Document: 389 U.S. 486 88 S.Ct. 602 19 L.Ed.2d 723 Nos. 433, 778, 779, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 668 Misc., and 664 Misc. PENN-CENTRAL MERGER AND N & W INCLUSION CASES.* Argued Dec. 4, 1967. Decided Jan. 15, 1968. ----------* No. Baltimore Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v.United States al.; Norfolk Western Railway v. United Oscar Gruss Son New York, Haven Hartford First Mortgage 4% Bondholders Committee Erie-Lackawanna Boston Maine Corp. Reading City of Scranton John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance al., on appeal from the District Court for Southern argued December Pottsville Middle Pennsylvania; 663, Borough Moosic Pennsylvania 664, motions leave to file petitions writs mandamus and/or certiorari State Pennsylvania. [Syllabus pages 486-490 intentionally omitted] Howard J. Trienens, Chicago, Ill., Myron S. Isaacs, York City, Edward A. McDermott, Washington, D.C., Ernest R. von Starck, Philadelphia, Pa., Gordon P. MacDougall, Malcolm Fooshee Lester C. Migdal, appellants. Solicitor General, Erwin N. Griswold, Thomas D. Barr, Harry G. Silleck, Jr., Joseph Auerback Hugh B. Cox, appellees. [Argument Counsel omitted 490-491] Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered opinion Court. 1 These cases again bring before us problems arising program merge Central railroads related proceeding an Interstate Commerce Commission order that certain be included in (N W) system. The merger inclusion orders are part a vast reorganization rail transportation implementing congressional policy encouraging consolidation Nation's into 'limited number systems.' Section 407 Transportation Act 1920, amending § 5(4) Act, 41 Stat. 481 (1920). That has been with us, one form or another, more than 45 years. original idea 1920 ICC would formulate national plan consolidation, proved unworkable. It ran heavy opposition carriers eventually had abandoned. was replaced by 1940, 54 898. 5(2)(b) as amended 1940 906, 49 U.S.C. 5(2)(b), which governed Commission's examination present transactions. Under initiation proceedings is left themselves, possesses no power compel merge. However, directive limited railroad systems not changed. only change means achieving goal. See generally St. Joe Paper V. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 347 298, 315 321, 74 574, 584—587, 98 L.Ed. 710 (Appendix) (1954). 2 dominate Northeast. Their freight operations extend over some 20,000 miles road 14 Canada. They two largest passenger carrying States. In 1965 their combined operating revenue surpassed $1,500,000,000 net income $75,000,000. As independent lines, are, extent, direct competition traffic. There 32 urban areas lines each other facilities available. roads operate at 160 common points junctions have substantial amount parallel trackage routes. proposed approved contemplates unification these and, time goes on, rationalization elimination dual services various respects. will result 'enormous savings transit time.' estimated eight years, expense $80,000,000 annually. States, 386 372, 379—381, 87 1100, 1103—1105, 18 159 (1967). 3 At same combination directly adversely affect smaller service area because effective competitive system offer tendency roads, unless restrained law, favor own rather share traffic interchange nonsystem roads. 4 brief, antecedents issues follows: Penn-Central under consideration parties about 10 preceded W-Nickel Plate merger, 1964. transaction, which, it anticipated, produce $29,000,000 annually, resulted large network covering 7,000 track extending north Des Moines Kansas Buffalo Pittsburgh, southern tier Cincinnati Norfolk. Chicago Louis Co.—Merger, etc., 324 I.C.C. (1964). transaction presented this review. 5 1962 signed agreement including 36 carriers. did include (NH), although requested inclusion. 6 Following agreement, submitted proposal approval 5(2) Act. Exhaustive hearings were held municipalities, railroads, shippers, public bodies 200 parties, all—took part. staff participated extensively Department acting affected interests regulatory functions Commission. All participants, relatively minor exceptions we shall later advert, agreed itself interest. sharp differences, however, respect issues. primarily concerned provisions made three merger: (E—L), Delaware Hudson (D H), (B M) railroads. immediate consummation subject reservation jurisdiction establish protective Co.—Merger—New 327 475 (1966). Its three-judge court York. 259 F.Supp. 964 7 last Term Court, reversed. We noted found survival E—L, D H, B M essential interest so seriously merged company they might able survive adequate arrangements made. circumstances concluded should determined preserve 'protected roads,' both interim permanent basis, permitting merger. expressly stated passing upon validity 'peripheral posed parties.' supra, 378, 1103. 8 roads' filed applications system, pending case pursuant continuing those proceedings. further Commission, its require condition obligated if direct, such equitable terms prescribe. protected ordered 'such action provide solution problem necessary indispensable protection prerequisite merger.' U.S., 390, S.Ct., 1109. 9 accordance our remand case, conducted On June 9, 1967, issued decision effect 'inclusion petitioners preferable Penn-Central,' acquire stock prescribed terms. 330 780, 796 time, remanded proceedings, reconsidered conditions previously devised aid imposed between lines' major system,1 authorized Company—Merger—New Company, 328 July 3, application opposing order, enjoined implementation Actions also several set aside requiring Suits challenging instituted courts, but stayed permit orderly disposition basic York.2 After expedited court, all complaints attacking dismissed3 decisions sustained. 279 316. Various then sought relief Because importance urgency matter, granted stay consolidated relating decisions, thereof. 946, 311, 356. 11 nine appeals, behalf 17 Also docketed Pennsylvania, court. 12 particular contentions urged multiplicity many varied. general, may articulated Has mandate fulfilled, appropriate provision now roads? Are providing fair interest? Did err refusing enjoin merger? resolution 'peripheral' foreclosed authorizing W? 13 I. THE DECISION. IN GENERAL. 15 Most accord consummated promptly possible. Those urging Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Jersey; Labor Executives' Association; trustees NH; railroads; M; substance, allies. While consensus reduced attacks merits minimum, considering size implications must nevertheless address ourselves well specific objections us. 16 With task limited. do inquire whether satisfies conception Determination factors relevant entrusted law standards governing statute. judicial determine proceeded findings conclusions statutory supported evidence. See, e.g., Illinois W.R. 385 57, 69, 255, 262, 162 905, 5, sets forth guide scrutiny mergers approve proposals, when just reasonable 'consistent interest.' reaching decision, give weight factors, as: '(1) public; (2) inclusion, failure include, territory involved transaction; (3) total fixed charges resulting (4) carrier employees affected.' 5(2)(c). find basis reversing compliance standards, based first discuss considerations turn is, course, true Congress, consolidate Nation systems' variation traditional policy, reflected antitrust laws, insisting primacy touchstone economic regulation. Competition merely here. Seaboard Air 382 154, 86 277, 223 (1965). This departure general familiar standard industrial regulation emphasizes need insistence that, approved, there convincing evidence serve objective serving effectively efficiently carried out. Obviously, every private can pass tests. 20 Examination record properly lawfully discharged duties elaborate lengthy considered tendered others compiled staff. Upon aggressive suit representing conflicting interests, analyzed pertinent aspect order. weighed viewpoints fundamental tangential. concluded, it, negligible exceptions, attested probability significant benefit investors, shippers public. 21 carefully fact Central, individual systems, operated profit, reasonably good prospects continuation operation. But impressed profits sufficient put position make improvements important interest, maintenance public, self-supporting, furnishing assistance needs territory. emphasized enable unified 'accelerate investments property continually modernize plant equipment * better service.' 475, 501—502. And pointed out possible come rescue Haven, describe. 22 lessening where exists merged, retain containuing reductions specifically plans. Such consolidations abandonments subjected criticism disapproval. wervice remain vigorous C O—B O motor, water, air summarized act restraint 23 'The routing, availability numerous routes dense interline routes, influence connecting preventing deterioration joint participate, growing strength stand check against any abuse applicants.' I.C.C., 514. 24 Considering record, analysis see reversal Court's 'public interest' adequately law. consonant principles review, setting determination, directives statute satisfied: likely beneficial adverse discuss, 25 OBJECTIONS OF CERTAIN PENNSYLVANIA INTERESTS 26 objectors Appeal 835 taken Milton Shapp, stockholder Company. decision. Term, supplemental complaints. declined comply because, having intervened plaintiffs chose rely asserted right challenge action. warnings, dismissed, prejudice. 27 Shapp intervened, 26, orders, entered after remand, approving 11, request sound purpose litigation regarding decisions. Cf. 282 760, 51 304, 75 684 (1931). Petitions certiorari, (No. Misc.) Misc.), seeking Since appears dissolved commenced hearings, pointless review Accordingly, dismissed moot. 28 Scranton, attack along broad front claim error thrust argument failed consider evaluate light communities agree. April 6, 1966, examined arguments participating great detail 'contentions Pennsylvania's economy substantiated clearly import harm Commonwealth.' 492. finding, committed proposition enunciated opinion, larger inability lines. conclusion bolstered strong affirmed. 29 infra, apart theoretical complainants' fears injury reduction curtailments provided curtailment proposed. 30 relate broadly underlying decisions: example, anticompetitive consequences financial situation extensive length dismissing go forward, Judge Friendly '(w)hile entertain doubt sufficiency (procedural) ground, think add merit Scranton.' remarked most part, 'the (of Shapp) simply represent disagreement procedural determinations Congress Commission.' F.Supp., 326, n. 6. reason reverse judgment prosecute, lack claims, particularly function opportunity open them proposals service. 31 like Moosic, wish forward seek injunction effectiveness join following noted, 2, district courts actions injunctive continued deference standing joined proceedings.4 circumstances, necessarily follows affirmed, precludes adjudication passes. therefore longer W, consummationof permitted, claims relief, particularized arise services, unaffected cases. Claims precluded pursued both, appropriate. applies interests. except moot court's it. may, any, available herein. Finally, mention Pottsville, appealed 433). Pottsville's intervene action, complaint similar denied Like opportunity—which seize—to litigate principal denial objection interposed will, instant cases, withdrawn. representation without reference attempt scope content intervention sought, issues, proceeding, vacate denying intervenion today. 33 NEW HAVEN'S BONDHOLDERS. 34 Two 830 bondholders Company (NH). 1961 NH 77 Bankruptcy 205. Despite shelter bankruptcy verge collapse attendant risk continuance necessity termination either lead distress severely damage generally. Trustees, Discontinuance Passenger Trains, 151 35 competes small Central; NH's condition, diversion even inflict consequential injury. Even hazard diversion, possibility advanced complaining bondholders—for operation NH, short sheer speculation Federal Government take operations. 1962, permission Haven's 5(2)(d) When 'we (both operations) applicants' transaction'; initial report 'our conditioned inclusion.' 524, 527. required irrevocably stipulate consent or, failing prescribe 553. 37 companies negotiations finally arrived dated 21, October 1966. 1967 warned cash depletion 'so serious rate loss continues, insufficient late September meet payroll.' Subsequent improvement permitted amendment dire prediction expected could financed January 38 August directed negotiation lease Penn 'immediately reported preparation Thereupon, hearing lease, loan, arrangement assure until acquisition Penn-Central. November (a) effectuation merger; (b) lend $25,000,000 three-year period return trustees' certificates; (c) bear 100% losses during year 50% second, 25% third, ceiling $5,500,000 absorb transfer assets. Acceptance retained 'for making appropriate.' 39 reviewed applicable briefs affirm citing urgent salvage attack, far involved, launched Son, holder approximately 14% refunding mortgage bonds Protective issue, Gruss' below. (Nos. 831.) involves progressive erosion bondholders' security does losses, simultaneous NH. view probable difficulties satisfy bondholders, virtually mean delay access aid, faced 40 contention, '(i)t free enterprise persons assume risks attached investments, creditors expect less properties devoted use. Indeed, receiving receive through sharing raise burden shoulders.' 331 643, 704 putting questions affirmed rejection attack. Continuation essential, assured agree place end realistic way avoid prompt respecting perforce accept rights entitled respect, command Procrustean measures. certainly dictate vital jettisoned despite feasible alternative. pawn sacrificed strategic purposes class holders whose served destructive move. 42 reject appeals acceptance remains determined. registered adjudicated Furthermore, above, necessary, loan 43 dismissal 831. BASED ON PROVISIONS MADE FOR PROTECTED ROADS. 44 associated (the Chesapeake (C. O), Maryland) 778). brief object itself. oppose 'immediate consummation'—that prior actual H W. assail urge modifications thereof, legality pool. assailed appear Appendix G case. essentially types: rates, divert lines; indemnity establishing formula whereby compensate event results merger.5 withdrawn consideration. conditions, respects here material restored conditions. None lodged provisions, nor Penn-Central, conformity insisted ensure Term.6 46 objectors, grounds: First, create pooling proscribed 5(1) 5(1). Second, say incentive vice versa. argue, objecting, 'unprotected' Third, assert shield dilutes permits unfairly 'shop around' 47 assailing illegal out, legislative history leads section intended apply one, putative pool creation Additionally, contention struck down. proscribes 'any contract, (among) division traffic, service, gross earnings, portion thereof,' finds 'will operation, unduly restrain competition.' established arrangement, 'this supports protect 'in public" "will competition." 328, 345, 8. finding record. essential. adopted conclude unlawful. experience reveals inequitably, recourse reserved jurisdiction, 48 regardless constitute pool, induce improperly another thereby injure unprotected correctly rejecting neither 'would motive ability engage scale.' 328. reached largely retaliate limitations geographic facts. 'a prohibit engaging manipulation, sanctions do,' 355, reopen modify experience.' revise conditions.7 If, experience, improper diversions develop otherwise prove inequitable, reservations, appropriate.8 expresses fear attractive prefer continue umbrella, ticket admission deter conduct becomes abusive. Further, (E L), already accepted, vote, board directors H) recommended stockholders accepted.9 expressed protestants dangers perpetuation pose regarded speculative. Clearly, decline specified called examine, power, terminate supplied converted sword. protestors fall immediately consummated. Nor W's fail rule, forever, Whether likely, occasion contingent foreclosure. 50 matter problem, ICC's decide question undoubted interest: empowered, ultimate home said: (Commission's) future decided Our indeterminate jockeying, negotiating, fighting among completion multitudinous procedures involved. majority mercy corporations fact, secondary derivative, classes holders. intention fairness concerned, captive whom understandably engaged maneuvering solely improving competitive, strategic, negotiating positions. system: provides: 52 authority paragraph involving require, terms, petition requesting consistent 53 compelling unwilling party prescribes. commanded specify them, relying position, veto inhere pause support proceed fewer if, 'petition petitions' 1, 148. Separate favorable E—L Board Directors, noninclusion cause order.10 E. POSITION READING CO. 55 No 834 railroad. ask stayed. affirmance refusal submit given 56 controlled ownership. suggested so-called Dereco plan, W—C Reading, M. tender closed. since much paralleled injured provisions. 57 requests found, report, harmed unnecessary. letter Commonwealth introduced, Only impact Reading's chiefly prejudice eventual 'original concession (without conditions) inconsequential.' 357. response concern, modified shown. upheld addition, unpersuasive merits. 58 Ordinarily, would, more, concur view. vastness complexity oder whatever substance sacrificed, sustain submission hereafter institute, undue caused 59 II. 60 Three prescribing specifying Merger, (1964), supplemented, reconsidered, 1964 subject, retention five years filing irrevocable absence parties. I.C.C due course Hearings held, prescribed. 61 Appellants M, bondholders. raises duty seeks grounds inadequate reflect M's value third appeal, brought turns attempts disallowing Reference preceding sections discussion bearing proceeding. 62 demands assurance obtain unwarranted develop. acquiring control E—L's look fortunes payment security, entirely solicitous welfare. themselves note adopting officer presiding hearing, 'to petitions, institute investigations, accomplish objectives herein *.' appropriate, addition reports 5(9) Act.'11 Supplemental Order invades rule grant warranted, 63 somewhat extended comment. requires 503-505, considerations' 64 centers, purchase wholly owned subsidiaries. relation experienced earnings adjusted gains satisfied offset benefits account. shareholders newly created subsidiary convertible stock. valuation pay assets 65 undertaken 'replace bargaining session.' stipulation, accepted exigencies Term. 66 voted Directors stockholders. complains price too high aspects arbitrary. hand, low. conclusions, exercise reviewing 67 method determining exchange ratio adopted, briefly described, attacked. conventional always adaptations holding erroneous ascribed values. matters men differ detail, sustained dealing complicated elusive predictions patterns competent ascertain accuracy predictions. deem function, complexities these, agency guard unfairness. If rational, second-guess step process deliberation. 68 centers prospective argues concluding subsidiaries 'viability.'12 asserts invalid adjustments others. This, says, dispute proceedings.' 69 contends substantially underestimate credited adjustment, therefore, unjust. Specifically, urges underestimated coordination repair administrative expenses. relied figures witness. assails figures, obviously them. 70 analysis, judgment. within equity. Although forcefully redound credit, cannot reversed respect. discussed connection compulsive coercive included. Unless specifies equitable.13 71 point objects protecting '(t)he acted powers thoroughly directed.' 337.14 III. CONCLUSION. 72 opinion. 830—836 entry premises. 73 vacated, MARSHALL took 76 DOUGLAS, dissenting my concerning I feel answer feasible. 78 initiated (petitioner located Lackawanna County, annul system.1 March 27, 159. intervenors (petitioners Misc.)2 (appellant 433).3 intervene, Pottsville. 79 Before initiated, allowing (i.e., Term), asked temporarily intervening 17, Merger Case, 80 filed, (on 13) federal Virginia order; 23, Other interested apparently indicated contemplating additional still challenges 28, days Moosic's venue choosing forum. Thereafter, moved final determination actions. become 81 twice petitioned today dismisses petitions.4 82 involved—the cities broadside Among least never namely, E L, detrimental communities—in employment, business—as meaning contend afforded 83 quotes statement, earlier (April 1966) Merger—New Finance Docket 21989, words, directing attention effects communities. community issue date separately Inclusion 21510, 780. 84 seems suggest contemplated taking account statement quoted above. assumption flies face case-by-case approach. ignores 21989 Case) addressed Recommended Report, 229—286; 489—493. correct divining hidden intent, participate Infra, 535—536. 85 has, Commission; policy—in instance, searching inquiry Case 'basic findings.' Florida 194, 215, 119, 125, 291; Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 489, 722, 729, 971. A few words case—the Case—will up what mean. Report Commissioner Webb, 22, scant paid Webb representatives shipper testified He disposed assertions sentence: 'Contrary intramodal significantly lessened.' An accompanying footnote reads: 'Shapp's curtailed eastern western portions contracted predicated (only authorized). testimony Mayor Northampton Chairman Commissioners, opinions injurious receivers economies areas. offered record.' 89 cursory treatment allegations hardly presently system.5 90 argue Hearing Examiner pieces particular, prime candidate pruning track, two-railroad town duplicating area. though authorize abandonment facilities, introduced demonstrated avowed entire reduce Wilkes Barre-Scranton-Binghamton area, economies. alleged according tearing main line double Binghamton thus off 91 meaningfully limited: hold citizens, businessmen, civic leaders heard proposals. describes difficulty meaningful participation manner: 92 1966 PRR—NYC 'inclusion' F.D. absorbed official notice 21510 (327 487—489.) Yet nonrailroad circulated 13, received 16, regard strictly evidence, positions, arguments.' clear me local regional arguments. Case. 93 concluded: 94 'On positive side, strengthen competition, enhance adequacy opening new instituting efficiencies inherent single-line use possible, 'Our petitioners. Applications maintain proper divisions petitioners.' 827. 95 disclaimer 'does facilities,' almost geographical location four companies' desire efficiency. itself, indicates 'economies operation,' routes'—all portend stretched Deferral subsequent interests; pressures increased efficient competitor 96 Communities depend heavily industry jobs. phase agreements labor unions jobs accomplished normal attrition 'principally death, retirement, discharge cause, resignation.' 822, 26); beyond locality. For covered agreements, Ry. Co.—Control—Central Georgia 317 557, supplemented clarified 729 320 377. manner counterparts consist following: existing cover drafted; days, impose employee supervisory, professional, executive personnel. 97 eliminate eliminated doubt. outlined showing needed services. 793—794. unfavorable single 99 'Advantages public,' control, achieve savings; observed that: 100 management separate independently. others, affiliated prospect interchanges, improved schedules, flexible distribution equipment. increase petitioners' improve shipping Through expanded piggyback operations, motor industries locate plants through-route available, opportunities development created. modern justified, greater efficiency, public.' 795. 101 affected. Moreover, references 'joint routes,' 'elimination interchanges,' 'more equipment,' suggests scaling down founded. 102 touching briefed argued; understand how presume 103 asserting proposed.' postponing adequately. surely portends rerouting Once consummated, streamlined economized. &M, weigh threat once evaluated felt. 104 justifies disapproval Court; previously, grave doubts contains responsible 105 present, inter alia, 106 778 prejudice, dealt 21989. (June 1967) Thus, res judicata parts Shapp's Scranton's And, arises Cases inseparable, evident primary concern unrelated leveled impact.6 107 seemingly declares, effort prevent saw stayed, refused invitation (a party, assumed attempted involuntary plaintiff) litigate, holds bound bind am discover principle judicata. 108 day court;7 fathom deprived waive invitation—not order—to State.8 reach doctrine termed 'privity' litigating Lawlor National Screen Service 349 322, 865, 1122; Bank Kentucky Kentucky, 207 258, 82, 197; Benefit Ins. Tisdale, 238, 314; re Howard, Wall. 175, 634. who challenged interest; community, distinct Borough, Borough. privity Shapp.9 109 states 'further Court) passes' But, contentions, raised 110 might, channel indeed done instances person aggrieved type designated appeals. 2341 seq. (1964 ed., Supp. II). Where 2112(a) obvious advantage centralizing consolidating avoiding conflicts venue. orders. 2112, relies, provides subsection (d) courts. reviewable 1336(a), 2325. 1404(a). 1398 provides, here, 'shall wherein residence office bringing action.' invoked motion made, sought.10 Maryland, being declined, saying, 'None Maryland.' 944, 947 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1961). speaking Friendly, invoke procedure 2112(a), applies, appeal. Id., 949—950. faithful provided, stretch imagination 'residence' By plainly lies transferring suits York.11 111 hard bad surcharged pressure same12 precedents plague 112 316, 325—326. 113 Last fate order—that interest,' (d)—as distinguished collateral question. character survived community-impact resolved. intimate evident. 'protected' home. 114 expired, dismissed. parties' attacked staying dissent (is) believes substantial, 115 836. 116 5(2). 5(2)(a) authorizes subdivision 'terms conditions' 'just reasonable' 5(2), 'as approval' 'upon terms.' 117 118 adopts piecemeal approach conform 119 Clark '(o)ur mergers, sense well, indicate 'scrambling' fast unscrambling interminable seldom accomplished.' 392, 1110, this, allow Erie-Lackawanna, Hudson, Maine) Some orders—those heart (that interest')—can await Examples controversy. refer (see partial 831 involve creditor turn. 120 Certain bondholder (New Haven) with, precedent to, styling 643. conveyance Penn-Central; financing commitment sliding scale, assent enter arrangement. 121 sale physical purchased liens encumbrances. lien creditors' shift proceeds sale. Provision preservation priorities claimants plan. originally submitted, Act,1 steps. Initially, step, approval. completed, implement second distributing estate issuing securities. 122 contested two-step rendered May Appeals premature. Matter 378 F.2d 635 (C.A.2d Cir. 1967). Creditor opposed arguing priority, arrive 'equitable terms' 5(2)(d). adopt trustees, independently complete 123 short, legal preliminary consummated.'2 said, timely carrier. Thus opted 'improved operational while freed estate.'3 124 710, vote Reconstruction Denver Rio Grande 495, 1282, 1400. ignored admonition Palmer 308 79, 88, 34, 38, 93, exercised context insolvent road.' 125 justifying subsections (1), (4), (5), 77, deals Therefore, language believed evaluation restructuring Haven. 'wasting assets' employed Chapter X plans reorganization, analogized case—since classified asset.'4 126 conveyed authorization impair issuance certificates advances.5 127 balance fell below $5,000,000, borrow enough money equal $5,000,000 plus $2,500,000. interval months takedowns, England correspondingly borrowed loans declared Morgan Guaranty Trust prevailing 1971, maturity certificates. terminated occurrence events: (1) granting liquidate dispose someone cessation going railroad; Haven; (5) expiration 128 certificates, precedence estate, reasoned 129 'We burdens shoulders.'6 130 agreement. Commission.7 deciding formula, factors: safeguards endless established; integrate restricted, realized felt existence tended limit formula. year, third. maximum year. 131 evidencing loan-loss absorption small—and different loaned probably 'substantially $25 million.'8 requirements increased, increase. (from 25%), gain speedily completing 132 order—contending ($125,000,000, prevents voting plan—the 133 830) Bondholders' 831) intend quantum take-over 134 success feasibility accomplished, underpinning removed.9 liquidated Perhaps Government, outcome. appellant liquidation recover investment To extent Penn-Central's obligation equity diluted. 135 terms.'10 stand, terms'? prelude slow bleeding squeezing diminished loans. 136 High finance inventive genius; sophisticated device pick song. 137 Haven.11 Clearly fulfilled deficit 'equitable.' 138 requirement decreasing scale 25%—seems inequitable. Why 100—50—25 formula? 100—10—1 50—25—10 25—50—100? Of mentioned (preventing creditors, realize Penn-Central), adoption sliding-scale 139 inherently coercive. force accede great; increasing proposal. 140 spent undo gets back kind intricacy, consummated—the before. 141 presuming takes unable reconcile statute, directs 142 nature frustrate fact. 143 successful, impossible. seemed recognize report,12 evidently non-inclusion justify delaying permissible scheme, provided. 144 Is 'equitable' term (d)? 'fair' risks, old company? perennial field. delicate weighing practical realities. How mystery. 511—512. Memorandum Circuit 'litigation six averted concentrated instance.' commendable. multipulied. Jersey (CNJ) dispensation schedule argument. CNJ contain waived delayed. yet line. throughout Nation. 2321. appearances litigation. senseless agencies 2112. compensation approximation revenues lost Revenue ratios dividing multiplied line's ratio. earned subtracted figure obtained multiplication. figure, indemnification 50%, yields owed. supplement replace them; choice obeying paying damages, indemnity. unsuccessfully 'capital indemnification' 832) upsetting '(t) hat be, hereby, Act.' infra. period' run (the) System includes successor thereto, *; carrier, effected (of) (i) Systems, (ii) seasonably then, order.' 362. places emphasis written President director stockholder, he formulating alternative oral counsel reiterated road's judgment, changed position. remaining appellants answered. appellants' 'implicit very concept devising explicit said 'some benefits' prevented work 'an hardship applicants implementation.' 532; 361. deny evidentiary defy sense.' 329. SEC Chenery 332 1575, 1760, 1995 (1947), totally misconceives 14, shown, (under consolidations) reason, alternatives saving believe considerably embarrassed, arguments, ever 1964, consummate highly successful Nickel Plate, consented scarcely faring now. recognition 'weak,' possibility. depending hypothetical guilty violation (1947). limits. construction follow. relies revealed ways view, insufficient.' 355. basing contrary, added conclusions. were, necessity, approximations values computed not, exceptions. notes became learned previous (See 462, 1147, (dissenting MR. JUSTICE FORTAS).) 19, Rule 41(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., citizen Jersey. city's stems necessitated town, therein, one-railroad town. Scranton-Wilkes Barre complex northeastern area—the Lehigh Valley, Railroad, together switching city surrounding activity Eastern District. municipal corporation Schuylkill 433) ground defendant objected raising Orders below, concedes assuming Government's constituted formally becoming renew application. brusque contrasts sharply 229—286. 'two close were: first, desirability subsidiaries, W—B O—C system; assertion erred latter shareholders. rejected inject negative preclude remainder examining for, of, valuation, peculiar road, system—none problem. 336—352 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1967). Hansberry Lee, 311 32, 115, 22. treat 'separate purposes,' 'since integral PRR—NYC, versa.' (its) outside forms.' 43, 'when circumstance defining members law,' constitutionally binding class; applied insure absent full issue.' makes inquiry, member 'same class' court; 'common,' 'full consideration.' 'class action' Civ.Proc. such, (Rule 23(a) (b)) 23(c)) inviting respond affirmatively else Chase Norwalk, 291 431, 894, contrary. absolutely voluntary stranger. duly summoned privy rest recovered therein his rights.' 441, 479. Hoffman Blaski, 363 335, 1084, 1254, Van Dusen Barrack, 376 612, 805, 945, 1404(a) plaintiff entitled, defendant, originally. forfeit heard. residence, person, there, litigated invited objections? That, submit, frivolous Nationwide successfully H's Rule. 'Great great, real shaping future, accident overwhelming feelings distorts hydraulic seem doubtful, settled bend.' Holmes, J., dissenting, Northern Securities 193 197, 400—401, 436, 468, 679. 20b. 653. 653—654. 112. asset' see, Sire Plan, Inc., 497 1964); Loewer's Gambrinus Brewery 747 1944). (D.C.Conn.) Trustees certificate administration priority expenses administration; derived expended deemed discretion (including current expenses), supervision borrowings agreement; notify borrowings. 704. 717—720. 719. express (Condition 8, 304 328), destroy survive, reasonable.' Schwabacher 334 182, 958, 1305; Cleveland, C., L.R. Jackson, 509 (C.A.6th 1927); Stott 166 851 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1958). 524. summary contingencies terminated, included: 'If grants Penn-Central'; NH.'

Category: 7