Jeffrey M. Templeton, Director and Shareholder v. RKR Investments Inc., a Nevada Corp. RKR Operations, Inc., a Texas Corp. RKR Technologies, LTD., a Texas Limited Partnership And Bob Reece, as Trustee of the Bobby Neale Reece Revocable Trust, 02-18-00024-CV

RKR Investments, Inc. (Investments) is a Nevada corporation with two directors: appellant Jeffrey M. Templeton (≈40% shareholder) and Bob Reece (≈41% via trust). Templeton is a CPA seeking access to corporate books for an audit.
Templeton sued as a director to obtain financial records; parties placed a Rule 11 agreement on the record requiring monthly data pulls and a good-faith full-day mediation before further litigation.
Reece intervened and sought appointment of a receiver under Nevada law, alleging Templeton was blocking a previously agreed sale and that assets could be lost. Templeton contended a sale before an audit would destroy evidence.
At multiple hearings the parties and court agreed on the record that grounds existed for appointing a receiver, though they disagreed on the scope, governing law (Nevada v. Texas), and the specific appointee. Templeton both argued for appointment of a neutral (custodian) and submitted proposed receiver orders and candidate résumés.
The trial court received testimony (including that Investments incurred roughly $495,000 in litigation and accounting fees) and on December 28, 2017 appointed a receiver (J. Robert Forshey) with authority to, among other duties, evaluate sale of subsidiaries/divisions. Templeton appealed interlocutorily.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Templeton)	Defendant's Argument (Reece/Investments)	Held
Whether appointment of a receiver was an abuse of discretion	Court abused discretion; receiver unnecessary/overbroad	Parties stipulated facts justifying a receiver; litigation threatens corporate assets	Overruled — no abuse. Stipulation and evidence support appointment.
Whether Reece lacked standing to intervene for a receiver because parties breached Rule 11 mediation requirement	Reece violated Rule 11 (didn’t mediate), so intervention improper	Challenge depends on compelling mediation; trial court didn’t deny mediation appealably	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction — interlocutory orders referring to mediation are not reviewable.
Whether trial court erred by denying appointment of a custodian instead of receiver	Requested custodian under Nevada law as narrower alternative	Trial court properly appointed receiver; custody vs. receivership ruling not appealable interlocutorily	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction — no statute authorizes interlocutory appeal of custodian denial.
Whether evidence was sufficient to support receivership (including alleged $495,000 fees)	Evidence insufficient to show danger of sacrifice or loss to corporate assets	Parties’ stipulations plus evidence of substantial litigation/accounting expenses support receivership under Nevada law	Overruled — evidence and stipulated facts support appointment under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.650(e).

Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (standards for abuse of discretion review)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
In re Marriage of Davis, 418 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012) (party who seeks appointment cannot later challenge jurisdiction to appoint)
Transcon. Oil Co. of Nev. v. Free, 391 P.2d 317 (Nev. 1964) (Nevada statute provides several bases for temporary receivership)
Spiritas v. Davidoff, 459 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (appointment/termination of receivership within trial court’s discretion)
Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (no abuse where trial court relies on some probative evidence)