Genever Holdings LLC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------- x

Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)

In re: :

:

Chapter 11

Genever Holdings LLC, et al., :

:

Debtor.1 :

-------------------------------------------------------- x

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE JOINT MOTION OF (A)

GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC AND (B) LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE

FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK TO TRANSFER, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408

AND 1412 AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 1014(A), VENUE OF CHAPTER 11 CASE OF

GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC TO BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR DISTRICT OF

CONNECTICUT

A P P E A R A N C E S :

GOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP

Counsel for Debtor

1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor

New York, New York 10036

By: Kevin Nash, Esq.

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

Counsel for Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok Trustee

200 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10166

By: Luc A. Despins, Esq.

G. Alexander Bongartz, Esq.

TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP

Counsel for Bravo Luck Limited

3000 Two Logan Square

Eighteenth and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103

By: Francis J. Lawall, Esq.

1 The last four digits of Genever Holdings LLC’s tax identification number are 8202. The location of Genever

Holdings LLC’s service address for purposes of this Chapter 11 Case is: 781 5th Ave, Apt 1801, New York, NY 10022-

5520.

HON. JAMES L. GARRITY, JR.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Introduction

The matter before the Court is the joint motion of Genever Holdings LLC (the “Debtor” or

“Genever (US)”) and Luc A. Despins (the “Trustee” together with the Debtor, the “Movants”), in

his capacity as trustee for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok (the “Individual Debtor” or “Kwok”) in the

chapter 11 case In re Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) (the “Individual

Debtor Case”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1412 and Rule 1014(a) of the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), for entry of an order transferring the venue of

this chapter 11 case (the “Genever (US) Case”) to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

District of Connecticut (the “Connecticut Bankruptcy Court”) (the “Motion”).2 Bravo Luck

Limited (“Bravo Luck”) has filed a claim in the Genever (US) Case. It filed the only objection to

the Motion (the “Objection”).3 The Movants filed a reply to the Objection and in further support

of the Motion (the “Reply”).4

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

2 Joint Motion of (A) Genever Holdings LLC and (B) Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan

Kwok to Transfer, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1412 and Bankruptcy Rule 1014(a), Venue of Chapter 11

Case of Genever Holdings LLC to Bankruptcy Court for District of Connecticut, NY ECF No. 211. Hereinafter,

“NY ECF No.__” refers to documents filed on the electronic docket in this chapter 11 case.

3 Objection of Bravo Luck Limited to Joint Motion of (A) Genever Holdings LLC and (B) Luc A. Despins as

Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok to Transfer, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1412 and

Bankruptcy Rule 1014(a), Venue of Chapter 11 Case of Genever Holdings LLC to Bankruptcy Court for District of

Connecticut, NY ECF No. 215.

4 Reply in Support of Joint Motion of (A) Genever Holdings LLC and (B) Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee

for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok to Transfer, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1412 and Bankruptcy Rule 1014(a),

Venue of Chapter 11 Case of Genever Holdings LLC to Bankruptcy Court for District of Connecticut, NY ECF No.

220.

Jurisdiction

The Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334

and the Amended Standing Order of Reference dated January 31, 2012 (Preska, C.J.). This is a core

proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Background

The New York Supreme Court Litigation

On April 18, 2017, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (“PAX”) brought an action

(“NY State Court Action”) against the Individual Debtor in the New York State Supreme Court

(“NY State Court”). On September 15, 2020, the NY State Court granted PAX’s motion for

summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against the Individual Debtor in that lawsuit5

and awarded PAX a judgment in the amount of $116,402,019.57.6

On September 30, 2020, at the request of PAX, the NY State Court issued a temporary

restraining order preventing the Individual Debtor “from making or causing any sale, assignment,

transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest . . . .” 7 On October 15, 2020,

the NY State Court entered a restraining order (the “Restraining Order”) specifying that “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

5 Decision and Order on Motion, NYS ECF No. 549. Hereinafter, “NYS ECF No.__” refers to documents filed

on the electronic docket in the case of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, No.

652077/2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

6 Judgment, NYS ECF No. 716.

7 Decision and Order on Motion, NYS ECF No. 591 at 1.

interference with those assets.” 8 At the time the NY State Court entered the Restraining Order in

October 2020, the Lady May had left the jurisdiction and was heading to the Bahamas (and later

Europe).9 On March 17, 2021, the NY State Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt

which provided that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of the NY State 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.10

On February 9, 2022, following an evidentiary hearing to determine the ownership of the

Lady May, the NY State Court entered the final order of civil contempt (a) finding that Kwok

“beneficially owns and controls the Lady May” and (b) directing Kwok to pay contempt fines of

$134 million within five business days for failure to return the Lady May.11

As discussed below, on February 15, 2022, Kwok commenced the Individual Debtor Case

in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.

Genever (US) Case

On October 12, 2020, Genever (US) filed its chapter 11 petition before this Court. No

trustee or official committee of unsecured creditors has been appointed in the case. Genever (US)’s

scheduled assets consist of the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel (the “Sherry-Netherland

Apartment”) in New York, New York, and a related security deposit for a total scheduled value of

8 Decision and Order on Motion, NYS ECF No. 630 at 1. The Lady May is a yacht registered in the name of HK

International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (“HK USA”), an entity allegedly owned by Mei Guo, the

Individual Debtor’s daughter. See Motion ¶ 9.

