In re a Plan for the Readjustment, Modification or Reorganization of the Rights of the Holders of Investments in a Certain Group of Mortgages

163 Misc. 640, 298 N.Y.S. 360, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1731
New York Supreme Court·Decided June 21, 1937·Published

Opinion

Frankenthaler, J.

This is a proceeding for the fixation of allowances for services rendered in the reorganization of Series B-K of the New York Title and Mortgage Company and in “ any actions or proceedings taken or affecting said Series B-K.” (Declaration of Trust, art. VIII, subd. w.)

Series B-K is the third largest issue of guaranteed mortgage certificates in the entire State. At the time the plan of reorganization was modified and approved by this court, in October, 1935, the principal amount of the issue, consisting of 170 mortgages, was over $13,000,000, and there were more than 4,000 certificate holders. (Matter of New York Title & Mortgage Co. [Series B-K], 156 Misc. 808.) Although the trustees appointed by this court did not take office until the end of March, 1936, after the plan had obtained sufficient consents to become operative, the reorganization has already proved of marked benefit to the B-K certfficate holders. In November, 1933, when efforts to reorganize the issue commenced, the B-K certificates were selling at about nineteen cents to every dollar of face value. When the plan was promulgated in June, 1935, the price advanced to thirty-eight cents. After the designation of the trustees the certificates rose to forty-six cents. Less than nine months after the trustees commenced to administer the affairs of Series B-K, the certificates were quoted at sixty-two and one-fourth bid, sixty-four and one-fourth asked. Even in the present depressed condition of the market (June 16, 1937) the quotation is fifty-seven and one-half bid, sixty asked. Although the improvement in real estate conditions undoubtedly contributed, it is generally conceded that the reorganization of the issue and the capable work of the trustees appointed by this court have been largely responsible for the very substantial rise in the market [642]*642price of the B-K certificates. In the first nine months of the trustees’ management, two and one-half per cent was paid to certain certificate holders by way of interest and one per cent on account of principal. The trustees state that after deduction of all allowances for reorganization fees and for the administration of the trust they expect to be able to pay interest of at least four per cent during the year 1937. The gross earnings at the present time are approximately five and one-half per cent per annum after payment of all expenses and taxes, and the net return is about four and one-half per cent.

The general principles governing allowances in reorganizations of guaranteed mortgage issues have already been set forth by this court in making allowances for services rendered in the reorganization of Series F-1. (Matter of New York Title & Mortgage Co. [Series F-1], 160 Misc. 283.) There is no need to repeat them here. The difficulties and complex problems encountered by those who labored to reorganize Series F-l were very much the same as those which faced the reorganizers of Series B-K, and it would, therefore, be superfluous to refer again to the chaotic conditions, described in the F-l opinion (supra) which prevailed in 1933 and 1934 until the trustee plan of reorganization, which this court had repeatedly advocated, was finally recognized as the most desirable and beneficial possible from the standpoint of the certificate holders.

The successful reorganization of Series B-K is due in a very considerable measure to the untiring efforts of the firm of Kramer & Kleinfeld, the attorneys for the reorganization committee of Series B-K. This was expressly conceded by every one who spoke at the hearing of the present applications for allowances. Typical of the views expressed at the hearing are the remarks of counsel for the Mortgage Commission: “ Your Honor was very modest in the F-l, in declining to take full credit for the trustee plan. You extended credit for the help you had received from the members of the Bar. I say it is an obvious fact, that one of the prime helpers who aided you in the evolvement of that trustee type of plan, was the firm of Kramer & Kleinfeld, and I would not forego the opportunity I have this morning to say to your Honor and the certificate holders and the public, that on behalf of the Mortgage Commission of the State of New York, as well as of myself personally, I take this opportunity to hold forth to Samuel Kramer and Barnett Kaprow, our sincere appreciation and gratitude and respect for the work that they did here. Their work was not only of high professional calibre from the .standpoint of the legal work that they did, but even more important, the work that they did in contacting the certificate holders personally and dispelling in their minds the [643]*643fear and uncertainty that was rampant in 1933, by their warm and sympathetic approach ■— for this there can be no adequate compensation. Now, your Honor has before you a question of disposing of applications for attorneys’ fees, and there again I say that unfortunately posterity will never know, because your Honor will never write what has actually happened here, but it has been my privilege to appear before you in the last nine months on fifty or sixty of these applications for attorneys’ fees, in which I should say roughly half a million dollars was asked for. That was what was asked for; that was not what was allowed. * * * I am happy to say that on those fifty or sixty applications, when your Honor finally came down with your decision, reducing the amount requested to the irreducible minimum, my fellow members of the Bar, on reconsideration, bowed to your Honor’s wisdom and said under the circumstances, they would be satisfied,1— with one exception, and that one petitioner took your Honor’s ruling up to the Appellate Division and the Appellate Division affirmed your opinion. All I can say by way of a short recapitulation is that I know and I can never forget what was done here, particularly by Kramer & Kleinfeld. Sometimes the passage of time dims our recollections of past difficulties and the effort expended in their solution, but it does not dim my recollection of it, and I am sure it does not dull the recollection of the Court, and my only anxiety is that the Certificate holders should to some degree have some slight appreciation of the work that was done here, and I may say that they need have no fear, on the basis of your Honor’s recollection, as to what should be allowed here, and they may be assured that whatever may be allowed will be extremely modest, and the certificate holders should be satisfied that whatever your Honor allows, they should be happy to pay two or three times more.” The services of Kramer & Kleinfeld, for which compensation is sought in this proceeding, commenced in the latter part of 1933, when they brought about the formation of the reorganization committee, and terminated with the qualification of the trustees on March 27, 1936, about two and a half years later. Generally speaking, these services were very similar to those rendered by the reorganizers of Series F-l, which was the first of the group mortgage issues reorganized. The fact that the plans adopted in Series B-K as well as in all other group issues were modeled upon the F-l plan should not adversely affect the compensation of Kramer & Kleinfeld, for the latter’s contributions to the trustee plan ultimately promulgated and adopted in Series F-l, and in the other issues, were very substantial. Mention should be made of the fact that Kramer & Kleinfeld insisted strenuously that trustee plans provide that the [644]*644trustees be vested with title to the underlying collateral and not merely with powers in trust.

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

In re a Plan for the Readjustment, Modification or Reorganization of the Rights of the Holders of Investments in a Certain Group of Mortgages, 163 Misc. 640, 298 N.Y.S. 360, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1731 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1937).

163 Misc. 640 (In re a Plan for the Readjustment, Modification or Reorganization of the Rights of the Holders of Investments in a Certain Group of Mortgages) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abrams v. Van Schaick
293 U.S. 188 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Matter of People
191 N.E. 522 (New York Court of Appeals, 1934)
In re a Plan or Proposal by the Mortgage Commission
156 Misc. 808 (New York Supreme Court, 1935)
In re People
160 Misc. 283 (New York Supreme Court, 1936)