Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. Buck. Have you been connected with the corporation since its organization ?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. Buck. Do you know the history of the corporation very well ?
Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. Buck. I wonder if you could and would give the committee the history of the corporation and its organization and what might be termed “its evolution," on through.

Mr. PORTER. It is quite a long story.
Mr. BUCK. Well, we'll listen.
The CHAIRMAN. When was it chartered ?
Mr. PORTER. In 1924.
The CHAIRMAN. In what State?

HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION OF NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS

CORPORATION

Mr. PORTER. Virginia. The history, briefly, would be about as follows: At the time of the enactment of prohibition the largest unit in the whisky business, having sold practically all the whisky it had, had a considerable sum of money and entered the food business, the yeast business, the industrial-alcohol business. I am speaking now from the history, not from my own knowledge. They apparently had experience almost solely in the whisky business; the result of that was that that company went into bankruptcy. There were two classes of creditors; there were bonds held by the public, there were loans held by banks. There was a receivership in Kentucky, a bankruptcy in New York. The two sets of creditors got in a dispute. I was an engineer, a partner of an engineering firm, and we were called in to make an examination of what properties there were. As I recall it, Mr. George Rublee was the trustee in bankruptcy in New York originally, and I was ultimately asked to succeed him, and a reorganization was worked out during, I should say, 1922 and 1923, and in 1924 such assets as were left were put into a new company known as the National Distillers Products Corporation, and I became president of that company, which had all the remaining assets of the previous bankrupt company. We continued the operation.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the name of the previous company?

Mr. PORTER. The previous company was the United States Food Products Corporation. That, in turn, had been a successor corporation to the Distilling Co. of America, and other companies which had been engaged in the whisky business prior to 1914.

The CHAIRMAN. When the Distilling Co. of America ceased to produce liquor as the result of prohibition

Mr. PORTER. The name was changed to the United States Food Products Corporation.

The CHAIRMAN. Where was the distilling company chartered, in what State?

Mr. PORTER. I couldn't say that.
The CHAIRMAN. How about the food company?
Mr. PORTER. I couldn't tell you that; it is 15 or 17 years ago.

Mr. Buck. This organization, is that what was commonly callod the old Whisky Trust,

or something of that sort ?

Mr. PORTER. That, I believe, was started in 1890 and was first called the Distilling Cattle Feeders Co., or something of that kind.

Mr. Buck. That was involved in the investigation that I have referred to here this morning ?

Mr. PORTER. I assume so.
During prohibition this company owned a considerable number
of small and inactive distilleries, and it had a considerable stock of
whiskies. It was a very small stock, measured in present-day figures,
and that whisky was sold for medicinal purposes, which was the only
way the law permitted it to be sold. *And of course when repeal
came, that company naturally possessed what was a considerable part
of all the old whiskies in America, and whereas one of the charts
that I think was shown you yesterday showed 65 percent of all the
whisky over 4 years old being owned by this particular company that
I speak of, at the time of repeal it had, I think, about 65 percent of
all the old whisky in America. And then another company was
added to it, and another, and another. I am speaking of the charts.
There were four companies apparently on these charts that have over
60 percent of the 4-year-old whisky.

Is that a sufficient answer?
Mr. Buck. No; it isn't what I have in mind.

Mr. PORTER. I am sorry; I didn't want to go into too much detail.
I could tell you a very long story of it.

Mr. Buck. What was the size of National Distillers Products Corporation in 1933, at the time of repeal?

Mr. PORTER. What do you mean by size?
Mr. BUCK. What were the assets, in round numbers, if you know.
Mr. PORTER. We filed all this with you, sir. I haven't it with me.
Mr. BUCK. How many subsidiaries do you have?
Mr. PORTER. We had a great many in '33, I imagine.

Mr. BUCK. I will run over these with you, Mr. Porter, if you don't object. The Crown Fruit & Extract Co., Inc., New York; is that a subsidiary of National Distillers, or was it in 1933–34?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. BUCK. Alex D. Shaw & Co., New York, importers.
Mr. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. BUCK. How was Alex Shaw acquired by National ?

Mr. PORTER. That was acquired prior to repeal, to handle our imports.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buck, may I interrupt? Is the National Distillers Products Co. an operating company?

Mr. PORTER. It is today, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Was it when it was organized ?

Mr. PORTER. No; it was not. It was a holding company when it
was organized, and was not engaged in any direct operations. It
owned this company that you just speak of, the Crown Fruit, and
the Shufeld Co. Those are two small companies engaged in the
importation of olives and the packing of cherries, and the way that
came about was that in the failure of the old company, in the old
days, they had a small company that produced all those odds and
ends.
The CHAIRMAN. What was its capitalization ?
Mr. PORTER. About $100,000,

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. What sort of stock?

Mr. Porrer. Just ordinary shares, of which National Distillerg owned all, always.

The CHAIRMAN. I was referring to the National Distillers. What was the capitalization of National Distillers?

Mr. PORTER. Today it is 2,000,000 shares, and originally it was 167,000.

The CHAIRMAN. One hundred and sixty-seven thousand shares of what kind?

Mr. PORTER. Ordinary shares, common stock.
The CHAIRMAN. Par value or no-par value?
Mr. PORTER. I think no-par value, I am not sure.
The CHAIRMAN. And how was that owned ?

Mr. PORTER. After the receivership which I spoke of, in order to form that company, in the first place, preferred shares were issued to the creditors, those that owned bonds and the bank creditors, and they received 11,500,000 of 6-percent cumulative preferred stock. There was no working capital, and for working capital there was sold about 3,000,000 or 3,500,000 of debentures. To make those attractive and to make it possible to sell them, they were sold with common shares, so that when the corporation was started in 1924 it had about 3,500,000 of debentures, about 11,000,000 of 6-percent cumulative preferred stock.

The CHAIRMAN. These figures indicate dollars ?

Mr. PORTER. Dollars, and 167,000 shares of common stock, which was mostly sold in the debentures. That was the original capitalization.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the value of the common stock?

Mr. PORTER. The common stock at that time represented, of course, a great deal of past goodwill and hopes and expectations, but it had very

little value at that time. It sold for, I imagine, seven or eight dollars a share; I don't remember exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say whether or not it was par-value stock?

Mr. PORTER. I think it was no-par value originally. It is no-par value today.

The CHAIRMAN. The actual financing of the corporation, then, was by means of the preferred stock which was issued in exchange for assets, and the debentures which were issued in exchange for cash; is that correct?

Mr. PORTER. Preferred stock was issued to pay creditors, and the only cash came from the sale of common shares and debentures, which was about $3,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. By “creditors” I assume you mean those who were selling the physical assets of the corporation.

Mr. PORTER. No; they were people who had lent the money or who had bought bonds—bondholders and bank creditors.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the physical assets, how were they acquired ?

Mr. PORTER. They were part of the bankrupt estate.
Mr. BUCK. And at what period was that?
Mr. PORTER. That was consummated in 1924.
Mr. BUCK. As I understand it, you are an engineer by profession.
Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

a

275
그니 1 외

[ocr errors]

2750

1165 2.585

23:31

165

a

Mr. BUCK. You had been an engineer prior to that time?
Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buck. And you had never had any connection with the whisky

.
business until after the adoption of the twenty-first amendment.

Mr. PORTER. Except that this company was engaged in the medicinal-whisky business during the period of prohibition.

Mr. Buck. When did you first become associated with the whisky business?

Mr. PORTER. At this time, in 1924.
Mr. Buck. Was it a major part of your activity, or just a side line?
Mr. PORTER. No; it takes a major part of my time.

Mr. Buck. You also had an engineering corporation that you
operated throughout the country?
Mr. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. Buck. Did you have any other questions?
The CHAIRMAN. No; I don't want to interrupt your line of inquiry.
Mr. Buck. I am just trying to get the thing set with one date.
Now, Alex D. Shaw & Co.—who are they, and what are they?

Mr. PORTER. Alex D. Shaw was a company that had for many years been engaged—that is, prior to prohibition in the importation of foreign spirits and wines; and so that we might have an importing branch to our business, we acquired control of what had been for many years an inactive business.

Mr. BUCK. When was that?
Mr. PORTER. Prior to repeal; in 1933, I suppose.
Mr. Buck. Just a few months before repeal ?
Mr. PORTER. Six or seven months, perhaps.

Mr. Buck. You acquired it under the anticipation of repeal of the eighteenth amendment ?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. Buck. And Alex Shaw is an old-established importing firm in New York, has been there for many years; is that correct?

Mr. PORTER. That is right.

Mr. BUCK. And just before repeal National acquired a control in Alex Shaw; is that so?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. BUCK. What is the status of the Alex Shaw Co. now with
National ?

Mr. PORTER. We own it.
Mr. Buck. You own it wholly now?
Mr. PORTER. Own it wholly; yes.
Mr. Buck. You now own 100-percent control of Alex Shaw?
Mr. PORTER. That is right.

Mr. Buck. Was John de Kuyper & Son, Inc., a subsidiary of National at one time?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. Buck. What is the business of John de Kuyper & Son?

Mr. PORTER. Well, the firm of Johs de Kuyper & Zoon, of Rotterdam, have been engaged for many, many years in the manufacture of cordials in Holland, which they sell all over the world, and we and they conceived the idea that they should be manufactured in America to serve this market, and we formed a small company, in partnership with them, whereby, using their formula and skill and knowledge,

[ocr errors]

under the supervision of their experts, the cordials are made in this country. That company has, I think, a capitalization of about $100,000. We own 70 percent of the stocks, and our Holland partners own 30 percent.

Mr. BUCK. In other words, that is a subsidiary organized by National with this Holland concern after repeal for the purpose of making certain specialties in the business?

Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
Mr. Buck. And you own about what—60 percent of that?
Mr. PORTER. Seventy percent.

Mr. Buck. National Pure Spirits Corporation: When did you acquire that?

Mr. PORTER. How is that? National what?

Mr. BUCK. National Pure Spirits, a Delaware corporation organized in 1934.

Mr. PORTER. I don't know, sir.

Mr. Buck. You don't know? It is apparently an experimenting company for aging of whisky, or something of that sort? Maybe you have forgotten about it.

Mr. PORTER. I don't think that is an active company.
Mr. BUCK. You think not?
Mr. PORTER. No; I am sure not.
Mr. Buck. Medicinal Holding Corporation: What is that?

Mr. PORTER. Oh, I think that was a company that must have been
formed in the process of dissolving many of these companies. You
see, if I may explain: 'At the time of repeal, or shortly thereafter,
National was a holding company, as I previously stated, owning
a number of subsidiary operating companies, not itself engaged
directly in doing business. Then, as you know, the laws were very
much changed, and in step with the change in laws we made Na-Y
tional a direct operating company, dissolving as rapidly as we could
all the subsidiary companies that the law permitted us to dissolve.
We have to have some to comply with different state laws.

Mr. Buck. Yes; but I am asking you about a period when these things were being acquired. Now you are talking about a period when you are divesting.

Mr. PORTER. That company may have been formed in a period of acquisition, I am not sure.

The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest that you ask the witness to give us the list of subsidiaries at the time the company was organized in 1924 and then the list of subsidiaries now so that we can make the comparison.

Mr. Buck. Do you have such a list, Mr. Porter, of the subsidiaries of your corporation as it existed in 1934 ?

Mr. PORTER. In 1934 ?
The CHAIRMAN. No; in 1924 when it was organized.
Mr. PORTER. I haven't it here.

The CHAIRMAN. You see, the suggestion which one draws from these questions and from your testimony is that because of changed conditions the character of the corporation was changed. You acquired apparently some subsidiaries at the time of organization and then you divested yourself later on. I think the committee would like to know just what the status of the subsidiary organiza

[ocr errors]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »