Opinion ID: 302501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Supreme Court's Mandate in the New Haven Inclusion

Text: Cases 31 Appellees maintain that the Connecticut reorganization court had jurisdiction to declare the equitable lien and constructive trust, in order to provide that the New Haven would receive reasonable assurance of full payment for the assets transferred to Penn Central, under the terms of the mandate of the Supreme Court in the New Haven Inclusion Cases. 32 Penn Central's petition for reorganization was approved eight days before the Supreme Court's decision in New Haven Inclusion Cases. The Supreme Court said at the beginning of its opinion: 33 On June 21, 1970, the Penn Central Transportation Company filed a petition for reorganization . . . in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Whether the financial obligations dealt with in the present opinion may become subject to modification in or because of those proceedings is a question with which the present opinion in no way deals. 34 New Haven Inclusion Cases, supra, at 399 n.+, 90 S.Ct. at 2061. The Court set aside the order of the Connecticut district court and remanded for [f]urther proceedings before the Commission and the appropriate federal courts . . . to determine the form that Penn Central's consideration to New Haven should properly take and the status of the New Haven estate as a shareholder or creditor of Penn Central. Id. at 489, 90 S.Ct. at 2108 (emphasis added). 35 In view of the language accompanying the remand, we do not interpret the mandate as conferring jurisdiction on the Connecticut reorganization court, particularly when as we have demonstrated, the interpretations of and policy underlying Sec. 77(a) clearly require the opposite result. 36