"We view the [Entergy-ITC] transaction [as] an attempt to extract excess value."-Mississippi PSC
- this court to set aside their contract to purchase electric energy on the theory that PEPCO's rates are too high. The court has concluded that it should not entertain such a request and that, if Debtors wish to pursue relief of that kind, they should go to FERC.").
- at 313 (citing , 341 U.S. 246, 251-52 (1951)).
- See at 317-18.
- See at 317.
- 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e).
- 11 U.S.C. § 556.
- NLRB v. , 465 U.S. 513, 528 (1984).
- District Court's at 316-17.
- See, e.g., , Order on Requests for Rehearing and Clarification, 105 FERC 61,185 (2003); , Order on Rehearing and Clarification, 105 FERC 61,184 (2003).
- See Bankruptcy Court's , 299 B.R. at 158-59 ("Although the court has been cited to no case in which a bankruptcy court has enjoined [FERC] and has found none itself, District Courts have often determined they could provide such injunctive relief.") (citations omitted).
- at 162 (citing , 465 U.S. at 521-22 for proposition that the fact that one party to an agreement was a public utility and was regulated by the state public utility authority did not preclude rejection since Congress did not legislate special treatment for utility contracts rejected under section 365).
- , 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974).
- , 451 U.S. 259, 267 (1981); see also United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 453 (1988).
- , at 104 FERC 61,046 at 61,189 (2003).
Articles found on this page are available to subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.