In re Bostic Construction, Inc.

435 B.R. 46 (2010)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Bostic Construction, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
435 B.R. 46 (2010)

Facts

Jeff and Joe Bostic incorporated Bostic Brothers Construction, Inc. (Bostic) (debtor) in 1991. Melvin Morris managed Bostic’s construction projects. In 2000, Bostic started performing construction work for limited liability companies (LLCs) owned by Jeff, Joe, Morris, or Morris’s immediate family. In January 2003, Jeff and Morris became Bostic’s sole shareholders and directors. Bostic’s financial condition subsequently deteriorated, and an involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against Bostic. The bankruptcy trustee determined that Jeff and Morris had breached their fiduciary duties by not taking reasonable care to satisfy Bostic’s financial obligations and by prioritizing the LLCs’ interests over Bostic’s. The trustee prepared a complaint against Jeff and Morris but never filed the complaint and eventually reached a settlement agreement requiring Jeff, Joe, and Morris to pay the trustee $500,000 in exchange for release from claims based on their alleged conduct. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement. Subsequently, a Bostic creditor sued Jeff, Joe, Morris, and others in North Carolina state court, alleging claims including constructive fraud. Jeff, Joe, and Morris moved to dismiss, arguing that the creditor’s claims belonged to Bostic’s bankruptcy estate and had been settled by the trustee. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Bostic’s directors owed fiduciary duties to Bostic’s creditors while Bostic was facing insolvency and that the creditor had asserted injuries to the creditor specifically. Two more creditors then sued Jeff, Joe, Morris, and others in North Carolina state court, alleging claims for constructive fraud, aiding and abetting constructive fraud, and violations of North Carolina’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act. The creditors alleged that, while Bostic was operating in a way that constituted dissolution or winding up, Jeff and Morris, aided by Joe and others, had caused Bostic to enter into subcontracts with the creditors and that instead of paying moneys owed to the creditors, Jeff and Morris had caused Bostic to pay debts of Jeff’s and Morris’s businesses and engaged in other misconduct for their own personal gain, thus injuring the creditors. Jeff, Joe, Morris, and the others asked the bankruptcy court to interpret and enforce the settlement.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Walder, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership