Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Consolidated Rock Products Company v…

We are not dealing here with a situation where other creditors of a parent company are competing with creditors of its subsidiaries. If meticulous regard to corporate forms, which Consolidated has long ignored, is now observed, the stockholders of Consolidated may be the direct beneficiaries. Equity will not countenance such a result. A holding company which assumes to treat the properties of its subsidiaries as its own cannot take the benefits of direct management without the burdens.
We have already noted that no adequate finding was made as to the value of the assets of Consolidated.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Consolidated Rock Products Company v…

In view of these facts, Consolidated is in no position to claim that its assets are insulated from such claims of creditors of the subsidiaries. To the contrary, it is well settled that where a holding company directly intervenes in the management of its subsidiaries so as to treat them as mere departments of its own enterprise, it is responsible for the obligations of those subsidiaries incurred or arising during its management.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Consolidated Rock Products Company v…

The plan of reorganization calls for the formation of a new corporation to which will be transferred all of the assets of Consolidated, Union, [8] and Consumers free of all claims. [9] The securities of the new corporation are to be distributed as follows:
Union and Consumers bonds held by the public will be exchanged for income bonds [10] and preferred stock [11] of the new company. For 50 per cent of the principal amounts of their claims, those bondholders will receive income bonds secured by a mortgage on all of the property of the new company
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature