• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Headline Stack
Main image for Delaware Bankruptcy Court Denies Creditors’ Committee Access to Privileged Documents
Publications|Alert

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Denies Creditors’ Committee Access to Privileged Documents

Bankruptcy & Restructuring Alert

5.15.2017

In a May 8, 2017 ruling, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied the official committee of unsecured creditors from accessing certain documents withheld from production based on the attorney-client privilege. Despite the purpose underlying the committee’s creation, the court distinguished the role of the committee from that of a bankruptcy trustee and barred the production of privileged documents in the absence of a finding of insolvency. This ruling hampers the ability of a creditor’s committee to root out fraud and potentially recover money for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.

Haggen, Inc. and its affiliates filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. During the bankruptcy case, the official committee of unsecured creditors obtained derivative standing to pursue an adversary action against the officers and directors of the debtors, the debtors’ majority shareholder and certain non-debtor affiliates.  The committee filed suit, alleging, among other things, fraud.  In support of its claims, the committee served written discovery requests.  Both the debtors and the defendants withheld ** a significant number of documents from their productions based on the attorney-client privilege.  The committee argued that it should be entitled to review the privileged documents on account of its derivative standing, because the debtors themselves would have been able to access these documents had the debtors not possessed a conflict of interest and filed suit.

The bankruptcy court concluded that the debtors and defendants could withhold documents from the committee that were protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege.  In reaching this conclusion, the court analyzed three decisions concerning the application of the attorney-client privilege.  First, in Commodities Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, the United States Supreme Court held that a chapter 7 trustee may waive the protections of the attorney-client privilege as to communications which preceded the bankruptcy filing.  The bankruptcy court reasoned that the Supreme Court’s holding in Weintraub did not aid the committee, because a creditor’s committee is acting on behalf of creditors whose interests could differ from that of the bankruptcy estate.  This divergence of interests justified a limited application of Weintraub.  Next the bankruptcy court analyzed the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, which allowed shareholders to view privileged documents upon showing cause.  The Fifth Circuit identified certain criteria for determining whether cause existed, and the bankruptcy court analyzed the committee’s request in light of the Garner factors.  Despite its initial finding that the committee satisfied the Garner criteria, the bankruptcy court upheld the attorney-client privilege based on the Third Circuit’s holding in In re Teleglobe Comm’n Corp.  In Teleglobe, the Third Circuit permitted the production of privileged documents only where the debtor was insolvent at the time of the relevant communication.  The Third Circuit explained, and the bankruptcy court concurred, that insolvency was the critical factor, because in the absence of insolvency, no party owed a fiduciary duty to creditors, and thus, no breach could have occurred. 

Applying Teleglobe, the bankruptcy court found that the committee failed to put forth evidence of the debtors’ insolvency at the time of the privileged communications.  The court cited to the record to support its decision, specifically the debtors’ access to a $200 million line of credit and $100 million in cash on hand seven months prior to the bankruptcy filing.  While the court found the debtors’ sudden decline into bankruptcy interesting, the cause of the decline was speculative and incapable of satisfying the Teleglobe standard.  Accordingly, the bankruptcy court denied the committee access to privileged documents potentially capable of establishing its claims.

The case referenced above is Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of HH Liquidation, LLC, et al. v. Comvest Grp. Holdings, LLC, et al. (In re HH Liquidation, LLC, et al.), Adv. No. 16-51204 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. May 8, 2017).

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Matthew J. Rifino
Matthew J. Rifino

Special Counsel

Media item: Jeffrey T. Testa
Jeffrey T. Testa

Partner

Related Services

Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel