What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Opinion:
MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, v. BECKER et al.
No. 55.
Argued October 20, 1949.
Decided November 21, 1949.
Edward K. Hanlon argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
David W. Kahn argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Solicitor General Perlman, Roger S. Foster, David Ferber and W. Victor Rodin filed a brief for the Securities & Exchange Commission, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This proceeding in bankruptcy is on objections to the allowance of claims equal to the principal amount of bonds of the debtor acquired at a discount during its insolvency by close relatives and an office associate of directors of debtor. Petitioner’s objection that equitable considerations require limitation of the claims was dismissed by the referee, and the District Court affirmed. 80 F. Supp. 822. Following affirmance by a divided Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 173 F. 2d 944, we granted certiorari because the issue presented has importance in the administration of the arrangement and corporate reorganization provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. 337 U. S. 923.
On January 8, 1946, Calton Crescent, Inc., sold its only property, an apartment house located in New Rochelle, New York, for $300,000 pursuant to a contract entered into in October 1945. Being unable to discharge in full its obligations under debenture bonds maturing in 1953, outstanding in principal amount of $254,450, debtor filed in May 1946, a petition under Ch. XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. Under the plan of arrangement, authorizing a dividend of 43.61% of the principal amount of the bonds, respondents Regine Becker, Emily K. Becker, and Walter A. Fribourg were to receive an aggregate dividend of $64,237.53 on allowance of claims based on respective individual holdings of debentures which total $147,300 in principal sum but were acquired at a total cost of $10,195.43. Petitioner, Manufacturers Trust Company, appearing individually as creditor for fees and disbursements due it as indenture trustee and also as original trustee under said indenture, objected to allowance of respondents’ claims as filed, on the ground that the circumstances of respondents’ acquisitions require limitation of their claims to the cost of the debentures plus interest.
The circumstances pertinent to our consideration of petitioner’s objections are as follows: The debtor was organized in 1933 to take title to the apartment property pursuant to a plan of reorganization. By January 1942 debtor had defaulted under the terms of the first mortgage and was operating with a deficit; at no time in the previous several years had its debentures been selling on the market at more than 8% of face value.
While debtor was then considering a sale of the property for $220,000, a suit to enjoin the sale was brought by Sanford Becker, son of respondent Regine Becker and husband of respondent Emily Becker. Thereafter he proposed to arrange a loan on second mortgage to debtor of $15,000 to pay off the arrearages on the first mortgage, all share and debenture holders being invited to participate. In April 1942 debtor accepted the offer, but none of its share or debenture holders elected to participate other than respondent Fribourg, who had desk room in the offices of Sanford Becker and his brother Norman Becker and was a long-time friend of the former. The loan was made by respondents Regine Becker, Emily Becker, and Fribourg. The second mortgage thus created was in default by the end of 1942, and in 1943 respondents took an assignment of rents but did not foreclose; nor was there change in management of the property. The second mortgage and interest were paid upon sale of the property in 1946. In addition to the second mortgage, sums aggregating $7,921.63 were advanced by respondents to pay taxes; this amount was repaid without interest in 1944 and 1945. Pursuant to provisions of the loan agreement in 1942, Sanford and Norman Becker were made directors of debtor, and when the remaining three directors resigned in 1944, the vacancies were filled by nominees of the Becker brothers.
The referee found that from early 1942 the market value of the property of debtor was insufficient to pay its debts. However, the record shows a tax valuation during the period of only slightly less than the outstanding indebtedness. And although the debtor’s operating account frequently ran in arrears, it revealed a surplus in 1945. Prior to disposing of its property debtor was at all times a going concern.
The debentures on which respondents claim were acquired, at prices varying from 3% to 14% of face value, after the Becker brothers became directors in 1942. Sanford Becker did not buy additional debentures after becoming a director. Norman Becker never owned any interest whatever in the debtor. Although neither of the Becker directors was interested in any purchase of the respondents, the debentures of Regine and Emily Becker were purchased through the agency of the Becker brothers and in the latter’s judgment. The debentures of Regine Becker were purchased from an over-the-counter securities broker. Those of Emily Becker were acquired in part from the same dealer, in part from an estate whose attorneys were fully informed as to debtor’s financial affairs, and in part from a Christian Association represented by a member of its investment committee who was fully advised as to the condition of debtor.
