York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company (the New Haven), itself a debtor in reorganization under section 77. As later discussed, the New Haven trustee is a creditor of the debtor, the owner of an entire class of the debtor's securities. On July 6, 1973, we ordered that the two plans (the Penn Central trustees, or PCT plan, and the New Haven trustee or NHT plan), be set down for prehearing conference before an Administrative Law Judge, for the purpose, among others, of establishing expedited procedures and schedules for hearings on the plans. Such a prehearing conference was held, after which, in his report and order on prehearing conference, served July 30, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge prescribed appropriate expedited hearing procedures and schedules. In our July 6 order we provided for omission of initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge, and certification of the record to us for initial report.

Hearings in this matter commenced on August 13, 1973. Immediately prior to the hearings, the Penn Central Company (herein the Holding Company), which owns 100 percent of the debtor's outstanding common stock, and is also a creditor of the debtor, filed an additional plan of reorganization for the debtor (the Holding Company plan or HC plan). Evidence was presented at the hearings by the proponents of all three plans, after the Administrative Law Judge declined to make initial findings, as requested by various interested parties, that one or another, or any of these plans are prima facie impracticable.

Under the hearing procedures adopted, the evidence-in-chief of each party was presented in prepared statements of witnesses served in advance of the hearings,' with the witnesses cross-examined by opposing parties at the hearings. Much of the financial and economic data underlying the PCT plan was incorporated in studies prepared by consultants on behalf of the Penn Central trustees, as authorized by the reorganization court. Among other things, these consisted of valuation studies of the debtor's assets, studies of the physical condition of the debtor's lines, facilities, and equipment, traffic studies and forecasts, studies and forecasts of operating costs, situation reports made by the trustees to the court, analyses of the debtor's line abandonment program, cash flow statements of the

'As provided in the report and order on prehearing conference, several parties made oral statements of position on the record, and the National Industrial Traffic League, and others, made statements of position in written submission. The prehearing order specified that these statements would supplement the official record, but would not be considered evidence in this proceeding.

Kolodner, R. E. Knudson, Dwight L. Koerber, Ronald K. Kolins, Marshall Kragen, James S. Kryzminski, Philip Lanier, Alan L. Lefkowitz, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Leon Leighton, A. E. Leitherer, Eugene T. Liipfert, Alfred N. Lowenstein, John J. McAfee, Jr., John C. McTiernan, Gordon P. MacDougall, William G. Mahoney, John K. Maser III, Walter H. Mayo III, Lester C. Migdal, Gerald F. Miller, Paul V. Miller, Robert J. Minyard John D. Morrison, Walter J. Myskowski, Gordon E. Neuenschwander, Thomas G. O'Brien III, John P. O'Dea, Israel Packel, Robert G. Parks, Tom L. Peterson, Lawrence W. Pollack, Robert H. Quinn, William P. Quinn, Robert J. Rahill, Stephen Robbins, Edward Roberts III, John Mark Robinson, William R. Rubbert, John N. Schaeffer, Jr., Irving S. Schloss, Robert G. Seaks, Jerome E. Sharfman, T. P. Shearer, John P. Sheridan, Jr., Richard L. Sherman, Timothy V. Smith, Earl G. Spiker, William Sussman, J. Thomas Tidd, Sidney Weinberg, Stanley Weiss, Edward K. Wheeler, Henry M. Wick, Jr., Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Harlington Wood, Jr., Kenneth Vail, Geoffrey N. Zeh, and Walter E. Zullig, Jr., for protestants, interveners, and other interested parties.

Naum Eisenstadt, Henry Fogler, Louis A. Montague, J. Anthony Panuch, and Sanford L. Schamus appearing pro se.

PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

BY THE COMMISSION:

Introduction. This is a proceeding under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 205) for the reorganization of Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central or the debtor), the major railroad serving the northeastern quadrant of the Nation. Penn Central became a debtor in reorganization on June 21, 1970, when it filed a petition under section 77 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (herein the reorganization court or simply the court), and the court approved the petition in Bky. No. 70-347.

By Memorandum and Order No. 1261, dated July 3, 1973, the court directed the trustees of the property of the debtor to file with this Commission their plan of reorganization for the debtor, and requested us to certify to the court, on or before October 1, 1973, an approved plan of reorganization or a preliminary step thereof. The trustees' plan, together with a verified statement as required under 49 CFR 1118, was duly filed with us on July 5, 1973. There had previously been filed with us, on June 27, 1973, a plan for reorganization of the same debtor by the trustee of the property of The New

York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company (the New Haven), itself a debtor in reorganization under section 77. As later discussed, the New Haven trustee is a creditor of the debtor, the owner of an entire class of the debtor's securities. On July 6, 1973, we ordered that the two plans (the Penn Central trustees, or PCT plan, and the New Haven trustee or NHT plan), be set down for prehearing conference before an Administrative Law Judge, for the purpose, among others, of establishing expedited procedures and schedules for hearings on the plans. Such a prehearing conference was held, after which, in his report and order on prehearing conference, served July 30, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge prescribed appropriate expedited hearing procedures and schedules. In our July 6 order we provided for omission of initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge, and certification of the record to us for initial report.

Hearings in this matter commenced on August 13, 1973. Immediately prior to the hearings, the Penn Central Company (herein the Holding Company), which owns 100 percent of the debtor's outstanding common stock, and is also a creditor of the debtor, filed an additional plan of reorganization for the debtor (the Holding Company plan or HC plan). Evidence was presented at the hearings by the proponents of all three plans, after the Administrative Law Judge declined to make initial findings, as requested by various interested parties, that one or another, or any of these plans are prima facie impracticable.

Under the hearing procedures adopted, the evidence-in-chief of each party was presented in prepared statements of witnesses served in advance of the hearings,' with the witnesses cross-examined by opposing parties at the hearings. Much of the financial and economic data underlying the PCT plan was incorporated in studies prepared by consultants on behalf of the Penn Central trustees, as authorized by the reorganization court. Among other things, these consisted of valuation studies of the debtor's assets, studies of the physical condition of the debtor's lines, facilities, and equipment, traffic studies and forecasts, studies and forecasts of operating costs, situation reports made by the trustees to the court, analyses of the debtor's line abandonment program, cash flow statements of the

'As provided in the report and order on prehearing conference, several parties made oral statements of position on the record, and the National Industrial Traffic League, and others, made statements of position in written submission. The prehearing order specified that these statements would supplement the official record, but would not be considered evidence in this proceeding.

46

Kolodner, R. E. Knudson, Dwight L. Koerber, Ronald K. Kolins, Marshall Kragen, James S. Kryzminski, Philip Lanier, Alan L. Lefkowitz, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Leon Leighton, A. E. Leitherer, Eugene T. Liipfert, Alfred N. Lowenstein, John J. McAfee, Jr., John C. McTiernan, Gordon P. MacDougall, William G. Mahoney, John K. Maser III, Walter H. Mayo III, Lester C. Migdal, Gerald F. Miller, Paul V. Miller, Robert J. Minyard John D. Morrison, Walter J. Myskowski, Gordon E. Neuenschwander, Thomas G. O'Brien III, John P. O'Dea, Israel Packel, Robert G. Parks, Tom L. Peterson, Lawrence W. Pollack, Robert H. Quinn, William P. Quinn, Robert J. Rahill, Stephen Robbins, Edward Roberts III, John Mark Robinson, William R. Rubbert, John N. Schaeffer, Jr., Irving S. Schloss, Robert G. Seaks, Jerome E. Sharfman, T. P. Shearer, John P. Sheridan, Jr., Richard L. Sherman, Timothy V. Smith, Earl G. Spiker, William Sussman, J. Thomas Tidd, Sidney Weinberg, Stanley Weiss, Edward K. Wheeler, Henry M. Wick, Jr., Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Harlington Wood, Jr., Kenneth Vail, Geoffrey N. Zeh, and Walter E. Zullig, Jr., for protestants, interveners, and other interested parties.

Naum Eisenstadt, Henry Fogler, Louis A. Montague, J. Anthony Panuch, and Sanford L. Schamus appearing pro se.

PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

BY THE COMMISSION:

Introduction.-This is a proceeding under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 205) for the reorganization of Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central or the debtor), the major railroad serving the northeastern quadrant of the Nation. Penn Central became a debtor in reorganization on June 21, 1970, when it filed a petition under section 77 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (herein the reorganization court or simply the court), and the court approved the petition in Bky. No. 70-347.

By Memorandum and Order No. 1261, dated July 3, 1973, the court directed the trustees of the property of the debtor to file with this Commission their plan of reorganization for the debtor, and requested us to certify to the court, on or before October 1, 1973, an approved plan of reorganization or a preliminary step thereof. The trustees' plan, together with a verified statement as required under 49 CFR 1118, was duly filed with us on July 5, 1973. There had previously been filed with us, on June 27, 1973, a plan for reorganization of the same debtor by the trustee of the property of The New

York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company (the New Haven), itself a debtor in reorganization under section 77. As later discussed, the New Haven trustee is a creditor of the debtor, the owner of an entire class of the debtor's securities. On July 6, 1973, we ordered that the two plans (the Penn Central trustees, or PCT plan, and the New Haven trustee or NHT plan), be set down for prehearing conference before an Administrative Law Judge, for the purpose, among others, of establishing expedited procedures and schedules for hearings on the plans. Such a prehearing conference was held, after which, in his report and order on prehearing conference, served July 30, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge prescribed appropriate expedited hearing procedures and schedules. In our July 6 order we provided for omission of initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge, and certification of the record to us for initial report.

Hearings in this matter commenced on August 13, 1973. Immediately prior to the hearings, the Penn Central Company (herein the Holding Company), which owns 100 percent of the debtor's outstanding common stock, and is also a creditor of the debtor, filed an additional plan of reorganization for the debtor (the Holding Company plan or HC plan). Evidence was presented at the hearings by the proponents of all three plans, after the Administrative Law Judge declined to make initial findings, as requested by various interested parties, that one or another, or any of these plans are prima facie impracticable.

Under the hearing procedures adopted, the evidence-in-chief of each party was presented in prepared statements of witnesses served in advance of the hearings,' with the witnesses cross-examined by opposing parties at the hearings. Much of the financial and economic data underlying the PCT plan was incorporated in studies prepared by consultants on behalf of the Penn Central trustees, as authorized by the reorganization court. Among other things, these consisted of valuation studies of the debtor's assets, studies of the physical condition of the debtor's lines, facilities, and equipment, traffic studies and forecasts, studies and forecasts of operating costs, situation reports made by the trustees to the court, analyses of the debtor's line abandonment program, cash flow statements of the

'As provided in the report and order on prehearing conference, several parties made oral statements of position on the record, and the National Industrial Traffic League, and others, made statements of position in written submission. The prehearing order specified that these statements would supplement the official record, but would not be considered evidence in this proceeding.