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. No. 75 B 1735
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1976

In Re WT Grant Co.

This case from the U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, addresses three appeals related to the bankruptcy estate of W. T. Grant Company. Paul S. Berger, Trustee, and other plaintiffs-appellants challenged a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing their amended complaint. They also appealed the denial of their motions for a nunc pro tunc extension to file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration of that denial. District Judge Irving Ben Cooper granted the defendant trustee Charles G. Rodman's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' initial appeal, ruling it was untimely filed 18 days after the Bankruptcy Court's order, exceeding the 10-day limit with a 30-day absolute maximum. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent denials of the extension and reconsideration motions, emphasizing the strict interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules 801, 802, and 803 to ensure the expeditious and final administration of bankrupt estates.

Bankruptcy AppealTimelinessNotice of AppealExcusable NeglectJurisdictional DefectBankruptcy Rules 801Bankruptcy Rules 802Bankruptcy Rules 803Finality of OrdersTrustee in Bankruptcy
References
10
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochs v. Nemes (In Re Nemes)

The Trustee, Martin P. Ochs, initiated an adversary proceeding against the Debtor, Menachem M. Nemes, seeking to deny his Chapter 7 discharge under various sections of the Bankruptcy Code, primarily 727(a)(3) for failure to keep adequate records and 727(a)(5) for failure to explain asset deficiency. The Trustee filed a motion for summary judgment on these two causes of action. The Debtor argued his failure to maintain records was justified due to his limited education, low income, and lack of intent to declare bankruptcy, as well as living in a small apartment. The Court found the Debtor's justifications unpersuasive, noting his consistent employment, rabbinical degree, and operation of a counseling business, which countered the claim of unsophistication. The Court determined that the Debtor's incomplete credit card records, accounting for over two-thirds of his substantial unsecured debt, prevented the Trustee from ascertaining his financial condition. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee's motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, denying the Debtor's discharge under Section 727(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge DenialSummary JudgmentFinancial RecordsDebtor's DutyRecord KeepingJustificationUnsecured DebtTrustee's Motion
References
30
Case No. 16 Civ. 5813
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.)

This appeal was brought by RMBS Trustees against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) challenging a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order from June 27, 2016. The order disallowed and expunged certain proofs of claim filed by the RMBS Trustees against LBHI. The RMBS Trustees argued that the order was based on a claims resolution protocol that did not apply to some of their claims and that it preserved their right to prove certain claims through statistical sampling. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order, concluding that the RMBS Trustees had effectively abandoned their 'Transferor Loan' claims by not submitting them under the established Protocol. Additionally, the court found that the RMBS Trustees' attempt to reserve 11,000 'Covered Loan' claims for statistical sampling, without first submitting the required documentation under the Protocol, was not permissible. The court emphasized that the RMBS Trustees had multiple opportunities to clarify the Protocol's scope or pursue their claims but failed to do so, thus upholding the expungement.

Bankruptcy ClaimsRMBS LitigationStatistical SamplingClaims ProtocolLoan Repurchase AgreementsExpungement OrderDue Process RightsAppellate ReviewSecuritized MortgagesCreditor Claims
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereira v. Young (In Re Young)

This memorandum decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses an adversary proceeding where John S. Pereira, the Chapter 7 trustee, sought to deny the debtor, Ginger Young, a discharge in bankruptcy. The Trustee raised objections under three sections of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging the debtor failed to keep adequate records, knowingly withheld information, and could not satisfactorily explain the loss of assets totaling approximately $140,000 from a property sale and IRA/pension withdrawals. Judge Elizabeth S. Stong considered the debtor's defense of being a victim of severe domestic and financial abuse, supported by expert testimony from Laura Boyd, MSW. The court found the debtor's explanation credible and justified her inability to produce complete financial records and account for the asset disposition due to the traumatic circumstances. Consequently, all of the Trustee's objections to the Debtor's discharge were denied.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor DischargeTrustee ObjectionsDomestic AbuseFinancial AbuseRecord KeepingAsset DispositionJustificationCredibility
References
46
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

Board of Trustees v. Parker (In Re Parker)

The Boards of Trustees of three Carpenters Benefit Funds filed an adversary complaint against David Parker, seeking to deny his bankruptcy discharge or declare certain debts nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727, 523(a)(4), and/or (a)(6). The debts stemmed from Parker Deco, Inc.'s (where Parker was President) failure to make contributions and remit union dues to the Benefit Funds per a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). A prior District Court judgment had been obtained against Parker Deco. During the trial, the Benefit Funds withdrew their § 523(a)(6) and § 727 claims, proceeding solely on § 523(a)(4). The court found that unpaid employer contributions did not constitute 'plan assets' under ERISA without explicit CBA language, thus Parker was not a fiduciary for those. For employee withholdings, the court found no larceny or embezzlement due to lack of fraudulent intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, finding the Benefit Funds failed to meet their burden of proof, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy DischargeabilityERISA Fiduciary DutyDefalcationEmbezzlementUnpaid Employer ContributionsUnion Dues WithholdingsCollective Bargaining AgreementAdversary ProceedingBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(4)Plan Assets
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2012

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

The Trustee (Irving H. Picard) for the Madoff liquidation seeks to recover $42 million from the Taiwanese Bureau of Labor Insurance (BLI), a subsequent transferee of funds originating from BLMIS. BLI moved to dismiss the Trustee’s complaint on four grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), lack of personal jurisdiction, inability to recover as a subsequent transferee without avoiding initial transfers, and that claims are barred by the presumption against extraterritoriality. The Court denied BLI's motion, finding it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over BLI due to BLI's purposeful investment activities in New York-based BLMIS. The Court also ruled that the Trustee can pursue recovery from BLI because the initial transfers are 'avoidable' and the claims are not barred by extraterritoriality, as the statute's focus is on the domestic depletion of the bankruptcy estate.

Bankruptcy LawMadoff Ponzi SchemeForeign Sovereign Immunities ActPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionAvoidance ActionsSubsequent TransfereeExtraterritorialityCommercial Activity ExceptionFraudulent Transfers
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 616 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