for the southern district of florida...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 17-CV-61937 WPD

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUDENT DEBT DOCTOR LLC, a Florida

limited liability company,

and

GARY BRENT WHITE, JR., individually and

as an officer of Defendant Student Debt Doctor LLC,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________/

RECEIVER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR: (1) AUTHORITY TO LIQUIDATE

CERTAIN RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE ASSETS FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS,

ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER INTERESTS; (2) TO VACATE THE PREMISES; AND

(3) TO DONATE OR DISPOSE OF THE REMAINING ASSETS WITH

INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Pursuant to the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction [DE 24] (the “PI”), Robert Carey, not

individually, but solely in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the “Receiver”) for Student

Debt Doctor LLC (“SDD”, “Receivership Estate,” or “Estate”),1 respectfully files this unopposed

1 In Section II.B of the PI, SDD is defined as the “Corporate Defendant” and also includes SDD’s

“divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, assigns, and any fictitious business entities or

business names created or used by these entities, or any of them.” Similarly, in Section II.J of the

PI, “Receivership Entity(ies)” is not only defined to include SDD but also “any other entity that

the Receiver determines is controlled or owned by any Defendant and (1) conducted any business

related to Defendants’ marketing of debt relief services, (2) commingled or pooled assets with any

Defendant, or (3) otherwise participated in the transfer or receipt of assets stemming from any

business activity that is the subject of the Complaint in this matter.” The Receiver is also currently

investigating what other SDD-related entities are appropriately covered as “Receivership Entities.”

Once he makes that determination, which should be in the near future, the Receiver will submit

the appropriate filing(s) to this Court.

Case 0:17-cv-61937-WPD Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/28/2017 of 13

2

motion seeking authority to: (1) liquidate certain receivership assets free and clear of liens,

encumbrances and other interests by public auction or private sale through an auction company;

(2) vacate the premises located at 3221 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 507, 507W, and 508, Oakland

Park, FL 33309 and 3115 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 114, Oakland Park, FL 33309; (3) donate or

otherwise dispose of unsold Estate assets; and (4) enter any other just and equitable relief.

I. INTRODUCTION

After an arm’s length negotiation, the Receiver has entered into an “Auction Contract,”

subject to Court approval, with an experienced South Florida auction company, Martin Claire &

Co., LLC, to liquidate a combination of the Estate’s assets by public auction. A copy of the

Auction Contract is attached as Exhibit “1.” The Receiver has determined that an asset sale

through a public auction by the auction company will enable the Estate to obtain the highest and

best offer for the assets and maximize their value in the best interest of consumers, creditors, and

other parties-in-interest. He also believes that this is the most efficient manner in which to achieve

this goal.

Specifically, the Estate assets for proposed liquidation in the Receiver’s possession include,

among other things: (1) office furniture (i.e., desks, tables, chairs, wall hangings, cabinets); (2)

numerous cubicles; (3) computer related items (i.e., monitors, keyboards, printers, speakers, and

other peripheral devices; (4) office supplies; (5) electrical equipment; (6) various tools; and (7) a

Rolex Datejust II watch.2 The Receiver is not liquidating any of SDD’s previously used

computers, servers, or hard drives in the proposed auction if they contain electronic data. Also,

2 Notably, Defendant Gary Brent White, Jr., cooperated through his counsel in assisting the

Receiver obtain possession of the Rolex watch, which was purchased at a wholesale price in

August 2017. Mr. White’s counsel has advised that Mr. White does not object to its sale of the

watch for the benefit of the Estate. As part of the Receiver’s ongoing investigation, he maintains

a copy of the original receipt of purchase for the Rolex watch.


3

the Receiver is not auctioning any of the SDD’s proprietary, intellectual property assets or domain

names at this time.

The Receiver has obtained an appraisal of all of the assets and personalty that he originally

discovered within the Premises. The appraisal, which was conducted by Martin Claire & Co, LLC

(the proposed auction company), is attached Exhibit “2.” As the Receiver is electing not to auction

certain items such as computers containing electronically stored information (“ESI”), he seeks the

Court’s authority to sell any assets or items on Exhibit “2” using his best business judgment and

using his sole discretion during the auction.

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 2, 2017, the FTC filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other

Equitable Relief alleging that Defendants were violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §

45(a), and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, in connection with

Defendants’ marketing and sale of student loan debt relief services. The FTC also sought an ex

parte Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Receiver, and Other

Equitable Relief, and an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue

(the “TRO”).

On the following day (October 3, 2017), this Court granted the relief sought by the FTC

and issued the TRO. [DE 9]. As a result of the FTC’s efforts, this Court appointed the Receiver

for SDD and the other Receivership Entities (defined, above, and to be determined). In part, this

means that this Court ordered the Receiver to assume full control of the Receivership Entities and

to secure, conserve, hold, manage, and prevent the loss of the Receivership Entities’ assets.

On October 13, 2017, this Court entered the PI, which, among other things, essentially

continued all of the Court’s mandates under the TRO, including maintaining Mr. Carey as the

Receiver for the Receivership Entities, as defined. [DE 24]. Since his appointment, the Receiver


4

and his professionals have been working to effectuate his obligations under the TRO and PI. This

work has primarily involved identifying and freezing significant accounts and assets of SDD,

related entities owned and/or controlled by Mr. White, and Mr. White himself, as well as securing

three business suites in which SDD and Mr. White’s related entities operated and preserving all

relevant books and records (both hard copy and voluminous ESI).3

Based on his investigation to date, which is both preliminary and ongoing, the Receiver’s

preliminary conclusion is that Mr. White used SDD and related entities he owned and/or controlled

to operate deceptive student debt relief and other deceptive debt relief businesses to the detriment

of consumers and to enrich himself personally and others. Further, the Receiver’s preliminary

investigation has revealed that SDD and the related entities Mr. White owned and/or controlled

were located at 3221 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 507, 507W and 508, Oakland Park, FL 33309 and

3115 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 114, Oakland Park, FL 33309 (collectively, “the Premises”).

While the Receiver has used the Premises to carry out his Court-ordered mandate, he seeks

to vacate the Premises as soon as possible to avoid the Estate incurring additional expenses, such

as rent and utilities.4 However, the Premises contain numerous business-related assets, such office

furniture, cubicles, computer related items, and supplies. The cost to breakdown, move, and store

such items would eventually outweigh their value, which will depreciate over time. As a result,

the Receiver has determined in his best business judgment that he should hold a public auction at

the Premises and attempt to liquidate specific assets inside for the Estate’s benefit. He will then

vacates the Premises as soon as he is able to do so under the circumstances.

3 The Receiver’s and his professionals’ recent work is more fully described in his First Report.

[DE 25-1].

4 While the Receiver has been paying the amount of rent set forth in leases for the Premises, he

has neither agreed to the terms of such documents nor ratified them. He submits that the

Receivership Entities are not bound by any of the terms of the lease.


5

III. PROPOSED AUCTION AGREEMENT, PROCEDURES, AND NOTICE

A. Auction Contract and Procedures

Subject to this Court’s approval, the Receiver has entered into the attached Auction

Contract with Martin Claire & Co, LLC. To ensure that the assets are marketed and that the Estate

receives the highest and best price, the Auction Contract provides certain terms and procedures for

this Court’s authorization. Among other terms and procedures, the Auction Contract provides in

summary fashion that: (1) the auction will be held at the Premises; (2) the auction company will

market and advertise the auction in a commercially reasonable manner; (3) the auction company

will be reimbursed for advanced sale expenses from sale proceeds of the estimated sales expenses

set forth on the Auction Contract; (4) the auction company will collect and keep as compensation

a buyer’s premium from every buyer a sum equal to twelve and one-half percent (12.5%)5; and (5)

all sale proceeds will be paid to the auction company, which in turn, will remit all remaining sales

proceeds to the Receiver no later than fourteen (14) days after the auction. The Receiver also

requests that the Court approve the Receiver’s and auctioneer’s entering into any purchase and

sale agreements during the auction and that all auction sales are final. For additional terms of the

Auction Agreement, the Receiver refers the Court to the attached exhibit. By using an auction

company, the Receiver is attempting to use his best efforts to realize the highest price possible to

liquidate the assets at issue.

IV. VACATE THE PREMISES AND DONATE OR DISPOSE OF UNSOLD ASSETS

After a five (5) day time period to remove purchased auction items, the Receiver

recommends, and requests authority to: (1) wholly vacate the Premises; (2) disconnect and cancel

all utilities, telephone, Internet, cable, and security systems; (3) hire any company necessary to

5 Significantly, the Receiver negotiated a twelve and a one half (12.5%) buyer’s premium over an

initial request for fifteen percent (15%).


6

clean and/or repair the Premises to leave it in a reasonable manner; and 4) donate or otherwise

dispose of any unsold auction items or Receivership Entities’ assets, if needed. The Receiver

provides that this will greatly reduce expenses to the Estate for the benefit of its consumers,

investors, and parties-in-interests.

V. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The Court’s power to supervise an equity receivership and determine the appropriate action

to be taken in the administration of the receivership is extremely broad. SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d

1560, 1566 (11th Cir. 1992); SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

The Court’s wide discretion derives from the inherent powers of an equity court to fashion relief.

Id. at 1566 (citing SEC v. Safety Fin. Serv., Inc., 674 F.2d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 1982)). These powers

include the authority to approve the sale of property of the Receivership Entities. Clark on

Receivers § 482 (3rd ed. 1992) citing First National Bank v. Shedd, 121 U.S. 74, 87, 7 S.Ct. 807,

814, 30 L.Ed. 877 (1887) (A court of equity having custody and control of property has power to

order a sale of the property in its discretion). Indeed, courts appointing a receiver “should see that

the business is liquidated as economically and speedily as possible, unless its continuance is

demonstrably beneficial to creditors.” Jones v. Village of Proctorville, 290 F.2d 49, 50 (6th Cir.

1961) (citation omitted).

A. Statutory Authority for the Sale

Pursuant to the PI and 28 U.S.C. § 754, the Receiver has complete jurisdiction of the assets

at issue and, subject to this Court’s approval, has authority to sell such assets to a third-party

purchaser. See SEC v. American Capital Investments Co., 98 F.3d 1133, 1144 (9th Cir. 1996)

(providing under Section 754, a receiver is “vested with complete jurisdiction and control of all

such property and selling such property is simply an exercise of that control.”). Moreover, a

receiver’s sale of personal property is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2004, which directs that any


7

personal property sold under order of this Court be sold in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2001,

unless the Court orders otherwise. Section 2001, in turn, provides that real property shall be sold

either at public sale or private sale, on terms and conditions set by the statute. Here, the Receiver

is proposing to liquidate assets by public auction through an auction company. Therefore, pursuant

to § 2004, the Receiver must follow the statutory procedures of § 2001 unless the Court orders

otherwise.

Unless otherwise ordered, § 2001(b) requires that three separate appraisals be conducted,

that the sale terms are published in a circulated newspaper ten days prior to sale, and that the sale

price is not less than two-thirds of the appraised value. Because of the circumstances of the

proposed sale and the nature of the property being sold, the Receiver requests that the Court use

its statutorily-granted discretion to depart from the stated requirements of the statute and order

otherwise to approve the proposed sale pursuant to the procedures proposed in this Motion. Tanzer

v. Huffines, 412 F.2d 221, 222 (3d Cir. 1969).

The undersigned has been able to locate limited authority referencing deviation from the

applicable statutes. As set forth in a Report and Recommendation by the Honorable Karla R.

Spaulding, United States Magistrate Judge, adopted by the Honorable John Antoon II, United

States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida:

There is no controlling law regarding deviation from the requirements of § 2001(b).

One of the few courts to address the issue ruled that the statutory scheme expresses

a preferential course to be followed in connection with a court authorized sale of

property and that the district court should not order otherwise except under

extraordinary circumstances.

SEC v. Kirkland, Case No. 6:06-cv-183-Orl-28KRS (M.D. Fla. August 20, 2008) (Docket Entry

581), quoting Tanzer, 412 F.2d at 222; SEC v. Kirkland, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69241 (September

12, 2008) (adopting the Report and Recommendation).

Other than Tanzer, the undersigned counsel has located some authority regarding deviation


8

from the requirements of § 2001(b) selling personalty. See Leidel v. Project Investors, Inc. d/b/a

Cryptsy, Case No. 16-cv-80060-Marra (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2017) (Docket Entry 126 attached

hereto as Exhibit “3”) (“The Receiver is not required to sell the Personalty pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2001 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2004”); SEC v. Morris, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45861 (E.D. Mo. Apr.

2, 2014) (waiving the statutory requirements for a receiver to sell shares of a business); SEC v.

Goldfarb, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118942 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013) (selling interests in a limited

liability company); United States v. Brewer, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52265 (M.D. Fla. June 19,

2009) (authorizing vehicle consignment sale). While the undersigned has found a number of cases

requiring that receivers adhere to the statutory requirements of § 2001(b), all of these cases involve

the sale of vessels or real property, which typically maintain value for an extended period of time.

See Stooksbury v. Ross, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123152 at *5-7 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 4, 2014)

(waiving statutory requirements from appraisal of real property for a receiver); SEC v. T-

Bar Res., LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87880 at *9-10 and fn.4 (N.D. Tx. October 28, 2008)

(“Congress thus considered deviating from the rigors of § 2001(b)’s procedures in relaxing the

process for the sale of personalty”); Bollinger & Boyd Barge Serv., Inc. v. Captain Claude Bass,

576 F.2d 595, 597 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Garcia, 474 F.2d 1202, 1204 (5th Cir. 1973);

Acadia Land Co. v. Horuff, 110 F.2d 354, 354-55 (5th Cir. 1940).

The goal of a receiver charged with liquidating assets is to obtain the best value for the

estate available under the circumstances. Fleet Natl’l Bank v. H & D Entertainment, Inc., 926

F.Supp 226, 239-240 (D.C. Mass. 1996), citing Jackson v. Smith, 254 U.S. 586 (1921). Further,

the paramount goal in any proposed sale of property of the estate is to maximize the proceeds

received by the estate. See, e.g., In re Food Barn Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 558, 564-65 (8th Cir. 1997).

Here, the Receiver is selling a combination of property, which, given their nature, will ultimately

depreciate in value over time.


9

The Receiver has determined that the sale of the assets by public auction through the

auction company will enable the Receiver to obtain the highest and best offer in the market for the

assets and maximize the value of the Estate, and is in the best interest of the consumers, creditors,

and other parties-in-interest. “When a sale of receivership assets is ordered by the court, the assets

should be sold at the ‘best price under the circumstances.’” SEC v. Schooler, 2013 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 162559 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (citations omitted). Here, the public market will dictate

the fair value price that an individual or entity is willing to pay for an asset at auction. The Receiver

submits that obtaining additional appraisals for the assets will also result in additional, unnecessary

expenses to the Estate.

B. Sale Free and Clear of All Liens, Claims, and Encumbrances and Other Interests

This Court’s broad authority over the Receivership Estate includes the equitable power “to

sell property free of liens, transferring the lien to the proceeds.” Seaboard Nat’l Bank v. Rodgers

Milk Products Co., 21 F.2d 414, 416 (2nd Cir. 1927). “It has long been recognized that under

appropriate circumstances, a federal court presiding over a receivership may authorize the assets

of the receivership to be sold free and clear of liens and related claims.” Regions Bank v. Egyptian

Concrete Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111381 at *18-19 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2009) (citations

omitted). Indeed, a sale free and clear of liens, encumbrances, interests or other claims is

customary in receiverships under §§ 2001 and 2004, and in bankruptcy cases under 11 U.S.C. §

363. See e.g., AgStar Fin. Servs., PCA v. Eastwood Dairy, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51052 at

*5-6 (S.D. Ohio April 11, 2012); Regions Bank, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 111381 at *18-19; In re Tousa,

Inc., No. 08-10928-JKO (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2009) (Docket Entry 3432); In re Protective

Products of America, Inc., No. 10-10711-JKO (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2010); and SEC v.

McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-457-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2012) (Docket Entry

580).


10

All auction sales will be final and free and clear of any liens, encumbrances, interests or

other claims with respect to the assets. A “free and clear” provision is essential to the transaction

to maximize the value of the assets by reducing the risks to the Buyer against potential claims. The

Receiver is unaware of any such liens, encumbrances, interests or other claims that cannot be

satisfied by the proceeds of the sale, but nonetheless proposes that the proceeds from the sale of

the assets be retained by the Receiver pending a determination of the priority of the rights thereto,

if any.

VI. AN AUCTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE

Given the nature, quality, and circumstances of the assets, the Receiver believes that an

auction and is in the best interest of the consumers and creditors of the Receivership Entities. As

stated above, the Receiver has used his good faith, best efforts, and business judgment to realize

the highest price possible for the applicable assets by providing the opportunity for a public auction

in the best interests of the Estate. To the extent that assets are not sold at auction, the Receiver

submits that the Court authorize him to donate, or otherwise dispose of, them at his discretion.

Leidel, Case No.: 16-cv-80060-Marra (S.D. Fla. August 16, 2017) (“If any items of Personalty

cannot be sold, the Receiver is authorized to donate the items to a charity of the Receiver's

choice.”).

WHEREFORE, the Receiver respectfully requests that this Court enter an order

substantially similar to the proposed order attached as Exhibit “4” by:

A. Granting this Motion;

B. Approving the Auction Agreement between Receiver and Martin Claire &

Co, LLC attached as Exhibit “1” to this Motion;

C. Authorizing and approving the sell the assets and items listed in Exhibit “2”

of this Motion as well as the Rolex watch described in this Motion at auction using the Receiver’s


11

sole discretion;

D. Authorizing the Receiver to convey, transfer and assign the assets to the

successful bidder(s) during the auction free and clear of any liens or other encumbrances;

E. Authorizing the Receiver and Receivership Entities to vacate the Premises;

disconnect and cancel all utilities, telephone, Internet, cable, and security systems; hire any

company necessary to clean and/or repair the Premises to leave it in a reasonable manner; and

donate, or otherwise dispose of, any unsold auction items or Receivership Entities’ assets, if

needed; and

F. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper in carrying

out the intent and purposes of this Motion.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.A.3, undersigned counsel hereby certifies that he has conferred

with counsel for the FTC and Defendants. Neither counsel for the FTC nor the Defendants oppose

this Motion.


12

Dated: December 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

SALLAH ASTARITA & COX, LLC

Counsel for the Receiver

3010 North Military Trail, Suite 210

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Tel.: (561) 989-9080

Fax: (561) 989-9020

/s/Patrick J. Rengstl James D. Sallah, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 0092584

Email: [email protected]

Jeffrey L. Cox, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 0173479

Email: [email protected]

Patrick J. Rengstl, P.A.

Fla. Bar No. 0581631

Email: [email protected] Joshua A. Katz, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 0848301 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 28, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being

served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in

the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF

or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive

electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

s:/Patrick J. Rengstl

Patrick J. Rengstl


mailto:[email protected]




13

SERVICE LIST

Via CM/ECF

Hans Clausen, Esq.

R. Michael Waller, Esq.

Federal Trade Commission, Southeast Region

225 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1500

Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404.656.1361

Facsimile: 404.656.1379

[email protected]

[email protected]

Via CM/ECF

David A. Ray, Esq.

Counsel for Defendants

David A. Ray, P.A.

1330 Southeast 4th Avenue, Suite I

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316

Telephone: 954.399.0105

[email protected]

Via CM/ECF

Justin Infurna, Esq.

Counsel for Defendants

The Infurna Law Firm, P.A.

121 South Orange Street

Orlando, FL 32801

Telephone: 1.800.774.1560

[email protected]






Case 0:17-cv-61937-WPD Document 44-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/28/2017 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT

SO UTH ERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO . 9:16-cv-80060-M ARRA

BRANDON LEIDEL, individually, and

M ICHAEL W ILSON, individually, and on behalf

of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

PROJECT INVESTORS, INC. d/b/a CRYPTSY, a

Florida cop oration, PAUL VERNON, individually,

LORIE ANN NETTLES, individually, RIDGEW OOD

IN VESTM ENTS, INC., a New Jersey corporation, and

KAUSHAL M AJM UDAR, individually,

Defendants.

O RDER GRANTING RECEIVER'S UN OPPOSED M OTION FOR

AUTHORITY TO LIOUIDATE PERSONALTY SECURED BY THE RECEIVER

THIS M ATTER is before the Court upon the Receiver's Unopposed Motion for

Authority to Liquidate Personalty Secured by the Receiver (the tûMotion'') rDE 1244. The Court

has carefully reviewed said Motion pDE 1241, the entire court t7le and is otherwise fully advised

in the prem ises.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion gDE 1241 is GRANTED. The Receiver

is authorized to sell the items of Personalty (as detined and listed in the Motion, including

Exhibit A) using his diseretion. The Receiver is not required to sell the Personalty pursuant to 28

U.S.C. j 2001 and/or 28 U.S.C. j 2004. lf any items of Personalty cannot be sold, the Receiver

is authorized to donate the item s to a eharity of the Receiver's choice.

Case 9:16-cv-80060-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2017 Page 1 of 2Case 0:17-cv-61937-WPD Document 44-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/28/2017 Page 2 of 3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at W est Palm Beach, Florida, this ZJ day of

August, 2017.

KENNETH A. M ARRA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel and parties of record

Page 2 of 2

Case 9:16-cv-80060-KAM Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2017 Page 2 of 2Case 0:17-cv-61937-WPD Document 44-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/28/2017 Page 3 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 17-CV-61937 WPD

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUDENT DEBT DOCTOR LLC, a Florida

limited liability company,

and

GARY BRENT WHITE, JR., individually and

as an officer of Defendant Student Debt Doctor LLC,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR: (1) AUTHORITY TO

LIQUIDATE CERTAIN RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE ASSETS FREE AND CLEAR OF

LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER INTERESTS; (2) TO VACATE THE

PREMISES; AND (3) TO DONATE OR DISPOSE OF THE REMAINING ASSETS

This CAUSE came before the Court on the Receiver’s Unopposed Motion for: (1) Authority

to Liquidate Certain Receivership Estate Assets Free and Clear of Liens, Encumbrances and Other Interests;

(2) to Vacate the Premises; and (3) to Donate or Dispose of the Remaining Assets With Incorporated

Memorandum Of Law (“Motion”) [DE 44]. Upon review of the Motion, its exhibits, the entire file,

and being otherwise duly advised on the premises, the Court finds granting the Motion to be in the

Receivership Estate’s best interests. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Motion is GRANTED;

2. The Auction Contract (Exhibit 1 to the Motion) is approved;

Exhibit 4


3. Additional appraisals are not necessary under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2004 in light of

the auction company’s marketing the assets and the ability for bidders to make offers at a public

auction;

4. The Receiver is relieved from the statutory requirements under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and

2004 as the Court orders otherwise as herein;

5. The auction shall commence and take place on a date and at a time as set forth in

the Auction Contract (Exhibit 2 to the Motion) or as when otherwise determined by the Receiver;

6. The location of the auction shall be 3221 NW 10th Terrace, Suites 507, 507W, and

508, Oakland Park, FL 33309 and 3115 NW 10th Terrace, Suite 114, Oakland Park, FL 33309;

7. The Receiver is authorized and approved to sell the assets and items set forth in the

Motion, including those listed and described in Exhibit 2 of the Motion as well as the Rolex watch,

at auction using his sole discretion and free and clear of liens, encumbrances, interests or other

claims;

8. The Receiver is hereby authorized, as he may reasonably determine to be in the best

interests of the Receivership Estate, to adopt rules for bidding at the auction that will better

promote the goals of the bidding process and that are not otherwise inconsistent with any order of

the Court, as determined by the Receiver;

9. The Receiver is authorized to sell, convey, transfer, and assign the auctioned assets

to the successful bidder(s) at the auction as a final sale, “as is,” “where is,” and free and clear of

liens, encumbrances, interests or other claims;

10. The Receiver is authorized and empowered to take such steps, incur and pay such

costs and expenses from the Receivership Estate, and do such things as may be reasonably

necessary to implement and effect the terms and requirements of this Order;


11. After the five (5) day time period to remove purchased auction items, the Receiver

is authorized, if he elects to do so to: (1) wholly vacate the Premises; (2) disconnect and cancel all

utilities, telephone, Internet, cable, and security systems; (3) hire any company necessary to clean

and/or repair the Premises to leave it in a reasonable manner; and (4) donate, or otherwise dispose

of, any unsold auction items or Receivership Entities’ assets, if needed.

12. The Court finds that the auction and actions authorized herein reflect the Receiver’s

sound business judgment and constitutes a proper exercise of his fiduciary duties;

13. As the Motion is unopposed, the Court finds that a reasonable and proper

opportunity to object or to be heard regarding the Motion, the auction, and the sale as presented

has been afforded;

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida on this

_____ day of _____________, 201___.

____________________________

WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record


for the southern district of florida...

Documents