In Re UAL Corp.
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”
“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.