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. 06cv4006, 06cv7877
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tower Automotive v. Debtors

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appealed two Bankruptcy Court decisions approving settlements between debtor Tower Automotive, Inc. and various unions/retiree committees. The Creditors Committee argued that the settlements impermissibly favored retirees over other unsecured creditors by guaranteeing a 20 percent recovery on their unsecured claims, constituted a sub rosa reorganization plan, and did not satisfy Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decisions, ruling that Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code allows for special treatment of retiree benefits. Additionally, the court found the settlements were not a sub rosa plan as they didn't dictate reorganization terms or dispose of all assets, and the Bankruptcy Court properly reviewed the settlements for reasonableness under Rule 9019, considering litigation risks and the best interests of all parties. The court also noted the practical difficulties of unwinding the settlements at that stage.

BankruptcyRetiree BenefitsUnsecured CreditorsSettlement ApprovalChapter 11Sub Rosa PlanCollective Bargaining AgreementsVEBA TrustsBankruptcy Code 1114Appeals
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1979

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Am-Lon Knit Goods Finishing Corp.

This proceeding involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors seeking judicial determination of priority among various creditor claims. The claims included those from the Federal Government, preferred wage claims, the New York State Tax Commission for income withholding taxes, the Industrial Commissioner for unemployment insurance contributions, the Director of Finance of the City of New York for various city taxes, and two insurance companies for workers' compensation insurance premiums. The court reconsidered an earlier decision and clarified that Labor Law § 574 is applicable and controlling in this context, establishing parity between New York State and City tax claims. Consequently, these tax claims were granted priority over the workers' compensation insurance premiums. The decision also distinguishes insolvency proceedings from decedent's estate cases, which are governed by SCPA 1811.

InsolvencyCreditor PriorityTax ClaimsUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationAssignee for Benefit of CreditorsState TaxesCity TaxesLabor LawSCPA
References
14
Case No. M2021-01504-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2025

Charles Youree, Jr. v. Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC

Charles Youree, Jr. filed a lawsuit against Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC (RHET) and RHT Holdings, LLC, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold them liable for a prior default judgment obtained against Recovery Solutions Network, LLC (RSN). The trial court initially granted a default judgment, applying the 'Allen factors'. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 'Continental Bankers elements' were the correct framework for piercing the corporate veil. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, clarifying that the three Continental Bankers elements provide the correct standard in all corporate veil-piercing contexts, while the Allen factors are merely relevant circumstances. The Supreme Court found the complaint failed to sufficiently plead the 'fraud or wrong' and 'causation' elements, thus failing to articulate a claim for piercing the corporate veil. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Corporate Veil PiercingLimited LiabilityDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule 59.04 MotionContinental Bankers ElementsAllen FactorsParent-Subsidiary LiabilityPleading StandardsCorporate Separateness
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
47
Case No. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. 14-16-00933-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Central Petroleum Limited v. Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Central Petroleum Limited, an Australian company, against the denial of its special appearance in a Texas lawsuit filed by Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC (GRR). GRR sued Central for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and fraudulent misrepresentation related to an agreement to find a farmout partner for Central's petroleum rights. Central contested personal jurisdiction, arguing the alleged "Second Agreement" with a Texas forum-selection clause was unauthorized, fabricated, and incomplete. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding sufficient evidence of Central's purposeful availment of Texas law through its agent's apparent authority to sign the contract and a substantial connection between Central's Texas contacts and GRR's tort claims. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Special AppearancePersonal JurisdictionBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitFraudulent MisrepresentationForum-Selection ClauseChoice-of-Law ProvisionApparent AuthorityCorporate AgentOil and Gas
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Calderia

The case involves a special proceeding initiated by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to obtain a turnover order for funds held in a joint bank account of judgment debtor Lizette M. Calderia and Genoveva Castillo at JPMorgan Chase Bank. A key legal question was the applicability of CPLR article 52 amendments, effective January 1, 2009, which introduce new protections for judgment debtors, to proceedings commenced prior to but heard after this effective date. The court ruled that CPLR 5232 (e), concerning execution exemptions, applies retroactively due to its remedial nature, while provisions for restraining notices (CPLR 5222-a, 5222 [i]) do not. Given the judgment debtors' default, the court determined that a hearing is necessary to assess whether the statutorily exempt amount is genuinely required for the judgment debtor's reasonable needs and those of her dependents. The decision directs that if the judgment debtors default at the hearing, all funds in the account will be made available to the judgment creditor.

Turnover OrderJudgment DebtorExemption LawsCPLR Article 52Retroactivity of StatutesJoint Bank AccountRestraining NoticeExecution of JudgmentSpecial ProceedingStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,152 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