D entered into the contract with P that granted P a non-exclusive license to utilize a metal coating process technology owned by D. Under the agreement, D was (1) to notify P of any patent infringement suit and to defend in such suit, to notify P of any other use or licensing of the process, and to reduce royalty payments if a lower royalty rate agreement was reached with another licensee; and to indemnify P for losses arising out of any misrepresentation or breach of warranty by D. P was to account for and to pay royalties and to cancel certain existing indebtedness. P would defer use of the process until May 1, 1983. P never used D technology. D filed Chapter 11 and sought under § 365(a), to reject the contract with P. The bankruptcy court properly interpreted § 365 as requiring it to undertake a two-step inquiry to determine the propriety of rejection: first, whether the contract is executory; next, if so, whether its rejection would be advantageous to the bankrupt. The bankruptcy court approved the rejection. The district court reversed that determination in neither test was satisfied and disallowed the rejection. D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.