Brief for the Respondent in Opposition — Pennsylvania v. United States

- Sa OP RTO LE = RE eee pee 2 Se ee =

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United

OctosBer Term, 1973

No. 73-1200

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Petitioners,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, e# al.,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

BRIEF FOR LEHIGH COAL & NAVIGATION

COMPANY (LC & N) IN OPPOSITION

Sd

CHartes Danzic,

Rreer, Danzic, ScHereR & Browy,

Attorneys for Respondent, Lehigh

Coal & Navigation Company

(LC € N),

744 Broad Street,

Newark, New Jersey 07102.

February, 1974.

2 Sse

Adams Press Corp., 11 Commerce Street, Newark, N. J.—Market 3-8611-12

eta = ~ <=>

PN IRE TEE TOE LE CR AEE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

QUESTIONS PRESENTED -...------s---sseeeesssnseeesecentmsenrnnennserenms 1

SratcToRY Provisions [NVOLVED .....---::ssescesssssseseeesse :

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE «...----sessessesececrtrse* 2

ARGUMENT cccencencenneoenosenoerensncencensoereeensensentesenmncsncensencnwencensemace 6

CoNCLUSION .--.-- -_cesmsqmsuhitanniaincsiesierneanstoccamcncsnie = 12

Appenpix R:

Section 1(18)-1(20) of the Interstate Commerce

Act, 49 U.S.C. 1(18)-1( 20) --------------eeeeeeesererees RA 1

Section 77(0) of the Bankruptey Act, 11 U.S.C

DOC) avemeenea—evenneverernennesrasnrennereensenneneenmececanenementn RA 3

See, 1336. Interstate Commerce Commission’s

OTUOTS .nenccecnce-enecanonnennen-nneneoen-nsneecessnnernsmnnaeeenacouenonsees RA 4

See, 1398. Interstate Commerce Commission’s

OTGCTS nceceneeevnvecce-anna-—---neencnee-nonascecesnnscenaneceenscemnensones RA 4

Cases Cited

Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Debtor.

In the Matter of, 455 F. 2d 988 (3rd Cir. 1972)..-..... 4,11

Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, In re, 485

ye | 11

Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, In the

Matter of, No. 73-1110 (3rd Cir. Sept. 20, 1973)...... 6

Commonwealth of Pa., et al. v. U. S. (No. 71-1596),

409 U.S. 894, 34 L. Ed. 2d 151, OS. 4 Ti iw 4.6

Pha a EVE iade a Ais i!

BE BAN bo! ht re

Biisitsdirraie.. gata We RLS A i do TAS MCs

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

H. Messick, Inc. v. Baggett Transportation Co., 268

F. Supp. 499 (W. D. Mo. 1967) 10

Huntington & Broad Top Mt. R. R. & Coal Co., In

re, 213 F. 2d 411 (3rd Cir. 1954) 12

Leonard Bros. Trucking Co. v. U. S., 301 F. Supp.

893 (S. D. Fla. 1969) 10

‘lhompson v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 328 U. 8S. 134

(1946) 9

Statutes Cited

Bankruptcy Act:

See. 77(0) .... 2, 3, 8, 9, 11

Emergency Rail Service Act of 1970 3

Interstate Commerce Act:

See. 1(18-20) 2

Judicial Code:

Bae: SIRE Cd, Cy COP coccinea 2

See. 1898 (a), (b) ...... 2

Pub. L. 88-513, Secs. 1, 2, 78 Stat. 695. .................-0... 9

Pub. L. 91-663, 84 Stat. 1975 3

Urgent Deficiencies Act . 2,4

li U.BC.:

See. 205(0) .. 2,3

Tt ak I OS Ne TIN ARS URE IN OD ae AE:

TABLE OF CONTENTS ill

PAGE

28 U.S.C.:

Bee. LEDG cccccanconess

See. 1336(a) ....--- on 2

See. 1336(b) a on ae ee ee

See. 1336(c) 2

See. 1398 8

See. 1398(a) 2

See, 1398 (D) -.n..ceccscecoscrcesssnscssesesnessssnssnensensnmensenstnens 2,9, 1%

See. 2521 2

Sees. 2321-2325 +

49 U.S.C.:

See. 1 (18)—(20) ......-.ns-csscsccsensenseresessnsensennencenssessoseacs 2

Other Authorities Cited

Central R. Co. of N. J.—Abandonment, 342 ICC

(1972):

227 5

Order Nos.:

BAS). .-cececcecesccsececsosnersersesoococssorsenscsenemncsnonessonasseoonsess 4, 6,10, 11

451 4,6

BEE on ceneoseersncsssrseessonsnecesescovasnaranwenenescentsanousnrevetessned 5, 10,12

a 6, 11

583 . 9&6

ee ea oe saan = _ 10

POET ELIA IT seaeaniil

* RL RELA PRE TALI TAT LIT RTL A TOG

ona

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroser Term, 1973

No. 73-1200

&

>

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANTA and

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Petitioners,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., .

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

&

>

BRIEF FOR LEHIGH COAL & NAVIGATION

COMPANY (LC & N) IN OPPOSITION

Questions Presented

1. Whether judicial review of an ICC order authoriz-

ing abandonment of certain lines and operations subject

to the imposition of traffic protective conditions includ-

to

ing tariffs, should be instituted in the district court ex-

ercising hankruptey jurisdiction over a railroad in re-

organization or in a three-judge district court in another

district under the Urgent Deficiencies Act, 28 U.S.C, £2321

et seq.?

2. Whether a District Court may in the exercise of its

bankruptey jurisdiction refuse leave to review such or-

ders of the ICC by a three-judge district court in an-

other district in order to protect its own jurisdiction and

to prevent collateral attack on the Distriet Court’s Order

after the time for appeal therefrom had elapsed?

Statutory Provisions Involved

Section 1(18-20) of the Interstate Commerce Act 49

USC 1 (18)—(20): Seetion 77(o) of the Bankruptey Act

11 USC 205(0): Seetion 1336 (a). (b) and (e) of the

Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 1336 (a). (b) and (e¢): Section

1398 (a). (b) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 1398 (a)

and (b), are set forth at this respondent's appendix be-

low (RA1 to RA4).

Counter-Statement of the Case

Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey (“CNJ”) filed its

petition for reorganization in the U. S. Distriet Court

for the Distriet of New Jersey in March, 1967. The pres-

ent Trustee was appointed in January, 1971 at a time

when the railroad was facing a severe liquidity crisis

which threatened to cause a shutdown of all its opera-

tions. The State of New Jersey for some years had pro-

vided some form of passenger and freight service sub-

sidies: the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Common-

wealth”) had no present or prospective plans for assist-

ance to CNJ. although CNJ operated some 131 miles

of lines in Pennsylvania known as the Lehi! & Susque-

hanna system (“L&S"), which CNJ had leased from Le-

high Coal & Navigation Co. (“LC&N”).

To deal with the crisis the Trustee obtained a grant

of $2,000,000 from the State of New Jersey and author-

ity from the Court and Federal agencies to issue up to

$2,500,000 in federally-cuaranteed Trustee certificates un-

der the Emergeney Rail Service Act of 1970, Pub. L. {1-

663. S4 Stat. 1975. The Trustee also embarked on a

program called “The Blueprint for Survival” designed

tu permit the CNJ to continue as a viable railroad on

a restructured basis. This program included, among other

things, the abandonment of all CNJ operations in Penn-

sylvania and the assumption of such operations by the

Lehigh Valley Railroad (*LVRR™) which operated lines

in Pennsylvania parallel to and in some instances on

joint trackage with the L&S. To implement the Blue-

print. the Trustee applied to the Reorganization Court

for permission under {77(0) of the Bankruptey Act, 11

U.S.C. 205(0), to file an application with the ICC for

approval and authorization of the abandonment of the

entire L&S system as well as some small segments of

lines in New Jersey. By Order No. 410 entered on May

25, 1971 the Reorganization Court authorized the Trus-

tee to file with the ICC an application to abandon the

aforesaid lines and operations. By Order No. 410 the

Court reserved jurisdiction of the subject matter and di-

rected the Trustee to apply further to the Court for au-

thority to abandon any lines or operation that may be

authorized to be abandoned by the ICC.

The ICC divided the Trustee's application to abandon

into 29 parts and in August, 1971 the ICC approved the

abandonment of 10 segments, five in New Jersey and

five in Pennsylvania. The main part of the L&S system

koe

wenead Pea a yy

LO tak OT Rt eg set

neg renanen ty

was left untouched. On December 20, 1971 the Reor-

ganization Court entered Order No. 445 directing the

Trustee to temporarily suspend on April 1, 1972 all op-

erations of the Debtor in Pennsylvania and to cease all

operations of the Debtor if the ICC denied the Trustee's

application to abandon operation of the L&s. This or-

der also enjoined all parties from instituting or main-

taining in any other Court any action affecting the Debt-

or’s operations in Pennsylvania. On January 11. 1972

the Reorganization Court entered Order No. 451 authoriz-

ing the Trustee to abandon the 10 segments as approved

by the ICC. Appeals by the Commonwealth of Penn-

sylvania and others from these two orders were affirmed

per curiam by the Court of Appeals in Mareh, 1972,

In the Matter of Central Railroad Company of New

Jersey, Debtor, 455 F. 2d 988, 989, 990 (3rd Cir. 1972).

A petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit filed on behalf

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsyl-

vania Publie Utility Commission as to Orders Nos. 445

and 451 was denied on October 10, 1972. Commonwealth

of Pa. et al. v. U. S. (No. 71-1596), 409 U. S. SM, 34

L. Ed. 24 151, 93 S. Ct. 113. One of the questions pre-

sented in said petition, by the same Petitioners as here-

in. was whether a review of the decision of the ICC al-

lowing the abandonment of the 10 segments must be in

a three-judge statutory court, under the Urgent Deficien-

cies Act, 28 U.S.C. 2321-2325, or whether the ICC deci-

sion must be reviewed either by or upon consent of the

Reorganization Court in the railroad reorganization pro-

ceeding. The present petition presents the same question

again.

On April 1, 1972 the Trustee ceased all operations of

the L&S and the Lehigh Valley took over such opera-

tions pursuant to ICC service orders. From April 1,

qt

1972 to the present time LVRR has been providing serv-

ice on the L&S. originally by virtue of the aforesaid

service orders, and later pursuant to an agreement be-

tween LVRR and LC&N approved by the LVRR Reor-

ganization Court. On Mey 4, 1972 (service date, June 2.

1972) the ICC authorized the Trustee to abandon the L&S

on certain conditions* vhich the Reorganization Court

authorized the Trustee te accept and to abandon the L&S

by its order No. 514 issuing on July 5, 1972. Petitioners

at no time appealed fron Order No. 514 or applied for

a stay. Instead, on December 11, 1972 long after the

time for appeal expired therefrom. they sought leave to

appeal from the aforesail ICC order bearing service date

June 2. 1972 to a three-judze statutory Court in the Mid-

dle District Court of Pennsylvania. The Reorganization

Court denied leave (A-) and the Court of Appeals af-

firmed (A-la to Sa). This is the first order Petitioners

seek to review.

On December 11, 1972 the Reorganization Court also

heard the application o! LC&N requiring the Trustee to

consummate a settlemest claimed by the Trustee to be

conditioned upon the fisality of the ICC order authoriz-

in¢ the abandonment of the L&S. On April 4, 1973 the

Reorganization Court cecided that “the time to appeal

has long since expired and Pennsylvania should not now

be heard to complain about the ICC order of June 2.

1972 or of this Court’: Order No. 514 entered July 5,

1972 . . .” (A-l4a). The Court issued Order No. 583

directing the Trustee to consummate the LCE&N settle-

ment (A-15a) and the Court of Appeals affirmed (A-1la)

on the basis of the opinion rendered in connection with

* Central R. Co. of N. /—Abandonment, 342 ICC 227 (1972):

on August 23, 1972 (service date Sept. 11, 1972) the ICC denied

petitioners’ petition for reconsideration.

PY ATE PI eT

rt Pet et i hd Ciiadi eeh eel ele mee pay one

ey AT NNER ACPENTFEN OF OSNIY SU FT MEN HTS HTN He VS

the appeal from Order No. 550, In The Matter of the

Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, No. 73-1110

(3rd Cir. Sept. 20. 1973) (A-lla). This is the second

order Petitioners seek to review.

ARGUMENT

1. The instant case does not involve the abandonment

of railroad service to the public on the L&S. The pres-

ent controversy had its origin in a contest between Read-

ing Railroad (in reorganization), the nominee of peti-

tioners, and LVRR (in reorganization) to furnish serv-

ice on the L&S when the CNJ ceased operations thereon.

The ICC selected LVRR which has been rendering serv-

ice on the L&S to the present time. The Reading has

since the rejection of its application by the ICC, lost in-

terest in the furnishing of substitute service. All this

was part of the record in the District Court and the

Court of Appeals.

2. In their prior petition for certiorari relating to Or-

ders Nos. 445 and 451 (No. 71-1596) the petitioners pre-

sented the very same question they now present in the

instant Petition.

We adopt and incorporate herein as to the District

Court Orders Nos. 550 and 583 what was stated in the

brief for the United States at pp. 5-7 in opposition to

the prior petition dealing with Orders Nos. 445 and 451:

“The district court's orders were a proper exer-

cise of its bankruptcy jurisdiction. The petition

presents no question warranting further review.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, a reorganiza-

tion court has jurisdiction to review Interstate Com-

merce Commission orders deciding abandonment ap-

oF ene ee NE,

~

plications filed by the trustee, and the court, to pro-

tect its review jurisdiction, may enjoin the parties

from seeking review of such orders in another forum.

See New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 TU. S. 392:

Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. United States,

52 F. Supp. 65 (N. D. IIL), affirmed per curiam,

320 U. S. 718. To permit appeal from the Com-

mission's orders to be taken to a district court un-

familiar with the reorganization would result in con-

fusion, unnecessary expense, and excessive delay,

the very evils which Congress has sought to elimi-

nate in railroad reorganizations. As this Court

noted in New Haren Inclusion Cases, supra, at 421:

‘* * * the Commission was required to certify its

proposal to the court as a prerequisite to judi-

cial approval. ¢ 77(d), 11 U.S.C. 4 205(d). In-

junctive intervention by the three-judge court

would thus have disrupted an essential statutory

phase of the New Haven reorganization.’

Here, as in New Haren Inclusion Cases, the variety

of issues and parties raises the possibility of mul-

tiple litigation in several district courts unless pri-

macy is accorded a single forum. See 399 UT. S..

at 418-419 n. 50. See also In re Penn Central

Transportation Co., 329 F. Supp. 387, 390 (FE. D.

Pa.). affirmed, 446 F. 2d 1109 (C. A. 3). More-

over, confining review to the reorganization court

should not affect the outcome of the litigation: since

Section 77(0) of the Bankruptey Act incorporates

Section 1(18) of the Interstate Commerce Act, the

question of public convenience and necessity may

be reviewed by the reorganization court, and such

a court would exercise the same scope of review as

a three-judge court.

yen

NAL THEE DENN WHEE NNN NP MEE SANS A

sore

ah

rH.

ANNOTATE OUTER MELT BREYER ORTH

7

pawl fe trmearene

erence sa LAR HAT! Sa MEIN TY 9

a ee nS

The power of a bankruptey court to enjoin par-

ties from litigation which wowld hamper exercise

of its statutory responsibility or would otherwise

interfere with exercise of its jurisdiction over the

debtor is well established. 11 U.S.C. 11(a)(15).

See Continental Illinois Natiomal Bank v. Chicago,

RI. & Pac. R. Co., 294 U.S. GAS, 675. See gener-

ally, 1 Collier, Bankruptcy, para. 2.60-2.62. Any

delay engendered here by intrwsion into the review

process by a three-judge courtt unfamiliar with the

C.N.J. reorganization might sseriously hamper the

reorganization court in exercising its statutory re-

sponsibility. The district court was therefore jus-

tified in restraining the litigants from proceeding

in some other forum.”

3. Petitioners concede that £51336) and 1398, 28 U.S.C.

1336 and 1398. confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Dis-

trict Court making a referral to the ICC to review the

resulting ICC order (Pet. p. 8). Petitioners question,

however, whether Order No. 410 authorizing the Trus-

tee to file applications with the IC’°C for permission to

abandon certain lines operated by tthe Trustee which in-

eluded the L&S, is such a referral... By Order No. 410

the Court not only authorized the "Trustee to file appli-

eations for abandonment with the ICC, but also reserved

jurisdiction of the subject matter amd directed the Trus-

tee to apply further to the Court fior authority to aban-

don any lines or operations that may be authorized to

be abandoned by the ICC (A-5a Fovotnote 6). A clearer

ease of “referral” cannot be found.. Moreover, the Dis-

trict Court regarded the abandonment of the L&S as “ef-

fected pursuant to <77(o) of the IBankruptey Act” (A-

13a). The Court of Appeals also considered the aban-

donment authorized by the ICC tro be the result of a

referral by the District Court undeer §77(0) (A-5a Foot-

note 6). Petitioners do not agree with the findings made

by the Court of Appeals and the District Court that

Order No. 410 constituted a 77(o) referral to the ICC.

This is a question of fact hardly deserving the attention

of this Court.

Indeed, §77(0) requires that abandonments be referred

to the ICC “when required by the Interstate Commerce

Act”: the District Court's Order No. 419 conformed to

the requirements of that Section. Section 77(0) further

provides that the Trustee shall take all proceedings neces-

sary for the consummation of any such abandonment in

accordance with the order of the Judge and that “any

such order of the Judge shall be a final order”. Henee,

the Court of Appeals was correct in the case at bar when

it stated:

“The wording and legislative history of 28 U.S.C.

££1336(b) and 1398(b). as well as of $77(0) of the

Bankruptey Act 11 U.S.C. £205(0), show that Con-

cress intended appeals of abandonment orders in

railroad reorganization cases to be reviewed in the

context of the reorganization proceedings and not

in a court of coordinate jurisdiction. See Leonard

Bros. Trucking Co. v. United States, 301 F. Supp.

893. 898 (S. D. Fla. 1969): House Report 1015, 88th

Cong. 2d Sess., to accompany H.R. 7508 . . .” (A-6a

Footnote 6)

Petitioners’ contention at p. 7 that it has been the set-

tled practice to institute actions in three-judge courts

to review ICC abandonment Orders is without merit in

view of the provisions of §$1336(b) and 1398(b). These

Sections were enacted in 1964 (Pub. L. 88-513, $1. 78

Stat. 695 and Pub. L. 88-513. $2. 78S Stat. 695) and ren-

der obsolete the older cases cited by petitioners such as

Thompson v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 328 U.S. 134 (1946).

Wy ee

APaNy

PR a al Ya alah Dili kisi hla ual baad Pe ie ed al

yeanee

Bet ra kar cir aso hh sified ite a i

Lanyrene ed AOE

adele oY Meer WE

Mii f

Qrearerene" Ab ya Pv

CI Rt ae ese ee te

Wi twp

10

Congress’ purpose in enacting these provisions was eX-

plicitly to keep Commission matters within the control

of the referring court. Congress felt that the history of

the prior act demonstrated both that the expertise of

the referring court was being frustrated and that un-

necessary delay was being tolerated in courts which lacked

the referring court’s sense of urgency. See 1964 USS.

Code Cong. and Adm. News, P. 3935 for the legislative

history: see also Leonard Bros. Trucking Co. V. 0.85

301 F. Supp. $93 (S. D. Fla. 1969): H. Messick, Inc. v.

Baggett Transportation Co., 268 F. Supp. 459 (W. D. Mo.

1967).

4. The Petitioners have failed to take an appeal from

Order No. 514 entered July 9, 1972 which authorized the

Trustee to abandon the L&S and accept the ICC condi-

tions involving traffie protective conditions including ta-

riffs. The time for such appeal has long ago expired.

Petitioners seek to excuse such failure by pointing to their

interim efforts to obtain reconsideration from the ICC

of the L&S abandonment order of May 26, 1972 (service

date June 2, 1972). This effort terminated on August

93, 1972 (service date September 11, 1972) when their

petition for reconsideration was denied. They offer no

exeuse for their failure to seek to have the District Court

stay its hand pending reconsideration by the ICC. Had

petitioners sought a stay from the District Court there

would have been no conflict (as to which they now com-

plain) between “the agency's procedure regarding peti-

tions for reconsideration” and the “reorganization pro-

cedures”: nor did Petitioners appeal from Order No. 514

and urge the grounds they now urge. They should not

be permitted to do indirectly via a petition for the writ

which they have been barred for a long time from doing

directly.

11

5. Petitioners’ contentions (Pet. 10) that in affirming

Order No. 550 the Court of Appeals relied on its 1972

recision affirming Order No. 445 authorizing temporary

suspension of operations in Pennsylvania and that the

1972 decision has been overruled by the en bane decision

in In re Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, 485

Fed. 2d 208 ignores the record in the Court of Appeals

in the instant case. The record in the Court of Appeals

shows that on the appeal from Order No. 550, LO&N

urged that the affirmance of Order No, 445 by the Court

of Appeals in March 1972 In the Matter of the Central

Railroad Company of New Jersey, debtor and related

cases 455 F. 2d 988, 989, 990 compelled an affirmance by

that Court in the instant case of Order No. 550 under

the doctrines of law of the case and res judicata. The

Court of Appeals. however, declined to decide the issue

on these grounds and stated that the rationale for its

affirmance of No. 550 made it unnecessary for it to de-

termine whether the doctrines of law of the case and

res judicata controlled (A-5a Footnote 5). The basis

for its decision was 28 U.S.C. $$1336(b), 1398(b) and

877(0) as well as the cases cited at A-5a and A-6a and

in Footnote 6.

In making the aforesaid contention Petitioners also ig-

nore the plain language of the en banc decision. The en

banc Court did not expressly or impliedly overrule the

1972 decision. On the contrary, it refused to apply the

1972 decision because it was distinguishable from the

case then before it. 485 F. 2d 208 at 211. It noted that

the 1972 decision authorized suspension of service pend-

ing ICC action on CNJ's application for abandonment

which action was unduly delayed. It also noted that in

the case before it no application for approval of suspen-

sion of service had been filed with the ICC or with any

state regulatory agency.

ae

~

hcl sk acuaibekeen Jaca al

Tre

at

EPA NE

12

Moreover, in the 1972 case there was implied approval

by the TCC of the suspension of operations of the L&S

by CNJ in the form of the ICC service order authoriz-

in¢ LVRR to take over operations of the L&S immedi-

ately upon the suspension of service by the CNJ. There

was no such takeover of service or any application pend-

ing therefor with the ICC or any other agency in the

en banc case.

But above and beyond everything else the Court had

befora it in the instant case the fact that the TCC had

finally approved the abandonment of the L&S by the CNIJ

and the permanent assumption of CNJ operations of the

L&S by LVRR and that this approval was the basis

for the entry of Order No. 514 on July 5, 1972 from

which Petitioners took no appeal or attempted to stay

but instead resorted to a series of applications, of which

the case at bar is only one, designed to prevent this

chapter in the history of the CNJ from being brought

to a close. In re Huntington & Broad Top Mt. R. R. &

Coal Co.. 213 F. 2d 411 (3rd Cir. 1954)—a fact not lost

on the Court of Appeals, as its opinion indicates A-3a

to A-6a.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the petition for a writ of

certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

CuarLes Danzic

Rrxer, Danzic, ScHerer & Brown

Attorneys for Respondent, Lehigh

Coal & Navigation Company

February, 1974.

on Ae eR EL PRPS

APPENDIX R

Section 1(18)-1(20) of the Interstate Commerce Act,

49 U.S.C. 1(18)-1(20):

(18) After ninety days after this paragraph takes ef-

fect no carrier by railroad subject to this part shall un-

dertake the extension of its line of railroad, or the con-

struction of a new line of railroad, or shall acquire or

operate any line of railroad, or extension thereof, or

shall engage in transportation under this part over or

by means of such additional or extended line of railroad.

unless and until there shall shall first have been obtained

from the Commission a certificate that the present or fu-

ture public convenience and necessity require or will re-

quire the construction, or operation, or construction and

operation, of such additional or extended line of railroad,

and no carrier by railroad subject to this part shall aban-

don all or any portion of a line of railroad, or the opera-

tion thereof, unless and until there shall first have been

obtained from the Commission a certificate that the pres-

ent or future public convenience and necessity permit of

such abandonment. Nothing in this paragraph or in see-

tion 5 shall be considered to prohibit the making of con-

tracts between carriers by railroad subject to this part,

without the approval of the Commission, for the joint

ownership or joint use of spur, industrial, team, switch-

ing, or side tracks.

(19) The application for and issuance of any such cer-

tificate shall be under such rules and regulations as to

hearings and other matters as the Commission may from

time to time prescribe, and the provisions of this part

shall apply to all such proceedings. Upon receipt of

any application for such certificate the Commission shall

[RA 1]

Fe SA EN RMN 5 SONAR RE APME THE |

“

a rs cor a

» Pe

ey te

LEOPARD PN IONS LE 8S

EPs. we

RA2

Appendix R

cause notic. thereof to be given to and a copy filed with

the governor of each State in which such additional or

extended line of railroad is proposed to be constructed or

operated, or all or any portion of a line of railroad, or

the operation thereof, is proposed to be abandoned, with

the right to be heard as hereinafter provided with respect

to the hearing of complaints or the issuance of securities:

and said notice shall also be published for three consecu-

tive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation in

each county in or through which said line of railroad is

constructed or operates.

