In re Mirant Corporation
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas
314 B.R. 347 (2004)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Mirant Corporation (Mirant), through Mirant Americans Energy Marketing, L.P. (MAEM) (debtor), was engaged in the business of trading various commodity derivatives, including swap agreements. On March 17, 1998, MAEM entered into a swap agreement with MediaNews Group, Inc. The swap provided that the parties would exchange cash flows based on the market price for 48.8 newsprint. The swap would run from May 1, 1998, through April 2005. On July 14, 2003, MAEM filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. At the time, because the market price of 48.8 newsprint was below the agreed-on fixed price, MAEM was entitled to net cash payments from MediaNews Group. For seven weeks following the filing of bankruptcy, the parties were engaged in negotiations relating to the swap. Eventually, on September 4, MediaNews Group advised MAEM that it was electing to terminate the swap agreement. On September 16, MediaNews Group informed MAEM that it had calculated the net due to MAEM as $1,135,578. MAEM argued that MediaNews Group had waived its right to terminate the swap agreement due to the passage of time between the filing of bankruptcy and its notice of termination. MAEM moved for entry of an order to enforce the automatic stay to prohibit MediaNews Group from terminating the swap.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.