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

Telenor East Invest AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd.

In this securities case, Telenor East Invest AS (Telenor East) sued Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited and other entities (Alfa Group) for alleged insider trading, illegal tender offer, and misleading disclosure statements related to their purchase of shares in VimpelCom. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint or compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling the claims were outside the arbitration agreement's scope. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the Sections 13(e), 10(b), and 14(e) claims due to insufficient pleading, but allowed the Sections 13(d) and 14(d) claims to proceed.

Securities FraudInsider TradingTender OfferDisclosure ViolationsMotion to DismissArbitration AgreementPSLRARule 9(b)Exchange ActVimpelCom
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06887 [211 AD3d 432]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Francis P. Lively, appealed an order that dismissed his complaint against Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. and Fawaz Al-Mubaraki. Lively, a former senior managing director, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated due to sexual harassment complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Lively failed to sufficiently allege age discrimination or a causal connection for retaliation. Additionally, his claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were also found to be inadequately pleaded or barred by other laws. The Second Circuit's prior dismissal of federal claims did not, however, preclude state law claims based on collateral estoppel.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawCollateral EstoppelWrongful TerminationTortious InterferenceDefamationUnjust EnrichmentQuantum Meruit
References
16
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2007

Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Ajamie

The Court, presided by District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, addressed a motion by defendants Brian Rosner and Rosner & Napierala, LLP to dismiss certain cross-claims filed by defendant John Moscow. This action originated as an interpleader by Prudential Equity Group, LLC concerning attorney's fees from an arbitration. Moscow's partnership cross-claims, distinct from his arbitration cross-claims, related to moneys owed from separate client representations unrelated to the interpleader's subject matter. The Court found no supplemental jurisdiction over these partnership cross-claims, determining they lacked a common nucleus of operative fact with the original interpleader action. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would decline to exercise it due to compelling reasons, including the need for a separate trial and complicated discovery processes. The Court also rejected Moscow's fall-back argument for a set-off exception. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed its order granting the motion to dismiss Moscow's partnership cross-claims.

Interpleader ActionCross-ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPartnership AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureCommon Nucleus of Operative FactSet-off ExceptionAttorney's Fees
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giant Group, Ltd. v. Sands

This case concerns a securities fraud action brought by Giant Group, Ltd. against accounting firms Arthur Anderson LLP, Friedman Alpren & Green LLP, and individual Glenn Sands, along with investment bank L.H. Friend. Giant alleged that the defendants made false and misleading representations and failed to disclose material information regarding fraudulent schemes by Sands at Periscope Sportswear, Inc., which Giant acquired for $85 million. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that Giant's federal securities fraud claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Rule 10b-5. The court found that Giant had received sufficient "storm warnings" and inquiry notice regarding Sands' misconduct, including prebilling and improper expense charges, more than a year before filing its complaint. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the federal securities claim as time-barred and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsInquiry NoticeMotion to DismissRule 10b-5Auditor IndependencePleading FraudPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActGAAP ViolationsPre-billing
References
59
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24162 [84 Misc 3d 931]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2024

James Riv. Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC

The case, James River Group Holdings, Ltd. v Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC, addresses a dispute over a stock purchase agreement (SPA) for the sale of James River's reinsurance subsidiary, JRG Re, to Fleming. Fleming refused to close the transaction, citing alleged breaches related to JRG Re's reserves and liquidity, and demanded a $78 million concession. James River sought specific performance through a mandatory preliminary injunction, arguing that Fleming's claims were baseless and contrary to the SPA's terms, particularly a clause prohibiting challenges to reserves and outlining a post-closing price adjustment process. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Masley, granted James River's motion, finding a clear likelihood of success on the merits, established irreparable harm due to reputational damage and operational disruption, and a favorable balance of equities, compelling Fleming to close the deal within 10 days.

Specific PerformanceStock Purchase AgreementBreach of ContractPreliminary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionContract InterpretationIrreparable HarmBalance of EquitiesReinsurance SubsidiaryClosing Conditions
References
29
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2024

Darwish Auto Group, LLC v. TD Bank, N.A.

Plaintiffs Darwish Auto Group, LLC and Darwish General Corp. commenced an action against TD Bank, N.A. and Walid Darwish, alleging that Walid Darwish unilaterally modified bank account access for various users, which TD Bank subsequently refused to reverse without his individual approval. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court granted the preliminary injunction and later denied Walid Darwish's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed Supreme Court's decisions to grant the preliminary injunction and deny the motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs established a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury, and a favorable balance of equities. However, the Appellate Division modified the order concerning the preliminary injunction by reversing the sum of the undertaking, remitting the matter to Supreme Court to determine an appropriate amount that bears a rational relation to potential damages Walid Darwish could suffer.

Preliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractBanking DisputesCorporate GovernanceManagement AuthorityShareholder DisputesAppellate ProcedureUndertaking Requirements
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 1,850 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