Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment regarding an alleged fraudulent transfer regarding a check written to the Debtor. In resolving whether the Debtor had an interest in the check, donative intent presents a genuine issue of material fact, to be determined by a trier of fact. Accordingly, summary judgment is denied.

Trustee and Perdue Bioenergy filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the Trustee's preference action, Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 546(e) defense, and Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 547(c) defenses. Summary judgment was granted on the Trustee's preference action and denied on Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 547(c) defenses. Perdue's 11 U.S.C. 546(e) defense will be determined according to a further court order. 

Two counts of the complaint, seeking determination of nondischargeability of debt pursuant to sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6), were untimely filed and dismissed.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment seeking to determine their respective ownership interests in two companies, ownership over patents, certain contractual rights, and the viability of the chapter 7 trustee's avoidance power under 11 U.S.C. 548. Summary judgment granted in part when there was no genuine dispute as to a party's ownership interest; conflicting evidence was denied under North Carolina's parol evidence rule.  All remaining motions raised factual disputes not appropriate for summary judgment.