Railroad Reorganization

by Stuart Daggett

The receivers’ report was issued in October, but contained little not known or suspected before. From November 30, 1883, to June 2, 1884, there had been a net loss in operation for the Railroad Company of $2,322,282, and for the Coal & Iron Company of $1,049,702, showing conclusively the condition of the companies. The total bonded indebtedness was $94,613,042; a total to be compared with the $78,101,894 of four years previous. The total floating debt was $16,549,968 as compared with $10,254,766 at the beginning of the previous receivership. Including the Central of New Jersey, the total fixed charges for the Railroad and Coal & Iron Companies were $18,241,051; a sum which certain offsets, however, reduced to $16,584,732.[208]

The first suggestion for a reorganization came from a committee primarily representing the general mortgage bondholders, though including other interests as well. The chairman was Mr. Townsend Whelen, and the committee may be taken to represent the views of the management. “The present fixed charges of the company,” said Mr. Whelen, “are in round numbers $16,650,000, while the earnings of the past fiscal year are, in round numbers and after proper deductions, $12,900,000. The objects sought to be accomplished by the committee are:

“(1) To reduce fixed charges to the limit of last year’s earnings;

“(2) To preserve the proper order of priorities of each class of securities, so that no income applicable to any senior security that remains unpaid can by any possibility be diverted to paying the interest on a junior security;

“(3) To provide a method of paying the floating debt.”

The plan was, roughly, to leave the prior liens untouched, to fund one-half the coupons upon the general mortgage for three years, and to convert all of the other obligations into income bonds. Preferred stock was to be changed from cumulative to non-cumulative; rents of leased lines, including the Central of New Jersey, were to be reduced to the amounts which the properties had earned; the canal leases were to be reduced; the interest on some of the divisional coal land mortgages was to be reduced, and on some was to be paid in full. In regard to the floating debt the committee decided to postpone any attempt to raise money for its extinction. If the bondholders should accept the scaling down of their indebtedness, the company might have no difficulty in procuring cash by a collateral loan; if this should prove impossible, the duty of providing funds would devolve upon the junior securities.[209] The committee found it impossible to prepare within the short time at their disposal a complete plan of reorganization with exact figures of present and proposed fixed charges; and it is therefore impossible to ascertain how great was the saving which they expected to secure.

The plan marks sufficiently well the advance which had been made since the reorganization of 1880–3. The best that could then be imagined had been the creation of a grand general mortgage for which the old bondholders might, but mostly did not, exchange their holdings; while now the very first suggestion endeavored to retain for all bondholders a chance for the same return as before, and found the salvation of the company in the transformance of certain bonds from mortgage to debenture obligations. The general criticisms which may be made are three: first, that it was unwise to defer all provision for the floating debt; second, that the new income bonds might better have been replaced by stock; and third, that the probable reduction in fixed charges would have been insufficient. So far as the committee suggested any action in relation to the floating debt, it favored a funding of it. This funding might have been either into mortgage or into income bonds: if the former, the fixed charges of the company would have been increased, or else the other mortgage bondholders would have been compelled to accept a lower rate of interest; if the latter, the volume of securities of slight value would have been increased, or the junior securities would have had to take less for their holdings. The action taken would have gone far to determine what classes of securities would assent, while in the absence of definite declaration it was on the whole likely that all classes would hold off. As for the income bonds, it is in general true that they are an unsatisfactory sort of security, and likely to hinder the legitimate increase of capital. Most important was the question of fixed charges. It will be remembered that of the first and second series 5s of the previous reorganization only $23,500,000 had been intended for immediate sale, and that of these but a portion had been disposed of; and yet these consols were the only securities the nature of which was really changed by the Whelen plan. Interest had been optional before on the income bonds, the convertible bonds, the convertible adjustment scrip, debenture and deferred income bonds; interest was not made optional on the general mortgage or prior liens. The result would not have been, in spite of the reduction in rents and the scaling of the divisional coal mortgages, any sufficient lessening of the fixed requirements. This fact was, moreover, perceived. The board of managers, to whom the scheme was reported, concluded a favorable opinion with the declaration, “to conclude, we are satisfied that the large economies already in operation, with those which are still being introduced, should be regarded as a margin to meet adverse contingencies.... That the revenue we reckon on, though reasonably certain under such reorganization, will surely not be realized in case the property should be torn asunder by foreclosure sale.”[210] In other words they relied, much as Mr. Gowen had done two years before, on a subsequent increase in earnings to ensure the solvency of the company. A final objection made at the time was that the plan asked too little of the junior securities.

