in its analysis of the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court erroneously placed the burden on Trustee. However, in its separate analysis of the fraudulent transfer claims, the bankruptcy court clearly put the burden on Defendants. It specifically noted that the “burden of proof rests with Defendants to meet the requirements” of proving the bona fides of these transactions. In re Southern Textile Knitters, 2000 WL 33709685, at *19. And the fraudulent transfer claims hinged on precisely the same underlying factual events as the fiduciary duty claims: the STKG transfers, the STKH transfers, and Samuel’s compensation. On each of these counts, placing the burden on Defendants to prove their case, the bankruptcy court found that their behavior was fair and in good faith. Id. at *20-*22 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the court did make the factual findings
holding that the changes to as0910030 were not intended to be retrospective holding that 20 of creditors knowing of consignment relationship does not satisfy general knowledge requirement notwithstanding that such creditors represented 63 of claims against debtor holding that debtor did not prove that defendant creditors violated automatic stay under 11 usc  362a with respect to their actions in a state court lawsuit because the creditors actions involved a counterclaim that debtor asserted and were in response to that counterclaim holding that materiality does not require a showing that the creditors were prejudiced by the false statement holding that conveyances were not intended to defraud creditors