Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

MATTER OF NEW YORK, SUSQUEHANNA W. RD. CO

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb 23, 1952

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

DOCKET NO.

No. 10647.

Attorney(S)

Edith A. Merritt, pro se. J. Harlin O'Connell, New York City (McLaughlin Stern, New York City, Leo V. McLaughlin, New York City, on the brief), for Protective Committee for Holders of Debtor's First Mortgage Refunding Bonds. Coleman Burke, New York City (Burke Burke, New York City, McCarter, English Studer and Nicholas Conover English, all of Newark, N.J., on the brief), for Protective Committee for Holders of Debtor's General Mortgage Bonds. Raymond A. Coleman, Jersey City, N.J. (Anderson, Rugge Coleman, Jersey City, N.J., on the brief), for Commercial Trust Co. of New Jersey as Successor Trustee under Debtor's First Refunding Mortgage. Edwards S. Sanford, Newark, N.J. (Harrison Roche Darby, Newark, N.J., on the brief), for National State Bank of Newark, N.J., as Successor Trustee under Debtor's Second Mortgage. Edward F. Clark, Jr., New York City (Carter, Ledyard Milburn, New York City, on the brief), for United States Trust Co. of New York, as Trustee under Debtor's Terminal First Mortgage. R.M.D. Richardson, New York City (Root, Ballantine, Harlan, Bushby Palmer, New York City, on the brief), for New York Life Ins. Co. Ralph E. Lum, Newark, N.J. (Lum, Fairlie Foster, Newark, N.J., on the brief), for Debtor's Trustee. Frank H. Heiss, New York City (Kelley, Drye, Newhall Maginnes, New York City, on the brief), for Hanover Bank, as Trustee under First Mortgage of Midland R. Co. of New Jersey and First Mortgage of Paterson Extension R. Co. Arthur Frank, New York City (Frank Gonnet, New York City, on the brief), for Group of Holders of Bonds of Paterson Extension R. Co. Richard Swan Buell, New York City (McLanahan, Merritt Ingraham, New York City, on the brief), for Bankers Trust Co. as Successor Trustee under First Mortgage of Wilkes-Barre Eastern R. Co. Irving E. Meller, New York City, on the brief, for Sutro Bros. Co.

JUDGES

Harry Ellis Kalodner

William Henry Hastie

Richard Hartshorne

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the Order of the District Court, 103 F. Supp. 981, approving the plan of reorganization in proceedings for the reorganization of the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended.

U.S.C.A. § 205.

The primary issue presented is whether the plan of reorganization is fair and equitable, particularly with respect to the debtor's general mortgage bondholders. It may be noted, parenthetically, that the appellant is the sole objector to the plan of reorganization on this appeal.

The plan is supported by the Protective Committee for Holders of the Debtor's General Mortgage Bonds; the Group of Holders of the Debtor's General Mortgage Bonds; and the New York Trust Company, Successor Trustee under the Debtor's General Mortgage.

The appellant's objections to the reorganization plan were considered by the Interstate Commerce Commission on three occasions and by the District Court and were held in each instance to be without merit.

On October 24, 1951, subsequent to the entry of the Order of the District Court on July 12, 1951, approving the plan of reorganization, the Interstate Commerce Commission submitted the plan to creditors for acceptance or rejection. The Commission on January 4, 1952, certified to the District Court the results of the balloting. Its certificate reveals that the plan was accepted by at least 96 per cent of each class of creditors to which it was submitted. In two of the classes all the creditors voting accepted the plan.

The results of the balloting appear in the following table:

We have given due consideration to the record and the contentions of the appellant, and have arrived at the conclusion that the latter are without substance. We need add nothing to what has been so well stated by Judge Smith in his analysis of the plan of reorganization and his Order approving it.

The Order of the District Court will be affirmed.

Prin. amt. outstanding Principal amount Percent Oct. 24, 1951 Accept Reject Accept Reject Terminal bonds $2,000,000 $1,041,000 — 100.00 — Midland bonds 3,489,000 2,016,500 $75,000 96.41 3.59 First Refunding bonds 3,744,000 2,471,000 88,000 96.56 3.44 Second Mortgage bonds 448,000 26,000 1,000 96.30 3.70 General Mortgage bonds 2,551,000 545,000 3,000 99.45 .55 Paterson Extension bonds 200,000 27,000 — 100.00 — Unsecured claims 2,388,258 604,511 13,508 97.81 2.19