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

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an action on February 6, 1992, against Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., Oxford Consolidated Corporation, and several individuals for alleged fraudulent offer and sale of unregistered debt securities. The court issued an order for a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and accountings. Defendants consented to permanent injunctions but failed to provide complete accountings. The Commission moved to hold defendants in civil contempt. The court found defendants in contempt, ruling that Fifth Amendment privilege was waived by individuals who consented to the judgments and does not apply to corporate entities or their officers acting in a representative capacity. Sanctions are deferred for 45 days, allowing defendants to comply with the order.

Securities fraudCivil contemptFifth Amendment privilegeCorporate recordsAsset freezeAccountingInjunctionCorporate officersWaiver of privilegeFederal securities laws
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. 01-07-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2009

Sembera Security Systems, Inc. A/K/A Sembera Security, Inc. v. El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc., and Texas Mutual Insurance Company, F/N/A Texas Workers' Compensation Fund and Texas Workers' Compensation Fund, Texas Workers' Compensation Fund

The case involves a dispute between Sembera Security Systems Inc. (Sembera) and Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMI) regarding the cancellation of Sembera’s workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Sembera sued TMI for breach of contract, alleging that TMI improperly cancelled its policy for non-payment of an "additional premium" during the policy term, leading to the termination of an agreement with En-Touch Systems, Inc. and causing Sembera lost profits. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the trial court initially ruling in favor of Sembera. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that TMI's cancellation of the policy was justified due to Sembera's failure to repay a $490 portion of the estimated initial premium after the policy's retroactive reinstatement. The appellate court held that TMI had the contractual right to cancel for non-payment of premium.

Breach of ContractWorkers' Compensation InsuranceSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy CancellationNon-payment of PremiumContract InterpretationLost Profits DamagesAppellate ReviewRetroactive ReinstatementInsurance Agent Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Lit.

This case is a putative class action brought by purchasers of Enron Corporation's publicly traded equity and debt securities, including the Regents of the University of California and the Washington State Investment Board. The plaintiffs allege widespread securities violations against Enron and numerous 'secondary actors,' such as accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks. The core accusation centers on an 'enormous Ponzi scheme' designed to artificially inflate Enron's revenues, conceal massive debts, and maintain its stock price and credit rating through fraudulent, non-arm’s-length transactions with Enron-controlled entities and improper accounting practices. The secondary actors are implicated for their alleged knowing participation in this scheme, driven by financial gain through lucrative fees and investment opportunities. The court ruled on motions to dismiss filed by these secondary actors, denying most motions but granting some in full or in part, allowing the case to proceed against many key defendants.

Securities FraudClass ActionPonzi SchemeEnron ScandalCorporate FraudAccounting FraudInvestment Banking MisconductLaw Firm LiabilityAuditor MalpracticeOff-Balance Sheet Entities
References
148
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security National Insurance Co. v. Farmer

Roger Farmer sustained two on-the-job low back injuries in January 1995 and April 1998. Security National Insurance Company was the carrier for the first injury, and Hartford Fire Insurance Company for the second. Disputes arose regarding the compensability of Farmer's L4-5 and L5-S1 disc herniations after April 1998, and which carrier was liable. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission appeals panel affirmed the hearing officer's decision against Security National, finding the January 1995 injury was a producing cause. Security National appealed to the trial court, which applied a substantial evidence rule, limited discovery, and affirmed the appeals panel's decision. On appeal, the higher court determined the trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard of review, ruling that a modified de novo standard should have been used. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with a modified de novo review.

Standard of ReviewModified De Novo ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensability DisputeEligibility for BenefitsDisc Herniation InjurySpinal Injury ClaimInsurance Carrier DisputeAdministrative Law AppealStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Blech Securities Litigation

This opinion addresses a motion for class certification in consolidated actions alleging securities and common law fraud. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class against various defendants, including Bear Stearns & Co. and Baird Patrick & Co., for a scheme to manipulate the prices of 'Blech Securities' between October 1991 and September 1994. The court reviewed the class action requirements under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Finding that these requirements were satisfied, the court granted the motion for class certification, with the creation of three subclasses to manage the litigation efficiently.

Securities FraudClass ActionMarket ManipulationBroker-DealerInvestment BankingBiotechnology StocksRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureFraud and DeceitConsolidated Actions
References
52
Case No. M1998-00023-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2001

Robert Cunningham, Jr.,e t al v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the estate of employee Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., who died of heart failure while on duty as a security guard. The claim for death benefits against the employer, Shelton Security Service, Inc., was initially dismissed by the trial court, which found the emotional stress experienced was not extraordinary for a security guard. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this dismissal, deeming there was sufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review and agreed with the Panel, concluding that the threat to kill the employee during a confrontation constituted a mental or emotional stimulus of an unusual and abnormal nature, making his death compensable. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackEmotional StressSecurity GuardCausationUnusual Employment StressDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemandTrial Court Error
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,301 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