In re: REVSTONE INDUSTRIES, LLC et al., Debtors.
ASCALON ENTERPRISES LLC, Appellant,
REVSTONE INDUSTRIES, LLC, Appellee.
C. A. No. 15-347-SLR, Bankruptcy Case No. 12-13262 (BLS), BAP No. 15-13.
United States District Court, D. Delaware.
June 18, 2015.
MARY PAT THYNGE, Magistrate Judge.
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, 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 have differing views on the appropriateness of mediation. Appellant desires mediation. It points out that following the confirmation hearing in March 2015, its counsel made a verbal presentation to counsel of Revstone and its Chief Structuring Officer regarding terms for a global settlement. It was left with the impression that the presentation was favorably perceived. Since that date there have been no further discussions and there has been no mediation or other ADR process in this matter. It argues that bankruptcy objectives are best achieved through negotiation rather than litigation. It notes that the bankruptcy case is administratively insolvent, and appellant and its affiliates face serious financial challenges.
Appellee opposes mediation noting the appeal involves an order confirming Revstone’s plan of reorganization, to which Appellant allegedly filed a limited objection, which Appellee describes was “summarily overrule.” It strongly considers Appellant’s appeal as meritless. Appellee views the Appellant’s proposal as preliminary and “unclear in material respects,” thus denying that it was favorably received in any substantive sense.
Based on my review of the parties’ positions, I do not believe mediation is appropriate in this matter.
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Mediation of Appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court for this District and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter be withdrawn from the mandatory referral for mediation and proceed through the appellate process of this Court. Through this Recommendation, the parties are advised of their right to file objections to this Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), FED. R. C1v. P. 72(a) and D. DEL. LR 72.1. Any objections to this Recommendation shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with the same, and limited to five (5) pages. Any response must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections and is limited to five (5) pages. The parties are further directed to the Court’s Standing Order in Non-Pro Se matters for Objections Filed under FED. R. CIV. P. 72 dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the court’s website, www.ded.uscourts.gov.
Local counsel are obligated to inform out-of-state counsel of this Order.
Save trees – read court opinions online on Google Scholar.