Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a turnover order entered by the Referee in Bankruptcy and confirmed by the District Court.
The bankrupt made a bulk sale transfer of a stock of goods to appellant, Day, in June, 1967 and on November 24, 1967 filed an involuntary petition in bankruptcy. Appellee, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, sought an order from the Referee directing the appellant to turn over the stock of goods to the Trustee. The order was resisted and a hearing on an order to show cause was held before the Referee. Initially, the Trustee claimed an illegal preference voidable under Section 60, sub. a of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. § 96(a)) as being made within the four months preceding the filing in bankruptcy. At the hearing the Trustee abandoned the preference contention for the obvious reason that the transfer of property had occurred more than four months prior to the petition in bankruptcy. The Trustee then orally sought to amend his application for the turnover order to claim a violation of Section 6107 of the California Commercial Code covering bulk sales transfers. In this amendment the Trustee contended that the transferee (appellant herein) had failed to give the notice to creditors required by the Act. The Referee permitted the amendment and entered a finding of fact that no notice to creditors had been given by the transferee or any other person as required by the Commercial Code.
It was conceded at argument that there was no evidence in the record to support this finding.
The judgment entered was not based on a finding supported by the evidence and must be reversed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A