Page 1 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

Troy D. Greenfield, OSB #892534 

Email: tgreenfield@schwabe.com 

Joel A. Parker, OSB #001633

Email: jparker@schwabe.com 

Jeffrey S. Eden, OSB #851903

Email: jeden@schwabe.com 

Alex I. Poust, OSB #925155 

Email: apoust@schwabe.com

Lawrence R. Ream (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Email: lream@schwabe.com 

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Facsimile: 503.796.2900 

Ivan B. Knauer (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Email: knaueri@pepperlaw.com 

Brian M. Nichilo (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Email: nichilob@pepperlaw.com 

Pepper Hamilton, LLP 

600 14th Street, NW, Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: 202. 220.1219 

Facsimile: 202. 220.1665 

Attorneys for the Receiver for Defendants 

AEQUITAS MANAGEMENT, LLC; AEQUITAS HOLDINGS, 

LLC; AEQUITAS COMMERCIAL FINANCE, LLC; AEQUITAS 

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; AEQUITAS INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

No. 3:16-cv-00438-PK

RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION 

TO ENVISO CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM STAY 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 13
Page 2 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

AEQUITAS MANAGEMENT, LLC; 

AEQUITAS HOLDINGS, LLC; 

AEQUITAS COMMERCIAL FINANCE, 

LLC; AEQUITAS CAPITAL 

MANAGEMENT, INC.; AEQUITAS 

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; 

ROBERT J. JESENIK, BRIAN A. OLIVER; 

and N. SCOTT GILLIS, 

Defendants.

Request for Oral Argument 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF OPPOSITION

The Receiver respectfully submits the following amended opposition to the Motion to 

Lift Stay (“Motion”) [Dkt. 327] filed by Enviso Capital (“Enviso”). The Motion should be 

denied on both procedural and substantive grounds. First, the Motion does not contain the 

certification required by LR7-1(a) and, as a result, the Motion should be denied. LR 7-1(a)(3). 

Enviso did not confer with counsel for the Receiver1

 prior to filing the Motion, as required by LR 

7-1.2 

Substantively, Enviso wrongly claims that no Aequitas entity owns any portion of Private 

Advisory Group (“PAG”). As detailed below and as previously disclosed in the Receiver’s 

reports to this Court, the Receivership Entity holds a 68.23% interest PAG; an interest that the 

Receiver will seek to monetize for the benefit of the Receivership Entity, and its investors and 

creditors. 

Enviso has asked this Court to lift the stay of California-based litigation against PAG 

(and Chris Bean and James Maurer) so that Enviso can jump ahead of all other Aequitas 

 

1

 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the April 14, 2016 

Order Appointing Receiver (the “Final Receivership Order”) [Dkt. 156]. 

2

 LR 7-1 generally requires that the first paragraph of every motion certify that the parties made a good 

faith effort to resolve the dispute and have been unable to do so. 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 13
Page 3 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

investors and creditors and seek a judgment lien on Receivership Property, including PAG. 

That is so even though Enviso, as a registered investment advisor, placed approximately 

$2,900,000 of its own clients’ funds in Aequitas investment products. Simply put, it appears that 

Enviso seeks to gain an upper hand on recovery as against all creditors and investors, including 

its very own clients. 

Fortunately, pursuant to established Ninth Circuit law, the Final Receivership Order 

imposes a blanket litigation stay to protect the Receivership from precisely the kind of 

interference and dissipation of assets that Enviso proposes to resume. “A receiver must be given 

a chance to do the important job of marshaling and untangling a company’s assets without being 

forced into court by every investor or claimant.” U.S. v. Acorn Tech. Fund L.P., 429 F.3d 438, 

443 (3rd Cir. 2005), adopting SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980) (approving 

blanket litigation stay to protect a receivership). 

Enviso is merely an unsecured pre-judgment creditor. It alleges no reason—and none 

exists—why it cannot wait with everyone else for an orderly administration of claims and plan of 

distribution under the supervision of this Court after the Receiver has completed the highest 

priority task of marshaling and managing the Receivership Entity’s assets, including PAG, for 

the benefit of all investors and creditors. 

The only issue for this Court is whether to lift the litigation stay to allow one creditor 

group to seek an advantage by forcing the Receiver to defend Receivership Property at trial in 

California, thereby “increas[ing] litigation costs . . . while diminishing the size of the 

receivership estate” for everyone else. SEC v. Universal Financial, 760 F.2d 1034, 1038 (9th 

Cir. 1985) (affirming denial of motion to lift litigation stay). The Receiver respectfully submits 

that the Motion is meritless and should be denied. 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 13
Page 4 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE

A. The California Federal Action. 

On March 22, 2016, Enviso sued Aequitas Holdings, LLC, Aequitas Wealth 

Management, LLC, Aspen Grove Equity Solutions LLC, Private Advisory Group, LLC, and 

certain individuals in California Superior Court, San Diego County. In its First Amended 

Complaint, filed in May 2016, Enviso alleged a negligence claim against all defendants, and an 

additional breach of contract claim against PAG. Enviso seeks to recover not less than $1.25 

million, plus other relief.3 

B. The Litigation Stay Imposed by the Receivership Order. 

This is a large, complex Receivership in which this Court’s stay of litigation serves a 

crucially important role in giving the Receiver breathing room to carry out his extensive duties 

without the distraction and expense of defending myriad litigation claims. The SEC filed this 

action approximately 9 months ago against Aequitas and affiliates for alleged violation of federal 

securities laws in what the SEC describes as a “Ponzi-like” scheme. [Dkt. 1, at p. 3]. The 

Complaint alleges that principals of Aequitas defrauded investors who purchased interests in 

trade receivables and misused investor funds to pay operating expenses and to repay earlier 

investors. See id., at ¶¶ 1-7. The SEC alleges that “[b]y the end of 2015, [Aequitas] owed 

investors $312 million and had virtually no operating income to repay them.” Id., at ¶ 5. 

On March 16, 2016, this Court entered an Interim Receivership Order appointing Ronald 

F. Greenspan as Receiver, empowering the Receiver to marshal and preserve assets of the 

 

3

 Enviso’s original Complaint was filed after the litigation stay imposed under paragraphs 20-22 of the

March 16, 2016 Stipulated Interim Order Appointing Receiver [Dkt. 30]. Likewise, Enviso’s First Amended 

Complaint was filed more than a month after the litigation stay imposed under paragraphs 20-22 of the Final 

Receivership Order. The Receiver expressly reserves all of its rights and remedies with respect to Enviso’s 

violations of the litigation stays. 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 4 of 13
Page 5 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

Receivership entities, and imposing a blanket stay of litigation. [Dkt. 30, at ¶¶ 20–22 (Interim 

Receivership Order)]. 

On April 14, 2016, this Court entered the Final Receivership Order. [Dkt. 156]. The 

Final Receivership Order is designed to further important goals of the receivership “to safeguard 

the assets, administer the property” and ultimately “to assist the district court in achieving a final, 

equitable distribution of the assets.” SEC v. Wing, 599 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010). In 

furtherance of these goals, the Final Receivership Order empowers the Receiver to “take 

custody, control and possession” and “to sue for and collect, recover, receive and take into 

possession” all Receivership Property, enjoins third parties from interfering with the Receiver, 

and imposes a blanket stay of litigation. (Final Receivership Order, ¶¶ 6, 20). In particular, the 

litigation stay applies to: 

All civil legal proceedings of any nature, including but not limited to, 

bankruptcy proceedings, arbitration proceedings, foreclosure actions, 

default proceedings, or other action of any nature involving; (a) the 

Receiver, in his capacity as Receiver; (b) any Receivership Property, 

wherever located.... 

(Final Receivership Order, ¶ 20) (emphasis added). As detailed below, Receivership Property 

includes PAG. 

C. The Receivership Entity is the Majority Owner of PAG. 

Strangely, Enviso alleges that the Receiver has admitted in his November 10, 2016 report 

that “Aequitas does not have any direct holding in PAG....” (Motion, p. 2) (citing Report of 

Ronald F. Greenspan [Dkt. 298-1, p. 9]. Enviso is simply wrong. In fact, the Receiver’s Report 

expressly states that Aspen Grove Equity Solutions, LLC (“Aspen Grove”), which is a part of 

the Receivership Entity,4 is a member of PAG and holds 68.23% of the membership units. [Dkt. 

 

4

 Final Receivership Order, p. 18. 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 5 of 13
Page 6 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

298-1, at p. 9]. Pursuant to the Final Receivership Order, Receivership Property includes “all 

property interests of the Receivership Entity, including, but not limited to...rights and other 

assets, which the Receivership Entity own, possess, have a beneficial interest in, or control 

directly or indirectly.”5 By virtue of Aspen Grove’s majority ownership stake in PAG, 

Receivership Property includes PAG and its assets. 

The Receiver has disclosed his intent to assert his rights to continue as the majority 

owner of PAG and to monetize this asset for the benefit of the Receivership Entity, and its 

creditors and investors. (September 14, 2016, Report of Ronald F. Greenspan, Receiver, p. 64).6

III. ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS

A. The California Litigation Should Remain Stayed. 

The Ninth Circuit in SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1980), established a 

foundational principle of federal receivership law, later adopted by many other Circuits, that a 

district court is empowered to issue a blanket stay of litigation, effective against all persons, in 

order to protect and preserve receivership assets and the orderly administration of receiverships. 

Id. at 1368-72. “The purposes of a receivership are varied, but the purpose of imposing a stay of 

litigation is clear. A receiver must be given a chance to do the important job of marshaling 

and untangling a company’s assets without being forced into court by every investor or 

claimant.” Acorn Tech Fund, 429 F.3d at 443, 449 (emphasis added) (adopting Wencke in 

refusing to lift a stay of litigation in a receivership); see also Wing, 599 F.3d at 1196. 

The Ninth Circuit also established the following set of considerations relevant to a district 

court’s exercise of discretion in determining whether to grant relief from a blanket litigation stay: 

 

5

 Final Receivership Order, ¶ 6.A. 

6

 Dkt. 246, pp. 67-68. 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 6 of 13
Page 7 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

(1) whether refusing to lift the stay genuinely preserves the status quo or 

whether the moving party will suffer substantial injury if not permitted 

to proceed; (2) the time in the course of the receivership at which the 

motion for relief from the stay is made; and (3) the merit of the moving 

party’s underlying claim. 

SEC v. Universal Fin., 760 F.2d 1034, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) (quoting SEC 

v. Wencke, 742 F.2d 1230, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (Wencke II), citing Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363). 

“The Wencke test ... requires the district court to balance the interests of the Receiver and the 

moving party.” Universal, 760 at 1038. In that balance, “the interests of the Receiver are very 

broad and include not only protection of the receivership res, but also protection of defrauded 

investors and considerations of judicial economy.” Id. See also SEC v. TLC Invs. & Trade Co., 

147 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1039 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (denying motion to lift stay where movant’s 

interests were outweighed by the “need to protect and marshal the assets of the Receivership 

estate, protect defrauded and innocent investors, and judicial economy”). 

As detailed below, the Wencke factors favor the Receiver. Accordingly, the Motion 

should be denied. 

1. Continuing the Litigation Stay Protects the Receivership Status Quo

and Does Not Impose Any “Substantial Injury” on Enviso. 

The first Wencke considerations are whether the litigation stay preserves a status quo

beneficial to the Receivership, and whether the movant “will suffer substantial injury if not 

permitted to proceed.” Wing, 599 F.3d at 1196; see Wencke, 622 F.2d at 1373. There is no 

question that the litigation stay provides crucial protection against dissipation of Receivership 

assets. The Court should give “substantial weight to the receiver’s need to proceed unhindered 

by litigation, and the very real danger of litigation expenses diminishing the receivership estate.” 

Acorn Tech. Fund, L.P., 429 F.3d at 443. Judge King of this Oregon District Court expressly 

recognized the importance of maintaining a litigation stay against the demands of one creditor, as 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 7 of 13
Page 8 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

here, where other creditors naturally would seek to pile on and consume receivership assets “in 

the defense of an onslaught of lawsuits.” SEC v. Capital Consultants, LLC, 2002 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 6775, at *5 (D. Ore. 2002); see also Universal, 760 F.2d at 1038 (litigation stay is 

appropriate to avoid “a multiplicity of actions in different forums [that] would increase litigation 

costs . . . while diminishing the size of the receivership estate.”). 

Forcing the Receiver to litigate in California also would deeply interfere with the 

Receiver’s top priorities of marshalling, preserving and managing the assets of more than forty 

Aequitas affiliates, untangling their financial affairs, and investigating potential claims “the 

prosecution of which would benefit investors[.]” Wencke, 622 F.2d at 1372. The Receiver’s 

task is enormous—especially given the SEC’s allegations of a Ponzi type scheme involving 

hundreds of millions of dollars. See Wing, 599 F.3d at 1197 (“[I]n a case involving a Ponzi 

scheme, ‘the interests of the Receiver are very broad and include not only protection of the 

receivership res, but also protection of defrauded investors and considerations of judicial 

economy.’”) (citation omitted). Lifting the litigation stay at this point merely to accommodate 

one creditor group would upset the status quo to the detriment of the Receivership. 

