As the Court must “constru[e] the well-pleaded facts of the complaint in the light most favorable to” Safeguard, Ocasio-Hernandez, 640 F.3d at 7 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)), the Court cannot say that Safeguard has failed to plausibly allege a fraudulent transfer in violation of Mass. Gen. L. c. 109A, § 5(a)(1). See, e.g., In re NESV Ice, LLC, No. 21-cv-11226-CJP, 2022 WL 586136, at *7 (Bankr. D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2022) (noting that “[t]he [c]omplaint does not allege the identity of any specific creditor of Land East, but contains allegations that are sufficient and can be tested through discovery”); In re Wojtkun, 534 B.R. 435, 456 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2015) (denying motion to dismiss claim of fraudulent transfer where four of the factors outlined Mass. Gen. L. c. 109A, § 5(b) were alleged); Norwood Coop. Bank v. Gibbs, No. 10-cv-11647-JCB, 2012 WL 4094328, at *7-8 (D. Mass. Sept. 13, 2012)
Ice was a guarantor. Given the summary nature of this estimation ruling, I will not detail the full structure of the loans that are the basis for the SHS claims or much of the background of the dispute, some of which is recited in the Memorandum of Decision and Order granting in part and denying SHS's motion to dismiss the Debtors' complaint in Adversary Proceeding No. 21-1093 ("Dismissal Opinion").See NESV Ice, LLC v. SHS ACK LLC (In re NESV Ice, LLC), No. 21-11226-CJP, 2022 WL 586136, at *1 (Bankr. D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2022).