Receiver’s Reply to Our Opposition

Receiver’s Reply to Our Opposition

1. Receiver Confirms He Can Fulfill His Duties Without Expanding Receivership

   The Receiver’s filing makes clear that he has no need or desire to broaden the scope of the receivership. In his own words:

   “It would be inappropriate for the Receiver to argue for the extension of his duties unless the Receiver felt like he was unable to carry out his duties absent an expansion of his duties; that is not the case here.”

   This statement confirms that the current receivership already gives him the authority he needs — no expansion is required.

2. Receiver Confirms He Is Acting Independently — Not at the Bank’s Direction

   The Receiver clarified that he is a neutral officer of the Court and did not file the motion at the behest of Farm Credit, stating:

   “The Receiver is here to follow the direction provided to him by this Court, and not to do the bidding of any other party.” 

   This acknowledgment directly addresses the concern raised in our opposition — affirming that the Receiver’s actions are guided solely by the Court, not by any lender.

3. Receiver Clarifies His Role: To Execute, Not to Advocate

   The Receiver reiterated that his job is to carry out the Court’s directives, not to take sides:

   “The Court is the appropriate determiner of what is/is not a part of this Receivership.”

   In plain terms, the Receiver will administer the assets already designated — leaving all advocacy, argument, and expansion efforts to the parties themselves.

Read the full filing → Receiver’s Reply to Our Opposition (PDF)