Summary

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Schwabacher v. United States — Dissent

In the case of financially embarrassed carriers, Congress, in the exercise of its bankruptcy powers, has empowered the Interstate Commerce Commission to formulate plans of reorganization, the terms of which, if fair and equitable, may override State-created legal rights of stockholders who do not assent. In the interests of a more efficient national railroad system, Congress may accomplish like results under the Commerce Clause.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Schwabacher v. United States — Dissent

The Commission has here ruled that the appellants assert an unliquidated claim against the Pere Marquette sufficiently negligible not to affect the financial position of its successor, even if it be ultimately allowed in full. I fail to see that the effect on the Chesapeake & Ohio will be any different than that of negligence claims for the same amount. Every operating railroad is likely to have such claims outstanding against it at all times. Their existence does not interfere with the consummation of a voluntary merger. A reasonable amount of contingent obligations may easily be allowed for.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Schwabacher v. United States — Dissent

It hardly seems congruous to provide that State law should determine when the opposition of stockholder may prevent a voluntary merger, but should have no effect on the rights which such dissenters have under State law, even where the Interstate Commerce Commission finds no national interest involved in determining and enforcing such rights.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature