defendants had been criminally convicted for conduct at issue in the litigation. *Id.* at 316-18.\n\nThis case, in which the defendant testified that certain documents were inauthentic at his first opportunity to do so, cannot reasonably be analogized to *C.D.R. Créances.* A request that a party \"should forfeit his [defenses]\" in an action should be denied where it \"is unsupported by clear and convincing evidence that [he] engaged in a willful and pervasive scheme to defraud the court that prejudiced [PAX's] ability to [litigate its] claims.\" *Napoli v. Bern*, 171 A.D.3d 489, 490 (1st Dep't 2019); *see also Peters v. Peters*, 146 A.D.3d 503, 504 (1st Dep't 2017) (\"Plaintiff failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that defendants' alleged misstatements were particularly egregious and characterized by lies in furtherance of a scheme designed to conceal critical matters from the court.\"). To the extent PAX believes there is evidence that contradicts Mr. Kwok's version of the facts, its\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 20 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 47 of 174\n\nremedy is the one enjoyed by any litigant who disagrees with its adversary's case: to present its evidence to the trier of fact.\n\n## **D. PAX's Contention that It Was Entitled to Summary Judgment Apart from the Judicial Estoppel Ruling Is Meritless**\n\nAs the last of its alternative arguments for affirmance, PAX asserts that even if the motion court's order barring Mr. Kwok from disputing the documents' authenticity is overturned, summary judgment was still properly granted because in opposition to PAX's motion, Mr. Kwok did not present evidence or arguments to establish that the documents were forged. (PAX Br. 45-47).\n\nThis argument by PAX completely ignores the effect of the preclusion order that the motion court granted at PAX's request; the foundation for summary judgment was that very preclusion order. Purportedly as a sanction, the motion court directed that Mr. Kwok was \"judicially estopped from challenging, in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion or at trial, the authenticity of documents defendant Kwok previously sponsored in proceedings before this Court.\" (R59).\n\nIn opposing PAX's summary judgment motion, Mr. Kwok and his counsel were bound by the motion court's directive that they were \"judicially estopped from challenging\" the authenticity of the documents \"in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion\". (R59). As part of their opposition papers, Mr. Kwok moved to reargue the judicial estoppel ruling, but the motion court denied that request. (R52- 54). Unless and until the motion court's preclusion order was reversed, either by the\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 21 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 48 of 174\n\nmotion court itself or by this Court, Mr. Kwok was bound by it, as he noted in his opposition papers. (*See* R3213 n.1, R3231 n.1, R3256 n.1). Therefore, he was barred by court order from disputing the authenticity of the documents, nor could he request an evidentiary hearing on that issue, as PAX also argues he should have done. (*See* PAX Br. 46-47). It is at best ironic, and at worst disingenuous, for PAX to fault Mr. Kwok for not challenging the authenticity of the documents in its summary judgment papers. That is the very thing that PAX had successfully convinced the motion court to preclude Mr. Kwok from doing.\n\n## **POINT II**\n\n## **THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE MOTION COURT ERRED BY REJECTING THE DEFENSE THAT PAX FAILED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES**\n\nThe judgment should also be reversed because the motion court improperly rejected, as a matter of law, Mr. Kwok's defense that PAX failed to mitigate its alleged damages. The motion court did so without conducting an evidentiary hearing or trial, just two months after it had specifically stated on the record that \"[w]e are going to have a hearing on the damages issue\" and that Mr. Kwok would \"be permitted to adduce whatever evidence they have [*sic*], if any, on that theory in connection with the damages hearing.\" (NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 6).\n\nPAX does not dispute on appeal that plaintiffs in contract actions are generally required to mitigate their damages, rather than seek to collect for losses that they\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 22 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 49 of 174\n\ncould have avoided, under both Hong Kong and New York law. Instead, PAX asserts that there could be no duty to mitigate under the alleged 2013 Deed of Settlement because that document had expired \"prior to the post-June 2015 Beijing Police contact.\" (PAX Br. 49). However, PAX acknowledges that it learned of this opportunity after the apartments were seized by the Beijing Police, which admittedly occurred in February 2015. (PAX Br. 51). An issue of fact exists as to how long afterwards PAX learned of the opportunity, and whether this occurred by June 30, 2015, *i.e.*, within a period of four or five months after the seizures.\n\nPAX also argues that it had no duty to mitigate because the 2013 Deed of Settlement did not obligate Mr. Kwok to cause the apartments to be turned over to PAX, but merely allowed him to do so as an alternative means of performance to payment of the moneys owed under the guarantee. (PAX Br. 51-52). However, as discussed in our initial Brief, PAX had agreed that delivery of the three apartments to it would represent an acceptable alternative performance in lieu of payment of the moneys allegedly owed under Mr. Kwok's guarantee. Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert opined that Hong Kong law would require a reasonable effort to mitigate under these circumstances (*see* R4355-58, R4623-26), and PAX supplies no contrary authority under the law of either jurisdiction. In particular, Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert explained, with citations of authority, that the duty to mitigate applies \"to situations, such as the one presented here, where the parties have entered into a\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 23 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 50 of 174\n\nsubsequent agreement to settle the debt which involves alternative forms of repayment, such as the sale and purchase of property.\" (R4624). As Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert observed, PAX's expert cited no authority in favor of PAX's contention that the duty to mitigate is inapplicable in this context. (*See* R4624-25). In the absence of such authority, the general rule under Hong Kong law (as under New York law) that a party must mitigate would apply.\n\nPAX disputes whether the Beijing Police offer represented a \"reasonable\" opportunity to mitigate. Under Hong Kong law, \"[w]hether or not a party has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss is primarily a question of fact, not law.\" (R4356 and R4627, citing authorities). \"What constitutes 'reasonable steps' for PAX to have taken must be considered and determined by the trier of fact in consideration of all the surrounding circumstances.\" (R4627). Under New York law also, \"[t]he question of whether that party acted reasonably to mitigate its damages is a question of fact.\" *Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.*, 117 A.D.2d 796, 797 (2d Dep't 1986) (citations omitted); *accord Bernstein v. Freudman*, 180 A.D.2d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 1992). The motion court did not rule directly on this question, which could not properly be resolved as a matter of law, especially given the evidence that PAX viewed the police offer as representing \"a good price\" (R4360), \"less than the market price\" (R4348), and a \"positive movement\" from PAX's point of view (R4361). If PAX had accepted the Beijing\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 24 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 51 of 174\n\nPolice offer, and thereby mitigated its damages by accepting a performance that it had agreed would discharge Mr. Kwok's alleged guarantee, then it could then have asserted a claim for its expenses incurred during the mitigation process.\n\nAs noted in our initial Brief, PAX's pursuing and accepting the police offer would not only have substantially reduced the principal amount claimed by PAX, either altogether or at least by tens of millions of dollars, but it also would have reduced PAX's claim for several years' worth of 15% annual interest on that sum, which now represents more than half of the judgment. Instead, PAX chose to litigate against Mr. Kwok, perhaps in pursuit of its animus against him and desire to enforce the alleged personal guarantee for \"the sheer satisfaction it would create.\" (R4579).\n\nFinally, PAX belittles Mr. Kwok's argument that its receipt of possession of the three apartments resulted in value to PAX that should have been offset against the amount of any judgment, to be determined at trial. PAX argues that full performance under the alleged Deed of Settlement required the conveyance of title to PAX, not only possession. Even if PAX's possession of the three apartments did not represent as much value as the conveyance of title would have, it must necessarily have had *some* value. The motion court erred by holding that as a matter of law it had no value at all.\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 25 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 52 of 174\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor all the foregoing reasons, the judgment should be reversed.\n\nDated: New York, New York October 15, 2021\n\n## GANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP\n\nBy:\n\nMark C. Zauder Ira Brad Matetsky Jason T. Cohen 360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 412-9500 mzauderer@ganfershore.com *Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Kwok Ho Wan a/kla Miles Kwok*\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 26 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 53 of 174\n\n## **PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT**\n\nI hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.8(j) that the foregoing brief was prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word.\n\n*Type.* A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:\n\n| Name of typeface: | Times New Roman |\n|-------------------|-----------------|\n| Point size: | 14 |\n| Line spacing: | Double |\n\n*Word Count.* The total number of words in this brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof of service and this Statement is 4,802.\n\nDated: October 15, 2021\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 Pg 1 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 54 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 17**\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 2 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 55 of 174\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the; SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, MANHATTAN'DIVfSION .Case number/11/atown/ \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Chapter ....:!,!\\_ • Check if this an amended filing\n\n## Official Form 201 **Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy** 04/20\n\nIf more space Is needed, attach a separate sheet to this.form, On the top ·of any additlonal pages,. writ\\! \\he debtor's name and lhe case number (if known}. For more Information, a sep~ document, *Instructions for Bankruptcy Forms for Non-lndMduals,* is available.\n\n| 1. | Debtor's.natne· | Genever Holdlngs.LLC | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 2. | AU other names debtor
used in the last'S ·year,;
Include any ass,imed
names, trade names and
do/ngbusmessasnames | | | | | |\n| 3. | Debtor's federal Employer
Identification Number
(EIN} | 47-3338202 | | | | |\n| 4. | Debtor's addrass | Principal place of business | Mailing address, if different from principal place of
business. | | | |\n| | | 781 5th Ave
Apt 1801 | | | | |\n| | | New York, NY 10022-5520 | | | | |\n| | | Number, Street, City, St?te &.ZIP Code | P .Q. Box, N~mber, Street, City. State & ZlP Code· | | | |\n| | | New York
County | Location of principal a~ets, if different from principal
place·of b1,1slness | | | |\n| | | | 781 5th Ave Apt 1801 New York, NY 10022•5520
Number, Street, City, Stale & ZIP Code | | | |\n| 5. | Doblor·s website (URL) | | | | | |\n| 6, | Type of debtor | II Corporation (inchjding Limited Lfaliility Company {Ll:.C) and Limited Liability Partnership (LLP))
• Partnership (excluding LLP)
D Otlier. Specify: | | | | |\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 2 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 3 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 56 of 174\n\n| | | | | | C&se
number·(ifkna,m) | | |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Genever Holdlngs'LLC
Debtor
--------------
Name | | | | | | |\n| 7. | | | | | | | |\n| | Describe delltor's business | Check
A.
one:
D
101(27~}}
(as
defined
11
U.S.C.
§
Health
Care
Business
in | | | | | |\n| | | II Single Asset
Real | | §_
(as
del\\ned
in
11
U.S.C.
Estate | 1Q1(51B)} | | |\n| | | •
Railroad{asdefinedin | | 11
U.S.C.§101(44)) | | | |\n| | | • | | | | | |\n| | | 101(53A)}
(as
defined
in
11
U.S.C.
§
Stockbmker | | | | | |\n| | | U.S.C.
§
101{6)i
D
Commodity
Broker.
(as
defined
in
_11
·• | | | | | |\n| | | U.S.C.
781(3))
Clearing
Bank
{as
defined
In
11
§
D | | | | | |\n| | | Noneofthe·above | | | | | |\n| | | B.
Check
all
that
apply | | | | | |\n| | | •
entity (asdescn'bed in'26 U.S.C:§501)
:rax-el | | | | | |\n| | | D
vehicle
15
§80a•3J
hedge
pooled
lnvestment
{as.defined
in
u.s.c.
Investment
Including
fund
company,
or | | | | | |\n| | | D
§80b-2(a)(11))
delinec{rn
15
U.S.C.
Investment
advisor-(as
',,
M
•,
••
•
.··••
: | | | | | |\n| | | | | C, NAICS (North·American Industry Classilication· Sy,;tem} 4-digit | that besi describes debtor.
code | | |\n| | | See | | http!//WWW.uscourts.govffour-digit-natlonal-association-naicscodes. | | | |\n| | | 5313 | | | | | |\n| 8. | Under which chapter
of
the | Check
one: | | | | | |\n| | Bankruptcy Code
is
tho
debtor | •
Chapter
7 | | | | | |\n| | filing? | •
Chap!er9 | | | | | |\n| | A
deblor who
is
•smaU
a | Chec;k
1111
Chapter
11
•. | all | lhat'epply: | | | |\n| | business
debtor\"
must
check
first
eul>-box.
A
debtor
the
as | | D | clebtor
business
Js.a
small
The | 101(510),
11
U.S.C.
debtor
define,fin
§
as | its.aggregate
and | |\n| | defil)eO
in§
1182(1)wll0 | | | 11onconting-0nt
fiquidated
cfebts·(exciudlng
selected,
52,725;625:
lf
this
sub-boX
is | Insiders
arfiUates)
debts
owed
to
or
recent-balance
the
sheet,
attach
most | are-fess
than
of
operaliOi'ls,
statement | |\n| | procood
under
elects
to
subchaptar V of chapter
11 | | | cash-flow
and
federal
statement. | ·if
ar)Y
of
these
documents
incomu
tax
return
or | follow
the
do
not
exist, | |\n| | debtor
ls a
(whether
not
the
or
business
•sma!J
1TI1Jsl | | | 11
TJ.S.C.
§
procedure
in
1116(1)(8). | | ·
cfebls | |\n| | debtor)
check
the
secMd.slib-box. | | D | a debtor
defined-in
The
debtor
is
as
debts
owad
to
(excluding | 1162(1),
its
aggregate.nonconlingenl
11
U.S.C.
§
\\$7,500,000. and
than
insiders or affiliates}
less
are | liquidated
it
procued
choos&s.10 | |\n| | | | | of
Chapter 11.
under SubchaptGr V
sheet.
statement
of | selected,
lhe
thls
15
attach
sub-box
rr
cash-flow
and
federal
income
statement,
tax | recent
balance
most
of
these
return,
or Ir | |\n| | | | | operations,
documenlsdonotexist, folfowtheprocedurein | l1
U.S.C.
§
1116(1)(8). | any | |\n| | | | • | being filed
with
this petition.
A
plan
is | | | |\n| | | | • | the
plan
Acceptances
of
were
1126(b).
accordance
with
11
u:s.c.
§ | solicited piepollllon
from
classes
one
or
more | ln
cir
creditors, | |\n| | | | • | required
periodic
The
is
debtor
to
rne | 8\"llmple, 10K
and··10QJ
reports
·(for | with
the
Securities.and
the | |\n| | | | | according.to §
·Exchange
Commission
for
attachment
to
Voluntary
Petition | 13·
i5(d)
of
the
Securities
Exchange
or
Non-Individuals
Filinri
Bankruptcy
for | of
1934.
File
Act
Chapier
11
(Olncia)
vnder- | |\n| | | | | form.
201A}
with
this
· Form | · | | |\n| | | | D | The
debior is a shell'company
as | defined-in Iha Securities Exchange Act | 1934
Rule
·12b-2.
or | |\n| | | D
12
Chapter | | | | | |\n| ·s. | prior
banl were | Ill
No. | | | | | |\n| | the
cases filed
by
against
or
debtor
within
IHt
8
the | •
Yes. | | | | | |\n| | yean;?
· | | | | | | |\n| | If
than
2 cases,
attach
a·
more | District | | When | Case
number | | |\n| | list
,separate | District | | ---------
When | -------
·case.rumber | | |\n| | | | | --------- | _______ | | |\n| 10. · | bankruptcy cases
.Are
any | II
No | | | | | |\n| | filed by a
pending
being
or
business partner or.an
afflUate
of
the debtor1 | •
Yes. | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | If
than
1,
List
au
cases.
more
attach
separate
list
a | Debtor | | ___________________ | Relationship | | |\n| | | District | | When
_________ | Case
number._
if
_______ | known | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\nVoluntary Patmon for Non-llldlviduali; Filing for-Bankruptcy page2\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 3 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 4 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 57 of 174\n\n| Debtor | Genever
Holdings LLC | | | | Casenumber{ifk•~m) | _____________
_ | | | | |\n|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Name | | | | | | | | | |\n| 11. | WhylsthocasefUodln
this
district? | Check all that apply: | | | | | | | | |\n| | | II | assets
days immediately
its domicile, prfncipal place of
business,
or principal
in
this district for
180
Debtor has
had
of
s·uch
days
than
other
distriet.
preceding
the date
of
this
petition
or tor a
longer
part
180
in
any | | | | | | | |\n| | | 0
affiliate,
partne1,
partnership
is
pending
in lhis district
A bankruptcy case concerning
debtor's
general
or | | | | | | | | |\n| 12, | Doos
the
debtor
or
own
have
possession
of
any
real
or personal
property
rioeels
property tllilt
attontion?
immodian\\ | Ill
No | | | | | | | | |\n| | | •
Yes. | if
for
property that neeci,fimmediate
attention.·Attach
additional
sheets
needoo.
Answer
below
each | | | | | | | |\n| | | | Why
does | tho property nood immediati, | that
attention?.(Check
an | apply.) | | | | |\n| | | | 0
It
poses | hazard
lo public
health
safely.
or | | | | | | |\n| | | | alleged
pose
.the
hazard?
What
is | | | | | | | |\n| | | | 0
needs
It | to
be | pl)ysicaliysecured or prolected
from
the
weilther, | | | | | |\n| | | | 0
rivestoc~. | Ii includes perishable
goods
seasonal
goods, | assets
could
quiekly
deteriorate
that
or
produce,
securities-elated assets
meat, dairy,
or | (for
example,
lose
value
without
attention
or
other options).
or | | | | |\n| | | | •
Other | | | | | | | |\n| | | | Where
rs | property?
tho | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | Number,
Street, City, Stata &
ZIP Code | | | | | |\n| | | | Is
the | property insured? | | | | | | |\n| | | | •
No | | | | | | | |\n| | | | •
Yes. | Insurance
agency | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Contact
name | | | | | | |\n| | | | | P,hone | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Dabtor'e osliinatfon
of | | C/Jecxone: | | | | | | | |\n| | available
funds | | D
Funds will | oo
available
for | distribution
unsecured
cre<;litors.
to | | | | | |\n| | | | II
Aft.er
any | admfnistratiile·expenses | paid,
no.funds
will
be
avaiahle
to
are | unsecured
creditors. | | | | |\n| | 14.· Estimated
number.
of. | 11111-49 | | | •
1.000-5,000 | •
25.001-50,000 | | | | |\n| | creditors | 050-99 | | | 0 5001-10.000 | •
50,001-100,000 | | | | |\n| | | •
100-199 | | | •
1.0,001-25,000 | •
tylore
than100,ooo | | | | |\n| | | 0200-999 | | | | | | | | |\n| | 15. Estimated Assets | 0
\\$0
- | \\$50;000 | | 0
\\$1,000,001 -
\\$10
miAlon | D-\\$500,000,001 •
\\$1
billion | | | | |\n| | | 0
\\$50,001 | \\$100,000
- | | •
\\$10,000,001
\\$5o·
million
.• | •
\\$10-billion
\\$1,000,000:ocl1 • | | | | |\n| | | •
\\$100,001 • \\$500,000
million. | | | \\$50,000,001 • \\$100\"mifllon
1111 | •
\\$50
billion
\\$10,000,000,001 -
billion
• | | | | |\n| | | 0
\\$500,001 - | \\$1 | | •
milfion
\\$100,000,001
\\$_500
- | \\$50
-More
than | | | | |\n| | 16, Estimated liabilities | •
\\$0 | • \\$50,000 | | \\$10
million
D
\\$1,000,001 • | •
\\$1
\\$500,000,001 •
billion | | | | |\n| | | 0 | \\$50,001 • \\$100,000 | | •
\\$10,000,001
\\$50
mHli0!)
• | 0
\\$1,000,000,001-
billion
510 | | | | |\n| | | • | \\$100,001 • \\$500,000 | | Ill
\\$50.000,001 • \\$100
mi16on | 0
\\$10.000,000,001 •
\\$50
billion | | | | |\n| | | 0 | \\$500,001'-\\$1
million | | \\$500
0
\\$100,000,001 -
million | 0
\\$50 billion
More
lhan | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 4 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 5 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 58 of 174\n\n| Debtor | Genever Holdings LLC | | | Case ~umber (i/Anovm) _____________ _ | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | N•mo | | | | | |\n| | | Request for Relief, Oet:laration, and Signatures | | | | |\n| | | forupto20years,orbo!h.18U.S.C.§§ 152, 1341.1519;and3571. | | WARNING - Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime. Making a false statement in cOMection wi!h a bankruptcy case ·car1 result in fines up to \\$500,000 or imprisonment | | |\n| 17. Declaration and signature
of autllorlzcd
'
representative of debtor | | The debtor requests relief in accordance with 'the chapter of title 11, United Slates Code, specified in· this patiUon.
I have been authorized to file this petition oo behalf or the debt()(. | | | | |\n| | | | | I have examined the information in this petition and have a reasonable belief µiat the information is true.and correct. | | |\n| | | I declare under penally of pe!jury that the foregoing is true and correci,. | | | | |\n| | | Executed on | | | | |\n| | | X | | Yanping Wang | | |\n| | | | | Printed name | | |\n| | | X Isl Kevin J. Nash | | Date October 6, 2020 | | |\n| | 18. Signalure of attorney | Signature of attorney for debtor | | MM/DD/ YYYY | | |\n| | | Kevin J. Nash | | | | |\n| | | Prinled·name· | | | | |\n| | | Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LlP
Firm name | | | | |\n| | | 1501 Broadway 22nd Floor
New York, .NY 10036 | | | | |\n| | | Number, Street, City,.State & ZlP Code | | | | |\n| | | Conla.cl phone
(212) 221~5700 | Email address | knash@gwfglaw.com | | |\n| | | Kevin ·J. Nash
Bar number and State | | | | |\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 5 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 6 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 59 of 174\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n**-------------------------------------------------------------x**\n\nIn re: Chapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC, Case No.\n\nDebtor.\n\n**-------------------------------------------------------------x**\n\n### **DEBTOR'S DECLARATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE 1007-2**\n\nY anping Wang declares the following under penalties of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:\n\n1. I am the duly designated representative of Genever Holdings LLC (the \"Debtor\"), a New York limited liability company with offices at The She1Ty-Netherlands Apartments, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Unit 1801. As such, I have the requisite knowledge of the Debtor's financial and legal affairs to make this Declaration on the Debtor's behalf.\n\n2. This Declaration is submitted in support of the Debtor's Chapter 11 filing pursuant to Local Rule 1007-2 to assist the Court, creditors and other parties-in-interest in understanding the circumstances necessitating the filing of the Chapter 11 petition, the Debtor's debt and capital structure, and the Debtor's plans to emerge from bankruptcy.\n\n#### **Lead-Up to the Chapter 11 Filing**\n\n3. The Debtor is the owner of the entire 18th Floor Apartment and auxiliary units in the She1Ty Netherland Hotel located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (the \"Premises\"). The Debtor's interest in the Premises is memorialized by approximately 3,000 shares of She1Ty Netherland cooperative stock and corresponding proprietary leases.\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 6 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 7 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 60 of 174\n\n4. The Premises were acquired in 2015 for the total sum of approximately \\$70 million,\\_largely with funding provided °!)y Bravo L-µck Limiteq. (\"Bravo\") pursuant to a certain trust agreement, plus approximately \\$5 million advanced by Mr. Qiang Guo. The trust recpgnizes Bravo as the beneficial owner of the Premises based.on its funding of most *of* the purchase price. Bravo is a company owned by Mr. Qiang Guo, the son of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok, who serves mainly in a representative capacity as the manager of the Debtor and trustee llilder the. trust agreement.\n\n5. Since acquisition of the Premises, Bravo has. also chiefly funded maintenance charges and assessments. Miles Kwok was a prominent real estate investor and businessman in China before a host of financial ·and legal troubles with the\\_ Communist Ruling Party forced him to leave the country. Mr. Kwok-is currently seeking.political asylum in the United States. amidst false corruption charges lodged by the Chinese government.\n\n6. The Debtor and Nlr. Kwok have been engaged in certain litigation .in the U.S.A. since 2017 involving an entity known as Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund {';Pacific Alliance\"). The· Pacific Alliance litig~tion relates to a -personal guarantee of loan indebtedtie~s unrelated to the Premises. While the Debtor is not a party to Mr. Kwok's loan transactions involving Pacific Alliance, it has been joined in a lawsuit filed by Padfic Alliance in the Supreme Court;New York County [Index No. 652077/2017] (the ''Pacific Action\") seeking to impose alter ego liability on the Debtor and others.\n\n7. TI1isfawsuit, which is being actively defended, puts a cloud on-the future direction and ownership of the Premises. In the meanwhile, the .Premises have be:come subject to non-payment proceedings 1nstituted by the Sherry.:.Netherlands Hotel fQr unpaid maintenance\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 7 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 8 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 61 of 174\n\ncharges of approximately \\$1,000,000. The ability of Bravo to generate funds to pay maintenance fa ·hampered by challenges over the ownership of the Premises.\n\n8. The Premises were previously subject to a motion for a pre~judgment attachment motion filed by Pacific Alliance in April 2019. That motion was resolved following an evidentiary bearing without issuance of an attachment, based upon a consent order issued by the State Supreme Court requiring the Debtor and Mr. Kwok to provide prior notice to Pacific Alliance of any future dfsposition of the Premises.\n\n9. Despit~ this consent order, Pacific Alliance has recently filed a second motion by order \"to show cause return13-ble in midwOctober seeking to restrain Mr. Kwok from selling, assigning or transferring any property in wbich he l\\_1as an interest. Ostensibly, this order to show cause is again directed against the Premises, although, functionally, the order.to show ·cause, appears duplicative of the- since-resolved pre-judgment motion-for-attachment.\n\n10. Before the Premises become further entangled 'in litigation involving competing claims of ownership, the Debtor is filing this·-Chapter 11 petition to gain th~ needed flexibili'ty to be in a ·position to maximize value under the rehabilitative power of the Bankruptcy Court. The Chapter 11 allows for a possible sale of the- Premises, if necessary, while protecting · the legitimate rights or claims of both Bravo and Pacific Alliance.\n\n11. Indeed, with the onset of the Covid-19·pandemic, the future of the Premises has become even more uncertain. Real estate values are declining throughout the City of New York, and if will undoubtedly be difficult to sell an apartment of this magnitude should that become necessary without Chapter 11 oversight.\n\n12; Contrary to published reports, Mr. Kwok does not have an ownership interest in the· Premises1 although he cuirently resides in the apartment. Thus, an important\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 8 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 9 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 62 of 174\n\nthreshold goal of the Chapter 11 case is to obtain a resolution of the competing claims relating to the Premises· as between Bravo and .Pacific Alliance. Once· this issue is reso\\_lved or settled, the matter. involving Pacific Alliance will be clarified and the Debtor ,Nill then be in a position to promulgate a plan of reorganization. Pending such a determination, Chapter 11 will help the Debtor preserve the status quo.\n\n#### **Local Rule 10\\_07-2 Disclosures**\n\n13. Pursuant to Local Rule 1007-2(a)(3), .rto committees were formed prior to the filing of the Debtor's Chapter 11 Petition.\n\n14. Pursuant.to Local Rule 1007-4(a)(4), a list of all of the Debtor's creditors is· attached hereto.\n\n15.. Pursuant to Local Rule 1007-4{a)(5), The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., although listed as a general creditor, potentially retains rights- as a secured creditor for unpaid maintenance under state law.\n\n16. Pursuant to Local Rule l007-4(a)(6). the Debtor's assets and liabilities-will be set forth in formal bankruptcy schedules to be filed concurrently or within fifteen (15.) days of the date hereof.\n\n17. Pursuant to Local Rule 1007\"4(a)(7), the membership interest in the Debtor is not publicly traded, and is held by Genever Holdings Corporation as listed in the schedule of eguity holders filed herewith.\n\n18. Pursuant to Local Rule 1007-4( a)(8), none of the Debtor's assets are in the pos~ess~on or custody of any custodian, public officer, mortgagee, pledge, assignee of rents or secured cred,itor.\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 9 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 Pg 10 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 63 of 174\n\nI 9. Pursuant to Local Rule 1007-4(a)(9), the ·Premises together with the· auxiliary· units are· in concept leased from The Sherry-Netherland Hotel pursu~nt to various proprietary leases·.\n\n20. Pursuant to Local Rule 1007-4(a)(10), the Debtor's books and. records are located-at its offices at 781 Fifth A venue, New York, NY 10022.\n\n21. Pursuant to Local Rule I 007~4(a)(I 1 ), a list of all pending lawsuits is filed herewith.\n\n22. Pursuant-to Local Rule 1007--4(a)(l2), Mr. Kwok serves as·the Manager of the Debtor pursuant to the terms of the Debtor's Operating Agreement without compensation. I likewise serve as the Debtor's representative for Chapter 11 without compensation.\n\n> 23. Pursuant to Local Rule· 1007-4(b )( 1 )i the Debtor has no current employees.\n\n24. Pursuant to Local Rule 1007-4(b)(2) and (3), the Debtor anticipates incurring disbursements in the next 30 days of approximately \\$100,000-which is comprised mainly of maintenance charges and assessments, as per the attached budget.\n\nDated: New Yor1>,,New York October *{)..,* 2020\n\nBy: ' ,/\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 10 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 11 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 64 of 174\n\n#### UNTTED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN. DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n--------------------------------·--------------------·-----x\n\n**---------------------------------------------------------·X**\n\nInre: Chapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings .LLC, Case No.\n\nDebtor:\n\n### **COMPANY RESOLUTIONS**\n\n**A** special meeting of the sole Member of Genever Holdings LLC {the \"Company\") having been held on October-'.., 2020, and upon motion duly made and carried, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:\n\n> **RESOLVED,** the Company is authorized to file a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the. United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code''), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York; and it is further\n\n> **RESOLVED,** Yanping Wang is appointed .as the Company's representative and is authorized to act on behalf of the Company to (a) execute .the Chapter 11 petition .and all other accompanying documents, and cause the same to be filed with the Bankruptcy Court; and (b) cause to be filed all schedules~ statem:ents; lists, motions, applications and. other papers or documents necessary or desirable to prosecute the Chapter 11 case; and it is further\n\n> **'RESOLVED.,** that the Company is authorized to retain the law finn nf Goldberg· Weprin Finkel Go,ldstein LLP as counsel in the Chapter 11 case under a general retainer.\n\nDated: New York, New York October **\\_k,** 2020\n\n#### GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\nBy: Genever Holdings Corporation\n\nBy:\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 11 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 12 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 65 of 174\n\n#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n------------------------------------------------· In re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nQenever 1-IQldings LLC, Case No.\n\nDebtor.\n\n**----------------------------------------------------x**\n\n## **LIST OF LAWSUITS**\n\n**------------x**\n\n1. Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P ., Plaintiff v. 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, Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation, Defendants Index No. 652077/2017 Supreme Cow-t of the State of New York County of New York 60 Centre Street, Part 61, Room 232 New York, NY I 0007 Hon. Barry .R. Ostrager\n\n0 'Melveny & Myers LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 7Times Sq New York, NY 10036-6524\n\n2 .. Genevet Holdings LLC, Plaintiffv. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Defendant -Index No. 152838/2020 Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York 60 Centre Street, Part 61, Room 232 New York, NY 100.07 Hon. Eileen Rakower\n\nLawall & Mitchell, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq. 162 East 64th Street New York, NY 10065\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 12 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 13 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 66 of 174\n\nAdam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant One Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004\n\n3. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Petitioner (Landlord) v. Genever Holdings LLC, Respondent (Tenant) Index No. l 54853/2020 Civil Court.of the City of New York CounfY. of New York\n\nAdam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Carolyn Z. Rualo, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner-Landlord One Battecy Park Plaza, 1 8th Floor New York, NY 10004\n\n4. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Petitioner (Landlord) v. Genever Holdings LLC, 781 Fifth Avenue, Apartment 180 I, New York, NY I 0022, Respondent (Tenant) Index No. 154854/2020 Civil Court of the City of New Y or.k Cotn1ty of New York\n\nAdam Leitman Bailey,.P.C. Carolyn Z. Rualo, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner-Landlord One Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004\n\n5; The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Petit10ner-Landlord v. Genever Holdings· LLC. Respondent-Occupant, \"John Doe\" and/or \"Jane Doe\", Respondents~Under-Occupants Index No. l 55038/2020 Civil Comt of the City of New York County ofNew York\n\nAdam Leitman Bajley, p;c. Carolyn Z. Rualo, Esq. -Attorneys for Petitioner-Landlord One Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 13 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 14 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 67 of 174\n\nDated: New York,:!ew York October *.{J.,* 2020\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 14 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 15 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 68 of 174\n\n#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.\n\n·---------------------------------------------·------------x In.re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLCt Case No.\n\nDebtor.\n\n**-----------------------------------------------------x**\n\n#### **LIST OF EQUITY HOLDERS**\n\n1. Genever Holdings Corporation BVI Business Company P.O.Box3170 · Road Town, Tortoia, British Virgin-Islands\n\nDated-: New' Yor:~New York October *9-,* 2020\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 15 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 16 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 69 of 174\n\n#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n**----------------------------------------------------------x**\n\nIn re:\n\n-- Chapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC, Case No.\n\nDebtor.\n\n**---------------------------------------------------------x**\n\n#### **.BANKRUPTCY RULE 7007.1 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT**\n\nPursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1, Genever Holdings LLC- certifies that it is a\n\nprivate non-governmental party, and.has no corporate parent, affiliates and/or subsidiaries which\n\nare publicly held.\n\nDated: NewYor}New York October **t,..,** 2020\n\n> GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-18 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 18 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 70 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 18**\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 141 Filed 10/08/21 Entered 10/08/21 14:04:00 Main Document Pg 1 of 2 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-18 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 18 2 3Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 71 of 174\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------x In re: Chapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC, Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\nDebtor.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------x\n\n## **ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR'S SECOND RENEWED MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT**\n\nUpon the Debtor's renewed motion (ECF No 131) (the \"**Renewed Motion**\") of Genever Holdings LLC, (the \"**Debtor**\") seeking approval of a certain settlement agreement between the Debtor, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"**PAX**\") and Bravo Luck Limited ( \"**Bravo Luck**\") (ECF No. 62); and upon the opposition to the Renewed Motion filed by the Office of the U.S. Trustee via a motion for the appointment of an Operating Chapter 11 Trustee (ECF No. 64) (the \"**UST Opposition**\"); and upon the supplemental responses filed by the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck relating to the UST Opposition (ECF Nos. 76, 81, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105 and 106); and a series of hearings having been held before the undersigned; and upon the record compiled at these hearings; and the Court having considered the UST Opposition; and upon the September 1, 2021, decision (the \"September 1, 2021 Decision\") in which the undersigned determined that the Restated Settlement meets the standards of reasonableness and is supported by the creditors and major stakeholders in the Chapter 11 case, but denied the Renewed Motion due to issues relating to certain aspects of the proposed retention of Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq. and her firm, Otterbourg, P.C.; and, thereafter, the Settling Parties having agreed to the Second Amended and Revised Settlement Agreement between the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck (the \"**Revised Settlement Agreement**\") which addresses the concerns raised by the Court in its September 1, 2021 Decision as well as the objections of the U.S. Trustee, which no longer has any objections to the Revised\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 141 Filed 10/08/21 Entered 10/08/21 14:04:00 Main Document Pg 2 of 2 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-18 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 18 3 3Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 72 of 174\n\nSettlement Agreement and the terms of Melanie L. Cyganowski's employment as Sale Officer for the Debtor; and the Court having agreed to consider final approval of the Renewed Settlement by Notice of Presentment; and based upon the entirety of the record compiled at the various hearings; and good cause appearing therefor; it is hereby\n\nORDERED as follows:\n\n1. The Renewed Settlement Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. The Revised Settlement Agreement is approved in all respects and shall become effective immediately upon the entry of this Order.\n\n3. The Debtor's proposed employment of Melanie L. Cyganowski as Sale Officer shall be approved by separate Order to be noticed and entered simultaneously herewith.\n\n4. The UST Motion seeking the appointment of an Operating Trustee is adjourned *sine die*.\n\n5. Stay relief is granted to allow PAX to prosecute, and the Debtor to defend, the state court action currently pending in the New York Supreme Court under Docket No. 652077/2017 (the \"**State Court Action**\"), with the stay to otherwise remain in place for all other purposes, including relating to enforcement or collection of any judgment entered against the Debtor in the State Court Action, pending further order of the Bankruptcy Court upon further notice to all Parties.\n\n6. The Lift Stay Motion and Conversion Motion filed by PAX are withdrawn as mooted by the approval of the Revised Settlement Agreement.\n\nDated: New York, New York October 8, 2021\n\n/s/ *James L. Garrity, Jr.*\n\nHon. James L. Garrity, Jr.\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-19 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 19 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 73 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 19**\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 904 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-19 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 19 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 74 of 174\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| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\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 | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 018 |\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\n Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 018 by PAX for a post-judgment turnover pursuant to CPLR 5255 of Kwok's shares in Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\") and other relief. In accordance with the transcript of proceedings of September 22, 2021, the motion is granted to the extent of directing Kwok to take the steps necessary to effect the turnover his shares in Genever BVI to PAX. This order is expressly subject to the approval of Justice Adrian Jack who issued a stay in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") in the related BVI litigation. The Court declines to appoint a receiver at this time.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED that Kwok Ho Wan 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 (\"Genever BVI\"); and it is further\n\nORDERED that this decision and order is expressly contingent on the approval of Justice Jack in the related proceeding in the British Virgin Islands. Any actions affecting Genever\n\nHoldings LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Genever BVI, are subject to the jurisdiction of Justice Garrity in the Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York involving Genever Holdings LLC, in which PAX is participating.\n\nA status conference is scheduled for November 16, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: September 22, 2021\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 14-20 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 20 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 76 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 20**\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1078 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-20 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 20 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 77 of 174\n\n## **NOTICE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING IS TO PUNISH YOU FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SUCH PUNISHMENT MAY CONSIST OF A FINE, IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH ACCORDING TO LAW.**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\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\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot. Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\n**NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AS TO DEFENDANT MILES KWOK FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 TURNOVER ORDER**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that upon the annexed January 7, 2022 Memorandum of Law in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s (\"PAX\") 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, and the Affirmation of Stuart Sarnoff, Esq., dated January 7, 2022, and the exhibits attached thereto, and the Affidavit of Andrew Willins, dated January 7, 2022, and the exhibits attached thereto, PAX will move the Court at the New York County Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, NY 10007, on the 25th day of January, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon after that as counsel may be heard, for an order, under N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753 and N.Y. CPLR § 5104, (i) finding Defendant Miles Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Court's September 22, 2021 Turnover Order; and (ii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE** that, under CPLR 2214(b), answering papers, if\n\nany, are required to be served upon the undersigned at least seven days before the return date of\n\nthis motion.\n\nDATED: January 7, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n## CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Edward Moss* Edward Moss (emoss@cahill.com) Lauren Riddell (lriddell@cahill.com) 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 (212) 701-3838\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 1 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 79 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 21**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nMotion Seq. No. 26\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\nPart 61\n\n**REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'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**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 2 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 80 of 174\n\n## **TABLE OF CONTENTS FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 3 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 81 of 174\n\n| | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1 |\n|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | ARGUMENT 2 |\n| I. | The Turnover Order is an Unequivocal Mandate that Does Not Require
Bankruptcy Court Approval—and Kwok Knows it 2 |\n| II. | There is No Impediment to Kwok Initiating Compliance with the Turnover Order.
4 |\n| III. | Kwok's Failure to Comply Prejudices PAX. 5 |\n| | CONCLUSION 6 |\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 4 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 82 of 174\n\n## **Page(s)**\n\n| Cases |\n|-------|\n|-------|\n\n| Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.,
907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at *4 (Sup. Ct. 2010) 4 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.,
38 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984) 3 |\n| McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 (1983) 6 |\n| Statutes |\n| New York Judiciary Law § 753 6 |\n\n![](_page_82_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nIn his attempt to avoid a second civil contempt sanction, Kwok has filed another misleading pleading with this Court.\n\nFirst, Kwok's Opposition1 falsely argues that the Court conditioned its Turnover Order on PAX obtaining Bankruptcy Court pre-approval—even though, as Kwok knows, this Court did no such thing. In fact, the Court *expressly rejected that argument* both on the record at the September 22, 2021 hearing and in the written Turnover Order itself.\n\nKwok then takes that misrepresentation to the next level. He claims that even though the Turnover Order's only condition precedent was satisfied on December 6, 2021—when BVI Justice Jack modified his prior orders to enable the Genever BVI share transfer—he nevertheless cannot initiate the turnover process by issuing the Stop Notice to Bravo Luck until PAX similarly obtains Bankruptcy Court pre-approval. That is also wrong. Bankruptcy Court approval is not a condition precedent to Kwok issuing the Stop Notice. In fact, Kwok's compliance with the Turnover Order *does not implicate* the Bankruptcy Court at all. As this Court recognized,2 Genever BVI is not a party to the New York bankruptcy proceeding and is not encumbered by the automatic stay governing debtor Genever NY. Rather, Kwok has complete control over Genever BVI and is entirely free to issue notice to Bravo Luck (*i.e.*, Kwok's son) at any time; he has just *refused* to do so. Thus, with every passing day, Kwok willfully violates the Turnover Order by failing to \"take whatever steps are necessary in the [BVI] to turn[]over all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership\" in Genever BVI.\n\n1 This brief refers to PAX's January 7, 2022 opening brief [\\(Dkt. No. 1079\\)](http) as the \"Motion\" or \"Mot.\" and Kwok's January 18, 2022 opposition brief [\\(Dkt. No. 1104\\)](http) as the \"Opposition\" or \"Opp.\" Unless otherwise specified, (i) defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Motion, (ii) all emphasis is added, and (iii) all internal citations and quotations are omitted. 2 *See* [Dkt. No. 1086](http) (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:12–18\\)](http).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 6 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 84 of 174\n\nFinally, Kwok argues that his disregard for the Court's lawful Turnover Order has not prejudiced PAX because there already are other court orders in place—the BVI freeze orders and the Bankruptcy Court automatic stay over Genever NY's assets—that are sufficient to protect PAX's interests. That is ironic; as this Court well knows, *court orders provide PAX no protection against Kwok.* One need only look to the current location of Kwok's \"restrained\" yacht, the Lady May—floating beyond the Court's jurisdiction off the coast of Italy despite incurring a \\$500,000 daily fine—as Exhibit A for that proposition.\n\nKwok has repeatedly demonstrated little regard for this Court's authority. More than *six weeks* have elapsed since Justice Jack cleared the way for Kwok to begin to comply with the Turnover Order, but he has failed and refused to take even the first step. The Court should once again hold Kwok in civil contempt.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The Turnover Order is an Unequivocal Mandate that Does Not Require Bankruptcy Court Approval—and Kwok Knows it.**\n\nKwok asserts that because the Turnover Order provides that \"[a]ny actions affecting *Genever* [*NY*], a wholly owned subsidiary of *Genever BVI*, are subject to the jurisdiction of [Judge] Garrity in the Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York involving *Genever* [*NY*],\"3 PAX is required to obtain the Bankruptcy Court's pre-approval before Kwok is obligated to takes steps to effect turnover of his Genever BVI shares.4 This is false, and Kwok knows it; he and the Genever Defendants briefed and argued the same position in connection with PAX's turnover motion and *this Court rejected it*.\n\n3 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.](http) 4 [Opp. at 6–8.](http)\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 7 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 85 of 174\n\nThe Turnover Order—which Kwok did not appeal—was contingent *only* on Justice Jack\n\nmodifying his prior orders in the related BVI action, which Justice Jack did on December 6,\n\n2021.5 Kwok knows full well that the Turnover Order's reference to the Bankruptcy Court\n\nactually derives from the Court's consideration and *repudiation* of Kwok's argument that PAX\n\nwas seeking to circumvent the bankruptcy proceedings and the automatic stay.6 This is because\n\nPAX sought turnover only of Kwok's shares of Genever BVI—a *non-debtor* third party to which\n\nthe Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay *does not apply*. 7 As the Court explained, Kwok's\n\nturnover to PAX of his Genever BVI shares affects Genever BVI, *not Genever NY:* 8\n\nIt is undisputed that the Sherry Netherland apartment is owned by Genever [NY], which is a subsidiary of Genever BVI. Genever [NY] is involved in bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of New York …. And so any action which PAX may wish to take with respect to Genever [NY] requires approval of Judge Garrity in the New York bankruptcy proceedings involving Genever [NY], because Genever [NY] is in bankruptcy. *All this Court is doing today is directing … Genever BVI's registered agent to update Genever BVI's registered members to reflect that PAX, or its designee, is the legal owner of Mr. Kwok's shares in Genever [] BVI*. 9\n\nThough one would not know it from Kwok's Opposition, his counsel has in fact\n\nexpressly acknowledged—in an October 8, 2021 letter to PAX—that the only hurdle to Kwok\n\ninitiating the turnover process was Justice Jack's since-modified freeze orders: \"[i]n order to\n\ncomply with the Court's Turnover Order,\" \"*Mr. Kwok will be acting in accordance with any*\n\n*subsequent court order issued by Justice Jack* as it relates to any modification of the stay orders\n\n5 *See* [Dkt. No. 1089.](http) Specifically, on December 6, 2021, Justice Jack modified his prior order to \"[p]ermit [Kwok] to transfer the shares registered in his name in [Genever BVI] to [PAX] in compliance with the Turnover Order,\" and to \"[p]ermit [Genever BVI] (and its Registered Agent) to update the Register of Members of [Genever BVI] to reflect the transfer by [Kwok] of the shares registered in his name to [PAX].\"\n\n6 *See* [Dkt. No. 874 at 4–6;](http) [Dkt. No. 896 at 4–5.](http) 7 [Dkt. No. 899 at 10](http) (citing *In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.*[, 38 B.R. 75, 78 \\(Bankr. D. Vt. 1984\\)\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_164_78).\n\n8 *See* [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.](http) 9 [Dkt. No. 1086](http) (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:2–17\\)](http).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 8 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 86 of 174\n\nor relating to the shares of Genever BVI.\"10 Tellingly, Kwok's counsel did not claim back in October that Bankruptcy Court pre-approval was also required—because he knew it was not. Making this argument now is just Kwok's latest antic to try to avoid contempt while continuing to flout the Turnover Order.\n\nNo matter how many times Kwok tries to suggest otherwise,11 this Court has already ruled—in the Turnover Order that Kwok did not appeal—that turnover of Kwok's Genever BVI shares to PAX does not require Bankruptcy Court pre-approval.12\n\n## **II. There is No Impediment to Kwok Initiating Compliance with the Turnover Order.**\n\nNext, Kwok builds on his false \"bankruptcy pre-approval requirement\" premise by injecting a new, equally flawed argument relating to Bravo Luck's issuance of the December 10, 2021 Stop Notice. Specifically, Kwok now suggests that he cannot even have Genever BVI (*i.e.,* himself) provide notice to Bravo Luck (*i.e,* his son) until PAX first obtains Bankruptcy Court approval.13 This is circular nonsense. As explained above, the Turnover Order included only *one* condition precedent, and that was fully satisfied in early December when Justice Jack modified his prior BVI orders to enable turnover.14\n\n10 *See* [Dkt. No. 1081.](http) 11 Kwok's attempt to relitigate this issue after it was rejected and not appealed is not only improper, but futile. The Court's decision was correct in September 2021, and remains so today.\n\n12 In the context of this motion, Kwok's observation that courts \"generally defer\" to the Bankruptcy Court concerning the applicability of the automatic stay is a non sequitur. The single case Kwok cites, *[Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, addressed whether individual guarantors who filed for bankruptcy protection should have the automatic stay extend to their wholly owned property. [26 Misc.3d 1215\\(A\\), 907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at \\\\*4 \\(Sup.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) [Ct. 2010\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) That situation is inapposite here, as Genever BVI is the non-debtor parent company of Genever NY, not its wholly owned property.\n\n13 *See* Opp. [at 8–9.](http) 14 *See supra* at 3.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 9 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 87 of 174\n\nAs the sole owner and director of Genever BVI,15 Kwok unquestionably has the unfettered ability to send the Stop Notice—which he is legally obligated to do under the Turnover Order's express mandate that he \"take whatever steps are necessary\" in the BVI to effectuate turnover.\"16 Kwok's new suggestion that giving notice would somehow \"circumvent the procedural process\" \"currently underway\" in the BVI17 is baseless, as there is no ongoing BVI proceeding that in any way addresses turnover or inhibits Kwok from beginning to comply with the Turnover Order by issuing notice to Bravo Luck. Moreover, none of the requisite steps that Kwok must take to effect turnover are contingent in any way on either PAX or the Bankruptcy Court doing anything. Nevertheless, over six weeks have passed since Bravo Luck (*i.e.*, Kwok's son) issued a Stop Notice, and in the interim Kwok defiantly has not taken *any steps* towards compliance with that order.\n\nEnough is enough. The Court should sanction Kwok's blatant disobedience and gamesmanship.18\n\n## **III. Kwok's Failure to Comply Prejudices PAX.**\n\nFinally, Kwok argues that PAX has not been prejudiced by his failure to comply with the Turnover Order because *judicial orders already exist in the related actions \"to maintain the status quo.*\"19\n\n19 [Opp. at 9–10.](http)\n\n15 [Dkt. No. 756 at 9.](http) 16 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1.](http) 17 [Opp. at 9.](http) 18 To the extent Kwok is suggesting that he hasn't disobeyed the Turnover Order because \"it is for Genever BVI to provide the written notice required by the Stop Notice and not Mr. Kwok personally,\" [\\(Nader Aff. ¶ 4\\(b\\),](http) [Dkt. No. 1105\\)](http), that argument doesn't pass the laugh test. By his own admission [\\(Dkt. No. 756 at 9\\)](http), Kwok is the only person authorized to instruct Genever BVI to issue the requisite notice.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 10 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 88 of 174\n\nThe irony likely is not lost on the Court. As PAX has explained,20 Kwok's disobedience \"deprive[s]\" PAX of its right to possess property (the shares of Genever BVI) that \"can be turned over in satisfaction of a money judgment\"—and to which it is entitled.\"21 *[McCormick v.](http) Axelrod*[, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 \\(1983\\).](http) Possession of the Genever BVI shares is especially critical to PAX in this case, given Kwok's demonstrated practice of secreting his assets beyond PAX's reach in blatant defiance of court orders. The Court need look no farther than to Kwok's fugitive, multimillion-dollar luxury yacht, the Lady May—which for over a year now has remained beyond this Court's jurisdictional reach in defiance of its October 15, 2021 Order—as proof positive that *valid court orders provide no deterrence to Kwok, and no protection to PAX*. 22 Guarding against this very risk by obtaining physical possession of the Genever BVI shares is what motivated PAX to move for turnover in the first place, and Kwok's refusal to take\n\nthe steps necessary to effect that share transfer prejudices PAX's rights.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nKwok treats compliance with lawful orders of this Court as optional. That must stop. PAX has established all of the civil contempt elements set forth in [New York Judiciary Law §](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) [753.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Accordingly, PAX respectfully requests that the Court find Kwok in civil contempt of its September 22, 2021 Turnover Order and impose whatever sanction it believes is warranted to induce Kwok's immediate compliance.\n\n20 [Mot. at 7–8.](http) 21 [Dkt. No. 1086](http) (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [16:13–15\\)](http).\n\n22 The Marine Traffic Yacht Tracker locates the Lady May off the northern coast of Italy as of January 24, 2022. *See* Jan. 24, 2022 Aff. of Stuart Sarnoff in Further Supp. of PAX's Mot. for an Order of Civil Contempt, Ex. 1.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 11 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 89 of 174\n\n> Dated: January 24, 2022 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York\n\n## O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n![](_page_89_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nPAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of\n\nCommercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word,\n\nand the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and\n\nsignature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: January 24, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 1 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 91 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 22**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a*\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\nDefendants.\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and\n\nMILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n## **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S CPLR 5229 MOTION AND REQUEST FOR TRO**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 2 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 92 of 174\n\n![](_page_92_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n## **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n## **Page**\n\n| | | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | | ARGUMENT 2 | | | |\n| I. | The Court Should Grant PAX's Application Under CPLR 5229. 2 | | | | |\n| II. | The Court Should Preserve the Status Quo by Temporarily Enjoining
Kwok from Dissipating His Assets Until the Hearing on PAX's 5229
Application. 4 | | | | |\n| | A. | PAX Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if Kwok is Not Restrained
From Dissipating His Assets. 5 | | | |\n| | B. | PAX Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its CPLR 5229
Application. 11 | | | |\n| | C. | The Balance of Hardships Favors PAX. 11 | | | |\n| | | CONCLUSION 12 | | | |\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 4 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 94 of 174\n\n**Cases**\n\n## **Pages**\n\n| Ayro Comm'ns, Inc. v. Jaymer Comm'ns Corp.,
No. 38836/04, 2005 WL 351070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2005) 10 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Coley v. Vannguard Urban Improvement Ass'n, Inc.,
12-CV-5565 (PKC) (RER), 2016 WL 7217641 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016) 2 |\n| Demirovic v. Ortega,
296 F. Supp. 3d 477 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) 4 |\n| Gallegos v. Elite
Model Mgmt. Corp.,
1 Misc.3d 200 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003) 2, 3, 4 |\n| Ibanez v. Pfeiffer,
76 Misc.2d 363 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1973) 3 |\n| Jacobowitz v. Jacobowitz,
No. 16605/04, 2004 WL 2532297 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25, 2004) 10 |\n| Leser v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n,
No. CV 2009–2362, 2013 WL 867153 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) 4 |\n| Loew v. Kolb,
No. 03Civ.5064, 2003 WL 22077454 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2003) 2 |\n| Morgenthau v. A.J. Travis Ltd.,
184 Misc.2d 835 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000) 11 |\n| Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Housing, Inc.,
4 N.Y.3d 839 (2005) 5 |\n| Prudential Secs. Credit Corp. v. Teevee Toons, Inc.,
Index No. 603112/02, 2003 WL 346440 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2003) 11, 12 |\n| Pudalov v. Pudalov,
6 Misc.3d 558 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004) 11 |\n| Sequa Cap. Corp. v. Nave,
921 F. Supp. 1072 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) 2, 5 |\n| Weston Cap. Advisors, Inc. v. PT Bank Mutiara, TBK,
No. 13 CIV. 6945 (PAC), 2017 WL 571511 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017) 4 |\n\n![](_page_94_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**1\n\nPAX has prevailed on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim against Miles Kwok, and the only issue left for the Court to decide on that claim is the quantum of damages. There is no question that PAX imminently will have a very large judgment against Kwok. And this Court has discretion to enforce that judgment before it is entered under CPLR 5229, which was intended to address situations just like this one— where there is a time interval between the Court's finding of liability and its determination of damages. Indeed, the *only* requirement PAX must satisfy under CPLR 5229 is that a decision has been rendered in its favor. PAX already has met that requirement.\n\nBut here, relief under CPLR 5229 is all the more appropriate because, as PAX has previously detailed for the Court and as summarized below, Kwok has a long history of shielding assets and abusing the litigation process. This evidence demonstrates a real risk that Kwok will not comply with the judgment here. Thus, to protect PAX's opportunity to collect on the imminent damages award, there is a strong need to preserve the status quo by restraining Kwok from disposing of and/or secreting his assets in the period before a final judgment is entered. Accordingly, PAX respectfully requests that the Court (i) schedule a hearing on PAX's application under CPLR 5229 for the earliest possible date, and (ii) in the interim, issue a TRO under CPLR 6301 *et seq.* temporarily enjoining Kwok from dissipating his assets.\n\n1 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and all citations and quotations are omitted and all defined terms have the same meaning as in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 409). The Affirmation of Edward Moss in Support of Plaintiff's CPLR 5229 Motion and Request for TRO by Order to Show Cause is referred to herein as the \"Moss Aff.\" The Affirmation of Jon Lewis in Support of Plaintiff's CPLR 5229 Motion and Request for TRO by Order to Show Cause is referred to herein as the \"Lewis Aff.\"\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The Court Should Grant PAX's Application Under CPLR 5229.**\n\nCPLR 5229 provides unambiguously that the Court has discretion to enforce a judgment\n\nbefore it is entered upon the motion of a prevailing party:\n\nIn any court, before a judgment is entered, upon motion of the party in whose favor a verdict or decision has been rendered, the trial judge may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon him after judgment.\n\nNew York law is clear that a favorable merits decision is *the sole prerequisite* to obtaining relief under CPLR 5229. *Gallegos v. Elite Model Mgmt. Corp.*, 1 Misc.3d 200, 202 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003), *aff'd*, 807 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1st Dep't. 2005) (\"The only statutory requirement is that the application for CPLR 5229 relief be made by the prevailing party.\"); *Loew v. Kolb*, No. 03Civ.5064, 2003 WL 22077454, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2003) (\"Other than having received a favorable verdict or decision, there are no prerequisites to obtaining the relief provided in CPLR 5229.\"); *Sequa Cap. Corp. v. Nave*, 921 F. Supp. 1072, 1076 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (same); *see also Coley v. Vannguard Urban Improvement Ass'n, Inc.*, 12-CV-5565 (PKC) (RER), 2016 WL 7217641, at \\*6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016) (granting relief under CPLR 5229 based on default judgment before a final damages award was entered and explaining that \"the moving party need not make a particular showing of the danger of dissipation of assets\"). It is also well-settled that the trial court has discretion both to determine whether to grant relief under CPLR 5229 and the scope of that relief. *Sequa Cap. Corp.*, 921 F. Supp. at 1076.\n\nCPLR 5229 is designed to address the exact situation presented here—when there is a time interval between the issuance of a summary judgment decision on liability and a damages award. *See, e.g.*, *id.* (restraining defendant from transferring any property in which he has an interest, *following entry of summary judgment, but before a determination on damages*); *see*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 7 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 97 of 174\n\n*also* CPLR 5229; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, C5229:1 (\"Perhaps the scene of CPLR 5229's *highest utility is where there is some hiatus between the verdict or decision and the judgment* . . . for example, [where] the decision was one *granting summary judgment* for the plaintiff [] against the defendant [] *on liability*, but with the *damages issues then referred to a magistrate*. The CPLR 5229 restraint was granted pending the damages determination.\").\n\nTo prevail on its motion under CPLR 5229, therefore, PAX is not actually required to demonstrate that Kwok intends to dissipate his assets or otherwise try to make himself judgmentproof. *See, e.g.*, *Gallegos*, 1 Misc.3d at 207 (\"Neither the[] cases, the commentaries, nor the statute itself requires the prevailing party to submit evidence that assets are definitively being disposed of or diverted as a prerequisite to obtaining injunctive relief. Such evidence often may only surface on examination of the adverse party, ordered pursuant to CPLR 5229. A requirement of a showing that the adverse party has already disposed of assets runs counter to the purpose of CPLR 5229, which is a preventative measure designed to frustrate the adverse party from disposing of assets before such disposition takes place.\"). Nevertheless, as explained in its prior applications and as detailed in the next section, PAX has ample evidence that Kwok intends to do precisely that.\n\nThus, an order (i) restraining Kwok from disposing of any assets in the United States, and (ii) giving PAX discovery into those assets, is particularly necessary and appropriate at this time. *See* Weinstein, Korn, & Miller, New York Civil Practice, ¶ 5229.02; *Ibanez v. Pfeiffer*, 76 Misc.2d 363, 365 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1973) (ordering defendant to appear before the court at a set time for examination and restraining disposition of any of defendant's property prior to judgment pursuant to CPLR 5229); *Demirovic v. Ortega*, 296 F. Supp. 3d 477, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2017); *Weston Cap. Advisors, Inc. v. PT Bank Mutiara, TBK*, No. 13 CIV. 6945 (PAC), 2017 WL\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 8 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 98 of 174\n\n571511, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017), *aff'd*, 738 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2018) (enjoining \"the transfer, encumbrance of, or alteration in the rights of the Contemnor Assets\" under 5229 because under New York law, \"the Court may order the Contemnors to deliver those [ownership] certificates to this district, even if they are located outside New York\"); *Leser v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n*, No. CV 2009–2362, 2013 WL 867153, \\*2 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding that the prevailing party was entitled to relevant documents and deposition pursuant to CPLR 5229).\n\n## **II. The Court Should Preserve the Status Quo by Temporarily Enjoining Kwok from Dissipating His Assets Until the Hearing on PAX's 5229 Application.**\n\nPAX's application under CPLR 5229 is, essentially, a request for preliminary relief—to allow PAX to begin to take discovery into Kwok's U.S. assets and to enjoin him from dissipating those assets during the short interval until a judgment is entered, when PAX will be afforded that relief permanently. Although PAX need not establish the typical preliminary-injunction requirements in order to prevail on its application under CPLR 5229, as discussed below, it can readily establish those elements because, among other things, there is strong evidence that Kwok will attempt to dissipate his assets or otherwise try to avoid the judgment in this case, which PAX anticipates will be nine figures (the debt continues to accrue 15% interest per annum and is currently approximately \\$114 million, exclusive of enforcement costs).2 As a result, PAX respectfully requests that the Court at this juncture grant PAX, under CPLR 6301 *et seq.*, just a portion of the relief it seeks on its 5229 application—and enjoin Kwok from dissipating his assets—so as to preserve the status quo and PAX's ability to collect on the forthcoming judgment in this case.\n\n2 *See* Lewis Aff. at ¶ 5.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 9 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 99 of 174\n\nNew York courts routinely grant such applications. *See, e.g.*, *Gallegos*, 1 Misc.3d at 207 (temporarily restraining defendants from transferring or selling any of their property before granting CPLR 5229 relief for prevailing plaintiff defendant's conduct included misleading statements and evasions); *Sequa Cap. Corp.*, 921 F. Supp. at 1074 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (temporarily restraining defendant's assets on the day plaintiff moved for CPLR 5229 relief before later granting relief under CPLR 5229). And as discussed below, PAX can satisfy all three elements of a claim for preliminary relief under CPLR 6301 *et seq*. See *Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Housing, Inc.*, 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 (2005) (\"The party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor.\").\n\n## **A. PAX Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if Kwok is Not Restrained From Dissipating His Assets.**\n\nThere is overwhelming evidence that Kwok will take steps to dissipate his assets or otherwise frustrate the judgment in this case, rendering it unenforceable and PAX's injury irreparable.\n\n*First*, the record contains ample grounds to doubt that Kwok will voluntarily pay the judgment. To begin, Kwok has not repaid a penny of the nearly decade-old debt, and as the Court recognized in its summary judgment order, Kwok did not even \"argue that either he or Shiny Times made any payments under the 2011 Loan Facility or the 2011 Personal Guarantee to satisfy the debt.\"3 The chronology demonstrates that Kwok's failure to pay was deliberate.\n\nAfter Kwok failed to repay by the original repayment deadline, the parties attempted to settle the outstanding debt through a series of deeds of settlements, including a 2013 Deed of\n\n3 Dkt. No. 549 (\"Order\") at 7.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 10 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 100 of 174\n\nSettlement, which provided for Kwok to settle the debt by transferring to PAX three apartments in the Beijing Pangu Plaza.4 But Kwok negotiated the final extension to satisfy the conditions precedent to that settlement in February 2015—when it was clear that he could *never* satisfy those conditions because the Chinese government already had seized the three apartments.5\n\nBy early 2015, Kwok owed PAX approximately \\$77 million, but rather than repaying his debt, he used most of that amount (over \\$65 million) to purchase a luxury Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and shield it through a double LLC structure.6 The Sherry-Netherland Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Michael Ullman testified that this structure was \"unique\" and unprecedented—one that he had \"never seen before and [had] never seen since.\"7\n\nTo support his application to purchase the Residence, Kwok submitted false financial records to the Sherry-Netherland Board for a company called Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited (\"Beijing Zenith\"), which he then represented he owned and controlled.8 But when asked about Beijing Zenith at his deposition, Kwok testified that he did not \"have any ownership interest in Beijing Zenith\" when he submitted those financials, and that he had no idea why his attorneys submitted them to the Sherry-Netherland.9 When shown Kwok's testimony on this\n\n9 *Id.*\n\n4 *Id.* at 2.\n\n5 Lewis Aff. at ¶ 5.\n\n6 *See* Moss Aff. at ¶ 6*.* Despite applying to purchase the Residence and residing there, in an effort to avoid attachment, Kwok has denied even owning the Residence. At his October 3, 2018 deposition, he testified that the Residence actually was owned by a mysterious Chinese prisoner named Zhang Wei. *See id.* at ¶ 8.\n\n7 *Id.*\n\n8 *See id.* at ¶ 6.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 11 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 101 of 174\n\nmatter, Sherry-Netherland CEO Michael Horvitz testified that he believed the Sherry-Netherland had been \"defrauded.\"10\n\nAfter purchasing the residence, Kwok took further steps to shield it. Indeed, in June 2016, after PAX had sent him a demand letter, Kwok's representatives asked the Sherry-Netherland for permission to \"undertake some restructuring in relation to the property so that the ultimate beneficial ownership will pass to his son,\" by transferring ownership of Genever New York to \"a trust of which the son is a beneficiary.\"11\n\nKwok's conduct throughout this litigation has provided even more evidence that he will not repay, even in the face of a judgment. After PAX filed this lawsuit, Kwok tweeted \"I neither have to nor should I repay this amount of boring money irrelevant to me for them.\"12 Kwok was then asked point-blank at his deposition whether he would pay a judgment if one were entered against him in this litigation, and after his lawyers instructed him not to answer, he refused to answer the question.13 The answer appears to be \"no\" based on Kwok's abuse of the litigation process. He has made countless misrepresentations to this Court, culminating in his deposition testimony that he never signed the 2011 Personal Guarantee or related contracts.14 But contrary to that false deposition testimony, Kwok previously repeatedly had affirmed those contracts to the Court as authentic—and even *filed his own copies* with the Court.15\n\n13 *Id.*\n\n10 *Id.*\n\n11 *Id.* at ¶ 8\n\n12 Lewis Aff. at ¶ 5.\n\n14 *See* Moss Aff. at ¶ 8*.*\n\n15 *See* Order at 2–3; *see also* Dkt. Nos. 11, 16–17.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 12 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 102 of 174\n\nKwok also attempted to avoid attachment of the Residence based on false testimony and representations that the Residence had been pledged to a third-party. For example, Kwok's employee Yvette Wang submitted an affidavit in which she swore to this Court that \"the assets of Genever BVI, which by virtue of its ownership of Genever [New York] include the [Residence], were pledged to Roscalitar 2.\"16 At her deposition, however, she admitted that *she in fact knew absolutely nothing about pledges*, had \"no idea\" if the Residence or the Genever entities had been pledged, and had never spoken to Kwok about any pledges.17 To make matters worse, when confronted by the Sherry-Netherland about the unequivocal statement in Ms. Wang's affidavit that the Residence had been pledged to Roscalitar 2, Kwok's lawyers argued that the affidavit \"*made no such representation*\" that the Residence had been pledged.18\n\nKwok ultimately avoided attachment based at least in part on false testimony about the Residence. At the April 26, 2019 hearing on PAX's attachment motion, Ms. Wang testified that the Residence was not for sale.19 Although she testified that it had been taken off the market \"[a]bout one month\" prior to the hearing, the only evidence PAX has seen thus far suggests that the Residence was actually taken off the market *the very day of the hearing*. 20 On February 13, 2020, the Residence was once again listed for sale for \\$63,500,000; less than one month later, Kwok dropped the price to \\$55,000,000.21 As of September 21, 2020, the Residence remains on the market.22\n\n17 *Id.*\n\n- 18 *Id.*\n- 19 *See id.*\n- 20 *Id.*\n- 21 *See id.*\n- 22 *See id.*\n\n16 Moss Aff. at ¶ 8*.*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 13 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 103 of 174\n\n*Second*, there is strong evidence that, even if Kwok were willing to pay the judgment, he lacks the financial ability to do so. Although Kwok claims publicly to be a billionaire, recent evidence, including his own under-oath testimony, shows that claim may be exaggerated (or at least that his financial position has changed). As an initial matter, it has been widely reported that Kwok's assets across the world have been frozen.23 And in January 23, 2019, Kwok testified under oath at a deposition in a case in the Eastern District of Virginia that his net worth was *\"negative,\"* that he *didn't \"have any more money,\"* that he *does not \"[i]n reality, under the law\" \"own any assets in the United States,\"* that he has *no \"income from any sources,\"* and that he has *\"not a penny left.\"*24\n\nMoreover, the Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Inc. recently sued Defendant Genever Holdings LLC seeking to evict Kwok from the Residence for failure to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintenance fees (which he had not paid since January 2020). And just about a month ago, Kwok was sanctioned by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, for avoiding the opposing party's attempts to take discovery on a \\$196,940.39 judgment he had obtained against Kwok.25 It is also worth noting that the *Wall Street Journal* reported on August 19, 2020, that the FBI and SEC were investigating whether a media company linked to Kwok had violated the securities laws in connection with a \\$300 million private offering (and that the New York Attorney General's Office also was investigating the matter) and that Kwok had confirmed the probe in an online video.26 The *Journal* article also reported that the company's\n\n23 *See* Lewis Aff. at ¶ 6.\n\n24 *See* Moss Aff. at ¶ 7; *see also* Lewis Aff. at ¶ 6.\n\n25 *See* Moss Aff. at ¶ 7.\n\n26 *See* Lewis Aff. at ¶ 6*.*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 14 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 104 of 174\n\ninvestors were pushing for refunds and lodging complaints and that several banks (JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America) had either frozen or closed accounts tied to the company.27\n\nThe evidence also suggests that Kwok has taken steps to shield other of his assets. For example, he appears to be recorded in a YouTube audio recording instructing his associates to quickly and quietly sell his boat and plane.28 Kwok originally disputed the audio's authenticity, and so PAX's counsel played the recording during his deposition to ask whether the voice was in fact his. Following his counsel's instructions, Kwok refused to answer whether it was his voice (the Court may recall from the video at the attachment hearing that Kwok stuck his fingers in his ears).29 Since April 2020, Kwok has listed his yacht, the Lady May, for sale with an asking price of \\$27,900,000.30\n\nIn light of this evidence, it is necessary to restrain any assets in which Kwok has any interest to ensure that the judgment to be entered in PAX's favor can be satisfied. In the event this Court does not restrain Kwok from dissipating his assets in advance of the imminent judgment, PAX may well be unable to recover on its nearly decade-long quest and, thus, will suffer irreparable harm. *See, e.g.*, *Ayro Comm'ns, Inc. v. Jaymer Comm'ns Corp.*, No. 38836/04, 2005 WL 351070, at \\*4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2005) (\"Generally, [] a preliminary injunction is granted where injunctive relief will prevent the potential dissolution of an existing valuable asset or some comparable potential irreparable harm.\"); *Jacobowitz v. Jacobowitz*, No. 16605/04, 2004 WL 2532297, at \\*5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25, 2004) (explaining that \"the purpose []of a preliminary injunction[]\" is to \"preserve the status quo\" and prevent dissipation of property that\n\n- 29 *See id.*\n- 30 *See id.*\n\n27 *See id.*\n\n28 *See* Moss Aff. at ¶ 8*.*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 15 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 105 of 174\n\ncould render a \"judgment ineffectual\"); *Prudential Secs. Credit Corp. v. Teevee Toons, Inc.*, Index No. 603112/02, 2003 WL 346440, at \\*3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2003) (\"[W]ithout an injunction against dissipation or transfer of the assets, plaintiff's rights therein are at risk of irreparable harm and any future judgment in its favor might be rendered futile.\").31\n\n## **B. PAX Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its CPLR 5229 Application.**\n\nPAX easily satisfies the preliminary-relief requirement of likelihood of success on the merits. As discussed above, (i) the Court has discretion to grant relief under CPLR 5229, (ii) the only requirement to prevail is a decision on the merits, and (iii) CPLR 5229 was designed for cases just like this one, where there is a time interval between when the Court grants summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability and it issues its judgment on damages.\n\n## **C. The Balance of Hardships Favors PAX.**\n\nKwok has avoided paying his debt for nearly a decade, and—after chasing Kwok across the globe—PAX finally has a judicial order holding Kwok liable for his breach of contract. Kwok can no longer dispute that he owes a debt—and a significant one—to PAX. Kwok will be enjoined from dissipating assets as soon as a judgment is entered. There is no legitimate harm to him in beginning that process now, when judgment will likely be entered within weeks. On the other hand, PAX will suffer greatly if, after finally locating Kwok and litigating for more than three years, the judgment it obtains is uncollectible because Kwok took steps to shield his assets after receiving an adverse decision on liability. Indeed, as noted *supra* at note 31, Kwok's\n\n31 Yesterday afternoon, PAX counsel Edward Moss telephoned Kwok counsel Jillian Searles to inquire whether this emergency motion could be obviated by Kwok's agreement not to dissipate any of his assets in the period before the damages award issued. As anticipated, Ms. Searles responded that Kwok would not agree to such an arrangement, further highlighting PAX's need for the relief requested herein. *See* Moss Aff. at ¶ 10.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 16 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 106 of 174\n\ncounsel stated that Kwok would not voluntarily commit to preserving his assets during this interim period.\n\nThus, the balance of hardships heavily favors PAX. *See, e.g.*, *Morgenthau v. A.J. Travis Ltd.*, 184 Misc.2d 835, 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000) (granting preliminary injunction upon a finding that \"[w]hatever hardship the defendants may have as a result of this [frozen funds] arrangement is far outweighed by the possibility that the assets in question may become unavailable in the absence of the requested relief\"); *see also Pudalov v. Pudalov*, 6 Misc.3d 558, 562 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004) (holding that \"the equitable scales . . . tip in favor of the movant\" where the notion that the nonmovant would pay a judgment absent a preliminary injunction was \"speculative and a bit naïve\" considering the animosity between the parties, and where the nonmovant's \"extensive resources and/or the ability to access them\" meant that it would \"suffer no great hardship by a limited preliminary injunction\"); *Prudential*, 2003 WL 346440, at \\*3 (granting TRO and explaining that \"[t]he equities tip decidedly in plaintiff's favor [and] [p]reservation of the assets . . . presents no undue hardship for the defendants, while it is *essential* to plaintiff's rights\").\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons stated above, PAX respectfully requests that this Court issue an order, under CPLR 5229, (i) enjoining and restraining Defendant Kwok, with the same effect as if a restraining order had been served upon him after judgment, 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; (ii) permitting PAX to issue restraining notices permitted by CPLR 5222 with respect to Defendant Kwok; (iii) permitting PAX to conduct the disclosure permitted by CPLR 5229, including disclosure as set forth in CPLR 5223 and 5224;\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 17 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 107 of 174\n\nand (iv) granting PAX such other, further, and different relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\nPAX also respectfully requests that, in the event the Court sets a briefing schedule and a hearing on PAX's request under CPLR 5229, the Court preserve the status quo by issuing an order, under CPLR 6301 *et seq.*, temporarily restraining Kwok, until that hearing, 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.\n\nDATED: September 25, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n![](_page_107_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\n PAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 7,000 words.\n\nDATED: September 25, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-23 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 23 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 109 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 23**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-23 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 23 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 110 of 174\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
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN
GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 | |\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| | Defendants. | | | |\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn September 30, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Skype, with counsel for all parties. On consent, the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Mr. Kwok from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nThe Court will hear further argument, and if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing, on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file their opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm. Plaintiff must file their reply, if any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm. If either party intends to call witnesses, they must exchange witness lists with one another and e-file a witness list with the Court no later than October 13, 2020.\n\nAdditionally, the Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion 008 for damages and attorney's fees on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-23 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 23 Pg 3 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 111 of 174\n\ntheir opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm and Plaintiff must file their reply,\n\nif any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm.\n\nAny violation of the temporary restraining order issued today shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\n\nDated: September 30, 2020\n\n| 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 14-24 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 24 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 112 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 24**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2020 02:52 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 630 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-24 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 24 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 113 of 174\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM | |\n|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|--|\n| | Justice | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | | |\n| | -
v - | | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a
GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 | |\n| | HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, | | | |\n| CORPORATION, | GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n| | Defendants. | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn October 15, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Microsoft Teams, with counsel for all parties participating, on plaintiff's motion for a post-judgment restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 (motion 011). On September 15, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on liability, with damages and the issue of whether the corporate defendants are defendant Kwok's alter egos to be determined at a later date. NYSCEF Doc. 549.\n\nPlaintiff's motion for a restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 is granted. Mr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020.\n\nSpecifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\n![](_page_113_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nPlaintiff is entitled, under CPLR 5229, to take discovery into the above-identified assets as well as to seek discovery into any other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\n\nThe next appearance will be a pre-trial conference on November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm via Microsoft Teams.\n\n| October 15, 2020
DATE | | | | \\$SIG\\$
BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C. | | |\n|--------------------------|---|------------------------------------|---|------------------------------------------|-----------|--|\n| CHECK ONE: | X | CASE DISPOSED
GRANTED
DENIED | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
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 14-25 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 25 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 115 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 25**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 69 of 134 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-25 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 25 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 05/24/22 05/24/22 23:04:58 116 of 174\n\n![](_page_115_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_115_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_116_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_116_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_116_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-26 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 26 Pg 1 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 118 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 26**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| | | Justice | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. | 012 |\n| KWOK | HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") in contempt. This Court previously issued\n\nthree orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the \"Lady May.\" On September 30,\n\n2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\") preventing Kwok from,\n\namong other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" NYSCEF Doc.\n\nNo. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\" *Id.* On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's\n\nmotion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630. Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the Court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request at the time and directed counsel to make a motion if necessary.\n\nPlaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.\n\nThe Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling. and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht \"Lady May.\"\n\nThe defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000. The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place.\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 728 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-26 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 26 Pg 4 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 121 of 174\n\nA status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: March 16, 2021\n\n| CHECK ONE: | | CASE DISPOSED | | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | |\n|-----------------------|---|----------------------------|--|--------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-------|\n| | X | GRANTED | | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | | SETTLE ORDER | | | | SUBMIT ORDER | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE | |\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 1 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 122 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 27**\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 03/25/2021 03:47 PM** 2021-01010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/25/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 2 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 123 of 174\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**NOTICE OF APPEAL**\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\n- against -\n\nKWOK HO WAN, et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE**, that Defendant Kwok Ho Wan hereby appeals to the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, from the Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, dated March 16, 2021, and entered in the office of the New York County Clerk on March 17, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728), and from each and every part thereof.\n\nDated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, March 23, 2021\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n\n By: *\\_/s/ John Siegal\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_* John Siegal Melissa Carvalho 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 212-589-1400 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan*\n\nTo: Clerk of the County of New York (via NYSCEF) All counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 3 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 124 of 174\n\n# **~rtmt sli.111 L.ILJ,c' h; \\\\l11,h the· lll.Jlkl \\\\,J, ,11 1, t, he c\\1111111\\.'llec·d ,11 ,1' .Jlllc'llckd | | For Court of Original Instance |\n|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP., | | | |\n| - against - | | | Date Notice of Appeal Filed |\n| Kwok Ho Wan, et al. | | | For Appellate Division |\n| | | 111111~1,,,, | |\n| Civil Action
0
CPLR article 75 Arbitration | 0
CPLR article 78 Proceeding
0
Special Proceeding Other
D Habeas Corpus Proceeding | Appeal
0
Original Proceedings
0 CPLR Article 78
0 Eminent Domain
0 Labor Law 220 or 220-b
D Public Officers Law § 36
0 Real Property Tax Law§ 1278 | 0 Transferred Proceeding
0 CPLR Article 78
0 Executive Law § 298
D CPLR 5704 Review |\n| | :\\aturc of Suit: ( iiL'L'k up IP thrc·,· ()fthc· IPll,1\\\\ t11g L',tlL'gntic, 1\\hiLh h.·,t l | | c.'lkll th,' 11,tlllrL' Pl th'-· L\".t,c· |\n| • Administrative Review | Business Relationships | Commercial | Contracts |\n| D Declaratory Judgment | • Domestic Relations | • Election Law | • Estate Matters |\n| • Family Court | • Mortgage Foreclosure | • Miscellaneous | D Prisoner Discipline & Parole |\n| • Real Property
( other than foreclosure) | • Statutory | • Taxation | •
Torts |\n\nPg 4 of 11 174\n\n| | | and the count them the county of the county of the count | | |\n|--|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--|\n| | JYSCEF | | 10 200
DOC. DOC. DOC. | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj | Doc 432-3
Doc 14-27 | Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | Exhibit 27
Page 125 of | |\n|-------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731 | | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n| Paper Appealed From (Check one only): | Appeal | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or
judgment by the filing of this notice of appea1, please
indicate the below information for each such order or
judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. |\n| D Amended Decree
D Amended Judgement
D Amended Order
Iii Decision | D Determination
0 Finding
D Interlocutory Decree
D Interlocutory Judgment | Iii Order
D Order & Judgment
D Partial Decree
D Resettled Decree | D Resettled Order
0 Ruling
• Other (specify): |\n| • Decree | • Judgment | • Resettled Judgment | |\n| Supreme Court
Court: | | New York
County: | |\n| Dated:
03/16/2021 | | Entered: March 17, 2021 | |\n| Judge (name in full): Hon. Barry R. Ostrager | | Index No.: 65201112011 | |\n| • Interlocutory Iii Final D Post-Final
Stage: | | D Yes Iii No
Trial: | If Yes: D Jury D Non-Jury |\n| | Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information | | |\n| | Index No. 150823/2021. Dismissed without prejudice. | | GTV Media Group v. Pacific Asia Alliance Fund, LP., Supreme Court, New York County (Ostrager, J.), |\n| | Original Proceeding | | Date Filed: |\n| Commenced by: | D Order to Show Cause • Notice of Petition D Writ of Habeas Corpus
Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division: | | |\n| | Proceeding Transfer-red Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) | | |\n| Choose Court
Court: | | county: | Choose Countv |\n| Judge (name in full): | | Order of Transfer Date: | |\n| | CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: | | |\n| | | | |\n| Choose Court
Court:
Judge (name in full): | | County:
Dated: | Choose Countv |\n| | Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues | | |\n\nNew York County, dated March 16, 2021, granting Plaintiffs motion for contempt against Defendant Kwok Ho Wan.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 5 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 126 of 174\n\nIssues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal.\n\nWithout limiting the arguments that may be presented on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan states that the Supreme Court's Decision and Order granting Plaintiff-Respondent's motion for contempt against Defendant-Appellant is in error and should be reversed. The Supreme Court's decision and order relates specifically to an asset (a yacht) which is not owned by Defendant-Appellant, but is owned by a third-party, HK International, and imposes fines against Defendant-Appellant relating to the movement and location of HK lnternational's asset (the yacht). The Supreme Court's decision and order also fails to satisfy either the procedural or substantive requirements for an adjudication of contempt.\n\n## Party Information\n\nInstructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party's name and his, her, or its status in this court.\n\n| No. | Party Name | Original Status | Appellate Division Status |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------|\n| 1 | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. | Plaintiff | Respondent |\n| 2 | Kwok Ho Wan | Defendant | Appellant |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings LLC | Defendant | None |\n| 4 | Genever Holdings Corporation | Defendant | None |\n| 5 | | | |\n| 6 | | | |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | | | |\n| 10 | | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n\nPg 6 of 11 174\n\n## Attorney ln'ormat1on\n\nInstructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or himself, the box marked \"Pro Se\" must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided.\n\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: Edward Moss, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | |\n|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Address: 7 Times Square | | |\n| City: New York | I State: New York
I Zip: 10036
I Telephone No: 212-326-2000 | |\n| E-mail Address: emoss@omm.com | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Prose
• Pro Hae Vice
0 Assigned
0 Government
Retained | |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):
1 | |\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | |\n| Address: 7 Times Square | | |\n| City: New York | I State: New York
I Zip: 10036
I Telephone No: 212-326-2000 | |\n| E-mail Address: ssamoff@omm.com | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Government
• Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se
Retained | |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):1 | |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: RobertW. Seiden | | |\n| Address:469 Seventh Avenue, 5th Floor | | |\n| City: New York | I Telephone No: 212-523-0686
I State: New York
I Zip: 10018 | |\n| E-mail Address: rseiden@seidenlawgroup.com | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Government
• Pro Hae Vice
• Prose
Retained | |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):1 | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: John Siegal, Baker & Hostetler LLP | |\n| Address:45 Rockefeller Plaza
City: New York | | |\n| E-mail Address:jsiegal@baker1aw.com | I State: New York
I Zip: 10111
I Telephone No: 212-589-1400 | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Government
Retained | |\n| | • Assigned
• Pro Se
• Pro Hae Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party numberls) from table above):• ;}_ | |\n| | | |\n| Address: 162 E. 64th Street | Attorney/Firm Name: Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | |\n| City: New York | | |\n| E-mail Address: aaron@lmesq.com | I State: New York
I Zip: 10065
I Telephone No: 973-285-3280 | |\n| Attorney Type: | Retained | |\n| | • Government
• Assigned
• Pro Hae Vice
0 Pro Se | |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): O 3 | |\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | |\n| Address: 162 E. 64th Street | | |\n| City: New York
E-mail Address: | I State: New York
I Zip: 10065
I Telephone No: 973-285-3280
aaron@lmesq.com
• Pro Hae Vice
• Assigned
• Government | |\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM**\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\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 LLC, *and* GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/20216 of 10\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n**NOTICE OF ENTRY**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that the attached is a copy of the Decision and Order of\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 04:37 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 730 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2021\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 7 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 128 of 174\n\nJustice Barry R. Ostrager entered in the Clerk's office of the Supreme Court of New York\n\nCounty on March 17, 2021.\n\nDATED: March 17, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036\n\n(212) 626-6708 *Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nTo: John Siegal (jsiegal@bakerlaw.com) Melissa Carvalho (mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10001 (212) 589-4200 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/20217 of 10\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Miles Kwok*\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
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | | | |\n| | Plaintiff,
- v - | MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. | 012 | | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | | |\n| | Defendants. | | | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | | | | | |\n| | Before the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | (\"PAX\") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") in contempt. This Court previously issued | | | | | |\n| | three orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the \"Lady May.\" On September 30, | | | | | |\n| 2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\") preventing Kwok from, | | | | | | |\n| | among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" NYSCEF Doc. | | | | | |\n| | No. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation shall be considered | | | | | |\n| | criminal contempt.\" Id. On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's | | | | | |\n| | motion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May: | | | | | |\n| | Mr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or
interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or
indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or
thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in
accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. Specifically,
Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry
Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making
or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets. | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 09:09 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 728 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021 **04:37 PM** 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 10 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 131 of 174\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630. Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the Court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request at the time and directed counsel to make a motion if necessary.\n\n Plaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.\n\n The Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling. and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht \"Lady May.\"\n\n The defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000. The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place. 73003/17/20214 5**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM**NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/20219 of 10\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 09:09 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 728 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021 **04:37 PM** 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 11 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 132 of 174\n\n| FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 09:09 AM
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM
Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 728
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731
730 | Doc 432-3
Doc 14-27 | Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | 04:37 PM
Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
INDEX NO. 652077/2017
Exhibit 27
Page 132 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 | 03/17/2021 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|\n| | | Pg 11 of 11
174 | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | A status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am. | | |\n| Dated: March 16, 2021 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| CHECK ONE: | CASE DISPOSED
X
GRANTED | DENIED | X
NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED IN PART | OTHER | |\n| APPLICATION: | SETTLE ORDER | • | SUBMIT ORDER | • | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | •
REFERENCE | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | 3 | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | 10 of 10
3 of 3
5
5 | | | |\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-28 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 28 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 133 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 28**\n\nSupreme Court of the State of New York **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 11/04/2021 10:22 AM** 2021-01010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-28 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 28 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 134 of 174\n\n## Appellate Division, First Judicial Department\n\nAcosta, P.J., Renwick, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.\n\n14555 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff-Respondent,\n\nIndex No. 652077/17 Case No. 2021-01010\n\n-against-\n\nKWOK HO WAN, also known as KWOK HO, etc., Defendant-Appellant,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Defendants.\n\nGanfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP, New York (Ira Brad Matetsky of counsel), for appellant.\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York (Anton Metlitsky of counsel), for respondent.\n\nOrder, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered March 17, 2021, which granted the motion of plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. to hold defendant Kwok Ho Wan in contempt of court, and imposed a fine of \\$500,000 for every day after May 15, 2021 in which a \\$27 million yacht remains outside the court's jurisdiction in violation of prior orders, unanimously affirmed, with costs.\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).\n\n### 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-28 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 28 Pg 3 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 135 of 174\n\nContrary to defendant's argument, the court did not commit a procedural defect under Judiciary Law § 770 because it did not issue a final order of contempt. Further, the evidence shows that the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing (*see e.g. Ruesch v Ruesch*, 106 AD3d 976, 977 [2d Dept 2013]). 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\n## THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.\n\nENTERED: November 4, 2021\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-29 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 29 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 136 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 29**\n\n| | Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj | Doc 432-3
Doc 14-29 | Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | Exhibit 29
Page 137 of | |\n|--------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------|\n| | | FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 01/20/2022 09:38 AM | Pg 2 of 2
174 | | | | 2021-01010 |\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 | | Supreme Court of the State of New York | | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/20/2022 | |\n\n## Appellate Division, First Judicial Department\n\n| PRESENT:
Hon.
Rolando T. Acosta,
Dianne T. Renwick
Tanya R. Kennedy | Presiding Justice, | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|------------|--|\n| Manuel J. Mendez, | Justices. | | |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P., | Motion No. | 2021-04127 | |\n| Plaintiff-Respondent, | Index No. | 652077/17 | |\n| | Case No. | 2021-01010 | |\n| -against | | | |\n| Kwok Ho Wan, also known as Kwok Ho, etc.,
Defendant-Appellant, | | | |\n| Genever Holdings LLC, et al., | | | |\n\nDefendants.\n\nDefendant-appellant having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court, entered on November 04, 2021 (Appeal No. 14555),\n\nNow, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,\n\nIt is ordered that the motion is denied.\n\nENTERED: January 20, 2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-30 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 30 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 138 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 30**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 08:26 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1098 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-30 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 30 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 139 of 174\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, | MOTION DATE | | |\n| | -
v - | | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 019 | |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | | | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | THIRD | INTERIM DECISION + | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | | |\n| | Defendants. | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBy Interim Decision & Order dated July 21, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 873), the Court determined plaintiff's motion to hold defendant Kwok Ho Wan in civil contempt and the crossmotion by defendant for a stay pending appeal to the extent of holding the motion in abeyance pending a decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, on an appeal calendared for the September Term. The Appellate Division determined the appeal by Decision and Order dated November 4, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 953). Further argument on the contempt motion was heard on January 14, 2022 and the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to be held on February 2, 2022 commencing at 9:30 a.m.\n\nDirect testimony will be offered by affidavit. The Court will not consider the affidavit of any person who is not available for cross-examination. The parties will confer and prepare a Joint Exhibit Binder by January 24, 2022. Plaintiff will efile direct testimony affidavits by January 26, 2022. Defendants will efile direct testimony affidavits by January 28, 2022. Hard copies of all documents shall be delivered to Courtroom 232 by noon on January 31, 2022.\n\n![](_page_139_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nThe parties are directed to efile on or before January 24, 2022 a letter containing a Joint Appearance Sheet for the February 2, 2022 hearing.\n\nDated: January 14, 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 14-31 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 31 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 141 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 31**\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOKHO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/kla GUO WENGUI, a/kla GUO WEN GUI; a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/kla MILES KWOK, a/kla HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nv.\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No: 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n**[Fl4QjL08ED]** FINAL ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT\n\nMotion Sequence No. 19\n\nWHEREAS this Co~rt's conditional order of civil contempt, dated March 16,2021, directed that if Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") failed to return the Lady May yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 15, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000 fine-for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction;-\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-31 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 31 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 142 of 174\n\nWHEREAS the Lady May was not returned to the jurisdiction by May 15, 2021;\n\nWHEREAS on November 4,2021, the Appellate Division's First Department affIrme,d this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of .\\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing,\" and \\_instructing this Court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties;\n\nWHEREAS Kwok to date has failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction;\n\nWHEREAS the evidentiary hearing specified by the First Department's November 4, 2021 Order was held on February 2,2022;\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-31 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 31 Pg 3 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 143 of 174\n\nWHEREAS both Kwok and the registered title holder of the Lady May, HK International (q)peCt.r~(i by *co~V\\\\$e \\* Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, were pregent at the hearini proffered evidence and were represented by counsel; and\n\nWHEREAS, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court determines that\n\nPAX has clearly and convincingly established that Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control\n\n. h L d M *AS se--'- r-*--l\\_ I \"\" ~ Cr, \\A.,/t \\:> 'R-'v;,VIMt *Uf* '1, *;:).0* 'd---1-. over tea y aYj \"'- ., .~ \" ~ ( \\)~ C\\-'> \\'c)v\\ ltA,Ad. CJv~ . . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:\n\n- 1. Kwok has violated New York Judiciary Law 9753 and is civil contempt of this Court's orders.\n- 2. Kwokis directed to tender immediate payment to PAX in the amount of \\$134,000,000, representing \\$500,000 for each day between May 15,2021 and February 7,2022.\n- \"3. The amount due to PAX shall continue to accrue at t~~rate of \\$500,000 per day until Kwok returns the Lady May to the jurisdiction, which additional accrual shall begin ten . ~ e'fv,'(;Il.. ~ *N* f.,' ..L.. *'C* iv business days from t e Bltte of this Order, \"'VJ1'~. *i>* u... *crl v* 11 *Y* I\n- 4. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be made to PAX within five se...rv *,'(JL , .*f f..rv business days of the ~ of this Order, w I~ No-t-t (...L. *t!) .* GVt,. *I .*\n\n;:\", ' 1'l;::t\"l 5. The Court shall exercise its full authority under NeW York Judiciary Law 9 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid to PAX.\n\nIt is SO ORDERED this ?-'\" ~ day of *Ii b VYt a* '='Cd' ,2022. R. OSTRAGERJ...\\$.C. **A.OSTRAGER .** ,,~SC;}\n\n2\n\n2 of 2\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 1 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 144 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 32**\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 2 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 145 of 174\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**NOTICE OF APPEAL**\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\n- against -\n\nKWOK HO WAN, et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE**, that Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Mr. Kwok\"), hereby\n\nappeals to the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, from the Decision and Order of the\n\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Ostrager, J.), dated February 9,\n\n2022, and entered in the office of the New York County Clerk on February 9, 2022 (NYSCEF\n\nDoc. No. 1181), and from each and every part thereof.\n\nDated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, February 10, 2022\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n\n By: *\\_/s/ John Siegal\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_* John Siegal Melissa Carvalho 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 212-589-1400 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan*\n\nTo: Clerk of the County of New York (via NYSCEF) All counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)\n\n## **,@,uprtmt Qlnurt nf t4t** *,@,tatt* **nf Ntw lnrk** *l\\pptllatt* **mtutsinn: First ~uhtrtal 1lltpartmtnt**\n\nInformational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil\n\n| Case Title: Set fotih the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to
show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended. | For Court of Original Instance | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--|--|\n| PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P | | | | | |\n| - against - | Date Notice of Appeal Filed | | | | |\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, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN
GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGSCORPORATION | For Appellate Division | | | | |\n| Case Type
Civil Action
D
CPLR article 75 Arbitration | D | Filing Type
D CPLR article 78 Proceeding
Appeal
D
Special Proceeding Other
Original Proceedings
• CPLR Article 78
D Habeas Corpus Proceeding
D Eminent Domain
D Labor Law 220 or 220-b
D Public Officers Law § 36
D Real Property Tax Law§ 1278 | | | |\n| Nature of Suit: Check up to three of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case. | | | | | |\n| D Administrative Review | Business Relationships | Commercial | Contracts | | |\n| D Declaratory Judgment | D Domestic Relations | D Election Law | D Estate Matters | | |\n| D Family Court | D Mortgage Foreclosure | D Miscellaneous | • Prisoner Discipline & Parole | | |\n| D Real Property
( other than foreclosure) | D Statutory | D Taxation | D Torts | | |\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 147 of\n\nPg 4 of 16 174\n\n| Appeal | | | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Paper Appealed From (Check one only): | | If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or | | | |\n| | | | judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please | | |\n| | | | indicate the below information for each such order or | | |\n| | | | judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. | | |\n| • Amended Decree | • Determination | • Order | • Resettled Order | | |\n| Amended Judgement | Finding | l!iii!l Order & Judgment | • Ruling | | |\n| • Amended Order | Interlocutory Decree | Partial Decree | • Other (specify): | | |\n| Decision | • Interlocutory Judgment | • Resettled Decree | | | |\n| • Decree | • Judgment | • Resettled Judgment | | | |\n| Court:
Supreme Court | | New York
County: | | | |\n| 02/09/2022
Dated: | | Entered: 02/09/2022 | | | |\n| Judge (name in full): Hon. Barry Ostrager | | Index No.: 652077/2017 | | | |\n| • Interlocutory
l!iii!l Final • Post-Final
Stage: | | Trial:
No
Yes | Non-Jury
If Yes: | | |\n| | Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information | | | | |\n| Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? | | | • No
Yes | | |\n| If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal. | | | | | |\n| 2021-00740 | | | | | |\n| Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other | | | | | |\n| jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case: | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | Original Proceeding | | | | |\n| Commenced by: | D Order to Show Cause • Notice of Petition • Writ of Habeas Corpus | | Date Filed: | | |\n| Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division: | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) | | | | |\n| Choose Court
Court: | | County: | Choose Countv | | |\n| Judge (name in full): | | Order of Transfer Date: | | | |\n| | CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: | | | | |\n| Choose Court
Court: | County: | | Choose Countv | | |\n| Judge (name in full): | Dated: | | | | |\n| | Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief | | | | | |\n| requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred
pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the | | | | | |\n| nature of the ex pa rte order to be reviewed. | | | | | |\n| Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan is appealing the Decision and Orders in this action entered February | | | | | |\n| 9, 2022 granting a final order of contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753. | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 148 of\n\nPg 5 of 16 174\n\nIssues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal.\n\nWithout limiting the arguments that may be presented on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan states: that the Decision and Orders were in error, should be reversed in their entirety, and the contempt proceedings must be dismissed. The Supreme Court Decision and Orders, inter alia, granted a final order of contempt that was not legally or factually supported by the record. Even if the contempt finding was proper (it was not), the nature and the amount of the fine imposed was disproportionate, excessive, unauthorized by law, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of Defendant-Appellant's constitutional rights under the federal and state Constitutions.\n\n## **Party Information**\n\nInstructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party's name and his, her, or its status in this court.\n\n| No. | Party Name | Original Status | Appellate Division Status |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------|\n| 1 | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. | Plaintiff | Respondent |\n| 2 | Kwok Ho Wan | Defendant | Appellant |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings LLC | Defendant | None |\n| 4 | Genever Holdings Corporation | Defendant | None |\n| 5 | | | |\n| 6 | | | |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | | | |\n| 10 | | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 149 of\n\n## Attorney Information\n\nPg 6 of 16\n\n174\n\nInstructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or himself, the box marked \"Pro Se\" must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided.\n\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------|\n| Address: 7 Times Square | | | |\n| City: New York | I State: New York | I Zip: 10036 | I Telephone No: 212-326-2000 |\n| E-mail Address: ssamoff@omm.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
lii!!i Retained | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | |\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: John Siegal, Baker & Hostetler LLP | | ' |\n| Address: 45 Rockefeller Center | | | |\n| City: New York | I State: New York | IZip:10111 | I Telephone No: 212-589-1400 |\n| E-mail Address:jsiegal@baker1aw.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
lii!!i Retained | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | 2 |\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | | |\n| Address: 99 Church Street, 4th floor | | | |\n| City: White Plains | I State: New York | I Zip: 10601 | I Telephone No: 973-285-3280 |\n| E-mail Address: aaron@lrnesq.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
lii!!i Retained | D Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | 3, l-f |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: | | | |\n| Address : | | | |\n| City: | I State: | I Zip: | I Telephone No: |\n| E-mail Address: | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Retained | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: | | | |\n| Address: | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| City: | I State: | I Zip: | I Telephone No: |\n| E-mail Address: | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Retained
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Address: | | | |\n| City: | I State: | I Zip: | I Telephone No: |\n| Attorney/Firm Name:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Retained | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n\n#### ¡¢ £¤¥¦§¤¨©ª«¬®®¯¬°® ¤±²³¦´¥¨³©¤¨©°°µ° ¶¦³¦£·¦¥¤±²³¦´¸¬¯¹¯¬¬¬ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 7 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 150 of 174\n\n#### - -\n\n|
|
|
|

|\n|-------|------------------------------------------|-----------|--------------|\n| | | | |\n| | | ! | |\n| | 01234321553162718319009:;<63;=4<6> | | |\n| 5?0?@ | | \"# | \\$%&'(()&'*( |\n| | 0ABCDECFF@ | | |\n| |
GHG |

\" | |\n| | IJ9IK9J16@B)L)BIJ9IK9@B)L)BMJ9J76 | | |\n| | M<3@B)L)BM<9J76M<3@B)L)BM<9J76GM<3@B)L)B | +

| ,-. |\n| | J16M<7K19=<6@B)L)BN3578IJ9I@B)L)B | | |\n| | K19=<6M<9@M767O7:PK95>36M8552@BDQ | | |\n| | M767O7:K95>36M829:09:1;396@ | \"
| /\t\"
|\n\n>RFRDQBDES? !\n\nK96?T1::=:?98;:1M7: 3DEUCS&'\\*(VBSRWCEU\\*@\\*X'QYVLRERDEZCRS[BA\\YSEBAAYFWUCVUCDHYAHRQRFRDQBDEIWYL KYJBD]^\\_`abcdefRFFYZESEYBHYCQBDQQRVRCHRUCSVZRQCEYZSghiBZLCDjUCSSkgSEBDECBAiRZSYDBA BSSRESWCEUBSRZCRSYFVYZiYZBECYDS@EZkSERQVYDFCQBDES@BDQFB\\CAh\\R\\gRZSGGEUCS2YkZECSVBAARQ kiYDEYQRERZ\\CDRWUREURZEURiABCDECFF@lmnoponqrromsntq^omuvvcwxysoxz{ys|}~l~\\_`lqe UBS\\REEURgkZQRDYFRSEBgACSUCDjEUBEEUR2YkZESUYkAQRDERZBFCDBA9ZQRZYF2CHCA2YDER\\iE BjBCDSEIWYL?4YZEURZRBSYDSEUBEFYAAYW@EUCS2YkZECSSC\\kAEBDRYkSAhCSSkCDjBFCDBA9ZQRZYF\n\n2CHCA2YDER\\iE? 01SRVkZRQBkQj\\RDEBjBCDSEIWYLCDEURSk\\YF\\*\\*\\$@'&@'\\*?%(YD4RgZkBZh@ &'&\\*6=8274>YV?6Y?(\\*\\$f?;URZRBFERZ@01ys|twxccdmztmw]^rcstppcwxxctspcwntox^ kQj\\RDEghFCZSECQRDECFhCDjBDQEURDBEER\\iECDjEYARHhyvcsabcd]^m^^tx^CDEUR\n\n <= <=,6'?-\"\\*@'.6-A2B.6/2%/0-/'\\$C9\n\n7\n\nD E\n\n FGHIJK\n 7LM 7 3N6CO('&#\\$%P'6-\"\\*6\\*+/2-\\*6\\*%'(\\$\\*62',-\"\\*1#0\"-Q-\"\\*RS#%1N#1A5,6'?)\\*#4/\\$+-\"\\* T\nUVWD8XYVZE [\n FGHIJ \\ D <=8\nD E 7LM\n7\n\n <=\n 7 ]\n7 =LZ L8\n\n <=T\n\n8=EL L T^M <=\nT 8 #,,/6?\\*%-\"/2@'.6-A2'6%\\*6\"')%/\\$+O('&/\\$ 0'\\$%/-/'\\$#)0/4/)0'\\$-\\*?\\_-Q,/\\$%/\\$+-\"#-3-\"\\*%#/)1,/\\$\\*',`abbQbbbCbb(#2/\\$-\\*\\$%\\*%-'2-6'\\$+)1\n\n9 Y\n\nY\n\n> -\n\n#### ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©©ª§¨«© ¬®¡¯ £®¤£¤««°« ±¡®¡²¡ ¬®¡¯³¨§ª¨´ª§¨§§ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 9 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 152 of 174\n\n !\"# \\$\"%&\" '&(&#)\\*\\$\n+\n, \\*\n\n+\n\n - + +\n\n+\n\n .\n\n+ /0123456/73891:;/08/<<=>2/?@8>ABCCDEFGCHIJKLDEFGCHIJK&M\"# & N&(#!OP Q -R ST!\")U\\*\n\n +\n - +\n\n-\n\n V\n\n\\$\n+WX\n\n -&&(&& +\n - +\n\nY. - -\nY.\n\n-\n\n -&&(&& + +-+.\n\\$ +-Z\n R - [ \\]^=>\n+-\nV\\_&T&`& \"(#\\*+\n\n\\$\n\n Y.\n+\n+\n\nY.\n\nabcdCKebfJghgJifECBjkchL lcKemCKe#!T(&!n&(&( `&(#T/0o@/7@po9q79r1:;/0>;s958t>3u32;:/\n++ HfB#!&v\n\n w;6xy;xzzzA{9r1:;/08|`((#)At8@3}30?{9r1:;/08~\\* {9r1:;/0863>72/s3>po9q;>;0t958>19q3072/8/79<8@3{{\\o@9@;>?90389?23;8t\n\nV 8@3{@/03>3?9u320r308z\\* dJBHfKecKcB\n\n +\nV\n\\*\n+ &(&(\nR -[ - [\n\n -\n\nt\\^23<32>89\\:;/08/<<=>2/;:\n\n#### tuvwxyzw{|}~}z|vw~y ¡ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 10 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 153 of 174\n\n !\"#\\$! % &'()\\*+ %, -%.%\\*+. +)&'/\n0/%&'+' +(123\\* +% )/ \\*4 + 5+ &\\*6+1,%%%)/7 & 8 9#:;+4 /5//+// 1 <\\* 0%(&&) &\\* \\* +%.)!==# / +/( %&%4%%./(& 0%+ &\\*\n' %\n\n//(%%&%+/\\* >&(6(%&\\* ) +% 05 +\\*?)+%&\\* -)&/5+ 1\n\n8 9 =@8AB=C@8 A2DEF\"==!=\\$=GHIJ8 9= KLLM% + %NO% +%%/% P)Q)R +%%& +%161P) +) &')% \\* 0/(1<\\* + + / &?\\*%%&%S '+)+(TU TLKVNO% +%%/5)+\\* &\\* >&(6( +WTX0//%Q,Y1Z 0%(&&) & \\* \\* +%. '/\\* &\\* )+ )%&5)+\\* \\* >&(6(')\\* )%%+& & 0%(8 9#=![\\! '/\\* &\\*61P)&&%5+4& \\* )%& 5)+\\* \\* (\\*1<+1]]1T?% ^) %/(+ %'/ % + % \\*\n5+4& &\\* )%&NO% +%%/\\*\\* + ) &5)+\\* \\* (\\*1O)%&5) &\\*61P) = :B=\"[\"8 9#=!\\_[\\!\\_%++)%&R)% K` TLK` +aK+%%& +%1<+1]`1b+&%.[E\\!#=CcdefghEcE KKiTj61Q))/0 /(+% ++ &% +\\*5 \\* >&(6(\\* )++ %/ \\*/& +N O% +%%/S)%&O%4 0 %klmbjB=\\_BBC@8neo2DE61Q) )+\\* +4 +\\* \\* \\* / % + Nlmb/\\*).\\*// \\* 0)/p0//%&//+%%)/ q5 % +\\*\n\n -\n\nrFE2:=\"\\_=cdefghEcEKK`s1\n\n#### defghijgklmnopmqjrlpfgnostusvutsttswixxyz {|}~| |~}| ~~{~}|~ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 11 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 154 of 174\n\n !\"#\\$%&'()\\*+,(-./0 12 3 1\n1\n 4 56 47 11 1 1 8 9:.#;\\$<:1 88 =>'?\\$+\\*\\$+@='=+@(:@?=,\\$(:%'@&,(-=\\$9:.#;\\$<:@?A;,:,=,\\$(\\$B=>'=,=%'=\\$=>'C@?>=. 3 1 1D\n1 7\n1 1 88 11\n1D\n 4 5E\n\nF1 1 121 81 1\n1 D 4 4 GGHGIJK 4 L@&C9@C<:?@\\*=@,(=':=,B,'&=>@=MN\\$O11 1P\n3\n\n1 JKJK 11 1 1 1\n1\n 1\n 4 4 GEHJ5IGGHE ;Q:'A;'(==\\$=>,:R\\$;+=<:)'\\*='SQ'+TUVWUWU 1 F FJKJK11 X Y1 1 11\n1D 1Z FJKJ[\n 1 11=>,:R\\$;+=<:\\K JKJK1 ]+&'+@(&=>,:R\\$;+=<::;Q:'A;'(=[6JKJ[F =>'R\\$;+=<:^; 1\n\n4 \\_\\_`\\_EI6K`6J 9:.#;\\$=':=,B,'&=>@=\\$(=>'\\$('>@(&V:>'&,+'?='&=>'L@&C9@C<:,=,('+@+C 1 1\n 211 a 4 \\_J\n1 1 18 4 \\_K 4 11\n8 1 Q'+'S\\$b'&B+\\$S=>,:R\\$;+=<: c\n 1 FJKJK 1\n 1 FJKJK1 1\n\n -\n\n#### opqrsturvwxyz{x|u}w{qryz~~~~t INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 12 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 155 of 174\n\n ! \"\n #\"\n\"\n !\n \"\n#\n\n#\n\n\\$\" # \"#\n% &%&%\n\n \"\n\n'( \"\" (\n\n \"\n\n\"\n\n #\n\n \"\"#) \\* +,-&&&\n\n ./012 .34 , ! !\n'( '(\n# , ! 56789:6;<=>87?@8AB8C6:;D6;:8E6@A8:7?@FG?@H:6HI\nJ #\n&%&%K\n\n8H<8@RSTUSUSV@:8@W\nX3 Y868@8AL@I8:A?AB8N?L@AO;D6;4&%&4K./01 2 .c&XW\n\n ( J\n\n K\n#\nW defghijJ\n\n-(/ ! \"2 / kl-, \" \" \" 'l ! &%&4 \"\" 'l\n#\n!\ncX \" !\" m\nX&nI?!93\"349;7 9%63;3#@2\n\n& ,\n\n ,5A7 %%B?\n\n!934:%<#\"#:CD6E\\$%<\"F#963%D F\"BF8B\n\n7 G849F# 9H#%6 ;49%6!\"7\" #?#6\"F9I9B7 6F493HJ@KLLMNOMPQMRSTKUVWRXOYMUZ\n\n[NVT=\\\\\\]J^J\\_4\\_`=\\_`a\\%#^7\\$#\\b`cdaF9#93HeJfJg849F9\" ?h\"DijckdJl/01\n\n m n\n\no&p\n o)p\nm\n\n oqpr o1p E36DB4H6!#F68 #\\$%6 4 =\"B#68H9#9%36#3F%%\" ?#\"##6 4 \"F#8\"BB? ospt\nu\n\n vwMMxyYYzvPNTS{WwxMR|T}YyzZ[NVTq+)~))0s~)/\nql,l)sq+)~ VYRQPVSMwRYz0q0/s0\\*1WQMNzMz~+q~0q)\\*1&\n\nr\nXMMWVPPVwwPWNVMUPWKLLYRxNPxvNzT)1sq1 ) ^7\\$q+q)da5:]\"%<%#\">B9%4>?FB\" \"34F63I93F93HI943F#\"#:CD6E?@@?A13!B!! (&!#\"! B\\*&\"C#D\"2( E (!\"& (F& 1 & G\\*,!&# &\\$B (&F3 A1HI &! &&#B (# ('3 D !(#C\"'#\" \" ! (! BJ#D\\$#\" & &&\\$\\$ G\\*K 9\nL 6 M NOP QOP5RST@@?GUVG1/D\\$#\" & &WH#I'( ! - #B&!3 ('GGG#&!!& !\"'#\" \" ! (# ('G%\\*XYZY[\\]^\\_`a\\bcdefgYh`]i a[c^A@Ujkl\\$7%:/289-:;0:#-?@7\\$,-:&-:21\\$84\\*0-8\\$:\\$83428:&%80334285\\$8-2-:&8:089\n \" A\"\nB\n<\n\nC <<\n\n :2-&-:0D32-;&9E&\\*F\\$%+30\\*:;0:0G0%:4,-28'\\$50:2\\$8\\$/:;&H2/:; I1&891&8:28052'23G%\\$5&&928J.104/\\$%1:;&D0-2-\\$/0809'&%-&/05:70328/&%&85&?6KLMNOPQ RSTNUVPQPLUNWXXYZ[[\\\\]^^\\_`-:a&G,:`bcbd?I809'&%-&28/&%&85&104D&0GG32&9\n\n\"\n ! \" eSfSTSRSKgUhOiLj^W\\^XklZYmnlYopn[^W]qkr^^[[ksW^ lBZjtZ W\\[^W]nuvvwx(yz`H?IGG,{|}\\_~9>2%?~`ydPMgiiPRSOPiLeihiLQW^ ]WW^W[^[Xl[\nW\\\\n\n\n21230%34(789&%:;&12--28J\\*2:8&--%73&(.0:%2&%\\$//05:1049%0\\*:;&-:%\\$8J&-: 28/&%&85&:;0::;&\\$GG\\$-28J&'29&85&G&%12:-0J028-:0\\*2:8&--\\*;\\$/023-:\\$:&-:2/4?6TUNLURS LQLQfgPSOS(``I?a?}9}y(}y`\\_`-:a&G,:~zd\\_0GG3428\n\n \\*;&%&9&/&8908:\\*;\\$/023&9:\\$0GG&0%.\\*\\$739D&+8\\$\\*3&9J&0D3&0D\\$7:010:&%2032--7&%02-&9D4 :;&&'29&85&6d? pY\n\nY\n <285%21280:2\\$828%&-G\\$8-&:\\$I,-G\\$-:<\n\"\n\" q\n\n> -\n\n#### ¡ ¢££¤¥ ¦§¨©ª§«¬®¯°±±²¯°³± §´µ¶©·¨«¶¬§«¬³³¸³ ¹©¶©¦º©¨§´µ¶©·»°¯²°¼²¯°¯¯ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-32 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 32 Pg 16 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 159 of 174\n\n ! \"# \\$\n %&'!\"( (\"(#)'\"# '\"\\*(\\* +,-./'0\"## 0 1'23'()14''3) \\$1 (! 5\\*\"6' 0 72' 3 ( #!)( 0 '((1!\"(0\")\"# 819:9,;<<=<>?@FGHI,J,K1LMNFOML PQRQS\nTUVWSXXTYWZ\n Z (\"([ \\' (! \"#4 0)#!FDB | | ƒ { \"… ~†€'{‡{
| | | |\n|---------------------|---------------|--|-------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------|-----------|\n| | ƒˆ‰~ ‡y€ | | €y y€ | | ˆ‰~ ‡y€ '~‰‡ | {‡xy‰ |\n| ~''†w~‡{ } | y‡‡†y{‰€y‰ | | | | Š‹Œ‡{‰€y‰ | |\n| wxywz…~''‰{'‰~‡y} | | | | |  w†Š€y‡‰~ …y‰‰y~ˆ …€Šw~‰Ž~''{ ‡Œy ‡ | ‰y…y‰y wy |\n\n -\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-33 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 33 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 160 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 33**\n\n| | Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj
Doc 432-3
Doc 14-33
Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | | Exhibit 33
Page 161 of | |\n|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| jE
'
ILED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 | FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 02/15/2022 03:13 PM
1ST
: APPELLATE
DIVISION
- | Pg 2 of 3
174
DEPT | 02/l4/2022 | 02
: 37
PM | ) | 2022-00609
2022-0
0609
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 |\n| NYSCEF | 3
suMMARY
STATEMENT
DOC.
NO | oN | APPLICATION | 1uit | VED
NYSCEF
: | 02
/14/2
022 |\n| | EXPEDITED
SERVICE
(SUBMITTED | AND/OR
BY
MOVING PARTY) | INTERIM | RELIEF | | |\n| | February 14, 2022
Date: | | Case# | 2022-00609;2022-00610 | | |\n| | Title
Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. | | Index/Indict/Docket# | 652077/2017 | | |\n| | of
Matter
Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a,
et
al.
v. | | | | | |\n| | [Z]
Order
D
Appeal
iudgment
of | IZJ
Supreme
Surrogate•sO | Count~e_w_Y_o_rk | ____
_ | | |\n| | D
Defendant
by
from Decree | D
Family | Court entere.d on | Feb. 9
,20 | 2022 | |\n| | Name
of
Barry
R.
Ostrager
Judge | | Notice
of
Appeal
Feb. 10
filed on | .20 | 22 | |\n| | If
from
administrative determination, state agency | | ___________________ | | _ | |\n| | Breach
of
Contract
of
Nature
action | | | | | |\n| | proceeding
---==------------------------------
or | | | | | |\n| | A
I
Provisions
of
appealed from
~-~:::~tent
_
_
_
t:jdecree | I | __________________ | | _ | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | appellant
a stay
fo~
is
This application by
respondent | of | a contempt order pending appeal. | | | |\n| | Defendant-Appellant seeks a stay prior to February | | 2022,
16, | by
which date | | |\n| | pay a \\$134,000,000
he has been ordered
to | | contempt fine
to | Plaintiff. | | |\n| | If
applying for a stay, state reason why requested | The \\$134,000,000 | contempt fine is excessive, | | | |\n| | disproportionate, and unconstitutional, and the motion court | | | has invoked the prospect | | |\n| | of
imprisonment
if
it is not paid within five business days, i.e. by February 16, | | | 2022. | | |\n| | N
Has any undertaking been posted
_o_.
_________
_ | _ | If\"yes\", | state amount and type | ___
_ | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | Has application been made to
No.
court below for this
relief | If
\"yes\", state | Disposition---------------,-- | | | |\n| | ~~--------
Has there been any prior application
here
in
this court
___________
_ | lf\"yes\",
and nature | state dates
______________ | | _ | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | Has adversary been advised | Does he/she | | | | |\n| | Y~e~s~·----------
of
this application
_ | No.
consent | ~~-------------- | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Case-020500018 | | | DOC |\n|----------------|--|--|-----|\n|----------------|--|--|-----|\n\nAttorney for Movant\n\n## 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-33 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 33 Pg 3 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 162 of\n\n174\n\n| | Attorney for Opposition | |\n|--|-------------------------|--|\n| | | |\n\n| Address 360 Lexington Avenue | 7 Times Square |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| New York, New York 10017 | New York, New York 10036 |\n| | 212-326-2000 |\n| Tel. No. 212-365-3391 (cell); 2120922-9149 (office) | New York |\n| Emai I
imatetsky@ganfershore.com | |\n| Appearing by _lr_a_B_. _M_a_te_ts_k-'-y--------- | Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com); 212-326-2293 |\n| Jason T. Cohen Qcohen@ganfershore.com); 646-250-4141 | Anton Metlitsky (ametlitsky@omm.com); 212-316-2291 |\n| Mark C. Zauderer (mzauderer@ganfershore.com); 917-331-7762 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| Appellant's application for a stay is denied. | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | February 15, 2022 |\n| 1,/ 2:A
0 pposition
&-_· +-/_J_t_,/_J_J-- | Fili'
Dnte
_
J'-1/,__J_f_\"\"-'/())~, a_&_.tl)
Reply |\n| ___
I
I | __
__
I
DECISION BY
_ |\n| Motion Date ___
__
EXPEDITE ---\"'-V_;_'
PHONE ATTORNEYS
ALL PAPERS TO BE SERVED PERSONALLY. | __________
______
_ |\n\n\"Revised 10/19\"\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-34 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 34 Pg 1 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 163 of 174\n\n# **EXHIBIT 34**\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\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\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-34 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 34 Pg 2 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 164 of 174\n\n **PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that, on February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"**Debtor**\"), a defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit, filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the \"**Bankruptcy Code**\"), with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"**Bankruptcy Court**\"). A copy of the Debtor's voluntary petition is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**. The Debtor's chapter 11 case is being administered in the Bankruptcy Court under case number 22-50073.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE** that, pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor's filing of his voluntary petition operates as a stay of, among other things: (a) the commencement or continuation of all judicial, administrative, or other actions or proceedings against the Debtor (i) that were or could have been commenced before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case or (ii) to recover any claims against the Debtor that arose before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case; (b) the enforcement, against before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case; or (c) any act to obtain possession of\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-34 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 34 Pg 3 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 165 of 174\n\nproperty of or from the Debtor's bankruptcy estate, or to exercise control over property of the\n\nDebtor's bankruptcy estate.\n\nThis Suggestion of Bankruptcy is provided for informational purposes only, and does\n\nnot constitute an appearance or intent to appear in this proceeding by the undersigned.\n\nDated: February 15, 2022 New York, New York\n\n */s/ William R. Baldiga* William R. Baldiga, Esq. Uriel Pinelo, Esq. Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com upinelo@brownrudnick.com Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801\n\n*Proposed Counsel for Debtor*\n\n![](_page_165_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Debtor's Voluntary Petition**\n\n| FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM
Case 22-50073
Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj
Doc 432-3
Doc 14-34
Doc 1
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 | Filed 02/15/22
Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52
Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
Page 1 of 14
Exhibit 34
Page 167 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Fill in this information to identify your case: | Pg 5 of 12
174 | | |\n| United States Bankruptcy Court for the:
District of Connecticut
________________ District of ________ | | | |\n| Case number (If known): _________________________ Chapter you are filing under: | ‰ Chapter 7
✔
‰ Chapter 11
‰ Chapter 12
‰ Chapter 13 | | ‰
Check if this is an
amended filing |\n\n## Official Form 101\n\n## Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy **/**\n\n**The bankruptcy forms use** *you* **and** *Debtor 1* **to refer to a debtor filing alone. A married couple may file a bankruptcy case together—called a** *joint case***—and in joint cases, these forms use** *you* **to ask for information from both debtors. For example, if a form asks, \"Do you own a car,\" the answer would be** *yes* **if either debtor owns a car. When information is needed about the spouses separately, the form uses** *Debtor 1* **and** *Debtor 2* **to distinguish between them. In joint cases, one of the spouses must report information as** *Debtor 1* **and the other as** *Debtor 2***. The same person must be** *Debtor 1* **in all of the forms.**\n\n**Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number (if known). Answer every question.**\n\n## Part 1: Identify Yourself\n\n| | | About Debtor 1: | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1. | Your full name | | |\n| | Write the name that is on your
government-issued picture
identification (for example,
your driver's license or | Ho Wan
__________________________________________________
First name | __________________________________________________
First name |\n| | passport).
Bring your picture | __________________________________________________
Middle name
Kwok
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________
Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | identification to your meeting
with the trustee. | Last name
___________________________ | Last name
___________________________ |\n| | | Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) | Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) |\n| 2. | All other names you | Miles
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________ |\n| | have used in the last 8
years | First name
__________________________________________________ | First name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | Include your married or
maiden names. | Middle name
Kwok; Guo
__________________________________________________ | Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | | Last name
Wengui | Last name |\n| | | __________________________________________________
First name | __________________________________________________
First name |\n| | | __________________________________________________
Middle name
Guo
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________
Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | | Last name | Last name |\n| | | | |\n| 3. | Only the last 4 digits of
your Social Security | 9
5
9
5
xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____ | xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____ |\n| | number or federal
Individual Taxpayer
Identification number | OR
9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ | OR
9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ |\n| | (ITIN) | | |\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 | |\n|--|-----------------------|--|\n| | | |\n\n| | | | | | | FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM | | | | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 | |\n|----------------------|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------|--|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 | Case 22-50073
Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj | Doc 432-3
Doc 14-34
Doc 1 | Filed 02/15/22 | Filed 05/24/22 | Filed 04/13/22 | Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52 | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | Page 2 of 14
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 | Exhibit 34
Page 168 of | | |\n\nPg 6 of 12 174\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | |\n| | | About Debtor 1: | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): |\n| 4. | Any business names
and Employer
Identification Numbers
(EIN) you have used in | ✔
‰
I have not used any business names or EINs. | ‰
I have not used any business names or EINs. |\n| | the last 8 years | _________________________________________________
Business name | _________________________________________________
Business name |\n| | Include trade names and
doing business as names | _________________________________________________
Business name | _________________________________________________
Business name |\n| | | | |\n| | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN |\n| | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN |\n| 5. | Where you live | | If Debtor 2 lives at a different address: |\n| | | c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.
_________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ |\n| | | Number
Street | Number
Street |\n| | | 162 East 64th Street
_________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ |\n| | | New York
NY
10065 | |\n| | | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code |\n| | | New York
_________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ |\n| | | County
If your mailing address is different from the one
above, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to you at this mailing address. | County
If Debtor 2's mailing address is different from
yours, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to this mailing address. |\n| | | _________________________________________________
Number
Street | _________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n| | | _________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ |\n| | | P.O. Box | P.O. Box |\n| | | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code |\n| 6. | Why you are choosing | Check one: | Check one: |\n| | this district to file for
bankruptcy | ✔
‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district. | ‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district. |\n| | | ‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)
________________________________________ | ‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)
________________________________________ |\n| | | ________________________________________ | ________________________________________ |\n| | | ________________________________________
________________________________________ | ________________________________________
________________________________________ |\n| | | | |\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|--|-----------------------|\n| | |\n\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
_______________________________________________________
First Name
Middle Name | | Kwok
Last Name | | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | | | |\n| Part 2:
Tell the Court About Your Bankruptcy Case | | | | | |\n| The chapter of the
7.
Bankruptcy Code you | | | for Bankruptcy (Form 2010)). Also, go to the top of page 1 and check the appropriate box. | | Check one. (For a brief description of each, see Notice Required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) for Individuals Filing |\n| are choosing to file
under | ‰ | Chapter 7 | | | |\n| | ✔
‰ | Chapter 11 | | | |\n| | ‰ | Chapter 12 | | | |\n| | ‰ | Chapter 13 | | | |\n| How you will pay the fee
8. | ✔
‰
‰
‰ | with a pre-printed address. | local court for more details about how you may pay. Typically, if you are paying the fee
yourself, you may pay with cash, cashier's check, or money order. If your attorney is
I need to pay the fee in installments. If you choose this option, sign and attach the
Application for Individuals to Pay The Filing Fee in Installments (Official Form 103A).
Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Official Form 103B) and file it with your petition. | | I will pay the entire fee when I file my petition. Please check with the clerk's office in your
submitting your payment on your behalf, your attorney may pay with a credit card or check
I request that my fee be waived (You may request this option only if you are filing for Chapter 7.
By law, a judge may, but is not required to, waive your fee, and may do so only if your income is
less than 150% of the official poverty line that applies to your family size and you are unable to
pay the fee in installments). If you choose this option, you must fill out the Application to Have the |\n| Have you filed for
9. | ✔
‰
No | | | | |\n| bankruptcy within the
last 8 years? | ‰ | | Yes. District __________________________ When | | _______________ Case number ___________________________ |\n| | | | District __________________________ When | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number ___________________________ |\n| | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | |\n| | | | District __________________________ When | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number ___________________________ |\n| 10. Are any bankruptcy | ✔
‰ No | | | | |\n| cases pending or being
filed by a spouse who is | ‰ | | Yes. Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you | | _____________________ |\n| not filing this case with | | | District __________________________ When | | _______________ Case number, if known____________________ |\n| you, or by a business
partner, or by an | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | |\n| affiliate? | | | Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you | | _____________________ |\n| | | | District __________________________ When | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number, if known____________________ |\n| | | | | | |\n\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1 | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| First Name
Middle Name
Part 3: | Last Name
Report About Any Businesses You Own as a Sole Proprietor | |\n| 12. Are you a sole proprietor
of any full- or part-time | ✔
‰
No. Go to Part 4. | |\n| business? | ‰
Yes. Name and location of business | |\n| A sole proprietorship is a
business you operate as an
individual, and is not a
separate legal entity such as
a corporation, partnership, or
LLC. | Name of business, if any
Number
Street | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ |\n| If you have more than one
sole proprietorship, use a
separate sheet and attach it
to this petition. | _______________________________________________ | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
__________________________ |\n| | City | State
ZIP Code |\n| | Check the appropriate box to describe your business: | |\n| | ‰ | Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)) |\n| | ‰ | Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)) |\n| | ‰
Stockbroker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)) | |\n| | ‰ | Commodity Broker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(6)) |\n| | ‰
None of the above | |\n| 13. Are you filing under
Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code and
are you a small business
debtorRUDGHEWRUDV | | If you are filing under Chapter 11, the court must know whether you are a small business debtorRUDGHEWRU
FKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9 so that it can set appropriate deadlines. If you indicate that you
are a small business debtorRU\\RXDUHFKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9, you must attach your
most recent balance sheet, statement of operations, cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return or
if any of these documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B). |\n| GHILQHGE\\86&† | ‰
No. I am not filing under Chapter 11. | |\n| ?
For a definition of small | ✔
‰
the Bankruptcy Code. | No. I am filing under Chapter 11, but I am NOT a small business debtor according to the definition in |\n| business debtor, see
11 U.S.C. § 101(51D). | ‰ | |\n| | ‰ | &RGHDQG,GRQRWFKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU
|\n| | | %DQNUXSWF\\&RGHDQG,FKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU |\n\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
First Name
Middle Name | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Part 4: | | | Report if You Own or Have Any Hazardous Property or Any Property That Needs Immediate Attention |\n| 14. Do you own or have any
property that poses or is
alleged to pose a threat
of imminent and
identifiable hazard to
public health or safety?
Or do you own any
property that needs
immediate attention?
For example, do you own | ✔
‰
No
‰
Yes. | What is the hazard? | ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
If immediate attention is needed, why is it needed? _______________________________________________ |\n| perishable goods, or livestock
that must be fed, or a building
that needs urgent repairs? | | | ________________________________________________________________________
Where is the property? ________________________________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n\n| FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM | | | | | | | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------|----------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Case 22-50073
Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj | Doc 432-3
Doc 14-34
Doc 1 | Filed 02/15/22 | Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | | Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52
Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 | Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22
Page 6 of 14
Exhibit 34
Page 172 of | |\n\n| | | Case 22-50073
22-01073-dsj | | Doc 432-3
Doc 14-34 | Filed 05/24/22
Filed 04/13/22 | | | Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58
Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 | | Exhibit 34
Page 172 of | | |\n|----------------------|--|-------------------------------|--|------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------------------|--|--|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 | | | | | | | | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | Pg 10 of 12
174 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\nDebtor 1 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Case number (*if known*)\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ First Name Middle Name Last Name Ho Wan Kwok\n\n## Part 5: Explain Your Efforts to Receive a Briefing About Credit Counseling\n\n## **15. Tell the court whether you have received a briefing about credit counseling.**\n\nThe law requires that you receive a briefing about credit counseling before you file for bankruptcy. You must truthfully check one of the following choices. If you cannot do so, you are not eligible to file.\n\nIf you file anyway, the court can dismiss your case, you will lose whatever filing fee you paid, and your creditors can begin collection activities again.\n\n*You must check one:*\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a certificate of completion.** ✔\n\nAttach a copy of the certificate and the payment plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a certificate of completion.**\n\nWithin 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment plan, if any.\n\n **I certify that I asked for credit counseling services from an approved agency, but was unable to obtain those services during the 7 days after I made my request, and exigent circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement.**\n\nTo ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed for bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case.\n\nYour case may be dismissed if the court is dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.\n\nIf the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file. You must file a certificate from the approved agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case may be dismissed.\n\nAny extension of the 30-day deadline is granted only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 days.\n\n## **I am not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling because of:**\n\n- **Incapacity.** I have a mental illness or a mental deficiency that makes me incapable of realizing or making rational decisions about finances.\n- **Disability.** My physical disability causes me to be unable to participate in a briefing in person, by phone, or through the internet, even after I reasonably tried to do so.\n- **Active duty.** I am currently on active military duty in a military combat zone.\n\nIf you believe you are not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling, you must file a motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.\n\n**About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):**\n\n*You must check one:*\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a certificate of completion.**\n\nAttach a copy of the certificate and the payment plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a certificate of completion.**\n\nWithin 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment plan, if any.\n\n **I certify that I asked for credit counseling services from an approved agency, but was unable to obtain those services during the 7 days after I made my request, and exigent circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement.**\n\nTo ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed for bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case.\n\nYour case may be dismissed if the court is dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.\n\nIf the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file. You must file a certificate from the approved agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case may be dismissed.\n\nAny extension of the 30-day deadline is granted only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 days.\n\n## **I am not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling because of:**\n\n| ‰
Incapacity. | I have a mental illness or a mental
deficiency that makes me
incapable of realizing or making
rational decisions about finances. |\n|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ‰
Disability. | My physical disability causes me
to be unable to participate in a
briefing in person, by phone, or
through the internet, even after I
reasonably tried to do so. |\n| | |\n\n **Active duty.** I am currently on active military duty in a military combat zone.\n\nIf you believe you are not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling, you must file a motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|--|-----------------------|\n| | |\n\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
First Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Middle Name
Last Name | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| Part 6: | Answer These Questions for Reporting Purposes | | | | | | | |\n| 16. What kind of debts do | | 16a. Are your debts primarily consumer debts? Consumer debts are defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)
as \"incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose.\" | | | | | | |\n| you have? | ✔
‰
‰ | No. Go to line 16b.
Yes. Go to line 17. | | | | | | |\n| | | 16b. Are your debts primarily business debts? Business debts are debts that you incurred to obtain
money for a business or investment or through the operation of the business or investment. | | | | | | |\n| | ‰
‰ | ✔
No. Go to line 16c.
Yes. Go to line 17. | | | | | | |\n| | | 16c. State the type of debts you owe that are not consumer debts or business debts.
Litigation expenses, claims, and judgments
_______________________________________________________________ | | | | | | |\n| 17. Are you filing under
Chapter 7? | ✔
‰ | No. I am not filing under Chapter 7. Go to line 18. | | | | | | |\n| Do you estimate that after
any exempt property is
excluded and
administrative expenses
are paid that funds will be
available for distribution
to unsecured creditors? | ‰
‰
No
‰
Yes | Yes. I am filing under Chapter 7. Do you estimate that after any exempt property is excluded and
administrative expenses are paid that funds will be available to distribute to unsecured creditors? | | | | | | |\n| 18. How many creditors do
you estimate that you
owe? | ‰
1-49
✔
‰
50-99
‰
100-199
‰
200-999 | ‰
1,000-5,000
‰
5,001-10,000
‰
10,001-25,000 | ‰
25,001-50,000
‰
50,001-100,000
‰
More than 100,000 | | | | | |\n| 19. How much do you
estimate your assets to
be worth? | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000
✔
‰
\\$50,001-\\$100,000
‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000
‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million
‰
\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million
‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million
‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion
‰
\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion
‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion
‰
More than \\$50 billion | | | | | |\n| 20. How much do you
estimate your liabilities
to be? | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000
‰
\\$50,001-\\$100,000
‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000
‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million
‰
\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million
‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million
✔
‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion
‰
\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion
‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion
‰
More than \\$50 billion | | | | | |\n| Part 7:
Sign Below | | | | | | | | |\n| For you | correct. | I have examined this petition, and I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and | | | | | | |\n| | under Chapter 7. | If I have chosen to file under Chapter 7, I am aware that I may proceed, if eligible, under Chapter 7, 11,12, or 13
of title 11, United States Code. I understand the relief available under each chapter, and I choose to proceed | | | | | | |\n| | | If no attorney represents me and I did not pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help me fill out
this document, I have obtained and read the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b). | | | | | | |\n| | | I request relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United States Code, specified in this petition. | | | | | | |\n| | | I understand making a false statement, concealing property, or obtaining money or property by fraud in connection
with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to \\$250,000, or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571. | | | | | | |\n| | 8
/s/ Ho Wan Kwok | 8
______________________________________________ | _____________________________ | | | | | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| For your attorney, if you are
represented by one
If you are not represented
by an attorney, you do not
need to file this page. | I, the attorney for the debtor(s) named in this petition, declare that I have informed the debtor(s) about eligibility
to proceed under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code, and have explained the relief
available under each chapter for which the person is eligible. I also certify that I have delivered to the debtor(s)
the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) and, in a case in which § 707(b)(4)(D) applies, certify that I have no
knowledge after an inquiry that the information in the schedules filed with the petition is incorrect.
8
_________________________________
/s/
William
R.
Baldiga
_________________
02/15/2022
Date | | | | | |\n| | | Signature of Attorney for Debtor | | MM
/ | DD | / YYYY |\n| | | William R. Baldiga | _________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | |\n| | Printed name | | | | | |\n| | Brown Rudnick LLP | _________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\n| | Firm name | | | | | |\n| | 7 Times Square | _________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\n| | Number
Street | | | | | |\n| | | New York | _________________________________________________________________________________________________
NY
______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ | 10036 | | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | | | |\n| | | (212) 209-4800
Contact phone _____________________________________ | Email address | | | wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
______________________________ |\n| | | 4813846 | NY
______________________________________________________ ____________ | | | |\n| | Bar number | State | | | | |","body_zh":"22-01073-dsj 文书 14-12 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，附件 12，第 1 页，共 4 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 1 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 12\n\n案件编号：BVIHCOM2020/0137；纽约县书记官处于 01/07/2022 08:08 PM 归档；索引编号：652077/2017；NYSCEF 文书编号：1089；NYSCEF 收讫：01/07/2022；22-01073-dsj 文书 14-12 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，附件 12，第 2 页，共 4 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 2 页，共 174 页\n\n已提交　维尔京群岛领地高等法院\n\n东加勒比最高法院\n\n维尔京群岛\n\n高等法院\n\n商事庭\n\n提交日期：07/12/2021 09:48\n\n归档日期：07/12/2021 09:48\n\n已付费用：72.59\n\n案号 BVIHC (Com) 137 of 2020\n\n双方当事人\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP（太盟亚洲机会基金，LP）\n\n原告\n\n与\n\n（1）GENEVER HOLDINGS CORP.（根华控股公司） （2）BRAVO LUCK LIMITED（倍幸有限公司） （3）KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵，亦称 MILES KWOK、HO WAN KWOK 及 GUO WEN GUI） （4）QIANG GUO（郭强，亦称 QUO QIANG 及 MILESON KWOK）\n\n被告\n\n命令\n\n审理法官：尊敬的 ADRIAN JACK（阿德里安·杰克）代理法官\n\n作出日期：6 December 2021\n\n登记日期：December 2021\n\n鉴于纽约州最高法院已于 8 September 2021 作出命令，指示第三被告将第一被告发行并以其名义持有的股份转让给原告（以下简称“股份转让命令”）\n\n并鉴于原告日期为 11 November 2021 的申请（以下简称“变更申请”）\n\n并鉴于第二被告申请作出命令，以（i）延期审理今日的听证会，以及（ii）驳回原告日期为 11 November 2021 的申请（以下简称“延期申请”）\n\n并经听取 Appleby (BVI) Limited（安迈律师事务所（英属维尔京群岛）有限公司）代表原告的 Andrew Willins（安德鲁·威林斯）先生和 Tamara Cameron（塔玛拉·卡梅伦）女士、Forbes Hare（福布斯·黑尔律师事务所）代表第一及第三被告的 Robert Nader（罗伯特·纳德）先生，以及 O'Neal Webster（奥尼尔·韦伯斯特律师事务所）代表第二及第四被告的 Dan Wise（丹·怀斯）先生和 Nadine Whyte-Laing（纳丁·怀特-莱恩）女士的陈述\n\n现命令如下：\n\n1. 驳回延期申请。\n\n2. 本院日期为 3 December 2019 的命令（原在案号 170/2019 中作出，但已与本案合并）以及本院日期为 30 October 2020 的后续命令，在各自其后续延效的范围内，变更如下：\n\n（i）准许第三被告为遵从股份转让命令，将其名义登记持有的第一被告股份转让给原告；以及\n\n（ii）准许第一被告（及其注册代理人）更新第一被告的成员名册，以反映第三被告将其名义登记持有的股份转让给原告。\n\n3. 第二及第四被告应支付原告就延期申请及变更申请所产生的费用；如未能达成协议，则予以评定。\n\n奉法院命令\n\n代表书记官\n\n东加勒比最高法院\n\n维尔京群岛\n\n高等法院\n\n商事庭\n\n案号 BVIHC (Com) 137 of 2020\n\n双方当事人\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND LP（太盟亚洲机会基金 LP）\n\n原告\n\n与\n\n（1）GENEVER HOLDINGS CORP.（根华控股公司）\n\n（2）BRAVO LUCK LIMITED（倍幸有限公司）\n\n（3）KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵，亦称 MILES KWOK、HO WAN KWOK 及 GUO WEN GUI）\n\n（4）QIANG GUO（郭强，亦称 QUO QIANG 及 MILESON KWOK）\n\n被告\n\n命令\n\n原告的执业律师\n\n电话：+ 1 284 393 5323　电子邮件：awillins@applebyglobal.com\n\n参考编号：AW.432766.0003\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 14-13 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，附件 13，第 1 页，共 6 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 5 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 13\n\n案件 22-50073　文书 14-13　于 04/13/22 提交　于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记　附件 13\n\n22-01073-dsj　文书 432-3　于 05/24/22 提交　于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记　第 6 页，共\n\n发件人：　第 2 页，共 6 页\n\nErica Cheng（郑艾莉卡） \n\n收件人：Steffi Tam（谭斯蒂菲）\n\n发送时间：3/16/2011 8:51 :03 AM\n\n主题：Pangu（盘古）\n\n附件：Loan Facility 20110316.pdf；Notice of Confirmation 20110316.pdf；Personal Guarantee 20110316.pdf\n\n亲爱的 Steffi：\n\n抱歉回复迟了。随附由 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）先生签署的文件，供您进一步处理。\n\n此致\n\nErica\n\nErica Cheng（郑艾莉卡）\n\nSTEVENSON, WONG & CO.（史蒂文森、黄律师事务所）\n\n香港中环皇后大道中 28 号 Central Tower 4 楼及 5 楼。电话：+ 852 2533 2585　传真：+ 852 2157 5550　erica.cheng@sw-hk.com　http://www.sw-hk.com/\n\n本电子邮件及任何附件可能载有机密和／或特许信息，仅供预定收件人使用。任何其他用途或传播均被严格禁止。如您错误收到本电子邮件，请联系发件人并删除全部副本。\n\nStevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文森、黄律师事务所），香港中环皇后大道中 28 号 Central Tower 4 楼及 5 楼，电话：(852) 2526 6311，传真：(852) 2845 0638，网址：http\n\n中国办事处：广州市天河区天河北路 233 号中信广场 1704 室，邮编 510613，中国，电话：(8620) 8752 1228，传真：(8620) 8752 1268\n\n自 1982 年以来，通过由遍布所有主要司法管辖区、127 个商务中心内 70 家律师事务所的 5000 名律师组成的完善 Interlaw 网络，提供全球法律咨询服务。可应要求提供本所负责人的名单。\n\n发件人：Steffi Tam [mailto:stam@pacific-alliance.com]\n\n发送时间：Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:37 PM\n\n收件人：Erica Cheng\n\n主题：回复：Pangu\n\n嗨，Erica——那么您何时可以将已签署的文件发送给我？\n\nSteffi Tam\n\n法律顾问\n\n香港中环康乐广场 1 号友邦金融中心 15 楼\n\n电话：(852) 3719 3373　传真：(852) 2918 0881\n\nPacific Alliance Group（太盟集团）www.pacific-alliance.com\n\n发件人：Steffi Tam\n\n发送时间：Friday, March 11, 2011 3:18 PM\n\n收件人：‘Erica Cheng’\n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Ian Zheng；‘pg-office@panguplaza.com’；‘Hank Lo’；Derek Crane\n\n主题：回复：Pangu；22-01073-dsj 文书 14-13 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，附件 13，第 3 页，共 6 页；案件 22-50073 文书 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 7 页，共 174 页\n\n嗨，Erica：\n\n请告知我们目前的进展情况。是否有任何我们可以协助加快流程的事项？您／您的客户约在 10 天前已签署文件，但我们至今仍未收到已签署的文件。\n\n如能尽快回复，将不胜感激。\n\n谢谢。\n\nSteffi\n\n发件人：Steffi Tam\n\n发送时间：Monday, March 07, 2011 10:37 AM\n\n收件人：‘Erica Cheng’\n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Ian Zheng；‘pg-office@panguplaza.com’；‘Hank Lo’；Derek Crane\n\n主题：回复：Pangu\n\n嗨，Erica——请向我们更新贵客户签署文件的进展情况。我们希望尽快取得这些已签署的文件。\n\n谢谢。\n\n此致\n\nSteffi\n\nSteffi Tam\n\n法律顾问\n\n香港中环康乐广场 1 号友邦金融中心 15 楼\n\n电话：(852) 3719 3373　传真：(852) 2918 0881\n\nPacific Alliance Group（太盟集团）www.pacific-alliance.com\n\n发件人：Steffi Tam\n\n发送时间：Tuesday, March 01, 2011 1:01 PM\n\n收件人：‘Erica Cheng’\n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Ian Zheng；‘pg-office@panguplaza.com’；Hank Lo；Derek Crane\n\n主题：回复：Pangu\n\n嗨，Erica——是的，请发送由贵客户签署的文件，随后我们将予以签署。\n\nSteffi\n\nSteffi Tam\n\n法律顾问\n\n香港中环康乐广场 1 号友邦金融中心 15 楼\n\n电话：(852) 3719 3373\n\nPacific Alliance Group（太盟集团）www.pacific-alliance.com\n\n发件人：Erica Cheng [mailto:Erica.Cheng@sw-hk.com]\n\n发送时间：Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:58 PM\n\n收件人：Steffi Tam\n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Ian Zheng；‘pg-office@panguplaza.com’；Hank Lo；Derek Crane\n\n主题：回复：Pangu\n\n亲爱的 Steffi：\n\n我们正安排 Kwok（郭先生）签署文件，包括融资函、确认通知书及个人保证。文件签署后，我们是否应先通过电子邮件交换签署页？正本随后寄送。\n\n此致\n\nErica\n\n发件人：Steffi Tam [mailto:stam@pacific-alliance.com]\n\n发送时间：Monday, February 28, 2011 9:08 AM\n\n收件人：Erica Cheng\n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Ian Zheng；‘pg-office@panguplaza.com’；Hank Lo；Derek Crane\n\n主题：回复：Pangu\n\n嗨，Erica：\n\n请向贵客户跟进有关文件的情况。我们需要尽快取得这些已签署的文件。\n\n谢谢。\n\nSteffi\n\n发件人：Steffi Tam\n\n收件人：‘Erica.Cheng@sw-hk.com’ \n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Ian Zheng；‘pg-office@panguplaza.com’ ；‘Hank.Lo@sw-hk.com’ ；Derek Crane\n\n发送时间：Thu Feb 24 13:06:53 2011\n\n主题：回复：Pangu\n\n嗨，Erica：\n\n感谢您提供经修订的融资函草案。\n\n关于融资函第 2(a) 条，借款人须在收到贷款人支付的人民币后 7 个营业日内支付 US$5m。请纳入该项修改；届时我们即可签署。\n\n请与贵客户确认，并尽快安排签署融资函及保证书。\n\n谢谢。\n\nSteffi\n\n发件人：Erica Cheng \n\n收件人：Steffi Tam\n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Ian Zheng；‘pg-office@panguplaza.com’ ；Hank Lo \n\n发送时间：Wed Feb 23 23:36:07 2011\n\n主题：Pangu\n\n亲爱的 Steffi：\n\n22-01073-dsj 文书 14-13 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，附件 13；案件 22-50073 文书 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 9 页，共\n\n随附融资函草案第 3 版，供您考虑。请注意，经修订的融资函亦同时发送给我们的客户，并可能须视乎进一步意见（如有）而定。第 5 页，共 6 页；174\n\n我们对保证书没有进一步意见。\n\n此致\n\nErica\n\nErica Cheng（郑艾莉卡）\n\nSTEVENSON, WONG & CO.（史蒂文森、黄律师事务所）\n\n香港中环皇后大道中 28 号 Central Tower 4 楼及 5 楼。电话：+ 852 2533 2585　传真：+ 852 2157 5550　erica.cheng@sw-hk.com　http://www.sw-hk.com/\n\n本电子邮件及任何附件可能载有机密和／或特许信息，仅供预定收件人使用。任何其他用途或传播均被严格禁止。如您错误收到本电子邮件，请联系发件人并删除全部副本。\n\nStevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文森、黄律师事务所），香港中环皇后大道中 28 号 Central Tower 4 楼及 5 楼，电话：(852) 2526 6311，传真：(852) 2845 0638，网址：http\n\n中国办事处：广州市天河区天河北路 233 号中信广场 1704 室，邮编 510613，中国，电话：(8620) 8752 1228，传真：(8620) 8752 1268\n\n自 1982 年以来，通过由遍布所有主要司法管辖区、127 个商务中心内 70 家律师事务所的 5000 名律师组成的完善 Interlaw 网络，提供全球法律咨询服务。可应要求提供本所负责人的名单。\n\n发件人：Steffi Tam [mailto:stam@pacific-alliance.com]\n\n发送时间：Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:33 PM\n\n收件人：Erica Cheng\n\n抄送：Jon Lewis\n\n主题：回复：Pangu\n\n嗨，Erica：文件是否有任何进展？我们需要尽快签署文件。请回复。\n\n谢谢。\n\nSteffi\n\n发件人：Christie Ching（程克莉丝蒂）\n\n收件人：‘Erica Cheng’ \n\n抄送：Jon Lewis；Steffi Tam\n\n发送时间：Mon Feb 14 15:41:30 2011\n\n主题：Pangu\n\n亲爱的 Erica：\n\n随附我们对所附个人保证书及融资函的意见。\n\n此致\n\nChristie Ching\n\n代 Pacific Alliance Investment Management (HK) Limited（太盟投资管理（香港）有限公司）\n\n香港中环花园道 33 号圣约翰大厦 16 楼\n\n电话：(852) 3719 3306　传真：(852) 2918 0881\n\n本电子邮件所载信息（包括所有附件）属机密，并可能受法律特许保护。如您不是预定收件人，您不得以任何方式披露或使用本电子邮件中的信息。如您错误收到本电子邮件，请立即以回复电子邮件方式通知我们，并从您的系统中删除该电子邮件及所有附件。谢谢。\n\n本电子邮件所载信息（包括所有附件）属机密，并可能受法律特许保护。如您不是预定收件人，您不得以任何方式披露或使用本电子邮件中的信息。如您错误收到本电子邮件，请立即以回复电子邮件方式通知我们，并从您的系统中删除该电子邮件及所有附件。谢谢。\n\n本电子邮件中所载信息（包括所有附件）属机密信息，并可能受法律特权保护。如果您并非预定收件人，您不得以任何方式披露或使用本电子邮件中的信息。如果您误收本电子邮件，请立即通过回复电子邮件通知我们，并从您的系统中删除本电子邮件及所有附件。谢谢。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-14 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 14 第 1 页，共 7 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 11 页，共 174 页\n证据附件 14\n已提交：纽约县书记官 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-14 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 14 第 2 页，共 7 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 12 页，共 174 页\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官　审判庭　IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），　案号　652077/2017\n原告，　动议日期\n\n诉 -\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名　动议序号　009\nGUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE\nHAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS\nCORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司），　关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告。\n\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n法院于 2020 年 12 月 18 日通过 Microsoft Teams 就原告提出的第 009 号动议，即损害赔偿动议，进行了口头辩论。根据已提交的文件及记录在案的程序，原告的动议获准，范围为判给原告 \\$46,426,489.00 的损害赔偿（未偿本金），另加根据 2011 Personal Guarantee（2011 年个人保证书）按自 2010 年 12 月 31 日生效之日起年利率 15% 计算的合同利息。参见 Jon Lewis 基于个人知情作出的宣誓书（NYSCEF 文件编号 563）。\n\n程序经过\n\n2020 年 9 月 15 日，法院就原告提出的第 007 号动议，即简易判决动议，作出裁定及命令（NYSCEF 文件编号 549）。法院认定 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）应就违约承担责任，具体而言，即当事人订立的 2011 Personal Guarantee。在该裁定及命令中，法院对 Kwok 新近提出的减损论点表示怀疑，但保留对该问题的裁决，直至法院确定损害赔偿。法院指示原告提交一项动议，列明根据 2011 Personal Guarantee 应得的损害赔偿以及法院明确认定原告依合同有权获得的律师费。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-14 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 14 第 3 页，共 7 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 13 页，共 174 页\n\n损害赔偿问题，以及法院是否应当刺破公司面纱并认定 Genever 各被告承担责任，仍未解决。\n\n由于刺破公司面纱问题将需要陪审团审判，法院要求原告撤回第 009 号动议中请求律师费的部分，并在整个诉讼解决后重新提出该请求。原告同意如此办理，因此本动议仅处理第 009 号动议中有关损害赔偿的部分。\n\n本动议最初的书面陈述包括被告 Kwok 提出的交叉动议，请求修改其答辩状以将减损主张列为积极抗辩。在其 2020 年 11 月 12 日的状态会议命令中（NYSCEF 文件编号 648），法院指示 Kwok 无须修改其答辩状即可主张其减损抗辩。因此，本裁定及命令处理原告损害赔偿动议的实体问题及 Kwok 的减损抗辩。\n\n讨论\n\n鉴于法院已认定 Kwok 应根据 2011 Personal Guarantee 承担责任，原告提交了一项直接的动议，列明根据该协议条款就未偿本金应付的利息。作为反对，被告主张原告有义务减轻其损失，具体而言，应当追究北京警方提出的、可能向原告出售公寓的要约——即 Kwok 本应转让给原告以清偿其对原告所负债务的同一批公寓。\n\n如第 007 号动议裁定及命令（NYSCEF 文件编号 549）所述：\n\n2013 年 4 月，当事人订立了一份和解契据，据此，如 Pacific Alliance 从 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（“Beijing Pangu”）——Kwok 的另一商业实体——购买某些公寓，且 Shiny Times 向 Pacific Alliance 作出若干分期付款，则未偿贷款金额将不再应付给 Pacific Alliance。就 Pacific Alliance 购买每套公寓而言，Beijing Pangu 必须满足十项先决条件。若任何该等条件未于 2013 年 6 月前满足，则和解契据将整体终止。Pacific Alliance\n\n及 Kwok 随后对和解契据执行了四次延期，仅变更先决条件须获满足的日期。最近一份和解契据要求先决条件于 2015 年 6 月前获得满足。……2013 年和解契据中的若干先决条件未获履行。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，未能向原告提供有关已支付与公寓买卖相关的所有税款及费用的证据，且未能向原告交付任何一套公寓的房屋所有权证。……由于先决条件未于 2015 年 6 月 30 日前满足，和解契据整体终止，2011 Personal Guarantee 再次完全有效。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-14 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 14 第 4 页，共 7 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 14 页，共 174 页\n\n被告首先主张，原告“在和解契据被违约后”有义务减轻其损失。然而，和解契据从未被“违约”，因为该和解契据从未生效，原因是先决条件未于 2015 年 6 月 30 日前满足。被告主张，上述列明的条件并非先决条件，因为“和解契据并未以在其能够完全生效前发生任何事项为条件”（见被告补充答复，第 7 页）。法院驳回被告首次在其补充答复中提出的该论点。被告须在 2015 年 6 月 30 日前满足先决条件。未能于 2015 年 6 月 30 日前满足条件并不构成违反协议，而在 2015 年 6 月 30 日，未能满足先决条件导致和解契据失效并恢复适用 2011 Personal Guarantee，而非构成对协议的“违约”。\n\n被告接着主张，存在实质性事实争议，表明原告在和解契据到期前有机会减轻其损失。首先，法院已根据双方提交的书面证据认定，北京警方提出的机会仅在 2015 年 6 月之后才出现。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-14 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 14 第 5 页，共 7 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 15 页，共 174 页\n\n当时和解契据已届满。见 NYSCEF 文件编号 549，第 6 页。其次，作为法律问题，警方何时向原告提出该机会并无区别。若该机会在 2015 年 6 月 30 日前提出，则原告并不知道 Kwok 是否会履行先决条件并向原告转让公寓，因而不存在需要减损的损失，也没有理由寻求取得公寓的替代方法。若该机会在 2015 年 6 月 30 日后提出，则 2011 Personal Guarantee 已生效，并且根据香港法律，减损原则不适用于债务偿还请求。原告和 Kwok 的香港法律专家均确认这一点。见 Melwani 宣誓书（NYSCEF 文件编号 640）第 ¶ 10 段（“终审法院……已确认……减损原则不适用于债务偿还请求”）及 Georgiou 宣誓书（NYSCEF 文件编号 667）第 ¶ 7 段（“我同意 Melwani 先生的意见，即在……个人保证书项下提出债务偿还请求时，减损原则并不适用。”）。\n\n被告进一步主张，原告有义务追究北京警方的要约，因为据称原告获得了接受其根据和解契据所议定利益——即该等公寓——的机会。如上所述，原告没有义务对债务偿还请求采取减损措施。然而，即使原告确有减损义务，如法院已认定，原告也仅须合理地减轻损失。以 \\$17 M 从北京警方购买公寓的提议，而原告本应以零美元取得该等公寓的转让（以清偿债务），几乎不能算是获得原告所议定的利益。\n\n最后，被告主张，原告持有公寓钥匙，而该钥匙必定具有某种价值，可以抵扣 2011 Personal\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-14 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 14 第 6 页，共 7 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 16 页，共 174 页\n\nGuarantee 项下的合同损害赔偿。被告未援引任何法律依据支持该主张。虽然此类结论性断言不足以依法阻却判决，法院指出，即使根据和解契据，原告所议定的也并非仅仅占有公寓，而是无瑕疵产权，以便其能够依法出售公寓，以清偿 Kwok 对原告所负的债务。见原告答复备忘录，第 11 页。\n\n综上，Kwok 的减损论点没有依据，原告有权获得 2011 Personal Guarantee 项下的合同损害赔偿及利息。\n\n法院指出，原告针对 Genever 各被告提出的刺破公司面纱第二项诉因仍须审理。就剩余请求的审判原定于 2021 年 1 月 15 日举行。鉴于：(1) 因 Covid-19 疫情，纽约州目前禁止陪审团审判；以及 (2) 针对其中一名 Genever 被告的破产中止，当事人已提交一项约定，请求无限期延期审判。该请求获准。定于 2021 年 5 月 4 日上午 10:00 举行状态会议，以报告 Genever 破产案的进展情况。\n\n据此，现命令如下：\n\n命令法院书记官登记判决，判原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 胜诉被告 Kwok Ho Wan，金额为 \\$46,426,489.00，另加根据 2011 Personal Guarantee 按自 2010 年 12 月 31 日生效之日起年利率 15% 计算的合同利息，以及自本裁定及命令登记之日起按法定年利率 9% 计算的利息。\n\n2020 年 12 月 18 日 \\$SIG\\$\n\n日期 BARRY R. OSTRAGER，纽约州最高法院法官\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 12/18/2020 04:45 PM　案号 652077/2017\n\n案号 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj\nNYSCEF 文件编号 685　文件 14-14\n文件 432-3　提交于 04/13/22\n提交于 05/24/22\n第 7 页，共 7 页\n174　录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22\n录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58　证据附件 14\n第 17 页，共\nNYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020\n\n请选择一项：　案件已处置　X　非终局性处置\nX　准许　驳回　部分准许　其他\n申请事项：　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　转介\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 15 第 1 页，共 10 页　案号 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 18 页，共 174 页\n证据附件 15\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM　索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 725　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/02/2021　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 15 第 2 页，共 10 页　案号 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 19 页，共 174 页\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n索引号 652077/2017\n\n上诉通知书\n\nBarry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）等，\n\n被告。\n\n兹通知，被告 Kwok Ho Wan 现就纽约州最高法院纽约县于 February 3, 2021 作出的、并于 February 3, 2021 记入纽约县书记官办公室的判决书（NYSCEF 文件编号 716），以及该判决书的每一部分，向上诉分庭第一司法部门提起上诉。\n\n日期：New York, New York　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　谨此提交，March 2, 2021\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ John Siegal\n\nJohn Siegal（约翰·西格尔）　Melissa Carvalho（梅丽莎·卡瓦略）　Erica Barrow（埃丽卡·巴罗）　45 Rockefeller Plaza　New York, New York 10111　212-589-1400　jsiegal@bakerlaw.com　mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com　ebarrow@bakerlaw.com　被告 Kwok Ho Wan 的代理律师\n\n致：纽约县书记官（通过 NYSCEF）　全体登记在案的代理律师（通过 NYSCEF）\n纽约州最高法院上诉分庭：第一司法部门\n\n信息说明书（依据 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]）— 民事\n\n案件名称　填写案件名称，名称应与启动该事项的传票、上诉通知书、申请书或说明理由令中所载名称一致。请作必要修改。　原审法院用　原审法院用\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP.\n诉\nKwok Ho Wan 等　上诉通知书提交日期\n上诉分庭用\n案件类型\n民事诉讼\n\nCPLR 第 75 条仲裁　□ CPLR 第 78 条程序\n□\n特别程序　其他\n□ 人身保护令程序　上诉\n□\n原始程序\n□ CPLR 第 78 条\n□ 征收\n□ 劳动法第 220 或 220-b 条\n□ 公职人员法第 36 条\n□ 不动产税法第 1278 条　□ 移送程序\n□ CPLR 第 78 条\n□ 行政法第 298 条\n□ CPLR 5704 审查\n诉讼性质：（最多勾选三项。勾选最能反映案件性质的下列类别。）\n□ 行政审查　商业关系　商业　合同\n□ 确认判决　□ 家庭关系　□ 选举法　□ 遗产事项\n□ 家事法院　□ 抵押品止赎　□ 杂项　□ 囚犯纪律与假释\n□ 不动产\n（止赎除外）　□ 成文法　□ 税收　□\n侵权行为\n\n上诉\n\n被上诉文书（仅勾选一项）：　如已通过提交本上诉通知书对一项以上的命令或判决书提起上诉，请在单独的纸张上就每一项被上诉的命令或判决书注明以下信息。\n□ 修正法令\n□ 修正判决书\n□ 修正命令\n□ 决定　□ 认定\n□ 事实认定\n□ 中间法令\n□ 中间判决书　□ 命令\n□ 命令及判决书\n□ 部分法令\n□ 重新拟定法令　□ 重新拟定命令\n□ 裁决\n□ 其他（请说明）：\n□ 法令　判决书　□ 重新拟定判决书\n法院：　最高法院　纽约\n县：\n日期：\n02/03/2021　登记：02/03/2021\n法官（全名）：Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官　索引号：652077/2017\n阶段：　□ 中间　终局　□ 终局后　□ 是　□ 否\n审判：　如是：□ 陪审团　□ 非陪审团\n先前未完善的上诉及相关案件信息\n索引号 150823/2021。无损权利驳回。\n原始程序\n\n依据 CPLR 7804(g) 移送的程序\n法院：\n法官（全名）：\n选择法院\nCPLR 5704 对单方命令的审查：\n\n法院：　选择法院　县：选择县\n法官（全名）：　上诉、程序或申请的说明及争点陈述　日期：\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM　索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 725　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/02/2021　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 15 第 5 页，共 10 页　案号 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 22 页，共 174 页\n\n争点：请具体说明拟在上诉、程序或 CPLR 5704 审查申请中提出的争点、将提出的撤销或变更理由，以及上诉中请求的具体救济。\n\n在不限制可能于上诉中提出的论点的前提下，被告—上诉人 Kwok Ho Wan 陈述：该判决书应予全部撤销；最高法院作出的命令，包括但不限于对其施加制裁及司法禁反言、准许原告针对其提出的简易判决动议、并判给针对其的损害赔偿，均属错误并应予撤销；且就责任及损害赔偿均存在众多真实的重大事实争议，因而本应排除就责任或损害赔偿作出简易判决。\n当事人信息\n\n说明：填写本诉讼或程序中每一当事人的姓名，每行一名当事人。如本表为上诉提交，请注明该当事人在原审法院的身份及其在本院的身份（如有）。如本表为在本院启动的程序提交，仅填写当事人姓名及其在本院的身份。\n\n编号　当事人姓名　原审身份\n\n1　Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.　原告　上诉分庭身份\n被上诉人\n2　Kwok Ho Wan　被告　上诉人\n3　Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）　被告　无\n4　Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）　被告　无\n5\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM　索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 725　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/02/2021　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 15 第 6 页，共 10 页　案号 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 23 页，共 174 页\n\n请在所提供的空格内填写。　说明：填写各当事人的律师或律师事务所名称。如本表拟随在上诉分庭启动特别程序的申请通知书或说明理由令一并提交，仅须提供申请人代理律师的姓名。如诉讼当事人自行代理，必须勾选标有“自行代理”的方框，并提供该当事人的适当信息。\n\n律师/事务所名称：Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯），O'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\n地址：? Times Square\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10036　电话号码：212-326-2000\n电子邮件地址：emoss@omm.com\n律师类型：　□ 指派\n委聘　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n□ 临时出庭许可律师\n代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）：\n律师/事务所名称：Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），O'Melveny & Myers LLP　I\n地址：7 Times Square\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10036　电话号码：212-326-2000\n电子邮件地址：ssamoff@omm.com\n律师类型：　□ 指派\n委聘　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n□ 临时出庭许可律师\n律师/事务所名称：Robert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登）　代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）：\n地址：1120 Avenue of the Americas\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10036　电话号码：212-626-6708\n电子邮件地址：rseiden@seidenlegal.com\n律师类型：　□ 指派\n委聘　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n□ 临时出庭许可律师\n地址：45 Rockefeller Center　代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）：\n律师/事务所名称：John Siegal，Baker & Hostetler LLP\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10111　电话号码：212-589-1400\n电子邮件地址：jsiegal@baker1aw.com\n律师类型：　□ 指派\n委聘　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n□ 临时出庭许可律师\n代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）：\n律师/事务所名称：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔），Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n地址：99 Church Street, 4th floor\n城市：White Plains　州：New York　邮政编码：10601　电话号码：973-285-3280\n电子邮件地址：aaron@lrnesq.com\n律师类型：　□ 指派\n委聘　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n□ 临时出庭许可律师\n代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）：3 MG,\\ t{\n律师/事务所名称：\n地址：\n城市：　州：　邮政编码：　电话号码：\n电子邮件地址：\n□ 指派　□ 政府　□ 临时出庭许可律师\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县　PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n17 652077\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n索引号 652077/2017\n\n[拟定] 判决书\n\nKWOK HOW AN，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，及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n被告。\n\n鉴于，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 于 April 18, 2017 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”）提起诉讼，主张被告 Kwok 构成违约。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM　索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 716　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/03/2021\n\n第 7 页，共 10 页　案号 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 24 页，共 174 页\n\n鉴于，原告于 April 18, 2019 对 Kwok、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation（与 Genever Holdings LLC 合称“Genever 被告”）提交第一份修正起诉状，主张：（i）被告 Kwok 构成违约；及（ii）应对 Genever 被告适用揭开公司面纱原则。\n\n鉴于，原告于 July 24, 2020 就其针对 Kwok 的违约主张申请部分简易判决；该动议已完成书面陈述并由 Barry R. Ostrager 法官审理。该法官作出日期为 September 15, 2020 的裁定及命令，并于 September 16, 2020 录入纽约县书记官办公室，准许原告就修正起诉状第一项罪名中的违约主张提出的动议，并指示原告最迟于 October 14, 2020 通过动议通知提出动议，以确定第一项罪名的损害赔偿。提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM索引号 652077/2017NYSCEF 文件编号 725NYSCEF 收件日期：03/02/2021　6 of 9　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15 提交于 04/13/22 录入于 04/13/22 01:55:22 证据附件 15\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM　索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 716　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/03/2021　第 8 页，共 10 页　案号 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交于 05/24/22 录入于 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 25 页，共 174 页\n17 652077\n英文\n\n鉴于：(i) 2020年9月21日，原告通过动议通知申请确定损害赔偿、律师费及开支；(ii) 原告经法院许可，并在其他各方理解该申请将于日后重新提出的情况下，同意暂时撤回其申请中涉及律师费及开支（即执行费用）的部分，且不影响其权利；以及 (iii) 该动议已完成书面陈述并由 Barry R. Ostrager 法官审理，其于2020年12月18日作出决定及命令（以下简称“损害赔偿命令”），并于2020年12月18日提交至纽约县书记官办公室，指示法院书记官登记判决，判令被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）向原告支付 $46,426,489.00，另加自2010年12月31日生效日起按年利率15%计算的合同利息，以及自本决定及命令登记之日起按法定年利率9%计算的利息。已提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 725　NYSCEF 收到日期：03/02/2021　第7页，共9页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件15\n\n现经原告代理律师事务所 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦文律师事务所）提出动议，裁定如下：\n\n判决：营业地址位于香港皇后大道东1号太古广场三座33楼的原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），有权向居住于纽约州纽约市第五大道781号18层，邮编10022的被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）取得并追偿 $46,426,489.00，另加合同利息 $69,448,939.71，另加按法定年利率9%计算的判决后利息 $526,590.86，合计\n\n$116,402,019.57，原告得就此申请强制执行。\n\n本判决于2021年2月3日登记。\n\n已提交\n2021年2月3日\n纽约县书记官办公室\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAO YUN，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），已提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 725　NYSCEF 收到日期：03/02/2021　第8页，共9页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件15\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nEDWARD MOSS 律师宣誓陈述\n\n被告。\n\n本人 Edward Moss，系经正式准许在纽约州法院执业的律师，兹根据纽约州《民事诉讼规则》第2106条，在伪证处罚下作如下确认：\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 716　NYSCEF 收到日期：02/03/2021\n\n第9页，共10页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第26页，共174页\n\n1. 本人系本院律师协会成员，并为律师事务所 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦文律师事务所）的合伙人；该所为本案原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，以下简称“PAX”）的登记代理律师。\n\n2. 本人完全熟悉本诉讼的事实和情况。为登记本判决之目的，本人提交本宣誓陈述，放弃费用及支出。\n\n日期：2021年1月25日　纽约州纽约市　签字：/s/ Edward Moss　Edward Moss\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM　案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 716　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第27页　NYSCEF 收到日期：02/03/2021\n第10页，共10页\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县　案号 652077/2017\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），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（Genever 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），已提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 725　NYSCEF 收到日期：03/02/2021　第9页，共9页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-15　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件15\n\n判决书\n\n经 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦文律师事务所）提出动议\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件16　第1页，共26页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第28页，共174页\n附件16\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件16　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第29页，共174页\n\n第2页，共26页\n\n已提交：上诉分庭—第一部门 10/15/2021 02:10 PM　2021-00740\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 16　NYSCEF 收到日期：10/15/2021\n\nMARK C. ZAUDERER（申请时间：15分钟）\n\n辩论律师：\n纽约州最高法院\n\n上诉分庭—第一部门\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—被上诉人，\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，\n\n被告—上诉人，\n\n—及—\n\nGENEVER 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\n被告—上诉人答复状\n\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹及扎德勒律师事务所）　纽约州纽约市列克星敦大道360号　邮编10017　(212) 922-9250　mzauderer@ganfershore.com　imatetsky@ganfershore.com　jcohen@ganfershore.com\n\n被告—上诉人代理律师\n\n纽约县书记官案号 652077/17\n\n上诉案件编号：2021-00740\n目录\n页码\n\n权威资料表\nii\n\n初步陈述　1\n论证　2\n要点一\n该判决应予撤销，因为其基于对司法禁止反言原则的错误适用　2\nA. 司法禁止反言的构成要件并不存在　2\nB. PAX 的司法承认理论未获动议法院采纳，且缺乏依据\n\nC. PAX 的“对伪证予以制裁”理论未获动议法院采纳，且缺乏依据\n\nD. PAX 关于其除司法禁止反言裁定外有权获得简易判决的主张毫无依据　15\n要点二\n该判决应予撤销，因为动议法院错误驳回了 PAX 未减轻其损害这一抗辩　16\n结论　20\n权威资料表\n页码\n判例：\n\n35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC,\n171 A.D.3d 545 (1st Dep't 2019)　2\n\nBank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon,\n171 A.D.3d 197 (2d Dep't 2019)　8\nBarish v. Association of the Bar,\n20 N.Y.2d 154 (1967)　5\nBernstein v. Freudman,\n180 A.D.2d 420 (1st Dep't 1992)　18\nCarr v. Caputo,\n\nA.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013)　3\nCDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen,\n23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)\n13, 14\nD & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC,\n287 A.D.2d 65 (1st Dep't 2001)　3, 4\nGoodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.,\n169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019)　5\nKoch v. National Basketball Ass'n,\n245 A.D.2d 230 (1st Dep't 1997)　5, 6\nMacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith,\n182 A.D.3d 514 (1st Dep't 2020)　3\nMatter of Daniel C.,\n99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984)　11\nMatter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P.,\n181 A.D.3d 461 (1st Dep't 2020)　8, 12\nMatter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny,\n189 A.D.3d 583 (1st Dep't 2020), 获准上诉，\n36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021)　7\nMicro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst,\n155 A.D.3d 1638 (4th Dep't 2017)\n5-6\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件16　第5页，共26页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第32页，共174页\n\nMPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,\n166 A.D.3d\n13 (1st Dep't 2018)　3\n\nNapoli v. Bern,\n171 A.D.3d 489 (1st Dep't 2019)　14\nNestor v. Britt,\n270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000)　6\nOlszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.,\n18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)　7\nOrr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp.,\n172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019)　4, 5, 6\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok,\n160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)　3\nPatmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc.\nv. Mazl Bldg., LLC,\n189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020)　3, 4\nPeters v. Peters,\n146 A.D.3d 503 (1st Dep't 2017)　14\nRahman v. Smith,\n40 A.D.3d 613 (2d Dep't 2007)　9\nTynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.,\n117 A.D.2d 796 (2d Dep't 1986)　18\nWells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.,\n113 A.D.3d 516 (1st Dep't 2014)　3, 4\nZanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp.,\n193 A.D.3d 536 (1st Dep't 2021)　5\n法规及其他权威资料：\n\nCPLR 3123　9\n\nCPLR 3126　12\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件16　第6页，共26页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第33页，共174页\n初步陈述\n\nPAX 主张，Kwok 先生应受司法禁止反言约束，因为他在动议法院批准其不方便法院动议时最初在本案中胜诉；因此，PAX 请求本院无视如下关键事实：在 PAX 的上诉中，本院撤销了该下级裁定并驳回了 Kwok 先生的动议。依纽约州法律，暂时获胜后又被推翻的一方，并非适用司法禁止反言时的胜诉方。由于动议法院作出简易判决完全以其错误的司法禁止反言裁定为前提，该判决应予撤销。\n\nPAX 或许认识到动议法院裁定存在缺陷，提出若干其他可予维持判决的潜在理由，并承认动议法院并未讨论这些理由。PAX 的替代理由不能成立。PAX 声称 Kwok 先生已作出文件真实的“正式司法承认”，但该主张并无依据，因为其所援引的陈述并非由 Kwok 先生本人作出，而是由该不会说英语的诉讼当事人的前任律师作出，且被断章取义地援引。这些陈述均非对事实作出的清楚、明确且确定的承认；而这正是正式司法承认的必要特征。Kwok 先生在其证言中陈述相关文件并无其签名；该证言是他首次有机会亲自就该等文件及其真实性作出说明。\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件16　第7页，共26页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第34页，共174页\n\nPAX 还主张本院应依法直接驳回 Kwok 先生的证言，但亦无任何依据支持该主张。依照本州保障诉讼当事人正当程序并根据案件实体解决争议的政策，应允许 Kwok 先生向事实裁判者提出其对 PAX 请求的事实抗辩，包括关于相关文件是否真实的证据。\n\n最后，即使就责任问题而言简易判决被适当地作出以支持 PAX——但事实并非如此——则就 Kwok 先生关于 PAX 未能减轻其损害的抗辩，仍存在事实争议；纽约法和香港法均要求减轻损害。\n论证\n要点一\n该判决应予撤销，因为其基于对司法禁止反言原则的错误适用\nA. 司法禁止反言的构成要件并不存在\n\nPAX 承认，面对本院的先例，其必须承认司法禁止反言仅在“当事人因其被指称不一致的立场而‘获得有利裁定或判决……’”时适用。（PAX 答辩状第9页，援引 35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC, 171 A.D.3d 545, 545 (1st Dep't 2019)。）本案中，Kwok 先生并未就不方便法院问题获得“有利裁定或判决”，因为在其最初于动议法院胜诉后，本院撤销了下级裁定，驳回了 Kwok 先生的驳回动议，并指示本案\n\n在纽约继续进行。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）诉 Kwok（郭文贵），160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)。即便是动议法院的最初裁定，更遑论本院的撤销裁定，均未就文件的真实性作出认定（与 PAX 的主张相反，该等文件并非来自郭先生“自己的档案”）。\n\n正如郭先生初始陈述中所述的多项判决所表明（见 Kwok Br. 17-19），本院已裁定，在可以援引司法禁止反言之前，一方当事人必须已因其先前据称相互矛盾的立场而获得对其有利的判决或其他终局性救济。参见，例如，Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020); MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020); MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd, 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018); Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp., 113 A.D.3d 516, 516 (1st Dep't 2014); Carr v. Caputo, 114 A.D.3d 62, 71 (1st Dep't 2013)。在本案中，郭先生显然未获得对其有利的判决，因为本次上诉正是针对对其作出的判决而提起。\n\nPAX 主张，当事人无须获得判决即可受到司法禁止反言的约束，并援引 D & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC, 287 A.D.2d 65, 71 (1st Dep't 2001)。尽管 D & L Holdings 法院裁定，当事人据以获得救济的文件无须标明为“判决”，但该法院重申而非否定了如下规则：司法禁止反言仅在“当事人通过坚持一种立场获得救济，随后又在另一诉讼中坚持相反立场”的情形下适用。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 16，第 9 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 36 页，共 174 页\n\n当事人通过坚持一种立场获得救济，随后又在另一诉讼中坚持相反立场。”Id. at 71-72。相反，该案适用司法禁止反言仅因“D & L 实际获得了其在先前程序中向法院寻求的救济”。Id. at 72。\n\n如本院所解释，为受到禁止反言的约束，当事人必须因其所称的先前立场而在诉讼中“胜诉”并获得有利裁决。参见，例如，Patmos, 189 A.D.3d at 633（“该主张未受司法禁止反言阻却，因为即使被告先前的立场相互矛盾，其中也没有任何一项获得支持。”）；Wells Fargo, 113 A.D.3d at 516 (1st Dep't 2014)（“由于原告未就其合同赔偿主张胜诉，司法禁止反言原则不适用。”）。在本案中，PAX 提出了一项非同寻常的论点：郭先生因动议法院最初批准其驳回动议，便在不方便法院问题上胜诉并获得有利裁决——尽管本院在审理 PAX 针对该裁定提出的上诉时，撤销了下级法院的裁定并驳回了郭先生的动议。\n\nPAX 的立场——即使最初有利于当事人的裁定后来被撤销，当事人仍应视为在该问题上胜诉——与本院近期阐释“胜诉”及获得“有利裁决”含义的判决直接冲突。本院在 Orr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp., 172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019) 中的裁定直接切中要害。在该案中，一方当事人最初在破产程序中获得救济，但破产法院后来重新开启案件，\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 16，第 10 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 37 页，共 174 页\n\n从而否定了该救济。本院裁定，在该项变更之后，破产法院的最初裁定不能构成司法禁止反言的依据：\n\n重新开启 Kartsanis 的破产案件使司法禁止反言原则不再适用，因为其“撤销了……司法禁止反言据以成立的终局认定”。\n\nId. at 512（引自 Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc. 169 A.D.3d 1010, 1013 (2d Dep't 2019); Koch v. National Basketball Ass'n, 245 A.D.2d 230, 230-31 (1st Dep't 1997)）。\n\nPAX 主张，Goodman 等案件仅限于破产情境，但未提出任何支持此种限制的理由。PAX 认为，“破产法院重新开启破产程序，‘撤销了……司法禁止反言据以成立的终局认定。’”（PAX Br. 33（引自 Goodman））。但本案恰恰也是如此：当本院撤销动议法院对郭先生不方便法院动议的批准并驳回该动议时，本院“撤销了”先前有利于郭先生的认定，因而否定其作为司法禁止反言潜在依据的效力。参见 Barish v. Association of the Bar, 20 N.Y.2d 154, 158 (1967)（“撤销定罪……使其失效，如同其从未存在过”）；Zanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp., 193 A.D.3d 536, 538 (1st Dep't 2021)（被告胜诉的裁定被撤销时，根据胜诉方条款向被告支付的律师费“亦必须撤销，因为在此阶段，[被告]并非胜诉方”）；Micro-\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 16，第 11 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 38 页，共 174 页\n\nLink, LLC v. Town of Amherst, 155 A.D.3d 1638, 1640 (4th Dep't 2017)（“‘法院撤销先前裁定后，……案件法则原则不再适用。……事实上，‘已撤销的判决无论作为争点禁止反言或直接禁止反言，还是作为案件法则，均不具有禁止效力。’”）（引文略）。\n\n正如我们在初始陈述中所论述，动议法院及 PAX 对 Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000) 的依赖并不恰当。（见 Kwok Br. 21-22）。该裁定甚至未提及，更遑论适用，司法禁止反言中的“胜诉方”或“有利裁决”要求；不能合理地将其解读为推翻本院在 Nestor 之前和之后数十年的先例，而该等先例均承认该项要求。并且，PAX 对 Nestor 的解释无法与本院在 Orr 和 Koch 中的裁定相协调；两案均裁定，后续诉讼进展在其“撤销……司法禁止反言据以成立的终局认定”时，排除适用司法禁止反言。Orr, 172 A.D.3d at 512; Koch, 245 A.D.2d at 231。\n\n最后，动议法院关于司法禁止反言的裁定与本院的判决不一致；本院认定司法禁止反言仅适用于两个或以上独立诉讼或程序的情境，而本案仅涉及一项诉讼。正如我们在初始陈述中所述，本院已明确裁定，司法禁止反言要求存在两个连续的诉讼：\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 16，第 12 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 39 页，共 174 页\n\n我们亦驳回雇主提出的论点，即业主受到司法禁止反言的约束，因而不得主张原告并未遭受严重伤害。司法禁止反言原则在此不适用，因为第一，对业主作出的裁决不能视为有利于业主的裁定；第二，相互矛盾的立场是在同一诉讼中主张的。\n\nOlszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 349, 350-51 (1st Dep't 2005)。\n\n与 PAX 所敦促的相反，本院明确表述的裁定，即“司法禁止反言不适用……[在据称]相互矛盾的立场是在同一诉讼中主张的情形”（id.），不能被视为仅属附带意见而不予理会。法院在其意见的同一句中提供两个裁决某一问题的理由时，不存在任何依据允许 PAX 之类的诉讼当事人将其中一项抬高为该案的判决要旨，同时将另一项贬为附带意见。参见 Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny, 189 A.D.3d 583, 583 (1st Dep't 2020)（“我们拒绝推翻我们在 Lavery 中的任何备选判决理由，申请人错误地将其称为‘附带意见。’”），leave to appeal granted, 36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021)。此外，即便为论证起见，司法禁止反言有时可因同一诉讼中采取的相互矛盾立场而产生——尽管本院在 Olszewski 中已有相反的直接裁定——其仍不能适用于郭先生，因为如上所述，他在不方便法院动议上的立场即使在本案范围内亦未获得支持。\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 16，第 13 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 40 页，共 174 页\n\n动议法院作出责任简易判决完全基于其关于司法禁止反言的裁定。由于该裁定错误，判决应予撤销。\n\nB. PAX 的司法自认理论未获动议法院采纳，且缺乏依据\n\nPAX 为维持其在未对实体问题作出任何认定的情况下仓促作出的判决而提出替代理由，同时主张郭先生作出了具有约束力的文件真实性“正式司法自认”。正如 PAX 自己承认的（PAX Br. 36），动议法院无论在口头审理中还是书面裁定中，均未审议或依赖郭先生所谓的“自认”作为其裁定的依据。在本案中，本院不应行使裁量权，首次审议动议法院未处理或未审议的论点。\n\n或者，如本院选择审议 PAX 的替代性主张，则应予驳回。“构成司法自认的陈述必须是‘审慎、明确且毫不含糊的。’”Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon, 171 A.D.3d 197, 211 (2d Dep't 2019)（引文略）；accord Matter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P., 181 A.D.3d 461, 463 (1st Dep't 2020)（在陈述“并非足够确定或毫不含糊，无法作为此种自认”时，该陈述不得视为正式司法自认）。即使 PAX 亦承认，“[为被视为正式司法自认，陈述]‘必须是事实陈述’，‘必须审慎、明确且毫不含糊’，并且必须‘以足够正式和确定的方式作出。’”\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-16 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记，证物 16，第 14 页，共 26 页；案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记，第 41 页，共 174 页\n\n（PAX Br. 36-37，引自 Rahman v. Smith, 40 A.D.3d 613, 615 (2d Dep't 2007)）。PAX 所援引的所谓自认不符合该标准。\n\nPAX 主要依赖两项据称的自认，二者据称均由郭先生的前任律师作出。值得注意的是，该等“自认”既未载于郭先生的证言笔录——他在其中明确证称该等文件未带有其真实签名——亦未载于任何由郭先生本人签署的书面文件。第一，PAX 主张郭先生在答复一组承认请求时承认了文件的真实性。他并未如此。PAX 提出的数量庞大的承认请求（“RFAs”）（见 R411-99）包括要求郭先生承认已签署多份文件的请求。然而，PAX 未将该等文件作为其承认请求的证物附上。（Id.）。因此，郭先生或任何代表其行事之人均无机会审阅所涉具体文件，而 CPLR 3123 要求其具有该机会。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的律师对承认请求（RFAs）的答复包括对全部承认请求提出的一般异议，以及针对要求郭先生就未附上的文件之真实性作出约定的具体异议。（R411-78；参见，例如，对第10、13、19、30、37、44及51项请求的答复）。因此，郭先生并未承认任何特定文件的真实性，更遑论以决定性或明确无误的方式作出承认。在没有向任何人出示具体文件供其审阅的情况下，他又怎能作出该等承认？在收到郭先生当时的律师提交的答复及异议后，PAX 告知该律师，PAX 将“很快”作出回应，以处理其律师提出的异议。但 PAX 从未作出回应，且直至其提出制裁动议时，才再次提及所谓“承认”。\n\nPAX 错误描述为“承认”的第二份文件，是一封随附证据目录的函件。（参见 NYSCEF Doc. 325）。该文件是在原审法院就 PAX 提出的一项申请扣押其称属于郭先生的一套纽约公寓的动议排定证据听证会后形成的。在该听证会之前，双方通过各自律师达成一项正式约定，旨在将该特定听证会——当然并非整个诉讼——的范围限制于与扣押有关的问题。（NYSCEF Doc. 306）。因此，双方约定，为该扣押事项的特定证据听证会之目的，法院可假定 PAX 对郭先生享有诉因且有胜诉可能性，从而 PAX 无须在听证会上证明这些要件。（同上，第3页）。该约定强调，其仅涉及 PAX 在此次特定听证会上必须提交的证明，且 PAX“并未免除其为获得终局判决而证明其各项请求实体依据的义务。”（同上）。\n\n随后，双方为该扣押事项的证据听证会作准备。原审法院的诉讼规则要求双方在听证会前提交证据目录，并注明证据可采性是否已达成约定或存在争议。2019年4月19日，PAX 的律师向原审法院提交了一封随附函件，“依据第61庭《诉讼规则》第28条联合致函……向法院提供……原告扣押动议定于2019年4月26日举行的证据听证会之前的材料”，并仅在该语境下陈述，除其他事项外，郭先生并不争议 PAX 证据的真实性（NYSCEF Doc. 325 at 1）。\n\n2019年4月3日的约定及2019年4月19日的随附函件，均反映双方通过其律师作出的努力，即将即将举行的扣押动议证据听证会仅限于与扣押有关的问题，并明确理解“将在本案后续阶段进行完整的实体证据开示”。（NYSCEF Doc. 306 at 3）。两份文件中的陈述显然仅涉及为即将举行的扣押听证会之目的而列明证据的可采性。郭先生并未因此在该随附函件中承认这些证据在后续实体程序中具有真实性，正如他并未约定这些证据在实体审判中具有可采性，或约定他不会在该审判中自行提出任何证据一样。PAX 援引的 Matter of Daniel C., 99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984)，可轻易予以区分，因为该案中律师就争点范围作出的约定，是在实体审判中当庭作出的；由其代理的一方当事人当时在法庭出席并宣誓作证——而非如本案，是在就一项附带程序事项举行听证会之前提交的函件中作出，且仅为该听证会之目的而提交。\n\n其律师就动议听证会达成约定的诉讼当事人，不应在案件后续阶段因该项目的有限的约定被用于完全不同的目的而受到不利后果，更不应因此使其主要抗辩失效。本院不应根据现有记录认定，这封既未经郭先生签署、甚至也未经其律师签署的随附函件，“具有足够决定性或明确性，以构成”代表郭先生作出的具有约束力的司法承认。Matter of Daniel M. G., 181 A.D.3d at 463。\n\n本案并非一方当事人在其庭前证言录取中作证称“信号灯是绿灯”，随后又提交宣誓书称“信号灯是红灯”的情形。在本案中，郭先生首次有机会自行陈述、在看到所涉文件时就其是否真实作出说明，是在其证言录取中。无争议的是，在其证言录取过程中，郭先生清楚、确定且明确无误地陈述，其在文件上的签名并不真实。（参见 Kwok Br. 6-7）。本院不应依据原审法院既未讨论亦未采纳的理论，排除有关郭先生对争议事实问题知情情况的最可靠证据：其本人的证言录取证词。\n\nC. PAX 关于“因伪证而予制裁”的理论未获原审法院采纳，且不能成立\n\nPAX 还主张本院自行对郭先生予以制裁。PAX 并非依据 CPLR 3126，就未提供充分的文件证据开示或未出席证言录取等证据开示不当行为寻求制裁。\n\n相反，PAX 请求本院“禁止 Kwok 援引其关于伪造的证词”，因为 PAX 称其不相信该证词。（PAX Br. 45）。该等制裁没有依据。\n\nPAX 所寻求的制裁类型极少被请求，获准的情况更为罕见。在 PAX 援引的 CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014) 一案中，上诉法院认为，法院具有固有权力，可对“破坏司法制度查明真相的职能，并使法院以及我们的司法制度完整性受到质疑”的行为施加制裁。Id. at 318。但是，在据此施加制裁之前，提出动议的一方“必须以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，有过错的‘一方当事人明知故犯，试图妨碍事实裁判者对案件作出公正裁断，并妨碍其对方当事人对诉讼的抗辩。’”Id. at 320。上诉法院强调，诸如驳回案件等终结案件的制裁，是“‘必须以克制与审慎方式行使’的极端救济”，且仅适用于“行为特别恶劣，其特征是为实施旨在向法院及无过错当事人隐瞒关键事项的计划而作出的谎言和捏造；该行为被反复且故意实施，并由清楚且令人信服的证据所证明”的情形。Id. at 321 (citation omitted)。只有“罕见案件”可能足以适用该等制裁，且法院施加制裁的依据应予说明。Id. at 322。\n\n在 C.D.R. Créances 案本身中，上诉法院确认将删除诉状作为制裁；除其他事项外，有证词显示被告曾指使并与证人共谋提供虚假及误导性证词，包括向其提供一份列有在证言录取中应作出的虚假回答的书面“脚本”；被告“创造了虚构人物”，其为证词所涉对象；多名个人“在其证言录取中反复作伪证”；且被告已就本诉讼争议所涉行为被刑事定罪。Id. at 316-18。\n\n本案中，被告在其首次有机会这样做时即证实某些文件不真实，不能被合理地类比于 C.D.R. Créances。若没有清楚且令人信服的证据证明当事人“实施了故意且广泛的欺骗法院计划，并损害了[PAX]对其请求进行诉讼的能力”，则应驳回要求一方当事人在诉讼中“应丧失其[抗辩]”的请求。Napoli v. Bern, 171 A.D.3d 489, 490 (1st Dep't 2019); see also Peters v. Peters, 146 A.D.3d 503, 504 (1st Dep't 2017)（“原告未能以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告据称作出的不实陈述特别恶劣，并具有为实施旨在向法院隐瞒关键事项的计划而作出谎言的特征。”）。如果 PAX 认为存在与郭先生所述事实版本相矛盾的证据，其救济方式与任何不同意对方当事人案情的诉讼当事人所享有的方式相同：向事实裁判者提出其证据。\n\nD. PAX 关于即使不考虑司法禁止反言裁定其仍有权获得简易判决的主张，不能成立\n\n作为其支持维持原判的最后一项备选论点，PAX 主张，即使推翻原审法院禁止郭先生争议文件真实性的命令，简易判决仍获适当作出，因为郭先生在反对 PAX 动议时并未提出证据或论据，以证明文件系伪造。（PAX Br. 45-47）。\n\nPAX 的这一论点完全忽视了原审法院应 PAX 请求作出的禁止令之效力；简易判决的基础正是该禁止令。原审法院名义上作为制裁，指令郭先生“因司法禁止反言而不得在反对原告简易判决动议时或在审判中，对被告 Kwok 先前在本院程序中所支持的文件之真实性提出异议。”（R59）。\n\n在反对 PAX 的简易判决动议时，郭先生及其律师受原审法院指令的约束，即其“因司法禁止反言而不得”在“反对原告简易判决动议时”对文件真实性提出异议。（R59）。作为其反对书面材料的一部分，郭先生申请对司法禁止反言裁定进行复议，但原审法院驳回了该请求。（R52-54）。除非且直至原审法院自行或由本院推翻原审法院的禁止令，郭先生均受其约束，正如其在反对书面材料中所指出的。（参见 R3213 n.1, R3231 n.1, R3256 n.1）。因此，法院裁定禁止他争议文件真实性，他也不能就该问题请求举行证据听证会，正如 PAX 亦主张他本应作出的那样。（参见 PAX Br. 46-47）。PAX 指责郭先生未在其简易判决书面材料中质疑文件真实性，充其量是讽刺，往严重说是不诚实。那正是 PAX 已成功说服原审法院禁止郭先生从事的事项。\n\n论点二\n\n判决书应予撤销，因为原审法院错误地驳回了 PAX 未减轻其损失这一抗辩。\n\n判决书还应被撤销，因为动议法院作为法律问题，不当驳回了Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生关于PAX未能减轻其所称损失的抗辩。动议法院在未举行证据听证或审判的情况下作出该决定，而仅在两个月前，该院曾明确记载称：“[我]们将就损害赔偿问题举行听证会”，并且郭先生将“被允许就该理论在损害赔偿听证会中提出其所掌握的任何证据[原文如此]，如有。”（NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 6）。\n\nPAX在上诉中并不争议，根据香港法和纽约州法，合同诉讼中的原告通常均须减轻其损失，而非寻求追偿其本可避免的损失。\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 22 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 49 of 174\n\n相反，PAX主张，根据所称的2013年和解契据，在“2015年6月后北京警方联系之前”，该文件已经届满，因此不存在减轻损失的义务。（PAX Br. 49）。然而，PAX承认，其是在北京警方查封该等公寓之后才得知这一机会，而该查封无争议地发生于2015年2月。（PAX Br. 51）。对于PAX在此后多久得知该机会，以及其是否发生于2015年6月30日之前，即查封后四或五个月期间内，存在事实争议。\n\nPAX还主张，其不负有减轻损失的义务，因为2013年和解契据并未要求郭先生促使将该等公寓交付给PAX，而仅允许他将此作为履行方式，以替代支付担保项下所欠款项。（PAX Br. 51-52）。然而，如我方在最初的上诉状中所述，PAX已同意，将三套公寓交付给其将构成可接受的替代履行，以替代支付郭先生所称担保项下所欠款项。郭先生的香港法专家意见认为，在此等情况下，香港法将要求作出合理努力以减轻损失（见R4355-58, R4623-26），而PAX未能提供任一法域法律下的相反依据。尤其是，郭先生的香港法专家援引权威依据解释，减轻损失的义务适用于“如本案所涉的情形，即当事人已就债务达成后续和解协议，而该协议涉及替代性偿还形式，例如不动产买卖。”（R4624）。如郭先生的香港法专家所指出，PAX的专家没有援引任何依据支持PAX关于在此情形下减轻损失义务不适用的主张。（见R4624-25）。在缺乏该等依据的情况下，香港法下（如纽约州法下）的通常规则，即一方必须减轻损失，将适用。\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 23 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 50 of 174\n\nPAX对北京警方的提议是否构成“合理”的减损机会提出异议。根据香港法，“一方是否已采取一切合理措施以减轻其损失，主要是事实问题，而非法律问题。”（R4356 and R4627，援引权威依据）。“PAX应当采取何种构成‘合理措施’的行动，必须由事实裁判者在考虑所有周边情况后审议和认定。”（R4627）。根据纽约州法亦然，“该方是否采取合理行动以减轻其损失的问题，属于事实问题。”Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 117 A.D.2d 796, 797 (2d Dep't 1986)（引文略）；同见Bernstein v. Freudman, 180 A.D.2d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 1992)。动议法院未直接就该问题作出裁定；该问题不能作为法律问题得到适当解决，尤其鉴于证据显示，PAX认为警方提议代表“一个好价格”（R4360）、“低于市场价格”（R4348），并且从PAX的角度看是一项“积极进展”（R4361）。如果PAX接受了北京警方的提议，\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 24 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 51 of 174\n\n并因此通过接受其已同意将解除郭先生所称担保责任的履行而减轻其损失，则其随后可就减损过程中发生的费用提出请求。\n\n如我方在最初的上诉状中所述，PAX追求并接受警方提议，不仅将会完全或至少以数千万美元大幅减少PAX所主张的本金数额，还将减少PAX就该数额主张的数年15%年利息，而该利息现已占判决书的一半以上。相反，PAX选择对郭先生提起诉讼，或许是为了追求其对郭先生的敌意，以及执行所称个人担保以获得“其将带来的纯粹满足感”的愿望。（R4579）。\n\n最后，PAX贬低郭先生的论点，即PAX取得三套公寓的占有已为PAX带来价值，该价值应当在审判中确定，并从任何判决金额中予以抵销。PAX主张，所称和解契据项下的完全履行要求将所有权转让给PAX，而不仅仅是占有。即使PAX对三套公寓的占有并不代表与所有权转让同等的价值，其也必然具有某种价值。动议法院认定其作为法律问题毫无价值，构成错误。\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 25 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 52 of 174\n结论\n\n基于上述全部理由，判决书应被撤销。\n\n日期：New York, New York October 15, 2021\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP（GANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER 律师事务所）\n\n代理人：\n\nMark C. Zauder\nIra Brad Matetsky\nJason T. Cohen\n360 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\n(212) 412-9500\nmzauderer@ganfershore.com\n被告—上诉人Kwok Ho Wan（又名Miles Kwok）的代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-16 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 16 Pg 26 of 26 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 53 of 174\n印刷规格声明\n\n本人兹依据22 NYCRR 1250.8(j)证明，上述上诉状系使用Microsoft Word在计算机上编制。\n\n字体。使用了比例间距字体，具体如下：\n\n字体名称：Times New Roman\n\n字号：14\n行距：双倍\n\n字数。该上诉状的总字数为4,802，包括要点标题和脚注，不包括目录、引证表、送达证明以及本声明所在页面。\n\n日期：October 15, 2021\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 Pg 1 of 16 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 54 of 174\n证据附件17\n20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 2 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 55 of 174\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Manhattan Division（美国纽约南区曼哈顿分部破产法院）\n案号\nChapter\n如属修正提交，请勾选\nOfficial Form 201 非个人债务人申请破产的自愿申请书 04/20\n\n如需更多空间，请附加单页。在任何附加页顶部，写明债务人姓名和案号（如已知）。如需更多信息，可另行查阅《非个人破产表格说明》文件。\n\n1. 债务人名称　Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）\n\n2. 债务人在过去5年内使用的所有其他名称；\n包括任何假定名称、商号和营业名称\n\n3. 债务人的联邦雇主识别号码\n(EIN)　47-3338202\n\n4. 债务人地址　主要营业地　如与主要营业地不同的邮寄地址\n781 5th Ave\nApt 1801\nNew York, NY 10022-5520\n门牌号、街道、城市、州及邮政编码　P.O. Box、号码、街道、城市、州及邮政编码\nNew York\n县　主要资产所在地，如与主要营业地不同\n781 5th Ave Apt 1801 New York, NY 10022-5520\n门牌号、街道、城市、州及邮政编码\n\n5. 债务人网站（URL）\n\n6. 债务人类型　公司（包括有限责任公司（LLC）和有限责任合伙企业（LLP））\n合伙企业（不包括LLP）\n其他。请注明：\n\n20-12411-jlg Doc 1 Filed 10/12/20 Entered 10/12/20 15:54:19 Main Document Pg 2 of 15 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-17 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 17 3 16Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 56 of 174\n\n案号（如已知）\n\nGenever Holdings LLC\n债务人\n\n名称\n\n7.\n说明债务人的业务　勾选一项：\nA.\n医疗保健业务\n（定义见11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)）\n单一资产不动产\n（定义见11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)）\n铁路\n（定义见11 U.S.C. § 101(44)）\n股票经纪商\n（定义见11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)）\n商品经纪商\n（定义见11 U.S.C. § 101(6)）\n清算银行\n（定义见11 U.S.C. § 781(3)）\n以上均非\n\nB.\n勾选所有适用项\n免税实体（如26 U.S.C. § 501所述）\n投资公司，包括对冲基金或集合投资工具（定义见15 U.S.C. § 80a-3）\n投资顾问（定义见15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)）\n\nC. NAICS（北美行业分类系统）最能描述债务人的4位数代码。\n参见http://www.uscourts.gov/four-digit-national-association-naicscodes。\n\n8.　债务人根据《破产法》的哪一章提出申请？　勾选一项：\nChapter 7\nChapter 9\nChapter 11\nChapter 12\nChapter 13\n\n“小型企业债务人”必须勾选第一个子框。债务人属于11 U.S.C. § 101(51D)所定义的小型企业债务人，其总非附条件、已清偿债务（不包括对内部人或关联方所负债务）不超过$2,725,625，并选择根据Chapter 11的Subchapter V继续进行。如勾选此子框，请附上最近一期资产负债表、经营报表、现金流量表和联邦所得税申报表；如不存在上述任何文件，则遵循11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B)规定的程序。\n\n债务人属于11 U.S.C. § 1182(1)所定义的债务人，其总非附条件、已清偿债务（不包括对内部人或关联方所负债务）不超过$7,500,000，并选择根据Chapter 11的Subchapter V继续进行。如勾选此子框，请附上最近一期资产负债表、经营报表、现金流量表和联邦所得税申报表；如不存在上述任何文件，则遵循11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B)规定的程序。\n\n随本申请书一并提交计划。\n\n已根据11 U.S.C. § 1126(b)向一个或多个类别的债权人征集对该计划的接受。\n\n债务人须根据1934年《证券交易法》第15(d)条向Securities and Exchange Commission（证券交易委员会）提交定期报告（例如10-K和10-Q报告）。随本表格一并提交Official Form 201A《非个人申请破产自愿申请书附件》。\n\n债务人为1934年《证券交易法》Rule 12b-2所定义的空壳公司。\n\nChapter 15\n\n在本申请书提交前8年内，由债务人或针对债务人提交的先前破产案件\n案号：\n\n9. 在过去8年内，是否曾由债务人提出或针对债务人提出破产案件？\n□ 否\n□ 是。\n如案件超过2件，请附另页清单。\n地区　何时　案号\n_________　_______　_________\n\n10. 是否有由债务人的业务合伙人或关联方提出、尚在审理中或正在提交的任何破产案件？\n□ 否\n□ 是。\n如案件超过1件，请附另页清单。列出所有案件。\n债务人　___________________　关系\n地区　何时　案号（如已知）\n_________　_______　_________\n\n非个人申请人自愿破产申请书　第2页\n20-12411-jlg 文件 1 于 10/12/20 提交，于 10/12/20 15:54:19 录入　主文件　第3页，共15页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-17 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 录入　附件 17　4　16　案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 录入　第57页，共174页\n\n债务人　Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）　案号（如已知）_____________\n\n名称\n\n11. 为什么在本地区提交本案？请勾选所有适用项：\n□ 债务人在本地区拥有住所、主要营业地或主要资产，且在本申请提交日前紧接的180日内位于本地区的时间长于位于任何其他地区的时间，或在该180日期间的较长部分位于本地区。\n□ 本地区正在审理涉及债务人的关联方、普通合伙人或合伙企业的破产案件。\n\n12. 债务人是否拥有或占有任何需要立即处理的不动产或动产？\n□ 否\n□ 是。如有，请就每项需要立即处理的财产在下方作答。如有需要，请附加页。\n\n该财产为何需要立即处理？（勾选所有适用项。）\n□ 其对公众健康或安全构成或被指称构成危害。该危害是什么？\n□ 其需要在实体上予以固定，或防止受天气影响。\n□ 其包括易腐货物、季节性货物、牲畜，或其他可能迅速变质或在未经处理的情况下贬值的资产（例如农产品、肉类、乳制品、与证券相关的资产或其他期权）。\n□ 其他\n\n财产位于何处？\n门牌号、街道、市、州及 ZIP Code\n\n该财产是否已投保？\n□ 否\n□ 是。保险机构\n联系人姓名\n电话\n\n债务人对可用资金的估计　勾选一项：\n□ 将有资金可供向无担保债权人分配。\n□ 在支付任何管理费用后，将无资金可供向无担保债权人分配。\n\n14. 债权人的估计人数\n□ 1-49　□ 1,000-5,000　□ 25,001-50,000\n□ 50-99　□ 5,001-10,000　□ 50,001-100,000\n□ 100-199　□ 10,001-25,000　□ 超过100,000\n□ 200-999\n\n15. 估计资产\n□ $0 - $50,000　□ $1,000,001 - $10 million　□ $500,000,001 - $1 billion\n□ $50,001 - $100,000　□ $10,000,001 - $50 million　□ $1,000,000,001 - $10 billion\n□ $100,001 - $500,000　□ $50,000,001 - $100 million　□ $10,000,000,001 - $50 billion\n□ $500,001 - $1 million　□ $100,000,001 - $500 million　□ 超过 $50 billion\n\n16. 估计负债\n□ $0 - $50,000　□ $1,000,001 - $10 million　□ $500,000,001 - $1 billion\n□ $50,001 - $100,000　□ $10,000,001 - $50 million　□ $1,000,000,001 - $10 billion\n□ $100,001 - $500,000　□ $50,000,001 - $100 million　□ $10,000,000,001 - $50 billion\n□ $500,001 - $1 million　□ $100,000,001 - $500 million　□ 超过 $50 billion\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件 1 于 10/12/20 提交，于 10/12/20 15:54:19 录入　主文件　第4页，共15页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-17 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 录入　附件 17　5　16　案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 录入　第58页，共174页\n\n债务人　Genever Holdings LLC　案号（如有）_____________\n\n名称\n\n救济请求、声明及签名\n\n警告——破产欺诈是一项严重犯罪。在破产案件中作出虚假陈述，可能导致最高 $500,000 的罚款或最长20年的监禁，或两者并处。18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.\n\n17. 债务人获授权代表的声明及签名　债务人请求依照本申请中指定的《美国法典》第11编章节获得救济。\n\n本人已获授权代表债务人提交本申请。\n\n本人已审阅本申请中的信息，并有合理理由相信该等信息真实、正确。\n\n本人依伪证罪处罚之规定声明，前述内容真实、正确。\n\n签署于\n\nX　Yanping Wang（王雁平）\n\n正楷姓名\n\nX　/s/ Kevin J. Nash（凯文·J. 纳什）　日期 October 6, 2020\n\n18. 律师签名　债务人律师签名　MM/DD/YYYY\n\nKevin J. Nash（凯文·J. 纳什）\n\n正楷姓名\n\nGoldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈德斯坦律师事务所）\n\n律所名称\n\n1501 Broadway 22nd Floor\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n门牌号、街道、市、州及 ZIP Code\n\n联系电话　(212) 221-5700　电子邮件地址　knash@gwfglaw.com\n\nKevin J. Nash\n\n律师执照号码及州\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件 1 于 10/12/20 提交，于 10/12/20 15:54:19 录入　主文件　第5页，共15页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-17 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 录入　附件 17　6　16　案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 录入　第59页，共174页\n\n美国破产法院　Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n关于：　第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC，　案号：\n\n债务人。\n\n债务人根据当地破产规则 1007-2 所作声明\n\nYanping Wang（王雁平）根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，依伪证罪处罚之规定声明如下：\n\n1. 本人是 Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“债务人”）的正式指定代表。债务人是一家纽约有限责任公司，办公地址为 The Sherry-Netherland Apartments（谢里-荷兰公寓），781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Unit 1801。因此，本人具备必要的关于债务人财务和法律事务的知识，可代表债务人作出本声明。\n\n2. 本声明依据当地规则 1007-2 提交，以支持债务人根据第11章提出的申请，并协助法院、债权人及其他利害关系方了解必须提交第11章申请的情形、债务人的债务和资本结构，以及债务人脱离破产状态的计划。\n\n提交第11章申请的前因\n\n3. 债务人拥有位于 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 的 She1Ty Netherland Hotel（谢里-荷兰酒店）内整层第18层公寓及附属单元（以下简称“该房产”）。债务人对该房产的权益由约3,000股 She1Ty Netherland（谢里-荷兰）合作社股份及相应的专有租约予以证明。\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件 1 于 10/12/20 提交，于 10/12/20 15:54:19 录入　主文件　第6页，共15页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-17 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 录入　附件 17　7　16　案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 录入　第60页，共174页\n\n4. 该房产于2015年以约 $70 million 的总价购得，其中大部分资金由 Bravo L-µck Limiteq.（“Bravo”）根据某项信托协议提供，另有约 $5 million 由 Qiang Guo（郭强）先生垫付。该信托基于 Bravo 为大部分购房价款提供资金，确认 Bravo 为该房产的受益所有人。Bravo 是由 Qiang Guo 先生所有的公司；Qiang Guo 先生是 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵，又名 Miles Kwok）的儿子。Kwok Ho Wan 主要以债务人管理人及该信托协议项下受托人的代表身份行事。\n\n5. 自取得该房产以来，Bravo 还主要承担了维护费和特别摊派款。Miles Kwok（郭文贵）在一系列与共产党执政党有关的财务和法律纠纷迫使其离开中国之前，曾是中国一名知名房地产投资者及商人。Kwok 先生目前正在美国寻求政治庇护，缘于中国政府提出的虚假腐败指控。\n\n6. 自2017年以来，债务人和 Kwok 先生在美国一直参与涉及名为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“Pacific Alliance”）实体的若干诉讼。Pacific Alliance 诉讼涉及与该房产无关的贷款债务个人担保。尽管债务人并非 Kwok 先生涉及 Pacific Alliance 的贷款交易的一方，其已被加入 Pacific Alliance 在 Supreme Court, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）提起的诉讼［Index No. 652077/2017］（以下简称“Pacific Action”）中；该诉讼寻求令债务人及其他人承担另我责任。\n\n7. 这起正在积极抗辩的诉讼，使该房产未来的走向和所有权蒙上阴影。同时，该房产因约 $1,000,000 的未付维护费，已成为 She1Ty-Netherlands Hotel（谢里-荷兰酒店）提起的未付款程序的标的。\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件 1 于 10/12/20 提交，于 10/12/20 15:54:19 录入　主文件　第7页，共15页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-17 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 录入　附件 17　8　16　案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 录入　第61页，共174页\n\n约 $1,000,000 的维护费欠款。由于对该房产所有权的争议，Bravo 筹集资金支付维护费的能力受到阻碍。\n\n8. 该房产此前是 Pacific Alliance 于2019年4月提出的判决前扣押动议的标的。该动议在举行证据听证后获得解决，未签发扣押令；解决依据为州最高法院作出的一项同意命令，该命令要求债务人和 Kwok 先生就该房产的任何未来处分事先通知 Pacific Alliance。\n\n9. 尽管有该同意命令，Pacific Alliance 最近再次通过要求说明理由令提出第二项动议，该令可于10月中旬返庭，寻求限制 Kwok 先生出售、让与或转让其拥有权益的任何财产。表面上，该要求说明理由令再次针对该房产；但在功能上，该要求说明理由令似乎与已获解决的判决前扣押动议重复。\n\n10. 在该房产因相互竞争的所有权主张而进一步卷入诉讼之前，债务人提出本第11章申请，以获得必要的灵活性，从而能够在破产法院的重整权力下实现价值最大化。第11章允许在必要时可能出售该房产，同时保护 Bravo 和 Pacific Alliance 双方的合法权利或主张。\n\n11. 事实上，随着 Covid-19 大流行的发生，该房产的未来变得更加不确定。纽约市各处的房地产价值正在下降，如无第11章的监督，若有必要出售如此规模的公寓，无疑将十分困难。\n\n12. 与公开报道相反，Kwok 先生对该房产不享有所有权权益，尽管其目前居住于该公寓。因此，第11章案件的一项重要前置目标是，就 Bravo 与 Pacific Alliance 之间有关该房产的相互竞争主张取得解决。\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件 1 于 10/12/20 提交，于 10/12/20 15:54:19 录入　主文件　第8页，共15页　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-17 于 04/13/22 提交，于 04/13/22 01:55:22 录入　附件 17　9　16　案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交，于 05/24/22 23:04:58 录入　第62页，共174页\n\n一旦该问题得到裁决或和解，涉及 Pacific Alliance 的事项将得到澄清，债务人届时将能够提出重整计划。在作出该等决定之前，第11章将帮助债务人维持现状。\n\n当地规则 10\\_07-2 披露\n\n13. 根据当地规则 1007-2(a)(3)，在债务人提交第11章申请之前，未成立任何委员会。\n\n14. 根据当地规则 1007-4(a)(4)，债务人的所有债权人名单附于本声明之后。\n\n15. 根据当地规则 1007-4(a)(5)，The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-荷兰公司）虽被列为一般债权人，但根据州法，其可能就未付维护费保有担保债权人的权利。\n\n16. 根据当地规则 1007-4(a)(6)，债务人的资产和负债将列载于正式破产清单中，该清单将与本声明同时提交，或于本声明日期后十五（15）日内提交。\n\n17. 根据地方法则1007-4(a)(7)，债务人的成员权益未公开交易，并由随本文件提交的权益持有人清单所列的 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）持有。\n\n18. 根据地方法则1007-4(a)(8)，债务人的任何资产均不在任何保管人、公职人员、抵押权人、质权人、租金受让人或有担保债权人的占有或保管之中。\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件1 提交于10/12/20 录入于10/12/20 15:54:19 主文件 第9页，共15页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-17 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件17 第10页，共16页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第63页，共174页\n\n19. 根据地方法则1007-4(a)(9)，该房产连同附属单元，根据各项专有租赁协议，概念上系向 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（舍里-尼德兰酒店）租赁。\n\n20. 根据地方法则1007-4(a)(10)，债务人的账簿和记录位于其办公室，地址为 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022。\n\n21. 根据地方法则1007-4(a)(11)，所有待决诉讼的清单随本文件提交。\n\n22. 根据地方法则1007-4(a)(12)，Kwok（郭文贵）先生依照债务人经营协议的条款，无偿担任债务人的经理。我亦无偿担任债务人第11章案件的代表人。\n\n23. 根据地方法则1007-4(b)(1)，债务人目前没有雇员。\n\n24. 根据地方法则1007-4(b)(2)和(3)，债务人预计在未来30日内发生约$100,000的支出，主要由维护费和特别摊派费用构成，详见所附预算。\n\n日期：New York, New York，October 9, 2020\n\n签署：\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件1 提交于10/12/20 录入于10/12/20 15:54:19 主文件 第10页，共15页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-17 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件17 第11页，共16页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第64页，共174页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区美国破产法院）\n\n关于： 第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）， 案号：\n\n债务人：\n\n公司决议\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（下称“公司”）唯一成员的特别会议于 October 9, 2020 召开；经适当提出并通过动议后，以下决议获得一致通过：\n\n兹决议，公司获授权向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院）提交自愿申请，请求依据 United States Code（《美国法典》）第11编第11章（下称“Bankruptcy Code”）获得救济；并进一步\n\n兹决议，任命 Yanping Wang（王艳萍）为公司代表，并授权其代表公司：(a) 签署第11章申请书及所有其他随附文件，并促使该等文件向破产法院提交；以及(b) 促使提交推进第11章案件所必需或适宜的所有清单、声明、名单、动议、申请及其他文书或文件；并进一步\n\n兹决议，公司获授权以一般聘任方式，在第11章案件中聘请 Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈德斯坦律师事务所）担任法律顾问。\n\n日期：New York, New York，October 9, 2020\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n签署方：Genever Holdings Corporation\n\n签署：\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件1 提交于10/12/20 录入于10/12/20 15:54:19 主文件 第11页，共15页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-17 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件17 第12页，共16页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第65页，共174页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区美国破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC， 案号：\n\n债务人。\n\n诉讼清单\n\n1. Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），原告，诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又称 Kwok Ho，又称 Gwo Wen.Gui，又称 Guo Wengui，又称 Guo Wen-Gui，又称 Wan Gue Haoyun，又称 Miles Kwok，又称 Haoyun Guo、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation，被告。索引号：652077/2017。纽约州最高法院纽约县，60 Centre Street, Part 61, Room 232, New York, NY 10007。Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官阁下。\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧迈律师事务所），原告代理律师，7 Times Sq, New York, NY 10036-6524。\n\n2. Genever Holdings LLC，原告，诉 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（舍里-尼德兰公司），被告。索引号：152838/2020。纽约州最高法院纽约县，60 Centre Street, Part 61, Room 232, New York, NY 10007。Eileen Rakower（艾琳·拉考尔）法官阁下。\n\nLawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司），原告代理律师。Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq.（亚伦·A·米切尔律师），162 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10065。\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件1 提交于10/12/20 录入于10/12/20 15:54:19 主文件 第12页，共15页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-17 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件17 第13页，共16页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第66页，共174页\n\nAdam Leitman Bailey, P.C.（亚当·莱特曼·贝利律师事务所），被告代理律师，One Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004。\n\n3. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.，申请人（房东），诉 Genever Holdings LLC，被申请人（承租人）。索引号：154853/2020。纽约市民事法院纽约县。\n\nAdam Leitman Bailey, P.C.。Carolyn Z. Rualo, Esq.（卡罗琳·Z·鲁阿洛律师），申请人—房东代理律师，One Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004。\n\n4. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.，申请人（房东），诉 Genever Holdings LLC, 781 Fifth Avenue, Apartment 1801, New York, NY 10022，被申请人（承租人）。索引号：154854/2020。纽约市民事法院纽约县。\n\nAdam Leitman Bailey, P.C.。Carolyn Z. Rualo, Esq.，申请人—房东代理律师，One Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004。\n\n5. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.，申请人—房东，诉 Genever Holdings LLC，被申请人—占有人，“John Doe”和/或“Jane Doe”，被申请人—次级占有人。索引号：155038/2020。纽约市民事法院纽约县。\n\nAdam Leitman Bailey, P.C.。Carolyn Z. Rualo, Esq.，申请人—房东代理律师，One Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004。\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件1 提交于10/12/20 录入于10/12/20 15:54:19 主文件 第13页，共15页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-17 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件17 第14页，共16页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第67页，共174页\n\n日期：New York, New York，October 9, 2020\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件1 提交于10/12/20 录入于10/12/20 15:54:19 主文件 第14页，共15页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-17 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件17 第15页，共16页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第68页，共174页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区美国破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC， 案号：\n\n债务人。\n\n权益持有人清单\n\n1. Genever Holdings Corporation，英属维尔京群岛商业公司，P.O. Box 3170, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands。\n\n日期：New York, New York，October 9, 2020\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件1 提交于10/12/20 录入于10/12/20 15:54:19 主文件 第15页，共15页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-17 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件17 第16页，共16页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第69页，共174页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区美国破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC， 案号：\n\n债务人。\n\n破产程序规则7007.1公司所有权声明\n\n根据破产程序规则7007.1，Genever Holdings LLC 证明其为私人非政府当事人，且不存在任何公开持有的公司母公司、关联公司和/或子公司。\n\n日期：New York, New York，October 9, 2020\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件14-18 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件18 第1页，共3页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第70页，共174页\n\n附件18\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件141 提交于10/08/21 录入于10/08/21 14:04:00 主文件 第1页，共2页 22-01073-dsj 文件14-18 提交于04/13/22 录入于04/13/22 01:55:22 附件18 第2页，共3页 案件22-50073 文件432-3 提交于05/24/22 录入于05/24/22 23:04:58 第71页，共174页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区美国破产法院）\n\n关于： 第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC，案号：20-12411 (JLG)\n\n债务人。\n\n准许债务人第二次续提动议以批准修订和解协议的命令\n\n兹因债务人 Genever Holdings LLC（下称“债务人”）提出的续提动议（ECF No. 131）（下称“续提动议”），请求批准债务人与 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）及 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃幸运有限公司，“Bravo Luck”）之间的特定和解协议（ECF No. 62）；又因 United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室通过请求任命运营第11章受托人的动议（ECF No. 64）提出的对续提动议的异议（下称“UST异议”）；又因债务人、PAX及 Bravo Luck 就UST异议提交的补充答复（ECF Nos. 76, 81, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105 and 106）；又因已在署名法官面前举行一系列听证；又因上述听证中形成的记录；又因法院已审议UST异议；又因署名法官在 September 1, 2021 作出的决定（下称“September 1, 2021 Decision”）中认定，重述和解协议符合合理性标准，并获第11章案件中的债权人及主要利益相关方支持，但由于拟聘用 Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq.（梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基律师）及其律师事务所 Otterbourg, P.C.（奥特堡律师事务所）的某些方面存在问题，驳回续提动议；且此后，和解各方已同意债务人、PAX及 Bravo Luck 之间的第二次修订和重述和解协议（下称“修订和解协议”），该协议处理了法院在其 September 1, 2021 Decision 中提出的关切以及美国受托人的异议；美国受托人现已不再对修订和解协议及 Melanie L. Cyganowski 受聘担任债务人出售专员的条款提出异议；又因法院已同意通过呈递通知审议对续提和解协议的最终批准；并基于在各次听证中形成的全部记录；且存在正当理由；现据此\n\n命令如下：\n\n1. 续提和解动议按本命令所述获准。\n\n2. 修订和解协议在各方面均获批准，并应于本命令录入时立即生效。\n\n3. 债务人拟聘用 Melanie L. Cyganowski 担任出售专员一事，应由另行通知并与本命令同时录入的单独命令批准。\n\n4. UST请求任命运营受托人的动议无限期延期。\n\n5. 准许解除自动停止，以允许PAX继续推进、债务人抗辩目前在纽约州最高法院以案卷号652077/2017待决的州法院诉讼（下称“州法院诉讼”）；但自动停止在所有其他目的上继续有效，包括涉及执行或收取在州法院诉讼中对债务人作出的任何判决，直至破产法院在进一步通知所有当事人后另行作出命令。\n\n6. PAX提出的解除自动停止动议及转换动议，因修订和解协议获得批准而失去意义，现予撤回。\n\n日期：New York, New York，October 8, 2021\n\n/s/ James L. Garrity, Jr.\n\nJames L. Garrity, Jr.（小詹姆斯·L·加里蒂）法官阁下\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-19 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 19 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 73 of 174\n附件 19\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 904 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-19 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 19 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 74 of 174\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　审判庭　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告，　案号　652077/2017\n\n诉　动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名　动议序号　018\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司），以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司），　关于动议的裁决及命令\n\n被告。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n本院现审理 PAX 依据 CPLR 5255 就郭文贵持有的 Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称“Genever BVI”）股份及其他救济提出的判决后交付动议 018。根据 2021 年 9 月 22 日庭审记录，该动议获准，但仅限于命令郭文贵采取必要步骤，将其持有的 Genever BVI 股份交付给 PAX。本命令明确以 ADRIAN JACK 法官批准为条件；该法官已在相关英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）诉讼中发布中止令。本院现阶段拒绝指定接管人。\n\n据此，兹命令：\n\n命令郭文贵采取在英属维尔京群岛所必需的一切步骤，交付与其在 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）中 100% 所有权权益有关的全部股票证书；并进一步\n\n命令本裁决及命令明确以 JACK 法官在相关英属维尔京群岛程序中的批准为条件。任何影响 Genever\n\nHoldings LLC（Genever BVI 的全资子公司）的行为，均受 GARRITY 法官对涉及 Genever Holdings LLC 的纽约南区（Southern District of New York）破产程序的管辖；PAX 正参与该程序。\n\n状态会议定于 2021 年 11 月 16 日上午 10:00 举行。\n\n日期：2021 年 9 月 22 日\n\n勾选一项：　案件已处理　X　非终局性处理\n\n准许　驳回　X　部分准许　其他\n申请：　拟定命令　提交命令\n如适用请勾选：　包括移送/重新分配　指定受托人　移交\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-20 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 20 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 76 of 174\n附件 20\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1078 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-20 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 20 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 77 of 174\n通知：本程序旨在因你藐视法庭而对你作出处罚。此类处罚可依法包括罚款、监禁，或两者并处。\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nPACIFIC 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 HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n被告。\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\n尊敬的 Barry R. Ostrager 法官\n\n第 61 庭\n\n动议序号 \\_\\_\n\n就被告 MILES KWOK 未遵守本院 2021 年 9 月 22 日交付命令而请求作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议通知\n\n谨此通知，依据随附的 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）于 2022 年 1 月 7 日提交的法律备忘录，该备忘录支持其就被告 Miles Kwok 未遵守本院 2021 年 9 月 22 日交付命令而请求作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议；以及 STUART SARNOFF 律师于 2022 年 1 月 7 日作出的声明及其所附证据；以及 ANDREW WILLINS 于 2022 年 1 月 7 日作出的宣誓书及其所附证据，PAX 将于 2022 年 1 月 25 日上午 9:30，或其后律师可获听审之时，在位于 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, NY 10007 的纽约县法院大楼向本院提出动议，请求依据 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753 和 N.Y. CPLR § 5104 作出命令，(i) 认定被告 Miles Kwok 因违抗本院 2021 年 9 月 22 日交付命令而构成藐视法庭；以及 (ii) 准予本院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n进一步通知，根据 CPLR 2214(b)，答辩文件，如有，\n\n须于本动议返还日期前至少七日向下列签署人送达。\n\n日期：2022 年 1 月 7 日 纽约州纽约市 谨致敬意，\n\nO'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff Stuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\nCAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Edward Moss Edward Moss（emoss@cahill.com）Lauren Riddell（lriddell@cahill.com）32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 (212) 701-3838\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 1 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 79 of 174\n附件 21\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\n案号 652077/2017\n\n尊敬的 Barry Ostrager 法官\n\n动议序号 26\n\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n被告。\n\n第 61 庭\n\n进一步支持原告 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 就被告 MILES KWOK 未遵守本院 2021 年 9 月 22 日交付命令而请求作出民事藐视法庭命令之动议的答复法律备忘录\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 2 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 80 of 174\n目录 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 3 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 81 of 174\n\n初步陈述\n论证 2\n一、　交付命令是一项明确无误的指令，无需破产法院批准——且郭文贵知悉此事 2\n二、　郭文贵启动遵守交付命令不存在任何障碍。\n\n三、　郭文贵未遵守命令使 PAX 受到损害。 5\n结论 6\n判例和法规索引 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 4 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 82 of 174\n页码\n\n判例\n\nCap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.,\n907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at *4 (Sup. Ct. 2010) 4\n\nIn re Bray Enterprises, Inc.,\n38 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984) 3\nMcCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 (1983) 6\n法规\nNew York Judiciary Law § 753 6\n初步陈述\n\n为避免第二次受到民事藐视法庭制裁，郭文贵向本院提交了另一份具有误导性的诉状。\n\n首先，郭文贵在其反对意见书1中错误地主张，本院以 PAX 事先取得破产法院批准为交付命令的条件——尽管郭文贵明知本院并未如此规定。事实上，本院在 2021 年 9 月 22 日听证会上所作的庭上陈述以及书面交付命令中，均明确驳回了该主张。\n\n郭文贵随后将该不实陈述进一步扩大。他主张，即使交付命令的唯一先决条件已于 2021 年 12 月 6 日得到满足——即 BVI 的 JACK 法官修改其先前命令，以使 Genever BVI 股份转让得以进行——在 PAX 同样取得破产法院事先批准之前，他仍不能通过向 Bravo Luck 发出停止通知来启动交付程序。这也是错误的。破产法院批准并非郭文贵发出停止通知的先决条件。事实上，郭文贵遵守交付命令根本不涉及破产法院。如本院所确认，2 Genever BVI 并非纽约破产程序的一方，且不受管辖债务人 Genever NY 的自动中止所拘束。相反，郭文贵对 Genever BVI 拥有完全控制权，并可随时向 Bravo Luck（即郭文贵之子）发出通知；他只是拒绝这样做。因此，随着每一天过去，郭文贵未能“采取在[BVI]所必需的一切步骤，以交付其在 Genever BVI 中 100% 所有权”所涉全部股票证书，即故意违反交付命令。\n\n1 本文将 PAX 于 2022 年 1 月 7 日提交的开篇法律意见书 [\\(Dkt. No. 1079\\)] 称为“动议”或“Mot.”，将郭文贵于 2022 年 1 月 18 日提交的反对意见书 [\\(Dkt. No. 1104\\)] 称为“反对意见”或“Opp.”。除非另有说明，(i) 已定义术语具有其在动议中被赋予的含义，(ii) 所有强调均为后加，且 (iii) 省略所有内部引注和引文。2 见 [Dkt. No. 1086]（2021 年 9 月 22 日听证记录，第 [17:12–18] 页）。\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 6 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 84 of 174\n\n最后，郭文贵主张，他无视本院合法交付命令的行为并未使 PAX 受到损害，因为已有其他法院命令存在——BVI 冻结令以及破产法院对 Genever NY 资产实施的自动中止——足以保护 PAX 的利益。这一主张颇具讽刺意味；正如本院十分清楚，法院命令无法为 PAX 提供针对郭文贵的任何保护。只需看看郭文贵被“限制”的游艇 Lady May 的当前所在地——尽管每日被处以 \\$500,000 罚款，该游艇仍漂浮在意大利海岸外、本院管辖范围之外——便足以证明这一点。\n\n郭文贵一再表明其极少尊重本院的权威。自 JACK 法官为郭文贵开始遵守交付命令扫清道路以来，已过去六周多，但他未能且拒绝采取哪怕第一步。本院应再次认定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭。\n论证\n一、交付命令是一项明确无误的指令，无需破产法院批准——且郭文贵知悉此事。\n\n郭文贵主张，由于交付命令规定，“任何影响 Genever [NY]（Genever BVI 的全资子公司）的行为，均受 [Garrity] 法官对涉及 Genever [NY] 的纽约南区破产程序的管辖”，3 PAX 必须在郭文贵有义务采取步骤完成其 Genever BVI 股份交付之前，取得破产法院的事先批准。4 这是错误的，且郭文贵知悉此事；他与 Genever 各被告曾就 PAX 的交付动议提交意见书并提出同一立场，而本院已驳回该立场。\n\n3 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.] 4 [Opp. at 6–8.]\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 7 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 85 of 174\n\n郭文贵未提出上诉的交付命令，仅以 JACK 法官的批准为条件\n\n在相关 BVI 诉讼中修改其先前命令，杰克法官（Justice Jack）于 December 6, 2021 作出了该修改。5 郭文贵（Kwok）完全清楚，《移交命令》（Turnover Order）中提及破产法院，实际上源于本院审议并驳回郭文贵所称 PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金 L.P.）试图规避破产程序及自动中止的主张。6 这是因为，PAX 仅寻求移交郭文贵所持 Genever BVI（Genever 英属维尔京群岛公司）的股份——该公司是非债务人第三方，不适用《破产法典》规定的自动中止。7 如本院所解释，郭文贵向 PAX 移交其 Genever BVI 股份，影响的是 Genever BVI，而非 Genever NY（Genever 纽约公司）：8\n\n无争议的是，Sherry Netherland 公寓由 Genever [NY] 所有，后者是 Genever BVI 的子公司。Genever [NY] 正在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）进行破产程序……因此，PAX 可能希望就 Genever [NY] 采取的任何行动，均须获得加里蒂法官（Judge Garrity）在涉及 Genever [NY] 的纽约破产程序中的批准，因为 Genever [NY] 正处于破产中。*本院今日所做的一切，仅是指示……Genever BVI 的登记代理人更新 Genever BVI 的登记成员，以反映 PAX 或其指定人系郭先生所持 Genever [] BVI 股份的合法所有人。*9\n\n尽管从郭文贵的反对意见书中无从得知，但其律师事实上已在 October 8, 2021 致 PAX 的信函中明确承认，郭文贵启动移交程序的唯一障碍，是杰克法官现已修改的冻结命令：“为遵守本院的《移交命令》”，“郭先生将遵守杰克法官就任何修改中止命令或与 Genever BVI 股份有关事宜所作出的任何后续法院命令。”10 值得注意的是，郭文贵的律师当时在 October 并未声称还须取得破产法院预先批准——因为其知道并非如此。如今提出该论点，不过是郭文贵为在继续蔑视《移交命令》的同时规避藐视法庭责任而采取的最新伎俩。\n\n5 见 [Dkt. No. 1089.] 具体而言，于 December 6, 2021，杰克法官修改其先前命令，以“[p]ermit [Kwok] to transfer the shares registered in his name in [Genever BVI] to [PAX] in compliance with the Turnover Order,”并“[p]ermit [Genever BVI] (and its Registered Agent) to update the Register of Members of [Genever BVI] to reflect the transfer by [Kwok] of the shares registered in his name to [PAX].”\n\n6 见 [Dkt. No. 874 at 4–6;] [Dkt. No. 896 at 4–5.] 7 [Dkt. No. 899 at 10]（援引 In re Bray Enterprises, Inc., 38 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984)）。\n\n8 见 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.] 9 [Dkt. No. 1086]（Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:2–17]）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 01/24/2022 08:58 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1116　NYSCEF 收悉：01/24/2022　22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 8 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 86 of 174\n\n或涉及 Genever BVI 股份的命令。”10 值得注意的是，郭文贵的律师在 October 并未声称还须取得破产法院预先批准——因为其知道并非如此。如今提出该论点，不过是郭文贵为在继续蔑视《移交命令》的同时规避藐视法庭责任而采取的最新伎俩。\n\n无论郭文贵多少次试图作出相反暗示，11 本院已在郭文贵未提起上诉的《移交命令》中裁定，向 PAX 移交郭文贵的 Genever BVI 股份无需取得破产法院预先批准。12\n\nII. 郭文贵启动遵守《移交命令》不存在障碍。\n\n接着，郭文贵在其错误的“破产预先批准要求”前提基础上，提出一项与 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）于 December 10, 2021 发出《停止通知》（Stop Notice）有关的同样存在缺陷的新论点。具体而言，郭文贵现称，在 PAX 首先获得破产法院批准之前，其甚至不能让 Genever BVI（即其本人）向 Bravo Luck（即其儿子）发出通知。13 这是循环论证，毫无道理。如上所述，《移交命令》仅包含一个先决条件，而该条件在 December 初杰克法官修改其先前 BVI 命令以使移交得以进行时已得到完全满足。14\n\n10 见 [Dkt. No. 1081.] 11 郭文贵在该问题已被驳回且未被上诉后试图再次争讼，不仅不当，而且徒劳。本院的裁决在 September 2021 是正确的，现今仍然正确。\n\n12 在本动议的语境下，郭文贵关于法院“通常尊重”破产法院对于自动中止适用性的意见，是不相干的推论。郭文贵所援引的唯一案件，[Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.]，处理的是申请破产保护的个人保证人是否应将自动中止延及其全资拥有的财产。[26 Misc.3d 1215(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at *4 (Sup. Ct. 2010).] 该情形与本案无关，因为 Genever BVI 是 Genever NY 的非债务人母公司，而非其全资拥有的财产。\n\n13 见 Opp. [at 8–9.] 14 见上文第 3 页。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 01/24/2022 08:58 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1116　NYSCEF 收悉：01/24/2022　22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 9 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 87 of 174\n\n作为 Genever BVI 的唯一所有人和董事，15 郭文贵无疑拥有不受限制的能力发出《停止通知》——根据《移交命令》的明确要求，他在法律上有义务这样做；该命令要求其在 BVI 采取“任何必要步骤”以实现移交。16 郭文贵新近主张，发出通知会以某种方式“规避”目前在 BVI“正在进行”的“程序过程”，17 此说毫无根据，因为不存在任何正在进行的 BVI 程序以任何方式处理移交问题，或阻止郭文贵通过向 Bravo Luck 发出通知而开始遵守《移交命令》。此外，郭文贵为实现移交必须采取的任何必要步骤，均不以 PAX 或破产法院采取任何行动为条件。然而，自 Bravo Luck（即郭文贵之子）发出《停止通知》以来，已逾六周；在此期间，郭文贵公然未采取任何措施遵守该命令。\n\n适可而止。本院应对郭文贵公然不服从和玩弄程序的行为予以制裁。18\n\nIII. 郭文贵未予遵守损害 PAX。\n\n最后，郭文贵主张，因相关诉讼中已存在“维持现状”的司法命令，19 故其未遵守《移交命令》并未损害 PAX。\n\n19 [Opp. at 9–10.]\n\n15 [Dkt. No. 756 at 9.] 16 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1.] 17 [Opp. at 9.] 18 就郭文贵主张其并未不服从《移交命令》，因为“应由 Genever BVI 提供《停止通知》所要求的书面通知，而非郭先生本人”，[(Nader Aff. ¶ 4(b),] [Dkt. No. 1105]，该论点荒谬至极。根据其本人承认 [(Dkt. No. 756 at 9)]，郭文贵是唯一获授权指示 Genever BVI 发出所需通知之人。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 01/24/2022 08:58 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1116　NYSCEF 收悉：01/24/2022　22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 10 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 88 of 174\n\n本院很可能不会忽视其中的讽刺之处。如 PAX 已说明，20 郭文贵的不服从“剥夺”了 PAX 对其有权取得的财产——Genever BVI 股份——的占有权；该财产“可以被移交以清偿金钱判决”。21 [McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 (1983).] 鉴于郭文贵已显现出公然违抗法院命令、将其资产隐藏于 PAX 追索范围之外的惯常做法，PAX 在本案中占有 Genever BVI 股份尤为关键。本院无需再看其他证据；郭文贵在逃、价值数百万美元的豪华游艇 Lady May（梅夫人号）已逾一年仍处于本院管辖权范围之外，公然违抗其 October 15, 2021 命令，这足以证明有效的法院命令对郭文贵毫无威慑作用，也无法为 PAX 提供任何保护。22 PAX 最初申请移交，正是为了通过取得 Genever BVI 股份的实际占有以防范这一风险；郭文贵拒绝采取实现该股份转让所必需的步骤，损害了 PAX 的权利。\n\n结论\n\n郭文贵将遵守本院的合法命令视为可有可无。此种情形必须停止。PAX 已证明 [New York Judiciary Law § 753.] 所规定的民事藐视法庭全部要件。因此，PAX 谨请求本院认定郭文贵藐视其 September 22, 2021《移交命令》，并施加其认为足以促使郭文贵立即遵守命令的任何制裁。\n\n20 [Mot. at 7–8.] 21 [Dkt. No. 1086]（Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [16:13–15]）。\n\n22 截至 January 24, 2022，Marine Traffic Yacht Tracker 显示 Lady May 位于意大利北部海岸外。见 Jan. 24, 2022 Aff. of Stuart Sarnoff in Further Supp. of PAX's Mot. for an Order of Civil Contempt, Ex. 1。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 01/24/2022 08:58 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1116　NYSCEF 收悉：01/24/2022　22-01073-dsj Doc 14-21 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 21 Pg 11 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 89 of 174\n\n日期：January 24, 2022　　　　　　　　　　　　谨此提交，\n纽约州纽约市\nO'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff\nStuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\n字数证明\n\nPAX 特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17 的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制，除标题栏、标题及签名栏外，本法律备忘录的总字数少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：January 24, 2022\n纽约州纽约市　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　谨此提交，\nO'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff\nStuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 1 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 91 of 174\n\n附件 22\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\n\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名\n\n诉\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nBarry Ostrager 法官\n\n第 61 部\n\n动议序号：___\n\n被告。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，及\n\nMILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n支持原告 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 依据 CPLR 5229 提出动议及申请 TRO 的法律备忘录\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 09/25/2020 05:43 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 576　NYSCEF 收悉：09/25/2020\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 2 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 92 of 174\n\n目录\n\n页码\n\n初步陈述　1\n\n论证　2\nI.　法院应当准许PAX依据CPLR 5229提出的申请。　2\nII.　法院应通过暂时禁止Kwok（郭文贵）耗散其资产，维持现状，直至就PAX的5229申请举行听证。　4\nA.　如不限制Kwok耗散其资产，PAX将遭受不可弥补的损害。　5\nB.　PAX在其CPLR 5229申请的实体问题上很可能胜诉。　11\nC.　困难衡量有利于PAX。　11\n结论　12\n判例索引 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 4 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 94 of 174\n\n判例\n页码\n\nAyro Comm'ns, Inc.（艾罗通信公司）诉Jaymer Comm'ns Corp.（杰默通信公司），\nNo. 38836/04, 2005 WL 351070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2005)　10\n\nColey诉Vannguard Urban Improvement Ass'n, Inc.（万加德城市改善协会公司），\n12-CV-5565 (PKC) (RER), 2016 WL 7217641 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016)　2\n\nDemirovic诉Ortega，\n296 F. Supp. 3d 477 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)　4\n\nGallegos诉Elite Model Mgmt. Corp.（精英模特管理公司），\n1 Misc.3d 200 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)　2, 3, 4\n\nIbanez诉Pfeiffer，\n76 Misc.2d 363 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1973)　3\n\nJacobowitz诉Jacobowitz，\nNo. 16605/04, 2004 WL 2532297 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25, 2004)　10\n\nLeser诉U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n（美国合众银行全国协会），\nNo. CV 2009–2362, 2013 WL 867153 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)　4\n\nLoew诉Kolb，\nNo. 03Civ.5064, 2003 WL 22077454 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2003)　2\n\nMorgenthau诉A.J. Travis Ltd.（A.J. Travis有限公司），\n184 Misc.2d 835 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000)　11\n\nNobu Next Door, LLC（Nobu Next Door有限责任公司）诉Fine Arts Housing, Inc.（美术住房公司），\n4 N.Y.3d 839 (2005)　5\n\nPrudential Secs. Credit Corp.（保德信证券信贷公司）诉Teevee Toons, Inc.（Teevee Toons公司），\nIndex No. 603112/02, 2003 WL 346440 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2003)　11, 12\n\nPudalov诉Pudalov，\n6 Misc.3d 558 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)　11\n\nSequa Cap. Corp.（Sequa资本公司）诉Nave，\n921 F. Supp. 1072 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)　2, 5\n\nWeston Cap. Advisors, Inc.（韦斯顿资本顾问公司）诉PT Bank Mutiara, TBK（Mutiara银行），\nNo. 13 CIV. 6945 (PAC), 2017 WL 571511 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017)　4\n\n初步陈述1\n\nPAX已就其针对Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的违约请求在实体问题上胜诉，而该请求仅剩由法院裁决的损害赔偿数额问题。