Opinion ID: 684074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Trustee's Sec. 547 Preference Counterclaim

Text: 46 With respect to the Trustee's counterclaim under Sec. 547, the bankruptcy court ruled that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the status of the Bank's security interest in the Wellesley Note, and we find that the record supports the court's finding. 12 We therefore remand the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings on the validity of the Bank's claim and the Trustee's counterclaim as to the Wellesley Note.
47 Regarding the parties' dispute over the other sixteen of the Seventeen Notes, the Trustee requests, in the Conclusion section of his brief, that we strike any finding that the Trustee has agreed that the Seventeen Notes other than the Wellesley Note are 'valid' security interests. In a final footnote to his reply brief, the Trustee maintains that he is not contending that his motion to amend should have been allowed, but only that genuine factual issues exist regarding the validity, as opposed to the perfection, of the other sixteen of the Seventeen Notes, and thus summary judgment as to those notes is improper. He offers no further support for this statement. 48 Regardless of the meaning or merit of the Trustee's argument as to the other sixteen of the Seventeen Notes, we agree with the Bank that the Trustee has not properly presented or argued this issue on appeal. We have warned litigants that issues averted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived for purposes of appeal. Willhauck v. Halpin, 953 F.2d 689, 700 (1st Cir.1991). Parties must spell out their arguments squarely and distinctly, or forever hold their peace. Id. In his 50-page brief, the Trustee did not raise or address the issue of the other sixteen notes at any point except for the one-sentence statement, unsupported by any argument or case law, in his conclusion. Even when the Bank pointed out this flaw, the Trustee did not more fully develop the argument in his reply brief, but deemed it worthy of only a cursory footnote. This is simply insufficient presentation and argumentation of the issue for any meaningful analysis, and we therefore deem it waived. 13