Securities and Exchange Commission v. Burton
| Decision Date | 23 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 6223.,6223. |
| Parties | SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Harry H. BURTON, Receiver, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
David Ferber, Sol., Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Dolph B. H. Simon, Atty., S.E.C., Washington, D. C., Richard V. Bandler, Asst. Regional Administrator, Joseph P. Sullivan, Atty., S.E.C., New York City, for appellant, on motion to remand.
Marcien Jenckes, Boston, Mass., and Joseph G. Nason, Worcester, Mass., Weld S. Henshaw, Boston, Mass., for State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of America, The George Putnam Fund of Boston and The Putnam Management Co., Inc., appellees, on memorandum in opposition to the motion.
Alfred B. Stapleton, Robert J. McGarry and Graham, Reid, Ewing & Stapleton, Providence, R. I., for debtor, appellee, on memorandum in opposition to the motion.
John Cancian and Frederick G. Fisher, Jr., Boston, Mass., for Official Creditors' Committee, Bingham, Dana & Gould, Wilmot R. Hastings, Hale & Dorr, S. Donald Gonson, Boston, Mass., of counsel.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, WOODBURY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge.
The facts fully appear in the opinion of the court below. In the Matter of American Guaranty Corporation, Debtor, 221 F.Supp. 961 (D.C.R.I., 1963). There is no occasion to recapitulate them here. It will suffice to say that on January 18, 1963, American Guaranty Corporation, hereinafter the debtor, finding itself in financial trouble, filed a petition in the court below for an arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 905, as amended, 11 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1958 ed.), and that, although no security holders objected, the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereinafter the Commission, on May 23, 1963, asked leave to intervene and moved to dismiss outright or in the alternative to dismiss unless within a time fixed by the court the petition is amended in such a way as to transfer to proceedings under Chapter X of the Act, 52 Stat. 883, as amended, 11 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. (1958 ed.). The court below after hearing denied the Commission's motion on September 11, 1963, and it appealed.
This court heard arguments on the appeal at its December session 1963 but before an opinion had been prepared the Supreme Court of the United States on March 23, 1964, granted certiorari, 376 U.S. 948, 84 S.Ct. 971, 11 L.Ed.2d 969, in Securities and Exchange Commission v. American Trailer Rentals Co., 325 F. 2d 47 (C.A.10, 1963), obviously to consider the very question before us in our appeal. We withheld opinion awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. Twice while we were waiting, once on June 8, 1964, and again on January 6, 1965, we authorized with the consent of the Commission distributions of portions of the debtor's accumulated cash. On January 18, 1965, the Supreme Court decided the American Trailer Rentals case, 85 S.Ct. 513, and while we were considering the case at bar in the light of that decision, the Commission, on February 16, 1965, moved for remand to the court below for reconsideration on the ground that subsequent to the entry of the order of September 11, 1963, there have been "significant" factual developments "bearing on the question presented on appeal." The "factual developments" specifically referred to are two proposals by outside private financial institutions for the debtor's rehabilitation. Wherefore, citing page 524 of the Supreme Court's opinion, the Commission asserts that Chapter X affords the only appropriate procedure because it is clear that "* * * the financial condition of the debtor requires more than a simple composition of its unsecured debts." We afforded time for counsel for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Inv. Corp., In re
...corporation to liquidation or at least needlessly weaken its recovery. Such considerations may not be legitimate ones. SEC v. Burton, 342 F.2d 783, 785 (1st Cir. 1965), But see In the Matter of Alrac, supra, 550 F.2d at 1319. Chapter X's very purpose is to insure an exhaustive investigation......
- Torriente v. United States, 74 Civ. 1138-LFM.
-
Schreibman v. Mason
...Rentals, supra, and therefore this order cannot stand. The question now arises as to what should be done next. In S. E. C. v. Burton, 342 F.2d 783 (1st Cir. 1965), we returned a similar transfer question to the district court for further consideration in the light of American Trailer Rental......
-
IN THE MATTER OF RICE BARTON CORPORATION
...U.S. 462, 76 S.Ct. 516, 100 L.Ed. 550 (1956); In re American Guaranty Corp., 246 F.Supp. 322 (D.R.I., 1965); Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Burton, 342 F.2d 783 (1 Cir., 1965). With regard to point (1) above, the court is well aware that Chapter X was enacted for the protection of public ......