Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 23, 2025.
`
`
`
`
`Peter D. Russin, Judge
`
`United States Bankruptcy Court
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
`
`
`In re:
`
`
`
`
`
`VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
`INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 22-17842-PDR
`
`Chapter 11
`
`Jointly Administered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Debtors.
`_____________________________/
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING VARIOUS MOTIONS
`FILED BY JACK H. OWOC AND MEGAN OWOC
`
`This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 26, 2025, at 10:00
`
`
`
`
`A.M. (the “Hearing”), upon the following motions filed by Jack H. Owoc, and with
`
`respect to certain of them, joined by Megan Owoc: (i) Emergency Motion To Lift All
`
`Confidentiality Orders And Disclose All Settlement Negotiations, Financial
`
`Transactions, And Professional Fees To Allow Mr. And Mrs. Owoc To Properly Defend
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 2 of 21
`
`Themselves And Ensure Accountability To Creditors Introduction,1 (ii) Emergency
`
`Motion to Waive All Court Fees and Costs Due To Financial Hardship Resulting from
`
`Bankruptcy and Imminent Foreclosure Of Movants Family Home Emergency Relief
`
`Requested,2 (iii) Emergency Motion to Require Electronic Filing Access for Pro Se
`
`Litigants To Ensure Equal Protection Under the Law and Prevent Undue Burdens
`
`and Prejudice,3 (iv) Emergency Motion for Immediate Return of Personal Property
`
`Confiscated Without Due Process and For Relief from Unlawful Seizure Resulting in
`
`Catastrophic Damages,4 (v) Emergency Motion and Supplemental Demand for Equal
`
`Time, Fair Treatment, And Formal Apology for Systemic Judicial Bias And
`
`Prejudice,5 (vi) Motion For Rule 2004 Examinations,6 (vii) Emergency Motion to
`
`Reconsider Deadlines And Pause ESI Production Due to Due Process Violations,
`
`Unlawful Confiscation, and Procedural Abuse,7 (viii) Emergency Motion For
`
`Injunctive Relief To Halt Trustee's Fraudulent Scheme And Enjoin Lowenstein
`
`Sandler And Bast Amron From Continued Depletion Of The Estate,8 and (ix)
`
`Emergency Motion To Halt Trustee's Alleged Bankruptcy Fraud And Racketeering
`
`Scheme: Looting The Estate9 (collectively, the “Motions”). The arguments in the
`
`Motions are the latest in a pattern of repetitive and unsupported assertions meant to
`
`disrupt the bankruptcy proceedings of Mr. Owoc’s former companies, Vital
`
`
`
`1 Doc. 2820.
`2 Doc. 2821.
`3 Doc. 2822.
`4 Doc. 2823.
`5 Doc. 2825.
`6 Doc. 2826.
`7 Doc. 2837.
`8 Doc. 2838.
`9 Doc. 2839.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 3 of 21
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates (the “Debtor” or “Vital”). For the reasons that
`
`follow the Motions are denied.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Jack H. Owoc founded Vital in 1993, serving as its sole officer and shareholder.
`
`Under his leadership Vital experienced significant growth and success with its Bang
`
`Energy drink brand. However, the company faced substantial legal challenges that
`
`contributed to its financial difficulties. In one prominent case, Monster Energy
`
`Company (“Monster”) sued Vital for false advertising related to the marketing of
`
`"Super Creatine" in the company’s flagship product, Bang Energy drinks.10 The jury
`
`determined that the claims were misleading since the drinks contained no actual
`
`creatine, resulting in a $293 million damages award in 2022.11 This verdict was later
`
`upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2025.12
`
`In a separate arbitration case, Vital was found liable for trademark
`
`infringement against Monster and Orange Bang, resulting in a $175 million
`
`arbitration award and a 5% royalty on future Bang Energy sales. 13 These significant
`
`financial obligations placed immense strain on the company.
`
`The Bang Energy drink, central to Vital’s success, was also the product at the
`
`heart of these legal issues. Its misleading marketing claims and trademark disputes
`
`called into question the long-term viability of the brand.
`
`
`10 Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharms., Inc. et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-1882-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.
`September 29, 2022).
`11 Id. at Doc. 890.
`12 Id. at Doc. 1083.
`13 Orange Bang, Inc. et al. v. Vital Pharms Inc. et al., AAA Case No. 01-20-0005-6081 (April 4, 2022).
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 4 of 21
`
`These judgments lead to Vital and its affiliates filing for bankruptcy in October
`
`2022.14 Shortly after filing bankruptcy, Vital added independent directors to its
`
`board. Ultimately, Vital’s board removed Mr. Owoc as an officer and director in March
`
`2023.15
`
`In February 2023, as part of the chapter 11 efforts to maximize estate value,
`
`the Debtor, through its investment banker Rothschild & Co., engaged in a months-
`
`long global marketing process. The Court entered its Order (I) Approving Bidding
`
`Procedures, (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Provide Bid Protections, and (III) Granting
`
`Related Relief,16 which set competitive bidding procedures for the sale of the
`
`company. The Debtor, through Rothschild, contacted approximately 150 potential
`
`buyers and entered into NDAs with over 45 interested parties. Despite this extensive
`
`outreach and repeated extensions of bidding deadlines, only one Qualified Bid was
`
`ultimately received for substantially all of the Debtors' assets—submitted by Blast
`
`Asset Acquisition LLC, an acquisition vehicle formed by Monster. No other actionable
`
`bids were received by the extended final bid deadline of June 26, 2023. Consequently,
`
`the Auction was cancelled, and Blast was designated the Successful Bidder.
`
`On June 28, 2023, Vital and Blast entered into their Asset Purchase Agreement,
`
`resulting in the Court’s Amended Order (1) Authorizing and Approving (A) The Sale
`
`of Substantially All of the Debtor's Assets Free and Clear of all Liens, Claims and
`
`Encumbrances and (B) The Assumption and Assignment of Certain Executory
`
`
`
`14 Doc. 1.
`15 See In re Vital Pharms., 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 2483, *4 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2023).
`16 Doc. 854.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 5 of 21
`
`Contracts and Unexpired Leases in Connection Therewith, and (III) Granting Related
`
`Relief (the “Sale Order”).17 Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, Monster
`
`agreed to pay $362 million in cash, plus potential contingent consideration up to $10
`
`million, and assume certain liabilities. The sale was also structured in tandem with
`
`a comprehensive settlement of pending litigation and was subject to Hart-Scott-
`
`Rodino clearance. Assertions by Mr. Owoc that a materially higher bid was
`
`“suppressed” are not supported by any evidence in the record and are contradicted by
`
`the extensive sale history and lack of alternative qualifying bids submitted during
`
`the process.
`
`Vital filed its Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (the
`
`“Plan”)18 on September 15, 2023, and the Court entered its Order Approving
`
`Disclosure Statement and Confirming Chapter 11 Plan (the “Confirmation Order”)19
`
`on November 8, 2023. Mr. Owoc had the opportunity to appeal the Sale Order and
`
`Confirmation Order but did not do so. The Confirmation Order established the
`
`Liquidating Trust, with the purpose of holding and administering assets for the
`
`benefit of the estate and its creditors.20
`
`As relevant context for the Motions addressed in this Order, the Court notes
`
`that the Liquidating Trust has filed an adversary proceeding against Mr. Owoc, Mrs.
`
`Owoc, and various affiliated entities (the “Adversary”).21 In that lawsuit, the
`
`
`
`17 Doc. 1658.
`18 Doc. 1905.
`19 Doc. 2258.
`20 Doc. 1905, Art. VI.
`21 See, e.g., VPX Liquidating Trust v. Owoc et al. (In re Vital Pharms.), Adv. No. 24-01009-PDR
`(Bankr. S.D. Fla. filed Jan 18, 2024).
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 6 of 21
`
`Liquidating Trust seeks to recover property and pursue claims for, among other
`
`things, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfer, and unjust enrichment. The
`
`Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Owoc, while serving as CEO and
`
`fiduciary of Vital, caused the company to transfer substantial corporate assets,
`
`including cash and intellectual property, for the benefit of himself, Mrs. Owoc, their
`
`family members, and entities under their control, at a time when the company was
`
`insolvent.22 These actions are alleged to constitute breaches of Mr. Owoc’s fiduciary
`
`duties to the company and its creditors. The Complaint further asserts that Mr. Owoc
`
`engaged in conduct that contributed to the company’s legal exposure and eventual
`
`financial collapse, including the unauthorized use of the “Bang” brand and the
`
`marketing of “Super Creatine” in violation of prior settlement agreements.
`
`Mr. Owoc’s pending motions in this Court seek, in part, to halt or interfere with
`
`the Liquidating Trust’s prosecution of that Adversary. The Court references the
`
`existence of this litigation solely to provide context for the relief Mr. Owoc is seeking
`
`in the present motions. The Court makes no findings as to the validity of the
`
`Liquidating Trust’s allegations or the merits of the Adversary.
`
`II.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these matters under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1334. The Court has statutory authority to hear and determine this proceeding
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and (b)(1). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1408.
`
`III. Standard
`
`22 Id. at Doc. 148.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 7 of 21
`
`Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, “[a] factual claim is frivolous when it has
`
`no reasonable factual basis. A legal claim is frivolous when it has no reasonable
`
`chance of succeeding.”23 “The bankruptcy court has authority to regulate vexatious
`
`litigation pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and the All Writs Act,
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651(a),” and have done so where parties engage in repetitive or harassing
`
`filings.24 As the Supreme Court has emphasized, “[e]very paper filed with the Clerk
`
`of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the
`
`institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these
`
`resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.”25
`
`Although pro se litigants are granted leniency in procedural matters, they are
`
`not immune from sanctions for abusive litigation conduct.26 “[O]ne acting pro se has
`
`no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and
`
`abuse already overloaded court dockets."27 Courts need not entertain every
`
`nonsensical argument asserted by a pro se litigant and may reject them summarily
`
`instead.28 A hearing is not required on patently frivolous claims or those which are
`
`based upon unsupported generalizations, nor is a hearing required where the
`
`petitioner's allegations are affirmatively contradicted by the record.29 Moreover,
`
`
`23 Gulisano v. Cohen, 34 F.4th 935, 942 (11th Cir. 2022) (citing Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 524
`(11th Cir. 1998).
`24 In re Grp. Mgmt. Corp., 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 3517, *2 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2022); See 11 U.S.C. §
`105(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995).
`25 In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989).
`26 See Id.
`27 Patterson v. Aiken, 841 F.2d 386, 387 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A.,
`808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir.1986).
`28 See, e.g., United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011).
`29 Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545, 1553 (11th Cir. 1989).
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 8 of 21
`
`Courts may impose reasonable limitations on future filings to prevent abuse, so long
`
`as the litigant retains some access to the courts.30
`
`The Eleventh Circuit has likewise recognized that courts may fashion
`
`appropriate injunctive relief to protect the courts and parties from vexatious and
`
`abusive litigants.31 Such restrictions may include requiring leave of court before
`
`further filings, provided the litigant is not completely foreclosed from access to the
`
`courts.32
`
`Considering the Owocs’ pattern of repetitive, frivolous, and harassing filings,
`
`further restrictions may be warranted to preserve judicial resources and safeguard
`
`the orderly administration of the estate.
`
`IV. Analysis
`
`A. The 2004 Exam Motion
`
`Mr. Owoc’s Motion for Rule 2004 Examinations (the “2004 Exam Motion”)33
`
`seeks 2004 discovery from a variety of individuals and entities including the Debtors,
`
`Monster, and various professionals involved in the bankruptcy proceeding, including
`
`his former counsel. The Motion asserts as its basis: “there is credible evidence that
`
`certain financial institutions and advisors deliberately suppressed a $3.7 billion offer
`
`from Keurig Dr. Pepper, thereby reducing the value of the estate and harming
`
`creditors.” Although this is a consistent theme to the repetitive complaints by Mr.
`
`
`30 In re Grp. Mgmt. Corp., 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 3517 at 3 (citing In re Amir, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 3915,
`2013 WL 5302549, at *2-3 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2013)). Foley v. Orange Cnty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS
`18143, *6 (11th Cir. 2024) (citing Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986) (en
`banc)).
`31 See Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074.
`32 See Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387 (11th Cir. 1993).
`33 Doc. 2826.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 9 of 21
`
`Owoc, he has had every opportunity but has failed to present any such “credible
`
`evidence,” or any evidence whatsoever. The Court finds Mr. Owoc’s repeated assertion
`
`of a $3.7 billion suppressed bid to be entirely unsubstantiated and not credible.
`
`Speculative or inflammatory claims—unsupported by any facts—do not justify
`
`discovery under Rule 2004 or any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code.
`
`It is also illogical to suggest that the Debtor through its board of directors, its
`
`advisors, the unsecured creditors’ committee and various financial institutions, or the
`
`secured creditors who were not paid in full, would have suppressed any higher or
`
`better offer let alone such a dramatically higher and better offer. The motion appears
`
`instead to be a forum for Mr. Owoc’s personal grievances and to assert potential
`
`personal litigation claims rather than a genuine concern for the administration of the
`
`estate. In addition, to the extent Mr. Owoc seeks discovery relating to issues in the
`
`Adversary or any other proceedings,34 the discovery is more appropriately sought
`
`there pursuant to the pending proceeding rule.35
`
`Mr. Owoc has already taken depositions and received large document
`
`productions; courts generally do not permit duplicative or harassing demands.36 To
`
`the extent Mr. Owoc is using 2004 discovery in order to pursue a private cause of
`
`action against the directors or professionals, the Plan’s Gatekeeper Provision bars
`
`
`34 VPX Liquidating Trust v. Owoc et al. (In re Vital Pharms.), Adv. No. 24-01009-PDR (Bankr. S.D.
`Fla. filed Jan 18, 2024); Vital Pharms, Inc. et al. v. Owoc et al. (In re Vital Pharms.), Adv. No. 23-
`01125-PDR (Bankr. S.D. Fla. filed June 16, 2023).
`35 See In re Sanomedics, Inc., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2187, at *6 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2018) (“[u]sing Rule
`2004 to obtain discovery relevant to outside litigation is precisely the type of prejudice to the
`discovery target that the pending proceeding rule is designed to avoid.”)
`36 See In re Kelton, 389 B.R. 812, 814 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2008) (“[c]ourts have denied motions for Rule
`2004 examinations when the purpose is to abuse and harass. . .”)
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 10 of 21
`
`him from doing so without first meeting specific thresholds.37 Mr. Owoc did not appeal
`
`the Confirmation Order and the Plan’s Gatekeeper Provisions remain applicable. Mr.
`
`Owoc has made no effort to comply with them.
`
`Finally, the requests lack requisite good faith. The allegations of suppressed
`
`bids or misconduct have already been addressed in the sale process and the Sale
`
`Order.38 The Sale Order was entered on July 14, 2023, and the Confirmation Order
`
`was entered on November 8, 2023, both of which established the sale of the Debtors
`
`to Blast Asset Acquisition, LLC.39 Mr. Owoc did not appeal either order, and the time
`
`to appeal has long since passed. A renewed “investigation” is unlikely to survive
`
`scrutiny unless Mr. Owoc shows a reasonable basis for his repeated allegations, which
`
`he has failed to do. Accordingly, the 2004 Exam Motion is denied.
`
`Moreover, the Court finds this Motion to be both frivolous and vexatious. It is
`
`both factually and legally frivolous, as it has no reasonable factual basis, is
`
`unsupported by any competent evidence, and has no chance of succeeding. Mr. Owoc’s
`
`conduct at the Hearing was also vexatious and inappropriate from any litigant. He
`
`claimed that the Court forced his previous lawyers to resign “because of the pressure
`
`in this corrupt Southern Florida bankruptcy community.”40 Mr. Owoc made
`
`unsupported accusations including: “There was all kinds of fraud from the very
`
`beginning. . . So all this nonsense and bankruptcy crimes that all of you committed,
`
`
`37 See Doc. 1905, Art. VII, Sec. K.
`38 See Doc. 1658.
`39 See Id., Doc. 2258.
`40 Hr’g Tr. Mar. 26, 2024, 27:5-10.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 11 of 21
`
`is vitiated.”41 He accused the Court, asserting that it was “blocking in allowing them
`
`to commit fraud.”42 He threatened the Court and all of the parties involved, stating:
`
`“Let me just tell you, [the President] passed new legislation, and I’ve been invited to
`
`the White House, personally invited. You guys, you’re all going down. You’re not going
`
`to get away with it.”43 He addressed the Court by saying “you’re a shill. You’re
`
`blocking, and you’re aiding and abetting in a $3.7 billion crime. . .”44 As provided
`
`earlier in this Order, being “pro se does not serve as an ‘impenetrable shield’, for one
`
`acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with
`
`meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets."45 Mr. Owoc clearly
`
`harassed the Court and the other parties with his conduct at the hearing, and he is
`
`clogging and abusing this proceeding’s docket with his frivolous and vexatious filings.
`
`Mr. Owoc’s inflammatory statements lack any evidentiary support and further
`
`undermine his credibility as a litigant in this matter.
`
`B. The Apology Motion
`
`Jack and Megan Owocs’ Emergency Motion and Supplemental Demand for
`
`Equal Time, Fair Treatment, And Formal Apology for Systemic Judicial Bias And
`
`Prejudice (the “Apology Motion”)46 accuses the Court of bias and unequal treatment
`
`and demands, among other things, a formal apology. The Owocs ask the Court to: (i)
`
`read every future Owoc filing aloud in open court and enter each verbatim into the
`
`
`
`41 Id. at 27:22-25, 28:1-2.
`42 Id. at 30:4-5.
`43 Id. at 30:11-14.
`44 Id. at 32:4-6.
`45 Patterson v. Aiken, 841 F.2d 386, 387 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A.,
`808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir.1986).
`46 Doc. 2825.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 12 of 21
`
`record; (ii) grant oral-argument time “comparable” to that afforded the Trustee and
`
`other parties; (iii) issue a formal written apology acknowledging alleged “repeated
`
`instances of judicial misconduct;” and (iv) provide written justification for any future
`
`difference in speaking time or procedural treatment. The Apology Motion asserts that
`
`the Court has shown “persistent and egregious judicial bias,” claims the Trustee
`
`received “hours” of argument while Mr. Owoc received “mere minutes,” alleges
`
`“over 100 instances” in which the Owocs were “silenced” or “obstructed,” and cites
`
`federal and Florida authority on due-process rights, impartial tribunals, and judicial
`
`canons to argue that the Owocs are entitled to equal treatment and a written apology.
`
`The Court finds these accusations to be wholly without merit and unsupported
`
`by any credible evidence. Mr. Owoc has been afforded every opportunity to participate
`
`fully in this bankruptcy. He has appeared at numerous hearings, filed a substantial
`
`number of motions and objections, and has made oral arguments—often at length.
`
`The record reflects that Mr. Owoc’s procedural access has not been denied but
`
`expanded, with the Court routinely allowing him to be heard despite the repetitive
`
`and often inflammatory nature of his remarks and filings.
`
`To the extent the Motion claims judicial bias based on the Court’s rulings or
`
`case management, it is well established that “[j]udicial rulings alone almost never
`
`constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”47 Nor does unequal argument
`
`time, without more, establish a due process violation. The Court has a duty to manage
`
`its docket efficiently and equitably and retains discretion to allocate time as
`
`
`47 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 13 of 21
`
`appropriate under the circumstances. Assertions that the Court has “never ruled in
`
`Mr. Owoc’s favor” are not only incorrect, but legally insufficient to establish bias. As
`
`the Eleventh Circuit has noted, a judge's decisions in the course of a judicial
`
`proceeding do not constitute a basis for recusal absent a showing of pervasive bias.48
`
`Despite the unfounded nature of the Owocs’ accusations, the Court has
`
`consistently permitted their participation out of a commitment to procedural fairness.
`
`But that right is not without limits. The Apology Motion, like the others addressed in
`
`this Order, is legally frivolous and part of a pattern of vexatious conduct. Accordingly,
`
`the Apology Motion is denied.
`
`C. The Halt Motions
`
`Mr. Owoc filed two duplicative motions: the Emergency Motion for Injunctive
`
`Relief To Halt Trustee's Fraudulent Scheme And Enjoin Lowenstein Sandler And
`
`Bast Amron From Continued Depletion Of The Estate,49 and the Emergency Motion
`
`To Halt Trustee's Alleged Bankruptcy Fraud And Racketeering Scheme: Looting The
`
`Estate50 (together, the “Halt Motions”). These Motions request nearly identical relief,
`
`asking the Court to suspend billing by the Trustee and his attorneys and refer them
`
`to federal authorities for potential bankruptcy fraud. The header of one section of the
`
`second Halt Motion reads: “The Legendary Rico Conspiracy: A Case Study in
`
`Collusion, Fraud, and Abuse of Power.” That section states:
`
`What is unfolding in this bankruptcy is not just mismanagement-it is a
`coordinated, multi-party fraud operation that bears all the hallmarks of
`a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) conspiracy.
`
`48 Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., 293 F.3d 1306, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002).
`49 Doc. 2838.
`50 Doc. 2839.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 14 of 21
`
`The Trustee, its law firms, and other complicit actors have engaged in a
`pattern of behavior that strongly suggests collusion to commit financial
`fraud under the protection of the bankruptcy court.
`
`However, the confirmed Plan provides at Article VI.H(6) that post-
`
`confirmation the Liquidating Trustee can compensate attorneys without Court
`
`approval: "The Liquidating Trustee shall have the right, without Court approval, to
`
`retain the services of attorneys, accountants, and other professionals and agents, to
`
`assist and advise the Liquidating Trustee in the performance of his, her, or its duties,
`
`and to compensate and reimburse expenses of such professionals in accordance with
`
`the Liquidating Trust Agreement."51 These provisions reflect the post-confirmation
`
`separation of powers established by the Plan: the Liquidating Trustee holds authority
`
`to retain and compensate professionals in accordance with the Liquidating Trust
`
`Agreement, without judicial approval. Any attempt to override these terms now
`
`would contravene the final, binding nature of the Confirmation Order. If Mr. Owoc
`
`wished to object to confirmation on these grounds, he could have done so and could
`
`have appealed the Confirmation Order. The Court will not suspend the Liquidating
`
`Trust from billing, as it is merely operating post-confirmation pursuant to the Plan
`
`and the Confirmation Order.
`
`Mr. Owoc’s continued filing of frivolous and inflammatory motions further
`
`underscores the vexatious nature of his conduct. These filings impose additional costs
`
`on the estate by requiring responses from the Liquidating Trust and its
`
`professionals—the very expenditures Mr. Owoc purports to challenge. This pattern
`
`51 Doc. 1905, Art. VI.H(6).
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 15 of 21
`
`of conduct not only burdens estate administration but also undermines the integrity
`
`of the judicial process. The Halt Motions are denied.
`
`Mr. Owoc’s conduct at the hearing was likewise vexatious, claiming the
`
`attorneys for the Liquidating Trust were “abusing the bankruptcy process for
`
`personal enrichment.”52 The following excerpts from Mr. Owoc’s in-court statements
`
`reflect conduct that the Court finds disruptive and unsupported by any evidentiary
`
`basis: “You need to shut this down, Judge, because if you don’t, you’re aiding and
`
`abetting this legal looting scheme that’s going on here.” Reading the Motions in open
`
`court, he requested that the Court “refer – and this is very important – the matter to
`
`the federal authorities for investigation into potential bankruptcy fraud, racketeering
`
`activities, with the actions Lowenstein Sandler and the trustee may constitute
`
`violations under 18 U.S.C. 1962, which is a RICO crime. . .”53 Mr. Owoc’s Motions and
`
`repeated criminal accusations – unsupported by a single item of competent evidence–
`
`are legally frivolous and procedurally abusive. Such conduct cannot be tolerated in
`
`any court, particularly one tasked with protecting estate assets for the benefit of
`
`creditors.
`
`The Court finds the Halt Motions legally frivolous and factually baseless. Mr.
`
`Owoc’s escalating rhetoric, repeated unfounded accusations, and disruptive conduct
`
`reflect a continuing abuse of process. The Halt Motions are denied in their entirety.
`
`D. The Confidentiality Motion
`
`
`52 Hr’g Tr. Mar. 26, 2024, 189:5-6.
`53 Id. at 190:13-18.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 16 of 21
`
`Jack and Megan Owoc’s Emergency Motion to Lift All Confidentiality Orders
`
`and Disclose All Settlement Negotiations, Financial Transactions, And Professional
`
`Fees to Allow Mr. And Mrs. Owoc To Properly Defend Themselves and Ensure
`
`Accountability to Creditors Introduction (the “Confidentiality Motion”)54 focuses
`
`primarily on a purportedly confidential settlement agreement with Lloyd’s of London.
`
`They assert: “[t]hese confidentiality restrictions have been weaponized to obstruct
`
`due process, prevent transparency, and conceal the mismanagement, self-dealing,
`
`and abuse of power perpetrated by the Trustee and their counsel, Lowenstein Sandler
`
`LLP.” The Confidentiality Motion requests that the Court lift all confidentiality
`
`restrictions and provide weekly billing reports of all money paid to professionals for
`
`the estate.
`
`The only purportedly confidential matter referenced in the Motion—the
`
`Lloyd’s of London settlement—is not confidential and remains publicly available on
`
`the docket.55 While the Liquidating Trust originally requested to file the motion
`
`under seal (at the apparent request of Lloyd’s of London),56 the Court denied that
`
`request.57 The Liquidating Trust filed its Amended Motion to Compromise
`
`Controversy with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London,58 disclosing the
`
`settlement – Lloyd’s of London was to pay $1.25 million to the Liquidating Trust in
`
`
`
`54 Doc. 2820.
`55 See Doc. 2785.
`56 See Doc. 2766.
`57 Doc. 2788.
`58 Doc. 2785.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 17 of 21
`
`exchange for the Liquidating Trust dismissing a suit in state court, which the Court
`
`approved.
`
`The only other potentially confidential agreement, as pointed out by the
`
`Liquidating Trust in its Objection, is the Protective Order.59 However, this order was
`
`merely designed to protect confidential material that may be produced during
`
`discovery, and Mr. Owoc signed an agreement acknowledging that he consented to
`
`and was bound by it.60 The Protective Order also provides procedures for Mr. Owoc
`
`to seek the unsealing of confidential documents if he wishes to do so.61 Moreover, as
`
`made clear in the Expedited Motion for Protective Order and Confidentiality
`
`Agreement,62 the primary purpose was to shield confidential information from
`
`Monster, who was engaged in separate litigation with the Debtors. Mr. Owoc has
`
`continuously complained that confidential information might become available to
`
`Monster and used against him, so if anything, the Protective Order was designed to
`
`protect his interests.
`
`The Confidentiality Motion is a good example of a frivolous motion having no
`
`reasonable factual basis and no reasonable chance of succeeding. Accordingly, the
`
`Confidentiality Motion is denied.
`
`E. The Fee Waiver Motion
`
`Jack and Megan Owoc filed an Emergency Motion to Waive All Court Fees and
`
`Costs Due to Financial Hardship Resulting from Bankruptcy and Imminent
`
`
`
`59 Doc. 823.
`60 See Id.
`61 See Id.
`62 Doc. 775.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 18 of 21
`
`Foreclosure of Movants Family Home Emergency Relief Requested (the “Fee Waiver
`
`Motion”).63 The Fee Waiver Motion claims that, due to financial losses and the
`
`imminent foreclosure of their home, the Owocs are entitled to have future court fees
`
`waived. It is unclear precisely what fees they are referring to. They cite 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1930(f)(1), which applies only to filing fees for individual chapter 7 debtors;
`
`inapplicable here.64 The Owocs provide no further explanation of the fees they seek
`
`to have waived or the legal basis for doing so. The Fee Waiver Motion is another
`
`example of a frivolous motion having no reasonable factual basis and no reasonable
`
`chance of succeeding. Accordingly, the Fee Waiver Motion is denied.
`
`F. The CM/ECF Motion
`
`Mr. Owoc’s Emergency Motion to Require Electronic Filing Access for Pro Se
`
`Litigants To Ensure Equal Protection Under the Law and Prevent Undue Burdens
`
`and Prejudice (the “CM/ECF Motion”)65 requests access to electronically file motions
`
`on the docket, claiming his inability to do so violates his constitutional rights.
`
`However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B)(i) provides that pro se litigants
`
`“may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by local rule.”66 This Court’s
`
`Local Rule 5005-4(B)(4) provides: “[c]urrently, pro se debtors and bankruptcy petition
`
`preparers are ineligible to use CM/ECF to file documents electronically.”67
`
`Accordingly, in this district unrepresented parties are not permitted to use the
`
`
`
`63 Doc. 2821.
`64 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f)(1).
`65 Doc. 2822.
`66 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B)(i).
`67 Bankr. S.D. Fla. R. 5005-4(B)(4).
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 22-17842-PDR Doc 2890 Filed 04/23/25 Page 19 of 21
`
`CM/ECF system. It is the Court’s understanding that this is the policy of virtually
`
`every bankruptcy court in the country. The CM/ECF Motion claims that the Northern
`
`District of Florida’s Electronic Document Submission Web Portal allows pro se
`
`litigants to file online; however, that online portal clearly indicates: “[p]ro se litigants
`
`may not file electronically.”68
`
`The Eleventh Circuit addressed this precise issue in In re Castro, in which a
`
`pro se litigant claimed the District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s
`
`restriction on CM/ECF access violated his first amendment rights.69 The court
`
`rejected his argument, providing: “Both the Federal Rules and the district court's
`
`local rules clearly allow for the electronic filing restriction on pro se litigants that
`
`Castro now chal