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. 14-11068
Regular Panel Decision

Broadway Warehouse Co. v. Schmitt (In re Schmitt)

This consolidated opinion denies the bankruptcy discharges of three debtors, Jeffrey Schmitt, Kevin Schmitt, and Eric Penton, stemming from adversary proceedings. The debtors were found liable in a New York State Supreme Court judgment to Broadway Warehouse Co. for over $400,000 in unpaid rent related to a family trucking business, National Courier, Inc. The Bankruptcy Court, bound by the state court's findings due to collateral estoppel, determined that the debtors operated a de facto partnership and failed to maintain adequate business and personal financial records. The court rejected their "justification" defense, noting their education, experience, and awareness of financial irregularities. Consequently, their discharges are denied under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) for fraud.

Bankruptcy DischargeAdversary ProceedingsCollateral EstoppelFailure to Keep RecordsFraudulent TransfersPartnership LiabilityState Court PreclusionBusiness RecordsDebtor AccountabilityU.S. Bankruptcy Court
References
13
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. 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

Pereira v. Young (In Re Young)

This memorandum decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses an adversary proceeding where John S. Pereira, the Chapter 7 trustee, sought to deny the debtor, Ginger Young, a discharge in bankruptcy. The Trustee raised objections under three sections of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging the debtor failed to keep adequate records, knowingly withheld information, and could not satisfactorily explain the loss of assets totaling approximately $140,000 from a property sale and IRA/pension withdrawals. Judge Elizabeth S. Stong considered the debtor's defense of being a victim of severe domestic and financial abuse, supported by expert testimony from Laura Boyd, MSW. The court found the debtor's explanation credible and justified her inability to produce complete financial records and account for the asset disposition due to the traumatic circumstances. Consequently, all of the Trustee's objections to the Debtor's discharge were denied.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor DischargeTrustee ObjectionsDomestic AbuseFinancial AbuseRecord KeepingAsset DispositionJustificationCredibility
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Goidel (In Re Goidel)

Bonnie Roberts, a bus driver, sued the Goidel debtors for defamation after they accused her of sexually abusing their daughter, Tara, on a preschool bus. This accusation was investigated but no charges were brought against Roberts. The Goidels filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, staying the defamation action. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Howard Schwartzberg, found no credible evidence of sexual abuse by Roberts. Exercising discretion, the court abstained from determining the amount of Roberts' claim and lifted the automatic stay, allowing the defamation suit to proceed in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, to judgment. The bankruptcy court will later determine if any judgment obtained by Roberts is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

DefamationBankruptcyNon-dischargeability of DebtSexual Abuse AllegationAutomatic StayAbstention DoctrineIntentional TortChapter 7Willful and Malicious InjuryState Court Action
References
9
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moreo v. Rossi (In Re Moreo)

The case involves an appeal by debtors Vincent and Marian Norma Moreo from a Bankruptcy Court decision denying their Chapter 7 discharge. The Bankruptcy Court's denial was based on Mrs. Moreo's failure to maintain adequate financial records (under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3)) and both debtors making false oaths or accounts (under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A)). On appeal, the District Court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, reviewed the matter. The court affirmed the denial of Mrs. Moreo's discharge, finding her record-keeping practices for their bagel business were insufficient and not justified. The court also affirmed the denial of discharge for both debtors due to false oaths, citing their omissions of three lawsuits and Mr. Moreo's 100% shareholder interest in the Bagel Store from their bankruptcy schedules, demonstrating a reckless indifference to the truth. The court emphasized the cumulative effect of these misstatements and omissions in upholding the Bankruptcy Court's decision.

Bankruptcy AppealChapter 7 DischargeFalse OathOmission of AssetsInadequate Financial RecordsReckless IndifferenceCreditor FraudSchedules AmendmentMeans Test ErrorsSmall Business Accounting
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 19,759 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