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

In Re United States Lines, Inc.

The United States Lines, Inc. and its Reorganization Trust (Debtors) moved to deny a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest filed by the Public Administrator of the County of New York, Administrator of the Estate of Alfredo Valverde (Claimant). The Claimant's original wrongful death action against U.S.L. resulted in a state court judgment after the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Cornelius Blackshear, found that the doctrines of full faith and credit, res judicata, and collateral estoppel were inapplicable, asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over the claims allowance process in bankruptcy. Applying Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court disallowed all post-petition interest, whether pre- or post-judgment, classifying it as unmatured interest. However, the court allowed the portion of the claim representing pre-petition, pre-judgment interest, clarifying that the date of judgment entry does not determine whether interest is 'unmatured' as of the petition date. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that the existence of indemnity insurance from the UK Club altered the allowability of the interest claim against the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawInterest on ClaimsPostpetition InterestPrepetition InterestUnmatured InterestChapter 11 ReorganizationClaims AllowanceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAutomatic Stay
References
27
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

Old Stone Bank v. Jason Gibbs, Inc. (In re Brookfield Clothes, Inc.)

Old Stone Bank, the plaintiff, filed an adversary proceeding and moved for summary judgment against Brookfield Clothes, Inc. and Jason Gibbs, Inc. The Bank asserted a valid security interest in specific equipment transferred from Brookfield to Gibbs, claiming non-payment and seeking recovery, damages, and conversion remedies. After initial defenses, Gibbs amended its answer, tendering the equipment and raising cross-claims against Brookfield for misrepresentation. The court determined the Bank held a duly perfected security interest and, on consent, granted possession of the equipment to the Bank. The motion for summary judgment was granted against Gibbs for post-sale monetary relief and against Brookfield for pre-sale payments, with a denial for post-sale claims against Brookfield.

Summary JudgmentBankruptcySecurity InterestEquipment LeasingAsset SaleChapter 11 DebtorAdversary ProceedingLien PriorityConversion ClaimCross-Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to resettle a prior decision from April 5, 1993, seeking to substitute Marla Strow for the deceased defendant Jerome Strow and to include prejudgment interest in the judgment. The court denied the substitution motion without prejudice, directing an application to the Surrogate's Court and then a motion in the Supreme Court. However, the branch of the motion concerning prejudgment interest was granted, leading to the recall and vacation of the original April 5, 1993 decision, and the substitution of the present decision and order. In this new decision, the appeal against Jerome Strow was dismissed, and the order pertaining to him was vacated because he died before the summary judgment motion was decided. Conversely, the court reversed the prior order concerning defendants Strab Construction Corp. and Gary Rabinowitz, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for $1,205,000, and remitting the case for the calculation of prejudgment interest and attorney fees.

Promissory NotesSummary JudgmentPrejudgment InterestSubstitution of PartiesDeceased DefendantStatute of FraudsOral AgreementAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nemko, Inc. (In re Nemko, Inc.)

Plaintiff The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase) filed an adversary proceeding against Defendant United Jersey Bank (UJB, later Summit Bank) and Nemko, Inc. concerning the priority of security interests in Nemko's accounts receivable. An initial court order awarded UJB priority, leading Nemko to pay UJB $649,256. This decision was later vacated by the District Court, which remanded the case to determine if Nemko's chief executive office had transferred from New Jersey to New York. The court found that Nemko's office had indeed moved, causing UJB's (Summit's) security interest to lapse due to a failure to file in New York. Chase was subsequently granted judgment on the principal amount, with the issue of prejudgment interest reserved. Following further appeals and a settlement where Summit paid the principal to Chase, Chase filed the instant motion for summary judgment to determine its entitlement to prejudgment interest for the period Summit held the funds. The court granted Chase's motion, concluding that under New York C.P.L.R. § 5001(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), an award of prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% was equitable to compensate Chase for the loss of use of the funds.

Prejudgment InterestSummary JudgmentSecurity InterestAccounts ReceivableUniform Commercial CodeBankruptcyChapter 11Lien PriorityChief Executive Office TransferCash Collateral
References
17
Case No. ADJ621008 (MON 0291717)
Regular
Sep 05, 2012

WILLIAM KEY vs. PRODUCTION PROCESSING, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK CMS, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, STONE STANLEY PRODUCTIONS, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), covering Legion Insurance, seeks reconsideration of an arbitrator's award. The arbitrator found both CIGA and Travelers, insurer for the special employer, jointly liable for the applicant's injury and ordered Travelers to reimburse CIGA for all benefits paid since Legion's liquidation. CIGA contested being required to continue administering medical treatment and the denial of pre-judgment interest from Travelers. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the award, ordering Travelers to administer future medical treatment, but affirmed the denial of pre-judgment interest to CIGA.

CIGALegion InsuranceProduction ProcessingStone Stanley ProductionsSt. Paul TravelersWilliam Keyindustrial injurylow backliquidationother insurance
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monaco v. CIS Corp. (In Re CIS Corp.)

This adversary proceeding involved a former employee, Patrick R. Monaco, suing debtors CIS and Chapter 11 Trustee James P. Hassett for unpaid vacation pay and commissions. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Counts Two and Three of Monaco's complaint. On Count Two, seeking commissions for two Bell South transactions, the court granted the Trustee's motion, finding Monaco was not entitled to these payments due to unfulfilled contractual approval conditions. On Count Three, Monaco sought liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under New York Labor Law for conceded unpaid commissions and vacation pay. The court granted Monaco's cross-motion for these amounts, ruling that the failure to pay the undisputed wages was willful. Pre-judgment interest was denied, but Monaco was awarded $6160 in commissions, $3000 in vacation pay, $2290 in attorneys' fees, and $2290 in liquidated damages.

CommissionsVacation PaySummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawWillful Wage Non-PaymentAttorneys' FeesLiquidated DamagesContract InterpretationBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingEmployee Termination
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'QUINN v. New York University Medical Center

A jury found defendant New York University Medical Center discriminated against plaintiff O'Quinn based on sex in violation of Title VII and retaliated by terminating her, awarding $158,000 in back pay, $150,000 in compensatory damages, and $500 in punitive damages. Plaintiff moved for pre-judgment interest and reinstatement with retroactive seniority. The court granted pre-judgment interest on both back pay and compensatory damages, to be calculated using the United States treasury bill rate, compounded annually, and spread pro rata over the relevant time frame. The court also granted retroactive seniority. However, the plaintiff's request for reinstatement at a higher salary level equivalent to Stephen Weinstein was denied, with reinstatement ordered to the Project Manager position at the appropriate salary reflecting her retroactive seniority.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationWrongful TerminationPre-judgment InterestBack PayCompensatory DamagesRetroactive SeniorityReinstatementFederal Court
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1980

Hospital Service Plan v. Warehouse Production & Sales Employees Union

The appellants, who are successors in interest to the original defendants, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The order denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to execute a 'satisfaction piece' after the appellants paid the judgment with interest calculated at the New York rate. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that according to the principles of full faith and credit, the judgment from New Jersey required interest to be paid at the 8% New Jersey rate, not the 6% New York rate. Additionally, the appellants were deemed responsible for the Sheriff's levy costs because they failed to properly serve the Sheriff with a stay of execution, thereby necessitating the levy.

Judgment EnforcementFull Faith and CreditInterest RatesSheriff's LevySatisfaction PieceNew Jersey JudgmentNew York LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. No. Civ. 8405(CM)(JCF)
Regular Panel Decision

Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Insurance

Plaintiffs Jonathan Berck and Martin Fleisher sued Phoenix Life Insurance Company for breach of contract regarding "premium-adjustable, universal life" (PAUL) insurance policies. Berck, a trustee, alleged two breaches by Phoenix: an improper 2010 cost of insurance (COI) rate increase and a concurrent interest rate decrease. Berck claimed the COI increase, based on impermissible factors and non-uniform application, forced him to invest an additional $700,000 to avoid higher charges, incurring a $35,000 sales fee. Phoenix moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Berck lacked standing and that Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction was lost post-class decertification, and for partial summary judgment on anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest. The court denied both motions, affirming Berck's standing due to economic harm and maintaining CAFA jurisdiction based on initial class allegations. The court also denied summary judgment regarding anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest as premature, allowing the case to proceed.

Breach of contractInsurance policiesUniversal life insuranceCost of insurance ratesInterest rate decreaseSubject matter jurisdictionStandingClass Action Fairness Act (CAFA)Motion to dismissMotion for partial summary judgment
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 10,531 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