In re Inland Gas Corporation
| Citation | 262 F.2d 510 |
| Decision Date | 15 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 13657-13663.,13657-13663. |
| Parties | In the Matter of INLAND GAS CORPORATION, Kentucky Fuel Gas Corporation, American Fuel & Power Company, Debtors. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
John L. Davis, Lexington, Ky., Edward S. Pinney, Oscar S. Rosner, New York City, and Selden S. McNeer, Huntington, W. Va., for appellants.
David Ferber, Washington, D. C., Kenneth J. Bialkin, George Zolotar, George W. Jaques, New York City, and Robert S. Spilman, Jr., Charleston, W. Va., for appellees.
Oscar S. Rosner, New York City, on the brief, for Independent Committee for American Fuel Noteholders.
Edward S. Pinney, New York City, on the brief, for Columbia Gas System, Inc.
George W. Jaques, New York City, on the brief, for Vanston Committee.
George Zolotar, New York City, and Leo T. Wolford, Louisville, Ky., on the brief, for Paul E. Kern.
John L. Davis, Lexington, Ky., on the brief, for Clinton M. Harbison, Trustee.
Selden S. McNeer and Robert K. Emerson, Huntington, W. Va., on the brief, for Ben Williamson, Jr., Trustee of Inland Gas Corp., and Kentucky Fuel Gas Corp.
Robert S. Spilman, Jr., Charleston, W. Va., on the brief, for Allen Committee and Edward D. Spilman.
Walter H. Brown, Jr., Kenneth Bialkin, New York City, and John L. Smith, Catlettsburg, Ky., on the brief, for Committee Holders of Kentucky Fuel Gas Corp. Debentures.
Thomas G. Meeker, Gen. Counsel, David Ferber, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Pace Reich, Atty., Washington, D. C., J. Kirk Windle, Atty., Chicago, Ill., Charles J. Odenweller, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief, for Securities and Exchange Commission.
Before SIMONS, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
These cases have been heard on motions of the trustee of American Fuel & Power Company supported by the Columbia Gas Systems, Inc., the Green Committee for Independent American Fuel Note Holders, and the trustees of the debtors, Inland Gas Corporation and Kentucky Fuel Gas Corporation to dismiss the appeals in these seven cases, which were heard together, and on the opposition of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the several parties joining it in opposition to the dismissal of the appeals. This opposition, of course, involves opposition to the plan adopted in the district court and to its confirmation.
This appellate court has heard oral arguments of four attorneys in favor of the motions to dismiss and those of five attorneys opposing the dismissals. There have been considered also some twenty briefs filed by the attorneys for and against the motions.
The full history of this long-drawn-out litigation is disclosed by the numerous opinions of this court: In re American Fuel & Power Co., 6 Cir., 122 F.2d 223; Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation v. United States, 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 461; In re American Fuel & Power Co., 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 470, affirmed by the Supreme Court, sub nom. Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U.S. 156, 67 S.Ct. 237, 91 L.Ed. 162; Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation v. United States, 6 Cir., 153 F.2d 101; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 187 F.2d 813; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 208 F.2d 13; In re Inland Gas Corporation (Harbison v. Williamson; Vanston v. Williamson; Kern v. Williamson; Green v. Vanston); 6 Cir., 211 F.2d 381, certiorari denied, sub nom. Kern v. Williamson, 348 U.S. 840, 75 S.Ct. 45, 99 L.Ed. 662; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 217 F.2d 207; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 241 F.2d 374, certiorari denied 1957, 355 U.S. 838, 78 S.Ct. 60, 2 L.Ed.2d 50.
Upon the last remand to the United States District Court, District Judge Ford had a full hearing with all interested parties appearing by counsel to consider whether a proposed plan, presented by the trustees of the several debtor corporations involved, is fair, equitable and feasible. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the district court entered an order finding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Inland Gas Corporation
...In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 207; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 374; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 1959, 262 F.2d 510. The first two above-listed opinions have no relevancy Our opinion reported at 1945, 151 F.2d 461, discloses the histo......
-
IN RE INLAND GAS CORPORATION, 14682.
...opinions dealing with the closing phases of the litigation are In Re Inland Gas Corporation, 241 F.2d 374, C.A.6th, and In Re Inland Gas Corporation, 262 F.2d 510, Following the denial of certiorari on June 6, 1960, reported at 363 U.S. 813, 80 S.Ct. 1246, 4 L.Ed.2d 1154, the District Judge......
-
In Re Inland Gas Corporation
...In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 207; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 374; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 1959, 262 F.2d 510, and In the Matter of Inland Gas Corporation et al., 6 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d If we make allowance for the time during w......
-
Sawyer v. Board of Trustees, University of Kentucky, 89-5615
...this case are moot. See Hawkes v. Internal Revenue Service, 507 F.2d 481, 482-83 (6th Cir.1974); see generally, In re Inland Gas Corp., 262 F.2d 510 (6th Cir.) (per curiam) (where district court appropriately applied and put into effect adjudication of court of appeals, appeals from its jud......