Chase National Bank v. Clark Henry Corp.

156 Misc. 767, 283 N.Y.S. 20, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1514
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 1, 1935
StatusPublished

This text of 156 Misc. 767 (Chase National Bank v. Clark Henry Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chase National Bank v. Clark Henry Corp., 156 Misc. 767, 283 N.Y.S. 20, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1514 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1935).

Opinion

Lockwood, J.

The St. George Hotel property which occupies the square block bounded by Clark, Hicks, Pineapple and Henry streets, on Brooklyn Heights, on November 1, 1928, became subject to a first mortgage Series A, five and three-quarters per cent bond issue in the sum of $8,000,000. Interest on these bonds, which had been sold to the general public, was paid regularly until May 1, 1933, when there was a default. At that time the amount of this mortgage bond issue outstanding was, and still is, $7,990,000.

An assignment of rents to the Chase National Bank, the corporate trustee, was executed and delivered May 16, 1933, and on May 24, 1933, the said trustee instituted foreclosure proceedings.

Shortly thereafter the so-called Schlosser bondholders’ committee was formed, and in November of the same year the Buckingham bondholders’ committee was organized.

' The parties were brought before this court in March, 1934, when the motions of the Schlosser committee for leave to intervene in the foreclosure action and for the court to assume jurisdiction over plans of reorganization of the Hotel St. George property were granted.

During the spring, summer and fall of 1934 and during 1935 many hearings and conferences were held by the court, with members of the bondholders’ committees, counsel for- the committees and attorneys representing groups of bondholders who had not deposited with either committee.

The Supreme Court in New York county in November, 1934, ordered actions there brought for accountings against the trustees consolidated with the proceedings then pending in Kings county, where the property was located. Hearings were afterwards held in these accounting actions, and they were here decided.

A plan of reorganization approved by all the conferees was finally agreed upon, the necessary documents and statements prepared and submitted to and considered by the Federal Securities Commission at Washington, D. C., and subsequently forwarded to the bondholders, with the result that of the outstanding $7,990,000 in bonds, $7,158,700 were deposited with the Schlosser committee [769]*769and $510,600 were deposited with the Buckingham committee, a total of $7,669,300, or about ninety-six per cent of the bonds outstanding.

A brief analysis of plan follows: (a) Due date of mortgage bonds extended for fifteen years, (b) Bondholders retain first mortgage security for the full amount of their bonds, (c) The new bonds bear fixed interest at the rate of four per cent per annum payable semi-annually, (d) A guaranty fund of approximately $174,000 in cash is being deposited with the trustee, to be used to pay bond interest in case the current earnings fall below interest charges. (e) After payment of operating expenses, taxes and interest, if there be surplus earnings available, such earnings up to approximately $174,000 per year to be used to retire and pay off bonds. (f) $350,000 in cash is being provided by the new ownership group for which they receive stock of the new company, unsecured four per cent income debentures, all of which come after and are subordinate to the new first mortgage bonds, (g) Assenting bondholders, in addition to receiving dollar for dollar in fixed interest bonds, will be paid in full for all past due interest on their old bonds at the rate of four per cent per annum; partly in cash and the balance in additional first mortgage bonds at the rate of one dollar and fifty cents for each one dollar unpaid interest, (h) Fifty thousand dollars is being provided in cash for the hotel, to be used as working capital, (i) In addition to the usual repairs, $150,000 is being expended in modernization and improvements.

Pursuant to court order, the property was advertised for sale under foreclosure proceedings and was sold September 5, 1935, and bid in by the Schlosser committee on behalf of the assenting bondholders, for the upset price fixed by the court, $2,500,000.

In May, 1935, the trustee filed a petition with this court, setting forth in detail the physical condition of the hotel property, showing that some of the buildings in the eight units comprising the property were erected as long ago as 1884, and pointing out that in order for the property to maintain its prestige and continue economical and profitable operation, it was necessary to make substantial repairs and modern improvements to the lobby and other portions of several of the units, in all at a cost of upwards of $200,000, and that in due course such improvements should be made during the summer months — the slack period of hotel operations.

After investigation and examination by the court and by experts appointed by it, who have during the last previous eighteen months made several detailed surveys of the property and of its earnings and operations, the court with the consent of all who have appeared in the proceeding, except the corporate and individual trustees, [770]*770who neither consented nor objected, authorized the expenditure of $150,000 for modernization and improvements, which work is under contract and under way.

There is now before this court for decision a motion lor the fixation and approval of the expenses and fees of the reorganization committees, the trustees, their counsel and the attorneys for the independent bondholders, the accountants and the experts appointed by the court, with the approval of all who have appeared. This motion is, in effect, one for the allocation or disposition of the available funds,

The following is a statement of the moneys expected to be m hand and of the expenses to be met as of October 1, 1935 (these items are estimated):

Cash with the trustee, being the balance in its possession from the moneys received by it under the assignment of net income, made May 16, 1933........... $537,000 00

To be paid by the underwriters when their new company takes title October 1, 1935................. 350,000 00

Total amount available....................... $887,000 00

From this sum the following payments must be made:

To the United States government:

Federal tax on transfer of old bonds to new company $3,000 00

Documentary stamps on deed................... 2,500 00

Federal original issuance tax on new bonds........ 8,700 00

Federal original issuance tax on new stock and new debentures.................................. 360 00

New York State mortgage tax on new mortgage to secure the new bonds......................... 43,500 00

To the city of New York:

Real estate taxes for July, August and September, 1935....................................... 51,000 00

Sales tax on furniture and other equipment in the hotel....................................... 4,400 00

To county officials for recording documents......... 500 00

Foreclosure expenses (advertising notice of sale)..... 1,474 65

Working capital for the new company under the terms of the plan of reorganization.................... 50,000 00

Cash to be paid to new company representing excess of current liabilities over assets................... 50,000 00

Guaranty fund for interest on the new bonds under the provisions of the plan of reorganization........... 174,000 00

[771]

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

Related

Clinton Trust Co. v. 142-144 Joralemon Street Corp.
237 A.D. 789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 Misc. 767, 283 N.Y.S. 20, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-national-bank-v-clark-henry-corp-nysupct-1935.