Page 3 of 25
of Sherman, Trustee and his attorneys, Munsch Hardt. Both adversary
proceedings have been abated by this Court pursuant to the agreement
of the parties. The reason why the two adversary proceedings are
separate is that in Adversary 14-03081-sgj, no jury trial demand was
made. In Adversary 14-03121-sgj, a jury demand has been made. The
findings made by the Fifth Circuit referred to in paragraphs 8-9 were
induced by the fraudulent representations made by Receiver and the
Trustee, as set forth below. The Trustee and his counsel again allege
that Baron commenced an appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s Netsphere
decision to the United States Supreme Court in June 2014, another
complete falsehood. Baron did not appeal the Netphere decision in
June 2014, or at any other time. Schepps and Payne did so in April
2014, purportedly on behalf of Novo Point and Quantec,
notwithstanding that their authority to represent these entities has been
challenged by Baron and others repeatedly in the District Court. See
ECF Docs 1414, 1416, 1423 & 1439 in Civil Acton No. 3:09-cv-0988-
L, styled Netsphere, et al, v Jeffrey Baron, et al, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division (the
“Netsphere DC Case”). After Vogel and Sherman filed a Cross-
Petition for Writ of Certiorari on July 21, 2014, Baron made a request
to file a Cross Petition of his own, which was denied as not being
timely. These are the true facts, not the blatant misrepresentations
made by Trustee’s counsel.
Paragraph 10
Denied as written. These lawsuits were not filed for delay or to cause
expense to the Trustee and his professionals. The Ondova case is a
complete and unmitigated disaster, caused by actions of the Trustee
and the Trustee’s counsel, as will be detailed below. Baron is
interested in getting the Ondova case resolved, making distributions to
the Creditors, and getting the main case off of this Court’s docket.
The Trustee’s counsel is doing everything to block Baron’s efforts to
do so, and why not? When this Court studies the complete waste of
money flushed down the “proverbial toilet” by the Trustee and his
counsel, and examines the facts leading up to the institution of the
failed Baron receivership, this Court will recognize how extreme this
situation is. This Court should remove the Trustee and his counsel
from this case as they have a clear and irreconcilable conflict with the
Ondova Estate and its creditors. These professionals are owed over a
million dollars in fees and expenses through September 2012, with
respect to fee applications filed through that date. They probably have
several millions of dollars of incurred fees and expenses that have not
been disclosed to this Court in any fee applications for the period of
October 1, 2012, through the present. They are obviously fearful of
filing these applications with the Court, and why shouldn’t they be.
This Court is at some point going to have to consider the ugly concept
of disgorgement of fees already paid in order to create parity among
Case 09-34784-sgj11 Doc 1197 Filed 03/03/15 Entered 03/03/15 22:24:50 Page 3 of 25