DKT 522 REPLY TO RESPONSE OF THE RECEIVER AND SEC TO MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF INTERESTED PARTY SOUTHERN STAR CAPITAL, LLC TO MODIFY STAY PROVISION SET FORTH IN RECEIVER ORDER

On 06/28/24, Southern Star Capital, LLC (“SSC”) makes this its Reply to the Response of the Receiver (Dkt. 508) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (Dkt. 509) to its Motion and Brief in Support of Motion to Modify the Stay (Dkt. 498).

Download File

Related News

8 Critical Errors Made by the District Court in the SEC Case Against Timothy Barton

Learn about the 8 critical errors made by the District Court in its handling of the SEC case against Timothy Barton. These mistakes violated due process, destroyed businesses, and wrongly accused an innocent man.

DKT 236 Order Granting Approval To Receiver’s Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement with HNGH Turtle Creek, LLC. [Doc. 210]

On 05/15/23, The Court GRANTS the motion [DKT 210] and APPROVES the Settlement Agreement, finding that it is fair and equitable and in the best

DKT 159 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECEIVER’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO RATIFY AGREEMENT WITH LUMAR LAND & CATTLE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

On 02/15/23, Cort Thomas files this Reply in Support of his Motion to Ratify (the “Motion”) [Dkt. 143] the Agreement for Sale of Land and

DKT 76 RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISERS, APPROVAL OF APPRAISALS OF ROCK CREEK PROPERTY, AND SETTING HEARING REGARDING APPROVAL OF SALE OF ROCK CREEK PROPERTY

On 12/02/22, With the “Receivership Order” and 28 U.S.C. § 2001, the Receiver requests appointment of three appraisers, approval of the appraisals, and a hearing

DKT 558 RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR “SHOW CAUSE” HEARING, SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

On 08/23/24, Receiver Cortney C. Thomas (the “Receiver”) respectfully requests that the Court schedule a “Show Cause Hearing” compelling Defendant Timothy Barton (“Barton”) to appear

DKT 548 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS FOR EXEMPTION FROM RECEIVERSHIP AND JUDGMENT

On 08/14/24, Two motions from Daniel Crow pertaining to Venus 59, LLC (“Venus 59”). In both motions, Crow argues he owns 90% of Venus 59,