May 25, 2007
Article Analyzing Footstar
In In re Footstar, Inc., 323 B.R. 566 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005), the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York rejected the "hypothetical test" for interpreting 265(c)(1)(A). The Court presented a new analysis supporting application of the "actual test" and held that the debtor could assume pending contracts with Kmart Corporation.
Three of the lawyers involved in the case, Jay R. Indyke, Richard S. Kanowitz, and Brent Weisenberg, have written an article analyzing the court's decision and further explaining its approach to allowing assumption of otherwise non-assignable executory contracts.
The article, called "Ending the "Hypothetical" vs. "Actual" Test Debate: A New Way to Read Section 365(c)(1)" was published in the April 2007 edition of the Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice. 16 J. Bankr. L. & Prac. 2 Art. 2 (2007).
Three of the lawyers involved in the case, Jay R. Indyke, Richard S. Kanowitz, and Brent Weisenberg, have written an article analyzing the court's decision and further explaining its approach to allowing assumption of otherwise non-assignable executory contracts.
The article, called "Ending the "Hypothetical" vs. "Actual" Test Debate: A New Way to Read Section 365(c)(1)" was published in the April 2007 edition of the Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice. 16 J. Bankr. L. & Prac. 2 Art. 2 (2007).
Labels: assignment, assumption
¶ 8:58 AM
