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:





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


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)


5)Krishan et al v. Baron

Texas  Federal Court III


6)HCB, LLC v. Baron et al

U.S. Virgin Islands Federal Court


7)Simple Solutions, LLC

  v.Ondova Limited Company

U.S.V.I Federal Court





  *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


9)Krishan v. GSBT Law Firm

Travis County Court


10)Netsphere v. DirectNIC

California Federal Court


11)Netsphere v. FirstLook

California State Court

Add new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.