upon which relief can be granted: (1) The Complaint fails to allege that the Transfers diminished the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate; (2) The Complaint exceeds the statutory authority of the Trustee; and (3) The Complaint fails to establish the existence and transfer of a" leasehold interest. The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Complaint should be dismissed and will address all three arguments together as they are interrelated. The rationale behind allowing for the avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers in the bankruptcy context and otherwise is to recover and preserve assets of the estate, or of the debtor, for proper distribution to creditors. See, e.g., Grayson Consulting, Inc. v, Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital, LLC), 716 F.3d 355, 361 (4th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Ivey v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Co. (In
holding that the purpose of the bankruptcy codes avoidance provisions is to prevent a debtor from making transfers that diminish the bankruptcy estate to the detriment of creditors holding that the transfers at issue were not fraudulent transfers because  they did not diminish the debtors estate holding creditors lacked standing to file an adversary action asserting the interests of the estate in seeking to prevent a former principal of the debtor from interfering with the chapter 11 reorganization given the lack of showing of the debtors consent and any determination by the bankruptcy court that the suit would be beneficial to the estate and necessary to a fair and efficient resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added