Whether the First Circuit and Bankruptcy Appellate Panel erred in dismissing Petitioner's appeal for lack of finality by narrowly interpreting the Forgay-Conrad and marginal finality doctrines, failing to recognize irreparable harm and preventing meaningful participation in bankruptcy proceedings

1. Whether the First Circuit and the Bank ruptcy Appellate Panel erred in dismissing Petition er's appeal for lack of finality by narrowly interpret ing the Forgay-Conrad and marginal finality doc trines, failing to recognize that the denial of an inter im distribution inflicted irreparable harm, barred meaningful participation in the bankruptcy proceed ings, and prevented Petitioner from attending to a family health emergency. 2. Whether the Bankruptcy Court ’s refusal to grant an interim distribution, despite sufficient es tate funds exceeding $1.29 million and an urgent fi nancial and medical emergency, constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ’ Due Process Clauses by depriving the Petitioner of property without just compensation or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, rendering judi cial relief effectively unattainable, and contravening the Bankruptcy Code ’s requirement that cases be administered as expeditiously as possible. i ii 3. Whether the trustee breached his fiduciary duty under 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(1) and violated the statutory mandate under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) by refus ing to make an interim distribution despite sufficient estate funds and failing to evaluate creditor claims in a timely manner, thereby prioritizing other interests over the equitable treatment of all creditors. 4. Whether the Town of Westborough ’s use of bankruptcy proceedings to try to sell a property it foreclosed on for zero consideration to a favored party for $2.5 million —despite an appraised value of $4.9 million —rather than subjecting it to open-market bidding, violates federal due process, the principles of fair dealing under state and federal commercial law, and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B pro curement requirements, raising an unsettled and significant federal question in light of Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), requiring this Court ’s intervention. 5. Whether the Bankruptcy Court ’s order bar ring responses to the Petitioner ’s filings unless scheduled for a hearing with an objection deadline u ii effectively deprives the Petitioner of judicial review, undermines due process, and allows for the proce dural dismissal of substantive motions —such as an expedited motion for summary judgment —without consideration, violating fundamental principles of fairness and access to justice. 6. Whether the Bankruptcy Court ’s failure to act on the Petitioner ’s motion for summary judg ment, coupled with the deliberate obstruction by oth er parties, constitutes a denial of due process and ac cess to judicial review, effectively preventing the Pe titioner from obtaining a timely adjudication of his claims in violation of fundamental principles of fair ness and procedural justice. 7. Whether this court should recognize a new doctrine allowing immediate appeal in cases where irreparable harm is occurring, but the delivery of property is not immediate due to pending claim al lowance processes, particularly when a party is using protracted litigation to delay the allowance of claims and obstruct rightful relief. m