Opinion ID: 507087
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timing of Proposal

Text: 64 There is another assumption shared by the parties and the majority but not by the bankruptcy court. The former apparently assume, and I tentatively am inclined to agree, that the proper proposal to evaluate is one made [s]ubsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application, Sec. 1113(b)(1) (emphasis added), which in this case is between March 14 and March 19. However, the bankruptcy court said it would consider the proposal to the extent the proposal was made prior to the commencement of the rejection hearing, 62 B.R. at 407 (emphasis added), which was May 8. In so holding, the court relied on section 1113(c), which says that [t]he court shall approve an application for rejection ... only if the court finds that--(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (b)(1). (emphasis added). Under this reading of the statute, management can continue making proposals all the way to the rejection hearing, and only the last one is subject to the necessity test. The question is important because before we can evaluate the necessity of a proposal we must know its terms. Since the issue was neither briefed by the parties nor ruled on by the majority, I do not express a firm view. I note the issue for the future and to point out the fundamental confusion in the record, confusion that should have precluded the majority from even considering whether the total elimination of priority was necessary. 65 For the reasons stated above, I dissent from the majority's unnecessarily broad decision that conflicts with the intent of Congress as expressed in Section 1113. I would either reverse or, at the least, remand for clarification.