{"id":"court_ctb_432_5","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":432,"sub_number":5,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-24","title":"EXHIBIT D Referral Motion","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT D**\n\nReferral Motion\n\n## **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n## PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nvs.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,\n\n3:22-cv-00553-VAB\n\nDefendants.\n\nApril 21, 2022\n\n## **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION TO REFER CASE TO UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT**\n\nPursuant to sections 151 and 157(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, this Court's\n\nStanding Order, dated September 21, 1984 (the \"Standing Referral Order\"),1 and the *So Ordered*\n\n*Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue*, entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court\n\nfor the Southern District of New York (Jones, U.S.B.J.) on April 15, 2022 (the \"Conditional\n\nTransfer Order\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), respectfully moves2\n\nthat this Court refer the above-captioned proceeding to the United States Bankruptcy Court for\n\nDistrict of Connecticut for assignment to the Honorable United States Bankruptcy Judge Julie A.\n\n1 A copy of the Standing Order can be found at http\n\n2 The instant motion supersedes and is intended to replace the motion seeking the same relief filed on April 20, 2021 [ECF No. 5], which filing omitted the signature of counsel and did not indicate the Debtor's conditional consent. *See ¶¶* 4, 19, *infra*. The Debtor's consent was obtained *after* the initial filing on April 20, 2021.\n\nManning, who is currently presiding over the bankruptcy case captioned *In re Ho Wan Kwok*, Bankruptcy Case Number 22-50073 (JAM) (the \"Bankruptcy Case\").\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") commenced the Bankruptcy Case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Connecticut Bankruptcy Court\") after failing to satisfy a civil contempt order issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division (Justice Ostrager presiding) (the \"New York Court\"), captioned *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. vs. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.* and bearing Index Number 652077/2017 (the \"Removed Action\").3\n\n2. On March 18, 2022, the Debtor removed the Removed Action from the New York Court to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York, which referred the Removed Action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York (the \"New York Bankruptcy Court\") pursuant to the *Amended Standing Order of Reference*, dated January 31, 2012. On April 15, 2022, the New York Bankruptcy Court entered the Conditional Transfer Order transferring the Removed Action to this Court.4\n\n3. Pursuant to sections 151 and 157(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, the Standing Referral Order, the Conditional Transfer Order and for the reasons argued, *infra*, PAX seeks the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for assignment to Judge Manning, who is presiding over the Bankruptcy Case, to permit Judge Manning to adjudicate the Remand Motion (as hereinafter defined). The Remand Motion challenges the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court's subject matter jurisdiction under section 1334(b) of Title 28 or,\n\n3 *See* Ex. 1*,* Compl., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr 18, 2017), ECF 2.\n\n4 *See* Ex. 2, So Ordered Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue, *PAX v. Kwok*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-01073 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2022), ECF 16.\n\nin the alternative, requests that the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court abstain from hearing the Removed Action.\n\n4. The Debtor consents to the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court but does not join in the motion or adopt the statements made herein.\n\n## **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**\n\n5. On April 18, 2017, PAX commenced the Removed Action by suing the Debtor for breach of a personal guarantee contract in the New York Court.5 Following nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, PAX secured a judgment against the Debtor for \\$116,402,019.57 in the Removed Action.6 PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon [the Debtor's] assets in the United States.\"7 This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, the Debtor, \"who is a self-declared multibillionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"8 The Debtor has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which accrued post-judgment interest at the rate of 9 percent per year.9\n\n6. The Debtor has (at a minimum)10 beneficial ownership of the Lady May, a luxury yacht purchased in 2015 for €28 million. On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a\n\n8 *Id*.\n\n5 *Id.*\n\n6 *See* Ex. 3, Judgment at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 3, 2021), ECF 716.\n\n7 *See* Ex. 4, Decision and Order on Motion at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), ECF 1181.\n\n9 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004 (McKinney 2022).\n\n10 Notably, the Debtor claims to have no assets in certain Schedules of Assets and Liabilities he filed under penalty of perjury in the Bankruptcy Case. *But see United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs* at ¶ 12, Bankruptcy Case ECF No. 49 (during his Initial Debtor Interview with the United States Trustee, Kwok \"disclosed he has no bank accounts, no credit cards, is not employed such that he earns income, and that all of his living expenses are paid for and through an entity known as Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. ('Golden Spring'). [He] also disclosed that he does not directly own any real estate, does not own any cars, and does not insure any assets.\").\n\ntemporary restraining order in the Removed Action preventing the Debtor \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\"11 Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that this restraint on the Debtor included the Lady May.12 But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9.13 The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe, where it remains to this day.14\n\n7. In response, PAX filed a contempt motion15 and on March 16, 2021, the New York Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing the Debtor or the boat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction by May 15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained beyond its jurisdiction.16 The New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the New York Court's order, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [the Debtor had] violated a lawful clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"17; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly\n\n13 *See* Ex. 7, VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer\n\n11 *See* Ex. 5, Decision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 62077-2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 30, 2020), ECF 591.\n\n12 *See* Ex. 6, Decision and Order on Motion at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/217 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 15, 2020), ECF 630.\n\nhttp (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n14 As of February 28, 2022, the Lady May was located in Genoa, Italy. *See id.*\n\n15 *See* Ex. 8, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 24, 2020), ECF No. 689; *see also* Ex. 9, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 27, 2021), ECF 709.\n\n16 *See* Ex. 10, Decision and Order on Motion at 2, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2021), ECF 728 (\"Initial Contempt Order\"). In other words, the court provided Mr. Kwok a full two-month grace period to return the yacht and thereby avoid any fine at all.\n\n17 *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021).\n\nencourage [the Debtor] to purge himself of the contempt.\"18 Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.19\n\n8. The New York Court held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After hearing testimony from seven witnesses, Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [the Debtor]'s witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that [the Debtor] beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"20 The court further found that \"[n]ot only does [the Debtor] control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"21 As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the Final Order of Civil Contempt, dated February 8, 2022 (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\").22\n\n9. The Debtor failed to pay the contempt fine, and as of this date has not returned the Lady May to the United States.23 On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed the Bankruptcy Case in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.24\n\n10. On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion for Entry Of An Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay*\n\n18 *Id.* at 424.\n\n19 Ex. 3, *supra* note 7, at 4.\n\n20 *Id.* at 4.\n\n21 *Id.* at 8.\n\n22 *See* Ex. 11, Final Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), ECF 1182.\n\n23 *See* Ex. 12, Bankruptcy Case ECF 57.\n\n24 Ex. 13, Voluntary Petition at 7, Bankruptcy Case ECF 1.\n\n*Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code* (the \"Stay Motion\") in the Bankruptcy Case.25 In the Stay Motion, PAX sought a Bankruptcy Court order finding that the automatic stay provisions of Bankruptcy Code were inapplicable to the judicial remedies contained in the February 9 Contempt Order issued in the Removed Action. Alternatively, the Stay Motion sought relief from the automatic stay to permit PAX to seek enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order. The Debtor opposed the relief sought in the Stay Motion and the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court has presided over two hearings related to the Stay Motion in the Bankruptcy Case.\n\n11. On March 18, 2022, the Debtor removed the Removed Action from the New York Court to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, which referred the Removed Action to the New York Bankruptcy Court. On March 23, 2022, the Debtor filed its *Motion to Transfer Case*, wherein it sought to transfer the Removed Action to this Court for referral to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.\n\n12. On April 5, 2022, PAX filed a proposed *Stipulation Resolving Motion to Transfer Venue* (the \"Conditional Transfer Stipulation\") with the New York Bankruptcy Court. In the Conditional Transfer Stipulation, PAX consented to the transfer of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court; but expressly preserved and did not waive its right to have the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court consider the remand of the Removed Action or, in the alternative, abstain from hearing the Removed Action. The Debtor did not waive, and expressly preserved, any objections to the right to oppose PAX's request for remand or abstention in the Conditional Transfer Stipulation.\n\n25 *See* Ex. 12, Stay Motion, *supra* note 23.\n\n13. On April 14, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion to Remand Or, In The Alternative, For Abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1)* in the New York Bankruptcy Court (the \"Remand Motion\").\n\n14. On April 15, 2022, the New York Bankruptcy Court entered the Conditional Transfer Order.\n\n15. PAX now seeks the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court so that it may adjudicate the Remand Motion.\n\n## **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n16. By this Motion, PAX requests the entry of an order referring the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for assignment to the Honorable Judge Julie A. Manning, who is currently presiding over the Bankruptcy Case. Upon reference of the Removed Action to Judge Manning, PAX will request adjudication of the Remand Motion, which challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, requests that the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court abstain from hearing the Removed Action.\n\n## **BASIS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF**\n\n17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy \"cases\" and enumerated \"civil proceedings\" pursuant section 1334 of Title 28. Although the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court does not have independent subject matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy \"cases\" and those \"civil proceedings,\" section 151 of Title 28 grants the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court the power to exercise certain \"authority conferred\" upon this Court under Title 28. 28 U.S.C. § 151. Under section 157 of Title 28 and the Standing Referral Order, this Court may refer bankruptcy \"cases\" and certain enumerated \"proceedings\" to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for either entry of a\n\nfinal judgment (core proceedings) or proposed findings and conclusions (noncore, related-to proceedings). *Id.*; *see also* Standing Referral Order.\n\n18. Here, because the Bankruptcy Case is pending in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court before Judge Manning and the Removed Action involves the Debtor and PAX, the Debtor's largest unsecured creditor, PAX requests that the Removed Action be referred to the Bankruptcy Court in the first instance so that Judge Manning may adjudicate the Remand Motion.\n\n19. Counsel for PAX has conferred with counsel for the Debtor. The Debtor consents to the referral of the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court but does not join in the motion or adopt the statements made herein.\n\n20. Additionally, the Removed Action should be referred to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order, the entry of which was sought consensually by PAX and the Debtor. *See* Conditional Transfer Order, ¶¶ 1-2.\n\n## **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\n21. Notwithstanding anything in this Motion, PAX reserves all rights regarding the Removed Action, including but not limited to the right to prosecute the Remand Motion in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court upon the referral of the Removed Action.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nPAX respectfully requests this Court enter an order referring the Removed Action to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court for assignment to the Honorable Julie A. Manning, who is presiding over the Bankruptcy Case.\n\n[*Signature on Following Page*]\n\nDated: April 21, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n## **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By*: */s/ Patrick M. Birney* Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP** 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 21, 2022, a copy of the foregoing Motion was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System and served, with notice of this filing being sent by email to all Notice Parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system and by mail to the below described parties. Parties in interest may access this document through the court's CM/ECF system.\n\n## **Parties Served by Mail**:\n\nCounsel to Kwok Ho Wan William Baldiga BROWN RUDNICK LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 209-4800 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nCounsel to Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holding Corp. Aaron A. Mitchell LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC 162 E. 64th Street New York, NY 10065 Phone: (973) 285-3280\n\nEmail: aaron@lmesq.com\n\nCounsel to Genever Holdings LLC J. Ted Donovan GOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP 1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 221-5700\n\n*/s/ Patrick M. Birney*\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nPatrick M. Birney\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nIndex No.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2017 04:01 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2017\n\nv.\n\n**COMPLAINT**\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\n Defendant.\n\n## **NATURE OF THE ACTION**\n\n1. This is a straightforward breach of contract case. Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui, a/k/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui, a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun, a/k/a Miles Kwok, a/k/a Haoyun Guo (\"Kwok\"), a reported billionaire, and his controlled entities borrowed millions of dollars from Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX LP\") but have failed to pay any of the amount owed to PAX LP under binding written agreements.\n\n2. In 2008, PAX LP entered into a written agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit Charter\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. This loan facility was conditioned on Kwok's execution of a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's repayment obligations.\n\n3. In 2009, another of Kwok's entities, Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), assumed the debt that Spirit Charter owed to PAX LP, which the parties agreed at the time totaled \\$45,357,534.25. Kwok executed a personal guarantee of this debt.\n\n4. Then in 2011, PAX LP and Shiny Times entered into a written agreement (the \"2011 Facility Letter\") that expressly superseded prior agreements between the parties. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 and would repay that amount (plus 15% annual interest from December 31, 2010) by June 30, 2012.\n\n5. That same day, Kwok entered into a separate personal guarantee (that similarly expressly superseded Kwok's prior personal guarantee) under which Kwok guaranteed payment of all amounts owed to PAX LP by Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"Personal Guarantee\").\n\n6. To date, neither Shiny Times nor Kwok have paid any amount owed to PAX LP under either the 2011 Facility Letter or the Personal Guarantee.\n\n7. PAX LP has taken all necessary and appropriate steps in accordance with its contracts with Shiny Times and Kwok to recover the monies it is owed—now totaling approximately\n\n#### 2 of 11\n\n\\$88 million including contractual interest—but has recovered nothing because it has been ignored by Shiny Times and Kwok at each step.\n\n8. Given that Kwok regularly transacts business, is domiciled and resides, and owns real estate in New York, PAX LP brings this action in this Court to enforce its contractual rights against Kwok.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kwok pursuant to New York's general personal jurisdiction statute, C.P.L.R § 301, because he is engaged in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York and is domiciled in the state.\n\n10. Venue is proper in this Court under C.P.L.R § 503(a) because Kwok's residence is in New York County.\n\n## **PARTIES**\n\n11. Plaintiff PAX LP is an investment fund organized as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands.\n\n12. Defendant Kwok is a Chinese national who is domiciled in New York and engages in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York.\n\n13. Kwok resides on the 18th Floor of The Sherry-Netherland Hotel in New York City—a residence he purchased in 2015 for \\$67.5 million through Genever Holdings, LLC (\"Genever\"), a domestic limited liability company that he solely owns and that maintains its principal place of business in New York State at 80 State Street in Albany.\n\n14. Kwok also maintains offices at 767 Fifth Avenue for Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), a Delaware company that he owns, which is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in New York and has a registered agent for service of process in New York.\n\n15. Kwok also has employees or agents in New York, including those who work for Golden Spring and the attorneys he hired to represent him in two cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York over the last two years.1\n\n## **STATEMENT OF FACTS**\n\n## *The Shiny Times Loan and Kwok's Personal Guarantee to Repay PAX LP*\n\n16. PAX LP and Kwok have had business dealings since approximately February 4, 2008,\n\nwhen PAX LP entered into a written agreement (the \"2008 Facility Agreement\") with Spirit Charter, one of Kwok's business entities, under which PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million.\n\n17. This loan facility was conditioned on Kwok's execution of a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's repayment obligations.\n\n18. On March 12, 2008, PAX LP and Spirit Charter amended and restated the 2008 Facility Agreement (\"Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement\").\n\n19. By a deed dated September 17, 2009 (the \"September 2009 Deed\"), Shiny Times (another of Kwok's entities), Spirit Charter, PAX LP, and various other parties agreed that Shiny Times would replace Spirit Charter as the borrower under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement. The parties to the September 2009 Deed also agreed that the outstanding amount under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement, including accrued and unpaid interest, was then \\$45,357,534.25 as of September 12, 2009 (the \"Amended 2008 Loan Facility\").\n\n 1 In 2015, Kwok and Golden Spring were sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in that lawsuit, Kwok (through counsel) acknowledged that he was properly served with a summons and complaint at The Sherry-Netherland Hotel. *Ahn v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al.*, No. 1:15-cv-09697 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015). In 2016, Kwok and Genever filed a lawsuit (through counsel) against The Sherry-Netherland Hotel and others relating to a leak in his apartment at the hotel. *Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al.,* No. 1:16-cv-06246-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016).\n\n20. The September 2009 Deed required Kwok to execute a personal guarantee in favor of PAX LP to secure Shiny Times' due and punctual performance and repayment of the Amended 2008 Loan Facility. Kwok executed his personal guarantee on November 18, 2009.\n\n21. PAX LP, Kwok, and Shiny Times thereafter agreed to supersede the foregoing agreements with two contracts executed on March 16, 2011—the 2011 Facility Letter (attached as Exhibit A) and the Personal Guarantee (attached as Exhibit B).\n\n22. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 and would repay that amount (plus 15% annual interest from December 31, 2010) by June 30, 2012.\n\n23. The parties further agreed in the 2011 Facility Letter that any failure by Shiny Times to pay any amount owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter would constitute an Event of Default, and that in such event PAX LP could (i) declare the entire loan, accrued and unpaid interest, and any other money payable to be immediately due and payable without further demand or notice or other legal formality of any kind, and/or (ii) declare the 2011 Facility Letter terminated.\n\n24. Finally, like the prior agreements between the parties, the 2011 Facility Letter was expressly conditioned on Kwok's execution of the Personal Guarantee to fully backstop Shiny Times' payment obligations to PAX LP:\n\nThe Lender [PAX LP] and the Borrower [Shiny Times] agree to enter into this Agreement . . . on the condition that a new personal guarantee of Mr. Kwok (the \"Personal Guarantee\"), in favour of the Lender is delivered to secure the due and punctual performance of the Borrower to fully repay the [2011 Facility Letter] plus all accrued and unpaid interest in accordance with this Agreement.\n\n25. Kwok signed the 2011 Facility Letter as a Director of Shiny Times and also, on the same day, signed the Personal Guarantee, under which Kwok agreed to \"irrevocably and unconditionally\" guarantee Shiny Times' payment of all amounts owed under the 2011 Facility Letter. In particular, Kwok:\n\n(a) guaranteed to PAX LP the \"due and punctual payment\" of Shiny Times' obligations under the 2011 Facility Letter;\n\n121\n\n- (b) agreed \"that promptly on [PAX LP's] demand [Kwok] will pay to [PAX LP] all [such amounts] that are due but unpaid\";\n- (c) agreed to \"indemnify and hold harmless [PAX LP] on demand from and against all losses incurred by [PAX LP] as a result of any obligation of Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter being or becoming void, voidable, unenforceable or ineffective as against Shiny Times for any reason whatsoever\";\n- (d) agreed that PAX LP's demand for payment would constitute *prima facie* evidence that such payment was due and owing;\n- (e) agreed that PAX LP could seek repayment from either Shiny Times or Kwok; and\n- (f) agreed to indemnify PAX LP from \"any and all costs, claims losses, [and] expenses (including legal fees)\" incurred as a result of exercising or enforcing the Personal Guarantee.\n- 26. Furthermore, Kwok agreed to waive several defenses, including those based on the\n\nwinding up or dissolution of Shiny Times, or PAX LP's inability to recover against Shiny Times \"for any reason.\" Kwok also agreed to a catchall waiver of any conceivable defenses based on \"any other act, event or omission which might operate to discharge, impair or otherwise affect the Guarantor or any of the Obligations or any of the rights, powers, and remedies conferred upon [PAX LP] by this Guarantee or by law.\"\n\n27. In other words, Kwok signed an unambiguous and ironclad guarantee that he would\n\nsatisfy Shiny Times' debt to PAX LP under any circumstances.\n\n## *The Extensions and Shiny Times' Ultimate Failure to Repay PAX LP*\n\n28. Shiny Times did not repay any portion of the loan principal or accrued interest before the June 30, 2012 repayment date set forth in the 2011 Facility Letter, and the parties subsequently entered into a series of extensions, each labeled a \"Deed of Settlement.\"\n\n\n\n29. PAX LP, Shiny Times, and Kwok entered into the first Deed of Settlement (the\n\n\"Original Deed of Settlement\") along with Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another company within the Kwok empire, on April 19, 2013.\n\n30. The Original Deed of Settlement provided that the total outstanding amount due under\n\nthe 2011 Facility Letter plus all accrued and unpaid interest was \\$52 million as of the date of the\n\nOriginal Deed of Settlement, and that amount would be no longer due and owing upon the satisfaction\n\nof the following conditions:\n\n- (a) If PAX LP completed the purchase of three apartments from Beijing Pangu in a series of three separate transactions for approximately \\$5 million each, for a total of approximately \\$15 million; and\n- (b) If Shiny Times completed three installment payments to PAX LP of approximately \\$5 million each—one installment payment to be made after each separate apartment purchase—for a total of approximately \\$15 million.\n\n31. Before PAX LP could purchase any of the three apartments from Beijing Pangu, however, Beijing Pangu was required under the Original Deed of Settlement to satisfy certain conditions precedent relating to title, taxes, and other common aspects of real estate transactions. If any of these conditions were not met for any of the three apartments by July 31, 2013, the Original Deed of Settlement expressly provided that it would be terminated in its entirety, and the 2011 Facility Letter would revert into full effect.\n\n32. Beijing Pangu failed to satisfy these conditions precedent by July 31, 2013, PAX LP therefore did not complete its purchase of any of the apartments, and Shiny Times did not make any of the three installment payments it owed to PAX LP under the Original Deed of Settlement.\n\n33. Four supplemental deeds of settlement—on December 3, 2013, May 15, 2014, July 11, 2014, and February 10, 2015—extended the dates in the Original Deed of Settlement, including the repayment date and the date for Beijing Pangu to satisfy the conditions precedent.\n\n34. Each of the supplemental deeds had the same terms as the Original Deed of Settlement. And the result was the same each time: Beijing Pangu never met the conditions it was required to satisfy, PAX LP therefore was not required to, and did not, complete its purchase of any of the apartments, and Shiny Times never made any of the three installment payments it owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n35. Finally, on March 31, 2015, Shiny Times and PAX LP, together with Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited and Empire Growth Holdings Limited, entered into an Option Agreement (the \"Option Agreement\") that provided, among other things, for the repayment via share sale transaction of amounts owed by Shiny Times to PAX LP.\n\n36. Pursuant to its terms, the Option Agreement was to terminate if certain conditions relating to the transfer of property (as stated in the Option Agreement) were not satisfied. None of these conditions were satisfied, and the Option Agreement was terminated without negating Shiny Times' obligation to pay PAX LP.\n\n37. Thus, the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, Kwok's obligations under the Personal Guarantee are fully enforceable, and Kwok is independently liable under the Personal Guarantee for the full amount of Shiny Times' debt owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n## *PAX LP Seeks to Enforce Its Contractual Rights and Collect Amounts Owed*\n\n38. On October 16, 2015, after the Deeds of Settlement and Option Agreement were terminated and the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, PAX LP sent a written notice of demand (the \"Notice of Demand\") to Kwok's address in Hong Kong, as specified under the terms of the Personal Guarantee.\n\n39. The Notice of Demand informed Kwok that \"Shiny Times ha[d] failed to repay any part of the sum due\" under the 2011 Facility Letter and demanded immediate payment of \\$71,818,633.44. The Notice of Demand also informed Kwok that legal proceedings might be commenced against him if he did not make immediate payment, and reserved PAX LP's contractual rights under both the 2011 Facility Letter and the Personal Guarantee.\n\n40. Kwok never responded to the Notice of Demand.\n\n41. On February 19, 2016, PAX LP sent a letter to Shiny Times demanding payment of \\$82,219,404.08 due and owing under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"Shiny Times Demand Letter\"), which represented the principal plus contractual interest of 15% per annum calculated up to the date of the Shiny Times Demand Letter.\n\n42. Shiny Times never responded to the Shiny Times Demand Letter.\n\n43. When Shiny Times did not respond, PAX LP submitted an application to court in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") on February 29, 2016 seeking the appointment of joint liquidators to put Shiny Times, which is a BVI corporation, into liquidation. The application alleged that (i) Shiny Times had failed to pay the sum then-owing of \\$82,410,197.87, (ii) Shiny Times was unable to pay its debts, and (iii) Shiny Times was insolvent and should be liquidated.\n\n44. Although Shiny Times was in fact placed into liquidation as a result of the BVI proceeding, PAX LP was unable to collect any of the monies owed to it under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n45. To date, Kwok has not repaid any of the money due and owing to PAX LP under the Personal Guarantee. The sum due and owing—which includes the outstanding principal plus accrued and unpaid interest—is currently approximately \\$88 million.\n\n46. As a result of Kwok's failure to repay any of the money due and owing to PAX LP, Plaintiff has incurred \"costs, claims losses, [and] expenses (including legal fees)\" in connection with\n\nenforcing the Personal Guarantee. Kwok is obligated to indemnify those amounts under the express terms of the Personal Guarantee (*see* Paragraph 25(f)).\n\n## **COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT Against Defendant Kwok**\n\n47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 46 as though fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Personal Guarantee obligates Kwok to repay PAX LP for the loan facility (as amended) that PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter, along with unpaid interest. The current amount due and owing is approximately \\$88 million.\n\n49. Plaintiff performed its own obligations under the Personal Guarantee (and other related agreements).\n\n50. Kwok has not repaid any of the money due and owing to PAX LP under the Personal Guarantee.\n\n51. As a direct result of Kwok's breach of his payment obligations under the Personal\n\nGuarantee, Plaintiff continues to suffer the loss of approximately \\$88 million dollars, an amount that continues to incur interest.\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant as follows:\n\n(a) in the amount of \\$46,426,489 under the Personal Guarantee;\n\n(b) in the amount of \\$41,096,982.46 in interest;\n\n(c) the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses PAX LP has incurred, and will continue to incur, in connection with its enforcement of the Personal Guarantee against Kwok under the Personal Guarantee's indemnification clause; and\n\n(d) such other and further relief to which PAX LP shows itself justly entitled.\n\n'\\$7(' 1HZ, | |\n|----------------------------------------------|---|-----|---------------|-----------|\n| FILED | | | 1/lt;tlk
H | ~~--
- |\n| Feb 03 2021
NEW YORK | | 3rd | Clerk
Feb. | 2021 |\n| COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE | 2 | | | |\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nV.\n\nKWOK HOW AN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAO YUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**AFFIRMATION OF EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.**\n\n\n\nDefendants.\n\nI, Edward Moss, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the\n\nState of New York, hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the Civil Practice Law\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021\n\nand Rules of the State ofNew York§ 2106, as follows:\n\n1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and a partner in the law firm of O'Melveny\n\n& Myers LLP, counsel ofrecord for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") in this matter.\n\n2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances in this action. For purposes\n\nof entry of this judgment, I submit this affirmation waiving costs and disbursements.\n\nDated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York By: /s/ *Edward Moss* Edward Moss\n\n121\n\nSlXPRE.\\lE COURT Of THE STATE OF NE\\V YC)RK COUNTY or··Nt\\v·.·vonK fod~KNn,. 652077/2(H7\n\nPACTFlC. ALJ.lANC E ASl.A OFPO.RTl)NfTY FU ND LJt,\n\nKWOK HO W.AN,. *dlkht* KWOK HO, ,#kh GWO \\\\.'EN oc 1,· {l-''ls,/t1. ··Gt.Jo··tvENG·Ul, .tuk·\\I.·GUn•·\"'{ EN:..ou1, a/l:.ld W.AN GUE HAO-YUN, a//4/a NULE:S K\\VOK, idkki HAOYUN GLD, (iENE\\/ER HOL1)1NGS (.IJRm)RA.TiON, and GEN EV'hR HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n\n\n## **JUDGMENT**\n\n**UtBOtlOfUOl~•Ull(Ji\\lKNT**\n\n## o~ , u ,J,\\'l '.NY & 1\\-lHiRi'i LLP\n\nT! :i,{fS.SQfi.ll.RE·'.rffWER -'! T!\\WS \\$QCARf NF\\\\' \\'ORK, NF\\V vrnn,;; !{itH6 (:Z } .Z) **·l lt~~-Jt~OO**\n\n.:.\\ttrnm«y~ for Pb.infrfff';,i(:Hk i\\l lfam~('. .. :\\jfa OppmtrnRy Fimd,LY.\n\n# **EXHIBIT 4**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | |\n| L.P., | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 019 |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | |\n| | | | |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n1 \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n2 \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**\n\n# **EXHIBIT 5**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN
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## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nOn September 30, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Skype, with counsel for all parties. On consent, the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Mr. Kwok from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nThe Court will hear further argument, and if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing, on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file their opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm. Plaintiff must file their reply, if any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm. If either party intends to call witnesses, they must exchange witness lists with one another and e-file a witness list with the Court no later than October 13, 2020.\n\nAdditionally, the Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion 008 for damages and attorney's fees on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file\n\ntheir opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm and Plaintiff must file their reply,\n\nif any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm.\n\nAny violation of the temporary restraining order issued today shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\n\nDated: September 30, 2020\n\n\n\n# **EXHIBIT 6**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | |\n| | -
v - | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 |\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## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn October 15, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Microsoft Teams, with counsel for all parties participating, on plaintiff's motion for a post-judgment restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 (motion 011). On September 15, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on liability, with damages and the issue of whether the corporate defendants are defendant Kwok's alter egos to be determined at a later date. NYSCEF Doc. 549.\n\nPlaintiff's motion for a restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 is granted. Mr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020.\n\nSpecifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\n\n\nPlaintiff is entitled, under CPLR 5229, to take discovery into the above-identified assets as well as to seek discovery into any other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\n\nThe next appearance will be a pre-trial conference on November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm via Microsoft Teams.\n\nOctober 15, 2020 **\\$SIG\\$ DATE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**\n\n# **EXHIBIT 7**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n# **EXHIBIT 8**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a*\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\nDefendants.\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and\n\nMILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n## **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020\n\n## **Page**\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | |\n|--------------------------|--|\n| BACKGROUND 2 | |\n| ARGUMENT 4 | |\n| CONCLUSION 6 | |\n\n| Cases | |\n|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc. |\n| | No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016)………………4 |\n| McCormick v. Axelrod, | |\n| | 59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)……………………………………………4 |\n| | |\n| Statutes | |\n| | |\n\n## CPLR § 5104 ..............………………...........................………………....................................….1\n\n\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, under CPLR § 5104 and Judiciary Law § 753, for an order (i) finding Defendant Miles Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Court's October 15, 2020 Restraining Order (the \"Order\"); (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThis Court previously has recognized that Kwok has \"flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted\" its orders, and has made \"intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court.\"1 In the words of Yogi Berra, it is déjà vu all over again: there is no doubt that Kwok knowingly has violated this Court's Order restraining him from moving his yacht2 outside the Court's jurisdiction and—perhaps worse—he has once again put his counsel in the line of fire by instructing him to *request the Court's permission to move the yacht even though Kwok knew it already had been moved outside of U.S. territorial waters at the time that request was made*. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt, require him immediately to return the yacht to the jurisdiction, and grant whatever additional relief it deems necessary and appropriate to finally stop Kwok from making a mockery of this proceeding.\n\n1 Dkt. 647 at 26:6–8.\n\n2 Any suggestion by Kwok in opposition that the yacht technically is not \"his\" would be disingenuous nonsense. If Kwok advances that false argument (which is directly contradicted by, among other evidence and admissions, Kwok's counsel's request at a recent conference *for Kwok* to be able to move the yacht outside this Court's jurisdiction), PAX will respond on reply. PAX notes, however, that any such argument would be irrelevant to this motion because the Order expressly covers the yacht even if it is held by another registered owner (whether it be a Kwok shell company or family member).\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\nOn September 30, 2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\")\n\npreventing Kwok from, among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an\n\ninterest.\"3 In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\"4 About two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order,\n\nwhich granted PAX's motion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. *Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of* (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) *the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.*5\n\nOn November 12, 2020, the Court held a conference, during which Kwok's counsel\n\n(presumably at his client's instruction) made a specific point to ask this Court if Kwok could\n\nmove the yacht offshore:6\n\n Apparently the boat is registered offshore I believe in the British Virgin Islands, and there is a requirement that it return to its home port at sixmonth intervals. It is not an issue that is going to affect in any way ownership or title, but *it needs to travel offshore at some point for a brief period and then come back into the United States*. And we just wanted to disclose that so that there is no thought that this is being secreted or transferred. This is just an ordinary thing it has to do for licensing purposes.7\n\n7 *Id.* at 13:9–18.\n\n3 Dkt. 591 at 1.\n\n4 *Id.* at 2.\n\n5 Dkt. 630.\n\n6 Moss Aff. Ex. 1 (Nov. 12, 2020 Conf. Tr.) at 12:23–25.\n\nThe Court unequivocally responded that Kwok was *not* permitted to remove the yacht from this jurisdiction and would be required to make a motion before doing so:\n\n> You will have to make that application on papers. I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands. I seriously doubt [PAX] wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court . . . You will make a motion with supporting documentation on notice to [PAX], and I will rule on it. What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for [PAX] to levy upon . . . that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for [PAX] to reply.8\n\nAlthough Kwok's counsel responded that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" and would \"provide that information in writing,\"9 Kwok made no such motion.\n\n Given their experience with Kwok and his misbehavior, PAX and its counsel were concerned by Kwok's counsel's question and did some research. A few days later—based on publicly available information accessed at MarineTraffic.com—PAX learned that the yacht had in fact departed Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on *November 1, 2020*, and as of November 18, 2020, was located in the Bahamas at or near Old Fort Bay, Nassau.10 In other words, Kwok had actually moved the yacht out of United States waters approximately *two weeks after the Order* and *two weeks before his counsel sought permission for Kwok to do precisely that at the*\n\n## *November 12 conference.*\n\nIn light of this information, PAX's counsel wrote to Kwok's counsel on November 18,\n\n2020, providing the information it had accessed as to the yacht's whereabouts, expressing its\n\n8 *Id.* at 13:19–15:4.\n\n9 *Id.* at 14:2–3, 15:5–6.\n\n10 Moss Aff. Ex. 2 (Nov. 18, 2020 Ltr.) at Ex. A.\n\nconcern \"given Mr. Kwok's history of making misrepresentations throughout this litigation,\" and asking Kwok's counsel to \"confirm the location of the Lady May\" and \"that the vessel will be back in New York within 48 hours.\"11\n\nKwok's counsel never responded. Rather, later that night, Kwok's counsel filed a letter\n\nwith the Court claiming to know nothing and committing to investigate and report back:\n\n[W]e have just become aware this evening that the yacht, the Lady May, referenced in this Court's restraining order (NYSCEF Doc. 630) and discussed during the Pre-Trial conference held before this Court on November 11, 2020, is currently in international waters. Although Plaintiff's counsel has just sent us a letter regarding the purported whereabouts of the yacht, we have not confirmed any details . . . We are attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.12\n\nBut as of today's filing—*five weeks later*—Kwok's counsel has provided no further information\n\nto either the Court or to PAX's counsel. Also as of today, according to MarineTraffic.com, the\n\nyacht is still moored in or around Nassau, Bahamas.13\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\nUnder Judiciary Law section 753:\n\nIn order to find that contempt has occurred in a given case, [(1)] it must be determined that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [(2)] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed. [(3)] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party. [(4)] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 Dkt. No. Dkt. 649.\n\n13 *See* Moss Aff. ¶ 5.\n\n*McCormick v. Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983); *see also Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.* No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016) (Ostrager, J.) (citing *McCormick* and applying the four-pronged test). PAX easily satisfies each of the four elements for contempt here.\n\n*First*, the Order is a lawful order of the Court: an unequivocal mandate that Kwok is \"restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with [the yacht].\"14\n\n*Second*, Kwok disobeyed the Order by causing the yacht to leave the jurisdiction about two weeks after the Court issued the Order (and continues to disobey it).\n\n*Third*, Kwok is a sophisticated party, who is involved with this litigation and obviously had knowledge of the Order. Moreover, his counsel specifically sought clarification of the Order at the November 12 conference,15 during which he stated that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" that Kwok was required to make a motion before removing the yacht from the jurisdiction.16\n\n*Fourth*, PAX has been prejudiced by Kwok's intentional flouting of the Order. Kwok has been trying for years to frustrate the eventual judgment of this Court, and he has been trying for far longer than that to avoid repaying his debt to PAX. Kwok shields his assets through family members and shell companies, and it will be difficult enough for PAX to collect on assets within the United States. If Kwok were permitted to expand his shell game by hiding his yacht\n\n14 *See supra* n.5.\n\n15 *See supra* n.6.\n\n16 *See supra* n.9.\n\nsomewhere on the open seas outside this Court's jurisdiction, PAX's chances of enforcing against that asset would decrease significantly.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully requests that the Court enter an order, under CPLR 5104 and Judiciary Law section 753, (i) finding Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Order; (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht, the Lady May, to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nPlaintiff hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n# **EXHIBIT 9**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nMot Seq. No. 12\n\nPart 61\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021\n\n## **Page**\n\n| | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | ARGUMENT 1 | |\n| I. | The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved
Outside this Court's Jurisdiction. 1 | |\n| II. | The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt. 4 | |\n| | CONCLUSION 11 | |\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 121\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n## **Pages**\n\n## **Cases**\n\n| 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC,
2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007) 10 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.,
303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003) 2 |\n| Bogoni v. Friedlander,
197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994) 6 |\n| Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.,
208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)
10 |\n| L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg,
2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) 10 |\n| Wengui v. Zeng,
Index No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 5 |\n| Other Authorities |\n| MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, Interfere 2 |\n| Rules |\n| N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3 4 |\n\n\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**1\n\nGiven this case's history, it is not clear whether Kwok's Opposition is the single most disingenuous submission he has made to this Court. But it certainly is up there. With a straight face, Kwok argues that (i) moving and keeping the Lady May outside this Court's jurisdiction did not violate the October 15 Order—even though the Court expressly and repeatedly has said that it did; and (ii) even if moving the yacht were a violation, Kwok should not be sanctioned because he does not own the Lady May—even though he repeatedly has stated, both in a court filing and on social media, that he does. Enough is enough. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt and impose a sanction sufficient to motivate him to comply with the Order and bring his yacht back to this jurisdiction—and keep it here.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved Outside this Court's Jurisdiction.**\n\nKwok does not dispute that (i) the October 15 Order restrained, \"in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020,\" both \"Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . 'the Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or *interference* with th[at] asset[]\"; 2 or (ii) the Lady May has been moved out of U.S. waters. Instead, he argues that the move out of the Court's jurisdiction did not technically violate the October 15 Order because\n\n1 This brief refers to (i) Defendant Kwok Ho Wan's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Contempt (Dkt. No. 698) as the \"Opposition\" or \"Opp;\" (ii) the Affirmation of Edward Moss in Further Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Moss Reply Aff.\"; and (iii) the Affirmation of Nathaniel Francis in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Francis Aff.\" Unless otherwise specified, (i) defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok (Dkt. No. 689), (ii) all emphasis is added, and (iii) all internal citations and quotations are omitted.\n\n2 Opp. at 3 (citing (Dkt. No. 630)).\n\n(i) the Lady May's \"ownership\" has not changed; (ii) \"Plaintiff neither asked for nor received any direction from the Court prohibiting the Lady May's relocation\" at the October 15 hearing; and (iii) the Court explained at the October 15 hearing that ordinary course expenditures—for example, \"if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic\" were permitted.3\n\nThese arguments are frivolous. To begin, Kwok has no answer for why moving the yacht does not count as \"interference\" with the October 15 Order (it does), 4 nor how spending money in the ordinary course on a vacation somehow equates to moving a restrained, multi-million dollar asset outside of the jurisdiction (it does not). Indeed, the Court already has rejected Kwok's \"ordinary-course\" argument. In response to Kwok's counsel's question seeking clarification as to whether the restraining order applied to the payment of legal fees, the Court explained the contours of what it meant by \"ordinary course.\"5 *Immediately after that clarification***,** Kwok's counsel asked whether the Lady May could be moved to the British Virgin Islands because that was \"just an *ordinary thing* that is has to do for licensing purposes.\"6 The Court responded in no uncertain terms that Kwok *was not permitted to move the yacht before making (and winning) a motion seeking leave to do so*. 7\n\n3 Opp. at 6–9.\n\n4 \"[I]t is common practice for the courts of this State to refer to the dictionary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words to a contract.\" *2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.*, 303 A.D.2d 299, 301 (1st Dep't 2003). The ordinary meaning of \"to interfere\" is \"to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes.\" MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, *Interfere* (*available at* http).\n\n5 *See* Dkt. 691 at 12:23–13:5 (permitting legal fees that are \"customary and reasonable\").\n\n6 *Id.* at 13:9–18.\n\n7 *Id.* at 13:19–24.\n\n\n\nWorse, Kwok completely ignores this Court's *repeated, clear, and unequivocal statements* that moving the Lady May *would (and did) violate the Order*. First, at the October 15 hearing (which was expressly incorporated into the October 15 Order that issued later that day), the Court specifically discussed the Lady May and directed Kwok that the yacht and other assets not be moved so that they would be available for collection if PAX were to prevail (*i.e.*, so as not to *interfere* with PAX's potential judgment-enforcement efforts):\n\n> *Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside* and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, *those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.*8\n\nThen, at the November 20 hearing, Kwok's counsel asked \"two questions . . . *clarifying*\n\n*the scope of the restraining order* that the Court has entered\"—one of which was whether the\n\nLady May could be moved outside the jurisdiction (even though, we now know, it already had\n\nbeen moved by that time).9 As noted above, the Court unequivocally answered \"no\"—not\n\nwithout first making and winning a motion and a further Court order:\n\nYou will have to make that application on papers. *I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands*. I seriously doubt Mr. Moss wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court. . . . *What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for Mr. Moss's client to levy upon*. . . . Mr. Siegal asked me a question about *whether the restraining order can be modified to allow this yacht to move from a US port to the British Virgin Islands*, and I said that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for Mr. Moss to reply.10\n\n 8 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:8–14.\n\n9 Dkt*.* No. 691 at 12:23–25.\n\n10 Dkt*.* No. 691 at 13:19–15:4.\n\nFinally, at the most recent hearing on December 18, the Court again reiterated what should have been quite obvious to Kwok by that point:\n\n> Okay. So, let me ask you, we have an issue *with respect to a boat that I enjoined Mr. Kwok from moving* which he may or may not have *moved in violation of the Court's order*. . . . It seems to me *I ordered the boat not be moved*. 11\n\nGiven the plain meaning of \"interference\" (*see supra* note 4) and the Court's repeated,\n\nunequivocal directives, there is no question that the October 15 Order has been violated. Kwok's\n\nsuggestion otherwise is misleading. 12 And if Kwok argues that he should get a pass because the\n\nyacht already had been moved by the time of the October 15 hearing (*i.e.*, before his counsel\n\nasked and was denied permission to move it), then the answer is quite simple: it should have\n\nbeen brought back *immediately* after the Court issued the October 15 Order.13\n\n## **II. The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt.**\n\nWhile Kwok advances several other meritless arguments for why he personally should\n\n 11 Dkt. No. 695 at 25:15–18, 27:21–22.\n\n12 *See* N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (providing that a lawyer's duty of candor toward the tribunal prohibits him or her from knowingly \"mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal\"); *see also* Dkt. No. 647 at 21:11–16 (\"The Court believes . . . that Mr. Kwok has attempted to mislead the Court. The Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court orders, the spirit of court orders.\"), 26:5–9 (\"While orders of the Court are either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going to have closure in this case in January of 2021.\").\n\n13 We take Kwok's counsel at his word that he did not know the Lady May already had been moved out of the jurisdiction when he asked the Court if the Lady May could be moved out of the jurisdiction. But later—after being informed by PAX that the yacht was actually out of the jurisdiction—Kwok's counsel wrote to the Court and explained that because his firm had just been informed by PAX about the yacht's location, \"we have not confirmed any details,\" but were \"attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.\" Dkt. No. 649. Contrary to that representation, however, Kwok did not, before responding to this Motion, provide any additional information to the Court about the yacht's location. *See* N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(b) (\"A lawyer who represents a client before a tribunal and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.\").\n\nnot be held in contempt, they all reduce to his core assertion that he does not own—and therefore cannot control the movements of—the Lady May. Who does Kwok think he's kidding?\n\nAs PAX already has demonstrated, Kwok alleged fewer than five months ago—in a September 1, 2020 complaint *he filed i*n New York Supreme Court—that \"pawns of the Chinese Communist Party . . . have attempted to cause Guo [a/k/a Kwok] injury while on *his yacht*.\" *See Wengui v. Zeng*, Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint at ¶ 8). That sentence in Kwok's own complaint ends with a footnote that cites and links to (and thereby incorporates by reference) an article by *freebeacon.com* entitled \"Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht *Owned by* Chinese Billionaire,\" which states that \"Guo Wengui, who uses the English name *Miles Kwok, said* several incidents involving *his 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May*, appear to be part of a Chinese government effort to threaten and intimidate him.\"14 It is not surprising, then, that in the context of restraining the Lady May, the Court described it as the \"27 million-dollar yacht *which Mr. Kwok once claimed to have owned*.\"15\n\nNotably, counsel for the Genever Defendants in this action, Aaron Mitchell, serves as counsel for Kwok personally in *Wengui v. Zeng*. Mr. Mitchell signed the complaint that repeatedly referred to the Lady May as \"his [*i.e.*, Kwok's] yacht\" and incorporated by reference the *freebeacon.com* article reporting that the yacht was \"owned\" by Kwok. Even though Mr. Mitchell supposedly does not represent Kwok in this case, he argued on Kwok's behalf at the December 18 hearing, contending that his September 2020 complaint \"wasn't referring to ownership,\" but rather merely to \"the fact that Mr. Kwok was on that boat,\" and chided PAX's\n\n14 *See id.* at 3 n.1 (citing http). The complaint also refers to the Lady May as \"his\" (*i.e.*, Kwok's) yacht in Paragraph 7 and in Prayer for Relief (d).\n\n15 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:5–6.\n\ncounsel for its \"absurd reliance\" on that pleading.16 Given Kwok's track record, perhaps Mr. Mitchell was onto something when he suggested it was \"absurd\" for PAX to actually rely on Kwok's own words.\n\nKwok's Opposition is even more disingenuous; it mischaracterizes PAX as arguing that Kwok owns the yacht in part because he was supposedly a \"guest\" on it (something PAX has never argued), and claims that PAX has no evidence of ownership.17 Even if Kwok's *own pleading*—a judicial admission18—were insufficient to establish ownership (and it is more than sufficient), PAX has much, much more:\n\nOn May 10, 2017, Kwok \"tweeted\" (on his since-suspended Twitter account) the following photo of himself sitting on the Lady May, accompanied by Chinese characters that, translated, state \"I am posting a few photos of the yacht *I gave to my daughter* and named after her. . . . Her name is Lady May. . . . *I bought it for 41 million euro*\":19\n\n16 Dkt. No. 695 at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 Opp. at 8–9.\n\n18 *See Bogoni v. Friedlander*, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 (1st Dep't 1994) (An admission in an initial pleading is a \"formal judicial admission\" which is \"evidence of the facts admitted.\").\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n\n\n121\n\nThen, on August 27, 2017, Kwok (again, on his since-suspended account), referred to the\n\n\"Lady May\" as \"*my ship*\" and recalled that \"two years ago when I was in Miami . . . *I [] signed*\n\n*the most important investment contract of my life*,\" and it \"all seems so meaningful.\"21\n\nBut we have saved the best for last. As an October 14, 2017 YouTube video shows,22\n\nKwok was filmed *stating unequivocally that the boat was his*: 23\n\n> *I decided to sell it* because it has an aluminum body. With an aluminum body, it drifts a bit at sea. It's okay in shallow waters. I wanted to use the heavier one, the bigger one, which is also a Feadship, since it is made of steel. I wanted to go further out to sea. . . . *I advertised it twice*, but my offers were relatively high, about US\\$50 million, 31 million euros, which\n\n 20 *Id*.\n\n21 *Id.*\n\n22 *See* Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3 (directing the Court to minute 2:50 through minute 4:15 in a YouTube video available at http).\n\n23 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 4.\n\nwas around US\\$50 million. When *I listed* it at that higher price, *I had one offer* just below *my* asking price, but *I did not sell it.*\n\n\n\n\n\nThis is all straight from Kwok's mouth: *He* bought the Lady May, *he* had it shipped, *he* decided to list it for sale, and *he* put it in his daughter's name to shield it from creditors. Kwok's contention that he is merely some \"guest\" aboard the yacht is (yet another) flat-out lie.\n\n24 *Id.* The screenshots were taken directly from YouTube and already included the captions, which a certified translation confirms are substantially accurate. *See* Moss Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n Of course, Kwok's contention that he does not own or control the Lady May and that it is really owned by an entity, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, which is wholly owned and controlled by his daughter Mei (pronounced \"May\") Guo, is right on-brand. Kwok is a self-proclaimed billionaire who, when it suits him, pretends to have no assets25 precisely because his practice is to use shell companies and his children and employees to shield his assets. For example, Kwok is now claiming in the Genever bankruptcy case that the Genever Defendants are beneficially owned by another shell company that is owned by his son—despite never disclosing that to the Sherry-Netherland and never making that argument before this Court to try to avoid an attachment.26 And not only has Kwok repeatedly stated that the Lady May is \"his\" (including in the above-described September 2020 complaint that he filed *after* he supposedly gave the yacht to his daughter), but HK International is a mere shell company (i) that did not have the yacht registered in its name until April 2020 (when PAX was in the red zone in this litigation);27 and (ii) with a \"principal office\" address of 162 E. 64th Street—the same address as (surprise!) the offices of Mr. Mitchell—who regularly represents Kwok or his shell entities, depending on the case.28\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n During the October 15 hearing, even before the Court knew that Kwok had moved the yacht, it explained that in this \"2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a\n\n25 Dkt. No. 580 at 100:2–3 (testifying that his net worth is \"negative\"); 101:3–5 (testifying that \"[i]n reality, under the law\" he has \"no\" assets).\n\n26 *See* Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 5 at ¶ 4 (claiming that Bravo Luck is (i) \"the beneficial owner\" of the Sherry-Netherland apartment and (ii) \"a company owned by Mr. Qiang Guo, the son of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok\").\n\n27 *See* Opp. at 4, n.2.\n\n28 *See* Dkt. No. 705 at 1*.*\n\ngreat deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders . . . [t]he Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets . . . .\"29 The Court further stated that \"we are not going to have any more shell games.\"30 Unfortunately, Kwok's shell games have continued, his dissembling and gamesmanship have only intensified, and he has once again flagrantly violated an order of this Court.\n\n This Court has the discretion to impose a sanction on Kwok sufficient to motivate him to comply with the October 15 Order. Indeed, \"the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce obedience to a court order.\"31 In a separate case against him in Nevada, for example, Kwok was sanctioned \\$250,000 per day until he finally complied with a court order requiring him to meet his most basic discovery obligations.32 The violation here is far worse.\n\n Given Kwok's repeated violation of this Court's orders, his obvious financial means as a self-proclaimed multi-billionaire, and the gravity of and materiality to PAX of the current violation, PAX respectfully requests a sanction—monetary or otherwise—that is sufficient to compel Kwok to comply with the October 15 Order and bring the Lady May back to the jurisdiction immediately.\n\n29 Dkt. No. 647 at 24:9–11; 21:13–15.\n\n30 *Id.* at 22:7.\n\n31 *1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC*, 2007 WL 2701271, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007); *see also Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.*, 208 A.D.2d 37, 42 (2d Dep't 1995) (\"A civil contempt penalty is imposed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court's mandate.\")*; L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg*, 2011 WL 1564647, at \\*4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) (\"The court has authority to punish a litigant that disobeys a lawful mandate. The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance with a court order or to compensate a party who is injured as a result of disobedience of a court order.\").\n\n32 *See* Dkt. No. 557 at 2 (ordering Kwok to provide the Court with a phone number where he could be reached and either (i) an address where he would accept service of discovery documents, or (ii) and email address where such documents may be sent).\n\n\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully submits that the Court should hold Kwok in\n\ncontempt and order appropriate sanctions.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\n PAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n# **EXHIBIT 10**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| | | Justice | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. | 012 |\n| KWOK | HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") in contempt. This Court previously issued\n\nthree orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the \"Lady May.\" On September 30,\n\n2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\") preventing Kwok from,\n\namong other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" NYSCEF Doc.\n\nNo. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\" *Id.* On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's\n\nmotion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630. Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the Court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request at the time and directed counsel to make a motion if necessary.\n\nPlaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.\n\nThe Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling. and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht \"Lady May.\"\n\nThe defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000. The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place.\n\nA status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: March 16, 2021\n\n| CHECK ONE: | | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | |\n|-----------------------|---|----------------------------|--------|---|-----------------------|-----------|\n| | X | GRANTED | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | | SETTLE ORDER | | | SUBMIT ORDER | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |\n\n## **EXHIBIT 11**\n\n### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOKHO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/kla GUO WENGUI, a/kla GUO WEN GUI; a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/kla MILES KWOK, a/kla HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nv.\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No: 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n**[Fl4QjL08ED]** FINAL ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT\n\nMotion Sequence No. 19\n\nWHEREAS this Co~rt's conditional order of civil contempt, dated March 16,2021, directed that if Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") failed to return the Lady May yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 15, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000 fine-for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction;-\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nWHEREAS the Lady May was not returned to the jurisdiction by May 15, 2021;\n\nWHEREAS on November 4,2021, the Appellate Division's First Department affIrme,d this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of .\\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing,\" and \\_instructing this Court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties;\n\nWHEREAS Kwok to date has failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction;\n\nWHEREAS the evidentiary hearing specified by the First Department's November 4,\n\n121\n\n2021 Order was held on February 2,2022;\n\nWHEREAS both Kwok and the registered title holder of the Lady May, HK International (q)peCt.r~(i by *co~V\\\\$e \\* Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, were pregent at the hearini proffered evidence and were represented by counsel; and\n\nWHEREAS, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court determines that\n\nPAX has clearly and convincingly established that Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control\n\n. h L d M *AS se--'- r-*--l\\_ I \"\" ~ Cr, \\A.,/t \\:> 'R-'v;,VIMt *Uf* '1, *;:).0* 'd---1-. over tea y aYj \"'- ., .~ \" ~ ( \\)~ C\\-'> \\'c)v\\ ltA,Ad. CJv~ . . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:\n\n- 1. Kwok has violated New York Judiciary Law 9753 and is civil contempt of this Court's orders.\n- 2. Kwokis directed to tender immediate payment to PAX in the amount of \\$134,000,000, representing \\$500,000 for each day between May 15,2021 and February 7,2022.\n- \"3. The amount due to PAX shall continue to accrue at t~~rate of \\$500,000 per day until Kwok returns the Lady May to the jurisdiction, which additional accrual shall begin ten . ~ e'fv,'(;Il.. ~ *N* f.,' ..L.. *'C* iv business days from t e Bltte of this Order, \"'VJ1'~. *i>* u... *crl v* 11 *Y* I\n- 4. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be made to PAX within five se...rv *,'(JL , .*f f..rv business days of the ~ of this Order, w I~ No-t-t (...L. *t!) .* GVt,. *I .*\n\n;:\", ' 1'l;::t\"l 5. The Court shall exercise its full authority under NeWYork Judiciary Law 9 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid to PAX.\n\nIt is SO ORDERED this ?-'\" ~ day of *Ii b VYt a* '='Cd' ,2022. R. OSTRAGERJ...\\$.C. **A.OSTRAGER .** ,,~SC;}\n\n2\n\n2 of 2\n\n# **EXHIBIT 12**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| Chapter 11 Case No. |\n|---------------------|\n| 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| March 1, 2022 |\n| |\n\n## **MOTION OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO SECTION 362(d)(2) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE**\n\nTO THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") moves (this \"Motion\") for an\n\norder, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, confirming that the automatic stay\n\nis inapplicable to a discrete pre-petition proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of the State of\n\nNew York (Justice Ostrager presiding), holding the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (\"Kwok\"), in civil\n\ncontempt for failure to return his yacht, the \"Lady May,\" to New York in violation of that court's\n\norders.2 In issuing his February 9, 2022 final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok, Justice\n\n1 The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n2 Liquidation of the Lady May, which Justice Ostrager found Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls,\" and distribution of resulting proceeds should occur in the chapter 11 process (to the extent this case is not dismissed).\n\nOstrager warned, \"if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law.\"3 This applies with equal force to these chapter 11 proceedings. Kwok cannot exploit the protections of the Bankruptcy Code to evade Justice Ostrager's orders, and the automatic stay does not allow him to do so.\n\nKwok's contumacious behavior is long-standing and flagrant. First, Kwok moved the Lady May out of the jurisdiction of the New York Supreme Court in direct violation of that court's September 30 and October 15, 2020 Orders.4 Then, in March 2021, Justice Ostrager issued a conditional order of civil contempt—which was unanimously affirmed by the New York Appellate Division, First Department5—requiring Kwok or the registered owner to return the Lady May by May 15, 2021 or face a daily \\$500,000 fine for each day that the yacht remained outside of that court's jurisdiction.6 Nearly a year later, after an evidentiary hearing, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order directing (i) Kwok to pay \\$134 million (\\$500,000 per day for the period between May 15, 2021 and February 7, 2022); and (ii) continued accrual of the \\$500,000 daily fine if the Lady May was not returned to the court's jurisdiction within ten business days from notice of entry.7 One day before the deadline to pay the \\$134 million contempt fine to PAX, and after Kwok's efforts to obtain an emergency stay of that order pending appeal failed, Kwok filed this chapter 11 case. But bankruptcy protection is\n\n3 *See* Declaration of Peter Friedman in support of Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. for a Declaration of Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, attached hereto as Exhibit B (\"Friedman Decl.\"), Ex. 1. Decision + Order on Mot, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1181 (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") at 10. 4\n\nFriedman Decl., Ex. 2, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok,* 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 591; Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok,* 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 630. 5 *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n6 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728 (\"Initial Contempt Order,\" and together with the February 9 Contempt Order, the \"Contempt Orders\"). 7 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Final Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1182, at 2.\n\nfor honest, good-faith debtors. And the automatic stay does not shield debtors from the consequences of defying court orders and assaulting the dignity of the judicial system. Therefore, PAX asks this Court to enter an order confirming its right to institute further proceedings to enforce Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order.\n\nAlternatively, PAX moves for relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rule 4001of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to permit enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order, except to the extent it requires Kwok to immediately pay money to PAX. Such relief includes enforcing the February 9 Contempt Order to ensure the return of the Lady May to New York, allowing continued accrual of fines (which constitute debts that Kwok cannot discharge in this chapter 11 case), and permitting Justice Ostrager to order any other appropriate sanctions (including issuance of an arrest warrant),8 if Kwok fails to promptly return the Lady May to New York.9\n\nIn support thereof, PAX respectfully represents as follows:\n\n## **JURISDICTION**\n\n1. This Court has jurisdiction over this Motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, and, for purposes of this Motion, PAX accepts that venue may be proper in this district without prejudice to any future motion to transfer venue. This Motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §157(b), and the basis for PAX's requested relief is section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n8 *See, e.g.*, NY Judiciary Law § 753 (\"A court of record has power to punish, by fine and imprisonment, or either, a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct, by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special proceeding, pending in the court may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced.\").\n\n9 PAX intends to initiate an adversary proceeding to confirm the non-dischargeability of the civil contempt fines issued by Justice Ostrager. *See In re Singer*, No. 10–00045, 2010 WL 3732944 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010) (contempt sanctions non-dischargeable in bankruptcy); *In re Marini,* 28 B.R. 262, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (same).\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n2. Nearly eleven years ago, PAX signed a loan agreement with a Kwok-owned entity called Shiny Times.10 Kwok personally guaranteed that loan.11 Despite multiple repayment extensions and PAX's numerous attempts to settle the debt, Kwok has never repaid the loan.12\n\n3. PAX sued Kwok for breach of the personal guarantee contract on April 18, 2017 in New York State Supreme Court.13 Following nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, PAX secured a judgment against Kwok for \\$116,402,019.57.14 PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States.\"15 This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"16 Kwok has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which accrued post-judgment interest at the rate of 9 percent per year.17\n\n10 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549, at 2.\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 *Id.* at 7.\n\n13 Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Compl., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2.\n\n14 Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716 at 2.\n\n15 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n16 *Id*.\n\n17 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022); Friedman Decl., Ex. 8 at 2; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 23 at KWOK000652, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455 (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\").\n\n4. Although Kwok claims to have no assets,18 he has (at a minimum) beneficial ownership of the Lady May, purchased in 2015 for € 28 million.19 On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\"20 Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that this restraint on Kwok included the Lady May.21 But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9.22 The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe, where it remains to this day.23\n\n5. In response, PAX filed a contempt motion24 and on March 16, 2021, the court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing Kwok or the boat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction by May 15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained beyond its jurisdiction.25 The New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's order, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok had] violated a lawful\n\n18 *See United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs*, ECF No. 49, at ¶ 12 (during his Initial Debtor Interview with the United States Trustee, Kwok \"disclosed he has no bank accounts, no credit cards, is not employed such that he earns income, and that all of his living expenses are paid for and through an entity known as Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. ('Golden Spring'). [He] also disclosed that he does not directly own any real estate, does not own any cars, and does not insure any assets.\").\n\n19 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 4. Although Kwok denies it, he also owns a full-floor luxury apartment at the Sherry Netherland hotel that is currently listed for sale at \\$45 million in connection with a related bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York.\n\n20 Friedman Decl., Ex. 2.\n\n21 Friedman Decl., Ex. 3 at 1.\n\n22 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 10 (VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer\n\nhttp) (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n23 As of February 28, 2022, the Lady May is located in Genoa, Italy. *See id.*\n\n24 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 689; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709.\n\n25 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2. In other words, the court provided Mr. Kwok a full two-month grace period to return the yacht and thereby avoid any fine at all.\n\nclear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"26; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt.\"27 Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.28\n\n6. Justice Ostrager held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After hearing testimony from seven witnesses,29 Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [Kwok]'s witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"30 The court further found that \"[n]ot only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"31 As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order.32\n\n7. Consistent with his past practice of flouting court orders, Kwok failed to pay the contempt fine, and has not returned the yacht to the United States.33 Instead, on February 15, 2022, Kwok filed for bankruptcy in this Court.34 Kwok's bankruptcy petition lists \\$50,001-\n\n26 *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*, 199 A.D.3d at 423.\n\n27 *Id.* at 424.\n\n28 *Id.*\n\n29 Kwok invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery efforts and Kwok did not testify at the February 2 hearing. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 3.\n\n30 *Id.* at 4. 31 *Id.* at 8.\n\n32 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5.\n\n33 *See supra* note 23.\n\n34 Voluntary Petition, ECF No. 1 at 7.\n\n\\$100,000 in assets35—omitting the valuable Lady May, which remains outside of the United States,36 unsupervised by any trustworthy fiduciary.\n\n8. In light of Kwok's history of contumacious behavior and extensive \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members,\"37 PAX respectfully urges this Court to order that the automatic stay does not bar it from resuming the contempt proceedings before Justice Ostrager to seek to force Kwok to return the Lady May to New York, and to permit Justice Ostrager to impose any available penalties on Kwok other than ordering him to make an immediate monetary payment to PAX. In the alternative, PAX respectfully requests this Court provide narrow relief from the automatic stay to allow PAX to proceed before Justice Ostrager to obtain the same result.\n\n## **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n9. By this Motion, PAX requests a determination that the automatic stay is inapplicable to the enforcement of Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order. In the alternative, PAX requests an order modifying the automatic stay to permit PAX to enforce the February 9 Contempt Order, except to the extent any relief requires Kwok to immediately pay any money to PAX.38\n\n35 *Id.* at 7.\n\n36 *See supra* note 23. As noted above, Kwok also fails to list the considerable value of the Sherry-Netherland apartment that he purchased for \\$67.5 million in March 2015, which he owns through two shell companies, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\") and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\"). *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, Executed Contract of Sale, *Kwok v. PAX*, Index No. 652077/2017, ECF No. 256 (Executed Contract of Sale listing \"Genever Holdings LLC\" as the purchaser); *see also id.* at SN 0047 (Purchase Application listing \"'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)\" as the applicant). Consistent with Kwok's actions here, Genever NY also declared bankruptcy immediately after PAX won summary judgment in late 2020. *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 1:20-bk-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).\n\n37 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n38 PAX filed—prepetition—another contempt motion in the New York court concerning Kwok's failure to turn over his shares in a British Virgin Islands-registered company, Genever BVI, in accordance with Justice Ostrager's September 22, 2021 order. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 904. That motion has been fully briefed since January 24, 2022 and is\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. THE AUTOMATIC STAY IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE CONTEMPT ORDER AS IT RELATES TO THE RETURN OF THE LADY MAY.**\n\n10. Criminal contempt proceedings are statutorily exempt from the automatic stay. *See* § 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(1) (\"commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor\" not subject to the stay.) Civil contempt remedies can be issued by courts to \"secure future compliance with a court order\" or \"provide compensation or other remedial relief\" to a party for another party's failure to comply with a court order. *Universal City Studios v. New York Broadway Int'l Corp*., 705 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1983); *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nair*, 3:10cv88 (SRU), 2011 WL 1832774, at \\*2 (D. Conn. May 13, 2011). Although there is no *per se* exception from the automatic stay for civil contempt proceedings, \"certain civil contempt proceedings may continue even in the face of a bankruptcy petition.\" *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.*, 62 B.R. 723, 727 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Courts distinguish between civil contempt \"motion[s] made to punish, and [those] made to collect on a judgment,\" finding the former exempt from the stay. *Id.* at 729; *see also Booth v. Wilson,* No. 96 CIV. 920 (RO), 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1997) (\"The threshold issue is whether the motion for contempt is made to satisfy a judgment or if it is directed at an asserted defiance of a court order.\").\n\n11. Courts routinely hold that civil contempt orders that are designed to punish debtors for non-compliance with court orders are not subject to the automatic stay because bankruptcy does not provide a safe harbor for parties that have engaged in sanctionable conduct\n\npending. On February 18, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a notice requesting that PAX, by March 3, 2022, withdraw the motion without prejudice in light of Kwok's bankruptcy filing. Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Court Notice, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1191. PAX intends to do so, and is not now seeking this Court's confirmation that the automatic stay is inapplicable to that contempt proceeding, but may, and reserves the right to, do so in the future.\n\nthat is an affront to the dignity of a court. And the bankruptcy process may not be \"used as a sword\" to prevent courts from punishing contemptuous acts. *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.,* 62 B.R. at 730. For example, in *Roberts v. Bennaceur*, No. 3:12-CV-01222, 2015 WL 1471889, (D. Conn. 2015), the defendant filed for bankruptcy after repeatedly failing to disclose information relating to its assets and financial condition. Judge Meyer held that the bankruptcy filing did not preclude the Court from issuing sanctions relating to the debtor's abuses of the disclosure and discovery process, stating:\n\n[t]he bankruptcy stay does not preclude plaintiff from seeking sanctions against the individual defendants' [violations of the Court's orders], even violations relevant to claims that are stayed. I am entitled to 'continue to ... consider whether the defendant[s]' 'may be sanctioned as a result of their failure 'to comply with a prior [] order' as long as the sanction does not have the effect of 'securing assets protected by the stay or harassing' the debtor.\n\n*Id.* at \\*16 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the court sanctioned the debtor and its officers *after* the bankruptcy filing. Other courts agree, recognizing that contempt orders may be enforced against a debtor in bankruptcy to protect the dignity of the court and punish the debtor for disobeying court orders. *See Shaoxing Bon Textiles Co., Ltd. v. 4-U Performance Grp. LLC*, 16 Civ. 6805, 2017 WL 6413993, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (motion for relief from the stay unnecessary where \"the proceeding in reality is one to punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of [the] court.\"); *In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, Inc.*, 62 B.R. 369, 378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) *aff'd*, 70 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1986), 831 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1987) (\"a state court prepetition order which does not relate to the collection of prepetition claims or property of the estate may be enforced by contempt proceedings against the debtor and its officers in order to vindicate the dignity of the state court without violating the automatic stay.\"); *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 729–30 (concluding that its \"inherent power to 'punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of either the state or federal court,' is not\n\ncurtailed by the bankruptcy action\" and finding stay inapplicable where contempt request was \"designed to uphold an order of this Court, and [wa]s not one calculated to enforce a money judgment.\"); *Booth,* 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2 (\"this contempt order enforcing my pre-bankruptcy order to compel discovery is not stayed by § 362(a) as it is 'vindicat[ing] the integrity of the court.'\").\n\n12. Consistent with these authorities, the automatic stay is inapplicable to past and future contempt orders designed to ensure Kwok's compliance with court orders. Justice Ostrager did not hold Kwok in contempt for failing to satisfy PAX's judgment or to compensate PAX for any monetary loss. Indeed, the fine imposed is separate from the judgment on PAX's breach of contract claim. That court held Kwok in contempt because of his flagrant and continued disregard of court orders. And PAX is not \"moving at this time out of a 'collection motive,'\" but rather for leave to seek enforcement of Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order requiring the return of the Lady May to New York,39 which has remained outside of the New York Supreme Court's jurisdiction contrary to court orders for more than a year. *See Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 730 (stay inapplicable where movant was not moving out of a \"collection motive\"). Continuation of the contempt proceedings is necessary to protect the dignity of the New York Supreme Court (and has the added benefit of forcing Kwok to return property he beneficially owns to the United States). Therefore, the New York Supreme Court should be permitted to take any actions it deems necessary in the contempt proceedings, short of enforcing the collection of fines, without stay relief.\n\n13. To the extent this Court may be concerned about any impact on Kwok's estate, the Court can clarify that the automatic stay applies to the enforcement or collection of any fines\n\n39 *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2 (\"Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request.\").\n\nor other relief against property of the estate during the pendency of the automatic stay. *See Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 730 (the automatic stay is inapplicable where the order is not \"calculated to *enforce a money judgment*, or to harass a defendant.\") (emphasis added). Moreover, this Court can make clear that future disposition of the Lady May is within the exclusive purview of this Court (absent further Court order).\n\n## **II. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE AUTOMATIC STAY SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUSTICE OSTRAGER'S ORDERS.**\n\n14. Even if the automatic stay applies to the February 9 Contempt Order, good cause exists to modify the stay pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 362(d)(1).\n\n15. The decision to modify the automatic stay is \"committed to the sound discretion of the court.\" *In re David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 2325758, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 22, 2018); *In re Wysocki*, No. 3:16-CV-248, 2016 WL 4099031, at \\*4 (D. Conn. Aug. 2, 2016)*.* Under Bankruptcy Code section 362(d), relief from the automatic stay shall be granted \"for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest.\" *See* 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1). The Bankruptcy Code does not define \"cause.\" *In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.*, 907 F.2d 1280, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990). In *Sonnax*, the Second Circuit enumerated twelve factors which serve as the touchpoint when courts determine whether relief from the automatic stay should be granted to permit litigation to continue in another forum.40 *See, e.g., In re Case*, 384 F. App'x 43, 44 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting the Bankruptcy Court properly\n\n40 Those factors are: \"(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action; (5) whether the debtor's insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending it; (6) whether the action primarily involves third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant's success in the other proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor; (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; (11) whether the parties are ready for trial in the other proceeding; and (12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.\" *Sonnax*, 907 F.2d at 1286.\n\nconsidered the *Sonnax* factors); *In re Friedberg*, No. 08–51245, 2009 WL 1292273, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn., May 8, 2009) (applying the *Sonnax* factors). The Court need not assign equal weight to each factor, nor are all factors relevant in each case. *See In re David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2018), *appeal dismissed,* No. 28cv778, 2018 WL 3079470 (D. Conn, Jun. 21, 2018). Rather, \"[w]hen applying these factors and considering whether to modify the automatic stay, the Court should take into account the particular circumstances of the case, and ascertain what is just to the claimants, and the estate.\" *Id.* at \\*5 (citing *In re Taub*, 413 B.R. 55, 62 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)).\n\nHere, the relevant *Sonnax* factors are:\n\n- \"(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;\"\n- \"(2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;\"\n- \"(4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action;\"\n- \"(7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors;\"\n- \"(10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation;\" and\n- \"(12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.\"41\n\n## **A. Stay Relief Will Resolve Issues Important to the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n16. The first *Sonnax* factor weighs in favor of lifting the stay. The February 9\n\nContempt Order has the ultimate goal of seeing the return of the Lady May to New York.\n\n41 The other *Sonnax* factors are inapposite. In particular, there is no possible basis for equitably subordinating PAX's claim on a personal guarantee from Kwok (*Sonnax* factor 8), and none of the orders issued by Justice Ostrager will give rise to a voidable lien (*Sonnax* factor 9).\n\n17. As Justice Ostrager determined, the Lady May is an asset available for satisfaction of Kwok's debts.42 The court found that Kwok \"has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May,\" he not only \"control[s] the yacht\" but \"provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"43 Accordingly, Kwok's interests in the Lady May must be made available to creditors in this chapter 11 case, despite Kwok's \"extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors.\"44 Not only did Kwok fail to return the Lady May to New York in violation of Justice Ostrager's orders, but on filing his bankruptcy petition (and in his amended petition), notwithstanding Justice Ostrager's clear findings in his February 9, 2022 Order, Kwok failed to include the Lady May's value among his assets.45 A chapter 11 debtor has a duty to disclose all assets—of all types—in a chapter 11 petition. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (a debtor's estate consists of \"all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property.\"); *Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., Inc.*, 233 B.R. 46, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"A basic tenet of bankruptcy law is that all assets of the debtor . . . are assets of the bankruptcy estate that must be scheduled for the benefit of creditors.\"); *In re Beckford*, 729 F. App'x 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2018) (\"The filing of a bankruptcy petition creates a bankruptcy estate that is comprised of 'all legal or equitable interests of the debtor.'\"). Kwok's willful failure to include the value of the Lady May as an asset in his petition—just six days after Justice Ostrager unambiguously ruled that Kwok beneficially owned and controlled it—is a continuation of his scheme to keep the Lady May out of the reach of his creditors. This scheme must end.\n\n42 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 8–9.\n\n43 *Id.*\n\n44 *Id.* at 9; *see also id.* at 7 (discussing the \"machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May.\")\n\n45 Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7 (listing assets as between \\$50,001 - \\$100,000); *cf.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10 (noting the € 28 million [sic] purchase price of the Lady May).\n\n18. Allowing continued efforts before Justice Ostrager to have the Lady May returned to New York will resolve a pertinent issue to this chapter 11 case. *See In re Fleming*, No. 19- 51611, 2020 WL 3816282, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jul. 2, 2020) (the fact state court proceedings could resolve issues in an adversary proceeding, weighed in favor of stay relief). Return of the Lady May to New York will facilitate the marshaling of that asset and the ultimate distribution of the proceeds for the benefit of all creditors. It will also resolve PAX's year-long effort to have the yacht within the New York Supreme Court's jurisdiction, a further factor supporting relief from the automatic stay. *In re Ice Cream Liquidation Inc.*, 281 B.R. 154, 166 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002) (complete resolution of an issue related to the Debtor favored stay relief); *David X. Manners Co.*, 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6 (even partial resolution of the issues weighs in favor of lifting the stay).\n\n## **B. Enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order Will Not Interfere with the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n19. For similar reasons, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order will not interfere with the bankruptcy case; rather, it will complement and facilitate these proceedings, *In re Dunne*, No. 13–50484, 2015 WL 7625609, at \\*6 (Bankr. D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2015) (stay relief granted where continuation of litigation \"complement[ed] the [] bankruptcy case\"), and protect the interests of all creditors by ensuring a critical estate asset is brought to the United States. Therefore, the second, seventh and tenth *Sonnax* factors weigh heavily in PAX's favor.\n\n20. Stay relief is favored where it would facilitate progress in a bankruptcy case. *See David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*6 (this factor weighed in favor of stay relief where \"the progress of th[e] case \"appear[ed] dependent upon and require[d] the resolution of the issues . . . awaiting judgment in the state court.\"); *In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc*., No. 18- 10077, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018) (permitting claims to proceed\n\nin the district court which would \"assist resolution of the bankruptcy action\"). Here, returning the Lady May is a threshold issue: the Lady May has a value many multiples of the assets Kwok listed in his petition. Its prompt return benefits the estate as well as creditors.46 Further, return facilitates an essential function of this bankruptcy case: to \"maximiz[e] the value of the bankruptcy estate.\" *Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.*, 137 S.Ct. 973, 985–86 (2017) (the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to maximize the value of the estate). Thus, relief from the automatic stay would \"assist resolution of the bankruptcy action.\" *Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc.*, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4.\n\n21. Returning the Lady May also will not interfere with this Court's jurisdiction over reorganization (or liquidation) of Kwok's debts or the orderly distribution of his assets to creditors. Nor will it result in any immediate distribution to PAX. Rather, return will assist in marshaling an estate asset to enable liquidation of that asset and distribution to creditors in order of priority under the supervision of this Court (unless the case is dismissed). *See Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc.*, No. 05 Civ. 15, 2006 WL 176983, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2006) (the goals of a bankruptcy proceeding \"require a marshaling of the debtor's assets and an orderly payment of claims in order of priority\").\n\n22. Further, this Court should not allow Kwok to use the bankruptcy case to evade state court sanctions. The contempt proceedings sanction Kwok's flagrant and repeated past disregard of the New York Supreme Court's orders and, if the stay relief is granted, can be used to prevent further noncompliance. Kwok filed his Chapter 11 petition six days after the New York Supreme Court announced it was \"prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753\"—which could include issuing an order for Kwok's arrest—if Kwok continued to\n\n46 *See* Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7 (listing assets as between \\$50,001 - \\$100,000); *cf.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10 (noting the purchase price of the Lady May).\n\nignore its orders.47 Kwok should not be permitted to exploit the bankruptcy process to avoid sanctions. *See In re Rudaw/Empirical Software Prod. Ltd*., 83 B.R. 241, 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (\"The automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) may not be used as a shield to sanction contumacious conduct in violation of a prepetition order enjoining a debtor from violating a party's property rights.\" (citing *In re Cinnabar 2000 Haircutters, Inc*., 20 B.R. 575 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982))). Misuse of the bankruptcy process is itself an interference with this bankruptcy case, as bankruptcy protections are reserved for \"the honest but unfortunate debtor.\" *In re Ciarcia*, 578 B.R. 495, 503 (Bankr. D. Conn, 2017). To the extent the bankruptcy petition prevented the New York court enforcing its orders, the stay should be modified to prevent that outcome.\n\n23. This Court can also protect creditors by tailoring stay relief to avoid depletion of estate assets by prohibiting collection of any fines for the duration of the stay and making clear the ultimate liquidation of the Lady May and the distribution of proceeds is subject to the Court's further orders. *David X. Manners Co. Inc*., 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6 (risk to creditors addressed by limiting the scope of stay relief to \"allow the state court to determine the issues up to the entry of judgment, but not enforcement.\")\n\n## **C. The New York Court Has the Necessary Expertise to Enforce the February 9 Contempt Order and Lifting the Stay Facilitates Judicial Economy.**\n\n24. *Sonnax* factors four and ten favor relief from the automatic stay because the New York court has \"the necessary expertise\" to enforce its orders and \"the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation\" are served by modification of the stay. *See Sonnax*, 907 F.2d at 1286. Justice Ostrager has been overseeing the dispute between PAX and Kwok since April 2017, rendering it \"considerably more advanced on the\n\n47 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10.\n\n'learning curve' with respect to the merits of this matter.\" *In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167–68 (as litigation was pending before the district court for almost five years it was presumed to be significantly more advanced on the merits of the matter). As Justice Ostrager noted in his February 9 Contempt Order, over 1,180 docket entries have accumulated in the almost five years that the litigation has been pending.48 All discovery, motion practice, evidentiary hearings, and conferences precipitating the contempt orders have taken place before that court. Justice Ostrager developed a full factual record leading to the issuance of the February 9 Contempt Order and is uniquely well-versed in the procedural history of the case.\n\n25. Moreover, the proceedings relating of the Lady May are far-advanced; not only has the New York court issued the final February 9 Contempt Order, but it has also already considered imminent further action to ensure compliance with that order.49 This too favors stay relief. *See In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167–68 (considering relevant that the case was close to completion). This vividly demonstrates Justice Ostrager's familiarity with and competence to enforce the February 9 Contempt Order, and it illustrates that his court is a more efficient venue for that undertaking, weighing heavily in favor of lifting the stay. *See In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc*., 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (the fact the District Court was \"familiar with the particular issues involved in the FLSA Litigation\" and \"[a]ll discovery and the majority of pre-trial motions [were] completed and the matter [was] ready for trial\" weighed heavily in favor of lifting the stay); *see also In re Fleming*, 2020 WL 3816282, \\*3 (granting relief from the stay where restarting the process of confirming an arbitration award where the State Court had already commenced that process would \"not be an effective use of judicial resources.\").\n\n48 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 7.\n\n49 *See id.* at 10 (the Court stated it is \"prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753\" if Kwok continues to ignore its orders.\")\n\n26. In contrast, asking this Court to parse the voluminous record to determine appropriate enforcement mechanisms would not be efficient. Therefore, stay relief is in the interest of judicial economy.\n\n## **D. Modifying the Stay Will Not Prejudice Other Creditors and the Balance of Harms Favors Stay Relief.**\n\n27. *Sonnax* factors seven and twelve also favor stay relief. Modifying the stay benefits all creditors because it will bring the valuable Lady May to the United States and prevent its dissipation. The Lady May is debtor property, as the New York court has ruled, and Kwok must act as a fiduciary for his creditors with respect to it. That starts by following court orders regarding the Lady May.\n\n28. PAX is not now seeking to levy on the Lady May or obtain any priority status for its debts compared to the debts of other legitimate creditors. No creditor would be prejudiced or harmed by return of the Lady May to New York. *See In re Mildred Deli Grocery*, *Inc.*, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (creditors were not harmed as claimant did not seek to collect on its claim against the debtor); *In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167 (lifting the stay would cause no legally cognizable harm on the estate, except some minor expenses, weighing in favor of lifting the stay). To the contrary, creditors as a whole will only benefit by the yacht's return to New York.\n\n29. Absent stay relief, Kwok will have no incentive to bring the Lady May back within reach of his creditors. His gambit in filing bankruptcy will have borne fruit, as he will be effectively shielded from the February 9 Contempt Order—a clear misuse of the bankruptcy process.\n\n30. For these reasons, the balance of harms favors relief from the stay.\n\n## **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\nNotwithstanding anything in this Motion, PAX reserves all rights, claims and defenses with respect to these chapter 11 proceedings, including but not limited to the right to contest venue, seek dismissal or conversion of the case, and any other remedy.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nPAX respectfully requests this Court enter an order (i) that the automatic stay is\n\ninapplicable to contempt proceedings before the New York Supreme Court related to Kwok's\n\nfailure to return the Lady May to New York, or (ii) in the alternative, granting relief from the\n\nautomatic stay to permit PAX to seek enforcement of the New York Supreme Court's February 9\n\nContempt Order; and (iii) granting such other relief as may be just and proper.\n\nDated: Hartford, Connecticut March 1, 2022\n\n## **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*\n\n Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP** 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2293 E-mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n## **EXHIBIT 13**\n\n| 121
Fill in this information to identify your case:
United States Bankruptcy Court for the:
District of Connecticut
________________ District of ________
Case number (If known): _________________________ Chapter you are filing under:
‰ Chapter 7
✔
‰ Chapter 11 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| |\n| ‰ Chapter 12
‰ Chapter 13 |\n\n Check if this is an amended filing\n\n## Official Form 101\n\n## Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy **/**\n\n**The bankruptcy forms use** *you* **and** *Debtor 1* **to refer to a debtor filing alone. A married couple may file a bankruptcy case together—called a** *joint case***—and in joint cases, these forms use** *you* **to ask for information from both debtors. For example, if a form asks, \"Do you own a car,\" the answer would be** *yes* **if either debtor owns a car. When information is needed about the spouses separately, the form uses** *Debtor 1* **and** *Debtor 2* **to distinguish between them. In joint cases, one of the spouses must report information as** *Debtor 1* **and the other as** *Debtor 2***. The same person must be** *Debtor 1* **in all of the forms.**\n\n**Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number (if known). Answer every question.**\n\n#### Part 1: Identify Yourself\n\n| | | About Debtor 1: | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 1. | Your full name | | | | |\n| | Write the name that is on your
government-issued picture
identification (for example, | Ho Wan
__________________________________________________
First name | __________________________________________________
First name | | |\n| | your driver's license or
passport).
Bring your picture
identification to your meeting
with the trustee. | __________________________________________________
Middle name
Kwok
__________________________________________________
Last name | __________________________________________________
Middle name
__________________________________________________
Last name | | |\n| | | ___________________________
Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) | ___________________________
Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) | | |\n| 2. | All other names you
have used in the last 8
years | Miles
__________________________________________________
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| 3. | Only the last 4 digits of
your Social Security
number or federal
Individual Taxpayer
Identification number
(ITIN) | 9
5
9
5
xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____
OR
9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ | xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____
OR
9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ | | |\n\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | | |\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| | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | | | |\n| | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | | | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | | | |\n| 5. | Where you live | | | | If Debtor 2 lives at a different address: | | | |\n| | | c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.
_________________________________________________
Number
Street | | | _________________________________________________
Number
Street | | | |\n| | | 162 East 64th Street
_________________________________________________ | | | _________________________________________________ | | | |\n| | | New York
_________________________________________________ | NY | 10065 | _________________________________________________ | | | |\n| | | City | State | ZIP Code | City
State
ZIP Code | | | |\n| | | New York
_________________________________________________
County | | | _________________________________________________
County | | | |\n| | | If your mailing address is different from the one
above, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to you at this mailing address. | | | If Debtor 2's mailing address is different from
yours, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to this mailing address. | | | |\n| | | _________________________________________________
Number
Street | | | _________________________________________________
Number
Street | | | |\n| | | _________________________________________________
P.O. Box | | | _________________________________________________
P.O. Box | | | |\n| | | _________________________________________________
City | State | ZIP Code | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code | | | |\n| 6. | Why you are choosing
this district to file for
bankruptcy | Check one:
✔
‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district.
‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)
________________________________________
________________________________________ | | | Check one:
‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district.
‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.)
________________________________________
________________________________________ | | | |\n| | | ________________________________________
________________________________________ | | | ________________________________________
________________________________________ | | | |\n\n|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
_______________________________________________________
First Name
Middle Name | | Kwok
Last Name | | | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | |\n| Part 2: | Tell the Court About Your Bankruptcy Case | | | | | | | | |\n| 7. | The chapter of the
Bankruptcy Code you | Check one. (For a brief description of each, see Notice Required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) for Individuals Filing
for Bankruptcy (Form 2010)). Also, go to the top of page 1 and check the appropriate box. | | | | | | | |\n| | are choosing to file
under | ‰ | Chapter 7
✔
‰
Chapter 11
‰
Chapter 12 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | ‰ | Chapter 13 | | | | | | |\n| 8. | How you will pay the fee | ✔
‰
I will pay the entire fee when I file my petition. Please check with the clerk's office in your
local court for more details about how you may pay. Typically, if you are paying the fee
yourself, you may pay with cash, cashier's check, or money order. If your attorney is
submitting your payment on your behalf, your attorney may pay with a credit card or check
with a pre-printed address.
‰
I need to pay the fee in installments. If you choose this option, sign and attach the
Application for Individuals to Pay The Filing Fee in Installments (Official Form 103A).
‰
I request that my fee be waived (You may request this option only if you are filing for Chapter 7.
By law, a judge may, but is not required to, waive your fee, and may do so only if your income is
less than 150% of the official poverty line that applies to your family size and you are unable to
pay the fee in installments). If you choose this option, you must fill out the Application to Have the
Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Official Form 103B) and file it with your petition. | | | | | | | |\n| 9. | Have you filed for | ✔
‰ | | | | | | | |\n| | bankruptcy within the | No
‰ | | Yes. District __________________________ When | | | _______________ Case number ___________________________ | | |\n| | last 8 years? | | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | | | |\n| | | | | District __________________________ When | | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number ___________________________ | | |\n| | | | | District __________________________ When | | | _______________ Case number ___________________________ | | |\n| | | | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | | | |\n| | 10. Are any bankruptcy | ✔
‰ No | | | | | | | |\n| | cases pending or being
filed by a spouse who is | ‰ | | Yes. Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you | | | _____________________ | | |\n| affiliate? | not filing this case with
you, or by a business
partner, or by an | | | District __________________________ When | | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number, if known____________________ | | |\n| | | | | Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you | | | _____________________ | | |\n| | | | | District __________________________ When | | | _______________ Case number, if known____________________ | | |\n| | 11. Do you rent your
residence? | ✔
‰
No.
‰ | Go to line 12.
‰
‰ | Yes. Has your landlord obtained an eviction judgment against you?
No. Go to line 12.
part of this bankruptcy petition. | | MM / DD / YYYY | Yes. Fill out Initial Statement About an Eviction Judgment Against You (Form 101A) and file it as | | |\n\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | | | |\n| Part 3: | | Report About Any Businesses You Own as a Sole Proprietor | | | | | | |\n| | 12. Are you a sole proprietor | ✔
‰
No. Go to Part 4. | | | | | | |\n| business? | of any full- or part-time | ‰
Yes. Name and location of business | | | | | | |\n| | A sole proprietorship is a
business you operate as an
individual, and is not a
separate legal entity such as
a corporation, partnership, or | Name of business, if any
Number
Street | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | |\n| LLC. | If you have more than one
sole proprietorship, use a
separate sheet and attach it
to this petition. | _______________________________________________
City | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
State | __________________________
ZIP Code | | | | |\n| | | Check the appropriate box to describe your business:
‰
‰ | Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A))
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 | If you are filing under Chapter 11, the court must know whether you are a small business debtorRUDGHEWRU
FKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9 so that it can set appropriate deadlines. If you indicate that you
are a small business debtorRU\\RXDUHFKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9, you must attach your
most recent balance sheet, statement of operations, cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return or
if any of these documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B). | | | | | | |\n| | debtorRUDGHEWRUDV
GHILQHGE\\86&† | ‰
No. I am not filing under Chapter 11. | | | | | | |\n| ?
For a definition of small
business debtor, see
11 U.S.C. § 101(51D). | ✔
‰
the Bankruptcy Code. | No. I am filing under Chapter 11, but I am NOT a small business debtor according to the definition in | | | | | | |\n| | ‰ | &RGHDQG,GRQRWFKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU | | | | | | |\n| | | ‰ | | | | | | | |\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 | ✔
‰
No | | |\n| property that poses or is
alleged to pose a threat | ‰
Yes. | What is the hazard? | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| of imminent and
identifiable hazard to | | | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| public health or safety?
Or do you own any | | | |\n| property that needs
immediate attention? | | | If immediate attention is needed, why is it needed? _______________________________________________ |\n| For example, do you own
perishable goods, or livestock | | | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| that must be fed, or a building
that needs urgent repairs? | | | |\n| | | | Where is the property? ________________________________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Part 5:
Explain Your Efforts to Receive a Briefing About Credit Counseling | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15. Tell the court whether | About Debtor 1: | | | | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): | | | | | |\n| you have received a
briefing about credit | You must check one: | | | You must check one: | | | | | | |\n| counseling.
The law requires that you
receive a briefing about credit | ✔
‰
certificate of completion. | I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a | ‰ | I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a
certificate of completion. | | | | | | |\n| counseling before you file for
bankruptcy. You must
truthfully check one of the | | Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment
plan, if any, that you developed with the agency. | | | Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment
plan, if any, that you developed with the agency. | | | | | |\n| following choices. If you
cannot do so, you are not
eligible to file.
If you file anyway, the court
can dismiss your case, you | ‰
certificate of completion. | I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a
Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, | ‰ | certificate of completion. | I received a briefing from an approved credit
counseling agency within the 180 days before I
filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a
Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, | | | | | |\n| will lose whatever filing fee
you paid, and your creditors | plan, if any. | you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment | | | you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment | | | | | |\n| can begin collection activities
again. | ‰
of the requirement. | I certify that I asked for credit counseling
services from an approved agency, but was
unable to obtain those services during the 7
days after I made my request, and exigent
circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver | ‰ | of the requirement. | I certify that I asked for credit counseling
services from an approved agency, but was
unable to obtain those services during the 7
days after I made my request, and exigent
circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver | | | | | |\n| | required you to file this case. | To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the
requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining
what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why
you were unable to obtain it before you filed for
bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances | | required you to file this case. | To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the
requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining
what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why
you were unable to obtain it before you filed for
bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances | | | | | |\n| | Your case may be dismissed if the court is
dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a
briefing before you filed for bankruptcy. | | Your case may be dismissed if the court is
dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a
briefing before you filed for bankruptcy. | | | | | | | |\n| | | If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must
still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file.
You must file a certificate from the approved
agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you
developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case
may be dismissed.
Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted
only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 | | | If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must
still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file.
You must file a certificate from the approved
agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you
developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case
may be dismissed.
Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted
only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 | | | | | |\n| | days.
‰ | I am not required to receive a briefing about | ‰ | days. | I am not required to receive a briefing about | | | | | |\n| | | credit counseling because of: | | credit counseling because of: | | | | | | |\n| | ‰
Incapacity.
‰
Disability. | I have a mental illness or a mental
deficiency that makes me
incapable of realizing or making
rational decisions about finances. | | ‰
Incapacity. | I have a mental illness or a mental
deficiency that makes me
incapable of realizing or making
rational decisions about finances. | | | | | |\n| | | My physical disability causes me
to be unable to participate in a
briefing in person, by phone, or
through the internet, even after I
reasonably tried to do so. | | ‰
Disability. | My physical disability causes me
to be unable to participate in a
briefing in person, by phone, or
through the internet, even after I
reasonably tried to do so. | | | | | |\n| | ‰ | Active duty. I am currently on active military
duty in a military combat zone. | | ‰ | Active duty. I am currently on active military
duty in a military combat zone. | | | | | |\n| | | If you believe you are not required to receive a
briefing about credit counseling, you must file a
motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court. | | If you believe you are not required to receive a
briefing about credit counseling, you must file a
motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court. | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | | | |\n| Part 6: | | Answer These Questions for Reporting Purposes | | | | | | |\n| | 16. What kind of debts do | 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 | ‰
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| | | ‰
No
‰
Yes | | | | | | |\n| | are paid that funds will be
available for distribution
to unsecured creditors? | | | | | | | |\n| | 18. How many creditors do
you estimate that you | ‰
1-49
✔
‰
50-99 | ‰
1,000-5,000
‰
5,001-10,000 | ‰
25,001-50,000
‰
50,001-100,000 | | | | |\n| owe? | | ‰
100-199
‰
200-999 | ‰
10,001-25,000 | ‰
More than 100,000 | | | | |\n| | 19. How much do you
estimate your assets to
be worth? | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000
✔
‰
\\$50,001-\\$100,000 | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million
‰
\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion
‰
\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion | | | | |\n| | | ‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000
‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million
‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion
‰
More than \\$50 billion | | | | |\n| | 20. How much do you
estimate your liabilities | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000
‰ | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million
‰ | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion
‰ | | | | |\n| to be? | | \\$50,001-\\$100,000
‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000 | \\$10,000,001-\\$50 million
‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million
✔ | \\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion
‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion | | | | |\n| Part 7: | Sign Below | ‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
More than \\$50 billion | | | | |\n| For you | | I have examined this petition, and I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and
correct. | | | | | | |\n| | | If I have chosen to file under Chapter 7, I am aware that I may proceed, if eligible, under Chapter 7, 11,12, or 13
of title 11, United States Code. I understand the relief available under each chapter, and I choose to proceed
under Chapter 7. | | | | | | |\n| | | 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| | | Signature of Debtor 1 | | Signature of Debtor 2 | | | | |\n| | | 02/15/2022
Executed on _________________
MM
/ DD | / YYYY | Executed on __________________
MM / DD
/ YYYY | | | | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Case number (if known)_____________________________________
Last Name | | | |\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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Printed name | | | |\n| | | Brown Rudnick LLP
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | |\n| | | Firm name
7 Times Square
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Number
Street | | | |\n| | | _________________________________________________________________________________________________
New York
______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ | NY | 10036 | |\n| | | City | State | ZIP Code | |\n| | | (212) 209-4800
Contact phone _____________________________________ | Email address | wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
______________________________ | |\n| | | 4813846
______________________________________________________ ____________ | NY | | |\n| | | Bar number | State | | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| For you if you are filing this
bankruptcy without an
attorney
If you are represented by
an attorney, you do not
need to file this page. | | The law allows you, as an individual, to represent yourself in bankruptcy court, but you
should understand that many people find it extremely difficult to represent
themselves successfully. Because bankruptcy has long-term financial and legal
consequences, you are strongly urged to hire a qualified attorney. | | | | |\n| | | To be successful, you must correctly file and handle your bankruptcy case. The rules are very
technical, and a mistake or inaction may affect your rights. For example, your case may be
dismissed because you did not file a required document, pay a fee on time, attend a meeting or
hearing, or cooperate with the court, case trustee, U.S. trustee, bankruptcy administrator, or audit
firm if your case is selected for audit. If that happens, you could lose your right to file another
case, or you may lose protections, including the benefit of the automatic stay. | | | | |\n| | | You must list all your property and debts in the schedules that you are required to file with the
court. Even if you plan to pay a particular debt outside of your bankruptcy, you must list that debt
in your schedules. If you do not list a debt, the debt may not be discharged. If you do not list
property or properly claim it as exempt, you may not be able to keep the property. The judge can
also deny you a discharge of all your debts if you do something dishonest in your bankruptcy
case, such as destroying or hiding property, falsifying records, or lying. Individual bankruptcy
cases are randomly audited to determine if debtors have been accurate, truthful, and complete.
Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime; you could be fined and imprisoned. | | | | |\n| | | If you decide to file without an attorney, the court expects you to follow the rules as if you had
hired an attorney. The court will not treat you differently because you are filing for yourself. To be
successful, you must be familiar with the United States Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, and the local rules of the court in which your case is filed. You must also
be familiar with any state exemption laws that apply.
Are you aware that filing for bankruptcy is a serious action with long-term financial and legal | | | | |\n| | | consequences?
‰ | | | | |\n| | | No
‰
Yes | | | | |\n| | | Are you aware that bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime and that if your bankruptcy forms are
inaccurate or incomplete, you could be fined or imprisoned?
‰
No | | | | |\n| | | ‰
Yes | | | | |\n| | | Did you pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help you fill out your bankruptcy forms?
‰
No
‰
Yes. Name of Person_____________________________________________________________________.
Attach Bankruptcy Petition Preparer's Notice, Declaration, and Signature (Official Form 119). | | | | |\n| | | | By signing here, I acknowledge that I understand the risks involved in filing without an attorney. I
have read and understood this notice, and I am aware that filing a bankruptcy case without an
attorney may cause me to lose my rights or property if I do not properly handle the case. | | | |\n| | | 8 | 8 | | | |\n| | | _______________________________________________
Signature of Debtor 1 | ______________________________
Signature of Debtor 2 | | | |\n| | | Date
_________________ | Date
_________________ | | | |\n| | | MM / DD
/ YYYY
Contact phone ______________________________________ | MM / DD / YYYY
Contact phone
________________________________ | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\nEmail address \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Email address \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n121\n\n| Fill in this information to identify your case: | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|--|--|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho Wan
__________________________________________________________________ | Kwok | | | |\n| | First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | |\n| Debtor 2 | | ________________________________________________________________ | | | |\n| (Spouse, if filing) First Name | | Middle Name | Last Name | | |\n| | United States Bankruptcy Court for the: __________ District of __________
District of Connecticut | | | | |\n| (If known) | Case number ___________________________________________ | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n Check if this is an amended filing\n\n## 2IILFLDO)RUP104\n\n## For Individual Chapter 11 Cases: List of Creditors Who Have the 20 Largest Unsecured Claims Against You and Are Not Insiders **12/15**\n\n**If you are an individual filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, you must fill out this form. If you are filing under Chapter 7, Chapter 12, or Chapter 13, do not fill out this form. Do not include claims by anyone who is an** *insider***. Insiders include your relatives; any general partners; relatives of any general partners; partnerships of which you are a general partner; corporations of which you are an officer, director, person in control, or owner of 20 percent or more of their voting securities; and any managing agent, including one for a business you operate as a sole proprietor. 11 U.S.C. § 101. Also, do not include claims by secured creditors unless the unsecured claim resulting from inadequate collateral value places the creditor among the holders of the 20 largest unsecured claims.**\n\n**Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information.**\n\nPart 1: List the 20 Unsecured Claims in Order from Largest to Smallest. Do Not Include Claims by Insiders.\n\n| | | | | Unsecured claim |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | (approx) 254,000,000.00
\\$____________________________ |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name
C/O O'Melveney & Myers, LLP
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated
‰ | |\n| 7 Times Square
__________________________________________
New York | NY | 10065 | Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | |\n| __________________________________________
City
Stuart Sarnoff, Esq
__________________________________________
Contact | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | -
Value of security:
\\$_____________________
Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | |\n| 2
Golden Spring New York | | | Litigation Funding
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | (approx) 21,000,000.00
\\$____________________________ |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name
162 E. 64th Street
__________________________________________
Number
Street
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10605 |
‰
None of the above apply | |\n| City
Max Krasner
__________________________________________
Contact | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | -
Value of security:
\\$_____________________
Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | |\n\n| Ho Wan
Debtor 1 | | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|\n| First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | | Unsecured claim |\n| 3 __________________________________________
Rui Ma | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 20,000,000 |\n| Creditor's Name
750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor | | | | | \\$____________________________ |\n| __________________________________________
Number
Street | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| New York | NY | 10022 |
‰
Disputed | | |\n| __________________________________________
City | State | ZIP Code | ‰
None of the above apply
Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo | | | ‰
No | | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 4 __________________________________________
Cheng Jian Wu Jian She | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 14,898483.90
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| Number
Street | | | ‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | | |\n| Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No | | |\n| Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 5 __________________________________________
Ning Ye | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 12,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | |\n| 135-11 38th Avenue
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent | | |\n| C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰ | | |\n| New York | NY | 10022 | Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| __________________________________________
City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
No | | |\n| Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 6 __________________________________________
Guo Baosheng | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 12,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | |\n| 135-11 38th Avenue
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent | | |\n| C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated | | |\n| | | |
‰
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| Flushing
__________________________________________
City | NY
State | 11354
ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Ning Ye, Esq. | | | ‰
No | | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Value of security:
Unsecured claim | -
\\$_____________________
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | | | | Litigation | 10,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Yang Lan and Wu Zheng
__________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | |\n| 750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Contingent | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰ | | |\n| __________________________________________
New York | NY | 10022 | Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| __________________________________________
City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo | | | ‰
No | | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________
- | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Value of security:
Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | | | | | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho Wan | | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|\n| | First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | | | |\n| | | | | | | Unsecured claim | |\n| | 8 __________________________________________
Hong Qi Qu | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | | | 9,809,422.71
\\$____________________________ |\n| | Creditor's Name
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | | |\n| | __________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent
‰ | | | |\n| | C/O Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| | Contact | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| | ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| | 9 __________________________________________
Nan Tong Si Jian | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | | 5,568,522.66
\\$____________________________ |\n| | Creditor's Name | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | | | |\n| | 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent | | | |\n| | C/O Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated | | | |\n| | | | |
‰
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________
City | NY
State | 11354
ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq. | | | ‰
No | | | |\n| | __________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________
- | | |\n| | ____________________________________ | | | Value of security:
Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| | Contact phone | | | | | | 5,380,262.32 |\n| | 10 __________________________________________
Jian Gong
Creditor's Name | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | | \\$____________________________ | |\n| | 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | | | |\n| | Number
Street | | ‰
Unliquidated | | | | |\n| | C/O Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | |
‰
Disputed | | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No | | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| | | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| | ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| | 11 __________________________________________
Yan Zhao | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | | 3,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| | Creditor's Name | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | | |\n| | 135-11 8th Ave
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Contingent | | | |\n| | C/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰ | | | |\n| | Flushing | NY | 11354 | Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| | __________________________________________
City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | | |\n| | Ning Ye, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
No
‰ | | | |\n| | Contact | | | Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| | ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| 12 | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | | 1,571,530.36
\\$____________________________ | |\n| | Yua Hua Zhuang Shi
__________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | | | | |\n| | 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | ‰
Contingent | | | | |\n| | Number
Street
C/O Kevin Tung, Esq. | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | | |\n| | __________________________________________ | | | ‰
None of the above apply | | | |\n| | Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | ‰
No
‰ | | | |\n| | Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | | |\n| | | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | | |\n| | ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | | | | |\n\n121\n\n| Ho Wan
Debtor 1
_______________________________________________________ | Kwok | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| First Name
Middle Name | Last Name | |\n| | | Unsecured claim |\n| 13 __________________________________________
Liehong Zhuang/Xiao Yan Zhu
Creditor's Name | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 1,005,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| 224 West 35th Street, 11th Floor
__________________________________________ | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰ | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Trexler & Zhang, LLP | Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | |\n| __________________________________________ |
‰
Disputed | |\n| New York
NY
10001
__________________________________________
City
State | ‰
None of the above apply
Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
ZIP Code | |\n| Jonathan T. Trexler, Esq. | ‰
No | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________
-
Value of security:
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | |\n| 14 __________________________________________
Weican Meng/Boxun, Inc. | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 1,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | |\n| 750 Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor
__________________________________________
Number
Street | ‰
Contingent | |\n| C/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP
__________________________________________ | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | |\n| New York
NY
10022
__________________________________________ | ‰
None of the above apply | |\n| City
State | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
ZIP Code
‰
No | |\n| Robert C. Angelillo
__________________________________________
Contact | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | -
Value of security:
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | 1,000,000 |\n| 15 __________________________________________
Samuel Nunberg
Creditor's Name | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | \\$____________________________ |\n| 363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor
__________________________________________ | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP
__________________________________________ | ‰
Unliquidated
| |\n| | ‰
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | |\n| New York
NY
10001
__________________________________________
City
State | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
ZIP Code | |\n| Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.
__________________________________________ | ‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact | -
Value of security:
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | |\n| 16 __________________________________________
Lamp Capital, LLC | Litigation Loan
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 1,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| Creditor's Name
One Commerce Plaza | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | |\n| __________________________________________
Number
Street | ‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | |\n| 99 Washington Avenue
__________________________________________ | ‰
Disputed | |\n| Albany
NY
12231
__________________________________________
City
State |
‰
None of the above apply
Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
ZIP Code | |\n| C/O NYS, Secretary of State | ‰
No | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________
- | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | Value of security:
\\$_____________________
Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Jun Chen aka Jonathan Ho | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 1,000,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply. | |\n| 41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112
__________________________________________
Number
Street | ‰
Contingent
‰
Unliquidated | |\n| C/O Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq
__________________________________________ | ‰
[
Disputed | |\n| Flushing
NY
11355
__________________________________________ | ‰
None of the above apply | |\n| City
State | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
ZIP Code
‰
No | |\n| Wayne Wei Zhu
__________________________________________
Contact | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
\\$_____________________ | |\n| | -
Value of security:
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | Unsecured claim
\\$_____________________ | |\n\nContact phone\n\n| Ho Wan
Debtor 1 | | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | | | Unsecured claim |\n| 18
Yue Hua Zhu Shi | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 981,501.72
\\$____________________________ |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
__________________________________________ | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| Number
Street
C/O Kevin Tung, Esq.
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
‰
Disputed | | |\n| Flushing
__________________________________________ | NY | 11354 | ‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City
Kevin Tung, Esq. | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property?
‰
No | | |\n| __________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| | | | | Litigation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | |\n| 19
Jia Li Wang
__________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | | | 430,000
\\$____________________________ |\n| 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| C/O Thompson Hine
__________________________________________ | | | ‰
Unliquidated
| | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10017 | ‰
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| Brian P. Lanciault, Esq
__________________________________________
Contact | | | ‰
No
‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured): | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________ | | | Value of security: | -
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Contact phone | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| 20 | | | | Litgiation
What is the nature of the claim? ____________________________ | 319,130
\\$____________________________ |\n| WA&HF, LLC/Ruizeng An | | | As of the date you file, the claim is: Check all that apply.
‰
Contingent | | |\n| __________________________________________
Creditor's Name | | | ‰
Unliquidated
| | |\n| 41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor
__________________________________________
Number
Street | | | ‰
Disputed
‰
None of the above apply | | |\n| C/O AFN Law
__________________________________________ | | | Does the creditor have a lien on your property? | | |\n| New York
__________________________________________ | NY | 10010 | ‰
No | | |\n| City | State | ZIP Code | ‰
Yes. Total claim (secured and unsecured):
Value of security: | \\$_____________________
-
\\$_____________________ | |\n| Angus Ni, Esq.
__________________________________________
Contact | | | Unsecured claim | \\$_____________________ | |\n| ____________________________________
Contact phone | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Part 2:
Sign Below | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the information provided in this form is true and correct. | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 8
