Rogers v. Consolidated Rock Products Co.
| Citation | 114 F.2d 108 |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9214.,9214. |
| Parties | ROGERS et al. v. CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Chase, Barnes & Chase, Lucius K. Chase, and Thomas R. Suttner, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Stanley M. Arndt, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees Hatch & Van Gelder, and others.
H. W. O'Melveny, Louis W. Myers, Homer I. Mitchell, and Graham L. Sterling, Jr., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees Badgley, Frith, Knight & Taylor, and others.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, J. C. Macfarland, Thomas H. Joyce, and Frederic H. Sturdy, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees Courtright, Dreher, Gay, Ginoux, Witter, and others.
Latham & Watkins, and Paul R. Watkins, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee Consolidated Rock Products Co.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
This case comes to us on an agreed statement of facts. It arises out of petitions filed in the court below on May 24, 1935, by Consolidated Rock Products Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Union Rock Company and Consumers Rock and Gravel Company, for relief under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as amended. 48 Stat. 912, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207. On the same day the petitions were approved as properly filed and Consolidated was permitted to remain in possession of the properties. Hearing was held June 24, 1935, and on July 2, 1935, the court entered its order continuing Consolidated in possession of the properties.1 April 28, 1937, Consolidated, Union Bondholders' Committee, and Consumers Bondholders' Committee filed their petition submitting a plan of reorganization dated March 15, 1937. On August 25, 1937, written objections to said plan were filed by E. Blois Du Bois, an owner and holder of both Union bonds and Consumers bonds, and supplemental objections were filed by him on October 21, 1937. After hearing on said plan held on November 1, 1937, the court, on November 3, 1937, ordered the plan and objections thereto (except objections going to constitutionality) referred to a special master, who held hearings from November 8, 1937, to November 17, 1937, and filed his findings and report February 14, 1938. March 4, 1938, Du Bois filed written exceptions to the findings and report of the master; hearing was had before the court on March 7, 1938; on August 8, 1938, the court filed its memorandum of conclusions approving the plan and directing the proponents to prepare findings, etc.; and on September 8, 1938, the court entered its findings and order confirming the plan of reorganization and the findings and report of the master.
The plan of reorganization was before us in Du Bois, etc. v. Consolidated Rock Products Co. et al., 9 Cir., 114 F.2d 102, and is not here set forth. Those interested in the details are referred to our opinion in the above cause, this day filed.
On August 26, 1938, about two weeks prior to entry of the order of confirmation, the appellants, as stockholders, filed in the court below a "Proposal for Changes and Modifications" in the said plan of reorganization. This date was approximately a year after Du Bois first filed his objections, at which time the appellants did not file or offer any objections to the plan, nor did they file exceptions to the master's report of February 14, 1938. Du Bois filed his exceptions to said master's report on March 4, 1938, as noted above.
Because counsel for the debtor, Union Bondholders' Committee and Consumers Bondholders' Committee, the proponents of the plan of reorganization, believed that appellants' proposals for modification of the plan of reorganization would interfere with the entry of the order of confirmation, the appellants and the proponents of the plan entered into a stipulation, dated September 7, 1938, providing for a withdrawal of the proposal without prejudice to renew the same after the entry of the order confirming the plan of reorganization. Thereafter, and on September 17, 1938, for the second time, the appellants filed their proposal for changes and modifications in the plan of reorganization, the terms of which we deem unnecessary to here set down.
E. Blois Du Bois, the objecting bondholder, had his appeal allowed in October, 1938; the case was argued to this court June 5, 1939.
On May 22, 1939, the proposal for changes and modifications came on for hearing in the court below; also noticed for hearing on the same day was a motion of a committee of preferred stockholders to dismiss said proposal. The said petition or proposal for modification was not heard, nor were the merits of the petition inquired into, but the motion to dismiss was granted. On June 5, 1939, the formal order dismissing the "Proposal for Changes and Modifications in Plan of Reorganization" for want of jurisdiction was entered. This appeal is from that order.
The precise question we are asked to decide is whether a stockholder in a corporation, the object of a proceeding under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, should be permitted to present to the bankruptcy court and be entitled to have heard a "Proposal for Changes and Modifications in the Plan of Reorganization" three years and three months from the commencement of the reorganization proceedings, one year and four months after the submission of the plan of reorganization, and one year after objections to the plan were filed by one Du Bois, a bondholder. In considering this question we must keep in mind that a court hearing was had on Du Bois' objections more than nine months prior to the filing by appellants of their "Proposal for Changes and Modifications"; that the plan adopted and Du Bois' objections thereto had been referred to a special master who recommended in favor of the plan six months prior to appellants' first indication of dissatisfaction; and that the bankruptcy court approved the plan prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Hall
...and unmanageable size. 9 John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82, 91, 42 S.Ct. 196, 66 L.Ed. 475; Rogers v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., 9 Cir., 114 F.2d 108, 111; Rothschild & Co. v. Marshall, 9 Cir., 51 F.2d 897, 899. Respondent litigants point out in one of their briefs that ......
-
Baird v. Franklin
...322 West Seventy-Second Street Co., 2 Cir., 127 F.2d 716, 718-719; In re Barnett, 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 1005, 1012; Rogers v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., 9 Cir., 114 F.2d 108, 111; John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82, 42 S.Ct. 196, 66 L.Ed. ...
-
United States v. Caraway
...States v. Grabina, 2 Cir. 1962, 309 F.2d 783, 785; Dickinson v. Rinke, 2 Cir. 1943, 132 F.2d 884, 885; Rogers v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., 9 Cir. 1940, 114 F.2d 108, 111. Equally universal is the rule that the time at which jurisdiction revests in the trial court is the date of the is......
-
United States v. Kobey, Cr. No. 21815.
...325 U.S. 859, 65 S.Ct. 1193, 89 L.Ed. 1980; United States v. Tuffanelli, 7 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 981, 983; Rogers v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., 9 Cir., 1940, 114 F.2d 108; Casebeer v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1940, 114 F.2d 789, reversed 1941, 312 U.S. 662, 61 S.Ct. 804, 85 L.Ed. 1109; id., 1......