DRE Health Corporation v. Berkley Equity Limited, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
DRE HEALTH CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
BERKLEY EQUITY LIMITED,
ANTHONY LYONS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:22-cv-00031-RK
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor DRE Health Corporation’s renewed motion
for appointment of a receiver over the assets of Defendants/Judgment Debtors Anthony Lyons and
Berkley Equity Limited. 	(Doc. 445.) 	The motion is fully briefed. 	(Docs. 446, 476,1 477.)
Additionally, on October 6, 2026, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor filed a motion for leave to file a
supplemental reply to incorporate post-reply discovery productions provided by the defense. (Doc.
498.) Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s motion for leave to file a supplemental reply is GRANTED.
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s supplemental reply—filed at Doc. 498-1, with attachments—is
therefore deemed filed. 	After careful consideration and review, and for the reasons explained
below, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s renewed motion for appointment of
a receiver is GRANTED.
Discussion
The procedural posture and status of this case is well documented, and the Court will not
restate it in detail here. 	As particularly relevant, on May 11, 2026, the Court denied
Plaintiff/Judgement Creditor’s initial request to appoint a receiver, recognizing (at that time) the
“early post-judgment posture” in which the request for a receiver had been made. (Doc. 391 at 8.)
The Court reasoned that much of the conduct by Defendant/Judgment Debtor Lyons supporting
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s request for a receiver occurred at earlier stages of the litigation and
1 Defendants/Judgment Debtors’ motion for leave to file suggestions in opposition and two exhibits
under seal, (Doc. 475), is GRANTED. Defendants/Judgment Debtors separately submitted an unredacted
version of their suggestions in opposition to the Court along with unredacted versions of Exhibit 1 and
Exhibit 2.
Case 4:22-cv-00031-RK Document 501 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 5

2
prior to the final judgment being entered in this matter (which awarded Plaintiff more than $165
million in breach-of-contract benefit-of-the-bargain damages). (Id.; see also Docs. 345, 374.) The
Court also noted that by that point, DRE had largely not yet attempted to engage in post-judgment
discovery. (Id.) The Court emphasized, however, that “[s]hould other methods of collection prove
unsuccessful or if Defendants engage in future fraudulent, misleading, obstructive, or other
intentional conduct in attempt to evade execution of the judgment, [Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor]
may file additional motions for relief as it deems necessary.” (Id. at 9 n.6.) That time has come.
As the Court previously recognized, “[a] receiver is an extraordinary equitable remedy that
is only justified in extreme situations.” Aviation Supply Corp. v. R.S.B.I Aerospace, Inc., 999 F.2d
314, 316 (8th Cir. 1993). 	The Court considers the following factors to determine whether the
appointment of a receiver is warranted: “[1] a valid claim by the party seeking the appointment;
[2] the probability that fraudulent conduct has occurred or will occur to frustrate that claim;
[3] imminent danger that property will be concealed, lost, or diminished in value; [4] inadequacy
of legal remedies; [5] lack of a less drastic equitable remedy; and [6] likelihood that appointing
the receiver will do more good than harm.” Id. at 316-17. “[P]roof of fraud is not required . . . .”
Id. at 317.
Since the Court’s prior Order, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor has attempted to use the various
tools of post-judgment discovery to enforce and collect upon its valid judgment.2 As reflected in
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s renewed motion,3 however, discovery that Defendants/Judgment
Debtors have produced has (1) consistently failed to properly and timely disclose bank accounts
and other assets (financial and otherwise); (2) directly contradicted or has brought into serious
question the truthfulness of sworn trial testimony (or at least has raised a serious question of
material consistency with prior testimony) and prior discovery responses; and (3) revealed material
inconsistencies and attempts to conceal or delay discovery of relationships with certain trusts and
2 Defendants/Judgment Debtors’ appeal of the underlying judgment remains pending. Other than
relying on the fact of the pending appeal, Defendants/Judgment Debtors do not meaningfully or
substantively challenge the validity of the judgment for present purposes.
3 While the Court focuses on the matters addressed in the parties’ relevant briefing of this issue, the
Court notes that the record otherwise—both before and after the filing of Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s
renewed motion to appoint a receiver—well-documents the difficulties Plaintiff has had in obtaining post-
judgment discovery to which it is entitled in aid of executing the judgment entered in this case.
Case 4:22-cv-00031-RK Document 501 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 5

3
bank accounts, among other assets. At this stage and on this record, this is an extraordinary case
in which a receiver is appropriate and necessary.
Defendant/Judgment Debtor Lyons’ participation in discovery, for all the reasons set out in
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s motion and as reflected on the extensive post-judgment discovery
record, has consistently and continuously been obfuscatory and not entirely in good faith.4
Defendants/Judgment Debtors’ attempt to frame the matter at issue as simply a routine “discovery
dispute” is belied by the record. 	For example, Defendants/Judgment Debtors suggest that the
failure to disclose numerous bank accounts was merely the result of Lyons’ “misunderstanding
concerning the scope of his discovery obligations.” 	This assertion is patently unpersuasive.
Defendant/Judgment Debtor Lyons is a well-established and entirely sophisticated businessman;
his counsel are equally sophisticated and capable lawyers. The attempted parsing of the discovery
requests and the Court’s discovery Orders in overly technical and difficult ways is simply
unavailing and are indicative of the structured attempt to frustrate, obscure, and delay post-
judgment discovery in this matter.5
As Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor persuasively demonstrates, transactions and other transfers
completed during this litigation and more specifically within the interim post-judgment discovery
period prior to delayed disclosure of bank accounts and other assets are consistent with and
meaningfully demonstrate the attendant risk in this case that property is being concealed, lost, or
diminished in value. Several bank accounts that were at least initially reported as “closed”—as
4 Defendant/Judgment Debtor Lyons’ litigation conduct—submitting a sham affidavit; presenting
vague, evasive, and obfuscatory testimony; and utilizing other tactics to avoid or delay litigation processes
and procedures—is relevant and informs the Court’s decision here. 	Despite ample opportunity to
participate fully in good faith, Defendant/Judgment Debtor Lyons continues to engage in obstructive
conduct in this post-judgment discovery posture.
5 The post-judgment discovery that continues to trickle in is exceedingly relevant and notable.
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s supplemental reply makes this clear. As an additional example, the Court
located within an in camera privilege log submission by the defense several documents—an email with an
attached “proof of funds” and purchase order—that (1) did not appear to be privileged and (2) was not
referenced in the privilege log itself as discovery that was withheld under any assertion of privilege.
Defense counsel agreed at a discovery dispute hearing that this email and its attachments were not privileged
but did not clearly indicate whether these documents had otherwise been produced to Plaintiff.
Subsequently, the defense did produce them. (See Doc. 496.) The proof of funds was particularly relevant
post-judgment discovery since it appeared to show a Citibank CitiBusiness account ending in -38 in the
name of Berkley Equity Limited with a balance of more than $975 million for the statement period April
1-April 30, 2024. It was not clear that this bank account had previously been disclosed or produced. The
defense has since (somewhat dubiously) indicated that “no such Citibank account actually exists,” and that
therefore the defense “has no account statements and related materials to produce.” (Id.)
Case 4:22-cv-00031-RK Document 501 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 5

4
ongoing discovery continues to show—continue to engage in transactions. Defendants/Judgment
Debtors submit various explanations for the ongoing transactions and suggest that the information
gleaned is simply “unremarkable” for purposes of Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s collection efforts
because they reflect routine transactions. 	(Doc. 476 at 5.) 	Defendants/Judgment Debtors’ post
hoc explanations aside, their conduct is not how discovery is to function, particularly in post-
judgment discovery involving a judgment of this magnitude and involving sophisticated parties
and sophisticated counsel.
“A receiver may be appointed to protect a judgment creditor’s interest in a debtor’s property
when the debtor has shown an intention to frustrate attempts to collect the judgment.” Aviation
Supply Corp., 999 F.2d at 317 (internal quotation marks omitted). That standard is satisfied here.
The Court finds that alternative remedies are unavailing; Defendants/Judgment Debtors have
repeatedly failed to engage in discovery in good faith and have been noncompliant, misleading,
and obstructive; and discovery that has been obtained by Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor documents
significant relocations and transfers of assets and funds not only throughout this litigation but
during the post-judgment period as well. 	Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s supplemental reply
persuasively demonstrates that the belated post-judgment discovery productions support even
more (rather than dispel) this conclusion. 	The Court finds the likelihood that appointing the
receiver will do more good than harm. Less drastic remedies have proven to be, and will continue
to be, ineffective.
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
Case 4:22-cv-00031-RK Document 501 Filed 10/07/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
Accordingly, 	after 	careful 	consideration 	and 	review, 	the 	Court 	ORDERS 	that
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s renewed motion to appoint a receiver, (Doc. 445), is therefore
GRANTED. The Court will appoint a qualified receiver pursuant to Rule 66 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent equitable authority. The Court FURTHER ORDERS
that:
(1) upon entry of this Order, and regardless of whether a receiver has yet been appointed,
Defendants/Judgment Debtors and their agents, representatives, attorneys, and other persons
acting in active concert or participation with them, upon actual notice of this Order, are
RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from transferring, dissipating, encumbering, concealing,
destroying, or disposing of any Property6 or assets, whether directly or indirectly, in the United
States or abroad, without court approval or (once appointed) as directed or conducted by the
Receiver; and
(2) the parties must meet and confer within five (5) days of the date of this Order to identify
and propose a qualified receiver candidate for the Court’s approval. 	Absent extraordinary
circumstances, no extension to this deadline will be granted. If the parties are unable to agree upon
a qualified receiver candidate, the parties shall each submit their proposed receiver candidate,
together with the candidate’s qualifications and relevant experience, within seven (7) days of the
date of this Order. The Court retains sole authority to select and appoint the Receiver.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: October 7, 2026
6 “Property” refers to all real and personal property, tangible and intangible assets, accounts,
investments, securities, trusts, entities, and interests of any kind held by, for the benefit of, or traceable to
Anthony Lyons and Berkley Equity Limited, wherever located and by whomever held.
Case 4:22-cv-00031-RK Document 501 Filed 10/07/26 Page 5 of 5