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

In Re Soika

This case concerns Household Finance Corporation's petition to review a Referee in Bankruptcy's order regarding the nondischargeability of a prebankruptcy debt. The bankrupt provided false financial statements to Household Finance Corp. and Postal Finance Co., omitting significant existing indebtedness. The Referee found these statements to be materially false, made with intent to deceive, and relied upon by the creditors, resulting in the bankrupt receiving additional funds. The Referee determined the nondischargeable liability for Household Finance Corp. to be $75.00, which was challenged by Household Finance, seeking $1,400.00. The court affirmed the Referee's decision, concluding that the 1960 amendment to the Bankruptcy Act § 17(a)(2) does not impose a special penalty beyond the New York 'actual pecuniary loss' rule for fraud, thus construing exceptions to discharge strictly in favor of the bankrupt.

BankruptcyNondischargeable DebtFalse Financial StatementFraudDamagesBankruptcy ActCreditor RightsDebtor ProtectionPecuniary LossAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2-04-255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2005

Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking v. Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown, in His Capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Delbert and Sonya Walters

The appellants, Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking, appealed a judgment in favor of Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown. Appellants raised three issues: Sonja Walters' lack of standing due to her bankruptcy, the trial court's denial of Shawn Brown's intervention, and the legal and factual insufficiency of evidence for Sonja's future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Sonja had standing because her claims were properly exempted from the bankruptcy estate, Brown's intervention was timely as it related back to Sonja's original suit, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's award for future medical expenses given Sonja's permanent brain injury and ongoing treatment.

BankruptcyStandingInterventionFuture Medical ExpensesSufficiency of EvidencePersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentExemptionsChapter 7 TrusteeAppellate Review
References
31
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Gates

This case involves Gerald and Geraldine Gates (Debtors) motioning to disallow Algie Raines' secured claim of $24,554.84 in bankruptcy court. The core issue is which of two inconsistent judgments—a New York state court judgment in favor of Raines or a later Pennsylvania state court default judgment in favor of the Debtors—has preclusive effect. The New York court dismissed Debtors' fraud allegations and upheld Raines' mortgage, while the Pennsylvania court, via default, found fraud, nullified the mortgage, and awarded damages to the Debtors. Applying the "last-in-time" rule, the bankruptcy court determined that the Pennsylvania default judgment, which Raines unsuccessfully appealed, controls. The court also rejected Raines' collateral attack based on lack of jurisdiction and fraud, as these issues were litigated or could have been litigated in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Debtors' motion to disallow Raines' secured claim was granted.

BankruptcyDebtors' MotionClaim DisallowanceSecured DebtInter-jurisdictional ConflictFull Faith and Credit ClauseRes JudicataLast-in-Time RuleDefault JudgmentCollateral Attack
References
19
Case No. 08-07012-CAG
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2010

In Re Acm-Tex., Inc.

This case originated from an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, involving a dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and ACM-Texas, LLC and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corp. (ACM). The core of the dispute revolved around a 1999 'Letter Agreement' for mining and processing brucitic marble on TAA's property. TAA sought relief for lack of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass. ACM filed counterclaims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and promissory estoppel, among others. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Division, found the Letter Agreement to be unenforceable due to a lack of essential terms and failure to satisfy the statute of frauds. The court denied TAA's claims for fraud, accounting, tortious interference, and negligence. However, TAA's claim for unjust enrichment was granted, awarding TAA $7,125,073.08 for minerals unlawfully mined and sold by ACM. TAA's conversion and trespass claims were also granted, but the damages were subsumed into the unjust enrichment award. Conversely, while most of ACM's counterclaims were denied, its claim for promissory estoppel was granted, awarding ACM $75,000 for its detrimental reliance on TAA's promises to construct a mill.

BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingContract DisputeMineral LeaseMining RightsUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelFraudTrespassConversion
References
101
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 Richardson Dinner Theatre, Inc.

The case concerns the priority classification of employer's FICA taxes, generated by wages earned before bankruptcy but paid after, within bankruptcy proceedings. The United States argued for first priority as 'costs and expenses of administration,' while the trustee and Bankruptcy Judge deemed them fourth priority as 'taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt.' The court also considered a second priority classification as 'wages' based on precedent. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Bankruptcy Judge's decision, holding that employer's FICA taxes are properly assigned fourth priority status under Section 64a(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, distinguishing them from employee's FICA taxes and income withholding taxes.

Bankruptcy lawFICA taxesTax priorityBankruptcy ActEmployer contributionsWage claimsAdministrative costsFederal courtsJudicial reviewStatutory interpretation
References
14
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1998

Bush v. Taylor (In Re Taylor & Associates, L.P.)

This appeal arises from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee's dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Taylor & Associates, L.P. The appellants, a group of creditors led by James S. Bush, challenged the Bankruptcy Court's decision, arguing that Taylor & Associates, L.P. was an implied general partnership between Joseph C. Taylor and Dudley W. Taylor, making it eligible as a debtor under Chapter 7. The District Court reviewed whether the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard was correctly applied to establish an oral partnership under Tennessee law, affirming that it was. Further, the court conducted a de novo review of the sufficiency of evidence and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that the appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Taylor & Associates, L.P. was such a partnership, especially concerning the parameters and purpose of any alleged partnership and its identity with the named entity. Consequently, the dismissal of the involuntary petition was affirmed.

BankruptcyPartnership LawInvoluntary PetitionClear and Convincing EvidenceTennessee LawFraudPonzi SchemeCorporate EntitiesAppellate ReviewStandard of Proof
References
19
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,736 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