Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Petroleum Trust

67 F. Supp. 859, 4 SEC Jud. Dec. 643, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2251
CourtDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island
DecidedMarch 2, 1946
DocketCivil Action 359
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 67 F. Supp. 859 (Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Petroleum Trust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Petroleum Trust, 67 F. Supp. 859, 4 SEC Jud. Dec. 643, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2251 (D.R.I. 1946).

Opinion

HARTIGAN, District Judge.

This is a civil action brought by The Continental Bank & Trust Company of New York, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter called the Institutional Trustee) against The First National Petroleum Trust, a business trust organized and existing under the law's of the State of Rhode Island (hereinafter called the Trust) to recover certain items of alleged overdue Interest and certain charges and expenses incident to this action alleged to be owed by the Trust.

The action is based on a written Indenture, dated as of October 1, 1941, between the parties.

The complaint alleges the sufficiency of the “net income” of the defendant Trust, during the period involved, to meet its interest obligations payable therefrom; the obligation of the defendant under the Indenture to pay interest overdue for more than sixty days directly to the Institutional Trustee for the benefit of all debenture holders upon.demand by the Trustee; and the failure of the defendant after such demand to pay the agreed interest on the debentures which had been overdue since January 28, 1944.

The defendant’s answer sets up affirmative defenses to the effect that the holders of a majority in' principal amount of the debentures have directed the plaintiff to bring suit for the items of interest, and the charges and expenses on July 1, 1.947, and not before, and have requested the plaintiff to waive the default of the defendant in its failure to perform the covenant and agreement in regard to the interest payments. The defendant further states that the said debentures make no provision for the payment of principal on account of outstanding mortgages and that said net income of the Trust and other funds of the Trust were used to make principal payments on outstanding mortgages as set forth in Exhibit “A.” The defendant states that the plaintiff is without authority to bring this action for the payment of items of interest.

The interveners representing a majority in the principal amount of the debenture holders have filed an answer and “Counterclaim in the Nature of a Petition for Declaratory Judgment” raising similar defens *861 es and affirmatively seeking a judgment declaring plaintiff to lack authority to declare any default of interest or to maintain any action for the recovery of past due interest except as directed by the majority debenture holders.

A motion of the Securities and Exchange Commission for leave to appear, file a brief and present oral arguments, as amicus curiae, was granted.

The reasons stated in said motion are:

“1. Under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, IS U.S.C.A. §§ 77aaa ct seq., the Securities and Exchange Commission is charged with administrative responsibilities in securing compliance, inter alia, with the requirements of that statute as to permissible and mandatory provisions of trust indentures of the type here involved prior to any issuance of securities thereunder. In this connection, the Commission must examine each indenture with the view to determining its adherence to the statutory standards for the protection of public investors and permit or refuse the qualification of an indenture accordingly.

“2. The present indenture has been qualified under this Act.

“3. The instant controversy between the institutional trustee, on the one hand, and the trust management and majority debenture holders on the other hand, involves, inter alia, a construction of Section 316 of the Act from which certain provisions of the trust indenture were taken, as permitted by that statute.

“4. In view of its administrative responsibilities under this Act for the protection of the investing public, the Securities and Exchange Commission desires to submit its views on the construction of the.statutory and related indenture provisions here involved.”

The parties have signed the following Agreed Statement of Facts:

“It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, by their respective attorneys, that the following facts if material shall be taken as true; provided, however, that this stipulation shall be without prejudice to the right of any party hereto to introduce other and further evidence not inconsistent with the facts herein stipulated to be taken as true.

“1. The plaintiff, The Continental Bank & Trust Company of New York, as it is Trustee under the Indenture hereinafter mentioned, is a corporation organized and’ existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in the city, county and State of New York, and the defendant, The First National Petroleum Trust, is a business trust organized and existing under the laws of the State of Rhode Island, the office of which business trust is maintained at 1417 Turks Head Building, Providence, Rhode Island. The Trustee of such business trust at the time of the commencement of this action was Ralph J. Pryor of Wichita, Kansas, and the Trustee of such business trust at the time of the filing of this agreed statement of facts is Ralph M. Greenlaw of Providence, Rhode Island.

“2. The matter in controversy-—exclusive of interest and costs—is in excess of the sum of $3,000.

“3. On October 1, 1941, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an ‘Indenture’—a true and complete copy of which is attached to the Complaint filed in this action, made a part of such Complaint and marked ‘Exhibit A.’ On August 26, 1943 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a ‘First Supplemental Indenture’—a true and complete copy of which is attached to the said Indenture of October 1, 1941, made a part of such Indenture and such Complaint and marked with such Indenture of October 1, 1941 as ‘Exhibit A.’ Such original Indenture of October 1, 1941 and such Supplemental Indenture of August 26, 1942 contain a statement of all of the agreements and understandings, and a statement of all of the rights, duties and obligations, of the parties who have signed this Agreed Statement of Facts; and it is the intention of the parties hereto in joining in this Agreed Statement of Facts that the provisions of such original and supplemental Indentures shall be considered and treated by this Court as the determinative evidence of any fact or statement concerning such Indentures, and if there should be any conflict or variance between this *862 Agreed Statement of Facts and such Indentures, or if in this Agreed Statement of Facts there should be any misstatement of the provisions or the purport of such Indentures, the provisions of such Indentures shall be considered as final and conclusive and controlling. The provisions of the First Supplemental Indenture dated August 26, 1942 have no bearing on any issue involved in this cause and such First Supplemental ■ Indenture may be disregarded by this Court in the consideration of this cause, and any reference to the ‘Indenture’ or ‘the original Indenture’ or ‘such Indenture’ in this Agreed Statement of Facts shall mean the Indenture dated October 1, 1941.

“4. In said original Indenture of October 1, 1941 it was stated and agreed in part as follows:

“That the First National Petroleum Trust (the defendant in this cause) hereinafter called the ‘Trust,’ had authorized an issue of 8%

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F. Supp. 859, 4 SEC Jud. Dec. 643, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-bank-trust-co-v-first-nat-petroleum-trust-rid-1946.