Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE §

COMMISSION §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V . §

§ C.A. NO.: 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ

GOPALA KRISHNAN, MANIVANNAN §

SHANMUGAM, SAKTHIVEL PALANI §

GOUNDER, NANBAN VENTURES LLC, § REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED 

§ RELIEF

GSM ETERNAL LLC (A/K/A NORTHSTARS §

FINTECH), HIMALAYAN FINTECH LLC, §

AND CENTUM FINTECH LLC (A/K/A §

SUNSHINES FINTECH), §

§

Defendants. §

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY OPPOSED 

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE PERIOD 

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(e) and (l), Defendants Gopala Krishnan, Manivannan 

Shanmugam, Sakthivel Palani Gounder, Nanban Ventures LLC, GSM Eternal LLC (k/a/a 

Northstar Fintech), Himalayan Fintech LLC, and Centrum Fintech LLC (a/k/a Sunshines 

Fintech (“Defendants”) respectfully file this Motion for Expedited Response Period and Reply 

Period for the Emergency Motion to Dissolve or, Alternatively, Motion to Modify Court Asset 

Freeze Order. [Doc 61]. In support of this motion, the Defendants respectfully state the 

following:

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 2975
Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 2

BACKGROUND

1. On November 30, 2023, Defendants announced that, as a business decision, 

they had determined to forego a lengthy hearing on the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary 

Temporary Injunction hearing and instead turned their attention on the commercially and 

personally debilitating ex parte total asset freeze previously obtained by the SEC. 

2. Defendants then made clear—to both the Plaintiff and the Court—that during 

the ensuing in-person discussion with the Court and the Plaintiff, Defendants planned to seek 

emergency, or expedited briefing, of the forthcoming motion to Dissolve or Modify the Asset 

Freeze. The Parties and the Court contemplated during that discussion that the asset freeze 

would be briefed and heard on an expedited basis. The Court instructed the Parties to schedule 

the expedited briefing schedule after Defendants filed the related motion so that some sort of 

expedited briefing schedule could be worked out. 

3. Immediately thereafter, Defendants met and conferred with the Plaintiff to 

explain the basis for its forthcoming motion—specifically that the Court should dissolve the 

asset freeze because the fair market value of Defendants’ real estate holding alone amounted 

to more than the damages alleged in the Complaint. However, during that same discussion, 

the SEC stated that the Defendants needed to provide not only merely the fair market value of 

the its real property, (as appears to be typical in other cases discussing asset freezes), but 

also wanted proof of the “take-out” or “equity” value of each piece of real property. 

4. Despite the fact that (a) the SEC’s demand for “take away” value is 

unsupported in the law; and (b) the SEC has much of this information in its possession, in an 

effort to work with the SEC towards a potential resolution, Defendants’ Counsel thereafter 

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2976
Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 3

spent significant time compiling documents to clearly and completely detail the Business 

Defendants’ entire network of assets in a “take away” valuation. In addition, Defendants 

prepared Declarations and explanation to sufficiently assure the SEC (and the Court) that the 

Defendants had more than enough assets to provide “sufficient proof funds or assets to satisfy 

all claims alleged in the SEC’s Complaint.” [Doc. 16, paragraph 17]. And, although the SEC 

could have (and indeed, should have) undertaken this effort before asking for an ex parte asset 

freeze, it did not. Defendants and Counsel worked nights, weekends, and through the 

Christmas and New Years’ Day holidays to compile documents from banks, third parties, and 

public records (a majority of which the SEC would certainly have had access to during the 

course of the SEC’s two year investigation) to satisfy the SEC’s additional request. 

5. It has taken such a lengthy period of time to compile the additional evidence 

requested by the SEC in the belief that the SEC would review the evidence and make a logical 

decision to save the properties endangered by the asset freeze. The real property has a “take 

out” equity fair value of $133,022,622.91, and a total fair market value of $263,863,317.17. 

The Business Defendants and the Individual Defendants are now in a situation wherein they 

have three months of unpaid commercial and personal mortgage payments/obligations and 

missed other necessary payments. There is a real threat of commercial foreclosure, among 

other dire financial needs, that has forced Defendants seek the requested relief. . 

6. On January 12, 2024, Defendants shared with the SEC not only its draft 

Emergency Motion to Dissolve or, Alternatively, Motion to Modify Court Asset Freeze Order, 

but also all of the documentation and analysis supported the actual valuation. By this 

extensive disclosure, Defendants hoped to demonstrate the true value of their assets and 

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 2977
Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 4

convince the SEC to withdraw its draconian request for a complete asset freeze. Defendants 

then delayed filing the Motion based on the SEC’s request to have time to review the 

documents, with the sincere belief that the SEC would review the vast assets and understand 

the danger that the asset freeze has caused for the investor funds that the SEC claims to be 

“protecting.” 

7. Unfortunately, the SEC was ultimately unwilling or unable to agree to any 

material proposal or compromise to unfreeze substantial assets. 

8. Accordingly, on January 23, 2024, the Defendants filed their Emergency 

Motion to Dissolve or, Alternatively, Motion to Modify Court Asset Freeze Order [Doc 61] and 

Appendix in support of same [Doc 62 and 63] based on the SEC’s incorrect representation to 

this Court that the Defendants have no assets (when in direct contradiction to the SEC’s 

representations, the Defendants are able to establish they have over $205 million in equity in 

all of the business assets). 

9. Now, somewhat unexpectedly, the SEC is unwilling to agree to an expedited 

briefing schedule, despite being aware of pending foreclosure issues and prior discussions 

regarding expedited briefing, thus necessitating this motion. 

10. Further, Defense Counsel is set for a 10-14 day trial in Harris County, Texas, 

on February 19, 2024. The case has already been called to trial, as it is first on that Court’s 

Docket. So, it is imperative that any briefing and, to the extent the Court deems it necessary, 

hearing be scheduled/completed as soon as possible so that the investor assets are safeguarded. 

Arguments and Authorities

1. The Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas, specifically Local Rule 

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 2978
Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 5

CV-7(e), provide that “[a]ny party may separately move for an order of this court lengthening 

or shortening the response period.”

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 2979
Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 6

2. Local Rule CV-7(l) provides for emergency relief when action is needed to 

avoid imminent, irreparable harm. 

3. Pursuant to CV-7(l), Counsel is filing this Motion to advise the Court that 

ensure that the Court is aware that proceeding under the regular ordinary timeframe set forth in 

the Rules (14- days for the SEC to respond and 7-days for Defendants to reply) will be 

inadequate and cause Defendants undue prejudice. There is a real and imminent threat of 

another month of missed mortgages (for properties on some of which foreclosure has already 

been posted) and other unpaid other financial obligations. 

4. Specifically, abiding by the typical response and reply times as stated in Local 

Rules CV-7€ and (f) would mean that the Defendants would miss their February mortgage 

payments, would miss paying their property taxes, would enter their fourth (4) month of not 

being able to pay credit cards, utilities, car payments, key employee salaries (such as their 

accountant who is helping to compile all the information required for the Court), office rent, 

fund administrator (which means that the company cannot issue K1s, making all investors 

unable to pay their federal taxes), etc. 

5. Accordingly, For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that 

the Court allow the Defendants and the Plaintiff to contact the Court Clerk and set an 

expedited briefing and hearing schedule, as originally previously discussed, in order to try to 

receive a ruling as quickly as possible on the issue of the asset freeze. Importantly, as noted 

above, Plaintiff received a copy of Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve or, Alternatively, Modify 

the Asset Freeze on January 12, 2024—giving the Staff twelve days to review and analyze 

before Defendants filed the Motion and the Plaintiff’s response clock began to run. At a 

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 2980
Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 7

minimum, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court take into account that the 

Plaintiff has already had twelve (12) days to review and formulate a response to the Motion to 

Dissolve or, Alternatively, Modify the Asset Freeze when determining an expedited schedule. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion, set 

an expedited briefing schedule for the Motion to Dissolve or, Alternatively Modify the Court’s 

Asset Freeze Order, and grant Defendants such other and further relief to which they may be 

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Leslye E. Moseley

David R. Clouston, Texas Bar No. 00787253

Leslye E. Moseley, Texas Bar No. 24044557

Sessions Israel & Shartle, LLC 

900 Jackson Street, Suite 440

Dallas, Texas 75202

Telephone: 214-741-3001

Facsimile: 214-741-3055

dclouston@sessions.legal

lmoseley@sessions.legal

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 2981
Defendants’ Emergency Opposed Motion for

Expedited Response Period – Page 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via ECF on this 

24nd day of January, 2024 to the following counsel of record:

Keefe Bernstein

Jason P. Reinsch

Samantha Martin

Clemon Ashley

Securities and Exchange Commission

801 Cherry Street, Suite 1900

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

bernsteink@sec.gov

reinschj@sec.gov

martins@sec.gov

ashleyc@sec.gov

Counsel for Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission

/s/ Leslye E. Moseley

Leslye E. Moseley

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on January 23, 2024, directly after filing the Motion to Dissolve or, 

Alternatively, Modify the Court’s Asset Freeze Order, I contacted counsel for Plaintiff, SEC to 

discuss an expedited briefing schedule as was originally contemplated in open court. Plaintiff is 

opposed to any sort of expedited briefing schedule. 

/s/ Leslye E. Moseley

Leslye E. Moseley

Case 4:23-cv-00885-SDJ Document 66 Filed 01/29/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 2982