852 F.2d 79

A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in all parts of Judge Greenberg’s thoughtful opinion except as to Part III because I do not believe that a “solvent contractor and an insolvent debtor in possession going through bankruptcy,” at 83, are different entities for the purposes of the Non-Assignment Clause. The interpretation of the Adana court notwithstanding, I think that that provision really meant to avoid having the U.S. government contractually bound to a wholly separate entity that received an assignment from the actual contracting party. I do not believe that when it enacted Section 15 of Title 41, Congress considered the issue of whether a debtor in possession should be viewed as a party different than the debtor.
The government may well have the right to terminate the contract in issue on other grounds, but I am not convinced, that 41 U.S.C. § 15 is the appropriate vehicle for the severance of West Electronics’ rights under the contract.

Passage view · GavelSight