The applicant sought to appoint a receiver over the respondents and approve a stalking horse sale process for their jointly owned properties.
A third party, NASG, opposed the vesting orders, claiming a constructive trust over the properties due to alleged scrap metal theft.
The court found NASG's contingent claim did not prevent a vesting order, as monetary damages would be adequate and the receiver would hold net sale proceeds.
However, the court refused to approve the stalking horse agreement because the proposed $500,000 break fee and $150,000 overbid fee were excessive and unjustified.
The court appointed the receiver but required the applicant to revise the sale process.
