{"id":"court_ctb_57_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":57,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":"2022-03-01","title":"EXHIBIT B Friedman Declaration","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT B**\n\nFriedman Declaration\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--|\n| In re: | | |\n| | Chapter 11 Case No. | |\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# **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**\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 *Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia*\n\n*Opportunity Fund L.P. for Entry of Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay*\n\n*or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the*\n\n*Bankruptcy Code*.\n\n1 The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\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), ECF No. 1181.\n\n3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the September 30, 2020 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 591.\n\n4. Attached as Exhibit 3 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\n5. Attached as Exhibit 4 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\n6. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the February 9, 2022 Final Order of Civil Contempt in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 1182.\n\n7. Attached as Exhibit 6 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\n8. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint dated April 18, 2017, in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 2.\n\n9. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the February 3, 2021 Judgment of in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716.\n\n10. Attached as Exhibit 9 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.\n\n-2-\n\nSup. 2020), ECF No. 455.\n\n11. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of screenshots from the website http (last accessed on February 28, 2022).\n\n12. Attached as Exhibit 11 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. 2020), ECF No. 689.\n\n13. Attached as Exhibit 12 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\n14. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of the Executed Contract of Sale in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 256.\n\n15. Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of the September 22, 2021 Decision and Order in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 904.\n\n16. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the February 18, 2022 Court Notice in *PAX v. Kwok, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup 2022), ECF. No. 1191.\n\n*[ Signature follows on next page ]*\n\nDated: March 1, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\n## */s/ Peter Friedman*\n\nPeter Friedman pfriedman@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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 6 of 134\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| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | | 019 |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | |\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 8 of 134\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n1 \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 10 of 134\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n2 \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 11 of 134\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 12 of 134\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 13 of 134\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 14 of 134\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 15 of 134\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 16 of 134\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 17 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 2**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 18 of 134\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
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN
GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a
HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and
GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n\n# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn September 30, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Skype, with counsel for all parties. On consent, the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Mr. Kwok from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nThe Court will hear further argument, and if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing, on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file their opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm. Plaintiff must file their reply, if any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm. If either party intends to call witnesses, they must exchange witness lists with one another and e-file a witness list with the Court no later than October 13, 2020.\n\nAdditionally, the Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion 008 for damages and attorney's fees on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 19 of 134\n\ntheir opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm and Plaintiff must file their reply,\n\nif any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm.\n\nAny violation of the temporary restraining order issued today shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\n\nDated: September 30, 2020\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 20 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 3**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2020 02:52 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 630 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 21 of 134\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT:
HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | |\n| | -
v - | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 |\n| | GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE | | |\n| | HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, | | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS | | 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\n\nPlaintiff is entitled, under CPLR 5229, to take discovery into the above-identified assets as well as to seek discovery into any other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\n\nThe next appearance will be a pre-trial conference on November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm via Microsoft Teams.\n\nOctober 15, 2020 **\\$SIG\\$ DATE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 23 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 4**\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM | | |\n|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------|--|--|\n| | | Justice | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | | | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. | 012 | | |\n| KWOK
HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., | | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n| | Defendants. | | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | | |\n\n# HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") in contempt. This Court previously issued\n\nthree orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the \"Lady May.\" On September 30,\n\n2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\") preventing Kwok from,\n\namong other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" NYSCEF Doc.\n\nNo. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\" *Id.* On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's\n\nmotion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630. Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the Court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request at the time and directed counsel to make a motion if necessary.\n\nPlaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.\n\nThe Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling. and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht \"Lady May.\"\n\nThe defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000. The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place.\n\nA status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: March 16, 2021\n\n| CHECK ONE: | | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | |\n|-----------------------|---|----------------------------|--------|---|-----------------------|-----------|\n| | X | GRANTED | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | | SETTLE ORDER | | | SUBMIT ORDER | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 27 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 5**\n\n### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOKHO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/kla GUO WENGUI, a/kla GUO WEN GUI; a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/kla MILES KWOK, a/kla HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nv.\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No: 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n**[Fl4QjL08ED]** FINAL ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT\n\nMotion Sequence No. 19\n\nWHEREAS this Co~rt's conditional order of civil contempt, dated March 16,2021, directed that if Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") failed to return the Lady May yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 15, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000 fine-for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction;-\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 28 of 134\n\nWHEREAS the Lady May was not returned to the jurisdiction by May 15, 2021;\n\nWHEREAS on November 4,2021, the Appellate Division's First Department affIrme,d this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of .\\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing,\" and \\_instructing this Court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties;\n\nWHEREAS Kwok to date has failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction;\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 29 of 134\n\nWHEREAS both Kwok and the registered title holder of the Lady May, HK International (q)peCt.r~(i by *co~V\\\\$e \\* Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, were pregent at the hearini proffered evidence and were represented by counsel; and\n\nWHEREAS, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court determines that\n\nPAX has clearly and convincingly established that Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control\n\n. h L d M *AS se--'- r-*--l\\_ I \"\" ~ Cr, \\A.,/t \\:> 'R-'v;,VIMt *Uf* '1, *;:).0* 'd---1-. over tea y aYj \"'- ., .~ \" ~ ( \\)~ C\\-'> \\'c)v\\ ltA,Ad. CJv~ . . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:\n\n- 1. Kwok has violated New York Judiciary Law 9753 and is civil contempt of this Court's orders.\n- 2. Kwokis directed to tender immediate payment to PAX in the amount of \\$134,000,000, representing \\$500,000 for each day between May 15,2021 and February 7,2022.\n- \"3. The amount due to PAX shall continue to accrue at t~~rate of \\$500,000 per day until Kwok returns the Lady May to the jurisdiction, which additional accrual shall begin ten . ~ e'fv,'(;Il.. ~ *N* f.,' ..L.. *'C* iv business days from t e Bltte of this Order, \"'VJ1'~. *i>* u... *crl v* 11 *Y* I\n- 4. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be made to PAX within five se...rv *,'(JL , .*f f..rv business days of the ~ of this Order, w I~ No-t-t (...L. *t!) .* GVt,. *I .*\n\n;:\", ' 1'l;::t\"l 5. The Court shall exercise its full authority under NeWYork Judiciary Law 9 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid to PAX.\n\nIt is SO ORDERED this ?-'\" ~ day of *Ii b VYt a* '='Cd' ,2022. R. OSTRAGERJ...\\$.C. **A.OSTRAGER .** ,,~SC;}\n\n2\n\n2 of 2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 30 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 6**\n\n134\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | | |\n| | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a
GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 007 |\n| | a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS
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\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 134\n\n> previously sponsored in proceedings before this Court. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 404. Specifically, at his November 2019 deposition, Kwok denied having signed several agreements discussed above, including the 2011 Loan Facility, the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the 2013 Deed of Settlement, and the four Supplemental Deeds. Kwok testified that the documents were forgeries. On the motion for contempt, Pacific Alliance argued, and the Court found, that these denials were inconsistent with the positions Kwok had taken throughout the duration of this 2017 case. As such, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of these agreements in opposition to Pacific Alliance's motion for summary judgment or at trial.\n\n## **Kwok's Cross-Motion**\n\nTurning first to defendant Kwok's cross-motion for leave to reargue the Court's Decision and Order dated July 7, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 404), this motion is denied. As stated above, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of the agreements that Kwok had previously sponsored as authentic before the Court in this proceeding. Kwok argues that the Court misapprehended the law in reaching this holding. This Court rejects that argument in its entirety.\n\nAt the outset of this case, Kwok moved to dismiss this action on *forum non conveniens* grounds (motion 001). The Court granted Kwok's motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102), which decision was subsequently reversed and remitted by the First Department (NYSCEF Doc. 121). In making his motion to dismiss, Kwok argued that the contracts at issue were governed by Hong Kong law. Specifically, Kwok attached to his motion \"true and correct\" copies of several agreements among the parties including the 2011 Personal Guarantee (NYSCEF Doc. No. 17) and the 2013 Deed of Settlement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18), which he now contests.\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 34 of 134\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\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 36 of 134\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\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 37 of 134\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 40 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 7**\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 41 of 134\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#### **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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 42 of 134\n\n## **NATURE OF THE ACTION**\n\n1. This is a straightforward breach of contract case. Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/k/a Gwo Wen Gui, a/k/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Guo Wen-Gui, a/k/a Wan Gue Haoyun, a/k/a Miles Kwok, a/k/a Haoyun Guo (\"Kwok\"), a reported billionaire, and his controlled entities borrowed millions of dollars from Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX LP\") but have failed to pay any of the amount owed to PAX LP under binding written agreements.\n\n2. In 2008, PAX LP entered into a written agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit Charter\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which PAX LP made available to Spirit Charter a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. This loan facility was conditioned on Kwok's execution of a personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's repayment obligations.\n\n3. In 2009, another of Kwok's entities, Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), assumed the debt that Spirit Charter owed to PAX LP, which the parties agreed at the time totaled \\$45,357,534.25. Kwok executed a personal guarantee of this debt.\n\n4. Then in 2011, PAX LP and Shiny Times entered into a written agreement (the \"2011 Facility Letter\") that expressly superseded prior agreements between the parties. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 and would repay that amount (plus 15% annual interest from December 31, 2010) by June 30, 2012.\n\n5. That same day, Kwok entered into a separate personal guarantee (that similarly expressly superseded Kwok's prior personal guarantee) under which Kwok guaranteed payment of all amounts owed to PAX LP by Shiny Times under the 2011 Facility Letter (the \"Personal Guarantee\").\n\n6. To date, neither Shiny Times nor Kwok have paid any amount owed to PAX LP under either the 2011 Facility Letter or the Personal Guarantee.\n\n7. PAX LP has taken all necessary and appropriate steps in accordance with its contracts with Shiny Times and Kwok to recover the monies it is owed—now totaling approximately\n\n#### 2 of 11\n\n\\$88 million including contractual interest—but has recovered nothing because it has been ignored by Shiny Times and Kwok at each step.\n\n8. Given that Kwok regularly transacts business, is domiciled and resides, and owns real estate in New York, PAX LP brings this action in this Court to enforce its contractual rights against Kwok.\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kwok pursuant to New York's general personal jurisdiction statute, C.P.L.R § 301, because he is engaged in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York and is domiciled in the state.\n\n10. Venue is proper in this Court under C.P.L.R § 503(a) because Kwok's residence is in New York County.\n\n# **PARTIES**\n\n11. Plaintiff PAX LP is an investment fund organized as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands.\n\n12. Defendant Kwok is a Chinese national who is domiciled in New York and engages in a continuous and systematic course of \"doing business\" in New York.\n\n13. Kwok resides on the 18th Floor of The Sherry-Netherland Hotel in New York City—a residence he purchased in 2015 for \\$67.5 million through Genever Holdings, LLC (\"Genever\"), a domestic limited liability company that he solely owns and that maintains its principal place of business in New York State at 80 State Street in Albany.\n\n14. Kwok also maintains offices at 767 Fifth Avenue for Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), a Delaware company that he owns, which is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in New York and has a registered agent for service of process in New York.\n\n15. Kwok also has employees or agents in New York, including those who work for Golden Spring and the attorneys he hired to represent him in two cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York over the last two years.1\n\n# **STATEMENT OF FACTS**\n\n# *The Shiny Times Loan and Kwok's Personal Guarantee to Repay PAX LP*\n\n16. PAX LP and Kwok have had business dealings since approximately February 4, 2008, 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 1 In 2015, Kwok and Golden Spring were sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in that lawsuit, Kwok (through counsel) acknowledged that he was properly served with a summons and complaint at The Sherry-Netherland Hotel. *Ahn v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al.*, No. 1:15-cv-09697 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015). In 2016, Kwok and Genever filed a lawsuit (through counsel) against The Sherry-Netherland Hotel and others relating to a leak in his apartment at the hotel. *Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al.,* No. 1:16-cv-06246-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016).\n\n20. The September 2009 Deed required Kwok to execute a personal guarantee in favor of PAX LP to secure Shiny Times' due and punctual performance and repayment of the Amended 2008 Loan Facility. Kwok executed his personal guarantee on November 18, 2009.\n\n21. PAX LP, Kwok, and Shiny Times thereafter agreed to supersede the foregoing agreements with two contracts executed on March 16, 2011—the 2011 Facility Letter (attached as Exhibit A) and the Personal Guarantee (attached as Exhibit B).\n\n22. In the 2011 Facility Letter, the parties agreed that Shiny Times owed PAX LP \\$46,426,489 and would repay that amount (plus 15% annual interest from December 31, 2010) by June 30, 2012.\n\n23. The parties further agreed in the 2011 Facility Letter that any failure by Shiny Times to pay any amount owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter would constitute an Event of Default, and that in such event PAX LP could (i) declare the entire loan, accrued and unpaid interest, and any other money payable to be immediately due and payable without further demand or notice or other legal formality of any kind, and/or (ii) declare the 2011 Facility Letter terminated.\n\n24. Finally, like the prior agreements between the parties, the 2011 Facility Letter was expressly conditioned on Kwok's execution of the Personal Guarantee to fully backstop Shiny Times' payment obligations to PAX LP:\n\nThe Lender [PAX LP] and the Borrower [Shiny Times] agree to enter into this Agreement . . . on the condition that a new personal guarantee of Mr. Kwok (the \"Personal Guarantee\"), in favour of the Lender is delivered to secure the due and punctual performance of the Borrower to fully repay the [2011 Facility Letter] plus all accrued and unpaid interest in accordance with this Agreement.\n\n25. Kwok signed the 2011 Facility Letter as a Director of Shiny Times and also, on the same day, signed the Personal Guarantee, under which Kwok agreed to \"irrevocably and unconditionally\" guarantee Shiny Times' payment of all amounts owed under the 2011 Facility Letter. In particular, Kwok:\n\n(a) guaranteed to PAX LP the \"due and punctual payment\" of Shiny Times' obligations under the 2011 Facility Letter;\n\n134\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\n29. PAX LP, Shiny Times, and Kwok entered into the first Deed of Settlement (the\n\n\"Original Deed of Settlement\") along with Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another company within the Kwok empire, on April 19, 2013.\n\n30. The Original Deed of Settlement provided that the total outstanding amount due under\n\nthe 2011 Facility Letter plus all accrued and unpaid interest was \\$52 million as of the date of the\n\nOriginal Deed of Settlement, and that amount would be no longer due and owing upon the satisfaction\n\nof the following conditions:\n\n- (a) If PAX LP completed the purchase of three apartments from Beijing Pangu in a series of three separate transactions for approximately \\$5 million each, for a total of approximately \\$15 million; and\n- (b) If Shiny Times completed three installment payments to PAX LP of approximately \\$5 million each—one installment payment to be made after each separate apartment purchase—for a total of approximately \\$15 million.\n\n31. Before PAX LP could purchase any of the three apartments from Beijing Pangu, however, Beijing Pangu was required under the Original Deed of Settlement to satisfy certain conditions precedent relating to title, taxes, and other common aspects of real estate transactions. If any of these conditions were not met for any of the three apartments by July 31, 2013, the Original Deed of Settlement expressly provided that it would be terminated in its entirety, and the 2011 Facility Letter would revert into full effect.\n\n32. Beijing Pangu failed to satisfy these conditions precedent by July 31, 2013, PAX LP therefore did not complete its purchase of any of the apartments, and Shiny Times did not make any of the three installment payments it owed to PAX LP under the Original Deed of Settlement.\n\n33. Four supplemental deeds of settlement—on December 3, 2013, May 15, 2014, July 11, 2014, and February 10, 2015—extended the dates in the Original Deed of Settlement, including the repayment date and the date for Beijing Pangu to satisfy the conditions precedent.\n\n34. Each of the supplemental deeds had the same terms as the Original Deed of Settlement. And the result was the same each time: Beijing Pangu never met the conditions it was required to satisfy, PAX LP therefore was not required to, and did not, complete its purchase of any of the apartments, and Shiny Times never made any of the three installment payments it owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n35. Finally, on March 31, 2015, Shiny Times and PAX LP, together with Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited and Empire Growth Holdings Limited, entered into an Option Agreement (the \"Option Agreement\") that provided, among other things, for the repayment via share sale transaction of amounts owed by Shiny Times to PAX LP.\n\n36. Pursuant to its terms, the Option Agreement was to terminate if certain conditions relating to the transfer of property (as stated in the Option Agreement) were not satisfied. None of these conditions were satisfied, and the Option Agreement was terminated without negating Shiny Times' obligation to pay PAX LP.\n\n37. Thus, the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, Kwok's obligations under the Personal Guarantee are fully enforceable, and Kwok is independently liable under the Personal Guarantee for the full amount of Shiny Times' debt owed to PAX LP under the 2011 Facility Letter.\n\n# *PAX LP Seeks to Enforce Its Contractual Rights and Collect Amounts Owed*\n\n38. On October 16, 2015, after the Deeds of Settlement and Option Agreement were terminated and the 2011 Facility Letter reverted to being in full force and effect, PAX LP sent a written notice of demand (the \"Notice of Demand\") to Kwok's address in Hong Kong, as specified under the terms of the Personal Guarantee.\n\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 49 of 134\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#### **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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 50 of 134\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 51 of 134\n\n'\\$7(' 1HZ, | |\n|----------------------------------------------|---|-----|---------------|-----------|\n| FILED | | | 1/lt;tlk
H | ~~--
- |\n| Feb 03 2021
NEW YORK | | 3rd | Clerk
Feb. | 2021 |\n| COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE | 2 | | | |\n\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 55 of 134\n\n> SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\n> > Plaintiff,\n\nV.\n\nKWOK HOW AN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAO YUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**AFFIRMATION OF EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.**\n\n\n\nDefendants.\n\nI, Edward Moss, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the\n\nState of New York, hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the Civil Practice Law\n\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\nSlXPRE.\\lE COURT Of THE STATE OF NE\\V YC)RK COUNTY or··Nt\\v·.·vonK fod~KNn,. 652077/2(H7\n\nPACTFlC. ALJ.lANC E ASl.A OFPO.RTl)NfTY FU ND LJt,\n\nKWOK HO W.AN,. *dlkht* KWOK HO, ,#kh GWO \\\\.'EN oc 1,· {l-''ls,/t1. ··Gt.Jo··tvENG·Ul, .tuk·\\I.·GUn•·\"'{ EN:..ou1, a/l:.ld W.AN GUE HAO-YUN, a//4/a NULE:S K\\VOK, idkki HAOYUN GLD, (iENE\\/ER HOL1)1NGS (.IJRm)RA.TiON, and GEN EV'hR HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n\n\n# **JUDGMENT**\n\n**UtBOtlOfUOl~•Ull(Ji\\lKNT**\n\n# o~ , u ,J,\\'l '.NY & 1\\-lHiRi'i LLP\n\nT! :i,{fS.SQfi.ll.RE·'.rffWER -'! T!\\WS \\$QCARf NF\\\\' \\'ORK, NF\\V vrnn,;; !{itH6 (:Z } .Z) **·l lt~~-Jt~OO**\n\n.:.\\ttrnm«y~ for Pb.infrfff';,i(:Hk i\\l lfam~('. .. :\\jfa OppmtrnRy Fimd,LY.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 57 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 9**\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 **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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 58 of\n\n134\n\nQhi;P THE:i6ti1JAY OF MARCH 2011\n\nKWOKHOWAN as Guarantor\n\nlnf'avourof\n\n(\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n\nPERSONALGUARAN~E\n\n\\. .:\n\nHoni;,:Kong\n\n#### 11-11S GUARANTEE is mad~ the16tllday of March 2011\n\n#### SETWEEN:\n\nKWOK HO WAN (~~\\*I holder of Hong t• 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\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 61 of\n\n134\n\nGuarantee shaH continue as If such release, dlschatge or othar atran\\_gE!ment had not bean gmn or made.\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 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 62 of\n\n134\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 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 63 of\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\n134\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF 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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 64 of\n\n134\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- 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\n134\n\ndep11rtmerit 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 anrocess**\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\n134\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 455 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 67 of\n\n#### EXS.CUTION PAGE\n\n134\n\n#### PERSONAL GUARANTEE\n\nSignature oflM!ness:\n\nName: Addm~s:\n\nOotl.lpation:\n\nSIGNED by ) Jc,n l.Gw!S ) D!re.otor, Pacifl~ Affiance Group Asset ) . Manitgement Ltmll8------w:r---~-\n\nSignature of Witness: , /1,71 . *I/ ,/* Na~e: S\"H'ft, r M'-i Addrtis: l,/f, Ptlfr C'.:ew!~At. , I ooluNA-\\. t.el.f,~H. l'\\11)\\/u ftl\"/9\n\noeeupatlon: lt'b ,.1, (,o\\J. *N* Cf' L-\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 68 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 10**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 69 of 134\n\n\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 70 of 134\n\n\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 71 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 11**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 72 of 134\n\n> SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n> > Plaintiff,\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a*\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\nDefendants.\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and\n\nMILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n# **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n#### **TABLE OF CONTENTS FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 73 of 134\n\n# **Page**\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | |\n|--------------------------|--|\n| BACKGROUND 2 | |\n| ARGUMENT 4 | |\n| CONCLUSION 6 | |\n\n#### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 74 of 134\n\n| Pages
Cases |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.
No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016)………………4 |\n| McCormick v. Axelrod,
59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)……………………………………………4 |\n| Statutes |\n| Judiciary Law § 753 …………………………………1, 4 |\n\n| CPLR § 5104 ………………………………….1 | |\n|-----------------------------|--|\n| | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 75 of 134\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, under CPLR § 5104 and Judiciary Law § 753, for an order (i) finding Defendant Miles Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Court's October 15, 2020 Restraining Order (the \"Order\"); (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThis Court previously has recognized that Kwok has \"flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted\" its orders, and has made \"intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court.\"1 In the words of Yogi Berra, it is déjà vu all over again: there is no doubt that Kwok knowingly has violated this Court's Order restraining him from moving his yacht2 outside the Court's jurisdiction and—perhaps worse—he has once again put his counsel in the line of fire by instructing him to *request the Court's permission to move the yacht even though Kwok knew it already had been moved outside of U.S. territorial waters at the time that request was made*. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt, require him immediately to return the yacht to the jurisdiction, and grant whatever additional relief it deems necessary and appropriate to finally stop Kwok from making a mockery of this proceeding.\n\n1 Dkt. 647 at 26:6–8.\n\n2 Any suggestion by Kwok in opposition that the yacht technically is not \"his\" would be disingenuous nonsense. If Kwok advances that false argument (which is directly contradicted by, among other evidence and admissions, Kwok's counsel's request at a recent conference *for Kwok* to be able to move the yacht outside this Court's jurisdiction), PAX will respond on reply. PAX notes, however, that any such argument would be irrelevant to this motion because the Order expressly covers the yacht even if it is held by another registered owner (whether it be a Kwok shell company or family member).\n\n\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\nOn September 30, 2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\")\n\npreventing Kwok from, among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an\n\ninterest.\"3 In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\"4 About two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order,\n\nwhich granted PAX's motion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. *Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of* (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) *the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.*5\n\nOn November 12, 2020, the Court held a conference, during which Kwok's counsel\n\n(presumably at his client's instruction) made a specific point to ask this Court if Kwok could\n\nmove the yacht offshore:6\n\n Apparently the boat is registered offshore I believe in the British Virgin Islands, and there is a requirement that it return to its home port at sixmonth intervals. It is not an issue that is going to affect in any way ownership or title, but *it needs to travel offshore at some point for a brief period and then come back into the United States*. And we just wanted to disclose that so that there is no thought that this is being secreted or transferred. This is just an ordinary thing it has to do for licensing purposes.7\n\n7 *Id.* at 13:9–18.\n\n3 Dkt. 591 at 1.\n\n4 *Id.* at 2.\n\n5 Dkt. 630.\n\n6 Moss Aff. Ex. 1 (Nov. 12, 2020 Conf. Tr.) at 12:23–25.\n\nThe Court unequivocally responded that Kwok was *not* permitted to remove the yacht from this jurisdiction and would be required to make a motion before doing so:\n\n> You will have to make that application on papers. I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands. I seriously doubt [PAX] wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court . . . You will make a motion with supporting documentation on notice to [PAX], and I will rule on it. What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for [PAX] to levy upon . . . that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for [PAX] to reply.8\n\nAlthough Kwok's counsel responded that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" and would \"provide that information in writing,\"9 Kwok made no such motion.\n\n Given their experience with Kwok and his misbehavior, PAX and its counsel were concerned by Kwok's counsel's question and did some research. A few days later—based on publicly available information accessed at MarineTraffic.com—PAX learned that the yacht had in fact departed Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on *November 1, 2020*, and as of November 18, 2020, was located in the Bahamas at or near Old Fort Bay, Nassau.10 In other words, Kwok had actually moved the yacht out of United States waters approximately *two weeks after the Order* and *two weeks before his counsel sought permission for Kwok to do precisely that at the*\n\n# *November 12 conference.*\n\nIn light of this information, PAX's counsel wrote to Kwok's counsel on November 18,\n\n2020, providing the information it had accessed as to the yacht's whereabouts, expressing its\n\n8 *Id.* at 13:19–15:4.\n\n9 *Id.* at 14:2–3, 15:5–6.\n\n10 Moss Aff. Ex. 2 (Nov. 18, 2020 Ltr.) at Ex. A.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 78 of 134\n\nconcern \"given Mr. Kwok's history of making misrepresentations throughout this litigation,\" and asking Kwok's counsel to \"confirm the location of the Lady May\" and \"that the vessel will be back in New York within 48 hours.\"11\n\nKwok's counsel never responded. Rather, later that night, Kwok's counsel filed a letter\n\nwith the Court claiming to know nothing and committing to investigate and report back:\n\n[W]e have just become aware this evening that the yacht, the Lady May, referenced in this Court's restraining order (NYSCEF Doc. 630) and discussed during the Pre-Trial conference held before this Court on November 11, 2020, is currently in international waters. Although Plaintiff's counsel has just sent us a letter regarding the purported whereabouts of the yacht, we have not confirmed any details . . . We are attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.12\n\nBut as of today's filing—*five weeks later*—Kwok's counsel has provided no further information\n\nto either the Court or to PAX's counsel. Also as of today, according to MarineTraffic.com, the\n\nyacht is still moored in or around Nassau, Bahamas.13\n\n# **ARGUMENT**\n\nUnder Judiciary Law section 753:\n\nIn order to find that contempt has occurred in a given case, [(1)] it must be determined that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [(2)] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed. [(3)] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party. [(4)] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 Dkt. No. Dkt. 649.\n\n13 *See* Moss Aff. ¶ 5.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 79 of 134\n\n*McCormick v. Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983); *see also Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.* No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016) (Ostrager, J.) (citing *McCormick* and applying the four-pronged test). PAX easily satisfies each of the four elements for contempt here.\n\n*First*, the Order is a lawful order of the Court: an unequivocal mandate that Kwok is \"restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with [the yacht].\"14\n\n*Second*, Kwok disobeyed the Order by causing the yacht to leave the jurisdiction about two weeks after the Court issued the Order (and continues to disobey it).\n\n*Third*, Kwok is a sophisticated party, who is involved with this litigation and obviously had knowledge of the Order. Moreover, his counsel specifically sought clarification of the Order at the November 12 conference,15 during which he stated that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" that Kwok was required to make a motion before removing the yacht from the jurisdiction.16\n\n*Fourth*, PAX has been prejudiced by Kwok's intentional flouting of the Order. Kwok has been trying for years to frustrate the eventual judgment of this Court, and he has been trying for far longer than that to avoid repaying his debt to PAX. Kwok shields his assets through family members and shell companies, and it will be difficult enough for PAX to collect on assets within the United States. If Kwok were permitted to expand his shell game by hiding his yacht\n\n14 *See supra* n.5.\n\n15 *See supra* n.6.\n\n16 *See supra* n.9.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 80 of 134\n\nsomewhere on the open seas outside this Court's jurisdiction, PAX's chances of enforcing against that asset would decrease significantly.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully requests that the Court enter an order, under CPLR 5104 and Judiciary Law section 753, (i) finding Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Order; (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht, the Lady May, to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nPlaintiff hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 82 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 12**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 83 of 134\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nMot Seq. No. 12\n\nPart 61\n\nDefendants.\n\n# **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n#### **TABLE OF CONTENTS FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 84 of 134\n\n# **Page**\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | | | | | |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| ARGUMENT 1 | | | | | |\n| I. | The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved
Outside this Court's Jurisdiction. 1 | | | | |\n| II. | The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt. 4 | | | | |\n| CONCLUSION 11 | | | | | |\n\n#### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 85 of 134\n\n# **Pages**\n\n# **Cases**\n\n| 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC,
2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007) 10 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.,
303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003) 2 |\n| Bogoni v. Friedlander,
197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994) 6 |\n| Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.,
208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)
10 |\n| L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg,
2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) 10 |\n| Wengui v. Zeng,
Index No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 5 |\n| Other Authorities |\n| MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, Interfere 2 |\n| Rules |\n| N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3 4 |\n\n\n\n# **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**1\n\nGiven this case's history, it is not clear whether Kwok's Opposition is the single most disingenuous submission he has made to this Court. But it certainly is up there. With a straight face, Kwok argues that (i) moving and keeping the Lady May outside this Court's jurisdiction did not violate the October 15 Order—even though the Court expressly and repeatedly has said that it did; and (ii) even if moving the yacht were a violation, Kwok should not be sanctioned because he does not own the Lady May—even though he repeatedly has stated, both in a court filing and on social media, that he does. Enough is enough. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt and impose a sanction sufficient to motivate him to comply with the Order and bring his yacht back to this jurisdiction—and keep it here.\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **I. The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved Outside this Court's Jurisdiction.**\n\nKwok does not dispute that (i) the October 15 Order restrained, \"in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020,\" both \"Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . 'the Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or *interference* with th[at] asset[]\"; 2 or (ii) the Lady May has been moved out of U.S. waters. Instead, he argues that the move out of the Court's jurisdiction did not technically violate the October 15 Order because\n\n1 This brief refers to (i) Defendant Kwok Ho Wan's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Contempt (Dkt. No. 698) as the \"Opposition\" or \"Opp;\" (ii) the Affirmation of Edward Moss in Further Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Moss Reply Aff.\"; and (iii) the Affirmation of Nathaniel Francis in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Francis Aff.\" Unless otherwise specified, (i) defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok (Dkt. No. 689), (ii) all emphasis is added, and (iii) all internal citations and quotations are omitted.\n\n2 Opp. at 3 (citing (Dkt. No. 630)).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 87 of 134\n\n(i) the Lady May's \"ownership\" has not changed; (ii) \"Plaintiff neither asked for nor received any direction from the Court prohibiting the Lady May's relocation\" at the October 15 hearing; and (iii) the Court explained at the October 15 hearing that ordinary course expenditures—for example, \"if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic\" were permitted.3\n\nThese arguments are frivolous. To begin, Kwok has no answer for why moving the yacht does not count as \"interference\" with the October 15 Order (it does), 4 nor how spending money in the ordinary course on a vacation somehow equates to moving a restrained, multi-million dollar asset outside of the jurisdiction (it does not). Indeed, the Court already has rejected Kwok's \"ordinary-course\" argument. In response to Kwok's counsel's question seeking clarification as to whether the restraining order applied to the payment of legal fees, the Court explained the contours of what it meant by \"ordinary course.\"5 *Immediately after that clarification***,** Kwok's counsel asked whether the Lady May could be moved to the British Virgin Islands because that was \"just an *ordinary thing* that is has to do for licensing purposes.\"6 The Court responded in no uncertain terms that Kwok *was not permitted to move the yacht before making (and winning) a motion seeking leave to do so*. 7\n\n3 Opp. at 6–9.\n\n4 \"[I]t is common practice for the courts of this State to refer to the dictionary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words to a contract.\" *2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.*, 303 A.D.2d 299, 301 (1st Dep't 2003). The ordinary meaning of \"to interfere\" is \"to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes.\" MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, *Interfere* (*available at* http).\n\n5 *See* Dkt. 691 at 12:23–13:5 (permitting legal fees that are \"customary and reasonable\").\n\n6 *Id.* at 13:9–18.\n\n7 *Id.* at 13:19–24.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 88 of 134\n\nWorse, Kwok completely ignores this Court's *repeated, clear, and unequivocal statements* that moving the Lady May *would (and did) violate the Order*. First, at the October 15 hearing (which was expressly incorporated into the October 15 Order that issued later that day), the Court specifically discussed the Lady May and directed Kwok that the yacht and other assets not be moved so that they would be available for collection if PAX were to prevail (*i.e.*, so as not to *interfere* with PAX's potential judgment-enforcement efforts):\n\n> *Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside* and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, *those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.*8\n\nThen, at the November 20 hearing, Kwok's counsel asked \"two questions . . . *clarifying*\n\n*the scope of the restraining order* that the Court has entered\"—one of which was whether the\n\nLady May could be moved outside the jurisdiction (even though, we now know, it already had\n\nbeen moved by that time).9 As noted above, the Court unequivocally answered \"no\"—not\n\nwithout first making and winning a motion and a further Court order:\n\nYou will have to make that application on papers. *I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands*. I seriously doubt Mr. Moss wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court. . . . *What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for Mr. Moss's client to levy upon*. . . . Mr. Siegal asked me a question about *whether the restraining order can be modified to allow this yacht to move from a US port to the British Virgin Islands*, and I said that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for Mr. Moss to reply.10\n\n 8 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:8–14.\n\n9 Dkt*.* No. 691 at 12:23–25.\n\n10 Dkt*.* No. 691 at 13:19–15:4.\n\nFinally, at the most recent hearing on December 18, the Court again reiterated what should have been quite obvious to Kwok by that point:\n\n> Okay. So, let me ask you, we have an issue *with respect to a boat that I enjoined Mr. Kwok from moving* which he may or may not have *moved in violation of the Court's order*. . . . It seems to me *I ordered the boat not be moved*. 11\n\nGiven the plain meaning of \"interference\" (*see supra* note 4) and the Court's repeated,\n\nunequivocal directives, there is no question that the October 15 Order has been violated. Kwok's\n\nsuggestion otherwise is misleading. 12 And if Kwok argues that he should get a pass because the\n\nyacht already had been moved by the time of the October 15 hearing (*i.e.*, before his counsel\n\nasked and was denied permission to move it), then the answer is quite simple: it should have\n\nbeen brought back *immediately* after the Court issued the October 15 Order.13\n\n# **II. The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt.**\n\nWhile Kwok advances several other meritless arguments for why he personally should\n\n 11 Dkt. No. 695 at 25:15–18, 27:21–22.\n\n12 *See* N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (providing that a lawyer's duty of candor toward the tribunal prohibits him or her from knowingly \"mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal\"); *see also* Dkt. No. 647 at 21:11–16 (\"The Court believes . . . that Mr. Kwok has attempted to mislead the Court. The Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court orders, the spirit of court orders.\"), 26:5–9 (\"While orders of the Court are either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going to have closure in this case in January of 2021.\").\n\n13 We take Kwok's counsel at his word that he did not know the Lady May already had been moved out of the jurisdiction when he asked the Court if the Lady May could be moved out of the jurisdiction. But later—after being informed by PAX that the yacht was actually out of the jurisdiction—Kwok's counsel wrote to the Court and explained that because his firm had just been informed by PAX about the yacht's location, \"we have not confirmed any details,\" but were \"attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.\" Dkt. No. 649. Contrary to that representation, however, Kwok did not, before responding to this Motion, provide any additional information to the Court about the yacht's location. *See* N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(b) (\"A lawyer who represents a client before a tribunal and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.\").\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 90 of 134\n\nnot be held in contempt, they all reduce to his core assertion that he does not own—and therefore cannot control the movements of—the Lady May. Who does Kwok think he's kidding?\n\nAs PAX already has demonstrated, Kwok alleged fewer than five months ago—in a September 1, 2020 complaint *he filed i*n New York Supreme Court—that \"pawns of the Chinese Communist Party . . . have attempted to cause Guo [a/k/a Kwok] injury while on *his yacht*.\" *See Wengui v. Zeng*, Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint at ¶ 8). That sentence in Kwok's own complaint ends with a footnote that cites and links to (and thereby incorporates by reference) an article by *freebeacon.com* entitled \"Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht *Owned by* Chinese Billionaire,\" which states that \"Guo Wengui, who uses the English name *Miles Kwok, said* several incidents involving *his 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May*, appear to be part of a Chinese government effort to threaten and intimidate him.\"14 It is not surprising, then, that in the context of restraining the Lady May, the Court described it as the \"27 million-dollar yacht *which Mr. Kwok once claimed to have owned*.\"15\n\nNotably, counsel for the Genever Defendants in this action, Aaron Mitchell, serves as counsel for Kwok personally in *Wengui v. Zeng*. Mr. Mitchell signed the complaint that repeatedly referred to the Lady May as \"his [*i.e.*, Kwok's] yacht\" and incorporated by reference the *freebeacon.com* article reporting that the yacht was \"owned\" by Kwok. Even though Mr. Mitchell supposedly does not represent Kwok in this case, he argued on Kwok's behalf at the December 18 hearing, contending that his September 2020 complaint \"wasn't referring to ownership,\" but rather merely to \"the fact that Mr. Kwok was on that boat,\" and chided PAX's\n\n14 *See id.* at 3 n.1 (citing http). The complaint also refers to the Lady May as \"his\" (*i.e.*, Kwok's) yacht in Paragraph 7 and in Prayer for Relief (d).\n\n15 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:5–6.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 91 of 134\n\ncounsel for its \"absurd reliance\" on that pleading.16 Given Kwok's track record, perhaps Mr. Mitchell was onto something when he suggested it was \"absurd\" for PAX to actually rely on Kwok's own words.\n\nKwok's Opposition is even more disingenuous; it mischaracterizes PAX as arguing that Kwok owns the yacht in part because he was supposedly a \"guest\" on it (something PAX has never argued), and claims that PAX has no evidence of ownership.17 Even if Kwok's *own pleading*—a judicial admission18—were insufficient to establish ownership (and it is more than sufficient), PAX has much, much more:\n\nOn May 10, 2017, Kwok \"tweeted\" (on his since-suspended Twitter account) the following photo of himself sitting on the Lady May, accompanied by Chinese characters that, translated, state \"I am posting a few photos of the yacht *I gave to my daughter* and named after her. . . . Her name is Lady May. . . . *I bought it for 41 million euro*\":19\n\n16 Dkt. No. 695 at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 Opp. at 8–9.\n\n18 *See Bogoni v. Friedlander*, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 (1st Dep't 1994) (An admission in an initial pleading is a \"formal judicial admission\" which is \"evidence of the facts admitted.\").\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 92 of 134\n\n\n\nThen, on August 27, 2017, Kwok (again, on his since-suspended account), referred to the\n\n\"Lady May\" as \"*my ship*\" and recalled that \"two years ago when I was in Miami . . . *I [] signed*\n\n*the most important investment contract of my life*,\" and it \"all seems so meaningful.\"21\n\nBut we have saved the best for last. As an October 14, 2017 YouTube video shows,22\n\nKwok was filmed *stating unequivocally that the boat was his*: 23\n\n> *I decided to sell it* because it has an aluminum body. With an aluminum body, it drifts a bit at sea. It's okay in shallow waters. I wanted to use the heavier one, the bigger one, which is also a Feadship, since it is made of steel. I wanted to go further out to sea. . . . *I advertised it twice*, but my offers were relatively high, about US\\$50 million, 31 million euros, which\n\n 20 *Id*.\n\n21 *Id.*\n\n22 *See* Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3 (directing the Court to minute 2:50 through minute 4:15 in a YouTube video available at http).\n\n23 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 93 of 134\n\nwas around US\\$50 million. When *I listed* it at that higher price, *I had one offer* just below *my* asking price, but *I did not sell it.*\n\n\n\n\n\nThis is all straight from Kwok's mouth: *He* bought the Lady May, *he* had it shipped, *he* decided to list it for sale, and *he* put it in his daughter's name to shield it from creditors. Kwok's contention that he is merely some \"guest\" aboard the yacht is (yet another) flat-out lie.\n\n24 *Id.* The screenshots were taken directly from YouTube and already included the captions, which a certified translation confirms are substantially accurate. *See* Moss Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 94 of 134\n\n Of course, Kwok's contention that he does not own or control the Lady May and that it is really owned by an entity, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, which is wholly owned and controlled by his daughter Mei (pronounced \"May\") Guo, is right on-brand. Kwok is a self-proclaimed billionaire who, when it suits him, pretends to have no assets25 precisely because his practice is to use shell companies and his children and employees to shield his assets. For example, Kwok is now claiming in the Genever bankruptcy case that the Genever Defendants are beneficially owned by another shell company that is owned by his son—despite never disclosing that to the Sherry-Netherland and never making that argument before this Court to try to avoid an attachment.26 And not only has Kwok repeatedly stated that the Lady May is \"his\" (including in the above-described September 2020 complaint that he filed *after* he supposedly gave the yacht to his daughter), but HK International is a mere shell company (i) that did not have the yacht registered in its name until April 2020 (when PAX was in the red zone in this litigation);27 and (ii) with a \"principal office\" address of 162 E. 64th Street—the same address as (surprise!) the offices of Mr. Mitchell—who regularly represents Kwok or his shell entities, depending on the case.28\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n During the October 15 hearing, even before the Court knew that Kwok had moved the yacht, it explained that in this \"2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a\n\n25 Dkt. No. 580 at 100:2–3 (testifying that his net worth is \"negative\"); 101:3–5 (testifying that \"[i]n reality, under the law\" he has \"no\" assets).\n\n26 *See* Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 5 at ¶ 4 (claiming that Bravo Luck is (i) \"the beneficial owner\" of the Sherry-Netherland apartment and (ii) \"a company owned by Mr. Qiang Guo, the son of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok\").\n\n27 *See* Opp. at 4, n.2.\n\n28 *See* Dkt. No. 705 at 1*.*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 95 of 134\n\ngreat deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders . . . [t]he Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets . . . .\"29 The Court further stated that \"we are not going to have any more shell games.\"30 Unfortunately, Kwok's shell games have continued, his dissembling and gamesmanship have only intensified, and he has once again flagrantly violated an order of this Court.\n\n This Court has the discretion to impose a sanction on Kwok sufficient to motivate him to comply with the October 15 Order. Indeed, \"the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce obedience to a court order.\"31 In a separate case against him in Nevada, for example, Kwok was sanctioned \\$250,000 per day until he finally complied with a court order requiring him to meet his most basic discovery obligations.32 The violation here is far worse.\n\n Given Kwok's repeated violation of this Court's orders, his obvious financial means as a self-proclaimed multi-billionaire, and the gravity of and materiality to PAX of the current violation, PAX respectfully requests a sanction—monetary or otherwise—that is sufficient to compel Kwok to comply with the October 15 Order and bring the Lady May back to the jurisdiction immediately.\n\n29 Dkt. No. 647 at 24:9–11; 21:13–15.\n\n30 *Id.* at 22:7.\n\n31 *1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC*, 2007 WL 2701271, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007); *see also Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.*, 208 A.D.2d 37, 42 (2d Dep't 1995) (\"A civil contempt penalty is imposed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court's mandate.\")*; L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg*, 2011 WL 1564647, at \\*4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) (\"The court has authority to punish a litigant that disobeys a lawful mandate. The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance with a court order or to compensate a party who is injured as a result of disobedience of a court order.\").\n\n32 *See* Dkt. No. 557 at 2 (ordering Kwok to provide the Court with a phone number where he could be reached and either (i) an address where he would accept service of discovery documents, or (ii) and email address where such documents may be sent).\n\n\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully submits that the Court should hold Kwok in\n\ncontempt and order appropriate sanctions.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n### **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\n PAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 98 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 13**\n\n# **Susan Hennelly**\n\nFrom: Sent: To: **Subject:** Attachments:\n\nSusan Hennelly Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:31 PM BoardOfDirectors Sale of Apartment 1801 and Maid's Room 2219 Kwok board package.pdf\n\nWe have received a contract for the sale of the 2,950 shares allocated to Apartment 180'1 and the 50 shares allocated to Maid's Room 2219 from Sherry 1800s, LLC (Haroche) to Genever Holdings LLC (Miles Kwok).\n\nAttached are copies of the contract of sale1 Mr. Kwok's application and several letters of reference.\n\nThe purchase price is \\$67,500,000, plus \\$2,500))00 for the furnishings. The 2015 maintenance is \\$55,214 per month plus an additional \\$936 for the Maid's Room. This is a residential apartment and will be used by Mr. Kwok and his family.\n\nDue to Mr. Kwok's foreign status and purchasing in an LLC, he will be required to sign an occupancy agreement and personally guarantee the lease. He will also be required to provide a security deposit.\n\nThis apartment encompasses the entire floor and is approximately 7,300 sq. ft. plus 2,170 sq. ft. of terraces. Attached is a floor plan.\n\nMr. Kwok has also entered into a contract to purchase Maid's Room 719 which he will purchase simultaneously, if approved.\n\nMichael Horvitz and Fred Seegal have interviewed Miles Kwok and his son, Mileson Kwok. His wife, Hing Chi, was present via Skype.\n\nVery truly yours,\n\nMichael J. Ullman Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer The Sherry Netherland Hotel 781 Fifth A venue New York, NY 10022 P: 212-231-6811 F: 212-832-4845 For reservations and special offers, go to\n\n# Executed Contract of Sale\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n134\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 101 of\n\n### CONSULT YOUR LA WYER l3EP'ORE SIGNJNC THIS AGREEMENT Contrllc(of Salc-\\_Cooperative Apartment\n\nT/Jis Contract is marle as of February \\_\\_\\_ , *2015* between the \"Seller\" and the \"Purchaser)I identified be!ow.\n\nJ Certain Dcfinlt!ons And foformation ! . I The: \"Parties\" arc: J.f.'Z \"Purclrnsor\"; Gcncver Holdingi LLC\n\n*1.1.1* ''Seller\"; Sherry l800s, LLC *Prtor Hames 1.1.ud by Sellar: ;fddrc~s. l 233 Rock Rimmon RMr/i Sf(lmf1'rd, CT 06903*\n\n*Tcv: ID. No .. l0-0780J54*\n\n*A dd1e,1·,r* · *SS. No .. •*\n\n1.2 Tl1e \"Atcornc:ys\" ort *(name, firm name, address <111d telephone.fax).*\n\nMichael *J.* Jones, Esq, Im Gilbert, **Esq, 170 Muon** *Street,* Greenwich, CT O@JIJ 1285 Avenue of the Amerl.:11 Tel: 203-661..{;000 New Ywk1 [';\\' 10019-6064 Fax: *203-661,1088* **Tei;** 2l2ft.W-.,1JMl6il-·-O-f--O-booft-C~fflfflt{moot-~t.ir-..to/-U1e fixtures, central a.ir-<.:ondition/ng **;and/or** window or sleeve unit:;, 6%ft~!ffi~-Ga~.:i+, washing 111aci1ine;;, *cryrrs,* screen:; .ind storm wiodows, window +~~P.¼lr-\\lfl~-may-af})lly--feHiFWM~nH~oo-Yrlth-lhts !m1rmcnts. switch pJatcs, door h:mJwllfc, mirrors. buif:-ins not ~-&-~H1~as~RHJ0Hgalien-to-fHtl'OOtlSfH.l1ltlef-4.is-GMtffi~-tS excluded Jn *1* l.12 tllld all of the 'urnishiogs n,,ekt1**LLC Paul, Weiss, **Rffkl11ci 1**Wlrnrton & Gnrr!son, LLP igllbcrt@pa ulwclss .com\n\n1see l.12 below0\n\nt. !2 Sp.c,;;;.fi.1;..iUy..cx,.;Juo,:,J../.;o~l..illL&.s11lc-u .all..J1\"t.501Jl'i .. pt0f~- **-!lwi.** in1 s* Room# 15191/ f Pw-ktftg-SpslOOJ\n\n(\"lnch,Jed !nten:sts\") 1.14 TI1e \"Closing\" is the transfer of ownership of the !-ihares and Lease,\n\n1.15 The dato scheduled for Closing is no later than 3/6/15 C'Scheduled Closing Date\"} at I0:00 **A.M.** (Sec ml *9* and lO)\n\nI. t6 The uPurchase Price\" is: \\$67,500,000.00\n\n1.16.1 The \"Contract Deposit\" is: \\$7,000,0-00.00\n\nl .16.2 The HBalance\" of the Purchase Price due al Closing is;\n\n\\$63rOOO,OOO.OO (See~ 2.2.2) See SR18 in Second Rider\n\n1.17 The monthly \"Ma.lntc1111ncc\" charge is \\$57,085.53 (Sec i\n\n4) LI 8 The \"As:;i;ssment\", if any, payable to the Corporation, n(\n\n*the* date of this Contract *is* NONE, pay11bfc *as* follows:\n\nI.I I \"Personally\" is lht: following person11/ property, to the *+.-a~tftfttlfflg-GptiiiFY.,-{~le-AWH,/-lh.e-{o/lewittg* ?11 *UI.I,*\n\nspecifically excluded in 1.2.2), including but uroH1-loon--of-~----f1•HJ~(unn--0~----.ye,m;..:1r-1;uch-J£1r,1;t,r not UJtlited t..o 411 it~ms set t,oxth i.ri trie series of videos contained in the DVD(the \"DVD\") delivered by Brown Harris Stevens to Unit 1801 at L:Ou pm or i-ebruary :LU, 201 o.\n\n(j 1.12 - Specifically excluded from this sate are thirteen (13) **paintings** and drawings; one antique secretary desk on east wall of LR *(to* be replaced by a piece of furniture that resembles this desk); personal 'knick knacks' such as small boxes, docks, picture frames, pictures, etc. (but if 'knick knacks' are in the DVD, they are included); file cabinets in Gil's office and contents thereof; all the clothing, framed photographs(except specific frame to be designated by buyer) and the model of the Seller's private yacht located in Seller's office.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 102 of\n\nc,,:1nut *,(* j,1,ft (ll~jtHttl','t n.pl'l(/l,j(fli1 1-:.00 I J'cop.r,,I h) \"'' (.',,,,,,i,rr11 1Gonovcr f-loldlngs LLC\n\n*Prior Hattuu 1md by Sd!ar: Addr!!n: 1233 Rock Rlt11mott Read, Sla11tf(}nf1 CT 0690J*\n\n*Tax ID. No.: 'J0-0780.fJ'I*\n\n*Addre,v.,;·: S.S. N1J,:*\n\n1.2 The \"Attorneys\" ore *(nam,, firm name, add,·e.rs and ulephone, fax),* 1.2. I \"Seller's /\\tcornoy\" ! .2.2 \"Purchast:r's Allomey'' Mlch11e! J. *Jones,* E;q, *il'R* GUbert, *tsq,* Ivty, 131mn1m & O1 M11r11 1 LLC Poul, **Weiss,** Rll'kfnd, Wh11rton & G11rrlsori1 LLP *1 '70* Muon *Street,* Groenwlch1 CT 06830 l:28~ Avenue o(the America Tel: 203-661-6000 New York, N\\' 10019-6064 Fu: 203-651-7088 Tri: Zl2-J7J.JSl9 mJorie.s@lhofow.com Fin:: **212-492•0529**\n\nl .3 The \"E~crowcc\" *Is 1he /Seller 'J}* A Horney.\n\nl ,4 The Managing l\\genl is *(Ham,e, addres., and telep!wrra, fu.X): Slfttrry Nti1(11:rin11d Hori:( Susan H1m11el{J! 781 Flftlt Avttnw.:, 1'1 1 Nt!W fork, NY 10011 Td: :Jl].J3J,681J P~ JJJ-8J:.i-fU5*\n\n*1.5* TI1c real cstat~ 1 'Brnl<~r(s)\" (see~ 12) ls/are: John Burger, 1rnd Kathy S1011.ne, Drown **Harris** *Stevens ind* Serena Dondm•n, Sotheby'\\$ 1.v The name of the ccoporatlve hol.l!llng corporal/on ( 11C-Orporarlon\") b: Sherry Netherland, Inc.\n\nI. 7 'Jl10 \"Unit\" 1wmber I:;: 1801, which eticompaues the entire•\n\n! , *8* The Unii ls locate..J-tlf'-/-;-J{):1-) frcc,.crs,* ranges, *ovens,* bul/(•in m lcrowovo oven~, dish washers, ~~r-fifi8:fKttilf:-tlH9fHl-eeHeA-Wkfl---#lJs gorb~ge dlspo5fll units, Cftblnets DJld counter.i, llghtlng fj:,:turcs, ~1&-P-uf'OOB~&Hgatwn-4~hl&-Ooo\\taCHil chn11dollers, wal/-10-wflll *carpo:ing,* plumbing ond he!lting &OOt-ffi&:~~~er--Oy--tlie *f1xturos,* Qan(rai alr...cundhlon/ng ;and/or window or sleeve uni!s, l,,ffn fl-WHIHhf5 treafmcnt5, switch piatcs, door h!mlware, mirrors, buil:•lns no! ealiHl~~UgaHen-40-p1;1HJtWJ&-u~Hltl~ excluded /11 Y l. 12 *and* all of tit~ .. urn/.,hJni:.v tR1ktdf1tg-b«l-tt&! IHl~gtlflt--upon--i~o~n-{;emmltmool-le¼Wr H11tf~- **-~~d** 'tr - c-ftfti11 ;-p-&f,,---p1'1ltr,-ci,oirinir-H'C m,, ~~~1:1,-tiwi~1~tofi00-with fltt **tw1tt1e; 1tt-wttl-M-c-ry,<-11-t 1Mltt'\"1tttd--d~e1t!lieNr -e~** m-tm,\n\nlgllbor(@pllulwob-.com\n\n1soe 1.12 helow0\n\nI. 12 Spc.;;!kt1Uy..e;..;;lu.;JuLCl'.,ru....i.h~alc.J\\$.lllLp,:ironaJ.propco.y .• mJl• tn-t,looe,d ..Jn ~\"a-1 *\"\"1-1-u .. i.* all-400tt..u'-Jw:;Juded. .ia..t!ie-.-i.1+:t~ **wfff\"t-+ite--e«\"t><~J.J..p~,g1r«ffQ4f°ffW~~~ te«l&fff')'~&tt-ffM--Wili-ff.1.J+twUI-IJ+-~r~ttWH- \"knl-t.1<'1ffl1ttkt1'-~t-•t-e~~~~lfH--ff•Mff\\ plct11'1\"C3;e((',** I. 1J nw safo [dtwsJ [~) lnclude Scllc(s !ntttest io (Sto~t,i)/ [Servnnt's Room 1115191/ (PsAEi11g opaaej (•tncJudol.f **Jntt1ro-il.f')** 1.14 The ~closing\" i, the tram:for of ownership of tho Shares and **Lcase,** *I.IS* The date scheduled for Closing ts no later than 3/6/15\n\n('1 Scheduled Closing Date\") *at* I0:00 **A.M.** (Seo *V'\\19* and 10)\n\nI, 16 The \"Purohuse Price\" Js: \\$67,500,000.00\n\nI, 16, l Tho \"Contraot Deposit\" *Is:* \\$71000,000,00\n\nLI *6,2* The \"13alence\" of the Purchase Price dUI! a( Closing !s: \\$6J,ooo,ooo.oo (See~ 2.2,2) See SR18 in Second Rider\n\nLI 7 The rnonthly \"Malnlcnoncc'' charge fs \\$S7,0BS.5J (Sec 1 4)\n\n1.18 The \"As~i:ssrnenl\", If any, payable to the Cnrporatlo11, 111 the dale ofthfs Contract is NON€, payable as fol!uw:;:\n\nf. I r uri:rson11/!y\" is tile followlng pmon11I propcrt1, to th or a new Lease. 10,2 At Closing, Purchaser shall:\n\nt0.2, I PRY the 8Rlancc In 11ocordonce with ~2.2,2;\n\n10.2,2 execute and deliver to Seller and the Corporation an agreement wisumlng the Lease, in the form required by the\n\nCorporation; and to,2.3 if requested by the Corporation, execute nnd deliver **counterparts** of a new **lease** substantially the same 11s the Lease, for the **bu:ance** of the Lease term, in which cflse the Lease shall be canceled and surrendered to the Corporation togeiher whh\n\nSeller's assignment tl1ereofto Purch11Rer 10.J At Closing, the Parlics shall complete end execute all documents necessury:\n\nI0.3, l for Internal Revenue Ser.ice (\"IRS\") form !099-S or othor ,9/mll0r requirements:\n\nI 0.3.2 to comply with smoke detecior requiremonts and any applicnble transfer tux ftl!ngs; and\n\nt 0.3 .3 to trnnsfer Seller's lnteresl, if any, In and to the Personalty and Included rnterests.\n\nI 0.4 Purchnser shrill not be. obligurcd to close urilcs,q, u1 Closing, the Corporntion dellvers ·\n\n10.4, 1 to Purchaser u new certli: cute for (he Shares in the nume of Purcha5er; and\n\nI 0.4.2 a written statement by an officer or nuthori1.cd agent of tho Corporation consenting *to* the traMfcr of tho Shares and Lease to Purchaser and setting forth the amounts of *and* payment status of all sums owed by Seller to tne Corporation, Including Molntenance and any Assessments, nnd the date.'! tn which e!lch has been paid.\n\n#### ll **Closing Fees, Tftxca llnd Apportionments**\n\n11. l At *or* prior to Clo.,fng,\n\nI 1.1, l Seller shnll pny, if t1ppl!cuble:\n\n**11,** I. f, i the cost of stock tram fer .stamps; and\n\n11. r, 1,2 transfer taxes, except as set forth in l I. l. 2 .2\n\n11. 1.2 Purchaser shnl! pt1y, if 11pplicable:\n\nl I, 1,2, l any foe Jmpo~cd by the Corporntion relRting to Purcha:rnr's financing; 11nd\n\n11.1.2.2 trnr.~fcr taxes imposed by statute pdnrnrlly on Purchaser (e.g., the ''mAn,ion ~ux 11 ),\n\n! l.2 The Flip Tax, if any, shall b1; paid by the Purty sr,ec1ficd In ,, I.I 9,\n\nI I J Any fee imposed by the Corporation and not specified in this Contract she\\! be p1tld by the Party upon whom such fee Is expressly *imposed* hy the Co•ror•tlon, nnd 1f 110 Pr1r1y !~ sped fied by the Corporation, t·1en :mch foe sh11ll be p!iid by Seller,\n\n114 Tht\". Port/c3 sluill npportlon es of ! 1 :59..P.M. o: lhc *day* preceding tho Closing, the Malrtcnance, 11nd anyother periodic charges due the Corporation 'other thun Assessments) und STAR Tax Exumption (if tho Uolt ls tht: beneficiary of &amo), 'oas~d on \\he 11umber of the days in the month of Closin6,\n\nl l *.5* Assessment,, whether fnyablc In II lump sum or instflllmenls, *shall* not be apportioned, out shall be paid by UH: Party who is the owner of the **Shues** on the d!lte specified by the Corporation for payrnenL Purch~ser slwl! pay nny lnstollments payable after Closing provided Selier had the right and oiected to pay tl1e Assessment 111 installmonts,\n\nI l .6 E11ch Party sh&IJ timely pay any transfer **taxes** for which it is prlmndly ltabte purs1111n1 tn law by cashier's, official bank, i:;1iriiiied *or* Rl!orney's escrow chock, Th/9 l 1.6 shul. survive Closing,\n\nI l. 7 Any computational errors Cli' omissions shall be l.)Orrected within 6 months after Clo~ing, *Ths* ~I l 7 shall **survive** Closing, 12 Broker\n\n12. l Each Pa11y represents that SL ch Party hes not dealt with 1rny pe,3011 uctin~ Iii/ a broker, whctfier licensed or onliceirned, in connection wlU1 this transactlnn other thnn the Broker(-'>) named in~ U.\n\n12.2 **Seller** ~hall pay lhc l3roket's commis~ion pursuant to a suporntc Rgreemcnl The Broker(s) shn/1 not be dccmcc to be a third-party bt:neficiary of this Crmtrnct.\n\n12.3 \"111/s ~l2 shall survive Cioslng, conce!lntlon or (er:nim1Uon of th is Contract.\n\n#### 13 Def11ults 1 Remedies *and* Indumnities\n\nI J. l In the event of n dofo11!t or m i:.rcpros\\!ntotlon by Purchaser, Sollcr's soto und exclutiivo rcn.;:dics shall he to ctmce! thl~ Contract, rctt1l11 lho Contract Depos1t as liquldtncd d11rnages und, *If* npp/lcoblc, Soller may enforce the indomnlty in , l3.3 as co brokcrago comrnl!slon or sue uncer ii l 3.4. Purchaser prcfors to limit Purchaser's exposure for actual damages to the amount of the Controct Deposit, which Purchasor e.groc:; constltuta11 a fair ond reasonable amount of compensation for S~ller>s tl!images under Hie clroutnstnnces and is not a penally, The principles of real property law shtill apply to this liquidated damogcs provision.\n\n13.2 ln the event of a default o· mlsrcprcscntatlon by Seller, Purchager shall have:: su(.:h remedies as Purchaser Is entitled to nl *11\\W M* in equity, i11cludi11g sped1-: pr.:rformirncc, bccuuse tit,;: Unit and possession tbereof can no: be dup/ icated,\n\n13.3 Subject to th¢ provi:1ions of~ 4.3, **ea.oh** Party indemnifies nnd holds harmless the other egalnst and from an} claim, Judgment, los~, liability, cosl or cxpen:.e rt:sultlng from the indcmnltor's breach of ony of Its rt:prescntations or ccvenants stated to survive Closing, cence l11tion or tennltlation of this Con(racc Purchtl-'icr indtrnnlfles and holds harmles~ Seller nguinsi and from any cloim, Judiment, [oss, li~blllty, i:;ost or i;:xpense resulting from the Lct\\sc '.)b/igations 11ccru!ng from ond after the Closing. Each indernnit) in..:lud~s, without llmltatlon, reasonable attorneys' **fees** and disbursernc:nt.~, court ccsts und l!tlga\\ion expenses arising from the defense of any cliim and cnforcemcn1 or coliectio11 of fl judgment under this indemnity, provided the indemnitoc is glvea Nollce nnd upportunlly lo defend th¢ cluil11, Thi~ ii IJ,J shall survive Closing, cuncclfa!ion or l<.:rm inatlon of th is Contract,\n\n13 .4 In the event 11ny instrument for the payment of the Contrnc( Dopo~it falls of collection, Seiter shall have the right to sue on the uncollected instrument. In nrlditlon, such fullurn of collect Ion shall be a defo.ult under this Contract, provided Selle1 gives Purchaser Notice of such raHun: of collcctlon and, within 3 business dayi after Notice ls givi,n, E,gcrowee do~ not recelvc from Purchaser an unondor:.ed good cortlfiod check, bank che-ck or immediately avalfab/e funds in th\" amount of the uncollected funds, failure to cure \\$UCh default shall en!ltle Seller to the remedies set forth in **1** 13. I and to retain 1111 sums as mny be coHcctcd and/or recovered\n\n#### 14 Entire Agreement; Modlfk1H!on\n\n!4.1 l'dl prlM ord! or written rcprcsentntl11nfi, understandings nnd **11greemcnts** had between Hie P;;rtJI::, wl\\h rclµte\\ lo the subjecl ,nnttcr of thb Contract, nnd with the Escrnwcc as to 27, aro merged in lhi11 Con!racl, whlch alone fully and compk:tely expresses the Parties' find Escrowee•~ t1greement. 14.2 The Attorneys may extend In wrl1f og any of the time llmlM:t!ons ~tat~d in thio Contract.. Any otllef provi1,lon of !his Contrnc( ,rniy bo chtinse-d or wuived only in writing signed by !he Party or Bscrnwcc to **be** charged,\n\n#### **15** Removal of Liens rrnd Judgm~nts\n\nl *5,* 1 Purchnscr shall deliver or cnuse to be delivered to Seller or Seller's Atto1·noy, not less than l O oulendnr 1lhen Seller shall have the right to adjourn the Clolllng for periods nol exceeding 60 calendar days in !he **llggregate,** bul not extending beyond the expiration of Purch11ser'i Loan Commitment Letter, lffi l .20. J or 1.20.2 app!les.\n\nl 6.2 ff Seller does not duct tu ad}ourn tho Closing or (if odjournod) on tho odjournod date of Closing Seller is stlll unflhle :o perform. tl1en unless Purchaser clecti to proceed with lhe Closing without abatement of the Purchase Price, either Party may cancel this Contract on Notlce to the other Party given e.t any time thereafter.\n\n16.J In the even~ of such cancel let ion, lhti sole liability of Seller shall be to cause the Contract Deposit lo be refunded to Purchaser nnd to reimburse Purchaser *for* the actual *casts* incurred for Purcha.sc's lion and tltle !iea.rch, If 11ny,\n\n#### 17 Notice, nnd Contrnct Delivery\n\n17.1 Any notlcti or demond (\"Norioe\") shnll be in writing ond delivered either by hand. Overnight llel1very or certified or registeroct :ntill, return reoeipt rcque,ted, to the; Party ~d j/mu!tancously, in like manner, to such Party's Attorney, if uny, and to ERcrowee ut their respective 11ddn:sses or to such other 11ddrtlss as shall hereafter be designntcd by Notice g!vcn pursuant to this i1 17.\n\n134\n\nnot reqt-Jir11d tG flpply ffl6ttt~~\n\ndatt¾-\n\n~.J.2 Puroha:ser 11hall-4¼Hv-0f-No;roe-of-eoo00Hauoo~»t>r wkhin-5-iw&i06Ss-day1r-1tfter-th!'r•t->&a~\n\n+-&.lr+rt~~t-400--bea»-G~Hf¼ffittf'f!?l\\{~(tf tlfl1taeffi•ng--f211roha8~--L1-11ot **Ale( (d.g. Jl11Fehoso1 1 j**fmanolal **HHIRI 6ta(Le 6t:1fte1s 8FI**\n\n**~~oo--reJ.a~e-&&le-ot:-o11 e1tlstlAg n,,leenaa, ele.) el'** I 8 **a,? J ewo** to **1h11** ~11p~t-a--beoo-•G~mmiIBH)ll~\n\n~tte'B,* whenever tl!e *context so* requires. lf *more* !hl¾n one person cons1ltutes Seller or Purchaser, their obi fgafions as such Party shall be Joini and ~evcra/.\n\n#### 20 **No** Sundv11i\n\noofltl.W011 **91 IIA1pl0~1**\n\nNo representation and/or co~nant contained herein shell survive Closing except as exprc.ssly provided. Payment of the Delancc sh~ll constitute *a* dlscha:-ge and release by Purchaser of nil of Seller's obligations hemmder except those expressly stuted to survive Cio~ing.\n\n#### 2l lnsp11ctio11s\n\nPurchaser Md Purchnser's representatives sho/J he.ve the ri&hl to Inspect the U11it within 48 hour.; prioi· to Closing, anc at other misonable times upon nmona.bk request *tq* Seller.\n\n#### 22 Governing LRw and Venue\n\nThis Contract !ihttll be governed by the laws o[thc Ste.tc of New York without regard to principies of conflict ofh1ws. Any 11ctlon or proceedini **Oiising** o\\lt or this Contrnct slrnl I b~ brought In tile county or Federal district whe!'! the Unit is located and the Parties hereby consent to said venue.\n\n#### 23 No **Assignment** by Purclrnser; Death of Purchaser\n\n2J, I Purchescr may *not* ns.slin this Contract or any of Purchaser'~ right:i hereunder. A:iy such purported assignment :Jhiill be null ond *void*\n\n23,2 This Contract shnll ttrmirrnte upon the death of ft!. persons comprising Purchaser ond the Contract Deposit shall be refunded 10 the Purchaser. Upon maklng .mch ref'md and rvimtium:ment. ncilhc:r Party she.II have any further liability or claim against tile **other hereu11del',** except !lS Sllt forth In ,r 12,\n\n#### 24 **Cooparatlon** of Parties\n\n24. l The ?~rtics shall each CJopernte with the other, the Corporation and Purchaser's hstltutlonal Lender and title compc1ny, if *any,* and obtain execule and delive1· such documents as are reasonably necessary (a consummate 1.11. sale. 24,2 The Parties shall timely f le all required documents in vonncclion witb nil governmentil fl!lngs that are reqJlred by luw. Each *Pany represents* ro the *otiwr that its* 1.tatementJ In *such tilings* shall be true end complete. This **,i** 24.2 :,hall survive Clo~ing,\n\n#### 25 **FIRPTA**\n\nThe parties she!I comply with !RC \\*1 897, 1445 and the regulation~ thereunder e.~ :mme m.!ly be amended (\"FIRPTA\"). If appllcoblc, Seller shalt execute and deliver to purc!111Ser 11t Closlng a Ccrtlflcntlon of Non~ Foreign Stulus (\"C~S\") or Jeli11et ti Withho!dlng Certi(1catc from **the** JRS, ff Seller fails to deliver a CNS or a Wlthhoidhig Certiflcale, Purchaser shall withhold from the Balance, ond ~emit lo the IRS, such sum **11s** may be required *by* law. Seller he·eby waivos any right of action nga!nst Purchaser on account of such withholdlng ond rcrniHance. This 12,~ shall survive Closlnli',,\n\n#### 26 Additional Rcq11irement.s\n\n26.1 Purchaser shall not be oblfb'(ltcd lo closi.; unle:;s all of 1he following requirements **are** sntisfied at the time o(the Cbsing;\n\n26, i. I the Corporation *19* !n good standing;\n\n26. l .2 cho Corporntlon hos fee or leasehold title to the Premises, whether or :10t mttrkc111b(e or Insurable; and\n\n26, l.3 there is no pending *In rem* action, rnx certiticate/ Jon sule *or* foreclosure action of any unde dying mongogc affecting the Prcmi~cs,\n\n26.2 lf any rcqulremcnt in 26. l ls not sa{isfred o.t !he time of lhe Closing, Purchaser .~hnll give Seller Notict:l and if the some L'.l noi sulisflcd wlth!n a reasom1bk period of time thereafti.;r, Chen either Party *way* cancel this Contract (pursuant to ,i 16.3) by Notice,\n\n#### **2 7 Escrow** Terms\n\n27.1 The Contmct Deposit shul! he deposited by Rscrowoe ln un escrow account us set forth tn *'i* l ,24 and !lie proceeds held 1md disbursed in 11ccordancc **with** the ti.:rms of this Conlract At Closing, 1he Contract Deposit shall be p11id by Escrowee to Seller. If the Closlng does nor occur *and* eHher Party gives Notice lo Escrnwcc demundlng payment of the Contract De:po81t, Escrowee shall gfve prompt Notlcc to the other Party of such demand. lf Esctowee does not receive a Notice of objection to the proposed pAyment from such o~her Party within l 0 bus(ness dny5 after the **giving** of l3scrowee's Notice, B:icrowce **b** h\\lrcby 11uthorizcd and directed to make such p11ymcnt to the domand[ng party. If Escrowee does receive such *a* Nottcc of objoctlon within soid period, or if for any reason Escrowee in good faith e!ecls not to make such paycrn:ml, Escrowco may continue to hold the Contnict Deposit until otherwise directed by a joint Notice by tht: Partlos or a fins!, non-appealeble judimcnt, order or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. However, Bscrowee shall hnve the right at ony time to dcpo~lt the Contract Deposit er,d the interest thereon, if any, with t.hc cl~rk of fl court In tho cou1ty as set forth in 1 22 and shall give Notico of such deposit to each Party, Upon disposition of the Contrac.:t Depo5it *and* Interest thereon, *if* any, in accordance wl\\h this 27, Escrowee shall be **released and** discharged of all e~crow\n\n**obligations** and **liabilities,**\n\n**27.2 The** Pnrty whose **Attorney** is Escrowce shall be llable for loss of the Contract Deposit. **Jf the** Escrowee is Scl!cr'i **attorney,** then Purchaser shall be credited with the amount or !he **contract** Deposit at Closing.\n\n27.3 Escrawee wlll ~erve without compensotlon. Escrowec **is** tlctrng solely as a stakeho!dcr at the Par(le61reque8C ~nd for their convenience, Escrowee :shull not be liable to either Party for a11y oct *or* omissfon unless lt involves bad faith, willful disregard or this Contract or gniss negligence. [n the evenl of any dispute, Seller nnd Purchns1;:r sh.ti! jointly and severally (with rJght of contribution) defend (by 11ttorneys elected by Escrowec}, indemnify and hold harmlti~a' Escrowee erom and against any chtlm, judgment, foss, !iab!lity, cost and tJxpensts tncurred in connection with the performance of Escrowee's acts or omissions not lnvolvlng bad fallh, wl llful disrer.ard of thls Contract *or* gross negligence. This Indemnity *Includes,* without limitation, rcRsonnble attornoys' fees either p!ild lo retoin nttomeys or repre~entlng the fair value of loge.I services rendered by Escrowee to itself and disbursements, court (;OSts and litigation expenses.\n\n27.4 Escrowcc i,.cknowlodges receipt of the Contract Deposit, by check subject to collection.\n\n27.5 Rscrowoe agrees *to* tho provisions of this~ 27.\n\n?.7.6 If Escrowcc Is the Attorney for **a** Party, E:icrowec shall be\n\npt:rmltted to t'eprosent such Party !n ,my d{spulc or lawsuit. 27.7 Thi~ 1 27 shall survive Closing, canctilla(ion or \\~rmlnlllion of this Contrncl\n\n#### 28 M~rgln Headlnis\n\n**The margin** bending do not constitute part of lhc tcxl of ~his Conlrnct.\n\n#### **29 Misccllancou.s**\n\nThis Contract sh1t!I not bt, binding units~ nnd until Seller delivers **a** fully executed counterpart of this Controct lo Purchaser (or P Jrchaser's Attorney) purrnont to 17.2 and I 7.3. This Contract shal! bind\n\nonrt Inure to tho benefit of the Porties hereto 11nct their respective helm, ptrsorrnl and kgul represe11tellv~~ and successors In i:Herest\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 108 of 134\n\n> 30 Lead Paint If appJlcabfo, lho oomplote and fully executed Disclosure or lnformlltlon on Lead Based Paint and or Lead•Basod Paint Hanrd3 Is attached hereto and mid,; a part hereof.\n\nIn Witness Whereof, the Parties horeto havo duly executed this Contract us of tho date flrst above written.\n\n| S .d(1mo TO: | SBLLER:
SUB:RRY 1800s, LLC
/
Hy: • f!:.
··-········
_______ | PUR.CHASBR:
G!NEVER HOLD~QS LLC
~#\"v· -~x/
,,~~-
vi'Ji-,< LL_(
Byt~\\!,,.,,X:,<, |\n|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| | | ------
~-+••··--- |\n| | | |\n\n### **FIRST RIDER ANNEXED TO AND FORMING A PART OF CONTRACT OF SALE FOR THE 18TH FLOOR KNOWN AS UNIT 1801 AT SHERRY NETHERLAND**• **INC .• 781 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT BETWEEN SHERRY 1800s, LLC, AS SELLER, AND GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, AS PURCHASER, DATED FEBRUARYZ..I, 2015**\n\n31. In the event of any conflict between the provision of this Rider or any other Rider, and the provisions of the Contract to which this Rider is attached, the provisions of this Rider shall control.\n\n32. In addition to the representation made by Purchaser in Paragraph 4 of this Contract) Purchaser) jointly and severally, represents and warrants to Seller that Purchaser knows of no outstanding judgments or tax liens and knows of no threatened lawsuit or claim (including criminal and/or tax proceedings).\n\n33. Supplementing Paragraph 20, the acceptance of the Shares and the assumption of the Lease by Purchaser anc the delivery of possession of the Unit and keys by Seller shall be deemed full perfonmmce by Seller of Seller's obligations under this Contract, except any of which that survive Closing, and such acceptance and assumption by Purchaser shall discharge Seller from all terms• conditions, representations and agreements required to be performed by Seller under this Contract1 except any of which that survive Closing. No liability on the part of Seller shall survive the Closing except as expressly set forth *in* this Contract.\n\n34. In the event that there is any refund on real estate taxes attributable to the time period in which Seller has owned the Unit, such refund shall belong solely to Seller. In this regard, Purchaser shall cooperate with Seller in connection with obtaining such refund and Purchaser agrees to sign any reasonable documentat:on to assist Seller in obtaining such refund, If such refund is delivered to Purchaser (or credited t::Jwards Purchaser's monthly maintenance by the Corporation), Purchaser shall promptly remit such refund to Seller. The Parties acknowledge that the provision of this Paragraph 34 shall survive the Closing\n\n35. An increase in the maintenance or the imposition of an assessment after the date hereof shall not be deemed a misreprcsentF,ltion or breach by Seller hereunder. In this regard, any assessment imposed by the Corporation after the date of this Contract, shall be solely the obligation of Purchaser if such assessment is payable on or after the date of Closing, Seller will send Purchaser a copy of any notices from the Corporation regarding material facts relating to the Corporation including any maintenance increases.\n\n3 6. A \"Disc~osure of Infonnation on Lead.Based Paint and/or Lead Based Paint Hazards\" *is* attached hereto as Exhibit A hereto. Such document may be executed in counterpruis, This Contract shall be ceemed executed when signed by the parties hereto notwithstanding that the Broker's signature on such Exhibit A have not yet been obtained. Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser has received the pamphlet Protect Your Home From Lead in Your Home and Purchaser hereby waives the opportunity to conduct a. risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead• based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the Unit and/or the Premises. Purchaser acknowledges that Seller has made no representations to Purchaser concerning the presence of lead paint in the Premises except in the Unit and then only to the extent expressly set forth in the attached disclosure form. Notwithstanding any requirements pursuant to any Local Law, Purchaser\n\nthe Premises and Unit in their current 11as is 11 condition concerning the presence of lead paint and any hazards related to same,\n\n134\n\n37. All representations made by the Seller in the Contract or any Rider thereto are made to the best of Seller's knowledge and belief without independent investigation and shall not survive the closing.\n\n**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** of the parties hereto have executed this Rider to Contract of Sale as of the date first above written.\n\n### **SELLER:**\n\n### **PURCHASER:**\n\n**GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 111 of 134\n\n> SECOND RlDER TO CONTRACT *OF* SALE DATED AS OF FEBRUARYjJ\\_, 2015, BETWEEN SHERR v 1800S LLC, AS SELLER, AND GENEVER HOLDrNGS LLC, AS PURCHASER, COVERING PREMISES LOCATED AT 781 FIFTH A VENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 18TH FLOOR (UNITS 1801, 1804, 1807, 18091 1811, SERVANTS ROOM 1519)\n\n> SR 1. In case of any inconsistency or conflict between the printed portion of this Contract or the First Rider, and the provisions of this Second Rider, the provisions of this Second Rider shall control,\n\n> SR2. Seller shall, promptly after receipt thereof, deliver to Purchaser copies of any written notices from the Corporation receiwd after the Delivery Date and relating to: (1) any increase in the amount of the monthly Maintenance as set forth in paragraph 1.1 7; (2) any intended or proposed assessment other than the Assessment; (3) any intended or proposed changes to the \"flip tax\" or other transfer fee charged by the Corporation or its Managing Agent; ( 4) any proposed amendment or modification of the Lease, the Certificate ofincorporation of the Corporation or the Cc-rporation's By-Laws; (5) any proposed construction or repair work the cost of which is intended to be borne by the Corporation, its insurers or its shareholders; (6) any refinancing or other material change with respect to any mortgage affecting the Premises; or (7) any damage or casualty to the Unit or the Premises.\n\n> SR3. Supplementing paragraph 3.3: In the event Setler removes any light fixtures from the Unit, such fixtures will be replaced with standard fixtures, so that no exposed wiring or bulbs remain in place of the removed fixtures. Seller shall, at its own expense and prior to the Closing, remove from the Unit all furniture, furnishings and other personal property and/or fixtures not included in this transaction and shall repair in a good and workmanlike manner any material damage caused cy such removal. Any of Seller's personal property not included in the sale contemplated hereby which is not removed from the Unit prior to the Closing shall be deemed abandoned property. Purchaser may (but shall not be obligated to) cause any such abandoned property to be removed from the Unit at Seller's risk and expense. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the Closing.\n\nSR4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 7 or any other provision of this Contract to the ccntrary, Seller represents and warrants that the plumbing, heating, electrical and air conditioning systems and fixtures and all Personalty shall be in working order at the Closing, to the extent the responsibility of Seller under the Lease.\n\nSR5. (a) As 1i material inducement to Purchaser entering into this Contract, Seller hereby represents that Seller has obtained all necessary approvals, pennits and certificates from the Corporation and the New York City Department of Buildings for any work done by Seller to the Unit. Fu:iher, Seller is not obligated to perform any work or expend any monies\n\nD(1cY: US! 984 I I 54v4\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 112 of 134\n\n2\n\n( other than maintenance) pursuant to any agreement ( other than the Lease and other Co-op Documents) with the Corporation that would be binding on Purchaser after Closing.\n\n(b) Prior to Closing, Seller shall, at its sole cost and expense, cause any and all open permits against the Unit to be closed, discharged, and otherwise paid **for,** and shall deliver satisfactory proof of same to Purchaser. A Letter of Completion from the NYC Department of Buildings shall be deemed satisfactory proof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller shall not be required to close two open permits that are listed by the New York City Department of Buildings as Job Nos. 101785169 and 101778836, copies of which Jobs are attached hereto. The parties acknowledge the reason for the prior sentence is that the Corporation has stated it will agree in writing to duly close these two open pennits. In the event the Corporation does not deliver such written agreement, then Seller may either elect to close these permits, but if it does not, then either party may terminate this Contract.\n\n(c) Seller shall either (a) deliver to Purchaser a letter of completion from the New York City Deprrtment of Buildings evidencing that the Unit has been legally combined, or (b) at Closing, execu:e and file with the transfer taxes returns an affidavit stating the reELo;;ons that the Unit is properly and legally considered to be a single unit with one kitchen and that transfer tax should be paid to New York City at the rate of 1.425%. Seller shall also deliver an indemnity letter to Purchaser indemnifying Purchaser against any costs and damages (including, but not limited to penalties and interest for late payment) resulting from the City's requiring payment at a higher rate of taxafon. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if (i) Seller is unable to deliver a letter of completion as set ::'brth above, and (ii) Seller elects to pay the New York City transfer tax at the rate of 1.425% (rather than the so-called \"bulk rate\" of 2.625% ), then Seller's attorneys shall hold in escrow the sum of \\$840,000 representing the difference between these rates of taxation. Seller's attorneys shall hold such sum for the shorter of (i) two (2) years (representing the current audit period for this tax by the New York City Department of Finance (\"DOF\")i or (ii) until such time that the Corporation delivers satisfactory written evidence from the New York City Department of Buildings (and/or other appropriate governmental entities) that the Unit has been properly and legally combined. Seller's attorneys shall either release the balance to Seller if it is determined thet 1.425% was the appropriate rate of taxation, or pay this sum, plus interest and penalties, if any, in the event it is determined by DOF that 2.625% was the appropriate transfer tax rate.\n\nSR6. Supplementing paragraph 4.1: \"4.1.10. To Seller's knowledge, Seller has not received any written notice of any major repairs or replacements contemplated to the Premises or to the building systems in the Premises (including, without limitation, the heating, plumbing and electrical systems~ that could materially affect the Premises or the Unit.\n\n\"4.1.1 L To Seller 1 s knowledge, there are currently no water leaks into the Unit and there have been no such leaks during the twelve (12)- month period immediately\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 113 of\n\npreceding the date hereof. In addition, Seller has not been notified during said twelve ( 12) month period of any water leaks elsewhere in the Premises which were purported to emanate from the Unit.\"\n\n\"4.1.12 During Seller's ownership of the Unit, to Seller's knowledge, Seller has not been aware of (a)° the presence any toxic mold in either the Unit, or (b) any bedbug infestation in the Unit.\"\n\n\"4. 1. 13 That to Seller's knowledge, there are no claims, actions, suits or legal proceedings of any kind pending or threatened (in writing), wrjch affect the Unit, Seller's ownership of the Unit or which may cause a lien of any kind to be imposed against the Unit or the Seller.''\n\n''4.1.14 To Seller's knowledge, in the last twelve ( 12) months, that neither Seller, nor any person acting on behalf of Seller, has made any complaint **(in writing,** electronic communication or by telephone) to tl:e Corporation, Managing Agent, superintendent or any other unit owner or tenant-shareholder at the Premises regarding noise, offensive odors, offensive conduct, lack of heat or hot water, or any other disturbance or adverse condition affecting the Unit.\"\n\nSR 7. All representations, warranties and covenants of Seller set forth in this Contract shall be true in all material respects as of the Closing, and Purchaser's obligation to perform under this Contract is expressly conditioned upon there being no breach, inaccuracy or misrepresentation in any of the same.\n\nSR8. If the Corporation approves the Purchaser's application but conditions its consent upon Purchaser complying with requirements outside the scope of the Contract, such as a demand for the Purchaser to deposit funds into escrow, then Purchaser may elect, in its sole discretion, to either (i) comply with such conditions and proceed with the Purchase, or (ii) decline to comply wi-:h such conditions. If Purchaser decHnes *to* comply, then Purchaser shall deliver to Seller written notice of same and this Contract shall be deemed canceled, and Escrowee shall promptly refund ,the Contract Deposit to Purchaser. Further, Seller acknowledges and agrees that Purchaser shall only be required to disclose to the Corporation liquid assets of \\$420,000,000.00 (more than five times the Purchase Price), with supporting docwnentation as may be required by the Corporation as *to* the aforesaid amount (such as bank statements), Submission by Purch3.ser of the foregoing shall be deemed complete for purposes of the \"Financial Statemenf', \"Statement of Assets and Liabilities signed by Purchaser or Accountant\" and supporting \"Veri4cation of Assets\" which are required by the Corporation as part of its HStandard Transfer Requirements\" Board application. Purchaser may, in its sole discretion, decline any request by the Corporation to submit any documentation showing liquid assets in excess of the aforesaid amount, so th2.t in the event the Corporation rejects the Purchaser's\n\nDoc# US I 984 I I 54v4\n\n4\n\napplication for any reason (other than willful bad faith by Purchaser), this Contract shall be deemed canceled, and Escrowee shall promptly refund the Contract Deposit to Purchaser.\n\nSR9. Supplementing paragraph 11. l. 1.2: Seller's obligation with respect to payment of transfer taxes shall apply to transfer taxes imposed by both the City and the State of New York. Within fourteen (14) days following the Closing, Seller shall furnish to Purchaser's attorney proof of filir:g of such transfer taxes. Seller shall indemnify and hold Purchaser harmless from and against any and all costs, loss or expenses incurred by Purchaser, including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements, by reason of Seller's failure to timely perform its obligations with respect to such transfer taxes. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the Closing.\n\nSR 10. Supplementing paragraph 13: \"13 *.5* Should either party willfully default in its obligations hereunder, it shall be liable to the other for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the other party in enforcing this Contract as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event that either party purports to cancel this Contract and Seller elects to retain the Contract Deposit as liquidated damages, the prevailing party in any subsequent lawsuit shall recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the non~prevailing party. The award of such attorneys' fees and costs shall be recoverable as actual compensatory damages in addition to the amour:t of the Contract Deposit and/or liquidated damages which may be payable hereunder by either party.\"\n\nSRl 1. Supplementing paragraph 15.1: Purchaser may also deliver a supplemental list of s·.1ch Liens at a later date but not subsequent to the Closing if Purchaser becomes aware of the same at such later date.\n\nSR12. Supplementing paragraph 16: \"16.4. Seller shall not be deemed unable to transfer the Lease anc. the Shares if such inability can be overcome by the payment of a sum of money by Seller not in excess of the Purchase Price less any loan payoff, brokerage commission, transfer truces and customary closing costs.\"\n\nSR! 3. Seller agrees to deliver to Purchaser, at or prior to the execution of this Contract, to the extent within Seller) s actual possession, all drawings and plans of the Unit, including the original floor plans, and all renderings of any proposed or completed renovations therein. In addition, Seller agrees to deliver to Purchaser, at or prior to the Closing and to the extent within Seller's actual possession, originals of all instruction manuals and all guaranties and warranty agreements affecting the Unit or any of the appliances or other personalty included in this sale, the rights under which shall be deemed assigned, to the extent assignable, to Purchaser at the Closing.\n\nSRI 4. This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts. Each such counterpart shaH for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shalJ\n\nDocJ/: {JS i ;984 t I 54v4\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 115 of\n\ntogether constitute and be but one and the same instrument. Facsimile signatures or scanned signatures sent by e~mail shall bind the parties,\n\nSRI 5 Seller hereby agrees to cooperate with Purchaser if Purchaser elects to obtain leasehold title insurance or the Eagle 9 UCC Cooperative Interest Insurance Policy in connection with Purchaser's purchase of the Unit, including, without limitation, signing a title affidavit in the form requested by the issuer of the Eagle 9 UCC Cooperative Interest Insurance Policy.\n\nSR16. 1ffor any reason the Corporation does not permit the Purchaser to purchase the Unit1 then Purchaser may assign this Contract to another entity within the control of the Purchaser herein.\n\nSR 1 7. Each of the parties hereto desire that this Contract and the terms thereof (the \"Confidential Aspects\") be kept confidential to the greatest extent practicable. Accordingly, each of the parties hereto shall, and s~all instruct his or her agents, representatives and contractors to, maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Aspects. It is understood, however, that the Co:ifidentia1 Aspects may be disclosed: (a) to the professional advisors of each of the parties (for example, without limitation, their attorneys and accountants), and to various other third parties (such as, for example, title insurance companies) who may be involved in aspects of the transactions or are otherwise necessary in order to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby; (b) if required to be disclosed by court order, subpoena, or other government process, or ifrequired by law; (c)with the consent of the parties; or (d) if already in the public domain,\n\nSRI 8. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the parties hereby agree that the sum of (a) \\$67,500,000 is hereby allocated to the Purchase Price for the Unit, and that the adc:.itional sum of (b) \\$2,500,000 is hereby allocated to the Personalty included in the Unit. Accordingly, appropriate New York State and City transfer taxes shall be paid by the respective parties based upon the sum of \\$67,500,000, and, in addition, Purchaser shall pay the New York State sales tax on the Personalty, whlch Seller shall collect at Closing. *() fY1 flt7*\n\nSRl 9. Seller represents it will cause the third party sale of an additional maid'{n the Building to Purchaser either prior to or simultaneously with the closing of this transaction, In the event that Pmchaser is unable to buy this additional maid's room either prior to or simultaneous with the actual Closing of this transaction, Seller acknowledges that Purchaser may terminate this Contra~t and receive a full and prompt refund of the Contract Deposit, with interest. It is within the sole discretion of Purchaser whether to exercise or waive thls option to terminate. It is also r..oted that the Brokers listed ln this Contract shall pay for the maid's room, including costs and expenses associated therewith (including transfer **taxes).**\n\nDoc/I: *US* I :984 l ( 54v4\n\n5\n\n*I / l*\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 116 of\n\n134\n\n6\n\nSR20. In the event th2.t for any reason the parties are unable to close this transaction by March *6,* 2015, then Purchaser may terminate this Contract and receive a full refund of the Contract Deposit. It is within the sole discretion of Purchaser whether to exercise or waive this option t:) terminate.\n\nSR21. Seller shal! pay the brokerage commissions based upon the total consideration being paid by Purchase:- for both the Unit and Personalty (which is the sum of \\$70,000,000.00).\n\nSHERRY 1800s LLC, Seller ,,,., -•~~•~•••~'<~•••,\\_. · \">' vs•••••••~,.V,•--\n\nName: Title:\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Purchaser V\\..- \\.../ 1 (.., ,\\_ <- l,-'\"', By: ~-? */J\"'J,.,~~'=-~/,* , *c:--:-:~::-;;.~i r~* Ira J. Gi~ert 1 Authorized Person\n\nDoc#: USl :98411 **S4v4**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 117 of\n\n134\n\n\n\n• 3142--Ludp,i•l• C'FR Put ,S, Cfll fu, *?<1\\$, 9+96,*\n\n# **Disclosure** of **Information on Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards**\n\n### **SALES**\n\n# **Lead Warning Statement**\n\n**Ev~ry purchaser of any interest in residential** real property on which a residential dwelling was **built prior to 1978 is notified that such property** mny present exposurt: to lead from lead-1:msed paint **that may place young children at risk of developing** lt>,t1d poisoning. Lead poisoning in young children **may produce permanent neurological damage,** including learning disabilities, reduced intclti~cnce quotient, behavioral problems, and impaired memory. I.,ead poisoning also poses a particular nsk to pregnant women. The seller of any interest in residential real property is required to provide the buyer with any inlbmrntion on lead-bused paint hazards from risk assessments or inspections in the seUer's possession and notify the buyer of any known lead-based paint haiards. A risk assessment or inspec~ tion for possible lend~based paint hazards is recommended prior to purchase.\n\n# **Seller's Disclosure**\n\n(a) ~resence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards *(Check (i) or (ii) below):*\n\n(1) D Known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards are present in the housing *(explain).*\n\n<<' \"•••• •••••\"\\*·•' • ••••'·\"•'''\"'\"' •• •••••••••• •• ••~•••• .,.,.,.,, •• n,;, ,,, \"' ,.,.,,,,, . ., .... ,,, .............................. ,.,.,0.,,, .. 0.,,,,.,, •• ,\\_.,,,u•,•••• •••••••••• •~•• ••\"••••• •••• ,,.,,, ,.,., .-..,\n\n\n\n/P~··::··:.·::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::·:::::::::::::·::::::::.:::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (ii) Seller has no bow ledge of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing. /\n\n(b) Records and reports available to the seller *(Check (i) or (ii) below):*\n\n(i) Cl Seller has provided the purchaser with all available records and reports pertaining to lead- *fii/J* based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing *(list documents below).*\n\n*w* .. , .. ,,,.,::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.,::.::::::.::::::.::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\n\n(ii) eller has no reports or records pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint aza ·ds in the housing.\n\n# **Purchaser's Acknowledgment** *(initial)*\n\n(c) Purchaser has received copies of all infonnation listed above. *\\_L* Purchaser has received the pamphlet *Protect Your Family from lead in four lf ome.*\n\n··-·· --··· Purchaser has *(check (i) or (ii) below):*\n\n(i) D received a lQ .. day opportunity (or mutually agreed upon period) to conduct a risk assess- ,m;nt or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazMds; or\n\n(ii) 05- wai vcd the opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead- \\_..- based paint and/or lead-based paim hazards,\n\n# **Agent's Acknowledgment** *(initial)*\n\n(f) \\_\\_\\_ Agent has bfonned the seller of the seller's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 4852d and is aware of his/her responsibility to ensure compliance.\n\n# Certfficatton **of Accuracy**\n\n| ac~
Y
The following parties have reviewed the information above and certify, to the best of their knowledge,
;/l,;
Iha< the information they have provioed is true and | | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | ~--~-,-~-- | _;., • /.~' r / LC_ | | | | |\n| siCu:Re,.z;,,~.-J<--;.-,;::,;\"J.) L,(-c:. i,,;.
-DATE:
l
,
,
'-
/
P
-~ :±-
-~-~\\ I (>_,:'::,} !'½-to, l·\\'s\"\\<
j} | /Ill ta
e\"Jr
SF.Ll~R
'
\\ (f~f!. v'\". 11r
---
b | '1i/:!;!-P | | | | |\n| T
--}
PuRCHASe;R
IDAre: | Pu~t;M,i.,.1.a:r-r | DATE | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n;\n\n*[*\n\n#### Purchase Application\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 119 of\n\nPt:rchase Application\n\nNew York . Fe~ru~\\_ry 26 20 15 Apoiicant's N.irn,! 11Miles\" KwokJ:i?.\\IY~\\_r:!\\_JGeneve£ t{\\_olqLQ\\_gs L\\_!:-\\_fJ \\_\\_ (t-fam~ or Nam~~ mu,t f.><: t!nt;,r1>d ~hove i11 manner rhat Srcrk Cert1[icole ~nd oilier Doc.Jm~I),IS ,rn tc b~ drawl\\.) Applicant's Attorney Ira Gi!bert Esq. (igilbert@paulweiss~\\_:>-~rduphoiw 212-373-3529 1\\1tomey'~ Firm and Addrn\\$, \\_\\_\\_ eaul: ~~is\\_s\\B\\_i!\\_½\\_i~S!, Y\\'harton, & Ga\\_r[i~q\\_n L~p 1285.A.v\\_eoue.ofJhe.8.rnencas. New York,.NYJ0O19:6064 Se!ltn's Nnme **She,r~ 1800s,b~Q** Seller's Attorney MifhaE?J J. Jones) Es\\_q. J'elq:ho11!'\\_?9~::.?~1~E3gpo Attonwis Fi~.n and :\\ddrcs.~ \\_\\_ Jvey, Barnum & O'Ma\\_r.c1.~~q\\_ .. -------~- 170 MafiQn S.tr~~t Greenwich, CT 0683D Closing Date and Tirne\\_Jj\\_Q lat~J.tb~D *~L6{16* at 1 O.am \\_\\_\\_\\_ .\\_ D~f-? of Po9session\\_l'J9 later tnan *316115* ThP u11dcrs11-;ned lwrnby 1.,if,11\\ to p~(rcha:;r 3,000 .shares of the 1.\\1p,hli stvd: n/ Ttw :::iiwrry-Nrlhelland, Inc. and the ;1,:t:ompa11yu,g prupr1eta1y li.!aiie lot Ap.irtm(•nr :J..B.OJ\\* \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ in thQ huildit·,g !oc,1ted a1 781 Fifth /\\vcmh!, *:,.Jew* Yc,rk, New York, en !lw lolfr\\_,v,nng term•; m-:.i condtll()OS • and Maid's room 1519 Purchase Pnce d Stock\\$ 67,500,000 Mcnrh *1,* 57,085.53 \\_Present Estimated Prnpriu'.ary Rental Per DCf!OSit S \\_\\_ Z,QQO,OQQ\\_\\_\\_ Specla: conditions, ff ;mv:.6Q.ditiqnal sum of \\$2.,\\_;)QQ,QOO is allocated to the personal prop~rty inc:ludE?c1Jn the ~nit-F1nar.c-,ns: Yes • No(8J 1\\mOi.HI!\\_ **None \\_\\_ ·~---**Bank. \\_\\_\\_ ~----- :he undersigned h;c;s filled 0ci! the irformation sheei below and understands fr,,;t thif> inform,,!ion is essential lo considering this appllcatlcm. 1t is further und<:rstood th.it t.his appl.cat1on, wher signed by rhe under~igned, ts to be subiect to appruval by the Seller or Authorlzed Representative and to the Terms and Conditions on the r nllmber and their apprc,xmtate ;,ge~:(1) Kwok Ho Wa, Purchc!\\_~~L(?Jf\\lgok Hmg\\_Chi;yVife *of* PL1rchas€lr 13) QLJo\\_ Qia ng\\_; \\$c:>n\\_ 9,( Purchaser ('1J QJJ\\_o Mei:. Daug.hter.of...2u.rctiaseL(5).Yaz Qinghua;\\_ Sister of Purchaser:s Wife N,11\\_nes of a!l :.·Jubs ar,d society m,m1bersi1ipsl fraterr\\llies and honorary societies to which ;;ppl1cant t-;elongs: .Mar:~.--~~~g c.,Ll~, Pa,.m Beach: FL Jru\\_rnp Golf Cql)\\_rse. Palm Beach. FL Schools ,md coll,•rts .3t'.end1•d by hu;-;l;<11id, wdP and chi!dr,,11:. \\_\\_\\_\\_ , Mr and \\_ty1rs. \\_rwwk receiye.cJ\\_H1e.ir education in GJtlr29 Guo of Mr. Kv\\_.iokj attended Bard-College\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 120 of 134\n\n| | No
Does applicant wish to maintain pets, and lf so please spHcify: |\n|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| Landlwd: | |\n| | Present Landlord or Agent Own a p_rivat~!:_e5idenc~_ |\n| | • Addrt'»> !~:='??_Lilh ~ay Road_,_ ~r1JL K2D.9 |\n| | Approximate L~ngth oi Occupancy_ |\n| | Previous Landlord or i\\r,cnl __ _ |\n| | |\n| | Address of previous rcsidertce and approx,rnate l&ngth of ,v:cup,mcy: ___ _ |\n| | _ -· _ --·······
Ste':~~_ Wong
(Bank- Personal Account)
Addr~s,
UBSA~~2.fF Two l~tE:_rnational fir1~11ce Centre.!8f=ir1anc~_Street, Central, Hong Kong
(Business) H~~~_!:<'.l, Pa_rtner~~tev~_!lS_C>_n, Wor_igJtQQ_
,\\,Mrm Centraf To~er,. ?§.9.U§EJn'sRq~cf. C~n.trnl, t!,Q[19152rt9 |\n| A.
B
C | Stock Brol i\\dJrc;; ____ .
_______ ····---··\"
For Information regarding source of income contact. |\n| | |\n| N.1m,• | ··\"···
_!he Rt Hon. Tony Blah~_
|\n| | ,\\ |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | ----
··- ------~~ |\n\nSpecial Remarks:\n\nPlease give any additlonai information which may be pertinent or h.elpftil: .. Mr.- and Mrs. Kwok are Y~!'/\\_ir,nprei.segvv,itl1\\_Th<;<§herry-NEitb1:1rlen~2nct .... look forward to making The Sherry-Netherland the principle residence for ffielffamr1y ·•·············· ······ ···· · ·· -·· · ·-- ····-·\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 121 of\n\n134\n\nPurchase Application\n\n| | New York _______ ~20_,_
| |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| KWOK
·~-ll:.->-a-k'\\,A
Applicant's Name | __________ _ | |\n| (Name or Names must be entenro abQve in manner that Stock Certibcatund other DocW!lents are to be drawn.) | | |\n| Applicant's Attorney | Ira_. J. t:td~ ~~Te!ephonelJ,I )-J jj
3 3;.).tj | |\n| inn and Address~~~~~~-WNL.b¼d:•
Alloc1;1ey'
!L~-rl\\L~w,'), r-:ltw
J>:_\\l.2 | 6~
i,J'
~JM
rC[ - 60 l:t!f: | |\n| Seller's Name, ____________________________ _ | | |\n| Seller's Attomey ________________ Telephone ______ | _ | |\n| Attorney's Firm and Address ______________________ _ | | |\n| Closing Date and Time ______________ Dateof Possession ___ _ | | |\n| The undersigned hereby o{fers to purchase __________ .shares of the | | |\n| capital stock of The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. and the accompanying proprietary lease for
_____
Apartment
the foHowing terms and conditions. | ln the building located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, on | |\n| Purchase Price of Stock \\$ _________ ,Prt>sent Estimated Proprietary Rental Per
___
Month\\$
_ | | |\n| | Special conditions, if any;, ____________ _ | |\n| Yes D Nol:8J | Amount _______ Sank _______ | |\n| Financing:
( Note: 'Th.is proposal shall r\"sult in no legal obligation u.niiI a formal contract of purchase and ~e i:!. executed by the
parties <:oncer11ed.) | _ | |\n| The undersigned has filled out the information sheet below and understands that this | | |\n| information is essential in considering this application. It is further understood that this | | |\n| | | |\n| application, when signed by the undersigned, is to be subject to approval by the Seller or
Authorized Representative and to the Terms and Conditions on the | reof. | |\n| | | |\n| Broker ___________ _ | -------- | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\n# Personal Letter of Reference\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 123 of 134\n\nFrom The Rt Hon Tony Blair\n\nFebruary 2015\n\nLadies and Gentlemen *9f* the Board of The Sherry Netherland,\n\nIt is my great pleasure that I am writing you this letter of reference for Miles Kwok as a potential owner in your building. I have known Miles for seven years and have only the highest respect for him in business and as a friend. I have worked closely with Miles over the years and have always admired his honesty and loyalty.\n\nMiles is dependable, sincere and extremely responsible as an individual; conducting himself with dignity and intelligence. Miles is honest, forthright and has impeccable taste.\n\nI would highly recommend him to your building as I know that Miles would be a wonderful addition as your neighbour at The Sherry Netherland. Miles is a very accomplished man and, in my opinion, would be a most valuable asset to The Sherry Netherland.\n\nPO Box 60619 London W27JU\n\n# Business Letter of Reference\n\n| | FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM | | | | | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 | Case 22-50073
Doc 57-2 | Filed 03/01/22 | | Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 | | Page 125 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 |\n| | Stevenson Wong &Co. | | 134 | Wi!ly Y.P. Cheng- 0
.Hank H.F Lo• | ~::;::ii
~tfHt | |\n| | X 1:_ ]![
§£:. | Pfr
grp | | Cathenne K.G. Por
Er,c CH. Lui•
1~4evHte J,J, \\VatkinS\"'
W(:ndy \\NS. L,;m• | ;~U~
Sz,~
ta£J
1H~H | |\n| ()ur Ref | EYC/HLO(P)/75450/15 | | | Lai 5, Lam•
Cornelia VV,C. Chu·
J,mice L.H
Heidi H. Chui•
Er ,tf;(r,\\\"
;;~~]{
\\;,f,rf Ya; | | | ,tf;(r,\\\"
;;~~]{
\\;,f,rf Ya; | |\n| Your ,' | | | )er·ior Consultant:
Angus Forsyth1n | | | | | | | )er·ior Consultant:
Angus Forsyth1n | | |\n| Rep!y Fax | | | | Consuf!ant
Sher!ynn G. Chan | | |\n| | 17 February 2015 | | | ~~,;,:-::m:~Rt | Notary Public of Hong K0ng | |\n| | | | | q:i:ffl~H.i;lifA | o China-Appointed Attesting Officer | |\n| BY POST | | | | ~~~-lf}, | • Civil CelebiJnt of fAarriages | |\n\nBoard of Directors of The Sherry-Netherland The Sherry-Netherland 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022\n\nDear Board members of The Sherr/ Netherland,\n\nI am writing this letter of recommendation rn support of the application of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan (also known as Miles Kwok) to become a resident shareholder of your cooperative.\n\nI first met Miles when he engaged my /aw firm in one of his business transactions about seven years ago. I was and am a partner of my firm. We have since established a long-standing relationship. Over the years, my firm has acted for Miles in various business transactions in different areas, including project financing, fund-raising, corporate mergers and acquisitions and acquisition of aircrafts, leisure boats and properties in Hong Kong, China and different parts of the world.\n\nMiles is a successful businessman and a polite, dependable and responsible individual who conducts himself with dignity and intelligence. Putting aside our work relations, Miles has also been a good friend of mine. Personally, I know Miles to be delightful, considerate and respectful. I trust that his personal qualities will definitely make him a good neighbor and responsible steward of your building.\n\nIn my opinion, Miles will be a valued addition to your building.\n\nIf you wish to contact me personally, please feel free to call me at +852 2533 2552,\n\nq\n\n**[ Hank** Lo Partner\n\nSTEVENSON, WONG & CO.\n\ni'}~rfl ~.i'tFr:b\\ii1'112a,~Ji: c:pl\\Lf:J:1.1~, sml,}, 1 4/F, &, 1602, Central Tovver, 2.8 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong *t1!~~,* Tt.~!: i 852 2526 6.J 11 **·WJ,i** fax, ~e52 2845 0638 **l!lt(l** [m,,i/ info(\\llsv,;-hk.com *\\NWW.* S\\V~hk.corr,\n\ng™ 1N .. dfJ it B *i&, W* itr\\_;, t,U·ti ri;ii \\* ;;,tt; i **i.HH** *i-1,:Jf* % *it'.* a~ Hong Kong Cuangzhou 5h;:,ngha. -~anjing Shenz~ien Suzhou !n!erl.:i-v 19/l.1\n\n18 February 2015\n\n**BY POST**\n\nBoard of Directors of The Sherry-Netherland The Sherry-Netherland 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022\n\nDear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of The Sherry Netherland,\n\nIt is a great pleasure for me to recommend Kwok Ho Wan, also known as Miles Kwok, to be a shareholder in The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. and~ resident in your building. I am a managing director of the Wealth Management and Swiss Bank Department at UBS AG and attach my name card for your kind reference. I *have* known Miles for about five years since he first began working with UBS AG. Miles has since been working with us in the areas of securities investment and also in financing his various projects in areas such as aircraft acquisitions.\n\nMiles has been a successful and accomplished entrepreneur who has developed and managed a number of companies, both domestically and internationally. Over the years, Miles has earned his credibility in our bank. He is very reliable and always fulfills his repayment obligations. For this reason, our bank is happy to have him as our long-term client.\n\nFrom a personal standpoint, Miles is a sincere and modest gentleman with a warm heart. He is financially sound but very humble. He is also one of the most intelligent, genuine and respectful people I have ever known.\n\nBased on my long standing relationship with Miles, I do recommend Miles to be a shareholder in your cooperative and a resident in your building. I am sure your community will be pleased to have him and his family join you at The Sherry.\n\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at stephen-kc. wong@ubs.com.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\n# Financial Letter of Reference\n\n.UDu\n\n134\n\nHong Kong Branch 52/F Two International Finance Centre 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong Tel. +852-2971 8888 Fax +852-2971 8001\n\nFeb. 23, 2015\n\nBoard of Directors of the Sherry-Netherland The Sherry-Netherland 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022\n\nDear Sirs,\n\n# **Bank Reference - [Application for Real Estate Investments]**\n\nWe have been asked to provide a reference letter in connection with Application for Real Estate Investments. We confirm that:\n\n## **Kwok Ho Wan**\n\n[client's ID: P746467(7)J\n\nhas been a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012 and during this time Mr. Kwok Ho Wan has had a satisfactory banking relationship with us. As at 18 Feb, 2015, the funds involved in thts banking relationship is not less than USD400, 000,000.\n\nThe above information is based on our experience of this banking relationship as at current date and is given in confidence for your private use only, without any responsibility on the part of UBS AG or its employees. This letter may only be used in the business context outlined at the beginning of this letter and does not constitute a guarantee or any other obligation on the part of UBS AG. In particular, we are under no obligation to inform you of any subsequent change of circumstances in this banking relationship.\n\nYours faithfuliy, For and on behalf of UBS AG Hong Kong Branch\n\n~})/ rom4 Che6ng\n\nManaging1Director\n\nStephen ong Managing Director\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 130 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 14**\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM | |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|--|\n| | Justice | | | |\n| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN
GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 018 | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a
HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and
GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n# HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 018 by PAX for a post-judgment turnover pursuant to CPLR 5255 of Kwok's shares in Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\") and other relief. In accordance with the transcript of proceedings of September 22, 2021, the motion is granted to the extent of directing Kwok to take the steps necessary to effect the turnover his shares in Genever BVI to PAX. This order is expressly subject to the approval of Justice Adrian Jack who issued a stay in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") in the related BVI litigation. The Court declines to appoint a receiver at this time.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED that Kwok Ho Wan take whatever steps are necessary in the British Virgin Islands to turnover all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership interest in Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"); and it is further\n\nORDERED that this decision and order is expressly contingent on the approval of Justice Jack in the related proceeding in the British Virgin Islands. Any actions affecting Genever\n\nHoldings LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Genever BVI, are subject to the jurisdiction of Justice Garrity in the Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York involving Genever Holdings LLC, in which PAX is participating.\n\nA status conference is scheduled for November 16, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: September 22, 2021\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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 133 of 134\n\n# **EXHIBIT 15**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2022 11:18 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1191 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 134 of 134\n\n**COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. MOTION JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK**\n\n\n\n**Motion 026**\n\n**Index No.**\n\n**652077/2017**\n\n**Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n**- v. -**\n\n**Kwok Ho Wan et al**\n\n# **COURT NOTICE**\n\nFiling on Behalf of - Rose Ann Magaldi, Principal Law Clerk to Justice Ostrager\n\nIn light of the bankruptcy filing by Mr. Kwok, the Court proposes that plaintiff either withdraw the pending contempt motion (026) without prejudice to an appropriate application in the Bankruptcy Court and/or without prejudice to renewal before this Court, if appropriate, upon the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court prefers not to keep fully submitted motions pending for an indefinite time. If counsel have an alternative suggestion, the Court will, of course, consider it.\n\nWe ask that plaintiff, and any other interested party, efile a letter by March 3, 2022 addressing the issues raised in this Court Notice. Thank you. DATED 02/18/2022 FILED By RoseAnn Magaldi","body_zh":"附件 B\n\n弗里德曼声明\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：\nChapter 11 Case No.\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），\n动议人，\n诉\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n答辩人 March 1, 2022\n支持 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 请求作出关于自动中止不适用的宣告，或依据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止之动议的 PETER FRIEDMAN（彼得·弗里德曼）声明\n\n本人，Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），声明如下：\n\n1. 本人是一名获准在纽约州和 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”）的代理律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持 PAX 提出的 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 请求作出裁定确认自动中止不适用，或作为替代请求，依据《破产法》第 362(d)(2) 条解除自动中止之动议。\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位数字为 9595。\n\n2. 随附作为附件 1 的是 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《决定及命令》的真实、正确副本。\n\n3. 随附作为附件 2 的是于 September 30, 2020 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 591 一案中作出的《决定及命令》的真实、正确副本。\n\n4. 随附作为附件 3 的是于 October 15, 2020 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 630 一案中作出的《决定及命令》的真实、正确副本。\n\n5. 随附作为附件 4 的是于 March 16, 2021 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 728 一案中作出的《决定及命令》的真实、正确副本。\n\n6. 随附作为附件 5 的是于 February 9, 2022 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 1182 一案中作出的民事藐视法庭最终命令的真实、正确副本。\n\n7. 随附作为附件 6 的是于 September 15, 2020 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 549 一案中作出的《决定及命令》的真实、正确副本。\n\n8. 随附作为附件 7 的是日期为 April 18, 2017 的起诉状在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 2 一案中的真实、正确副本。\n\n9. 随附作为附件 8 的是于 February 3, 2021 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 716 一案中作出的判决书的真实、正确副本。\n\n10. 随附作为附件 9 的是《个人保证书》的真实、正确副本；该文件作为附件 23 提交于 PAX 支持其部分简易判决动议的重大事实陈述中，载于 KWOK000652，涉及 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y.\n\n-2-\n\nSup. 2020), ECF No. 455。\n\n11. 随附作为附件 10 的是网站 http 的截图的真实、正确副本（最后访问于 February 28, 2022）。\n\n12. 随附作为附件 11 的是 PAX 日期为 December 24, 2020 的支持藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录的真实、正确副本，涉及 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2020), ECF No. 689。\n\n13. 随附作为附件 12 的是 PAX 日期为 January 27, 2021 的进一步支持藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录的真实、正确副本，涉及 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 709。\n\n14. 随附作为附件 13 的是已签署的销售合同在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 256 一案中的真实、正确副本。\n\n15. 随附作为附件 14 的是于 September 22, 2021 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. 2021), ECF No. 904 一案中作出的《决定及命令》的真实、正确副本。\n\n16. 随附作为附件 15 的是于 February 18, 2022 在 PAX v. Kwok, et al., Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup 2022), ECF. No. 1191 一案中的法院通知的真实、正确副本。\n\n［签名见下一页］\n\n日期：March 1, 2022 New York, New York 谨此提交，\n/s/ Peter Friedman\n\nPeter Friedman\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. 的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 6 of 134\n附件 1\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院） NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约县）\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） PART IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.， INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 — MOTION DATE\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN 019\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 MOTION SEQ. NO.\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC，以及 关于动议的决定及命令\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，\n\n被告。 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n在这起 2017 年案件中，共有 1,180 份案卷记录——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、受信赖的亲信及家庭成员名下，试图逃避并欺骗其债权人的行为——本院被要求判定，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）是否已完成其举证责任，以确立本院应对 Kwok 作出民事藐视法庭最终命令。基于下述理由，本院同时作出一项民事藐视法庭最终命令。\n\nPAX 于 February 3, 2021 获得针对 Kwok 金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 716）。此后，PAX 先识别、后试图扣押 Kwok 在美国境内的资产，历经一年之久以执行其判决。PAX 在识别由 Kwok 行使控制权的资产时遇到困难，因为自称亿万富翁的 Kwok 将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该安排使 Kwok 尽管生活奢靡，仍能主张其没有资产；原告已通过社交媒体剪报、照片及录像，对其生活奢华并炫耀其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机及游艇的情况作出列举。如 February 2, 2022 的庭审记录所述，该等证据的证明价值甚微，因为提供该等证据的证人除知悉其可从各种网站取得外，并不具备关于该等“证据”真实性的第一手知识。\n\n于 February 2, 2022，本院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交直接证言，并可接受交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX 为查找并扣押被告 Kwok 所有的资产进行了长期程序。该等程序尤其确立，Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇行使支配和控制，并导致作出一系列命令，限制 Kwok 和／或该名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。首项此类命令于 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……游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开本管辖范围。（NYSCEF Doc. No. 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在 2020 年 July、August 及 September 的大部分时间均在 Lady May 上度过。与导致 September 30 和 October 15, 2020 限制命令的程序同时进行的是，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于 2020 年 October 初航行至 Florida，随后航行至 Bahamas。于 March 16, 2021，本院作出一项附条件民事藐视法庭命令，命令如 Kwok 未能于 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围，其将就 Lady May 停留在本院管辖范围外的每一日被处以 $500,000.00 罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（上诉分庭第一部门）维持本院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管获准如此做，其未显示有任何兴趣这样做。……” NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时并未超出其自由裁量权，因为原告以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反导致原告权利受损（参见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753）。……指示动议法院继续举行证据听证会，以解决有关游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当处罚。\n\n根据上诉分庭的命令，本院安排于 February 2, 2022 举行证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实益拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未在 February 2, 2022 的听证会上作证；此前，为回应 PAX 的资产调查工作，他援引其第五修正案权利，拒绝就与 Lady May 有关的证据开示请求作证或答复。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引第五修正案，Kwok 仍是多个审理机构中的积极诉讼当事人，并且曾在本案及其他程序中作出证言。\n\nKwok 还在本院提交了一份题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng, 157025/2020 的起诉状，其中提及 Freebeacon.com 一篇日期为 September 8, 2017 的博客文章；该文中，Kwok 对“涉及其 152 英尺长机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件……”表示不满（起诉状 ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng 起诉状”）。Zeng 起诉状将 Kwok 描述为“中国共产党的直言不讳批评者”，其已竭尽“努力揭露中国共产党和中国政府内部普遍存在的腐败”。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，前总统 Trump 的顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 船上被捕，并称 Bannon 先生是 Kwok 的朋友及商业伙伴，“一名直言批评中国政府的网络人士；其曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但现正因欺诈、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\n1 “PX”指原告的庭审证据。\n\nFILED: 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 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 10 of 134\n\n在听证会上由被告证人亲口作出的证言，以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，且其对本院及司法程序极端蔑视。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）曾是香港投资有限公司（Hong Kong Investments Limited，以下简称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上提出的证词证实，2014年，郭文贵无偿将HK International的100%权益转让给屈国娇（Qu Guo Jiao）。屈女士是郭氏家族信赖的商业伙伴。此后，郭文贵逃离中国，并于2015年2月23日，HK International以£ 28 million GBP购得Lady May号游艇。听证会上提出的证词未能证实购买Lady May号游艇的资金来源，但郭文贵之女郭美（Mei Guo）未受反驳的证词证实，屈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，即郭文贵向HK International提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，屈女士于2017年6月17日前后，以\\$1或无偿将Lady May号游艇的所有权转让给郭美。Tr. 47. 根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），郭女士最终将Lady May号游艇的所有权转让给现任产权持有人HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，以下简称“HK USA”）。郭女士进一步宣称，她是HK USA的唯一所有人，尽管Lady May号游艇每年数百万美元的全部费用，包括燃料、维护以及船长和船员费用，均由Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring”）支付，而据称该公司为郭氏家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”系指证据听证会的庭审记录，已电子提交为NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 11 of 134\n\n在听证会上，郭女士证称，她的哥哥为她购买了Lady May号游艇。Tr. 46. 本院不能采信该证词，因为没有证据表明郭女士的哥哥参与了导致郭女士取得该游艇产权的公司交易。而且，事实上，针对本院提出的问题，郭女士承认，在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，她的哥哥均未参与。Tr. 47.\n\n听证会上提出的其他证词证实，郭文贵每年夏季反复登上该游艇，而郭女士很少登上该游艇。Trial Tr. 88:8-20. Lady May号游艇的船长证称，2020年7月、8月和9月期间，郭文贵在该游艇上停留了相当长的一段时间，这与他夏季的一贯做法相符。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. 在本院2020年9月30日发布限制令之后，Lady May号游艇于2020年10月被送往佛罗里达州，继而送往巴哈马群岛进行维修，并于2021年10月随后被派往意大利，据称系依Golden Spring的指示。郭女士承认，她知悉本院2020年9月30日的限制令，以及本院其后于2021年3月16日作出的命令，该命令指示将Lady May号游艇送回本院管辖范围。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\n郭女士证称，一方面，她指示Lady May号游艇的航行路线；但另一方面，她又证称，对郭文贵的安全担忧如此重大，以致不会留下任何航行路线的记录。Tr. 52. 她进一步证称，当其父亲在未由她陪同的情况下登上该游艇时，他可以自由选择任何想去的地方。Tr. 50. 然而，根本问题是谁指示该游艇于2020年10月脱离本院管辖范围。郭女士声称，2020年10月初，她不再希望使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给Golden Spring；Golden Spring继而将她的指示传达给当时的船长Heaslop船长（Captain Heaslop）。Tr. 53.\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 12 of 134\n\n经进一步询问，郭女士承认，是Golden Spring告知她该游艇需要移往较温暖的地方。Tr. 55. 郭女士随后再次作出她已撤回的证词，即她的哥哥将该游艇赠与她，并称其哥哥是Golden Spring的唯一所有人。Tr. 56. 该证词不可信，因为本院于2020年9月30日作出临时限制令，限制郭文贵：\n\n……出售、让与、转让或干预其享有权益的任何财产，或支付、交付或以其他方式处分目前到期或此后到期应付给他的任何债务，但须遵守CPLR 5222和正常业务过程中规定的例外情形。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. 值得注意的是，当时担任Lady May号游艇船长的Heaslop船长证称，在Lady May号游艇于2020年10月初启程前往佛罗里达州前“几天”，郭文贵告诉Heaslop船长，郭文贵将不再作为Lady May号游艇的宾客登船（显然是在本院2020年9月30日命令发布之后）。Tr. 89. Heaslop船长亦与郭女士关于郭女士向其发出有关游艇移动指示的证词相矛盾。Tr. 94.\n\n郭女士还承认，其后已阅读本院2021年3月16日的命令，该命令要求于2021年5月31日前将Lady May号游艇送回本院管辖范围（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与其律师讨论该命令（该律师的服务费用由Golden Spring支付），且她无视该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL（以下简称“Yachtzoo”）的游艇管理总监Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）证称，其公司与HK USA订有一份日期为2021年5月的管理合同，他曾与HK USA和Golden Spring沟通，但从未与郭女士沟通。Tr. 78. 继任船长Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）的证词亦是如此。