Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

10 Mass. App. Ct. 47 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

1 Citing case

  1. Natl. Gypsum Co. v. Continental Brands

    895 F. Supp. 328 (D. Mass. 1995)   Cited 38 times
    Finding no "continuity of enterprise" exception in Massachusetts law and following "the traditional de facto merger or continuation analysis, with its keystones of continuous ownership and inequitable conduct"

    Because the transaction involved a foreclosure by BayBank on Continental's assets, the plaintiffs would also have to show that Continental colluded with BayBank in effecting the transfer. See Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 49, 405 N.E.2d 985 (1980). A transaction could fit within this category even if it was technically insolvent before the transaction if the sale was without fair consideration and had the effect of further diminishing the assets available to creditors.