IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

APPELLANT JEFFREY BARON’S DESIGNATION OF THE RECORD

Appellant, Jeffrey Baron, subject to this court’s ruling on his Motion for Leave to File

Appeal files this, his Designation of the Record in appealing the Order Denying Motion to

Dismiss [Bk Dkt Doc. 20] and Partial Summary Judgment Order [111]. This Designation of

Record covers both orders as the two orders are inextricably intertwined. District court

pleadings and pleadings from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will be supplied on cd to the

Bankruptcy Clerk.

Number

Docket Number / Docket Text

Date

Bk Dkt Doc 1. Chapter 7 involuntary petition. Fee Amount $306

Re: Jeffrey Baron Filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C., Shurig Jetel

Beckett Tackett, Dean Ferguson, Gary G. Lyon, Robert Garrey,

Powers Taylor, LLP, Jeffrey Hall (Pronske, Gerrit)

12/18/2012

Dist. Doc. 13. MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay

Plaintiffs' Claims filed by Jeffrey Baron, Ondova Limited

Company with Brief in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A,

# 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Vitullo, Anthony)

Modified on 6/19/2009 (jyg). (Entered: 06/18/2009)

6/18/2009

Dist. Doc. 27. MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively Stay Plaintiffs'

Claims filed by Jeffrey Baron, Ondova Limited Company with

Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Boisvert, Carter) (Entered:

07/06/2009)

7/6/2009

Dist. Doc. 28. Appendix in Support filed by Jeffrey Baron, Ondova

Limited Company re 27 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively Stay

Plaintiffs' Claims (Boisvert, Carter) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

7/6/2009

Dist. Doc. 35. ORDER denying 27 Motion to Dismiss or

Alternatively Stay Plaintiffs' Claims; denying 29 Motion to File

7/7/2009

Netsphere Inc., et al

Jeffrey Baron, et al

Case No.: 12-37921-sgj7

Chapter 7

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 1 of 12

Documents Under Seal. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on

7/7/2009) (axm) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

Dist. Doc. 36. ORDER denying 27 Motion to Dismiss or

Alternatively Stay Plaintiffs' Claims. (see order) (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 7/7/2009) (axm) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

7/7/2009

Dist. Doc. 39. NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

of Status Conference Proceedings held on 7-9-09 before Judge

Furgeson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cass Casey, Telephone

number 214-354-3139. Parties are notified of their duty to

review the transcript. A copy may be purchased from the court

reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction

is necessary, a Redaction Request - Transcript must be filed within

21 days. If no such Request is filed, the transcript will be made

available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. The

clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically

noticed. Redaction Request due 8/6/2009. Redacted Transcript

Deadline set for 8/17/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for

10/14/2009. (clc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2009:

# 1 Main Document) (axm). Modified pdf on 7/20/2009 (axm).

(Entered: 07/16/2009)

7/16/2009

Dist. Doc. 52 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

of Status Conference Proceedings held on 7-28-09 before Judge

Furgeson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cass Casey, Telephone

number Cassidi45@AOL.COM.

8/14/2009

Dist. Doc. 569 Fourth MOTION to Approve Assessment and

Disbursement of Attorney Claims [Corrected Version] filed by

Receiver with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Golden, Barry)

(Entered: 05/13/2011)

5/13/2011

Dist. Doc. 575 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

AND ORDER ON 569 ASSESSMENT AND DISBURSEMENT

OF FORMER ATTORNEY CLAIMS: The Court orders that once

the Receiver has obtained cash to pay the Former Attorney Claims,

and only if the Receiver receives a Waiver as set forth in

paragraphs 36 and 37 below, the Receiver shall pay the following

Former Attorney Claims. If Baron asserts the Baron Claims against

any attorney, that attorney may bring his or her own Punitive

Claims and/or claims to seek the amount of his or her own Fee Cap

Reductions against Baron as counterclaims. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 5/18/2011) (twd) (Entered: 05/18/2011)

5/18/2011

Dist. Doc. 586. ORDER REGARDING BARON'S NOTICE OF

APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (DOC. NO. 576). The Court advises

the parties that it is STAYED from taking further action in the

various matters involved in the instant appeal. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 5/24/2011) (mfw) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

5/24/2011

Dist. Doc. 590. MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Stay

05/31/2011

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 2 of 12

Receivership Pending Appeal filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit(s) EXHIBIT A) (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

Dist. Doc. 591. MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Stay of

Injunction Pending Appeal filed by Jeffrey Baron (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A) (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

05/31/2011

Dist. Doc. 592. MOTION for Leave to File Motion for an

Expedited Hearing on the 590 and 591 Stay Motions filed by

Jeffrey Baron (Schepps, Gary) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011

Dist. Doc. 596. ORDER denying 590 Motion for Leave to File

Motion to Stay Receivership Pending Appeal. (Ordered by Judge

Royal Furgeson on 6/2/2011) (mfw) (Entered: 06/02/2011)

06/02/2011

Dist. Doc. 597. ORDER denying 591 Motion for Leave to File

Motion To Stay or Vacate Injunction and Civil Lockdown of Jeff

Baron. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 6/2/2011) (mfw)

(Entered: 06/02/2011)

06/02/2011

Dist. Doc. 645. ORDER of USCA as to Appellant's motion for stay

of the receivership order and the lockdown injunction pending

appeal is DENIED. Appellant is cautioned that further frivolous

filings could result in sanctions. (svc) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

07/11/2011

Dist. Doc. 655. NOTICE of Motion to Dismiss in Part and to Lift

Stay, or to Abate the Appeal of Jeffrey Baron, Novo Point, LLC and

Quantec, LLC (Fifth Cir. Case No. 11-10501) from the District

Court's May 18, 2011 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and

Order on Assessment and Disbursement of Former Attorney Claims

filed in the Fifth Circuit filed by Carrington Coleman Sloman &

Blumenthal, LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A) (Sutherland, J)

(Entered: 08/05/2011)

8/5/2011

Dist. Doc. 733. ORDER of USCA IT IS ORDERED that the

opposed motion of Peter S. Vogel to modify stay is GRANTED to

the extent that the opposed motion of Peter S. Vogel for approval to

pay receivership professionals is referred to the district court for

ruling in the first instance. (svc) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

12/12/2011

Dist. Doc. 734. ORDER GRANTING THE RECEIVER'S

MOTION TO MODIFY STAY AND FOR APPROVAL TO PAY

RECEIVERSHIP PROFESSIONALS. (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 12/12/2011) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered:

12/12/2011)

12/12/2011

Dist. Doc. 909. Emergency MOTION to Stay re 908 Notice of

Appeal,,, filed by Jeffrey Baron, Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC

with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Schepps, Gary) (Entered:

05/03/2012)

5/3/2012

Dist. Doc. 910. MOTION for Reconsideration Motion of Daniel J.

Sherman, Chapter 11 Trustee to Reconsider Stay Imposed by This

Court's Order of May 24, 2011 (Docket 586) filed by Daniel J.

Sherman (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1A, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1B,

# 3 Exhibit(s) 1C, # 4 Exhibit(s) 1D, # 5 Exhibit(s) 1E,

5/4/2012

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 3 of 12

# 6 Exhibit(s) 1F, # 7 Exhibit(s) 1G, # 8 Exhibit(s) 1H,

# 9 Exhibit(s) 2A, # 10 Exhibit(s) 2B, # 11 Exhibit(s) 3A,

# 12 Exhibit(s) 3B) (Hunt, Richard) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

Dist. Doc. 925. ORDER denying as moot 909 Motion to Stay

(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 5/14/2012) (Judge Royal

Furgeson) (Entered: 05/14/2012)

5/14/2012

Dist. Doc. 969. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

MOTIONS PENDING PRIOR TO THE STAY. If the issues are

still relevant, the parties may amend and re-file their motions no

later than July 2, 2012. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on

6/8/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

6/8/2012

Dist. Doc. 972. ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating 637 Motion

for Attorney Fees per ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTIONS PENDING PRIOR TO THE

STAY 969(Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 6/8/2012) (Judge

Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

6/8/2012

Dist. Doc. 976. ORDER of USCA as

to 227 , 814 , 759 , 136 , 908 , 340 , 614 , 576 , 341 Notice of

Appeal: Appellants' opposed motion to stay the district court from

entering further orders disbursing the receivership res until the

appeal of this matter is ruled on by this Honorable Court is denied.

(axm) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/12/2012

Dist. Doc. 980. MOTION to Clarify Instruction to Receiver on

Payments to Former Baron Attorneys filed by Receiver (Golden,

Barry) (Entered: 06/14/2012)

6/14/2012

Dist. Doc. 988. ORDER REGARDING WINDING UP THE

RECEIVERSHIP: The Receiver's Report must be filed with the

Court on or before 7/3/2012. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on

6/18/2012) (axm) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

6/18/2012

Dist. Doc. 1008. ORDER MODIFYING RECEIVERSHIP ORDER

AND ADDRESSING JEFF BARON'S INSURANCE (Ordered by

Judge Royal Furgeson on 6/28/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson)

(Entered: 06/28/2012)

06/28/2012

Dist. Doc. 1013. MOTION for Reconsideration re 987 Order on

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Pronske & Patel, P.C.

with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Pronske, Gerrit) (Entered:

06/28/2012)

06/28/2012

Dist. Doc. 1087. MOTION to Stay Fee Disbursements or in the

Alternative to Appoint Counsel for Jeffrey Baron for

Representation on Issues Regarding Applications by the Trustee

and Receiver on Attorneys Fees, Request for Reconsideration of

Order on Receiver's Second Dykema Application filed by Jeffrey

Baron with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments:

11/11/2012

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 4 of 12

# 1 Proposed Order Granting Stay of Fee Disbursements) (Cochell,

Stephen) (Entered: 11/11/2012)

Dist. Doc. 1088. ORDER of USCA...IT IS ORDERED that sales of

the assets scheduled to be auctioned on November 9, 2012, not be

closed prior to November 30, 2012, without order of this Court.

(svc) (Entered: 11/14/2012)

11/13/2012

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10-11202. Document:

00512049121, COURT ORDER THAT On November 2, 2012,

counsel for the Receiver informed us that a confirmation hearing

was scheduled for November 13 on a plan to wind down the

Receivership. On November 6, the day before oral argument,

counsel for Appellants notified us that an auction of certain

Receivership assets was to be held on November 9, 2012.

Concerned after oral argument that these developments might moot

some if not all the issues presented, we ordered the parties to

submit written responses on four factual and legal issues.

In their responses, both the Receiver and the Trustee assure the

Court

that the auction to be held on November 9 will not result in an

immediate transfer of title to any property currently under the

control of the Receiver. The Receiver states that no closing will

occur with a successful bidder until sometime between November

14 and November 30. The Trustee states that he and the Receiver

"will not close the asset sale if Mr. Baron acts expeditiously to

bring the

matter before this Court." In light of these representations, we

conclude that the auction itself will not affect the issues before the

Court, but the closing of a sale would present significant mootness

concerns. In order to maintain our ability to resolve the relevant

issues, it is essential that any closing with a bidder from the auction

be delayed until the end of the time period identified by the

Receiver and Trustee. Disbursement of any other assets of the

Receivership should be as limited as possible until this Court

resolves the appeals. We enter no order at this point

to effectuate that determination, but we inform the parties of the

Court's intent and willingness to entertain motions to stay

significant disbursements. The Court intends to resolve these

appeals on an expedited basis. IT IS ORDERED that sales of the

assets scheduled to be auctioned on November 9, 2012, not be

closed prior to November 30, 2012, without order of this Court.

11/09/2012

Dist. Doc. 1091. ORDER of USCA...Stay earlier entered by this

court, prohibiting a closing on sales of assets prior to November 30,

be extended indefinitely. Neither the Receiver nor anyone on his

behalf may sell any assets subject to the Receivership prior to the

decision of this court on these appeals. (svc) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

11/28/2012

Dist. Doc. 1101. ORDER DENYING 1087 BARON'S MOTION

12/13/2012

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 5 of 12

FOR STAY OF FEE DISBURSEMENTS OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT AS

COUNSEL FOR JEFFREY BARON FOR REPRESENTATION

ON ISSUES REGARDING APPLICATIONS BY THE

TRUSTEE. (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on 12/13/2012)

(cea) (Entered: 12/14/2012)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10-11202. PUBLISHED OPINION

FILED. [10-11202 Reversed 11-10113 Reversed 11-10289

Reversed 11-10290 Reversed 11-10390 Reversed 11-10501

Dismissed 12-10003 Reversed 12-10489 Reversed 12-10657

Reversed 12-10804 Reversed 12-11082 Reversed ] Judge: HRD ,

Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH (Panel involvement data updated for

cases: 12-10003, 11-10113, 11-10289, 11-10290, 11-10390, 12-

10489, 11-10501, 12-10657, 12-10804, 10-11202) Mandate pull

date is 01/08/2013 [10-11202, 11-10113, 11-10289, 11-10290, 11-

10390, 11-10501, 12-10003, 12-10489, 12-10657, 12-10804, 12-

11082] (ALSO FILED IN #12-10444) (RMF)

12/18/2012

Dist. Doc. 1112. ORDER: The Fifth Circuit has delivered its

opinion regarding the Receivership, nullifying the appointment of

the Receiver. While the case has been reversed and remanded back

to this Court, the mandate has not yet issued. Once the mandate has

been issued, the Court intends to hold a hearing and to close the

Receivership. In the meantime, the Court takes the following

actions (see attached order). (Ordered by Judge Royal Furgeson on

12/20/2012) (Judge Royal Furgeson) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

12/20/2012

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10-11202. COURT ORDER

FILED that the opposed motion of Appellee Peter S. Vogel for

clarification of the Court's November 9, 2012, order is GRANTED.

As stated in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41, the mandate

that signifies the finality of the court's decision is not in the usual

course issued with the opinion. Instead, it issues later under the

varying circumstances set out in the Rule. The December 18, 2012

decision of the Court is at this time still subject to alteration by the

panel or by the en banc court, and consequently it is not final. The

district court orders that were in place prior to the rlease of our

opinion remain in place. Upon the issuance of the mandate by this

Court, the conclusions of our opinion become final and the district

court and parties may rely on the rulings it contains. We point out

that our opinion did not dissolve the receivership immediately. We

ordered a remand for an expeditious winding up of the receivership.

No assets that were brought under the control of the receiver will be

released immediately from that control even when the mandate is

issued. The district court will thereafter have the authority to

manage the process for ending the receivership as quickly as

possible. If no rehearing is requested by any party, and absent any

hold on the mandate requested by a member of the en banc court,

12/31/2012

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 6 of 12

the madate will issue immediately after the expiration of the period

to file for rehearing on January 2, 2013. A further order of this

Court will be entered signifying whether the mandate in fact issues

on that date. The Receiver has requested that we explain whether it

is proper for further fees and expenses to be paid. As we said in the

opinion and as the Receiver acknowledges, all fees and expenses

need to be re-evaluated in light of our holding that the Receivership

should not have been created. That conclusion neither authorizes

nor prevents further necessary disbursements. The import of our

order of November 9, 2012, has not changed, which said this:

"Disbursement of any other assets of the Receivership should be as

limited as possible until this Court resolves the appeals." We have

resolved the appeals, but the only expenditures should be those

appropriate for the Receiver to make until relinquishment of control

of assets. It is for the district court to make the initial determination

of whether approval of additional fees and expenses is appropriate

at this time in light of the re-evaluation of all fees and expenses of

the Receivership. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opposed

motion of Appellee Peter S. Vogel to clarify the status of the

mandate is DENIED to the extent any clarification beyond what we

have just given was requested. Baron filed a motion to claify who is

to take custody of the receivership assets upon the dissolution of

the receivership. The opinion stated that everything subject to the

receivership other than cash "should be expeditiously returned to

Baron under a schedule to be determined by the district court for

winding up the receivership." Our utilization of a shorthand

reference to Barron did not in any way affect the ownership of

assets that were brought into the receivership. Assets are to be

returned as appropriate to Baron or other entities that were subject

to the receivership. Baron requests we clarify that he is not the

principal beneficiary of Novo Point, LLC and Quantec, LLC. Such

clarification is irrelevant to our holding and is DENIED. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motion filed by

Appellants Jeffrey Baron; Novo Point, LLC; quantec, LLC; and

Gary Schepps to clarify that this Court's opinion of December 18,

2012, was issued "as and for the mandate" is DENIED. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative motions filed by

Appellants Jeffrey Baron; Novo Point, LLC; Quantec, LLC; and

Gary Schepps for a stay of the injunctions containted in the district

court's order appointing the receiver dated November 24, 2010, is

DENIED. [7259066-2], [7259066-3], [7259720-3], [7259720-4],

[7259720-5] [7260392-1]

Judge(s): HRD, LHS and SAH. [10-11202, 11-10113, 11-10289,

11-10290, 11-10390, 11-10501, 12-10003, 12-10444, 12-10489,

12-10657, 12-10804, 12-11082] (DMS)

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 7 of 12

Dist. Doc. 1131. Counter NOTICE re: 1130 Notice of Fifth Circuit

Order filed by Jeffrey Baron (Schepps, Gary) Modified on 1/2/2013

(skt). (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012

Bk Dkt Doc 20. Motion to dismiss case for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted and lack of jurisdiction Filed by

Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron (Rielly, Bill)

01/09/2013

Bk Dkt Doc 21. Motion for a more definite statement filed by

Jeffrey Baron . (Rielly, Bill)

01/09/2013

Bk Dkt Doc 22. Provisional Answer and Counter-Claim to

involuntary petition filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron . (Rielly,

Bill)

01/09/2013

Bk Dkt Doc39. Order (A) setting involuntary petition for trial

hearing and (B) granting interim GAP period relief, along with

report and recomendation to the District Court. Entered on

1/17/2013 (RE: related documents 1). Trial Hearing to be held on

2/13/2013 at 01:30 PM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 1, (Blanco,

J.) Modified Linkage and text on 1/17/2013 (Blanco, J.).

01/17/2013

Bk Dkt Doc 49. Objection to (related document(s): 20 Motion to

dismiss case filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron, 21 Motion by

Jeffrey Baron. filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron)filed by

Petitioning Creditors Dean Ferguson, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall,

Gary G. Lyon, David L. Pacione, Powers Taylor, LLP, Pronske &

Patel, P.C., Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett. (Goolsby, Melanie)

01/30/2013

Bk Dkt 51, Transcript regarding Hearing Held 1/16/2013

2/1/2013

Bk Dkt Doc 52. (1022 pgs; 17 docs) Motion for summary

judgment and Brief in Support filed by Petitioning Creditors Dean

Ferguson, Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G. Lyon, David L.

Pacione, Powers Taylor, LLP, Pronske & Patel, P.C., Shurig Jetel

Beckett Tackett (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B

# 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Exhibit E # 6 Exhibit F # 7Exhibit

G # 8 Exhibit H # 9 Exhibit I # 10 Exhibit J # 11 Exhibit J-1

# 12 Exhibit J-2 # 13 Exhibit J-3 # 14 Exhibit J-4 # 15 Exhibit J-5

# 16 Exhibit J-6) (Goolsby, Melanie)

2/1/2013

Bk Dkt Doc. 56 Response opposed to (related

document(s): 52 Motion for summary judgment and Brief in

Support filed by Petitioning Creditor Gary G. Lyon, Petitioning

Creditor Pronske & Patel, P.C., Petitioning Creditor Shurig Jetel

Beckett Tackett, Petitioning Creditor Dean Ferguson, Petitioning

Creditor Robert Garrey, Petitioning Creditor Powers Taylor, LLP,

Petitioning Creditor Jeffrey Hall, Petitioning Creditor David L.

Pacione) filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron. (Attachments:

# 1 Appendix # 2 Exhibit D1 # 3 Exhibit D2 #4 Exhibit D3

# 5 Exhibit D4 # 6 Exhibit D5 # 7 Exhibit D6 # 8 Exhibit D7

# 9 Exhibit D9) (Stromberg, Mark)

02/08/2013

Bk Dkt Doc 57. Objection to (related document(s): 52 Motion for

summary judgment and Brief in Support filed by Petitioning

02/08/2013

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 8 of 12

Creditor Gary G. Lyon, Petitioning Creditor Pronske & Patel, P.C.,

Petitioning Creditor Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett, Petitioning

Creditor Dean Ferguson, Petitioning Creditor Robert Garrey,

Petitioning Creditor Powers Taylor, LLP, Petitioning Creditor

Jeffrey Hall, Petitioning Creditor David L. Pacione) filed by

Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron. (Stromberg, Mark)

Bk Dkt Doc 64. Response opposed to (related

document(s): 57 Objection filed by Alleged Debtor Jeffrey Baron)

filed by Petitioning Creditors Robert Garrey, Jeffrey Hall, Gary G.

Lyon, David L. Pacione, Powers Taylor, LLP, Pronske & Patel,

P.C., Shurig Jetel Beckett Tackett. (Goolsby, Melanie)

02/12/2013

Bk Dkt 72, Transcript regarding Hearing Held 02/13/13

02/21/2013

Bk Dkt Doc. 111 Partial Summary Judgment order. (related

document # 52) Entered on 4/5/2013. (Blanco, J.)

04/05/2013

Bk Dkt Doc. 112. Order denying motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction . (related document # 20) Entered on 4/5/2013. (Blanco,

J.)

04/05/2013

Dist. Doc. 1256. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 227 Notice of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.

Judgment of the District Court is reversed and remanded for further

proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and

LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period

following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found

at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard

exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without

additional notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically

noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013

Dist. Doc. 1257. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 340 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Jeffrey Baron. Judgment of the

District Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2,

exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period following final

disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found

atwww.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard

exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without

additional notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically

noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013

Dist. Doc. 1258. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 341 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.

Judgment of the District Court is reversed and remanded for further

proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and

LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period

following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found

at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard

exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without

additional notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically

04/24/2013

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 9 of 12

noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

Dist. Doc. 1259. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 341 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Quantec LLC.

Judgment of the District Court is reversed and remanded for further

proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and

LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed during the 60-day period

following final disposition (to do so, follow the procedures found

at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court Records). The clerk will discard

exhibits that remain unclaimed after the 60-day period without

additional notice. (Clerk to notice any party not electronically

noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013

Dist. Doc. 1260. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 449 Notice of Appeal,,,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,

Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District Court is reversed and

remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13.

Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed

during the 60-day period following final disposition (to do so,

follow the procedures found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court

Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that remain unclaimed

after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to notice

any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013

Dist. Doc. 1261. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 759 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,

Gary Schepps, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District Court is

reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate:

4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be

claimed during the 60-day period following final disposition (to do

so, follow the procedures found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court

Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that remain unclaimed

after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to notice

any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013

Dist. Doc. 1262. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 982 Notice of Appeal, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,

Quantec LLC, 908 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by Novo Point LLC,

Jeffrey Baron, Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District Court is

reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate:

4/19/13. Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be

claimed during the 60-day period following final disposition (to do

so, follow the procedures found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court

Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that remain unclaimed

after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to notice

any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/24/2013

Dist. Doc. 1263. JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as

to 1080 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Novo Point LLC, Jeffrey Baron,

Quantec LLC. Judgment of the District Court is reversed and

remanded for further proceedings. Issued as Mandate: 4/19/13.

04/24/2013

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 10 of 12

Pursuant to LR 79.2 and LCrR 55.2, exhibits may be claimed

during the 60-day period following final disposition (to do so,

follow the procedures found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov/Court

Records). The clerk will discard exhibits that remain unclaimed

after the 60-day period without additional notice. (Clerk to notice

any party not electronically noticed.) (svc) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

District Court 3:09-cv-00988-F Dkt 1264, ELECTRONIC ORDER

finding as moot [1013] Motion for Reconsideration per issuance of

the mandate by the Fifth Circuit. (Ordered by Judge Royal

Furgeson on 4/29/2013) (Judge Royal Furgeson)

4/29/2013

Very respectfully,

/s/ Stephen R. Cochell

Stephen R. Cochell

The Cochell Law Firm, P.C.

Texas Bar No. 24044255

7026 Old Katy Rd., Ste 259

Houston, Texas 77096

(713)980-8796 (phone)

(713)980-1179 (facsimile)

srcochell@cochellfirm.com

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 11 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On this date I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the Bankruptcy Clerk for the

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. I

hereby certify that I have served all parties who receive notification through the electronic filing system.

/s/ Stephen R. Cochell

Stephen R. Cochell

Case 12-37921-sgj7 Doc 154 Filed 05/03/13 Entered 05/03/13 15:00:51 Page 12 of 12