{"id":"court_sdny_349_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":349,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 349","summary_zh":"保护令动议答复——美国诉Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，康州破产法院22-50073 ECF #349。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.反对Mei Guo的保护令申请，主张保留进行视频证人出庭作证的权利，并要求由第三方专业供应商进行完整记录，以便评估证人信度。","summary_en":"Response to Motion for Protective Order — United States bankruptcy case in re Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, Miles Kwok), Connecticut Bankruptcy Court 22-50073, ECF #349. Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. opposes Mei Guo's motion for protective order and insists on the right to conduct video-recorded depositions of Ms. Guo and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, with recording by third-party vendor to preserve credibility assessments.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSE TO MEI GUO'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully submits this response to Mei Guo's (\"Ms. Guo\") motion for a protective order (the \"Motion\") establishing the means by which PAX may conduct the May 16, 2022, depositions of Ms. Guo and Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HKI Delaware\") in connection with PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, In the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Motion to Dismiss\") (ECF No. 183).\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n1. PAX sued the Debtor, Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\") in April 2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division (Justice Ostrager presiding) (the \"New York Court\"), asserting a breach-of-contract claim under Hong Kong law against Kwok (the \"New York Action\").<sup>2</sup> PAX won that breach-of-contract claim in September\n\n<sup>1</sup> The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n<sup>2</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 4 (Amended Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, Case No. 22-01073-dsj (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 3).\n\n2020 and judgment was entered in February 2021.<sup>3</sup> Since then, PAX has been attempting to collect against Kwok by focusing principally on two assets: a New York City penthouse apartment in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel that Kwok owns through shell companies (the \"Residence\") and a luxury yacht called the \"Lady May.\"\n\n2. Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International Hong Kong\") purchased the Lady May for €28 million in February 2015. HK International Hong Kong is a Hong Kong company that Kwok set up and funded in 2006, before transferring it in late 2014 with a family business associate for no consideration just before being criminally charged and fleeing Asia.<sup>4</sup> In June 2017, the business associate transferred HK International Hong Kong to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, for \\$1.<sup>5</sup> Subsequently, Ms. Guo established HKI Delaware, a Delaware LLC, and transferred title to the Lady May to that Delaware shell entity, once again for no consideration.<sup>6</sup>\n\n3. On September 30, 2020, the New York Court entered a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok from, among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\"<sup>7</sup> On October 15, 2020 the New York Court permanently (i) \"restrained [Kwok] 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 . . . \"; and (ii) specifically restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 1 (February 3, 2021 Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 716).\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 2 (\"Final Contempt Order\") at 4.\n\n<sup>5</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>6</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* ECF No. 183, Ex. 22 (Decision & Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 591).\n\nHotel and (2) the yacht, 'the Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\"<sup>8</sup>\n\n4. Despite the New York Court's orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the Lady May from removing the yacht from the court's jurisdiction, Kwok allowed the Lady May to flee New York on or around October 9, 2021.<sup>9</sup>\n\n5. After a series of appeals on PAX's for contempt, the New York Court held an evidentiary hearing held on February 2, 2022 concerning the ownership of the Lady May, where the New York Court heard testimony from seven witnesses, including Ms. Guo, the purported owner of the Lady May.<sup>10</sup>\n\n6. In advance of that hearing, counsel for HKI Delaware and Ms. Guo sought PAX's permission to seal the virtual courtroom during her testimony.<sup>11</sup> PAX did not oppose, and the Court granted that request.<sup>12</sup> On the day after the hearing, counsel for Kwok filed a request that the transcript remain under seal.<sup>13</sup> Again, PAX did not oppose that request.<sup>14</sup> The New York Court denied that request, ordering that the transcript be filed on the docket and explaining that \"Ms. Guo's whereabouts were not disclosed during the contempt trial\" and there was \"no basis [for sealing] other than counsel's request.\"<sup>15</sup>\n\n<sup>8</sup> ECF No. 183, Ex. 23 (Decision & Order on Motion at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 630).\n\n<sup>9</sup> No. 183, Ex. 36 (Decision & Order of Conditional Contempt at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 728).\n\n<sup>10</sup> No. 183, Ex. 38 (Third Interim Decision + Order on Conditional Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 1098).\n\n<sup>11</sup> Harbach Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit A), Ex. 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF 1170 (Jan. 31, 2022).\n\n<sup>12</sup> *Id.* at 1-2.\n\n<sup>13</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 1173 (Feb. 3, 2022). <sup>14</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>15</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 4, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), ECF No. 1174 (Feb. 4, 2022).\n\n7. At the February 2 hearing, Ms. Guo testified that her brother, Qiang Guo, bought the Lady May for her, but there was no evidence in the record that Mr. Guo was involved in any of the transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of title to the Lady May.<sup>16</sup>\n\n8. On February 9, 2022, the New York Court issued a final Order of Civil Contempt (the \"Yacht Contempt Order\").<sup>17</sup> The New York Court found, among other things, that \"Kwok exercised dominion and control over [] the Lady May\"<sup>18</sup> and that \"[t]he 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.\"<sup>19</sup> In its findings, the New York Court cited multiple credibility issues with Ms. Guo's testimony.<sup>20</sup> The New York Court specifically discredited Ms. Guo's contention that her brother bought the Lady May for her, and held that \"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.\"<sup>21</sup>\n\n9. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Kwok filed for voluntary bankruptcy on February 15, 2022. Notwithstanding the Yacht Contempt Order, Kwok continues to maintain that the Lady May is owned by Ms. Guo.<sup>22</sup>\n\n<sup>16</sup> Final Contempt Order at 5.\n\n<sup>17</sup> *Id.* at 1.\n\n<sup>18</sup> *Id.* at 2.\n\n<sup>19</sup> *Id.* at 4.\n\n<sup>20</sup> *Id.* at 5, 6-7.\n\n<sup>21</sup> *Id.* at 6-7.\n\n<sup>22</sup> For example, Kwok's notice of removal of the New York Action provides that \"[t]he New York State Court has issued orders that contain factual findings with respect to these issues, including determining that the most relevant purported asset (the Lady May yacht) is within Mr. Kwok's beneficial ownership\"—and invites this Court to \"[re- ]determine what is (or is not) property of the estate.\" Harbach Decl., Ex. 5, Notice of Removal at ¶ 7 n.1, *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1.\n\n10. On March 18, 2022, PAX filed a Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (\"Stay Motion\").<sup>23</sup> PAX filed the Stay Motion to \"to ensure that [the Lady May,] a valuable estate asset is brought to New York where it can be protected for the benefit of Kwok's creditors subject to further order of the Court.\"<sup>24</sup>\n\n11. Thereafter, the parties submitted a Stipulated Order Compelling HKI Delaware to Transport and Deliver That Certain Yacht arrangement, whereby HKI Delaware posts a \\$37 million bond pending the return of the Lady May.<sup>25</sup>\n\n12. On April 6, 2022, PAX filed its Motion to Dismiss, which will be heard on May 25, 2022. In connection with its Motion to Dismiss, PAX served discovery on several parties, including HKI Delaware and Ms. Guo.\n\n13. Ms. Guo sought accommodations for her May 16, 2022 deposition. The parties met and conferred on May 5 and May 6, 2022. In connection with those efforts, the parties already agreed to certain conditions, including that Ms. Guo be permitted to use a personal translator as a secondary translator. PAX offered certain additional accommodations as reflected in the parties' correspondence,<sup>26</sup> but asked that Ms. Guo appear on video during the deposition so that she could be seen by counsel to PAX.<sup>27</sup> PAX invited Ms. Guo to seek similar accommodations from other participating parties, including the Office of the United States Trustee and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.<sup>28</sup>\n\n<sup>23</sup> *See* ECF No. 57, PAX's Stay Motion.\n\n<sup>24</sup> *See* EFF No. 93, PAX's Reply in Support of its Stay Motion, at 2.\n\n<sup>25</sup> *See generally* ECF No. 299, Stipulated Order.\n\n<sup>26</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 1 at 1.\n\n<sup>27</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>28</sup> *Id.*\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n14. PAX will consent to much of the relief requested in the Motion, but PAX will not consent to the relief sought in Paragraphs 40c, 40d, and 40f because the relief sought does not align with the alleged security concerns expressed in the Motion.\n\n15. During the meet and confer correspondence, to its recollection, PAX was never asked whether it would consent to Ms. Guo's request that her physical location not be disclosed on the record.<sup>29</sup> PAX would have consented to this request. If her physical location is not disclosed, Ms. Guo has not identified any connection between the concerns identified in the Motion and the participants to the deposition. As the New York Court held, if \"Ms Guo's whereabouts [are] not disclosed,\" there is no basis for sealing, \"other than counsel's request.\"<sup>30</sup>\n\n16. Depositions are not broadcast live or otherwise publicly available. Subject to the terms of a valid protective order, members of the public do not have access to audio or video recordings or to transcripts. This is not a situation where the witness is testifying in live court and is at risk of legitimate retaliation threats. *Cf. People v. Jones*, 96 N.Y.2d 213, 214–15, 750 N.E.2d 524, 525 (2001) (\"When the People can establish an overriding interest that open-court testimony by an undercover officer would jeopardize the officer's safety, the Trial Judge may close the courtroom during the testimony of that witness.\"). Moreover, Ms. Guo's participation in these proceedings is already public. The transcript of her testimony from the February 2, 2022 hearing is publicly available, and the filing of the Motion shines a further light on her participation, including by identifying the date and time of her deposition.\n\n<sup>29</sup> *See* Motion at ¶ 40e.\n\n<sup>30</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 4.\n\n17. Ms. Guo has offered no reason why the participating parties to the deposition would be unable or unwilling to follow standard confidentiality protocols, as attorneys do in every case.\n\n18. As offered during the meet and confers,<sup>31</sup> PAX continues to offer the following conditions, as modified below:\n\n19. *Paragraph 40a*. PAX will conduct the deposition by remote means using a court reporter and deposition technology of any well-established industry vendor of Ms. Guo's choice, at PAX's cost. A vendor is necessary to facilitate exhibit sharing and to create a proper record. Without a vendor, PAX does not have the appropriate technology or logistics services to conduct the deposition.\n\n20. *Paragraph 40c and d.* Ms. Guo will appear on video so she can be seen by the questioning party during the swearing-in and throughout the entire deposition. A face-to-face deposition will allow the examiner to evaluate Ms. Guo's credibility and to assess whether her testimony is affected by any persons or circumstances in the background. *See, e.g.*, *Ayala v. Speckard*, 131 F.3d 62, 71 (2d Cir. 1997) (\"Disguising the witness risks lessening the jury's opportunity to observe the witness's demeanor and assess credibility.\"). This condition is critical given the New York Court's findings regarding her credibility.<sup>32</sup>\n\n21. *Paragraph 40f*. Ms. Guo's and HKI Delaware's deposition will be recorded by the vendor by stenographic, video, and audio means. PAX previously offered to record the deposition only by audio, but given the posture of these cases, including Kwok's previous authenticity challenges<sup>33</sup> and Ms. Guo's counsel's apparent unwillingness to agree that Ms. Guo\n\n<sup>31</sup> Harbach Decl., Ex. 1.\n\n<sup>32</sup> Final Contempt Order at 5, 6-7.\n\n<sup>33</sup> *E.g.*, Harbach Decl., Ex. 6, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1178 (Feb. 4, 2022), at 12.\n\nwill appear live in court at the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, PAX has no choice but to request that the deposition be video recorded.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief in the Motion as amended herein, including the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit B, and order such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n[*Signature on Following Page*]\n\nDated: May 12, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n#### **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) Laura S. Aronsson (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com laronsson@omm.com\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on May 12, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through the Court's CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties receiving notice by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties in interest may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n /s/ *Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第 11 章破产案号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 对 MEI GUO 保护令动议的答辩书\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，简称“PAX”）谨就 Mei Guo（郭美，简称“郭女士”）请求确立 PAX 在有关 PAX 的《驳回第 11 章案件动议，或在备选方案下部分加入联邦破产受托人关于责令指定第 11 章破产受托人的动议》（简称“驳回动议”）（ECF No. 183）中对郭女士及 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，简称“HKI Delaware”）进行 2022年5月16日 取证口供方式的保护令动议（简称“该动议”）提交本答辩书。\n\n背景\n\n1. PAX 于 2017年4月 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York – County of New York: Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院纽约县：商事法庭，Ostrager 法官主持）（简称“纽约法院”）起诉债务人 Miles Kwok（郭文贵，简称“Kwok”），依据香港法律对 Kwok 提起违约索赔诉讼（简称“纽约诉讼”）。2 PAX 于 2020年9月 赢得了该违约索赔诉讼，\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为 9595。\n\n2 参见 ECF No. 183，附件 4（修正起诉书，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，案件编号 22-01073-dsj（纽约南区破产法院），ECF No. 3）。\n\n判决书于 2021年2月 录入。3 自那时起，PAX 一直试图对 Kwok 强制执行清偿，重点主要集中在两项资产上：Kwok 通过空壳公司拥有的位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的纽约市顶层公寓套房（简称“该住所”），以及一艘名为“Lady May（梅雪号）”的豪华游艇。\n\n2. Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，简称“HK International Hong Kong”）于 2015年2月 以 2800万欧元 购得 Lady May。HK International Hong Kong 是一家由 Kwok 于 2006年 设立并注资的香港公司，随后在 2014年 下半年，就在他受到刑事指控并逃离亚洲前夕，他将该公司无偿转让给了一位家族商业合伙人。4 2017年6月，该商业合伙人以 $1 的价格将 HK International Hong Kong 转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。5 随后，郭女士成立了 HKI Delaware（一家特拉华州有限责任公司），并将 Lady May 的产权再次无偿转让给了该特拉华州空壳实体。6\n\n3. 2020年9月30日，纽约法院发布了一项临时限制令，禁止 Kwok 等人“干预其拥有权益的任何财产”。7 2020年10月15日，纽约法院永久性地 (i)“限制 [Kwok] 做出或促成对其拥有直接或间接权益的任何财产的任何出售、转让、让与或干预，并限制其支付或以其他方式处置目前应付或此后应付给他的任何债务……”；以及 (ii) 具体限制“Kwok 先生和/或 (1) Sherry-Netherland\n\n3 参见 ECF No. 183，附件 1（2021年2月3日 判决书，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF No. 716）。\n\n4 参见 ECF No. 183，附件 2（《民事藐视法庭最终裁定》）第 4 页。\n\n5 同上。\n\n6 同上。\n\n7 参见 ECF No. 183，附件 22（《关于动议的决定与裁定》，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF No. 591）。\n\nHotel 住所及 (2) 游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人……做出或促成对这些资产的任何出售、转让、让与或干预。”8\n\n4. 尽管纽约法院下达了限制 Kwok 和/或 Lady May 的登记所有人将该游艇移出法院管辖范围的裁定，Kwok 仍在 2021年10月9日 左右纵容 Lady May 逃离了纽约。9\n\n5. 在针对 PAX 提出的藐视法庭动议进行了一系列上诉之后，纽约法院于 2022年2月2日 就 Lady May 的所有权问题举行了证据听证会，纽约法院在该听证会上听取了包括 Lady May 的声称所有者郭女士在内的七名证人的证言。10\n\n6. 在该听证会之前，HKI Delaware 和郭女士的代理律师向 PAX 征求同意，请求在她作证期间对虚拟法庭进行封禁。11 PAX 未予反对，法院批准了该请求。12 听证会次日，Kwok 的代理律师提交了一份请求，要求继续封禁庭审记录。13 PAX 同样未对该请求提出反对。14 纽约法院驳回了该请求，下令将庭审记录登记录入案卷，并解释称“在藐视法庭案审理期间并未披露郭女士的行踪”，且“除律师请求之外别无任何[封禁]依据”。15\n\n8 ECF No. 183，附件 23（《关于动议的决定与裁定》第 1 页，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF No. 630）。\n\n9 No. 183，附件 36（《附条件藐视法庭决定与裁定》第 2 页，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF No. 728）。\n\n10 No. 183，附件 38（《关于附条件藐视法庭的第三次临时决定+裁定》，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF No. 1098）。\n\n11 Harbach 声明（作为附件 A 附于本件），附件 2，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF 1170（2022年1月31日）。\n\n12 同上，第 1-2 页。\n\n13 Harbach 声明，附件 3，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF No. 1173（2022年2月3日）。 14 同上。\n\n15 Harbach 声明，附件 4，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），ECF No. 1174（2022年2月4日）。\n\n7. 在 2月2日 的听证会上，郭女士作证称其兄长 Qiang Guo（郭强）为她购买了 Lady May，但案卷记录中没有任何证据表明郭先生参与了导致郭女士取得 Lady May 产权的任何交易。16\n\n8. 2022年2月9日，纽约法院发布了一份最终《民事藐视法庭裁定》（简称“游艇藐视法庭裁定”）。17 纽约法院认定（其中包括）“Kwok 对[] Lady May 实施了占有与控制”18，并且“听证会上从被告证人口中获取的证言清楚且有说服力地证明，Kwok 实际拥有并控制 Lady May，且对本法院及司法程序抱有极其蔑视的态度。”19 纽约法院在事实认定中指出郭女士的证言存在多处可信度问题。20 纽约法院明确不予采信郭女士关于其兄长为她购买 Lady May 的主张，并裁定“郭女士看似二十余岁，既未提出其对 Lady May 实施占有与控制的证据，亦未提供其获得 Lady May 占有权的证实材料，唯以此作为掩护手段，防止 Lady May 被其父亲的债权人扣押执行。”21\n\n9. 此后不久，Kwok 先生于 2022年2月15日 申请自愿破产。尽管有《游艇藐视法庭裁定》，Kwok 仍继续坚称 Lady May 由郭女士所有。22\n\n16 《民事藐视法庭最终裁定》第 5 页。\n\n17 同上，第 1 页。\n\n18 同上，第 2 页。\n\n19 同上，第 4 页。\n\n20 同上，第 5、6-7 页。\n\n21 同上，第 6-7 页。\n\n22 例如，Kwok 的移送管辖通知书规定：“纽约州法院已就这些问题发布载有事实认定的裁定，包括认定最相关的声称资产（Lady May 游艇）归 Kwok 先生实际所有”——并请求本法院“[重新]确定何项属于（或不属于）破产财产”。Harbach 声明，附件 5，《移送管辖通知书》第 7 段脚注 1，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，案号 1:22-cv-02258-MKV（纽约南区），ECF No. 1。\n\n10. 2022年3月18日，PAX 提交了《关于请求签发确认自动中止不适用或备选依破产法典第 362(d)(2) 条免除自动中止之裁定的动议》（简称“中止动议”）。23 PAX 提交《中止动议》旨在“确保 [Lady May] 这一宝贵的破产财产被运至纽约，以便在服从法院进一步裁定的前提下为 Kwok 的债权人的利益而受到保护。”24\n\n11. 此后，当事各方提交了一份《关于强制 HKI Delaware 运输并交付该特定游艇的约定裁定》安排，据此 HKI Delaware 在 Lady May 归还前缴存 $3700万 保障金。25\n\n12. 2022年4月6日，PAX 提交了其《驳回动议》，该动议将于 2022年5月25日 举行听证。针对其《驳回动议》，PAX 向包括 HKI Delaware 和郭女士在内的多方当事人送达了证据开示请求。\n\n13. 郭女士就其 2022年5月16日 的取证口供寻求便利安排。各方当事人于 2022年5月5日 和 5月6日 举行了碰头协商。针对这些沟通，各方已就某些条件达成一致，包括允许郭女士使用个人翻译作为第二翻译。PAX 如各方往来信函中所反映的那样提供了某些额外的便利安排，26 但要求郭女士在取证口供期间打开视频以便 PAX 的代理律师可以看到她。27 PAX 建议郭女士向其他参与方寻求类似的便利安排，包括 United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人办公室）和 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）。28\n\n23 参见 ECF No. 57，PAX 的《中止动议》。\n\n24 参见 ECF No. 93，PAX 支持其《中止动议》的答辩意见书第 2 页。\n\n25 总体参见 ECF No. 299，《约定裁定》。\n\n26 Harbach 声明，附件 1 第 1 页。\n\n27 同上。\n\n28 同上。\n\n辩论意见\n\n14. PAX 同意该动议中请求的大部分救济，但 PAX 不同意第 40c、40d 和 40f 段所寻求的救济，因为所寻求的救济与该动议中陈述的所谓安全顾虑并不相符。\n\n15. 在碰头协商往来信函中，依 PAX 的回忆，从未有人询问其是否同意郭女士提出的不在记录中披露其物理位置的请求。29 PAX 本会同意该请求。如果其物理位置不被披露，郭女士并未指出该动议中所确定的顾虑与取证口供参与者之间存在任何关联。正如纽约法院所裁定的那样，如果“未披露郭女士的行踪”，则“除律师请求之外”别无封禁依据。30\n\n16. 取证口供既不向公众现场直播，也不以其他方式向公众开放。在有效保护令条款的约束下，公众成员无法接触到录音、录像或庭审记录。本案并非证人在公开法庭作证且面临合法的报复威胁之情形。参见 People v. Jones（人民诉琼斯案）, 96 N.Y.2d 213, 214–15, 750 N.E.2d 524, 525 (2001)（“当控方能够证明存在卧底警员在公开法庭作证将危及该警员安全的首要利益时，主审法官可在该证人作证期间封禁法庭。”）。此外，郭女士参与这些程序的情况早已公开。她在 2022年2月2日 听证会上的证言记录可公开获取，而且该动议的提交进一步将公众视线引向她的参与，包括指明了对她进行取证口供的日期和时间。\n\n29 参见该动议第 40e 段。\n\n30 Harbach 声明，附件 4。\n\n17. 郭女士未提出任何理由证明取证口供的各参与方为何无法或不愿遵循标准的保密议定书，正如律师在每起案件中所做的那样。\n\n18. 正如在会商（meet and confers）期间所提出的，31 PAX（太盟亚洲机会基金）继续提出以下条件，并作如下修改：\n\n19. 第 40a 段。PAX 将以远程方式进行采录宣誓证词（deposition），由郭女士自选一家知名的行业服务商提供法庭速记员和宣誓证词录制技术，费用由 PAX 承担。聘请服务商对于协助展示物（exhibit）共享及制作合规记录是必要的。若无服务商，PAX 缺乏进行宣誓证词录制所需的适当技术或后勤服务。\n\n20. 第 40c 和 d 段。郭女士应在视频中出镜，以便质询方在宣誓时及整个采录宣誓证词过程中均能看到她。面对面的宣誓证词录制将使质询人员能够评估郭女士的可信度，并评估其证言是否受到背景中任何人员或环境的影响。参见，例如，Ayala v. Speckard, 131 F.3d 62, 71 (2d Cir. 1997)（“伪装证人可能会减少陪审团观察证人举止并评估其可信度的机会。”）。鉴于 New York Court（纽约州法院）对其可信度的认定，该条件至关重要。32\n\n21. 第 40f 段。郭女士及 HKI Delaware 的宣誓证词将由服务商通过速记、视频和音频方式予以记录。PAX 此前曾提出仅以音频方式记录宣誓证词，但鉴于这些案件的态势，包括 Kwok（郭文贵）此前对真实性提出的异议 33 以及郭女士的律师显然不愿同意郭女士在驳回起诉动议（Motion to Dismiss）的听证会上亲自出庭，PAX 别无选择，只能请求对宣誓证词进行录像。\n\n31 Harbach 声明，附件 1。\n\n32 最终藐视法庭裁定，第 5、6-7 页。\n\n33 例如，Harbach 声明，附件 6，PAX v. Kwok，案号 652077/2017，(N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，诉讼记录 1178（2022年2月4日），第 12 页。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 谨请法院批准本文件所修订的动议中的救济请求，包括随附于此作为附件 B 的拟定命令，并裁定法院认为公正且适当的其他救济。\n\n［签名见下页］\n\n日期：2022年5月12日 康涅狄格州哈特福德\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney（康涅狄格州执业编号：19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（康涅狄格州执业编号：31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP（罗宾逊与科尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nPeter Friedman（获准特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（获准特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nLaura S. Aronsson（获准特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com\nlaronsson@omm.com\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年5月12日，上述文书的一份副本已通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统以电子方式提交。本提交件的通知将通过电子邮件发送给依法院电子立案系统运作接收通知的所有当事方。利害关系方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交件。\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2374,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:29:51"}