![]()
RESPONSE TO RECEIVER MOTIONS FOR FEE APPLICATIONS - Page 4
SouthPac’s LLC companies have no responsibility for the liabilities or
administrative fees or costs relating to Mr. Baron’s assets. Also, the scope of the
receivership extends to Mr. Baron’s exempt property, and distribution of such
exempt property would be unlawful.
11. Payment to the receiver with respect to SouthPac’s companies is also
improper because the receiver acted as an advocate seeking inclusion of the
companies in the receivership order. A receiver is prohibited from seeking to be
appointed receiver over a company and then charge those companies for its work
as receiver. Rather, by law a receiver must be disinterested. Booth v. Clark, 58 US
322, 331 (1855). Similarly, the receiver’s requested fees must be excluded because
the receiver is not entitled to compensation from receivership assets for his role as
an advocate against a party.
12. The fees run up by the receiver and his law firm are unreasonable and
include fees and charges prohibited by law. For example, the receiver and his law
firm have charged for executing upon property exempt from execution as a matter
of law, such as Mr. Baron’s Roth IRAs, and for the costs of seeking their fees, etc.
13. The fees are also excessive, duplicative, and unnecessary. Mr. Baron
complied with this Court’s injunction order with respect to his assets, even though
it was issued without notice, without supporting affidavit, and without supporting
findings, in violation of the law and rules of procedure. There was no necessity to
Case 3:09-cv-00988-F Document 627 Filed 06/27/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID 26407