{"meta":{"key":"s_nc--pass-02","task":"S_NC","title":"Noncustodial postperformance fees and the unit of completion","parent_title":"North Carolina debt and debt relief law","edition":"pass-02","path":"/research/s_nc--pass-02/","kind":"split_pass","category":"state","role":"state","area_numbers":[66],"groups":["collections"],"date":"2026-10-23","tables":8,"claims":23,"sources":24,"review_status":"revise","review_complete":true,"sha256":"d7d26e7acbe7068157f512c972a021f248934983548051482bd7f41ad2c65ae1","headings":["Noncustodial postperformance fees and the unit of completion","A. Substantive findings","1. The fully performed noncustodial model: a supported coverage distinction","2. Per-debt completion remains the decisive unresolved boundary","3. Orion supplies adverse language and enterprise findings, but the procedural stages matter","4. Erwin expressly reserved the merits, and its appeal history is not cleared","5. Consumer Law Group: the actual judgment supplies limited permission","6. Other targeted authorities did not close the gap","B. Actual source register","Statutes and interpretive materials","Judicial documents and official enforcement reporting","Currentness and proposed-law checks","C. Claim register","D. Earlier-claim patch map — original IDs preserved","E. Failed routes and discovery-only leads","These are not entries in the substantive source register","F. Dependency crosswalk","Imported PASS-01 material is distinguished from fresh reading","G. Conditional boundary examples","Example 1 — Fully completed single engagement","Example 2 — One completed account in a continuing program","H. Component coverage and remaining gaps","I. Researcher self-check"],"generation_provenance":{"actual_route":"regular_chat_adaptive_models","actual_model":"GPT-6","actual_mode":"Pro","provenance_limit":"Actual documented capture labels only; missing labels remain unknown. No preferred setting is inferred as actual execution."},"public_id":"S_NC/pass-02","facets":{"geography":["us","us-nc"],"debt_type":[],"stage":["resolution"],"subject":["fees-outcomes"]},"scope":"Resolve onlypurelynoncustodial after-full-performance debtor-side model and per-debt/whole-servicecompletion under14-423/424. Reopenofficial2015NCBC102/2016NCBC100; distinguishenterpriseholdings,2018Erwinarbitrationreservation andactualConsumerLawGroupconsentjudgment(notjustDOJreport). Seekcontrollingcurrentmerits/formalinterpretation and laterhistory. PatchC006/C016-C019. Do notredoDMPmath/federaloverview; moneytransmissionseparate.","pending_corrections":0},"markdown":"# SettleADebt — S_NC PASS-02\n\n## Noncustodial postperformance fees and the unit of completion\n\n**Finding:** The additional evidence materially strengthens the argument that a debtor-side settlement service can fall outside §14-423(2) when its actual arrangement avoids both funds-related branches and compensation follows completed settlement **and** complete performance. It does **not** establish a general permission to collect a fee for one settled debt while a broader engagement continues. That distinction should replace the undifferentiated hold in PASS-01. This is a synthesis of the statutory text and the sources below, rather than a newly located controlling merits holding. [Article 56+2](https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nThe actual **Consumer Law Group consent judgment was retrieved and read**, through a third-party mirror. Its limited permission for post-settlement fees is consequential evidence, subject to its customer, date, and compliance conditions. The official court copy and complete subsequent docket remain unavailable in this pass. [getoutofdebt.org](https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n**Baseline and access:** October 22, 2026, Pacific. The public-source checks in this pass occurred on **October 22, 2026, PDT / October 23, 2026, UTC**; the closing clock check was 11:56 p.m. PDT. This answer remains in the same conversation. No model-selector setting was verified, so I make no claim about a particular selected model or a model switch.\n\n## A. Substantive findings\n\n### 1. The fully performed noncustodial model: a supported coverage distinction\n\nThe issue for this hypothetical is whether the activity enters the statutory definition. **Conditional noncoverage is different from a license, an exemption granted to a provider, or approval of a particular contract.** The precise conditions are recorded in **S_NC-P2-C002–C003** below.\n\nThree pieces of interpretive evidence support taking the statute’s timing language seriously:\n\n- **2010 NC DOJ testimony:** Assistant Attorney General Philip Lehman expressly described settlement companies as able to operate without charging before settlement completion. His discussion addressed the development of third-party account arrangements and the 2005 amendment. This is affirmative historical agency interpretation, although it is testimony rather than a binding opinion or current provider determination. **C004.**\n- **2009 multistate comments joined by North Carolina:** The comments described North Carolina’s restriction by reference to performance of **all promised services**. That formulation supports retaining the service-completion condition when assessing the later testimony. **C005.**\n- **2023 legislative staff analysis, after Orion:** The analysis continued to distinguish the existing advance-payment limitation from a proposal reaching fees regardless of timing. It expressly disclaims being an official statement of legislative intent. **C006.** [Sen_Commerce_testimony 0419.docx+2](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nTogether, these sources justify strengthening the original C006: the record supplies affirmative support for a carefully bounded model, while leaving the application to real operating arrangements unresolved. **C007.**\n\nThe current published provision still contains the relevant timing language. The 2005 amendment became effective **December 31, 2005**; the 2007 legislation removed its sunset. The presently published **2025 H734** would change the definition, but its official history does not show enactment. Its printed July 1, 2025 date is not an effective law merely because that date has passed. **C001, C022.** [ncleg.gov+3](https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n### 2. Per-debt completion remains the decisive unresolved boundary\n\nThe unresolved question is **what performance unit the parties actually agreed to**.\n\nFor a continuing program involving several debts, completion of negotiations for one account does not, by itself, demonstrate completion of the broader promised service. A separately priced “per-debt” item therefore needs more than its label to establish the relevant legal premise.\n\nThe evidence read does not resolve:\n\n- Whether a settlement agreement alone constitutes completed settlement.\n- Whether an initial creditor payment is sufficient.\n- Whether every installment under a settlement must be paid in every contractual arrangement.\n- When a genuinely separate one-debt engagement can be treated as the complete service.\n- Whether an ongoing bundled engagement can validly divide completion into independently chargeable units.\n\nThese are **held application questions**, not findings that every arrangement must wait until every original debt is paid in full. No controlling decision or formal interpretation located in this pass supplies that universal rule. **C008, C023.**\n\n### 3. Orion supplies adverse language and enterprise findings, but the procedural stages matter\n\n**2015 NCBC 102** must remain visible as contrary authority. Paragraph 13 uses the broad phrase **“collection of fees at any time.”** The decision rejected WLS’s attempt to make the advance-fee paragraph the exclusive definition. Its setting was a motion to dismiss, with allegations connecting WLS to the other defendants and describing both advance and later charges. It did not adjudicate the isolated, fully performed hypothetical posed here. **C009.** [2015_NCBC_102.docx](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp&utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n**2016 NCBC 100** is an actual summary-judgment ruling, although the motion was uncontested. The court evaluated the submitted evidence, found an Orion–Haskins joint enterprise, and described substantial collections before settlements. Importantly, the opinion identifies **Global Client Solutions as an unrelated processor**, sued for injunctive relief and later dismissed; it does not make Global a member of that enterprise. Third-party custody therefore cannot be treated as dispositive, but neither can the opinion be used to attribute every processor’s conduct automatically. **C010.** [2016_NCBC_100.docx+1](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF&utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n**2017 NCBC 20** supplies the final default disposition and broad defendant-specific injunction. The State Bar’s 2017 annual report says none of the defendants appealed. That is useful historical reporting, not a complete 2026 docket certification. The signed 2016 opinion is dated **December 20**; the report’s December 12 reference does not override it. **C011–C012.** [2017_NCBC_20.docx+2](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x&utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n### 4. Erwin expressly reserved the merits, and its appeal history is not cleared\n\nThe March 30, 2018 **Erwin/Lischwe** bankruptcy opinion expressly reserves the prohibited-adjusting question at **page 13, footnote 8**. Its contractual description of a 25% fee and settlement/first-payment trigger is not approval of either the amount or the timing. **C013.** [govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nSubsequent-history searching located a **ClearOne district-appeal lead, No. 5:18-cv-00158**, and a likely Global companion, **No. 5:18-cv-00155**. Actual disposition orders were not obtained. Later citation in **JSmith Civil** concerns arbitration and does not establish affirmance, reversal, or a later state-law merits decision. **C014; failed routes F02–F03.** [courtlistener.com+2](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n### 5. Consumer Law Group: the actual judgment supplies limited permission\n\nThe judgment affirmatively allows a restricted post-settlement fee arrangement for a closed customer cohort, while retaining compliance with Article 56 and the TSR. **Its full operative conditions are in C015.** It does not resolve the statutory unit of completion or create public permission for new business. **C015–C017.** [getoutofdebt.org](https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\nThe TSR reference is reported here because the judgment incorporates it. This pass does not reconstruct federal timing rules or use federal compliance to answer the unresolved state-law question.\n\n### 6. Other targeted authorities did not close the gap\n\nThe additional reads produced no square resolution:\n\n- **Stewart** involved advance-fee/nonperformance allegations and later confirmation of an arbitration award; the underlying award was not obtained.\n- **Maniya**, an unpublished Court of Appeals decision, resolved pleading/appellate-preservation issues.\n- The State Bar’s **Freedom Debt Relief/National Debt Relief** reporting concerns UPL enforcement dispositions whose operative instruments were not located.\n- Current NC DOJ consumer guidance warns against upfront fees but does not define the disputed completion unit.\n\nThese findings are bounded by the documents actually read. **C018–C021, C023.** [cases.justia.com+4](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com)\n\n## B. Actual source register\n\n**ID convention:** All source IDs below are unique to PASS-02. In subsequent tables, **S001** means **S_NC-P2-S001**, and similarly for the other source numbers.\n\n**Access code A:** Actually opened and relevant passages read during this pass on **October 22, 2026, Pacific / October 23, 2026, UTC**. For long documents, the specified passages—not necessarily every page—were read. Discovery-only and inaccessible routes are separately listed in Section E.\n\n### Statutes and interpretive materials\n\n| Source ID | Document, issuer, direct literal URL | Exact pinpoint and version/status | Access; jurisdiction and limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_NC-P2-S001** | **Chapter 14, Article 56**, NC General Assembly. [https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html](https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | §14-423(2), all three paragraphs; §14-424; §14-426(2). Current published text. | A; NC. Website compilation status is qualified by S020–S021. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S002** | **Session Law 2005-408**, NC General Assembly. [https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html](https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | §§2, 4; amendment and effective-date/sunset provisions. Approved September 20, 2005. | A; enacted NC session law; original sunset subsequently addressed by S003. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S003** | **Session Law 2007-79**, NC General Assembly. [https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html](https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | §§1–2; sunset repeal, effective September 1, 2007. | A; enacted NC session law. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S004** | **Testimony of Philip A. Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, NC DOJ**, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, April 22, 2010. [https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | §II, printed pp.5–7, especially p.6 final paragraph continuing onto p.7. | A; historical official NC testimony in a federal hearing. Not a formal AG opinion, rule, or adjudication. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S005** | **Multistate attorneys-general comments on proposed TSR debt-relief provisions**, October 23, 2009, FTC-hosted filing. [https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf](https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | p.1 participating states; p.10 and n.16; p.14 NC signature. | A; historical rulemaking submission joined by NC. The comments are not an adopted federal rule or binding NC opinion. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S006** | **H481: Modernize Debt Settlement Prohibition—First Edition analysis**, Greg Roney, NCGA Legislative Analysis Division, April 25, 2023. [https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080](https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | p.1 Overview, Current Law, final sentence; identifier H481-SMTM-15(e1)-v-1. | A; historical legislative staff analysis. Expressly not an official statement of legislative intent. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S014** | **Getting Out of Debt**, NC DOJ. [https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/](https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Opening debt-settlement/upfront-fee guidance. Undated live page as accessed. | A; current public guidance. Does not adjudicate a model or define completion. |\n\n### Judicial documents and official enforcement reporting\n\n| Source ID | Document, issuer, direct literal URL | Exact pinpoint and version/status | Access; jurisdiction and limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_NC-P2-S007** | **State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2015 NCBC 102**, November 9, 2015, Wake 13 CVS 7161. [https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp&utm_source=chatgpt.com) | ¶¶1, 8–15, especially ¶13, PDF p.5. | A; official NC court PDF; trial-level Rule 12(b)(6) decision. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S008** | **State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2016 NCBC 100**, signed December 20, 2016. [https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF&utm_source=chatgpt.com) | ¶¶17–18; ¶23/n.1; ¶¶40–48; concluding order and signature. | A; official NC court PDF; uncontested summary judgment supported by evidence. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S009** | **State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2017 NCBC 20**, March 7, 2017. [https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x&utm_source=chatgpt.com) | ¶¶45–52; Part V, operative ¶¶2–3, pp.23–25; final disposition p.27. | A; official NC court PDF; final default order and injunction. Later complete docket not obtained. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S010** | **2017 Office of Counsel Annual Report**, NC State Bar. [https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf](https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Printed pp.3–4, particularly p.4, PDF p.5. | A; historical official report. Its 2016 date discrepancy is resolved against the signed opinion. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S011** | **Lischwe v. ClearOne Advantage, LLC (In re Erwin)**, Bankr. E.D.N.C., Adv. 17-00055-5-DMW, Doc.50, March 30, 2018. [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | ¶¶3–5, pp.2–3; ¶¶28–30 and **p.13 n.8**; conclusion pp.22–23. | A; federal bankruptcy opinion on arbitration. Subsequent appeal outcome unresolved. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S012** | **State v. Consumer Law Group, P.A., et al., Consent Judgment**, Wake 10 CV 016777, January 2012. [https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf](https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | I.6–9, p.2; II(A)–(C), pp.3–4; signature portion. January 23 date reported by S013. | A; actual eight-page judicial document in a **third-party mirror**. Official filed copy/current docket not obtained; handwritten day not visually verified. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S013** | **Report of Settlement**, NC DOJ, September 18, 2012. [https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757](https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | p.1 judgment date; p.2 injunctive-summary clauses (i)–(iii). | A; official historical report. The underlying judgment controls where its cutoff differs from the report. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S015** | **Stewart v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, PLLC**, W.D.N.C. 2:11cv26, Doc.55, June 1, 2012. [https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | pp.3–4, factual allegations concerning advance fees and absent settlement offers. | A; federal judicial document, third-party mirror. Allegations are not findings approving a postperformance model. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S016** | **Stewart**, same case, Doc.83, September 23, 2014. [https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | p.5 description of award; pp.8–10 confirmation analysis/order. | A; federal judicial document, third-party mirror. Arbitrator’s complete award not retrieved. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S017** | **Maniya v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America**, N.C. Court of Appeals, COA16-706, April 18, 2017. [https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496](https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496&utm_source=chatgpt.com) | p.1 unpublished designation; pp.9–10, 13–14. | A; actual court opinion in a mirror after official PDF retrieval failed. Unpublished; complete subsequent history not checked. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S018** | **JSmith Civil, LLC v. Fourth Elm Construction, LLC**, Bankr. E.D.N.C. 25-00043-5-JNC, Doc.20, June 30, 2025. [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | p.4, Erwin citation and arbitration discussion. | A; federal bankruptcy opinion. Different dispute; no debt-settlement fee merits holding. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S019** | **2019 Office of Counsel Annual Report**, NC State Bar. [https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf](https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Printed p.3, PDF p.4, consecutive FDR/NDR paragraphs. | A; historical UPL enforcement reporting. Operative undertaking/resolution not attached or retrieved. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S024** | **Consumer Law Group order denying motion to dismiss**, Wake 10 CV 016777, March 2011. [https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf](https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | pp.1–2; date identified as March 25 in S012, I.8. | A; actual judicial order in a third-party mirror. Filename is not proof of entry date; pleading ruling. |\n\n### Currentness and proposed-law checks\n\n| Source ID | Document, issuer, direct literal URL | Exact pinpoint and version/status | Access; jurisdiction and limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_NC-P2-S020** | **General Statutes currency notice**, NCGA. [https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes](https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Header and Updates: through **S.L.2026-30**; “Not Official” caveat. | A; current publication metadata, not an independent certification of every enactment. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S021** | **Law modifications not yet reflected in statute**, NCGA. [https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current](https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Current page; targeted searches for §14-423, §14-424, “14-42,” and debt. | A; no relevant match returned. Not a full reread of every 2026 session law. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S022** | **2025 H734, Edition 1**, NCGA. [https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html](https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | §1(b), proposed §75-151(3); §2 printed effective date. | A; **proposed text**, not an enacted replacement for Article 56. |\n| **S_NC-P2-S023** | **2025–2026 H734 official history**, NCGA. [https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734](https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Last Action and History: Senate Rules referral April 28, 2025. | A; actual history read. No enactment/session-law entry shown at access. |\n\n## C. Claim register\n\n“High—document” means confidence about what the identified document states. It does not automatically mean the proposition is controlling law today. “Conditional synthesis” identifies this researcher’s reasoning across sources.\n\n| Claim ID | Precise assertion | Sources / exact pinpoints | Conditions, currentness, confidence limits |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_NC-P2-C001** | The published timing language remains in §14-423(2). The relevant 2005 amendment took effect December 31, 2005; its sunset was removed in 2007. | S001 §14-423(2); S002 §§2,4; S003 §§1–2; S020–S021. | High—text/history; currentness bounded by the published compilation and targeted modifications check. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C002** | Noncustodial status alone is insufficient. The first two branches cover specified compensated distribution arrangements or receipt for creditor payment. Avoiding the third branch’s timing element requires both completed settlement and full agreed performance: its premature-receipt alternatives are connected by **or**. | S001 §14-423(2), paragraphs 1–3. | High—text; the contractual unit and legal meaning of completion remain unresolved. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C003** | Section 14-424 also reaches offers and attempts to conduct defined debt adjusting. Delayed actual collection does not alone cure offering an otherwise covered model. | S001 §§14-423(1)–(2), 14-424. | Textual application; not a holding about every postperformance offer. The definition’s elements still matter. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C004** | NC DOJ’s 2010 testimony affirmatively described operation without pre-completion settlement fees as possible under the amended law. | S004 §II, pp.6–7. | High—historical statement; no current contract approval or binding formal opinion. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C005** | The 2009 comments joined by NC described the state rule using completion of all promised services. | S005 p.10/n.16; NC participation pp.1,14. | High—historical comments. They do not resolve installment or per-debt units. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C006** | Post-Orion legislative staff analysis continued to describe an advance-payment limitation and contrasted it with a proposal reaching fees regardless of payment time. | S006 p.1 Overview and final sentence. | High—staff description; expressly not legislative intent or an enacted rule. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C007** | A model satisfying C002’s negative coverage conditions has affirmative textual and interpretive support for noncoverage. The prior blanket evidentiary hold should therefore be narrowed. | S001; S004–S006; adverse S007 ¶13 preserved. | **Conditional synthesis.** No provider approval, numeric fee permission, or controlling safe-harbor decision established. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C008** | No source read resolves whether one debt’s agreement/initial payment completes the relevant state-law service while other agreed work continues. | S001 paragraph 3; S011 p.13 n.8; S012 II(C). | Held. Neither a universal per-debt permission nor universal all-installments rule is established. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C009** | Orion 2015 rejected reliance on the advance-fee paragraph alone and contains broad adverse fee-timing language, in a pleading decision involving connected defendants. | S007 ¶¶8–15. | High—decision; trial-level, allegations accepted as true. Do not erase ¶13 or universalize the factual holding. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C010** | Orion 2016 found an Orion–Haskins enterprise and unlawful conduct on evidence including advance fees. Global was expressly unrelated, separately described, and dismissed. | S008 ¶23/n.1; ¶¶40–46. | High—summary judgment. Does not adjudicate the proposed isolated postperformance arrangement. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C011** | Orion 2017 entered final default relief on admitted facts and a broad case-specific injunction. | S009 ¶¶45–52; Part V ¶¶2–3; p.27. | High—order. Its injunction is not a statutory amendment governing every provider. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C012** | The State Bar reported no defendant appeals from the Orion dispositions. The signed summary-judgment opinion is dated December 20, 2016. | S010 printed p.4; S008 signature page. | Historical report only; complete current docket unverified. Prefer signed date over report’s December 12 reference. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C013** | Erwin describes a 25% contract fee but expressly makes no prohibited-adjusting finding against ClearOne/GCS. | S011 ¶5; p.13 n.8. | High—express reservation. Neither amount nor first-payment timing was approved. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C014** | Later Erwin citation located in JSmith concerns arbitration. District-appeal leads exist, but their disposition and subsequent bankruptcy merits history were not read. | S018 p.4; discovery routes F02–F03. | High about read citation; appeal outcomes **held**. No affirmance/reversal inference. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C015** | CLG’s judgment bars new NC settlement/negotiation contracts; continued service is limited to customers enrolled before **October 15, 2010**. Its fee exception covers **reasonable post-settlement fees** for settlements defendants actually reached **on/after October 1, 2011**, subject to full Article 56 and TSR compliance. | S012 II(A)–(C), pp.3–4. | High—mirrored order text; party-specific consent terms. No numerical formula or completion-unit construction. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C016** | The actual CLG order’s October 15 cutoff differs from the report’s October 14. The report identifies judgment date January 23, 2012. | S012 I.6, II(A); S013 pp.1–2. | Prefer order for operative cutoff. Official filed copy and complete later history remain held. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C017** | CLG’s earlier dismissal denial was a pleading ruling; the later judgment records settlement without defendants’ admission of violations. | S024 pp.1–2; S012 I.9. | Does not supply a contested merits construction of postperformance fees. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C018** | Current DOJ consumer guidance identifies upfront settlement fees as unlawful but supplies no detailed per-debt completion determination. | S014 opening guidance. | High—page content; undated guidance, not adjudication. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C019** | Stewart’s read record concerns advance-fee allegations and confirmation of an award; it does not independently decide the narrow hypothetical. | S015 pp.3–4; S016 pp.5,8–10. | Award itself unavailable; its full statutory reasoning remains unknown. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C020** | Maniya supplies no merits construction resolving this completion boundary. | S017 pp.1,9–10,13–14. | Unpublished pleading/preservation disposition; no broader private-remedy conclusion drawn. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C021** | State Bar reporting of FDR’s cessation undertaking and NDR’s negotiated resolution does not establish Article 56 fee permission. | S019 printed p.3. | Actual instruments and subsequent history not obtained. UPL disposition is distinct from model authorization. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C022** | H734’s timing-language deletion remains proposed on the official record checked; the printed effective date does not establish enactment. | S022 §1(b), §2; S023 Last Action/History. | High—read bill/history; checked at access date. |\n| **S_NC-P2-C023** | This targeted public research did not locate a controlling current merits decision or formal NC interpretation squarely resolving pure postperformance/per-debt completion. | S007–S019, S024; failed/discovery routes below. | **Bounded research result**, not proof that no such authority exists. Archived opinions and dockets were not exhaustively accessible. |\n\n## D. Earlier-claim patch map — original IDs preserved\n\nThese are addenda to the imported records. The raw original claims are not represented as edited.\n\n| Original claim ID | Patch disposition | Actual patch / replacement finding | PASS-02 support |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_NC-P1-C006** | **Narrow and strengthen the hold.** | Replace the absence-of-support implication with **conditional noncoverage supported by text and official interpretive history**. Continue holding provider-specific application and disputed completion units. | **S_NC-P2-C002–C008, C023** |\n| **S_NC-P1-C016** | **Retain; specify the unresolved premise.** | Preserve the distinction between the definition and the offer/attempt prohibition. Add both completion requirements and the unresolved service unit. Prior fee-ceiling observations are not newly validated here. | **S_NC-P2-C002–C003, C008** |\n| **S_NC-P1-C017** | **Retain with procedural and subsequent-history expansion.** | Preserve 2015’s adverse language; add the 2016 enterprise/funds findings, 2017 default disposition, and bounded no-appeal report. Do not assign Global enterprise membership. | **S_NC-P2-C009–C012** |\n| **S_NC-P1-C018** | **Retain; expand the history hold.** | The express merits reservation remains decisive for what Erwin itself establishes. Add located district-appeal leads; their actual outcomes remain unknown. | **S_NC-P2-C013–C014**, F02–F03 |\n| **S_NC-P1-C019** | **Upgrade from report-only evidence to actual judgment text.** | Substitute the judgment’s exact conditions and October 15 cutoff for the compressed report. Preserve official-copy and later-history limitations. | **S_NC-P2-C015–C017**, F01 |\n\n## E. Failed routes and discovery-only leads\n\n### These are not entries in the substantive source register\n\n| Route ID | Route actually checked / direct URL | Result and evidentiary limit | Exact missing evidence / next action within the public-only boundary |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **F01** | NC court portal: [https://www.nccourts.gov/portal](https://www.nccourts.gov/portal) and [https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/](https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/) | Public opens returned **403**. Court services page identified the portal, but no current CLG docket was read. | Obtain accessible official filed judgment and subsequent docket in **Wake 10 CV 016777**, including any modification, enforcement, appeal, or vacatur. Retry only ordinary public access; no account/contact step authorized here. |\n| **F02** | ClearOne appeal: [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) and [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/) | Search discovery identifies **E.D.N.C. 5:18-cv-00158**; actual opens failed. Metadata/termination snippets are not a disposition order. | Read the actual numbered docket and dispositive order, then the post-March 2018 bankruptcy record in **17-00055-5-DMW**. |\n| **F03** | Likely companion: [https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003](https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003?utm_source=chatgpt.com) and [https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003/dockets](https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003/dockets) | Search lead identifies **Global Client Solutions v. ClearOne Advantage et al., 5:18-cv-00155**. Page/docket inaccessible. Relationship and outcome unproved. | First verify connection to Erwin; then obtain actual appellate orders. No subscription access attempted. |\n| **F03a** | Derived public GovInfo routes: [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158-0.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158-0.pdf) and [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155-0.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155-0.pdf) | Unavailable through the browsing tool. Derived URL failure is not evidence that an opinion does not exist. | Locate an indexed public copy by actual document identifier or an accessible court docket. |\n| **F04** | NC DOJ archived opinions: [https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/](https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Visible index and targeted searches did not locate a square formal opinion. The paginated archive was **not exhaustively read**. | Continue targeted archive/citation searching for a numbered opinion addressing full performance and per-debt allocation; require the opinion text. |\n| **F05** | Stewart award route: [https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2:2011cv00026/63675/79/1.pdf](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2:2011cv00026/63675/79/1.pdf) | Public mirror retrieval failed. Confirmation orders do not reproduce the complete award. | Obtain **Doc.79-1**, then assess its custody/completion reasoning and later docket history. |\n| **F06** | FDR/NDR instrument searches; State Bar reporting/index routes, including [https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/office-of-counsel-annual-reports/](https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/office-of-counsel-annual-reports/) | Reports were located; actual undertaking/consent instrument was not. Provider statements were not treated as permission. | Obtain executed instruments and disposition identifiers before inferring Article 56 terms or current effect. |\n| **F07** | Maniya official opinion page: [https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/maniya-v-neighborhood-assistance-corp-of-am](https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/maniya-v-neighborhood-assistance-corp-of-am?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Official linked PDF retrieval failed; actual mirrored opinion recovered as S017. | Official copy/full later history remains a provenance/history follow-up; the read merits content does not resolve this pass. |\n| **F08** | H734 summaries index: [https://www.ncleg.gov/Legislation/Bills/Summaries/2025/H734](https://www.ncleg.gov/Legislation/Bills/Summaries/2025/H734?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | Index read; linked 2025 analysis routes were not opened because they used API paths. Index titles were not treated as substantive analysis. | Use an ordinary public document route if available. S022–S023 establish the actual bill text/status used here. |\n| **F09** | NC DOJ PDF lead: [https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/doc05309820220518161638.pdf](https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/doc05309820220518161638.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com) | PDF returned no extracted body text. Search snippet was not used as authority. | Obtain a readable public rendering and identify the document before making any substantive claim. |\n\n## F. Dependency crosswalk\n\n### Imported PASS-01 material is distinguished from fresh reading\n\n| Earlier dependency | PASS-02 treatment | What is and is not carried forward |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **P1-S001**, Article 56 | Relevant provisions freshly read as **P2-S001**; amendment history/currentness checked separately. | Fresh support for this narrow classification issue. No rerun of the full statutory market-access dossier. |\n| **P1-S012**, 2015 Orion | Reopened as **P2-S007**. | Actual relevant opinion passages freshly read; later documents added rather than attributed to the old source. |\n| **P1-S014**, Erwin | Reopened as **P2-S011**. | Reservation freshly read; appeal leads remain discovery only. |\n| **P1-S015**, DOJ CLG report | Reopened as **P2-S013**; actual order added as **P2-S012**. | Report and judgment are separate documents with different evidentiary roles. |\n| Supplied coordinator review | Accepted as the user’s description of prior work. | Not represented as this researcher’s independent review or fresh source verification. |\n| Prior example arithmetic, DMP calculations, federal overview | Not rerun. | Supplied arithmetic checks do not establish legal premises or clear the completion boundary. |\n| Money-transmission analysis | Separate dependency. | No custody-classification statement here clears the full rules, exemptions, licensing analysis, or ruling needed in that pass. |\n\n## G. Conditional boundary examples\n\nThese examples test classification assumptions only. They establish no fee percentage, dollar ceiling, or provider authorization.\n\n### Example 1 — Fully completed single engagement\n\n**Inputs:** One actual one-debt engagement; creditor settlement fully consummated; every promised provider service complete; no earlier compensation; no arrangement falling within either funds-related branch.\n\n**Operator:** Apply C002’s coverage conditions to those stipulated facts.\n\n**Intermediate:** No remaining settlement or provider-performance event is assumed.\n\n**Result:** **C007’s conditional noncoverage analysis applies.** Changing any premise requires renewed analysis. The example does not establish that signing an agreement alone constitutes consummation.\n\n**Units/rounding:** Classification only; no monetary calculation or rounding.\n\n### Example 2 — One completed account in a continuing program\n\n**Inputs:** A three-debt engagement; debt A has a settlement agreement and initial payment; negotiations or promised servicing for B and C remain; provider seeks an A-specific fee.\n\n**Operator:** Test completion of the actual promised engagement, not merely the fee’s label.\n\n**Intermediate:** The record does not establish that all relevant services have been completed or that the state recognizes the proposed division.\n\n**Result:** **Hold the fee-timing premise under C008.** A mathematically correct fee allocation does not resolve it.\n\n**Units/rounding:** Classification only; no approved fee base, percentage, or rounding rule inferred.\n\n## H. Component coverage and remaining gaps\n\n| Component question | Status | Claims | Exact missing evidence / continuation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Current timing language and amendment status | **Answered within stated currency check** | C001–C003, C022 | Recheck enacted amendments if the operating date changes; proposed text cannot replace current law. |\n| Pure noncustodial, fully performed model | **Partially resolved; support materially strengthened** | C004–C007 | Actual operating facts and a square controlling/current formal application remain needed for provider-specific clearance. |\n| Per-debt versus whole-service completion | **Unresolved** | C008, C023 | Authority interpreting the unit of agreed services, separate engagements, and bundled continuing duties. |\n| Agreement, first-payment, or final-installment settlement completion | **Unresolved** | C008, C013 | A merits decision/formal interpretation applying those concrete triggers. |\n| 2015 Orion adverse language | **Answered as to read opinion** | C009 | Preserve breadth of ¶13; no universal hypothetical holding inferred. |\n| 2016 enterprise and processor distinction | **Answered as to read ruling** | C010 | Application to a different control/agency arrangement would require its facts and relevant authority. |\n| Orion later disposition | **Partially resolved** | C011–C012 | Current complete docket remains unavailable; historical no-appeal report is identified. |\n| Erwin reservation | **Answered** | C013 | No fee-rate/timing approval from that opinion. |\n| Erwin subsequent history | **Unresolved, with identified appeal leads** | C014; F02–F03a | Obtain actual district dispositions and subsequent bankruptcy merits record. |\n| CLG actual consent judgment | **Substantively retrieved; provenance/history partial** | C015–C017 | Official filed copy, original preliminary order, subsequent docket, and any interpretation of II(C). |\n| Other potentially relevant merits/formal interpretations | **Targeted search completed; no square authority located** | C018–C023 | Missing Stewart award; formal-opinion archive limitations; FDR/NDR instruments. |\n| DMP math, federal overview, prior examples | **Excluded from this follow-up** | Dependency table | Prior records retained without fresh acceptance or validation. |\n| Full money-transmission rules/ruling | **Held separately** | — | Complete the independently scoped transmission analysis. |\n| Agreement/disclosures, funds/bond, remedies, collection/litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector/local/tribal issues, and broader contract/case-law coverage | **Open; outside PASS-02** | — | Continue the later required state passes. This answer does not satisfy those categories. |\n| Full North Carolina dossier or A066 acceptance | **Not granted or implied** | — | Component findings only. |\n\n## I. Researcher self-check\n\nThe relevant statutory passages, enacted amendment provisions, official Orion opinions, Erwin reservation, legislative analysis, official interpretive statements, enforcement reports, and identified later decisions were actually opened and read during this pass. The CLG consent judgment was read as a judicial document reproduced in a third-party mirror; that provenance limitation remains explicit.\n\nLong filings were read at the identified relevant passages. An opinion index, search snippet, inaccessible PDF, docket metadata field, or later citation was not promoted into a merits holding. The actual Erwin appeal orders, CLG’s complete later docket, Stewart’s arbitration award, and the FDR/NDR operative instruments were not read.\n\nThe evidence supports a narrower, better grounded conclusion than PASS-01’s original general hold. **The per-debt/whole-engagement merits boundary remains open**, with exact continuation targets identified above. No amount of example arithmetic clears that legal premise.\n\nThis is a researcher self-check with parallel research assistance, **not an independent review**. No applications, contacts, account changes, permission expansion, external chat creation, local deliverable writes, or publication-readiness claims form part of this result.\n\n**END S_NC PASS-02.**\n\n","tables":[{"headers":["Source ID","Document, issuer, direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and version/status","Access; jurisdiction and limitation"],"index":0,"links":[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html"},{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html"},{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html"},{"href":"https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf"},{"href":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080"},{"href":"https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html"}],[{"href":"https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080"}],[{"href":"https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Document, issuer, direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and version/status","Access; jurisdiction and limitation"],["S_NC-P2-S001","Chapter 14, Article 56, NC General Assembly. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html","§14-423(2), all three paragraphs; §14-424; §14-426(2). Current published text.","A; NC. Website compilation status is qualified by S020–S021."],["S_NC-P2-S002","Session Law 2005-408, NC General Assembly. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html","§§2, 4; amendment and effective-date/sunset provisions. Approved September 20, 2005.","A; enacted NC session law; original sunset subsequently addressed by S003."],["S_NC-P2-S003","Session Law 2007-79, NC General Assembly. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html","§§1–2; sunset repeal, effective September 1, 2007.","A; enacted NC session law."],["S_NC-P2-S004","Testimony of Philip A. Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, NC DOJ, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, April 22, 2010. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf","§II, printed pp.5–7, especially p.6 final paragraph continuing onto p.7.","A; historical official NC testimony in a federal hearing. Not a formal AG opinion, rule, or adjudication."],["S_NC-P2-S005","Multistate attorneys-general comments on proposed TSR debt-relief provisions, October 23, 2009, FTC-hosted filing. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf","p.1 participating states; p.10 and n.16; p.14 NC signature.","A; historical rulemaking submission joined by NC. The comments are not an adopted federal rule or binding NC opinion."],["S_NC-P2-S006","H481: Modernize Debt Settlement Prohibition—First Edition analysis, Greg Roney, NCGA Legislative Analysis Division, April 25, 2023. https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080","p.1 Overview, Current Law, final sentence; identifier H481-SMTM-15(e1)-v-1.","A; historical legislative staff analysis. Expressly not an official statement of legislative intent."],["S_NC-P2-S014","Getting Out of Debt, NC DOJ. https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/","Opening debt-settlement/upfront-fee guidance. Undated live page as accessed.","A; current public guidance. Does not adjudicate a model or define completion."]]},{"headers":["Source ID","Document, issuer, direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and version/status","Access; jurisdiction and limitation"],"index":1,"links":[{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp"},{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF"},{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x"},{"href":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf"},{"href":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf"},{"href":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757"},{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf"},{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf"},{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf"},{"href":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp"}],[{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF"}],[{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757"}],[{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496&utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Document, issuer, direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and version/status","Access; jurisdiction and limitation"],["S_NC-P2-S007","State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2015 NCBC 102, November 9, 2015, Wake 13 CVS 7161. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp","¶¶1, 8–15, especially ¶13, PDF p.5.","A; official NC court PDF; trial-level Rule 12(b)(6) decision."],["S_NC-P2-S008","State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2016 NCBC 100, signed December 20, 2016. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF","¶¶17–18; ¶23/n.1; ¶¶40–48; concluding order and signature.","A; official NC court PDF; uncontested summary judgment supported by evidence."],["S_NC-P2-S009","State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2017 NCBC 20, March 7, 2017. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x","¶¶45–52; Part V, operative ¶¶2–3, pp.23–25; final disposition p.27.","A; official NC court PDF; final default order and injunction. Later complete docket not obtained."],["S_NC-P2-S010","2017 Office of Counsel Annual Report, NC State Bar. https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf","Printed pp.3–4, particularly p.4, PDF p.5.","A; historical official report. Its 2016 date discrepancy is resolved against the signed opinion."],["S_NC-P2-S011","Lischwe v. ClearOne Advantage, LLC (In re Erwin), Bankr. E.D.N.C., Adv. 17-00055-5-DMW, Doc.50, March 30, 2018. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf","¶¶3–5, pp.2–3; ¶¶28–30 and p.13 n.8; conclusion pp.22–23.","A; federal bankruptcy opinion on arbitration. Subsequent appeal outcome unresolved."],["S_NC-P2-S012","State v. Consumer Law Group, P.A., et al., Consent Judgment, Wake 10 CV 016777, January 2012. https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf","I.6–9, p.2; II(A)–(C), pp.3–4; signature portion. January 23 date reported by S013.","A; actual eight-page judicial document in a third-party mirror. Official filed copy/current docket not obtained; handwritten day not visually verified."],["S_NC-P2-S013","Report of Settlement, NC DOJ, September 18, 2012. https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757","p.1 judgment date; p.2 injunctive-summary clauses (i)–(iii).","A; official historical report. The underlying judgment controls where its cutoff differs from the report."],["S_NC-P2-S015","Stewart v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, PLLC, W.D.N.C. 2:11cv26, Doc.55, June 1, 2012. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf","pp.3–4, factual allegations concerning advance fees and absent settlement offers.","A; federal judicial document, third-party mirror. Allegations are not findings approving a postperformance model."],["S_NC-P2-S016","Stewart, same case, Doc.83, September 23, 2014. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf","p.5 description of award; pp.8–10 confirmation analysis/order.","A; federal judicial document, third-party mirror. Arbitrator’s complete award not retrieved."],["S_NC-P2-S017","Maniya v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, N.C. Court of Appeals, COA16-706, April 18, 2017. https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496","p.1 unpublished designation; pp.9–10, 13–14.","A; actual court opinion in a mirror after official PDF retrieval failed. Unpublished; complete subsequent history not checked."],["S_NC-P2-S018","JSmith Civil, LLC v. Fourth Elm Construction, LLC, Bankr. E.D.N.C. 25-00043-5-JNC, Doc.20, June 30, 2025. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf","p.4, Erwin citation and arbitration discussion.","A; federal bankruptcy opinion. Different dispute; no debt-settlement fee merits holding."],["S_NC-P2-S019","2019 Office of Counsel Annual Report, NC State Bar. https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf","Printed p.3, PDF p.4, consecutive FDR/NDR paragraphs.","A; historical UPL enforcement reporting. Operative undertaking/resolution not attached or retrieved."],["S_NC-P2-S024","Consumer Law Group order denying motion to dismiss, Wake 10 CV 016777, March 2011. https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf","pp.1–2; date identified as March 25 in S012, I.8.","A; actual judicial order in a third-party mirror. Filename is not proof of entry date; pleading ruling."]]},{"headers":["Source ID","Document, issuer, direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and version/status","Access; jurisdiction and limitation"],"index":2,"links":[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes"},{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current"},{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html"},{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Document, issuer, direct literal URL","Exact pinpoint and version/status","Access; jurisdiction and limitation"],["S_NC-P2-S020","General Statutes currency notice, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes","Header and Updates: through S.L.2026-30; “Not Official” caveat.","A; current publication metadata, not an independent certification of every enactment."],["S_NC-P2-S021","Law modifications not yet reflected in statute, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current","Current page; targeted searches for §14-423, §14-424, “14-42,” and debt.","A; no relevant match returned. Not a full reread of every 2026 session law."],["S_NC-P2-S022","2025 H734, Edition 1, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html","§1(b), proposed §75-151(3); §2 printed effective date.","A; proposed text, not an enacted replacement for Article 56."],["S_NC-P2-S023","2025–2026 H734 official history, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734","Last Action and History: Senate Rules referral April 28, 2025.","A; actual history read. No enactment/session-law entry shown at access."]]},{"headers":["Claim ID","Precise assertion","Sources / exact pinpoints","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits"],"index":3,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Claim ID","Precise assertion","Sources / exact pinpoints","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits"],["S_NC-P2-C001","The published timing language remains in §14-423(2). The relevant 2005 amendment took effect December 31, 2005; its sunset was removed in 2007.","S001 §14-423(2); S002 §§2,4; S003 §§1–2; S020–S021.","High—text/history; currentness bounded by the published compilation and targeted modifications check."],["S_NC-P2-C002","Noncustodial status alone is insufficient. The first two branches cover specified compensated distribution arrangements or receipt for creditor payment. Avoiding the third branch’s timing element requires both completed settlement and full agreed performance: its premature-receipt alternatives are connected by or.","S001 §14-423(2), paragraphs 1–3.","High—text; the contractual unit and legal meaning of completion remain unresolved."],["S_NC-P2-C003","Section 14-424 also reaches offers and attempts to conduct defined debt adjusting. Delayed actual collection does not alone cure offering an otherwise covered model.","S001 §§14-423(1)–(2), 14-424.","Textual application; not a holding about every postperformance offer. The definition’s elements still matter."],["S_NC-P2-C004","NC DOJ’s 2010 testimony affirmatively described operation without pre-completion settlement fees as possible under the amended law.","S004 §II, pp.6–7.","High—historical statement; no current contract approval or binding formal opinion."],["S_NC-P2-C005","The 2009 comments joined by NC described the state rule using completion of all promised services.","S005 p.10/n.16; NC participation pp.1,14.","High—historical comments. They do not resolve installment or per-debt units."],["S_NC-P2-C006","Post-Orion legislative staff analysis continued to describe an advance-payment limitation and contrasted it with a proposal reaching fees regardless of payment time.","S006 p.1 Overview and final sentence.","High—staff description; expressly not legislative intent or an enacted rule."],["S_NC-P2-C007","A model satisfying C002’s negative coverage conditions has affirmative textual and interpretive support for noncoverage. The prior blanket evidentiary hold should therefore be narrowed.","S001; S004–S006; adverse S007 ¶13 preserved.","Conditional synthesis. No provider approval, numeric fee permission, or controlling safe-harbor decision established."],["S_NC-P2-C008","No source read resolves whether one debt’s agreement/initial payment completes the relevant state-law service while other agreed work continues.","S001 paragraph 3; S011 p.13 n.8; S012 II(C).","Held. Neither a universal per-debt permission nor universal all-installments rule is established."],["S_NC-P2-C009","Orion 2015 rejected reliance on the advance-fee paragraph alone and contains broad adverse fee-timing language, in a pleading decision involving connected defendants.","S007 ¶¶8–15.","High—decision; trial-level, allegations accepted as true. Do not erase ¶13 or universalize the factual holding."],["S_NC-P2-C010","Orion 2016 found an Orion–Haskins enterprise and unlawful conduct on evidence including advance fees. Global was expressly unrelated, separately described, and dismissed.","S008 ¶23/n.1; ¶¶40–46.","High—summary judgment. Does not adjudicate the proposed isolated postperformance arrangement."],["S_NC-P2-C011","Orion 2017 entered final default relief on admitted facts and a broad case-specific injunction.","S009 ¶¶45–52; Part V ¶¶2–3; p.27.","High—order. Its injunction is not a statutory amendment governing every provider."],["S_NC-P2-C012","The State Bar reported no defendant appeals from the Orion dispositions. The signed summary-judgment opinion is dated December 20, 2016.","S010 printed p.4; S008 signature page.","Historical report only; complete current docket unverified. Prefer signed date over report’s December 12 reference."],["S_NC-P2-C013","Erwin describes a 25% contract fee but expressly makes no prohibited-adjusting finding against ClearOne/GCS.","S011 ¶5; p.13 n.8.","High—express reservation. Neither amount nor first-payment timing was approved."],["S_NC-P2-C014","Later Erwin citation located in JSmith concerns arbitration. District-appeal leads exist, but their disposition and subsequent bankruptcy merits history were not read.","S018 p.4; discovery routes F02–F03.","High about read citation; appeal outcomes held. No affirmance/reversal inference."],["S_NC-P2-C015","CLG’s judgment bars new NC settlement/negotiation contracts; continued service is limited to customers enrolled before October 15, 2010. Its fee exception covers reasonable post-settlement fees for settlements defendants actually reached on/after October 1, 2011, subject to full Article 56 and TSR compliance.","S012 II(A)–(C), pp.3–4.","High—mirrored order text; party-specific consent terms. No numerical formula or completion-unit construction."],["S_NC-P2-C016","The actual CLG order’s October 15 cutoff differs from the report’s October 14. The report identifies judgment date January 23, 2012.","S012 I.6, II(A); S013 pp.1–2.","Prefer order for operative cutoff. Official filed copy and complete later history remain held."],["S_NC-P2-C017","CLG’s earlier dismissal denial was a pleading ruling; the later judgment records settlement without defendants’ admission of violations.","S024 pp.1–2; S012 I.9.","Does not supply a contested merits construction of postperformance fees."],["S_NC-P2-C018","Current DOJ consumer guidance identifies upfront settlement fees as unlawful but supplies no detailed per-debt completion determination.","S014 opening guidance.","High—page content; undated guidance, not adjudication."],["S_NC-P2-C019","Stewart’s read record concerns advance-fee allegations and confirmation of an award; it does not independently decide the narrow hypothetical.","S015 pp.3–4; S016 pp.5,8–10.","Award itself unavailable; its full statutory reasoning remains unknown."],["S_NC-P2-C020","Maniya supplies no merits construction resolving this completion boundary.","S017 pp.1,9–10,13–14.","Unpublished pleading/preservation disposition; no broader private-remedy conclusion drawn."],["S_NC-P2-C021","State Bar reporting of FDR’s cessation undertaking and NDR’s negotiated resolution does not establish Article 56 fee permission.","S019 printed p.3.","Actual instruments and subsequent history not obtained. UPL disposition is distinct from model authorization."],["S_NC-P2-C022","H734’s timing-language deletion remains proposed on the official record checked; the printed effective date does not establish enactment.","S022 §1(b), §2; S023 Last Action/History.","High—read bill/history; checked at access date."],["S_NC-P2-C023","This targeted public research did not locate a controlling current merits decision or formal NC interpretation squarely resolving pure postperformance/per-debt completion.","S007–S019, S024; failed/discovery routes below.","Bounded research result, not proof that no such authority exists. Archived opinions and dockets were not exhaustively accessible."]]},{"headers":["Original claim ID","Patch disposition","Actual patch / replacement finding","PASS-02 support"],"index":4,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Original claim ID","Patch disposition","Actual patch / replacement finding","PASS-02 support"],["S_NC-P1-C006","Narrow and strengthen the hold.","Replace the absence-of-support implication with conditional noncoverage supported by text and official interpretive history. Continue holding provider-specific application and disputed completion units.","S_NC-P2-C002–C008, C023"],["S_NC-P1-C016","Retain; specify the unresolved premise.","Preserve the distinction between the definition and the offer/attempt prohibition. Add both completion requirements and the unresolved service unit. Prior fee-ceiling observations are not newly validated here.","S_NC-P2-C002–C003, C008"],["S_NC-P1-C017","Retain with procedural and subsequent-history expansion.","Preserve 2015’s adverse language; add the 2016 enterprise/funds findings, 2017 default disposition, and bounded no-appeal report. Do not assign Global enterprise membership.","S_NC-P2-C009–C012"],["S_NC-P1-C018","Retain; expand the history hold.","The express merits reservation remains decisive for what Erwin itself establishes. Add located district-appeal leads; their actual outcomes remain unknown.","S_NC-P2-C013–C014, F02–F03"],["S_NC-P1-C019","Upgrade from report-only evidence to actual judgment text.","Substitute the judgment’s exact conditions and October 15 cutoff for the compressed report. Preserve official-copy and later-history limitations.","S_NC-P2-C015–C017, F01"]]},{"headers":["Route ID","Route actually checked / direct URL","Result and evidentiary limit","Exact missing evidence / next action within the public-only boundary"],"index":5,"links":[{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/portal","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/portal"},{"href":"https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/","text":"https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/"},{"href":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/"},{"href":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/","text":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/"},{"href":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003"},{"href":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003/dockets","text":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003/dockets"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158-0.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155-0.pdf"},{"href":"https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/"},{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2:2011cv00026/63675/79/1.pdf","text":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2:2011cv00026/63675/79/1.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/office-of-counsel-annual-reports/","text":"https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/office-of-counsel-annual-reports/"},{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/maniya-v-neighborhood-assistance-corp-of-am?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/maniya-v-neighborhood-assistance-corp-of-am"},{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Legislation/Bills/Summaries/2025/H734?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Legislation/Bills/Summaries/2025/H734"},{"href":"https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/doc05309820220518161638.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/doc05309820220518161638.pdf"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/portal","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/portal"},{"href":"https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/","text":"https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/"}],[{"href":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/"},{"href":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/","text":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/"}],[{"href":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003"},{"href":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003/dockets","text":"https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003/dockets"}],[{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158-0.pdf"},{"href":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155-0.pdf","text":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155-0.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/"}],[{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2:2011cv00026/63675/79/1.pdf","text":"https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2:2011cv00026/63675/79/1.pdf"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/office-of-counsel-annual-reports/","text":"https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/office-of-counsel-annual-reports/"}],[{"href":"https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/maniya-v-neighborhood-assistance-corp-of-am?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/maniya-v-neighborhood-assistance-corp-of-am"}],[{"href":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Legislation/Bills/Summaries/2025/H734?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://www.ncleg.gov/Legislation/Bills/Summaries/2025/H734"}],[{"href":"https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/doc05309820220518161638.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com","text":"https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/doc05309820220518161638.pdf"}]],"rows":[["Route ID","Route actually checked / direct URL","Result and evidentiary limit","Exact missing evidence / next action within the public-only boundary"],["F01","NC court portal: https://www.nccourts.gov/portal and https://portal-nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/","Public opens returned 403. Court services page identified the portal, but no current CLG docket was read.","Obtain accessible official filed judgment and subsequent docket in Wake 10 CV 016777, including any modification, enforcement, appeal, or vacatur. Retry only ordinary public access; no account/contact step authorized here."],["F02","ClearOne appeal: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/idb/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/ and https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7599377/clearone-advantage-llc-v-lischwe-trustee/","Search discovery identifies E.D.N.C. 5:18-cv-00158; actual opens failed. Metadata/termination snippets are not a disposition order.","Read the actual numbered docket and dispositive order, then the post-March 2018 bankruptcy record in 17-00055-5-DMW."],["F03","Likely companion: https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003 and https://www.law360.com/cases/5acfb3f4b9a1b50969000003/dockets","Search lead identifies Global Client Solutions v. ClearOne Advantage et al., 5:18-cv-00155. Page/docket inaccessible. Relationship and outcome unproved.","First verify connection to Erwin; then obtain actual appellate orders. No subscription access attempted."],["F03a","Derived public GovInfo routes: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00158-0.pdf and https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-nced-5_18-cv-00155-0.pdf","Unavailable through the browsing tool. Derived URL failure is not evidence that an opinion does not exist.","Locate an indexed public copy by actual document identifier or an accessible court docket."],["F04","NC DOJ archived opinions: https://ncdoj.gov/legal-services/archived-opinions/","Visible index and targeted searches did not locate a square formal opinion. The paginated archive was not exhaustively read.","Continue targeted archive/citation searching for a numbered opinion addressing full performance and per-debt allocation; require the opinion text."],["F05","Stewart award route: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2:2011cv00026/63675/79/1.pdf","Public mirror retrieval failed. Confirmation orders do not reproduce the complete award.","Obtain Doc.79-1, then assess its custody/completion reasoning and later docket history."],["F06","FDR/NDR instrument searches; State Bar reporting/index routes, including https://www.ncbar.gov/lawyer-discipline/office-of-counsel-annual-reports/","Reports were located; actual undertaking/consent instrument was not. Provider statements were not treated as permission.","Obtain executed instruments and disposition identifiers before inferring Article 56 terms or current effect."],["F07","Maniya official opinion page: https://www.nccourts.gov/documents/appellate-court-opinions/maniya-v-neighborhood-assistance-corp-of-am","Official linked PDF retrieval failed; actual mirrored opinion recovered as S017.","Official copy/full later history remains a provenance/history follow-up; the read merits content does not resolve this pass."],["F08","H734 summaries index: https://www.ncleg.gov/Legislation/Bills/Summaries/2025/H734","Index read; linked 2025 analysis routes were not opened because they used API paths. Index titles were not treated as substantive analysis.","Use an ordinary public document route if available. S022–S023 establish the actual bill text/status used here."],["F09","NC DOJ PDF lead: https://ncdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/doc05309820220518161638.pdf","PDF returned no extracted body text. Search snippet was not used as authority.","Obtain a readable public rendering and identify the document before making any substantive claim."]]},{"headers":["Earlier dependency","PASS-02 treatment","What is and is not carried forward"],"index":6,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Earlier dependency","PASS-02 treatment","What is and is not carried forward"],["P1-S001, Article 56","Relevant provisions freshly read as P2-S001; amendment history/currentness checked separately.","Fresh support for this narrow classification issue. No rerun of the full statutory market-access dossier."],["P1-S012, 2015 Orion","Reopened as P2-S007.","Actual relevant opinion passages freshly read; later documents added rather than attributed to the old source."],["P1-S014, Erwin","Reopened as P2-S011.","Reservation freshly read; appeal leads remain discovery only."],["P1-S015, DOJ CLG report","Reopened as P2-S013; actual order added as P2-S012.","Report and judgment are separate documents with different evidentiary roles."],["Supplied coordinator review","Accepted as the user’s description of prior work.","Not represented as this researcher’s independent review or fresh source verification."],["Prior example arithmetic, DMP calculations, federal overview","Not rerun.","Supplied arithmetic checks do not establish legal premises or clear the completion boundary."],["Money-transmission analysis","Separate dependency.","No custody-classification statement here clears the full rules, exemptions, licensing analysis, or ruling needed in that pass."]]},{"headers":["Component question","Status","Claims","Exact missing evidence / continuation"],"index":7,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Component question","Status","Claims","Exact missing evidence / continuation"],["Current timing language and amendment status","Answered within stated currency check","C001–C003, C022","Recheck enacted amendments if the operating date changes; proposed text cannot replace current law."],["Pure noncustodial, fully performed model","Partially resolved; support materially strengthened","C004–C007","Actual operating facts and a square controlling/current formal application remain needed for provider-specific clearance."],["Per-debt versus whole-service completion","Unresolved","C008, C023","Authority interpreting the unit of agreed services, separate engagements, and bundled continuing duties."],["Agreement, first-payment, or final-installment settlement completion","Unresolved","C008, C013","A merits decision/formal interpretation applying those concrete triggers."],["2015 Orion adverse language","Answered as to read opinion","C009","Preserve breadth of ¶13; no universal hypothetical holding inferred."],["2016 enterprise and processor distinction","Answered as to read ruling","C010","Application to a different control/agency arrangement would require its facts and relevant authority."],["Orion later disposition","Partially resolved","C011–C012","Current complete docket remains unavailable; historical no-appeal report is identified."],["Erwin reservation","Answered","C013","No fee-rate/timing approval from that opinion."],["Erwin subsequent history","Unresolved, with identified appeal leads","C014; F02–F03a","Obtain actual district dispositions and subsequent bankruptcy merits record."],["CLG actual consent judgment","Substantively retrieved; provenance/history partial","C015–C017","Official filed copy, original preliminary order, subsequent docket, and any interpretation of II(C)."],["Other potentially relevant merits/formal interpretations","Targeted search completed; no square authority located","C018–C023","Missing Stewart award; formal-opinion archive limitations; FDR/NDR instruments."],["DMP math, federal overview, prior examples","Excluded from this follow-up","Dependency table","Prior records retained without fresh acceptance or validation."],["Full money-transmission rules/ruling","Held separately","—","Complete the independently scoped transmission analysis."],["Agreement/disclosures, funds/bond, remedies, collection/litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector/local/tribal issues, and broader contract/case-law coverage","Open; outside PASS-02","—","Continue the later required state passes. This answer does not satisfy those categories."],["Full North Carolina dossier or A066 acceptance","Not granted or implied","—","Component findings only."]]}],"claims":[{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C001","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C001","Precise assertion":"The published timing language remains in §14-423(2). The relevant 2005 amendment took effect December 31, 2005; its sunset was removed in 2007.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S001 §14-423(2); S002 §§2,4; S003 §§1–2; S020–S021.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—text/history; currentness bounded by the published compilation and targeted modifications check."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C002","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C002","Precise assertion":"Noncustodial status alone is insufficient. The first two branches cover specified compensated distribution arrangements or receipt for creditor payment. Avoiding the third branch’s timing element requires both completed settlement and full agreed performance: its premature-receipt alternatives are connected by or.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S001 §14-423(2), paragraphs 1–3.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—text; the contractual unit and legal meaning of completion remain unresolved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C003","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C003","Precise assertion":"Section 14-424 also reaches offers and attempts to conduct defined debt adjusting. Delayed actual collection does not alone cure offering an otherwise covered model.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S001 §§14-423(1)–(2), 14-424.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Textual application; not a holding about every postperformance offer. The definition’s elements still matter."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C004","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C004","Precise assertion":"NC DOJ’s 2010 testimony affirmatively described operation without pre-completion settlement fees as possible under the amended law.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S004 §II, pp.6–7.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—historical statement; no current contract approval or binding formal opinion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C005","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C005","Precise assertion":"The 2009 comments joined by NC described the state rule using completion of all promised services.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S005 p.10/n.16; NC participation pp.1,14.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—historical comments. They do not resolve installment or per-debt units."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C006","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C006","Precise assertion":"Post-Orion legislative staff analysis continued to describe an advance-payment limitation and contrasted it with a proposal reaching fees regardless of payment time.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S006 p.1 Overview and final sentence.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—staff description; expressly not legislative intent or an enacted rule."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C007","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C007","Precise assertion":"A model satisfying C002’s negative coverage conditions has affirmative textual and interpretive support for noncoverage. The prior blanket evidentiary hold should therefore be narrowed.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S001; S004–S006; adverse S007 ¶13 preserved.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Conditional synthesis. No provider approval, numeric fee permission, or controlling safe-harbor decision established."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C008","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C008","Precise assertion":"No source read resolves whether one debt’s agreement/initial payment completes the relevant state-law service while other agreed work continues.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S001 paragraph 3; S011 p.13 n.8; S012 II(C).","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Held. Neither a universal per-debt permission nor universal all-installments rule is established."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C009","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C009","Precise assertion":"Orion 2015 rejected reliance on the advance-fee paragraph alone and contains broad adverse fee-timing language, in a pleading decision involving connected defendants.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S007 ¶¶8–15.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—decision; trial-level, allegations accepted as true. Do not erase ¶13 or universalize the factual holding."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C010","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C010","Precise assertion":"Orion 2016 found an Orion–Haskins enterprise and unlawful conduct on evidence including advance fees. Global was expressly unrelated, separately described, and dismissed.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S008 ¶23/n.1; ¶¶40–46.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—summary judgment. Does not adjudicate the proposed isolated postperformance arrangement."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C011","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C011","Precise assertion":"Orion 2017 entered final default relief on admitted facts and a broad case-specific injunction.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S009 ¶¶45–52; Part V ¶¶2–3; p.27.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—order. Its injunction is not a statutory amendment governing every provider."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C012","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C012","Precise assertion":"The State Bar reported no defendant appeals from the Orion dispositions. The signed summary-judgment opinion is dated December 20, 2016.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S010 printed p.4; S008 signature page.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Historical report only; complete current docket unverified. Prefer signed date over report’s December 12 reference."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C013","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C013","Precise assertion":"Erwin describes a 25% contract fee but expressly makes no prohibited-adjusting finding against ClearOne/GCS.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S011 ¶5; p.13 n.8.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—express reservation. Neither amount nor first-payment timing was approved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C014","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C014","Precise assertion":"Later Erwin citation located in JSmith concerns arbitration. District-appeal leads exist, but their disposition and subsequent bankruptcy merits history were not read.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S018 p.4; discovery routes F02–F03.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High about read citation; appeal outcomes held. No affirmance/reversal inference."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C015","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C015","Precise assertion":"CLG’s judgment bars new NC settlement/negotiation contracts; continued service is limited to customers enrolled before October 15, 2010. Its fee exception covers reasonable post-settlement fees for settlements defendants actually reached on/after October 1, 2011, subject to full Article 56 and TSR compliance.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S012 II(A)–(C), pp.3–4.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—mirrored order text; party-specific consent terms. No numerical formula or completion-unit construction."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C016","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C016","Precise assertion":"The actual CLG order’s October 15 cutoff differs from the report’s October 14. The report identifies judgment date January 23, 2012.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S012 I.6, II(A); S013 pp.1–2.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Prefer order for operative cutoff. Official filed copy and complete later history remain held."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C017","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C017","Precise assertion":"CLG’s earlier dismissal denial was a pleading ruling; the later judgment records settlement without defendants’ admission of violations.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S024 pp.1–2; S012 I.9.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Does not supply a contested merits construction of postperformance fees."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_support_checked_with_recorded_scope_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C018","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C018","Precise assertion":"Current DOJ consumer guidance identifies upfront settlement fees as unlawful but supplies no detailed per-debt completion determination.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S014 opening guidance.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—page content; undated guidance, not adjudication."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C019","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C019","Precise assertion":"Stewart’s read record concerns advance-fee allegations and confirmation of an award; it does not independently decide the narrow hypothetical.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S015 pp.3–4; S016 pp.5,8–10.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Award itself unavailable; its full statutory reasoning remains unknown."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C020","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C020","Precise assertion":"Maniya supplies no merits construction resolving this completion boundary.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S017 pp.1,9–10,13–14.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Unpublished pleading/preservation disposition; no broader private-remedy conclusion drawn."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C021","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C021","Precise assertion":"State Bar reporting of FDR’s cessation undertaking and NDR’s negotiated resolution does not establish Article 56 fee permission.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S019 printed p.3.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Actual instruments and subsequent history not obtained. UPL disposition is distinct from model authorization."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C022","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C022","Precise assertion":"H734’s timing-language deletion remains proposed on the official record checked; the printed effective date does not establish enactment.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S022 §1(b), §2; S023 Last Action/History.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"High—read bill/history; checked at access date."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_NC-P2-C023","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NC-P2-C023","Precise assertion":"This targeted public research did not locate a controlling current merits decision or formal NC interpretation squarely resolving pure postperformance/per-debt completion.","Sources / exact pinpoints":"S007–S019, S024; failed/discovery routes below.","Conditions, currentness, confidence limits":"Bounded research result, not proof that no such authority exists. Archived opinions and dockets were not exhaustively accessible."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_freshly_source_verified_in_this_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"}],"sources":[{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S001","urls":["https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html","https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S001","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Chapter 14, Article 56, NC General Assembly. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_56.html","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"§14-423(2), all three paragraphs; §14-424; §14-426(2). Current published text.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; NC. Website compilation status is qualified by S020–S021."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S002","urls":["https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html","https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S002","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Session Law 2005-408, NC General Assembly. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2005-2006/SL2005-408.html","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"§§2, 4; amendment and effective-date/sunset provisions. Approved September 20, 2005.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; enacted NC session law; original sunset subsequently addressed by S003."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S003","urls":["https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html","https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S003","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Session Law 2007-79, NC General Assembly. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2007-2008/SL2007-79.html","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"§§1–2; sunset repeal, effective September 1, 2007.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; enacted NC session law."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S004","urls":["https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf","https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S004","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Testimony of Philip A. Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, NC DOJ, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, April 22, 2010. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/Lehman%20Testimony.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"§II, printed pp.5–7, especially p.6 final paragraph continuing onto p.7.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; historical official NC testimony in a federal hearing. Not a formal AG opinion, rule, or adjudication."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_passages_checked_only_see_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S005","urls":["https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf","https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S005","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Multistate attorneys-general comments on proposed TSR debt-relief provisions, October 23, 2009, FTC-hosted filing. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2009/10/543670-00192.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"p.1 participating states; p.10 and n.16; p.14 NC signature.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; historical rulemaking submission joined by NC. The comments are not an adopted federal rule or binding NC opinion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S006","urls":["https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080","https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S006","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"H481: Modernize Debt Settlement Prohibition—First Edition analysis, Greg Roney, NCGA Legislative Analysis Division, April 25, 2023. https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/78080","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"p.1 Overview, Current Law, final sentence; identifier H481-SMTM-15(e1)-v-1.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; historical legislative staff analysis. Expressly not an official statement of legislative intent."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S014","urls":["https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/","https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S014","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Getting Out of Debt, NC DOJ. https://ncdoj.gov/protecting-consumers/credit-and-debt/getting-out-of-debt/","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"Opening debt-settlement/upfront-fee guidance. Undated live page as accessed.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; current public guidance. Does not adjudicate a model or define completion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S007","urls":["https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp","https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp&utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S007","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2015 NCBC 102, November 9, 2015, Wake 13 CVS 7161. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2015_NCBC_102.pdf?VersionId=WrmNoWc6s2gup5t9ejWvE_SFKYKjqzRp","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"¶¶1, 8–15, especially ¶13, PDF p.5.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; official NC court PDF; trial-level Rule 12(b)(6) decision."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_passages_checked_only_see_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S008","urls":["https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF","https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF&utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S008","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2016 NCBC 100, signed December 20, 2016. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2016_NCBC_100.pdf?VersionId=_k5hBmnR7sZrZIwyt5EYMsGRkZO3ySZF","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"¶¶17–18; ¶23/n.1; ¶¶40–48; concluding order and signature.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; official NC court PDF; uncontested summary judgment supported by evidence."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S009","urls":["https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x","https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x&utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S009","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"State v. Orion Processing, LLC, 2017 NCBC 20, March 7, 2017. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2017_NCBC_20.pdf?VersionId=5BDqjHGYxyxaxSchYH1jTeeYG0Hf_J6x","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"¶¶45–52; Part V, operative ¶¶2–3, pp.23–25; final disposition p.27.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; official NC court PDF; final default order and injunction. Later complete docket not obtained."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S010","urls":["https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf","https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S010","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"2017 Office of Counsel Annual Report, NC State Bar. https://www.ncbar.gov/media/bgodjiqn/2017-counsel-annual-report.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"Printed pp.3–4, particularly p.4, PDF p.5.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; historical official report. Its 2016 date discrepancy is resolved against the signed opinion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S011","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S011","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Lischwe v. ClearOne Advantage, LLC (In re Erwin), Bankr. E.D.N.C., Adv. 17-00055-5-DMW, Doc.50, March 30, 2018. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_17-ap-00055-0.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"¶¶3–5, pp.2–3; ¶¶28–30 and p.13 n.8; conclusion pp.22–23.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; federal bankruptcy opinion on arbitration. Subsequent appeal outcome unresolved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S012","urls":["https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf","https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S012","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"State v. Consumer Law Group, P.A., et al., Consent Judgment, Wake 10 CV 016777, January 2012. https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Consumer-Law-Group-Consent-Judgment.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"I.6–9, p.2; II(A)–(C), pp.3–4; signature portion. January 23 date reported by S013.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; actual eight-page judicial document in a third-party mirror. Official filed copy/current docket not obtained; handwritten day not visually verified."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_passages_checked_only_see_review","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S013","urls":["https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757","https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S013","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Report of Settlement, NC DOJ, September 18, 2012. https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/115757","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"p.1 judgment date; p.2 injunctive-summary clauses (i)–(iii).","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; official historical report. The underlying judgment controls where its cutoff differs from the report."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S015","urls":["https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf","https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S015","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Stewart v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, PLLC, W.D.N.C. 2:11cv26, Doc.55, June 1, 2012. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/55/0.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"pp.3–4, factual allegations concerning advance fees and absent settlement offers.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; federal judicial document, third-party mirror. Allegations are not findings approving a postperformance model."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S016","urls":["https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf","https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S016","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Stewart, same case, Doc.83, September 23, 2014. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/2%3A2011cv00026/63675/83/0.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"p.5 description of award; pp.8–10 confirmation analysis/order.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; federal judicial document, third-party mirror. Arbitrator’s complete award not retrieved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S017","urls":["https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496","https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496&utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S017","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Maniya v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, N.C. Court of Appeals, COA16-706, April 18, 2017. https://cases.justia.com/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017-16-706.pdf?ts=1492518496","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"p.1 unpublished designation; pp.9–10, 13–14.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; actual court opinion in a mirror after official PDF retrieval failed. Unpublished; complete subsequent history not checked."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S018","urls":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S018","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"JSmith Civil, LLC v. Fourth Elm Construction, LLC, Bankr. E.D.N.C. 25-00043-5-JNC, Doc.20, June 30, 2025. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-nceb-5_25-ap-00043-0.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"p.4, Erwin citation and arbitration discussion.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; federal bankruptcy opinion. Different dispute; no debt-settlement fee merits holding."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S019","urls":["https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf","https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S019","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"2019 Office of Counsel Annual Report, NC State Bar. https://www.ncbar.gov/media/ro0brjlh/2019-counsel-annual-report.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"Printed p.3, PDF p.4, consecutive FDR/NDR paragraphs.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; historical UPL enforcement reporting. Operative undertaking/resolution not attached or retrieved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S024","urls":["https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf","https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S024","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Consumer Law Group order denying motion to dismiss, Wake 10 CV 016777, March 2011. https://getoutofdebt.org/wp-content/uploads/Filed-Order-032811.pdf","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"pp.1–2; date identified as March 25 in S012, I.8.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; actual judicial order in a third-party mirror. Filename is not proof of entry date; pleading ruling."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S020","urls":["https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes","https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S020","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"General Statutes currency notice, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/GeneralStatutes","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"Header and Updates: through S.L.2026-30; “Not Official” caveat.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; current publication metadata, not an independent certification of every enactment."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S021","urls":["https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current","https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S021","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"Law modifications not yet reflected in statute, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/Laws/Modifications/Current","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"Current page; targeted searches for §14-423, §14-424, “14-42,” and debt.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; no relevant match returned. Not a full reread of every 2026 session law."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S022","urls":["https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html","https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S022","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"2025 H734, Edition 1, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/sessions/2025/bills/house/html/h734v1.html","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"§1(b), proposed §75-151(3); §2 printed effective date.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; proposed text, not an enacted replacement for Article 56."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_NC-P2-S023","urls":["https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734","https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734?utm_source=chatgpt.com"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NC-P2-S023","Document, issuer, direct literal URL":"2025–2026 H734 official history, NCGA. https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/H734","Exact pinpoint and version/status":"Last Action and History: Senate Rules referral April 28, 2025.","Access; jurisdiction and limitation":"A; actual history read. No enactment/session-law entry shown at access."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"}],"coverage":[{"topic":"Current timing language and amendment status","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Current timing language and amendment status","Status":"Answered within stated currency check","Claims":"C001–C003, C022","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Recheck enacted amendments if the operating date changes; proposed text cannot replace current law."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Pure noncustodial, fully performed model","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Pure noncustodial, fully performed model","Status":"Partially resolved; support materially strengthened","Claims":"C004–C007","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Actual operating facts and a square controlling/current formal application remain needed for provider-specific clearance."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Per-debt versus whole-service completion","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Per-debt versus whole-service completion","Status":"Unresolved","Claims":"C008, C023","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Authority interpreting the unit of agreed services, separate engagements, and bundled continuing duties."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Agreement, first-payment, or final-installment settlement completion","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Agreement, first-payment, or final-installment settlement completion","Status":"Unresolved","Claims":"C008, C013","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"A merits decision/formal interpretation applying those concrete triggers."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"2015 Orion adverse language","researcher_record":{"Component question":"2015 Orion adverse language","Status":"Answered as to read opinion","Claims":"C009","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Preserve breadth of ¶13; no universal hypothetical holding inferred."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"2016 enterprise and processor distinction","researcher_record":{"Component question":"2016 enterprise and processor distinction","Status":"Answered as to read ruling","Claims":"C010","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Application to a different control/agency arrangement would require its facts and relevant authority."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Orion later disposition","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Orion later disposition","Status":"Partially resolved","Claims":"C011–C012","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Current complete docket remains unavailable; historical no-appeal report is identified."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Erwin reservation","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Erwin reservation","Status":"Answered","Claims":"C013","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"No fee-rate/timing approval from that opinion."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Erwin subsequent history","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Erwin subsequent history","Status":"Unresolved, with identified appeal leads","Claims":"C014; F02–F03a","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Obtain actual district dispositions and subsequent bankruptcy merits record."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"CLG actual consent judgment","researcher_record":{"Component question":"CLG actual consent judgment","Status":"Substantively retrieved; provenance/history partial","Claims":"C015–C017","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Official filed copy, original preliminary order, subsequent docket, and any interpretation of II(C)."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Other potentially relevant merits/formal interpretations","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Other potentially relevant merits/formal interpretations","Status":"Targeted search completed; no square authority located","Claims":"C018–C023","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Missing Stewart award; formal-opinion archive limitations; FDR/NDR instruments."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"DMP math, federal overview, prior examples","researcher_record":{"Component question":"DMP math, federal overview, prior examples","Status":"Excluded from this follow-up","Claims":"Dependency table","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Prior records retained without fresh acceptance or validation."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Full money-transmission rules/ruling","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Full money-transmission rules/ruling","Status":"Held separately","Claims":"—","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Complete the independently scoped transmission analysis."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Agreement/disclosures, funds/bond, remedies, collection/litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector/local/tribal issues, and broader contract/case-law coverage","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Agreement/disclosures, funds/bond, remedies, collection/litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector/local/tribal issues, and broader contract/case-law coverage","Status":"Open; outside PASS-02","Claims":"—","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Continue the later required state passes. This answer does not satisfy those categories."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Full North Carolina dossier or A066 acceptance","researcher_record":{"Component question":"Full North Carolina dossier or A066 acceptance","Status":"Not granted or implied","Claims":"—","Exact missing evidence / continuation":"Component findings only."},"coordinator_acceptance":"reviewed_component_row_parent_and_material_gaps_open","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"}],"annotations":{},"corrections":[],"resolved_corrections":[],"review_history":[]}