|
|
|
Baltimore
Trust Company Investigation
Sobeloff’s
private practice was again interrupted in 1935
when Judge Eugene O’Dunne chose him to
investigate the failure of the Baltimore Trust
Company, the largest banking institution south
of Philadelphia. Baltimore Trust first ran into
trouble in September 1931; and members of the
business community raised a fund of $7 to 8
million in hope of averting a failure. In spite
of their efforts, the bank never reopened after
the bank holiday of 1933. Rumors circulated
about the conduct of the officers and
directors. The State Banking Commission
appointed a receiver and three lawyers to act as
counsel for the receiver. In September 1935,
the receiver moved to collect statutory double
liability from the bank’s stockholders.
Sobeloff was one of the lawyers representing the
stockholders and suggested that before this
liability should be exacted, there should be a
showing of the nature and amount of the losses
and a finding that this assessment was necessary
to pay the banks’ debts. At a hearing before
Judge O’Dunne, it came out that the losses
totaled $26 million. O’Dunne declared himself
“shocked” at the nature of the loans which
resulted in the losses. At this point he
ordered an official inquiry to determine whether
criminal or civil liability should be enforced
against the officers and directors, naming
Sobeloff to undertake the investigation.
On December 13, 1935, Sobeloff
declared that it had been impossible to complete
the investigation in the time allotted, but he
turned in a five-hundred page “partial report.”
O’Dunne commended him for “the arduous work he
has done, the heroic efforts of time and talent
expended, which is simply staggering in
character, and the Court marvels that any human
being, in the time allotted to him for this
work, could have produced such an intelligent
and comprehensive result.” The judge also
requested him to continue working until he could
complete the investigation. He filed the final
report on June 6, 1936. While the
six-hundred-and-fifty page report did not
recommend criminal prosecutions, it did allege
that the directors were “personally liable for
their negligent acts” and also liable for the
“grossly” negligent conduct of the officer in
that they failed to exercise proper supervision.
Judge O’Dunne called for the
“relentless” prosecution of suits against every
director and officer of the Baltimore Trust
Company. Prosecuting the leading business and
financial men of Baltimore was a thankless job
and one of the attorneys for the receiver
withdrew because of his personal relations with
the defendants. O’Dunne appointed Sobeloff to
take his place. The ensuing actions recovered a
quarter of a million dollars. Finally, O’Dunne
ordered the stockholders’ liability to be set at
five dollars a share. Sobeloff declined to
represent the receivership in these negotiations
because of potential conflict of interest.
After the smoke had cleared, O’Dunne
cited Sobeloff’s “stupendous work” and his
investment of almost a year’s intensive work.
Even higher praise came from the usually cynical
H.L. Mencken, who wrote that, “The Hon. Simone
E. Sobeloff’s excellent report . . .shows all
the compelling plausibility of a demonstration
in geometry and all the racy charms of “The
Gilded Age.””
|