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. 90-00985-B-11 through 90-00990-B-11 and 90-01984-B-11 through 90-01989-B-11
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1991

In Re Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

This case pertains to the confirmation of the Third Amended Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 for Greyhound Lines, Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors. The hearing was held on August 27 and 28, 1991, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Richard S. Schmidt in the Southern District of Texas. Numerous creditors and interested parties appeared, and several objections to the plan were filed. The Court, after reviewing evidence and arguments, overruled the remaining objections and found that the plan satisfied all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The plan outlines the restructuring of debtor operations, treatment of various claims, and the liquidation or reorganization of subsidiaries. The Court ultimately confirmed the plan, emphasizing its feasibility and good faith in seeking to maximize returns for creditors and ensure the continuation of essential public services, with a specific exception for Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

Chapter 11 ReorganizationBankruptcy ConfirmationDebtors-in-PossessionCreditor ObjectionsPlan FeasibilityGood Faith PlanSecured Claims TreatmentUnsecured Claims TreatmentPriority Tax ClaimsNLRB Claim Estimation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Tay-Kwamya

The Debtor, Tay-Kwamya, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on October 18, 2006. The Chapter 7 Trustee requested dismissal due to the Debtor's failure to provide all required payment advices within 60 days of filing, as mandated by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(l)(B)(iv) and General Order M-315. The Debtor explained that two pay stubs were missing but that her other submitted pay stubs and sworn affidavit provided sufficient "other evidence of payment." The Court found that the Debtor had met the statutory requirements, considering her fixed hourly wage and the likely minimal impact of the missing documents on creditors. Consequently, the Court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee's request for dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor's DutiesPayment AdvicesSection 521(a)(1)(B)(iv)Automatic DismissalGeneral Order M-315Evidentiary RequirementsTrustee RequestDismissal Denied
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Cooper (In Re Cooper)

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion by The Cadle Company, an individual creditor, seeking authorization to prosecute the Chapter 7 estate's causes of action, specifically a Section 542 turnover action and state law fraud claims. The motion was opposed by the debtors, Gary R. and Junanne M. Cooper, and conditionally by the Chapter 7 Trustee. The court analyzes whether an individual creditor in a Chapter 7 case can be granted independent or derivative standing to pursue estate causes of action, distinguishing between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 contexts. The court concludes there is no textual basis in the Bankruptcy Code for such standing in a Chapter 7 case, noting the unique role of the Chapter 7 trustee as an independent fiduciary without the conflicts of interest often present in Chapter 11. Even if such power existed, the court finds Cadle did not present a compelling argument, as the Trustee had exercised business judgment in attempting to settle the claims. The court ultimately DENIES Cadle's Standing Motion, stating that while Cadle can pursue its independent Section 727(d) action, it cannot usurp the Trustee's role.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyDerivative StandingCreditor StandingTrustee AuthorityEstate Causes of ActionAvoidance ActionsBankruptcy Code InterpretationEquitable PowersJudicial DiscretionMotion Denied
References
32
Case No. 02-11-00047-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2012

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, Chapter 7 Trustee v. First United Bank & Trust Company

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, a Chapter 7 Trustee, appealed the trial court’s judgment concerning home equity loans from First United Bank & Trust Company. The appellants challenged the trial court’s directed verdict on their breach of fiduciary duty claim and the Bank’s foreclosure order, and further argued against the jury’s findings on damages and the 2004 loan payoff amount, as well as the award of attorney’s fees to the Bank. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no informal fiduciary duty existed, the Bank properly secured an order of foreclosure, and the jury’s determinations on damages and loan payoff were supported by sufficient evidence. The court also found the award of attorney's fees to the Bank to be equitable and just under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Home Equity LoanForeclosureBreach of Fiduciary DutyDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDamagesAttorney's FeesUniform Declaratory Judgments Act
References
47
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 05-19154-jf
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Bridge to Life, Inc.

The Bridge To Life, Inc. ("Bridge") filed a Chapter 11 petition for the second time, despite a prior dismissal with prejudice. The court sua sponte dismissed the second case, leading Bridge to file a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, a stay pending appeal. Bridge argued that the bar to refiling no longer applied as the underlying state court action against it had been dismissed. The court denied Bridge's motion, ruling that the refiling violated a prior injunction and constituted a misuse of Chapter 11. The court found that Bridge's Chapter 11 filings were primarily litigation tactics to gain advantage in a two-party dispute with William Lucadamo and to avoid enforcement of a sanctions judgment, rather than for legitimate reorganization purposes. The court emphasized that Chapter 11 should not be used to frustrate non-bankruptcy forums or to avoid supersedeas bonds.

BankruptcyChapter 11Motion for ReconsiderationStay Pending AppealBad Faith FilingLitigation TacticTwo-Party DisputePrior DismissalInjunction ViolationSanctions Judgment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rainey v. Jefferson Village Condo No. 11 Associates

The plaintiffs, including Thomas E. Rainey, appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing their personal injury complaint. Rainey had sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working for Montrose Construction, Inc., which was the sole general partner of the defendant, Jefferson Village Condo No. 11 Associates. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 barred the action against the partnership because it was considered one entity with Rainey's employer for workers' compensation purposes. The court also upheld the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add new direct claims, citing their undue delay in making the motion. Consequently, the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy remained their workers' compensation claim against Montrose.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation BarExclusive RemedyPartnership LiabilityEmployer ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAmended ComplaintLabor Law Violations
References
11
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. 03-19-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2021

Madeleine Connor v. Douglas Hooks

Madeleine Connor appealed an order from the 201st District Court of Travis County, which declared her a vexatious litigant under Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court found that Connor had previously been declared a vexatious litigant by a federal court in a case based on substantially similar facts and that her nonsuit with prejudice in the present Rule 202 petition confirmed no reasonable probability of her prevailing. Connor argued that Chapter 11 does not apply to Rule 202 proceedings, that the trial court lost jurisdiction after her nonsuit, and challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the vexatious litigant declaration and rejecting Connor's jurisdictional and constitutional arguments.

Vexatious LitigantCivil ProcedureAppealJurisdictionNonsuit with PrejudiceFirst AmendmentRight to PetitionConstitutional LawTexas Court of AppealsRule 202 Petition
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 1,948 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