Laserfiche WebLink
Case 16-42529 Doc 1478 Filed 10/24/16 Entered 10/24/16 20:24:17 Main Document <br />Pg 15 of 99 <br />(quoting Four B. Corp. v. Food Barn Stores, Inc. (In re Food Barn Stores, Inc.), 107 F.3d 558, <br />567 n.16 (8th Cir. 1997) (alterations in original)). Once a benefit to the estate has been shown, <br />only a finding of "bad faith or gross abuse of ... 'business discretion"' should prevent the debtor <br />from assuming or rejecting the contract. Id. (quoting Lubrizol Enters., Inc. v. Richmond Metal <br />Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043, 1047 (4th Cir. 1984)). Further, nothing prevents the parties to a <br />contract from agreeing to postpetition modifications to the contract prior to its assumption. <br />See City of Covington v. Covington Landing L.P., 71 F.3d 1221, 1227 (6th Cir. 1995) ("Nothing <br />in the Code suggests that the debtor may not modify its contracts when all parties to the contract <br />consent."). <br />The Debtors Have Determined That Assumption of the Assumed Leases and Rejection of the <br />Rejected Leases Are Appropriate under the Circumstances of This Case <br />32. The Debtors' proposed assumption of the Assumed Leases is an appropriate <br />exercise of the Debtors' business judgment based upon the information available to them. <br />Specifically, for each of the Assumed Leases, the Debtors have assessed the relevant markets and <br />their business operations in light of the current status of their reorganization efforts, recognizing <br />that the coal industry remains in a state of uncertainty. Within these constraints, the Debtors <br />have determined that the Assumed Leases are necessary to their current and future business <br />operations and that the rejection of these Leases would be disruptive and costly. For example, <br />the Debtors have evaluated the significant costs associated with attempting to renegotiate several <br />of the Leases on more favorable terms and believe such renegotiation would be costly, inefficient <br />and uncertain to produce more favorable terms for the Debtors. Furthermore, because several of <br />these Leases relate to properties on which the Debtors already mine and/or process coal, seeking <br />alternative locations would not only pose significant infrastructure investment by the Debtors but <br />also potentially prove less efficient. Accordingly, the Debtors have determined in their business <br />NAI -1502082594v7 15 <br />