In Re Patten Paper Co.

86 F.2d 761
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedDecember 2, 1936
Docket5770, 5773
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 86 F.2d 761 (In Re Patten Paper Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Patten Paper Co., 86 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1936).

Opinion

86 F.2d 761 (1936)

In re PATTEN PAPER CO., Limited.
NORTHERN PAPER MILLS et al.
v.
CARY et al. (two cases).

Nos. 5770, 5773.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

December 2, 1936.
Rehearing Denied January 9, 1937.

Harold M. Wilkie, of Madison, Wis., Joseph V. Quarles, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Homer H. Benton, of Appleton, Wis., for appellants.

*762 Jerome R. North, and Edward M. Duquaine, both of Green Bay, Wis., and R. B. Graves, of Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., for appellees.

Before EVANS, Circuit Judge, and LINDLEY and BRIGGLE, District Judges.

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

These appeals concern the jurisdiction of a District Court in 77B proceedings over pledged stock in other corporations, where debtor's interest is that of pledgor or assignee of pledgor's equity. The District Court sought by the orders appealed from to effect a most advantageous sale of said stock, possible only if a controlling interest could be transferred. Without a successful culmination of this effort to secure and sell a controlling interest of the company, the most feasible, practicable plan of reorganization could not be worked out.

The questions presented on the two appeals involve similar legal questions and will be disposed of in one opinion.

The fact situation is difficult to present because of the numerous parties and pledge contracts involved in the various transactions. As to personnel involved:

Patten Paper Company is the debtor.

Northern Paper Mills is in the most instances the corporation whose stock is the subject of pledge.

Western Ontario Land Co. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Patten Paper Co.

Marshall Ilsley Bank and Inland Paper Co. are other companies whose stock is pledged.

Directors of the Northern Paper are: Buchanan, Weissenborn, Harwood, Purdy, Murray, Wagner (also trustee under previous agreement of pledge by debtor to secure creditors), Tuttle, Goodman (executrix of former director), Judson Rosebush, former manager of Northern Paper Co. and formerly controlling stockholder and officer of Patten Co., Mrs. Barbara McNaughton Rosebush, Cary, trustee of debtor, Newton, an engineer and promoter whose contract (or option as appellee calls it) to purchase 40,000 shares of Northern Paper (a controlling interest) at $16 was approved by the court and was the basis of the plan of reorganization. It was the immediate cause of the present litigation.

The pledged stock was (mainly) that of the Northern Paper Company. The chief pledgor, Rosebush (and his wife, also a pledgor) was a former officer of debtor who had assigned his (and her) equity in the pledged stock to the debtor. Debtor also pledged two blocks of stock. Some of the pledged stock had been sold before the entry of the injunctional order, but after the filing of the petition. The District Court ordered the sales set aside. Pledgees and purchasers were ordered to turn the stock over to a depositary (their lien to attach to the proceeds) and were ordered to refrain from negotiating for any Northern Paper stock which would prevent the debtor's trustee from acquiring a controlling interest and defeat consummation of the Newton contract, which provided for the payment of $16 per share of Northern Paper stock only if a majority interest were obtained.

A chronological history of facts is set forth in the margin.[1]

*763 Also is set forth a chart[2] of the blocks of stock involved and the intricacies of each transaction, and they are hereafter denominated by the letter there given.

Appeal No. 5773 is from the order of December 30, 1935, concerning blocks (A), (B), and (F), restraining foreclosure of lien, sale or levy, or further proceeding with the state garnishment suits.

Appeal No. 5770 is from the order of February 13, 1936, approving the Newton contract, directing pledgees (including blocks (A) and (B)) to transfer free of lien their stock to a depositary for sale under the Newton contract (lien to attach to proceeds);

setting aside sale of November 29, of blocks (C) and (D) to directors for $5 per share, as unfair; reserving determination of garnishment proceedings rights to itself; directing trustee to sell block (E) free of liens (to attach to proceeds); freeing stock of U. S. tax lien (to attach to proceeds); restraining the directors from negotiating for or purchasing stock in Northern Paper; enjoining foreclosure of lien on block (E).

The effort of the court to realize a sum sufficient to satisfy all of the debtor's obligations was most commendable. Two obstacles, however, prevented its realization. Neither, however, mitigated against the meritorious character of the effort.

A better understanding of the legal and business obstacles will be appreciated if we first get the fact background.

The Northern Paper Mills is a corporation which has for years conducted a successful paper manufacturing business. It is located at Green Bay, Wisconsin. For some months prior to this litigation its *764 business was such as to give promise of increasingly satisfactory profits. Control of this corporation and its affairs might well be said to be the indirect object of this litigation.

Newton, an engineer, who appears in the role of a promoter, sought to obtain this control for himself or for others to whom he might sell, through a contract, the protection of which is the basis of the orders from which these appeals are taken.

Debtor owned considerable amounts of stock of Northern Paper, and had an asserted lien on, and an alleged interest in, other blocks of this stock. It asserted ownership and interest in, or liens upon, 37,745 shares of Northern Paper.

The stock of Northern Paper was listed on a stock exchange, but was inactive. Its market value was five to six dollars. Newton entered into a certain contract with the trustee of debtor's estate. By appellees, the contract is called one of sale. Appellants describe it as an option. For the purpose of identification it will be here called an option contract. The sale price of 40,000 shares of stock was in this option fixed at $16 per share. From the proceeds of this sale it was contemplated that the creditors who held the stock as security would be paid and the balance devoted to the satisfaction of debtor's obligations.

One Rosebush had been the moving and controlling spirit in debtor's affairs. There was a close relationship between the stockholders and business interests of debtor and Northern Paper. Their stock, as well as the stock of debtor, was pledged to secure the obligations of the debtor. Out of Rosebush's management of Northern Mills claims were made which resulted in notes being given by Rosebush which were secured by stock of Northern Paper, which stood either in the name of Rosebush or his wife. In a Wisconsin state court, legal steps had been taken to dispose of Northern Paper stock thus pledged as collateral to secure the Rosebush obligations. Other legal proceedings were in contemplation or under way. Sale of some stock in these legal proceedings had been completed. It was at this point that the debtor sought solution of its complicated and unhappy financial situation through appeal to the Federal court by institution of what are commonly called proceedings under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 207). The sale of 40,000 shares of stock of the going value of five or six dollars for sixteen dollars per share was both alluring and intriguing.

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

Related

Inforex Inc. v. Burridge (In Re Inforex Inc.)
26 B.R. 515 (D. Massachusetts, 1983)
Amadori Construction Co. v. Hoffenberg
534 F.2d 1050 (Second Circuit, 1976)
Stanndco Developers, Inc. v. Hoffenberg
534 F.2d 1050 (Second Circuit, 1976)
In The Matter Of Holiday Lodge, Inc.
300 F.2d 516 (First Circuit, 1962)
In re Copper Canyon Mining Co.
156 F. Supp. 535 (D. Delaware, 1957)
Muntz Tv v. Allen
229 F.2d 314 (Seventh Circuit, 1956)
Best TV Inc. v. Allen
229 F.2d 314 (Seventh Circuit, 1956)
Thompson v. Terminal Shares, Inc.
104 F.2d 1 (Eighth Circuit, 1939)
First Nat. Bank v. Conway Road Estates Co.
94 F.2d 736 (Eighth Circuit, 1938)
Morrison v. Rockhill Improvement Co.
91 F.2d 639 (Tenth Circuit, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 F.2d 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-patten-paper-co-ca7-1936.