MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page1
2499520.1
Leonard H. Simon, Esq.
TBN: 18387400; SDOT: 8200
PENDERGRAFT & SIMON, LLP
The Riviana Building
2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 737-8207 (Direct)
(832) 202-2810 (Direct Fax)
lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR
JEFFREY BARON
Travis Crabtree, Esq.
TBN: 24015192
GRAY REED & McGRAW, P.C.
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77056
(713) 986-7000
(713) 986-7100 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR
NOVOPOINT, LLC AND QUANTEC, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
In re
ONDOVA LIMTITED COMANY,
Debtor
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 09-34784-SGJ
Chapter 11
EXPEDITED MOTION TO CONFIRM SETTLEMENT
AUTHORITY AND TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR
MOVING FORWARD WITH A PLAN OF REORGANIZAION
NO HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED HEREON UNLESS A WRITTEN RESPONSE
IS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT AT
1100 COMMERCE STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 75242, BEFORE CLOSE OF BUSINESS
ON MSARCH 5, 2015, WHICH IS AT LEAST 24 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
SERVICE HEREOF.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 1 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page2
2499520.1
ANY RESPONSE SHALL BE IN WRITING AND FILED WITH THE CLERK, AND A
COPY SHALL BE SERVED UPON COUNSEL FOR THE MOVING PARTY PRIOR TO
THE DATE AND TIME SET FORTH HEREIN. IF A RESPONSE IS FILED A
HEARING MAY BE HELD WITH NOTICE ONLY TO THE OBJECTING PARTY.
IF NO HEARING ON SUCH NOTICE OR MOTION IS TIMELY REQUESTED, THE
RELIEF REQUESTED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE UNOPPOSED, AND THE COURT
MAY ENTER AN ORDER GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE NOTICED
ACTION MAY BE TAKEN.
EXPEDITED RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED, AND IF THE COURT GRANTS SUCH
RELIEF, A HEARING MAY BE SET ON THIS MOTION ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS
PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWENTY-FOUR DAY NOTICE PERIOD
TO THE HONORABLE TRACY C. G. JERNIGAN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
JUDGE:
NOVOPOINT, LLC, QUANTEC, LLC (the “LLCs”) and JEFFREY BARON
(collectively “Movants”), file this Joint Motion to Confirm Settlement Authority and to Establish
a Procedure for Moving Forward With a Plan of Reorganization, and would respectfully show
the court as follows:
I.
JURISDICTION
1. This case began on July 27, 2009, when Ondova, a company indirectly owned by
Jeffrey Baron, filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
in this Court. On September 17, 2009, Daniel J. Sherman was appointed as Chapter 11 Trustee
for Ondova (the “Ondova Trustee”).
2. In June 2010, the parties reached a global settlement, which was documented in a
Mutual Settlement and Release Agreement (the “GSA”). On July 29, 2010, this Court approved
the GSA.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 2 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page3
2499520.1
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 157, 1334, and Section 21 of the GSA, which provides:
“The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas
Division) shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes and/or matters
whatsoever related to this Agreement, which involve the Estate as a party or
that may directly or indirectly impact the Estate or any interest in property
(within the meaning of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
(the "Bankruptcy Code")) held by the Estate or the Chapter 11 Trustee (as trustee
for Ondova). Subject to the foregoing, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, The Honorable Royal Furgeson, shall have
jurisdiction over any and all other disputes and/or matters related to this
Agreement, whether related to its consummation, implementation, enforcement or
otherwise. In the event that the Honorable Royal Furgeson is not available to hear
a case related to this Agreement, then any other judge of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas shall have jurisdiction over such case.”
II.
INTRODUCTION
4. The LLCs are separate and apart from the Debtor, Ondova and Baron (although
Baron is the primary beneficiary of the trust). Because of the complex procedural nature of this
matter, however, the LLCs have been implicated in this case and continue to have disputes with
the Ondova Estate in need of resolution. The LLCs respectfully request that this Court conduct a
hearing limited in scope to help resolve these disputes in a way the LLCs believe will benefit the
Ondova Estate and its creditors. As explained below, specifically, the LLCs request that this
Court convene a hearing and order Payne, Schepps and Katz to show their authority to act for
and in behalf of the LLCs with regard to settlement opportunities with the Estate.
