Court Opinion

ID: 9444574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:05:28.483854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:55.362611
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I am in accord with the view of the majority that the District Court had correctly held that the Commission erred in denying compensation to the appellees. I disagree, however, with the majority’s holding that “ * * * it was within the power of the court below to determine the amounts of compensation to be paid to the appellees and to require such payments to be made from the estate of Engineers.”
In my opinion the District Court was limited to a consideration of the single issue as to whether there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that the appellees could not assert a claim for compensation under the circumstances of this case. It had no right to take the additional step of fixing the appellee’s fees and directing their payment. That that is so is crystal clear from the ruling by the Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Drexel & Co., 75 S.Ct. 386. There the Supreme Court expressed the view that the Securities and Exchange Commission was exclusively entrusted by the “statutory design” with the power to pass upon fees allowable in reorganizations under the Public Utility Holding Company Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 79 et seq.