Task: songer_appel1_1_2

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 classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

PER CURIAM.
The appellant and other creditors, with claims aggregating $1,319.64, voted for Albert L. Olsen as trustee for the bankrupt. Throe claims aggregating $855.36 voted for Thomas H. Cullen, Jr. (the receiver), and the referee appointed him trastee, stating that he declined to certify Mr. Olsen elected trastee because of a disapproval based upon the fact that Mr. Olsen’s election was controlled by the assignee’s attorneys. Cohen & Wedeen, attorneys in fact for the creditors who voted for Mr. Olsen, were also the attorneys for the assignee for the benefit of creditors. The assignee had no assets in his possession; the proceeds of the sale having been paid directly to the receiver.
Nothing in the record supports the eonelusion of the referee that Olsem was controlled by the assignee’s attorneys. By placing their claims in the hands of the attorneys for the assignee, the creditors did not thereby disqualify themselves from voting for the tras-tee. Olsen, who was nominated and voted for by the majority m number and amount of creditors, was not the assignee. The ret-eree stated that he declined “to approve any candidate whose selection the assignee or his attorneys controlled.” Section 44 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 72) provides for the appointment of one or three trustees by creditors. General Order 13 (11 USCA § 53) provides that “the appointment of a trustee by the creditors shall he subject to be approved or disapproved, and he shall_be removable, by the referee or by the judge.’ But by statute the unqualified right to appoint trustees m bankruptcy vests in the creditors. In re Harris Construction Co. (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 951; In re Van De Mark (D. C.) 175 F. 287; In re Malino (D. C.) 118 F. 368. Disapproval or removal must be based upon the exercise of wise judicial discretion. There must be reason for disapproval or removal. In re Mayflower Hat ,Co., 65 F. (2d) 330 (C. C. A. 2). Insufficient reason existed here for refusing the appointment of Olsen as trustee.
n Order reversed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?
A. local
B. neither local nor national
C. national or multi-national
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D