5. As this Court has witnessed before, the participation of Payne, Schepps and Katz is
disruptive, and their interference is now preventing the LLCs and Baron from resolving this
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 3 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page4
2499520.1
long-standing bankruptcy and making a distribution to the long-suffering Unsecured Creditors of
the Ondova Estate. Payne, Schepps and Katz should also be compelled to account for the funds
that have been stripped out of the LLCs and removed from control of the LLCs. Without this
relief, the LLCs cannot effectuate a beneficial settlement with the Estate. The LLCs seek no
other relief in this proceeding against any other party, but merely want to clarify authority to
make a proposed settlement with the Estate.
6. Baron has asserted numerous claims against the Ondova Estate. In Adversary 14-
03081, Baron is seeking recovery of the settlement proceeds held by the Trustee regarding the
River Cruise Investments, Ltd. transaction and the $330,000 security deposit placed with
Sherman, Trustee pursuant to this Court’s Order Directing Establishment of Security Deposit.
BK ECF Doc 446. In Adversary No. 14-03121, filed by Baron against Sherman, Trustee,
Munsch Hardt and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company on October 6, 2014, Baron has asserted,
on behalf of the Ondova Estate, claims for breach of contract, fraud, malicious prosecution and
gross negligence on the part of Sherman, Trustee and his attorneys, Munsch Hardt. Both
adversary proceedings have been abated by this Court.
7. In an effort to resolve these seemingly never-ending proceedings that have been
ongoing since 2009, Jeffrey Baron and the LLCs would welcome the opportunity to assist this
Court in winding up the affairs of Ondova by filing a plan of reorganization designed to recover
valuable assets that were assigned to the Village Trust pursuant to the GSA, including the LLCs,
and commit resources towards the payment of the allowed claims of Unsecured Creditors.
8. Baron and the LLCs would ask this Court to conduct an Expedited Status
Conference in the Ondova Case. At such status conference, Baron and the LLCs will present a
proposed plan of reorganization, and after this Court has an opportunity to consider the terms of
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 4 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page5
2499520.1
same, will, with the advice and consent of the Court, follow that with the filing of a disclosure
statement.
9. The disputes between the LLCs and the Ondova Estate can be segregated into two
categories:
a. CLAIMS FOR MONEY: The Ondova Bankruptcy Estate has made various
claims against the Village Trust and the LLCs for amounts claimed by the
Bankruptcy Estate, pursuant to the GSA. On the other hand, the LLCs have made
claims against the Estate for improper fees charged by Ondova after the GSA was
executed.
b. DISPUTES OVER DOMAIN NAMES: The GSA expressly excluded 12
contested domain names from the settlement agreement, which had been in dispute
between the LLCs and the Bankruptcy Estate. In the GSA, these name are slated
for future resolution and termed Excluded Disputed Domains. The Excluded
Disputed Domains are domain names that were transferred by Ondova to
NovoPoint’s predecessor in 2005. Ondova claimed that since these names were
listed in a database as belonging to Onodva that the Estate had ownership rights to
these domain names.
10. The LLCs are unable to resolve expeditiously these disputes because of the
interference of Schepps, Payne and Katz (the “Katz Group”). Despite the Fifth Circuit’s 2012
Opinion in Netsphere v. Baron, 703 F3d 296 (5th Cir 2012), directing that the LLCs’ assets be
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 5 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page6
2499520.1
returned,
1
the assets of the LLCs have been unlawfully converted and co-opted by the Katz
Group.
2
Because of this interference, the LLCs cannot effectuate a plan that would benefit the
Estate and its creditors.
11. Despite every effort to wrest control of these assets from the Katz Group, the Katz
Group have interposed every imaginable obstacle, to slow proceedings to a crawl or worse, to
freeze them.
12. The Honorable Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered a series of orders in February and
March 2014, returning the receivership assets to the receivership parties. The court ordered the
placement of the assets of the LLCs in the custody of Lisa Katz, which was vigorously contested
by Mr. Baron, but the court determined, based on the Netsphere decision, that it did not have
jurisdiction to entertain a contested matter concerning the proper ownership of such assets.
Since then, Katz has refused to account to the Trustee for the Village Trust, also a Receivership
Party, who everyone acknowledges is the owner of the LLCs.
13. Accordingly, in the latter part of April 2014, the LLCs filed a state court case in
Collin County, Texas, the county of residence of Payne, in an effort to accomplish what Judge
Lindsay determined the district court did not have jurisdiction over, that is, the determination of
the right to ownership and control over the LLCs and these entities’ assets. The Collin County
case was removed by Payne to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
and was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Texas, and was assigned to Judge
Lindsay, where there has been no consideration of the merits for months, largely due to the
1
The Fifth Circuit stated that the assets be returned to Baron and later clarified that the court used “Baron” as
shorthand when referring to the other receivership parties in context of return of receivership property.
2
This Court has had substantial background experience with the Katz Group in the Ondova Chapter 11 Case and in
the involuntary bankruptcy case of Jeffrey Baron.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 6 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page7
2499520.1
meretricious motion practice by the Katz Parties designed to obfuscate, dissemble and obstruct.
3
Recently, out of a sense of frustration, Baron’s undersigned counsel wrote a letter to Judge
Lindsay, a true and correct copy of which is on file in NovoPoint, LLC, et al v Elisa Katz, et al,
Cause No. 3:14-cv-01552-L, ECF Doc 64. Judge Lindsay has finally taken note of the plight of
the LLCs and has entered an order which seemingly will resolve this a remand back to state
court. Id. ECF Doc 65. There issue of remand may not be decided for another month or more
and the Katz Parties are likely to continue their dilatory litigation activities regardless of where
the case ends up.
14. David McNair, the duly appointed Manager of the LLCs, and the manager of RVP
Limited, the current duly appointed Trustee of the Village Trust, also attempted to resolve this in
the Courts of the Cook Islands, but, again, through the dilatory motion practice of the Katz
Parties, such proceedings have grinded to a halt.
15. Additionally, the Village Trust, through its Trustee, RPV, Ltd., has challenged the
authority of Payne regarding his alleged representation of the LLCs before the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Appellate Case No. 13-10696. See ECF Docs 1414 and 1416 in Netsphere,
et al, v. Jeffrey Baron, et al, Civil Acton No. 3:09-cv-0988-L, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas – Dallas Division (the “Netsphere DC Action”). Baron has
also challenged the authority of Payne to represent the LLCs in yet another appeal before the
Fifth Circuit. Finally, Baron has repeatedly questioned the authority of Katz and Payne in the
Netsphere DC Action. ECF Docs 1374 and 1423, in Case 3:09-cv-00988-L, to no avail.
3
Novo Point, LLC, Et Al, v. Elisa Katz, Et Al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01552-L, pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division. Note that in that proceeding, the LLCs seek
damages and other relief from the Katz and Payne; whereas, in this case, the LLCs merely seek authority to settle
with the Estate.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 7 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page8
2499520.1
THE ONDOVA CASE MUST COME TO AN END AND
BARON AND THE LLCS CAN HELP TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The LLCs
16. The LLCs are limited liability companies formed and in good standing under the
laws of the Cook Islands. The documented corporate history is set out in the sworn supplemental
affidavit of attorney David McNair dated June 24, 2014 (“McNair Supplemental Affidavit”), a
true and correct copy of which is already filed of record in the Netshpere v. Baron case, Cause
No. 3:09-cv-00988-L, ECF Docs 1416-1 (Part 1) and 1416-2 (Part 2), and is incorporated herein
by reference for all purposes. Said affidavit establishes the authority of RPV to act as Trustee for
the Village Trust, and establishes the authority of Mr. McNair as the Manager of the LLCs.
B. Schepps, Payne and Katz’ Takeover of the LLCs
17. In early 2014, after Judge Lindsay announced that he would commence the process
of winding down the receivership in light of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Netsphere, Payne, as
the purported counsel for the LLCs, and Katz, purportedly as manager of the LLCs, began
making representations to Judge Lindsay that were inconsistent with the LLCs’ manager, David
McNair’s instructions, and contrary to the interests of the LLCs, Village Trust and its primary
beneficiary, Jeffrey Baron. Payne and Katz took unauthorized actions to take control of all of the
LLCs assets and use those assets to compensate themselves for fees they unilaterally claimed
they were owed.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 8 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page9
2499520.1
18. All of the Katz Parties’ actions were taken without authority. On February 18 2014,
David McNair issued a notice terminating (i) Payne’s authority as counsel in any capacity, and
(ii) any agreement Katz had with the LLCs (“Termination Notice”).
4
Payne and Katz ignored the
Termination Notice.
19. Despite having no authority from the LLCs, Payne and Katz continued to assert
their self-serving claims to authority over the LLCs’ assets, in pleadings, ostensibly made on
behalf of the LLCs. Meanwhile, with no control over their own assets, the LLCs were not able
to contradict the Katz Parties’ actions. Relying on Payne and Katz’ unilateral misrepresentations
to the District Court, on February 28, 2014, Judge Lindsay ordered that “all receivership assets of
Novo Point and Quantec shall be returned to NovoPoint and Quantec’s designated and
authorized agent Lisa Katz.”
5
However, Judge Lindsay also stated:
“As herein discussed, the court will not consider evidence or conduct proceedings
regarding the ownership of Novo Point LLC or Quantec LLC or the companies’
assets at issue”
Id. at footnote 1 on page 1. On page 9 of said order, Judge Lindsay ruled as follows:
“. . . While the ownership of Novo Point and Quantec may have been relevant in
the bankruptcy proceeding, such a determination is not relevant or necessary to
comply with the Fifth Circuit’s mandate that the receivership, the creation of
which was determined to be improper, be wound down expeditiously. Thus, any
such determination is outside of the court’s jurisdiction. For the same reason, the
court does not and will not have jurisdiction in this case over any claims and
disputes regarding the ownership of the receivership.”
Provided this little wiggle-room, the Katz Parties have continued to run rough shod over
the LLCs despite their termination.
4
See ¶¶39-42 of McNair Supplemental Affidavit, pp. 5-6, 190-202. A March 4th (pp. 196-202) email ratifying the
Termination Notice and confirming McNair’s authority was sent to both Katz and Payne by email on March 4, 2014.
5
ECF Doc 1419 in the Netsphere DC Case.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 9 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page10
2499520.1
20. In the LLCs’ above noted attempts to obtain relief, the Katz Group’s dilatory tactics
employed during the last nine months have achieved their intended result of bringing the
litigation to a grinding halt, and it remains stuck in preliminary stages. Indeed, the Katz Group’s
vexatious filing of endless motions, pleadings and hoards of irrelevant documents in efforts to
confuse, obfuscate and delay, render any determination on the merits a long way off.
21. As one might imagine, Payne and Katz’ wrongdoing creates challenges for the
Movants, who wish to resolve all remaining issues with the Bankruptcy Estate. Without relief
from this Court, the Movants cannot effectuate their desired settlement with the Estate.
22. Further, the Katz Group has hijacked all of the LLCs’ cash, assets and revenue
stream. Specifically, Payne and Katz have misrepresented to the LLCs’ suppliers (monetizers)
that Katz and Payne have authority to receive the LLCs’ revenue, and have directed the suppliers
to disobey all requests from the LLCs, including requests to receive any information about their
assets. By their fraud, Payne and Katz have successfully convinced the monetizers to transfer the
LLCs money to accounts believed to be controlled by the Katz Group.
23. Moreover, the Katz Parties have transferred the domain names to third parties. For
example, David McNair was sued in a case named DomainVault LLC v. David McNair, Civ. No.
3:14-CV-011-D (“DomainVault Complaint”). In that complaint, as stated in Paragraph 26, “For
consideration received by Novo Point LLC and Quantec LLC, when the LLCs obtained return of
their domain name assets, title to a small number of those assets was conveyed to Domain Vault
LLC, (“Domain Vault”).”