The Whelen plan was reported to the general managers’ committee, and was approved by them. Some slight modifications were made, and a large number of signatures was secured. Opposition was not slow to spring up. In February a meeting of general mortgage bondholders elected a committee, known as the Bartol Committee, to prepare a plan more suited to their interests. This body conferred with the Whelen Committee, and two members from each were selected to construct a new reorganization plan.[211] In March it reported to its constituents that it had made all the concessions which were possible without sacrificing the interests of the general mortgage bondholders, and that in spite of this, the negotiations had not proved successful.[212]

In April, ten months after the beginning of the receivership, the Reading managers evolved a plan for dealing with the floating debt. Holders were to agree to accept renewals at intervals of three months for three years, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, paid at the time of each renewal, and to hold the collateral pledged as security until the whole of the debt should have been discharged. In case the Philadelphia & Reading should fail at any time punctually to pay the interest on any of the obligations agreed to be renewed, or should fail to cause the same to be renewed, or in case nine-tenths of the floating-debt holders should not assent to the plan, or in case an adverse judicial sale should be made, the obligation to accept further renewals should immediately cease.[213] The scheme deservedly fell through. Creditors were asked to tie up their assets for three years, with no concession in return except the payment of interest quarterly in advance; while the unofficial suggestion that the Reading pay ¼ per cent commission on each renewal was felt to be too expensive for the company to entertain.

The following month the Whelen and Bartol committees came out with a new edition of the Whelen plan, which introduced an assessment on the junior bonds and stock, but preserved the same method of dealing with the old securities as before.[214] Assent to the plan was to be on the condition that sufficient money should be raised to pay off the floating debt. Interest on such debt was not to have priority of payment over interest on the general mortgage for longer than three years; and during those three years the preference was to be limited to that part of the floating debt secured by collateral yielding income to cover interest, or important for other reasons to be retained. There were to be seven reorganization trustees to receive the assents of parties in interest, and to receive and hold the securities and assessments thereon pending reorganization, and when accomplished to return such securities duly stamped to their respective owners.[215] The trustees were further to decide whether the assents to the plan in question should be considered adequate, and if they should conclude on or before May 1, 1886, by a vote of six of their number, that the assents were not sufficient, they were to call into a council the managers of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, the receivers of that company, and the committees of the general mortgage (Bartol) and income mortgage bondholders; and this council, by a vote of four of the five interests therein represented, was to formulate a plan of reorganization adapted to the circumstances, and involving no larger contribution in money to be paid than under the plan as then modified; and under such power the trustees were to proceed to foreclose under such mortgage or mortgages as they might deem advisable.[216] The plan was obviously a compromise whereby the Whelen Committee clung to the main lines of its previous proposition, and the Bartol Committee secured modifications which benefited the general mortgage at the expense of the junior securities. Criticisms which applied to the earlier plan largely apply to this also; but it is to be noticed that at last the idea of funding the floating debt was abandoned for the sounder scheme of paying it off in cash. The reorganization trustees were an innovation, but were destined to be a useful one. On the whole the compromise was a step forward; and yet it was not more successful in obtaining assents than the scheme which had preceded it. Although the directors approved it, as was to have been expected, the bulk of the bondholders held off.