In Re Horn & Hardart Baking Co.
This text of 22 B.R. 668 (In Re Horn & Hardart Baking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
This case reaches the Court on a motion for the appointment of a trustee brought by the creditors’ committee in the Chapter 11 case. The committee contends that a trustee is necessary to protect the estate from the incompetence and mismanagement exhibited by the present corporate officers. The debtor (hereinafter referred to as H & H) resists the appointment of a trustee and contends that management has not been guilty of the misfeasance asserted by the committee. Hearing was duly held on April 29, 1982. Testimony was taken and briefs were submitted by counsel. The Court finds that the appointment of a trustee is necessary to protect the interests of the creditors. 1
The facts of the case at bar are both lengthy and confusing. The Horn and Har-dart Baking Company has been in business in Philadelphia since the late nineteenth century. In the early 1970’s, H & H successfully underwent reorganization pursuant to Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. In 1971, the debtor operated at twenty-two (22) locations. 2 The company was able to operate at a profit from 1971 through 1978. In 1979, however, H & H lost approximately $250,000. 3 In 1980, the operating losses were approximately $570,000; and, in 1981, the losses reached $600,000. 4
The instant petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code was filed on September 3, 1981. The president of H & H since 1973, C. Thomas Gibbons, is involved in the active management of the company. All policy decisions are made by the Board of Directors.
Presently, the debtor only retains seven (7) locations. These are:
a. 1023 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA;
b. 730 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA;
c. 1535 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA;
d. Broad & Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA;
e. Cottman & Large Streets, Philadelphia, PA;
f. Bala Cynwyd, PA; and
g. 30th Street Station, Philadelphia, PA (a retail store operation only)
Since the filing of the petition, the debtor has closed the 730 Market Street and 1023 Chestnut Street locations. The debtor does not own any of these locations outright. All of the premises are leased on long-term arrangements.
A plan of reorganization has been filed by the debtor. H & H proposes to sell four (4) of these leases and remain in operation at only three (3) locations. Under the plan, the unsecured creditors will receive only ten (10) cents on the dollar. The creditors’ committee is, not surprisingly, opposed to this plan.
The committee asserts that the present executives of H & H have mismanaged the company both before and after the filing of the petition. 5 It is further alleged that the *670 officers of the company have failed to maintain necessary records and operating reports.
Under § 1107 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-in-possession has all of the obligations of a trustee. 6 The legislative history of this provision emphasizes this responsibility by stating that:
This section places a debtor in possession in the shoes of a trustee in every way. The debtor is given the rights and powers of a chapter 11 trustee. He is required to perform the functions and duties of a chapter 11 trustee (except the investigative duties). He is also subject to any limitations on a chapter 11 trustee, and to such other limitations and conditions as the court prescribes.
House Report No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) 404, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5963, 6360.
One of these duties is that the trustee must file periodic reports and summaries of the operation of the debtor’s business, including a statement of receipts and disbursements, and such further information as the Court may require. 7 The debtor-in-possession, therefore, must maintain and file records and operating reports.
The Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure also require the filing of records by a trustee or debtor-in-possession and set forth appropriate procedure. Rule 218(4), made applicable to chapter 11 cases by Rule 11-30, requires the trustee to file regular reports. 8 Rule 11-30 further clarifies this obligation by stating that:
.. . the written report of the financial condition of the estate shall be made by the ... debtor in possession within a month after the filing of a petition commencing a Chapter XI (11) case and every month thereafter, ...
Bankruptcy Rule 11-30. In addition, the Bankruptcy Court for this district has enacted, Local Rule XI-4 which requires the filing of monthly operating statements. 9
The committee contends that the debtor’s performance of the obligation to file monthly operating statements has been sporadic and incomplete. As of the date of the hearing, eight (8) months after the filing of *671 the petition, only four (4) statements had been filed. The Court can only find that the debtor has poorly fulfilled the responsibilities imposed by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules.
The statements, those that have been filed, indicate the following balances:
a. September 4,1981 to September 26, 1981 $174,138.00
b. September 22,1981 to October 24, 1981 131,983.00
c. November 22,1981 to December 19, 1981 4,662.00
d. March 14,1982 to April 10,1982 60,645.00
The report covering October 24, 1981 to November 2, 1981 is not before the Court. During this period, however, the debtor suffered an unexplained loss in the amount of $127,321.00. A chapter 11 Debtor cannot be allowed to incur losses and deplete whatever estate may be available for the creditors. Unexplained losses from the estate cannot continue. The creditors have every right to come forward to protect their interests.
The committee also alleged that the present management of the debtor has mishandled several transactions concerning the lease agreements. For example, H & H was offered $600,000 to sell out the remainder of the lease at the Broad and Walnut location. This offer was refused and the debtor has continued to suffer losses at this location. The debtor was also offered $300,000 for the lease at 1023 Chestnut Street. This offer was also refused and the estate is currently paying $2500 per month in rent for a store no longer in business.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 B.R. 668, 7 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 65, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 3476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-horn-hardart-baking-co-paeb-1982.