Edgar Theodore Smith, Jr. and Deborah Taylor Smith

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
IN RE:
EDGAR T. SMITH, JR., and
DEBORAH T. SMITH,
DEBTOR.
CASE NO. 11-08865-8-JRL
CHAPTER 11
ORDER
This matter came before the court on the Bankruptcy Administrator’s motion for
appointment of a chapter 11 trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104. A hearing was held on May
17, 2012 in Raleigh, North Carolina.
BACKGROUND
The debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
on November 19, 2011. The Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) filed a motion for appointment
of a chapter 11 trustee on April 12, 2012 after she became aware of the criminal proceedings
against the male debtor.
On March 24, 2011, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina
filed a Criminal Information, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
against the male debtor. The Criminal Information alleges that the male debtor conspired to
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 21 day of May, 2012.
________________________________________
J. Rich Leonard
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 11-08865-8-SWH Doc 148 Filed 05/21/12 Entered 05/21/12 12:42:00 Page 1 of 4

2
defraud a federal crop insurance program by making over $60,000 of false insurance claims for
the 2007 crop year on tobacco crops that he previously sold using nominee names, including the
names of persons who did not exist, to hide production. The male debtor waived his right to
prosecution by indictment and consented to prosecution by information on June 6, 2011. On
February 22, 2012, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to make false statements, to
make materially false statements and to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371. He was sentenced to five years of probation, excluded from participation in
federal crop insurance programs for two years starting in the 2013 crop year, and ordered to
make restitution to the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) in the amount of
$66,142.
DISCUSSION
Section 1104(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the court shall order the
appointment of a chapter 11 trustee only in two instances:
(1) 	for 	cause, 	including 	fraud, 	dishonesty, 	incompetence, 	or 	gross
mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by current management, either before or
after the commencement of the case, or similar cause, but not including the number
of holders of securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the
debtor; or
(2) if such appointment is in the interests of creditors, any equity security
holders, and other interest of the estate, without regard to the number of holders of
securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the debtor.
11 U.S.C. § 1104(a). As this court recently reiterated, “[t]he appointment of a trustee in a
chapter 11 case is an extraordinary remedy, and there is a strong presumption in favor of
allowing the debtor to remain in possession.” In re Tanglewood Farms, Inc. of Elizabeth City,
No. 10-06719-8-JRL, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 624, at *4–5 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2011) (citing
Case 11-08865-8-SWH Doc 148 Filed 05/21/12 Entered 05/21/12 12:42:00 Page 2 of 4

3
In re Heck’s Props., 151 B.R. 739, 756 (S.D. W. Va. 1992)). The movant has the burden of
proving gross mismanagement, fraud, or other cause by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at *5
(citing Comm. of Dalkon Shield Claimants v. A.H. Robins Co., 828 F.2d 239, 242 (4th Cir.
1987)).
The court has discretionary authority when determining whether the conduct of the
debtor or its manager rises to the level of “cause.” A.H. Robins Co., 828 F.2d at 242. “The
clearest examples [where appointment of a trustee is warranted] are those in which the debtor or
its managers have engaged in serious fraud or dishonesty, or have grossly mismanaged the
business.” 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1104.2[1], (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, eds.,
15th ed. Rev. 2007). However, if the court in its discretion determines that cause exists, the
statute mandates that a trustee be appointed. See 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a) (stating that where cause
is found, “the court shall order the appointment of a trustee.”) (emphasis added).
In support of her motion for appointment of a trustee, the BA argued that the pre-petition
fraudulent conduct to which the male debtor pleaded guilty constitutes cause under § 1104(a)(1)
of the Bankruptcy Code. Because the guilty plea occurred during the bankruptcy case, the BA
believed that she had no discretion but to file the motion.
To support his argument against appointment of a trustee, the male debtor stated that he
did not contest and pleaded guilty to the information, fully cooperated with federal authorities
when confronted with the charge, and did not oppose the USDA’s motion to offset Supplemental
Revenue Assistance Program Payments to which the male debtor is entitled against the
restitution owed to the agency. The male debtor also focused on the failure of the United States,
the primary creditor hurt by the fraudulent conduct, to join in the motion as evidence that it is
Case 11-08865-8-SWH Doc 148 Filed 05/21/12 Entered 05/21/12 12:42:00 Page 3 of 4

4
satisfied with restitution and proposed payments under the plan. Furthermore, the male debtor
has made significant repayment to other creditors and expressed his openness to any additional
controls that the court wished to impose.
Cape Fear Farm Credit, ACA (“Cape Fear”), a provider of post-petition financing to the
debtors, appeared in opposition to the motion. Cape Fear believes that appointment of a trustee
would hinder the debtors’ ability to repay its obligations.
There must be some temporal connection between past fraudulent conduct and the
current management of the debtor. At some point, the debtor should be entitled to an inference
that the effects of past fraud have sufficiently dissipated so that he is not barred from being a
debtor in possession. Here, the single episode of fraudulent conduct was four years ago, too long
to prevent such an inference without more.
The probationary sentence given to the male debtor suggests that he fully cooperated
with authorities and that there is no evidence of continuing fraud. The absence of the United
States in support of the motion and Cape Fear’s continued willingness to work with the debtors
further weigh against appointment of a trustee. The male debtor is under the tight supervision of
the probation office and must file monthly reports in this case, making it unlikely that future
fraudulent conduct will occur.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the motion for appointment of a trustee is denied.
The male debtor will be removed from the debtor-in-possession bank account as the sole
condition of not appointing a trustee. The female debtor will handle all financial transactions in
the case.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case 11-08865-8-SWH Doc 148 Filed 05/21/12 Entered 05/21/12 12:42:00 Page 4 of 4