  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
relief, enter into stipulated separate treatment for any objecting creditors, and leave a very aggressive order on the record as to which there apparently no objections as evidence of what the bankruptcy judge was willing to approve in the particular case.
In the Ames cases, the debtors argued that a designation rights order barred a challenge when the debtors sought to assume and assign a lease to a grocery store user in violation of a recorded shopping center use restriction. The court found that under the language of the order, the transfer of designation rights was subject to "'covenants, conditions and restrictions of record.'" Nor was enforcement of a use restriction an interest, lien, claim or encumbrance upon the debtor's interest. The designation rights order did not bar the later challenge.
The Fifth Circuit explored the intersection between a federally regulated debtor-utility and § 365 as applied to power purchase agreements. The DIP sought to reject two power purchase agreements because they were unprofitable and the DIP did not need the energy it would otherwise have to buy under the contracts. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") argued that its exclusive jurisdiction over filed rates for such contracts precluded rejection of the contracts. FERC argued that the issue could only be addressed in a FERC proceeding or appeal therefrom. The bankruptcy court disagreed, found it had jurisdiction, and entered a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and then preliminary injunction ("PI") against FERC seeking to enforce the contracts. It also entered a TRO and PI requiring FERC to give 10 days prior notice before taking any action with respect to any of the DTP's hundreds of contracts. The district court withdrew the reference,
