In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. Appeal of Richard S. Robinson

Third Circuit

In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. Appeal of Richard S. Robinson

455 F.2d 976

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1972

Docket71-1685

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 455 F.2d 976 (In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. Appeal of Richard S. Robinson) 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.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. Appeal of Richard S. Robinson, 455 F.2d 976 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This appeal has been taken from Order No. 261, 328 F.Supp. 1273, entered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the course of the pending proceeding for the reorganization of Penn Central Transportation Co., a railroad under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 205. The questioned order denied a petition wherein thirteen shareholders of Penn Central Co. sought to intervene generally in the reorganization proceeding. Penn Central Co. owns all of the stock of the debtor, Penn Central Transportation Co., and is a party in the reorganization of its subsidiary. The appellants own less than one tenth of one percent of the stock of Penn Central Co.

The only relevant language of section 77 appears in subsection (c) (13) and provides that “. . . any other interested party may be permitted to intervene.” On its face this language makes the allowance of intervention discretionary rather than mandatory, and we so construe it. Accord, Boston & Providence R.R. Stockholders Development Group v. Smith, 2d Cir.1964, 333 F.2d 651. Thus the question here is whether the district court abused its discretion.

No evidence was tendered to show special circumstances that might support the petition to intervene. On the present record and for the justifying reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion, we hold that the denial of appellants’ petition reflected a proper and allowable exericse of judicial discretion.

Order No. 261 will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This appeal has been taken from Order No. 261, 328 F.Supp. 1273, entered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the course of the pending proceeding for the reorganization of Penn Central Transportation Co., a railroad under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 205. The questioned order denied a petition wherein thirteen shareholders of Penn Central Co. sought to intervene generally in the reorganization proceeding. Penn Central Co. owns all of the stock of the debtor, Penn Central Transportation Co., and is a party in the reorganization of its subsidiary. The appellants own less than one tenth of one percent of the stock of Penn Central Co.

The only relevant language of section 77 appears in subsection (c) (13) and provides that “. . . any other interested party may be permitted to intervene.” On its face this language makes the allowance of intervention discretionary rather than mandatory, and we so construe it. Accord, Boston & Providence R.R. Stockholders Development Group v. Smith, 2d Cir.1964, 333 F.2d 651. Thus the question here is whether the district court abused its discretion.

No evidence was tendered to show special circumstances that might support the petition to intervene. On the present record and for the justifying reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion, we hold that the denial of appellants’ petition reflected a proper and allowable exericse of judicial discretion.

Order No. 261 will be affirmed.

In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. Appeal of Joseph A. Schafer, Whitney W. Irons, Alton P. Gainer, Emil Milan, Carol Kuchar, Leo Sukala, Stephen Sloboda, Charles W. Hannon, and Philip Morton, in Nos. 78-1715, 78-2321 and 78-2336. In the Matter of Penn Central Company, Debtor

596 F.2d 1155 (Third Circuit, 1979)

In re Penn Central Transportation Co.

596 F.2d 1155 (Third Circuit, 1979)

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,452 in Re Penn Central Securities Litigation, M.D.L. Docket No. 56, Civil Action Nos.: 70-2005 70-2010 70-2137 70-2320 70-2505 70-2596 70-2696 70-2818 70-2933 71-265 71-266 71-267 71-268 71-277 71-278 71-280 71-476 71-971 Plaintiff-Shareholders in the Above-Captioned Actions

494 F.2d 528 (Third Circuit, 1974)

In re Penn Central Securities Litigation, M.D.L. Docket No. 56

494 F.2d 528 (Third Circuit, 1974)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ABERDEEN SECURITIES CO., INC., Et Al. Appeal of Sherwin SELIGSOHN Et Al.

480 F.2d 1121 (Third Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 F.2d 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-penn-central-transportation-company-debtor-appeal-of-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack