Translated by: Ermat
A news report from finews.ch says that Guo Wengui has launched a lawsuit in London against UBS for damages of up to $500 million. The charges had been dismissed by a New York court because of jurisdiction.
The report noted that Guo Wengui used a UBS loan to buy a large stake in Haitong Securities on the Hong Kong stock exchange in 2015, but in July 2015, Haitong shares plunged more than 35% in a matter of days and UBS issued a margin call requiring Guo to inject $200 million within 24 hours.
According to another Bloomberg report, Mr. Guo’s lawyers noted in court filings that UBS’s internal policy was not to issue margin calls to “high-value clients” such as Guo Wengui if the price tied to the loan changed in the near term. In another high-profile financing transaction involving Chinese insurer Ping An Insurance Group Co, UBS also agreed not to issue margin calls.
From the limited information occasionally mentioned by Mr. Guo Wengui on the air, it is not possible to confirm whether the “New York court” that dismissed Mr. Guo’s case against UBS on jurisdictional grounds is the same as the New York state court that heard the JPL case, but we do know that admission of pleadings is the first threshold for a case to be heard in a Western court, and that jurisdiction is the path to the opposite door of the court.
On May 18, 2017, PAX, a subsidiary of Pacific Alliance, filed a breach of contract complaint against Mr. Guo Wengui in New York State court over a $30 million personal guarantee contract. On September 20, 2017, the New York State Court dismissed PAX’s complaint for jurisdictional reasons. The judge in the case, Barry Ostrager, was rumored to have said that “New York has no interest in deciding a dispute between a Hong Kong investment fund and a Chinese citizen over a China-related real estate transaction governed by Hong Kong law, despite the fact that the defendant in this case currently resides in New York.”
However, six months later, on April 5, the judge abruptly re-admitted PAX’s complaint, and the PAX case was reopened with the filing of up to 73,000 pages of court documents by its attorneys. PAX’s witnesses admitted that Pangu had paid off $100 million, from which it was possible to conclude that Mr. Guo’s liability for the personal guarantee was terminated by the end of PAX’s debt relationship with Pangu. But Mr. Guo was still barred by the judge from challenging the plaintiff’s proof. Not only that, but the judge denied Mr. Guo the right to choose the jury’s verdict.
Next, the judge granted almost all of the crazy motions filed by PAX’s attorneys, issuing a series of rulings that violated the court’s procedural justice. A personal guarantee attached to a $30 million loan was awarded a whopping $120 million in damages, plus recovery of ownership of assets that were not Mr. Guo’s own, and the intervention of nearly 80 third-party individuals and companies in the investigation. The PIL case has shown signs of escalating in a criminal direction.
In response to media coverage of the UBS case, Mr. Guo Wengui said in a post on the Gettr platform, “The days of these swampy people enslaving 1.4 billion Chinese people and enslaving the people of the world under a legitimate triad financial license are about to be gone. I don’t want $500 million, we are losing billions of dollars and more, the damage it has done to us is immeasurable in money! This case will show the ugly face of the swamp to the people, we’ll see!!! Whether it’s the Communist Party, the Davos Party, the Swamp, they are all a bunch of financial devils who enslave the people of the world! We must change the rules of the game!”