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

New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, Inc. v. Vallone

This case addresses whether the New York City Council adhered to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when enacting Local Law No. 38 (1999), intended for lead paint abatement. The City Council issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant adverse environmental impact. However, the Court of Appeals found this declaration insufficient, specifically noting a lack of reasoned explanation for excluding lead dust from the hazard definition and removing six-year-old children from the law's protections. This non-compliance with SEQRA's procedural mandates led to the nullification of Local Law 38, thereby reinstating Local Law 1 (1982). The Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and remitted the case, encouraging the involved parties to collaborate in safeguarding New York City's children from lead exposure.

Lead paint abatementEnvironmental lawSEQRA complianceLocal Law 38Local Law 1Negative declarationPublic health concernsChildhood lead poisoningAdministrative proceduresNew York City Council
References
21
Case No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
Case No. 04 CV 4165
Regular Panel Decision

Olsen v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc.

This Memorandum of Decision and Order addresses motions to consolidate eleven related securities fraud class actions and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The actions were brought on behalf of investors who purchased New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (NYCB) stock between June 2003 and May 2004, alleging violations of federal securities law due to material misrepresentations and omissions related to NYCB's merger with Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. The Court, presided over by District Judge Hurley, granted the motion to consolidate all actions under case number 04 CV 4165. Applying the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court appointed the "NYCB Group," composed of Metzler Investment GmbH and Bernard Drucker, as the lead plaintiff, determining they had the largest financial interest and satisfied all other requirements. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP was approved as lead counsel. The motions from other groups (Lee Group, Dr. Schnapp, Stevens Group, Dalia Group, Stewart Group) for lead plaintiff were denied.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffLead CounselConsolidation of ActionsPSLRAEastern District of New YorkNYCB GroupMetzler InvestmentBernard Drucker
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re SLM Corp. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses the appointment of a lead plaintiff in a securities class action against SLM Corporation. Initially, Westchester Capital Management, Inc. was appointed, but its Article III standing was questioned following a Second Circuit ruling in W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, which clarified that investment advisors without a valid assignment of claims lack standing. The court denied Westchester Capital's subsequent motion to approve a post-appointment assignment, reasoning it would not cure the initial lack of standing and presented unique legal issues for the class. Consequently, the court considered other movants for lead plaintiff, ultimately appointing SLM Venture, a joint venture with the largest financial interest, finding it satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements under the PSLRA and Rule 23. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP was approved as lead counsel for SLM Venture.

Securities Class ActionLead PlaintiffArticle III StandingInvestment AdvisorAssignment of ClaimsPSLRARule 23Typicality RequirementAdequacy RequirementSecond Circuit Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2009

Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund v. Credit-Based Asset Servicing & Securitization, LLC

This opinion by District Judge Jed S. Rakoff addresses the appointment of a lead plaintiff in consolidated securities class actions against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The two primary contenders were the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (MissPERS) and the Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund. The Court scrutinized an arrangement between the Iron Workers Fund and its counsel, Coughlin Stoia, involving free monitoring services, which raised concerns about lawyer-driven litigation. While MissPERS also used monitoring firms, its internal oversight and reliance on multiple firms mitigated similar concerns. Consequently, the Court granted MissPERS’ motion to be lead plaintiff, appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead counsel, and denied the Iron Workers Fund's motion.

Securities Class ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRALawyer-Driven LitigationConflict of InterestInstitutional InvestorsSubprime MortgagesFiduciary DutyClass Action ReformMonitoring Agreements
References
15
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. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Showing 1-10 of 4,676 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