The orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission made
judicially reviewable by the last two sentences of § 11(b) of
the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 are the directory
orders mentioned in, and authorized by, subsection (b) of § 11
of the Act, and orders which may "revoke and modify" any such order
previously made under that subsection, and the language referred to
does not include an order merely denying petition to reopen §
11(b) proceedings. Pp.
353 U. S.
368-372.
235 F.2d 167 reversed.
PER CURIAM.
On January 29, 1953, the Securities and Exchange Commission,
pursuant to § 11(b)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 820, 15 U.S.C. § 79k(b)(1), issued a
notice and order for hearing directed
Page 353 U. S. 369
to Middle South Utilities, Inc., and its subsidiary, Louisiana
Power & Light Company, upon the matter of
"[w]hether Middle South and Louisiana [Power] should be required
to take action to dispose of the gas utility assets and non-utility
assets of Louisiana [Power] and, if so, what terms and conditions
should be imposed in connection therewith."
A copy of that notice and order for hearing was served upon
those companies and also upon the Louisiana Public Service
Commission by registered mail.
A full hearing was conducted by the SEC at which Middle South
and Louisiana Power appeared, adduced evidence, and presented
arguments in support of their position that they should be
permitted to retain Louisiana Power's gas properties as an
additional integrated public utility system under the proviso to
§ 11(b)(1) of the Act. The Louisiana Public Service Commission
did not appear in that proceeding. On March 20, 1953, the SEC
issued its opinion, findings, and order directing Middle South and
Louisiana Power to divest themselves of all the non-electric assets
of Louisiana Power "in any appropriate manner not in contravention
of the applicable provisions of the Act," which gave them one year
for compliance under the provisions of § 11(c) of the Act, 49
Stat. 821, 15 U.S.C. § 79k(c). No petition to review that
order was ever filed, and it ceased to be subject to judicial
review with the expiration of the 60 days allowed to petition for
that purpose by § 24(a) of the Act, 49 Stat. 834, 15 U.S.C.
§ 79x(a), on May 19, 1953.
Thereafter, pursuant to § 11(c) of the Act, the SEC
extended the time for compliance with its order to March 20, 1955.
On November 10, 1954, Louisiana Power and its newly organized
wholly owned subsidiary, Louisiana Gas Service Corp., filed a joint
"application-declaration"
Page 353 U. S. 370
with the SEC, proposing the transfer by Louisiana Power of all
its non-electric properties to Louisiana Gas as a step in
compliance with the divestment order of March 20, 1953, and
expressing the intention of Louisiana Power to effect divestment of
the common stock of Louisiana Gas within 18 months from the date
the latter might begin operations. Thereupon, the SEC issued a
notice advising interested persons, including the Louisiana Public
Service Commission, of the filing of the "application-declaration"
mentioned, and that they might request a hearing on that proposal.
By telegram of December 22, 1954, the Louisiana Commission
requested the SEC to grant a hearing upon that
"application-declaration" and to reopen the § 11(b)(1)
proceeding which had resulted in the divestment order of March 20,
1953. On December 27, 1954, it filed with the SEC a formal petition
accordingly, which it supplemented on January 3, 1955. Also at the
suggestion of the SEC, the Louisiana Commission submitted an offer
of proof and a brief in support of its petition to reopen the
divestment proceeding. The offer of proof did not indicate any
change in conditions since the divestment order of March 20, 1953,
but, rather, complained that the evidence in that proceeding had
been incomplete, and that the SEC had acted, in part, upon an
erroneous conception of the law. The SEC heard oral argument upon
the Louisiana Commission's petition to reopen. Thereafter, on
September 13, 1955, it found that there were "no grounds for
questioning . . . [its] earlier conclusion and no changed
circumstances justifying a modification" of its divestment order of
March 20, 1953, and it denied the petition to reopen that
proceeding.
The Louisiana Commission then filed a petition in the Court of
Appeals to review the order of September 13, 1955, denying its
petition to reopen, and also therein
Page 353 U. S. 371
stated that it sought review of the divestment order of March
20, 1953. The SEC moved the Court of Appeals to dismiss the
petition for review upon the ground that the order of September 13,
1955, was not judicially reviewable, and that the petition for
review was, in essence, an attempt to appeal from the divestment
order of March 20, 1953, long after the time allowed by law to do
so had expired. The Court of Appeals held that the order of
September 13, 1955, was reviewable, and it set aside that order. It
also held that legal determinations made by the SEC in its
divestment order of March 20, 1953, were erroneous, and it, in
effect, set aside that order too. 235 F.2d 167. We granted
certiorari. 352 U.S. 924.
The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the order of
September 13, 1955, was subject to judicial review was rested upon
the last two sentences of § 11(b) of the Act, 49 Stat. 820, 15
U.S.C. § 79k(b), reading:
"The Commission may be order revoke or modify any order
previously made under this subsection if, after notice and
opportunity for hearing, it finds that the conditions upon which
the order was predicated do not exist. Any order made under this
subsection shall be subject to judicial review as provided in
section 79x of this title."
It held that the Securities and Exchange Commission's order of
September 13, 1955, denying the Louisiana Commission's petition to
reopen the divestment proceeding was an "order" specifically made
subject to judicial review by the quoted language.
We take a different view. We hold that the orders made
judicially reviewable by the quoted language are the directory
orders mentioned in, and authorized by, subsection (b) of § 11
of the Act, and orders which may "revoke or modify" any such order
previously made under that subsection, and that the quoted language
does not include an order merely denying a petition to reopen
Page 353 U. S. 372
§ 11(b) proceedings. It follows that the Securities and
Exchange Commission's order of September 13, 1955, denying the
Louisiana Commission's petition to reopen the divestment proceeding
was not an order which was subject to judicial review, and the
judgment of the Court of Appeals must, accordingly, be
reversed.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.