{"id":"court_ctb_440_21","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":440,"sub_number":21,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-25","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 23 Decision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 549","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 23**\n\nDecision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 549\n\n|                       |  |                            | 22-50073 |  |  |  |  |\n|-----------------------|--|----------------------------|----------|--|--|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok<br>IN RE: |  |                            |          |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |          |  |  |  |  |\n| PAX                   |  |                            | 23       |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |          |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  | 5/25/2022 Admitted in Full |          |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  | P.E.                       |          |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |          |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |          |  |  |  |  |\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<br>FUND L.P.,                                                              |                 |                            |  |\n|          |                                                                                                              | INDEX NO.       | 652077/2017                |  |\n|          | Plaintiff,                                                                                                   |                 |                            |  |\n|          | -<br>v -                                                                                                     | MOTION DATE     |                            |  |\n|          | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a<br>GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 007                        |  |\n|          | a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS<br>LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,               |                 | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |  |\n\n10\n\nDefendants.\n\n### HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nBefore the Court is plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s (\"Pacific Alliance\") motion for partial summary judgement on Count I of the Amended Complaint against defendant Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\") and defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument on motion 006. The Court heard oral argument via Skype on September 14, 2020. Based on the papers submitted and the arguments made on the record of September 14, 2020, and for the reasons that follow, Pacific Alliance's motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and Kwok's motion for reargument on motion 006 is denied.\n\n#### **Background**\n\nIn 2008, Pacific Alliance entered into an agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which Pacific Alliance provided Spirit with a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. Kwok executed a personal Guarantee of the loan. In September 2009, Spirit executed a deed under which Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), a business listing Kwok as its sole shareholder and director, assumed\n\nthe loan debt that Spirit owed to Pacific Alliance. Kwok again executed a personal guarantee in favor of Pacific Alliance to secure Shiny Times' repayment obligation.\n\nIn March 2011, Pacific Alliance and Shiny Times entered into a new loan facility (\"2011 Loan Facility\") that expressly superseded and replaced the 2009 Deed of Settlement and a 2010 Letter Agreement. Simultaneously, Kwok entered into a new personal guarantee (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\") which expressly superseded the 2009 Guarantee. The 2011 Personal Guarantee is the operative agreement in this action.\n\nIn April 2013, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement, whereby the outstanding loan amount would no longer be due and owing to Pacific Alliance if Pacific Alliance purchased certain apartments from Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another Kwok business entity, and Shiny Times' made certain installment payments to Pacific Alliance. Beijing Pangu was required to satisfy ten conditions precedent in connection with the sale and purchase of each of the apartments by Pacific Alliance. If any such condition was not satisfied by June of 2013, the Deed of Settlement would be terminated in its entirety. Pacific Alliance and Kwok subsequently executed four extensions of the Deed of Settlement, changing only the date by which the conditions precedent needed to be satisfied. The latest Deed of Settlement required that the conditions precedent be satisfied by June of 2015.\n\nPacific Alliance seeks summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint which alleges that Kwok failed to satisfy the conditions precedent by June of 2015 and thus, per the terms of the agreement, the Deed of Settlement was terminated in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee again controlled.\n\nThe Court recently held, in response to Pacific Alliance's motion for sanctions, that Kwok was judicially estoppel from challenging the authenticity of documents that Kwok had\n\npreviously sponsored in proceedings before this Court. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 404. Specifically, at his November 2019 deposition, Kwok denied having signed several agreements discussed above, including the 2011 Loan Facility, the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the 2013 Deed of Settlement, and the four Supplemental Deeds. Kwok testified that the documents were forgeries. On the motion for contempt, Pacific Alliance argued, and the Court found, that these denials were inconsistent with the positions Kwok had taken throughout the duration of this 2017 case. As such, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of these agreements in opposition to Pacific Alliance's motion for summary judgment or at trial.\n\n#### **Kwok's Cross-Motion**\n\nTurning first to defendant Kwok's cross-motion for leave to reargue the Court's Decision and Order dated July 7, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 404), this motion is denied. As stated above, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of the agreements that Kwok had previously sponsored as authentic before the Court in this proceeding. Kwok argues that the Court misapprehended the law in reaching this holding. This Court rejects that argument in its entirety.\n\nAt the outset of this case, Kwok moved to dismiss this action on *forum non conveniens* grounds (motion 001). The Court granted Kwok's motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102), which decision was subsequently reversed and remitted by the First Department (NYSCEF Doc. 121). In making his motion to dismiss, Kwok argued that the contracts at issue were governed by Hong Kong law. Specifically, Kwok attached to his motion \"true and correct\" copies of several agreements among the parties including the 2011 Personal Guarantee (NYSCEF Doc. No. 17) and the 2013 Deed of Settlement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18), which he now contests.\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-21 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 5 of 10\n\nKwok now argues that because the thrust of his argument on the motion to dismiss and the Court's decision related to *forum non conveniens,* (1) he is not actually changing his position on the authenticity of the documents, and (2) the Court did not actually determine the authenticity of the documents. This argument is incorrect. Kwok's assertion that the case should have been dismissed in favor of a resolution in Hong Kong *because the agreements on their face are governed by Hong Kong law* necessarily required an argument by Kwok, and an acceptance by the Court, that the agreements were authentic and not forgeries, as Kwok now claims.\n\nKwok further argues that in any event judicial estoppel cannot apply because there was no final determination on the merits on the issue of whether the contracts were authentic, because the First Department reversed this Court's decision on the motion to dismiss. This argument is not supported by the case law in the First Department. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine used to prevent a party from changing its position during the same litigation. *See e.g. Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000) (\"[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding.\"). Indeed, because judicial estoppel is used to prevent parties from changing their position in the same litigation – a final determination *cannot* be a prerequisite for judicial estoppel. *See id* (precluding the landlord from relying on a different lease on appeal than had been relied on at the trial-court level in the same proceeding).\n\nAdditionally, the Court notes that Kwok never pleaded that the documents were forgeries in either of his Answers, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g., Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C*., 214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995) (granting a motion for leave to amend the pleadings to add affirmative defense of forgery); *Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Giardino,* 71 A.D.2d\n\n836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979) (holding that \"proof of defendants' handwriting was material in light of their affirmative defense of forgery\").\n\nKwok's recent, uncorroborated assertion that the agreements are forgeries is inconsistent with his prior position in this litigation – and therefore provides an appropriate basis for judicial estoppel. Accordingly, Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied, and the agreements previously sponsored by Kwok are accepted as authentic for the purpose of evaluating plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.\n\n#### **Pacific Alliance's Motion**\n\nThe Court is granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Pacific Alliance holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract under the 2011 Personal Guarantee. By the plain terms of the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the failure to satisfy the conditions precedent to the settlement by June 30, 2015, would result in reverting to the 2011 Personal Guarantee being in full force and effect. *See* NYSCEF Doc. 461.\n\n> **Clause 3.4:** Reversion of the Facility Letter after 31 July 2013. In the event that all conditions precedent set out in Clause 3.2 for all Apartments have not been satisfied by 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing[ here, 30 June 2015, per the fourth and final supplemental Deed of Settlement]), **then the entire settlement as contemplated under this Deed shall be terminated and the Parties acknowledge that the Facility Letter shall revert and be in full force and effect immediately** after 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing) and Shiny Times shall be obliged to settle the Total Outstanding Amount and any interest accrued thereon in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Facility Letter. (emphasis added).