opinion: In re INLAND GAS CORPORATION, Debtor. In re KENTUCKY FUEL GAS CORPORATION, Debtor. In re AMERICAN FUEL & POWER COMPANY et al., Debtor.
  Nos. 12861-12867.
  United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
  Feb. 14, 1957.
  Selden S. McNeer, Huntington, W. Va., for Ben Williamson, Jr.
  Carlos L. Israels, New York City (Leo T. Wolford, Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for Paul E. Kern.
  Oscar S. Rosner, New York City, for the Green Committee.
  John L. Davis, Lexington, Ky., for Clinton M. Harbison, Trustee.
  Robert S. Spilman, Jr., Charleston, W. Va., for the Allen Committee and Edward D. Spilman.
  George W. Jaques, New York City, for the Vanston Committee.
  Kenneth J. Bialkin, New York City (Walter II. Brown, Jr., New York City, John L. Smith, Catlettsburg, Ky., on the brief), for Committee for Holders of Ky. Fuel Gas Corp. 6%% Debentures.
  Edward S. Pinney, New York City (W. John Nauss, Jr., Richard deY. Manning, John F. Hunt, Jr., of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, on the brief), for the Columbia Gas System, Inc.
  David Ferber, Washington, D. C., (Thomas G. Meeker, Aaron Levy, Washington, D. C., Thomas B. Hart, and J. Kirk Windle, Chicago, 111., and Charles
  J. Odenweller, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Meyer Rothwacks, Washington, D. C., (Henry J. Cook, Lexington, Ky., Charles K. Rice, Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
  Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MILLER and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
  SIMONS, Chief Judge.
  After more than twenty six years of Receiver and Trustee operation of the Debtors’ properties, of litigation delaying reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., of consideration of numerous Plans for reorganization or liquidation and after five submissions and determinations in this Court of numerous issues, the tangled skein is again before us in seven appeals from an order of the District Court by the Trustees, the objecting creditors’ Committees, and the proponent of still another Plan of reorganization. The order variously supported and assailed disapproves the latest submitted Plan and directs the Trustees to prepare and file a new Plan of reorganization so designed as to eliminate specific provisions of the submitted Plan and avoid the hazard of a substantial tax liability asserted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
  The past history of the debtor corporations is disclosed in the opinions of this Court in Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation v. United States, 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 461, modification denied, 6 Cir., 153 F.2d 101, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 737, 67 S.Ct. 48, 91 L.Ed. 636; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 187 F.2d 813; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 208 F.2d 13; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 211 F.2d 381, certiorari denied Kern v. Williamson, 348 U.S. 840, 75 S.Ct. 45, 99 L.Ed. 662; In re Inland Gas Corporation, 6 Cir., 217 F.2d 207. Their present problems will, likewise, be herein detailed. Due to the insolvency of the Debtors, solution of their difficulties was first sought on December 2, 1930 by an equity receivership, followed since October 15, 1935 by proceedings under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act and, finally, by corporate reorganization proceedings under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act. After much effort to formulate a Plan under the provisions of that Chapter, a Plan entitled “Amended Plan of Reorganization,” dated February 12, 1953, was found to be fair, equitable, and feasible, by the District Court, in an order entered on that date, but by reason of a challenge thereto, by appeal to this Court and by certiorari to the Supreme Court circumstances had so changed in respect to the dominant Inland Estate that the Plan could no longer be used without modifications. The important new developments consisted of a substantial increase in the value of the Inland Estate since the earlier approval of the Plan and the receipt by the Trustees of an offer to pay $6,750,000.00 cash for the fixed assets of Inland and certain subsidiaries of American by the Texas Gas Transmission Corporation. The Court, thereupon, directed the Trustees to amend the reorganization Plan of 1953 to the extent necessary to embody therein the Texas offer and to make appropriate provision for a public auction of the fixed assets of the corporations with the amount of the offer to constitute a fair upset price. The Amended Plan of reorganization was thereafter so modified. It was found worthy of consideration and referred to the SEC. The upset price was in excess of the adjusted basis for Federal income tax purposes of the assets which were to be sold, so, the appellant, Trustee of Inland, applied to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for a ruling as to whether or not the proposed sale would result in any Federal income tax liability to Inland or its Trustee. It was the Trustee’s position that the Texas Plan would fall within reach of § 337 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 337, and that no gain or loss should under its provisions be recognized. A later and better bid was thereafter received from the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company which offered $8,000,000.00 in cash for the same properties which it confirmed by a deposit of $400,000.00. In view of this offer, the Court, on July 14, 1955, directed the Trustees to prepare a new Plan of reorganization, which is the Plan here in controversy. It, like the Texas Plan, provides for the sale of the fixed assets of Inland and the subsidiaries of American, at public auction, to the highest bidder, with the Tennessee offer of $8,000,000.00 as a fair upset price. It provides for the distribution of the net proceeds of the sale and the proceeds of other assets of the Debtor and for the complete dissolution of the debtor corporations. The Texas Plan filed by the trustees, having been found worthy of consideration, was submitted to the SEC, which recommended disapproval. Thereafter the Texas Plan was superseded by the Tennessee Plan, which was submitted to the SEC and, as subsequently amended, was found by the SEC to be fair and equitable and feasible.
  The Texas Plan having provided for a complete liquidation of the Debtors, the Commissioner of internal Revenue, through the Director o:: Tax Rulings Division, issued a ruling that the proposed sale under the Texas Plan would result in the recognition of gain, for purposes of Federal income taxes. After the substitution of the Tennessee offer for that of Texas, the Trustees applied to the Commissioner for a reconsideration of its ruling but, on December 29, 1955, the Commissioner reaffirmed his original decision. It is estimated that if that decision is correct, the Federal tax involved would be approximately $1,192,-000.00. In objecting tí the Plan before it was approved as fair, equitable and feasible, and during the voting on the Plan by the creditors mation was under conk lant Paul E. Kern reliid principally, as grounds for his objections, upon these rulings and as an assumed result of a letter sent by him to all Kentucky creditors, the Plan was not approved by them. Kern was not an original investor in the Kentucky bonds and debentures but began buying Kentucky securities on May 5, 1941 afid after the large claims of the Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation were because of its inequitable conduct subordinated to the claims of all other creditors of¡ the Debtors and, because of the successful operations of the Trustee, continued tucky securities throug until he had acquired value of first mortgage stantial number of Kentucky debentures through 1952, 1953 and 1954 until he owns 34% of the outstanding issue of bonds and some debentures. If the submitted Plan of reorganization is con- and when confir-sideration, appel-to purchase Ken-ghout the years $303,300.00 face bonds and a sub-firmed, it is clear that very substantial profi chases, even if the tax ernment is sustained, ajnd a much greater profit if the tax claim is held invalid Kern will reap a ; upon his pur-claim of the Gov-
  After a hearing, the Court entered its order of March 14, 1956. It considered the petitions of the Trustees of American, Inland and Kentucky Fuel that the Plan last submitted be confirmed, heard counsel for Kern and certain stockholders of American in opposition to confirmation, and counsel for SEC, to the effect that further consideration of the Plan should await a determination of the Federal Income Tax question. Counsel appeared specially for the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the District Director of Internal Revenue for Kentucky and moved to dismiss the petition of the Inland Trustee for want of jurisdiction. The Court was of the opinion that the petition was in effect an application for a declaratory judgment and that under the provisions of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, it was without jurisdiction to entertain it. Whereupon, it ordered that the petition of the Trustee be dismissed. It also held that the public holders of bonds and debentures of Kentucky Fuel, being unsecured creditors, were not entitled to post-bankruptcy interest on their claims and, that the Plan is erroneous in allowing such interest, and because the Court lacks jurisdiction and cannot pass upon the tax question, the Plan should not be confirmed. The Court also considered the proposed Kern Plan and, being of the opinion that the Plan was not worthy of consideration for the reason that it proposed to encumber the reorganized corporation with a heavy debt, it held the Kern Plan not worthy of consideration.
  We are now advised by the Trustees of the Debtors that the Tennessee offer of $8,000,000.00 for the fixed assets of Inland and of American’s subsidiaries has been withdrawn, under a reservation contained in its offer, and that the deposit of Tennessee, as evidence of its good faith, has now been released. In order that the record may be complete as of the date of this opinion, we have asked the Trustees to secure signed stipulations to supplement the record in this respect. We assume that this will be done. We also assume that if a new Plan is submitted and approved which will contain either a provision for the sale of the assets of the Debtors or an internal Plan that will not provide for such sale, the offers of both the Texas and the Tennessee Companies will furnish some guidance to the Court as to their value, whether represented by distribution of cash or stock in a new corporation.
  It is apparent that the more important issues, here involved, relate to the validity of the Commissioner’s ruling on the taxability of proceeds of sale, if sale is made, and the provision in the Plan for post-bankruptcy interest to the holders of Kentucky bonds and debentures. Minor issues will also be dealt with.
  The Tax Question. The Trustees contend, upon advice of counsel, that the Commissioner’s ruling is arbitrary and capricious and in disregard of the plain language of § 337 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. That Section insofar as pertinent provides that it a corporation adopts a Plan of complete liquidation on or after June 22, 1954 and within the twelve months period beginning on the date of the adoption of such Plan, all of the assets of the corporation are distributed in complete liquidation, less assets retained to meet claims, then no gain or loss shall be recognized to such corporation from the sale or exchange by it of property within such twelve months period. Their contention is that this language is clear and unambiguous, making interpretation unnecessary; that liquidation is consistent with a reorganization proceeding under Chapter X and that the Plan meets every requirement of the Section involved, if it be given its plain meaning. The Commissioner’s contention that the word “distributed” means a distribution of assets to stockholders in cancellation and redemption of stock is a rewriting of the statute by inserting in it the words “to stockholders” after the word “distributed,” so as to make the phrase read “distributed to stockholders in complete liquidation.” This, the Trustees say, he is not empowered to do. Moreover, it would be highly inequitable to recognize gain by an insolvent corporation when all of its assets are distributed to its creditors and nothing to its stockholders. Faced with the assertion of what they consider an illegal tax, they petitioned the Court for instructions as to its illegality, and sought injunctive relief against' the officials who would assess the tax and undertake to collect it. Moreover, they argue that the Bankruptcy Court, in a Chapter X proceeding, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of post-bankruptcy taxes; that such taxes are expenses of administration and have so been reeog-nized. They see no practical objection to the District Court passing upon the tax question now rather than following a sale of assets; that the objections thereto are highly technical and specious and should bow to the practical necessity of having the tax question put at rest, in order that an advantageous Plan of reorganization may be confirmed and the long drawn out proceedings brought to an end. They stress the opportunity that has been presented for a successful and prompt reorganization by the $8,-000,000.00 offer received by Tennessee, They say that, if withdrawn, the creditors will suffer and they will have no recourse against the Commissioner or anyone else (This argument, of course, loses effectiveness by the withdrawal of tile Tennessee offer and the release of •, dennsit a
  The Government, appearing specially, makes no response to the contention of the Trustees that § 337 must be literally applied and that there is no room for interpretation of its terms. It bases its objections to the relief prayed for in the several petitions of the Trustees upon jurisdictional and procedural grounds, There is, it says, no actual controversy in the constitutional sense. There has been no sale of assets, no assessment of taxes, and no effort to collect taxes. No possible taxable event had occurred at the time of the filing of the petitions, or since, and might never occur. The petitioners seek a declaratory judgment, even if what they ask ::or is not so denominated. It points out that the Declaratory Judgment Act, § 2201 Tit. 28 U.S.C., is limited to actual controversies and contains an express exception that it shall not apply “with respect to Federal taxes.” In addition to the prayer for what in reality :s a declaratory judgment, the Trustees also sought injunctive relief against nhe assertion and enforcement of any tax claim in connection with the possible sale of assets under the Plan but s¡uch restraint is barred by § 7421 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7421, which provides, with certain exceptions,' that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or Collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court, The exceptions refer only to instances where proceedings havp been instituted' before the Tax Court. |
  The ™lmgs ¡of tbe C™13' sl°nf are not Ilghtly W be dismissed as arbitrary or capricious, and are based Tstf W6 1954 Code, 26 C.F.R. § 1-337 2(b). The pf° §- 337 wa3 c°n' cerned arose out of the decisions m Commissioner v. Court Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331, 65 S.Ct. 707, 89 L.Ed. 981, and United States v. Cumberland Public Service Co. 338 U.S. 451, 70 S.Ct. 280, 94, L.Ed. 251, and the. Section was en-a"ted to avold f'ce distinctions between whether property was s¡old by a corporation or in reality by its! shareholders. It was thought that technical distinctions were undesirable and § 337 was designed to eliminate them. While the Section speaks in terms of distribution, it is Biient as to whom the assets are to be distributed. It may require clarification but that must await Ihe happening of the taxable event. Meanwhile, the hazard of so substantial k tax liability is too great to make the present Plan equitable and feasible! The Congress has provided ample machinery for the settlement of income tax controversies and the provisions in respect to them are exclusive, subject to exceptions by circumstances not herein demonstrated, for the withdrawal of the Tennessee offer destroys the argument that the Security Holders would suffer irreparable injury if the properties of the Debtors were not disposed of by sale. We do not reach the meritorious question raised by the Trustees with respect to the meaning of § 337 because the Court is barred from considering it by the limitation in the Declaratory Judgment Act and the prohibition contained in § 7421. On either, or both, of these grounds, we sustain the District Court in denying the petition of the Trastees for approval of their last submitted Plan of reorganization.
  The Question of Post-Bankruptcy Interest. By our previous decisions, claims of Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation were subordinated to the claims of other creditors rather than rejected, In re American Fuel & Power Co., 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 470, 479. Our specific language was: “Claim of Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation, based upon its ownership of Mortgage Bonds issued by Inland, is not to be rejected but is to be subordinated to the claims of other creditors.” In 187 F.2d 813, 819, we said: “The order will be amended by direction to subordinate the claims of Columbia to the public holders of Kentucky and American Fuel obligations secured by pledges of Inland stock in recognition of their creditors status. Columbia claims against American Fuel and Kentucky Fuel will remain subordinated to the claims of their other creditors.” We adhered to those rulings. 217 F.2d 207. Following them, Columbia no longer took active part in the reorganization proceedings. No specific statement was made in any of the prior determinations respecting interest on the Kentucky bonds and debentures because at the time it was not apparent that the surplus assets of Inland would be sufficient to pay the principal of such obligations. It now appears that through continued successful operation of the Trustees, such Bonds and Debentures can be paid in full with a surplus remaining after such payment; and Columbia has returned to the case with a challenge to the provisions of the present Plan which require that such surplus be applied to liquidate the interest obligations of the Debtors on such securities. It contends that since its claims were not rejected, it is entitled to payment thereon before payment of post-bankruptcy interest, since the Kentucky Bonds and Debentures were unsecured by pledges of the Inland stock held by Kentucky. With this position the District Court was in agreement.
  The general rule in bankruptcy and in equity receiverships has been that interest on the Debtors’ obligations ceases to accrue at the beginning of proceedings. This is based upon reasoning that interest is a penalty for delay in payment, and where the power of the debtor to pay his contractual obligations is suspended by law, interest during suspension may not be accrued, if the courts are properly to preserve and protect the estate for the benefit of all interests involved. There are, however, well recognized exceptions to this general rule. (1) If the alleged bankrupt proves solvent, post-bankruptcy interest is paid before any surplus reverts to the Debtor. (2) If securities held by a creditor as collateral produce interest or dividends during bankruptcy such amounts are applied to post-bankruptcy interest. (3) If the value of the security is more than sufficient to pay both principal and interest thereon, payment of post-bankrupcy interest is allowed to the date of payment of the claim secured thereby. There was for a period a difference of opinion as to allowance of interest on tax claims. They were considered in some jurisdictions as claims of higher dignity than general claims. This difference has now been resolved by the City of New York v. Saper, 336 U.S. 328, 69 S.Ct. 554, 93 L.Ed. 710, and they are now regarded as debts on a par with other debts of the bankrupt.
  Whether interest should be allowed upon claims against the bankrupt Debtors is, we think, no longer to be determined by their relative dignity, in the light of the Saper case. Our decision must be reached by balancing the equities as between Columbia and the Kentucky creditors who have waited so long for the payment of their claims. “It is manifest,” said Mr. Justice Black, for the majority, in Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U.S. 156, 67 S.Ct. 237, 241, 91 L.Ed. 162, “that the touchstone of each decision on allowance of interest in bankruptcy, receivership and reorganization has been the balance of equities between creditor and creditor or between creditors and debtor.” It is clear to the writer from this observation and the rationalization in Sampsell v. Imperial Paper & Color Corporation, 313 U.S. 215, 61 S.Ct. 904, 85 L.Ed. 1293, In re Deep Rock Oil Corporation, 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 266, certiorari denied, Standard Gas & Electric Co. v. Taylor, 311 U.S. 699, 61 S.Ct. 138, 85 L.Ed. 453, and its predecessor, Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co., 306 U.S. 307, 618, 59 S.Ct. 543, 83 L.Ed. 669, that, as said in Sampsell, 313 U.S. at page 219, 61 S.Ct. at page 907, “The power of the bankruptcy court to subordinate claims or to adjudicate equities arising out of the relationship between the several creditors is complete,” and the further observation that “To bring himself outside of that rule an unsecured creditor carries a burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that its application to his ease so as to deny him priority would work an injustice.” That such burden is fully borne here and by our earlier decisions amply demonstrated.
  We said in 211 F.2d 381, 384: “It would be not only an anomaly but would fly in the face of the rationale of all prior adjudications to permit Columbia, directly or indirectly, to receive any portion of Inland’s surplus while the secured creditors of Kentucky were still, to large extent, unpaid.” This concept pervades all previous adjudications and includes, by necessary inference, the entire debt owing to Kéntucky Bond and Debenture Holders up to the time that they are paid, either in cash or by stock in a newly organized corporation, for Kentucky as well as Inland and American was the beneficialry of Columbia’s subrogation resulting from its highly inequitable conduct by 'sjvhich all three of these integrated Debtors were placed under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. With such [result, the SEC agrees. I
  Of the remaining appeals and the petition of the Allen Coihmittee, little discussion need be added in the present posture of this proceeding. The SEC complains of the decisior. of the District Judge to the eifect that the Kern Plan for an internal reorgE.nization was not worthy of consideration and, therefore, should not be submitted to the Commission. The Court having directed the Trustees to frame ard submit a new Plan of reorganization, which may ór may not contain a provision for sale of the properties, or whiei may or may not submit some form of .nternal reorganization, there will be time and opportunity to consider such the problems here invol speculate at this time provisions of the nsw approach or whether the Court will! find it worthy of consideration by the SEC. Until such Plan is submitted, we jmake no decision upon the grievance oi the SEC. The Allen Committee has, suggested that there are changed circumstances which warrant the reopening] by this Court of its prior decisions holding the public creditors of Kentucky entitled to be treated as creditors of Inland Gas before new approach to ved. We may not in respect to the the claims of Columbia holders of Inland ma Gas or the stocky be recognized. The holders of Kentucky bonds and debenture asks us to dismiss the petition of the Allen Committee on the ground that it runs counter to our previous determinations, presents no changed circumstances calling for retreat therefrom, and moves its dismissal, as well as that of Spilman, representing Stockholders of American, on the ground that both are frivolous and without merit. Undoubtedly, the petitions, if sustained, would mean a reopening of determinations previously, and repeatedly, made. We decline to do so. The motion to dismiss will be sustained and the petition of the Allen Committee and Edward D. Spilman will be dismissed.
  The seven appeals from the order of the Court, entered March 14, 1956, so variously approve and disapprove of that order and respond variously to contentions of appellants and appellees that it would be difficult and confusing to frame a specific mandate in each case to implement our holdings herein. The writer thinks it sufficient, therefore, to direct the dismissal of the petitions of the Allen Committee and Edward D. Spilman in case No. 12865, and to direct that a single mandate be entered in each of the appeals, amending the order of the District Court in the single respect that it holds post-bankruptcy interest may not be recovered by the holders of Kentucky bonds and debentures and, as so amended, affirming the order, without ruling on the merits of the SEC contention that the Kern Plan be submitted to it for consideration. With this my colleagues do not wholly agree.
  Since it now appears from the concurring opinions of my brothers that while they concur in all respects with the above opinion, save only in the view that post-bankruptcy interest shall be allowed on the Kentucky bonds and debentures, it follows that the order of the district judge is not to be amended but that in all respects it must be and it is hereby affirmed.
  Wherefore, the petition of the Allen Committee and Edward D. Spilman is hereby dismissed and the order of the District Judge is hereby,
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.