About This Blog
The Delaware Bankruptcy Insider is a premier blog designed to bring its readers a comprehensive analysis of the latest Delaware corporate bankruptcy news and rulings. Brought to you by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
Judges and Courts
- Delaware Court of Chancery
- Delaware District Court
- Delaware Supreme Court
- Judge Brendan L. Shannon
- Judge Christopher S. Sontchi
- Judge Kevin Gross
- Judge Kevin J. Carey
- Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein
- Judge Mary F. Walrath
- Judge Peter J. Walsh
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- United States Supreme Court
- Delaware District Court Disagrees with Bankruptcy Court’s Ruling and Holds That Committee’s Challenge Rights Survived Entry of the Sale Order and Consummation of Sale
- “Straddling the Line”: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Not All Tax Liabilities Incurred During a Debtor’s Petition Year are Eligible for Administrative Expense Priority
- Insider’s Scoop: Judge Silverstein Imposes Heightened Standard Regarding Appointment of Future Claims Representative
For more information
Who Has Standing to Raise a Potential Conflict of Interest and an Objection to a Firm’s Retention?
Hofmeister v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Revstone Indus., LLC), No. 13-565 (SLR), 2015 WL 5618890 (D. Del. Sept. 24, 2015)
In this Delaware District Court Memorandum affirming the decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court to permit the retention of counsel (“Committee Counsel”) to the Revstone debtors’ official committee of unsecured creditors (the “Committee”), the Court addressed who may object to a retention application and press an asserted conflict of interest. In Hofmeister, Mr. Hofmeister, former founder and insider of Revstone, objected to the retention of Committee Counsel, asserting that counsel had a conflict of interest because it previously provided legal advice to Revstone in connection with the domestication of a judgment held by the chair of the Committee. The Bankruptcy Court did not address whether Mr. Hofmeister had standing, but rather, held that Committee Counsel sufficiently disclosed the firm’s prior representation and was not disqualified from representing the Committee as the prior Revstone representation was unrelated and concluded prior to the commencement of Revstone’s bankruptcy proceedings. On appeal, the District Court concurred with these conclusions but also held that Mr. Hofmeister had no standing to press his objection. Importantly, Mr. Hofmeister was never a client of Committee Counsel’s firm and “failed to demonstrate that the alleged conflict would somehow prejudice his rights or otherwise call into question ‘the fair or efficient administration of justice[.]’” Op. at 4 (quoting In re Appeal of Infotechnology, Inc., 582 A.2d 515, 221 (Del. 1990)). Notably for the District Court, neither Revstone nor the Committee chair objected to the retention of Committee Counsel. With these holdings, the District Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.