\n\n*See also* NYSCEF Doc. No. 472 \"Fourth Supplemental Deed of Settlement\" (changing the date to satisfy the conditions precedent to \"30 June 2015\").\n\nPlaintiff Pacific Alliance has shown, and defendant Kwok has failed to refute, that several of the conditions precedent in the 2013 Deed of Settlement were not fulfilled. Namely, defendant Kwok failed to deliver clean title, failed to provide plaintiff with an invoice for the\n\npurchase of the apartments, failed to provide plaintiff with evidence regarding the payment of all relevant taxes and charges in connection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and failed to deliver the House Ownership Certificates of any of the Apartments to plaintiff. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i).\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020\n\n10\n\nKwok does not dispute that these conditions were never satisfied. Instead, in opposition, Kwok argues that plaintiff Pacific Alliance failed to mitigate its damages when it allegedly did not act on an opportunity to potentially seize the three apartments with the aid of Beijing police.\n\nFirst, even taking Kwok's version of events as true, mitigation speaks to damages, not liability, and thus these events would not preclude partial summary judgment on liability. Second, as demonstrated by the documentary evidence sponsored by both parties, the alleged opportunity to take possession of the three apartments with the aid of police only came up *after*  June 2015, and thus the 2013 Deed of Settlement had already been nullified in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in full force and effect. Third, Kwok has never pleaded, in either of his Answers, mitigation, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g. Eskenazi v. Mackoul,* 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010) (referring to \"the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages\").\n\nFinally, under Hong Kong law, a party is only required to act *reasonably* to mitigate damages. *See* Affirmation of Vishal Prakash Melwani at ¶17.2 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 535) *and see* Affirmation of Phillip Loukis Georgiou (NYSCEF Doc. No. 498) at ¶¶ 18.3 and 21. The record currently indicates that to take advantage of the alleged offer of the Beijing Police, Pacific Alliance would have needed to pay RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million] per unit to get them released. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288. The prospect of paying approximately \\$16 million for assets that the parties had agreed would be transferred free of\n\ncharge to settle a debt would likely not have qualified as a *reasonable* opportunity to mitigate\n\n10\n\ndamages under Hong Kong law. Nevertheless, the Court reserves decision as to the issue of\n\ndamages.\n\nUnder the 2011 Personal Guarantee\n\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally. . . guarantee[d] to PAX [Pacific Alliance] the due and punctual payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Facility] and agree[d] that promptly on PAX's demand he will pay to PAX all [o]bligations that are due but unpaid\";\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally agree[d] (as primary obligor and not only as surety) to indemnify and hold harmless PAX on demand from and against any and all losses incurred by PAX as a result of any [o]bligation [of Shiny Times] being or becoming void, voidable, unenforceable, or ineffective as against Shiny Times for any reason whatsoever . . . .\";\n- Kwok agreed that his \"obligations . . . under this Guarantee shall constitute and be continuing obligations which shall not be released or discharged by any intermediate payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Loan Facility] or any of them, shall continue in full force and effect until the unconditional and irrevocable payment and discharge in full of [those o]bligations and are in addition to and independent of, and shall not prejudice or merge with, any other security (or any right of setoff) which PAX may at any time hold in respect of [those o]bligations or any of them;\"\n- PAX was permitted to seek recourse against Kwok as primary obligor without first enforcing the debt against Shiny Times; and\n- Kwok agreed to a catchall waiver of any defenses based on \"any other act, event or omission which might operate to discharge, impair or otherwise affect the Guarantor or any of the Obligations or any of the rights, powers, and remedies conferred upon [PAX LP] by this Guarantee or by law.\"\n\nKwok does not argue that either he or Shiny Times made any payments under the 2011 Loan\n\nFacility or the 2011 Personal Guarantee to satisfy the debt. Accordingly, the Court finds Kwok\n\nliable for breach of the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n#### **Conclusion**\n\nThe remaining issue in the action – Count II of the Amended Complaint – seeks to hold\n\ntwo of Kwok's companies—Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation— liable\n\nfor Kwok's debt to Pacific Alliance as alter egos. This action was scheduled for a jury trial on October 5, 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court is unable to have a jury trial on that date and the trial is rescheduled for January 15, 2021.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED that defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint is granted in favor of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. and against Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/ka, GWO Wen Gui, a/ka/ Gui Wengui, a/ka/ Guo Wen-Gui, a/ka/ Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/ka/ Haoyun Guo to the extent of holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall move no later than October 14, 2020 by notice of motion returnable in the Submissions Part to establish damages on Count I by presenting affidavits on personal knowledge and evidence in admissible form as to the principal amount due and owing under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the rate of interest applicable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, and the date from which interest is accruing, so that the Clerk of Court may calculate the total amount due and owing as of the date of entry of judgment; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall simultaneously move for an award of legal fees and expenses, setting forth the document which plaintiff is relying on and attaching invoices for services rendered; and it is further\n\nORDERED that the parties appear for a status conference on December 22, 2020 at 10:20\n\nam.\n\nDated: September 15, 2020\n\n| CHECK ONE:            | CASE DISPOSED              |  |        | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION |           |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|--|--------|---|-----------------------|-----------|\n|                       | GRANTED                    |  | DENIED | X | GRANTED IN PART       | OTHER     |\n| APPLICATION:          | SETTLE ORDER               |  |        |   | SUBMIT ORDER          |           |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN |  |        |   | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |","body_zh":"证据 PAX 23\n\n动议决定与裁定，PAX 诉 Kwok，索引号 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.［纽约州最高法院］），Dkt. 549\n\n22-50073\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭浩云/郭文贵）\n关于：\n\nPAX 23\n\n5/25/2022 全部采纳\nP.E.\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约州最高法院纽约县）\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋同盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n索引号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉\n动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名\nGUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（万秋浩云）， 动议序号 007\n又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名 HAOYUN GUO（浩云郭），GENEVER HOLDINGS\nLLC（吉纳弗控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉纳弗控股公司）， 动议决定 + 裁定\n被告。\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n提交本法院审理的是原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（「Pacific Alliance」）针对被告 Kwok Ho Wan，又名 Miles Kwok（「Kwok」）就《修改后起诉状》第一项请求提出的部分即决判决动议，以及被告 Kwok 就动议 006 提出的重新辩论交叉动议。本法院于 2020年9月14日 通过 Skype 听取了口头辩论。根据提交的文件和 2020年9月14日 记录在案的辩论，并基于以下理由，Pacific Alliance 的部分即决判决动议予以批准，Kwok 就动议 006 提出的重新辩论动议予以驳回。\n\n背景\n\n2008年，Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 旗下的商业实体之一 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（「Spirit」）签订了一项协议，据此，Pacific Alliance 向 Spirit 提供了本金为 $30 million 的贷款额度。Kwok 为该笔贷款签署了个人《保证书》（Guarantee）。2009年9月，Spirit 签署了一份契约，据此，将 Kwok 列为其唯一股东兼董事的企业 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（「Shiny Times」）承担了\n\nSpirit 欠 Pacific Alliance 的贷款债务。Kwok 再次以 Pacific Alliance 为受益人签署了个人保证书，以担保 Shiny Times 的还款义务。\n\n2011年3月，Pacific Alliance 与 Shiny Times 签订了一项新的贷款额度协议（「2011年贷款额度」），该协议明确取代并废止了《2009年和解契约》和一份《2010年信函协议》。同时，Kwok 签订了一份新的个人保证书（「2011年个人保证书」），该保证书明确取代了《2009年保证书》。《2011年个人保证书》是本案中的有效协议。\n\n2013年4月，各方签订了一份《和解契约》，据此，如果 Pacific Alliance 从 Kwok 的另一商业实体 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（「Beijing Pangu」［北京盘古投资有限公司］）购买某些公寓，且 Shiny Times 向 Pacific Alliance 支付了某些分期付款，则未偿还的贷款金额将不再到期并应付给 Pacific Alliance。Beijing Pangu 必须就 Pacific Alliance 购买每套公寓满足十项先决条件。如果任何此类条件未在 2013年6月 之前得到满足，则《和解契约》将全部终止。Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 随后签署了四份《和解契约》延期协议，仅更改了需要满足先决条件的日期。最新一份《和解契约》要求先决条件须在 2015年6月 之前得到满足。\n\nPacific Alliance 就《修改后起诉状》第一项请求申请即决判决，该项请求指控 Kwok 未能在 2015年6月 之前满足先决条件，因此，根据协议条款，《和解契约》全部终止，且《2011年个人保证书》再次具有约束力。\n\n本法院最近针对 Pacific Alliance 的制裁动议裁定，禁止反言规则（judicial estoppel）禁止 Kwok 质疑 Kwok 此前\n\n在本法院诉讼程序中提交过的文件的真实性。见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 404。具体而言，在其 2019年11月 的宣誓作证（deposition）中，Kwok 否认签署了上述若干协议，包括《2011年贷款额度》、《2011年个人保证书》、《2013年和解契约》以及四份《补充契约》。Kwok 作证称这些文件系伪造。在关于藐视法庭的动议中，Pacific Alliance 主张、且本法院认定，这些否认与 Kwok 在该 2017年 案件全过程中所采取的立场不一致。因此，本法院裁定，在反对 Pacific Alliance 的即决判决动议或在审判中，禁止反言规则禁止 Kwok 质疑这些协议的真实性。\n\nKwok 的交叉动议\n\n首先讨论被告 Kwok 申请准予就本法院 2020年7月7日 的《决定与裁定》（NYSCEF Doc. No. 404）进行重新辩论的交叉动议，该动议予以驳回。如上所述，本法院裁定禁止反言规则禁止 Kwok 质疑其此前在本诉讼程序中已作为真实文件向本法院提交过的协议的真实性。Kwok 主张本法院在作出该裁定时对法律存在误解。本法院完全驳回该主张。\n\n在本案起初，Kwok 以不方便法院（forum non conveniens）为由申请驳回本案诉讼（动议 001）。本法院批准了 Kwok 的动议（NYSCEF Doc. No. 102），该决定随后被 First Department（第一上诉分部）撤销并发回重审（NYSCEF Doc. 121）。在提出驳回起诉动议时，Kwok 主张涉案合同受香港法律管辖。具体而言，Kwok 在其动议中附上了各方之间若干协议的「真实且正确」的副本，包括他现在提出异议的《2011年个人保证书》（NYSCEF Doc. No. 17）和《2013年和解契约》（NYSCEF Doc. No. 18）。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 收到日期 NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 案件 22-50073 Doc 440-21 提交于 05/25/22 录入于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 5 页，共 10 页\n\nKwok 现在主张，由于他在驳回起诉动议中的主张要点以及本法院的决定均与不方便法院有关，因此（1）他实际上并未改变其对文件真实性的立场，且（2）本法院实际上并未确定文件的真实性。该主张是不正确的。Kwok 声称因协议表面上受香港法律管辖而应驳回本案以便在香港解决，这必然要求 Kwok 提出、且本法院接受这些协议是真实的而非伪造的（如 Kwok 现在所称）。\n\nKwok 进一步主张，无论如何禁止反言均不适用，因为关于合同是否真实的问题并未作出实体上的终局裁决，因为第一上诉分部撤销了本法院关于驳回起诉动议的决定。这一主张在第一上诉分部的判例法中没有支持。禁止反言是一项衡平法原则，用于防止当事人在同一诉讼过程中改变其立场。见例如 Nestor 诉 Britt，270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000)（「根据禁止反言原则，或禁止采取不一致立场的原则，当事人不得在同一诉讼程序中不公正地采取与先前所持立场直接相反或不一致的立场。」）。事实上，因为禁止反言是用于防止当事人在同一诉讼中改变立场的——实体终局裁决不可能是适用禁止反言的前提条件。见同上（禁止房东在上诉中依赖与在同一诉讼程序中一审法院阶段所依赖的租约不同的租约）。\n\n此外，本法院注意到，Kwok 在其两份答辩状中均未主张文件系伪造，而伪造是一项积极抗辩（affirmative defense）。见例如 Proner 诉 Julien & Schlesinger, P.C.，214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995)（准予修改诉讼文书以增加伪造的积极抗辩的动议）；Great Am. Ins. Co. 诉 Giardino，71 A.D.2d\n\n836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979)（认定「鉴于被告提出了伪造的积极抗辩，被告笔迹的证明至关重要」）。\n\nKwok 最近提出的未经证实的关于协议系伪造的主张，与其在此前诉讼中的立场不一致——因此构成了适用禁止反言的合效应据。据此，Kwok 的重新辩论交叉动议予以驳回，Kwok 此前提交的协议在评估原告的部分即决判决动议时被采纳为真实有效。\n\nPacific Alliance 的动议\n\n本法院批准原告 Pacific Alliance 的即决判决动议，认定被告 Kwok 依据《2011年个人保证书》承担违约责任。根据《2013年和解契约》的明文条款，未能在 2015年6月30日 之前满足和解先决条件的，将导致恢复《2011年个人保证书》的完全效力。见 NYSCEF Doc. 461。\n\n第 3.4 条：2013年7月31日 之后恢复授信函效力。如果第 3.2 条所列针对所有公寓的所有先决条件未在 2013年7月31日（或各方书面同意的更晚日期［在此，根据第四份也是最后一份补充和解契约，为 2015年6月30日］）之前得到满足，则本契约项下设想的整个和解应予终止，各方承认授信函应在 2013年7月31日（或各方书面同意的更晚日期）之后立即恢复并完全有效，且 Shiny Times 有义务根据授信函的条款和条件清偿全部未偿金额及据此产生的任何利息。（强调为后加）。\n\n亦见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 472「第四份补充和解契约」（将满足先决条件的日期更改为「2015年6月30日」）。\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance 已经证明、且被告 Kwok 未能反驳，《2013年和解契约》中的若干先决条件未得到履行。即，被告 Kwok 未能交付无瑕疵的所有权，未能向原告提供\n\n购买公寓的发票，未能向原告提供与公寓买卖相关的所有相关税费缴纳凭据，且未能向原告交付任何公寓的房屋所有权证。见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i)。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 收到日期 NYSCEF: 09/15/2020\nKwok 对这些条件从未得到满足并不持异议。相反，在抗辩中，Kwok 主张原告 Pacific Alliance 在据称未利用借助北京警方可能查封该三套公寓的机会时，未能减损（mitigate damages）。\n\n首先，即使将 Kwok 对事件的陈述视为属实，减损关乎的是损害赔偿而非责任，因此这些事件并不能阻止就责任作出部分即决判决。其次，正如双方提交的书证所证明的那样，据称在警方协助下占有该三套公寓的机会仅在 2015年6月 之后才出现，因此《2013年和解契约》此前已经全部作废，《2011年个人保证书》完全有效。第三，Kwok 在其两份答辩状中均从未主张过减损，而减损是一项积极抗辩。见例如 Eskenazi 诉 Mackoul，72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010)（提及「未能减少损失的积极抗辩」）。\n\n最后，根据香港法律，当事人仅被要求采取合理行动以减轻损害。参见 Vishal Prakash Melwani 的确认书第 17.2 段（NYSCEF Doc. No. 535）以及 Phillip Loukis Georgiou 的确认书第 18.3 段和第 21 段（NYSCEF Doc. No. 498）。目前的记录表明，若要利用北京警方所谓的提议，Pacific Alliance（太平洋同盟）需要为每套单元支付 3500 万人民币［约合 550 万美元］才能使其获得解封。参见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288。对于各方原本约定无偿转让以清偿债务的资产，却要面临支付约 1600 万美元的前景，根据香港法律，这很可能不构成减轻损害的合理机会。尽管如此，法院对损害赔偿问题保留裁决。\n\n根据 2011 年个人担保（2011 Personal Guarantee）：\n\n- Kwok（郭）“不可撤销且无条件地……向 PAX［Pacific Alliance］担保［Shiny Times］按期足额偿付［2011 年信贷协议项下的］各项义务，并同意在 PAX 提出要求时，立即向 PAX 支付到期未付的所有义务款项”；\n- 郭“不可撤销且无条件地同意（作为主债务人而非仅作为保证人），应要求对 PAX 进行赔偿并使其免受损害，赔偿因［Shiny Times 的］任何义务因任何原因对 Shiny Times 无效、可撤销、不可执行或不生效而导致 PAX 遭受的任何及所有损失……”；\n- 郭同意其“本担保项下的……义务应构成并作为持续义务，不因［Shiny Times 在 2011 年贷款协议项下的］各项义务或其中任何一项义务的任何中期支付而免除或解除，该等义务应持续保持完全有效，直至［该等］义务获得无条件且不可撤销的全额清偿和解除，并且该等义务是对 PAX 在任何时候就［该等］义务或其中任何义务可能持有的任何其他担保（或任何抵销权）的补充且相互独立，不得对其产生损害或与其发生混同；”\n- 允许 PAX 作为主债务人向郭追偿，而无需先行对 Shiny Times 执行债务；以及\n- 郭同意对基于“可能导致免除、损害或以其他方式影响保证人或任何义务，或影响本担保或法律授予［PAX LP］的任何权利、权力及救济的任何其他行为、事件或不作为”的任何抗辩进行兜底放弃。\n\n郭并未主张其本人或 Shiny Times 曾根据 2011 年贷款协议或 2011 年个人担保进行过任何偿还以清偿该笔债务。因此，法院认定郭对违反 2011 年个人担保承担责任。\n\n结论\n\n本诉讼中的剩余问题——修改后起诉状（Amended Complaint）的第二项罪名/诉因（Count II）——旨在主张郭的两家公司——Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation——作为其另我（alter egos）对郭欠 Pacific Alliance 的债务承担责任。本案原定于 2020 年 10 月 5 日进行陪审团审理。由于新冠疫情（Covid-19），法院无法在该日期进行陪审团审理，审判重新排期至 2021 年 1 月 15 日。\n\n因此，特此，\n\n裁定（ORDERED）：被告郭的重新论证交叉动议（cross-motion for reargument）被驳回；且进一步\n\n裁定（ORDERED）：原告就修改后起诉状第一项诉因（Count I）提出的简易判决动议获得支持，作出有利于 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 且针对 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，又名 Kwok Ho、GWO Wen Gui、Gui Wengui、Guo Wen-Gui、Wan Gue Haoyun、Miles Kwok、Haoyun Guo/郭文贵）的裁定，以认定被告郭承担违约责任为限；且进一步\n\n裁定（ORDERED）：原告应不迟于 2020 年 10 月 14 日，通过在材料呈交法庭（Submissions Part）申报的动议通知提出动议，以确立第一项诉因项下的损害赔偿金，提交基于个人知悉的宣誓书以及符合可采纳形式的证据，证明 2011 年个人担保项下到期应欠的本金金额、2011 年个人担保项下适用的利率，以及利息起算日期，以便法院书记官能够计算出截至判决录入之日到期应欠的总金额；且进一步\n\n裁定（ORDERED）：原告应同时提出判给诉讼费和开支的动议，载明原告所依据的文件并附上已提供服务的发票；且进一步\n\n裁定（ORDERED）：各方当事人于 2020 年 12 月 22 日上午 10:20 出庭参加案件进展状态会议（status conference）。\n\n日期：2020 年 9 月 15 日\n\n勾选一项： 案件结案 X 非终局处置\n\n支持 驳回 X 部分支持 其他\n申请： 制定命令 呈交命令\n如适用请勾选： 包含移送/重新分配 破产管理人/受托人指定 查阅参照","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":121,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":461,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2782,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:29:03"}