9 See Decision and Order on Motion, NYS ECF No. 1181 at 5 (“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.”).

10 Decision and Order on Motion, NYS ECF No. 728 at 2.

11 Decision and Order on Motion, NYS ECF No. 1181 at 4, 10.

approximately $73 million.12 By order dated January 30, 2021,13 the Court fixed March 10, 2021,

as the general bar date for filing proofs of claim against Genever (US). Five creditors filed proofs

of claim: The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. (“Sherry-Netherland”), PAX, Bravo Luck, Golden Spring

(New York) Ltd., and Qiang Guo (“Guo”), the Individual Debtor’s son.

On March 5, 2021, Bravo Luck filed its claim against the Debtor (the “Bravo Luck Proof

of Claim”).14 In support of its claim, Bravo Luck represents, without limitation, that it is located

in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) and a BVI Business Corporation that is wholly owned by

Guo. See BL Claim Addendum ¶ 1. Bravo Luck asserts that it paid $76,296,746.85 in connection

with the Debtor’s acquisition of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. Id. ¶ 4. It contends that it

entered into a trust agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) with the Debtor, Kwok, and Genever

Holdings Corporation (“Genever (BVI)”) to make clear that Kwok, as the trustee, was holding the

shares of the Debtor and Genever (BVI) and any assets held in their names, the income, profits,

and dividends thereof (if any) in trust for Bravo Luck as the beneficial owner of the Debtor and

Genever (BVI) and, thus, the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. Id. ¶ 2. In support of its claim, Bravo

Luck asserts that

[I]t is the beneficial owner of the Apartment with the Apartment being held in trust

by Kwok and the [Debtor and Genever (BVI)] for Bravo Luck’s benefit.

Accordingly, Bravo Luck asserts that the Apartment and any proceeds from its sale

are property of Bravo Luck—not property of the Debtor.

If a court with jurisdiction over Bravo Luck determines that Bravo Luck does not

own the Apartment by virtue of the Apartment being held in trust by Kwok and the

[Debtor and Genever (BVI)] . . . Bravo Luck [alternatively] asserts a general

unsecured claim against the Debtor in an amount of not less than $76,296,746.85

12 Schedule A/B: Assets – Real and Personal Property (Official Form A/B), NY ECF No. 4 at 4.

13 Order Establishing Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving the Form and Manner of Notice

Thereof, NY ECF No. 46.

14 See Proof of Claim 4-1 at 1. The claim is supplemented by a Claim Addendum (the “BL Claim Addendum”).

arising from its advancement of funds for the purchase of the Apartment and any

other funds advanced to maintain the Apartment.

Id. ¶¶ 6-7.

As relevant to the Motion, Bravo Luck is party to certain ancillary actions in BVI (the “BVI

Litigation”) brought by PAX against non-debtor third parties, including, Genever (BVI), Bravo

Luck, Kwok, and Guo seeking to enforce the NY Judgment, attacking the Trust Agreement as a

fraud, and seeking a declaration that Bravo Luck is in any event Kwok’s company, and to recover

damages for conspiracy. PAX has obtained injunctive relief in support of these proceedings.15 On

January 14, 2021, Bravo Luck and Guo filed their Defense and Counterclaim in the BVI Litigation.

The record reflects that the litigation has not progressed in a material way.

On February 26, 2021, PAX, Bravo Luck, and Genever (US) entered into that certain

settlement agreement related to, with limitation, the marketing and sale of the Sherry-Netherland

Apartment. On September 24, 2021, the parties executed an amended agreement (the “Genever

Settlement Agreement”). On October 8, 2021, the Court approved the Genever Settlement

Agreement.16 In accordance with the terms of that agreement, Genever (US) hired Melanie

Cyganowski, Esq. to act as Genever (US)’s sales officer (the “Sales Officer”) to control and

oversee the sale of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. Paragraph 7 of the Genever Settlement

Agreement addresses “Stay Relief, Maintenance, Fees and Other Terms.” In part, it states

a. Stay relief is granted to allow PAX to prosecute, and the Debtor to defend,

the [NY State Court Action], with the stay to otherwise remain in place for all other

purposes, including relating to enforcement or collection of any judgment entered

against the Debtor in the [NY State Court Action], pending further order of the

Bankruptcy Court upon further notice to all Parties. Nothing herein shall be

15 See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.’s Memorandum of Law In Support Of Motion To Modify The

Automatic Stay to Proceed With State Court Litigation, And Related Relief, NY ECF No. 13, ¶ 44 n.85.

16 Order Granting Debtor’s Second Renewed Motion to Approve the Revised Settlement Agreement, NY ECF No.

141.

construed as an acknowledgment of the appropriate forum outside the bankruptcy

court to address any such issues, with all Parties’ rights expressly reserved.

b. Nothing herein shall prejudice the rights of any party, including Bravo

Luck and PAX to proceed with the BVI Litigation, provided that PAX, Bravo Luck,

Kwok, Guo or any of his or its affiliates reserve the right to assert claims in the

Bankruptcy Court relating to its status as a creditor of the Debtor, and PAX reserves

all rights to oppose such claims on any grounds. In addition, notwithstanding

anything contained herein to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice

the rights of any Party, including Bravo Luck and PAX, from proceeding with any

and all claims, if any, against anyone, including Bravo Luck, Kwok, Guo, or any

of his or its affiliates, and PAX or any of its affiliates, in BVI, State Court, or

otherwise, and Bravo Luck and PAX reserve all rights to oppose such claims in the

applicable forum.

Genever Settlement Agreement ¶ 7(a), (b).

On January 6, 2022, Genever (US) filed its Chapter 11 liquidating plan of reorganization

(the “Plan”)17 and its disclosure statement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1125 (the “Disclosure

Statement”).18 In the Disclosure Statement, the Debtor explains that it

sought Chapter 11 relief on October 12, 2020 in the face of multiple court disputes

relating primarily to the beneficial ownership of the [Sherry-Netherland

Apartment] as between Bravo Luck Limited (“Bravo Luck”) and Pacific Alliance

Asian Opportunity Fund (“PAX”). The litigation is pending in the Supreme Court,

New York County (Index No. 652077/2017) (the [NY State Court]) and in the

Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the British Virgin Islands (Index. No.

VIHCOM2020/0137) (the “BVI Court”). The litigation has been generally referred

to as the “Ownership Dispute” throughout the Chapter 11 case, and is defined as

such for the purposes of the Plan and this Disclosure Statement.

Disclosure Statement at 1-2. The Debtor says that “[i]n the face of the competing claims and

multiple lawsuits, the Debtor sought Chapter 11 relief in order to be in a position to pursue a sale

of the [Sherry-Netherland Apartment] . . . and monetize the asset.” Id. at 2-3. The Debtor explains

that “[d]uring the Chapter 11 case, [it] was able to reach a comprehensive global settlement with

Bravo Luck and PAX . . . ” and that the agreement is embodied in the Genever Settlement

17 See Debtor’s Liquidating Plan of Reorganization, NY ECF No. 164.

18 See Debtor’s Disclosure Statement, NY ECF No. 165.

Agreement. Id. at 3. It asserts that “[a]t its core, the [Genever Settlement Agreement] establishes

a consensual framework for the sale of the [Sherry-Netherland Apartment] under the stewardship

of Malanie L. Cyganowski as the Debtor’s employee and duly appointed Sales Officer.” Id. at 3.

“Fundamentally, the Plan provides the mechanism to implement the [Genever Settlement

Agreement] and sell the [Sherry-Netherland Apartment] pending resolution of the Ownership

Dispute.” Id.

A hearing with respect to the Disclosure Statement was originally scheduled to be held on

February 15, 2022. However, at the Debtor’s request, the Court adjourned the hearing several

times, ultimately to September 27, 2022.19 Prior to the scheduled September 27 hearing, counsel

for Genever (US) informed the Court that the Debtor would join the Trustee in filing the Motion

and, as such, the Debtor would “not expend its limited resources on its chapter 11 plan [Docket

No. 164] at this time.”20

On September 26, 2022, Bravo Luck filed its own Chapter 11 liquidating plan of

reorganization21 and disclosure statement.22 In support of its plan, Bravo Luck claims that it “filed

this Plan in essentially the same form as an amended version of the Debtor’s Prior Plan that was

circulated by the Debtor amongst parties in interest earlier this month.”23

19 Memorandum Endorsed Order signed on 8/12/2022 Re: Request for Adjournment, NY ECF No. 201.

20 Letter updating status in advance of September 27, 2022 conference, NY ECF No. 204 at 3.

21 Bravo Luck Limited’s Liquidating Plan of Reorganization for Debtor Genever Holdings LLC, NY ECF No. 206.

22 Disclosure Statement for Bravo Luck Limited’s Liquidating Plan of Reorganization for Debtor Genever

Holdings LLC, NY ECF No. 207.

23 Bravo Luck Limited’s Liquidating Plan of Reorganization for Debtor Genever Holdings LLC, NY ECF No. 206

at 6.

Individual Debtor Case

On February 15, 2022, Kwok filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the

Bankruptcy Code in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. On March 19, 2022, the United States

Trustee filed a motion for an order directing appointment of an examiner or, in the alternative,

directing the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee.24 On June 15, 2022, the Connecticut Bankruptcy

Court entered the Memorandum Decision directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter

11 trustee in the case.25 Following entry of the Memorandum Decision, the United States Trustee

selected Luc. A. Despins, Esq. as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court

entered an order granting the appointment of Mr. Despins as the Trustee in the Individual Debtor

Case.26

On August 10, 2022, the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the “Corporate

Governance Order”) 27 granting the Trustee’s Corporate Governance Motion28 and providing,

among other things:

[T]he Trustee holds all of the [Individual] Debtor’s economic and governance

rights, for the benefit of the Estate, with respect to all [Individual] Debtor-

Controlled Entities, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI). For the

24 United States Trustee’s Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, in the Alternative,

Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee, CT ECF No. 102. Hereinafter, “CT ECF

No.__” refers to documents filed on the electronic docket in the Chapter 11 Case In re Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22-50073

(JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.).

25 Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and Granting Joinder to

Motion for Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee, CT ECF No. 465.

26 Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee, CT ECF No. 523.

27 Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11

Trustee Holds All of Debtor’s Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B)

Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief,

CT ECF No. 717.

28 Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108,

and 1505, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor’s Economic and Corporate Governance

Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf

of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief, CT ECF No. 598.

avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the Trustee’s asserted authority to

replace any existing officer, director, manager, or similar person of the [Individual]

Debtor-Controlled Entities. As part of the foregoing, to the extent necessary, the

Trustee is authorized to act, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee in this Chapter

11 Case, as any such officer, director, manager, or similar person who has been

removed.

Corporate Governance Order ¶ 2. The Corporate Governance Order expressly provides that

nothing in such order:

shall be deemed to authorize any particular action with respect to [Genever (US)]

in its chapter 11 case pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Southern District of New York (the “Genever Court”). The Trustee shall appear

before, and seek guidance from, the Genever Court to the extent the Trustee’s

exercise of corporate governance rights with respect to Genever (US) would impact

its chapter 11 case.

