Laserfiche WebLink
Case 16-42529 Doc 28 Filed 04/13/16 Entered 04/13/16 11:32:40 Main Document <br />Pg 23 of 31 <br />performance of an executory contract until it is assumed or rejected .... Whether the debtor <br />performs or not, the non -debtor must perform until assumption or rejection.") (emphasis added).5 <br />44. Notwithstanding the above, it is expected that some contract parties — i.e., the <br />Repudiating Vendors — may threaten to refuse to perform their contractual obligations unless the <br />Debtors first pay their prepetition claims. In light of the severity of the disruptions that could be <br />caused by such refusal, the Debtors seek authority for approval of the Repudiating Vendor <br />Procedures as set forth herein. <br />45. Bankruptcy Courts in this and other districts have granted relief similar to that <br />requested herein with respect to the Repudiating Vendor Procedures. See, ems, In re Noranda <br />Aluminum, Inc., No. 16-10083 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Feb. 11, 2016) (Docket No. 102) (order <br />authorizing debtors to employ procedures to ensure counterparty compliance with certain <br />Bankruptcy Code protections); In re Arch Coal, Inc., No. 16-40120 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Jan. 13, <br />2016) (Docket No. 71) (same); accord In re Alpha Natural Res, Inc., No. 15-33896 <br />(Bankr E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015 and Sept. 3, 2015) (Docket Nos. 124 and 35 1) (interim and final <br />orders authorizing similar "repudiating vendor procedures"); In re Great Atl.& Pac. Tea Co. <br />No. 15-23007 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2015 and Aug. 11, 2015) (Docket Nos. 61 and 503) <br />(same); In re Hostess Brands, Inc., No. 12-22052 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2012 and <br />Jan. 27, 2012) (Docket Nos. 76 and 196) (same); In re OTC HoldingsCorp, No. 10-12636 <br />(Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 27, 2010 and Sept. 17, 2010) (Docket Nos. 56 and 105) (same); <br />In re Chrysler LLC, No. 09-50002 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2009 and May 20, 2009) (Docket <br />5 In addition, a refusal by a nondebtor to perform postpetition under a prepetition executory contract also <br />may be a violation of the automatic stay, pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Seee�y <br />3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.03[5][a] (Alan N. Resnick and Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2015) ("As <br />property of the estate, the debtor's interests in ... [executory] contracts or leases are protected against <br />termination or other interference that would have the effect of removing or hindering the debtor's rights in <br />violation of section 362(a)(3)."). <br />-23- <br />