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 Ward

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a debtor's motion to reconsider an order denying her request to incur new debt for a used car. Debtor Chinique Ward sought to purchase a vehicle with a 20.25% interest rate from Reid’s Auto Connection, a dealership known for targeting bankruptcy debtors, after her original car was repossessed. The court found the proposed financing unreasonable and not in the debtor's best interest, especially given the dealership had provided the car and paid the debtor's attorney fees without prior court approval. The judge ordered the unwinding of the transaction, mandating the return of payments and the car, and highlighted increased scrutiny for future post-petition borrowing requests due to concerns over predatory practices. This decision underscores the court's role as a gatekeeper for chapter 13 debtors' post-confirmation financial activities, particularly regarding significant debt incurrence.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyPost-Petition DebtCar FinancingMotion to Incur DebtReconsideration DenialHigh Interest RatesPredatory LendingAttorney Fee DisclosureUnwinding TransactionDebtor's Rehabilitation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texas Sheet Metals, Inc.

Texas Sheet Metals, a debtor in bankruptcy, applied to reject its collective bargaining agreements with the Carpenters District Council of Houston and Vicinity, Millwright Local Union No. 2232, and Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 54. The court, presided over by Judge Manuel D. Leal, thoroughly examined nine elements under 11 U.S.C. Section 1113. It found that the debtor's proposal to reduce labor costs was absolutely necessary for reorganization, fair and equitable to all affected parties, and that the unions had refused to accept the proposal without good cause. The court concluded that the balance of equities clearly favored the rejection of the agreements to prevent liquidation and enable the debtor's successful reorganization. The rejection was made effective as of the date of the court's order.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining Agreement RejectionChapter 11 ReorganizationLabor NegotiationsDebtor's ProposalFinancial NecessityEquitable TreatmentUnion RefusalBalance of EquitiesCore Proceeding
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Philgo Realty Co.

The Debtor filed a motion to expunge a claim (Claim Number 8) filed by Worcester Quality Foods, Inc. The claim stemmed from a judgment against the Debtor in a Massachusetts action for a fraudulent conveyance of $144,000.00. The Debtor argued the Massachusetts court lacked jurisdiction and that the judgment violated the automatic stay from the Debtor's involuntary bankruptcy petition. The court denied the Debtor's motion, ruling that the Massachusetts court's jurisdiction determination was res judicata as the Debtor failed to perfect an appeal. Additionally, the court granted nunc pro tunc relief from the automatic stay to the claimant because the Debtor and its principals remained silent about the bankruptcy filing during the Massachusetts action.

BankruptcyClaim ExpungementRes JudicataAutomatic StayDue ProcessFraudulent ConveyanceNunc Pro Tunc ReliefInvoluntary PetitionChapter 11Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eppolito

Narsiza Eppolito, the Debtor, filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and was discharged from personal liability on her debts, including a note owned by CitiMortgage, Inc. Years later, after defaulting on her mortgage, Citi offered a loan modification agreement which included a subordinate note and mortgage in favor of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a portion of the discharged debt. The Debtor filed a Motion for Contempt, arguing this was an attempt to reaffirm a discharged debt in violation of the discharge injunction. The Court granted the Debtor's motion, finding Citi in contempt for attempting to collect on a discharged debt by requiring the subordinate note. The Court also awarded the Debtor attorney's fees for the costs incurred in bringing the motion.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionContempt MotionLoan ModificationReaffirmation of DebtHUD Partial Claim ProgramPersonal LiabilityMortgage DebtAttorney's FeesDebtor Protection
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Horkins

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court addressed West End Terrace, Inc.'s (WETI) motion for summary judgment regarding a debtor in possession's objection to WETI's claim. The court granted summary judgment for WETI, ruling that the debtor's claims of fraud in condominium sales were barred by res judicata due to prior state court judgments. Additionally, the court rejected claims of irregularities in foreclosure sales, citing insufficient evidence from the debtor and non-compliance with discovery rules. Later, the court denied the debtor's motion to alter or amend the summary judgment, reiterating its prior findings and emphasizing the debtor's failure to meet Rule 56(f) requirements for further discovery.

BankruptcySummary JudgmentRes JudicataForeclosure SalesAutomatic Stay ViolationDebtor in PossessionClaim ObjectionFraud AllegationsCondominium SalesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 973 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