Id. ¶ 8. Following entry of the Corporate Governance Order, the Trustee and the Individual Debtor

took the necessary steps for the Trustee to obtain corporate control over Genever (BVI) and

Genever (US). No bar date has yet been set in the Individual Debtor Case.

Genever (BVI) Chapter 11 Case

Genever (US) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Genever (BVI), and, in turn, Genever (BVI)

is wholly owned by Kwok. In accordance with the Corporate Governance Order, the Individual

Debtor's shares in the Genever (BVI) were transferred to the Trustee and such transfer was

registered with the registered agent for the Genever (BVI) Debtor in BVI. See Abrehart Decl. ¶

10.29 On September 13, 2022, Genever (BVI) entered into that certain Director Services

Agreement with Harneys Corporate pursuant to which Harneys Corporate agreed, among other

things, to provide the services of Clair Abrehart for the position of the Director of the Genever

29 Declaration of Claire Abrehart, Director of Genever Holdings Corporation, In Support of Debtor’s Chapter 11

Petition, BVI ECF No. 1. Hereinafter, “BVI ECF No.__” refers to documents filed on the electronic docket in the

Chapter 11 Case of In re Genever Holdings Corporation, No. 22-50542 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.).

(BVI). Id. ¶ 11. By shareholder's resolution dated September 14, 2022, Ms. Abrehart was appointed

as the Director Of Genever (BVI) effective as of September 14, 2022, replacing Kwok, its former

director. Id. On October 11, 2022, after the Trustee filed the Motion, Genever (BVI) filed it

voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Connecticut

Bankruptcy Court.

Bravo Luck Litigation

In addition to being party to the BVI Litigation, Bravo Luck is the sole defendant in

virtually identical lawsuits filed against it by the Trustee in the Individual Debtor Case (the “CT

Fraudulent Transfer Action”),30 and the Debtor in the Genever (US) Case (the “NY Fraudulent

Transfer Action”).31 In substance, in their respective complaints filed in those actions, the Trustee

and Debtor each seek an order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7001(9) declaring that the Trust

Agreement is a fraudulent, backdated document and is therefore invalid, void, and unenforceable,

and, therefore, that Bravo Luck is not the beneficial owner of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment.

As an alternative to those claims, in its complaint, the Debtor seeks an order, pursuant to section

502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, disallowing the Bravo Luck Proof of Claim; and, alternatively,

pursuant to section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, subordinating all allowed (or eventually

allowed) claims of Bravo Luck. In their respective complaints, the Trustee and Debtor each also

30 Chapter 11 Trustee’s Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of

Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling that Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent

Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law,

Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code, CT AP ECF No. 1. Hereinafter, “CT AP ECF No.__” refers to

documents filed on the electronic docket in the Adversary Proceeding of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bravo

Luck Ltd. and Qian Guo, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05027 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.).

31 Debtor’s Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in

Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling that Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo

Luck Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy

Code, NY AP ECF No. 1. Hereinafter, “NY AP ECF No.__” refers to documents filed on the electronic docket in the

Adversary Proceeding of Genever Holdings LLC v. Bravo Luck Ltd., Adv. Pro. No. 22-01157 (JLG) (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.).

seek entry of an order (i) declaring, pursuant to the Section 276 of the New York Debtor and

Creditor Law, sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, and Bankruptcy Rule 7001(9), that

the Trust Agreement is invalid and (ii) avoiding any conveyance of Genever (US)’s property or

any incurrence of any obligation by Genever (US) that occurred pursuant to the Trust Agreement.

Legal Standards

A chapter 11 case may be commenced in the district court for the district in which “the

domicile, residence, principal place of business in the United States, or principal assets in the

United States, of the person or entity that is the subject of such case have been located for a hundred

and eighty days immediately preceding such commencement . . . .” 28 U.S.C.§ 1408(1). The statute

is written in the disjunctive, making venue proper in any of the listed locations. In re Segno

Commc'ns, Inc., 264 B.R. 501, 505 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001) (finding any of the four is

jurisdictionally sufficient). Furthermore, a chapter 11 case may be commenced in the district court

for the district “in which there is pending a case under title 11 concerning such person’s affiliate,

general partner, or partnership.” 28 U.S.C.§ 1408(2).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412, a “district court may transfer a case or proceeding under title

11 to a district court for another district, in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the

parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1412; see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014. Section 1412 “is phrased in the disjunctive,

therefore [e]ach requirement is discrete. . .Thus, transferability pursuant to [section] 1412 is an

either-or test, not a two-fold one.’” In re Enron Corp., 317 B.R. 629, 637 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004)

(alteration in original) (quoting Indep. Stationers, Inc. v. Vaughn, No. IP 99-0127 C M/S, 2000

WL 1449854, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2000)). See also In re Patriot Coal Corp., 482 B.R. 718,

738–39 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Section 1412 is written in the disjunctive, meaning that each of

the two prongs—‘in the interest of justice’ or ‘for the convenience of the parties’—constitutes an

independent ground for transferring venue.”).

The decision of whether to transfer venue is within the court's discretion based on an

individualized case-by-case analysis of convenience and fairness. See, e.g., Gulf States

Exploration Co. v. Manville Forest Prods. Corp. (In re Manville Forest Prods. Corp.), 896 F.2d

1384, 1391 (2d Cir. 1990) (analogizing adjudication under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and citing Stewart

Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988)); Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Commonwealth

Oil Ref. Co. (In re Commonwealth Oil Ref. Co.), 596 F.2d 1239, 1247 (5th Cir. 1979); In re

Dunmore Homes, Inc., 380 B.R. 663, 670 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Enron, 317 B.R. at 638.

The burden is on the movant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer of venue

is warranted. See In re Manville Forest Prods. Corp., 896 F.2d at 1390; In re Commonwealth Oil

Ref. Co., 596 F.2d at 1241; In re Patriot Coal Corp., 482 B.R. at 739; In re Enron Corp., 317 B.R.

at 639.

Discussion

Genever (US)’s principal assets in the United States are the Sherry-Netherland Apartment

and a related security deposit.32 Both assets are located in this district. Accordingly, the venue

selected by Genever (US) is proper under section 1408. In assessing the merits of the Motion, the

Court recognizes that “the power to transfer a case [or proceeding] should be exercised cautiously.”

In re Enron, 317 B.R. at 638 (quoting In re Toxic Control Techs., Inc., 84 B.R. 140, 143 (Bankr.

N.D. Ind. 1988) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, where, as here, a debtor’s venue selection

is proper under section 1408, that selection is “entitled to great weight” in the consideration of

change of venue motions. In re Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., 520 B.R. 399, 420 (Bankr.

32 See Schedule A/B: Assets – Real and Personal Property (Official Form A/B), NY ECF No. 4 at 4.

S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing In re Enron, 274 B.R. 327, 342 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)). See also In re

Garden Manor Assocs., L.P., 99 B.R. 551, 555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988).

The debtors did not file their respective chapter 11 cases with the goal of rehabilitating

their businesses. Indeed, none of them operates as a business. Genever (US) commenced its chapter

11 case in order to monetize the Sherry-Netherlands Apartment. It took steps to address that issue

through the Genever Settlement Agreement as there is now an asset sale process underway that is

being overseen by the Debtor’s Sales Officer.

In filing his case, Kwok sought, among other things, to centralize the many claims against

him and his assets in a one forum. In support of his chapter 11 case, Kwok says that he commenced

his chapter 11 case to

(a) create a single forum to orderly address the various competing claims asserted

against me; (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate my assets,

liabilities, and financial affairs, given what I perceive to be misunderstandings in

that regard; (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for

distribution to holders of allowed claims; and, hopefully (d) reach consensus with

my creditors on a fair and equitable resolution of claims and distribution of assets

pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan.

Kwok Chapter 11 Decl. ¶ 3.33

In commencing its chapter 11 case, Genever (BVI) likewise focused on centralizing the

many Kwok-related disputes in a single forum. It explains that it commenced its case (i) to avoid

time consuming litigation in the BVI court on whether the automatic stay in the Individual Debtor

Case bars Bravo Luck from continuing to litigate the ownership issues relating to Sherry-

Netherland Apartment in the BVI Litigation, and (ii) as part of the Trustee’s efforts to address all

issues relating to the Sherry-Netherland Apartment in a comprehensive and efficient manner with

all parties before the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. See Abrehart Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.

33 Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok In Support Of The Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions, CT ECF

No. 107, ¶ 3.

It is plain that the “gating issue” common to the Genever (US), Genever (BVI) and

Individual Debtor’s chapter 11 cases is resolution of the question of which creditor group will be

entitled to share in the value of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. As noted, litigation relating to

that issue is pending in the BVI Court, pursuant to the BVI Litigation commenced by PAX against

Bravo Luck, Genever (BVI), the Individual Debtor and Guo. It is also pending in this Court, in the

NY Fraudulent Transfer Action, and the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, in the nearly identical CT

Fraudulent Transfer Action. Neither of the bankruptcy court actions has proceeded beyond the

filing of the complaints commencing those actions. The record reflects that the BVI Litigation has

not progressed in a material way. Moreover, the BVI Litigation has been automatically stayed as

against Genever (BVI) and the Individual Debtor. To the extent the Genever (US) could be viewed

as a necessary party to that litigation, the automatic stay likewise bars suit against it.

Bravo Luck contends that the BVI Court should resolve Ownership Dispute, essentially

because in the Genever Settlement Agreement, the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX agreed that the

dispute would be resolved in the BVI Litigation. Bravo Luck contends that in support of the BVI

Litigation, PAX asserts, among other things, that the Individual Debtor is the owner of the Genever

(US) and Genever (BVI) and that those entities are mere alter egos of the Individual Debtor and

that, as such, PAX’s interests are wholly aligned with that of the Trustee. Objection ¶ 3. Bravo

Luck also maintains that the parties to the Genever Settlement Agreement determined that the

Ownership Dispute would go forward and be resolved in the BVI and, as such, the Court cannot

and should not now, after two years, transfer venue of the Genever (US) Case to the Connecticut

Bankruptcy Court where the Individual Debtor Case is being administered and the CT Fraudulent

Transfer Action is pending. Id. Bravo Luck complains that the Debtor’s commencement of the NY

Fraudulent Transfer Action directly contravenes the understanding of the parties to the Genever

Settlement Agreement—which includes the Debtor—that the Ownership Dispute was to be

decided outside of a bankruptcy court. Id. ¶ 4. It asserts that this Court is in the best position to

interpret the Settlement Order and Genever Settlement Agreement and should do so before

considering the merits of the Motion. Id.

