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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Fairpoint Communications, Inc.

Verizon Communications, Inc. appealed a bankruptcy court's confirmation order that included an injunction preventing Verizon from pursuing non-derivative claims against third parties, which could adversely affect FairPoint's bankruptcy estate. FairPoint, which acquired landline operations from Verizon, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to substantial debt. The reorganization plan featured a 'Verizon Injunction' designed to protect FairPoint's assets from claims where FairPoint might be liable for indemnification or contribution. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to issue this injunction, holding that such contingent indemnification obligations directly impact the bankruptcy estate. The court also deemed Verizon's alternative argument, concerning the absence of 'unique circumstances,' as equitably moot, citing the substantial consummation of the reorganization plan and Verizon's failure to seek a stay of the confirmation order.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationInjunctionsSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable MootnessThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAppellate ReviewDistrict Court Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 1993

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

This opinion addresses appeals from orders in the bankruptcy proceedings of Eastern Airlines, Inc. Appellants, including two labor unions (ALPA, IAM) and preferred shareholders, challenged a settlement agreement between Eastern and its affiliates (Continental Debtors and Individual Signatories), and sought to unseal an examiner's record. They also contested the Bankruptcy Court's finding that preferred shareholders' claims were derivative and belonged to the Eastern Estate. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the settlement, finding it reasonable given litigation complexities and risks, and upheld the protective orders sealing the examiner's record, citing the unique nature of bankruptcy investigations and the prior reliance on confidentiality. Finally, the court concluded that the preferred shareholders' claims were indeed derivative under Delaware law, thus properly belonging to the Eastern Estate and subject to the settlement.

BankruptcySettlement AgreementDerivative ClaimsProtective OrdersExaminer's ReportCorporate GovernanceFiduciary DutyShareholder RightsCreditorsLabor Unions
References
55
Case No. No. 75 B 1735
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1976

In Re WT Grant Co.

This case from the U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, addresses three appeals related to the bankruptcy estate of W. T. Grant Company. Paul S. Berger, Trustee, and other plaintiffs-appellants challenged a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing their amended complaint. They also appealed the denial of their motions for a nunc pro tunc extension to file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration of that denial. District Judge Irving Ben Cooper granted the defendant trustee Charles G. Rodman's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' initial appeal, ruling it was untimely filed 18 days after the Bankruptcy Court's order, exceeding the 10-day limit with a 30-day absolute maximum. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent denials of the extension and reconsideration motions, emphasizing the strict interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules 801, 802, and 803 to ensure the expeditious and final administration of bankrupt estates.

Bankruptcy AppealTimelinessNotice of AppealExcusable NeglectJurisdictional DefectBankruptcy Rules 801Bankruptcy Rules 802Bankruptcy Rules 803Finality of OrdersTrustee in Bankruptcy
References
10
Case No. 86 B 11270 (BRL)
Regular Panel Decision

Iles v. LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal to the District Court concerning two proofs of claim filed in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against LTV Aerospace and Defense Company. The bankruptcy court had disallowed and expunged these claims, filed by the "lies plaintiffs" (nine women employees/applicants) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), arguing that class proofs of claim are impermissible. The District Court reversed this decision, holding that class proofs of claim are permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. It also affirmed that the UAW was authorized to file claims on behalf of its members, both as a creditor in its own right and as an authorized agent. The court found that the legislative history and policy of the Bankruptcy Code support allowing class proofs of claim and that the UAW had properly identified claimants and followed filing requirements.

Bankruptcy LawClass ActionProofs of ClaimChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditor RightsDebtorGender DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Labor UnionAuthorized Agent
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Supplement B Pilot Beneficiaries v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses consolidated appeals arising from the bankruptcy of American Airlines and its parent corporation, AMR. The appellants, a group of current pilots nearing retirement known as the “B Pilots,” challenged three orders of the bankruptcy court. These orders authorized American to reject its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the American Pilots Association, approved a new CBA settling B Pilots’ grievances, and allowed American to amend its pension plan by eliminating lump-sum payouts. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders, finding that the B Pilots were not 'interested parties' under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 to object to the CBA rejection, that the rejection abrogated previous guarantees, and that the grievances related to the old CBA did not survive its rejection.

BankruptcyAirline IndustryCollective Bargaining AgreementPension PlanLabor LawPilotsRetirement BenefitsGrievancesChapter 11Union Disputes
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. 16 Civ. 5813
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.)

This appeal was brought by RMBS Trustees against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) challenging a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order from June 27, 2016. The order disallowed and expunged certain proofs of claim filed by the RMBS Trustees against LBHI. The RMBS Trustees argued that the order was based on a claims resolution protocol that did not apply to some of their claims and that it preserved their right to prove certain claims through statistical sampling. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order, concluding that the RMBS Trustees had effectively abandoned their 'Transferor Loan' claims by not submitting them under the established Protocol. Additionally, the court found that the RMBS Trustees' attempt to reserve 11,000 'Covered Loan' claims for statistical sampling, without first submitting the required documentation under the Protocol, was not permissible. The court emphasized that the RMBS Trustees had multiple opportunities to clarify the Protocol's scope or pursue their claims but failed to do so, thus upholding the expungement.

Bankruptcy ClaimsRMBS LitigationStatistical SamplingClaims ProtocolLoan Repurchase AgreementsExpungement OrderDue Process RightsAppellate ReviewSecuritized MortgagesCreditor Claims
References
19
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 02-42736(ALG), Adversary No. 02-08090
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2005

In Re Deguevara

This case involves Carmela L. DeGuevara's adversary proceeding to discharge student loans managed by Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) under the "undue hardship" provision of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York applied the three-part Brunner test. The Court found that DeGuevara, a 46-year-old immigrant supporting her elderly, sick mother, could not maintain a minimal standard of living due to her low income, medical conditions, and persistent unemployment challenges. It concluded that her financial distress was likely to continue and that she had made good faith efforts to repay her loans, thereby granting the discharge.

BankruptcyStudent LoansUndue HardshipBrunner TestDependent SupportFinancial DistressEmployment SearchMedical ConditionsDebtor RightsChapter 7
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 334 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