Genie Investments NV Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
In re:
GENIE INVESTMENTS NV INC., 	Case No.: 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ
Debtor. 	Chapter 7
________________________________/
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This Case is before the Court to issue Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (the “Order Denying”) (Doc. 486).1
The Order Denying addressed the Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (the “Motion for
Leave”) (Doc. 479), filed by John-Michael Cohan (“Mr. Cohan”). By the Motion for Leave, Mr.
Cohan seeks to appeal the Order Granting Motion to Approve Compromise or Settlement (the
“Compromise Order”) (Doc. 471). The Compromise Order, entered into by the Chapter 7 Trustee
(the “Trustee”) on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, approved the compromise with Christopher D.
1 The Order Denying specified, “[t]he Court in its discretion may file written findings of fact and conclusions of law
at a later date.” (Doc. 486).
Dated: November 25, 2025
ORDERED.
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 10

2
Warren, P.C., Warren Law Group, PLLC (“Warren Law”), and Scott Oh, and enjoined certain
claims. (Doc. 471). Although an objection was filed by Mr. Cohan and David Hughes (collectively,
the “Equity Holders”), the objection was stricken by the Court.2 (Doc. 457). No other party in
interest filed an objection to the Compromise Order, and the Court approved the compromise in
all respects. (Doc. 471). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court properly denied the Motion for
Leave on the basis that Mr. Cohan’s appeal is frivolous and without merit.
Findings of Fact
On February 1, 2024, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code. Almost six months later, the case was converted to Chapter 7, and the
Trustee was appointed to administer the estate. The Equity Holders are the former principals of
the Debtor, with each owning a 50% interest.
The Debtor’s schedules listed a legal malpractice cause of action against Warren Law,
which arose out of an ill-fated joint venture the Debtor entered into with Velanos Principal Capital
(“Velanos”).3 While the Trustee was executing his statutory duty of pursuing the cause of action,4
the Equity Holders filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court, for the Middle
District of Florida, Jacksonville Division5 asserting various claims arising from the Velanos joint
venture against the successor in interest to the Warren Law Group and its attorney, Scott Oh.6 In
response, the Trustee filed a Motion to Enforce Automatic Stay. The Court granted the motion,
2 On March 27, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, which prohibits the right of the Equity Holders from
filing pro se pleadings in the Case and provides that any pleadings filed in violation of the order will be stricken by
the Clerk’s Office. (Doc. 347). The Order to Show Cause has not been discharged and remains in full force and effect.
For reference, a copy of the Show Cause Order is attached.
3 The Debtor lost approximately $9 million dollars of its capital contribution in the joint venture.
4 The Trustee thoroughly considered the merits of the Debtor’s malpractice claim, in relation in the associated litigation
costs, and initiated settlement discussions with the respective parties.
5 Case No. 3:25-cv-164-HES-MCR.
6 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is the successor in interest to Warren Law Group and Scott Oh.
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 10

3
and an Interim Order on Motion to Enforce Automatic Stay was entered which stayed the action
in the District Court. (Doc. 318).
On September 30, 2025, the Court entered an Order Granting Trustee’s Motion to Enforce
Automatic Stay and Denying with Prejudice Equity Holders’ Motions for Sanctions. (the “Order
Enforcing”) (Doc. 432). In the Order Enforcing, the Court found that the Equity Holders’ causes
of action against Velanos and Warren Law are property of the estate, and that their attempts to
pursue such causes of action are a violation of the automatic stay. The Court concluded the Order
Enforcing by stating,
Since the filing of the case, the Court has spent a prolific amount of
time digesting the various layers of complexity and has listened
intently to all interested parties. The Court is cognizant of the Equity
Holders’ position and their passion for wanting to independently
prosecute the injustices they allege against Velanos and Warren Law.
The very mechanisms that make the Chapter 7 process work in the
best interests of the estate, however, do not permit the Equity
Holders to do so. 	Therefore, the Court finds the Equity Holders’
actions are in clear violation of the automatic stay because the
Settlement Agreement and the Warren Law claims the Trustee seeks
to enforce are property of the bankruptcy estate.
(Doc. 432).
On October 9, 2025, the Trustee filed a Motion to (I) Compromise Claims with Christopher
D. Warren, P.C., Warren Law Group, PLLC, and Scott Oh and Enjoin Certain Claims (the “Motion
to Compromise”) (Doc. 435). As set forth in the Motion to Compromise, the primary terms of the
Settlement Agreement are:
a. WLG and Oh shall pay the Trustee the total sum of $435,000 (the
“Settlement Payment”) within twenty-one (21) days after the later
to occur of (i) entry of a final non-appealable order granting this
Motion and (ii) entry of an order of dismissal with prejudice of all
claims asserted in the District Court Action becoming a final and
non-appealable order; and
b. If WLG and Oh fail to timely make the Settlement Payment, then
after ten (10) days written notice to WLG's and Oh's counsel and
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 10

4
WLG's and Oh's failure to cure within that ten (10) day period, WLG
and Oh agree that the Trustee may pursue the Debtor's claims
against WLG and Oh. (Doc. 435).
The Motion to Compromise is based on the Trustee’s business judgment that the
Compromise is in the best interests of the estate and its creditors because of the time and high costs
associated with pursuing the Debtor’s claims against WLG and Oh. Aside from an objection filed
by the Equity Holders, which was stricken by the Court, no other responses were timely filed to
the Motion to Compromise.
On November 4, 2025, the Court entered an Order Granting the Motion to Compromise
(the “Order Granting Compromise”) (Doc. 471). As a mandatory condition to the Compromise,
the Order Granting Compromise contains a bar order which states:
[T]he right to pursue any claims held by the Debtor against
Christopher D. Warren, P.C., Warren Law Group, PLLC, and Scott
Oh (as well as any purported successors in interest) are solely owned
by the bankruptcy estate and all non-debtor parties are enjoined from
asserting a claim against Christopher D. Warren, P.C., Warren Law
Group, PLLC, and Scott Oh arising out of or related to their
representation of the Debtor, included, but not limited to, the District
Court Action.
Further, the Order Granting Compromise states that the entry of the bar order “is an appropriate
exercise of the Court’s sound discretion to facilitate settlements and promote the consensual
resolution of disputes.” (Doc. 471).
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 10

5
Conclusions of Law
The issue before the Court is whether Mr. Cohan may proceed in forma pauperis to
appeal the Compromise Order.7 To make this determination, the Court looks to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915 which provides as follows:
any court of the United States may authorize the commencement,
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or
criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a
statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is
unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall
state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief
that the person is entitled to redress.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In addition, “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial
court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c).
A petition to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted or denied
at the discretion of the court, but the court's discretion is limited to determinations of poverty and
objective good faith. Heghmann v. Indorf (In re Heghmann), 324 B.R. 415, 420 (B.A.P. 1st Cir.
2005) (citing Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915)). “Thus, a
determination as to whether [a debtor's] application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should
be granted turns on two factors: (1) a showing by affidavit that he is unable to pay the filing fees,
and (2) a showing that the proposed proceedings are not frivolous or malicious. Id. (citing Adkins
v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). Further, a
7 The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that courts are not required “to address every argument which a litigant raises.
Rather, [it has] stressed that the orders of lower courts require sufficient explanation to provide an opportunity for
meaningful appellate review. When a litigant raises nondispositive, irrelevant, or frivolous issues, it would
unnecessarily burden the court system to require every issue to be addressed. And to require a court to address
meaningless issues would not accord with our purpose of providing meaningful appellate review. Rather, requiring
courts to address nondispositive issues would produce a cavalcade of dicta and strain judicial administration without
providing any benefit to the litigants.” In re Ellingsworth Residential Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., 125 F.4th 1365, 1381 (11th
Cir. 2025) (internal citations omitted).
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 5 of 10

6
“pauper's affidavit should not be a broad highway into the federal courts.” Williams v. Jimenez, No.
6:23-CV-151-PGB-DAB, 2023 WL 11892467, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2023); see also, Phillips v.
Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Jones v. Ault, 67 F.R.D. 124, 127 (S.D. Ga.1974), aff'd
without opinion, 516 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1975). “Indigence does not create a constitutional right to the
expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of the courts to prosecute an action that is totally
without merit.” Jimenez, 2023 WL 11892467, at *1; Phillips, 746 F.2d at 785; Collins v. Cundy, 603
F.2d 825, 828 (10th Cir. 1979).
In considering the issue of objective good faith, the Court reaches the conclusion that Mr.
Cohan’s appeal of the Order Granting Compromise is frivolous and meritless.8 	In the Motion for
Leave, Mr. Cohan states the basis for the appeal is to challenge “fundamental due process violations
and the bankruptcy court’s abuse of discretion.” (Doc. 479). Importantly, an appeal is not taken in
good faith when the party appealing fails to articulate a basis for the appeal. Madura v. Lakebridge
Condo. Ass'n, Inc., No. 8:07CV02274-T-17EAJ, 2009 WL 1659444, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2009).
When the basis of an appeal is given, the Court looks to "whether, objectively speaking, there is any
non-frivolous issue to be litigated on appeal." Knight v. Lane, No. CA 08-0301-KD-C, 2010 WL
1487806, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 7, 2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted) report and
recommendation adopted, No. CIVA 08-0301-KD-C, 2010 WL 1487275 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 13, 2010). If
there are not any non-frivolous issues to be litigated on appeal, then the appeal is not taken in good
faith. Id.
The record before the Court clearly reflects that there are no non-frivolous issues to be litigated
on appeal. As a starting point, the Motion to Compromise was properly served and noticed, and no
valid objections were timely filed. 	Additionally, “[c]ourts give trustees considerable deference to
exercise their business judgment with respect to settlements.” In re Ortiz, 619 B.R. 273, 275 (Bankr.
8 Based on the finding that the appeal is frivolous and meritless, the Court will not examine the issue of whether Mr.
Cohan meets the required showing of poverty.
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 6 of 10

7
M.D. Fla. 2020). 	The Court has spent an inordinate amount of time on this Case and is extremely
familiar with the intricacy of the various issues involved. There is simply no legitimate basis which
exists to support the conclusion that the entry of the Order Granting Compromise involves due process
violations or an abuse of discretion by the Court. Further, the Court has already held that the “Trustee
clearly has exclusive standing to pursue the potential malpractice claim listed by the Debtor on its
schedules against Warren Law. 	Further, the facts reflect that the Trustee covered multiple bases in
performing his due diligence.” (Doc. 432, p. 8).
Conclusion
For the reasons articulated above, the Court properly denied Mr. Cohan’s Motion for Leave to
Appeal in Forma Pauperis because his appeal of the Order Granting Compromise is frivolous and
without merit.
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 7 of 10

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
IN RE:
Genie Investments NV Inc., 	Case No.: 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ
Chapter 7
Debtor.
_______________________________/
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This Case is before the Court to consider appropriate actions the Court may take going
forward with respect to the efficient administration of this Case. On February 21, 2024, the Debtor
filed the Case under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Approximately 6 months
later, on August 12, 2024, the Case was converted to Chapter 7. As reflected by the docket,
there has been a flurry of filings by John-Michael Cohan and David Hughes, who are parties of
interest in the case (collectively, the “Interested Parties”). At the core of the pleadings filed
by the Interested Parties, are various allegations against the Chapter 7 Trustee (the “Trustee”).
The Court is very aware of how invested the Interested Parties are in the Case and has taken
a good deal of time to consider the arguments raised, both in their written submissions and their
Dated: March 27, 2025
ORDERED.
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 347 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 3	Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 8 of 10

2
arguments at hearings and has set a trial on all issues.1 Despite this, the Interested Parties continue
to recycle the same arguments in a seemingly unending stream of pleadings.
The lynch pin in the Court’s ability to effectively and efficiently administer the over 1,200
cases currently pending before it, is that the Court must prioritize the management of “its own
affairs to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”2 Specifically, under 11 U.S.C.
§ 105(a), the Court has the authority to issue “any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or
appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title…or to prevent an abuse of process.”3 	This
broad grant of authority to bankruptcy courts is necessary “in order to facilitate the orderly
administration of bankruptcy cases.”4
At this juncture, the Case has 343 docket entries and counting. The barrage of filings is
making it extremely difficult for the Case to be efficiently administered. Accordingly, the Court
finds it necessary to require the Interested Parties to appear at a Show Cause hearing. While the
Court clearly has the authority to “sanction ‘conduct which abuses the judicial process’”5 the Court
hopes that the Interested Parties will cease the continued pleadings so that the Case can begin to
proceed in an efficient manner, without the need to travel down the path of issuing sanctions.6
1 The trial is scheduled for June 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
2 NextGear Cap., Inc. v. Gerstner (In re Gerstner), 648 B.R. 746, 751 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2022) (citing In re Evergreen
Security, Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009)) (quoting In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., 456 F.3d 1291, 1304
(11th Cir.2006)).
3 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Bridgewater v. Robinson (In re Robinson), AP No. 20-0049, Doc. 56 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Jun. 7,
2021); In re Howell, 4 B.R. 102, 105 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1980).
4 In re Howell, 4 B.R. at 105.
5 Dondero v. Highland Capital Management LP (In re Highland Capital Management LP), 22-10889 (5th Cir. July 1,
2024) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991)).
6 The Debtor should be aware that the “filing of excessive motions may sometimes constitute “harassment” under the
rule even if the motions are well grounded.” Robeson Defense Comm. v. Britt (In re Kunstler), 914 F.2d 505, 518
(4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 499 U.S. 969 (1991).
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 347 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 3	Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 9 of 10

3
The Court’s handling of this Case clearly reflects that the Court has taken great strides to
liberally construe the pleadings filed by the Interested Parties’ pro se filings.7 	However, the
Interested Parties are still bound to follow the rules of procedure and evidence.8 In cases where
an interested party consistently exhibits an inability to do so, the Court may impose non-monetary
sanctions that require a pro se party to retain an attorney to make future filings on their behalf or
obtain permission from the Court prior to making any pro se filings in the bankruptcy case.9
Accordingly, it is,
ORDERED:
1. Interested Parties, John-Michael Cohan and David Hughes, are required to appear in-
person before the Court on June 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause, if cause exists,
why the Interested Parties should be permitted to file additional pro se pleadings in the
Case.
2. The Court temporarily restricts Interested Parties, John-Michael Cohan and
David Hughes, right to file pro se pleadings in this Case, pending the outcome of
the Show Cause hearing. Any pleadings filed in violation of this Order will be
stricken by the Clerk’s Office.
7 The Court, however, has no duty to act as a pro se party’s lawyer. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).
8 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 (1975).
9 Perryman v. Kiem (In re Micron Devises, Inc.), 657 B.R. 897, 901, 903 (S.D. Fla. 2024).
Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 347 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 3	Case 3:24-bk-00496-BAJ Doc 492 Filed 11/25/25 Page 10 of 10