Opinion ID: 582893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sale to Insiders

Text: 35 Shuck claims that the bankruptcy court erred by failing to require the requisite showing of fairness to support the sale of Seminole's assets to insiders such as Varah. Shuck, however, does not explain further what the requisite showing of fairness entails. As the district court states, [t]hese general conclusions present no factual findings which are urged to be erroneous nor conclusions of law for review in this Court. The only genuine issue which Shuck may be raising when complaining of the bankruptcy court's failure to require the requisite showing of fairness is whether proper notice was given to all interested parties of the sale to insiders. 36 As we have previously stated, transactions involving insiders should be closely scrutinized. Harman v. First American Bank (In re Jeffrey Bigelow Design Group, Inc.), 956 F.2d 479, 484 (4th Cir. 1992). Nevertheless, Shuck does not offer any evidence, beyond conclusory allegations, that the creditors were not fairly notified of the sale to insiders or that the creditors had no opportunity to make their own bids. If, as Shuck claims, assets worth as much as $25,000,000 were sold to insiders for only $70,000, the court finds it hard to believe that others would not have proposed higher bids for the bargains. Without evidence of a failure to notify, a secret sale, or other fraudulent activity, the court is constrained to uphold the district court. Therefore the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED