Peter Vogels motion to Pay Former Attys

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 987    Filed 06/18/12    Page 1 of 3   PageID 58982
IN 
THE 
UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT 
COURT 
FOR 
THE 
NORTHERN 
DISTRICT 
OF 
TEXASl\2 
JUH 
18 
Pi; 
12: 
01 
DALLAS DIVISION 
NETSPHERE, INC.,  § 
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., AND  § 
MUNISH KRISHAN  § 
PLAINTIFFS,  § 
v. 
JEFFREY 
BARON AND 
ONDOV A 
LIMITED 
COMPANY, 
DEFENDANTS. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
CIVIL 
ACTION 
NO. 3:09-CV-0988-F 
ORDER 
REGARDING 
MOTION 
TO 
CLARIFY 
INSTRUCTION 
TO 
RECEIVER 
ON PAYMENTS 
TO 
FORMER 
BARON ATTORNEYS 
BEFORE THE COURT 
is 
Receiver's Motion to Clarify Instruction to Receiver on 
Payments to Former Baron Attorneys (Docket No.  980).  Because 
of 
the importance 
of 
the  issue,  the  Court  has  given  this  matter  priority.  The  Court  granted  the  Trustee's 
Motion to  Lift  Stay  Imposed  by this  Court's Order 
of 
May 24,  2011  for  two  primary 
purposes: 
1) 
progressing the underlying  litigation,  and 2)  addressing matters  impacting 
the  administration 
of 
the  Receivership.  In  determining  which  administrative  acts  the 
Receiver may now perform, the Court will first consider how best to preserve the status 
quo  for  appeal.  In  some  instances  preserving the  status  quo  will  require  granting the 
Receiver leave to complete the proposed action.  In others, it will require setting money 
aside  or  taking  other  action  to  ensure  a  fair  result 
is 
obtained  by  all  parties  upon 
resolution 
of 
those matters now on appeal.  After due  consideration, the Court is 
of 
the 
opinion that payments should not be made at this time to the Former Baron Attorneys, in 
1 
Case 12-37921-sgj7    Doc 55-2    Filed 02/08/13    Entered 02/08/13 12:06:24    Desc
 Exhibit D1    Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT D 1

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 987    Filed 06/18/12    Page 2 of 3   PageID 58983
order to preserve the amounts on hand until the Court 
of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit can 
rule on the pending appeal. 
A  brief review 
of 
the  history 
of 
this  matter 
is 
in  order.  After  the  Ondova 
Bankruptcy was filed, this action was stayed in order for the Bankruptcy Court to resolve 
the issues in bankruptcy.  As the Bankruptcy Court was employing her best efforts to do 
so, the case became overwhelmed by a revolving door 
of 
lawyers entering and exiting the 
proceedings  at  the  behest 
of 
Jeffrey  Baron,  the  other  Defendant  in  the  instant  action 
before this Court.  Given that the Bankruptcy Court manages a docket 
of 
approximately 
4,000 cases, the disruption to the work 
of 
that Court threatened the administration 
of 
her 
entire docket.  At the same time,  claims by Baron's attorneys  against the Ondova estate 
threatened  to  completely  bury  the  ability 
of 
the  Bankruptcy  Court  to  resolve  the 
bankruptcy itself. 
So 
that the Bankruptcy Court could accomplish her work in  the  one 
case  and  adequately  administer  her  docket 
of 
all  her  cases,  this  Court  created  the 
Receivership.  Also, to try to deal with the numerous claims for fees  and expenses 
of 
the 
numerous lawyers that Baron had hired and fired, the Court set up a procedure to receive 
and adjudicate the claims, again in order to relieve the burden on the Bankruptcy Court. 
Again, the goal was to give the Bankruptcy Court the ability to complete the bankruptcy 
case. 
At no point did this Court decide that the Receivership would continue passed the 
time needed to achieve its goals.  The Court also was at the time and still 
is 
of 
the opinion 
that the Receivership was the  least restrictive way 
of 
achieving its  goals,  including the 
2 
Case 12-37921-sgj7    Doc 55-2    Filed 02/08/13    Entered 02/08/13 12:06:24    Desc
 Exhibit D1    Page 2 of 3

Case 3:09-cv-00988-F   Document 987    Filed 06/18/12    Page 3 of 3   PageID 58984
resolution 
of 
the claims by the Baron lawyers.  Since one 
of 
the appeals 
of 
Receivership 
Orders deals with the Court's decision regarding those claims, Baron should be  able to 
contest the decision before funds are distributed. 
At  the  same  time,  given  the  importance 
of 
the  appeal  to  the  former  Baron 
attorneys,  those  attorneys  should be  afforded the  opportunity to  have their voice  heard 
before the Court 
of 
Appeals.  Exactly how that would be accomplished 
is 
not within the 
purview 
of 
this Court. 
Accordingly,  it 
is 
ORDERED  that  no  funds  be  distributed to  the  former  Baron 
attorneys  until  the  completion 
of 
the  appeal.  Those  funds  now  available  will  be 
segregated and set aside by the Receiver until a decision is made by the Court 
of 
Appeals. 
It is further ORDERED that the Receiver notify the former Baron attorneys 
of 
this 
decision, 
of 
the appeal, and 
of 
the Court's view that they, 
as 
a group, should intervene in 
the  appeal 
of 
their issue 
so 
that the  Court 
of 
Appeals has  a clear understanding 
of 
their 
stake in this matter. 
IT 
IS 
SO 
ORDERED. 
Signed this 
;!fa
y 
of 
June, 2012. 
3 
Case 12-37921-sgj7    Doc 55-2    Filed 02/08/13    Entered 02/08/13 12:06:24    Desc
 Exhibit D1    Page 3 of 3