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 Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1989

In Re Volpe

This case addresses the objection by NCNB-Texas National Bank to the exemption claimed by Dr. and Mrs. Volpe (Debtors) for their qualified employee profit sharing plan and individual retirement accounts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. NCNB argued that the relevant Texas Property Code (T.P.C. § 42.0021) was preempted by ERISA and that debtors could only exempt a single account. The court, after an extensive analysis of ERISA's preemption clause and Supreme Court precedents like Mackey, concluded that T.P.C. § 42.0021 is not preempted by ERISA, as its connection to ERISA plans is too remote to be considered regulatory. Furthermore, applying a liberal interpretation of Texas exemption laws, the court determined that a debtor's overall retirement plan, even if held in multiple accounts, is exempt. Therefore, NCNB's objection was overruled, and the debtors' accounts were deemed exempt.

Bankruptcy LawExemption ClaimERISA PreemptionTexas Property CodeRetirement BenefitsProfit Sharing PlanIndividual Retirement AccountsFederal Bankruptcy CodeState Exemption LawSpendthrift Trust
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc.

The Debtors sought court approval for their Key Employee Incentive Plan (KEIP), designed to provide bonuses to eight senior leadership team members (insiders). While a related Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) was approved, the Court reserved decision on the KEIP. The plan offered substantial bonuses based on the consummation of either a Standalone Plan or a Third-Party Transaction, with minimum targets often aligning with business plan projections. The Court ultimately denied the KEIP, concluding that its low thresholds for bonus attainment made it function as a disguised retention plan rather than a true incentive program. This was found to violate the rigorous standards for insider retention under Section 503(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, which aims to prevent executives from receiving bonuses merely for remaining with a company during bankruptcy. The Debtors failed to demonstrate that the plan's goals were challenging enough to qualify it as a legitimate incentive scheme.

BankruptcyKEIPKERPInsider CompensationRetention PlanIncentive PlanSection 503(c)(1)Chapter 11Corporate RestructuringCreditors' Rights
References
7
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
May 23, 1988

In Re Bludworth Bond Shipyard, Inc.

The case concerns the confirmation of a Debtor-in-Possession’s Plan of Reorganization following a hearing on May 23, 1988. The Debtor, a shipyard facility, faced financial difficulties after its worker’s compensation insurer, Northwest Insurance Company, failed. Despite paying approximately $150,000 on claims, the Debtor secured a $300,000 settlement from a state court suit against the underwriting company. At the confirmation hearing, six worker’s compensation claimants, through counsel, orally objected, asserting a failure of equity regarding the insurance settlement proceeds. However, no timely or formal objections were filed. The court ultimately confirmed the Plan, finding it compliant with Title 11, proposed in good faith, and fair and equitable, noting that untimely objections were waived. The court also clarified that the LHWCA, specifically 33 U.S.C. § 936, preserves longshoremen's claims despite employer bankruptcy, offering an alternative remedy.

BankruptcyReorganization PlanWorker's CompensationLHWCALongshoremen ClaimsInsurance FailureWaiver of ObjectionStatutory ConstructionDebtor-in-PossessionSettlement Proceeds
References
9
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Dana Corp.

Dana Corporation, as the debtor, sought court approval for its Executive Compensation Motion, which included the assumption of employment agreements and the establishment of a long-term incentive plan (LTIP) for its CEO and Senior Executives. This was Dana’s second attempt after an earlier, less incentivizing proposal was denied. The motion faced opposition from the U.S. Trustee, unions, and a non-union retiree committee, who raised concerns under Bankruptcy Code section 503(c) regarding retention and severance payments to insiders. The Court, treating the motion de novo, determined that the revised plan was a legitimate incentive program, not primarily retentive, and generally permissible under the Debtors’ sound business judgment. However, the Court expressed concern over the potential cumulative generosity of both the annual and long-term incentive plans for 2007-2008 without a clear ceiling. Consequently, the Executive Compensation Motion was granted, but conditioned on the submission of an order establishing an appropriate annual compensation cap for the CEO and Senior Executives.

Bankruptcy LawExecutive CompensationIncentive PlansEmployment AgreementsChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' RightsBusiness Judgment RuleKey Employee Retention Programs (KERPs)Severance PayNon-compete Clauses
References
28
Case No. 07-09-00163-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2010

Potter County, Texas as Plan Administrator for the Health Benefits Plan for the Employees of Potter County, Texas v. Ronda Tuckness and Michael Tuckness

Potter County, acting as the plan administrator for its employee health benefits plan, appealed an order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit was filed by Ronda and Michael Tuckness, seeking health care benefits after the County denied Michael Tuckness's claim for back surgery costs due to an occupational injury exclusion. The County contended it was immune from suit. The appellate court found that the County's governmental immunity had not been waived by the requests for declaratory relief, the terms of the health plan contract, or the County's conduct. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the Tucknesses' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityImmunity WaiverDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawHealth BenefitsPlan AdministratorOccupational Sickness/InjuryJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McLean Industries, Inc.

This case concerns U.S. Lines, Inc. (now Janus Industries), along with Mclean Industries, Inc. and First Colony Farms, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (collectively, the "Movants"). They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986 and had a plan of reorganization confirmed in 1989, which relied on the preservation of net operating losses (NOLs). After the IRS announced proposed regulations in 1990 that could challenge the use of NOLs if a plan's principal purpose was tax evasion, the Movants sought a court order declaring that tax evasion was not the principal purpose of their plan. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opposed, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the applicability of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court denied the Movants' motion, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(d), only a governmental unit can initiate a tax avoidance motion, and the issue of tax liability based on proposed regulations was not a concrete controversy.

BankruptcyChapter 11Tax AvoidanceNet Operating Losses (NOLs)IRS RegulationsPlan ConfirmationPost-Confirmation MotionDeclaratory Judgment ActSubject Matter JurisdictionGovernmental Unit
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,517 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