Bankruptcy — No ‘Contribution’ Without Debtor’s ILSA Payment

Bankruptcy — No ‘Contribution’ Without Debtor’s ILSA Payment (access required)

Ross v. R.A. North Development Inc. A district court did not err in dismissing a bankruptcy trustee’s adversary action against two real estate development companies and several of their sales and marketing affiliates on a claim that they jointly engaged in a scheme to sell properties at inflated prices in subdivisions in North and South Carolina and are liable for contribution for debtor realty company’s liabilities under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act; the 4th Circuit says debtor is not entitled to contribution as a matter of law because it has yet to make any payment to aggrieved purchasers under the ILSA.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try North Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $39 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Tort/Negligence – STCA – Real Property – Environmental – Administrative – Septic System – ‘Perk’ Test – Expert Testimony – Common Knowledge (access required)

Russell v. N.C. Department of Environment & Natural Resources Since the evidence indicated that, when plaintiffs’ lot was supposedly tested for septic tank suitability, the soil sample was apparently taken from a different lot, expert testimony was unnecessary to show professional malpractice. We affirm the Industrial Commission’s conclusion that defendant was negligent; however, we reverse the damage award and remand for further proceedings on this issue.

Criminal Practice – Right to Remain Silent – State’s Evidence – Right to Plead Not Guilty (access required)

State v. Bean Although the state elicited evidence that defendant exercised her right to remain silent, given the other evidence of defendant’s guilt – her own admissions to a nurse, “I killed my husband just because I finally had enough of him” and “I’m guilty” and the victim’s fear that defendant would kill him – the prosecutor’s comments and questions regarding whether defendant mentioned self-defense prior to trial had little bearing on the jury finding defendant guilty.

Criminal Practice – Attempted Larceny – Completed Offense – Jury Instructions – Injury to Personal Property (access required)

State v. Primus Even though the list of the elements of attempted felonious larceny set out in State v. Weaver, 123 N.C. App. 276, 473 S.E.2d 362 (1996), included “falling short of the completed offense,” and even though the state proved that defendant completed the offense of felonious larceny, this does not require the conclusion that proof of the completed offense disproves the attempt to commit. The completed commission of a crime must of necessity include an attempt to commit the crime.