A landmark decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals has sent a powerful message regarding judicial oversight in complex financial cases, affirming a lower court’s civil contempt order against financier Greg Lindberg and his company, Global Growth. The appellate court’s ruling on December 3, 2025, robustly upheld a Wake County trial court’s finding that both Lindberg and Global Growth violated a crucial asset-freeze injunction intended to protect the assets of several insolvent insurance companies. This judgment not only solidifies the legal consequences for defying court orders but also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to untangling intricate corporate webs to enforce accountability, setting a significant precedent for how insurer rehabilitation cases are handled and how corporate assets are scrutinized under court protection. The decision serves as a stark reminder that complex ownership structures do not provide a shield against judicial enforcement.
The Genesis of the Dispute and the Asset Freeze
The Breached Agreement
The origins of this extensive legal conflict trace back to 2014, when financier Greg Lindberg acquired four insurance companies: Southland National Insurance Corporation, Bankers Life Insurance Company, Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company, and Southland National Reinsurance Corporation. These companies, now either in rehabilitation or liquidation, became the focal point of a dispute that escalated significantly following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on June 27, 2019. This critical agreement contained a specific and time-sensitive stipulation that Lindberg would transfer governance of certain affiliated entities, identified as Specified Affiliated Companies (SACs), to a newly established, independent board. The deadline for this transfer was set for September 30, 2019. When Lindberg allegedly failed to meet this obligation, the insurers took decisive legal action, filing a lawsuit on October 1, 2019, that accused the defendants of both breach of the MOU and fraud, setting in motion a cascade of legal actions designed to protect the insurers’ rapidly deteriorating financial stability.
The Protective Injunction
In an immediate and decisive response to the lawsuit filed by the insurers, the trial court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the potential dissipation of assets crucial for the insurers’ viability. The scope of this injunction was deliberately extensive, explicitly prohibiting the defendants from engaging in any actions that could diminish the value of the SACs, including selling or encumbering them. Acknowledging the deeply interconnected nature of Lindberg’s corporate empire, the court’s order wisely extended these stringent restrictions to other affiliated entities as well as to the defendants’ personal assets. This comprehensive approach was designed to prevent any attempts to circumvent the asset freeze through transfers within the complex network of companies. The parties initially consented to an extension of this TRO on October 7, 2019. However, despite a 2021 bench trial that resulted in an order for specific performance of the MOU, the insurers later returned to court with compelling allegations that Lindberg and his entities were engaged in a systematic and ongoing violation of the court’s protective order.
Uncovering Systematic Violations
The Forensic Evidence
The insurers’ allegations of non-compliance were not merely speculative; they were substantiated by a meticulous and in-depth forensic accounting analysis conducted by expert Carey Miller. This investigation delved into a vast trove of financial records spanning the period from the TRO’s inception on October 1, 2019, through January 31, 2023. Miller’s examination unearthed a consistent pattern of troubling financial movements that directly contravened the court’s order. He identified that a group of SAC financing companies, referred to as “FinCos,” had transferred a net total amounting to tens of millions of dollars directly to Global Growth, Lindberg’s primary company. Furthermore, the analysis uncovered a second, equally concerning channel of fund transfers. Miller found compelling evidence that Global Growth and the SACs had collectively funneled substantial sums of money to a distinct group of entities designated in the investigation as “Lindberg Personal Vehicles,” providing clear and quantifiable proof of a concerted effort to move assets in defiance of the asset-freeze injunction.
The Contempt Order and Receiver’s Findings
The mounting forensic evidence of non-compliance prompted the trial court to take more drastic measures. In May 2024, it modified the existing TRO, imposing even stricter transaction limits and appointing a limited receiver to provide direct oversight of Global Growth’s financial activities. The receiver’s subsequent reports only deepened the court’s concerns, flagging several potential violations in May 2024 alone. These included an alarming $633 million transfer of preferred equity in Global Growth, a payment exceeding $500,000 for Lindberg’s personal expenses, and another transfer of over $1 million to a non-SAC company under Lindberg’s control. The situation culminated at a show-cause hearing on August 1, 2024. Lindberg himself failed to appear, an act for which the trial court promptly held him in criminal contempt and issued a warrant for his arrest. Based on the extensive evidence presented, the court entered its civil contempt order on August 30, 2024, detailing specific violations that amounted to $52,424,571 in prohibited transfers and an additional $56,901,099 in improper net transfers.
The Legal Justification and Final Appeal
Establishing the Ability to Purge Contempt
A cornerstone of the trial court’s civil contempt order was its determination that both Lindberg and Global Growth possessed the present ability to purge their contempt by repaying the improperly transferred funds. This crucial finding was not based on abstract speculation but on concrete evidence regarding another significant asset within their control: the American Academy of Professional Coders (AAPC). Testimony presented to the court revealed that Global Growth held a substantial economic interest in AAPC through a non-depository trust. A representative from AAPC testified that the company was a viable asset that could be sold for a fair market price within a reasonable timeframe of six to twelve months. More importantly, such a sale could yield distributable proceeds likely exceeding $70 million for Global Growth, provided the company did not exercise its power to veto a sale. From this testimony, the court inferred that the defendants had a clear and accessible pathway to raise the necessary funds by either selling or borrowing against this valuable interest, thereby validating the purge conditions set forth in the contempt order.
The Appellate Court’s Rejection
On appeal, the defendants mounted a three-pronged challenge against the contempt order, arguing that the trial court’s finding on their ability to pay was not supported by competent evidence, that the order constituted an unconstitutional form of imprisonment for debt, and that they were not in continuing violation of the TRO at the time of the hearing. The North Carolina Court of Appeals systematically dismantled each of these arguments. The appellate judges ruled that the detailed testimony regarding the ownership structure and sale potential of the AAPC provided more than sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendants could take reasonable measures to comply. Furthermore, the court clarified a critical legal distinction, stating that the risk of imprisonment did not stem from the debt itself but from the willful disobedience of a lawful court order, rendering the state constitution’s prohibition on imprisonment for debt inapplicable in this case. Finally, it affirmed that the defendants, who carried the burden of proof, had failed to demonstrate that they had reversed the improper transfers or otherwise complied with the TRO, thereby sealing the fate of their appeal.
A Stern Warning for Corporate Governance
The appellate court’s decision in this matter delivered a profound and unequivocal message to corporate executives, boards, and financiers, particularly those operating within byzantine corporate structures. It established that in the context of an insurer rehabilitation or liquidation, courts would not hesitate to enforce asset-protection orders with uncompromising rigor. The judiciary demonstrated a clear willingness to pierce through complex legal arrangements and scrutinize all related-party transactions with a high degree of skepticism. This ruling affirmed that entities under such orders are expected to leverage all available corporate assets and economic interests to comply with judicial mandates. Ultimately, the case concluded by setting a higher standard for accountability, signaling that intricate financial engineering cannot serve as a defense against the fundamental obligation to obey the rule of law.
