UAL Corporation v. ReGen Capital, No. 10-1524 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 18, 2011.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 April 13, 2011 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 10 1524 IN THE MATTER OF: UAL CORPORATION, Debtor. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. REGEN CAPITAL I, INC., Appellant, No. 09 C 5225 v. John W. Darrah, Judge. UAL CORPORATION, et al., Appellees. ORDER All members of the panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing, and have voted to amend the court s opinion of February 18, 2011, as follows: On page 17, line 8, the following language shall be inserted after the word contract : not be assumed or rejected prior to plan confirmation. For example, some courts have concluded that where a plan does not provide for treatment of an executory contract, that contract No. 10 1524 Page 2 The following paragraph shall be inserted at the start of page 18 before the paragraph commencing The United s plan . . . : Under similar reasoning, some courts have held that the Code permits the bankruptcy court to approve a reorganization plan that provides for post confirmation assumption or rejection. See DJS Properties, L.P. v. Simplot, 397 B.R. 493, 498 501 (D. Idaho 2008) (bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving a plan calling for post confirmation assumption or rejection of executory contracts; noting that this interpretation is supported by sound policy reasons and lives up to congressional intent); cf. Alberts v. Humana Health Plan, Inc. (In re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp. I), 327 B.R. 26, 32 34 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2005) (order confirming plan provided that executory contracts were deemed assumed but allowed reorganized debtors to reject those same contracts post confirmation if suggested cure amounts proved unacceptable). On page 18, line 3, the word latter shall be inserted before the word approach. On page 18, line 4, the word ride through shall be deleted and replaced by the following language: post confirmation assumption or rejection . On page 18, beginning on line 5 and continuing to line 6, the words the ride through shall be deleted and replaced by the word this . On page 18, line 10, the word ride through shall be deleted and replaced by the following language: post confirmation rejection . On page 20, beginning on line 8 and continuing to line 9, the words let executory contracts ride through plan confirmation and to shall be deleted.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