V+R:DQ.ZRN | | | 8 | | |\n| ______________________________________________
Signature of Debtor 1 | | | Signature of Debtor 2 | ______________________________________________ | |\n| | | | Date _________________ | | |\n| Date _________________ | | | | | |","body_zh":"证据D\n\n移送动议\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER：控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER控股公司），\n\n3:22-cv-00553-VAB\n\n被告。\n\nApril 21, 2022\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 关于将案件移送至康涅狄格州联邦破产法院的动议及合并提交的支持法律备忘录\n\n根据《美国法典》第28编第151条和第157(a)条、本院于 September 21, 1984 发布的常设命令（以下简称“常设移送命令”）1，以及 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦破产法院）（Jones, U.S.B.J.）于 April 15, 2022 作出的已核准解决审判地移送动议的协议（以下简称“附条件移送命令”），Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）谨此提出动议2，\n\n请求本院将上述案件移送 United States Bankruptcy Court for District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院），交由目前正在审理题为 In re Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的破产案件、破产案件编号为 22-50073 (JAM)（以下简称“破产案件”）的尊敬的 United States Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁美国联邦破产法官）分案审理。\n\n导言\n\n1. 于 February 15, 2022，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）未能履行 Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院纽约县商业分庭）（由 Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）主持）（以下简称“纽约法院”）作出的民事藐视法庭命令后，在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）（以下简称“康涅狄格州破产法院”）启动破产案件。该民事藐视法庭命令所涉案件题为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. vs. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.，索引号为 652077/2017（以下简称“被移送诉讼”）。3\n\n2. 于 March 18, 2022，债务人将被移送诉讼从纽约法院移送至 United States District Court for Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）；该院根据日期为 January 31, 2012 的经修订常设移送命令，将被移送诉讼移送至 United States Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York（以下简称“纽约破产法院”）。于 April 15, 2022，纽约破产法院作出附条件移送命令，将被移送诉讼移送至本院。4\n\n3. 根据《美国法典》第28编第151条和第157(a)条、常设移送命令、附条件移送命令以及下文所述理由，PAX 请求将被移送诉讼移送至康涅狄格州破产法院，并交由正在审理破产案件的 Manning 法官审理，以使 Manning 法官能够裁决发回动议（定义如下）。该发回动议对康涅狄格州破产法院依据《美国法典》第28编第1334(b)条享有的事项管辖权提出异议，或者作为替代请求，请求康涅狄格州破产法院回避审理被移送诉讼。\n\n4. 债务人同意将被移送诉讼移送至康涅狄格州破产法院，但不加入本动议，亦不采纳本文件所作陈述。\n\n程序经过\n\n5. 于 April 18, 2017，PAX 在纽约法院提起被移送诉讼，起诉债务人违反个人保证合同。5 经历近四年的诉讼后，于 February 3, 2021，PAX 在被移送诉讼中取得针对债务人的 $116,402,019.57 判决。6 此后，PAX“首先识别、继而试图扣押[债务人]在美国的资产，开展了长达一年的执行[该]判决的工作”。7 这绝非易事，因为如 Ostrager 法官所认定，债务人“自称为亿万富翁，却将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之间”。8 债务人迄今尚未偿还 $116,402,019.57 判决中的任何款项，该判决按每年 9 percent 的利率计收判决后利息。9\n\n6. 债务人对 Lady May（一艘于 2015 年以 €28 million 购置的豪华游艇）至少享有10 受益所有权。于 September 30, 2020，Ostrager 法官在被移送诉讼中作出临时限制令，禁止债务人“出售、转让、让与或干扰其享有任何权益的任何财产，或导致实施上述行为……”。11 两周后，即 October 15, 2020，Ostrager 法官明确，该项对债务人的限制包括 Lady May。12 然而，在 Ostrager 法官及 PAX 不知情的情况下，Lady May 已于约 October 9 离开纽约前往佛罗里达州。13 该游艇随后前往巴哈马群岛，最终抵达欧洲，并一直停留至今。14\n\n1 常设命令的副本可见于 http\n\n2 本动议取代并旨在替换于 April 20, 2021 提交的、寻求相同救济的动议 [ECF No. 5]；该次提交遗漏了律师签名，且未表明债务人的附条件同意。见下文第 4、19 段。债务人的同意是在 April 20, 2021 的初次提交后取得的。\n\n8 同上。\n\n5 同上。\n\n6 见证据3，判决书第2页，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 3, 2021), ECF 716。\n\n7 见证据4，动议裁定及命令第1页，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), ECF 1181。\n\n9 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004 (McKinney 2022)。\n\n10 值得注意的是，债务人在其于破产案件中在伪证处罚下提交的若干资产及负债清单中声称没有资产。但见 United States Trustee（美国受托人）对债务人延长提交资产及负债清单和财务状况说明书期限动议的异议第 12 段，破产案件 ECF No. 49（债务人在与美国受托人进行初次债务人面谈时，Kwok “披露其没有银行账户、没有信用卡、未受雇从而没有收入，且其所有生活开支均由一家名为 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）（以下简称‘Golden Spring’）的实体支付并通过该实体支付。[其]还披露其并不直接拥有任何不动产、不拥有任何汽车，且未为任何资产投保。”）。\n\n7. 作为回应，PAX 提交了藐视法庭动议15；于 March 16, 2021，纽约法院作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示债务人或该船的登记所有人须于 May 15, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回法院管辖范围，并规定此后游艇每停留在其管辖范围之外一天，即处以 $500,000 罚款。16 New York Appellate Division, First Department（纽约州上诉分院第一部门）一致维持纽约法院的命令，认定：(i) PAX 已“以明确且令人信服的证据证明，[债务人]违反了其知悉的法院合法、明确命令，且该违反行为损害了[PAX]的权利……”17；以及 (ii)“每日 $500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使[债务人]消除其藐视法庭行为。”18 因此，第一部门指示 Ostrager 法官在作出最终藐视法庭命令前，“进行证据听证，以解决关于游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当处罚”。19\n\n8. 纽约法院于 February 2, 2022 举行了该证据听证会。在听取七名证人的证言后，Ostrager 法官认定，“听证会上从[债务人]证人口中取得的证言，以明确且令人信服的方式证明，[债务人]受益所有并控制 Lady May，且其对本院及司法程序抱有彻底蔑视。”20 法院还认定，“[债务人]不仅控制该游艇，看起来还是其提供了购置资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”21 因此，Ostrager 法官作出日期为 February 8, 2022 的最终民事藐视法庭命令（以下简称“February 9 藐视法庭命令”）。22\n\n9. 债务人未支付藐视法庭罚款，截至本文件日期亦未将 Lady May 送回美国。23 于 February 15, 2022，债务人在康涅狄格州破产法院提交破产案件。24\n\n10. 于 March 1, 2022，PAX 在破产案件中提交了根据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条提出的请求作出确认自动中止不适用之命令，或者作为替代请求解除自动中止的动议（以下简称“中止动议”）。25 在中止动议中，PAX 请求破产法院作出命令，认定《破产法》的自动中止规定不适用于被移送诉讼中作出的 February 9 藐视法庭命令所载司法救济。作为替代请求，中止动议请求解除自动中止，以允许 PAX 寻求执行 February 9 藐视法庭命令。债务人反对中止动议所请求的救济，且康涅狄格州破产法院已在破产案件中就中止动议主持两次听证。\n\n11. 于 March 18, 2022，债务人将被移送诉讼从纽约法院移送至 United States District Court, Southern District of New York，后者将被移送诉讼移送至纽约破产法院。于 March 23, 2022，债务人提交其案件移送动议，请求将被移送诉讼移送至本院，以进一步移送至康涅狄格州破产法院。\n\n12. 于 April 5, 2022，PAX 向纽约破产法院提交了解决审判地移送动议的拟议协议（以下简称“附条件移送协议”）。在附条件移送协议中，PAX 同意将被移送诉讼移送至康涅狄格州破产法院；但明确保留且未放弃请求康涅狄格州破产法院审议将被移送诉讼发回，或者作为替代请求回避审理被移送诉讼的权利。债务人未在附条件移送协议中放弃，并明确保留，对反对 PAX 所请求的发回或回避审理的权利提出任何异议的权利。\n\n13 见证据7，VESSELFINDER，航程分析器\n\n11 见证据5，动议裁定及命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 62077-2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 30, 2020), ECF 591。\n\n12 见证据6，动议裁定及命令第1页，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/217 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 15, 2020), ECF 630。\n\nhttp（最后访问于 Feb. 28, 2022）。\n\n14 截至 February 28, 2022，Lady May 位于意大利热那亚。见同上。\n\n15 见证据8，PAX 支持对被告 Kwok 作出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 24, 2020), ECF No. 689；另见证据9，PAX 进一步支持对被告 Kwok 作出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 27, 2021), ECF 709。\n\n16 见证据10，动议裁定及命令第2页，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2021), ECF 728（“初始藐视法庭命令”）。换言之，法院给予 Kwok 先生整整两个月的宽限期，以送回游艇，从而避免任何罚款。\n\n17 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)。\n\n18 同上，第424页。\n\n19 上引证据3，注释7，第4页。\n\n20 同上，第4页。\n\n21 同上，第8页。\n\n22 见证据11，最终民事藐视法庭命令，PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), ECF 1182。\n\n23 见证据12，破产案件 ECF 57。\n\n24 证据13，自愿申请书第7页，破产案件 ECF 1。\n\n25 见证据12，中止动议，上引注释23。\n\n13. 2022年4月14日，PAX依据28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1)向纽约破产法院（New York Bankruptcy Court）提交了《发回动议，或作为备选请求，请求回避审理》（以下简称“发回动议”）。\n\n14. 2022年4月15日，纽约破产法院作出了附条件移送命令（Conditional Transfer Order）。\n\n15. PAX现请求将被移送之诉讼移交康涅狄格破产法院（Connecticut Bankruptcy Court），以便该院裁决发回动议。\n\n请求的救济\n\n16. PAX通过本动议，请求作出命令，将被移送之诉讼移交康涅狄格破产法院，并分配给目前正在审理破产案件的尊敬的Julie A. Manning法官（Judge Julie A. Manning）。在将被移送之诉讼移交Manning法官后，PAX将请求裁决发回动议；该动议对本院的事项管辖权提出异议，或作为备选请求，请求康涅狄格破产法院回避审理被移送之诉讼。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\n17. 根据《美国法典》第28编第1334条，本院对破产“案件”及列举的“民事程序”具有事项管辖权。尽管康涅狄格破产法院对破产“案件”及该等“民事程序”不具有独立的事项管辖权，《美国法典》第28编第151条授予康涅狄格破产法院行使本院根据《美国法典》第28编被授予的某些“权限”的权力。28 U.S.C. § 151。根据《美国法典》第28编第157条及常设移交命令（Standing Referral Order），本院可将破产“案件”及某些列举的“程序”移交康涅狄格破产法院，以由其作出最终判决（核心程序），或提出拟议认定和结论（非核心、与案件相关的程序）。同上；另见常设移交命令。\n\n18. 本案中，由于破产案件正在康涅狄格破产法院由Manning法官审理，且被移送之诉讼涉及债务人和PAX——债务人最大的无担保债权人——PAX请求首先将被移送之诉讼移交破产法院，以便Manning法官裁决发回动议。\n\n19. PAX的律师已与债务人的律师进行沟通。债务人同意将被移送之诉讼移交康涅狄格破产法院，但不加入本动议，也不采纳本动议中的陈述。\n\n20. 此外，根据附条件移送命令，被移送之诉讼应移交康涅狄格破产法院；该命令的作出系由PAX和债务人一致请求。见附条件移送命令，第¶¶ 1-2段。\n\n权利保留\n\n21. 尽管本动议载有任何内容，PAX保留与被移送之诉讼有关的一切权利，包括但不限于在被移送之诉讼被移交后于康涅狄格破产法院推进发回动议的权利。\n\n结论\n\nPAX谨请求本院作出命令，将被移送之诉讼移交康涅狄格破产法院，并分配给正在审理破产案件的尊敬的Julie A. Manning法官。\n\n[签名见下页]\n\n日期：April 21, 2022 康涅狄格州哈特福德\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney Patrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼，CT No. 19875） Annecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯，CT No. 31148） ROBINSON & COLE LLP（罗宾逊与科尔有限责任合伙律师事务所） 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 电话：(860) 275-8275 传真：(860) 275-8299 电子邮箱：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼，获准pro hac vice出庭） Stuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨尔诺夫，获准pro hac vice出庭） O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（欧麦律师事务所） 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 326-2000 传真：(212) 326-2061 电子邮箱：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年4月21日，上述动议副本已通过法院CM/ECF系统以电子方式提交；法院电子提交系统已通过电子邮件向所有通知当事人发送本次提交通知，并已通过邮件向下述当事人送达。利害关系方可通过法院CM/ECF系统查阅本文件。\n\n通过邮件送达的当事人：\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）的律师 William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加） BROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克有限责任合伙律师事务所） 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 209-4800 电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）和Genever Holding Corp.（Genever控股公司）的律师 Aaron A. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔） LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC（拉沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司） 162 E. 64th Street New York, NY 10065 电话：(973) 285-3280\n\n电子邮箱：aaron@lmesq.com\n\nGenever Holdings LLC的律师 J. Ted Donovan（J. 泰德·多诺万） GOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈尔茨坦有限责任合伙律师事务所） 1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 221-5700\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney____________________\n\nPatrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼）\n\n附件1\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n案号\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2017 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2017\n\n诉\n\n起诉书\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，\n\n被告。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 本案是一宗直接的违约案件。据报道为亿万富翁的Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名Kwok Ho，又名Gwo Wen Gui，又名Guo Wengui，又名Guo Wen-Gui，又名Wan Gue Haoyun，又名Miles Kwok，又名Haoyun Guo（“Kwok”），及其控制的实体，向原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX LP”）借款数百万美元，但未能根据具有约束力的书面协议支付任何应付PAX LP的款项。\n\n2. 2008年，PAX LP与Kwok的商业实体之一Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit Charter”）订立书面协议，据此，PAX LP向Spirit Charter提供本金金额为$30 million的贷款额度。该贷款额度以Kwok签署对Spirit Charter还款义务的个人保证为条件。\n\n3. 2009年，Kwok的另一实体Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）承担了Spirit Charter欠付PAX LP的债务，双方当时同意该债务总额为$45,357,534.25。Kwok签署了对该债务的个人保证。\n\n4. 随后于2011年，PAX LP与Shiny Times订立书面协议（“2011年融资函”），明确取代双方此前的协议。在2011年融资函中，双方同意Shiny Times欠付PAX LP $46,426,489，并将于June 30, 2012前偿还该金额（另加自December 31, 2010起按年利率15%计算的利息）。\n\n5. 同日，Kwok订立一份单独的个人保证（该保证同样明确取代Kwok此前的个人保证），据此，Kwok保证支付Shiny Times根据2011年融资函欠付PAX LP的全部款项（“个人保证”）。\n\n6. 截至目前，Shiny Times和Kwok均未支付根据2011年融资函或个人保证应付PAX LP的任何款项。\n\n7. PAX LP已根据其与Shiny Times及Kwok订立的合同，采取一切必要及适当措施以追讨其应收款项——现连同合同利息约为$88 million——但未追回任何款项，因为Shiny Times和Kwok在每一步均未予理会。\n\n8. 鉴于Kwok经常在纽约进行交易、在纽约设有住所并居住，且在纽约拥有不动产，PAX LP向本院提起本诉讼，以对Kwok行使其合同权利。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n9. 根据纽约的一般属人管辖权法规C.P.L.R § 301，本院对Kwok具有属人管辖权，因为其在纽约持续且系统地“从事商业活动”，并在该州设有住所。\n\n10. 根据C.P.L.R § 503(a)，本院是适当的审判地，因为Kwok的住所位于纽约县。\n\n当事人\n\n11. 原告PAX LP是根据开曼群岛法律组建的获豁免有限合伙制投资基金。\n\n12. 被告Kwok为中国国民，在纽约设有住所，并在纽约持续且系统地“从事商业活动”。\n\n13. Kwok居住于纽约市Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）18层——其于2015年通过其独资的国内有限责任公司Genever Holdings, LLC（“Genever”）以$67.5 million购得的住所；该公司在纽约州奥尔巴尼80 State Street设有主要营业地。\n\n14. Kwok还在767 Fifth Avenue为其拥有的特拉华州公司Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）设有办公室；该公司已登记为可在纽约经营的外国公司，并在纽约设有送达法律文书的登记代理人。\n\n15. Kwok在纽约还拥有雇员或代理人，包括为Golden Spring工作的人员，以及其在过去两年中为在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）审理的两宗案件中代表其而聘请的律师。1\n\n事实陈述\n\nShiny Times贷款及Kwok为偿还PAX LP作出的个人保证\n\n16. 自约February 4, 2008起，PAX LP与Kwok之间一直存在商业往来；当时PAX LP与Kwok的商业实体之一Spirit Charter订立书面协议（“2008年融资协议”），据此，PAX LP向Spirit Charter提供本金金额为$30 million的贷款额度。\n\n17. 该贷款额度以Kwok签署对Spirit Charter还款义务的个人保证为条件。\n\n18. March 12, 2008，PAX LP和Spirit Charter对2008年融资协议作出修订及重述（“经修订及重述的2008年融资协议”）。\n\n19. 根据日期为September 17, 2009的契据（“2009年9月契据”），Shiny Times（Kwok的另一实体）、Spirit Charter、PAX LP及其他各方同意，Shiny Times将取代Spirit Charter，成为经修订及重述的2008年融资协议项下的借款人。2009年9月契据的各方还同意，截至September 12, 2009，经修订及重述的2008年融资协议项下的未偿金额，包括已累计但未支付的利息，为$45,357,534.25（“经修订的2008年贷款额度”）。\n\n1 2015年，Kwok和Golden Spring因被指违反《公平劳动标准法》而被起诉；在该诉讼中，Kwok（通过律师）承认，其在Sherry-Netherland Hotel被适当地送达传票及起诉书。Ahn v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al., No. 1:15-cv-09697 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015)。2016年，Kwok和Genever（通过律师）针对Sherry-Netherland Hotel及其他方，就其在该酒店公寓发生漏水一事提起诉讼。Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06246-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016)。\n\n20. 2009年9月契据要求Kwok为PAX LP的利益签署个人保证，以担保Shiny Times适时且按期履行及偿还经修订的2008年贷款额度。Kwok于November 18, 2009签署其个人保证。\n\n21. 此后，PAX LP、Kwok和Shiny Times同意以于March 16, 2011签署的两份合同取代上述协议——2011年融资函（作为附件A附后）及个人保证（作为附件B附后）。\n\n22. 在2011年融资函中，双方同意Shiny Times欠付PAX LP $46,426,489，并将于June 30, 2012前偿还该金额（另加自December 31, 2010起按年利率15%计算的利息）。\n\n23. 双方还在2011年融资函中约定，如Shiny Times（闪耀时代）未能支付其根据2011年融资函应付给PAX LP（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）的任何款项，即构成违约事件；在此情况下，PAX LP可：(i) 宣布全部贷款、本金应计未付利息及任何其他应付款项立即到期应付，无需进一步催告、通知或任何其他形式的法律手续；及／或 (ii) 宣布2011年融资函终止。\n\n24. 最后，如同双方此前的协议，2011年融资函明确以Kwok（郭文贵）签署个人保证为条件，以全面担保Shiny Times对PAX LP的付款义务：\n\n贷款人[PAX LP]与借款人[Shiny Times]同意订立本协议……其条件是，须向贷款人交付一份由Kwok先生作出的新个人保证（“个人保证”），以担保借款人按照本协议适当且按时履行义务，足额偿还[2011年融资函]项下款项以及全部应计未付利息。\n\n25. Kwok以Shiny Times董事的身份签署了2011年融资函，并于同日签署了个人保证；根据该个人保证，Kwok同意“不可撤销且无条件地”保证Shiny Times支付2011年融资函项下所欠的全部款项。具体而言，Kwok：\n\n(a) 向PAX LP保证Shiny Times适当且按时支付其在2011年融资函项下的义务；\n\n(b) 同意“在[PAX LP]提出要求后，[Kwok]将立即向[PAX LP]支付所有到期但未付的[该等款项]”；\n\n(c) 同意“就因Shiny Times在2011年融资函项下的任何义务因任何原因对Shiny Times而言为或变为无效、可撤销、不可执行或无效力，而使[PAX LP]遭受的一切损失，按要求向[PAX LP]作出赔偿并使其免受损害”；\n\n(d) 同意PAX LP提出付款要求即构成该等付款已到期应付的初步证据；\n\n(e) 同意PAX LP可向Shiny Times或Kwok任何一方寻求偿还；以及\n\n(f) 同意就因行使或执行个人保证所产生的“任何及所有成本、索赔、损失及费用（包括律师费）”向PAX LP作出赔偿。\n\n26. 此外，Kwok同意放弃若干抗辩，包括基于Shiny Times清盘或解散的抗辩，或基于PAX LP因“任何原因”无法向Shiny Times追偿的抗辩。Kwok还同意概括性地放弃任何可设想的抗辩，该等抗辩基于“任何其他可能导致解除、减损或以其他方式影响保证人、任何义务，或影响本保证或法律赋予[PAX LP]的任何权利、权力及救济的作为、事件或不作为”。\n\n27. 换言之，Kwok签署了一份明确且不可动摇的保证，承诺在任何情况下清偿Shiny Times在2011年融资函项下对PAX LP所负的债务。\n\n和解契据的延期以及Shiny Times最终未能偿还PAX LP\n\n28. Shiny Times未在2011年融资函规定的2012年6月30日还款日之前偿还贷款本金或应计利息的任何部分，双方随后订立了一系列延期协议，每份均称为“和解契据”。\n\n29. PAX LP、Shiny Times和Kwok于2013年4月19日与Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资有限公司，以下简称“Beijing Pangu”）共同订立第一份和解契据（“原和解契据”）；Beijing Pangu是Kwok商业帝国旗下的另一家公司。\n\n30. 原和解契据规定，截至原和解契据签订之日，2011年融资函项下未偿还的总到期金额连同全部应计未付利息为\\$52 million；在满足下列条件后，该金额将不再到期应付：\n\n(a) 如PAX LP在三笔独立交易中向Beijing Pangu购买三套公寓，每套约\\$5 million，总额约\\$15 million；以及\n\n(b) 如Shiny Times向PAX LP完成三笔每笔约\\$5 million的分期付款——每次独立购买公寓后支付一笔分期款——总额约\\$15 million。\n\n31. 然而，在PAX LP能够向Beijing Pangu购买任何一套三套公寓之前，Beijing Pangu须根据原和解契据满足若干与产权、税项及房地产交易其他常见事项有关的先决条件。如截至2013年7月31日，任何一套公寓未满足任何该等条件，原和解契据明确规定其将整体终止，2011年融资函将恢复完全效力。\n\n32. Beijing Pangu未能在2013年7月31日前满足该等先决条件，因此PAX LP未完成购买任何公寓，Shiny Times亦未支付其根据原和解契据应向PAX LP支付的任何一笔三期分期款。\n\n33. 四份补充和解契据——分别于2013年12月3日、2014年5月15日、2014年7月11日及2015年2月10日签订——延长了原和解契据所载日期，包括还款日及Beijing Pangu满足先决条件的日期。\n\n34. 每份补充和解契据的条款均与原和解契据相同。每次结果也相同：Beijing Pangu从未满足其须满足的条件，因此PAX LP无须且未完成购买任何公寓，Shiny Times也从未支付其根据2011年融资函应向PAX LP支付的任何一笔三期分期款。\n\n35. 最后，于2015年3月31日，Shiny Times和PAX LP与Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited（全球机遇控股有限公司）及Empire Growth Holdings Limited（帝国增长控股有限公司）共同订立了一份期权协议（“期权协议”），其中规定Shiny Times通过股份出售交易偿还其欠付PAX LP的款项等事项。\n\n36. 根据其条款，如未满足某些与财产转让有关的条件（如期权协议所述），期权协议即告终止。该等条件均未得到满足，期权协议因而终止，但不免除Shiny Times向PAX LP付款的义务。\n\n37. 因此，2011年融资函恢复完全效力，Kwok在个人保证项下的义务完全可执行，且Kwok根据个人保证对Shiny Times在2011年融资函项下欠付PAX LP的全部债务独立承担责任。\n\nPAX LP寻求执行其合同权利并收取应付款项\n\n38. 于2015年10月16日，在和解契据和期权协议终止、2011年融资函恢复完全效力后，PAX LP向Kwok在香港的地址发出书面催告通知（“催告通知”），该地址载于个人保证条款中。\n\n39. 催告通知告知Kwok，“Shiny Times未能偿还”其根据2011年融资函到期应付金额的任何部分，并要求立即支付\\$71,818,633.44。催告通知还告知Kwok，如其未立即付款，可能会对其提起法律程序，并保留PAX LP在2011年融资函和个人保证项下的合同权利。\n\n40. Kwok从未对催告通知作出回应。\n\n41. 于2016年2月19日，PAX LP向Shiny Times发出函件，要求支付2011年融资函项下到期应付的\\$82,219,404.08（“Shiny Times催告函”）；该金额为截至Shiny Times催告函日期按年利率15%计算的本金加合同利息。\n\n42. Shiny Times从未对Shiny Times催告函作出回应。\n\n43. Shiny Times未作回应后，PAX LP于2016年2月29日向英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）法院提交申请，请求委任共同清算人，将作为BVI公司的Shiny Times进行清算。该申请指称：(i) Shiny Times未支付当时到期的\\$82,410,197.87；(ii) Shiny Times无力偿还其债务；以及 (iii) Shiny Times资不抵债，应予清算。\n\n44. 尽管Shiny Times实际上因BVI程序而被清算，PAX LP仍无法收取其在2011年融资函项下应得的任何款项。\n\n45. 截至目前，Kwok尚未偿还其根据个人保证应付给PAX LP的任何款项。到期应付金额——包括未偿还本金及应计未付利息——目前约为\\$88 million。\n\n46. 由于Kwok未能偿还其应付给PAX LP的任何款项，原告因执行个人保证而产生了“成本、索赔、损失及费用（包括律师费）”。根据个人保证的明确条款，Kwok有义务赔偿该等金额（见第25(f)段）。\n\n第一项罪名——被告Kwok违约\n\n47. 原告重申并援引第1至46段所载的每一项指称，如同在此完整列明。\n\n48. 个人保证要求Kwok就PAX LP向Spirit Charter提供的贷款融资安排（经修订）连同未付利息向PAX LP偿还款项。目前到期应付金额约为\\$88 million。\n\n49. 原告履行了其在个人保证（及其他相关协议）项下自身的义务。\n\n50. Kwok未偿还其根据个人保证应付给PAX LP的任何款项。\n\n51. 作为Kwok违反其在个人保证项下付款义务的直接结果，原告持续遭受约\\$88 million dollars的损失，该金额继续产生利息。\n\n因此，原告请求法院对被告作出如下判决：\n\n(a) 根据个人保证支付\\$46,426,489；\n\n(b) 支付利息\\$41,096,982.46；\n\n(c) PAX LP因根据个人保证的赔偿条款就个人保证对Kwok进行执行而已产生并将继续产生的合理律师费、成本及费用；以及\n\n(d) PAX LP依法有权获得的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：纽约州纽约市，4月\n\n谨此提交\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP（赛登集团）\n由：SEIDEN GROUP（赛登集团）\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登） rseiden@seidenlegal.com 950 Avenue of the Americas（美洲大道950号） New York, NY（纽约州纽约市）\n\n以及\n\nO’MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥麦文律师事务所） Stuart Sarnoff ssarnoff@omm.com Edward Moss emoss@omm.com Times Square（时代广场） New York, NY（纽约州纽约市）\n\n原告代理律师\n\n附件2\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MANHATTAN DIVISION（美国破产法院纽约南区曼哈顿分院）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n对抗程序案号：22-01073 (DSJ)\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，以及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n被告。\n\n解决变更审判地动议的协议\n\n鉴于，原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）于2017年4月18日在New York州最高法院纽约县商事庭对被告Miles Kwok（“Kwok”）提起本案所涉州法院诉讼，见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 1（“纽约诉讼”）；以及\n\n鉴于，纽约州法院于2021年2月3日作出部分简易判决，并作出有利于PAX的判决，见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al., Case No. 652077/2017 (Sup. Ct. Ny. Cnty.), Dkt. No. 716；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年2月9日，纽约州法院对Kwok（郭文贵）作出了最终民事藐视法庭命令，参见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉Kwok等案，案号652077/2017（纽约县最高法院），卷宗编号1181；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年2月15日，Kwok在康涅狄格州联邦地区法院布里奇波特分院（以下简称“CT破产法院”）依据《破产法》第11章自愿提交了救济申请，并获分配案号22-50073 (JAM)；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月18日，Kwok提交了将纽约诉讼移送至United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的通知，参见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉Kwok等案，案号1:22-cv-02258-MKV（纽约南区联邦地区法院），卷宗编号1；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月21日，根据日期为2012年1月31日的经修订移送常设命令，地区法院将本案移送本院；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月23日，Kwok根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1404和1412以及《联邦破产程序规则》第7087条，申请作出将本案移送CT破产法院的命令，参见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉Kwok等案，案号1:22-01073-dsj（纽约南区破产法院），卷宗编号4；以及\n\n鉴于，2022年3月30日，本案由Martin Glenn法官改分配给David S. Jones法官，参见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉Kwok等案，案号1:22-01073-dsj（纽约南区破产法院），卷宗编号5；\n\n因此\n\n兹由本案各方登记在案的代理律师共同约定并同意：\n\n1. 根据28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)，将本案移送至United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院布里奇波特分院），以移交CT破产法院审理，将符合司法公正利益，并将促进破产财产的经济、高效管理；以及\n\n2. PAX不放弃，并明确保留其在CT破产法院基于任何适当理由及时申请将本对抗程序发回的权利，参见，例如，Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-32 (2007)（地区法院在便利、公平和司法经济的考量有此需要时，可根据28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)适当移送案件，“而不审理事项管辖权和属人管辖权问题。”）。Kwok同样不放弃，并明确保留基于任何适当理由反对PAX所申请该等救济的权利。然而，Kwok同意，PAX同意Kwok提出的变更审判地动议，并不构成同意事项管辖权，亦不构成放弃PAX及时申请发回的权利。例如，Sinochem International Co., 549 U.S. at 430-32。\n\n特此约定：\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所） Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）原告代理律师\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所） Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）被告代理律师\n\n签字人：Stuart M. Sarnoff Stuart M. Sarnoff\n\n签字人：William R. Baldiga William R. Baldiga\n特此命令：\n\n日期：New York, New York s/ David S. Jones\n\nApril 15, 2022 尊敬的DAVID S. JONES 美国破产法官\n附件3\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n\n17 652077\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n索引号652077/2017\n\n判决书\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名KWOK HO（郭浩），又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n鉴于，2017年4月18日，原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）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（以下简称“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鉴于，2019年4月18日，原告对Kwok、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation（与Genever Holdings LLC合称“Genever被告”）提交了第一份经修订起诉状，主张：（i）被告Kwok违约；及（ii）刺破Genever被告的公司面纱。\n\n鉴于，2020年7月24日，原告就其针对Kwok的违约请求提出部分简易判决动议，该动议已完成书面陈述并由Barry R. Ostrager法官审理；该法官于2020年9月15日作出决定及命令，并于2020年9月16日登记于纽约县书记官办公室，准许原告就经修订起诉状第一罪名项所提出的违约动议，并命令原告最迟于2020年10月14日以动议通知形式申请确定第一罪名项的损害赔偿。\n17 652077\n\n鉴于，（i）2020年9月21日，原告以动议通知形式申请确定损害赔偿、律师费及开支；（ii）原告经法院许可，并在其他当事方知悉其将在日后续行申请的情况下，同意临时撤回其申请中关于律师费及开支（即执行费用）的部分，且不妨碍其日后再次提出；及（iii）该动议已完成书面陈述并由Barry R. Ostrager法官审理；该法官于2020年12月18日作出决定及命令（以下简称“损害赔偿命令”），并于2020年12月18日登记于纽约县书记官办公室，命令法院书记官登记判决，判令原告胜诉并由被告Kwok支付$46,426,489.00，另自2010年12月31日生效日起按年利率15%计付合同利息，以及自该决定及命令登记之日起按法定年利率9%计付利息。\n\n现根据原告代理律师O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）的动议，裁定：\n\n判决原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），营业地址为香港皇后大道东1号太古广场三座33楼，对居住于781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022的被告Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云）享有判决，并得向其追偿$46,426,489.00，另加合同利息$69,448,939.71，另加按9%法定利率计算的判决后利息$526,590.86，合计\n\nX $116,402,019.57，原告得据此申请强制执行。\n\n本判决于2021年2月3日登记。\n\n已提交\n\nFeb 03 2021\n纽约 第三书记官\nFeb. 2021\n县书记官办公室 2\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名KWOK HO（郭浩），又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），\n\n索引号652077/2017\n\nEDWARD MOSS, ESQ.（Edward Moss律师）的确认书\n\n被告。\n\n本人Edward Moss，纽约州各级法院正式获准执业的律师，特此根据《纽约州民事诉讼法及规则》\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2106条，在伪证罪处罚下确认如下：\n\n1. 本人系本院律师协会成员，并为O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）的合伙人；该律师事务所系本案原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）（以下简称“PAX”）的登记在案代理律师。\n\n2. 本人完全熟悉本案的事实与情形。为登记本判决之目的，本人提交本确认书，放弃诉讼费用及支出。\n\n日期：January 25, 2021 New York, New York 签字人：/s/ Edward Moss Edward Moss\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 索引号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），\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名KWOK HO（郭浩），又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），\n\n判决书\n\n基于O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）的判决登记申请\n\n上述系在纽约州纽约县登记的判决，地址为纽约州纽约市时代广场六号，邮编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）代理律师\n附件4\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n主审：尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）， 索引号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名KWOK HO（郭浩），又名GWO WEN 动议序号 019\nGUI，又名GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名\nHAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）及 动议决定及命令\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），\n\n被告。 尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n在这起2017年案件中，已有1,180项案卷记录——其中几乎全部涉及被告Kwok Ho Wan（以下简称“Kwok”）通过将其巨额个人资产置于一系列公司、亲信及家庭成员名下，以逃避及欺骗其债权人的行为——本院须决定原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）是否已完成其举证责任，以证明本院应对Kwok作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。基于下述理由，本院同时作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。\n\nPAX于2021年2月3日获得针对Kwok的$116,402,019.57判决（NYSCEF文件编号716）。此后，PAX历经一年，首先识别、继而试图对Kwok在美国的资产实施扣押，以执行其判决。PAX在识别Kwok实际控制的资产时遇到困难，因为自称亿万富翁的Kwok已将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该安排使Kwok得以主张其没有任何资产，尽管其生活奢华；原告已通过社交媒体剪报、照片和录像，对Kwok奢侈生活、炫耀其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机和游艇的情况进行了罗列。正如2022年2月2日庭审记录所指出，该等证据的证明价值甚微，因为提出该等证据的证人除知悉其可在各种网站上获取外，并无关于该“证据”真实性的第一手知识。\n\n2022年2月2日，本院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证言，并可供交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX 就查找并扣押被告 Kwok（郭文贵）所有资产进行了旷日持久的程序。该等程序确立了诸项事实，其中包括 Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）的游艇行使支配和控制，并导致作出一系列命令，限制 Kwok 和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。首项此类命令于2020年9月30日作出，如下文详述；随后于2020年10月15日作出一项命令，限制“Kwok 先生和/或……游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开本院管辖范围。（NYSCEF Doc. No. 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在2020年7月、8月和9月的大部分时间均在 Lady May 上度过。在导致作出2020年9月30日和10月15日限制令的程序进行期间，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于2020年10月初驶往佛罗里达州，其后驶往巴哈马。2021年3月16日，本院作出一项附条件的民事藐视法庭命令，指示若 Kwok 未能于2021年5月31日前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围，则 Lady May 留在本院管辖范围之外的每一天，Kwok 均须缴纳 $500,000.00 罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（上诉分庭第一部门）维持了本院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管其获准如此做，但其毫无意愿这样做……”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分庭还裁定：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时行使了其裁量权，因为原告以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反损害了原告的权利（见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753）。……动议法院被指示继续进行证据听证会，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n依照上诉分庭的命令，本院安排于2022年2月2日举行证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实益拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未在2022年2月2日的听证会上作证；此前，针对 PAX 查明资产的努力，他援引《美国宪法第五修正案》赋予的权利，拒绝就与 Lady May 有关的证言或证据开示请求作答。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引了《第五修正案》，Kwok 仍是在多个法域积极参与诉讼的当事人，并且已在本案及其他程序中作出过证言。\n\nKwok 还在本院提起了一宗题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng（郭文贵又名 Miles Kwok 诉 Hong Zeng）, 157025/2020 的诉讼，该诉状援引了 Freebeacon.com 于2017年9月8日发表的一篇博客文章；Kwok 在该文章中抱怨“涉及其152英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件……”（Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng Complaint”）。Zeng Complaint 将 Kwok 描述为“中共的直言批评者”，其为“揭露中共和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”不遗余力。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，特朗普总统的前顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于2020年在 Lady May 船上被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业伙伴；Kwok 是“一名直言不讳的中国政府网络批评者，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但现因欺诈、敲诈和贿赂罪名而被北京当局通缉”。其他新闻媒体报道称，Bannon 先生曾不止一次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往政治集会。\n\n1 “PX”指原告的庭审证物。\n\n听证会上通过被告方证人之口提出的证言，以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，并且对本院及司法程序极端蔑视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上提出的证言证明，2014年，Kwok 将 HK International 的100%权益无偿转让给一名 Qu Guo Jiao（曲郭娇）。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 逃离中国；2015年2月23日，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP 购买了 Lady May。听证会上提出的任何证言均未证明购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）所作的、无相反证据的证言证明，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44.2 因此，合理的推论是，Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，Qu 女士于2017年6月17日前后以 $1 或无对价将 Lady May 的所有权转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。Tr. 47。根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给现任登记所有权人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）。Guo 女士进一步声称，她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管 Lady May 的所有数百万美元年度开支，包括燃油、维护以及船长和船员费用，均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）支付；据称该公司为 Kwok 家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”指已在 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179 电子提交的证据听证会笔录。\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士作证称，她的兄长为她购买了 Lady May。Tr. 46。本院不能采信该证言，因为没有证据表明 Guo 女士的兄长参与了导致 Guo 女士取得该游艇所有权的公司交易。实际上，在回答本院提问时，Guo 女士承认，在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，其兄长均未参与。Tr. 47。\n\n听证会上提出的其他证言证明，Kwok 每年夏季均多次在游艇上，而 Guo 女士很少在游艇上。Trial Tr. 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，Kwok 在2020年7月、8月和9月的大部分时间均在游艇上，这与其夏季一贯做法相符。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7。在本院2020年9月30日作出限制令之后，Lady May 于2020年10月被送往佛罗里达州，随后送往巴哈马进行维修，之后又于2021年10月被派往意大利，据称系根据 Golden Spring 的指示。Guo 女士承认，她知悉本院2020年9月30日作出的限制令，以及本院随后于2021年3月16日作出的指示将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围的命令。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62。\n\nGuo 女士作证称，一方面，她指示 Lady May 的航行路线；但另一方面，她又作证称，Kwok 的安保问题如此令人关切，以至于不会留存任何航行路线记录。Tr. 52。她还作证称，当其父亲在未由她陪同的情况下位于游艇上时，他可自由选择任何想去的地方。Tr. 50。然而，根本问题是谁指示于2020年10月将游艇移出本院管辖范围。Guo 女士称，2020年10月初，她不再希望使用游艇，并将该指示传达给 Golden Spring，后者继而将她的指示传达给当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。Tr. 53。\n\n经进一步询问，Guo 女士承认，是 Golden Spring 告知她该游艇需要移往较温暖的地方。Tr. 55。Guo 女士随后重复了其已撤回的证言，即她的兄长将游艇赠与她，并称其兄长是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56。该证言不可信，因为本院于2020年9月30日作出一项临时限制令，限制 Kwok\n\n……出售、让与、转让或干预其享有权益的任何财产，或支付或以其他方式处置现已到期或此后到期应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 和正常业务过程规定的例外情形除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，当时担任 Lady May 船长的 Captain Heaslop 作证称，在 Lady May 于2020年10月初启程前往佛罗里达州“数日”前，Kwok 先生告知 Captain Heaslop，Kwok 将不再作为 Lady May 的客人（显然是在本院2020年9月30日命令作出之后）。Tr. 89。Captain Heaslop 还反驳了 Guo 女士关于由 Guo 女士向 Captain Heaslop 发出游艇移动指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\nGuo 女士还承认，她其后阅读了本院2021年3月16日作出的命令，该命令要求于2021年5月31日前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她还承认，她已与其律师讨论过该命令（该律师费用由 Golden Spring 支付），并且她无视了该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL（Yachtzoo 有限责任公司）的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 订有一份日期为2021年5月的管理合同，他与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 沟通，但从未与 Guo 女士沟通。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）也作了同样的证言。Tr. 82。简言之，Guo 女士关于其拥有并控制 Lady May 的证言在任何方面均不能采信。Guo 女士似为一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使支配和控制，也未提供任何证据确认其取得 Lady May 的占有，除非将其视为保护 Lady May 免遭其父亲债权人扣押的一项掩人耳目的安排。\n\nKwok 围绕 Lady May 所策划的资产腾挪把戏，和他在本诉讼待决的五年间所采取的其他每一项逃避性及蔑视性行为属同一模式；这正是本案有1,180项案卷记录的原因。\n\n根据 Judiciary Law § 753，本院有权认定 Kwok 构成民事藐视法庭——并“以罚款和监禁予以惩罚”——因为，如本案所示，本院“明确认定，[Kwok] 的行为意在或者实际上已经挫败、损害、阻碍或不利影响民事程序中一方当事人的权利或救济”。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753)。第753条规定了四项要求：\n\n“要认定某一案件中已发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达无歧义命令的合法法院命令当时有效。[2] 必须具有合理的确定性，表明该命令已被违反……[3] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管无须证明该命令实际已向该方送达……[4] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成了损害。”\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证词满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，上诉分庭已暗示了这一点。见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已]以明确且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok]违反了其明知的法院合法、明确命令，且该等违反致使原告权利受到损害。……”）。\n\nPAX 所遭受的持续“损害”的程度，取决于 PAX 是否证明其最终能够对 Lady May 进行执行，以清偿其现时针对 Kwok 的数亿美元判决。根据 CPLR § 5225，如债务人持有必要的“权益”，则“金钱或其他动产”可被执行。为满足该要求，“判决债务人无须对该财产拥有法定所有权；受益权益即已足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“受益权益是‘对某物享有的权利或期待……，而非对该物的法定所有权。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。Kwok 对 Lady May 所享有的远不止受益权益。Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，看来他还提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于，“该财产是否使[受益所有人]受益，如同其直接取得该财产一般。”同上（引述 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；另见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持驳回判决债务人的主张，即因其已将其权益转让给女儿，故其不再持有该财产的权益）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，仍准许判决债权人的交付动议，因为即使该主张属实，证据亦表明其“保留了对该财产的控制权和/或权益”）。\n\n证据明确且令人信服地表明，Kwok 持有并控制 Lady May 的受益权益。就后者而言，法院对 Zeng 案的提交予以司法认知，并根据记录中的全部事实推断，Kwok 已采取非常措施，以使该游艇免受其债权人的追索。此外，Kwok 的“家族办公室”为该游艇的日常运营及维护提供资金。\n\n法院认定，Guo 女士的证词不仅前后不一致且具有掩饰性，而且受到 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长及 Stockil 先生证词的重大削弱；三人均称，在 Guo 女士直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未就游艇相关事项接受过 Guo 女士的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州法律已确立，一方在民事程序中援引第五修正案“可以构成作出不利事实推定的依据。”DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。凡需要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016)；LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实裁判者可以就未作证证人作出对方证据所允许的最强推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“会知悉证据所提出的重大争点”时适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX 有权通过上述两种途径获得不利推定。Kwok 在回应 PAX 判决后的证据开示时援引了其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利，包括对专门涉及 Lady May 的请求所作的回应。尽管 Kwok 主张，此处作出不利推定并不适当，因为“[只有]在初步证明一项证据真实后，一方才有义务对其作出回应”，但该主张不攻自破。PAX 已提出大量可采证据，证明 Kwok 对 Lady May 享有必要的受益权益并实施控制。见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（说明若证据“倾向于证明重大事实，即案件中直接争议的事实，存在或不存在”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至 February 7, 2022，Lady May 已在法院管辖范围外停留 268 日。依据本院施加并经上诉分庭维持的每日 \\$500,000 罚款，由此产生的罚款总额将为 \\$134,000,000.00，超过 PAX 尚未清偿的近 \\$120 million 判决，且为 Lady May GBP £ 28 million 购买价的数倍。然而，如亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以同时寻求在纽约及美国其他地区利用法院程序，同时明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治将不复存在。Kwok 必须在送达本院附有登记通知的命令后五个营业日内向 PAX 支付 \\$134,000,000.00。如未及时缴纳罚款，法院准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权限。\n\n日期：February 9, 2022\n\n勾选一项：案件已结案 X 非终局处分 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他申请：协商命令 提交命令 如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交审理\n证据附件 5\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 09/30/2020 04:44 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 591 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/30/2020\n\n出席：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官 庭别 IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告， 案号 652077/2017\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\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（GENEVER Holdings 有限责任公司），以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（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\n2020 年 9 月 30 日，法院通过 Skype 举行口头辩论，全体当事人的律师均出席。经同意，法院作出临时限制令，限制 Kwok 先生出售、让与、转让或干扰其拥有权益的任何财产，或支付、以其他方式处分现时到期或此后到期应向其支付的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情形及正常业务过程中发生的情形除外。\n\n法院将于 2020 年 10 月 15 日上午 10:00 通过 Microsoft Teams 听取进一步辩论，并在必要时举行证据听证会。被告必须于 2020 年 10 月 13 日下午 4:00 前提交对动议 011 的反对意见。原告必须于 2020 年 10 月 14 日下午 4:00 前提交答复（如有）。如任一方拟传唤证人，双方必须相互交换证人名单，并最迟于 2020 年 10 月 13 日向法院电子提交证人名单。\n\n此外，法院将于 2020 年 10 月 15 日上午 10:00 通过 Microsoft Teams 就原告要求损害赔偿及律师费的动议 008 听取口头辩论。被告必须于 2020 年 10 月 13 日下午 4:00 前提交对动议 011 的反对意见，原告必须于 2020 年 10 月 14 日下午 4:00 前提交答复（如有）。\n\n任何违反今日作出的临时限制令的行为，均应视为刑事藐视法庭。\n\n日期：September 30, 2020\n证据附件 6\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官 庭别 IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.， 案号 652077/2017\n原告， 动议日期\n\n诉\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 动议序号 011\nGUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE\nHAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS\nCORPORATION， 关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告。\n\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n2020 年 10 月 15 日，法院通过 Microsoft Teams 举行口头辩论，全体当事人的律师均参加，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，法院就责任问题作出有利于原告的简易判决，损害赔偿以及公司被告是否为被告 Kwok 的另我这一问题将于日后确定。NYSCEF 文件 549。\n\n准许原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出的限制令动议。根据 2020 年 10 月 15 日记录在案的程序，Kwok 先生被限制不得出售、促成出售、让与、转让或干扰其直接或间接拥有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付、以其他方式处分现时到期或此后到期应向其支付的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情形除外。\n\n具体而言，Kwok 先生和/或以下财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的住宅，以及 (2) 游艇“Lady May”，均被限制不得出售、促成出售、让与、转让或干扰该等资产。\n\n根据 CPLR 5229，原告有权就上述确认的资产进行证据开示，亦有权就 Kwok 先生可能直接或间接拥有的任何其他资产寻求证据开示。\n\n下一次出庭将为预审会议，定于 2020 年 11 月 12 日下午 2:00 通过 Microsoft Teams 进行。\n\nOctober 15, 2020 \\$SIG\\$ 日期 BARRY R. OSTRAGER，纽约州最高法院法官 勾选一项：案件已结案 X 非终局处分 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他申请：协商命令 提交命令 如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交审理\n证据附件 7\n证据附件 8\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 PACIFIC 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\n尊敬的 Barry Ostrager 法官\n\n第 61 庭\n\n动议序号 \\_\\_\n\n被告。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及\n\nMILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n支持 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 就被告 KWOK 提出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/24/2020\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n背景 2\n论证 4\n结论 6\n\n判例\n\nFinancial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.\nNo. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016)………………4\nMcCormick v. Axelrod，\n59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)……………………………………………4\n\n法令\n\nCPLR § 5104 ..............………………...........................………………....................................….1\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）谨提交本法律备忘录，以支持其根据 CPLR § 5104 及 Judiciary Law § 753 提出的动议，请求作出命令：(i) 因被告 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）不遵守法院 2020 年 10 月 15 日限制令（“该命令”），认定其藐视法庭；(ii) 指示 Kwok 立即促使其游艇（“Lady May”）返回法院管辖范围；以及 (iii) 准予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n初步陈述\n\n本院此前已确认，Kwok（郭文贵）曾“蔑视或极为宽泛地解释”本院命令，并作出“故意或非故意的失实陈述，从而误导本院。”1 借用Yogi Berra（尤吉·贝拉）的话说，这又是似曾相识的一幕：毫无疑问，Kwok 明知而违反了本院禁止其将游艇2 移出本院管辖范围的命令；而且——或许更糟的是——他再次指示其律师请求本院许可移动该游艇，尽管 Kwok 明知在提出该请求时游艇已经被移出美国领海。本院应认定 Kwok 藐视法庭，要求其立即将游艇返回本院管辖范围，并给予其认为必要且适当的任何额外救济，以最终制止 Kwok 对本程序的嘲弄。\n\n1 Dkt. 647 at 26:6–8.\n\n2 Kwok 在反对意见中如有任何暗示称该游艇在技术上并非“他的”，均属不诚实的无稽之谈。如 Kwok 提出该虚假论点（该论点直接受到包括 Kwok 律师在近期一次庭审会议上请求允许 Kwok 将游艇移出本院管辖范围在内的证据和承认的反驳），PAX 将在答复中回应。然而，PAX 指出，任何此类论点均与本动议无关，因为该命令明确涵盖该游艇，即使其由另一登记所有人持有（无论该所有人为 Kwok 的空壳公司还是家庭成员）。\n\n背景\n\n2020年9月30日，本院作出临时限制令（“TRO”），\n\n禁止 Kwok 实施包括“干预其拥有权益的任何财产”在内的行为。3 本院在作出 TRO 时指出，“任何违反……行为均应视为刑事藐视法庭。”4 大约两周后，即 2020年10月15日，本院作出该命令，\n\n准许 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制 Lady May：\n\nKwok 先生被限制不得直接或间接作出或导致作出任何出售、让与、转让或干预其拥有权益的任何财产的行为，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分目前到期或此后到期应付给他的任何债务，但须受 CPLR 5222 所列例外规定的限制，且应符合 2020年10月15日记录在案的程序。具体而言，Kwok 先生和/或下列财产的登记所有人：（1）Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）的住宅；以及（2）游艇“Lady May”，均被限制不得对该等资产作出或导致作出任何出售、让与、转让或干预行为。5\n\n2020年11月12日，本院举行庭审会议，在会议期间，Kwok 的律师\n\n（推定系依其当事人指示）特别询问本院 Kwok 是否可以\n\n将游艇移至离岸水域：6\n\n显然，该船舶登记在离岸地区，我相信是在英属维尔京群岛，并且规定其必须每六个月返回一次母港。这不会以任何方式影响所有权或产权，但该船舶需要在某个时候短暂驶往离岸水域，然后返回美国。我们只是希望披露这一点，以免有人认为该船舶被藏匿或转移。这只是其为许可目的必须办理的一项常规事项。7\n\n7 Id. at 13:9–18.\n\n3 Dkt. 591 at 1.\n\n4 Id. at 2.\n\n5 Dkt. 630.\n\n6 Moss Aff. Ex. 1 (Nov. 12, 2020 Conf. Tr.) at 12:23–25.\n\n本院毫不含糊地答复，Kwok 不获准将游艇移出本管辖范围，并且在此之前必须提出动议：\n\n你方必须以书面材料提出该申请。我不了解任何关于一项在美国已被限制的资产应被允许前往英属维尔京群岛的规定。我严重怀疑 [PAX] 希望该游艇处于本院管辖范围之外……你方将向 [PAX] 送达动议及支持性文件，我将对此作出裁决。我不会允许发生的情况是 Kwok 先生将游艇移至英属维尔京群岛，继而使 [PAX] 可能无法对其实施扣押……该申请必须以正式动议文件提出，并附具支持性文件，同时给予 [PAX] 适当的答复机会。8\n\n尽管 Kwok 的律师答复称其“理解”“本院的指示”，并将“以书面形式提供该信息”，9 Kwok 并未提出任何此类动议。\n\n鉴于其对 Kwok 及其不当行为的经验，PAX 及其律师对 Kwok 律师的提问感到担忧，并进行了调查。数日后，PAX 根据通过 MarineTraffic.com 获取的公开信息得知，该游艇事实上已于 2020年11月1日离开佛罗里达州劳德代尔堡，并且截至 2020年11月18日，位于巴哈马拿骚 Old Fort Bay（老堡湾）附近或该处。10 换言之，Kwok 实际上在该命令作出约两周后、其律师在 11月12日会议上请求允许 Kwok 实施该等行为前两周，将游艇移出美国水域。\n\n鉴于该信息，PAX 的律师于 2020年11月18日致函 Kwok 的律师，\n\n提供其所获取的关于游艇所在地点的信息，表达其\n\n8 Id. at 13:19–15:4.\n\n9 Id. at 14:2–3, 15:5–6.\n\n10 Moss Aff. Ex. 2 (Nov. 18, 2020 Ltr.) at Ex. A.\n\n担忧，称“鉴于 Kwok 先生在本诉讼过程中作出失实陈述的历史”，并要求 Kwok 的律师“确认 Lady May 的所在地”以及“确认该船舶将在 48 小时内返回纽约。”11\n\nKwok 的律师从未答复。相反，当晚稍后，Kwok 的律师向\n\n本院提交函件，称其对此毫不知情，并承诺进行调查和报告：\n\n我们今晚刚刚得知，本院限制令（NYSCEF Doc. 630）中提及并于 2020年11月11日在本院举行的审前会议期间讨论的游艇 Lady May，目前位于国际水域。尽管原告律师刚刚向我们寄送了一封关于该游艇据称所在地的函件，我们尚未确认任何细节……我们正尝试获取更多信息，并将在得知任何进一步信息后立即通知本院和律师。12\n\n但是，截至今日提交本文件时——五周后——Kwok 的律师尚未向\n\n本院或 PAX 的律师提供任何进一步信息。截至今日，根据 MarineTraffic.com 的信息，\n\n该游艇仍停泊在巴哈马拿骚或其周边地区。13\n\n论证\n\n根据 Judiciary Law section 753：\n\n为认定在特定案件中已发生藐视法庭，[(1)] 必须确定一项清楚表达明确指令的合法法院命令当时有效。[(2)] 必须以合理确定性表明该命令已被违反。[(3)] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管无需证明该命令实际已向该方送达。[(4)] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成了损害。\n\n11 Id.\n\n12 Dkt. No. Dkt. 649.\n\n13 See Moss Aff. ¶ 5.\n\nMcCormick v. Axelrod（McCormick 诉 Axelrod案）, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)；另见 Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.（Financial 诉 Walter J. Dowd, Inc.案）, No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016) (Ostrager, J.)（援引 McCormick 并适用四要件检验）。PAX 在本案中轻易满足藐视法庭的四项要件。\n\n第一，该命令是本院的合法命令：其中明确指令 Kwok “被限制不得对[该游艇]作出或导致作出任何出售、让与、转让或干预行为。”14\n\n第二，Kwok 在本院作出该命令约两周后致使游艇离开本管辖范围，从而违反该命令（并且仍在违反该命令）。\n\n第三，Kwok 是一名精明的当事人，参与本诉讼，并且显然知悉该命令。此外，其律师在 11月12日的会议上专门请求澄清该命令，15 并在会议中表示其“理解”“本院的指示”，即 Kwok 在将游艇移出本管辖范围之前必须提出动议。16\n\n第四，PAX 因 Kwok 故意蔑视该命令而受到损害。Kwok 多年来一直试图阻挠本院最终作出的判决，而且其试图逃避偿还对 PAX 所负债务的时间更长。Kwok 通过家庭成员和空壳公司隐藏其资产，即使是对位于美国境内的资产，PAX 的执行也将十分困难。如果允许 Kwok 通过将其游艇藏匿在本院管辖范围之外的公海某处来扩大其障眼法，\n\n14 See supra n.5.\n\n15 See supra n.6.\n\n16 See supra n.9.\n\nPAX 对该资产实施执行的可能性将大幅降低。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 恭请本院根据 CPLR 5104 和 Judiciary Law section 753 作出命令，(i) 认定 Kwok 因不遵守该命令而藐视法庭；(ii) 指示 Kwok 立即促使其游艇 Lady May 返回本院管辖范围；以及 (iii) 授予本院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2020年12月24日 纽约州纽约市 谨此呈交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所） 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）（ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n-以及-\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登）（rseiden@seidenlegal.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的律师\n\n字数证明\n\n原告特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17（商业庭规则第17条）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，不包括抬头、标题和签名栏，少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：2020年12月24日 纽约州纽约市 谨此呈交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的律师\n\n附件 9\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\nHon. Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），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动议序号：12\n\n第61庭\n\n被告。\n\n支持原告 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 就被告 KWOK 提出藐视法庭命令动议的进一步法律备忘录\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 709 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/27/2021\n\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n论证 1\n\n一、10月15日命令禁止将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。 1\n\n二、本院应认定 Kwok 藐视法庭。 4\n\n结论 11\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 709 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/27/2021 121\n\n判例和法规目录\n\n页码\n\n判例\n\n1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC，\n2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007) 10\n\n2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.，\n303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003) 2\n\nBogoni v. Friedlander，\n197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994) 6\n\nDep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.，\n208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)\n\nL & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg，\n2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) 10\n\nWengui v. Zeng，\nIndex No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 5\n\n其他依据\n\nMERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM，Interfere 2\n\n规则\n\nN.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3 4\n\n初步陈述1\n\n鉴于本案的历史，尚不清楚 Kwok（郭文贵）的《反对意见书》是否是他向本院提交过的最不诚实的一份材料。但它肯定名列前茅。Kwok 面不改色地辩称：(i) 将 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）移出并留在本院管辖范围之外，并未违反 October 15 Order（10月15日命令）——尽管本院已明确且反复表示其确已违反；以及 (ii) 即使移动该游艇构成违反，Kwok 也不应受到制裁，因为他并不拥有 Lady May——尽管他曾在法庭提交的文件及社交媒体上反复表示自己拥有该游艇。够了。本院应认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭，并施加足以促使其遵守该命令、将其游艇带回本辖区并使其留在此处的制裁。\n\n论证\n\nI. October 15 Order 禁止将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。\n\nKwok 并不争议：(i) October 15 Order“根据 2020 年 10 月 15 日庭审记录中的程序”，限制“Kwok 和/或……‘Lady May’……的登记所有人对该资产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰”；2 或 (ii) Lady May 已被移出美国水域。相反，他辩称，游艇移出本院管辖范围在技术上并未违反 October 15 Order，因为\n\n1 本文将：(i) 被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）就原告要求作出藐视法庭命令的动议所提交的法律备忘录（Dkt. No. 698）称为“Opposition（反对意见书）”或“Opp.”；(ii) Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）为进一步支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）请求作出针对被告 Kwok 的藐视法庭命令之动议所作的宣誓陈述称为“Moss Reply Aff.”；以及 (iii) Nathaniel Francis（纳撒尼尔·弗朗西斯）为支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 请求作出针对被告 Kwok 的藐视法庭命令之动议所作的宣誓陈述称为“Francis Aff.”。除非另有说明，(i) 已定义术语具有《支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 请求作出针对被告 Kwok 的藐视法庭命令之动议的法律备忘录》（Dkt. No. 689）中赋予的含义，(ii) 所有强调均为后加，及 (iii) 所有内部引文和引述均已省略。\n\n2 Opp. at 3（引述 (Dkt. No. 630)）。\n\n(i) Lady May 的“所有权”并未变更；(ii) 在 10 月 15 日庭审中，“原告既未请求，也未获得本院禁止 Lady May 迁移的任何指示”；以及 (iii) 本院在 10 月 15 日庭审中说明，正常业务过程中的支出——例如，“如果 Kwok 先生想在冠状病毒疫情期间去度假”——是被允许的。3\n\n这些论点毫无根据。首先，Kwok 无法解释为何移动游艇不构成对 October 15 Order 的“干扰”（其确实构成），4 也无法解释为何在正常业务过程中为度假花钱，竟等同于将一项受限制的数百万美元资产移出管辖范围（其并不等同）。事实上，本院已经驳回 Kwok 的“正常业务过程”论点。针对 Kwok 律师要求澄清限制令是否适用于支付律师费的问题，本院说明了其所称“正常业务过程”的范围。5 紧接着该项澄清后，Kwok 的律师询问 Lady May 是否可以移至 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），因为这“只是其为获得许可而必须做的一件寻常事情”。6 本院毫不含糊地答复，在提出并胜诉于一项请求准许如此做的动议之前，Kwok 不得移动该游艇。7\n\n3 Opp. at 6–9。\n\n4 “本州法院通常会查阅词典，以确定合同中词语的通常和普通含义。”2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 303 A.D.2d 299, 301 (1st Dep't 2003)。“to interfere”的通常含义是“以妨碍或阻挠的方式介入”。MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, Interfere（available at http）。\n\n5 See Dkt. 691 at 12:23–13:5（允许“惯常且合理的”律师费）。\n\n6 Id. at 13:9–18。\n\n7 Id. at 13:19–24。\n\n更糟的是，Kwok 完全无视本院反复、明确且毫不含糊的表述：移动 Lady May 将会（并且确已）违反该命令。首先，在 10 月 15 日庭审中（该庭审内容被明确纳入当天晚些时候作出的 October 15 Order），本院专门讨论了 Lady May，并指示 Kwok 不得移动该游艇及其他资产，以使其在 PAX 胜诉时可供执行（即，不干扰 PAX 可能采取的判决执行工作）：\n\n无论这些资产存放在何处，它们将继续留在目前所在之处；如认定目前被列为该等资产所有人的实体是 Kwok 先生的另一个自我，或完全由 Kwok 先生支配和控制，则该等资产将可用于满足原告获得的任何判决。8\n\n随后，在 11 月 20 日庭审中，Kwok 的律师提出“两个问题……以澄清本院已作出的限制令的范围”——其中一个问题是 Lady May 是否可以移出管辖范围（尽管我们现在知道，当时其已被移走）。9 如上所述，本院毫不含糊地回答“不能”——除非先提出并胜诉于一项动议，并获得本院进一步命令：\n\n你必须以书面提出该项申请。我不了解任何规定要求允许一项在美国受到限制的资产前往 British Virgin Islands。我严重怀疑 Moss 先生希望那艘游艇处于本院管辖范围之外。……我不会允许发生的事情是，Kwok 先生将该游艇移至 British Virgin Islands，随后该游艇可能无法供 Moss 先生的客户扣押。……Siegal 先生问我，限制令是否可以修改，以允许该游艇从美国港口移至 British Virgin Islands；我说，这是一项必须以正式动议文件提出的申请，须附有支持性文件，并给予 Moss 先生适当机会作出答复。10\n\n8 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:8–14。\n\n9 Dkt. No. 691 at 12:23–25。\n\n10 Dkt. No. 691 at 13:19–15:4。\n\n最后，在最近一次 12 月 18 日庭审中，本院再次重申了对 Kwok 而言届时本应相当明显的事项：\n\n好的。那么，让我问你，我们有一个关于一艘船的问题，我已禁止 Kwok 先生移动该船，而他可能已经违反本院命令移动了该船。……在我看来，我已命令不得移动该船。11\n\n鉴于“干扰”的通常含义（见上文脚注 4）及本院反复且毫不含糊的指示，毫无疑问 October 15 Order 已被违反。Kwok 的相反主张具有误导性。12 如果 Kwok 辩称，由于在 10 月 15 日庭审时该游艇已被移动（即，在其律师请求并被拒绝准许移动该游艇之前），他应被宽免，那么答案十分简单：本院作出 October 15 Order 后，该游艇本应立即被带回。13\n\nII. 本院应认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭。\n\n尽管 Kwok 提出数项其他毫无根据的论点，主张其个人不应被认定构成藐视法庭，但这些论点均归结为其核心主张：他不拥有——因此也无法控制——Lady May 的移动。Kwok 以为他在骗谁？\n\n如 PAX 已经证明，Kwok 在不足五个月前——在其于 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提交的一份 2020 年 9 月 1 日起诉书中——主张“Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）的爪牙……曾试图在 Guo [a/k/a Kwok] 的游艇上对其造成伤害”。See Wengui v. Zeng, Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), Dkt. No. 1（Complaint at ¶ 8）。Kwok 自己起诉书中的该句以脚注结尾，该脚注引用并链接至（从而通过援引纳入）freebeacon.com 的一篇题为“Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht Owned by Chinese Billionaire”的文章。该文章称，“使用英文名 Miles Kwok 的 Guo Wengui 表示，涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件，似乎是中国政府试图威胁和恐吓他的行动的一部分。”14 因此，在限制 Lady May 的语境下，本院将其称为“Kwok 先生曾声称拥有的价值 2700 万美元的游艇”，并不令人意外。15\n\n值得注意的是，本案 Genever Defendants（Genever 被告）的律师 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）在 Wengui v. Zeng 一案中担任 Kwok 本人的律师。Mitchell 先生签署了该起诉书；该起诉书反复将 Lady May 称为“他的[即 Kwok 的]游艇”，并通过援引纳入报道该游艇由 Kwok“拥有”的 freebeacon.com 文章。尽管 Mitchell 先生据称并不在本案中代理 Kwok，他仍在 12 月 18 日庭审中代表 Kwok 提出辩论，称其 2020 年 9 月的起诉书“并非指所有权”，而只是指“Kwok 先生在那艘船上这一事实”，并斥责 PAX 的律师“荒谬地依赖”该诉状。16 鉴于 Kwok 的过往记录，或许 Mitchell 先生在暗示 PAX 实际依赖 Kwok 本人的言辞是“荒谬的”时，确实说到了某些要点。\n\n14 See id. at 3 n.1（引述 http）。该起诉书还在第 7 段及救济请求 (d) 中将 Lady May 称为“他的”（即 Kwok 的）游艇。\n\n15 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:5–6。\n\nKwok 的《反对意见书》更为不诚实；其歪曲称，PAX 主张 Kwok 拥有该游艇，部分原因是他据称是该游艇上的“客人”（PAX 从未如此主张），并声称 PAX 没有所有权证据。17 即使 Kwok 自己的诉状——一项司法自认18——不足以确立所有权（而其已绰绰有余），PAX 还拥有远远更多的证据：\n\n2017年5月10日，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）在其现已被暂停的 Twitter 账户上“发推”发布了以下一张其本人坐在 Lady May 号上的照片，并附有中文文字，译为：“我正在发布几张我送给女儿并以她名字命名的游艇照片。……她的名字是 Lady May。……我以 41 million euro 买下了它”：19\n\n16 Dkt. No. 695 at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 Opp. at 8–9.\n\n18 See Bogoni v. Friedlander, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 (1st Dep't 1994)（初始诉状中的承认属于“正式司法承认”，并且是“对所承认事实的证据”。）。\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n随后，2017年8月27日，Kwok（再次在其现已被暂停的账户上）将\n\n“Lady May”称为“我的船”，并回忆称，“两年前我在迈阿密时……我[]签署了\n\n我一生中最重要的投资合同”，而且“这一切似乎都如此意义非凡”。21\n\n但我们把最精彩的留到了最后。如2017年10月14日的一段 YouTube 视频所示，22\n\nKwok 被拍到明确表示该船是他的：23\n\n我决定出售它，因为它的船体是铝制的。铝制船体在海上会有些漂移。在浅水区没有问题。我想使用那艘更重、更大的船，它也是一艘 Feadship，因为它是钢制的。我想驶向更远的海域。……我刊登过两次出售广告，但我的报价相对较高，约 US$50 million，31 million euros，\n\n20 Id.\n\n21 Id.\n\n22 See Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3（指引法院查阅一段可在 http 获取的 YouTube 视频中第 2:50 分钟至第 4:15 分钟的内容）。\n\n23 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n约为 US$50 million。当我以那个较高价格挂牌时，我收到过一份略低于要价的报价，但我没有出售它。\n\n这全部直接出自 Kwok 之口：他买下了 Lady May，他安排将其运送，他决定将其挂牌出售，并且他将其登记在其女儿名下，以使其免受债权人的追索。Kwok 声称自己仅是游艇上的某个“客人”，是又一个彻头彻尾的谎言。\n\n24 Id. 这些截图直接取自 YouTube，且已包含字幕；经认证的翻译证实该等字幕在实质上准确。See Moss Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n当然，Kwok 声称他不拥有或控制 Lady May，而该游艇实际上由 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限责任公司）所有，该实体完全由其女儿 Mei（发音为“May”）Guo 控制和拥有，这完全符合其一贯作风。Kwok 是一名自称的亿万富翁，在对其有利时，因其惯常做法是利用空壳公司以及其子女和雇员来保护其资产，便假装自己没有任何资产25。例如，Kwok 现正在 Genever 破产案件中声称，Genever Defendants 由另一家由其儿子拥有的空壳公司实益拥有——尽管他从未向 Sherry-Netherland 披露过此事，也从未在本法院提出过该论点以试图规避扣押。26 而且，Kwok 不仅一再表示 Lady May 是“他的”（包括在其据称将游艇赠与其女儿后提交的上述 2020年9月诉状中），而且 HK International 仅是一家空壳公司：(i) 直到 2020年4月才将游艇登记在其名下（当时 PAX 在本诉讼中处于红色区域）；27 以及 (ii) 其“主要办公地点”地址为 162 E. 64th Street——与（令人惊讶的是！）Mr. Mitchell 的办公室地址相同；Mr. Mitchell 会视案件情况经常代表 Kwok 或其空壳实体。28\n\n* * *\n\n在10月15日的听证会上，甚至在法院得知 Kwok 已转移游艇之前，法院即解释称，在这起“2017年案件中，存在大量的诉讼策略操作、\n\n25 Dkt. No. 580 at 100:2–3（证称其净资产为“负数”）；101:3–5（证称“[i]n reality, under the law”，其“没有”资产）。\n\n26 See Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 5 at ¶ 4（声称 Bravo Luck 是 (i) Sherry-Netherland 公寓的“实益所有人”，以及 (ii) “一家由 Mr. Qiang Guo，即 Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok 之子拥有的公司”）。\n\n27 See Opp. at 4, n.2.\n\n28 See Dkt. No. 705 at 1.\n\n大量的掩饰，以及对法院命令的一些公然漠视……[t]he Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets……”。29 法院还表示，“我们不会再容忍任何空壳把戏。”30 不幸的是，Kwok 的空壳把戏仍在继续，他的掩饰和诉讼策略操作只会愈发严重，而且他再次公然违反了本法院的一项命令。\n\n本法院有裁量权对 Kwok 施加足以促使其遵守10月15日命令的制裁。实际上，“民事藐视法庭的目的在于强制遵守法院命令。”31 例如，在内华达州另一起针对他的案件中，Kwok 被处以每日 $250,000 的制裁，直至其最终遵守要求其履行最基本证据开示义务的法院命令。32 本案中的违反行为远为严重。\n\n鉴于 Kwok 一再违反本法院命令，作为一名自称的数十亿美元富翁，其显而易见的财力，以及当前违反行为对 PAX 的严重性和重要性，PAX 谨请求施加金钱或其他制裁，以足以强制 Kwok 遵守10月15日命令，并立即将 Lady May 带回本法院管辖范围。\n\n29 Dkt. No. 647 at 24:9–11; 21:13–15.\n\n30 Id. at 22:7.\n\n31 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2701271, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007); see also Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp., 208 A.D.2d 37, 42 (2d Dep't 1995)（“民事藐视法庭罚金的施加并非为了惩罚，而是为了赔偿受损害的私人当事人或强制遵守法院的命令。”）；L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg, 2011 WL 1564647, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011)（“法院有权惩罚不遵守合法命令的诉讼当事人。民事藐视法庭的目的在于强制遵守法院命令，或赔偿因不遵守法院命令而受到损害的一方。”）。\n\n32 See Dkt. No. 557 at 2（命令 Kwok 向法院提供可联系到他的电话号码，以及 (i) 其愿意接受证据开示文件送达的地址，或 (ii) 可向其发送该等文件的电子邮件地址）。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 谨陈，本法院应认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭，并命令施加适当制裁。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021 New York, New York 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥睿律师事务所） 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nRobert W. Seiden（rseiden@seidenlegal.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙）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，不包括抬头、标题和签名栏，少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021 New York, New York 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的律师\n\n附件 10\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出庭法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.， 案号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 动议日期\n动议序号 012\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，等， 关于动议的裁决及命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n本法院审理的是原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提出的第012号动议，请求认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）藐视法庭。本法院此前已发布三项命令，限制 Kwok 对名为“Lady May”的游艇所享有的权益。2020年9月30日，本法院作出临时限制令（“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。在作出 TRO 时，法院指出，“[a]ny violation …… shall be considered criminal contempt。”Id. 2020年10月15日，法院发布命令，批准 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制 Lady May：\n\nKwok 先生被禁止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；并被禁止支付或以其他方式处分任何现已到期或此后到期应付给他的债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情形，且应符合2020年10月15日庭审记录所载程序。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”，均被禁止作出或促成对该等资产的任何出售、让与、转让或干预。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630。Kwok 的律师专门询问法院，Kwok 是否可为许可目的将游艇移出本法院管辖范围。法院当时驳回该请求，并指示律师在必要时提出动议。\n\n原告提出本动议，是因为尽管有这些命令，Lady May 已被移出美国境外。\n\n法院已审阅双方就 PAX 请求认定 Kwok 藐视法庭的动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论 Kwok 的任何律师是否违反职业操守准则这一问题，显然，在本法院审理的有关“Lady May”游艇下落和所有权的程序中，存在数量令人无法容忍的诉讼策略操作、掩饰和欺骗。\n\n被告声称，尽管法院对游艇移动施加了限制，该游艇仍因“日常经营”中的“冬季维护”而被移出本法院管辖范围。法院不再逐一列举被告 Kwok 在本应更知分寸的律师协助下所进行的众多“空壳把戏”，而是将藐视法庭动议裁定如下：自2021年5月15日后，游艇每在本法院管辖范围外滞留一日，被告 Kwok 将被罚款 $500,000。与游艇所有权和控制权有关的其他限制仍然有效。\n\n状态会议仍定于2021年5月4日上午10:00举行。\n\n日期：March 16, 2021\n\n勾选一项： 案件终结 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如适用请勾选： 包括移送/重新分配 受托人任命 转交\n\n附件 11\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.，\n\n原告，\n\nKWOKHO 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诉，\n\n被告。\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n[已提交] 民事藐视法庭最终命令\n\n动议序号：19\n\n鉴于本法院于 March 16,2021 作出的附条件民事藐视法庭命令规定，如被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）未能在 May 15, 2021 前将 Lady May 游艇（“Lady May”）返还至本法院管辖范围，则 Lady May 每在本法院管辖范围外滞留一日，他将被处以 $500,000 罚款；\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\n鉴于 Lady May 未于 May 15, 2021 前返还至本法院管辖范围；\n\n鉴于，2021年11月4日，上诉分院第一部门（Appellate Division, First Department）维持本院认定Kwok（郭文贵）构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，并认定“每日$500,000的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管其获准有两个月时间完成此事，但其已表明毫无意愿这样做”，并指示本院进行证据听证，以解决关于该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评定适当的处罚；\n\n鉴于，迄今Kwok未能将Lady May送回本院管辖范围；\n\n鉴于，第一部门2021年11月4日命令所规定的证据听证于2022年2月2日举行；\n\n鉴于，Kwok及Lady May的登记产权持有人HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限责任公司）均出席该听证会、提交证据，并由律师代理；以及\n\n鉴于，根据听证会上提出的证据，本院认定PAX已以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，Kwok对Lady May享有受益权益并具有控制权。因此，现特此命令、裁定并判决如下：\n\n1. Kwok违反了New York Judiciary Law §753，且构成对本院命令的民事藐视法庭。\n\n2. 命令Kwok立即向PAX支付$134,000,000，即自2021年5月15日至2022年2月7日期间每日报$500,000。\n\n3. 应付PAX的金额应继续按每日$500,000的标准累积，直至Kwok将Lady May送回本院管辖范围；该额外累积应自本命令作出之日起十个营业日后开始。\n\n4. 上述第2段所列金额应于本命令作出之日起五个营业日内支付给PAX。\n\n5. 如未及时向PAX支付罚款，本院应行使其根据New York Judiciary Law §753所享有的全部权力。\n\n本命令于2022年2月__日作出。\n\nR. OSTRAGER J.S.C.\nA. OSTRAGER, J.S.C.\n\n附件12\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n2022年3月1日\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）请求作出命令，确认自动中止不适用，或作为替代方案，根据《破产法》第362(d)(2)条解除自动中止的动议\n\n致尊敬的JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官：\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提出本动议（“本动议”），请求作出一项命令，其形式实质上如随附的附件A所示，确认自动中止不适用于正在New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）（由Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格）主持）审理的一项独立的申请破产前程序；该程序认定债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“Kwok”）因违反该法院命令、未将其游艇“Lady May”送回纽约而构成民事藐视法庭。2 在于2022年2月9日对Kwok作出最终民事藐视法庭命令时，Ostrager法官警告称：“如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够同时寻求利用纽约及美国其他地区的法院程序，却明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治将不复存在。”3 这同样完全适用于本Chapter 11程序。Kwok不得利用《破产法》的保护来逃避Ostrager法官的命令，自动中止亦不允许其如此行事。\n\nKwok蔑视法庭的行为由来已久且明目张胆。首先，Kwok直接违反纽约州最高法院2020年9月30日和10月15日的命令，将Lady May移出该法院的管辖范围。4 随后，于2021年3月，Ostrager法官作出一项附条件民事藐视法庭命令——该命令经纽约上诉分院第一部门一致维持5——要求Kwok或登记所有人于2021年5月15日前将Lady May送回，否则游艇在该法院管辖范围外停留的每一天均面临每日$500,000的罚款。6 近一年后，在证据听证后，Ostrager法官作出2月9日藐视法庭命令，命令：(i) Kwok支付$134 million（2021年5月15日至2022年2月7日期间按每日$500,000计算）；以及(ii) 如Lady May未在送达登记通知后十个营业日内送回法院管辖范围，则每日$500,000的罚款继续累积。7 在向PAX支付$134 million藐视法庭罚款的期限届满前一天，且在Kwok寻求在上诉期间紧急中止该命令的努力失败后，Kwok提起本Chapter 11案件。但破产保护是为诚实、善意的债务人而设。自动中止并不保护债务人免于承担违抗法院命令及损害司法制度尊严的后果。因此，PAX请求本院作出命令，确认其有权提起进一步程序以执行Ostrager法官2月9日藐视法庭命令。\n\n作为替代方案，PAX依据United States Code（美国法典）Title 11第362(d)(1)条（“Bankruptcy Code”）及Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产程序规则）Rule 4001，请求解除自动中止，以允许执行2月9日藐视法庭命令，但该命令要求Kwok立即向PAX支付金钱的部分除外。该等救济包括执行2月9日藐视法庭命令以确保Lady May返还纽约，允许罚款继续累积（该等罚款构成Kwok无法在本Chapter 11案件中免除的债务），并在Kwok未能迅速将Lady May送回纽约时，允许Ostrager法官命令采取任何其他适当制裁措施（包括签发逮捕令）。8 9\n\n为支持本动议，PAX谨陈述如下：\n\n管辖权\n\n1. 本院依据28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334对本动议拥有管辖权；就本动议而言，PAX接受本地区可能为适当审判地，但不影响其日后提出任何移转审判地动议。本动议属于28 U.S.C. §157(b)项下的核心程序，PAX所请求救济的依据为《破产法》第362(d)条。\n\n8 参见，例如，NY Judiciary Law § 753（“记录法院有权通过罚款和监禁，或其中任一方式，处罚因怠于履行职责、违反职责或其他不当行为，而可能使正在该法院审理的民事诉讼或特别程序一方当事人的权利或救济遭受挫败、减损、阻碍或损害的行为。”）。\n\n9 PAX拟提起对抗程序，以确认Ostrager法官作出的民事藐视法庭罚款不可免除。参见In re Singer, No. 10–00045, 2010 WL 3732944 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010)（藐视法庭制裁在破产中不可免除）；In re Marini, 28 B.R. 262, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)（同上）。\n\n背景\n\n2. 近十一年前，PAX与一家由Kwok拥有、名为Shiny Times（Shiny Times）的实体签订贷款协议。10 Kwok亲自为该贷款提供保证。11 尽管已多次延长还款期限，且PAX多次尝试和解该债务，Kwok从未偿还该贷款。12\n\n3. PAX于2017年4月18日在纽约州最高法院起诉Kwok违反个人保证合同。13 经历近四年诉讼后，2021年2月3日，PAX取得针对Kwok金额为$116,402,019.57的判决书。14 此后，PAX“首先识别、继而试图对Kwok在美国的资产实施扣押，从而进行了长达数年的执行[该]判决的努力。”15 这绝非易事，因为正如Ostrager法官认定，“自称为亿万富翁的Kwok，已将其资产隐藏于错综复杂的公司实体和家庭成员之中。”16 Kwok至今未偿还该$116,402,019.57判决中的任何款项，该判决按年利率9 percent计付判决后利息。17\n\n10 Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Decision + Order on Mot., PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549, at 2.\n\n11 同上。\n\n12 同上，第7页。\n\n13 Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Compl., PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2.\n\n14 Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Judgment, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716 at 2.\n\n15 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1（2月9日藐视法庭命令），第1页。\n\n16 同上。\n\n17 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022); Friedman Decl., Ex. 8 at 2; 另见Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 23 at KWOK000652, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455（“2011 Personal Guarantee”）。\n\n4. 尽管Kwok声称其没有资产，18 但其（至少）对Lady May享有受益所有权；该游艇于2015年以€ 28 million购得。19 2020年9月30日，Ostrager法官签发临时限制令，禁止Kwok“就其享有权益的任何财产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干预……”。20 两周后，即2020年10月15日，Ostrager法官明确，该项对Kwok的限制包括Lady May。21 然而，Ostrager法官和PAX均不知悉的是，Lady May已于大约10月9日离开纽约前往佛罗里达。22 该游艇随后前往巴哈马，最终抵达欧洲，并一直停留至今。23\n\n5. 作为回应，PAX提出藐视法庭动议24，法院于2021年3月16日作出一项附条件民事藐视法庭命令，命令Kwok或该游艇的登记所有人于2021年5月15日前将Lady May送回法院管辖范围，并对其后游艇仍在该管辖范围外停留的每一天处以$500,000罚款。25 纽约上诉分院第一部门一致维持原审法院的命令，认定：(i) PAX已“以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok]违反了一项合法的”\n\n18 见美国受托人对债务人延长提交资产和负债清单及财务状况说明期限之动议的异议，ECF No. 49，第 ¶ 12 段（郭文贵在与美国受托人进行首次债务人面谈时，“披露其没有银行账户、没有信用卡、未受雇取得收入，且其所有生活费用均由一家名为 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（Golden Spring）的实体支付并经由该实体支付。[其]还披露其并不直接拥有任何不动产、不拥有任何汽车，且未为任何资产投保。”）。\n\n19 Friedman 声明，附件 1，第 4 页。尽管郭文贵予以否认，其还拥有位于 Sherry Netherland 酒店的一套整层豪华公寓；该公寓目前正因纽约南区（Southern District of New York）一项相关破产程序而以 \\$45 million 挂牌出售。\n\n20 Friedman 声明，附件 2。\n\n21 Friedman 声明，附件 3，第 1 页。\n\n22 见 Friedman 声明，附件 10（VESSELFINDER，航程分析器\n\nhttp）（最后访问于 Feb. 28, 2022）。\n\n23 截至 February 28, 2022，Lady May 位于意大利热那亚。见同上。\n\n24 见 Friedman 声明，附件 11，PAX 关于支持其针对被告郭文贵提出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 689；另见 Friedman 声明，附件 12，PAX 关于进一步支持其针对被告郭文贵提出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 709。\n\n25 Friedman 声明，附件 4（初步藐视法庭命令），第 2 页。换言之，法院给予郭先生整整两个月的宽限期，以归还该游艇，从而完全避免任何罚款。\n\n其违反了其知悉的法院明确命令，且该等违反导致对[PAX]权利的损害……”26；以及(ii)“每日 \\$500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使[郭文贵]消除其藐视法庭行为。”27 因此，第一部门指示奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）在作出最终藐视法庭命令之前，“进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。”28\n\n6. 奥斯特拉格法官于 February 2, 2022 举行了该证据听证。在听取七名证人的证言后，29奥斯特拉格法官认定，“在听证中由[郭文贵]的证人亲口作出的证言，清楚且令人信服地证明，郭文贵实益拥有并控制 Lady May，且其对本院及司法程序怀有彻底的蔑视。”30 法院进一步认定，“郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，看来其还提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且其是主要享用该游艇的人。”31 因此，奥斯特拉格法官作出了 February 9 藐视法庭命令。32\n\n7. 与其过去藐视法院命令的做法一致，郭文贵未支付藐视法庭罚款，且未将该游艇归还美国。33 相反，于 February 15, 2022，郭文贵在本院申请破产。34 郭文贵的破产申请列示 \\$50,001-\n\n26 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d at 423.\n\n27 同上，第 424 页。\n\n28 同上。\n\n29 郭文贵针对 PAX 的判决后证据开示努力援引其第五修正案权利，且郭文贵未在 February 2 的听证中作证。见 Friedman 声明，附件 1（February 9 藐视法庭命令），第 3 页。\n\n30 同上，第 4 页。31 同上，第 8 页。\n\n32 Friedman 声明，附件 5。\n\n33 见上文注23。\n\n34 自愿申请书，ECF No. 1，第 7 页。\n\n\\$100,000 的资产35——未列入价值不菲的 Lady May；该游艇仍位于美国境外，36且未受到任何可信受托人的监管。\n\n8. 鉴于郭文贵有藐视法庭行为的历史，以及其为“通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的亲信及家庭成员名下，而逃避并欺骗其债权人”所作出的广泛“努力”，37PAX 恭请本院裁定，自动停止不妨碍其恢复在奥斯特拉格法官面前进行的藐视法庭程序，以寻求强制郭文贵将 Lady May 返还纽约，并允许奥斯特拉格法官对郭文贵施加任何可适用的处罚，但命令其立即向 PAX 支付款项除外。作为备选方案，PAX 恭请本院对自动停止给予狭义救济，以允许 PAX 在奥斯特拉格法官面前继续程序，从而获得相同结果。\n\n请求的救济\n\n9. PAX 通过本动议，请求裁定自动停止不适用于执行奥斯特拉格法官的 February 9 藐视法庭命令。作为备选方案，PAX 请求作出一项修改自动停止的命令，以允许 PAX 执行 February 9 藐视法庭命令，但任何救济要求郭文贵立即向 PAX 支付任何款项的范围除外。38\n\n35 同上，第 7 页。\n\n36 见上文注23。如上所述，郭文贵还未列入其于 March 2015 以 \\$67.5 million 购入的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的可观价值；其通过两家空壳公司，即 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）和 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever NY”），拥有该公寓。见 Friedman 声明，附件 13，已签署的销售合同，Kwok v. PAX，Index No. 652077/2017，ECF No. 256（已签署的销售合同将“Genever Holdings LLC”列为买方）；另见同上，SN 0047（购买申请将“‘Miles’ Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)”列为申请人）。与郭文贵在本案中的行为一致，Genever NY 亦在 PAX 于 late 2020 获得简易判决后立即申请破产。In re Genever Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:20-bk-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).\n\n37 Friedman 声明，附件 1（February 9 藐视法庭命令），第 1 页。\n\n38 PAX 在破产申请前，已在纽约法院提出另一项藐视法庭动议，涉及郭文贵未依照奥斯特拉格法官 September 22, 2021 命令交出其在一家英属维尔京群岛注册公司 Genever BVI 中的股份。见 Friedman 声明，附件 14，动议裁决及命令，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 904。该动议自 January 24, 2022 起已完成书面陈述，并且\n\n论证\n\nI. 自动停止不适用于与归还 Lady May 有关的藐视法庭命令。\n\n10. 刑事藐视法庭程序依法不受自动停止约束。见 § 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(1)（“对债务人提起或继续进行的刑事诉讼或程序”不受停止约束）。民事藐视法庭救济可由法院作出，以“确保未来遵守法院命令”，或因一方未遵守法院命令而向另一方“提供赔偿或其他补救性救济”。Universal City Studios v. New York Broadway Int'l Corp., 705 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1983); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nair, 3:10cv88 (SRU), 2011 WL 1832774, at \\*2 (D. Conn. May 13, 2011)。尽管民事藐视法庭程序并无当然不受自动停止约束的例外，但“即使提出破产申请，某些民事藐视法庭程序仍可继续进行。”Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 62 B.R. 723, 727 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)。法院区分旨在惩罚的民事藐视法庭“动议”和旨在执行判决的民事藐视法庭“动议”，并认定前者不受停止约束。Id. at 729；另见 Booth v. Wilson, No. 96 CIV. 920 (RO), 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1997)（“门槛问题在于，藐视法庭动议是为满足一项判决而提出，还是针对所主张的藐视法院命令的行为而提出。”）。\n\n11. 法院一贯认为，为惩罚债务人不遵守法院命令而设计的民事藐视法庭命令不受自动停止约束，因为破产并未为从事可受制裁行为的当事人提供避风港\n\n处于待决状态。于 February 18, 2022，奥斯特拉格法官发出通知，要求 PAX 鉴于郭文贵的破产申请，于 March 3, 2022 前无损权利地撤回该动议。Friedman 声明，附件 15，法院通知，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022)，ECF No. 1191。PAX 拟如此行事，目前并未寻求本院确认自动停止不适用于该藐视法庭程序，但其日后可能这样做，并保留该权利。\n\n，该等行为有损法院尊严。并且，破产程序不得被“用作一把剑”，以阻止法院惩罚藐视法庭行为。Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730。例如，在 Roberts v. Bennaceur, No. 3:12-CV-01222, 2015 WL 1471889, (D. Conn. 2015) 一案中，被告在一再未披露与其资产和财务状况有关的信息后申请破产。Meyer 法官认定，破产申请并不妨碍法院就债务人滥用披露及证据开示程序的行为作出制裁，并称：\n\n“破产停止并不妨碍原告寻求对个人被告[违反法院命令]的行为实施制裁，即使该等违反行为与已停止的请求有关亦然。只要制裁不会产生‘取得受停止保护的资产或骚扰’债务人的效果，我有权‘继续……考虑被告是否’可因其未能‘遵守先前的[]命令’而受到制裁。”\n\nId. at \\*16（内部引文略）。因此，法院在破产申请后对债务人及其高管实施了制裁。其他法院亦持相同观点，承认可对破产中的债务人执行藐视法庭命令，以维护法院尊严并惩罚债务人不遵守法院命令的行为。见 Shaoxing Bon Textiles Co., Ltd. v. 4-U Performance Grp. LLC, 16 Civ. 6805, 2017 WL 6413993, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)（在“该程序实际上是为惩罚债务人有损[该]法院尊严的藐视法庭行为”的情况下，无须提出解除停止动议）；In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, Inc., 62 B.R. 369, 378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) aff'd, 70 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1986), 831 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1987)（“不涉及收取破产申请前债权或破产财产的州法院破产申请前命令，可通过针对债务人及其高管的藐视法庭程序予以执行，以维护州法院的尊严，而不违反自动停止。”）；Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 729–30（认定其“‘惩罚债务人有损州法院或联邦法院尊严的藐视法庭行为’的固有权力”不受破产程序限制，并认定停止不适用，因为藐视法庭请求“旨在维护本院的一项命令，而非旨在执行一项金钱判决。”）；Booth, 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2（“该藐视法庭命令执行我破产前为强制证据开示而作出的命令，并未受 § 362(a) 停止，因为其正在‘维护法院的完整性。’”）。\n\n12. 与上述权威依据一致，为确保 Kwok（郭文贵）遵守法院命令而作出的既往及未来藐视法庭命令，不适用自动中止。Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）并非因 Kwok 未能履行 PAX（帕克斯）的判决书或未能赔偿 PAX 的任何金钱损失而认定其藐视法庭。事实上，所处罚金与就 PAX 的违约主张作出的判决书相互独立。该法院认定 Kwok 藐视法庭，是因为其公然且持续无视法院命令。PAX 目前并非出于“收取债权的动机”而提出动议，而是请求许可寻求执行 Ostrager 法官于 2 月 9 日作出的藐视法庭命令，该命令要求将 Lady May（Lady May号游艇）返还纽约，39 该游艇违反法院命令，在纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院））管辖范围之外已逾一年。见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730（动议方并非出于“收取债权的动机”提出动议时，自动中止不适用）。继续藐视法庭程序对于维护纽约州最高法院的尊严是必要的（并且还具有迫使 Kwok 将其受益所有的财产返还美国这一附带益处）。因此，纽约州最高法院应被允许在藐视法庭程序中采取其认为必要的任何行动，但不得执行罚金的收取，无需获得解除自动中止的救济。\n\n13. 如本院可能担忧对 Kwok 破产财产的任何影响，本院可明确，自动中止适用于在自动中止持续期间对破产财产所作任何罚金的执行或收取\n\n39 见 Friedman 声明（Friedman Decl.）, 附件 4（初始藐视法庭命令（Initial Contempt Order））第 2 页（“Kwok 的律师特别询问法院，Kwok 是否可以为取得许可之目的将游艇移出该管辖区。法院驳回了该请求。”）。\n\n或其他救济。见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730（该命令并非“旨在执行金钱判决或骚扰被告”时，自动中止不适用。）（着重号为原文所加）。此外，本院可以明确，Lady May 的未来处置属于本院专属管辖范围（除非本院另行作出命令）。\n\nII. 作为替代方案，应修改自动中止，以允许部分执行 OSTRAGER 法官的命令。\n\n14. 即使自动中止适用于 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令，仍存在根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 362(d)(1) 条修改中止的正当理由。\n\n15. 修改自动中止的决定“属于法院的合理裁量权。”In re David X. Manners Co. Inc., No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 2325758, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 22, 2018); In re Wysocki, No. 3:16-CV-248, 2016 WL 4099031, at \\*4 (D. Conn. Aug. 2, 2016)。根据《破产法典》第 362(d) 条，应当“因正当理由，包括未能为该利害关系方在财产中的权益提供充分保护”而准予解除自动中止。见 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1)。《破产法典》并未界定“正当理由”。In re Sonnax Indus., Inc., 907 F.2d 1280, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990)。在 Sonnax 案中，第二巡回法院列举了十二项因素，法院在决定是否应准予解除自动中止以允许诉讼在另一法院继续进行时，将其作为判断基准。40 见，例如，In re Case, 384 F. App'x 43, 44 (2d Cir. 2010)（指出破产法院适当地\n\n40 该等因素包括：“(1) 救济是否将导致争议事项获得部分或完全解决；(2) 与破产案件不存在任何联系或干扰；(3) 其他程序是否涉及债务人作为受托人；(4) 是否已设立具有审理该诉因所需专门知识的专门审裁机构；(5) 债务人的保险人是否已承担为其抗辩的全部责任；(6) 诉讼是否主要涉及第三方；(7) 在另一法院进行诉讼是否会损害其他债权人的利益；(8) 因其他诉讼产生的判决债权是否受制于衡平居次；(9) 动议方在其他程序中胜诉是否会产生债务人可撤销的司法留置权；(10) 司法经济以及迅速、经济地解决诉讼的利益；(11) 当事人是否已准备好在其他程序中开庭审理；以及 (12) 中止对当事人的影响及损害平衡。”Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1286。\n\n考虑了 Sonnax 因素）；In re Friedberg, No. 08–51245, 2009 WL 1292273, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn., May 8, 2009)（适用 Sonnax 因素）。法院无需对每项因素赋予同等权重，也并非每项因素均与每一案件相关。见 In re David X. Manners Co. Inc., No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 28cv778, 2018 WL 3079470 (D. Conn, Jun. 21, 2018)。相反，“在适用这些因素并考虑是否修改自动中止时，法院应当考量案件的具体情况，并确定何者对债权主张人及破产财产公正。”同上，第 \\*5 页（引用 In re Taub, 413 B.R. 55, 62 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)）。\n\n在本案中，相关的 Sonnax 因素如下：\n\n“(1) 救济是否将导致争议事项获得部分或完全解决；”\n\n“(2) 与破产案件不存在任何联系或干扰；”\n\n“(4) 是否已设立具有审理该诉因所需专门知识的专门审裁机构；”\n\n“(7) 在另一法院进行诉讼是否会损害其他债权人的利益；”\n\n“(10) 司法经济以及迅速、经济地解决诉讼的利益；”以及\n\n“(12) 中止对当事人的影响及损害平衡。”41\n\nA. 解除中止将解决对破产案件重要的事项。\n\n16. 第一项 Sonnax 因素支持解除中止。2 月 9 日\n\n藐视法庭命令的最终目标是促使 Lady May 返回纽约。\n\n41 其他 Sonnax 因素不适用。特别是，不存在任何可能依据使 PAX 对 Kwok 个人担保提出的债权受到衡平居次（Sonnax 因素 8），且 Ostrager 法官作出的任何命令均不会产生可撤销的留置权（Sonnax 因素 9）。\n\n17. 如 Ostrager 法官所认定，Lady May 是可供清偿 Kwok 债务的资产。42 法院认定，Kwok“对 Lady May 所拥有的远不止受益权益”，其不仅“控制该游艇”，而且“提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇使用权的人。”43 因此，尽管 Kwok“采取非同寻常的措施以使该游艇免受其债权人追索”，其在 Lady May 中的权益仍必须在本第 11 章案件中可供债权人使用。44 Kwok 不仅违反 Ostrager 法官的命令，未将 Lady May 返还纽约，而且在提交其破产申请（以及在其修正申请中）时，尽管 Ostrager 法官在其 2022 年 2 月 9 日命令中作出了明确认定，Kwok 未将 Lady May 的价值列为其资产。45 第 11 章债务人有义务在第 11 章申请中披露所有类型的全部资产。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)（债务人的破产财产由“债务人在财产中拥有的所有法定或衡平权益”组成。）；Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., Inc., 233 B.R. 46, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)（“破产法的一项基本原则是，债务人的全部资产……均为破产财产的资产，必须为债权人的利益予以列明。”）；In re Beckford, 729 F. App'x 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2018)（“提交破产申请即产生一项破产财产，该财产由‘债务人在财产中拥有的所有法定或衡平权益’组成。”）。Kwok 在其申请中故意未将 Lady May 的价值列为资产——就在 Ostrager 法官明确裁定 Kwok 对其享有受益所有权并控制该游艇六日之后——是其继续实施使 Lady May 不受债权人追索的计划。该计划必须终止。\n\n42 Friedman 声明（Friedman Decl.）, 附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令（February 9 Contempt Order））第 8–9 页。\n\n43 同上。\n\n44 同上，第 9 页；另见同上，第 7 页（讨论“Kwok 就 Lady May 所策划的空壳游戏相关的种种操弄。”）。\n\n45 修正后的自愿申请书（Amended Voluntary Petition）, ECF. No. 19 at 7（将资产列为 \\$50,001 - \\$100,000）；比较 Friedman 声明（Friedman Decl.）, 附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令（February 9 Contempt Order））第 10 页（指出 Lady May 的 € 28 million [sic] 购买价格）。\n\n18. 允许在 Ostrager 法官面前继续努力使 Lady May 返回纽约，将解决与本第 11 章案件相关的一个重要事项。见 In re Fleming, No. 19- 51611, 2020 WL 3816282, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jul. 2, 2020)（州法院程序能够解决对抗程序中的事项这一事实，支持解除中止）。Lady May 返回纽约将有助于对该资产进行归集，并最终为全体债权人的利益分配所得款项。其还将解决 PAX 为使该游艇置于纽约州最高法院管辖范围内所作的一年努力，这是进一步支持解除自动中止的因素。In re Ice Cream Liquidation Inc., 281 B.R. 154, 166 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002)（完全解决与债务人相关的事项支持解除中止）；David X. Manners Co., 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6（即使仅部分解决争议事项，也支持解除中止）。\n\nB. 执行 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令不会干扰破产案件。\n\n19. 基于类似理由，执行 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令不会干扰破产案件；相反，其将补充并促进该等程序，In re Dunne, No. 13–50484, 2015 WL 7625609, at \\*6 (Bankr. D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2015)（在继续诉讼“补充[]破产案件”的情况下准予解除中止），并通过确保一项关键的破产财产资产被带回美国来保护全体债权人的利益。因此，第二、第七和第十项 Sonnax 因素均强烈有利于 PAX。\n\n20. 在解除中止有助于推进破产案件的情形下，应支持解除中止。见 David X. Manners Co. Inc., 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*6（在“该案件的进展似乎取决于并需要解决……正在州法院等待判决的事项”的情况下，该因素支持解除中止）；In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., No. 18- 10077, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018)（允许债权主张在地区法院继续进行，以“协助解决破产诉讼”）。\n\n在本案中，使 Lady May 返回是一个门槛事项：Lady May 的价值为 Kwok 在其申请中所列资产价值的数倍。其迅速返还将使破产财产及债权人均受益。46 此外，返还将促进本破产案件的一项基本功能：即“最大化破产财产的价值。”Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S.Ct. 973, 985–86 (2017)（《破产法典》的目的在于最大化破产财产的价值）。因此，解除自动中止将“协助解决破产诉讼”。Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4.\n\n21. 返还 Lady May（“五月女士”号游艇）亦不会干扰本院对郭文贵债务重整（或清算）或其资产向债权人有序分配的管辖权。亦不会导致任何立即向 PAX 分配的结果。相反，返还将有助于归集一项遗产资产，以便在本院监督下（除非本案被驳回）对该资产进行清算，并按照优先顺序向债权人分配。参见 Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 15, 2006 WL 176983, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2006)（破产程序的目标“要求归集债务人的资产，并按照优先顺序有序清偿债权”）。\n\n46 参见经修订的自愿申请书，ECF. No. 19 at 7（列示资产为 \\$50,001 - \\$100,000）；参见 Friedman 声明，附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令）at 10（载明 Lady May 的购买价格）。\n\n22. 此外，本院不应允许郭文贵利用破产案件规避州法院制裁。藐视法庭程序制裁郭文贵过去对 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）命令的公然且反复无视；如准予解除自动停止，该程序可用于防止进一步不遵从。郭文贵在纽约州最高法院宣布，如郭文贵继续无视其命令，该院“准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权力”——其中可能包括签发逮捕郭文贵的命令——后六日提交了其 Chapter 11 申请。47 郭文贵不应被允许利用破产程序规避制裁。参见 In re Rudaw/Empirical Software Prod. Ltd., 83 B.R. 241, 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)（“根据 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) 施加的自动停止，不得被用作庇护，以制裁违反申请前命令的藐视法庭行为；该命令禁止债务人侵犯一方当事人的财产权。”（引自 In re Cinnabar 2000 Haircutters, Inc., 20 B.R. 575 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982)））。滥用破产程序本身即构成对本破产案件的干扰，因为破产保护仅为“诚实但不幸的债务人”保留。In re Ciarcia, 578 B.R. 495, 503 (Bankr. D. Conn, 2017)。在破产申请阻止纽约法院执行其命令的范围内，应修改自动停止以防止该结果。\n\n23. 本院还可通过对解除自动停止作出调整以保护债权人：禁止在自动停止期间收取任何罚款，并明确 Lady May 的最终清算及收益分配须服从本院进一步命令，以避免遗产资产被耗尽。David X. Manners Co. Inc., 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6（通过限制解除自动停止的范围来处理对债权人的风险，以“允许州法院裁定相关争议直至作出判决，但不允许执行。”）\nC. 纽约法院具备执行 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令所必需的专业能力，解除自动停止有利于司法经济。\n\n24. Sonnax 第四项和第十项因素支持解除自动停止，因为纽约法院具备执行其命令“所必需的专业能力”，且修改自动停止有助于“司法经济以及诉讼的迅速和经济解决”。参见 Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1286。自 2017 年 4 月以来，Ostrager 法官一直监督 PAX 与郭文贵之间的争议，使该法院就本案实体问题而言“在‘学习曲线’上已取得显著更多进展”。In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167–68（由于诉讼在地区法院已待决近五年，推定该法院就案件实体问题已取得显著更多进展）。正如 Ostrager 法官在其 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令中指出，在该诉讼待决的近五年中，已累计超过 1,180 项案卷记录。48 导致藐视法庭命令的所有证据开示、动议程序、证据听证和会议均在该法院进行。Ostrager 法官形成了导致作出 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令的完整事实记录，并且对本案的程序历史具有独特而深入的了解。\n\n47 Friedman 声明，附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令）at 10。\n\n25. 此外，与 Lady May 有关的程序已进入后期；纽约法院不仅已作出最终的 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令，而且已考虑为确保遵守该命令而立即采取进一步行动。49 这同样支持解除自动停止。参见 In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167–68（考虑案件接近完成这一相关因素）。这生动表明 Ostrager 法官熟悉且有能力执行 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令，并说明其法院是进行该项工作的更高效审判地，强烈支持解除自动停止。参见 In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4（地区法院“熟悉 FLSA 诉讼中涉及的具体问题”且“所有证据开示和大部分审前动议均已完成，案件已准备就绪等待审判”这一事实，强烈支持解除自动停止）；另参见 In re Fleming, 2020 WL 3816282, \\*3（在州法院已开始确认仲裁裁决程序的情况下，重新启动该程序将“不是对司法资源的有效利用”，据此准予解除自动停止）。\n\n48 Friedman 声明，附件 1（2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令）at 7。\n\n49 参见同上 at 10（法院表示，如郭文贵继续无视其命令，其“准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权力。”）\n\n26. 相比之下，要求本院审阅大量记录以确定适当的执行机制并不高效。因此，解除自动停止符合司法经济的利益。\nD. 修改自动停止不会损害其他债权人，损害平衡支持解除自动停止。\n\n27. Sonnax 第七项和第十二项因素亦支持解除自动停止。修改自动停止将使所有债权人受益，因为这将使有价值的 Lady May 回到美国，并防止其被耗散。正如纽约法院已裁定，Lady May 属于债务人财产，郭文贵必须就该财产为其债权人履行受托义务。这首先要求其遵守有关 Lady May 的法院命令。\n\n28. PAX 目前并未寻求对 Lady May 实施扣押，亦未寻求就其债务取得相对于其他合法债权人债务的任何优先地位。任何债权人均不会因 Lady May 返回纽约而受到不利影响或损害。参见 In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4（由于申请人并未寻求收取其对债务人的债权，债权人未受损害）；In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167（解除自动停止不会对遗产造成法律上可认定的损害，除少量费用外，因而支持解除自动停止）。相反，全体债权人只会因该游艇返回纽约而受益。\n\n29. 如不解除自动停止，郭文贵将没有动机将 Lady May 带回其债权人可及的范围内。其提交破产申请的策略将已奏效，因为其将实际上受到保护，免受 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令的约束——这显然是对破产程序的滥用。\n\n30. 基于上述理由，损害平衡支持解除自动停止。\n\n权利保留\n\n尽管本动议中有任何相反规定，PAX 保留就本 Chapter 11 程序享有的全部权利、请求权和抗辩，包括但不限于对审判地提出异议、寻求驳回或转换本案的权利，以及任何其他救济。\n\n结论\n\nPAX 恭请本院作出命令：(i) 自动停止不适用于纽约州最高法院中与郭文贵未将 Lady May 返还纽约有关的藐视法庭程序；或 (ii) 作为替代方案，解除自动停止，以允许 PAX 寻求执行纽约州最高法院于 2 月 9 日作出的藐视法庭命令；以及 (iii) 准予其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 3 月 1 日\n康涅狄格州哈特福德\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（CT No. 19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（CT No. 31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2293\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com\n\n附件 13\n\n填写以下信息以识别您的案件：\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court（美国破产法院），设于：\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区）\n________________ 地区，________\n\n案件编号（如已知）：_________________________ 您所依据提交的章节：\n‰ Chapter 7\n✔\n‰ Chapter 11\n\n‰ Chapter 12\n‰ Chapter 13\n\n如属经修订的提交，请勾选\n\nOfficial Form 101\n\n个人申请破产自愿申请书 /\n\n破产表格使用“您”和“债务人 1”指单独提交申请的债务人。已婚夫妇可以共同提交破产案件——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，若表格问“您是否拥有一辆汽车”，只要任一债务人拥有汽车，答案即为“是”。当需要分别了解配偶信息时，表格使用“债务人 1”和“债务人 2”加以区分。在共同案件中，其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。在所有表格中，同一人必须始终为债务人 1。\n\n请尽可能完整、准确。如两名已婚人士共同提交申请，双方均同等负责提供正确的信息。如需更多空间，请在本表格后附加单独页面。在任何附加页面顶部写明您的姓名和案件编号（如已知）。回答每一个问题。\n\n第 1 部分：识别您的身份\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填写您政府签发的带照片身份证明上的姓名（例如，Ho Wan\n\n名字 __________________________________________________\n名字\n\n您的驾驶执照或护照）。\n\n请携带您的带照片身份证明参加与受托人的会议。 __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\nKwok\n\n姓氏 __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\n姓氏\n\n后缀（Sr., Jr., II, III） ___________________________\n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名字 __________________________________________________\n名字\n\n包括您的婚后姓名或娘家姓。 __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\nKwok; Guo\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\n姓氏\n\nWengui\n__________________________________________________ 姓氏\n\n名字 名字\n\n中间名\n\nGuo\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\n姓氏 姓氏\n\n3. 您的 Social Security number 或联邦 Individual Taxpayer Identification number（ITIN）仅填写最后 4 位 9\n\nxxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____\n或\n\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____ xxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____\n或\n\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____\n\n债务人 1 Ho\nWan\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n\n姓氏 案件编号（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）：\n\n4. 您在过去 8 年中使用过的任何企业名称和雇主识别号码（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包括商号及“以……名义经营”名称 _________________________________________________\n企业名称 _________________________________________________\n企业名称\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n\n5. 您居住的地点 如果债务人 2 居住在不同地址：\n转交 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\n\n门牌号\n街道 _________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n162 East 64th Street\n_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________\nNew York\n_________________________________________________ NY 10065 _________________________________________________\n城市 州 邮政编码 城市\n州\n邮政编码\nNew York\n\n县 _________________________________________________\n县\n如果您的邮寄地址与上述地址不同，请在此填写。请注意，法院将向您在此邮寄地址发送任何通知。 如果债务人 2 的邮寄地址与您的不同，请在此填写。请注意，法院将向该邮寄地址发送任何通知。\n\n门牌号\n街道 _________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n\n邮政信箱 _________________________________________________\n邮政信箱\n\n城市 州 邮政编码 _________________________________________________\n城市\n州\n邮政编码\n\n6. 您选择在本地区申请破产的原因 请选择一项：\n✔\n‰\n在提交本申请前的过去 180 天内，我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何其他地区居住的时间。\n‰\n我有其他原因。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。）\n\n________________________________________ 请选择一项：\n‰\n在提交本申请前的过去 180 天内，我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何其他地区居住的时间。\n‰\n我有其他原因。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。）\n\n________________________________________ ________________________________________\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字\n中间名 姓 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 2 部分：向法院说明您的破产案件\n\n7. 您选择依据《破产法典》的哪一章提出申请 请选择一项。（有关各章的简要说明，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 页顶部并勾选相应方框。\n‰ 第 7 章\n✔\n‰\n第 11 章\n‰\n第 12 章\n\n‰ 第 13 章\n\n8. 您将如何支付费用 ✔\n‰\n我将在提交申请时支付全部费用。有关您可如何支付的更多详情，请向您当地法院的书记官办公室查询。通常，如由您自行支付费用，可使用现金、银行本票或汇票支付。如您的律师代表您提交付款，您的律师可使用信用卡或印有预先印制地址的支票支付。\n‰\n我需要分期支付费用。如选择此项，请签署并附上《个人分期支付申请费申请书》（官方表格 103A）。\n‰\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。依法，法官可以但无须免除您的费用，并且仅在您的收入低于适用于您家庭人数的官方贫困线的 150%，且您无法分期支付费用时，方可免除该费用）。如选择此项，您必须填写《免除第 7 章申请费申请书》（官方表格 103B）并随申请一并提交。\n\n9. 您在过去 8 年内是否申请过破产？ ✔\n‰\n否\n‰ 是。地区 __________________________ 时间 _______________ 案号 ___________________________\n月 / 日 / 年\n地区 __________________________ 时间 月 / 日 / 年 _______________ 案号 ___________________________\n地区 __________________________ 时间 _______________ 案号 ___________________________\n月 / 日 / 年\n\n10. 是否有由未与您共同提交本案的配偶、商业合伙人或关联方正在审理或将要提交的破产案件？ ✔\n‰ 否\n‰ 是。债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系 _____________________\n\n地区 __________________________ 时间 月 / 日 / 年 _______________ 案号（如已知）____________________\n债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系 _____________________\n地区 __________________________ 时间 _______________ 案号（如已知）____________________\n\n11. 您是否租赁您的住所？ ✔\n‰\n否。\n‰ 转至第 12 项。\n‰\n‰ 是。您的房东是否已取得针对您的驱逐判决书？\n否。转至第 12 项。\n月 / 日 / 年 是。填写《针对您的驱逐判决书初步声明》（表格 101A），并将其作为本破产申请的一部分提交。\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字\n中间名 姓 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 3 部分：报告您作为独资经营者拥有的任何企业\n\n12. 您是否经营任何全职或兼职独资企业？ ✔\n‰\n否。转至第 4 部分。\n‰\n是。企业名称及地点\n\n独资企业是指您以个人身份经营的企业，并非公司、合伙企业或 LLC 等独立法律实体。如您拥有一个以上独资企业，请另附一页并附于本申请。 企业名称（如有）\n门牌号\n街道 _______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n_______________________________________________\n城市 _______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n州 __________________________\n邮政编码\n勾选相应方框以说明您的企业：\n‰\n‰ 医疗保健企业（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)）\n单一资产不动产（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)）\n‰ 证券经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)）\n‰\n商品经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(6)）\n‰\n以上均非\n\n13. 您是否依据《破产法典》第 11 章申请，且属于小型企业债务人？\n\n如您依据第 11 章申请，法院必须了解您是否为小型企业债务人或选择依照第 V 分章程序进行的债务人，以便设定适当期限。如您表明您是小型企业债务人，或您选择依照第 V 分章程序进行，您必须附上最近的资产负债表、经营状况表、现金流量表和联邦所得税申报表；如其中任何文件不存在，则应遵循 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B) 所规定的程序。\n\n小型企业债务人的定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D)。 ‰\n否。我并非依据第 11 章申请。\n?\n有关小型企业债务人的定义，见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D)。 ✔\n‰\n《破产法典》。 否。我正依据第 11 章申请，但根据《破产法典》中的定义，我并非小型企业债务人。\n‰ 是。我正依据第 11 章申请，根据《破产法典》中的定义，我是小型企业债务人，且我不选择依照第 11 章第 V 分章程序进行。\n\n‰ 是。我正依据第 11 章申请，根据《破产法典》11 U.S.C. § 1182(1) 中的定义，我是债务人，且我选择依照第 11 章第 V 分章程序进行。\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字\n中间名 姓 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第 4 部分：报告您是否拥有或持有任何危险财产或任何需要立即处理的财产\n\n14. 您是否拥有或持有任何构成或被指称构成对公共健康或安全的迫切且可识别危险威胁的财产？或者，您是否拥有任何需要立即处理的财产？ ✔\n‰\n否\n‰\n是。危险是什么？ ________________________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________________________\n如需立即处理，为什么需要立即处理？ _______________________________________________\n例如，您是否拥有易腐货物、必须喂养的牲畜，或需要紧急维修的建筑物？\n________________________________________________________________________\n该财产位于何处？ ________________________________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字\n中间名 姓 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第5部分：\n说明您为获得信用咨询简报所作的努力\n\n15. 告知法院您是否已收到关于信用咨询的简报。\n\n法律要求您在申请破产前接受信用咨询简报。您必须如实勾选下列选项之一。若无法做到，您无资格提交申请。即使您仍然提交申请，法院可驳回您的案件，您将失去已缴纳的任何申请费，且您的债权人可以重新开始催收活动。\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您必须勾选一项： 您必须勾选一项：\n\n✔ 我在提交本破产申请前180天内已从经批准的信用咨询机构接受简报，并已收到完成证明。 ‰ 我在提交本破产申请前180天内已从经批准的信用咨询机构接受简报，并已收到完成证明。\n\n附上证明副本以及您与该机构制定的付款计划（如有）。 附上证明副本以及您与该机构制定的付款计划（如有）。\n\n‰ 我在提交本破产申请前180天内已从经批准的信用咨询机构接受简报，但我没有完成证明。自您提交本破产申请后14天内，您必须提交证明副本和付款计划（如有）。 ‰ 我在提交本破产申请前180天内已从经批准的信用咨询机构接受简报，但我没有完成证明。自您提交本破产申请后14天内，您必须提交证明副本和付款计划（如有）。\n\n‰ 我证明，我已向经批准的机构请求信用咨询服务，但在提出请求后的7天内无法获得该等服务，且紧急情形值得暂时豁免该项要求30天。 ‰ 我证明，我已向经批准的机构请求信用咨询服务，但在提出请求后的7天内无法获得该等服务，且紧急情形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，请附上一份单独的说明页，说明您为获得该简报所作的努力、为何您无法在申请破产前获得该简报，以及何种紧急情形要求您提交本案。 如要请求暂时豁免该项要求30天，请附上一份单独的说明页，说明您为获得该简报所作的努力、为何您无法在申请破产前获得该简报，以及何种紧急情形要求您提交本案。\n\n如果法院对您未在申请破产前接受简报的理由不满意，您的案件可能被驳回。 如果法院对您未在申请破产前接受简报的理由不满意，您的案件可能被驳回。\n\n如果法院对您的理由满意，您仍必须在提交申请后30天内接受简报。您必须提交经批准机构出具的证明，以及您制定的付款计划副本（如有）。如未如此做，您的案件可能被驳回。对30日期限的任何延长仅在有正当理由时批准，且最长限于15天。 如果法院对您的理由满意，您仍必须在提交申请后30天内接受简报。您必须提交经批准机构出具的证明，以及您制定的付款计划副本（如有）。如未如此做，您的案件可能被驳回。对30日期限的任何延长仅在有正当理由时批准，且最长限于15天。\n\n‰ 我无需接受信用咨询简报，原因如下： ‰ 我无需接受信用咨询简报，原因如下：\n\n‰ 无行为能力。我患有精神疾病或精神缺陷，致使我无法认识或作出有关财务的理性决定。 ‰ 无行为能力。我患有精神疾病或精神缺陷，致使我无法认识或作出有关财务的理性决定。\n\n‰ 残疾。我的身体残疾致使我即使已作出合理努力，仍无法亲自、通过电话或互联网参加简报。 ‰ 残疾。我的身体残疾致使我即使已作出合理努力，仍无法亲自、通过电话或互联网参加简报。\n\n‰ 现役。我目前正在军事战区服现役。 ‰ 现役。我目前正在军事战区服现役。\n\n如果您认为自己无需接受信用咨询简报，您必须向法院提交豁免信用咨询的动议。 如果您认为自己无需接受信用咨询简报，您必须向法院提交豁免信用咨询的动议。\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n名\n中间名 姓 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第6部分：为报告目的回答以下问题\n\n16. 您的债务属于何种类型？\n\n16a. 您的债务主要是消费者债务吗？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\n✔ ‰ 否。转至第16b行。\n\n‰ 是。转至第17行。\n\n16b. 您的债务主要是商业债务吗？商业债务是指您为取得用于企业或投资的资金，或通过经营企业或投资而产生的债务。\n\n✔ ‰ 否。转至第16c行。\n\n‰ 是。转至第17行。\n\n16c. 请说明您所欠的、既非消费者债务亦非商业债务的债务类型。\n\n诉讼费用、债权请求及判决\n\n17. 您是否根据第7章提交申请？\n\n✔ ‰ 否。我并非根据第7章提交申请。转至第18行。\n\n您是否估计，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\n‰ 是。我根据第7章提交申请。您是否估计，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\n‰ 否\n\n‰ 是\n\n18. 您估计欠多少债权人债务？\n\n‰ 1-49\n\n✔ ‰ 50-99\n\n‰ 1,000-5,000\n\n‰ 5,001-10,000\n\n‰ 25,001-50,000\n\n‰ 50,001-100,000\n\n‰ 100-199\n\n‰ 200-999\n\n‰ 10,001-25,000\n\n‰ 超过100,000\n\n19. 您估计您的资产价值是多少？\n\n‰ \\$0-\\$50,000\n\n✔ ‰ \\$50,001-\\$100,000\n\n‰ \\$1,000,001-\\$10 million\n\n‰ \\$10,000,001-\\$50 million\n\n‰ \\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion\n\n‰ \\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion\n\n‰ \\$100,001-\\$500,000\n\n‰ \\$500,001-\\$1 million\n\n‰ \\$50,000,001-\\$100 million\n\n‰ \\$100,000,001-\\$500 million\n\n‰ \\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion\n\n‰ 超过 \\$50 billion\n\n20. 您估计您的负债是多少？\n\n‰ \\$0-\\$50,000\n\n‰ \\$50,001-\\$100,000\n\n‰ \\$1,000,001-\\$10 million\n\n‰ \\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion\n\n‰ \\$100,001-\\$500,000\n\n‰ \\$10,000,001-\\$50 million\n\n‰ \\$50,000,001-\\$100 million\n\n✔ \\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion\n\n‰ \\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion\n\n第7部分：在下方签字\n\n‰ \\$500,001-\\$1 million\n\n‰ \\$100,000,001-\\$500 million\n\n‰ 超过 \\$50 billion\n\n供您填写\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如我选择根据第7章提交申请，我知悉，如符合资格，我可根据《美国法典》第11编第7、11、12或13章继续进行。我了解各章所提供的救济，并选择根据第7章继续进行。\n\n如无律师代理我，且我未向非律师人士支付或同意支付费用以协助我填写本文件，我已获得并阅读11 U.S.C. § 342(b)要求的通知。\n\n我请求按照本申请书中指明的《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 的罚款，或最长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\n______________________________________________ 8 _____________________________\n债务人1签名 债务人2签名\n\n02/15/2022\n签署日期 _________________\nMM\n/ DD / YYYY 签署日期 __________________\nMM / DD\n/ YYYY\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n名\n中间名 姓 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n如由律师代理，供您的律师填写\n\n如您未由律师代理，则无需提交本页。\n\n本人，作为本申请书所列债务人之律师，声明本人已告知债务人其根据《美国法典》第11编第7、11、12或13章继续进行的资格，并已说明该人士符合资格的各章所提供的救济。本人还证明，本人已向债务人交付11 U.S.C. § 342(b)要求的通知；并且，在适用§ 707(b)(4)(D)的案件中，证明本人经查询后并不知悉随申请书提交的附表中的信息有不正确之处。\n\n/s/\nWilliam\nR.\nBaldiga\n02/15/2022\n日期\n债务人律师签名 MM\n/\nDD\n/ YYYY\nWilliam R. Baldiga\n\n印刷体姓名\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n\n律所名称\n7 Times Square\n\n门牌号\n街道\n\nNew York\n______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ NY 10036\n城市 州 邮政编码\n\n(212) 209-4800\n联系电话 _____________________________________ 电子邮件地址 wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n______________________________________________________ ____________ NY\n律师执业证号 州\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n名\n中间名 姓 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n如您在未聘请律师的情况下申请本破产程序\n\n如您由律师代理，\n则无需提交本页。法律允许您作为个人在破产法院自行代理，但您应当了解，许多人认为成功自行代理极其困难。由于破产具有长期的财务和法律后果，强烈建议您聘请合格律师。\n\n为成功办理，您必须正确提交并处理您的破产案件。相关规则技术性很强，错误或不作为可能影响您的权利。例如，您的案件可能因您未提交所需文件、未及时缴纳费用、未出席会议或听证会，或未配合法院、案件受托人、美国受托人、破产管理人或（如您的案件被选中审计）审计公司而被驳回。如发生该等情况，您可能失去再次申请案件的权利，或者可能失去保护，包括自动停止的利益。\n\n您必须在须向法院提交的清单中列明您的全部财产和债务。即使您计划在破产程序外偿还某项特定债务，也必须在清单中列明该债务。如未列明某项债务，该债务可能无法获得免除。如未列明财产或未正确主张其为豁免财产，您可能无法保留该财产。如您在破产案件中有任何不诚实行为，例如毁坏或隐匿财产、伪造记录或撒谎，法官亦可拒绝免除您的全部债务。个人破产案件将被随机审计，以确定债务人所提供的信息是否准确、真实和完整。破产欺诈是严重犯罪；您可能被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n如您决定在未聘请律师的情况下申请，法院要求您如同已聘请律师一般遵守规则。法院不会因您自行申请而对您区别对待。为成功办理，您必须熟悉《美国破产法典》、联邦破产程序规则以及您案件提交所在法院的地方法规。您还必须熟悉任何适用的州豁免法。\n\n您是否知悉，申请破产是一项具有长期财务和法律后果的严肃行为？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是\n\n您是否知悉，破产欺诈是一项严重犯罪，并且如您的破产表格不准确或不完整，您可能被处以罚款或监禁？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是\n\n您是否向非律师人员支付或同意支付费用，以协助您填写破产表格？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。人员姓名_____________________________________________________________________。\n\n附上《破产申请文件编制人通知、声明及签名》（Official Form 119）。\n\n本人在此签名，即确认本人了解未聘请律师申请所涉及的风险。本人已阅读并理解本通知，并知悉如未妥善处理案件，在未聘请律师的情况下申请破产案件可能导致本人失去权利或财产。\n\n8 8\n\n债务人 1 签名 ______________________________\n\n债务人 2 签名\n\n日期\n\n_________________ 日期\n\nMM / DD\n/ YYYY\n\n联系电话 ______________________________________ MM / DD / YYYY\n\n联系电话\n\n电子邮箱地址 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 电子邮箱地址 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n填写以下信息以识别您的案件：\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan（郭文贵）\n__________________________________________________________________ Kwok（郭）\n名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n债务人 2 ________________________________________________________________\n\n（如共同申请的配偶）名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n美国破产法院，__________区，__________\n\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）\n\n（如已知）案件编号 ___________________________________________\n\n如属修正提交，请勾选\n\nOfficial Form 104\n\n适用于个人第 11 章案件：列出对您享有最大 20 项无担保债权且非内幕人的债权人 12/15\n\n如您是依据第 11 章申请破产的个人，您必须填写本表。如您依据第 7 章、第 12 章或第 13 章申请，请勿填写本表。请勿列入任何内幕人的债权。内幕人包括您的亲属；任何普通合伙人；任何普通合伙人的亲属；您为普通合伙人的合伙企业；您担任高级职员、董事、控制人，或拥有其 20 percent 或以上有表决权证券的公司；以及任何管理代理人，包括您以独资经营者身份经营的企业的管理代理人。11 U.S.C. § 101。此外，除非因担保物价值不足而产生的无担保债权使该债权人位列持有最大 20 项无担保债权的债权人之中，否则请勿列入有担保债权人的债权。\n\n请尽可能完整、准确地填写。如两名已婚人士共同申请，双方均同等负责提供正确信息。\n\n第 1 部分：按金额从大到小列出 20 项无担保债权。请勿列入内幕人的债权。\n\n无担保债权\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity（太平洋联盟亚洲机会） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ （约）254,000,000.00\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\nC/O O'Melveney & Myers, LLP（奥迈律师事务所）\n\n门牌号\n\n街道 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n‰\n附条件的\n\n‰\n未确定金额的\n\n‰\n7 Times Square\n\nNew York NY 10065 有争议的\n\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市\n\nStuart Sarnoff, Esq.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\n\n联系人 州 ZIP Code 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 -\n\n担保物价值：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n无担保债权\n\n\\$_____________________\n\nGolden Spring New York（纽约金泉） 诉讼资助\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ （约）21,000,000.00\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\n162 E. 64th Street\n\n门牌号\n\n街道\n\n__________________________________________ 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n‰\n附条件的\n\n‰\n未确定金额的\n\n‰\n有争议的\n\nNew York\n\n__________________________________________ NY 10605\n\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市\n\nMax Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）\n\n联系人 州 ZIP Code 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 -\n\n担保物价值：\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n无担保债权\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan（郭文贵） Kwok（郭）\n_______________________________________________________ 案件编号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏 无担保债权\n\n3 __________________________________________\n\nRui Ma（马蕊） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 20,000,000\n\n债权人名称\n\n750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor \\$____________________________\n\n门牌号\n\n街道 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n‰\n附条件的\n\nC/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP（阿金·索尔巴肯律师事务所）\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额的\n\nNew York NY 10022\n\n‰\n有争议的\n\n城市 州 ZIP Code ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\nRobert C. Angelillo（罗伯特·C·安杰利洛） ‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n4 __________________________________________\n\nCheng Jian Wu Jian She（城建五建） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 14,898483.90\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n\n__________________________________________ 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n‰\n附条件的\n\n门牌号\n\n街道 ‰\n未确定金额的\n\nC/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师事务所）\n\n‰\n有争议的\n\nFlushing\n\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 ZIP Code 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\n‰\n否\n\nNing Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师）\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n联系人 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n5 __________________________________________\n\nNing Ye（叶宁） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 12,000,000\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n135-11 38th Avenue\n\n门牌号\n\n街道 ‰\n附条件的\n\nC/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额的\n\n‰\nNew York NY 10022 有争议的\n\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 ZIP Code 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\nRobert C. Angelillo\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）：\n\n担保物价值： \\$_____________________\n\n-\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n6 __________________________________________\n\nGuo Baosheng（郭宝胜） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 12,000,000\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n135-11 38th Avenue\n\n门牌号\n\n街道 ‰\n附条件的\n\nC/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额的\n\n‰\n有争议的\n\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\nFlushing\n\n城市 NY\n\n州 11354\n\nZIP Code 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\nNing Ye, Esq. ‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值：\n\n无担保债权 -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 诉讼 10,000,000\n\n\\$____________________________\n\nYang Lan and Wu Zheng（杨澜和吴征）\n\n债权人名称 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。 债权性质为何？______________________________\n\n750 Lexington Avenue - 25th Floor\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n附条件的\n\n门牌号\n\n街道\n\nC/O Arkin Solbakken, LLP ‰\n未确定金额的\n\n‰\n\nNew York NY 10022 有争议的\n\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 ZIP Code 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\nRobert C. Angelillo ‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值：\n\n无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话\n\n债务人 1 Ho Wan（郭文贵） Kwok（郭）\n_______________________________________________________ 案件编号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n无担保债权\n\n8 __________________________________________\n\nHong Qi Qu（区洪奇） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 9,809,422.71\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称\n\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n门牌号\n\n街道 ‰\n附条件的\n\n‰\nC/O Kevin Tung, Esq.（董凯文律师）\n\n__________________________________________ 未确定金额的\n\n‰\n有争议的\n\nFlushing\n\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 ‰\n以上均不适用\n\n城市 州 ZIP Code 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n\nKevin Tung, Esq.\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。债权总额（有担保及无担保）： \\$_____________________\n\n联系人 担保物价值： -\n\n\\$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 \\$_____________________\n\n9 __________________________________________\n\nNan Tong Si Jian（南通四建） 诉讼\n\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 5,568,522.66\n\n\\$____________________________\n\n债权人名称 截至您提交申请之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n\n门牌号\n\n街道 ‰\n附条件的\n\nC/O Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额的\n\n‰\n有争议的\n\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\nFlushing\n\n市 NY\n州 11354\n邮政编码 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\nKevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·童律师） ‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： $_____________________\n\n____________________________________ 担保物价值：\n无担保债权 $_____________________\n$_____________________\n联系电话 5,380,262.32\n10 __________________________________________\nJian Gong（龚建）\n债权人姓名 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ $____________________________\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n‰\n或有\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n未确定金额\n转交 Kevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·童律师）\n\n‰\n有争议\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 ‰\n以上均不适用\n市 州 邮政编码 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n‰\n否\nKevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·童律师）\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： $_____________________\n担保物价值： -\n$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 $_____________________\n11 __________________________________________\nYan Zhao（赵燕） 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 3,000,000\n$____________________________\n债权人姓名 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n135-11 8th Ave\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n或有\n转交 Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.（Ning Ye 律师事务所）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额\n\n‰\nFlushing（法拉盛） NY 11354 有争议\n‰\n以上均不适用\n\n市 州 邮政编码 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\nNing Ye, Esq.（宁叶律师）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n否\n‰\n联系人 是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n担保物价值： $_____________________\n-\n$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 $_____________________\n12 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 1,571,530.36\n$____________________________\nYua Hua Zhuang Shi（裕华装饰）\n\n债权人姓名 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ ‰\n或有\n门牌号\n街道\n转交 Kevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·童律师） ‰\n未确定金额\n\n‰\n有争议\n__________________________________________ ‰\n以上均不适用\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n市 州 邮政编码 ‰\n否\n‰\nKevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·童律师）\n\n联系人 是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n担保物价值： $_____________________\n-\n$_____________________\n无担保债权 $_____________________\n\n联系电话\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n债务人 1\n_______________________________________________________ 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字\n中间名 姓 无担保债权\n13 __________________________________________\nLiehong Zhuang（庄丽红）/Xiao Yan Zhu（朱晓燕）\n债权人姓名 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 1,005,000\n$____________________________\n224 West 35th Street, 11th Floor\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n‰\n门牌号\n街道\n转交 Trexler & Zhang, LLP（特雷克斯勒与张律师事务所） 或有\n‰\n未确定金额\n\n‰\n有争议\nNew York（纽约）\nNY\n\n市\n州 ‰\n以上均不适用\n债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n邮政编码\nJonathan T. Trexler, Esq.（乔纳森·T·特雷克斯勒律师） ‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n$_____________________\n-\n担保物价值：\n$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权\n$_____________________\n14 __________________________________________\nWeican Meng（孟伟灿）/Boxun, Inc.（博讯公司） 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 1,000,000\n$____________________________\n债权人姓名 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n750 Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n或有\n转交 Arkin Solbakken, LLP（阿金·索尔巴肯律师事务所）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额\n\n‰\n有争议\nNew York（纽约）\nNY\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n以上均不适用\n市\n州 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n邮政编码\n‰\n否\nRobert C. Angelillo（罗伯特·C·安杰利洛）\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n$_____________________\n____________________________________ -\n担保物价值：\n$_____________________\n联系电话 无担保债权\n$_____________________ 1,000,000\n15 __________________________________________\nSamuel Nunberg（塞缪尔·努恩伯格）\n债权人姓名 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ $____________________________\n363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n‰\n或有\n门牌号\n街道\n转交 Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP（内塞诺夫与米尔滕伯格律师事务所）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额\n\n‰\n有争议\n‰\n以上均不适用\nNew York（纽约）\nNY\n\n市\n州 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n邮政编码\nAndrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.（安德鲁·T·米尔滕伯格律师）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n否\n‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n$_____________________\n联系人 -\n担保物价值：\n$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权\n$_____________________\n16 __________________________________________\nLamp Capital, LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司） 诉讼贷款\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 1,000,000\n$____________________________\n债权人姓名\nOne Commerce Plaza 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n或有\n‰\n未确定金额\n99 Washington Avenue\n__________________________________________ ‰\n有争议\nAlbany（奥尔巴尼）\nNY\n\n市\n州\n‰\n以上均不适用\n债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n邮政编码\n转交 NYS, Secretary of State（纽约州州务卿） ‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n$_____________________\n\n联系电话 担保物价值：\n$_____________________\n无担保债权\n$_____________________\nJun Chen（陈军），又名 Jonathan Ho（何乔纳森） 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 1,000,000\n$____________________________\n\n债权人姓名 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n或有\n‰\n未确定金额\n转交 Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq（韦恩·魏·朱律师）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n[\n有争议\nFlushing（法拉盛）\nNY\n\n__________________________________________ ‰\n以上均不适用\n市\n州 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n邮政编码\n‰\n否\nWayne Wei Zhu（韦恩·魏·朱）\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n$_____________________\n\n担保物价值：\n$_____________________\n____________________________________ 无担保债权\n$_____________________\n\n联系电话\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n债务人 1 Kwok\n_______________________________________________________ 案号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n名字 中间名 姓 无担保债权\n\nYue Hua Zhu Shi（裕华装饰） 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 981,501.72\n$____________________________\n\n债权人姓名\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\n__________________________________________ 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n‰\n或有\n门牌号\n街道\n转交 Kevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·童律师）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额\n\n‰\n有争议\nFlushing（法拉盛）\n__________________________________________ NY 11354 ‰\n以上均不适用\n市\nKevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·童律师） 州 邮政编码 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\n‰\n否\n\n联系人 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n担保物价值： $_____________________\n-\n$_____________________\n\n联系电话 无担保债权 $_____________________\n诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________\n\nJia Li Wang（王佳丽）\n\n债权人姓名 430,000\n$____________________________\n335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor\n\n门牌号\n街道 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n‰\n或有\n转交 Thompson Hine（汤普森·海因）\n__________________________________________ ‰\n未确定金额\n\nNew York（纽约）\n__________________________________________ NY 10017 ‰\n有争议\n‰\n以上均不适用\n市 州 邮政编码 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\nBrian P. Lanciault, Esq（布莱恩·P·兰西亚尔律师）\n\n联系人 ‰\n否\n‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）： $_____________________\n____________________________________ 担保物价值： -\n$_____________________\n联系电话 无担保债权 $_____________________\n20 诉讼\n债权性质为何？____________________________ 319,130\n$____________________________\nWA&HF, LLC（WA&HF 有限责任公司）/Ruizeng An（安瑞增） 截至提交之日，该债权为：请勾选所有适用项。\n‰\n或有\n\n债权人姓名 ‰\n未确定金额\n\n41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor\n\n门牌号\n街道 ‰\n有争议\n‰\n以上均不适用\n转交 AFN Law（AFN 律师事务所）\n__________________________________________ 债权人对您的财产是否享有留置权？\nNew York（纽约）\n__________________________________________ NY 10010 ‰\n否\n市 州 邮政编码 ‰\n是。债权总额（有担保和无担保）：\n担保物价值： $_____________________\n-\n$_____________________\nAngus Ni, Esq.（安格斯·倪律师）\n\n联系人 无担保债权 $_____________________\n\n联系电话\n\n第 2 部分：\n在下方签署\n\n本人在伪证处罚的约束下声明，本表所提供的信息真实且正确。\n\nV+R:DQ.ZRN 8\n\n债务人 1 签名 债务人 2 签名 ______________________________________________\n日期 _________________\n日期 _________________","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Finkel","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":5,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":16,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":49,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":557,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":580,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":649,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":691,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":695,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":698,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":705,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":709,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1191,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":32941,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:17:22"}