Judge clears Downtown Grand sale to Vegas Ventures
The ruling removes a major obstacle for the proposed sale.
US.- A Clark County District Court judge has approved the sale of the Downtown Grand hotel-casino to Vegas Ventures LLC, authorising court-appointed receiver Paul Huygens of Province LLC to transfer assets of the receivership estate. As reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the judge rejected objections from limited partners associated with the property’s junior secured lender and removes a major obstacle to the proposed transaction.
Under the order, the assets will be transferred free of liens and other claims, with applicable interests instead attaching to the sale proceeds. Attorneys for the receiver did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The purchase price was not disclosed in court filings.
The Downtown Grand has been under receivership since January following a default on a construction loan used to finance a new hotel tower. Banc of California sued the property’s ownership entities in December, alleging that required interest payments stopped in March 2025 and that the loan was not repaid when it matured on August 19, 2025.
Vegas Ventures, a Massachusetts limited liability company managed by Boston developer William “Bill” Keravuori, agreed to acquire the property following a process led by the receiver. The proposed agreement calls for Vegas Ventures to assume the existing lease with Fifth Street Gaming LLC, which operates the casino. The buyer also intends to appoint a qualified third-party operator for the hotel, restaurants and other non-gaming businesses.
The junior secured lender is an investment vehicle that financed the conversion of the former Lady Luck hotel-casino into the Downtown Grand. Fifteen limited partners jointly challenged the sale and sought additional disclosures and a reserve fund. Three others, Ying Zhu, Zhengqin Du and Lixing Gu, submitted separate objections. The court rejected their arguments, finding that the investors lacked standing and that their claims would not have succeeded even if they had been entitled to challenge the transaction.
The judge found that the objectors had received notice and an opportunity to be heard. Although the court considered a supplemental filing from the group of 15, it questioned whether their attempt to represent other limited partners without a Nevada law licence could amount to the unauthorised practice of law.
