1 | P a g e

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-03461-O

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

Comes now Appellant Jeffrey Baron (“Baron”) and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b), files this Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Baron’s Motion for Stay

Pending Appeal of the Order of Relief in Involuntary Case and Brief in Support. In support

involuntary bankruptcy case. Indeed, the Fee Order was entered over 2 years ago, and no

Petitioning Creditor has ever been paid a nickel under such Order in any court or in any

proceeding.

2 | P a g e

2. Why not? Because the Fifth Circuit unequivocally ruled that the Petitioning

Creditors held merely unresolved claims against Baron and therefore could not seek the

imposition of an extreme equitable remedy, like the freezing of assets or the imposition of

receivership, and the Fee Order arose from an illegal receivership. The Petitioning Creditors

have taken the illogical position that the Fifth Circuit never considered the Fee Order in

reversing the receivership, but they know full and well that the appeal of the Fee Order was

event, because the reversal of the receivership had the effect of vacating the Fee Order and any

other interlocutory order entered pursuant to the illegal receivership (unless otherwise directed

by the Fifth Circuit). That is precisely why, after the Fifth Circuit mandate issued, Judge

Furgeson denied the renewed request by the Petitioning Creditors to enforce the Fee Order. As a

result of losing before the Fifth Circuit and Judge Furgeson on their fee requests, the Petitioning

creditors forum shopped the Fee Order in a more friendly forum, the Bankruptcy Court.

4. Ignoring entirely that the Petitioning Creditors had previously lost, the

Bankruptcy Court took the position that a clarification order entered by the Fifth Circuit thirteen

days after it entered its opinion reversing the receivership (the “Reversal Opinion”) somehow

proved that the Fifth Circuit wanted the Fee Order to remain effective and in place. Contrary to

3 | P a g e

parties of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 and prevent the irreparable harm caused by the

Petitioning Creditors’ commencement of the involuntary case. If anything the clarification order

enforced the original receivership order by Judge Furgeson, which clearly enjoined the

Petitioning Creditors from filing the involuntary case.

5. The stay pending appeal is certainly warranted in this case, as Baron has already

suffered an enormous injury at the request of the Petitioning Creditors. He has already incurred

while this appeal is pending and no stay is in effect, the Receiver has recently requested to be

paid approximately $1.3 million from Baron’s remaining assets.

6. On the other hand, the Petitioning Creditors—who have already been paid over $3

million in fees by Baron, who seek to satisfy their claims in Ondova Limited Company’s

bankruptcy, who have never posted a bond for anything and who have relied on trustees and

receivers to make their arguments for them—have suffered little or no harm in fighting against

Baron. Indeed, the Petitioning Creditors have never gone to trial on their claims and have

manipulated the civil process to ensure that Baron has no rights or assets to dispute their claims.

7. Even though Baron has already lost way more than any other party, he

understands the real danger of exhausting his remaining assets by the litigation tactics employed

4 | P a g e

pending appeal, where he will agree to deposit most of his assets with this Court, provided he be

allowed access to, sufficient funds to properly prosecute this Appeal and address other

proceedings affecting his substantive rights.

8. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows the Court to reconsider prior

interlocutory orders that it has entered. This Court previously based its denial of Baron’s motion

for stay pending appeal on (a) technical noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 8005 and (b)

54(b), this Court has sufficient cause to reconsider its prior denial of Baron’s request for a stay

pending appeal. The irreparable harm that Baron stands to suffer in the near future certainly

warrants such reconsideration.

9. For all the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in his Brief in

Support, Appellant Jeffrey Baron requests this Court reconsider its Stay Order and grant a stay of

the Order of Relief pending an appeal.

5 | P a g e

Dated: November 22, 2013 Very respectfully,

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