Tr. 82. 简言之，郭女士关于其拥有并控制Lady May号游艇的证词，在任何方面均不能采信。郭女士似为一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对Lady May号游艇行使支配和控制，亦未就其取得Lady May号游艇提供任何证明，除非该取得只是为保护该游艇免遭其父亲债权人扣押而设的幌子。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 13 of 134\n\n郭文贵就Lady May号游艇所策划的这种障眼法相关运作，与本诉讼待决五年以来郭文贵所采取的每一项其他规避性和蔑视法庭的行为如出一辙，这正是本案存在1,180项案卷记录的原因。\n\n本院有权根据Judiciary Law § 753认定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭——并“以罚款和监禁惩处[他]”——在如本案情形下，本院“明确认定，[郭文贵]的行为意图或实际造成挫败、损害、阻碍或不利影响民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济”。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). 第753条规定了四项要求：\n\n“[为]认定某一案件中发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达无歧义命令的合法法院命令已经生效；[2] 必须以合理确定性显示，该命令已被违反……；[3] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管该命令无须实际向该方送达……；[4] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成了不利影响。”\n\nFleetwood 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)). 本案提出的证词满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，上诉分庭已作出如此暗示。See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (“[PAX已]以明确且令人信服的证据证明，[郭文贵]违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该违反行为导致对原告权利造成不利影响……”).\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 14 of 134\n\nPAX持续遭受的“不利影响”的程度，取决于PAX是否证明其最终能够扣押Lady May号游艇，以清偿其现已达数亿美元的针对郭文贵的判决书。根据CPLR § 5225，债务人拥有所需“权益”时，“金钱或其他动产”可以被扣押。为满足该项要求，“判决债务人无须拥有该财产的法定所有权；受益权益即属足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“受益权益是指‘对某物享有的权利或期待……，有别于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) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). 郭文贵对Lady May号游艇享有的远不止受益权益。郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，看起来还是他提供资金购买该游艇，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]获益，如同他直接取得了该财产。”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)（维持驳回判决债务人的主张，即其因已将其权益转让给女儿而不再享有该财产权益）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人主张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，证据显示其“保留了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 INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 15 of 134\n\n证据以明确且令人信服的方式表明，郭文贵对Lady May号游艇享有受益权益并控制该游艇。就后者而言，本院对Zeng案的提交予以司法认知，并根据记录中的全部事实推断，郭文贵已采取非常措施，以保护该游艇免受其债权人追索。此外，郭文贵的“家族办公室”资助该游艇的日常运营和维护。\n\n本院认定，郭女士的证词不仅前后矛盾且具有欺骗性，而且受到Heaslop船长、Ivanov船长及Stockil先生证词的重大削弱；三人称，在郭女士直接或间接持有该游艇产权的四年半期间，他们从未接受过郭女士就游艇相关事项作出的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州既定法律规定，当事人在民事程序中援引《第五修正案》“可以成为作出不利事实推定的基础”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). 在需要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形下。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实审理者可以针对未出庭作证的证人，作出对方证据所允许的最强不利推论。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（对未出庭且“会知悉证据所提出的一项重大争议问题”的被告适用不利推论）。\n\nPAX（太盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业）有权通过上述两种途径均获得不利推论。Kwok（郭文贵）已就PAX的判决后证据开示援引其《美国宪法》第五修正案所规定的不自证其罪权利，包括就Lady May号作出的专门询问。尽管Kwok\n\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 收件日期：02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 16 of 134\n\n主张，在此不宜作出不利推论，因为“只有在初步证明一项证据真实之后，一方才有义务就该证据作出回应”，但该主张不攻自破。PAX已提出大量可采证据，证明Kwok对Lady May号具有必要的受益所有权权益及控制权。参见People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（解释称，如证据“倾向于证明某项重大事实——即案件中直接争议的事实——存在或不存在”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至February 7, 2022，Lady May号已在本院管辖范围之外停留268天。根据本院施加且经上诉庭确认的每日\\$500,000罚款，累计罚款将达\\$134,000,000.00，超过PAX尚未履行的近\\$120 million判决债务，且为Lady May号GBP £ 28 million购价的数倍。然而，若亿万富翁诉讼当事人能够一方面寻求利用纽约州及美国其他地区的法院程序，另一方面明知且故意违反法院命令，法治便无从谈起。Kwok必须在送达本院附入案通知的命令后五个营业日内，向PAX支付\\$134,000,000.00。如未及时支付罚款，本院准备依据Judiciary Law § 753行使全部权限。\n\n日期：February 9, 2022\n\n请选择一项：案件结案 X 非终局处置 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他\n申请：拟定命令 提交命令\n如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交审理\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 17 of 134\n\n附件2\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 09/30/2020 04:44 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 591 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/30/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 18 of 134\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县\n\n出庭法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业），\n原告， 案号 652077/2017\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 动议序号 011\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉纳维尔控股有限责任公司），以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉纳维尔控股公司）， 动议裁决及命令\n被告。\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n于September 30, 2020，本院通过Skype举行口头辩论，所有当事人的律师均出席。经同意，本院作出临时限制令，限制Kwok先生出售、让与、转让或干扰其享有权益的任何财产，或支付、以其他方式处分任何现已到期或日后到期应付给他的债务，但CPLR 5222规定的例外情形及正常业务过程除外。\n\n本院将于October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am通过Microsoft Teams听取进一步辩论，并在必要时举行证据听证。被告必须于October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm前提交对第011号动议的反对意见。原告必须于October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm前提交答复（如有）。如任一方拟传唤证人，双方必须相互交换证人名单，并最迟于October 13, 2020向本院电子提交证人名单。\n\n此外，本院将于October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am通过Microsoft Teams就原告关于损害赔偿及律师费的第008号动议听取口头辩论。被告必须提交\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 09/30/2020 04:44 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 591 NYSCEF 收件日期：09/30/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 19 of 134\n\n其对第011号动议的反对意见，截止时间为October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm；原告必须于\n\nOctober 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm前提交答复（如有）。\n\n任何违反今日作出的临时限制令的行为，均应视为\n\n刑事藐视法庭。\n\n日期：September 30, 2020\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 20 of 134\n\n附件3\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 10/15/2020 02:52 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 630 NYSCEF 收件日期：10/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 21 of 134\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\n出庭法官：\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.， 案号 652077/2017\n原告， 动议日期\n\n诉\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 动议序号 011\nGUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE\nHAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS 动议裁决及命令\nCORPORATION，\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n于October 15, 2020，本院通过Microsoft Teams举行口头辩论，所有当事人的律师均参与，就原告依据CPLR 5229提出的判决后限制令动议（第011号动议）进行审理。于September 15, 2020，本院就责任问题作出有利于原告的简易判决；损害赔偿额以及公司被告是否为被告Kwok的另我问题，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先生被限制直接或间接出售、让与、转让或干扰其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付、以其他方式处分任何现已到期或日后到期应付给他的债务，但CPLR 5222规定的例外情形除外，并应遵循October 15, 2020庭审记录中的程序。\n\n具体而言，Kwok先生和/或下列财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的住宅，及(2) 游艇“Lady May号”，均被限制出售、让与、转让或干扰该等资产。\n\n根据CPLR 5229，原告有权就上述已识别资产进行证据开示，亦有权就Kwok先生可能直接或间接拥有的任何其他资产寻求证据开示。\n\n下一次出庭将为审前会议，定于November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm通过Microsoft Teams举行。\n\nOctober 15, 2020 \\$SIG\\$ 日期 BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C. 请选择一项：案件结案 X 非终局处置 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他\n申请：拟定命令 提交命令\n如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交审理\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 23 of 134\n\n附件4\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\n出庭法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.， 案号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 动议日期\n动议序号 012\nKWOK\nHO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，等， 动议裁决及命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n本院审理的是原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提出的第012号动议，请求认定被告Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）构成藐视法庭。本院此前已作出三项命令，限制Kwok对名为“Lady May”的游艇所享有的权益。于September 30, 2020，本院作出临时限制令（“TRO”），禁止Kwok实施包括“干扰其享有权益的任何财产”在内的行为。NYSCEF Doc. No. 591。在作出TRO时，本院指出，“任何违反……的行为均应视为刑事藐视法庭。”同上。于October 15, 2020，本院作出命令，准许PAX依据CPLR 5229提出的动议，并明确限制Lady May号：\n\nKwok先生被限制直接或间接出售、让与、转让或干扰其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付、以其他方式处分任何现已到期或日后到期应付给他的债务，但CPLR 5222规定的例外情形除外，并应遵循October 15, 2020庭审记录中的程序。具体而言，Kwok先生和/或下列财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel的住宅，及(2) 游艇“Lady May号”，均被限制出售、让与、转让或干扰该等资产。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630。Kwok的律师曾特别询问本院，Kwok是否可为取得许可之目的将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。本院当时驳回了该请求，并指示律师在必要时提出动议。\n\n原告提出本动议，是因为尽管存在上述命令，Lady May号仍被移出美国境外。\n\n本院已审阅当事人就PAX请求认定Kwok构成藐视法庭的动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论Kwok先生的任何律师是否违反《职业行为守则》，显而易见的是，在本院审理的与“Lady May”游艇所在地点及所有权有关的程序中，已出现令人无法容忍的策略性周旋、掩饰和欺瞒。\n\n被告主张，尽管本院对该游艇的移动施加了限制，该游艇仍是为了“正常业务过程”中的“冬季维护”而被移出本院管辖范围。与其逐一列举被告Kwok在本应更加审慎的律师协助下所实施的诸多“障眼法”，本院决定在以下范围内准许藐视法庭动议：自May 15, 2021后，游艇每在本院管辖范围之外停留一日，被告Kwok即被处以\\$500,000罚款。与该游艇所有权及控制权有关的其他限制继续有效。\n\n状态会议仍定于May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am举行。\n\n日期：March 16, 2021\n\n请选择一项：案件结案 X 非终局处置\n\nX 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他\n申请：拟定命令 提交命令\n如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交审理\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 27 of 134\n\n附件5\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.，\n\n原告，\n\nKWOKHO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN GUI；又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n诉。\n\n被告。\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n[已提交] 民事藐视法庭最终命令\n\n动议序号：19\n\n鉴于本院日期为March 16, 2021的附条件民事藐视法庭命令指示，如被告Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）未能在May 15, 2021前将Lady May游艇（“Lady May”）送回本院管辖范围，他将因Lady May每在本院管辖范围之外停留一日而被处以\\$500,000罚款；—\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1182 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 57-2 于 03/01/22 提交 于 03/01/22 22:13:12 登记 第 28 页，共 134 页\n\n鉴于，截至 May 15, 2021，Lady May 未被返还至本司法管辖区；\n\n鉴于，November 4,2021，上诉分庭第一部门维持了本院认定 Kwok（郭文贵）构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 .\\$500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管获准有两个月时间完成此事，但其未显示出任何这样做的意愿”，并指示本院进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚；\n\n鉴于，迄今 Kwok 未能将 Lady May 返还至本司法管辖区；\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1182 NYSCEF 收讫：02/09/2022\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 57-2 于 03/01/22 提交 于 03/01/22 22:13:12 登记 第 29 页，共 134 页\n\n鉴于，Kwok 以及 Lady May 的登记所有权人 HK International（q）peCt.r~（i by co~V\\\\$e \\ Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC，均出席了听证会、提出了证据，并由律师代理；且\n\n鉴于，根据在听证会上提出的证据，本院认定 PAX 已以明确且有说服力的证据证明，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益权益并拥有控制权；因此，现据此命令、裁定并判决如下：\n\n1. Kwok 违反了 New York Judiciary Law § 753，并构成对本院命令的民事藐视法庭。\n\n2. 指示 Kwok 向 PAX 立即支付 \\$134,000,000，代表自 May 15,2021 至 February 7,2022 期间每日 \\$500,000 的金额。\n\n3. 应付给 PAX 的金额将继续按每日 \\$500,000 的标准累积，直至 Kwok 将 Lady May 返还至本司法管辖区；该额外累积应自本命令日期起十个营业日后开始。\n\n4. 上述第 2 段所载金额应于本命令日期起五个营业日内支付给 PAX。\n\n5. 如未及时向 PAX 支付罚款，本院将行使 New York Judiciary Law § 753 赋予的全部权限。\n\n特此命令。日期：2022 年 Ii b VYt a '='Cd' 第 ?-'\" 日。R. OSTRAGERJ...\\$.C. A.OSTRAGER . ,,~SC;}\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 57-2 于 03/01/22 提交 于 03/01/22 22:13:12 登记 第 30 页，共 134 页\n证物 6\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出庭法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（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），\n索引号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名\nGUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN， 动议序号 007\n又名 MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS\nLLC（GENEVER HOLDINGS 有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER HOLDINGS 公司）， 关于动议的裁定及命令\n\n被告。\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（Barry R. Ostrager 法官）\n\n本院审理原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“Pacific Alliance”（太平洋联盟））针对被告 Kwok Ho Wan，又名 Miles Kwok（“Kwok”（郭文贵））提出的、就修正起诉书第一项罪名请求作出部分简易判决的动议，以及被告 Kwok 就第 006 号动议提出的复议交叉动议。本院于 September 14, 2020 通过 Skype 进行了口头辩论。根据所提交的文件、September 14, 2020 庭审记录中的辩论，以及下述理由，准予 Pacific Alliance 关于部分简易判决的动议，驳回 Kwok 就第 006 号动议提出的复议动议。\n\n背景\n\n2008 年，Pacific Alliance 与 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit”）订立协议；Spirit 是 Kwok 的商业实体之一。根据该协议，Pacific Alliance 向 Spirit 提供本金为 \\$30 million 的贷款额度。Kwok 签署了该贷款的个人保证书。September 2009，Spirit 签署了一份契据，据此，Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）承接了 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 再次签署了一份有利于 Pacific Alliance 的个人保证书，以担保 Shiny Times 的偿还义务。\n\nMarch 2011，Pacific Alliance 与 Shiny Times 订立了一项新的贷款额度协议（“2011 Loan Facility”），该协议明确取代并替换了 2009 Deed of Settlement 和 2010 Letter Agreement。同时，Kwok 签订了一份新的个人保证书（“2011 Personal Guarantee”），明确取代了 2009 Guarantee。2011 Personal Guarantee 是本案的有效协议。\n\nApril 2013，各方订立了一份 Deed of Settlement，据此，如 Pacific Alliance 从 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（“Beijing Pangu”）购买若干公寓，且 Shiny Times 向 Pacific Alliance 支付若干分期付款，则未偿贷款金额将不再应付给 Pacific Alliance。Beijing Pangu 是 Kwok 的另一商业实体。Beijing Pangu 须就 Pacific Alliance 对每套公寓的买卖满足十项先决条件。如任何该等条件未于 June of 2013 前得到满足，则 Deed of Settlement 将整体终止。此后，Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 对 Deed of Settlement 签署了四份延期协议，仅变更须满足先决条件的日期。最新的 Deed of Settlement 要求先决条件须于 June of 2015 前得到满足。\n\nPacific Alliance 就修正起诉书第一项罪名请求简易判决；该项罪名主张 Kwok 未能于 June of 2015 前满足先决条件，因此，根据协议条款，Deed of Settlement 已整体终止，2011 Personal Guarantee 再次具有控制效力。\n\n本院最近在回应 Pacific Alliance 的制裁动议时裁定，Kwok 受司法禁止反言约束，不得对 Kwok 此前在本院程序中曾确认的文件真实性提出异议。见 NYSCEF 文件编号 404。具体而言，在其 November 2019 证言中，Kwok 否认曾签署上述数份协议，包括 2011 Loan Facility、2011 Personal Guarantee、2013 Deed of Settlement 及四份 Supplemental Deeds。Kwok 作证称，这些文件均系伪造。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 受司法禁止反言约束，不得在反对 Pacific Alliance 的简易判决动议时或在审判中质疑这些协议的真实性。\n\nKwok 的交叉动议\n\n首先审理被告 Kwok 提出的、请求准许对本院 July 7, 2020 的裁定及命令（NYSCEF 文件编号 404）进行复议的交叉动议，该动议予以驳回。如上所述，本院裁定，Kwok 受司法禁止反言约束，不得质疑 Kwok 先前在本程序中向本院确认真实的协议之真实性。Kwok 主张，本院作出该裁定时误解了法律。本院整体驳回该主张。\n\n本案开始时，Kwok 以不方便法院为由提出动议，请求驳回本案（第 001 号动议）。本院准予 Kwok 的动议（NYSCEF 文件编号 102），该裁定随后被第一部门撤销并发回（NYSCEF 文件编号 121）。Kwok 在提出驳回动议时主张，争议合同受香港法律管辖。具体而言，Kwok 随其动议附上了各方之间数份协议的“真实且正确”副本，包括其现正提出争议的 2011 Personal Guarantee（NYSCEF 文件编号 17）和 2013 Deed of Settlement（NYSCEF 文件编号 18）。\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 549 NYSCEF 收讫：09/15/2020 案号 22-50073 文件 57-2 于 03/01/22 提交 于 03/01/22 22:13:12 登记 第 34 页，共 134 页\n\nKwok 现主张，由于其驳回动议中的论点及本院裁定的主旨涉及不方便法院，(1) 其实际上并未改变其关于文件真实性的立场，且 (2) 本院实际上并未确定文件的真实性。该主张不正确。Kwok 主张应驳回本案并由香港解决争议，理由是协议表面上受香港法律管辖；这必然要求 Kwok 作出主张并要求本院接受，即该等协议真实而非伪造，正如 Kwok 现时所称的那样。\n\nKwok 进一步主张，无论如何，司法禁止反言均不适用，因为关于合同是否真实的问题不存在终局性的实体裁定，理由是第一部门撤销了本院关于驳回动议的裁定。第一部门的判例法不支持该主张。司法禁止反言是一项衡平法原则，用于防止当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场。见例如 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.”〔“根据司法禁止反言原则，或禁止采取不一致立场的禁止反言原则，当事人不得不公平地采取与其此前在同一程序中所采取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立场，终局裁定不可能是适用司法禁止反言的前提条件。见同上（禁止房东在上诉中依赖与其在同一程序审判法院阶段所依赖的不同租约）。\n\n此外，本院指出，Kwok 从未在其任何一份答辩状中主张文件系伪造，而这是一项积极抗辩。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)（裁定“鉴于被告提出伪造这一积极抗辩，对其笔迹的证明具有重要性”）。\n\nKwok 最近未经佐证地声称该等协议系伪造，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 的复议交叉动议，并为评估原告关于部分简易判决的动议之目的，认定 Kwok 先前确认的协议真实有效。\n\nPacific Alliance 的动议\n\n本院准予原告 Pacific Alliance 的简易判决动议，裁定被告 Kwok 根据 2011 Personal Guarantee 对违约承担责任。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。见 NYSCEF 文件编号 461。\n\n第3.4条：融资函于2013年7月31日后恢复效力。如截至2013年7月31日（或双方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］），未满足第3.2条就所有公寓所规定的全部先决条件，则本契据所设想的全部和解应予终止，双方确认，融资函应于2013年7月31日（或双方书面同意的较后日期）后立即恢复并完全有效，且Shiny Times（闪耀时代）应有义务按照融资函的条款和条件清偿未偿总额及其应计利息。（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n另见NYSCEF文件第472号《第四份补充和解契据》，其中将满足先决条件的日期变更为“2015年6月30日”。\n\n原告Pacific Alliance（太平联盟）已证明，而被告Kwok（郭文贵）未能反驳，2013年《和解契据》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的所有税费及费用的证据，且未能向原告交付任何一套公寓的房屋所有权证书。见NYSCEF文件第461号第3.2(e)(g)(h)(i)款。\n\nNYSCEF 文件第549号 NYSCEF收到日期：09/15/2020 案件22-50073 文件57-2 提交日期：03/01/22 登记日期：03/01/22 22:13:12 第36页，共134页\n\nKwok并不争议这些条件从未得到满足。相反，Kwok在反对意见中主张，原告Pacific Alliance据称未借助北京警方把握可能扣押三套公寓的机会，因而未能减轻其损害。\n\n第一，即使将Kwok所述版本的事实视为真实，减轻损害涉及的是损害赔偿，而非责任；因此，该等事件不会妨碍就责任作出部分简易判决。第二，如双方提交的书面证据所示，借助警方取得三套公寓占有的所谓机会，仅在2015年6月之后才出现；因此，2013年《和解契据》当时已整体失效，而2011年《个人保证书》完全有效。第三，Kwok从未在其两份答辩状中的任何一份提出减轻损害这一积极抗辩。参见，例如Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010)（提及“未能减轻损害这一积极抗辩”）。\n\n最后，根据香港法律，当事人仅须以合理方式减轻损害。见Vishal Prakash Melwani（维沙尔·普拉卡什·梅尔瓦尼）的宣誓陈述第17.2段（NYSCEF文件第535号），另见Phillip Loukis Georgiou（菲利普·卢基斯·乔治乌）的宣誓陈述（NYSCEF文件第498号）第18.3及21段。现有记录表明，为利用北京警方的所谓提议，Pacific Alliance须为使每套公寓获释而支付RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million]。见NYSCEF文件第519号PAX-KWOK-017288。为清偿债务而就双方已同意应无偿转让的资产支付约\\$16 million，在香港法律下可能不构成减轻损害的合理机会。尽管如此，法院保留对损害赔偿问题的裁决。\n\nNYSCEF 文件第549号 NYSCEF收到日期：09/15/2020 案件22-50073 文件57-2 提交日期：03/01/22 登记日期：03/01/22 22:13:12 第37页，共134页\n\n根据2011年《个人保证书》：\n\n— Kwok“不可撤销且无条件地……向PAX [Pacific Alliance]保证[Shiny Times]在[2011年融资]项下义务的适时及按期履行，并同意在PAX提出要求后，立即向PAX支付所有到期未付义务”；\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），就因任何[Shiny Times的]义务因任何原因成为或变为无效、可撤销、不可执行或对Shiny Times不具效力而使PAX遭受的任何及全部损失，在PAX提出要求后向其作出赔偿并使其免责……”；\n\n— Kwok同意，其在本保证书项下的“义务……构成并应持续构成持续性义务，不因[Shiny Times]在[2011年贷款融资]项下义务或其中任何义务的任何中间付款而解除或免除，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支付及清偿为止，并且系对PAX可在任何时候就[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）的补充及独立，不得损害或与之合并”；\n\n— PAX获准在不先向Shiny Times执行债务的情况下，向作为主债务人的Kwok追索；以及\n\n— Kwok同意概括性放弃基于“任何其他可能导致解除、减损或以其他方式影响保证人或任何义务，或影响本保证书或法律赋予[PAX LP]的任何权利、权力和救济的作为、事件或不作为”的任何抗辩。\n\nKwok并未主张其本人或Shiny Times曾根据2011年《贷款融资函》或2011年《个人保证书》支付任何款项以清偿该债务。因此，法院认定Kwok应就违反2011年《个人保证书》承担责任。\n\n结论\n\n本案剩余争议事项——修订起诉书中的第二项罪名——旨在使Kwok的两家公司，即Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）和Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司），作为Kwok的另一个自我，对Kwok欠Pacific Alliance的债务承担责任。本案原定于2020年10月5日进行陪审团审判。由于Covid-19疫情，法院无法于该日进行陪审团审判，审判改期至2021年1月15日。\n\n据此，现命令如下：\n\n命令：驳回被告Kwok要求重新审理的交叉动议；并进一步\n\n命令：准许原告关于修订起诉书第一项罪名的部分简易判决动议，支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）并针对Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名Kwok Ho，又名GWO Wen Gui，又名Gui Wengui，又名Guo Wen-Gui，又名Wan Gue Haoyun，又名Miles Kwok，又名Haoyun Guo，认定被告Kwok应就违约承担责任；并进一步\n\n命令：原告应不晚于2020年10月14日，以可在提交材料庭审理的动议通知提出动议，通过提交基于亲身知情的宣誓书及可采形式的证据，证明2011年《个人保证书》项下到期应付的本金金额、2011年《个人保证书》项下适用的利率以及开始计息的日期，以便法院书记员计算截至判决登记日的到期应付总额；并进一步\n\n命令：原告应同时申请裁定律师费及费用，并说明原告所依据的文件且附上已提供服务的发票；并进一步\n\n命令：双方应于2020年12月22日上午10:20出席案件状态会议。\n\n日期：2020年9月15日\n\n勾选一项： 案件已结案 X 非终局性处置\n\n准许 驳回 X 部分准许 其他\n\n申请： 和解裁定 提交裁定\n\n如适用则勾选： 包括移送/重新指派 受托人任命 移交审理\n\n案件22-50073 文件57-2 提交日期：03/01/22 登记日期：03/01/22 22:13:12 第40页，共134页\n\n证据7\n\n提交：纽约县书记员 04/18/2017 04:01 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件第2号 NYSCEF收到日期：04/18/2017 案件22-50073 文件57-2 提交日期：03/01/22 登记日期：03/01/22 22:13:12 第41页，共134页\n\n纽约州纽约县最高法院\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n案号：\n\n诉\n\n起诉书\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，\n\n被告。\n\n提交：纽约县书记员 04/18/2017 04:01 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件第2号 NYSCEF收到日期：04/18/2017 案件22-50073 文件57-2 提交日期：03/01/22 登记日期：03/01/22 22:13:12 第42页，共134页\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 这是一起直接的违约案件。据报道为亿万富翁的Kwok Ho Wan，又名Kwok Ho，又名Gwo Wen Gui，又名Guo Wengui，又名Guo Wen-Gui，又名Wan Gue Haoyun，又名Miles Kwok，又名Haoyun Guo（“Kwok”），及其控制的实体从原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX LP”）借入数百万美元，但未能根据具有约束力的书面协议支付其欠付PAX LP的任何款项。\n\n2. 2008年，PAX LP与Spirit Charter Investment Limited（灵宪投资有限公司）（“Spirit Charter”）——Kwok的一家商业实体——签订书面协议，据此，PAX LP向Spirit Charter提供本金金额为\\$30 million的贷款融资。该贷款融资以Kwok签署对Spirit Charter偿还义务的个人保证为条件。\n\n3. 2009年，Kwok的另一实体Shiny Times Holdings Limited（闪耀时代控股有限公司）（“Shiny Times”）承接了Spirit Charter欠付PAX LP的债务，双方当时同意该债务总额为\\$45,357,534.25。Kwok签署了对该债务的个人保证。\n\n4. 随后于2011年，PAX LP与Shiny Times签订书面协议（“2011年融资函”），该协议明确取代双方此前的协议。在2011年融资函中，双方同意Shiny Times欠付PAX LP \\$46,426,489，并应于2012年6月30日前偿还该金额（加自2010年12月31日起按年利率15%计算的利息）。\n\n5. 同日，Kwok签订单独的个人保证书（同样明确取代Kwok先前的个人保证），据此Kwok保证支付Shiny Times根据2011年融资函欠付PAX LP的全部金额（“个人保证书”）。\n\n6. 截至目前，Shiny Times和Kwok均未支付根据2011年融资函或个人保证书欠付PAX LP的任何款项。\n\n7. PAX LP已根据其与Shiny Times及Kwok的合同，采取一切必要且适当的步骤以追收其应收款项——现连同合同利息合计约\\$88 million——但未追回任何款项，因为在每一个步骤中，Shiny Times和Kwok均未予理会。\n\n8. 鉴于Kwok经常在纽约从事商业活动、在纽约定居和居住，并拥有纽约房地产，PAX LP向本院提起本案，以执行其针对Kwok的合同权利。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n9. 本院根据纽约州一般属人管辖权法规C.P.L.R § 301，对Kwok享有属人管辖权，因为其在纽约持续、系统地“从事商业活动”，并在该州定居。\n\n10. 根据C.P.L.R § 503(a)，本院为适格审判地，因为Kwok的住所在纽约县。\n\n当事人\n\n11. 原告PAX LP是根据开曼群岛法律组织成立的获豁免有限合伙投资基金。\n\n12. 被告Kwok是定居于纽约并持续、系统地在纽约“从事商业活动”的中国公民。\n\n13. Kwok居住在纽约市The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）18层——该住所由其于2015年通过Genever Holdings, LLC（“Genever”）以\\$67.5 million购得；Genever是一家由其全资拥有的本国有限责任公司，并在纽约州奥尔巴尼80 State Street设有其主要营业地。\n\n14. Kwok（郭文贵）还为其拥有的一家特拉华州公司 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring”）在 767 Fifth Avenue 设有办公室；该公司已登记为可在纽约经营的外国公司，并在纽约设有诉讼文书送达代理人。\n\n15. Kwok 还在纽约拥有雇员或代理人，包括为 Golden Spring 工作的人员，以及他在过去两年间聘请、在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的两宗案件中代表他的律师。1\n\n事实陈述\n\nShiny Times 贷款及 Kwok 对向 PAX LP 偿还贷款作出的个人保证\n\n16. PAX LP（PAX有限合伙）与 Kwok 自约 2008 年 2 月 4 日起即存在商业往来；当时 PAX LP 与 Spirit Charter（精神宪章公司）——Kwok 的商业实体之一——签订了一份书面协议（“2008 Facility Agreement”），据此 PAX LP 向 Spirit Charter 提供本金金额为 \\$30 million 的贷款额度。\n\n17. 该贷款额度以 Kwok 签署对 Spirit Charter 偿还义务的个人保证为条件。\n\n18. 2008 年 3 月 12 日，PAX LP 与 Spirit Charter 对 2008 Facility Agreement 进行了修订和重述（“Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement”）。\n\n19. 根据日期为 2009 年 9 月 17 日的一份契约（“September 2009 Deed”），Shiny Times（闪耀时代公司，Kwok 的另一实体）、Spirit Charter、PAX LP 及其他各方同意，Shiny Times 将取代 Spirit Charter，成为 Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement 项下的借款人。September 2009 Deed 的各方还同意，截至 2009 年 9 月 12 日，Amended and Restated 2008 Facility Agreement 项下的未偿金额，包括已计提但未支付的利息，为 \\$45,357,534.25（“Amended 2008 Loan Facility”）。\n\n1 2015 年，Kwok 和 Golden Spring 因违反 Fair Labor Standards Act（公平劳动标准法）被起诉；在该诉讼中，Kwok（通过律师）承认，他已在 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）被适当送达传票和起诉状。Ahn v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al., No. 1:15-cv-09697 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015). 2016 年，Kwok 和 Genever（吉尼维尔）通过律师对 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 及其他方提起诉讼，涉及其在该酒店公寓发生的漏水问题。Genever Holdings, LLC and Miles Kwok v. The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06246-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016).\n\n20. September 2009 Deed 要求 Kwok 作出有利于 PAX LP 的个人保证，以担保 Shiny Times 对 Amended 2008 Loan Facility 的适时、按期履行及偿还。Kwok 于 2009 年 11 月 18 日签署了其个人保证。\n\n21. 此后，PAX LP、Kwok 和 Shiny Times 同意以于 2011 年 3 月 16 日签署的两份合同取代上述协议——2011 Facility Letter（作为附件 A 附后）及 Personal Guarantee（作为附件 B 附后）。\n\n22. 在 2011 Facility Letter 中，各方同意 Shiny Times 欠付 PAX LP \\$46,426,489，并将于 2012 年 6 月 30 日前偿还该金额（加计自 2010 年 12 月 31 日起按年利率 15% 计算的利息）。\n\n23. 各方还在 2011 Facility Letter 中同意，Shiny Times 未能支付其根据 2011 Facility Letter 应向 PAX LP 支付的任何金额，即构成违约事件；在该等情况下，PAX LP 可：(i) 宣告全部贷款、已计提但未支付的利息及任何其他应付款项立即到期应付，无须进一步催告、通知或任何其他法律手续；及／或 (ii) 宣告 2011 Facility Letter 终止。\n\n24. 最后，与双方此前的协议一样，2011 Facility Letter 明确以 Kwok 签署 Personal Guarantee 为条件，以对 Shiny Times 向 PAX LP 支付款项的义务提供完全担保：\n\n贷款人 [PAX LP] 与借款人 [Shiny Times] 同意签订本协议……，条件是向贷款人交付 Kwok 先生的一份新的个人保证（“Personal Guarantee”），以担保借款人依照本协议适时、按期履行对 [2011 Facility Letter] 及全部已计提但未支付利息的全额偿还义务。\n\n25. Kwok 以 Shiny Times 董事身份签署了 2011 Facility Letter，并于同日签署了 Personal Guarantee；据此，Kwok 同意“不可撤销且无条件地”保证 Shiny Times 支付 2011 Facility Letter 项下所欠的一切款项。具体而言，Kwok：\n\n(a) 向 PAX LP 保证 Shiny Times 对其在 2011 Facility Letter 项下义务的“适时、按期支付”；\n\n(b) 同意“在 [PAX LP] 提出要求后，[Kwok] 将立即向 [PAX LP] 支付所有到期但未支付的[该等款项]”；\n\n(c) 同意“就 Shiny Times 在 2011 Facility Letter 项下的任何义务因任何原因对 Shiny Times 而无效、可撤销、不可执行或不发生效力，致使 [PAX LP] 遭受的一切损失，应根据要求赔偿 [PAX LP] 并使其免受损害”；\n\n(d) 同意 PAX LP 提出的付款要求将构成该等付款已到期应付的初步证据；\n\n(e) 同意 PAX LP 可向 Shiny Times 或 Kwok 中任一方追偿；以及\n\n(f) 同意赔偿 PAX LP 因行使或执行 Personal Guarantee 而产生的“任何及一切成本、索赔、损失、[及]费用（包括律师费）”。\n\n26. 此外，Kwok 同意放弃若干抗辩，包括基于 Shiny Times 清算或解散的抗辩，或者基于 PAX LP “因任何原因”无法向 Shiny Times 追偿的抗辩。Kwok 还同意概括性放弃基于“任何其他可能导致解除、减损或以其他方式影响保证人或任何义务，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”的一切可设想抗辩。\n\n27. 换言之，Kwok 签署了一份明确且无懈可击的保证，承诺在任何情况下清偿 Shiny Times 对 PAX LP 的债务。\n\n延期及 Shiny Times 最终未能向 PAX LP 偿还贷款\n\n28. Shiny Times 未在 2011 Facility Letter 规定的 2012 年 6 月 30 日还款日前偿还任何部分的贷款本金或已计提利息；此后，各方达成一系列延期安排，每一份均名为“Deed of Settlement”。\n\n29. 2013 年 4 月 19 日，PAX LP、Shiny Times 和 Kwok 与 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资有限公司，以下简称“Beijing Pangu”）——Kwok 帝国中的另一家公司——共同签订了第一份 Deed of Settlement（“Original Deed of Settlement”）。\n\n30. Original Deed of Settlement 规定，截至 Original Deed of Settlement 日期，2011 Facility Letter 项下到期的未偿总金额连同全部已计提但未支付的利息为 \\$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 购买三套公寓，每套价格约为 \\$5 million，总额约为 \\$15 million；以及\n\n(b) 如 Shiny Times 向 PAX LP 完成三笔每笔约为 \\$5 million 的分期付款——每次独立购买公寓后支付一笔分期付款——总额约为 \\$15 million。\n\n31. 然而，在 PAX LP 可从 Beijing Pangu 购买该三套公寓中的任何一套之前，Beijing Pangu 根据 Original Deed of Settlement 须满足与所有权、税款及房地产交易其他通常事项有关的若干先决条件。若截至 2013 年 7 月 31 日，该三套公寓中的任何一套未满足任何该等条件，Original Deed of Settlement 明确规定其将整体终止，而 2011 Facility Letter 将恢复完全效力。\n\n32. Beijing Pangu 未能于 2013 年 7 月 31 日前满足该等先决条件，因此 PAX LP 未完成对任何公寓的购买，Shiny Times 亦未支付其根据 Original Deed of Settlement 应向 PAX LP 支付的三笔分期付款中的任何一笔。\n\n33. 四份补充和解契约——日期分别为 2013 年 12 月 3 日、2014 年 5 月 15 日、2014 年 7 月 11 日和 2015 年 2 月 10 日——延长了 Original Deed of Settlement 中的日期，包括还款日期和 Beijing Pangu 满足先决条件的日期。\n\n34. 每一份补充契约的条款均与 Original Deed of Settlement 相同。每次结果也相同：Beijing Pangu 从未满足其被要求满足的条件，因此 PAX LP 无须且未完成对任何公寓的购买，Shiny Times 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，2015 年 3 月 31 日，Shiny Times 和 PAX LP 与 Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited（环球机会控股有限公司）及 Empire Growth Holdings Limited（帝国增长控股有限公司）共同签订了一份 Option Agreement（“Option Agreement”）；该协议尤其规定，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，如未满足与财产转让有关的某些条件（如 Option Agreement 所载），Option Agreement 即应终止。这些条件均未得到满足，Option Agreement 因而终止，但并未免除 Shiny Times 向 PAX LP 付款的义务。\n\n37. 因此，2011 Facility Letter 恢复完全效力，Kwok 在 Personal Guarantee 项下的义务完全可以执行，且 Kwok 根据 Personal Guarantee 对 Shiny Times 根据 2011 Facility Letter 欠付 PAX LP 的全部债务独立承担责任。\n\nPAX LP 寻求执行其合同权利并收取应付款项\n\n38. 2015 年 10 月 16 日，在 Deeds of Settlement 和 Option Agreement 终止且 2011 Facility Letter 恢复完全效力后，PAX LP 按照 Personal Guarantee 条款所载地址，向 Kwok 的香港地址寄送书面催款通知（“Notice of Demand”）。\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 49 of 134\n\n39. Notice of Demand 告知 Kwok，Shiny Times “未能偿还”其根据 2011 Facility Letter 到期款项的任何部分，并要求立即支付 \\$71,818,633.44。Notice of Demand 还告知 Kwok，如其未立即付款，可能对其提起法律程序，并保留 PAX LP 在 2011 Facility Letter 和 Personal Guarantee 项下的合同权利。\n\n40. Kwok 从未对 Notice of Demand 作出回应。\n\n41. 2016 年 2 月 19 日，PAX LP 向 Shiny Times 寄送函件，要求支付根据 2011 Facility Letter 到期应付的 \\$82,219,404.08（“Shiny Times Demand Letter”）；该金额为本金加上按年利率 15% 计算至 Shiny Times Demand Letter 日期的合同利息。\n\n42. Shiny Times 从未对 Shiny Times Demand Letter 作出回应。\n\n43. Shiny Times 未作回应后，PAX LP 于 2016 年 2 月 29 日向 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，以下简称“BVI”）法院提出申请，请求任命共同清算人，对作为 BVI 公司注册成立的 Shiny Times 进行清算。该申请主张：(i) Shiny Times 未能支付当时到期的 \\$82,410,197.87；(ii) Shiny Times 无力偿还其债务；以及 (iii) Shiny Times 资不抵债，应予清算。\n\n44. 尽管 Shiny Times 确实因 BVI 程序而被置于清算之中，PAX LP 仍未能收回其根据 2011 Facility Letter 应得的任何款项。\n\n45. 截至目前，Kwok（郭文贵）尚未偿还根据《个人保证书》应付给 PAX LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的任何款项。目前应付未付款项——包括未偿还本金以及已累计但未支付的利息——约为 $88 million。\n\n46. 因 Kwok 未能偿还根据《个人保证书》应付给 PAX LP 的任何款项，原告就执行《个人保证书》已产生“费用、索赔损失及开支（包括律师费）”。\n提交：纽约郡书记官 04/18/2017 04:01 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 2 NYSCEF 收件：04/18/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 50 of 134\n\n执行《个人保证书》。根据《个人保证书》的明文条款（见第 25(f) 段），Kwok 有义务就该等金额作出赔偿。\n第一项罪名——违约\n针对被告 Kwok\n\n47. 原告重申并援引第 1 至 46 段所载的每一项指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n48. 《个人保证书》要求 Kwok 偿还 PAX LP 就其向 Spirit Charter（精灵包机）提供的贷款融资安排（经修订）所应付的款项，以及未付利息。目前应付未付款项约为 $88 million。\n\n49. 原告已履行其根据《个人保证书》（及其他相关协议）所承担的义务。\n\n50. Kwok 尚未偿还根据《个人保证书》应付给 PAX LP 的任何款项。\n\n51. 由于 Kwok 违反其根据《个人保证书》承担的付款义务，原告持续遭受约 $88 million dollars 的损失，该金额仍在继续计息。\n\n因此，原告请求对被告作出如下判决：\n\n(a) 根据《个人保证书》判令支付 $46,426,489；\n\n(b) 判令支付利息 $41,096,982.46；\n\n(c) PAX LP 已经发生并将继续发生的合理律师费、费用和开支，该等费用和开支系 PAX LP 根据《个人保证书》的赔偿条款，就其针对 Kwok 执行《个人保证书》而产生；以及\n\n(d) PAX LP 依法和衡平上有权获得的其他及进一步救济。\n提交：纽约郡书记官 04/18/2017 04:01 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 2 NYSCEF 收件：04/18/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 51 of 134\n\n日期：纽约，纽约州，四月\n\n谨呈\n\nTHE SEIDEN GROUP（赛登集团）\n由：SEIDEN GROUP（赛登集团）\n\nRobert W. Seiden\nrseiden@seidenlegal.com\nAvenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY\n\n以及\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦伦律师事务所）\nStuart Sarnoff\nssarnoff@omm.com\nEdward Moss\nemoss@omm.com\nTimes Square\nNew York, NY\n\n原告代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 52 of 134\n附件 8\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 716 NYSCEF 收件：02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 53 of 134\n\n纽约州最高法院\n\n纽约郡\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）， 17 652077\n原告，\n诉 案号 652077/2017\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO， 判决书\n\n被告。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），以及\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n鉴于，2017年4月18日，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 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，主张被告 Kwok 构成违约；\n\n鉴于，2019年4月18日，原告针对 Kwok、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation（与 Genever Holdings LLC 合称“Genever 被告”）提交了第一份修订起诉书，主张：(i) 被告 Kwok 违约；及 (ii) 对 Genever 被告刺破公司面纱；\n\n鉴于，2020年7月24日，原告就其针对 Kwok 的违约请求提出部分简易判决动议，该动议已完成书面陈述并由 Barry R. Ostrager 法官审理；该法官于 2020年9月15日作出《决定及命令》，该决定及命令于 2020年9月16日在纽约郡书记官办公室登记，准许原告就修订起诉书第一项罪名所主张违约请求提出的动议，并命令原告最迟于 2020年10月14日通过动议通知提出动议，以确定第一项罪名的损害赔偿。\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 716 NYSCEF 收件：02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 54 of 134\n17 652077\n\n鉴于，(i) 2020年9月21日，原告通过动议通知提出动议，以确定损害赔偿、律师费及开支；(ii) 原告经法院许可，并在其他各方理解其将在日后重新提出的前提下，同意暂时撤回其申请中涉及律师费及开支（即执行费用）的部分，且不影响日后重新提出该部分申请；及 (iii) 该动议已完成书面陈述并由 Barry R. Ostrager 法官审理；该法官于 2020年12月18日作出《决定及命令》（“损害赔偿命令”），并于 2020年12月18日在纽约郡书记官办公室登记，命令法院书记官作出有利于原告且针对被告 Kwok 的判决，金额为 $46,426,489.00，另加自 2010年12月31日生效日起按年利率 15% 计算的合同利息，以及自本决定及命令登记之日起按法定年利率 9% 计算的利息。\n\n现应原告代理律师 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 的动议，裁定如下：\n\n判决原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，营业地址为香港皇后大道东 1 号太古广场三座 33 楼，得向居住于 781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022 的被告 Kwok Ho Wan 取得并追偿 $46,426,489.00，另加合同利息 $69,448,939.71，另加按法定利率 9% 计算的判决后利息 $526,590.86，合计 $116,402,019.57，原告得就此申请强制执行。\n\n本判决于 2021年2月3日登记。\n\n提交\n\n2021年2月3日\n\n纽约郡书记官办公室\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 716 NYSCEF 收件：02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 55 of 134\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约郡\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nEDWARD MOSS 律师的具结声明\n\n被告。\n\n本人 Edward Moss，系经正式准许在纽约州法院执业的律师，特此根据《纽约州民事诉讼法与规则》第 2106 条，在伪证处罚的约束下作出如下具结声明：\n\n1. 本人系本院律师协会成员，并为 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 律师事务所的合伙人。该律师事务所为本案原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）的登记代理律师。\n\n2. 本人完全熟悉本案的事实和情况。为登记本判决之目的，本人提交本具结声明，放弃费用及支出。\n\n日期：2021年1月25日\n纽约，纽约州\n签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约郡\n案号：652077/2017\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n判决书\n\n判决已登记\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\n\nTIMES SQUARE TOWER，7 TIMES SQUARE，NEW YORK，NEW YORK 10036\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 57 of 134\n附件 9\n提交：纽约郡书记官 06/29/2017 05:31 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 17 NYSCEF 收件：06/29/2017 提交：纽约郡书记官 07/24/2020 11:49 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 455 NYSCEF 收件：07/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 58 of\n\n日期：2011年3月16日\n\nKWOK HO WAN，作为保证人\n\n为有利于\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n\n个人保证书\n\n香港\n\n本保证书于 2011年3月16日签订。\n\n双方：\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”）；以及\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，一家根据开曼群岛法律成立的豁免有限合伙企业，注册办事处位于 P.O. Box 472, 2nd Floor, Harbour Place, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands（“PAX”）。\n\n背景陈述\n\nA. 于本保证书日期当日或前后，PAX 与 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）订立融资函（“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（“未偿金额”）；及 (b) 未偿金额应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）的到期偿还日应不迟于 2012年6月30日。\n\nB. 融资函项下完成交易的先决条件，是保证人交付本保证书，以担保 Shiny Times 根据融资函或与融资函有关的所有付款及履行义务（“义务”，“义务”一词应作相应解释）得到适当和及时的履行。\n\nC. 双方进一步约定，在生效日后立即，并于满足融资函项下先决条件后，Shiny Times 及保证人应分别就其根据契据和函件协议（两者均定义见融资函）承担的所有义务、责任和职责获得完全解除和豁免；因契据和函件协议引起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），应解释为对下列文件的提述：\n\n(a) 经不时修订、变更、更新或补充的该协议或文件；\n\n(b) 据以修订、变更或更新该协议或文件的任何其他协议或文件；及\n\n(c) 根据该协议或文件或依照该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，不影响本保证书的解释。\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 保证妥善并按时支付各项义务，并同意在 PAX 提出要求后立即向 PAX 支付所有已到期但未支付的义务；及\n\n(b) 同意（作为主债务人，而不仅仅作为保证人）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（闪耀时代）无效、可撤销、不可执行或不具效力而使 PAX 遭受的一切损失，向 PAX 作出赔偿并使其免受损害；该等损失的金额为 PAX 原本有权向 Shiny Times 追偿的金额，\n\n但前提是，义务的总负债或保证人根据本保证所欠的金额，应始终限于未偿金额加上自 31 December 2010 起至所有该等负债获全数清偿之日止按年利率 15% 累计的利息。\n\n为免生疑问，本保证于 31 December, 2010 生效（“生效日期”）。\n\n2.2 要求付款\n\nPAX 根据本保证提出的要求中所载明的任何义务金额或保证人根据本保证所欠金额，应构成该义务或该等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保证人根据本保证承担的义务构成并应持续构成持续性义务，不因义务或其中任何一项的任何中间付款而获解除或清偿；该等义务应持续完全有效，直至义务获无条件且不可撤销地全数支付及清偿为止，并且该等义务附加于且独立于 PAX 就义务或其中任何一项可随时持有的任何其他担保（或任何抵销权），不损害或并入该等其他担保。\n\n3.2 被撤销的付款\n\n如 PAX 就任何义务所持有的任何解除、清偿或其他安排，是依赖任何在破产、清算或其他情况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有关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）的主张，本保证应持续有效，犹如该等解除、清偿或其他安排从未作出。\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 57-2，提交日期 03/01/22，登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12，第 61 页，共\n\n保证应持续有效，犹如该等解除、清偿或其他安排从未作出。\n\n3.3 立即追索\n\n在行使本保证或法律赋予 PAX 的任何权利之前，PAX 无须先向 Shiny Times 追讨到期款项，或行使或执行其就义务所享有或持有的任何其他权利或担保。\n\n3.4 放弃抗辩\n\n本保证所载保证人的义务，或本保证或法律赋予 PAX 的权利、权力及救济，均不因下列事项而被解除、减损或以其他方式受影响：\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、控制权或所有权的任何变更；\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为或成为非法、无效、不可执行或不具效力；\n\n(c) 就义务或其中任何一项向 Shiny Times 或任何其他人给予或同意给予任何期限或其他宽限，或就 PAX 就该等义务持有的任何担保给予或同意给予任何期限或其他宽限；\n\n(d) 对义务或其中任何一项，或 PAX 就此持有的任何担保作出的任何修订、变更、豁免或解除；\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、清偿、交换或替代；或\n\n(g) 任何其他作为、事件或不作为，而该等事项可能导致保证人或任何义务，或本保证或法律赋予 PAX 的任何权利、权力及救济被解除、减损或以其他方式受影响。\n\n3.5 不与 PAX 竞争\n\n保证人就义务享有的任何分担权或赔偿权，或以 Shiny Times、任何其他人或其财产的债权人身份提出请求或证明债权并与 PAX 竞争的任何其他权利，保证人仅可在 PAX 要求的情况下并在 PAX 指定的范围内，以 PAX 指定的方式及按 PAX 指定的条款行使；保证人应以信托方式为 PAX 持有其因行使任何该等权利而持有或收到的一切款项、权利或担保，以便按照本保证的条款使用，犹如该等款项、权利或担保由 PAX 根据本保证持有或收到。\n\n3.6 款项分配\n\nPAX 无须将其就义务持有或收到的任何款项用于或部分用于支付义务，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 PAX 认为适当的方式，将该等款项用于或部分用于清偿 PAX 选择的保证人对 PAX 所负义务。\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 57-2，提交日期 03/01/22，登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12，第 62 页，共\n\n4. 付款\n\n4.1 税款补足\n\n保证人根据本保证作出的所有付款，均应不附带任何扣减，并免于就税款作出或因税款而作出的任何扣减；但在后一种情况下，法律要求保证人在缴付时须缴税的范围内除外。如保证人根据本保证应付或已付的任何金额必须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减，保证人应支付必要的额外金额，以确保 PAX 收到的净额等于如付款未缴税时其本应收到的全额。\n\n4.2 不得抵销的付款\n\n保证人根据本保证作出的所有付款，均应不附带且不扣除因任何抵销或反诉而作出的任何款项。\n\n4.3 付款方式\n\n保证人根据本保证作出的所有付款，均应按 PAX 所要求的方式支付。\n\n5. 成本和费用\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 就本保证的准备、谈判及签立所产生的一切成本和费用（包括法律费用）。\n\n5.2 印花税\n\n保证人应立即支付本保证或与本保证有关的任何判决书目前或将来可能须缴纳的一切印花税、登记税及其他税款，并应在 PAX 提出要求后，就因未支付或延迟支付任何该等税款而产生的一切义务、成本、索赔及费用（包括法律费用）向 PAX 作出赔偿。\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其的任何权利或权力而可能产生的任何及一切成本、索赔、损失、费用（包括法律费用）和义务，向 PAX 作出赔偿并使其免受损害。\n\n6. 豁免和救济\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豁免；任何该等权利或救济的一次或部分行使，亦不妨碍其后或进一步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；NYSCEF 文件编号 455，NYSCEF 收件日期：07/24/2020；案件 22-50073，文件 57-2，提交日期 03/01/22，登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12，第 63 页，共\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于任何方面为或成为非法、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为或成为不具效力，该等违法、无效、不可执行或不具效力不影响：\n\n(a) 本保证其余条款的合法性、有效性或可执行性，或本保证根据该法律在任何其他方面的效力；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效力。\n\n7.2 可能被撤销的付款\n\n如 PAX 认定，根据融资函支付给 PAX 的款项可在作出该等付款之人的清算或管理程序中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部分用于支付义务，PAX 可以购买另一种货币，所使用的汇率应为 PAX 在其认为适当的时间能够进行该等购买的汇率。\n\n7.4 货币赔偿\n\n如保证人根据本保证到期应付的任何款项，或就本保证作出或作出的任何命令或判决书，须为下列目的而由根据本保证或该等命令或判决书应付款项所用的货币（“第一货币”）兑换为另一种货币（“第二货币”）：(a) 向保证人提出或申报索赔或债权证明；(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由第一货币兑换为第二货币所使用的汇率；及 (ii) PAX 在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、索赔或债权证明而支付给其的款项后，可用第二货币购买第一货币的汇率。\n\n7.5 权利累积\n\n本保证所规定的权利和救济为累积性的，并不排除法律规定的任何权利或救济。\n\n8. 转让\n\n8.1 保证人的权利和义务\n\n保证人根据本保证享有的权利和承担的义务不得转让或让与，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\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2017 05:31 PM；索引编号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 17；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/29/2017；提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/24/2020 11:49 PM；索引编号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 455；NYSCEF 收件日期：07/24/2020；案件 22-50073，文件 57-2，提交日期 03/01/22，登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12，第 64 页，共\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，PAX 可未经保证人同意转让所有或任何该等权利。\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，可通过传真或信函作出。\n\n9.2 通知的送达\n\n根据本保证书，一人向另一人作出或送达的任何通信或文件，除非另一人已提前 3 天向对方发出书面通知，指定另一地址或传真号码，否则应向该另一人的授权地址或传真号码作出或送达；该等通信或文件应视为已作出或送达：如以传真作出的通信，于发出时；如以信函作出的通信，于留置在该地址时，或（视情况而定）于已付邮资并装入写明该地址的信封后投寄之日起五日后。受前述规定约束，就第 9 条而言，各方的授权地址和传真号码如下：\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 4 楼 411 室\n副本送达至：\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中汇大厦 4 楼\n香港\n传真：+852 2668 9928\n收件人：Hank Lo（卢先生）\n\n9.3 致 PA 的通知\n\n向 PAX 作出或送达的任何通信或文件，仅在 PAX 收到时生效，且仅在其明确注明由 PA 下方签字所标明的部门或高级职员，或 PAX 不时为此目的指定的其他部门或高级职员注意时生效。\n\n9.4 英文\n\n一方根据本保证书向另一方作出或送达的每项通信和文件，均应以英文作成，或附有经作出或送达该通信或文件之人的高级职员证明为真实、准确的英文译本。\n\n10. 准据法\n\n本保证书受香港法律管辖，并应依香港法律解释。\n\n11. 管辖权\n\n11.1 香港法院\n\n保证人和 PAX 均不可撤销地同意，香港法院有权审理和裁定因本保证书引起或与本保证书有关的任何诉讼、行动或程序，并解决任何争议（分别称为“程序”和“争议”）；为此目的，双方不可撤销地接受该等法院的管辖。\n\n11.2 适当法院\n\n保证人不可撤销地放弃其现时或日后可能对在香港法院提起程序或解决争议提出的任何异议，并同意不主张任何该等法院并非便利或适当的法院。\n\n11.3 送达程序文书\n\n保证人同意，在香港的所有程序中，启动程序的程序文书可通过向其本人送达的方式送达。\n\n11.4 其他司法管辖区的程序\n\n第 11.1 条（香港法院）中的任何规定均不得限制（且不得解释为限制）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），如适用法律允许且在其允许的范围内。\n\n11.5 一般同意\n\n保证人就任何程序概括同意给予任何救济或发出与该等程序有关的任何程序文书，包括针对任何财产（不论其用途或拟定用途）的任何命令或判决书的作出、执行或强制执行。\n\n12. 副本\n\n本保证书可签署多份副本，该等副本合并后构成同一份文书。\n\n13. 国家豁免\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书送达、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）而采取的扣押，或免于任何其他法律程序的国家豁免的范围内，以及在任何该等司法管辖区可能赋予该等国家豁免（无论是否提出主张）的范围内，保证人不可撤销地同意不主张该等国家豁免，并特此不可撤销地放弃该等国家豁免。\n\n兹证明，本保证书已由保证人正式签署并由 PAX 签署。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 06/29/2017 05:31 PM 案号 652077/2017 提交：纽约县书记官 07/24/2020 11:49 PM 案号 652077/2017\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 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 67 页，共\n\n签署页\n\n个人保证书\n\n见证人签名：\n\n姓名： 地址：\n\n职业：\n\n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，该公司系 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，签署于：__________ 的见证下\n\n见证人签名： , /1,71 . I/ ,/\n姓名：S\"H'ft, r M'-i\n地址：l,/f, Ptlfr C'.:ew!~At. , I ooluNA-\\. t.el.f,~H. l'\\11)\\/u ftl\"/9\n\n职业：lt'b ,.1, (,o\\J. N Cf' L-\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 68 页，共 134 页\n附件 10\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 69 页，共 134 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 70 页，共 134 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 71 页，共 134 页\n附件 11\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/24/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 72 页，共 134 页\n\n纽约州纽约县州最高法院\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（郭浩云），又名\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nBarry Ostrager 法官\n\n第 61 部\n\n动议序号 \\_\\_\n\n被告。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司），以及\n\nMILES KWOK（郭浩云），又名 HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 支持对被告 KWOK 提出藐视法庭命令动议的法律意见书\n目录 提交：纽约县书记官 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/24/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 73 页，共 134 页\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n背景 2\n论证 4\n结论 6\n引用文献目录 提交：纽约县书记官 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/24/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 74 页，共 134 页\n\n页码\n案件\n\nFinancial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.\nNo. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917（纽约州纽约县最高法院，2016 年 9 月 14 日）………………4\nMcCormick v. Axelrod，\n59 N.Y.2d 574，经修订，60 N.Y.2d 652（1983）……………………………………………4\n法规\nJudiciary Law § 753 …………………………………1, 4\n\nCPLR § 5104 ………………………………….1\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/24/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 75 页，共 134 页\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）谨提交本法律意见书，以支持其根据 CPLR § 5104 和 Judiciary Law § 753 提出的动议，请求裁定：(i) 认定被告 Miles Kwok（郭浩云）因不遵守法院 2020 年 10 月 15 日的限制令（下称“命令”）而构成藐视法庭；(ii) 指示 Kwok 立即促成将其游艇（下称“Lady May”）返还至本院管辖范围；以及 (iii) 授予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n初步陈述\n\n本院此前已认定，Kwok 曾“蔑视或过于宽松地解释”本院命令，并作出“误导本院的故意或非故意失实陈述”。1 用 Yogi Berra（尤吉·贝拉）的话说，这又是似曾相识的一幕：毫无疑问，Kwok 明知故犯，违反了本院禁止其将游艇2 移出本院管辖范围的命令；而且或许更糟的是，他再次通过指示其律师请求本院允许移动该游艇，使其律师陷入险境，尽管 Kwok 在提出该请求时已知该游艇已被移出美国领海。本院应认定 Kwok 藐视法庭，要求其立即将游艇返还至本院管辖范围，并授予其认为为最终阻止 Kwok 嘲弄本程序所必需和适当的一切额外救济。\n\n1 Dkt. 647 第 26:6–8 页。\n\n2 Kwok 在异议中任何关于该游艇在技术上并非“属于他”的主张，均将是虚伪荒谬之论。若 Kwok 提出该虚假论点（其与包括证据和承认在内的诸多材料直接矛盾，其中包括 Kwok 的律师最近在一次会议上请求允许 Kwok 将游艇移出本院管辖范围），PAX 将在答复中回应。然而，PAX 指出，任何该等论点均与本动议无关，因为该命令明确涵盖该游艇，即使其由另一登记所有人持有（无论该所有人为 Kwok 的空壳公司或家庭成员）。\n\n背景\n\n2020 年 9 月 30 日，本院作出临时限制令（下称“TRO”），禁止 Kwok 实施包括“干扰其拥有权益的任何财产”在内的行为。3 在作出 TRO 时，本院指出，“任何违反……的行为均应被视为刑事藐视法庭。”4 约两周后，即 2020 年 10 月 15 日，本院作出该命令，准许 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制 Lady May：\n\nKwok 先生被限制不得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时到期或其后到期应付给他的任何债务，但须受 CPLR 5222 所列例外规定约束，并应符合 2020 年 10 月 15 日记录在案的程序。具体而言，Kwok 先生及/或以下财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-尼德兰酒店）的住所；以及 (2) 游艇“Lady May”，均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。5\n\n2020 年 11 月 12 日，本院举行会议，Kwok 的律师（推定系依其当事人的指示）特别询问本院 Kwok 是否可以将游艇移往近海：6\n\n该船显然登记在近海，我相信是在英属维尔京群岛，并且要求其每六个月返回其母港。此事不会以任何方式影响所有权或产权，但其须在某个时点短暂前往近海，然后返回美国。我们只是想披露此事，以免有人认为该船被隐藏或转让。这只是其为取得许可证而必须办理的一项日常事项。7\n\n7 同上，第 13:9–18 页。\n\n3 Dkt. 591，第 1 页。\n\n4 同上，第 2 页。\n\n5 Dkt. 630。\n\n6 Moss Aff. Ex. 1（2020 年 11 月 12 日会议记录）第 12:23–25 页。\n\n本院明确回应，Kwok 不获准将游艇移出本管辖范围，并且在此之前必须提出动议：\n\n您必须以书面材料提出该申请。我不知道有任何要求规定，在美国被限制处分的资产应当被允许转移至英属维尔京群岛。我严重怀疑[PAX]希望该游艇处于本院管辖范围之外……您将向[PAX]发出通知，并提交附有证明文件的动议，我将对此作出裁定。我不会允许郭先生将游艇转移至英属维尔京群岛，然后使其可能无法供[PAX]扣押……该申请必须以正式动议材料提出，并附有证明文件，且须给予[PAX]适当机会作出答复。8\n\n尽管Kwok的律师答复称其“理解”“本院的指示”，并将“以书面形式提供该等信息”，9 Kwok并未提出任何此类动议。\n\n鉴于其与Kwok及其不当行为打交道的经历，PAX及其律师对Kwok律师的问题感到担忧，并进行了调查。数日后，PAX根据从MarineTraffic.com获取的公开信息得知，该游艇实际上已于November 1, 2020离开Florida州Fort Lauderdale；截至November 18, 2020，该游艇位于Bahamas的Nassau附近或Old Fort Bay处。10 换言之，Kwok实际上在该裁定作出约两周后，且在其律师于November 12庭前会议上寻求许可让Kwok实施该等行为的两周前，已将游艇移出美国水域。\n\n鉴于该信息，PAX的律师于November 18, 2020致函Kwok的律师，\n\n提供其所获取的有关游艇所在位置的信息，表示其\n\n8 Id. at 13:19–15:4.\n\n9 Id. at 14:2–3, 15:5–6.\n\n10 Moss Aff. Ex. 2 (Nov. 18, 2020 Ltr.) at Ex. A.\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：689 NYSCEF收到日期：12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 78 of 134\n\n鉴于“Kwok先生在本诉讼全过程中作出虚假陈述的历史”，表示担忧，并要求Kwok的律师“确认Lady May的位置”以及“确认该船舶将在48小时内返回New York。”11\n\nKwok的律师从未作出答复。相反，当晚稍后，Kwok的律师向本院提交了一封信函，声称对此毫不知情，并承诺进行调查并回复：\n\n[我]们于今晚刚刚得知，本院限制令（NYSCEF Doc. 630）中提及并于November 11, 2020在本院举行的审前会议上讨论的游艇Lady May，目前位于国际水域。尽管原告律师刚刚向我们发送了一封关于该游艇据称所在位置的信函，我们尚未确认任何细节……我们正试图获取更多信息，并将在得知任何进一步情况时立即通知本院和律师。12\n\n但截至今日提交本文件时——五周之后——Kwok的律师尚未向本院或PAX律师提供任何进一步信息。截至今日，根据MarineTraffic.com，该游艇仍停泊于Bahamas的Nassau或其周边。13\n\n论证\n\n根据Judiciary Law section 753：\n\n为认定在某一案件中发生藐视法庭行为，[(1)] 必须认定一项合法的法院命令已经生效，且该命令明确表达了无歧义的指令。[(2)] 必须能够以合理确定性认定该命令已被违反。[(3)] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管该命令不必实际送达该方。[(4)] 最后，必须证明诉讼一方的权利受到损害。\n\n11 Id.\n\n12 Dkt. No. Dkt. 649.\n\n13 See Moss Aff. ¶ 5.\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：689 NYSCEF收到日期：12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 79 of 134\n\nMcCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983); see also Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc. No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016) (Ostrager, J.)（援引McCormick并适用四要件检验）。PAX在此轻易满足认定藐视法庭的全部四项要件。\n\n第一，该裁定是本院的一项合法命令：其中明确无歧义地命令Kwok“不得作出或促成对[该游艇]的任何出售、让与、转让或干预。”14\n\n第二，Kwok在本院作出该裁定约两周后促使游艇离开本院管辖范围，从而违反了该裁定（并且仍在违反该裁定）。\n\n第三，Kwok是一名经验老到的当事人，参与本诉讼，并且显然知悉该裁定。此外，其律师在November 12庭前会议上专门请求澄清该裁定，15 并在会上表示其“理解”“本院的指示”，即Kwok在将游艇移出本院管辖范围之前必须提出动议。16\n\n第四，PAX因Kwok故意藐视该裁定而受到损害。Kwok多年来一直试图阻挠本院最终作出的判决，而且他试图逃避偿还其对PAX所负债务的时间更久。Kwok通过家庭成员和空壳公司隐匿其资产，PAX即使对位于美国境内的资产进行执行也已十分困难。若允许Kwok通过将其游艇藏匿于本院管辖范围之外公海上的某处，进一步扩大其空壳把戏，\n\n14 See supra n.5.\n\n15 See supra n.6.\n\n16 See supra n.9.\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：689 NYSCEF收到日期：12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 80 of 134\n\n则PAX对该资产执行的可能性将显著降低。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX恭请本院依据CPLR 5104及Judiciary Law section 753作出命令，(i) 认定Kwok因违反该裁定而构成藐视法庭；(ii) 命令Kwok立即促使其游艇Lady May返回本院管辖范围；以及(iii) 准予本院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：December 24, 2020\nNew York, New York\n谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥睿律师事务所）\n签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯，emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登，rseiden@seidenlegal.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\n字数证明\n\n原告特此证明，本文件符合Commercial Division Rule 17的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用Microsoft Word编制，且本法律备忘录的总字数，不包括案件抬头、标题及签名栏，少于4,200字。\n\n日期：December 24, 2020\nNew York, New York\n谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥睿律师事务所）\n签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯，emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 82 of 134\n证据附件12\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：709 NYSCEF收到日期：01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 83 of 134\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\nBarry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER控股公司）及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER控股有限责任公司），\n\n动议序号：12\n\n第61庭\n\n被告。\n\n支持原告PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.就被告KWOK提出的藐视法庭命令动议的进一步法律备忘录\n\n目录\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：709 NYSCEF收到日期：01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 84 of 134\n\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n论证 1\nI. October 15裁定禁止将Lady May移出本院管辖范围。 1\nII. 本院应认定Kwok构成藐视法庭。 4\n\n结论 11\n\n权威资料目录\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：709 NYSCEF收到日期：01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 85 of 134\n\n页码\n\n判例\n\n1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC,\n2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007) 10\n\n2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.,\n303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003) 2\n\nBogoni v. Friedlander,\n197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994) 6\n\nDep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.,\n208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)\n\nL & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg,\n2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) 10\n\nWengui v. Zeng,\nIndex No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 5\n\n其他依据\n\nMERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM，Interfere 2\n\n规则\n\nN.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3 4\n\n初步陈述1\n\n鉴于本案的历史，尚不清楚Kwok的反对意见是否是他向本院提交的最不真诚的一份材料。但其肯定名列前茅。Kwok若无其事地主张：(i) 将Lady May移出并留置于本院管辖范围之外并未违反October 15裁定——尽管本院已明确且反复表示其确已违反；以及(ii) 即使移动游艇构成违反，Kwok也不应受到制裁，因为他并不拥有Lady May——尽管他曾在法院提交的文件和社交媒体上反复表示其拥有该游艇。适可而止。本院应认定Kwok构成藐视法庭，并施加足以促使其遵守该裁定、将其游艇带回本管辖范围并使其留在此处的制裁。\n\n论证\n\nI. October 15裁定禁止将Lady May移出本院管辖范围。\n\nKwok并不争议：(i) October 15裁定“依照October 15, 2020记录在案的程序”，限制“Kwok及/或……‘Lady May’……的登记所有人作出或促成对该资产的任何出售、让与、转让或干预”；2 或(ii) Lady May已被移出美国水域。相反，他主张，将该游艇移出本院管辖范围在技术上并未违反October 15裁定，因为\n\n1 本状将：(i) 被告Kwok Ho Wan的《反对原告藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录》（Dkt. No. 698）称为“Opposition”或“Opp.”；(ii) Edward Moss就支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.针对被告Kwok提出的藐视法庭命令动议所作的进一步宣誓陈述称为“Moss Reply Aff.”；以及(iii) Nathaniel Francis就支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.针对被告Kwok提出的藐视法庭命令动议所作的宣誓陈述称为“Francis Aff.”。除非另有说明，(i) 已定义术语具有《支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.针对被告Kwok提出的藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录》（Dkt. No. 689）中赋予其的含义，(ii) 所有强调均为后加，且(iii) 所有内部引证和引文均已省略。\n\n2 Opp. at 3 (citing (Dkt. No. 630)).\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：709 NYSCEF收到日期：01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 87 of 134\n\n(i) Lady May 的“所有权”并未发生变化；(ii) 在 10月15日 听证会上，“原告既未请求也未获得法院禁止 Lady May 迁移的任何指示”；以及 (iii) 法院在 10月15日 听证会上说明，正常经营范围内的支出——例如，“如果郭文贵先生想在冠状病毒疫情期间度假”——是被允许的。3\n\n这些论点毫无根据。首先，郭文贵无法解释为何移动该游艇不构成对 10月15日 命令的“干扰”（确实构成），4 也无法解释为何在正常经营范围内为度假花钱竟等同于将一项被限制、价值数百万美元的资产移出管辖范围（并不等同）。事实上，法院已经驳回了郭文贵关于“正常经营范围”的论点。针对郭文贵律师请求澄清限制令是否适用于支付律师费的问题，法院说明了其所称“正常经营范围”的界限。5 紧接着该澄清之后，郭文贵的律师询问，是否可以将 Lady May 移至 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），因为这“只是出于许可目的必须做的普通事情”。6 法院以毫不含糊的方式答复，郭文贵在提出并胜诉一项请求准许其如此做的动议之前，不得移动该游艇。7\n\n3 Opp. at 6–9.\n\n4 “本州法院的惯常做法是参照词典，以确定合同中词语的通常和普通含义。” 2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 303 A.D.2d 299, 301 (1st Dep't 2003). “to interfere”的通常含义是“以妨碍或阻碍的方式介入”。MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, Interfere (available at http).\n\n5 见 Dkt. 691 at 12:23–13:5（准许“惯常且合理”的律师费）。\n\n6 同上，at 13:9–18.\n\n7 同上，at 13:19–24.\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 NYSCEF 收件：01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 88 of 134\n\n更糟的是，郭文贵完全无视本法院一再作出的明确且毫不含糊的陈述，即移动 Lady May 将会（并且确已）违反该命令。首先，在 10月15日 听证会上（该听证会被明确纳入当日稍后作出的 10月15日 命令），法院具体讨论了 Lady May，并指示郭文贵不得移动该游艇及其他资产，以便如果 PAX 胜诉，这些资产可供执行收取（即，不干扰 PAX 可能进行的判决执行工作）：\n\n“无论这些资产被持有于何处，它们将继续被持有在其目前所在之处；如果认定目前列为该等资产所有人的实体是郭文贵先生的另我，或完全受郭文贵先生支配和控制，*这些资产将可用于清偿原告获得的任何判决。*”8\n\n随后，在 11月20日 听证会上，郭文贵的律师提出“两个问题……以澄清法院已作出的限制令的范围”——其中之一是 Lady May 是否可以被移出管辖范围（尽管我们现在知道，当时它已经被移走）。9 如上所述，法院毫不含糊地回答“不能”——除非先提出并胜诉一项动议，并取得进一步的法院命令：\n\n“你们必须以书面材料提出该申请。*我对一项在美国已被限制的资产为何应获准前往 British Virgin Islands 一无所知。*我严重怀疑莫斯先生希望该游艇位于本法院管辖范围之外。……*我不会允许郭文贵先生将该游艇移至 British Virgin Islands，然后使其可能无法供莫斯先生的客户扣押执行。*……西格尔先生问我，是否可以修改限制令，以允许该游艇从美国港口移至 British Virgin Islands；我说，这是一项必须以正式动议书面材料提出的申请，并须附有支持性文件，并给予莫斯先生适当机会作出答复。”10\n\n8 Dkt. No. 647 at 22:8–14.\n\n9 Dkt. No. 691 at 12:23–25.\n\n10 Dkt. No. 691 at 13:19–15:4.\n\n最后，在最近一次于 12月18日 进行的听证会上，法院再次重申了此时对郭文贵而言本应相当明显的事实：\n\n“好的。那么我问你，我们有一个关于一艘船的问题，我已禁止郭文贵先生移动该船，而他可能已经违反法院命令移动了该船。……在我看来，我命令该船不得被移动。”11\n\n鉴于“干扰”的通常含义（见上文注释 4）以及法院一再作出的毫不含糊指示，毫无疑问，10月15日 命令已被违反。郭文贵的相反主张具有误导性。12 如果郭文贵主张，由于该游艇在 10月15日 听证会时已经被移走（即，在其律师请求并被拒绝准许移动该游艇之前），他应被免责，那么答案十分简单：法院作出 10月15日 命令后，应立即将其移回。13\n\nII. 法院应认定郭文贵藐视法庭。\n\n尽管郭文贵提出了其他若干毫无根据的论点，主张不应认定其本人藐视法庭，但这些论点均归结为其核心主张：他并不拥有——因而不能控制——Lady May 的移动。郭文贵以为他在欺骗谁？\n\n11 Dkt. No. 695 at 25:15–18, 27:21–22.\n\n12 见 N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1)（规定律师对法庭负有诚实义务，禁止其明知而“向法庭作出虚假的事实或法律陈述”）；另见 Dkt. No. 647 at 21:11–16（“法院认为……郭文贵先生曾试图误导法院。法院认为，正如原告所主张，郭文贵先生正在对其资产玩弄障眼法，并且即使没有违反法院命令的字面规定，也违反了法院命令的精神。”），26:5–9（“在法院命令要么被公然藐视、要么被极其宽松地解释，以及有意或无意作出的误导法院的不实陈述已向法院作出的情况下，我们将在 2021年1月 结案。”）。\n\n13 我们相信郭文贵的律师所言，即当他询问法院是否可以将 Lady May 移出管辖范围时，他并不知道 Lady May 已被移出管辖范围。然而后来——在 PAX 告知其该游艇实际上已位于管辖范围之外后——郭文贵的律师致函法院并解释称，由于其律师事务所刚刚从 PAX 获悉该游艇的位置，“我们尚未确认任何细节”，但正“试图获取更多信息，并将在我们获悉任何进一步情况时立即通知法院和律师”。Dkt. No. 649。然而，与该陈述相反，郭文贵在对本动议作出答复之前，未向法院提供关于该游艇位置的任何补充信息。见 N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(b)（“在法庭前代理当事人的律师，如明知某人意图从事、正在从事或已经从事与该程序有关的犯罪或欺诈行为，应采取合理的补救措施，包括在必要时向法庭披露。”）。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 NYSCEF 收件：01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 90 of 134\n\n正如 PAX 已经证明的那样，不到五个月前，郭文贵在其于 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提交的一份 2020年9月1日 诉状中主张，“Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）的爪牙……曾试图在郭文贵［又名 Kwok］的游艇上对其造成伤害。”见 Wengui v. Zeng, Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint at ¶ 8)。郭文贵本人诉状中的该句以一条脚注结尾，该脚注引用并链接至（从而以引用方式纳入）freebeacon.com 上一篇题为“Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht Owned by Chinese Billionaire”的文章；该文章称，“使用英文名 Miles Kwok 的郭文贵表示，涉及其 152-foot 机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件，似乎是中国政府为威胁和恐吓他所作努力的一部分。”14 因此，在限制 Lady May 的背景下，法院将其描述为“郭文贵先生曾声称拥有的价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇”，并不令人意外。15\n\n值得注意的是，本案 Genever Defendants（Genever被告方）的律师 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）在 Wengui v. Zeng 一案中担任郭文贵本人的律师。米切尔先生签署了该诉状；该诉状多次将 Lady May 称为“其［即郭文贵的］游艇”，并以引用方式纳入报道该游艇由郭文贵“拥有”的 freebeacon.com 文章。尽管米切尔先生据称并未在本案中代理郭文贵，但他在 12月18日 听证会上代表郭文贵进行辩论，主张其 2020年9月 的诉状“并非指向所有权”，而只是指向“郭文贵先生在那艘船上这一事实”，并指责 PAX 的律师对该诉状作出“荒谬的依赖”。16 鉴于郭文贵的一贯做法，或许米切尔先生在暗示 PAX 实际依赖郭文贵本人的话语是“荒谬的”这一点上，确有其道理。\n\n郭文贵的反对意见更不坦诚；其歪曲 PAX 的主张，称 PAX 认为郭文贵拥有该游艇，部分原因是他据称是该游艇上的“客人”（PAX 从未作出过该主张），并声称 PAX 没有所有权证据。17 即使郭文贵本人的诉状——一项司法自认18——不足以确立所有权（而它已绰绰有余），PAX 还有更多、更多证据：\n\n2017年5月10日，郭文贵在其后来被停用的 Twitter 账户上“发推文”，发布了下述其本人坐在 Lady May 上的照片，并附有中文字；该文字经翻译为：“我发布几张我送给女儿并以她名字命名的游艇照片。……她的名字是 Lady May。……我花 41 million euro 买下了它”：19\n\n16 Dkt. No. 695 at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 Opp. at 8–9.\n\n18 见 Bogoni v. Friedlander, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 (1st Dep't 1994)（初始诉状中的自认是“正式的司法自认”，属于“对已自认事实的证据。”）。\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 NYSCEF 收件：01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 92 of 134\n\n随后，在 2017年8月27日，郭文贵（再次是在其后来被停用的账户上）将“Lady May”称为“我的船”，并回忆称，“两年前我在 Miami（迈阿密）时……我［］签署了我一生中最重要的投资合同”，而且“这一切似乎都如此有意义。”21\n\n但我们将最有力的证据留到了最后。正如一段 2017年10月14日 的 YouTube 视频所显示，22 郭文贵被拍摄到毫不含糊地表示该船是他的：23\n\n“我决定出售它，因为它是铝制船体。铝制船体在海上会有些漂移。在浅水区没有问题。我想使用那艘更重、更大的，也是 Feadship，因为它是钢制的。我想去更远的海域。……我登过两次广告，但我的报价相对较高，大约为 US\\$50 million，31 million euros，这……”\n\n20 同上。\n\n21 同上。\n\n22 见 Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3（引导法院查看一段可在 http 获取的 YouTube 视频中第 2:50 分钟至第 4:15 分钟）。\n\n23 Moss（莫斯）答复宣誓书附件4。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：709 NYSCEF 收到日期：01/27/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 93 页，共 134 页\n\n约为 US$50 million。当我以该较高价格挂牌时，我收到了一份略低于我叫价的报价，但我没有将其出售。\n\n这完全是 Kwok（郭文贵）亲口所言：他购买了 Lady May（“梅夫人”号），安排将其运送，决定将其挂牌出售，并将其置于其女儿名下以使其免受债权人追索。Kwok 声称自己仅是该游艇上的某位“客人”，这又是一项赤裸裸的谎言。\n\n24 同上。截图直接取自 YouTube，且已包含字幕；经认证的译文确认，该等字幕基本准确。见 Moss（莫斯）宣誓书附件4。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：709 NYSCEF 收到日期：01/27/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 94 页，共 134 页\n\n当然，Kwok 主张其并不拥有或控制 Lady May，而该游艇实际上由 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限公司）拥有；该实体完全由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅，发音为“May”）拥有并控制。这完全符合其一贯做派。Kwok 自称为亿万富翁，但在对其有利时却假装没有任何资产25，正是因为他的惯常做法是利用空壳公司及其子女和雇员来保护其资产。例如，Kwok 现正于 Genever（杰纳弗）破产案件中主张，Genever Defendants（杰纳弗被告）由其儿子所有的另一家空壳公司实益拥有——尽管其从未向 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）披露该事实，也从未在本院提出该论点以试图规避扣押。26 而且，Kwok 不仅反复称 Lady May 是“他的”（包括在其于上述 2020 年 9 月、据称已将游艇赠与其女儿之后提交的起诉状中），HK International 也只是一家空壳公司：(i) 直至 2020 年 4 月才将该游艇登记在其名下（当时 PAX 在本诉讼中已处于危险境地）；27 及 (ii) 其“主要办事处”地址为 162 E. 64th Street——与 Mr. Mitchell（米切尔先生）的办公室地址相同（令人惊讶的是！）；视具体案件而定，Mitchell 先生经常代理 Kwok 或其空壳实体。28\n\n* * *\n\n在 10 月 15 日听证期间，甚至在法院知悉 Kwok 已转移该游艇之前，法院即说明，在这起“2017 年案件中，存在大量的耍手段行为、大量的虚假陈述，以及一些公然无视法院命令的行为……法院认为，正如原告所主张，Kwok 先生正在就其资产玩弄空壳游戏……”。29 法院进一步表示，“我们不会再容许任何空壳游戏。”30 不幸的是，Kwok 的空壳游戏仍在继续，其虚假陈述和耍手段行为只会愈发严重，而他又一次公然违反了本院的一项命令。\n\n本院有酌处权对 Kwok 施加足以促使其遵守 10 月 15 日命令的制裁。事实上，“民事藐视法庭的目的在于强制遵守法院命令。”31 例如，在内华达州另一宗针对其的案件中，Kwok 被处以每日 $250,000 的制裁，直至其最终遵守要求其履行最基本证据开示义务的法院命令。32 本案中的违反行为远为严重。\n\n鉴于 Kwok 一再违反本院命令，其作为自称数十亿美元富翁的显著财力，以及当前违反行为对 PAX 的严重性及实质重要性，PAX 谨此请求施加金钱或其他制裁，足以强制 Kwok 遵守 10 月 15 日命令，并立即将 Lady May 带回本司法管辖区。\n\n29 Dkt. No. 647 at 24:9–11; 21:13–15。\n\n30 同上，at 22:7。\n\n31 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2701271, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007)；另见 Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp., 208 A.D.2d 37, 42 (2d Dep't 1995)（“民事藐视法庭罚款并非旨在惩罚，而是旨在赔偿受损的私人当事人或强制遵守法院的命令。”）；L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg, 2011 WL 1564647, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011)（“法院有权惩处不遵守合法命令的诉讼当事人。民事藐视法庭的目的在于强制遵守法院命令，或赔偿因不遵守法院命令而受损的一方。”）。\n\n32 见 Dkt. No. 557 at 2（命令 Kwok 向法院提供可联系到他的电话号码，以及：(i) 其愿意接受证据开示文件送达的地址，或 (ii) 可向其发送该等文件的电子邮件地址）。\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 谨此主张，法院应认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭，并命令施加适当制裁。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021 New York, New York 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所） 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）（ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nRobert W. Seiden（罗伯特·W·赛登）（rseiden@seidenlegal.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）之律师\n字数认证\n\nPAX 特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17 的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制，本法律备忘录的总字数（不包括抬头、标题和签名栏）少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021 New York, New York 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所） 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）之律师\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 98 页，共 134 页\n附件 13\nSusan Hennelly（苏珊·亨内利）\n\n发件人：Susan Hennelly\n发送时间：Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:31 PM\n收件人：BoardOfDirectors\n主题：出售 Apartment 1801 和 Maid's Room 2219\n附件：Kwok board package.pdf\n\n我们已收到一份关于出售由 Sherry 1800s, LLC（谢里 1800s 有限责任公司，Haroche）向 Genever Holdings LLC（杰纳弗控股有限责任公司，Miles Kwok）转让的、分配给 Apartment 1801 的 2,950 股股份及分配给 Maid's Room 2219 的 50 股股份的合同。\n\n随附买卖合同、Kwok 先生的申请材料及数封推荐信副本。\n\n购买价格为 $67,500,000，另加家具 $2,500,000。2015 年维护费为每月 $55,214，另加 Maid's Room 每月 $936。该房产为住宅公寓，将由 Kwok 先生及其家人使用。\n\n鉴于 Kwok 先生的外国人身份及其通过有限责任公司购买，他将被要求签署居住协议并亲自担保租约。他还将被要求提供保证金。\n\n该公寓占据整层，面积约为 7,300 平方英尺，另有 2,170 平方英尺露台。随附平面图。\n\nKwok 先生还已订立购买 Maid's Room 719 的合同；如获批准，他将同时购买该房间。\n\nMichael Horvitz（迈克尔·霍维茨）和 Fred Seegal（弗雷德·西格尔）已面谈 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）及其儿子 Mileson Kwok（郭迈尔森）。其妻 Hing Chi（邢驰）通过 Skype 在场。\n\n谨致敬意，\n\nMichael J. Ullman（迈克尔·J·厄尔曼）\n执行副总裁兼首席运营官\nThe Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n电话：212-231-6811\n传真：212-832-4845\n如需预订及特别优惠，请访问\n已签署的买卖合同\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案号：652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 101 页，共\n签署本协议前请咨询律师 合作公寓买卖合同\n\n本合同于 February ___, 2015 订立，双方为下文确定的“卖方”与“买方”。\n\n1 若干定义及信息\n\n1.1 “当事方”为：\n\n1.1.2 “买方”：Genever Holdings LLC（杰纳弗控股有限责任公司）\n\n1.1.1 “卖方”：Sherry 1800s, LLC（谢里 1800s 有限责任公司）\n卖方曾用名称：\n地址：1233 Rock Rimmon Road, Stamford, CT 06903\n\n税务识别号：10-0780154\n\n地址；社会保障号码：\n\n1.2 “律师”为（姓名、律所名称、地址及电话、传真）：\n\nMichael J. Jones, Esq.（迈克尔·J·琼斯律师），Ira Gilbert, Esq.（艾拉·吉尔伯特律师），170 Mason Street, Greenwich, CT 06830\n1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064\n电话：203-661-6000\n传真：203-661-1088\nmjones@iholow.com\n电话：212-373-3529\n传真：212-492-0529\n\n1.3 “托管代理人”为卖方律师。\n\n1.4 管理代理人为：Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店），Susan Hennelly（苏珊·亨内利），781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022，电话：212-231-6811，传真：212-832-4845。\n\n1.5 房地产经纪人（见第 12 条）为：John Burger（约翰·伯格）和 Kathy Sloane（凯茜·斯隆），Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯），以及 Sorena Boardman（索雷娜·博德曼），Sotheby's（苏富比）。\n\n1.6 合作住房公司的名称（“公司”）为：Sherry Netherland, Inc.（谢里-内瑟兰股份有限公司）。\n\n1.7 “单元”编号为：1801，涵盖整层。\n\n第 18 层，除电梯厅外，并包括 Maid's Room 1519。\n\n1.8 该单元位于称为“房产”的地址：781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY。\n\n1.9 “股份”系指分配给该单元的公司股份。\n\n1.10 “租约”系指公司就该单元授予的专有租约或居住协议，以及于本协议日期存在于该单元内的以下物品：冰箱、冷冻柜、炉灶、烤箱、嵌入式微波炉、洗碗机、垃圾处理器、橱柜及台面、照明装置、枝形吊灯、满铺地毯、管道及供暖装置、中央空调和/或窗式或墙套式空调机、洗衣机、烘干机、纱窗及防风窗、窗饰、开关面板、门五金件、镜子、未在第 1.12 条中排除的嵌入式设施，以及所有家具和个人财产（第 1.21 条、第 1.26 条或第 1.30 条另有规定者除外）。\n\n1.19 买方应向公司支付翻转税、转让费（不包括转让代理费）和/或选择权放弃费（“翻转税”），如有。\n\n1.2.1 “卖方律师”\n1.2.2 “买方律师”\nIvey, Barnum & O'Mara, LLC（艾维、巴纳姆及奥马拉有限责任公司）\nPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP（保罗、韦斯、里夫金德、沃顿及加里森有限责任合伙律师事务所）\nigilbert@paulweiss.com\n\n见下文第 1.12 条。\n\n1.12 特别排除在本次出售之外的动产包括：……，包括但不限于……、……，以及……。\n\n1.13 所述[是否] [包括] 卖方在[储物间]/[佣人房 #1519]/[停车位]中的权益（“包含的权益”）。\n\n1.14 “交割”系指股份及租约所有权的转移。\n\n1.15 预定交割日期不迟于 3/6/15（“预定交割日期”）上午 10:00。（见第 9 条和第 10 条）\n\n1.16 “购买价款”为：$67,500,000.00\n\n1.16.1 “合同定金”为：$7,000,000.00\n\n1.16.2 交割时应付的购买价款“余额”为：\n\n$63,000,000.00（见第 2.2.2 条）见第二份附加条款中的 SR18。\n\n1.17 每月“维护费”为 $57,085.53（见第 4 条）。\n\n1.18 截至本合同日期，应支付给公司的“特别摊派费”（如有）为无，支付方式如下：\n\n1.11 “动产”系指下列动产，除第 1.2.2 条中特别排除的动产外，包括但不限于 Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）于 February 20, 2016 下午 1:00 交付至 1801 单元的 DVD（“DVD”）所载系列视频中列明的全部物品。\n\n1.12 本次出售特别排除下列物品：十三（13）幅绘画及素描；位于客厅东墙的一张古董秘书桌（将以一件与该桌相似的家具替换）；小盒子、钟、相框、图片等个人“小摆件”（但如“小摆件”载于 DVD，则包括在内）；Gil（吉尔）办公室内的文件柜及其内容物；全部衣物、装框照片（买方指定的特定相框除外），以及位于卖方办公室内的卖方私人游艇模型。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 102 of\n\n……《纽约州律师公寓合作公寓合同及纽约州律师协会不动产部合作公寓合同》……\n\n在签署本协议前请咨询您的律师\n\n合作公寓买卖合同\n\n本合同于 February 11, 2015 由下列所列“卖方”与“买方”订立。\n\n1 定义和信息\n\n1.1 “当事人”为：\n\n1.1.1 “卖方”：Sherry *1800s,* LLC\n\n1.1.2 “买方”：Gonover Holdings LLC（戈诺弗控股有限责任公司）\n\n卖方先前使用的姓名： 地址：1233 Rock Rimmon Road, Stamford, CT 06903\n\nTax ID. No.: 30-0780431\n\n地址： 社会保障号码：\n\n1.2 “律师”为（姓名、律所名称、地址及电话、传真）：\n\n1.2.1 “卖方律师”：\n\n1.2.2 “买方律师”：Michael J. Jones, Esq.（迈克尔·J·琼斯律师），FR Gilbert, Esq.（F.R. 吉尔伯特律师），Ivy, Barnum & O’Mara LLC（艾维、巴纳姆及奥马拉有限责任公司）；Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP（保罗、魏斯、里夫金德、沃顿及加里森律师事务所）；170 Mason Street, Greenwich, CT 06830；1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064；电话：203-661-6000；电话：212-373-3519；传真：203-651-7088；mjones@lhofow.com；传真：212-492-0529。\n\n1.3 “托管人”为[卖方]律师。\n\n1.4 管理代理人为（姓名、地址及电话、传真）：Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉·尼德兰酒店）；Susan Hamel（苏珊·哈梅尔）；781 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10011；电话：212-355-6813；传真：212-355-8405。\n\n1.5 房地产“经纪人”（见第 12 条）为：John Burger（约翰·伯格）及 Kathy Sloane（凯西·斯隆），Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）；以及 Serena Bondman（塞雷娜·邦德曼），Sotheby’s（苏富比）。\n\n1.6 合作住房公司（“公司”）的名称为：Sherry Netherland, Inc.（雪莉·尼德兰公司）。\n\n1.7 “单元”编号为：1801，包括整层 18 楼，但不包括电梯厅，并包括佣人房 1519。\n\n1.8 该单元位于称为以下地址的“房产”：781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY。\n\n1.9 “股份”系指公司分配给该单元的股份。\n\n1.10 “租约”系公司就该单元出具的专有租约或入住协议。买方应支付公司的转让费（不包括转让代理费）和/或选择权放弃费（“转让费”），如有。\n\n截至本合同日期，该单元内现有的冰箱、冷冻柜、炉灶、烤箱、嵌入式微波炉、洗碗机、垃圾处理装置、橱柜和台面、照明设备、吊灯、墙到墙地毯、管道及供暖设备、中央空调和/或窗式或套筒式空调机、窗帘、开关面板、门五金件、镜子、未在第 1.12 条中排除的内置设施，以及该单元内全部家具陈设，均包括在内。\n\n1.12 特别排除在本次出售之外的动产包括：……，包括但不限于……、……，以及……。\n\n1.13 所述[是否] [包括] 卖方在[储物间]/[佣人房 #1519]/[停车位]中的权益（“包含的权益”）。\n\n1.14 “交割”系指股份及租约所有权的转移。\n\n1.15 预定交割日期不迟于 3/6/15（“预定交割日期”）上午 10:00。（见第 9 条和第 10 条）\n\n1.16 “购买价款”为：$67,500,000.00\n\n1.16.1 “合同定金”为：$7,000,000.00\n\n1.16.2 交割时应付的购买价款“余额”为：$63,000,000.00（见第 2.2.2 条）见第二份附加条款中的 SR18。\n\n1.17 每月“维护费”为 $57,085.53（见第 4 条）。\n\n1.18 截至本合同日期，应支付给公司的“特别摊派费”（如有）为无，支付方式如下：\n\n1.11 “动产”系指下列动产，除第 1.12 条中特别排除的动产外，包括但不限于 Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）于 February 20, 2016 下午 2:00 交付至 1801 单元的 DVD（“DVD”）所载系列视频中列明的全部物品。\n\n1.12 本次出售特别排除下列物品：十三（13）幅绘画及素描；位于客厅东墙的一张古董秘书桌（将以一件与该桌相似的家具替换）；小盒子、钟、相框、图片等个人“小摆件”（但如“小摆件”载于 DVD，则包括在内）；Gil（吉尔）办公室内的文件柜及其内容物；全部衣物、装框照片（买方指定的特定相框除外），以及位于卖方办公室内的卖方私人游艇模型。\n\n……买方应……。\n\n1.22 本合同的“交付日期”系指本合同已妥为签署的副本依第 17.3 条规定视为已交付给并由买方或买方律师收到之日。\n\n1.23 该单元的全部“拟入住人”为：\n\n1.23.1 人员及其与买方的关系：\n\n1.23.2 宠物：\n\n1.24 合同定金应存放于非 IOLA 托管账户。如该账户为非 IOLA 账户，则利息应支付给有权获得合同定金的一方。收取利息的一方应支付其相关所得税。托管账户应为设于以下存款机构的独立银行账户：BNY MELLON（纽约梅隆银行）。\n\n地址：10 Mason Street, Greenwich, CT 06830（见第 127 条）\n\n1.25 本合同续载于随附附加条款。\n\n2 出售及购买协议；购买价款；托管\n\n2.1 卖方同意向买方出售，买方同意向卖方购买卖方的股份、租约、动产及任何包含的权益，以及本次出售中包括的所有其他物品，价款为购买价款，并依本合同载明的条款和条件执行。\n\n2.2 买方应按下列方式向卖方支付购买价款：\n\n2.2.1 买方签署本合同时，以向托管人开具的有效支票支付合同定金；以及\n\n2.2.2 于交割时支付余额，仅可使用买方开具并支付给卖方直接指定收款人的银行本票、官方银行支票或保付支票。该等支票应由与该单元位于同一城市或县的商业银行、储蓄银行、储蓄及贷款协会或信托公司之分行开具并付款。卖方可在交割前依合理通知（定义见第 17 条）指示，余额的全部或部分应支付给卖方以外的其他人士（见第 17.7 条）。\n\n3 动产\n\n3.1 在不影响公司或任何对租约具有优先权的抵押权持有人权利的前提下，本次出售包括卖方对动产及包含的权益所享有的一切权益（如有）。\n\n3.2 对动产或包含的权益不支付任何对价；如未发生交割，则不得向买方出售任何物品。\n\n3.3 交割前，卖方应从该单元移走所有未包括在本次出售中的家具、陈设及其他财产，并修复因该等移除造成的任何损害。\n\n4 陈述与承诺\n\n4.1 在不影响影响房产权属的任何事项（卖方对此不作任何陈述或承诺）的前提下，卖方陈述并承诺：\n\n4.1.1 卖方现为且在交割时仍应为股份、租约、动产及包含的权益的唯一所有人，并有充分的权利、权力及授权出售和转让该等权益；卖方应及时安排清偿股份及租约上现存的担保权益，并于交割时交付相关文件（见第 10.1 条）；\n\n4.1.2 股份已依法发行、已全额缴付且无需追加缴款；\n\n4.1.3 租约现为且在交割时仍应完全有效，且目前不存在、交割时亦不会存在任何租约项下违约通知；\n\n4.1.4 截至本合同日期应付的维护费及特别摊派费，分别如第 1.17 条及第 1.18 条所载；\n\n4.1.5 截至本日期，卖方既不实际知悉，亦未收到任何书面通知，表明公司董事会已通过但未反映于第 1.17 条及第 1.18 条所列金额中的任何维护费上涨或任何特别摊派费；\n\n4.1.6 未经公司所需同意，或据卖方实际所知，未遵守一切适用法律，卖方均未对该单元作出任何重大改动或增建。本条规定不在交割后继续有效。\n\n4.1.7 出卖方尚未订立、不得订立，且对任何在交割后影响该单元的所有权、使用和/或占用，或将在交割后对买受方具有约束力或对其产生不利影响的协议（租约除外）并无实际知悉（例如转租协议或改建协议）；4.1.8 出卖方在过去10年内未曾使用其他姓名，§ 1.1.1 所列者除外。\n\n4.1.9 于交割时，应依照§ 15.2：\n\n4.1.9.1 不存在针对出卖方、且未通过以该单元为限的债券担保而免于执行的未清偿判决（“判决”）；\n\n4.1.9.2 股份、租约、动产及任何所含权益均应不存在留置权（公司就股份享有的一般留置权除外，但不得有任何款项应付）、产权负担及不利权益（“留置权”）；\n\n4.1.9.3 出卖方应在紧接交割日之前的付款期间结束前，全额支付应付公司的所有款项；\n\n4.1.9.4 出卖方不得欠付可能导致就该单元或该房产登记机械师留置权通知的劳务或材料费用；以及\n\n4.1.9.5 不得存在任何登记在案的违规事项，而股份及租约的所有人根据租约有义务予以补救。4.2 买受方陈述并承诺：\n\n4.2.1 买受方取得股份及租约，仅供§ 1.23 所确认的拟居住人居住使用；\n\n4.2.2 买受方目前不是且在过去7年内未曾是破产程序的当事人；\n\n4.2.3 如§ 1.20.3 适用，买受方不得就本次购买申请融资；\n\n4.2.4 构成买受方的每名个人均已年满13岁，并为买受方自身账户（实益所有权及登记所有权）而购买；\n\n4.2.5 买受方不得向公司作出与前述内容相反的任何陈述，并应提供公司就买受方申请批准本交易所要求的支持该等陈述的全部文件；以及\n\n4.2.6 目前不存在且在交割时亦不得存在针对买受方的任何未清偿税收留置权或金钱判决。\n\n4.3 各方承诺，其载于§ 4中的陈述及承诺在交割时均应真实且完整，并且除§ 4.1.6外，应在交割后继续有效；但基于该等陈述及承诺提起的任何诉讼，必须在交割后一年内提起。\n\n5 公司文件\n\n买受方已审阅并对以下文件感到满意，或者（除出卖方在本合同中就任何事项作出陈述者外）接受并承担未审阅该等文件的风险：租约、公司的公司注册证书、章程细则、房屋规则、股东及董事会议记录、最近一期经审计财务报表，以及根据《国内税收法典》（“IRC”）§216（或任何后继法规）向公司股东提供的最近一期可用税收扣除说明。\n\n6 所需批准及推荐资料\n\n6.1 本次出售须经公司无条件同意。\n\n6.2 买受方应本着诚信：\n\n6.2.1 向公司或管理代理人提交关于本次出售的申请，该申请应采用公司要求的表格，载明公司要求的资料并附具公司要求的文件，并支付公司向买受方征收的适用费用及收费。前述所有材料应于交付日后10个营业日内提交；或者，如§ 1.20.1或§ 1.20.2适用且公司要求提供贷款承诺函，则应于下列较早日期后3个营业日内提交：(i) 贷款承诺日（定义见§ 1.21）；或(ii) 收到贷款承诺函之日（定义见§ 18.1.2）；\n\n6.2.2 应公司要求，参加（并促使任何拟居住人参加）一次或多次个人面谈；以及\n\n6.2.3 及时向公司提交公司合理要求的进一步推荐资料、数据及文件。\n\n6.3 任一方在知悉公司的决定后，应立即通知另一方。如公司在预定交割日当日或之前尚未作出决定，交割应延期30个营业日，以取得该等同意。如在该延期日期前未获得该等同意，任一方均可通过通知取消本合同，但前提是公司同意尚未在发出该取消通知前作出。如该等同意在任何时候被拒绝，任一方均可通过通知取消本合同。根据本§ 6.3取消合同的，托管代理人应将合同定金退还给买受方。\n\n6.4 如该等同意因买受方的恶意行为而被拒绝或未予作出，买受方应构成违约，并应适用§ 13.1。\n\n7 单元及动产的状况；占有\n\n7.1 出卖方不就该单元、动产、所含权益或该房产的物理状况或维修状况作出任何陈述。买受方已检查或放弃检查该单元、动产及所含权益，并应按本合同日期的“现状”接受该等财产，合理损耗除外。然而，于交割时，电器应处于正常工作状态，且应已安装并可正常使用所需的烟雾探测器。\n\n7.2 于交割时，出卖方应交付该单元、动产及所含权益的占有，其状态应符合§ 7.1的要求，清扫干净、空置，且不存在任何占用人及占有权。\n\n8 灭失风险\n\n8.1 经本合同修改的《一般义务法》§ 5-1311的规定应适用于本交易，如同本交易为不动产出售。就本段而言，“单元”一词包括固定装置性质的动产。\n\n8.2 如合理估计的恢复该单元的费用超过购买价的5%，则根据《一般义务法》§ 5-1311，该毁损应被视为“重大”。\n\n8.3 如该单元或该房产发生任何毁损，且该单元的法定所有权及占有均尚未转移给买受方，出卖方应最迟于交割日或损失发生日后7个营业日（以较早者为准）向买受方发出损失通知（“损失通知”）。\n\n8.4 如该单元发生非因买受方过错造成的重大毁损，本合同应依照§ 16.3被视为取消，除非买受方通过通知出卖方选择以减免购买价的方式完成购买；或者\n\n8.5 无论该单元是否发生任何毁损，如非因买受方过错，房产内超过10%的单元无法居住，或者无法合理进入该单元，则买受方有权通过通知出卖方，依照§ 16.3取消本合同。\n\n8.6 买受方根据§ 8.4或§ 8.5作出的通知，应于发出损失通知后7个营业日内作出；但如出卖方未发出损失通知，买受方的通知可于交割时或交割前任何时间作出。\n\n8.7 如该单元发生任何毁损，买受方无权获得下列任何购买价减免：(i) 超过合理估计的修理及恢复费用的部分；或(ii) 公司有义务修理或恢复的任何损失；但出卖方应无追索权地向买受方转让出卖方就该等损失对公司享有的任何请求权。\n\n9 交割地点\n\n交割应在公司指定的地点举行；如未作出该等指定，则应在出卖方律师的办公室举行。\n\n10 交割\n\n10.1 于交割时，出卖方应交付或促使交付：\n\n10.1.1 已适当背书以转让给买受方的出卖方股份证书，或附有已适当签署的、向买受方作出的单独股票转让授权书；在任何一种情况下，均应附具公司要求的出卖方签名保证；\n\n10.1.2 出卖方持有的租约对应原件、产权转让链中的所有转让及承担文件，以及一份按公司要求格式适当签署的、向买受方转让该租约的转让书；\n\n10.1.3 § 25要求的FIRPTA文件；\n\n10.1.4 该单元的钥匙，包括楼宇入口钥匙，以及（如适用）车库、邮箱、储藏单元及该单元内任何锁具的钥匙；\n\n10.1.5 如被要求，向买受方转让出卖方在动产及所含权益中的权益；\n\n10.1.6 为遵守§ 15.2所需的任何文件及付款；\n\n10.1.7 如出卖方无法交付§§ 10.1.1或10.1.2要求的文件，则出卖方应交付或促使交付公司为签发新的股份证书或新的租约所要求的全部文件及付款。10.2 于交割时，买受方应：\n\n10.2.1 依照§ 2.2.2支付余款；\n\n10.2.2 按公司要求的格式，签署并向出卖方及公司交付承担租约的协议；以及\n\n10.2.3 如公司要求，签署并交付一份或多份新租约对应副本，该等新租约应在实质上与租约相同，期限为租约剩余期限；在此情况下，租约应连同出卖方向买受方作出的租约转让书一并取消并交回公司。10.3 于交割时，双方应完成并签署所有必要文件：\n\n10.3.1 用于美国国税局（“IRS”）表格1099-S或其他类似要求；\n\n10.3.2 用于遵守烟雾探测器要求及任何适用的转让税申报；以及\n\n10.3.3 用于转让出卖方对动产及所含权益享有的任何权益。\n\n10.4 除非于交割时公司交付下列文件，买受方无义务完成交割：\n\n10.4.1 一份以买受方名义出具的新股份证书；以及\n\n10.4.2 由公司高级职员或授权代理人出具的书面声明，同意将股份及租约转让给买受方，并列明出卖方应付公司的所有款项（包括维护费及任何特别摊派费）的金额及付款状况，以及各项款项的支付日期。\n\n11 交割费用、税款及分摊\n\n11.1 于交割时或交割前，\n\n11.1.1 出卖方应在适用情况下支付：\n\n11.1.1.1 股票转让印花税成本；以及\n\n11.1.1.2 转让税，但§ 11.1.2.2规定者除外。\n\n11.1.2 买受方应在适用情况下支付：\n\n11.1.2.1 公司就买受方融资征收的任何费用；以及\n\n11.1.2.2 依法主要向买受方征收的转让税（例如“豪宅税”）。\n\n11.2 如有转售税（Flip Tax），应由§ 1.1.9指定的一方支付。\n\n11.3 公司征收而本合同未予指定的任何费用，应由公司明确规定承担该费用的一方支付；如公司未指定任何一方，则每项该等费用应由出卖方支付。\n\n11.4 双方应以交割前一日晚上11:59为时点，按照交割当月的天数，分摊维护费、应付公司的任何其他定期费用（特别摊派费除外），以及STAR税收减免（如该单元为其受益人）。\n\n11.5 特别摊派费，无论可一次性支付或分期支付，均不予分摊，而应由公司指定付款日当日的股份所有人支付。买受方应支付交割后到期的任何分期款项，但前提是出卖方有权且已选择分期支付该特别摊派费。\n\n11.6 各当事方应及时以银行本票、银行正式支票、保付支票或律师托管支票支付其依法主要承担责任的任何转让税。本第11.6条在交割后继续有效。\n\n11.7 任何计算错误或遗漏应在交割后6个月内予以更正。本第11.7条在交割后继续有效。\n\n12 经纪人\n\n12.1 各当事方声明，除第11条所列经纪人外，其未曾就本交易与任何以经纪人身份行事的人士进行交易，无论该人士是否持有执照。\n\n12.2 卖方应根据一项单独协议支付经纪人佣金。经纪人不应被视为本合同的第三方受益人。\n\n12.3 本第12条在本合同交割、取消或终止后继续有效。\n\n13 违约、救济和赔偿\n\n13.1 如买方发生违约或作出虚假陈述，卖方唯一且排他的救济为取消本合同、保留合同保证金作为约定损害赔偿；如适用，卖方可就经纪佣金执行第13.3条项下的赔偿，或根据第13.4条提起诉讼。买方希望将其就实际损害赔偿所承担的责任限制为合同保证金金额；买方同意，该金额在此情形下构成对卖方损害的公平合理赔偿，而非罚金。不动产法原则应适用于本约定损害赔偿条款。\n\n13.2 如卖方发生违约或作出虚假陈述，买方应享有其在法律上或衡平法上有权获得的救济，包括强制履行，因为该单元及其占有权不可替代。\n\n13.3 在遵守第4.3条规定的前提下，各当事方应就因赔偿方违反其任何声明或承诺而产生的任何索赔、判决、损失、责任、费用或支出，对另一方作出赔偿并使其免受损害；该等声明或承诺明确规定在交割、取消或终止本合同后继续有效。买方应就交割时及之后产生的租赁义务所导致的任何索赔、判决、损失、责任、费用或支出，对卖方作出赔偿并使其免受损害。每项赔偿均包括但不限于因抗辩任何索赔以及执行或收取本赔偿项下判决而产生的合理律师费、支出、法院费用和诉讼费用，但前提是受偿方已获得通知及抗辩该索赔的机会。本第13.3条在本合同交割、取消或终止后继续有效。\n\n13.4 如任何用于支付合同保证金的票据未能收款，卖方有权就未收款票据提起诉讼。此外，该等未能收款应构成本合同项下的违约，但前提是卖方向买方发出该未能收款的通知，且在发出通知后3个营业日内，托管方未从买方收到金额等同于未收款资金、未经背书的有效保付支票、银行支票或即时可用资金。未能补救该等违约，应使卖方有权获得第13.1条规定的救济，并保留任何可能收取和/或追回的款项。\n\n14 完整协议；修改\n\n14.1 当事方之间此前就本合同标的事项达成的所有口头或书面陈述、谅解和协议，以及与托管方就第27条达成的所有口头或书面陈述、谅解和协议，均并入本合同；本合同单独、完整地表达当事方及托管方的协议。\n\n14.2 律师可书面延长本合同所载的任何期限限制。本合同的任何其他条款仅可通过由被要求承担责任的当事方或托管方签署的书面文件予以修改或放弃。\n\n15 留置权和判决的清除\n\n15.1 买方应在预定交割日之前不少于10个日历日，向卖方或卖方律师交付或促使交付留置权和判决查询；但在续查中首次披露的留置权或判决，应在收到续查后2个营业日内向卖方报告，但不得迟于交割日。卖方有权根据第16条延期交割，以清除任何该等留置权和判决。买方未及时交付该等查询或续查，不构成对卖方在第4条中就留置权和判决所作承诺的放弃。但是，如交割仅因未及时交付留置权和判决查询而延期，则第11条项下的分摊应截至第15.1条所述预定交割日前一天的下午11:59进行。\n\n15.2 卖方应自费取得并向买方交付为确保解除、清偿、终止、注销或从记录中移除任何留置权和判决所必需的文件和付款。卖方可将购买价款的任何部分用于该等目的。\n\n15.3 本第15条在交割后继续有效。\n\n16 卖方不能履行\n\n16.1 如卖方因卖方未能作出所需付款或其他故意作为或不作为以外的任何原因，无法依照本合同转让第2.1条所列项目，则卖方有权将交割延期；累计延期不得超过60个日历日，但不得延至买方贷款承诺函到期日之后，除非第1.20.1条或第1.20.2条适用。\n\n16.2 如卖方未选择延期交割，或如已延期而卖方在延期后的交割日仍无法履行，则除非买方选择在不减少购买价款的情况下继续交割，任一当事方均可在此后任何时间向另一当事方发出通知，以取消本合同。\n\n16.3 如发生该等取消，卖方的唯一责任为促使将合同保证金退还给买方，并偿还买方就买方的留置权和产权查询实际发生的费用（如有）。\n\n17 通知及合同交付\n\n17.1 任何通知或要求（“通知”）均应以书面形式作出，并通过专人递送、隔夜递送、挂号或保价邮件（要求回执）送达当事方；同时，应以同样方式送达该当事方的律师（如有）及托管方，送达其各自地址或根据本第17条发出通知后指定的其他地址。\n\n无需提出申请……日期—\n\n17.2 买方应在买方获悉买方贷款承诺被拒绝，或因买方未能获得贷款承诺而无法完成交割之日起5个营业日内，发出取消通知；例如，买方财务状况发生变化，或未能取得出售现有住所的款项等。\n\n19 单数/复数及共同/连带\n\n单数应视上下文需要包括复数，反之亦然。如卖方或买方由一人以上构成，其作为该当事方的义务应为共同及连带义务。\n\n20 不继续有效\n\n除非明确规定继续有效，本合同所载任何声明和/或承诺均不在交割后继续有效。支付余额应构成买方对卖方在本合同项下所有义务的解除和放弃，但明确规定在交割后继续有效的义务除外。\n\n21 查验\n\n买方及买方代表有权在交割前48小时内查验该单元，并可在向卖方提出合理请求后的其他合理时间进行查验。\n\n22 准据法和管辖地\n\n本合同应受纽约州法律管辖，不适用法律冲突原则。因本合同引起的任何诉讼或程序，应在该单元所在地的县或联邦地区提起，当事方特此同意该管辖地。\n\n23 买方不得转让；买方死亡\n\n23.1 买方不得转让本合同或买方在本合同项下的任何权利。任何该等拟议转让均为无效。\n\n23.2 如构成买方的所有人士死亡，本合同应终止，合同保证金应退还给买方。在作出该等退款和偿还后，除第12条规定外，任一当事方均不再对另一方承担本合同项下的任何责任，或对另一方享有任何请求权。\n\n24 当事方合作\n\n24.1 当事方应各自与另一方、公司、买方的机构贷款人及产权保险公司（如有）合作，并取得、签署及交付为完成出售而合理必要的文件。\n\n24.2 当事方应及时提交与法律要求的所有政府备案有关的一切必要文件。各当事方向另一方声明，其在该等备案中的陈述应真实、完整。本第24.2条在交割后继续有效。\n\n25 FIRPTA\n\n当事方应遵守经不时修订的 IRC §§ 897、1445 及其项下法规（“FIRPTA”）。如适用，卖方应在交割时向买方签署并交付非外国身份声明（“CNS”）或 IRS 出具的预扣证明。如卖方未交付 CNS 或预扣证明，买方应从余额中预扣并向 IRS 汇缴法律可能要求的款项。卖方特此放弃因该等预扣和汇缴而对买方提起诉讼的任何权利。本第25条在交割后继续有效。\n\n26 附加要求\n\n26.1 除非在交割时满足以下全部要求，买方无义务完成交割：\n\n26.1.1 公司信誉良好；\n\n26.1.2 公司对该房产拥有完全所有权或租赁所有权，无论该产权是否适销或可投保；以及\n\n26.1.3 不存在影响该房产的任何待决物上诉讼、税务证明留置权出售或任何基础抵押贷款的止赎诉讼。\n\n26.2 如第26.1条中的任何要求在交割时未获满足，买方应向卖方发出通知；如该要求在此后合理期间内仍未获满足，则任一当事方均可通过通知根据第16.3条取消本合同。\n\n27 托管条款\n\n27.1 合同定金应由托管人按照第 1.24 条的规定存入托管账户，所得款项应依照本合同条款持有和支付。在交割时，托管人应将合同定金支付给卖方。如未发生交割，且任一方通知托管人要求支付合同定金，托管人应立即将该要求通知另一方。如托管人在发出托管人通知后 10 个营业日内未收到另一方就拟议付款提出异议的通知，特此授权并指示托管人向提出要求的一方作出该付款。如托管人在上述期间内确实收到该异议通知，或如托管人因任何原因善意地选择不作出该付款，托管人可继续持有合同定金，直至双方共同通知另行指示，或具有管辖权的法院作出最终、不可上诉的判决、命令或裁定。然而，托管人有权在任何时候将合同定金及其利息（如有）存入第 1.22 条规定县内法院的书记官处，并应将该存款通知各方。按照本第 27 条处置合同定金及其利息（如有）后，托管人应解除并免除一切托管义务和责任。\n\n27.2 其律师担任托管人的一方应对合同定金的损失负责。如托管人为卖方律师，则买方在交割时应获得相当于合同定金金额的贷记。\n\n27.3 托管人应无偿提供服务。托管人仅应作为应双方要求并为双方便利而设的保管人行事。除非涉及恶意、故意无视本合同或重大过失，否则托管人不应就任何作为或不作为向任一方承担责任。如发生任何争议，卖方和买方应连带（并享有分担权）为托管人进行抗辩（由托管人选定的律师进行），赔偿托管人并使其免受因履行托管人的作为或不作为而产生的任何索赔、判决、损失、责任、成本及费用的损害，但不包括涉及恶意、故意无视本合同或重大过失的作为或不作为。本赔偿包括但不限于为聘请律师而支付的合理律师费，或代表托管人为自身提供的法律服务公平价值的律师费，以及支出、诉讼费用和诉讼开支。\n\n27.4 托管人确认收到以支票支付、以收款为条件的合同定金。\n\n27.5 托管人同意本第 27 条的规定。\n\n27.6 如托管人为一方的律师，托管人应获准在任何争议或诉讼中代表该方。\n\n27.7 本第 27 条应在本合同交割、取消或终止后继续有效。\n\n28 页边标题\n\n页边标题不构成本合同文本的一部分。\n\n29 杂项\n\n除非且直至卖方根据第 17.2 条和第 17.3 条向买方（或买方律师）交付本合同已完整签署的副本，本合同不具有约束力。本合同应对本合同双方及其各自的继承人、个人和法定代表人以及利益继受人具有约束力，并使其受益。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案卷号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 已提交 03/01/22 录入 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 108 页，共 134 页\n\n30 含铅涂料\n\n如适用，完整且已全面签署的《含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害信息披露书》附于本合同，并构成本合同的一部分。\n\n兹证明，本合同双方已于上文首次载明的日期正式签署本合同。\n\n同意： 卖方：\nSHERRY 1800s, LLC（谢里1800s有限责任公司）\n\n签署人：\n\n买方：\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）\n\n签署人：\n\n作为位于纽约州纽约市第五大道 781 号、Sherry Netherland, Inc.（谢里·尼德兰公司）内第 18 层、称为 1801 单元的合作公寓之买卖合同的组成部分所附的第一份附加条款；该合同由作为卖方的 SHERRY 1800s, LLC（谢里1800s有限责任公司）与作为买方的 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）订立，日期为 FEBRUARY 21, 2015\n\n31. 如本附加条款或任何其他附加条款的规定与本附加条款所附合同的规定之间存在任何冲突，本附加条款的规定应优先适用。\n\n32. 除买方在本合同第 4 段中作出的陈述外，买方还连带地向卖方陈述并保证，买方知悉不存在任何未清偿的判决或税收留置权，且知悉不存在任何已威胁提出的诉讼或索赔（包括刑事和/或税务程序）。\n\n33. 对第 20 段的补充：买方接受股份及承接租约，以及卖方交付单元和钥匙，应视为卖方已完全履行其在本合同项下的义务，但交割后继续有效的义务除外；买方作出的该等接受和承接，应解除卖方在本合同项下应履行的一切条款、条件、陈述和协议，但交割后继续有效的义务除外。除本合同明确规定外，卖方的任何责任均不应在交割后继续存在。\n\n34. 如有任何可归属于卖方拥有该单元期间的不动产税退款，该退款应完全归卖方所有。就此而言，买方应就取得该退款与卖方合作，并同意签署任何合理文件，以协助卖方取得该退款。如该退款交付给买方（或由公司贷记至买方每月的维护费），买方应立即将该退款汇交给卖方。双方确认，本第 34 段的规定应在交割后继续有效。\n\n35. 本合同日期后维护费的增加或征收评估费，不应视为卖方在本合同项下的虚假陈述或违约。就此而言，如公司在本合同日期后征收任何评估费，且该评估费应于交割日或之后支付，则该评估费应完全由买方承担。卖方将向买方发送公司就与公司有关的重要事实发出的任何通知副本，包括任何维护费增加。\n\n36. 《含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害信息披露书》作为附件 A 附于本合同。该文件可签署副本。本合同双方签署后即视为已签署，尽管经纪人尚未取得该附件 A 上的签名。买方确认，买方已收到《保护您的家庭免受家中铅危害》宣传册，且买方特此放弃对该单元和/或房产内是否存在含铅涂料和/或含铅涂料危害进行风险评估或检查的机会。买方确认，除该单元外，卖方未就房产内是否存在含铅涂料向买方作出任何陈述；且即使就该单元而言，也仅以所附披露表中明确载明的范围为限。尽管任何地方法律规定，买方仍按房产和单元目前“现状”条件接受该房产和单元，包括有关含铅涂料存在及与此相关的任何危害。\n\n37. 卖方在合同或其任何附加条款中作出的一切陈述，均系卖方在未进行独立调查的情况下根据其最佳知悉和信念作出，且不应在交割后继续有效。\n\n兹证明，本合同双方已于上文首次载明的日期签署本买卖合同附加条款。\n\n卖方：\n\n买方：\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案卷号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 已提交 03/01/22 录入 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 111 页，共 134 页\n\n日期为 FEBRUARY 21, 2015 的买卖合同第二份附加条款，由作为卖方的 SHERRY 1800S LLC（谢里1800s有限责任公司）与作为买方的 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）订立，涉及位于纽约州纽约市第五大道 781 号第 18 层的房产（1801、1804、1807、1809、1811 单元，佣人房 1519）\n\nSR 1. 如本合同或第一份附加条款的印刷部分与本第二份附加条款的规定之间存在任何不一致或冲突，应以本第二份附加条款的规定为准。\n\nSR2. 卖方应在收到后立即向买方交付公司在交付日后收到的、涉及下列事项的任何书面通知副本：(1) 第 1.17 段所规定每月维护费金额的任何增加；(2) 除评估费外任何拟定或拟议的评估费；(3) 公司或其管理代理人收取的“转售税”或其他转让费的任何拟定或拟议变更；(4) 对租约、公司公司章程或公司附则的任何拟议修订或修改；(5) 费用拟由公司、其保险人或其股东承担的任何拟议施工或维修工程；(6) 就任何影响该房产的抵押贷款作出的任何再融资或其他重大变更；或 (7) 对该单元或该房产造成的任何损害或事故。\n\nSR3. 对第 3.3 段的补充：如卖方从该单元移除任何灯具，该等灯具应以标准灯具替换，以使被移除灯具处不留有裸露电线或灯泡。卖方应自行承担费用，并在交割前从该单元移除所有不包括在本交易中的家具、陈设及其他个人财产和/或固定装置，并应以良好且符合行业标准的方式修复因该等移除造成的任何重大损坏。卖方未包括在本合同拟议出售范围内、且未在交割前从该单元移除的任何个人财产，应视为遗弃财产。买方可以（但无义务）由卖方承担风险和费用，将该等遗弃财产从该单元移除。本段规定应在交割后继续有效。\n\nSR4. 尽管第 7 段或本合同任何其他相反规定，卖方陈述并保证，在交割时，供水、供暖、电力和空调系统及固定装置，以及所有动产，均应处于正常工作状态，但以卖方根据租约承担责任的范围为限。\n\nSR5. (a) 作为促使买方订立本合同的重要诱因，卖方特此陈述，卖方已就其对该单元所做的任何工程，从公司和 New York City Department of Buildings（纽约市建筑局）取得一切必要的批准、许可和证书。此外，卖方并无义务根据其与公司订立的、会在交割后对买方具有约束力的任何协议（租约及其他合作公寓文件除外），进行任何工程或支出任何款项。\n\n文件：USI 9841154v4\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案卷号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 已提交 03/01/22 录入 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 112 页，共 134 页\n\n（维护费除外）。\n\n(b) 在交割前，卖方应自行承担全部费用，促使针对该单元的任何及所有未结许可证予以关闭、解除及以其他方式结清，并应向买方交付令其满意的证明。纽约市建筑局（NYC Department of Buildings）出具的竣工证明函应视为满意的证明。尽管有前述规定，卖方无需关闭纽约市建筑局列示为工程编号 101785169 和 101778836 的两项未结许可证，该等工程文件副本附于本合同。双方确认，前一句的原因在于公司已声明其将书面同意妥善关闭该两项未结许可证。如公司未交付该书面同意，则卖方可选择关闭该等许可证；但如卖方不予关闭，则任一方均可终止本合同。\n\n(c) 卖方应当：(a) 向买方交付纽约市建筑局出具的竣工证明函，证明该单元已依法合并；或 (b) 于交割时签署并连同转让税申报表提交一份宣誓书，说明该单元被适当且合法地视为拥有一个厨房的单一单元的理由，以及应按 1.425% 的税率向纽约市缴纳转让税。卖方还应向买方交付一份赔偿函，就因纽约市要求按更高税率缴税而产生的任何费用和损害（包括但不限于逾期付款的罚款和利息）向买方作出赔偿。尽管有前述规定，如 (i) 卖方无法按上述规定交付竣工证明函，且 (ii) 卖方选择按 1.425% 的税率（而非所谓的 2.625%“总额税率”）缴纳纽约市转让税，则卖方律师应以托管方式持有 \\$840,000，即该等税率之间的差额。卖方律师应在以下两者中较短的期间内持有该款项：(i) 两 (2) 年（即纽约市财政局（New York City Department of Finance，“DOF”）目前对该税项的审计期间）；或 (ii) 直至公司交付纽约市建筑局和／或其他适当政府机构出具的、令买方满意的书面证据，证明该单元已被适当且合法地合并。若确定 1.425% 为适当税率，卖方律师应将余额释放给卖方；若 DOF 确定 2.625% 为适当的转让税税率，则卖方律师应支付该款项以及利息和罚款（如有）。\n\nSR6. 对第 4.1 段的补充：“4.1.10. 据卖方所知，卖方未曾收到任何关于拟对该物业或该物业内建筑系统（包括但不限于供暖、管道和电气系统）进行重大修理或更换的书面通知，而该等修理或更换可能对该物业或该单元造成重大影响。”\n\n“4.1.11. 据卖方所知，目前不存在渗入该单元的漏水情况，且在紧接本合同日期前的十二 (12) 个月期间内未曾发生该等漏水情况。此外，在该十二 (12) 个月期间内，卖方未曾接获通知，称该物业其他地方存在据称源自该单元的任何漏水情况。”\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 113 页，共\n\n“4.1.12. 在卖方拥有该单元期间，据卖方所知，卖方未曾知悉：(a) 该单元内存在任何有毒霉菌；或 (b) 该单元内存在任何臭虫侵扰。”\n\n“4.1.13. 据卖方所知，不存在任何尚未解决或受到书面威胁的、影响该单元、卖方对该单元的所有权，或可能导致对该单元或卖方施加任何种类留置权的任何性质的索赔、诉讼、诉讼案件或法律程序。”\n\n“4.1.14. 据卖方所知，在过去十二 (12) 个月内，卖方或代表卖方行事的任何人士均未就噪音、令人不适的气味、冒犯性行为、缺乏供暖或热水，或影响该单元的任何其他干扰或不利状况，向公司、管理代理人、物业管理员或该物业内任何其他单元所有人或租户股东提出任何投诉（以书面、电子通信或电话方式）。”\n\nSR 7. 本合同中载明的卖方所有陈述、保证及承诺，在交割时均应在所有重大方面真实无误，且买方在本合同项下履行义务的明确条件是其中不存在任何违约、不准确或虚假陈述。\n\nSR8. 如公司批准买方的申请，但以买方遵守本合同范围以外的要求作为其同意的条件，例如要求买方将资金存入托管，则买方可自行决定：(i) 遵守该等条件并继续进行购买；或 (ii) 拒绝遵守该等条件。如买方拒绝遵守，则买方应向卖方交付有关书面通知，本合同应视为取消，托管代理人应立即向买方退还合同保证金。此外，卖方确认并同意，买方仅须向公司披露 \\$420,000,000.00 的流动资产（超过购买价款的五倍），并按公司可能就上述金额所要求提供支持文件（例如银行对账单）。买方提交前述材料，就公司作为其“标准转让要求”董事会申请一部分所要求的“财务报表”、“由买方或会计师签署的资产和负债报表”及支持性“资产核验”而言，应视为完整。买方可自行决定拒绝公司提出的任何要求其提交显示超过上述金额的流动资产的任何文件，因此，如公司以任何理由拒绝买方的申请（买方故意恶意行为除外），本合同应视为取消，托管代理人应立即向买方退还合同保证金。\n\n文件编号 US 19841154v4\n\nSR9. 对第 11.1.1.2 段的补充：卖方关于支付转让税的义务应适用于纽约市和纽约州（New York State）征收的转让税。交割后十四 (14) 日内，卖方应向买方律师提供已申报该等转让税的证明。卖方应就因其未及时履行有关该等转让税义务而使买方发生的任何及所有成本、损失或费用（包括合理的律师费和支出），向买方作出赔偿并使买方免受损害。本段规定在交割后继续有效。\n\nSR 10. 对第 13 段的补充：“13.5 如任一方故意不履行其在本合同项下的义务，其应对另一方为执行本合同而产生的、由有管辖权法院确定的合理律师费和费用承担责任。如任一方声称取消本合同，且卖方选择保留合同保证金作为约定损害赔偿，则任何后续诉讼中的胜诉方应向败诉方追偿其合理的律师费和费用。除任一方可能根据本合同应付的合同保证金和／或约定损害赔偿金额外，该等律师费和费用的裁定可作为实际补偿性损害赔偿予以追偿。”\n\nSR11. 对第 15.1 段的补充：如买方于较后日期知悉该等留置权，买方亦可于较后日期但不晚于交割时交付该等留置权的补充清单。\n\nSR12. 对第 16 段的补充：“16.4. 如卖方支付不超过购买价款减去任何贷款清偿款、经纪佣金、转让税及惯常交割费用的金额即可克服该无法转让的情形，则卖方不得被视为无法转让租约和股份。”\n\nSR13. 卖方同意，于签署本合同时或之前，在卖方实际持有的范围内，向买方交付该单元的所有图纸和设计图，包括原始平面图，以及其中任何拟议或已完成翻修的所有效果图。此外，卖方同意，于交割时或之前，在卖方实际持有的范围内，向买方交付影响该单元或本次出售中包含的任何电器或其他动产的所有使用说明书原件、所有保证书及保修协议原件；该等文件项下的权利应于交割时在可转让的范围内视为已转让给买方。\n\nSR14. 本合同可签署任意数量的副本。为所有目的，每一该等副本均应视为正本，且所有该等副本共同构成同一份文书。通过电子邮件发送的传真签名或扫描签名对双方均具有约束力。\n\n文件编号 US 19841154v4\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 256 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 登记日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第 115 页，共\n\nSR15. 如买方选择就其购买该单元取得租赁权益产权保险或 Eagle 9 UCC 合作社权益保险保单（Eagle 9 UCC Cooperative Interest Insurance Policy），卖方特此同意与买方合作，包括但不限于按 Eagle 9 UCC 合作社权益保险保单签发人要求的格式签署产权宣誓书。\n\nSR16. 如因任何原因公司不允许买方购买该单元，则买方可将本合同转让给本合同项下由买方控制的另一实体。\n\nSR17. 本合同各方均希望本合同及其条款（“保密事项”）在最大可行范围内予以保密。因此，本合同各方应并应指示其代理人、代表和承包商对保密事项予以保密。但是，应理解，保密事项可在下列情况下披露：(a) 向各方的专业顾问（例如但不限于其律师和会计师）以及可能参与交易各方面或为完成本合同拟议交易而以其他方式必要的各类其他第三方（例如产权保险公司）披露；(b) 根据法院命令、传票或其他政府程序要求披露，或法律要求披露；(c) 经双方同意；或 (d) 已属公共领域。\n\nSR18. 尽管本合同载有任何相反规定，双方特此同意：(a) \\$67,500,000 分配至该单元的购买价款；及 (b) 另行将 \\$2,500,000 分配至该单元内包含的动产。因此，双方应分别基于 \\$67,500,000 支付适当的纽约州和纽约市转让税；此外，买方应支付该动产的纽约州销售税，并由卖方于交割时收取。\n\nSR19. 卖方声明，其将促使在本次交易交割前或与本次交易交割同时，向买方进行该大楼内另一间佣人房的第三方出售。如买方无法在本次交易实际交割前或与其同时购买该另一间佣人房，卖方确认买方可终止本合同，并获得合同定金及其利息的全额及时退还。是否行使或放弃该终止选择权，完全由买方自行决定。另请注意，本合同所列经纪人应支付该佣人房的费用，包括与之相关的成本和开支（包括转让税）。\n\n文件编号：US1:98411 S4v4\n1 / 1\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 接收：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第116页，共\n\nSR20. 如因任何原因，双方无法在 March 16, 2015 前完成本次交易的交割，则买方可终止本合同，并获得合同定金的全额退还。是否行使或放弃该终止选择权，完全由买方自行决定。\n\nSR21. 卖方应根据买方就该单元及动产支付的全部对价支付经纪佣金（合计为 $70,000,000.00）。\n\nSHERRY 1800s LLC（Sherry 1800s 有限责任公司），卖方\n\n姓名：\n职务：\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（日内瓦控股有限责任公司），买方\n\n授权人：Ira J. Gilbert（艾拉·J·吉尔伯特）\n\n文件编号：US1:98411 S4v4\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 接收：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第117页，共\n\n基于铅涂料和／或铅涂料危害的信息披露\n销售\n铅警示声明\n\n凡购买建于1978年前的住宅房地产中任何权益的买方，均被告知该房地产可能使其暴露于含铅涂料中的铅，从而使幼儿面临铅中毒风险。幼儿铅中毒可能造成永久性神经损伤，包括学习障碍、智商降低、行为问题及记忆力受损。铅中毒亦会对孕妇造成特别风险。出售住宅房地产中任何权益的卖方，须向买方提供其持有的风险评估或检查中有关含铅涂料危害的任何信息，并告知买方任何已知的含铅涂料危害。建议在购买前就可能存在的含铅涂料危害进行风险评估或检查。\n\n卖方披露\n\n(a) 含铅涂料和／或含铅涂料危害的存在情况（勾选下列(i)或(ii)）：\n\n(i) □ 住宅中存在已知的含铅涂料和／或含铅涂料危害（请说明）。\n\n(ii) 卖方不知悉住宅中存在含铅涂料和／或含铅涂料危害。\n\n(b) 卖方可提供的记录和报告（勾选下列(i)或(ii)）：\n\n(i) □ 卖方已向买方提供有关住宅中含铅涂料和／或含铅涂料危害的全部可得记录和报告（请在下方列出文件）。\n\n(ii) 卖方没有有关住宅中含铅涂料和／或含铅涂料危害的报告或记录。\n\n买方确认（首字母签名）\n\n(c) 买方已收到上述所列全部信息的副本。\n\n买方已收到《保护您的家人免受家中铅危害》宣传册。\n\n买方已（勾选下列(i)或(ii)）：\n\n(i) □ 获得了10天的机会（或双方约定的期限），以对是否存在含铅涂料和／或含铅涂料危害进行风险评估或检查；或\n\n(ii) 已放弃就是否存在含铅涂料和／或含铅涂料危害进行风险评估或检查的机会。\n\n代理人确认（首字母签名）\n\n(f) 代理人已告知卖方其根据 42 U.S.C. 4852d 所承担的义务，并知悉其有责任确保合规。\n\n准确性证明\n\n下列各方已审阅上述信息，并证明，据其所知，所提供的信息真实且准确。\n\n卖方\n日期：\n\n买方\n日期：\n\n购房申请书\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 接收：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第119页，共\n\n购房申请书\n\nNew York，February 26, 2015\n申请人姓名：“Miles” Kwok（“迈尔斯”·郭文贵）／GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（日内瓦控股有限责任公司）\n（姓名必须以上述方式填写，以便据此开具股票证书及其他文件。）\n\n申请人律师：Ira Gilbert Esq.（艾拉·吉尔伯特律师）\n电子邮箱：igilbert@paulweiss.com\n电话：212-373-3529\n律师事务所及地址：Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP（保罗、韦斯、里夫金德、沃顿及加里森律师事务所），1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064\n\n卖方姓名：Sherry 1800s, LLC（Sherry 1800s 有限责任公司）\n卖方律师：Michael J. Jones, Esq.（迈克尔·J·琼斯律师）\n电话：203-661-8700\n律师事务所及地址：Ivey, Barnum & O’Mara, LLC（艾维、巴纳姆及奥马拉有限责任公司），170 Mason Street, Greenwich, CT 06830\n\n交割日期及时间：不迟于 3/16/15 上午10时\n占有日期：不迟于 3/16/15\n\n下列签署人特此要约购买 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（雪莉-荷兰公司）的 3,000 股股本，以及位于 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 的大楼内 Apartment 18B 的附随专有租约，条件和条款如下，并包括佣人房 1519。\n\n股票购买价：$67,500,000\n现估算每月专有租金：$57,085.53\n定金：$7,000,000\n特别条件（如有）：另有 $2,500,000 分配给该单元内包含的个人财产。\n融资：是 □ 否 ☒\n金额：无\n银行：\n\n下列签署人已填写下方信息表，并理解该信息对于审议本申请至关重要。进一步理解，本申请经下列签署人签署后，须经卖方或授权代表批准，并受本页背面的条款和条件约束。\n\n经纪人：卖方：Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）及 Serena Boardman（塞雷娜·博德曼），Sotheby’s（苏富比）\n买方：Kathy Sloane（凯茜·斯隆），Brown Harris Stevens（布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯）\n\n购房申请人签名：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Geneva Holdings LLC（日内瓦控股有限责任公司）\n\n住宅地址：16A, North Bay Road, Hong Kong\n电话：+852 2169 0888\n\n业务联系及职位：业主（证券及房地产投资）\n营业地址：39/F, Bank of China Tower, 1 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong\n电话：+852 2160 0888\n\n申请人本人、配偶及子女姓名；如有子女，请说明人数及其大致年龄：\n(1) Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），买方\n(2) Kwok Hung Chiu（郭红秋），买方之妻\n(3) Guo Qiang（郭强），儿子\n(4) Guo Mei（郭梅），买方之女\n(5) Yaz Qinghua（雅兹·青华），买方之妻的姐妹\n\n申请人所属的所有俱乐部及社团会员资格、联谊会及荣誉社团：\nMar-a-Lago Club（海湖庄园俱乐部），Palm Beach, FL\nTrump Golf Course（特朗普高尔夫球场），Palm Beach, FL\n\n丈夫、妻子及子女就读的学校和学院：\nKwok 先生和夫人均在中国接受教育。Kwok 先生的儿子曾就读于 Bard College（巴德学院）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 接收：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第120页，共134页\n\n否\n申请人是否希望饲养宠物；如是，请说明：\n\n房东：\n现任房东或代理人：拥有私人住宅\n地址：16 North Bay Road, Hong Kong\n大致居住期限：\n\n前任房东或代理人：\n\n前一住所地址及大致居住期限：\n\nStevens Wong（史蒂文斯·黄）\n（银行—个人账户）\n地址：UBS AG（瑞银集团），Two International Finance Centre, 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong\n\n（业务）Henry K. Partner, Stevenson, Wong & Co.（亨利·K·合伙人，史蒂文森、黄及公司）\n地址：Union Central Tower, 95 Queens Road, Central, Hong Kong\n\nA.\n\nB.\n\nC. 股票经纪人、任何注册会计师、遗嘱执行人，如有：\n地址：\n\n如需有关收入来源的信息，请联系。\n\n姓名：\nThe Rt Hon. Tony Blair（托尼·布莱尔阁下）\n\n地址：605 London PO Box, UK W2 7JU\n\n特别说明：\n\n请提供任何可能相关或有帮助的补充信息：Kwok 先生和夫人对 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰大厦）印象深刻，并期待使 The Sherry-Netherland 成为其家庭的主要住所。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/28/2018 12:22 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：256 NYSCEF 接收：11/28/2018 案件 22-50073 文件 57-2 提交日期 03/01/22 录入日期 03/01/22 22:13:12 第121页，共\n\n购房申请书\n\nNew York _______，20___\n\n申请人姓名：KWOK（郭）\n\n（姓名必须以上述方式填写，以便据此开具股票证书及其他文件。）\n\n申请人律师：Ira J. [无法辨认]\n电话：[无法辨认]\n律师事务所及地址：[无法辨认]\n\n卖方姓名：\n\n卖方律师：\n电话：\n\n律师事务所及地址：\n\n交割日期及时间：\n占有日期：\n\n下列签署人特此要约购买 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（雪莉-荷兰公司）的 ______ 股股本，以及位于 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 的大楼内 Apartment ______ 的附随专有租约，条件和条款如下。\n\n股票购买价：$_________\n现估算每月专有租金：$_________\n特别条件（如有）：\n\n融资：是 □ 否 ☒\n金额：\n银行：\n\n（注：本提议在有关各方签署正式买卖合同及租约之前，不产生任何法律义务。）\n\n下列签署人已填写下方信息表，并理解该信息对于审议本申请至关重要。进一步理解，本申请经下列签署人签署后，须经卖方或授权代表批准，并受其背面的条款和条件约束。\n\n经纪人 ___________ _ --------\n\n个人推荐信\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 123 of 134\n\n来自英国前首相托尼·布莱尔阁下（The Rt Hon Tony Blair）\n\nFebruary 2015\n\nThe Sherry Netherland（舍里-内德兰）董事会各位女士、先生：\n\n我非常高兴为郭文贵（Miles Kwok）作为贵楼潜在业主，向您致此推荐信。我认识Miles已有七年，无论在商业上还是作为朋友，我都对他抱有最高敬意。多年来，我与Miles密切合作，并始终钦佩他的诚实和忠诚。\n\nMiles为人可靠、真诚且极具责任感；他以庄重和睿智的方式行事。Miles诚实、坦率，并具有无可挑剔的品味。\n\n我强烈推荐他入住贵楼，因为我知道Miles作为The Sherry Netherland的邻居，将会是一位极佳的成员。Miles是一位非常成功的人士，而且我认为，他将成为The Sherry Netherland极有价值的资产。\n\nPO Box 60619 London W27JU\n\n商业推荐信\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2018 12:22 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 256 Case 22-50073\nDoc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 125 of\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2018\nStevenson Wong & Co.（王、史蒂文森律师事务所） 134 Wi!ly Y.P. Cheng- 0\n.Hank H.F Lo• ~::;::ii\n~tfHt\nX 1:_ ]![\n§£:. Pfr\ngrp Cathenne K.G. Por\nEr,c CH. Lui•\n1~4evHte J,J, \\VatkinS\"'\nW(:ndy \\NS. L,;m• ;~U~\nSz,~\nta£J\n1H~H\n本所档号 EYC/HLO(P)/75450/15 Lai S. Lam•\nCornelia VV,C. Chu·\nJ,mice L.H\nHeidi H. Chui•\nEr ,tf;(r,\\\"\n;;~~]{\n\\;,f,rf Ya; ,tf;(r,\\\"\n;;~~]{\n\\;,f,rf Ya;\n贵方档号 ,' )er·ior Consultant:\nAngus Forsyth1n )er·ior Consultant:\nAngus Forsyth1n\n回复传真 顾问\nSher!ynn G. Chan\n17 February 2015 ~~,;,:-::m:~Rt 香港公证人\nq:i:ffl~H.i;lifA 中国委托公证人\n邮寄 ~~~-lf}, • 婚姻监礼人\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland（舍里-内德兰）董事会\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n\nThe Sherr/ Netherland董事会各位成员：\n\n本人致函推荐郭浩云（Kwok Ho Wan，又名Miles Kwok），支持其申请成为贵合作社的居民股东。\n\n约七年前，Miles聘请我的律师事务所处理其一项商业交易时，我首次认识他。当时及目前，我均为本所合伙人。此后，我们建立了长期关系。多年来，本所曾在不同领域的多项商业交易中代理Miles，包括项目融资、筹集资金、公司合并与收购，以及在香港、中国和世界不同地区收购飞机、游艇和房地产。\n\nMiles是一位成功的商人，也是一位礼貌、可靠且负责任的人士，以庄重和睿智的方式行事。除工作关系外，Miles也是我的好友。就个人而言，我认为Miles令人愉快、体贴且尊重他人。我相信，他的个人品质必将使他成为贵楼的好邻居和负责任的管理者。\n\n我认为，Miles将成为贵楼受重视的新成员。\n\n如您希望亲自联系我，请随时致电+852 2533 2552，\n\nq\n\n[ Hank Lo 合伙人\n\nSTEVENSON, WONG & CO.\n\ni'}~rfl ~.i'tFr:b\\ii1'112a,~Ji: c:pl\\Lf:J:1.1~, sml,}, 1 4/F, &, 1602, Central Tovver, 2.8 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong t1!~~, Tt.~!: i 852 2526 6.J 11 ·WJ,i fax, ~e52 2845 0638 l!lt(l [m,,i/ info(\\llsv,;-hk.com \\NWW. S\\V~hk.corr,\n\ng™ 1N .. dfJ it B i&, W itr\\_;, t,U·ti ri;ii \\* ;;,tt; i i.HH i-1,:Jf % it'. a~ 香港 广州 上海 南京 深圳 苏州 国际 19/l.1\n\n18 February 2015\n\n邮寄\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland董事会\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n\nThe Sherry Netherland董事会各位女士、先生：\n\n本人很高兴推荐郭浩云（Kwok Ho Wan，又名Miles Kwok）成为The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.的股东及贵楼住户。我是UBS AG（瑞银集团）财富管理及瑞士银行部董事总经理，随函附上名片供您参考。自Miles约五年前开始与UBS AG合作以来，我便认识他。此后，Miles一直在证券投资领域与我们合作，并就其各类项目融资，其中包括飞机收购等领域。\n\nMiles是一位成功且成就卓著的企业家，曾在国内外发展和管理多家公司。多年来，Miles已在我行建立了信誉。他非常可靠，并始终履行其还款义务。因此，我行很高兴拥有他这样一位长期客户。\n\n从个人角度而言，Miles是一位真诚、谦逊且热心的绅士。他财务状况良好，但十分谦虚。他也是我所认识的最聪明、真挚且尊重他人的人士之一。\n\n基于我与Miles的长期关系，我确实推荐Miles成为贵合作社的股东及贵楼住户。我相信，贵社区将乐于接纳他及其家人加入The Sherry。\n\n如有任何问题，请随时通过stephen-kc. wong@ubs.com联系我。\n\n谨上，\n\n财务推荐信\n\n.UDu\n\n香港分行 52/F Two International Finance Centre 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong 电话 +852-2971 8888 传真 +852-2971 8001\n\nFeb. 23, 2015\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland董事会\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n\n敬启者：\n\n银行资信证明——[房地产投资申请]\n\n我们获要求就房地产投资申请提供资信证明函。我们确认：\n\n郭浩云\n\n[客户身份证件：P746467(7)J\n\n自July 2012起，一直通过一家个人投资公司成为本行客户；在此期间，郭浩云先生与本行保持了令人满意的银行业务关系。截至18 Feb, 2015，涉及该银行业务关系的资金不少于USD400, 000,000。\n\n上述信息基于截至当前日期我们对该银行业务关系的经验，并仅为供您私人使用而以保密方式提供；UBS AG或其雇员对此不承担任何责任。本函仅可用于本函开头所述的业务目的，并不构成UBS AG的保证或任何其他义务。特别是，我们没有义务通知您该银行业务关系此后发生的任何情况变化。\n\n谨上，代表UBS AG香港分行\n\n~})/ rom4 Che6ng\n\n董事总经理\n\nStephen ong 董事总经理\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 130 of 134\n证据14\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）\n纽约县（NEW YORK COUNTY）\n\n出庭法官：BARRY R. OSTRAGER法官 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告， 案号 652077/2017\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN\nGUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名 动议序号 018\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）及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司）， 动议裁定及命令\n\n被告。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\nBARRY R. OSTRAGER法官\n\n本院审理的是PAX根据CPLR 5255提出的第018号动议，请求在判决后交付Kwok持有的Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）股份及其他救济。根据September 22, 2021庭审程序记录，本动议获准，但仅限于命令Kwok采取必要步骤，将其在Genever BVI持有的股份交付给PAX。本命令明确以在相关英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands，“BVI”）诉讼中作出中止令的Adrian Jack法官批准为条件。本院现阶段拒绝指定接管人。\n\n据此，现命令：\n\n命令郭浩云在英属维尔京群岛采取一切必要步骤，交付与其在Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）中100%所有权权益有关的全部股票证书；并进一步\n\n命令本裁定及命令明确以Jack法官在英属维尔京群岛相关程序中的批准为条件。任何影响Genever Holdings LLC（Genever BVI的全资子公司）的行为，均受纽约南区（Southern District of New York）涉及Genever Holdings LLC的破产程序中Garrity法官管辖，PAX参与该程序。\n\n定于November 16, 2021 at 10:00 am举行状态会议。\n\n日期：September 22, 2021\n\n请选择一项： 案件已结案 X 非终局处置\n\n准许 驳回 X 部分准许 其他\n申请： 拟定命令 提交命令\n如适用请勾选： 包括移送/重新指派 指定受托人 转介\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 133 of 134\n证据15\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2022 11:18 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1191 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 57-2 Filed 03/01/22 Entered 03/01/22 22:13:12 Page 134 of 134\n\n纽约县 OSTRAGER, BARRY R.法官 动议法官 OSTRAGER, BARRY R.法官 纽约州最高法院\n\n第026号动议\n\n案号\n\n652077/2017\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n诉\n\nKwok Ho Wan等\n\n法院通知\n\n代表提交人——Ostrager法官首席法官助理Rose Ann Magaldi\n\n鉴于Kwok先生已提交破产申请，本院建议原告撤回尚未裁决的藐视法庭动议（026）；此项撤回不影响其向破产法院提出适当申请的权利，及/或在破产程序结束后，如属适当，不影响其在本院重新提出申请的权利。本院倾向于不使已完成书面提交的动议无限期处于待决状态。如律师有其他建议，本院当然会予以考虑。\n\n请原告及任何其他利害关系方于March 3, 2022前通过电子提交方式提交函件，回应本法院通知中提出的问题。谢谢。日期：02/18/2022 提交人：RoseAnn Magaldi","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":121,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":461,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":557,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":580,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":649,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":691,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":695,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":698,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":705,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":709,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1182,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":36744,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:59:03"}