In re Union Mortg. Inv. Co.

25 F. Supp. 468, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1672
CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware
DecidedNovember 22, 1938
DocketNo. 1167
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 F. Supp. 468 (In re Union Mortg. Inv. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Union Mortg. Inv. Co., 25 F. Supp. 468, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1672 (D. Del. 1938).

Opinion

NIELDS, District Judge.

Motion by Charleston National Bank of West Virginia to vacate or modify an order of this court entered August 12, 1938. This order was made upon petition of William S. Satterthwaite, trustee of the debtor, and provided for examinations under Section 21a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 44(a), “concerning the acts, conduct and property or business relations of the debtor” and specifying the persons to be examined and appointing special masters to conduct the examinations.

Earlier Proceedings in this Court.

Union Mortgage Investment Company, the debtor, (formerly West Virginia Mortgage and Discount Company) was engaged in the business (1) of marketing its own guaranteed bonds to the public and (2) loaning the money so obtained on notes secured by first liens on real estate. Debtor deposited the notes and mortgages with an indenture trustee as collateral for its bonds.

In 1926, debtor executed an indenture to Central Trust Company of Charleston, West Virginia, as trustee, and issued thereunder bonds of the face amount of approximately $2,000,000. These bonds were guaranteed by National Surety Company and sold to the public. In 1928, the Charleston National Bank of Charleston, West Virginia (hereinafter referred to as “Charleston Bank”), was substituted as trustee and the collateral was transferred to it.

About 1930 the debtor became financially embarrassed. Its assets consisted largely of mortgages which were frozen. From 1931 until May, 1933, the Charleston Bank administered the trust in conjunction with Greyling Realty Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of National Surety Company. After the failure of National Surety Company in 1933, a Bondholder’s Protective Committee was formed to protect the rights of the holders of bonds of the debtor as well as those of other mortgage companies whose bonds were guaranteed by National Surety Company.

A general plan of reorganization was prepared by this Protective Committee and by the Superintendent of Insurance of New York as liquidator or rehabilitator of National Surety Company. In order to obtain the benefits of a liquidation of the collateral over an extended period of time and to provide a centralized control of the liquidation a new corporation called “National Bondholders Corporation” was formed.

In April, 1935 the debtor filed its voluntary petition in this court under section 77B, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207, alleging it was unable to meet its debts as they matured. The petition was approved and a trustee appointed. A plan of reorganization was filed. Under this plan National Bondholders Corporation, representing the holders of the bonds of the debtor series AN, F, G and H and Union Series Eye Corporation, a subsidiary of National bondholders corporation, representing the holders of bonds series I of the debtor were to receive all bonds of the debtor and assets securing the same including all rights of action of every kind and character free and clear of the trust indenture, the rights of the indenture trustee, the rights of the bankruptcy trustee and the rights of all other' creditors.

July 30, 1935, an extended hearing was had respecting the value of the pledged assets of the debtor. Counsel for certain stockholders of the debtor contended there was an equity in such assets over and above the amount of the bonds outstanding. The bondholders offered proof that no equity existed in the assets for stockholders or creditors and that such assets should be transferred to the National Bondholders Corporation as provided in the plan. At the same time the trustee in bankruptcy testified that the only assets of which he had knowledge, other than those that were pledged, were certain books and records of the company. His report showed that the company was insolvent.

Counsel for certain stockholders inquired as to an equity in the pledged assets but no such effort was made by any other party. On the contrary, all other parties took the position that there was no equity available to general creditors or stockholders. Notwithstanding the showing then made the matter was continued by the court for a week to afford stockholders every opportunity to be heard. No further evidence was presented.

August 8, 1935 the court entered a decree confirming the plan; finding the debt- or insolvent; determining the rights of the [470]*470bondholders and providing that the assets be transferred as provided in the plan.

The order confirming the plan provides :

“6. That the Charleston National Bank is hereby directed to assign, transfer, deliver and turn over to the National Bondholders Corporation, or its nominee, subject to the provisions in this order hereinafter contained, all assets, property and funds of whatever kind and wherever situated, held by it as collateral for said Series AN, F, G and H Bonds, or for and on account of the said Bondholders, including all rights and causes of action which it may have as Trustee for said Bondholders; and said Charleston National Bank is hereby directed to assign, transfer, deliver and turn over to the Union Series Eye Corporation, or its nominee, subject to the -provisions in this order hereinafter contained, all assets, property and funds of whatever kind and wherever situated, held by it as collateral for said Series I Bonds, or for and on account of the said Bondholders, including all rights and causes of action which it may have as Trustee for said Bondholders.”

The order further provides:

“8. In carrying out the foregoing provisions of paragraph 6 of this order, Charleston National Bank * * * shall, * * * if, as and when it may hereafter and from time to time be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction- that the Charleston National Bank holds any other assets, property or funds for or on account of any of the Bondholders or as collateral for said Bonds, -forthwith assign, transfer, deliver and pay over such assets, property or funds to the National Bondholders Corporation, or its nominee, where the same relates to Series AN, F, G or H Bonds, or the holders thereof, and to Union Series Eye Corporation, or its nominee, where the same relates to Series I Bonds, or the holders thereof; * * *.”
“9. That the question of whether or not there are any assets, property or funds other than those specified in subdivisions (a) and (b) of paragraph 8 of this order, held by Charleston National Bank for or on account of the Bondholders or as collateral for said Series AN, F, G, H and I Bonds, or for which it is accountable to the Bondholders under and by virtue of the Collateral Trust Indenture under which it is acting as Trustee for the Bondholders, or by virtue of any act or thing done or omitted to be done by it as Trustee, or by virtue of any other matter, is hereby reserved for determination by such Court or Courts as have or may have jurisdiction thereof^ and all rights and causes of action in respect thereto are left unimpaired by this order and neither this order nor anything done hereunder shall prejudice any action or proceeding which may be brought by or against the Charleston National Bank for an accounting in respect to said trusts, or to hold the' Charleston National Bank responsible for any act or thing done by it in connection with said trusts, or to determine the rights of the Charleston National Bank in or to all or any part or portion of the assets, property and funds referred to in this paragraph, * * *

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

Related

In Re Larkham
24 B.R. 70 (D. Vermont, 1982)
In Re MacHek
368 F. Supp. 956 (M.D. Florida, 1973)
United States v. Seiffert
357 F. Supp. 801 (S.D. Texas, 1973)
In Re American Bantam Car Co.
193 F.2d 616 (Third Circuit, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F. Supp. 468, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-union-mortg-inv-co-ded-1938.