Summary: Following a objections to a Chapter 11 plan by the bankruptcy administrator, First Citizens Bank and other creditors, the Debtor negotiated confirmation, which provided, in part pertinent to this decision, that it would be allowed 11 months to actively market and sell to parcels of real property, against which First Citizens held liens. Failure to sell the collateral during that time would allow First Citizens to foreclose.

Summary: Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548, the Chapter 7 Trustee sought to recover transfers made for the benefit of Bacchus within two years of the bankruptcy filing, arguing that the transfer were a fraudulent conveyance. Bacchus disputed the allegations that the Debtor received less that the reasonably equivalent value, as the payments were for an obligation owed by the debtor to Bacchus’ deceased father for the purchase of grain, which had been stored on the debtor’s property.

Summary: The Debtor filed Chapter 7 in 1998 and received a discharge shortly thereafter. In 2009, the Debtor commenced litigation in Florida regarding 24,000 shares of SafeCard, Inc. stock, purchased for approximately $120,000.00 in November 1977, upon which the Debtor had never received distributions or dividends. The Debtor had not listed this asset in his petition and accordingly, the Chapter 7 Trustee reopened the case in September 2012, but took no subsequent steps to administer the asset.

Summary: The Debtor had since 1998 complied with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 105-306 to list for taxes the personal property owned in Wake County. The Debtor was required to file such a disclosure between January 1st and 31st of 2009, but failed to do so, instead filing bankruptcy on February 18, 2009. On September 30, 2009, Wake County subsequently sent the Debtor a notice that it had assessed taxes at a “discovered value” of 125% of the value from the previous year and that the Debtor had, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 105-312(d), thirty (30) days to contest this value.

Summary: Plaintiffs had brought suit against Howard A. Jacobson (“Jacobson”), Envision Sales & Marketing Group LLC (“Envision”), CILPS Acquisition LLC (“CILPS”), and the debtor (collectively “business court defendants”) and it was designated a mandatory complex business case and assigned to the North Carolina Business Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A–45.4(b).

Summary: The McClendons sought to purchase a home built by Jim Walters Homes (JWH) and financed by Walter Mortgage Company (WMC). Both the construction and the financing went through several permutations, with the size of the house, the amount of the loan, and the loan interest rate, increasing several times.

Summary: The standard for a stay pending appeal requires a showing of all of the following: (1) That the movant is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) That the movant is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction; (3) That the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) That the injunction is in the public interest. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) vacated on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (2010).

Summary: In a “Dirt for Debt” Plan, the Chapter 11 Debtor’s proposed to surrender real property to Gateway. The Bankruptcy Court held that the proper basis for valuation for such tender was the fair market value standard, where Gateway had urged a liquidation value. On appeal, the District Court held that while 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1) mandates use of the fair market or “replacement” value where the Debtor intends to retain the collateral for its own use, the same is not true where the Debtor intends to surrender the property.

Summary: The Bankruptcy Court, subsequently affirmed by the District Court, determined that the two liens held by Bank of America against real property were void pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(1) because of inaccurate property descriptions. See Meade v. Bank of America (In re Meade), 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4631, 2011 WL 5909398 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. July 29, 2011), and Bank of America v. Meade,Bank of Am. v. Meade, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96071 (E.D.N.C. July 9, 2012).

Summary: Rodgers had filed a complaint for claims arising from a real estate dispute. The Bankruptcy Court granted a judgment on the pleadings as to two defendants, but, in light of Sterns v. Marshall, the District Court returned the matter to the Bankruptcy Court for a determination of whether the issues raised were “core” or “non-core” and the basis for jurisdiction. (See: http://ncbankruptcyexpert.com/?p=1137) The Bankruptcy Court then found that the claims were “non-core” pursuant to 28 U.S.C.