In the Matter of New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Company, Edith A. Merritt
This text of 196 F.2d 216 (In the Matter of New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Company, Edith A. Merritt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal is from the Order of the District Court, 103 F.Supp. 981, approving the plan of reorganization in proceedings for the reorganization of the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended. 1
The primary issue presented is whether the plan of reorganization is fair and equitable, particularly with respect to the debt- or’s general mortgage bondholders. It may be noted, parenthetically, that the appellant is the sole objector to the plan of reorganization on this appeal. 2
The appellant’s objections to the reorganization plan were considered by the Interstate Commerce Commission on three occasions and by the District Court and were held in each instance to be without merit.
On October 24, 1951, subsequent to the entry of the Orher of the District Court *217 on July 12, 1951, approving the plan of reorganization, the Interstate Commerce Commission submitted the plan to creditors for acceptance or rejection. The Commission on January 4, 1952, certified to the District Court the results of the balloting. Its certificate reveals that the plan was accepted 'by at least 96 per cent of each class of creditors to which it was submitted. In two of the classes all the creditors voting accepted the plan. 3
We have given due consideration to the record and the contentions of the appellant, and have arrived at the conclusion that the latter are without, substance. We need add nothing to what has been so well stated by Judge Smith in his analysis of the plan of reorganization and his Order approving it.
The Order of the District Court will be affirmed.
. U.S.C.A. § 205.
. The plan is supported by the Protective Committee for Holders of the Debtor’s General Mortgage Bonds; the Group of Holders of the Debtor’s General Mortgage Bonds; and the New York Trust Company, Successor Trustee under the Debtor’s General Mortgage.
. The results of the balloting appear in the following table:
Prin. amt. outstanding Oct. 24, 1951
Principal amount
Accept
Reject
Percent
Terminal bonds $2,000,000 $1,041,000 — 100.00 —
Midland bonds 3,489,000 2,016,500 $75,000 96.41 3.59
First Refunding bonds 3,744,000 2,471,000 88,000 96.56 3.44
Second Mortgage bonds 448,000 26,000 1,000 96.30 3.70
General Mortgage bonds 2,551,000 545,000 3,000 99.45 .55
Paterson Extension bonds 200,000 27,000 100.00 —
Unsecured claims 2,388,258 604,511 • 13,508 97.81 2.19
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
196 F.2d 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-new-york-susquehanna-western-railroad-company-edith-a-ca3-1952.