Document: 414 U.S. 212 94 S.Ct. 405 38 L.Ed.2d 422 John P. FOLEY, Jr., et al., Petitioners,v.BLAIR & CO., INC., al. No. 72—1154. Argued Nov. 12, 1973. Decided Dec. 5, Leo H. Raines, New York City, for the petitioners. Harvey R. Miller, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 Blair Co., Inc., was a member of Stock Exchange, engaged in general brokerage and commission business. In early summer 1970, as result operating losses shrinkage capital, began program self-liquidation, which involved transfer customer accounts to other broker-dealers delivery securities customers so requesting. apparently believed that its resources were sufficient allow it discharge obligations all creditors through this program. September however, concluded successful implementation might require assistance Special Trust Fund Exchange had established 1964 avoid bankruptcy firms.1 2 Consequently, on 21, entered into an agreement with whereby trustees special fund would make loans guarantees protect Blair's against loss. The provided first such loan, guarantee, or advance by give power appoint Liquidator own choosing manage affairs. powers set forth agreement.2 3 On 25, made initial $1,000, triggered appointment respondent Patrick E. Scorese Liquidator. Any plans further advances terminated four days later, when petitioners, holders subordinated debentures Blair, filed involuntary petition United States District Court Southern York. Inter alia, alleged constituted act under § 3a(5) Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. 21(a)(5). That section makes if any person 4 '(5) while insolvent unable pay his debts they mature, procured, permitted, suffered voluntarily involuntarily receiver trustee take charge property.' 5 Concluding consent fact fifth bankruptcy, Referee adjudicated bankrupt. denied review order. appeal, divided panel Appeals Second Circuit reversed, reasoning not 'receiver trustee' within statutory definition. 471 F.2d 178. We granted writ certiorari, 411 930, 93 1901, 36 389 order resolve issue seeming importance administration oral argument heard November 6 respondents have suggested, we should decide merits controversy, because present circumstances Co. render case moot. suggestion is premised series events following filing original petition. April 15, 1971, two after petitioners' motion summary judgment whether committed relief Chapter XI pursuant 321 721.3 May 18, 325 725, staying ordinary proceedings Chapters I—VII pending determination 7 26, proposed arrangement XI. 27, court found been accepted writing requisite majority number amount creditors, accordance §§ 336(4) 362 736(4), 762.4 Shortly thereafter October 4, petitioners moved dismiss proceedings. This acted upon until February 16, 1973, reversed adjudication bankrupt; date, denied. June 2, awaiting Court, confirming Apparently, no appeal taken from confirmation. 8 light confirmation arrangement, suggest longer presents live controversy. They rely 371 771, provides 'shall debtor unsecured liabilities arrangement,' argue thus monetary stake resolution controversy over committed. See generally 9 W. Collier, 9.32, 9.33 (14th ed. 1972). also irrelevant situation, since 322 722, does pendency prerequisite While mootness briefed argued before treated opinion Appeals, doubt final well appellate issued judgment. Under these circumstances, think appropriate opportunity consider instance. reviewing question mootness, effect 64a(1) 104(a)(1). 'one reasonable attorney's fee' services rendered petitioning cases shall be priority debt proceedings, payable out estate distribution dividends creditors. Section 64 applicable 302 702, treatment at least some counsel fees expense. 5.33(3.1) n. 25 1972); see Reading v. Brown, 391 471, 475, 88 1759, 20 751.5 10 For reasons stated above, vacate remand has now become It ordered. 12 Vacated remanded. authorized Constitution Art. XIX, 1. Paragraph VIII provided: 'Immediately control business property Corporation purpose liquidating proceed follows connection liquidation: 'i.) he promptly steps may deem practicable reduce Corporation's expenses dispose salable assets; 'ii.) retain independent public accountants, consultants, agents assistants augment eliminate staff Corporation; 'iii.) shall, soon practicable, assert collect settle claims rights 'iv.) claim considered him valid 'v.) deems necessary liquidate Corporation. 'It agreed consistent duty fair orderly liquidation enable prompt settlement customers, what good practice.' same date signed, executed second instrument more specifically delineated Liquidator, who described 'the true lawful attorney agent (Blair).' actual adjudging bankrupt 1971. 27 finding one, open court. Written findings December discussed argument, subject briefing either parties.

Category: 8