United States: The Whole Loaf, Or Only a Slice?: Interstate Bakeries And The Increased Importance Of Integration Clauses In Contracts With Bankrupt Counterparties

As a recent number of bankruptcy cases have illustrated, contract integration clauses can have profound and unintended effects when, upon the bankruptcy of a counterparty, the contract becomes subject to section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Typically, integration clauses in contracts provide that all the terms of the parties' agreements are captured within one or more referenced written contracts. The primary purpose of these clauses is to define clearly the "four corners" of the parties' written contract and prevent the parties from later claiming that there are oral or other agreements outside the four corners of the referenced written contract. But, as indicated by the recent Eighth Circuit decision in Interstate Bakeries/Hostess, integration clauses can take on additional importance in the bankruptcy context.
A debtor in bankruptcy has the right to assume or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases pursuant to section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. This right allows a debtor to keep valuable contracts and jettison burdensome ones. As a general rule, however, a debtor must assume or reject the entire agreement and cannot "cherry pick" the best provisions or carve out those that are burdensome. As a result, bankruptcy courts have a unique task in contract interpretation, for they must determine the precise contours of a single contract for purposes of determining what can be assumed or rejected. This can be particularly difficult when agreements among parties are contained in a number of related, written contracts. Bankruptcy courts regularly turn to integration clauses to evaluate whether a set of agreements should be considered single or multiple contracts for purposes of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. 
The recent decision from the Eighth Circuit emphasizes the relationship between contract "integration" and the treatment of contracts in bankruptcy under section 365. In Lewis Brothers Bakeries Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp. (In re Interstate Bakeries Corp.), No. 11-1850, (8th Cir. June 6, 2014), the en banc Eighth Circuit concluded that a license agreement was not an executory contract based substantially on the court's determination that the agreement was merely one part of a larger, integrated contract governing the transaction between the parties. As a result, the license was not subject to rejection by the bankruptcy estate, and the rights of the licensee were protected from the effects of rejection.
The Context: Asset Sale Pursuant to an Antitrust Judgment 
In 1995, Interstate Bakeries announced its acquisition of Continental Baking Company, the owner of the Wonder and Hostess brands and trademarks. The US Department of Justice challenged that transaction on antitrust grounds. The final judgment entered in the antitrust litigation required Interstate Bakeries to divest itself of certain of its brands in certain territories. In accordance with that judgment, in 1996 Interstate Brands Corporation (IBC), a subsidiary of Interstate Bakeries, entered into two agreements with Lewis Brothers Bakeries, Inc. (LBB): (a) an Asset Purchase Agreement, under which IBC agreed to sell its Butternut and Sunbeam bread operations and assets in certain territories to LBB in exchange for $20 million, and (b) a License Agreement, under which IBC granted to LBB a "perpetual, royalty-free, assignable, transferable, exclusive" license to use the brands and trademarks in the respective areas. The parties allocated $11.88 million of the $20 million purchase price to various tangible assets, with the remaining $8.12 million allocated to intangible assets, including the license. Of note, the License Agreement also provided mutual duties of notification regarding infringement, required that the goods sold under the marks be of a certain character and quality, and provided that LBB's failure to maintain such quality would constitute a material breach of the agreement.
In 2004, Interstate Bakeries and certain of its affiliates, including IBC (collectively, the Debtors), filed chapter 11 petitions. In 2008, LBB filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the License Agreement was not an executory contract and therefore, was not subject to assumption or rejection by the debtor under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (which generally permits debtors in bankruptcy to assume or rejects contracts that are "executory"). The bankruptcy court found that the License Agreement was an executory contract because both IBC and LBB had material, unperformed (or continuing) obligations under that agreement. The district court affirmed on appeal, reasoning the License Agreement was executory because LBB's failure to maintain the character and quality of goods sold under the trademarks would constitute a material breach of the agreement. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit, a divided panel affirmed. The majority found that the License Agreement was executory because both LBB and IBC had at least one remaining material obligation under the agreement. 
The En Banc Decision: Court Unanimously Finds One Integrated Agreement; Majority and Dissent Disagree on Whether Agreement is Executory
The en banc Eight Circuit reversed, holding that the License Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreement constituted a single, integrated agreement and that the agreement was non-executory. Judge Colloston, the author of the dissenting panel opinion, wrote for the en banc majority.
The court explained that before addressing whether the agreement was executory, it had to first "identify what constitutes the agreement at issue." Slip. Op. at 8. The bankruptcy court, district court and panel majority had all considered the License Agreement alone, but the en banc court found that the Asset Purchase Agreement and License Agreement should be considered together as one contract. The court explained that under Illinois law, whether a contract is a separate agreement depends on the intent of the parties; in the absence of contrary intent, instruments executed by the same parties in the course of the same transaction will be considered together; and "[a] contract should be treated as entire when, by a consideration of its terms, nature, and purposes, each and all of the parts appear to be interdependent and common to one another and to the consideration." Slip. Op. at 9. Applying these principles, the court examined the language of the relevant agreements, noting, among other things, that (a) the Asset Purchase Agreement listed the license as one of the assets sold to LBB as part of the transaction; (b) the Asset Purchase Agreement directed the parties to enter into the License Agreement "[u]pon the terms and subject to the conditions contained in [the Asset Purchase Agreement]"; (c) a model for the License Agreement was included as an exhibit to the Asset Purchase Agreement; (d) the integration clause in both the Asset Purchase Agreement and License Agreement provided that the "entire agreement between the parties" included both agreements; and (e) the License Agreement provided that "as consideration for the license, LBB 'has paid to IBC a fee of ten dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, set forth in the Allocation Agreement described in Section 2.3 of the Purchase Agreement.'" Id. The court concluded that treating the Licensee Agreement as a standalone agreement would run counter to the plain language of the two agreements.
The court then addressed whether the integrated agreement was executory, concluding that it was not. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Professor Countryman's widely adopted definition of "executory contract": "[A] contract under which the obligation of both the bankrupt and the other party to the contract are so far unperformed that the failure of either to complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other." Slip. Op. at 10. The court found IBC's failure to perform its outstanding obligations would not constitute a material breach. The court explained that "the essence of the agreement" was the sale of IBC's Butternut and Sunbeam bread operations and assets to LBB in certain territories, of which the license of IBC's trademarks was merely one part. IBC had already transferred all of the tangible assets and inventory to LBB, executed the License Agreement, and received the full $20 million purchase price from LBB. IBC's only remaining obligations—to refrain from using its trademarks in the territories, control the quality of goods produced with the trademarks, provide notice of and defend against infringement—all pertained exclusively to the license. Considered in the context of the overall agreement, the court reasoned, those obligations were relatively minor and did not relate to the central purpose of the agreement—the sale of certain IBC operations and assets. As a result, the failure to perform those obligations would not constitute a material breach.1  
The dissent agreed that the Asset Purchase Agreement and License Agreement constituted a single, integrated contract but concluded that the integrated agreement was executory.
Like the majority, the dissent reasoned that "the materiality of a contractual obligation depends on whether the obligation goes to the essence of the contract." Slip. Op. at 15. But the dissent found that the essence or purpose of the integrated contract was the sale of IBC's bread business to comply with the antitrust final judgment. And that judgment directed IBC to divest itself of the tangible assets reasonably necessary to allow the purchaser to make effective use of the license. Thus, the dissent reasoned, the "multitude of tangible assets listed in the Asset Purchase Agreement were there for the purpose of allowing LBB to make effective ongoing use of the license." Id. Accordingly, "the mere fact that the license was one asset listed among many does not indicate it plays a minor role in the transaction." Id. Furthermore, the dissent explained, the language of the agreement demonstrated that "the parties regarded the ongoing ligations associated with the license as more likely to be material than those regarding the asset purchase." Id. Judge Bye pointed to the severability provisions in each document: those in the Asset Purchase Agreement provided that, to the extent any provision was deemed invalid, it would be severed and the remainder of the agreement would remain in effect; by contrast, the License Agreement provided that, to the extent any provision was deemed invalid, either party could request renegotiation of the agreement if it deemed the invalidated provision to be material.
The dissent concluded that both IBC and LBB had ongoing obligations that would result in a material breach if not performed. LBB had such an obligation—a section of the License Agreement expressly provided that LBB's failure to maintain the quality and character of goods sold under the trademark would constitute a material breach. Judge Bye found that IBC did as well: "[a]s the purpose of the integrated agreement was to transfer IBC's bread business in the specified territories to comply with the antitrust Final Judgment, it cannot seriously be argued IBC would not materially breach the integrated agreement if it breached its duty to forbear from using the trademarks in those territories." Because each party had ongoing obligations that would result in a material breach if not performed, the integrated agreement was executory under the Countryman test. 
The Bottom Line
Defining which agreements constitute the contract at issue is key to determining whether the contract may be assumed or rejected by a debtor in bankruptcy. In In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc., No. 13-12965 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 19, 2014) (see WilmerHale Client Alert, April 11, 2014), the bankruptcy court allowed a debtor to assume a license agreement while simultaneously rejecting other related agreements with the licensor because the court found that the license agreement was an agreement separate and distinct from the other related agreements between the parties. And in Interstate Bakeries, by finding the License Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreement to be one integrated agreement, the majority essentially "diluted" the materiality of the outstanding obligations in the License Agreement and, as a result, found the integrated agreement to be non-executory. The rights of the licensee were therefore protected from the effects of potential rejection—for example, the potential termination of the licensee's rights to use the trademarks. 
When parties entering into a transaction governed by multiple agreements fail to clearly express their intent on whether the various agreements constitute a single integrated contract for purposes of rejection or assumption under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, courts may resolve the issue by relying on clauses many attorneys consider to be boilerplate—e.g., severability and integration clauses. In Interstate Bakeries, for example, the court relied in part on the boilerplate integration language in both the License Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreement to conclude that they were one agreement. And while in Physiotherapy Holdings the court rejected the argument that the integration clause provided evidence that one of the agreements at issue was a mere component of another—explaining that "the integration clause simply means all of the Agreements between the parties are reflected in the Agreements as written, thereby eliminating parol evidence"—it did rely on (a) language providing which of the agreements would govern in the event of contradiction between the two and (b) the fact that indemnity provisions in the two agreements differed in scope as evidence that the agreements should not be considered a single contract. The contractual clauses relied on by the courts in these cases are typically included in agreements for other purposes and without a view to section 365.
In sum, courts may differ in which clauses they find relevant and how they interpret the clauses for section 365 purposes. Parties entering into multi-agreement transactions—including asset purchase and other acquisition transactions—should consider carefully whether the agreements are to be read as an integrated contract or distinct agreements for purposes of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, and should draft contracts clearly to leave no ambiguity on the issue. Even transactions like these among seemingly healthy companies could otherwise create unexpected results if one of the parties later becomes financially distressed.

1  In so concluding, the court relied in part on the Third Circuit's decision in In re Exide Techs., 607 F.3d 957 (3d Cir. 2010).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.