If you’ve ever bought something “as is” and then discovered it came with a lot of baggage, you’ll feel for the defendant in a new TCPA decision out of Charlotte. Judge Kenneth Bell’s order in Newman v. Converge Marketing, LLC, No. 3:25-CV-00042-KDB-MTO, 2026 WL 3206874 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2026), came out earlier this week, and the corporate family tree alone is worth the price of admission.
The set up here is actually quite interesting because it pulls the TCPA into the broader framework of corporate organization. Wesley Newman says he put his cell number on the Do Not Call Registry years before 2022, and that starting in November 2022 he got a stream of robocalls pitching legal services for Camp Lejeune claims. The firm being advertised was DeMayo Law Offices, a Charlotte outfit. DeMayo had hired a company called Lacuna Ventures to make the calls but thereafter Lacuna went bankrupt and was bought by Converge Direct, which the court calls Old Converge. DeMayo paid Old Converge more than $4 million, and Old Converge promised to indemnify DeMayo for claims tied to the campaign. Then Old Converge went bankrupt too, and its assets were bought “free and clear” by a New York LLC the court calls New Converge. If you’re keeping score at home, that’s a lot of Converges and I’d like to meet whoever was in charge of naming.
Newman complained to DeMayo and filed a Better Business Bureau complaint in May 2023. Old Converge’s lawyers teamed up with DeMayo on a joint response and settlement talks began. About seven months in, in December 2023, Old Converge filed Chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York. Newman’s side says he was never listed as a creditor and never got notice of the filing or the claims bar date. In February 2024, the bankruptcy court approved the sale to New Converge, with an order saying New Converge is not a mere continuation of the old company.
The plot thickens after that. When Newman tried to restart settlement talks, his message reached Old Converge’s lawyer, who told New Converge, which then retained him. DeMayo alleges that for the better part of a year New Converge behaved a lot like the company it supposedly had nothing to do with. According to DeMayo, it hired trial counsel for DeMayo, directed that counsel to move to dismiss, sent over an indemnity agreement saying it had “stepped into” the old company’s shoes, and collected privileged information, before finally announcing more than ten months later that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify. To be clear, those are DeMayo’s allegations, not findings, but you can see why a court might be curious.
New Converge moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the bankruptcy court. The judge opened with a bit of a scolding. New Converge filed what the court called a speaking motion, with no separate supporting brief, despite the local rules, a consent briefing schedule, and the magistrate judge’s order. The judge told New Converge it doesn’t get to decide for itself what’s “necessary” under the rules, warned it not to do it again, and then, in a generous mood, ruled on the merits anyway.
As a quick side note, the moral of the story is you should read your local rules. Yes, all of them, even the dull ones because pissing the judge off before the Court gets into the merits is not a good look professionally.
Now going back to the case, on the merits, New Converge argued the court had no subject matter jurisdiction because the sale order says the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction but the judge wasn’t persuaded. Newman’s claim arises under a federal statute, and federal courts get their power from statutes, not from provisions someone tucked into a sale order. A debtor can’t write its own jurisdictional ticket. The court also noted that New Converge was blending “this court can’t hear the case” with “the plaintiff’s claim is barred,” which are different arguments. New Converge’s other objections didn’t fare any better. It had accepted service and answered the complaint, so the service objection was waived, and it had admitted venue was proper. A footnote adds that it admitted specific personal jurisdiction too. For defense lawyers, take note as your answer is a document you have to live with.
Where New Converge did get some traction was transfer, though not the way it asked. The judge shot down a few of its proposed transfer routes, then reasoned that the real question was whether Newman’s claim is related to the bankruptcy case. The court found it is, with a close nexus, because resolving the claim means interpreting and enforcing the sale order. The bankruptcy court is best placed to interpret its own orders and to decide whether Newman was a known or unknown creditor and what notice he was owed. The judge found Newman’s inadequate-notice argument persuasive enough that he should get to make it there.
As another sidenote and interesting nugget, the court also noted that New Converge kept saying the bankruptcy was “still pending” without explaining the confirmation order that closed Old Converge’s case.
Then the judge did something nobody asked for and cut the case in two. On its own motion, the court severed the claims. Newman’s claim against New Converge goes to New York. His claim against DeMayo, plus DeMayo’s crossclaim against New Converge, stays in North Carolina but is frozen while the bankruptcy question gets sorted out, with status reports due every 90 days. The crossclaim, the court explained, is about conduct after the sale and sounds in state contract law, so there was no reason to drag the bankruptcy court into it. In the judge’s words, it can be wise to measure twice and cut once.
It’s easy to over-read this ruling, so let me be clear about what it isn’t. The court did not decide that New Converge is liable for anyone’s robocalls. It did not decide that the free-and-clear sale fails to protect it either. It only decided who gets to answer that question, and the answer is the bankruptcy court.
Still, there are a few takeaways. Buying assets “free and clear” doesn’t make a TCPA claimant disappear if he says he never got notice, and he’s going to get a real hearing on that. How you behave after closing matters, because running settlement talks and swapping indemnity paper gives everyone something to point at. And the boring stuff, like local rules and what you admit in your answer, can decide whether your best arguments ever get heard.
I’ll be watching for those 90-day status reports. If the bankruptcy court has something to say, you’ll hear it here.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.