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.

OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a bankrupt corporation from an order of the district court confirming an order in which the referee had confirmed the sale of the bankrupt’s corporate trade name and the bankrupt’s revoked certificate to operate as a supplemental air carrier to a purchaser for $5,000.
It is not contended that the sale price was inadequate. All of the tangible assets of the bankrupt had been sold before the presently challenged sale.
In dismissing the bankrupt’s petition for review, the district court reasoned that:
“[u]nder Section 39c of the Bankruptcy Act, only a ‘person aggrieved’ can petition for review of a Referee’s order. A ‘Person Aggrieved’ is one who is directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order. Hartman Corp. of America v. United States, 304 F.2d 429 (8 Cir. 1962); In re Henry Wood Sons Co., 279 Fed. 608 (D.C. Mass.1922). In any event, real value was realized by the trustee for the benefit of the creditors, and the bankrupt may not petition for review where fair value is exchanged for the asset, if it be one, of only a skeletal charter and a dormant right of purchase. Of course, a grossly inadequate bid is quite another matter. The argument of the petitioner is that the trustee had no assets to sell in this regard. If that is so, then only the purchaser has been harmed by his speculation. If the bankrupt corporation had inherent rights in these intangible property rights, then the trustee’s duty under the Act was to sell, and this is precisely what he did.”
We agree with the district court that the bankrupt was not “aggrieved,” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, by the sale it is attempting to challenge.
The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Answer: A