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
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. 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
Jul 18, 2006

In Re Rotunda

This case addresses an objection by Mark W. Swimelar, the Chapter 13 trustee, to the Chapter 13 Plan filed by debtors Elizabeth and Lawrence Rotunda. The trustee argued that the plan failed to allocate all of the debtors’ projected disposable income to unsecured creditors, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B). The debtors' income exceeded the state median, making their case subject to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). The court reviewed conflicting judicial interpretations regarding the calculation of "projected disposable income", specifically whether to use historical averages from Form B22C or current income and expenses from Schedules I and J, including Social Security benefits. Chief Judge Stephen D. Gerling ultimately denied the trustee's objection, ruling that the court must adhere to the explicit statutory language, even if it leads to outcomes where debtors with apparent surplus income are not required to pay more to unsecured creditors, emphasizing that it is Congress's role to rectify any unintended consequences of the law.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Disposable IncomeMeans TestBAPCPAStatutory InterpretationSocial Security BenefitsUnsecured CreditorsPlan ConfirmationMedian Income
References
14
Case No. 87-00160
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1987

In Re DeVries

The debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed an exemption for a property damage claim related to their automobile. The Trustee objected, arguing that the claim was not exempt under New York Debtor & Creditor Law § 282 or Civil Practice Law & Rules § 5205(b), and that it did not qualify as 'cash' under D & C Law § 283, subd. 2. The Court, relying on the principle that exemptions are determined at the time of filing, found that the contingent property damage claim did not fall under the specified exemption statutes for automobiles or as 'cash.' Therefore, the Trustee's objection to the exemption was granted.

Bankruptcy ExemptionChapter 7Property Damage ClaimAutomobile ExemptionContingent ClaimNew York Debtor & Creditor LawCivil Practice Law & RulesTrustee ObjectionCash ExemptionDate of Filing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Aerovias Nacionales De Colombia S.A. Avianca

Aerovías Nacionales de Colombia S.A. Avianca and its wholly-owned subsidiary Avianca, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. Several creditors, including Pegasus Aviation, Ansett Worldwide, and United Aerospace Corp. Inc., filed motions to dismiss the Chapter 11 cases. They argued that the U.S. court was not the appropriate forum for the largely foreign enterprise, alleging forum shopping and prejudice to creditors, and citing various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtors and other parties in interest, such as the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, opposed dismissal, contending that Colombian law would not provide effective relief. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the motions to dismiss, finding that Avianca was eligible to file in the U.S. due to substantial contacts and assets. The court determined that the interests of both debtors and creditors were better served by the U.S. proceedings, noting the ineffectiveness of Colombian law for certain aspects like lease rejection, and the active participation of major creditors in the U.S. case. The court also rejected arguments that a foreign proceeding was required or that the debtors could not effectuate a reorganization plan.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyInternational InsolvencyCross-Border BankruptcyForum ShoppingMotion to DismissBankruptcy Code Section 305(a)Bankruptcy Code Section 109(a)Foreign DebtorAncillary ProceedingHome Court Doctrine
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.

The Chapter 11 debtor, Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., moved to disallow James E. Parks' claim, arguing it was filed after the court-ordered bar date of October 30, 1990. Parks, a former customer, did not receive actual notice of the bar date, although the debtor was aware of his potential claim through letters from Legal Services. The court found that due process requires actual notice for known creditors and determined that the debtor had actual notice of Parks' asserted claim. Therefore, the court concluded that Parks was entitled to actual notice, which he did not receive, and granted an extension for his claim. Parks' proof of claim, filed on May 17, 1993, was deemed timely, and the debtor's motion to expunge was denied.

Bankruptcy LawProof of ClaimBar DateExcusable NeglectActual NoticeConstructive NoticeDue ProcessCreditors' RightsChapter 11Debtor in Possession
References
3
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
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

In Re Sphere Holding Corp.

The debtor, Sphere Holding Corp., operating as Williston Park Bagels, seeks injunctive relief against its creditors pending an appeal of a Bankruptcy Court order. The Bankruptcy Court, under Judge Holland, dismissed the debtor's Chapter 11 case due to non-appearance at a status conference, failure to file operating reports, and lack of a reorganization plan. The debtor appealed this dismissal. Prior attempts to secure an injunction from Judge Holland and Judge Johnson were unsuccessful. Now before District Judge Glasser, the debtor argues a strong likelihood of success on appeal, contending the three-month delay was not unreasonable given circumstances like attorney incapacity, and that the dismissal lacked a finding of prejudice to creditors. The debtor also asserts irreparable harm if collection efforts by creditors (including Joseph Richards, NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, IRS, Frank A. Serio & Sons, Inc., and Derle Farms) proceed, and that a stay would not substantially injure these parties nor be contrary to public policy. Judge Glasser granted the motion for injunctive relief, finding the debtor met the criteria for a stay pending appeal and did not require a bond.

BankruptcyChapter 11Injunctive ReliefStay Pending AppealDebtor's AppealCreditor CollectionIrreparable HarmAbuse of DiscretionEastern District of New York
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re G. Marine Diesel Corp.

The Debtor, G. Marine Diesel Corp., objected to a claim filed by An-Frank Metal Fabricating Industries, Inc. (Creditor) for services rendered as a subcontractor on U.S. Navy ship repairs. The Debtor argued the claim included unauthorized work and excessive wage rates. The Court, after reviewing evidence and testimony, found that the Creditor's proof of claim established prima facie validity. However, the Debtor successfully rebutted portions related to unauthorized interest charges, unnecessary re-engineering costs, and unsubstantiated acceleration costs. Consequently, the Creditor's original claim of $298,763.20 was reduced by $145,404.53. The Court allowed the remaining sum of $153,358.67 as an unsecured claim against the Debtor's estate.

BankruptcyClaim ObjectionSubcontractorGovernment ContractEquitable AdjustmentInterest ChargesRe-engineering CostsAcceleration CostsBurden of ProofPrima Facie Evidence
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 17,201 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