(20) The Commissioner shall have power to issue such

certificate as prayed for, or to refuse to issue it, or to

issue it for a portion or portions of a line of railroad, or

extension thereof, described in the application, or for the

partial exercise only of such right or privilege, and may

attach to the issuance of the certificate such terms and

conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and

necessity may require. From and after issuance of such

certificate. and not before, the carrier by railroad may,

without securing approval other than such certificate, com-

ply with the terms and conditions contained in or at-

tached to the issuance of such certificate and proceed

with the construction, operation, or abandonment cov-

ered thereby. Any construction, operation, or abandon-

ment contrary to the provisions of this paragraph or of

paragraph (18) or (19) of this section may be enjoined

by any court of competent jurisdiction at the suit of the

United States, the Commission, any commission or regu-

lating body of the State or States affected, or any party

in interest: and any carrier which, or any director, of-

ficer, receiver, operating trustee, lessee, agent, or person,

acting for or employed by such carrier, who knowingly

authorizes, consents to, or permits any violation of the

So eR I a: On OS i

RA3

Appendix R

provisions of this paragraph or of paragraph (18) of

this section, shall upon conviction thereof be punished

by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for

not more than three years, or both.

Section 77(0) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. 205(0):

(o) The trustee or trustees, from time to time, shall

determine what lines or portions of lines of railroad and

what other property of the debtor, if any, should be aban-

doned or sold during the pendeney of the proceedings

in the interest of the debtor's estate and of ultimate re-

organization but without unduly or adversely affecting

the public interest, and shall present to the judge peti-

tions, in which other parties in interest may join, for

authority to abandon or to sell any such property: and

upon order of the judge made after a hearing pursuant

to such reasonable notice by publication or otherwise as

the judge may direct to parties in interest, authorizing

any such abandonment or sale, but only with the ap-

proval and authorization of the Commission when re-

quired by the Interstate Commerce Act as amended Feb-

ruary 28, 1920, or as it may be hereafter amended, the

trustee or trustees shall take all steps and earry out all

proceedings necessary for the consummation of any such

abandonment or sale in accordance with the order of the

judge. Any such order of the judge shall be a final order

for the purposes of appeal. The judge may order and

decree any sale of property, whether or not incident to

an abandonment, under this subsection at publie or private

sale and subject to or free from liens. The proceeds

derived from any such sales shall be received by the trus-

tee or trustees subject, in case the property was sold

free from lien, to any liens thereon at the time of sale,

SR teal

yarn

Micen see eet ROR OO HT OMNIS,

RA4

Appendix R

and shall be applied or disposed of in such manner as the

judge by further order shall direct. The expense of such

sale shall be borne in such manner as the judge may de-

termine to be equitable. The judge may order the trus-

tee or trustees of the debtor to deposit such proceeds with

any mortgage trustee entitled thereto, to be applied in

payment of all or part of such mortgage.

§ 1336. Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders

(a) Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress,

the district courts shall have jurisdiction of any civil ac-

tion to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend, in

whole or in part. any order of the Interstate Commerce

Commission.

(b) When a district court or the Court of Claims refers

a question or issue to the Interstate Commerce Commis-

sion for determination, the court which referred the ques-

tion or issue shall have exclusive jurisdiction of a civil

action to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend, in

whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce

Commission arising out of such referral.

(ec) Any action brought under subsection (b) of this sec-

tion shall be filed within 90 days from the date that the

order of the Interstate Commerce Commission becomes

final. As amended Aug. 30, 1964, Pub.L. 88-513, $ 1, 7S

Stat. 695.

§ 1398. Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders:

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, any civil ac-

tion to enforce, suspend or set aside in whole or in part

an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall

— Re 5

RAS

Appendix R

be brought only in the judicial district wherein is the resi-

dence or principal office of any of the parties bringing

such action.

(b) A civil action to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul, or

suspend, in whole or in part, an order of the Interstate

Commerce Commission made pursuant to the referral of a

question or issue by a district court or by the Court of

Claims, shall be brought only in the court which referred

the question or issue. As amended Aug. 30, 1964, Pub.I.

88-513, § 2, 78 Stat. 695.

er a ad dle oe