- Author: Peacelv
- Editor: Jenny Ball
The case between Miles Guo and Pacific Alliance Group（PAG）:
In nearly 4 years from 2017,the case in which the Pacific Alliance Group（PAG） had prosecuted Miles Guo has been rejected over three times. Even in a report by the Forbes magazine which is controlled by Hainan Airlines(HNA), it referred to that once a judge in New York directly threw the PAG’s petition outsidet. But obviously HNA and PAG didn’t lose attempt, the New York Court still made a judgement which was rendered against Miles Guo. And according to the case information announced in the internet， the PAG’s complaint is as followings:
In 2008, PAG and one of the business entities of Miles Guo – Spirit Investment Limited（“Spirit”）had reached an agreement. And according to the agreement, PAG should provide a 30 million dollars loans to Spirit, and Miles Guo offered personal guarantee for the loan.
In 2009 September, Spirit signed an agreement, and according to the agreement, a business company Shiny Times Holdings Limited(Shiny Times), in which Miles Guo is the only one investor and chairman assumed the Spirit’s debt to PAG. Miles Guo once again signed personal guarantee for PAG in order to assure Shiny Times’s repayment obligations.
In 2011 March, PAG and Shiny Times signed a new loan assignment named “2011 loan assignment” to replace the settlement agreement in 2009 and the written agreement in 2010. At the same time, it said Miles Guo signed another new personal guarantee(2011 personal guarantee) which obviously replaced the personal guarantee in 2009.
In April, 2013, all parties resigned the new settlement agreement, if PAX, which is the subsidiaries of PAG would buy some apartments from another entities of Miles Guo, Beijing Pangu Investment Company Limited(“Beijing Pangu”), and then it does not need to repay the debt and Shinny Time makes installment to PAG. Beijing Pangu should meet the 10 prerequisites for the PAG’s purchase for every apartment. If it fail to meet any prerequisites before June 2013, the settlement agreement would be totally terminated. And after that, it said PAG and Miles Guo once again delayed the agreement 4 times. And the last one required Beijing Pangu to meet the prerequisites before June 2015.
PAG claimed that Miles Guo did not meet the prerequisites before June 2015 in the court. So according to the agreement, PAG required to terminate the settlement agreement and execute Miles Guo’s personal guarantee in 2011.
In November 2019 , Miles Guo denied the accusation because he had never signed these agreements, including the 2011 loan agreement、the 2011 personal guarantee agreement、the 2018 settlement agreement and other 4 additional agreements. Miles Guo testified that all of these files were forged. But, the court ruled that Guo Wengui’s denial was inconsistent with his position throughout the 2017 case. Therefore, the court prohibited Guo Wengui from raising judicial challenges to the authenticity of the previous documents in court proceedings.
In general, because Miles Guo didn’t question the authenticity of these agreements of the plaintiff before, the evidence presented now to prove these agreements were forged was not accepted by the court either. But this abnormal logic has become an important support point for the court to determine the validity of the PAG accusation, which makes people doubt the fairness of the judgment made by the New York court.