Mirant Corp. v. Potomac Electric Power Co. (In Re Mirant Corp.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “Pepeo agreed to sell its electric generation facilities and assign most of its power purchase agreements to Mirant in June 2000 for approximately $2.65 billion -in the [APSA].” (abbreviated reference and footnote omitted)
• stating that bankruptcy court would have jurisdiction to reject a wholesale power contract only if so doing does not violate the filed rate doctrine
• announcing that “a bankruptcy court can clearly grant injunctive relief to prohibit FERC from negating [a debtor’s] rejection [of a filed contract] by requiring continued performance at the pre-rejection filed rate”
• “Under the Bankruptcy Code . . . , Mirant’s rejection . . . is a breach . . . .”
• “When faced with a conflict between two statutes, courts must interpret them to give effect to both statutes.”
• “Supreme Court precedent supports applying a more rigorous standard” than the business judgment standard when evaluating a request to reject an agreement regulated by FERC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).