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

Telenor East Invest AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd.

In this securities case, Telenor East Invest AS (Telenor East) sued Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited and other entities (Alfa Group) for alleged insider trading, illegal tender offer, and misleading disclosure statements related to their purchase of shares in VimpelCom. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint or compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling the claims were outside the arbitration agreement's scope. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the Sections 13(e), 10(b), and 14(e) claims due to insufficient pleading, but allowed the Sections 13(d) and 14(d) claims to proceed.

Securities FraudInsider TradingTender OfferDisclosure ViolationsMotion to DismissArbitration AgreementPSLRARule 9(b)Exchange ActVimpelCom
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc.

Lead Plaintiffs Mark Youngers, et al., brought a securities class action against Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., and other defendants. The lawsuit alleged misrepresentations concerning the performance history of the AlphaSector investment strategy, specifically that pre-2008 results were based on back-tested, hypothetical data rather than live trading, leading to inflated mutual fund valuations and fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied in part, dismissing Section 10(b) claims against W. Patrick Bradley and the Independent Trustees, Section 20(a) claims against multiple defendants, and Section 12(a)(2) claims against Virtus Partners and George R. Aylward. Additionally, all Section 11, Section 15, and derivative claims were dismissed in their entirety.

Securities fraudClass actionMutual fundsInvestment strategyAlphaSectorBack-tested resultsMisrepresentationOmissionLoss causationScienter
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jordan (Bermuda) Investment Co. v. Hunter Green Investments Ltd.

Plaintiff Jordan (Bermuda) Investment Company, Ltd. (JBIC) brought an action against numerous defendants, including law firm Rosenman & Colin LLP and Investment Management Services, Inc., alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state law claims. JBIC claimed the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud it of $5 million by inducing an investment in non-existent Class J shares of Beacon, subsequently making unauthorized use of these funds, and failing to provide full compensation upon liquidation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss for the RICO counts, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity' due to a lack of both closed-ended and open-ended continuity. With the federal RICO claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice, granting the plaintiff leave to replead.

RICOMotion to DismissFraudMail FraudWire FraudRacketeeringPattern of Racketeering ActivityContinuityClosed-Ended ContinuityOpen-Ended Continuity
References
53
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00383
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2020

U-Trend N.Y. Inv. L.P. v. US Suite LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a judgment awarding mortgage damages to U-Trend New York Investment L.P. against US Suite LLC and Aura Investments Ltd. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's judgment by reducing the principal amount of mortgage damages awarded to U-Trend, stating that interest should be calculated at 13.5% instead of 20%. The court affirmed the judgment in other respects, including the limitation of Aura's liability for looting damages and the denial of sale damages and attorneys' fees. An appeal from a separate order denying Aura's motion to correct or vacate the judgment was dismissed as academic. The court addressed various arguments from Aura regarding liability, causation, and damages calculations, ultimately upholding liability for breach of contract but adjusting the damages amount based on the proper interest rate.

Mortgage DamagesBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyLooting DamagesInterest Rate CalculationAppellate ReviewBusiness Judgment RuleJudicial AdmissionsDerivative ClaimsAttorneys' Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2002

O'Connor v. Spencer (1997) Investment Ltd. Partnership

Patrick O'Connor was injured after falling from a six-feet-tall Baker scaffold while performing demolition work for GTI Harbor & Trucking & Rigging, Inc., on premises owned by Spencer (1997) Investment Ltd. Partnership and its general partner, Spencer Realty, Inc. O'Connor and his wife subsequently commenced an action against the appellants, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation exclusivity and non-liability under the Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court denied their motion in its entirety. On appeal, the order was modified: claims based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 were dismissed, while the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims was affirmed.

Scaffold AccidentDemolition InjuriesWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Division DecisionPremises LiabilitySafety RegulationsGravity-Related Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agway, Inc. Employees' 401(K) Thrift Investment Plan v. Magnuson

This case involves an action brought by Agway, Inc. Employees’ 401(k) Thrift Investment Plan and State Street Bank & Trust Company under ERISA, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by various parties concerning the Agway pension plan. Defendant Mellon Trust of New England, N.A., a former fiduciary, sought court approval for a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which included a bar order preventing non-settling defendants from asserting indemnity or contribution claims against Mellon Trust. The non-settling defendants, including the Committee Defendants, Director Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, opposed the bar order, arguing it was overbroad. Magistrate Judge Peebles found the proposed bar order overreaches as it purports to restrict contribution and indemnity claims in actions brought by parties other than the plaintiffs, such as the Department of Labor. Consequently, the court denied Mellon Trust's application for settlement approval without prejudice, conditioning approval on either restricting the bar order's scope to the current action or securing the Secretary of Labor's agreement to the judgment credit reduction in any future action.

ERISAFiduciary Duty BreachPension PlanSettlement AgreementBar OrderContribution ClaimsIndemnity ClaimsPartial JudgmentNon-Settling DefendantsProportionate Fault
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobson Family Investments, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance

Jacobson Family Investments (JFI) and other plaintiffs invested with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) and purchased fidelity bonds from National Union and other excess insurers. After Madoff's fraud was exposed, JFI submitted a claim for losses including fictitious gains, which National Union denied, asserting coverage was limited to actual losses. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the insurers, limiting coverage to 'actual losses' and dismissing JFI's claim for breach of good faith, but found against aggregating claims and applying a single deductible for all net losers. On appeal, the court affirmed that the term 'loss' in the fidelity bond does not encompass fictitious Madoff gains, stating that one cannot lose money that never existed. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the breach of good faith claim but modified the lower court's decision, holding that the $3 million single loss deductible applies to each individual 'net loser' plaintiff's recovery, rather than being applied only once for all.

Fidelity BondInsurance CoverageMadoff FraudPonzi SchemeActual LossFictitious GainsSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityDeductible Application
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Petersen Investments

Plaintiff Earle C. Roberts sued Petersen Investments and Peter Alcure for alleged violations of federal securities acts and New York General Business Law, along with claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. A parallel arbitration proceeding related to these matters was pending before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the court proceedings, citing arbitration clauses in agreements signed by Roberts. Roberts challenged the validity of some of these agreements, alleging forgery or lack of awareness regarding the arbitration clauses. The Court, affirming a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, granted the defendants' motion, compelling arbitration and staying all further court proceedings in this action.

Securities LitigationArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsFraud in InducementFiduciary DutyFINRA ArbitrationContract LawNew York Business Law
References
18
Case No. ADJ7233959 ADJ7233792
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

SALVADOR LANDIN vs. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT, CHARTIS SAN DIEGO

This case involves an attorney's petition for reconsideration after an administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered them to pay defendant costs and a $\$500$ sanction. The applicant's attorney argued they did not have adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the sanctions. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's orders, and returned the matter for further proceedings because the orders were issued without proper notice and opportunity to present a defense, violating due process. The Board emphasized that sanctions require proper procedure, including a notice of intent and a hearing.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSALVADOR LANDINSTAFFMARK INVESTMENTCHARTIS SAN DIEGOPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWCJSANCTIONCOSTSLABOR CODE §5813DUE PROCESS
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 185 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