4. The court shall retain exclusive jurisdiction of this case over any disputes that may arise
concerning this or any earlier order, the wind down of the Receivership estate, and the relief provided
under this order, or any controversy that arises from or relates to the Receivership or actions of the
Receiver or his professionals.
5. The court authorizes the release of the surety and the surety bond posted by the Receiver
in the amount of $1,000 (Doc. 131).
6. All other requests or relief not expressly addressed herein is denied.
III. Objections to the Receiver’s Application
A number of objections were asserted to the Receiver’s Application. To the extent that the
objections asserted are inconsistent with the determination made in this memorandum opinion and
order, they are overruled.
9
The court set a deadline of April 22, 2014, for objections to the Receiver’s Application. A number of
9
objections was filed after this deadline. Some objections were filed months after the deadline set by the court. The court
does not consider these untimely objections, all of which were filed without leave of court. As far as the court is
concerned, as leave was not sought from the court to file the untimely objections, the right to object was waived or
forfeited by those who filed untimely objections. Moreover, the court’s refusal to consider the untimely objections serves
as a sanction for not complying with a valid court order. Additionally, the court did not authorize Baron, the LLCs, or
related persons or entities to file separate multiple objections. The multiple filings by different lawyers, whether in the
name of Baron, the LLCs, the Village Trust, or other offshore entities connected to the trust and Baron has been an
ongoing tactic conveniently employed to delay, confuse, manipulate, and disrupt the proceedings in this case, the
bankruptcies, and related cases, and the court strongly suspects, based on its familiarity with the record in this, the
bankruptcies, and other related cases, that Baron and those acting on his behalf are the source of this disruptive conduct.
Accordingly, the court does not consider the additional objections to the Receiver’s Application that were filed after
April 22, 2014, by or on behalf of Baron or the LLCs without leave of court, including those filed by RPV Limited
(“RPV”) on May 28, 2014, as trustee of the Village Trust, whose only assets are those of the LLCs. The record in this
and other related cases filed by the LLCs indicates that the Village Trust has been aware of an involved in the
Receivership proceedings from the beginning, and that RPV, as trustee for the Village Trust, and those acting on its
behalf were aware of the proceedings in this case, as well as the court’s orders pertaining to the winding down of the
Receivership. The court similarly concludes that Baron’s former attorneys, who initiated the involuntary bankruptcy
(“Petitioning Creditors”), were aware of the April 22, 2014 deadline imposed by the court on March 3, 2014, because
the court’s electronic court filing (“ECF”) system’s records indicate that Pronske & Patel, P.C; Gary Lyon; and Powers
Taylor, LLP all received notice via ECF of the court’s March 3, 2014 order. Accordingly, the court does not consider
the objection filed by Gerrit Pronske on behalf of the Petitioning Creditors without leave of court on May 5, 2014.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 21
Case 3:09-cv-00988-L Document 1447 Filed 03/27/15 Page 21 of 22 PageID 70429