毫无疑问，PAX即将获得一项针对Kwok的数额巨大的判决书。根据CPLR 5229，法院有酌情权在该判决书作出前予以执行；该条款旨在处理恰如此处的情形——法院作出责任认定与确定损害赔偿之间存在时间间隔。事实上，PAX根据CPLR 5229必须满足的唯一条件，是已作出对其有利的裁决。PAX已经满足该条件。\n\n但在本案中，根据CPLR 5229给予救济尤为适当，因为，如PAX先前已向法院详述且如下文概述，Kwok长期以来一直隐匿资产并滥用诉讼程序。该证据表明，Kwok确有不遵守本案判决书的风险。因此，为保护PAX收取即将作出的损害赔偿裁决的机会，有充分必要通过限制Kwok在最终判决书作出前的一段期间内处分及/或隐匿其资产，以维持现状。据此，PAX谨请求法院：(i) 尽早安排就PAX依据CPLR 5229提出的申请举行听证；及(ii) 在此期间，根据CPLR 6301 et seq.签发临时限制令，暂时禁止Kwok耗散其资产。\n\n1 除非另有说明，所有强调均为新增，所有引文及引述均已省略，且所有定义术语均与原告支持其部分简易判决动议的法律备忘录（Dkt. No. 409）中具有相同含义。支持原告CPLR 5229动议及以说明理由命令提出临时限制令请求的Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）宣誓陈述，在本文中称为“Moss Aff.”。支持原告CPLR 5229动议及以说明理由命令提出临时限制令请求的Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯）宣誓陈述，在本文中称为“Lewis Aff.”。\n\n论证\n\nI. 法院应当准许PAX依据CPLR 5229提出的申请。\n\nCPLR 5229明确规定，法院有酌情权在胜诉方提出动议后，于判决书作出前执行判决书：\n\n在任何法院，于判决书作出前，经作出对其有利的裁决或决定的一方当事人提出动议，审判法官可命令对不利方进行查问，并命令限制该方，其效力与在判决后向其送达限制通知相同。\n\n纽约州法律明确规定，获得有利的实体裁决是根据CPLR 5229获得救济的唯一先决条件。Gallegos v. Elite Model Mgmt. Corp., 1 Misc.3d 200, 202 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003), aff'd, 807 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1st Dep't. 2005)（“唯一的法定要求是，CPLR 5229救济申请须由胜诉方提出。”）；Loew v. Kolb, No. 03Civ.5064, 2003 WL 22077454, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2003)（“除已获得有利的裁决或决定外，获得CPLR 5229规定的救济不存在任何先决条件。”）；Sequa Cap. Corp. v. Nave, 921 F. Supp. 1072, 1076 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)（同）；另见Coley v. Vannguard Urban Improvement Ass'n, Inc., 12-CV-5565 (PKC) (RER), 2016 WL 7217641, at \\*6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016)（在最终损害赔偿裁决作出前，基于缺席判决准许CPLR 5229下的救济，并说明“提出动议的一方无需就资产耗散的危险作出特定证明”）。同样已确立的是，审判法院对于是否根据CPLR 5229给予救济及该救济的范围均有酌情权。Sequa Cap. Corp., 921 F. Supp. at 1076。\n\nCPLR 5229旨在处理本案所呈现的确切情形——就责任作出简易判决决定与作出损害赔偿裁决之间存在时间间隔。见，例如，id.（在作出简易判决后、但在确定损害赔偿前，限制被告转让其享有权益的任何财产）；另见\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 7 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 97 of 174\n\nCPLR 5229；Siegel, Practice Commentaries, C5229:1（“CPLR 5229最具实用价值的场景，或许是在裁决或决定与判决书之间存在某种间隔之时……例如，[在该情形中]，决定是就责任问题准许原告针对被告的简易判决，但损害赔偿问题随后交由法官处理。在损害赔偿确定之前，准予了CPLR 5229限制。”）。\n\n因此，为使其CPLR 5229动议获得支持，PAX实际上无须证明Kwok意图耗散其资产，或以其他方式使自己无可供执行财产。见，例如，Gallegos, 1 Misc.3d at 207（“无论是这些判例、评注，还是法条本身，均未要求胜诉方作为获得禁令救济的先决条件，提交资产确定正在被处置或转移的证据。此类证据往往只能在根据CPLR 5229命令进行的不利方查问中才会浮现。要求证明不利方已经处置资产，违背CPLR 5229的宗旨；该条款是一项预防性措施，旨在阻止不利方在资产处置发生前处置资产。”）。尽管如此，如其先前申请所述及下一节详述，PAX拥有充分证据证明Kwok意图恰恰如此行事。\n\n因此，一项(i) 限制Kwok处分其在美国境内的任何资产，以及(ii) 允许PAX就该等资产进行证据开示的命令，在此时尤为必要和适当。见Weinstein, Korn, & Miller, New York Civil Practice, ¶ 5229.02；Ibanez v. Pfeiffer, 76 Misc.2d 363, 365 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1973)（根据CPLR 5229命令被告在指定时间到庭接受查问，并在判决前限制处分被告任何财产）；Demirovic v. Ortega, 296 F. Supp. 3d 477, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)；Weston Cap. Advisors, Inc. v. PT Bank Mutiara, TBK, No. 13 CIV. 6945 (PAC), 2017 WL\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 8 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 8 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 98 of 174\n\n571511, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017), aff'd, 738 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2018)（根据5229禁止“转让、设定负担或变更Contemnor Assets的权利”，因为根据纽约州法律，“即使该等[所有权]证书位于纽约州外，法院亦可命令Contemnors将其交付至本地区”）；Leser v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. CV 2009–2362, 2013 WL 867153, \\*2 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)（认定胜诉方根据CPLR 5229有权获得相关文件和证言）。\n\nII. 法院应通过暂时禁止Kwok耗散其资产，维持现状，直至就PAX的5229申请举行听证。\n\nPAX根据CPLR 5229提出的申请，本质上是请求初步救济——允许PAX开始就Kwok在美国的资产进行证据开示，并在判决书作出前的短暂期间内禁止其耗散该等资产；届时，PAX将永久获得该项救济。尽管PAX为使其CPLR 5229申请获得支持，无须证明典型的初步禁令要件，但如下文所述，其可轻易证明该等要素，原因包括有强有力的证据表明Kwok将试图耗散其资产，或以其他方式试图规避本案判决书；PAX预期该判决书金额将达九位数（该债务继续按年利率15%计息，目前约为\\$114 million，不包括执行费用）。2 因此，PAX谨请求法院在此阶段根据CPLR 6301 et seq.，仅给予其在5229申请中寻求的部分救济——禁止Kwok耗散其资产——以维护现状及PAX收取本案即将作出判决书的能力。\n\n2 见Lewis Aff. at ¶ 5。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/25/2020 05:43 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 576 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 9 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 99 of 174\n\n纽约州法院一贯准许此类申请。见，例如，Gallegos, 1 Misc.3d at 207（因胜诉原告所述被告的行为包括误导性陈述和逃避行为，在根据CPLR 5229给予救济前，暂时限制被告转让或出售其任何财产）；Sequa Cap. Corp., 921 F. Supp. at 1074 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)（在原告提出CPLR 5229救济申请当天暂时限制被告资产，后续再根据CPLR 5229给予救济）。并且，如下文所述，PAX可满足根据CPLR 6301 et seq.请求初步救济的全部三个要素。见Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Housing, Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 (2005)（“寻求初步禁令的一方必须证明其在实体问题上胜诉的可能性、在未获禁令时遭受不可弥补损害的危险，以及权益衡量有利于其。”）。\n\nA. 如不限制Kwok耗散其资产，PAX将遭受不可弥补的损害。\n\n有压倒性证据表明，Kwok（郭文贵）将采取措施耗散其资产，或以其他方式阻挠本案判决的执行，从而使该判决无法执行，并使PAX所受损害无法弥补。\n\n首先，案卷中有充分理由怀疑Kwok会自愿履行判决。首先，Kwok尚未偿还这笔近十年前债务中的一分钱，而且正如法院在其简易判决命令中所确认的，Kwok甚至没有“主张其本人或Shiny Times（闪耀时代）曾根据2011 Loan Facility或2011 Personal Guarantee支付任何款项以清偿该债务。”3 年表表明，Kwok未付款是故意的。\n\n在Kwok未能于原定还款期限偿还后，双方试图通过一系列和解契据清偿未偿债务，其中包括一份2013 Deed of Settlement（2013年和解契据），该契据规定Kwok通过向PAX转让北京盘古大观的三套公寓来清偿债务。4 但Kwok在2015年2月协商获得了最后一次延期，以满足该和解的先决条件——当时显然他永远无法满足这些条件，因为中国政府已查封该三套公寓。5\n\n3 Dkt. No. 549 (\"Order\") at 7.\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 10 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 100 of 174\n\n截至2015年初，Kwok欠PAX约$77 million，但他没有偿还债务，而是将该数额中的大部分（超过$65 million）用于购买Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰人酒店）的一处豪华Residence（住宅），并通过双层LLC结构对其进行隐匿。6 Sherry-Netherland的执行副总裁兼首席运营官Michael Ullman（迈克尔·乌尔曼）作证称，该结构“独一无二”且前所未有——是他“此前从未见过、此后也从未见过”的结构。7\n\n为支持其购买该住宅的申请，Kwok向Sherry-Netherland董事会提交了一家名为Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited（北京泽尼思控股有限公司，以下简称“Beijing Zenith”）的公司的虚假财务记录，并随后表示其拥有并控制该公司。8 但在被问及Beijing Zenith时，Kwok在其证言中作证称，在提交该等财务资料时，他并“不拥有Beijing Zenith的任何所有权权益”，且他不知道为何其律师向Sherry-Netherland提交了这些资料。9 当被出示Kwok就此事项所作的证言时，Sherry-Netherland首席执行官Michael Horvitz（迈克尔·霍维茨）作证称，他认为Sherry-Netherland受到了“欺诈”。10\n\n9 Id.\n\n4 Id. at 2.\n\n5 Lewis Aff. at ¶ 5.\n\n6 See Moss Aff. at ¶ 6*.* 尽管申请购买该住宅并居住于此，Kwok为避免被扣押，甚至否认拥有该住宅。在其2018年10月3日的证言中，他作证称，该住宅实际上由一名神秘的中国囚犯Zhang Wei（张伟）拥有。See id. at ¶ 8.\n\n7 Id.\n\n8 See id. at ¶ 6.\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 11 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 101 of 174\n\n在购买该住宅后，Kwok采取了进一步措施对其进行隐匿。事实上，2016年6月，在PAX向其发送催款函后，Kwok的代表请求Sherry-Netherland允许其“就该房产进行某些重组，以便最终实益所有权转移给其儿子”，方式是将Genever New York（Genever纽约）的所有权转让给“其儿子为受益人的一项信托”。11\n\nKwok在本诉讼期间的行为提供了更多证据，表明即使面对判决，他也不会偿还债务。在PAX提起本诉讼后，Kwok发推文称：“我既不必也不应为他们偿还这笔与我无关的无聊钱款。”12 随后，在其证言中，Kwok被直截了当地问及，如果本诉讼对其作出判决，他是否会支付该判决；在其律师指示其不要回答后，他拒绝回答该问题。13 根据Kwok滥用诉讼程序的行为，答案似乎是否定的。他向本法院作出了无数虚假陈述，最终在其证言中称，他从未签署2011 Personal Guarantee或相关合同。14 但与该虚假证言相反，Kwok此前曾多次向法院确认该等合同真实有效——甚至向法院提交了其本人持有的副本。15\n\n13 Id.\n\n10 Id.\n\n11 Id. at ¶ 8\n\n12 Lewis Aff. at ¶ 5.\n\n14 See Moss Aff. at ¶ 8*.*\n\n15 See Order at 2–3; see also Dkt. Nos. 11, 16–17.\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 12 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 102 of 174\n\nKwok还试图依据虚假证言和陈述避免该住宅被扣押，称该住宅已质押给第三方。例如，Kwok的雇员Yvette Wang（王悦）提交了一份宣誓书，其中她向本法院宣誓称：“Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛）的资产，因其拥有Genever [New York]而包括该[住宅]，已质押给Roscalitar 2。”16 然而，在其证言中，她承认自己实际上对质押一无所知，不知道该住宅或Genever实体是否已被质押，并且从未就任何质押事项与Kwok交谈过。17 更糟糕的是，当Sherry-Netherland就王女士宣誓书中关于该住宅已质押给Roscalitar 2的明确陈述质问时，Kwok的律师辩称，该宣誓书“未作出任何此类陈述”，即该住宅已被质押。18\n\nKwok最终至少部分基于有关该住宅的虚假证言而避免了扣押。在2019年4月26日就PAX扣押动议举行的听证会上，王女士作证称，该住宅并未出售。19 尽管她作证称，该住宅在听证会前“大约一个月”已撤出市场，但PAX迄今所见的唯一证据表明，该住宅实际上是在听证会当天才撤出市场。20 2020年2月13日，该住宅再次以$63,500,000挂牌出售；不到一个月后，Kwok将价格降至$55,000,000。21 截至2020年9月21日，该住宅仍在市场上出售。22\n\n17 Id.\n\n18 Id.\n\n19 See id.\n\n20 Id.\n\n21 See id.\n\n22 See id.\n\n16 Moss Aff. at ¶ 8*.*\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 13 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 103 of 174\n\n其次，有力证据表明，即使Kwok愿意支付判决，他也不具备这样做的财务能力。尽管Kwok公开声称自己是亿万富翁，但近期证据，包括其本人在宣誓后作出的证言，表明该主张可能被夸大了（或者至少表明其财务状况已经改变）。首先，已有广泛报道指出，Kwok在世界各地的资产已被冻结。23 此外，2019年1月23日，Kwok在Eastern District of Virginia（弗吉尼亚东区）的一起案件中作证称，其净资产为“负数”，其“不再有任何钱”，其并不“[i]n reality, under the law”在美国“拥有任何资产”，其没有来自“任何来源的收入”，且其“连一分钱也不剩。”24\n\n此外，Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Inc.（雪莉-荷兰人酒店公司）最近起诉被告Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），要求因Kwok未支付数十万美元的维护费而将其从该住宅驱逐（其自2020年1月以来一直未支付该等费用）。而且，大约一个月前，Nevada（内华达州）Clark County（克拉克县）Eighth Judicial District Court（第八司法区法院）因Kwok规避对方当事人就其获得的针对Kwok的$196,940.39判决进行取证的尝试，而对Kwok作出制裁。25 还值得注意的是，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）于2020年8月19日报道，FBI和SEC正在调查一家与Kwok有关联的媒体公司是否就一项$300 million的私募发行违反了证券法（New York Attorney General's Office（纽约州总检察长办公室）也正在调查此事），并且Kwok已在一段在线视频中确认了该项调查。26 《华尔街日报》的文章还报道，该公司的投资者正要求退款并提出投诉，且数家银行（JPMorgan、Wells Fargo和Bank of America）已冻结或关闭与该公司有关联的账户。27\n\n23 See Lewis Aff. at ¶ 6.\n\n24 See Moss Aff. at ¶ 7; see also Lewis Aff. at ¶ 6.\n\n25 See Moss Aff. at ¶ 7.\n\n26 See Lewis Aff. at ¶ 6*.*\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 14 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 104 of 174\n\n证据还表明，Kwok已采取措施隐匿其其他资产。例如，一段YouTube音频录音似乎记录了其指示同事迅速且悄悄地出售其船只和飞机。28 Kwok最初对该录音的真实性提出异议，因此PAX的律师在其证言期间播放该录音，以询问该声音是否确实是其本人声音。依照其律师的指示，Kwok拒绝回答该声音是否是其本人声音（法院或许还记得，在扣押听证会的视频中，Kwok用手指堵住了耳朵）。29 自2020年4月以来，Kwok已将其游艇Lady May（梅夫人号）挂牌出售，要价为$27,900,000。30\n\n鉴于上述证据，有必要限制Kwok拥有任何权益的任何资产，以确保将作出的有利于PAX的判决能够得到清偿。如果本法院未在即将作出判决前限制Kwok耗散其资产，PAX很可能无法在其持续近十年的追偿努力中获得赔偿，因此将遭受无法弥补的损害。See, e.g., Ayro Comm'ns, Inc. v. Jaymer Comm'ns Corp., No. 38836/04, 2005 WL 351070, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2005)（“通常，在禁令救济将防止现有有价值资产可能消失，或防止某种可比的潜在无法弥补损害的情况下，法院会准予初步禁令。”）；Jacobowitz v. Jacobowitz, No. 16605/04, 2004 WL 2532297, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25, 2004)（解释“初步禁令的目的”是“维持现状”，并防止可能使“判决失去实效”的财产被耗散）；Prudential Secs. Credit Corp. v. Teevee Toons, Inc., Index No. 603112/02, 2003 WL 346440, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2003)（“若不对资产的耗散或转让发布禁令，原告对该等资产的权利将面临无法弥补损害的风险，且任何未来有利于原告的判决都可能落空。”）。31\n\n29 See id.\n\n30 See id.\n\n27 See id.\n\n28 See Moss Aff. at ¶ 8*.*\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-22 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 22 Pg 15 of 18 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 105 of 174\n\nB. PAX很可能在其CPLR 5229申请的实体问题上胜诉。\n\nPAX轻易满足了初步救济中关于胜诉可能性的要求。如上所述，(i) 本院有权酌情依据 CPLR 5229 授予救济；(ii) 胜诉的唯一要求是就实体问题作出裁决；以及 (iii) CPLR 5229 正是为本案此类情形而设，即本院就原告责任问题作出简易判决与其作出损害赔偿判决之间存在一段时间间隔。\n\nC. 利益衡量有利于 PAX。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）已逃避偿还其债务近十年，而在全球范围内追寻 Kwok 之后，PAX 终于取得了一项认定 Kwok 应就其违约承担责任的司法命令。Kwok 已不能再否认其对 PAX 负有债务，而且是一笔数额巨大的债务。一旦判决作出，Kwok 将被禁止处分资产。鉴于判决很可能在数周内作出，现在开始该程序不会对其造成任何正当损害。另一方面，PAX 在终于找到 Kwok 并进行了逾三年诉讼后，若因 Kwok 在收到不利的责任裁决后采取措施隐匿其资产，致使其取得的判决无法执行，PAX 将遭受重大损失。事实上，如上文脚注 31 所述，Kwok 的\n\n31 昨日下午，PAX 的律师 Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）致电 Kwok 的律师 Jillian Searles（吉莉安·西尔斯），询问 Kwok 是否可同意在作出损害赔偿裁决前的期间内不处分其任何资产，从而免除提出本紧急动议的必要。如预期所料，Searles 女士答复称 Kwok 不会同意此类安排，这进一步凸显了 PAX 对本申请所请求救济的需要。见 Moss 宣誓书第 ¶ 10 段。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 接收日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-22 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 22 第 16 页，共 18 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 106 页，共 174 页\n\n律师表示，Kwok 不会自愿承诺在该过渡期间保全其资产。\n\n因此，利益衡量明显有利于 PAX。参见，例如，Morgenthau v. A.J. Travis Ltd., 184 Misc.2d 835, 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000)（在认定“被告可能因该[冻结资金]安排而遭受的任何困难，均远远不及在未获所请求救济的情况下相关资产可能无法取得的可能性”后，准予初步禁令）；另见 Pudalov v. Pudalov, 6 Misc.3d 558, 562 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)（认定在当事人之间存在敌意的情况下，认为非动议方会在没有初步禁令的情况下支付判决款的想法“带有推测性且略显天真”，且非动议方“拥有广泛资源及／或获得该等资源的能力”意味着其“不会因有限的初步禁令而遭受重大困难”时，“衡平的天平……倾向于动议方”）；Prudential, 2003 WL 346440, at \\*3（准予临时限制令，并说明“衡平因素显然有利于原告，[且]保全资产……不会给被告造成不当困难，而对原告的权利则至关重要”）。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 恭请本院依据 CPLR 5229 作出命令：(i) 禁止并限制被告 Kwok，如同在判决后已向其送达限制令一样，不得出售、让与、转让或妨碍其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应付给其的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外；(ii) 允许 PAX 就被告 Kwok 发出 CPLR 5222 所允许的限制通知；(iii) 允许 PAX 进行 CPLR 5229 所允许的披露，包括 CPLR 5223 和 5224 规定的披露；\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 09/25/2020 05:43 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 576 NYSCEF 接收日期：09/25/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-22 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 22 第 17 页，共 18 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 107 页，共 174 页\n\n以及 (iv) 授予 PAX 本院认为公正和适当的其他、进一步及不同救济。\n\nPAX 还恭请，如本院就 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的请求设定书面陈述时间表并举行听证会，则本院应依据 CPLR 6301 et seq. 作出命令，在该听证会之前暂时限制 Kwok 出售、让与、转让或妨碍其享有权益的任何财产，或支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应付给其的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外，以维持现状。\n\n日期：September 25, 2020 纽约州纽约市 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（欧麦律师事务所）签字：/s/ Edward Moss ^ Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，ssarnoff@omm.com）Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯，emoss@omm.com）7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-以及-\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登，rseiden@seidenlegal.com）1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的律师\n\n字数证明\n\nPAX 特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17 的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制，本法律备忘录的总字数，不包括案由、标题和签名栏，不足 7,000 字。\n\n日期：September 25, 2020 纽约州纽约市 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（欧麦律师事务所）签字：/s/ Edward Moss ^ Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯，emoss@omm.com）7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的律师\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-23 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 23 第 1 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 109 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 23\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 09/30/2020 04:44 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 591 NYSCEF 接收日期：09/30/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-23 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 23 第 2 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 110 页，共 174 页\n\n纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court of the State of New York）纽约郡\n\n出席：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官 庭别 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告，　案号　652077/2017\n\n诉　动议日期\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名　动议序号　011\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），　关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告。\n\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）\n\n2020 年 9 月 30 日，本院通过 Skype 举行了口头辩论，各方律师均出席。经同意，本院作出临时限制令，限制 Kwok 先生出售、让与、转让或妨碍其享有权益的任何财产，或支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应付给其的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 及正常业务过程规定的例外。\n\n本院将于 October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am 通过 Microsoft Teams 进一步听取辩论，并在必要时举行证据听证会。被告必须于 October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm 前提交对动议 011 的反对意见。原告必须于 October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm 前提交答复（如有）。如任何一方拟传唤证人，双方必须相互交换证人名单，并最迟于 October 13, 2020 前向本院电子提交证人名单。\n\n此外，本院将于 October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am 通过 Microsoft Teams 就原告要求损害赔偿和律师费的动议 008 进行口头辩论。被告必须提交\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 09/30/2020 04:44 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 591 NYSCEF 接收日期：09/30/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-23 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 23 第 3 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 111 页，共 174 页\n\n其对动议 011 的反对意见，提交截止时间为 October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm，原告必须于 October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm 前提交答复，\n\n如有。\n\n任何违反今日作出的临时限制令的行为，均应视为\n\n刑事藐视法庭。\n\n日期：September 30, 2020\n\n勾选一项：　案件已处理　X　非终局性处置\n\n准予　驳回　部分准予　X　其他\n申请：　确定命令文本　提交命令\n如适用请勾选：　包括移送／重新分配　指定受托人　交付审理\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-24 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 24 第 1 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 112 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 24\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 10/15/2020 02:52 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 630 NYSCEF 接收日期：10/15/2020 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-24 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 24 第 2 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 113 页，共 174 页\n\n纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court of the State of New York）纽约郡\n\n出席：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官 庭别 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），　案号　652077/2017\n原告，　动议日期\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名\nGUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE　动议序号　011\nHAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司）、GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）及　关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告。\n\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）\n\n2020 年 10 月 15 日，本院通过 Microsoft Teams 举行了口头辩论，各方律师均参加，就原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出判决后限制令的动议（动议 011）进行审理。2020 年 9 月 15 日，本院就责任问题作出有利于原告的简易判决，损害赔偿以及公司被告是否为被告 Kwok 的另我问题留待日后确定。NYSCEF 文件 549。\n\n准予原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出限制令的动议。根据 2020 年 10 月 15 日记录在案的程序，Kwok 先生被限制不得直接或间接出售、让与、转让或妨碍其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应付给其的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外。\n\n具体而言，Kwok 先生及／或下列财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-尼德兰酒店）的住宅，以及 (2) 游艇“the Lady May”，均被限制不得出售、让与、转让或妨碍该等资产。\n\n原告有权依据 CPLR 5229 就上述确定的资产进行证据开示，亦有权就 Kwok 先生可能直接或间接拥有的任何其他资产寻求证据开示。\n\n下次出庭为预审会议，时间为 November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm，通过 Microsoft Teams 进行。\n\nOctober 15, 2020\n日期　\\$SIG\\$\nBARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格），J.S.C.\n\n勾选一项：　X　案件已处理\n准予\n驳回　X　非终局性处置\n部分准予　其他\n申请：　确定命令文本　提交命令\n如适用请勾选：　包括移送／重新分配　指定受托人　交付审理\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-25 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 25 第 1 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 提交日期 05/24/22 登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 115 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 25\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 69 页，共 134 页 22-01073-dsj 文件 14-25 提交日期 04/13/22 登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22 附件 25 第 2 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文件 432-3 05/24/22 05/24/22 23:04:58 第 116 页，共 174 页\n\n英文>>>\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-26 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 26 Pg 1 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 118 of 174\n证据附件 26\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）　庭别　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），　案号　652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉　　动议日期\nMOTION SEQ. NO.　012\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，等，　关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）\n\n本院现审理原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）提出的第012号动议，要求认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan（以下简称“郭文贵”）藐视法庭。本院此前发布了三项命令，限制郭文贵对名为“Lady May”的游艇所享有的权益。2020年9月30日，本院作出临时限制令（以下简称“TRO”），禁止郭文贵（其中包括）“干扰其享有任何权益的任何财产”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 591。在发布该临时限制令时，本院指出，“任何违反……的行为均应被视为刑事藐视法庭”。同上。2020年10月15日，本院发布命令，准许PAX根据CPLR 5229提出的动议，并明确限制对Lady May的处置：\n\n郭先生被限制不得作出或促成对其直接或间接享有权益的任何财产进行任何出售、让与、转让或干扰，亦不得支付或以其他方式处置现已到期或日后到期应付给他的任何债务，但须遵守CPLR 5222规定的例外情况，并应符合2020年10月15日庭审记录中所载程序。具体而言，郭先生和/或以下财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-荷兰人酒店）内的住宅，以及(2)游艇“Lady May”，均被限制不得作出或促成对该等资产进行任何出售、让与、转让或干扰。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630。郭文贵的律师特别询问本院，郭文贵是否可以为取得许可之目的将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。本院当时驳回该请求，并指示律师如有必要应提出动议。\n\n原告提出本动议，是因为尽管存在上述命令，Lady May仍被移至美国境外。\n\n本院已审阅双方就PAX要求认定郭文贵藐视法庭的动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论郭先生的任何律师是否违反《职业行为准则》，显而易见的是，在本院审理的有关“Lady May”游艇所在地及所有权的程序中，存在数量令人无法容忍的策略性周旋、闪烁其词和欺瞒行为。\n\n被告声称，尽管本院对游艇移动施加了限制，该游艇仍因“正常经营过程”中的“冬季维护”而被移出本院管辖范围。本院不再逐一列举被告郭文贵在本应更明事理的律师协助下所进行的诸多“障眼法”，现按以下范围准许藐视法庭动议：自2021年5月15日后，游艇每在本院管辖范围之外停留一日，被告郭文贵即被处以 \\$500,000 罚款。有关该游艇所有权及控制权的其他限制仍然有效。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 728 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-26 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 26 Pg 4 of 4 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 121 of 174\n\n状态会议仍定于2021年5月4日上午10:00举行。\n\n日期：2021年3月16日\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：　拟定命令　提交命令\n如适当请勾选：　包括移送/重新指派　受托人任命　交由专员处理\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 1 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 122 of 174\n证据附件 27\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2021 12:04 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2021　已提交：上诉分庭—第一部门 03/25/2021 03:47 PM　2021-01010　NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/25/2021　22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 2 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 123 of 174\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\n上诉通知书\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\n— 诉 —\n\nKWOK HO WAN，等，\n\n被告。\n\n特此通知，被告 Kwok Ho Wan 现就纽约州最高法院纽约县于2021年3月16日作出的裁定及命令，以及于2021年3月17日录入纽约县书记官办公室的该裁定及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728），及其各个组成部分，向上诉分庭第一司法部门提起上诉。\n\n日期：纽约州纽约市　谨此提交，2021年3月23日\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克及霍斯特特勒有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ John Siegal\nJohn Siegal（约翰·西格尔）\nMelissa Carvalho（梅利莎·卡瓦略）\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n212-589-1400\njsiegal@bakerlaw.com\nmcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan 的律师\n\n致：纽约县书记官（通过 NYSCEF）\n全体登记在案律师（通过 NYSCEF）\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2021 12:04 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2021　22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 3 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 124 of 174\n纽约州最高法院上诉分庭：第一司法部门\n\n民事信息说明书（根据 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]）\n\n案件名称（应为案件标题，如其出现在所上诉的裁定或判决通知中，以及案件在原审法院中立案时的标题，或经修正后的标题）　原审法院\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP，\n— 诉 —　上诉通知书提交日期\nKwok Ho Wan，等　上诉分庭\n民事诉讼\n\nCPLR 第75条 仲裁　0\nCPLR 第78条程序\n\n特别程序　其他\nD 人身保护令程序　上诉\n\n原始程序\n0 CPLR 第78条\n0 征收\n0 劳动法第220或220-b条\nD 公职人员法 § 36\n0 不动产税法 § 1278　0 移送程序\n0 CPLR 第78条\n0 行政法 § 298\nD CPLR 5704 审查\n诉讼性质：（在最能反映案件性质的下列类别中最多勾选三项）\n• 行政审查　商业关系　商业　合同\nD 确认判决　• 家事关系　• 选举法　• 遗产事项\n• 家事法院　• 抵押品止赎　• 杂项　D 囚犯纪律与假释\n• 不动产\n（止赎以外）　• 成文法　• 税收　•\n侵权\n\nPg 4 of 11 174\n\n以及县的计数，县的计数\n\nJYSCEF　10 200\nDOC. DOC. DOC.\n\nCase 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj　Doc 432-3\nDoc 14-27　Filed 05/24/22\nFiled 04/13/22　Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58\nEntered 04/13/22 01:55:22　Exhibit 27\nPage 125 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 731　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2021\n\n被上诉文件（仅勾选一项）：　上诉\n\n如通过提交本上诉通知书对一项以上裁定或\n判决提起上诉，请在单独纸张上就每一项被上诉的\n裁定或判决填写以下信息。\nD 修正法令\nD 修正判决\nD 修正命令\nIii 裁定　D 决定\n0 认定\nD 中间法令\nD 中间判决　Iii 命令\nD 命令及判决\nD 部分法令\nD 重新拟定法令　D 重新拟定命令\n0 裁决\n• 其他（请注明）：\n• 法令　• 判决　• 重新拟定判决\n最高法院\n法院：　纽约\n县：\n日期：\n03/16/2021　录入：2021年3月17日\n法官（全名）：Hon. Barry R. Ostrager　案号：65201112011\n• 中间　Iii 终局　D 终局后\n阶段：　D 是　Iii 否\n审判：　如是：D 陪审团　D 非陪审团\n先前未完善的上诉及相关案件信息\n案号 150823/2021。无偏见驳回。　GTV Media Group v. Pacific Asia Alliance Fund, LP., 纽约县最高法院（Ostrager, J.），\n原始程序　提交日期：\n开始方式：　D 责令说明理由命令　• 申请通知　D 人身保护令令状\n授权在上诉分庭启动程序的法律：\n根据 CPLR 7804(g) 移送程序\n选择法院\n法院：　县：　选择县\n法官（全名）：　移送命令日期：\nCPLR 5704 对单方命令的审查：\n\n选择法院\n法院：\n法官（全名）：　县：\n日期：　选择县\n上诉、程序或申请的说明及争点陈述\n\n纽约县，日期为2021年3月16日，准许原告针对被告 Kwok Ho Wan 提出的藐视法庭动议。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2021 12:04 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731　NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2021　22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 5 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 126 of 174\n\n争点：请明确拟在上诉、程序或CPLR 5704审查申请中提出的争点、拟主张的撤销或变更理由，以及在上诉中请求的具体救济。\n\n在不限制可能于上诉中提出的论点的前提下，被告—上诉人 Kwok Ho Wan 声明，最高法院准许原告—被上诉人针对被告—上诉人提出的藐视法庭动议的裁定及命令有误，应予撤销。最高法院的裁定及命令具体涉及一项并非由被告—上诉人所有、而是由第三方 HK International（香港国际）所有的资产（一艘游艇），并就HK International资产（该游艇）的移动和所在地向被告—上诉人施加罚款。最高法院的裁定及命令亦未满足作出藐视法庭裁决所需的程序或实体要求。\n当事人信息\n\n说明：请逐行填写诉讼或程序中每一方当事人的姓名，每行一个姓名。如本表拟为上诉提交，请注明该当事人在原审法院中的地位及其在本院中的地位（如有）。如本表拟为在本院启动的程序提交，请仅填写当事人姓名及其在本院中的地位。\n\n编号　当事人姓名　原审地位　上诉分庭地位\n\n1　Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.　原告　被上诉人\n2　Kwok Ho Wan　被告　上诉人\n3　Genever Holdings LLC　被告　无\n4　Genever Holdings Corporation　被告　无\n\nPg 6 of 11 174\n律师信息\n\n说明：请填写各方当事人律师或律师事务所的名称。如本表拟随用于在上诉分庭启动特别程序的申请通知或责令说明理由命令一并提交，则仅需提供申请人律师的姓名。如诉讼当事人自行代理，必须勾选标有“Pro Se”的方框，并在所提供的空格内填写该当事人的相应信息。\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯），O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\n地址：7 Times Square\n城市：New York　州：New York\n邮政编码：10036\n电话号码：212-326-2000\n电子邮件地址：emoss@omm.com\n律师类型：　• 自行代理\n• 临时获准出庭\n0 指定\n0 政府\n受聘\n所代表的一方或多方当事人（列出上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n地址：7 Times Square\n城市：New York　I 州：New York\nI 邮政编码：10036\nI 电话号码：212-326-2000\n电子邮件地址：ssarnoff@omm.com\n律师类型：　• 指派\n• 政府\n• 临时获准出庭\n• 自行诉讼\n聘任\n代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：1\n律师/律师事务所名称：Robert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登）\n地址：469 Seventh Avenue, 5th Floor\n城市：New York　I 电话号码：212-523-0686\nI 州：New York\nI 邮政编码：10018\n电子邮件地址：rseiden@seidenlawgroup.com\n律师类型：　• 指派\n• 政府\n• 临时获准出庭\n• 自行诉讼\n聘任\n代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：1\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：John Siegal（约翰·西格尔），Baker & Hostetler LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n地址：45 Rockefeller Plaza\n城市：New York\n电子邮件地址：jsiegal@bakerlaw.com　I 州：New York\nI 邮政编码：10111\nI 电话号码：212-589-1400\n律师类型：　D 政府\n聘任\n• 指派\n• 自行诉讼\n• 临时获准出庭\n代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：• ;}_\n\n地址：162 E. 64th Street　律师/律师事务所名称：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔），Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n城市：New York\n电子邮件地址：aaron@lmesq.com　I 州：New York\nI 邮政编码：10065\nI 电话号码：973-285-3280\n律师类型：　聘任\n• 政府\n• 指派\n• 临时获准出庭\n0 自行诉讼\n代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：O 3\n律师/律师事务所名称：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔），Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n地址：162 E. 64th Street\n城市：New York\n电子邮件地址：　I 州：New York\nI 邮政编码：10065\nI 电话号码：973-285-3280\naaron@lmesq.com\n• 临时获准出庭\n• 指派\n• 政府\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（万国浩云），又名 MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名 HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（日内瓦控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（日内瓦控股公司），NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 6 of 10\n\n被告。\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n送达通知\n\n兹通知，所附为下列裁定及命令的副本：\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 04:37 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 730 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2021\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 7 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 128 of 174\n\nBarry R. Ostrager 法官于 March 17, 2021 在纽约州最高法院纽约县书记官办公室作出并登记。\n\n日期：March 17, 2021　New York, New York　谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\n签字人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff　Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）（ssarnoff@omm.com）Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登）（rseiden@seidenlegal.com）1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036\n\n(212) 626-6708 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 原告的律师\n\n致：John Siegal（约翰·西格尔）（jsiegal@bakerlaw.com）Melissa Carvalho（梅利莎·卡瓦略）（mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com）BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10001 (212) 589-4200 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 7 of 10\n\nMiles Kwok 被告的律师\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\n出席：　HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER　审判庭　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，　INDEX NO.　652077/2017\n原告，\n- 诉 -　动议日期\nMOTION SEQ. NO.　012\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，等，　关于动议的裁定 + 命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n本院现审理原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n（“PAX”）提出的第012号动议，请求认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）藐视法庭。本院此前已作出三项命令，限制 Kwok 对名为“Lady May”的游艇所享有的权益。于 September 30, 2020，本院作出临时限制令（“TRO”），禁止 Kwok，除其他事项外，“干预其享有权益的任何财产”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 591。作出 TRO 时，本院指出，“[a]ny violation shall be considered criminal contempt.”同上。于 October 15, 2020，本院作出该命令，准许 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制对 Lady May 的处分：\nKwok 先生被限制不得直接或间接作出或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干预其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分目前已到期或日后到期应付给他的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 所列例外，并依照 October 15, 2020 庭审记录中的程序。具体而言，Kwok 先生及/或以下财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry Netherland Hotel 的住宅，及 (2) 游艇“Lady May”，均被限制不得作出或促成对该等资产的任何出售、让与、转让或干预。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 09:09 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 728 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021 04:37 PM 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 10 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 131 of 174\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630。Kwok 的律师特别询问本院，Kwok 是否可以为取得许可证之目的将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。本院当时驳回该请求，并指示律师如有必要应提出动议。\n\n原告提出本动议，是因为尽管存在上述命令，Lady May 已被移至美国境外。\n\n本院已审阅各方就 PAX 请求认定 Kwok 藐视法庭之动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论 Kwok 先生的任何律师是否违反《职业行为准则》，显而易见，在本院审理的有关“Lady May”游艇所在地及所有权的程序中，存在令人无法容忍的策略性周旋、推诿搪塞及欺骗。\n\n被告声称，尽管本院对该游艇的移动施加限制，该游艇仍因“正常业务过程”中的“冬季维护”而被移出本院管辖范围。与其逐一列举被告 Kwok 在本应更加审慎的律师协助下所进行的诸多“障眼法”，本院在以下范围内准许藐视法庭动议：在 May 15, 2021 后，游艇每在本院管辖范围外停留一天，被告 Kwok 将被处以 \\$500,000 罚款。有关游艇所有权及控制权的其他限制仍然有效。730 03/17/2021 4 5 提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 731 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021 9 of 10\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 09:09 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 728 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021 04:37 PM 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-27 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 27 Pg 11 of 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 132 of 174\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2021 09:09 AM\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2021 12:04 PM\nCase 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 728\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 731\n730　Doc 432-3\nDoc 14-27　Filed 05/24/22\nFiled 04/13/22　Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58\nEntered 04/13/22 01:55:22　INDEX NO. 652077/2017\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017\nExhibit 27\nPage 132 of\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2021\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2021　03/17/2021\n\nPg 11 of 11\n\n状态会议仍定于 May 4, 2021 上午10:00举行。\n日期：March 16, 2021\n\n勾选一项：　案件已终结\nX\n准许　驳回　X\n非终局性处置\n部分准许　其他\n申请：　拟定命令　•　提交命令　•\n如适用请勾选：　包括移送/重新指派　受托人任命　•\n转介\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-28 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 28 Pg 1 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 133 of 174\n附件28\n\n纽约州最高法院　提交：APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 11/04/2021 10:22 AM 2021-01010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2021 22-01073-dsj Doc 14-28 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 28 Pg 2 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 134 of 174\n上诉分庭，第一司法部门\n\nAcosta（阿科斯塔）首席审判长，Renwick（伦威克）、Kennedy（肯尼迪）、Mendez（门德斯）审判员。\n\n14555 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，被上诉原告，\n\nIndex No. 652077/17 Case No. 2021-01010\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，等，上诉被告，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，等，被告。\n\nGanfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹与扎德勒律师事务所），New York（Ira Brad Matetsky（艾拉·布拉德·马特斯基）律师），代理上诉人。\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所），New York（Anton Metlitsky（安东·梅特利茨基）律师），代理被上诉人。