CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2013

Conn v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (In re Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

This case involves Vittoria Conn, a former employee of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, who initiated a putative class action adversary proceeding. She alleged violations of the federal, New York, and California WARN Acts due to mass layoffs without proper advance notice. Dewey & LeBoeuf, the Debtor, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that these claims should be processed through the claims allowance system and that the 'liquidating fiduciary principle' exempted them from WARN Act obligations. The Court denied the Debtor's motion to dismiss, concluding that WARN Act claims, which seek equitable relief, are appropriately brought in an adversary proceeding. The Court postponed decisions on class certification and the administrative or priority status of the claims, noting these issues are to be resolved in the main bankruptcy case.

WARN ActNY WARN ActCAL WARN ActClass ActionAdversary ProceedingBankruptcyMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefLiquidating Fiduciary PrincipleEmployee Layoffs
References
51
Case No. A.P. 195-1539-352
Regular Panel Decision

Shapiro v. Halberstram (In Re Halberstram)

This bankruptcy court decision addresses two motions: the Debtor-Defendant's motion to dismiss an 11 U.S.C. § 523 adversary proceeding and the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions due to discovery non-compliance. The Debtor-Defendant sought dismissal based on procedural irregularities in the summons and complaint, including an incorrect case number, lack of required information, and an unsigned complaint. The court acknowledged the defects but ruled that the Debtor-Defendant's timely answer and active participation without objection constituted a waiver of the service issues. It also found that the deficiencies in the complaint were technical and not fatal, especially since the initial counsel was already sanctioned. Ultimately, both motions were denied, and the court urged the Plaintiffs to obtain new counsel and proceed with discovery to reach the merits of the dispute.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingMotion to DismissSanctionsProcedural DefectsSummonsComplaintWaiver of ServicePersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. 01-36709-SAF-7, 01-36900-SAF-11, 01-36736-SAF-11, 01-36904-SAF-7, Adversary No. 03-3564
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2004

In Re Aurora Natural Gas, LLC

Edge Petroleum Operating Co., Inc. (Edge) sued Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. (Duke), and several debtor entities (Aurora, ANG Holdings, GPR, Golden Prairie) in bankruptcy court, seeking payment for natural gas sold. Edge claimed a perfected security interest in the gas and its proceeds under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 9.343, alleging Duke was liable for payment or conversion. Duke and the debtors moved for summary judgment, arguing Edge lacked a security interest or conversion claim and that the issue of payment was subject to a separate adversary proceeding. The court found Edge had a perfected security interest in the gas and proceeds, but genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Duke purchased the gas in the ordinary course of business and if payment had been made. Ultimately, the court denied Edge's motion for summary judgment, granted Duke's and the debtors' motions, and dismissed the adversary proceeding, concluding that Edge could not maintain a conversion claim and must pursue its secured claim in the debtors' bankruptcy cases if Duke had paid.

BankruptcySecurity InterestNatural GasProceedsConversionSummary JudgmentTexas Business and Commerce CodeUCC Article 9Automatic StayDebtor-Creditor
References
20
Case No. 303-0203A, 304-0386A
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2004

Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC v. Quart Limited, LLC (In Re Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC)

This case involved consolidated adversary proceedings where Holcomb Healthcare Services, LLC (HHCS), the debtor, sought to establish ownership of intellectual property and recover funds from Dr. Robert R. Holcomb and numerous related entities. Dr. Holcomb, as Chief Scientific Officer and acting Chief Manager of HHCS, allegedly breached his fiduciary duties by attempting to divert intellectual property and misappropriate company funds. The court granted HHCS a declaratory judgment, affirming its rightful ownership of a broad range of patents and patent applications under both the Employment Agreement and the Assignment. Furthermore, the court found Dr. Holcomb breached his duty of loyalty. Monetary judgments were awarded to HHCS totaling over $4 million for improperly allocated expenses and an additional $1.8 million for fraudulent conveyances. The court denied requests for substantive consolidation, corporate veil piercing, exemplary damages, and attorney fees, but granted prejudgment interest to HHCS.

BankruptcyIntellectual PropertyPatentsFraudulent ConveyanceFiduciary DutyDuty of LoyaltyCorporate GovernanceInsolvencyAdversary ProceedingTennessee Law
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 06 B 22306(ASH), Adversary No. 06-08293A
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2007

In Re Bayou Group, LLC

This case concerns motions to dismiss ninety-five adversary proceedings filed by Bayou Superfund, LLC, Bayou No Leverage Fund, LLC, and Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC (collectively, Bayou Hedge Funds), debtors-plaintiffs, against investors for alleged fraudulent conveyances. The plaintiffs assert that their pre-petition principals operated a massive Ponzi scheme, falsifying financial reports and using new investor funds to make redemption payments to earlier investors, thereby creating non-existent profits and inflated account balances. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that the existence of a Ponzi scheme inherently implies actual intent to defraud under Bankruptcy Code Section 548(a)(1)(A), and that claims for both actual and constructive fraud were adequately pleaded, allowing the cases to proceed to discovery and trial.

Ponzi SchemeFraudulent ConveyanceBankruptcy ProceedingsDebtors and Creditors LawActual FraudConstructive FraudMotions to DismissHedge FundsInvestment FraudFinancial Misrepresentation
References
48
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Organized Maintenance, Inc. v. Brock (In Re Organized Maintenance, Inc.)

Organized Maintenance, Inc. (OMI), a Chapter 11 debtor, initially secured a Bankruptcy Court order in April 1985 that stayed the U.S. Department of Labor from pursuing debarment proceedings against OMI under the Service Contract Act, related to pre-bankruptcy wage and fringe benefit violations. The Bankruptcy Court's order also nullified a prior debarment decision and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants, including the Secretary of Labor, appealed this decision to the District Court. During the appeal, OMI expressed its desire to withdraw the adversary proceeding and consented to the continuation of debarment processes. Consequently, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order as moot, dismissed the adversary proceeding, and permitted the defendants to resume debarment proceedings against OMI, with each party bearing its own costs.

BankruptcyService Contract ActDebarmentWage ViolationsMootnessAdversary ProceedingFederal Government ContractsChapter 11Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 9,140 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational