Response to Vogel Ex Parte Motion to Prevent Financing Options

No. 10-11202
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
NETSPHERE, INC. Et Al, 
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON, 
Defendant-Appellant
v.
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, 
Defendant-Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Appointing Receiver in Settled Lawsuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cons. w/ No. 11-10113
NETSPHERE INC., Et Al,  Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON, Et Al, Defendants
v.
QUANTEC L.L.C.; NOVO POINT L.L.C., 
Appellants
v.
PETER S. VOGEL, 
Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Adding Non-Parties Novo Point, LLC 
and Quantec, LLC as Receivership Parties
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
From the United States District Court
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
RESPONSE TO VOGEL EX PARTE MOTION 
TO PREVENT FINANCING OPTIONS 
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598195     Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
1
-
TO THE HONORABLE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW Appellants, and subject to the preliminary Fifth Amendment 
objection and motion previously filed in this cause, and subject to the responses 
and  motion previously  filed  with  respect  to Vogel’s  motion  to sell the  assets  of 
Novo Point, LLC and Quantec, LLC, Appellants make this response to Vogel’s “ex 
parte  motion”  7/01/2011  SEALED  MOTION  for  reconsideration  of  order 
regarding financing Options.
I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY 
Vogel’s Motion is Clearly Not of an “Indifferent” Receiver as Required by Law
As  a  matter  of  well-established  law,  a  receiver  is  an  officer  of  the  court 
which  appoints  him  and  must  be  “an  indifferent  person  between  parties”.  E.g., 
Booth v. Clark, 58 US 322, 331 (1855); Phelan v. Middle States Oil Corp., 154 
F.2d 978, 991 (2d Cir.1946) (“A receiver ... owes a duty of strict impartiality, or 
`undivided loyalty,' to all persons interested in the receivership estate, and must not 
`dilute' that loyalty.”).  From the prospective of an indifferent receiver, it should 
not matter whether a party obtains a loan in order to have a receivership stayed or 
dissolved.  In simple language, it is none of the receiver’s business.   Yet, Vogel has 
invested an extraordinary amount of effort to prevent the dissolution or stay of the 
instant receivership.
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598195     Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
2
-
Vogel’s Arguments Are Not Credible 
Vogel  makes  the  absurd  argument  that  secret,  private  sales
1
  will  generate 
higher sales prices than a public auction.  Vogel, however, can offer no explanation 
as to why a purchaser who is willing to pay a set price in a private sale would not 
pay that same price in a public auction.  At a minimum, assets for which there is a 
private bidder can be placed on auction with a reserve price equal to the private 
sale price. Public auction is not some crazy idea thought up by Appellants’ counsel.  
Rather, public auction is the Congressionally mandated and long accepted means 
of selling property by court decree.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2004, the requirements 
of  28  U.S.C.  §2001  (including  the  requirement  of  sale  though  public  auction), 
apply to personality.
2
Vogel makes the similarly absurd argument that the Appellants would seek 
to minimize the return of the liquidation of receivership assets in order to ‘prevent’ 
“claimants” from being paid.   Vogel’s argument makes no sense.   Since the assets 
of Novo Point,  LLC,  and Quantec,  LLC,  if sold at  reasonable  value,  have been 
valued  by  the  receiver’s  own  reports  at  around  $80  Million,  it  would  make  no 
sense  to  liquidate  all  of  the  assets  to  pay  $600,000.00  in  contested  claims.  
Similarly, it makes no sense to liquidate $30 Million in unique domain assets for 3 
1
 Vogel has not disclosed his relationship to the proposed purchasers, or the relationship between 
his law firm and its clients to the proposed secret purchasers.
2
  Notably,  Vogel’s  “professional”,  Mr.  Nelson,  set  up  a  procedure  to  sell  domains  through 
auctions  that  included  specific  marketing  and  advertising  of  the  domains  before  holding  the
auction.  Vogel has had months to engage in such marketing, but has refused, insisting that the 
assets should be sold to his personally selected buyers in secret, private sales.
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598195     Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
3
-
cents on the dollar to ‘friendly’ purchasers, as Appellants strongly suspect Vogel 
desires to do.  Notably, although the District Court ORDERED Vogel to do so, he 
refused to disclose the names of the domains he desires to sell, the amounts, or the 
identity of the purchasers. (See page 1 of Vogel’s motion).  Vogel clearly does not 
want this information uncovered, nor does Vogel want to allow the Appellants to 
secure alternative purchasers, nor to allow the Appellants avoid liquidation of the 
assets by posting bond.  Vogel raises all sorts of accusations against Appellants’ 
counsel,  and  makes all  sorts  of  unsupported  claims and allegations.    Still Vogel 
cannot explain why the Appellants would prefer the liquidation of $80 Million in 
assets to pay $600,000.00  in alleged claims.  More naturally,  if assets are to be 
liquidated, a single asset worth $1 Million should be sold for $1 Million, instead of 
30 assets worth $30 Million being sold for $1 Million to insiders in private, secret 
sales. 
WHEREFORE, Vogel’s motion should be in all things denied and overruled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Texas State Bar No. 00791608
5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75240
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile
Email: legal@schepps.net
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598195     Page: 4     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
4
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this motion was served this day on all parties who receive 
notification through the Court’s electronic filing system.
CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598195     Page: 5     Date Filed: 09/09/2011