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. 90-00985-B-11 through 90-00990-B-11 and 90-01984-B-11 through 90-01989-B-11
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1991

In Re Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

This case pertains to the confirmation of the Third Amended Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 for Greyhound Lines, Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors. The hearing was held on August 27 and 28, 1991, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Richard S. Schmidt in the Southern District of Texas. Numerous creditors and interested parties appeared, and several objections to the plan were filed. The Court, after reviewing evidence and arguments, overruled the remaining objections and found that the plan satisfied all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The plan outlines the restructuring of debtor operations, treatment of various claims, and the liquidation or reorganization of subsidiaries. The Court ultimately confirmed the plan, emphasizing its feasibility and good faith in seeking to maximize returns for creditors and ensure the continuation of essential public services, with a specific exception for Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

Chapter 11 ReorganizationBankruptcy ConfirmationDebtors-in-PossessionCreditor ObjectionsPlan FeasibilityGood Faith PlanSecured Claims TreatmentUnsecured Claims TreatmentPriority Tax ClaimsNLRB Claim Estimation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Fairpoint Communications, Inc.

Verizon Communications, Inc. appealed a bankruptcy court's confirmation order that included an injunction preventing Verizon from pursuing non-derivative claims against third parties, which could adversely affect FairPoint's bankruptcy estate. FairPoint, which acquired landline operations from Verizon, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to substantial debt. The reorganization plan featured a 'Verizon Injunction' designed to protect FairPoint's assets from claims where FairPoint might be liable for indemnification or contribution. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to issue this injunction, holding that such contingent indemnification obligations directly impact the bankruptcy estate. The court also deemed Verizon's alternative argument, concerning the absence of 'unique circumstances,' as equitably moot, citing the substantial consummation of the reorganization plan and Verizon's failure to seek a stay of the confirmation order.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationInjunctionsSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable MootnessThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAppellate ReviewDistrict Court Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co.

The Trustee sought to confirm a plan of reorganization under Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, facing objections from the Debtor and general unsecured creditors. The plan relied on votes from two impaired classes: a post-petition secured lender and a trade union (IBEW). The court ruled that the post-petition secured lender was not entitled to vote as their claim did not fall under Section 502 of the Code. However, the court found that the separate classification of the IBEW's general unsecured claim, with a higher payout, was permissible and not unfairly discriminatory. This separate classification was deemed reasonable and necessary for the Debtor (Kliegl) to maintain its union shop status, which was critical for its industry operations. Consequently, the IBEW's vote in favor was valid, allowing the plan to be confirmed via cram-down despite other objections.

Bankruptcy LawReorganization PlanCramdown ConfirmationCreditor ClassificationImpaired ClaimsUnfair Discrimination TestLabor Union ClaimsPost-Petition ClaimsSecured CreditorsUnsecured Creditors
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1988

In Re Bludworth Bond Shipyard, Inc.

The case concerns the confirmation of a Debtor-in-Possession’s Plan of Reorganization following a hearing on May 23, 1988. The Debtor, a shipyard facility, faced financial difficulties after its worker’s compensation insurer, Northwest Insurance Company, failed. Despite paying approximately $150,000 on claims, the Debtor secured a $300,000 settlement from a state court suit against the underwriting company. At the confirmation hearing, six worker’s compensation claimants, through counsel, orally objected, asserting a failure of equity regarding the insurance settlement proceeds. However, no timely or formal objections were filed. The court ultimately confirmed the Plan, finding it compliant with Title 11, proposed in good faith, and fair and equitable, noting that untimely objections were waived. The court also clarified that the LHWCA, specifically 33 U.S.C. § 936, preserves longshoremen's claims despite employer bankruptcy, offering an alternative remedy.

BankruptcyReorganization PlanWorker's CompensationLHWCALongshoremen ClaimsInsurance FailureWaiver of ObjectionStatutory ConstructionDebtor-in-PossessionSettlement Proceeds
References
9
Case No. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Third Avenue Transit Corp.

The Trustee in a Chapter X bankruptcy proceeding petitioned the court to reject a pension plan adopted by the debtors in 1946. This rejection would specifically exclude The Westchester Electric Railroad Company and Westchester Street Transportation Company, Inc. The petition was opposed by labor unions, a pensioner, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, primarily arguing that the court's reserved jurisdiction was ineffective for the requested relief. Despite previous court orders authorizing pension payments and reserving the right to reject the plan, and the changed circumstances of the reorganized companies (some no longer in operation), the court denied the petition. The judge concluded that the law does not sanction using reserved power in this situation, as it would unduly extend the court's tutelage over the reorganized debtors.

BankruptcyPension PlanRejection of ContractReserved JurisdictionCorporate ReorganizationLabor UnionsTrusteeSecured CreditorsUnsecured CreditorsFederal Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Varde Investment Partners, L.P. v. Comair, Inc. (In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.)

This case involves speculative investors, the plaintiffs, seeking to revoke the Comair debtors' Chapter 11 Joint Plan of Reorganization, confirmed on April 25, 2007. They allege fraud in the plan's procurement, specifically that the debtors failed to update claims estimates in their Disclosure Statement, leading to an overestimation of creditor recovery. The reorganized debtors/defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding it impossible to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1144(1) by protecting good-faith reliant entities given the plan's substantial consummation. Additionally, the court cited the doctrine of equitable mootness, emphasizing the impracticality of undoing the complex transactions that have occurred since confirmation.

BankruptcyPlan of ReorganizationFraudMotion to DismissDisclosure StatementClaims EstimatesEquitable MootnessConfirmation OrderCreditor VotingAdversary Proceeding
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Food & Commercial Workers v. Appletree Markets, Inc. (In Re Appletree Markets, Inc.)

The court considered an appeal from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) challenging a bankruptcy court's order that rejected their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with AppleTree Markets, Inc., the debtor. AppleTree sought to dismiss the appeal as moot due to the substantial consummation of its Chapter 11 reorganization plan and the subsequent expiration of the CBAs, also arguing res judicata. The District Court denied AppleTree's motion to dismiss, finding that effective appellate relief remained possible and that res judicata did not apply given the UFCW's timely appeal. On the merits, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rejection of the CBAs, concluding that the debtor's proposed modifications were necessary for a successful reorganization and were fair and equitable to all affected parties.

Bankruptcy LawCollective BargainingLabor RelationsChapter 11 ReorganizationContract RejectionAppellate ProcedureMootness DoctrineRes JudicataDebtor-in-PossessionUnion Rights
References
15
Case No. 06-10489(ALG)
Regular Panel Decision

Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In Re Oneida Ltd.)

Oneida Ltd., a Chapter 11 debtor, sought a declaratory judgment to confirm that Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) Premiums, owed to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) due to pension plan termination, were prepetition "claims" discharged by its reorganization plan. The PBGC contended these premiums were not "claims" or that Oneida was judicially estopped from seeking discharge. The Court determined that the DRA Premiums constituted prepetition "contingent claims" under the Bankruptcy Code because the underlying statutory obligation existed and was contemplated before the bankruptcy filing. It also rejected the PBGC's estoppel argument, citing no inconsistent positions taken by Oneida and mutual reservation of rights regarding the premiums. Consequently, the Court found the DRA Premiums were discharged by Oneida's Plan of Reorganization.

BankruptcyChapter 11Pension PlansERISADeficit Reduction Act of 2005DRA PremiumsContingent ClaimsDischarge in BankruptcyJudicial EstoppelPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texas Sheet Metals, Inc.

Texas Sheet Metals, a debtor in bankruptcy, applied to reject its collective bargaining agreements with the Carpenters District Council of Houston and Vicinity, Millwright Local Union No. 2232, and Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 54. The court, presided over by Judge Manuel D. Leal, thoroughly examined nine elements under 11 U.S.C. Section 1113. It found that the debtor's proposal to reduce labor costs was absolutely necessary for reorganization, fair and equitable to all affected parties, and that the unions had refused to accept the proposal without good cause. The court concluded that the balance of equities clearly favored the rejection of the agreements to prevent liquidation and enable the debtor's successful reorganization. The rejection was made effective as of the date of the court's order.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining Agreement RejectionChapter 11 ReorganizationLabor NegotiationsDebtor's ProposalFinancial NecessityEquitable TreatmentUnion RefusalBalance of EquitiesCore Proceeding
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 93 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