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:
GENERAL STORES CORP. v. SHLENSKY et al.
No. 170.
Argued January 18, 1956.
Decided March 26, 1956.
Aaron Rosen and Frederic P. Houston argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Marks F. Paskes.
William, H. Timbers argued the cause for the Securities and Exchange Commission, respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobelofi, Thomas G. Meeker, David Ferber and Aaron Levy.
A. Alan Reich argued the cause for Shlensky, respondent. With him on the brief was Michael Gesas.
Max Goldweber argued the cause for the Wage Claimants, respondents. With him on the brief was Louis J. Weinshenker.
Leon Singer argued the cause for the Creditors Committee, respondent. With him on the brief was Samuel Blumberg.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner instituted proceedings under c. XI of the Bankruptcy Act (52 Stat. 905, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 701 et seq.) alleging it was unable to pay its debts as they matured. It proposed an arrangement of its general unsecured trade and commercial debts, none of which is evidenced by any publicly held security. Petitioner has indeed no debts of any nature by way of bonds, mortgage certificates, notes, debentures, or obligations of like character, publicly held. It does, however, have over 2,000,000 shares of $1 par value common stock listed on the American Stock Exchange and held by over 7,000 shareholders. One of these — an owner of 3,000 shares— and the Securities and Exchange Commission moved that the proceedings be dismissed unless, within a time fixed by the court, the petition be amended to comply with the requirements of c. X of the Bankruptcy Act (52 Stat. 883, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 501 et seq.) for a corporate reorganization. The District Court granted the motions. 129 F. Supp. 801. The Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 222 F. 2d 234. The case is here on certiorari. 350 U. S. 809.
Petitioner, formerly known as D. A. Schulte, Inc., has operated for some years a chain of stores for the sale of tobacco and accessory products. Petitioner has also had a chain of difficulties. Its financial problems go back at least to 1936 when it filed a petition for reorganization under former § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act. After its reorganization was completed in 1940, it had a few years of prosperity followed by a postwar decline in volume of business, a rise in costs, and substantial losses. During these years $600,000 cash was raised by the sale of stock and a new management installed with a view to converting some existing stores into candy, food, and drink establishments. That idea was abandoned and the proceeds of the stock sale were used for general corporate purposes. It was then decided to liquidate the existing specialty stores and to have petitioner acquire the stock of two existing retail drugstore chains — Stineway Drug Company and Ford Hopkins Company. The Stineway stock was acquired for $1,220,320, petitioner borrowing $870,-000 from Stineway for the purpose. Later petitioner borrowed an additional $440,000 from Stineway to help make the down payment on the Ford Hopkins stock, making a total indebtedness to Stineway of $1,310,000, represented by two non-interest-bearing notes. The Ford Hopkins stock was acquired for $2,800,000, the down payment being $735,000, the balance being payable in a yearly amount of $200,000 with 4 per cent interest and secured by the Stineway and Ford Hopkins stock.
While the two drug chains were being acquired, petitioner started the liquidation of its own stores, a process that was completed under c. XI of the Bankruptcy Act. The disposition of those stores involved the rejection of numerous leases and the creation of claims of landlords against petitioner.
The arrangement proposed by petitioner under c. XI would extend its unsecured-obligations and provide for a 20 per cent payment on confirmation of the plan and 20 per cent annually for 4 years thereafter. The claims listed were the $1,310,000 debt to Stineway and $525,000 unsecured claims, exclusive of claims by landlords. We were advised on oral argument that during the course of the c. XI proceedings it was decided that this offer was not feasible and that the unsecured creditors are now offered the equivalent of 40 per cent of their claims in full satisfaction.
Much of the argument has been devoted to the meaning of Securities and Exchange Commission v. United States Realty Co., 310 U. S. 434. In that case we held that relief was not properly sought under c. XI but that c. X offered the appropriate relief. That was a case of a debtor with publicly owned debentures, publicly owned mortgage certificates, and publicly owned stock. An arrangement was proposed that would leave the debentures and stock unaffected and extend the certificates and reduce the interest. It was argued in that case, as it has been in the instant one, that c. X affords the relief for corporations whose securities are publicly owned, while c. XI is available to debtors whose stock is closely held; that c. X is designed for the large corporations, c. XI for the smaller ones; that it is the character of the debtor that determines whether c. X or c. XI affords the appropriate remedy. We did not adopt that distinction in the United States Realty case. Rather we emphasized the need to determine on the facts of the case whether the formulation of a plan under the control of the debtor, as provided by c. XI, or the formulation of a plan under the auspices of disinterested trustees, as assured by c. X and the other protective provisions of that chapter, would better serve “the public and private interests concerned including those of the debtor.” 310 U. S., at 455. The United States Realty case presented a rather simple problem. There one class of creditors was being asked to make sacrifices, while the position of the stockholders remained unimpaired (id., 453-454, 456), contrary to the teachings of Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co., 308 U. S. 106. Moreover, the history of the company raised a serious question “whether any fair and equitable arrangement in the best interest of creditors” could be effected “without some re-arrangement of its capital structure.” Id., 456. For those reasons c. X was held to offer the appropriate relief.
The character of the debtor is not the controlling consideration in a choice between c. X and c. XI. Nor is the nature of the capital structure. It may well be that in most cases where the debtor’s securities are publicly held c. X will afford the more appropriate remedy. But that is not necessarily so. A large company with publicly held securities may have as much need for a simple composition of unsecured debts as a smaller company. And there is no reason we can see why c. XI may not serve that end. The essential difference is not between the small company and the large company but between the needs to be served.
Readjustment of all or a part of the debts of an insolvent company without sacrifice by the stockholders may violate the fundamental principle of a fair and equitable plan (see Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co., supra), as the United States Realty Co. case emphasizes.
Readjustment of the debt structure of a company, without more, may be inadequate unless there is also an accounting by the management for misdeeds which caused the debacle.
Readjustment of the debts may be a minor problem compared with the need for new management. Without a new management today’s readjustment may be a temporary moratorium before a major collapse.
These are typical instances where c. X affords a more adequate remedy than c. XI. The appointment of a disinterested trustee (§ 156), his broad powers of investigation (§ 167), the role of the trustee in preparing a plan (§ 169), the duty of the Securities and Exchange Commission to render an advisory report on the plan (§ 172), the requirement that the plan be “fair and equitable, and feasible” (§§ 174, 221), the power to include the subsidiaries, Stineway and Ford Hopkins, in the reorganization of petitioner (§ 129) — these are controls which c. X gives to the entire community of interests in the company being reorganized and which are lacking under c. XI. These controls are essential both where a complicated debt structure must be readjusted and where a sound discretion indicates either that there must be an accounting from the management or that a new management is necessary. Those conditions only illustrate the need for c. X. There may be others equally compelling.
The history of this debtor indicates not fraud but either an improvident overextension or a business that has been out of step with modern trends. One corporate reorganization has already been suffered. Heavy short-term loans hang ominously over the company; and it has been converted from an operating company to a holding company with the shares of the subsidiaries pledged to creditors. It is argued that only a short moratorium is needed. There are, however, fears that a short moratorium may be merely a prelude to new disasters, that what the company needs is a fundamental reorganization of its capital structure, so that its limited cash resources will not be dissipated in an effort to meet the demands for debt reduction. A question as to what is “fair and equitable” between creditors and stockholders may eventually be reached in the reorganization. But the paramount issue at present concerns what is “feasible.” A “feasible” plan within the meaning of c. X, §§ 174, 221, might mean, first, a merger of the subsidiaries with the holding company, and, second, a funding of the unsecured debt and a realignment of debt and stock so as to give a balanced capital structure. The old business has been liquidated and the new one launched with heavy borrowings on a short-term basis. If the new one is to succeed, it may well need a more thoroughgoing capital readjustment than is possible under c. XI. That was the view of two lower courts. We could reverse them only if their exercise of discretion transcended the allowable bounds. We cannot say that it does. Rather we think that the lower courts took a fair reading of c. X and the functions it serves and reasonably concluded that this business needed a more pervasive reorganization than is available under c. XI.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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