{"id":"court_ctb_50_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":50,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2017-04-18","title":"EXHIBIT A Friedman Declaration","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT A**\n\nFriedman Declaration\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\nFebruary 28, 2022\n\n## **DECLARATION OF PETER FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO HO WAN KWOK'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SCHEDULES OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS**\n\nI, Peter Friedman, declare:\n\n1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York and\n\nWashington, D.C. and am a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, 7 Times Square,\n\nNew York, NY 10036, counsel for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"). I\n\nrespectfully submit this Declaration in support of PAX's Response in Opposition to Ho Wan\n\nKwok's Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of\n\nFinancial Affairs.\n\n2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the February 9, 2022 Decision and Order of Justice Ostrager in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022),\n\nECF No. 1181.\n\n3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the August 2, 2019 Complaint, in *Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.*, Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 1.\n\n4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the November 11, 2019, Notice\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\nof Settlement, in *Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc*., Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 25.\n\n5. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the September 15, 2020 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 549.\n\n6. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint dated April 18, 2017, in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 2.\n\n7. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the February 3, 2021 Judgment in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716.\n\n8. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the Personal Guarantee, filed as Exhibit 23 to PAX's Statement of Material Facts in Support of PAX's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at KWOK000652, in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455.\n\n9. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the September 30, 2020 Order to Show Cause in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 590.\n\n10. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the October 15, 2020 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 630.\n\n11. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of screenshots from the website http (last visited on Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n12. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from a transcript of the February 2, 2022 Evidentiary Hearing before Justice Ostrager in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022).\n\n- 2 -\n\n13. Attached as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of PAX's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Order of Contempt dated December 24, 2020, in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 689.\n\n14. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of PAX's Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion for Order of Contempt dated January 27, 2021, in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709.\n\n15. Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the March 16, 2021 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728.\n\n16. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a letter from S. Sarnoff to the Clerk of the Appellate Division, First Department, dated February 15, 2022 in *PAX v. Kwok, et al*., (Case Nos. 2022-00609, 2022-00610; NY Co. Clerk's Index No. 652077/2017).\n\n17. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of the February 15, 2022 Order of the Appellate Division in *PAX v. Kwok*, Case Nos. 2022-00609; 2022-00610, (1st Dep't 2022) ECF No. 5.\n\n18. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from a transcript of the September 22, 2021 hearing before Justice Ostrager in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021).\n\n19. Attached as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of Kwok's Responses and Objections to PAX's Third Set of Interrogatories, dated December 4, 2020, in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021).\n\n20. Attached as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of an Executed Contract of Sale, filed as Exhibit 11 to PAX's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Pre-Judgment Attachment, in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 256.\n\n- 3 -\n\n21. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition Motion to Dismiss the Complaint dated February 5, 2016, in *Ace Decade Holdings Ltd. v. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. 2016), ECF No. 27.\n\n22. Attached as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from a transcript of the May 27, 2021 hearing before Justice Ostrager in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 833.\n\n23. Attached as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of the June 22, 2021 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No*. 1:18 cv-02185-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 22, 2021), ECF No. 372.\n\n24. Attached as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of the October 3, 2018 Deposition of Miles Kwok filed as Exhibit 5 to Memorandum of Law in Support of PAX's Order to Show Cause (I) to Compel Compliance With Article 52 Subpoena Served on Nonparty Golden Spring (New York) Limited, and (II) to Modify the Court's October 15, 2020 Order in *PAX v. Kwok et al*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 785.\n\nDated: February 28, 2022 New York, New York\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Peter Friedman*  Peter Friedman\n\npfriedman@omm.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061\n\n*Attorney for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 6 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\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|          | -<br>v -                                                                           | MOTION DATE                |                  |\n|          | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN                                          |                            |                  |\n|          | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a                                    | MOTION SEQ. NO.            | 019              |\n|          | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a                                            |                            |                  |\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 8 of 73\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.<sup>1</sup> 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\n<sup>1</sup> \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 10 of 73\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\n<sup>2</sup> \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 11 of 73\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 12 of 73\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 13 of 73\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 14 of 73\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 15 of 73\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 16 of 73\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<br>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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 17 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 2**\n\n## **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA**\n\n## **WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES KWOK Civil Action No.:**\n\n**Plaintiff,**\n\n**v.**\n\n## **SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., and JAY O'BRIEN**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n## **Defendants.**\n\nPlaintiff, Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Guo\" or \"Plaintiff\"), for his complaint and action for money damages against Defendants Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and Jay O'Brien, alleges as follows:\n\n### **PARTIES**\n\n1. Plaintiff Guo is a Hong Kong citizen currently residing in New York, New York. Plaintiff left China at the end of 2014 and is currently seeking political asylum in the United States. Guo has been a longstanding critic of corruption within elements of the Chinese government and a leading advocate for government reform in China.\n\n2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sinclair Media Group, Inc. (hereinafter, \"Sinclair\") is a publicly traded telecommunications conglomerate, operating within and broadcasting from the state of Florida, with offices at -- and broadcasting from -- 1100 Fairfield Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida.\n\n3. Defendant Jay O'Brien is a reporter for WPEC (hereinafter, \"CBS12\"), a local CBS television affiliate based in West Palm Beach which is owned and operated by Defendant Sinclair.\n\n4. Upon information and belief, Defendant O'Brien is an employee of Defendant Sinclair.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiff is a foreign citizen residing in New York and Defendant Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is a United States Corporation with significant affiliates and offices within the State of Florida. Further, upon information and belief, Defendant Jay O'Brien is a U.S. Citizen and resident of Florida who is employed by Defendant Sinclair. The damages sought in this matter are in excess of \\$75,000.00.\n\n6. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant Sinclair has offices in Florida, Defendant O'Brien is a resident of Florida, and the broadcast containing the defamatory statements set forth herein was broadcast from Florida.\n\n## **BACKGROUND FACTS**\n\n7. Guo is a Hong Kong citizen who fled from China for fear of political persecution. Guo has been the most outspoken and vitriolic critic of the CCP.\n\n8. Guo's willingness to air publicly his political views towards the CCP and Chinese government, has led to a backlash by senior members of the CCP and Chinese government towards Guo and his family, including, but not limited to, the detention and arrest of Guo's family members and colleagues; and the freezing of Guo's assets.\n\n9. Two brothers and a niece of Guo were sentenced to imprisonment of three years, three years and five months, and two years and six months respectively. These family members remain imprisoned in China.\n\n10. Because of the CCP's political persecution, Guo was forced to leave China and is seeking political asylum in the U.S.\n\n11. Since his exile, the CCP has seized more than USD30 billion in cash and assets owned by Guo's family and himself.\n\n12. Because of Guo's whistleblower actions, China has gone to extensive lengths to silence Guo and have him extradited back to China. These efforts have included:\n\n- a. Requesting that Interpol issue a \"red notice\" for his arrest based on false accusations;\n- b. requesting the chief executives of several large U.S. corporations reach out to President Trump in an effort to convince him to have Guo extradited;\n- c. hiring Elliot Broidy, a lobbyist and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, to peddle his influence and convince the Trump Administration to extradite Guo in exchange for a success fee in the millions of dollars payable to Broidy; and\n- d. using social media to drum up fake accusations about Guo.\n\n13. In another effort to silence Guo, in May 2017, the CCP secretly sent Liu Yanping, the then Secretary of Commission for Discipline Inspection, Ministry of National Security of China, along with three other agents to New York City to speak with Guo. In exchange for Guo's silence and return to China, the CCP promised to unfreeze his assets and release his family members from jail.\n\n14. The congressional U.S. China Economic and Security Commission found that Guo has been the target of an unprecedented Chinese government disinformation campaign to discredit Guo.1\n\n <sup>1</sup> [http](http) [%20China%27s%20Domestic%20Information%20Controls%2C%20Global%20Media%20Influence%2C%20and%](http) [20Cyber%20Diplomacy\\\\_0.pdf](http)\n\n15. To counter this unprecedented disinformation campaign, Guo has taken to U.S. courts in reliance on the rule of law to challenge those who seek to discredit him.\n\n16. To wit, Guo has now successfully sued numerous individuals for defamation for calling Guo a \"spy\" for the CCP; a \"fraud\"; a \"liar\" and other nefarious terms.\n\n17. Specifically, Guo sued Xia Yeliang in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, for defamation and defamation *per se* because Xia stated publicly that Guo a \"spy,\" \"rapist\", \"fraud\", \"liar\", and \"swindler.\"2 (the \"Xia Litigation\"). A unanimous jury found that these allegations – i.e. that Guo is a Chinese \"spy\" were false, defamatory and defamatory *per se*, and awarded Guo \\$100,000 as damage to his reputation.\n\n18. Guo also sued Li Hongkuan in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for defamation and defamation *per se* because Li made multiple public statements that Guo is a \"rapist, is a *communist spy* … and is an organized crime leader\" (the \"Li Litigation\"). The Court found that these statements were false, defamatory and defamatory *per se*. 