Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Leiman v. Guttman — Opinion of the Court

The happenstance of litigation in the state courts is not the equivalent of the administrative rule adopted by Congress when it asked that committee claimants submit their requests to the bankruptcy court. The incidence of fees on reorganization plans is so great that control over them is deemed indispensable to the court's determination whether the plan should be confirmed.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Leiman v. Guttman — Opinion of the Court

Here we are dealing with fees which are incident to the reorganization but not payable out of the estate. Under the less comprehensive language of § 77B the leading authority was that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the latter claims as well. In re McCrory Stores Corp., 2 Cir., 91 F.2d 947. We would be unmindful of history and heedless of statutory language if we held that the power of the bankruptcy court in this respect had been contracted [2] as a result of Ch. X.
The control of the judge is not limited to fees and allowances payable out of the estate.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Leiman v. Guttman — Opinion of the Court

A statute establishing such broad supervision over committees cannot be presumed to be niggardly in its grant of authority when it deals with the matter which of all the others has the most direct impact on those whom it aims to protect.
We can find in this language no exemption for the kind of committee that petitioners represented. The fact that the committee may have represented a smaller or more intimate group than a conventional committee is irrelevant. The statute was designed to police the return which all security holders obtain from reorganization plans.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature