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 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. 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
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
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 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
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 Harlan

The Debtors, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, claimed an exemption for the proceeds from the voluntary sale of their homestead under Article 3834, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated. Kettering Construction Company, a creditor, objected, arguing that the exemption's intent was for reinvestment in a new homestead within six months, and the court should verify this use. The Court, referencing White v. Stump, determined that exemption rights are fixed at the time of the bankruptcy petition's filing. Since the Debtors filed within the six-month period, the proceeds were exempt at that time, and subsequent use is irrelevant. The Court found no fraud in the timing of the petition to protect the exemption. Therefore, Kettering Construction Company's objection was overruled.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionChapter 7State Exemption LawsProceeds of SaleDate of FilingCreditor ObjectionFraud AllegationTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 00 B 14390(ASH). Adversary No. 00-3004A.
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

In Re Higgins

The debtors, Kevin and Sue Higgins, initiated an adversary proceeding against creditor Eugene Erickson concerning the avoidability of mortgage and confession of judgment liens, usury claims, and Erickson's attempt to challenge debt dischargeability. The Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, ruled that the Higginses lacked standing to avoid pre-petition transfers as preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547. However, the court granted the Higginses' request to avoid the confession of judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), finding it impaired their homestead exemption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Higginses had waived their usury defense but held that Erickson's right to contest the dischargeability of his claim was time-barred. This resulted in a mixed outcome, largely favorable to the debtors regarding lien impairment and discharge.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionLien AvoidanceJudicial LienPreference AvoidanceUsury DefenseConfession of JudgmentDischargeabilityEquitable TollingEquitable Estoppel
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,071 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