was on consignment or of any agreement between the gallery and consignor. So it is clear this case involves a prior perfected securi the priority of secured creditors only by proving that a majority of the gallery’s creditors knew that it was substantially engaged in consignment sales. See e.g. Corvette Collection, 294 B.R. at 414. But consignor offered no evidence as to who the gallery’s creditors were or what they knew about his goods for sale. The cases follow a general rule of thumb that consignees are not considered to be “substantially engaged” in selling the goods of others unless they hold at least 20% of inventory on a consignment basis. See In re Valley Media Inc., 279 B.R. 105, 125 (Bkry.D.Del.2002); see also In re Wedlo Holdings Inc., 248 B.R. 336, 342 (Bkry.N.D.Ill.2000) (<HOLDING>). To satisfy the “generally known” requirement,
holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding that it was error to dismiss after a threshold inquiry that equitable tolling did not apply as a matter of law because the prior administrative and state court proceedings were not substantially similar to this action holding as a matter of law that consignee who obtained only 15 to 20 of its inventory on consignment was not substantially engaged in selling goods of others holding that a contractor who had substantially complied with the building specifications substantially performed