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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the cou rt has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . 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: *

A fter a review of the record, a study of the b riefs, 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 c ase support the district court’s broad4

interpretation of w hat constitutes an executory contract under

section 365. S ee 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 bal ance between debtors and creditors,

bankruptcy courts should be afforded the la titude to fashion

remedies they consider appropriate under the circumstances”).

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

filing for bankruptcy, TGX implicitly a s sumed 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.