Ex parte Chester County Natural Gas Authority

255 F. Supp. 495, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6613
CourtDistrict Court, D. South Carolina
DecidedJune 23, 1966
DocketNo. B #66-42
StatusPublished

This text of 255 F. Supp. 495 (Ex parte Chester County Natural Gas Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex parte Chester County Natural Gas Authority, 255 F. Supp. 495, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6613 (D.S.C. 1966).

Opinion

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER GRANTING APPROVAL OF PLAN OF COMPOSITION

HEMPHILL, District Judge.

Petitioner asks approval of a Plan of Composition, as authorized and defined in Title 11, Chapter 9, United States Code. The Petition for Approval of Plan of Composition bears date April 1, 1966.1 At that time the Fiscal Agent2 of the Authority then held consents in writing approving the Plan by or on behalf of some 70% 3 of the affected creditors, though only 51% approval was required at that time under the applicable provisions of law. No requests for withdrawal of consent were made and no authority therefor was given by the court. Some of the consents have been subjected to question but none have been disallowed; if allowed they are not sufficient to affect this proceeding. Physical delivery of the bonds for exchange represents strong and persuasive evidence of the authority of the agent. The Fiscal Agent holds bonds supporting all consents, whether signed by or on behalf of the owner. 66%% in valid consents is required by law to sustain final approval in proper cases.

As required by the Order of this Court dated April 2, 1966, due notice of hearing was given by mailing of notice on April 4, 1966 to all known bondholders listed or referred to in the Petition of April 1, 1966, and by publication of notice once a week for three weeks in The State, at Columbia, S. C., and The Daily Bond Buyer, at New York, N. Y., commencing April 8, 1966. Affidavits on file in the record and testimony offered at the hearing held June 18, 1966 pursuant to such notice, demonstrate proper and adequate compliance with the requirements of law as to the giving of notice. No affected creditor has filed Answer opposing approval of the plan. Nevertheless, James P. Mozingo, III, of Darlington, S. C., the holder of 35 Bonds, appeared on his own behalf at the hearing and cross examined witnesses. At the time of his appearance he stated on inquiry from the court that he raised no question as to any steps taken in the proceeding up to the time of the hearing. He raised no question as to service upon him or jurisdiction of the court. The rights of Petitioner and of a large majority of its Bondholders could be seriously prejudiced by any failure of this court to handle this matter with proper dispatch, subject of course to allowing this Bondholder his day in court, which has been duly and properly given him. Despite his failure to answer, he has been in effect accorded the privilege of a Respondent for the purposes of the hearing.4

[497]*497Under the proposed Plan of Composition, various and specific requirements imposed by applicable federal statutes must be followed. First, it must be noted that a Plan of Composition may be filed only by a “Petitioner”, defined in Section 402 of Title 11, U.S.C., as “any agency or instrumentality referred to in section 401 of this title.” Mozingo does not meet the requirements in this regard. He may object to or seek to modify the Plan of Composition submitted by the Petitioning Authority, but any modification allowed by the court must have the acceptance in writing of the Petitioner. Section 403(e), Title 11, U.S.C. His suggestion that the court place the Authority in a debt moratorium status without ordering refunding fails to take into account the Authority’s need for and ability to obtain $420,000 in new funds at a rate of interest very favorable in the light of market conditions at the present time.5 The large number of approvals already given to the Plan of the Petitioning Authority affords no reasonable possibility of required approval of any alternate suggested by Mozingo. Therefore, no alternate plan or modification is properly before the court for consideration at this time and Mozingo’s alternate suggestion of a debt moratorium is not properly allowable and must be denied. There was absence of even remote proof of the practicality, or fiscal soundness, of a moratorium.

Does the Plan of Composition submitted by Petitioner warrant approval by this court? The Plan of Composition so submitted is examined to determine whether such approval may and should be granted.

First, however, we must consider the right of a Petitioner such as Chester County Natural Gas Authority, a body politic initially created by South Carolina Act #802, Acts of S. C. for 1954 to institute a proceeding such as this. The powers of the court to act in such a matter were carefully and fully reviewed by this court, with full citation of authorities, in a companion proceeding Ex parte York County Natural Gas Authority, D.C., 238 F.Supp. 964 affecting an adjoining county, brought by York County Natural Gas Authority before this court as #B/2075, on August 25, 1964. The findings of this court in that proceeding were affirmed with minor modification by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 6, 1965, Mozingo v. York County Natural Gas Authority, 352 F.2d 78. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on April 4, 1966 (See 86 S.Ct. 1277) and thereupon the approved Plan of Composition involved in that proceeding was implemented and carried out. In view of the great similarity between that proceeding and this, reference is here made to the numerous authorities and decisions noted, discussed and relied upon in that proceeding, which will be relied upon without further specific discussion or direct citation in this Decree, except in certain eases where this appears desirable as an aid to proper clarity.

The facts before this court reveal the outstanding indebtedness which Petitioner is unable to pay and concerning which it has been in default is as follows:

(a) $925,000 of Natural Gas System Revenue Bonds, dated September 1, 1957, bearing interest at six separate rates, and varying from 5% to 5.80%, which has not been paid since the interest payment date of September 1, 1960, and is due from such date at the respective rates borne by such bonds.

(b) $188,000 of Natural Gas System Revenue Bonds, dated September 1, 1958, bearing interest at six separate rates, and varying from 5% to 5.80%, which has not been paid since the interest payment date of September 1, 1960, and is due from such date [498]*498at the respective rates borne by such bonds.

' (c) $158,000 of Natural Gas System Revenue Bonds, dated July 1, 1959, bearing interest at six separate rates, and varying from 5% to 5.80%, which has not been paid since the interest payment date of September 1, 1960, and is due from such date at the respective rates borne by such bonds.

Default in payment of these obligations commenced on September 1, 1960, but Petitioner has operated the system and continued expansion and development in an effort to improve its revenue position, but it does not have the funds, in being or in prospect, to meet its obligations and/or to develop its alleged and hoped for potential or to make necessary improvements as and when required. It obtains its supply of natural gas from Carolina Pipeline Company in like manner as in case of York County Natural Gas Authority. No right is reserved by this Authority under its Refunding Bond Resolution, as was done in the case of York County Natural Gas Authority to issue Prior Lien Bonds to protect availability of a source of gas supply.

The testimony indicated this can be accomplished by other means.

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

Related

Ex Parte York County Natural Gas Authority
238 F. Supp. 964 (W.D. South Carolina, 1965)
Barkin Construction Co. v. . Goodman
116 N.E. 770 (New York Court of Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 F. Supp. 495, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-chester-county-natural-gas-authority-scd-1966.