Birrell v. Great Lakes Utilities Corp.

Third Circuit

Birrell v. Great Lakes Utilities Corp.

96 F.2d 767, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1938

DocketNos. 6560, 6561

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 F.2d 767 (Birrell v. Great Lakes Utilities Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Birrell v. Great Lakes Utilities Corp., 96 F.2d 767, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3561 (3d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

Assuming for present purposes the power of a court sitting in 77B reorganization proceedings, (Bankr.Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207) to allow compensation to those who, apart from their own duty, have really and substantially aided such court in effectuating such plan, we are of opinion the court below, which was thoroughly conversant with all. proceedings, committed no reversible error in its declining to grant payments to the appellants. In that regard its conclusions were thus stated:

“The petition of the committee for holders of Great Lakes Utilities' Corporation First Lien Collateral Trust Gold 5%% bonds, and the petition of Lowell M. Birrell and Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., attorneys for said committee, must be denied. This committee and its attorneys served the interest of the bondholders only and they should be compensated by them. Repeatedly throughout the testimony it was stated that the committee and its attorneys were interested only in the bondholders of the debtor. Their efforts were not in the interest of all security holders who must be served by a plan of reorganization. They opposed all plans that did not accord bondholders greater security.”

After full consideration had, we are of opinion that the appeals of the appellants should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

Assuming for present purposes the power of a court sitting in 77B reorganization proceedings, (Bankr.Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207) to allow compensation to those who, apart from their own duty, have really and substantially aided such court in effectuating such plan, we are of opinion the court below, which was thoroughly conversant with all. proceedings, committed no reversible error in its declining to grant payments to the appellants. In that regard its conclusions were thus stated:

“The petition of the committee for holders of Great Lakes Utilities' Corporation First Lien Collateral Trust Gold 5%% bonds, and the petition of Lowell M. Birrell and Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., attorneys for said committee, must be denied. This committee and its attorneys served the interest of the bondholders only and they should be compensated by them. Repeatedly throughout the testimony it was stated that the committee and its attorneys were interested only in the bondholders of the debtor. Their efforts were not in the interest of all security holders who must be served by a plan of reorganization. They opposed all plans that did not accord bondholders greater security.”

After full consideration had, we are of opinion that the appeals of the appellants should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F.2d 767, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birrell-v-great-lakes-utilities-corp-ca3-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack