Court Opinion

ID: 9450157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:37:04.391654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:10.544901
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I find myself in accord with the district court’s conclusion that the Chapter X provision relating to priorities to the United States is controlling in Chapter X proceedings. The majority of this Court, in rejecting this view, makes out a pretty strong case in' support of it. The priority provisions of conventional bankruptcy and the equity receivership priorities are not applicable. What rule then applies? The majority applies the general statute rather than the Chapter X provision. I think they mistake the purposes of the Act.
To me it seems not at all unreasonable that in the reorganization of a business enterprise all claims of the same class should be treated alike; and when the United States enters a non-governmental field and makes business loans, it might expect to be treated as others who engage in similar transactions. I think Congress so intended and would construe the statute to give effect to such intent. Therefore I
Dissent.