CHEMICAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
343 U.S. 982 (1952)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

CHEMICAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS , 343 U.S. 982 (1952)

343 U.S. 982

CHEMICAL BANK & TRUST CO., Trustee,
v.
GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS.

ALLEGHANY CORPORATION
v.
GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS.

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 5 1/4% SECURED SERIAL BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE
v.
GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS.

FARWELL et al.
v.
GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS.

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
v.
GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS.

Nos. 524 to 528. October Term, 1951.
Decided June 9, 1952.

Memorandum of Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, in connection with the denial of the petitions for writs of certiorari.

Reference to the opinion in State of Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912 makes it unnecessary to indicate the reasons which preclude the Court from stating, however briefly, the grounds for denial of petitions for certiorari. Selective notations of dissent from such denials would not correctly reflect the operation of the certiorari process. That would require notation not only of all dissents when petitions are denied. It would equally require public recording of dissents from the granting of petitions. Due regard for all these factors touching the administration of our certiorari jurisdiction has determined my unbroken practice not to note dissent from the Court's disposition of petitions for [ Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors 343 U.S. 982 (1952) ][982-Continued.]

certiorari.

But it has seemed to me appropriate to indicate from time to time the issues that are involved in a litigation for which review has been sought and denied. These cases, arising out of the long-drawn-out Missouri Pacific reorganization, present another such instance. The

Page 343 U.S. 982 , 983

denial of these petitions for certiorari does not definitively close the door for relief to security holders who claim forfeiture of their rights. The current Interstate Commerce Commission plan for the reorganization of the Missouri Pacific system has not been consummated. It may never be consummated. If carried to the stage of confirmation by the lower courts, review may again be sought here, perhaps with the benefit of additional light. But as the matter stands, two great questions are in controversy; they are questions for which the Congress has not authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission to give final answers.

The reorganization plan sustained by the lower court involves the forfeiture of existing securities of ast proportions. The Commission's plan also eliminates existin g corporations and directs financial power into new channels. These far-reaching consequences are based on the Commission's predictions of the future. One is not remotely unmindful of the relevant elements and their meaning on which judgment in such matters must be based, nor of the diffidence with which courts should sit in judgment upon the Commission's conclusions, by reminding that the Reorganization Act of 1933, 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 47 Stat. 1467, 1474, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. 205, did subject to judicial review the determinations of the Commission and the processes which underlie them.

In three years (1940, 1944, and 1949) the Commission has proposed forfeiture plans on the basis of estimates of future earnings of the three component parts of the Missouri Pacific lines. The estimates on which the Commission based its proposals to strike down hundreds of millions of dollars of securities were the same in 1944 as in 1940. In 1949, the Commission recognized that the 1940 and 1944 estimates and forfeiture proposals were unsound, to the extent of millions of dollars. [343 U.S. 982 , 984]


Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.