3\n\n## **CBS12'S DEFAMATORY NEWS BROADCAST**\n\n19. On July 24, 2019, Defendant Sinclair on its news broadcast ran a story that accused Plaintiff of being a spy.4\n\n20. On the broadcast, Defendant O'Brien affirmatively stated that the accusations against Plaintiff were the \"second instance of Chinese intelligence operations\" within Mar-a-Lago thereby attempting to pass these fabricated allegations as factual -- which they are not.\n\n <sup>2</sup> *See Guo Wengui v. Xia Yeliang*, 18-cv-174 (E.D.Va.)\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See Guo Wengui v. Hongkuan Li*, 2019 WL 2288348, \\*2 (D. Maryland)\n\n<sup>4</sup> Adding further injury, CBS12 posted the story to its website[. http](http)[and-mar-a-lago-member-accused-of-spying-he-disputes.](http)\n\n21. The broadcast also included what appears to be edited comments by a woman named Lisa Ruth, identified by Defendants as a former CIA asset recruiter, who, in the portion broadcast by CBS12, states that \"If someone has access, that what makes them a good spy\". Again, implying to the viewers that Plaintiff, because he was a member at Mar-a-Lago, must be spy.\n\n22. This truncated statement by Ms. Ruth is inserted into the broadcast without any factual basis or context as to excerpt that CBS12 chose to broadcast. Thereby creating the implication that a former CIA asset recruiter is stating that Plaintiff is a spy in order to manufacture intrigue and raise viewership.\n\n23. Defendant O'Brien further states in a definitive tone, but without basis, that \"foreign governments could be targeting Mar-a-Lago members like Guo.\" (emphasis added.)\n\n24. Given Mr. Guo's outspoken defiance of the Chinese government it would be irrational to think that the Chinese government would target him as a potential asset. Mr. Guo has made it his life's work to remove the Chinese Communist Party from power and bring the Rule of Law to China. The only possible basis that Defendant O'Brien could have for his insinuation is the fact that Mr. Guo was born in China – an insinuation which reeks of racism.\n\n25. In its broadcast, CBS12 uses another excerpt from its recorded statements by Ms. Ruth which are, again, truncated to definitively imply that because Plaintiff has been a member at Mar-a-Lago for a long time, \"an intelligence agency will attempt to recruit them\". This statement as presented by CBS12 clearly intends to have its viewers believe that intelligence agencies have attempted to recruit Plaintiff. Once again, providing no basis for the abridged statement, or context from Ms. Ruth's entire prerecorded statement.\n\n26. Clearly, the intent was to garner views for the sensational \"story\" with no regard for the truth and even less investigation into the underlying facts.\n\n27. The CBS12 broadcast went on to make a number of further false statements, along with various other statements intended to mislead its viewers and cast Plaintiff in a negative light.\n\n28. To be clear, and while the assertion does not dignify a response, Mr. Guo is not, nor has he ever been a spy for China. To the Contrary, he has been an outspoken critic of the corruption in the Chinese Government and its ruling communist party. He has publicly vowed and contributed much of his considerable wealth, along with his heart and soul, into bringing the Rule of Law to China.\n\n29. Defendant O'Brien, in an attempt to further sensationalize the \"news\" story, creates a non-existent connection between Mr. Guo being a member at Mar-a-Lago and the fact that a woman, Yujing Zhang, was previously arrested at Mar-a-Lago in possession of a thumbdrive containing malware.\n\n30. There is no connection between Mr. Guo and Yujing Zhang, nor do Defendants provide any basis for insinuating that the two may be connected -- because there is no connection -- except that they are both of Chinese descent and happen to have been to Mar-a-Lago.\n\n31. Even the Mar-a-Lago commonality is a stretch with Mr. Guo being a longstanding member of the club and Yujing Zhang being arrested trying to sneak into Mar-a-Lago.\n\n32. In fact, on a number of occasions, Mr. Guo warned the staff at Mar-a-Lago of the potential for attempts by agents of China to infiltrate the club.\n\n## **CAUSE OF ACTION (DEFAMATION** *PER SE)*\n\n33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs \"1\" through \"32\", as though fully set forth herein.\n\n34. In the broadcast on July 24, 2019, Defendants broadcasted and published untrue statements about Plaintiff, including stating that Mr. Guo had committed espionage.\n\n35. Espionage is a serious federal crime pursuant to the Espionage Act of 1917.\n\n36. Similar statements made against Mr. Guo are demonstrably false and have, in fact, been ruled to be defamatory in two separate courts.\n\n37. To further embellish their story, Defendants made statements that insinuated that Mr. Guo was associated with Yujing Zhang, the woman arrested sneaking into Mar-a-Lago with malware.\n\n38. Defendants knew or should have known that the statements were false, as even a cursory review of court records would have shown Defendants statements to be false.\n\n39. Further, even a modicum of due diligence would have shown the falsity of these statements.\n\n40. Instead, with a reckless disregard for the truth, Defendants made the above false statements, causing harm to Plaintiff, all for the sake of potential increased viewership.\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, Plaintiffs request entry of Judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:\n\nA. That Defendants be held liable for the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the claims asserted herein in an amount to be determined at trial, but estimated to be not less than \\$50 million;\n\n- B. That Defendant Sinclair must remove the story from any online and physical publications and must publish a retraction of the false claims against Plaintiff on the front page of their website and physical publications;\n- C. Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.\n\n## **Demand for Jury**\n\nPlaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable by a jury.\n\nDated this 2nd day of August, 2019.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nBy its attorneys, /s/ Brian M. Silverio Fla. Bar No. 0183301 [bsilverio@silveriohall.com](mailto:bsilverio@silveriohall.com) Silverio & Hall, P.A. 255 8th Street South Naples, FL 34102 Tel: 239-649-1001 *Attorneys for Plaintiff*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 26 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 3**\n\n## **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA**\n\n## **WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES KWOK**\n\n**v.**\n\n**Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 9:19-cv-81099**\n\n**SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., and JAY O'BRIEN**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n### **Defendants.**\n\n### **NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT**\n\nThe Plaintiff, WENGUI GUO, a/k/a MILES KWOK, by and through his undersigned counsel, gives notice to the Court that the parties have reached a settlement of this matter. The settlement agreement is being translated and circulated for execution. The Plaintiff has withheld the filing of its response in light of the settlement reached. The Parties request seven (7) days to either file a fully executed settlement agreement and notice of voluntary dismissal or Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss. Undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for the Defendants and confirmed that the Defendants have no objection to this filing.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the relief requested herein and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nWE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 11th day of November, 2019, we electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record, either via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner to those parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nBy its attorneys, /s/ Brian M. Silverio Fla. Bar No. 0183301 [bsilverio@silveriohall.com](mailto:bsilverio@silveriohall.com)  Silverio & Hall, P.A. 255 8th Street South Naples, FL 34102 Tel: 239-649-1001 *Attorneys for Plaintiff*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 29 of 73\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<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\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\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\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\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 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 39 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 5**\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 40 of 73\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\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![](_page_40_Picture_0.jpeg)\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.<sup>1</sup>\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, when 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 <sup>1</sup> 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\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 44 of 73\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- (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**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2017 04:01 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 46 of 73\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 the 2011 Facility Letter plus all accrued and unpaid interest was \\$52 million as of the date of the Original Deed of Settlement, and that amount would be no longer due and owing upon the satisfaction of 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\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 47 of 73\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\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 48 of 73\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\n![](_page_48_Picture_0.jpeg)\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**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2017 04:01 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 50 of 73\n\n> '\\$7(' 1HZ<RUN1HZ<RUN \\$SULO\n\n> > 5HVSHFWIXOO\\VXEPLWWHG\n\n7+(6(,'(1\\*5283 %\\ 6(,'(1 \\*5283\n\n5REHUW:6HLGHQUVHLGHQ#VHLGHQOHJDOFRP \\$YHQXHRIWKH\\$PHULFDV 1HZ<RUN1< HUW:6HLGHQUVHLGHQ#VHLG \\$YHQXH RI WKH \\$PHULFDV\n\nDQG\n\n2¶0(/9(1< 0<(56//3 6WXDUW6DUQRIIVVDUQRII#RPPFRP (GZDUG0RVVHPRVV#RPPFRP 7LPHV6TXDUH 1HZ<RUN1<\n\n*\\$WWRUQH\\VIRU3ODLQWLII*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 51 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 6**\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 52 of 73\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P., Plaintiff, V. Index No. 652077/2017 **[liftOI OSEff] JUDGMENT 17 652077**\n\nKWOK HOW AN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAO YUN, *a/k/a*  MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nDefendants.\n\nWHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., filed a complaint against Defendant Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui, a/k/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui, a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun, a/k/a Miles Kwok, a/k/a Haoyun Guo (\"Kwok\"), alleging a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant Kwok.\n\nWHEREAS, on April 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Kwok, and Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation ( together with Genever Holdings LLC, the \"Genever Defendants\"), alleging causes of action for (i) breach of contract against Defendant Kwok and (ii) veil piercing against the Genever Defendants.\n\nWHEREAS, on July 24, 2020, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Kwok, and the motion was fully briefed and heard before Justice Barry R. Ostrager, who issued a Decision and Order dated September 15, 2020, which was entered in the New York County Clerk's Office on September 16, 2020, granting Plaintiffs motion on Count I of the Amended Complaint for breach of contract, and directed Plaintiff move by Notice of Motion to establish damages on Count I no later than October 14, 2020.\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 **17 652077**  Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 53 of 73\n\nWHEREAS, (i) on September 21, 2020, Plaintiff moved by Notice of Motion to establish damages, legal fees and expenses; (ii) Plaintiff agreed to temporarily withdraw, without prejudice and with the Court's permission and the other parties' understanding that it would be renewed at a later date, the portion of its application relating to legal fees and expenses (i.e., enforcement costs); and (iii) the motion was fully briefed and heard before Justice Barry R. Ostrager, who issued a Decision and Order dated December 18, 2020 (the \"Damages Order\"), and entered into the New York County Clerk's office on December 18, 2020, directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Kwok in the amount of \\$46,426,489.00 plus contractual interest at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010 and at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of entry of this decision and order.\n\nNOW, upon motion ofO'Melveny & Myers LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff, it is:\n\nADJUDGED that Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., having a business address at 33/F, Three Pacific Place, 1 Queen's Road East, Hong Kong, have judgment against and do recover from Defendant Kwok Ho Wan, residing at 781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022, the amount of **\\$46,426,489.00** , plus contractual ------------ interest in the amount **of \\_\\_\\_ ~\\$\\_6\\_9~,\\_4\\_4\\_8~,\\_9\\_3\\_9\\_.\\_7\\_1 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ ,** plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of9% in the amount **of \\_\\_\\_ \\$\\_5\\_2\\_6\\_,\\_5\\_9\\_0\\_.\\_8\\_6 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ ,** for a total of\n\n**X \\$116,402,019.57** , and Plaintiff shall have execution thereof.\n\n| Ji ii1~nHt 1i~1111••11t0£c11 this _th Ja5 cf |   |     | !OH<br>,      |           |\n|----------------------------------------------|---|-----|---------------|-----------|\n| FILED                                        |   |     | 1/lt;tlk<br>H | ~~--<br>- |\n| Feb 03 2021                                  |   |     | Clerk         |           |\n| NEW YORK                                     |   | 3rd | Feb.          | 2021      |\n| COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE                        | 2 |     |               |           |\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 54 of 73\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![](_page_53_Picture_8.jpeg)\n\nDefendants.\n\nI, Edward Moss, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the\n\nState of New York, hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the Civil Practice Law\n\nand Rules of the State ofNew York§ 2106, as follows:\n\n1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and a partner in the law firm of O'Melveny\n\n& Myers LLP, counsel ofrecord for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") in this matter.\n\n2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances in this action. For purposes\n\nof entry of this judgment, I submit this affirmation waiving costs and disbursements.\n\nDated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York By: /s/ *Edward Moss*  Edward Moss\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 55 of 73\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![](_page_54_Picture_8.jpeg)\n\n## **JUDGMENT**\n\n**UtBOtlOfUOl~•Ull(Ji\\lKNT**\n\n## o~ , u ,J,\\'l '.NY & 1\\-lHiRi'i LLP\n\nT! :i,{fS.SQfi.ll.RE·'.rffWER -'! T!\\WS \\$QCARf NF\\\\' \\'ORK, NF\\V vrnn,;; !{itH6 (:Z } .Z) **·l lt~~-Jt~OO**\n\n.:.\\ttrnm«y~ for Pb.infrfff';,i(:Hk i\\l lfam~('. .. :\\jfa OppmtrnRy Fimd,LY.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 56 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 7**\n\nQhi;P THE:i6ti1JAY OF MARCH 2011\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 57 of 73\n\n> KWOKHOWAN as Guarantor\n\nlnf'avourof\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n\nPERSONALGUARAN~E\n\n\\. .:\n\n(\n\nHoni;,:Kong\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 58 of 73\n\n#### 11-11S GUARANTEE is mad~ the16tllday of March 2011\n\n#### SETWEEN:\n\n- KWOK HO WAN (~~\\*I holder of Hong t<ong Identity card no, P146467{7) of Room 411, 4th Floot, Nan Fung Tower, 173 Da& VoeW< Road Central, Hong !<:on11 (the \"Guarantor''); and ·\n- PACIF1C ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND 1.,P,, an exempted llmlled partnership establlsned under Iha Jew\\$ of the Cayman Islands wtiosa registered office Is at P.a. Box 472, 2\"4 Roor, Harbour Place, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands **(\"PAX'').**\n\n#### RECIT#\\L.S\n\n- A. On or about the date of this Guarantee, PAX and Shiny Timas Holdlngs Limited (\"Shiny Times\") entered Into ii\\ facility letter (the \"Facility Letti.r''} whereby It was agreed that (a} the total prlnolpal amount undsr !he FacilltY Letter as or *tha* Effective Date US\\$4S,428,489 {Iha \"OutetandJng Amount\") and tb) Iha outstanding Amount shall be deemed as the new revised i:,rlnclpal amount under the Faolllty Letter, which shall ai::c:rue Interest at the rale of 15% per annum from the Effective Da~ unUl fully repaid, It was rurther agreed that tt,e maturity date for payment of lhs Loan (as defined in the FaclKly Letter) shall b& on er before 30 June 2012.\n- B. A condition preoedar\\t to the complellott Undi!tf the Fac!II\\Y Letter !s Iha Guarantor's del!very of this Guaranlee to secure due and punctual performance of an of Shiny Tlmea' payment and perfurmanca obligations whatsoavGr (tha ''Obllgatlons\", and \"Obligation\" shall ba cooslrued accordingly), under or In relation to t'le Faclllty letter.\n- C. It was ftlrther agreed that, lmmedialely alter the Elfscll'le Date, and upon the compfellon of the oondllions precedent under the Facility Letter, Shiny Times and the Guarantor shall be discharged and released In full from an Iha obllgatlons, llablllikls and responsibilities under lhe Deed and Letter Agreement(bolfl terms **are** defi,1ed In fhe FaeRlty Leiter) respeotlvely and claims arising oul of or In connactk)n Wllh the Deed and Leiter Agreement sha!I also b1:1 fully discharged.\n- 1, INTE~ETATION\n- 1.1 References **to** Agreements\n\nUnless oth&!Wise slated, any rererence h'I this Guarantee to any agreement or document 0ncludlng any reference to this Guarantee or the Faclllty Le«er) shall be construed as a reference to:\n\n- (a) such agreement or document as amended, varied, noVE1ted or supplemenletl from ~e to lime;\n- (b) any other agreement or document whereby such agreement or document ts so amended, vafled or novaled: a11d\n- {e) any other agreement or document entered into pursuant to or In accor:lanca With 11uch agreement or document,\n\n#### 1.2 Clausie- Headings\n\nClause headings ar8 for ease of reference only and shell not affect the construction of 1hls Guarantee.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 59 of 73\n\n- **2, GUARANTEE**\n- 2.1 Guarantee and Indemnity\n\nThe Guarantor hereby Irrevocably Md uncond!tlonally:\n\n- (a) guaranteei; to PAX the due and punctual payment or Iha Obllgallons and agrees that prompt!y on PAX's demand he wUI pay to PAX all Obllgatlons that are due but unpaid; and\n- (l>• agre~ (as primary obllgor and not only **B\\$** eurety) to indemnify and hold harmless PAX on demand from and against ell los&es lricurred by PAX as a result of any Obllgatlon being or becoming void, vo!dable, unenforcea,b!e or Ineffective as against Shiny Tlmes for any raaoon whatsoever (whether or not known to **PAX** or any other person), Ille amount of such loss being the amoun1 that PAX would otherwl&e have been entlllad to recover from Shiny nmes,\n\nPROVIDED Tl:IAT Uta 101aI JiabllJl!es of the Obligations or amowit due from the Guarantor llf\\dar this <3uaranlee shall always **be** llmlled lo the sum ol the Outstanding Amount plus Interest of *Iha* rate of 15% per annum accrued from 31 December 201 O to the date on which all such llabHltles are paid In full.\n\nFor the avoidance of doubt, this Guarantee came Into effect on 31 December, 2010 (the \"Elfeclive Dale'').\n\n2.2 Demands\n\nThe amount specified ln a demand made l>y PAX pursuant to this Guarantee as to 1ha amount *or* any Obllgatton or the amount due from Iha Guarantor under this Guarantee shell be *prima fac!e* evidence. that such Obligation or auoh amount fa due and payable,\n\n#### **3. CONTINUl~G SECURITY'**\n\n#### 3.1 Continuing and Independent Obtlgatlons\n\nTha obflgal!ons at the Guarantor under Ihle Guarantee 1,hall constitute and be continuln11 obligations which shaH not be released or discharged by any intermediate payment of Iha Obligations or any or them, shall continue In ftlll force and effect until the uncondltlonal and lrravocable payment and discharge tn full of the Obl[gatlons and are In addition to amt tndepandent of, and shall rial prejudice or merge with, any other security (or any right of set-Dff) which PAX may at any lime hold In respect of the ObUgat!ons or any of them,\n\n#### 3.2 **Avoidance** of **Payments**\n\nWhere any release, discharge or other arrangemen~ In respect Dfany Obligation PAX may hold. for such Obllga11on, !s given or made In reUanee on any payment or other disposition that ls avoided or must be repaid {whether In whole or In part) in an lnaolvency, llqUidatlon or otherwise, and wnether or not PAX has conceded or <.ompromlsed any claim lhat any suah payment or other disposition wfll or should ba avoided or repaid (In whole or In part), this\n\nGuarantee shaH continue as If such release, dlschatge or othar atran\\_gE!ment had not bean gmn or made.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 60 of 73\n\n#### 3.3 Immediate **Racou,ae**\n\nPAX shall not be obliged bemre exari.iilng any of the rights conferred on It by this. Guarantee *Of* by law to seek lo reeover amounts due from Shiny Times or to exercise or enforee any olher tight o~ seour!IY It may have or hold lo respect of the Obigat!ons.\n\n#### 3.4 **Waiver of** Defencea\n\nNelfher the obligalio11s of the Guarantor contained In lhis Guarantee nor tha tl!Jhla, powers Md remedlea conferred upon *?AX bv* this Guarantee Qr by law shan ba discharged, Impaired **or otherwise** affected by:\n\n- (a) the wlndfng-up, dissolution, administration or re.al!,lanlselion of Shiny TimeG or *anv*  other person or any change In the status, funetlon, control or ownarshlp of Shiny Tfmes or any such paruon:\n- (b} any of the ObffgaUons or any security held by PAX in respact thereof being or becoming mega!, Invalid, unellforceable or lneffectlv11 In any respeel;\n- (C} any time or other lodulgem:e bel119 granted or agreed (i) to or with Shiny 11mes or any other person in respect of the Obl!gatlons or any of them or (11) In reapacl of any securlly held l>y PAX In respect thereof;\n- (d) any amendment lo, or any varlaUon, waiver or release cf, the Ol>lrgatlons or any of them or any security held by PAX In respect thereof;\n- **(e)**  any total or partial failure to ti.lee or perfect any S!;!Ctlrlty proposed to be taken In respect of the ObUgaUons or any of !hem;\n- {fl MY tolal or partial fallure to reaijsa the value of, or any re!ea!!fl, discharge, exchange or subslltutlon of, any security t,eld by ln respect of the Obllgatlons or any ot them; or\n- (g) any other ao~ avant or omission which mq;iht opera1e to d!sohcuge, fmpalr or othelWlse affect the Guarantor or any of the Oblfgations or *any* of the rights, powers and ramedlfls conferred upon PAX by this Gl.lerantee or by law.\n\n#### 3.6 No CQmpetltlon with PAX\n\n*Atrf* right which the Guarantor may have by way of contribution or Indemnity !n relaUon to ttie Obllgat!ons, or olherwtse lo clalm or prove as a C!'lldilor of Shiny nmea or any 1>ther person or Its estate In competltlon with PA, shall be exerclsed by the Guarantor only if and to lhe extent that PAX so requires and *In* such manner and upon such terms es PAX may specify, and the Guarantor shall hotel all monies, rights or securltv held or received by It as a f81,1,1II af the exercise of any such right on trust for PAX for appllcaHon In accordance wllh the tarm& of this Guarantee as if such monies, rights 01' security were he.Id *or* received by PAX under this Guarantee.\n\n#### 3.& Appropriation\n\nPAX shall not ba obliged to apply any sum held or received by It In respect of the Obl!galfons *In* or toward5 payment of lhe Obllgat10n~ and all such 11ums may be crMlted 11'.l **a** l>ijspense or Impersonal acoount and held In such account pending lhe appllcaUon from time **to** time\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 61 of 73\n\n> (as PAX may think tit) of such sur:ns In or towards the discharge of such obllgaUons of Iha Guarantor to PAX as PAX may selact.\n\n- 4. **PAYMENrs**\n- 4. i **Grossing Up**\n\nAll payments made by tha Guarantor under this Guarantee shall be made free and clear and without any deduction and free and olear of, and without deduction for or on account of, tax except, !n the lalter case, to the Blllent that the Guarantor Is required by **law** to make payment subject ta tax. If any tax or amount ln respect of lax must be d0ducted, or any olher deduction must ba made, from *any* amount payable Of paid by the Guarantor under this Guarantee, lhe Guarantor shall pay such addttJonat amounl:i as may be n8tleasary to ensure that PAX recelve:i a net amount equal to the ruu amot.mt which It would have received had pay1nent not be.en made subjact to laK.\n\n4.2 Payments without Set-off\n\nAll paymenls mada by the Guarantor under this Guarantee shall be mads free and clear cf and without any deduotlcn for or on account of *any* set-off ar counterclaim.\n\n4.3 Manner of Payment\n\nAlt payments made by 1he Guarantor under this Guarantee shall be paid In the manner required by PAX.\n\n- S. COSTS ANO EXPENSES\n- 5.1 TransactJQn Costs\n\nThe Guarantor shall on demand of PAX reimburse to PAX on a full lncl&mnity basts au costs and oxpensas (Including lagal feee), incurred by PAX In connect!on wllh the preparation, negotiation and exeoutlon of this Guarantee,\n\n5,2 Stamp Taxes\n\nThe Guarantor shall prompUy pay all stamp, registration and olher la>ces lo whlch this G~arantea or any Judgment given In connection with this Guarantee ls ()fat any tim& may be subiecl and shaU on demand indemnify PAX ageinst all Obligations, costs. clalms and 3Xpensas (lncludtng legal fees) resulting from any fallure **to** pay er dl,lay In paying any such tax.\n\n5.3 Indemnity\n\nThe Guarantor ihall lndemnlry and held harmless PAX from and aealnsl any and .ill cosw, olaims losses, expenses (Including legel rees) and ObHgatlons, which PAX: may Incur as a result of the axerclse or enforcement by PAX of any of the rights or pQwers conferred on It undar lhls Guarantee or by law.\n\n#### 6. **WAIVERS AND** RE:MEOIES\n\nNo f!lllure by PAX to exercise, nor any delay by PAX In exercising, any right or remedy under lhts Guarantee shall operate as a waiver thereof l'IDr shall any single or partial exercise of any such right or remedy prevent any further or 0H1er exercise thereof or the exercise of any Qlh!K such right or remedy,\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 62 of 73\n\n#### 7. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS\n\n#### 7.1 Partial Invalidity\n\nIr at any time any provision oflh!s Guaranlea Is or become\\$ Illegal, Invalid or unenforoeable In any respect, *or* th!e Guarantee Is or becomes lnllfl'ootlve in any respect under the law of any Jurlsdlctlon, such ll!egallty, tnvalkfily, unenforceabHlly or Ineffectiveness shall not affect:\n\n- (a) the legality, valldlly or enfarceabntty of the remaining provisions oi this Guarantee or the ~frecllveness rn any olher respect of this Guarantee under such law: or\n- (b) the (egalfty, valldily or enforceablllly of at1oh provision or !he effootlveness of this Guarantee under the law of any other jurfsdloHon.\n\n#### 7.2. Potentlally Avoided Payments\n\nIf PAX determines that an amount paid to It under the Facility l.eUer Is capable of being avoided or otherwise set aelde on the llquldatlon or admlnl!!lrallon of ·the iierson by whom such amount was paid, then for the purposes of this Guarantee, such .amount shall be regarded as not having been pald,\n\n#### 7.3 Currency Conversion\n\nIn order lo apply any sum held or received by PAX In or towards payt'nent of the Obligations, PAX m.w purchase an 1!1'1'1ounl kl another olJl'rency and tile rate of 8J(ci1ange to be used \\$hall be lhat a1. which, at such time es it oonsldfirs appropriate, PAX. Is able to efTecl such purchase.\n\n#### 7,4 currency Indemnity\n\nIf any sum due from tha Guarantor under this Guarantee or any order or judgme~t glmn or made il'l relat!on to this Guarantee has to be converted from Iha ourranoy [the \"first currency\") In whloh lhe ~me Is pal/able under this Guarantee or under sucli order or Judgment Into another currency (ihe \"second currency\") for the purpose of (a) making or filing 11. claim or proof against the GUarantor, (b) obtaining an order or Judgment In any court or other tribunal, or (c) enfurclng any order er judgmoot given or made ln relation to this Guarantee, Iha Guarantor shaff Indemnify and hold ltarmless PAX from and against any loss surtered or Incurred as a result cf any discrspanc;y bet.ween (i) lhe rate of exctumge used for such purpose to convert the sum 1n question from the flret currency Into the eeoond currency, and {II) the rate or reles Of exchange at whleh PAX may In the ordinary course of business purchaee Uie flr6l currency with the second currel'IOY upon receipt of a sum pakl to It h'I saDsfactlon, In whole or In part, of any such order, Judgmant, claim or proof,\n\n7.5 Rlgltts CUmutatlve\n\nThe rtghts and remedies pro11lded by this Guarantee are cumulallve and not exclusive of any right or remedy provided by law.\n\n- **8. ASSIGNMENTS**\n- 8.1 The Guarantor's Rlgl\\ts and Obligatlons\n\nThe rights and oblh;1allon::i of the Guaranlor undet !h1s Guarantee are not asal11nable or 1ransferable and the Guarantor shalt not pur~ort to esslQn any or all such rlghts or obligations, wlthouttha prior written consent of PAX.\n\n#### 8.2 PAX's Rights\n\nThe rights of PAX under !his Guarantee are assignable In whole or in part, and PAX may asslgn all or any such right without the consent of Iha Guarantor.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 63 of 73\n\n- 9. NOTICES\n- 9.1 Communlcatlon9 In Writing\n\nEach communication lo be made under this Guarantee shall be made !n wrlllng but, unless othelWlse stated, may ba made by fax or letter,\n\n9.2 **Delivery** of **Notli:e.s**\n\nAny communlcallon or document to be made or delivered by one person to another pursuant to this Guarantee shall (unless that other parson has b)r 3 de.ys• written notice to the other specified another address or fax number) be made or delivered 10 that other person at the aulhorlzed addre&s or fax r11JmbBf of that par.'!on ;ind shall be de&med to have been made or delivered when clespatched Qn the case of any oommunk:atlon m-ada by fax), or *Un* the c;asa of any communloalion made by fetter) wlien left at that address or (as Iha oase may be) five days attar being daposlled In the post postage prepaid In an envelope addressed lo It at that address. Subject to the foregoing, the authorised address and fa,c number of eacl'I party, for the purpose of Clause 9, are as follows:\n\nPA:\n\nAddress:\n\n15/F, AIA Central 1 Connaught Road Central Hong Kong\n\nFax; t852 2916 0881 Attn: Jon Lewis, Group General Counsel\n\nThe Guarantor:\n\nAddress: Room 411, 41h Floor, Nan F\\ITlg Tower, 173 Das Voeux Road Central Hong Kong\n\n#### *wtrh a copy to*\n\n| AddraS11: | Stevenson, Wong & Co_    |\n|-----------|--------------------------|\n|           | 4th Floor, Central Tower |\n|           | 28 Queen's Road Central  |\n|           | Hong Kong                |\n| Fa:<:     | T852 2668 9928           |\n| Attn:     | Hank Lo                  |\n\n9.3 Notices to PA\n\nAny communle&llan or dooument to ba made or delivered to PAX shall be effective only when received by PAX and then only If ii is expressly market! for the attanUon of the\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 64 of 73\n\n> dep11rtmerit or offiC11r identified with PA's signature below or such other department or offlc1c1r as PAX shall from time to time specify' for this purpose.\n\n#### 9.4 Engll&h Langu~e\n\nEad1 communloatlon and doc:umant made or delivered by one party to another pursuant to this Guarantee shall ba In English Iii' accompanied by a translation Into Englbh which Is oartlfl&d (by an officer of the p81'\\$0n making or delivering the same) as being a true and acaurate trenslallon.\n\n#### **10. GOVERNING LAW**\n\nThis Guaraf'\\lea I& governed by an<! shall be consliued in accordance wllh the laws of Hong Kong,\n\n- 11, **JURISDICTtON**\n- 11, 1 Courts of Hong **Kong**\n\nEach of the Guarantor and PAX lrrel/Ocably agrees that \\ha courts of Hong Kon!) shall have jurisdiction to hear and detem1lne any eul~ action or proceedings, and to settle any dlSputas, Which may arise out of or In connection with this Guarantee **(respective!y, \"Proceedings•**  and **'Disputes\") and,** for such purposes, tr~ocably submits to the Jwlsdtction ofSuch courts.\n\n#### 11.2 **Appropriate** Fcirom\n\nThe Guarantor Irrevocably wa!ues 111ny o\\*cllon which ha mlghl now ot hereafter hava to Proceedings being brought or Pleputea 11eUled In the courts of Hong Kong and agrees not to claim that any such oourt Is not a convenient **or** appropriate tbrum.\n\n#### 11.3 **servlc:e oft>rocess**\n\nThe Guarantor agrees !hat the procaas by which Proceedings are begun may be .served on him **b)I** being delivered lo him personally In connection with all Proc\\sSdlng!I In Hong Kong.\n\n#### 11.4 **ProCfladlngs** In **Other** Jurisdictions\n\nNothing in Clause 11.,1 *(Cwrta of Hong* Kong)-shall (and sh.all not be oonsuuod so as to) ml'llt the rl9bl of PAX to take ProcaedlhQs agalns~ the GUarantor ln any 01her court of competenljurfadlcllon nor sheH Iha laking or Pt<:1oeedings In anY: one or more Jurlsd\\ctfof'lil prsctude lhe taking of Proea~!nga In any other. Jurisdiction (wheU,er concurrently or not} lf end to the axfent i,ermlttacl· by appHcabta law.\n\n11.5 General Consent\n\nThe Guarantor consents genertilly In respect of any Proceedings to !hQ giving ol any relief or the Issue of any process In connection wllh weh Proceedings Including the making, enforcement or eXeeuUon against any property whatsoever {Irrespective of Its use or Intended use) of any order or judgment which may be made ar glvan In such Proceedings,\n\n#### **12, COUNTERPARTS**\n\nThis Guarantee may be exeouttld In counterparts and such counterparts taken together shall cons!Rute one and tha same lnsl1ument.\n\n#### **13. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY**\n\n*To* the extent that the Guarantor may be enti!led, In any liong Kong Court or other court, to dafm for hlmse/r or his revenue,, Bissels or properties, ~vereign Immunity from selVlce of process, from suit, from the jurisdiction *d any* court. from attachment in aid of 8Jtecutlon or enforcement of a Judgment (interlocutory or final), or from any other legal process, and to tha t;,i:tent !hat, in any such jurisdiction there may be attributed such a sovereign Immunity (whether olatmed or not), the Guarantor lrtevocably agrees not lo claim, and hereby l1revocabf~ waives, such sovereign lmm1Jnlty.\n\nn-, WITNESS WHEREOF this Guarantee has been duty axeouted by the Guarantor end has been signed by PAX.\n\n8\n\n#### EXS.CUTION PAGE\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 66 of 73\n\n#### PERSONAL GUARANTEE\n\nSignature oflM!ness: Name: Addm~s: Ootl.lpation: SIGNED by ) Jc,n l.Gw!S ) D!re.otor, Pacifl~ Affiance Group Asset ) . Manitgement Ltmll8<l, ) the General Partnar of ) **PACIF!C** ALLIANCE ASIA ) OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. ) In Iha pres9noeof:- >------w:r---~-\n\nSignature of Witness: , /1,<sup>71</sup> . *I/ ,/*  Na~e: S\"H'ft, r M'-i Addrtis: l,/f, Ptlfr C'.:ew!~At. , I ooluNA-\\.<f,KT R,,~J> t.el.f,~H. l'\\11)\\/u ftl\"/9\n\noeeupatlon: lt'b ,.1, (,o\\J. *N* Cf' L-\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 67 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 8**\n\n11\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 12:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 590 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 68 of 73\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 12:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 590 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 69 of 73\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n![](_page_68_Picture_10.jpeg)\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 12:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 590 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 70 of 73\n\nThe parties must provide the Court with a Joint Appearance Sheet containing all contact information (including email addresses) and representation. Please send this information in ONE email to plperuta@nycourts.gov no later than October 5, 2020 at noon.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 71 of 73\n\n# **EXHIBIT 9**\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., |                                                                                    | INDEX NO.       | 652077/2017                |\n| Plaintiff,                                      |                                                                                    | MOTION DATE     |                            |\n| -<br>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                                         |                 | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| CORPORATION,                                    |                                                                                    |                 |                            |\n|                                                 | Defendants.                                                                        |                 |                            |\n|                                                 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X |                 |                            |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn October 15, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Microsoft Teams, with counsel for all parties participating, on plaintiff's motion for a post-judgment restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 (motion 011). On September 15, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on liability, with damages and the issue of whether the corporate defendants are defendant Kwok's alter egos to be determined at a later date. NYSCEF Doc. 549.\n\nPlaintiff's motion for a restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 is granted. Mr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020.\n\nSpecifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\n![](_page_72_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nPlaintiff is entitled, under CPLR 5229, to take discovery into the above-identified assets as well as to seek discovery into any other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\n\nThe next appearance will be a pre-trial conference on November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm via Microsoft Teams.\n\n| October 15, 2020<br>DATE |                                         | \\$SIG\\$<br>BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C.                   |  |  |\n|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n|                          |                                         |                                                        |  |  |\n| CHECK ONE:               | CASE DISPOSED<br>X<br>GRANTED<br>DENIED | X<br>NON-FINAL DISPOSITION<br>GRANTED IN PART<br>OTHER |  |  |\n| APPLICATION:             | SETTLE ORDER                            | SUBMIT ORDER                                           |  |  |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:    | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN              | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT<br>REFERENCE                     |  |  |","body_zh":"证物 A\n\n弗里德曼声明\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第11章案件编号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nFebruary 28, 2022\n彼得·弗里德曼关于支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）反对 HO WAN KWOK 延长提交资产和负债清单及财务事务陈述期限之动议的声明\n\n本人，Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），声明如下：\n\n1. 本人系获准在纽约州及 Washington, D.C. 执业的律师，并为位于 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036 的 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）律师事务所合伙人，该所担任 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）的律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持 PAX 反对 Ho Wan Kwok 延长提交资产和负债清单及财务事务陈述期限之动议的答复。\n\n2. 随附证物1，系 Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）于 February 9, 2022 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1181 一案中作出的《裁决及命令》的真实准确副本。\n\n3. 随附证物2，系 Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.（辛克莱广播集团有限公司）, Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 1 一案中日期为 August 2, 2019 的起诉状的真实准确副本。\n\n4. 随附证物3，系 Kwok v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Case No. 9:19-cv-81099 (D. Fla. 2019), ECF No. 25 一案中日期为 November 11, 2019 的和解通知的真实准确副本。\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号码的后四位数字为 9595。\n\n5. 随附证物4，系 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 549 一案中日期为 September 15, 2020 的裁决及命令的真实准确副本。\n\n6. 随附证物5，系 PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 2 一案中日期为 April 18, 2017 的起诉状的真实准确副本。\n\n7. 随附证物6，系 PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716 一案中日期为 February 3, 2021 的判决书的真实准确副本。\n\n8. 随附证物7，系个人保证书的真实准确副本，该文件作为证物23附于 PAX 支持其部分简易判决动议之重大事实陈述，位于 KWOK000652，载于 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455。\n\n9. 随附证物8，系 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 590 一案中日期为 September 30, 2020 的说明理由命令的真实准确副本。\n\n10. 随附证物9，系 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 630 一案中日期为 October 15, 2020 的裁决及命令的真实准确副本。\n\n11. 随附证物10，系网站 http 的截图的真实准确副本（最后访问于 Feb. 28, 2022）。\n\n12. 随附证物11，系 Justice Ostrager 于 February 2, 2022 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022) 一案中举行的证据听证会记录节选的真实准确副本。\n\n- 2 -\n\n13. 随附证物12，系 PAX 于 December 24, 2020 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 689 一案中提交的支持藐视法庭命令动议之法律备忘录的真实准确副本。\n\n14. 随附证物13，系 PAX 于 January 27, 2021 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709 一案中提交的进一步支持藐视法庭命令动议之法律备忘录的真实准确副本。\n\n15. 随附证物14，系 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728 一案中日期为 March 16, 2021 的裁决及命令的真实准确副本。\n\n16. 随附证物15，系 S. Sarnoff（S. 萨诺夫）于 February 15, 2022 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., (Case Nos. 2022-00609, 2022-00610; NY Co. Clerk's Index No. 652077/2017) 一案中致 Appellate Division, First Department（上诉分庭第一部门）书记官的信函的真实准确副本。\n\n17. 随附证物16，系 Appellate Division 于 February 15, 2022 在 PAX v. Kwok, Case Nos. 2022-00609; 2022-00610, (1st Dep't 2022) ECF No. 5 一案中作出的命令的真实准确副本。\n\n18. 随附证物17，系 Justice Ostrager 于 September 22, 2021 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021) 一案中举行的听证会记录节选的真实准确副本。\n\n19. 随附证物18，系 Kwok 对 PAX 第三组书面质询所作答复及异议的真实准确副本，日期为 December 4, 2020，载于 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)。\n\n20. 随附证物19，系已签署的买卖合同的真实准确副本，该文件作为证物11附于 PAX 支持判决前扣押动议之法律备忘录，载于 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 256。\n\n- 3 -\n\n21. 随附证物20，系 Kwok Ho Wan 支持原告反对驳回起诉状动议的宣誓书的真实准确副本，日期为 February 5, 2016，载于 Ace Decade Holdings Ltd.（艾斯十年控股有限公司）v. UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. 2016), ECF No. 27。\n\n22. 随附证物21，系 Justice Ostrager 于 May 27, 2021 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 833 一案中举行的听证会记录节选的真实准确副本。\n\n23. 随附证物22，系 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd.（东方盈利有限公司）v. Strategic Vision US LLC（战略愿景美国有限责任公司）, No. 1:18 cv-02185-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 22, 2021), ECF No. 372 一案中日期为 June 22, 2021 的事实认定及法律结论的真实准确副本。\n\n24. 随附证物23，系 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）于 October 3, 2018 作出的证言记录节选的真实准确副本，该文件作为证物5附于 PAX 支持其说明理由命令动议的法律备忘录；该动议请求：(I) 强制非当事人 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）遵守依据第52条送达的传票；及 (II) 修改法院在 PAX v. Kwok et al, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 785 一案中于 October 15, 2020 作出的命令。\n\n日期：February 28, 2022　New York, New York\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Peter Friedman　Peter Friedman\n\npfriedman@omm.com\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的律师\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交于 02/28/22　录入于 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 6 页，共 73 页\n证物 1\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）　庭别　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.，　案号　652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉　—　动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名　动议序号　019\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC（杰尼弗：控股有限责任公司），以及　动议裁决及命令\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司），\n\n被告。---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X　HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n在本2017年案件中，共有1,180项案卷记录——其中几乎全部涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的密友和家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为——本院被要求确定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）是否已完成举证责任，以证明本院应对 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 February 3, 2021 获得针对 Kwok 的金额为 \\$116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 716）。此后，PAX 着手进行了长达一年的工作以执行其判决，首先识别、继而试图扣押 Kwok 在美国境内的资产。PAX 在识别由 Kwok 行使控制权的资产时遇到困难，因为自称为亿万富翁的 Kwok 已将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该方案使 Kwok 得以声称其没有资产，尽管其过着奢华的生活；原告已通过社交媒体剪报、照片及录像，对 Kwok 奢侈生活、吹嘘其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机和游艇的情况加以罗列。\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 1181　NYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022　案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交于 02/28/22　录入于 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 8 页，共 73 页\n\n如 February 2, 2022 的诉讼记录所述，该等证据的证明价值甚微，因为出示该等证据的证人除知道其可在各种网站上获取外，对该等“证据”的真实性并无第一手了解。\n\nFebruary 2, 2022，本院举行了证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交直接证言，并可供交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX 为查找和扣押被告 Kwok 所有的资产进行了长期程序。该等程序确立了包括以下事项在内的事实：Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇行使支配和控制，并由此产生一系列命令，限制 Kwok 和／或该名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。第一项此类命令于 September 30, 2020 作出，如下文详述；随后于 October 15, 2020 作出的命令限制“Kwok 先生和／或……该游艇，即‘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 September 30 和 October 15, 2020 限制命令的程序进行期间，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于2020年10月初航往 Florida，其后航往 Bahamas。March 16, 2021，法院作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示如 Kwok 未能在 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 返还至本院管辖范围，则 Lady May 每在本院管辖范围外停留一日，其将被处以 \\$500,000.00 罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department 维持本院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，并认定“每日 \\$500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力鼓励被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管其获准如此做，但其表明对这样做毫无兴趣……” NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。Appellate Division 进一步认定：\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法院合法、明确命令，且该等违反导致对原告权利的损害（见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753）。……指示动议法院进行证据听证会，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根据 Appellate Division 的命令，本院安排举行 February 2, 2022 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 February 2, 2022 听证会上作证；此前，在回应 PAX 查明资产的努力时，他曾援引《第五修正案》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《第五修正案》，Kwok 仍是多个审理场所中的积极诉讼参与人，且其此前已在本案及其他程序中作出证言。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）还在本院提起了一宗案名为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok（郭文贵，又名 Miles Kwok） v Hong Zeng（曾宏）, 157025/2020 的诉讼，该诉讼援引了 Freebeacon.com（《华盛顿自由灯塔》网站）上一篇日期为 September 8, 2017 的博客文章，其中 Kwok 抱怨“涉及其 152-foot 机动游艇 Lady May（梅夫人号）的若干事件……”（起诉状第 8 段，NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng 起诉状”）。Zeng 起诉状将 Kwok 描述为“一名直言不讳的中共批评者”，其不遗余力地“揭露中共和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，前总统 Trump（特朗普）的顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 船上时被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友及商业\n\n1 “PX”系指原告的审判证物。\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 10 页，共 73 页\n\n伙伴，“一名直言不讳的中国政府网络批评者，他曾与该国情报机构关系密切，但现因欺诈、敲诈和贿赂指控而遭北京当局通缉。”其他新闻媒体报道称，Bannon 先生曾不止一次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往政治集会。\n\n在听证会上由被告方证人作出的证言，以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，并且对本院及司法程序抱有彻底蔑视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上提出的证言表明，2014 年，Kwok 无偿将 HK International 的 100% 权益转让给 Qu Guo Jiao（曲贵娇）。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 离开中国，并于 February 23, 2015，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP 购得 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（郭梅）未受反驳的证言证明，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44。2 因此，可以作出合理推断：Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，Qu 女士于 June 17, 2017 前后，以 \\$1 或无偿将 Lady May 的所有权转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。Tr. 47。根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给现登记权利人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限责任公司，“HK USA”）。Guo 女士还声明，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（纽约）有限公司，“Golden Spring”）支付，据称该公司是 Kwok 家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”系指证据听证会的庭审记录，已作为 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179 以电子方式提交。\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 11 页，共 73 页\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士证称，她的兄弟为她购买了 Lady May。Tr. 46。本院不能采信该证言，因为没有证据表明 Guo 女士的兄弟参与了导致 Guo 女士取得该游艇所有权的公司交易。而且，事实上，在回答本院的问题时，Guo 女士承认，在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，她的兄弟均未参与。Tr. 47。\n\n在听证会上提出的其他证言表明，Kwok 每年夏天均反复登上该游艇，而 Guo 女士很少登船。Trial Tr. 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长证称，Kwok 在 2020 年 July、August 和 September 的相当大一部分时间均在船上，这与他夏季的一贯做法相符。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7。在本院 September 30, 2020 限制令之后，Lady May 于 October 2020 被送往 Florida（佛罗里达州），随后送往 Bahamas（巴哈马）进行维修，并于 October 2021 被派往 Italy（意大利），据称系按 Golden Spring 的指示。Guo 女士承认，她知悉本院 September 30, 2020 限制令以及本院随后于 March 16, 2021 作出的命令，该命令指示将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围。Tr. 55；57-60；62。\n\nGuo 女士证称，一方面，她指示 Lady May 的航行安排；但另一方面，她又证称，Kwok 的安保问题如此令人担忧，以至于不会留下任何航行安排的记录。Tr. 52。她还证称，当她父亲未由她陪同在游艇上时，他可以自由选择前往任何想去的地方。Tr. 50。然而，根本问题是谁指示在 October 2020 将游艇移出本院管辖范围。Guo 女士主张，在 October 2020 初，她不再希望\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 12 页，共 73 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示转达给 Golden Spring，后者继而将她的指示转达给当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。Tr. 53。\n\n经进一步询问，Guo 女士承认，是 Golden Spring 告知她该游艇需要移往较温暖的地方。Tr. 55。随后，Guo 女士重复了其已撤回的、称其兄弟将游艇赠予她的证言，并称其兄弟是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56。该证言不可信，因为在 September 30, 2020，本院作出了一项临时限制令，限制 Kwok\n\n……不得就其拥有权益的任何财产作出或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰，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 CPLR 5222 及正常业务过程中规定的例外情形除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，当时的 Lady May 船长 Captain Heaslop 证称，在 Lady May 于 October 2020 初离开前往 Florida 前“几天”，Kwok 先生告诉 Captain Heaslop，Kwok 将不再作为 Lady May 的宾客（且显然是在本院 September 30, 2020 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，她后来阅读了本院 March 16, 2021 命令，该命令要求于 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她还承认，她曾与其律师讨论该命令（律师费用由 Golden Spring 支付），并且她无视了该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL（游艇动物园 SARL）的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）证称，他所在公司与 HK USA 签订了一份日期为 May 2021 的管理合同，且他与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 沟通，但从未与 Guo 女士沟通。Tr. 78。继任船长 Captain Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫船长）亦作出相同证言。Tr. 82。简言之，Guo 女士关于其拥有并\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 13 页，共 73 页\n\n控制 Lady May 的证言，在任何方面均不能采信。Guo 女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，她未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使支配和控制，也未提供任何证明其取得 Lady May 占有的材料，除非该等取得仅是一项将 Lady May 隐藏起来以免遭其父亲债权人扣押的幌子。\n\nKwok 就 Lady May 所策划的这一连串掩人耳目的安排，与 Kwok 在本诉讼待决五年期间采取的每一项其他规避性及蔑视性行为如出一辙，这正是本案有 1,180 项案卷记录的原因。\n\n本院有权依据 Judiciary Law（司法法）§ 753 认定 Kwok 构成民事藐视法庭——并“以罚款和监禁处罚[他]”——因为如本案所示，本院“明确认定，[Kwok] 的行为旨在或实际上确已挫败、损害、阻碍或妨害民事诉讼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)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条规定四项要求：\n\n“[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.”\n\n“为认定某一案件中已发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 明确表达毫不含糊指令的法院合法命令正在有效；[2] 必须以合理确定性表明，该命令已被违反……；[3] 此外，被认定构成藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管该命令实际上无需已向该方送达……；[4] 最后，必须证明诉讼一方当事人的权利受到损害。”\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)）。本案中提出的证言满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，上诉分院亦暗示如此。见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已] 以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok] 违反了一项其知悉的、法院作出的合法明确指令，且该违反行为导致原告权利受到损害。……”）。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 14 页，共 73 页\n\nPAX 持续遭受“损害”的程度，取决于 PAX 是否证明其最终能够扣押 Lady May，以清偿其现已达数亿美元的针对 Kwok 的判决书。根据 CPLR § 5225，如债务人拥有必要的“权益”，则“金钱或其他动产”可以被扣押。为满足该要求，“判决债务人无需拥有该财产的法定所有权；实益权益已属充分。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是‘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 所享有的远不止实益权益。Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，看起来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，如同其直接获得该财产一样。”同上（引自 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；另见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持驳回判决债务人的主张，即其因将其权益转让给女儿而不再持有该财产权益）；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，证据表明其“仍保留对该财产的控制权和/或权益”）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 15 of 73\n\n证据以清楚且令人信服的程度表明，Kwok（郭文贵）持有并控制 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的受益权益。就后者而言，本院注意到 Zeng 案的提交，并从全部案卷事实中推断，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和维护提供资金。\n\n本院认定，Guo 女士的证词不仅前后矛盾且具有欺瞒性，而且受到 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长及 Stockil 先生证词的显著削弱；他们表示，在她直接或间接拥有该游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未接受过 Guo 女士就该游艇作出的指示。\n\n此外，根据既定的纽约州法律，一方当事人在民事程序中援引《第五修正案》“可构成作出不利事实推定的依据”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。凡有必要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形中。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同样地，根据缺席证人规则，“事实裁判者可以针对未作证的证人，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“将知悉证据所提出的重要争点”的情况下适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX 有权通过这两种途径获得不利推定。Kwok 在回应 PAX 的判决后证据开示时援引其《第五修正案》免于自证其罪的权利，包括在回应专门有关 Lady May 的请求时。尽管 Kwok 主张，此处不宜作出不利推定，因为“只有在初步证明一项证据真实后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但该主张不攻自破。PAX 已提出大量可采纳证据，证明 Kwok 对 Lady May 具有必要的受益权益和控制权。见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（说明若证据“倾向于证明或否定一项重要事实的存在，即案件中直接争议的事实”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 16 of 73\n\n截至 February 7, 2022，Lady May 已有 268 天仍处于本院管辖范围之外。根据本院判处并经上诉分庭维持的每日 \\$500,000 罚款，由此产生的罚款将达 \\$134,000,000.00，超过 PAX 近 \\$120 million 的未清偿判决金额，且为 Lady May GBP £ 28 million 购买价格的数倍。然而，若亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够一面寻求利用纽约州及美国其他地区的法院程序，一面明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治无从谈起。Kwok 必须在本院附入案裁定送达后五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 \\$134,000,000.00。如罚款未及时支付，本院准备依据 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\n非终局性处置\n\nX　准许　驳回　部分准许　其他\n申请：　确定命令　提交命令\n如适当则勾选：　包括移送/重新分配　受托人任命　交办\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 17 of 73\n\n附件2\n\n美国佛罗里达南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida）\n\nWENGUI GUO（郭文贵）又名 MILES KWOK　民事诉讼案号：\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nSINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.（辛克莱广播集团公司）及 JAY O'BRIEN（杰伊·奥布莱恩）\n\n被告。\n\n原告 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）又名 Miles Kwok（“Guo”或“原告”）就其针对被告 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. 及 Jay O'Brien 提起的损害赔偿诉讼及主张，陈述如下：\n\n当事人\n\n1. 原告 Guo 是目前居住于纽约州纽约市的香港公民。原告于 2014 年末离开中国，目前正在美国寻求政治庇护。Guo 长期以来一直是中国政府某些部门内部腐败问题的批评者，并且是中国政府改革的主要倡导者。\n\n2. 根据所知所信，被告 Sinclair Media Group, Inc.（以下称“Sinclair”）是一家上市电信企业集团，在佛罗里达州境内运营并从该州播出，其办公地点位于——并从该地点播出——1100 Fairfield Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida。\n\n3. 被告 Jay O'Brien 是 WPEC（以下称“CBS12”）的记者；WPEC 是一家位于 West Palm Beach 的当地 CBS 电视附属台，由被告 Sinclair 所有并运营。\n\n4. 根据所知所信，被告 O'Brien 系被告 Sinclair 的雇员。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n5. 本院对本案具有多元管辖权，因为原告是居住于纽约州的外国公民，而被告 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. 是一家美国公司，在佛罗里达州内拥有重要关联公司和办事处。此外，根据所知所信，被告 Jay O'Brien 是美国公民及佛罗里达州居民，受雇于被告 Sinclair。本案请求的损害赔偿超过 \\$75,000.00。\n\n6. 本院作为审判地适格，因为被告 Sinclair 在佛罗里达州设有办事处，被告 O'Brien 是佛罗里达州居民，且包含本案所述诽谤性陈述的节目系自佛罗里达州播出。\n\n背景事实\n\n7. Guo 是一名因害怕受到政治迫害而逃离中国的香港公民。Guo 一直是对中国共产党最直言不讳且言辞最激烈的批评者。\n\n8. Guo 愿意公开表达其对中国共产党和中国政府的政治观点，已导致中国共产党和中国政府高级成员对 Guo 及其家人作出反制，包括但不限于拘押和逮捕 Guo 的家属及同事；以及冻结 Guo 的资产。\n\n9. Guo 的两名兄弟和一名侄女分别被判处三年、三年五个月和两年六个月监禁。这些家属仍被关押在中国。\n\n10. 由于中国共产党的政治迫害，Guo 被迫离开中国，并正在美国寻求政治庇护。\n\n11. 自其流亡以来，中国共产党已扣押属于 Guo 及其家人的超过 USD30 billion 的现金和资产。\n\n12. 因 Guo 的吹哨人行为，中国采取了广泛措施使 Guo 噤声，并将其引渡回中国。这些努力包括：\n\na. 基于虚假指控，请求国际刑警组织就逮捕其发出“红色通报”；\n\nb. 请求若干美国大型公司的首席执行官联系 Trump 总统，试图说服其引渡 Guo；\n\nc. 雇用游说人士、前共和党全国委员会主席 Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪），利用其影响力并说服 Trump 政府引渡 Guo，以向 Broidy 支付数百万美元的成功费作为交换；以及\n\nd. 利用社交媒体散布关于 Guo 的虚假指控。\n\n13. 为使 Guo 噤声的另一项努力中，于 May 2017，中国共产党秘密派遣时任中国国家安全部纪律检查委员会书记 Liu Yanping（刘彦平）及另外三名特工前往纽约市与 Guo 会面。作为 Guo 保持沉默并返回中国的交换条件，中国共产党承诺解冻其资产并将其家人从监狱释放。\n\n14. 美国国会美中经济与安全审查委员会认定，Guo 一直是一场前所未有、旨在诋毁 Guo 的中国政府虚假信息活动的目标。1\n\n1 [http] [%20China%27s%20Domestic%20Information%20Controls%2C%20Global%20Media%20Influence%2C%20and%] [20Cyber%20Diplomacy\\\\_0.pdf]\n\n15. 为对抗这一前所未有的虚假信息活动，Guo 依赖法治诉诸美国法院，以对挑战那些试图诋毁其名誉的人。\n\n16. 具体而言，Guo 现已成功起诉多名因称 Guo 为中国共产党的“间谍”、“骗子”、“说谎者”及其他恶意称谓而构成诽谤的个人。\n\n17. 具体而言，Guo 在美国弗吉尼亚东区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia）对 Xia Yeliang（夏业良）提起诽谤及当然诽谤诉讼，因为 Xia 公开称 Guo 是“间谍”、“强奸犯”、“骗子”、“说谎者”和“诈骗犯”。2（“Xia 诉讼”）。陪审团一致认定这些指控——即 Guo 是中国“间谍”的指控——为虚假、诽谤性且构成当然诽谤，并判给 Guo \\$100,000，以赔偿其名誉损害。\n\n18. Guo 还在美国马里兰地区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Maryland）对 Li Hongkuan（李洪宽）提起诽谤及当然诽谤诉讼，因为 Li 多次公开陈述 Guo 是“强奸犯、共产主义间谍……以及有组织犯罪头目”（“Li 诉讼”）。本院认定这些陈述为虚假、诽谤性且构成当然诽谤。3\n\nCBS12 的诽谤性新闻播报\n\n19. 于 July 24, 2019，被告 Sinclair 在其新闻播报中播出了一则指控原告为间谍的报道。4\n\n20. 在该播报中，被告 O'Brien 明确称，针对原告的指控是 Mar-a-Lago 内“第二起中国情报行动”，从而试图将这些捏造的指控当作事实——而它们并非事实。\n\n2 见 Guo Wengui v. Xia Yeliang, 18-cv-174 (E.D.Va.)\n\n3 见 Guo Wengui v. Hongkuan Li, 2019 WL 2288348, \\*2 (D. Maryland)\n\n4 进一步加重损害的是，CBS12 将该报道发布在其网站上[. http][and-mar-a-lago-member-accused-of-spying-he-disputes.]\n\n21. 该播报还包括一名名为 Lisa Ruth（丽莎·鲁思）的女性看来经过剪辑的评论；被告将其认定为前中央情报局资产招募人员。在 CBS12 播出的片段中，她称：“如果某人具有接触渠道，这正是使其成为优秀间谍的原因。”这再次向观众暗示，原告因是 Mar-a-Lago 的成员，必定是间谍。\n\n22. Ruth 女士这段被截取的陈述被插入播报，未就 CBS12 选择播出的摘录提供任何事实依据或背景。因此，其造成一种暗示：一名前中央情报局资产招募人员正在称原告为间谍，以制造悬念并提高收视率。\n\n23. 被告 O'Brien（奥布莱恩）进一步以确定无疑的语气、但毫无依据地声称：“外国政府可能正以像 Guo（郭文贵）这样的人士为目标。”（着重号为原文所加。）\n\n24. 鉴于 Guo 先生直言不讳地反抗中国政府，认为中国政府会将其作为潜在情报资源予以锁定是不合理的。Guo 先生已将其毕生事业投入于使中国共产党下台，并将法治带入中国。被告 O'Brien 作出此种影射的唯一可能依据是 Guo 先生出生于中国——这一影射充满种族主义意味。\n\n25. 在其播出内容中，CBS12（哥伦比亚广播公司第12频道）再次使用了 Ruth 女士录制陈述中的另一段摘录；该摘录同样遭到截断，以明确暗示，由于原告长期是 Mar-a-Lago（海湖庄园）的会员，“情报机构将试图招募他们”。CBS12 所呈现的该陈述显然意在使观众相信，情报机构曾试图招募原告。其再次未就该删节陈述提供任何依据，亦未提供 Ruth 女士完整预录陈述的背景。\n\n26. 显然，其意图是在完全不顾真相、且对基础事实进行的调查更少的情况下，为这则耸人听闻的“报道”吸引收视。\n\n27. CBS12 的播出内容随后还作出了若干进一步的虚假陈述，以及其他意在误导观众并使原告蒙受负面观感的各种陈述。\n\n28. 为明确起见，尽管该主张不值得回应，Guo 先生并非、且从未是中国的间谍。恰恰相反，他一直直言批评中国政府及其执政共产党内的腐败。他曾公开承诺，并将其可观财富的大部分以及其全心全意，投入于将法治带入中国。\n\n29. 被告 O'Brien 为进一步渲染该“新闻”报道，捏造了 Guo 先生作为 Mar-a-Lago 会员与一名女子 Yujing Zhang（张玉婧）此前因持有载有恶意软件的 U 盘而在 Mar-a-Lago 被捕这一事实之间并不存在的联系。\n\n30. Guo 先生与 Yujing Zhang 之间不存在任何联系，被告也未提供任何依据影射二人可能存在联系——因为不存在任何联系——除非二人均为华裔，且碰巧都曾到过 Mar-a-Lago。\n\n31. 即使 Mar-a-Lago 这一共同点也颇为牵强，因为 Guo 先生是该俱乐部的长期会员，而 Yujing Zhang 则因试图潜入 Mar-a-Lago 而被捕。\n\n32. 事实上，Guo 先生曾多次警告 Mar-a-Lago 的工作人员，中国特工可能试图渗透该俱乐部。\n\n诉因（当然诽谤）\n\n33. 原告援引并再次主张第“1”段至第“32”段所载的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n34. 在 2019 年 7 月 24 日的播出中，被告播出并发布了关于原告的不实陈述，其中包括称 Guo 先生实施了间谍活动。\n\n35. 根据《1917 年间谍法》，间谍活动是一项严重的联邦犯罪。\n\n36. 针对 Guo 先生作出的类似陈述显然是虚假的，且事实上已被两个不同法院裁定构成诽谤。\n\n37. 为进一步渲染其报道，被告作出陈述，影射 Guo 先生与因携带恶意软件潜入 Mar-a-Lago 而被捕的女子 Yujing Zhang 有关联。\n\n38. 被告明知或应知该等陈述为虚假，因为即使对法院记录进行粗略审查，也会显示被告的陈述为虚假。\n\n39. 此外，即使稍加适当审慎调查，也会显示这些陈述的虚假性。\n\n40. 相反，被告罔顾真相地作出上述虚假陈述，致使原告受到损害，一切仅为可能增加收视率。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，原告请求作出有利于原告且不利于被告的判决如下：\n\nA. 判令被告就原告因本案所主张的请求而遭受的损害承担责任，具体金额由审判确定，但估计不少于 \\$50 million；\n\nB. 判令被告 Sinclair（辛克莱尔）必须从任何在线及纸质出版物中删除该报道，并必须在其网站及纸质出版物的首页刊登对针对原告之虚假主张的撤回声明；\n\nC. 判给法院认为必要且适当的其他救济。\n\n陪审团审判请求\n\n原告请求就所有可由陪审团审理的问题进行陪审团审判。\n\n签署于 2019 年 8 月 2 日。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n由其律师，/s/ Brian M. Silverio 佛罗里达州律师协会编号 0183301 [bsilverio@silveriohall.com] Silverio & Hall, P.A. 255 8th Street South Naples, FL 34102 电话：239-649-1001 原告代理律师\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 50-1 于 02/28/22 提交 于 02/28/22 21:19:53 录入 第 26 页，共 73 页\n\n附件 3\n\n美利坚合众国佛罗里达南区联邦地区法院\n\nWENGUI GUO（郭文贵），又名 MILES KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n诉\n\n原告，民事案号：9:19-cv-81099\n\nSINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.（辛克莱尔广播集团公司）及 JAY O'BRIEN（杰伊·奥布莱恩）\n\n被告。\n\n和解通知\n\n原告 WENGUI GUO，又名 MILES KWOK，通过其下列签署律师，特此通知法院，各方已就本案达成和解。和解协议正在翻译并传阅以供签署。鉴于已达成和解，原告暂未提交其答复。各方请求给予七（7）天时间，以便提交已完整签署的和解协议及自愿撤诉通知，或者提交原告对驳回动议的答复。下列签署律师已与被告代理律师协商，并确认被告不反对本次提交。\n\n因此，原告请求本院准许本文件所请求的救济，以及本院认为公正且适当的任何其他救济。\n\n送达证明\n\n我们特此证明，于 2019 年 11 月 11 日，我们使用 CM/ECF 向法院书记官电子提交了上述文件。我们还证明，上述文件于当日向所有登记在案的代理律师送达，送达方式为通过 CM/ECF 生成的电子提交通知进行传输，或以其他获授权方式向无权以电子方式接收电子提交通知的当事人送达。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n由其律师，/s/ Brian M. Silverio 佛罗里达州律师协会编号 0183301 [bsilverio@silveriohall.com] Silverio & Hall, P.A. 255 8th Street South Naples, FL 34102 电话：239-649-1001 原告代理律师\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 50-1 于 02/28/22 提交 于 02/28/22 21:19:53 录入 第 29 页，共 73 页\n\n附件 4\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n索引号　652077/2017\n\n原告，\n\n诉　动议日期\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 LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司），　动议序号　007\n\n动议裁决及命令\n\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n现由本院审理的是原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“Pacific Alliance”）就修正起诉书第一项罪名项针对被告 Kwok Ho Wan 又名 Miles Kwok（“Kwok”）提出的部分简易判决动议，以及被告 Kwok 就第 006 号动议提出的重新辩论反动议。本院于 2020 年 9 月 14 日通过 Skype 进行了口头辩论。基于所提交的书面材料、2020 年 9 月 14 日记录在案的辩论，以及下文所述理由，准许 Pacific Alliance 的部分简易判决动议，并驳回 Kwok 就第 006 号动议提出的重新辩论动议。\n\n背景\n\n2008 年，Pacific Alliance 与 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit”）签订协议，Spirit 是 Kwok 的一个商业实体；根据该协议，Pacific Alliance 向 Spirit 提供本金金额为 \\$30 million 的贷款额度。Kwok 就该贷款签署了个人保证。2009 年 9 月，Spirit 签署了一份契据，根据该契据，Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）承担了 Spirit 对 Pacific Alliance 所负的贷款债务；该商业实体将 Kwok 列为其唯一股东和董事。Kwok 再次签署了以 Pacific Alliance 为受益人的个人保证，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”），该协议明确取代并替换了 2009 年和解契据及 2010 年信函协议。与此同时，Kwok 签订了一项新的个人保证（“2011 年个人保证”），该保证明确取代了 2009 年保证。2011 年个人保证是本案中有效的协议。\n\n2013 年 4 月，各方签订了一份和解契据，据此，如 Pacific Alliance 从 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（“Beijing Pangu”）购买若干公寓，且 Shiny Times 向 Pacific Alliance 支付若干分期款项，则未偿贷款金额将不再到期应付给 Pacific Alliance。Beijing Pangu 是 Kwok 的另一商业实体。就 Pacific Alliance 对每套公寓的买卖而言，Beijing Pangu 必须满足十项先决条件。如任何该等条件未于 2013 年 6 月前满足，该和解契据将整体终止。Pacific Alliance 和 Kwok 随后四次延长该和解契据，仅变更先决条件须获满足的日期。最新的和解契据要求先决条件须于 2015 年 6 月前满足。\n\nPacific Alliance 就修正起诉书第一项罪名项请求简易判决；该项指控称，Kwok 未能于 2015 年 6 月前满足先决条件，因此，根据协议条款，和解契据整体终止，2011 年个人保证再次适用。\n\n本院近期就 Pacific Alliance 的制裁动议裁定，Kwok 被司法禁止质疑其此前在本院程序中曾作为证据提出的文件的真实性。见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 404。具体而言，在其 2019 年 11 月的证言记录中，Kwok 否认曾签署上述数份协议，包括 2011 年贷款额度、2011 年个人保证、2013 年和解契据及四份补充契据。Kwok 证称，这些文件均为伪造。在藐视法庭动议中，Pacific Alliance 主张且本院认定，这些否认与 Kwok 在本 2017 年案件整个期间所采取的立场不一致。因此，本院裁定，Kwok 在反对 Pacific Alliance 的简易判决动议或在审判中，不得以司法禁止原则质疑这些协议的真实性。\n\nKwok 的反动议\n\n现首先审理被告 Kwok 请求准许就本院 2020 年 7 月 7 日裁决及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 404）重新辩论的反动议，该动议予以驳回。如上所述，本院裁定，Kwok 被司法禁止质疑其此前在本案中作为真实文件向本院提出的协议之真实性。Kwok 主张，本院作出该裁定时误解了法律。本院全盘驳回该项主张。\n\n本案伊始，Kwok（郭文贵）以不方便法院原则为由申请驳回本案（动议 001）。本院准许了Kwok的动议（NYSCEF Doc. No. 102），该决定随后被第一司法部门撤销并发回（NYSCEF Doc. 121）。Kwok在提出驳回动议时主张，争议中的合同受香港法律管辖。具体而言，Kwok随其动议附上了当事人之间若干协议的“真实且正确”副本，包括2011 Personal Guarantee（2011年个人保证，NYSCEF Doc. No. 17）和2013 Deed of Settlement（2013年和解契据，NYSCEF Doc. No. 18）；他现对这些文件提出异议。\n\nKwok现主张，由于其驳回动议中的论点及本院的决定均涉及不方便法院原则，(1) 他实际上并未改变其对文件真实性的立场，且(2) 本院实际上并未确定该等文件的真实性。该主张不正确。Kwok主张本案应被驳回，转而由香港解决，因为协议表面上受香港法律管辖，这必然要求Kwok主张且本院接受该等协议是真实的而非伪造文件，正如Kwok现所主张的那样。\n\nKwok进一步主张，无论如何，司法禁止反言不得适用，因为第一司法部门撤销了本院对驳回动议的决定，故对于合同是否真实这一问题不存在最终实体裁定。该主张不受第一司法部门判例法的支持。司法禁止反言是一项衡平法原则，用于防止一方当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场。参见，例如，Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000)（“[根据司法禁止反言原则，或禁止不一致立场的禁止反言，一方当事人不得不公平地采取与其在同一程序中先前所持立场直接相反或不一致的立场。]”）。事实上，由于司法禁止反言用于防止当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场，最终裁定不可能成为适用司法禁止反言的前提条件。参见同上（禁止房东在同一程序的上诉中依赖与其在一审法院阶段所依赖的不同租约）。\n\n此外，本院注意到，Kwok在其两份答辩状中均从未主张该等文件系伪造，而这是一项积极抗辩。参见，例如，Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C., 214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995)（准许修改诉状以增加伪造这一积极抗辩的许可动议）；Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Giardino, 71 A.D.2d 836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979)（认定“鉴于被告提出伪造这一积极抗辩，对被告笔迹的证明具有重要性”）。\n\nKwok近期未经佐证地声称协议系伪造文件，这与其在本诉讼中先前的立场不一致——因此，为适用司法禁止反言提供了适当依据。据此，驳回Kwok要求重新辩论的交叉动议，并为评估原告关于部分简易判决的动议之目的，接受先前由Kwok提出的协议为真实文件。\n\nPacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的动议\n\n本院准许原告Pacific Alliance的简易判决动议，认定被告Kwok应就违反2011 Personal Guarantee承担合同违约责任。根据2013 Deed of Settlement的明确条款，未能于June 30, 2015前满足和解的先决条件，将导致2011 Personal Guarantee恢复完全有效。参见NYSCEF Doc. 461。\n\n第3.4条：2013年7月31日后Facility Letter（融资函）的恢复。在未于2013年7月31日前（或当事人书面同意的较后日期[本案中，根据第四份及最终补充和解契据，为2015年6月30日]）满足第3.2条就所有公寓规定的全部先决条件的情况下，本契据所设想的全部和解应予终止，当事人确认，Facility Letter应于2013年7月31日后（或当事人书面同意的较后日期）立即恢复并完全有效，且Shiny Times（闪亮时代）应按照Facility Letter的条款和条件清偿Total Outstanding Amount（未偿总额）及其所累积的任何利息。（强调系后加。）\n\n另参见NYSCEF Doc. No. 472 “Fourth Supplemental Deed of Settlement”（第四份补充和解契据）（将满足先决条件的日期变更为“30 June 2015”）。\n\n原告Pacific Alliance已证明，而被告Kwok未能反驳，2013 Deed of Settlement中的若干先决条件未获履行。具体而言，被告Kwok未能交付无瑕疵产权，未能向原告提供购买公寓的发票，未能向原告提供有关支付与公寓买卖相关全部税费的证据，且未能向原告交付任何公寓的房屋所有权证书。参见NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i)。\n\nKwok并不否认这些条件从未得到满足。相反，在反对中，Kwok主张，原告Pacific Alliance据称未借助北京警方采取可能扣押三套公寓的机会，因而未减轻其损失。\n\n首先，即使将Kwok所述版本的事实视为真实，减轻损失涉及的是损害赔偿而非责任，因此这些事件不会妨碍就责任作出部分简易判决。其次，如双方当事人提出的书面证据所表明的，借助警方取得三套公寓占有的所谓机会仅在June 2015之后才出现，因此2013 Deed of Settlement当时已整体失效，2011 Personal Guarantee完全有效。第三，Kwok在其两份答辩状中从未主张减轻损失，而这是一项积极抗辩。参见，例如，Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010)（提及“未减轻损害赔偿的积极抗辩”）。\n\n最后，根据香港法律，一方当事人仅须采取合理行动以减轻损失。参见Vishal Prakash Melwani（维沙尔·普拉卡什·梅尔瓦尼）的声明 ¶17.2（NYSCEF Doc. No. 535），以及Phillip Loukis Georgiou（菲利普·卢基斯·乔治乌）的声明（NYSCEF Doc. No. 498）¶¶ 18.3和21。目前的记录表明，为利用北京警方的所谓提议，Pacific Alliance需为每套房产支付RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million]以使其获释。参见NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288。为清偿一项债务而对当事人已同意无偿转让的资产支付approximately \\$16 million，依据香港法律很可能不构成减轻损失的合理机会。尽管如此，本院保留对损害赔偿问题的裁定。\n\n根据2011 Personal Guarantee\n\n— Kwok“不可撤销且无条件地……向PAX [Pacific Alliance]保证，[Shiny Times]在[2011 Facility]项下[义务]的适时、按期支付，并同意在PAX提出要求后立即向PAX支付所有到期未付的[义务]”；\n\n— Kwok“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），应要求就PAX因任何[Shiny Times的义务]因任何原因系或变为无效、可撤销、不可执行或不生效而产生的任何及全部损失，对PAX作出赔偿并使其免责……”；\n\n— Kwok同意，其“在本保证项下的义务……构成并应为持续性义务，不应因[Shiny Times]的[2011 Loan Facility项下义务]或其中任何义务的任何中间付款而被解除或免除，应持续完全有效，直至[该等义务]获得无条件且不可撤销的全额付款和清偿，并且系对PAX可能在任何时候就[该等义务]或其中任何义务持有的任何其他担保（或任何抵销权）的补充且独立于其，不应损害或并入该等其他担保（或任何抵销权）”；\n\n— PAX被允许作为主债务人的追索对象向Kwok追索，而无需先对Shiny Times强制执行该债务；以及\n\n— Kwok同意概括性放弃任何基于“任何其他可能导致解除、减损或以其他方式影响保证人或任何义务，或影响本保证或法律赋予[PAX LP]的任何权利、权力和救济的行为、事件或不作为”的抗辩。\n\nKwok并未主张其本人或Shiny Times曾根据2011 Loan Facility或2011 Personal Guarantee作出任何付款以清偿债务。据此，本院认定Kwok应就违反2011 Personal Guarantee承担责任。\n\n结论\n\n本案剩余问题——修正起诉书的第二项罪名——寻求使Kwok的两家公司，即Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）和Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司），作为Kwok的另一个自我，就Kwok对Pacific Alliance所负债务承担责任。本案原定于October 5, 2020进行陪审团审判。由于Covid-19疫情，本院无法于该日期进行陪审团审判，审判改期至January 15, 2021。\n\n据此，现命令如下：\n\n命令被告Kwok要求重新辩论的交叉动议被驳回；并进一步\n\n命令准许原告就修正起诉书第一项罪名提出的部分简易判决动议，支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）并针对Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云），a/k/a Kwok Ho（郭浩），a/ka, GWO Wen Gui（郭文贵）, a/ka/ Gui Wengui（桂文贵）, a/ka/ Guo Wen-Gui（郭文贵）, a/ka/ Wan Gue Haoyun（万盖浩云）a/k/a Miles Kwok（郭文贵）a/ka/ Haoyun Guo（郭浩云），以认定被告Kwok应就合同违约承担责任为限；并进一步\n\n命令原告应不迟于October 14, 2020，通过可在Submissions Part（提交材料庭）审理的动议通知提出动议，以通过提交基于亲身知悉的宣誓书及可采形式的证据，证明2011 Personal Guarantee项下到期应付的本金数额、2011 Personal Guarantee项下适用的利率以及利息开始累积的日期，从而确定第一项罪名的损害赔偿，以便法院书记员可计算截至判决书登记之日到期应付的总额；并进一步\n\n命令原告应同时申请裁定律师费及支出，说明原告所依赖的文件并附上已提供服务的发票；并进一步\n\n命令当事人于December 22, 2020 at 10:20 am出席状态会议。\n\n日期：September 15, 2020\n\n选择一项：　案件已处理　X　非终局处理\n\n准许　驳回　X　部分准许　其他\n申请：　确定裁定　提交裁定\n如适用请勾选：　包括移送/重新指派　受托人任命　委托\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 39 of 73\n附件5\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2017 04:01 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 40 of 73\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），\n\n原告，\n\n案号\n\n诉\n\n起诉书\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），a/k/a KWOK HO（郭浩），a/k/a GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），a/k/a GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN（万盖浩云），a/k/a MILES KWOK（郭文贵），a/k/a HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），\n\n被告。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 本案系一起直接的违约案件。Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名 Kwok Ho、Gwo Wen Gui、Guo Wengui、Guo Wen-Gui、Wan Gue Haoyun、Miles Kwok、Haoyun Guo（以下简称“郭文贵”），据称为亿万富翁，与其控制的实体向原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业，以下简称“PAX LP”）借款数百万美元，但未能根据具有约束力的书面协议偿还其欠付 PAX LP 的任何款项。\n\n2. 2008年，PAX LP 与郭文贵的一家商业实体 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（灵憲投资有限公司，以下简称“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。该贷款额度以郭文贵签署对 Spirit Charter 偿还义务的个人担保为条件。\n\n3. 2009年，郭文贵的另一实体 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（辉煌时代控股有限公司，以下简称“Shiny Times”）承担了 Spirit Charter 对 PAX LP 所负债务，各方当时同意该债务总额为 $45,357,534.25。郭文贵签署了该债务的个人担保。\n\n4. 随后于2011年，PAX LP 与 Shiny Times 订立书面协议（以下简称“2011年融资函”），该协议明确取代各方先前的协议。在2011年融资函中，各方同意 Shiny Times 欠付 PAX LP $46,426,489，并将在 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，郭文贵订立一项单独的个人担保（该担保同样明确取代郭文贵先前的个人担保），据此郭文贵担保 Shiny Times 根据2011年融资函欠付 PAX LP 的全部款项（以下简称“个人担保”）的支付。\n\n6. 截至目前，Shiny Times 与郭文贵均未根据2011年融资函或个人担保向 PAX LP 支付任何欠付款项。\n\n7. PAX LP 已依照其与 Shiny Times 及郭文贵之间的合同采取一切必要且适当的措施，以追回其应收款项——现连同合同利息总计约为\n\n$88 million——但其未追回任何款项，因为在每一步中均遭 Shiny Times 与郭文贵置之不理。\n\n8. 鉴于郭文贵经常在纽约进行商业活动、在纽约定居并居住，且在纽约拥有房地产，PAX LP 向本法院提起本诉，以执行其针对郭文贵的合同权利。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n9. 本法院根据纽约州一般对人管辖权法 C.P.L.R § 301 对郭文贵享有对人管辖权，因为其持续且系统地在纽约“从事商业活动”，并在该州定居。\n\n10. 根据 C.P.L.R § 503(a)，本法院为适格审判地，因为郭文贵的住所位于纽约县。\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投资基金。\n\n12. 被告郭文贵系中国国民，在纽约定居，并持续且系统地在纽约“从事商业活动”。\n\n13. 郭文贵居住于纽约市 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪梨荷兰酒店）第18层——该住所由其通过 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司，以下简称“Genever”）于2015年以 $67.5 million 购得；Genever 是其唯一拥有的一家境内有限责任公司，其主要营业地位于纽约州奥尔巴尼 80 State Street。\n\n14. 郭文贵还在 767 Fifth Avenue 为其拥有的 Delaware 公司 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring”）设有办公室；该公司已登记为可在纽约营业的外国公司，并在纽约设有送达法律文书的登记代理人。\n\n15. 郭文贵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聘请、在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）两起案件中代理其的律师。1\n\n事实陈述\n\nShiny Times 贷款及郭文贵向 PAX LP 提供的偿还个人担保\n\n16. 自大约 February 4, 2008 起，PAX LP 与郭文贵之间一直存在商业往来；当时 PAX LP 与郭文贵的一家商业实体 Spirit Charter 订立书面协议（以下简称“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. 该贷款额度以郭文贵签署对 Spirit Charter 偿还义务的个人担保为条件。\n\n18. On March 12, 2008，PAX LP 与 Spirit Charter 对2008年融资协议进行了修订并重述（以下简称“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（以下简称“2009年9月契据”），Shiny Times（郭文贵的另一实体）、Spirit Charter、PAX LP 及其他若干方同意，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，包括已产生但未支付的利息，当时为 $45,357,534.25（以下简称“经修订的2008年贷款额度”）。\n\n1 2015年，郭文贵与 Golden Spring 因违反 Fair Labor Standards Act（公平劳动标准法）被起诉；在该诉讼中，郭文贵（通过律师）确认，其在 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 已被适当送达传票及起诉状。Ahn v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al., No. 1:15-cv-09697 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015)。2016年，郭文贵与 Genever（通过律师）就该酒店其公寓发生漏水一事，对 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 及其他方提起诉讼。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\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/18/2017 04:01 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 2　NYSCEF 接收：04/18/2017　案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交 02/28/22　录入 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 44 页，共 73 页\n\n20. 2009年9月契据要求郭文贵向 PAX LP 签署个人担保，以担保 Shiny Times 对经修订的2008年贷款额度的适当、按时履行及偿还。郭文贵于 November 18, 2009 签署其个人担保。\n\n21. 此后，PAX LP、郭文贵与 Shiny Times 同意以 March 16, 2011 签署的两份合同取代上述协议——2011年融资函（附为证据A）及个人担保（附为证据B）。\n\n22. 在2011年融资函中，各方同意 Shiny Times 欠付 PAX LP $46,426,489，并将在 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. 各方还在2011年融资函中同意，Shiny Times 未能支付其根据2011年融资函欠付 PAX LP 的任何款项，均构成违约事件；在此情形下，PAX LP 可：(i) 宣布全部贷款、已产生但未支付的利息及任何其他应付款项立即到期应付，无需进一步催告、通知或任何其他种类的法律手续；及/或 (ii) 宣布2011年融资函终止。\n\n24. 最后，与各方先前协议相同，2011年融资函明确以郭文贵签署个人担保为条件，以全面支持 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……条件是向贷款人交付郭文贵先生的一项新的个人担保（以下简称“个人担保”），以担保借款人适当且按时履行义务，依照本协议全额偿还 [2011年融资函] 项下款项以及全部已产生但未支付的利息。\n\n25. 郭文贵以 Shiny Times 董事身份签署2011年融资函，并于同日签署个人担保；据此，郭文贵同意“不可撤销且无条件地”担保 Shiny Times 支付2011年融资函项下的全部欠付款项。具体而言，郭文贵：\n\n(b) 同意“在 [PAX LP] 提出要求后立即向 [PAX LP] 支付所有到期但未支付的[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 而无效、可撤销、不可执行或不生效，致使 [PAX LP] 遭受的所有损失，按要求向 [PAX LP] 作出赔偿并使其免受损害”；\n\n(d) 同意 PAX LP 的付款要求将构成该付款已到期应付的表面证据；\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) 同意就因行使或执行个人担保而产生的“任何及所有费用、索赔、损失及开支（包括律师费）”向 PAX LP 作出赔偿。\n\n26. 此外，郭文贵同意放弃若干抗辩，包括基于 Shiny Times 清算或解散的抗辩，或基于 PAX LP 因“任何原因”无法向 Shiny Times 追偿的抗辩。郭文贵还同意一项概括性放弃，即放弃基于“任何其他可能导致担保人或任何义务，或本担保或法律赋予 [PAX LP] 的任何权利、权力及救济被解除、减损或以其他方式受到影响的作为、事件或不作为”的任何可设想抗辩。\n\n27. 换言之，郭文贵签署了一项明确且牢不可破的担保，承诺其将在任何情形下清偿 Shiny Times 对 PAX LP 所负债务。\n\n延期及 Shiny Times 最终未能偿还 PAX LP\n\n28. Shiny Times 未在2011年融资函规定的 June 30, 2012 还款日前偿还贷款本金或已产生利息的任何部分，各方随后达成一系列延期协议，每份均称为“和解契据”。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/18/2017 04:01 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 2　NYSCEF 接收：04/18/2017　案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交 02/28/22　录入 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 46 页，共 73 页\n\n29. PAX LP、Shiny Times 与郭文贵于 April 19, 2013，与郭文贵商业帝国中的另一家公司 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资公司，以下简称“Beijing Pangu”）共同订立第一份和解契据（以下简称“原始和解契据”）。\n\n30. 原始和解契据规定，截至原始和解契据签订之日，2011年融资函项下到期应付的未偿总额加上所有已产生但未支付的利息为 $52 million；在满足以下条件后，该金额将不再到期应付：\n\n(a) 如 PAX LP 在三项独立交易中从 Beijing Pangu 完成购买三套公寓，每套约为 $5 million，总计约为 $15 million；以及\n\n(b) 如 Shiny Times 向 PAX LP 完成三笔每笔约为 $5 million 的分期付款——每次独立购买公寓后支付一笔分期款——总计约为 $15 million。\n\n31. 然而，在 PAX LP 可从 Beijing Pangu 购买三套公寓中的任何一套之前，Beijing Pangu 根据原始和解契据须满足与产权、税费及房地产交易其他通常事项有关的若干先决条件。如截至 July 31, 2013，三套公寓中任何一套未满足任何该等条件，原始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 未在 July 31, 2013 前满足该等先决条件，因此 PAX LP 未完成购买任何公寓，且 Shiny Times 未向 PAX LP 支付其根据原始和解契据应付的三笔分期款中的任何一笔。\n\n33. 四份补充和解契据——日期分别为 December 3, 2013、May 15, 2014、July 11, 2014 和 February 10, 2015——延长了原和解契据中的日期，包括还款日期以及北京盘古（Beijing Pangu）满足先决条件的日期。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/18/2017 04:01 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 2 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/18/2017 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 47 页，共 73 页\n\n34. 每份补充契据的条款均与原和解契据相同。每次的结果也都相同：北京盘古从未满足其须满足的条件，因此 PAX LP 无须且未完成对任何公寓的购买，Shiny Times（盛世）也从未支付其根据 2011 Facility Letter 应向 PAX LP 支付的三笔分期付款中的任何一笔。\n\n35. 最后，于 March 31, 2015，Shiny Times 和 PAX LP 连同 Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited（环球机遇控股有限公司）及 Empire Growth Holdings Limited（帝国增长控股有限公司）订立了一份期权协议（以下简称“期权协议”），该协议除其他事项外，规定通过股份出售交易偿还 Shiny Times 欠付 PAX LP 的款项。\n\n36. 根据其条款，如与财产转让有关的若干条件（如期权协议所述）未获满足，期权协议即应终止。上述条件均未获满足，期权协议随即终止，但并未免除 Shiny Times 向 PAX LP 付款的义务。\n\n37. 因此，2011 Facility Letter 恢复完全有效，Kwok（郭文贵）在个人担保书项下的义务可完全强制执行，且 Kwok 根据个人担保书独立就 Shiny Times 根据 2011 Facility Letter 欠付 PAX LP 的全部债务承担责任。\n\nPAX LP 寻求行使其合同权利并追收应付款项\n\n38. 于 October 16, 2015，在和解契据及期权协议终止且 2011 Facility Letter 恢复完全有效后，PAX LP 按照个人担保书条款所载地址，向 Kwok 在香港的地址寄送了一份书面付款催告通知（以下简称“付款催告通知”）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/18/2017 04:01 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 2 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/18/2017 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 48 页，共 73 页\n\n39. 付款催告通知告知 Kwok，Shiny Times“未能偿还”其根据 2011 Facility Letter 到期应付金额的任何部分，并要求其立即支付 \\$71,818,633.44。付款催告通知还告知 Kwok，如其未立即付款，可能会对其提起法律程序，并保留 PAX LP 根据 2011 Facility Letter 和个人担保书享有的合同权利。\n\n40. Kwok 从未回应付款催告通知。\n\n41. 于 February 19, 2016，PAX LP 向 Shiny Times 发出一封函件，要求支付根据 2011 Facility Letter 到期应付的 \\$82,219,404.08（以下简称“Shiny Times 催款函”）；该金额为本金加上按年利率 15% 计算至 Shiny Times 催款函日期的合同利息。\n\n42. Shiny Times 从未回应 Shiny Times 催款函。\n\n43. Shiny Times 未作回应后，PAX LP 于 February 29, 2016 向 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）（“BVI”）法院提出申请，请求任命共同清算人，以使作为一家 BVI 公司的 Shiny Times 进入清算。该申请称：(i) Shiny Times 未支付当时到期应付的 \\$82,410,197.87；(ii) Shiny Times 无力偿还债务；以及 (iii) Shiny Times 资不抵债，应予清算。\n\n44. 虽然 Shiny Times 确实因 BVI 程序而进入清算，但 PAX LP 未能收回其根据 2011 Facility Letter 被欠付的任何款项。\n\n45. 截至目前，Kwok 未偿还任何其根据个人担保书到期应付 PAX LP 的款项。到期应付金额——包括未偿还本金以及已累计但未付利息——目前约为 \\$88 million。\n\n46. 因 Kwok 未偿还任何到期应付 PAX LP 的款项，原告已就强制执行个人担保书产生“成本、索赔损失及费用（包括法律费用）”。根据个人担保书的明示条款，Kwok 有义务赔偿该等金额（见第 25(f) 段）。\n\n第一项——违反合同（针对被告 Kwok）\n\n47. 原告重申并以引用方式纳入第 1 至 46 段所载的每一项指称，如同在此完整列明。\n\n48. 个人担保书要求 Kwok 向 PAX LP 偿还 PAX LP 向 Spirit Charter（精神包租）提供的贷款融资（经修订），连同未付利息。目前到期应付金额约为 \\$88 million。\n\n49. 原告已履行其根据个人担保书（及其他相关协议）承担的义务。\n\n50. Kwok 未偿还任何其根据个人担保书到期应付 PAX LP 的款项。\n\n51. 由于 Kwok 违反其根据个人担保书承担的付款义务，原告持续遭受约 \\$88 million dollars 的损失，该金额仍在继续产生利息。\n\n据此，原告请求对被告作出如下判决：\n\n(a) 根据个人担保书支付 \\$46,426,489；\n\n(b) 支付利息 \\$41,096,982.46；\n\n(c) PAX LP 已因及将继续因根据个人担保书的赔偿条款针对 Kwok 强制执行个人担保书而产生的合理律师费、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已提交：纽约县书记官 04/18/2017 04:01 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 2 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/18/2017 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 50 页，共 73 页\n\n日期：New York, New York\n\n谨呈\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP（塞登集团）\n\n由：SEIDEN GROUP\n\nRobert W. Seiden\nrseiden@seidenlegal.com\n1270 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10020\n\n及\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈律师事务所）\nStuart Sarnoff\nssarnoff@omm.com\nEdward Moss\nemoss@omm.com\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n原告代理律师\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 51 页，共 73 页\n\n附件 6\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 716 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/03/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 52 页，共 73 页\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\n判决书\n\n17 652077\n\nKWOK HOW AN（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 HAO YUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n鉴于，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 于 April 18, 2017 对被告 Kwok Ho Wan，又名 Kwok Ho，又名 Gwo Wen Gui，又名 Guo Wengui，又名 Guo Wen-Gui，又名 Wan Gue Haoyun，又名 Miles Kwok，又名 Haoyun Guo（“Kwok”）提起诉讼，主张针对被告 Kwok 的违约诉因。\n\n鉴于，于 April 18, 2019，原告对 Kwok、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation（与 Genever Holdings LLC 合称“Genever 被告”）提交了第一份修正起诉书，主张：(i) 针对被告 Kwok 的违约诉因；以及 (ii) 针对 Genever 被告的揭开公司面纱诉因。\n\n鉴于，于 July 24, 2020，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（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官审理；该法官作出日期为 September 15, 2020 的裁定及命令，并于 September 16, 2020 录入纽约县书记官办公室，准许原告就修正起诉书第一项违约罪名项提出的动议，并指示原告最迟于 October 14, 2020 通过动议通知提出动议，以确定第一项罪名项的损害赔偿。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 716 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/03/2021 17 652077 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 53 页，共 73 页\n\n鉴于，(i) 于 September 21, 2020，原告通过动议通知提出动议，以确定损害赔偿、法律费用及开支；(ii) 经法院许可并在其他当事方理解该部分将在日后重新提出的情况下，原告同意暂时撤回其申请中与法律费用及开支（即执行成本）有关的部分，且不影响其权利；以及 (iii) 该动议已完成书面陈述并由 Barry R. Ostrager 法官审理；该法官作出日期为 December 18, 2020 的裁定及命令（以下简称“损害赔偿命令”），并于 December 18, 2020 录入纽约县书记官办公室，指示法院书记官为原告并针对被告 Kwok 录入判决，金额为 \\$46,426,489.00，另加自 December 31, 2010 生效日起按年利率 15% 计算的合同利息，以及自该裁定及命令录入之日起按法定年利率 9% 计算的利息。\n\n现根据原告代理律师 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 的动议，裁定如下：\n\n判决：原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，营业地址为 33/F, Three Pacific Place, 1 Queen's Road East, Hong Kong，对居住于 781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022 的被告 Kwok Ho Wan 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\n\\$116,402,019.57，原告得就此执行。\n\n本判决书于 2021 年 2 月 3 日录入。\n\n已提交\n\nFeb 03 2021　书记官\n\nNEW YORK　2021 年 2 月 3 日\n\n县书记官办公室　2\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 716 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/03/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 54 页，共 73 页\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HOW AN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION 及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nEDWARD MOSS 律师的宣誓陈述\n\n被告。\n\n本人 Edward Moss，纽约州法院正式准许执业的律师，特此根据《纽约州民事诉讼法与规则》第 2106 条，在伪证处罚下声明如下：\n\n1. 本人系本院律师协会成员，并为 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 律师事务所合伙人；该所为本案原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）的登记代理律师。\n\n2. 本人充分了解本诉讼的事实及情形。为录入本判决书之目的，本人提交本声明并放弃成本及支出。\n\n日期：January 25, 2021　New York, New York　签署人：/s/ Edward Moss　Edward Moss\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 716 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/03/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交日期 02/28/22 录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 55 页，共 73 页\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县　案号 652077/2017\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WENGUI，又名 WAN GUE HAO-YUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n判决书\n\nO’MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美富律师事务所）\n\nTHE ESSEX SQUARE TOWER - 4 TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 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）的代理律师。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 56 of 73\n\n附件 7\n\n签署于 2011 年 3 月 16 日\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 57 of 73\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），作为保证人\n\n受益人为\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个人保证书\n\n香港\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 58 of 73\n\n本保证书于 2011 年 3 月 16 日作出。\n\n订约方：\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），香港身份证号码 P146467(7) 持有人，地址为香港中环德辅道中 173 号南丰大厦 4 楼 411 室（“保证人”）；及\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），一家根据开曼群岛法律设立的获豁免有限合伙企业，其注册地址为 P.O. Box 472, 2nd Floor, Harbour Place, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands（“PAX”）。\n\n鉴于：\n\nA. 于本保证书日期当日或前后，PAX 与 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（Shiny Times Holdings Limited，“Shiny Times”）订立了一份融资函（“融资函”），据此约定：(a) 截至生效日，融资函项下的本金总额为 US$45,428,489（“未偿还金额”）；及 (b) 该未偿还金额应被视为融资函项下经修订的新本金金额，自生效日起按年利率 15% 计息，直至全部偿还。双方进一步约定，贷款（定义见融资函）的付款到期日为不迟于 30 June 2012。\n\nB. 融资函项下交割的先决条件之一，是保证人交付本保证书，以担保 Shiny Times 在融资函项下或与融资函有关的所有付款及履约义务（“义务”，并据此解释“义务”一词）的适当及按时履行。\n\nC. 双方进一步约定，于生效日后立即，并在融资函项下先决条件完成后，Shiny Times 和保证人应分别就其在《契据》和《函件协议》（两者均定义见融资函）项下的所有义务、责任及职责获得完全解除和免除，因《契据》和《函件协议》产生或与之有关的索赔亦应获得完全解除。\n\n1. 释义\n\n1.1 对协议的提述\n\n除非另有说明，本保证书中对任何协议或文件的任何提述（包括对本保证书或融资函的任何提述）均应解释为对下列文件的提述：\n\n(a) 经不时修订、变更、更替或补充的该等协议或文件；\n\n(b) 据以修订、变更或更替该等协议或文件的任何其他协议或文件；以及\n\n(c) 根据或依照该等协议或文件订立的任何其他协议或文件。\n\n1.2 条款标题\n\n条款标题仅为便于查阅而设，不影响对本保证书的解释。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 59 of 73\n\n2. 保证\n\n2.1 保证及赔偿\n\n保证人特此不可撤销且无条件地：\n\n(a) 向 PAX 保证义务得到适当及按时履行，并同意在 PAX 提出要求后立即向 PAX 支付所有已到期但未付的义务；以及\n\n(b) 同意（作为主债务人而非仅作为保证人）在 PAX 提出要求后，就因任何义务基于任何原因（无论 PAX 或任何其他人是否知悉）对 Shiny Times 成为或变为无效、可撤销、不可执行或不具效力而使 PAX 遭受的所有损失，对 PAX 作出赔偿并使其免受损害；该等损失的金额应为 PAX 原本有权向 Shiny Times 追偿的金额。\n\n但前提是，义务的总责任额或保证人根据本保证书应付的金额，在任何时候均应限于未偿还金额，加上自 31 December 2010 起至所有该等责任获全额支付之日止按年利率 15% 累计的利息。\n\n为免生疑，本保证书于 31 December, 2010 生效（“生效日”）。\n\n2.2 要求付款\n\nPAX 根据本保证书提出的付款要求中所载明的任何义务金额，或保证人根据本保证书应付的金额，应构成该等义务或金额已到期应付的初步证据。\n\n3. 持续性担保\n\n3.1 持续且独立的义务\n\n保证人根据本保证书承担的义务应构成且持续为持续性义务，不因对义务或其中任何一项作出的任何中间付款而被解除或免除；该等义务应持续具有完全效力，直至义务获得无条件且不可撤销的全额支付及解除，并且该等义务是在 PAX 就义务或其中任何一项可能于任何时间持有的任何其他担保（或任何抵销权）之外且独立于该等担保，不应损害或与该等担保合并。\n\n3.2 付款的撤销\n\n如 PAX 就任何义务所持有的任何解除、免除或其他安排，是依赖于任何在破产、清算或其他情形下被撤销或必须返还（无论全部或部分）的付款或其他处分而作出，且无论 PAX 是否已承认或和解任何关于该等付款或其他处分将会或应当被撤销或返还（全部或部分）的索赔，本保证书应继续有效，如同该等解除、免除或其他安排从未被作出。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 60 of 73\n\n3.3 立即追索\n\n在行使本保证书或法律赋予 PAX 的任何权利之前，PAX 无义务先行寻求向 Shiny Times 追偿到期款项，或行使或执行其就义务可能拥有或持有的任何其他权利或担保。\n\n3.4 放弃抗辩\n\n本保证书所载保证人的义务，或本保证书或法律赋予 PAX 的权利、权力及救济，不应因下列事项而被解除、减损或以其他方式影响：\n\n(a) Shiny Times 或任何其他人的清盘、解散、管理或重组，或 Shiny Times 或任何该等人士的地位、职能、控制权或所有权发生任何变更；\n\n(b) 任何义务或 PAX 就该等义务持有的任何担保在任何方面成为或变为非法、无效、不可执行或不具效力；\n\n(c) 就下列事项授予或同意授予任何期限或其他宽限：(i) 就义务或其中任何一项向 Shiny Times 或任何其他人授予或与其约定；或 (ii) 就 PAX 就该等义务持有的任何担保授予；\n\n(d) 对义务或其中任何一项，或 PAX 就该等义务持有的任何担保作出的任何修订、变更、弃权或解除；\n\n(e) 未能全部或部分取得或完善拟就义务或其中任何一项取得的任何担保；\n\n(f) 未能全部或部分实现 PAX 就义务或其中任何一项持有的任何担保的价值，或对该等担保作出的任何解除、免除、交换或替换；或\n\n(g) 任何其他作为、事件或不作为，如其可能导致保证人、任何义务，或本保证书或法律赋予 PAX 的任何权利、权力及救济被解除、减损或以其他方式受到影响。\n\n3.5 不与 PAX 竞争\n\n保证人可能因义务而享有的任何分担或赔偿权利，或以其他方式作为 Shiny Times、任何其他人或其遗产的债权人与 PAX 竞争而提出索赔或申报债权的任何权利，保证人仅可在 PAX 要求的情况下，并在 PAX 指定的方式及条款下行使；保证人应以信托方式为 PAX 持有因行使任何该等权利而持有或收到的所有款项、权利或担保，以按照本保证书条款适用，如同该等款项、权利或担保由 PAX 根据本保证书持有或收到。\n\n3.6 款项分配\n\nPAX 无义务将其就义务持有或收到的任何款项用于或用于支付义务；所有该等款项均可记入暂记账户或非个人账户，并在该账户中持有，直至不时按照 PAX 认为适当的方式，将该等款项用于清偿 PAX 选择的保证人对 PAX 所负义务。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 61 of 73\n\n4. 付款\n\n4.1 补足付款\n\n保证人根据本保证书作出的所有付款，均应不附带且不扣除任何款项，并应免于且不因税款而被扣除；但在后一种情况下，如法律要求保证人在纳税条件下付款，则不在此限。如必须从保证人根据本保证书应付或已付的任何金额中扣除任何税款或与税款有关的金额，或必须作出任何其他扣除，保证人应支付为确保 PAX 收到的净额等于如付款未附带纳税条件时其原本会收到的全额所必需的额外金额。\n\n4.2 不得抵销的付款\n\n保证人根据本保证书作出的所有付款，均应不附带且不因任何抵销或反诉而扣除任何款项。\n\n4.3 付款方式\n\n保证人根据本保证书作出的所有付款，均应按 PAX 要求的方式支付。\n\n5. 成本及费用\n\n5.1 交易成本\n\n保证人应在 PAX 提出要求后，按全额赔偿基础向 PAX 偿还 PAX 因准备、谈判及签署本保证书而发生的所有成本及费用（包括律师费）。\n\n5.2 印花税\n\n保证人应及时支付本保证或与本保证有关的任何判决书不时可能须缴纳的所有印花税、登记税及其他税款，并应在被要求时，就因未支付或延迟支付任何该等税款而产生的所有债务、费用、索赔及开支（包括法律费用）向PAX作出赔偿，使PAX免受损害。\n\n5.3 赔偿\n\n保证人应就PAX因行使或执行本保证或法律赋予PAX的任何权利或权力而可能产生的任何及所有费用、索赔、损失、开支（包括法律费用）及债务，向PAX作出赔偿并使其免受损害。\n\n6. 放弃及救济\n\nPAX未行使或延迟行使本保证项下的任何权利或救济，不构成对该等权利或救济的放弃；任何该等权利或救济的单次或部分行使，亦不妨碍其后进一步或以其他方式行使该等权利或救济，或行使任何其他该等权利或救济。\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 17　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/29/2017　已提交：纽约县书记官 07/24/2020 11:49 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 455　NYSCEF 收件日期：07/24/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 62 页，共 73 页\n\n7. 附加条款\n\n7.1 部分无效\n\n如本保证的任何条款在任何时候在任何方面属或成为非法、无效或不可执行，或本保证根据任何司法管辖区的法律在任何方面属或成为无效，则该等非法、无效、不可执行或无效性不影响：\n\n(a) 本保证其余条款的合法性、有效性或可执行性，或本保证根据该等法律在任何其他方面的有效性；或\n\n(b) 该等条款的合法性、有效性或可执行性，或本保证根据任何其他司法管辖区法律的有效性。\n\n7.2 可能被撤销的付款\n\n如PAX确定，根据融资函向其支付的款项，在付款人清算或管理时可能被撤销或以其他方式废止，则就本保证而言，该等款项应视为未曾支付。\n\n7.3 货币兑换\n\n为将PAX持有或收到的任何款项用于或抵偿债务，PAX可以购买另一种货币的款项，所使用的汇率应为PAX在其认为适当的时间能够完成该项购买的汇率。\n\n7.4 货币赔偿\n\n如保证人根据本保证，或根据就本保证作出或作出的任何命令或判决书应付的任何款项，须为以下目的而从该款项根据本保证或该等命令或判决书应支付的货币（“第一货币”）兑换为另一种货币（“第二货币”）：(a) 对保证人提出或提交索赔或债权证明，(b) 在任何法院或其他审裁机构取得命令或判决书，或(c) 执行就本保证作出或作出的任何命令或判决书，则保证人应就因下列两者之间的任何差异而遭受或产生的任何损失向PAX作出赔偿并使其免受损害：(i) 为该等目的将有关款项从第一货币兑换为第二货币时所采用的汇率；及(ii) PAX在其正常业务过程中，于收到为全部或部分清偿任何该等命令、判决书、索赔或债权证明而向其支付的款项后，可以第二货币购买第一货币的汇率或汇率。\n\n7.5 权利的累积性\n\n本保证所规定的权利和救济具有累积性，并不排除法律规定的任何权利或救济。\n\n8. 转让\n\n8.1 保证人的权利及义务\n\n保证人根据本保证享有的权利及承担的义务不得转让或移转，且未经PAX事先书面同意，保证人不得声称转让任何或所有该等权利或义务。\n\n8.2 PAX的权利\n\nPAX根据本保证享有的权利可全部或部分转让，且PAX可在未经保证人同意的情况下转让任何或所有该等权利。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/29/2017 05:31 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 17　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/29/2017\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 07/24/2020 11:49 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 455　NYSCEF 收件日期：07/24/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 63 页，共 73 页\n\n9. 通知\n\n9.1 书面通讯\n\n根据本保证作出的每项通讯均应以书面作出，但除非另有说明，可以传真或信函方式作出。\n\n9.2 通知的送达\n\n任何人根据本保证向另一人作出或交付的任何通讯或文件，应向该另一人作出或交付至该人的授权地址或传真号码，除非该另一人已提前3日向另一方发出书面通知，指定另一地址或传真号码；如以传真作出的任何通讯，则应视为在发出时已经作出或交付；如以信函作出的任何通讯，则应视为在留置于该地址时，或视情况而定，在将已预付邮资、写明该地址的信封投寄后五日已经作出或交付。在不影响前述规定的前提下，为第9条之目的，各方的授权地址及传真号码如下：\n\nPA：\n\n地址：\n\n香港中环干诺道中1号友邦金融中心15楼\n\n传真：+852 2916 0881　收件人：Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯），集团总法律顾问\n\n保证人：\n\n地址：香港中环德辅道中173号南丰大厦41楼411室\n\n副本送达：\n\n地址：Stevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文森、黄律师事务所）\n\n香港中环皇后大道中28号\n\n中汇大厦4楼\n\n传真：+852 2668 9928\n\n收件人：Hank Lo（罗先生）\n\n9.3 致PA的通知\n\n向PAX作出或交付的任何通讯或文件，仅在PAX收到时生效，且仅在其明确标明由下列人员注意时生效：\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 17　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/29/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 455　NYSCEF 收件日期：07/24/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 64 页，共 73 页\n\nPA下方签署栏中注明的部门或高级人员，或PAX不时为此目的指定的其他部门或高级人员。\n\n9.4 英语\n\n根据本保证一方当事人向另一方当事人作出或交付的每项通讯及文件，均应以英语作出，或附有经作出或交付该等通讯及文件之人的高级人员证明为真实准确的英语译本。\n\n10. 准据法\n\n本保证受香港法律管辖，并应根据香港法律解释。\n\n11. 管辖权\n\n11.1 香港法院\n\n保证人和PAX各自不可撤销地同意，香港法院对审理和裁定可能因本保证引起或与本保证有关的任何诉讼、行动或程序，以及解决任何争议，均具有管辖权（分别称为“程序”和“争议”）；为该等目的，各自不可撤销地服从该等法院的管辖。\n\n11.2 适当法院\n\n保证人不可撤销地放弃其目前或日后可能就程序在香港法院提起或争议在香港法院解决提出的任何异议，并同意不主张任何该等法院并非方便或适当的审理法院。\n\n11.3 送达程序文件\n\n保证人同意，在香港进行的所有程序中，启动程序的程序文件可通过亲自交付给保证人的方式向其送达。\n\n11.4 其他司法管辖区的程序\n\n第11.1条（香港法院）的任何规定不得、亦不得被解释为限制PAX在任何其他有管辖权的法院对保证人提起程序的权利；在任何一个或多个司法管辖区提起程序，亦不妨碍在任何其他司法管辖区提起程序（无论是否并行），但以适用法律允许的范围为限。\n\n11.5 一般同意\n\n保证人就任何程序一般性地同意作出任何救济或发出任何与该等程序有关的程序文件，包括对任何财产（无论其用途或预定用途为何）作出、执行或强制执行在该等程序中可能作出或给出的任何命令或判决书。\n\n12. 副本\n\n本保证可签署多个副本，该等副本合并后构成同一份文书。\n\n13. 主权豁免\n\n在保证人可能有权在任何香港法院或其他法院，就其本人或其收入、资产或财产，主张免于程序文件送达、免于诉讼、免于任何法院管辖、免于为协助执行或强制执行判决书（中间判决或终局判决）而被扣押，或免于任何其他法律程序的主权豁免的范围内；以及在任何该等司法管辖区可能享有该等主权豁免的范围内（无论是否提出主张），保证人不可撤销地同意不主张该等主权豁免，并在此不可撤销地放弃该等主权豁免。\n\n兹证明，本保证已由保证人正式签署，并已由PAX签字。\n\n签署页\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/29/2017 05:31 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 17　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/29/2017\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 07/24/2020 11:49 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 455　NYSCEF 收件日期：07/24/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 66 页，共 73 页\n\n个人保证\n\n见证人签名：　姓名：　地址：　职业：　签署人：Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯），Pacific Alliance Group Asset Management Limited（太平洋联盟集团资产管理有限公司）董事，该公司为PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的普通合伙人，于下列见证人在场时签署：\n\n见证人签名：　姓名：　地址：　职业：\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 67 页，共 73 页\n\n证物8\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/30/2020 12:49 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 590　NYSCEF 收件日期：09/30/2020\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 68 页，共 73 页\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/30/2020 12:49 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 590　NYSCEF 收件日期：09/30/2020\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 69 页，共 73 页\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 09/30/2020 12:49 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 590　NYSCEF 收件日期：09/30/2020\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 70 页，共 73 页\n\n各方必须向法院提供一份联合出庭登记表，其中载明所有联系信息（包括电子邮件地址）及代理情况。请最迟于2020年10月5日中午前，将该等信息通过一封电子邮件发送至plperuta@nycourts.gov。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 50-1　提交日期 02/28/22　录入日期 02/28/22 21:19:53　第 71 页，共 73 页\n\n证物9\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县（NEW YORK COUNTY）\n\n出席法官：BARRY R. OSTRAGER法官　庭别：IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）　案号：652077/2017\n原告　动议日期\n－\n诉\n－\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名　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及GENEVER HOLDINGS　动议裁定及命令\nCORPORATION，\n被告。\n\nBARRY R. OSTRAGER法官\n\n2020年10月15日，法院通过 Microsoft Teams，就原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出的判决后限制令动议（动议 011）举行口头辩论，各方律师均参与其中。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；损害赔偿数额及公司被告是否为被告 Kwok（郭文贵）的另我，将于日后确定。NYSCEF Doc. 549。\n\n原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出的限制令动议获准。Kwok（郭文贵）先生被限制不得就其直接或间接拥有权益的任何财产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或随后到期应付给其的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外，并依照 October 15, 2020 庭审记录所载的程序执行。\n\n具体而言，Kwok（郭文贵）先生及/或以下资产的登记所有人被限制不得就该等资产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰：(1) 位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-内特兰酒店）的住宅；以及 (2) 游艇“the Lady May（五月女士号）”。\n\n原告有权依据 CPLR 5229 就上述确认的资产进行证据开示，并有权就 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下一次出庭将于 November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm 通过 Microsoft Teams 举行审前会议。\n\nOctober 15, 2020\n日期　\\$SIG\\$\nBARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）, J.S.C.\n\n勾选一项：　案件已处置\nX\n准许\n驳回　X\n非终局性处置\n部分准许\n其他\n申请：　协商裁定　提交裁定\n如适用请勾选：　包括移送/重新分配　受托人任命\n移交","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":5,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":25,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":121,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":372,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":461,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":590,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":709,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":785,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":833,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":17941,"status":"published","published_at":"2017-04-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2017-04-18","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:54:29"}