North Carolina's latest Greg Lindberg ruling keeps strict court limits on affiliated‑asset movements and supports a hands‑on receivership aimed at protecting policyholders.
On December 17, 2025, the North Carolina Court of Appeals left in place stringent controls over entities tied to businessman Greg E. Lindberg and affirmed a key receivership ruling, while dismissing his challenge to an expanded restraining order as procedurally abandoned.
The case involves four insurers purchased by Lindberg in 2014: Southland National Insurance Corporation (in Liquidation), Bankers Life Insurance Company (in Rehabilitation), Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company (in Rehabilitation) and Southland National Reinsurance Corporation (in Rehabilitation). After acquiring them, Lindberg re‑domesticated the companies to North Carolina.
Before that move, Lindberg and then-Commissioner of Insurance Wayne Goodwin agreed that the insurers could invest up to forty percent of their assets in affiliated business entities. Lindberg then caused up to forty percent of the insurers' money to be invested in non‑insurance companies he also owned or controlled, a scheme the Court said placed about $1.2 billion held for policyholders into non‑insurance affiliates.
When Mike Causey became Commissioner in November 2016, he reduced the affiliated‑investment cap from forty percent to ten percent. As the diversification deadline approached, the Department of Insurance became concerned about a "mismatch between investments and policyholder liabilities" and the risk of a shortfall in meeting policyholder obligations.
To address this, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on June 27, 2019 under which certain borrower companies, defined as Specified Affiliated Companies (SACs), would be placed under a new holding company with an independent board charged with protecting policyholders. The MOU limited the restructuring to SACs and excluded non‑SAC affiliates. That same day, Lindberg agreed the insurers would enter rehabilitation.
When SACs were not placed under the new holding company by the September 30, 2019 deadline, the insurers sued on October 1, 2019, for breach of the MOU and fraud, seeking specific performance and damages, and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
The trial court issued a TRO barring the defendants from selling, encumbering or otherwise devaluing the SACs. Because of the complex web of affiliated companies and investments, the TRO also restricted "any affiliated company" and restrained the defendants from dissipating their own assets. By consent, the TRO was extended on October 7, 2019 and remains in effect.
After a June 2021 bench trial, the trial court ordered specific performance of the MOU but did not award damages. In June 2023, the Court of Appeals affirmed specific performance and directed an immediate damages award.
Enforcement of the TRO escalated in 2024. In April 2024, the insurers moved to modify the TRO and appoint a receiver, alleging violations. On April 22, 2024, the trial court appointed attorney Bill Janvier as a limited receiver over Global Growth Holdings, LLC to monitor compliance.
On May 10, 2024, the court entered a Modified TRO, continuing prior restrictions and adding new limits, including a bar on transactions of funds from SACs above $10,000 without prior court approval and a requirement to give the receiver 72 hours' advance notice.
On June 18, 2024, the receiver reported that Global Growth had executed May 2024 transactions potentially violating the Modified TRO: a $633 million transfer of preferred equity in Global Growth, payment of over $500,000 of Lindberg's personal expenses and a payment of over $1 million to a non‑SAC company controlled by Lindberg.
On July 12, 2024, the defendants filed a Motion to Allow, asking the court to give the receiver express power to approve transfers from SACs to fund Global Growth's expenses or obligations "whether personal or business in nature."
Seven minutes later, the trial court issued a Re‑Modified TRO, lowering the threshold for restrained transactions from $10,000 to $5,000 and clarifying that the restriction applied to transfers by Lindberg or Global Growth even when the funds originated from non‑SAC entities.
The receiver opposed the Motion to Allow on July 17, 2024, citing "numerous flagrant and repeated violations of the TRO" and referring to "specific inappropriate suggestions" that his expenses would be paid contingent on approving certain transfers. At a hearing on July 18, 2024, the receiver told the court he would be "extremely hesitant" to approve the transfers and was "pretty confident [the money] will be misused." On July 29, 2024, the trial court denied the Motion to Allow.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction because the orders affected a substantial right: the defendants' ability to use and control their assets. The panel noted that the $5,000 cap and approval requirement "in effect – freezes Defendants' entire financial operations," pointing to a prior request that took 27 days for approval.
On the merits, the panel dismissed the challenge to the broadened TRO as abandoned because the defendants' principal brief did not cite authority on the trial court's power to issue and modify TROs. On the receivership question, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Motion to Allow, emphasizing that the receiver is an officer and agent of the court and that the trial court has broad statutory authority to direct the receiver and decide all controversies relating to the receivership and receivership property.
For the insurance industry, the December 17, 2025 decision underscores North Carolina's willingness to use TROs and receivership aggressively in cases involving insolvent insurers, complex affiliated‑investment structures and policyholder‑protection concerns.
