2016-04-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1982056 ‎(12)‎

• Permit No: C1982056
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 4/25/2016
• Doc Name: Motion of the Debtors and Debtors in Possession Pursuant to Sections
• From: United State Bankruptcy
• To: DRMS
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Email Name: MPB
• Email Name: JRS
• Email Name: JLE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Case 16-42529 Doc 28 Filed 04/13/16 Entered 04/13/16 11:32:40 Main Document
Pg 16 of 31
corporation, are made on the basis of inadequate information or study, are made in bad faith, or
are in violation of the Bankruptcy Code." In re Farmland Indus., Inc., 294 B.R. 855, 881
(Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2003 ) (citing In re United Artists Theatre Co., 315 F.3d 217, 233
(3d Cir. 2003), Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank, N.A., 762 F.2d 1303, 1309
(5th Cir. 1985) and In re Defender Drug Stores, Inc., 145 B.R. 312, 317 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1992)).
See also Crystalin, L.L.C. v. Selma Props. Inc. (In re Crystalin, L.L.C.), 293 B.R. 455, 463-64
(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003) (holding that the business judgment rule may be satisfied "'as long as the
proposed action appears to enhance the debtor's estate."') (quoting Four B. Corp. v. Food Barn
Stores, Inc. (In re Food Barn Stores, Inc.), 107 F.3d 558, 567 n.16 (8th Cir. 1997) (emphasis in
original, internal quotations and alterations omitted)); Four B. Corp. v. Food Barn Stores, Inc. (In
re Food Barn Stores, Inc.), 107 F.3d 558, 567 n.16 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that "[w]here the
[debtor's] request is not manifestly unreasonable or made in bad faith, the court should normally
grant approval 'as long as the proposed action appears to enhance the debtor's estate"') (quoting
Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank, N.A., 762 F.2d 1303, 1309 (5th Cir. 1985) (internal
alterations and quotations omitted)); Official Comm. of Subordinated Bondholders v. Integrated
Res., Inc. (In re Integrated Res., Inc.), 147 B.R. 650, 656 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992) (finding that
"[c]ourts are loath to interfere with corporate decisions absent a showing of bad faith, self-
interest, or gross negligence"). Here, the Debtors believe, in their business judgment, that
payment of Essential Supplier Claims, in the Debtors' discretion, is sound and prudent.
33. Further, the Court may authorize payment of the Essential Supplier Claims
pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and the doctrine of necessity. Section 105(a)
of the Bankruptcy Code empowers a bankruptcy court to issue "any order, process, or judgment
that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
-16-