24. Domain Vault was formed March 12, 2014 – one day after Judge Lindsay’s order
dated March 11, 2014, that freed up some of the assets, including the domain names. Domain
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 10 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page11
2499520.1
Vault’s address listed with the Virginia Secretary of State is the same as the address for attorney
Gary Schepps. Schepps is also the organizer of the entity.
25. The dissipation of these assets makes it impossible for the Movants to effectuate a
settlement with the Estate.
C. This Court is Familiar With Schepps, Payne and Katz’ Gamesmanship
26. This Court is very familiar with Payne, Schepps and Katz. As the Court may recall,
Payne and Schepps testified for three days at a hearing that this Court held to determine whether
or not Schepps and Payne were in contempt. After three days of hearing where these lawyers
“behaved with an utter lack of candor and respect to the bankruptcy court”, the Court ultimately
ordered Schepps barred and enjoined from participating in the case, and held that:
“Christopher Payne and his firm, and attorney Dennis Olson and his firm, had no
authority to appear in the bankruptcy court for Novo Point and that they may not
appear before the bankruptcy court in the future for Novo Point without filing
first a motion for authority to do so, and any such motion must be supported by
compelling evidence including live testimony from Brian Mason and Lisa Katz
(the human beings who supposedly gave authority to Payne/Olson to take legal
positions for Novo Point).
Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed May 4, 2012.
The Court Further found Payne and Schepps “were falsely purporting to take instructions from
someone on behalf of Novo Point that had no authority to give instructions” (id).
27. The Court conducted the show cause hearing because it was concerned that despite the
Court providing Payne with an opportunity to show his authority to represent NovoPoint,
“Messrs Payne and Schepps showed up in the bankruptcy court with no witnesses
and no documentation that might somehow support their authority to act for Novo
Point, LLC.”
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 11 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page12
2499520.1
See Order Granting, In Substantial Part, Trustee's Motion To Show Cause Why Christopher
Payne And Gary Schepps Should Not Be Held In Contempt And Sanctioned, ECF Doc 648, at p.
7. This Court further noted that
“Mr. Payne and Mr. Schepps do not seem to understand basic notions of corporate
governance”
Id. at 6.
28. At the same hearing, Schepps refused to testify, asserted his Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination to numerous questions.
29. After considering three days of testimony, this Court concluded that Schepps and
Payne’s alleged representation of NovoPoint were “a sham”, and noted, with respect to the
purported LLC manager, Katz, that she
“testified that she was currently a part-time high school math tutor, who had
attended Texas Wesleyan Law School with attorney Schepps at a time when it
was unaccredited, and that she had never passed the bar exam, and that she had
been called by Schepps and asked to fulfill the operations manager role for Novo
Point, LLC in spring or summer 2011. Lisa Katz testified that she had done
nothing in her role as manager of Novo Point, LLC (except for perhaps talk to a
couple of people in the Cook Islands a couple of times—she could not remember
the names of such people—and learned that there was nothing for her to do yet).
Lisa Katz appeared to know very little about Novo Point, LLC, the litigation
ongoing in the bankruptcy court or District Court, or why she was in court that
day. Lisa Katz testified that she had never read any pleadings filed and had never
talked to the Receiver nor the manager-of-record of Novo Point, LLC (i.e., the
manager that is of record in the Receivership Proceeding). Lisa Katz testified that
it was her understanding that she could not really do anything for Novo Point,
LLC in light of the Receivership.
See November 15, 2011, Transcript, ECF Doc 716, pp. 1-40.
6
30. In a letter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court wrote:
6
Order Discharging Show Cause Matters Pertaining to Attorneys Gary Schepps and Christopher Payne, ECF Doc
807
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 12 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page13
2499520.1
To be clear, not only did the alleged client-representative (Lisa Katz) for Novo
Point, wholly emasculate the position of attorneys Gary Schepps and Christopher
Payne (i.e., their position that she was in control of Novo Point and had given them
instructions for Novo Point), but Gary Schepps behaved with an utter lack of candor
and respect to the bankruptcy court by asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege not
to testify, rather than explain how he had any corporate or legal authority to file
This is a reference to Gary Schepps asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege and
not testifying rather than explain how he had any corporate or legal authority to file
court papers for Novo Point.
This Court’s letter is attached to ECF Doc 912, in Case 3:09-cv-00988-L.
D. Payne, Schepps and Katz’ amnesia regarding ownership and control of the LLCs is
not credible.
31. While this Court has consistently recognized the fact that “Mr. Baron is the
beneficiary of the Village Trust,” astonishingly, Payne and Katz have adopted the position that
the Trustee of the Village Trust does not own the LLCs and that Mr. Baron has no interest in the
Village Trust. Payne began making these incredible representations when he appeared in this
Court in December 2013, while Mr. Baron was unrepresented. This Court will recall that after
hearing from Payne in the Baron involuntary bankruptcy case, it expressed grave concerns that
Payne and others acting in concert with him may have ulterior motives and were not acting in
Baron’s best interest.
7
IV.
RELIEF REQUESTED
7
The Court was also concerned that Payne was simultaneously representing Schepps against Mr. Baron, and
Schepps had just filed a claim against Mr. Baron, through another sham entity created by the Katz Group. Status
conference held November 22, 2013.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 13 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page14
2499520.1
32. Movants believe this Court is required to act under the teachings of In re American
Airlines, 972 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1992) cert denied, 113 S. Ct. 1262 (1993), where the court
stated:
We have squarely rejected this hands-off approach in which ethical rules “guide”
whether counsel's presence will “taint” a proceeding, holding instead that a
“[d]istrict [c]ourt is obliged to take measures against unethical conduct occurring
in connection with any proceeding before it.” [citations omitted].
Id. at 611.
33. This Court has already determined that Payne, Schepps and Katz are engaging in
wrongful conduct, if not outright fraud, in connection with their representation of the LLCs.
These continuing acts are inhibiting the ability of Movants to make a good faith effort to settle
outstanding matters with the Ondova Estate and to propose a plan of reorganization for Ondova.
This Court should convene a hearing and order Payne, Schepps and Katz to show their authority
to act for and in behalf of the LLCs. Payne, Schepps and Katz should also be compelled to
account to this Court for the funds that have been stripped out of the estates of the LLCs. This
Court should determine that Lisa Katz’ position as manager of the LLCs has been terminated,
and that David McNair is the sole authorized manager of the LLCs.
34. Movants would ask that the Court set a status conference at which the Court can
review the propose plan of reorganization that Movants will file with the Court.
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 14 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page15
2499520.1
Respectfully submitted this 9
th
day of February 2015.
/s/ Leonard H. Simon
Leonard H. Simon, Esq.
TBN: 18387400; SDOT: 8200
The Riviana Building
2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 737-8207 (Direct)
(832) 202-2810 (Direct Fax)
lsimon@pendergraftsimon.com
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE
FOR JEFFREY BARON
OF COUNSEL:
PENDERGRAFT & SIMON
The Riviana Building
2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 528-8555 (Main)
(713) 868-1267 (Main Fax)
/s/ Travis Crabtree
Travis crabtree
tcrabtree@grayreed.com
State Bar No. 24015192
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77056
(713) 986-7000
(713) 986-7100 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS IN CHARGE FOR
QUANTEC, LLC AND NOVOPOINT, LLC
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 15 of 16
MOTIONTOCONFIRMSETTLEMENTAUTHORITY Page16
2499520.1
OF COUNSEL:
GRAY REED &MCGRAW, P.C.
1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 954-4135
(214) 953-1332 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
This is to certify that, on February 3, 2015, counsel conferred with counsel for the
Trustee by email regarding the Motion. Counsel indicated that Daniel Sherman, the Chapter 11
Trustee, was unable to take a position on this motion on short notice, was uncertain the
Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over this matter and therefore was opposed to the relief
requested. Movants delayed filing of this motion, in part, to give the Trustee additional time, but
has not heard of any change in opinion by the Trustee.
/s/ Leonard H. Simon
Leonard H. Simon
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that, on February 9, 2015, a copy of this Motion was served on all
counsel through the Court’s ECF system.
/s/ Leonard H. Simon
Leonard H. Simon
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1188 Filed 02/09/15 Entered 02/09/15 22:39:36 Page 16 of 16
