Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Du Bois
312 U.S. 510, 61 S. Ct. 675, 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1215 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a corporate reorganization, the absolute priority rule requires that creditors be compensated fully for their claims before stockholders may retain any interest, and such compensation must account for the value of the rights surrendered. The valuation of the debtor's enterprise for determining the fairness of a plan must be based on its future earning capacity, not merely the value of its physical assets.
Facts:
- Consolidated Rock Products Co. (Consolidated) was a parent company that wholly owned two subsidiaries, Union Rock Co. (Union) and Consumers Rock and Gravel Co. (Consumers).
- Both Union and Consumers had publicly held bonds secured by their respective properties, and both companies had defaulted on interest payments.
- Consolidated also had its own preferred and common stockholders.
- Beginning in 1929, Consolidated managed all three companies through a unified operating agreement, causing their assets to become extensively commingled.
- Under this agreement, Consolidated incurred a debt to its subsidiaries which was recorded on its books as over $5,000,000.
- A proposed reorganization plan intended to form a new corporation by combining the assets of all three companies.
- The plan offered the bondholders of Union and Consumers new income bonds and preferred stock for the principal amount of their debt but proposed to extinguish all claims for their accrued, unpaid interest.
- The same plan allocated new common stock to Consolidated’s preferred stockholders and stock warrants to its common stockholders.
Procedural Posture:
- Consolidated Rock Products Co. and its two subsidiaries, Union Rock Co. and Consumers Rock and Gravel Co., filed separate voluntary petitions for reorganization under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court confirmed the proposed plan of reorganization.
- The subsidiaries' bondholders appealed the confirmation to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's order, finding the plan was not fair and equitable.
- Consolidated Rock Products Co. (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Circuit Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plan of reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act 'fair and equitable' if it allows stockholders of a parent corporation to receive an interest in the reorganized company while secured bondholders of its subsidiaries are not fully compensated for their claims, which includes the cancellation of accrued interest and the exchange of their bonds for inferior securities without compensating them for their loss of seniority?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No, the plan of reorganization is not 'fair and equitable' because it violates the absolute priority rule. The Court reasoned that two major errors made the plan unfair. First, the lower court failed to perform a proper valuation of the enterprise. For a reorganization plan to be assessed fairly, the company's value must be determined by its future earning capacity, not just a physical appraisal of its assets. Without this, it's impossible to know if creditors are being fully compensated. Second, the plan violates the absolute priority rule, which mandates that creditors' claims be satisfied in full before any junior interest, such as stockholders, can participate. Here, the plan improperly extinguished the bondholders' claims to accrued interest and forced them to accept inferior securities without providing full compensation for the senior rights they surrendered. The Court also held that a parent company like Consolidated, which dominates its subsidiaries and commingles their assets, cannot hide behind the corporate form and must account for its liabilities to the subsidiaries, making those assets available to the subsidiaries' creditors before the parent's stockholders can benefit.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in bankruptcy law, solidifying the application of the 'absolute priority rule' in corporate reorganizations. It established that 'fair and equitable' treatment requires more than just maintaining relative priorities; it demands that senior creditors receive full compensatory value for their entire claim before junior stockholders retain or receive any property. The Court's mandate that valuation be based on future earning capacity shifted bankruptcy valuation from a liquidation-based model to a more realistic, forward-looking economic analysis. Furthermore, the ruling reinforced the 'Deep Rock' doctrine, preventing parent companies from using inter-corporate structures and agreements to prejudice the creditors of their subsidiaries.