Enviso, on the other hand, will suffer no “substantial injury” if the stay is maintained. 

Enviso’s Motion alleges no such injury. Enviso’s only interest is to get ahead of other unsecured 

creditors by seeking a judgment lien against Receivership Property, including PAG. Enviso’s 

desire to pursue a lien on Aequitas’ assets ahead of other creditors—and before the Receiver is 

ready to propose an equitable distribution to all allowed stakeholders—is simply “not the kind of 

substantial injury” that district courts “recognize under the first prong of Wencke.” Acorn Tech. 

Fund, 429 F.3d at 449. 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 8 of 13
Page 9 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

Enviso alleges that continuing the stay as to PAG is “not justified”, but points to no harm, 

let alone “substantial injury,” that will arise if the litigation stay is continued. See Motion, p. 3. 

As matters now stand, there is no reason that Enviso cannot comply with an orderly 

claims administration process and plan of distribution in due course, to address any claims it may 

have against Aspen Grove and upon Receivership Property including the Receivership Entity’s 

majority ownership interest in PAG. See Final Receivership Order ¶ 38; Capital Consultants, 

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6775, at *6 (denying motion to lift stay where the creditor may pursue a 

claim in a receivership process); TLC Invs. & Trade Co., 147 F. Supp. 2d at 1039 (denying 

motion to lift stay where creditors showed no substantial injury). 

2. The Timing is Premature for Any Relief from the Litigation Stay. 

The second Wencke consideration in determining whether to lift a litigation stay is the 

stage of the receivership proceedings given the passage of time. Wencke, 622 F.2d at 1373-74. 

Enviso declares, wrongly, that the Receiver “has had ample opportunity to investigate and 

understand the relationship between the various Aequitas companies and affiliates and [the 

Receiver] has concluded that PAG is independent of Aequitas.” (Motion, p. 3). As discussed 

above, the Receiver’s conclusions are just the opposite given Aspen Grove’s majority ownership 

stake in PAG. The Receiver intends to assert its controlling interest in PAG, and monetize that 

asset for the benefit of all stakeholders in the Receivership Entity. 

Enviso cites no authority to support its claim that the Receiver has had sufficient time to 

marshal and protect Receivership Entity assets, including its interests in PAG. In fact, the case 

law strongly favors retaining the litigation stay. Motions to lift a litigation stay made, as here, 

relatively soon after a receiver has taken control, are generally denied given the “receiver’s need 

to organize and understand the entities under his control [.]” Wencke, 622 F.2d at 1373-74; see 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 9 of 13
Page 10 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

Acorn Tech. Fund, 429 F.3d at 443-44 (“[V]ery early in a receivership even the most meritorious 

claims might fail to justify lifting a stay given the possible disruption of the receiver’s duties.”).

Further, numerous decisions denying motions to lift the litigation stay in federal 

receiverships illustrate that Enviso’s Motion is entirely premature. See, e.g., Acorn Tech Fund, 

429 F.3d at 449-450 (denying motion to lift stay after three years); Wencke, 622 F. 2d at 1374 

(affirming refusal to lift stay after two years); Universal, 760 F.2d at 1039 (affirming refusal to 

lift stay after four years); Wencke II, 742 F.2d at 1231-32 (finding an abuse of discretion in 

refusal to lift the litigation stay only after seven years when the receiver was about to make the 

distribution); Capital Consultants, LLC, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6775, at *4-6 (denying motion 

to lift stay early in a receivership process). 

In due course, the Receiver will implement a claims procedure under the supervision of 

this Court as contemplated by the Final Receivership Order.7

 Enviso will be free to submit a 

proof of any claim it may have against Aspen Grove and to any Receivership Property including 

the Receivership Entity’s majority ownership interest in PAG, in order participate in any 

Liquidation Plan approved by the Court. With regard to claims against PAG and related 

individuals, all interested parties recognize that with a limited amount of insurance 

proceeds potentially available to defend and settle claims significantly larger than the policy 

limits, it is incumbent on the parties and their counsel to seek to prevent or delay unnecessary 

litigation until such time as a comprehensive, global settlement might be achieved. With the 

support of the Receiver, many interested parties including investor claimants and PAG 

are currently in discussions toward an expedited alternative dispute resolution process likely to 

 

7

 Paragraph 38 of the Final Receivership Order provides as follows: “The Receiver is authorized, 

empowered and directed to develop a plan for the fair, reasonable, and efficient recovery and liquidation of all 

remaining, recovered, and recoverable Receivership Property (the ‘Liquidation Plan’).” 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 10 of 13
Page 11 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

include mediation. Counsel for Enviso was advised of these efforts and the fact the resulting 

process could obviate the burden and expense of the California litigation altogether. See Wing, 

599 F.3d at 1194; Capital Consultants, LLC, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6775, at *4-6 (denying 

motion to lift stay where creditor “has the ability to pursue a claim in the summary claims 

process...set up as part of the receivership”). In short, the timing of Enviso’s Motion is 

premature. 

3. Enviso Fails to Address the Merits of its Claims. 

The third Wencke consideration in determining whether to lift a litigation stay is the 

strength of the movant’s claim on the merits. Wencke, 622 F.2d at 1373-74. “Where the claim is 

unlikely to succeed . . . there may be less reason to require the receiver to defend the action now 

rather than defer its resolution. . . . [and] where the likelihood that the receiver will prevail is 

small. . . there is less reason to permit the receiver to avoid resolving the claim[.]” Id. 

Here, Enviso states only that it has “very clear and meritorious “ claims against PAG, Mr. 

Bean and Mr. Maurer. (Motion, pp. 3-4). However, none of the defendants in the California 

litigation have filed a responsive pleading. The Receiver has not completed his investigation as 

to the merits of Enviso’s claims and any defenses that might be asserted. 

At best, the final Wencke factor does not favor one party more than the other. 

Even assuming, however, that Enviso’s claims against PAG and the individuals are 

meritorious, that fact alone does not support lifting the stay. Undoubtedly a great number of 

Aequitas creditors have meritorious claims. The question for this Court is whether to allow one 

creditor to proceed ahead of others. The Receivership Entity’s assets will be diminished if the 

stay is lifted as to Enviso, or any other creditor at this time. Doing so will require the 

Receivership Entity to spend estate assets defending such claims, and tap into wasting insurance 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 11 of 13
Page 12 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

policy proceeds for defense costs and fees that would otherwise be available to claimants and 

creditors on an equitable basis. Accordingly, for the benefit of all creditors and investors, 

Enviso’s claims against PAG and the individuals should remain stayed. Enviso is encouraged to 

participate in the ADR process mentioned above together with investor claimants, PAG and its 

insurance carrier. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Wencke factors weigh decisively against lifting the litigation stay imposed by this 

Court to protect the Receivership Entity, and its creditors and investors. The Receiver 

respectfully requests that the Court deny Enviso’s motion to lift the stay and its alternative 

request that the Receiver post a bond. 

Dated this 11th day of January, 2017. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. 

By: s/ Alex I. Poust, OSB #925155 

 Troy D. Greenfield, OSB #892534 

 tgreenfield@schwabe.com 

Joel A. Parker, OSB #001633 

jparker@schwabe.com 

Jeffrey S. Eden, OSB #851903

jeden@schwabe.com 

Alex I. Poust, OSB #925155 

apoust@schwabe.com 

 Lawrence R. Ream (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

 lream@schwabe.com 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Facsimile: 503.796.2900 

 Ivan B. Knauer (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

 knaueri@pepperlaw.com 

Brian M. Nichilo (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 12 of 13
Page 13 - RECEIVER’S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO ENVISO 

CAPITAL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.

Attorneys at Law 

Pacwest Center 

1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 503.222.9981 

Fax: 503.796.2900

PDX\129912\215141\AP\19834708.2

nichilob@pepperlaw.com 

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 

 600 Fourteenth Street, N.W. 

 Washington, DC 2005 

 Tel: (202) 220-1665 

 

Attorneys for the Receiver for Defendants 

Aequitas Management, LLC, Aequitas 

Holdings, LLC, Aequitas Commercial 

Finance, LLC, Aequitas Capital 

Management, Inc., and Aequitas Investment 

Management, LLC

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 341 Filed 01/11/17 Page 13 of 13