Contents

Executory ContractsEdit

Executory contracts are agreements in which the parties still owe each other substantial future performance. In common law and many statutory regimes, they stand in contrast to contracts that have been fully performed or those that lack ongoing duties. The concept is especially consequential in insolvency and corporate-reorganization settings, where a debtor’s ongoing obligations can be preserved, modified, or terminated through judicial process and statutory procedures. The way executory contracts are treated helps determine the value of a troubled business, the rights of creditors, and the incentives for future market activity.

From a practical, market-oriented perspective, the core idea is to distinguish promises that bind a party to ongoing work from those that have already run their course. This distinction matters because it affects who bears the risk of non-performance, how damages are calculated, and whether a contract can be preserved to support a going concern. In many systems, including the United States, the fate of executory contracts during financial distress hinges on specific rules in bankruptcy law and on the broader framework of private ordering established by contract law and the Uniform Commercial Code.

Definition and Scope

An executory contract is one where something remains due to or from each party. Typical examples include long-term leases for real property, supplier or manufacturing agreements, software licenses, service contracts, franchise agreements, and certain employment or consulting arrangements. The defining feature is that both sides have meaningful performance left to do at the time the contract is entered into or when distress arises. If a contract has only one side with ongoing obligations, it may be closer to executed or may be characterized as a non-executory contract depending on the governing law. See contract for foundational concepts and lease for a common type of ongoing obligation.

The concept is especially salient when a business reorganizes or goes through bankruptcy. In such contexts, the debtor may want to keep some contracts in force to preserve operations, while rejecting others that are burdensome or misaligned with a revised business plan. The decision often turns on whether keeping the contract would maximize value for creditors and other stakeholders, while ensuring the standalone viability of the firm. See Chapter 11 and assumption (bankruptcy) for related processes, and rejection (bankruptcy) for alternatives.

Treatment under Bankruptcy and Insolvency

A core feature of executory contracts in insolvency regimes is that the debtor or trustee can decide to “assume” or “reject” the contract. Assumption involves curing any pre-petition defaults, providing adequate assurance of future performance, and generally paying any applicable cure amounts. Rejection, by contrast, is treated as a breach that gives rise to a claim for damages, typically treated as a pre-petition unsecured claim in many systems. The debtor-in-possession or trustee must navigate these choices under the applicable law, most notably provisions like 11 U.S.C. § 365 in the United States, which governs how contracts are handled in bankruptcy.

The implication for contract counterparties is significant: if a contract is assumed, the other party may continue performing and may receive certain protections; if rejected, the non-debtor party may pursue damages, subject to limitations and priority rules. The availability of assumption and rejection helps balance the debtor’s need to reorganize with the rights of suppliers, landlords, licensors, and others who rely on the ongoing performance of the contract. See also assumption (bankruptcy) and rejection (bankruptcy) for further detail.

Policy Considerations and Debates

From a market-centric viewpoint, the treatment of executory contracts in bankruptcy and ongoing business operations rests on several core principles:

  • Predictability and the sanctity of private ordering: When parties enter long-term arrangements, they rely on predictable expectations about what happens if a company fails. A robust framework that clearly distinguishes which contracts can be preserved and which can be terminated helps attract investment and reduce the cost of capital. See property rights and contract law for broader context.

  • Incentives and moral hazard: If debtors could easily shed burdensome contracts without meaningful consequences, creditors might face higher risk premia, and long-term investment could be discouraged. A principled approach aims to preserve value by permitting selective preservation of contracts that contribute to a viable reorganization while allowing others to be renegotiated or discharged.

  • Balance with counterparties’ interests: Vendors, landlords, licensors, and other counterparties depend on the stability of some contracts. The structure of cure, adequate assurance, and damages aims to provide fair remedies while not locking parties into unprofitable arrangements.

  • Labor, IP, and essential services: Critics warn that the broad ability to reject contracts could jeopardize essential services or labor commitments. Proponents argue that appropriately tailored rules protect essential operations while preserving the debtor’s ability to reorganize. Debates around how to treat collective bargaining agreements, licenses, or highly specialized IP licenses illustrate the tension between preserving enterprise value and honoring pre-petition obligations. See collective bargaining agreement and license for related topics.

  • Administrative and judicial efficiency: The process should not become a bottleneck that stifles reorganization. Courts weigh the economic impact of accepting or rejecting a contract against the needs of creditors and the potential value of the going concern. See Chapter 11 for the institutional framework around reorganizations.

Controversies from a pro-market standpoint often respond to critiques about “overreaching” bankruptcy relief by emphasizing that while some debtor protections are necessary, overuse can distort contract incentives and hinder market discipline. Critics may argue that current rules tilt leverage toward debtors at the expense of suppliers or landlords; proponents reply that a disciplined, rules-based approach to assumption and rejection helps ensure that only unproductive obligations are shed, while productive, essential contracts remain in place to maintain business continuity. When discussing these arguments, the emphasis is typically on clear legal standards, predictable outcomes, and a limited but principled role for the courts in private ordering. See also economic law and Chapter 11 for related discussions.

See also