Top Rank, Inc. v. Ortiz (In Re Ortiz)
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10384, 400 B.R. 755, 2009 WL 151218 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365 constitutes a breach of the contract, not its termination. Whether a non-debtor party can enforce an equitable remedy, such as an injunction for an exclusivity clause, against the debtor post-rejection depends on whether that remedy constitutes a "claim" dischargeable in bankruptcy, an inquiry which requires an analysis of the remedy's availability under applicable state law.
Facts:
- In 2005, professional boxer Victor M. Ortiz entered into a five-year promotional agreement with Top Rank, Inc., a boxing promoter.
- The agreement contained an exclusivity provision requiring Ortiz to fight only in televised bouts promoted by Top Rank.
- The contract also prohibited Ortiz from fighting for another promoter for ninety days before or after a televised appearance promoted by Top Rank.
- On January 2, 2008, while the agreement was still in effect, Ortiz filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.
- After filing for bankruptcy, Ortiz attempted to enter into a new promotional agreement with another promoter, Golden Boy Productions.
- Top Rank interfered with these negotiations by advising Golden Boy that its promotional agreement with Ortiz was still valid.
Procedural Posture:
- Victor M. Ortiz filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court.
- The bankruptcy trustee did not assume the promotional agreement with Top Rank, Inc. within 60 days, resulting in its deemed rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(1).
- Ortiz filed an adversary action against Top Rank in the bankruptcy court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the contract was terminated and an injunction preventing its enforcement.
- Ortiz moved for summary judgment on his claims.
- The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of Ortiz, ruling that rejection terminated the contract and, alternatively, that the contract's exclusivity provision was an unreasonable and unenforceable non-competition agreement under Nevada law.
- Top Rank, as appellant, appealed the bankruptcy court's judgment to the United States District Court, with Ortiz as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the rejection of an executory personal services contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365 automatically terminate the debtor's obligations under the contract, thereby precluding the non-debtor party from seeking equitable relief?
Opinions:
Majority - District Judge Margaret M. Morrow
No. The rejection of an executory contract under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not terminate the contract but rather constitutes a pre-petition breach. The court reasoned that § 365(g) explicitly defines rejection as a 'breach' and makes no exception for personal services contracts. Adopting the modern view influenced by leading academic commentary, the court held that rejection is merely the bankruptcy estate's decision not to assume the contract, which relieves the estate of future performance obligations. This action does not extinguish the contract's existence or the substantive rights of the non-debtor party. Whether a non-debtor's right to equitable relief, such as an injunction, survives bankruptcy is not determined by the act of rejection itself. Instead, the court must determine if that equitable right constitutes a 'claim' dischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B). This requires a state-law analysis to see if money damages are a viable alternative to the equitable remedy. Therefore, the bankruptcy court erred by holding that rejection, by itself, terminated all of Ortiz's obligations.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the modern interpretation of contract 'rejection' in bankruptcy, distinguishing it from termination and clarifying that it does not serve as an automatic avoidance power. It establishes that a debtor cannot unilaterally shed non-monetary contractual obligations, such as non-compete or exclusivity clauses, simply by having the contract rejected in bankruptcy. The ruling forces a subsequent, fact-intensive inquiry into the nature of the remedy under state law to determine if it is dischargeable as a 'claim.' This precedent ensures that non-debtor parties retain the ability to argue for the enforcement of equitable rights post-bankruptcy, preventing bankruptcy from becoming a loophole to escape otherwise valid contractual restrictions without a proper legal analysis of their enforceability.
Unlock the full brief for Top Rank, Inc. v. Ortiz (In Re Ortiz)