\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县（Barry R. Ostrager 法官）于 March 17, 2021 登记的命令，准许原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 请求认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan 藐视法庭的动议，并规定自 May 15, 2021 起，若一艘价值 \\$27 million 的游艇违反先前命令仍停留在法院管辖范围外，则每一天处以 \\$500,000 罚款；该命令经一致表决予以维持，并计入费用。\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，因为原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的、合法且明确的法院命令，并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）。\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-28 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 28 Pg 3 of 3 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 135 of 174\n\n与被告的主张相反，法院并未因未作出终局性藐视法庭命令而构成 Judiciary Law § 770 规定的程序瑕疵。此外，证据表明，每日 \\$500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管获准有两个月时间完成此事，但其并未显示出任何完成该事的意愿（例如，见 Ruesch v Ruesch, 106 AD3d 976, 977 [2d Dept 2013]）。动议法院被指示举行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n本裁定及命令构成纽约州最高法院上诉分庭第一部门的裁定及命令。\n\n登记：November 4, 2021\n\n22-01073-dsj Doc 14-29 Filed 04/13/22 Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22 Exhibit 29 Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 432-3 Filed 05/24/22 Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58 Page 136 of 174\n附件29\n\nCase 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj　Doc 432-3\nDoc 14-29　Filed 05/24/22\nFiled 04/13/22　Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58\nEntered 04/13/22 01:55:22　Exhibit 29\nPage 137 of\n\n提交：APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 01/20/2022 09:38 AM　Pg 2 of 2\n174　2021-01010\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 22　纽约州最高法院　RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/20/2022\n上诉分庭，第一司法部门\n\n出席：\nHon.\nRolando T. Acosta（罗兰多·T·阿科斯塔），\nDianne T. Renwick（黛安娜·T·伦威克）\nTanya R. Kennedy（坦娅·R·肯尼迪）　首席审判长，\n\nManuel J. Mendez（曼努埃尔·J·门德斯），　审判员。\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.，　Motion No.　2021-04127\n被上诉原告，　Index No.　652077/17\nCase No.　2021-01010\n诉\nKwok Ho Wan，又名 Kwok Ho，等，\n上诉被告，\nGenever Holdings LLC，等，\n\n被告。\n\n上诉被告已提出动议，请求准许就本院于 November 04, 2021 作出的裁定及命令（Appeal No. 14555）向 Court of Appeals（上诉法院）上诉，\n\n现已审阅并归档与该动议有关的文件，并经适当审议，\n\n兹命令：驳回该动议。\n\n登记：January 20, 2022\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 14-30 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 30 第 1 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 138 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 30\n\n纽约县书记官处提交：01/18/2022 08:26 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号 1098 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/14/2022 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-30 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 30 第 2 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 139 页，共 174 页\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县\n\n出庭法官：尊敬的 Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官　庭别　IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）　案号　652077/2017\n原告，　动议日期\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司），　动议序号　019\n\n被告。　第三份中间决定及动议裁定\n\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n本院于 July 21, 2021 作出的中间决定及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 873）就原告要求认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan 构成民事藐视法庭的动议，以及被告提出的请求在上诉待决期间中止执行的交叉动议作出裁定，决定在上诉分庭第一部门对排定于 September Term 审理的上诉作出决定之前，暂缓处理该动议。上诉分庭于 November 4, 2021 通过决定及命令裁决该上诉（NYSCEF Doc. No. 953）。本院于 January 14, 2022 就藐视法庭动议进行了进一步辩论，并安排于 February 2, 2022 上午 9:30 开始举行该动议的听证会。\n\n直接证言应以宣誓书形式提出。本院不考虑任何无法接受交叉询问之人的宣誓书。各方应协商，并于 January 24, 2022 前编制联合证物册。原告应于 January 26, 2022 前以电子方式提交直接证言宣誓书。被告应于 January 28, 2022 前以电子方式提交直接证言宣誓书。所有文件的纸质副本应于 January 31, 2022 中午前送交第 232 号法庭。\n\n各方被指示于 January 24, 2022 或之前以电子方式提交一封载有 February 2, 2022 听证会联合出庭名单的信函。\n\n日期：January 14, 2022\n\n勾选一项：　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申请：　拟定命令　提交命令\n如适用，请勾选：　包括移送／重新分配　受托人任命　转介\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 14-31 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 31 第 1 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 141 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 31\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC 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 HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n被告。\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\n尊敬的 Barry R. Ostrager\n\n民事藐视法庭最终命令\n\n动议序号 19\n\n鉴于，本院于 March 16, 2021 作出的附条件民事藐视法庭命令指示，如被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）未能于 May 15, 2021 前将 Lady May 游艇（“Lady May”）送回本院管辖范围，其将就 Lady May 留在该管辖范围外的每一天被处以 $500,000 罚款；\n\n纽约县书记官处提交：02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号 1182 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 14-31 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 31 第 2 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 142 页，共 174 页\n\n鉴于，Lady May 未于 May 15, 2021 前被送回本院管辖范围；\n\n鉴于，November 4, 2021，上诉分庭第一部门维持本院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 $500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管获准有两个月时间完成此事，其却未显示出任何意愿”，并指示本院进行证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评定适当处罚；\n\n鉴于，Kwok 迄今未能将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围；\n\n鉴于，第一部门 November 4, 2021 命令所规定的证据听证会已于 February 2, 2022 举行；\n\n纽约县书记官处提交：02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号 1182 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 14-31 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 31 第 3 页，共 3 页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 143 页，共 174 页\n\n鉴于，Kwok 与 Lady May 的登记名义持有人 HK International（由 Convoy Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 运营）均出席该听证会、提出证据，并由律师代理；以及\n\n鉴于，根据该听证会上提出的证据，本院认定：\n\nPAX 已以明确且令人信服的证据证明，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益权益并拥有控制权；因此，兹命令、裁定并判决如下：\n\n1. Kwok 违反 New York Judiciary Law § 753，并构成本院命令所涉民事藐视法庭。\n\n2. Kwok 被指示立即向 PAX 支付 $134,000,000，相当于 May 15, 2021 至 February 7, 2022 期间每一天 $500,000。\n\n3. 欠付 PAX 的金额应继续按每日 $500,000 累计，直至 Kwok 将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围；该额外累计自本命令之日起十个工作日后开始。\n\n4. 上述第 2 段所列金额应于本命令之日起五个工作日内支付给 PAX。\n\n5. 如未及时向 PAX 支付罚款，本院将依 New York Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权力。\n\n本命令于 2022 年 2 月 9 日作出。\n\nR. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n22-01073-dsj 文档 14-32 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 32 第 1 页，共 16 页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 144 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 32\n\n案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号 1187 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-32 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 32 第 2 页，共 16 页 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 145 页，共 174 页\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n\n原告，\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\n上诉通知书\n\n尊敬的 Barry Ostrager\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN 等，\n\n被告。\n\n兹通知，被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok 先生”）特此就纽约州最高法院纽约县（Ostrager 法官）于 February 9, 2022 作出的决定及命令，以及于 February 9, 2022 录入纽约县书记官办公室的该决定及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181），及其每一部分，向上诉分庭第一司法部门提出上诉。\n\n日期：New York, New York　谨呈，February 10, 2022\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克与霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ John Siegal\nJohn Siegal（约翰·西格尔）\nMelissa Carvalho（梅利莎·卡瓦略）\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n212-589-1400\njsiegal@bakerlaw.com\nmcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan 的律师\n\n致：纽约县书记官（通过 NYSCEF）\n全体登记在案律师（通过 NYSCEF）\n\n纽约州最高法院上诉分庭：第一司法部门\n\n信息声明（依据 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]）—民事\n\n案件标题：列出案件在传票、申请通知书或启动或将启动该事项的说明理由命令中所显示的标题，或经修正后的标题。　原审法院\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n诉　上诉通知书提交日期\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION　上诉分庭\n\n案件类型\n民事诉讼\n□\nCPLR 第 75 条 仲裁　□　提交类型\n□ CPLR 第 78 条 程序\n上诉\n□\n特别程序　其他\n原始程序\n• CPLR 第 78 条\n□ 人身保护令程序\n□ 征收程序\n□ Labor Law 220 或 220-b\n□ Public Officers Law § 36\n□ Real Property Tax Law § 1278\n诉讼性质：从下列最能反映案件性质的类别中最多勾选三项。\n□ 行政审查　商业关系　商事　合同\n□ 确认判决　□ 家事关系　□ 选举法　□ 遗产事项\n□ 家庭法院　□ 抵押品赎回权取消　□ 杂项　• 囚犯纪律与假释\n□ 不动产\n（不包括赎回权取消）　□ 制定法　□ 税务　□ 侵权\n\nNYSCEF 文档编号 1187 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-32 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 32 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 147 页，共 174 页\n\n第 4 页，共 16 页\n\n上诉\n\n被上诉文件（仅勾选一项）：　如已通过提交本上诉通知书对一个以上的命令或判决提出上诉，请在另一张纸上就每一项被上诉命令或判决注明以下信息。\n• 修正法令　• 裁定　• 命令　• 重拟命令\n修正判决　裁定结果　■ 命令及判决　• 裁决\n• 修正命令　中间法令　部分法令　• 其他（请注明）：\n决定　• 中间判决　• 重拟法令\n• 法令　• 判决　• 重拟判决\n\n法院：\n最高法院　纽约\n\n县：\n02/09/2022\n\n日期：　登记日期：02/09/2022\n\n法官（全名）：尊敬的 Barry Ostrager　案号：652077/2017\n\n• 中间\n■ 终局　• 终局后\n\n阶段：　审判：\n否\n是　非陪审团审判\n\n如是：\n\n先前未完善上诉及关联案件信息\n\n由同一诉讼或程序引起的任何上诉目前是否正在本院待决？　• 否\n是\n\n如是，请列明分配给每一该等上诉的上诉分庭案件编号。\n\n2021-00740\n\n如适当，请说明目前在本辖区或任何其他辖区的任何法院是否存在关联诉讼或程序；如存在，请说明案件状态：\n\n原始程序\n\n启动方式：　□ 说明理由命令　• 申请通知书　• 人身保护令令状　提交日期：\n\n授权在上诉分庭启动程序的法规：\n\n依据 CPLR 7804(g) 移送的程序\n\n选择法院\n\n法院：　县：　选择县\n\n法官（全名）：　移送命令日期：\n\nCPLR 5704 对单方命令的审查：\n\n选择法院\n\n法院：　县：　选择县\n\n法官（全名）：　日期：\n\n上诉、程序或申请的说明及争议问题陈述\n\n说明：如属上诉，简要说明被上诉文件。如上诉针对命令，请说明所请求的救济以及动议是否获准或被驳回。如属在本院启动或依据 CPLR 7804(g) 移送的原始程序，请简要说明该程序的目的。如属根据 CPLR 5704 提出的申请，请简要说明拟审查的单方命令的性质。\n\n被告—上诉人 Kwok Ho Wan 就本诉讼中于 February 9, 2022 登记的决定及命令提出上诉；该等决定及命令依据 Judiciary Law § 753 准许民事藐视法庭最终命令。\n\nNYSCEF 文档编号 1187 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022 22-01073-dsj 文档 14-32 于 04/13/22 提交 于 04/13/22 01:55:22 登记 附件 32 案件 22-50073 文档 432-3 于 05/24/22 提交 于 05/24/22 23:04:58 登记 第 148 页，共 174 页\n\n第 5 页，共 16 页\n\n争议事项：具体说明拟在上诉、诉讼程序或申请依据 CPLR 5704 进行审查中提出的争议事项、拟主张的撤销或变更理由，以及在上诉中请求的具体救济。\n\n在不限制可能在上诉中提出的论点的前提下，被告—上诉人 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）陈述：各项裁决及命令存在错误，应予全部撤销，并且必须驳回藐视法庭程序。最高法院（Supreme Court）作出的裁决及命令尤其授予了一项最终藐视法庭命令，但案卷记录在法律上或事实上均不支持该命令。即使作出藐视法庭认定是适当的（事实并非如此），所处罚金的性质和数额亦不成比例、过高、未经法律授权、构成裁量权滥用，并且违反被告—上诉人依据联邦宪法和州宪法享有的宪法权利。\n\n当事人信息\n\n说明：请填写本案或本程序每一方当事人的姓名，每行一个姓名。如本表用于上诉，请注明该当事人在原审法院中的身份，以及其在本院中的身份（如有）。如本表用于在本院提起的程序，请仅填写该当事人的姓名及其在本院中的身份。\n\n编号　当事人名称　原审身份　上诉分庭身份\n\n1　Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）　原告　被上诉人\n2　Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）　被告　上诉人\n3　Genever Holdings LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）　被告　无\n4　Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）　被告　无\n\n案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1187　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-32　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 32　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第149页，共174页\n\n律师信息\n\n第6页，共16页\n\n说明：请填写各当事人相应律师或律师事务所的名称。如本表须与用以在上诉分庭提起特别程序的请愿通知书或说明理由令一并提交，则仅须提供申请人律师的姓名。如诉讼当事人自行代理，必须勾选标有“自行诉讼”的方框，并在所提供的空白处填写该当事人的适当信息。\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），O'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\n\n地址：7 Times Square\n城市：纽约　州：纽约州　邮政编码：10036　电话号码：212-326-2000\n电子邮箱地址：ssamoff@omm.com\n律师类别：○ 指派　■ 受聘　○ 政府　○ 临时准许出庭　○ 自行诉讼\n所代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：John Siegal（约翰·西格尔），Baker & Hostetler LLP（贝克与霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n地址：45 Rockefeller Center\n城市：纽约　州：纽约州　邮政编码：10111　电话号码：212-589-1400\n电子邮箱地址：jsiegal@bakerlaw.com\n律师类别：○ 指派　■ 受聘　○ 政府　○ 临时准许出庭　○ 自行诉讼\n所代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：2\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔），Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n地址：99 Church Street，4层\n城市：White Plains　州：纽约州　邮政编码：10601　电话号码：973-285-3280\n电子邮箱地址：aaron@lmesq.com\n律师类别：○ 指派　■ 受聘　○ 政府　○ 临时准许出庭　○ 自行诉讼\n所代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：3，4\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：\n地址：\n城市：　州：　邮政编码：　电话号码：\n电子邮箱地址：\n律师类别：○ 指派　○ 受聘　○ 政府　○ 临时准许出庭　○ 自行诉讼\n所代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：\n地址：\n城市：　州：　邮政编码：　电话号码：\n电子邮箱地址：\n律师类别：○ 指派　○ 受聘　○ 政府　○ 临时准许出庭　○ 自行诉讼\n所代理的当事人（列明上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n地址：\n城市：　州：　邮政编码：　电话号码：\n律师/律师事务所名称：\n电子邮箱地址：\n律师类别：○ 指派　○ 受聘　○ 政府　○ 临时准许出庭　○ 自行诉讼\n\n索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1187　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-32　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 32　第 15 页，共 16 页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第 158 页，共 174 页\n\n索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1187　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-32　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 32　第 16 页，共 16 页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第 159 页，共 174 页\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-33　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 33　第 1 页，共 3 页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第 160 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 33\n\n案件 22-50073\n\n22-01073-dsj\n\n文件 432-3\n\n文件 14-33\n\n提交日期 05/24/22\n\n提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58\n\n登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 33\n\n第 161 页，共\n\n已提交\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 5　提交地点：上诉分庭——第一部门　02/15/2022 03:13 PM\n\n第一\n\n上诉\n\n分庭\n\n——　第 2 页，共 3 页\n\n部门　02/14/2022　02:37 PM　）　2022-00609\n\nNYSCEF 收件日期：02/15/2022\n\nNYSCEF\n\n简要\n\n陈述\n\n文件\n\n编号　关于申请\n\nNYSCEF：02/14/2022\n\n加急\n\n送达\n\n（由申请方提交和／或提出）　临时救济\n\n日期：February 14, 2022　案件编号：2022-00609；2022-00610\n\n事项名称：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名等\n\n索引号／起诉书编号／案卷号：652077/2017\n\n[X] 裁定　□ 上诉　□ 判决书\n\n由 Supreme Court, County of New York（纽约州最高法院纽约县）作出的裁定／判决书／法令\n\n□ 被告\n\n□ 家事法院　于 Feb. 9, 2022 作出\n\n法官姓名：Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）\n\n上诉通知书于 Feb. 10, 2022 提交\n\n如系对行政决定提起上诉，请注明机构：___________________\n\n诉讼或程序性质：违约\n\n被上诉裁定／判决书／法令的条款：___________________\n\n本申请由上诉人／被上诉人提出，请求在上诉期间暂停执行藐视法庭命令。\n\n被告—上诉人请求在 February 16, 2022 前暂停执行；其被命令须于该日期前向原告支付 $134,000,000 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n如申请暂停执行，请说明请求理由：$134,000,000 的藐视法庭罚款过高、不成比例且违宪；动议法院已表示，如未在五个营业日内，即 February 16, 2022 前支付，将可能予以监禁。\n\n是否已提供任何担保：否。\n\n如“是”，请说明金额和类型：___________________\n\n是否已向下级法院申请该项救济：否。\n\n如“是”，请说明处理结果：___________________\n\n此前是否已在本院提出任何申请：___________________\n\n如“是”，请说明日期和性质：___________________\n\n对方当事人是否已获告知本申请：是。\n\n其是否同意：否。\n\n案件-020500018　文件\n\n申请方代理律师\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-33　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 33　第 3 页，共 3 页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第 162 页，共 174 页\n\n反对方代理律师\n\n地址　360 Lexington Avenue　7 Times Square\n\nNew York, New York 10017　New York, New York 10036\n\n212-326-2000\n\n电话号码　212-365-3391（手机）；2120922-9149（办公室）　New York\n\n电子邮件　imatetsky@ganfershore.com\n\n出庭律师：Ira B. Matetsky（艾拉·B·马泰茨基）\n\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）（ssarnoff@omm.com）；212-326-2293\n\nJason T. Cohen（杰森·T·科恩）（Qcohen@ganfershore.com）；646-250-4141\n\nAnton Metlitsky（安东·梅特利茨基）（ametlitsky@omm.com）；212-316-2291\n\nMark C. Zauderer（马克·C·扎德勒）（mzauderer@ganfershore.com）；917-331-7762\n\n上诉人关于暂停执行的申请被驳回。\n\nFebruary 15, 2022\n\n反对意见\n\n提交日期\n\n答复\n\n裁决人：\n\n动议日期：__________\n\n加急：是\n\n电话联系律师\n\n所有文件均须专人送达。\n\n“修订于 10/19”\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-34　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 34　第 1 页，共 12 页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第 163 页，共 174 页\n\n附件 34\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院纽约县）\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼维尔控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼维尔控股有限责任公司），\n\n索引号 652077/2017\n\nBarry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官\n\n被告。\n\n破产提示书\n\n提交地点：纽约县书记官　02/15/2022 09:12 PM　索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1190　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/15/2022\n\n22-01073-dsj 文件 14-34　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 34　第 2 页，共 12 页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第 164 页，共 174 页\n\n兹通知：2022年2月15日，上述标题诉讼中的一名被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）已向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）（以下简称“破产法院”）根据 United States Code（美国法典）第 11 编第 11 章、11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532（以下简称“破产法”）提交自愿破产救济申请。债务人的自愿申请副本作为附件 A 随附于此。债务人的第 11 章案件目前由破产法院以案件编号 22-50073 审理。\n\n进一步通知：根据破产法第 362(a) 条，债务人提交其自愿申请，即自动中止下列事项，包括但不限于：(a) 对债务人提起或继续进行一切司法、行政或其他诉讼或程序：(i) 在债务人第 11 章案件开始前已经或本可提起的，或 (ii) 为追偿债务人第 11 章案件开始前产生的任何债权；(b) 对债务人或债务人破产财产执行于债务人第 11 章案件开始前取得的判决书；或 (c) 取得债务人破产财产或从债务人破产财产中取得财产占有，或对债务人破产财产行使控制的任何行为。\n\n提交地点：纽约县书记官　02/15/2022 09:12 PM　索引号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1190　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/15/2022　22-01073-dsj 文件 14-34　提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 34　第 3 页，共 12 页　案件 22-50073　文件 432-3　提交日期 05/24/22　登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58　第 165 页，共 174 页\n\n本破产提示书仅为提供信息之目的，并不构成下列签署人在本程序中出庭或有意出庭。\n\n日期：February 15, 2022　New York, New York\n\n/s/ William R. Baldiga\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）律师\n\nUriel Pinelo（乌列尔·皮内洛）律师\n\nSeven Times Square\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nwbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nupinelo@brownrudnick.com\n\n电话：(212) 209-4800\n\n传真：(212) 209-4801\n\n债务人拟聘代理律师\n\n附件 A\n\n债务人的自愿申请\n\n提交地点：纽约县书记官　02/15/2022 09:12 PM\n\n案件 22-50073\n\n案件 22-50073\n\n22-01073-dsj\n\n文件 432-3\n\n文件 14-34\n\n文件 1\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1190　提交日期 02/15/22\n\n提交日期 05/24/22\n\n提交日期 04/13/22　登记日期 02/15/22 20:26:52\n\n登记日期 05/24/22 23:04:58\n\n登记日期 04/13/22 01:55:22　索引号 652077/2017\n\n附件 34\n\n第 167 页，共\n\nNYSCEF 收件日期：02/15/2022\n\n请填写以下信息以识别您的案件：　第 5 页，共 12 页\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）\n\n__________区\n\n案件编号（如已知）：_________________________　您依据何章提出申请：　□ 第 7 章\n\n✔\n\n□ 第 11 章\n\n□ 第 12 章\n\n□ 第 13 章　□\n\n如属修正提交，请勾选\n\n官方表格 101\n\n个人申请破产自愿申请表\n\n破产表格使用“您”和“债务人 1”指单独提出申请的债务人。已婚夫妇可以共同提出破产案件——称为共同案件——在共同案件中，这些表格使用“您”询问两名债务人的信息。例如，若表格询问“您是否拥有汽车”，只要任一债务人拥有汽车，答案即为“是”。在需要分别提供配偶信息时，表格使用“债务人 1”和“债务人 2”加以区分。在共同案件中，一名配偶必须作为债务人 1 报告信息，另一名配偶必须作为债务人 2 报告信息。同一人在所有表格中必须均为债务人 1。\n\n请尽可能完整、准确地填写。如两名已婚人士共同提出申请，双方均应对提供正确的信息承担同等责任。如需要更多空间，请在本表后附上单独的纸页。请在任何附加页的顶部写明您的姓名及案件编号（如已知）。请回答每一个问题。\n\n第一部分：确认您的身份\n\n关于债务人 1：　关于债务人 2（仅限共同案件中的配偶）：\n\n1.　您的全名\n\n填写政府签发的带照片身份证件（例如驾照或护照）上的姓名。　Ho Wan\n\n名字　__________________________________________________\n\n名字\n\n请在与受托人的会议中携带您的带照片身份证件。　__________________________________________________\n\n中间名\n\nKwok\n\n__________________________________________________　__________________________________________________\n\n中间名\n\n姓氏\n\n___________________________　姓氏\n\n后缀（Sr.、Jr.、II、III）　后缀（Sr.、Jr.、II、III）\n\n2.　您在过去 8 年中使用过的所有其他姓名　Miles\n\n__________________________________________________　__________________________________________________\n\n名字\n\n__________________________________________________　名字\n\n包括您的婚后姓氏或婚前姓氏。　中间名\n\nKwok；Guo\n\n__________________________________________________　中间名\n\n姓氏\n\nWengui　姓氏\n\n名字　__________________________________________________\n\n名字\n\n中间名\n\nGuo\n\n__________________________________________________　__________________________________________________\n\n中间名\n\n姓氏　姓氏\n\n3.　仅填写您社会保障号码最后 4 位数字　9\n\nxxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____　xxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____\n号码或联邦\n个人纳税人\n识别号码　或\n\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____　或\n\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____\n(ITIN)\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM　INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190　Case 22-50073\nCase 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj　Doc 432-3\nDoc 14-34\nDoc 1　Filed 02/15/22　Filed 05/24/22　Filed 04/13/22　Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52　Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58\nEntered 04/13/22 01:55:22　第 2 页，共 14 页\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022　附件 34\n第 168 页，共\n\n第 6 页，共 12 页　174\n\n债务人 1　Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n名字\n中间名　姓氏　案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n关于债务人 1：　关于债务人 2（仅限共同案件中的配偶）：\n4.　您在过去 8 年内使用过的任何企业名称\n及雇主识别号码\n(EIN)　✔\n‰\n我未使用过任何企业名称或 EIN。　‰\n我未使用过任何企业名称或 EIN。\n_________________________________________________\n企业名称　_________________________________________________\n企业名称\n包括商号和\n经营名称　_________________________________________________\n企业名称　_________________________________________________\n企业名称\n\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN　___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN　___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n\n5.　您的居住地　如债务人 2 居住在不同地址：\n转交 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）\n_________________________________________________　_________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道　门牌号\n街道\n162 East 64th Street\n_________________________________________________　_________________________________________________\nNew York\nNY\n\n城市\n州\n邮政编码　_________________________________________________\n城市\n州\n邮政编码\nNew York\n_________________________________________________\n县\n\n如您的邮寄地址与上述地址不同，\n请在此填写。请注意，法院将把\n任何通知寄送至该邮寄地址。　县\n如债务人 2 的邮寄地址与您的不同，\n请在此填写。请注意，法院将把\n任何通知寄送至该邮寄地址。\n\n门牌号\n街道　_________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n_________________________________________________　_________________________________________________\n邮政信箱　邮政信箱\n\n城市\n州\n邮政编码　_________________________________________________\n城市\n州\n邮政编码\n\n6.　您选择在本地区\n申请破产的原因　选择一项：　选择一项：\n✔\n‰\n在提交本申请前的 180 天内，\n我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何\n其他地区居住的时间。　‰\n在提交本申请前的 180 天内，\n我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何\n其他地区居住的时间。\n‰\n我有其他理由。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。）　‰\n我有其他理由。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。）\n\n________________________________________　________________________________________\n\n________________________________________　________________________________________\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n债务人 1\n\n名字\n中间名　姓氏　案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 2 部分：\n向法院说明您的破产案件\n7.　您选择依据《破产法》申请破产的章节　选择一项。（关于各项的简要说明，见根据 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) 要求向申请破产的个人提供的通知（表格 2010）。另请前往第 1 页顶部并勾选适当方框。）\n‰　第 7 章\n✔\n‰　第 11 章\n‰　第 12 章\n‰　第 13 章\n\n8.　您将如何支付费用\n✔\n‰\n‰\n‰　预印地址的支票。请向您当地法院的书记官办公室查询有关您可以如何付款的更多详情。通常，如您自行支付费用，可以用现金、银行本票或汇票支付。如您的律师代表您提交付款，您的律师可以使用信用卡或附有预印地址的支票付款。\n我需要分期支付费用。如选择此项，请签署并附上《个人分期支付申请费申请表》（Official Form 103A）。\n我请求免除我的费用（仅当您申请第 7 章破产时方可请求此项。根据法律，法官可以但并非必须免除您的费用，且仅当您的收入低于适用于您家庭人数的官方贫困线的 150%，并且您无力分期支付该费用时，方可如此处理）。如选择此项，您必须填写《第 7 章申请费免除申请表》（Official Form 103B），并随申请书一并提交。\n我将在提交破产申请书时支付全部费用。\n\n9.　您在过去 8 年内是否申请过破产？　✔\n‰\n否\n‰　是。地区 __________________________ 时间　_______________ 案号 ___________________________\n地区 __________________________ 时间　MM / DD / YYYY　_______________ 案号 ___________________________\nMM / DD / YYYY\n地区 __________________________ 时间　MM / DD / YYYY　_______________ 案号 ___________________________\n\n10. 是否有由未与您共同提交本案的配偶、业务合伙人或关联方提出且尚未审结或正在提交的破产案件？　✔\n‰ 否\n‰　是。债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系　_____________________\n地区 __________________________ 时间　_______________ 案号（如已知）____________________\n您，或由业务\n合伙人，或由一个　MM / DD / YYYY\n关联方提出？　债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系　_____________________\n地区 __________________________ 时间　MM / DD / YYYY　_______________ 案号（如已知）____________________\n\n债务人 1　Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n_______________________________________________________　案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字\n中间名\n第 3 部分：　姓氏\n报告您作为独资经营者拥有的任何企业\n\n12. 您是否为任何全职或兼职企业的独资经营者？　✔\n‰\n否。转至第 4 部分。\n‰\n是。企业名称及所在地\n\n独资企业是您以个人身份经营的企业，并非公司、合伙企业或有限责任公司等独立法律实体。　企业名称（如有）\n门牌号\n街道　_______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n如您拥有一个以上独资企业，请使用单独附页并将其附于本申请书。　_______________________________________________　_______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n城市　州\n邮政编码\n\n勾选适当方框以说明您的企业：\n‰　医疗保健企业（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)）\n‰　单一资产房地产（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)）\n‰\n证券经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)）\n‰　商品经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(6)）\n‰\n以上皆非\n\n13. 您是否依据《破产法》第 11 章提交申请，并且是小型企业债务人，或者选择依据第 11 章 V 子章进行程序？\n\n如您依据第 11 章提交申请，法院必须知悉您是否为小型企业债务人或是否选择依据第 11 章 V 子章进行程序，以便其设定适当期限。如您表示您是小型企业债务人或选择依据第 11 章 V 子章进行程序，您必须附上您最近一期资产负债表、经营报表、现金流量表和联邦所得税申报表；如上述任何文件不存在，则遵循 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B) 规定的程序。\n\n‰\n否。我并非依据第 11 章提交申请。\n\n关于小型企业债务人的定义，见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D)。　✔\n‰\n否。我依据第 11 章提交申请，但根据《破产法》中的定义，我不是小型企业债务人。\n‰\n是。我依据第 11 章提交申请，根据《破产法》中的定义，我是小型企业债务人，并且我不选择依据第 11 章 V 子章进行程序。\n‰\n是。我依据第 11 章提交申请，根据《破产法》中的定义，我是债务人，并且我选择依据第 11 章 V 子章进行程序。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n债务人 1\n名字\n中间名　姓氏　案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 4 部分：　报告您是否拥有或占有任何危险财产，或任何需要立即处置的财产\n\n14. 您是否拥有或占有任何对公共健康或安全构成或被指称构成迫在眉睫且可识别危险的财产？或者，您是否拥有任何需要立即处置的财产？\n\n例如，您是否拥有易腐货物、必须饲养的牲畜，或需要紧急维修的建筑物？　✔\n‰\n否\n‰\n是。　危险是什么？　________________________________________________________________________\n\n如需要立即处置，为何需要？ _______________________________________________\n________________________________________________________________________\n该财产位于何处？ ________________________________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM　INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nCase 22-50073\nCase 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj　Doc 432-3\nDoc 14-34\nDoc 1　Filed 02/15/22　Filed 05/24/22\nFiled 04/13/22　Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52\nEntered 05/24/22 23:04:58　Entered 04/13/22 01:55:22\n\n附件 34\n第 172 页，共\n\nCase 22-50073\n22-01073-dsj　Doc 432-3\nDoc 14-34　Filed 05/24/22\nFiled 04/13/22　Entered 05/24/22 23:04:58\nEntered 04/13/22 01:55:22　附件 34\n第 172 页，共\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190　RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022\n\n第 10 页，共 12 页\n\n债务人 1 _________________________________________________________________　案号（如已知）_________________________________________________　名字　中间名　姓氏　Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n第 5 部分：说明您获得信用咨询简介说明的努力\n\n15. 告知法院您是否已获得关于信用咨询的简介说明。\n\n法律要求您在申请破产前获得关于信用咨询的简介说明。您必须如实勾选以下选项之一。如不能如此，您不具备申请资格。\n\n如您仍然提交申请，法院可以驳回您的案件，您将失去已支付的任何申请费，并且您的债权人可以重新开始催收活动。\n\n您必须勾选一项：\n\n我在提交本破产申请书前 180 天内已从经批准的信用咨询机构获得简介说明，并已获得完成证明。　✔\n\n请附上该证明副本以及您与该机构制订的付款计划（如有）。\n\n我在提交本破产申请书前 180 天内已从经批准的信用咨询机构获得简介说明，但我没有完成证明。\n\n在提交本破产申请书后 14 天内，您必须提交该证明副本以及付款计划（如有）。\n\n我证明，我曾向经批准的机构请求信用咨询服务，但在提出请求后的 7 天内未能获得该服务，且紧急情况值得暂时豁免该项要求 30 天。\n\n如要请求暂时豁免该项要求 30 天，请附上一页单独说明，说明您为获得该简介说明作出了何种努力、为何未能在申请破产前获得该说明，以及何种紧急情况要求您提交本案。\n\n如法院对您未在申请破产前获得简介说明的理由不满意，您的案件可能被驳回。\n\n如法院认为你的理由成立，你仍必须在提交申请后 30 日内接受简报说明。你必须提交经批准机构出具的证明，以及你制定的还款计划副本（如有）。如未这样做，你的案件可能被驳回。\n\n对 30 日期限的任何延长，仅在有正当理由时才予准，且最多限于 15 日。\n\n我因以下原因无需接受有关信用咨询的简报说明：\n\n- 无行为能力。我患有精神疾病或精神缺陷，致使我无法认识到或就财务事项作出理性决定。\n- 残疾。即使我已作出合理努力，我的身体残疾仍使我无法亲自、通过电话或互联网参加简报说明。\n- 现役。我目前正在军事战区服现役。\n\n如你认为自己无需接受有关信用咨询的简报说明，必须向法院提交免除信用咨询要求的动议。\n\n关于债务人 1：关于债务人 2（仅限共同案件中的配偶）：\n\n你必须勾选一项：\n\n我在提交本破产申请前 180 日内已从经批准的信用咨询机构接受简报说明，并已取得完成证明。\n\n附上该证明副本以及你与该机构制定的还款计划（如有）。\n\n我在提交本破产申请前 180 日内已从经批准的信用咨询机构接受简报说明，但我没有完成证明。\n\n在提交本破产申请后 14 日内，你必须提交该证明副本及还款计划（如有）。\n\n我证明，我已向经批准的机构请求提供信用咨询服务，但在提出请求后的 7 日内无法获得该等服务，且紧急情形足以支持暂时免除该项要求 30 日。\n\n如要求暂时免除该项要求 30 日，请附上一页单独说明，解释你为获得简报说明所作的努力、你为何无法在申请破产前获得该简报说明，以及何种紧急情形要求你提交本案。\n\n如法院不满意你在申请破产前未接受简报说明的理由，你的案件可能被驳回。\n\n如法院认为你的理由成立，你仍必须在提交申请后 30 日内接受简报说明。你必须提交经批准机构出具的证明，以及你制定的还款计划副本（如有）。如未这样做，你的案件可能被驳回。\n\n对 30 日期限的任何延长，仅在有正当理由时才予准，且最多限于 15 日。\n\n我因以下原因无需接受有关信用咨询的简报说明：\n\n无行为能力。我患有精神疾病或精神缺陷，致使我无法认识到或就财务事项作出理性决定。\n\n残疾。即使我已作出合理努力，我的身体残疾仍使我无法亲自、通过电话或互联网参加简报说明。\n\n现役。我目前正在军事战区服现役。\n\n如你认为自己无需接受有关信用咨询的简报说明，必须向法院提交免除信用咨询要求的动议。\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nHo\nWan\n债务人 1\n名字　Kwok\n\n中间名\n姓氏　案件编号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 6 部分：为报告目的回答以下问题\n16. 你的债务属于何种类型？　16a. 你的债务是否主要为消费者债务？消费者债务在 11 U.S.C. § 101(8) 中被定义为“个人主要为个人、家庭或家居目的而产生的债务”。\n否。转至第 16b 行。\n是。转至第 17 行。\n\n16b. 你的债务是否主要为商业债务？商业债务是指你为获得用于商业或投资的资金，或通过经营商业或投资而产生的债务。\n否。转至第 16c 行。\n是。转至第 17 行。\n\n16c. 请说明你所负的并非消费者债务或商业债务的债务类型。\n诉讼费用、请求权及判决\n\n17. 你是否依据第 7 章提交申请？　否。我并非依据第 7 章提交申请。转至第 18 行。\n你是否估计，在扣除任何豁免财产并支付管理费用后，将有资金可供分配给无担保债权人？\n否\n是　是。我依据第 7 章提交申请。你是否估计，在扣除任何豁免财产并支付管理费用后，将有资金可供分配给无担保债权人？\n\n18. 你估计欠付多少债权人债务？\n1-49\n50-99\n100-199\n200-999\n1,000-5,000\n5,001-10,000\n10,001-25,000\n25,001-50,000\n50,001-100,000\n超过 100,000\n\n19. 你估计你的资产价值为多少？\n\\$0-\\$50,000\n\\$50,001-\\$100,000\n\\$100,001-\\$500,000\n\\$500,001-\\$1 million\n\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million\n\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million\n\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million\n\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million\n\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion\n\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion\n\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion\n超过 \\$50 billion\n\n20. 你估计你的负债为多少？\n\\$0-\\$50,000\n\\$50,001-\\$100,000\n\\$100,001-\\$500,000\n\\$500,001-\\$1 million\n\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million\n\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million\n\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million\n\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million\n\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion\n\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion\n\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion\n超过 \\$50 billion\n\n第 7 部分：\n在下方签字\n\n我已审阅本申请书，并在伪证处罚的约束下声明，所提供的信息真实且正确。\n\n如我选择依据第 7 章提交申请，我知悉，如符合资格，我可以依据《美国法典》第 11 编第 7、11、12 或 13 章进行程序。我了解各章项下可获得的救济，并选择依据第 7 章进行程序。\n\n如无律师代理我，且我未向非律师人员支付或同意支付费用以协助我填写本文件，我已取得并阅读 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) 要求的通知。\n\n我请求按照本申请书指定的《美国法典》第 11 编章节给予救济。\n\n我理解，在破产案件中作出虚假陈述、隐瞒财产或通过欺诈取得金钱或财产，可导致最高 \\$250,000 的罚金、最长 20 年的监禁，或两者并处。\n\n18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.\n\n/s/ Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）　8\n______________________________________________　_____________________________\n\n债务人 1　Ho\nWan\n名字\n中间名　Kwok\n\n姓氏　案件编号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n如你有律师代理，供你的律师填写\n\n如无律师代理，你无需提交本页。　本人，作为本申请书所列债务人的律师，声明我已告知债务人其依据《美国法典》第 11 编第 7、11、12 或 13 章进行程序的资格，并已说明该人士符合资格的每一章节项下可获得的救济。我进一步证明，已向债务人交付 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) 要求的通知；且在适用 § 707(b)(4)(D) 的案件中，证明经调查后，我并不知悉随申请书提交的清单中所载信息有不正确之处。\n\n/s/\nWilliam\nR.\nBaldiga\n\n02/15/2022\n日期\n债务人律师签名　MM\n/　DD　/ YYYY\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）　_________________________________________________________________________________________________\n正楷姓名\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）　_________________________________________________________________________________________________\n律所名称\n7 Times Square　_________________________________________________________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\nNew York　_________________________________________________________________________________________________\nNY\n______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________　10036\n城市　州　邮政编码\n(212) 209-4800\n联系电话 _____________________________________　电子邮箱地址　wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n4813846　NY\n______________________________________________________ ____________\n律师执业证号　州","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Finkel","GTV"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":11,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":62,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":64,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":141,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":306,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":325,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":409,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":756,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":874,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":899,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1079,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1081,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1086,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1089,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1104,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1105,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":42795,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-04-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-04-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:39:44"}