IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-30617

_____________________

In The Matter Of: TGX CORPORATION,

Debtor.

------------------------------

T G X CORPORATION,

Appellant,

versus

VANNIE MORGAN EDWARDS; HUEY L. ACHORD;

PAULINE PARTIN ACHORD; IRIS VOYLES ALLGOOD;

KIMBERLY JENKINS BARTON; JOSEPH F. BERGERON;

DEBRA VOYLES BRADLEY; WILLIAM D. BROWNING;

JO ANN BROWNING CAYER; CENTRAL SUPERMARKET

INCORPORATED; JODIE MAE FRIDGE CRAWFORD;

DENNIS CALVIN DELEE; PATRICIA EDWARDS DELEE;

FAYE DOUCET; JOHNNY ELDER EDWARDS, JR.;

THOMAS A. EDWARDS; PAMELA JENKINS ENRIQUEZ;

ALBERTA EDWARDS FORBES; ANNA EDWARDS

HARDCASTLE; VIRGIL T. JACKSON, JR., Dr.;

GAY E. JUBAN; JOSEPH E. JUBAN; MARTHA M.

JUBAN; MARY ELLEN A. JUBAN; PHILLIP S. JUBAN;

ROBBIE S. JUBAN; RAYE NEYLAND LETEFF;

ROBERT W. LETEFF; LUCILE P. McALLISTER;

MORRIS McALLISTER; CHARLES D. MORGAN, JR.;

EVANDER J. MORGAN; INEZ MOORE MORGAN;

LLOYD MORGAN; ROBERT MOORE MORGAN; ROY SMITH

MORGAN; THERESA BROWNING MUNZEL; LOUIS A.

PERRAULT; RONALD K. PENCE; NORMA RAE LATHAM

SMITH; ABE H. STARKEY; DONNA E. STARKEY;

CYNTHIA VOYLES TILLOTSON; DALE VOYLES;

MONROE D. VOYLES; CAROLYN WAGNER; KENNETH

WAGNER; GAYNELL JUBAN WATSON; WILLIAM E.

WATSON; HAZEL NOBEL WATTS; WILLIAM CYRIL WATTS;

SANDRA VOYLES WEAVER; JOHN R. WHITE, JR.;

CAROLYN EDWARDS WILSON,
2

Appellees.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

3

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana

(97-CV-219)

_________________________________________________________________

April 17, 1998

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After a review of the record, a study of the briefs, and

consideration of the oral arguments presented to the court, we

agree with the district court that, for the purposes of 11 U.S.C.

§ 365(a) of the federal Bankruptcy Code, TGX Corporation had a

contractual relationship with the Edwards that was executory at the

time it filed for bankruptcy. We further agree with the district

court that TGX failed to reject the contract with the Edwards under

section 365(a).

Under Louisiana law, the relationship between TGX as operator

of the Comite Wells and the Edwards as unleased owners of mineral

interests in the Comite Wells was quasi-contractual in nature. The

district court found that this relationship implicated duties and

obligations for both parties. Although not the typical executory

contract under traditional common law contract principles, the

equities of this case support the district court’s broad
4

interpretation of what constitutes an executory contract under

section 365. See Mendoza v. Temple-Inland Mortgage Corp., 111 F.3d

1264, 1270 (5th Cir. 1997) (“[b]ecause of the equitable nature of

bankruptcy in seeking a balance between debtors and creditors,

bankruptcy courts should be afforded the latitude to fashion

remedies they consider appropriate under the circumstances”).

By continuing to operate the wells before, during, and after

filing for bankruptcy, TGX implicitly assumed its contractual

relationship with the Edwards. This conclusion is bolstered by the

fact that TGX assumed its contracts with the leased owners of

mineral interests in the wells. For these reasons, the decision of

the district court is

A F F I R M E D.