Opinion ID: 197343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of Knutson Authorization

Text: 15 Next, Gens contends that the original and amended POCs submitted by RTC are invalid because Knutson was not authorized to act as agent for RTC. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(b) (A proof of claim shall be executed by the creditor or the creditor's authorized agent ....); see also Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9010(a)(2). Gens asserts that it would have demonstrated, at an evidentiary hearing, that RTC regulations, see 12 C.F.R. § 1606.4; see also 12 U.S.C. § 1441a(n)(6), presumptively disqualified Knutson from serving as an RTC agent because, as an affiliate of Home Owners, presumably it was complicit in whatever financial misfeasance or malfeasance led to the Home Owners insolvency. As the bankruptcy court aptly noted, however, Gens lacked standing to challenge Knutson's agency status. 16 The RTC regulation pursuant to which Knutson was designated is designed (i) to ensure that contractors [hired by RTC] meet minimum standards of competence, integrity, fitness, and experience and are held to the highest standards of ethical conduct in performing services for RTC, (ii) to prevent the direct or indirect use of information gained through performance of a contract ... for personal gain not contemplated by the contract, and (iii) to preclude the use of personal relationships or improper influence to gain unfair competitive advantage in obtaining contracts with the RTC. 12 C.F.R. § 1606.1. The RTC regulation thus identifies two conceivable classes of intended beneficiaries: (1) competing contractors which are unfairly denied RTC contract bids; and (2) the taxpaying public, which may be harmed by RTC revenue losses resulting from insider conflicts of interest. 17 Gens plainly cannot qualify under the first classification, as she is not a competing contractor. See, e.g., New Hampshire Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir.1996) ([U]nder the principle of jus tertii, the plaintiff ordinarily 'must assert [her] own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest [her] claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.' ) (citation omitted). Moreover, no standing is conferred upon Gens, individually, by the generalized taxpayer benefit theme which actuates the second classification. See Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 436 (1st Cir.1995) (noting that claimant normally may not adjudicate abstract questions of wide public significance which amount to generalized grievances more appropriately addressed by the legislature). Nothing in the statute, the RTC regulation or the attendant case law remotely suggests that Congress or the agency itself intended to confer standing on chapter 11 debtors to enforce the RTC regulation. 6 See, e.g., Dubois v. United States Dep't of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 1281 (1st Cir.1996) (to demonstrate standing, complainant must establish, inter alia, that her claim does not fall outside the zone of interests protected by the specific law invoked) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324-25, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)); Benjamin v. Aroostook Med. Ctr., Inc., 57 F.3d 101, 104 (1st Cir.1995). 7