In re: Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company et al. v. Computershare Trust Company, N.A. et al
Filing
4
Recommendation that Bankruptcy Appeal be withrawn from mandatory mediation. Signed by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 11/20/15. (cak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE:
:
:
ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP.,
:
et al.,
:
:
Debtors.
:
__________________________________ :
:
COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, :
N.A. and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST
:
COMPANY OF CANADA, as
:
INDENTURE TRUSTEE,
:
:
Appellant,
:
:
v.
:
:
ENERGY FUTURE INTERMEDIATE
:
HOLDING COMPANY LLC and
:
EFIH FINANCE INC.,
:
:
Appellees.
:
Bankruptcy Case No. 14-10979
ADV. No. 14-50405
BAP 15-64
C. A. No. 15-1014-RGA
RECOMMENDATION
At Wilmington this 20th day of November, 2015.
WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph 2(a) of the Procedures to Govern
Mediation of Appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court for this District dated
September 11, 2012, the court conducted an initial review, which included information
from counsel, to determine the appropriateness of mediation in this matter;
WHEREAS, as a result of the above screening process, the issues
involved in this case are not amenable to mediation and mediation at this stage would
not be a productive exercise, a worthwhile use of judicial resources nor warrant the
expense of the process.
The parties to this appeal have attempted mediation previously, which was
unsuccessful, and do not believe that mediation at the appellate level would be
productive.
They request the Court implement a briefing schedule consistent with the
schedule in a related appeal by the Delaware Trust Company, as indenture trustee for
the EFIH First Lien Notes in C.A. No. 15-620-RGA. See D.I. 35 in C.A. No. 15-620RGA. The schedule in that matter was Appellant’s opening brief due after entry of a
scheduling order; Appellees’ answering brief due 30 days after the filing of the opening
brief and Appellant’s reply brief due 14 days after the filing of the answering brief.
No request is made to modify the word and/or page limits for briefs in bankruptcy
appeals.
In this matter and the related matter referenced above, the Bankruptcy Court in
separate rulings and opinions construed the first and second lien indentures, finding that
neither provided for a make-whole payment upon a bankruptcy-induced acceleration.
Because the operative language in the two indentures is substantially the same and
both matters are now before this Court on appeal, the parties further request that two
matters be consolidated, with one consolidated briefing schedule be entered.
THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to paragraph 2(a)
Procedures to Govern Mediation of Appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for this District and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter, like the companion matter at 15-620RGA, be withdrawn from the mandatory referral for mediation and proceed through the
appellate process of this Court. Since the parties requested that matter be removed
2
from mandatory mediation, no objections to this Recommendation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a) and D. DEL. LR 72.1, are anticipated.
Local counsel are obligated to inform out-of-state counsel of this Order.
/s/ Mary Pat Thynge
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?