Task: songer_appel1_1_3

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying the petition of A. J. Schanfarber, Abram M. Frumberg, Edgar J. Schoen, and Samuel Zirn for an allowance for legal services rendered in connection with an action brought by them in the Supreme Court of New York on behalf of one Levy, holder of $5,000 of debentures of Paramount Publix Corporation against that company, Film Production Corporation, its wholly owned subsidiary, certain bank creditors of Paramount, and others. The suit was on behalf of Levy and all other debenture holders similarly situated and is said to have resulted in the relinquishment by the bank creditors of Paramount of a large amount of securities as a result of which they became general instead of secured creditors. The allowance asked was $75,000.
The Levy suit was brought prior to the date of the equity receivership of Paramount, its adjudication in bankruptcy, and the institution of the present proceeding for a reorganization under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act (11. U.S.C.A. § 207). It sought to set aside an alleged preferential agreement between Paramount and its bank creditors made at a time when it was said to have- been insolvent, and on February 3, 1933, the appellants, or some of them, obtained from the state court an injunction restraining the defendants pendente lite from disposing of the pledged assets stated to have amounted to -some $10,000,000. The alleged fraudulent transfer was to the subsidiary Film Production Corporation. Paramount transferred certain films and rentals thereof to that subsidiary, and it in turn gave its notes therefor to Paramount, who turned them over to the banks. The various defendants had the suit of Levy dismissed by the state court on the ground that he was not a judgment creditor and because the trustee under the trust indenture for the bondholders was alone vested with the right to attack the transfer on their behalf.
The petitioners base their claim to an allowance upon the sole ground that their injunction, though improvidently issued, was a step in preventing the dissipation of the transferred assets until the trustees for Paramount settled a suit which they later brought to set aside the transfer to Film Production Corporation. They clearly have established no right to an allowance. Their suit failed and the injunction was improvident. Not only had the court, as was finally decided, no right to entertain it, but it was needless because it was not shown that the banks were not fully responsible for any claim the debenture holders might have against them. Moreover, they had no lien on the property transferred and could only reach it by reducing their notes to judgment and issuing an execution. Consequently they never were in the position of transferees or preferred creditors. In our opinion the Levy suit was based on no tenable theory and the application for an allowance was properly denied.
Order affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?
A. agriculture
B. mining
C. construction
D. manufacturing
E. transportation
F. trade
G. financial institution
H. utilities
I. other
J. unclear
Answer:

Answer: I