Some of Fribourg’s debentures were bought from dealers in the over-the-counter market; others were acquired through an agent from the president and vice president of debtor when they withdrew from its management in 1944, and from other holders after the retiring president insisted that the offer made to him by Fribourg’s agent be extended to all holders and be accompanied by a statement of the president’s intention to accept. Fribourg was in the market for speculative securities and purchased the debentures as a “gamble,” being influenced by the tax valuation of the apartment building.
All of respondents’ debentures, with the exception of $2,000 in face value purchased by Fribourg from a dealer, were acquired in advance of the contract for sale of the apartment property and the filing of debtor’s petition for arrangement.
It was the referee’s finding, left undisturbed by both courts below, that respondents’ purchases were without overreaching or failure to disclose any material fact to the selling bondholders. Petitioner does not here contend that respondents’ claims should be limited because of conduct by the Becker directors or by respondents amounting to bad faith or abuse of fiduciary advantage. Nor does petitioner contend that respondents’ bondholdings influenced the conduct of corporate affairs to the injury of the corporation or other creditors. Indeed, the referee found that the purchases were not unfair to debtor, that at the time of respondents’ purchases debtor was not in the field to settle its indebtedness on the debentures, and that the assistance rendered to debtor by respondents materially aided in its grave financial situation. Moreover, the findings indicate that the most generous suggestion of an offer for the apartment building after the Beckers became directors and prior to the sale was at a figure substantially less than the sale price.
Petitioner urges broadly that directors are precluded from profiting by the purchase of claims against an insolvent corporation. And, it contends, if directors may claim only the cost of debt securities acquired at a discount during a debtor’s insolvency, those related as respondents are to the Becker directors should not be permitted to do more. Thus we view respondents’ claims initially as if they were claims of directors.
This Court has repeatedly insisted on good faith and fair dealing on the part of corporate fiduciaries. It is especially clear, when claims in bankruptcy accrue to the benefit of a corporate officer or director, that the court must reject any claim that would not be fair and equitable to other creditors. Pepper v. Litton, 308 U. S. 295, 308-309 (1939).
Claims of a corporate officer or director arising out of transactions with the corporation have been enforced when good faith and fairness were found. Sanford Fork & Tool Co. v. Howe, Brown & Co., 157 U. S. 312 (1895); cf. Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175 (1882); see Richardson’s Ex’r v. Green, 133 U. S. 30, 43 (1890); Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 587, 589-591 (1876). Likewise a standard of good faith and fair dealing has been found applicable, where not superseded by a differing legislative or administrative rule, to purchases by directors of corporate shares, in the over-the-counter market, at less than book value on conversion under a plan of public utility reorganization. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, 318 U. S. 80 (1943); cf. id., 332 U. S. 194 (1947). In the first Chen ery decision it was declared that equity has not imposed “upon officers and directors of a corporation any fiduciary duty to its stockholders which precludes them, merely because they are officers and directors, from buying and selling the corporation’s stock.” 318 U. S. at 88.
When the transactions underlying respondents’ claims here are drawn alongside a good faith standard of fiduciary obligation, they appear unobjectionable. There is no component of unfair dealing or bad faith. The findings negative any misrepresentation or deception, any utilization of inside knowledge or strategic position, or any rivalry with the corporation. During the period of the purchases the conduct of the Becker directors and of respondents with reference to the affairs of the debtor was to its substantial benefit and to the advantage of the other debenture holders. And there is nothing to suggest that had the debentures been acquired by the Becker directors, they would have been unjustly enriched. Cf. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, supra, 318 U. S. at 86.
However, it is the contention of petitioner, and of the Securities and Exchange Commission as amicus curiae, that a standard of good faith and fair dealing is inadequate here. Relying particularly upon Magruder v. Drury, 235 U. S. 106 (1914), they invoke the principle that a trustee can make no profit from his trust. But Magruder v. Drury involved an express trust, and even during insolvency corporate assets “are not in any true and complete sense trusts.” Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co., 150 U. S. 371, 381-382 (1893).
The Commission asserts, also, that if a director is free to acquire corporate obligations at a discount during insolvency and later enforce them in full, he will be subject to a possible conflict of interests inconsistent with his role as fiduciary to creditors of the corporation. Specifically it is argued that he may seek to postpone adjustment of claims or the institution of proceedings for relief, when such action would serve the interests of the corporation and its creditors, in order to continue his own purchase of corporate obligations at a market price lower than the valuation which he has made with the benefit of inside information.
This Court has recognized that equity must apply not only the doctrines of unjust enrichment when fiduciaries have yielded to the temptation of self-interest but also a standard of loyalty which will prevent a conflict of interests from arising. See Weil v. Neary, 278 U. S. 160, 173 (1929); cf. Woods v. City Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 312 U. S. 262, 268 (1941). In this case the consideration is whether or to what extent a conflict of interests would arise from a director’s opportunity to purchase unmatured obligations of a corporation which, though technically insolvent, remains nevertheless a going concern. That “there is no such conflict in the ordinary case of the purchase by a director in a going corporation of its outstanding obligations,” Seymour v. Spring Forest Cemetery Assn., 144 N. Y. 333, 344, 39 N. E. 365, 367 (1895), would seem true not only of solvent corporations. Certainly the present record does not tend to establish that the opportunity for such purchases during insolvency would deprive a going corporation of the sound judgment of its officer. And in any event the potentiality of conflict must be weighed against the desirability of permitting reinforcement of the insolvent’s position insofar as a director’s acquisition of claims may help. On this record the probability that an actual conflict of loyalties arose from the opportunity to purchase respondents’ claims, while the debtor was a going concern, is not great enough to justify the exercise of equity jurisdiction which petitioner urges.
Undoubtedly the possibilities of a conflict of interests for the purchasing director are intensified as the corporation becomes less a going concern and more a prospective subject of judicial relief. And if it is clear that a fiduciary may ordinarily purchase debt claims in fair transactions during solvency of the corporation, the lower federal courts seem equally agreed that he cannot purchase after judicial proceedings for the relief of a debtor are expected or have begun. In this case, which lies between, it is unnecessary to determine precisely at what point the probability of conflict requires that equity declare ended the opportunity for profitable trading. It could hardly have been prior to the latest purchases of Regine and Emily Becker.
The nature of the relation between Fribourg and the Becker directors makes immaterial that some of Fribourg’s debentures may have been purchased after the corporation ceased to have the potency of a going concern, in expectation of or even after bankruptcy. Neither director had any indirect interest in Fribourg’s holdings or served as his agent for purchase. Fribourg, moreover, had begun to acquire debentures some months before the negotiations leading to the election of the Beckers as directors of the debtor and, according to Fribourg’s uncontradicted testimony, he began to purchase after looking over the apartment following Sanford Becker’s mention of his own purchase. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Fribourg’s purchases after the Beckers became directors were influenced by advice from them. Accordingly, any consideration of Fribourg’s claim as that of a director is precluded.
A word of caution as to the scope of our decision is desirable in view of Judge Learned Hand’s opinion below. He suggested that if in fact liquidation had been imminent at the time of respondents’ purchases or if it were fairly demonstrable, as a matter of experience, that a director free from all potential self-interest would be more likely to initiate liquidation proceedings or to effect a debt settlement than one not wholly disinterested, a court of equity should explore such issues and not dismiss them out of hand. This decision is not meant to negative the relevance of these issues when raised by a proper record. We mention these matters because the Securities and Exchange Commission urges the importance of a decision in this case for questions that may well arise in proceedings under Ch. X. In such proceedings the Securities and Exchange Commission, acting as the statutory ad-visor to the court, would be within its rightful function in submitting to the court the light of its experience on dealings of the general kind disclosed in this case. Here we have proven facts in a particular case, and not a body of evidence submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, presumably informed by expert understanding.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The amount and cost of the respective holdings of the respondents, insofar as objected to, are as follows:
, Principal Amount Cost
Regine Becker.................... $44,500 $3060. 63
Emily K. Becker.................. 52,800 5010.00
Walter A. Fribourg................ 50,000 2124.80
Sanford Becker and respondent Fribourg first became interested in the affairs of debtor in September 1941. Soon thereafter each purchased, independently, debentures of debtor of the face value of $5,000. No contest is made of these purchases.
It appears that transactions in the debentures included the transfer of capital shares of the debtor which had no market apart from the debentures.
The major items of indebtedness consisted of (1) the first mortgage on the apartment building in original principal amount of $175,000, which had been reduced by 1946 to $154,000, of which reduction $7,875 had been paid since 1943; (2) the second mortgage and tax advances of the respondents totalling some $22,000, and (3) the debentures of $254,450, on which, however, interest was payable only if earned. The tax valuation was $421,630.
The District Court’s characterization of debtor as a going concern was not upset by the Court of Appeals and is accepted here.
Regine Becker began purchases on February 10, 1944, and continued through August 30, 1945. The purchases of Emily Becker were made between May 24, 1944, and February 5, 1945. In addition to the purchases referred to in note 2, supra, Fribourg made purchases through June 4, 1946.
The latest purchase by a respondent clearly prior to the contract for sale was by Regine Becker on August 30 preceding the contract in October 1945. Fribourg apparently acquired $1,500 of debentures after the contract of sale and an additional $500 after the filing of debtor’s petition.
Since the power of disallowance of claims, conferred on the bankruptcy court by § 2 of the Act, 30 Stat. 545, 11 U. S. C. § 11, embraces the rejection of claims “in whole or in part, according to the equities of the case,” Pepper v. Litton, 308 U. S. 295, 304-305 (1939), the court may undoubtedly require limitation of the amount of claims in view of equitable considerations. Cf. Bankruptcy Act, § 212, 52 Stat. 895, 11 U. S. C. § 612.
Cf. In re The Van Sweringen Co., 119 F. 2d 231 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1941); In re Norcor Mfg. Co., 109 F. 2d 407 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1940).
Cf. In re Jersey Materials Co., 50 F. Supp. 428 (D. N. J. 1943); In re McCrory Stores Corp., 12 F. Supp. 267 (S. D. N. Y. 1935).
Other holdings upon which the Commission relies, Pepper v. Litton, supra, note 7, and Woods v. City Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 312 U. S. 262 (1941), were considered in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, 318 U. S. 80, 89 (1943), and there distinguished on grounds which are also dispositive here.
Courts of equity, in defining the responsibility of officers of a corporation which is insolvent and yet a going concern, have frequently assigned greater importance to the corporation’s vitality than to its insolvency. E. g., Sanford Fork & Tool Co. v. Howe, Brown & Co., 157 U. S. 312 (1895); White, Potter & Paige Mfg. Co. v. Henry B. Pettes Importing Co., 30 F. 864 (E. D. Mo. 1887).
As respondents’ purchases of debentures resulted in their securing control of debtor, see note 2, supra, the acquisitions arguably were a factor in preventing further financial deterioration of debtor. See also 62 Harv. L. Rev. 1391, 1392 (1949): Insolvency “is the very time when such purchases may be of most benefit to the corporation, since the credit of the corporation may be improved if it is known that directors are purchasing the corporation’s securities; also it may be possible to forestall a bankruptcy petition while the corporation improves its financial position.”
Cf. In the Matter of Wade Park Manor Corporation, Report of Special Master: Claims of Macklin et al. (N. D. Ohio, 1949); see 3 Collier, Bankruptcy (14th ed.), p. 1784, 1948 Supp. p. 124.
See In re Philadelphia & Western R. Co., 64 F. Supp. 738, 739 (E. D. Pa. 1946); Ripperger v. Allyn, 25 F. Supp. 554, 555 (S. D. N. Y. 1938); In re McCrory Stores Corp., note 9, supra, at 269.
Monroe v. Scofield, 135 F. 2d 725 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1943); In re Norcor Mfg. Co., note 8, supra; In re Philadelphia & Western R. Co., note 14, supra; In re Jersey Materials Co., note 9, supra; In re Los Angeles Lumber Products Co., 46 F. Supp. 77 (S. D. Cal. 1941).
Thus it becomes unnecessary to determine whether the relation of the Becker respondents to the directors was such as to require limitation of these respondents’ claims if they would be disallowed in part as claims of directors.

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?

Choices:
judicial review (national level)
judicial review (state level)
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
statutory construction
interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
diversity jurisdiction
federal common law

Answer: 3