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. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2003

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA

This case, referred to as the 'Tittle action,' involves class action claims brought by Enron employees who participated in three pension benefit plans (Savings Plan, ESOP, and Cash Balance Plan). Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties under ERISA, RICO violations, and Texas common law claims (negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy) against Enron, its officers, directors, administrative committees, Arthur Andersen, Vinson & Elkins, and several investment banks. The court grants motions to dismiss for most RICO and common law claims, citing preemption by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), as the underlying conduct is actionable as securities fraud. However, the court largely denies motions to dismiss for the ERISA claims, allowing them to proceed, finding that plaintiffs have adequately stated claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to imprudent investments in Enron stock, plan lockdowns, and failure to diversify plan assets. The decision outlines the various duties and liabilities of fiduciaries, co-fiduciaries, and non-fiduciaries under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyCo-Fiduciary LiabilityDirected TrusteeSecurities Litigation Reform ActSLUSA PreemptionClass ActionPension PlansESOP401(k) Plan
References
247
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Official Employment-Related Issues Committee (In Re Enron Corp.)

On February 6, 2003, 176 former Enron employees (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking a court declaration that bonuses received from Enron were valid and non-avoidable. The Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. (Employee Committee) responded on March 28, 2003, with a Motion to Dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The Court found the Complaint to be an improper use of the Declaratory Judgment Act, as all potential liability had already accrued from past transactions, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or risk of increased liability. Consequently, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, thereby dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Adversary Proceeding.

Declaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissBankruptcy CodeBankruptcy CourtEnronEmployee BonusesAvoidable TransfersJurisdictionFirst Filed RuleVenue
References
23
Case No. MDL-1446; Civil Action Nos. H-01-3624, H-02-4788 (COORDINATED)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2007

In Re Enron Corporation Securities, Derivative

This multidistrict litigation involves claims against the Outside Directors of Enron Corporation following its collapse. Plaintiffs, including various Ohio Retirement Systems, alleged negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting common law fraud, and violations of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Outside Directors sought to dismiss all claims, arguing that Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standards applied and that claims were time-barred. The court granted dismissal for the aiding and abetting common law fraud claims but denied it for Section 18 and negligent misrepresentation, providing plaintiffs 30 days to amend their pleadings to meet particularity requirements for actual reliance and fraudulent intent, given the complexity of the alleged fraud. The court also clarified that outside directors who signed SEC-filed documents containing misrepresentations may be liable under Section 18.

Securities FraudNegligent MisrepresentationAiding and AbettingRule 9(b) PleadingPSLRASection 18 LiabilityOutside Director LiabilityStatute of LimitationsInquiry NoticeCorporate Governance
References
118
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.)

This case concerns Arthur Andersen LLP's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against it by Barclays PLC and its affiliated entities. Andersen argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. The original adversary proceeding was initiated by Enron Corp. against Barclays and other banks, alleging various common law claims. Barclays, in turn, sought contribution from Andersen, claiming Andersen knowingly played a role in misrepresentations in Enron's financial statements. The court ultimately concluded that bankruptcy courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Barclays' third-party complaint, leading to its dismissal.

Subject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy CourtThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissCore ProceedingsNon-Core ProceedingsRelated to JurisdictionArticle III PowersBankruptcy Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Lit.

This case is a putative class action brought by purchasers of Enron Corporation's publicly traded equity and debt securities, including the Regents of the University of California and the Washington State Investment Board. The plaintiffs allege widespread securities violations against Enron and numerous 'secondary actors,' such as accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks. The core accusation centers on an 'enormous Ponzi scheme' designed to artificially inflate Enron's revenues, conceal massive debts, and maintain its stock price and credit rating through fraudulent, non-arm’s-length transactions with Enron-controlled entities and improper accounting practices. The secondary actors are implicated for their alleged knowing participation in this scheme, driven by financial gain through lucrative fees and investment opportunities. The court ruled on motions to dismiss filed by these secondary actors, denying most motions but granting some in full or in part, allowing the case to proceed against many key defendants.

Securities FraudClass ActionPonzi SchemeEnron ScandalCorporate FraudAccounting FraudInvestment Banking MisconductLaw Firm LiabilityAuditor MalpracticeOff-Balance Sheet Entities
References
148
Case No. MDL 1446
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2016

Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & Erisa Litigation v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc.

This Opinion and Order addresses a putative class action within the Enron Multi-District Litigation, alleging securities fraud against UBS Financial Services and UBS Securities. Lead Plaintiffs claimed UBS defrauded its brokerage retail clients by prioritizing Enron's investment banking fees. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead primary violations of federal securities laws, scienter, and loss causation. The court also determined that the "no-sale doctrine" applied to the Enron employee stock option plans, negating the "purchase or sale" requirement for several of the plaintiffs' claims.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissMDLStock OptionsEmployee Benefit PlansFiduciary DutyInvestment BankingBroker-DealerInsider Trading
References
207
Case No. MDL-1446, CIV. A. H-01-3624
Regular Panel Decision

Newby v. Enron Corp.

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy ("the Board") sought to intervene in a pending class action lawsuit (Newby v. Enron Corp.) to gain access to an ESL website and depositions. The Board's purpose was to investigate alleged audit failures related to Enron's collapse to determine if any Texas accountants violated public accountancy laws. Arthur Andersen LLP objected, arguing that the Board's sole aim was discovery, which is not a proper ground for intervention, and that it circumvented established discovery procedures while potentially prejudicing non-party deponents. Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. took no position but requested adherence to confidentiality orders. The District Court, acknowledging a split in circuit court interpretations regarding standing for permissive intervention, granted the Board's motion. The Court reasoned that the Board met the requirements for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2), shared common questions of law and fact with the main action, and intervention would serve judicial economy without unduly delaying the litigation, provided the Board complied with all confidentiality orders.

Intervention MotionPermissive InterventionDiscovery AccessConfidentiality OrderJudicial EconomyEnron ScandalPublic Accountancy ActRegulatory InvestigationClass Action LitigationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2)
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Enron Corp.

Enterprise Products Operating L.P. filed a motion for resolution of dispute against Enron Gas Liquids, Inc. (EGLI) regarding lien claims for pre-petition services. Enterprise asserted a total lien claim of $888,059.09 under Texas law for various services including storage, trucking, fractionation, and product treatment of natural gas liquids. EGLI acknowledged a portion of the lien related to trucking and storage but disputed the claim for fractionation and product treatment services. The court examined whether Enterprise qualified as a 'mechanic, artisan, or materialman' under Article XVI, § 37 of the Texas Constitution. The court ultimately denied the fractionation and product treatment lien, finding that Enterprise's complex engineering and technical operations did not fit these traditional definitions. Additionally, the court denied Enterprise's request for post-petition attorneys' fees, citing the absence of a contractual agreement for such fees.

Bankruptcy LawLien EnforcementTexas Constitutional LawSecured ClaimsAttorneys' FeesCommercial DisputeNatural Gas LiquidsFractionation ServicesWarehouseman's LienDebtor-in-Possession
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tittle v. Enron Corp.

This class action, grounded in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), addresses alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against fiduciaries of three Enron Corporation ERISA plans. The Court considered objections to a proposed partial class action settlement, which included a bar order and judgment reduction credit. Key legal questions involved the existence of a right to contribution among co-fiduciaries under ERISA and the overall fairness of the settlement, especially to non-settling defendants. The Court ultimately approved the partial settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate, despite not recognizing an ERISA right to contribution. Additionally, the Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to establish attorneys' fees and litigation reserve accounts.

ERISAFiduciary DutyClass ActionSettlementBar OrderContributionIndemnificationEnronPension Plans401(k)
References
97
Showing 1-10 of 15 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