The Court finds no merit to those contentions. Although well qualified, the BVI Court is

not best suited to address the gating issues in these cases. Although PAX’s interests in the BVI

Litigation may be aligned with the Trustee’s interests, PAX cannot step into the Trustee’s shoes

in that litigation. Only the Trustee can assert the avoidance claims that are central to the CT

Fraudulent Transfer Action. Moreover, the Debtor and Trustee contend, and PAX agrees, that

section 7(b) of the agreement does not impose a requirement that the Ownership Dispute be

decided in the BVI Court. They maintain that the provision is nothing more than a reservation of

rights. Reply ¶ 4. The language in paragraph 7(b) appears to be clear and unambiguous. In any

event, this Court and the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court are equally well suited to interpret the

agreement, as necessary. Accordingly, the Court will not reserve for itself the interpretation of the

Genever Settlement Agreement and will consider the merits of the Motion.

Turning to the substance of the Objection, Bravo Luck essentially contends that the

resolution of which creditor group is entitled to share in the value of the Sherry-Netherland

Apartment should be divided up between three different courts: (1) the BVI court should determine

Bravo Luck’s ownership interest in the Sherry-Netherland Apartment and the validity of the Trust

Agreement (an agreement governed by U.S. law); (2) this Court should resolve the distribution of

proceeds to Genever (US)’s creditors; and (3) the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court should resolve

the distribution of proceeds (if any) as it relates to the Individual Debtor’s creditors.

The Court finds no support for that contention in fact or law. The Court essentially must

determine whether, in light of settled principles governing change of venue motions, this Court or

the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court is best positioned to oversee the process of adjudicating the

many issues relating to the ownership of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment and distribution of the

value of the apartment to creditors. The Court finds that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the

Trustee has demonstrated grounds under section 1412 to transfer the venue of the Genever (US)

Case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. The Court will proceed by analyzing whether

transferring the case is “in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1412; see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014.

Interest of Justice

The Second Circuit has found that “[t]he ‘interest of justice’ component of § 1412 is a

broad and flexible standard which must be applied on a case-by-case basis. It contemplates a

consideration of whether transferring venue would promote the efficient administration of the

bankruptcy estate, judicial economy, timeliness, and fairness . . . .” In re Manville Forest Prods.

Corp., 896 F.2d at 1391. In analyzing the “interest of justice” prong under section 1412, courts

have considered the following factors:

(i) whether transfer would promote the economic and efficient administration of the

bankruptcy estate; (ii) whether the interests of judicial economy would be served

by the transfer; (iii) whether the parties would be able to receive a fair trial in each

of the possible venues; (iv) whether either forum has an interest in having the

controversy decided within its borders; (v) whether the enforceability of any

judgment would be affected by the transfer; and (vi) whether the plaintiff's original

choice of forum should be disturbed.

In re Dunmore Homes, Inc., 380 B.R. at 672. The Court considers those factors below.

1. Efficient and Economic Administration and Judicial Economy

The Court analyzes the economic and efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate and

judicial economy together because economic and efficient administration directly affects judicial

economy. See In re Enron Corp., 317 B.R. at 640. The Movants have demonstrated that Genever

(US) is one of many entities created by the Individual Debtor that he utilized in an effort to hide

assets from his creditors, and that the Individual Debtor’s alleged “shell game” has given rise to

disputes in both the Genever (US) Case and Individual Debtor Case regarding the extent and

characterization of the Individual Debtor’s ownership in certain assets, including the Sherry-

Netherland Apartment. Motion ¶ 35. They note, for example, that although title to the Sherry-

Netherland Apartment is registered in the name of Genever (US), Bravo Luck asserts that it is the

beneficial owner of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment by virtue of the Trust Agreement. Id. ¶ 36.

The Movants assert, and the Court agrees, that in both this case and the Individual Debtor Case,

the courts will be asked to address the same fundamental question of what assets belonged to the

Individual Debtor (and thus the chapter 11 estate) as of the Individual Debtor’s petition date. Id.

Failure to transfer venue of this case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court could lead to

inconsistent rulings on that important issue and would be a waste of judicial resources. “[J]udicial

efficiency is served by litigating the same legal issue only once.” Hilton Worldwide, Inc. Glob.

Benefits Admin. Comm. v. Caesars Ent. Corp., 532 B.R. 259, 274 (E.D. Va. 2015). The substantial

overlap in issues and parties between the Genever (US) Case and Individual Debtor Case

necessitates their coordination in one forum. See In re TS Emp., Inc., No. 15-10243 (MG), 2015

WL 4940348, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that all the cases were “inextricably

intertwined” in granting transfer of venue).

2. Fair Trial in Each Venue

There is simply to no reason to question whether Genever (US) and its creditors will receive

fair a trial in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. None of the parties asserting an economic interest

in the Sherry-Netherland Apartment (including the Sherry-Netherland) opposes the transfer of the

venue of the Genever (US) Case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. Bravo Luck does not

question the impartiality of the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, Objection ¶ 18, but it asserts that

“the Individual Debtor Case is replete with issues and allegations that are completely unrelated to

the Ownership Dispute” and “should the Ownership Dispute be brought before the Connecticut

Bankruptcy Court, there would certainly be miscellaneous, unrelated conjecture injected into the

matter.” Id. This Court is confident that the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court can easily distinguish

facts from “unrelated conjecture.” Application of this factor plainly weighs in favor of transferring

the venue of this case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.

3. Interests of Either Forum in Having Controversies Decided Within its Borders

Bravo Luck asserts that this Court has a particular interest in retaining venue of this case

because Genever (US)’s primary asset is located in New York and subject to New York state laws,

including, but not limited to, “complicated” real estate and co-op laws that will be implicated as

the sale process of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment proceeds to conclusion. Objection ¶ 20. In

contrast, the Movants assert that although Genever (US) is a New York limited liability company,

it does not have any employees, conduct any business, or provide any services in New York, aside

from owning the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. Motion ¶ 40. Moreover, they note that other than

Sherry-Netherland, none of the creditors that filed proofs of claims in the Genever (US) Case are

located in New York. Id. This Court does not have a particular interest in resolving the conflicting

claims to the ownership of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment or in overseeing the sale of the

apartment. In contrast, the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court has a strong interest in deciding

controversies involving the Individual Debtor’s claims to the property because the Individual

Debtor Case is pending in that court. The Court also finds that Bravo Luck overstates the

significance of the potential application of New York state law to a sale of the Sherry-Netherland

Apartment. Bankruptcy courts regularly apply state law and local law in real estate sale

transactions. Moreover, Sherry-Netherland has a keen interest in ensuring that the sale of the

apartment complies with state and local law. It does not object to the Motion. Application of this

factor supports granting the Motion.

4. Enforceability of Judgment

The same holds true with this factor. There is nothing in the record demonstrating that there

is reason to believe that a judgment from the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court in the CT Fraudulent

Transfer Action would be any less enforceable than a judgment by this Court.

5. Disturbing the Original Forum

In analyzing this factor, courts look at whether the debtor’s interests will be harmed or

whether the estate will suffer a diminution in value if venue is transferred. See In re Certa Dose,

Inc., No. 21-11045 (LGB), 2021 WL 5177376, at *15 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2021) (citing In

re Dunmore Homes, Inc., 380 B.R. at 675). In considering this matter, the Court notes that the

Debtor, i.e., Genever (US), is requesting the transfer of venue. Moreover, the Trustee has indicated

that he has no intention of stopping the court-approved sale process for the Sherry-Netherland

Apartment. There is no indication that Genever (US)’s interests will be harmed if the Court

transfers the venue of this case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Movants have met their burden of

demonstrating that, in the interests of justice, the Court should transfer the venue of the Genever

(US) Case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. E.g., In re Dunmore Homes, Inc., 380 B.R. at 672

(holding that the moving parties had met their burden under both the interests of justice and

convenience of parties’ standards). This affords a sufficient basis for the Court to grant the Motion

and transfer the venue of this case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.

Convenience of the Parties

In determining whether a venue transfer serves the convenience of the parties, courts

consider six different factors: (i) the proximity of creditors of every kind to the Court; (ii) the

proximity of the debtor to the Court; (iii) the proximity of the witnesses necessary to the

administration of the estate; (iv) the location of the assets; (v) the economic administration of the

estate; and (vi) the necessity for ancillary administration if liquidation should result. See In re

Dunmore Homes, Inc., 380 B.R. at 672. The Court considers those matters below.

1. The Proximity of Creditors of Every Kind to the Court

In considering the proximity of creditors, courts “examine both the number of creditors as

well as the amount of claims held by such creditors.” In re Enron Corp., 274 B.R. at 345. Of the

five creditors that filed proofs of claim in the Genever (US) Case, only one creditor, the Sherry-

Netherland, is located in New York. The remaining creditors are located outside of New York. See

Motion ¶ 40.34 Bravo Luck asserts that application of this factor nonetheless weighs against

granting the Motion because (1) Sherry-Netherland is located in New York and holds an

administrative claim against Genever (US), and (2) PAX filed the NY State Court Action in New

York Supreme Court. See Objection ¶ 24. However, neither Sherry-Netherland nor PAX objects

34 “The Trustee understands that (a) the Individual Debtor’s son resides in the United Kingdom, (b) Golden Spring

is a Delaware entity, (c) PAX is an entity a Cayman Islands entity, and (d) Bravo Luck is a BVI entity.” Motion ¶ 40

n.22.

to the Motion. Given the fact that none of the Creditors are Connecticut entities, this factor remains

neutral.

2. The Proximity of the Debtor to the Court

The Individual Debtor’s estate owns and controls Genever (US), and the Individual

Debtor’s chapter 11 case is pending in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. In the Individual

Debtor’s chapter 11 case, pursuant to the Corporate Governance order, the Trustee has been

granted the authority to direct Genever (US) throughout the proceedings. That weighs heavily in

favor of granting the Motion. Still, Bravo Luck asserts that application of this factor weighs against

transferring the venue of this case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court because “the Debtor was

created with the purpose of holding real estate . . . located in New York City,” and the Trustee’s

professional website shows that he is based in New York City. Objection ¶ 25. However, neither

factor is particularly relevant. The fact that the U.S. Trustee selected an attorney with a New York

business address as the Trustee does not undermine the force of his Motion, as the Individual

Debtor’s case is pending in Connecticut. Moreover, the Individual Debtor purports to own and

control Genever (US) and chose to file his case in Connecticut. Indeed, the Debtor and Trustee are

requesting that the venue be transferred to Connecticut.

Finally, Bravo Luck asserts that it “would need to engage separate Connecticut

counsel . . . if [the Genever (US) Case] would be transferred to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court”

because “the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for the District of Connecticut require parties

appearing in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court to be represented by counsel not only barred in the

State of Connecticut, but with an office in Connecticut.” Id. ¶ 24 n.13. However, given that the

Trustee has initiated the CT Fraudulent Transfer Action against Bravo Luck in the Connecticut

Bankruptcy Court, Bravo Luck must engage Connecticut counsel regardless of whether this venue

transfer occurs. Application of this factor does not cut against the Motion.

3. The Proximity of the Witnesses Necessary to the Administration of the Estate

Bravo Luck acknowledges that “some of the witnesses in this case may reside outside of

New York.” Id. ¶ 26. Even though some of the witnesses are native to New York, many of these

witnesses are outside of New York and are going to “be required to appear in the Connecticut

Bankruptcy Court for the Individual Debtor Case regardless of whether transfer is approved”

because “the cases arose from the same circumstances and there is a significant overlap of legal

and factual issues.” Motion ¶ 46. Thus, although it might be less convenient for those witnesses

living in New York to travel to Connecticut, denying transfer would require the witnesses residing

outside of the New York-Connecticut region to travel to two different locations to appear in front

of two different courts in order to testify about overlapping factual issues. See id. Such

consideration outweighs the slight inconvenience that the New York-based witnesses might

experience in having to travel to Connecticut. Application of this factor weighs in favor of granting

the Motion.

4. The Location of the Assets

The location of assets can “take[] on less compelling significance” depending on the

“relative proximity of the two jurisdictions in question.” In re Red Door Prop. Mgmt. LLC, No.

11-02704-KMS, 2011 WL 5592910, at *7 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2011) (citing In re

LaGuardia Assocs., L.P., 316 B.R. 832, 839–40 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2004)). That is clearly the case

here. Genever (US)’s primary asset is the Sherry-Netherland Apartment, which is located in New

York, and New York and Connecticut share a border. Moreover, as previously discussed,

bankruptcy courts routinely apply state and local law in considering matters relating the disposition

of real property. Application of this factor is neutral.

5. The Economic Administration of the Estate

“Among the six factors, courts have often given the most weight to the economic and

efficient administration of the estate.” In re Asset Resol. LLC, No. 09-16142 (AJG), 2009 WL

4505944, at *2 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009). The Movants assert that at this point, both courts

are being asked to determine whether the Trust Agreement is enforceable and the extent, if any, to

which Bravo Luck has an interest in the Sherry-Netherland Apartment. The Movants assert, and

the Court agrees, that the failure to transfer venue could lead to the possibility of inconsistent

rulings on the important issue of the enforcement of the Trust Agreement and would be a waste of

judicial resources. Motion ¶¶ 36–37. Thus, this factor heavily weighs in favor of resolving the

ownership issues in a single forum: the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court. Bravo Luck asserts that

the Genever (US) Case has been pending for two years “and is substantively resolved in light of

the Genever Settlement Agreement,” and that it would “cost the estates and parties time and

expense to get the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court up to speed on the Genever (US) Case.”

Objection ¶¶ 31–32. However, the Movants have neither any intention of delaying the sale process

of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment, Reply ¶ 19, nor of halting the work of the Sales Officer, who

was appointed in accordance with the Genever Settlement Agreement. Motion ¶ 19. Thus, the

Movants have no intention of stopping the very process created by the terms of the Genever

Settlement Agreement, which Bravo Luck states “substantively resolved” the issues in the Genever

(US) Case. This factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion and transferring the venue of this

case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.

6. The Necessity of Ancillary Administration if Liquidation Should Result

The “inquiry about possible ancillary administration as a factor in a venue determination

is only rarely afforded significant weight, and, when it is, the inquiry focuses on the location of a

debtor’s assets.” In re Hermitage Inn Real Est. Holding Co., LLC, No. 19-10214, 2019 WL

2536075, at *14 (Bankr. D. Vt. June 19, 2019). Thus, in this case the inquiry would focus on the

liquidation of Genever (US) after the sale of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment, which is located

in New York. Bravo Luck asserts that courts “weigh this factor in favor of the location where the

debtor’s assets were located because it was best for the marketing and sale of those asset[s] to be

conducted as close to the assets’ location as possible.” Objection ¶ 34 (citing In re Dunmore

Homes, Inc., 380 B.R. at 677).

However, this case is distinguishable from Dunmore. In Dunmore, the court had to

determine whether to transfer venue of a chapter 11 case from New York to California, where the

majority of the debtor’s assets were centralized in California. Id. at 673. The debtor was wholly

owned by a California resident and had “no office, employees, or bank accounts in New York. Its

only presence in New York is its recent incorporation in this state.” Id. at 667. Here, prior to the

Trustee’s appointment, Kwok owned all of the shares in Genever (BVI), which in turn wholly

owned Genever (US). See Reply ¶ 21. Kwok, the Individual Debtor, is located in Connecticut; this

is not a situation in which the Individual Debtor, who owns the other assets, is located in New

York and is attempting to forum shop in Connecticut. Furthermore, when analyzing this factor, the

court in Dunmore cites to Enron and In re B.L. of Miami, Inc., 294 B.R. 325 (Bankr. D. Nev.

2003), in which it was “apparent that the nature of the underlying businesses was a major

consideration in the venue decisions.” In re Dunmore Homes, Inc., 380 B.R. at 677. Here, however,

there is no “underlying business” anchoring Genever (US) to New York; the only matter of

consideration in New York is the sale of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment because the apartment

is located there. The Individual Debtor, who owns Genever (US), is located in Connecticut. In this

light, this Court determines that application of this factor weighs in favor of transferring the venue

of this case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.

In sum, the Movants have met their burden of demonstrating that the convenience of the

parties weighs in favor of transferring the venue of this case to the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York

November 3, 2022

/s/ James L. Garrity, Jr.

Hon. James L. Garrity, Jr.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge