In re Central of Georgia Ry. Co.

48 F. Supp. 445, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2078
District Court, S.D. Georgia·Decided December 23, 1942·No. No. 4829·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

LOVETT, Judge.

As a result of the hearing held in this case on December 1, 1942, at which many aspects of an early reorganization of this railroad were discussed by the parties at interest, two questions remain for determination at this time.

The first is whether and what interest shall be paid now on certain bonds of the debtor, including one underlying issue which the debtor has not assumed, from earnings of the railroad in reorganization, and, secondly, what direction, if any, shall 'be given by the court to the trustee of the debtor at this time with respect to the refinancing of the Collateral Trust Bonds of the Central Railroad & Banking Company now matured, also not assumed by the debt- or. The equity of the collateral pledged to secure these Collateral Trust bonds is owned by the debtor. It is urged by the mortgage trustee of the Collateral Trust Bonds that the debtor’s trustee should be instructed to pay the principal and- interest owing on them, or the injunction heretofore issued against the exercise by the mortgage trustee and the bondholders of their rights and remedies should be dissolved.

These questions will be considered in the inverse order of their statement.

These matters came on for a hearing in this way. The Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company of New York as trustee under the Collateral Trust Mortgage of the Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia filed its petition in these proceedings on August 31, 1942, and thereby became a party. The prayer of the petition was, in effect, that the court instruct the debtor’s trustee to make his recommendation for financing payment of the bonds. On this petition the court entered an order setting the matter for hearing on October 21, 1942 (later adjourned to December 1), and directing that all parties at interest be notified and be entitled to participate and be heard at such hearing. The trustee of the debtor was directed to present data sufficient to inform the court and the parties as to the most practicable method of dealing with said Collateral Trust Bonds consistent with the rights of the holders thereof and in the best interest of the debtor’s estate and of its reorganization.

Subsequently the Liberty National Bank & Trust Company of Savannah, Georgia, as trustee of the First Mortgage of the debtor securing its “First Mortgage Bonds”, and Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company of New York, as trustee of the First Mortgage of the Chattanooga, Rome & Southern Railroad Company, se[447]*447curing the underlying bonds mentioned, have filed their petitions asking that all of the past due interest coupons on their bonds respectively be paid at this time. At the hearing the Bankers Trust Company of New York, as trustee of the Consolidated Mortgage securing the “Consolidated Bonds” of the debtor, appeared and asked that interest should be paid on the bonds secured by its mortgage.

The trustee of the debtor on the hearing submitted and filed an elaborate statement accompanied by exhibits setting forth the financial condition of the trust estate, plans for the rehabilitation of the properties of the debtor, and other relevant matters touching the reorganization of the railroad. He has made certain recommendations to the court, in the light of the cash resources of the estate and the other matters set forth in his statement, with respect to the amount of interest which he considers can be safely paid at this time, the total of which is $1,013,133.00. As the result of negotiations between him and the trustees of the bond mortgages last mentioned he has modified these figures upward until now he indicates that $1,150,633.00 in his opinion may be presently paid. These recommendations seem satisfactory to the trustees representing the First Mortgage and Consolidated Mortgage bonds, but are unsatisfactory to the trustee of the Chattanooga, Rome & Southern Mortgage bonds and to the trustee of the Collateral Trust Mortgage bonds. As trustee of the Collateral Trust Mortgage the Central Hanover takes the position that no interest should be paid on any bonds (except Chattanooga, Rome & Southern bonds) until provision has been made for the payment in full of the Collateral Trust bonds; and the same bank as trustee of the Chattanooga, Rome & Southern underlying mortgage insists that because of the high earnings of its mortgaged property all of the past due interest on the bonds secured by that mortgage should be paid in full before any interest is paid to any other bondholders.

The trustee of the debtor has also advised the court that it will facilitate the refinancing of the Collateral Trust bonds and the reorganization of the railroad if a committee representing the several bond-holding interests is set up to serve in an advisory capacity to him, and that among the matters which he and the committee should promptly consider would be plans for the adjustment through negotiation of the Collateral Trust bonds. He also suggested in his statement that an additional committee of three should be set up to advise with him concerning the leased lines of the debtor, but this suggestion has been withdrawn.

The trustee of the debtor testified as a witness on the hearing, other evidence was taken, and several of the parties have submitted briefs to the court, which have been duly considered.

As indicated on the hearing, I consider it advisable to have the advisory committee suggested by the debtor’s trustee named as promptly as possible to the end that all of the many matters that must be considered in a plan of reorganization may be given early attention, and the views of the parties with respect to them obtained.

The mortgage trustee of the Collateral Trust bonds invokes the rule of law announced in Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 294 U.S. 648, 675, 679, 55 S.Ct. 595, 79 L.Ed. 1110, that sale of collateral by a pledgee in a case of this kind should be enjoined only if such a sale would so hinder, obstruct and delay the preparation and the consummation of the plan of reorganization as probably to prevent it, and in such event only reasonable delay should be countenanced. Attention is also called to cases in which it is held that the burden of proof is upon the debtor, or those supporting the injunction, to show that its granting or continuance is necessary. See In re Murel Holding Corp., 2 Cir., 75 F.2d 941; Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Henwood, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 347, 354, 108 A.L.R. 1020; In re Prudence Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 90 F.2d 587, 590; In re New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2 Cir., 102 F.2d 923; Foust v. Munson S.S. Lines, 299 U.S. 77, 57 S.Ct. 90, 81 L.Ed. 49.

The question I must now decide is whether or not maintaining the status quo for a reasonable length of time hereafter is necessary to the formulation and putting into effect of a satisfactory plan of reorganization of the railroad. Some speculation must be indulged in when this question is answered.

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

In re Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 48 F. Supp. 445, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2078 (S.D. Ga. 1942).

48 F. Supp. 445 (In re Central of Georgia Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related