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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Third Avenue Transit Corp.

The Trustee in a Chapter X bankruptcy proceeding petitioned the court to reject a pension plan adopted by the debtors in 1946. This rejection would specifically exclude The Westchester Electric Railroad Company and Westchester Street Transportation Company, Inc. The petition was opposed by labor unions, a pensioner, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, primarily arguing that the court's reserved jurisdiction was ineffective for the requested relief. Despite previous court orders authorizing pension payments and reserving the right to reject the plan, and the changed circumstances of the reorganized companies (some no longer in operation), the court denied the petition. The judge concluded that the law does not sanction using reserved power in this situation, as it would unduly extend the court's tutelage over the reorganized debtors.

BankruptcyPension PlanRejection of ContractReserved JurisdictionCorporate ReorganizationLabor UnionsTrusteeSecured CreditorsUnsecured CreditorsFederal Court
References
7
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
Jun 29, 2017

In re U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), a Canadian subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, initiated a Chapter 15 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on June 2, 2017. The primary objective was to obtain recognition of its Canadian CCAA proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and to enforce the Sanction Order and the associated reorganization plan approved by the Canadian Court. No objections were raised to the requested relief. Following a hearing on June 29, 2017, the Court granted all requests, recognizing the CCAA proceeding and enforcing the Sanction Order and Plan. The Court's decision was based on USSC meeting Chapter 15 eligibility requirements, including having property in the U.S., and confirmed that the CCAA proceeding was a foreign main proceeding with USSC's center of main interests (COMI) in Canada.

Chapter 15 BankruptcyForeign Main ProceedingCross-Border InsolvencyCCAA ProceedingSanction OrderReorganization PlanInternational ComityBankruptcy Code Section 109(a)Center of Main Interests (COMI)Debtor Eligibility
References
50
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

Fisher v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In Re Pied Piper Casual, Inc.)

Pied Piper Casuals, Inc., a ladies apparel manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy which was converted to Chapter 7, with Robert Fisher appointed as Trustee. The Trustee initiated an action against the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (I.C.S.P.) to recover $1,407,208 for theft losses under an insurance policy. I.C.S.P. argued the claim was untimely and moved to remove the proceeding to the district court, which denied the motion as premature, directing a determination by the bankruptcy court on whether it was a core proceeding. The bankruptcy court ruled that the Trustee's action seeking insurance proceeds is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), equating it to a turnover proceeding, and emphasizing the nexus between such actions and efficient bankruptcy administration.

BankruptcyCore ProceedingInsurance PolicyTurnover ProceedingTheft LossChapter 7 BankruptcyDebtor's EstateFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionCourt Reference
References
19
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,373 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