{"id":"court_ctb_441_10","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":441,"sub_number":10,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"Exhibit UCC-10 PAX's First Amended Complaint dated April 18, 2019 in PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.),","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Exhibit UCC-10\n\n# PAX's First Amended Complaint dated April 18, 2019 in PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 309\n\n| 22-50073              |  |                            |  |\n|-----------------------|--|----------------------------|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok<br>IN RE: |  |                            |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |\n| 10<br>UCC             |  |                            |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |\n|                       |  | 5/25/2022 Admitted in Full |  |\n|                       |  | P.E.                       |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\n406-10 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 2\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2019 10:50 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 309 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2019\n\n441-10 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n20\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\n  Defendants.\n\n**FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT**\n\n### **NATURE OF THE ACTION**\n\n1. This is a straightforward breach of contract case. Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui, a/k/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui, a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun, a/k/a Miles Kwok, a/k/a Haoyun Guo (\"Kwok\"), a reported billionaire, and his controlled entities borrowed millions of dollars from Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX LP\") but have failed to pay the amount owed to PAX LP under binding written agreements.\n\n2. In 2008, PAX LP entered into a written agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit Charter\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. This loan facility was conditioned on Kwok's execution of a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's repayment obligations. Kwok executed that guarantee, and PAX LP lent \\$30 million to Spirit Charter on February 4, 2008.\n\n3. In 2009, another of Kwok's entities, Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), assumed the debt that Spirit Charter owed to PAX LP, which the parties agreed at the time totaled \\$45,357,534.25. Kwok again executed a personal guarantee with respect to that debt.\n\n4. Then in 2011, PAX LP and Shiny Times entered into a written agreement (the \"2011 Facility Letter\") that expressly superseded the prior agreements between the parties. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 and would repay that amount (plus 15% annual interest from December 31, 2010) by June 30, 2012.\n\n5. That same day, Kwok executed another personal guarantee (that similarly expressly superseded Kwok's prior personal guarantee) pursuant to which Kwok guaranteed payment of the amount owed to PAX LP by Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"2011 Personal Guarantee\").\n\n6. After both Shiny Times and Kwok failed to repay PAX LP, Kwok, Shiny Times, and Beijing Pangu (another Kwok-controlled entity) negotiated a potential settlement with PAX LP, under\n\n### 2 of 19\n\nwhich PAX LP, to settle the debt, was to take ownership of three apartments located in Beijing that were owned by Beijing Pangu. But Kwok and Beijing Pangu failed to meet the specific conditions precedent for the settlement (including, among other ways, failing to transfer title for the apartments to PAX LP), even after PAX LP, through four separate extensions, provided Kwok and Beijing Pangu an additional 23 months to satisfy these conditions.\n\n7. As the conditions precedent were not satisfied when the last deadline expired at the end of June 2015, the 2011 Facility Letter and the 2011 Personal Guarantee by their express terms reverted to being in full force and effect, and PAX LP then began its pursuit of repayment of the mounting, contractual debt from both Shiny Times and Kwok. Shiny Times, however, had no assets when PAX LP had it liquidated in the British Virgin Islands. And Kwok to this date has refused to repay a penny of his debt. In fact, Kwok has recently denied the very existence of the debt and has stated repeatedly that he should not have to repay it, including on his Twitter account and in a deposition in this very lawsuit.\n\n8. Two of Kwok's shell companies—Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\" and together with Genever NY, the \"Genever Defendants\")—are liable for his debt to PAX LP because each is Kwok's alter ego. Kwok is the sole shareholder and director of Genever BVI, which in turn is the sole shareholder of Genever NY, through which Kwok purchased a luxury apartment at The Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Inc. (the \"Sherry-Netherland\" and the apartment the \"Residence\") in New York in early March 2015 for \\$67.5 million in cash. Kwok dominates and controls both Genever NY and Genever BVI, neither of which has offices, employees, or any separate existence apart from being the shells through which Kwok purchased the Residence.\n\n9. Kwok purchased the Residence for almost the precise amount of money he owed at the time to PAX LP under the Personal Guarantee. He formed the Genever Defendants at a time when he knew his debt would be due and owing to PAX LP, and almost immediately thereafter, he purchased the Residence through the Genever Defendants in an attempt to shield that asset from PAX LP. Kwok has made false statements to both the Sherry-Netherland and this Court about the Genever Defendants in an attempt to further that debt-avoidance effort. This and other Kwok conduct with respect to the Genever Defendants, detailed below, demonstrates that Kwok has abused the privilege of the corporate form in order to perpetrate a fraud, wrong, or injustice against PAX LP.\n\n10. PAX LP has taken all necessary and appropriate steps in accordance with its agreements with Shiny Times and Kwok to recover the monies it is owed—now totaling more than \\$100 million including contractual interest. To date, however, Shiny Times and Kwok have failed to satisfy even one dollar of their contractual repayment obligations on the outstanding debt. And as a result of this failure to repay the debt, PAX LP has also incurred \"costs, claims losses, [and] expenses (including legal fees)\" in connection with enforcing the 2011 Personal Guarantee, which Kwok is obligated to indemnify under the express terms of the 2011 Personal Guarantee. (*See* Exhibit A § 5.3.)\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kwok pursuant to New York's general personal jurisdiction statute, C.P.L.R § 301, because he is engaged in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York, is domiciled in the state, and owns the Residence, located in New York County.\n\n12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Genever NY pursuant to C.P.L.R § 301, because it is incorporated in New York and its sole business purpose is to own shares in Kwok's Residence, located in New York County.\n\n13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Genever BVI because, as alleged herein, by virtue of Kwok's domination and control over it to perpetrate a fraud against PAX LP, Genever BVI is Kwok's alter ego. Moreover, Genever BVI has engaged in relevant conduct in, and availed itself of the laws of, New York by becoming the sole shareholder of a New York LLC (Genever NY) and being the indirect owner of the Residence. Indeed, Genever BVI's sole business purpose is to own (through its 100% ownership of Genever NY) the Residence. Genever BVI is represented by Kwok's counsel in this litigation (in which that counsel accepted service of and responded to a third-party subpoena to Genever BVI). Kwok's counsel also made representations to this Court in this case regarding certain pledges of Genever BVI's assets.\n\n14. Venue is proper in this Court under C.P.L.R § 503(a) because Kwok's residence is in New York County and Genever NY's place of incorporation is New York County.\n\n### **PARTIES**\n\n15. Plaintiff PAX LP is an investment fund organized as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands.\n\n16. Defendant Kwok is a Chinese national who is domiciled in New York and engages in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York. Kwok is the sole shareholder and director of Genever BVI. Kwok resides in the Residence.\n\n17. Defendant Genever NY is a limited liability company established under the laws of New York. Genever NY's sole business purpose is to own shares in the Residence, which is apartment number 1801 in the Sherry-Netherland. Genever NY purchased the Residence in 2015 for \\$67.5 million.\n\n18. Defendant Genever BVI is a BVI business company established under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. Genever BVI's sole business purpose is to own (through its 100% ownership of Genever NY) the Residence.\n\n![](_page_6_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n### **STATEMENT OF FACTS**\n\n### *The Loan Facility and Kwok's Personal Guarantees to Repay PAX LP*\n\n19. PAX LP and Kwok have had business dealings since approximately February 4, 2008, when PAX LP entered into a written agreement (the \"2008 Facility Agreement\") with Spirit Charter (attached as Exhibit B), one of Kwok's business entities, under which PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million (*see* Exhibit B § 3). Kwok executed the 2008 Facility Agreement on behalf of Spirit Charter. The 2008 Facility Agreement specified that \"[PAX LP] shall not be obliged to make the Advance to the Borrower unless it shall first have received . . . a duly executed Kwok[] Guarantee.\" (Exhibit B § 4(d).) Having received Kwok's guarantee, PAX LP lent the full \\$30 million available under the loan facility to Spirit Charter on February 4, 2008.\n\n20. On March 12, 2008, PAX LP and Spirit Charter amended and restated the 2008 Facility Agreement (\"Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement\"). (*See* Exhibit C.) Kwok executed the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement on behalf of Spirit Charter, which acknowledges and confirms that Spirit Charter \"received the US\\$30,000,000 principal amount of the Original Facility on 4 February 2008.\" (Exhibit C § 2.)\n\n21. By a deed dated September 17, 2009 (the \"September 2009 Deed\"), Shiny Times, Spirit Charter, PAX LP, and various other parties agreed that Shiny Times would replace Spirit Charter as the borrower under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement. (*See* Exhibit D.) Kwok executed the September 2009 Deed on behalf of Shiny Times, Spirit Charter, and himself. The parties to the September 2009 Deed also agreed that the outstanding amount under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement, including accrued and unpaid interest, was \\$45,357,534.25 as of September 12, 2009. (*See* Exhibit D at 4.)\n\n22. The September 2009 Deed required Kwok to execute a new personal guarantee in favor of PAX LP to secure Shiny Times's repayment of the approximately \\$45 million then owed under the Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement. (*See* Exhibit D § 5.10.) Kwok executed his personal guarantee on November 18, 2009. (*See* Exhibit E.)\n\n23. In 2011, PAX LP, Kwok, and Shiny Times agreed to supersede the foregoing agreements with two contracts executed on March 16, 2011—the 2011 Facility Letter (attached as Exhibit F) and the 2011 Personal Guarantee (attached as Exhibit A).\n\n24. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 as of that date and would repay that amount, with 15% annual interest running from December 31, 2010, by June 30, 2012. (*See* Exhibit F §§ 3, 5.)\n\n25. The parties further agreed in the 2011 Facility Letter that any failure by Shiny Times to pay any amount owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter would constitute an Event of Default, and that in such event PAX LP could (i) declare the entire loan, accrued and unpaid interest, and any other money payable to be immediately due and payable without further demand or notice or other legal formality of any kind, and/or (ii) declare the 2011 Facility Letter terminated. (*See* Exhibit F § 13.)\n\n26. Like the prior agreements between the parties, the 2011 Facility Letter was also expressly conditioned on Kwok's execution of the 2011 Personal Guarantee to fully backstop Shiny Times's payment obligations to PAX LP:\n\nThe Lender [PAX LP] and the Borrower [Shiny Times] agree to enter into this Agreement . . . on the condition that a new personal guarantee of Mr. Kwok (the \"Personal Guarantee\"), in favour of the Lender is delivered to secure the due and punctual performance of the Borrower to fully repay the [2011 Facility Letter] plus all accrued and unpaid interest in accordance with this Agreement.\n\n(Exhibit F at 1.)\n\n27. Kwok executed the 2011 Facility Letter on behalf of Shiny Times and on the same day\n\nsigned the 2011 Personal Guarantee, under which he agreed to \"irrevocably and unconditionally\"\n\nguarantee Shiny Times's payment of all amounts owed under the 2011 Facility Letter. In particular,\n\nKwok:\n\n- (a) guaranteed to PAX LP the \"due and punctual payment\" of Shiny Times's obligations under the 2011 Facility Letter;\n- (b) agreed \"that promptly on [PAX LP's] demand [Kwok] will pay to [PAX LP] all [such amounts] that are due but unpaid\";\n- (c) agreed to \"indemnify and hold harmless [PAX LP] on demand from and against all losses incurred by [PAX LP] as a result of any obligation of Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter being or becoming void, voidable, unenforceable or ineffective as against Shiny Times for any reason whatsoever\";\n- (d) agreed that PAX LP's demand for payment would constitute *prima facie* evidence that such payment was due and owing;\n- (e) agreed that PAX LP could seek repayment from either Shiny Times or Kwok; and\n- (f) agreed to indemnify PAX LP from \"any and all costs, claims losses, [and] expenses (including legal fees)\" incurred as a result of exercising or enforcing the Personal Guarantee.\n\n(Exhibit A §§ 2.1–2.2, 3.3, and 5.3.)\n\n28. Kwok also agreed in the 2011 Personal Guarantee to waive defenses, including those based on the winding up or dissolution of Shiny Times or PAX LP's inability to recover against Shiny Times \"for any reason.\" (Exhibit A § 3.4.) Kwok further agreed to a catchall waiver of defenses based on \"any other act, event or omission which might operate to discharge, impair or otherwise affect the Guarantor or any of the Obligations or any of the rights, powers, and remedies conferred upon [PAX LP] by this Guarantee or by law.\" (Exhibit A § 3.4(g).)\n\n29. In short, Kwok personally executed an unambiguous and ironclad guarantee that he would satisfy Shiny Times's debt to PAX LP.\n\n# *The Settlement Attempts, Extensions, and Shiny Times's Ultimate Failure to Repay PAX LP*\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2019 10:50 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 309 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2019\n\n441-10 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n30. Shiny Times did not repay any portion of the loan principal or accrued interest before the June 30, 2012 repayment date set forth in the 2011 Facility Letter, and the parties subsequently structured an attempt to resolve that debt through a settlement agreement—and then several extensions thereof—each of which was styled a \"Deed of Settlement.\"\n\n31. PAX LP, Shiny Times, and Kwok entered into the Original Deed of Settlement\n\n(attached as Exhibit G) along with Beijing Pangu, another Kwok-owned company, on April 19, 2013.\n\nKwok executed the Original Deed of Settlement on behalf of Shiny Times and himself.\n\n32. The Original Deed of Settlement provided that (i) the total outstanding amount due\n\nunder the 2011 Facility Letter plus all accrued and unpaid interest was \\$52 million as of the date of the\n\nOriginal Deed of Settlement, and (ii) that amount would no longer be due and owing upon the\n\noccurrence of the following events:\n\n- (a) If PAX LP completed the purchase of three apartments from Beijing Pangu in a series of three separate transactions for approximately \\$5 million each, for a total of approximately \\$15 million; and\n- (b) If Shiny Times completed three installment payments to PAX LP of approximately \\$5 million each—one installment payment to be made after each separate apartment purchase—for a total of approximately \\$15 million.\n\n(*See* Exhibit G §§ 2–3.1.)\n\n33. Before PAX LP could complete the purchase the three apartments from Beijing Pangu, however, Beijing Pangu was required under the Original Deed of Settlement to satisfy certain express conditions precedent relating to title, taxes, satisfaction of mortgages, and other common aspects of Chinese real estate transactions. (*See* Exhibit G § 3.2.) If any of these conditions were not met for any of the three apartments by July 31, 2013, the Original Deed of Settlement provided that \"the Facility Letter shall revert and be in full force and effect immediately after such failure and Shiny Times shall\n\nbe obliged to settle any outstanding Total Outstanding Amount and any interest accrued thereon in accordance with the terms of the [2011] Facility Letter.\" (Exhibit G § 4.2.)\n\n34. If the 2011 Facility Letter were to revert into full force and effect, Kwok's obligations would also be in full force and effect under the terms of the 2011 Personal Guarantee: \"The obligations of [Kwok] . . . shall continue in full force and effect until the unconditional and irrevocable payment and discharge in full of\" Shiny Times's payment and performance obligations under the 2011 Facility Letter. (Exhibit A § 3.1.)\n\n35. Kwok and Beijing Pangu failed to satisfy the conditions precedent by July 31, 2013.\n\n36. Four supplemental deeds of settlement—on December 3, 2013; May 15, 2014; July 11, 2014; and February 10, 2015 (attached as Exhibits H–K)—extended the dates in the Original Deed of Settlement, including the repayment date and the date for Kwok and Beijing Pangu to satisfy the conditions precedent.\n\n37. Each of the supplemental deeds had the same terms as the Original Deed of Settlement. And the result was the same each time: Kwok and Beijing Pangu never satisfied several of the required, express conditions. Thus, PAX LP was not required to (and in fact could not) complete its purchase of any of the apartments, and Shiny Times never made any of the three installment payments it owed to PAX LP under the Original Settlement Deed.\n\n38. Finally, on March 31, 2015, Shiny Times and PAX LP, together with Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited and Empire Growth Holdings Limited, entered into an Option Agreement (the \"Option Agreement\") that provided, among other things, for the potential sale to Kwok of shares in entities that owned the three Beijing Pangu apartments subject to the Original Deed of Settlement (*see* Exhibit L § 2), giving Kwok the option to buy back the apartments from PAX LP.\n\n39. Pursuant to its terms, the Option Agreement was to terminate if certain conditions were not satisfied: \"For the avoidance of doubt, if any of the following conditions to the Option is not satisfied, this Agreement shall terminate with immediate effect (without prejudice to any rights or remedies available to PAX LP under the Deed of Settlement).\" (Exhibit L § 2.) As none of the Option Agreement conditions were satisfied, the Option Agreement similarly was terminated without relieving Shiny Times of its obligation to pay PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n40. Thus, when both the last Deed of Settlement and the Option Agreement expired unsatisfied on June 30, 2015, the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, Kwok's obligations under the 2011 Personal Guarantee became fully enforceable, and Kwok was (and remains) independently liable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee for the full amount of Shiny Times's debt owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n# *Kwok Incorporates the Genever Defendants as Shell Companies that he Completely Dominates and Controls to Fraudulently Purchase the Residence in Order to Shield His Assets from PAX LP*\n\n41. In late January or early February 2015, Kwok's Chinese assets—including the three Beijing Pangu apartments that were to be transferred to PAX LP in the proposed settlement—were seized by the Chinese government, and Kwok fled to the United States.\n\n42. Nevertheless, on February 10, 2015, Kwok signed the fourth and final extension of the Original Deed of Settlement. (*See* Exhibit K.) Unlike PAX LP, Kwok knew at the time that his Chinese assets, including the three apartments, already had been seized, and thus was aware that he could *never* satisfy the conditions precedent for transferring ownership of the apartments to PAX LP. Kwok did not inform PAX LP that the apartments had been seized, and instead induced PAX LP to enter into the fourth and final extension while concealing this important fact.\n\n43. The new deadline to satisfy the conditions precedent in the fourth and final extension was June 30, 2015. Thus, Kwok knew at the time that he executed the February 10, 2015 extension\n\nthat he would never satisfy the conditions precedent (indeed, he did not) and, therefore, that he had only four months to shield his assets before his more than \\$70 million debt to PAX LP became due and payable.\n\n44. Kwok immediately went to work. On February 13, 2015—a mere 72 hours after signing the final settlement extension that Kwok knew he could never satisfy—Kwok formed Genever BVI in the British Virgin Islands and incorporated Genever NY in New York. Kwok did not capitalize either entity. Neither entity opened offices or hired any employees. Kwok is the sole owner of Genever BVI, which is the sole owner of Genever NY. Kwok is the sole director of Genever BVI based on official filings in the BVI.\n\n45. Between February 13 and March 24, 2015—again, knowing that he would be unable to meet the terms of the settlement agreement and that his debt to PAX LP would come due in June 2015—Kwok entered into negotiations with the Sherry-Netherland to purchase the Residence.\n\n46. In order to induce the Sherry-Netherland to accept his application, Kwok, through his lawyers, presented financial statements to the Board of the Sherry-Netherland. These financial statements represented that Kwok owned and controlled Beijing Zenith, a Chinese company whose balance sheet showed almost \\$4 billion in assets. This balance sheet was a critical piece of Kwok's application because it was only one of two assets Kwok ever disclosed.\n\n47. Significantly, Kwok testified in this case that he not only knew at the time he had his lawyers submit his Sherry-Netherland application that these Beijing Zenith assets already had been frozen by the Chinese government, but also that, at the time of the application, he did not \"have any ownership interest in Beijing Zenith\" and that he had \"no control at all over Beijing Zenith.\"\n\n48. A few days later, Kwok, again through counsel, presented to the Sherry-Netherland the financial statements of a second foreign company: Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\"), which held\n\nover \\$490 million in a UBS Hong Kong bank account. While this submission expressly represented that Kwok and his son owned and controlled Bravo Luck, Kwok again testified in this case that he had \"no ownership interest in Bravo Luck.\"\n\n49. As proposed to the Sherry-Netherland, Kwok intended to and did purchase the Residence through Genever NY, which was wholly-owned by Genever BVI. The Sherry-Netherland's Executive Vice President testified he had never seen a resident make a purchase through two separate shell companies in his four decades in the industry. Because the Sherry-Netherland recognized that this structure, coupled with Kwok's failure to disclose any U.S. assets on his application, would make it difficult to collect the monthly fees it would charge to Kwok, the Sherry-Netherland required Kwok to put down the largest security deposit in the Sherry-Netherland's history—five years' worth of his roughly \\$56,000 in monthly fees.\n\n50. On the basis of what, according to Kwok's testimony, was false and misleading financial information presented to the Sherry-Netherland and Kwok's agreement to post the approximately \\$3 million security deposit—and at a time when Kwok's debt to PAX LP was more than \\$70 million—Kwok and Genever NY obtained the Sherry-Netherland Board's approval to purchase the Residence for approximately \\$67.5 million in cash on March 24, 2015.\n\n51. The Contract of Sale and Proprietary Lease Agreement with the Sherry-Netherland are signed by Genever NY. The Purchase Agreement for the apartment lists \"'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever [NY])\" and \"Kwok Ho Wan\" as the applicant.\n\n52. Even though Genever NY is listed on the Contract of Sale, Purchase Agreement, and the Proprietary Lease with the Sherry-Netherland, Genever NY was not capitalized and had no assets with which to purchase the Residence. Instead, Kwok purchased the Residence with funds wired from Bravo Luck.\n\n![](_page_14_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n53. Kwok all but admitted at his deposition that the funds used to purchase the Residence came from Shiny Times. When asked whether there was a connection between the Genever Defendants and Shiny Times, he testified that Genever BVI and Shiny Times had a \"representative relationship . . . like when you purchase house, there will be some agent on behalf.\"\n\n## *PAX LP Seeks to Enforce Its Contractual Rights and Collect Amounts Owed, and Kwok and the Genever Defendants Attempt to Further Shield the Residence in Response*\n\n54. On October 16, 2015, after the Deeds of Settlement and Option Agreement were terminated and the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, PAX LP sent a written notice of demand (the \"Notice of Demand\") to Kwok's address in Hong Kong, as specified under the terms of the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n55. The Notice of Demand informed Kwok that \"Shiny Times ha[d] failed to repay any part of the sum due\" under the 2011 Facility Letter and demanded immediate payment of \\$71,818,633.44. The Notice of Demand also informed Kwok that legal proceedings might be commenced against him if he did not make immediate payment, and reserved PAX LP's contractual rights under both the 2011 Facility Letter and the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n56. Kwok never responded to the Notice of Demand.\n\n57. At around the same time PAX LP sent the Notice of Demand, Kwok and the Genever Defendants listed the Residence for sale.\n\n58. On February 19, 2016, PAX LP sent a letter to Shiny Times demanding payment of \\$82,219,404.08 due and owing under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"Shiny Times Demand Letter\"), which represented the principal plus contractual interest of 15% per annum calculated up to the date of the Shiny Times Demand Letter.\n\n59. Shiny Times never responded to the Shiny Times Demand Letter.\n\n60. When Shiny Times did not respond, PAX LP submitted an application to court in the British Virgin Islands on February 29, 2016, seeking the appointment of joint liquidators to put Shiny Times, which is a BVI corporation, into liquidation. The application alleged that (i) Shiny Times had failed to pay the sum-then-owing of \\$82,410,197.87, (ii) Shiny Times was unable to pay its debts, and (iii) Shiny Times was insolvent and should be liquidated.\n\n61. Shiny Times was in fact placed into liquidation as a result of the BVI proceeding, but it had no assets. Thus, PAX LP was unable to collect any of the monies owed to it under the 2011 Facility Letter through the BVI liquidation proceeding (or at all).\n\n62. In June 2016, a few months after PAX LP had initiated the BVI liquidation proceeding, Kwok and the Genever Defendants dropped the asking price for the Residence. That same month, Kwok attempted to further shield the Residence by trying to restructure the ownership of Genever BVI and transfer it into a trust in his son's name.\n\n# *PAX LP Files this Lawsuit, and Kwok and the Genever Defendants Make Clear that They Intend to Frustrate any Judgment Entered in Favor of PAX LP*\n\n63. PAX LP filed this lawsuit on April 18, 2017.\n\n64. About a week later, Kwok tweeted that \"I neither have to nor should I repay this amount of boring money irrelevant to me.\"\n\n65. Only after PAX LP filed suit and took discovery related to its motion for a prejudgment order of attachment did it learn of all of Kwok's evasive maneuvers discussed above, including: (i) his formation of the Genever Defendants to shield the Residence from PAX LP; (ii) his failure to capitalize the Genever Defendants or observe proper corporate formalities; (iii) his submission of what he himself admitted under oath was false information to the Sherry-Netherland to induce it to approve the purchase of the Residence while Kwok knew that his similarly sized debt to PAX LP was immediately due and owing; (iv) his use of an unprecedented nested shell company\n\nstructure to protect the Residence from PAX LP; and (v) his apparent use of Shiny Times funds to purchase the Residence.\n\n66. Kwok's history of lying in an attempt to evade his debt to PAX LP has continued throughout this litigation, including making repeated misrepresentations to the Court and under oath at his deposition. As detailed above and below, those misrepresentations include false statements about the Genever Defendants and their assets. As Kwok made these false statements regarding the Genever Defendants in an attempt to avoid having his Residence attached by the Court at PAX LP's request, the Genever Defendants are integrally involved in Kwok's abuse of the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud, wrong, or injustice against PAX LP.\n\n67. In May 2015, just two months after purchasing the Residence—and while Kwok knew he would have to repay his debt to PAX LP—Kwok pledged Genever BVI's assets (*i.e.*, the Residence) to an entity named Roscalitar 2, in direct violation of the terms of his and Genever NY's agreements with the Sherry Netherland. Although that pledge was terminated in March 2017, Kwok argued in 2018—in papers submitted to this Court in opposition to PAX LP's attachment request—that the pledge was still effective and should provide a basis for denying the attachment.\n\n68. Kwok again improperly pledged the Residence in February 2018, after PAX LP had filed this lawsuit, this time to an entity named Blue Capital. And while that pledge was terminated on June 12, 2018, Kwok's counsel inaccurately represented to the Court—at the June 27, 2018 oral argument on PAX LP's attachment motion—that the \"lien is still in effect today.\"\n\n69. Kwok also suborned a bogus affidavit in support of his opposition to PAX LP's attachment request. Specifically, in May 2018, Kwok had his employee Yan Ping Wang file an affidavit with this Court swearing to supposed facts that Kwok argued should defeat PAX LP's attachment request, including about the ownership of the Residence, the pledges of the Residence, and\n\nthe source of the funds Kwok used to purchase the Residence. At her deposition, however, Wang testified that *she knew nothing* about any of these issues. And when the Sherry-Netherland asked Kwok in a letter why he had represented in the Wang affidavit that he had pledged the Residence (which violated his agreements with the Sherry-Netherland), Kwok's counsel denied that the Wang affidavit stated that Kwok had pledged the Residence—even though that is precisely what the Wang affidavit said in no uncertain terms.\n\n70. Kwok also lied repeatedly about the most basic information regarding the Residence and the Genever Defendants, including their ownership. Wang's affidavit swears that Kwok is the owner of the Residence, but, as noted above, Kwok testified that he did not own it. Kwok also testified that he at no time had any ownership or control over the Genever Defendants, even though the corporate documents for the Genever Defendants make clear that Kwok owns 100% of Genever BVI (which in turn owns 100% of Genever NY) and is its sole director. Moreover, in a complaint filed by Genever NY and Kwok in the Southern District of New York in August 2016, Genever NY and Kwok alleged that \"Genever [NY] is owned and operated by Mr. Kwok.\"<sup>1</sup>\n\n# **COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT Against Defendant Kwok**\n\n71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 70 as though fully set forth herein.\n\n72. The 2011 Personal Guarantee obligates Kwok to repay PAX LP for the loan facility (as amended) that PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter, along with unpaid interest. The current amount due and owing is more than \\$100 million.\n\n73. Plaintiff performed under the 2011 Personal Guarantee (and other related agreements).\n\n<sup>1</sup> Verified Complaint, *Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al.*, Case No. 1:16 cv-06246 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016) (Dkt. No. 1).\n\n74. Kwok has not repaid any of the money due and owing to PAX LP under the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n75. As a direct result of Kwok's breach of his payment obligations under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, Plaintiff continues to suffer the loss of more than \\$100 million.\n\n## **COUNT II – VEIL PIERCING Against the Genever Defendants**\n\n76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 75 as though fully set forth herein.\n\n77. Kwok created the Genever Defendants for the purpose of shielding the Residence from PAX LP.\n\n78. In creating the Genever Defendants, Kwok failed to follow proper corporate formalities. Kwok failed to capitalize either of the Genever Defendants and used funds from a different entity to purchase the Residence, the only asset held by the Genever Defendants.\n\n79. At no time has either of the Genever Defendants had any employees, offices, or\n\nbusiness purpose other than owning the Residence and shielding it from Kwok's creditors, including PAX LP.\n\n80. Kwok completely dominates the Genever Defendants, which he wholly owns and controls. The Genever Defendants are the alter egos of Kwok.\n\n81. Kwok, through his domination and control of the Genever Defendants, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud, wrong, or injustice against PAX LP.\n\n82. Accordingly, the corporate veil of the Genever Defendants should be pierced, and the Genever Defendants should be held jointly and severally liable for Kwok's breach of contract.\n\n(a) in the amount greater than \\$100,000,000 owed as of this date under the <sup>2011</sup> Personal Guarañtee (\\$46,426,489 plus accrued interest) against Kwok and the Genever Defendants as jointly and severally liable as alter egos of Kwok;\n\n161\n\n20\n\n(b) the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expêñses PAX LP has incurred, and will continue to incur, in connection with its enforcement of the 2011 Personal Guarantee agaiñst Kwok, and the Genever Defendants as jointly and severally liable as alter egos of Kwok, under the <sup>2011</sup> Personal Guarañtee's indamnification clause, and\n\n(c) such other and further relief to which PAX LP shows itself justly entitled.\n\nDATED: New York, New York April 18, 2019\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nBy: -- -\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY <sup>10036</sup> (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseideñ@said-1agal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY <sup>10036</sup> (212) 626-6708\n\nAttorneys for Plaintiff","body_zh":"证物 UCC-10\nPAX 于 April 18, 2019 在 PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.）中提交的第一次修正起诉书，Dkt. No. 309\n\n22-50073\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n关于：\n\nUCC\n\n5/25/2022 全部接纳\nP.E.\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州纽约县最高法院）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager（Barry R. Ostrager法官）\n\nPart 61\n\n406-10 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 2\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2019 10:50 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 309 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2019\n\n441-10 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 Holdings有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings公司），\n\n被告。\n\n第一次修正起诉书\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，又名 Kwok Ho，又名 Gwo Wen Gui，又名 Guo Wengui，又名 Guo Wen-Gui，又名 Wan Gue Haoyun，又名 Miles Kwok，又名 Haoyun Guo（“Kwok”），以及其控制的实体，向原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX LP”）借款数百万美元，但未能依照具有约束力的书面协议支付其欠付 PAX LP 的款项。\n\n2. 2008 年，PAX LP 与 Kwok 的商业实体之一 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（精神宪章投资有限公司，“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 签署其对 Spirit Charter 偿还义务的个人保证为条件。Kwok 签署了该保证，PAX LP 于 February 4, 2008 向 Spirit Charter 出借 $30 million。\n\n3. 2009 年，Kwok 的另一实体 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（闪耀时代控股有限公司，“Shiny Times”）承接了 Spirit Charter 对 PAX LP 所负的债务，双方当时约定该债务总额为 $45,357,534.25。Kwok 再次就该债务签署了个人保证。\n\n4. 随后于 2011 年，PAX LP 与 Shiny Times 订立书面协议（“2011 Facility Letter”，即“2011 年融资函”），明确取代双方先前的协议。在 2011 年融资函中，双方约定 Shiny Times 欠付 PAX LP $46,426,489，并将于 June 30, 2012 前偿还该款项（另加自 December 31, 2010 起按年利率 15% 计算的利息）。\n\n5. 同日，Kwok 签署另一份个人保证（同样明确取代 Kwok 先前的个人保证），据此 Kwok 保证支付 Shiny Times 根据 2011 年融资函欠付 PAX LP 的款项（“2011 Personal Guarantee”，即“2011 年个人保证”）。\n\n6. 在 Shiny Times 和 Kwok 均未向 PAX LP 偿还款项后，Kwok、Shiny Times 及 Beijing Pangu（北京盘古，另一家由 Kwok 控制的实体）与 PAX LP 就潜在和解进行协商，据此 PAX LP 为解决该债务，将取得 Beijing Pangu 所拥有的位于北京的三套公寓的所有权。但即使 PAX LP 通过四次分别延期，额外给予 Kwok 和 Beijing Pangu 23 个月以满足这些条件，Kwok 和 Beijing Pangu 仍未满足和解的具体先决条件（包括但不限于未将公寓的产权转让给 PAX LP）。\n\n7. 由于最后期限于 June 2015 末届满时先决条件尚未满足，2011 年融资函和 2011 年个人保证依其明文条款恢复完全有效，PAX LP 随后开始向 Shiny Times 和 Kwok 追索不断累积的合同债务。然而，当 PAX LP 在英属维尔京群岛将 Shiny Times 清算时，Shiny Times 没有任何资产。且 Kwok 至今拒绝偿还其债务中的一分钱。事实上，Kwok 最近否认该债务本身的存在，并一再表示其不应当偿还该债务，包括在其 Twitter 账户上以及在本案的证言录取中。\n\n8. Kwok 的两家空壳公司——Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever NY”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”，并与 Genever NY 合称“Genever Defendants”）——应对其欠付 PAX LP 的债务承担责任，因为各自均为 Kwok 的另我。Kwok 是 Genever BVI 的唯一股东和董事，后者又是 Genever NY 的唯一股东；Kwok 通过 Genever NY 于 March 2015 初以 $67.5 million 现金在纽约购买了 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Inc.（雪莉-荷兰酒店公司，“Sherry-Netherland”）的一套豪华公寓（该公寓称为“Residence”）。Kwok 支配和控制 Genever NY 及 Genever BVI；两者均无办公室、雇员，除作为 Kwok 购买 Residence 所使用的空壳外，没有任何独立存在。\n\n9. Kwok 购买 Residence 所支付的金额，几乎与其当时根据个人保证欠付 PAX LP 的金额完全相同。他在明知其债务将到期并应付给 PAX LP 时设立了 Genever Defendants，且几乎随即通过 Genever Defendants 购买 Residence，企图使该资产免受 PAX LP 追索。Kwok 就 Genever Defendants 向 Sherry-Netherland 和本院均作出虚假陈述，企图推进该逃避债务的行为。下文详述的这一行为及 Kwok 有关 Genever Defendants 的其他行为表明，Kwok 滥用了公司形式的特权，以对 PAX LP 实施欺诈、不当行为或不公正。\n\n10. PAX LP 已依照其与 Shiny Times 及 Kwok 达成的协议，采取一切必要且适当的措施追偿其应收款项——现连同合同利息合计已超过 $100 million。然而，截至目前，Shiny Times 和 Kwok 未就未偿债务履行其合同还款义务中的哪怕一美元。且由于未偿还该债务，PAX LP 还因执行 2011 年个人保证而发生“成本、索赔损失及费用（包括律师费）”，Kwok 依照 2011 年个人保证的明文条款负有赔偿义务。（见证物 A § 5.3。）\n管辖权及审判地\n\n11. 本院依据纽约州一般属人管辖权法规 C.P.L.R § 301 对 Kwok 具有属人管辖权，因为其在纽约持续且系统地从事“经营业务”，住所位于该州，并拥有位于纽约县的 Residence。\n\n12. 本院依据 C.P.L.R § 301 对 Genever NY 具有属人管辖权，因为其在纽约注册成立，且其唯一商业目的在于持有位于纽约县的 Kwok Residence 的股份。\n\n13. 本院对 Genever BVI 具有属人管辖权，因为如本起诉书所述，鉴于 Kwok 对其的支配和控制是为对 PAX LP 实施欺诈，Genever BVI 是 Kwok 的另我。此外，Genever BVI 通过成为一家纽约有限责任公司（Genever NY）的唯一股东，以及作为 Residence 的间接所有人，已在纽约从事相关行为并利用纽约法律。事实上，Genever BVI 的唯一商业目的在于拥有 Residence（通过其对 Genever NY 的 100% 所有权）。Genever BVI 由 Kwok 的律师在本诉讼中代理（该律师在诉讼中接受并答复了向 Genever BVI 送达的第三方传票）。Kwok 的律师还在本案中就 Genever BVI 资产的某些质押向本院作出陈述。\n\n14. 根据 C.P.L.R § 503(a)，本院为适当审判地，因为 Kwok 的住所位于纽约县，且 Genever NY 的注册地为纽约县。\n当事人\n\n15. 原告 PAX LP 是根据开曼群岛法律组织成立的获豁免有限合伙投资基金。\n\n16. 被告 Kwok 是一名中国籍人士，住所位于纽约，并在纽约持续且系统地从事“经营业务”。Kwok 是 Genever BVI 的唯一股东和董事。Kwok 居住于 Residence。\n\n17. 被告 Genever NY 是根据纽约法律设立的有限责任公司。Genever NY 的唯一商业目的在于持有 Residence 的股份；该 Residence 是 Sherry-Netherland 的 1801 号公寓。Genever NY 于 2015 年以 $67.5 million 购买 Residence。\n\n18. 被告 Genever BVI 是根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立的英属维尔京群岛商业公司。Genever BVI 的唯一商业目的在于拥有 Residence（通过其对 Genever NY 的 100% 所有权）。\n事实陈述\n贷款额度及 Kwok 向 PAX LP 提供的个人偿还保证\n\n19. PAX LP 与 Kwok 自约 February 4, 2008 起即有业务往来；当时 PAX LP 与 Kwok 的商业实体之一 Spirit Charter 订立书面协议（“2008 Facility Agreement”，即“2008 年融资协议”）（附为证物 B），据此 PAX LP 向 Spirit Charter 提供本金金额为 $30 million 的贷款额度（见证物 B § 3）。Kwok 代表 Spirit Charter 签署 2008 年融资协议。2008 年融资协议规定：“除非 [PAX LP] 首先收到……一份正式签署的 Kwok[] Guarantee，否则 [PAX LP] 无义务向借款人提供预付款。”（证物 B § 4(d)。）在收到 Kwok 的保证后，PAX LP 于 February 4, 2008 向 Spirit Charter 出借贷款额度项下全部可用的 $30 million。\n\n20. 于 March 12, 2008，PAX LP 和 Spirit Charter 修订并重述了 2008 年融资协议（“Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement”，即“经修订及重述的 2008 年融资协议”）。（见证物 C。）Kwok 代表 Spirit Charter 签署经修订及重述的 2008 年融资协议；该协议确认并证实 Spirit Charter“于 4 February 2008 收到原始融资额度本金金额 US$30,000,000。”（证物 C § 2。）\n\n21. 根据日期为 September 17, 2009 的契据（“September 2009 Deed”，即“2009 年 9 月契据”），Shiny Times、Spirit Charter、PAX LP 和其他若干方约定，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。（见证物 D。）Kwok 代表 Shiny Times、Spirit Charter 及其本人签署 2009 年 9 月契据。2009 年 9 月契据的各方还约定，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，包括已产生但未支付的利息，为 $45,357,534.25。（见证物 D 第 4 页。）\n\n22. 2009 年 9 月契据要求 Kwok 签署一份以 PAX LP 为受益人的新个人保证，以担保 Shiny Times 偿还当时根据经修订及重述的 2008 年融资协议所欠的约 $45 million。（见证物 D § 5.10。）Kwok 于 November 18, 2009 签署其个人保证。（见证物 E。）\n\n23. 2011 年，PAX LP、Kwok 和 Shiny Times 同意以于 March 16, 2011 签署的两份合同取代前述协议——2011 年融资函（附为证物 F）和 2011 年个人保证（附为证物 A）。\n\n24. 在 2011 年融资函中，双方约定，截至该日 Shiny Times 欠付 PAX LP $46,426,489，并将于 June 30, 2012 前偿还该款项，另加自 December 31, 2010 起按年利率 15% 计算的利息。（见证物 F §§ 3, 5。）\n\n25. 双方还在 2011 年融资函中约定，Shiny Times 未支付其根据 2011 年融资函欠付 PAX LP 的任何款项，均构成违约事件；在该等情形下，PAX LP 可：(i) 宣告全部贷款、已产生但未支付的利息及任何其他应付款项，无需进一步催告、通知或任何其他种类的法律手续，即立即到期应付；及/或 (ii) 宣告 2011 年融资函终止。（见证物 F § 13。）\n\n26. 与双方此前的协议一样，2011年授信函亦以郭文贵（Kwok）签署2011年个人保证作为明确条件，以充分担保Shiny Times（Shiny Times公司）对PAX LP（PAX有限合伙企业）的付款义务：\n\n贷款人[PAX LP]和借款人[Shiny Times]同意订立本协议……条件是交付一份有利于贷款人的郭先生的新个人保证（以下简称“个人保证”），以担保借款人依照本协议适时、按期履行义务，全额偿还[2011年授信函]项下款项以及所有应计未付利息。\n\n（证物F，第1页。）\n\n27. 郭文贵代表Shiny Times签署了2011年授信函，并于同日签署2011年个人保证，据此他同意“不可撤销且无条件地”保证Shiny Times支付2011年授信函项下应付的所有款项。具体而言，郭文贵：\n\n（a）向PAX LP保证Shiny Times适时、按期支付其在2011年授信函项下的义务；\n\n（b）同意“在[PAX LP]提出要求后，[郭文贵]将立即向[PAX LP]支付所有到期但未付的[该等款项]”；\n\n（c）同意“应要求赔偿并使[PAX LP]免受因Shiny Times在2011年授信函项下的任何义务因任何原因对Shiny Times无效、可撤销、不可执行或无效力而导致[PAX LP]遭受的一切损失”；\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或郭文贵任何一方追偿；以及\n\n（f）同意赔偿PAX LP因行使或执行个人保证而产生的“任何及所有费用、索赔、损失[及]开支（包括律师费）”。\n\n（证物A，第2.1–2.2、3.3及5.3条。）\n\n28. 郭文贵还在2011年个人保证中同意放弃抗辩，包括基于Shiny Times清盘或解散，或PAX LP“因任何原因”无法向Shiny Times追偿的抗辩。（证物A，第3.4条。）郭文贵还同意概括性地放弃基于“任何其他可能导致解除、减损或以其他方式影响保证人、任何义务，或本保证或法律赋予[PAX LP]的任何权利、权力和救济的作为、事件或不作为”的抗辩。（证物A，第3.4(g)条。）\n\n29. 简言之，郭文贵亲自签署了一项明确且坚实的保证，承诺其将清偿Shiny Times对PAX LP的债务。\n\n和解尝试、延期及Shiny Times最终未能向PAX LP偿还款项\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/18/2019 10:50 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号309 NYSCEF收到日期：04/18/2019\n\n441-10 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n30. Shiny Times未在2011年授信函规定的2012年6月30日还款日期前偿还任何部分贷款本金或应计利息，双方随后通过一份和解协议——以及其后的数次延期——安排尝试解决该债务，每一份协议均称为“和解契据”。\n\n31. PAX LP、Shiny Times和郭文贵于2013年4月19日与另一家由郭文贵拥有的公司北京盘古（Beijing Pangu）共同订立了原和解契据（作为证物G附后）。\n\n郭文贵代表Shiny Times及其本人签署了原和解契据。\n\n32. 原和解契据规定：(i) 截至原和解契据之日，2011年授信函项下应付未偿总额加上所有应计未付利息为\\$52 million；以及(ii) 在发生下列事件后，该金额不再到期应付：\n\n（a）如PAX LP在三项独立交易中从北京盘古购买三套公寓，每套约为\\$5 million，总额约为\\$15 million；以及\n\n（b）如Shiny Times向PAX LP完成三笔每笔约为\\$5 million的分期付款——在每次单独购买公寓后支付一笔分期付款——总额约为\\$15 million。\n\n（见证物G，第2–3.1条。）\n\n33. 然而，在PAX LP能够完成从北京盘古购买该三套公寓之前，北京盘古须依原和解契据满足与产权、税款、抵押权清偿以及中国房地产交易其他常见事项有关的某些明确先决条件。（见证物G，第3.2条。）如截至2013年7月31日该三套公寓中的任何一套未满足上述任何条件，原和解契据规定，“授信函应在该等未满足情形发生后立即恢复并完全有效，且Shiny Times应依照[2011年]授信函的条款，有义务清偿任何未偿总额及其应计利息。”（证物G，第4.2条。）\n\n34. 如2011年授信函恢复完全有效，郭文贵的义务亦将根据2011年个人保证的条款完全有效：“[郭文贵]……的义务应持续完全有效，直至Shiny Times在2011年授信函项下的付款及履行义务得到无条件、不可撤销的全额支付和解除。”（证物A，第3.1条。）\n\n35. 郭文贵和北京盘古未能在2013年7月31日前满足先决条件。\n\n36. 四份补充和解契据——日期分别为2013年12月3日、2014年5月15日、2014年7月11日和2015年2月10日（作为证物H–K附后）——延长了原和解契据中的日期，包括还款日期以及郭文贵和北京盘古满足先决条件的日期。\n\n37. 每份补充和解契据的条款均与原和解契据相同。其结果每次也相同：郭文贵和北京盘古从未满足若干所要求的明确条件。因此，PAX LP无须（且实际上无法）完成购买任何一套公寓，而Shiny Times从未支付其依原和解契据应向PAX LP支付的三笔分期付款中的任何一笔。\n\n38. 最后，于2015年3月31日，Shiny Times和PAX LP与Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited（环球机会控股有限公司）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（以下简称“期权协议”），其中除其他事项外，规定可能向郭文贵出售持有原和解契据所涉三套北京盘古公寓的实体股份（见证物L，第2条），赋予郭文贵从PAX LP购回该等公寓的选择权。\n\n39. 根据其条款，如未满足某些条件，期权协议将终止：“为免生疑义，如未满足下列任何一项期权条件，本协议应立即终止（但不影响PAX LP在和解契据项下可获得的任何权利或救济）。”（证物L，第2条。）由于期权协议的任何条件均未获满足，期权协议同样终止，且并未解除Shiny Times依2011年授信函向PAX LP付款的义务。\n\n40. 因此，当最后一份和解契据和期权协议均于2015年6月30日在条件未获满足的情况下届满时，2011年授信函恢复完全有效，郭文贵在2011年个人保证项下的义务变得可完全执行，且郭文贵依2011年个人保证独立地对Shiny Times在2011年授信函项下欠付PAX LP债务的全额承担责任（并且仍然承担责任）。\n\n郭文贵将Genever被告设立为其完全支配和控制的空壳公司，以欺诈性购买该住所，从而使其资产免受PAX LP追索\n\n41. 2015年1月底或2月初，郭文贵在中国的资产——包括拟在拟议和解中转让给PAX LP的三套北京盘古公寓——被中国政府查封，郭文贵逃往美国。\n\n42. 尽管如此，郭文贵于2015年2月10日签署了原和解契据的第四次也是最后一次延期。（见证物K。）与PAX LP不同，郭文贵当时知道其在中国的资产，包括三套公寓，已经被查封，因此知悉其永远无法满足将该等公寓所有权转让给PAX LP的先决条件。郭文贵未告知PAX LP该等公寓已被查封，反而在隐瞒该重要事实的同时，诱使PAX LP订立第四次也是最后一次延期。\n\n43. 第四次也是最后一次延期中满足先决条件的新截止日期为2015年6月30日。因此，郭文贵在签署2015年2月10日延期时即知悉其永远不会满足先决条件（事实上，他并未满足），并因此知悉，在其对PAX LP超过\\$70 million的债务到期应付之前，他只有四个月时间来保护其资产。\n\n44. 郭文贵立即着手行动。2015年2月13日——即郭文贵签署其明知永远无法满足的最终和解延期后仅72小时——郭文贵在英属维尔京群岛成立Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司），并在纽约设立Genever NY（Genever纽约公司）。郭文贵未向任何一个实体注资。两个实体均未设立办公室或雇用任何员工。郭文贵是Genever BVI的唯一所有人，而Genever BVI是Genever NY的唯一所有人。根据英属维尔京群岛的官方备案文件，郭文贵是Genever BVI的唯一董事。\n\n45. 2015年2月13日至3月24日期间——其再次明知自己无法满足和解协议条款且其对PAX LP的债务将于2015年6月到期——郭文贵与Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）就购买该住所进行谈判。\n\n46. 为诱使Sherry-Netherland接受其申请，郭文贵通过其律师向Sherry-Netherland董事会提交了财务报表。该等财务报表表明，郭文贵拥有并控制北京正道（Beijing Zenith），这是一家中国公司，其资产负债表显示拥有近\\$4 billion的资产。该资产负债表是郭文贵申请的关键组成部分，因为它只是郭文贵曾披露的两项资产之一。\n\n47. 值得注意的是，郭文贵在本案中作证称，其不仅在让律师提交其Sherry-Netherland申请时知悉该等北京正道资产已被中国政府冻结，而且在申请时其“不拥有北京正道的任何所有权权益”，并且其“对北京正道完全没有控制权”。\n\n48. 数日后，郭文贵再次通过律师向Sherry-Netherland提交了第二家外国公司的财务报表：Bravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”），该公司在瑞银香港（UBS Hong Kong）银行账户中持有超过\\$490 million。尽管该提交文件明确表明郭文贵及其儿子拥有并控制Bravo Luck，郭文贵再次在本案中作证称，其“在Bravo Luck中不拥有任何所有权权益”。\n\n49. 如向Sherry-Netherland所提议，郭文贵拟通过并实际通过由Genever BVI全资拥有的Genever NY购买该住所。Sherry-Netherland的执行副总裁作证称，在其四十年的行业经历中，从未见过有住户通过两家独立的空壳公司进行购买。由于Sherry-Netherland认识到，该结构加上郭文贵未在其申请中披露任何美国资产，将使其难以收取其将向郭文贵收取的月费，Sherry-Netherland要求郭文贵支付其历史上数额最大的保证金——相当于其每月约\\$56,000月费的五年金额。\n\n50. 根据郭文贵（Kwok）的证词，向 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）提交了虚假且具有误导性的财务信息；在郭文贵同意缴纳约 \\$3 million 的保证金，且其对 PAX LP 的债务超过 \\$70 million 之时，郭文贵和 Genever NY（Genever纽约公司）于 March 24, 2015 获得 Sherry-Netherland 董事会批准，以约 \\$67.5 million 现金购买该住所。\n\n51. 与 Sherry-Netherland 签订的买卖合同和专有租赁协议由 Genever NY 签署。该公寓的购买协议将“‘Miles’ Kwok Ho Wan（Genever [NY]）”和“Kwok Ho Wan”列为申请人。\n\n52. 尽管 Genever NY 被列入与 Sherry-Netherland 签订的买卖合同、购买协议和专有租赁协议中，但 Genever NY 未获注资，且没有可用于购买该住所的资产。相反，郭文贵使用从 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）电汇的资金购买了该住所。\n\n53. 郭文贵在其证言录取中几乎承认，用于购买该住所的资金来自 Shiny Times（闪耀时代）。当被问及 Genever 被告与 Shiny Times 之间是否存在联系时，他证称，Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司）与 Shiny Times 存在“代理关系……就像你买房时，会有一些代理人代为办理。”\n\nPAX LP 寻求行使其合同权利并收取应付款项，而郭文贵及 Genever 被告试图进一步保护该住所以作回应\n\n54. On October 16, 2015，在《和解契据》和《选择权协议》终止、且《2011年融资函》恢复完全有效后，PAX LP 按照《2011年个人保证书》条款所规定的地址，向郭文贵在香港的地址寄送书面催款通知（以下简称“催款通知”）。\n\n55. 催款通知告知郭文贵，Shiny Times“未能偿还”《2011年融资函》项下任何到期款项，并要求其立即支付 \\$71,818,633.44。催款通知还告知郭文贵，如其未立即付款，可能会对其提起法律程序，并保留 PAX LP 根据《2011年融资函》和《2011年个人保证书》享有的合同权利。\n\n56. 郭文贵从未对催款通知作出回应。\n\n57. 大约在 PAX LP 发出催款通知的同时，郭文贵及 Genever 被告将该住所挂牌出售。\n\n58. On February 19, 2016，PAX LP 向 Shiny Times 发函，要求支付根据《2011年融资函》到期应付的 \\$82,219,404.08（以下简称“Shiny Times 催款函”）；该金额包括本金以及计算至 Shiny Times 催款函日期的合同约定年利率 15% 的利息。\n\n59. Shiny Times 从未对 Shiny Times 催款函作出回应。\n\n60. 在 Shiny Times 未作回应后，PAX LP 于 February 29, 2016 向英属维尔京群岛法院提交申请，请求指定共同清算人对作为英属维尔京群岛公司的 Shiny Times 进行清算。该申请称：(i) Shiny Times 未支付当时到期应付的 \\$82,410,197.87；(ii) Shiny Times 无力偿还其债务；以及 (iii) Shiny Times 资不抵债，应予清算。\n\n61. Shiny Times 确实因英属维尔京群岛程序而被置于清算，但其没有任何资产。因此，PAX LP 无法通过英属维尔京群岛清算程序（或以其他任何方式）收回《2011年融资函》项下欠付其的任何款项。\n\n62. In June 2016，即 PAX LP 启动英属维尔京群岛清算程序数月后，郭文贵及 Genever 被告降低了该住所的要价。同月，郭文贵试图通过重组 Genever BVI 的所有权并将其转入以其儿子名义设立的信托，进一步保护该住所。\n\nPAX LP 提起本诉，而郭文贵及 Genever 被告明确表明其意图阻挠任何作出有利于 PAX LP 的判决书\n\n63. PAX LP 于 April 18, 2017 提起本诉。\n\n64. 约一周后，郭文贵发推文称：“我既不必也不应偿还这笔与我无关的无聊钱款。”\n\n65. 直至 PAX LP 提起诉讼并就其判决前扣押令动议进行了证据开示后，其才得知上述郭文贵采取的全部规避手段，包括：(i) 其设立 Genever 被告，以保护该住所免受 PAX LP 追索；(ii) 其未向 Genever 被告注资，亦未遵守适当的公司手续；(iii) 其向 Sherry-Netherland 提交其本人在宣誓后承认系虚假的信息，以诱使其批准购买该住所，而郭文贵明知其对 PAX LP 数额相近的债务已立即到期应付；(iv) 其使用前所未有的嵌套式空壳公司结构，以保护该住所免受 PAX LP 追索；以及 (v) 其显然使用 Shiny Times 的资金购买该住所。\n\n66. 郭文贵为逃避其对 PAX LP 的债务而说谎的历史，在本诉讼期间始终持续，包括多次向本院以及在其证言录取中宣誓后作出虚假陈述。如上文及下文所详述，该等虚假陈述包括关于 Genever 被告及其资产的虚假陈述。郭文贵就 Genever 被告作出该等虚假陈述，意图避免本院应 PAX LP 的请求扣押其住所；因此，Genever 被告实质性地参与了郭文贵滥用公司形式、对 PAX LP 实施欺诈、不当行为或造成不公正的行为。\n\n67. In May 2015，即购买该住所仅两个月后，且在郭文贵明知其必须偿还对 PAX LP 的债务期间，郭文贵将 Genever BVI 的资产（即该住所）质押给名为 Roscalitar 2（罗斯卡利塔尔2）的实体，此举直接违反了其本人和 Genever NY 与 Sherry-Netherland 所签协议的条款。尽管该质押于 March 2017 终止，郭文贵仍在 2018 年向本院提交的反对 PAX LP 扣押申请的书面文件中主张，该质押仍然有效，并应构成驳回扣押申请的依据。\n\n68. 在 PAX LP 提起本诉后，郭文贵于 February 2018 再次不当质押该住所，此次质押给名为 Blue Capital（蓝色资本）的实体。尽管该质押于 June 12, 2018 终止，郭文贵的律师仍在 June 27, 2018 就 PAX LP 扣押动议进行的口头辩论中，向本院不准确地陈述该“留置权至今仍然有效”。\n\n69. 郭文贵还教唆提交一份虚假的宣誓书，以支持其反对 PAX LP 扣押申请。具体而言，In May 2018，郭文贵让其雇员 Yan Ping Wang（王艳萍）向本院提交宣誓书，对郭文贵主张应当挫败 PAX LP 扣押申请的所谓事实宣誓作证，包括该住所的所有权、该住所的质押，以及郭文贵用于购买该住所的资金来源。然而，王艳萍在其证言录取中证称，她对上述任何事项一无所知。而当 Sherry-Netherland 在信函中询问郭文贵，为何其在王艳萍宣誓书中陈述自己已质押该住所（该行为违反了其与 Sherry-Netherland 的协议）时，郭文贵的律师否认王艳萍宣誓书载明郭文贵已质押该住所——尽管王艳萍宣誓书以毫不含糊的措辞明确作出了该陈述。\n\n70. 郭文贵还多次就有关该住所和 Genever 被告的最基本信息作出虚假陈述，包括其所有权。王艳萍的宣誓书宣誓称郭文贵是该住所的所有人，但如上所述，郭文贵证称其并不拥有该住所。郭文贵还证称，其从未拥有或控制 Genever 被告，尽管 Genever 被告的公司文件明确表明，郭文贵拥有 Genever BVI 的 100% 股权（后者又拥有 Genever NY 的 100% 股权），并且是其唯一董事。此外，在 Genever NY 和郭文贵于 August 2016 向 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提起的起诉状中，Genever NY 和郭文贵主张：“Genever [NY] 由 Kwok 先生拥有并经营。”1\n\n第一项诉因——违约\n针对被告郭文贵\n\n71. 原告重申并通过援引纳入第 1 至 70 段中的每一项陈述，如同在本文中完整载明。\n\n72. 《2011年个人保证书》要求郭文贵向 PAX LP 偿还 PAX LP 向 Spirit Charter（精神特许）提供的贷款融资额度（经修订）以及未付利息。目前到期应付的金额超过 \\$100 million。\n\n73. 原告已履行《2011年个人保证书》（及其他相关协议）项下义务。\n\n1 经核实的起诉状，Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）诉 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-内瑟兰公司）等，案号 1:16 cv-06246（S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016）（Dkt. No. 1）。\n\n74. 郭文贵未偿还《2011年个人保证书》项下到期应付 PAX LP 的任何款项。\n\n75. 由于郭文贵违反其在《2011年个人保证书》项下的付款义务，原告持续遭受超过 \\$100 million 的损失。\n\n第二项诉因——揭开公司面纱\n针对 Genever 被告\n\n76. 原告重申并通过援引纳入第 1 至 75 段中的每一项陈述，如同在本文中完整载明。\n\n77. 郭文贵设立 Genever 被告，目的在于保护该住所免受 PAX LP 追索。\n\n78. 郭文贵在设立 Genever 被告时，未遵守适当的公司手续。郭文贵未向任一 Genever 被告注资，并使用另一实体的资金购买该住所；该住所是 Genever 被告持有的唯一资产。\n\n79. Genever 被告在任何时候均未有过雇员、办公地点或任何商业目的，除持有该住所并保护其免受郭文贵的债权人（包括 PAX LP）追索外。\n\n80. 郭文贵完全支配 Genever 被告，且完全拥有和控制该等被告。Genever 被告是郭文贵的另我。\n\n81. 郭文贵通过其对 Genever 被告的支配和控制，滥用以公司形式经营业务的特权，以对 PAX LP 实施欺诈、不当行为或造成不公正。\n\n82. 因此，应当揭开 Genever 被告的公司面纱，并应判令 Genever 被告就郭文贵的违约承担连带责任。\n\n(a) 判令郭文贵及作为郭文贵另我而承担连带责任的 Genever 被告，支付截至本日根据《2011年个人保证书》所欠金额超过 \\$100,000,000（\\$46,426,489 加应计利息）的款项；\n\n(b) 判令郭文贵及作为郭文贵另我而承担连带责任的 Genever 被告，根据《2011年个人保证书》的赔偿条款，支付 PAX LP 因执行《2011年个人保证书》而已经发生及将继续发生的合理律师费、费用及支出；以及\n\n(c) 判令给予 PAX LP 有权获得的其他和进一步救济。\n\n日期：New York, New York\nApril 18, 2019\n\n谨此提交，\n\n签署人：-- -\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）（ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP（塞登律师集团）\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·塞登）（rseiden@seidenlaw.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":309,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":406,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5821,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:01:16"}