Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.
- Decided
- February 1, 1943
- Docket
- 254
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,975 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that an agency decision may only be sustained based on the reasons given by the agency — Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service (2004)
- holding that an administrative agency decision cannot be affirmed on a basis the agency did not explicitly consider — Christoper S. v. Stanislaus County Office Of Education (2004)
- holding that “an administrative order cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency acted in exercising its powers were those upon which its action can be sustained” — Niang v. Gonzales (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondents, who were officers, directors, and controlling stockholders of the Federal Water Service Corporation (hereafter called Federal), a holding company registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, c. 687, 49 Stat. 803, 15 U. S. C. § 79, brought this proceeding under § 24(a) of the Act to review an order made by the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 1941, approving a plan of reorganization for the company. Under the Commission’s order, preferred stock acquired by the respondents during the period in which successive reorganization plans proposed by the management of the company were before the Commission, was not permitted to participate in the reorganization on an equal footing with all other preferred stock. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, with one judge dissenting, set the Commission’s order aside, 128 F. 2d 303, and because the question presented looms large in the administration of the Act, we brought the case here.
[*82] The relevant facts are as follows. In 1937, Federal was a typical public utility holding company. Incorporated in Délaware, its assets consisted of securities of subsidiary water, gas, electric, and other companies in thirteen states and one foreign country. The respondents controlled Federal through their control of its parent, Utility Operators Company, which owned all of the outstanding shares of Federal’s Class B common stock, representing the controlling voting power in the company. On November 8, 1937, when Federal registered as a holding company under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, its management filed a plan for reorganization under §§ 7 and 11 of the Act, the relevant portions of which are copied in the margin.[1] This plan, as well as two other plans later [*83] submitted by Federal, provided for participation by Class B stockholders in the equity of the proposed reorganized company. This feature of the plans was unacceptable to the Commission, and all were ultimately withdrawn. [*84] On March 30, 1940, a fourth plan was filed by Federal. This plan, proposing a merger of Federal, Utility Operators Company, and Federal Water and Gas Corporation, a wholly-owned inactive subsidiary of Federal, contained no provision for participation by the Class B stock. Instead, that class of stock was to be surrendered for cancellation, and the preferred and Class A common stock of Federal were to be converted into common stock of the new corporation. As the Commission pointed out in its analysis of the proposed plan, “except for the 5.3% of new common allocated to the present holders of Class A stock, substantially all of the equity of the reorganized company will be given to the present preferred stockholders.”
Statutes cited
Cite this
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.