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

Marsh v. Prudential Securities Inc.

This case addresses whether Prudential Securities Incorporated's MasterShare Plan, an optional investment benefit for its financial advisors, violates New York Labor Law § 193. The plan involves voluntary wage deductions for investment in a public stock index fund, offering tax deferral and discounted share purchases, but includes provisions for temporary non-transferability and forfeiture upon termination for cause or resignation within three years. A former employee, whose MasterShare account was forfeited after his termination, initiated a class action, arguing the plan's deductions and forfeiture terms violate the 'benefit of the employee' requirement of Labor Law § 193. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals determined that the plan does not violate Labor Law § 193, concluding that such investment deductions are 'similar payments for the benefit of the employee' and that, given full disclosure and the sophisticated nature of the participating employees, the forfeiture provision does not negate the overall benefits of the plan when assessed in its entirety.

Wage deductionsInvestment planMasterShare PlanLabor Law § 193Forfeiture provisionStock index fundTax deferralEmployee benefitsCertified questionPrudential Securities
References
7
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

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. 02 Civ. 910
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiffs, a group of retirement systems and a union, filed a class action lawsuit alleging securities fraud against Alstom S.A., its subsidiaries Alstom Transportation Inc. (ATI), Alstom USA, and executives Stephan Rambaud-Measson and Joseph Janovec. The claims involve violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from ATI's alleged understatement of costs on railcar contracts, particularly for New Jersey Transit. These accounting improprieties purportedly led to an overstatement of Alstom's income in public financial reports. The District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter against Alstom, active participation and scienter against Rambaud-Measson and Janovec, and a plausible veil-piercing theory for Alstom USA's liability. The decision allows the case to proceed, underscoring that the plaintiffs' detailed new allegations, including executive knowledge of cost overruns, met the heightened pleading standards for fraud and control liability.

Securities fraudClass actionAlstomFinancial misstatementsExchange ActSection 10(b) violationSection 20(a) violationMotion to dismissScienterCorporate veil-piercing
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banzhaf v. ADT Security Systems Southwest, Inc.

Angie King and Frederick Banzhaf (represented by his parents) sued ADT Security Systems Southwest, Inc. after King was severely injured and Banzhaf was killed during a robbery at their workplace, Herman’s Sporting Goods, Inc. The robbery was committed by another Herman's employee and an accomplice. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, design defect, and DTPA violations against ADT, which had provided the security system for Herman's. ADT then filed a third-party claim against Herman's for indemnification based on their contracts. The trial court granted summary judgment to ADT against the plaintiffs and also granted ADT judgment against Herman's. The appellate court partially reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding the Banzhafs' DTPA claim due to a procedural issue, but affirmed the remainder of the judgment against the plaintiffs and ADT's judgment for indemnification against Herman's.

NegligenceDesign DefectDTPAIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySecurity SystemContract LawExpress Negligence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mark v. Security Insurance Co. of Hartford

Mark and Monica Bennett appealed a jury's verdict in favor of Security Insurance Company of Hartford (SIC). The Bennetts alleged SIC violated the Texas Insurance Code and breached its common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing by delaying the approval of Mark's spinal surgery after a work-related injury in March 1996. Following a trial, the jury found in favor of SIC. On appeal, the Bennetts contended the trial judge erred in the jury charge instructions. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, finding the instructions fairly encompassed the pleadings and evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for SIC.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Bad FaithJury InstructionsAbuse of DiscretionMedical Treatment DelaySpinal SurgeryTexas Insurance CodeDuty of Good FaithFair DealingAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation

This consolidated action involves shareholder plaintiffs alleging violations of securities acts and common law fraud against Peat Marwick Main & Co. for deficiencies in audits and misleading statements related to Crazy Eddie, Inc. Peat Marwick, in turn, filed third-party claims for indemnification and contribution against Oppenheimer-Palmieri Fund, L.P., and others, asserting they failed to correct misrepresentations and negligently understated Crazy Eddie's value. District Judge Nickerson dismissed Peat Marwick's federal claims for indemnification and contribution with prejudice, ruling that indemnification is not available for knowing securities violations and contribution is unwarranted as the third-party defendants were not joint tortfeasors. The court declined ancillary jurisdiction over the state law claims for destruction of evidence, dismissing them without prejudice.

Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Common Law FraudNegligent MisrepresentationIndemnification ClaimsContribution ClaimsThird-Party LitigationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 14(a)Ancillary JurisdictionDismissal With Prejudice
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc.

This is a consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden, and David M. Martin. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, specifically sections 10(b) and 20(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5. The core allegations involve Life Partners' fraudulent business model, which relied on systematically underestimated life expectancies for insurance policies, and improper revenue recognition practices violating GAAP. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of scienter. The Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded material misstatements, omissions, and a strong inference of scienter, citing internal reports, auditor manipulation, and suspicious insider trading activities by defendant Pardo.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissScienterInsider TradingLife Insurance PoliciesFinancial MisrepresentationGAAP ViolationsSEC RegulationsPSLRA
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tavella

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) moved for default judgment against eight defendants involved in a penny-stock scheme related to Biozoom. The defendants, including Magdalena Tavella and others, were accused of making false representations to broker-dealers and illegally selling unregistered shares. The court found the defendants liable for violating Section 5 of the 1933 Act. A permanent injunction was issued, and disgorgement of illegal proceeds was ordered. However, the final entry of judgment was deferred to allow the SEC to provide further information on prejudgment interest. Civil penalties of $160,000 were imposed on each defendant, lower than the maximum sought by the SEC.

Securities FraudDefault JudgmentPenny Stock SchemeUnregistered SecuritiesSection 5 ViolationAsset FreezeDisgorgementPrejudgment InterestCivil PenaltiesMarket Manipulation
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 9,038 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