Useful if you actually read and comprehend it. This is what happens when people who aren’t lawyers try to interpret judicial opinions. The opinion you link to is a District Court decision overruling the Bankruptcy Court. Part B, which you base your opinion on, describes the Bankruptcy court decision which was overruled. If you read the first part of the decision it specifically states that the reason the Bankruptcy Court decision was overruled was because it relied on proposals made after the beginning of the hearings on the motion to reject. That is the part that is quoted by our lawyer in her opinion where she states that the LBO cannot be considered by the Court because it was a proposal made after the beginning of the hearings.
The Court does not impose anything. It simply accepts or rejects based on the Company’s representation of what it intends to impose. The Company has stated in every proceeding that it intends to impose the “Ask” and if the contract is rejected that is what will be imposed. If you think this isn’t the correct account of the law find a lawyer who will sign his name to a contrary opinion.