U.S. Code » Title 45 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— MILWAUKEE RAILROAD RESTRUCTURING

45 U.S.C. § 904

Court approved abandonments and sales

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 45 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Abandonment of lines of railroad under section 1170 of title 11(1) Upon the occurrence of an event described in section 920(b) of this title, or on April 1, 1980, whichever first occurs, the bankruptcy court may authorize the abandonment of lines of the Milwaukee Railroad pursuant to section 1170 of title 11. Pending the expiration of the time for appeal of an abandonment order or the determination of any such appeal, the bankruptcy court may authorize the termination of service on a line to be abandoned, and the order authorizing such termination may not be stayed. In authorizing any abandonment pursuant to this section, the court shall require the carrier to provide a fair arrangement at least as protective of the interests of employees as that required under section 11347 11 See References in Text note below. of title 49.(2) Prior to the date specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the bankruptcy court may hear and consider any request for the abandonment of lines of the Milwaukee Railroad, and may fix the time for the Commission’s report on the request, but it may take final action authorizing such abandonment only in accordance with such paragraph (1).(b) Sale or transfer of lines of railroad(1) Upon the occurrence of an event described in section 920(b) of this title, or on April 1, 1980, whichever first occurs, the bankruptcy court may authorize the sale or transfer of a line of the Milwaukee Railroad to be used in continued rail operations, subject to the approval of the Commission under paragraph (2) of this subsection. In authorizing any such sale or transfer, the court shall provide a fair arrangement at least as protective of the interest 22 So in original. Probably should be “interests”. of employees as that required under section 11347 1 of title 49.(2) The bankruptcy court may not authorize a sale or transfer pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection unless an appropriate application with respect to such sale or transfer is initiated with the Commission and, within such time as the court may fix, not exceeding 180 days, the Commission, with or without a hearing, as the Commission may determine, and with or without modification or condition, approves such application, or does not act on such application. Any action or order of the Commission approving, modifying, conditioning, or disapproving such application is subject to review by the court only under sections 706(2)(A), 706(2)(B), 706(2)(C), and 706(2)(D) of title 5. An application may be initiated with the Commission prior to the date specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection.(3) Pending review of an application by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the bankruptcy court may, on a preliminary basis, authorize the sale or transfer of lines of the Milwaukee Railroad to another rail carrier. The court may permit the purchasing carrier to operate interim service as a common carrier over the lines to be purchased, without regard to section 10901 of title 49. In operating such service, the purchasing carrier shall use employees of the Milwaukee Railroad to the extent necessary for the operation of such service. The bankruptcy court may take final action authorizing any such sale or transfer only in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection.(c) Effect on priorities and timing of employee protection payments

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the priorities or timing of payment of employee protection which might have existed in the absence of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 96–101, § 5, Nov. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 737.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 11347 of title 49, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1) and (b)(1), was omitted in the general amendment of subtitle IV of Title 49, Transportation, by Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 804. Provisions similar to those in section 11347 are contained in section 11326(a) of Title 49.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesAbolition of Interstate Commerce Commission and Transfer of Functions

Interstate Commerce Commission abolished and functions of Commission transferred, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, to Surface Transportation Board effective Jan. 1, 1996, by section 1302 of Title 49, Transportation, and section 101 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49. References to Interstate Commerce Commission deemed to refer to Surface Transportation Board, a member or employee of the Board, or Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, see section 205 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1981–2004 · leading case: Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. Gibbons
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Railway Labor Executives' Assn. v. Gibbons (1982) scotus · cites it 2× “We have no occasion in these cases to consider the constitutionality of these provisions of the MRRA. Nevertheless, it is no argument that RITA is uniform because another statute imposes similar obligations upon another railroad, as the United States appears to contend.”
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States (1982) cadc · cites it 2× “, the Seventh Circuit considered RLEA’s challenge to the protective conditions imposed by a reorganization court under section 5 of the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act, 45 U.S.C. § 904 (Supp. III 1979). The reorganization court had conditioned approval of an abandonment…”
Matter of Valuation Proceedings, Etc. (1982) reglrailreorgct · cites it 2× “Section 5 of the Milwaukee Act, 45 U.S.C. § 904 , transfers all jurisdiction over abandonments by the Milwaukee Railroad from the ICC to the railroad's bankruptcy court, and authorizes the court to set a time limit of six months, or even less if it chooses, on the ICC's…”
Howard v. Surface Transportation Board (2004) ca1 · cites it 2× “” 45 U.S.C. § 904 (a)(1). 3 On November 18, 2003, the district court agreed with the decision of the magistrate judge and adopted its reasoning.”
Brown v. State (1996) wash “But, it directed the trustee "to fully pursue all possibilities for sale of portions of these lines for continued rail operation or other public use before he disturbs any tracks or facilities west of Miles City, Montana .”
In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad (1981) ca7 · cites it 5× “Under Sections 5(a)(1) and 5(b)(1) of the MRRA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 904 (a)(1) and 904(b)(1) (Supp.”
In the Matter of CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. Appeal of GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION (1985) ca7 “We must first decide an issue of appellate jurisdiction and then, depending on how we resolve that issue, consider the interrelationship of section 5(b) of the Milwaukee Act, 45 U.S.C. § 904 (b), the line-acquisition and corporate-control (merger and consolidation) provisions of…”
In the Matter of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, Debtor. Appeal of the State of Wisconsin, De (1984) ca7 “This procedure is specified by 45 U.S.C. § 904 (a)(1) and 11 U.S.C. § 1170 (b) and is implemented by 49 C.”
In the Matter of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, Debtor. Appeal of the Escanaba & Lake Superi (1989) ca7 · cites it 3× “It cannot now be heard to reject the duty of labor protection that attached to the right to purchase the Line under the asset purchase agreement and under section 5(b) of the MRRA, 45 U.S.C. § 904 (b)(1). The Escanaba makes a number of arguments to avoid the obligation of labor…”
In Re Auto-Train Corp. (1981) dcd “2d at 668-70 ) but the fact that the Milwaukee Railroad Trustee has continued to seek abandonment authority under Section 5(a) of the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act, 45 U.S.C. § 904 (a), to abandon those lines operations for which a ‘cashlessness’ embargo was authorized…”
Burlington Northern Railroad v. Soo Line Railroad (1993) mnd “45 U.S.C. § 904 (b)(l)-(2). In September 1984, the ICC approved the proposal of defendant Soo Line Railroad Company, a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company, to purchase the railroad operations of the Milwaukee and to assume the Milwaukee’s liabilities.”
Brown v. State (1996) wash “But, it directed the trustee "to fully pursue all possibilities for sale of portions of these lines for continued rail operation or other public use before he disturbs any tracks or facilities west of Miles City, Montana.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.