Why Were So Many Lawyers Involved in Jeff's Case?

In the dispute that preceded the receivership—a dispute that lasted five years,Jeff, Ondova, the diabetes research trust, and several separate companies were forced to defend numerous suits in federal and state court in multiple jurisdictions (California, US Virgin Islands, Texas, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals-which ruled in Jeff's favor) brought by Krishan/Netsphere/MacPete.  It appeared that Krishan/MacPete’s tactic was to file an abundance of lawsuits in hopes that Jeff would not be able to sustain the assault and bankrupt Jeff.

The trustee of the research trust insisted on independent counsel for the trust and trust companies; therefore, the number of attorneys required to defend the suits was very large. Prior to Judge Furgeson’s court where the receivership was initiated, Jeff and the defendants were successful in every suit.  The table below identities these lawsuits:

 

 

Party	Venue	Case Number
1)Krishan et al v. Baron,    Et al	California Federal Court	SAV-06-1105 AG
2)Krishan et al v. Baron	California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals	07-55232
3)Ondova et al v. Manila	Texas Federal (Krishan removed from state court)	07-CV 0001-D
4)Ondova et al v. Manila	Texas Federal II (removed from state court)	3:07-CV-1812-D
5)Krishan et al v. Baron	Texas  Federal Court III	3:09-cv-00988
6)HCB, LLC v. Baron et al	U.S. Virgin Islands Federal Court	06-CV-207-G
7)Simple Solutions, LLC   v.Ondova Limited Company	U.S.V.I Federal Court	3:07-CV-123

  *Krishan’s proxies brought the last two lawsuits.

In addition, Jeff and Ondova were forced to address 4 more suits brought by Krishan/Netsphere/MacPete against parties related to this suit:

 

8)Netsphere  v.Oversee.net	California State Court	BC-425821
9)Krishan v. GSBT Law Firm	Travis County Court	D-1-GN-07-004519
10)Netsphere v. DirectNIC	California Federal Court	8:2009cv00679
11)Netsphere v. FirstLook	California State Court