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

Chau v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission

This case involves Wing F. Chau and Harding Advisory LLC (plaintiffs) seeking to enjoin an administrative proceeding initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Plaintiffs argue that the SEC's choice of an administrative forum, instead of a federal district court, violates their due process and equal protection rights. The court, applying the Thunder Basin and Free Enterprise Fund factors, concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to interrupt the ongoing agency adjudication. The court found that SEC adjudication would not foreclose meaningful judicial review, the claims were not wholly collateral to the SEC proceeding, and the SEC was competent to consider the fairness of its proceedings and related constitutional claims in the first instance. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the SEC's motion to dismiss the action.

Securities RegulationAdministrative LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissSEC EnforcementCollateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)Investment Advisors Act
References
55
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
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

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Toomey

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Robert Toomey, a former Vice President of A&P, for insider trading violations. Toomey allegedly provided nonpublic information regarding Shopwell, Inc. and Waldbaum, Inc. stock transactions to William Merrigan, enabling Merrigan to avoid losses and realize profits. The SEC moved to strike eight of Toomey's eleven affirmative defenses. The court denied the motion to strike Toomey's first affirmative defense (failure to state a claim) and fourth affirmative defense (failure to plead fraud with particularity). However, the court granted the SEC's motion to strike Toomey's second (statute of limitations), third (laches), fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth (redundancy) affirmative defenses.

Insider TradingAffirmative DefensesMotion to StrikeSecurities Exchange ActRule 12(f) FRCPStatute of LimitationsLachesFraud PleadingPublic Rights DoctrineRule 9(b) FRCP
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Neto

Non-party Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan moved for reconsideration of a previous order mandating the transfer of funds from Defendant Waldyr Silva Prado Neto's 401(k) account to the Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Plan argued that transferring these funds would violate ERISA's anti-alienation provision and jeopardize its tax-qualified status. The Court denied the Plan's motion for reconsideration, determining that the funds were no longer Plan assets after a distribution check was issued to Prado, regardless of whether it was cashed. Additionally, the Court denied the Plan's alternative motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), citing the Plan's lack of standing as a non-party. As a result, the Court affirmed the transfer of $130,292.53 from Prado's 401(k) plan to the SEC to satisfy the final judgment.

ERISA401(k) PlanAnti-Alienation ProvisionAsset FreezeMotion for ReconsiderationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)StandingSecurities and Exchange CommissionInsider TradingPension Benefits
References
36
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, and Rolland Niles, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. 03-94-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, the Subsequent Injury Fund, and Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. the City of Bridge City, Texas, and the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and other appellants appealed a trial court's declaratory judgment and permanent injunction that found parts of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act unconstitutional. The trial court's decision was based on alleged violations of the Texas Constitution, particularly regarding the requirement of immediate payment of benefits during an appeal without reimbursement. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, dissolved the injunction, and rendered a declaratory judgment affirming the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. The court reasoned that municipal corporations are not protected by certain constitutional provisions and that the 'suitability' of laws is a political question. It concluded that the payment scheme was rationally related to the state's interest in securing prompt payments to injured workers.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation ActConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionDue ProcessMunicipal CorporationsGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationLegislative Power
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,434 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