In re People

154 Misc. 13, 277 N.Y.S. 383, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1944
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re People. Read the opinion of the Court — 151 Misc. 744
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 26, 1934·Published

Opinion

Frankenthaler, J.

This is a proceeding under the Schackno Act (Laws of 1933, chap. 745) for the reorganization and readjustment of the rights of the holders of series Q first mortgage certificates, issued and guaranteed by New York Title and Mortgage Company. On December 31, 1933, there were 3,248 holders of series Q certificates of an aggregate principal amount of $10,205,307.08. The certificates are secured by 847 mortgages in the counties of Queens and Nassau, of which 168 had been foreclosed and 21 others were under foreclosure. Title to most of the foreclosed properties has been taken in the name of Liberdar Holding Corporation or Land Estates. Inc., subsidiaries of New York Title and Mortgage Company.

At the request of a committee representing holders of a substantial portion of series Q certificates the Superintendent of Insurance promulgated a plan calling for the management of the bonds, mortgages and properties of series Q by five specifically-named trustees, to serve until April 1, 1935, and then to be replaced by five trustees elected annually by the certificate holders. During the progress of the hearings held in connection with the application to obtain judicial approval of the plan various modifications of the plan were made by the committee previously referred to.' For example, the plan has been altered so as to provide that the court appoint two of the five trustees, and that these two trustees continue in office indefinitely, the requirement of annual elections by the certificate holders applying only to the other three trustees. [15]*15Opposition to various provisions of the plan both in its original and its modified form has been expressed by some of the certificate holders. The Superintendent of Insurance, although he himself promulgated the plan, proposed a number of changes and finally disapproved the plan, stating that “ since the hearings in this plan we have developed and crystalized a form of trustee plan which should apply to Group Series generally, and, in our opinion, furnishes a comprehensive, adequate and better plan for the protection of the rights of certificate holders. Such a plan has been promulgated in Series F-l and it is my desire to offer a similar plan, in the form of an amendment, to the Series Q.” Consents to the plan with such modifications as the court may make are on file, signed by more than a thousand holders of certificates aggregating in excess of $4,000,000, almost one-half of the principal amount of the outstanding certificates of series Q.

Comparison of the proposed plan, in its modified form, with that recently approved by this court in connection with the reorganization of series F-l (Matter of New York Title & Mortgage Co., 153 Misc. 858), has convinced the court that the F-l plan is, in its essential features, preferable to that promulgated for series Q. On the other hand, there are certain provisions of the series Q plan which it is desirable to retain, and there are also a number of provisions of the F-l plan which are not adapted to the somewhat different problems presented by series Q and which should, therefore, be omitted from a plan of reorganization intended for that series.

In passing upon the F-l plan the court indicated that it did not approve the submission to the certificate holders of a plan which provided for the appointment of temporary trustees by the court and thereby offered the certificate holders “ the choice of accepting a plan embodying such a provision or else obtaining no plan at all.” For similar reasons the court is opposed to setting before the certificate holders of series Q a plan which provides for three trustees named by a committee in whose selection the majority of the certificate holders have had no choice, and two appointed by the court, thus giving the great body of certificate holders of series Q the alternative of assenting to such a plan or having to go without any plan at all. In the court’s opinion it should be left to the certificate holders themselves to decide who they wish their trustees to be, and whether they wish any of the trustees to be appointed by the court. As this court has repeatedly pointed out, it is for the certificate holders themselves to decide what shall be done with their properties. The certificate holders should be left entirely free to exercise an untramelled choice as to the method of selecting the trustees who [16]*16are to manage their properties. The provisions of the F-l plan, as modified by the court, enable the certificate holders to effectuate their own desires in this respect and. are, therefore, fairer to the certificate holders than the plan promulgated in the present proceeding.

The requirement that three of the trustees be elected annually is one which, besides appearing to be unnecessary, has serious disadvantages. If new trustees are elected each year there are likely to be constant breaks in the continuity of the management of the series Q affairs, not to mention the fact that each new trustee will hardly have time to acquaint himself thoroughly with the status and problems of the series Q properties and mortgages when he will have to make way for his successor who will be obliged to repeat the process. The proposal that there be five trustees also seems to be inadvisable. Three trustees appear to be ample. The more trustees there are the greater the expense of administration and the less centralized responsibility. With five trustees the time spent in preliminary consideration of each step to be taken or act to be performed by the trustees will necessarily be greater than with only three trustees. Moreover, the larger the number of trustees the greater the practical difficulty of obtaining the concurrence of a majority. With 847 properties and mortgages to administer it is evident that these considerations are especially important. The requirement that each trustee be a certificate holder does not appear to be a good one. The certificate holders might be unduly hampered in their efforts to obtain the most qualified trustees if their choice were restricted to fellow certificate holders. They should be free to choose the most competent men available, regardless of whether or not the latter own series Q certificates. The provision of the F-l plan permitting termination of the trust by the holders of two-thirds in principal amount of the certificates with the approval of the court is preferable to the provision of the modified Q plan which omits the requirement of judicial approval. The Q plan contains no provision for the amendment of the trust indenture. Provision should be made for the termination of the trust on January 1, 1945, in the absence of an earlier termination by the certificate holders with the court’s approval. A provision, such as that in the F-l plan, permitting an amendment to the Declaration of Trust ” by two-thirds in principal amount of the certificate holders with the court’s approval is desirable. The provisions of the Q plan in regard to the trustees’ immunity from liability are entirely too broad. The language of the F-l plan which pertains to this subject should be substituted. The F-l plan is also superior to the Q plan in other respects too numerous to set forth in detail here.

[17]*17The court is, therefore, of the opinion that the plan promulgated for series Q, in its modified form, should be further modified so as to embody the essential features of the F-l plan as modified and approved by the court.

As previously indicated, however, there are a number of provisions of the Q plan which might be retained.

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

In re People, 154 Misc. 13, 277 N.Y.S. 383, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1944 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1934).

154 Misc. 13 (In re People) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re People
153 Misc. 858 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)