My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-04-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1982056 (5)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1982056
>
2016-04-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1982056 (5)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:21:06 PM
Creation date
4/26/2016 9:59:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/25/2016
Doc Name
Motion of the Debtors and Debtors in Possession
From
United States Bankruptcy Court
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
MPB
JRS
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Case 16-42529 Doc 32 Filed 04/13/16 Entered 04/13/16 11:43:47 Main Document <br />Pg 14 of 21 <br />28. Courts regularly approve debtors' proposed assumptions or rejections upon <br />finding that such debtors have exercised their sound business judgment. See In re Crystalin, <br />L.L.C., 293 B.R. at 463-64 (The business judgment test "is not an onerous one and does not <br />require the bankruptcy court to place itself in the position of the trustee or debtor") (internal <br />quotation marks omitted); accord In re Steaks to Go, Inc., 226 B.R. 35, 37 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. <br />1998) (noting that a court will generally approve of a rejection of an executory contract "if the <br />rejection is based on the debtor['s] ... best business judgment in the circumstances"). See also <br />In re Audra -John Corp., 140 B.R. 752, 756 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1992) ("The [business judgment] <br />test embodies considerable deference to the proponent of the rejection ... so long as it can <br />articulate sound business reasons for repudiating the contract.") (internal citation omitted); In re <br />MF Global Holdings Ltd., 466 B.R. 239,242 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Courts generally will not <br />second-guess a debtor's business judgment ...."); Butler v. Resident Care Innovation Com., 241 <br />B.R. 37, 47 (D.R.I. 1999) ("[T]he reviewing court ought to defer to the Trustee's decision ... <br />unless the decision is so unreasonable that it could not be based on sound business judgment, but <br />only on bad faith or whim.") (internal quotation marks omitted); In re G Survivor Com., 171 <br />B.R. 755, 758 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994) affd sub nom. John Forsyth Co. v. G Licensing, 187 <br />B.R. 111 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("a bankrupt's decision to reject an executory contract because of <br />perceived business advantage requires that the decision be accepted by courts unless it is shown <br />that the bankrupt's decision was one taken in bad faith or in gross abuse" of the debtor's retained <br />business discretion); COR Route 5 Co. v. Penn Traffic Co. (In re Penn Traffic Co.), 524 F.3d <br />373, 383 (2d Cir. 2008) (The business judgment standard "presupposes that the estate will <br />assume a contract only where doing so will be to its economic advantage and will reject contracts <br />whose performance would benefit the counterparty at the expense of the estate"). <br />-14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.