🍪 Our Cookies

This website uses cookies, pixel tags, and similar technologies (“Cookies”) for the purpose of enabling site operations and for performance, personalisation, and marketing purposes. We use our own Cookies and some from third parties. Only essential Cookies are used by default. By clicking “Accept All” you consent to the use of non-essential Cookies (i.e., functional, analytics, and marketing Cookies) and the related processing of personal data. You can manage your consent preferences by clicking Manage Preferences. You may withdraw a consent at any time by using the link “Cookie Preferences” in the footer of our website.

Our Privacy Notice is accessible here. To learn more about the use of Cookies on our website, please view our Cookie Notice.

Enviva debtor counsel retention application denied

Share

News and Analysis

Enviva debtor counsel retention application denied

Max Frumes's avatar
  1. Max Frumes
•2 min read

Enviva’s application to retain Vinson & Elkins as debtors’ counsel has been denied by Judge Brian Kenney.

Judge Brian Kenney in the US Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Virginia concluded that V&E is not disinterested given its representation of Enviva’s single largest shareholder Riverstone.

“[W]here: (a) Riverstone owns 43% of the Debtors’ equity; (b) Riverstone has two of the Debtors’ thirteen directors; (c) Riverstone is a $14,000,000.00 a year client of V&E; and (d) no ethical walls have been imposed, and no ethical walls can be constructed because V&E attorneys continue to represent the Debtors and Riverstone simultaneously, the Court must conclude that V&E is not disinterested,” according to the memorandum opinion and order filed today.

As 9fin has reported, V&E was the second firm to be caught up in a hard-fought debtors’ counsel retention battle in a large bankruptcy this year, following the retention fight in Invitae discussed here.

Today’s opinion distinguished Enviva from Invitae, noting: “Riverstone is an equity security holder, not a creditor. More importantly, the Court finds that there is an actual conflict of interest. V&E cannot be expected to negotiate a Plan that contravenes the interests of its $14 million dollar-a-year client. In Invitae, the proposed law firm [Kirkland & Ellis] billed the adverse party and client (Deerfield) a total of $2.4 million from the inception of the relationship, and $1.8 million in 2023, representing 0.03% of the applicant’s revenue for that year. The court described this as ‘relatively de minimus’ in the scheme of things. In this case, V&E’s revenue from Riverstone amounts to 1.4% of its annual revenue for 2023, or 46 times more…” (emphasis 9fin’s).

This hearing was scheduled after Judge Kenney, in response to the US Trustee’s objection, found that V&E failed to reference any wall of separation in its declaration regarding the firms handling of: V&E’s inability to represent the debtors; officers and directors in pending shareholder; and derivative litigation with Riverstone.

The Enviva docket is here.

Enjoyed this article? Our customers receive news and analysis ahead of the crowd on the 9fin platform. To request a trial, click the button below.

What are you waiting for?

Try it out
  • We're trusted by the top 10 Investment Banks