In Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. (1972) 406 U.S. 416, Marine Midland Grace Trust Company was the indenture trustee for debentures issued and sold by Webb & Knapp, Inc., the bankrupt, in an amount of approximately $ 8 million. Marine as indenture trustee had numerous responsibilities with respect to the continued supervision of Webb & Knapp. After the bankruptcy of Webb & Knapp, the debenture holders claimed as did the bankruptcy trustee, that Marine was responsible severally to each. The bankruptcy trustee as petitioner in Caplin with permission of the federal district court sued Marine on behalf of the bankrupt estate. The district court on Marine's motion dismissed and held that the bankruptcy trustee had "no standing in his capacity as a trustee in this reorganization under Chapter X . . . to raise claims of misconduct by an indenture trustee . . ." and granted Marine's motion. In affirming, the Supreme Court said: "By alleging that the indenture trustee negligently or intentionally failed to prevent Webb & Knapp from violating the terms of the indenture, petitioner clearly alleges a violation of the 1939 legislation, 15 U.S.C. 77000. But the question remains whether petitioner is a proper party to take corrective action. "Petitioner urges that the reorganization trustee is in a far better position than debt investors to discover and to prosecute claims based on the alleged failure of an indenture trustee to live up to the provisions of the indenture . . . . ". . . petitioner asserts that to give him standing to sue on behalf of debenture holders will not encourage vexatious litigation or unduly deplete the resources of the debtor that he has been appointed to reorganize . . . . "Assuming that petitioner's allegations of misconduct on the part of the indenture trustee are true, petitioner has at most described a situation where Webb & Knapp and Marine were in pari delicto. Whatever damage the debenture holders suffered, under petitioner's theory Webb & Knapp is as much at fault as Marine, if not more so. A question would arise, therefore, whether Marine would be entitled to be subrogated to the claims of the debenture holders. The Court of Appeals thought that subrogation would be required, 439 F.2d, at 122. ". . . . "This brings us to the third problem with petitioner's argument: i.e., suit by him on behalf of debenture holders may be inconsistent with any independent actions they might bring themselves. Petitioner and the SEC make very plain their position that a suit by the trustee in reorganization does not pre-empt suits by individual debenture holders. They maintain, however, that it would be unlikely that such suits would be brought since the debenture holders could reasonably expect that the trustee would vigorously prosecute the claims of all debt investors. But, independent actions are still likely because it is extremely doubtful that the trustee and all debenture holders would agree on the amount of damages to seek, or even on the theory on which to sue. Moreover, if the indenture trustee wins the suit brought by the trustee in reorganization, unless the debenture holders are bound by that victory, the proliferation of litigation that petitioner seeks to avoid would then ensue. Finally, a question would arise as to who was bound by any settlement. ". . . . "Thus, there is no showing whatever that by giving petitioner standing to sue on behalf of the debenture holders we would reduce litigation. On the contrary there is every indication that litigation would be increased, or at least complicated. "For the reasons discussed above we conclude that petitioner does not have standing to sue an indenture trustee on behalf of debenture holders." ( Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co., at pp. 426-434 32.)