Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.

    124 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1997)   Cited 112 times
    Holding trial court "must perform its gatekeeping function, by assessing whether the testimony 'will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue'" (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 702)

    In the instant case, of course, there is no suggestion that Peters was not in default under its loan restructuring agreement with Fleet. Finally, Peters relies on Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 405 N.E.2d 985 (Mass.App.Ct. 1980), which upheld a denial of a motion to dismiss a "collusive foreclosure" claim that collateral worth over $3 million had been sold in a private foreclosure sale for only $879,159, the full amount of the secured debt. Id. at 987.

  2. Weiler v. PortfolioScope, Inc.

    469 Mass. 75 (Mass. 2014)   Cited 94 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting out elements of cause of action

    See Steel Co. v. Morgan Marshall Indus., Inc., 278 Ill.App.3d 241, 250–252, 214 Ill.Dec. 1029, 662 N.E.2d 595 (1996) (although no dispute that art. 9 of Uniform Commercial Code was complied with, genuine issue of material fact remained whether transfers made with actual intent to defraud). Cf. Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass.App.Ct. 47, 50, 405 N.E.2d 985 (1980), quoting 1B Coogan, Hogan, & Vagts, Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 13.07(1), at 1381 (1980) (“Clearly, article 9 does not replace the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act”). Cases decided before the enactment of the UFTA in Massachusetts have stated that when a debtor has paid one creditor over another, even when the payment comprised substantially all of the debtor's assets, this fact by itself is insufficient to establish an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud.