{"id":"court_ctb_57_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":57,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":null,"title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | |--------------------------------|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n\n| In re:                                       | Chapter 11 Case No. |\n|----------------------------------------------|---------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok1                                 | 22-50073 (JAM)      |\n| Debtor.                                      |                     |\n|                                              |                     |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., |                     |\n| Movant,                                      |                     |\n| vs.                                          |                     |\n| Ho Wan Kwok,                                 |                     |\n| Respondent                                   | March 1, 2022       |\n|                                              |                     |\n\n# **MOTION OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO SECTION 362(d)(2) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE**\n\nTO THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") moves (this \"Motion\") for an\n\norder, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, confirming that the automatic stay\n\nis inapplicable to a discrete pre-petition proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of the State of\n\nNew York (Justice Ostrager presiding), holding the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (\"Kwok\"), in civil\n\ncontempt for failure to return his yacht, the \"Lady May,\" to New York in violation of that court's\n\norders.<sup>2</sup> In issuing his February 9, 2022 final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok, Justice\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Liquidation of the Lady May, which Justice Ostrager found Kwok \"beneficially owns and controls,\" and distribution of resulting proceeds should occur in the chapter 11 process (to the extent this case is not dismissed).\n\nOstrager warned, \"if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law.\"<sup>3</sup> This applies with equal force to these chapter 11 proceedings. Kwok cannot exploit the protections of the Bankruptcy Code to evade Justice Ostrager's orders, and the automatic stay does not allow him to do so.\n\nKwok's contumacious behavior is long-standing and flagrant. First, Kwok moved the Lady May out of the jurisdiction of the New York Supreme Court in direct violation of that court's September 30 and October 15, 2020 Orders.<sup>4</sup> Then, in March 2021, Justice Ostrager issued a conditional order of civil contempt—which was unanimously affirmed by the New York Appellate Division, First Department<sup>5</sup>—requiring Kwok or the registered owner to return the Lady May by May 15, 2021 or face a daily \\$500,000 fine for each day that the yacht remained outside of that court's jurisdiction.<sup>6</sup> Nearly a year later, after an evidentiary hearing, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order directing (i) Kwok to pay \\$134 million (\\$500,000 per day for the period between May 15, 2021 and February 7, 2022); and (ii) continued accrual of the \\$500,000 daily fine if the Lady May was not returned to the court's jurisdiction within ten business days from notice of entry.<sup>7</sup> One day before the deadline to pay the \\$134 million contempt fine to PAX, and after Kwok's efforts to obtain an emergency stay of that order pending appeal failed, Kwok filed this chapter 11 case. But bankruptcy protection is\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See* Declaration of Peter Friedman in support of Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. for a Declaration of Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, attached hereto as Exhibit B (\"Friedman Decl.\"), Ex. 1. Decision + Order on Mot, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1181 (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") at 10. 4\n\nFriedman Decl., Ex. 2, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok,* 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 591; Friedman Decl., Ex. 3, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok,* 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 630. <sup>5</sup> *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021).\n\n<sup>6</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 4, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728 (\"Initial Contempt Order,\" and together with the February 9 Contempt Order, the \"Contempt Orders\"). 7 Friedman Decl., Ex. 5, Final Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1182, at 2.\n\nfor honest, good-faith debtors. And the automatic stay does not shield debtors from the consequences of defying court orders and assaulting the dignity of the judicial system. Therefore, PAX asks this Court to enter an order confirming its right to institute further proceedings to enforce Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order.\n\nAlternatively, PAX moves for relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rule 4001of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to permit enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order, except to the extent it requires Kwok to immediately pay money to PAX. Such relief includes enforcing the February 9 Contempt Order to ensure the return of the Lady May to New York, allowing continued accrual of fines (which constitute debts that Kwok cannot discharge in this chapter 11 case), and permitting Justice Ostrager to order any other appropriate sanctions (including issuance of an arrest warrant),<sup>8</sup> if Kwok fails to promptly return the Lady May to New York.<sup>9</sup>\n\nIn support thereof, PAX respectfully represents as follows:\n\n#### **JURISDICTION**\n\n1. This Court has jurisdiction over this Motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, and, for purposes of this Motion, PAX accepts that venue may be proper in this district without prejudice to any future motion to transfer venue. This Motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §157(b), and the basis for PAX's requested relief is section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See, e.g.*, NY Judiciary Law § 753 (\"A court of record has power to punish, by fine and imprisonment, or either, a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct, by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special proceeding, pending in the court may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced.\").\n\n<sup>9</sup> PAX intends to initiate an adversary proceeding to confirm the non-dischargeability of the civil contempt fines issued by Justice Ostrager. *See In re Singer*, No. 10–00045, 2010 WL 3732944 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010) (contempt sanctions non-dischargeable in bankruptcy); *In re Marini,* 28 B.R. 262, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (same).\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n2. Nearly eleven years ago, PAX signed a loan agreement with a Kwok-owned entity called Shiny Times.<sup>10</sup> Kwok personally guaranteed that loan.<sup>11</sup> Despite multiple repayment extensions and PAX's numerous attempts to settle the debt, Kwok has never repaid the loan.<sup>12</sup>\n\n3. PAX sued Kwok for breach of the personal guarantee contract on April 18, 2017 in New York State Supreme Court.<sup>13</sup> Following nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, PAX secured a judgment against Kwok for \\$116,402,019.57.<sup>14</sup> PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States.\"<sup>15</sup> This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"<sup>16</sup> Kwok has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which accrued post-judgment interest at the rate of 9 percent per year.<sup>17</sup>\n\n<sup>10</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 6, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 549, at 2.\n\n<sup>11</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>12</sup> *Id.* at 7.\n\n<sup>13</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 7, Compl., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017), ECF No. 2.\n\n<sup>14</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 8, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716 at 2.\n\n<sup>15</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n<sup>16</sup> *Id*.\n\n<sup>17</sup> N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022); Friedman Decl., Ex. 8 at 2; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 9, Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 23 at KWOK000652, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 455 (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\").\n\n4. Although Kwok claims to have no assets,<sup>18</sup> he has (at a minimum) beneficial ownership of the Lady May, purchased in 2015 for € 28 million.<sup>19</sup> On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\"<sup>20</sup> Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that this restraint on Kwok included the Lady May.<sup>21</sup> But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9.<sup>22</sup> The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe, where it remains to this day.<sup>23</sup>\n\n5. In response, PAX filed a contempt motion<sup>24</sup> and on March 16, 2021, the court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing Kwok or the boat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction by May 15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained beyond its jurisdiction.<sup>25</sup> The New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's order, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok had] violated a lawful\n\n<sup>18</sup> *See United States Trustee's Objection to Debtor's Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs*, ECF No. 49, at ¶ 12 (during his Initial Debtor Interview with the United States Trustee, Kwok \"disclosed he has no bank accounts, no credit cards, is not employed such that he earns income, and that all of his living expenses are paid for and through an entity known as Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. ('Golden Spring'). [He] also disclosed that he does not directly own any real estate, does not own any cars, and does not insure any assets.\").\n\n<sup>19</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 at 4. Although Kwok denies it, he also owns a full-floor luxury apartment at the Sherry Netherland hotel that is currently listed for sale at \\$45 million in connection with a related bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York.\n\n<sup>20</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 2.\n\n<sup>21</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 3 at 1.\n\n<sup>22</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 10 (VESSELFINDER, Voyage Analyzer\n\nhttp) (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).\n\n<sup>23</sup> As of February 28, 2022, the Lady May is located in Genoa, Italy. *See id.*\n\n<sup>24</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 11, PAX Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 689; *see also* Friedman Decl., Ex. 12, PAX Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. For Order of Contempt Against Def. Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709.\n\n<sup>25</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2. In other words, the court provided Mr. Kwok a full two-month grace period to return the yacht and thereby avoid any fine at all.\n\nclear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"<sup>26</sup>; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt.\"<sup>27</sup> Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.<sup>28</sup>\n\n6. Justice Ostrager held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After hearing testimony from seven witnesses,<sup>29</sup> Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [Kwok]'s witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"<sup>30</sup> The court further found that \"[n]ot only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"<sup>31</sup> As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 Contempt Order.<sup>32</sup>\n\n7. Consistent with his past practice of flouting court orders, Kwok failed to pay the contempt fine, and has not returned the yacht to the United States.<sup>33</sup> Instead, on February 15, 2022, Kwok filed for bankruptcy in this Court.<sup>34</sup> Kwok's bankruptcy petition lists \\$50,001-\n\n<sup>26</sup> *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*, 199 A.D.3d at 423.\n\n<sup>27</sup> *Id.* at 424.\n\n<sup>28</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>29</sup> Kwok invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery efforts and Kwok did not testify at the February 2 hearing. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 3.\n\n<sup>30</sup> *Id.* at 4. <sup>31</sup> *Id.* at 8.\n\n<sup>32</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 5.\n\n<sup>33</sup> *See supra* note 23.\n\n<sup>34</sup> Voluntary Petition, ECF No. 1 at 7.\n\n\\$100,000 in assets<sup>35</sup>—omitting the valuable Lady May, which remains outside of the United States,<sup>36</sup> unsupervised by any trustworthy fiduciary.\n\n8. In light of Kwok's history of contumacious behavior and extensive \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members,\"<sup>37</sup> PAX respectfully urges this Court to order that the automatic stay does not bar it from resuming the contempt proceedings before Justice Ostrager to seek to force Kwok to return the Lady May to New York, and to permit Justice Ostrager to impose any available penalties on Kwok other than ordering him to make an immediate monetary payment to PAX. In the alternative, PAX respectfully requests this Court provide narrow relief from the automatic stay to allow PAX to proceed before Justice Ostrager to obtain the same result.\n\n### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n9. By this Motion, PAX requests a determination that the automatic stay is inapplicable to the enforcement of Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order. In the alternative, PAX requests an order modifying the automatic stay to permit PAX to enforce the February 9 Contempt Order, except to the extent any relief requires Kwok to immediately pay any money to PAX.<sup>38</sup>\n\n<sup>35</sup> *Id.* at 7.\n\n<sup>36</sup> *See supra* note 23. As noted above, Kwok also fails to list the considerable value of the Sherry-Netherland apartment that he purchased for \\$67.5 million in March 2015, which he owns through two shell companies, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\") and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever NY\"). *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, Executed Contract of Sale, *Kwok v. PAX*, Index No. 652077/2017, ECF No. 256 (Executed Contract of Sale listing \"Genever Holdings LLC\" as the purchaser); *see also id.* at SN 0047 (Purchase Application listing \"'Miles' Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)\" as the applicant). Consistent with Kwok's actions here, Genever NY also declared bankruptcy immediately after PAX won summary judgment in late 2020. *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 1:20-bk-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).\n\n<sup>37</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n<sup>38</sup> PAX filed—prepetition—another contempt motion in the New York court concerning Kwok's failure to turn over his shares in a British Virgin Islands-registered company, Genever BVI, in accordance with Justice Ostrager's September 22, 2021 order. *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision + Order on Mot., *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 904. That motion has been fully briefed since January 24, 2022 and is\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **I. THE AUTOMATIC STAY IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE CONTEMPT ORDER AS IT RELATES TO THE RETURN OF THE LADY MAY.**\n\n10. Criminal contempt proceedings are statutorily exempt from the automatic stay. *See* § 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(1) (\"commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor\" not subject to the stay.) Civil contempt remedies can be issued by courts to \"secure future compliance with a court order\" or \"provide compensation or other remedial relief\" to a party for another party's failure to comply with a court order. *Universal City Studios v. New York Broadway Int'l Corp*., 705 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1983); *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nair*, 3:10cv88 (SRU), 2011 WL 1832774, at \\*2 (D. Conn. May 13, 2011). Although there is no *per se*  exception from the automatic stay for civil contempt proceedings, \"certain civil contempt proceedings may continue even in the face of a bankruptcy petition.\" *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc.*, 62 B.R. 723, 727 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Courts distinguish between civil contempt \"motion[s] made to punish, and [those] made to collect on a judgment,\" finding the former exempt from the stay. *Id.* at 729; *see also Booth v. Wilson,* No. 96 CIV. 920 (RO), 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1997) (\"The threshold issue is whether the motion for contempt is made to satisfy a judgment or if it is directed at an asserted defiance of a court order.\").\n\n11. Courts routinely hold that civil contempt orders that are designed to punish debtors for non-compliance with court orders are not subject to the automatic stay because bankruptcy does not provide a safe harbor for parties that have engaged in sanctionable conduct\n\npending. On February 18, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a notice requesting that PAX, by March 3, 2022, withdraw the motion without prejudice in light of Kwok's bankruptcy filing. Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Court Notice, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1191. PAX intends to do so, and is not now seeking this Court's confirmation that the automatic stay is inapplicable to that contempt proceeding, but may, and reserves the right to, do so in the future.\n\nthat is an affront to the dignity of a court. And the bankruptcy process may not be \"used as a sword\" to prevent courts from punishing contemptuous acts. *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.,* 62 B.R. at 730. For example, in *Roberts v. Bennaceur*, No. 3:12-CV-01222, 2015 WL 1471889, (D. Conn. 2015), the defendant filed for bankruptcy after repeatedly failing to disclose information relating to its assets and financial condition. Judge Meyer held that the bankruptcy filing did not preclude the Court from issuing sanctions relating to the debtor's abuses of the disclosure and discovery process, stating:\n\n[t]he bankruptcy stay does not preclude plaintiff from seeking sanctions against the individual defendants' [violations of the Court's orders], even violations relevant to claims that are stayed. I am entitled to 'continue to ... consider whether the defendant[s]' 'may be sanctioned as a result of their failure 'to comply with a prior [] order' as long as the sanction does not have the effect of 'securing assets protected by the stay or harassing' the debtor.\n\n*Id.* at \\*16 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the court sanctioned the debtor and its officers *after* the bankruptcy filing. Other courts agree, recognizing that contempt orders may be enforced against a debtor in bankruptcy to protect the dignity of the court and punish the debtor for disobeying court orders. *See Shaoxing Bon Textiles Co., Ltd. v. 4-U Performance Grp. LLC*, 16 Civ. 6805, 2017 WL 6413993, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (motion for relief from the stay unnecessary where \"the proceeding in reality is one to punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of [the] court.\"); *In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, Inc.*, 62 B.R. 369, 378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) *aff'd*, 70 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1986), 831 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1987) (\"a state court prepetition order which does not relate to the collection of prepetition claims or property of the estate may be enforced by contempt proceedings against the debtor and its officers in order to vindicate the dignity of the state court without violating the automatic stay.\"); *Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 729–30 (concluding that its \"inherent power to 'punish the debtor for contumacious conduct against the dignity of either the state or federal court,' is not\n\ncurtailed by the bankruptcy action\" and finding stay inapplicable where contempt request was \"designed to uphold an order of this Court, and [wa]s not one calculated to enforce a money judgment.\"); *Booth,* 1997 WL 241050, at \\*2 (\"this contempt order enforcing my pre-bankruptcy order to compel discovery is not stayed by § 362(a) as it is 'vindicat[ing] the integrity of the court.'\").\n\n12. Consistent with these authorities, the automatic stay is inapplicable to past and future contempt orders designed to ensure Kwok's compliance with court orders. Justice Ostrager did not hold Kwok in contempt for failing to satisfy PAX's judgment or to compensate PAX for any monetary loss. Indeed, the fine imposed is separate from the judgment on PAX's breach of contract claim. That court held Kwok in contempt because of his flagrant and continued disregard of court orders. And PAX is not \"moving at this time out of a 'collection motive,'\" but rather for leave to seek enforcement of Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order requiring the return of the Lady May to New York,<sup>39</sup> which has remained outside of the New York Supreme Court's jurisdiction contrary to court orders for more than a year. *See Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 730 (stay inapplicable where movant was not moving out of a \"collection motive\"). Continuation of the contempt proceedings is necessary to protect the dignity of the New York Supreme Court (and has the added benefit of forcing Kwok to return property he beneficially owns to the United States). Therefore, the New York Supreme Court should be permitted to take any actions it deems necessary in the contempt proceedings, short of enforcing the collection of fines, without stay relief.\n\n13. To the extent this Court may be concerned about any impact on Kwok's estate, the Court can clarify that the automatic stay applies to the enforcement or collection of any fines\n\n<sup>39</sup> *See* Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2 (\"Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request.\").\n\nor other relief against property of the estate during the pendency of the automatic stay. *See Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc.*, 62 B.R. at 730 (the automatic stay is inapplicable where the order is not \"calculated to *enforce a money judgment*, or to harass a defendant.\") (emphasis added). Moreover, this Court can make clear that future disposition of the Lady May is within the exclusive purview of this Court (absent further Court order).\n\n## **II. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE AUTOMATIC STAY SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUSTICE OSTRAGER'S ORDERS.**\n\n14. Even if the automatic stay applies to the February 9 Contempt Order, good cause exists to modify the stay pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 362(d)(1).\n\n15. The decision to modify the automatic stay is \"committed to the sound discretion of the court.\" *In re David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 2325758, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 22, 2018); *In re Wysocki*, No. 3:16-CV-248, 2016 WL 4099031, at \\*4 (D. Conn. Aug. 2, 2016)*.* Under Bankruptcy Code section 362(d), relief from the automatic stay shall be granted \"for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest.\" *See* 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1). The Bankruptcy Code does not define \"cause.\" *In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.*, 907 F.2d 1280, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990). In *Sonnax*, the Second Circuit enumerated twelve factors which serve as the touchpoint when courts determine whether relief from the automatic stay should be granted to permit litigation to continue in another forum.<sup>40</sup> *See, e.g., In re Case*, 384 F. App'x 43, 44 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting the Bankruptcy Court properly\n\n<sup>40</sup> Those factors are: \"(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action; (5) whether the debtor's insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending it; (6) whether the action primarily involves third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant's success in the other proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor; (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; (11) whether the parties are ready for trial in the other proceeding; and (12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.\" *Sonnax*, 907 F.2d at 1286.\n\nconsidered the *Sonnax* factors); *In re Friedberg*, No. 08–51245, 2009 WL 1292273, at \\*2 (Bankr. D. Conn., May 8, 2009) (applying the *Sonnax* factors). The Court need not assign equal weight to each factor, nor are all factors relevant in each case. *See In re David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2018), *appeal dismissed,* No. 28cv778, 2018 WL 3079470 (D. Conn, Jun. 21, 2018). Rather, \"[w]hen applying these factors and considering whether to modify the automatic stay, the Court should take into account the particular circumstances of the case, and ascertain what is just to the claimants, and the estate.\" *Id.* at \\*5 (citing *In re Taub*, 413 B.R. 55, 62 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)).\n\nHere, the relevant *Sonnax* factors are:\n\n- \"(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;\"\n- \"(2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;\"\n- \"(4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action;\"\n- \"(7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors;\"\n- \"(10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation;\" and\n- \"(12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.\"<sup>41</sup>\n\n# **A. Stay Relief Will Resolve Issues Important to the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n16. The first *Sonnax* factor weighs in favor of lifting the stay. The February 9\n\nContempt Order has the ultimate goal of seeing the return of the Lady May to New York.\n\n<sup>41</sup> The other *Sonnax* factors are inapposite. In particular, there is no possible basis for equitably subordinating PAX's claim on a personal guarantee from Kwok (*Sonnax* factor 8), and none of the orders issued by Justice Ostrager will give rise to a voidable lien (*Sonnax* factor 9).\n\n17. As Justice Ostrager determined, the Lady May is an asset available for satisfaction of Kwok's debts.<sup>42</sup> The court found that Kwok \"has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May,\" he not only \"control[s] the yacht\" but \"provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"<sup>43</sup> Accordingly, Kwok's interests in the Lady May must be made available to creditors in this chapter 11 case, despite Kwok's \"extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors.\"<sup>44</sup> Not only did Kwok fail to return the Lady May to New York in violation of Justice Ostrager's orders, but on filing his bankruptcy petition (and in his amended petition), notwithstanding Justice Ostrager's clear findings in his February 9, 2022 Order, Kwok failed to include the Lady May's value among his assets.<sup>45</sup> A chapter 11 debtor has a duty to disclose all assets—of all types—in a chapter 11 petition. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (a debtor's estate consists of \"all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property.\"); *Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., Inc.*, 233 B.R. 46, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\"A basic tenet of bankruptcy law is that all assets of the debtor . . . are assets of the bankruptcy estate that must be scheduled for the benefit of creditors.\"); *In re Beckford*, 729 F. App'x 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2018) (\"The filing of a bankruptcy petition creates a bankruptcy estate that is comprised of 'all legal or equitable interests of the debtor.'\"). Kwok's willful failure to include the value of the Lady May as an asset in his petition—just six days after Justice Ostrager unambiguously ruled that Kwok beneficially owned and controlled it—is a continuation of his scheme to keep the Lady May out of the reach of his creditors. This scheme must end.\n\n<sup>42</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 8–9.\n\n<sup>43</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>44</sup> *Id.* at 9; *see also id.* at 7 (discussing the \"machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May.\")\n\n<sup>45</sup> Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7 (listing assets as between \\$50,001 - \\$100,000); *cf.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10 (noting the € 28 million [sic] purchase price of the Lady May).\n\n18. Allowing continued efforts before Justice Ostrager to have the Lady May returned to New York will resolve a pertinent issue to this chapter 11 case. *See In re Fleming*, No. 19- 51611, 2020 WL 3816282, at \\*3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jul. 2, 2020) (the fact state court proceedings could resolve issues in an adversary proceeding, weighed in favor of stay relief). Return of the Lady May to New York will facilitate the marshaling of that asset and the ultimate distribution of the proceeds for the benefit of all creditors. It will also resolve PAX's year-long effort to have the yacht within the New York Supreme Court's jurisdiction, a further factor supporting relief from the automatic stay. *In re Ice Cream Liquidation Inc.*, 281 B.R. 154, 166 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002) (complete resolution of an issue related to the Debtor favored stay relief); *David X. Manners Co.*, 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6 (even partial resolution of the issues weighs in favor of lifting the stay).\n\n# **B. Enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order Will Not Interfere with the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n19. For similar reasons, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order will not interfere with the bankruptcy case; rather, it will complement and facilitate these proceedings, *In re Dunne*, No. 13–50484, 2015 WL 7625609, at \\*6 (Bankr. D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2015) (stay relief granted where continuation of litigation \"complement[ed] the [] bankruptcy case\"), and protect the interests of all creditors by ensuring a critical estate asset is brought to the United States. Therefore, the second, seventh and tenth *Sonnax* factors weigh heavily in PAX's favor.\n\n20. Stay relief is favored where it would facilitate progress in a bankruptcy case. *See David X. Manners Co. Inc.*, 2018 WL 1997674, at \\*6 (this factor weighed in favor of stay relief where \"the progress of th[e] case \"appear[ed] dependent upon and require[d] the resolution of the issues . . . awaiting judgment in the state court.\"); *In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc*., No. 18- 10077, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018) (permitting claims to proceed\n\n14\n\nin the district court which would \"assist resolution of the bankruptcy action\"). Here, returning the Lady May is a threshold issue: the Lady May has a value many multiples of the assets Kwok listed in his petition. Its prompt return benefits the estate as well as creditors.<sup>46</sup> Further, return facilitates an essential function of this bankruptcy case: to \"maximiz[e] the value of the bankruptcy estate.\" *Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.*, 137 S.Ct. 973, 985–86 (2017) (the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to maximize the value of the estate). Thus, relief from the automatic stay would \"assist resolution of the bankruptcy action.\" *Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc.*, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4.\n\n21. Returning the Lady May also will not interfere with this Court's jurisdiction over reorganization (or liquidation) of Kwok's debts or the orderly distribution of his assets to creditors. Nor will it result in any immediate distribution to PAX. Rather, return will assist in marshaling an estate asset to enable liquidation of that asset and distribution to creditors in order of priority under the supervision of this Court (unless the case is dismissed). *See Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc.*, No. 05 Civ. 15, 2006 WL 176983, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2006) (the goals of a bankruptcy proceeding \"require a marshaling of the debtor's assets and an orderly payment of claims in order of priority\").\n\n22. Further, this Court should not allow Kwok to use the bankruptcy case to evade state court sanctions. The contempt proceedings sanction Kwok's flagrant and repeated past disregard of the New York Supreme Court's orders and, if the stay relief is granted, can be used to prevent further noncompliance. Kwok filed his Chapter 11 petition six days after the New York Supreme Court announced it was \"prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753\"—which could include issuing an order for Kwok's arrest—if Kwok continued to\n\n<sup>46</sup> *See* Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7 (listing assets as between \\$50,001 - \\$100,000); *cf.* Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10 (noting the purchase price of the Lady May).\n\nignore its orders.<sup>47</sup> Kwok should not be permitted to exploit the bankruptcy process to avoid sanctions. *See In re Rudaw/Empirical Software Prod. Ltd*., 83 B.R. 241, 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (\"The automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) may not be used as a shield to sanction contumacious conduct in violation of a prepetition order enjoining a debtor from violating a party's property rights.\" (citing *In re Cinnabar 2000 Haircutters, Inc*., 20 B.R. 575 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982))). Misuse of the bankruptcy process is itself an interference with this bankruptcy case, as bankruptcy protections are reserved for \"the honest but unfortunate debtor.\" *In re Ciarcia*, 578 B.R. 495, 503 (Bankr. D. Conn, 2017). To the extent the bankruptcy petition prevented the New York court enforcing its orders, the stay should be modified to prevent that outcome.\n\n23. This Court can also protect creditors by tailoring stay relief to avoid depletion of estate assets by prohibiting collection of any fines for the duration of the stay and making clear the ultimate liquidation of the Lady May and the distribution of proceeds is subject to the Court's further orders. *David X. Manners Co. Inc*., 2018 WL 1997674 at \\*6 (risk to creditors addressed by limiting the scope of stay relief to \"allow the state court to determine the issues up to the entry of judgment, but not enforcement.\")\n\n## **C. The New York Court Has the Necessary Expertise to Enforce the February 9 Contempt Order and Lifting the Stay Facilitates Judicial Economy.**\n\n24. *Sonnax* factors four and ten favor relief from the automatic stay because the New York court has \"the necessary expertise\" to enforce its orders and \"the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation\" are served by modification of the stay. *See Sonnax*, 907 F.2d at 1286. Justice Ostrager has been overseeing the dispute between PAX and Kwok since April 2017, rendering it \"considerably more advanced on the\n\n<sup>47</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10.\n\n'learning curve' with respect to the merits of this matter.\" *In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167–68 (as litigation was pending before the district court for almost five years it was presumed to be significantly more advanced on the merits of the matter). As Justice Ostrager noted in his February 9 Contempt Order, over 1,180 docket entries have accumulated in the almost five years that the litigation has been pending.<sup>48</sup> All discovery, motion practice, evidentiary hearings, and conferences precipitating the contempt orders have taken place before that court. Justice Ostrager developed a full factual record leading to the issuance of the February 9 Contempt Order and is uniquely well-versed in the procedural history of the case.\n\n25. Moreover, the proceedings relating of the Lady May are far-advanced; not only has the New York court issued the final February 9 Contempt Order, but it has also already considered imminent further action to ensure compliance with that order.<sup>49</sup> This too favors stay relief. *See In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167–68 (considering relevant that the case was close to completion). This vividly demonstrates Justice Ostrager's familiarity with and competence to enforce the February 9 Contempt Order, and it illustrates that his court is a more efficient venue for that undertaking, weighing heavily in favor of lifting the stay. *See In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc*., 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (the fact the District Court was \"familiar with the particular issues involved in the FLSA Litigation\" and \"[a]ll discovery and the majority of pre-trial motions [were] completed and the matter [was] ready for trial\" weighed heavily in favor of lifting the stay); *see also In re Fleming*, 2020 WL 3816282, \\*3 (granting relief from the stay where restarting the process of confirming an arbitration award where the State Court had already commenced that process would \"not be an effective use of judicial resources.\").\n\n<sup>48</sup> Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 7.\n\n<sup>49</sup> *See id.* at 10 (the Court stated it is \"prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753\" if Kwok continues to ignore its orders.\")\n\n26. In contrast, asking this Court to parse the voluminous record to determine appropriate enforcement mechanisms would not be efficient. Therefore, stay relief is in the interest of judicial economy.\n\n# **D. Modifying the Stay Will Not Prejudice Other Creditors and the Balance of Harms Favors Stay Relief.**\n\n27. *Sonnax* factors seven and twelve also favor stay relief. Modifying the stay benefits all creditors because it will bring the valuable Lady May to the United States and prevent its dissipation. The Lady May is debtor property, as the New York court has ruled, and Kwok must act as a fiduciary for his creditors with respect to it. That starts by following court orders regarding the Lady May.\n\n28. PAX is not now seeking to levy on the Lady May or obtain any priority status for its debts compared to the debts of other legitimate creditors. No creditor would be prejudiced or harmed by return of the Lady May to New York. *See In re Mildred Deli Grocery*, *Inc.*, 2018 WL 1136017, at \\*4 (creditors were not harmed as claimant did not seek to collect on its claim against the debtor); *In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.*, 281 B.R. at 167 (lifting the stay would cause no legally cognizable harm on the estate, except some minor expenses, weighing in favor of lifting the stay). To the contrary, creditors as a whole will only benefit by the yacht's return to New York.\n\n29. Absent stay relief, Kwok will have no incentive to bring the Lady May back within reach of his creditors. His gambit in filing bankruptcy will have borne fruit, as he will be effectively shielded from the February 9 Contempt Order—a clear misuse of the bankruptcy process.\n\n30. For these reasons, the balance of harms favors relief from the stay.\n\n18\n\n### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\nNotwithstanding anything in this Motion, PAX reserves all rights, claims and defenses with respect to these chapter 11 proceedings, including but not limited to the right to contest venue, seek dismissal or conversion of the case, and any other remedy.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nPAX respectfully requests this Court enter an order (i) that the automatic stay is\n\ninapplicable to contempt proceedings before the New York Supreme Court related to Kwok's\n\nfailure to return the Lady May to New York, or (ii) in the alternative, granting relief from the\n\nautomatic stay to permit PAX to seek enforcement of the New York Supreme Court's February 9\n\nContempt Order; and (iii) granting such other relief as may be just and proper.\n\nDated: Hartford, Connecticut March 1, 2022\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*\n\n Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2293 E-mail: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on March 1, 2022, a copy of the foregoing Motion was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System and served, with notice of this filing being sent by email to all Notice Parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties in interest may access this document through the court's CM/ECF system.\n\n> */s/ Patrick M. Birney*\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Patrick M. Birney","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：　Chapter 11 案件编号\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）1　22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\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动议提出人，\n诉\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n被申请人　2022年3月1日\n\n太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业关于请求作出裁定确认自动中止不适用，或作为替代方案，根据《破产法典》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止的动议\n\n致尊敬的美国破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）：\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）特此提出本动议（“本动议”），请求作出一项裁定，其形式实质上如随附的附件 A 所示，确认自动中止不适用于在 New York（纽约）州最高法院（由 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特雷格法官）主持）待决的一项具体破产申请前程序；该程序旨在因债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（“Kwok”）违反该法院命令、未将其游艇“Lady May”送回纽约，而裁定其构成民事藐视法庭。2 Ostrager 法官于 2022年2月9日对 Kwok 作出最终民事藐视法庭命令时警告称：“如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够同时寻求利用纽约及美国其他地区的法院程序，同时明知且故意违反法院命令，那么法治将不复存在。”3 这同样适用于本 Chapter 11 程序。Kwok 不得利用《破产法典》的保护来规避 Ostrager 法官的命令，自动中止也不允许其如此行事。\n\nKwok 蔑视法庭的行为由来已久且公然无忌。首先，Kwok 直接违反纽约州最高法院于 2020年9月30日和 2020年10月15日作出的命令，将 Lady May 移出该法院的管辖范围。4 随后，于 2021年3月，Ostrager 法官作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令——该命令获 New York（纽约）上诉分院第一部门一致维持5——要求 Kwok 或登记船东于 2021年5月15日前将 Lady May 送回，否则游艇在该法院管辖范围外停留的每一天均须缴纳 $500,000 罚款。6 近一年后，经证据听证，Ostrager 法官于 2月9日作出藐视法庭命令，指示：(i) Kwok 支付 $134 million（即 2021年5月15日至 2022年2月7日期间每天 $500,000）；以及 (ii) 如 Lady May 未在送达入册通知后十个营业日内返回该法院管辖范围，则 $500,000 的每日罚款继续累积。7 在向 PAX 支付 $134 million 藐视法庭罚款的截止日期前一天，并且在 Kwok 未能成功取得该命令在上诉期间的紧急中止后，Kwok 提起本 Chapter 11 案件。但破产保护是为诚实、善意的债务人提供的。自动中止并不保护债务人免受违抗法院命令及损害司法制度尊严所产生的后果。因此，PAX 请求本法院作出裁定，确认其有权启动进一步程序以执行 Ostrager 法官于 2月9日作出的藐视法庭命令。\n\n3 参见 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）为支持 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 提出之请求宣告自动中止不适用或根据《破产法典》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止动议所作声明，随附为附件 B（“Friedman 声明”），证物 1。动议裁决及命令，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022)，ECF No. 1181（“2月9日藐视法庭命令”）第 10 页。\n\n4 Friedman 声明，证物 2，动议裁决及命令，PAX v. Kwok，652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 591；Friedman 声明，证物 3，动议裁决及命令，PAX v. Kwok，652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 630。\n\n5 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan，199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021)。\n\n6 Friedman 声明，证物 4，动议裁决及命令，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 728（“初始藐视法庭命令”，并与 2月9日藐视法庭命令合称“藐视法庭命令”）。\n\n7 Friedman 声明，证物 5，最终民事藐视法庭命令，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022)，ECF No. 1182，第 2 页。\n\n作为替代方案，PAX 根据 United States Code（美国法典）Title 11（第 11 编）第 362(d)(1) 条（“《破产法典》”）以及 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产程序规则》）Rule 4001 请求解除自动中止，以允许执行 2月9日藐视法庭命令，但该命令要求 Kwok 立即向 PAX 支付金钱的部分除外。此类救济包括执行 2月9日藐视法庭命令，以确保 Lady May 返回纽约，允许罚款继续累积（该等罚款构成 Kwok 在本 Chapter 11 案件中不得免除的债务），并允许 Ostrager 法官在 Kwok 未能及时将 Lady May 送回纽约时，命令采取任何其他适当制裁措施（包括签发逮捕令）。8 9\n\n为支持本动议，PAX 谨陈述如下：\n\n管辖权\n\n1. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 对本动议享有管辖权；就本动议而言，PAX 接受本区可能为适格审判地，但不影响其日后提出任何移送审判地动议的权利。本动议根据 28 U.S.C. §157(b) 构成核心程序，且 PAX 所请求救济的依据为《破产法典》第 362(d) 条。\n\n8 参见，例如，NY Judiciary Law § 753（“有记录法院有权以罚款和监禁，或两者并用，惩罚怠于履行或违反义务，或其他不当行为；该等行为可能导致法院待决民事诉讼或特别程序中一方当事人的权利或救济遭受挫败、损害、阻碍或不利影响。”）。\n\n9 PAX 拟提起对抗程序，以确认 Ostrager 法官作出的民事藐视法庭罚款不可免除。参见 In re Singer，No. 10–00045，2010 WL 3732944 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010)（藐视法庭制裁在破产中不可免除）；In re Marini，28 B.R. 262, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1983)（同上）。\n\n背景\n\n2. 近十一年前，PAX 与一家由 Kwok 拥有、名为 Shiny Times（辉煌时代）的实体签订了一份贷款协议。10 Kwok 对该贷款提供个人保证。11 尽管已多次延长还款期限，且 PAX 曾多次尝试和解该债务，Kwok 从未偿还该贷款。12\n\n3. PAX 于 2017年4月18日在纽约州最高法院起诉 Kwok 违反个人保证合同。13 经历近四年诉讼后，PAX 于 2021年2月3日获得针对 Kwok 的 $116,402,019.57 判决书。14 随后，PAX“开展了长达一年的工作以执行该判决，先识别 Kwok 在美国的资产，继而尝试对其实施扣押。”15 这绝非易事，因为正如 Ostrager 法官所认定，“Kwok 是一名自称的亿万富翁，他将资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体和家庭成员之中。”16 Kwok 迄今尚未偿还 $116,402,019.57 判决款项中的任何部分，该款项按每年 9 percent 的利率累积判决后利息。17\n\n10 Friedman 声明，证物 6，动议裁决及命令，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 549，第 2 页。\n\n11 同上。\n\n12 同上，第 7 页。\n\n13 Friedman 声明，证物 7，起诉书，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2017)，ECF No. 2。\n\n14 Friedman 声明，证物 8，判决书，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021)，ECF No. 716，第 2 页。\n\n15 Friedman 声明，证物 1（2月9日藐视法庭命令），第 1 页。\n\n16 同上。\n\n17 N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5004 (McKinney's 2022)；Friedman 声明，证物 8，第 2 页；另参见 Friedman 声明，证物 9，支持原告部分简易判决动议的重要事实陈述，证物 23，第 KWOK000652 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020)，ECF No. 455（“2011年个人保证”）。\n\n4. 尽管 Kwok 声称没有资产，18 其对 2015年以 € 28 million 购得的 Lady May 至少享有实益所有权。19 2020年9月30日，Ostrager 法官签发临时限制令，禁止 Kwok“出售、促成出售、让与、转让或干预其享有权益的任何财产……”。20 两周后，即 2020年10月15日，Ostrager 法官明确指出，对 Kwok 的该项限制包括 Lady May。21 但 Ostrager 法官和 PAX 并不知情的是，Lady May 早在 10月9日左右便已离开纽约前往 Florida（佛罗里达州）。22 该游艇随后前往 Bahamas（巴哈马），最后抵达 Europe（欧洲），并至今仍停留在那里。23\n\n5. 作为回应，PAX 提出藐视法庭动议24；于 2021年3月16日，法院作出附条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示 Kwok 或船舶登记所有人于 2021年5月15日前将 Lady May 送回法院管辖范围，并对该游艇在此后每一天仍处于其管辖范围外的情形处以 $500,000 罚款。25 纽约上诉分院第一部门一致维持初审法院的命令，认定：(i) PAX 已“以明确且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok]违反了其知悉的法院合法明确指令，且该等违反导致[PAX]的权利受到损害……”26；以及 (ii)“每日 $500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使[Kwok]消除其藐视法庭状态。”27 因此，第一部门指示 Ostrager 法官在作出最终藐视法庭命令之前，“进行证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当处罚。”28\n\n6．Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）于 February 2, 2022 举行了证据听证会。在听取七名证人的证言后，29 奥斯特拉格法官认定：“听证会上由[郭文贵]的证人亲口提供的证词，以明确且令人信服的方式证明，郭文贵享有并控制 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的实益所有权，且其对本院及司法程序极尽蔑视。”30 法院进一步认定：“郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，其似乎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。”31 因此，奥斯特拉格法官作出了 February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭命令）。32\n\n7．郭文贵一贯藐视法院命令，此次亦未缴纳藐视法庭罚款，且尚未将该游艇返还美国。33 相反，February 15, 2022，郭文贵在本院提出破产申请。34 郭文贵的破产申请列示资产为 $50,001-$100,000，35 未列入价值高昂的 Lady May 号游艇；该游艇仍在美国境外，36 且未受任何可信受托人的监督。\n\n26　Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d at 423.\n\n27　Id. at 424.\n\n28　Id.\n\n29　郭文贵就 PAX 的判决后证据开示请求援引其《美国宪法第五修正案》权利，且郭文贵未在 February 2 听证会上作证。见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 3.\n\n30　Id. at 4.\n\n31　Id. at 8.\n\n32　Friedman Decl., Ex. 5.\n\n33　见 supra note 23.\n\n34　Voluntary Petition, ECF No. 1 at 7.\n\n8．鉴于郭文贵一贯蔑视法庭的行为，以及其通过“将其巨额个人资产停放于一系列公司、受信任的亲信和家庭成员名下，以逃避并欺骗其债权人”的广泛努力，37 PAX 恭请本院裁定，自动中止并不阻止其在奥斯特拉格法官面前恢复藐视法庭程序，以寻求迫使郭文贵将 Lady May 号游艇返还纽约，并允许奥斯特拉格法官对郭文贵施加任何可适用的处罚，但不得命令其立即向 PAX 支付金钱。作为替代请求，PAX 恭请本院对自动中止给予有限解除，以允许 PAX 在奥斯特拉格法官面前继续程序并取得相同结果。\n\n请求的救济\n\n9．PAX 通过本动议，请求认定自动中止不适用于执行奥斯特拉格法官的 February 9 Contempt Order。作为替代请求，PAX 请求作出裁定，修改自动中止，以允许 PAX 执行 February 9 Contempt Order，但任何救济要求郭文贵立即向 PAX 支付任何金钱的范围除外。38\n\n35　Id. at 7.\n\n36　见 supra note 23。如上所述，郭文贵亦未列入其于 March 2015 以 $67.5 million 购买的 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）公寓的可观价值；其通过两家空壳公司，即 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司，“Genever BVI”）和 Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司，“Genever NY”），拥有该公寓。见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 13, Executed Contract of Sale, Kwok v. PAX, Index No. 652077/2017, ECF No. 256（已签署的买卖合同将“Genever Holdings LLC”列为买方）；另见 id. at SN 0047（购买申请将“‘Miles’ Kwok Ho Wan (Genever Holdings LLC)”列为申请人）。与郭文贵在本案中的行为一致，Genever NY 亦在 PAX 于 late 2020 赢得简易判决后立即申请破产。In re Genever Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:20-bk-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).\n\n37　Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 1.\n\n38　PAX 在破产申请提交前，曾就郭文贵未依照奥斯特拉格法官 September 22, 2021 命令交付其在一家于英属维尔京群岛注册的公司 Genever BVI 中持有的股份，向纽约法院另行提出一项藐视法庭动议。见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 14, Decision + Order on Mot., PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 904。该动议自 January 24, 2022 起已完成全部书面陈述，现仍待决。February 18, 2022，奥斯特拉格法官发出通知，请求 PAX 于 March 3, 2022 前鉴于郭文贵提出破产申请而在不妨害日后再行提出的前提下撤回该动议。Friedman Decl., Ex. 15, Court Notice, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2022), ECF No. 1191。PAX 拟如此办理，现不请求本院确认自动中止不适用于该藐视法庭程序，但未来可能提出该请求，并保留提出该请求的权利。\n\n论证\n\nI．自动中止不适用于与返还 Lady May 号游艇有关的藐视法庭命令。\n\n10．刑事藐视法庭程序依法不受自动中止约束。见 § 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(1)（“针对债务人提起或继续进行刑事诉讼或程序”不受中止约束。）法院可作出民事藐视法庭救济，以“确保今后遵守法院命令”，或就一方未遵守法院命令而向另一方“提供赔偿或其他补救性救济”。Universal City Studios v. New York Broadway Int'l Corp., 705 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir.1983); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nair, 3:10cv88 (SRU), 2011 WL 1832774, at *2 (D. Conn. May 13, 2011)。尽管民事藐视法庭程序并不存在当然不适用自动中止的例外，“某些民事藐视法庭程序即使面对破产申请也可继续进行”。Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 62 B.R. 723, 727 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)。法院区分旨在惩罚的民事藐视法庭“动议”与旨在执行判决收款的民事藐视法庭“动议”，并认定前者不受中止约束。Id. at 729; 另见 Booth v. Wilson, No. 96 CIV. 920 (RO), 1997 WL 241050, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1997)（“门槛问题在于，该藐视法庭动议是为满足一项判决而提出，还是针对所主张的藐视法院命令行为而提出。”）。\n\n11．法院一贯认定，旨在惩罚债务人不遵守法院命令的民事藐视法庭命令不受自动中止约束，因为破产并不为从事可受制裁、冒犯法院尊严行为的当事人提供避风港。破产程序亦不得被“用作一把剑”，以阻止法院惩罚藐视法庭行为。Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730。例如，在 Roberts v. Bennaceur, No. 3:12-CV-01222, 2015 WL 1471889, (D. Conn. 2015) 一案中，被告在屡次未披露与其资产和财务状况有关的信息后提出破产申请。Meyer 法官（迈耶法官）认定，该破产申请并不妨碍法院就债务人滥用披露和证据开示程序的行为施加制裁，并指出：\n\n“破产中止并不妨碍原告寻求就个别被告[违反本院命令的行为]施加制裁，即使该等违反行为涉及已被中止的请求。我有权‘继续……审议被告是否’‘可因其未能’遵守先前[一项]命令而‘受到制裁’，只要该制裁并不产生‘取得受中止保护的资产或骚扰’债务人的效果。”\n\nId. at *16（省略内部引文）。因此，该法院在破产申请提出后对债务人及其高管施加了制裁。其他法院亦持相同意见，承认可对处于破产中的债务人执行藐视法庭命令，以维护法院尊严并惩罚债务人不遵守法院命令的行为。见 Shaoxing Bon Textiles Co., Ltd. v. 4-U Performance Grp. LLC, 16 Civ. 6805, 2017 WL 6413993, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)（在“该程序实际上是为了惩罚债务人实施有损[该]法院尊严的藐视法庭行为”的情形下，无需提出解除中止动议）；In re Cohoes Indus. Terminal, Inc., 62 B.R. 369, 378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) aff'd, 70 B.R. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1986), 831 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1987)（“一项州法院在破产申请前作出的、并非涉及收取破产申请前债权或遗产财产的命令，可通过针对债务人及其高管的藐视法庭程序予以执行，以维护州法院的尊严，而不违反自动中止。”）；Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 729–30（认定其“‘惩罚债务人有损州或联邦法院尊严之藐视法庭行为’的固有权力，并未因破产程序而受到限制”，并认定在藐视法庭请求“旨在维护本院命令，且并非旨在执行金钱判决”时中止不适用）；Booth, 1997 WL 241050, at *2（“该藐视法庭命令执行我在破产前作出的强制证据开示命令，并未因 § 362(a) 而中止，因为其是在‘维护法院的完整性’。”）。\n\n12．与上述判例一致，自动中止不适用于旨在确保郭文贵遵守法院命令的过去及未来藐视法庭命令。奥斯特拉格法官并非因郭文贵未满足 PAX 的判决或未赔偿 PAX 的任何金钱损失而认定其藐视法庭。事实上，所施加的罚款与针对 PAX 违约合同请求作出的判决相互独立。该法院认定郭文贵藐视法庭，是因为其公然且持续地无视法院命令。PAX 目前亦非出于“收款动机”而提出动议，而是请求获准寻求执行奥斯特拉格法官的 February 9 Contempt Order，该命令要求将 Lady May 号游艇返还纽约；39 该游艇违反法院命令，在纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）的管辖范围外停留已逾一年。见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730（动议方并非出于“收款动机”提出动议时，中止不适用）。继续进行藐视法庭程序对于维护纽约州最高法院的尊严是必要的（且具有迫使郭文贵将其享有实益所有权的财产返还美国这一附带益处）。因此，纽约州最高法院应获准在藐视法庭程序中采取其认为必要的任何行动，但不得执行罚款的征收，且无需解除中止。\n\n13．如本院可能担心对郭文贵破产财产造成任何影响，本院可以澄清，在自动中止存续期间，自动中止适用于执行或征收针对破产财产的任何罚款或其他救济。见 Int'l Distrib. Ctrs, Inc., 62 B.R. at 730（命令并非“旨在执行金钱判决或骚扰被告”时，自动中止不适用。）（原文强调）。此外，本院可以明确，Lady May 号游艇未来的处置属于本院专属管辖范围（除非本院另有命令）。\n\n39　见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 4 (Initial Contempt Order) at 2（“郭文贵的律师特别询问法院，郭文贵是否可以为许可目的将该游艇移出管辖范围。法院驳回了该请求。”）。\n\nII．作为替代请求，应修改自动中止，以允许部分执行奥斯特拉格法官的命令。\n\n14．即使自动中止适用于 February 9 Contempt Order，亦存在依据 Bankruptcy Code section 362(d)(1) 修改中止的正当理由。\n\n15. 是否修改自动中止的决定“属于法院合理裁量权的范围。”In re David X. Manners Co. Inc., No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 2325758, at *2 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 22, 2018); In re Wysocki, No. 3:16-CV-248, 2016 WL 4099031, at *4 (D. Conn. Aug. 2, 2016)。根据《破产法典》第362(d)条，应当基于“事由”准许解除自动中止，包括“未对该利害关系人就财产所享有的利益提供充分保护。”见 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1)。《破产法典》未对“事由”作出定义。In re Sonnax Indus., Inc., 907 F.2d 1280, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990)。在 Sonnax 案中，Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）列举了十二项因素，作为法院决定是否应准许解除自动中止以允许诉讼在另一审理机构继续进行时的判断基准。40 例如，In re Case, 384 F. App'x 43, 44 (2d Cir. 2010)（指出破产法院适当地考量了 Sonnax 因素）；In re Friedberg, No. 08–51245, 2009 WL 1292273, at *2 (Bankr. D. Conn., May 8, 2009)（适用 Sonnax 因素）。本院无须对每项因素赋予同等权重，也并非每项因素均与每一案件相关。见 In re David X. Manners Co. Inc., No. 15–51490, 2018 WL 1997674, at *5 (Bankr. D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 28cv778, 2018 WL 3079470 (D. Conn, Jun. 21, 2018)。相反，“[w]hen applying these factors and considering whether to modify the automatic stay, the Court should take into account the particular circumstances of the case, and ascertain what is just to the claimants, and the estate.”同上，at *5（引自 In re Taub, 413 B.R. 55, 62 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009)）。\n\n40 这些因素是：“(1) 解除中止是否会导致对争议事项的部分或全部解决；(2) 与破产案件不存在任何关联或干扰；(3) 其他程序是否涉及债务人作为受托人；(4) 是否已设立具备审理该诉因所需专门知识的专门审裁机构；(5) 债务人的保险人是否已承担为其进行抗辩的全部责任；(6) 该诉讼是否主要涉及第三方；(7) 在另一审理机构进行诉讼是否会损害其他债权人的利益；(8) 因另一诉讼产生的判决债权是否受衡平居次约束；(9) 动议方在另一程序中胜诉是否会导致债务人可撤销的司法留置权；(10) 司法经济以及迅速、经济地解决诉讼的利益；(11) 当事人是否已准备好在另一程序中受审；以及 (12) 中止对当事人的影响及损害衡量。”Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1286.\n\n在本案中，相关的 Sonnax 因素为：\n\n“(1) 解除中止是否会导致对争议事项的部分或全部解决；”\n“(2) 与破产案件不存在任何关联或干扰；”\n“(4) 是否已设立具备审理该诉因所需专门知识的专门审裁机构；”\n“(7) 在另一审理机构进行诉讼是否会损害其他债权人的利益；”\n“(10) 司法经济以及迅速、经济地解决诉讼的利益；”以及\n“(12) 中止对当事人的影响及损害衡量。”41\n\nA. 解除中止将解决对破产案件具有重要意义的问题。\n\n16. 第一项 Sonnax 因素支持解除中止。February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭命令）的最终目标是促成 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）返回纽约。\n\n41 其他 Sonnax 因素不适用。特别是，不存在任何可能的依据，可对 PAX 就 Kwok（郭文贵）作出的个人保证所享有的债权实施衡平居次（Sonnax 因素8），且 Ostrager 法官作出的任何命令均不会产生可撤销的留置权（Sonnax 因素9）。\n\n17. 如 Ostrager 法官所认定，Lady May 是可用于清偿郭文贵债务的一项资产。42 法院认定，郭文贵“对 Lady May 所享有的远不止实益权益”，他不仅“控制该游艇”，而且“提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”43 因此，尽管郭文贵采取“非同寻常的措施以使该游艇免受其债权人的追索”，其在 Lady May 中的权益仍必须在本第11章案件中向债权人提供。44 郭文贵不仅违反 Ostrager 法官的命令，未将 Lady May 返还纽约，而且在提交其破产申请书时（以及在其修正申请书中），尽管 Ostrager 法官在其 February 9, 2022 Order（2022年2月9日命令）中作出了明确认定，郭文贵仍未将 Lady May 的价值列为其资产。45 第11章债务人负有在第11章申请书中披露所有类型资产的义务。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)（债务人财产由“债务人在财产中享有的一切法定或衡平权益”构成）；Kunica v. St. Jean Fin., Inc., 233 B.R. 46, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)（“破产法的一项基本原则是，债务人的所有资产……均属破产财产，必须为债权人的利益列入财产清单。”）；In re Beckford, 729 F. App'x 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2018)（“提交破产申请书即产生破产财产，其由‘债务人享有的一切法定或衡平权益’构成。”）。郭文贵在 Ostrager 法官明确裁定其享有 Lady May 的实益所有权并对其进行控制后仅六日，仍故意未在其申请书中将 Lady May 的价值列为资产，此举是其使 Lady May 继续处于债权人追索范围之外的计划之延续。该计划必须终止。\n\n42 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 8–9.\n\n43 同上。\n\n44 同上，at 9；另见同上，at 7（讨论“Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May”的“与障眼法相关的操弄。”）。\n\n45 Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7（将资产列为 \\$50,001 - \\$100,000）；参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10（指出 Lady May 的 € 28 million [sic] 购买价格）。\n\n18. 允许在 Ostrager 法官面前继续努力促使 Lady May 返回纽约，将解决与本第11章案件相关的问题。见 In re Fleming, No. 19- 51611, 2020 WL 3816282, at *3 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jul. 2, 2020)（州法院程序能够解决对抗程序中的问题这一事实，支持解除中止）。将 Lady May 返回纽约，将有助于归集该资产，并最终为所有债权人的利益分配其收益。此举还将解决 PAX 为使该游艇处于 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）管辖范围内所作出的历时一年的努力，这是另一项支持解除自动中止的因素。In re Ice Cream Liquidation Inc., 281 B.R. 154, 166 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002)（完全解决与债务人有关的问题支持解除中止）；David X. Manners Co., 2018 WL 1997674 at *6（即使只是部分解决争议事项，也支持解除中止）。\n\nB. 执行 February 9 Contempt Order 不会干扰破产案件。\n\n19. 基于类似理由，执行 February 9 Contempt Order 不会干扰破产案件；相反，此举将补充并促进这些程序，In re Dunne, No. 13–50484, 2015 WL 7625609, at *6 (Bankr. D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2015)（在继续诉讼“补充[]破产案件”的情况下准许解除中止），并通过确保一项关键的破产财产资产被带入美国来保护全体债权人的利益。因此，第二、第七和第十项 Sonnax 因素均强烈支持 PAX。\n\n20. 在解除中止将有助于破产案件取得进展的情形下，应支持解除中止。见 David X. Manners Co. Inc., 2018 WL 1997674, at *6（在“the progress of th[e] case ‘appear[ed] dependent upon and require[d] the resolution of the issues . . . awaiting judgment in the state court’”的情况下，该因素支持解除中止）；In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., No. 18- 10077, 2018 WL 1136017, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018)（允许将在地区法院继续进行、并将“assist resolution of the bankruptcy action”的债权主张继续审理）。在本案中，返还 Lady May 是一个门槛问题：Lady May 的价值是郭文贵在其申请书中列报资产价值的数倍。及时返还该游艇有利于破产财产和债权人。46 此外，返还有助于实现本破产案件的一项基本功能，即“maximiz[e] the value of the bankruptcy estate.”Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S.Ct. 973, 985–86 (2017)（《破产法典》的目的在于最大化破产财产价值）。因此，解除自动中止将“assist resolution of the bankruptcy action.”Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at *4.\n\n21. 返还 Lady May 亦不会干扰本院对郭文贵债务重组（或清算）以及将其资产有序分配给债权人的管辖权。其亦不会导致向 PAX 作出任何即时分配。相反，返还将有助于归集一项破产财产资产，以便在本院监督下对该资产进行清算，并按照优先顺位向债权人分配（除非该案件被驳回）。见 Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 15, 2006 WL 176983, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2006)（破产程序的目标“要求归集债务人的资产，并按照优先顺位有序清偿债权”）。\n\n22. 此外，本院不应允许郭文贵利用破产案件规避州法院制裁。藐视法庭程序制裁郭文贵过去公然且反复无视纽约州最高法院命令的行为；如准许解除中止，则可用于防止其进一步不遵从命令。纽约州最高法院宣布，如郭文贵继续无视其命令，该院“prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753”——其中可能包括下令逮捕郭文贵——后六日，郭文贵提交了其第11章申请书。47 不应允许郭文贵利用破产程序规避制裁。见 In re Rudaw/Empirical Software Prod. Ltd., 83 B.R. 241, 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)（“根据 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) 实施的自动中止，不得被用作保护盾，以纵容违反申请前命令、侵害一方财产权利的藐视法庭行为。”（引自 In re Cinnabar 2000 Haircutters, Inc., 20 B.R. 575 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982)））。滥用破产程序本身即构成对本破产案件的干扰，因为破产保护仅为“诚实但不幸的债务人”保留。In re Ciarcia, 578 B.R. 495, 503 (Bankr. D. Conn, 2017)。在破产申请书阻止纽约法院执行其命令的范围内，应修改中止以防止该结果。\n\n46 见 Amended Voluntary Petition, ECF. No. 19 at 7（将资产列为 \\$50,001 - \\$100,000）；参见 Friedman Decl., Ex. 1 (February 9 Contempt Order) at 10（指出 Lady May 的购买价格）。\n\n23. 本院还可通过对解除中止作出限定来保护债权人：在中止期间禁止追缴任何罚款，以避免耗减破产财产资产，并明确对 Lady May 的最终清算及收益分配仍受本院后续命令的约束。David X. Manners Co. Inc., 2018 WL 1997674 at *6（通过将解除中止的范围限制为“允许州法院就争议事项作出裁判直至判决录入，但不允许执行判决”，从而解决对债权人的风险）。\n\nC. 纽约法院具备执行 February 9 Contempt Order 所必需的专门知识，且解除中止有助于司法经济。\n\n24. Sonnax 第四项和第十项因素支持解除自动中止，因为纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）具备“必要的专门知识”以执行其命令，并且修改中止有助于维护“司法经济以及诉讼的迅速和经济解决之利益”。参见 Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1286。自2017年4月以来，Ostrager法官（Justice Ostrager）一直监督PAX与Kwok（郭文贵）之间的争议，使其就本案实体问题而言在“学习曲线”上“显著更为领先”。In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167–68（由于诉讼已在地区法院待决近五年，因此推定其在案件实体问题上已取得显著更多进展）。正如Ostrager法官在其2月9日藐视法庭命令中指出，在该诉讼待决的近五年间，已累积超过1,180项案卷记录。48 导致藐视法庭命令的所有证据开示、动议程序、证据听证和会议，均在该法院进行。Ostrager法官已形成完整的事实记录，从而作出2月9日藐视法庭命令，并对本案的程序历史具有独到而深入的了解。\n\n47 弗里德曼声明，附件1（2月9日藐视法庭命令）第10页。\n\n25. 此外，与Lady May（“Lady May”号）有关的程序已进入后期；纽约州最高法院不仅已作出最终的2月9日藐视法庭命令，而且已考虑采取迫在眉睫的进一步行动，以确保遵守该命令。49 这同样支持解除中止。参见 In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167–68（认为案件接近完成具有相关性）。这生动表明Ostrager法官熟悉且有能力执行2月9日藐视法庭命令，并表明其法院是开展该项工作的更有效率的审理地，因此强烈支持解除中止。参见 In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at *4（地区法院“熟悉FLSA诉讼中涉及的特定问题”且“[a]ll discovery and the majority of pre-trial motions [were] completed and the matter [was] ready for trial”的事实，强烈支持解除中止）；另见 In re Fleming, 2020 WL 3816282, *3（州法院已经启动确认仲裁裁决程序，如重新启动该程序将“not be an effective use of judicial resources”，故准予解除中止）。\n\n48 弗里德曼声明，附件1（2月9日藐视法庭命令）第7页。\n\n49 参见同上第10页（法院表示，如Kwok继续无视其命令，其“prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753”。）\n\n26. 相比之下，要求本院审阅大量记录以确定适当的执行机制并不具有效率。因此，解除中止符合司法经济的利益。\n\nD. 修改中止不会损害其他债权人，且损害衡量支持解除中止。\n\n27. Sonnax 第七项和第十二项因素亦支持解除中止。修改中止将使Lady May回到美国并防止其被耗散，从而使所有债权人受益。正如纽约州最高法院已裁定，Lady May是债务人财产，Kwok必须就该财产以其债权人的受托人身份行事。这首先要求其遵守有关Lady May的法院命令。\n\n28. PAX目前并未寻求对Lady May实施扣押执行，亦未寻求相对于其他合法债权人的债权而使其债权取得任何优先地位。任何债权人均不会因Lady May返回纽约而受到不利影响或损害。参见 In re Mildred Deli Grocery, Inc., 2018 WL 1136017, at *4（由于请求人未寻求就其对债务人的债权进行收取，债权人未受到损害）；In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., 281 B.R. at 167（解除中止不会对破产财产造成法律上可认定的损害，除少量费用外，故支持解除中止）。相反，全体债权人只会因该游艇返回纽约而受益。\n\n29. 如不解除中止，Kwok将没有动力将Lady May带回其债权人可及的范围内。他申请破产的策略将已得逞，因为他将实际上受到保护而免于受2月9日藐视法庭命令约束——这显然是对破产程序的滥用。\n\n30. 基于上述理由，损害衡量支持解除中止。\n\n权利保留\n\n尽管本动议中有任何相反规定，PAX保留与本第11章程序有关的一切权利、请求权和抗辩，包括但不限于对审理地提出异议、寻求驳回或转换本案的权利，以及任何其他救济。\n\n结论\n\nPAX谨请求本院作出命令：(i) 自动中止不适用于纽约州最高法院就Kwok未将Lady May带回纽约而进行的藐视法庭程序；或者，(ii) 作为替代方案，解除自动中止，以允许PAX寻求执行纽约州最高法院2月9日藐视法庭命令；以及(iii) 授予其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：2022年3月1日，康涅狄格州哈特福德\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n签字：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\n\nPatrick M. Birney（CT No. 19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（CT No. 31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nPeter Friedman（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2293\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年3月1日，上述动议副本已通过本院CM/ECF系统以电子方式提交，并通过法院电子提交系统向所有通知当事人以电子邮件发送本次提交通知，或依《电子提交通知》所示，通过邮件向无法接受电子提交的任何人送达。利害关系方可通过本院CM/ECF系统查阅本文件。\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney____________________\nPatrick M. Birney","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":49,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":709,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1191,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6771,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:46:16"}