The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling Thursday that allows a complex business lawsuit involving the Ronald E. Howard Revocable Trust to proceed against technology company MAXISIQ Inc. and several individual defendants.
In a brief per curiam opinion filed Dec. 12, 2025, the state's highest court upheld Special Superior Court Judge Julianna Theall Earp's November 2024 decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the trust's second amended complaint in *Howard v. MAXISIQ*.
The case centers on allegations brought by co-trustees Kelly C. Howard and Fifth Third Bank, National Association, who serve as trustees of the Ronald E. Howard Revocable Trust established in February 2016. The defendants include IOMAXIS, LLC, which now operates as MAXISIQ, INC.; Five Insights, LLC; and five individuals: Brad C. Boor (also known as Brad C. Buhr), John Spade Jr., William P. Griffin III, Nicholas Hurysh Jr., and Robert A. Burleson.
The dispute was designated as a mandatory complex business case by the Chief Justice under North Carolina General Statute § 7A-45.4(a), reflecting the sophisticated nature of the business relationships and legal issues involved. Complex business cases in North Carolina typically involve disputes with significant financial stakes, intricate corporate structures, or substantial commercial implications.
Judge Earp, who serves as a Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases in Mecklenburg County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on Nov. 27, 2024. The defendants subsequently appealed that decision directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court under N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(3)(a), which allows for direct appeals in certain complex business matters.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Nov. 5, 2025, before issuing its affirming decision approximately five weeks later. The court's brief per curiam opinion provided no additional reasoning beyond the single word "AFFIRMED," suggesting the justices found no error in the lower court's analysis.
The trust is represented by two prominent law firms. Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP represents Fifth Third Bank in its capacity as co-trustee, with attorneys Scott D. Anderson, Lawrence A. Moye IV, and Miriam D. Colón handling the matter. Kelly C. Howard, serving as the other co-trustee, is represented by Johnston, Allison & Hord, P.A., with attorneys Kathleen D.B. Burchette, Patrick E. Kelly, Alexandra P. Nibert, and Austin R. Walsh.
Defendants Robert A. Burleson and Five Insights, LLC are represented by a joint legal team from two firms: Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., with attorneys Benjamin S. Chesson, David N. Allen, Anna C. Majestro, and Amanda S. Hawkins; and Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, with attorney Travis A. Bustamante.
The involvement of Fifth Third Bank as co-trustee suggests the trust may have significant assets under management. Fifth Third Bank's trust and wealth management division typically handles substantial estate planning and fiduciary matters for high-net-worth individuals and families.
While the Supreme Court's opinion does not detail the specific claims in the underlying lawsuit, the trust's ability to file a second amended complaint indicates the dispute has evolved over time, with the plaintiffs potentially adding new allegations or defendants as the case has progressed.
The technology sector focus of the defendants, particularly MAXISIQ's transition from IOMAXIS, LLC, suggests the dispute may involve business relationships, investments, or contractual obligations related to technology services or intellectual property. Five Insights, LLC's inclusion as a defendant indicates the matter may involve multiple business entities with interconnected relationships.
The case's designation as a mandatory complex business case and its progression to the state Supreme Court underscores the significance of the legal and business issues at stake. North Carolina's complex business court system was established to handle sophisticated commercial disputes efficiently and with specialized expertise.
With the Supreme Court's affirmation, the case now returns to the complex business court system for further proceedings. The defendants will need to file answers to the trust's second amended complaint, and the litigation will move into the discovery phase, where both sides will gather evidence and testimony to support their respective positions.
The ruling represents a procedural victory for the trust, as it preserves their right to pursue their claims against all named defendants. However, the affirmation of the motion to dismiss denial does not address the merits of the underlying claims, which will be determined through subsequent litigation proceedings.