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. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scarbrough v. Murrow Transfer Co.

This case consolidates two wrongful death lawsuits filed by Mrs. Alberta Scarbrough and Claud Nolan against Murrow Transfer Company and Billy Ray Burge, stemming from a fatal motor vehicle accident on September 17, 1966. The accident, which resulted in the deaths of Randolph Scarbrough and Jimmy Ray Nolan, occurred when Burge, driving a tractor-trailer for Murrow Transfer, negligently crossed into the opposing lane, causing a collision with a United States Job Corps bus. The court found Burge and Murrow Transfer liable for negligence. Additionally, a third-party action for indemnity or contribution by the defendants against the United States of America was dismissed, with the court ruling that the Federal Employees Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for claims against the U.S. related to the Job Corps members' deaths. The plaintiffs were each awarded $28,000 in damages.

Motor Vehicle AccidentWrongful DeathNegligenceRespondeat SuperiorThird-Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Employees Compensation ActJob CorpsDamages
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ingalls v. SMTC Corp. (In re SMTC Manufacturing)

The case involves Ron Ingalls, Chapter 7 Trustee of SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Texas ("SMTC Texas"), suing SMTC Corporate and other affiliates for allegedly fraudulent transfers under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) and veil-piercing theories. The Trustee claims SMTC Corporate orchestrated a plan to bankrupt SMTC Texas, transferring over $80 million in cash and fixed assets to affiliates between 2002-2003, to avoid a burdensome lease obligation with Flextronics International, Inc. The transfers include intercompany cash transfers, expense reallocations, and fixed asset transfers. The court ultimately finds that transfers made after March 1, 2003, were not "assets" under TUFTA due to a fully encumbered lien. For transfers before this date, while SMTC Texas was insolvent, the Trustee failed to prove actual fraudulent intent or lack of reasonably equivalent value, as the transactions were for legitimate business purposes during an economic downturn. The court also denies the veil-piercing claims, concluding that SMTC Texas maintained sufficient independence and Flextronics assumed the risk of dealing with a subsidiary.

Fraudulent TransferTUFTAVeil PiercingAlter EgoSham to Perpetrate a FraudBankruptcyChapter 7 TrusteeCorporate FinanceIntercompany TransactionsGuaranty Obligations
References
0
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 04-16354-CAG. Adversary No. 06-1283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2009

In Re Smtc Mfg. of Texas

This case involves a Chapter 7 Trustee's adversary proceeding against the debtor, SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Texas, and its affiliates, alleging fraudulent transfers and seeking to pierce the corporate veil. The Trustee claimed four categories of fraudulent transfers (intercompany, expense reallocations, net balance, and fixed asset transfers) were made to insiders with intent to defraud creditors, particularly Flextronics, the debtor's lessor. The court determined that transfers made on or after March 1, 2003, did not involve "assets" under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) because the property was fully encumbered by a valid lien. For transfers before this date, while the debtor was insolvent, the Trustee failed to prove actual intent to defraud or lack of reasonably equivalent value. Additionally, the court rejected the veil-piercing claims, finding the debtor's operations sufficiently independent and no evidence of reliance by Flextronics on the parent company's financial backing. The court granted the Defendants' motion for a take-nothing judgment against the Trustee.

BankruptcyChapter 7Fraudulent TransferTexas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA)Corporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoSham to Perpetrate FraudSubsidiary LiabilitySecured TransactionsLien
References
88
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp.

Plaintiffs ASARCO LLC and Southern Peru Holdings LLC, as debtors in possession, sued Defendant Americas Mining Corporation (AMC) to recover stock and damages. The core dispute involves a 2003 transfer of 54.18% of Southern Peru Copper Company (SPCC) stock from ASARCO's subsidiary to AMC, which plaintiffs allege was a fraudulent transfer. The court found ASARCO had standing through reverse-veil piercing. While constructive fraudulent transfer failed as ASARCO received reasonably equivalent value for the stock, the court found AMC liable for actual fraudulent transfer due to intent to hinder ASARCO's creditors. Additionally, the court found ASARCO's directors breached their fiduciary duties due to ASARCO's insolvency, and AMC aided and abetted this breach and conspired with the directors to effectuate the transfer. Punitive damages were denied.

Fraudulent TransferBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate ConspiracyAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate InsolvencyAsset SaleMineral Mining IndustryDebt RestructuringStock ValuationBankruptcy Avoidance Powers
References
219
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Riley (In Re Omni Mechanical Contractors, Inc.)

This bankruptcy case involves a trustee's complaint to recover funds from defendants Joel C. Riley and Power Management, Inc., on behalf of the debtor, Omni Mechanical Contractors, Inc. The trustee alleged misappropriation of corporate funds, fraudulent conveyances, and preferential transfers by Riley, a former officer and shareholder of Omni. The court found Omni to be insolvent following a stock repurchase transaction with Riley and Jones. The court ruled in favor of the trustee on several claims, including the recovery of $8,800 for misappropriated funds, $15,000 for the fraudulent transfer of a Mercedes, $38,000 for a fraudulent conveyance related to a shop building, and $6,600 and $12,000 for preferential transfers of vehicles. However, the court denied the trustee's claims for recovery related to a hunting trip, lost profits on the Power Management and Riceville shop projects, and Riley's salary withdrawals, concluding that these actions did not warrant recovery or were not unfair at the time of transaction.

Bankruptcy LawFraudulent ConveyancePreferential TransferInsider TransactionBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate InsolvencyStock RepurchaseAsset RecoveryDebtor-Creditor LawCorporate Governance
References
27
Case No. 03-02-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2004

Gem Stokes and John Jay Stokes, Jr. v. Anthony P. Ferris, Trustee for Richard Ferris

Anthony P. Ferris, trustee for Richard Ferris, sued John Jay Stokes, Jr. and Gem Stokes for violations of the fraudulent-transfer statute, seeking to void a transfer of money from Jay Stokes to Gem Stokes. The district court found in favor of Ferris and ordered appellants to turn over $1,033,280 and awarded $5,528,059.87 in exemplary damages against Jay Stokes. Appellants appealed, raising issues concerning the jury charge, monetary judgment, statute of limitations, subsequent transfers, and permanent injunction. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no error in the application of the pre-1987 fraudulent-transfer statute, the monetary award, or the injunction.

Fraudulent TransferExemplary DamagesStatute of LimitationsPermanent InjunctionMoney JudgmentAppellate ReviewJury ChargeSufficiency of EvidenceTurnover OrderPre-1987 Statute
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tompkins County Trust Co. v. Gowin

The plaintiff bank, Tompkins County Trust Company, foreclosed on a mortgage held by defendant Gowin and subsequently sought a deficiency judgment. Prior to trial, Gowin fraudulently transferred $100,000 from a personal investment account to his College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF) retirement fund, leaving the deficiency judgment unpaid. TIAA/CREF argued that the transfer was exempt from creditors under both Federal (ERISA) and specific New York State law. However, the court ruled that Gowin's post-retirement, non-plan deposit to CREF fell outside the scope of ERISA's anti-alienation provisions. Consequently, the court found the transfer fraudulent under New York law and granted Tompkins County Trust Company the relief sought against TIAA/CREF, denying the separate motion against Gowin as moot.

Fraudulent transferDeficiency judgmentERISA preemptionRetirement fundsCreditor's rightsNew York Debtor and Creditor LawCPLR exemptionsPost-retirement transferNon-plan depositAnti-alienation clause
References
3
Case No. 01-09-00813-CV; 01-11-00688-CV; & 01-11-00689-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2011

Essex Crane Rental Corp. and Vincent A. Morano v. David W. Farley

Essex Crane Rental Corp. and Vincent A. Morano (Essex) appealed the trial court's judgments in favor of Eric G. Carter, David W. Farley, and Kenneth Beverly, and the order granting Beverly's motion to quiet title. Essex alleged that the appellees conspired with the McPherson Entities to fraudulently transfer assets to avoid debt payment, in violation of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA). The appellate court found that Essex presented sufficient evidence to raise material fact issues regarding Carter's and Farley's participation in a conspiracy to hide client assets and that attorney immunity did not apply to knowingly drafting fraudulent documents. The court also found sufficient evidence of Beverly's conspiracy to violate TUFTA and that the trial court erred in granting Beverly's objections to summary judgment evidence and his motion to quiet title. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Fraudulent TransferCivil ConspiracyAttorney ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCreditor RightsDebtor-Creditor LawTexas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer ActQuiet TitleForeclosure
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 1,439 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