1.
April 1, 1913
The Birmingham Age-Herald
Birmingham, AL
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
FILE SUIT AGAINST ATLANTA COMPANY Atlanta, March 31.-The guarantee Trust and Banking company of Atlanta today was ordered by Judge George L. Bell of the superior court to appear before the court April 15 to show cause why a receiver for the company should not be appointed. Action by Judge Bell followed the institution of two suits against the company by two stockholders and two bondholders. In a petition for a receivership filed by J. J. Russell and J. R. Rivers, holders of $500 worth of stock each, it is alleged that the company has violated its trust and banking rights by purchasing real estate. The petitioners allege further that the company now is insolvent. Similar allegations are contained in a suit instituted today by Matthew DeLaney, holder of $2500 worth of the company's bonds, and E. E. Skipper, bondholder to the amount of $1000. The latter petition alleges that the Guarantee Trust and Banking company recently paid a 3 per cent dividend out of its capital stock. In this petition it also is alleged that the company has made bad land investments in Florida and an auditing of the company's financial affairs is sought. Action on the last mentioned part of the petition was deferred by the court until tomorrow. The Guarantee Trust and Banking company was incorporated in this state on November 27, 1907. Its capital stock is listed at $500,000. S. E. Smith, said to be a majority stockholder, is president of the company.
2.
April 2, 1913
Americus Times-Recorder
Americus, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
TO INVESTIGATE TRUST COMPANY Receiver Asked for Atlanta Company Atlanta, Ga., April 1.-The Guparantee Trust and Banking Company of Atlanta today was ordered by Judge lito. L. Bell of the superior court to appear before the court on April 15, to show cause why a receiver for the company should not be appointed. Action by Judge Bell followed the institution of two suits against the company by two stockholders and two bondholders. In a petition for a receivership filed by J. J. Russell and J. R. Rivers, holders of $500 worth of stock each, it is explained that the company has violated its true and banking rights by purchasing real estate. The petitioners allege further that the company now is insolvent. Similar allegations are contained in a suit instituted today by Matthew Delaney, holder of $2,500 worth of the company's bonds, and E. E. Skipper, bondholder to the amount of $1,000. The latter petition alleges that the Guarantee Trust and Banking Company recently paid a 3 per cent. dividend out of its capital stock. In this
3.
June 16, 1913
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Receivership for Guarantee Trust Is Opposed by 600 Four hundred bondholders, representing $193,815, and 200 stockholders, representing 1,715 shares of the Guarantee Bank and Trust Company. petitioned the Superior Court Monday morning not to appoint a receivership for the company. The case was reopened before Judge John T. Pendleton and will take three or four days before a decision is reached. The petitioners asked that they be allowed to intervene as defendants in the litigation. Their attorneys are Rosser & Brandon, Napier, Wright & Wood and Tye, Peeples & Jordan.
4.
June 20, 1913
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# APPEAL CERTAIN
# IN GUARANTEE
# TRUST TRIAL
If Bankruptcy Action Is Pressed,
Suit Will Go to United States
Supreme Court.
Attorneys for plaintiffs and defendant in the Guarantee Trust and Banking Company case Thursday are trying to reach an agreement as to who shall be named receiver for the corporation, and as to the status of the business pending final outcome of the litigation on appeal.
Judge Pendleton will issue an order when the lawyers reach an agreement. Prospects are this will be late Thursday.
When the suit was started holders of investment bonds of the company were notified of the state of affairs and given their choice of paying installments as they became due. or holding payment pending adjudication, their bonds to remain in the same status as at the beginning of the legal action,
# Appeal Is Certain.
The court's order Thursday is expected to determine just how far the company can proceed in carrying on its business, besides naming the receiver.
Appeal is certain and efforts will be made to get decision quickly from the Supreme Court of the State. Meanwhile there is an action in involuntary bankruptcy pending in the Federal courts, and this may be pressed. If so, the case may go to the United States Supreme Court.
The case has been fought bitterly since trial began May 5. Attorneys say there is every prospect of a continued lively contest through the upper courts.
# Bondholders Few Here,
Holders of the investment bonds are said to be comparatively few in Atlanta and in Georgia. Most of the sales have been in Northern States. It is these widely scattered investors who are most interested in the outcome.
Briefly, the corporation offered a bond, sold on installments, yielding a most attractive rate of interest. Allegations of the plaintiffs, upheld by the lower court yesterday, are that an insufficient reserve was carried against these bonds; that investments of the corporation were not sound, and that the very origin of the concern was irregular in that owners of the old company, which the Guarantee took over, profited unduly by the sale.
5.
June 20, 1913
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
APPEAL CERTAIN IN GUARANTEE TRUST TRIAL If Bankruptcy Action Is Pressed, Suit Will Go to United States Supreme Court. Attorneys for plaintiffs and defendant in the Guarantee Trust and Banking Company case Thursday are trying to reach an agreement as to who shall be named receiver for the corporation, and as to the status of the business pending final outcome of the litigation on appeal. Judge Pendleton will issue an order when the lawyers reach an agreement. Prospects are this will be late Thursday. When the suit was started holders of investment bonds of the company were notified of the state of affairs and given their choice of paying installments as they became due. or holding payment pending adjudication, their bonds to remain in the same status as at the beginning of the legal action. Appeal Is Certain. The court's order Thursday is expected to determine just how far the company can proceed in carrying on its business, besides naming the receiver. Appeal is certain and efforts will be made to get decision quickly from the Supreme Court of the State. Meanwhile there is an action in involuntary bankruptcy pending in the Federal courts, and this may. be pressed. If so, the case may go to the United States Supreme Court. The case has been fought bitterly since trial began May 5. Attorneys say there is every prospect of a continued lively contest through the upper courts. Bondholders Few Here. Holders of the investment bonds are said to be comparatively few in Atlanta and in Georgia. Most of the sales have been in Northern States. It is these widely scattered investors who are most interested in the outcome. Briefly, the corporation offered a bond, sold on installments, yielding a most attractive rate of interest. Allegations of the plaintiffs, upheld by the lower court yesterday, are that an insufficient reserve was carried against these bonds; that investments of the corporation were not sound, and that the very origin of the concern was irregular in that owners of the old company, which the Guarantee took over, profited unduly by the sale.
6.
June 20, 1913
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
APPEAL CERTAIN IN GUARANTEE TRUST TRIAL If Bankruptcy Action Is Pressed, Suit Will Go to United States Supreme Court. Attorneys for plaintiffs and defendant in the Guarantee Trust and Banking Company case Thursday are trying to reach an agreement as to who shall be named receiver for the corporation, and as to the status of the business pending final outcome of the litigation on appeal. Judge Pendleton will issue an order when the lawyers reach an agreement. Prospects are this will be late Thursday. When the suit was started holders of investment bonds of the company were notified of the state of affairs and given their choice of paying installments as they became due, or holding payment pending adjudication, their bonds to remain in the same status as at the beginning of the legal action. Appeal Is Certain. The court's order Thursday is expected to determine just how far the company can proceed in carrying on its business, besides naming the receiver. Appeal is certain and efforts win be made to get decision quickly from the Supreme Court of the State. Meanwhile there is an action in involuntary bankruptcy pending in the Federal courts, and this may be pressed. If so, the case may go to the United States Supreme Court. The case has been fought bitterly since trial began May 5. Attorneys say there is every prospect of a continued lively contest through the upper courts. Bondholders Few Here, Holders of the investment bonds are said to be comparatively few in Atlanta and in Georgia. Most of the sales have been in Northern States. It is these widely scattered investors who are most interested in the outcome. Briefly, the corporation offered a bond, sold on installments, yielding a most attractive rate of interest. Allegations of the plaintiffs, upheld by. the lower court yesterday, are that an insufficient reserve was carried against these bonds; that investments of the corporation were not sound, and that the very origin of the concern was irregular in that owners of the old company, which the Guarantee took over, profited unduly by the sale.
7.
June 21, 1913
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
GUARANTEE TRUST CAN MEET DEBTS Insolvency of the Guarantee and Trust Company, because it has not a sufficient reserve fund, is the "solid ground" upon which Judge John T. Pendleton rests his decision against that concern, according to the order he has entered in the case. He states that the company has sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but that it does not meet with the requirements of the act of 1904, which requires that there be enough assets invested to equal the reserve fund with 3 1-2 per cent interest. Many of the investments of the Guarantee, he says, are "in the teeth of the act of 1904." The concern is trustee of the reserve fund in every sense of the term, he says, and while legal title to this fund remains with the company, the beneficiary interest is with the bondholders. Part of this reserve, he holds, has been misappropriated. He named John D. Robison, of A. M. Robinson Company, receiver, but this is merely a nominal appointment, as the receivership is held up pending the filing of a bill of exceptions, and then pending the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court. The order of the court restrains the company from carrying on its business, other than conserving assets.
8.
June 21, 1913
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# GUARANTEE TRUST
# CAN MEET DEBTS
Act of 1904 Not Complied With,
but Assets Are in Teeth of
Law, Says Judge.
Insolvency of the Guarantee and Trust Company, because it has not a sufficient reserve fund, is the "solid ground" upon which Judge John T. Pendleton rests his decision against that concern, according to the order he has entered in the case.
He states that the company has sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but that it does not meet with the requirements of the act of 1904, which requires that there be enough assets invested to equal the reserve fund with 3 1-2 per cent interest. Many of the investments of the Guarantee, he says, are "in the teeth of the act of 1904."
The concern is trustee of the reserve fund in every sense of the term, he says, and while legal title to this fund remains with the company, the beneficiary interest is with the bondholders. Part of this reserve, he holds, has been misappropriated.
He named John D. Robison, of A. M. Robinson Company, receiver, but this is merely a nominal appointment, as the receivership is held up pending the filing of a bill of exceptions, and then pending the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court.
The order of the court restrains the company from carrying on its business, other than conserving assets.
9.
March 31, 1914
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# Receiver Named for Paulding Power Co.
A petition asking for a receiver for the Paulding County Power Company, at Dallas, Ga., has been filed in Fulton Superior Court by Harold Hirsch and James D. Robinson, receivers for the Guarantee Bank and Trust Company, of Atlanta.
The power company is one of a number of concerns in which the trust company was interested at the time it failed several months ago. Stephen Tighe, of Dallas, was named by the courts as receiver for the power company.
10.
March 31, 1914
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# Receiver Named for Paulding Power Co.
A petition asking for a receiver for the Paulding County Power Company, at Dallas, Ga., has been filed in Fulton Superior Court by Harold Hirsch and James D. Robinson, receivers for the Guarantee Bank and Trust Company, of Atlanta.
The power company is one of a number of concerns in which the trust company was interested at the time it failed several months ago. Stephen Tighe, of Dallas, was named by the courts as receiver for the power company.
11.
March 31, 1914
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# Receiver Named for Paulding Power Co.
A petition asking for a receiver for the Paulding County Power Company, at Dallas, Ga., has been filed in Fulton Superior Court by Harold Hirsch and James D. Robinson, receivers for the Guarantee Bank and Trust Company, of Atlanta.
The power company is one of a number of concerns in which the trust company was interested at the time it failed several months ago. Stephen Tighe, of Dallas, was named by the courts as receiver for the power company.
12.
March 31, 1914
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# Receiver Named for Paulding Power Co.
A petition asking for a receiver for the Paulding County Power Company, at Dallas, Ga., has been filed in Fulton Superior Court by Harold Hirsch and James D. Robinson, receivers for the Guarantee Bank and Trust Company, of Atlanta.
The power company is one of a number of concerns in which the trust company was interested at the time it failed several months ago. Stephen Tighe, of Dallas, was named by the courts as receiver for the power company.
13.
March 31, 1914
Atlanta Georgian
Atlanta, GA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# Receiver Named for Paulding Power Co.
A petition asking for a receiver for the Paulding County Power Company, at Dallas, Ga., has been filed in Fulton Superior Court by Harold Hirsch and James D. Robinson, receivers for the Guarantee Bank and Trust Company, of Atlanta.
The power company is one of a number of concerns in which the trust company was interested at the time it failed several months ago. Stephen Tighe, of Dallas, was named by the courts as receiver for the power company.