  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
not show cause for relief because it did not demonstrate that its contract with the debtor was actually going to be assigned. Section 365(e)(2)(A) permits the termination of a contract containing an ipso facto clause only upon a showing of more than the hypothetical possibility that a contract will be assigned. The nondebtor party to the contract must show that the contract will actually be assigned.)
Cohen v. KB Mezzanine Fund II, LP (In re Submicron Sys. Corp.), 432 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. Jan. 6, 2006) (At a § 363 sale, § 363(k) allows a secured creditor to credit bid up to the full face value of its claim, even when the collateral securing the claim has no economic value.)
In re Rare Earth Minerals, 445 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. Apr 18, 2006) (Appeal of assumption and sale of oil and gas lease was moot pursuant to § 363(m) after sale to good-faith purchaser and failure of appellant to obtain stay. Mootness was not defeated by appellant's claim that lease was not property of the estate pursuant to state law, or by appellant's late-raised claim that purchase was not in good faith due to prior recorded interests in lease.)
Dick v Conseco, Inc., 458 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. August 11, 2006) (Debtor could terminate CEO's employment contract upon its bankruptcy pursuant to ipso facto clause. Section 365(e)(1) prohibition of bankruptcy-triggered terminations of executory contracts did not apply, because the contract was not an executory agreement pursuant to Indiana law.)
In re United Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 463 (7th Cir. July 6, 2006) (Because bond-related obligations in UAL's ground lease at the Denver International Airport could not be severed from the ground lease pursuant to Colorado law, and because UAL conceded that its ground lease constituted a "true lease" and not a disguised secured transaction, the entire agreement including the bondrelated obligations had to be treated as a lease pursuant to § 365.)
In re Kmart Corp., 434 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. Jan. 4, 2006) (Debtor was not in breach of obligations under pre-petition contract, so contract could be assumed under § 365. Even though non-debtor party to contract purported to terminate contract after debtor allegedly breached post-assumption, resulting in state court litigation, federal jurisdiction existed to determine whether a breach existed preassumption and whether the contract had been assumed properly.)
In re Mirant Corp., 440 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2006) (Agency of the federal government violated automatic stay when it terminated contract with debtor
