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

Chemung Canal Trust Co. ex rel. Fairway Spring Co. v. Sovran Bank/Maryland

The Chemung Canal Trust Company and beneficiaries sued Sovran Bank/Maryland under ERISA, alleging breach of fiduciary duties related to pension plan management. Sovran, a former trustee, was accused of failing to rectify prior trustee Glenn Dawson's wrongful acts and making two imprudent investments. Sovran then filed a third-party complaint against Fairway Spring Co., the employer, for indemnity/contribution, and a counterclaim against Chemung for failing to adequately pursue claims. The court dismissed Sovran's counterclaim against Chemung due to lack of standing as a former fiduciary. Furthermore, the court dismissed Sovran's claims for contribution and indemnity against Chemung and Fairway, ruling that ERISA does not explicitly or implicitly provide for such actions, nor can they be created under federal common law.

ERISAFiduciary DutyPension PlanTrustee LiabilityIndemnityContributionStanding to SueFederal Common LawBreach of Fiduciary DutyCo-fiduciary Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2013

Bank of America, N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB

Bank of America, N.A. sought a declaratory judgment against Wilmington Trust FSB and three title insurers to clarify its obligations to provide information related to the failed Fontainebleau Las Vegas project. Bank of America had served as an Administrative and Disbursement Agent, and Wilmington Trust later became the successor. Information was requested in connection with ongoing Mechanics Lien Litigation in Florida. Bank of America alleged broad scope requests and a conflict of interest with the Title Insurers. Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue, arguing the Florida Bankruptcy Court had exclusive jurisdiction. The Southern District of New York found venue proper but acknowledged the Bankruptcy Court's exclusive or 'related-to' jurisdiction over the claims. Consequently, the court denied the motion to dismiss but, in the interest of justice and judicial economy, *sua sponte* transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, recommending referral to the Bankruptcy Court.

Venue DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentBankruptcy JurisdictionForum Selection ClauseTransfer of VenueRule 12(b)(3) MotionSection 1391Southern District of FloridaSouthern District of New YorkFontainebleau Las Vegas
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Depaja Enterprises, Ltd. v. American Bank & Trust Co.

The court addressed a motion by defendant Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff's complaint asserted claims under federal securities laws, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and pendent jurisdiction. The court found no subject matter jurisdiction for the claim against Bank Leumi under federal securities laws, noting the absence of a "common nucleus of operative facts." Regarding the claim against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver for a State bank, the court determined it did not arise under federal laws. Citing Aldinger v. Howard, the court declined to exercise pendent party jurisdiction over Bank Leumi, emphasizing that the relevant statute did not intend Bank Leumi to be a party. Additionally, the court decided against exercising its discretionary pendent jurisdiction, concluding the state law claim against Bank Leumi belonged in state courts. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Subject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b) Fed.R.Civ.P.Pendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawsFederal Deposit Insurance ActContractual ClaimReceiver of State BankPendent Party JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. CA 12-02386
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

PRICE TRUCKING CORP. v. AAA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Price Trucking Corp. (plaintiff-respondent) commenced an action alleging that First Niagara Bank, N.A. (defendant-appellant) violated Lien Law article 3-A by automatically transferring funds from AAA Environmental, Inc.'s operational account into its line of credit account, which Price Trucking claimed constituted a diversion of Lien Law trust assets. The Supreme Court granted Price Trucking's motion for partial summary judgment, finding First Niagara liable as a Lien Law statutory trustee and that it had both actual and constructive notice of the diversion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, denying Price Trucking's motion in its entirety. It concluded that First Niagara was not a statutory trustee under the facts and that the Supreme Court erred in applying a constructive notice standard, asserting that only actual notice is applicable to banks for the holder in due course defense under Lien Law § 72 (1).

Lien LawTrust AssetsHolder in Due CourseActual NoticeConstructive NoticeUniform Commercial CodeLender LiabilitySubcontractorsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harleysville Worcester Mutual Insurance v. Bank of America, N.A. Ex Rel. Fleet National Bank (In Re Suprema Specialties, Inc.)

Plaintiffs, Harleysville Worcester Mutual Insurance Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (the Sureties), appealed a Bankruptcy Court order that granted summary judgment to the Bank Group. The Sureties sought to recover $3.8 million paid under a bond for the debtor Suprema Specialties, Inc.'s obligations to milk suppliers, arguing they had superior claims through equitable subrogation or an express trust. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, holding that the Bonded Transaction Assets were part of Suprema's bankruptcy estate and subject to the Bank Group's priority liens. The court found the Sureties were only subrogated to the unsecured rights of the milk supplier, Allied, and their subrogation rights became fixed post-petition. Furthermore, the court concluded that no express trust was created, citing the lack of an identifiable trust res and the permissive commingling of funds by Suprema.

Equitable SubrogationExpress TrustBankruptcy EstateSecured CreditorPriority LienSurety BondPayment GuaranteeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDebtor-in-Possession
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dorfman v. Chemical Bank

The federal district court, presided by Judge Cannella, granted motions to dismiss brought by several defendant banks (Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, Irving Trust Company, Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., and Bank of Montreal) against an unnamed plaintiff. The plaintiff, a debenture holder of Pennco (a subsidiary of Penn Central Transportation Company), alleged a conspiracy where banks funneled funds through Pennco to Penn Central, impairing Pennco's capital. The court dismissed the first two derivative causes of action, brought under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Interstate Commerce Act, for lack of plaintiff's standing as a debenture holder is not considered a 'shareholder' under Rule 23.1 F.R.Civ.P. The third cause of action, based on pendant jurisdiction, was also dismissed following the dismissal of federal claims. Finally, the fourth cause of action, premised on diversity of citizenship, was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to properly allege Pennco's principal place of business, although leave to replead was granted.

Derivative SuitDebenture HoldersStandingSecurities ActInterstate Commerce ActFraudulent ConveyanceSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity of CitizenshipFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(b)(6)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1991

Chase Lincoln First Bank v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning the priority of claims to funds owed by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) to Anderson Tree Company, Inc. Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A. held a perfected security interest in Anderson Tree's accounts. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1249 Pension Fund, et al. (the Brotherhood) also claimed entitlement to these funds due to Anderson Tree's obligation for fringe benefit contributions under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Chase Lincoln, determining its security interest took priority because Anderson Tree's work for NYSEG did not constitute an "improvement of real property" under Lien Law § 70, thus no statutory trust was established for the Brotherhood. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the vegetation maintenance performed by Anderson Tree was not a permanent improvement and therefore did not trigger the Lien Law's trust provisions.

Lien LawSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Property ImprovementStatutory TrustFringe BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementPriority of ClaimsVegetation Management
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1981

Spielman v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Plaintiffs, trustees of an employee benefit fund, sued Chemical Bank for damages related to a forged check. Their attorney fraudulently induced them to issue a check for a purported settlement. The attorney then forged a restrictive indorsement ('for deposit only') and deposited it into his personal account at Chemical Bank, despite the payee law firm having no account there. While Chemical Bank argued non-liability under UCC 3-405(1)(c) due to the forger being the drawer's agent, the court held Chemical Bank liable for violating UCC 3-206(3) by not adhering to the restrictive indorsement. The court clarified that 'for deposit only' implies deposit into the payee-indorser's account. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Chemical Bank was affirmed.

conversionsummary judgmentUniform Commercial Coderestrictive indorsementforged indorsementdepositary bank liabilitypayee-indorserdrawer's agentemployee benefit fundappellate court
References
3
Case No. 94 Civ. 654 (MBM), 94 Civ. 2978 (MBM)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bluebird Partners, LP v. First Fidelity Bank

Bluebird Partners, L.P., a secondary purchaser of equipment trust interests for Continental Airlines, sued indenture trustees and their law firms for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) and state law. Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to prudently protect certificate holders' interests during Continental's bankruptcy by not acting timely on adequate protection motions. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bluebird Partners lacked standing as a secondary purchaser because federal TIA claims do not automatically transfer with the security. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that under federal common law, TIA claims do not automatically transfer to subsequent purchasers who were not injured at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, thus denying standing to Bluebird Partners. The court declined to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Trust Indenture ActStandingSecondary PurchaserSecurities LawBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayAdequate ProtectionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractNegligence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Vincent Moodie, a Black male, sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for racial discrimination under Title VII after his termination due to an altercation with a white co-worker. Moodie claimed his dismissal was racially motivated and that the bank's stated reason—that he was the aggressor in a workplace fight—was a pretext. The incident involved Moodie confronting his co-worker, Tony Riolo, over a derogatory remark, which escalated into a physical engagement. The court, presided over by Judge Lasker, found that Moodie failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bank's internal investigation or dismissal decision was tainted by racial prejudice. The complaint was therefore dismissed, as the bank provided credible non-discriminatory explanations for its actions and demonstrated a consistent policy regarding workplace violence.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkplace ViolenceWrongful TerminationEmployer PolicyPretextDisparate TreatmentInternal InvestigationFederal Reserve BankAggressor
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,069 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