Legal Opinion
In re Engineers Public Service Co.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided May 15, 1947No. Civ. No. 995PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
A § 11(e) court has the affirmative and independent duty to consider and find whether a proposed plan, which has-been approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, is fair and equitable. In the Matter of Interstate Power Company, D.C.Del., 71 F.Supp. 164. The first question is whether the various series of preferreds are entitled to amounts in ex*800cess of $100 per share plus accrued and' unpaid dividends. When a company is subject to the Act, the quantum of participation of the various security holders is determined by the application of fair and equitable standards…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Otis & Co. v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- New York Trust Co. v. Securities & Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- In Re Standard Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Securities & Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Central-Illinois Securities Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- In re Engineers Public Service Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- In re North American Light & Power Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1951
- Woodsum v. Portland RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1949
- Matter of Engineers Public Service Company. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Guggenheimer & Untermyer, Louis Boehm, and Raymond L. WiseCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.